prior probability

Today, 6 January, not only marks the end of my fall sabbatical and my return to teaching; it is also Three Kings Day — the feast day of the Epiphany! (PS: The word “epiphany” is derived from the Greek ἐπιφάνεια, epiphaneia.)

Why not celebrate the end of Christmastide — as well as the end of my sabbatical — with a classic Cuban anthem performed by Sheila E., featuring Gloria Estefan & Mimy Succar?

Among other things, I have been reading James McPherson’s biography of Abraham Lincoln; Amos Towles’ beautiful historical fiction novel A Gentleman in Moscow; Ian Johnston’s translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses; and Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, an erudite but entertaining chronicle of the rediscovery of the last surviving copy of an ancient Roman philosophical manuscript.

One detail that most of Adam Smith’s biographers get wrong is his departure date from Geneva. Dugald Stewart, for example, has Smith leaving the little republic in December of 1765 and arriving in Paris for the final phase of his Grand Tour on or “about Christmas 1765”. [See page 302 of Dugald Stewart, “Account of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith, LL.D.” (the cover page of which is pictured above), in W. P. D. Wightman, editor, Essays on Philosophical Subjects, Liberty Fund (1982), pp. 263-351, available here.] Three different pieces of evidence, however, indicate that Smith remained in the Swiss city-state for a much longer period of time — at least until the end of January or beginning of February 1766.

One is a letter dated 9 January 1766 from Kenneth Mackenzie, Duke Henry’s agent in London, stating that the duke and his younger brother Hew Campbell Scott “are now at Geneva”. [See N. A. S. GD 224/37717/9, Kenneth Mackenzie to Archibald Campbell, 9 January 1766, cited in Bonnyman (2009), p. 165 n.374.] Recall that Duke Henry and his brother were Adam Smith’s pupils and were thus under his care at this time, while Kenneth Mackenzie, who may have been Kenneth Mackenzie of Ferryden, served as Duke Henry’s agent throughout his minority, and as the young duke’s agent, Mackenzie would be in regular correspondence with his principal. [See Brian D. Bonnyman, Agricultural Improvement in the Scottish Enlightenment: The Third Duke of Buccleuch, William Keir and the Buccleuch Estates, 1751-1812, PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh (2004), p. 17 n.2, available here.]

Another piece of evidence is the diurnal travel diary of Horace Walpole, who was residing in Paris from September 1765 to April 1766. Walpole was not only annotating his comings-and-goings in the French capital on a daily basis during his seven-month sojourn in the City of Light; he was also residing in the very same Parisian townhouse where Adam Smith and his pupils would be staying at during the last phase of their grand tour: the Hôtel du Parc Royal on the Rue du Colombier (today, Rue Jacob) in the fashionable Faubourg Saint-Germain. [See F. E. Guerra-Pujol & Alain Alcouffe, “Adam Smith in the City of Light”, Adam Smith Review (forthcoming), available here.] According to Ian Simpson Ross [The Life of Adam Smith, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition (2010), p. 209, citation omitted], “The first news from Paris of Smith being there comes from Horace Walpole, who recorded on 2 March 1766 that [they] had gone to an ‘Italian play’ … at the Comedie-Italienne”.

In fact, Adam Smith or his pupil Duke Henry are mentioned by name in Horace Walpole’s meticulous travel journal almost two-dozen times in all, and the first reference to Adam Smith in Walpole’s journal appears two weeks earlier — 15 February 1766 — for his journal entry for that date begins thus: “Dr. Smith came”. (See again Guerra-Pujol and Alcouffe, cited above.) Considering that Horace Walpole and Smith’s party were all residing in the same townhouse in the Faubourg Saint-Germain, Walpole’s report is a reliable one.

Last but not least is a piece of correspondence dated 5 February 1766 from Georges-Louis Le Sage, a prominent Genevan scientist who had contributed articles to the Encyclopédie. This letter — which is addressed to the salonnière Louise Elisabeth Nicole de La Rochefoucauld (the Duchesse d’Enville), a mutual acquaintance of Smith and Le Sage’s — suggests that the Scottish philosopher was still in Geneva as late as February 1766: “Of all the people I meet at your house …, I continue to see only the excellent Mylord Stanhope and somewhat Mr. Smith. The latter [Adam Smith] wished me to make the acquaintance of Lady Conyers and the Duke of Buckleugh, but I begged him to reserve that kindness for me till his return” (quoted in Rae 1895, pp. 191-192; Ross 2010, p. 209; see also Rasmussen 2017, p. 286 n.61).

Le Sage’s letter also suggests that Smith may have resided with the Duchesse d’Enville during his sojourn in Geneva, a plausible possibility given that another Scottish traveller, James Macdonald (1741-1766), 8th Baronet of Sleat, had also resided with the duchesse during his stayover in Geneva in October 1765. But who was the Duchesse d’Enville, and what was Adam Smith’s relation to her? As it happens, the relationship between the Scottish philosopher and the Duchesse d’Enville is one of the most fascinating — yet underexplored — chapters of Smith’s grand tour years. Alain Alcouffe and I will return to Adam Smith and the Duchesse d’Enville when we conclude our series on “Adam Smith in Switzerland” next week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Lang_Syne

PS: Alain Alcouffe and I will resume our series on Adam Smith in Switzerland in our next post; in the meantime, we wish our loyal readers a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year.

By all accounts, Adam Smith visited Geneva in the fall of 1765, yet the precise dates and locations of this brief but memorable chapter in his life are murky at best. [See, e.g., Brian Bonnyman, “Adam Smith in Geneva”, in Valérie Cossy, Béla Kapossy, & Richard Whatmore, editors, Genève, lieu d’Angleterre, Slatkine (2009), pp. 153-167.] The best account of Smith’s sojourn in Switzerland is still John Rae’s Life of Adam Smith (the cover page of which is pictured below), and Rae (1895, p. 188) has him arriving in Geneva in October of 1765: “They [Adam Smith, the two pupils under his care, and their respective servants] seem to have arrived in Geneva some time in October, and stayed about two months in the little republic of which … Smith had long been a fervent admirer.”

Although we do not know the precise date on which Smith arrived in Geneva, we do know that he was still in Toulouse as late as 4 October 1765, for on that date he played a small part in a celebrated case known as the “Douglas Cause“. According to the official record of this cause célèbre, the Scottish philosopher had been appointed as a special “commissioner” by two of the lead lawyers in this case — Andrew Stuart, who represented the Duke of Hamilton, and Alexander Maconochie, who represented Archibald Douglas — to take the testimony of the “Abbé de Colbert”, the Vicar-General of the Archdiocese of Toulouse and a distant relation to one of the parties. [See “Proof, in the conjoined processes, George-James Duke of Hamilton, Lord Douglas Hamilton, and their tutors, … pursuers, against the person pretending to be Archibald Stewart, alias Douglas, only son now on life of the marriage between Colonel John Stewart, afterwards Sir John Stewart of Grandtully, and Lady Jane Douglas …” (1766), p. 1019.] And so it was on the afternoon of 4 October 1765, acting in his capacity as commissioner, that Adam Smith duly took the deposition of his friend and close confidante Abbé Colbert. [See “Abbé Colbert’s examination, 4th October 1765” in ibid., pages 1019-1022.]

But when did Smith and his party leave the South of France for good? What route did they take on their way to Geneva? (Did they, perchance, visit Lyon?) And how long did it take them to complete their travels? Although these quotidian questions about Smith’s grand-tour itinerary are still open ones, we now know that Smith was already in the Swiss city-state by December 1765, for he attended a dinner party on Christmas Day at the house of Lord and Lady Stanhope: Philip Stanhope, 2nd Earl Stanhope, and his wife Grizel Hamilton. According to Brian Bonnyman (via historian Angela Bennett), “New evidence, in the form of an entry in Lady Stanhope’s guest lists, shows that Smith was definitely still in Geneva on Christmas day 1765, when he dined with the Stanhopes”. [See Bonnyman 2009, cited above, p. 165 n.374, citing the Kent County Archives, Maidstone, U1590 C42/2.3 (Stanhope Papers), Lady Stanhope’s Table Plans and Guest Lists.]

In fact, Smith may have already been in Geneva as early as the first week of December, if not earlier, for among Smith’s surviving correspondence and papers was another legal document, a formal legal memorandum dated 10-11 December 1765 attributed to Voltaire’s mistress and niece Madame Denis and describing an incident that took place on Voltaire’s country estate at Ferney on 7 December. (The small village of Ferney is located about three miles from the Swiss city-state on the French side of Geneva’s border with France; for further reference, Alain Alcouffe and I discuss the significance of the memo here, here, and here.) Although this memo is not addressed to Smith by name, why was it nevertheless in the Scottish philosopher’s possession? Perhaps he had visited Ferney shortly after the incident of 7 December or had developed a good rapport with Voltaire and Mme Denis around this time. [As an aside, Smith had been awarded the degree of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) on 21 October 1762 by the University of Glasgow. See GUAS Ref: GUA 26645, p. 110, available here.]

Next is the question of Smith’s departure: how long did he stay in Geneva? Did he, for example, stay long enough to witness the dramatic and unprecedented political showdown that took place in the Swiss city-state in January 1766, when Geneva’s General Council refused to ratify the election of any leaders, thus leaving the little republic without a functioning government? Rest assured, Alain Alcouffe and I will revisit these questions in the next day or two …

As Alain Alcouffe and I mentioned in our previous two posts (see here and here), a dramatic political showdown was unfolding in real time in Rousseau’s Republic of Geneva during Adam Smith’s sojourn in Switzerland, a constitutional stalemate that Smith and his circle could not have failed to notice. In November 1765, for example, the General Council of Geneva had refused to rubber-stamp a slate of pre-approved candidates for the offices of Procureur-Général and Auditeur, and in response to this deliberate inaction, the Small Council chose to fan the flames of this political conflagration by extending the terms of these outgoing officers indefinitely.

But how would Geneva’s General Council respond? Would it retaliate against the Small Council’s unprecedented and unconstitutional provocation by refusing to elect any leaders (known as “Syndics”) in the next scheduled round of elections? That is precisely what was about to occur! Overnight, Geneva would transform herself from a proud and well-oiled self-governing city-state into an 18th-century Swiss-equivalent of a “banana republic”, a nominally prosperous but small, unruly, and politically unstable country dependent on foreign powers for her own survival.

Specifically, when the General Council met on 5 January 1766 for the annual election of Geneva’s four Syndics, it refused to confirm any of the Syndics up for election. In all, the General Council met four times — on the 5th, 12th, 19th, and 26th of January — and large majorities on each occasion invoked the “la ligne de nouvelle élection” procedure in order to keep anyone from getting elected to the office of Syndic. (Bennett 1995, p. 145.)

Moreover, according to one source (ibid., p. 146 n.49, citing “BPU Genève, Cramer 87, Vol. 2 [1766] 28 février-31 décembre 105”), Geneva was exceedingly tense on 26 January in the hours leading up to the fourth and final meeting of the General Council. This constitutional impasse almost led to an outbreak of violence at the steps of the St. Pierre, the cathedral where the General Council was about to convene for a fourth and final time that month:

Ce même nuit il y eut de très grands mouvement dans [les] rues de la Ville [de Genève]. Un part de jeunes gens avoit (dit-on) formé le projet de s’emparer des portes de St. Pierre pour empêcher leur venue au C.G. [Conseil Général]. Les Chefs des Répresentants réussirent a les en détourner. [quoted in ibid., pp. 145-146]

For all practical purposes, then, by refusing to elect a new slate of Syndics, the General Council had effectively abolished Geneva’s main governing body, and the self-governing Republic of Geneva would thus become ungovernable. Furthermore, the epic constitutional impasse resulting from this political deadlock between the General and Small councils would not be resolved until two years later, 1768. But before we proceed any further, however, it is now worth taking a moment to ask, Why are we so certain that Adam Smith must have taken notice of this unfolding constitutional crisis during his sojourn in Switzerland?

Simply put, how could he not have? One of his closest contacts in Geneva was Dr Theodore Tronchin, the brother of the Procureur-Général, Jean-Robert Tronchin, while another of his Geneva contacts also happened to be a syndic or chief magistrate, identified as the “Syndic Turretin” in John Rae’s biography of Adam Smith. But these observations beg the all-important question, How do we know that Adam Smith was still in Geneva in January of 1766? Alain Alcouffe and I will address this critical question when we resume our series on Adam Smith in Switzerland in the next day or two …

As Alain Alcouffe and I mentioned in our previous post, a dramatic political showdown was unfolding in real time in the Republic of Geneva during Adam Smith’s sojourn in Switzerland, for in November 1765 the General Council of Geneva had refused to rubber-stamp the Small Council’s slate of pre-approved candidates for the offices of Procureur-Général and Auditeur. Suffice it to say that the resulting legal vacuum was an unprecedented one, for such a standoff was simply not contemplated, let alone foreseen, by the existing laws of the Swiss city-state, such as the Edicts of 1543 or the Act of Mediation of 1738. (Bennett 1995, p. 145.)

Never before had the General Council refused to elect candidates to these posts. (Ibid.) As a result, given these uncharted constitutional waters, the Small Council was now faced with a difficult dilemma: it could either cooperate or collaborate with the General Council to resolve their differences — indeed, one could even argue that the Small Council was obliged to consult with the General Council on serious constitutional matters (see ibid.) — or it could take unilateral action and thus become an illegal dictatorship in all but name only. [For further background, see Dorina Verli, “Reforming Democracy: Constitutional Crisis and Rousseau’s Advice to Geneva”, Review of Politics, Vol. 80 (2018), pp. 415-438, especially pp. 420-421.]

As it happens, the Small Council decided to break this constitutional deadlock by simply extending the terms of the outgoing officers until further notice. Though their constitutional terms had now expired, these judicial officers — including Jean-Robert Tronchin, the Procureur-Général who had set this constitutional crisis in motion when he initiated the legal prosecution against Jean-Jacques Rousseau in June 1762 — would now remain in their posts indefinitely! In addition, the Small Council agreed in principle on 31 December 1765 to invite representatives from France, a Catholic kingdom ruled by an absolute monarch! — as well as from two of its Swiss allies, the sister city-states of Bern and Zurich — to intervene, if necessary (Bennett 1995, p. 146.)

Now, the proverbial ball was in the General Council’s court, for the annual election of Geneva’s four syndics was scheduled to take place in a matter of days on 5 January 1766, the first Sunday of the new year. The syndics were the chief magistrates of Geneva’s government. Without them, the government could not make any decisions or conduct any business. Would the General Council back down, or would it refuse to elect the syndics too? (To be continued …)