----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I would like to give some indication to the list of how far I have gotten, 
with the substantial help of some of the members of this this list -- 
hereby gratefully acknowledged! 
 
In short, the use of 'good' to refer to a commodity or article seems to 
have begun with Marshall (1890). And according to Marshall himself, it was 
inspired by the usage of 'Gut' in the German language. 
 
In the first edition, Marshall included a translated passage from Hermann, 
Staatswirthschaftliche Untersuchungen: "Some Goods are internal, others 
external, to the individual. An internal good is that which he finds in 
himself given to him by nature, or which he educates in himself by his own 
free action, such as muscular strength, health, mental attainments. 
Everything that the outer world offers for the satisfaction of his wants is 
an external good to him." (Book II, Chapter II.) Thus the use of 'good' 
first appeared in translation from the German, presumably Marshall's own. 
(I do not have the first edition; I got this information from C. W. 
Guillebaud Notes on Principles of Economics, 1961. I have looked at the 
second and Variorum editions, and consulted Guillebaud.) There was another 
German reference; a few sentences earlier he there was a footnote that 
followed the identification 'goods' in the plural with commodities and 
desirable things: "These terms are used by Prof. Wagner in his excellent 
account of the fundamental notions of economics, Volkswirtschaftslehre, 
vol. 1, ch. 1, to which the reader may be referred for notices of the chief 
discussions of definitions by German writers and others. ..." 
 
In the second edition (1891), Marshall was more explicit in acknowledging 
the German origin: in a footnote to the first sentence in that chapter he 
wrote "The term Commodity has also been used for it; but Good is shorter, 
and is in correspondence with the German Gut" (p. 106). Then in the text, 
the second sentence onward was "All wealth therefore consists of Goods; but 
not all kinds of Goods are reckoned as wealth. The affection of friends, 
for 
instance, is a Good; it is a very important element of well-being, but it 
is 
not ever reckoned as wealth, except by a poetic licence." (capitalization 
in 
original) -- By then, the reference to Wagner was gone and the Hermann 
quote 
had been moved down to a footnote. Another, new footnote included the 
passage "The land in its original state was a free gift from nature. But in 
settled countries it is not a free good from the point of view of the 
individual" (p. 107). 
 
Thus Marshall was rather explicit on the new usage of 'good' as a noun for 
commodity, and having brought it in from the German language. It also 
appears to me that he was self-conscious about it. 
 
According to Guillebaud, the footnote "The term Commodity has also been 
used for it; but Good is shorter, and is in correspondence with the German 
Gut" was gone in the fourth edition, and I assume it did not reappear. 
Also, by the Variorum edition, another instance of the word 'good' was 
gone: where Marshall had previously written "The affection of friends, for 
instance, is a Good; it is a very important element of well-being, but it 
is not ever reckoned as wealth, except by a poetic licence," this had 
become "The affection of friends, for instance, is an important element of 
wellbeing, but it is not reckoned as wealth, ecxept by a poetic licence." 
(p. 54) The sentence on land as a 'free good' had been moved up from the 
footnote to the text. The Hermann quote from the first edition was still 
included. 
 
So in later years Marshall's usage of 'good' was not as prominent, at least 
in this chapter, and he was no longer as explicit on the German origin. 
(Perhaps by then, the usage of 'good' had become sufficiently common that 
he no longer felt an explanation was warranted?) 
 
I should indicate that in following the leads, I have not looked through 
other parts of Principles. I was searching for when, and how, usage of 
'good' for commodity was brought into English, and searching the rest of 
Principles would not unearth something earlier. 
 
So far as I am presently aware, the (abbreviated) answer to my initial 
query is that it was in 1890, by Marshall, from the German, with added 
explanation given in 1891. 
 
I will continue to be on the look-out for earlier instances. 
 
Torsten Schmidt 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]