Hayek on the Edition of Joseph Massie’s Bibliography (1938)

Friedrich August von Hayek’s August 1938 review assesses William A. Shaw’s edition of Joseph Massie’s catalogue of books and pamphlets on commerce, currency, and poor law. Hayek welcomes the publication of an important guide to English economic writing before Adam Smith, especially for 1650–1750, but argues that editorial omissions and misreadings sharply limit its scholarly usefulness.

The review moves from the bibliography’s historical importance to a correction of what the catalogue actually records. Shaw assumes that Massie retained his collection until at least December 1764. Hayek counters with an omitted manuscript note recording the sale of most of it in November 1760, and with the discrepancy between approximately 1,500 books and pamphlets reportedly owned and 2,377 catalogue entries.

But although it is clear from this that Massie just continued to add to the list whatever new titles of books he learnt about, it is constantly referred to here, even in the title of the present publication, as if it were the catalogue of Massie’s own library.

The distinction between a record of ownership and an expanding bibliography matters for interpreting the catalogue as historical evidence. Hayek then examines the edition’s treatment of the manuscript’s apparatus. Omitted subject classifications, a table of duplicates, cross-references, and other notes supplied information that a chronological list alone could not preserve.

But the subject headings given in the chronological list often provide exceedingly useful information not to be derived from its short or abridged title.

Hayek’s criticism thus concerns the loss of usable knowledge, not simply incomplete transcription. Shaw also fails to incorporate author identifications available in Massie’s alphabetical index. A further misreading turns the figure 1672—the number of entries in an earlier index—into what appears to be a mistaken date. These examples establish why an accessible printed edition cannot automatically substitute for its manuscript source.

While useful as a check-list, the present edition can hardly serve in place of the original for more serious work.

The closing paragraph reinforces that verdict by quoting Shaw’s unsupported dismissal of Hume’s essay on interest as an example of the inadequacy of his added commentary. Hayek’s review remains narrowly bibliographical, but its relevance extends to the evidentiary standards of economic history: preserving classifications, cross-references, attribution, and numerical notation is essential to preserving what a historical document can tell its readers.