I very much agree with Robert Whaples (see http://eh.net/pipermail/hes/2005-
January/002821.html) and some of the others, who praised Heilbroner's contribution to
economics. As a newly-minted "luminary" in the field - promise I won't let it go to my
head:-) - I feel that Bob Heilbroner occupies a unique position in the history of
economics. His service to the subdiscipline was enormous in the influence he had over many
eager minds who would never think of economics the same way again after reading his works
and attending his seminars. Given the trajectory of mainstream economics in the last half
century, one cannot take for granted that a student's bent of mind alone would
spontaneously direct her or him in the direction of the subject's history.
          
        If HET requires rigor in order to be qualified as a sub-discipline of scholarly
substance, I would like to suggest that Heilbroner's books and articles were not hastily
produced works. Each one stands the test of excellent reasoning. and research. If all of
them were not very directly in the history of economics tradition and did not use the
tools of historical research, they were always infused with an understanding of the
importance of how economists of the past developed their ideas. Doesn't it make sense for
a sub-discipline to be more inter-disciplinary and not fall in the trap of rigid boundary
formation? As for his knack for popularizing our dismal science, he did not do it by
lowering his standards, but by using his immense natural gifts of elegant prosemaking and
rhetoric to try to persuade the general audience. In the process he elevated the public
discourse.
          
        Some of the messages have paid eloquent tribute to Heilbroner's generosity as a
scholar and his decency as a human being.  I could not agree with them more. His openness
to ideas was incredible. If HET is about ideas of economists, then Heilbroner deserves
recognition as an outstanding idea person. I feel it would be appropriate to give him a
special posthumous award for the dignity-enhancing work he did in his lifetime. In this
case, it is not a choice between 'an original thinker or a superior popularizer' as was
said in one previous message. Javier Finkman also wrote that  "usually talent is also
subject to division of labor gains".  Heilbroner's talent was unique and substantial
enough for us to show our generosity of spirit and acknowledge the gains to countless
people who were motivated by his scholarship.
          
        Sumitra Shah