I have enjoyed the two communications from Ross Emmett an Mayo Toruno. The distinction between history of economic thought (broader than but inclusive of the history of economic theory, but their relationship is another matter) and the history of economics is indeed very important. The history of economic thought/theory is part of intellectual history; the history of ideas. The history of economics is, as Emmett says, part of the history of science -- with science an organized, social activity and therefore subject to the kind of inquiry which can be devoted to such activity, e.g., the sociology of science, professionalization, linguistic communities, and so on -- in contrast to envisioning and discussing science solely as a mode to Truth. Notice that focusing on the history of economic thought does not necessarily imply an internalist approach; economic thought can be and often is influenced by external factors. Similar, focusing on the history of economics does not necessarily imply an externalist approach; the sociology (for example) is the small group sociology internal to/constitutive of the discipline -- which is part of what Stigler included when he wrote of interests internal to the minds of theorists. The two need not be distinct in practice. Inquiry into the history of economic thought can encompass examination of the sources of ideas; and inquiry into the history of economics can encompass such a notion that ideas have histories of their own. For whom are we writing; what are our goals? I shall not presume to tell others what they goals should be. Each historian has to work that out for themself. I will say that doing history of economic thought and history of economics are ventures valuable in themselves. If such enriches/changes the conversation within the larger economicss community, then fine. But that need not be one's goal. If others want to ignore your work, that is their problem, not yours. Ross writes that conflict within economics has not reached the point where the community splits and separate conversations take place. Alas, I think he is wrong, for several reasons: (1) The huge growth of output and the scarcity of time; it simply is impossible to not specialize, which means separate conversations. (2) Members of different schools to engage in largely (I do not say wholly) separate conversations; partly because of scarcity of time and partly, giving effect to one's exclusionary preconceptions. Etc. Some of the foregoing indeed raises the question posed by Margaret Schabas, whether historians would be better off in history of science etc. departments. Again, I think that each person has to determine this for him- or herself. Personally I can see the advantages and disadvantages both ways; but their identification and weight is a matter of personal subjectivity (I make the same argument about cost benefit analysis in general). Included in the reckoning are personal identities (most historians of economics/economic thought think of themselves are economists first, and often work in other subfields in economics; and, inter alia, differentiaal salary scales. I hope that the foregoing is helpful. Now, as Toruno says, I have to get back to (other) work -- all of which I consider much fun (so much for the marginal disutility of labor theory!). Warren J. Samuels Michigan State University