Journal of the History of Economic Thought ISSN 1053-8372 print; ISSN 1469-9656 online/19/000001-21 © The History of Economics Society, 2019 doi:10.1017/S1053837219000051 SCHUMPETER’S ASSESSMENT OF ADAM SMITH AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS: WHY HE GOT IT WRONG BY ANDREAS ORTMANN BENOÎT WALRAEVENS AND DAVID BARANOWSKI In his widely read and cited History of Economic Analysis (Schumpeter 1954), Joseph Alois Schumpeter dismissed Adam Smith’s Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Smith 1976a) in a blunt and often ad hominem manner. In fact, he even questioned Smith’s intellectual mettle. We argue that Schumpeter’s assessment might have resulted from his failure to appreciate the rhetorical structure of Smith’s masterpiece (and the highly political character of its Book V), a failure possibly due to Schumpeter’s not having access to student notes of Smith’s lectures on rhetoric that surfaced only after Schumpeter’s death. We argue that Schumpeter’s failure to appreciate the rhetorical structure of Smith’s masterpiece is a prominent example of the consequences of not taking into account Smith’s rhetorical strategies and principles when trying to understand the man and his oeuvre. The pearl of the collection is the first essay on the ‘Principles which lead and direct Philosophical Enquiries; illustrated by the History of Astronomy. Nobody, I venture to say, can have an adequate idea of Smith’s intellectual stature who does not know these essays. I also venture to say that, were it not for the undeniable fact, nobody would credit the author of the Wealth of Nations with the power to write them. (Schumpeter 1954, p. 177) Andreas Ortmann: UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales. Benoît Walraevens: University of Caen Basse-Normandie. David Baranowski: unaffiliated. We thank, without implicating, Hank Gemery, Geoffrey Harcourt, Gavin Kennedy, Stephen J. Meardon, and Spencer Pack for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of our manuscript. Thanks are also due to two referees for this journal who pushed us hard to make our argument clear. It shows.