¹ Easton, David, The Political System (New York, 1953)Google Scholar, Ch. 10.

² Cf. Committee for the Advancement of Teaching, American Political Science Association, Goals for Political Science (New York, 1951), pp. 116–33Google Scholar. Citing “opinions from the men and women who teach political science in the leading institutions of higher education in the country,” the Committee found that while in terms of actual curricula political theory is not “the core of political science,” at the same time there was a “wide-spread feeling … that it should be made the heart of the subject” (p. 126).

³ The Logic-Book approach is not a victim of the historical bias to which I have been alluding. However, it is still non-political. Hence, even though logical analysis may be exonerated from the historical taint, it must nevertheless come under the axe because of its failure to pass the political test.

⁴ Quoted in the bibliography of Ebenstein's, WilliamGreat Political Thinkers (New York, 1951), p. 845Google Scholar. It should be said that Professor Ebenstein's short introductions in this book of readings are noteworthy examples of an attempt to show the relevance of the ideas contained in the “Great Books” to the problems of the contemporary world.

⁵ Pelczynski, Zbyszek, “Hegel on the English Constitution,” Cambridge Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 519–30, at p. 519 (June, 1952)Google Scholar.

⁶ Ibid., at p. 521.

⁷ Ibid., at p. 530.

⁸ The Holmes-Laski Letters, ed. Howe, Mark, 2 vols. (London, 1953), Vol. 2, p. 1098Google Scholar.

⁹ Plamenatz, John, Mill's Utilitarianism, Reprinted with a Study of the English Utilitarians (Oxford, 1949), pp. 16, 21, 116Google Scholar. For a splendid criticism of this Who-Influenced-Whom approach, see Child's, Arthur review of Plamenatz's book in Ethics, Vol. 60, pp. 223–24, at p. 223 (April, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ This statement was taken from notes for a paper which was delivered before the American Political Science Association in September, 1953, entitled “The Historical Approach to Political Thought: A Re-Evaluation.” Professor Friedrich's argument is an authoritative counterweight to the viewpoint which I am suggesting in this article.

¹¹ “The Policy Sciences,” World Politics, Vol. 4, pp. 520–35, at p. 520 (July, 1952)Google Scholar.

¹² “Sovereign and Sovereignty,” Chambers Encyclopedia, new edition (New York, 1951), Vol. 12, p. 775Google Scholar.

¹³ For a careful study of the intellectual currents which influenced A. D. Lindsay, see Ulam's, AdamThe Philosophical Foundations of English Socialism (Cambridge, Mass., 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. Chs. 2, 5. But just who or what was influenced by Lindsay is something that Ulam never makes clear. Few will deny that Lindsay wrote intelligent and interesting books on democratic theory. But to say this is quite different from saying that he had a significant impact on English Socialism.

¹⁴ An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics (Cambridge, Eng., 1950), p. 199Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The Vocabulary of Politics (London, 1953)Google Scholar, Ch. 4.

¹⁶ (Chicago, 1953). My sole criticism of this excellent analysis is that Kirk deals only with book-writing conservatives. This is well-and-good for the age when statesmen, e.g., Burke, Adams, Calhoun, took time off to write theoretical tomes. But the more recent “conservative mind” is not to be discovered in the works of Babbitt, More, and Santayana. One must study the Supreme Court opinions of Justice Field, the speeches of Senator Taft, the pamphlets of the Liberty League, and the editorials of Fortune magazıne. (Indeed, the reviews of Kirk's book in Time and Fortune are as revealing of the make-up of the contemporary “conservative mind” as is the book itself.)

¹⁷ “Anthropology, Political Behavior and International Relations,” World Politics, Vol. 2, pp. 277–84, at p. 282 (Jan., 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.