Jane Austen has long been recognized as a moral thinker. Below the surface of romance there is in her novels a moral message. I focus on Pride and Prejudice. Certain passages of this novel have been traced to Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments before. But Jane Austen did not only borrow two short passages from Adam Smith and inserted them into the text of her novel. My claim is that Jane Austen relied much more extensively on the Theory of (...) Moral Sentiments as a source of inspiration for this novel. Indeed, she used it, and in particular book VI.iii., the chapter on ‘self-command’ in the TMS, as a source of inspiration for designing the plot of this novel, for shaping some of the main characters, and for composing the moral message in the sub-text of this novel. By inviting her readers to share the point of view of the heroine, Elizabth Bennet, she involves them in a process of learning to be virtuous that bears strong resemblance to this process as Adam Smith described it in his moral theory. (shrink)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith are giants of eighteenth century thought. The heated controversy provoked by their competing visions of human nature and society still resonates today. Smith himself reviewed Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality, and his perceptive remarks raise an intriguing question: what would a conversation between these two great thinkers look like? In this outstanding book Charles Griswold analyses, compares and evaluates some of the key ways in which Rousseau and Smith address what could be termed "the question of (...) the self." Both thinkers discuss what we are by nature, who we have become, whether we can know ourselves or each other, how best to articulate the human condition, what it would mean to be free, and whether there is anything that can be done to remedy our deeply imperfect condition. In the course of examining their rich and contrasting views, Griswold puts Rousseau and Smith in dialogue by imagining what they might say in reply to one another. Griswold's wide-ranging exploration includes discussion of issues such as narcissism, self-falsification, sympathy, the scope of philosophy, and the relation between liberty, religion and civic order. A superb exploration of two major philosophers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith: A Philosophical Encounter is essential reading for students and scholars of these two figures, eighteenth century philosophy, the Enlightenment, moral philosophy, the history of ideas. It will also be of interest to those in related disciplines such as political theory, economics, and religion. (shrink)

This essay re-examines Adam Smith’s encounter with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Against the grain of present scholarship it contends that when Smith read and reviewed Rousseau’s Second Discourse, he neither registered it as a particularly important challenge, nor was especially influenced by, or subsequently preoccupied with responding to, Rousseau. The case for this is made by examining the British context of Smith’s own intervention in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, where a proper appreciation of the roles of David Hume and Bernard (...) Mandeville in the formation of Smith’s thought pushes Rousseau firmly into the background. Realising this, however, forces us to re-consider our evaluations of Rousseau’s and Smith’s very different political visions. Given that questions of individual recognition, economic inequality, and political stability remain at the heart of today’s social challenges, the implications of this are not just historical but of direct contemporary import. (shrink)

Addison and Steele’s legacy on polite manners has been widely acknowledged as a hallmark of the Scottish Enlightenment’s tradition. On the other hand the place of courtly, ‘French’ politeness within the Scottish Enlightenment is much less debated. Conceiving the European Enlightenment as a status quo built on ‘French manners and English liberty’, as Pocock perfectly synthesizes1, points out to the restrictions imposed on religious fanaticism and warfare by the ‘jus gentium’ and European civility. In my paper I aim to shift (...) the attention to the seemingly obvious fact that manners, the backbone of European civility, originate in court, and Versailles was the court par excellence. In this context I explore Adam Smith’s struggle to strip politeness and civility of its aristocratic components. In the heart of the matter lies the strange idea of courtoisie without a court, of propriety that should overcome formal politeness i.e. imitation of aristocratic manners. (shrink)