Sraffa’s Ricardo edition gained a well-deserved authoritative status and numerous authors have studied its first nine volumes. I concentrate on ‘Ricardo in Business’ in Volume 10, and I present some additions and corrections, with respect to, for example, Ricardo’s activities at the Stock Exchange, the 1811 incident about Wetenhall’s price lists and the 1814 Berenger fraud, the huge British Loan contracts of the Barnes-Steers-Ricardo consortium and the identity of its unknown fourth member, the timing and the effects of the news from the Battle of Waterloo, the financial hierarchy in the two (not four) consortia that contracted for the Waterloo Loan and earlier Loans. Silberling (1924) accused Ricardo of dishonest strategies against Goldsmid’s consortium. Sraffa destroyed Silberling’s arguments in 1955, 24 years after informing Cannan about his ‘ammunition’. Using newly discovered letters from Barnes, I suggest that Silberling even confused victims and perpetrators. I also examine the quality of quotations by Sraffa, Dobb and a few others.

中文翻译：

---

Sraffa on Ricardo in Business 的一些补充和更正

斯拉法的李嘉图版获得了当之无愧的权威地位，许多作者研究了它的前九卷。我在第 10 卷中专注于“商业中的里卡多”，并就里卡多在证券交易所的活动、1811 年韦滕霍尔价格表事件和 1814 年贝伦杰欺诈案（英国巨额Barnes-Steers-Ricardo 财团的贷款合同及其未知的第四名成员的身份、滑铁卢战役消息的时间和影响、签订滑铁卢贷款合同的两个（不是四个）财团的财务等级和更早的贷款。Silberling (1924) 指责 Ricardo 对 Goldsmid 的财团采取不诚实的策略。1955 年，Sraffa 摧毁了 Silberling 的论点，在将他的“弹药”告知 Cannan 24 年后。使用来自巴恩斯的新发现的信件，我建议 Silberling 甚至混淆了受害者和肇事者。我还检查了 Sraffa、Dobb 和其他一些人的报价质量。