political triumph.This consideration may in part explain the cause of the great durability of public works in China.It shows that the paternal character of the government is in some measure a reality.I suspect, however, that the contrast between the construction of public and private works there, is more apparent from the diminishing strength of the accumulative principle in that great Empire.I shall presently have occasion to adduce some reasons for this conjecture.
It is perhaps here worthy of remark, as serving to show that ostentation and extravagance have very little connexion with any other species of enjoyment, but that which places its gratifications in some superiority over others, that in proportion as nations are addicted to vanity and luxury, their range of bodily enjoyments seems to become less.Cleanliness, for instance, may be said to be a refined sensuality; it is a real enjoyment, on which the self-mortified ascetic wastes not his care; and we find that least attention is paid to it by the vain, and most by the provident, so that other things being equal, where the effective desire of accumulation is high, there it is most scrupulously observed; where it is low, it is little regarded.
The North American Indians seem really not to have any notion of its existence.It appears to them, in other people, as an affected and unaccountable scrupulosity.(115) The Chinese are described as disgustingly filthy.The Romans were certainly, as may be gathered from various passages in the Latin writers far from being what we would esteem cleanly.An English gentleman would not think of writing to his friend that if he dined with him he should find well-washed dishes.
-- Ne non cantharus et lanx Ostendat tibi te; (116)Horace introduces a fanciful epicure, complaining of unwashed goblets, want of table napkins and saw dust, as taking away from the pleasures era sumptuous feast.(117) In modern times Holland has been esteemed the country of cleanliness; England perhaps ranks next.
Improvement can never facilitate the production of mere luxuries.It cannot do so because it is not the thing itself, but merely the quantity of labor embodied in it that vanity prizes.Diminish the labor necessary for its production, and you take away what this passion covets.It will, therefore, either consume a proportionally larger quantity of the commodity, or will turn itself for its gratification to other commodities of greater rarity, which a greater amount of labor that is, or some equivalent to it is necessary to purchase.
Pearls, as ornaments, probably derive nearly their whole value from their scarcity.Reduce their price to one half, and the quantity worn to produce the same effect would require to be doubled.Render them obtainable for a trifle, and they could be no longer worn.It has been more than once attempted to cultivate them, that is to make the oyster that produces them, bear them universally and plentifully.Linneus conceived it practicable by pricking the animal, and other managements, but the scheme has never succeeded.Had it done so fully, it had certainly been useless.Suppose it had diminished the labor necessary to procure them by one half, then a lady to be as richly dressed as before, would just have had to carry double the number.Had the facility been farther increased, so that they became as plentiful as glass heads, they would then have become as useless.
If every peasant girl could afford to have a string of them, no lady would wear them, and when ladies ceased to wear them, peasant girls would lay them aside.(118) It is the same with all other articles that are mere luxuries.As they only serve for marks of the riches of the individuals possessing them, every diminution made in the labor embodied in them diminishes, in a proportionate degree, their fitness for the purpose for which they are employed.Should topazes become as plentiful as cairngorums they would be no more esteemed.
There are few commodities, however, in which utility, as well as vanity, has not a considerable share.On such the effects of improvements are twofold.
As far as they possess inherent utility, it tends to carry them first, and subsequently all other instruments in the society, towards the more quickly returning orders.In so far again as they are mere luxuries, it renders a greater quantity of them necessary, or unfits them altogether for the supply of the demands of vanity.There is hence a sort of strife between the two principles, the one seeking to disparage and discard such commodities, the other to retain them.The result seems mainly determined by the proportion of the one, or the other sort of qualities, existing in the article in question, and by the degree in which its consumption is apparent.It may have so many useful and agreeable qualities, that however easily obtained, or however openly consumed, it cannot be driven out of use.All that vanity can do with regard to such articles, is, to consume them when they are most scarce.Some of the Romans never ate fish but when at a distance from the sea, nor flesh but when on the sea-shore.Green peas become luxuries at christmas.Should the best flannel cost only two pence a yard, it would still be worn by all who now wear it, and by many who do not.Its consumption is not conspicuous.On the contrary, were any particular fine fabric of cotton presently used for gowns, and costing two shillings per yard, in consequence of improvement to be sold for two pence per yard, it could no longer be worn.It would no longer be dress for any rank, and its consumption would therefore diminish or cease.About ten years ago, what are called leghorn bonnets were fashionable, and much worn in Canada and the United States.They then cost three or four pounds.
They may be had now for a few shillings, and no one wears them; straw which were then disused but by the less wealthy, are now preferred; they are dearer and less durable.