As I read the exchange and find the name of Carl Menger and reference to his works, I cannot refrain from bringing in some information, as far as I know from studying the archives both in Japan and in the US.

The 1st edition of the Grundsaetze der Volkswirtschaftslehre was published in 1871 and Menger received from his publisher, Wilhelm Braumueller, copies with blank pages inserted between printed pages. From the handwritten annotations on those one may infer what Menger wanted to see published in the second edition of his book. This is just as simple as that and there is no manipulation involved herein, except for the fact that as those copies were not accessed and published, they remained quite unknown except for a few specialists. Menger died in 1921 without completing the 2nd edition. His widow sold his library and one of the copies (numbered 3) and they were gone to Japan.

Now, in 1923, the son of Menger, Karl Menger the mathematician, published a revised 2nd edition of the 
GdV. For that purpose he had consulted the remaining archives of his father that he had with him, 2 of the 3 copies with marginal notes and some other papers, but not the volumes his father had in his library, as they were gone. He did his best conscientiously but lacked therefore this material. As a consequence, what belongs to him and what belongs to his father in the 2nd edition, 1923 and posthumous can only be assessed through the examination of the copy that he did not have with him, the one that is in Japan that some Japanese specialists (including Kiichiro Yagi9, the Austrian exilee Emil Kauder in 1959-1960 and myself in this last decade have indeed used. 

Assessing the differences (see my Routledge 2010 book among other literature) and what Menger wanted exactly is essential to the general history of economics in the 20th century, besides naturally for the histiory and contents of the Austrian school. This is all quite important, as the following example will show: Hayek reedited- or rather reprinted Menger's works in the 19307s while at LSE. Clearly he rebuked using the material that Menger the son still had with him (documented by K. Yagi) and even less interested in what had gone to Japan. Altogether Hayek built an image of the spiritual father that was favorable to his own views, which is what almost all great philosophers do, but which might not satisfy historians. If one wants to speak abourt manipulating things, it is in that sense that one should see it when discussing the case of Menger.

Hoping that helps!

Gilles Campagnolo
(France, full research professor at CNRS, National center for scientific research)
 
> ----------------------------------------
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thu Aug 04 20:05:39 CEST 2011
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] on selective memories and corruption
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >