Showing 30 results

Michaelmas Term, 1904.

Welcombe, Stratford on Avon. - Glad to hear they are all well; Caroline sends love; a 'cuckoo for ever calling here' makes him think of 'the dear little boy' [Paul] and of 'Will Shakespeare'. They have just finished Hogg [his life of Shelley], and thinks more of Hogg 'in his queer way' than ever; has been reading a Macmillan edition of Shelley: 'What a poet!'. Has read [Roger] Fry's article in the Burlington Magazine, and paid a second visit to the illuminated manuscripts [exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club] yesterday before leaving London; has also looked through the British Museum facsimiles here and at Grosvenor Crescent. Hopes Fry's wife will 'go on satisfactorily'. The 'Doctorate business' [his forthcoming honorary degree at Cambridge] is 'very plain sailing': Lord Halsbury, Lord Rayleigh, and Sir James Ramsey will also be staying at [Trinity College] Lodge; they lunch at [Gonville &] Caius, whose Master [Ernest Roberts] is Vice Chancellor. Others receiving honorary degrees are: the Duke of Northumberland; Admiral Sir John Fisher; Charles Parsons; Sir James Ramsay; Sir W[illiam] Crookes; Professor Lamb; Professor Marshall; Asquith; Lord Halsbury; Sir Hubert Herkomer; Sir Andrew Noble; Rudyard Kipling; Professor Living; they will 'advance on the Senate House...like the English at Trafalgar'. in two columns. Is looking forward to dinner in the hall at Trinity. Went to Harrow on Tuesday and will tell Robert about it and about the 'Cacciola affair'.

15-25: Cambridge University, 1904-[1910]
26-38: Alfred Marshall, 1905-1919
39-49: Professorship of Applied Economics, Jan.-Mar. 1920
50-54: Cambridge University By-Election, Jan.-Feb. 1940

Lent Term, 1905. Lectures on 'The Structures and Problems of Modern Industry' and 'The Interpretation of Modern Statistics'.

Testimonial from C. P. Sanger for the Gresham Studentship at Caius, 1908. Testimonial from A. C. Pigou, Alfred Marshall, and Francis Hirst for the Professorship of Political Economy at Newcastle, 1912.

From Alfred Marshall, R. H. Tawney, C. P. Stanley and others.

Thanks Sidgwick for his letter of 12 August. States that, in his view, there are two points on which 'the [Royal] Commission [on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland]' would like to receive Sidgwick's opinion, one being '[t]he value of assessment to income tax, or of [net] receipts from income tax as a guide or part guide to the relative taxable capacity of two countries', and the other Sir Robert Giffen's suggested method of obtaining the relative taxable capacities of the two countries. Suggests that Sidgwick write a short paper 'pointing out...any objections to this method', and believes that the paper 'would be of service in assisting the Commission to form their conclusions.' Announces that he has already asked Professors Marshall, Foxwell and B[ ] for their opinions on the subject, and they are considering the matter. Also states that he has directed copies of Sir Robert's evidence and tables to be sent to Sidgwick. Gives the address to which Sidgwick should send his paper 'by the end of September'.

Thanks Sidgwick for sending him printed copies of Marshall's Theory of [Foreign] Trade. Declares his problems to be 'exceedingly ingenious and very important for throwing light on difficult points of pol[itical] econ[omy].' Refers to his own and Sidgwick's differing interpretations of one of Marshall's points regarding the method of diagrams and the method of symbols. States that he has 'for some time past been inquiring into the history of the mathematical treatment of Economics', and hopes eventually to publish his findings. Refers to the Recherches sur les Principes Mathematiques de la Theorie des Richesses by Augustin Cournot, which he believes to be 'a very beautiful piece of mathematical analysis applied to the laws of supply and demand'. Refers to an enclosed list (not included). Announces that he will refer to Professor Marshall's inquiries in the new edition of his Theory. Expresses his satisfaction at getting Sidgwick's ideas about his attack on Mill, but disagrees with him on a point in relation to Herbert Spencer. Claims that in Mill 'contradiction is of the essence of his method'. Hopes some day to complete his criticism and prove his assertions, but claims to be not equal to finishing all he undertakes.

Meeting held on Monday, 26 November 1900. Lists those present and those who sent their apologies. Includes the speeches made by the Master of Trinity College [H. M. Butler] and the Vice-Chancellor, Mr Chawner; Sir Richard Jebb, the Right Hon. James Bryce, Leslie Stephen, Canon Gore, the Bishop of Bristol, Professor A.V. Dicey, Professor Maitland, Professor Marshall and Professor James Ward, as well as comments made by the Rev. J. Wardale and Professor Sorley. A motion proposed by Jebb that there be a memorial in Cambridge to Sidgwick was unanimously carried.

Thanks Mayor for returning his MS. Claims that if he had been confident enough in his memory to serve Mayor's or Nora Sidgwick's purpose regarding 'the philosophical discussions at Trumpington' he would have answered him before. Is confused about dates, but states that he has little doubt that he first went to Professor Grote's house to listen to, and occasionally read, philosophical papers in the October term of 1863. States that the only other people who attended these meetings at this time were Henry Sidgwick, 'John Venn of Caius, and Pearson of St John's'. Describes the attributes of each of those who attended, and remarks that Sidgwick obviously preferred ethics to metaphysics, and recalls [Professor] Alfred Marshall emphasising his admiration of this side of Sidgwick very soon after he made his acquaintance. Refers to Sidgwick's opinion of Kant and Hegel, and to the intuitionalism 'which in the end he united with his utilitarianism'. Is uncertain as to whether he gave any measure of assent to the first fundametal proposition of 'Ferrier's Institutes of Metaphysics'

Wishes that he could remember more of the actual papers that Sidgwick read to the Philosophical Society, which was, after Grote's death, called the Grote Society, but has the impression that 'they were tentatives towards the kind of line which he afterwards took in the Methods of Ethics'. Refers also to Sidgwick's attitude to metaphysics. Believes that J.S. Mill was the philosopher whom he always admired and trusted the most. Holds, however, that he changed his view of Mill between 1863 and 1873, citing his reaction to Mill's Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, and to Fitzjames Stephen's attack on Mill in Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

Refers to Grote's view of ethics and metaphysics, and to his Treatise on the Moral Ideals, and to the similarities between him and Sidgwick. Refers also to other members of the society, such as Henry Jackson and Maurice. Recalls Sidgwick's good opinion of Venn, who was a great admirer of Mill, and names other members of the society, such as W. K. Clifford and T. W. Levin. Recalls also that when he [Mozley] went to Clifton in September 1864, Sidgwick wrote to somebody, referring to him as 'the first original a priori philosopher that has trod the streets of Cambridge for many a day'. Does not think that Herbert Spencer was ever a great favourite in the society, but had himself a great respect for him 'as the founder of the theory of evolution.' Adds that when 'the old crow, who could count up to five, but not beyond, once came before the Grote Society', Sidgwick 'was unkind enough to doubt his existence' and none of the rest of them could give evidence for him.

Asks for information on the Grote Society. States that she has an interesting account of it written by Dr Venn for Sir Leslie Stephen, and an account by Professor Marshall of the later period of the society after Grote's death. Understands from Venn's account that it was not a formal society in the earlier period, but meetings of a small group, interested in philosophic discussion, at Grote's house, and that those attending dined with him once or twice a term and discussed afterwards. Asks when the society began 'and when Henry got to know Professor Grote and when he first joined these meetings.' Explains that she is doing research in view of the memoir of Henry that she and Arthur Sidgwick are attempting to put together. Refers to a dialogue by Professor Grote that Mayor published in the [Chemical] Review of March 1889, which had 'a little bit in the middle by Henry', and asks Mayor if he can tell her the history of this piece. Asks if it was a paper discussed at Trumpington, and how the co-operation came about.

Thanks Sidgwick for sending him his address at Aberdeen. Refers to the fact that Sidgwick is preparing the second edition of his book Principles of Political Economy, and expresses desire to be sent the work. Asks that his compliments be presented to Professor A. Marshall.

Announces that they 'have just settled the [examination results of, and prizes to be awarded to] the women', and that it has been decided that Miss Larmer should get the scholarship. Claims to be somewhat disappointed in her work. States that she was 'clearly head' in Political Economy and second by two marks in Logic. Adds that they only gave out two firsts in Group D, and no distinction. States that he got Venn to fix the standard for passing level with that of '[Poll men] in June.' Refers to Miss M. Kennedy's work, which 'agreeably surprised' him. States that his plans of lecturing the following term are still rather vague, 'on account of Miss L's uncertainty'.

In relation to Evolution, claims to have understood the view Marshall expressed the previous term, but does not think he agrees with him, and is quite sure that he does not agree with Karl Marx. Declares that '[t]his Spiessbürger is after all only our friend the "Bourgeois" for whose wicked selfishness Political Economy is supposed to have been invented...' Claims that when he first read socialistic tracts he was much impressed with the breadth of view implied 'in this contemptuous term', but, on reflection, believes that 'the Bourgeois after all appeared to [him] the heir of the ages...and so of Bentham's Normal Man.' Declares that he does not quite understand Marshall's position on Benthamism. States that he does not think it the special function of the Philosophy of Jurisprudence to develop dynamical conception, and that he believes that a grasp of the Utilitarian method of determining rules would have been of the greatest value to himself. States that he had 'worked out principles of constitutional Jus[tice] - for B[entham]'s Normal Mensche in two or three lectures', and is consequently biased in favour of the method. Claims that it is too hot to work in Cambridge, and that he is reading novels.