VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCE IN 1778
Soon after Smith settled in Edinburgh he received from his old French
friends, the Duchesse d'Enville and her son the Duc de la
Rochefoucauld, a presentation copy of a new edition of their
ancestor's _Maximes_, accompanied by the following letter from the
Duke himself, in which he informs Smith of the interesting
circumstance that, in spite of the way his famous ancestor is
mentioned in the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, he had himself at one
time undertaken a translation of that work, and only abandoned the
task when he found himself anticipated by the publication of the
translation by Abbé Blavet in 1774. It is a little curious that a
disciple of Quesnay, a regular frequenter of Mirabeau's economic
dinners, should take no notice in his letter of Smith's greater work,
so lately published.
PARIS, _3 mars 1778_.
Le désir de se rappeller à votre souvenir, monsieur, quand
on a eu l'honneur de vous connoître doit vous paroître fort
naturel; permettez que nous saisissons pour cela, ma mère et
moi, l'occasion d'une édition nouvelle des _Maximes de la
Rochefoucauld_, dont nous prenons la liberté de vous offrir
un exemplaire. Vous voyez que vous n'avons point de rancune,
puisque le mal que vous avez, dit de lui dans la _Théorie
des Sentimens Moraux_ ne nous empêche point de vous envoyer
ce même ouvrage. Il s'en est même fallu de peu que je ne
fisse encore plus, car j'avois eu peutêtre la témérité
d'entreprendre une traduction de votre _Théorie_; mais comme
je venois de terminer la première partie, j'ai vu paroître
la traduction de M. l'Abbé Blavet, et j'ai été forcé de
renoncer au plaisir que j'aurois eu de faire passer dans ma
langue un des meilleurs ouvrages de la vôtre.
Il auroit bien fallu pour lors entreprendre une
justification de mon grandpère. Peutêtre n'auroit-il pas été
difficile premièrement de l'excuser, en disant, qu'il avoit
toujours vu les hommes à la Cour, et dans la guerre civile,
_deux théâtres sur lesquels ils sont certainement plus
mauvais qu'ailleurs_; et ensuite de justifier, par la
conduite personnelle de l'auteur, les principes qui sont
certainement trop généralisés dans son ouvrage. Il a pris la
partie pour le tout; et parceque les gens qu'il avoit eu le
plus sous les yeux étoient animés par _l'amour-propre_, il
en a fait le mobile général de tous les hommes. Au reste
quoique son ouvrage mérite à certains égards d'être
combattu, il est cependant estimable même pour le fond, et
beaucoup pour la forme.
Permettez-moi de vous demander, si nous aurons bientôt une
édition complète des oeuvres de votre illustre ami M.
Hume? Nous l'avons sincèrement regretté.
Recevez, je vous supplie, l'expression sincère de tous les
sentimens d'estime et d'attachement avec lesquels j'ai
l'honneur d'être, monsieur, votre très humble et très
obéissant serviteur,
LE DUC DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD.[295]
What immediate answer Smith gave to this letter is unknown, and he
certainly suffered the offending allusion to his correspondent's
ancestor to remain unmodified in the new edition of the _Theory_ which
appeared in 1781, but eventually at any rate he came to think that he
had done the author of the _Maximes_ an injustice by associating him
in the same condemnation with Mandeville, and when Dugald Stewart
visited Paris in 1789 he was commissioned by Smith to express to the
Duc de la Rochefoucauld his sincere regret for having done so, and to
inform him that the error would be repaired in the forthcoming edition
of the work, which was at that time in preparation.[296] This was
done. In that final edition the allusion to Rochefoucauld was entirely
suppressed, and the censure confined to Mandeville alone.
While Smith's French friends were remonstrating with him about an
incidental allusion in the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, his old
friend, Lord Kames--still at eighty-three as keen for metaphysical
controversy as he had been with Bishop Butler sixty years before--was
preparing an elaborate attack upon the theory of the book itself,
which he proposed to incorporate in a new edition of his own
_Principles of Morality and Religion_. Before publishing this
examination of the theory, however, he sent the manuscript to Smith
for perusal, and received the following reply:--
_16th November 1778._
MY DEAR LORD--I am much obliged to you for the kind
communication of the objections you propose to make in yr.
new edition to my system. Nothing can be more perfectly
friendly and polite than the terms in which you express
yourself with regard to me, and I should be extremely
peevish and ill-tempered if I could make the slightest
opposition to their publication. I am no doubt extremely
sorry to find myself of a different opinion both from so
able a judge of the subject and from so old and good a
friend; but differences of this kind are inevitable, and
besides, _Partium contentionibus respublica crescit_. I
should have been waiting on your Lordship before this time,
but the remains of a cold have for these four or five days
past made it inconvenient for me to go out in the evening.
Remember me to Mrs. Drummond,[297] and believe me to be, my
dear Lord, your most obliged and most humble servant,
ADAM SMITH.
Smith had most probably discussed the merits of Lord Kames's
objections with his lordship already, so that he saw no occasion to
reply to them in his letter. What Kames principally combated was the
idea that sympathy with the sufferings of another originated in any
way in our imagining what would be our own feelings if we were in the
sufferer's place. He contends, on the contrary, that it is excited
directly by the perception of the screams, contortions, tears, or
other outward signs of the pain that is endured; and that trying to
put ourselves in the sufferer's place produces really a
self-satisfaction, on account of our own immunity from his troubles,
which has the effect not of awakening the feeling of pity but of
moderating and diminishing it.
A second objection he raises is that if Smith's theory were true,
those in whom the power of imagination was strongest would feel the
force of the moral duties most sensibly, and vice versa, which, he
says, is contradicted by experience. His last objection is that while
the theory proposes to explain the origin of the moral sentiments so
far as they respect other persons, it fails entirely to account for
those sentiments in regard to ourselves. Our distress on losing an
only son and our gratitude for a kindly office neither need to be
explained nor can they be explained by imagining ourselves to be other
persons.
One of the first acquaintances Smith made in Edinburgh was a young
Caithness laird who was presently to make a considerable figure in
public life--the patriotic and laborious Sir John Sinclair, founder of
the Board of Agriculture, promoter of the Statistical Account of
Scotland, and author of the _History of the Public Revenue_, _the Code
of Agriculture_, _the Code of Health_, and innumerable pamphlets on
innumerable subjects. Sinclair was not yet in Parliament when Smith
came to Edinburgh in the end of 1777, but his hands were already full
of serious work. He was busy with his _History of the Public Revenue_,
in which Smith gave him every assistance in his power, and he had
actually finished a treatise on the Christian Sabbath, which, in
deference to Smith's advice, he never gave to the press. The object of
this treatise was to show that the puritanical Sabbath observance of
Scotland had no countenance in Holy Scripture, and that, while part of
the day ought certainly to be devoted to divine service, the rest
might be usefully employed in occupations of a character not strictly
religious without infringing any divine law. When the work was
completed, Sinclair showed the manuscript to Smith, who dissuaded him
strongly from printing it. "Your work, Mr. Sinclair," said he, "is
very ably written, but I advise you not to publish it, for rest
assured that the Sabbath as a political institution is of inestimable
value independently of its claim to divine authority."[298]
One day Sinclair brought Smith the news of the surrender of Burgoyne
at Saratoga in October 1777, and exclaimed in the deepest concern that
the nation was ruined. "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,"
was Smith's calm reply. In November 1778 Sinclair wanted Smith to send
him to Thurso Castle the loan of the important French book on
contemporary systems of taxation, which is so often quoted in the
_Wealth of Nations_--the _Mémoires concernant les Impositions_--and of
which only 100 copies were originally printed, and only four
apparently found their way to this country. Smith naturally hesitated
to send so rare a book so far, but promised his young correspondent to
give him, when he returned to Edinburgh, not only that book but
everything else, printed or written, which he possessed on the
subject. Smith's letter is as follows:--
Mr. Smith presents his most respectful compliments to Mr.
Sinclair of Ulbster.
The _Mémoires sur les Finances_[299] are engaged for four
months to come to Mr. John Davidson;[300] when he is done
with them Mr. Smith would be very happy to accommodate Mr.
Sinclair, but acknowledges he is a little uneasy about the
safety of the conveyance and the greatness of the distance.
He has frequent occasion to consult the book himself, both
in the course of his private studies and in the business of
his present employment, and is therefore not very willing to
let it go out of Edinburgh. The book was never properly
published, but there were a few more copies printed than was
necessary for the Commission, for whose use it was compiled.
One of these I obtained by the particular favour of Mr.
Turgot, the late Controller-General of the Finances. I have
heard but of three copies in Great Britain: one belongs to a
noble lord, who obtained it by connivance, as he told
me;[301] one is in the Secretary of State's office, and the
third belongs to a private gentleman. How these two were
obtained I know not, but suspect it was in the same manner.
If any accident should happen to my book, the loss is
perfectly irreparable. When Mr. Sinclair comes to Edinburgh
I shall be very happy to communicate to him not only that
book, but everything else I have upon the subject, both
printed and manuscript, and am, with the highest respect for
his character, his most obedient humble servant,
ADAM SMITH.
EDINBURGH, _24th November 1778_.[302]
The _Mémoires_ was printed in 1768, but it may be reasonably inferred,
from Smith's account of the extreme difficulty of getting a copy, that
he only obtained his in 1774, on the advent of Turgot to power. If
that be so, much in the chapters on taxation in the _Wealth of
Nations_ must have been written in London after that date.
Sir John's biographer quotes a passage from another letter of Smith in
connection with his correspondent's financial studies. This
letter--which Archdeacon Sinclair describes as a "holograph letter in
six folio pages"--is no longer extant, but it concluded with the
following remarks on the taxation of the necessaries and luxuries of
the poor:--
I dislike all taxes that may affect the necessary expenses
of the poor. They, according to circumstances, either
oppress the people immediately subject to them, or are
repaid with great interest by the rich, _i.e._ by their
employers in the advanced wages of their labour. Taxes on
the _luxuries_ of the poor, upon their beer and other
spirituous liquors, for example, as long as they are so
moderate as not to give much temptation to smuggling, I am
so far from disapproving, that I look upon them as the best
of sumptuary laws.
I could write a volume upon the folly and the bad effects of
all the legal encouragements that have been given either to
the linen manufacture or to the fisheries.--I have the
honour to be, with most sincere regard, my dear friend, most
affectionately yours,
ADAM SMITH.[303]
FOOTNOTES:
[295] Stewart's _Works_, x. 46.
[296] _Ibid._, v. 256.
[297] Mrs. Drummond is Lord Kames's wife. She had succeeded to the
estate of her father, Mr. Drummond of Blair Drummond, and having along
with her husband assumed her father's surname in addition to her own,
was now Mrs. Home Drummond. It may perhaps be necessary to add that
the title of a Scotch judge is not extended, even by courtesy, to his
wife.
[298] Sinclair's _Memoirs of Sir John Sinclair_, i. 36.
[299] Smith, writing from memory and without the book at hand, makes a
verbal mistake in the title.
[300] Doubtless John Davidson, W.S., a well-known antiquary of the
period, who is mentioned favourably in the preface to Robertson's
_History of Scotland_ as a special authority on certain facts of the
life of Mary Stuart.
[301] Probably Lord Rosslyn, for Bentham, in writing to advise Lord
Shelburne to procure a copy of this book, mentions that he knew Lord
Rosslyn had a copy, which he had obtained from Mr. Anstruther, M.P.,
who happened to be in Paris when it was printed, and contrived to get
a copy somehow there.
[302] _Sir J. Sinclair's Correspondence_, i. 388.
[303] Sinclair's _Life of Sir J. Sinclair_, i. 39.