In1848BrunoHildebrand（18121878）publishedthefirstvolumeofawork，which，thoughhelivedformanyyearsafter，
henevercontinued，entitledDieNationalökonomiederGegenwartundZukunft。Hildebrandwasathinkerofareallyhigh
order;itmaybedoubtedwhetheramongstGermaneconomiststherehasbeenanyendowedwithamoreprofoundand
searchingintellect。HeisquitefreefromthewordinessandobscuritywhichtoooftencharacteriseGermanwriters，and
tracesbroadoutlineswithasureandpowerfulhand。Hisbookcontainsamasterlycriticismoftheeconomicsystemswhich
preceded，orbelongedto，histime，includingthoseofSmith，Muller，List，andthesocialists。Butitisinterestingtousat
presentmainlyfromthegeneralpositionhetakesup，andhisconceptionoftherealnatureofpoliticaleconomy。Theobject
ofhiswork，hetellsus，istoopenawayintheeconomicdomaintoathoroughhistoricaldirectionandmethod，andto
transformthescienceintoadoctrineofthelawsoftheeconomicdevelopmentofnations。Itisinterestingtoobservethatthe
typewhichhesetsbeforehiminhisproposedreformofpoliticaleconomyisnotthatofhistoricaljurisprudence，butofthe
scienceoflanguageasithasbeenreconstructedinthei9thcentury，aselectionwhichindicatesthecomparativemethodas
theonewhichheconsideredappropriate。Inbothscienceswehavethepresenceofanorderedvariationintime，andthe
consequentsubstitutionoftherelativefortheabsolute。
In1853appearedtheworkofKarlKnies（18211898），entitledDiePolitischeOekonomievonStandpunkteder
geschichtlichenMethode。Thisisanelaborateexpositionanddefenceofthehistoricalmethodinitsapplicationtoeconomic
science，andisthemostsystematicandcompletemanifestoofthenewschool，atleastonthelogicalside。Thefundamental
propositionsarethattheeconomicconstitutionofsocietyatanyepochontheonehand，andontheotherthecontemporary
theoreticconceptionofeconomicscience，areresultsofadefinitehistoricaldevelopment;thattheyarebothinvital
connectionwiththewholesocialorganismoftheperiod，havinggrownupalongwithitandunderthesameconditionsof
time，place，andnationality;thattheeconomicsystemmustthereforeberegardedaspassingthroughaseriesofphases
correlativewiththesuccessivestagesofcivilization，andcanatnopointofthismovementbeconsideredtohaveattainedan
entirelydefinitiveform;thatnomorethepresentthananypreviouseconomicorganizationofsocietyistoberegardedas
absolutelygoodandright，butonlyasaphaseinacontinuoushistoricalevolution;andthatinlikemannerthenowprevalent
economicdoctrineisnottobeviewedascompleteandfinal，butonlyasrepresentingacertainstageintheunfoldingor
progressivemanifestationofthetruth。
Thethemeofthebookishandledwith，perhaps，anunduedegreeofexpansionanddetail。Theauthorexhibitsmuchsagacity
aswellaslearning，andcriticiseseffectivelytheerrors，inconsistencies，andexaggerationsofhispredecessors。Butin
characterisingandvindicatingthehistoricalmethodhehasaddednothingtoComte。Asecondeditionofhistreatisewas
publishedin1883，andinthishemakesthesingularconfessionthat，whenhewrotein1852，thePhilosophiePositive，the
sixvolumesofwhichhadappearedfrom1830to1842，wasentirelyunknowntohimand，headds，probablytoallGerman
economists。Thisisnottothecreditoftheiropen—mindednessorliteraryvigilance，ifwerememberthatMillwasalreadyin
correspondencewithComtein1841，andthathiseulogisticnoticeofhimintheLogicappearedin1843。When，however，
KniesatalaterperiodexaminedComte’swork，hewas，hetellsus，surprisedatfindinginitsomanyanticipationsof，or
\"parallelisms\"with，hisownconclusions。Andwellhemight;forallthatisreallyvaluableinhismethodologyistobefound
inComte，appliedonalargerscale，anddesignedwiththebroadandcommandingpowerwhichmarksthediimajoresof
philosophy。
TherearetwopointswhichseemtobeopentocriticisminthepositiontakenbysomeGermaneconomistsofthehistorical
school。
1。Kniesandsomeotherwriters，inmaintainingtheprincipleofrelativityineconomictheory，appearnottopreservethedue
balanceinoneparticular。Thetwoformsofabsolutismindoctrine，cosmopolitanismandwhatKniescallsperpetualism，he
seemstoplaceonexactlythesamefooting;inotherwords，heconsiderstheerrorofoverlookingvarietiesoflocal
circumstancesandnationalitytobequiteasseriousasthatofneglectingdifferencesinthestageofhistoricaldevelopment。
Butthisiscertainlynotso。IneverybranchofSociologythelatterismuchthegravererror，vitiatingradically，whereveritis
found，thewholeofourinvestigations。Ifweignorethefact，ormistakethedirection，ofthesocialmovement，wearewrong
inthemostfundamentalpointofallapoint，too，whichisinvolvedineveryquestion。Butthevariationsdependingon
differenceofrace，asaffectingbodilyandmentalendowment，orondiversityofexternalsituation，aresecondaryphenomena
only;theymustbepostponedinstudyingthegeneraltheoryofsocialdevelopment，andtakenintoaccountafterwardswhen
wecometoexaminethemodificationsinthecharacterofthedevelopmentarisingoutofpeculiarconditions。And，though
thephysicalnatureofaterritoryisaconditionwhichislikelytooperatewithspecialforceoneconomicphenomena，itis
ratheronthetechnicalformsandcomparativeextensionoftheseveralbranchesofindustrythatitwillactthanonthesocial
conductofeachbranch，ortheco—ordinationandrelativeactionofall，whichlatterarethepropersubjectsoftheinquiriesof
theeconomist。
2。Somemembersoftheschoolappear，intheiranxietytoasserttherelativityofthescience，tofallintotheerrorofdenying
economiclawsaltogether;theyareatleastunwillingtospeakof\"naturallaws\"inrelationtotheeconomicworld。Froma
tooexclusiveconsiderationoflawintheinorganicsphere，theyregardthisphraseologyasbindingthemtothenotionof
fixityandofaninvariablesystemofpracticaleconomy。But，ifweturnourattentionrathertotheorganicsciences，which
aremorekindredtothesocial，weshallseethattheterm\"naturallaw\"carrieswithitnosuchimplication。Aswehavemore
thanonceindicated，anessentialpartoftheideaoflifeisthatofdevelopment，inotherwords，of\"orderedchange。\"Andthat
suchadevelopmenttakesplaceintheconstitutionandworkingofsocietyinallitselementsisafactwhichcannotbe
doubted，andwhichthesewritersthemselves，emphaticallyassert。Thatthereexistbetweentheseveralsocialelementssuch
relationsasmakethechangeofoneelementinvolveordeterminethechangeofanotherisequallyplain;andwhythename
ofnaturallawsshouldbedeniedtosuchconstantrelationsofcoexistenceandsuccessionitisnoteasytosee。Theselaws，
beinguniversal，admitoftheconstructionofanabstracttheoryofeconomicdevelopment;whilstapartoftheGerman
historicalschooltendstosubstituteforsuchatheoryameredescriptionofdifferentnationaleconomies，introducing
prematurelyaswehavepointedouttheactionofspecialterritorialorethnologicalconditions，insteadofreservingthisas
thegroundoflatermodifications，inconcretecases，oftheprimarygenerallawsdeducedfromastudyofthecommon
humanevolution。
Tothethreewritersabovenamed，Roscher，Hildebrand，andKnies，thefoundationoftheGermanhistoricalschoolof
politicaleconomybelongs。ItdoesnotappearthatRoscherinhisownsubsequentlabourshasbeenmuchundertheinfluence
ofthemethodwhichhehasinsomanyplacesadmirablycharacterised。InhisSystemderVolkswirthschaft（vol。i。，GrundlagenderNationaleökonomie，1854;23rded。，1900;Eng。transi。byJ。J。Lalor，1878;vol。ii。，N。O。desAckerbaues，
1860;13thed。，1903;vol。iii。，N。O。desHandelsundGewerbfleisses，7thed。，1887）thedogmaticandthehistoricalmatter
areratherjuxtaposedthanvitallycombined。Itistruethathehasmostusefullyappliedhisvastlearningtospecialhistorical
studies，inrelationespeciallytotheprogressofthescienceitself。HistreatiseUeberdasVerhdltnissderNationalökonomie
zumclassischenAlterthume（1849），hisZurGeschichtederEnglischenVoikswirthschaftslehre（18512），and，aboveall，
thatmarvellousmonumentoferuditionandindustry，hisGesehichiederNational—OekonomikinDeutschland（1874），to
whichheissaidtohavedevotedfifteenyearsofstudy，areamongthemostvaluableextantworksofthiskind，thoughthe
lastbyitsaccumulationofdetailisunfittedforgeneralstudyoutsideofGermanyitself。Severalinterestinganduseful
monographsarecollectedinhisAnsichtenderVolkswirthschaftvomgeschichtlichenStandpunkte（1861，3ded。，1878）。His
systematictreatise，too，abovereferredto，aboundsinhistoricalnoticesoftheriseanddevelopmentoftheseveraldoctrines
ofthescience。Butitcannotbeallegedthathehasdonemuchtowardsthetransformationofpoliticaleconomywhichhis
earliestlaboursseemedtoannounce;andCossaappearstoberightinsayingthathisdogmaticworkhasnoteffectedany
substantialmodificationoftheprinciplesofHermannandRau。
Thehistoricalmethodhasexhibiteditsessentialfeaturesmorefullyinthehandsoftheyoungergenerationofscientific
economistsinGermany，amongstwhommaybereckonedLujoBrentano，AdolfHeld，ErwinNasse，GustavSchmoller，H。
Rösler，AlbertSchäffle，HansvonScheel，GustavSchönberg，andAdolfWagner。Besidesthegeneralprincipleofan
historicaltreatmentofthescience，theleadingideaswhichhavebeenmoststronglyinsistedonbythisschoolarethe
following。I。Thenecessityofaccentuatingthemoralelementineconomicstudy。Thisconsiderationhasbeenurgedwith
specialemphasisbySchmollerinhisGrundiragenderRechtesundderMoral（1875）andbySchäffleinhisDas
gesellschaftlicheSystemdermenschlichenWirthschaft（1861，3ded。，1873）。G。Kries（d。1858）appearsalsotohave
handledthesubjectwellinareviewofJ。S。Mill。Accordingtothemostadvancedorgansoftheschool，threeprinciplesof
organizationareatworkinpracticaleconomy;and，correspondingwiththese，therearethreedifferentsystemsorspheresof
activity。Thelatterare（1）privateeconomy;（2）thecompulsorypubliceconomy;（3）the\"caritative\"sphere。Inthefirstalone
personalinterestpredominates;inthesecondthegeneralinterestofthesociety;inthethirdthebenevolentimpulses。Evenin
thefirst，however，theactionofprivateinterestscannotbeunlimited;nottospeakhereoftheinterventionofthepublic
power，theexcessesandabusesofthefundamentalprincipleinthisdepartmentmustbecheckedandcontrolledbyan
economicmorality，whichcanneverbeleftoutofaccountintheoryanymorethaninpracticalapplications。Inthethird
regionabovenamed，moralinfluencesareofcoursesupreme。II。Thecloserelationwhichnecessarilyexistsbetween
economicsandjurisprudence。ThishasbeenbroughtoutbyL。vonSteinandH。Rösler，butismostsystematically
establishedbyWagnerwhois，withoutdoubt，oneofthemosteminentoflivingGermaneconomistsespeciallyinhisGrundlegung，nowformingpartofthecomprehensiveLehrbuchderpolitischenOekonomiepublishedbyhimandProfessor
Nassejointly。Thedoctrineofthejusnature，onwhichthephysiocrats，aswehaveseen，rearedtheireconomicstructure，
haslostitsholdonbelief，andtheoldaprioriandabsoluteconceptionsofpersonalfreedomandpropertyhavegivenway
alongwithit。Itisseenthattheeconomicpositionoftheindividual，insteadofdependingmerelyonso—callednaturalrights
orevenonhisnaturalpowers，isconditionedbythecontemporaryjuristicsystem，whichisitselfanhistoricalproduct。The
above—namedconceptions，therefore，halfeconomichalfjuristic，offreedomandpropertyrequireafreshexamination。Itis
principallyfromthispointofviewthatWagnerapproacheseconomicstudies。Thepoint，ashesays，onwhichallturnsisthe
oldquestionoftherelationoftheindividualtothecommunity。Whoeverwiththeolderjuristicandpoliticalphilosophyand
nationaleconomyplacestheindividualinthecentrecomesnecessarilytotheuntenableresultswhich，intheeconomicfield，
thephysiocraticandSmithianschooloffreecompetitionhassetup。Wagneronthecontraryinvestigates，beforeanything
else，theconditionsoftheeconomiclifeofthecommunity，and，insubordinationtothis，determinesthesphereofthe
economicfreedomoftheindividual。III。AdifferentconceptionofthefunctionsoftheStatefromthatentertainedbythe
schoolofSmith。ThelatterschoolhasingeneralfollowedtheviewofRousseauandKantthatthesoleofficeofthestateis
theprotectionofthemembersofthecommunityfromviolenceandfraud。Thisdoctrine，whichwasinharmonywiththoseof
thejusnaturaeandthesocialcontract，wastemporarilyusefulforthedemolitionoftheoldeconomicsystemwithits
complicatedapparatusoffettersandrestrictions。Butitcouldnotstandagainstarationalhistoricalcriticism，andstillless
againstthegrowingpracticaldemandsofmoderncivilization。Infact，theabolitionoftheimpoliticanddiscreditedsystemof
EuropeanGovernments，bybringingtothesurfacetheevilsarisingfromunlimitedcompetition，irresistiblydemonstratedthe
necessityofpublicactionaccordingtonewandmoreenlightenedmethods。TheGermanhistoricalschoolrecognizesthe
Stateasnotmerelyaninstitutionforthemaintenanceoforder，butastheorganofthenationforallendswhichcannotbe
adequatelyeffectedbyvoluntaryindividualeffort。Wheneversocialaimscanbeattainedonlyormostadvantageously
throughitsaction，thatactionisjustified。（5）Thecasesinwhichitcanproperlyinterferemustbedeterminedseparatelyon
theirownmeritsandinrelationtothestageofnationaldevelopment。Itoughtcertainlytopromoteintellectualandaesthetic
culture。Itoughttoenforceprovisionsforpublichealthandregulationsfortheproperconductofproductionandtransport。
Itoughttoprotecttheweakermembersofsociety，especiallywomen，children，theaged，andthedestitute，atleastinthe
absenceoffamilymaintenanceandguardianship。Itoughttosecurethelaboureragainsttheworstconsequencesofpersonal
injurynotduetohisownnegligence，toassistthroughlegalrecognitionandsupervisiontheeffortsoftheworkingclasses
forjointnolessthanindividualself—help，andtoguaranteethesafetyoftheirearnings，whenintrustedtoitscare。
Aspecialinfluencewhichhasworkedonthismorerecentgroupisthatoftheoreticsocialism;weshallseehereafterthat
socialismasapartyorganizationhasalsoaffectedtheirpracticalpolitics。WithsuchwritersasSt。Simon，Fourier，and
Proudhon，Lassalle，Marx，Engels，Marlo，andRodhertus，wedonotdealinthepresenttreatise;butwemustrecognize
themashavingpowerfullystimulatedtheyoungerGermaneconomists（inthemorelimitedsenseofthislastword）。They
haveevenmodifiedthescientificconclusionsofthelatter，principallythroughcriticismoftheso—calledorthodoxsystem。
SchäffleandWagnermaybeespeciallynamedashavinggivenalargespaceandarespectfulattentiontotheirarguments。In
particular，theimportantconsideration，towhichwehavealreadyreferred，thattheeconomicpositionoftheindividual
dependsontheexistinglegalsystem，andnotablyontheexistingorganizationofproperty，wasfirstinsistedonbythe
socialists。Theyhadalsopointedoutthatthepresentinstitutionsofsocietyinrelationtoproperty，inheritance，contract，and
thelike，are（touseLassalle’sphrase）\"historicalcategorieswhichhavechanged，andaresubjecttofurtherchange，\"whilstin
theorthodoxeconomytheyaregenerallyassumedasafixedorderofthingsonthebasisofwhichtheindividualcreateshis
ownposition。J。S。Mill，aswehaveseen，calledattentiontothefactofthedistributionofwealthdepending，unlikeits
production，notonnaturallawsalone，butontheordinancesofsociety，butitissomeoftheGermaneconomistsofthe
youngerhistoricalschoolwhohavemoststronglyemphasisedthisview。Torectifyandcompletetheconception，however，
wemustbearinmindthatthoseordinancesthemselvesarenotarbitrarilychangeable，butareconditionedbythestageof
generalsocialdevelopment。
IneconomicpoliticsthesewritershavetakenupapositionbetweentheGermanfree—trade（or，asitissometimeswith
questionableproprietycalled，theManchester）partyandthedemocraticsocialists。Thelatterinvoketheomnipotenceofthe
Statetotransformradicallyandimmediatelythepresenteconomicconstitutionofsocietyintheinterestoftheproletariate。
Thefree—tradersseektominimisestateactionforanyendexceptthatofmaintainingpublicorder，andsecuringthesafety
andfreedomoftheindividual。Themembersoftheschoolofwhichwearenowspeaking，wheninterveninginthediscussion
ofpracticalquestions，haveoccupiedanintermediatestandpoint。Theyareopposedaliketosocialrevolutionandtorigidlaisserfaire。Whilstrejectingthesocialisticprogramme，theycallfortheinterventionoftheStateinaccordancewiththe
theoreticprinciplesalreadymentioned，forthepurposeofmitigatingthepressureofthemodernindustrialsystemonits
weakermembers，andextendingingreatermeasuretotheworkingclassesthebenefitsofadvancingcivilization。Schäfflein
hisCapitalismusundSocialismus（1870;nowabsorbedintoalargerwork），WagnerinhisRedeüberdiesocialeFrage（1871），andSchanberginhisArbeitsämter:eineAulgabedesdeutschenReichs（1871）advocatedthispolicyinrelationto
thequestionofthelabourer。Theseexpressionsofopinion，withwhichmostoftheGermanprofessorsofpoliticaleconomy
sympathised，wereviolentlyassailedbytheorgansofthefree—tradeparty，whofoundinthem\"anewformofsocialism。\"Out
ofthisarosealivelycontroversy;andthenecessityofacloserunionandapracticalpoliticalorganizationbeingfeltamongst
thepartisansofthenewdirection，acongresswasheldatEisenachinOctober1872，fortheconsiderationof\"thesocial
question。\"ItwasattendedbyalmostalltheprofessorsofeconomicscienceintheGermanuniversities，byrepresentativesof
theseveralpoliticalparties，byleadersoftheworkingmen，andbysomeofthelargecapitalists。Atthismeetingthe
principlesaboveexplainedwereformulated。Thosewhoadoptedthemobtainedfromtheiropponentstheappellationof
\"Katheder—Socialisten，\"orsocialistsofthe（professorial）chair，\"anicknameinventedbyH。B。Oppenheim，andwhichthose
towhomitwasappliedwerenotunwillingtoaccept。Since1873thisgrouphasbeenunitedinthe\"Vereinfür
Social—politik，\"inwhich，asthecontroversybecamemitigated，free—tradersalsohavetakenpart。WithintheVereinadivision
hasshownitself。Theleftwinghasfavouredasystematicgradualmodificationofthelawofpropertyinsuchadirectionas
wouldtendtothefulfilmentofthesocialisticaspirations，sofarasthesearelegitimate，whilstthemajorityadvocatereform
throughstateactiononthebasisofexistingjuralinstitutions。Schäfflegoessofarastomaintainthatthepresent
\"capitalistic\"regimewillbereplacedbyasocialisticorganization;but，likeJ。S。Mill，headjournsthischangetoamoreor
lessremotefuture，andexpectsitastheresultofanaturaldevelopment，orprocessof\"socialselection;\"（6）herepudiatesany
immediateorviolentrevolution，andrejectsanysystemoflifewhichwouldsetup\"abstractequality\"againsttheclaimsof
individualserviceandmerit。
ThefurthertheinvestigationsoftheGermanhistoricalschoolhavebeencarried，intheseverallinesofinquiryithasopened，
themoreclearlyithascometolightthattheonethingneedfulisnotmerelyareformofpoliticaleconomy，butitsfusionina
completescienceofsociety。ThisistheviewlongsinceinsistedonbyAugusteComte;anditsjustnessisdailybecoming
moreapparent。ThebesteconomistsofGermanynowtendstronglyinthisdirection。Schäffle（18311903），whowaslargely
undertheinfluenceofComteandHerbertSpencer，actuallyattemptedtheenterpriseofwideningeconomicintosocial
studies。Inhismostimportantwork，whichhadbeenpreparedbypreviouspublications，BauundLebendessocialen
Körpers（187578;newed。，1896），heproposestogiveacomprehensiveplanananatomy，physiology，andpsychologyofhumansociety。Heconsiderssocialprocessesasanalogoustothoseoforganic
bodies;and，soundandsuggestiveastheideaofthisanalogy，alreadyusedbyComte，undoubtedlyis，hecarriesit，perhaps，
toanunduedegreeofdetailandelaboration。Thesameconceptionisadopted，andpresentedinaveryexaggeratedform，by
P。vonLilienfeldinhisGedankenüberdieSocialzeissenschaftderZukunft（187381）。Atendencytothefusionofeconomic
scienceinSociologyisalsofoundinAdolphSamter’sSozial—lehre（1875）thoughtheeconomicaspectofsocietyisthere
speciallystudiedandinSchmoller’salreadymentionedtreatiseUebereinigeGrundfragen;andthenecessityofsucha
transformationisenergeticallyassertedbyH。vonScheelintheprefacetohisGermanversion（1879）ofanEnglishtract（7）OnthepresentPositionandProspectsofPoliticalEconomy。
Thename\"Realistic，\"whichhassometimesbeengiventothehistoricalschool，especiallyinitsmorerecentform，appears
tobeinjudiciouslychosen。Itisintendedtomarkthecontrastwiththe\"abstract\"complexionoftheorthodoxeconomics。
Buttheerroroftheseeconomicslies，notintheuse，butintheabuseofabstraction。Allscienceimpliesabstraction，seeking，
asitdoes，forunityinvariety;thequestionineverybranchisastotherightconstitutionoftlleabstracttheoryinrelationto
theconcretefacts。Noristhenewschoolquitecorrectlydistinguishedas\"inductive。\"Deductiondoubtlessunduly
preponderatesintheinvestigationsoftheoldereconomists;butitmustberememberedthatitisalegitimateprocess，whenit
setsout，notfromaprioriassumptions，butfromprovedgeneralisations。Andtheappropriatemethodofeconomics，asof
allsociology，isnotsomuchinductionasthespecialisedformofinductionknownascomparison，especiallythecomparative
studyof\"socialseries\"（touseMill’sphrase），whichisproperlydesignatedasthe\"historical\"method。Ifthedenominations
herecriticisedwereallowedtoprevail，therewouldbeadangeroftheschoolassuminganunscientificcharacter。Itmight
occupyitselftooexclusivelywithstatisticalinquiry，andforgetinthedetailedexaminationofparticularprovincesof
economiclifethenecessityoflargephilosophicideasandofasystematicco—ordinationofprinciples。Solongaseconomics
remainaseparatebranchofstudy，anduntiltheyareabsorbedintoSociology，thethinkerswhofollowthenewdirectionwill
dowiselyinretainingtheiroriginaldesignationofthehistoricalschool。
ThemembersofthisandtheotherGermanschoolshaveproducedmanyvaluableworksbesidesthosewhichtherehasbeen
occasiontomentionabove。Amplenoticesoftheircontributionstotheseveralbranchesofthescience（includingits
applications）willbefounddispersedthroughWagnerandNasse’sLehrbuchandthecomprehensiveHandbucheditedby
Schönberg。Thefollowinglist，whichdoesnotpretendtoapproachtocompleteness，isgivenforthepurposeofdirectingthe
studenttoacertainnumberofbookswhichoughtnottobeoverlookedinthestudyofthesubjectstowhichthey
respectivelyrefer:——
Knies，DieEisenbahnenundihreWirkungen（1853），DerTelegraph（1857），GeldundCredit（18737679）;Rösler，Zur
KritikderLekrevomArbeitslohn（1861）;Schmoller，ZurGeschichteaerdeutschenKleingewerbeim19Jahrh。（1870）;
Schäffle，TheoriederausschliessendenAbsatzverhaltnisse（1867），Quintessenzdessocialismus（6thed。，1878），Grundsatze
derSteuerpolitik（1880）Nasse，MittelalterlicheFeldgemeinschaftinEngland（1869）;Brentano，OntheHistoryand
DevelopmentofGilds，prefixedtoToulminSmith’sEnglishGilds（1870），DieArbeitergildenderGegenwart（187172），DasArbeitsverhaltnissgemassdemheutigenRecht（1877），DieArbeitsversicherunggetnassderheutigen
Wirthschaftsordnung（1879），DerArbeitsversicherungszwang（1884），DieklassischeNationalokonomie（1888）;Held（born
1844，accidentallydrownedintheLakeofThun，1880），DieEinkommensteuer（1872），DiedeutscheArbeiterpresseder
Gegenwart（1873），Sozialismus，SozialdemokratieundSozialpolitik（1878），GrundrissfurVorlesungenuber
Nationalokonomie（2ded。，1878）;ZweiBucherzursocialenGeschichteEnglands（posthumouslypublished，1881）;Von
Scheel（born1839），DieTheoriedersocialenFrage（1871），UnseresocialpolitischenParteien（1878）;VonBöhm
Bawerk，KapitalundKapitalzinstheorien（188489）。TothesemaybeaddedL。vonStein，DieVerwaltungslehre（187679），LehrbuchderFinanzwissenschaft（4thed。，1878）。E。DuhringistheablestofthefewGermanfollowersofCarey;wehave
alreadymentioned（Bibl。Note）hisHistoryoftheScience。TotheRussianGermanschoolbelongstheworkofT。von
Bernhardi，whichiswrittenfromthehistoricalpointofview，VersucheinerKritikderGrundewelehefurgrossesund
kleinesGrundeigenthumangefuhrtwerden（1848）。ThefreetradeschoolofGermanyisrecognizedashavingrenderedgreat
practicalservicesinthatcountry，especiallybyitssystematicwarfareagainstantiquatedprivilegesandrestrictions。Cobden
hasfurnishedthemodelofitspoliticalaction，whilst，onthesideoftheory，itisfoundedchieflyonSayandBastiat。The
membersofthisschoolwhosenameshavebeenmostfrequentlyheardbytheEnglishpublicarethoseofJ。PrinceSmith（d。
1874），whomayberegardedashavingbeenitshead;H。vonTreitschke，authorofDerSocialismusundseineGonner，1875
（directedagainsttheKathederSocialisten）V。Böhmert，whohasadvocatedtheparticipationofworkmeninprofits（Die
Gewinnbetheiligung，1878）;A。Emminghaus，authorofDasArmenweseninEuropaischenStaaten，1870，partofwhichhas
beentranslatedinE。B。Eastwick’sPoorReliefinDifferentPartsofEurope，1873;andJ。H。SchultzeDelitzsch，wellknown
asthefounderoftheGermanpopularbanks，andastrenuoussupporterofthesystemof\"co—operation。\"Thesocialist
writers，ashasbeenalreadymentioned，arenotincludedinthepresenthistoricalsurvey，nordoweingeneralnoticewritings
oftheeconomists（properlysocalled）havingrelationtothehistoryofsocialismorthecontroversywithit。
ThemovementwhichcreatedthenewschoolinGermany，withthedevelopmentswhichhavegrownoutofit，havewithout
doubtgiventothatcountryatthepresenttimetheprimacyineconomicstudies。Germaninfluencehasbeenfeltinthe
modificationofopinioninothercountriesmoststrongly，perhaps，inItaly，andleastsoinFrance。InEnglandithasbeen
steadilymakingway，thoughretardedbytheinsularindifferencetothecurrentsofforeignthoughtwhichhaseminently
markedourdominantschool。Alongsideoftheinfluencethusexerted，ageneraldistasteforthe\"orthodox\"systemhasbeen
spontaneouslygrowing，partlyfromasuspicionthatitsmethodwasunsound，partlyfromaprofounddissatisfactionwiththe
practiceitinspired，andthedetectedhollownessofthepolicyofmerelaisserfaire。Henceeverywhereamodeofthinking
andaspeciesofresearchhaveshownthemselves，andcomeintofavour，whichareinharmonywiththesystematic
conceptionsofthehistoricaleconomists。Thusadualismhasestablisheditselfintheeconomicworld，ayoungerschool
advancingtowardspredominance，whilsttheoldschoolstilldefendsitsposition，thoughitsadherentstendmoreandmoreto
modifytheirattitudeandtoadmitthevalueofthenewlights。