Abstract
We now possess two separate sets of student’s notes of Adam Smith’s lectures on Jurisprudence at Glasgow University: the set published by Cannan in 18962 which, as now appears probable, relates to the course delivered in the 1763–4 session;3 and the recently discovered set, soon to be published, which specifically relates to the course delivered in the 1762–3 session.4 From these two sets of notes, taken together, we are now able to obtain a fairly accurate picture of what the Jurisprudence section of Smith’s lectures to his Moral Philosophy class must have been like during his last two years at Glasgow.
This essay was originally published in History of Political Economy, 8, 1976, pp. 439–77. No amendments of substance have been made.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms (edited by E. Cannan, Oxford University Press, 1896).
The new notes are being edited by Professor D. D. Raphael, Professor P. G. Stein, and my- self, for publication in Glasgow University’s bicentennial edition of Smith’s Works and Correspondence.
Dugald Stewart, Biographical Memoir of Adam Smith (Kelley reprint, 1966). The original version of this Memoir was read by Stewart at the Royal Society of Edinburgh on 21 January and 18 March 1793.
Ibid., pp. 67–8; and see above, pp. 25–6.
Ibid., p. 42. ‘After the publication of the Theory of Moral Sentiments’, says Stewart, ‘Mr. Smith remained four years at Glasgow… During that time, the plan of his lectures underwent a considerable change. His ethical doctrines, of which he had now published so valuable a part, occupied a much smaller portion of the course than formerly; and accordingly, his attention was naturally directed to a more complete illustration of the principles of Jurisprudence and of Political Economy.’
On Anderson, see J. Muir, John Anderson and the College He Founded (John Smith and Son, Glasgow, 1950), and D. Murray, Memories of the Old College of Glasgow (Jackson, Wylie and Co., Glasgow, 1927), pp. 113–19 and 379–93.
On Desnitsky, see W. R. Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor (Jackson, Son and Co., Glasgow, 1937), pp. 158 n. and 424 ff.; A. H. Brown, ‘S. E. Desnitsky, Adam Smith and the Nakaz of Catherine II’, in Oxford Slavonic Papers, New Series, Vol. VII, 1974; and A. H. Brown, ‘Adam Smith’s First Russian Followers’, in A. S. Skinner and T. Wilson (editors), Essays on Adam Smith (Oxford University Press, 1975), pp. 247–73.
Mr. Brown tells the story in his article ‘Adam Smith’s First Russian Followers’, ibid.
I am extremely grateful to Mr C. G. Wood, librarian of the Andersonian Library, University of Strathclyde, and to Mrs E. Frame, sub-librarian, who gave me facilities for studying the notes and have been generous in providing me with other relevant material and information about Anderson.
This page reference and the similar ones which follow are to the pages of the Anderson manuscript, renumbered in accordance with a scheme described in the note which precedes the reproduction of the manuscript at the end of this essay. The point where a new page of the manuscript (as so numbered) begins is indicated in the reproduction by an appropriate arabic italic numeral in square brackets.
The supposed ‘History of Africa’ by ‘Colvin’ mentioned on p. 30 of the notes would seem almost certainly to have been in fact a then very well-known book on the Cape of Good Hope by Peter Kolben (or Kolb), of which an English translation (The Present State of the Cape of Good-Hope) appeared in 1731. The peculiar custom which is referred to in the notes appears to be that described by Kolben on pp. 119–24 of Vol. I of the translation. The beating (and/or abuse) of the mother by the son, it is true, occurs according to Kolben not after the father’s death, as stated in the notes, but after the son’s ceremonial induction into the society of men. The use by Kolben of the word ‘milk-sop’ (p. 122), however, would seem to establish the connection pretty decisively.
Cf. pp. 71–2 below.
In the Cannan notes, the relevant passages (with which a similar comparison may be made) appear on pp. 94–104 of the published version.
The extracts from the Anderson notes are printed exactly as they appear in the reproduction of the whole document at the end of this essay, but with page numbers and textual notes omitted. The extracts from the 1762–3 lecture notes are printed more or less as they will appear in the published version, with page numbers inserted at appropriate intervals, but with textual and editorial notes omitted. In both cases the punctuation and capitalization have been improved, but otherwise the reproductions are as close as possible to the original manuscripts. For an explanation of what the different kinds of brackets and braces mean, see the note on p. 81 below.
John Millar reported to Dugald Stewart that Smith, in delivering his lectures, ‘trusted almost entirely to extemporary elocution’ (Dugald Stewart, Biographical Memoir of Adam Smith, p. 13). Other accounts, however, are not entirely consistent with this.
-3 notes, Vol. III, pp. 37–40. Cf. the Cannan notes, published version, pp. 83–4.
-3 notes, Vol. II, pp. 34–7. Cf. the Cannan notes, pp. 81–3.
Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws (Hafner edition, New York, 1949), Vol. II, p. 163.
-3 notes, Vol. II, p. 150. Cf. the Cannan notes, p. 147.
Cf., e.g., the first paragraph on p. 4 of the Anderson notes with pp. 93–4 of Vol. I of the 1762–3 notes; the paragraph beginning ‘Of mankind...’ on p. 36 of the Anderson notes with pp. 132–3 of Vol. III of the 1762–3 notes; and the last paragraph on p. 38 of the Anderson notes with pp. 36–8 of Vol. IV of the 1762–3 notes.
Cf., e.g., the first two sentences on p. 14 of the Anderson notes with the sentence beginning ‘In the same manner...’ on p. 252 of the Cannan notes; the last paragraph on p. 23 of the Anderson notes with p. 75 of the Cannan notes; p. 25 of the Anderson notes with pp. 80–1 of the Cannan notes; and the comment on the exposure of children on p. 28 of the Anderson notes with the similar comment at the foot of p. 104 of the Cannan notes.
Cf., e.g., the statement on p. 12 of the Anderson notes that ‘Locke, Montesquiou, and Law think that the lowness of interest is owing to the plenty of money’ with the statement in Book II, Ch. IV of the Wealth of Nations that ‘Mr. Locke, Mr. Law, and Mr. Montesquieu… seem to have imagined that the increase of the quantity of gold and silver, in consequence of the discovery of the Spanish West Indies, was the real cause of the lowering of the rate of interest through the greater part of Europe’.
Cf., e.g., pp. 7–8 of the Anderson notes with some of the comments on pp. 79–84 of Vol. II and pp. 71–5 and 119–24 of Vol. VI of the 1762–3 notes, and pp. 134, 176–7, and 188–9 of the Cannan notes.
It will be observed that in Table I have juxtaposed pp. 7–14 of the Anderson notes (containing the main ‘economic’ passages) with the ‘Contract’ section of the 1762–3 notes. This procedure will be more fully justified in the third section of this essay, on pp. 78–9 below.
It is probable, of course, that in the lectures from which the Anderson notes were derived various other ‘economic’ matters were discussed under the heading ‘Police’. But if we can assume that the order of the different subjects in the Anderson notes reflects their order in these lectures (which there seems no reason to doubt), it remains true — and very important — that prices, money, and interest were discussed not under the heading ‘Police’ but under some other and earlier heading.
The facts in this paragraph have been derived from W. R. Scott, op. cit., pp. 66–7 and 137–40; John Rae, Life of Adam Smith (Macmillan, London, 1895), pp. 42–6; and the minutes of University Meetings in the Glasgow University Archives. Special attention should be drawn to the minutes of the University Meeting held on 11 September 1751, which to my knowledge have not been previously noticed, and which cast a certain amount of additional light on the content of Smith’s lectures to the Moral Philosophy class in the 1751–2 session. The Meeting decided that in Craigie’s absence the teaching should be shared out as follows: ‘The Professor [of Divinity] undertakes to teach the Theologia Naturalis, and the first book of Mr. Hutchesons Ethicks, and Mr. Smith the other two books de Jurisprudentia Naturali et Politicis, and Mr. Rosse and Mr. Moor to teach the hour allotted for the private classe’. (My italics.)
Smith’s lectures to Craigie’s class (in which he no doubt used much of his Edinburgh material) did not include natural theology or ethics, whereas the full course which he began delivering in 1752–3 in his new capacity as professor of Moral Philosophy did include these subjects. The fact that the Anderson notes contain nothing on natural theology or ethics, therefore, may perhaps be regarded as a reason for considering the 1751–2 lectures as at least a possible source. But nothing can safely be deduced from the absence of anything in a set of notes like these; and there are other arguments, involving too many minutiae to be canvassed here, which tell in favour of a slightly later date than 1751–2.
The reference appears on p. 12 of the notes. Hume’s essay Of Interest first appeared in a volume entitled Political Discourses, the publication date of which is given on the title page as 1752. If this volume did appear in 1752 it was probably very early in that year, and there is some evidence which suggests that it may in fact have appeared at the end of 1751. (See on this question Jacob VinerGuide to John Rae’s ‘Life of Adam Smith’ (Kelley, New York, 1965), pp. 53–8.) The comment in the notes which includes the reference to Hume’s essay may well have been Anderson’s own — in which case the only thing that necessarily follows is that Anderson made his summary of the student’s notes after the appearance of Hume’s essay.
The reference appears on the left-hand page facing p. 36 of the notes, and the comment which includes it was very probably Anderson’s own. At first sight it might seem rather unlikely that the ‘Mr. Wallace’ referred to was Robert Wallace, since the statement in the text on p. 36 immediately opposite the comment refers to ‘the want of inhabitants in ancient nations, and where polygamy takes place’, and Robert Wallace, as is well known, argues strongly in his Dissertation that there was not in fact any ‘want of inhabitants’ in ancient nations. Wallace does recognize, however, that polygamy can have a deleterious effect on population; and he does endeavour to give reasons (including poverty and parental neglect, which are also mentioned on p. 36 of the Anderson notes) for what he regards as the relative scarcity of people in modern nations. Anderson’s comment on the left-hand page, then, may plausibly be regarded as an attempt to put forward another reason, over and above those adduced by Wallace, for the lack of populousness in modern nations. It is perhaps worth noting that there is another reference to ‘Wallace’ on p. 4 of Vol. III of Anderson’s Commonplace Book, where a note reads ‘See Wallace’s Answer to L. Dun’s Advices’. This turns out to be a reference to a pamphlet by Robert Wallace entitled The Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance which was published in Edinburgh in 1754. The only other point which needs to be added here is that there is no evidence to suggest that Smith himself, at this point in his lectures, made any reference to Wallace’s Dissertation. Thus although Anderson could probably not have written his comment until after the appearance of the Dissertation, it is at least conceivable that Smith could have given the relevant lecture before its appearance.
They appear on pp. 3 and 5 of the notes.
The Short Introduction was an English translation of a work which Hutcheson originally published (in 1742) in Latin.
The passages quoted by Smith from pp. 156 and 172 of the first edition appear on pp. 147 and 162 respectively of the second edition.
The earliest specific date — 15 August 1754 — appears on p. 13 of Vol. III.
The date ‘December 1755’ appears in the final entry in Vol. III, which is written on the inside back cover. I am not quite sure, however, whether this entry was in fact written as late as December 1755, even though Anderson was very probably still in France at that time (see below, p. 75. It would seem at least possible from the context that the word ‘December’, which is interpolated, was inserted at this point in error, and that the note was actually written (at Toulouse) at the beginning rather than the end of 1755. Since nothing hangs on this I shall not elaborate the point.
It appears on p. 15 of Vol. I.
The comments appear on pp. 11–14 of Vol. I. There is apparently some doubt about the date of publication of the first (French) edition of Jean Jacob Vernet’s Dialogues Socratiques. One of the French biographical dictionaries which I have consulted states that the book was published in Paris in 1745, and with additions in 1755. Another, however, substitutes 1746 and 1756 for 1745 and 1755. The British Museum and the Bibliothèque Nationale hold only one edition, the title page of which states that it was published in Paris in 1754, but gives no indication of the number of the edition. However, the page references and actual quotations in Anderson’s comments show clearly enough that he was in fact referring to an English translation of Vernet’s book, entitled Dialogues on Some Important Subjects, which according to the title page was published in London in 1753.
The first edition of Anson’s A Voyage Round the World was published in 1748. Copies of a second and third edition, both also dated 1748, are held by the British Museum.
There is nothing at all in the notes to suggest that Anderson might have compiled them in order to catch Smith out in some way.
Letter of 27 December 1750 from Anderson to Gilbert Lang (original held by the Andersonian Library, University of Strathclyde).
It is interesting — and perhaps significant in the present context — that Anderson’s antipathy towards Smith revealed itself rather earlier than is usually assumed. In a letter to Gilbert Lang dated 16 January 1755 (original held by the Andersonian Library, University of Strathclyde), Anderson tells his correspondent about his appointment to the chair of Oriental Languages at Glasgow. He had hoped, he says, to be appointed to the chair of Latin, but, as he puts it, ‘Doctor Cullen and Mr. Smith, in a manner that I need not relate, jockied me out of it’.
Letter of 27 December 1750 to Gilbert Lang.
I have not myself inspected the relevant documents in the Moray Muniments. Mr Wood, however, obtained photocopies of them some time ago, and according to information about them with which Mrs Frame has kindly supplied me they show that Lord Doune remained at Harrow for the whole period of Anderson’s tutorship — apart from vacations, when Anderson rented lodgings in London for the two of them and does not seem to have travelled very far from that city.
In Anderson’s letter of 16 January 1755 to Gilbert Lang, which is written from Toulouse, Anderson speaks specifically of having arrived at Bordeaux from Dublin. ‘Mr Campbell’ is mentioned by name in the minutes of the University Meeting of 13 February 1755, to be quoted shortly in the text, and he is also mentioned in Vol. III of Anderson’s Commonplace Book.
Minutes of University Meeting of 17 December 1754 (Glasgow University Archives).
Minutes of University Meeting of 13 February 1755 (Glasgow University Archives). Leechman, Simson, and Smith were appointed as a committee ‘to draw up a civil letter to the Primate and acquaint him that the University has granted his desires, to be signed by the Clerk in name of the University, and sent off next post…’
In a letter from Edinburgh dated 10 June 1755 (Glasgow University Archives, no. 26854), Anderson wrote to an unnamed person at Glasgow University informing him of his movements and asking ‘what day will be most convenient for my admission’. At a University Meeting on 19 June 1755 Anderson ‘read the critical discertation he had been appointed to make as his tryal’, and it was agreed to admit him ‘upon Wednesday next at twelve of the clock, after he has signed the Confession of Faith’. Anderson duly signed this at a Meeting on 25 June, and ‘thereafter he was solemnly received by all the members’.
The letter from the Primate referred to in the minutes of the University Meeting of 13 February 1755 is extant (Glasgow University Archives, no. 26853). It does not throw very much more light on the identity of ‘Mr Campbell’, but it does at least clear up the doubt which existed in Scott’s mind (op. cit., p. 188, footnote) as to which of the two possible holders of the office of ‘Primate of Ireland’ was the one concerned: it was in fact George Stone, the Archbishop of Armagh. He states that he is making the request on behalf of ‘a gentleman of very great worth and fortune in this kingdom’ whom he seems to imply (but does not actually state) is the father of ‘Mr Campbell’. There is also extant in the Glasgow University Archives (no. 15626) a draft letter to the Primate prepared by Smith, in which it is stated (inter alia) that before the Primate’s letter was received the University had already been solicited to the same effect by ‘several persons of the greatest distinction in this country particularly by the Earl of Glasgow the present Rector of the University’. A letter from the Primate dated 8 March 1755 thanking the University for granting his request (Glasgow University Archives, no. 266339) does not add anything further. There is a distinct air of mystery about the whole affair: one detects throughout the presence of undercurrents which never come to the surface.
John Rae, op. cit., p. 85. Scott, op. cit., p. 188, footnote, states that ‘Mr Campbell’ has not been identified. If he was in fact Archbishop Stone’s son this might help to explain the mystery, since Stone was unmarried but was frequently accused of immorality by his political opponents. Not enough hangs on this, however, to make any further investigation — or speculation — profitable.
See, e.g., the ‘Editor’s Introduction’ to the Cannan notes, pp. xxiv—vi.
See in particular W. R. Scott, Francis Hutcheson (Cambridge University Press, 1900), passim.
The Short Introduction, as we have already seen, was an English translation of a work which Hutcheson originally published (in 1742) in Latin. The System, a much longer work, was a printed version of Hutcheson’s lectures (presumably in their final form of the 1740s), published posthumously. From these two books, which are very similar in structure, we may readily reconstruct the elements of the Moral Philosophy course which Smith attended when he was a student at Glasgow. The references to the books in the text below are to the facsimile edition of Hutcheson’s Collected Works (Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim, 1969).
Book II, Ch. XI (Collected Works, Vol. IV, pp. 203–8). The corresponding chapter in the System will be found in the Collected Works, Vol. VI, pp. 44–53.
See Collected Works, Vol. VI, p. 185.
Book II, Chaps. XII and XIII of the Short Introduction (Collected Works, Vol. IV, pp. 209–22); and Book II, Chaps. 12 and 13 of the System (Collected Works, Vol. VI, pp. 53–77 ).
E.g., by W. L. Taylor, Francis Hutcheson and David Hume as Predecessors of Adam Smith ( Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, 1965 ), pp. 22–4.
Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 214. Cf. Vol. VI, p. 64.
Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 86. Cf. Vol. IV, p. 228.
When one knows what one is looking for, one can see vestigial traces of its former inclusion under the ‘Contract’ heading in the 1762–3 notes, Vol. II, pp. 79–84, and (correspondingly) in the Cannan notes, p. 134.
It may, of course, have included much more than this: Anderson’s extracts are not necessarily all-inclusive, or even representative, and as I have said above nothing can safely be deduced from the absence of anything in the Anderson notes.
There are direct references to Montesquieu on pp. 9, 12, 19, 26 (two references), 31, and 39 of the Anderson notes. There is also an indirect reference on p. 9: the opinion that the Jews were the inventors of bills of exchange, which Smith here refutes, was in fact Montesquieu’s (The Spirit of Laws, Book XXI, Ch. 20). It is possible, of course, that Anderson, who thought highly of Montesquieu, paid special attention to the references to him in the lecture-notes.
In the case of the 1762–3 notes, the comparison can most usefully be made with Vol. I, pp. 47–53 and 66–8, and Vol. IV, pp. 36–8; and in the case of the Cannan notes with pp. 108–10, and p. 20. These references, however, are by no means exhaustive.
-3 notes, Vol. 1, pp. 48–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1977 Ronald L. Meek
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meek, R.L. (1977). New Light on Adam Smith’s Glasgow Lectures on Jurisprudence. In: Smith, Marx, & After. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7303-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7303-0_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-470-99161-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7303-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive