Category: Columbia

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard UCLA

Columbia. Ph.D. alumnus (1911) Benjamin M. Anderson, Obituary

_____________________

Benjamin McA. Anderson, Economics: Los Angeles

by Earl J. Miller, Marvel Stockwell, John Clendenin, Vern O. Knudsen

BENJAMIN MCALESTER ANDERSON (May 1, 1886-January 19, 1949), son of Benjamin McLean and Mary Frances (Bowling) Anderson, was born in Columbia, Missouri. He married Margaret Louis Crenshaw May 27, 1909. He is survived by his wife and three children, John Crenshaw, William Bent, and Mary Louise (Brown). A fourth child, Benjamin M. Anderson III, died in 1919.

Professor Anderson received the A.B. at the University of Missouri in 1906, the A.M. at the University of Illinois in 1910, and the Ph.D. in Economics at Columbia in 1911. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and an active member of the American Economic Association, in which he served as vice-president and a member of the Executive Committee. He served as Professor of History in the State Normal School at Cape Girardeau, Missouri, in 1905; Professor of English Literature and Economics at Missouri Valley College, Marshall, Missouri, in 1906; Professor of History and Economics at the State Teachers College, Springfield, Missouri, from 1906 to 1911; Instructor in Economics at Columbia from 1911 to 1913; Assistant Professor of Economics at Columbia, 1913; Assistant Professor of Economics, Harvard, 1913-1918; economic advisor in the National Bank of Commerce in New York, 1918-1920; economist for the Chase National Bank of New York, 1920-1939; Professor of Economics in the University of California at Los Angeles, 1939-1949 (Connell Professor of Banking, 1946-1949).

Professor Anderson enjoyed a rich experience as a youth in his home at Columbia, Missouri. His father was for many years a prominent member of the Missouri State Legislature. Their home was the scene of innumerable political conferences to which Dr. Anderson was invited and from which he developed a keen interest in the then current political and economic problems.

Dr. Anderson’s publications were extensive, including four books and many articles and reviews. Outstanding among them were his books, Social Value, 1911; The Value of Money, 1917; Effects of the War on Money, Credit and Banking in France and the United States, 1919; Financing American Prosperity (coauthor with J. M. Clark, Columbia; A. H. Hansen, Harvard; S. H. Slichter, Harvard; H. S. Ellis, California at Berkeley; and J. H. Williams, Harvard), 1945. Much of his time during the last few years of his life was devoted to the writing of another book entitled Economics and the Public Welfare, a financial and economic history of the United States, 1914-1946. This extensive work was ready for proofreading at the time of his death. The book has now been published. It is a further major contribution to the field of economic literature comparable in quality to the high standard set in his previous works.

He contributed articles to many magazines and journals. Among them were the American Economic Review; Annals of the American Academy; Political Science Quarterly; Quarterly Journal of Economics; The New York Times; The Commercial and Financial Chronicle; The Bankers Magazine (London); The London Times; and the Wall Street Journal. During the past ten years he has published eight issues of the Economic Bulletin under the sponsorship of the Capital Research Company of Los Angeles. He associated himself for many years with a group of well-known economists in the organization known as the Economists’ National Committee on Monetary Policy, and served as President of that organization. Several of his articles were reprinted and circulated on a wide basis by that organization.

While economist for the Chase National Bank of New York, Professor Anderson published over two hundred issues of theChase Economic Bulletin, which was distributed and read extensively in government, banking and educational circles in many countries. Representing the Chase National Bank he traveled extensively in foreign countries to conduct negotiations with leading government and banking officials. He was called on numerous occasions to testify before committees of the U.S. Congress and the New York State

Legislature on questions of state, national and international policy relating to the fields of money and banking. These activities together with the wide circulation of his books, and of his articles in professional and financial journals and magazines, made him one of the best-known and most distinguished economists of his generation in both the national and international fields.

The firsthand contact with practical banking, with American and foreign banking officials, and with government agencies concerned with our economic and monetary affairs, which Dr. Anderson had enjoyed through many years, greatly enriched the content of his teaching and enabled him to provide for his students a sound and thoroughly practical experience. He originally possessed a scholarly command of history, literature, and languages which added impressively to his work, and he brought to his teaching and advisory tasks a broad perspective and keen judgment which made his pronouncements on economic affairs surprisingly accurate and wise.

Professor Anderson was a modest and distinguished scholar and a man esteemed by his colleagues for his personal qualities of kindly manner, stimulating humor, sympathetic appreciation and helpful cooperation. As a scholar and as a man he made a memorable contribution to the community in which he lived.

 

Source: Academic Senate of the University of California. University of California: In Memoriam 1949, pp. 1-4.

Image Source:  Wikipedia article on Benjamin McAlester Anderson.

Categories
Bryn Mawr Columbia Gender

Bryn Mawr. Catholic economics instructor threatened with termination, 1921

_______________________________________

When I came across the correspondence in this post, what caught my eye was that a Columbia doctoral student in economics had written to her adviser asking for advice in the face of a seemingly certain termination of her instructorship at Bryn Mawr simply on the grounds of her being Catholic. I thought it good to post a reminder just how broad the category of “the Other” was not even a century ago. 

What is also interesting is the fact that her advisor, E.R.A. Seligman farmed out the draft of her dissertation to a former student of his for a referee report that became the basis of his decision for a revise-and-resubmit of the thesis.

The Bryn Mawr economics instructor/Columbia graduate student, Marjorie Lorne Franklin, was born August 30, 1892 in Albany, New York. She received her B.A. from Barnard College in 1913 and her M.A. from Columbia University in 1914. According to the Bryn Mawr Calendar 1921 (p. 4): Marjorie Franklin was Graduate Scholar, Bryn Mawr College, 1913-14 and Fellow in Economics, 1914-15; Columbia University, 1915-16; Library Assistant, American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 1916-17; and before coming to Bryn Mawr she served as an instructor at Vassar College in 1917-18. However according to the Vassar College yearbook, The Vassarion 1918 (p.30), Franklin was working 1915-16 as Tariff Assistant in Foreign Tariffs Division of U.S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.  From the 1925 Barnard College Register of Alumnae we learn that she married Dr. Walter Freeman in 1924 and was working as a special expert at the U.S. Tariff Commission.  According to the 1940 U.S. census she reported that she was employed as an economist with the Tariff Commission and she was the mother of five sons and one daughter. She died in San Mateo, California on April 22, 1970. I have found no record that Marjorie Franklin Freeman was ever awarded a Ph.D. in economics.

A biographical detail that is irrelevant for understanding the history of economics but much too fascinating to leave unmentioned is that Marjorie Franklin’s husband Walter Freeman (II) was  a neurologist famous for having introduced the Freeman-Watts prefrontal lobotomy procedure— (His papers are archived at George Washington University; there is even a PBS documentary about him “The Lobotomist”). 

 

_______________________________________

Franklin to Seligman: Bryn Mawr terminating her because she is a Catholic

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE
Department of Economics and Politics
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania

Low Buildings,
February 27, 1921

Professor E.R.A. Seligman
Columbia University
New York City

Dear Professor Seligman:

Religious prejudice has entered into my life for the first time in a way that shocks and stuns me. After three years of successful teaching here, President Thomas has decided that the fact that I am a Catholic makes me persona non grata. She states that my work has been successful and admits that I have not allowed my religious ideas to influence my teaching, but claims that from the point of view of the outside world, it is bad for the college to have a Catholic hold my position, considering the political activities of the Catholic Church. The situation is complicated by the fact that Dr. Fenwick, Professor of Political Science in the department is also a Catholic, and President Thomas has decided that one of us must go. I have no intention of protesting the matter, for I realize that it is futile to argue against religious prejudice.

It is doubtless unnecessary to say to you that my ideas on the subject of religion have always been to me something quite apart from my work, and represent, chiefly, my ethical and moral standards, not at all, my political and economic ideas which have been the result of modern scientific training at Barnard and Columbia. Dr. Giddings, who knows my Father, also a graduate of Union College, would testify that I had been brought up in a broad, tolerant atmosphere.

The whole question of religious prejudice seems utterly medieval to me, but since it is evidently effective in the sphere of teaching, it makes me want to turn to the field of business and finance. So I want to talk over with you in the near future the possibility of openings in the banking field.

During the past two months, work on my thesis has been at a standstill due to the fact that my Father has been rather suddenly incapacitated by some spinal trouble which has made him quite helpless. He was operated on two weeks ago by Dr. Elsberg, the famous spinal surgeon, at the Neurological Hospital on East 67th Street, and his fate is still in doubt. As a result I cannot go to him for advice, and so am running the risk of boring you by setting forth conditions in such detail. However, it may be better for you to have a clear statement of the facts in my case before I go up to New York to see you. I should be glad to make an appointment to call any time within the next few weeks.

Very sincerely yours,
[signed] Marjorie L. Franklin

_______________________________________

Franklin to Seligman: Vassar reverses itself, making her an offer

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE
Department of Economics and Politics
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania

Low Buildings,
March 10, 1921

Prof. Edwin R.A. Seligman
Columbia University
New York City

My dear Professor Seligman:

Due to the efforts of Mrs. Smith, my department chief, and other members of the Bryn Mawr Faculty on the Appointment Committee, President Thomas has capitulated completely and has offered e a contract on the most favorable terms, ignoring the late unpleasentness completely.

If I were to consider my own feelings in the matter, I would reject all overtures, but since Mrs. Smith and others went so valiantly to the front for me, stating that they would resign if I were forced to leave, there is now a strong feeling of noblesse oblige on my part toward them.

However, I should like very much to talk things over with you, in general, and particularly to submit to you a substantial draft of my thesis. In view of this, I would rather postpone my interview set for March 16th and make arrangements with Mrs. Stewart to see you later, just before or just after the Easter vacation.

Appreciating your kindness in this situation,

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Marjorie L. Franklin

_______________________________________

Newcomer’s report to Seligman on Franklin’s thesis draft

435 West 119 St.,
New York,
June 20, 1922.

My dear Dr. Seligman:

I have gone over Miss Franklin’s dissertation again rather carefully. It seems to me it has been improved, but frankly it still leaves me with no very clear picture of Philadelphia’s financial condition. It gives a fairly good idea of political conditions, and something of the financial consequences of these conditions; but at no time is there given a definite summarized statement of the actual sources of revenue and the relative importance of each. A statement, e.g., of the actual percentage of revenues obtained from the tax on real estate over a period of years would be illuminating. Most of the data which would be required for such comparisons are available in the tables now included in the appendix, but these data would have to be rearranged and summarized. In their present form they are not of much assistance.

The same indefiniteness appears in the discussion of assessments. The account of correct assessment methods and the shortcomings of those employed in Philadelphia is full and clear; but as to the degree of underassessment and the seriousness of the inequalities one is left in doubt.

Another criticism that I would make is that in some places Miss Franklin introduces material which scarcely seems pertinent because she fails to apply it definitely to the situation in Philadelphia. A case in point is the long discussion of the taxation of land values at the end of chapter four.

Further I find the relative weight granted the various parts of the subject not altogether satisfactory. For instance, special assessments are too important a factor in municipal financing to be introduced first in the conclusions. Also, with full recognition of the bearing of all of the matters discussed on the system of taxation, I still feel that taxation itself has not received its full share of attention.

Finally, I do not find the conclusions convincing. I am afraid that this is rather severe criticism. Let me hasten to add that I think the strictly historical survey of the subject is very good, and I like Miss Franklin’s treatment of the political and administrative problems. I suspect that many of the difficulties which I find are inherent in the subject itself.

I am leaving the manuscript, together with a copy of this letter in Mrs. Stewart’s office.

With best wishes for a pleasant summer, I remain

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Mabel Newcomer

Note: Mabel Newcomer (B.A. Stanford, 1913; M.A. Stanford, 1914; Ph.D. Columbia, 1917) taught at Vassar 1917-1957.

_______________________________________

Seligman’s decision not to accept Franklin’s thesis draft

Lake Placid, N.Y.,
June 24th, 1922.

Miss Mabel Newcomer,
New York.

Dear Miss Newcomer:-

Many thanks for your kind and explicit letter. I have written to Miss Franklin, embodying most of your points I my letter and have asked her to try again.

I may bother you again when she presents her next, and let us hope, her final draft.

With kind regards,

Faithfully yours,
[E.R.A. Seligman, unsigned in copy]

Source: Columbia University Archives. Edwin Robert Anderson Papers. Box 36, Folder “Box 99, Seligman, Columbia 1918-1924 (A-Z)”.

Image Source: Marjorie Lorne Franklin’s senior year picture in The Mortarboard 1913, p. 195.

Categories
Columbia Computing

Columbia. Statistical Lab Equipment for Economics Faculty Request, 1948

__________________________

One detects George Stigler’s style in the justification below for the purchase of two pieces of calculating equipment for the use of economics faculty at Columbia in 1948: “…the economist requires more than a library, a pen, a desk, and possibly a crystal-ball to prosecute his studies. He requires empirical material, lots of it, and this material is often numerical.” In the same budget request we also find a list (with current costs) of mundane faculty office furniture items, classroom accessories, and a dictionary for the department administrator.

Cf. An earlier posting for the purchase of a calculator by Henry Schultz at the University of Chicago in 1928.

__________________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

January 13, 1948

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

I beg to submit the requests of the Department of Economics for fixed equipment and physical changes for the fiscal year 1948-49. The greater part of the sum asked is for non-recurring items. The total request is for $1,465, divided as follows:

1) New furniture necessitated by recent alterations in Fayerweather and Hamilton Halls

$270.00

2) Ordinary needs for 1948-49

$195.00

3) Statistical equipment for Economics Faculty

$1000.00

            Item 1) represents furniture equipment urgently needed as a result of the alterations in the two halls. The details are given on the following page. A part of this equipment has already been asked for during the present fiscal year and all of it should, if possible, be provided at once and paid for on the present budget.

Item 2) is explained on the second page following.

Item 3) represents a request for technical equipment which would be of great service in the work of members of the Department. This request is explained and justified in detail in the appended statement prepared by a Departmental committee consisting of Professor Stigler, chairman, and Professors Haig and Harriss.

Respectfully yours,
[signed] Carter Goodrich

__________________________

1) [New furniture]

Item For Cost
Book shelves A. R. Burns $30.00
Clothing tree A. R. Burns $ 5.00
Club chair R. Nurkse $75.00
Legal size filing cabinet R. Nurkse $75.00
6 straight chairs H. Taylor $30.00
Swivel chair C. L. Harriss $15.00
4 coat racks H. Taylor $20.00
Small table O. Hoeffding $20.00
[Total] $270.00

2)        Ordinary needs for 1949-49

Item For Cost
Wall map of Europe R. Nurkse $   20.00
Grid-panel blackboard in classroom W. S. Vickrey $   20.00
Dictionary G. D. Stewart $     5.00
Other needs $150.00
[Total] $195.00

 

3) Proposal of a Statistical Laboratory for Faculty in Economics

$1,000.00

  1. The need

Contrary to a widely held opinion, the economist requires more than a library, a pen, a desk, and possibly a crystal-ball to prosecute his studies. He requires empirical material, lots of it, and this material is often numerical. Statistical analysis, broadly defined, is the social scientist’s laboratory, and in principle the social scientist must spend more time in his laboratory than the natural scientist in his because the social scientist’s findings become obsolete even in the absence of improved techniques and doctrines. The statistical method is important in all branches of economics; it is noteworthy that the present proposal is energetically supported by five teachers of economic theory.

Granting the necessity for quantitative work, and noting the frequency with which such work leads to fairly extensive computations, the faculty requires access to computational equipment (and, one is tempted to say, assistance). At present this access is small and fortuitous. The available computational equipment is being used extensively by students, and it is common to be unsuccessful for several days before obtaining use of a machine. Since the department of economics has no such equipment, a protracted use of the machines (that is, more than say 6 hours a week) is properly objected to by the administrator of the laboratory, but usually this is an unattainable limit.

  1. The detailed proposal

1.  Equipment. We propose to purchase two machines:

Underwood Sundstrand, tape adding machine, Model 1014p
Marchant Calculator, Model ACT – 10M

2. Cost. The purchase price of these machines would be:

Sundstrand: $330 less 10 percent plus 6 percent = $316.80
Marchant:     $750 less 15 percent plus 6 percent = $682.50,

a total of $999.30. The annual cost of servicing the machines would be (1) nothing the first year, (2) $18 for the Sundstrand and $36 for the Marchant thereafter. In addition there would be the cost of the tapes for the Sundstrand, electricity, and space.

These machines will last, at a very conservative minimum, 10 years. Hence, the pro-rate annual cost of the laboratory would be on the order of $170 (of which $100 is depreciation), or $10 per member of the department.

  1. Administration. The machines would be most generally useful if they were placed in some small room to which the faculty had access. A much less efficient alternative would be to keep them in the departmental office when not in use.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives, Central Files 1890- (UA#001). Box 406. Folder “1.1.313 (1/4);  Goodrich, Carter; 7/1946 – 6/1948”.

Image Source: Marchant Calculator, Model ACT-10M. Smithsonian. The National Museum of American History.

Categories
Columbia Economists Exam Questions History of Economics

Columbia. Classical Economics Exam by J.M. Clark. 1951

John Maurice Clark

John Maurice Clark taught a history of economic theory sequence at Columbia University that had its origins in a similar course that had been taught earlier by Wesley Clair Mitchell. On the back of Clark’s examination questions for the first session of the 1950-51 academic year one finds a list of names and grades that we can strongly presume constitute the grade distribution for the course. 43 students were listed by John Maurice Clark in his handwritten grade sheet for the first semester of formative types of economic theory, of whom 26 received grades (3.12 average on a 4 point scale, median 3.17). Mark Blaug, whose magnum opus Economic Theory in Retrospect has served as a staple of the analytic narrative of the evolution of economics, received only a grade of B- (2.67) which put him tied with two other students at rank 21. A few years later Blaug was to find his mentor and dissertation adviser, George Stigler.

The later Congressional Research Service economist John P. Hardt (Columbia Ph.D., 1954) was  on the list but not awarded a grade for the course.

Oops it happens every so often, I have repeated myself. The original posting along with another year’s examination can be found here.

_____________________

Course Announcement

Economics 115-116 — Formative types of economic theory.
3 points each session. Professor Clark.
M. W. 12. 313 Fayerweather.

Readings and critical discussion of outstanding examples of the parent stock of classical economics with some regard to historical setting, and of subsequent outstanding contributions.

Source: Columbia University. Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1950-51, p. 46.

_______________________________

Course Description

Economics 115-116—Formative types of economic theory. 3 points each session. Professor Clark.

M.W. 12.         313 Fayerweather.

Readings and critical discussion of outstanding examples of the parent stock of classical economics, with some regard to historical setting, and of subsequent outstanding contributions.

Source:   Columbia University. Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1950-51, p. 46.

_______________________________

Take-Home Examination Questions

Economics 115
Final Examination
January, 1951

Answer any two questions, taking about the time for the actual writing that a regular examination would take. Those who do the work during Christmas holidays will please return papers January 8; others Friday, January 26, unless otherwise specified.

  1. Do the views of ancient writers (Hebrew, Greek or Roman) afford the same kind of evidence as the writings of modern economists as to economic conditions and practices of their time?
  2. Discuss extent of applicability of medieval doctrine on price; variations or relaxations; and how far the doctrine was effective in practice.
  3. Explain and appraise Quesnay’s “Tableau Économique”.
  4. State key doctrines of the Physiocrats and indicate how they could be regarded as adaptations to an historical situation.
  5. Compare views of Smith and Ricardo on the relation of labor to value.
  6. Compare treatment of rent in Smith, Malthus and Ricardo.
  7. On what grounds did Adam Smith sanction departures from laissez-faire?
  8. Topic: dominant conceptions of what economic activity is for. Compare the dominant conception (or at most a few dominant conceptions) of as many of the following as you feel you can reasonably cover: typical Mercantilists, Physiocrats, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill.
  9. What does Bentham’s theory contribute to the basic rationale of economics, aside from his ideas on economic matters themselves? (Book V of J. S. Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy” might contain hints.)
  10. State doctrines of Ricardo which had roots in historical conditions of the time, and indicate the connection.
  11. Compare Ricardo’s treatment of value with either Adam Smith’s or John Stuart Mill’s.
  12. What were the sources of J. S. Mill’s departure from strict Ricardianism?

_______________________________

Probable Grade Distribution

Letter Grade

 Number of students
A

2

A to A-

 1
A-

5

B+

 5
B

6

B to B-

 1
B-

2

C+

 1
C

3

Note:  Mark Blaug received the B to B- grade.

Source: Columbia University Archives. John M. Clark Papers. Box 24 (Courses Misc.), Unlabeled Folder.

Image Source: Portrait of John Maurice Clark from the collection of portraits of economists presented in 1997 as a gift to the Department of Economics of Duke University by Professor Warren J. Samuels of Michigan State University. Free use of these portraits in Web documents, and for other educational purposes, is encouraged: users are requested to acknowledge that the images come from The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Germany

Columbia. Political Economy Courses Compared to Courses at the University of Berlin, 1897

___________________

 

An excerpt from a newspaper report comparing political economy as taught in New York at Columbia University with political economy as taught in Berlin was published in the Columbia University Bulletin in 1897.  The unnamed author of the report concluded that “the primacy which Germany enjoyed a few years ago has passed away”. Compare this to a report (1884) overflowing with praise for the research “seminary” of  German universities.

___________________

In the Evening Post of October 25, 1897, will be found an interesting discussion of the value of German university degrees in comparison with similar honors in American universities. The writer, who is apparently a student in the University of Berlin, holds that the requirements for the degree of Ph. D. are higher in several American institutions than in the average German university. His points are, first, that it takes a shorter time to obtain the degree in Germany than from any of the reputable American universities; and second, that the average size and value of the dissertations of Harvard and Columbia doctors of philosophy are certainly greater than those of the German universities, with the exception, probably, of Berlin. Indeed, he concludes, “the progress of American universities has been so rapid in recent years, and the entrance requirements have been so largely increased, that the bachelor’s degree is actually approaching the German doctorate in essential worth.” A few selections from the body of the article, comparing the instruction in political science at Columbia with that given at Berlin, are of special interest.

“Further light on the question will be thrown by a comparison of the courses of lectures in American and German universities. Confining attention to the various studies in the domain of political economy and social science, we may select Berlin as the strongest representative of German Institutions.* * * * Of the American schools of political science, it is not easy to select the strongest. Columbia is usually regarded as the best equipped, although several others are but little inferior. Let us compare, then, the courses offered at Columbia and Berlin in political economy.

“At Berlin, Professor Wagner gives three courses, aggregating ten hours, that cover the field of general and theoretical economics, and practical economics, including money and banking, etc. At Columbia, almost precisely the same field is covered by Professor Mayo-Smith’s “Historical and Practical Economy,” running through three semesters and aggregating nine hours. Almost the only difference is that Professor Wagner devotes more time to agricultural economics, a subject that has as yet received little attention in American schools of political economy. In finance Professor Wagner offers a four-hour course for one semester. Professor Seligman at Columbia covers the same ground, with more discrimination, in a two-hour course running two semesters. He also offers in alternate years a two-hour course on the financial history of the United States.

“In economic or industrial history Columbia stands the comparison very well. It has an introductory course on the economic history of Europe and America conducted by Professor Seligman and Mr. Day, and an advanced course on the industrial and tariff history of the United States by Professor Seligman. The two courses aggregate the same number of hours as Professor Schmoller’s “practical political economy,” which is nothing but industrial history, and history of Prussia at that—a course valuable to the specialist, but not of great value to the average American student. Professor Meitzen also gives a course on the history of agriculture, but it concerns the early land systems of Europe and other subjects that can have no application to American conditions. The essential forms of land tenure are described at Columbia in Professor Mayo-Smith’s historical political economy.

“In the field of statistics, the subject of demography or population statistics is treated at Berlin by Professor Boeckh in a two-hour course, and at Columbia by Professor Mayo-Smith in a similar course. Economic statistics are treated by Professors Meitzen and Mayo-Smith in much the same manner, while the history, theory, and technique of statistics receives attention in both institutions.

“At Berlin, Professor Wagner reads a critique of socialism and Dr. Oldenburg gives its history. The two courses aggregate the same number of hours as Professor Clark’s course on socialism at Columbia. Professor Clark’s criticism of “scientific socialism” is at least equal to that of any German professor, and it proceeds from the Anglo-Saxon point of view. In a second semester Professor Clark deals with projects of social reform, especially those of American origin. Somewhat similar is Dr. Oldenburg’s course on Socialpolitik at Berlin, and Dr. Jastrow reads in addition a course on labor legislation.

“In social science Columbia is clearly in advance of Berlin. Sociology is scarcely recognized at the German universities, but at Berlin Dr. Simmel, privat-docent, offers a two-hour course on sociology and political psychology. This is the nearest approach to a study of the growth and structure of society that one finds at Berlin. Columbia, on the other hand, offers a course on the evolution of society and social institutions, with a review of the principal theoretical writers, and another course on sociological laws. These are both given by Professor Giddings, who also reads courses on crime and pauperism. No such practical study of these problems is made in Berlin.

“Several minor courses are offered at each university—as, for example, railway problems—and all of the professors conduct seminars for the purpose of encouraging and supervising original investigations. The only subject in which Berlin offers superior advantages is agricultural economics, while Columbia is doing much more work in both theoretical and practical social science. Two courses remain to be mentioned. One of these is a course by Dr. Jastrow at Berlin on the literature and methodology of all the political sciences, an introductory course of considerable value to freshmen, which has no parallel in any other German or American university known to the writer. But Columbia offers a course that can scarcely be duplicated in Germany, namely, the abstract theory of political economy given by Professor Clark, one of the acutest and most original thinkers of our day. It is a course that is taken by not more than a dozen or fifteen men, but they are advanced students who can appreciate such a course. Professor Clark’s power of inspiring young men to do theoretical work of high quality is evidenced by the writings of such men as the late Dr. Merriam, of Cornell, and Professor Carver, of Oberlin College. But in Germany pure theory has been neglected since the time of Hermann. Only now, as the result of an impulse proceeding from Austria, is theory regaining its place in German economic circles. Professor Dietzel and some of the other younger scholars are doing good work in this line, which is hardly comparable, however, with that of Professors Clark, Patten, etc., in the United States, and Marshall in England. German economists are making valuable contributions to economics in other ways, but the primacy which Germany enjoyed a few years ago has passed away.”

 

Source: Columbia University Bulletin, Vol. XVIII (December, 1897), pp. 67-69.

Image Source: The University of Berlin between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. Digital ID: ppmsca 00342.

 

Categories
Columbia Regulations

Columbia. Requirements for Ph.D., 1920

The following requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science were published in the Columbia University Bulletin of Information. Announcement 1920-1921 of Courses offered in History, Economics and Public Law. The date of publication of the Bulletin is January 31, 1920 which is two weeks before the Faculty officially approved the requirements proposed by the Committee on Instruction. This would suggest that in this matter the Faculty served as a rubber-stamp for its Committee on Instruction.

Of particular interest are two resolutions that follow these requirements, one that would have opened all courses to women (unless the professor in charge objected!!) and a second proposed by the economist Henry Seager to allow greater flexibility in the choice of a second foreign language. The women’s resolution was tabled (!) and the language resolution was adopted.

 

Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science
Feb. 13, 1920

Upon motion of Professor [Carlton J. H.] Hayes [Professor of History] on behalf of the Committee on Instruction, the Faculty then approved the following requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as a substitute for the requirements adopted by the Faculty at its meeting on March 28, 1919, and set forth on pages 468 to 471 of the Minutes of the Faculty:

I. Requirements

  1. General. The degree is conferred upon such students as shall satisfy the requirements as to preliminary training, residence, languages, subjects, and dissertation.
  2. Preliminary Training. The candidate must have received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University or from some other approved university or college, or have had an education equivalent to that represented by such a degree, and must have been regularly accepted as a graduate student by the University Committee on Admissions.
  3. Residence. The candidate must have pursued graduate studies for at least two academic years, one of which must have been spent at this University, and the other of which, if not spent here, at an institution accepted as offering courses of similar standard. A year’s residence at this University is defined as registration for and attendance upon courses aggregating not less that thirty tuition points distributed over a period of not less than one academic year or its equivalent.
  4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at last one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally, the language requirements for each subject are as indicated in the following paragraph.
  5. Subjects. The candidate must have familiarized himself with one subject of primary interest and at least one subject of secondary interest, chosen from the following list of subjects. Information with reference to the scope of each of these subjects and special departmental requirements may be obtained from the Executive Officer of the Department within which it belongs.

Ancient History (French, German, Latin, and Greek)
Medieval History (French, German, Latin)
Modern European History (French & German)
American History (French or Spanish or Portuguese)
Political and Social Philosophy (French, German, and Latin)
American Government (French or German)
European Governments (French and German)
Constitutional Law (French or German)
International Law (French and either German or Latin)
Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence (Latin and either French or German)
Economic Theory, History, and Statistics (French and German)
Public and Private Finance (French and German)
Social Economic Problems, including Labor, Industrial Orgnization, Trade, Transportation, etc. (French & German)
Sociology, Historical, Statistical and Political (French and German)
Social Legislation and Statistics (French and German)

  1. Dissertation. The main test of the candidate’s qualification is the production of a dissertation which shall demonstrate his capacity to contribute to the advancement of learning within the field of his selection. Such dissertation must give evidence of the candidate’s capacity to present in good literary form the results of original researches upon some approved topic. The dissertation must be printed in a form acceptable to the Faculty before the degree will be awarded.

 

II. Procedure

  1. Notice of Prospective Candidacy. As soon as possible after the beginning of his graduate residence the student shall give notice of prospective candidacy to the Executive Officer of the Department in which the subject of his primary interest lies, and in consultation with him make a choice of subjects.
  2. Languages and Written Work. As soon as possible after giving notice of prospective candidacy, the student shall submit to the Executive Officer of the Department concerned an essay or other paper giving satisfactory evidence of his ability to make researches and to express himself in correct English. At the same time the student shall be tested, by some officer of instruction designated by the Executive Officer of the Department, as to his ability to read the required languages; language tests are normally given in October and February.
  3. Examination on Subjects. Having pursued graduate studies in this University, or in some other institution approved by it, for the equivalent of at least six months after the satisfactory completion of the tests on languages and written work, the student, upon the advice of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, shall make application, through the Executive Officer of the Department concerned, to the Dean for examination in subjects. Such application may be made at any time, but to secure the examination in any given academic year the application must be made before April 15. The applicant will be notified by the Dean of the date of his examination. This examination is an oral examination, which may be supplemented by a written examination when required by the Department concerned, and is conducted by a committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the applicant will be expected to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the subjects of his primary and secondary interest and of the literature pertaining thereto.
  4. Matriculation. Upon the successful passing of the required examination in his subjects, the applicant will be recommended by the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department to the Dean for matriculation, which is admission to candidacy for the degree.
  5. Dissertation. Soon after beginning his graduate residence, the student should choose the subject of his dissertation. His investigations and researches may be pursued either in connection with the work of some research course or under the direction and supervision of some member of the Faculty independently of any course. In either case a very considerable part of the time of the candidate or prospective candidate for the degree should be devoted to work upon his dissertation. The dissertation may be completed either during the period of residence, or in absentia. In advance of its being printed for presentation to the Faculty it must be approved by the professor in charge and accepted by the Executive Officer of the Department concerned. Such acceptance, however, is not to be construed as acceptance by the Faculty.
  6. Final Examination: Defense of the Dissertation. At least one month in advance of the time at which he wishes to present himself for the defense of his dissertation, but not later than March 15 in any academic year, the candidate must make application therefor to the Dean, who will thereafter notify him of the date of the final examination. This examination is an oral examination conducted by a Committee of the Faculty appointed by the Dean. By it the candidate will be held to a defense of his dissertation in respect of its content, the sources upon which it is based, the interpretations that are made, the conclusions that are drawn, as well as in respect of the candidate’s acquainted with the literature and available sources of information upon subjects that are cognate to the subject of his dissertation.

 

On behalf of the Committee on Instruction, Professor Hayes then presented the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That all courses offered under the Faculty of Political Science, except those in which the Professor in charge objects, be open to women graduates.

            Upon motion the Faculty voted to lay this resolution on the table.

 

On behalf of the Committee on Instruction, Professor [Henry Rogers] Seager [Professor of Political Economy] then moved the following resolution, which was adopted:

RESOLVED: That the foreign language requirement prescribed as “normal” in the Faculty regulations governing the award of the doctorate may be modified: either by the substitution of another language for a prescribed language, with the approval of the Department concerned; or by the omission of a prescribed language, with the approval of the Committee on Instruction on the recommendation of the Executive Officer of the Department concerned; provided that one European language other than English shall be required.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939. Minutes of February 13, 1920, pp.488-493.

 

Image Source: New York Public Library Digital Collections, Image ID 68250.

 

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Economists Fields

Columbia. Paul Douglas petitions to allow sociology courses for his second minor. 1916

The minutes of this meeting of the Columbia Faculty of Political Science’s Committee on Instruction caught my eye because of Paul Douglas‘ petition to substitute  a pair of sociology courses offered by Professor Franklin Giddings for a couple of intellectual history courses that would satisfy the distribution requirements for the second minor.

It appears that Douglas thus managed to have his major and both minors all in Group III (i.e., political economy and finance; sociology and statistics; social economy).

 

_____________________________________

Minutes of Committee on Instruction, February 21, 1916

A meeting of the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty of Political Science was held in Professor Seligman’s office on Monday, February 21, 1916.

Present: Professors Seligman, Giddings, Dunning, Shotwell and Dean Woodbridge.

The Chairman presented the following petitions, which were approved and referred by the Committee to the Dean for further action:

Petition from Miss Dorothy Stimson to divide her second minor for the doctor’s degree between Public Law and Politics.

Petition from Mr. Paul H. Douglas to offer Sociology 257 and 258, under the heading History of Thought and Culture, as a second minor for the Ph.D.

A statement from Mrs. H. L. Hollingworth, submitting the courses which she is offering for the Ph. D. Degree in Sociology, as follows:

Sociology 251-252 (2 full courses) Taken in 1912-13.
Psychology 263 (1 full course)        Taken in 1912-13.
(Social Psychology)
Educational Sociology 107-8 (2 half courses) Taken in 1912-13.
Sociology 257 (1 full course)           Taken in 1913-14
Sociology E1 43-4 (24 courses)       Taken in 1915-16
One more full course in Sociology to be taken next semester.

The statement was accepted as satisfactory.

A petition of Mr. Ahmed Shukri to substitute Arabic in place of Latin was granted.

The Chairman read the letter from the Secretary of the Faculty concerning the routine to be followed in the reporting of changes of courses vt [sic] students. After consider[ation] of the matter, it was decided that only those cases which involve changes of subjects, with their regular combinations, should be reported to the Faculty, and that they should be reported by the Dean, not by the Committee, the Committee in every case referring the petition to the Dean.

The Committee then took up the changes in courses for the following year as attached:

[…]

            The change in Economics is as follows:

PROFESSOR MITCHELL

Course on “Types” changed from one-term to two-term course.
Course on “Crises” withdrawn

[…]

Source: Columbia University Archives. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1, Folder “Committee on Instruction”.

 

_____________________________________

 

Catalogue Listings of Sociology Courses Petitioned by Paul Douglas

Sociology 257—The Evolution of Progressive Society. Professor Giddings.

Full or half course. F. at 2.10 and 3.10 515 K.

Factors of social evolution in Western Europe. Elements of progressive society; English civilization as example of evolution of progressive society; its ethnic elements; economic factors; folk thought, folk ways and mores; early family and tribal organization; development of a people with distinctive habits and characteristics.

(Identical with History 257.)
Given in 1915-16 and in alternate years thereafter.

 

Sociology 258—The Evolution of Progressive Society. Professor Giddings.

Full or half course. F. at 2.10 and 3.10 515 K.

Achievement of civil liberty in combination with social order; rise of industrial democracy; problems of social justice; individualism; collective responsibility for human progress.

(Identical with History 258.)
Given in 1915-16 and in alternate years thereafter.

Source:   Columbia University. Bulletin of Information (July 3, 1915). History, Economics, and Public Law: Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science, 1915-16, p. 36.

 

_____________________________________

 

From the 1915-16 Regulations for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Doctor of Philosophy. — Each student who declares himself a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall designate one principal or major subject and two subordinate or minor subjects. Candidates are expected to devote about one-half of their time throughout their course of study to the major subject, and about one-quarter to each minor subject. Except by vote of the Executive Committee of the University Council, upon the recommendation of the Dean and the head of the department concerned, no candidate may choose his major and both minor subjects under one department. Major and minor subjects may not be changed except by permission of the Dean, on the approval of the head of the departments concerned. Both the professor in charge of the major subject and the Dean must pass upon the student’s qualifications for the course of study he desires to pursue, and approve his choice of subjects before registration can be effected. The subjects from which the candidate’s selection must be made are:

Under the Faculty of Political Science

Group I. — History and political philosophy: (1) Ancient and oriental history; (2) medieval history and church history; (3) modern European history from the opening of the 16th century; (4) American history; (5) history of thought and culture.

Group II. — Politics, public law and comparative jurisprudence: (1) Politics; (2) Constitutional Law and Administrative Law; (3) International Law; (4) Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence.

Group III. — Economics and social science: (1) Political economy and finance; (2) sociology and statistics; (3) social economy.

            A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy whose major subject lies within the jurisdiction of this Faculty must select one minor subject outside of the group which includes his major subject, and one minor subject within the group which includes his major subject. He must take, in his major subject, courses occupying at least four hours weekly during each required year of residence (provided that this number of hours be offered in the subject), and must also attend a Seminar during the period of residence. In each minor subject he must take courses occupying at least two hours weekly during each required year of residence.

Source: Columbia University, Catalogue, 1915-16, pp. 214-5.

Image Source: Paul H. Douglas’ college yearbook entry. The Bowdoin Bugle (1913).

Categories
Columbia Economic History Economists Yale

Columbia Economics Ph.D. alumnus. John M. Montias, 1958

The history of economics would be duller fare should we fail to add a portion of ancestor worship as seasoning. Since my motto is “Economists are not born but they are made” and that for well over a century economists have been made in graduate schools, I would be remiss in not using Economics in the Rear-View Mirror to erect shrines from time to time to those economists who trained me.

During the academic year 1973-74 while an undergraduate at Yale, I took a graduate course taught by John Michael Montias on comparative economic systems.  Having been born in Paris, he volunteered out of interest in the topic to be the second reader of my senior essay about French mercantilism and the Physiocrats. I recall him as a thoughtful scholar and a kind man. He was one of four professors (the others were Raymond Powell, Abram Bergson and Evsey Domar) who in different courses valiantly tried to teach me the lessons of Richard H. Moorsteen’s article “On Measuring Productive Potential and Relative Efficiency” Quarterly Journal of Economics (1961) 75 (3): 451-467. The teaching efforts of Montias et al. did ignite in me a long professional interest in the economic theory of index numbers though I do not recall them exactly cracking the code in class for us. Montias’ own ambition was less on the bean-counting side of empirical comparative economics as on the theoretical side in pursuit of a formal systematization of a “macro”-institutional economics. We began his course by reading his essay co-authored with Tjalling Koopmans published in Comparison of Economic Systems: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches, Alexander Eckstein (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. I believe we can all agree that economic outcomes depend jointly on the economic environment, economic system and economic policies within the system. I also believe that the last sentence reads no better when expressed in mathematical notation. 

John Michael Montias’ greatest hits in economics were to appear after I had moved on. He had a passion for Dutch and Flemish art that led to seminal contributions in the history of 17th century Dutch art markets. Tulip bubbles are cool, but I’d say Vermeer is hot.

P.S.  Fun Fact: The U.S. Embassy official in Hungary who had to deal with Montias’ expulsion from Hungary in the early 1960’s, Edward Alexander, was in charge of the Press and Culture department of the U.S. Embassy in East Berlin during my  seven month IREX stay in 1978. There I fell in love and became engaged to an economist at the Central Institute of Economics in the GDR Academy of Sciences. Until my East German fiancée (Kerstin Rüdiger) was allowed to leave East Germany at the end of 1979 (and perhaps afterwards too), Edward Alexander had to deal with any diplomatic fall-out from our case.

_____________________________

 

From the 1989 Survey of AEA Members

Montias, John M.

Fields: 050, 110
Birth Yr: 1928
Degrees: B.A., Columbia U., 1947; M.A., Columbia U., 1950; Ph.D., Columbia U., 1958
Prin. Cur. Position: Prof. of Econs. Yale U., 1964
Concurrent/Past Positions: Assoc. Prof., Yale U., 1963-64; Asst. Prof., Yale U., 1958-63.
Research:  Economic systems

Source: American Economic Association. Biographical Listing of Members, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, No. 6, (Dec. 1989) p. 334.

_____________________________

New York Times obituary

John Montias, 76, Scholar of Economics and of Art, Is Dead
By KATHRYN SHATTUCKAUG. 1, 2005

John Michael Montias, an economist who became one of the foremost scholars on the painter Johannes Vermeer and a pioneer in the economics of art, died on Tuesday at a hospice in Branford, Conn. He was 76 and lived in New Haven.

The cause was complications from melanoma, said his son, John-Luke Montias.

Part of the Annales school of economists and historians, Mr. Montias was among those who, in the early and mid-20th century, promoted a new form of history by replacing the examination of major leaders and events with the microstudy of ordinary people and occurrences.

Through the scrupulous analysis of common documents ranging from notes and letters to receipts and legal papers, Mr. Montias peeled back the layers in the life of Vermeer, one of his favorite artists — and one of the world’s most enigmatic. His work opened the door for a new genre of art history in which artists were analyzed in the context of their societal and economic surroundings and not merely their works.

“I think he was important for all of us,” said Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, the John Langeloth Loeb professor emeritus at New York University’s Institute of Fine Arts. “When he started this in the 1960’s and 70’s, there was no one who approached the history of art from that point of view. His work was pioneering — accurate, extremely convincing, with many novel insights. What was not considered to be relevant to the work of art in the past, we all have subsequently used.”

Mr. Montias’s research was a primary source for Tracy Chevalier’s 2000 novel “Girl With a Pearl Earring,” about Vermeer’s relationship with the model for his iconic work, and for the 2003 film adaptation.

Mr. Montias began teaching at Yale University in the late 50’s, where he specialized in the economic systems of the Soviet bloc during the 1960’s and 70’s and served as a consultant to high-ranking government officials. His analysis of the economies of Eastern European countries at times drew suspicion, perhaps never more so than during his visits to Czechoslovakia and Hungary from 1963 to 1965; he was shadowed and eventually expelled from Hungary on suspicion of espionage. But if his work was economics, his passion was art, particularly that of the 16th- and 17th-century Netherlands.

“I came to Vermeer ‘sideways,”‘ he said in a 2003 interview for the Essential Vermeer Web site (www.essentialvermeer.20m.com), explaining the genesis of his second career. Having won a summer grant in 1975 to write a comparative study of Dutch art guilds, he traveled to Delft, where he discovered that no in-depth study of a guild existed.

“In the course of this research, I realized that, contrary to my expectations, previous scholarship on Vermeer’s life had not exhausted the subject,” he said.

And so began his quest to uncover the life of one of the world’s most mysterious artists, with Mr. Montias unearthing and poring over 454 documents related to Vermeer and his family that lay, long undisturbed, in the archives of no fewer than 17 Dutch and Belgian cities.

In 1989 he published “Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History” (Princeton University Press), in which he revealed secrets of Vermeer’s life: that Vermeer’s grandfather was a convicted counterfeiter; that his grandmother ran illegal lotteries; and that the artist himself fathered 13 children and died at the age of 43, destitute.

Reviewing the book in The New York Times, the art critic John Russell wrote that Mr. Montias had previously “proved that there is a great deal more to art history than shuffling slides in a library.”

“His new book does not crack the code of Vermeer’s personality, let alone the code of his inner experience,” the review continued. “But as detective work, and as a portrait of an era, it ranks high.”

In fact, Mr. Montias’s midlife obsession had adolescent roots. Born on Oct. 3, 1928, in Paris, he was sent in 1940, alone and by ship, by his Jewish parents to the safety of the United States — and an Episcopalian baptism — just as the Germans were preparing to invade France. He boarded at the Nichols School in Buffalo, where as a 14-year-old volunteer in the small library of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, he came across Wilhelm Bode’s gilt-edged folio volume of Rembrandt and was immediately captivated.

Mr. Montias’s curiosity resurfaced in 1954 when, as a Ph.D. candidate in the economics department at Columbia University, he considered writing his dissertation on the prices of Dutch paintings at auction. He failed to get financial support for his project, perhaps thought frivolous during the cold war.

Things changed when Mr. Montias met Mr. Begemann in the mid-1960’s, when they were both at Yale. A specialist in Dutch and Flemish art, Mr. Begemann gave Mr. Montias his first lessons in connoisseurship, and soon after he began to study the genre’s history methodically. His first project in the field — the 1975 summer grant — required Mr. Montias, already a gifted linguist, not only to learn modern Dutch but also to read 17th-century manuscript sources in old Gothic script.

“He decided to attack the archives in Delft, knowing that they had been scoured for information on Vermeer,” recalled Otto Naumann, a Manhattan art dealer who studied under Mr. Montias. “With the confidence that only a true genius can posses, he decided that he could do better, without first learning Dutch.”

It took Mr. Montias one week to find an unpublished document that mentioned Vermeer and but another to decipher it, Mr. Naumann said.

Mr. Montias published three more books about the 17th-century Dutch art market: “Artists, Dealers, Consumers: On the Social World of Art” (Hilversum: Verloren, 1994); “Public and Private Spaces: Works of Art in 17th-Century Dutch Houses” (Zwolle, 2000), with John Loughman; and “Art at Auction in 17th-Century Amsterdam” (Amsterdam University Press, 2003).

In addition to his son, of Manhattan, he is survived by his wife, Marie, of New Haven, and his mother, Giselle de la Maisoneuve, of Paris.

____________________________

Yale Bulletin & Calendar obituary

Yale Bulletin & Calendar. September 2, 2005. Vol. 34, Number 2.

John-Michael Montias, economist and expert on Vermeer

John-Michael Montias, one of the world’s foremost scholars on the life of 17th-century Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer and professor emeritus of economics at Yale, died July 26 of complications from melanoma. He was 76.

Montias, who joined the Yale faculty in the late 1950s, was a specialist in the economic systems of the Soviet bloc. He researched the economies of many Eastern European countries during the 1960s and 1970s. During the Cold War, he served as a consultant to some of the highest officials of the U.S. government. His publications from that period include “Central Planning in Poland” and “The Structure of Economic Systems,” both published by the Yale University Press.

Although his academic work was in the field of economics, Montias’ passion was art, specifically 16th- and 17th-century Dutch painting. While on a fellowship at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Social Studies in 1978, he combined the two interests by writing a comparative study of Dutch art guilds during the 16th century, poring over 16th- and 17th-century archival records in the process of teaching himself gothic Dutch. The result was his 1982 book “Artists and Artisans in Delft, a Study of the 17th Century.”

During the course of his research, Montias was surprised to learn that the scholarship on one of his favorite artists, Vermeer, was far from exhausted. He began a quest to uncover the life of the artist, considered one of the most enigmatic and mysterious. In 1989 he published the critically acclaimed “Vermeer and His Milieu: A Web of Social History.” In this book, Montias traced the artist’s life through notary records, discovering that Vermeer’s grandfather was a convicted counterfeiter; that his grandmother ran illegal lotteries; and that the artist himself fathered 13 children and died at the age of 43, completely destitute. Today, it is estimated that there are only about 35 Vermeer paintings still in existence, and the most recent work sold at auction was purchased for $26 million in London last July.

Montias published three more books about the 17th-century Dutch art market: “Artists, Dealers and Consumers: The World of Social Art” (1994), “Public and Private Spaces: Works of Art in 17th-Century Dutch Houses” (2000) and “Art at Auction in 17th-Century Amsterdam” (2002).

Born Oct. 3, 1928 in Paris, France, Montias came to the United States when he was 12. At 16 he matriculated as an undergraduate at Columbia University. After serving in the Army during the Korean War, he returned to Columbia, earning both his M.A. and Ph.D. in economics. He was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1961.

Montias is survived by his wife, Marie, of New Haven; his mother, Giselle de la Maisoneuve, of Paris, France; and his son John-Luke, and his fiancé, Samantha, both of New York City.

The Yale economist was buried in Grove Street Cemetery.

 

Image Source: Montias as Guggenheim Fellow (1961) John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Detail from “Montias at the launching party at Amsterdam University Press of his book Art at auction in 17th-century Amsterdam, 10 September 2002 (Photo: Gary Schwartz)“

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Stanford Syllabus

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus Simon James McLean, 1897

It all began as a humble search for a single mosaic tile — where did Simon James McLean study before going to the University of Chicago and becoming one of its first four Ph.D.’s in Political Economy? Before getting an answer to that question, I uncovered many other details of a life begun in Brooklyn (1871) with first academic degrees from the University of Toronto (A.B., 1894; LL.B., 1895), then A.M. at Columbia (1896) and finally Ph.D. from the University of Chicago (1897).

After getting the Ph.D. McLean’s career literally went south, namely to the University of Arkansas (1897-1902), then west to Stanford (1902-05), and then back north to the University of Toronto (1906) at the age of 35.

From the University of Chicago’s registers of its Ph.D’s. for the years 1921, 1931, and 1938 I discovered that McLean morphed from a leading academic light regarding the economics of railroad regulation into a policy mover-and-shaker on the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada (1908-1938). The man covered a lot of territory in his life.

But wait, there’s more. While on McLean’s trail through Fayetteville, Arkansas, I came across the course descriptions at the University of Arkansas for economics and sociology that included his textbook choices. Since there is no indication of anyone else offering any of these courses, it would appear the young professor had a teaching load for each semester of 14 hours per week. I think it is reasonable to assume that his choices of topics and texts represent an average of his own earlier coursework at Columbia and Chicago. I have added links to all the texts given in the course descriptions.

 

Sources:

Theses of the University of Chicago, Doctors of Philosophy. June 1893—December 1921. Chicago: Harper Memorial Library, University of Chicago.

University of Chicago Announcements, Register Number, Doctors of Philosophy. June, 1893—April, 1931. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 122-127.

University of Chicago Announcements, Register of Doctors of Philosophy. Jan, 1893—April, 1938. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 139-144.

______________________________

 

McLean, Simon James.
University of Chicago thesis (1897):
The railway policy of Canada.

McLean’s Ph.D. thesis does appear to have been published as such. However, he did write a series of articles for the Journal of Political Economy that together account for much of his dissertation work.

An early chapter in Canadian railroad policy. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 6 (June 1898), 323-352.
Canadian railways and the bonding question. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 7 (September 1899), pp. 500-542.
The railway policy of Canada, 1849 to 1867: I. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 9 (March 1901), pp.
The railway policy of Canada, 1849 to 1867: II. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 9 (June 1901), pp. 351-383.

______________________________

 

Arkansas University.—Dr. Simon James McLean has been appointed Professor of History and Political Economy at the University of Arkansas. He was born at Brooklyn, N.Y., June 14, 1871. After passing through the public schools of Quebec and Cumberland, Canada, and the Ontario Collegiate Institute of Ottawa, he entered the Toronto University. Here he obtained the degree of A.B. in 1894 and that of LL.B. in 1895. He then pursued further graduate studies at Columbia, receiving his A.M. in 1896, and at Chicago, where, in 1897, he obtained the degree of Ph.D. In the same year he was appointed Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Arkansas. Professor McLean has published:

“Tariff History of Canada.” University of Toronto Studies, 1895. Pp.53.
“The University Settlement Movement.” Canadian Magazine, March, 1897,
“Early Railway History of Canada.” Ibid., March, 1899.
“Early Canadian Railway Policy.” Journal of Political Economy, June, 1898.
“Canadian Railways and the Bonding Question.” Ibid., September, 1899.

 

Source: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 14 (September 1899) p. 64 [page 220 in printed volume].

______________________________

 

Course offerings in economics and sociology at the University of Arkansas
1899-1900

ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY.
S. J. McLean, Professor.

 

The courses offered in this department are designed to afford such instruction as will be advantageous to those who intend to enter public life, or those callings which will bring them closely in touch with the activities of citizenship. Course 1 is required before more advanced courses in this department are taken.

  1. Principles of Economics (both terms)……….2

Recitations, prescribed readings, reports and debates. Text-book: Walker, Political Economy [3rd edition, 1888 ].

  1. Industrial History of America and Europe since 1763 (first term)……….3

The leading industrial facts of this period are considered, including panics and trusts. A detailed study of some of the more important industries will also be made. Lectures, reports, and prescribed readings. Selected portions of Rand’s Economic History [Selections Illustrating Economic History since the Seven Years’ War 3rd ed., 1895]will be studied.

  1. Banking (first part of second term)……….3

The principles of Banking and the history of Banking Systems. [Chapters on the theory and history of banking. 1st ed., New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891. ] Lectures, recitations, reports, and readings. Text-book: Dunbar, Chapters in the Theory and History of Banking.

  1. Money (latter part of second term)……….3

The principles of Money and the history of Monetary Systems are considered. [From 1898-99 Catalogue: “Text-books: Walker and Jevons” [Francis A. Walker, Money (1878). William Stanley Jevons, Money and the mechanism of exchange (1875).]

  1. Tariff History and Problems (first term)……….2

United States, England, France and Germany. Special attention will be devoted to the tariff history of the United States. Text-book: Taussig, Tariff History of the United States. [1888] This will be supplemented by lectures and use of government documents.

  1. History of Economic Thought, from Plato and Aristotle to the Present (second term) ……….2

Text-book: Ingram’s History of Political Economy [1887]; supplementary readings and reports will also be required.

  1. Public Finance (first term)……….3

Principles and history of taxation, management of public debts, consideration of governmental activities, etc. Text-book: Plehn, Introduction to Public Finance [1896]. Lectures, readings and use of government documents.

  1. Transportation. Its History and Problems (second term)……….3

The economic aspects of water transportation, the great lakes, canal systems, and the Mississippi; the evolution of the railroad system, railroad geography, state versus private ownership, methods of government control, railroad finances, etc. Lectures, prescribed readings, and use of original material. Text-book: Hadley, Railroad Transportation. [1885]

  1. Principles of Sociology (first term)……….2

This course considers the elements and conditions of social growth and progress. Recitations, lectures and reading of assigned chapters in Spencer’s Principles of Sociology [Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3.] and in Gidding’s Principles of Sociology [1896]. Text-book: Fairbanks’s Introduction to Sociology [1896].

  1. Problems of Social Growth (second term)……….2

Trade-unionism, arbitration and conciliation, socialism, communism, co-operation and profit-sharing. Lectures and reports. For reference: Ely, The Labor Movement in America [1886], and Ely, French and German Socialism [1883].

  1. Commerce (first term)……….2

Theory of foreign commerce; investigation of the commercial resources of the leading countries of the present. Students will be expected to acquaint themselves with the United States Consular Reports. Text-book: Chisholm, Smaller Commercial Geography [1897 Handbook of Commercial Geography.].

  1. Labor Legislation (second term)……….2

History and critical investigation of the attitude of the State towards Labor; apprenticeship laws, combination laws, trade union recognition, factory legislation, etc. For reference, Stimson, Handbook to the Labor Law of the United States. [1896]

 

Source: Catalogue of the University of Arkansas, 1899-1900. Fayetteville, Ark., pp. 77-79.

______________________________

PROF. M’LEAN [sic] RESIGNS
HEAD OF ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT TO GO TO TORONTO.

Will Leave Stanford in January to Take Professsorship in Economics of Commerce and Transportation.

Professor Simon James McLean, present head of the Department of Economics, has tendered his resignation and will leave Stanford at the end of the present semester. He goes to accept the professorship of economics of commerce and transportation at the University of Toronto in Canada. Professor McLean has been contemplating this step for some time, as, aside from the fact that the work at Toronto will be along lines offering him better opportunities for advancement, the call from his alma mater was one which he felt he could not refuse. Dr. Jordan has accepted Professor McLean’s resignation and in his letter accepting it speaks as follows: “We recognize your ripe scholarship, your high ideals in education, your calmness of judgment, and your possession of those traits of character and thought which mark the gentleman among other men. As a teacher in a line of work so much afflicted by hasty judgment, by sensationalism and emotionalism, you have always held the attitude of a careful and patient investigator, one of the most solid and accurate within the range of my acquaintance.” It is still too early for any definite statement regarding the filling of Professor McLean’s place in the Department of Economics, as he will continue in charge of his classes until the twenty-second of December. Professor McLean came to Stanford in 1902 from the University of Arkansas, where he was professor of economics and sociology. He took his A. B. at the University of Toronto in 1884 and his degree of LL.B. in 1895 from the same university. The degrees A. M. from Columbia and Ph.D. from Chicago came in 1896 and 1897. Professor McLean is a recognized authority on the subject of railway rates, and has been a member of several special commissions appointed by the government to investigate conditions along this line.

 

Source: The Stanford Daily, Vol. XXVII, Issue 66, November 28, 1905.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia Economic History Economists

Columbia. Ph.D. Alumnus Isaac Aaronovitch Hourwich, 1893

Some Ph.D.’s in economics go on to contribute to the development of the science, others go on to contribute to the commonwealth outside the ivory tower and others leave you wondering what were they thinking when they decided to write a dissertation anyway. Most of my interest is in the first group but sometimes the lives led by the other two groups are just too interesting to merely mention the title and date of their dissertation without further notice.

Today’s post is dedicated to Columbia Ph.D. alumnus, Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich, whose dissertation was among the first ten economics doctoral dissertations accepted by the Columbia School of Political Science. I decided to look him up after seeing him listed as a Docent in Statistics for the Department of Political Economy at the University of Chicago in 1893/94.

Fun Fact: Isaac’s sister, Jhenya Hourwich, translated Marx’s Das Kapital into Russian, and he later translated Das Kapital into Yiddish in 1919.

__________________________________

The Dissertation

Hourwich, Isaac Aaronovich. The economics of the Russian village. Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation published in Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. Volume II, 1892-1893.

__________________________________

 

Teaching at the University of Chicago

 

Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D., Docent in Statistics.

Graduate, Classical Gymnasium, Minsk, Russia, 1877; Candidate of Jursprucence (Master of Law), Demidoff Juridical Lyceum, Yaroslavl, 1887; Member of the Bar, Court of Appeals of Wilno, Russia, 1887-90; Seligman Fellow, Columbia College, 1891-2; Ph.D., ibid., 1893.

Source: University of Chicago. Annual Register July, 1893—July, 1894. Chicago: 1894, p. 18.

 

__________________________________

 

The following biographical note comes from the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, Center for Jewish History, Guide to the Papers of Isaac A. Hourwich (1860-1924).

Isaac A. Hourwich was born April 27, 1860 in Vilna to a middle-class maskilic family. His father, who worked in a bank and knew several European languages, made sure to give his two children a modern secular education. Hourwich graduated in 1877 from the classical gymnasium at Minsk, and later studied medicine and mathematics. As a student, he became interested in nihilistic propaganda. His activities with a revolutionary Socialist circle in St. Petersburg led to his arrest and imprisonment in 1879 on the charges of hostility to the government and of aiding to establish a secret press. He was sent to Siberia as a “dangerous character,” from 1881-1886. While in prison, he studied the settlement of Russian peasants in Siberia, and wrote a book in Russian, The Peasant Immigration to Siberia, which was published in 1888. After his release, he studied law at the Imperial University in St. Petersburg. He earned his legal degree from Demidoff Lyceum of Jurisprudence in Yaroslavl, Russia and was admitted to the Russian bar in 1887. He then practiced law in Minsk and continued his involvement in radical political movements. He helped to found the first secret Socialist circles among the Jewish workers in tsarist Russia, along with his wife Yelena (Kushelevsky) Hourwich and his sister Jhenya Hourwich, who later translated Marx’s Das Kapital into Russian.

In 1890, Hourwich fled Russia, leaving behind his first wife Yelena (Kushelevsky) Hourwich and four children, Nicholas Hourwich (1882-1934), who was later involved in the founding of the Communist Party, Maria (Hourwich) Kravitz (1883-), Rosa Hourwich (ca.1884-), and Vera (Hourwich) Semmens (1890-1976), although Hourwich’s parents continued to support his family. He first went to Paris but he had to leave there as well, at which point he immigrated to the United States. He divorced his first wife and married again, to Louise Elizabeth “Lisa” (Joffe) Hourwich (1866-1947). Lisa Hourwich had taught school in Russia, and, after immigrating to the United States with her family, attended law school, eventually passing the Illinois bar, although she never practiced as a lawyer. They had five children, Iskander “Sasha” Hourwich (1895-1968), Rebecca Hourwich Reyher (1897-1987), who was a prominent suffragist, Olga “Dicky” Hourwich (1902-1977), George Kennan Hourwich (1904-1978), and Ena (Hourwich) Kunzer (1906-1989).

In New York, Hourwich joined the Russian Workers Society for Self-Education, later the Russian Social Democratic Society, which was made up mostly of Jewish immigrants from Minsk. The Society helped to finance the Group for Liberation of Labor (1883-1903), which Georgi Plekhanov, Pavel Axelrod and Lev Deutsch formed in Geneva, Switzerland for the dissemination of Marxist ideas in Russian. From 1891-1892 he was a fellow at Columbia University where he earned a Ph.D. in economics in 1893. His thesis was published under the title The Economics of the Russian Village and a Russian translation was published in Moscow in 1896. He then taught statistics at the University of Chicago from 1892-1893, after which he returned to New York City, where he practiced law while also contributing to Marxist legal magazines in Russia. In 1897-1898, after the creation of the Social Democratic Party by Eugene V. Debs, Hourwich founded the first party branch in New York City with Meyer London. He also edited a Russian Socialist newspaper, Progress, from 1901-1904.

Hourwich moved to Washington, D.C. in 1900, where he worked for the United States government for several years, first as a translator at the Bureau of the Mint in 1900-1902, then at the Census Bureau in 1902-1906 and in 1909-1913 as a statistician and expert on mining. He was a statistician for the New York Public Service Commission, 1908-1909. During this period he developed his knowledge of American politics and economics which he used in his writings in the English and Yiddish press. He briefly wrote for the Forward after it began publication in 1897, even though he did not then know much Yiddish and had to learn it as he went along. For his articles in the Forward and other Yiddish periodicals he used the pseudonyms “Marxist” and “Yitzhok Isaac ben Arye Tzvi Halevi” so as not to bring attention to the fact that a government employee was writing for radical newspapers. His articles about American politics and economic institutions, particularly for the Tog (Day), were important in popularizing Socialism and were often the main source for explaining American economics and politics to a Yiddish-speaking audience in the United States. In addition to various essays in the Yiddish press, Hourwich published: “The Persecutions of the Jews,” in The Forum in August 1901, “Russian Dissenters,” in The Arena in May 1903 and “Religious Sects in Russia,” in The International Quarterly in October 1903, to name only a few.

In the wake of the October 1905 revolution, Tsar Nicholas II declared amnesty for political prisoners and Hourwich took advantage of this to return to Russia where he ran for a seat in the second Duma in Minsk in 1906. He was the nominee of a new Democratic People’s Party. The Jewish Socialist parties resented his intrusion and his non-Socialist campaign, particularly the Bund, which was running its own candidate. He was elected and would most likely have gained the seat in the Duma but the senate in St. Petersburg annulled his election and his name was taken off the final list of candidates. When the Duma was dissolved in June 1907 Hourwich returned to the United States and his government job. He also continued to write for various English magazines. Hourwich was an expert on immigration, and his book Immigration and Labor was published in 1912. In this work, he defends unrestricted immigration by arguing that the influx of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe was beneficial to the American economy. This argument was based upon economic figures and was the first defense of open immigration based on economic, rather than humanitarian, reasons.

Hourwich was active in the garment workers union at the time the agreement known as the “Protocol of Peace” was in effect. Engineered by Louis D. Brandeis following the cloakmakers’ strike of 1910, the Protocol was a system for resolving conflicts between workers and manufacturers in the garment industry without resorting to arbitration. This system was proving difficult to implement when Hourwich was appointed Chief Clerk of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union in early 1913. He was in favor of reforming the Protocol, including a change from conciliation to arbitration, exactly what Brandeis had been against when drafting the Protocol. Hourwich’s position earned him the enmity of other union leaders, of his old friend, Meyer London, and also of Brandeis, who had represented the garment employers in Boston against the union during the 1910 strike. In addition, the heads of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, Abraham Rosenberg and John Dyche, vehemently opposed Hourwich for asserting the power of the local union against its parent organization and were concerned that his actions would lead to another strike. The officers of the ILGWU tried unsuccessfully to force Hourwich out, although the majority of garment workers supported him for his populist views, despite his lack of trade union experience.

In November 1913, the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Association refused to negotiate with Hourwich as the union representative and demanded his resignation. Although the heads of the union were united in their dislike of Hourwich, they supported him in resisting the manufacturers’ pressure. However, in early 1914 when the manufacturers threatened to break off the Protocol and a strike appeared imminent, Hourwich stepped down rather than compromise, despite the protests of many rank-and-file union members. The so-called “Hourwich Affair” showed the weakness of the Protocol as a means of settling disputes and hastened its eventual reform. It also revealed the various power struggles taking place between the International and the local unions, as well as between the union leadership and the mass of garment workers.

Hourwich was an early critic of the totalitarian tendencies of the Bolshevik government. Nevertheless, he maintained some sympathy for the Marxist cause and served as legal advisor to the Soviet ambassador to the United States, Ludwig C.K. Martens. He was also connected with the weekly magazine, Friends of Soviet Russia, published by the Soviet Agency, although he never wrote in support of the Bolsheviks. A visit to the Soviet Union in 1922 disillusioned Hourwich, however, and he returned firmly opposed to the Soviet regime.

Despite his commitment to Socialism, Hourwich did not strictly adhere to party doctrine and often crossed political boundaries in his allegiances. For example, in 1912 he supported Theodore Roosevelt and ran for Congress on the ticket of Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, an unthinkable act for a Jewish radical, although he seems to have been unconcerned with any criticism this raised. He was involved with the Socialist Democratic Party but did not join the Socialist Party of America, despite its Marxist program. He wrote for various Yiddish newspapers of every political affiliation, including the Socialist Jewish Daily Forward, the anarchist Fraye Arbeter Shtimme (Free Workers Voice), where he published his unfinished memoirs Zikhroynes fun an Apikoyres (Memoirs of a Heretic), the Warheit (Truth), the Tog (Day), and the Tsukunft (Future). His non-ideological approach led some to label him a political opportunist. He was an ardent supporter of President Wilson and his advocacy of the New Freedom and social reform until Wilson’s 1916 appointment of Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court. Hourwich was still holding a grudge against Brandeis for his involvement in the “Hourwich Affair.”

In his later years Hourwich became active in the Zionist movement, and in 1917 he helped to organize the American Jewish Congress. Hourwich’s books in Yiddish include Mooted Questions of Socialism (1917), a Yiddish translation of Marx’s Das Kapital (1919), and a four-volume edition of his collected works (1917-1919). Hourwich died of pneumonia on July 9, 1924.

Source: Guide to the Papers of Isaac A. Hourwich (1860-1924).

__________________________________

Personal Notes [1894]

Dr. Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich has been appointed Docent in Statistics at the University of Chicago. He was born April 26, 1860, at Wilno, Russia, and was educated at the Classical Gymnasium, at Minsk, from 1869-77. The year 1877-78 he spent at the Medioc-Chirurgical Academy at St. Petersburg, and 1878-79 at the University of St. Petersburg. Later he became a non-resident student of the Demidor Juridical Lyceum, at Yaroslavl, where in 1887 he graduated with the degree of LL.M. He was admitted to the bar at Minsk, and practiced law from 1887 to 1890. In 1891 he became a student of Columbia College, New York, and received in 1893 the degree of Ph.D. from that institution. Dr. Hourwich has published:

“Peasant Emigralion to Siberia.” Juridichesky Vestnik (Juridical Herald), Moscow, January, 1887.
“The Study of Peasant Emigration to Siberia.” Sibirski Sbornik (Siberian Magazine), 1887.
“Peasant Emigration t0 Siberia.” Pp. 160. Moscow, 1888.
“The Agrarian Question in Russia.” Ur Dagens Krönika. Stockholm, September, 1890.
“The Persecution of the Jews.” The Forum. August, 1891.
“The Russian Judiciary.” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1892.
“The Economics of the Russian Village.” Pp. 184. Columbia College Studies in History, Economics and Public Law.

Source:  The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 4 (Jan., 1894), p. 156.

Image Source: Portrait of Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich from his Oysgeehle shrifn, Vol. I, frontispiece, copyright 1916.