Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow Thursday February 24th 1763. - Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 5 Lectures On Jurisprudence

Return to Title Page for Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 5 Lectures On Jurisprudence

Search this Title:

Thursday February 24th 1763. - Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 5 Lectures On Jurisprudence [1762]

Edition used:

Lectures On Jurisprudence, ed. R.. L. Meek, D. D. Raphael and P. G. Stein, vol. V of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982).

Part of: The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 7 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


Thursday February 24th 1763.

In the last lecture I endeavoured to shew in what manner those governmentsi which <?were> originally Tartarian ones or under chiefs in the same manner as the Tartars, came from thence to settle in towns and become republican {in many parts of Greece, and the same was the case in Italy, Gaul, etc.} We may easily conceive that a people of this sort, settled in a country where they lived in pretty great ease and security and in a soil capable of yielding them good returns for cultivation, would not only improve the earth but also make considerable advances in the severall arts and sciences and manufactures, providing they had an opportunity of exporting their sumptuous produce and fruits of their labour. | Both these circumstances are absolutely necessary to bring about this improvement in the arts of life amongst a people in this state. The soil must be improveable, otherwise there can be nothing from whence they might draw that which they should work up and improve. That must be the foundation of their labour and industry. It is no less necessary that they should have an easy method of transporting their sumptuous produce into foreign countries and neighbouring states. When they have an opportunity of this, then they will exert their utmost industry in their severall businesses; but if their be no such opportunity of commerce, and consequently no opportunity of increasing their wealth by industry in any considerable degree, there is little likelyhood that they should ever cultivate arts to any great degree, or produce more sumptuous produce than will be consumed within the country itself; and this will never be wrought up to such perfection as when there are greater spurs to industry. Tartary and Araby labour | under both these difficulties. For in the first place their soil is very poor and such as will hardly admit of culture of any sort, the one on account of its dryness and hardness, the other on account of its steep and uneven surface. So that in them there is no room for cu<l>ture; the soil itself debarrs them. Neither have they any opportunity of commerce, if it should happen that they should make any advances in arts and sciences. They are deprivd in most places of the benefit of water carriage, more than any other nation in the world; and in some places where they would have an opportunity of it, the land carriage which would be necessary before it, debarrs them no less than the other. In these countries therefore little or no advances can be expected, nor have any yet been made. But in Greece all the necessary circumstancesj for the improvement of the arts concurred. The severall parts were seperated from each other by mountains and other barriers, no less than Arabia, but isk far more | adapted to culture. They would therefore have many inducements to cultivate the arts and make improvements in society. The lands would be divided and well improved and the country would acquire considerable wealth. And as a nation in this way would be vastly more wealthy than their neighbours, having more of what Homer calls κοιμηλια,89 that is, good<s> stored up, they would be very apt to be attacked and plundered by their neighbouring nations, who would often set out on piraticall expeditions from their country. We find that at the time of the Trojan war such expeditions were very frequently undertaken, nor were pirates then looked on as any way disshonourable. We see that in the Odyssey, Ulysses, who very seldom gives a true account of himself, is often asked whether he was a merchant or a pirate.90 The account he generally gives of himself was that he was a pirate. We see too that this was a much more honourable character than that of a merchant, which was allways looked on with | great contempt by them. A pirate is a military man who acquires his livelyhood by warlike exploits, whereas a merchant is a peaceable one who has no ocasion for military skill and would not be much esteemed in a nation consisting of warriors chiefly.l {The severall clans, as we may call them, would plunder on one another in the same way as the clans did in this country and in every country where they are established; and if the people without the consent of the chief should make any incursions they would always be protected by him.} They would naturally therefore take some precautions against these robbers and pirates, both by land and sea, for they might in the night time be attacked by a set of pirates from the sea as well as land robbers. We see that none of their hamlets were built near the sea; but as this would not secure them against others, they would be necessitated to have some fortifications to secure themselves, their cattle, and other goods. This would be much more easily accomplished by the fortifying of one large place, in which they might reside altogether, than by fortifying each particular hamlet. This was accordingly done and all the principall persons removed into it. This we find was the case in all the states of Greece, in each of which we | find some great city. The neighbouring country was but thinly inhabited; the houses in it were but poor; they had no country houses of any consequence, but only sheds and hovels for their cattle. The rich people who had much substance, or inclined to live somewhat more comfortably or elegantly than others, would all shelter themselves in this city. And hither too they would drive in their cattle in time of danger, as we are informed by Thucidides91 was done in the beginnings of the Peloponesianm war, and in many others; and indeed we have the best account which is to be had of the ancient state of Greece from the beginning of his work, and from Homer. I shewed you also in the last lecture92 in what manner those governments which were at first under the chieftans and governed in the manner of a clan, became in time to be a republican govt in all the states which were originally in that form. The great men of the country would as I have already mentioned leave | the villages in which they had presided to live in the city. The authority of the chief would not be at all agreable to them if it came to be any way excessive, nor would they be so much below him as to be greatly under his power. The revenue which would be derived from a small kingdom would not be sufficient to give the king or lord of it very great superiority over the nobles or other great men. Three or four of them combini<n>g would be able to wrest the authority and management of the state out of his hands. Kings nowadays still maintain their authority altho they have their nobles living at court about them, but it is becaus<e> their revenue is far superior to that of the nobles, and because the nobility have easier access to all posts of honour and profit than they could have if they were more laidn open, as then upstarts of parts might interfere with them. We see that the government of all citys is republican, managed by a town councill. | In the same manner the nobles,o the chief men of the state, would endeavour to reduce the state into their power. They therefore in most countries began to reduce the power of the state into their own hands from those of the chief. This was done by degrees at Athens, and the government laid open to the people by slow degrees. {And in about 200 years after the Trojan war, when all Greece was under single leaders or a few chieftans, the states were all become aristocracies.} Therep does not seem to have been any law at first obligingq the people to choose their magistrates from the nobles, but this however they always did, as they would be most inclined to favour those who had supported and protected them and whom they had in some measure been accustomed to obey. The governments in this manner became aristocraticall, from that of the kingly sort. But in fact there seems to have been a considerable degree of the democraticall form under what were generally reckoned monarchies. For we see that the people had the sole power of making laws, and even the last determi|nation of all affairs with regard to peace or war. {And they had the power of choosing all magistrates, insomuch that the authors say that Theseus, by calling the people to live in a city together, laid the foundations of the democracy.93 } The king, as he was called, was no more than a leading man who had superior influence in their deliberations. The nobles coming in his place had in the same manner the lead in all affairs, and were accordingly chosen into all the magistracies. This was what the ancients called an aristocracy, tho from the priviledges above mentioned which were possessed by the people we should be apt to term them democracies. They gave the name of democracies to those governments where the people had the same access to the magistraci<e>s and offices of state as the nobles. But of these we have none at this time in Europe. They were succh as Genoa, Milan, Venice, etc. were formerly. The people of all these countries voluntarily resigned the power into the hands of the nobles[s], and they alone have since had the administration of affairs. We find nothing similar to this94 in any of the ancient republicks. | The institution of slavery seems to have been the cause of this difference. In the modern republicks every person is free, and the poorer sort are all employed in some necessary occupation. They would therefore find it a very great inconvenience to be obliged to assemble together and debate concerning publick affairs or tryalls of causes. Their loss would be much greater than could possibly be made up to them by any means [could be made up], as they could have but little prospect of advancing to offices. But in the ancient states the mechanick arts were exercised only by the slaves. The freemen were mostly rich, or if they were not rich they were at least idle–men, as they could have no business to apply themselves to. They therefore would find no inconvenience in being called to the publick affairs. Besides this, the vast difference betwixt a freeman of the lowest rank and a slave was so great that it made that amongst the freemen them|selves not perceptible; whereas nowadays the difference betwixt the freemen is not much less thanr betwixt the free and the slaves formerly. Liberalitas, ἐλευθερια, species liberalis, signify no more than the behaviour and appearance of a gentleman. For the distinction betwixt free and slaves made the same as betwixt the vulgare and the people of fashion or gentlemen. These therefore being few in number, and having no other employment, would easily attend on all trialls or courts, and might have besides som<e> probability of rising.—But in the modern commonwealths this was a burden on the common people, without any hopes of rewards. They therefore have all given it up. The Venetians resigned this power to the councill of 1000 chosen for that purpose out of the best families, who have still retaind it. The same has happened at Genoa, and in the United Provinces, where the whole people had at first equall access to the magistracies, but finding it altogether troublesome | resign’d it to the town council, who still continue to be possessed of it, and have the power of choosing their own members on a vacancy.—The aristocraticall government in the manner above mentioned took place after the government by a chief and the people under his direction was abolished. The nobles became jealous of his power[d] and at length deprivd him of it. Tho it happend sometimes that previous to this change the chief oppressed the nobles and people, as at Rome, Corinth, and other places; but in all of them the authority was at length taken out of his hands.—We see that this was the case in Gaul, where the people at Caesars time were under the aristocraticall form of government, and in Spain, where the government was that sort of an aristocracy in which the nobles only have access to the magistracies. Of all the countries which have undergone this change in the form of government,s Rome is that of which we have the distinctest account, and of the graduall advance of the | democracy which followed hear as well as at Athens. The nobles at first in both had the sole government committed to them, as they only had the power of being chosen into the magistracies; at least they onlyt were ever chosen. The A<t>henian magistracies were also confind at first to the highest class. But as the power of the nobles declined very fast when either commerce or luxury were introduced, the people strug<g>led for liberty, which was beginning even in the time of the decemviri, as an express law made some time before was introduced into the 12 Tables making the patricians alone capable of being elected.95 The constitution of the Comitia Centuriata had in effect before given the two first classes the sole power in all debates (as is well known), and these Tables made the aristocracy still more firm by many laws. One I mentioned already concerning libells96 was peculiarly adapted to the aristocraticall form of government. But the power of the nobles and their influence over the people soon decreased on the introduction of wea<l>th and luxury. And it probably would be still <?> | in that case in the Roman state than it would now. One who spends 10000£ on himself and domestick luxury does not indeed form any dependents, nor would he have 3 men that would follow him in case he should rebell, <?but he> would nevertheless have the votes in the election of those he favourd with his custom. But in Rome, where all the luxury was supported by slaves who had no weight in the state, the luxury of the nobility destroyed all their power. They therefore made many demands of a share in the power of the government. They at length obtaind tribunes97 who were to support their interest in all cases. These for their own sakes as well as that of the people strove to have the magistracies98 communicated with them. This they at last obtained; but for severall years afterward there was not one plebeian magistrate chosen, as the patricians, tho divided amongst themselves, all combind against the plebeians, and the plebeians, being accustomed to obey them and look upon them as their superiors, were more inclind to vote for them than to give their vote to enstallu their equalls over their heads. The tribunes however still persevered, | and at last attained to their wish by procuring a law,99 to which the people readily consented, that the half of all magistrates, 2 consuls, 6 military tribunes, 8v praetors, etc. should be chosen from the people; from which time they were anually elected in that manner. The Athenians1 were allowed by Solon to choose magistrates out of the three higher classes, and afterwards by Aristides out of any class. The Greeks2 as I said seem to have been in much the same state as the Greeks a little after the Trojan war, and the Spaniards as they were before the time of the Persian expedition.— — —

[i]‘became’ deleted

[j]Numbers written above the last two words indicate that their order was intended to be reversed

[k]Sic

[89 ]κειμήλια; e.g. Iliad, vi.47; Odyssey, iv.613.

[90 ]Only once, in fact, Odyssey, ix.253–5, but the same question is asked of his son, Telemachus, in Odyssey, iii.72–4. Smith’s statement that pirates were not then thought dishonourable, as may be seen from Homer, is an echo of Thucydides, I.5.1–2.

[l]Numbers written above the last three words indicate that they were intended to read ‘chiefly of warriors’

[91 ]II.13 ff.

[m]Replaces ‘Trojan’

[92 ]59–60 above.

[n]Numbers written above the last two words indicate that their order was intended to be reversed

[o]‘or lords’ deleted

[p]‘government’ deleted

[q]Reading doubtful

[93 ]Thucydides, II.15; Plutarch, Life of Theseus, 24–5.

[94 ]A short arithmetical calculation—probably related to the personal accounts of the student, and certainly not related in any way to the text of the lectures—has been written on the verso of 67 at about this point, and apparently deleted.

[r]‘amongst’ deleted

[s]‘we find’ deleted

[t]‘could’ deleted

[95 ]i.e. elected consuls.

[96 ]ii.142–3 above.

[97 ]Tribunes of the plebeians were established in 494 b.c. Livy, II.33.

[98 ]Particularly the consulship which was reserved to patricians. In 445 b.c. a lex Canuleia provided that in any year the Senate could substitute for the two consuls military tribunes (usually six in number) with consular power, and plebeians were eligible for election as military tribunes. Livy, IV.1 ff.

[u]Reading doubtful

[99 ]The leges Liciniae Sextiae of 367 b.c. abolished the military tribunes with consular power and provided that one of the two consuls must thereafter be a plebeian, and that the ten keepers of the oracles should be half patrician and half plebeian. The first praetorship was established at the same time, the number growing to six by 197 b.c. Both patricians and plebeians were eligible for election. Livy, VI.34 ff.

[v]Reading doubtful

[1 ]Solon restricted the office of archon to members of the highest or two highest property classes; it was opened to the third class in 457 b.c. after the death of Aristides. Cf. Potter, Archaeologia Graeca (7th edn., 1751), 14, 16.

[2 ]Sic. Probably ‘Venetians’ was intended. Cf. 70–1 above.