Notes 1 Introduction: Competing Assessments of Alfred Marshall’s Economics 1. Unless otherwise noted, all references to Principles refer to the eighth edition as published by Macmillan in 1920. References to C.W. Guillebaud’s Notes to the Ninth Variorum Edition (vol. 2) are cited as Guillebaud (1961). Guillebaud has provided an invaluable source from which the content and significance of the revisions to the editions of the Principles can be observed. 2. Confirmation of the durability and viability of Marshall’s Principles is to be found in records relating to sales of various editions and reprints (see Macmillan 1942). Evidence of the influence Marshall’s economics had beyond Britain is provided by Shove (1942: 313–16), and more recently in the contributions to Raffaelli et al. (2010). 3. Roger Backhouse (2008) presents an informative account of Schumpeter’s rather complex and changing attitude towards Marshall’s economics, an account which emphasises the changing intellectual environment in which Schumpeter was writing. 4. See, for example, Phyllis Deane’s (1978: 102,143) interesting account of the evolution of economic thought, where Marshall’s Principles is identified as the ‘bible of the English neo-classical school’, which was to form ‘the main foundation of economic thought for roughly half a century after its publication’. 5. For further details on the origins of the term ‘neoclassical’, and the sub- sequent usage and interpretation, see Aspromourgos (1986) and Zafirovski (1999). Significantly, J.R. Hicks (1983: xiii–xiv) has since suggested that the term neoclassical is misleading and its usage therefore to be avoided. 6.. In a footnote, Samuelson (1967: 113) states: ‘My generally critical view of Marshall is not universally shared, but a trend is discernible ...’ 7. See, for example, discussion in sections of Robinson (1953, 1955, 1974a) and Kaldor (1972, 1985). Others who could be added to this list include G.B. Richardson, whose writings on industrial organisation were very much influenced by Marshall’s insights. David Reisman’s (1986) account of Marshall’s work departs in many important respects from the ‘tradi- tional assessment’ (Shackle’s (1986) Foreword to this book is noteworthy), as does A.K. Dasgupta’s (1985) discerning chapter on Marshall. Likewise, Groenewegen’s (1982) discussion of ‘history and equilibrium’ in Marshall’s writings (together with Adam Smith and Karl Marx) emphasised issues that are central to the ‘new view’ of Marshall. Finally, Maynard Keynes (1930), in drawing the reader’s attention to the much neglected contributions of Schumpeter (1928) and Allyn Young (1928), indicated an awareness of the dimensions of the difficulties Marshall had sought to resolve through his representative firm theory. 193 194 Notes 8. The contrasting views on Marshall’s economics can be clearly seen in the contents of Whitaker’s (1990) edited volume. Some additional perspectives published at the same time can be found in Alfred Marshall in Retrospect, appropriately edited by the highly credentialed Marshall scholar, Rita McWilliams-Tullberg (1990). 9. This editorial commentary can be found in Whitaker (1975a: 3–116). Insightful analysis of Marshall’s early writings is also provided by Krishna Bharadwaj (1978b). 10. Further insights into Marshall’s life and works can be found in the biogra- phies of some of his important colleagues; most notably in Phyllis Deane’s (2001) outstanding biography of John Neville Keynes, and also in Bart Schultz’s (2004) intellectual biography of Henry Sidgwick. 11. The Marshall Studies Bulletin, issued online annually by the University of Florence, provides a forum in which Marshall’s contributions can be dis- cussed, particularly in regards to still unpublished Marshall sources: http://131.114.162.142/siti/marshall/marshall/welcome.htm 12. The ‘popularity’ of the ‘two Marshalls view’ is noted (and the idea rejected) in the editor’s introduction to the Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall (Raffaelli et al. 2006: xiii). David Collard (2004), in his review of the Arena and Quéré (2003) edited volume, makes a similar point in referring to ‘Book IV Marshallians’ and ‘Book V Marshallians’. 2 The Development of Marshall’s Thought 1. Few readers of Maynard Keynes’ Memoir of Marshall, written in less than two months after his death on 13 July 1924, would disagree with Groenewegen’s (1995: 15) estimation that ‘it presents a brilliant portrait of his “master”, a classic in biography ...’ However, as Groenewegen also notes, correspond- ences preserved in the Marshall library indicate that Keynes did have doubts about some of the material with which he had been presented, particularly in relation to Marshall’s family (a matter also discussed in Coase (1984)). More generally, Groenewegen observes that when the writing gets ‘more florid’, the factual material tends, at times, to become ‘thinner’. 2. This is described by Maynard Keynes (1924: 3) as follows: ‘He [Marshall] had painful recollections in later days of his tyrant father keeping him awake into the night for the better study of Hebrew, whilst at the same time forbid- ding him the fascinating paths of mathematics. His father hated the sight of a mathematical book, but Alfred would conceal Potts’ Euclid in his pocket as he walked to and from school’. 3. Money, Credit and Commerce (Marshall 1923) was the last of Marshall’s pub- lished works and largely represented a collection of earlier work on mon- etary theory, much of this dating back to the 1880s; see J.M. Keynes (1924: 28–33), Rosselli (2006) and Groenewegen (2007: 168–72). 4. An account of this highly significant stage in the development of Marshall’s thinking can be found in Groenewegen (1995: 113–18). Here it is also noted that Mansel’s Bampton Lectures provided an extensive reading list for those, like Marshall, who were interested in investigating further the issues of reli- gious, geometrical and moral truth. Significantly, these included references Notes 195 to German texts, in particular the work of Hegel and his followers. It is likely that Marshall’s thinking on these issues was further influenced by John Grote’s Exploratio Philosophica, which may be regarded as a sophisti- cated refutation of Mansel (Cook 2006c: 107). 5. Some further observations on the professional relationship between Marshall and Sidgwick, and the implications arising for developments in the Cambridge School of Economics, are included in Chapter 7 (section 7.1). 6. Raffaelli (2006a) provides further elaboration of the influences outlined in this paragraph. The academic relationship between Marshall and Clifford, though intense, was relatively short-lived, due in part to his appointment as professor of mathematics and mechanics at the University College London in 1871 (at the age of 26), and also to his premature death in 1879. More details on Clifford’s academic career and life can be found in Chisholm (2002). 7. While discussing associates of Marshall, some reference should be made to Henry Fawcett, Marshall’s predecessor to the Chair at Cambridge (1863–84). As Geoffrey Fishburn’s (1995) investigation indicates, Fawcett played a not insignificant role in communicating the ideas of Darwin and defending the methodological integrity of Darwin’s work. While Fawcett’s active interest in evolutionary ideas waned prior to his appointment to the Cambridge Chair in political economy, his earlier association with the debate over evolution may have indirectly contributed to Marshall’s later association of such ideas with economic analysis. Further discussion on Fawcett can be found in Goldman (1989). 8. Katie Caldari (2006a) provides an informative outline of Marshall’s collec- tion of books and articles, together with other material read by him. 9. Some interesting general observations on the Grote Club meetings and its participants can be found in some surviving notes made by Marshall, repro- duced in Raffaelli (1996). A detailed discussion of the philosophy of Grote and his followers at Cambridge can be found in Gibbins (1998). 10. Further discussion of the likely significance of ‘Ye Machine’ (reproduced in Raffaelli 1994) to the overall development and content of Marshall’s thought can be found in Raffaelli (2003: 17–33, 2006b) and Cook (2005b: 696–701). There are also indirect linkages with Clifford’s thinking on similar lines of thought stemming from Babbage’s contributions; see Cook (2006b: 126–7). 11. As White (1994) documented, Jevons’ application of the principles of physi- ological psychology followed that of Richard Jennings, who in his Natural Elements of Political Economy (1855) presented ‘natural laws’ of economic behaviour in functional terms (and with the assistance of mechanical meta- phors) on the premise that most economic actions could be explained as ‘reflexes’. 12. As was noted above, Marshall’s circumspect perspective on purely mechan- ical reasoning was influenced directly by his initial acceptance of the philosophical position of Grote and his Cambridge followers. This point is emphasised further by Cook (2005c), who delineates the distinctive inter- pretation of the ideas of Babbage and Boole (system of formal logic) that can be associated with the Cambridge Moral Sciences Tripos under Grote’s lead- ership (with the important distinction being made between ‘material’ and ‘real’ logic). Importantly, the Cambridge position (stated most directly in the work of J. Venn) opposed that of Jevons’ teacher, Augustus De Morgan. 196 Notes 13. As noted by Groenewegen (1990a: 182–3, 1995: 294), Jowett praised Marshall on the appearance of his Principles because of ‘the considerable element of Hegelianism in the book’. It is noted that Jowett’s influence may have been indirect through T.H. Green, who had a long association with Balliol College, Oxford, serving as Professor of Moral Philosophy from 1878 till his death in 1882 (just prior to Marshall’s appointment as a fellow at Balliol College). In relation to Sidgwick, the initial admiration for Hegel appears to have been short-lived.