Sraffa On The Use Of The Notion Of Surplus Value

Sraffa, in his archives in the 1940s and 1950s, is quite appreciative of Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism. This appreciation contrasts with the opinion embodied in the label 'neo-Ricardian', which Bob Rowthorn invented.

I know about the passages below in the Sraffa archives from Riccardo Bellofiore. The archivist, Jonathan Smith, has dated this entry from 1955-1959, late in the writing of Production of Commodities.

I do not want to focus on whether Marx or Sraffa are correct or not. I would want to work out a simple example. Besides, Sraffa seems not convinced of how to analyze the reduction in the working day, when starting at prices.

But I want to note that Sraffa is very much using Marxist concepts: vulgar economics, labor values, prices of production, surplus value, exploitation, and rates of exploitation. And the analysis is based on Marx. Surplus value comes from extending the working day past the point at which workers reproduce their labor power.

"Use of the Notion of Surplus Value

"The prolongation of the working day beyond the point at which the labourer would have produced just an equivalent for the value of his labour-power ..." (Cap., Engels transl. p. 518) cp p. 539 [Chapter Sixteen: Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value]

Put it the other way round. If starting from capitalist society the working day is shortened till there is no surplus value left, this shortening must be equal for all: if it is, the prices of the commodities will change [owing to change in the rate of profits, which vanishes], but the wages will remain unchanged : if it is not, and the working day is reduced to the extent of the profits made in each industry, then prices would remain unchanged* after the shortening [for the number of (shorter) labor days, in industries having a high organic composition of capital, would increase in the same proportion as the fall of profits] but wages would be different.

[Footnote:] *(28.12.41) But profits would be different (after the reduction) in different industries!

[Marginal note:] c/p Letters of M and E 129-32 (letter of M. 2.8.62)

In other words, if we start from profits (as vulgar economy does) we reach the conclusion that the rate of exploitation is different in different industries, being higher in the more highly capitalised ones – which is not [and indeed contrary to] the fact. If we start from surplus value, which is equal in all industries, we get the correct measure of exploitation. The former conclusion is patent nonsense, and no view of exploitation could be based on it.

Note that the former (profits) goes with a theory of prices, the latter, of value (as defined below).

12.11.40 [Price is an exchange ratio which equalises rates of profit on capitals. Value is an exchange ratio which equalises rates of surplus-value on labour. If commodities exchanged at their values, profits would be different for different capitals, and capitals would move: therefore, this competition of capitals causes them to exchange at their prices.

The question is: are the rates of exploitation different? and if so why doesn’t labor move, and restore values and equality of rates of surplus value?]

The starting point is "the prolongation of the working day beyond the point at which the labourer would have produced just an equivalent for the value of his labour power" (Cap., Engels Tr. 518)

This point cannot be determined without reference to the value of the product (unless the labourer produces himself all the commodities he consumes).

But the point varies if we take value and if we take price.

Now, we are comparing the actual state with a hypothetical one in which only the necessary labour is performed.

In the actual state commodities are exchanged at their prices, whilst in the hypothetical state (where there would be nothing to be paid out in profits) at their values.

Which scale should we adopt for both states, in comparing them? It may be said: neither – each state has its own scale and that only is appropriate to it. No comparison can be made directly between the two extreme states. [marginal note says, "wrong, see p. 56.] We cannot imagine to move gradually from the actual state, shortening the working day; as we start from the actual state, we use its own scale, i.e. prices, in determining the ultimate goal towards which we move [and that will give different reductions for different branches of industry; but as we pass to successive other states, with shorter and shorter working days, the scale to be used changes, and prices move nearer (as the rate of profits is reduced) to values – so does the "point" aimed at change; until, on the threshold of the state in which only the necessary labour is performed, the prices will practically coincide with values, and the point aimed at with that determined by the scale of values, i.e. all labourers will have had their hours reduced in the same proportion. [The converse is true: if starting from the hypothetical state we prolong the working day by this method, we reach the actual state, having prolonged it for all labourers proportionally/equally, but through the change in prices having raise the profits in each branch proportionally with its capital]

Note that if we had adopted straightway values, and made the comparison between the two extreme cases, we should have obtained the same, correct, result. But if we had adopted prices, and made that comparison, it would have led us astray: the 'point' indicated by prices [i.e. different reductions in different industries] would have been false when the hyp. state was reached – for on the basis of values some labourers would be working more, and some less, than the necessary hours.

The imaginary process (described above, p. 3 bottom) of gradually shortening the working day, on the basis of the prices appropriate to each intermediate point, and therefore in different proportions for different industries, requires further consideration. As it stands, it is only correct at the wo extreme points [or rather only at the final point], but false at all intermediate ones: for, e.g., on the first step, when the rate of profit is reduced from 6 to 5%, the day of every worker must be reduced in one and the same proportion, and not in different proportions: it is clear that the latter method would give immediately absurd results.

In fact, this shows that the way in which I have argued the point on p. 1 is wrong (too weak). The objection of the vulgar economist is that the surplus produced in each industry (or firm) is measured by its profits. If he agreed to call it exploitation he would say that this is higher (absorbs a larger proportion of the working day) in the industries having more capital per worker. Therefore, he would have to conclude that, if exploitation has to be reduced in the different industries in such proportions as would maintain the rate of profit equal between them, at the lower level, this would require a larger reduction of the working day in the more capitalised industries. It can be shown, by a numerical example, that this is not the case. That on the contrary if the was reduced equally in all industries, the rate of profits would also be reduced equally. This result is made possible by a simultaneous change in prices – those of highly capitalised industries falling (when the rate of profits falls) relatively to the other prices. So that the larger fall in the surplus of such industries has two sources: a) the reduction in working way (common to other industries), (b) the fall in the relative price of their product (peculiar to the highly cap. industries)

29.12.41 [A third source, working in the same direction, would at first sight appear to be the increased depreciation allowances for capital, as the rate of interest falls. However this is a delusion: the 10 loom case shows that it is constant. That is to say, it is constant if real capital has to be maintained intact, though allowing value of semi-used capital to fall as rate of interest falls - and this is the relevant case. Its rise only if money value has to maintained as originally, in case

29.12.41 The previous paragraph is misleading. There is a third source, even if depreciation allowances are regarded as constant. For the value (or rather, in M's sense, the "price") of capital goods falls with the fall in the rate of interest. Therefore, when the rate of s.v. falls, the profits of industries with a large amount of capital per man fall still more owing to this third source - even if the capitals are no more (but no less!) "durable" than in other industries (if they are more durable in the highly capitalised industries than in others, this is a fourth source - for with fall in interest the more durable capitals falls more than that of the less durable ones).

[The whole subject of the "measure of capital" requires investigation in this connection. It has a striking similarity to the contradiction of "prices" and "value" of commodities, and it also depends on the equalisation of the rate of profits. One should start from the "value" of capitals (i.e. quantity of labour necessary to construct them) and see how the requirement of equal rates of profits leads to "prices" of capitals different from their "values".]

30.12.41 This business of 3 or 4 sources is wrong. There are only two sources: a) the reduction of working time in the industry, which reduces the quantity of goods produced; b) The reduction in the price at which the product is sold. The fall in the value of capital of certain industries along with the fall in the general rate of profits and other possible causes, contribute to source b, but don't add anything besides b.

[N.B. The fact that the value of capital (and therefore its "quantity" or magnitude) varies with the rate of profits (and generally cannot be known without knowing prices and rate of profits) makes nonsense of many cornerstones: 1) "Sacrifice of waiting", but how if they don’t know what they are abstaining from? 2) rate of interest, or marg. prod. of cap., as criterion for distribution of resources; but how, if the same resource (in "value") becomes larger or smaller (in "price") according as it used in one way or another?

5.1.42 Those who regard Marx's transition from values to prices, by the necessity of equalising the rate of profit, as a trick, should say the same of Ricardo's (and the whole marginal school) method of determining cost of production by considering only that on the marginal land, by the necessity of equalising the price of all bushels of corn, on whichever land they may be procured. Cannan does so (Rev. of Ec. Theory, p. 178): Ricardo 'did the trick by little more than an arbitrary exercise of the right to define terms ..." -- Piero Sraffa D3.12.46/57r – 63r

Nothing like the above is in Sraffa's book. Connections to Marx are less apparent, although some reviewers perceived them. Counterfactual reasoning is mostly eschewed. The length of the working day is not discussed, but taken as given.

Sraffa does not seem very confident about whether he should start with value or prices and how he should proceed if he adopts the latter. He does see the importance of what was later called price Wicksell effects. I want to note that the next pages in the archive are a draft of the chapter on land in Sraffa's book.

By the way, Ian Steedman has a chapter towards the end of Marx after Sraffa illustrating the analysis of the length of the working day. Consistent with his general approach, he uses data on physical quantity flows and does not take the point at which prices are values and labor is not exploited as a reference point.

Sraffa I/141: Correspondence Beween Marguerite Kuczynski And Piero Sraffa

A Bad Reproduction Of An Engraving Of Quesnay In Kuczynski And Meek

Introduction

This folder consists of:

• A 20 Sep. 1965 letter from Marguerite Kuczynski to Piero Sraffa. Sraffa’s handwritten annotation suggests his response is not in the archives.
• Handwritten notes made by Sraffa.
• An 18 Oct. 1965 letter from Marguerite Kuczynski to Piero Sraffa.
• A 25 Nov. 1965 handwritten draft letter from Piero Sraffa to Marguerite Kuczynski.
• An 18 Dec. 1965 letter from Marguerite Kuczynski to Piero Sraffa.
• A typed copy of a 10 Feb. 1966 letter from Piero Sraffa to Marguerite Kuczynski.
• A 26 Feb. 1966 letter from Marguerite Kuczynski to Piero Sraffa.
• A 2 Dec. 1971 letter from Marguerite Kuczynski to E. A. G. Robinson.
• A 9 Mar. 1972 letter from Marguerite Kuczynski to Piero Sraffa. Sraffa’s handwritten annotation suggests his response is not in the archives.
• Notes by Marguerite Kuczynski. Sraffa’s handwritten note says this is a copy, and it starts with page 2. Presumably, the original was enclosed with Kucznski’s December 1965 letter.

This transcription needs checking more than usual. I dropped many accents and have not even attempted to ensure the french makes sense. I believe there are translations from some of the last document in Kucynski and Meek (1974). The letters from Kuczynski are on her personal letterhead. I find this to be part of an exciting story.

From Marguerite Kuczynski

Handwritten by Sraffa on upper left:
R. 11 Oct,
Sent copy of B, N. first edition dated 1956-58, but Pt. VI not.-p.

112 Berlin Weissensee, Sept. 20th, 1965
Parkstrasse 94

Pietro Sraffa, Esq.
Trinity College
Cambridge/England

Dear Sir,

A short while ago I published the long-lost "third edition" of Quesnay's Tableau Economique which it been my good fortune to locate. The reproduction is accompanied by a comparison with Mirabeau's more extensive explanation of the Tableau which he made on the basis of Quesnay's "third edition" and which he published in the Sixth Part of his Ami des Hommes. For that comparison, I was obliged to use one of the 1760 editions of the Sixth Part, and references to the Fifth Part of Ami des Hommes also make use of that same edition (1760). For so far, I have not been able to trace the 1759 edition of these two parts which Georges Weulersse, for one, mentions in his Mouvement physiocratique, Paris 1910, vol. I, pp. 69-70, note 7. The context is such that a printer’s error -- putting 1759 for 1760 - seems impossible, and I should consider it most unlikely that Weulersse would have mentioned this early edition had he not been certain that it existed.

In his Bibliography of Economics, 1751-1775, Cambridge 1935, p. 167, Henry Higgs also mentions the year 1759 in connection with the Fifth Part of Ami des Hommes: he lists an edition "Avignon, 1759, issued 1770, 12". Am I right in hoping that owing to your association with the work of Henry Higgs, you might be able to throw light on the sources which establish the date "1759"? And would have the kindness of enabling me to follow up these sources? (The year "1770" I have assumed to be a misprint for 1760.)

Please believe me most grateful for any help which you may be able to give me in the matter of dating Parts Five and Six of Ami des Hommes.

May I add a further query? Henry Higgs mentions (Introduction, p. XV) the work of "M. Daniel Morant who analyzed the contents of 500 private libraries belonging to ... notabilities in the time of Louis XV.". I have not been able to trace the work referred to and beg you to help me find it.

Very truly yours,

Sraffa's Notes

Marshall Library, Pryne Collection

LAmi des Hommes

Pt 1-4 "Nouvelle edition, augmentee d'une quatrienne Pourtie et de Sou.." N. P. 1759

Pt. 5-6 N. P. 1760

Pt 6 divided in two parts, the first "Response a la Voierie" the second ("Suite de la VI Partie") the "Tableau Economique avec ses explications" This latter has at the end a whole page of extracts (Fautes a corriger)

From Marguerite Kuczynski

112 Berlin Weissensee, Oct 18th, 1965
Parkstrasse 94

Piero Sraffa, Esq.
Trinity College
Cambridge/England

Dear Mr. Sraffa,

Thank you very much indeed for your very detailed answer to my query. I’ve examined the editing of L'Ami des Hommes, 1756-1758, 7 tomes en 6 parties en 2 vol., in 4, in the Munich State Library: the fifth part bears the year 1760. I shall of course follow up your suggestion and write to the Librarian of the Goldsmiths' Library. I shall be at the Bibliotheque nationale shortly, but I am not in great hopes of finding such there, in the particular respect.

As to my reproduction of the "third edition" of the Tableau economique, I am forwarding a copy to you under separate cover. I would appreciate it very such indeed if you would give me your critical remarks on the publication.

Yours sincerely.

From Piero Sraffa

25 Nov 65

Dear Mrs Kuczynski

It was most kind of you to send me a copy of your edition of the Tableau econ. It is really a most welcome discovery remarkable really a sensational feat to have found this edition, for which has eluded so many people who have been tried before looking for many years, and I should like to I congratulate on your success discovery and on the excellent presentation and annotation.

I have tried hard therefor to satisfy your request As you ask me for critical remarks and here is this here this is the best, or rather the worst, I can do. It seems a little is [unclear] unfortunate that the facsimile should be an enlargement not be in the original size: the grounds requirement of legibility which you mention could have been satisfied met by reproducing from good full size photograph instead of a microfilm. Also your printer has betrayed you on Page ij, line 9 (cp. Errata) – not 400, nor 500, but [crossed out] 100! (he has also left a humble revealing fingerprint by [crossed out] adopting the wrong font for, 1 instead of I)

I had not a little trouble understanding what it is that you meant in connection with referring to as with the "Korrektur-fragment" until I [crossed out] note 12 and saw that note 12 must be read as part of the text.

This is the best, or rather the worst I can do. If I find any other big and quite small points, when I come to read it more carefully, I shall write again let you know. (I have an idea of proposing writing preparing a notice for for the Economic Journal). By the way, it would have been interesting if you had told the full story of how you came to discover it.

Thank you again

Yours sinc

From Marguerite Kuczynski

Gorisch/Erzgebirge, December 18th, 65
as from Berlin Weissensee
Parkstrasse 94

Professor Piero Sraffa
Trinity College
Cambridge/England

Dear Professor Sraffa,

Please do excuse this very belated acknowledgement of your letter of November 25th: the last weeks in Paris and the ensueing week in Berlin have been rather hectic. But we have now come here for a few days of rest (my husband returned from a prolonged stay in Cuba just as I came back from Paris), and one of the very first things I would like to do in this very peaceful place is to thank you for the very kind letter you wrote to me about "my" Quesnay. Please let me say that I appreciated very much indeed the fact that you discovered th error on p.ij of the reproduction! I have been guilty of a twofold negligence there: 1. Thinking that I finally convinced the printers that they were in no way to touch up what seemed to them deplorable irregularities in printing, I did not do sufficient proof-reading the pages reproduced from the films and I discovered the "correction" of what the printers had taken to be an ink-spot too late to have an erratum inserted; 2. in sending you a copy from Paris, the stress of the work there made me forget to point out to you this blotch on the edition.

I have been repeatedly been asked how I came to discover the edition. For quite some time I tried the ordinary hiding places - libraries archives, monasteries etc. in Europe and in Japan; neither this, nor a notice which Jean Maitron published in his "Revue" in 1962, brought forth anything new. I finally followed up a hunch that the striking similarity in the astounding degree of reticence observed by Schelle when he wrote his life of Du Pont de Nemours (1888) and his article on the "edition definitive" (1905) augured, in spite of the many years between the two publications, one common cause: the Du Pont family itself. The enquiry about the whereabouts of the books and papers left by Du Pont de Nemours led at once to the discovery of the "3rd edition". (I have assembled a sort of tableof parallels which you may like to see. That means that I shall have to delay the sending off of this letter until I shall be back in Berlin. If you would let me have the list back after having done with it, I would appreciate it.)

May I, in concluding, thank you for your idea that you may write a notice on the republication of the "3rd edition" for the Economic Journal. I would be most happy about your doing this?

Sincerely yours,

From Piero Sraffa

Trin. Coll.
10th February, 1966

Dear Mrs Kuczynski

I must apologize for my delay in replying to your most interesting letter of last December. It reached me in Italy, where I did not have by me the relevant books, and I only returned here after a prolonged vacation.

I found the study of the steps in your argument absolutely fascinating and greatly admired the perspicacity which enabled you to achieve this remarkable success.

I do hope that you will publish the full story as well as presentations in French and English of the newly formed Tableau. It will not only make exciting reading as a piece of detection, but it should inspire others by showing what results can be obtained by bringing a fresh mind to bear on puzzles which had defeated generations of foot-sloggers!

Did you get the answer about the "1759" edition of the 5th Part of l'Ami des hommes?

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

P. S.

P.S. I found that the Economic Journal had already sent to a reviewer your Tableau. But I may have another chance with your next publication.

From Marguerite Kuczynski

112 Berlin Weissensee, Febr. 26th, 1966
Parkstrasse 94

Professor Piero Sraffa
Trinity College
Cambridge/England

Dear Professor Sraffa,

I do thank you for the very kind letter which accompanied the notes which I had sent you on the steps taken to find the Tableau. Indeed, your letter encouraged me to write up the material into an article (a Japanese journal had asked me for a contribution dealing with the Tableau).

As to your questions about the 1759 editions of Parts V and VI of L'Ami des Hommes, I have, for the time being, come to the reluctant conclusion that the earliest edition may well be the one published as vol. III of the 1760 4-edition. Of two contradictory statements of Mirabeau's, the one which establishes the date as 1760 was written in 1760 and eight years before the other one. I should have preferred it to be the other way around, of course.

May I say that I am sorry you will not be reviewing my Tableau-edition?

With best wishes

Sincerely yours,

From Marguerite Kuczynski to E. A. G. Robinson

112 Berlin Weissensee, December 2., '71
Parkstrasse 94

Professor E. A. G. Robinson
Secretary, The Royal Economic Society
The Marshall Library
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge

Dear Professor Robinson,

I have just received a first copy of our Tableau-edition. It is beautifully printed and beautifully set up, and the engraving, so kindly furnished by Piero Sraffa, adds such a fine touch to it. I do thank you for all the trouble you have taken with the edition!

Since we are already in the month of December I would like to add the season’s greetings and my very best wishes for the coming Year.

Sincerely yours,

From Marguerite Kuczynski

Handwritten in upper left:
R 19 going to Italy for a few weeks
Not yet rec’d book. If on my return, have anything of interest, will write.
Reviews, Economica, U. S. journal hist. of theory. In Italy, G. d. E.

112 Berlin Weissensee, March 9, 1972
Parkstrasse 94

Piero Sraffa, Esq.
Trinity College
Cambridge/England

Dear comrade Sraffa,

I have to-day posted to you the first volume of my German edition of Quesnay's main economic writings. It covers the years 1756 to 1759, trailing a bit into 1760. It should of course have gone to you already about the middle of January but I have been hard pressed for time (and by ill health) and am only now beginning to catch up.

You may be interested in some of the new materials I have used, among them perhaps No. 4, p. 813; No. 10, pp. 814-815; No. 14, p. 816); and I need, of course, not say, how very much interested I would be in any comments you may have in the edition.

A review copy of this volume has of course been sent to the Economic Journal. Perhaps Professor Robinson will have passed it on to Ronald Meek (who is, I suppose, still in England? I have not heard from him since June of last year). If you have any advice as to additional reviews in England, or, for that matter, in Italy where no copies have been sent so far, I would gladly pass on your suggestions to the publishers.

In my work on the second Quesnay-volume I find that I am using the English Tableau edition quite a bit. It is so very useful to have the three Tableaus together (I have complete the first edition" by two "Remarques" pages). And it is such a pleasure to work with such a beautifully printed book. Please, believe in my gratitude for all you have done to give this volume its shape and beauty.

With many good wishes,
Sincerely,

Notes by Marguerite Kuczynski

I decided to start from the indications contained in Schelle's Du Pont de Nemours et l'Ecole physiocratique and to disregard, for the time being, the odd period of time which had elapsed between that publication, in 1880, the piece-meal revelations on the Tableau in 1905. I did this because

1. the pattern of reticence was so much the case the same in the two publications that it suggested a cause common to both cases – the Du Pont family’s inordinate insistence on anonymity;
2. the chapter on the descendants of the physiocrat Du Pont suggested that family papers etc. were more likely to be found in the USA than in France, for instance:
3. not only the pattern of reticence was similar: the period at which the Du Ponts themselves came a bit out of their reserve coincided rather closely with the resumed publication, on the part of Schelle, of unknown matter concerning Quesnay and Turgot and, a little latter, with nisecsening anonymity of his acknowledgements to the owners of the Du Pont documents.

I have assembled the more important quotations from the 1888 study on Du Pont:

"Sans la bienveillance que nous a temoignee sa famille, nous aurions meme renomce a achiever notre tache, mais grace a elle, nous avons pu poursuivre nos recherches sans trop do difficiltes et les appuyer sur des documents dune valeur exceptionnelle" (p. 5).

"Bien que ces precieux papiere soient aujourd’hui en Ano-rique, il nous a ete donne d'en consulter les parties les plus interessantes" (p. 5).

"Nous avons ou notament, entre les mains, copie de plus de trois cente lettres que Turgot adresse a (Du Pont) ... Nous n’a-vone pas ou la permission de publier cette correspondence, ... mais nous avons pu citer quelques passages do ces lettres et nous y avons fait de nombreux emprunts" (p. 5 and 6).

"L'un des arridre-petits-fils de Du Pont de Nemours a bien voulu on outre nous fournir d'indications dd detail, ou revir, corriger et completer avec un soin extreme la bibliographie qui toraine ce livre" (p. 6, note 2).

"Nous pourrione aussi signaler in grace bienveillante des lettres de la seule fille d'Irenee (son of the phsiocrat DP de N. - M. K.) qui soit encore vivante; mais nous ne veulone parler due des morte" (p. 395).

Everything rather pointed to America and, I repeat, it is only when I started following the old spoor that I got to the lair.

I admit that I hesitated for some time to follow the spoor to the end. For one thing, I had, in the eyes of such a family, not even the virtue of being an ancestor's biographer. When I finally did take the plunge I discovered that the papers and books that had belonged to the physiocrat Du Pont had passed -- at least sufficiently for my purposes -- out of the family’s immediate control into the Eleutherian Mills Historical Library and had thus become to some extent public property

That is the story. I have in addition jotted down, on a separate page, some of the particular dates, which illustrate my point 3 above.

Juxtaposition of some dates on the Du Pont and Schelle side

Du Pont family	Schelle
1880ies After a long struggle on the part of the family, Rear-Admiral Du Pont is largely exonerated from the charge of having lost an important Civil War naval battle in 1865.	1888 Strictest anonymity is preserved regarding all living members of Du Pont family who gave documents and information toward the biography of the physiocrat Du Pont de Nemours.
1902 Henry Algernon Du Pont, later US senator, retires from business (railways, among other things) and devotes himself to literary and historical pursuits.	1903 Schelle retires from his work at the ministry of public works (railways) and devotes himself to economic and literary studies. Among a number of other articles he publishes in
1905 H.-A.Du Pont publishes, for private circulation only, a small edition of L'Enfance et la Jeunesse de Du Pont de Nemours, Paris 1906.	1905 Parts of the "3rd edition" of the Tableau economique. Strictest discretion as to the source of the discovery.
1908 Gabrielle Josephine Du Pont de Nemours (the lady whose bienveillance Schelle mentions in his 1888 study, p. 5997 – M. K.) brings out as "publication strictement privee", and in an edition limited to 50 copies, Souvenive de Madame V. M. du Pont de Nemours, Wilmington.
	1909 La Vie de Turgot, Paris
	1913 Released (?) from preserving the anonymity of at least one member of the Du Pont family, Schelle writes in the preface to vol. 1 of his Oeuvres de Turgot: “J’avais ou le Bonheur d’entretenir depais (la preparation de Du Pont de Nemours et l’Ecole physiocratique) avec le descendant de ce dernier, le colonial Du Pont, senateur des Etats-Unis, des reations affectueusse” (p.11). But Even in the edition of Turgot’s works there is no precise indication of the whereabouts of the long series of letters from Turgot to Du Pont (1763-1781) whereas in all other cases the location of the documents included is meticulously set down for each individual item.
1924 H.-A. Du Pont publishes, for normal circulation, The Early Generations of the Du Pont and Allied Families, New York.	1925 Schelle finishes publishing his Turgot edition.

Sraffa I/33: Alexander Gray to Gerald F. Shove

This is about Shove's review of The Socialist Tradition. Apparently Gray does not take those important in the development of economic thought seriously. Since Piero Sraffa is neither the recipient nor the sender, and the topic is not his work, maybe the editors of his collected works should not include this.

8, Abbotsford Park,
Edinburgh. 10.
3rd November, 1946

Dear Shove,

(If the fact that we occupied adjacent seats on the occasion of one of my rare visits to the Annual Meeting of the Economic Society justifies this assumption of familiarity) - I should like, if I may, to exchange friendly greetings on the excuse of your review of my Socialist Tradition.

First of all I should like to say as a sheep before the shearers is dumb, so in general a reviewee ought to open not his mouth. Nevertheless, I would like to thank you for your kindness: I gather the perusal of my interminable book was not an unusually burdensome task, and I am grateful to you for passing on to others an implied hint that they might do worse than read it, -- if they have time!

This should perhaps be the end of the letter; but even if the sheep should be dumb, perhaps I may classify myself as a tender lamb, and in this capacity be allowed a few bleats by way of comment on your comments.

First of all, as to your main criticism, I agree and plead guilty. I am aware that my various chapters are too independent of each other: in fact when I said something in the Preface to the effect that the chapters were reasonably self-contained, I said this partly in self-criticism. For in a book like this, the chapters should not be too much independent of each other. I can only plead that this springs partly from the way the book arose; and partly from my make-up and (may I say it?) modesty! It does not require much insight to see that the book represents more or less lectures which I given to certain students in alternate years for the last quarter of a century more or less, the dose of course varying somewhat each time. And in these circumstances one tends to skip lightly from one mountain summit to the next. Also perhaps I am more interested in people than in movements; and distrust my power to write that complete history in which all my characters would be integrated with the history of their times. I am glad that you also have a regard for Paguet. I attended his lectures in 1904; and I have always looked upon him as the supreme lecturer and expositor. But, looking back, I think that perhaps he also may have been subject to the criticism you have passed on me. Also perhaps I may say, in the light of your observations, that the title of the book is by no means what I wished to call it. Down to the Galley proof stage, I called it Towards a History of Socialism, meaning thereby that is was a mere contribution to be supplemented later by a better writer, or supplemented now by reference to other books dealing with other aspects and phases. But the Publishers -- and who can resist the publishers -- told me that the title would just not do at all. So I fished round for the second best: but I have always known it was only a second best.

So far we are in agreement! But there are two points on which I should like to utter a minor bleat -- not of protest, God forbid, -- but of comparative innocence: or at least a mild suggestion that I am not as guilty of certain shortcomings as you suggest. Even with the limitation imposed by my 'selective' method of treatment, it was obviously my duty to link up, and consider the permanent legacy of my exhibits. I certainly intended doing so; and I thought I had! But obviously I have not done it well enough. If I may illustrate what I mean: you mention Saint Simon. I certainly point out his relation to Comte and to Carlyle; I point out his relation to all the big-business stuff and the idea of technocracy; I underline his relation to what we still have, the desire to separate administration from politics; through the Saint-Simonians, I indicate that he led by a short-cut to much of Marx. And I specifically refer to him as 'one of the great influences of the 19th century'. Doubtless one could have said all these things at greater length in a book: but I am not sure that I could have done much more in a chapter of 30 pages.

Again at the top of p. 444, you say that I hardly bring out the extent to which Marx draws together the threads running through the writings of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors. I use a different metaphor; but if you look at p. 299, you will see that I am quite alive to the point. I say that he collected his bricks from many masons' yards, but used them to construct a building to his own design; and thereafter, doubtless inadequately, I indicate in the next page and a half a number of the sources from which he drew these bricks. And while on Marx, and the suggestion that my treatment of the M.C.H. is an example of failure to ask whether there may not be a 'substratum of significant truth', I would in the mildest tone point out that in summing up on Marx, I say that the most significant and enduring portion of Marx is contained in the Materialist Conception of History.

The other minor bleat I should like to utter is against myself and not you. I should be sorry if you got the impression that I was not taking my subject seriously, -- indeed almost to the point of regarding the whole socialist and anarchist tradition as a joke. God forgive me: apart from government activities which come and go, this is the only thing I have taken seriously in the last 25 years! Nor would I poke fun at any of my sitters: with very few exceptions, I love them too much. I would suggest, for instance, that I am just about the first person (in English at least) who has given Proudhon a fair run for his money (I think Brogran is rather disappointing on Proudhon). In my youth he was looked on as a dreadful person who said that God was evil; and he also said that if any one deserves to be in Hell, it is God. I have almost made it possible for a Scots Elder to shake hands with him. Nor would I admit that my book is a Fool's Gallery: in the earlier stages, a Gallery of Eccentrics, if you like: and therein lies their fascination. I may have failed ignominiously at what I tried to do; but I had hoped that I was giving every one a fair run. Though I do not say so, my Preface is chiefly directed towards Hearnshaw, for whom, if a man is called a Socialist, it is already sufficient proof that he is also a twirp and a twister and also a consummate fool. I certainly had no intention of compiling a record of folly. You will observe that in the Preface I say that the Socialists are interesting, because, among other things, they are prophets. In the concluding Chapter (p. 506) I say that 'much of what the socialists contended for forty years ago has passed into a fairly general acceptance in the minds of the population at large'. With this as my beginning and end, I do not think that I can quite fairly be regarded as in search of folly undiluted with wisdom.

You ask two specific questions.

(i) I have no doubt you are right about the date of the conversion of the Marx household. I shall look it up. I see that I speak of a 'recent conversion' which is reprehensively vague. If I am not exactly trembling on the brink of a Second Impression; I am at least on the brink of that point in the stage of exhaustion of the First Impression when the Publisher asks for a complete list of all misprints etc with a view to a second impression (And there are a Hell of a lot of French accents that have gone astray!) And if I can get it done I shall put this right.

(ii) On the St. Luke and St. Matthew point, I rely on the authentic text alone. It is obvious that Luke gives an abridged version of what is in Matthew. The fuller text is, I should think, the more correct: and the abridgement, whether intentionally or not does not greatly matter, has been made in such a way as to convert the spiritual hunger into a physical hunger etc. I do not know what the theologians would say to it. Needless to say, in this age, when we all get our ideas from others, I got this idea also from elsewhere. It was put into my head by Adler, Geschichte des Sozialismus.

I hope that you do not regard this as a querulous letter: it is not so intended. Meanwhile as a token of appeasement and an emblem of good will, I enclose a copy of a book which I see I published 14 years ago. You may understand the lengthy Introduction, if you do not understand the body of the Book. I send it to you chiefly that you may see what I look like when I am in fact not taking my subject seriously.

Yours sincerely,
Alexander Gray

I do not know who Paquet or [F. J. C.?] Hearnshaw are.

Anyways, The Socialist Tradition did undergo a second impression in 1947. Gray does not like Marx and writes in a straightforward, non-Hegelian style. Topics covered include Plato, the Old Testament, the New Testament, church fathers such as Thomas Aquinas, and Thomas More and a couple other utopians. Gray writes about Rousseau some others who I do not recognize. William Godwin, Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, Louis Blanc, and Proudhon each get a separate chapter. (I finally have Iain McKay's collection of Proudhon's writing on order.) English Ricardian socialists have most of a chapter. Marx and Engels are grouped with Lassale and Rodbertus in a chapter on "scientific socialism". Gray writes about some anarchists. Fabians and Eduard Bernstein are in a chapter on "evolutionary socialism". Syndicalism, guild socialism, and Lenin are the three final substantial chapters before a Postface. One could certainly argue about some of these selections and groupings, but the book seems quite comprehensive. With the index, it is 523 pages.

References

• Alexander Gray. 1937. The Development of Economic Doctrine: An Introductory Survey.
• Alexander Gray. 1946. The Socialist Tradition: From Moses to Lenin.

Correspondence Between Rudiger Soltwedel And Piero Sraffa

This is C/294 in the Sraffa archives. Rudiger Soltwedel had his own letterhead.

D 66 Saarbrucken 3, 28. Febr. 1968
Waldhausweg 7
Evangelisches Studentenheim

Professor Piero Sraffa
Trinity College
Cambridge

Dear Sir,

I am student of economics at the University of Saarbrucken and I just began my finals work for my diploma.

The topic of this study that Prof. E. Schmen formulated is your essay and its title is exactly that of your book: ‘Sraffa’s production of commodities by means of commodities’.

My task is to state the intention of your book and to explain its relation to input-output analysis.

After looking around in literature I only found three reviews (AER: Reder; Ec. Journ.: Harrod; Jorn. Of Pol. Econ.: Quandt; all 1961) but nothing beyond that.

I would be very indebted to you if you could give me some hints of literature directly concerned with your book or with its subject.

At the moment, I think the aim of your study not to be a theory of distribution or a development of input-output analysis, but rather a theory of price-determination in input-output models, given the physical amount of the surplus, economy in equilibrium and infinite elasticity of factor supply. The outcome is an antithesis to what Dorfman/Samuelson/Solow said about relative prices in the Leontief-model: "... in a Leontief-technology relative prices can’t change". (Lin. Programming …, p. 224) in saying that they have to change with changes in distribution of the surplus, And, finally, the profitability of distinct methods of production is dependent on the distribution of the surplus to wages or profits respectively.

This is a bird-eye look on your essay and it is not equivalent to a complete understanding of it. In particular it is the chapter V that charges my brains with its argumentation of extreme density.

I hope that you are willing to excuse my attack on the ‘pater spiritorum’ and would be very thankful for some advice on your part.

Yours respectfully,
Rudiger Soltwedel

Underlines are presumably Sraffa's. "in equilibrium" and "elasticity of factor supply" have underlines in squiggly lines, while the others are solid lines.

Trinity College
Cambridge
1.3.68

Dear Mr. Soltwedel,

Thank you for your letter. I shall try to help you as far as I can in a short letter. As regard my aims, I have kept them in the background in the hope that the constructions offered might be of use to others, who have different standpoints. I have given hints in the Preface and in Appendix IV. The reviews you have are not very helpful. Reder, in particular, is a string of misunderstandings. A good review is that of Peter Newman, in Schweitrerische Zeitschrift fur Volkswirtschaft u. Statistik, No. 1 of 1962, p. 58-75. I disagree with many of his points & had some correspondence with him; we came only to partial agreement, but his review is a good piece of work. There were also good reviews in the Economic Record (Australia, Sept. 1964, p. 442 ff. by Harcourt and Massaro) and in the Economic Weekly (Indian, 24 Aug. 1963, by Krishna R. Bharadwaj). By the way, I replied to Harrod in the June 1962 number of the Economic Journal (p. 477-9).

As regard your own your own interpretation, I must say frankly that you have gone astray the moment you speak of "equilibrium" or of "elasticity of factor supply": all the quantities considered are what can be observed by taking a photograph. There are no rates of change, etc. This point of view was that of the classical economists (e.g. Ricardo) whereas supply & demand curves were introduced in the middle of the 19th century. Economists are now obsessed with them and cannot think without them. My chapter V, which gives you such a headache, could be understood as an attempt to solve a problem set out by Ricardo, & which I described in my Introduction (sections IV & V) of Vol. I of the Works of Ricardo, 1951.

With good wishes for your work,

Yours sincerely
Piero Sraffa

Any errors in journal names, numbers, pages are presumably from my transcription.

66 Saarbrucken 3, 12. ??. 1968
Waldhausweg 7
Evangelisches Studentenheim

Dear Sir,

I thank you very much for your kind reply to my letter.

There was good progress in my work based on your remarks and on the reviews mentioned, in particular the mathematical proof of some propositions in the work of Newman was of great help.

But there is a point in nearly all reviews I don’t agree with and that receives illumination by your book: the claim of the rates of profits being the same in all industries is interpreted as a condition of long run competitive equilibrium prices. Now the structure of your economy is far away from ??determined by competition that this approach does not fit the problem. It looks like a challenge consequent upon a distinct notion of justice in distribution (that could, however, be attained through perfect competition). Unfortunately, your book provides no explanation.

I hope it not to be too unconscionable asking for another explanation.

Yours sincerely,
Rudiger Soltwedel

Sraffa has handwritten “given up” on the top of this letter.

1975 Letter From Krishna Bharadwaj To Piero Sraffa

This letter is an item removed from printed books in Sraffa's library. It is labeled Sraffa I/38 in the archives where I stumbled into it.

15th Oct, 75

Centre for Economic Studies,

Nehru University,

New Delhi 57

Dear Piero Sraffa,

How are you? A lot of things have happened since my return in July to Delhi. Personally, my health was not too good for some time but has now stabilised somewhat. I had considerable teaching load this term and have had to devote a lot of time to preparation of lectures etc. I am now writing up a part of my lectures material - mainly on classical theories of value and distribution. My intention is to focus on conceptual development and the shift to the supply and demand approach and the implications of such a methodological shift. What I intend to do is mainly to provide the background to interpret your book as a return to the classical theory, to discuss the propositions developed in the book and draw out explicitly the implications. I am intending to make it a reference book, mainly for students. As I have been lecturing on this for the last three years, I should suppose I should be able to write up the first draft not too late and look forward to discussing it with you.

I have done some work on the tenurial conditions in some parts of India based on a student under my guidance. That study has received a favourable reaction.

The books which you gifted me - Wicksteed, Schumpeter, Meek - have proved very helpful.

I hope you are keeping health. Sudha remembers you. She is now very much interested in mathematics and science and has done very well in these subjects at school. She seems to have developed a genuine interest in these subjects.

With regards,

Yours as ever,

Krishna

Bharadwaj is looking forward to the Romesh Chunder Dutt Lectures on Political Economy, in 1976. Was the setting the Centre for Social Sciences, Calcutta. They were published in 1986. I do not know much of her study of peasants and Indian agriculture.

• Krishna Bharadwaj. 1986. Classical Political Economy and Rise to Dominance of Supply and Demand Theories. University Press (India) Ltd.

Origins of Selection from the Prision Notebooks?

This is C27 in Sraffas archives.

97 Fortis Green
London N2
Tudor 0214

6th August 1966

Dear Piero,

I do not know whether you know Roger Simon, who is Secretary of the Labour Research Department. At all events he is a great admirer and enthusiast of Gramsci. Thanks to his initiative, plans are afoot (in which I too am collaborating) to publish a new volume of Gramsci's works translated into English and Lawrence & Wishart have agreed, in principle, to undertake publication.

We would very much welcome views and suggestions from you on how this should be done. The general idea at present is a bigger book than the L & W. 1957 translation (which is now out of print), including, if appropriate, passages already translated on that occasion. One line of thought that we are pursuing is that the volume should comprise mainly longer writings from the Notebooks and should be so presented that, if successful, it could be followed by further volumes, with the possible aim of ultimately translating all Gramsci's works. It would be good if the publication of this volume could sow the seeds of a growing interest in and knowledge of this outstanding political thinker, and so it is probably worth giving quite a bit of thought as to how this first step in that direction should be taken.

One problem is the choice of a translator; the ideal might be a young don specialising in twentieth century Italy and an admirer of Gramsci who would be keen to make a scholarly study of him, his times and his work. Do you know any such person?

Also do you by any chance know, or know anything of, Gwyn A. Williams who wrote a very interesting and scholarly article on Gramsci in the Journal of the History of Ideas, 1960, and who was at that time at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth?

Are there other Gramsci scholars known to you?

I hope that we may have a chance of meeting some time in the Autumn.

With best wishes

Yours,

Stephen Bodington

Piero Sraffa Esq., M. A.,
Trinity College,
CAMBRIDGE.

Reference

• Antonio Gramsci (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith ed. and trans.), London: Lawrence & Wishart

Unpublished Reviews of Sraffa's Book and Related Matters

I have a new working paper.

The article presents previously unpublished material from file D13/12/111 in Sraffa's archives. In particular, it reproduces an English translation of Aurelio Macchioro's review in Annali dell'Istituto Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, a summary by Christopher Bliss of a paper that he read to the Cambridge Political Economy Club, a draft response by James Meade, a rejected paper on Marx by Vittorio Volterra and Moshe Machover, and a paper on the subsistence economy by Gouranga Rao. Correspondence in the Sraffa archives related to these works is also reproduced.

Gautam Mathur Introduces Edward Nell To Piero Sraffa

I have been exploring Sraffa's correspondence after the publication of his book. Here is a letter dated June 18, 1962, from Mathur to Sraffa (D3/12/111: 298):

Dear Mr. Sraffa,

In Nuffield there is a senior research student Edmund Nell who is attached to the faculty of Literae Humaniores[?] and is researching into the significance of concepts in economics. He is highly interested in the type of analysis you have proposed, and has been trying to work his way through it. In Oxford there is no other person whom I have met or heard of who has made a more detailed study of your book.

He would very much like to meet you, to discuss some of his problems, and would be writing to you direct regarding it. In the meantime, he has asked me to introduce him to you. This letter is meant to perform that function, though imperfectly.

I shall be in Cambridge on 25th, 26th, 27th, and would like to see you sometime. I shall ring you up on arrival. I am leaving England on the 30th June.

With regards,

Yours sincerely

Gautam Mathur

Nell's 14 July 1962 letter (D3/12/111: 299-302) is the longest I have found in the archives so far:

Dear Mr. Sraffa,

I believe Gautam Mathur wrote to you about me recently. I had rather hoped that I might be able to see you in Cambridge before you left for the summer, but I'm afraid I just left it too late. Anyway, I don't know if I really have anything to say that would be of much interest to you (and perhaps I'm a little afraid I'm on the wrong track completely.) I was greatly impressed and excited by Production of Commodities, when it was brought to my attention last year by Luigi Pasinetti. Subsequently I have tried to use it in my own work, which is an attempt to criticise (what I take to be) the neo-classical theory of general equilibrium in production and exchange, which I think to be nonsense. (Roughly speaking, I cannot see either what utility functions and production functions are supposed to be predicated of, or how in general preference orderings and production possibilities could be defined independently of each other. Nor do I see what the neo-classical theorists mean when they talk of a (homogeneous) commodity. Indeed, it seems to me that the implications of the notion of an artefact are quite inconsistent with the neo-classical doctrine of "substitution" on both sides of the market.)

Perhaps I should give some background information. I came to Oxford from Princeton, where I studied Politics, as a Rhodes Scholar. I read PPE at Magdalen, received a First, and was elected to Nuffield, where I have been for the past three years. I am now working on a D.Phil. thesis which might be call something like, "Agent and Object in the Theory of Production and Exchange".

Let me sketch briefly the problem that worries me, what I take to be the solution of it, and the way I propose to support this solution.

The general question that troubles me is this: I do not see at all clearly what is meant when one uses a mathematical formula to represent social behavior. Are the actual, historical acts of particular persons supposed to be represented? Or is what is represented supposed to be the relations of various roles in institutions? Many further questions present themselves: How are the value-ranges of the variables defined? Are all the concepts that regulate role-behavior such as to "have number"? Is the relation of a particular act to the general concept of the action of which it is an instance the same as the relation of a value to the variable of which it is a value. And so on. These rather general worries take a much more particular and concrete form, however, when one comes to consider the neo-classical theory of general equilibrium. For example, one wants to know how the value-range of the variable standing for the quantity of some good demanded by an "individual" can be defined independently: a) of the quantity of any and all goods he supplies - whatever does he use the good for? And if what he uses it for is not fixed, then on what grounds does he "prefer" the good to others? To want something is to want it for something. b) of the quantities of other goods that he consumes. Goods are the goods they are because they have certain technological properties, which imply that they must be used in certain (relatively) fixed proportions with other goods; light bulbs require sockets, lampshades lamps.

Even more worrying, however, is the idea that the set of variable demands for each commodity by each individual can be defined independently of the set of variable supplies of each commodity by each firm. For instance it would seem that to make plausible the idea of substituting one good for another in demand, one must require that each good be carefully and minutely distinguished from each other good. But the more sharply we define a good, the more we specify its technological qualities, and therefore the more we determine both the kinds of things and the relative proportions of things that go into its make-up; hence the more plausible we make the idea of substitution in demand, the less plausible we make this same idea in supply. More generally, however, to say that a certain amount of any artefact exists, has been produced, is to imply that someone has been the producer of it; hence has acted in a role, has certain abilities, and has used up something in order to produce the artefact. Any production implies some consumption, and the qualities of the thing produced tell us what kinds of things have been consumed.

A further worry arises over the notion of "price". Even very elementary reflection suggests that exchange must take place between many holders of many different goods, and there seems no reason to assume at the outset that the price of a good can be adequately represented by a scalar variable¹.

Finally, even supposing that these problems about the definitions of the value-ranges of the variables could be overcome, there remains the question of just what it is that has been represented: Have we represented here the behavior of actual persons, so that conclusions drawn from the theory could be used for prediction? Or have we represented the structure of institutions, so that conclusions drawn from the theory would serve to make explicit the way people ought to behave - and what the results of their doing of their duty must be? Even if the mathematical representation is valid, there remains the questions of exactly what has been represented, and what the representation can be used for.

These considerations may be summed up in four problems:

a) to discover and classify all the kinds of statements there are about agents acting upon, with, by, through, etc. to produce objects; that is, to analyze the agent-verb-object relation.

b) to see what differences there are in the way various forms of agent-verb-object are demonstrated; and also to see if any of these differ in the way they are demonstrated from the way propositions of the form φa and aRb are demonstrated. That is, what difference does the notion of "agency" make?

c) to see if statements of the agent-verb-object form are formally similar to (hence representable by) mathematical statements; and to see what are the conditions for this to be possible.

d) to see what limitations there are upon the use of a formal representation of statements of the agent-verb-object kind; in particular to see if these can be used for prediction. (My argument tentatively is that prediction and mathematical calculation are incompatible for purely logical reasons.)

So far I have just tried to give a very rough sketch of the problems that bother me and the general position I take on them. I don’t want to prolong this letter, so I won’t try to summarize my work on these four questions. Instead, I should like to mention briefly how I have drawn on Production of Commodities in my work, and indicate a problem that has arisen out of this.

Very shortly, I have tried to classify social actions according to the implications respectively about the agent and about the object(s) of a statement containing as verb the concept of the action. It seems that on the basis of such a study of verbs the concept of the action. It seems that on the basis of such a study of verbs one can make some general classification of institutions, and for each class, one can state the general form of the institutions in it, showing the logical relations of the elements of these institutions. The classes of institutions that stand out as particularly interesting I call "productions" and "performances". These involve, respectively, verbs of making and breaking, and verbs appropriate to what Austin has called "performative utterances". Now the connection with Production of Commodities comes in this way: a set of "productions" will do very nicely as an interpretation of the model there, but it seems more difficult to fit in performances (commands, orders, directives, advice, undertakings, making contracts, judging, passing sentence, etc.) since such roles do not produce any definite quantifiable product which can be shown both as output and as input. Yet a society is inconceivable without these institutions. How are these to be treated? They differ from non-basics in the fact that they are essential.

A second problem arises in that the "plus" sign is used to represent the relations of various commodities to each other in each industry. This seems harmless enough, but a verbal description would contain such prepositions as "on", "with", "by", "in", "through", "to", etc., each of which expresses quite a different relation. So long as neither substitution nor growth is contemplated, and the only point of the mathematical representation is to compute the ratios of exchange required for the possibility of reproduction, no harm seems done. I wonder about switches in methods of production, though.

I'm afraid this letter is very disorganized, and probably not at all clear. On the other hand, my purpose in writing it has been not so much to say something clearly, as to convey a general approach - to communicate an attitude rather than to make a statement. In short, I am writing in the hope that something I've said here may arouse your interest in one or more of my various muddles, and that we might correspond further.

Yours sincerely,

Edward J. Nell

¹ That is, a variable whose value-range is a set of cardinal or ordinal numbers. To assume this is to assume away the possibility that a price of a good might change so as to be different but neither greater nor less. But this is exactly what would happen necessarily to at least the price of one good, if one carried out "substitution" of one good for another in an industry, in the system of equations in Section II of Production of Commodities - i.e assuming total proportions constant - hence that somewhere else the reverse substitution takes places. (But it is also the case if just one good is just increased in total amount.)

Sraffa wrote his response on 18 August 1962 (D3/12/111: 303):

Dear Mr. Nell

Thank you for your letter of 14 July which has reached me with delay as I have been moving about.

I greatly sympathise with your critical attitude to the neoclassical theory of equilibrium in production and exchange. On the other hand I have only partly understood what you say on particular points. This is probably due to your assumption that I am familiar with the language and technique of philosophy, which I am not.

I should very much like to discuss some of your criticisms, if we could meet sometime. My movements will be rather unpredictable next year, which will be a sabbatical for me. I am however likely to be in Cambridge during the latter part of September and in October, and if at that time you can get in touch by writing at Trinity perhaps we can arrange to a meeting.

Yours sincerely

P. S.

I have not included strikethroughs, handwritten emendations, and such-like above.

Where Can I Read Correspondence Between Robinson And Sraffa?

I have been looking at Sraffa's archives. Scott Carter was responsible for putting them online, as I understand it. Anyways, I know some contents has been published. What should I read for transcripts of letters between Robinson and Sraffa? Maybe something by Marcuzzo?

Anyways, here is a 18 June 1960 letter from Robinson to Sraffa (D3/12/111: 340-341)

All the work that I have been doing the last 10 years has been very much influenced by you – both our conservations in old days and by your Preface. When I went off my head I thought that the idea I had seen in a blinding flash was yours, because it came to me in terms of Ricardo’s corn economy, but it was connected with TIME and it so appears is very much akin to your point of view (though one it seems to fit perfectly well.) Since, quite apart from your worldly success, I have a lot of fun. I have a very deep feeling of gratitude to you. The fact that you reject it doesn’t affect the case at all.

A Letter To Sraffa Long Before Google

At this time, the book had long ago been published by Cambridge University Press. I suppose I ought to review whatever conditions exist on transcribing stuff in the archives. The following is D3/12/111:9.

Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

October 15th 1969

Professor Piero Sraffa,
Trinity College,
CAMBRIDGE

Dear Professor Sraffa,

At the Frankfurt Book Fair last week, Einaudi told me about your "Produzione di merci a mezzo di merci".

I don't know whether this has been published in English, but if not, we would be very interested in publishing it.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Franklin