Concluding remarks:

The story which has been told is another chapter in the remarkable history of the reception of Walrasian thought. There is perhaps no history like this one which gives so many examples of how “mainstream” school formation and ossification can put a brake on scientific progress. In 1838 the publishing of A. Cournot's (1801-1877) Récherches sur les Principes Mathématiques de la Theorie de la Richesse was for the followers of J.B. Say no reason at all to go back to the study and put their teeth into the time-honoured Mécanique Analitique (1788) by J.L. Lagrange. Quite the contrary, F. Bastiat (1801-1850) hammered away at his enormous amount of literature of lamentable quality. And Walras himself, was not he a lonely dissident abroad who was not heard in his homeland, while in France there was absolutely nothing else worth listening to!

It is well known that when a “mainstream” comes under attack and feelings become heated, those scientists who change their mind and leave the “mainstream” are at first ignored. When their work is not taken up later, it is irrespective of its quality at risk of being forgotten. Koopmans escaped this fate not only because his work in monetary theory was highly regarded, but probably also because he showed that from the Walrasian problem of multiple equilibria no argument for government interference can be deduced. Up to now it has escaped notice that he came up with a dual approach to solve the problem. Valk's early work on Cassel's system is often quoted as an accessible Dutch introduction to Walras's system. Valk's later work, however, which is far more interesting for its treatment of the Walrasian existence and uniqueness problems, has been neglected thus far. History has certainly been unfair to Wiebols. In his work the implications of general equilibrium theory for Marshall's concept of a consumer surplus are clearly elucidated. May this chapter in the history of Walrasian thought save him from oblivion.