Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:48:24.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adam Smith and the Teaching of English Literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Franklin E. Court
Franklin E. Court*
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Adam Smith's famous lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres, first delivered in Edinburgh from 1748 to 1751, were the first formal lectures on the subject of “English” in Britain to give singular pedagogical prominence to the application of selections from English literature in the university classroom. Literary and educational historians over the years have acknowledged Smith's role particularly in the teaching of rhetoric; but they have hesitated to assign any significant historical value to the theory that his extensive use of selections from English literature in his lectures was less belletristically inspired, in spite of his refined literary interests, and more the result of his deeply felt, practical concern over the future of a laissez-faire economic system that by its very nature advocated a lessening of political, social, and religious control over the commonwealth. Smith's decision to use selections from English literature in his classroom, as this essay argues, was based largely on the belief that vernacular literature could provide a ready context for the teaching of ideological, social and moral lessons. As an economist, Smith was naturally interested in the insular “business” of higher education, but he was also interested in the broader role that he thought higher education should play in preparing students for the “real business” of the real world.

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , Fall 1985 , pp. 325 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by History of Education Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See Smith's, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, ed. with introduction by Lothian, John M. (London, 1963). There continues to be some controversy over the degree to which Smith actually taught literature. Howell, W. S., for instance, in his chapter on Smith's lectures in Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric (Princeton, 1971), pp. 536–76, noted that Smith did not intend his lectures strictly as discourses on ancient and modern literature, but as discourses designed to teach rhetoric. Howell acknowledged, however, that John Rae, Francis W. Hirst, and W. R. Scott, Smith's biographers, have referred to the lectures as lectures on English literature. (p. 546) Scott, in addition, insisted that the lectures consisted of two courses of literature and literary criticism and a final course on jurisprudence. Lothian also has referred to them as lectures on literature. (see Lothian, , pp. xii, xxxiii) Although Howell readily admitted that Smith brought rhetoric and belles lettres together (p. 546), he insisted that the major subject of the course was rhetoric. His argument is based on the premise that Smith made rhetoric the general theory for all branches of literature (p. 547), an argument that seems not to disavow literature as an entity separate from rhetoric but actually to reaffirm the common contention that the study of the rhetoric of modern languages and of their literatures, whether Howell wished to subsume literature under the heading of a form of discourse or not, is one and the same. That rhetoric is, in fact, possibly the oldest form of literary criticism in the world is the point that Terry Eagleton recently emphasized in the last chapter of Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis, 1983), pp. 194–217; esp. pp. 205, 206. Smith's consistent judgments of literary selections and their authors in the lectures also give him a significant position in the history of English literary criticism as well as in the history of the teaching of English studies. Howell's chapter first appeared in Speech Monographs 36 (Nov. 1969):394–418, and is reprinted in Essays on Adam Smith , ed. Skinner, A. S. and Wilson, T. (Oxford, 1975), pp. 1–43. The biographies of Smith cited above are, Rae, John, Life of Adam Smith (London, 1895), reprinted with introduction by Viner, Jacob (New York, 1965); Hirst, Francis W., Adam Smith (New York, 1904); and Scott, W. R., Adam Smith as Student and Professor (1937), reprinted (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

2. See Smith's, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1976), 2:773.Google Scholar

3. Rae, , p. 32.Google Scholar

4. For more information on Stevenson, see Schmitz's, Robert Morell Hugh Blair (New York, 1948), esp. pp. 23, 10–13; see also Carlyle, Alexander, Autobiography , ed. Burton, John H. (Edinburgh and London, 1972). Neither Stevenson nor Smith was the first to make use of selections from English literature in the classroom. Notable interest in the teaching of English studies can be traced, at least, to the early years of the sixteenth century when the revival of learning and increasing nationalism led to an awareness of the value of the vernacular as an economic and pedagogical tool. An investigation of the history of the subject prior to the eighteenth century should take into account the early arguments for the teaching of vernacular studies in de Tradendis Disciplinis (1531) of Vives, Juan Luis, the controversial Spanish attaché to the court of Henry VIII; the practical efforts of Ascham, Roger, Palsgrave, John, Bullokar, William, Daines, Simon, Brinsley, John, Poole, Joshua, and many others, all of whom attempted to use English as an instructional tool to teach Latin; and the developing emphasis throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, particularly in the many dissenting academies in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, on the need to include the serious study of English in schools. It is clear, however, the arguments for the teaching of English rhetoric were far more profuse, as was the practice, than either arguments for or the actual practice of teaching English literature during the years before Smith's lectures.Google Scholar Scholarly interest in the subject of early efforts to teach English literature and literary criticism has increased since the pioneering work of Foster Watson in the early years of this century [e.g., see The Old Grammar Schools (Cambridge, 1916)]. Adamson's, John William two volume study of English Education 1789–1902 appeared in 1930, followed in 1937 by Stephen Potter's The Muse in Chains, an accounting of what Potter wryly deemed the reprehensible conquest and confinement of the literary muse in Academe. In 1958 E. M. W. Tillyard attempted an exoneration of the ivory tower and the literary canon in The Muse Unchained, a subtle accounting of the battle for the establishment of the Cambridge English school and a defense of academic programs in practical literary criticism. In 1965 D. J. Palmer in The Rise of English Studies (Oxford) provided what is to date the most comprehensive record of the growth of English studies throughout Great Britain, from the Renaissance to the early years of the present century. His efforts were tangentially augmented in 1975 by Alston, R. C. [“The Study of English,” in The English Language , ed. Bolton, W. F., vol. 10 of History of Literature in the English Language (London, 1975)] who traced the development of critical studies of English from the Renaissance, urging the thesis that serious interest in English language study actually began in the seventeenth century with Francis Bacon. Alston is correct in his choice of centuries but he overlooked a number of educators, many of whom preceded Bacon in time, who also must be accounted for as equally serious contributors to the development of the discipline. Three very recent discussions of the rise of literature and the history of English literature teaching in the schools are Eagleton's discussion mentioned above (see footnote 1.); Brian Doyle's essay on “The Hidden History of English Studies,” in Re-Reading English , ed. Widdowson, Peter (London, 1982), pp. 17–31; and Baldick's, Chris The Social Mission of English Criticism 1848–1932 (Oxford, 1983).

5. Blair assumed the belles-lettres lectureship at Edinburgh University in December 1759. His Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, avowedly influenced by Smith's earlier lectures, were published in an Edinburgh and London edition in 1783. Blair, who attended Smith's lectures at Edinburgh, assumed the continuity of his own lectures with Smith's; but there is good reason to believe that though one of his motives for teaching belles lettres, like Smith's, was generally to enlighten the populace and “improve” the commonweal, he was much less aware of the value and need to use English language authors specifically and drew his literary examples much more freely from other languages than did Smith. See Ong, Walter J. on Blair in The Barbarian Within and Other Fugitive Essays and Studies (New York, 1962), pp. 193–205.Google Scholar

6. Lothian pointed this out, p. xxiii; as did Scott in his biography of Smith; the fact apears to be common knowledge.Google Scholar

7. Though the precise content of the original Edinburgh lectures is still unknown, the Glasgow lectures in Lothian's edition, though it must be remembered that they are based on a student notebook discovered in 1958 and may contain inaccuracies, remain as the singular source of information on how Smith actually taught the first formal university course in English. See Lothian, , p. xii.Google Scholar

8. See Cassirer, Ernst, Language, vol. 1 of Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in 3 vols., trans. by Manheim, Ralph (New Haven, 1953), 1:133.Google Scholar

9. W. R. Scott suggests that because Smith appears not to have advertised his Edinburgh lectures in 1748, they were more than likely promoted by one of the literary clubs that made a hall or lecture room available (p. 49).Google Scholar

10. See Stewart's, Dugald Biographical Memoirs of Adam Smith (Edinburgh, 1811); reprinted (New York, 1966), p. 85.Google Scholar

11. “Adam Smith's Considerations on Language,” Journal of the History of Ideas 35 (1974):130–38.Google Scholar

12. Smith, , The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L. (Oxford, 1976), p. 9. All subsequent references are to this edition.Google Scholar

13. “Adam Smith and Some Philosophical Origins of Eighteenth Century Rhetorical Theory,” Modern Language Review 63 (1968):562. For recent critical responses to The Theory of Moral Sentiments see, Raphael, D. D., “The Impartial Spectator,” in Essays on Adam Smith , ed. Skinner, A. S. and Wilson, T. (Oxford, 1975), pp. 83–99; Lamb, Robert, “Adam Smith's System: Sympathy Not Self-interest,” Journal of the History of Ideas 35 (Oct.-Dec. 1974): 195–218; Campbell, T. D., Adam Smith's Science of Morals (London, 1971); and Brissenden, R. F., “Authority, Guilt, and Anxiety in The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 11 (Summer 1969):945–62.Google Scholar

14. See Megill's, A. D. discussion of this principle in “Theory and Experience in Adam Smith,” Journal of the History of Ideas 36 (1975):79–94.Google Scholar

15. Marshall's, essay appeared in Critical Inquiry 10 (June 1984):592–613. See also Waszek, Norbert, “Two Concepts of Morality: A Distinction of Adam Smith's Ethics and Its Stoic Origin,” Journal of the History of Ideas 45 (1984):591–606; esp. 599–601.Google Scholar

16. The Scottish Moralists on Human Nature and Society (Chicago, 1967), pp. xxvi–xxix. For an extended discussion of the distinction between the traditional view of conscience as initially the effect of social approval and disapproval and Smith's impartial spectator, see Raphael's, essay on “The Impartial Spectator,” pp. 90–94.Google Scholar

17. Doyle's, essay appears in Re-Reading English, ed. Widdowson, Peter (London, 1982), pp. 17–31; see especially p. 26.Google Scholar

18. Howell, , pp. 398–99.Google Scholar

19. In the first lecture, on the difference between natural and ornamental style, Smith observed that there is a similarity between propriety and the rules for purity of style, for both are formed from the custom of the people, the rules for style, in particular, from the “custom of the better sort of people” (p. 3). Smith's second lecture is a rather rudimentary attempt to explain to his students how language originated, particularly, the parts of speech. In the third lecture, he focused on proper English pronunciation. The fourth lecture continues his discussion of proper word arrangement in sentences. The fifth lecture shifts the emphasis slightly from rhetorical examples used to explain figures of speech to the effect such rhetorical strategy has on the reader. The shift in focus is a clear indication of Smith's early interest in the relationship between the teaching of belles lettres, social psychology, and the related question of reader response (pp. 24–25).Google Scholar

20. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, p. 31. All subsequent references are to this edition.Google Scholar

21. “No word can be passed over without notice; every other one must be strongly accented to draw the attention of the hearer, for a word lost would spoil the whole.” (p. 34)Google Scholar

22. “This, with the refinement of his temper, directed [him] to make choice of a pompous, grand, and ornate style.” (p. 54)Google Scholar

23. Smith argued here that a description in the hands of a good stylist is agreeable even when there is nothing particularly appealing in the object being described (p. 60). All of the descriptions should excite the same sentiments, otherwise the desired end is not realized (p. 67). For an example of unity of sentiment, he cited Milton's L'Allegro and Il Penseroso. In the fourteenth lecture he reminded his students that it is the character of a man that gives rise to his conduct. He cautioned them when writing character sketches to “give such observations on his conduct as will open up the general principles on which he acts.” (p. 78) At this point he also demonstrated how character should be analyzed and character sketches written successfully with the maximum desired response from the reader.Google Scholar

24. Wealth of Nations, 2:796.Google Scholar

25. Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 112.Google Scholar