Ten neglected classics of philosophy

1st Edition Schliesser

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/ten-neglected-classics-of-philosophy-1st-edition-schli
esser/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Philosophy and the mirror of nature First Princeton

Classics Edition Rorty

https://textbookfull.com/product/philosophy-and-the-mirror-of-
nature-first-princeton-classics-edition-rorty/

Paradox Lost: Logical Solutions to Ten Puzzles of

Philosophy Michael Huemer

https://textbookfull.com/product/paradox-lost-logical-solutions-
to-ten-puzzles-of-philosophy-michael-huemer/

Son of classics and comics 1st Edition George Kovacs

https://textbookfull.com/product/son-of-classics-and-comics-1st-
edition-george-kovacs/

The Life of Milarepa Penguin Classics 1st Edition

Tsangnyön Heruka

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-life-of-milarepa-penguin-
classics-1st-edition-tsangnyon-heruka/
Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics
Volume 1 The Physical World 2nd Edition Dalaï Lama

https://textbookfull.com/product/science-and-philosophy-in-the-
indian-buddhist-classics-volume-1-the-physical-world-2nd-edition-
dalai-lama/

Demand for labor : the neglected side of the market 1st

Edition Hamermesh

https://textbookfull.com/product/demand-for-labor-the-neglected-
side-of-the-market-1st-edition-hamermesh/

The Origin and Goal of History (Routledge Classics) 1st

Edition Jaspers

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-origin-and-goal-of-history-
routledge-classics-1st-edition-jaspers/

Flavor The Science of Our Most Neglected Sense First

Edition Holmes

https://textbookfull.com/product/flavor-the-science-of-our-most-
neglected-sense-first-edition-holmes/

Flavor The Science of Our Most Neglected Sense Bob

Holmes

https://textbookfull.com/product/flavor-the-science-of-our-most-
neglected-sense-bob-holmes/
i

T E N N E G L E C T E D C L A S S IC S OF PH I L OSOPH Y
ii
iii

T E N N EG L ECT E D CL A SSIC S
OF PH I L OSOPH Y

Edited by Eric Schliesser

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–​0 –​19–​9 92892–​7 (pbk);
ISBN 978–0–19–992890–3 (hbk)

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Paperback printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
v

CON TEN TS

Acknowledgments vii
Author Biographies ix
Introduction: On Being a Classic in Philosophy ​
   Eric Schliesser xiii

1. Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen 1

Rachel Barney
2. Fénelon’s Telemachus 26
Ryan Patrick Hanley
3. Thomas Paine’s “Agrarian Justice” and
the Origins of Social Insurance 55
Elizabeth Anderson
4. Lotze’s Mikrokosmus 84
Frederick Beiser
5. Bradley’s Appearance and Reality 120
Michael Della Rocca

v
vi

Contents

6. Jane Addams’s “Women and Public Housekeeping” 148

Sally Haslanger
7. On Making Philosophy Functional: Ernst
Cassirer’s Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff 177
Alan W. Richardson
8. Edith Stein: On the Problem of Empathy 195
Kris McDaniel
9. W. E. B. Du Bois’s “Whither Now and Why” 222
Chike Jeffers
10. Jonathan Bennett’s Rationality 256
Daniel Dennett

Index 273

vi
vii

ACK NOW LEDGM EN TS

This collection of essays is the brainchild of my wonderful editor at

Oxford University Press, Peter Ohlin. I am thankful to Peter and his
colleagues, especially Emily Sacharin, for encouraging this volume
and for their loving care in producing it. Moreover, I am very grate­
ful to the distinguished group of contributors who patiently stuck
with the project. Also, I am pleased to acknowledge my colleagues
in two departments: Ghent University’s Department of Philosophy
and Moral Sciences and the Political Science Department at the
University of Amsterdam; they have provided me with near ideal
research environments. I have also been a lucky beneficiary of the
largesse of the BOF Research fund at Ghent University.
This volume was conceived and prepared while I enjoyed the
daily comradery of my fellow bloggers at New APPS. They put up
with my provocations, improved and edited my posts, and, when
necessary, acted as loyal opposition to some of my claims. I learned
an astounding amount of philosophy (and some pop culture) from
their writings, and through our interactions; I also learned that pro­
fessional philosophy can be a collaborative activity without loss of
individuality. I am especially grateful to John Protevi, Mark Norris

vii
viii

Ack now ledgm en ts

Lance, Mohan Matthen, Dennis Des Chene, Catarina Dutilh

Novaes, Jeff Bell, Helen De Cruz, Leigh M. Johnson, Ed Kazarian,
Carolyn Dicey Jennings, Brit Brogaard, and Jon Cogburn.
In addition, I thank those economists, the theorists David M.
Levy, M. A. Khan, Sandra Peart, and Hülya Eraslan, who taught
me that a neglected work can be an arbitrage opportunity, too—​an
insight insisted to me also by Liam Kofi Bright. Moreover, I owe a
debt of gratitude to Marijn Nohlmans for his work on the index.
Finally, this volume is dedicated to my two favorite, fellow
explorers of books, Sarit and Avi.

viii
ix

AU THOR BIOGR A PHI ES

Elizabeth Anderson is Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John

Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and
Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where
she has taught since 1987. She is a Guggenheim Fellow and a Fellow
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She is the author
of Value in Ethics and Economics (Harvard University Press, 1993),
The Imperative of Integration (Princeton University Press, 2010),
and numerous articles in moral, political, social, legal, and feminist
philosophy. She is currently working on a history of egalitarianism
from the Levellers to the present.

Rachel Barney is professor of classics and philosophy at the

University of Toronto. She received her BA from the University
of Toronto and her PhD from Princeton. She works on ancient
philosophy, with particular interest in Plato, and in issues of
philosophical methodology in ethics and epistemology.

Fred Beiser, professor of philosophy at Syracuse University,

has been a major contributor to work on the history of modern
philosophy, especially the history of German philosophy, and the

ix
x

Author Biogr a phi es

English Enlightenment. His book The Fate of Reason: German

Philosophy from Kant to Fichte won the 1987 Thomas J. Wilson Prize
for the Best First Book; among his other books are Hegel (Routledge,
2005); Diotima’s Children: German Aesthetic Rationalism from
Leibniz to Lessing (Oxford University Press, 2009); The German
Historicist Tradition (Oxford University Press, 2009); and Late
German Idealism: Trendelenburg and Lotze (Oxford University
Press, 2013).

Michael Della Rocca is the Andrew Downey Orrick Professor of

Philosophy at Yale University. He is the author of Representation
and the Mind-​Body Problem in Spinoza (Oxford University Press,
1996) and Spinoza (Routledge, 2008).

Daniel Dennett is Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and University

Professor at Tufts University, where he is also the codirector of
the Center for Cognitive Studies. He is the author of many books,
beginning with Content and Consciousness (1969) and including,
most recently, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (2013)
and, with Linda LaScola, Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind
(2013; rev. ed., 2015).

Ryan Patrick Hanley is Mellon Distinguished Professor of Politi­

cal Science at Marquette University. He is the author of Adam Smith
and the Character of Virtue (Cambridge University Press, 2009) and
Love’s Enlightenment: Rethinking Charity in Modernity (Cambridge
University Press, forthcoming). With the support of a fellowship
from the National Endowment for the Humanities, he is currently
at work on a book-​length study of Fénelon’s political philosophy.

Sally Haslanger is Ford Professor of Philosophy and Women’s

and Gender Studies at MIT. She specializes in metaphysics,

x
xi

Author Biogr a phi es

epistemology, feminist theory, and critical race theory. In 2013/​

14, she served as the president of the American Philosophical
Association, Eastern Division. Her book Resisting Reality: Social
Construction and Social Critique (Oxford 2012) won the Joseph
B. Gittler award for work in philosophy of the social sciences.

Chike Jeffers is an associate professor in the Department of

Philosophy at Dalhousie University. He specializes in Africana
philosophy and philosophy of race, with general interests in social and
political philosophy and ethics. Among his prominent publications
are “The Cultural Theory of Race: Yet Another Look at Du Bois’s
‘The Conservation of Races’ ” (Ethics, April 2013) and “Embodying
Justice in Ancient Egypt: The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant as a Classic
of Political Philosophy” (British Journal for the History of Philosophy,
May 2013). He is the editor of Listening to Ourselves: A Multilingual
Anthology of African Philosophy (SUNY Press, 2013).

Kris McDaniel is a professor of philosophy at Syracuse University.

He works primarily in metaphysics but has serious interests in the
history of philosophy and ethics.

Alan Richardson is professor of philosophy and a faculty member

in the Science and Technology Studies Graduate Program at
the University of British Columbia. A past president of the
International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science,
he works mainly on the historical trajectory of philosophical
reflection on science in the twentieth century. He is author of
Carnap’s Construction of the World (Cambridge University Press,
1998). He is coeditor with Flavia Padovani and Jonathan Tsou
of Objectivity in Science: Perspectives from Science and Technology
Studies (Springer, 2015).

xi
xii

Author Biogr a phi es

Eric Schliesser is Professor of Political Theory at the University of

Amsterdam, as well as visiting professor in philosophy and moral
sciences at Ghent University. He has published widely in early
modern philosophy and philosophy of economics. He has edited
most recently Sympathy: A History in the Oxford Philosophical
Classics Series. His monograph on Adam Smith is forthcoming
with Oxford University Press.

xii
xiii

Introduction
On Being a Classic of Philosophy

ER IC SCH LI E SSER

I borrow a so-​called intuition pump—​that is, a carefully con­

strained thought experiment—​which induces, even shapes, readers
to use their intuition to develop an answer to a problem—​f rom Dan
Dennett. Dennett’s “Faustian bargain” is articulated as follows:1

For several years, I have been posing the following choice for
my fellow philosophers: if Mephistopheles offered you the fol­
lowing two options, which would you choose?

(A) You solve the major philosophical problem of your choice so

conclusively that there is nothing left to say (thanks to you,
part of the field closes down forever, and you get a footnote
in history).
(B) You write a book of such tantalizing perplexity and controversy
that it stays on the required reading list for centuries to come.
Some philosophers reluctantly admit that they would have to go for
option (B). If they had to choose, they would rather be read

1. I thank an anonymous reviewer and Peter Ohlin for helpful remarks.

xiii
xiv

Introduction

than right. Like composers, poets, novelists, and other creators

in the arts, they tend to want their work to be experienced,
over and over, by millions (billions, if possible!). But they are
also tugged in the direction of the scientists’ quest. After all,
philosophers are supposed to be trying to get at the truth.
When I have presented the same Faustian bargain to
scientists they tend to opt for (A) without any hesitation—​
it’s a no-​brainer for them. (Daniel C. Dennett [2013], “A
Faustian Bargain,” in Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for
Thinking, p. 411)

Dennett was one of my undergraduate teachers, and I heard him try

out versions of the Faustian bargain on visiting scholars long before
he published it (in his book he describes further variants.) At some
point, I articulated and tried out a descendant of his bargain on
some fellow professional philosophical historians of philosophy.2 It
goes something like this:
(A*) You conclusively settle all interpretive-​conceptual problems
about a famous puzzle, such as Plato’s “third man” problem
in the theory of forms, Descartes’s supposed “circle,” or the
relationship between the infinite and finite in Spinoza’s
metaphysics.
(B*) You generate interest in a previously overlooked text so
that it (not you) gets on the required reading list for cen­
turies to come.

2. I apologize for this ugly locution. I mean to be picking out professionally trained philoso­
phers that, on the whole, work on the history of philosophy within philosophy depart­
ments; I do so to distinguish them from historians of philosophy who work in history
or literature departments as well as from other professional philosophers with an inter­
est in the history of the philosophy. For recent debate, see Lærke, M., Smith, J. E., and
Schliesser, E. (eds.) (2013), Philosophy and Its History: Aims and Methods in the Study of
Early Modern Philosophy, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

xiv
xv

Introduction

While (A*) and (B*) do not exhaust all possible options, I have
found—​based on unscientific sampling methods—​that most schol­
ars, after protesting that a conclusive solution to a genuine inter­
pretive problem seems too demanding an aspiration, happily and
promptly settle for (A*); that’s what we are trained to aim at, after all.
But a few respondents are, after some hesitation, tempted by
(B*). For ever since some professional philosophical historians
of philosophy started to study canonical works in context, it was
likely they would stumble across texts that might seem candidates
for (B*). 3 And while getting the past right is a nontrivial task, doing
justice to the past and thereby shaping a better future may be nobler
yet.4 One might even say—​as Chike Jeffers pointed out to me—​
that work in, say, Africana or feminist history of philosophy is nota­
bly distinct from standard historical work on the Western tradition
because of a kind of revisionary commitment to something akin to
(B*) rather than (A*).
Moreover, pursuing (B*) is also a near-​selfless-​act; in it one is
the nearly anonymous handmaiden to another’s success. Even if one
is motivated (one concludes after reading Nietzsche) by a strange
kind of desire for revenge or (echoing Walter Benjamin) by a desire
to speak for history’s losers, it remains the case that one uses one’s
skill and judgment to make somebody else’s previously overlooked
views, insights, or arguments available for discussion. Of course,
plenty of scholars are motivated by the true and the good, and (B*)
might be just one way among many to promote these.

3. For a provocative analysis, see Southgate, B. (1994). White-​washing the Canon: “Minor”
Figures and the History of Philosophy, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 2(2),
117–​130.
4. In commenting on an earlier draft, the scholar Martin Lenz suggested that (A*) may be
impossible as long as (B*) is a live option. Perhaps Lenz’s insight explains why variants of
(B*) are often treated with hostility by scholars, who tend to condemn “anachronism” or
“instrumentalization” of the past.

xv
xvi

Introduction

There is also something quixotic about (B*) because it is so

unlikely to succeed. An informed reflection on canon formation
suggests that enduring novelty is introduced into the curriculum
and people’s reading habits not by the conjoined efforts of scholars
but by the ideological and curricular needs of history’s proverbial
winners, who write and rewrite the past to give their own commit­
ments an air of inevitability, the so-​called royal road to me (to adopt
a fine phrase by Michael Kremer). 5
Even so, picking (B*) is one of the conceits behind this vol­
ume; that is, it aims to generate discussion on works that the con­
tributors, all distinguished and eminent philosophers, are fiercely
passionate about and that are (relatively) neglected at present.
These passions reveal strong reservations about the philosophical-​
professional status quo. For instance, Alan Richardson’s chapter
(7) is a polemic not just against the title of this volume but also
against contemporary philosophical practices; he argues that
“the overall lesson of the inevitable rise of the projects we associ­
ate with early analytic philosophy is false.” He revisits a work by
Ernst Cassirer (1874–​1945) to provide a “needed level of nuance
to the default stories of the development of analytic philosophy
in the twentieth century,” strongly implying that these stories
oversimplify.
While challenging the status quo, several chapters of this volume
also express reservations about the term “classic” and articulate,
directly and indirectly, important insights about canon and tradi­
tion formation. For example, Michael Della Rocca returns to the
proverbially obscure F. H. Bradley (1846–​1924)—​an author often
thought to have been decisively placed in the dustbin of history by

5. Kremer, M. (2013). What Is the Good of Philosophical History? In The Historical Turn
in Analytic Philosophy, edited by Erich H. Reck, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
227–​2 46.

xvi
xvii

Introduction

Russell at the origin of analytical philosophy6 —​and he illuminates

not just Bradley’s ongoing philosophical significance in ways that
challenge received opinion but also the ways in which analytical phi­
losophy relied on a perhaps necessary myth in its founding.
In addition, in her chapter, Sally Haslanger (6) reflects “on a
piece of ephemera that exemplifies, in several ways, much that is
neglected by our profession.” Her chapter also explicitly challenges
the very idea of a “classic.” She does not merely push her readers to
consider the overlooked and marginalized in the profession (and
society!); she also raises questions about how we should conceive of
philosophy as such.
Finally, the nature of philosophy is addressed head-​ on in
Rachel Barney’s chapter on—​thanks to Plato’s memorable and
influential rhetoric—​one of the arch-​v illains of philosophy; the
Sophist-​rhetorician Gorgias (a contemporary of Socrates), in a daz­
zling performance, defended one of the least admired characters
in (literary) history, Helen of Troy. Barney’s chapter suggests that
the nature and limits of philosophy, our canon, and our approved
“styles” may well be intimately and uncomfortably connected from
the (Greek) “start.”

It would be astonishing if the authors of this volume presented a

unified perspective. But a surprising point of convergence can be

6. Candlish, S. (2007), The Russell/​Bradley Dispute and Its Significance for Twentieth-​
Century Philosophy, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Della Rocca, M. (2013), The Taming
of Philosophy, in Lærke, M., Smith, J. E., and Schliesser, E. (eds.) (2013), Philosophy
and Its History: Aims and Methods in the Study of Early Modern Philosophy, Oxford
and New York: Oxford University Press, 178. See also “the original sin” in Schaffer, J.
(2010), Monism: The Priority of the Whole, Philosophical Review 119(1), 31–​76; and my
commentary on both Della Rocca (2013) and Schaffer (2010) in Schliesser, E. (2013),
Philosophic Prophecy: Philosophy and Its History—​A ims and Methods in the Study of
Early Modern Philosophy, 209.

xvii
xviii

Introduction

discerned, perhaps through the magic of associative reasoning;7

it occurred to me in reflecting on Kris McDaniels’s analysis on
Edith Stein (1891–​1942)—“empathetic acts are fulfilled by further
empathetic acts”—:the significance of love. In one sense this is not
very surprising, because love is central to Plato and the Platonisms
that have shaped canonical philosophy. We can hear echoes of such
Platonism in the “secret” of Hermann Lotze’s Mikrokosmus diagnosed
by Frederick Beiser, “that the ultimate reality, the ultimate value, and
indeed the ultimate truth, is love”—​see Beiser’s chapter (4) on Lotze
(1817–​1881)—​as well as in the promise of François Fénelon (1651–​
1715) of the “divine ecstasy” that is subsequent to the “love” of “eter­
nal reason” (see Hanley’s essay, c­ hapter 2). But as Barney’s chapter on
Gorgias (the author), who treats love as more akin to a compulsion,
reminds us, there is also a Plato that continues sophistic philosophy
by other means as an enduring challenge to his reader.
Now, as Haslanger explicitly notes in her chapter (6) on Jane
Addams’s “Women and Public Housekeeping,” love is also a very
problematic virtue in the history of political economy, especially
when used to devalue women’s contributions, as well as the many
ways in which traditional philosophy has become complicit in struc­
tural patterns of exclusion if not outright domination.8 There is no
better chapter to confront such issues than Jeffers’s (9), which finds
in W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–​1963) a productive “demand that black
people treat openness and thoughtfulness about sex and its place in
life as key cultural goals”—​a demand that is worth generalizing to

7. In particular, it evoked Conway’s account of the universal sympathetic relation

and (possible) mutual love of all creatures with each other. For a detailed analy­
sis of Conway’s account of sympathy, see Mercer, C. (2015). Seventeenth-​Century
Universal Sympathy: Stoicism, Platonism, Leibniz, and Conway, in Schliesser, E. (ed.),
Sympathy: A History, New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Some of the ambivalence of love is also apparent in the “credo” of Bradley’s Appearance
and Reality. This sentence is often quoted: “To love unsatisfied the world is mystery, a
mystery which love satisfied seems to comprehend.” The following line often not: “The
latter is wrong only because it cannot be content without thinking itself right.”

xviii
xix

Introduction

us all.9 It is no surprise that given his eugenicist aims, Du Bois is sus­

picious of (some versions of) love, too.10 Even so, despite the criti­
cal scrutiny of philosophy’s past and status quo, this volume also
includes calls to renew not just the political order (see especially
­chapter 3, Anderson’s essay on Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice)
but also the love—​and allowing “love” here to be understood as
a compulsion, a longing, and a joining together—​of wisdom, that
is, philosophy, by becoming in Richardson’s words, “a much more
many-​splendoured thing.”

Philosophy has a complex relationship to its own past. There are

recurring temptations—​ famously expressed by Descartes and
Carnap amongst others—​to start totally anew without any refer­
ence to what has gone before. Such temptations are reinforced in
philosophical movements that self-​consciously oppose a focus on
the “mighty dead.” For example, self-​styled “scientific philoso­
phers” embrace the intellectual division of labor and hope that with
techniques inherited from the sciences—​and by focused problem
solving—​to make progress and avoid the overconfident mistakes
of those who, to echo a familiar sentiment, put their faith in acts of
creative genius;11 from the perspective of this enterprise, the study
of “the greats,” even without reverence, flirts with the absurdly silly.
Scientific textbooks and popular images of science, often influ­
enced by Thomas Kuhn’s durable (1962) The Structure of Scientific

9. I thank Jeffers for discussion on this point.

10. I quote Jeffers: Looking back once more at “The Talented Tenth Memorial Address,” we
find DuBois speaking there of the need to promote “the rehabilitation of the indispens­
able family group, by deliberate planning of marriages, with mates selected for heredity,
physique, health and brains, with less insistence on color, comeliness or romantic sex
lure, mis-​called love” (1996b, 175).
11. Schliesser, E. (2011). Newton’s Challenge to Philosophy: A Programmatic Essay.
HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science
1(1), 101–​128.

xix
xx

Introduction

Revolutions,12 reinforce the idea that progressive scientific enter­

prises rightly discard disciplinary pasts; after all, it is thought there
is no need to be acquainted with, say, the contents of Newton’s
Principia to do cutting-​edge research in contemporary physics. It
is no surprise, then, that some professional philosophers have little
working knowledge of, or interest in, philosophy’s past.
Moreover, others raise concerns over the composition of the
philosophical canon. It’s primarily white and primarily European;
leaving aside a few church fathers, it has a bias toward those who
inhabited Athens in the fifth and fourth century before Christ
(Plato, Aristotle), those that visited Paris in the seventeenth and
eighteenth century (Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Hume, etc.),
and those that spoke German in the (long) nineteenth century
(Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Frege,
etc.).13 The current teaching canon, which draws on and nurtures
the philosophical “classics,” within philosophy, systematically
excludes whole cultures, is biased toward men, and lavishes atten­
tion on thinkers who—​regardless of their intellectual merits—​a lso
espoused racist, sexist, eugenicist, and imperialist views.14 Those
that worry about the present patterns of exclusion within philosophy

12. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
13. On some episodes of canon formation in philosophy, see, e.g., Kuklick, B. (1984), Seven
Thinkers and How They Grew: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz; Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 125–​140; Inglis, J. (1997), Philosophical
Autonomy and the Historiography of Medieval Philosophy, British Journal for the
History of Philosophy 5(1), 21–​53; Kolesnik-​A ntoine, D. (2013), Is the History of
Philosophy a Family Affair? The Examples of Malebranche, in Lærke, M., Smith, J. E.,
and Schliesser, E. (eds.), Philosophy and Its History: Aims and Methods in the Study of
Early Modern Philosophy, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
14. For a feminist critique, see Witt, C. (2006), Feminist Interpretations of the
Philosophical Canon, Signs 31(2), 537–​552; Shapiro, L. (2004), Some Thoughts on
the Place of Women in Early Modern Philosophy, in Alanen, L., and Witt, 7 C. (eds.),
Feminist Reflections on the History of Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer, 219–​250. The role
of eugenics in DuBois’s thought is frankly explored in Chike Jeffers’s contribution to
this volume.

xx
xxi

Introduction

and larger society alternate between advocating extensive reform of

the canon, focusing on greater inclusivity, and abolition altogether.
As the previous paragraph implies, classic texts continue to fig­
ure in undergraduate philosophy and humanities education. Some
texts work extremely well to introduce and recruit young minds to
philosophy (e.g., Plato’s dialogues); experienced teachers know that
part of a student’s joy is to experience philosophy in the company of
those that set the philosophical agenda. Students enjoy the achieve­
ment of grappling with seminal texts; it also familiarizes them with
the idea that books with depth can speak to different audiences at
once and sometimes repay repeated readings. Another part of an
aspiring philosophical student’s pleasing cultivation is to learn to
recognize echoes or the problematic of these significant texts in
other works of philosophy and even in differing walks of life. In
addition, the existence of an assumed shared textual background
allows for relatively efficient, conceptual and argumentative short­
cuts or vivid imagery—​for example, “evil demons” or “philosopher
kings”—​in one’s teaching.
Other texts remain indispensable to the graduate curricu­
lum: many professional philosophers encounter, say, Hume’s
Treatise and Kant’s first Critique before obtaining a PhD. It is not
always clear what—​other than institutional inertia—​keeps them in
the curriculum and why the very best graduate departments keep
hiring specialists to teach such works. Presumably, it is believed
that even when such texts are thought surpassed, they articulate
the framework of enduring philosophical options. Perhaps, too, it
is believed useful in an age that encourages increasing professional
specialization to teach comprehensive works that can convey the
role of systematic trade-​offs and constraints in philosophical reflec­
tion on fundamental questions.
In addition to formal, pedagogical functions, classic works
also play other, nontrivial roles in the ongoing life, as it were, of

xxi
xxii

Introduction

philosophy. I list four such roles that I think of as being especially

important: first, such works sometimes renew philosophy, espe­
cially in periods after an antihistorical sweep. By this I mean that
rather than reinvent wheels, people turn to them because they
provide resources to recover lost insight; arguably during the last
half century lots of classical texts have played such a role in moral
philosophy (e.g., Aristotle’s Ethics, Sidgwick’s Methods) and meta­
physics (e.g., Spinoza’s Ethics). Second, within professional philoso­
phy, research on a canonical figure is still a legitimate way for an
ambitious character to apprentice within the profession, even make
a first mark. In doing so, they resemble those musicians that nour­
ished, in J. M. Coetzee’s telling of the story, an appetite for Bach
when he was out of fashion.15
Third, some professional philosophers understand themselves
as members of a tradition (e.g., American pragmatists, critical
theorists, Deleuzians) in which the aspiring contribution is both a
response to a select number of familiar works, and a creative exten­
sion or reconfiguration of their problematic. Finally, some proven,
enduring authors (Seneca, Montaigne, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir,
Thoreau, etc.) are read for wisdom and (provocative) enjoyment
by a wider, literate public, including professional philosophers and
others inside and outside the academy.
Thus, there are many ways to be a classic within philosophy and
many classics are capable of serving multiple functions. Perhaps, it
is distinctive of a classic within philosophy to have such multiplicity
of functions. To claim this, to even talk of a “classic,” is not to deny
the path dependency of classics on each other and institutional

15. Coetzee, J. M. (1993). What is a classic? Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern
Africa 5(2), 7–​2 4. Given that in his essay the novelist and critic Coetzee treats the situa­
tion of classical music as a healthy one (as opposed to the dire situation in literature), it
is not impossible Coetzee is being ironic.

xxii
xxiii

Introduction

constraints, including the systematic patterns of exclusion men­

tioned above that have formed existing canons. That history’s judg­
ment is significant is undeniable, but only an economist, perhaps,
would suggest it is optimal, and therefore, the study of a disciplinary
past is a dispensable luxury.16 To say that some books and authors
have proven to be enduring is not to offer a prediction.17 It is not a
law of nature that philosophy will always be taught by way of books;
it is certainly conceivable that philosophers will stop writing books
and find other forms of communication. In fact, one way to hasten
such an outcome is to regard the past as a static, known quality that
does not demand our engagement or critical judgment.
Thus far, I have noted four functional (sometimes conflicting)
roles of classics and that the teaching canon draws on and nurtures
some texts that we often speak of as “classics.” These may be thought
insufficient to characterize a classic. While it would be foolish to
expect a list of necessary and sufficient conditions of the classic, we
can do more to offer a more precise characterization that can help
the reader in her engagement with the chapters in this volume.18

16. Stigler, G. J. (1969). Does economics have a useful past? History of Political Economy
1(2), 217–​2 30. Interestingly enough, Stigler’s paper also argues that the sociology of
knowledge is worth cultivating.
17. Hume seems more optimistic: “On the contrary, a real genius, the longer his works
endure, and the more wide they are spread, the more sincere is the admiration which
he meets with. Envy and jealousy have too much place in a narrow circle; and even
familiar acquaintance with his person may diminish the applause due to his perfor­
mances: But when these obstructions are removed, the beauties, which are naturally
fitted to excite agreeable sentiments, immediately display their energy; and while the
world endures, they maintain their authority over the minds of men.” (“Of the Standard
of Taste,” 11) Hume’s “Of the Standard of Taste” is relevant to the present volume; in it,
Hume explicitly treats Fénelon as one of his key interlocutors. Few philosophers oth­
erwise ever encounter Fénelon in their education or scholarship. See Ryan Hanley’s
chapter (2).
18. To be clear the chapters themselves do not reflect the viewpoint of the introduction and
were completed before the introduction was drafted.

xxiii
xxiv

Introduction

In “What Is a Classic?” J. M. Coetzee (Nobel laureate in litera­

ture, 2003) insists, while flirting with the idea of the survival of the
literary fittest, that classics sustain and survive ongoing scrutiny in
the long run from a variety of perspectives, which may include—​
judging by Coetzee’s practice—​ their creative rewriting. Such
ongoing scrutiny comes close to being a necessary condition on
the being of a philosophical classic; one may suspect it is a kind of
performative requirement for a classic. One may wonder why this
condition is not necessary; the possibility, even existence of instant
classics undercuts the necessity of the condition.
In his essay, Coetzee identifies four features that enable a work
to become a classic: (1) the work needs to be studied and discussed
in small circles, relatively untouched by the general public’s fash­
ion; (2) one can become an advanced student in a discipline based
on some kind of competent engagement with such works; (3) there
needs to be ongoing learned commentary or criticism; (4) the exis­
tence of a form of advanced emulation through creative imitation
or reworking. These four features all track different kinds of elit­
ist features of classics that arouse suspicion in those with concerns
about patterns of exclusion.19 In addition, Coetzee implies (5) that a
work counts as a classic only if it can eventually catch the interest of
a wider audience beyond the most advanced professionals.
Though Coetzee does not speak of philosophical classics (he
focuses on music and literature) in context, his features can be applied
in the present context to a considerable degree (and in general, phi­
losophy is often tacitly on Coetzee’s agenda). While not denying the
inherent tensions between (1) and (5), I have already mentioned
instances of (2), (3), and (5); few would deny the existence of (1)—​
indeed, it is often a source of lament to philosophers that wish to

19. In his essay, Coetzee does not overlook the elitist elements, but he is more interested in
the cosmopolitan dimension of a classic.

xxiv
xxv

Introduction

prove the relevance or, if they are working in an European grant envi­
ronment, “impact” of these texts.
One may, however, doubt that (4) occurs in philosophy. It is
probably not a good strategy to try to get a monograph published
following Kant’s architectonic in the first Critique. Having granted
that, this volume includes a very good example of (4): Fénelon’s
(1699) The Adventures of Telemachus: The Son of Ulysses is itself
a creative extension of the original classic (and even bears the
subtitle of “continuation of the fourth book of the Odyssey”).
Moreover, (4) is not just of historical interest; here’s an example
from within professional philosophy: an important essay in the
recent revival of analytical metaphysics is O’Leary-​Hawthorne
and Cortens (1995), “Towards ontological nihilism.”20 Given its
provenance in Syracuse’s philosophy department, it is no surprise
that it generously mentions Jonathan Bennett, the dominant fig­
ure of that department in the last third of the twentieth century.
But as it turns out, the rhetorical and argumentative methodology
is deeply indebted to Bennett’s Rationality—​this will be described
by Dennett in his chapter (10), so I will not repeat it here—​a work
familiar to Hawthorne and Cortens. This fact could go unnoticed
because Bennett’s Rationality is not mentioned in their piece.21
Obviously, judged by criteria (1) through (5), the works discussed
in this volume are not all at present a classic. For them to become a
classic or return to that state, philosophy needs to change; this vol­
ume hopes to open up entertaining and instructive, new pathways

20. Philosophical Studies 79(2), 143–​165. One further notable feature of this paper is the
positive engagement with Bradley—​t hen relatively unusual in analytical philosophy.
See Della Rocca’s chapter (5) and my Introduction for more on this.
21. Another, less influential example is Azzouni, Jody (1999, 2001), Numbered para­
graphs: An essay on aesthetics, in The Lust for Blueprints, 71–​91. Providence: Poet’s
Press, which is modeled on and critically engages Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.

xxv
xxvi

Introduction

and narratives for student and advanced philosopher alike through

the passionate engagement with ten recently neglected works.

I conclude with a final comment on the shaping of this volume.

After a number of posts on the philosophical canon that I published
at the New APPS blog, I was approached by Oxford University Press
with an idea for a volume like the present one. After I accepted the
press’s generous invitation, I approached a number of professional
philosophers whom I admire and invited them to contribute to this
enterprise.22 In so doing, I tried to strike a balance between profes­
sional philosophical historians of philosophy and “nonhistorians.”
(A few chapter authors are also known as first-​rate contributors to
both historical and systematic projects.) I asked them each to write
a chapter on a work that they thought unjustly neglected. In addi­
tion, the work so chosen could not be by a person “still active as a
philosopher.”23
Undoubtedly, these ten chapters also exhibit some of the pat­
terns of exclusion that I mentioned above. So, for example, the pres­
ent volume does not include any chapters on works in medieval
philosophy nor works in any of the major non-​Western philosophi­
cal traditions. I hope that some such omissions can be rectified in
potential future volumes.

22. Along the way the word “classic” replaced “masterpiece” in the title of this volume; some
chapters still show traces of the original title.
23. The one living subject of these chapters, Jonathan Bennett, focuses primarily on col­
lating and translating early modern texts (see http://​w ww.earlymoderntexts.com/​).
Several chapters reveal more of the details of my initial invitation.

xxvi
1

C ha pt e r 1

Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen

R ACH E L BA R N E Y

Ever since their own day, the ancient Greek sophists have provoked
outrage. Thanks to early enemies like Aristophanes and Plato, they
stand perennially accused of “making the weaker argument the stron­
ger,” defending the indefensible by unfair means. The term “sophist”
[sophistês] had negative connotations almost from the start, and over
time has just come to mean “person who argues unfairly.” But in a
more neutral sense, “sophist” is simply the name we use to pick out
an exciting and by no means indefensible intellectual movement—​a
loose group of fifth-​century bce Greek thinkers, writers, and teach­
ers who included Protagoras, Hippias, Prodicus, Gorgias, and perhaps
Socrates himself. It is a controversial question who should count as one
of the sophists and on what grounds, just as it is with “Enlightenment”
thinkers or “postmodernists.” In the case of the sophists, not only is
there no one thing that all of them had in common, in most cases only
tantalizing scraps of their works have survived. We can catch only a
glimpse of what all the fuss was about.1

1. A general overview of the sophists’ ideas and activities, defending some of the more
sweeping claims here, can be found in Barney 2006.

1
2

Ten Neglected Cl assics of Philosoph y

Among the few complete sophistic texts that have come down
to us, two stand out for their brilliance, complexity, and sheer
nerve. These are a pair of epideixeis by Gorgias: the On Not-​Being
and the Encomium of Helen. An epideixis was a set-​piece speech, a
public demonstration of persuasive skill aimed at prospective stu­
dents. And Gorgias was the greatest and most celebrated rhetori­
cian (i.e., teacher of public speaking) of his day—​i ndeed, the term
“art of rhetoric” [rhetorikê] was probably coined by Plato in order
to classify him.2 In both the On Not-​Being and the Helen, he gives
a rigorous demonstration of a completely outrageous thesis. The
On Not-​Being proves that nothing exists; that if it did exist, we
could not know it; and that if we did know it, we could not com­
municate it to each other. The upshot of this deadpan exercise in
triple nihilism is left for the reader to decide. Gorgias’s Encomium
of Helen is less ambitious but equally subversive. It is a logically
valid proof that Helen of Troy—​infamous adulteress, legendary
provoker of a disastrous world war—​should not be blamed for run­
ning off with Paris. And the upshot seems to be much broader—​
perhaps that, quite generally, nobody can ever be to blame for any
action. But as with the On Not-​Being, what Gorgias really intends
is anybody’s guess.

2. See Schiappa 1990. This raises the question of whether Gorgias really counts as a sophist
at all, since part of Plato’s point is that sophistês and rhêtorikos should be considered dif­
ferent professions (cf. Plato, Gorgias 463b–​4 63c, 520a–​520b). Be that as it may, Gorgias
clearly fits the general profile of the fifth-​century sophist. Like Protagoras, Hippias,
Prodicus, and the rest of the gang, he was an itinerant intellectual performer and teacher
of wisdom; a specialist in techniques of argument and persuasion; and the author of texts
which both advertise those skills and engage with contemporary philosophical debates,
often with a subversive twist. Plato’s dialogues conflict as to whether Gorgias presented
himself as a teacher of virtue, as Protagoras and most of the other sophists did: Meno
95c seems to correct Gorgias 460a on this point. But as a definition this is too narrow
anyway: it would also exclude other important figures (Antiphon, Critias) who clearly
belonged to the movement in a general way.

2
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 [256]Ib., p. 165.
[257]“Modern Abyssinia,” p. 224.
[258]Compare, e.g., his remark on p. 223, “They have any
amount of pluck,” with Parkyns’s comments quoted on p. 24 of
this book.
[259]E.g. p. 222.
[260]Ib., p. 216.
[261]Eyre and Spottiswoode.
[262]Cf. p. 308.
[263]Mr. Wylde describes the Ras as “by far the cleverest and
most enlightened man that the country possesses.” He is a
possible successor to the Abyssinian throne.
[264]Colonel Rochfort’s Report.
 APPENDIX

Abyssinia is a deeply interesting country from the point of view of

geographical distribution, and it is much to be regretted that Dr. A. J.
Hayes did not have the opportunity of collecting insects on a large
scale. The animals of the southern half of Arabia are Ethiopian in
character; but in the Abyssinian mountains we may expect to find,
and we do find, a certain amount of Oriental affinity.
The valuable little collection of insects made by Dr. Hayes has
been presented by him to the Hope Department of the Oxford
University Museum, where the specimens can be seen and studied
by every naturalist interested in the great problems of distribution.
The attention of the donor was directed to the Oxford Museum by Mr.
W. L. S. Loat, who has himself contributed a large amount of
valuable material. Dr. Hayes’ collection was made, in February 1903,
in the vicinity of Lake Tsana, at a height of about 6500 feet. A
complete list is furnished below. Dr. Dixey has kindly determined and
made remarks upon the Pierinae.

LEPIDOPTERA.
NYMPHALIDAE.
Danainae: Limnas chrysippus (Linn.) ♀. The ground
colour of the pale tint characteristic of
1
Oriental specimens and usually replaced by
a much darker shade in African.
Danainae: L. chrysippus (Linn.) var. alcippus (Cram.) ♂♂.
2
Typical.
Nymphalinae: 1 Neptis agatha (Cram.).
1 Precis cebrene (Trim.).
PAPILIONIDAE.
Pierinae: 1 Catopsilia florella (Fabr.) ♂.
2 Colias electra (Linn.) ♂ ♀.
Terias brigitta (Cram.) ♂ ♂ ♀.
3
Dry season forms; not extreme.
3 Eronia leda (Boisd.) ♂ ♀ ♀.
One of these females has an orange apical
patch on the forewing, almost as distinct as
that of the male.
1 Pinacopteryx sp. ?
A female, rather worn; simulating Mylothris
agathina ♀.
Probably a new species, but being in poor
condition and a single specimen it would not
be advisable to describe it.
1 Belenois severina (Cram.) ♀. Dry season form.
1 Phrissura sp. ♂.
A male, of the P. sylvia group. This form of
Phrissura has not previously been recorded
from any part of East Africa.
Papilioninae: 8 Papilio demodocus (Esp.).

HYMENOPTERA.
1 Dorylus fimbriatus (Shuck.) ♂.

COLEOPTERA.
LAMELLICORNIA.
Scarabaeidae: Oniticellus inaequalis (Reiche).
1
Only known from Abyssinia.
Cetoniidae: 1 Pachnoda abyssinica (Blanch.).
1 Pachnoda stehelini (Schaum).
 Both Abyssinian species.
PHYTOPHAGA.
Cassididae: 1 Aspidomorpha punctata (Fab.).
HETEROMERA.
Cantharidae: 2 Mylabris, probably a new species.

NEUROPTERA.
1 Nemoptera, probably a new species.

ORTHOPTERA.
Acridiidae: 1 Cyrtacanthacris
sp.
1 Phymateus brunneri? (Bolivar).
1 Phymateus leprosus (Fab.).
1 Petasia anchoreta (Bolivar).
Mantidae: 1 Sphodromantis bioculata (Burm.).
1 Chiropus aestuans? (Sauss.).
In addition to the above, Dr. Hayes presented three insects
captured by him at Gedaref in the Soudan, including a pair of a
magnificent new species of Buprestid beetle of the genus
Sternocera, taken in coitu. This species has recently been described,
from Dr. Hayes’ specimen and two others in the British Museum, by
Mr. C. O. Waterhouse, who has given it the name Sternocera druryi
(“Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.” Oct., 1904, p. 247). The third insect is an
example of a Cantharid beetle, which does great damage to the
crops at Gadarif. Its determination as Mylabris hybrida (Bohem.) is
therefore a matter of some importance.

THE END

PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.

 THE
ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

By permission of the Egyptian London: Smith, Elder Stanford’s Geogl. Estabt.,

Government. & Co. London.

(Large-size)
 LAKE TSANA

By permission of the London: Stanford’s

Egyptian Smith, Elder Geogl. Estabt.,
Government. & Co. London.

(Large-size)
 Transcriber's note:

pg 70 (footnote 41) Changed: Abyssinnia and its people to: Abyssinia

pg 91-92 (footnote 61) Changed: equitidœ to: equitidæ
pg 91-92 (footnote 61) Changed: nectariniœ to: nectariniæ
pg 96 Changed: plently of fish to: plenty
pg 271 Changed: been complied by to: compiled
pg 293 Changed: general langour to: languor
pg 311 (footnote 262) Changed: Cp. to: Cf.
Minor punctuation changes have been done silently.
Spelling inconsistencies have been left unchanged.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SOURCE
OF THE BLUE NILE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.
back
back