“Speaking”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001729.html of books, I’m about 250 pages in to “Robert Skidelsky’s”:http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/skidelsky/ one-volume abridgment of his three-volume life of Keynes. “Joan Robinson”:http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/robinson.htm has just shown up at Girton and is not being allowed to attend the meetings of Keynes’s Political Economy Club, despite being obviously the smartest economics undergraduate at Cambridge. Meanwhile, a little earlier Keynes complains about having to rework his _Treatise on Probability_ for publication:
bq. After every retouch it seems to me more trifling and platitudinous. All that is startling is gradually cut out as untrue, and what remains is a rather obscure and pompous exposition of what no human being can ever have doubted.
And a little later, “Frank Ramsey”:http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ramsey.html cheerfully informs a meeting of “the Apostles”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Apostles that their “Moorean”:http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/moor.htm obsession with discussing the moral value of different states of mind “although a pleasant way of passing the time, is not discussing anything whatever, but simply comparing notes.”
{ 5 comments }
Brian Weatherson 04.21.04 at 3:45 pm
Why are you reading the abridged version? I didn’t enjoy volume 3 that much, but the first 2 volumes were two of the best biographical volumes, even I think two of the best books, I’ve ever read. I suppose it helps to be antecedently interested in the Apostles and Moore and Ramsey and startling theories of probability, so maybe my experience doesn’t generalise.
Kieran Healy 04.21.04 at 4:53 pm
Why are you reading the abridged version?
(a) Because I am travelling around the world with it and 1 volume is heavy enough.
(b) Because I have a 14 week old baby.
(c) Because it’s shorter.
(d) All of the above.
Take your pick.
john c. halasz 04.22.04 at 12:59 am
Later, in the 1950’s, Joan Robinson was promoted from reader to lecturer or some such. (I don’t know the terms of the Oxbridge hierarchy.) But because she was a woman, she was not permitted to dine at high table, the normal privilege of such academic ranks. However, women could dine at high table, if they were invited guests. So the man who took her old post, some Hoosier commie, whose name I can’t recall, promptly invited her to dine there, which invitation she accepted with great aplomb and relish.
derrida_derider 04.22.04 at 5:37 am
I opened this comments box in order to make exactly the same points as Brian, only to find he’d beaten me to it. The first two volumes in this trilogy are simply the greatest biographies I’ve ever read. The third was merely very good (Skidelsky sometimes let his English patriotism override his otherwise excellent judgement).
Your reasons for using the abridged version are certainly fair enough, but I hope it retains the original’s astute psychology, sense of historic context and (above all) the sense of connection between these and Keynes’ ideas and actions.
Gavin 04.22.04 at 9:00 am
The other nice thing about the 3 volume set is that you can see Skidelsky becoming a better economist as the project proceeds. The economics in vol 1 is much shakier than in the final volume. Of course, it’s still a great read.
Reader ranks above lecturer in Oxbridge, so it’s probably the other way round.
Comments on this entry are closed.