The International Foundations of Classical Political Economy in the Eighteenth Century: An Alternative Perspective

Abstract

In one of his remarkable youthful writings on social progress, Turgot [1751, especially pp. 94–5] produced a schema of intellectual development in which he demonstrated the essential link between the innovating scientist and the work of predecessors. This principle is illustrated in the general argument by a qualified defence of Descartes and a comparison of his achievements with those of Newton, an almost classical comparison in this context, and one also made by Adam Smith on a number of occasions [Smith, 1755, p. 244; 1795, especially pp. 97–8]. Two decades later, Turgot applied this doctrine to the history of economics. This was in the context of criticism of Du Pont’s notes on Beccaria’s inaugural lecture published in Ephémérides which had drawn the anger of Melon’s son because of Du Pont’s criticism of his father [Melon, 1734].¹ Part of Turgot’s argument is worth quoting in commenting on Hébert’s vision of the French predecessors of Adam Smith:

…despite the errors in his work, I value Melon’s mental feat…When I first read his work, its merits in my mind arose from the fact that at that stage no one in France had discussed these subjects, at least in a clear manner. A person coming into the world after Montesquieu, Hume, Cantillon, Quesnay, M. de Gournay, etc. is less struck by the merit arising from Melon’s priority, because he does not appreciate it; for him it is no more than a date, and when he read him, he knew already more than his book (Schelle, 1913–23, III, pp. 499–500).