Perhaps a state of luxury, such as is here described, and a state of inequality, might be a stage through which it was neces- sary to pass, in order to arrive at the goal of civilisation. The only security we can ultimately have for an equality of conditions, is a general persuasion of tlie iniquity of accumulation, and the uselessness of wealth, in the purchase of happiness. But this persuasion could not be established in a savage state; nor indeed can it be maintained, if we should fall back into barbarism. It was the spectacle of inequjvlity, that first excited the grossness of barbarians to persevering exertion, as a means of acquiring. It was persevering exertion, that first gave the reality, and the sense, of that leisure, wliich has served the purposes of literature and art.
But, though inequality were necessary as the prelude to civi- lisation, it is not necessary to its support. We may throw down the scaffolding, when the edifice is complete. We have at large endeavoured to show,* that the love of our fellow men, the love of distinction, and whatever motive is most allied to the energies of the human mind, will remain, when tlie enchantments ot wealth are dissolved. He who has tasted the pleasures of refine- ment and knowledge, will not relapse into ignorance.
The better to understand the futility of the present objection, it may be proper to enter into a more accurate consideration of the sense of the term luxury. It depends upon the meaning in which it is imderstood, to determine whether it is to be regarded as a virtue or a vice. If we understand by a luxury, something which is to be enjoyed exclusively by some, at the expense of imdue privations, and a partial burthen upon others; to indulge our- selves in luxury is then a vice. But, if we understand by luxury, which is frequently the case, every accommodation which is not absolutely necessary to maintain us in sound and healthful exist- highly worthy the attention of every man, who would learn profoundly to philosophise upon human affairs. No author has displayed, in stronger terms, the deformity of existing abuses, or proved more satisfactorily how inseparably these abuses are connected together. Hume [Essays; Part II, Essay II.] has endeavoured to communicate to the Mandevilian system his own lustre and brilliancy of coloiu-ing. But it has unforVinately happened, that what he adds in beauty he has subtracted from profoundness. The pro- foundness of Hume, which has never been siu-passed, and which ranks him with the most illustrious and venerable of men, is for the most part the pro- foundness of logical distinction, rather than of moral analysis. • Chap. I., IV., VI.
THE BENEFITS OF LUXURY. 237 ence, the procuring and communicating luxuries may then be virtuous. The end of virtue, is to add to the sum of pleasurable sensation. The beacon and regulator of virtue, is impartiality, that we shall not give that exertion to procure the pleasure of an individual, which might have been employed in procuring the pleasure of many individuals. Within these limits every man is laudably employed, who procures to himself or his neighbour a real accession of pleasure; and he is censurable, who neglecls any occasion of being so employed. We ought not to study that we may live, but to live that we may replenish existence with the greatest number of unalloyed, exquisite and substantial enjoyments.
Let us apply these reflections to the state of equality we have endeavoured to delineate. It appeared in that delineation,* that the labour of half an hour per diem on the part of every indivi- dual in the community, would probably be sufficient to procure for all the necessaries of life. This quantity of industry there- fore, though prescribed by no law, and enforced by no direct penalty, would be most powerfully imposed upon the strong in intellect, by a sense of justice, and upon the weak, by a sense of shame. After this, how would men spend the remainder of their time? Not probably in idleness, nor all men, the whole of their time, in the pursuit of intellectual attainments. There are many things, the fruit of human industry, which, though not to be classed among the necessaries of life, are highly conducive to our well being. The criterion of these things will appear, when we have ascertained what those accommodations are which will give us real pleasure, after the insinuations of vanity and osten- tation shall have been dismissed. A considerable portion of time would probably be dedicated, in an enlightened community, to the production of such accommodations. A labour of this sort is perhaps not inconsistent with the most desirable state of human existence. Laborious employment is a calamity now, because it is imperiously prescribed upon men as the condition of their existence, and because it shuts them out from a fair participation in the means of knowledge and improvement. When it shall be rendered in the strictest sense voluntary, when it shall cease to interfere with our improvement, and rather become a part of it, or at worst be converted into a source of amusement and variety, it may then be no longer a calamity, but a benefit. Thus it ap- pears that a state of equality need not be a state of Stoical sim-- plicity, but is compatible with considerable accommodation, and even, in some sense, with splendour; at least, if by splendour we understand copiousness of accommodation, and variety of mven- tion for the purposes of accommodation. Those persons therefore may be concluded to have small appearance of reason, who con- found such a state with the state of the savage; or who suppose that the acquisition of the former, is to be considered as having a tendency to lead to the latter.
238 OBJECTION FROM CKAP. Vlil.
OBJECTION TO THIS SYSTEM FROM THE INFLEXIBILITY OF ITS EESTBICTIONS.
Objection stated. — Natural and moral independence dhtinguiihed. — Tendency of restriction properly so called. — The system of equalitii not a system of restriction.
An objection that has often been urged against a system ot equality, is, " that it is inconsistent with personal independence. Every man, according to this scheme, is a passive instrument in the hands of the community. He must eat and drink, and play and sleep, at the bidding of others. Ho has no habitation, no period at which he can retreat into himself, and not ask another's leave. He has notliing that he can call liis own, not even his time or his person. Under the appearance of a perfect freedom from oppression and tyranny, he is in reality subjected to tiie most unlimited slavery."
To understand the force of this objection it is necessary that we should distinguish two sorts of independence, one of which may be denominated natural, and the other moral. Natural independence, a freedom from all constraint, except that of rea- sons and inducements presented to the understanding, is of the utmost importance to the welfare and improvement of mind. Moral independence, on the contrary, is always injurious. The dependence, which is essential, in this respect, to the wholesome temperament of society, includes in its articles, that are, no doubt, unpalatable to a multitude of the present race of man- kind, but that owe their impopularity only to weakness and vice. It includes a censure to be exercised by every individual over the actions of another, a promptness to enquire into and to judge them. Why should we shrink from this? What could be more beneficial, than for each man to derive assistance for correcting and moulding his conduct, from the perspicacity of his neigh- bours? The reason that this species of censure is at present exercised witli illiberality, is, because it is exercised clandes- tinely, and because we submit to its operation with impatience and aversion. Moral independence is always injurious: for, as has abimdantly appeared in the course of the present enquiry, there is no situation in which I can be placed, where it is not incumbent upon me to adopt a certain conduct in preference to all others, and, of consequence, where I shall not prove an ill member of society, if I act in any other than a particular manner. The attachment that is felt by the present race of mankind to independence in this respect, and the desire to act as they please, without being accountable to the principles of reason, are highly detrimental to the general welfare.
INFLEXIBILITY OP ITS RESTRICTIONS. 239 But, if we ought never to act independently of tlie principles of reason, and, in no instance, to shrink from the candid examina- tion of another, it is nevertheless essential, that we should, at all times, be free, to cultivate the individuality, and follow the dic- tates, of our own judgment. If there be anything in the idea of equality that infringes this principle, the objection ought probably. to be conclusive. If the scheme be, as it has often been repre- sented, a scheme of government, constramt and regulation, it is, no doubt, in direct hostility with the principles of this work.
But the truth is, that a system of equality rcquiies no restric- tions or superintendence. There Ls no need of common labour, meals or magazines. These are feeble and. mistaken instruments^ for restraining the conduct, without making conquest of the judg- ment. If you cannot bring over the hearts of the community to your party, expect no success ii-om bnite regulations. If you can, regulation is unnecessary. Such a system was Aveil enough adapted to the military constitution of Sparta; but it is wholly unworthy of men enlisted in no cause but that of reason and justice. Beware of reducbig men to the state of machines. Go- vern them through no medimu but that of inclination and con- viction.
Can there be a good reason for men's eating together, except where they are prompted to it by the impulse of their o^-n minds? Ought I to come at a certain hour, from the museum where I am working, the retreat in which I meditate, or the observatory where 1 remark the phenomena of nature, to a certain hall appro- priated to the office of eating; instead of eating, as reason bids me, at the time and place most suited to my avocations? Why have common magazines? For tlie purpose of carrying our provisions to a certain distance, that we may afterwards bring them back again? Or is this precautions really necessary, after all that has been said, to guard us against the knavery and covetousness of our associates?
Appendix, OF CO-OPEBATION, COHABITATION AND MARRIAGE.
Advaninges of social refinement — of individuality. — Evils of co-operation, — Ideas of' the future state of co-operation. — Its limits. — Its legitimate province. — Evils of cohabitation — of the received system of marriage.— ^ Cense Jitences of their abolition. — A pi'omiscuous commerce of the sexes estimated. — Inconstancy estimated. — Education need not be a subject of positive institution, — Of the division of labour.
It is a curious subject, to enquire into the due medium be- tween individuality and concert. On the one hand, it is to be olDserved that human 'beings are formed for society. Without society, we shall probably be deprived of the most eminent enjoy- ments of which our nature is susceptible. In society, no man, possessing the genuine marks of a man, can stand alone. Our opinions, our tempers and our habits are modified by those of each other. This is by no means the mere operation of argu- ments and persuasives; it occurs in that insensible and gradual •way, which no resolution can enable us wholly to counteract. He that would attempt to counteract it by insulating himself, will fall into a worse error than that which he seeks to avoid. He will divest himself of the character of a man, and be incapable of judging of his fellow men, or of reasoning upon human affairs.
On the other hand, individuality is of the very essence of intel- ectual excellence. He that resigns himself wholly to sympathy and imitation, can possess little of mental strengtli or accuracy. The system of his life is a species of sensual dereliction. He is like a captive in the garden of Armida; he may revel in the midst of a thousand delights; but he is incapable of the enterprise of a hero, or the severity of a philosopher. He lives forgetting and forgot. He has deserted his station in human society. Mankind cannot be benefited by him. He neither animates them to exer- tion, nor leads them forward to unexpected improvement. When his country or his species call for him, he is not found in his rank. They can owe him no obligations; and, if one spark of a generous spirit remain within him, he will view his proceedings with no complacency. The truly venerable, and the truly happy, must have the fortitude to maintain his individuality. If he indulge in the gratifications, and cultivate the feelings of man, he must at the same time be strenuous in following the train of his disquisi- tions and exercising the powers of his understanding.
The objectors of a former chapter* were partly in the right when they spoke of the endless variety of mind. It would be absurd to say that we are not capable of truth, of evidence, and agreement. In these respects, so far as mind is in a state of pro- gressive improvement, we arc perpetually coming nearer to each other. But there are subjects about which we shall continually differ, and ought to differ. The ideas, associations, and circum- stances of each man are properly his own; and it is a pernicious system that would lead us to require all men, however different their circumstances, to act by a precise general rule. Add to this that, by the doctrine of progressive improvement, we shall always "be erroneous, though we shall every day become less erroneous. The proper method for hastening the decline of eiTor, and pro- ducing uniformity of judgment, is not by brute force, by laws, or by imitation, but on the contrary, by exciting every man to tliink for liimself.
From these principles it appears that every thing that is usually understood by the term co-operation is, in some degree, an evil.
• Chap. V.
COHABITATION, AND MARRIAGE. 241 A man in solitude is obliged to sacrifice or postpone tlie execution of his best thoughts, in compliance with his necessities or his frailties. How many admirable designs have perished in the conception, by means of this circumstance? It is still worse •when a man is also obliged to consult the convenience of others. If I be expected to eat or to work in conjunction with my neigh- bour, it must either be at a time most convenient to me, or to him, or to neither of us. We cannot be reduced to a clock-work uniformity.
Hence it follows that all supererogatory co-operation is carefully to be avoided, common labour and common meals. " But what shall we say to a co-operation that seems dictated by the nature of the work to be performed?" It ought to be diminished. There is probably considerably more of iujury in the concert of industry than of sympathies. At present it is unreasonable to doubt, that the consideration of the evil of co-operation is, in certain urgent cases, to be postponed to that urgency. Whether, by the nature of things, co-operation of some sort will always be necessary, is a question we are scarcely competent to decide. At present, to pull down a tree, to cut a canal, to navigate a vessel, require the labour of many. Will they always require the labour of many? When we recollect the comj)licated machines of human con- trivance, various sorts of mills, of weaving engines, steam en- gines, are we not astonished at the compendium of labour they produce? Who shall say where this species of improvement must stop? At present, such inventions alarm the labouring part of the community; and they may be productive of temporary distress, though they conduce in the sequel to the most important interests of the multitude. But, in a state of equal labour, their utility will be liable to no dispute. Hereafter it is by no means clear, that the most extensive operations will not be within the reach of one man; or, to make use of a familiar instance, that a plough may not be tturned into a field, and perform its office with- out the need of superintendence. It was in this sense that the celebrated Franklin conjectured, that " mind would one day be- come omnipotent over matter."* The conclusion of the progress which has here been sketched, is something like a final close to the necessity of manual labour. It may be instructive in such cases, to observe how the sublime geniuses of former times anticipated what seems likely to be the future improvement of mankind. It was one of tlic laws of Ly- curgus, that no Spartan should be employed in manual labour. For this purpose, under his system, it was necessary that they should be plentifully supplied with slaves devoted to dmdgery. Matter, or, to speak more accurately, the certain and imintermitting laws of the imiverse, will be the Helots of the period we are • I have uo authority to quote for this expression but the conversation of Doctor Price. I am happy to find, upon enquiry, that Mr. William Morg'an, the nephew of Dr. Price, and editor of hia works, distinctly recollects to have heard it from hia \uicle.
31 — YOL. i:. s contemplating. We shall end in this respect, oh immortal legis- lator! at the point from which you began.
To return to the subject of co-operation. It may be a curious speculation to attend to the progressive steps, by which this feature of human society may be expected to decline. For example: shall we have concerts of music? The miserable state of me- chanism of the majority of the performers is so conspicuous, as to be even at this day a topic of mortification and ridicule. Will it not be practicable hereafter for one man to perform the whole? Shall we have theatrical exhibitions? This seems to include an absurd and vicious co-operation. It may be doubted whether men will hereafter come forward in any mode, formally to repeat words and ideas that are not their own? It may be doubted whether any musical performer will habitually execute the com- positions of others? We yield supinely to the superior merit of our predecessors, because we are accustomed to indulge the inac- tivity of our faculties. All formal repetition of other men's ideas seems to be a scheme for imprisoning, for so long a time, the operations of our own mind. It borders perhaps in this respect, upon a breach of sincerity, which requires that we shoiild give immediate utterance to every useful and valuable idea that occurs.
Having ventured to state these hints and conjectures, let us en- deavour to mark the limits of individuality. Every man that re- ceives an impression from any external object, has the current of his own thoughts modified by force; and yet, without external impressions, we should be nothing. Every man that reads the composition of another, suff'ers the succession of his ideas to be, in a considerable degree, under the direction of his author. But it does not seem as if this would ever form a sufficient objection against reading. One man will always have stored up reflections and facts that another wants; and mature and digested discourse will perhaps always, in equal circumstances, be superior to that which is extempore. Conversation is a species of co-operation, one or the other party always yielding to have his ideas guided by the other: yet conversation, and the intercourse of mind with mind, seem to be the most fertile sources of improvement. It is here as it is with punishment. He that, in the gentlest manner, undertakes to reason another out of his vices, will probably oc- casion pain; but this species of punishment ought, upon no ac- count, to be superseded.
Let not these views of the future individuality of man be mis- apprehended or overstrained. We ought to be able to do with- out one another. He is the most perfect man to whom society is not a necessary of life, but a luxury, innocent and enviable, in which he joyfully indulges. Such a man will not fly to society, as to something requisite for the consuming of his time, or the refuge of his weakness. In.'society he will find pleasure; the temper of his mind will prepare him for friendship and for love. But he will resort with a scarcely inferior eagerness to solitude; COHABITATION, ANH MARRIAGE. 243 and will find in it the highest complacence and the purest delight.
Another article which belongs to the subject of co-operation, is cohabitation. The evils attendant on this practice are obvious. In order to the human understanding's being successfully cultivated, it is necessary that Hie intellectual operations of men should be independent of each other.* We should avoid such practices as are calculated to melt our opinions into a common mould. Co- habitation is also hostile to that fortitude which should accustom a man, in his actions as well as in his opinions, to judge for him- self, and feel competent to the discharge of his own duties. Add to this, that it is absurd to expect the inclinations and wishes of two human beings to coincide, through any long period of time. To oblige them to act and to live together, is to subject them to some inevitable portion of thwarting, bickering, and unhappiness. This cannot be otherwise, so long as men shall continue to vary- in tlieir habits, their preferences, and their views. No man is al- ways cheerful and kind; and it is better that his fits of irritation, should subside of themselves, since the mischief in that case is more limited, and since the jarring of opposite tempers, and the suggestions of a wounded pride, tend inexpressibly to increase the irritation. When I seek to correct the defects of a stranger, it is with urbanity and good humour. I have no idea of convinc- ing him through the medium of surliness and invective. But something of this kind inevitably obtains, where the intercourse is too unremitted.
The subject of cohabitation is particularly interesting, as it in- cludes in it the subject of marriage. It will therefore be proper to pursue the enquiry in greater detail. The evil of marriage, as it is practised in European countries, extends further than we have yet described. The method is, for a thoughtless and romantic youth of each sex, to come together, to see each other> for a few times, and under circumstances full of delusion, and then to vow eternal attachment. What is the consequence of this? In almost every instance they find themselves deceived. They are reduced to make the best of an irretrievable mistake. They are led to conceive it their wisest policy to shut their eyes upon realities, happy if, by any perversion of intellect, they can persuade themselves that they were right in their first crude opinion of each other. Thus the institution of marriage is made a system of fraud; and men who carefully mislead their judg- ments in the daily afi'air of their life, must be expected to have a crippled judgment in every other concern.
Add to this that marriage, as now understood, is a monopoly, and the worst of monopolies. So long as two human beings are forbidden, by positive institution, to follow the dictates of their own mind, prejudice will be alive and vigorous. So long as I seek, by despotic and artificial means, to maintain my possession • Vol. I., Book IV., Chap. III., p. 137.
B 2 of a woman, I am guilty of the most odious selfishness. Over this imaginary prize men "vvatch with perpetual jealousy; and one man finds his desire and his capacity to circumvent as much excited, as the other is excited to traverse his projects and frus- trate his hopes. As long as this state of society continues, phi- lanthropy will be crossed and checked in a thousand ways, and the still augmenting stream of abuse will continue to flow.
The abolition of the present system of man-iage appears to in- volve no evils. We are apt to represent that abolition to our- selves, as the harbinger of brutal lust and depravity. But it really happer.s in this, as in other cases, that the positive laws which are made to restrain our vices, irritate and multiply them. Not to say that the same sentiments of justice and liappiness which, in a state of equality, would destroy our relish for expen- sive gratifications, might be expected to decrease our inordinate appetites of every kind, and to lead us universally to prefer the pleasures of intellect to the pleasures of sense.
It is a question of some moment, whether the intercourse of the sexes, in a reasonable state of society, would be promiscuous, or whether each man would select for himself a partner, to whom he will adhere as long as that adherence shall continue to be the choice of both parties. Probability seems to be greatly in favour of the latter. Perhaps this side of the alternative is most favour- able to population. Perhaps it would suggest itself in preference to the man who would wish to maintain the several propensities of his frame, in the order due to their relative importance, and to prevent a merely sensual appetite from engrossing excessive at- tention. It is scarcely to be imagined, that this commerce, in any state of society, will be stripped of its adjuncts, and that men will as willingly hold it with a woman whose personal and mental qualities they disapprove, as with one of a different description. But it is the nSture of the human mind to persist, for a certain length of time, in its opinion or choice. The parties, therefore, having acted upon selection, are not likely to forget this selection when the interview is over. Friendship, if by friendship we understand that aff'ection for an individual which is measured