Abstract

Maureen Harkin

Smith on Literature

My paper takes the specific loss of Smith's projected treatise on literature in the deathbed bonfire of his papers as the departure point, investigating the following questions:  What are the most important claims of Smith’s writings on rhetoric and belles lettres? How do Smith’s arguments –- about the superior power of historical to fictional narration in the Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, for example  —  compare to those of contemporaries such as Lord Kames? And what is the evidence, in the surviving texts, of incompatibilities or inconsistencies in Smith’s conception of the work and value of literary texts that would help explain Smith’s reluctance to publish a systematic treatment of the subject?