A History of Political Economy

第14章

thebrilliantcontroversialistFrancescoFerrara，professoratTurinfrom1849

to1858（inwhoseschoolmostofthepresentItalianteachersofthesciencewere，directlyorindirectly，educated），apartisan

ofthelaisserfairedoctrineinitsmostextremeform，andanadvocateofthepeculiaropinionsofCareyandBastiatonthe

subjectofrent;and，lastly，theNeapolitanministerLudovicoBianchini（PrincipiidellaScienzadelBenVivereSociale，

1845and1855），whoisremarkableashavingfollowedinsomedegreeanhistoricaldirection，andassertedtheprincipleof

relativity，andwhoalsodweltontherelationsofeconomicswithmorals，byadueattentiontowhichtheItalianeconomists

have，indeed，ingeneralbeenhonourablydistinguished。

SPAIN

TheWealthofNationswastranslatedintoSpanishbyJ。A。Ortizin1794。ItmayperhapshaveinfluencedGasparde

Jovellanos，whoin1795presentedtothecouncilofCastileandprintedinthesameyearhiscelebratedInformedeLa

SociedadEconomicadeMadridenexpedientedeLeyAgraria，whichwasapowerfulpleaforreform，especiallyintaxation

andthelawsaffectingagriculture，includingthoserelatingtothesystemsofentailandmortmain。AnEnglishversionofthis

memoirisgiveninthetranslation（1809）ofLaborde’sSpain，vol。iv。GERMANY

RoscherobservesthatSmithdidnotatfirstproducemuchimpressioninGermany。（73）Hedoesnotappeartohavebeen

knowntoFredericktheGreat;hecertainlyexercisednoinfluenceonhim。NordidJosephIItakenoticeofhiswork。Andof

theminorGermanprinces，KarlFriedrichofBaden，asaphysiocrat，wouldnotbeaccessibletohisdoctrines。Itwas

otherwiseinthegenerationwhoseprincipalactivitybelongstothefirstdecadeofthe19thcentury。ThePrussianstatesmen

whoweregroupedroundSteinhadbeenformedaseconomistsbySmith，ashadalsoGentz，intellectuallythemost

importantmanoftheMetternichregimeinAustria。

ThefirstGermanexpositorsofSmithwhodidmorethanmerelyreproducehisopinionswereChristianJacobKraus

（17531807），GeorgSartorius（17661828），andAugustFerdinandLüder（17601819）。Theycontributedindependent

viewsfromdifferentstandpoints，thefirstfromthatoftheeffectofSmith’sdoctrineonpracticalgovernment，thesecond

fromthatofitsbearingonhistory，thethirdfromthatofitsrelationtostatistics。SomewhatlatercameGottliebHufeland

（17601817），JohannFriedrichEusebiusLotz（17711838），andLudwigHeinrichvonJakob（17591827），who，whilst

essentiallyoftheschoolofSmith，applythemselvestoarevisionofthefundamentalconceptionsofthescience。These

authorsdidnotexertanythinglikethewideinfluenceofSay，partlyonaccountofthelessattractiveformoftheirwritings，

butchieflybecauseGermanyhadnotthen，likeFrance，aEuropeanaudience。JuliusvonSoden（17541831）islargely

foundedonSmith，whom，however，hecriticiseswithundueseverity，especiallyinregardtohisformandarrangement;theWealthofNationshedescribesasaseriesofpreciousfragments，andcensuresSmithfortheabsenceofacomprehensive

viewofthiswholesubject，andalsoasone—sidedlyEnglishinhistendencies。

ThehighestformoftheSmithiandoctrineinGermanyisrepresentedbyfourdistinguishednames:KarlHeinrichRau

（17921870），FriedrichNebenius（17841857），FriedrichBenedictWilhelmHermann（17951868），andJohannHemrichvon

Thünen（17831850）。

Rau’scharacteristicis"eruditethoroughness。"HisLehrbuch（182632）isanencyclopaediaofallthatuptohistimehad

appearedinGermanyundertheseveralheadsofVolkswirthschaftslehre，Volkswirthschaftspolitik，andFinanzwissenschaft。

Hisbookisrichinstatisticalobservations，andisparticularlyinstructiveontheeconomiceffectsofdifferentgeographical

conditions。Itiswelladaptedfortheteachingofpublicservantswhosedutiesareconnectedwitheconomics，anditwasin

factthesourcefromwhichtheGermanofficialworlddowntotheseventiesofthe19thcenturyderiveditsknowledgeofthe

science。InhisearlierperiodRauhadinsistedonthenecessityofareformofeconomicdoctrine（Ansichtender

Volkswirthschaft，1821），andhadtendedtowardsrelativityandthehistoricalmethod;butheafterwardsconceivedthe

mistakennotionthatthatmethod"onlylookedintothepastwithoutstudyingthemeansofimprovingthepresent，"and

becamehimselfpurelypracticalinthenarrowersenseofthatword。HehasthemeritofhavinggivenaseparatetreatmentofUnternehmergewinn，or"wagesofmanagement。"Nebenius，ministerinBaden，whowaslargelyinstrumentalinthe

foundationoftheZollverein，wasauthorofahighlyesteemedmonographonpubliccredit（1820）。TheStaatswirthschafthicheUntersuchungen（1832;2ded。，1870）ofHermanndonotformaregularsystem，buttreataseriesof

importantspecialsubjects。Hisraretechnologicalknowledgegavehimagreatadvantageindealingwithsomeeconomic

questions。Hereviewedtheprincipalfundamentalideasofthesciencewithgreatthoroughnessandacuteness。"Hisstrength，"

saysRoscher，"liesinhisclear，sharp，exhaustivedistinctionbetweentheseveralelementsofacomplexconception，orthe

severalstepscomprehendedinacomplexact。"ForkeenanalyticalpowerhisGermanbrethrencomparehimwithRicardo。

Butheavoidsseveralone—sidedviewsoftheEnglisheconomist。Thusheplacespublicspiritbesideegoismasaneconomic

motor，regardspriceasnotmeasuredbylabouronlybutasaproductofseveralfactors，andhabituallycontemplatesthe

consumptionofthelabourer，notasapartofthecostofproductiontothecapitalist，butasthemainpracticalendof

economics。ThünenisknownprincipallybyhisremarkableworkentitledDerIsolirteStaatinBeziehungauf

LandwirthschaftundNationalökonomie（1826;3ded。，1875）。Inthistreatise，whichisaclassicinthepoliticaleconomyof

agriculture，thereisarareunionofexactobservationwithcreativeimagination。Withaviewtoexhibitthenatural

developmentofagriculture，heimaginesastate，isolatedfromtherestoftheworld，circularinformandofuniformfertility，

withoutnavigableriversorcanals，withasinglelargecityatitscentre，whichsuppliesitwithmanufacturesandreceivesin

exchangeforthemitsfood—products，andproceedstostudytheeffectofdistancefromthiscentralmarketontheagricultural

economyoftheseveralconcentricspaceswhichcomposetheterritory。Themethod，itwillbeseen，ishighlyabstract，but，

thoughitmaynotbefruitful，itisquitelegitimate。Theauthorisundernoillusionblindinghimtotheunrealityofthe

hypotheticcase。Thesuppositionisnecessary，inhisview，inordertoseparateandconsiderapartoneessential

conditionthat，namely，ofsituationwithrespecttothemarket。Itwashisintention（imperfectlyrealised，however）to

instituteafterwardsseveraldifferenthypothesesinrelationtohisisolatedstate，forthepurposeofsimilarlystudyingother

conditionswhichinreallifearefoundincombinationorconflict。Theobjectiontothismethodliesinthedifficultyofthe

returnfromtheabstractstudytotheactualfacts;andthisisprobablyaninsuperableoneinregardtomostofits

applications。Theinvestigation，however，leadstotrustworthyconclusionsastotheconditionsofthesuccessionofdifferent

systemsoflandeconomy。Thebookaboundsincalculationsrelatingtoagriculturalexpenditureandincome，whichdiminish

itsinteresttothegeneralreader，thoughtheyareconsideredvaluabletothespecialist。Theyembodytheresultsofthe

practicalexperienceoftheauthoronhisestateofTellowinMecklenburg—Schwerin。Thünenwasstronglyimpressedwith

thedangerofaviolentconflictbetweenthemiddleclassandtheproletariate，andstudiedearnestlythequestionofwages，

whichhewasoneofthefirsttoregardhabitually，notmerelyasthepriceofthecommoditylabour，butasthemeansof

subsistenceofthemassofthecommunity。Hearrivedbymathematicalreasoningsofsomecomplexityataformulawhich

expressestheamountof"naturalwages"as=whereaisthenecessaryexpenditureofthelabourerforsubsistence，and

pistheproductofhislabour。Tothisformulaheattributedsomuchimportancethathedirectedittobeengravedonhis

tomb。Itimpliesthatwagesoughttorisewiththeamountoftheproduct;andthisconclusionledhimtoestablishonhis

estateasystemofparticipationbythelabourersintheprofitsoffarming，ofwhichsomeaccountwillbefoundinMr。Sedley

Taylor’sProfit—sharingbetweenCapitalandLabour（1884）。Thünendeservesmoreattentionthanhehasreceivedin

England;bothasamanandasawriterhewaseminentlyinterestingandoriginal;andthereismuchinDerIsolirteStaatand

hisotherworksthatisawakeningandsuggestive。

RoscherrecognizeswhathecallsaGermano—Russian（deutsch—russische）schoolofpoliticaleconomy，represented

principallybyHeinrichStorch（17661825）。Mercantilistprincipleshadbeenpreachedbyanative（"autochthonen"）

economist，IvanPossoschkoff，inthetimeofPetertheGreat。ThenewideasoftheSmithiansystemwereintroducedinto

RussianbyChristianVonSchhizer（17741831）inhisprofessoriallecturesandinhisAnfangsgründederStaatswirthschaft，

oderdieLehrevomNational—reichthume（18051807）。Storchwasinstructorineconomicscienceofthefutureemperor

Nicholasandhisbrotherthegrand—dukeMichael，andthesubstanceofhislessonstothemiscontainedinhisCours

d’économiePolitique（1815）。ThetranslationofthistreatiseintoRussianwaspreventedbythecensorship;Raupublisheda

Germanversionofit，withannotations，in1819。Itisaworkofavery。highorderofmerit。Theepithet"deutsch—russisch"

seemslittleapplicabletoStorch;asRoscherhimselfsays，hefollowsmainlyEnglishandFrenchwritersSay，Sismondi，

Turgot，Bentham，Steuart，andHume，but，aboveall，AdamSmith。Hispersonalposition（andthesameistrueofSchi6zer）

ledhimtoconsidereconomicdoctrinesinconnectionwithastageofculturedifferentfromthatoftheWesternpopulations

amongstwhichtheyhadbeenformulated;thischangeofthepointofviewopenedthedoortorelativity，andhelpedto

preparetheHistoricalmethod。Storch’sstudyoftheeconomicandmoraleffectsofserfdomisregardedasespecially

valuable。Thegeneralsubjectswithwhichhehasparticularlyconnectedhisnameare（1）thedoctrineofimmaterial

commodities（orelementsofnationalprosperity），suchashealth，talent，morality，andthelike;（2）thequestionof

"productive"and"unproductive，"ascharactersoflabourandofconsumption，onwhichhedisagreedwithSmithandmay

havefurnishedindicationstoDunoyer;and（3）thedifferencesbetweentherevenueofnationsandthatofindividuals，on

whichhefollowsLauderdaleandisopposedtoSay。ThelattereconomisthavingpublishedatParis（1823）aneweditionof

Storch’sCours，withcriticismssometimesoffensiveintone，hepublishedbywayofreplytosomeofSay’sstrictureswhatis

consideredhisripestandscientificallymostimportantwork，ConsidérationssurlanatureduRevenuNational（1824;

translatedintoGermanbytheauthorhimself，1825）。

AdistinctnoteofoppositiontotheSmithianeconomicswassoundedinGermanybytwowriters，who，settingoutfrom

somewhatdifferentpointsofview，animatedbydifferentsentiments，andfavouringdifferentpracticalsystems，yet，sofaras

theircriticismsareconcerned，arriveatsimilarconclusions;wemeanAdamMüllerandFriedrichList。

AdamMüller（17791829）wasundoubtedlyamanofrealgenius。InhisprincipalworkÉlementederStaatskunst（1809），

andhisotherwritings，herepresentsamovementofeconomicthoughtwhichwasinrelationwiththe（so—called）Romantic

literatureoftheperiod。ThereactionagainstSmithianismofwhichhewasthecoryphaeuswasfoundedonanattachmentto

theprinciplesandsocialsystemoftheMiddleAges。Itispossiblethatthepoliticalandhistoricalideaswhichinspirehim，his

repugnancetocontemporaryliberalism，andhisnotionsofregularorganicdevelopment，especiallyinrelationtoEngland，

wereinsomedegreeimbibedfromEdmundBurke，whoseReflectionsontheRevolutioninFrancehadbeentranslatedinto

GermanbyFriedrichGentz，thefriendandteacherofMüller。Theassociationofhiscriticismswithmediaevalprepossessions

oughtnottopreventourrecognizingtheelementsoftruthwhichtheycontain。

HeprotestsagainstthedoctrineofSmithandagainstmodernpoliticaleconomyingeneralonthegroundthatitpresentsa

mechanical，atomistic，andpurelymaterialconceptionofsociety，thatitreducestonullityallmoralforcesandignoresthe

necessityofamoralorder，thatitisatbottomnomorethanatheoryofprivatepropertyandprivateinterests，andtakesno

accountofthelifeofthepeopleasawholeinitsnationalsolidarityandhistoricalcontinuity。Exclusiveattention，he

complains，isdevotedtotheimmediateproductionofobjectspossessingexchangevalueandtothetransitoryexistenceof

individuals;whilsttothemaintenanceofthecollectiveproductionforfuturegenerations，tointellectualproducts，powers，

possessionsandenjoyments，andtotheStatewithitshighertasksandaims，scarcelyathoughtisgiven。Thetruthisthat

nationsarespecialisedorganismswithdistinctprinciplesoflife，havingdefiniteindividualitieswhichdeterminethecourseof

theirhistoricaldevelopment。Eachisthroughalltime，onewhole;and，asthepresentistheheirofthepast，itoughttokeep

beforeitconstantlythepermanentgoodofthecommunityinthefuture。Theeconomicexistenceofapeopleisonlyoneside

orprovinceofitsentireactivity，requiringtobekeptinharmonywiththehigherendsofsociety;andtheproperorganto

effectthisreconciliationistheState，which，insteadofbeingmerelyanapparatusfortheadministrationofjustice，represents

thetotalityofthenationallife。Thedivisionoflabour，Müllerholds，isimperfectlydevelopedbySmith，whomakesittoarise

outofanativebentfortruckorbarter;whilstitsdependenceoncapitalonthelaboursandaccumulationsofpast

generationsisnotdulyemphasised，noristhenecessarycounterpoiseandcompletionofthedivisionoflabour，inthe

principleofthenationalcombinationoflabour，properlybroughtout。Smithrecognizesonlymaterial，notspiritual，capital;

yetthelatter，representedineverynationbylanguage，astheformerbymoney，isarealnationalstoreofexperience，

wisdom，goodsense，andmoralfeeling，transmittedwithincreasebyeachgenerationtoitssuccessor，andenableseach

generationtoproduceimmenselymorethanbyitsownunaidedpowersitcouldpossiblydo。Again，thesystemofSmithis

one—sidedlyBritish;ifitisinnocuousonthesoilofEngland，itisbecauseinhersocietytheoldfoundationsonwhichthe

spiritualandmateriallifeofthepeoplecansecurelyrestarepreservedinthesurvivingspiritoffeudalismandtheinner

connectionofthewholesocialsystemthenationalcapitaloflaws，manners，reputation，andcredit，whichhasbeenhanded

downinitsintegrityinconsequenceoftheinsularpositionofthecountry。ForthecontinentofEuropeaquitedifferent

systemisnecessary，inwhich，inplaceofthesumoftheprivatewealthofindividualsbeingviewedastheprimaryobject，the

realwealthofthenationandtheproductionofnationalpowershallbemadetopredominate，andalongwiththedivisionof

labouritsnationalunionandconcentrationalongwiththephysical，nolesstheintellectualandmoral，capitalshallbe

embraced。IntheseleadingtraitsofMüller’sthoughtthereismuchwhichforeshadowsthemorerecentformsofGerman

economicandsociologicalspeculation，especiallythosecharacteristicofthe"Historical"school。

AnotherelementofoppositionwasrepresentedbyFriedrichList（17891846），amanofgreatintellectualvigouraswellas

practicalenergy，andnotableashavingpowerfullycontributedbyhiswritingstotheformationoftheGermanZollverein。

HisprincipalworkisentitledDasNationaleSystemderPolitischenOekonomie（1841;7thed。，1883:Eng。trans。，1885）。

ThoughhispracticalconclusionsweredifferentfromMüller’s，hewaslargelyinfluencedbythegeneralmodeofthinkingof

thatwriter，andbyhisstricturesonthedoctrineofSmith。Itwasparticularlyagainstthecosmopolitanprincipleinthe

moderneconomicsystemthatheprotested，andagainsttheabsolutedoctrineoffreetrade，whichwasinharmonywiththat

principle。HegaveprominencetotheNationalidea，andinsistedonthespecialrequirementsofeachnationaccordingtoits

circumstancesandespeciallytothedegreeofitsdevelopment。

HerefusestoSmith’ssystemthetitleoftheindustrial，whichhethinksmoreappropriatetothemercantilesystem，and

designatestheformeras"theexchange—valuesystem。"HedeniestheparallelismassertedbySmithbetweentheeconomic

conductpropertoanindividualandtoanation，andholdsthattheimmediateprivateinterestoftheseparatemembersofthe

communitywillnotleadtothehighestgoodofthewhole。Thenationisanexistence，standingbetweentheindividualand

Humanity，andformedintoaunitybyitslanguage，manners，historicaldevelopment，culture，andconstitution。Thisunityis

thefirstconditionofthesecurity，wellbeing，progress，andcivilizationoftheindividual;andprivateeconomicinterests，like

allothers，mustbesubordinatedtothemaintenance，completion，andstrengtheningofthenationality。Thenationhavinga

continuouslife，itstruewealthconsistsandthisisList’sfundamentaldoctrinenotinthequantityofexchange—valueswhich

itpossesses，butinthefullandmany—sideddevelopmentofitsproductivepowers。Itseconomiceducation，ifwemayso

speak，ismoreimportantthantheimmediateproductionofvalues，anditmayberightthatthepresentgenerationshould

sacrificeitsgainandenjoymenttosecurethestrengthandskillofthefuture。Inthesoundandnormalconditionofanation

whichhasattainedeconomicmaturity，thethreeproductivepowersofagriculture，manufactures，andcommerceshouldbe

alikedeveloped。Butthetwolatterfactorsaresuperiorinimportance，asexercisingamoreeffectiveandfruitfulinfluenceon

thewholecultureofthenation，aswellasonitsindependence。Navigation，railways，allhighertechnicalarts，connect

themselvesspeciallywiththesefactors;whilstinapurelyagriculturalstatethereisatendencytostagnation，absenceof

enterprise，andthemaintenanceofantiquatedprejudices。Butforthegrowthofthehigherformsofindustryallcountriesare

notadaptedonlythoseofthetemperatezones，whilstthetorridregionshaveanaturalmonopolyintheproductionof

certainrawmaterials;andthusbetweenthesetwogroupsofcountriesadivisionoflabourandconfederationofpowers

spontaneouslytakesplace。Listthengoesontoexplainhistheoryofthestagesofeconomicdevelopmentthroughwhichthe

nationsofthetemperatezone，whicharefurnishedwithallthenecessaryconditions，naturallypass，inadvancingtotheir

normaleconomicstate。Theseare（1）pastorallife，（2）agriculture，（3）agricultureunitedwithmanufactures;whilstinthe

finalstageagriculture，manufactures，andcommercearecombined。Theeconomictaskofthestateistobringintoexistence

bylegislativeandadministrativeactiontheconditionsrequiredfortheprogressofthenationthroughthesestages。Outof

thisviewarisesList’sschemeofindustrialpolitics。Everynation，accordingtohim，shouldbeginwithfreetrade，stimulating

andimprovingitsagriculture，byintercoursewithricherandmorecultivatednations，importingforeignmanufacturesand

exportingrawproducts。Whenitiseconomicallysofaradvancedthatitcanmanufactureforitself，thenasystemof

protectionshouldbeemployedtoallowthehomeindustriestodevelopthemselvesfully，andsavethemfrombeing

overpoweredintheirearliereffortsbythecompetitionofmorematuredforeignindustriesinthehomemarket。Whenthe

nationalindustrieshavegrownstrongenoughnolongertodreadthiscompetition，thenthehigheststageofprogresshas

beenreached;freetradeshouldagainbecometherule，andthenationbethusthoroughlyincorporatedwiththeuniversal

industrialunion。InList’stime，accordingtohisview，Spain，Portugal，andNapleswerepurelyagriculturalcountries;

GermanyandtheUnitedStatesofNorthAmericahadarrivedatthesecondstage，theirmanufacturesbeinginprocessof

development。Francewasneartheboundaryofthethirdorhigheststage，whichEnglandalonehadreached。ForEngland，

therefore，aswellasfortheagriculturalcountriesfirst—named，freetradewastherighteconomicpolicy，butnotfor

GermanyorAmerica。Whatanationlosesforatimeinexchange—valuesduringtheprotectiveperiodshemuchmorethan

gainsinthelongruninproductivepower，thetemporaryexpenditurebeingstrictlyanalogous，whenweplaceourselvesat

thepointofviewofthelifeofthenation，tothecostoftheindustrialeducationoftheindividual。Thepracticalconclusion

whichListdrewforhisowncountrywasthatsheneededforhereconomicprogressanextendedandconvenientlybounded

territoryreachingtothesea—coastbothonnorthandsouth，andavigorousexpansionofmanufacturesandcommerce，and

thatthewaytothelatterlaythroughjudiciousprotectivelegislationwithacustomsunioncomprisingallGermanlands，and

aGermanmarinewithaNavigationAct。ThenationalGermanspirit，strivingafterindependenceandpowerthroughunion，

andthenationalindustry，awakingfromitslethargyandeagertorecoverlostground，werefavourabletothesuccessof

List’sbook，anditproducedagreatsensation。Heablyrepresentedthetendenciesanddemandsofhistimeinhisown

country;hisworkhadtheeffectoffixingtheattention，notmerelyofthespeculativeandofficialclasses，butofpracticalmen

generally，onquestionsofPoliticalEconomy;andhehadwithoutdoubtanimportantinfluenceonGermanindustrialpolicy。

Sofarasscienceisconcerned，theemphasishelaidontherelativehistoricalstudyofstagesofcivilizationasaffecting

economicquestions，andhisprotestagainstabsoluteformulas，hadacertainvalue;andthepreponderancegiventothe

nationaldevelopmentovertheimmediategainsofindividualswassoundinprinciple;thoughhisdoctrinewas，bothonits

publicandprivatesides，toomuchofamerechrematistic，andtendedinfacttosetupanewformofmercantilism，rather

thantoaidthecontemporaryefforttowardssocialreform。

MostofthewritersathomeorabroadhithertomentionedcontinuedthetraditionsoftheschoolofSmith，onlydeveloping

hisdoctrineinparticulardirections，sometimesnotwithoutone—sidednessorexaggeration，orcorrectingminorerrorsinto

whichhehadfallen，orseekingtogivetotheexpositionofhisprinciplesmoreoforderandlucidity。Someassailedtheabuse

ofabstractionbySmith’ssuccessors，objectedtotheconclusionsofRicardoandhisfollowerstheirnon—accordancewiththe

actualfactsofhumanlife，orprotestedagainsttheanti—socialconsequenceswhichseemedtoresultfromtheapplicationof

the（so—called）orthodoxformulas。AfewchallengedSmith’sfundamentalideas，andinsistedonthenecessityofalteringthe

basisofgeneralphilosophyonwhichhiseconomicsultimatelyrest。But，notwithstandingvariouspremonitoryindications，

nothingsubstantial，atleastnothingeffective，wasdone，withinthefieldwehaveasyetsurveyed，towardstheestablishment

ofareallyneworderofthinking，ornewmodeofproceeding，inthisbranchofinquiry。Now，however，wehavetodescribe

agreatandgrowingmovement，whichhasalreadyconsiderablychangedthewholecharacterofthestudyintheconceptions

ofmany，andwhichpromisestoexerciseastillmorepotentinfluenceinthefuture。WemeantheriseoftheHistorical

School，whichweregardasmarkingthethirdepochinthemoderndevelopmentofeconomicscience。

NOTES:

1。AnEnglishtranslationoftheDixmeRoyalewaspublishedin1708。

2。"RichardCantillonandtheNationalityofPoliticalEconomy，"inContemporaryReview，Jan。1881。Cantillonisquotedin

theWealthofNations，bk。i。chap。8。

3。GournaystronglyrecommendedtohisfriendsCantillon’sbookas"ouvrageexcellentqu’onnégligeait。"Mémoiresde

Morellet，i。38。

4。SeeCliffeLeslie’sEssaysinPoliticalandMoralPhilosophy。p。151。

5。Prof。Ricca—Salemo（LeDottrineFinanziarieinInghilterra）hascalledattentiontothefactthattheproposalofasingle

tax，onland，groundedontheoreticprinciplesidenticalwiththoseofthePhysiocrats，wasputforward，andsupportedwith

muchclearnessandforce，soearlyas1714，byJacobVanderlint。anEnglishman，inhistractentitledMoneyanswersall

things。

6。AcompleteeditionoftheOEuvreséconomiquesetphilosophiquesofQuesnaywaspublishedbyOnckenin1888。

7。WealthofNations，bk。iv，chap。9。

8。Ibid。bk。i，chap。11。

9。Gournay’sinspirationwas，withoutdoubt，largelyEnglish。"Ilavaitlu，"saysMorellet，"debonslivresAnglaisd’Économie

politique，tellsquePetty，Davennat，Gee，Child，etc。"——Mémoires，i。18。

10。OtherlessprominentmembersofthegroupwereLetrosniandtheAbbéBaudeau。

11。OnGaliani’sDialogues，seepage72。SoonaftertheappearanceofthisbookTurgotwrotetoMlle。deLespinasse——"Je

croispossibledeluifaireunetrèsbonneréponse;maiscelademandebiendel’art。Leséconomistessonttropconfiantspour

combattrecontreunsiadroitferrailleur。Pourl’abbeMorellet，ilnefautpasqu’ilypense。"Morellet’sworkwasprohibitedby

theController—GénéralTerray;thoughprintedin1770，somemonthsafterGalliani’s，itwasnotpublishedtill1774——Adam

SmithspeaksofMorelletas"aneminentFrenchauthor，ofgreatknowledgeinmattersofpoliticaleconomy"（Bk，v，chap，

I）。

12。Hume，inalettertoMorellet，1769，callsthem"thesetofmenthemostchimericalandarrogantthatnowexist。"He

seemsintentionallytoignoreMorellet’scloseconnectionwiththem。

13。Turgotsaid，"Quiconquen’oubliepasqu’ilyadesétatspolitiquesséparéslesunsdesautresetconstituésdiversement，ne

traiterajamaisbienaucunequestiond’Économiepolitique。"LettertoMlle。desLespinasse，1770。

14。SeealsoGrimm:"C’estPiatonaveclaverveetlesgestesd’Ariequin。"Diderotcalledthebook"modèlededialoguesqui

reateraàcôtéleslettresdePascal。"

15。J。S。Mill，inhisPrinciples，bk。i。chap。I，takescredittohisfatherforhavingfirstillustratedandmadeprominentin

relationtoproductionwhathestrangelycalls，afundamentalprincipleofPoliticalEconomy，"namely，that"allthatmandoes

orcandowithmatter"isto"moveonethingtoorfromanother。"ButtheisclearlyputfowardbyVerriinhisMeditazioni，

sect。3:"Accostareesepararesonogtuaicielementichel’ingegnoumanoritrovaanalizzandol’ideadellariproduzione。"

16。HistoryofAmerica，note193

17。PhilosophiePositive，vol。vp。759。

18。Roschel，GeschichtederN。O。inDeutschland，p。498。