What I imagine happens to a figure like Adam Smith – to take Aretino’s example—is that the reading constituency for him shifts. Where he might have been required reading for a political economist in 1850, he’s required reading for a historian, or a political scientist interested in conservatism, in 2005. And he has a larger lay audience as well—in fact, I would certainly lay money that more people have read a little Adam Smith than have read, say, a little Thomas Schelling or a little Robert J. Aumann.

Without locating shifts in the site of the reading, the phrase—“seldom read” – makes little sense. You could add up the sales figures of all the Prospect intellectuals, and I would bet that they don’t exceed the number of people who have read the Left Behind series. But is that quantitative fact intrinsically interesting?

I could see Salman Rushdie still being read in 100 years. I could see that for Habermas and Eco (as a philosopher), too. Probably Chomsky as a linguist will have fallen into the situation of Smith as an economist—a hallowed but seldom-read intellectual ancestor.

Angell was already a prominent journalist and opinion-maker by 1905 (under his original name, though). The fame of the Great Illusion didn’t come from the blue. My understanding is that it had such a big impact because he was already well known and credible. That’s why I put him up for a.

He isn’t talked about much today, which is why I didn’t put him up for b.

Under category b, I’m surprised that Catherine Liu dismisses Sun Yatsen so easily. It’s a bit of a mess, but his theory of chinese nationalism was in many senses extremely influential, and he’s certainly not forgotten.

I’m ignorant on this, but surely if we’re after global influence there must be some Japanese intellectuals who were formulating nationalist theories that ended up very influential…

But that’s typically what I meant, I don’t know about where you live Chris, but around me, Plato is “widely read” only among students in philosophy. Apart from them, I doubt you can find more than 1% of people who have read more than one work of him. Likewise, I am convinced that student in linguistics (and computer science) will read Chomsky in 2105.

I would say the only intellectual widely read in France long after his death is Voltaire, and even him is kept alive mostly by highschool literature classes.

Oh, and if I had to vote for 1905, I would vote for Poincarre on the basis of his influence in several different fields : he was a major reference in mathematics, physics and philosophy at the time.

Z

Angell was right and this is only now being recognised. If we don’t blow ourselves up in the meantime, he’ll be in the list for 2105.

As for current intellectuals, I nominate Jane Jacobs, author of “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” and “Dark Age Ahead.”