It may also be worth noting the influence that Smith allegedly had on
Pryme's early lectures through notes taken at Edinburgh in the early 1800s
by students of the Scottish philosopher and Smith disciple, Dugald
Stewart. The evidence relating to this is mentioned in:

Fetter, F. W. (1939) The Pryme Library of Economics at Cambridge
University, Journal of Political Economy 47.3: 414-17.

Also of interest is the following:

http://society.cpm.ehime-u.ac.jp/shet/conference/73rd/73paper/2-2-2-kubo-full.pdf

Bob


On Fri, September 9, 2011 19:55, Anthony Waterman wrote:
> It may be relevant to note the widely quoted statement of the first
> Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge, George Pryme, in his
> 'Introductory Lecture' (1823):
>
>
> 'Little more than half a century has passed since Political Economy has
> attained any degree of security, or has even assumed a distinct shape and
> existence. Some parts of Political knowledge have indeed occupied the
> attention of mankind from the earliest periods . . . But Political
> Economy, as a distinct science, has been till lately unattempted. . .
>
>
> It is but 200 years since Bacon taught that method of reasoning and
> philosophy to which must be attributed all subsequent advances of science.
> . . it is but century since we learned from Newton anything
> certain about the laws of the universe; or from Locke about the origin of
> our ideas; . . . much less since Linnaeus arranged and unfolded the
> History of Organic Nature; that in Chemistry all was darkness and error
> till the present age; need we wonder that Political Economy made no earlier
> advances to perfection? Its place was naturally posterior to considerable
> progress. . . of natural opulence. . . Bills of Exchange, and Paper Money,
> chartered companies with exclusive privilege of trade, the Funding system,
> the extensive use of machinery in diminishing manual labour, are of recent
> origin. It could scarcely have arisen till the invention of printing, the
> discovery of the Western Hemisphere. . . (etc.)
>
> In 1776, Adam Smith presented to the public his 'Inquiry into the Nature
> and Cause of the Wealth of Nations', a work so profound, so original, and
> for the most part so incontrovertible, that Political Economy may be said
> before that time to have had no existence. Former writers had, as it were,
> stumbled upon some of its true principles. He was the first who shewed
> that they were true. . .'
>
> Anthony Waterman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/9/2011 11:48 AM, gavin wrote:
>
>> Crediting Adam Smith as the "Founding Father of Modern Economics" is
>> unhelpful though now ubiquitous.  It started with J. B. Say and has had
>> a long gestation period.
>>
>> In the 1930s, Oscar Lange (1937-, 38; and 1945), argued that socialist
>> planning was superior to capitalist markets because socialist planners
>> would do better in their planned interventions than Smith’s unreliable
>> and uncontrolled invisible hand.
>>
>> Paul Samuelson, argued the now ubiquitous view, that Adam Smith’s
>> invisible hand meant markets were superior, though he got Smith’s words
>> wrong in popularizing the myth that the IH meant markets enabled
>> ‘selfish’ people to act unintentionally for the public good (Economic,
>> 1948, p 36).  This justified Smith as the ‘father of economics’ in
>> contrast to Soviet planning.
>>
>> At the UK HET annual conference this week (Balliol, Oxford) Professor
>> Arild Saether, presented a detailed paper, “Pufendorf – Hutcheson’s and
>> Smith’s Most Important Source?”, with clear details of Pufendorf’s
>> (1632-1704) priority in many key economic concepts in his widely read
>> and used books in many European languages, including English (Smith
>> read Latin too) in European Universities, including Glasgow in
>> Scotland.
>> Details link Hutcheson’s (Smith’s tutor) and Smith’s ideas to
>> Pufendorf’s prior publications, showing that:
>>
>>
>> ‘if  Adam Smith, as Jean Baptiste Say claimed, can be called the father
>> of political economy, Samuel Pufendorf deserves to be remembered as the
>> grandfather’.
>>
>> I believe that there is a case to be answered here, let alone whether
>> to continue the usefulness and correctness of the popular claims about
>> our discipline’s parentage.   We might also wish to re-look at other
>> myths, their origins and purpose.
>>
>> I am sure that Arild Saether would send his paper on request to:
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>