----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I think the best article on this is Kenneth Boulding's "After Samuelson Who 
Needs Smith?" for HOPE (1971). 
 
My own view on this is that the terms come from the idea of history as 
written by the winners (Whig), and history as written by the losers 
(contra-Whig).  The issue of the perspective of the present is addressed 
very nicely in Boulding's essay, where he introduces the idea of the 
extended present to challenge the Whig interpretation that all that is good 
in the ancients is embodied in the teachings of the moderns. 
 
I address some of these issues in my essay Why Read the Classics? available 
at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Features/feature2.html 
 
I know some of you will have objections to what I write in that essay, but 
I just wanted to put in my two cents following Roy's stimulating comments. 
The distinction I like to further draw (following Boulding again) is 
between history, and theory construction.  Some scholars use history of 
ideas as an input in theoretical construction (consumer of history of 
ideas), and others are primarily concerns with writing history (producer of 
history of ideas). We read the classics not only because of their value in 
itself, but because they are part of our extended present and thus can 
improve our theoretical constructions today.  However, I try to make clear 
that I know that when doing that people are not producing history, but 
instead using history as an input in to their work. 
 
Pete Boettke 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]