I have two main objectives in this book. First, to propose a reconstruction of the substance and evolution of Ricardo's central views on value, distribution and accumulation. Secondly, to give a critical commentary on the interpretative literature.

The appearance of another study of Ricardo's work may not command widespread approval. Professor D. P. O'Brien has censured (unnamed) historians of economic thought for ‘endlessly quibbling about what Ricardo might have said’ (O'Brien 1990), which would seem to be his doleful characterisation of recent scholarly debate (in which, curiously, he has been a participant). He may not be alone in holding this view. Yet I will offer no apology for this contribution. If, as I believe, Ricardo's impostors continue to lurk in the pages of learned journals, monographs, dictionaries of economics and textbooks, they must be exposed as such, regardless of the irritation, or inconvenience, that this may bring.

The stimulus for much of the recent interpretative controversy was provided by Samuel Hollander's Economics of David Ricardo (1979), on the basis of which he has constructed a sweeping, revisionist account of the history of economic thought, according to which virtually all roads lead to (his version of) ‘mainstream’ economics. When I reviewed Hollander's book (Peach 1981), I commented that it would have a salutary effect in stimulating a reassessment of orthodox interpretations. My position remains that Professor Hollander has performed a valuable service by challenging received opinion. There is also (as Malthus said of Ricardo's Principles) much collateral material in Hollander's book with which I agree; and in its breadth of coverage, it is a truly impressive work (the scope of my own contribution is modest in comparison).