From Aristocratic Support to Academic Office: Patronage and University in the Scottish Enlightenment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FROM ARISTOCRATIC SUPPORT TO ACADEMIC OFFICE: PATRONAGE AND UNIVERSITY IN THE SCOTTISH ENLIGHTENMENT Iris Fleßenkämper Although international research on the Scottish Enlightenment today still readily draws on methods and questions from the early history of biog- raphy and ideas, recent scientific approaches have proven themselves by merging these perspectives and enhancing them from a social-historical point of view. Consistent with a new “social history of knowledge”,1 most research on the specific historical conditions of the production and dis- semination of enlightened knowledge focuses on the literary and pub- lishing culture of eighteenth-century Scotland.2 However, the role that social networks played in the rise and legitimation of knowledge and the sciences has only recently begun to be studied extensively.3 The pres- ent article aims to elucidate the transition in forms of scholarly patron- age that finally led to the establishment of professional autonomy in eighteenth-century Scotland. Enlightenment historians still tend to assume that the social back- bone of this movement included members of a “free intelligentsia” (Karl Mannheim) who were “beholden to none but themselves, the public who bought their writings or subscribed to their lectures, and such cultural middlemen as publishers.”4 However, authors such as David Hume, who received a substantial income from his publications, most notably for his History of England,5 and who was able to live on his writings even in the longer term, remained an exception. The majority of eighteenth- century Scottish scholars were still dependent on the support of mostly aristocratic patrons to finance their research. Compared with previous 1 Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge. From Gutenberg to Diderot (Cambridge 2000). 2 Richard Sher, The Enlightenment and the Book. Scottish Authors and Their Publishers in Eighteenth-Century Britain, Ireland, and America (Chicago 2007); Stephen Brown and Warren McDougall (eds.), The Edinburgh History of the Book in Scotland, Volume 2: Enlight- enment and Expansion 1707–1800 (Edinburgh 2011). 3 See Sher 2007 (note 2), 203ff. and Roger L. Emerson, Academic Patronage in the Scot- tish Enlightenment. Glasgow, Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities (Edinburgh 2008). 4 Roy Porter, The Enlightenment. Britain and the Creation of the Modern World (London 2000), 479. 5 David Hume, History of England (London 1754–1762), 6 vols. © IRIS FLEẞENKÄMPER, 2013 | doi:10.1163/9789004243910_005 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.Iris Fleßenkämper - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:19:44PM via free access 102 iris flesenkämper centuries, however, academic patronage in the Age of Enlightenment changed its traditional form: While in most cases a single patron still paid for the personal support of a scholar and his projects at the beginning of the eighteenth century, patrons increasingly lobbied for official positions for their scholars in the course of the century. Thus, with the patronage of office behind them, scholars were supported first and foremost in their professional career, which in the long run offered them the necessary financial and social independence to act as researchers and authors. This article deals with the question of the extent to which patronage helped Scottish Enlightenment scholars to position themselves institu- tionally in order to consolidate as an intellectual elite and thus to contrib- ute to the implementation and dissemination of innovative knowledge. On the basis of several prominent examples, it will investigate the func- tion and etiquette of patronage as an institution that promoted university careers. A further aim is to examine the significance of patronage in the promotion and legitimation of innovative knowledge.6 The Scottish Patronage System in the Eighteenth Century Numerous studies on patronage within hereditary monarchies, republics and principalities of the early modern period have proven that patronage never existed “as a pan-European single institution”,7 but that it appeared in various forms depending on the political culture, social structure and temporal context. Within Scotland the mechanism of patronage in the eighteenth century was also subject to specific domestic rules which were themselves political consequences of the Anglo-Scottish Union in 1707. The Scottish were excluded from participating in governmental policies, at least formally, after the new Westminster parliament had abolished both the Privy Council and the ministry of the Scottish Secretary of State in 1708–1709.8 After the union, Scotland no longer had a recognised minister 6 See also Iris Fleßenkämper, Considerations, Encouragements, Improvements. Die Select Society in Edinburgh 1754–1764. Soziale Zusammensetzung und kommunikative Praxis einer schottischen Gelehrtengesellschaft zur Zeit der Aufklärung (Berlin 2010), 171–231. 7 Birgit Emich et al., ‘Stand und Perspektiven der Patronageforschung. Zugleich eine Antwort auf Heiko Droste’, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 32 (2005), 233–265: 258. 8 Major studies on the political structure of Scotland after the union are: Alexander Murdoch, The People Above. Politics and Administration in Mid-Eighteenth-Century Scotland (Edinburgh 1980); John Stuart Shaw, The Management of Scottish Society, 1707–1764. Power, Nobles, Lawyers, Edinburgh Agents and English Influences (Edinburgh 1983); id., The Politi- cal History of Eighteenth-Century Scotland (London 1999); John M. Simpson, ‘Who Steered Iris Fleßenkämper - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:19:44PM via free access from aristocratic support to academic office 103 who could effectively represent the interests of the country. For most of the eighteenth century, the Scottish administrative apparatus thus remained under the influence of English ministers, the first and foremost of these being the Duke of Newcastle. Although Scotland had no institutionalised interest group, a few Scot- tish peers succeeded in exerting considerable influence on Scottish office distribution through patronage and placement activities around the mid- dle of the century. Initially, Archibald Campbell, 3rd Duke of Argyll (1682– 1761) significantly determined the political course of his country together with his delegate, Andrew Fletcher, Lord Milton (1692–1766). Argyll was able to establish a broad network of dependants due to his social standing, his territorial property and wealth, and not least to numerous family rela- tionships with members of the nobility all over Scotland. He was thereby able to manipulate for his own benefit not only the Scottish constituency and the allocation of parliamentary seats but also the domestic allocation of offices. Argyll was far more successful in such political manipulations than the Duke of Newcastle, who tried to undermine the dominance of Argyll as Secretary of State for the Northern Department through his own network of dependants. Yet in the end he had disproportionately less influence in Scotland than the local magnate Argyll. The political constellation in Scotland changed when George III ascended the throne in 1760 and Archibald Campbell died the following year. At that time, Argyll’s nephew, John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (1713– 1792), entered the scene as a political intermediary between Scotland and England. Being the King’s former tutor and confidant, Bute was appointed First Lord of the Treasury in 1762, which corresponded to the office of Prime Minister at the time. Thus, Lord Bute was the first Scotsman after the union to hold an English ministry and was allowed to play an active role in the domestic and foreign affairs of Great Britain. Bute, as a high-ranking statesman and confidant of the King, com- manded the allocation of nearly all resources. Between 1761 and 1765, almost all sinecures and a major portion of the vacancies in both the Scottish courts as well as the financial administration were granted to people who owed their promotion or appointment primarily to Bute the Gravy Train, 1707–1766?’, in Nicholas T. Phillipson and Rosalind Mitchison (eds.), Scotland in the Age of Improvement. Essays in Scottish History in the Eighteenth Century (Edinburgh 1970), 47–72. For the late eighteenth century, cf. Michael Fry, The Dundas Despotism (Edinburgh 1992). Iris Fleßenkämper - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:19:44PM via free access 104 iris flesenkämper and his brokers.9 His sphere of influence was not restricted to the state’s administrative apparatus: Like his predecessor Argyll, Bute also gave par- ticular attention to the Scottish university system. Although it officially fell to the town council to decide on the composition of the staff at the University of Edinburgh, it was, in effect, Bute who regulated recruitment during his mandate as minister of state. Hence, some of the most promi- nent scholars and university professors in the Enlightenment owed their positions and their success to the commitment of their patron, Bute.10 Although Bute held as much political significance as his uncle for a few years, he was not able to exercise his influence in Scotland in the long term as Argyll had been able to. Bute was highly unpopular among the English people due to his position as the King’s favourite minister and his Scottish heritage. In spring 1763, he was finally forced to resign from his office as High Lord of the Treasury as a result of foreign-policy differ- ences. Despite his short term in