Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:15:26.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Piero Sraffa Took Up the Editorship of David Ricardo's Works and Correspondence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Pier Luigi Porta
Pier Luigi Porta
Affiliation:
State University of Milan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Summer 1986 , pp. 35 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

FOOTNOTES

1 Sraffa, Piero to Maynard, John Keynes, 22 03 1930Google Scholar. Manuscript in ‘Keynes Papers’.

2 A visit of “P. Sraffa, Kings College, Cambridge” is recorded in Murray, John's archives, 50 Albemarle St., London, as of 06 1930.Google Scholar

3 A grandson of Mortimer Ricardo, the youngest of Ricardo's three sons.

4 David Ricardo's country seat.

5 Sraffa, Piero to Maynard, John Keynes, 5 07 1943Google Scholar. [Manuscript in ‘Keynes Papers.’]

6 The first group Letters of McCulloch to Ricardo (1931)Google Scholar and the second group Minor Papers on the Currency Question (1932)Google Scholar, the latter described by Sraffa (whose edition is interspersed with petty harsh remarks on Hollander) as “an oddly assorted collection of papers” (cf. Works and Correspondence, I, p. viii, and X, pp. 373, 374 and 387).Google Scholar

7 In the editorial comments to the essay on Malthus in the Royal Economic Society edition, no mention is made of the existence of this passage (Collected Writings, vol. x, p. 71).Google Scholar