The broad brush claim of Keynes vs. the classics was a common theme in both the introductory text and macro text that were assigned in my university courses in the early 1960s. I later learned that the textbook phenomenon, designed for a two-semester macro-micro course at universities, was a new invention. I take it that this started with Samuelson's text and that other writers -- the most popular in the 1960s being Campbell McConnell -- made the task of teaching the two-semester course to a large number of bodies much easier. This invention would have been important to untutored teachers during the 1960s and beyond, when student demand was rising faster than econ faculty supply of such teaching. In other words, my casual reconstruction sees the rise of what we might call "the myth of Keynes and the classics" being due mostly to the rise of the textbook. Employing the myth, from this point of view, was a means for teachers to instill a sense of great importance to the new macroeconomics. I recall vividly my macro teacher believing that Keynes had instituted a scientific revolution and that we students were so lucky to be in the vanguard. Someone in my class might be chosen as the lead government policy maker in the future. If so, one of my classmates would have an opportunity to apply the new Keynesian science in order to guide the macroeconomy to high economic growth, low unemployment, and minimum inflation. Being a non-skeptic at the time, I remember thinking of a career as an economist in the same way that I used to think about fighting against the non-Christians when we sang "Onward Christian Soldiers" at the end of mass in elementary school. (Fortunately, I did not choose the latter and I chose the former for an entirely different reason.) Do you think my sketch of the textbook and Keynesianism is broadly true? If so, was it a uniquely U.S. phenomenon? Pat Gunning