No two self-identified historians of capitalism will generate identical lists of the predecessors of the new history of capitalism. That should not surprise us: the field has experienced, one might say, combined and uneven development, a pattern which has produced consistently innovative scholarship but little overarching consensus on a research program or even on basic terms (like what “capitalism” is). In part, that is because enthusiasm, one might say, has outrun infrastructure: there is more desire to “do” the history of capitalism than there have been centrally recognized outlets to do so. This is changing, with the important book series Read more