19
Adam Smith
interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for
their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them.
Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do
this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which
you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this
manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of
those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the
benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect
our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We ad-
dress ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and
never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.
Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevo-
lence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon
it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies
him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this prin-
ciple ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which
he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them
as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional
wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people,
by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one
man gives him he purchases food. The old clothes which another
bestows upon him he exchanges for other clothes which suit him
better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he
can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he has occasion.
As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase, that we obtain
from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices
which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition
which originally gives occasion to the division of labour. In a tribe
of hunters or shepherds, a particular person makes bows and ar-
rows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any
other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison, with
his companions; and he finds at last that he can, in this manner,
get more cattle and venison, than if he himself went to the field to
catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the mak-
ing of bows and arrows grows to be his chief business, and he
becomes a sort of armourer. Another excels in making the frames
and covers of their little huts or moveable houses. He is accus-
tomed to be of use in this way to his neighbours, who reward him
in the same manner with cattle and with venison, till at last he
finds it his interest to dedicate himself entirely to this employ-
ment, and to become a sort of house-carpenter. In the same man-
ner a third becomes a smith or a brazier; a fourth, a tanner or
dresser of hides or skins, the principal part of the clothing of sav-
ages. And thus the certainty of being able to exchange all that
surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and
above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other
20
The Wealth of Nations
men’s labour as he may have occasion for, encourages every man
to apply himself to a particular occupation, and to cultivate and
bring to perfection whatever talent of genius he may possess for
that particular species of business.
The difference of natural talents in different men, is, in reality,
much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which
appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown
up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as
the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the
most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common
street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature,
as from habit, custom, and education. When they came in to the
world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they
were, perhaps, very much alike, and neither their parents nor play-
fellows could perceive any remarkable difference. About that age,
or soon after, they come to be employed in very different occupa-
tions. The difference of talents comes then to be taken notice of,
and widens by degrees, till at last the vanity of the philosopher is
willing to acknowledge scarce any resemblance. But without the
disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, every man must have
procured to himself every necessary and conveniency of life which
he wanted. All must have had the same duties to perform, and the
same work to do, and there could have been no such difference of
employment as could alone give occasion to any great difference
of talents.
As it is this disposition which forms that difference of talents, so
remarkable among men of different professions, so it is this same
disposition which renders that difference useful. Many tribes of
animals, acknowledged to be all of the same species, derive from
nature a much more remarkable distinction of genius, than what,
antecedent to custom and education, appears to take place among
men. By nature a philosopher is not in genius and disposition half
so different from a street porter, as a mastiff is from a grey-hound,
or a grey-hound from a spaniel, or this last from a shepherd’s dog.
Those different tribes of animals, however, though all of the same
species are of scarce any use to one another. The strength of the
mastiff is not in the least supported either by the swiftness of the
greyhound, or by the sagacity of the spaniel, or by the docility of
the shepherd’s dog. The effects of those different geniuses and tal-
ents, for want of the power or disposition to barter and exchange,
cannot be brought into a common stock, and do not in the least
contribute to the better accommodation and conveniency of the
species. Each animal is still obliged to support and defend itself,
separately and independently, and derives no sort of advantage
from that variety of talents with which nature has distinguished
its fellows. Among men, on the contrary, the most dissimilar ge-