The influence of these same circumstances must be accounted responsible for the stress which is laid by Say upon the _rôle_ of an individual whom Smith had not even defined, but one who is henceforth to remain an important personage in the economic world, namely, the _entrepreneur_. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the principal agent of economic progress was the industrious, active, well-informed individual, either an ingenious inventor, a progressive agriculturist, or an experienced business man. This type became quite common in every country where mechanical production and increasing markets became the rule. It is he rather than the capitalist properly so called, the landed proprietor, or the workman, who is “almost always passive,” who directs production and superintends the distribution of wealth. “The power of industrial _entrepreneurs_ exercises a most notable influence upon the distribution of wealth,” says Say. “In the same kind of industry one _entrepreneur_ who is judicious, active, methodical, and willing makes his fortune, while another who is devoid of these qualities or who meets with very different circumstances would be ruined.”[271] Is it not the master spinner of Auchy-les-Hesdins who is speaking here? We are easily convinced of this if we compare the edition of 1803 with that of 1814, and we can trace the gradual growth and development of this conception with every successive edition of the work. Say’s classic exposition of the mechanism of distribution is based upon this very admirable conception, which is altogether superior to that of Smith or the Physiocrats. The _entrepreneur_ serves as the pivot of the whole system. The following may be regarded as an outline of his treatment.