Transcriber's Note: The Introduction, by Jacob Viner, was firstpublished without a copyright notice and, therefore, is in the publicdomain.

The Augustan Reprint Society
BERNARD MANDEVILLE
A Letter to Dion
(1732)
With an Introduction by
Jacob Viner
Publication Number 41
Los Angeles
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
University of California
1953
GENERAL EDITORS
  • H. Richard Archer,Clark Memorial Library
  • Richard C. Boys,University of Michigan
  • Ralph Cohen,University of California, Los Angeles
  • Vinton A. Dearing,University of California, Los Angeles
ASSISTANT EDITOR
  • W. Earl Britton,University of Michigan
ADVISORY EDITORS
  • Emmett L. Avery,State College of Washington
  • Benjamin Boyce,Duke University
  • Louis Bredvold,University of Michigan
  • John Butt,King's College, University of Durham
  • James L. Clifford,Columbia University
  • Arthur Friedman,University of Chicago
  • Edward Niles Hooker,University of California, Los Angeles
  • Louis A. Landa,Princeton University
  • Samuel H. Monk,University of Minnesota
  • Earnest Mossner,University of Texas
  • James Sutherland,University College, London
  • H. T. Swedenberg, Jr.,University of California, Los Angeles
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
  • Edna C. Davis,Clark Memorial Library
INTRODUCTION
TheLetter to Dion, Mandeville's last publication, was, in form, a reply to Bishop Berkeley'sAlciphron: or, the Minute Philosopher. InAlciphron, a series of dialogues directed against "free thinkers" in general, Dion is the presiding host and Alciphron and Lysicles are the expositors of objectionable doctrines. Mandeville'sFable of the Beesis attacked in the Second Dialogue, where Lysicles expounds some Mandevillian views but is theologically an atheist, politically a revolutionary, and socially a leveller. In theLetter to Dion, however, Mandeville assumes that Berkeley is charging him with all of these views, and accuses Berkeley of unfairness and misrepresentation.
NeitherAlciphronnor theLetter to Dioncaused much of a stir. TheLetternever had a second edition,1and is now exceedingly scarce. The significance of theLetterwould be minor if it were confined to its role in the exchange between Berkeley and Mandeville.2Berkeley had more sinners in mind than Mandeville, and Mandeville more critics than Berkeley                        
...
                        
BU KİTABI OKUMAK İÇİN ÜYE OLUN VEYA GİRİŞ YAPIN!

                        
Sitemize Üyelik ÜCRETSİZDİR!