----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Too bad Warren Samuels retracted his suggestion of Arthur Latham Perry’s text as worth
consulting for a 19th c. history of economic thought.  In the 19th
edition (1887) of _Elements of Political Economy_ (at which point he reduced the title to
_Political Economy_) his first chapter is an 88 page “History of the Science” – and it is
probably a more fascinating read today than when it was first published.
 
There are “three great schools of political economy”: the Agricultural School of Quesnay,
which was improved upon by the Commodities School of Smith … which was in turn perfected
by the “All Sales School” of the stars of Perry’s universe: Condillac, Whately, Bastiat,
Chevalier, and shining most brilliantly (with the possible exception of Perry himself)
Henry Dunning Macleod, the school's “most distinguished representative in Great Britain”
whose “name at any rate is sure to stand in that list in all time to come.”
 
According to Perry, he and the others had “such confidence as to believe that there never
will be another school substantially different from their own.” (p.85)
 
How’s that for Whig history?  Actually I rather like him.  His headstone at the Williams
College faculty graveyard is just behind my house, and I visit a couple times a week to
draw inspiration.  Don’t tell my mentors at Duke.
 
Steve Meardon 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]