Abstract
Starting by analysing the atheist’s character, Mandeville gets gradually closer to Bayle’s thesis on virtuous atheism, but he takes a different turn, and maintains that a society without religion cannot exist because atheism goes against a natural passion: fear of invisible causes. In order to understand Mandeville’s position on this last point, in the second part of this essay I will consider his reflection on the origin and on the social and political functions of religion.
I would like to express my gratitude for their comments to Irwin Primer and Marco Geuna.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This work, known as Pensées diverses écrites à un Docteur de Sorbonne à l’occasion de la comète qui parut au mois de décembre 1680, appeared for the first time in 1682 by a different title: Lettre à M.L.A.D.C., docteur de Sorbonne, où il est prouvé par plusieurs raisons tirées de la Philosophie et de la Théologie que les comètes ne sont point la présage d’aucun malheur. Avec plusieurs reflexions morales et politiques erreurs populaires, A Cologne, chez Pierre Marteau, MDCLXXXII. See in particular §172. Its first English translation was made in 1708.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
See P. Bayle, Pensées diverses, §172–§183.
- 5.
See P. Bayle, Continuation des Pensées diverses écrites à un Docteur de Sorbonne, Rotterdam, R. Leers, 1705, §124.
- 6.
Mandeville, Bernard. 1723. The Fable of the Bees. London: Parker (London: Tonson, 1724). In December 1728 (but in the front-matter we read 1729), Mandeville publishes The Fable of the Bees. Part II. By the Author of the First (London: J. Roberts, 1729). The critical edition of reference up to date is Mandeville 1924a, b.
- 7.
- 8.
W. Law, Remarks upon a late book entituled The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Publick Benefits, in a Letter to the Author. To which is added a postscript, containing an observation or two upon Mr. Bayle, London, Printed for Will. and John Innys, 1724.
- 9.
The close connection between Mandeville and Bayle was underlined by Mandeville himself in his Free Thoughts: «Those who are vers’d in Books will soon discover, that I have made great use of Monsieur Baile, without mentioning him. I confess, he is the learned Man I speak of in Page 93. The Citations likewise which I have borrow’d from that Author, without naming him, are many». See Mandeville 2001. See also F.B. Kaye, Introduction, in Mandeville 1924a, xlii–lii, lxx–lxxxiii, ciii–cv; James 1975; Horne 1978, 19–32; Scribano 1980, 21–46; Carrive 1980, 155–194; Scribano 1981, 186–220; Wong 1984, 394; James 1996; Primer 2001; Robertson 2005, 261–283.
- 10.
Scribano 1981, 187n. The English translation is mine.
- 11.
A. Campbell, Arete-logia. An Enquiry into the Original of Moral Virtue; wherein the false notions of Machiavel, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Mr. Bayle, as they are collected and digested by the Author of the Fable of the Bees, are examin’d and confuted; and the eternal and unalterable nature and obligation of moral virtue is stated and vindicated, Westminster, J. Chier, A. Campbell, B. Creake, B. Barker, 1728 (Edinburgh, 1733; London-Bristol, Routledge-Thömmes Press, 1994). In 1726, the reverend Alexander Innes had taken a manuscript from Archibald Campbell, promising that he would see to its publication. Instead, he published it in his name, adding a long forward addressed to the author of the Fable of the Bees. In 1730 Campbell, who taught History of the church at St. Andrews and was a colleague of Hutcheson, whose criticism of the Fable of the Bees he shared, publicly denounced the fact that Innes had published his manuscript and then decided to re-publish it in his name. The new version, much broader and with amendments, came out in 1733. I was able to consult the microfilm version of the 1728 edition, kept in Heidelberg’s library. For a list of the works of the time where the closeness between Bayle and Mandeville is remarked, see Scribano 1981, 188, n. 8. On Campbell and Mandeville, see Maurer 2014. Mandeville has also often been compared with Machiavel; on the presence of Machiavellian elements in Mandeville see Simonazzi 2009.
- 12.
The quotation is taken from the Preface to the French edition written by the translator Etienne de Silhouette. See W. Warburton, Dissertations sur l’union de la religion, de la morale, et de la politique, Londres, Guillaume Darrès, 1742, vol. I, pp. 5–6.
- 13.
- 14.
Mandeville makes a distinction between Pride and Self-Liking starting from Fable Part II and then in An Enquiry into the Origin of Honour.
- 15.
In Mandeville’s anthropological conception there are two main passions: self-love and self-liking. Self-love is an expression of self-preservation, while self-liking is the passion from which the desire to be esteemed comes from. Self-liking therefore is a relational passion as it has its foundation in other people’s judgement and it is stronger than self-love as demonstrated by the case of suicide. See. Mandeville 1990, 6–7: «I now understand perfectly well what mean by Self-liking. You are of Opinion, that we are all born with a Passion manifestly distinct from Self-love; that, when it is moderate and well regulated, excites in us the Love of Praise, and a Desire to be applauded and thought well of by others, and stirs us up to good Actions: but that the same Passion, when it is excessive, or ill turn’d, whatever it excites in our Selves, gives Offence to others, renders us odious, and is call’d Pride. As there is no Word or Expression that comprehends all the different Effects of this same Cause, this Passion, you have made one, viz. Self-liking, by which you mean the Passion in general, the whole Extent of it, whether it produces laudable Actions, and gains us Applause, or such as we are blamed for and draw upon us the ill Will of others». See Scribano 1978; Jack 1989, 40–50; Hundert 1994, 52–55; Peltonen 2003, 263–302; Force 2003, 57–67; Guion 2004; Simonazzi 2008, 134–181; Blom 2009; Tolonen 2013, 22–30 and 82–102.
- 16.
In the first edition of the Fable Part I, published in 1714, Mandeville made clear that his intent was first of all descriptive, and that his analyses started from the premises that the will of man was not free, but determined by passions: «As for my Part […], I believe Man (besides Skin, Flesh, Bones, &c. that are obvious to the Eye) to be a compound of various Passions, that all of them, as they are provoked and come uppermost, govern him by turns, whether he will or not» (Mandeville 1924a, 41). Though Mandeville often changes his opinions in time, when it comes to free will, instead, he remains faithful to this first definition; in fact in 1732, in his An Enquiry into the Origin of Honour, we find a formulation that is very similar to that of 1714, even in the words he chose: «So most of the Passions are counted to be Weaknesses, and commonly call’d Frailties; whereas they are the very Powers that govern the whole Machine; and, whether they are perceived or not, determine or rather create the Will that immediately precedes every deliberate Action» (Mandeville 1990, 6).
- 17.
Bayle’s judgment on the reason for Vanini’s martyrdom moves from the attribution of a “certain idea of honesty”, that would make of him a virtuous atheist, to considering Vanini as a man “animated by a ridiculous point of honour”, which would make of him only an extremely proud man. See P. Bayle, Pensées diverses, § 182.
- 18.
Mandeville takes from Bayle the distinction between speculative atheists (athées de théorie) and practical atheists (athées de praticque). As noted by M.E. Scribano, the difference between Bayle and Mandeville is that the first describes the atheist as a heroical and militant man, while the second presents him as a library mouse, completely defenceless and pacific. See Scribano 1981, 213.
- 19.
Mandeville 1924b, 313: «Men of Parts and Spirit, of Thought and Reflection, the Assertors of Liberty, such as meddle with Mathematicks and natural Philosophy, most inquisitive Men, the disinterested, that live in ease and Plenty; if their Youth has been neglected, and they are not well grounded in the Principles of the true Religion, are prone to Infidelity; especially such amongst them, whose Pride and Sufficiency are greater than ordinary; and if Persons of this sort fall into Hands of Unbelievers, they run great Hazard of becoming Atheists or Scepticks».
- 20.
Mandeville 1990, 27: «There is a greater Possibility that the most Senseless Enthusiast should make a knowing and polite Nation believe the most incredible Falsities, or that the most odious Tyrant should persuade them to the grossest Idolatry, than that the most artful Politician, or the most popular Prince, should make Atheism to be universally received among the Vulgar of any considerable State or Kingdom, tho’ there were no Temples or Priests to be seen». See also Mandeville 1990, 189: «Believe me, Horatio, there are no Atheists among the Common People».
- 21.
Regarding this aspect, it is quite significant to have a look at what Mandeville writes about the accusation of atheism. See Mandeville 2001, 15: «I would have no Man so uncharitable as to think any Man guilty of Atheism, who does not openly profess it». See also Mandeville 1990, 154–155: «For how flagitious soever Men are, none can be deem’d Atheist but those, who pretend to have absolutely conquer’d, or never been influenced by the Fear of an invisible Cause, that over-rules Human Affairs; and what I say now has been and ever will be true in all Countries, and in all Ages, let the Religion or Worship of the People be what they will».
- 22.
See, for example, Bibliothèque Raisonnée, Amsterdam, 1729, p. 445: «S’il se trouve dans cet Ouvrage des pensées fausses, hazardées & dangereuses, il s’y trouve aussi des réflexions justes, ingenieuses & peut-être nouvelles» and Mercure de France, Amsterdam 1750, pp. 124–126, p. 126: «un ouvrage lumineux & profond, qui intéresse la Politique, la Philosophie & la Religion».
- 23.
See, for example, Advertissement des libraires, in Mandeville 1740 t. 1, 4: «En effet, dans un Ouvrage qu’il a publié quelques années après celui dont nous donnons la traduction, il enseigne expressement que la Vertu est plus propre que le Vice pour procurer le bonheur général de la Société: maxime qui paroît directement opposée à la doctrine de la Fable, dans laquelle il semble que l’Auteur veut prouver qu’une Société ne fauroit fleurir s’il n’y règne de grands vices. Pour sauver cette contradiction apparente, nous disons que Mr. Mandeville badine dans la Fable, où l’ironie faute aux yeux en tant d’endroits, & qu’il parle sérieusement dans ses Recherches». The publisher-translator was probably Jean Bertrand (1707–1777). On Mandeville’s reception in France see Gai 2004.
- 24.
Kaye was the first to make the hypothesis that Mandeville swaps the characters’ roles when addressing religion. See Mandeville 1924b, 21–22 n. 2. Kaye thinks that Cleomenes’ references to the biblical story of creation, in contrast with the scientific story told by Horace are to be interpreted ironically, especially the frequent references to miraculous and providential interventions that would explain history. John Robertson instead suggested that Mandeville intended to stay close to Bayle’s positions, who had sustained that the most debated Christian doctrines could be accepted only believing in the literal truth of Scripture (doctrines of revelation, divine providence, and the perfection of God). See Robertson 2005, 273–277.
- 25.
See James 1975, 51: «On this basis, the interpretation of the dialogues becomes a highly delicate matter and liable to subjectivity».
- 26.
- 27.
Irwin Primer, in his Introduction to Free Thoughts, recalled that «his enemies called him atheist, infidel and deist, but nowhere in his writings do we find him explicitly revealing the details of his personal religious belief» and that «whatever Mandeville may have believed, it is known that he was married in the Church of England and that at least the first of his two children was baptized in that church» (Mandeville 2001, xxxiiii).
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
See Mandeville 2001, 15.
- 31.
And in the Introduction to The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville warned the reader that the analysis would have been a purely anthropological one, independent of religious beliefs. See Mandeville 1924a, 40: «And here I must desire the Reader once for all to take notice, that when I say Men, I mean neither Jews nor Christians; but meer Man, in the State of Nature and Ignorance of the true Deity». See also Mandeville 2001, 15–16: «This Definition [of Religion] comprehends whatever Mahometans or Pagans, as well as Jews or Christians, understand by the Word Religion […] He who believes, in the common Acceptation, that there is a God, and that the World is rul’d by Providence, but has no Faith in any thing reveal’d to us, is a Deist; and he, who believes neither the one or the other, is an Atheist».
- 32.
Mandeville 1924b, 218: «The Word Religion itself, and the Fear of God, are synonimous; and had Man’s Acknowledgment been originally founded in Love, as it is in Fear, the Craft of Impostors could have made no Advantage of the Passion; and all their boasted Acquaintance with Gods and Goddesses, would have been useless to them, if Men had worship’d the Immortal Powers, as they call’d their Idols, out of Gratitude».
- 33.
- 34.
Mandeville 1924b, 50: «I affirm, that the idolatrous superstitions of all other nations, and the pitiful Notions they had to the Supreme Being, were incapable of exciting Man to Virtue, and good for nothing but to aw and amuse a rude and unthinking Multitude».
- 35.
From this point of view we can say that Calvin and Luther did not take into account human nature, so «their Successors, after Two or Three Generations, would make wretched Figures, if they were still to continue to preach Christianity without Deceit or Evasions, and pretend to live conformably to the Rules of it». See Mandeville 1990, 99.
- 36.
Mandeville 1732, 68.
- 37.
- 38.
Mandeville thinks that the secular advantages of religion more modestly consist «in Promises of Allegiance and Loyalty, and all solemn Engagements and Asseverations, in which the invisible Power, that, in every Country, is the Object of the Publick Worship, is invoked or appeal’d to. For these Purpose all Religions are equally serviceable; and the worst is better than none: For without the Belief of an invisible Cause, no Man’s Word is to be relied upon, non Vows or Protestations can be depended upon» (Mandeville 1990, 23–24).
- 39.
See Mandeville 2001, 55–56: «There is hardly a Truth more convinc’d of, than that Two and Two make Four: Yet were Men to be taught from their Infancy that it was a Mystery, that on a certain occasion Two and Two made Seven, with an addition to be believ’d on pain of Damnation, I am perswaded, that at least Seven in Ten would swallow the shameful Paradox, and that if they had always seen others ill treated for disbelieving of it, by that they were come to Years of Maturity, they would not only assert it themselves, but likewise dislike, if not hate those, who should call it in question. We must suppose, that it had been inculcated to them with Application and Assiduity by Parents, Nurses, Masters, and all that had the Tuition of, or any direction over them».
- 40.
- 41.
In truth, Mandeville, in polemic, states that even persecution can safeguard peace and safety but only in those cases where the Church is capable to nip in the bud any dissent, as is the case in a few Catholic countries. See Mandeville 2001, 139: «In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, where an Heretick is knock’d down the moment he rises, and the Church has a proper Power obey’d by the Government, to enquire into a Man’s Conscience before he opens his Mouth, and punish him for what her Holy Officers shall fancy him to think. A strict Conformity in manner of Worship, once establish’d, may be maintain’d with little Bloodshed».
References
Primary Sources
Bayle, Pierre. 1682. Lettre à M.L.A.D.C., docteur de Sorbonne, où il est prouvé par plusieurs raisons tirées de la Philosophie et de la Théologie que les comètes ne sont point la présage d’aucun malheur. Avec plusieurs reflexions morales et politiques erreurs populaires. Cologne: Pierre Marteau. Later published with a different title: Pensées diverses écrites à un Docteur de Sorbonne à l’occasion de la comète qui parut au mois de décembre 1680.
Campbell, Archibald. 1728. Arete-logia. An enquiry into the original of moral virtue; wherein the false notions of Machiavel, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Mr. Bayle, as they are collected and digested by the author of the fable of the bees, are examin’d and confuted; and the eternal and unalterable nature and obligation of moral virtue is stated and vindicated. Westminster: J. Chier, A. Campbell, B. Creake, B. Barker (Edinburgh, 1733; London-Bristol, Routledge-Thömmes Press, 1994).
Coward, William. 1695. De fermento volatili nutritio conjectura rationalis. Londini: Excudit J.H. pro T. Bennte.
Coward, William. 1698. Alcali vindicatum. Londini: Printed and are to be sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminister.
Coward, William. 1702. Second thoughts concerning human soul. London: R. Bassett.
Coward, William. 1703. Farther thoughts concerning human soul. London: R. Bassett.
Coward, William. 1704. The grand essay. London: Printed for P.G.
Law, William. 1724. Remarks upon a late book entituled the fable of the bees, or private vices, publick benefits, in a letter to the author. To which is added a postscript, containing an observation or two upon Mr. Bayle. London: Printed for Will. and John Innys. In Private vices, publick benefits? The contemporary reception of Bernard Mandeville, ed. J. Martin Stafford, 45–94. Solihull: Ismeron, 1997.
Mandeville, Bernard. 1732. Letter to Dion, Occasion’d by his Book call’d Alciphron, or The Minute Philosopher. London: J. Roberts.
Mandeville, Bernard. 1740. La fable des abeilles ou les fripons devenus honnêtes gens. 4 vols. London: aux depens de la Compagnie.
Mandeville, Bernard. 1924a. The fable of the bees: Or, private vices, publick benefits, vol. 1. [1724], ed. F.B. Kaye. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1988. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund; 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Mandeville, Bernard. 1924b. The fable of the bees: Or, private vices publick benefits. Part II, vol. 2. [1729], ed. F.B. Kaye. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1988. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund; 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Mandeville, Bernard. 1990. An enquiry into the origin of the honour, and the usefulness of Christianity in war [1732]. In Collected works of Bernard Mandeville, ed. Bernhard Fabian and Irwin Primer, vol. VI. Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms Verlag.
Mandeville, Bernard. 2001. Free thoughts on religion, the Church & national happiness. [1720; second edition enlarged 1729], ed. Irwin Primer. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Plato. 1997. The laws. In Complete works, ed. J.M. Cooper, 1318–1616. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
Warburton, William. 1742. Dissertations sur l’union de la religion, de la morale, et de la politique. Londres: Guillaume Darrès.
Secondary Sources
Berman, David. 1988. A history of atheism in Britain. From Hobbes to Russell. London: Croom Helm.
Bianchi, Lorenzo. 2011. Bayle e l’ateo virtuoso. Origine e sviluppo di un dibattito. In I filosofi e la società senza religione, ed. Marco Geuna and Giambattista Gori, 61–80. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Blom, Hans. 2009. The Epicurean Motif. In Epicurus in the enlightenment, ed. Neven Leddy and Avi S. Lifschitz, 31–51. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation University of Oxford.
Branchi, Andrea. 2000. Mandeville e l’onore. In Filosofia e cultura nel Settecento britannico, ed. Antonio Santucci, 37–60. Bologna: il Mulino.
Branchi, Andrea. 2014. Vanity, virtue and the duel: The Scottish response to Mandeville. The Journal of Scottish Philosophy 12(1): 71–93.
Buckeley, Michael. 1987. At the origins of modern atheism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Buckley, George T. 1932. Atheism in the English renaissance. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Bullivant, Stephen, and Michael Ruse (ed.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of atheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burns, Norman T. 1972. Christian mortalism from Tyndale to Milton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cantelli, Gianfranco. 2001. La virtù degli atei nei «Pensieri diversi sulla cometa» di P. Bayle. In La formazione storica dell’alterità: studi sulla storia della tolleranza nell’età moderna, offerti a Antonio Rotondò 3 vols. ed. Henry Méchoulan, Richard H. Popkin, Giuseppe Ricuperati, and Luisa Simonutti, vol. 2, 679–706. Firenze: Olschki.
Carrive, Paulette. 1980. Bernard Mandeville. Passions, vices, vertus. Paris: Vrin.
Chiasson, Elias J. 1970. Bernard Mandeville: A reappraisal. Philological Quarterly XLIX: 489–519.
Costa, Gustavo. 2008. Alle origini del pensiero economico-sociale moderno: la Congregazione dell’Indice e Bernard Mandeville. Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres, 55(1): 7–74.
Force, Pierre. 2003. Self-interest before Adam Smith. A genealogy of economic science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gai, Letizia. 2004. Il Man of Devil attraversa la Manica. Mandeville nei periodici francesi del Settecento, Studi filosofici XXVII: 217–243.
Goldsmith, Maurice M. 1985. Private vices. Public benefits. Bernard Mandeville’s social and political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guion, Béatrice. 2004. L’amour-propre bien ménage: des ruses de la providence à la morale de l’intérêt. In Un siècle de deux cents ans? Le XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles: continuités et discontinuités, ed. Jean Dagen and Philippe Roger, 56–87. Paris: Éditions Desjonquères.
Harris, James. 2003. Answering Bayle’s question: Religious belief in the moral philosophy of the Scottish enlightenment. Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 1: 229–254.
Horne, Thomas. 1978. The social thought of Bernard Mandeville: Virtue and commerce in early eighteenth-century England. London/New York: Macmillan/Columbia University Press.
Hundert, Edward J. 1994. The enlightenment’s fable: Bernard Mandeville and the discovery of society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, Michael. 1985. The problem of atheism in early modern England. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society XXXV: 135–157.
Hunter, Michael, and David Wootton (ed.). 1992. Atheism from the reformation to the enlightenment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Israel, Jonathan. 2001. Bayle and the “Virtuous Atheist”. In Id., Radical enlightenment. philosophy and the making of modernity 1650–1750, 331–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jack, Malcolm. 1989. Corruption & progress. The eighteenth-century debate. New York: AM Press.
James, E.D. 1975. Faith, sincerity and morality: Mandeville and Bayle. In Mandeville studies. New explorations in the art and thought of Dr Bernard Mandeville, ed. Irwin Primer, 43–65. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
James, E.D. 1996. Schism and the spirit of toleration in Bernard Mandeville’s free thoughts on religion. In De l’humanisme aux lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme, ed. Michelle Magdelaine, Maria Cristina Pitassi, Ruth Whelan, and Antony McKenna, 693–700. Paris/Oxford: Voltaire Foundation Press.
Kors, Alan Charles. 1990. Atheism in France, 1650–1729. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lussu, Maria Luisa. 1997. Bayle, Holbach e il dibattito sull’ateo virtuoso. Genova: ECIG.
Martin, Michael (ed.). 2007. The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maurer, Christian. 2014. What can an egoist say against an egoist? On Archibald Campbell’s criticism of Bernard Mandeville? The Journal of Scottish Philosophy 12(1): 1–18.
Mauthner, Fritz. 1920–1923. Der Atheismus und seine Geschichte in Abendlande, 4 vol. Stuttgart-Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
Minois, Georges. 1988. Histoire de l’athéisme. Paris: Libraire Arthème Fayard.
Monro, Hector. 1975. The ambivalence of Bernard Mandeville. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mori, Gianluca. 1999. Bayle philosophe. Paris: Champion.
Mori, Gianluca. 2011. Religione e politica in Pierre Bayle: la «società di atei» tra mito e realtà. In I filosofi e la società senza religione, ed. Marco Geuna and Giambattista Gori, 41–60. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Olivetti, Alberto. 1980. Dalla dinamica delle passioni alla divisione sociale del lavoro: note su Bernard Mandeville. In Libertinismo europeo, ed. Sergio Bertelli, 456–502. Milano-Napoli: Ricciardi.
Otero Knott, Martin. 2014. Mandeville on governability. The Journal of Scottish Philosophy 12(1): 19–49.
Paganini, Gianni. 1980. Analisi della fede e critica della religione nella filosofia di Pierre Bayle. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Peltonen, Markku. 2003. The duel in early modern England: Civility, politeness and honour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pfanner, Dario. 2000. William Coward e il problema dell’anima mortale. In Filosofia e cultura nel Settecento britannico, vol. 1, ed. Antonio Santucci, 435–456, Bologna: il Mulino.
Pinkus, Philip. 1975. Mandeville’s paradox. In Mandeville studies. New explorations in the art and thought of Dr Bernard Mandeville, ed. Irwin Primer, 193–211. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Primer, Irwin (ed.). 1975. Mandeville studies. New explorations in the art and thought of Dr Bernard Mandeville. The Hague: M. Nijhoff.
Primer, Irwin. 2001. Introduction. In Bernard Mandeville, Free thoughts on religion, the Church & national happiness, ed. Irwin Primer, i–xxxv. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Prior, Charles W.A. (ed.). 2000a. Mandeville and Augustan ideas: New essays. Toronto: English Literary Studies, University of Victoria.
Prior, Charles W.A. 2000b. “Then leave complaints”: Mandeville, anti-catholicism, and English orthodoxy. In Mandeville and Augustan ideas: New essays, ed. Charles Prior, 51–70. Toronto: English Literary Studies, University of Victoria.
Redwood, John. 1976 (1996). Reason, ridicule and religion. The age of enlightenment in England, 1660–1750. Cambridge, MA: Yale University Press.
Robertson, John. 2005. Hume after Bayle and Mandeville. In Id., The case for the enlightenment. Scotland and Naples 1680–1760, 256–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rossi, Paolo. 1984. The dark abyss of time. The history of the earth and the history of nations from Hooke to Vico. Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sabetti, Alfredo. 1985. Bernard Mandeville, un libertino disincantato nel dibattito politico-religioso nell’Inghilterra del Settecento. In Liberi pensieri sulla Religione, la Chiesa e il felice stato della Nazione, ed. Bernard Mandeville, 7–57. Napoli: Liguori.
Schochet, Gordon J. 2000. Mandeville’s free thoughts and the eighteenth-century debates on “Toleration” and the English constitution. In Mandeville and Augustan ideas: New essays, ed. Charles Prior, 35–50. Toronto: English Literary Studies, University of Victoria.
Scribano, Maria Emanuela. 1978. Amour de soi e amour propre nel secondo Discours di Rousseau. Rivista di Filosofia LXIX: 487–498.
Scribano, Maria Emanuela. 1980. Natura umana e società competitiva. Studio su Mandeville. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Scribano, Maria Emanuela. 1981. La presenza di Bayle nell’opera di Bernard Mandeville. Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana LX: 186–220.
Simonazzi, Mauro. 1999. Self-liking, onore e religione nella Ricerca sull’origine dell’onore e sull’utilità del Cristianesimo in guerra di Bernard Mandeville. Il pensiero politico XXXII(3): 352–382.
Simonazzi, Mauro. 2004. La malattia inglese. La melanconia nella tradizione filosofica e medica dell’Inghilterra moderna. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Simonazzi, Mauro. 2008. Le favole della filosofia. Saggio su Bernard Mandeville. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Simonazzi, Mauro. 2009. Temi machiavelliani nell’opera di Mandeville. In Anglo-American Faces of Machiavelli: “machiavellismi” a confronto nella cultura politica anglo-americana (secoli XVI-XX), ed. Alessandro Arienzo and Gianfranco Borrelli, 313–340. Monza: Polimetrica.
Simonazzi, Mauro. 2011. Mandeville. Roma: Carocci.
Stafford, J. Martin. 1997. Private vices, publick benefits? The contemporary reception of Bernard Mandeville. Solihull: Ismeron.
Stafford, J. Martin. 2002. Mandeville’s contemporary critics, 1650–1850. Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era VII: 387–401.
Tolonen, Mikko. 2013. Mandeville and Hume anatomists of civil society. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation University of Oxford.
Wong, Constant. 1984. Mandeville, Bayle, and Epicurus. Notes & Queries XXXI: 394.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simonazzi, M. (2015). Atheism, Religion and Society in Mandeville’s Thought. In: Balsemão Pires, E., Braga, J. (eds) Bernard de Mandeville's Tropology of Paradoxes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 40. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19381-6_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19381-6_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19380-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19381-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)