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。