![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Although both books discussed in this review essay address problems with relevance to our present day and its dilemmas, they have different chronological scopes and employ different methods of interpretation. Robertson focuses exclusively on the era of the “Enlightenment” (c. 1680–1790), eschewing overt “presentism” to treat a wide range of authors and works as they addressed one another in the context of the events and developments of the period, mainly in Britain, France, and Germany. Friedman's aim, emphasizing the role of “religious” thought, is to explore the roots of present-day “thinking” about economics as a “science” and debates about economic policy. His book, beginning its coverage in Western Europe in the later 17th century and, following a “history of ideas” approach, gives pride of place to Adam Smith's ideas in the formulation of a “coherent” economic theory, and then in a linear account, centered on America, describes the key steps that he argues led from Smith to the present. This review essay, concentrating on what each book has to say about the Enlightenment, juxtaposes their accounts of the era and offers critical judgment of their differing treatments of its character and accomplishments.
Notes
1 D’Alembert, “Essai”,I.1.122–3.
2 Cassirer, Philosophy of the Enlightenment, 3–36, quote at 4.
3 Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.
4 Weber, Protestant Ethic, 51.
5 Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, 175–93, 286–7.
6 Keynes, “A Short View of Russia”, 267; Tawney, Religion, 289.
7 Simmel, “Contribution”, 101.
8 Bodin, Response; Smith, A discourse of the commonweal, esp. 69, 95–9, 102–16, 142–4; Misselden, The circle of commerce; Mun, Discourse; Mun, England’s treasure.
9 Phillipson, Adam Smith, 73–8, 211–12, 214–38; Ross, Life, 248–69.
10 Ross, Life, 274–5; Phillipson, Adam Smith, 123, 127–30.
11 See Glasgow, 63–105, 139–238, 278–40; Devine, The Tobacco Lords; Price, “The Rise of Glasgow”.
12 Ross, Life, 26, 52, 109, 116; Phillipson, Adam Smith, 132.
13 Stewart, Account, 274.
14 Ahnert, Moral Culture, 17–34; Sher, Church and University, 13–17, 31–6, 43–4.
15 Smith, Wealth (cited hereafter as WN), I.vii.15, I:75.
16 Bloch, The Historian’s Craft, 29–30.
17 Smith, A discourse of the commonweal, 96.
18 The phrase “invisible hand” appears three times in Smith’s writing: Smith, “History of Astronomy”, III.2, 49; Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (cited hereafter as TMS), IV.1.10, 184; Smith, WN, IV.ii.9, 1:456.
19 Harrison, “Adam Smith”, quotes at 49.
20 Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society, 1–22, 51–82.
21 Pocock, Barbarism, 9; Israel, Radical Enlightenment, v:22.
22 Robertson follows similar practices in discussing other major texts.
23 Citing WN IV.ii.43, I:471.
24 Cf. e.g. Gay, The Enlightenment, I:205–419 (“The Tensions with Christianity”).
25 See TMS, II.i.5.10, 77; TMS, VII.ii.3.16, 304; WN. I.ii.2, I.25–30.
26 Weber, “Science”, 138–9, 129–56 passim; Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 3–22 and passim.
27 Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”, 17
28 Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”, 19, 20, 22; emphases in the original.
29 Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”, 22; emphases in the original.
30 Hume, Treatise, 4.
31 OED s.v. “social science, n”.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
David Harris Sacks
David Harris Sacks, PhD (History, Harvard, 1977) is the Richard F. Scholz Professor of History and Humanities, Emeritus in Reed College, Portland, OR, USA.