Gertrude Himmelfarb the Bentham s Problem

7/28/2019 Gertrude Himmelfarb the Bentham s Problem

1/19

Bentham Scholarship and the Bentham "Problem"Author(s): Gertrude HimmelfarbSource: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 1969), pp. 189-206Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1899321 .

Accessed: 26/04/2011 18:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Modern History.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1899321?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1899321?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/19

ReviewArticlesBentham cholarshipnd theBentham Problem"Gertrude immelfarbBrooklyn ollege,CityUniversityfNew YorkBenthamhas finally,ndubitably, made it." Not as he had hoped to makeit in his own time,as thereformer,ndeed transformer,f society, aw, andphilosophy;nor even as he would seem to have made it now, as the subjectof what is perhaps the most ambitiouspublishingventure of its kind everto be undertaken in England; but rather as historical reputations aremade-by becoming the focus of controversy.The controversyhas al-ready attracted he attention f bibliographers nd commentators, nd onemay be confidentthat before long it, and thus Bentham himself,willreceive the highest ccolade of the profession:not the thirty-eightolumesof collectedworksthatwill represent ver a quarterof a century f collec-tive scholarship,but the slim volume in the Heath series that confersthetitle nd statusof a historical problem."

For it is as a problem thatBentham now engages us, and it is forthelightthatwill be shed upon this problemthatwe will now read this newedition of his collectedworks.' It is difficulto see how else we may readit. Certainlymost of Bentham's writings, n the form in which we al-readyknow them,are unreadable except to the most zealous scholar-andnot always to him. "The bulk of Bentham'swritingshas passed into notunjust oblivion," one editor,in 1890, remarked n introducing ne of thefewworkshe judgedworthy f reprinting.2nd it is unlikely hatthis bulkwill become any more readable in its new, bulkierform.Anyone who hasseentheBenthammanuscriptst University ollege, London,willadmire thecourage and enterprise f ProfessorJ. H. Burns and his associates in thisprojectbut will have no illusionsabout the outcome. The new editionwillbe a monumentto scholarship.It will be as accurate and comprehensiveas Bentham'sappallinghandwritingnd stillmore appallinghabitsof com-positionpermit.But it may well prove to be even less readable than theeleven-volumeedition published withina decade of Bentham's death byhis secretary,John Bowring. To be sure, we shall be spared the doublecolumn, six-pointtype of the old eleven-volumeedition; but are thirty-eightvolumes,howeveragreeable in format, ess forbidding?We shall alsobe spared the iibersetztund verbessertBentham that has been handeddown to us by Bowringand othereditors.But is the prospectof an unre-

1The CorrespondencefJeremyentham, ol. I, 1752-76;Vol. II, 1777-80,ed. Timothy . S. Sprigge"The CollectedWorks fJeremyentham,"d. J.H.Burns;Part I: "Correspondence"London:AthlonePress,1968],pp. xliv+383;xvi+542.2 Jeremyentham, Fragment n Government,d. F. C. Montague reprintof1st d.;Oxford, 891), p. v.


3/19

190 Gertrude immelfarbconstructed entham n entirely appy one-or, rather, f a less recon-structed entham some structuringeingnecessaryf Benthams to be atall readable, r even reproducible,n the printed age)? The primordialBentham, he Bentham f the manuscripts,s a veritable haos of uncom-pleted nd oftenundifferentiatedorks, lternative rafts hatgive no in-dication f preferencer finality,ppendices hatoverwhelmhe text ndmarginaliahat re undistinguishedrom t,outlines hatwerenotfollowed,and an elaboratenumberingystem arying romone draft o another.Any restoration,owever artial, f thisBentham s apt to be pleasing othe cholar utpainful o thegeneral eader.This calculusof pleasure nd pain suggests hatthe present dition smeant o be not read but studied, nd studied n the ight ftheBenthamproblem. r rather roblems. or it is the conjunction f theseproblemsthat s at the heart f the controversy.he first nd mostobviousproblemis ideological: What were Bentham's hilosophical, olitical, nd socialideas?How can Benthamisme definedn relation o such ssues s laissez-faireism nd collectivism,ndividualismnd governmentnterventionism?(The advantage f putting hese questions o baldly s that one can seeimmediately host of others urking ehind ach of these.E.g., whatwasthe connection etweenBentham's hilosophy nd politics?Betweenhispolitical nd social views? BetweenBentham nd Benthamism? etweencollectivismnd governmentnterventionism?)he secondproblem s his-torical:What was the actual,practical nfluence f Bentham nd/orBen-thamism n Englishhistory-the nineteenth-centuryevolutionn govern-ment," he developmentf the welfare tate, he emergence f a plannedsociety, r whatevert is that s presumed o have happened?The thirdproblem whichhas been injected ntothe controversynlyrecently)maybe described s historiographical:ave somehistorians,n addressinghem-selvesto the first wo problems, een guilty f a political ias, notably"Tory nterpretationf history"? ave they denigrated" entham'sdeasand "belittled" is nfluenceut of a distaste or ocial planning, suspicionofideology,nd a belief hat he "historical rocess" perates ndependentlyof men nd deas?If theseproblems re complicatedn themselves,heyare stillmorecomplicateds theyrelateto each other, orthey end themselves o avarietyfpermutationsnd combinations.here re thosewho, nterpretingBentham s a laissez-faireist,ave ascribed o him the largest nfluencein determininghe aissez-faireharacterf mid-Victorianociety.Others,interpretingimas a collectivist,ave ascribed o himthe argestnfluencein introducingollectivismnto mid-Victorianociety.Still othershaveinterpretedimas a laissez-faireistho could not,forthatreason,havehad any influencen the growing ollectivismf the century. nd stillothers ave interpretedim as a collectivisthoseparticulardeology adlittle nfluencen theemergingnstitutions,gencies, dministrativeech-niques, ndstructures.The historiographicalroblems also complicated ytheconfusion e-tweenthe "Tory interpretation,"n the above sense,and the more con-ventionaldea of a "conservativenterpretation"-theatter eing hefamil-iar theory hatconservativesor Tories; the name s of no significancenthiscontext)played crucialpart n the passage of social legislation. he


4/19

Benthamcholarship191"conservativenterpretation,"n this econd ense,generallyalthough otnecessarily) resupposes ome notionof Tory democracy, aternalism,or similardeology,n which ase it maybe presumedobe as unpalatableto the anti-ideologicalTory interpretation"s the Benthamiter anyother deology. uta morefundamentalonfusionnherentn the dea oftheTory interpretations so obviousone is embarrassedo dwellon it:theconfusion etween escriptionnd prescription,etweenhehistorian'sanalysis f the pastand what he is presumedo favor n thepresent-aconfusionompoundedythe factthat t leastsome of the putative oryinterpretersre, s ithappens, otpresent-dayories.I havepointedlyefrained rom dentifyinghehistorians homaybeassociatedwiththevarious heories r interpretationsecausethepresentsummarys so bare and schematics to be almost travestyf what nsome asesare works f exemplarycholarship,houghtfulness,ndsubtlety.Yet the summarymay sufficeo suggest omeof the dimensionsf the"Bentham roblem." ne commentator,eflectingn the factthat hishasbecome hewarmestebate n nineteenth-centurynglish istory,onfessedthathe couldnotunderstandhy he participantsere so exercised, hatit was that was "bugging hem."What is bugging hem,evidently,snothingess than thecharacterf nineteenth-centurynglishhistory,ndperhaps f the twentiethenturys well. deas, deologies,nd institutions;political nd social reforms;egal and administrativeevelopments;herole and relationshipf social classesand economicnterests;hepeculiarconjunctionf revolution,eform,nd permanence;he partplayed byindividuals,actions, arties,nd"historicalrocesses";uestionsfmotive,impulse,nspiration,ausation-allthis ndmore s at stake n thisdebate.All of whichwould also seemto be at stake n the new edition fBentham'sworks. do notknow how muchof thiswas in theminds fthosewho planned hisedition. incemostof thecontroversyevelopedwellafterheplanswerefirstmade, tmaybe that he nitialmpetusamefrom hemere existence f all thoseBenthammanuscripts;hemountainwas climbed ecause t was there. hismayaccountforthe fact hat t isBentham ather hanJohn tuartMill who has been singled ut fortheVIP treatmentppropriateo a Founding ather. The collectedworks fMill are being ssued,withfar ess fanfare, y theUniversityfTorontoPress,underCanadian and American ditors, pon the initiativef anAustrianhen esidentn the United tates,withoutnstitutionalr founda-tion upport,ndwithnoconspicuous elpfrom ngland.Bentham's orks,on theotherhand,have beenelaboratelylanned, mplypublicized,wellstaffed,ndgenerouslyndowed ytheRockefelleroundation,hePilgrimTrust,ndtheBritish cademy.)Yet the editorialccident,f it was that,thathasgiven re-eminenceo Benthamather hanMill has its own ogic.Forwhatevernemaythink f therespectivemportancer merits f thetwo hinkers,heres a sense n whichBenthams more rulyheFoundingFather. s anyonewho haswrittenn Millknows, e cannot e understoodexceptn terms fBentham-andnotonlygenetically,ormatively,ut atevery ointand turningf his life and thought.Mill mayhave refined,corrected,mplified,ventranscendedentham; ut t is onlybyreferencetoBenthamhatwe can appreciatewhathe tried o do, whathe did do,andwhat, erhaps, efinallyailed odo.


5/19

192 Gertrude immelfarbIdeologically,hen,Bentham s of paramountmportance,nd this di-tion must be of paramount nterest.Whatever lues we may get aboutthe substance f his ideas, the quality of his mind, the mode of histhought,mustbe welcome; nd this editionmay be expected o providethem.And if ideologically,hen also historically.o be sure, the moreformidableob of determininghe particular haracter f social, legal,political, dministrative,nd institutionalevelopments ill lie elsewhere.Butonce (or if) these re determined,he ob of relating hem o Benthamand Benthamism ill depend largelyupon the sense of Bentham ndBenthamisrnerived rom his dition.Moreover,t maywell be thatmoredirect istoricalmaterialwillbe forthcomingn such subjects s Bentham'srelations o his contemporariesnd contemporaryffairs,o otherwriters

and men of affairs,o specific cts of legislationnd reform. nd even thehistoriographicalroblemmay be illuminated. he attributionf historicalbias must epend o some extent pon a conception f the "real" Bentham,bias being argely although ot entirely) measure f the departure romreality.It is at thispoint, he determinationf the "real" Bentham, hat nystudyoredition f Bentham uns ntodifficulty.or what s the "real" Bentham?On the mostobvious evel,there s the difficultyf making ense of themanuscripts,r, rather, f making hem coherent s works. f Benthamhimself ould not do this,who are we to attemptt? t was in his ifetime,with his approval,and presumably nder his supervision hatEtienneDumont, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Francis Place, George Grote,SamuelRomilly, dwin Chadwick, outhwood mith, Peregrine ingham,and others aboredto producethe worksthat bear Bentham's ame.Atone time or anotherBentham uarreledwith ome of these and accusedthem f misinterpretingim, ut incehe did notparticularizeisgrievancesand since his acrimony eems to have been more oftenpersonalthanintellectual,t is not easy now to say when or if theydid departfromhismeaning.Moreover, he charges f misinterpretationften omefromBowring, hose estimonys itselfuspect.Of all the editors owrings probablyhe easttrustworthy:is editionof the Workswas issuedafterBentham's eath and gives signsnot onlyof animus gainstBentham's arlier isciples, ditors,nd friends,utalsoof a pointof viewsignificantlyifferentromBentham's n at leastoneimportantubject.A Unitarianngood standing, owring id whathecouldto minimizer omit vidence fBentham'srreligion; owring'sdition ftheDeontology not includedn theWorks) s forthisreasonparticularlyquestionable.ut most fthewritingsncludedn the Workswerereprintedfrom ditions ublishedn Bentham'sifetime. nd in the case of thosepublished orthe first imeby Bowring,t is by no meansclear,as weshallsee,whether is versions moreor lesstrustworthyhan ny we canpresume o putin itsplace.And ifBowring annotbe easily uperseded,still esscanBentham'stherditors.But there re other,more seriousdifficultiesnvolved n discoveringthe "real" Bentham. ven if one knewwhere previous ditor rred, fone had a single, traightforward,efinitive anuscripto transcribe,newould stillhave theproblem f establishingentham's eal identity. nd


6/19

Benthamcholarship193even f one could establish entham'sdeological dentity,t wouldbe rashto assume hatthisconstituted total dentification.or, in fact, t mightturn ut to be a serious istortionf his historicaldentity. istorically,he"real" Benthams not thepristine, nadulterated,boriginal riter evealedin the manuscripts,ut precisely he edited,possibly orrupted,lmostcertainlyimplifiedentham hatwe have alwaysknown. t is thisBentham-Bentham a la Bowring, umont, t al.-who alonecould have exercisedthe nfluencelaimedfor or deniedto him. And not only the political rsocial nfluenceut the ntellectualne as well. For even deologically,hiswas the Benthamknown o his contemporariesnd to later generations.His were the deas to which hey esponded,nd his were the deas trans-mittednder he abelof Benthamism.

This problem f identity-of historic dentityhatis no less realand for some purposes good deal more relevanthan a purifiednd re-constructedne-is generally esolved ditorially ymeans of a variorumedition.t would eem hat hepresent ditors o notrecognize heproblem,or at least do not see it as theirs theywouldprobably ay that t wasthebiographer'sr historian's).n any case, the preface uggests hatwhatis beingplanned s not a variorumditionbut rather "definitive"ne.The edition s intended o be comprehensiven scope as well as definitiventext.All the works ncluded y Bowringnd his associate ditorswillbe included

here (thoughnot always n the same form).Worksomitted r overlookedbyBowring, ut published itherduringBentham'sifetimer sincehis death,willalso be included.To thesewill be added any work, argeor small,whichexistsin reasonably omplete nd coherent orm n themanuscripts,ogether ith nyfragmentsudged by the editors o be of particularnterestnd importance.hestraightforwardolicyofprintingverythingenthamwrote s ruled outbyBen-tham'sown method f working, is constant ehandlingf the samethemes ndreshaping f earliermaterials. ut muchof what he wrote,both in familiar runknownworks,will nowfor thefirst imebe made available n Bentham's u-thentic ords.3In viewof thequalificationsn themiddle ftheparagraph,heopeningand final entences eem overly anguine.What will the new editionbe"definitive"f-definitive f thetexts ublishedn Bentham'sifetimerofone or anotherdraftor manuscript hich can claim no particular e-finitiveness?nd whichof his "authentic ords"willbe made available?The scholar's redilectionormanuscriptss a familiarccupational azard;he is always empted o regard manuscripts moredefinitiver accuratethana printed ext, venthough he lattermayhave been correctednproofor otherwiseanctioned y the writer imself. his is not to deny

thelegitimacy f the interest ttaching o manuscriptsn general nd toBentham'sn particular. hey may suggest ditorialmisrepresentationbutthiswouldhave to be proved); theymay clarify heprinted ext; heymayshow thegenesis, evelopment,r alterationf an idea; at the very eastthey re aestheticallynd psychologicallyleasing no mean considerationfor n editor rbiographer hoseeksa greaterntimacy ithhis subject).But all of thesepurposes an be betteratisfied y a variorum dition hatexposesmanuscriptnd publishedext imultaneouslyhanby the attemptaCorrespondence,, vi.


7/19

194 Gertrude immelfarbto establish single, efinitive,ccurate ext-a "real" textcorrespondingto the"real"Bentham.These reflectionsre promptedy a considerationf theedition s a whole.The two volumespresentlyublished re rather pecial n character ndthereforeaiseproblems f their wn. Thesevolumes, ditedby Sprigge,comprise entham's orrespondencehrough 780-an enterprisef quitea differentrder rom he writingsroper. et even herethere re intima-tions f thewhole.If these olumeswerefairlyepresentativef theedition s a whole, hemagnitudeftheenterpriseouldbe evenmore mpressivehan heeditorssuggest.Thirty-eightolumesare projected or the edition, ix for thecorrespondence.ut thepresent olumes, ontaininglmost 00 letters nd1,000pages,cover onlythefirst hirty-twof Bentham's ighty-fourearsof life; nd theywerehis eastproductivend least controversialears.Onthisscale,will a totalof thirty-eightolumesfor thewholeand six forthecorrespondenceuffice?nothermeasure f magnitudes provided y acomparison ith he Bowringdition. he final wo volumes f that arlieredition actually ne and a third olumes, herestbeing he ndex) containwhatevert s thatuntil owwe have had of Bentham's Memoirsnd Cor-respondence." f these 800 pages,the perioduntil 1780 takes up fewerthanninety ages and includes xactly ne and a halfof the ettersn theSprigge dition. o be sure,biographersnd commentatorsince Bowring(Elie Halevy,Charles verett,avid Baumgardt, aryMack) have printedextracts rom ome of themore importantetters. ut the majority fthem ppearhere for the first ime, nd almost ll of themfor the firsttime n full.On the score of magnitude,hen, ncludinghemagnitudef originalmaterial,hepresent ditions enormouslympressive.et,withoutetract-ingfrom he chievement,nemaybe permittedo registeromemisgivings.It is notpedantryhatmakesone regrethefailure o include,nwhat sotherwisemeticulousescriptionf theprovenancef each etter,nforma-tion aboutpriorpublicationexcept n thoserare nstanceswhere letterwas printedn its entiretyr verynearly ts entirety). ike a variorumedition, uch informationouldprovide he necessary erspectiven thehistoric entham. t would show us what previous,iographersavehadavailableto them,whattheir ense of Benthamwas based on,whatnewmaterialwe shall nowhave to take ntoaccount, nd howwe maynowhavetoalter ur ense fhim.But there s another,more importantroblem, earingnotuponthehistoric entham utupon the "real" one. For the Bowring dition,n-adequate s we have ongsuspectedt tobe and as it has now beenamplydemonstrated,oes neverthelessave certain irtues.t has, notably,ma-terialthatthe Sprigge ditiondoes not have: memoranda atingfromBentham's outh, omeby Benthamhimself,thersby his father bouthisson;andreminiscencesyBenthambouthisyouth,mostderivingromconversationsith owringsomepreciselyated, s ifrecordedyBowringat thetime fthetelling), few ntheform f lettersoBowring.ome ofthereminiscencesrecasualandfragmentary;thersreelaborate,videntlya deliberate xercisen recollection,lmost proxy utobiography.art of


8/19

Benthamcholarship195thismaterials incorporatedn thefootnoteso thepresentolumes, utthereferencesnd quotationsre brief nd, one might lmost ay,grudging.Thereare good reasonsfora certain mount f circumspection,et per-hapsnot sufficienteasonforthedegree f circumspectionxhibited ere.Memorandaand reminiscences,dmittedly,re not correspondence.Yet it is common o include them n the correspondence,n footnotesand appendices f not in thetext, f onlybecausethere s no otherplaceto put hemunless he ditions to nclude n autobiographicalrbiographi-cal volume,which s not the case here). This is especially ruefor theearlyyearsof a subject'sife,whenthere s a paucity f material. omesuchconsiderationsictatedhe nclusion,n thepresent olumes, f lettersthat reneither ynor to but onlyaboutBentham,s wellas a schoolboyessaybyBenthamndan earlywill.It is probablethatthe memoranda nd reminiscences ere used sosparinglyere not becausethey ailed o meet hespecificationsf "corre-spondence"utbecause heywere uspects sources. heoriginal otebookscontaininghememoranda ave disappeared,o we have onlyBowring'sversion f them.And the reminiscencesre doubly uspect, he notoriousfallibilityf a septuagenarianombining ith hepresumptiveallibilityfhis editor.With so much impeccablyrustworthyaterial t hand,thedesireto eliminate aintedmaterial s entirely nderstandable.et his-torical ources re usedeven when hey re tainted r defective,fproperallowances made for heir eficiencies.he question ere s howdefectivethese sourcesare and how theymightproperly e used. And the in-terestinghing hatemergesfromthesevolumes s that whileBowringwas clearly electiven his choiceof material,gnoring hathe thoughtunseemly for example,the storyof Bentham's bortive ourtship,nwhichhe appears n thepresent olumes s somethingess thana hero),Bowring's ailings eem to have been more those of omission han ofcommission.he little verlapping aterialhat heres inthetwoeditionssuggestshatwhileBowringwas not rigorouslyccurate n transcription(punctuation,pelling,nd an occasionalword werealtered),he did notresort o invention,eriousmisquotation,r evenquotation utof context.There has been muchdissatisfactionithhim,butneither erenorany-where lse is there nyevidence o substantiatenythingikethe"fraud"withwhichone biographerhargedhim.4 nstead,whatwe now have is

4MaryMack,Jerenmyentham NewYork,1963),p. 103.The charge f"fraud" asmade nconnectionith he ssay A Short istoryfUtilitarian-ism":"TheessaywasfinallyublishedyJohn owringn theDeontology n1834 s hisown omposition,Historyf theGreatestappinessrinciple.'hisplagiarizedersions somewhatarbled. owringorrowedomeparts irectly;others echangedrom hirdersono directuotes.nthisway hemost amousquotationn thewholeBenthamiteratures a fraud."MissMackthen ives hequotations itappearsnmanuscript:Itwasbythat amphletndthat ageofit that edrew hat hrase,hewordsnd mportfwhich avebyhiswritingsbeen o widely iffusedver he ivilized orld. tsightf t hecried ut, s itwere n an inwardcstasyikeArchimedesn thediscoveryfthefundamentalprinciplesf Hydrostatics,ureka: little idhe think f thecorrection hichwithinhese ewyears na closer crutinye found imselfnderhenecessityofapplyingo it."This s thepassagenot quoted yMissMack) as Bowringhas t: "It wasfrom hat amphletndthat ageof t that drewhephrase,he


9/19

196 Gertrude immelfarbcircumstantialvidence hatBowringmay be more useful, ven in sub-stance more trustworthy,han we had suspected, nd thatwithout hememoranda nd reminiscencese have a less rather hana more"real"Bentham.Let us examine the most striking pisode of Bentham'syouthas wehave it fromBowring, heepisode aboutHelvetius,which s memorableboth for ts personal uality humorless, elf-important,elf-dramatizing)and for ts ideological mplicationsBentham's ntellectualerivationsndaffinities,he crucialdifferenceetween tilitarianismnd laissez-faireism,etc.). Bowring's ersion tartswithBentham t the age of six being pre-sented s a "prodigy" o theheadmasterf Westminsterchooland queriedas to the meaning f theword"genius." he memory fthat mbarrassingoccasion remainedwith him (his father requentlyxposedhim to suchembarrassment),s did thequestionwhichhe had so humiliatinglyailedto answer. inally,whenhewas twenty,elvetius' e l'esprit rovided heanswer, nd with t the discoveryf a calling. Genius,"he found, erivedfrom heverb igno,o produce:'Have I a geniusforanything?Whatcan I produce?'Thatwas thefirstnquiryhemade of himself. hen cameanother: Whatof all earthly ursuitss themostimportant?'egislation, as the answerHelvetius ave. Have I a genius or egis-lation?' Again and againwas thequestionputto himself.He turned t over inhis thoughts: e sought very ymptom e coulddiscover n his naturaldisposi-tionor acquiredhabits. And have I indeeda geniusfor egislation? gave my-selftheanswer, earfullyndtremblingly-Yes!'Bowring hereupon ommented: I have noted this circumstanceownalmost n Bentham'swords, s illustratinghe fact, hatthe pursuits f alifemay be influencedya worddropped arelessly rom nother arty."5In thepresent olumes heepisodefigures rieflyn a footnote n Dr.Markham, heheadmaster fWestminster,hose nameappears n one ofBentham'schoolboyetters. fter he usualbiographical ata and the ex-planation hatBentham robably ent o theschoolbecausehisfather asa friend f theheadmaster,henote continues: At theconference ithDr. Markhambeforehis admission o the schoolBenthamwas humbledby not knowing hemeaning f 'genius.'Henceforwardheword had agreat motionalignificanceorhim,which ulminatedn his discovery tthe age of twentyhathe had a geniusfor legislation." he note thengoes on to relate the later occasionswhen Benthamhad dealingswithwords nd import fwhichhave been so widely iffusedverthecivilizedworld.At thesight f it, I criedout as it were in an inward cstasy, ikeArchimedeson thediscoveryf thefundamentalrinciple fhydrostatics,ureka [in Greek].Littledid I think f thecorrections hichwithin fewyearson a closer crutinyI foundmyself nderthe necessity f applying o it." (Deontology[London,1834], , 300.) The scholarmayfind his transition rom he third erson o thefirst ersonunconscionable,ut surely t is the reverse f plagiarism. nd is itreally o "garbled" s to warrant hechargeof "fraud"? f this s what s meantby fraud, ne's faithn Bowringmight e restored.5The Worksof Jeremy entham, d. JohnBowring London, 1843), X(Memoirs),27.


10/19

,Benthamcholarship197Markham.6 he paraphrase f the episode is unexceptionable-aspara-phrase.But wouldone everguessfromt justhow importantheepisodewas, how greatan emotional s well as intellectualignificancet had?Mightone notmissthosetwosentencesucked wayin the middle f abiographicalootnotebouta minor haracter?f Bentham ad nothap-penedtomention r. Markhamnthat etterit was the only imehe didmention im n the etters rinted ere),or ifthat etter ad happened obe lost,would heepisodehavegoneunmentionedntirely? oreover, hatis the ustificationorrelatingheepisode t all, in thator anyform? t isrelated, ithouteservation,s ifonecould ssumets ruth.There re noneof theusualdisclaimers-"accordingo Bowring,"r thelike.) Does thismeanthat heparaphrases truebutthatno suchcredibilityan attach othe particular ormBowringgave to it? There is some justice n thislast assumption,f that is the assumption: ialogueis alwaysuntrust-worthy. utmaynot thedialogue, ven finaccuratenwording, e moreaccuraten conveyinghe senseand import f an event hana paraphrasethat acrificesense nd mport?It is not here a questionof inventing ialogueto give a speciousdrama ndsignificanceo what nrealityacked hat rama ndsignificance.The dialogue s there, nd is as trustworthy,nd untrustworthy,s suchdialoguenormally as before heage ofthetaperecorder. nd thedramaand significancere also there. t is not too muchto say thattheonesustainingmotif hroughoutentham'songand complicatedife was hisconvictionf the primacy f legislationnd of his own mission s thephilosopher-legislator.nd this merges romBowring's ialogue s it doesnot fromthe paraphrase n the Correspondence. nd elsewheretheCorrespondencetself rovidesonfirmationf theessential acts ontainedin thedialogue.We nowknow,from he ettershemselves,hatBenthamdid readHelvetiust aboutthetimeBowringaidhe did;7thathe reveredabove everyone lse "le divinHelvetius," ce bienfaiteure l'humanite,""le sainttutelaireue j'adore,""monsentier?] et monguide";8 hathebelieved isown"PrinciplesfLegalPolicy" one ofseveralworkingitlesforwhat aterappeared, n part, s An Introductiono thePrinciples fMorals and Legislation) o be "built olelyon thefoundationf utility,laid as it is byHelvetius";9nd thatnotonlytheseprinciplesut the deaof pursuinghem s a careercame fromHelvetius:"From himI gotastandard o measure he relativemportancef the severalpursuits manmight e engagedn: and theresult f itwas that hewayof all others nwhicha man might e of most serviceto his fellowcreatureswas bymakingmprovementn thesciencewhich hadbeenengaged o study yprofession. . . That illustrioushilosopher . . at thesametime hathesuggestedncentives,urnishedme with nstruments,ormaking he at-tempt."'10ven theparticular ramatic orm n whichBowring aststhe

6 Correspondence,, 11.7 bid., II, 99 (Bentham o JohnForster,Apr./May1778). See especially hereferenceso Beccaria'sbook and Catherine's Instructionsora newCode ofLaws,"bothof whichwere ranslatedntoEnglishn 1768.8 bid., , 261 (Bentham o SamuelBentham,ept.25-26, 1775); ibid.,p. 282(Bentham oGodefroi, ct. 1775).9 Ibid.,p. 367 (BenthamoVoltaire,Nov. 1776).10 Ibid., I, 99 (Bentham oForster, pr./May 778).


11/19

198 Gertrude immelfarbepisode has the authentic entham ing.Benthamwas, in fact,his ownbestdramatizer;e owednothingo Bowringn this espect.This lengthynalysis f a single pisodemay appearto be labored ndcarping. t is justified, owever, f it reveals heextent o whichtheap-paratus nd mechanics f scholarship re dependent pon judgments otonly of what is trustworthyut also of whatis significant.nd so farfrombeing carping, t is a testimonyo the importancene attaches othis ormidable ork f scholarship, work hat rom owon willdominateBenthamtudies ndbe a majorhistoricalource.If the present olumes ometimestand n needof supplementationyBowring, hey also, and more often, erve as importantorrectivesoBowring nd, indeed, o otherworkson Bentham. ake, forexample,question elated o theprevious ne. Apart rom elvetius, hatwere he n-fluences cting n Bentham, he sources f his earlyviews?FromBowringone has a clear sense of those influencesnd sources.AfterHelvetius,Joseph riestleyppears s the dominant igure.t was from riestley, eare told repeatedly,hat Bentham ot the phrase "thegreatest appinessof the greatest umber""1-a phrase that appeared n An Essay on theFirst Principles f Government,ublished n 1768. At one point n hisreminiscencesdated 1822) Bentham aid that it was about his "22ndyear" i.e., 1770) thatwith he "sensation f Archimedes" e realized heimport f Priestley'shrase.12 much arlier ecollection,rom common-place book dated 1781 to 1785, is less decisive: "Priestley as the first(unless it was Beccaria) who taughtmy lips to pronounce his sacredtruth: hat the greatest appiness f the greatest umber s the foundationof moralsand legislation.'3 Bowring's ootnote,ncidentally,ccuratelyquotes the relevant entence romBeccaria, ven pointing utthat t wasitalicizedn theoriginal.)Here the Correspondencerovides differenteading f thematerialand, in thiscase, probably moretrustworthyne. For wherewe nowfindrepeated nd fulsome ributes o Helvetius nd Beccaria as inspirersof the principle f utility,he manyreferences o Priestleyre almostalways to his scientific ork,withoccasional mention f his "tables" or"charts" A Chartof Universal istory nd A ChartofBiography).Andeven the three etters xchanged etweenBentham nd Priestleyn No-vember nd December 1774 deal entirely ith "airs" (i.e., gases), acids,and electricity.his is all the more interestingince just at thistimePriestley as employed y Lord Shelburne s librarian,ompanion,ndpolitical dviser.ndeed,one of the few occasionswhenBentham eferredto Priestleyn otherthanthe two contextsmentionedbove was whenhe informedisbrother,n June1780,thatPriestley as aboutto quittheserviceof Shelburne o resumehis scientificesearch.This was severalmonths fterBenthamhimself ad begunto correspondwithShelburneand one month efore helburnemadehis first verture o Bentham; ythe following earShelburnewas to assumea majorrole in Bentham'slife.Yet, for all of this-Priestley'sssociationwith helburne, hichhad

11Bentham, orks, , 46,567.12 Ibid., p. 79-80.is bid.,p. 142.


12/19

BenthamScholarship 199obvious politicaland philosophicalignificance,nd Bentham's ersonalinterestn that ssociation-theres no hintof anythingolitical r philo-sophical nBentham'sontemporaryeferenceso Priestley,ertainlyohintof anythings momentouss the Archimedeaniscoveryf "thegreatesthappiness f the greatest umber," o hint venof thepamphletnwhichthe phrase ccurred. t maywell be that twas Shelburne,ometime fter1781, whoput Bentham n to Priestleynd thatpamphlet, hichmayac-count or hereferencen the ommonplaceook ca. 1781-85) toPriestley(or was it Beccaria?) as theone who firstaught im thesacredphrase.Perhaps henextvolume f correspondenceill tell us more boutthis.In themeantime, hatthe present olumes tronglyuggests that-the aterBentham,owring,nd other iographersotwithstanding-Priest-ley has no rightfullace amongthe earlyoracles.And this, n turn, aslarger mplications.or it directs ur attentionway from the phraseitself nd themany ources n which t might e found, nd obligesus tofocuson themeaning nd context f thephrase n each of those ources.IfBentham,s now seemsprobable, eadHelvetiusnd Beccaria ather hanPriestley,t may well have been because so much in Priestleywas un-congenial-andnot only thePriestleywho was vigorouslyro-Americanduring he 1780's, whenBenthamwas as vigorously nti-American,utalso the Priestleyf the Essay. For there he greatest-happinessrincipleappears s a natural ight uaranteed y the social contract:Men tempo-rarily ave up part of thatright n the form f civil libertywhen theyentered hecontract, ut theyretained heright n the formof politicalliberty, share in politicalpower whichgave themcontrolover theirown happiness.Moreover,Priestley nsisted, he principlemust not beused as an excuse for the interventionf governmentr society; n thecontrary, minimum f interventionnd regulation in the matter feducation, pecifically) as most onducive o the happiness f individualsas well s ofthegreatest umber.Almostevery erm nd turnof thisargument as repellento Ben-tham. That Leslie Stephen, or example,can describePriestley's ssayaccuratelynd at the same timeassertthat Benthamnot only adoptedthephrasefromPriestley ut did so precisely ecause he was in "sub-stantial greement" ithhim,14estifieso a seriousmisunderstandingftheBentham f thistimeand of sometimeto come.On the subjects fnatural ights,ocial contract,nd education, entham ouldnot,thenorat anytime,havebeen more antitheticalo Priestley;nlyon thesubjectofpoliticalibertypolitical ower,nBentham'serms)was helater-fortyyears later-to approximate riestley's osition. f the Correspondencesucceeds n making s skeptical f Priestley'soleinBentham'sntellectualhistory,t may also make us skeptical f the attempt o anticipate rexaggerateentham'sadicalism.The claimsmade for nother racle,FrancisBacon, are seento rest n aneven more tenuousbasis. In one learnedbiography f Bentham, aconappears s themajorformativenfluence,he hiefnspirationorutilitarian-ism-and not in the general ense of affinityr relationship ut in the

14LeslieStephen, istoryfEnglish houghtn the ighteenthenturyNewYork, 962), I, 215-16.


13/19

200 Gertrude immelfarbspecific, iteral, conscious sense of a borrowed or adopted idea.15Yet theevidence cited is either nconclusive n itself or irrelevantbecause it datesfrom a later period when Bentham's philosophywas fully formed. Thefinal proof lies with the Correspondence,and is no less decisive for beingtotally negative. Not everything, o be sure, can be expected to show upin the Correspondence. But an influenceof the magnitude claimed forBacon should surelyreveal itself. Yet these volumes, coveringthe crucialperiod for such an influence, ontainnot a single mention,however fleeting,of Bacon. Helvetius, Beccaria, D'Alembert, Montesquieu, Hume, Locke,Blackstone, Adam Smith, Price, Descartes, Voltaire, and a host of lessernames appear. Only Bacon is missing.It is thefashionto deride discussionsof "influence," nd withgood rea-son. When influence s defined n the general sense of affinityr relation-ship, it all too often reduces itself to a mechanical collating and com-parison of texts;when it is defined n the specific, conscious, and literalsense, it is all too often sterile nd unenlightening.ut the difficultyn bothcases is that the pertinent uestions are not being asked. It would be im-portant to establish the intellectualaffinity f Bacon and Bentham, forexample, f one also established ts exact natureand extent:Did itgo beyonda formalcommitmento the method of induction?Did Bacon and Benthammean the same thing by inductionand use it in the same way? Did themethodologyhave substantivephilosophicaland political implications?Theanswersto such questionswould genuinely ontribute o our understandingof Bentham (and perhapsBacon as well). And equally informativewouldbe a closer inquiryinto the question of influence n its literal,conscioussense. When did Bentham read Bacon? What did he read? What did hemake of him? Did his views change? We cannot expect to have all theanswers to these and all the otherquestionsone could ask. But even partialanswers would be illuminating.And even to be aware of the questionswould discourage the kinds of intellectualpromiscuity,he mindlessinvo-cation of names and phrases,the indiscriminate se of quotation, that toooftendegradethe discussionof influence.When we turnfrom the large, familiarfigures n thehistory f philosophyto Bentham's esser-known eers,we are confrontedwith a more equivocalsituationwhere it is not always clear whether the influence s on or ofBentham.Here, at the pointwhere the ideological and historical problemsmerge, heCorrespondence ecomesmostvaluable.One of these lesser figures ooming large in Bentham's early life isJohn Lind. Lind had made his appearance in Bowring as well, but in adifferent ontext. n the course of a long, rambling etterof reminiscenceaddressed to Bowring,Bentham referred o his part in the composition ofone of Lind's books, Remarks on the Principal Acts of the ThirteenthParliamentof Great Britain, published in 1775.16 Early in this letterBen-tham said thathe had "some small share" in the book, having "touched itup a little n several places";17 but midway in the letter, fter consultingthe book itself,he claimed that Lind had printed as "the plan of the

15 Mack, pp. 13, 113, 129, 141.16 Benthampokeofthebook as A ReviewoftheActs....17 Bentham, Works, , 57.


14/19

BenthamScholarship 201argument"n outlineBentham ad earlierwrittennd had givenhimtouse as he sawfit.18At one pointBentham escribed he outline s "twoorthreepages,"at another s "this page or two of scattered houghts";19printed n its entirety y Bowring t comesto somethingess than 400words.Bentham lso remarked hat Lord Mansfieldhad complimentedLind on thebook. Perhaps t was the writing f thesereminiscencesn1827 thatprompted entham he following ear to includea somewhatdifferentersionf this pisoden a newpreface o A Fragmentn Govern-ment.Here hiscontributiono Lind'sbook was described s a "fewpages,"the"firstection," he"foundation"nd "basis"of thewholework.20 tthesame timeMansfield's art nthe affair rew s he becamethemainobjectof Bentham's rievance; entham ccusedhim of deliberatelymbarkingupon thepolicy f "neglect"hatwas to characterizeheiraterrelations.21The episode s instructiverecisely ecause t is so typical:typical fBentham o inflate is role in the affair; ypical f him to assume thatMansfield ould have beentold of his contribution,r,havingbeen told,would have rememberednd deliberatelygnored t (this at a timewhenBenthamwas entirelynknown); ypical f him to be more ndignanttthis neglect han embarrassed y thecoincidence f his views with hoseof the eminent ory; typical f the way he insisted pon thecoincidenceoftheir iews else wherewouldbe theconspiracyf neglect?),while ubtlyaltering he substance f his earlierviews n order to make themmoreconsonantwithhis later ones. But all of this s evident rom carefulreading of Bowring.What the Correspondenceoes is to restore heoriginal roportionsf this pisodewhilefeaturingindin another pisodehaving uitedifferentmplications.In the Correspondencehisparticular ook of Lind's is referred oonly nce: "I am nowhardatworkwithMr.Lind revising is book. t willbe out of press n about a week."22 utan earlier ookbyLindoccupiedhimat greaterength nd withmoremomentousonsequences. boutsixmonths arlierBenthamhad written long and agitatedetter o Lindabout"theBook." This bookwas a critique yLind ofBlackstone's om-mentariesnd had beengivenbyLind to Bentham orcriticism.With tsbasicviewsBentham ad no quarrel: I havefounduster entimentsn it,that s sentiments orecorrespondento myown (forthat s all that nyman n such casecanmean) than haveyet een nywherenprint."23uthe found tsstyle aulty nd itscompass oo large.To showLind howitmightbetterbe written, e set about rewritingne passage and was"drawn n insensibly"ntilhe foundthathe had a manuscript erhapshalfor two-thirdshelength f Lind's.Havingcome so far,he thenputthe lternativeroposalsoLind:Takewhat havedone,fyouhappenoapprovef t more han fyour wn,goonwithtupon hat lan, onsiderhewhole s your wn,most eartilyillyoube welcome: relse2dly et mego on with t under ournspection,nd

18 Ibid., . 62.19 bid., p.62-63.20 Ibid., I, 247.21 Ibid., . 248.22 Correspondence,,235 BenthamoSamuel entham, ay18, 1775).23 Ibid., .204 BenthamoJohnind, ct. ,1774).


15/19

202 Gertrude immelfarbwith your corrections,nd let profit r loss be equally dividedbetweenus, or3dly if you approveof neither f these, believe shall be tempted o go onwith ton myown accountkeepingt back half a year fyouthink hat nough,that t may nothurtyours, ts parent, o which t will have been so much n-debted. hinknotthat f were oexecute heremainder,hehalfof theprofitndof the reputationf there s any wouldbe more than n strictnesss yourdue: itwould have been ust as impossible or me to have donewhat havedonewith-out the encouragementnd assistance have had fromyou, as foryou to havedone it. In suchcase, if owned to any body, t mustbe spokenof as our jointconcern.24

Perhaps the most extraordinary hing about this letteris that it hasbeen published before, and not once but twice, and yet has made littleimpression. Everett printed t in his biographyof Bentham and again inhis edition of Bentham's A Comment on the Commentaries.But even heminimizedLind's role and maximizedBentham's,suggesting hat Lind him-self might have been "influencedby Bentham" in selecting the subject,praising Benthamfor "generouslyoffering he compositework to Lind forhis own use," and finallypraisingLind, who "saw that his own work wasthat of an apprentice, nd in a spiritas generousas Bentham'sown, seemsto have given up the book to more competenthands."25 ConsideringthatLind was Bentham's senior by eleven years,26had served under two am-bassadors abroad and had been privy councilor to the King of Poland,was a good friendof Lord North and Lord Mansfield,had already hadsome work published,and was, at this time, a person of some reputationand influence in fact, the most influentialperson Bentham knew), thiscondescension to Lind as an "apprentice" yielding to "more competenthands" seems unwarranted. (Lind died in 1781, at which time he wasstill better known than Bentham.) Moreover, if anyone influencedtheselectionof this subject, it was as likely to have been Mansfield,who hadlong been critical of Blackstone. The more recentbiography by Mack iseven more cavalierin dismissing ind. Nothingof Bentham's etter s quoted;Lind is described as "a jovial but disorganized friend who was tryingto make a career as a popular journalist"; Benthamis said to have written"a much more thorough and biting commentaryof his own"; and theaffair s deemed closed when Lind "cheerfully ecognizedits superiority."27It may well be that Bentham'scommentarywas immeasurably uperior,butsince we do not have Lind's, we cannot say so with any confidence.Whatwe do have and ought to take seriously s Bentham's assurance thatLind'swas the "parent" work withoutwhich his could not have been written,that t was indebtedto Lind's for "half of the profit nd of the reputation,"and that twas, finally, heir jointconcern."It was Benthamhimself,however,who soon forgotthat assurance andcreated the alternativeversion that has been perpetuated by his biog-raphers. For, so far fromgivingLind any credit for the Fragmentor forthe largerwork,A Comment on the Commentaries,which togethercon-

24 Ibid., pp.206-7.25 CharlesWarrenEverett, he Educationof Jeremy entham New York,1931), p. 75.20 The CorrespondenceI, 23, 161) givesLind'sdate of birth s 1731in oneplace, 1737 at another; he formers presumably typographicalrror.27 Mack, pp. 186-87.


16/19

Benthamcholarship203stitutedis critique fBlackstone, e never gainreferredo Lind'ssharein either.nstead, n thenewpreface o theFragment f 1828 he con-descendinglyeferredo Lind as thefirst f his "long-robedisciples,"28a remarkhatmayhavebeenthesourceofhisbiographers'ondescension.And at thistime,too, he took the occasionto claimforhimself art-authorshipf Lind'sRemarks. incetheRemarks re totally nrelatedothe themeof the Fragment,t is not farfetchedo see in Bentham'sintrojectionnd inflationfthat pisode he familiar sychologicaltrategyof displacement-theepublicationf theFragmentvokingmemoriesfthecircumstancesnderwhich t had first eenwrittennd thoseguiltymemories eingreplacedby themorecomfortable emory f Lind's in-debtednessohim.

WhattheCorrespondenceevealsforthe first ime s how soon aftertheevent hatstrategyame intooperation.Without heevidence f theCorrespondence,ne might e tempted o dismiss he reconstructionsfthe aterBenthams theamiableweakness f age, a bit of paranoiathatshouldbe charitablygnored.nsteadwe are obliged o confronthefactthat n this, s in so many hings, is life was verymucha pattern. ornotonly, n thisearlyperiod,did he fail to givecredit o Lind when twouldhavebeenmostnatural o do so-when, for example,he includedLindamong hose o whom he nonymousragmentad beenattributed.29But evenearlier,ustbefore heFragmentwas published, henhe mighthave been expected o say some words of thanks o Lind, at least inprivate, e turned he tablesby accusingLind of plagiarizingromhim.In some newspaperetters riticizing ichardPrice, Lind had definedlibertyn thenegative enseas the absenceof restraint.hat definition,Benthamharged,was his own"discovery,"nd he insistedhatwhentheletters erepublished,indgivecredit o "a personwho has notpermittedyou togivehisname" Bentham ouldnotbe namedbecausetheFragmentitselfwas anonymous). t is ironicnow to read Bentham's oncludingremarks:Timewaswhen knewno distinctionf propertyhere ouwereconcerned: hattimeyou have chosenshouldbe at an end. I have stillthe same opinion f yourhonour hat everhad: and to thathonourtrust oryourdoingwhatis necessary,o save mine."30Although indhad, nfact, ignificantlynlarged entham's efinition,indpaidgeneroustributeo Benthamn his pamphlet n Price,withhalfa dozenflatteringreferenceso the Fragment nd to its author s the "veryworthyndingeniousriend" o whomhe was indebtedor he deaof iberty.entham,by contrast,n the first dition f the Fragment,eferredo the authorof theRemarks xactly nce,and thennot by name, s one of thethreewriters(thethersnamed) to have made sometrivial riticismf Black-stone.31

28 Bentham, orks,, 247.29Correspondence,I,102 BenthamoForster,pr./May778).30 Ibid., , 310-1 (BenthamoLind,Mar. 7-28, 776).31Bentham,ragment,. 103.WhenheFragmentascriticizedn theMorn-ingChronicle,indwrote lettern its defensender isown name. n thesecond ditionf theFragment,enthameprintedhe ettersfcriticismnddefense,utagainwithoutakingheopportunityf alludingo Lind'spart nthework.


17/19

204 Gertrude immelfarbThepoint ere snotoneofpriority,ndperhaps ot venof nfluencentheusualsense. n thecase of Lindwhat s interestings notwhether eor Bentham irst ad the idea of such a critique f Blackstone, ut thatbothof themhad the dea moreor less simultaneously.he pointwouldhardly e worthmaking,et alone laboring,were t notthatmostof theliteraturen Benthamwiththenotable xception f Halevy'swork) hasbeen so neglectfulf thecontemporaryontext f Bentham'shought.tis concededthathe mayhave derived hisor thatphraseor idea fromHelvetius, riestley,eccaria,Bacon,or whomever. ut thethrustf thephraseor idea, the practicaluse made of it in subvertinghe accepteddeitiesBlackstone,orexample),underminingacred nstitutionstheEn-glishpenal law), and advancingnew reforms-these re generally e-

gardedas Bentham's nique and revolutionaryontributionso Englishthoughtnd history. ne oftenhas theimpression,nd notonlyfromhismore adulatory iographersthese one can easily discount)but fromsocial and intellectualistorians ho are to someextent ependent ponthebiographers,hatBenthamwas theDavid whosingle-handedlyookontheGoliaths f his time,who alone challenged lackstone,lone exposedthefallacies nd inequities fthe aw,aloneproposed eforms. hisimage,as wehaveseen,was fosteredyBentham imself,otonlyretrospectivelybutfrom hevery eginning-whichswhy tis importanto attend o theEureka episodeswhenhe discoveredhis "genius"and experiencedherevelationfhiscalling.There s no point n discoveringne'sgenius ndhaving herevelationf a calling f all aroundyou there re otherswiththesamegenius nd calling.This is whyLind couldpaygenerousributeto Bentham ut Bentham ould not do the same forLind. It was notthat indregarded imself,s Benthamater laimed, s Bentham'sisciple,butonly hathedidnotregard imselfs the upremeegislator,hephilos-opher-king.The Correspondenceerves s a corrective,herefore,otonlyto Bow-ringand to laterbiographersut to Benthamhimself-andnot onlytothe elderlyBentham f faultymemory nd fancifulllusions ut to theyoungBenthamwhowas creating is ownmyth venas he was living t.It is importanto be remindedy theCorrespondencehattheFragmentwas attributedo thebest egalminds f thetime,ncluding futurehiefjustice, formerordchancellor, nd a formerolicitor eneral, nd thatitwas praisedbysuchpillars f society s LordNorth nd SamuelJohn-son. Benthamhad just cause forpride n all this (and he expressedtfreely).Butby thesametokenhe cannotbe allowedthepretensehathiswas the only or eventhe loudestvoice raisedagainst he establishment.A good part of the establishment,t would seem,was known to bethinkingndsayingmuch he ame hings entham assaying.Otherof Bentham's heories, ooks,and projects an similarly ow,thanks o theCorrespondence,e seen in their roper ontemporaryon-text. t is customary,orexample, o relatehisworkon penallaw to thatof Beccaria.But would t not also be interestingo relate t to suchothercontemporaryvents s thecommitteehat at in Moscowfor evenyearstodrawup a codeof aws?Or theprizeofferedytheSocieteEconomiqueof Bernfor a "Plan of Legislation n CriminalMatters"?Benthamn-tended o submit hePrinciplesfMoralsand Legislationn thiscompeti-


18/19

BenthamScholarship 20f5tion, but could not meet the deadline.) Or the last book written yVoltaire, rix de la justice t de I'humanite, book on the penal aw thatwas inspired y thiscompetitionnd thatBentham imself raised t thetime? Or the news that reached him shortly fterwardshat BenjaminFranklin, 'Alembert, nd otherswere working n a criminal ode forAmerica?The Correspondencean only give us the leads for furtherresearch. ut the eads are provocative. id anythingome of the MoscowCommittee,he Berncompetition,r the Franklin-D'Alembertroject,ndif so do theybear any resemblanceo Bentham'swork?For thatmatter,how does Voltaire's ook comparewithBentham's? gain what s at issueis a matter f history s well as ideology. t is not of much help toknowwhat Benthamwas up to if one does not also know what otherswereup to at the ametime.There smuchmore n theCorrespondencehat ne could, ndthat iog-raphers ssuredly ill,make muchof: Bentham'smanner f dealingwiththe world-oblique, secretive, onspiratorial,uspicious, onvinced hateveryonewas ready to steal his ideas or, alternatively,o ignorethem,andthat nlyby such deviousmeans ould he protect nd advancehimself(to the distress f his more outgoing nd trusting rother, ho had toindulgeJeremy'sancy or nvisible nk or followhis complicatednstruc-tionswhereby would be told X, whichwould thenbe communicatedoB as Y, so thatC wouldbe promptedo do Z-which was whatBenthamwanteddone in the first lace). Or his penchant or schemes, nventions,businesses, ll designed riginally nd primarily or personalprofit ndyet somehow nfused y Benthamwith sense of altruistic ighteousness.(It is intriguingo find o early his urious dentificationf private nter-prise with public reform hat was to be a conspicuous eature f thePanopticon, ven down to a detailed nd explicit efense f the "methodof contract."32) r otherprefigurationsf the laterBentham:neologismsand nomenclatures,recise calculations bout such matters s the dailycost of subsistence,he expression nonsense pon stilts" sed as earlyas1774,and even earlier, t the age of 17, the cultivationf the fey, rch,mannered tyle hat was always to distinguish is letters romhis otherwritings.More importantre the occasionalreferenceso specific oliticalssues-the AmericanRevolution,orexample.Whatis interestingere s notonlytheevidence f his earlyviewsforpurposes f comparison ithhislaterones,but the evidenceof how he himself aterreinterpretedhoseearlyviews.Thus he laterexplainedhis oppositiono the Americans nthegroundshat hey ppealedto the fictionf natural ights ather hanto legitimatealculations f interestnd happiness; he outlinehe drewup forLind's book,he claimed,was based on just such calculations.33Buta reading fthat utline evealsnottheslightesteferenceo interest,happiness, tility,r anycalculation f that ort,his argumenthere eingbased entirely n the issue of sovereignty-the powervested in thecrown."34 ndhis letterst the time xhibit hesamepreoccupation ithlegalrightsndauthority.

32 Correspondence,, 168 BenthamoSamuelBentham,ov.4, 1773).33Bentham,Works, , 63.34 bid.


19/19

206 Gertrude immelfarbFor the mostpart,however, here s little n thesevolumesn thewayof explicit,ubstantivetatementsf ideas. Yet this,whichwould seem to

be cause fordisappointment,ay proveto be one of thevirtues f theCorrespondence.f morewere visible n thesurface,we might e contentto skim t. In historyhe familiarmetaphor oes nothold: thecreamdoesnot necessarilyome to the top. Nor can we depend upon thatcounselof wisdom, he law of diminishingeturns.t is often he obscurefactdredged p from hebottomong after ensiblemenwouldhaveabandonedthesearchthatturns ut to be most significant.nd thesevolumes, re-ciselybecausetheyofferittleof obvious nterest,mayencourage s tolookbeneath ndbeyond he bvious ndfamiliar.This is not to deny thatthere s a largeelement f intellectuallay,evenvanity,nvolvedn such n approach, kind fexhibitionismnmakingsomethingf what at firstight eemsto be little. here s also theveryreal dangerof making omething f nothing, r somethingpurious rinflated. he enterprise as, surely, ts risks.But it also has its rewards.And in this ase the rewardsmay be uncommonlyarge.There s so muchto be foundout about Bentham, nd so much s at stake n our under-standing f him,thatthesmallest eads and cluescontainedn his lettersor in theseveralversions f his worksmay yieldunexpected eturns. hisis trueof all historicalcholarship.f Bentham cholarshipeems at themomentoholdout great romise,t is notonlybecause ofthemagnitudeof thepresent ditorial rojectbut also becauseof themagnitudef theproblemsnvolvedna reconsiderationfBentham ndBenthamism.

Gertrude Himmelfarb the Bentham s Problem

Documents

Transcript of Gertrude Himmelfarb the Bentham s Problem