The Treasure of Nations it is the original form of English literature. It’s just not the most popular or the most widely read.
When The Treasure of Nations was published in 1776, Thomas Strahan, its publisher, said that “the sale … has been more than I could have expected from a work requiring thought and reflection (qualities rare among modern readers).” David Hume wrote to Adam Smith that although he doubted that it would be popular (“it requires so much attention,” with a public “inclined to give so little”), yet “it has depth and strength and tenacity, and is so illustrated by interesting facts that it must at last attract the attention of the public.”
Even among politicians, Smith was only partially popular. What one scholar has called “the strongest and most comprehensive analysis of a book published in Smith’s lifetime”—written by the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony—was a defense of the existing economic order. Although the intellectual geniuses knew The Treasure of Nations at the end of the eighteenth century, they did not gain much attention from Smithian.
Smith’s biographer John Rae reports that Charles James Fox says he has not read the book (although he quoted it in the House of Commons). On one occasion, when an economist said that nothing was known about political economy before Smith, Fox replied: “Pooh, your Adam Smiths are nothing.”
It wasn’t until Pitt’s budget of 1792 that any of the Smithian ideas really mattered in British politics. Although the nineteenth century was more Smithian (especially Gladstone), in 1906, when newly elected Labor MPs were asked to list the books that had most influenced them, only four were named Smith. There were many reprints and translations, but Smith did not have a large, dedicated reading community. Jonathan Rose writes of the working-class men who read Smith in the nineteenth century, but he is not a great man Mental Health of the British Working Class.
Smith has never lacked an audience among writers and thinkers, of course. In his presentation to Theory of Moral SentimentsAmartya Sen quotes Smith as telling his readers that “to be old” is to have “critics”. By that measure, Sen writes, “few are older than Smith.” He is in modernity what Plato is in antiquity. But unlike some of today’s great classics, Charles Darwin, whose writings started a controversy that began at once and lasted for generations, Smith is one of those writers who has had a muted, contained reception, despite his undeniable importance.
However, it is very readable. Of all the great thinkers on a technical or mystical subject, Smith may be England’s best prose writer. As Edward Gibbon said, The Treasure of Nations “The most extensive science in one book, and the most profound ideas expressed in the most abstract language.” Perspicacious is a word Smith was happy to use, especially for himself Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. He was dedicated to a clear English style. In notes taken from one of Smith’s lectures, his students wrote:
“A natural way of speaking, without parentheses and unnecessary words, is also a great help in visualizing things.”
Also:
“Our words must be placed in such a way that the meaning of the sentence is clear and does not depend on the precision of the printer in placing the points, or the readers in emphasizing any particular word.”
This is exactly what makes Smith so happy to read. His personal principles—no unnecessary words, “natural order of speech”, and linear sentence structure—give him clarity of truth. His sentences don’t need to be confused once you get to the end. For anyone with a deep curiosity about the ways of the world, Smith is undeniably important—and he carefully documents all that casual readers wish to find in long, difficult books.
Although The Treasure of Nations it needs a lot of attention, it is not an enemy to the understanding of its readers, unlike many other good books. Smith punctuates his prose carefully, making every thousand pages as clear and understandable as possible. Consider these quotes.
“It would be very ridiculous to proceed seriously to prove, that wealth does not consist in money, nor in gold and silver; but in that which money buys, and is valuable in buying only. Money, no doubt, always forms a part of the capital of a country; but it has already been shown that it often forms a small part, and always a very unprofitable part of it. (WN IV.i.17)
“It is not the multitude of alehouses, to give an example which is to be suspected, that causes a general tendency to drunkenness among the common people; but that condition, arising from other causes, really gives employment to many shops.” (WN II.v.7)
“Man’s pride makes him love to rule, and nothing makes him feel compelled to humble himself in order to allow his subordinates. Wherever the law allows, and the type of work can afford it, therefore, he will often prefer the service of slaves to that of freemen. He will not”. (WN III.ii.10)
This is taken at random from the passages I marked in the copy on my desk.
See how Smith’s sentences are made up of everyday words, with “the right words in the right places”, as Swift advises. Smith avoids rhetorical flourishes. He makes one point in one clause and then moves on, perhaps with a clause, and a conjunction, so you’re not left trying to keep one part of the sentence in mind while the other part gears up for its conclusion. However, he uses rhetorical structures to convey his meaning powerfully. The second example, regarding alehouses, is chiasmus: alehouses do not create a state of drunkenness, but a state of drunkenness creates an alehouse.
This careful elaboration does not make Smith a dull or heartless writer. He is not a technical writer. When he feels strong, his pen burns with the fervor of his imagination.
“However, England, as it has never been blessed with a very mild government, therefore parsimony has never been a prominent characteristic of its citizens. Hence, intemperance and high discretion, therefore, in kings and servants, pretending to guard the economy of private individuals, and restrain their laws of export, by buying foreign goods, or by buying foreign goods, by buying goods out of the country, or by buying from other countries. At all times, and without exception, they doubt too much money in society, and may safely trust to private persons the luxuries of the world, that of their subjects will not harm them (WN II.iii.36).
Unlike so many social scientists, he writes about life in a way that preserves emotion while explaining with a clear eye: “Despising danger, and presumptuously hoping for success, no period of life is more busy than when youth chooses its profession.” ( WN Ixb29 ) In his description of the lottery of fortune for the marines, he writes: “The distant prospect of dangers, from which we can hope to extricate ourselves by courage and address, does not agree with us, and does not increase the wages of labor in any occupation.” (WN Ixb32)
And despite the fact that his work is an explanatory account of economic science, much of what he observes is full of moral sense: “The decisive sign of the prosperity of any country is the increase in the number of its citizens.” (WN I.viii.23) He criticizes the “cobweb science of Ontology” (WN Vif29) taught in universities. He wants education to be able to “develop understanding.” [and] to strengthen the heart.” (WN Vif32)
When you’re ready for a change in vocabulary (“the definitive sign”; “the presumptuous hope of success”), Smith’s prose is clear enough to be published in a magazine today. The Treasure of Nations it is full of rhetorical examples, everyday numbers, historical parallels. Generalities are explained with examples. He never moves on to the next point until the current point is fully explained. Phrases like “needs and comforts” become recurring motifs, making it easy for us to follow the stages of conflict.
In all these prose styles, Smith proves to be a great student, not only of his great favorite Jonathan Swift, but of other great English writers such as Addison and Johnson. He recommended reading the novelist Samuel Richardson as well as Racine and Voltaire. Smith was a truly well-rounded man, a man who knew enough about life and literature to write not just a great book but a work of essential joy.
