Nota bene: Below is an excerpt from Chapter 8 of my forthcoming book with Salim Rashid, Das Adam Smith Problematic? Ethics, Economics and Society. (Footnotes are below the fold.)

“On the surface, Adam Smith’s years in academia are not all that mysterious. After all, we know that this pivotal chapter in his life began in January of 1751, when Smith was appointed Professor of Logic and Rhetoric at the University of Glasgow – then known as the College of Glasgow or ‘the College'[1] — and that it ended in January 1764, when he went overseas to France with the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch. In all, Smith was a professor at Glasgow for 13 years, which the Scottish philosopher himself once described ‘as by far the most useful and therefore by far the happiest and most honorable period’ of his life.[2] It was also during this time that Smith wrote his first great work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, published in 1759, and was awarded a Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) degree in the fall of 1762.

“What is mysterious, however, is why Smith chose to accept so many administrative posts above and beyond his full-time teaching duties. By the time he left Glasgow for good in January 1764, Smith was easily one of the most powerful and heavily-worked administrators of the college, for he had served as Quaestor, dean of faculty, and vice rector.[3] He was also involved in the delicate negotiations to finalize the new Snell Exhibition, and when it was known that he would be traveling to London, he was also asked to meet with the Barons of the Exchequer about the finances of the College.[4] In other words, Smith wasn’t just an ivory tower intellectual during his Glasgow years; he was also an administrator,[5] best-selling author,[6] and tutor to the sons of some of the most wealthy and powerful families in Britain.[7] The most important such pupil during Smith’s Glasgow period was Thomas Fitzmaurice, the younger brother of Lord Shelburne.[8] What better way to get the ear of the nobility than by becoming the private tutor to their sons? The move is quite explicable for someone who wanted a higher social status, someone on his way to rise in the world. Perhaps it is equally reflective of how Smith was perceived: a steady, reliable, and yet friendly professor.

“To recap, were Smith’s teaching duties really requiring so little time and attention? Or was the professorship a halfway house? If being a man of the world was his primary goal, then of course Smith’s tutoring and administrative activities make very good sense. Smith would be always visible, acquiring a reputation as a man of business, a genial personality, and someone who could accomplish the responsibilities he accepted.”

[1] See Glasgow University (n.d.).

[2] Rae 1965, p. 42. As an important aside, it is worth noting how Adam Smith himself draws a direct connection between utility and happiness in this oft-quoted passage. This observation, in turn, adds further fuel to the “Was Adam Smith a closet consequentialist?” fire we mentioned in our “TMS Problems” chapter.

[3] See Rashid 2025.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Cf. McLean 2006, p. 11:”… Smith was an active and successful administrator dealing with the hard issues of personnel and finance [at Glasgow University] ….”

[6] TMS sold out immediately upon its initial publication in 1759 and ended up going through six editions during Smith’s lifetime. See Matson 2020.

[7] As a professor, Smith took students into his house, offering both supervision in studies as well as board and lodging. Of these students, the names of only two have come down to us: Henry Herbert, later Lord Porchester, and Thomas Fitzmaurice, later the 2nd Earl of Shelburne. See Corr. No. 30, n.1 (Smith to Shelburne, 4 April 1759), and Corr. No. 70 (Smith to Hume, 22 February 1763). It was also during his Glasgow period that Adam Smith came to the attention of Charles Townshend, one of the most powerful politicians of his day. Townshend appointed Smith to the lucrative position of tutor to the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch.

[8] Fitzmaurice was also a descendant of Sir William Petty, sometimes called the first political economist, who was almost certainly the first to practice “political arithmetic.” See, e.g., Bevan 1894.