Maarten Ultee has recently written in this journal that “[t]here were close links between knowledge and power in the early modern period, and historians of universities are in an excellent position to explore them”. An important way of examining such links is by studies of how individual professors came to be appointed. To see who was able to influence professorial appointments is to acquire an insight not only into who exercised power at any given time in the shifting politics that characterised Early Modern societies, but also into how they exercised it. Controlling elections to university chairs was a means of controlling dissemination of knowledge, as the choice of a particular professor affected how and with what success a discipline was taught. The formal methods of election to professorships in Early Modern Europe varied considerably from country to country, and, indeed, from institution to institution within one country. Neither the study of the formal regulations on appointing professors found in university statutes, nor the knowledge that chairs were in the gift of the Crown or other patrons exhausts the explanation of how particular appointments came about. What is required is detailed investigation of how individual professors gained their positions. While little of such work has been carried out, that that has been done demonstrates how important it is to undertake it. Exploring professors’ social and political connections provides insight into their intellectual concerns. Such studies will allow us to develop a more nuanced understanding of the professoriate and universities of Early Modern Europe.

The University of Glasgow in the middle of the eighteenth century was an institution in which there was considerable outside influence on appointments. This paper examines the nomination of one professor. It demonstrates how issues of politics and personality could interact in a complex process to bring about an election. It also shows that, though the election to a chair could be brokered by powerful men, the relationships of patronage involved were ambiguous: it was certainly not the case that those at the supposed centre of political power had a free hand in such appointments. Furthermore, it suggests that professors had strategies open to them for ridding themselves of colleagues whom they did not want or found in some way insufficient.