The Grumbling Hive or Knaves Turned Honest

by Bernard Mandeville

The poem called The Grumbling Hive or Knaves turned Honest uses to bees and a bee hive to show how formerly selfish individuals can create what the author sees as a good society.

Genres: Philosophy, Economics, Politics, Fiction, Poetry, Classics, 18th Century

12 pages, ebook

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

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

A friend recommended ‘The Fable of the Bees’ to me and early 18th century political philosophy sounded interesting, so I read it. I’m glad I did, although parts of it were a bit of an effort. The structure of the book is somewhat odd and the title rather misleading. The fable itself is a short doggerel verse of only 12 pages, which in itself isn’t terribly enlightening. The substance of the book consists of several essays and many ‘remarks’ that embroider considerably on the themes of the fable, as well as expanding into other matters that Mandeville thought it necessary to discuss. I found the 18th century manner of writing easier to read than expected. The only major difference to modern writing is the consistent Capitalisation of Nouns. That I came to rather enjoy, as it gave the whole thing a nice emphatic cast, as of a speech being given at a crowded coffee house. Mandeville’s rather sardonic and irreverent style of writing is quite often funny, although he can sometimes become repetitious.

I found the remarks section of the book most appealing and the essay on charity school least. Nonetheless, the totality of the book proved to be a fascinating insight into pre-industrialisation economics and its uncomfortable relationship with religion and morality. In some ways, Mandeville is a free market economist radically ahead of his time. Current economic theory, at its simplest, claims that individual’s self-interested behaviour operates within the structure of markers to produce an efficient outcome overall. (This is not only a massive oversimplification but also frequently untrue, but economics students have it beaten into their brains.) Mandeville comments that pride, greed, and luxury (then considered a vice, how times change!) create economic activity and thus wealth. Indeed, one can infer here and there in the book an embryonic critique of GDP as a measure of a country’s wealth and success. The Great Fire of London is cited as an example of a disaster that created work for many. This economic paradox continues to be a major fault of GDP; all activity is valued the same way, whether it consists of repairing destruction or not. In many other ways, I should emphasise, Mandeville takes a much more subtle approach to human behaviour than free market economic theory. One of the first things that struck me, though, was his definition of rationality as virtuous self-denial. Today, economics has turned this on its head. Rationality according to the neoliberal definition is maximisation of personal utility, the unfettered pursuit of self-interest. The use and abuse of the word rationality is incredible, really.

The essay on charity schools is difficult to read, at least it was to me, as it is pragmatic to the point of cruelty. Mandeville argues that educating the children of the labouring poor is pointless and will only make them dissatisfied, as their lives need to be spent wearing out their bodies rather than using their minds. Whilst there is a valid point in there about hypocrisy, overall it is an indictment of the time when it was written. In the early 18th century, agriculture and manufacturing were extremely labour-intensive. The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, which got underway some half a century later, would shift Britain to a capital-intensive economy and transform the working lives of the poor. A pre-industrial economy does require a huge pool of uneducated labour, nonetheless Mandeville appears unsympathetic in the extreme by dismissing all efforts to improve the lot of those labourers. As well as charging charity schools with many ills, he is also scathing about putative trade unions.

When reading a book that is nearly three hundred years old, I tend to find a mixture of the incredibly dated and the oddly contemporary. This mixture is notable in Mandeville’s comments on sexuality. He ascribes gender roles to social norms rather than biological inevitability, which surprised me. For instance, ‘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 by Example...’ He then plainly states, ‘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...’ I was also amused to find what appears to be a comment on asexuals: ‘Those, who are really such Platonick Lovers are commonly the pale faced weakly People of cold and phlematick Constitutions of either Sex...’ Yet despite noting that men and women both experience carnal desires, which women are required to entirely disavow, he seems to consider this social construct inevitable. Mandeville may cast a sharply satirical eye on society’s hypocritical ways, but for the most part he does not suggest that they should change. The bitter criticism of charity schools forms the main exception.

I get the impression that one of the main reasons for Mandeville’s being considered so shocking when published was his pervasive moral relativity. He consistently refuses to fully condemn vices or fully acclaim virtues, accusing those who do of hypocrisy and woolly thinking. I can see why at the time this edged close to blasphemy. An example: ‘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 perform’d from that Motive’. Whilst there is much within the book that I disagree with, his refusal to uncritically accept moral absolutes is praiseworthy.

To end this meandering review, it is clear that I found ‘The Fable of the Bees’ thought-provoking. There is much else in there that is worth discussing, as well as some memorable phrases worth quoting. The book's greatest strength, though, is as an insight into the period prior to the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions. Mandeville displays foresight in expounding the contradictions and hypocrisies between morality and economics. Yet he obviously could not foresee how technology would transform the economy and society, as well as politics and morality. For a contemporary contrast to this book, I suggest The Honest Truth About Dishonesty, although to be honest I think Mandeville has a much better grasp of complex human motivations than current economists.

[Evin Ashley · Rating 5 out of 5]

“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 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.”

Mandeville repeats his central thesis that “private vices, by the dexterous management of a skillful politician, may be turned into public benefits.” In response to the harsh criticisms of his contemporaries to his work, he notes, “The public must be the umpire between us.”

You don’t see much of this literature any more - I cannot recall a book in recent history that has earned such a public reaction, mainly because there is a dearth of authors publishing provocative thoughts in circles they belong to. Therefore I wholeheartedly recommend this book, not only for its intellectually stimulating thesis, but in the spirit of encouraging controversial thought. People tend to avoid sitting with something which makes them uncomfortable, to which there is no clear answer - like the purpose of life itself. Detractors argue this piece nullifies virtue by acknowledging the utility of vice. But The Fable of the Bees shows that with such discomfort - with awareness of human nature, your own nature - one is led to a life filled with purpose. What will you do with this knowledge about yourself and others?

My initial reaction was to feel demoralized about a possibility of Mandeville’s thesis: that there is an equal ratio of vice to virtue, a theoretical constant. That our goodness increases only in proportion to our evilness. Yet I would argue that if one looks at the expanding universe, and the demonstrably rare impulse of life that has been born on Earth, there is empirical evidence we are here to continue expanding in virtue, if life is considered virtuous. We live by connecting to one another, uniting and expanding, but it is a struggle: we come up with more and more creative ways to live virtuously through vice; we arise from competition and apathy on Earth.

Mandeville’s tone is one of a fervent genius who is the only one on Earth that can see the truth. It is clear he feels a bit isolated with this truth, and maybe does not know what to do with this knowledge himself. His motivation in writing The Fable of the Bees may have stemmed from gaining companionship in this truth, in spite of fervent opposition. But I would argue, like virtue, his energy in defending his thesis was greater than the energy his critics expended.

I can’t help but conclude with a song that this book continually brought to mind while reading, KOL’s “Waste a Moment”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAhJo.... I hope people are not thinking life is a waste of time after reading this, but are more aware than ever that our time on Earth is a gift - it is entirely ours.

PS. The dialogues between Horatio, Clemens and Fulvia would not pass the Bechdel Test! I confess I skimmed these, but caught a cool poem in the 6th dialogue:

“The grateful ages past a God declared,
Who wisely counseled, or who bravely warred:
Hence Greece her Mars and Pallas deified;
Made him the hero, her the patriot’s guide.
Ancients, within this urn a mortal lies
Show me his peer among your deities.”

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Fable of the Bees is the founding myth of the capitalist ethos.

Mandeville published a standalone poem titled The Grumbling Hive, or Knaves Turn’d Honest in 1705 and periodically issued new editions that included a growing body of elaborations and defenses of the work throughout the rest of his life. The Fable took its present form in 1723. A native of Reformed Holland and the son of an expatriated Huguenot, Mandeville’s intellectual development was shaped in the context of the portentous confluence of a cynical, austere Calvinist anthropology and a burgeoning international commodities trade—particularly in the form of luxury goods.

The Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and double predestination effectively eliminated the spiritual life from mortal affairs. Humanity was held to be so intrinsically depraved by the genetic inheritance of original sin that its eschatological fate was wholly exterior to itself. Any movement of the human will was, inevitably and irreparably, an abomination. God had ordained from eternity that some elected souls would be elevated to realms of bliss unending while others would wail through ceaseless ages of unquenchable fire. The collocation of these divergent fates would demonstrate the full range of the divine majesty; the human race was a bulb of wax to be impressed with the totality of God’s economic manifestation in both its wrathful and merciful aspects.

Mandeville played a significant role in transposing this bleak theological vision into a secular political economy. The Grumbling Hive tells the story of a “beehive” that is simply a thinly-disguised rendition of the London where Mandeville spent most of his adult life. The community as a whole is prosperous and powerful, but it is also plagued by widespread vice, fraud, double-dealing, selfishness, greed, and all manner of knavery. Even those who display a virtuous public persona are in truth as vain and dishonorable as the thief or the gambler. The hive is glutted with material luxury, but the bees are ever grumbling about the dearth of honesty and virtue, longing for a lost age of innocence when men led lives of simple piety and showed no capacity for guile.

Jove grows tired of the bellyaching and decides to punish the bees in a classically Calvinistic fashion: by giving them exactly what they want. At a stroke, every whiff of vice and dishonesty is expunged from the hive—and matters promptly take a turn for the worse. The better part of the anthophilic economy, it turns out, was sustained by ample provisions of moral malfeasance. Without vanity, the demand for luxury goods disappears, the tendrils of international trade wither, and merchants are left indigent. Without criminality, locksmiths and jailers lose their livelihoods. With perfect honesty between contracting parties, litigation becomes obsolete—as do armies of lawyers ( :-) ). Doctors can no longer make their fortunes by prescribing medications that their patients don’t need. Terrible, right?

With the prosperity of the hive evaporating around them, the remaining bees flee to a tree hollow, where they live out their days in noble poverty. The moral is clear: a society may be virtuous or wealthy, but not both. Mandeville did not necessarily object to the existence of close-knit communities with traditional values (though he did question the authenticity of these values), but he did believe that such communities could never become as urbane and cosmopolitan as London or Amsterdam. What he hated, in the first instance, was hypocrisy; the tendency of armchair moralists, then as now, to bemoan the gross materialism of modern life while fatting themselves at its trough and indulging in the very decadence they claim such aversion to. This type of response to critics of modern political economy, of course, remains common today.

In the second instance, Mandeville was questioning the practical efficacy of traditional moral precepts. Much like Machiavelli, he endeavored to observe human behavior in a pragmatic fashion, and to reason deductively from practical outcomes to abstract principles of proper conduct rather than the reverse. In so doing, he found that individual behavior is driven entirely by unreasoning passions and acquisitive desires, and that public proclamations of the necessity of virtue and thrift are themselves a disguise for the self-interest of those who advance them. Public virtue is, in fact, an illusion; and yet, as though by the providence of the Calvinist God, our individual strivings, though always licentious in nature, produce collective prosperity—at least when skillfully managed by the state. Societies, like congregations, are made to thrive (materially, at least) in spite of themselves, as a kind of grace:

“…[N]either 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 spoil’d if not totally dissolv’d.”

“…Private Vices by the dexterous Management of a skilful Politician may be turn’d into Publick Benefits.”

From this precept, a new religion was born.

[Rares Antonio · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 in reality.

Mandeville is at heart a critic, a despiser of hypocrisy, a rule-breaker (as much as you could be in those times), an agitator, a divine psychologist, a political analyst and a very early victim of cancel culture all wrapped up in the body of a man who just won't stop waffling.

So this book essentially substantiates it's title, over many many manyyyy pages it proves that Private vices are indeed public benefits, however this could have been done much more simply and coherently than the way it was put together, which seems to be a 400 page regurgitation of the title over and over and over again with different examples of how his theory is real and how it plays out, when it is understandable from the first paragraph and the fable itself, and isn't necessarily in need of any fragmentation and piece-meal analysis. It becomes so repetitive that the book itself is just the title over and over and over again repeatedly, and while it does have some exceptionally interesting parts, these do not justify the length of this book. However, I understand the situation it was written in, Mandeville was defying the Anglican church in a puritanical religious time, he knew the backlash he would receive, and rightly predicted it, so I continue this review with the assumption that he really wanted to make himself clear without any shadow of a doubt, and while it seemed to me that he did, apparently he somehow did not do a good enough job of it, for he was still labelled an agitator, a traitor, a usurper and a whole slew of worse things. So in reality, he couldn't have done more, but credit where credit is due because he stood his ground and essentially called the King's court, the Lords and the entire county of Middlesex a bunch of uptight, ignorant and illiterate p*ssies who responded to his book without even reading it, defying them and calling upon them to try and find one thing wrong or heretical about it...... (I don't think they did)

Anyways, enough waffle, let me start my interesting points. Mandeville is a very interesting individual, he cannot be boxed into any political affiliation or even any modern political inclination, because many of his points butt heads with each other. I thought I would like him, and while I understand many of his points, I cannot agree with him on many. Mandeville based many of his notions on Hobbesian philosophy and understanding of social structure, so all his ideas are well and truly within that box (Thanks to the person who had the book before me for certifying this). He believes unwaveringly in righteousness of the monarchy, in the correctitude of the mercantilist and imperialist system, and the caste/feudal social structure at the time, he does not try to debate or criticise them, he actually lauds them, but rather just highlights how they're all based off of sin.

He believes that sin is important because it creates profit, greed and avarice creates want, people want to look trendy, people want gold, money, big houses and servants to look good in front of others. He also believes pride is the sole reason behind chivalry, dying for ones country and the like, and highlights how pride is the worst sin, for if people think that they would gain the reputation of coward and tarnish their name for the foreseeable future, they would rather die heroically than risk a bad legacy, showing how pride is the only sin that can overcome the fear of death. Furthermore, he also enunciates that human existence is just sins and passions fighting one another in a constant tug of war and that our reason only stands to justify what we selfishly want, it isn't an agent of truth, it's an agent of what we prescribe it to be, and will unequivocally find our wants and desires the right thing to do at any moment, for our passions have complete grasp over our rationale, he gets a bit psychological here but I wont delve. He essentially believes all humans are post-lapsarian, sinful from the very beginning and that there is nothing to do about our sinful, unfair and grotesque society. However, he doesn't go on to critique the stature of society however, he rather goes on to JUSTIFY it's unfairness, evil and wickedness, he says that this is the only way for a country to grow into an illustrious empire and maximise profit, and this is the point where it sinks in that he doesn't critique society to change it, he does it for the sake of just doing it, and to prove hypocrites wrong, and while that is certainly important for the time he was writing in and challenging the malfunctioning religious authorities, he missed an opportunity to be a great philosopher and social reformer, for while many of his ideas had Marxist and Socialist roots, they cannot be called that, they cannot even be called liberal simply because he refuses to shake or stir the idea that maybe the society they were living in is somehow flawed and unfair, he was living under this pretence that meant he never truly intended to illuminate the problems and fix them, but just to illuminate them, and the somehow justify them.... I know right....

One of the craziest points in the book is when he says prostitution should be legal because men cannot control themselves, and thus having such brothels for ravenous men such as sailors coming home from voyages is NECESSARY for society, for it protects women of reputable standing from literally being r*ped, and while I understand it is nearly impossible to stop such barbarous occurrences within society, legalising brothels and prostitution is nottttt the way to go, it completely destroys any trustworthiness he has.

He touches upon the importance of employment and how the poor demand being paid fair wages for the work labour, however, he seems to completely misconstrue the rational logical flow, and rather state that these people should maybe not drudge and suffer and sit idle in the streets, he says that the poor are becoming to demanding, lazy, and uninterested in his work, as if they were interested in it more than not dying from starvation, he is so close yet so far, he is constrained by the thought process at the time. He even highlights the importance of employment and that the poor dream for it, but fails to state that the reason they pray for employment is so that they do not rot in the streets, it's actually ridiculous, he actually believes people actually want to sit in factories doing piece-meal jobs.

All in all, his book is just the physical incarnation of so close yet so far, he is a social reformer by the way he writes, he does challenge a LOT of the social normativity of time, but he is bound by not denouncing it and not attempting to reconfigure society, he simply accepts it and says "this is the way it HAS to be, nothing has to change, but it's like this so stop pretending its all pure and innocent when its not", so at the same time, he essentially not saying anything either, because I am sure everyone knew this already, but he just had the balls to say it, so hey, maybe he's good in that remark, he would be a very good political agitator he should go on Joe Rogan.

My favourite part of the book is when he would go in to page long cuss battles with random ideas in a way that would sound like a dark academia stan account posting on instagram but it being real because he's writing in the 1700's. My MOST favourite part was when he's essentially in a cuss battle against some lord where they both call each other p*ssies back and forth but Mandeville wins by saying 'if you somehow find any faults with my book and aren't scared enough to say it and it's true, I will personally burn my book wherever you want in public', and I don't think anyone actually challenges him to this because Mandeville isn't a dumb guy, and the Lord that was cussing him out actually had the most half-arsed brain rot stupid interpretations of Mandeville's book like he didn't even read it, ridiculous.

But yeah, Mandeville is a very interesting person, a monarchist at heart, and a very religious person, he just hates hypocrites, but simultaneously refuses to challenge social norms, so he essentially succeeds in keeping the status quo???? The fable is definitley worth a read, the remarks I really don't think so even though he drops some good ideas, the charity school essay is very interesting, the one on the nature of society was so mind numbingly boring that it shouldn't even have been added, but the best part of the book hands down was his response to the jury of Middlesex and that random ass hater Lord who decided to chat about him to the king when he didn't even read Mandeville's book what a hater.

Anyways yeah, I think it's an ok book and it can literally be understood from it's title but yh, some of it is worth a read :)

Yh, a book with a LOT of waffle,

[Declan · Rating 2 out of 5]

(read for class) needed more bees and i wish it talked more about the sailors. all that said i bet i’ll be using it for my final paper because it’s Just That Crazy

[Jaq]

Soltanto gli sciocchi si sforzano di rendere onesto un grande alveare.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mandeville tells a poetic story of a colony of bees who are productive and increase the size and sturdiness of the colony through their work. The bees find piety or religion or stoicism or something and leave the hive to go live a peaceful and simple life because they have no need to work hard or diligently. Mandeville makes the connection that it was their vices that kept the hive running as it did and religion or virtue therefore cannot make or assist in productive living unless one is hypocritical. As a matter of fact, the subtitle of this book is "Private vices, public benefits."

Mandeville sees that individuals who are self serving actually are the ones who being the benefits to society and although this wasn't a direct attack on religion or even Christianity, I feel like I must respond in some fashion.

1. As a Christian, work is not only a command from God but it is also intrinsically a part of our well-being. We were made to work. Not to lounge. And certainly not to be self serving.

2. Work not only provides us a way to live towards our command, but it also allows and affords us to help others. The fruit of our labor is to be shared, not to be hoarded. A good father gives good gifts to his children. These gifts are not stolen or anything; they are earned through our work and toil.

3. It is the vice that is detrimental to the public because it alone is self-serving. By it's very nature it should cut corners, cheat, manipulate, be lazy, guilt others into doing one's work, and so forth. The vice destroys the colony but the hard work builds the community.

[Elia Mantovani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Capolavoro e capisaldo della filosofia moderna, intesa in senso lato, come compendio di pensiero economico, sociale, politico e teorica in genere. Per quanto completamente ipotetico, l'argomento paradossale di Mandeville mi sembra inattaccabile, oggi più che mai. La riflessione che l'autore avanza nelle note e nei saggetti (sia quello contro la carità sia in quello in merito all'origine della morale sociale) è talmente cinica e puntuale da essere fondamentalmente incontestabile. Oltretutto è proprio vero che la tradizione filosofica di una nazione, il Regno Unito in questo caso, lega in maniera coesa e visibile i suoi elementi: in Mandeville è facile udire riverberi di Hobbes quanto lo è subodarare tesi che saranno poi di Hume, Bentham e Smith. Un must per chiunque voglia abbattersi un po' scontrandosi con una delle tante inevitabili antimonie dell'esistenza umana.

[for-much-deliberation ... · Rating 3 out of 5]

Encompassing elements of economic thought, The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Public Benefits consists of a poem, The Grumbling Hive, or Knaves Turn'd Honest, and commentary in prose.

The poem opens:

"A Spacious Hive well stock'd with Bees,
That lived in Luxury and Ease;
And yet as fam'd for Laws and Arms,
As yielding large and early Swarms;
Was counted the great Nursery
Of Sciences and Industry.
No Bees had better Government,
More Fickleness, or less Content.
They were not Slaves to Tyranny,
Nor ruled by wild Democracy;
But Kings, that could not wrong, because
Their Power was circumscrib'd by Laws..."

[Paolo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mi è piaciuto molto. Ero molto dubbioso sulla materia ma l'operetta si è rivelata scorrevole e comprensibile nelle sue argomentazioni. D'altronde stiamo parlando di un testo fondamentale del pensiero liberista. Per altre riflessioni seguite il link del mio blog https://sfoglialibri.wordpress.com/20...

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wicked, wicked, wicked. Makes Swift look like a creampuff.

[Rory Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Published in 1714 (and a second edition in 1723) this is a poem (or doggerel) about how private vices can drive public benefits. It was widely misunderstood at the time as being a libertine praising of vice, but the preface makes it clear that the poem is trying to do something far more interesting. It is noting a potential paradox in our thinking.

Philosophers and theologians tend to talk of the advantage of virtue. It is a common place of much argument and literature that a virtuous community is better than one full of vice and corruption. But this parable illustrates a rather different perspective. When the community tries to be virtuous then all the workers engaged in trades supporting vanity and selfishness (and other vices) are put out of business.

Even the practice of the legal professions requires wrongdoing: ‘nothing less can thrive, than lawyers in an honest hive.’ The paradox of the hive is that success does not seem to follow virtue, contrary to popular wisdom. And yet that is not necessarily to argue in favour of vice, per se. So, what does it all mean?

This poem was widely discussed in the eighteenth century. In fact, it was so popular that it was printed in pirated copies to meet public demand. It crops up in contemporary economics and ethics discussions, and leading philosophers of the day expressed opinions about it. This makes it an important historical document, while also being a quirky piece of philosophical poetry which can still prompt questions and discussions today.

The original editions of the book contained additional explanatory notes and essays to supplement the poems. Those notes and essays contain some very interesting historical ideas. The author cleverly notices how virtues like modesty are subject to the whims of fashion and custom. And he makes some scathing comments about the supposed virtues of different social classes, when wealth is a particularly effective way of hiding vice and utterly distorting the perception of the morality of classes.

His views on issues like the public utility of prostitution were dependent upon his historical context (especially when he explained about the public utility of prostitution in avoiding the problem of wives and daughters being corrupted). Yet the arguments also had a surprisingly modern feel to them at times, especially as similar issues of choice and utility often crop up in modern discussions about drug legalization.

Overall, this is a quirky little poem which is relatively easy and quick to read (compared to the longer notes and essays which take considerably more time to read). It can be enjoyed by readers of different ages and educational backgrounds, although its original eighteenth century English does contain a few words and phrases which may need to be occasionally looked up.

[Santiago · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bernard Mandeville’s The Fable of the Bees (1714) is part poem, part philosophical provocation. The fable tells of a prosperous hive whose wealth comes not from virtue, but from the bees’ vanity, greed, and appetites. When they reform themselves into honest, virtuous creatures, the economy collapses and the hive shrinks into poverty. Mandeville’s paradox — “private vices, public benefits” — scandalized his contemporaries, even drawing legal condemnation and sharp rebuttals from clergy and philosophers. Still, the work foreshadowed debates in economics about self-interest, consumption, and the unintended consequences of individual behavior.

Where the book falters is in its assumptions. First, there’s a moral reductionism: Mandeville collapses all human motives into vanity or self-interest, ignoring genuine altruism. His bleak picture of humanity amounts to a negative anthropology, one that treats virtue as mere hypocrisy. Even on its own terms, the claim that vice naturally produces prosperity is shaky — public benefit isn’t automatic, since many vices (corruption, addiction, exploitation) destroy more than they create. He is also blind to inequality, celebrating how luxury consumption “creates jobs” while overlooking how concentrated wealth entrenches poverty. Finally, his view of the role of government is especially fragile. Mandeville assumes that pride and vanity restrain vice and that government can channel this balance. But history shows what happens when rulers or officials stop caring about reputation: vice becomes unbounded and corrosive. Examples like the excesses of Versailles before the French Revolution, or modern cases of unchecked political corruption, show how quickly vanity turns from a stabilizer into a shield for exploitation. In such scenarios, vice doesn’t enrich the public — it rots the system from within.
Provocative, historically significant, but ultimately too cynical and too trusting in vice to be convincing.

[Marcos Augusto · Rating 3 out of 5]

It consists of the satirical poem The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves turn'd Honest, which was first published anonymously in 1705; a prose discussion of the poem, called "Remarks"; and an essay, An Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue. In 1723, a second edition was published with two new essays.

In The Grumbling Hive, Mandeville describes a bee community that thrives until the bees decide to live by honesty and virtue. As they abandon their desire for personal gain, the economy of their hive collapses, and they go on to live simple, "virtuous" lives in a hollow tree. Mandeville's implication—that private vices create social benefits—caused a scandal when public attention turned to the work, especially after its 1723 edition.

Mandeville implied that people were hypocrites for espousing rigorous ideas about virtue and vice while they failed to act according to those beliefs in their private lives. He observed that those preaching against vice had no qualms about benefiting from it in the form of their society's overall wealth, which Mandeville saw as the cumulative result of individual vices (such as luxury, gambling, and crime, which benefited lawyers and the justice system).

[Carl Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Grumbling Hive" (1705) on its own is a masterpiece of lyricism and wit on par with the best of Lewis Carroll but with the added depth of a philosophical commentary on the Human Condition. The Fable of the Bees (1724) reproduces the poem along with a finely written introduction and extensive exposition that unpacks the poems meaning and intent, defending it from shallow accusations of scurrilous mockery or cynical amorality. Both the poem and the argument are as relevant (and doubtless controversial) today as when originally published.

[jadey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for class. Was thoroughly enjoyable (despite the casually insane misogyny) because I, too, am a massive hater that loves to hate on people who hold moral high ground (yes, I do not want power, I want to endlessly critique power). Also, this whole mod scratches the moral OCD part of my brain

Highlights: the whole part about women feeling sex shame from the knowledge of sex itself, and the Mandeville MAN-DEVIL pun

[James Dickey · Rating 5 out of 5]

"So Vice is beneficial found,
When it’s by Justice lopt and bound;
Nay, where the People would be great,
As necessary to the State,
As Hunger is to make ’em eat.
Bare Virtue can’t make Nations live
In Splendor; they, that would revive
A Golden Age, must be as free,
For Acorns, as for Honesty."

[Devin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun read if you enjoy Early Modern English, outdated and outrageous takes, and ecologically inaccurate bee allegories. I sure did!

The funniest part is the piously indignant hate mail from a reader that Mandeville decided to include

[Assayah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Czytałam na zajęcia, sama z siebie bym po to nie sięgnęła, bo nienawidzę wierszy przez ich metafory, których nie rozumiem

Miało przekaz, mądry nawet (moim zdaniem), ale żeby go zrozumieć musiałam przeczytać dwie interpretacje filozofów xD

[Korush Casillas · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is the mere fact that morality means nothing that makes it mean everything. Thoroughly enjoyed reading both volumes of this work from a more ethical-than-economic viewing ledge.

[O · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read in tandem with Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments for science of society

[arwa · Rating 5 out of 5]

bernard mandeville - the grumbling hive (the fable of the bees)
------------------------------------------------

the fable of the bees is a superb example of bernard mandeville's foresight in his sarcastic and satirical poetry and writings. the moral of the story of the bees cannot be misunderstood: inside a grumpy colony of worker bees dwells a successful society entirely different from our own, replete with its own set of professions such as doctors, lawyers, priests, "sharpers, parasites, pimps, players..." by successful, it is economically successful. everyone gives what they can, and no one complains. however, there is a catch: bees are not doing their jobs out of benevolence but rather to enhance their interests. so, as mandeville demonstrates, his famous adage is correct: private vices give a public benefit.
the workers are sick of it and want the other bees to act altruistically. as a result, they serve others instead of themselves. the bees pray to God, and the Almighty responds to their request. everyone in the hive now works for the welfare of the collective rather than for personal gain. there is no dishonesty or wickedness on this planet. workers rapidly discover, however, that private sin is the primary motivator of economic success. because the bees have become ethically aware, production has ended totally. pure virtue can't make nations live, as mandeville puts it.
mandeville argues that everyone's activities and professions must be driven by a desire to enhance one's interests, or society will collapse. mandeville contends that only a fool would want an open society, thus, we should accept our vices. true honesty and the lack of our vices will kill our community the same way they destroyed the hive.


this is a wonderful poem. despite its brevity, it effectively raises important questions regarding our motivations and behavior. even though i don't fully agree with mandeville's position, it's fair to say that human beings are essentially self-centered. yes, we can do things to help others, but the reality is that our interests are nearly always served when we take the initiative to do anything. even so, i add that there is more to motivation than self-interest when being kind toward others. let's say i was walking one day and found a piece of trash on the street and decided to pick it up. no one watched me do it; it was just me. essentially, i can't directly gain from this, can i? i spent valuable time on it when i might've been doing something else that would have benefited me more. nonetheless, i went ahead and did it anyhow. therefore, i'd concede that despite my skepticism about the possibility of creating a society devoid of vice, i'm confident that we can do so in our actions. that being said, mandeville did a lovely job with this poem, and i wish he had written more (especially more that rhyme!) like it. anyone interested in reading it: go for it! it's fantastic <3

my loveliest regards,

arwa

[Luke · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is way ahead of its time. An entire century before Samuel Butler for starters. And the whole commentary he has with actual society, about the book, to go with it. Priceless. I gotta read this again. Poetry!A most pretentious critique of pretentious institutions.

[Duda Rotta · Rating 4 out of 5]

bee a cunt

[Matias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Creo que lo mejor de este trabajo es que no necesariamente todos los que lo lean lo van a interpretar de la misma forma, pero su importancia no estará nunca en duda . Cuando el uso del lenguaje genera eso, solo queda sacarse el sombrero y aplaudir.

[A.J. McMahon · Rating 4 out of 5]

In order to understand the basic argument of this book, we have to understand that in eighteenth century England it was received common wisdom that prosperity and Protestant virtues went together hand-in-hand. Mandeville argued that such unreligious behaviour as, for example, some of the deadly sins were vital to the prosperity of a nation. For example, in order for the manufacturers of cosmetics and mirrors and fashion accessories to sell their wares, vanity had to be encouraged because that was what these products were about. Laziness could help a hard-working person demand higher wages given that their lazier colleagues were refusing to work on that particular day. Mandeville went through a whole list of examples to support his argument that a truly virtuous and religious community would be dirt poor, and that the thriving buzzing prosperity of boom times depended on the cultivation of characteristics condemned by traditional religion. Mandeville was nick-named "Man-devil" by his contemporaries, who resorted to abuse because they were convinced that he was wrong but couldn't see how to refute his argument. We have an easier job refuting his argument today, of course, given that the forces of materialism and greed unleashed by the rise of the modern world are pulling apart the very fabric of the ecosystem on which we all ultimately depend. Traditional virtues no longer look quite so disposable from this perspective. Still, Mandeville is surprisingly readable after three hundred years, largely because he is a very clear thinker who expresses his views with forceful clarity. Definitely worth reading even after all this time.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, if exaggerated, essays (and thought experiment) on how private "vices" can lead to public "virtue." Mandeville is trying, I think, remind us that more social benefits accrue when we design institutions that work with how humans actually are than how we wish they could be. So, Mandeville argues, if we know that humans work harder for themselves than for others (all things considered), allowing a system (like markets) that allow individuals to work for themselves but ONLY by producing what others want to pay for, will produce more overall good than allowing a system where one is expected to work for the good of all (without personal incentive).

The reason I detract stars is because, at times, Mandeville seems to play contrarian for the sake of shock. His is no radical egoist (he does not advocate private vices like theft, but only that we can create instances where private vice can produce public benefits). But there are times when, I think, he overemphasizes the... ummm.... virtues of vice.... rather than focusing on his more utilitarian argument that simply praises private vice insofar as it can produce public benefits.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well worth the reading. The Commonweal article that set me to reading this book as the real case for selfish individualism is right about the misuse of Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand but perhaps fails to see the satire that is involved in this book.

Having said that, I do think that some of the book is not satire but a deep cynicism about humanity. I think he means it when he says that the lower ranks of society who are poor need to be kept uneducated so as to aspire to higher things since those lower classes are needed to keep an economy going.

The book sounds almost modern in its cynicism, like the talking heads on television or the blogs or comments on tV or the books that spin conspiracy.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick read (the poem itself) containing insights relevant still today.
I can understand why it would upset on two levels. Those who are specifically called out for corruption would take offense and those attempting to teach virtue would be upset by the message that a truly virtuous society is a dead one. However, the former group should feel the offense and the latter group needs to remember that it’s a poem and not every nuance can be addressed. The overall message I walked away with is not that personal attempts at virtue is wrong, but the hypocrisy of the time and mental energy wasted in calling out others’ vices rather than improving our own in our natural progression.

[Peter Fox · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Fable is a complicated book and I would say that as a reference reader or as a rainy day book it is interesting. The concepts projected and argued by Mandeville are just as interesting and as poignant in 2019 as they were at any time of cosmopolitan or metropolitan lives of people. He was important to read, even though he was hard going at times. Some of it I skimmed because I had lost interest in the subject matter and or his train of thought. This does not mean that at some time in the future I will not return. I simply need to move onto more relevant material for me.
Read it if your dare.