I don't think "opulence" is a better world in English. The term "wealth" was a sort of third way between "riches" and "happiness" - that was very common in latin countries, in Italy in particular. Wealth derives from weal, than refers to something more than material wealth of nations. In my Civil Happiness (2006) I discuss this issue. Luigino
> Following up on, and in line with, Richard’s and Steve’s comments, I thought it would be of interest to point out that the Swedish translation of The Weath of Nations is “Nationernas välstånd,” which translates to “the prosperity of nations.” This is interesting for two reasons: 1) because Sweden, especially the upper classes and monarchy, was highly influenced by France (French policy, law, etiquette) throughout the 18th century; and 2) Swedish has the same term as the French richesse (rikedom), with the same ambiguous meaning (at least in this context). So the fact that the translation of Smith’s title avoids the Swedish version of the French richesse may be telling about the Swedish (if not pan-Nordic) understanding of market, economy, and nation following the 1765 publication of Anders Chyndenius’s very “Smithian” Den nationnale winsten (The National Gain).
>
>
> Per Bylund
>
>
> Dr. Per L. Bylund | Entrepreneurship | Hankamer School of Business
> Research Professor | Baugh Center for Entrepreneurship & Free Enterprise
> Baylor University | One Bear Place #98011 | Waco, TX 76798-8011
> p 573.268.3235| w www.PerBylund.com<http://www.PerBylund.com> | e [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent from Surface 3
>
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Van Den Berg, Richard
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 8:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] "the science of wealth (of nations)"
>
> If one wants to discuss this matter in general terms, then a useful brief description of the changing content of the notion of wealth (and richesses) is provided by Vaggi and Groenewegen in their A Concise History of Economic Thought. From Mercantilism to Monetarism (2003, Macmillan). Rather than trying to establish a general distinction between English and French speakers, it is perhaps more useful to distinguish between authors of different periods. Before and after Quesnay, for example, strikes me as an important watershed.
>
> Richard van den Berg
>
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Kates
> Sent: 22 June 2015 07:20
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] "the science of wealth (of nations)"
>
>
> I found Tony's discussion of Adam Smith's meaning of the word "wealth" very much in accord with what I and probably most people think Smith meant. But that is in English. What I have found so notable about the earlier postings is the way "wealth" is translated. Does someone who reads the words, "the wealth of nations", but in a different language, hear something different? Would someone who comes across the book in French (or Turkish) think it is about "the opulence of nations"? A book like Piketty's, for all its sales, does not seem to have become much of an influence in English speaking countries. What I am getting at is this: when someone reads "richesse" in French, do they think of Versailles rather than pin factories?
>
> On 19 June 2015 at 08:48, Tony Aspromourgos <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I published a very detailed interpretation of Smith's political economy and the prehistory of its fundamental concepts in 2009 - as it happens, with the title, The Science of Wealth (Routledge). One of those fundamental concepts, of course, is "wealth". An exhaustive examination of all Smith's uses of that term, in all his writings (pp. 30-35 of my book) makes it clear that wealth is not understood as a stock, but rather (in relation to nations), as the flow of annual national product. I may add that the sense in which Smith's political economy is a science of "wealth" I think also is about its materialism: Smith's science is about the production and distribution of material things (not, e.g., a science of choice, and not primarily a psychological science).
>
>
>
> Tony Aspromourgos
>
> ________________________________
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Wells, Julian [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:32 PM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] "the science of wealth (of nations)"
>
> I don’t know to what extent the 18th century would have understood “wealth” in the sense of a particular private stock of riches but, to the extent that it did so understand it, Smith’s title could have been read as a pointed reference to the mercantilist ideas that the book is devoted to rebutting (but recall that defence is more important than opulence: WN IV.ii.30: 464-5).
>
> Julian
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Steve Kates
> Sent: 18 June 2015 05:33
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] "the science of wealth (of nations)"
>
>
> It has seemed to me for a while that the title, The Wealth of Nations, is an eighteenth century use of words and is somewhat misleading as to the point that Smith was making. I have tried to find a modern phrase that would capture what he meant, and the closest I have been able to come to is: The Prosperity of Nations. "Wealth" has a kind of treasure chest notion to it (which it may not have had back then), and the word "wealthy" is tied to personal riches, which is not at all, I think, what Smith was trying to get at. So when I read that the French for "wealth" is "richesse", or that my google translator turns "The Wealth of Nations" into "la richesse des nations", I really do therefore wonder how much has been lost in translation. Because when I translate the English word "riches" into French, it gives me "richesse" once again. The alternative French to English of "richesse" are "wealth", "richness", "riches", "rich" and "affluent". And for the French word "riche" we get these English translations: "rich", "wealthy", "affluent", "opulent", "splendid" and "luxurious". Each of them seem totally inadequate to making sense of what Smith had in mind or what the book is about. This seems to me more than just a curiosity.
>
> On 16 June 2015 at 17:58, Deniz T. Kilincoglu <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> I'm trying to trace the source of translating "economics" as "the science of wealth" (and sometimes "the science of the wealth of nations") in late nineteenth-century Ottoman-Turkish.
> Ottoman economists most probably rendered it from French ("la science de la richesse"), from popular sources preceding the 1860s.
> I could find expressions like "l'économie politique est la science de la richesse" in many economic texts from the era, but I'm trying to understand how common it was to use "la science de la richesse" instead of or interchangeably with "l’économie politique" referring to the discipline itself.
> Many thanks in advance for your responses.
> Best,
> Deniz
>
> --
>
> Deniz T. Kilincoglu, PhD
>
>
>
> Economics Program
>
> Middle East Technical University
>
> Northern Cyprus Campus, T-141
>
> Kalkanlı, Güzelyurt, KKTC
>
> via Mersin 10, Turkey
>
> Telephone: +90 392 661 3017
>
>
>
> Just published: Economics and Capitalism in the Ottoman Empire<http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781138854062/>, Routledge, 2015.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Steven Kates
> Associate Professor
> School of Economics, Finance
> and Marketing
> RMIT University
> Building 80
> Level 11 / 445 Swanston Street
> Melbourne Vic 3000
>
> Phone: (03) 9925 5878
> Mobile: 042 7297 529
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Steven Kates
> Associate Professor
> School of Economics, Finance
> and Marketing
> RMIT University
> Building 80
> Level 11 / 445 Swanston Street
> Melbourne Vic 3000
>
> Phone: (03) 9925 5878
> Mobile: 042 7297 529
|
