T. E. Jessop, in his introduction to his edition of _Alciphron_, characterizes Berkeley's account of the argument of _The Fable of the Bees_ as "not unfair," and says: "I can see no reason for whitewashing Mandeville. The content and manner of his writing invite retort rather than argument. Berkeley gives both, in the most sparkling of his dialogues. Mandeville wrote a feeble reply, A _Letter to Dion_."[6] F. B. Kaye, on the other hand, says of the exchange between Berkeley and Mandeville that "men like ... Berkeley, who may be termed the religious-minded ... in their anguish, threw logic to the winds, and criticized him [i.e., Mandeville] for the most inconsistent reasons."[7] [6] _Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher_, T. E. Jessop, ed., in _The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne_. Edited by A. A. Luce and T. E. Jessop. London, etc., III. (1950), 9-10. [7] In his edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, Oxford, 1924, II. 415-416. All subsequent references to _The Fable of the Bees_ will be to this edition. Objective appraisal of the outcome of the debate between Berkeley and Mandeville would presumably lead to a verdict somewhere between those rendered, with appropriate loyalty to their authors, by their respective editors. It is mainly for other reasons, however, that the _Letter to Dion_ is still of interest. There is first its literary merit. More important, the _Letter_ presents in more emphatic and sharper form than elsewhere two essential elements of Mandeville's system of thought, the advocacy, real or pretended, of unqualified rigorism in morals, and the stress on the role of the State, of the "skilful Politician," in evoking a flourishing society out of the operations of a community of selfish rogues and sinners. The remainder of this introduction will be confined to comments on these two aspects of Mandeville's doctrine. Since the publication in 1924 of F. B. Kaye's magnificent edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, no one can deal seriously with Mandeville's thought without heavy reliance on it, even when, as is the case here, there is disagreement with Kaye's interpretation of Mandeville's position.