-
An Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humoura letter to a
friend
Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury
Copyright 20102015 all rights reserved. Jonathan Bennett
[Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small dots enclose
material that has been added, but can be read asthough it were part
of the original text. Occasional bullets, and also indenting of
passages that are not quotations,are meant as aids to grasping the
structure of a sentence or a thought. every four-point ellipsis . .
. . indicatesthe omission of a brief passage that seems to present
more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions arereported
between brackets in normal-sized type.This work is the second of
the five Treatises in ShaftesburysCharacteristics of Men, Manners,
Opinions, Times. Its title fits less than half its content; there
are all sorts ofother good things on offer here.
First launched: March 2011.
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury
Contents
Part I 1Section 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 1Section 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1Section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Section 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Section 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Section 6 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Part II 8Section 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 8Section 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 12Section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part III 15Section 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 15Section 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 16Section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 18Section 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Part IV 22Section 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 22Section 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 24Section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury
glossary
affection: In the early modern period, affection could
meanfondness, as it does today; but it was also often used tocover
desires, approvals, likings, disapprovals, dislikings,etc. In this
work it is mainly used to refer to pro-feelings,but the negative
ones may be hovering in the background.
animal spirits: This stuff was supposed to be matter that iseven
more finely divided than air, able to move extremely fastand seep
into tiny crevices. and (this being Shaftesburyspoint on page 4)
continuously active. his other mentions ofspirits in this work are
to mental items.
education: In early modern times this word had a somewhatbroader
meaning than it does today. It wouldnt have beenmisleading to
replace it by upbringing on almost everyoccasion
formality: On page 6 this refers to intellectual conduct thatis
stiff, rule-governed, prim.
generous: It had todays sense of free in giving but alsothe
sense of noble-minded, magnanimous, rich in positiveemotions
etc.
genius: Sometimes used to mean nothing much more thanintellect;
more often meaning (the possessor of) very high-level intellect. In
early modern times genius wasnt giventhe very strong meaning it has
today.
humour: In ancient Greek medicine it was held that thehuman body
contains four basic kinds of fluid (humours),the proportions of
which in a given body settled that personsphysical and mental
qualities. By the early modern periodthis theory was dead; but the
use of humours to refer tobodily states, character-traits, moods,
lingered on. In the
present work (including its title), Shaftesbury uses the
wordmainly in our present sense.
imposture: Willful and fraudulent deception.
luxury: This meant something like: extreme or
inordinateindulgence in sensual pleasures.
magistrate: In this work, as in general in early moderntimes, a
magistrate is anyone with an official role in gov-ernment; the
magistrate usually means the government orthe ruler. The magistracy
is also just the government, orthe collective of all the senior
officials in the government.
mixed company: On page 6 Shaftesbury uses this to meancompany
comprising people of different backgrounds orcharacters, not in its
more usual sense of company contain-ing both men and women.
moral: In early modern times, moral could mean roughlywhat it
does today, but also had a use in which it meanthaving to do with
intentional human action. On page 25 itsuse is even broader than
that: Shaftesbury is saying that thebeauty and significance of fine
works of art comes from theirbearing on the human conditionhow they
affect peoplesfeelings and thoughts.
passive obedience: The doctrine that anything short of orother
than absolute obedience to the monarch is sinful.
peculiar: Individual, pertaining exclusively to one
individual.On page 27 the requirement that a work of visual or
literaryart not contain anything peculiar or distinct means that
itis not to have any features that mark off what is representedin a
highly individual way that would, Shaftesbury thinks,be
distracting.
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury
performer: In early modern times, a performance couldbe the
writing of a book, the composing of an opera, or thelike. The
performers referred to on page 25 are poets andcomposers rather
than actors and singers and violinists.
popular: It means of the people; in early modern times itseldom
means liked by the people.
prince: As was common in his day, Shaftesbury uses princeto mean
ruler or chief of government. It doesnt stand fora rank that would
distinguish prince from king or indeedfrom commoner.
principle: In a few places Shaftesbury uses this word ina
once-common but now-obsolete sense in which it meanssource, cause,
driver, energizer, or the like.
raillery: Good-humoured witty ridicule or teasing, done witha
light touch. Engaging in raillery is rallying.
science: In early modern times this word applied to anybody of
knowledge or theory that is (perhaps) axiomatisedand (certainly)
conceptually highly organised.
selfish: In the paragraph It is the height of wisdom. . . on
page 20 Shaftesbury is using the word to mean merelyself-ish, i.e.
self-related or concerned with ones owninterests. Most of his uses
of the word make it mean also. . . to the exclusion of proper care
for the interests of others.
speculation: This has nothing to do with guess-work. Itmeans an
intellectual pursuit that doesnt involve morality.ethics is a
practical discipline, chemistry is a speculativeone.
vice, vicious: Morally wrong conduct, not necessarily ofthe
special kind that we reserve vice for these days, or thedifferent
special kind that we label as vicious.
vulgar: Applied to people who have no social rank, arenot much
educated, and (the suggestion often is) not veryintelligent.
wit: This often meant about the same as intelligence; but
inShaftesbury and some other writers it usually carries
somesuggestion of todays meaninge.g. in the works title andin the
link on page 1 between wit and raillery.
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury I/2
Part I
Section 1
When in conversation the other day I spoke in defence ofraillery
[see Glossary], you were surprised; and I have beenthinking about
why. Is it possible that you have supposedme to be such a grave [=
solemn] person that I would dislikeall conversation of this kind?
Or were you afraid that if youput me to the test by the use of
raillery I would fail?
I must confess that you had reason enough for yourcaution if you
thought me to be basically such a true zealotthat I couldnt bear
the least raillery on my own opinions. Iknow there are many people
like that. Anything that theythink is grave or solemn must, they
hold, be treated only ina grave and solemn way; though they dont
mind treatingdifferently anything that others thinkthey are eager
to trythe edge of ridicule against any opinions except their
own.
Is it fair for them to take this attitude? Isnt it just
andreasonable to handle our own opinions as freely as we doother
peoples? To be sparing with our own opinions may beregarded as a
piece of selfishness. We might be accused ofwillful ignorance and
blind idolatry, for having taken opinionson trust and consecrated
in ourselves certain idol-notionsthat we wont allow to be unveiled
or seen in day light. [Foridol notions see Bacons New Organon,
aphorism 1:39.] The itemsthat we carefully tuck away in some dark
corner of ourminds may be monsters rather than divinities or
sacredtruths; the spectres can impose on us if we refuse to
turnthem every way and view their shapes and complexions inevery
light. Something that can be shown only in a certainlight is
questionable. Truth, they say, can stand any light;and one of the
principal lights. . . .by which things are to be
viewed in order to evaluate them thoroughly is ridicule
itself,i.e. the form of test through which we discover whatever
isvulnerable to fair raillery in any subject.. . . .
So I want you to know fully what my views are regardingthis, so
that you can judge whether I was sincere the otherday in defending
raillery, and can still plead for those ablefriends of ours who are
often criticised for their humour ofthis kind, and for the freedom
they take in this airy way ofconversing and writing.
Section 2
Seriously, thinking about how this species of wit is some-times
employed, and how excessively some of our contempo-raries have been
using it lately, one may be a little confusedand unsure what to
think of the practice or where thisrallying frame of mind will
eventually take us. It has passedfrom the men of pleasure to the
men of business. Politicianshave been infected with it, so that
grave affairs of state havebeen treated with an air of irony and
banter. The ablestnegotiators have been known as the most notable
clowns;the most celebrated authors have shown themselves as
thegreatest masters of burlesque.
There is indeed a kind of defensive raillery (if I may socall
it) which I am willing enough to allowin affairs of anykindwhen the
spirit of inquiry would force a discovery ofmore truth than can
conveniently be told, and the raillery isa device for heading off
inquiry. In some contexts the worstharm we can do to truth is to
discover too much of it. Its thesame with understandings as with
eyes: for a given sizeand structure just so much light is
necessary, and no more;
1
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury I/3
anything beyond that brings darkness and confusion.It is real
humanity and kindness to hide strong truths
from tender eyes. And it is easier and more civil to do this
bypleasant humour than by a harsh denial or by remarkablereserve [=
by conspicuously buttoning your lip]. But to work atconfusing men
by creating mysteries, and getting advantageor pleasure from the
perplexity you are throwing them intoby such uncertain talk, is as
mean when it is done throughraillery as when it is done with the
greatest seriousness ina solemn attempt to deceive. It may still be
necessary, asit was long ago, for wise men to speak in parables
with adouble meaning, so that the enemy will be confused and
onlythose who have ears to hear will hear. [This echoes Matthew
13:9where Jesus, after presenting a parable, says Who hath ears to
hear, let
him hear.] But it is certainly a mean, impotent, and dull sortof
wit that confuses everyone and leaves even ones friendsunsure what
ones real opinions are on the topic in question.
This is the crude sort of raillery that is so offensive in
goodcompany. And indeed theres as much difference between thetwo
sorts of raillery as between fair-dealing and hypocrisy,or between
the most genteel wit and the most scurrilousclowning. But this
illiberal kind of wit will lose its crediti.e.will be exposed for
the low device that it isby freedom ofconversation. That is because
wit is its own remedy; its truevalue is settled by free trade in
it; the only danger is settingup an embargo. The same thing happens
here as in the caseof trade: tariffs and restrictions reduce trade
to a low ebb;nothing is as advantageous to it as a free port.
We have seen in our own time the decline and ruin of afalse sort
of wit that delighted our ancestors so much thattheir poems and
plays, as well as their sermons, were fullof it. All humour
involved some sort of play on words; thevery language of the royal
court was full of puns. But nowsuch word-play is banished from the
town and from all good
company; there are only a few signs of it in the country; andit
seems at last to have been restricted to the schools, asthe chief
entertainment of teachers and their pupils. Otherkinds of wit will
also improve in our hands, and humourwill refine itself, as long as
we take care not to tamperwith it and hold it down by severe
discipline and rigorousprohibitions. Everything that is civilised
in conversation isdue to liberty: we polish one another, and rub
off our cornersand rough sides by a sort of friendly collision. To
restrainthis is inevitably to cause mens understandings to rust.
Itis to destroy civility, good breeding, and even charity
itself,under a pretence of maintaining it. [Here charity seems to
mean,roughly, kindness.]
Section 3
To describe true raillery would be as difficult and perhaps
aspointless as defining good manners.
Shaftesburys next sentence: None can understand the
spec-ulation, besides those who have the practice.
meaning: To understand what true raillery is, you have toknow
how to engage in it. To understand what good mannersare, you have
to be well-mannered.
Yet everyone thinks himself well-mannered; and the mostdry and
rigid pedant imagines that he can rally with agood grace and
humour. I have known cases where anauthor has been criticised for
defending the use of railleryby some of those grave gentlemen who
at the same timehave constantly used that weapon themselves, though
theyhad no gift for it. I think this can be seen in the case ofmany
zealots who have taken it upon themselves to answerour modern
free-writers [= writers who are free-thinkers = writerswho are
atheists or anyway dont shrink in horror from atheism]. When
2
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury I/4
these severe gentlemen, with the grim look of true
inquisitors,condescend to leave their austerity and deal in a
joking andpleasant manner with an adversary whom they would
preferto treat very differently, they dont do it gracefully. To
dothem justice, Im sure that if they had their way their conductand
tone would be pretty much the same all through; theywould probably
give up occasional farce and stay withcontinuous tragedy! But as
things are, theres nothing soridiculous as the two-faced
performance of writers who withone face force a smile and with
another show nothing butrage and fury. Having signed up for the
tournament andagreed to the fair laws of combat by wit and
argument, theyhave no sooner tried their weapon than you hear them
cryingaloud for help and delivering their adversary over to
thesecular arm. [That is a joke. At some times and places, when a
court ofsome Church found a person guilty of a crime for which it
was unwilling
or legally unable to enforce punishment, it would ask the
secular arm
of government to do the punishing.]
There cant be a more preposterous sight than an execu-tioner and
a clown acting their part upon the same stage! ButIm convinced that
anyone will find this to be the real pictureof certain modern
zealots in their controversial writings. Theyare no more masters of
solemnity than they are of goodhumour, always running into harsh
severity on one sideand awkward buffoonery on the other. Between
anger andpleasure, zeal and joking, their writing is about as
gracefulas the play of cantankerous children who at the same
instantare both peevish and wild, and can laugh and cry almost
inthe same breath.
Theres no need for me to explain how agreeable suchwritings are
like to be, and what effect theyll have towardswinning over or
convincing those who are supposed to bein error! Its not surprising
to hear the zealots publiclylamenting the fact that while their
adversaries books are so
current, their answers to them can hardly make their wayinto the
world or be taken the least notice of. Pedantry andbigotry are
millstones that can sink the best book if it carriesthe least part
of their dead weight. The temperament of thepedagogue doesnt suit
the times, and the world may bewilling to learn but it isnt willing
to be tutored. When aphilosopher speaks, men hear him willingly as
long as hekeeps to his philosophy. A Christian is heard as long
ashe keeps to his professed charity and meekness. And ina gentleman
we allow of joking and raillery as long as it ismanaged with good
manners and is never crude or clownish.But if a mere academic
scholarimpersonating all thesecharacters and in his writings
bouncing back and forth fromone to anotherappears over-all to be as
little able to keepthe temperament of Christianity as to use the
reason of aphilosopher or the raillery of a well-mannered
gentleman, isit any wonder if the monstrous product of such a
jumbledbrain strikes the world as ridiculous?
If you think, my friend, that by this description I havedone
wrong to these zealot-writers in religious controversy,just read a
few pages in any one of them. . . .and thenpronounce.
Section 4
Now that I have said this much about authors and writings,youll
hear my thoughts (which you asked for) on the subjectof
conversation, and especially a recent free-ranging con-versation
that I had with some friends of yours whom youthought I should have
very solemnly condemned.
It was, I must admit, a very entertaining conversation,despite
its ending as abruptly as it did and in a confusionthat almost
annihilated everything that had been said. Somedetails of this
conversation oughtnt to be recorded on paper,
3
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury I/4
I think. It will be enough if I remind you of the generallines
of how the conversation went. Many fine schemeswere destroyed; many
grave reasonings were overturned:but because this was done without
offence to the partiesconcerned and with improvement to the good
humour ofthe company, it gave us a still keener appetite for
suchconversations. And Im convinced that if Reason herselfwere
asked to judge how her own interests fared in thisconversation, she
would answer that she received moreadvantage in the main from that
easy and familiar wayof conversing than from the usual stiff
adherence to oneparticular opinion.
Perhaps you are still in the frame of mind of not believingme to
be in earnest about this. You may continue to tell methat I am
merely trying to be paradoxical when I commend asadvantageous to
reason a conversation that ended in suchtotal uncertainty
concerning things that had seemingly beenso well established.
I answer that according to my notion of reason, one cantlearn
how to use it from the written treatises of the learnedor from the
set lectures of the eloquent. The only waysomeone can be made a
reasoner is through the habit ofreasoning. And men can never be
better invited into thehabit than when they find pleasure in it.
Now, the only wayfor such speculative [see Glossary] conversations
to be at allagreeable is for them to have
a freedom of raillery,a liberty in decent language to question
everything,and
permission to unravel or refute any argument withoutgiving
offence to the arguer.
The fact is that conversations on theoretical matters havebeen
made burdensome to mankind by the strictness of thelaws laid down
for them, and by the prevailing pedantry and
bigotry of those who reign in them and assume themselvesto be
dictators in these provinces.
The ancient the satirists complaint in poetryMust Ialways be
only a listener?is an equally natural complaintin theology, in
morals, and in philosophy. Taking turns is amighty law of
discourse, and mightily longed for by mankind.In matters of reason,
more is done in a minute or two ofquestion and reply than is
achieved by hours of continuousdiscourse. Orations are fit only to
move the passions; andthe power of rhetoric is to terrify, exalt,
enchant or delight,rather than to satisfy or instruct. A free
conversation is aclose fight, compared with which the other waythe
lectureor orationis merely a waving of weapons in the air. Sobeing
obstructed and manacled in conferences, and beingrestricted to
hearing orations on certain subjects, is boundto give us a distaste
for those subjects, making themwhenmanaged in that wayas
disagreeable to us as the managersare. Men would rather reason
about trifles if they canreason freely and without the imposition
of authority thanreason about the best and most useful subjects in
the worldwhen they are held under restraint and fear.
And its no wonder that men are generally such weakreasoners who
dont much care for strict argument in con-versations on minor
topics, given that theyre afraid to exerttheir reason in greater
matters, and are forced to arguefeebly in contexts where they need
the greatest activity andstrength. What happens here is like what
happens in strongand healthy bodies that are debarred from their
naturalexercise and confined in a narrow space. They are forcedto
use odd gestures and contortions. They have a sort ofaction; they
do still move; but they do it utterly ungracefully.That happens
because the animal spirits [see Glossary] in suchsound and active
limbs cant lie dead, i.e. unemployed. Andin the same way the
natural free mental spirits of clever
4
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury I/5
men, if they are imprisoned and controlled, will discoverother
ways of acting so as to relieve themselves in theirconstraint. . .
.
If men are forbidden to speak their minds seriously oncertain
subjects, theyll do it ironically. If they are forbiddento speak at
all on such subjects, or if they think it reallydangerous to do so,
they will then redouble their disguise,wrap themselves in mystery,
and talk in such a way thattheyll hardly be understood. . . .by
people who are disposedto do them harm. Thus raillery comes more
into fashion,and goes to extremes. The persecuting spirit has
arousedthe bantering one; and lack of liberty may account for
thelack of true civilisedness, and for the corruption or wronguse
of joking and humour.
[In the next sentence, the italicised words come from the Latin
urbs= city and rus = countryside.] If in this respect we go
beyondthe limits of what we call urbanity and are apt sometimes
tobehave in a buffooning rustic manner, we have the
ridiculoussolemnity and sour mood of our pedagogues to thank for
this;or, rather, they can thank themselves if they in
particularmeet with the heaviest of this kind of treatment. For it
willnaturally fall heaviest where the constraint has been
theseverest. The greater the weight is, the more bitter will bethe
satire. . . .
To see that this really is so, look at the countries
wherespiritual tyranny is highest. The greatest of buffoons are
theItalians. In their writings, in their freer sort of
conversations,on their stages and in their streets buffoonery and
burlesqueare in the highest vogue. Its the only way the poor
crampedwretches can express a free thought. We have to concedethat
they are better than us at this sort of wit. And its notsurprising
that we who have more liberty are less nimble inthat gross kind of
raillery and ridicule?
Section 5
I really think that thats why the ancients exhibit so little
ofthis spirit, and why in all the writings of the more polishedages
theres hardly a sign of mere burlesque or anything likeit. Their
treatment of the very gravest subjects was indeedsomewhat different
from ours: their treatises were generallywritten in a free and
familiar style; they chose to representreal discourse and
conversation by treating their subjects inthe manner of dialogue
and free debate. . . . The usual witand humour of their real
discourses appeared in the onesthat they composed; and this was
fair, because without witand humour reason can hardly be tested, or
be identified assuch. The magisterial voice and high strain of the
pedagoguecommands reverence and awe; it is admirably fitted to
keepunderstandings at a distance and out of reach; whereas theother
manner gives the fairest hold, and allows an antagonistto use his
full strength hand to hand, on level ground. . . .
But some gentlemen are so full of the spirit of bigotryand false
zeal that when they hear principles [see Glossary]examined,
sciences and arts inquired into, and matters ofimportance treated
with this frank kind of humour, theyquickly conclude that all the
professions must collapse,all establishments come to ruin, and
nothing orderly ordecent be left standing in the world. They fearor
say theydothat religion itself will be endangered by this free
wayof discussing things; so they are as much alarmed by thisliberty
when it occurs in private conversation and underprudent management
as if it were crudely used in publiccompany or before the most
solemn assembly. But I see thesituation very differently. For you
have to remember, myfriend, that I am writing to you in defence
only of the libertyof the clubthe sort of freedom that is employed
amonggentlemen and friends who know one another perfectly well.
5
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury I/6
That it is natural for me to defend liberty with this
restrictioncan be inferred from the very notion I have of liberty
itself.
It is surely a violation of the freedom of public assembliesfor
anyone to take the chair without having been called orinvited to
it. To raise questions or steer debates that offendthe public ear
is to be lacking in the respect that is due tocommon society. In
public such subjects should be treatedeither not at all or in a
manner that doesnt lead to scandalor disturbance. The public is not
on any account to belaughed at to its face, or scolded for its
follies in such away that it thinks it is being treated with
contempt. Andwhat is contrary to good manners in this way is
equallycontrary to liberty. Coming across as superior to thevulgar
[see Glossary] and as despising the multitudethatsthe conduct of
men of slavish principles [Shaftesburys phrase].Men who love
mankind will respect and honour gatheringsand societies of men. And
in mixed company [see Glossary],and in places where men have
unselectively come togetherfor amusement or for business, it is an
imposition and ahardship to force them to hear what they dislike,
and todiscuss matters in a dialect that is unfamiliar to many
ofthem. Its a breach of the harmony of public conversationto say
things in a way that is above the common reach andsilences others,
robbing them of their turn. But in privatesociety. . . .where
friends meet knowingly, and with the actualintention of exercising
their wit and looking freely into allsubjects, I see no basis for
anyone to claim to be offended atthe way of raillery and humour,
which is the very life of suchconversationsthe only thing that
makes good company,and frees it from the formality of business and
the tutorialdogmaticness of the schools.
Section 6
To return now to our argument. If the best of our
modernconversations are apt to be chiefly concerned with trifles;if
rational discourses. . . .have become discredited and dis-graced
because of their formality [see Glossary]; then theresall the more
reason to allow humour and gaiety. An easierway of treating these
subjects will make them more agreeableand familiar. Disagreeing
about them will be like disagreeingabout other matters; they neednt
spoil good company, ordetract from the ease or pleasure of a
civilised conversation;and the oftener these conversations are
renewed the betterwill be their effect. Well become better
reasoners by reason-ing in a pleasant and relaxed fashion, taking
up or layingdown these subjects, as we please. So I admit that I
cant bescandalized by the raillery that you took notice of, or by
itseffect on our company. The humour was agreeable, and thepleasant
confusion in which the conversation ended pleasesme as I look back
on it, when I realise that instead of beingdiscouraged from
resuming the debate we were so much thereadier to meet again at any
time and disagree about thesame subjects, perhaps even with more
ease and satisfactionthan before.
As you know, we had been occupying ourselves for along time with
the subject of morality and religion. Amongdifferent opinions
presented and maintained with great lifeand ingenuity by various
participants, every now and thensomeone would appeal to common
sense. Everyone allowedthe appeal, and was willing to have his
views put to thattest, because everyone was sure that common sense
wouldjustify him. But when the hearing was conductedthe
issueexamined in the court of common senseno judgment couldbe
given. This, however, didnt inhibit the debaters fromrenewing the
appeal to common sense on the next occasion
6
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury I/6
when it seemed relevant to do so. No-one ventured to callthe
authority of the court into question, until a gentlemanwhose good
understanding had never been brought in doubtvery gravely asked the
company to tell him what commonsense was. he said:
If by the word sense we understand opinion andjudgment, and by
the word common we mean whatis true of all mankind or of any
considerable part of it,it will be hard to discover what the
subject of commonsense could be! For anything that accords with
thesense of one part of mankind clashes with the senseof another.
And if the content of common sense weresettled by majority vote, it
would change as oftenas men change, and something that squares
withcommon sense today will clash with it tomorrow orsoon
thereafter.
But despite the different judgments of mankind on mosttopics, it
was thought by the members of our conversationalgroup that they
agreed on some. The question then aroseas to what those subjects
were. The questioner said:
It is thought that any topic that matters much will bein the
categories of (1) religion, (2) policy [here = abstractpolitical
theory] or (3) morals.
(1) Theres no need to say anything about dif-ferences in
religion; the situation is fully known toeveryone, and feelingly
understood by Christians, inparticular, among themselves. They have
taken turnsin applying rigorous tests to one another. When anyparty
happened to have the power of the state, itdid everything it
possibly could to make its privatesense the public one; but it
never succeededandcommon sense was as hard to pin down as
catholicor orthodox when these are taken as general terms,not the
names of two branches of Christianity. What
one sect regards as an inconceivable mystery is easyfor another
sect to grasp; what is absurd to one isrigorously proved for
another.
(2) As for policy: there is equally a question aswhat sense or
whose sense could be called common.If plain British or Dutch sense
is right, Turkish andFrench sense must be very wrong. And
althoughpassive obedience [see Glossary] strikes us as
merenonsense, we have found it to be the common senseof a large
party among ourselves, a larger party inEurope, and perhaps the
greatest part of all the worldbesides.
(3) As for morals; the difference is still wider, if thatis
possible. Setting aside the opinions and customsof the many
barbarous and illiterate nations, andattending only to the few
nations that have achievedliterature and philosophy, even they
havent yet beenable to agree on one single system, or acknowledge
thesame moral principles. And some of our most admiredmodern
philosophers, even, have told us flatly thatvirtue and vice have no
other law or standard thanmere fashion and vogue.
It might have seemed unfair in our friends if they had
treatedonly the graver subjects in this manner, and allowed
thelighter ones to escape; for our follies in the gayer part oflife
are as solemn as our follies in the most serious. Thefault is that
we take the laugh only half-way: we ridiculethe false pronouncement
but leave uncriticised the falsejoke, which becomes as utterly
deceitful as the other. Ourentertainments, our plays, our
amusements become solemn.We dream of happinesses and possessions
and enjoymentsregarding which we have no understanding, dont
knowanything for certain; and yet we pursue these as thoughthey
were the best known and most certain things in the
7
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury II/1
world. Theres nothing so foolish and deluding as a
partialscepticism; for while the doubt is cast only on one side,
thecertainty grows so much stronger on the other. While onlyone
face of folly appears ridiculous, the other grows moresolemn and
deceiving.
But thats not how things stood with our friends. Theyseemed
better critics, and more intellectually able and fair
in their way of questioning accepted opinions and exposingthe
ridiculousness of things. If youll allow me to continue inthe tone
they adopted, Ill conduct an experiment: theres away of going about
things that you thought made assuredknowledge impossible and
introduced endless scepticism;I want to discover whether by
proceeding in that very sameway we can get that assured knowledge
back.
Part II
Section 1
If an Ethiopian were suddenly transported into Europe andplaced
either in Paris or Venice at a time of Carnival, whenalmost
everyone wears a mask, he would probably be at aloss for some time
until he discovered the cheat; because atfirst it wouldnt enter his
head that a whole people could be sowild as to agree at an
appointed time to transform themselvesby changing their clothing
and wearing masks and makinga serious solemn practice of deceiving
one another by thisuniversal confusion of characters and persons.
He mightat first have looked on this with a serious eye, but once
hediscovered what was going on hed have found it hard to keepa
straight face. The Europeans might laugh back, mockinghis
simplicity. But our Ethiopian would have better reasonfor laughter.
Its easy to see which of the two would be moreridiculous: someone
who laughs and is himself ridiculousbears a double share of
ridicule. But then this might happen:Our Ethiopian, still in fits
of laughter with his head full ofmasks, and knowing nothing of the
fair complexion and
common dress of the Europeans, happens to see someonewith no
mask and in his normal clothing; and this makes himlaugh as much as
ever. By a silly presumption he is takingnature for mere art, and
mistaking a sober and sensible manfor one of those ridiculous
amateur actors! Isnt he makinghimself ridiculous by carrying the
joke too far?
[In this paragraph and the next, Shaftesbury is talking about
(i) waysin which truth has been disguised in terms of (ii) the
wearing of masksand fooling around at Carnival. Sometimes he uses
the language of (ii)when really he is talking only about (i); read
alertly!] There was atime when men were accountable only for their
actions andbehaviour [Shaftesburys phrase]. Their opinions were
left tothemselves. They were free to differ in these, as in
theirfaces! everyone acquired the manner and look that wasnatural
for him. But in the course of time it came to bethought decent to
correct mens faces and to make theirintellectual complexions
uniform and of one sort. Thusthe magistrate [see Glossary] became a
dresser, and after hehad given up his power to a new order of
clothiers, he in
8
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury II/1
turn was dressed as he deserved! But although. . . .it wasagreed
that only one manner of dress was correct, and onlyone particular
manner of behaving to which all people mustconform, the misery was
that neither the magistrate nor theclothiers themselves could
settle which of the various stylesand manners was the exactly true
one. Imagine now whatthe effect must be when men came to be
persecuted fromall sides about their manner and appearance, and had
tostruggle and improvise in attempts to adjust and composetheir
facial expressions according to the right mode; when athousand
patterns of dress were current, and kept alteringaccording to
fashion and the mood of the times! Judgewhether mens faces werent
likely to show strain, and thenatural face of mankind distorted,
convulsed, and madehardly recognisable.
But although the general face of things has been madeunnatural
or artificial by this unhappy concern for dress andover-tenderness
for the safety of complexions, we mustntbe led by this to think
that all faces are alike besmearedor plastered, that its all a
matter of rouge and varnish,or that the face of truth is any less
beautiful under allthe counterfeit faces that have been put on her.
We mustremember the Carnival: what has led to this wild jumbleof
people, who started it, and why men were pushed intothis pastime.
We may have a good laugh at the originaldeception, and if pity
doesnt stop us we can have fun atthe expense of the folly and
madness of those who are thuscaught and manipulated by these
impostures [see Glossary].But we should remember our Ethiopian, and
beware lest bytaking plain nature for a mask we become more
ridiculousthan the people we are ridiculing. Now, if a misplaced
jokeor ridicule can lead the judgment so far astray, its
probablethat an excess of fear or horror may have the same
result.
[The Magi referred to here are mythical creatures with magical
pow-ers who are supposed to have created a kingdom in Persia (here
called
Asia). When Shaftesbury compares them with the Knights
Templars
whom he calls a body of conjurers he is expressing his contempt
for
the supposed magic powers of the supposed Magi.] If, my
friend,you had chanced to live in Asia at the time when the Magiby
a wicked imposture got possession of the empire, nodoubt you would
have detested that act; and it might havehappened that the very
persons of the men, after all thecheats and abuses they had
committed, became so odious toyou that you would have seen them
killed with as relentlessan eye as our later European ancestors saw
the destructionof the Knights Templarsa similar body of conjurers
whohad almost become an over-match for the civil sovereign.Your
indignation might have led you to propose the razingof all
monuments and memorials of those magicians. Youmight have resolved
not to leave so much as their housesstanding. But if it had
happened that these magicians whenthey were in power had made any
collection of books, orwritten any themselves, treating of
philosophy, or morals, orany other science [see Glossary] or branch
of learning, wouldyou have carried your resentment so far as to
destroythese also and to condemn every opinion or doctrine theMagi
had espoused, simply because they had espousedit? Hardly a
Scythian, a Tatar, or a Goth would act orreason so absurdly. Much
less would you, my friend, havecarried out this. . .
.priest-massacre with such a barbarouszeal. Seriously, destroying a
philosophy out of hatred for aman shows thinking as wildly barbaric
as murdering a manin order to plunder his wit and get the
inheritance of hisunderstanding!
I must admit that if all the institutions, statutes, and
reg-ulations of this ancient hierarchy, the Magi, had resembledthe
basic law of the order itself, it might have been right to
9
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury II/1
suppress them, for one cant read that law of theirsa Magus must
be born of a mother and her son
without some abhorrence. But the conjurers (which iswhat they
were, not magicians) thought that their principlesshould look as
good as possible to the world so as betterto conceal their
practice; so they found it to be highly intheir interests to accept
some excellent moral rules and toestablish the very best maxims of
this kind. They may havethought at the outset that it would be to
their advantage torecommend the greatest purity of religion, and
the greatestintegrity of life and manners. Perhaps they also
preached upcharity and good-will. And they may have presented to
theworld the fairest face of human nature and, together withtheir
laws and political institutions, have interwoven themost honest
morals with best doctrine in the world.
So how should we have behaved towards them? Howshould we have
carried ourselves towards this order of menat the time of the
discovery of their cheat and ruin of theirempire? Should we have
started to work instantly on theirsystems, struck indiscriminately
at all their opinions anddoctrines, and erected a contrary
philosophy in defianceof them? Should we have attacked every
religious andmoral principle, denied every natural and social
affection,and made men as much like wolves to one another as
waspossible for them, while describing them as wolves andtrying to
make them see themselves as far more monstrousand corrupt than with
the worst intentions it was everpossible for the worst of them to
become? No doubt youllthink that this would have been a very
preposterous line totake, which could have been followed only by
mean spirits
who had held in awe and overfrightened by the Magi.Yet an able
and witty philosopher of our nation was
recently so possessed with a horror of this kind that hedirectly
acted in this spirit of massacrewith respect bothto politics and to
morals.1 The fright he got from seeing thethen-governing powers,
who had unjustly taken authorityover the people, gave him such a
horror of all popular[see Glossary] government, and of the very
notion of libertyitself, that to extinguish it for ever he
recommends theextinguishing of books, and urges princes [see
Glossary] not tospare so much as an ancient Roman or Greek
historian. Isntthis in truth somewhat gothic? And doesnt our
philosopherlook rather like a savage in treating philosophy and
learningin the way the Scythians are said to have treated
Anacharsisand others as punishment for having visited the wise
ofGreece and learned the manners of a civilised people?
His quarrel with religion was the same as his quarrelwith
liberty: the events during his lifetime gave him thesame terror of
each. All he could see were the ravages ofenthusiasm [here =
fanaticism] and the tricks of the peoplewho created and then
steered that spirit. And this goodsociable mansavage and unsociable
as he tried to makehimself and all mankind appear by his
philosophyexposedhimself to great hostility during his life, and
took greatpains that after his death we might be spared the kinds
ofevents that led to these terrors. He tried to show us that
Both in religion and in morals we are imposed onby our
governors; there is nothing which by natureinclines us either way,
nothing that naturally drawsus to the love of anything beyond
ourselves;
1 Hobbes, who expresses himself thus: By reading these Greek and
Latin authors, men have from their childhood fallen into a habit
(under a falseshow of liberty) of favouring riots, and of
licentiously controlling the actions of their sovereigns.
(Leviathan II.21). By this reasoning, it should followthat there
can never be any riots or deposing of sovereigns at Constantinople,
or in the Mughal empire. In other passages he expresses his view
aboutthis destruction of ancient literature in favour of his
Leviathan hypothesis and new philosophy.
10
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury II/1
although his love for such great truths and sovereign maximsas
he imagined these to be made him the most laborious ofall men in
composing systems of this kind for our use; andforced him, despite
his natural fear, to run continually thehighest risk of being a
martyr for our deliverance.
So let me head off your anxieties and assure you thattheres no
such mighty danger as we are apt to imagine fromthese fierce
prosecutors of superstition, who are so downon every religious or
moral principle. Whatever savagesthey may appear to be in
philosophy, they are in theirordinary lives as civilised as one
could wish. Their freedomin communicating their principles is a
witness on theirbehalf: its the height of sociableness to be
friendly andcommunicative in that way.
If their principles were concealed from us and made amystery,
they might indeed become considerable [= becomesomething that we
had to reckon with]. Things are often madeconsiderable by being
kept as secrets of a sect or party;and nothing helps this more than
the hostility and anxietyof a contrary party. If hearing maxims
that are thoughtto be poisonous immediately pushes us into horrors
andconsternation, were in no state to use the familiar and easypart
of reason that is the best antidote. The only poison toreason is
passion, for false reasoning is soon corrected whenpassion is
removed. But if merely hearing a philosophicalproposition is enough
to move us into a passion, its clearthat the poison already has a
grip on us and we are effectivelyprevented from using our reasoning
faculty.
If it werent for prejudices of this kind, why shouldnt
weentertain ourselves with the fancy of one of these
modernreformers we have been speaking of? What should we say toone
of these anti-zealots who, with all the zeal of such a
coolphilosophy, should earnestly assure us:
You are the most mistaken men in the world, toimagine that
theres any such thing as natural faithor justice. What is right is
determined by force andpower. Theres no such thing in reality as
virtue; noprinciple [see Glossary] of order in things in heaven
oron earth; no secret charm or force of nature by whicheveryone is
made to work willingly or unwillinglytowards public good, and is
punished and tormentedif he does otherwise.
Isnt this the very charm itself? Isnt the gentleman at
thisinstant under the power of it? The next paragraph is whatwe
could say to him.
Sir! the philosophy you have condescended to reveal tous is most
extraordinary. We are indebted to you for yourinstruction. But
please tell us: this zeal of yours on ourbehalfwhere does it come
from? What are we to you? Areyou our father? And even if you were,
why this concern forus? Is there then such a thing as natural
affection? If not,then why all this industry and danger on our
account? Whynot keep this secret to yourself? What good does it do
you todeliver us from the cheat? The more that are taken in by
it,the better. Its directly against your interests to undeceiveus,
and let us know that you are governed only by privateinterest, and
that nothing nobler or broader should governus whom you converse
with. Leave us to ourselves and tothat notable art by which we are
happily tamed and made asmild and sheepish as we are. Its not fit
that we should knowthat by nature we are all wolves. Is it possible
that someonewho has really discovered himself to be a wolf should
workhard to communicate such a discovery?
11
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury II/2
Section 2
In reality, my friend, theres nothing to frown at here, whenwere
being challenged to defend common honesty by fairhonest gentlemen
who are so different in practice from howthey want to appear in
theory. I know that some peopleare knaves in notion and principle
as well as in practice:they think all honesty as well as all
religion is a merecheat, and so in consistency they have resolved
deliberatelyto use whatever force or skill they have for their
privateadvantage. But men like that never open themselves
infriendship to others. They have no such passion for truth,or love
for mankind. They have no quarrel with religion ormorals, but they
know what use to make of both when theopportunity arises. If they
ever reveal their principles, it isnever intentionally; they are
sure to preach honesty, and goto church.
On the other hand, the gentlemen whose side I am takingcant be
called hypocrites. They speak as ill of themselvesas they possibly
can. If they have hard thoughts of humannature, its still a proof
of their humanity that they give sucha warning to the world. If
they represent men as being bynature treacherous and wild, they do
this out of care formankind, to help them not to be caught easily
through beingtoo tame and trusting.
Impostors naturally speak the best of human nature, tomake it
easier for them to manipulate it. These gentlemenwhom I am
defending, on the other hand, speak the worst;and they would rather
be censured along with the rest thanallow a few impostors to
prevail over the many. Its theopinion that men are good that makes
it easy for them totrust one another; and its through trust that we
are betrayedand put at the mercy of power, with our very reason
beingcaptured by those in whom we have gradually come to have
an implicit faith. But if each of us supposes all the othersto
be by nature outright savages, well take care to comeless into one
anothers power; and, taking it that everyoneis insatiably hungry
for power, well build better defencesagainst the evil of malign
powernot by putting everythinginto one hand (as Hobbes, the
champion of this cause,wants us to do), but on the contrary by a
proper divisionand balance of power, and by the restraint of good
laws andlimitations that can secure the public liberty.
You may want to ask me Do you really think thesegentlemen are
fully convinced of the principles they so oftenadvance in company?
My answer is as follows (it runs to theend of the paragraph). I
wouldnt absolutely question thegentlemens sincerity, but there is
something of a mysteryabout their conduct, more than has been
suspected. Perhapsthe reason why men of wit delight so much in
espousingthese paradoxical theories is not that they are fully
satisfiedwith them, but that they want to make a better job
ofopposing some other theories whose fair appearance hashelped
(they think) to bring mankind under subjection. Theythink that by
the general scepticism that they want tointroduce theyll better
deal with the dogmatic spirit thatprevails in some subjects. And
when they have accustomedmen to putting up with being contradicted
and hearing thenature of things being argue over in a general way,
it maybe safer (they conclude) to argue separately about
certainmatters of detail over which they arent quite so well
satisfied.From this you may get a better sense of why in
conversationthe spirit of raillery prevails so much, and notions
are takenup for no reason except that they are odd and out of the
way.
12
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury II/3
Section 3
But, speaking for myself, I have no worries about thissceptical
kind of wit. Men may in a serious way be so pushedand puzzled by
different ways of thinking, different systemsand schemes imposed by
authority, that lose all notion orcomprehension of truth. I can
easily grasp the effect that awehas over mens understandings. I can
very well suppose menmay be frightened out of their wits, but I
dont see that theycan be laughed out of them! I can hardly imagine
that inpleasant conversation they should ever be talked out of
theirlove for society, or reasoned out of humanity and commonsense.
Wit framed by good manners cant hurt any cause orinterest that I
care about; and philosophical speculations,managed in a civilised
way, surely cant ever make mankindmore unsociable or uncivilized.
That s not the direction fromwhich I can expect an invasion of
savageness and barbarity.What I have found is that virtue never
suffers as much frombeing contested as it does from being betrayed.
My fearis not so much from virtues witty antagonists, who give
itexercise defending itself, as from its tender nurses, who areapt
to smother it in blankets and kill it by their excess ofcare!
I have known a building that was tilting in one directionand was
then so thoroughly fixed that it leaned and fellin the opposite
direction. Something like that may have
happened in morals. Not satisfied with showing the nat-ural
advantages of honesty and virtue, men have actuallylessened these
in order (they thought) to advance anotherfoundation for virtue.
They have made virtue such amercenary thing, and have talked so
much about its rewards,that one can hardly tell what there is in
virtue that is worthrewarding; for theres not much honesty or value
in beingbribed or terrified into behaving honestly. . . .
If the love of doing good is not in itself a good and
rightinclination, I dont know how there can possibly be such athing
as goodness or virtue. And if the inclination is right, weare
perverting it if we think of it solely in terms of the rewardfor
it, conceiving such wonders of the grace and favour thatvirtue will
bring, when so little is shown of the intrinsic worthor value of
the thing itself.
Im almost tempted to think that the true reason whysome of the
most heroic virtues have so little notice taken ofthem in our holy
religion is that if they had been entitled to ashare of the
infinite reward that providence has by revelationassigned to other
duties there would have been no roomleft for disinterestedness.
[This seems to mean: there would havebeen no reward left over for
disinterestedness, but Shaftesbury cant have
meant that, because it is too obvious that an infinite reward is
not an
exhaustible quantity.] (i) Private friendship and (ii) zeal for
thepublic and for our country are purely voluntary virtues for
aChristian.2 They arent essential parts of his charity. He isnt
2 No fair reader can think that by private friendship I mean the
common benevolence and charity that every Christian is obliged to
show towards allmen, and in particular towards his
fellow-Christians, his neighbour, his brother, his more or less
closely related kindred; but the special relation thatis formed by
a consent and harmony of minds, by mutual esteem, and reciprocal
tenderness and affectionwhat we emphatically call a
friendship.Thats what there was between the two Jewish heroes that
I shall mention shortly, whose love and tenderness surpassed that
of women (2 Samuel, ch.1). Such were the friendships, described so
often by poets, between Pylades and Orestes, Theseus and Pirithous,
and many others. Such were thosebetween philosophers, heroes, and
the greatest of menbetween Socrates and Antisthenes, Plato and
Dion, Epaminondas and Pelopidas, Cato andBrutus. . . . And such
there may have been more recently, and perhaps even in our own age,
though envy prevents the few examples of this kind frombeing
mentioned in public. [This very long footnote continues with
Shaftesburys response to critics of what he has said about the
status of friendshipin the system of Christian virtues, a response
based largely on what the learned and pious Bishop Taylor wrote in
his Treatise of Friendship.]
13
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury II/3
so tied to the affairs of this life; nor is he obliged to
involvehimself in this lower world in ways that wont help him
toacquire a better world in the after-life. His real concernsare in
heaven, and he has no occasion for any extra cares orembarrassments
here on earth that may obstruct his way toheaven or hold him back
in the careful task of working outhis own salvation. But if any
portion of reward is reservedhereafter for the generous part of
(ii) a patriot, or that of (i) athorough friend, this is still
behind the curtain and happilyconcealed from us, so that we may be
the more deserving ofit when it comes.
It seems indeed that in the Jewish scheme of things eachof these
virtues had its illustrious examples, and was in somemanner
recommended to us as honourable and deservingto be imitated. Even
Saulwho is presented to us as a badprinceappears to have been
respected and praised, beforehis death and after, for his love of
his native country. Andthe remarkable love between his son Jonathan
and hissuccessor David gives us a noble view of a disinterested
friendship, at least on one side. But the heroic virtue of
thesepersons had only the common reward of praise attributed toit,
and couldnt claim a future reward under a religion thatdidnt teach
any future state and didnt present any rewardsor punishments except
this-worldly ones in accordance withthe written law.
And thus the Jews as well as the heathens were left to
beinstructed by their philosophy in the sublime part of virtue,and
induced by reason to do what they had never beencommanded to do. No
premium or penalty being enforcedin these cases, the disinterested
part stood alone, the virtuewas a free choice, and the magnanimity
of the act was leftentire. Someone who wanted to be generous, had
the meansto do so. Someone who fully wanted to serve his friend
orhis country, even at the cost of his life,3 could do it on
fairterms. his sole reason was that Dulce et decorum estit
wasinviting and becoming, or sweet and fitting. It was goodand
honest. And Ill try to convince you that this is still agood
reason, and one that squares with common sense. . . .
3 Perhaps, says the holy apostle Paul, for a good man some would
even dare to die (Romans 5:7) He judiciously supposes this to
belong to humannature; though he is so far from basing any precept
on it that he introduces his private opinion with a very dubious
perhaps.
14
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury III/1
Part III
Section 1
The Roman satirist Juvenal may be thought more thanordinarily
satirical when, speaking of the nobility and thecourt, he is so far
from allowing them to be the standard ofpoliteness and good sense
that he makes them in a way thereverse: Common-sense is rare in men
of that rank. Someof the ablest commentators, however, interpret
this verydifferently from how it is ordinarily understood: they
givethe poets common sense a Greek derivation through whichit
stands for
a sense of public good and of the common interest;love of the
community or society, natural affection,humanity, obligingness, or
the sort of civility thatcomes from a sound sense of the common
rights ofmankind and the natural equality there is amongthose of
the same species.
And if we think carefully about this, it must seem rather hardor
unkind in the poet to have denied wit or ability to a courtsuch as
that of Rome, even under a Tiberius or a Nero. Butit didnt take any
deep satire to question whether humanityor a sense of public good
and of the common interest ofmankind was properly the spirit of a
court! It was hard tosee what community there was among courtiers;
or whatpublic there was containing an absolute prince [see
Glossary]and his slave-subjects. As for real society, there
couldntbe any between people whose only sense of good was
theirsense of their own individual welfare. [Shaftesbury attaches
tothis paragraph an enormous footnote giving details of the battles
among
the commentators on how that line of Juvenals should be
understood.]
So our poet seems to be not so immoderate in his censureif we
take him to be criticising the heart rather than the
head.Reflecting on the education [see Glossary] that a court will
offerhe thinks its not likely to raise any affection towards
acountry. He sees young princes and lords as the youngmasters of
the world: being indulged in all their passions,and trained up in
all sorts of licentiousness, they have athorough contempt and
disregard of mankind. (And mankindin a way deserves this, when it
permits arbitrary power andadores tyranny!). . . .
A public spirit can only come from a social feeling, ora sense
of partnership with human kind. Now, there arenone so far from
being partners in this sense, or sharersin this common affection,
as those who scarcely know anequal and dont regard themselves as
subject to any law offellowship or community. That is how morality
and goodgovernment go together. Theres is no real love of
virtuewithout the knowledge of public good; and where absolutepower
is, there is no public.
Those who live under a tyranny, and have learned toadmire its
power as sacred and divine, are perverted asmuch in their religion
as in their morals. According to theirway of thinking, public good
isnt the standard or rule ofgovernment for the universe any more
than it is for the state.They have almost no notion of what is good
or just other thanwhat mere will and power have determined.
Omnipotence,they think, would hardly be omnipotence if it werent
free todispense with the laws of fairness and change the standardof
moral rectitude just as it pleased.
But despite prejudices and corruptions of this kind,there
clearly is still something of a public principle [see
15
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury III/2
Glossary], even where it is most perverted and depressed.The
worst of governmentsthe despotic kindcan showsufficient instances
of zeal and affection towards it. Where noother government is
known, a despotic government usuallyreceives the allegiance and
duty that is owing to a betterform. The eastern countries and many
barbarous nationshave been and still are examples of this kind. The
personallove they bear their prince [see Glossary], however severe
he istowards them, may be evidence of what a natural
affectionmankind have towards government. If men really have
nopublic parent, no magistrate in common to cherish andprotect
them, they will still imagine they have one; andlike new-born
creatures who have never seen their motherthey will imagine one for
themselves, and (as if promptedby nature) apply for favour and
protection to something ofabout the right shape. Lacking a true
foster-father and chief,they will follow a false one; and lacking a
legal governmentand just prince, they will obey even a tyrant, and
endure awhole series of tyrants in the same family line.
As for us Britons, thank heaven, we have a better senseof
government passed down to us from our ancestors. Wehave the notion
of a public, and a constitution; and howa legislature and an
executive should be structured. Weunderstand weight and measure in
these matters, and canreason soundly about the balance of power and
property.The maxims we draw from our reasoning are as evidentas
conclusions in mathematics. Our increasing knowledgeshows us every
day, more and more, what common sense isin politics: and this is
bound to lead us to understand a likesense in morals, which is the
foundation of politics.
It is ridiculous to say that theres an obligation on manto act
sociably or honestly in a formed government but notin what is
commonly called the state of nature. To put itin the fashionable
language of our modern philosophy:
Society being founded on a compact, the surrenderthat every man
makes of his private unlimited rightinto the hands of the majority,
or whoever is appointedby the majority, is freely chosen and based
on apromise.
Now, this promise was made in the state of nature; andwhatever
can make a promise obligatory in the state ofnature must make all
other acts of humanity as much ourreal duty. . . . Thus faith,
justice, honesty, and virtue mustall have been as early as the
state of nature, or they couldnever have been at all. The civil
union or confederacy couldnever make right or wrong if right and
wrong didnt existalready. Someone who was free to perform any
villainy beforehis contract will and should dispose as freely of
his contractwhen it suits him to do so. . . .
A man is obliged to keep his word.Why?Because he has given his
word to keep it.
What a striking account of the origin of moral justice andthe
rise of civil government and allegiance!
Section 2
But setting aside these complaints against a philosophy thatsays
so much about nature and means so little, we cansurely accept this
as a principle:
If anything is natural in any creature or any kindof creature,
its whatever tends to preserve the kinditself and conduces to its
welfare and support.
If in original and pure nature it is wrong to break a promiseor
to be treacherous, it is as truly wrong to be in any
respectinhuman, or in any way lacking in our natural part
towardshuman kind. [Those last seven words are Shaftesburys.] If
eatingand drinking are natural, so is herding [i.e. coming together
in
16
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury III/2
a herd]. If any appetite or sense is natural, so is the senseof
fellowship. If theres anything natural in the affectionbetween the
sexes, the affection towards the consequent off-spring is equally
natural; and so again between the offspringthemselves, as kindred
and companions brought up underthe same discipline in the same
household. Thats how aclan or tribe is gradually formed, a public
is recognised; andbesides the pleasure found in social
entertainment, language,and conversation there is such an obvious
necessity forcontinuing this good set of relationships that having
nosense or feeling of this kind, no love of country, community,or
anything in common, would be the same as having sosense even of the
most obvious means of self-preservationand the most necessary
condition of self-enjoyment.
I dont know how the wit of man could puzzle away atthis and come
up with the answer that civil governmentand society are a kind of
invention, a skilful contrivance.My own view is that this herding
principle, this inclinationto associate, is so natural and strong
in most men that itsviolence might easily be blamed for much of the
disorder thathas arisen in the general society of mankind.
Universal goodthe interests of the world in generalis akind of
remote philosophical object. That greater community(the world in
general) is hard to see; and the interests of anation or of a whole
people or body politic arent easy to gethold of either. In smaller
groups men can know one anotherpersonally, they can get a better
taste of society, and enjoythe common good and interests of a
smaller public. Theysee right across and around their community,
and see andindividually know those whom they serve, and know
whatthe purpose is of their associating and working together.
Allmen naturally have their share of this drive to come
together;and those whose faculties are the most lively and active
havesuch a large share of it that unless it is properly
directed
by right reason it cant find things to do in such a remotesphere
as that of the body politic at large. For here one maynot even know
by sight one in a thousand of those whoseinterests are concerned.
No visible band is formed, no strictalliance; the relations are all
with different persons, orders,and ranks of mennot men that one
meets and talks to, butmen of whom one has some idea according to
the generalview or notion of a state or commonwealth.
Thus the social aim is disturbed for lack of definite scope.The
virtue of feeling what others feel and working togetheris apt to
get lost for lack of direction in such a wide field.And the passion
for herding together is nowhere as stronglyfelt or vigorously
exerted as in actual joint action or war,in which the highest
geniuses [see Glossary] are often knownto be the readiest to take
part. That is because the mostgenerous [see Glossary] spirits are
the most combining: theydelight most to move in harmony with
others, and feel (if Ican put it this way) in the strongest manner
the force of theconfederating charm.
Its strange to think that war, which of all things appearsthe
most savage, should be the passion of the most heroicspirits. But
its in war that the knot of fellowship is pulledtightest. Its in
war that mutual help is most given, mutualdanger run, and common
affection most exerted and em-ployed. For heroism and philanthropy
are almost the samething. To turn a lover of mankind into a
ravager, a hero anddeliverer into an oppressor and destroyer, all
it takes is asmall misguidance of the affection.
Hence other divisions amongst men. Hence, blockingpeace and
civil government, the love of party and of subdi-vision by cabal.
For sedition is a kind of cantonizingi.e.splitting into
sub-groupsthat has already begun withinthe state. When a society
grows vast and bulky, it is naturalto cantonize; and powerful
states have found that sending
17
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury III/3
colonies abroad brings other advantages than merely
havingelbow-room at home, or extending their dominion into
distantcountries. Vast empires are unnatural in many respects,
butespecially in the fact that in such an empire, however wellit is
constituted, the affairs of many must be in the handsof very few;
and the relation between the magistrate andpeople is less visiblein
a way it is lostin a body that is sounwieldy in its limbs, and
whose limbs lie so far from oneanother and from the head.
It is in bodies like this that strong factions are most likelyto
arise. What happens is that the associating spirits,
lackingexercise, form new movements within which they can havea
narrower sphere of activity because they cant get actionin a
greater. Thus we have wheels within wheels. Andsome nations are
structured in such a way that, absurd asthis is as a matter of
political theory, we have one empirewithin another. Nothing is as
delightful as incorporatingi.e.forming bodies or groups.
All sorts of distinctions are invented.Religious societies are
formed.Orders are set up. and their interests espoused andserved
with the utmost zeal and passion.
Theres never any lack of founders and patrons of this
sort.Wonders are performed in this wrong social spirit by
themembers of separate societies. Mans associating genius isnever
better proved than in the societies that are formed inopposition to
the general society of mankind, and to thereal interests of the
state.
In short, the very spirit of faction seems mainly to benothing
but the misuse or irregularity of the social loveand common
affection that is natural to mankind. Thatsbecause the opposite of
sociableness is selfishness; and of allcharacters the thoroughly
selfish one is the least ready to joinany group or faction. The men
of this sorti.e. the selfish
onesare true men of moderation. They have too muchself-knowledge
and self-control to be in danger of enteringwarmly into any cause
or engaging deeply with any side orfaction.
Section 3
As you know, it is commonly said that self-interest governsthe
world. But I think that anyone who looks closely into theaffairs of
the human world will find that passion, humour,caprice, zeal,
faction, and a thousand other springs that goagainst self-interest
have as large a role in the movements ofthis machine as
self-interest does. There are more wheelsand balances in this
engine than are easily imagined. It istoo complex to fall under one
simple view, or be explained ina word or two. Those who study this
mechanism must have avery selective eye to overlook all other
motions besides thoseof the lowest and narrowest range. In the plan
or descriptionof this clockwork, it is hard that no wheel or
balance shouldbe allowed on the side of the better and broader
affections;that nothing should be understood to be done in
kindnessor generosity, nothing in pure good-nature or friendship
orthrough any social or natural affection of any kind, giventhat
the main springs of this machine may well turn out tobe either
these very natural affections themselves or somecompound kind
containing them and retaining more thanone half of their
nature.
But dont expect me to draw you up a formal blueprintof the
passions or to claim to show you their genealogy
andinter-relationshow they are interwoven with one another,or how
they interfere with our happiness and interest. Todevise a sound
plan or model that would enable you tosee how much of the load in
this architectural structureis carried by the friendly and natural
affections would be
18
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury III/3
beyond the scope and above the level of a letter like
this.Modern designers, I know, would willingly get these
natural materials off their hands, so that they could buildin a
more uniform way. They would like to new-frame thehuman heart, and
intensely want to reduce all its motions,balances and weights to
one principle and foundationcooland deliberate selfishness. Men, it
seems, are unwilling tothink they can be outwitted and imposed on
by nature soas to be made to serve her purposes, rather than their
own.Theyre ashamed to be drawn out of themselves in this way,and
forced away from what they regard as their true interest.
There have always been narrow-minded philosophers whohave
thought to set this difference to rights [= to put and endto this
struggle [between man and nature]] by conquering nature
inthemselves. A father and founder among these [Epicurus] sawwell
this power of nature, and he understood it so far thathe urged his
followers not to have children or to serve theircountry. There was
no dealing with nature, it seems, whilethese alluring objects stood
in the way! He saw clearly that
relatives,friends,countrymen,laws,political constitutions,the
beauty of order and government, andthe interests of society and
mankind
were objects that would naturally create stronger affectionsthan
any that were grounded on the narrow base of mere self.So his
advice not to marry or engage at all in the service ofthe public
was wise, and suitable to his design. The onlyway to be truly a
disciple of this philosophy was to leavefamily, friends, country,
and society, and cling to it. . . .
But the modern revivers of this philosophy seem to be of alower
genius. They seem to have understood less of this forceof nature,
and have thought to alter the thing by changinga name. They give an
account of all the social passions andnatural affections that puts
them all in the selfish category.Thus civility, hospitality,
humanity towards strangers orpeople in distress, is only a more
deliberate selfishness.An honest heart is only a more cunning one;
and honestyand good-nature are a more deliberate or
better-regulatedself-love. The love of relative, children and
posterity is purelylove of self and of ones own immediate blood; as
if, bythis calculation all mankind were not included, becausethey
are all of one blood, and joined by inter-marriagesand alliances!.
. . . Thus, love of ones country and love ofmankind must also be
self-love. Magnanimity and courage,no doubt, are also versions of
this universal self-love! Forcourage (says our modern philosopher)
is constant anger.4
And all men (says a witty poet [Lord Rochester] would becowards
if they dared to.
We can accept without argument that the poet and thephilosopher
were both cowards; they may have reported whatthey knew about
themselves. But true courage has so littleto do with anger that the
strongest evidence that someone isnot brave is that he is very
angry. True courage is the cooland calm sort. The bravest of men
have the least of a brutalbullying insolence, and are found to be
the most serene,pleasant, and free in the very time of danger. We
know thatrage can make a coward forget himself and fight. But what
isdone in fury or anger cant be attributed to courage. If thatwere
not so, womankind might claim to be the braver sex,because their
hatred and anger have always been known tobe stronger and more
lasting than mens.
4 Sudden courage, says Hobbes, is anger. Therefore courage
considered as constant and belonging to a character must on his
account be defined asconstant anger or anger constantly
returning.
19
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury III/4
[Shaftesbury writes harshly of still lower writers whouse
word-play and cheap jokes to propagate the idea thatself-interest
is the only basic human motivation. He contin-ues:] If these
gentlemen who delight so much in the play ofwords but shy away from
definitions would simply tell uswhat self-interest is, and pin down
what happiness and goodare, that would put an end to this
enigmatical wit. We will allagree that happiness is to be pursued,
and in fact is alwayssought after; but whether it is to be found
in
following nature, and giving way to common affection,or rather
in
suppressing nature and turning every passion to-wards private
advantage. . . .or the preservation ofmere life,
that is something we could debate about. The question wouldnot
be Who loves himself and who doesnt? but rather Wholoves and serves
himself in the most right and true manner?"
It is the height of wisdom, no doubt, to be rightly selfish[see
Glossary]. And to value life, as far as life is good, belongsas
much to courage as to discretion. But a wretched life isno wise
mans wish. To be without honesty is in effect to bewithout natural
affection or sociableness of any kind. Anda life without natural
affection, friendship, or sociablenesswould be found a wretched one
if it were tried. The valueof self-interest depends on the
intrinsic value and worth ofthese feelings and affections. What
makes a man himself is,more than anything else, his temperament and
the nature ofhis passions and affections. If he loses what is manly
andworthy in these, he is as much lost to himself as when heloses
his memory and understanding. The least step intovillainy or
baseness changes the character and value of alife. Someone who is
willing to preserve his life at any cost isabusing himself more
than anyone else can abuse him. Andif life is not a dear thing
indeed [here = utterly beyond any price],
someone who refused to live as a villain and preferred deathto a
base action was a gainer by the bargain.
Section 4
Its as well for you, my friend, that in your education youhavent
had much to do with the philosophy or the philoso-phers of our
days. A good poet and an honest historiancan provide enough
learning for a gentleman. And when agentleman reads these authors
for pleasure, hell get the feelof them and understand them better
than will a pedant, withall his labours and the aid of his volumes
of commentators.Im aware that it used to be the custom to send the
youthof highest quality to philosophers to be formed. It was
intheir schools, in their company, and by their precepts andexample
that the illustrious pupils became used to hardshipand were
exercised in the severest courses of temperance andself-denial. By
such an early discipline they were equipped
to command others,to maintain their countrys honour in war,to
rule wisely in the state, andto fight against luxury and corruption
in times ofprosperity and peace.
If any of these arts [here = skills] are included in
universitylearning, thats good; but some universities these daysare
shaped in such a way that they seem not to be veryeffective for
these purposes, and not to make a good job ofpreparing the young
for right conduct in the world or soundknowledge of men and things.
If you had been thoroughlyeducated in the ethics or politics of the
schools, I wouldnever have thought of writing a word to you about
commonsense or the love of mankind. I wouldnt have quoted thepoets
dulce & decorum. . . . Our philosophy these days runs
20
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury III/4
along the lines of the able sophister who said Skin for skin:all
that a man has he will give for his life. [This able buttricky
reasoner was Satan addressing God in Job 2:4.] According tosome men
it is orthodox theology and sound philosophy tovalue lives in terms
of the number and exquisiteness of thepleasing sensations they
contain. They constantly set thesesensations in opposition to dry
virtue and honesty. Andupon this basis they see fit to call a fool
anyone who wouldrisk his life for anything, or part with any of
these pleasingsensations unless he could later get them backbe
repaidin the same coinwith interest. So it seems that we are
tolearn virtue through money-lending, and to be wise and livewell
by raising the value of life and of the pleasures of sense!
But you, my friend, are stubborn about this. Instead ofbeing led
to think mournfully of death, or to bewail the lossof anything you
may sometimes have risked by your honesty,you can laugh at such
maxims as these, and be entertainedby the improved selfishness and
philosophical cowardice ofthese fashionable moralists! You wont be
taught to valuelife in terms of their price-scale, or degrade
honesty as theydo who make it only a name. You are convinced that
theressomething more in the thing than fashion or applause;
thatworth and merit are substantial, and dont depend on whatmen
imagine or what they want; and that honour is as muchitself when
acting by itself and unseen as when seen andapplauded by all the
world.
If someone who looked like a gentleman were to ask meWhy should
I avoid being nasty when no-one else is present?,my first thought
would be that someone who could ask thisquestion must himself be a
very nasty gentleman, and thatit would be hard to make him conceive
what true cleanlinessis. Still, I might settle for giving him a
slight answer, sayingBecause you have a nose.
If he pressed on by asking What if I had a cold? or Whatif I
naturally lacked a delicate sense of smell? I might answerthat I
cared as little to see myself nasty as that others shouldsee me in
that condition. But what if it were in the dark?Even then, though I
had neither nose nor eyes, my sense ofthe matter would still be the
same; my nature would rebelat the thought of what was sordid: or if
it didnt, that wouldshow that I had a wretched nature indeed and
hated myselffor being a beast. I could never honour myself while I
had nobetter a sense of what I owed myself, and what was fittingfor
me as a human creature.
In much the same way have heard it asked Why shoulda man be
honest in the dark? I wont say what sort of manwould ask this
question; but I wouldnt much want to knowhim or spend time in his
companyor in the company ofanyone whose best reason for being
honest was his fear ofthe gallows or a jail. . . .
I know very well that many services to the public aredone merely
for the sake of reward; and that informers inparticular are to be
taken care of, and sometimes given statepensions; but let me have
my particular thoughts of thesegentlemens merit. Thinking of all
the people who contributeto solving and prosecuting crimes, I shall
never give myesteem to paid informers, or to anyone but the
voluntarydiscoverers of villainy and the vigorous prosecutors of
theircountrys interests. And in this respect I dont know ofanything
greater or nobler than undertaking and managingan important
accusation through which some high criminalof state, or some
organised body of conspirators against thepublic, can be arraigned
and brought to punishment throughthe honest zeal and public
affection of a private man.
I know that the mere vulgar [see Glossary] of mankindoften need
a correctional object such as the gallows beforetheir eyes. But I
dont believe that any man with a liberal
21
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury IV/1
educationor any man with common honestyever neededto bring this
idea into his mind in order to restrain himselffrom acting as a
knave. And if a saint had no virtueexcept what was raised in him by
the thought of reward
and punishment in the after-life, I dont know whose love
oresteem he might gain, but I would never think him worthy ofmine.
. . .
Part IV
Section 1
I hope you are now convinced that as I am in earnest indefending
raillery so also I can be sober too in the use ofit. [The most
recent occurrence of the word raillery was at the end ofPart II
section 2, but some of the intervening material has had a little
of
the teasing tone that defines it.] It really is hard work
learningto temper and regulate the humour that nature has givenus
so that it works as a more lenitive remedy against vice[see
Glossary] and a kind of specific against superstition andmelancholy
delusion. [In that sentence, the italicised expressionsare medical
terms.] Theres a big difference between trying toraise a laugh from
everything and trying to discover in eachthing what there is that
can fairly be laughed at. For nothingis ridiculous except what is
deformed; and theres no defenceagainst raillery except being
handsome and just. So it wouldbe the hardest thing in the world to
deny fair honesty theuse of this weapon, which can never cut into
honesty itselfand can cut into everything that is contrary to
it.
If we take our lead from the Italian stage-buffoons, wecan learn
from them that in their lowest and most scurrilouskind of wit
theres no better target than the passions ofcowardice and avarice.
No-one in the world could turn
real bravery or generosity into ridicule. A glutton or
meresensualist is as ridiculous as the other two
charactersthecowardly and the money-hungry ones. And
unaffectedtemperance cant be made the subject of contempt by any
butthe grossest and most contemptible of mankind. Now, thesethree
ingredientsbravery, generosity, temperancemakeup a virtuous
character, as the contrary three make upa vicious one. So how can
we possibly make a joke ofhonesty? To laugh both ways is
nonsensical. And if therereally is something ridiculous about
sottishness, avarice,and cowardice, you can see what follows: it
would take athoroughly ridiculous person to muster all his wit to
ridiculewisdom or laugh at honesty or good manners.
A man of thorough good breeding, whatever else hemay be, is
incapable of acting in a crude or brutal [here= animal-like]
manner. He doesnt wonder whether to act insuch a way or consider
the matter by prudential rules ofself-interest and advantage. He
acts from his naturein away necessarilyand without reflection; and
if he didnt,he wouldnt be a well-bred man, not one who could
berelied on to be such in all circumstances. Its the samewith the
honest man: he cant think about whether to act
22
-
Freedom of wit and humour Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury IV/1
in a plainly villainous manner. . . . Anyone who wants toenjoy a
freedom of mind, and to be truly in command ofhimself, must be
above the thought of stooping to anythingvillainous or base. And
anyone who is capable of stooping inthat way must give up the
thought of manliness, resolution,friendship, merit, and a good
character in his own eyesand the eyes of others. To pretend to have
these enjoymentsand advantages together with the privileges of a
licentiousprinciple [see Glossary]to pretend to enjoy society and a
freemind while having a knavish heartis as ridiculous as theconduct
of children who eat their cake and then cry for it.When men begin
to deliberate about dishonesty, find thatthe thought of it doesnt
make them sick, and ask slyly Whyshould I stick at a good piece of
knavery if theres a goodsum to be earned by it?, they should be
told like childrenthat they cant eat their cake and have it.
When men have become accomplished knaves, they arepast crying
for their cake. They know themselves, andmankind knows them. These
are not the ones who areso much envied or admired; we are more
attracted by themoderate kin