PUFENDORF AND 18TH-CENTURY SCOTTISH PHILOSOPHY 121 gentleman (in Some Thoughts on Education (1693)) was well known and mentioned, for instance, by Barbeyrac,^ but whose dependence on Pufendorf remains largely unexplored—thus there seems to be an echo of the theory of moral entities in Locke’s Essay 2, 28, 3. Rather, whole generations of students were introduced to this natural jurisprudence by philosophy professors in the Scottish universities. One of the first to use Pufendorf’s De officio hominis et civiswas GerschomCarmichael in Glasgow.^ His example was soon followed. In Edinburgh, it was used as a textbook during most of the 18th century. In Glasgow, Francis Hutcheson, first a student of Carmichael’s, later his successor, continued to use the same text, in Carmichael’s annotated edition,® until he published his own compend, of which an English edition (prepared by himself, according to Bower,'^ who makes this doubtful claim without giving any evidence) appeared some years later. The last two of its three parts, those in which the natural jurisprudence is expounded, was the text which Adam Smith agreed to teach when first appointed at the same university in 1751,® and there are unmistakable traces of It in his later lectures on jurisprudence. There was, then, a large-scale reception of Pufendorf’s natural jurisprudence in the early 18th century. The discipline was regarded as identical with what we would call moral philosophy,®^ or at least with major parts of that subject. Neither in Hutcheson, nor in later writers such as Reid or Stewart, is there anything to suggest any decisive break, any major difference between the continental theory and its imported versions. The same impression is conveyed by Hasbach: In der Tat ist die schottische Moralphilosophie des Hutcheson, Smith, Ferguson nichts anderes als das weiter entwickelte System des Pufendorfschen Naturrechts.** Again, when Hutcheson, the most important of the writers who merit attention in this context and on whom I shall concentrate for the present, Preface p. exx, in Barbeyrac. ® See Wodrow p. 96. Carmichael had a very high opinion of the works of Grotius and Pufendorf: “Pro pleniore omnium rerum ad nobilissimam hanc scientiam pertinentium cognitione vos referimus ad duos auctores saepius laudatos Grotium et Pufendorfium, quorum illius tractatum de iure belli ac pacis huius de iure naturae et gentium diurna ac nocturna manu versare debet.” These authors should be studied day and night. (Cited after Medick, p. 300) The final turn of phrase alludes to Horace, Ars poetica 268. ® See Wodrow p. 191: “About this rime [i.e. 1730] Mr Hutcheson came to Glasgou . . . He teaches Mr Carmichael’s compend and Puffendorf, and speaks with much veneration of him, which at least is an evidence of his prudence.” ’ Bower p. 340. ® Introducion, p. 2, in Smith. There is no reason why we should distinguish between ethics or moral philosophy and natural jurisprudence, Carmichael writes (1724), Suppl. I, p. xi. * Hasbach p. 212, cited after Medick p. 298.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=