The book explores Gersonides' impressive achievements as a scientist, and argues that the key to understanding his originality is his perspective as an applied mathematical scientist. It was this perspective that led him to examine Aristotelianism from directions different from those usually adopted by contemporary scholastic scholars.

Discussion of literary and musical life in Bruges around 1400.

Uncorrected proof copy of an essay forthcoming in Bryan Cheyette and Peter Boxall, eds., *The Oxford History of the Novel, Vol. 7: British and Irish Fiction since 1940* (Oxford: Oxford U. P., forthcoming Jan. 2016), 480-493.

The history of each place is always unique, and this also applies to each monument. Even the title of this book fits in with a pattern of thought developed by R.Bradley(2010).This approach treats the way in which certain prehistoric monuments continue to focus our attention, and how new significances come to be attributed well after their initial construction. In some cases these monuments are the result of a considerable collective investment. They often represent places of memory, sometimes providing vectors of identity that continue up to the present day. A certain number of these monuments continually changed their function and configuration through the course of time. They were successively the setting of events that their builders could not have imagined. However, owing to the scale as well as the lasting nature of their achievements, the builders assigned additional unique features to these monuments that others later adapted or simply exploited. Many megalithic monuments of western Europe underwentsuch aprocess. Consequently, thisarticle alsocontainsthe seeds of a more general discussion about the definitions of megalithism (Laporte forthcoming). It is a question of time scales and rhythms, involving lived time just as well as measured time, seen at different geographical scales. This is because the biography of each monument cannot be explained as simply being the sum of events that are unique in each case and specific to each site.

The portrait of Carthage in Virgil’s Aeneid simultaneously telescopes alterity and sameness. Its barbaric and orientalising traits, highlighted by allusions to Euripides’ Medea and Bacchae and Aeschylus’ Persae, are counterbalanced by the presentation of Dido and her city as a mirroring image of Aeneas and Rome. While the theme of irrationality in Virgil’s Carthage can and has been studied in cultural continuity with ‘Doddsian’ Greek scholarship, this paper argues that Virgil exploits the ‘irrational’ deconstruction of the Greek vs Barbarian polarity present in Euripides’ Bacchae in order to show the irrationality inherent in writing about Carthage with the civil wars in mind. After explaining why I find that a ‘Doddsian’ reading of irrationality in Virgil betrays a Romantic belief in the superiority of Greek literature and culture, I approach the topic through the lens of Sallust’s view that the disappearance of metus hostilis after Carthage’s destruction was the first cause of the crisis which eventually brought about the civil wars. The barbaric, and specifically Persian, traits of Virgil’s Carthage, here discussed in detail, create continuity between the Persian Wars, the Punic Wars, and Augustus’ proposed wars against the Parthians, warding off the danger of further civil wars through the evocation of metus hostilis. At the same time, however, the analogies between Carthage and Rome and the irrational riddle of identities which Virgil stages between Trojans, Carthaginians and Greeks in his poem, provides a new, illogical phrasing to the famous proverb, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ which exemplifies Sallust’s Theorem of Negative Association.

The aim of this paper is to explain what philosophical commitments drove mainstream professional economists to understand their own discipline as leaving no space for ethics (including virtue) between, say, 1887 and 1971. In particular, it is argued that economics embraced a technocratic conception of politics and science. Philosophers, too, embraced and continue to embrace a number of commitments about philosophy and science that entrench a sharp division of labor between philosophers and economics and that keep not just ethics, but virtue outside of economics. Many of these philosophers’ commitments were adopted by economists such that they could assume, in practice, that there is a self-sufficient a-political domain of pure economics. So, in effect, this paper explores the origin and nature of a conceptual split between economics and ethics.There are two, subsidiary themes in my essay that are not fully worked out in it, but play a non-trivial role in the development that I sketc...