He begins by stating, very justly, that “value, in its ultimate sense, appears to mean the esteem in which any object is held;” and then proceeds to state, in the most lax and inconsequent manner, that “It is only when objects are considered together as subjects of preference or exchange that the specific feeling of value can arise. When they are so considered, our esteem for one object, or our wish to possess it, may be equal to, or greater, or less than our esteem for another; _it may, for instance, be doubly as great_, or, in other words, we would give one of the former for two of the latter. So long as we regarded objects singly, we might feel a great degree of admiration or fondness for them, but we could not express our emotions in any definite manner. When, however, we regard two objects, as subjects of choice or exchange, we appear to acquire the power of expressing our feelings with precision; we say, for instance, that one _a_ is, in our estimation, equal to two _b_.... The value of _a_ is expressed by the quantity _b_, for which it will exchange, and the value of _b_ is, in the same way, expressed by the quantity of _a_.”[53] So, then, it appears, as a consequence of value, meaning the esteem in which an object is held, that if there were two sorts of fruit in a country, called _a_ and _b_, both very plentiful in the summer, and both very scarce in the winter; and if in both seasons they were to bear the same relation to each other, the feelings of the inhabitants with regard to the fruit _a_ would be _expressed with precision_, by saying that, as it would always command the same quantity of the fruit _b_, it would continue to be of the same value—that is, would be held in the same estimation in summer as in winter. It appears, further, that in a country where there were only deer, and no beavers or other products to compare them with, the specific feeling of value for deer could not arise among the inhabitants; although, on account of the high esteem in which they were held, any man would willingly walk fifty miles in order to get one!! These are, to be sure, very strange conclusions, but they follow directly from the previous statements. The author, however, nothing daunted, goes on to say, that “If from any consideration, or number of considerations, men esteem one _a_ as highly as two _b_, and are willing to exchange the two commodities in that ratio, it may be correctly said that _a_ has the power of commanding two _b_, or that _b_ has the power of commanding half of _a_.” “The definition of Adam Smith, therefore, that the value of an object expresses the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys, is substantially correct; and as it is plain and intelligible, it may be taken as the basis of our subsequent reasonings without any further metaphysical investigation.”[54]