----------------- 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]