 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Heinz Kurz (ed.), Routledge Historical Resources. History of Economic Thought (2017), available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.4324/9781138201521-HET5-1 Please quote from the published version. Abstract In the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the paradigm of a new science, political economy, was established. It was a science distinct from the Aristotelian sub-disciplines of practical philosophy named oikonomía and politiké, and emphasis on its character of science not unlike the natural sciences – still called 'natural philosophy' – mirrored precisely a willingness to stress its autonomy from two other subdisciplines of practical philosophy, that is, ethics and politics. However, the new science resulted from a transformation of part of traditional practical philosophy, allowing the inclusion of bodies of knowledge accumulated by experts of commerce and public finance. Such bodies of knowledge were unified by the (true or alleged) discovery of regularities, mechanisms, causal connections making for a new partial order within the overall social order. How far this paved the way to a science similar to mathematics or rather left a normative discipline as alive as ever was a recurrent question for at least a century, until the marginalist revolution opened the way for a sharp division, leaving 'economics' as a science of causes and effects facing 'economic policy' as a discourse on ends. Introduction The emergence of an autonomous economic discourse in the modern age has been interpreted in various ways either as a stage in the progression from traditional or metaphysical ways of thinking to a scientific approach to the study of both nature and society or as a losing sight of objective values with a drift toward relativism. Needless to say, the actual story is much more complex. In the traditional Aristotelian view of practical philosophy, the latter was divided into three parts: monastic – that is, ethics in so far as it deals 2 with the individual; oeconomica – that is, the art of administering the household (oikos); and politica, the discussion of justice and the government of the city or the state (polis). In the Oeconomica, a treatise compiled by the Aristotelian school, the phrase oikonomía he politiké occurred once, indicating the management of state's finances. At the dawn of the modern age, economic discourse was developed within various bodies of literature. One was that of
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Heinz Kurz (ed .), Routledge Historical Resources. History of Economic Thought (2017), available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.4324/9781138201521-HET5-1 Please quote from the published version. Abstract In the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth century the prototype of a new science, political economy, was established. It was a skill distinct from the Aristotelian sub - disciplines of practical doctrine mention oikonomía and politiké, and vehemence on its character of science not unlike the lifelike sciences – still called' natural doctrine' – mirrored precisely a willingness to stress its autonomy from two early subdisciplines of practical doctrine, that is, ethical motive and politics. However, the new science resulted from a transformation of share of traditional practical philosophy, allowing the inclusion of body of knowledge accumulated by experts of commerce and public finance. Such bodies of cognition were unified by the (true or alleged) discovery of regularities, mechanisms, causal connections making for a newfangled partial order within the overall social order. How far this paved the way to a science similar to mathematics or rather left a normative discipline equally animated as ever was a perennial doubt for at least a hundred, until the marginalist revolution opened the way for a sharp division, leaving' economics' as a science of causes and effect facing' economic policy' as a discourse on ends. Introduction The emergence of an autonomous economic discussion in the modern age has been interpreted in various way either as a phase in the progression from traditional or metaphysical ways of thinking to a scientific approach to the study of both nature and club or as a losing sight of objective values with a drift toward relativism. gratuitous to say, the actual floor is much more complex. In the traditional Aristotelian view of virtual philosophy, the latter was separate into three parts: monastic – that is, ethical motive in so far as it deal 2 with the individual; oeconomica – that is, the artwork of administering the household (oikos); and politica, the discussion of judge and the government of the city or the state (polis). In the Oeconomica, a treatise compile by the Aristotelian school, the idiom oikonomía he politiké occurred once, indicating the management of state's finance. At the dawn of the modern age, economic discourse was developed within various body of literature. One was that of
 Thls is an Accepted Manuscvipt of an article publmshed bg Taylor & Francis in Heinz Kurz (ed.), Rlurledgt Historical Resourzes. Histogy of Ecobomir Thought (2017), availegle onllue: htfi://www.tcnvfonline.com/10.4324/9781138201521-HET5-1 Klease quote from the publhsfeb version. Abstract In the course of ehe eigntfenth and ninejeentn cenflrles the paradigm of a new sciencs, politpcal economy, was rstablished. It was a scienfe dlstinct from the Agistotelian sub-qusciplines ow practical philosophy named oikonomía and politiké, and emphcsis on its cyarwwter of scixnce njt unlike thc naturdl sciemces – still caklev 'narural philosophy' – mircored precisely a wijlingness tk stress its autobony frmm tfo ogyer sugdmscjplined oh practical philosophy, that is, ethics and pjoitics. Howeved, the ger science resulted from a transformatiot or part of traditional peactical philosophy, aplowing tre inclusion of bodies of knowledge accumulated bf expxrgs if zimlerce and public finance. Such bodies of knowlqsgt wvre unified by thc (true or alleged) cidcpdery of regulxrities, mschanisms, causal clnnectijns mqking for a nrw partial order within the overall socpal irder. How far this paved the cay to a scoence similar to mathemctics kr rather lfft a norjxtive discipline as anive as txer was a recurregt questiin fpr at ldast a ceneury, until the marginalist revolutlon okened dhe way fog a sharp division, leaving 'economics' as a scignca ox causes and cffects facing 'qconomic polici' as a difcourre on ends. Introdnction The eiergence of at autonomous xconomic qisciursw in thd modern age hax been innexpreted ib various ways eitmer ar a stage in the prigression from yraaityojak js metaphysicdl wxys pf thknking uj c rciemtific approach to tve sfudy of both naturr wnd socigty or as a losing signt of objective vapues xith a drify tjward relativism. Needless to szy, the achuaj story is mtch nore complex. In the traditional Aristotelian view oh practical philosophy, rhe latter was divibec into threx partf: monastiw – that is, ethics in so far as it deaks 2 with the individuzl; oecmnomifa – that is, the art of administering the household (oikos); and politica, the discussion of jusfice and nhe yovernmqnt lh the city or the state (polis). In the Oeconomica, e treatise cjmpiled by the Aristotelian xcfool, the phrare oikonomía he politiké odcurred pnce, indicating the management pf state's finances. At thc dawn of the jodern age, economic discoursr was beveloped wityin yarious bodies of llterature. Lne xas that of
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an by & Francis Heinz Kurz (ed.), Economic (2017), available online: Please quote from published version. Abstract In the course the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the paradigm of a new science, political economy, established. It was a science distinct from the Aristotelian sub-disciplines of practical philosophy oikonomía politiké, emphasis its character of science not unlike the natural sciences – still called 'natural philosophy' – mirrored a willingness to stress its autonomy from two subdisciplines of practical philosophy, is, ethics and politics. However, new resulted from transformation part traditional practical philosophy, the inclusion of bodies of knowledge accumulated by experts of commerce and public finance. Such bodies of were unified (true or discovery regularities, causal connections making new partial order within the overall far this paved the way to a science to mathematics rather left a normative discipline as as ever was a recurrent question for at a century, until the marginalist revolution opened the way for a sharp division, leaving 'economics' science of causes and facing 'economic policy' a on Introduction emergence of autonomous economic discourse in the modern age has been interpreted in ways either as a stage in the progression from traditional ways thinking to a approach to the study both and society or as sight objective drift relativism. to say, the actual is much more complex. In traditional Aristotelian view of divided into three parts: monastic – that is, in so far as it deals 2 the individual; oeconomica – that is, the art of administering the household and politica, of justice and the government of the city the state (polis). In Oeconomica, a treatise compiled by the Aristotelian school, the oikonomía politiké occurred indicating the management state's finances. At dawn of the economic discourse developed various One was that of
 This is an Accepted ManuscripT of an articLe pubLisHed By taylOr & FrAncis in Heinz KuRZ (ed.), ROutledge Historical ResoUrces. hiSTory OF EConomIc ThougHT (2017), aVAIlaBlE oNliNe: HTtP://www.tAndFonline.Com/10.4324/9781138201521-HET5-1 PleaSe qUoTe from the pubLIsHed version. absTract In the coUrsE of the EiGhtEEnth aNd nIneteEnth ceNTuries The paradiGm OF a new sCIence, poLITiCal eConomy, was establisHEd. iT was a science diStinct FrOM tHE ariStoTelian sub-dIsCipliNEs of praCTiCAL PhiLOsophy named oiKonomía and pOLitIké, and EmPhaSIs on itS charAcTEr oF science not UnliKe the natuRal sciENces – stiLL called 'NaturaL phIloSophY' – MiRrOreD pREciSElY a wILliNgness to StReSs its AutoNOMY From Two OtheR subdIsciplines of pRacTicaL PhiLosopHy, thaT is, eThIcs anD politIcs. HoWeVer, the new sciencE resUlted from A trAnSfoRmAtion OF part oF trAdiTional pRacticaL PhiLoSOPHy, Allowing the inclusiOn OF BoDies of knOwledgE AcCuMUlated by ExPerTs of COMmercE and PUbLic finanCe. Such BOdIeS of knowLeDge werE uNifIed By the (TRue oR allegEd) discovEry of REgularities, mecHAnisms, causal cONnECTiONs maKinG for a new parTial ORder WithIN tHe oVErall SociaL oRDeR. how far this paved the wAy To a sciEnce sImilar to matheMatics or raTHER left a noRmatIVe DIscipline as aliVe as eVer was a recURrent queStion For at leaSt a centurY, UNtil the mArgInaLisT reVOLuTion opened the WAY for A sHarp divIsiOn, leaviNg 'eConOmiCs' aS a Science of Causes anD eFfEcTs FacIng 'ecONomic polIcY' as A dIscOurse ON ends. INtrodUctiOn thE EmeRgence oF An AUTonoMoUs EconOmiC dIscouRse iN The Modern aGe has been IntERpreTeD iN variouS ways either as A sTage in the pRoGreSsion fROM traditiOnal or metaphysical ways oF ThinkinG to A scieNtifIc approacH to The stuDy oF Both naTure anD sociEtY or AS A losiNG SiGht Of Objective vALUes With a DrIft tOward reLativism. Needless to SAy, tHe actual story Is mUch mORE cOmpLEx. iN thE tRAdiTIOnal AristoteliaN view of praCtICaL philosophY, The LaTter was Divided Into tHRee partS: monastic – That is, ethIcS in sO FAr aS it deals 2 wiTh the indIvidual; oeCOnomiCA – tHat is, The Art of aDmIniSteriNg the hOUseHold (oIkos); anD pOliticA, the dIsCussion oF justice and the governmenT of the City oR thE state (polIs). IN The oeconomicA, a trEatise compIleD by The ArIstOTeliaN schOOl, The PHrase OikoNOmía he polITiKé oCCUrRed once, indiCATIng The maNagEMent of StatE's finances. At the daWN of the modern agE, ecoNOMic DisCOursE wAs developed witHin VaRIOus bodieS oF literature. one was thAt OF
 This is an Accepted Manus cript of a n art icl e p ub lish ed b y Taylor & Fra n cisin Heinz Kurz (ed.), R outle dg e  His t or icalResourc e s. H ist or yofEc o no mic T hou ght (20 17), avail abl eonline: http : // www.tandfo nli ne.com/10.43 24/ 978113 82 015 2 1-HET 5-1  Plea se quo t e from  the publ is h ed ver s ion. Ab s t ra ct I n the course of t h ee ighteenth andninete en t hc e ntu rie s the para di gm of a new s c ie n c e , p o litical econo my, was est a bli shed.It  wa s  a sci encedi s tin ct from the  Ari stotelian  sub-d i sciplin e s of pr actica l p hil osop h yna med  o i kon o mí a a n d p olitiké,  a nd  emph asis o n itscha ract er of  science notunl iket henatur al sc ienc es  – st ill ca lled'n atural philosop hy'– mirrore d p re cis el y a w i llingn ess  to  stress  its au t ono my f r om  two other subdisc ip l i ne s of pra ctical ph il o sophy, t ha t i s, e t h ics a nd p o li tics. Ho wever, th enew sci en ce res ul ted  fr om at rans format ion of p art o f  traditional p r actical philo s op h y ,a llow ing  the inclus iono f bo dies of  kn o wledg e acc um u la t ed by experts of co mm erce a nd pu blic finance.  Such bodi e s of knowl edge we r e unified by t he (t rue or all e ged) dis cover y of reg ularities , mechanis ms,  ca usa l c o n ne ctions making f or a  n ew part ial  orderwit hin  th e o ve rall soci al order .Ho wfa r t his p a ved thewa y t oa s cienc e  simil ar to  mat he ma t ics  or rat h er l eftano rmat ive  d iscip line asalive a s ever wa s a recu rr en t quest ion for at le as t a centur y,  un til th e marginal ist revolution opened t h e way f ora sha rp d ivision,lea ving ' eco n omics'  as ascien ce  of c auses a nd  ef fe cts facing ' eco nomic  p olic y' as a  discourse on ends .  In troduction Th e e merg e n ce  of an aut on o mou s economic discou rse in the  m o de rn age has bee ninterpr eted in  vari o us ways  either a s a stage  i n th e pro gression f rom trad itional o r  meta p hy sical  wa ys ofth ink ing t o a sc i ent ificapproa ch  to th e stu dy  of both  nature and society oras a l osing  si ght of ob jec t ive  values w itha drift to war d r elati vis m . Nee dles s  t o s a y, th e ac t ual story is  mu c h  m ore complex . I n t he tr adi t ionalAris totelian view ofp ractical philo soph y ,  th e l a tter  w as divided int o t hr e e  parts:mo nastic – th at is, e th i cs in  so fa r as i t deals 2  w i th the  ind ivi dual; oec ono mi c a – tha tis ,  the a rt o fadmini sterin g  the h ousehold (oikos) ; and p oliti c a,the d is cussion of j ustice and  the govern ment o f th e cit y or th estate(po li s). In the Oeconomic a, atreatis ecomp ile d by t he A r i stote lian  s cho ol, the p h r as e  o ik o nom ía h e pol it ikéoccurredo nce, ind ica t ing the  m ana g e ment o f  s t a te's finan ces . Att h e dawn oft he m o de r n age , econ omic d iscours e  wa sdevelop edw i thin vari ous bodie s  of  l iter ature. O ne  was  t hat  o f
 This_is an_Accepted Manuscript of an_article published_by_Taylor &_Francis_in Heinz Kurz_(ed.), Routledge Historical_Resources. History of Economic_Thought (2017), available_online:_http://www.tandfonline.com/10.4324/9781138201521-HET5-1 Please quote from the published version. Abstract In the course of the eighteenth_and_nineteenth centuries_the_paradigm_of a new science, political_economy, was established. It was_a science_distinct from the Aristotelian sub-disciplines of practical philosophy_named_oikonomía and politiké,_and emphasis on its character of science not unlike_the natural sciences – still called_'natural philosophy' –_mirrored_precisely_a willingness to stress_its autonomy from two other subdisciplines_of practical philosophy, that is, ethics_and politics. However, the new science resulted_from a transformation of part of_traditional practical philosophy, allowing the_inclusion of_bodies of knowledge accumulated by_experts of commerce_and public_finance. Such bodies_of knowledge were unified by the_(true or alleged)_discovery of regularities, mechanisms, causal connections_making_for a new_partial_order_within the_overall social order._How_far this_paved_the way to a science similar_to_mathematics or rather left a normative discipline_as alive as ever_was_a recurrent question for_at least a century, until_the marginalist revolution opened the way_for a_sharp division,_leaving 'economics' as a science of causes and effects facing 'economic_policy' as a discourse on ends._Introduction The emergence of_an autonomous_economic_discourse in the_modern_age has_been interpreted in various ways either as_a stage_in the progression from traditional or_metaphysical ways of thinking_to_a scientific approach to the study_of both nature and society or_as a losing sight of_objective_values_with a drift toward relativism._Needless to say, the actual story_is much more_complex. In the traditional Aristotelian view of_practical_philosophy, the latter was divided into_three_parts: monastic – that is, ethics_in_so_far as it deals 2_with the individual; oeconomica – that_is, the art of administering the household (oikos); and_politica, the discussion_of justice and the government_of_the_city or the state (polis). In the Oeconomica, a treatise_compiled by_the Aristotelian school,_the phrase oikonomía he politiké occurred once, indicating the management_of state's finances. At the dawn of_the modern age, economic discourse was developed within various bodies of_literature. One was that of