JHP and History of Philosophy Today

As Part of the Celebration of the Fiftieth anniversary of the initial publication of the Journal of the History of Philosophy, I would like to reflect a bit on my experiences at JHP during my time as editor (2003–10), as well as to address some historiographical questions concerning the field of the history of philosophy, which it is the mission of JHP to serve.

I will start by reporting that I was surprised when my colleague at Duke at the time, the late Ed Mahoney, indicated in 2002 that there was serious interest in my applying for an opening for the editorship of JHP. To that point, every JHP editor following Richard Popkin¹ had been either a student or a colleague of Popkin’s. Though of course I knew of Popkin’s influential scholarship, I had been neither his student nor his colleague, and indeed had never met him. Moreover, I had no experience in editing a journal when I was invited to apply. It is clear that the Board was thinking “outside the box” in considering me for the editorship.

Despite my lack of connection to the JHP “family” and my lack of experience in journal editorship, I decided to apply at least in part because I considered JHP to be the best journal devoted to the history of philosophy, and among the top philosophy journals generally. To be sure, it is clear from the record that the journal has had a history of considerable financial difficulties and serious personal squabbles.² However, by the time I considered applying for the editorship, JHP was not only financially solvent but had also had steady leadership for some time. Such leadership allowed the journal to establish itself as a prime venue for scholarship in the history of philosophy.

I believe that in ultimately offering me the editorship, the JHP Board in effect was making a transition to a more genuinely “post-Popkin” era than the one that followed the official end of Popkin’s long term as editor in 1980.³ Though this transition has not been entirely smooth, it has been reinforced by subsequent additions to the Board of a broad range of scholars not previously associated with JHP. In accepting the Board’s offer, I was eager to facilitate this transition by instituting some changes that I thought would help to maintain the quality of the journal in new circumstances.

One of my first initiatives was to establish the Current Scholarship series, devoted to critical reviews from senior scholars of the recent literature on various historical periods and topics. My hope was that such a series would prove to be a useful research tool for specialists and students alike. But I also saw the series as a way of involving senior scholars in the journal. As happens with many refereed journals, issues of JHP included mainly articles from junior scholars struggling to build a case for tenure. I think it is in fact important that JHP publish the best articles in the history of philosophy from junior scholars, and certainly I appreciated the opportunity to publish in the journal prior to receiving tenure. But it is also important that senior scholars have a presence in the journal, and I took the Current Scholarship series to be one way of providing for such a presence. The first essay in this series was published in July 2005, and six Current Scholarship essays appeared during my time as Editor. I am glad to say that two more essays have been published since then, and that there are at least four others in the works. May Current Scholarship continue to flourish!

I also was sensitive to complaints in the “blogosphere” that journals were not reviewing submissions in a sufficiently timely manner. Indeed, one blogger has claimed that “many [philosophy] journals are run like soviet car factories,” taking a year or longer to come to a decision.⁴ Certainly I did not want JHP to be justly compared to a soviet car factory on my watch! But more fundamentally, I considered it immoral for journals to make junior scholars...