D2/4: Lectures on Advanced Theory of Value online: Wren Library and Trinity 2.0

It is with great pleasure that we announce the uploading of Sraffa’s Lecture Notes on the Advanced Theory of Value from the Lectures he gave at Trinity College in 1928-31. Last week Jonathan Smith and his staff uploaded all of the images, and with this blog post we unveil the Trinity 2.0 arrangement of the file.

The original images from Trinity website are here. The slideshow that arranges the material that we have been working on is here. You can get the slideshow in PDF format here. There is a video announcing it here.

With this blog post we unveil the Trinity 2.0 arrangement of the material. What is key in that arrangement is a deep understanding of structure of the archive as a collection of independent note-sets collected in what we will term ‘documents’, denoted by the Greek ‘δ’. These documents are discerned from the previous arrangements of the material, of which there are two: the original Bharadwaj-Garegnani (BG) arrangement from the 1980’s and the Wren Trinity (WT) arrangement in the 1990s. For D2/4 BG is not a factor and we only develop Trinity 2.0 from Wren Trinity. This will not be the case for D3/12 Notes on PCMC and the Trinity 2.0 arrangement of that section of the archive is very complex and  interfaces meticulously BG and WT as well as consideration of Sraffa’s own pagination and structure. Indeed Sraffa’s own pagination and structure takes precedence over all else as the purpose of Trinity 2.0 is to reproduce as much as possible Sraffa’s method of inquiry and allow the reader to see for themselves the purview of matters from Sraffa’s desk; in this we reproduce the methodology and approach that Sraffa himself applied to his exposition of archives of David Ricardo, especially the letters as we saw from a previous post.

The biggest development in Trinity 2.0 is an understanding of the material in each file on two levels, (i) that of the document across the file, and (ii) that of the image-page (IP) within the document.  At the level of the document each is positioned relative to the total. For D2/4 there are a total of 44 documents according to the Wren Trinity convention, and each document will be archived in terms of the total; thus 1-44 is the first document out of 44 and 3-44 the third out of 44, and so on…At the level of the image-page (IP) each will be archived relative to the total number of IP’s in the document. Taking D2/4 again as our example, the largest document is the third, which consists of 156 IP’s. The, say, 1st, 30th, and 100th IP of this third document would therefore be archived as D2.4.3-44.1-156 for the first, D2.4.3-44.30-156 for the third, and D2.4.3-44.100-156 for the 100th individual IP.  The Trinity 2.0 convention also identifies the meticulous interface with the Wren Trinity arrangement as well as Sraffa’s pagination as can be seen when clicking on the above.  All of this is meant to assist those readers interested in Sraffa’s archival material get a handle on the structure and content of the material.

So enjoy reading Sraffa’s Lecture Notes on the Advanced Theory of Value. Any indexing you may do please let me know so that we can coordinate efforts!

No scholar (this site included) knows unequivocally what Sraffa ‘really meant’…

The following comment below was posted on the INET site here in the Comment section to the blog devoted to Ajit Sinha’s new book from Palgrave Macmillan (Revolution in Economic Theory: The Economics of Piero Sraffa) . I have made it a point to reject the trend in (bourgeois) academia and not be overly and unnecessarily critical the work of other scholars.  Any work that discusses Sraffa and his archival legacy is welcome.

It is however important that people are mindful and wary especially when it comes to any scholar (myself included) who claims to know what Sraffa ‘really meant’. Sraffa’s impact is very much wide open and remains very much in the nascent Prelude stage in which he wrote it…and nobody has yet to really figure it all out; to do that we (by which I mean ALL interested scholars) need to study the archival material in its entirety over several years…indeed even after 50 years since the publication of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, scholarship out of Sraffa’s brilliant but cryptic monograph is still in its infancy…

This is a general sentiment not addressed to any single scholar, and again includes this site as well. And this is what makes Sraffa scholarship quite exciting and very much alive, especially now on the eve of the release and digital-opening of the Sraffa Archive.

Also people should be very mindful about the context, authenticity, and correctness of any of the transcriptions in published accounts of Sraffa’s archive; and again included in this warning is my own work too. In the first place all transcriptions are taken out of context as they are the exclusive purview of the scholar who went to the Wren Library and fetched the material; in this sense all transcriptions in the published account suffer from selection bias.  And secondly, there are often serious errors and omissions in the transcriptions when compared side-by-side with the original document and/or image.  I know this was true of the transcriptions in the early version of my 2014 Research in Political Economy ‘Pool of Profits’ paper, and I was very fortunate to have had the digital images in possession to proof the transcriptions before publication, which means for that publication at least the transcriptions are ‘correct’, although there are some omissions of passages that Sraffa had crossed-out.  The same goes for the Palgrave Macmillan book co-edited with Riccardo Bellofiore (2014) Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research which also was published after gaining access to the digital images; accordingly all the transcriptions there too are correct.

However I also know that no other scholar has a copy of the digital images, and accordingly it is very possible, nay likely, that errors and omissions in transcription exist in other published accounts of the archive; one thing for certain is that no scholar can vouch 100% for their correctness. And this is in my opinion a problem…can anyone say ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’?…

One of the projects we are doing is to render a compete account of the archival material from D3/12 already published and point out any and all errors and omissions in transcription.  In my humble opinion it is only after such an account that scholarship which uses Sraffa’s archival material can (re)claim the status of being truly scientific and unblemished.

POST on INET site in relation to Sinha’s new book on Sraffa:

I encourage people to wait for the entirety of Sraffa’s Papers to come out before accepting any single scholar’s definitive statements about what Sraffa ‘really meant’. The fact of the matter is like all Sraffa scholars, Sinha has only perused a fraction of the archival material. Hence any definitive statements to have discovered something that nobody else has should be taken with a grain of salt. Sraffa’s archival legacy should be put first, not the agenda of individual scholars. Also people should be mindful and wary of the transcriptions that appear in any published account of the archive including those in Sinha’s book, as they are often rife with error. As the archival material finally is made public then the merits of all Sraffa archival scholarship will finally be able to be adequately judged; but until such time discerning scholars should be wary of all scholarship (including my own) that makes definitive statements about what Sraffa ‘really meant’. Scott Carter (Heretical Sraffa)

On Sraffa’s Various Introductory Comments in the Ricardo Edition as influence…

The Trinity 2.0 arrangement of Sraffa’s Notes on PCMC is an organic interfaced archive combining the Bharadwaj-Garegnani (BG) and Wren Trinity arrangements. We will have a lot to say about this in upcoming posts, but at this stage it is important to know that the methodology of the arrangement takes as its cue the manner which Sraffa handled archival material of David Ricardo and developed his Ricardo Edition, the masterful eleven volumes of The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo.

Especially insightful is the way Sraffa presents the Ricardo Correspondence, and once we begin to explore this we discover that it is no accident the title to Works includes the Correspondence, because presented here is a truly masterful scholarly treatment of David Ricardo’s correspondence. We are fortunate to have the material of the Ricardo Edition available to us on the web, through the website at the Online Library of Liberty from the Austrian website Liberty Fund.  The subtitle to the Online Library of Liberty is ‘A Collection of Scholarly Works about Individual Liberty and Free Markets’. It is ironic that an Austrian free market worshipping website is more open with the scientific literature than heterodox economists have been!  But I digresss…

To get a good idea of how we plan to go about the Trinity 2.0 arrangement, it is suggested that interested readers consult all of Sraffa’s various Introductory Notes that appear throughout the 11 volumes of the Works, and especially the Introductory notes that are in Volume VI which begins the Ricardo Correspondence, the subject of volumes VII, VIII, and IX.  In Table 1 below we have three of the main excerpts from Sraffa’s arrangement of the letters in Volume VI.

Table 1: Excerpts from Sraffa’s Introductory Notes from Works VI (see below Table 8 for complete Introductory Notes)

Preface to Volumes VI-IX
I. Ricardo’s Correspondence, p. xiii.
IV. The Letters in the Present Edition, p. xxxviii

In these Introductory notes Sraffa tells us how he arranges the letters, and the methodology and rationale behind his manner of exposition.  Specifically, what is of interest is how Sraffa numbers each letter and indicates from whom it came and to whom it is going. There is an interesting Table on page xiv of Works VI that breaks down the letters into the various correspondents, data which we can aggregate:

Table 2: Data on the Breakdown of the Ricardo Correspondence (Works VI, p. xiv)

Total % Total (to + from) To From to/from
Malthus 30.09% 167 92 75 1.227
Jas. Mill 19.28% 107 58 49 1.184
Trower 17.84% 99 54 45 1.2
Other 16.04% 89 44 45 0.978
McCulloch 13.69% 76 41 35 1.171
Say 3.06% 17 7 10 0.7
555 296 259 1.143
53.33% 46.67%

From these aggregate data, we see that the Ricardo correspondence consists of 555 letters, 30% of which are from correspondence with Malthus, 19% from James Mill, etc. on down the second column.  From the last column we see that Ricardo responded more than he received, the exception being the exchange with Say.

Sraffa numbers the letters from 1 to 555 consecutively and arranges them in chronological order.   He tells us the rationale for this in the Introductory Notes to Works VI:

“In contrast with previously published collections, the letters to and from the various correspondents have been arranged in single chronological series. The reader is thus placed as it were behind Ricardo’s desk at Gatcomb Park and reads the letters as Ricardo writes them or receives them” (Sraffa, Works VI, p. xiv)

It is this feeling of being ‘placed behind the desk’ that the Trinity 2.0 arrangement attempts to impart on the reader, here of course the desk being that of Sraffa’s at Trinity College, perhaps in his Private Room at Neville’s Court or maybe his office at the Marshall Library.  And yes this is a monumental task, because as we will see with the Sraffa papers, complete chronological order is not possible as there is tremendous zig-zagging going on analytically throughout the material.  Fortunately for us the new technology allows for us to deal with this, especially in terms of the ability to hyperlink notes, etc.

This is the attempt that is being made with the Trinity 2.0 arrangement of Sraffa’s Notes on PCMC, archived as D3/12 according to Wren Trinity.  So that readers of Heretical Sraffa can be as up-to-speed as possible, and for all of us to be on the same page methodologically, below are tables that have the links to Sraffa’s various Introductory comments throughout his Ricardo edition.  Readers are encouraged to go through these commentaries to see the manner which we conceive of the handling of Sraffa’s own archival material as being influenced by the way he handled that of Ricardo.

Sraffa’s Various Introductory Notes and Comments in his Ricardo

Table 3: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume I: Principles of Political Economy

I. The Writing of the Principles, p. xiii.
II. James Mill’s Contribution, p. xix.
III. Arrangement and Subdivision, p. xxii.
IV. The Chapter On Value in Edition 1, p. xxx.
V. Principal Changes in Chapter On Value in Eds. 2 and 3, p. xxxvii.
VI. Edition 2, p. xlix.
VII. Edition 3, p. liii.
VIII. The Present Edition, p. lx.

 Table 4: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume II: Notes on Malthus

Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
Section V

 Table 5: Works Volume III: Pamphlets and Papers, 1809-1811 

Prefatory Note to Volumes III and IV
Notes on the Bullion Essays
Appendix to the ‘Price of Gold’
Notes on ‘Notes on Bentham’
Notes on ‘Notes on the Bullion Report’
Notes on ‘Notes on Trotter’
Notes on ‘Observations on Trower’s Notes on Trotter’
Notes on ‘Observations on Vansittart
Appendix: ‘Mr. of the Bullion Report
Appendix: TABLES OF CORRESPONDING PAGES for Ricardo’s Pamphlets in the original editions, 1811, McCulloch’s edition (Works, 1846 etc.), Gonner’s edition (Economic Essays, 1923 etc.), and the present edition.
Appendix: Reply to Mr. Bosanquet’s Practical Observations

 Table 6: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume IV: Pamphlets and Papers, 1815-1823

Notes on ‘Essay on Profits’
Notes on ‘Economical and Secure Currency’
Note on ‘Funding System’
Note on ‘Protection to Agriculture’
Note on ‘Plan for a National Bank’
Notes on Fragments on Torrens
A Note on Prices and Taxation 1821
Notes on the Papers on Blake
Note on ‘Absolute Value and Exchangeable Value’
Appendix: The ‘Ingenious Calculator’
Appendix: TABLES OF CORRESPONDING PAGES for Ricardo’s Pamphlets in the original editions, 1815–24, McCulloch’s edition (Works, 1846 etc.), Gonner’s edition (Economic Essays, 1923 etc.), and the present edition

 Table 7: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume V: Speeches and Evidence

List of Speeches
Prefatory Note
Introduction to the Speeches in Parliament
Notes on the Evidence on the Resumption of Cash Payments
Note on Two Papers on Parliamentary Reform

 Table 8: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volumes VI-IX (Letters; Sraffa’s Introductory Notes all in Volume VI)

Preface to Volumes VI-IX
I. Ricardo’s Correspondence, p. xiii.
II. The Main Correspondents: James Mill , p. xv
II. The Main Correspondents: Malthus, p. xviii
II. The Main Correspondents: McCulloch, p. xxi
II. The Main Correspondents: Trower, p. xxiii
II. The Main Correspondents: Say, p. xxv
III. Other Correspondents: Bentham, p. xxviii
III. Other Correspondents: Maria Edgeworth, p. xxxii
III. Other Correspondents: Grenfell, p. xxxiii
III. Other Correspondents: Grote, p. xxxiii
III. Other Correspondents: Horner, p. xxxiv
III. Other Correspondents: Murray, p. xxxv
III. Other Correspondents: Place, p. xxxv
III. Other Correspondents: Sharp, p. xxxvi
III. Other Correspondents: Sinclair, p. xxxvii
III. Other Correspondents: Tooke, p. xxxvii
III. Other Correspondents: Wakefield, p. xxxviii
IV. The Letters in the Present Edition, p. xxxviii

 Table 9: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume X: Biographical Miscellany

Note on the Authorship of the Memoir of Ricardo
Addenda to the Memoir of Ricardo:  I. Introductory
Addenda…:  II. The Family of Abraham Ricardo
Addenda…:  III. The Delvalle Family
Addenda…:  IV. Ricardo’s Childhood and Education
Addenda…:  V. Independence and Marriage
Addenda…:  VI. The Wilkinsons
Three Notes: (1) Where Ricardo lived in London
Three Notes: (2) A Note on Clubs and Societies
Three Notes: (3) A Note on Portraits
A Family’s Who’s Who:  I. David Ricardo’s Brothers and Sisters
A Family’s Who’s Who:  II. Ricardo’s Children
Ricardo in Business: I. As a Jobber on the Stock Exchange
Ricardo in Business:  II. As Loan Contractor

Ricardo in Business:  II.Loans for Great Britain and Ireland: 1805-1820

Ricardo in Business:  II.Notes on the Table Overleaf

Ricardo in Business: III. A Canard
Ricardo in Business: IV. Investment and Estates
Ricardo in Business:  V. Ricardo’s Will
A Selection of Family and Private Letters: I. Early Letters to J.H. Wilkinson
A Selection of Family and…: II. ‘Ricardo’s Letter to the Old Doctor’
A Selection of Family and…: III: The Fraud of 5 May 1803
A Selection of Family and…: IV: The Loan of 1807
A Selection of Family and..: V: Jacob Ricardo
A Selection of Family and…: VI: Two Sisters Decline a Present
A Selection of Family and…: VII: A Visit to Cambridge
A Selection of Family and…: VIII: A Letter to a Wine Merchant
A Selection of Family and…: IX: The Cumberland Affair
A Selection of Family and…: X: A Servant and Two Masters
A Selection of Family and…: XI: Fanny’s Marriage
A Selection of Family and…: XII: Ricardo to Miss Mary Ann
From Maria Edgeworth’s Letters to Her Family
Introductory Note to the Journal of a Tour on the Continent
Appendix: (A) Bibliography of Ricardo’s Works
Appendix: (B) A Survey of Ricardo Manuscripts
Appendix: (B) A Survey of Ricardo Manuscripts: Ricardo Papers
Appendix: (B) A Survey of Ricardo Manuscripts: Mill-Ricardo Papers
Appendix: (C) Commonplace Books
Appendix: (D) Ricardo’s Library
Supplement to Volume I: New Evidence on the Subdivision of Chapter VIII of the ‘Principles’ of 1817
Supplement to Volume IV: Notes on ‘A Reply to Mr. Say’s Letter to Mr. Malthus
Corrections to the First Printing of the Previous Volumes

Happy Holidays from Heretical Sraffa!

Yes it has been a while since the last post.  But fret not, we have been busy.  The idea of the videos went well and thanks to all that have viewed them.  We will definitely be using video lectures in the future and are currently thinking of ways to make them less haphazard and better production quality, and also with accompanying material such as slideshow presentations, spreadsheets, and other documents.  And as the archive becomes public we will also be studying the original material and that too will be made available to all.

We are in the process of making the Trinity 2.0 archive, that is to say the nuts-and-bolts of creating the interface for the proposed arrangement of D3/12.  This arrangement is dubbed ‘Trinity 2.0’ and represents the interface between the original (preliminary) arrangement of the material in the mid to late 1980s by Mrs. Bharadwaj and Professor Garegnani (Bharadwaj-Garegnani or BG) with the Wren Trinity (completed) arrangement by Jonathan Smith of Trinity College in the early 1990s. For a side-by-side comparison of the different metafile structures of Sraffa’s Notes on PCMC click here.

In this process we are taking full advantage of Google chrome and all the features there.  The interface we are developing is one that uses Google presentation and takes advantage of the large blank canvass provided.  What this has  allowed is for a presentation of the material in terms of a tandem screen, where the image-page appears on the left and a complete transcription on the right. I encourage people to get Google accounts as this moves forward.

We look forward to sharing these developments and more with all people interested in the archival legacy of Piero Sraffa.  As indicated in previous posts this material belongs to us all and it is up to us to takes matters into new and uncharted directions as we move into the New Year of 2017 and into the future.

Happy Holidays and a Safe New Year to All!

Click here for a brief holiday video.

Sraffa’s visit to China in 1954


Heretical Sraffa is proud to have our first Guest Bloggers, Andres Lazzarini from Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, and Gabriel Brondino from Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

They go through in detail two of Sraffa’s diaries regarding his visit to China in 1954.  This is an example the possibilities that can come from unfettered access to the archival material. I think that Guest Blogging is a great idea and as we get our website in better order we will have more of this.

A word on the archival convention:  The diary images show two pages, the back of the previous page (verso = v) and the front of the subsequent page (recto = r).  Hence a single image will thus be designated according to the general convention:

E{Diary Number} ff. {previous page}v-{subsequent page}r

Sraffa’s visit to China in 1954  

by Gabriel Brondino & Andres Lazzarini

[See a picture of Sraffa from 1978 posing outside of Neville’s Court in Trinity College here: E55(5r)]

In her tribute to Domenico Demarco, Professor Franca Eugenia Assante reports that in 1954 the former professor of Economic History of the University of Naples had taken part in what had been the first official Italian visit to the newly created People’s Republic of China. The official delegation from Italy was headed by Senator Mario Palermo and the members of it were a small number of renowned Italian scientists, among whom was Piero Sraffa.[note 1]

In the recently disclosed archives of Piero Sraffa, housed at the Wren Library, Trinity College, University of Cambridge, we find two diaries (E26 and E55) in which Sraffa wrote about his activities while in China (as well as other places). E26 is the Cambridge Pocket Diary for the period 1953-1954, while E55 is a Chinese red-coloured hardcover notebook bought in mid-October 1954 during the trip, presumably to write down in a clearer way annotations that are also in E26. E55 consists of roughly 200 hand-written pages, the vast majority in Italian.

The visit to China spanned from late September to mid-November 1954. The cities which Sraffa reports included Shanghai, Canton, Changsha, Shaoshan, Wuhan, Peking (now Beijing), Tientsin (now Tianjin), Anshan, Fushun, Shenyang and Nanking.

From what we can read from the E55 diary, the programmes in each of their visit had been scheduled well in advance. Normally they included visits to monuments, museums, mausoleums, agricultural cooperatives, industrial workshops, research institutes, universities, cultural associations, infrastructure developments, and mines. Quite often during the visit, the Italian delegation would attend cultural events such as theatre plays or films. In Sraffa’s notes there is plenty of evidence that the delegation had the opportunity to get a deeper knowledge of the development of that country after the 1949 revolution by interacting (through the scheme talk-questions-replies) with Chinese officers in their capacities as official hosts.

Anyone who reads these diaries will be able to appreciate that Sraffa goes into details in his description of his daily activities in China. For most of the cities visited, we can find accurate overviews of their history, demographics, climate, health and education facilities available, major economic developments, salient historical facts, major historical wars and conflicts. The material reported speaks to Sraffa’s high standard for accuracy. This is of course no news for anyone familiar with Sraffa’s economic thought. Yet in these material we find Sraffa being interested not only in economic matters (specially, but of course not limited to, the comparative figures for a number of economic variables in each of the cities, such as production, employment, and wages) but also in a broad range of issues, including education (all levels), health policies, agrarian reform, the situation with the prison inmates, arts, gender issues, etc.

On every occasion in which the delegation had the chance to raise questions in the visit Sraffa would note in detail about the issues discussed. For example, in Nanking, in a visit to a “semi-socialist” legume cooperative (E55 ff. 17v-18r), Sraffa describes how the income is distributed among its members, its relationship with the banks, the composition and age of the means of production, the role of women, the instruction of the workers, the number of families in town, the commodity composition of the labourers’ wage, the economic relations with the city from which the cooperative bought their inputs. Such examples of interest in the specific developments which were occurring in China at that time can also be found for other cities, towns or cooperatives. These diaries, it could be argued, offer a very accurate overview of issues – we can infer – in which the delegation had a profound interest (and perhaps other western countries too).

The E55 diary also contains, to the opinion of the present writers, two streams of reflection that are salient in Sraffa’s reports. One of them is his methodical consideration, on the occasion of a visit to a wool sewing workshop in Tientsin, of the “relationships between the state and the private industry” and “between workers and capitalists” (E55 ff. 34v-35r). In particular, he devotes interest in the distribution of the “net profits” among the State, the capitalists, the “workers’ welfare and awards for the advanced ones”, and the “reserves for development”. He notes the labourer’s maximum and minimum nominal wages as well as the price of a meal at the worker’s canteen.

The second reflective stream is a long account of a meeting at the Foreign Affairs Association in Peking (E55 ff. 46v-47r, E55 ff. 47v-48r, E55 ff. 48v-49r) in which the delegation was introduced to the features, development and scopes of the Chinese agrarian reform. Sraffa there describes the amount of mountainous land in China, the rural population and other basic data. He reports the figures on production and the purchasing power of farmers for 1950-51 and 1952, and the rules of distribution of product for each of the different forms of organisation (mutual aid, production cooperative and cooperative of higher form).

Further interesting issues emerging from the diaries are sundry political reflections regarding the socialist project in China. For example, in a loose page where he describes the industry in the city of Wuhan, we can read:

Socialist re-education of trade and capitalist industry:

‘to use, limit, re-educate’ is the new politics.

What does ‘abolition of the capitalist class, not of the capitalists’ mean [?] Abolition of the private firm towards the state capitalism.


1) unified purchase of the product (production according to the plan)

2) total purchase of the product (without plan)

3) purchase order and finishing

To transform into socialist firms through state capitalism. To transform private property into socialist property. At the same time, re-education of people. When the firms will have been transformed into socialist firms, also capitalists will have become socialist citizens. This sort of transformation is the dominant feature in China.[note 2]

Sraffa ends his visit to China on 15 November (E55 ff. 52v-53r, E55 ff, 53v-54r). He then travelled to Moscow along with the delegation from 17-22 November (E55 ff. 54v-55r, E55 ff. 55v-56r, E55 ff. 56v-57r, E55 ff. 57v-58r, E55 ff. 58v-59r, E55 ff. 59v) but then he would continue alone up to Warsaw on 22-24 November (E55 ff. 59r, E55 ff. 59v-60r, E55 ff. 60v-61r, E55 ff. 61v-62r) where he meets, among others, Oskar Lange. He stopovers in Prague on the night of November 24th and writes in his diary that he would work that evening on “two pages on the agrarian reform” (E55 ff. 62r). The following day he gets to Zurich by air in the early afternoon and some hours later he rode on a train direct to Milan (E55 ff. 62v-63r). While in Milan from 25-30 November (E55 ff. 63v-64r), Sraffa meets with many people, including Raffaele Mattioli, Vando Aldrovandi and Giulio Einaudi. Again, on 27 November Sraffa “spent the day to finish the Agrarian Reform” and the same day he sent a draft of it to Francesco Flora (who lived in Bologna) who also was one of the members of the Italian delegation in China (E55 ff. 62v).

From the 1st to the 6th of December Sraffa would go to Rome (E55 ff. 63v-64r, E55 ff. 64v-65r, E55 ff. 65v), where he met with a series of personalities including Luigi Einaudi (at the time President of Italy), Palmiro Togliatti, Carlo Levi, and with some friends and colleagues (Sergio Steve, Raffaele Mattioli –again-, etc). The delegation drafted a first report for the Italian Foreign Affairs Ministry of its visit to China on 3 December at “Centro Cina” (E55 ff. 63v-64r), but Sraffa notes on 4 December that they are “waiting for the Flora report”, which arrives on the following day. On December 6th we read: “Relazione Flora pessima” [“Flora report lousy”] (E55 ff. 64v).

We do not know more from these diaries what “relazione Flora” was about. Also, we do not know what happened with Sraffa’s draft on agrarian reform (which he had sent to Francesco Flora less than a fortnight back) nor whether the “Flora report” had anything to do with the manuscript. It is possible that when more of Sraffa’s material becomes available the draft on the agrarian reform could be found for a deep examination. It will be also interesting to analyse the draft on the agrarian reform in relation to the extensive data of cooperatives, factories, labour demographics which Sraffa carefully reviews in each city or town he visited with the delegation. This perhaps may provide additional insights regarding Sraffa’s method of analysis for practical issues.

While we are looking forward to the uploading of further manuscripts of Sraffa which will certainly shed light on his views of his visit to the Asian country, it may be noted that both diaries E26 and E55 display material which goes against notions exclusively regarding Sraffa as a scholar aloof from empirical matters due to his economic thought being highly abstract. Of course a diary is just a report of a series of specific activities at some point in time, and from which we cannot derive any conclusive hypothesis about Sraffa’s thought.

But these diaries do reflect Sraffa’s analytical ability as an observer of the real world, reproduced in his very-well thought and accurate descriptions, thus showing a Sraffa taking a manifest interest in what was going on in that country under the new set of rules after the revolution in 1949. No doubt, upon release of further manuscripts, Sraffa scholars will be able to appreciate for themselves the level of accuracy and interest on the part of Sraffa on so many practical and empirical themes.


[note 1] Franca Assante (2012), “Domenico Demarco”, Società Nazionale di Scienze, Lettere e Arti in Napoli, Naples, 2012, pp. 21-22. Other members included: Orio Ciferri (a Professor of Chemistry from University of Pavia), Francesco Flora (a historian of Italian literature from Bologna); Orfeo Rotini (chemistry) and the sinologist Piero Corradini.

[note 2] Translation by the present authors. The original in Italian reads:

Rieducazzione socialista del commercio e industria capitalista

‘utilizzare, limitare, rieducare’ è n. politica

Cosa vuol dire eliminazione dalla classe capitalista, non dei capitalisti. Eliminaz. dell’impresa privata verso il capitalismo di Stato.

Forme: 1) acquisto unificato del prodotto (prod. secondo piano)

2) acquisto totale del prodotto (senza piano)

3) ordinaz. e finitura

Transformare in imprese socialiste attraverso il capitalismo di stato. Transformare la propr. cap. in propr. socialista. Parallelam., rieducazione degli uomini. Quando le imprese saran transformate in imprese socialiste, anche i capitalisti saran diventati cittadini socialisti.

Questa specie di transformaz. è il carattere dominante della Cina.

Samuelson, Solow, and me

I uploaded a video of a story that concerns Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, and myself here.

As a lowly and newly-minted Assistant Professor I cold-called Professor Samuelson one day in September 2006 by dialing information and getting his home phone number in Cambridge Massachusetts. He actually answered the phone, to which after introducing myself I asked the question of whether or not he thought Sraffa was a Marxist….he was enamored by the phone call and we had a wonderful 15 minute discussion about Sraffa and Marx that I will never forget. Professor Samuelson declined a request to discuss my paper at the Eastern Economics Association Annual Conference in New York City in February 2007, but he did contemplate it and sent a nice letter indicating such.

Eventually this led me to Professor Solow who ended discussing a paper of mine at that session. The panel was on the relationship between Sraffa and Marx and the presenters were Stefano Perri, Riccardo Bellofiore, and myself, and the discussants were Gary Mongiovi, Ed Nell and Robert Solow.  Riccardo’s paper was published in 2008, Stefano’s in 2010, and finally in 2014 there was published: my paper, Solow’s Comment, and my Response in Research in Political Economy edited by Paul Zarembka.

I find this story both interesting and more importantly demonstrative of the taking of chances and of not being afraid to ask questions that very few people ask anymore. And it also demonstrates the power of Sraffa and his analysis and how asking questions about his archival and intellectual legacy got the attention of two of the most distinguished Nobel Laureates in economics ever, and the active engagement of one them, even if by a then-lowly and newly-minted Assistant Professor in Tulsa Oklahoma…


Bellofiore, R. 2008. Sraffa after Marx: An open issue. In G. Chiodi & L. Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or an alternative economics (pp. 68–92). New York, NY: Palgrave.

Perri, S. 2010. From “the Loaf of Bread” to “Commodity Fetishism”: A “New Interpretation” of the Marx–Sraffa connection. History of Economic Ideas, 18, 55–81.

Carter, S. 2014. From ‘Pool of Profits’ to Surplus and Deficit Industries: Archival Evidence on the Evolution of Piero Sraffa’s Thought, Research in Political Economy (November) carter-2014-pool-of-profits-to-surplus-and-deficit-industries-rpe

Carter, S. 2014 Response to Professor Solow, Research in Political Economy (November)  carter-2014-response-to-solow-rpe

Solow, R. 2014. Comments on Scott Carter, Research in Political Economy (November)  solow-2014-comment-on-carter-rpe

Production for Subsistence Lecture Video Posted

It is important that people acquaint themselves with the content and subject matter of Sraffa’s book Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Accordingly we are video streaming lectures of the book on a chapter-by-chapter basis.  It is important that people get access to Sraffa’s book; you can get an early Indian version here.

You can find a video introducing this on the Heretical Sraffa Youtube Channel here. The video streamed  lectures are on The University of Tulsa media site (not the Heretical Sraffa You Tube Channel) and Chapter I Production for Subsistence can be seen here.

These lectures have both video of the lecture and more importantly a screen shot of powerpoint slide shows.  You can independently download the slides here. These slides are open-sourced so feel free to use them liberally (just do the right thing and give credit where credit is due…let’s reject the unscrupulous aspects often exhibited in academic economics and demonstrate a new way to move our science forward, collaboratively and with the development of the science as the first goal…)

You should be able to view both the slideshows and video on a computer and on devices, but you may have to download the Mediasite Mobile App which you can get on their website here.

History of arranging Sraffa’s Papers (I)

Jonathan Smith, Trinity Archivist who supervised the Wren Trinity arrangement of Sraffa’s Papers, indicates in a very instructive footnote from his entry to the 2012 Cambridge Journal of Economics Special Issue on Sraffa that ‘the history of attempts to catalogue Sraffa’s papers is not particularly straightforward’ (Smith, 2012, p. 1297, note *).

What we do know is that in 1974 Alessandro Roncaglia and John Eatwell gave a preliminary list of the material.  Smith  reports this was done in relation to the two scholars’ translation of Sraffa’s original 1925 Italian article critiquing Marshallian theory (Sraffa 1925), this article being the precursor to the more truncated 1926 version that appeared in English in the Economic Journal (Sraffa 1926).  For purposes of this translation they had asked Sraffa permission to consult the preparatory material for the 1925 and 1926 articles and while engaged in that endeavor realized how important it was to make a list of the content of the entire bulk of material. In an email exchange Professor Roncaglia related his account of this as follows:

“[W]hat I did in 1974-75, with some help from John [Eatwell], was not a catalogue or an inventory, but simply a rough list of material in Sraffa’s Trinity room, mainly with the aim of helping him to find things around and with the benefit, on my side, to talk with him on his manuscripts. Most of my time in Cambridge in that period (in all, a few weeks) was spent in preparing together with John an English translation of Sraffa’s 1925 article” (Alessandro Roncaglia to Scott Carter, December 9, 2015; reproduced with permission),

In Smith’s (2012) account Roncaglia and Eatwell (R&E) wrote to Sraffa on 8 August 1974 to which Sraffa returned the correspondence one month later. R&E then sent a letter in January 1975 and Sraffa responded several months later in June 1975, and during the interim in March 1975 we find papers listed by Roncaglia.  Smith articulates three points related to the Roncaglia-Eatwell list and exchange with Sraffa:

‘First, that the catalogue of papers that date from this period (e.g. 1974-75) are more a locations guide than a catalogue – sort of a preliminary draft that you would expect to be made before any attempt was made to order the papers.  Second, that in their second letter Eatwell and Roncaglia make it evident that any ordering of the papers was yet to take place. Third, that Sraffa forbade any further cataloguing at that time’ (Smith, 2012, pg. 1297, note *; emphasis added).

The second and third points especially are of tremendous importance.  Here evidence emerges that the ‘original order’ in which we find Sraffa’s papers has to be taken with a relative grain of salt.  In the first instance many-a-hand was placed on the material even before Sraffa’s death, as reported by Smith (2012) echoing a warning originally given by de Vivo (2001):

‘De Vivo (2001)…sounds a warning with regard to the archive as a whole and reminds us that Alessandro Roncaglia, John Eatwell, Antonietta Campus and Pierangelo Garegnani all helped with his papers during his lifetime, and we should thus be cautious in coming to any conclusions based on the arrangement of the material’ (Smith 2012, p. 1296)

And Smith reports that Sraffa himself indicated that as of 1975 the order of the papers was yet to be determined, as seen in his (Sraffa’s) reply dated June 1975 to the Roncaglia and Eatwell correspondence sent the previous January:

‘In his reply [Sraffa] explains that he feels that the questions raised  are connected with the final destination of the papers and that any work on them should cease until he had made up his mind about their final place of deposit’ (Smith 2012, p. 1297, note *).

Sraffa never made up his mind, and we can be reasonably certain that the papers in the order we find them in the Wren archive reflects the state at which Sraffa indicates in June 1975 – that is to say, the ‘final place of deposit’ remaining undetermined.

Sraffa’s died in 1983. He had appointed Pierangelo Garegnani as his Literary Executor who with Krishna Bharadwaj began in autumn of that year an account of Sraffa’s archival material.  Professor Garegnani (2003) in an article first published in Italian in 1998[1] recounts the story in the following way:

‘In autumn of 1983, shortly after Sraffa’s death, and then in Spring 1984, Professor Krishna Bharadwaj of Nehru University, New Delhi and myself made a first reconnaissance and inventory of the manuscript material, not least to ensure nothing got mislaid when it was moved from Sraffa’s rooms in Trinity or in the Marshall-Library to a store-room of the College.  In fact, only an index of the manuscripts a few pages long existed before then, drawn up by Professor Roncaglia, when helping Sraffa tidy up his papers in around 1974.

The inventory thus carried out immediately after Sraffa’s death was followed by a more detailed examination and systematic listing of the manuscripts as a preliminary to working on them (Trinity College, the owner of the papers, postponed a professional cataloguing of the papers; cataloguing was begun only after the papers were made available to the public, in early 1994).  The systematic examination and listing of the manuscripts was rather laborious because of their, for the most part, extremely fragmentary nature; for example, all the pages in the enormous mass of material had to be numbered. It was on this basis that the papers were microfilmed at the University Library in 1987. This job took up almost all the time that Professor Bharadwaj and I could devote to the manuscripts up to the summer of 1987’ (Garegnani, 2003, p. 623).

Here we find that the original Bharadwaj-Garengani (BG) arrangement of 1983-89 underwent two stages.  The first is the preliminary inventory accomplished immediately after Sraffa’s death ostensibly which followed the Roncaglia-Eatwell (R&E) list of a decade earlier, and second ‘a more detailed examination and systematic listing of the manuscripts as a preliminary to working on them’.

It is in the first preliminary inventory of 1983-84 that we conjecture the meta-structure of files in the BG arrangement was set, following the same method as the R&E list, as in both R&E and BG the different collections of files were identified according to the location they were found in Sraffa’s various quarters.  We know this is the case for R&E given Smith’s identification of it more as a ‘locations guide’, something made explicit in their letter to Sraffa dated 8 August 1974:

‘[W]e have already helped you to conduct a number of searches in your rooms and now we have a good idea of what papers there are, where they are, and what papers are, at the moment, missing.  We have so far compiled two lists of materials, one relating to the cupboard left of the entrance door, the other the brown paper packet at present in your room at the Marshall Library’ (Roncaglia and Eatwell to Sraffa, quoted in Smith 2012, pg. 1297, note*).

Both Kurz (2009) and Smith (1998) tell us that the same ‘location method’ was used in the meta-file convention adopted in the BG arrangement:

‘After [Sraffa’s] death the late Krishna Bharadwaj and Pierangelo Garegnani produced a valuable inventory and numbering of the papers so that nothing should get lost in moving then from Sraffa’s room in College to the place of storage.  The inventory was based on the locations where the papers had been found in Sraffa’s rooms and the grouping he had given them.  Bharadwaj and Garegnani also began to examine the manuscripts.  Jonathan Smith, archivist, then produced the catalogue of the papers on behalf of Trinity College, which is the one now generally used’ (Kurz 2009, p. 266)

For his part Jonathan Smith characterizes the BG arrangement as follows:

‘In a codicil to his will, Sraffa named Pierangelo Garegnani as his literary executor and it was to Garegnani that the task was left to bring together the physical remains of Sraffa’s literary estate.  Much important material was in Sraffa’s room in Neville’s Court, the second court of Trinity College, in bookcases, chests of drawers and suitcases….Although some papers were in good order, others were something of a jumble. Further material…was in the rooms that he had used as Librarian of the Marshall Library of Economics. In the early months of 1984, Garegnani and Krishna Bharadwaj prepared a rough inventory of the papers as they found them in two locations, before they were boxed and removed to library storage.  From May 1985 to June 1986 Professor Bharadwaj worked on the papers under the supervision of Garegnani.  In this time she was able to work her way through the papers, item by item, identifying and assessing the significance of each piece.

A more detailed catalogue was prepared and items were individually numbered and prepared for microfilming, which was undertaken by the Photography Department of Cambridge University Library.  Although the Bharadwaj list is fundamentally flawed in archival terms, this intermediate catalogue is most important in helping to preserve the order of the papers as Sraffa left them (it is clear that Garegnani and Bharadwaj knew the importance of this). There is a map of the locations of papers as they were found in Sraffa’s rooms, and what initially seems to be clumsy references to “Green Chest, Bottom Drawer” or “Horizontal piling” give useful clues to the arrangement of the papers while in use’ (Smith 1998, p. 44).

Cleary the accounts of Garegnani, Kurz and Smith resonate.  In each we find the BG arrangement broken into two distinct phases; an initial inventory based on the Roncaglia-Eatwell list or ‘location’s guide’ of the various piles in Sraffa’s rooms, and a later more developed arrangement of the material, one that as we discover took conceptual content of the material into account.  The end of the BG endeavor can be marked as 1989, after which Bharadwaj began to experience health problems, which as Garegnani[2] informs us, interfered with her continued work on the papers, precipitating her premature death in 1992 at the young age of 57. [3]


[1] ‘Sui manoscitti di Piero Sraffa’, Rivista Italiana degli Economistii (Journal of the Società Italiana degli Economisti), April 1998.

[2] ‘After 1987…deterioration in Professor Bharadwaj’s health hindered her work increasingly until her premature death in 1992, shortly before she had planned a visit to Italy, so we could resume work on the Sraffa manuscripts’ (Garegnani 2003, p. 624).

[3] Geoff Harcourt’s (1993-4) Memoir of Mrs. Bharadwaj in the JPKE recounts the trying time she had while engaged in this arrangement:

‘The last time I saw Krishna for any length of time was when she came to Trinity in the middle and late 1980s to put some order into Piero Sraffa’s papers; Piero had died in September 1983 and Pierangelo Garegnani, his literary executor, asked Krishna to help with this mammoth but vital task.  It was a time of great tension for Krishna for her love of Sraffa himself and her belief in the importance of his contributions obliged her, she thought, to take on this daunting task; yet she also felt keenly the sacrifice of time she would otherwise have spent working in India on pressing Indian problems. This created an insoluble dilemma for her, a sense of ambivalence and doubt as to whether she had done the right thing, made the correct choice, and I fear that the psychological trauma all this undoubtedly caused her was a significant factor leading to her final illness.  Certainly I had never before seen her so agitated and unhappy, working–effectively as ever and as long hours as ever, but without the usual resilience and joie de vivre that went with her sense of purpose and drive. It was desperately worrisome for her friends to see her health deteriorating under the strain; we could offer support but not really relieve her of the essential burden and pressure. I was glad to learn the other day (January 1993) that the papers are in order and catalogued, although not yet opened, for this is another vindication of Krishna’s devotion and work-but at what a cost.’ (Harcourt 1993-4, p. 308).


de Vivo, G. 2001. ‘Some notes on the Sraffa papers,’ pp. 157-64 in Cozzi, T. and Marchionatti, R. (eds), Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy.

Garegnani P. 2003, ‘On Piero Sraffa’s manuscripts,’ English translation of an edited version of a paper published in April 1998 in Rivista italiana degli economisti, the journal of the Società Italiana degli Economisti. In Kurz, H. and Salvadori, N. (eds), The Legacy of Piero Sraffa, two vols. In Intellectual Legacies in Modern Economics. Cheltenham and Northampton, Edward Elgar, 623-625.

Harcourt , G.C. 1993-4, ‘Krishna Bharadwaj, August 21, 1935 – March 9, 1992: A Memoir,’ Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 16 (2).

Kurz, H. 2009, ‘Preparing the edition of Piero Sraffa’s unpublished papers and correspondence,’ Cahiers d’économie Politique / Papers in Political Economy vol. 2, no. 57, 261-278

Smith, J. 1998. ‘An archivist’s apology: The papers of Piero Sraffa at Trinity College Cambridge,’ Pensiero Economico Itlaniano, vol. 6, 36-54.

Smith, J. 2012. ‘Circuitous processes, jigsaw puzzles, and indisputable results: Making the best use of the manuscripts of Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities,’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 36, no. 6, 1291-1301.

Sraffa P. 1925. ‘Sulle relazioni fra costo e quantita produtta”, translated as “On the Relation Between Cost and Quantity Produced” by Eatwell J. and Roncaglia A.,in L.L. Pasinietti (ed.). (1998) Italian Economic Papers, vol. III, Bologna: Il Mulino; Oxford: Oxford University Press:  323-63

Sraffa, P. 1926.‘The Laws of Return Under Competitive Conditions’, Economic Journal, 36: 535-50.

Sraffa, P. 1960.Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to the Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.


A Road Map Through the Sraffa Archive…

Sraffa’s archive material will be uploaded onto the Wren Trinity website in short order.  Already with Section E online we have access to Sraffa’s diaries.  I have been assured that in relatively short order we will have Section D up as well. Section D is the heart of the archive.  It contains Sraffa’s Notes (D1), his Lectures (D2), and his publications (D3).

It is important that a road map be provided through this archival material.  This is because in relatively short order tens of thousands of color images will be made available to the world. This means that scholars and others interested will find that they can become easily lost in this forest as they stumble amongst the various trees. What we will try to provide on this blog and website, and also on our new Heretical Sraffa Youtube channel, is a forum whereby we can all gain understanding of the nature of the forest so that we are not lost among the trees.  I have an introductory video at the Youtube channel link above that speak to this.

The next blogpost will discuss the history of the different arrangements of the material.