====================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
This discussion was started by James Henderson who argued, as I 
understood it, that we need to make a new start, to lessen the emphasis 
on internal history, and take up 'contextualizing and sociologizing' 
instead. My view is based on a belief that there is no conflict between 
internal history and context, that the appropriate mix of the two 
varies according to the question asked and the personal interests and 
skills of the historian, and that there is no need for any real change 
of direction. There has always been good and bad work in the field (as 
in all others), and we need to do what we already do and do it better, 
rather than abandoning it. 
 
I want to support this position by commenting on the work of Quentin 
Skinner. He has been mentioned in this discussion by Kevin Quinn 
('surely Skinner's work lies behind both Roy's and Ross's 
methodological dicta'). Skinner's 1969 classic, 'Meaning and 
understanding in the history of ideas' presented a view of the history 
of philosophy (arguably) similar in general character to that argued 
about our field by several participants in this discussion. It is a 
splendid paper which every historian of economics should read. But I 
worry that he, like Henderson and Weintraub here, was attacking a straw 
man. 
 
So, consider an example of his approach in practice - his 1984 'The 
idea of negative liberty', which he himself explicitly presented as an 
examplar of how to do the history of philosophy and which seems to be 
well regarded (it is in Philosophy and History ed. R. Rorty et al). The 
heart of the 1984 paper is a careful examination of what Machiavelli 
said about liberty (where in 1969 Skinner had condemned work of the form 
'what x said about y'). It is based entirely on a thorough exposition of 
the relevant arguments in one major work, Machiavelli's Discourses. It 
is set in context by summarizing the modern state of discussion of the 
topic and the views of key classical writers and by contrasting 
Machiavelli with Hobbes and the tradition he started - internal history, 
with no sociology or biography. 
 
I do not say this as a criticism of Skinner - it is an excellent paper 
- but to argue that we should feel free to do as he does, not as he 
says (or has sometimes been interpreted as saying). His 1984 seems to 
me to be very close in general character to what historians of 
economics do and have always done - examining classic works in detail, 
with the aim of understanding and perhaps learning from the arguments 
contained in them. 
 
---------------------- 
 
Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) 
University of Bristol, Department of Economics 
8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England 
Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 
Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 
 
================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]