ENGL 200 D: Reading Literature: Literature in the Marketplace

In Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments he gives us the impression that to be wealthy is a good thing because they high class has money. Smith say’s “The fortunate and the proud wonder at the insolence of human wretchedness, that it should dare to present itself before them, and with the loathsome aspect of its misery presume to disturb the serenity of their happiness.” In this case the lower class such as the “poor” are inappreciable and looked down upon.  As for the high class or “wealthy” they are presented to be unique because they are rich so therefore acknowledged and glorified. Due to this idea, in this text everyone wants to be prosperous. But then we get into Smith’s text: Division of Labour he also talks about how the rich and poor and how they are similar but different due to the existence of who has more money. He says,  “But though the poor country, notwithstanding the inferiority of its cultivation, can, in some measure, rival the rich in the cheapness and goodness of its corn, it can pretend to no such competition in its manufactures; at least if those manufactures suit the soil, climate, and situation of the rich country.”  This is the belief in which Smith expressed in Theory Moral Sentiments. We can see that the rich and poor countries  are both powerful in agriculture, but the rich countries have better quality manufactures, therefore they are considered predominant. I don’t understand how the rich and poor can have good agriculture but the rich are always more superior? Smith states, “He must cultivate these therefore: he must acquire superior knowledge in his profession, and superior industry in the exercise of it. He must be patient in labour, resolute in danger, and firm in distress.” Is this the only way for someone not born in the upper class to be powerful in someway the rich are?