Introduction
It is well known that Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) was an outstanding polymath. He after all worked in many fields of thought, was a polyglot in his command over ancient and modern languages and was recorded in history as a sound administrator, fiscal reformer, major Enlightenment figure and skilled writer on applied and theoretical economics.
At the 2003 Turgot Conference held at Caen and Lantheuil, many papers were presented on Turgot the translator, the political and moral philosopher, the sociologist and the philosopher of history, the linguist, the poet, the student of probability and, especially, the reformer, the lawmaker, the statesman and administrator and the profound economic theorist.Turgot’s many biographers have also commented invariably on his broad scientific aptitude, his wide philosophical interests, his experiments in chemistry, physical and mathematical study and his abiding interest in history, sociology, philosophy, political science and political economy, both in its theoretical ramification and as an applied science designed to secure major reforms and improvements. These wider talents, on the exercise of many of which he left specific writings, major or minor, make him a generalist, an eighteenth-century “Renaissance man,” a true product of the Enlightenment who tried to understand all and to elaborate the mysteries of science—natural and especially social—in letters, memoranda, short papers and occasionally even short books.
Turgot’s personal library likewise demonstrates his enormous breadth of interests. As catalogued by Takumi Tsuda (1974), it is easy to indicate its scope by summarizing the table of division of the library by subject matter. Not surprisingly, given his early education and training, it contained many theological works and a substantial collection of works on jurisprudence.
The last embrace much material on the laws of nature and of the people. Turgot’s history collection ranged from ecclesiastical history to ancient history, modern history, national history (especially that of France, Germany, England and Spain) and literary history. The sciences and the arts were well represented. In the order of this table, they included philosophy, ethics, morals, economics, education and metaphysics, while natural history covered the literature of agriculture, medicine, mathematics, chemistry, pharmacy, surgery, astronomy and optics. Works on the arts covered architecture, painting, sculpture, music, dance and the military arts. The section on belles lettres lists works such as grammars and dictionaries, writings on ancient and modern languages (that is, Latin, French, Italian, German, Flemish and English) and books on rhetoric and poetry drawn from many countries, as well as novels and books on philology. Well-represented languages among the books of this immense library were Latin, Italian, Spanish and English, with French, not surprisingly, dominating the collection. This was the library of a nonspecialist, of a widely cultured person, interesting himself in virtually every aspect of intellectual activity: the type of library expected of a true figure of the Enlightenment.Yet Turgot was also a convinced believer in the importance of specialization, as demonstrated by the many advantages of the division of labor he noted in his writings. For Turgot, these advantages were a crucial feature of economic, social and human development. Nevertheless, few essays have been published that explicitly tackle the importance of specialization and division of labor in Turgot’s work. I myself know of only one article exclusively devoted to this topic (that is, Ravix, 1992, esp. pp. 42-48). This perhaps makes it useful to briefly examine three aspects of Turgot’s treatment of specialization and the division of labor. The first concerns Turgot’s discussion of the necessary link between inequality, the division of labor and the progress of knowledge and wealth.
This linkage is concisely raised in some of Turgot’s early writings, in particular his important 1751 “Letter to Mme. de Graffigny,” inspired by his reading of her Lettresperuviennes. The second aspect dwells on Turgot’s discussion of the division of labor and economic progress, with particular reference to its implications for capital accumulation and the division of society into specific classes. This he sketched with great elegance in his famous Reflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses, completed in November 1766 and published in several versions during his lifetime. The third aspect of Turgot’s treatment of the division of labor arises from Turgot’s attempts to grapple administratively with securing some major benefits for contemporary society from his reform of the corvee and his attempt at reforming the milice.Aspects of Turgot’s generalist spirit therefore arise even in his discussion of the advantages (and costs) of specialization and the division of labor. After all, the three aspects of his treatment of the division of labor to be discussed reveal Turgot the political and moral philosopher, Turgot the economist and sociologist of progress and Turgot the administrator and social reformer actively seeking to enhance the economic welfare for the communities that he was called upon to administer during the most historically significant parts of his life. These were his intendancy of Limoges (1761-74) and his brief service to Louis XVI as minister (1774-76), first of the navy, and then of finance as controleur-general.
Turgot’s main concern was with the social division of labor, or the division of professions, to use the expression Turgot himself tended to use. The manufacturing division of labor at best featured marginally in his concise analysis of the subject in his 1766 Reflexions, particularly in its shoe manufacturing examples, which are quoted below in section 3 of this chapter. Presenting a broad aspect of Turgot’s economics of production is also a fitting tribute to Alessandro Roncaglia, whose economic contributions are celebrated in this collection of essays published in his honor.
2.