Town and/or country: Adam Smith’s rhetorics of 'natural progress of opulence'

The brief history of Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the Wealth of Nations (1776) has received due attention. What makes this account noteworthy is, on the one hand, the causal links Smith forges between a series of historical developments —and attributes to David Hume—pertaining to the rise and fall of feudal system and the emergence of modern European states; and on the other hand, his argument that Europe had not followed the "natural progress of opulence" (WN III.i): its progress had been inverted and retarded—which deflects him away from Hume—due to historical circumstances which had favoured the town at the expense of the country. Building on his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres and Essays on Philosophical Subjects, the present paper shows that there are sufficient grounds to argue that Smith constructs this paradox as a rhetorical device: (i) the inverted presentation of history creates emotional unease in readers thereby requiring a theoretical explanation, (ii) which Smith provides in the simplest and most satisfactory manner possible in his historical account. (iii) The resulting motivational power of theoretical beauty reflects Smith's attempt to foster reform —withdrawal of policies that benefit either the town or the country (iv) The resulting admiration for theoretical beauty helps, in turn, to distract readers' attention away from appreciating the fact that it was the mercantile system, Smith's prime adversary, that made possible unprecedented liberty, wealth and progress.