This paper reconsiders the debate over the nature of Ricardian economics, chiefly based on the interpretation of Ricardo's Essay on Profits, that raged during the 1970's. This debate opposed a Sraffian view, in the line of Sraffa's 1951 well known Introduction to Ricardo, and a non-Sraffian interpretation, which emerged from Hollander's 1973 article. It is argued that whereas the Sraffa-Eatwell interpretation stresses Ricardian objectivity and comparative statics, Hollander's interpretation stresses Ricardian rhetoric and dynamics. Therefore, both interpretations have too little in common to give rise to an actual debate likely, at least in principle, to give rise to a solution.