Martin Pánek requested me to jot down a Foreword to a brand new version of a Czech translation of Adam Smith’s The Principle of Ethical Sentiments. He gave me permission to submit my unique English-language textual content right here. The e book shall be printed 2023 by the Liberální Institut, edited by Pavel Chalupníček, translated by Hana Rogalewiczová & Vladimír Rogalewicz.
Have you ever observed? Now you hear so much about Adam Smith’s The Principle of Ethical Sentiments (TMS). I believe that’s good. Of all of the books I’ve ever learn, TMS is my favourite.
Do you know that from about 1800 to, say, 1976, TMS was consigned to oblivion? Throughout Smith’s life, TMS was fairly favorably obtained. Then, after 1790, it was extensively disparaged and fell into “oblivion,” because the distinctive Glenn Morrow noticed in 1927. And now it’s again in an enormous approach. What number of different books are there that resided in oblivion for thus lengthy—about 175 years!—after which got here again in an enormous approach? Curious, no?
TMS is a curious work, even mysterious. I believe it’s nice that Czech readers have the current useful resource to get acquainted with the work. TMS abounds in illustrations, so the e book doesn’t lack concreteness. Nonetheless, it’s a complicated work. Multi-layered, it’s possible you’ll say. And when there are layers beneath the floor, even between the strains, readers will puzzle over simply what it’s that’s down there. (Or ought to we are saying “up there”?) Students proceed to disagree.
One thing about TMS is indeniable: the breadth of its votaries. Admirers of TMS vary throughout educational and scholarly fields and disciplines, throughout nations and continents, and, most remarkably, throughout landscapes of political ideology. Immediately, Smith’s ghost is unquestionably happy to see us assembly to converse over how his textual content ought to be interpreted.
Immediately, Smith students agree on some essential issues. They often agree that The Wealth of Nations (WN) ought to be seen as an extension of, or annex to, TMS. In addition they usually agree that, though the 2 nice works differ enormously in sure elements, such because the language used and the gap or heat of the writer’s voice, there isn’t any underlying rigidity between the 2 works. The 2 works emphasize various things, and to some extent deal with issues in a different way, however there isn’t any inconsistency between them. Certainly, many of the Smithian contrarieties—that’s, seeming contradictions—which have engaged students are both intra-TMS or intra-WN.
For the reader of the Czech translation, the subtlety and richness of TMS signifies that studying the work in translation could also be much less helpful. My feeling, nonetheless, is that studying the interpretation may help one to get to understanding of TMS. However attending to understanding would require transferring on to Smith’s phrases, as he wrote them in English. I’ve spent many many years learning TMS. Your spending a 12 months with the Czech translation is an efficient method to get acquainted with TMS. Certainly, it could be the easiest way for Czechs to get acquainted.
As for Smith’s phrases, as he wrote them, students and editors correctly emphasize that the work modified significantly between the primary version of 1759 and the sixth version of 1790. The TMS of 1790 is a bigger and richer work than the TMS of 1759. Smith died in 1790, a few months after the ultimate version appeared. The modifications made in 1790, taken collectively, exceed all of the modifications made in all the earlier editions, in extent and significance. Did the modifications ever reverse, or retract, what was stated in an earlier version? I’d say, principally, no, Smith by no means precisely reversed or retracted what he meant within the earlier version (some argue that later editions considerably retract the evident theism of the primary version, however the proof is considerably ambiguous.) Smith’s considering absolutely developed considerably between 1759 and 1790, however I believe it believable that if the 1790 Adam Smith and the 1759 Adam Smith have been to fulfill privately and converse, the 36-year-old Smith would have discovered little within the dialog of the 67-year-old Smith to disagree with. On the modifications to TMS over the six editions, see Erik Matson’s article within the Journal of Markets and Morality (2021).
I made a getting-started-on-TMS video you would possibly discover useful:
One different factor, one thing that commentators don’t say sufficient: don’t take Smith’s representations of what different thinkers thought too severely. That’s, the place Smith says that Hume or Hutcheson or the Stoics or “the books of casuistry” stated X, determine that he’s positing a foil. He makes use of that foil to supply a distinction to his personal considering. In associating X with some thinker, Smith shouldn’t be essentially to be trusted—although maybe he makes the affiliation in a approach that, he figures, his reader will come to see as not solely with out irony or playfulness.
I think that in private interplay, Smith carried himself with much less playfulness than his finest pal David Hume. However one thing stated about Hume maybe had Smith additionally in thoughts. Smith’s youthful modern Dugald Stewart wrote: “Dr. [William] Robertson used incessantly to say, that in Mr. Hume’s gaiety there was one thing which approached to infantine; and that he had discovered the identical factor so typically exemplified within the circle of his different mates, that he was virtually disposed to contemplate it as characteristical of genius.” When studying TMS, we commune with a companion who mastered an equipoise between gravity and playfulness.