1. Frances
Harrod refers to a paper--which does not seem to be extant--Harrod
read before Keynes's Political Economy Club: see note
2 to letter 39 R.
Several years later, in responding to an inquiry by P. E. Sorensen
on the reasons why Edgeworth continued to lecture on Mill's
Principles long after Marshall's work appeared, Harrod described
as follows the context of this paper:
- You know the Oxford tradition.
In the social sciences read, if possible, Plato and Aristotle.
If you are unfortunate enough not to know Greek, read Locke,
Hume and Russeau. I doubt if the historians [on whose
decision the choice of textbooks depended] would have
agreed to eliminate Mill and, if they had, I doubt if they
would have accepted Marshall. [...] A further
illustration of the Oxford attitude was when a Finals School
including economics was set up after Edgeworth ceased to be
professor; the set-books for the Principles papers--in the
choice of which I am sure Edgeworth had no part--were: Adam
Smith, Ricardo, List, Jevons and Marx. Nothing about
Marshall!
While Harrod's memory regarding the prescribed books was very
accurate (the Examination Statutes of 1923 prescribed for
political economy Smith's Wealth of Nations, the Works of David
Ricardo in McCulloch's edition, Marx's Capital, vol. I, Jevons's
Theory of Political Economy, and List's National System of
Political Economy), his recollection of the content of the paper
and the discussion which followed seems to contradict in part the
implications of his mother's letter:
- Shortly after that I read a
paper to Keynes' small group in Cambridge entitled "Should
Cambridge Economists Be Read in Oxford?" I guess that I
somewhat deprecated our list. Keynes, on the other hand, in
summing up, said that he found much virtue in the Oxford system
of confining its set books to authors of mature vintage.
(Harrod, "Notes on Edgeworth", April 1964, in HP
IV/1165-1171/3).
- a. ALS,
one page, with envelope addressed to King's College,
Cambridge, in HPBL Add. 72772/38-39. Date read from
postmark.