Bentham Scholarship and the Bentham "Problem" Author(s): Gertrude Himmelfarb Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol.

41, No. 2 (Jun., 1969), pp. 189-206 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable 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 unless you 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 support@jstor.org.

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

Review Articles Bentham Scholarship and theBentham"Problem"

Gertrude Himmelfarb
Brooklyn College,CityUniversity of New York

Bentham has finally, indubitably, "made it." Not as he had hoped to make it in his own time, as the reformer, indeed transformer, of society,law, and philosophy;nor even as he would seem to have made it now, as the subject of what is perhaps the most ambitious publishingventureof its kind ever to be undertaken in England; but rather as historical reputations are made-by becoming the focus of controversy.The controversyhas already attractedthe attentionof bibliographersand commentators, and one may be confidentthat before long it, and thus Bentham himself, will receive the highestaccolade of the profession: not the thirty-eight volumes of collected works that will representover a quarter of a centuryof collective scholarship,but the slim volume in the Heath series that confers the titleand statusof a historical"problem." For it is as a problem that Bentham now engages us, and it is for the light that will be shed upon this problem that we will now read this new edition of his collected works.' It is difficult to see how else we may read it. Certainly most of Bentham's writings,in the form in which we already know them, are unreadable except to the most zealous scholar-and not always to him. "The bulk of Bentham's writingshas passed into not unjust oblivion," one editor, in 1890, remarked in introducingone of the few works he judged worthyof reprinting.2 And it is unlikelythat this bulk will become any more readable in its new, bulkier form. Anyone who has seen the Benthammanuscripts at University College, London, will admirethe courage and enterpriseof Professor J. H. Burns and his associates in this project but will have no illusions about the outcome. The new edition will be a monumentto scholarship. It will be as accurate and comprehensive as Bentham's appalling handwriting and still more appalling habits of composition permit. But it may well prove to be even less readable than the eleven-volume edition published within a decade of Bentham's death by his secretary,John Bowring. To be sure, we shall be spared the double column, six-point type of the old eleven-volume edition; but are thirtyeight volumes, however agreeable in format,less forbidding? We shall also be spared the iibersetzt und verbessertBentham that has been handed down to us by Bowring and other editors. But is the prospect of an unre1 The Correspondence of Jeremy Vol. I, 1752-76; Vol. II, 1777-80, Bentham, L. S. Sprigge("The CollectedWorksof Jeremy ed. Timothy ed. J. H. Bentham," Burns;Part I: "Correspondence" [London: AthlonePress, 1968], pp. xliv+383; xvi+542. 2 Jeremy A Fragment on Government, Bentham, ed. F. C. Montague(reprint of 1sted.; Oxford, 1891), p. v.

190

Gertrude Himmelfarb

constructed Benthaman entirely happy one-or, rather, of a less reconstructed Bentham (some structuring beingnecessary if Bentham is to be at all readable,or even reproducible, on the printed page)? The primordial Bentham, the Bentham of the manuscripts, is a veritable chaos of uncompletedand oftenundifferentiated works, alternative drafts thatgive no indicationof preference or finality, appendices thatoverwhelm the textand marginalia thatare undistinguished from it,outlines thatwerenotfollowed, and an elaboratenumbering system varying fromone draftto another. Any restoration, however partial, of thisBentham is apt to be pleasing to thescholar butpainful to thegeneral reader. editionis This calculusof pleasureand pain suggests thatthe present meantto be not read but studied, and studied in the lightof the Bentham problem. Or rather problems. For it is the conjunction of theseproblems thatis at theheartof thecontroversy. The first and mostobviousproblem is ideological: What were Bentham'sphilosophical, political,and social ideas?How can Benthamism be defined in relation to such issuesas laissezinterventionism? faireism and collectivism, individualism and government (The advantage of putting these questions so baldlyis that one can see immediately a hostof others lurking behindeach of these.E.g., whatwas the connection betweenBentham's philosophy and politics?Betweenhis politicaland social views?BetweenBenthamand Benthamism? Between collectivism and government interventionism?) The secondproblem is historical:What was the actual,practical influence of Bentham and/orBenthamism on Englishhistory-the "nineteenth-century revolution in government,"the development of the welfare state,the emergence of a planned society, or whatever it is thatis presumed to have happened?The third problem(whichhas been injected intothe controversy onlyrecently) may be described as historiographical: Have somehistorians, in addressing thema selvesto the first two problems, been guilty of a politicalbias, notably ideas Have they"denigrated" "Tory interpretation of history"? Bentham's and "belittled" his influence out of a distaste forsocial planning, a suspicion of ideology, and a belief thatthe"historical process" operates independently of menand ideas? are complicated in themselves, If theseproblems theyare still more to a as theyrelateto each other,for theylend themselves complicated and combinations. Thereare thosewho,interpreting of permutations variety have ascribedto him the largestinfluence Benthamas a laissez-faireist, character of mid-Victorian the laissez-faire in determining society. Others, have ascribed to himthelargest himas a collectivist, influence interpreting collectivism into mid-Victorian in introducing society.Still othershave who could not, for thatreason,have him as a laissez-faireist interpreted on the growing collectivism of the century. And still had any influence him as a collectivist whoseparticular others have interpreted had ideology on the emerging littleinfluence techinstitutions, agencies,administrative niques,and structures. is also complicated The historiographical problem by the confusion bein the above sense,and the more contweenthe "Tory interpretation," ventional idea of a "conservative latter interpretation"-the beingthefamiliar theory thatconservatives (or Tories; the name is of no significance in thiscontext)playeda crucialpartin thepassageof social legislation. The

Bentham Scholarship 191

not (although in thissecondsense,generally interpretation," "conservative paternalism, some notion of Tory democracy, necessarily)presupposes to be as unpalatable in whichcase it maybe presumed or similar ideology, or any as the Benthamite "Tory interpretation" to the anti-ideological in the idea of inherent confusion But a morefundamental otherideology. to dwell on it: is so obviousone is embarrassed the Tory interpretation the historian's between and prescription, description between theconfusion to favorin the present-a analysisof the past and what he is presumed Tory by the factthatat least some of the putative compounded confusion Tories. notpresent-day are,as ithappens, interpreters who maybe the historians refrained fromidentifying I have pointedly because the present or interpretations withthe varioustheories associated of what in as to be almosta travesty is so bare and schematic summary and subtlety. thoughtfulness, scholarship, of exemplary somecases are works of the some of the dimensions to suggest may suffice Yet the summary on the factthatthishas reflecting One commentator, problem." "Bentham confessed English history, debatein nineteenth-century becomethewarmest what wereso exercised, whytheparticipants thathe could not understand is it was that was "buggingthem." What is buggingthem,evidently, and Englishhistory, of nineteenth-century less thanthe character nothing and institutions; century as well. Ideas, ideologies, of thetwentieth perhaps the legal and administrative developments; politicaland social reforms; the peculiar of social classesand economicinterests; role and relationship the part played by and permanence; of revolution, conjunction reform, of motive, questions processes"; and "historical factions, parties, individuals, causation-all thisand moreis at stakein thisdebate. inspiration, impulse, All of whichwould also seem to be at stake in the new editionof works.I do not knowhow muchof thiswas in the mindsof Bentham's developed thosewho plannedthis edition.Since most of the controversy came impetus made,it maybe thattheinitial wellafter theplanswerefirst the mountain manuscripts; of all thoseBentham fromthe mereexistence This may accountforthe factthatit is was climbed because it was there. Bentham than JohnStuartMill who has been singledout for the rather Father.(The collected worksof to a Founding VIP treatment appropriate of Toronto by the University Mill are beingissued,withfar less fanfare, of an upon the initiative Press,under Canadian and Americaneditors, without institutional or foundain theUnitedStates, thenresident Austrian Bentham's works, and withno conspicuous England. helpfrom tionsupport, well planned,amplypublicized, on the otherhand,have been elaborately thePilgrim endowed Foundation, by theRockefeller and generously staffed, if it was that, and the British Academy.)Yet theeditorial accident, Trust, to Bentham rather thanMill has its own logic. that has givenpre-eminence of the or merits of the respective one maythink importance For whatever is moretruly theFounding is a sensein whichBentham there twothinkers, on Mill knows, he cannotbe understood whohas written As anyone Father. but at of Bentham-and not onlygenetically, formatively, in terms except Mill may have refined, of his life and thought. every pointand turning but it is onlyby reference Bentham; eventranscended amplified, corrected, whathe triedto do, whathe did do, thatwe can appreciate to Bentham failed he finally to do. andwhat, perhaps,

192 Gertrude Himmelfarb

Ideologically, then,Bentham is of paramount importance, and thisedition must be of paramount interest. Whatever clues we may get about the substanceof his ideas, the quality of his mind, the mode of his thought, mustbe welcome;and this editionmay be expectedto provide them.And if ideologically, then also historically. To be sure, the more formidable job of determining the particular characterof social, legal, political, administrative, and institutional developments will lie elsewhere. But once (or if) theseare determined, thejob of relating themto Bentham and Benthamism will depend largelyupon the sense of Benthamand derived from thisedition. Moreover, it maywell be thatmore Benthamisrn direct historical material willbe forthcoming on suchsubjects as Bentham's relations to his contemporaries and contemporary affairs, to otherwriters and menof affairs, to specific acts of legislation and reform. And even the historiographical problem may be illuminated. The attribution of historical bias mustdependto someextent upon a conception of the"real" Bentham, bias beinglargely (although not entirely) a measure of the departure from reality. It is at thispoint, thedetermination of the "real" Bentham, thatany study or edition of Bentham runsintodifficulty. For whatis the"real" Bentham? On the mostobviouslevel,thereis the difficulty of makingsense of the manuscripts, or, rather, of makingthemcoherent as works.If Bentham himself could not do this,who are we to attempt it? It was in his lifetime, with his approval,and presumably under his supervision that Etienne Dumont,James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Francis Place, George Grote, Samuel Romilly, Edwin Chadwick, Southwood Smith, Peregrine Bingham, and otherslaboredto producethe worksthat bear Bentham's name. At one timeor another Benthamquarreled withsome of theseand accused them of misinterpreting him,butsincehe did notparticularize his grievances and since his acrimony seems to have been more oftenpersonalthan intellectual, it is not easy now to say when or if theydid departfrom his meaning. Moreover, the chargesof misinterpretation oftencome from Bowring, whosetestimony is itself suspect. Of all the editors is probably theleast trustworthy: Bowring his edition of the Workswas issued afterBentham's death and gives signsnot only Bentham's earlierdisciples, and friends, but also of animusagainst editors, different fromBentham's of a pointof view significantly on at least one A Unitarian in good standing, did whathe could important subject. Bowring edition or omitevidenceof Bentham's to minimize irreligion; Bowring's of in the Works)is forthisreasonparticularly the Deontology (not included included in the Works But mostof thewritings werereprinted questionable. in Bentham's lifetime. And in the case of those fromeditions published timeby Bowring, for the first it is by no means clear, as we published his version is moreor less trustworthy shall see, whether thanany we can cannotbe easilysuperseded, presume to put in its place. And if Bowring editors. other still lesscan Bentham's involvedin discovering But thereare other,more serious difficulties editorerred,if Even if one knewwherea previous the "real" Bentham. to transcribe, definitive one had a single,straightforward, one manuscript real identity. Bentham's of establishing would stillhave the problem And

Bentham Scholarship 193

evenif one could establish Bentham's ideological identity, it wouldbe rash to assumethatthisconstituted a totalidentification. For, in fact,it might the turn out to be a seriousdistortion of his historical identity. Historically, "real"Bentham is notthepristine, unadulterated, aboriginal writer revealed in the manuscripts, but precisely the edited,possiblycorrupted, almost certainly simplified Bentham thatwe have alwaysknown. It is thisBentham -Bentham a la Bowring, Dumont,et al.-who alone could have exercised the influence claimedfor or deniedto him.And not onlythe political or social influence but the intellectual one as well. For even ideologically, this was the Bentham knownto his contemporaries and to later generations. His werethe ideas to whichtheyresponded, and his were the ideas transmitted under thelabelofBenthamism. This problemof identity-ofa historic identity that is no less real and forsome purposes a good deal morerelevant thana purified and reconstructed one-is generally resolved editorially by meansof a variorum edition. It wouldseemthatthepresent editors do notrecognize theproblem, or at least do not see it as theirs(theywould probably say that it was thebiographer's or historian's). In any case, the preface suggests thatwhat is beingplannedis not a variorum editionbut rathera "definitive" one.
in scope as well as definitive to be comprehensive The editionis intended in will be included and his associateeditors text.All theworksincludedby Bowring or overlookedby here (thoughnot always in the same form). Works omitted lifetime or since his death,will Bowring, but publishedeitherduringBentham's also be included.To thesewill be added any work,large or small,whichexists withany formin the manuscripts, in reasonably completeand coherent together and importance. The interest fragments judgedby the editorsto be of particular Bentham wroteis ruledout by Benstraightforward policyof printing everything of the same themesand his constant tham'sown methodof working, rehandling or of earliermaterials. But much of what he wrote,both in familiar reshaping autimebe made available in Bentham's unknown works,will now for the first thentic words.3

In viewof thequalifications theopening in themiddleof theparagraph, and finalsentences seem overlysanguine.What will the new editionbe "definitive" or of of-definitive of thetexts published in Bentham's lifetime one or anotherdraftor manuscript which can claim no particular definitiveness? And whichof his "authentic words"will be made available? The scholar's predilection formanuscripts is a familiar occupational hazard; he is alwaystempted to regard a manuscript as moredefinitive or accurate in than a printed text,even thoughthe lattermay have been corrected proofor otherwise sanctioned by the writer himself. This is not to deny the legitimacy of the interest attaching to manuscripts in generaland to Bentham's in particular. They may suggest editorial misrepresentation (but thiswouldhave to be proved); theymayclarify theprinted text;theymay show the genesis, development, or alteration of an idea; at the veryleast theyare aesthetically and psychologically pleasing(no mean consideration foran editor or biographer who seeksa greater intimacy withhis subject). But all of thesepurposes can be better satisfied by a variorum edition that and published textsimultaneously exposesmanuscript thanby the attempt a Correspondence, I, vi.

194

Gertrude Himmelfarb

accuratetext-a "real" textcorresponding a single,definitive, to establish to the"real"Bentham. as a whole. of theedition by a consideration are prompted Thesereflections and special in character published are rather The two volumespresently editedby Sprigge, of theirown. These volumes, therefore raise problems of quite 1780-an enterprise through correspondence comprise Bentham's Yet evenherethereare intimaproper. a different orderfromthewritings tionsof thewhole. as a whole,the of theedition If thesevolumes representative werefairly thantheeditors wouldbe evenmoreimpressive magnitude of theenterprise volumesare projectedfor the edition,six for the suggest.Thirty-eight and almost400 letters volumes, containing But thepresent correspondence. of Bentham's eighty-four thirty-two years 1,000 pages,coveronlythe first years.On and leastcontroversial werehis leastproductive of life;and they this scale, will a total of thirty-eight volumesfor the whole and six for is provided by a of magnitude thecorrespondence Another measure suffice? of thatearlier edition. The finaltwovolumes withtheBowring comparison volumes, therestbeingtheindex) contain one and a third edition(actually and Cor"Memoirs now we havehad of Bentham's whatever it is thatuntil Of these 800 pages, the perioduntil 1780 takes up fewer respondence." in the exactly one and a halfof the letters pages and includes thanninety since Bowring and commentators To be sure,biographers Sprigge edition. MaryMack) haveprinted David Baumgardt, (Elie Halevy,CharlesEverett, of letters. But the majority extracts fromsome of the more important time,and almostall of themfor the first themappear here for the first timein full. the magnitude of original On the score of magnitude, then,including detractimpressive. Yet, without is enormously edition material, thepresent somemisgivings. to register one maybe permitted ingfrom theachievement, in whatis the failure thatmakesone regret to include, It is not pedantry of theprovenance ofeach letter, a meticulous informaotherwise description wherea letter tion about priorpublication (exceptin thoserare instances Like a variorum or verynearlyits entirety). in its entirety was printed on the perspective such information would providethe necessary edition, have had biographers historic Bentham. It would show us what previous, was based on, whatnew availableto them, what theirsense of Bentham material we shall now have to take into account,and how we may now haveto alter oursenseofhim. more important But thereis another, bearingnot upon the problem, inedition, but upon the "real" one. For the Bowring historic Bentham it to be and as it has now been amply adequateas we have longsuspected have certainvirtues. maIt has, notably, does nevertheless demonstrated, datingfrom terialthat the Spriggeeditiondoes not have: memoranda othersby his fatherabout Bentham's youth,some by Benthamhimself, from mostderiving abouthis youth, his son; and reminiscences by Bentham as ifrecorded byBowring conversations with (someprecisely Bowring dated, to Bowring. Some of of letters a fewin theform at thetimeof thetelling), are elaborate, others evidently thereminiscences are casualand fragmentary; Part of in recollection, almosta proxyautobiography. a deliberate exercise

Bentham Scholarship 195

thismaterial is incorporated in thefootnotes to thepresent volumes, butthe references and quotations are briefand, one might almostsay, grudging. There are good reasonsfor a certainamountof circumspection, yet perhaps not sufficient reasonforthe degreeof circumspection exhibited here. Memorandaand reminiscences, admittedly, are not correspondence. Yet it is commonto includethem in the correspondence, in footnotes and appendices if not in the text,if onlybecause thereis no otherplace to putthem (unlesstheedition is to include an autobiographical or biographical volume,whichis not the case here). This is especiallytrue for the earlyyearsof a subject'slife,whenthereis a paucityof material. Some suchconsiderations dictated the inclusion, in thepresent of letters volumes, thatare neither by nor to but onlyaboutBentham, as well as a schoolboy essaybyBentham and an early will. It is probablethat the memoranda were used so and reminiscences herenot becausetheyfailedto meetthe specifications of "corresparingly butbecausethey weresuspect as sources. The original spondence" notebooks the memoranda containing have disappeared, so we have only Bowring's version of them.And the reminiscences are doublysuspect, the notorious of a septuagenarian withthe presumptive fallibility combining of fallibility his editor.With so much impeccably materialat hand, the trustworthy taintedmaterialis entirely desire to eliminate Yet hisunderstandable. toricalsourcesare used even whentheyare tainted or defective, if proper allowanceis made fortheir deficiencies. The question hereis how defective be used. And the inthese sources are and how they mightproperly teresting thingthat emergesfromthese volumesis that while Bowring in his choice of material, was clearlyselective what he thought ignoring unseemly(for example,the storyof Bentham'sabortivecourtship, in whichhe appearsin the present volumesas something less thana hero), Bowring'sfailingsseem to have been more those of omissionthan of The little material thatthereis in thetwo editions commission. overlapping was not rigorously that while Bowring accuratein transcription suggests and an occasionalword were altered),he did not (punctuation, spelling, seriousmisquotation, or even quotation resort to invention, out of context. withhim,but neither There has been muchdissatisfaction here nor anywhereelse is thereany evidenceto substantiate like the "fraud" anything withwhichone biographer chargedhim.4Instead,what we now have is
Bentham(New York,1963), p. 103. The charge 4MaryMack,Jerenmy of with theessay"A Short was madein connection "fraud" of UtilitarianHistory ism": "The essaywas finally in theDeontologyin published by John Bowring of theGreatest 1834as hisowncomposition, 'History This Happiness Principle.' is somewhat version borrowed plagiarized someparts garbled. Bowring directly; from third to direct he changed In this others person quotes. famous waythemost Bentham literature is a fraud." in thewhole MissMackthen quotation gives the in manuscript: "It wasbythat as it appears quotation andthat pamphlet pageof thewords and import it that he drew that of which havebyhiswritings phrase, overthecivilized diffused world. beenso widely At sight of it he cried out,as it likeArchimedes on thediscovery werein an inward of thefundamental ecstasy of Hydrostatics, Eureka: little did he think of the correction principles which on a closer he found within these fewyears himself under scrutiny thenecessity of applying to it."Thisis thepassage(notquoted by MissMack) as Bowring that andthat hasit: "It wasfrom I drew pamphlet pageof itthat thephrase, the

196

Gertrude Himmelfarb

circumstantial evidencethat Bowringmay be more useful,even in subthe than we had suspected, and that without stance more trustworthy, we have a less rather than a more "real" memoranda and reminiscences Bentham. episode of Bentham'syouth as we Let us examine the most striking have it fromBowring, whichis memorable the episode about Helvetius, self-dramatizing) self-important, both for its personalquality(humorless, derivations and (Bentham's intellectual and forits ideological implications between utilitarianism and laissez-faireism, affinities, the crucialdifference withBentham at the age of six beingpreetc.). Bowring's versionstarts of Westminster School and queried sented as a "prodigy" to theheadmaster The memory of thatembarrassing as to themeaning of theword"genius." frequently exposed him to such occasion remained withhim (his father failed embarrassment), as did the questionwhichhe had so humiliatingly provided the De l'esprit to answer. Finally, whenhe was twenty, Helvetius' derived of a calling."Genius,"he found, answer, and withit the discovery from theverbgigno, to produce:
What can I produce?'That was the first inquiry 'Have I a geniusfor anything? is the most pursuits he made of himself. Then came another:'Whatof all earthly important?' Legislation, was the answerHelvetiusgave. 'Have I a geniusforlegisHe turnedit over in lation?'Again and again was the questionput to himself. he could discoverin his naturaldisposihis thoughts: he soughteverysymptom I gave mytion or acquiredhabits.'And have I indeeda geniusforlegislation? selftheanswer, and tremblingly-Yes!' fearfully

down Bowringthereupon commented:"I have noted this circumstance of a the fact,thatthe pursuits almostin Bentham's words,as illustrating party."5 lifemaybe influenced fromanother by a worddroppedcarelessly in a footnote the episodefigures on Dr. In the present volumes briefly whosename appearsin one of of Westminster, Markham, the headmaster Afterthe usual biographical data and the exBentham's letters. schoolboy wentto theschoolbecausehis father was thatBentham planation probably the note continues:"At the conference with a friend of the headmaster, to the school Bentham was humbled Dr. Markhambeforehis admission the word had a the meaningof 'genius.'Henceforward by not knowing forhim,whichculminated in his discovery at greatemotional significance that he had a geniusfor legislation." The note then the age of twenty goes on to relate the later occasions when Benthamhad dealingswith
of whichhave been so widelydiffused over thecivilizedworld. wordsand import At the sightof it, I cried out as it were in an inwardecstasy,like Archimedes of hydrostatics, of the fundamental Eureka [in Greek]. on the discovery principle whichwithin a fewyearson a closerscrutiny of the corrections Littledid I think of applyingto it." (Deontology [London, I found myselfunder the necessity fromthe third personto the 1834], I, 300.) The scholarmay findthistransition but surelyit is the reverseof plagiarism. first And is it personunconscionable, the chargeof "fraud"?If thisis whatis meant reallyso "garbled"as to warrant in Bowring be restored. one's faith might by fraud, 5 The Works of Jeremy Bentham,ed. John Bowring (London, 1843), X (Memoirs), 27.

,Bentham Scholarship 197

Markham.6 The paraphraseof the episode is unexceptionable-asparaphrase.But would one ever guess fromit just how important the episode was, how great an emotionalas well as intellectual significance it had? Mightone not miss thosetwo sentences tuckedaway in the middleof a biographical footnote about a minorcharacter? If Bentham had not happenedto mention Dr. Markham in thatletter (it was the onlytimehe did mention him in the letters printed here), or if thatletter had happenedto be lost,wouldtheepisodehave goneunmentioned entirely? what Moreover, is thejustification forrelating the episodeat all, in thator any form? It is related, without reservation, as ifone couldassumeitstruth. (Thereare none of the usual disclaimers-"according to Bowring," or the like.) Does this meanthattheparaphrase is truebut thatno such credibility can attachto the particular formBowringgave to it? There is some justice in this last assumption, if that is the assumption:dialogue is always untrustworthy. But may not the dialogue, even if inaccurate in wording, be more accuratein conveying the sense and import of an eventthana paraphrase that sacrifices senseand import? It is not here a questionof inventing dialogue to give a specious dramaand significance to whatin reality lackedthatdramaand significance. The dialogueis there,and is as trustworthy, and untrustworthy, as such dialoguenormally was beforetheage of thetape recorder. And the drama and significance are also there.It is not too much to say that the one sustaining motifthroughout Bentham's long and complicated life was his conviction of the primacyof legislation and of his own missionas the philosopher-legislator. And thisemerges from Bowring's dialogueas it does not from the paraphrasein the Correspondence. And elsewherethe Correspondence itself provides confirmation of theessential factscontained in the dialogue.We now know,fromthe letters themselves, thatBentham did read Helvetius at aboutthe timeBowring said he did;7thathe revered above everyone else "le divin Helvetius," "ce bienfaiteur de l'humanite," "le sainttutelaire que j'adore," "mon sentier [?] et mon guide";8thathe believed his own "Principles of Legal Policy"(one of severalworking titles for what laterappeared,in part,as An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)to be "builtsolelyon the foundation of utility, laid as it is by Helvetius";9 and thatnot onlytheseprinciples but the idea of pursuing themas a careercame fromHelvetius:"From him I got a standard to measurethe relative of the severalpursuits importance a man be engagedin: and theresult might of it was thattheway of all others in which a man mightbe of most serviceto his fellowcreatures was by in the sciencewhichI had been engagedto study making improvement by profession. . . . That illustrious philosopher . . . at the same timethathe furnished me with instruments, suggested incentives, for makingthe atEven the particular dramatic formin whichBowringcasts the tempt."'10
Correspondence, I, 11. 7 Ibid., II, 99 (Benthamto JohnForster, Apr./May1778). See especially the to Beccaria's book and Catherine's references "Instructions for a new Code of weretranslated intoEnglish Laws," bothof which in 1768. 8 Ibid., I, 261 (Benthamto Samuel Bentham, Sept. 25-26, 1775); ibid.,p. 282 to Godefroi, Oct. 1775). (Bentham to Voltaire, 9 Ibid.,p. 367 (Bentham Nov. 1776). 10 Ibid.,II, 99 (Bentham to Forster, Apr./May1778).
6

198 Gertrude Himmelfarb

episode has the authentic Benthamring.Bentham was, in fact,his own bestdramatizer; he owednothing to Bowring in this respect. This lengthy analysis of a singleepisodemay appearto be laboredand to whichthe apcarping. It is justified, however, if it revealsthe extent not paratusand mechanics of scholarship are dependent upon judgments And so far only of what is trustworthy but also of what is significant. one attachesto frombeing carping, it is a testimony to the importance nowon willdominate thisformidable workof scholarship, a workthatfrom Bentham studies andbe a majorhistorical source. If the present standin need of supplementation volumessometimes by to correctives Bowring, they also, and more often,serve as important Bowringand, indeed,to otherworkson Bentham. Take, for example,a whatweretheinquestion related to theprevious one.Apartfrom Helvetius, fluences actingon Bentham, the sourcesof his earlyviews?From Bowring one has a clear sense of those influences and sources.AfterHelvetius, Joseph Priestley appearsas the dominant figure. It was fromPriestley, we are told repeatedly, thatBenthamgot the phrase"the greatest happiness of the greatest number""1-a phrase that appeared in An Essay on the First Principles of Government, published in 1768. At one point in his reminiscences (dated 1822) Benthamsaid that it was about his "22nd year" (i.e., 1770) thatwiththe "sensation of Archimedes" he realizedthe import of Priestley's phrase.12 A muchearlier recollection, from a commonplace book dated 1781 to 1785, is less decisive: "Priestley was the first (unless it was Beccaria) who taughtmy lips to pronouncethis sacred truth: That thegreatest happiness of the greatest number is thefoundation of moralsand legislation.'3 (Bowring's footnote, incidentally, accurately quotes the relevant sentence fromBeccaria,even pointing out thatit was italicized in theoriginal.) Here the Correspondence providesa different readingof the material one. For wherewe now and, in this case, probablya more trustworthy findrepeatedand fulsometributes to Helvetiusand Beccaria as inspirers to Priestley are almost of the principle of utility, the many references of his "tables"or alwaysto his scientific work,withoccasionalmention and A Chartof Biography). "charts"(A Chartof Universal History And betweenBenthamand Priestley in Noeven the threeletters exchanged with"airs" (i.e., gases), acids, vemberand December1774 deal entirely since just at this time This is all the more interesting and electricity. as librarian, was employed Priestley by Lord Shelburne and companion, adviser. political Indeed,one of the few occasionswhenBentham referred in otherthan the two contexts mentioned to Priestley above was when in June1780, thatPriestley his brother, was aboutto quitthe he informed to resumehis scientific serviceof Shelburne research.This was several had begun to correspond monthsafterBenthamhimself with Shelburne made his first beforeShelburne overture to Bentham; and one month by was to assume a major role in Bentham's the following year Shelburne life.Yet, forall of this-Priestley's association withShelburne, whichhad
11 Bentham, Works, X, 46,567.
12 Ibid., pp.79-80.

isIbid.,p. 142.

BenthamScholarship 199 and Bentham'spersonal significance, obvious politicaland philosophical political or philois no hintof anything interest in thatassociation-there no hint certainly to Priestley, references contemporary sophical in Bentham's of "the greatest discovery as the Archimedean as momentous of anything in which no hinteven of the pamphlet number," happiness of the greatest sometime after the phraseoccurred. It maywell be thatit was Shelburne, whichmayacand thatpamphlet, on to Priestley 1781, who put Bentham book (ca. 1781-85) to Priestley in thecommonplace countforthereference taught him the sacredphrase. (or was it Beccaria?) as the one who first willtellus moreaboutthis. Perhapsthe nextvolumeof correspondence is thatsuggest In the meantime, volumesstrongly what the present notwithstanding-Priestand other biographers Bowring, thelaterBentham, has place amongthe earlyoracles.And this,in turn, ley has no rightful away fromthe phrase For it directsour attention largerimplications. and obligesus to be found, itself and the manysourcesin whichit might of the phrasein each of thosesources. and context focuson the meaning than and Beccariarather readHelvetius If Bentham, as nowseemsprobable, was unPriestley, it may well have been because so much in Priestley pro-American who was vigorously congenial-and not only the Priestley but anti-American, duringthe 1780's, when Benthamwas as vigorously principle of the Essay. For therethe greatest-happiness also the Priestley Men tempoguaranteed by the social contract: right appearsas a natural when they rarilygave up part of thatrightin the formof civil liberty in the formof political the right but theyretained entered the contract, liberty, a share in politicalpower which gave them controlover their the principlemust not be insisted, own happiness.Moreover,Priestley or society;on the used as an excuse for the intervention of government (in the matterof and regulation of intervention contrary, a minimum of individuals to the happiness was mostconducive education, specifically) number. as wellas of thegreatest was repellent to BenAlmosteverytermand turnof this argument Essay tham. That Leslie Stephen,for example,can describePriestley's and at the same time assertthat Benthamnot only adopted accurately but did so precisely because he was in "subthe phrasefromPriestley testifies to a seriousmisunderstanding withhim,14 of stantialagreement" of thistimeand of some timeto come. On the subjectsof the Bentham and education, Bentham could not,thenor social contract, naturalrights, to Priestley; onlyon the subject at any time,have been moreantithetical in Bentham's terms)was he later-forty power, of political liberty (political position.If the Correspondence Priestley's years later-to approximate intellectual of Priestley's role in Bentham's us skeptical succeedsin making or to anticipate it may also make us skepticalof the attempt history, radicalism. Bentham's exaggerate oracle,FrancisBacon, are seen to reston an The claimsmade foranother even more tenuousbasis. In one learnedbiography Bacon of Bentham, thechiefinspiration forutilitarianinfluence, appearsas themajorformative or relationship but in the ism-and not in the generalsense of affinity in theEighteenth 14LeslieStephen, Century Thought (New ofEnglish History York, 1962),II, 215-16.

200

Gertrude Himmelfarb

specific,literal, conscious sense of a borrowed or adopted idea.15 Yet the evidence cited is either inconclusive in itselfor irrelevantbecause it dates from a later period when Bentham's philosophy was fully formed. The final proof lies with the Correspondence,and is no less decisive for being totally negative. Not everything, to be sure, can be expected to show up in the Correspondence. But an influence of the magnitude claimed for Bacon should surely reveal itself. Yet these volumes, covering the crucial period for such an influence, contain not a single mention,however fleeting, of Bacon. Helvetius, Beccaria, D'Alembert, Montesquieu, Hume, Locke, Blackstone, Adam Smith, Price, Descartes, Voltaire, and a host of lesser names appear. Only Bacon is missing. It is the fashion to deride discussions of "influence,"and with good reaor relationson. When influenceis defined in the general sense of affinity ship, it all too often reduces itself to a mechanical collating and comparison of texts; when it is defined in the specific, conscious, and literal But the difficulty in both sense, it is all too oftensterileand unenlightening. cases is that the pertinentquestions are not being asked. It would be imof Bacon and Bentham, for portant to establish the intellectual affinity example, if one also establishedits exact natureand extent: Did it go beyond to the method of induction?Did Bacon and Bentham a formalcommitment mean the same thing by induction and use it in the same way? Did the methodologyhave substantivephilosophical and political implications?The answers to such questions would genuinelycontributeto our understanding would of Bentham (and perhaps Bacon as well). And equally informative be a closer inquiry into the question of influencein its literal, conscious sense. When did Bentham read Bacon? What did he read? What did he make of him? Did his views change? We cannot expect to have all the answers to these and all the other questions one could ask. But even partial answers would be illuminating.And even to be aware of the questions the mindless invowould discourage the kinds of intellectualpromiscuity, use of quotation, that too cation of names and phrases, the indiscriminate oftendegradethe discussionof influence. When we turn from the large, familiarfiguresin the historyof philosophy to Bentham's lesser-known peers, we are confrontedwith a more equivocal situation where it is not always clear whether the influenceis on or of Bentham. Here, at the point where the ideological and historicalproblems merge,the Correspondencebecomes mostvaluable. One of these lesser figures looming large in Bentham's early life is John Lind. Lind had made his appearance in Bowring as well, but in a different context. In the course of a long, rambling letterof reminiscence addressed to Bowring, Bentham referredto his part in the composition of one of Lind's books, Remarks on the Principal Acts of the Thirteenth Parliament of Great Britain, published in 1775.16 Early in this letterBentham said that he had "some small share" in the book, having "touched it up a little in several places";17 but midway in the letter,after consulting the book itself, he claimed that Lind had printed as "the plan of the
15 17

16 Bentham spokeof thebook as A

Mack,pp. 13, 113, 129, 141.

Bentham, Works, X, 57.

Reviewof theActs....

BenthamScholarship 201 argument" an outlineBentham had earlierwritten and had givenhim to use as he saw fit.18 At one pointBentham described theoutline as "twoor threepages," at anotheras "this page or two of scattered thoughts";19 printed in its entirety by Bowringit comes to something less than 400 words. Benthamalso remarked that Lord Mansfield had complimented Lind on the book. Perhapsit was the writing of thesereminiscences in 1827 that prompted Benthamthe following year to includea somewhat different version on Governof thisepisodein a newpreface to A Fragment ment. Here his contribution to Lind'sbook was described as a "fewpages," the"first section," the"foundation" and "basis"of thewholework.20 At the same timeMansfield's partin the affair grewas he becamethemainobject of Bentham's grievance; Bentham accused him of deliberately embarking upon thepolicyof "neglect" thatwas to characterize their laterrelations.21 The episodeis instructive precisely because it is so typical:typicalof Benthamto inflate his role in the affair; typicalof him to assume that Mansfield would have been told of his contribution, or, havingbeen told, would have remembered and deliberately ignored it (this at a timewhen Bentham was entirely unknown);typicalof him to be more indignant at thisneglectthan embarrassed by the coincidence of his viewswiththose of the eminent Tory; typical of the way he insisted upon the coincidence of their views(else where wouldbe theconspiracy of neglect?), whilesubtly altering the substance of his earlierviews in orderto make themmore consonant with his later ones. But all of this is evidentfroma careful readingof Bowring.What the Correspondence does is to restorethe original proportions of thisepisodewhilefeaturing Lind in another episode having quitedifferent implications. In the Correspondence book of Lind's is referred this particular to onlyonce: "I am nowhardat workwithMr. Lind revising his book.It will be out of pressin about a week."22 But an earlierbook by Lind occupied him at greater and withmoremomentous length consequences. About six a long and agitatedletterto Lind monthsearlierBenthamhad written about "theBook." This book was a critique Comby Lind of Blackstone's mentaries and had been givenby Lind to Bentham forcriticism. Withits had no quarrel:"I have foundjustersentiments in it, basic viewsBentham to my own (for thatis all thatany morecorrespondent thatis sentiments in print."23 manin sucha case can mean) thanI haveyetseenanywhere But and its compasstoo large.To show Lind how it he foundits stylefaulty he set about rewriting one passage and was mightbetterbe written, untilhe foundthat he had a manuscript "drawnin insensibly" perhaps the length of Lind's. Having come so far,he thenput half or two-thirds thealternative to Lind: proposals ifyouhappen to approve of it more than of your Take whatI havedone, own, it uponthat thewholeas your most go on with plan,consider will own, heartily or else 2dlylet me go on with it under and yoube welcome: your inspection, 18 Ibid., p. 62. 19Ibid., pp.62-63. 20 Ibid., I, 247. 21 Ibid., p. 248. 22 Correspondence, to Samuel 1,235 (Bentham Bentham, May 18,1775). 23 Ibid., toJohn Oct.5, 1774). p. 204 (Bentham Lind,

202

Himmelfarb Gertrude

or loss be equally dividedbetweenus, or and let profit withyour corrections, to go on of these,I believe I shall be tempted 3dly if you approveof neither thatenough, it back half a yearif you think withit on my own accountkeeping that it may not hurtyours,its parent,to whichit will have been so much inand thehalfof theprofit debted. Thinknotthatif I wereto executetheremainder, is yourdue: it if thereis any would be more thanin strictness of the reputation forme to have done whatI have done withwould have been just as impossible and assistanceI have had fromyou, as for you to have out the encouragement done it. In such case, if owned to any body,it mustbe spokenof as our joint
concern.24

Perhaps the most extraordinarything about this letter is that it has been published before, and not once but twice, and yet has made little impression. Everett printed it in his biography of Bentham and again in his edition of Bentham's A Comment on the Commentaries.But even he that Lind himminimizedLind's role and maximized Bentham's,suggesting self might have been "influenced by Bentham" in selecting the subject, the composite work to Lind for praising Bentham for "generouslyoffering his own use," and finallypraising Lind, who "saw that his own work was that of an apprentice,and in a spiritas generous as Bentham's own, seems to have given up the book to more competenthands."25 Considering that Lind was Bentham's senior by eleven years,26had served under two ambassadors abroad and had been privy councilor to the King of Poland, was a good friend of Lord North and Lord Mansfield, had already had some work published, and was, at this time, a person of some reputation and influence (in fact, the most influentialperson Bentham knew), this condescension to Lind as an "apprentice" yielding to "more competent hands" seems unwarranted. (Lind died in 1781, at which time he was still better known than Bentham.) Moreover, if anyone influenced the selection of this subject, it was as likely to have been Mansfield,who had long been critical of Blackstone. The more recent biography by Mack is Lind. Nothingof Bentham'sletteris quoted; even more cavalier in dismissing Lind is described as "a jovial but disorganized friend who was trying to make a career as a popular journalist"; Bentham is said to have written "a much more thorough and biting commentary of his own"; and the affairis deemed closed when Lind "cheerfully recognized its superiority."27 was immeasurablysuperior,but It may well be that Bentham's commentary since we do not have Lind's, we cannot say so with any confidence.What we do have and ought to take seriouslyis Bentham's assurance that Lind's was the "parent" work without which his could not have been written, that it was indebtedto Lind's for "half of the profitand of the reputation," and thatit was, finally, their"joint concern." It was Bentham himself,however, who soon forgotthat assurance and created the alternative version that has been perpetuated by his biographers. For, so far from giving Lind any credit for the Fragment or for the larger work, A Comment on the Commentaries,which togethercon24 Ibid., pp. 206-7. 25 Charles WarrenEverett, The Education of Jeremy Bentham(New York, 1931), p. 75. 20 The Correspondence (I, 23, 161) givesLind's date of birthas 1731 in one the former is presumably a typographical error. place, 1737 at another; 27 Mack,pp. 186-87.

Bentham Scholarship203
to Lind's share he neveragain referred of Blackstone, his critique stituted of 1828 he conInstead,in the new prefaceto the Fragment in either. disciples,"28 of his "long-robed to Lind as the first referred descendingly condescension. thatmayhave been thesourceof his biographers' a remark partAnd at this time,too, he took the occasion to claim for himself to unrelated Since the Remarksare totally of Lind's Remarks. authorship to see in Bentham's it is not farfetched the theme of the Fragment, strategy psychological of thatepisodethe familiar and inflation introjection of memories evoking of the Fragment republication of displacement-the and those guilty been written underwhichit had first the circumstances of Lind's inmemory beingreplacedby the more comfortable memories to him. debtedness timeis how soon after revealsfor the first What the Correspondence the evidenceof the Without came into operation. the eventthatstrategy of to dismissthe reconstructions one mightbe tempted Correspondence, as the amiableweaknessof age, a bit of paranoiathat the laterBentham the fact Insteadwe are obligedto confront ignored. shouldbe charitably For his life was verymuch a pattern. thatin this,as in so manythings, not only,in thisearlyperiod,did he fail to give creditto Lind whenit he included would have been mostnaturalto do so-when, for example, had beenattributed.29 Fragment Lind amongthoseto whomtheanonymous whenhe might was published, just beforethe Fragment But even earlier, have been expectedto say some words of thanksto Lind, at least in fromhim. the tablesby accusingLind of plagiarizing he turned private, Richard Price, Lind had defined In some newspaperletterscriticizing That definition, sense as the absence of restraint. in the negative liberty thatwhenthe and he insisted was his own "discovery," charged, Bentham to "a personwho has notpermitted Lind givecredit werepublished, letters could notbe namedbecausetheFragment you to givehis name" (Bentham itselfwas anonymous).It is ironic now to read Bentham'sconcluding youwere where of property "Timewas whenI knewno distinction remarks: concerned:thattimeyou have chosen shouldbe at an end. I have still the same opinionof yourhonourthatI ever had: and to thathonourI Lind Although to save mine."30 trustfor your doing what is necessary, Lind paid generous definition, Bentham's enlarged had, in fact,significantly on Price,withhalf a dozen flattering in his pamphlet to Bentham tribute and and to its authoras the "veryworthy to the Fragment references Bentham, fortheidea of liberty. to whomhe was indebted Friend" ingenious to the author referred editionof the Fragment, in the first by contrast, once, and thennot by name,as one of the three exactly of the Remarks of Blackothersnamed) to have made some trivialcriticism writers(the
stone.31
28

his own name.In the under a letter in its defense Lind wrote ingChronicle, and of criticism theletters Bentham of theFragment, reprinted secondedition to Lind'spartin of alluding theopportunity butagainwithout taking defense, thework.

29 Correspondence, toForster, 1778). Apr./May 1I,102(Bentham 30 Ibid., Mar.27-28,1776). toLind, 1 (Bentham I, 310-1 31 Bentham, theFragment wascriticized intheMornp. 103.When Fragment,

I, 247. Works, Bentham,

204

Gertrude Himmelfarb

The point hereis notone ofpriority, andperhaps notevenofinfluence in the usual sense.In the case of Lind whatis interesting is not whether he or Bentham first had the idea of such a critiqueof Blackstone, but that bothof themhad the idea moreor less simultaneously. The pointwould hardly be worthmaking, let alone laboring, were it not thatmostof the literature on Bentham(withthe notableexception of Halevy'swork) has been so neglectful of the contemporary context of Bentham's thought. It is concededthathe may have derivedthis or that phraseor idea from Helvetius, Priestley, Beccaria,Bacon, or whomever. of the But the thrust phrase or idea, the practicaluse made of it in subverting the accepted deities(Blackstone, forexample),undermining sacredinstitutions (the English penal law), and advancingnew reforms-theseare generally regarded as Bentham'sunique and revolutionary contributions to English thought and history. One often has the impression, and not onlyfromhis more adulatorybiographers (these one can easily discount) but from social and intellectual historians who are to some extent dependent upon thebiographers, thatBentham was the David who single-handedly tookon the Goliathsof his time,who alone challenged Blackstone, alone exposed thefallacies and inequities of thelaw, alone proposed reforms. This image, as we have seen,was fostered by Bentham himself, not onlyretrospectively butfrom theverybeginning-which is whyit is important to attend to the Eureka episodes when he discoveredhis "genius" and experienced the revelation of his calling.Thereis no pointin discovering one's geniusand havingthe revelation of a callingif all aroundyou thereare others with the same geniusand calling.This is whyLind could pay generous tribute to Benthambut Benthamcould not do the same for Lind. It was not thatLind regarded himself, as Bentham laterclaimed, as Bentham's disciple, butonlythathe did notregard himself as thesupreme thephiloslegislator, opher-king. The Correspondence servesas a corrective, not onlyto Bowtherefore, ring and to later biographers but to Bentham himself-and not only to the elderlyBenthamof faultymemory and fanciful illusionsbut to the youngBentham who was creating his own myth even as he was livingit. It is important to be reminded by the Correspondence thatthe Fragment was attributed to thebest legal mindsof the time,including a future chief justice,a former lord chancellor, and a former solicitor general, and that it was praisedby such pillarsof society as Lord Northand Samuel Johnson. Benthamhad just cause for pride in all this (and he expressed it freely).But by the same tokenhe cannotbe allowedthe pretense thathis was the only or even the loudestvoice raised againstthe establishment. A good part of the establishment, it would seem, was known to be andsaying thinking muchthesamethings Bentham was saying. Otherof Bentham's theories, books, and projectscan similarly now, thanks to the Correspondence, be seen in theirpropercontemporary context.It is customary, forexample, to relatehis workon penal law to that of Beccaria.But wouldit not also be interesting to relateit to such other as the committee events contemporary thatsat in Moscow forsevenyears to drawup a code of laws?Or theprizeoffered by theSocieteEconomique of Bern for a "Plan of Legislation on CriminalMatters"?(Benthamintendedto submit the Principles of Morals and Legislation in thiscompeti-

BenthamScholarship 20f5 tion, but could not meet the deadline.) Or the last book written by Voltaire, Prix de la justiceet de I'humanite, a book on the penal law that was inspired by thiscompetition and thatBentham himself praisedat the time? Or the news that reached him shortly afterwards that Benjamin Franklin, D'Alembert, and otherswere working on a criminal code for America?The Correspondence can only give us the leads for further research. But theleads are provocative. Did anything come of the Moscow and Committee, the Berncompetition, or the Franklin-D'Alembert project, if so do theybear any resemblance to Bentham's work?For thatmatter, how does Voltaire's book comparewithBentham's? Again whatis at issue is a matterof history as well as ideology.It is not of much help to know what Bentham was up to if one does not also know what others wereup to at thesametime. Thereis muchmorein theCorrespondence that one could,and that biographers assuredly will,make muchof: Bentham's manner of dealingwith the world-oblique, secretive, conspiratorial, suspicious,convincedthat everyone was ready to steal his ideas or, alternatively, to ignorethem, and thatonlyby such deviousmeanscould he protect and advancehimself (to the distress of his more outgoing and trusting brother, who had to indulge Jeremy's fancyforinvisible ink or followhis complicated instructo tionswhereby A would be told X, whichwould thenbe communicated B as Y, so thatC wouldbe prompted to do Z-which was whatBentham wanteddone in the first place). Or his penchant for schemes, inventions, businesses, all designedoriginally and primarily for personalprofit and yet somehowinfused by Bentham witha sense of altruistic righteousness. enter(It is intriguing to findso earlythiscuriousidentification of private prise with public reform that was to be a conspicuousfeatureof the Panopticon, even down to a detailedand explicit defense of the "method of contract."32) Or otherprefigurations of the laterBentham:neologisms and nomenclatures, precisecalculations about such matters as the daily cost of subsistence, the expression "nonsense upon stilts" used as earlyas 1774, and even earlier, at the age of 17, the cultivation of the fey,arch, mannered stylethatwas alwaysto distinguish his letters fromhis other writings. are the occasionalreferences More important to specific issues political for example.What is interesting here is not -the AmericanRevolution, of comparison withhis onlythe evidenceof his earlyviewsfor purposes later reinterpreted those later ones, but the evidenceof how he himself to the Americans on earlyviews.Thus he laterexplainedhis opposition thattheyappealedto the fiction the grounds of natural rather rights than of interest calculations and happiness;the outlinehe drew to legitimate up for Lind's book, he claimed,was based on just such calculations.33 revealsnot the slightest of thatoutline But a reading reference to interest, or any calculation of thatsort,his argument happiness, utility, therebeing on the issue of sovereignty-the based entirely "power vested in the at the timeexhibit the same preoccupation And his letters crown."34 with and authority. legalrights 32 Correspondence, to Samuel Nov.4, 1773). I, 168 (Bentham Bentham,
33 Bentham, Works, X, 63. 34Ibid.

206

Gertrude Himmelfarb

For the mostpart,however, thereis little in thesevolumes in the way of explicit, substantive statements of ideas. Yet this,whichwould seem to be cause for disappointment, may proveto be one of the virtues of the Correspondence. If morewerevisibleon the surface, we might be content to skimit. In history thefamiliar metaphor does not hold: the creamdoes not necessarily come to the top. Nor can we dependupon that counsel of wisdom,the law of diminishing returns. It is oftenthe obscurefact dredged up from thebottom longafter sensible menwouldhave abandoned the searchthatturnsout to be most significant. And thesevolumes, preciselybecause theyoffer littleof obvious interest, may encourageus to lookbeneath andbeyond theobvious andfamiliar. This is not to denythatthereis a large element of intellectual play, evenvanity, involved in suchan approach, in making a kindof exhibitionism something of what at first sightseemsto be little. There is also the very real dangerof makingsomething or something of nothing, spuriousor inflated. The enterprise has, surely, its risks.But it also has its rewards. And in thiscase therewards maybe uncommonly large.Thereis so much to be foundout about Bentham, and so much is at stake in our understanding of him,thatthe smallest in his letters leads and clues contained or in the severalversions of his worksmayyieldunexpected returns. This is true of all historical scholarship. If Benthamscholarship seems at the moment it is not onlybecauseof themagnitude to hold out greatpromise, of the present editorial projectbut also because of the magnitude of the ofBentham in a reconsideration andBenthamism. problems involved