What does Bacon mean by ‘Plantation’?

When Francis Bacon speaks of plantations, he means colonies. This essay was published
in 1625, so he would have known much about the early colonization efforts of Sir Walter
Raleigh and the Virginia Company. The first disastrous settlement at Jamestown was
planted in 1607. He would have heard about the massacre of 1622, in which the
Powhatan Confederacy tried to get rid of the troublesome interlopers once and for all.
Bacon would have heard stories about starvation, disease, Indian attacks, and bitter
fighting among the colonists, but this essay shows no sign of any of that. He chose
instead to provide his considered opinion about how colonization ought to be done.
“I like a plantation in a pure soil; that is, where people are not displanted, to the end, to
plant in others. For else it is rather an extirpation, than a plantation.” Could there be a
milder response to the violent conflicts between English and Indian?
Toward the end, he adds, “If you plant where savages are, do not only entertain them,
with trifles and gingles, but use them justly and graciously, with sufficient guard
nevertheless; and do not win their favor, by helping them to invade their enemies, but
for their defence it is not amiss; and send off them, over to the country that plants, that
they may see a better condition than their own, and commend it when they return.”
He was convinced, as all Europeans were, of the vast superiority of their own cultures
and practices. It’s the way of all people, I suppose. Justice and courtesy would have gone
a long way in making English colonization more successful in the long run. There was a
lot of room. We would have overwhelmed the aboriginal inhabitants eventually, since
agriculture supports larger populations, but it could have happened more gradually,
with less bigotry and violence.
According to Bacon what should be the proper way of selecting a shelter?
“It is a shameful and unblessed thing, to take the scum of people, and wicked
condemned men, to be the people with whom you plant; and not only so, but it spoileth
the plantation; for they will ever live like rogues, and not fall to work, but be lazy, and do
mischief, and spend victuals, and be quickly weary, and then certify over to their
country, to the discredit of the plantation. The people wherewith you plant ought to be
gardeners, ploughmen, laborers, smiths, carpenters, joiners, fishermen, fowlers, with
some few apothecaries, surgeons, cooks, and bakers.”
He might have added, don’t bring a shipload of gentlemen adventurers either. They
won’t know how to work, even if they could be goaded into the manual labor required to
build a town.
Later he adds, “Cram not in people, by sending too fast company after company; but
rather harken how they waste, and send supplies proportionably; but so, as the number
may live well in the plantation, and not by surcharge be in penury.” Harken how they
waste; there’s a delicate phrasing.
How should one consider the profit at the time of plantation?
Don’t rush into the commercial aspects of your venture, but do keep your eyes out for
ways to pay back your investors as soon as may be. You might try planting tobacco.
There seems to be plenty of wood in most cases, so watch out for iron. “If there be iron
ore, and streams whereupon to set the mills, iron is a brave commodity where wood
aboundeth.” Takes a lot of fuel — and water, which he doesn’t worry about — to process
ore.
Other options are harvesting bay salt, pitch and tar, or growing silk. That last seems
highly unlikely, although the Spanish successfully planted both silk-growers and
mulberry trees in Oaxaca. Bacon probably read those accounts as well, at least the ones
translated into English.
“But moil not too much underground; for the hope of mines is very uncertain, and useth
to make the planters lazy, in other things.” If all you have to do is scoop up a pan-full of
gold every month or two, why bother to grow crops?
How the victuals should be considered?
“In a country of plantation, first look about, what kind of victual the country yields of
itself to hand; as chestnuts, walnuts, pineapples, olives, dates, plums, cherries, wild
honey, and the like; and make use of them.” We’re still looking for the country that has
olives, cherries, and pineapples, though I suppose he knew perfectly well those fruits
didn’t grow in the same sorts of places.
“Then consider what victual or esculent things there are, which grow speedily, and
within the year; as parsnips, carrots, turnips, onions, radish, artichokes of Hierusalem,
maize, and the like.”
“For wheat, barley, and oats, they ask too much labor; but with pease and beans you
may begin, both because they ask less labor, and because they serve for meat, as well as
for bread. And of rice, likewise cometh a great increase, and it is a kind of meat. Above
all, there ought to be brought store of biscuit, oat-meal, flour, meal, and the like, in the
beginning, till bread may be had. For beasts, or birds, take chiefly such as are least
subject to diseases, and multiply fastest; as swine, goats, cocks, hens, turkeys, geese,
house-doves, and the like.”
He advocates a sort of communalism, all farming the community plots and sharing
rationed portions of the produce.

BEAU TIBBS
Oliver Goldsmith was a great poet, and his prose is or astonishing range and volume.
Among his works of prose, The Citizen of the World (1750) is a series of imaginary
letters from a philosophical Chinaman, writing letters home from London, giving
Goldsmith the opportunity of expressing his own mind upon the society and literature of
the day. The series was contributed to The Public Ledger, a popular Magazine. He
wrote many essays on personal and impersonal objects. The essays of Goldsmith are
characterised by whimsicality, satire, mild humour and graceful charm. As an essayist
Goldsmith is superb. His essays are satirical reflections upon society of his times. He
criticises manners and ideas in England with satire mixed the note of didacticism
intending to reform the evils and teach the readers sound lessons in morality.
Goldsmith's prose style is clear, transparent and delicate. His style is inseparable from
soundness of intelligence. In point of style both Addison and Goldsmith, writes Hugh
Walker, "are admitted to be masters, but Goldsmith is the greater of the two. He is
greater just because style, in the last resort, is inseparable from thought, just because of
that provinciality, that commonplaceness of idea, which Matthew Arnold detected in
Addison, and which is not in Goldsmith.
Goldsmith's contribution to the periodical essay is noticeable. He contributed to The
Monthly Review in 1757 and to several other periodicals The Bee (1759), which was
published weekly. A few months after the close The Bee, The Citizen of the World (1760-
61) began to appear in a journal called The Public Ledger. Hugh Walker writes:
"Probably not one in ten thinks for a moment of The Citizen of the World as one of the
finest collection of essays ever written, and a work quite worthy of a place beside its
author's more popular writings. Goldsmith's literary greatness may be measured by the
fact that he has equalled Addison on Addison's own ground, and greatly surpassed him
elsewhere."
Goldsmith's essays reveal an extraordinary power, boldness and originality of thought.
In this respect he is superior to Addison or any other of the periodical essayists. His
minute observation of man and human nature is remarkable. The characterizations of
the Man in Black and Beau Tibbs and those of Vagabonds are noticeable for minute
observation. His essay ‘Beau Tibbs’ is a fine example of his art of characterization.
Goldsmith's essays are also conspicuous for their humor. Everybody feels the humour of
Beau Tibbs and the Man in Black. Rickett writes:
"He was a poet of talent, a proseman of genius, a proseman, moreover, of distinctive and
original genius."
The essay ‘Beau Tibbs’ has been taken from The Citizen of the World. The words 'Beau
Tibbs' mean a showy man who is careful about his dress and appearance. In it he has
been presented as a poor, foolish and unknown man. Ever then he pretends to be a
friend of very great persons.
Beau Tibbs and the English Nobility
Goldsmith apparently felt that the English nobility had degenerated since the time of
Pope. The English noblemen who had once been the patrons and exponents of learning,
lacked the same during Goldsmith’s time. Beau Tibbs, as his companion describes,
“has no claims from his own merit to distinction, he is possessed neither of abilities nor
virtue; it is enough for him that one of his ancestors was possessed of these qualities.”
We cannot call Beau Tibbs an attractive man. Though he is young, he has no charm in
him. He is pale thin and sharp. His dress is peculiar like his appearance. As Hopkins
points out, Tibbs appears to be a caricature of the nobleman just as Sir Roger de
Coverley was a satirical prototype for the Tory gentleman. In the essay, when Altangi
first meets Tibbs, he describes the latter's dress.
“His hat was pinch'd up with peculiar smartness; his looks were pale, thin, and sharp;
round his neck he wore a broad black ribbon, and in his bosom a buckle studded with
glass; his coat was trimmed with tarnish'd twist; he wore by his side a sword with a
black hilt, and his stockings of silk, though newly wash'd, were grown yellow by long
service.”
Tibbs is a gentleman of name only possessing only a physical appearance of English
Nobleman.
A Satirical Character
Deeply thinking, Beau Tibbs represents a satirical view of the contemporary English
nobility. Goldsmith believed that his age had witnessed a considerable decline in
contemporary aristocratic manners and taste. Hopkins says,
“Beau Tibbs embodies Goldsmith's theory of humour and serves a satirical function
which a mere surface view of Beau Tibbs will fail to comprehend.”
Beau Tibbs is a character originating in a lower level of society and to use this character
as a mirror reflecting in an exaggerated manner the affectations of the aristocrats would
be a brilliant solution for satire. Beau Tibbs is more than mere satire, however, against
the aristocracy. He represents the potential corruption in taste and fashion of the entire
middle class.
His pretence to hate Flattery:
Beau Tibbs is perfect in the art of flattery. But he says that he does not like it. The Man
in Black compliments on his fine clothes and health. In reply he says
'You know I hate flattery on my soul I do,'
His Pretence to hate great persons:
Beau Tibbs tells that he is friendly with Lord Mudler, Lady Grogram and the Dutehess of
Piccadilly yet he says that he hates great persons. He says to the Man in Black, 'I despise
the great as much as you do.' He speaks with great pride that he dined with the Dutehess
of Piccadilly. At her house he met Lord Mudler. The Lord talked to him about his
girlfriends. Tibbs says that Lord Mudler has promised him an income of five hundred
Pounds a year. He says that he dined with Lady Grogram.
His show of Forgetting things:
He makes a show of forgetting things. He wants a loan of half a crown from the Man in
Black. He promises to return after a minute or two or so. But then he says 'Ask me for it
the time we meet or it may be twenty to one but I forget to pay you.' He tries to get
money from others by pleasing them with his talks. He neither returns it nor does he
ever think of it.
In short, Beau Tibbs is a satirical character. By portraying the character of Beau Tibbs,
Goldsmith tries at representing reality of the time of degeneracy of English Nobility.
Beau Tibbs possesses a trivial personality who does not create a good impression of him
in the minds of readers. He is not trustworthy and is a lier.

A VISION OF JUSTICE

“In the mean time the world was in an alarm, and all
the inhabitants of it gathered together upon a spacious
plain; so that I seemed to have all the species before
my eyes. A voice was heard from the clouds, declaring
the intention of this visit, which was to restore and
appropriate   to   everyone   living   what   was   his   due.   The
fear and hope, joy and sorrow, which appeared in that
great   assembly   after   this   solemn   declaration,   are   not
to be expressed.” A Vision of Justice by Joseph Addison

A Vision of Justice by Joseph Addison is thematically complex, with much material

to argue about. The most disputable theme or concept may be the implication of
inevitability disclosed at the end of the essay: the reality of judgment. A Vision of
Justice, however, is a delightful essay which has neatness, lucidity and precision of
expression. Its style is highly polished and cultivated. There is spontaneity and ease
in it. It is written in a familiar and elegant manner. Here we observe delightful
plasticity of language too. Its prose is smooth and elegant in manner and obviously
highly refined. True to Joseph Addison’s style, A Vision of Justice is very delightful
and pleasant. The sentences are embellished and polished. Their movement is
smooth and brisk. Less ornamental and ornate, the ideas are expressed clearly and
vividly. The essay reveals clarity of ideas. It has compact and dignified expression.
The forceful, fluent and impressive essay has charm and freshness of its own.

A Vision of Justice is a concept essay in which the handling and development of a

central idea is its principal attraction. When one sorts through its grand
catastrophic dream ending and its social issues such as the use of justice in social
research, one finds at the heart of the essay a speculation about the implications of
an aspect of modern ideology long discussed in democratic
institutions. Addison deserves credit for being among the first few neo-classical
writers to publish work that speculates about the human rights possibilities
presented by ever social institutions, and in A Vision of Justice he presents a noble
idea and how it can go wrong.

Now coming to the essay, we find, the writer was taking a solitary walk in the
garden of Lincoln’s Inn. He was repining at the sudden rise of many persons. He
got lost in this thought as soon as he recovered from his usual temper and serenity
of soul, he retired to his lodgings. The evening meditation enabled him to dream a
sweet dream. He saw the goddess of justice holding a mirror in her hand. There
streamed from it a light. As she moved it in her hand, it brightened the heavens, the
air or the earth. Now the world was in an alarm. People gathered in a spacious
plain. She declared the intention of her visit. She wished to restore and appropriate
to everyone living what was his due. She pronounced the first edict. All titles and
claims to sides and estates should he immediately vested in the rightful owner. A
sign of rightful democracy! She moved the mirror of truth. The rays of the mirror
set fire to all forgery and falsehood. A wonderful revolution among the people was
seen. The spoils of extortion, fraud and robbery with all the fruits of bribery and
corruption were thrown in a prodigious pile. It was called the mount of Restitution.
All injured persons were invited to receive what belonged to them.

The next command was that all the Post of dignity and honour with universe
should he conferred on persons of the greatest merit, abilities and perfection with
the hell of the mirror, the select assembly was drawn up on all sides. They were
drawn up in three bodies. In the firstly there were men of Virtue. In the
second there were men of knowledge. In the third, these were men of business. In
order to fill up all the posts of honour, dignity, and profit, there was a draft made
out of each column of men, the second draft was made out of such as were
possessed of any two of the qualifications. Those who were left, and were endowed
only with one of them, had their suitable post. Still their remained many places of
trust and profit unfulfilled. So, fresh drafts were made out of the surrounding
people. The writer filled his paper with the particulars of his vision.

Joseph Addison’s A vision of Justice defies both common sense and the scientific
method by defining judicial democracy. Through this story telling method, the very
nature of the judicial method demands controlled experimentation in which
meticulously gathered data is scrutinized with great care before conclusions are
painstakingly drawn. This also entails considering all eventualities that might
spring from our social works, the potential ill consequences no less than the
possible beneficial results. As primarily a thinker, Addison recognizes the dangers
posed by our own foolishness, but he is like Shakespeare's Hamlet, thinking about
something when he should be taking action. Society shouldn’t be in a Hamlet’s
dilemma in ascertaining democratic rights.

Now coming to the literary merits Joseph Addison’s A vision of Justice aims at a
conversational style with simplicity of manner. It has ease of
expression. Joseph reveals propriety in the choice of words. Its prose is precise and
elegant. It has richness and delicacy of fancy. The language is beautiful and
rhythmical. It is according to the interesting theme of the essay. Its style is familiar
but not coarse, elegant hut not ostentations. It reveals how Addison was
excessively fastidious in his choice of words. It shows how he kept on laboriously
polishing and balancing his phrases until they presented the finest literary art at his
disposal, until the rhythm was perfect, the sentence height and bright as possible.

SOCIAL CONTEXT
What social condition of Europe those days made Joseph Addison write his essay by the
above title is not clear to many of us. He slightly refers to the occasion of his writing as,
“I was repining at the sudden rise of many persons who are my juniors, and indeed, at
the unequal distribution of wealth, honour, and all other blessings of life.” Then he went
to sleep and saw the vision.

The heaven was extraordinarily illuminated and all on a sudden a woman by name
BALANCE appeared with a mirror in her hand. She bore many emblems by which the
goddess of justice is usually named. All the inhabitants of the world gathered in a
spacious plain. The accompanying heavenly voice announced the intention of this visit:
to restore and appropriate to everyone what was his/her due. Then fear, joy, hope and
sorrow filled the gathering. The first edict was then pronounced, “That all titles and
claims to riches and estates, or to any part of them, should be immediately vested in the
rightful owner.” The inhabitants of the earth were ready with their records to which the
goddess of justice moved the mirror of truth which she held in her hand. The rays of this
mirror had a particular quality of setting fire to all forgery and falsehood. The fire very
often ran through two or three lines only and then stopped. The fire pierced through the
dark corners and the recesses of the universe and by that means detected many writings
and records which had been hidden or buried by time, chance, or decision. At the same
time the spoils of extortion, fraud, and robbery, with all the fruits of bribery and
corruption, were thrown together in a prodigious pile, that almost reached to the clouds,
and was called, “The Mount of Restitution” to which all injured persons were invited, to
receive what belonged to them. This revolution made several millioners to people of
moderate fortunes and certain street of the greatest credit in Europe, from one end to
the other become bankrupt.

The second command of the goddess of justice was that, “All the posts of dignity and
honor in the universe should be conferred on persons of the greatest merit, abilities, and
perfection”. Anyway, it will take much time and space to exhaust Joseph Addison’s
vision. We may only note the high sense of accountability of the visionary who reminded
his fellow citizens of that day (Christians included?) that their daily lives were played on
the stage directed by the Living God, the God of Justice. Is our world of today
comparable to the world of Joseph Addison? We pray to this Living God day and night,
pray in all places of our work and living but fail to realize we are living and acting in the
silent presence of this God whose name we profess. The day we settle the account of our
lives with the King of kings and the Lord of lords will be more spectacular and rewarding
for some and disappointing for the others.

THE GREAT FIRE

The fire started in Pudding Lane, at the bakery of Thomas Farriner, King Charles II’s
baker. With the overcrowded streets and a lack of rain for several weeks, the fire spread
rapidly. There were many theories surrounding the start of the fire. In 1651, ten years
before the fire started, William Lilly predicted the Great Fire of London in his book,
Monarchy or no Monarchy in England. Many thought the fire was a punishment from
God for the sins of Londoners, some thought the fire was a Catholic plot to destroy
Protestant London. There were even rumours that the fire was started by French and
Dutch attackers, the countries with which England was at war.

Within a few hours, the wind had spread the blaze to the River Thames, engulfing parts
of London Bridge in flames. Samuel Pepys describes the scene in his Diary, which
remains one of the most comprehensive eyewitness accounts of the fire. Samuel Pepys
was responsible for the administration of the navy for the English government, and was
33 when the fire occurred. Pepys describes in detail how the fire consumed London, a
year after it was ravaged by the plague:

“The churches, houses and all on fire and flaming at once, and a horrid noise the flames
made”

His diary emphasises the terror of the London citizens as they fled the fire, describing
the type of material possessions they carried away in carts and boats upon the Thames.
He mentions how one in every three boats had viriginals (a keyboard musical
instrument) in them, giving an insight into the leisure activities of the more affluent:

“River full of […] boats taking in goods, and good goods swimming in the water; and
only, I observed that hardly one lighter or boat in three that had goods of a house in, but
there was a pair of virginalls in it”

When Pepys is forced to flee his own home, the material possessions he chooses to save
are more unusual, burying his wine and parmesan cheese in his garden to save them
from the flames! Despite his descriptions of the fire, it is surprising how much of Pepys’
account is devoted to descriptions of feasting and affluent pursuits, even lamenting that
because of the fire he had to eat mutton without a napkin.

The actions taken by King Charles II to stop the fire spreading are also recorded in
Pepys’s diary, which included pulling down and blowing up houses with gunpowder.
After burning for five days, the Great Fire of London was finally extinguished on the 6th
September. However, whilst only ten deaths are recorded from the fire, London needed
extensive re-building with over 13,000 houses and 87 churches destroyed.

St Paul’s Cathedral was completely destroyed by the flames. The diarist John Evelyn
stated that “the stones of St Paul’s flew like grenades”. In 1675 Sir Christopher Wren was
given the task of re-building St Paul’s into the cathedral we know today, a task which
was finished in 1711.

Sir Christopher Wren was responsible for much of London’s re-building, constructing
the Monument to mark the place near where the fire began. Completed in 1677, the
Monument has 311 steps, leading to a viewing platform offering panoramic views of
London, highlighting the scale of the area destroyed by the fire. Whilst the fire caused
sheer destruction, 350 years later, it is still remembered as a significant part of London’s
history.

What were Astell’s views on marriage?

Mary Astell was born to a poor Northern English family in 1666. Even though her father’s death left
her family debt-ridden when she was only 12, Mary’s uncle graciously took her in under his wing. He
taught her to be confident in her own reason while showing her that the Christian faith was
compatible with reason, regardless of the views during this time.

Mary made her literary debut at the young age of 20 when she presented her collection of poems
dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft. She intended for these poems to soften
his heart and gain his favor, as she attached a “request for financial assistance” (Springborg). Even
though it’s unclear whether or not he ever did, some intellectual and aristocratic women, such as
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Lady Anne Coventry, nevertheless noticed Mary’s wit and
cleverness. It is through these associations that Mary Astell was able to gain readership and build
her ethos.

Astell was never fully satisfied with her published works. As a result, she continued to work on Some
Reflections Upon Marriage long after it was originally published, resulting in a 4th and final edition.

While Astell’s Some Reflections Upon Marriage (1700) questioned the customs and laws of marriage
of the time period, one can rightly assume some of these reasons were her own. Even though she
had countless admirers, Astell never married.

Mary Astell claimed that few true happy marriages exist. She argued that even though happiness
does not depend on one’s wealth, men of the time period would first look for the monetary value a
spouse would add to his own. For the thousands of men who married for money, one married for
love. Because of the rarity of this, it was considered a “heroic action”, but Astell didn’t buy into it. She
viewed men’s ever-faltering emotions as a tragic flaw that would eventually lead to a woman’s
disgrace. The man who married for the love of beauty was no better than the one who married for
the love of money. Either way, both were “governed by irregular appetites” (Astell).

After presenting the disadvantages women had in marriage contracts – being sought out for money,
presented with no real choices – Astell shifts focus to her real argument: women should be
educated. If women were educated, they would not only be able to uncover the traps laid out by men
underneath all of their compliments but would become too wise and good for the men. Astell thought
very highly of her sex. According to her, if women were educated, their achievements would put men
to shame. If women were learned, they would gain “true wisdom…real greatness…clearness and
strength of reasoning…purity and elevation of mind…command of their passions…[and reach]
perfection” (Astell). The list goes on and on. Don’t misunderstand – education could (and still can) in
fact create countless opportunities and enable women – but her list is purposely far-fetched. Astell’s
use of a hyperbole was meant to shed light on man’s fallible argument against a woman’s education:
man won’t be able to “govern”, or control, her.

Astell recognised that when a woman married she put ‘herself entirely into her husband’s power, and
if the matrimonial yoke be grievous, neither law nor custom affords her that redress which a man
obtains’ (p. 27).

She advised women to either abstain from ‘electing a monarch for life’ (p. 31), or, if they must, to first
equip themselves with an education in order to better understand the gravity of marriage, and the
importance of their betrothed’s nature, intent and position in the world. Under no circumstances did
Astell advocate divorce, which contradicted her belief that marriage was an unbreakable union in the
eyes of God.