A friend, correspondent and intellectual successor to David Ricardo, John Ramsay McCulloch forged his reputation in the emerging field of political economy by publishing deeply researched articles in Scottish periodicals and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. From 1828 he spent nearly a decade as professor of political economy at the newly founded University of London, thereafter becoming comptroller of the Stationery Office. Perhaps the first professional economist, McCulloch had become internationally renowned by the middle of the century, recognised for sharing his ideas (...) through lucid lecturing and writing. The present reference work, first published in 1845, reflects McCulloch's extraordinarily wide reading across subjects relating to his field of expertise. Featuring sections on foundling hospitals and slavery, as well as money and prices, the bibliography is annotated throughout with McCulloch's frank assessments. Several other works written or edited by McCulloch are also reissued in the Cambridge Library Collection. (shrink)

In a recent article, C. H. Kahn addresses an ‘old scholarly myth’, namely the idea that Book I of the Republic began life as an earlier, independent dialogue and was subsequently adapted to serve as a prelude to the much longer work that we know. The case for this hypothesis rests both on stylometric considerations and on the many ‘Socratic’ features that Book I, unlike the rest of the Republic, shares with Plato's earlier works. Having disposed of the positive arguments (...) in favour of the ‘myth’, Kahn turns to the contrary—and in his view overwhelming—evidence that Book I was composed from the start as an integral part of the longer Republic. He catalogues 12 passages in Book I, accounting for roughly half its length, whose full significance will, he argues, only emerge if they are seen as instances of prolepsis, deliberate anticipations of what is to come in later books. (shrink)

L'âpreté des débats qui eurent lieu, notamment en Cappadoce entre 360 et 378, en pleine crise arienne, autour de la nature et de la personne du Saint-Esprit, ainsi que la diversité des opinions à l'intérieur même des camps opposés sur cette question, rendent délicate l'identification exacte des adversaires combattus par Basile de Césarée en 375 dans son traité Sur le Saint-Esprit, l'un des premiers du genre, d'autant plus que lui-même trouva des contradicteurs dans les rangs de ses propres amis. Dédié (...) à son disciple Amphiloque d'Iconium, le traité vise essentiellement, au-delà d'Aèce, son compatriote Eunome, toujours vivant et virulent, que Basile avait déjà combattu vers 360-363, le théoricien arien radical de la « dissemblance » et de la « subordination » de l'Esprit au Fils et au Père, manifestement visé ici par le vocabulaire de la « connumération » et de la « coordination ». La critique contemporaine avait pensé que le principal adversaire de Basile serait son ancien maître en ascétisme Eustathe évêque de Sébaste, qui tenait sur l'Esprit une doctrine ambiguë, ne voulant le ranger « ni avec Dieu ni avec les créatures ». Sans l'exclure du nombre des adversaires, le vocabulaire et l'argumentation du traité, sans rapport avec ceux de la Lettre 125 de Basile à Eustathe, obligent à abandonner cette interprétation pour rendre la priorité à Eunome. The acrimonious debates that took place concerning the nature and person of the Holy Spirit, especialy during the Arian crisis in Cappadocia from 360 to 378, as well as the diversity of opinions within the opposing camps, makes it difficult to identify the adversaries of Basil of Caesarea in his treatise On the Holy Spirit , unique for his time. The problem is even greater because Basil found himself at odds with his own friends. Dedicated to his disciple Amphilocus of Iconium, the treatise was aimed, essentially, beyond Aëtios, at his virulent compatriot Eunomius. Basil had already engaged him around 360-363. A radical Arian theoretician of the “dissemblance” and of “subordination” of the Spirit to the Son and Father, Eunomius was clearly targeted by the vocabulary of the “connumeration” and “coordination”. Contemporary criticism thought that the principal adversary of Basil could have been his old master in asceticism, Eustathius , who held an ambiguous doctrine about the Spirit, not wishing to place it “either with God or with creatures”. Without excluding him from the number of adversaries, the vocabulary and argumentation of the treatise, which are unconnected to those of Basil's Letter 125 to Eustathius, oblige us to abandon this interpretation and give priority to Eunomius. (shrink)

From the perspective of the old politics-right, left, and liberal—the New Left is nothing more than incoherent social commentary that should be dismissed in the manner of academic psychological explanation. But even with all the psychologizing that flourished in the interests of soothing troubled consciences the fact remains that the New Left uncovered the "process of the political." Those who remain content with the psychological explanation of the New Left and those who regard the New Left as no more than (...) a historical relic will simply ignore. Howard’s philosophical treatment of the meaning of the New Left; the Left Orthodoxy will find nothing here but further testimony to the heresy of the New Left. (shrink)