Adam Smith, of course, had his papers burned just before his death. Don't
know if he would fit into the "scholar" category or if his actions fit
into the "relocation of sensitive material" or "borrowing and never
returning".  Were his actions "posterity-driven"?

There also was an episode involving S.Leon Levy and his use of Nassau
Senior materials. But I don't recall details.

There are of course lots of examples of users of archives and collections
of papers "borrowing" and "never [at least voluntarily] returning archival
material" --I am not thinking of historians of economics but more
generally. I presume this is why security procedures have tightened up
considerably in archives in recent decades.  However, my impression is
that in most of these instances, the motives were pecuniary rather than
hagiographic.  One recent example is the knucklehead who brought a hot
Shakespeare first folio into the Folger Library for authentication.


Since the discussion has broadened from selective autobiography to
selective manipulation of scholarly papers, mention could also be made of
selection issues related to scholarly texts and publications themselves.
Examples I have heard about recently include the second edition of Carl
Menger's Principles of Economics and George Herbert Meade's posthumously
published lectures.

David Mitch

> The "cold winds of ignorance" that scholars have to prepare themselves for
> are compounded both by this posterity-driven selective openess and the
> self-interested corruption of those with hagiographical missions.
>
> Does anyone have instances of 'scholars' relocating sensitive archival
> material into folders where other scholars might not think to look?
>
> Does anyone have instances of devotees "borrowing" and never returning
> archival material?
>
> Robert Leeson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniele Besomi" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 10:14:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] on selective memories
>
> Perhaps it should be pointed out that not only memory is treacherous and
> selective, but even archival sources are not always fully reliable. In my
> work on the papers of Roy Harrod I have found examples of self-selection
> of documents to be preserved for posterity. Already aged 30 he annotated
> some documents as witnessing his position on some university matters, at
> 32 he preserved his own side of the correspondence he entertained with
> some politicians apparently because he deemed it important to keep a trace
> of it (he normally never kept copies of his outgoing correspondence,
> almost all handwritten); at 45 he started going through his own archives,
> annotating some correspondence for the benefit of "future historians of
> thought". At some (probably later) point in life he organized his own
> archives for the benefit of future readers, and he is likely to have
> manipulated some contents (besides rearranging the correspondence:
> ennoyingly, the archivists undid some of Harrod's work and moved some
> papers to different folders …). It is in fact very strange that one who
> preserved taylor's bills and bus tickets had kept no documents relating to
> his activities with the New Fabian Research Bureau in the early 1930s: he
> didn't keep any of the memoranda he wrote (two at least survive in the
> NFRB's archives) nor the correspondence he received about it (but the
> outgoing letters are in the recipients' archives), except for a letter
> from James Meade dealing with theoretical matters and mentioning the NFRB
> in a postscriptum --perhaps (I am speculating here) Sir Roy turned
> conservative was embarrassed of the leftwing tendencies of his younger
> self.
>
> This, of course, does not mean that our job is useless, as witnessed by
> the fact that I could reconstruct, by means of cross-references, some at
> least of these episodes. It only means that our job is difficult and
> should be done with great care, as nothing can be taken at face value.
>
> Daniele Besomi
>
>