Keynes, Bloomsbury and method.
[John Maynard Keynes] argued that for a subject like economics, a whole spectrum of languages applies, running all the way from intuition and poetry through lawyer-like arguments... to formal logic and mathematics. All have roles to play, depending on what issues, or what aspects of issues, are being analysed (Harcourt and Kriesler 2016, 19).
Political economy in the twentieth century reflects not only efforts to understand substantively the capitalist economies that had developed by then, but also methodological controversies that have always raged in the social sciences and humanities and which have fatefully influenced the knowledge in all spheres that has now been bequeathed to us.
1. Intellectual Climate
One of the most well-known opening sentences in Western literature is Tolstoy's, from Anna Karenina (1877). It is famous, though probably sociologically inaccurate. In any case, the sentiment resonates effectively in political economy, especially comparative political economy, where comparisons themselves yield new information (variations, rankings, correlations). If we re-imagine Tolstoy to be saying 'all happy economies are alike but each unhappy economy is unhappy in its own way', we can contemplate that economies in crisis are not abnormal and that further investigation of crisis conditions can be expected to expose some defining conditions of capitalism. Dysfunction is recurrent and unavoidable (for a modern statement, Halevi, Hart, and Kriesler 2013), though not type-distinguishing. Analysis of well-functioning economies becomes uninteresting because they are unreal abstractions; they exist only formally, in textbooks. Reality demands recognition of history, particularistic distinctiveness and political openness. And this messiness probably precludes reliable explanatory knowledge. In the long essay that comprises the second of two epilogues to War and peace, Tolstoy writes 'However accessible the chain of causes of any event, we will never know the entire chain, because it is endless, and again we will never get complete necessity' (1869, 1209). As we can never know everything about anything, empirical and historical and anti-formalist and inductive forms of enquiry typically claim more purchase than abstract and essentialist and formalist and deductive approaches.
Tolstoy occupies (perhaps too emphatically) one of the poles that define the search for knowledge, and the terrain of heterodox political economy with its still-unresolved debates, for example those unleashed by Marxism's propensity for abstraction, is complicit. Part of my purpose in this essay is to insert the contributions of Keynes and Bloomsbury into this controversy.
Conservative philosopher Isaiah Berlin proffered an elaboration in 'The hedgehog and the fox', his celebrated essay on Tolstoy's method in 1953. There he attempted to characterise the 'great chasm' between two types of knowledge--one, in which everything was related to a central coherent vision, the other, more experiential, contradictory, incomplete and varied. From this rift derive, respectively, the methodological contrasts between deductive and inductive enquiry.
Berlin accepts that Tolstoy's final position was nihilist and unduly pessimistic on the possibility of any social science. The characters in Anna Karenina express the anti-rationalist position in the same way: Anna speculates that 'Reason was given to us in order to rid ourselves of it' (1877, 766); while Levin eventually concludes that 'Knowledge cannot be explained by reason--it is outside it, and has no causes, and can have no consequences' (1877, 795). (1) Of course, distrust of rationalist understanding was not new at this time (Mini 1991, 8-33); but emphatic celebration of individuals' uncomprehending participation in historical events possibly was. Tolstoy, endorsing the fox's familiarity with many things, disdains the hedgehog's grand conceptions and abstractions and certainties, including materialist ones. Many of us probably remain uneasy about ceding to Tolstoy a final arbitral role in matters of methodology for social science, but we must acknowledge that discussion of such problems was ubiquitous in Keynes's formative years and, later, within his Bloomsbury circle (Dostaler 2007, 71).
Berlin's essay sees the divergence as associated with 'intellectual and artistic' distinctions:
Utterly unlike her as he is in almost every other respect, Tolstoy is, perhaps, the first to propound the celebrated accusation which Virginia Woolf half a century later levelled at the public prophets of her own generation--Shaw and Wells and Arnold Bennett--blind materialists who did not begin to understand what it is that life truly consists of, who mistook its outer accidents, the unimportant aspects which lie outside the individual soul--the so-called social, economic, political realities--for that which alone is genuine, the individual experience, the specific relation of individuals to one another, the colours, smells, tastes, sounds and movements, the jealousies, loves, hatreds, passions, the rare flashes of insight, the transforming moments, the ordinary day-to-day succession of private data, which constitute all there is--which are reality (1953, 451).
For her part, Woolf, in A room of one's own, from 1929, while seeming to admire Tolstoy's celebrations of 'infinite complexity' and 'different judgments' (1929, 99-100) ultimately remained unpersuaded of their integrity ('I have never known people behaving like that'). She had been in turn enthralled and repelled by Tolstoy (1925b, 231). Nonetheless, her own argument is constructed largely from observations there to be seen, even if they are often not observed, an argument sometimes presented as 'hidden in plain view' (Morson 1988).
Earlier, on reading Montaigne, Woolf had presaged a shared Bloomsbury discontent, noticing what may have stood for its licentious distinctiveness, and in the process establishing a methodological motif--'movement and change are the essence of our being; rigidity is death; conformity is death: let us say what comes into our heads, repeat ourselves, contradict ourselves, fling out the wildest nonsense, and follow the most fantastic fancies without caring what the world does or thinks or says' (1925a, 90). Hence, with enquiry into knowledge and meaning, she had concurred: the journey is everything, contemplation of destinations can be forestalled.
Political economists presumably always remain uneasy with Berlin's subjugation of 'social, political and economic realities' to unimportance; however some of Virginia Woolf's writing reveals that attention to the unimportant aspects of the world reflects not indifference to structure and abstraction, but a quest for additional knowledge which even irony and sarcasm (Vanessa Bell 1949, 332) can sometimes reveal. 'She smiles and mocks when she ought to be screaming and spitting', Quentin Bell noted when defending Virginia against angrier feminists (1995, 213). Her essay 'Street haunting' provides a revealing example. Unimportant objects 'perpetually express the oddity of our own temperaments'; at any moment, 'the army of human beings may arouse itself and assert all its oddities and sufferings and sordidities' (1927, 226, 228); a casual stroll around a city allows resourceful observers to access what else is there--including that which turns out to be unsettling, as Francis Spalding reminds us when considering Woolf s ambivalence about the London Underground beneath her (2014, 121). In some parts of social science, the same point is still being made, but in Virginia Woolf's case, the sense that some possibilities would always be closed emerged early (Vanessa Bell 1949, 334).
Keynes entered King's College (Cambridge University) in 1902 (aged 19). There, he met Lytton Strachey, Leonard Woolf and Clive Bell. The Bloomsbury group dates from 1904, when many of the Cambridge graduates, including some Apostles, moved to London and the four Stephen siblings--Vanessa, Virginia, Thoby and Adrian--moved to the Bloomsbury district. Reflecting on the move, and the consolidation of a group identity by 1910, Virginia Stephen (she became Virginia Woolf in 1912) had declared that 'Everything was going to be new; everything was going to be different. Everything was on trial' (1922, 359). (2) Much later, as if to anticipate some of the features of abductive and intuitive reasoning, in comments on 'Cambridge's greatest son', Isaac Newton, Keynes proffered 'It was [Newton's] intuition which was pre-eminently extraordinary.... His experiments were always, I suspect, a means, not of discovery, but always of verifying what he already knew' (1942, 365-366). (3) Respect for 'direct unanalysable intuition' (1938, 437)--initially induction and analogy (Moggridge 1992, 152)--was absorbed early from G. E. Moore and recurs in heterodox enquiry generally, post-Keynesianism especially. In both, a role for rationality was recognised, though it would always be tempered in principle by caution and caveat, as demonstrated in Keynes's (1925) tribute to Marshall.
Keynes's reading had begun early. Nigel Davenport-Hines's recent 'biography' tells of the Keynes family listening to Florence Keynes's reading of Constance Garnett's--David Garnett's mother--translations of War and peace and Anna Karenina. (4) Along the way Keynes seems to have had little trouble developing a fondness for rhetorical flourishes: 'Words ought to be a little wild', he said in 1933 (Davenport-Hines 2015, 9, 85, 101; Milo Keynes 1975, 3).
A procedural penchant for trial and error is further evident in Keynes's essay 'On reading books' from 1936: here he reveals his lifelong respect for serious literature--against 'contemporary stuff, 'such heavy-going, such undigested, unenhanced, unintrinsic, unintuitive, such misunderstood, mishandled, misshapen, such muddled handling of human hopes and life; and without support from the convention and the tradition which in a great age of self-expression can make even the second-rate delightful.' His conclusion is surprisingly expansive: 'It leaves me with a strong desire and hope that we in this country may discover how to combine an unlimited readiness to experiment with changes in political and economic methods and institutions, whilst preserving traditionalism and a sort of careful conservatism' (1936, 290; see also Copland 1947, 214).
Keynes's comments on his own discipline (and on Alfred Marshall) indicate he had been considering issues of method for some time:
The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must reach a high standard in several different directions and must combine talents not often found together. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher--in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician (1925, 173-174).
Fortunately, this was a lesson easily assimilated by Keynes himself; few economists then or now cite Shakespeare when cautioning against uncertainty and under-development: 'For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still' (1930, 372).
Distinctive methodological perspectives seem to have been mutually imparted in Cambridge and Bloomsbury. Most contemporary Keynesians understand that the influence of the Cambridge milieu (the presuppositions of Harvey Road, respect for historical studies and a distinctive moral philosophy) were crucial in the subsequent direction of Keynes's economics and the latent radicalism in Keynesian economics and post-Keynesian political economy (Harcourt 1979, 391). Probably, this is most strongly stated in G. E. Moore's proselytising with the Apostles: he had enunciated a conception, engrained also in Keynes's mature thinking, of 'organic unity', that components of reality would not be as they were apart from their relationship to other components. Hence Moore, seeming to endorse Tolstoy's anti-systemic preferences, commented explicitly that abstraction could sometimes be quite illegitimate (1903, 15). Much resulting anti-formalist interdisciplinarity, now seen as central to post-Keynesian analysis, had been gestating as a mark of Bloomsbury thinking since the Cambridge years. Clive Bell's essay on Ibsen, for example, reiterated an equivalent lesson: people and situations attain distinctiveness only when problems (disturbances to normality) occur (1912, 184). For Keynes, 'The inevitable never happens. It is the unexpected always', he reportedly said in 1933 (Milo Keynes 1975, 3).
2. Forward-Thinking as a Vocation
Interdisciplinary themes, together with a sense of dissatisfaction, are invoked as well in Raymond Williams's popular essay on the Bloomsbury 'fraction':
It is understandable that anyone should turn and ask, rhetorically, what connections there could ever be between Clive Bell on art, Keynes on employment, or Virginia Woolf on fiction and Leonard Woolf on the League of Nations, or Lytton Strachey on history and the Freudians on psychoanalysis. It is true that we cannot put all this work together and make it into a general theory. But of course that is the point. The different positions which the Bloomsbury group assembled, and which they effectively disseminated as the contents of the mind of a modern, educated, civilized individual, are all in effect alternatives to a general theory (1980, 187).
In this scepticism towards general knowledge, we again hear echoes of Tolstoy. Williams appears to regret the absence of an identifiable Weltanschauung among Bloomsbury writers and activists. But he might have added that these novelists and philosophers, artists and social scientists, politicians and policy-makers, musicians and social critics were bonded by a communicative temper--while alert to the possibility of setback and pusillanimity, and discrepant politics notwithstanding, they collectively encouraged forward-thinking as a vocation in the arts, science and policy-making.
Robert Skidelsky's massive 3-volume (and otherwise highly informative) biography, perhaps ungenerously, links the Bloomsbury credo (blasphemy and bawdiness) to the group's self-serving aloofness, and is certainly less sympathetic than Williams':
Bloomsberries were cultural and sexual revolutionaries. In other ways they remained rooted in the assumptions of their times. Indeed, the particular form of their 'revolt against the Victorians' depended on other aspects of Victorian life remaining in place. Culture was not regarded as a force to reshape social relations, but to reorient the elite to 'what is good'. Bloomsbury was as hostile to any notion of 'proletarian culture' as it was to 'capitalist culture'. Both were symptoms of a degraded industrial system. There was little desire in Bloomsbury to make contact with the 'mass mind', little faith in the possibility of a 'common culture'.... The cultural influence which Bloomsbury eventually acquired was based on the clarity of vision of its publicists and the mutually supporting achievements of its members' (1983, 249-250).
Undeniably, there developed a playfulness, perhaps mischievousness, in Bloomsbury's worldview from the beginning. Keynes was certainly opportunistic regarding art purchases for himself (Bell and Nicholson 1997, 102). Many years later, Clive Bell understood this as integral to Keynes's project:
[Maynard] possessed that ingenuity which turns commonplaces into paradoxes and paradoxes into truisms, which discovers--or invents--similarities and differences, and associates disparate ideas--that gift of amusing and surprising with which very clever people, and only very clever, can by conversation give a peculiar relish to life' (1956, 393).
More germane is that Maynard Keynes's early methodological dispositions had been well-canvassed by his father, Neville Keynes, in The scope and method of political economy in 1890. The discursive environment presumably created and exploited in the course of this academic undertaking--not in Britain alone--arguably accounts for Maynard's receptiveness to an explicitly 'intuitive' approach to economic analysis. Neville Keynes eventually ratified a definition of economics which prioritised scarcity and allocation; nonetheless his discussion is extremely generous towards non-deductive approaches, claiming that ignorance of economic history and sociology (excessive abstraction) could lead to 'rash generalizations'. The book draws on the eighteenth-century (pre-Adam Smith) Scot James Steuart's appeals to observation and experience. Equivalent doubts about the direction of economic enquiry were being voiced by Historical School writers (both German--Wagner and Schmoller--and English--Leslie, Toynbee and Ashley) and the associated methodological controversies are well-represented in Neville Keynes's work, as in Palgrave's celebrated dictionary of the 1880s and 1890s. Walter Bagehot's view that advanced economies are bound to depart from any universal or deductive premises is common to all these contributions; (5) and constituted serious scholarship in the decades before Lionel Robbins' more severe demarcation took hold, elevating competition, scarcity and homo economicus. Features of complex and civilised economies and societies that disrupt rational calculation include interdependency between cause and effect (Keynes 1890, 100; Mabsout 2015; Olssen 2010, ch. 8). As if to anticipate contemporary heterodoxy, Neville Keynes even envisions the impossibility of discovering 'laws' of accumulation:
Since it is admitted that the economic conditions of any given stage in the progress of society are determined not merely by the economic conditions, but by general social characteristics of the preceding stage, no theory of the tendencies of economic evolution as a whole seems likely to be reached independently of some theory of the general tendencies of social development (1890, 140).
Scepticism towards formalist method arose not only in German and English political economy in the decades leading to the twentieth century (Ashley 1899), but also in American economic thinking in the same period. Thorstein Veblen's rebellious and humanist education was acquired in American universities heavily influenced by enlightenment values--though sometimes with Nietzschean and Tolstoyan elements--which had assigned definitive causal force to 'idle curiosity' and to 'human wit and will' ever since the mercantilist era (Reinert 2012, 26-36). Veblen's milieu included the revolt against formalism, but also confidence in politics and the state (compelled by uncertainty and interdependence), and a perceived need to ground economic understanding in empirical observation. Together, these methodological positions warranted institutional and evolutionary disciplines, while Veblen also elaborated Darwinian implications of the focus on growth and development (Viano 2012). For Veblen, as for both Keyneses, appropriate understanding of economies could not ignore their organic qualities, and hence entailed a promiscuous intermingling' of ideas (Camic 2012, 194).
Veblen's review of The economic consequences of the peace in 1920 protested that the early Maynard Keynes was not as unswerving in his recognition of the 'tendencies of economic evolution' as his heterodoxy seemed to demand:
Keynes accepts the Treaty as a definitive formulation of the terms of the peace, as a conclusive settlement rather than a strategic point of departure for further negotiations and a continuation of warlike enterprise.... But for all their vulpine secrecy, the temper and purposes of that hidden conclave of political hucksters were already becoming evident to outsiders a year ago, and it is all the more surprising to find that an observer so shrewd and so advantageously placed as Mr Keynes has been led to credit them with any degree of bona fides or to ascribe any degree of finality to the diplomatic instruments which came out of their bargaining (1920, 463).
Nonetheless, even at this stage, Keynes had accepted analytical commitments, which demanded what would now be called a structural perspective--though the opportunity to deploy transformative policy and ideas was never absent.
The events of the coming year will not be shaped by the deliberate acts of statesmen, but by the hidden currents, flowing continually beneath the surface of political history, of which no one can predict the outcome. In one way only can we influence these hidden currents--by setting in motion those forces of instruction and imagination which change opinion. The assertion of truth, the unveiling of illusion, the dissipation of hate, the enlargement and instruction of men's hearts and minds, must be the means... (1919, 297).
The discernible gap between Veblen and Keynes--that is to say, between an assertion that lack of 'finality' in historical events negates definitive judgments, and an insistence that 'hidden currents' can be acknowledged without precluding deliberative processes--does not seem especially wide. And it points to an issue in political economy that takes recurrent form. With discussions of Piketty's Capital in the twenty-first century, we have been obliged to re-appraise the proposition that capitalism's inequalities are ineradicable. Piketty's data highlight particularly reductions in disparities that began with the 'age of catastrophe' (roughly from 1914 until 1945) and continued until about 1974 (when globalisation, manufacturing decline, unemployment, economic dislocation, sectoral change, inflation-in-recession, and the ugliest aspects of de-politicising neoliberalism began to plague societies, economies and politics in rich countries). The three decades from 1945 to 1974 have been characterised not only as the Keynesian era, but also the long postwar boom and the 'golden age' of capitalism (due to the emergence of welfare capitalism and the 'repression of finance'); whereas the decades since the mid-1970s (beginning with stagnation-sanctioning and inequality-increasing policies) are seen as a 'leaden age' of policy abrogation and rescindment, the return of intolerance (destructive responses to unemployment, instability, insecurity and inequality).
However, if six decades of optimism until 1974 have given way to reversals gleefully anticipated by those doubting the capacities of politics, we are invited to revisit the Veblen-Keynes controversy. Are capitalist inequalities inherent (a structural tendency spanning the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries, interrupted only briefly and extraordinarily, which Piketty seems to suggest)? Or do they denote that the policy-driven progress of the period to 1974 has suffered disruptions contingent upon the political defeats with which we have become familiar, implying that egalitarian policies remain possible (though subject to turnarounds, as Piketty's account also allows), and that the 'long run' is only a product of sequential happenstance associated with the rise and fall of industries, yet without an abiding developmental logic of its own? This latter proposition accords with Keynes's famous declaration that in the long run we are all dead (--though that was uttered in a specific context: to refute monetarist claims that long-run stability in monetary policy was preferable to policy activism) as well as with Kalecki's contention that trends and cycles (progress and disruptions to progress) are indissolubly intermeshed (see also Golob 1954, ch. 7).
Even now, a damaging connection between obduracy and possibility seems recurrent, probably ineradicable; and it seems to define 'Keynesian reason' (Mann 2017, 19 and passim; see also Dostaler 2007, 2-5; 12-23).
3. Cambridge to Bloomsbury
Many of the Cambridge Apostles--Keynes himself, as well as Roger Fry, Lytton Strachey, Leonard Woolf, Desmond MacCarthy and E M Forster--were wary of received theories in literature, art and social enquiry. Not all consciously addressed methodological controversy but, even so, together they became implicated in the emergence of a Bloomsbury distinctiveness (Reed 2004, 1-17). The modernist temper--through Tolstoy, Ibsen, Nietzsche and Strindberg and, later, G B Shaw--promoted a congruent openness to anti-naturalism and anti-rationalism (celebration of experience, even everyday 'silliness') (Glendinning 2006).
The austere Quaker Roger Fry, with fellow art critic Clive Bell, worked to establish British interest in the paintings and perspectives of Manet, Degas, Cezanne, Monet, Renoir, Gauguin, van Gogh, Seurat, and others in the years after 1910. Impressionism and post-impressionism suggested that fidelity to reality could usefully yield to the subjectivist gaze of the artist, sometimes subordinating clarity to 'harmonic effects', sometimes discerning otherwise-hidden aspects of reality, and potentially arousing unexpected responses and insights from viewers, particularly as richer palettes of colours appeared (Fry 1932; Thomson 2001). The younger artists Matisse, Derain and Picasso, also admired by Fry, gained notoriety, even in England, from their association as designers with Stravinsky and the Ballets Russes rather than through Bloomsbury sponsorship. The movement was broad and, as the years passed, it became less dismissive of form and structure--reflecting in part Bloomsbury's indelible attachment to aesthetics and 'undefinable beauty' as well as, perhaps, Clive Bell's increasing conservatism (Beechey 1999, 39-51). In a 1920 'Retrospect', Fry acknowledged the preposterous nature of some of Tolstoy's assessments, yet recorded his own debt to What is art?, from 1898. These included their joint downgrading of representational verisimilitude, requiring the viewer to guess at what might be hidden--thereby conceding, with Virginia Woolf, that 'life itself might be only 'momentarily passing across our field of vision' (Fry 1932, 264-265). Later, when these emphasis subsided in Fry's own painting (Spalding 1997, 58-63), he remained nonetheless open to the possibility that when truth has 'many aspects', artists and social scientists alike might seek whatever 'underlying structural unity' is detectable. Quentin Bell has reported that Fry found 'aesthetic sensibility everywhere', though this seems to have been a product not of his artistic appreciation so much as of a 'spiritual' disposition: for Fry, the starting point of enquiry was 'those improbable explanations to which most of us turn only when all the prosaic explanations of ordinary life have been dismissed' (Bell 1995, 108).
Leonard Woolf--variously novelist, journalist, publisher, socialist, cooperativist, Labour adviser, friend of the Webbs, the Coles, H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw--also understood that 'connections between disparate happenings' were unavoidable aspects of reality, warranting specific attention in fiction and non-fiction alike (Glendinning 2006, 66). Following his return from Ceylon in 1911, he had seen himself as a restless, unattached public intellectual, though less connected than Keynes. With Virginia, he had established the Hogarth Press which for a time was an outlet for Bloomsbury writers and illustrators. And like his wife, Leonard Woolf had taken inspiration from Tolstoy and Montaigne. He appears to have venerated the 'journey not the destination' independently of Virginia's parallel embrace of the notion, even if, in his search for rational foundations of knowledge, he frequently concluded that 'nothing matters' (2006, 421-422 and passim). He eventually authored Principia Politica (a title suggested by Keynes); it came out in 1953 but reflected a lifelong, politically attuned engagement with controversies over freedom and authority.
Lytton Strachey's iconoclasm is most evident in Eminent Victorians. Here he recognised the knowledge-possibilities opened up by changing historical conditions: if we know too much, he mused, new understanding can be impeded. The task for intellectual interpreters was therefore not to refute conjectures, but to seek out surprises and the unexpected in data. This was Florence Nightingale's achievement: what she unearthed through statistics and experience became the basis for revised procedures, new policy guidelines and invigorated public opinion--as a fulcrum for leveraging knowledge, tenacity and tact (1918, 84-97). Piero Mini suggests that Keynes's concerns with uncertainty probably followed Strachey's own musings (1991, 127, 141); certainly, the latter saw the troubled passage from empirical research (purged of excessive generalisation) to endorsed enactment in terms that could have been composed for Keynes's later policy battles:
... that tropical jungle of festooned obstructiveness, of intertwisted irresponsibilities, of crouching prejudices, of abuses grown stiff and rigid with antiquity, which for so many years to come was destined to lure reforming ministers to their doom (1918, 104).
Much commentary on Bloomsbury notes its tangled personal interrelationships and has speculated about whether these resulted from, or reflected, the group's principled elevation of interactions (between people, between entities, between events, and between modes of presentation) as ontologically defining and methodologically intractable (Reed 2004, 51). The box relays a Swedish depiction:
Duncan Grant discovered his homosexuality early. He was in a relationship with Lytton Strachey when he met John Maynard Keynes, and he had relationships with among others Adrian Stephen, James Strachey and Bunny Garnett--as well as living together with Vanessa Bell.
Vanessa married the art critic Clive Bell in 1907. She had two sons with him and remained his wife, even if for two years she had a relationship with Roger Fry and thereafter moved in together with Duncan Grant. Their common daughter Angelica eventually married Duncan's former lover Bunny Garnett.
David (Bunny) Garnett lived during the first world war with Duncan Grant (and Vanessa Bell). When his first wife died of cancer he married Vanessa's daughter Angelica Bell.
Clive Bell had innumerable women's stories. The most well-known, apart from the marriage with Vanessa, was a several-year flirtation with his wife's sister, Virginia Woolf, and with Molly MacCarthy, wife of Bloomsbury member and critic Desmond MacCarthy. But the longest flirtation he had was with Mary Hutchinson.
Lytton Strachey lived in a triangle with the painter Dora Carrington and Ralph Partridge who were married to each other. Carrington was bisexual and loved Lytton. But he was homosexual and had a series of more or less unsuccessful relationships, among them with Duncan Grant, the artist Henry Lamb and the poet Roger Senhouse.
John Maynard Keynes was, while young, an extremely promiscuous homosexual with a series of relationships among them with James Strachey, Lytton Strachey, and Duncan Grant. In 1925 he married the Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova.
Ottoline Morrell was married to Philip Morrell but also had relationships with Henry Lamb, Augustus John, Roger Fry and Bertrand Russell...
Roger Fry was married to Helen Fry, who after eighteen months marriage became mentally ill. In 1910 he fell in love with Vanessa Bell. When she moved in together with Duncan Grant he had several short affairs and finally a long one with Helen Maitland, who earlier had lived in a triangle with the painter Boris Anrep and his Russian wife.
Virginia Woolf was married in 1912 to Leonard. The marriage was successful and lasted until her suicide in 1941. But for several years around the middle of the 1920s Virginia experienced a love affair with the author Vita Sackville-West. And in the 1930s she was intimate with the composer and feminist campaigner Ethel Smyth (Lind 2008, 204-205).
The commentaries persist and fascinate even now, not only for prurient reasons (Licence 2015; Rosner 2014). Mary Caws refers to the constant 'meshing and merging of the visual and verbal', of a propensity to explore and contradict the optimistic impulses in the inter-war period, but which had already animated Cambridge distrust of certitude (2014, 131; see also Banfield 2014). (6) Yet connections between art, lifestyle and methodological conundrum that are neglected by Skidelsky had been detected in Roy Harrod's discussion of the ballet:
We are far removed from the world of dialectic and debate, of criticism and second thoughts. The achievement is perfect--or perhaps it is not perfect--but it cannot be amended.... Lydia's droop of arms will express the finest possible shade, but it cannot be corrected in detail by discussion and analysis. This art achieves its purpose by direct method; there may be trial and error; but each new trial is a new beginning and is not guided by reasoning.... [Keynes'] imagination was always ready to be stirred, even by the most absurd fancy (1951, 368-369).
Nor was Bloomsbury's anti-Victorianism just intellectual. The nineteenth-century Cambridge lifestyle and its affectations had been poignantly described, and condemned, in Period piece, by painter and wood-engraver Gwen Raverat (nee Darwin, and whose sister married Maynard's brother, Geoffrey):
One has only to think of the omissions in all the mid- and late-Victorian novels to perceive the fantastic unreality of the outlook of decent people from about 1850 to 1914. It is often hard to believe that these decent people were not being deliberately hypocritical, when they were so unwilling to face the facts... . For nearly seventy years the English middle classes were locked up in a great fortress of unreality and pretense; and no one who has not been brought up inside the fortress can guess how thick the walls were, or how little of the sky outside could be seen through the loopholes (1952, 124).
Contiguous sentiments can be detected in Lytton Strachey's reflections on life at Lancaster Gate:
It was not a question of unhappiness so much as of restriction and oppression--the subtle, unperceived weight of the circumambient air (1922, 27).
Bloomsbury's internal mores themselves have been disparaged from within its core. Angelica Garnett resented her own upbringing as the daughter of Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant. (She was not told until the age of eighteen, just before her marriage, that her father was not Clive Bell; nor that David Garnett had been present at her birth in 1918.) Too much permissiveness and tolerance, she concluded, had left a damaging legacy including bitterness--even though she had consented ('I preferred the unknown to the known') (Garnett 1984, 158, 78-80).
However, the NPG's 'Memoir Club' by Vanessa Bell (1943, exhibit 6718), reveals something further about Bloomsbury. It shows 14 members of the set, seated (including the next generation, and three deceased--Woolf, Strachey, Fry--presented as portraits by Grant and Bell on the wall); it probably never transpired this way--the depiction includes the artist herself--but we are meant to presume there was an urge among all to preserve the impression of an ongoing collectivity. (An extended listing is appended.) And it was prescient: E. M. Forster commented in 1939 that 'Tolerance, good temper and sympathy are no longer enough in a world which is rent by religious and racial persecution, in a world where intolerance rules, and science who ought to have ruled, plays the subservient pimp' (1939, 165).
Arguably, Keynes was less disdainful of Victorian values than many other Bloomsbury contributors (Winch 2010); but until the end of his life, he was uninclined to repudiate his early (Cambridge) views (as some have suggested). He conceded his 'croakings' had often been unable to influence the 'course of events in time' (1931, v). (Recall his indignation over the Versailles' negotiations, his campaigns against the Treasury view, and his ominous battles with Harry Dexter White and the Americans at Bretton Woods, not to mention the fate of Keynesian policy three decades after his death.) And in his evaluation of a lifetime's methodological (not political) stance (for the Memoir Club) he appears close to anger:
I myself was always an advocate of the principle of organic unity through time, which still seems to me only sensible (... the state of affairs as a whole which could not usefully be analysed into parts).... [I. now regard the Benthamite tradition]... as the worm which has been gnawing at the insides of modern civilisation and is responsible for its present moral decay.... The attribution of rationality to human nature, instead of enriching it, now seems to me to have impoverished it (1938, 436-448).
Keynes's reflection on what he called his early beliefs reveals the pertinent connection between Keynes the political economist and Bloomsbury artists, writers and social critics. It was not political, nor a matter of the discipline in which they chose to work. It was not even a common methodological preference, which in any case, as we have seen, remained unfixed. It would be as incomplete to suggest that Bloomsbury endorsed Keynes's epistemological ruminations as it would be to claim that Keynes borrowed approaches from the former. Rather, what constituted the nexus was its members' joint recognition of limits to knowledge, something which in turn has intrigued and horrified them, because in their public lives, they felt bound to act. For Keynesians, gaps in political knowledge, magnifying uncertainty about what can or cannot be achieved, are especially challenging. The resultant need to devise and to modify scientific, literary and artistic strategies to deal with uncertainty--even if the problem (inability to use the past as a guide to the future) had been long-known and would be forever irremediable (King 2015; Kirshner 2015; O'Donnell 2013; Veblen 1900). This has become a defining issue for heterodox post-Keynesianism; but all members of Bloomsbury, more or less consciously and collectively unapologetic, had already concurred.
(1.) Translations vary (and are controversial); this is the Russian original: Anna: [phrase omitted]. Levin: [phrase omitted].
(2.) An extensive list of early pre-1920s associates is provided by Levy (1975) who also comments on internal tensions--particularly over the contradictions between the group ethos and JMK's continuing service in the Treasury. A cryptic delineation of the group's anti-rationalism has been submitted by Desmond MacCarthy: he seems to have admired 'not possessing a sense that everything ought to serve a particular purpose and no other' (1929, 867).
(3.) It appears he regarded Albert Einstein somewhat similarly (in 1926).
(4.) Roy Harrod reports it was Dickens that was read aloud (1951, 12).
(5.) Originally designated 'religious' social thought, sociological and historical approaches came, in the twentieth century, to be termed the 'social economy tradition'; efforts are apparently under way now to recast it as 'contextual economics' (see Goldschmidt, Grimmer-Solem and Zweynert 2016).
(6.) Agnosticism towards knowledge was not unvarying, with Bertrand Russell being less enamoured of G.E. Moore's doctrines (1951, 95).
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Ashley, W. J. 1899. "Historical School of Economics." In Dictionary of Political Economy, edited by R. H. Inglis Palgrave, 310-314. New York: Augustus M. Kelly Reprints 1963 (orig. 1894, 1923).
Banfield, A. 2014. "Cambridge Bloomsbury." In The Cambridge Companion to the Bloomsbury Group, edited by Victoria Rosner, 33-53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beechey, J. 1999. "Defining Modernism: Roger Fry and Clive Bell in the 1920s." In The Art of Bloomsbury: Roger Fry, Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant, edited by Richard Shone, 39-51. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bell, C. 1912. "Ibsen." In A Bloomsbury Group Reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 182-188. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Bell, C. 1956. "Maynard Keynes." In A Bloomsbury Group Reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 382-393. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993.
Bell, Q. 1980. "Recollections and Reflections on Maynard Keynes." In Keynes and The Bloomsbury Group, edited by Derek Crabtree and Anthony Philip Thirlwall, 69-86. London: Macmillan.
Bell, Q. 1995. '"Maynard Keynes', 'Roger Fry' and 'Maynard Keynes and his Early Beliefs'." In Elders and Betters, 85-105, 106-115, 221-226. London: Pimlico.
Bell, Q., and V. Nicholson. 1997. Charleston: A Bloomsbury House and Garden. London: Francis Lincoln.
Bell, V. 1949. "Notes on Virginia's Childhood." In A Bloomsbury Group Reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 331-335. Oxford: Basil Blackwell [originally a talk to the Memoir Club, but first published in 1974], 1993.
Berlin, I. 1953. "The Hedgehog and The Fox." In The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays, edited by Henry Hardy and Roger Hausheer, 1997, 436-498. London: Chatto and Windus.
Camic, C. 2012. "Schooling for Heterodoxy: On The Foundations of Thorstein Veblen's Institutional Economics." In Thorstein Veblen: Economics for An Age of Crises, edited by Erik S. Reinert and Francesca Lidia Viano, 173-201. London: Anthem Press.
Caws, M. A. 2014. "Pens and Paintbrushes." In The Cambridge Companion to the Bloomsbury Group, edited by Victoria Rosner, 131-143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Copland, D. B. 1947. "Public Policy: The Doctrine of Full Employment." In The New Economics: Keynes's Influence on Theory and Public Policy, edited by Seymour Harris, 208-218. London: Dennis Dobson.
Davenport-Hines, R. 2015. Universal Man: The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes. London: William Collins.
Dostaler, G. 2007. Keynes and His Battles (trans. Niall B. Mann). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Forster, E. M. (Edward Morgan). 1939. "What I Believe." In A Bloomsbury Group Reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 164-172. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Fry, R. 1920. "Retrospect." In A Bloomsbury Group Reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 397-407. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Fry, R. 1932. "Impressionism." In A Bloomsbury Group Reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 260-273. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Garnett, A. 1984. Deceived with Kindness: A Bloomsbury Childhood. London: Pimlico.
Glendinning, V. 2006. Leonard Woolf: A Life. London: Pocket Books (Simon & Schuster).
Golob, E. O. 1954. "Keynes and The Modern Theory of Neomercantilism." In The 'isms': A History and Evaluation, 146-171. New York: Harper & Bros.
Goldschmidt, N., E. Grimmer-Solem, and J. Zweynert. 2016. "On the Purpose and Aims of the Journal of Contextual Economics." Schmollers Jahrbuch 136 (1): 1-14.
Halevi, J., N. Hart, and P. Kriesler. 2013. "The Traverse, Equilibrium Analysis and Post-Keynesian Economics." In Post-Keynesian Essays from Down Under, volume 4: Essays on Theory--Theory and Policy in An Historical Context, edited by Joseph Halevi, G.C. Harcourt, Peter Kriesler and John W. Nevile, 261-286. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harcourt, G. C. 1979. "The Social Science Imperialists." In The Social Science Imperialists: Selected Essays, edited by Prue Kerr, 379-393. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982.
Harcourt, G. C, and P. Kriesler. 2016. "The Enduring Importance of the General Theory." In Post-Keynesian Essays from Down Under, Volume 1: Essays on Keynes, Harrod and Kalecki - Theory and Policy in An Historical Context, edited by Joseph Halevi, G. C. Harcourt, Peter Kriesler and John W. Nevile, 15-33. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harrod, R. F. 1951. '"In Quest of a Way of Life' and 'Bloomsbury'." In The Life of John Maynard Keynes, 104-141, 172-194. London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J. M. 1919. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988.
Keynes, J. M. 1925. "Alfred Marshall." In Essays in Biography, 161-231. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1951, 2010.
Keynes, J. M. 1931. Essays in Persuasion. New York: WW. Norton, 1963.
Keynes, J. M. 1930. "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren." In Essays in Persuasion, 358-373. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963.
Keynes, J. M. 1936. "On Reading Books." In A Bloomsbury Group Reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 286-291. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993.
Keynes, J. M. 1938. "My Early Beliefs." In Essays in Biography, 433-450. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1951, 2010.
Keynes, J. M. 1942. "Newton the Man." In Essays in Biography, 363-374. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Keynes, J. N. 1890. The Scope and Method of Political Economy. London: Macmillan, 1917 (Augustus M. Kelley Publishers--Reprints, 1963).
Keynes, M. 1975. "Maynard and Lydia Keynes." In Essays on John Maynard Keynes, edited by Milo Keynes, 1-8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
King, J. E. 2015. Advanced Introduction to Post Keynesian Economics. Cheltenham (Gloc): Edward Elgar.
Kirshner, J. 2015. "Keynes's Early Beliefs and Why They Still Matter." Challenge 58 (5): 398-412.
Levy, P. 1975. "The Bloomsbury Group." In Essays on John Maynard Keynes, edited by Milo Keynes, 60-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Licence, A. 2015. Living in Squares, Loving in Triangles: The Lives and Loves of Virginia Woolf and the Bloomsbury Group. Stroud (Gloc): Amberley Publishing.
Lind, I. 2008. Leka med Modernismen: Virginia Woolf och Bloomsburygruppen (Playing with modernism). Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Forlag.
Mabsout, R. 2015. "Abduction and Economics: The Contributions of Charles Peirce and Herbert Simon." Journal of Economic Methodology 22 (4): 491-516.
MacCarthy, D. 1929. "Bohemia." In The Hundred Best English Essays, edited by F. E. Smith (First Earl of Birkenhead), 866-869. London: Cassell.
Mann, G. 2017. In the Long Run We Are All Dead: Keynesianism, Political Economy and Revolution. London: Verso.
Mini, P. V. 1991. Keynes, Bloomsbury and The General Theory. London: Macmillan.
Moggridge, D. 1992. "Probability." In Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography, 143-166. London: Routledge.
Moore, G. E. (George Edward). 1903. "The Refutation of Idealism." In Philosophical Studies, 1-30. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1922.
Morson, G. S. 1988. Hidden in Plain View: Narrative and Creative Potentials in 'War and Peace'. Aldershot: Gower Publishing (Scholar Press).
O'Donnell, R. 2013. "Two Post-Keynesian Approaches to Uncertainty and Irreducible Uncertainty." In The Oxford Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics--Volume 2: Critiques and Methodology, edited by G. C. Harcourt and Peter Kreisler, 124-142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olssen, M. 2010. Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Social Democracy: Thin Communitarian Perspectives on Political Philosophy and Education. London: Routledge.
Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century (trans. Arthur Goldhammer). London: Belknap Press.
Raverat, G. 1952. Period Piece. London: Collector's Library, 2014.
Reed, C. 2004. Bloomsbury Rooms: Modernism, Subculture and Domesticity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Reinert, E. 2012. "Veblen's Contexts." In Thorstein Veblen: Economics for an Age of Crises, edited by Erik S. Reinert and Francesca Lidia Viano, 17-50. London: Anthem Press.
Rosner, V., ed. 2014. The Cambridge Companion to the Bloomsbury Group. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, B. 1951. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell--Volume 1: 1872-1914. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Skidelsky, R. 1983. "'The Cambridge Undergraduate' and 'Private Lives'." In John Maynard Keynes--Volume 1: Hopes Betrayed 1883-1920, 106-132, 233-262. New York: Viking Penguin, (chs 5 & 10).
Spalding, F. 1997. The Bloomsbury Group. London: National Portrait Gallery Publications.
Spalding, F. 2014. Virginia Woolf: Art, Life and Vision. London: National Portrait Gallery.
Strachey, L. 1918. Eminent Victorians (Illustrated edition). London: Bloomsbury, 1988.
Strachey, L. 1922. "Lancaster Gate." In Lytton Strachey by Himself: A Self-Portrait, edited by Michael Holroyd, 16-28. London: Heinemann, 1971 reprint.
Thomson, B. 2001. "Post-impressionism." In The Oxford Companion to Western Art, edited by Hugh Brigstocke, 593-594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tolstoy, L. 1877. Anna Karenina (trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky). London: Penguin, 2000.
Tolstoy, L. 1898. What is Art? (trans. Aylmer Maude). London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1994, 2016.
Veblen, T. 1900. "The Preconceptions of Economic Science." In Essential writings of Thorstein Veblen, edited by Charles Camic and Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 188-243. London: Routledge, 2011.
Veblen, T. 1920. "Review of 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace'." In Essays in our Changing Order, edited by Leon Ardzrooni, 462-470. New York: Augustus M Kelley Reprint, 1964.
Viano, F. L. 2012. "Ithaca Transfer: Veblen and the Historical Profession." In Thorstein Veblen: Economics for An Age of Crises, edited by Erik S. Reinert and Francesca Lidia Viano, 133-171. London: Anthem Press.
Williams, R. 1980. "The Bloomsbury fraction." In Problems in materialism and culture, 148-169. London Verso. (Also published as "The significance of Bloomsbury as a social and cultural group." In Keynes and The Bloomsbury Group, edited by Derek Crabtree and Anthony Philip Thirlwall, 40-67. London: Macmillan, 1980).
Winch, D. 2010. 'Introduction to new edition.' of John Maynard Keynes Essays in Biography. London: Palgrave Macmillan, xx-xl.
Woolf, V. 1922. "Old Bloomsbury." In A Bloomsbury group reader, edited by Stanford Patrick Rosenbaum, 355-372. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993.
Woolf, V. 1925a. "Montaigne." In The Common Reader, 84-97. London: Hogarth Press.
Woolf, V. 1925b. "The Russian Point of View." In The Common Reader, 219-231. London: Hogarth Press.
Woolf, V. 1927. "Street Haunting: A London adventure." In Street Haunting and Other Essays, edited by Stuart N. Clarke, 225-240. London: Vintage, 2014.
Woolf, V. 1929. A room of one's own. London: Collector's Library, 2013.
Appendix: Bloomsbury members and associates Leslie Stephen 1832-1904 Lowes Dickinson 1862-1932 Roger Fry 1866-1934 Bertrand Russell 1872-1970 G E Moore 1873-1958 Desmond MacCarthy 1877-1952 E M Forster 1879-1970 Vanessa Bell 1879-1961 Lytton Strachey 1880-1932 Leonard Woolf 1880-1969 Clive Bell 1881-1964 Virginia Woolf 1882-1941 John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946 Duncan Grant 1885-1978 Rupert Brooke 1887-1915 David Garnett 1892-1981 Saxon Sydney-Turner 1880-1962 Thoby Stephen 1880-1906 Molly McCarthy 1882-1953 Adrian Stephen 1883-1948 George Duckworth 1868-1934 Stella Duckworth 1869-1897 Gerald Duckworth 1870-1937 Ottoline Morrell 1873-1938 Margery Fry 1874-1958 Harold Nicolson 1886-1968 James Strachey 1887-1967 Katherine Mansfield 1888-1923 Mary Hutchinson 1889-1977 Vita Sackville-West 1892-1962 Dora Carrington 1893-1932 Gerald Brennan 1894-1987 Ralph Partridge 1894-1960 Frances Partridge 1900-2004 Julian Bell 1908-1937 Quentin Bell 1910-1996 Anne Olivier Bell 1916- Virginia Nicholson 1955- Additional significant associates Albert Einstein 1879-1955 Pablo Picasso 1881-1973 Margaret Neville Keynes 1885-1970 Geoffrey L Keynes 1887-1982 Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889-1951 Margaret Darwin 1890-1974 Lydia Lopokova 1892-1981 Angelica Garnett 1918-2012 Leslie Stephen (A) ed. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885 Lowes Dickinson (A) Cambridge and LSE, political scientist Roger Fry (A) painter, Quaker; from 1910 championed post-impressionism in UK Bertrand Russell (A) philosopher G E Moore (A) Cambridge moral philosopher; not Bloomsbury Desmond MacCarthy (A) journalist incl. for New Statesman; helped RF w. post-impressionism E M Forster (A) novelist Vanessa Bell painter; nee Stephen; long-term resident of Charleston Lytton Strachey (A) biographer, historian--Eminent Victorians 1918 Leonard Woolf (A) writer, essayist and publisher (Hogarth Press) Clive Bell art critic; author of Civilization, 1928; advocate of post impressionism Virginia Woolf writer and publisher (Hogarth Press); nee Stephen John Maynard Keynes (A) Cambridge economist Duncan Grant painter, cousin of Lytton Strachey, lived with VB from 1915 Rupert Brooke (A) poet; died from sepsis (Greece) David Garnett writer, son of Constance; married Angelica Bell/Grant 1942 Saxon Sydney-Turner (A) Cambridge, opera enthusiast, public servant (Treasury) Thoby Stephen brother of Vanessa and Virginia; friend of LS; (died of typhoid) Molly McCarthy Stephen family; began Memoir Club 1922; married Desmond Adrian Stephen brother of Vanessa and Virginia; translated Freud George Duckworth step-brother of Stephen sisters, mother Julia married L Stephen Stella Duckworth step-sister of Stephen sisters, mother Julia married L Stephen Gerald Duckworth step-brother of Stephen sisters, mother Julia married L Stephen Ottoline Morrell arts patron, friend of BR, DC, DG, CB, LS, RF, TSE, DHL + Margery Fry sister of Roger; educationalist, prison reformer, magistrate Harold Nicolson Labour MP, husband of Vita Sackville-West James Strachey younger brother of Lytton Strachey; translated Freud Katherine Mansfield NZ writer, rented part of JMK's 3 Gower St house, 1915 Mary Hutchinson L Strachey's cousin; Clive Bell's lover, also TSE, A Huxley Vita Sackville-West writer, wife of Harold Nicolson; lover of Virginia Woolf (1920s) Dora Carrington painter, lived with Lytton Strachey, married to Ralph Partridge Gerald Brennan writer, friend of Ralph Partridge, wooed Dora Carrington Ralph Partridge married Frances Marshall after death of Dora Carrington Frances Partridge niece of L Strachey, sister-in-law of David Garnett Julian Bell (A) son of Vanessa Bell; died as ambulance driver, Spain Quentin Bell son of Vanessa and Clive Bell; art historian; biographer of VW Anne Olivier Bell wife of Quentin, art historian, edited VW's diary Virginia Nicholson writer, daughter of Quentin Bell; trustee of Charleston Additional significant associates Albert Einstein not Bloomsbury; but JMK met and liked 'impish' AE (Berlin 1926) Pablo Picasso not Bloomsbury; but sketched Lydia Lopokova twice (1919) Margaret Neville Keynes sister of JMK, married AV Hill 1913; affair with Eglantyne Jebb Geoffrey L Keynes brother of JMK, surgeon, literary scholar Ludwig Wittgenstein (A) Cambridge, not Bloomsbury Margaret Darwin married Geoffrey Keynes 1917 Lydia Lopokova married JMK 1925, not fully accepted by Bloomsbury Angelica Garnett daughter of Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant; disliked parents' experiments
(*) This paper links controversies over method during the past century with the strands of reasoning (including Keynes's concerns with uncertainty) that gave heft to the Cambridge-Bloomsbury nexus.
School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
CONTACT Geoff Dow email@example.com School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Notes on Contributor
Geoff Dow is an honorary researcher in the School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland. He has taught and researched post-Keynesianism and other the strands of heterodox political economy. With Winton Higgins, he has recently published Politics against pessimism: social democratic possibilities since Ernst Wigforss. Bern: Peter Lang, 2013.
Received 5 June 2017
Accepted 24 February 2018
[Please note: Some non-Latin characters were omitted from this article]
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||History of Economics Review|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Irving Fisher's unpublished 1890 essay 'Mathematical contributions to Philosophy: Attacking Kant's theory of Geom. axioms'.|
|Next Article:||P.W. Martin and the flaw in the price system.|