Abstract

The current revival of interest in Bradley has included a long-neglected aspect of his thought, namely his philosophy of history. There has been a new edition of The Presuppositions of Critical History with an introduction by Stock, a new essay by Rubinoff, and a recent number of Bradley Studies largely devoted to The Presuppositions of Critical History. All of these essays and articles related Bradley’s work to Collingwood’s, which has been the subject of an even bigger revival. Holdcroft made the point that, though The Presuppositions often contains “embryonic versions of positions he developed in greater detail later”, he did not return to the subject of history ; this is, of course, true of his major works, and history ceased to be a major interest for him. However, on one occasion he was drawn back into the field. The occasion was one of the spats that he had with Bertrand Russell, who had taken over from Pragmatism as Bradley’s main concern, if three articles in Mind in 1909 and 1910 and new pieces prepared for publication in 1914 are anything to go by. These were reprinted or published for the first time as part of Essays on Truth and Reality. One of the new pieces, published as Chapter XIV, was entitled “What is the real Julius Caesar?”. He was responding to an article in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, xi, “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description.”.