• 1 Mizuta, Hiroshi. Adam Smith's Library : a Catalogue, (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 2000).

1Many Enlightenment thinkers collected information on world societies. While they still referred to ancient classical books, they also investigated societies based on travel books. Especially since the Age of Exploration, many European people had travelled almost all over the world and collected information. Some wrote travel books, which were new sources of knowledge about world societies; the books told European readers what they did not know from the ancient texts. Many Enlightenment thinkers were eager to read travel books to update their view of the world. Adam Smith was also enthusiastic about collecting travel books. Adam Smith's library held a significant number of travel books on North and South America, China, the Middle East, and other world countries.1

• 2 Fairchild, Hoxie Neale, The Noble Savage: a study in Romantic Naturalism (New York: Russell & Russe (...)

6When Smith investigated the impact of colonization in the Americas, he saw some societies in South America as bad examples in that colonization did not completely incur social progress. Although scholars have examined the intellectual impact of European encounters with the Americas,2 they still need to sufficiently clarify this.

• 3 Winch, Donald, Classical Political Economy and Colonies (London: G. Bell, 1965), Chap. II ; Stevens (...)
• 4 Keen, Benjamin, The Aztec image in Western thought (New Brunswick: Rutgers U. P., 1971), pp. 272-3) (...)

7More attention needs to be given to Smith's view of South America. Indeed, scholars have elucidated Smith's idea of imperialism3 and his view of South America.4 These studies needed to fully clarify how Smith examined colonies in South America.

• 5 Meek, Ronald L. Social Science and the Ignoble Savage (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1976); Meek, Ron (...)
• 6 Sagar, Paul. Adam Smith Reconsidered : History, Liberty, and the Foundations of Modern Politics (Pr (...)

9Secondary literature, indeed, has examined Smith's view of developmental history. It might be supposed that Smith had a four-stage framework for this theory, which says that society develops from hunting to pastoral, agricultural, and commercial ones. Although this theory has been studied,5 recently, Paul Sagar and Maria Pia Paganelli insisted that this theory of development or progress does not easily fit into Smith's description of each society and its history.6 Indeed, the societies in South America were also not easy to categorize according to this development theory.

• 7 Armitage, David. 'The new world and British historical thought : from Richard Hakluyt to William Ro (...)
• 8 Marshall, P. J. and Williams, G., Great Map of Mankind: British Perceptions of the World in the Age (...)
• 9 Berkhofer, Robert F. Jr., The Whiteman's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the (...)
• 10 Sebastani, The Scottish Enlightenment, pp. 96, 101.
• 11 As Maria Pia Paganelli and Michele Bee ('Adam Smith, Anti-Stoic', History of European Ideas, 45 (4) (...)

11By considering the case of the indigenous people in South America, we can reconsider Smith's developmental history given the distinction between savagery and civilization. Indeed, as scholars have elucidated, in the eighteenth century, American indigenous people came to be seen as uncivilized because of their lack of private property or settlements, etc.7 In the eighteenth century, Enlightenment thinkers increasingly adopted a dichotomy in which savagery was representative of economic backwardness8 or a lack of progress.9 Some even regarded savage people as ignoble. Nevertheless, the Aztecs and Inca were not efficiently fit to be categorized as savages. They were seen as refined in comparison with other American societies.10 Smith found that the economic development of civilization and its moral evaluation had some tension.11 By examining the case of South America, Smith came to see the Aztecs and Inca as not fully civilized and as only relatively civilized, compared to other societies in America. He, nonetheless, admired these so-called savage people, including Amerindians, because of their virtuousness. Despite this recognition, when evaluating indigenous societies, Smith also considered the effects of colonization. As I suggest in this paper, Smith's dichotomy between savagery and civilization included not only the perspective of economic development but also that of moral degradation. Smith was not only a political economist who examined economic progress but also a moralist who lamented moral degradation. We can understand this moralist aspect when considering his view of savagery and civilization.

• 12 Brading, D. A., The first America: the Spanish monarchy, Creole patriots, and the liberal state 149 (...)
• 13 Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. by R. H. Campbell, (...)
• 14 Smith, WN, I. xi. g. 26.

14To study the effects of colonization in South America, Smith investigated travel books. He especially mentioned George [Jorge] Juan and Antonio de Ulloa's Voyage historique de l'Amérique méridionale fait par Ordre du roi d'Espagne (1752), Amédée François Frézier's A Voyage to the South Sea, and along the coasts of Chili and Peru, in the years 1712, 1713, and 1714: Particularly describing The Genius and... (1717) and Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri's A Collection of Voyages and Travels, some now first printed from original manuscripts, others translated out of foreign languages, and now first... (1704). George [Jorge] Juan (1713-1773) was a Spanish mathematician and seaman who visited South America with Antoine de Ulloa (1716-1795), another Spanish mathematician. Philip V (1683-1746), the Spanish king, ordered them to write about their expedition to South America, titled Relación Histórica del viaje a la América Meridional (1748), a book that was translated into various European languages. Amédée François Frézier (1682-1773) was a French naval captain who visited Lima in 1712-14. While Frézier saw Creoles, the descendants of Spanish colonizers in America, as 'profligate, idle and superstitious' and commented on the bitter rivalry between American and European Spaniards, Ulloa chose to emphasize the magnificence of the churches, the wealth of the nobility, the beauty and exotic attire of the women, and the splendor of the ceremonies.12 Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri (1651-1725) was an Italian adventurer. Although Smith described Careri as ‘a pretended traveller,' he also wrote that he 'seems everywhere to have written upon extreme good information,' so Smith relies on his information on Mexico.13 Smith, nonetheless, more frequently cited Juan and Ulloa's book and Frézier's book. As Smith mentioned, both Ulloa and Frézier lived in Peru14. Smith considered who could be considered reliable as a source of information about South America, indicating that some informants were not trustworthy. This selective usage of research literature implies that he did not affirm some particular prevailing visions of South America.

• 15 Smith, WN, I. xi. c. 25.

15First, Smith considered the influence of the colonization of South America from the viewpoint of the profits of its mines. Smith referred to Juan and Ulloa's book and Frézier's book to illustrate that the mines in South America were not profitable. For instance, Smith said, 'In the silver mines of Peru, we are told by Frezier and Ulloa, the proprietor frequently exacts no other acknowledgement from the undertaker of the mine, but that he will grind the ore at his mill, paying him the ordinary multure or price of grinding. Till 1736, indeed, the tax of the king of Spain amounted to one-fifth of the standard silver, which till then might be considered as the real rent of the greater part of the silver mines of Peru, the richest which have been known in the world.'15 Smith also insisted that the prospectors of the mines did not make a profit. He said:

• 18 Juan, George [Jorge] and De Ulloa, Antoonio de, Voyage Historique de l'Amérique méridionale fait (...)

19Furthermore, Smith also cited Juan and Ulloa to illustrate how the miner failed to make a profit. Indeed, Juan and Ulloa mentioned, 'When a person expresses his intention of working in some mine, others look upon him as a man running headlong to his destruction, and who risks certain ruin for remote and uncertain hopes.' Nevertheless, they also wrote, 'This occupation, for want of being sufficiently acquainted with it, is universally dreaded' in Rio Bamba, which 'is full of mines of gold and silver.' However, 'in the southern provinces of Quito, it is quite otherwise; the celebrated miners being men of great power, vast fortunes, and the most eminent families in the country.'18

• 19 Smith, WN, IV. i. 32.

21The low profits of the mines were also significant for supporting his insistence that gold and silver could not be the source of wealth. He said, 'It is not by the importation of gold and silver that the discovery of America has enriched Europe. By the abundance of American mines, those metals have become cheaper.'19 The abundance of gold and silver did not make people wealthy, as Smith insisted. Smith seems to insist that when referring to the miners in South America, even the miners could not be wealthy, much less their European colonizers. Smith then ignored the information in the travel books of South America that presented the possibility that the miners could be wealthy. Even though he did not necessarily deny the claim that the abundance of gold and silver was not the source of wealth, it suggests that he overemphasized the failure of the miners.

• 22 Smith, WN, IV. vii. b. 51.

24This suggests that a colonial government could have been advantageous to its inhabitants because of the nature of the mother government (liberty and legality) and the character of the nation. Smith admitted the positive impact of colonization in British America because of its governance. He, indeed, said, 'Except their foreign trade, the liberty of the English colonies to manage their own affairs their own way is complete. It is in every respect equal to that of their fellow citizens at home and is secured in the same manner by an assembly of the representatives of the people, who claim the sole right of imposing taxes for the support of the colony government.' Furthermore, 'In none of the English colonies is there any hereditary nobility [...] there is more equality [...] among the English colonists than among the inhabitants of the mother country. Their manners are more republican, and their governments [...] have hitherto been more republican too.'22 This passage suggests that republican self-governance without hereditary nobility is the cause of good governance, resulting in the prosperity of its society.

• 24 Frézier, A Voyage, p. 145.
• 25 Frézier, A Voyage, pp. 263, 265-266.

27Travel books sometimes pointed out the evils of the colonial government in South America. Frézier argued that the Spanish colonial government in South America adopted the encomienda system, which forced the native people there to pay tributes to or serve the governors. Frézier insisted that this system was against the orders of the Spanish king, who prohibited the governors from adopting such a system. Because of this system, a war was waged between the Spanish and the indigenous people. The Spanish governors in Peru ordered some indigenous people to work in the mines, including the one at Potosi.24 Not only governors but also curates, members of the cloth, forced indigenous people to work without payment. Although the Spanish king prohibited work without compensation, both governors and curates did not pay the indigenous people for their work nor did they even supply subsistence wages or provisions. Similarly, merchants and travellers also robbed the indigenous people of their goods.25 Smith's reference to "violence" in Spanish America might include such cases.

• 26 Smith, WN, IV. i. 32.

28If so, we can insist that when Smith opposed imperialism, the opposition was because of not only its effects on European people but also on indigenous people in colonized societies. Indeed, he wrote, 'The savage injustice of the Europeans rendered even [the discovery of America], which ought to have been beneficial to all, ruinous and destructive to several of those unfortunate countries.'26

• 27 Smith, WN, I. xi. g. 26.
• 28 Smith, WN, I. xi. g. 26.

29Third, citing Frézier and Juan and Ulloa, Smith illustrated the increase in the population in South America. Indeed, he wrote, 'The Spanish colonies are under a government in many respects less favourable to agriculture, improvement and population.'27 As I argue, Smith considered violent, arbitrary (unlawful), and nonfree government in South America harmful for society. Despite that, 'they seem [...] to be advancing in all these much more rapidly than any country in Europe. In a fertile soil and happy climate, the great abundance and cheapness of land, a circumstance common to all new colonies, is, it seems, so great an advantage as to compensate many defects in civil government' (Smith 1981, I. xi. g. 26). Smith then wrote that Frezier, who visited Peru in 1713, represented Lima as containing between twenty-five and twenty-eight thousand inhabitants. In addition, 'Ulloa, who resided in the same country between 1740 and 1746, represents it as containing more than fifty thousand.' Accordingly, the population 'marks which is scarce inferior to that of the English colonies.'28

• 29 Frézier, A Voyage, 218. (On this point, see also Smith, WN, I. xi. g. 26n.)

30The travel writers, indeed, supported the population. According to Frézier, 'The number of Spanish families in Lima may make up about 8 or 9000 Whites; the rest are only Mestizos, mulattos, blacks, and some Indians; tho', in the whole, there are about 25, or 30000 souls, including the friars and nuns.'29 Juan and Ulloa wrote, in Lima,

• 32 Smith, WN, IV. vii. c. 100.
• 33 Smith, WN, I. xi. g. 26.

33Smith recognized that the Aztecs and Inca were not savage and were superior to that, whereas he saw other societies in South America, such as those in Brazil, as savage. He, indeed, wrote, "the natives of every part of America, except Mexico and Peru, were only hunters.'32 He also said, while 'New Granada, the Yucatan, Paraguay, and the Brazils were, before discovered by the Europeans, inhabited by savage nations, who had neither arts nor agriculture,' Mexico and Peru 'cannot be considered as altogether new market', and 'the Peruvians' were 'the more civilized nation of the two.' He did not think of them as fully civilized because 'in arts, agriculture, and commerce, their inhabitants were much more ignorant than the Tartars of the Ukraine are at present.'33 For Smith, the Aztecs and Inca, unlike other societies in America, were relatively civilized, and had some agriculture and commerce. Despite his recognition that both industries in the two nations were only rudimentary, Smith also recognized that they had not only agriculture but also commerce.

• 34 Sagar, Adam Smith Reconsidered; Paganelli, Adam Smith and Economic Development.

34For Smith, the two societies were not fit to be categorized according to his four stage theory. For the two nations were not seen as agricultural society, nor commercial one properly . As Sagar and Paganelli argued, Smith recognized that the four-stage theory was not necessarily appropriate for categorizing every society.34 The two nations, however, can be categorized according to the developmental theory from savagery to civilization. Smith thought of the two nations as relatively civilized compared to other societies in South America, but also did not see them as fully civilized. To evaluate the degree of civilization, he used two standards. One is relative evaluation by which he judged the degree of civilization of one society compared to another; another is absolute evaluation by which he saw the level of civilization of society from the perspective of the manners of subsistence. In view of the manners of production, the Aztec and Inca were not civilized as having fully-developed commerce and agriculture, but the two nations were civilized as having them in their early stage compared to other societies which had not such industries.

• 35 Smith, WN, IV. vii. c. 80.
• 36 Smith, WN, IV. vii. b. 49.
• 37 Smith, WN, VI. vii. b. 52.

38Second, Smith's political economy denied economic affluence by colonization. Smith illustrated the attempt as unsuccessful by referring to the case of the colonies in North America. Although Smith recognized economic growth in British North America, this does not mean that he affirmed colonization itself. On the one hand, the indigenous people in America suffered from 'dreadful misfortunes' by European colonization.35 For the colonists in North America, due to the monopoly of trade by the British merchants, they were forced to buy commodities at higher prices than otherwise.36 Nevertheless, Smith saw British colonies in North America as more successful than Spanish colonies in South America because the government of the former was less oppressive and more liberal than that of the latter. He saw 'the government of the English colonies' as 'perhaps the only one which, since the world began, could give perfect security to the inhabitants of so very distant a province.'37 Despite that, the British colonies could have been more successful if the colonies had been emancipated. Colonies in general harmed both colonists and the colonized. Smith's political economy contained these political implications of anti-imperialism. Smith's political economy did not necessarily concentrate on economic analysis but also reviewed the economic impact of political institutions. Economic prosperity was dependent on these institutions.

• 38 On this point, see Fairchild, The Noble Savage; Sebastiani, The Scottish Enlightenment.
• 39 Keen, The Aztec Image, pp. 217, 249.
• 40 Keen, The Aztec Image, pp. 260-270.

40In considering civilization, Smith also used the perspective of moral qualities. Indeed, he did not then adopt the idea of the noble savage because he also pointed out the deficits of savage people. Some authors, such as Bartolomé de las Casas (1474-1566), insisted that savages in America were virtuous and morally noble38. Smith implicitly denied this view of the nobility of savagery. As Keen argued, whereas some such as Jesuits emphasized the virtues of the indigenous people, as did the earlier writers, 'the intellectuals of the Enlightenment wrangled bitterly about the capacity, character, and achievement of the Indian.' George Louis Leclec Buffon (1707-1788) 'appeared to condemn the Indian to physical, mental, and moral inferiority.'39 Cornelius de Pauw (1739-99), the Dutch philosopher and geographer, refuted the traditional view of Mexico as having created a written language such as hieroglyphics and saw the indigenous people as short of coined money.40 The negative image of the indigenous people by Buffon and de Pauw was received affirmatively in Britain, including Scotland. He, however, admired their moral qualities, as I argue in the next section.

• 41 Keen, The Aztec Image, p. 272.

41As Keen insisted,41 it might be argued that Smith saw the indigenous people in America as having no civilization. Indeed, for Smith, they were not civilized, but he also respected and evaluated their moral quality.

• 42 Sagar, Adam Smith Reconsidered; Paganelli, Adam Smith and Economic Development.
• 43 On this point, see also Paganelli, Anti-Stoic, although this section focuses on another viewpoint S (...)

43Despite Keen's view, Smith argued for the moral goodness of indigenous people in America. This meant that when judging society, Smith had two criteria, the degree of civilization and that of moral quality. Indeed, as Sagar and Paganelli suggested, Smith's view of each society did not necessarily follow the four-stage theory.42 Smith, however, used the theory only in Book V of WN and Lectures on Jurisprudence. In WN especially from Book I to IV, and The Theory of Moral Sentiments (hereafter TMS), Smith liked to use the dichotomy between savagery and civilization. As I argued, Smith reviewed the degree of civilization of each society according to the relative as well as absolute evaluation. Whereas the absolute one was fit for judging society from the viewpoint of economic development, Smith adopted relative evaluation in considering the level of civilization when he examined the moral quality of each society. He especially paid attention to moral degradation when discussing the moral quality of people and society.43

• 45 On this point, see Griswold, Charles L., Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment (Cambridge: Ca (...)
• 46 Smith, WN, IV. vii. b. 1.
• 47 Smith, WN, IV. vii. b. 2.

45Smith here evaluated societies morally. Although this point has been studied extensively,45 what needs to be researched more sufficiently is that in addition to civilization as an outcome of development, morality also involves historical processes. Smith investigated indigenous societies in North America from the viewpoint of the degree of civilization. First, in the WN, Smith supposed that savage societies such as those of North America did not advance economically; he saw this kind of society as 'a waste country, or of one so thinly inhabited.'46 Second, the societies did not develop politically; when arguing the impact of colonization, he thought that colonists brought the colonized societies into the knowledge of 'the system of laws [...]and of a regular administration of justice.'47 Smith, nevertheless, did not think that the degree of civilization was the only standard to evaluate societies. Although Smith supposed that indigenous societies in North America were not economically and politically advanced, he still considered them morally so; in reality, he admired the self-command of the indigenous people in North America.

• 48 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 2.

46When Smith judged societies morally, he saw moral sentiments influenced by customs. Although the sense of moral approbation and disapprobation was so strong in human nature that local customs did not alter their prevalence, they still affected the sense of right and evil. He said, "When custom and fashion coincide with the natural principles of right and wrong, they heighten the delicacy of our sentiments, and increase our abhorrence for every thing which approaches to evil.'48

• 49 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 7.

47Smith insisted that societies could differ in moral character. He wrote that like the variety of characters dependent on individual professions, 'the different situations of different ages and countries are apt [...]to give different characters to the generality of those who live in them, and their sentiments concerning the particular degree of each quality, that is either blamable or praise-worthy, vary according to that degree which is usual in their countries and their own times.'49

• 50 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 8.
• 51 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 9.
• 52 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 9.
• 53 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 9.

48Smith then contended that moral character could differ from savage to civilized societies. He wrote, 'Among civilized nations, the virtues which are founded upon humanity, are more cultivated than those are founded on self-denial and the command of passions.' In contrast, 'among rude and barbarous nations, it is quite otherwise, the virtues of self-denial are more cultivated than those of humanity'. He explained this difference from the viewpoint of social situation. He wrote, 'The general security and happiness, which prevail in ages of civility and politeness, afford little exercise to the contempt of danger, to patience in enduring labour, hunger, and pain. Poverty may easily be avoided, and the contempt of it therefore almost ceases to be a virtue.' In civilized societies, 'the abstinence from pleasure becomes less necessary, and the mind is more at liberty to unbend itself.'50 Among 'savages and barbarians it is quite otherwise. Every savage underdoes a sort of Spartan discipline, and by the necessity of his situation is inured to every sort of hardship.'51 Because of the hardships in their society, savage people were required to accustom themselves to an insensitivity to the passion. Although, to be unaffected, savage people tended to lose sympathy towards others, so that they are, in almost every situation, calm and free from strong emotions.52 He wrote, 'When a savage is made prisoner of war, and receives, as is usual, the sentence of death from his conquerors, he hears it without expressing any emotion'.53 This means that Smith evaluated societies according to their moral character. First, Smith emphasized the effects of social security. Unlike savage societies, in civilized societies, people could enjoy peace and security, resulting in their moral character. In addition, he also focused on economic development. Because savage nations suffer from the shortage of necessaries and conveniences, they are forced to endure a state of lack, resulting in changes to their moral codes.

• 54 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 10.
• 55 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 9.

49Smith then did not think of savagery as inferior to civilized societies. In contrast, he admired the self-denial of savagery as this 'heroic and unconquerable firmness,' although this self-denial, 'which the custom and education of his country demand of every savage, is not required of those who are brought up to live in civilized societies.'54 Smith also wrote, 'Every savage is said to prepare himself from his earliest youth for this dreadful end’, such as torment when captured by enemies. The savage 'composes, for this purpose, what they call the song of death, a song which he is to sing when he has fallen into the hands of his enemies and is expiring under the tortures which they inflict upon him [...]The same contempt of death and torture prevails among all other savage nations.'55 Smith admired this moral quality. He supposed that savage people had moral qualities that were not inferior to civilized people but, in a sense, superior to them.

• 57 Smith, TMS, VI. iii. 1.

52Smith deepened his concern about the moral qualities of civilized people, especially in the sixth edition of TMS. Smith then increasingly emphasized the importance of self-command. He insisted that without self-command, people could not control their sentiments, which might make them avoid their moral duties. It is demanding for them to follow moral obligations owing only to the rules of prudence, justice, and benevolence.57 Smith did not change his stance on the importance of self-command but changed the focus, resulting in the view that self-command is also essential for performing moral actions. In this regard, Smith thought of the indigenous people in America as the model of a people in self-command.

• 58 Smith, TMS, V. 2. 9.

53Indeed, despite this emphasis on self-command, this did not mean that extreme self-command, self-denial, is necessary for civilization. In contrast, he insisted that in civilized society, people cultivated virtues based on humanity than those based on self-denial. In contrast, in savage nations, people cultivated the virtues of' self-denial more than those of humanity. Smith considered that the reason for this difference was 'the general security and happiness which prevail in ages of civility and politeness'.'58 Smith kept these sentences in the sixth edition of his publication. He did not think that self-denial was essential for people in a civilized society. Civilization made people aware of their economic wealth and security, resulting in the relaxation of sentiments. Self-denial, then, is not necessarily essential for survival, unlike savagery and barbarism. Smith evaluated the degree of civilization from the perspective of economic development and social security.

• 59 Smith, TMS, I. iii. 3. 1.
• 60 Smith, TMS, I. iii. 2

54Smith, nonetheless, became increasingly critical of the moral effects of civilization in the sixth edition. In civilized society, people saw the rich and the great as respectable and not the virtuous. In contrast, they despised the poor, not the vicious.59 He wrote, 'This disposition to admire, and almost worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.' This suggests that a society that holds many riches, that is, a civilized one, was morally problematic. Although Smith, from the first to the sixth editions of TMS, continued to regard sympathy towards the rich and great as the cause of social order,60 in the sixth edition, he changed the point of emphasis and focused on the moral deficits of civilized societies.

• 61 Smith, TMS, I. iii. 3. 4.
• 62 Smith, TMS, I. iii. 3. 6.

56We can understand Smith's negative evaluation of civilization in the sixth edition, especially when considering the moral degradation of the upper class. He wrote, 'The profligacy of a man of fashion is looked upon with much less contempt and aversion than that of a man of meaner condition.'61 Smith then criticized 'the superior stations of life' because 'in the court of princes, in the drawing-rooms of the great […] success and preferment depend, not upon the esteem of intelligent and well-informed equals, but upon the fanciful and foolish favour of ignorant, presumptuous, and proud superiors.' Finally, he denounced 'the external graces, the frivolous accomplishments of that impertinent and foolish thing called a man of fashion.'62 Although Smith did not make clear what society he had in mind, this was a civilized society in which the great and the rich became powerful from the prosperity of society. Despite economic wealth, some people lost their moral qualities in this society, and many people tried to follow them. Smith, as a moralist, lamented this degradation. Smith accordingly saw civilization not only as economic progress but also as moral degradation.