Governing economy

THE REFORMATION OF

GERMAN ECONOMIC

DISC O U R S E

1 750 184.O

KEITH TRIBE
 PRESENTED BY

THE

economics department
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/governingeconomyOOOOtrib
Governing Economy

The Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750-1840

GOVERNING
ECONOMY
The Reformation of German
Economic Discourse 1750-1840

Keith Tribe

"V"

US di gf
The right of the
University of Cambridge
to print and sell
all manner of books
Vd 1 a Vd was granted by

w
i Henry VIII in 1534.

If *J
I
The University has printed
and published continuously
since 1584.

Cambridge University Press

Cambridge
New York New Rochelle Melbourne Sydney
Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP
32 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia

© Cambridge University Press 1988

First published 1988

Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge

British Library cataloguing in publication data

Tribe, Keith, 1949-
Governing economy: the reformation of
German economic discourse, 1750-1840.
1. Economics. German theories, 1750-1840.
I. Title.
330.T0943

L ibrary of Congress cataloguing in publication data

Tribe, Keith.
Governing economy.
Bibliography.
Includes index.
1. Economics - Germany - History.
2. Mercantile system - Germany - History.
I. Title.
HB107.A2T75 1988 330'.0943 88-4294

ISBN 0 521 30316 8

CE
For Lin, Kris, and Kari
.

'
Contents

Acknowledgements page ix
German Universities of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries xi

1 Text and economy 1

2 Polity and economy in the territorial state 19
3 Cameralism as a‘science’ 35
4 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels 55
5 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy 91
6 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany 119
7 The‘Smith reception’and the function of translation 133
8 DerMensch und seine Bediirfnisse: the constitution of
Nationalokonomie 149
9 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie 183
10 Historical economics in prospect 203

Bibliography 211
Index 226

vii
Acknowledgements

The research for this book began while I was a Visiting Fellow at the Institut fur
Soziologie, University of Heidelberg, from October 1979 to December 1980. It
took shape while I was a Visiting Fellow at the Max Planck Institut fur
Geschichte, Gottingen, from October 1982 to May 1983. Both of these periods
of residence were financed by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, to which I
owe above all the opportunity to develop my work in a way that would otherwise
have been inconceivable. Frequent visits to West German libraries and (new)
German colleagues were financed by the Social Science Research Council, the
University of Keele, and the Max Planck Institut fur Geschichte. The British
Academy also made it possible for me to visit the Kress Library, Harvard
Business School, in June 1983, and the Universitatsbibliothek, Vienna, in
September 1984.1 would like to thank all these foundations and institutions for
the financial support that they have given me over the past seven years.
In addition, of course, there are the academic and personal debts that work of
this kind involves. First of all, I would like to thank Professor Rudolf Vierhaus
for the generous way in which he gave me free access to the facilities of the Max
Planck Institut fur Geschichte, which over the years has become an intellectual
second home. I was fortunate also at the same time to begin an association with
the ‘Political Economy and Society’ Project of the King’s College Research
Centre, Cambridge, which brought me the friendship of Istvan Hont and led to
our joint work on an international project on the institutionalization of
economics. To Pasquale Pasquino I owe my introduction to Gottingen and the
Max Planck Institut; his scholarship has always been an inspiration to me, and
we shared an enthusiasm for the Reading Room and resources of the
Niedersachsische Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek, Gottingen. Here I have
spent many happy months. To Hans Bodeker of the Institut I owe my better
acquaintance with German historical research; to Leena Tanner the feeling that
her town was also my town. Without the generosity of Doris and Jurgen
Rudolph, whose hospitality and friendship was an oasis of good cheer in the
social and intellectual wastes of Heidelberg, I would have been very miserable.
Other friends and colleagues to whom I owe a debt of gratitude are Dieter
Klippel, Pierangelo Schiera, David Sabean, Sigrid Ziffus, Ken Carpenter, Arjo
Klamer, Geoff Eley, Greg Claeys, Christine Latteck, Francesca Rigotti, Rein-
hard Blankner, Jochen Hoock, Marie-Luise Spieckermann, and Frank and
Brigitte Meiling.

ix
Acknowledgements

The title of this book is borrowed and freely adapted from Jim Tully’s essay,
‘Governing Conduct’. I only hope he likes the use I have made of it.

K.T.
Keele
1986

x
 Helms tedt
F54 . Wittenberg
1809 _ / -^,»1817
1809 H Gftttingen /
Cologne fl^l 798
M ^ „ A Halle a *2®*
41797 Marburg , 1 Eriurt -
Bonn "1818
?C 1*76W_^ Key
* Wj 1805 f Jena
Giessen Fulda ", Universities:
Existing
, Wurzburg __
/< JV J Bamberg Newly
*TlcT F^1797
V “ISOS
E established
N1795 Prague
Heidelberg H Erlangen Elbe 0! Dissolved
^4 Altdorf
1807
Dillingen
>804 J^X^*
I'and,to2tnryi826
w- Munich
r 1826
Basel
Danube
Vienna
Graz

German universities of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries

1 Text and economy

There is no longer a specifically German tradition of economic analysis. A

browse through German periodicals and a survey of university courses reveals
preoccupations, methods, and models that are quite familiar to the British or
American economist. Differences of emphasis exist, of course, and the demands
of national educational systems have affected the structure and progression of
economic instruction, but modern economics has become an international
science whose precepts are truly cosmopolitan - as elaborated in Dornbusch and
Fischer’s Makrookonomik or Solow’s Wachstumstheorie.
However, this situation is not the result of the autonomous development and
diffusion of a modern economic science whose theorems and proofs are formal,
logical, and universal in character, transcending national and cultural frontiers.
Up until the purge of German universities initiated by the National Socialists in
April 1933, a tradition of‘German economics’ had existed which reached back
over two hundred years. The policies which National Socialism implemented to
purify ‘German culture’ resulted - in this domain as in many others - in the
destruction of the very ‘Germanic’ traditions which they had supposedly set out
to restore. Many of the academics and teachers who were stripped of their rights
in 1933 emigrated to the United States. Where disciplines were heavily
populated by academics of Jewish or radical background, such as psychology,
sociology, and (to a lesser degree) economics, this permanently altered teaching
and research in the subject for the duration of the Third Reich. With the defeat
of the National Socialist regime, some did return after 1945, but many chose to
remain in their adopted countries of exile. In this way, the American social
sciences in particular experienced a permanent increase in prominent German
and Central European intellectuals.1 Those who returned to teach in German
universities could not simply take up where they had left off; and many felt that
recovery from the tragedy that had befallen their nation could best be effected by
1 For a discussion of the complex issues involved, see D. Fleming and B. Bailyn (eds.), The
Intellectual Migration: Europe and America 1930-1960 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1969). The scale of the impact of this process on scholarship and teaching can be judged
by leafing through the entries in the International Biographical Dictionary of Central European Emigres
(ed. H. A. Strauss and W. Roder). For other studies related to the fate of individual disciplines and
areas of research in Germany, see H. Mehrtens and S. Richter (eds.), Naturwissenschaft, Technik
und NS-Ideologie (Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt-on-Main, 1980); M. R. Lepsius (ed.), Soziologie in
Deutschland und Osterreich 1918—1945. (Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 23
(1981)); D. Kasler, Die friihe deutsche Soziologie 1909 his 1934 und ihre Entstehungsmilieu
(Westdeutscher Verlag, Cologne, 1981).

1
 Text and economy

the introduction of new ideas and values from the English and American
democracies. In both East and West, the general reconstruction of teaching and
research took place under British, American, and Soviet hegemony. Those
teachers, textbooks, and courses which had survived were subjected to close
scrutiny; and just as the new armies of the 1950s were furnished with American
and Soviet surplus equipment, so the new universities and colleges increasingly
turned to untainted and ready-made foreign models.2
It would be wrong to imply that this process was either uniform or universal; in
the Federal Republic, disciplines such as law, political science, history, and
ethnology retained some coherence and, as a result, they can be counted today
among the cultural strengths of a reconstructed Germany. Other disciplines,
such as sociology, economics, and psychology, are thriving, of course, but from
an international perspective they are relatively uninteresting - like Swiss
sociology, or Egyptian economics. A British or American academic would
certainly consider spending some time teaching in these countries, but it would
not occur to him that there was anything to be learnt there that would warrant a
prolonged period of residence. Contemporary economics may well be cosmopo¬
litan, but as ever there is a difference between those institutions and countries
where intellectual developments occur and those where teaching is more or less
efficiently executed. While the actual institutions and countries are subject to
change, the existence of such a difference is not. And in the second half of the
twentieth century German economics falls into the second of these two
categories.
During the later nineteenth century, however, Germany was one of those
countries to which students of economics gravitated, especially American
students. The absence of systematic advanced training in American universities
and the lack of a developed indigenous culture of research led many students
overseas during the final three decades of the nineteenth century. Despite the
obstacle of language, German universities at that time were both more open and
in important areas, more advanced, than their English or French counterparts.
As a consequence, the early development of teaching and research in the social
sciences in America was heavily influenced by Germanic traditions and concerns —
either indirectly, with the revamping and extension of disciplines by recruits whose
qualifications came from Leipzig, Berlin, Halle, Gottingen, and Heidelberg; or
more directly, with the establishment of Johns Hopkins University in 1876 on an
explicitly German model of research and teaching.3 In Central Europe and

2 I?oscheP°th “d R- Steininger (eds.), Die britische Deutschlands- und Besatzungspolitik 1945-1949

(Ferdinand Schoningh, Paderborn, 1985).
3 See the essays on Harvard, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins in W. J. Barber (ed.) Economists and
American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century (Wesleyan University Press, Middletown
Conn., 1987). The influence of German scholarship is dealt with in detail by J. Herbst, The
German Historical School in American Scholarship (Cornell University Press, Ithaca 1965) 8-19
espec. Details of student numbers by subject at specific universities show that philosophy and
philology were by far the most popular subjects: J. Conrad, The German Universities for the Last Fifty
Years (David Biyce and Son, Glasgow, 1885), 43. The fact remains, nevertheless, that many of the

2
 Text and economy

Russia, too, the study of economics during the nineteenth century meant, de
facto, the study of economics as defined and taught by German scholarship. Up
until the 1920s, then, German economics exerted a powerful influence on the
development of the discipline on an international scale.
What, therefore, distinguishes German economics from the political economy
practised at this time in France and Germany? This is not an easy question to
answer, not least because it has long been assumed that Anglo-French political
economy provided the model for modern economics, and any ‘difference’
between, say, British and German economics was merely one of‘advanced’ and
‘backwards’ ways of thinking. In so far as a material difference between German
economics and political economy has been recognized, it has generally been
thought of in terms of the confrontation between an historical approach to
economic phenomena and the more theoretical and abstract economics of
Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Walras, Jevons, and, of course, Menger, with whom
Schmoller had the famous dispute on method. More recent studies have begun
to acknowledge that the political economy practised in Britain from the later
eighteenth century was a great deal more diverse than was hitherto thought, with
‘historical’ or ‘comparative’ tendencies coexisting alongside the discourse of
principles and theorems with which we are more familiar today.4 German
economics, too, is by no means exhausted with the kind of work represented by
Schmoller. Unfortunately, however, it remains the case that any attempt to
survey later nineteenth-century German economics - the economics taught to
Ely at Heidelberg by Knies, for instance - is baulked by a dearth of any but the
most superficial treatments of the issues, debates, and personalities. The most
recent overview of the area divides the ‘epochs’ of nineteenth-century German
economics into both bland and conventional categories - ‘classics’, ‘romantics’,
‘Historical School’, and ‘further developments’. Friedrich List has a chapter all
to himself, in part at least, it may be supposed, because of the difficulty of
assigning him unambiguously to any one of these categories.5 Short of rereading
large chunks of the corpus of German economic literature, the interested
student is left with little in the way of useful commentary for guidance.
My investigations began at this point: with a sense of our ignorance of a
‘tradition’6 of economics which, although neglected today, has clearly had a great
founders of American social sciences were trained in German universities: see the personal
account of R. T. Ely, Ground under our Feet (Macmillan, New York, 1938), 43-4, 121ff.
4 See the introduction to I. Hont and K. 4 ribe (eds.), Trade, Politics and Fetters (forthcoming). This
issue is discussed at greater length in the concluding chapter below,
s H. Winkel, Die Nationalokonomie im 19. jfahrhundert (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darm¬
stadt, 1977). The dearth of recent literature is evident from Winkel’s footnotes, which include
much pre-war but little in the way of interesting post-war material.
6 By ‘tradition’ I am referring here to the variety of factors which make up the culture of economics
- not simply theoretical, practical, and descriptive principles, but the role and organization of
teaching, recruitment to the professions, the application of economic knowledge, and the
establishment of professional and academic associations. D. Kruger’s Nationalokonomen im
wilhelminischen Deutschland (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1983) demonstrates the
sheer variety of this culture, but beyond this the book is rendered virtually useless by a lack of
coherence and argument (as is the case with so many modern German academic publications).

3
 Text and economy

influence on the development of modern economic thought and the definition of

valid economic argument. I was led to this tradition through some earlier work
on the Soviet planned economy, in which it seemed that both the economists and
economics of planning leaned heavily on conceptions of economic organization
originating in Germany. This was further reinforced by the realization that much
of the work of Max Weber (himself an innovative critic of planned economies)7
should properly be understood as that of an economist trained in the 1880s and
1890s - that here, for example, lay the key to his conception of‘understanding’
and social action.8 Later, through work on the international institutionalization
of economics, I came to appreciate the impact of German teaching on the
development of modern American economics. In all these cases, any attempt to
explore such research hypotheses is blocked by the almost complete absence of
reliable or informed secondary literature; and it became quite plain that either
my knowledge would have to remain patchy and defective, or substantial
research would have to be done.
It was not selt-evident, however, that investigation of late nineteenth-century
German economics would reveal anything other than a body of work and
argument whose precepts and methods are defunct. While one might concede
that the German tradition has had a powerful role in shaping our conception of
the economy and economic problems, it does not follow that a better acquaint¬
ance with this tradition will necessarily teach us anything apart from its
difference and limitation. While this would be inherently instructive, since it
raises the important question of how best to understand discursive systems
whose principles have become remote to us, there are more convenient and
accessible examples that one could select. Something more compelling than
personal curiosity and perversity has to motivate a reconstruction of this
neglected region of the history of economic thought: we need to identify a
specific direction for our enquiry which will then shape the writing of this book.
In the course of the last fifty years, economics has become a discipline that is
taught at the most elementary level in schools and colleges, and is then
elaborated upon at a high level of abstraction and formalization in universities and
research institutes while in the political domain it has become a body of
argument which is freely drawn upon both to promise success and to explain
failure. At the same time, this process of expansion has been accompanied by the
development of criteria of scientific rigour which, in many ways, have impover¬
ished our conceptions of basic economic processes and limited the capacity of
economic doctrine to provide the basis for an ‘economic imagination’. Econo¬
mists of international eminence are frequently forced to resort to the most bland
and misleading of slogans when publicly confronting the problems of modern
economic life, because the discipline they represent is incapable of providing a
7 Those sections of Economy and Society criticizing the conception of rational central economic
^ latterly

Meorge^ler^and Unw^n,^London” r987)*.m^CS ^ ^ ^enn's’ Weber: Essays in Reconstruction

4
 Text and economy

language for rational debate and decision-making. The technical advances of

economics in the last fifty years have, to a great extent, been achieved in the name
of a positivist conception of scientific procedure which seeks a (probabilistic)
certainty through the application of formalization and mathematicization. Truth
has become distinguished from error not by the procedures of debate and
discussion, but through the application of an appropriate model. As the
discipline has become technically more sophisticated, its practitioners have
become steadily less articulate.
While this is hardly unalloyed progress, it is too easy simply to dismiss the real
advances of technique and method that have been made in economic theory in
the past decades; any general criticism of ‘progress’ would then fall victim to
those same positivist illusions that generated the conditions that were the object
of criticism. Correspondingly, if there is little virtue in the study of the past for its
own sake, then there is certainly even less to be said for the employment of past
doctrine to address the maladies of modern sciences. The recognition that
modern economics is dogged by a general problem does not involve a prescrip¬
tive implication for the development of a solution. Thus, the fact that German
economics was of formative importance in the development of modern
economics carries with it no implication about its relevance for our contempo¬
rary thinking about economic processes. Part of the fascination of working on
this book has lain in the discovery of arguments and preoccupations unlike those
which now prevail. But this private fascination is no substitute for a coherent
explanation of the relevance of past writing to present problems.
German economics as it existed in the later nineteenth century was diverse - it
covered the theoretical work of Menger, the statistical work of Conrad and
Engel, the comparative framework of Knies, the social economics of Schulze-
Gavernitz, as well as the ‘historical economics’ of Schmoller. None the less, the
mainstream of these various tendencies shared a conception of the correspon¬
dence between economic life and the life of the nation - not for nothing was the
German term for ‘political economy’ Nationalokonomie. For German economists
the symbiosis of state and economy was self-evident; Weber’s inaugural lecture
as Professor of Economics at Freiburg spoke of state, economy, and nation
without any objection being raised that this was political talk and thus not the
concern of a professional economist.9 When Weber became engaged in the
debate on the economic future of Germany in 1897 - posed in terms of the
prospects of agrarianism against industrialization - he none the less had no
difficulty in talking the language of comparative advantage, international trade,
and the allocation of labour.10 And, as noted above, he later developed a critique
of socialist planned economies which emphasized the impracticality of a rational
and mechanical combination of the myriad decisions of independent economic
agents. Typically, this was framed within a wider conception of the prospects for

9 M. Weber, ‘The National State and Economic Policy’, Economy and Society, 9 (1980), 428-49.
>o See my ‘Prussian Agriculture - German Politics: Max Weber 1892-1897’, Economy and Society,
12 (1983), 214-16.

5
 Text and economy

capitalist and socialist development; in 1920, Weber wrote to Lukacs that he was
convinced that the ‘experiments’ in socialist economy that Germany had
witnessed during 1919 ‘can and will lead only to the discrediting of socialism for
a hundred years’.11 Weber’s critique involved both a technical argument
concerning the problem of allocation and pricing, and'a. serious analysis of the
problems of economic modernity.
It was in Germany during the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
that the modern language of economic management and politico-economic
strategy was forged. True enough, the basic theory of the management of
modern economies begins with Keynes and his contemporaries, but the prospect
of regulated capitalism or planned socialism was one that was first systematically
considered from the standpoint of German economics. The basic problem from
this perspective was not the allocation of scarce resources; it was the wider
question of the conditions under which economic order and general welfare
were secured. Economics, therefore, was not expected to provide a rationalistic
account of optimization in the best of all possible worlds, but to address the
question of the possibilities of economic life under various social and political
regimes.
It seems to me that this is a promising way of confronting modern economies,
and that is why I pursued my interest in the economics and economic argument
of late nineteenth-century Germany. As time went by, however, I became
increasingly dissatisfied with the account of German economics first advanced
by Roscher’s Geschichte der National-Oekonotmk and the various writings of
Schmoller and his students. After some hesitation, the scope of the study was
broadened to embrace the development of academic economics in eighteenth-
century German universities; this would make it easier to identify the nature of
the difference between Nationalokonomie and the political economy that had
evolved in Scotland, France, and England.
The following study, therefore, is motivated by the problems and issues briefly
outlined above, and it seeks to confront them through a reconstruction of the
early history of German economics. This history is marked by a major caesura
which took place at the turn of the century, when administrative economics
(called ‘Cameralism’ after the Kammer or ‘chamber’ of the territorial state)12 was
rapidly displaced by a new form of discourse called Nationalokonomie. This shift
was a devastating one for the principles and arguments developed over the
previous fifty years; a detailed reconstruction of the regularities of Cameralistic
11 W. Mommsen, Max Weber und die deutsche Politik, 2nd edn. (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)
Tubingen, 1974), 332 n. 99.
12 Kammer is a term which derives from the Greek and Latin camera, and was initially used to
indicate the palace or apartment of the prince, and then later the place from which his domains
were administered. Thus Kammersachen denoted the business of administration, while Kameral-
wissenschaft, translated as Cameralism’, is the science of economic administration. As P. Pasquino
points out in his paper, L Utopia praticabile: Governo ed economia nel cameralismo tedesco
del Settocento’ (Seminar Paper, Fondazione G. G. Feltrinelli (1980), 4), Kammermusik, or
chamber music , comes from the same root, designating court as opposed to church or sacred
music.

6
 Text and economy

discourse could, it was felt, provide insights into the alterations in conceptions of
state and economy which occurred at this time, alterations which resulted in the
formation of a new Nationalokonomie. Furthermore, by studying this ‘break¬
point’ in the foundation of modernity, we might learn more about our own
theories of state and economy.
This shift of attention to the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
necessitated some consideration of the method that would be most appropriate
to the study and understanding of these defunct systems. Historians of
economics usually approach this issue by selecting past writings and applying
much the same analytical criteria to them as they would to modern publications -
as if they were simply research papers published in modern journals with a
readership composed of a community of scholars. Recent attention to the
institutional context of the development of economic thought has undermined
this image, and in the case of Germany it is evident that it is the institution of the
university and its primary activity - teaching - which provide the relevant
framework for the assessment of economic discourse.
The approach to an understanding of German economics which is adopted
here, therefore, does not take the high road of progress and theoretical
innovation; it follows instead the rather more mundane course of development
taken by economic pedagogy - the inherent order of economic life which has
been represented to students of economics for almost one hundred years. The
object is to effect a reliable reconstruction of the changing parameters of
economic discourse as an institutionalized structure. By doing this, it is possible
to avoid the more usual problems associated with authorial intention and
speculation over ‘influence’ or ‘origins’. The basic sources of the following
chapters are drawn from the hundreds of textbooks written during the period in
question for the specific purpose of teaching courses of economics in German
universities. Their authors are, for the most part, utterly obscure and, since they
freely borrow material from one another, any half-sophisticated study of
intention or influence is pointless. The literature is not distinguished by
originality or innovativeness; it is marked instead by definite regularities which
seek to reiterate the ‘principles of economic life’. Rather than identifying points
of innovation represented by ‘major economists’, and then speculating on the
impact these may or may not have had on a putative readership, the focus here is
upon what was imparted to students by their teachers.
Our aim in addressing ourselves to such regularities and repetitions is to
disclose a contemporary understanding of the ‘economic’ secured by the
operations of the university as a pedagogic institution. This makes possible the
reconstruction of a discursive practice, with definite aims and methods as well as
definite limitations. The textbooks which we will consider are embedded in a
particular socio-political context and direct themselves to the form and nature of
economic processes. It is in the former that they find their materiality, not the
latter: their utility (which in this case is equivalent to their validity) is judged by
the conventions of pedagogic practice, and not by any correspondence to what

7
 Text and economy

we would regard today as contemporary economic reality. In fact, these

textbooks seem, for the most part, to be quite oblivious to contemporary
economic problems: servitudes, land reform, guild regulation, and restrictions to
trade - the stock-in-trade of any modern history of the late eighteenth- and early
nineteenth-century German economy.
It is perhaps a good idea to provide a brief outline of this absent context, if only
to establish in broad terms the leading features of the economy within which
Cameralism flourished and died. 7 he history of the German economy in the
eighteenth century is dominated by Prussia — whose territories and institutions
extended across northern and eastern Germany, but which was only one political
force among many. However, as we shall see in the following chapters,
Cameralism first developed in Prussian universities, playing an important part in
the evolution of rorms of bureaucracy which quickly became exemplary for
reforming administrations.
This consolidation of the Prussian bureaucracy also coincided with important
changes in conceptions of state and economy. Tracts written in the seventeenth
century by projectors and state officials about the proper arrangement of
finances, government, and political affairs address themselves to the problems of
Staatskunst- the art of governing. The wise monarch had to balance his need for
revenue against the general welfare of his subjects — money was needed for the
army which protected the ruler, but there was no future in impoverishing the
ruler’s subjects, since this would simply destroy his financial base. In these
circumstances, governing was an art, the true nature of which was proposed by
tracts addressed to the ruler but which could be read with profit by state officials.
In the early eighteenth century, however, Staatskunst was replaced by Staatswis-
senschaft - the science of governing. The science was taught in universities to
prospective state officials, and was at first dominated by a purely descriptive
approach. The teachings of Natural Law soon modified this towards the
inherent regularities in society and economy, and it was here that Cameralism as
the science of governing with respect to economic processes, played ’an
important part. In so far as the reform of administrative practice represents an
attempt to establish an effective symbiotic relationship between these economic
processes and the activity of governing, the ‘Cameralistic sciences’ play a
strategic role in the constitution of Prussian bureaucratic rule and, by extension
in the modern bureaucratic state.13
The elaboration of the administrative apparatus under the two major Prussian
monarchs of the eighteenth century - Friedrich Wilhelm I (1713-40) and
nednch II (‘the Great’) (1740-86) - was a means to a greater political end: the
increase of Prussian power. As Schmoller summarized in a speech given on the
Kaiser’s birthday in 1896: 8

- The classic English-language study of Prussian bureaucracy, H. Rosenberg’s Bureaucrat

Armocray and Autocracy {Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 19-58) emphaskesS
dmect filiation between the conception of the ‘modern state bureaucracy’ (p. vii) and the system of
administration in eighteenth-century Prussia See akn R A
of Frederick William 1 nCPn, CCIIni y a it '^ec al)) K- E>orwart, Ike Administrative Reforms
o] rreaericn muiam 1 oj Prussia (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1953).

8
 Text and economy

The objective of the King’s entire policy is perfectly evident in the instruction [the
Political Testament of 1722]: the internal and external strength of the state. For this a
good and large army is necessary, together with orderly administration; neither is
possible without flourishing management and much money. And these presuppose an
increasing population and flourishing manufactures. The King sees the possibility of
achieving this goal if town and country are connected by a lively and active
traffic.14

During the course of the eighteenth century, military expenditure rose to

around two-thirds of state income, supporting one of the most powerful
armies in Europe from the resources of a lesser state.15 Part of this income
came from crown domains, land held directly by the monarch and the
administration of which was closely controlled by the monarch and his chief
officials. By extending these domains through purchase, and regulating them
in detail, the ruler could substantially augment the revenue of the royal
household. Other sources of income were less certain, comprising various
dues and tariffs, and extraordinary levies approved by the Stande, who
defended their right of taxation against royal attempts to establish a general
right of taxation qua ruler and to use this right to secure the fiscal basis of
state power. However, both monarchs were successful in using the pressing
requirements of military expenditure to wrest the right of permanent taxation
from the Stande, despite contemporary argument to the effect that this trans¬
formed the subjects of the king into subjects of the state.16
Another area in which the militarized nature of the Prussian economy is
apparent is in shifts in the policy relating to grain magazines. These were
originally conceived of simply as reserves of food for the army, and by 1740 there
were twenty-one of them scattered throughout the monarchy. Despite their
military purpose, they also performed civil economic functions - they were
collection points for contributions paid in kind, or repositories for grain without
a buyer. Under Friedrich Wilhelm I, some sporadic attempts were made to
regulate prices by sale and purchase from the magazines, but it was the
government of Friedrich II that developed this into a definite policy. Since the
army was such a significant part of the population, this was perhaps not such a
major step - of the 90,000 inhabitants of Berlin in 1740 over 21,000 belonged to
the army.17 None the less, as more recent experiments have shown, the use of
reserves to control the general level of prices does require considerable financial

14 G. Schmoller, ‘Friedrich Wilhelm I und das politische Testament von 1722’, in his Charakterbil-
der (Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, 1913), 5.
15 While the army was ranked fourth or fifth in Europe, Prussia’s land area lay about tenth, and her
population thirteenth: O. Busch, Militarsystem und Sozialleben im alten Preufien 1713-1807
(Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1962), 2.
16 The subject of taxation is, of course, central to an understanding of the reordering of state and
economy. See F. K. Mann, Steuerpolitische Ideate (Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1937), chs. 2 and 3; and
H. Schulz, Das System und die Prinzipien der Einkiinfte im werdenden Stoat der Neuzeit (Duncker
und Humblot, Berlin, 1982), ch. 2.
17 W. Naude, Die Getreidehandelspolitik und Kriegsmagazinverwaltung Preufiens bis 1740 (/Icta
Borussica: Getreidehandelspolitik, ii; Paul Parey, Berlin, 1901), 296.

9
 Text and economy

reserves and storage capacity, and by the later eighteenth century the magazines
were too depleted to make any impact on price movements.18
The administrative reforms introduced by Friedrich II sought to improve the
efficiency of the administration through increased centralization; but this was a
two-edged move, for the extension of bureaucratic control that this implied
inflated the volume of decisions passing through the central instance. Under
Friedrich Wilhelm I, all higher administrative decrees were issued in the name of
the king, and reflected the way in which the king alone had a general command of
administrative activity. In a system based upon written reports and decisions,
ministers were instructed to submit no more than two folio pages on any matter;
and the fact that the ‘centralism’ of the Prussian system rested in the person of
the monarch, to whom a variety of ministers and secretaries reported, led to
conflict and distrust between both the ruler and his officials, and between the
officials themselves. Not only is the administration of Friedrich II the original
model for modern theories of bureaucratic domination, but it also displayed in
practice the inherent defects and shortcomings of this form of government.1*1
The closing years of the eighteenth century were marked by a decline in
Prussian power, a decline which culminated in defeat at Jena by Napoleon in
1806. The subsequent reform and reconstruction of the Prussian state - the
emancipation of the peasantry, the reform of the educational system, the army,
and the administration20 - is of relevance to the account that is developed in later
chapters, but, as will be evident, the demise of Cameralistic discourse was not
brought about by the reorganization of the administrative structures to which it
was addressed. Just as it is not possible to establish a direct link between the
development of Cameralism and the extension of bureaucratic power, so the
shift from Cameralism to Nationalokonomie cannot be explained by changes in
the systems of administration.
Pierangelo Schiera has made a valiant attempt21 to relate the writings of
Cameralists to the economics of Prussian absolutism; but this is hampered by
treating such writings as simple expressions of an anterior reality of state
formation which is implicitly ascribed an epistemological priority, while the
functioning reality of university institutions is accorded little attention. It is true
that Cameralism was a pedagogy addressed to future administrators of domains
and enterprises; it is also true that, for the most part, the earlier works were
written by practical men with first-hand experience of such administration; but,
after reading several hundred of these texts, I am none the wiser about the
18 Skalwe'1> Dte Getreukhandelspolitik und Kriegsmagazinverwaltung Preufiens 1756-1805 (Acta
Borusstca: Getreidehandelspolitik, iv; Paul Parey, Berlin, 1931), 217.
19
3-17 qrUSSiian ®u“acy in hie Eighteenth Century’, i, Political Science Quarterly, 46
New Haven 1975) * S° H‘ C'Johnson’Fredenck ^e Great and his Officials (Yale University Press,

20 fqfi A dlscoss‘on thJs» see E. Klein, Von der Reform zur Restauration (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
Stuttgaitni975)K°Se £Ck’ Preufim zmschen Reform und Revolution, 2nd edn. (Klett Verlag!

21 l\\hn%mll'arle digm° aUe ScienZe dell° stato: 11 can,eralismo e Passolutismo tedesco (Guiffre,

10
 Text and economy

organization of an eighteenth-century domain office, the relevant spheres of

responsibility, or the proper conduct of account-books. Such vital knowledge
was imparted to clerical recruits by their seniors, not by teachers to their
students; and what I do know of such matters comes from my study of economic
history and from such sources as theActa Borussica, a collection which, of course,
was not available to the eighteenth-century student. There is no reason to
suppose that the actual organization of the Prussian economy was any less
opaque to the eighteenth-century student and teacher than the contemporary
British economy is to the modern undergraduate.
This is not to deny the existence of a relationship between economic processes
and their constitution in economic pedagogy; but investigation of this relation¬
ship does not help us to establish the leading principles which underlie
conceptions of economic life, or the forces which govern their change in
structure and status. Our main interest here is not so much the contemporary
appraisal of the economy, as the principles and categories employed in making
such an appraisal - the principles by which economic life was held to be ordered.
And the substance of teaching did in fact seek to impart such principles, and not
the concrete issues of commerce or manufacture. Cameralism was a university
science which, by the 1770s, had an established place within the teaching
programmes of many of the thirty-one German universities that functioned at
that time. It was displaced by Nationalokonomie, which simply succeeded to the
chairs and courses which had been argued and struggled for during the 1750s
and 1760s. Despite the wave of reform and emancipation that took place at the
turn of the century, the daily business of office and ministry remained much the
same. It is not justifiable, therefore, to attribute the demise of Cameralism and
the rise of Nationalokonomie to this reforming activity; it is necessary to look
elsewhere. Later chapters will provide a detailed description of the process of
demise and reconstitution, and, in so doing, will offer a form of explanation for
the changes that occurred.
It is important that we should have a proper understanding of the relationship
between the textbooks produced for the teaching of Cameralism and the
teaching process itself, for these textbooks now represent the most complete and
accessible source for an evaluation of this pedagogic practice. The two prime
influences on these texts were the actual teaching situation and the Wolffian
philosophy which informed their style and was itself very largely a product of
pedagogic practice.
In the German university of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the
academic lecture was the principal medium of teaching; all such lectures were
based on one designated textbook, which was often written by the professor
himself. So it is that the printed notices of university lectures give the name of the
professor, the title and time of the course, and the textbook on which the
professor intended to lecture. It was not usual for lectures to take the form of a
general survey of relevant literature or of a commentary upon related debates;
instead, the textbooks themselves often provided a summary of relevant publi-

11
 Text and economy

cations before proceeding to the substantial material for consideration. The

lecture was delivered as a commentary on the nominated textbook, and it was
important for ready comprehension, therefore, that the texts should be divided
into numbered paragraphs. At worst, the lecture might simply take the form of
the professor reading the text aloud, slowly proceeding through the paragraphs
and occasionally noting agreement or disagreement. More usual, however, was
the reading aloud of a passage followed by a series of critical or clarificatory
remarks, which the students could add to their copy if they had one. For this
purpose, copies of the textbooks were sold with blank pages interleaved.
English readers can most readily appreciate this process by considering the
construction of a modern translation of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. The basis of
this text is the Grundlinien der Philosophic des Rechts published in 1821, a work
which is organized in the conventional paragraphic style and which was used for
Hegel s lectures in the following three Winter Semesters. Hegel had also
delivered lectures on the same theme during the Winter Semester of 1819-20,
precisely the period during which he was completing the textbook; and these
lectures have now been published, following the discovery of a set of student’s
notes. Unlike the Grundlinien of 1821, this text reads continuously; in the
absence of the required textbook, Hegel had to supply verbally all that was
necessary for adequate comprehension.22 Once the textbook had appeared,
however, he could change his lecturing style; presuming that students had access
to a copy of the book, he could orally extend its arguments, and it was these
extensions that the students noted. Two sets of such notes23 were later drawn
upon by Hegel’s editor, Eduard Gans, as supplements to the paragraphs of the
1821 text, which he then printed in his edition as Zusdtze appended to each
paragraph - and it is Gans’s edition, and not that of 1821, which is the basis for
the modern English translation. This does not alter the fact that Hegel’s
Philosophy of Right, considered today to be a central text of Western political
philosophy, was basically a textbook written for an assigned lecture course and
not for fellow scholars.
It is evident that a teaching situation of this kind combines features of an oral
and of a written culture: what is written is to be read, and what is spoken is to be
written down or memorized. The textbook and the lecture interrelate in a
complex manner. The textbooks which constitute the primary source for the
following analysis (and which were at the time the only form in which professors
wrote for a university audience) can therefore be read as evidence of the
substance of university lectures - as what, in fact, was communicated to the
students. The lack of information on the asides and additions made by the
lecturers can be balanced by comparing large numbers of these texts; shifts of
emphasis or complementarity become indicators of perceived discursive defi¬
ciency. 1 oday, textbooks are written almost exclusively for private study or as

22 198S)', 9-10ege1’ PhllOSOphie 40 ReChtS’ ed- D' Henrich (SuhrkamP Verla&’ Uankfurt-on-Main,
23 Now published in 4 volumes and edited by K. H. Ilting.

12
 Text and economy

written supplements to taught courses. In the eighteenth century, this was not yet
the case. The substance of the textbook was far closer to the material of the
lecture than is usual today, and it therefore had to be composed in a style which
suited oral delivery and which could be followed easily by those attending the
lectures. The university was still in part an oral culture, one in which the
academic disputation - carried on in Latin and employing the full range of
classical rhetorical arts24 - was central to the conferral of doctorates and to the
various ceremonies and events in university life.
The use of a distinction between oral and written culture in the study of
discursive systems and pedagogic practice is not new. The model for our analysis
is W. J. Ong’s exemplary investigation of Ramism, a form of philosophical logic
developed in the sixteenth century.25 While the subject-matter of Ramist logic is
remote from our concerns, the method which Ong adopts in his investigation of
this system is of immediate relevance. Ong recognizes that no competent
logician would take Ramism seriously; his response to this is a demonstration
that the system is not motivated by a concern with ‘truth’, but rather ‘teachabi¬
lity’. Ong is able to penetrate the superficial classicism with which Ramus’s
works are endowed by virtue of his extensive knowledge of the contemporary
textbook literature used by young teachers in the preparation of their classes.
This familiarity with contemporary teaching texts enables Ong to place Ramus
within a pedagogic practice in which the printed text, with its specific properties,
displaces the ‘dialogic’ form of teaching based on the arts of rhetoric which had
been practised since the later Middle Ages. The most striking aspect of this shift
from spoken word to printed text is Ramus’s use of dichotomies, in which one set
of distinctions spawns yet further definitions and the emergent structure
eventually possesses greater significance than the substantial distinctions them¬
selves. Ong acutely observes that this mode of exposition can neither be spoken
nor written: it has to be printed. The Ramist method is a form of classification
that can only be realized on the printed page,26 sine qua non is a reader who is able
to refer backwards and forwards and control the pace of reading. The dialogue
of the rhetorical arts is reduced to a monologue; the reader is addressed, but is
unable to respond:
Ramist rhetoric ... is not a dialogue rhetoric at all, and Ramist dialectic has lost all sense
of Socratic dialogue and even most sense of Scholastic dispute. The Ramist arts of
discourse are monologue arts. They develop the didactic, schoolroom outlook which

24 Cf. U. Stotzer, Deutsche Redekunst im 17. und 18. fahrhundert (Max Niemayer Verlag, Halle
(Saale), 1962); H.-J. Gabler, ‘Machtinstrument statt Reprasentationsmittel: Rhetorik im Dienste
der Privatpolitic’, Rhetorik, 1 (1980), 9-25. An example of the doctoral disputation can be seen in
P. C. Casselmann, Desiderata oeconomica (Rinteln, 1731), which is a public defence of these
conducted under the presidency of J. H. Fiirstenau.
25 W. J. Ong, Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1958), 22.
26 Some Cameralists did publish elaborate classificatory systems;]. H. Jung, for example, began all
his textbooks with a diagram of the subjects considered, andj. C. E. Springer was an enthusiastic
tabulator - see his Oeconomische und Cameralische Tabellen mit Anmerkungen und einem Vorberichte
von der Schicksalen der Cameralmssenschaft bey den franzosischen unddeutschen Gelehrten (Frankfurt-

13
 Text and economy

descends from scholasticism even more than non-Ramist versions of the same arts, and
tend finally even to lose the sense of monologue in pure diagrammatics. This orientation
is very profound and of a piece with the orientation of Ramism toward an object world
(associated with visual perception) rather than toward a person world (associated with
voice and auditory perception). In rhetoric, obviously someone had to speak, but in the
characteristic outlook fostered by Ramist rhetoric the speaking is directed to a world
where even persons respond only as objects — that is, they say nothing back.27

Scholars accustomed to applying the norma! principles of intellectual history

to Ramist works have always had difficulty in dealing with them in a rational
fashion. By examining the functional context of such writing, Ong was able to
identify the contemporary purpose and significance of Ramism; the investigation
of Cameralism and Nationalokonomie which follows will adopt a similar course.
The perils of neglecting this dimension in the analysis of literary products can be
conveniently illustrated here by Leo Strauss’s noted study of Machiavelli’s
Discourses, which is also instructive in our approach to the eighteenth-century
lecture room and its texts.28
Strauss provides an exceptionally close reading of Machiavelli, in which he
detects deliberate errors, contradictions, and deviations. These are quite
properly assigned a central significance, but more problematic is their use as
evidence of Machiavelli’s intentions in the composition of the text. The elaborate
game in which Machiavelli manipulates chapter and part numbers, makes
apparent slips, and admits to non-existent errors is argued by Strauss to be quite
deliberate and diabolic; and yet it is difficult to believe that any writer could
artfully construct from scratch such a labyrinthine text, whose hidden purpose is
solely to entrap the guileless reader into a denial of Christian virtue. Strauss
conveys the impression that Machiavelli has thought out, weighed, and intercon¬
nected every line and resonance through several hundred pages. This is
implausible, no one is that clever and no one has the time to invent and practise a
system of such elaborate and deceitful craftiness. (No human being, at least, and
this inquisitorial style of Strauss does at least place him in the right time and
context.)
There is a more plausible explanation of the regularities and irregularities that
Strauss succeeds in identifying. It would be reasonable to suppose that
Machiavelli wrote within the framework of contemporary systems of argument
and memory, which relied upon number and structure in a manner which is now
defunct or has been forgotten.29 Cabbalism and numerology were characteristics
of political discourse, and Machiavelli would not have needed to invent them-
they were part and parcel of the discursive structures within which he wrote and
spoke. Only through a neglect of the contemporary norms of writing and

on-Main, 1772). Rut the practice was by no means generalized, and the contents of textbooks
were designed more to be read than viewed; and none approached the degree of elaboration
demonstrated by Ong, Ramus, p. 261
27 Ibid., p. 287.
Z c' S!ra^s’ ThoJfShts on Machiavelli (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1958).
bee h. Yates, The Art of Memory (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1969).

14
 Text and economy

speaking can Strauss convey the impression that their regularities were invented
de novo by Machiavelli in his Discourses. It would be more correct to suggest that
Machiavelli only used such devices in order to be properly understood by his
contemporaries - the reverse of Strauss’s conclusion.
Strauss’s Thoughts on Machiavelli is a striking and exemplary testament to the
pitfalls of a close textual analysis which pays insufficient attention to the
conditions under which a text is produced. These ‘discursive conditions’ include
such things as: the audience addressed and the rhetorical figures which a writer
uses both to capture the attention of an envisaged audience and also to render
intelligible that which is to be conveyed; the specific form in which this text, as
opposed to related or unrelated texts, circulates after its publication; technical
questions such as the size of the book, its layout, the nature of the print; and
broader social and political considerations affecting the origin and further
reception of a given text.30 This goes far beyond the conventional homage to
‘intellectual context’; too often this merely involves a repetition of the more
obvious debts claimed or actually incurred by a writer.31 It is for this reason that
Ong’s study is so exemplary; by taking the trouble to unearth a lower stratum of
literary products which in themselves are repetitive, ephemeral, and unmemor-
able he is for the first time able to disclose the vital but invisible basis of Ramus’s
writing.
Ong’s emphasis on textbook literature as the intellectual substructure of
sixteenth-century Ramism is of direct relevance to our interest in understanding
the development of economic discourse within an academic context, despite the
fact that one might have reservations about the prematurity of his emphasis on
progressive monologism. The textbooks which are cited in the following
chapters were primarily written for use in lecture courses, although by the early
nineteenth century their increasing use for private study was noted on title-
pages. While these texts possessed the attributes and properties of printed books,
their overall structure and mode of exposition was determined by the oral nature
of the lecture course, and, of course, by the inescapable fact that such a course
lasted for a fixed number of weeks and each lecture for a specific amount of time.
A common complaint in the later part of the eighteenth century was that the
various texts available did not lend themselves to a course which only lasted for
one semester - they were either too long or too detailed. Furthermore, the books
had to be arranged internally so that the length of their sections corresponded to

30 Here the work of Robert Darnton has been of major importance; see his The Business of
Enlightenment and The Literary Underground of the Old Regime (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1979 and 1982 respectively).
31 This principle can be illustrated by reference to Hegel’s indebtedness to Nationalokonomie. Since
no Hegel scholar has ever considered the German economic thought that was contemporary with
Hegel’s writing in any detail, it has been usual to evaluate his economic studies only in relation to
Smith, Steuart, and Ricardo, i.e. those writers actually named by Hegel and with whom modern
scholars are familiar. I have tried to show elsewhere that this leads to a misrepresentation of the
‘economic’ aspects of Hegel’s work (‘Political Economy, Nationalokonomie und burgerliche
Gesellschaft’, to be included in my Studien zur neuzeitlichen Okonomik (Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, Gottingen, forthcoming).

15
 Text and economy

the period of time within which they were to be delivered. The overall structure
of the books reflects this, therefore, and there was accordingly a system upon
which lecturers could draw for their textual logic. This was Wolffian phil¬
osophy.32
Wolff believed that a mathematical method laid the foundation for certainty;
that a mathematical form of exposition represented a method of universal
applicability in scholarly work. In the preface to one of his most famous works, he
defended this viewpoint by arguing that his form of exposition was designed to
produce certainty in those who attended his lectures - and this form followed the
‘internal’ logic of mathematics and not its external nature, which would, he
conceded, frighten most people off: ‘It is in the last analysis quite certain that
something does not exist in a condition of mathematical certainty because one
writes words, explanations, statements and proofs in mathematical terms; but
rather because everything is clearly explained, thoroughly proved, and one truth
properly connected with another.’33
Some of the features of Wolffian philosophy are discussed in the following
chapter, but here we are interested in Wolffs account of the form that textual
argument should take. The ‘mathematical’ method was primarily designed for
spoken delivery; transposed to the printed page, it moved an argument forward
with deadening slowness, linking simple statements together and creating an
argument by accretion, rather than definition, cause, and effect. Paragraph is laid
laboriously upon paragraph, paying attention to the needs of the listener rather
than those of the reader. L. W. Beck has accurately summed up the style as
follows:

None of these books is small or particularly delightful to read. In reading them, one
cannot forget Wolffs definition in the ‘German logic’ (Ch. 10, Sect. 14): ‘When a book is
prolix. If more of already known things is presented than is required by the purpose of the
book, then the book contains superfluous things in it. Then it is prolix.’ He illustrates
what needs no illustration. He proves (though often by proofs so invalid that the fastidious
reader may squirm) what needs no proof and what admits of no proof. He defines what
needs no definition. He cites, by elaborate cross-references, his other works, which all too
often are found not to elucidate the passage in question but to be almost equivalent to it.
He recommends his other books, he boasts of what he has accomplished. He moves with
glacial celerity. He ruthlessly bores.34

Christian Wolff had originally been appointed Professor of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at
Halle, but his interests developed towards philosophy and he quickly built up a reputation that
twice resulted in an invitation to take up a post at Wittenberg (1715 and 1720) and then in 1725 a
post in St Petersburg (from which Leibniz dissuaded him). Conflicts with theologians at Halle
eventually necessitated the intervention of the king and he was dismissed in 1723; but the dispute
attracted attention, and his teaching became more widely known as a result. He returned to Halle
wit the accession of Frederick the Great in 1740, and he remained there until his death in 1754
Berlin l 977) ^Z-sT11’ ^ mtUmchtliche Staatslehre Christian Wolffs (Duncker und Humblot,
33
V0U derMenSchen Thun und Lafkn' zu Beforderung ihre Gliickseelig-
34

K“ ““ <Ha rd UniVerS,,y P"SS'

16
 Text and economy

Fortunately, few of the works that are cited below could be described in such
terms; but the Wolffian style remained a model of scholarly exposition until its
final destruction at the hands of Critical Philosophy at the end of the eighteenth
century. And with the emergence of Critical Philosophy, the intellectual basis of
Cameralistic discourse was also rapidly eclipsed.
Since none of the Cameralist writings were ever translated into English, it is
difficult to convey a clear conception of their internal organization and sub¬
stantial coverage without running the risk of boring the innocent reader.
Repetition is a feature of these works, both between texts and within them; while
the narrative is carried by definition, rather than analysis. These are not merely
external characteristics; they indicate to us the function of these works as
pedagogic devices employed by institutions which functioned to provide specific
effects. This is in striking contrast to English writings in political economy with
which the reader will be more familiar; until the later nineteenth century, these
were composed for a readership of politicians, officials, business men, and the
‘informed public’. As such, they address themselves to particular issues or
develop an exposition of the subject-matter of political economy which empha¬
sizes questions of value, price, and distribution. The writings examined in the
following chapters, however, were almost exclusively written as teaching texts,
and as a consequence the emphasis is upon repetition and definition. As I have
argued above, this presents both a limitation and an opportunity. In the past it
has been the limitation that has usually prevailed; perhaps it is now time to
explore the opportunity.

17
'
2 Polity and economy in the
territorial state

A ruler is in fact the same as a Hausvater, and his subjects are, in respect of their
having to be ruled, his children ... Now a Hausvater has to plough and manure
his fields if he wishes to reap a harvest. ... Thus a ruler first has to assist his
subjects in attaining a sufficient livelihood if he wishes to take something from
them.1

During the winter of 1739-40, the heir to the Prussian throne composed a
critique of Machiavelli’s The Prince. The critique took the form of a relentless
rejection of Machiavelli’s recommendations on the ways in which a ruler could
best secure and increase his command over men,2 recommendations which
counter intrigue and conspiracy with deception and manipulation. When
Machiavelli suggests in Chapter 3 of The Prince that the line of the previous
rulers in a newly acquired state should be destroyed and the land subjected to
careful control, Friedrich responds: ‘The might of a state does not at all consist
in the extent of its lands, nor in the possession of vast wastes or immense deserts,
but in the wealth of its inhabitants and in their number. The interest of a prince
is thus to populate a country, to make it flourish, not to devastate and destroy it.’3
By the eighteenth century, the power of the ruler in a territorial state was
understood to rest not on intrigue, but on economic welfare. The ‘wealth’ of a
ruler derived from well-administered domains, various duties and levies, and
taxes which had to be negotiated with the St'dnde. If the ruler was to head a
flourishing state, he had to ensure that its inhabitants were both usefully
employed and content; and one important element in his ‘wealth’ was precisely
the greatest possible number of‘happy’ subjects.4

1 W. von Schroder, Fiirstliche Schatz- und Rentkammer (Konigsberg, 1752), Vorrede, para. 11 (first
published in Leipzig in 1686, this is the eighth edition). Schroder (1640-88), a converted Catholic,
spent the later part of his life in the service of the Austrian monarchy. He had visited England as a
young man and had become a member of the Royal Society, presenting a dissertation at Jena in the
1660s which had been gready influenced by Hobbes.
2 i.e. to secure their stato: seej. H. Hexter, ‘Ilprincipe and lostato’, Studies in the Renaissance, 4 (1957),
125-6. The points which follow have been elaborated by Foucault in his essay ‘On Governmental-
ity’./S’C, 6 (1978), 10-16.
3 Oeuvres de Frederic le Grand, viii, L Antimachiavell (Berlin, 1848), 77.
4 The term that is always used in this context is gliicklich, which means both ‘happy’ and ‘content’,
implying that wants are satisfied and no specific lack is felt. The ‘wise and prudent’ eighteenth-
century ruler is no longer preoccupied by the question, ‘How can I secure my position?’, but rather,
‘In what does my strength consist and how can I augment it?’ A political problem thus found an
economic solution.

19
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

This conception of the relation of a ruler to his state and subjects had first
been systematically elaborated in the later seventeenth century, when a series of
high state officials composed treatises on the proper and effective administration
of the territorial state. Von Schroder, for instance, spent the latter part of his life
in the service of the Austrian monarchy; his Fiirstliche Schatz- und Rentkammer is
in fact dedicated to the Emperor, and opens with a preface which raises the
question of the means open to the ruler for the effective exercise of power.
Tyrannical or arbitrary behaviour, argues Schroder, undermines the long-term
interests of the ruler through oppression of the people and erosion of their
welfare; without a flourishing population, the revenues of the ruler inexorably
decline. Three alternatives are proposed for the securing of a ruler’s power: the
promotion of well-being among the higher strata; the gaining of the trust of the
common people; and the plundering of the rich.5
The problem with the first of these methods is that the ruler falls prey to
persuasion or manipulation on the part of leading nobles, and most writers on
such matters (thepolitici) agree that this course of action has never met with great
or lasting success. The second course of action does not involve such excessive
dependence on any one group of subjects, and Schroder proceeds to list the
virtues of relying on the common people: they are not so expensive to maintain;
they represent the real power of a country; when they are well treated they are
tractable and obedient; and consequently they are inclined to support their ruler
without the threat of an uprising. The third course of action, robbery and
plunder of the rich, is dismissed out of hand as being unchristian and not worthy
of further discussion.
But the ruler is not necessarily in a position to choose freely between such
schemes of government; and in recognition of this, the politici added some
supplementary qualities that a ruler had to have: complete knowledge of the
constitution of the laws; complete authority; a long life; and good fortune.6
These may be useful, suggests Schroder, but he puts forward a more concise
formulation of the best way of assuring power: a standing army and a full
treasury, or, as he puts it, ‘a lot of money in the box’. The government of the
army can be left to others; the problem with which Schroder concerns himself is
how to raise the money. Assuming that the interest of the ruler has to be linked to
that of his people, Schroder proposes ‘to examine according to the principles of
common sense the chain linking the elements of a state [estat] together, and
acknowledge on the basis of experience, and openly substantiate by irrefutable
proof: that the welfare and the well-being of subjects is the foundation upon
which all happiness of a ruler over such subjects must be based’.7 While the
Machiavellian Prince acquired wealth and riches by the judicious exercise of
political judgement, this was in no way the principal objective of his political
5
Schroder, Rentkammer, Vorrede, paras. 3-6.
6
Sapientiam summan in constituendo leges; Summam auctoritatem
ut etiam vita leligiosa sit;
Vitae diuturnitatem; Bonam fortunam’: ibid., para. 9.
7
Ibid., para. 10.

20
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

activity, which remained simply the command over men. Schroder considers this
to be a charter for tyranny, and composes what he describes as a ‘Utopia’8 in
which economic well-being was the prerequisite of political power. Political
order presupposes economic order; and economic order means good admin¬
istration of the land and people of the ruler.
Thus, treatises on the proper administration of the territorial state looked at
the ways in which a country could be populated by making the best use of its own
resources and by the attraction of aliens. Becher’s Politische Discurs, another
important contemporary text, laid down two primary rules of state: the pro¬
motion of populous livelihood; and the attraction of aliens by the prospect of
making a good living.9 Such objectives were to be met not by the elaboration of
rules for the conduct of a ruler, but, first and foremost, by taking stock of the
human and natural assets at the disposal of the ruler. Accordingly, Seckendorff s
Fiirsten-Stat begins with the need for a geographical assessment of the land, its
fertility and potential, and follows this with a systematic survey and tabulation of
the properties of the various sections of the population.10 The first aspect of
government that Seckendorff describes concerns the virtues required of a good
ruler, and the second good order and peace, both of which presuppose the
relation of ruler and ruled that Schroder elaborates upon - namely, that the
welfare and happiness of the people are the objective of purposeful administra¬
tion of the land. Such administration has important economic aspects, but there
is no ‘economy’ as such to be guided and managed; the ruler has his lands and
various dues from tariffs and duties, but he does not have a right of general
taxation, for this would infringe upon the authority of the Stdnde. As Albion
Small wrote: ‘the state was a magnified family with a big farm as its property. The
unity of this family with its estate was symbolized by the prince. Its interests were
represented by the prince in such a way that no-one could very clearly discrimi¬
nate between the personality of the prince and the interests of the state.’11
As we shall see, one of the consequences of this is that ‘the state’ as a separate
entity from the ruler’s household cannot be said to exist; nor is there a general
domain of economic activity to be administered by ‘the state’. This is apparent
from the terminology in use in the later seventeenth century, as well as from a
consideration of the heterogeneity of the economic sources of the ruler’s power -
part hereditary, part prerogative, part imperial endowments.12 The closest

8 Ibid., para. 14. Seckendorff describes his own treatise, Teutscher Fiirsten-Stat (Frankfurt-on-Main,
1656), as a ‘model for each German FurstentunC. ‘Inhalt und Disposition defi gantzen Tractats’.
9 J. J. Becher, Politische Discurs, 3rd edn. (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1688),2. Becher (1635-82) was
self-educated in medicine and physics, and in his late 30s became an alchemical and economic
adviser to Leopold I in Vienna. He was also related by marriage to Philip Wilhelm Hornigk,
another prominent treatise writer.
10 V. L. von Seckendorff, Teutscher Fiirsten-Stat, pt. 1. After a lifetime as a state official, Seckendorff
(1626-92) was appointed Chancellor of the newly founded University of Halle in 1692.
11 A. W. Small, The Cameralists (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1909), 588. The key terms
here are ‘symbolize’ and ‘represent’. The ruler required the consent of the Stdnde to rule.
12 See H. Schulz, Das System und die Prinzipien der Einkunfte im werdenden Staat derNeuzeit (Duncker
und Humblot, Berlin, 1982), 73ff.

21
Polity and economy in the territorial state

model to this system of power and authority is that of the patriarch and his
household, an analogy which was quite clearly recognized by contemporaries,
as the opening quotation from Schroder shows. Thus, the structural features of
the ‘models’ and ‘Utopias’ outlined by later seventeenth-century writers can be
emphasized and delineated by reference to the classical Aristotelian conceptions
of oikos and polls, particularly as they were presented in contemporary writings on
householding and economy - the Hausvaterliteratur of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
What, then, are the principle features of these ‘classical Aristotelian concep¬
tions’? Book 1 of Aristotle’s Politics outlines a ‘Theory of the Household’. The
family is described as ‘the first form of association naturally instituted for the
satisfaction of daily recurrent needs’,13 and this family forms a household whose
simplest elements are master and slave, husband and wife, parents and children.
Property is also part of this household, and the art of acquiring property is an
element of household management.14 Aristotle considers the household pri¬
marily from the point of view of authority, not as an economic entity in which the
tasks of management are to be enumerated. Thus, the head of the household
exercises control over his wife ‘like that of a statesman over fellow citizens; his
rule over his children is like that of a monarch over subjects’.15 Earlier he
comments that the statesman rules over men who are naturally free (i.e. heads of
households), while ‘all households are monarchially governed’.16
The economy of the household is oriented to use and not exchange.
Accordingly, Aristotle distinguishes two modes for articles of property, that of
use and that of exchange, in which the former is represented in terms of a
‘natural’ art of acquisition related to the management of a household. Exchange
is what occurs outside of the household and independently of it; the goal of such
activity is the acquisition of currency, and as such it is chrematistics, and
unnatural.17 This division of economic activity into natural and unnatural
corresponds to a similar distinction between household and non-household;
Aristotelian ‘economics’ is thus confined to the regulation, maintenance, and
reproduction of the household as an autonomous unit. The term ouxovopxa
signifies this: the activity of distributing objects belonging to the house, ordering
them, and administering them. A translation of Xenophon’s Oeconomy which
appeared in 1525 was therefore quite properly entitled Von derHaufihaltung, ‘on
householding’.18 This work, presented as a Socratic dialogue, defines the oikos
as the entire property of a citizen of the polis; the satisfaction of needs is a private
matter, the purpose of which defines the oikos. Hence, unlike the modern

13 Aristotle, Politics, ed. E. Barker (Oxford University Press, London, 1958) 4

14 Ibid., pp. 8-9.
15 Ibid., p. 32. 16 Ibid., p. 17.
17 Ibid., pp. 25ff. See also Nicomachean Ethics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980), 82ff.
18 Tiibingen Universitatsbibliothek, no place of publication, no pagination, oixovopxa is described
by Hoffmann as the ‘activity of the head of the household, the Hausvater>: J. Hoffmann, Die
Hausvaterliteratur’ und die ‘Predigten iiber den christlichen Hausstand' (Verlag Julius Beltz, Wein-
heim, 1959), 6 n. 2.

22
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

conception of‘economy’ as the basis of civil society, Aristotle’s economy ceases

where political, public life begins.19 Furthermore, the form of householding that
is discussed is in a rural context, despite Xenophon’s initial concern with all
forms of household. Only this form of agricultural activity promotes health,
physical well-being, and military virtues and capacities, as well as providing the
leisure necessary for pleasure and participation in the affairs of the polls. The
management of such a household involves practical work which is part of the life
of a free man, and is not the kind of drudgery despised by aristocrats.
Hoffmann distinguishes between ‘Xenophonic’ and ‘Aristotelian’ economics;
the former concerns itself primarily with the management of a rural estate, the
latter with the management of the entire business of a house and the persons
associated with it.20 Common to both forms, however, is a conception of the
head of the household as a member of the polis; the material existence provided
by the household’s activities is the condition for active participation in the polis as
a citizen. One should note here that Aristotle specifically rejects analogies
between the authority exercised by the statesman within the polis and that
exercised by the head of the household, arguing that such an approach
... abolishes any real difference between a large household and a small polis; and it also
reduces the difference between the ‘statesman’ and the monarch to the one fact that the
latter has an uncontrolled and sole authority, while the former exercises his authority in
conformity with the rules imposed by the art of statesmanship and as one who rules and is
ruled in turn.21

This point must be borne in mind when considering seventeenth-century

political models based on conceptions of patriarchal rule, for such models rest
precisely on the elision in forms of authority that Aristotle distinguishes. The
‘classical heritage’ that links oikos to polis did not originally presuppose the
analogous management of the polis and the household - this was only true of
monarchies where a single person was sovereign on every issue, which Aristotle
describes as of the absolute type.22 Furthermore, Aristotle believed all economic
knowledge to be accidental and of no intrinsic value because of its association
with the daily necessities of life. Command of such necessities derives not from a
specific form of knowledge, but from the economic domination of the unfree,
not-yet free, and partially free members of the household. Such domination rests
on force, and can therefore be distinguished from the political rule of the free
over the free within the polis, which is regulated by assent and the sway of the law
which constitutes the order of civil society.23
The most systematic attempt to present the economics and politics of the
territorial state in terms of this classical model is to be found in an article
published by Otto Brunner in 1958, which in turn draws on material published
19 Cf. M. Riedel, ‘Gesellschaft, biirgerliche’, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R. Koselleck (eds.),
Geschichlliche Grundbegriffe, ii (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1975), 722-3.
20 Hoffmann, Hausvdterliteratur, p. 17. See also G. Vogel, Die Okonomik des Xenophon (Erlangen,
1895), 42ff.
21 Aristode, Politics, pp. 1-2. 22 Ibid., p. 140.
23 Riedel, ‘Gesellschaft, biirgerliche’, p. 723.

23
Polity and economy in the territorial state

in the 1930s and 1940s.24 Brunner argues that economics in its modern sense
first emerged in the later eighteenth century, accompanying the formation of the
modern state and its economy. Before this there was a conception of‘oeconomy’
which turned not on value, price, and exchange, but on conceptions of
householding which presupposed the simple reproduction of its constituent
elements rather than accumulation and growth.
Oeconomy [Okonomik] as a doctrine of the oikos comprehends the totality of human
relationships and activities within the house, the relation of man and wife, parents and
children, master and servant (slaves) and the fulfilment of the tasks which house and
agriculture demand. The attitude towards trade is thereby presupposed. It is necessary
and permitted to the extent that it supplements the autarchy of the house, while it is
objectionable once it becomes an end in itself, i.e. aiming at the acquisition of money.
Oeconomy confronts Chrematistics.25

The prehistory of modern economics is to be found in this ‘chrematistic’

literature, a literature which was never properly developed precisely because of
its low status. Oeconomy, on the other hand, served a number of purposes,
providing the model of government elaborated by Schroder, Seckendorff, and
others, as well as an ethical model of social order. In this latter form, the
husbandry tracts of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries offered both
ethical and practical guidance at different social levels, from the nobility to the
lowly households.26 In all such variations, however, it was the rural household
(as in Xenophon) that provided the framework, for, as Brunner argued, it was the
peasant household that was the basic element of social structure in early modern
Europe.27
Brunner considered the high point of Hausvaterliteratur to be von Hohberg’s
Georgica curiosa, first published in 1682; and in his study of Hohberg’s life and
writings Brunner uses his analysis of this text to develop a subtle account of late
seventeenth-century ‘economics’.28 This was also of interest to Hohberg, who
raises the matter in his ‘Foreword to the Generous Reader’:
So that one may not object/that I deal with economy [ Wirthschaffl] / without
stating / what it might be / I had thus thought it at first unnecessary / since it is in any
case known to all / without which human life cannot be supported / but to make it as
brief as possible / Oeconomia is nothing else / than a prudent carefulness / to happily
conduct a Hausmrthschafft / to direct / and to maintain / .. ,29
24 O. Brunner, ‘Das “ganze Haus” und die alteuropaische “Okonomik” ’, ZeitschriftfurNationaloko-
nomie, 13 (1958), reprinted in Neue Wege der Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte (Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1980), 103-27. Brunner’s first major publication was his Land und
Herrschaft (1939), a study of‘political order’ in late medieval Lower Austria.
25 Brunner, Neue Wege, p. 105.
26 The conception ot ‘husband’ here incorporates two meanings which today are quite separate -
that of preserving and maintaining resources, and the spouse of a wife. In German this literary
genre is referred to as Hausvaterliteratur, ‘writings on the father of the house’.
27 Brunner, Neue Wege, pp. 107 ff. Chayanov’s account of the peasant economy is used by Brunner at
this point.
28 O. Brunner, Adeliges Landleben und europaischer Geist (Otto Muller, Salzburg, 1949), ch. 4.
29 W. H. von Hohberg, Georgica curiosa. Was ist: Umstdndlicher Bericht und klarer Unterricht von dem
Adelichen Land- undFeld-Leben, i (Nuremberg, 1682), ‘Vorrede an den groBgiinstigen Leser’, n.p.
This passage is discussed by Brunner in Adeliges Landleben, pp. 241-2.

24
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

According to Hohberg, all work in the house and the fields involves three things:
the benediction of God, ‘without which nothing of use or good can be done’; a
thorough knowledge on the part of the Hausvater of the properties, quality, and
deficiencies of his land, so that he can promote the good and moderate the bad;
and the possession by the Hausvater of inclination, skill, and wealth, the first of
which is acquired by nature, the second by practice, and the third by hard work:
‘he must know how to distinguish and divide up time; how / when / and with
what advantage / he should care for and maintain his lands / carry out all affairs
and construction in good time / govern servants and inferiors / in the
house / and outside with neighbours / he should promote and maintain peace
and unity / also friendship and agreeableness’.30 This doctrine of the house as
definitive of the sphere of economic action is elaborated in terms of the tasks that
have to be done within the house and in the fields, developing, therefore, what
Hoffmann would call a ‘Xenophonic’ economics. The first book deals with the
estate, the fourth with viticulture and fruit-growing, the seventh with arable
cultivation, the eighth and ninth with horses and cattle, and the fifth and sixth
with gardens for the kitchen, medicinal herbs, and flowers. Practical instructions
for the running of a rural economy are presented here, mainly in the second
volume which begins with arable cultivation. The first volume is more concerned
with the house, and contains a book each on the tasks of the Hausvater and the
Hausmutter. This brings the first volume closer to Aristotle’s concern with
household authority, serving also as a manual of ethical conduct for the house.
Within the same text, therefore, Hohberg is able to combine practical, ethical,
and political aspects of the oeconomy of a noble household.
Although Hohberg’s book was directed at the nobility, it was written in
German, not Latin; and this is indicative of the pre-eminence of the practical
over the ethical, for Latin was at this time the language of learning and culture.
The same is also the case with an important early eighteenth-century text,
Florinus’ Oeconomus prudens et legalis, which qualifies its Latin title with the
words ‘or the generally prudent and judicious Hausvater’ in German. Here again
we move from a house in which the Hausvater rules over his wife, his servants,
and his children to the practical activities of the field and the stall. However,
more space is given over to questions of proper conduct in the earlier sections;
so, for instance, we find a note to the effect that the house exists in a wider social
order where civil justice prevails. In everyday affairs, ‘civil justice’ consists in
paying what is owed, rendering to others their due, honouring agreements, and
treating workers and servants fairly and not charging immoderate interest on
money loaned to others.31 The ‘practical’ parts of the book open with plans and
information on the construction of the house itself, making great use of
30 Hohberg, Georgia curiosa, pp. 7-8. Cf. G. Friihsorge, ‘Die Gattung der “Oeconomia” als Spiegel
adligen Lebens: Strukturfragen fruhneuzeitlicher Okonomieliteratur’, in D. Lohmeier (ed,),Arte
etMarte (Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumiinster, 1978), 9511.
31 F. P. Florinus, Oeconomus prudens et legalis (Nuremberg, 1702), 101-2. For the composition of this
text, see H. Haushofer, ‘Das Problem des Florinus’, ZeitschriftfurAgrargeschichte undAgrarsoziolo-
gie, 30 (1982), 168-75.

25
Polity and economy in the territorial state

illustrations of architectural details and the equipment that is to be installed in

the various buildings. Florinus’ coverage of the tasks confronting the Hausvater is
systematic and comprehensive, dealing with work in held, garden, and meadow,
fish-pond and apiary, dairy and poultry house. The penultimate book is a
medical almanac, a kind of ‘home doctor’, and the text ends with a ‘Concise
Cookbook’.
The wealth of illustration in Florinus’ text indicates that, in part at least, it was
a text designed to be looked at as much as read - this is reinforced by the sheer
size and weight of the book, hardly a ready work of reference but an
encyclopaedia of the householding oeconomy to be consulted at leisure and for
edification. Similar works of Hausvdterliteratur, while containing comparable
instruction on farmyard and household tasks, were clearly designed for a wider
and more popular readership. This is apparent both from the compact format of
such works and their concentration on the more practical aspects of work to be
done. An example of this is Becher’s Kluger Haus-Vater, a duodecimo volume of
over one thousand pages if one includes the additional parts on veterinary skills,
hunting, and law. As Hohberg and Florinus also confirm, the first thing that a
Hausvater must remember is that nothing can be done without God’s benedic¬
tion; and if proper Christian conduct is observed, then the household will
flourish. The prudence of the Hausvater is exercised by his watchfulness and
resource, primarily applied to his land and that of his neighbours: is it well kept?
how productive is it? how many sheep will it winter? what kind of wood is
available?32 The eye of the Hausvater must also be kept on the servants; and
advice is offered on their selection and remuneration. This follows the pattern
laid down elsewhere, except that Florinus spends over one hundred pages on
such matters, and Becher eleven. The second chapter of Kluger Haus-Vater
begins the instruction on husbandry proper, considering first the management
and use of arable lands, and then proceeding to meadows, poultry, brewing,
bleaching, advice on how to get spots off clothes, how to get rid of headaches,
how to make yourself sick and how to frighten off moles.33 Becher’s text is an
almanac of household management which combines recommendations on the
proper conduct of agriculture with directions on the processing of its product,
and in which the patriarchal model of the household proffers tips on the
handling of servants and hints on the multitude of things that can happen in the
best-run of households. The ethical force of the patriarchal household is
displaced by the elucidation of prudential practice in a typical rural home.
The oeconomy of household management was therefore well established as a
literary genre in the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries; a genre
which, partly because of its propagation in the German language, focused
increasingly upon the practical affairs involved in the running of a household.
32 J.J. Becher, Kluger Haus-Vater, Verstdndige Haus-Mutter, Vollkommener Land-Medicus, Wie auch
Wohlerfahmer Rofi- und Vieh-Arzt, Nebenst einern deutlichen und gewissen Hand-griff, Die Haus-
haltdungs-Kunst Innerhalb 2d. Stunden zu erlemen ... (Leipzig, 1714), 2ff. Hoffmann attributes this
text to Sturm (Hausvdterliteratur, p. 83).
33 Becher, Haus-Vater, pp. 309-10, 319, 395, 435.

26
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

However, to invoke the oeconomic model in the conceptualization of the tasks of

a ruler, or to consider the management of a territorial state in terms of that of a
large household, did not necessarily imply a political model drawn directly from
Book 1 of Aristotle’s Politics. The more popular literature of the later seven¬
teenth century articulated a practical conception of the running of a household
which could be employed metaphorically when considering the tasks confront¬
ing the ruler of a state. The writings of Becher, Schroder, and Seckendorff are a
form of political theory, but not one which is aimed at legitimating the position of
a ruler or justifying a particular course of action, nor do we need to refer to an
‘Aristotelian’ tradition to understand the political models they constructed.
These writings seek to outline the way in which the ruler had to ‘run his estate’.
And, as emphasized above, this does not necessarily involve directly ‘political’
activities, but rather the proper tasks of‘householding’, in which the existence of
authority and might is dependent upon the maintenance and reproduction of an
oeconomic foundation.
Albion Small’s assertion that the ‘state was a magnified family’ can thus be
elaborated upon in various directions; but in so doing we must bear in mind
Aristotle’s explicit restriction of a direct analogy between authority in the
household and in the polis to the case of absolutist monarchies. One might think
that such a restriction would not be a problem in later seventeenth-century
Europe, for this was indeed the period of absolutist monarchies, a form of‘state
despotism’ in which power runs towards the centre and is collected and
administered by officials serving the monarch. Looking at the tasks of the
monarch in terms of the management of a household makes systematic economic
management of the state’s affairs possible. But, as Small went on to suggest, it
was difficult to disentangle the personality of the prince from the interests of the
state. The fact that the ruler of the territorial state could think of himself as the
manager of a large-scale household carries with it the implication that this
management was to be exercised as in the classical oikos - for the reproduction of
the household, not for gain in itself. Thus, the economic administration of the
early modern state had different aims from those of the modern state, aims
which were implicated in ethical, political, and religious factors. If the ‘absolutist
state’ is conceived of as some kind of forerunner of the modern state, in that it
placed emphasis on centralized bureaucratic decision-making, then it must be
noted that the objectives of its economic administration were quite distinct from
those posited by modern state forms. And, accordingly, writing which addressed
itself to the economic improvement of the state likewise displayed a dominating
concern with ‘proper household management’ rather than with wealth or
accumulation for its own sake. The crucial question is the degree to which this
‘mode of organization’ (householding) constrained the specification of the
‘political domain’. Or, to put it another way, what was the nature of the agency
charged with management - what is ‘the state’?
When Botero’s Della ragio di stato was translated into German in 1596, the
notion of‘reason of state’ was glossed in such a way that the concept of‘state’

27
Polity and economy in the territorial state

disappeared altogether.34 The work was called instead Thorough Account of the
Arrangement of good Polizei and Rule also the Stand of Ruler and Lord, and while
discussion in the seventeenth century did employ the term Staat, Reinking
observed in 1653 that he was not really sure how to render the idea into good
German: ‘for this thing is itself not proper German’.35 Up to the mid¬
seventeenth century, the Latin status was generally translated into German not as
Stat, but as Stand - denoting thereby not a condition, relation, or institution
associated with a ruler, but the hierarchical ‘estate’ groupings which controlled
and limited his power. In the mid-seventeenth century the use of Stat became
more common, but two separate ideas were involved in this: first, the state as an
institution, which meant the Court of the ruler; and secondly, the state
as synonymous with civil society, biirgerliche Gesellschaft, societas civilis, and hence
denoting a political association or political society per se. The German termino¬
logy derived directly from a Latinate tradition and remained uncontaminated by
the very different French and English understandings of‘state’ and ‘civil society’
until the later eighteenth century. We shall see how as a result the Cameralists
treat Staat as a generic term for socio-political organization.
Underpinning this is a conception of Natural Law which does not associate
the ‘natural’ condition of humanity with an original, prior condition of individual
freedom, but supposes that ‘human nature’ is inextricably bound up with
political society. Natural Law theories can assume a variety of forms, as
Neumann has emphasized:
Natural Law doctrines begin by asserting the existence of a state of nature and thus of a
specific nature of man. Man is either good or bad, a lamb or a wolf, social or isolated,
peaceful or warlike, religious or pagan. From this state of nature the character of civil
society is deduced. It is either liberal or absolutist, democratic or aristocratic, republican
or monarchic, socialistic or based on private property. The relation between law and the
State is equally derived from the defined state of nature. The State may swallow up the
law, or the law (the natural rights) may annihilate the State; the State may stand above, or
below, or side by side with the law.36

Just as theories of Natural Law can assume a variety of forms and perform a
number of functions, the manner in which they are inserted into argument is
variable. Superficially, the Cameralistic texts which are investigated in the
following three chapters operate with a minimalist conception of human nature.
‘Economic action’ is the prerogative of the state, and economic order flows from
the prudent direction of such action. The individual subject of this state is not

34 P.-L. Weinacht, ‘Fiinf Thesen zum Begriff der Staatsrason: Die Entdeckung der Staatsrason fur
die deutsche politische Theorie (1604)’, in R. Schnur (ed.), Staatsrason (Duncker und Humblot,
Berlin, 1975), 67. The German title was Griindlicher Bericht von Anordnung guter Policeyen und
Regiments auch Fiirsten undHerm Stands. It might be noted in passing that Meinecke’s Die Idee der
Staatsrason in der neueren Geschichte (R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich, 1957), excludes virtually the
whole of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century German political theory, concentrating instead on
a ‘European’ tradition constituted from Italian, French, and English works.
35 D. Reinking, Biblische Policey (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1653), 233.
36 F. Neumann, ‘Types of Natural Law’, in his The Democratic and Authoritarian State (Free Press
New York, 1957), 70.

28
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

granted any independent initiative in this conception; the action of the subject is
manipulated by a control and direction which originates outside that subject.
Consequently, the individual is not endowed with interests which, when
combined with those of others, are potentially and autonomously productive of
order. Humanity confronts the state as ‘population’, a subject mass to be
regulated, enhanced, and supervised. Thus ‘society’ and ‘polity’ are genuinely
synonymous, for without the latter the former cannot exist; and since they do
coexist, no conceptual distinction is made between them.
Cameralistic discourse, therefore, has a distinctly odd feel to a modern reader
familiar with English theories of natural rights and social contract. Such theories
work from a posited human nature towards a conception of government
articulated in terms of given assumptions of individuality and sociality. No such
progression confronts the reader of a Cameralistic text: here we are presented
with governing activity without any clear reference to human interest, rights, or
nature which, one would assume, would provide the rationale for this particular
form of government. In fact, as we shall see, the rationale appears to be based on
the assumption that social order is owed uniquely to governing activity and not to
any human qualities, whether selfish or selfless. The system of economic order
that we find in Cameralistic texts is succeeded by one which clearly does posit
human needs, qualities, and interests as autonomously productive of social order
- and hence the task of Nationalokonomie is defined not as the exposition of
economic regulation, but rather as the study of the regularities of a self¬
generating order. It would be easy to regard this transformation as one that
involves the recognition of a previously neglected human nature, developing for
the first time a theory of economic order upon a definite theory of sociality. But
this would be incorrect. We are in fact dealing with a transformation from one
theory of sociality to another - from an ‘older’ system of Natural Law to a ‘new’
one.37 What conception of sociality, therefore, is implicit in those Cameralistic
texts which seem to ignore it in such a radical manner?
Pufendorf argues that the difference between the human and the animal rests,
on the one hand, on existing disparities between needs, and on the other, the
ability to satisfy them.38 Human beings and animals strive to secure for
themselves that which is necessary for their self-preservation; but, while animals
are individually endowed with the requisite faculties, human beings are not. In
this respect, animals are superior to humans, although at the same time they are
limited to a restricted repertoire of needs that is present in all members of the
same species. This is not true of human beings. Human wants do not cease with
the satisfaction of the prescribed species-specific need of self-preservation; and
even the satisfaction of this need is subjected to progressive sophistication, for
37 For some discussion of this distinction, see D. Klippel, Politische Freiheit und Freiheitsrechte im
deulschen Nalurrecht des 18. Jahrhunderls (Ferdinand Schoningh, Paderborn, 1976), 92ff., 178ff.
38 This account of Pufendorf and Natural Law draws its formulations from I. Hont, ‘The Language
of Sociability and Commerce: Samuel Pufendorf and the Theoretical Foundations of the “Four
Stages Theory’”, in A. Pagden (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987), 253-76.

29
Polity and economy in the territorial state

example, in food and dress. As Pufendorf goes on to say: ‘do not Men float in a
whole Tide of Affections and Desires, utterly unknown to Beasts?’39 Such
desires are, in principle, insatiable and quite diverse.
Having established a superiority of the human over the animal in terms of
desires and needs, it is then necessary to consider the manner in which human
beings overcome this inferiority with regard to their satisfaction. Here his
argument on a ‘natural state of Man’ does not follow the individualistic
assumptions of theories which posit a natural state prior to society. The manner
in which he contrasts the human and animal world leads one to conclude that it is
a component of human nature to exist in society - the individual human being
does not have the ability to survive alone like the isolated animal. Men do not
leave a natural state and enter society in order to realize their potentialities,
contractually disposing of their original liberty and hence contributing to the
formation of a state; their natural state is to be in society, for they cannot survive
outside it. The Active order which Pufendorf considers, therefore, is civil society
before the renunciation of natural liberty, and not a previous state of nature. The
existence of civil society does not, as with Locke and Hobbes, for example,
simultaneously presuppose the existence of the state.
Pufendorf establishes a conception of innate sociability in which commerce
between humans is also a component of a natural condition. Sociability' rests
upon Verkehr, as it was to be called in the nineteenth century. Economic activity in
itself was not seen as emerging with civil society; it was part of the natural state. It
was in civil society that this attribute was able to develop and form the basis for
culture, but, in surrendering natural liberty, men also forfeited their control over
the direction of this development. Production and exchange were the natural
human attributes of a specifically human form of need, but it was not necessary to
suppose that the activity of production and exchange itself possessed a
mechanism which was capable of establishing an optimum constitution of
economic life. The identification of such an optimum, and the means for its
attainment, were therefore considered to be the proper concern of government.
This optimum condition was defined as Gluckseligkeit (‘happiness’) on the part
of a population; and the means for its attainment was the wise and prudent
government of a ruler. Practical philosophy, which Meyring argues was devel¬
oped on the basis of Natural Law,40 ‘comprehends absolutely everything related
to external or internal human happiness [Gluckseligkeit]. Man is thereby regarded
as a being capable of happiness or of want, whether considered alone or with
respect to the society of other men within which he lives. Practical philosophy
therefore investigates in general the basis of human happiness.’41 This condition
of happiness was attained by the proper administration of needs - the identifica¬
tion of those that were appropriate to each Stand and the supervision of their

39 Cited in Hont, ‘The Language of Sociability’, p. 263.

40 D. M. Meyring, Politische Weltmeisheit: Studien zur deutschen politischen Philosophic des 18.
Jahrhunderts, Diss. (University of Munster, 1965), 13.
41 J. G. Sulzer, KurzerBegriffaller Wissenschaften, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1759), §215, p. 167.

30
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

satisfaction. Human needs were thus regarded as properly human attributes, but
they were constrained and determined by the fact that society existed as a corpus
of distinct social orders (the Stande) and not simply as a human collectivity. The
stability of this system required that each should act in a standesmafiig manner —
in a way fitting to his or her station in life. This condition could only be assured
by good government; there was no mechanism within society which could
independently bring about the requisite state of Gluckseligkeit. And, as Sulzer
stated, it was ‘Staatswissenschaft, or Politik, which contained the theory of the
happiness of entire states or civil societies’.42
The title of Wolff’s Politik can be translated as ‘Rational Thoughts on the
Social Life of Men and particularly on the Common Weal’; its key terms are
‘fulfilment’ and ‘happiness’.43

My present intention is to demonstrate in a thorough and detailed fashion how men,

through uniting their powers, can further their happiness. If all possessed the same
degree of understanding and virtue, so would each contribute fully and voluntarily to the
common welfare, according to his powers and capacities: but unfortunately, since the
greater part of mankind possesses little of either, not only does one hinder the happiness
of others where he should be furthering it, in part openly and unabashed, in part on the
pretext of doing good, that harmful interests might be concealed; but also many, in
striving to promote the welfare of the land, fall victim to the evil assaults of ignorance and
foolishness.44

Wolff s intention issues in a text which delineates the regulatory tenets of family
and society; the first derives its principles of order from the constitution of the
household around the patriarchal authority of the father, and the second
identifies the welfare of the population as the proper concern of the ruler.
The primary task of the latter was to ensure that the population was sufficient
and that it was provided with the institutions necessary for its subsistence - and,
of course, that there was a proper balance between the Stande.45 After this, Wolff
considered the need for academies and entertainments, the regulation of prices,
the proper punishment of crime, and the prevention of diseases - all of which
are included under the general heading of welfare. Even the allocation of
living-space was considered: ‘Man should also aspire to a comfortable home
commensurate with his station in life [standmafiig] and therefore building
regulations are also a necessary part of the common weal.’46
So, ‘good government’ and the promotion of happiness turn out to involve an
ever-extending work of regulation - from rules of dress, through order and
cleanliness in the streets, to rules on the export and import of goods. Although

« Ibid., §231, p. 180.

43 C. Wolff, Gesammelle Werke, v. Vemiinfftige Gedancken von dem Gesellschaftlichen Leben der
Menschen und insonderheit dem gemeinen Wesen (Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, 1975). Usually
referred to as Wolffs German Politik, this work was first published in 1721, and then, after some
small alteration in 1725, was republished a further five times to 1756. The Werke is a reprint of the
fourth edition of 1736.
44 Wolff, Politik, Vorrede. Cf. V. Sellin, ‘Politik’, in Brunner, Conze, and Koselleck (eds.),
Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, iv. 731.
43 Wolff, Politik, §274, p. 209. 4* Ibid., §388, p. 375.

31
Polity and economy in the territorial state

they were developed within the framework of the society of orders, such
measures (collectively referred to as Polizeiordnungeri) were intended to regulate
‘everything ... which escaped the self-regulation of the society of orders;
everything that had become needful of form and order in social life’.47 ‘Good
order’ became synonymous with ‘good police’, gute Polizei; that which was
disorderly was ‘contrary to police’, polizeimdrigP8 The range of matters that
eventually became the object of regulation is quite bewildering in its variety; in
Dorwart’s summary we can find rules for christenings, betrothals, funerals,
retailing, markets, clothing, education, sanitation, deportment - a comprehen¬
sive specification of social action, in which the purpose is not so much to identify
and punish transgression, as to lay down rules for the conduct of citizens in
certain situations and thus avoid transgression.49
Constituted as a means of confronting the instability of society which followed
the decline in authority of the Church and the Stand, the task of Polizei was
infinite - social life would always escape the power of comprehensive specifi¬
cations and regulation. It would therefore be wrong to view this increasing work
of regulation as part and parcel of the alleged centralizing tendency of the
‘absolute state’ - quite simply, there was too much to regulate and oversee, and
these measures arose precisely because of the absence of effective central
control. The work of Polizei expressed a ruler’s excessive concern with the
welfare of his subjects, justified by reference to the needs, weaknesses, or
ignorance of these subjects. But since, given the conception of human nature
outlined above, ignorance was perceived to be rampant, the promulgation of
Polizeiordnungen became a self-sustaining activity remote from the control of any
authority. Unlike a legal order, which defines transgressions and prescribes
punishments, and which is always coupled with an apparatus to detect the first
and execute the second, Polizei remained a prescriptive model of social order.50
The elaboration of this model was the task of Polizeimssenschaft, which
becomes a branch of the Staatsmssenschaften concerned with a range of activities
comprehended by gute Polizei:
The first care of a complete Polizei is that it creates around us a condition of security, such
that we in no way might fear a transgression. Its prime intention is solely directed to
opening the way to welfare and happiness, and rendering it accessible. It thus clears away
47 H. Maier, Die dltere deutsche Staats- und Verwaltungslehre, 2nd edn. (C. H. Beck, Munich, 1980),
81.
48 K. Zobel, Polizei: Geschichte und Bedeutungsvpandel des Wortes und seiner Zusammensetzung, Diss.
(University of Munich, 1952), i. 20. Zobel notes that one could refer to ‘polizeiwidrige’ wine, or a
‘polizeiwidrig’ red moustache. Cf. K.-L. Knemeyer, ‘Polizei’, Economy and Society, 9 (1980),
174ff.
49 R. A. Dorwart, The Prussian Welfare State before 1740 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1971). See also M. Raeff, The Well-Ordered Police State (Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1983), pt. 2; and P. Preu, Polizeibegriff und Staatszwecklehre (Otto Schwarz, Gottingen,
1983).
50 ‘One should never forget that as soon as rights and obligations of individual persons or moral
bodies arise from police regulations and laws, and as soon as it comes to a dispute over their
infringement or observation, the boundaries of Police end and it becomes a matter for the
judiciary ..C. G. RoBig, Versuche uber die Oekonomische Policey (Leipzig, 1779), 16-17.

32
 Polity and economy in the territorial state

that which could hinder us from entering upon it, and that which might disturb our free
passage.51

The ‘science of police’ had necessarily to follow the extending range of events,
objects, and actions covered by the local regulations. Thus we find RoBig
complaining of the ‘failure’ of earlier treatments to deal properly with the
Nahrungsstand, or state of subsistence.52 This does not merely involve a
description of the various sources of popular subsistence; proper administration
of economic life requires a sound knowledge of its branches, and such
knowledge can be gathered together in Policeytabellen, summarizing the con¬
dition of enterprise and subsistence by town and village. This, argues RoBig,
should be combined with an agricultural cadastral survey, recording the size and
quality of fields, fertility, crops, labour employed, and so forth, together with an
urban survey detailing trades, population, ages, apprentices, and manufactories.
‘These Policeytabellen are the most seemly tapestry in the cabinet of a ruler; what
is more proper for him than when those things which instruct him on the internal
condition of his land are constantly before his eyes; without these he cannot
know it, and how should he make it happy, if he does not know it?’53
The idea of systematizing the resources of a ruler in such a manner was not
new; in the previous century Schroder had suggested that an inventory of
manufactures should be composed, which could then be used by the ruler to
evaluate the various proposals placed before him for the increase of population
and commerce - he referred to such systematization as Staatsbrille, literally ‘state
spectacles’.54 And it was in this connection that the term Statistik was introduced
to denote ‘knowledge of the state’, a usage which survived into the early
nineteenth century and united geographical, botanical, economic, and demo¬
graphic information.55
The internal condition of the ruler’s territories, therefore, was conceived on
the one hand as a network of ordinances, and on the other in terms of
ascertainable ‘statistical’ data - the size of the population, its skills, natural
resources, climate, physical geography, fertility - the list is a long one. ‘Society’,
as we would understand the term today, did not exist, except as the sum of this
socio-statistical material; and this material was structured not by the interests
and needs of men and women, but by the operation of Polizei, the German
rendering of the Latin politia.56 Politik was reserved for relations between states,
and this distinction between their internal and external order was preserved in
the literature by the differential usage of Polizei and Politik respectively. By the

51 L. F. Langemack, Abbildung einer vollkommenen Polizei (Berlin, 1747), §17, p. 52.

52 RoBig, Oekonomische Policey, Vorbericht.
53 Ibid., p. 30.
54 Schroder, Rentkammer, pp. 56-73; the term Staatsbrille is to be found on p. 65.
55 J. Briickner, Staatsmssenschaften, Katneralismus undNaturrecht (C. H. Beck, Munich, 1977), 33-4.
See also F. Felsing, Die Statistik als Methode der politischen Okonomie im 17. und 18. jfahrhundert
(Robert Noske, Borna-Leipzig, 1930).
56 Sellin, ‘Politik’, p. 815. Sellin notes that Obrecht’s Funff Underschiedhchen Secreta Politica of 1617
translates ‘politica ordinatio’ as ‘Policey ordnung’.

33
Polity and economy in the territorial state

mid-eighteenth century, the concept of Politik was thus solely associated with
power relations, while the internal political management and ordering of states
was conceived under the heading of Polizei.51 The conception of internal order
as the product of constant regulation complemented the metaphorical use of the
structures of family and household to conceive of relations of authority and the
types and objectives of economic activity. Internal order as gate Polizei was
oriented to the tasks and structures of good householding; Polizei and oeconomy
served the same ends, and in this respect they were synonymous.
Thus the politics and economics of the territorial state turn out to involve a
constant work of regulation in which no sharp distinction can be made between
‘political’ and ‘economic’ tasks. The Polizeistaat is a state in which the good of the
ruler is indistinguishable from the good of the populace; the administrative
apparatus is devoted to the increase of the ruler’s wealth through the optimi¬
zation of the happiness of his subjects. The politici of the later seventeenth
century who advised territorial rulers emphasized the need for effective and
comprehensive administration, whether on the lands of the ruler or in the towns
and villages of his subjects.
This argument, once accepted, raised a further issue: the need for competent,
trained administrators who could execute the tasks deriving from the specific
conceptions of order, happiness, and wealth surveyed here. The ‘Cameralistic
advisers’ of the seventeenth-century Courts had to be complemented by
Cameralists who were capable officials. The writings of Seckendorff, Schroder,
Becher, and others were thus succeeded by texts which concerned themselves
with this new problem: the training of a body of state administrators. The most
suitable place for this seemed to be the university - where theologians and
lawyers, those other ‘practical men’ of the period, were also trained. Thus, in the
early eighteenth century, we find a new genre of literature calling for the training
of future state officials within the university, and demanding the establishment of
chairs and the appointment of professors versed in the techniques and practices
of trade, agriculture, and manufacture. The management of the royal household,
a form of state oeconomy, was to become a part of university teaching.
Cameralism was about to become a science, a knowledge - Cameralwissenschaft.

57 Sellin, ‘Politik’, p. 837.

34
3 Cameralism as a ‘science’

For what is a good Camw^r-President or Cameralist if not an experienced, good

and prudent Oeconomus or householder. The science of Oeconomie is essential to
the Cammer, thus the teachings of Oeconomie is the genuine and proper
founding principle upon which the whole state, from the highest to the lowest,
rests.1

‘J- H. G.”s Curieuser und nachdencklicher Discurs is one of the very first texts to
address directly the problem of training the officials concerned in the admin¬
istration of economic affairs in the state. Having outlined the usual definitions of
oeconomy in terms of householding, and having asserted that the welfare of ruler
and subjects was interdependent, he bemoans the absence of any one book
which provides adequate direction on de modo acquirendi pecuniam. If he were a
great lord, he goes on, he would establish an academy teaching ‘Oeconomia,
Cameral-Polizey und CommercienWesen’.2 Instead of providing suggestions
for the organization of such an academy, however, he concentrates on the
qualities and skills required of an ‘Oeconomus’, and their mode of acquisition.
In so doing, he establishes a representation of the ideal servant of a rationally
organized economic administration, a pattern which was to be elaborated in the
eighteenth century, but not fundamentally altered.
The young man marked out for this career was to be skilled in languages at
school, after leaving which he was to be entrusted to a qualified tutor, who would
teach him writing and calculation, oratory, composition, history, and geography.
When this was completed, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, and architecture
were to follow, all in moderate proportions. Sketching, dancing, fencing, and
riding were also part of the education process, as was knowledge of mathematical
instruments; and if interest were shown, the skills of a craftsman and handwor¬
ker were also to be taught to the future Oecono?nus. The next stage was study at a
university, initially to read theology, then law, veterinary sciences, anatomy, and
surgery. The process does not end here, however. On leaving university, a year
should be spent observing the work of a ‘good householder’, after which time
should be spent in the Cammer and Courts. Travel was also necessary, preferably
for a few years in Germany, Holland, Brabant, France, England, and Italy,
familiarizing himself with trade and merchants, serving in the military forces of
1 J. H. G., Curieuser und nachdencklicher Discurs von der Oeconomia und von guten Oeconomis (n.p.,
1713), 14-15.
2 Ibid., pp. 9, 11.

35
 Cameralism as a ‘science

this or that country, and visiting the northern Baltic countries - then, on his
eventual return, the candidate could take up practice in cameralia and finance,
since he had at last gained the knowledge required for such work.3
Such a proposal implies an unacceptably long period of preparation, of
course; the candidate would be well advanced in years before being judged
qualified to begin work in earnest. But this delineation of skills, and the apparent
lack of consideration of its practical unreality, serves to underline some
important points. The constant purpose of promoting the systematic training of
economic administrators throughout the eighteenth century and into the
nineteenth was to replace ‘learning by doing’ on the estate and in the office. The
future official was, as a rule, recruited from school or university (depending on
the level) with no background in the actual tasks and skills of administration.
Time spent in passing on accounting, commercial, and technical skills to junior
members of an office was time inefficiently employed; furthermore, an adminis¬
trative apparatus which devoted such effort to the training of its own members
was naturally conservative, reinforcing traditional patterns of administration and
blocking innovation. The disciplinary areas outlined above as being necessary
for the potential state official constituted knowledge that was unsystematically
acquired and inadequately understood in the present state of things. Hence the
proposal that the full range of skills and knowledge required for administration
should be taught en bloc and comprehensively to the student.
Such an approach, however, did replicate the lack of specialization of
administrative personnel; the Oeconomus of J. H. G.’s text was to receive an
overall education whose very generality ensured its lengthiness. This was to be a
drawback of all such ideal schemes, for the absence of a link between university
teaching and the practical affairs of administration resulted in proposals which
lacked positive differentiation. The length and coverage of courses became a
constant problem, as we shall see; and this was reflected in the constant rewriting
of textbooks for courses that were both too general and too long for the manifest
objectives of reformers. Instead of creating a hierarchy of tasks and a division of
labour, the constitution of Cameralism as a science translated the various tasks of
administration wholesale into projected courses and their textbooks. While this
academic training process was of necessity distinct from the practice which it
sought to foster, we shall see how the main question involved in discussions of
courses related to their brevity or their lengthiness, and did not raise the
possibility of introducing systematic discrimination between branches of admin¬
istration or the levels within bureaus and ministries.
Marenholz had already argued in 1703 that the science of Cameralism was no
‘methodice’, but a ‘disciplina practica’,4 and when von Rohr later took up
Marenholz’s suggestion that this discipline should nevertheless be properly
taught, he touched on two common contemporary objections: that there were no
3 Ibid., pp. 16-40.
4 C. von Marenholz, FiirstlicheMacht-Kunst Oder Unerschopfliche Geld-Grube, 2nd edn. (Weissenfels,

36
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

suitable candidates, and that in any case the material was already covered in
universities by ‘Professori Moralium’.5 These ideas were also dealt with by
Sincerus’ Project der Oeconomie in Form einer Wissenschaft, which was the first
systematic presentation of the case for the teaching of Cameralism.6 In the
seventeenth century, Aristotelianism had served to counter the role of religion in
university scholarship; in Protestant Germany it had played the role of bearer of
an emancipatory force which elsewhere was fulfilled by Natural Law.7 This had
brought with it an Aristotelian economics as an ethics rather than as a practice -
for, as the preceding chapter has shown, Aristotle’s economics is primarily a
discourse on authority, unlike that of Xenophon. Hence the argument, noted by
von Rohr, that oeconomy already had a place in the university in the teaching of
Aristotelian ethics; but this, as Sincerus pointed out, was a teaching concerned
with a virtuous life, not with the business of administration. Should such matters
be taught in universities, and was it in practice possible to do so?
Sincerus believed so, and accordingly devoted the major part of his Project to
the definition and specification of ‘Oeconomie’, which he initially defines as
teaching ‘how to prudently and appropriately acquire / properly maintain and
usefully employ / all that which is necessary, of comfort and diverting for the life
of Man’.8 Acquisition (.Errverb) is described as the core of Oeconomie, thus
shifting the ground away from concern with the management of a household
while retaining its terminology. Contra Aristotle, the activities of acquisition and
maintenance in the household could be systematized and, in fact, extended to
town, province, and kingdom:
It [Oeconomie] everywhere keeps an eye on the affairs of men / and considers / how these
are to be best directed for use and advantage / and maintained in a constant movement; it
thinks of new means / of creating and increasing all kinds of necessities; it daily invents
new techniques / by which wood and stone / leather / wool and silk might be adapted
and applied to human use and comfort .. .9
There are two parts to Oeconomie: the production and acquisition of human
necessities and comforts; and their use and administration. According to this
definition, therefore, it is possible to extend the householding model with

1 B von Rohr, Compendieuse Haufihaltungs-Bibliothek (Leipzig, 1716), 39-40. Rohr (1688-1742)

had studied with Wolff in Halle, and besides a lifetime spent in the service of several states, he
wrote a number of important compendia on economic subjects.
. A. Sincerus (pseud. Cristoph Amthor), Project der Oeconomie in Form einer Wissenschaft, 1st edn.
nublished in 1716, cited here according to 2nd edn., Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1717. Having studie
law at Kiel, Amthor was made historiographer to the Copenhagen Court, thus occupying a position
outside the university comparable to that of Schroder and Becher. Note might also be made here of
the earlier appearance of J. B. von Rohr’s De excolendo studio oeconomico tarn pnncipum quam
privatorum (Leipzig, 1712); this represents perhaps the most thorough review of the ar^ment fo
the teaching of economic subjects and draws on the work of Schroder and Seckendorff to
emphasize the importance of economic knowledge to the state. Unlike Sincerus, voni Rohr does
not attempt a systematization of Oeconomie, relying instead on a plethora of cited proofs t
economic subjects could be taught. . .... , ,
i j { Dreitzel, Protestantischer Aristotelismus und absoluter Stoat (Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden,
1970), 87ff.’
i Sincerus, Project, p. 4. 9 Ibid., p. 5.

37
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

discussion of the working up and distribution of goods, whether in agriculture,

manufacture, or commerce, the second part then considering the proper use of
such goods in household, town, and kingdom. Again, the basic Aristotelian
duality of oeconomy and chrematistics is here superseded by a division between
technique and administration, both of which are in turn subsumed by acquisitive
activity as the basic thematic. Having established this, Sincerus can then proceed
to outline the various divisions and subdivisions of Oeconomie, developing
principles and definitions which can form the basis for the academic treatment of
economic administration.
How such teaching should be initiated is, of course, a problem - not only a
teaching programme has to be designed. The first step to be taken should be to
bring together a cadre of scholars actually capable of writing the textbooks
needed to teach the subject. Sincerus proposed that a society should be
established as a forum for discussion, and through which the various parts of the
teaching texts could be composed; above all there was a need for a basic
‘compendium’, without which no lecturing could take place.10 This would not
necessarily be confined to universities, for it was possible to found economic
academies outside the university, where mathematics, accounting, writing, and
mechanics could be taught alongside Cameralistic matters. Aspects of this could
also be taught in schools, paying attention to the economic circumstances of the
local area - this could only be of benefit to young people, who might otherwise
fall prey to the ‘blather of logic and metaphysics’.11
Sincerus did not propose any specific course of tuition; later sections of the
Project draw increasingly on Seckendorff’s Furs ten Stat, thus implicitly looking
back at a genre of literature that was in the process of being superseded by a
slowly growing body of writing addressed to economic matters. Among this
writing, von Rohr’s Compendieuse Haufihaltungs-Bibliothek has already been
mentioned in passing; the sections relating to the teaching of oeconomy were
included in his much enlarged Einleitung zur Staats-Klugheit of 1718, which
examines in great detail the tasks of a ruler with respect to economic matters.
The preface draws an explicit comparison with Seckendorff, whose Fursten Stat
is said to be a good description of constitutions, but not addressed to the issue of
what has to be done in a state at a practical level - it was, states von Rohr, ‘more
moral than political’: 'that is, he rather shows what a ruler should do and leave
undone according to law if he wishes to keep a clear conscience, and live up to
the duty he owes to God and his land; instead of outlining the means according
t0f *e onf and the other are t0 be arranged and disposed’.12 The Einleitung
of 1718 thus places itself within the given tradition of advising princes on the
prudent administration of their territories, and does indeed begin with general
principles of prudential 1 his concerns the ability to arrange actions so that they
10 Ibid, p. 48. ii Ibid, p. 55. J

n t |B' J°n R°hr’ EinleitunZ zur Stoats-Klugheil (Leipzig, 1718), Vorrede, n.p.
e frontispiece represents the Prince together with Justice, Religion, and Prudence- in the last

8 mirr" <*• f0r prin“s,)- rotating of

38
 Cameralism as a science’
‘

all promote the true welfare and happiness of the subject, identifying the means
by which this end can be attained. Taken together, these principles constitute a
‘Politic’, in which it is necessary to distinguish the true from the false - thus, for
instance, it is proper to look to future happiness and not to present.14 This would
apply to the private person as well as to the ruler, the difference being that a ruler
is charged with the promotion of the happiness of his subjects as well as his own.
Accordingly, von Rohr develops an account of the positive qualities and
attributes of a good ruler - sincerity, receptivity, mercifulness, for example - and
also gives advice on how such qualities should be best exercised in audiences and
consultations.15 Within this framework of the good conduct of a ruler, there is an
outline of the organization of economic administration, which should be divided
into two: a Cammer concerned with income and expenditure; and a Collegium,
which could consider ways of increasing the income of the ruler. Rules for the
running of such bodies are suggested, along with administrative routines/ The
text moves on through marriage, education, guardianship, religious affairs,
schools and academies, town Polizei, the regulation of villages, coinage, manu¬
facture, hunting, waterways, war and diplomacy - in short, all aspects of the
government of a territory, together with specific recommendations on what
should be done and what was to be avoided. Thus, in dealing with town Polizei,
there is not only a recommendation that money-lending should be proscribed,
but we also find suggestions for the closing-hours of inns and the prohibition of
herring-pickling during the summer months.
Such practical concerns are not to be found in the writings of Seckendorff,
but they do perhaps have a place in the more generalized Hausvdterliteratur of the
time. However, von Rohr is not writing a text on the organization of a private
household, but a ‘political’ work, to use his terminology; a work which seeks to
develop a general account of prudent conduct in the administration of the
territorial state. This account extends over more than one thousand pages, and
would not have been suitable for teaching in this form, or even in the more
condensed form that was published a year later.16 This practical orientation to
the administrative tasks of a prudent ruler is also one that can be found in other
texts of the time, such as Lau’s Entrvurff Einer Wohl-eingerichteten Policey,
published in 1718, or the earlier Probe / Wie ein Regent Land und Leute
verbessem / des Landes Gevoerbe und Nahrung erheben of Johann Leibs. None of
these writings was suitable for teaching purposes, however, despite their
presentation of the economic administration of the territory through an enumer¬
ation of the tasks confronting the wise ruler.
The need for a suitable compendium was still bemoaned in 1728, when
Bucher called for the publication of a ‘comprehensive and well-written Com¬
pendium as the basis for public lectures, as well as a complete System for further
use and supplementary reading’. This latter would require four main areas: the
lpersonis oeconomicis and its duties’; the Hods oeconomicis\ that is, fields,

14 Von Rohr, Einleitung, p. 6. 15 Ibid., pp. 40ff.

16 J. B. von Rohr, Einleitungzu der Klugheil zu leben, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1719).

39
 Cameralism as a 'science’

gardens, and woods; oeconomic time and the seasons; and 'de rebus et
actionibus oeconomicis\ which chiefly involves the law relating to forests,
hunting, bees, and doves.17
As it happened, the process through which Cameralistic disciplines became
part of university teaching was rather different to that envisaged by von Rohr,
Sincerus, and others. 1 he steps which they visualized can be summarized as
follows: first, recognition of the need to teach future officials the business of state
administration prior to and separate from their entry into the administration;
second, a critique of the Aristotelian economics taught in the university as a
preliminary to the displacement of an ethical economics bv a practical science;
third, the formation of cultural institutions which could on the one hand cultivate
persons who could form a nucleus of teachers, and on the other provide a context
foi the composition of teaching texts; fourth, the generation of teaching
programmes which could be introduced into the existing university structure;
fifth, the actual entry into university teaching of such programmes together with
competent teachers and appropriate materials, and, of course, the attendance of
students who perceived such studies as a necessarv preparation for their future
careers.
The actual order in which these steps occurred was rather more haphazard
than had initially been envisaged, while, as we shall see, the whole purpose of
such teaching - the training of future state officials - never fully displaced the
process of ‘learning by doing’ in the various branches of administration. For
example, when the young Friedrich List studied at Tubingen in the early
nineteenth century, he devoted himself to legal studies, despite prior and
subsequent, employment in the Wiirttemberg bureaucracy. A Chair of Camer-
ahstic Sciences had existed at Tiibingen since 1798 with the express purpose of
training young clerks like List; but there was no compulsion to take such a
course, and List did not choose to do so. When, in 1817, he was involved in the
creation of a fifth faculty to deal with state economy, this was again expresslv
aimed at candidates for state administration, and a set period of studv and an
examination were required for admission to state employment. But this proved
unenforceable, as elsewhere. By the time such qualification had become
generally accepted, it was law' and not economics that was the required
background At no time during the eighteenth century was it possible to make
the study of Cameralism a permanent and compulsory qualification for entry
into state administration. On the one hand, administrators resisted the usur¬
pation of their control over recruitment and training; on the other, there was
always a problem with the range and quality of university teaching.

7S .°n^y lf ,Wiad,°Pt a br°ad and £eneralizinS that it is possible to

overlook these difficulties in the impact and chronology' of Cameralistic teaching

Oecoi^r^ Hochstnu^ara,
18

DisziplinierungS(R. CMdenbourg ^erlag^^unLh11^ 9*7'8)^ 2s\P7v'1?Pcni"£un^

bildung zur Juristenprivileg (Colloquium VerlagC, Berlin, 1972f ’ ^

40
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

in the university. The case which fits the ideal sequence outlined above most
closely is that of the Lautern Kameral Hohe Schule, founded in 1774 and
transferred to the University of Heidelberg in 1784.19 This is the most
successful and lasting example of Cameralistic training in the German univer¬
sity, and was recognized as such at the time. But the actual success achieved in
forming competent administrators at middle and higher levels remains obscure
and dubious. Gottingen, by contrast, had a lasting and deserved reputation in the
training of administrators, but did not have systematic teaching in economic
subjects until later in the nineteenth century; during the eighteenth century,
lecturing in the core subjects of Cameralism was patchy in the extreme. Between
these two poles, of course, there can be found some more fitting examples, but
the overall picture, when examined in more detail, dissolves into disjunction and
confusion.
The ideal trajectory from the initial proposals made in the early eighteenth
century to the regularization of teaching in mid-century, followed by expansion
and transformation into Nationalokonomie - this is something which the pro¬
posals for the construction of regular teaching in economic matters in the
eighteenth-century university did embody, but which found no unambiguous
correlate in the actual workings of the university system. Nowhere is this better
demonstrated than in the repeated systematizations and new proposals for
teaching which chart the course of the discipline to the end of the eighteenth
century. The growing stream of textbooks in the second half of the century
testify to the lack of real coherence and continuity in the actual practice of
teaching; and when we consider the institutional framework in more detail it will
be apparent that textual production and pedagogic success stand in something
like an inverse relationship to each other.
Nevertheless, it is possible to discern a degree of coherence around what
might in detail appear to be spasmodic and dispersed; furthermore, such
coherence can be established without at the same time suppressing the ‘real
existing’ confusion of Cameralism as a pedagogic practice. Despite the indiffer¬
ent success of university training in the creation of a reformed and competent
administrative apparatus for the territorial state, there is a remarkable stability in
the skills and knowledges thought to be necessary for such training, and as
Chapter 1 has shown, it is such perceptions of‘economic principles’ that are our
proper concern here. It is true that until the 1760s this was usually to be found in
the kind of ideal listing which we saw in J. H. G.’s Curieuser and nachdencklicher
Discurs\ a further example is a proposal from 1745 which provides fourteen
headings of what should be taught in an institution devoted to economic and
political matters.20 But there is in such listing a clear consensus of what is
This is dealt with in Ch. 5 below, along with other cases. ...
1 G GroB ‘Entwurf eines mit leichten Kosten zu errichtenden Seminam oeconomico-politico
’ Leipziger Samtnlungen, 4 (1745), 450ff. W. Roscher, Geschichte der National-Oekonomik m
Deutschland (R. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1874), gives the original pubhcation date for this as 1740.
In 1746 Zincke published an outline of similar generality - Gedancken und Vorschlage von
einem auf Universitaten auf die Cameral-Wissenschaften einzunchtenden besondern Collegio

41
 Cameralism as a ‘science ’

considered necessary and relevant, despite the resulting disciplinary over-

extension. Likewise, the textbooks which began to appear can be perceived to
follow a clear course of development, with the later publications taking note of
the earlier ones, supplementing, criticizing, and revising their predecessors. The
circumstances which provoked the repetitious production of plans for teaching
organization and the textbooks for use in their authors’ lectures were indeed
diverse; but in this process a discursive structure took shape which it is possible
to identify quite clearly and whose regularities can be traced. This structure
cannot be separated from the institutional sites through which it was reproduced
but at the same time it cannot be reduced to them. Only by providing an account
of the development of the teaching process, and then considering the texts which
accompanied this development, can we reach an adequate understanding of this
prehistory’ to Nationalokononiie.
Cameralistic teaching was begun in two Prussian universities in 1727. In a
decree dated 24 July, Friedrich Wilhelm I, not otherwise regarded as a
progressive or reforming ruler, commanded that Simon Peter Gasser be
appointed to a Chair in ‘Oeconomie, Policey und Cammersachen’ at Halle, ‘so
that the studious youth might gain a good grounding in the aforementioned
sciences in good time and before they are employed in service’.21 Little is known
of the students who might have attended the lectures that Gasser began later in
. e,pm^.year’ kut 111S known that he initially lectured according to Secken-
orff s Fursten-Stat - confirming the earlier complaints about the absence of a
suitable text for teaching. Rather more is known about Gasser himself, but this
again corroborates the problem foreseen by Rohr and Sincerus concerning the
availability of suitable teachers. Born in 1676, and therefore over fifty when he
assumed the new chair Gasser’s background was primarily in administration
Having studied law at Leipzig, Utrecht, and Halle, he gained his doctorate in
710 and became Extraordinary Professor of Law at Halle.22 In 1711 he
entered the local administration as an Assessor, and in 1716 he was posted to
Cleves to establish order in domainal administration there, which he apparently
did with some success. His reward was to be appointed Professor of Law at Halle
721, together with a senior administrative post in salt-works and mines
n erring academic posts as a reward for loyal service illustrates Friedrich

21

and possess tenure. In the eighteenth cenmrv th ’ y professors occupy permanent posts
‘ordinary’, the former sometimes being ^ ^ levds’ ‘e* rdina,y and
poorly paid. Privatdozenten had the right to teach appom}ments and therefore
were they paid; their income came from2 001 m*mberS oftbe Acuity nor
attending their lectures, except in some cases - a.fat S° ^ by the students
employees and paid accordingly. where they were reSarded as state

42
 Cameralism as a ‘science

Wilhelm’s open contempt for intellectual affairs; and, in fact, the faculty
protested, since there were only four such posts and Gasser was the fifth
appointment.23 The lectures which Gasser gave as ‘Lectiones Camerales
Oeconomico-politicas’ were delivered in the Law Faculty but, judging by the
textbook which he published in 1729, the content was chiefly concerned with
details of domain administration - buildings, cattle, fields, milling, duties and
taxation, forestry, and hunting.24 His Programma publicum of 1728 shows
thorough acquaintance with the relevant writings of von Rohr, Lau, von
Schroder, and others, but also complains of the little time he was able to devote
to academic work alongside his administrative duties. By the early 1740s,
Gasser had let his Cameralistic lectures drop, and when he died in 1745
Stiebritz, his successor, adopted Dithmar’s Einleitung in die Oeconomische-
Policey- und Kameralmssenschaften, which had that year been republished in a new
and enlarged edition.25 However, Stiebritz lectured on Cameralism alongside
Hebraic languages and the New Testament; he had been a professor in the
Philosophy Faculty since 1743 and the chair was transferred there on Gasser’s
death. Despite some publications in economic matters, by 1750 the students had
begun to complain and seek the support of more suitable external candidates
who could in fact teach Cameralism; but Stiebritz, later reported to be ‘ignorant
of his material’,26 continued teaching in the post until his death in 1772.27 It
cannot be said, therefore, that this first attempt to teach Cameralism within the
university met with great immediate success - whether we consider student
numbers,28 consistency of teaching, quality of teaching, or the suitability of the
textbooks used and produced, wherever we look the picture is one of dubious
clarity and indifferent outcome.
The second institution to begin Cameralistic teaching in 1727 was the
University of Frankfurt an der Oder, where the historian J. C. Dithmar was
made Professor of‘Kameral-Okonomie and Polizeiwissenschaft’. Although, as
we shall see, Dithmar’s later publications were chiefly in the area of history and
Staatsmissenschaft, his credentials for the post were superior to those of Gasser at
Halle First appointed in 1709, Dithmar became a full professor in 1710, and,
under the indirect influence of Conring, his teaching combined history with

24 5%’ Gasser, Einleitung zu den Oeconomischen, Politischen und Cameral Wtssenschaften (Halle,
1729) In 1739 J. E. Zschackwitz, Professor of Imperial History and Public Law at Halle,
published his Griindliche Abhandlung der vollstdndigen Oeconomiae Politicae und Cameralis, but this
text emphasizes legal aspects of the subject and is thus far removed from Gasser, even though
both professors taught in the same Law Faculty.
25 Originally published in 1731, Frankfurt-on-Oder.
26 W. Kahler, Die Enlwicklung des staatswissenschaftlichen Unternchts an der Umversitat Halle (Gus

27 FHk1^Gerund Macht in, absolutist Preufien: Zur Geschichte der Un e 'dtJ le von 1740
bis 1806 Diss Faculty of Philosophy (University of Halle-Wittenberg, 1980), 86-7.
28 Kathe notes that a report on Prussian universities in 1770 confirmed that lectures on Pohzet und
Kameralmssenschaften were actually delivered/only unfortunately most of these lectures are not
attended by any who are seeking knowledge’ (Getsl, p. 86).

43
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

politics. His textbook, published in 1731,29 is of far broader scope than Gasser’s,
covering not only the technical aspects of agriculture, but also those of
manufacture in towns, as well as property forms, social order, and the finances of
the ruler. Unfortunately, little is known of the development of Dithmar’s
teaching at Frankfurt, but the later posthumous republication and re-editing of
his textbook (Dithmar died in 1737) testify to his lasting impact.
The third and only other foundation of note in the first half of the eighteenth
century was the small university at Rinteln, where, in 1730, the Margrave of
Hessen-Kassel caused a ‘Professio Oeconomiae’ to be established. This was
entrusted to Johann Hermann Fiirstenau, who had taught primarily in veterinary
science at Rinteln since 1720. Here again, little is known about either the
students or the teaching,30 but Fiirstenau’s competence is attested to by his
GrundlicheAnleitungZu der Haushaltnungs-Kunst, in the preface of which he gives
an account of the first few years of the post before going on to provide an
overview of the domain of‘householding’, as he calls it.
We can at this point consider the kind of material assembled by Fiirstenau in
what was the third attempt to write a textbook for Cameralistic lectures. As was
to become customary, we find in the preface an explanation and justification for
the composition of a new textbook, a textual figure which enables later readers to
assess the perceived failings of previous texts, and the intentions underlying the
presentation of a new one. In the case under consideration here, Fiirstenau
suggests that texts by von Rohr and Dithmar would have been suitable if they had
been available, while Gasser’s text was described as being ‘too specialised and
detailed. Furstenau had therefore decided to prepare his own introduction for
is public lectures. 1 C.hapter 1 provides an historical account of the develop¬
ment of the art of householding, beginning with Greek and Latin authors and
not excluding parts of the Old Testament. Aristotle is reached by page
t irty-four, while Schroder is not dealt with until page sixty-seven. By focusing
upon householding, Furstenau is able to cover a wide range of literature and use
it as a resource for the teaching he wishes to develop, while at the same time
placing his own work in a continuing tradition.
Tins is then carried forward in the second chapter, which deals with ‘The art
of householdmg in general, and the resources necessary to it.’ Here the general
value of Oeconomie is emphasized, and the question of whether it is an art or a
science is raised and then placed on one side. Money, suggests Furstenau, is not
the^ThTn Cn?^^Uyutlme’love’ or’ on some occasions, even essentials, for
the ayailabihty of bread, beer, and meat depends on whether Polizei is well or
ThtTnJm dle 0eco mische- Police}/- und Kameral- Wissenschaften (Frankfurt-on-Oder 1731)
1 his text is examined later in this chapter. on uoer, i/ji).

passing: Die NationalokonZie ^“2°

Vorrede to Grundhche Anleitung Zu der Haushalthungs-Kunst (Lem 1736 ^ r-V

GWS “ iS * a

44
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

badly organized.32 What, then, are the various resources for the art of household¬
ing? The first concerns the personal qualities required to acquire property
honestly and use it properly: the phlegmatic type is not suitable, since here
everything takes too long and in economic matters time is often invaluable; the
choleric type, by contrast, is maybe suitable for the gaining of money and goods,
but tends to be over-ambitious; while the sanguine type, being of a good-hearted
nature, often gives his property away to those who have no real need of it. The
best temper is perhaps that of the melancholic - naturally inclined to greediness
for money, if such inclination is tempered by choleric attributes.33 The second
resource is ‘Doctrina’, the learning to be had from books; while the third is the
will to work, and the fourth is time.34
Thus, the resources for householding are represented by the qualities of a
householder and the disposition that he makes of them; a theme which might
lend itself to the development of an economic ethics, and which is perhaps drawn
from such a tradition. Fiirstenau’s purpose, however, is to expound the
principles of householding, not to provide moral instruction. And so the third
chapter launches into the principles of arable cultivation, referring, among
others, to von Hohberg and von Rohr. But, unlike Gasser, the position adopted
here is not simply one of‘farm management’, but involves questions of fertility
and soil type, and the respective suitability of various farm implements. There is
a constant reference to both German and French literature on agricultural
matters, and this is repeated through the following chapters on gardens and
vineyards, brewing and distilling, cattle-raising and mining.
The third major section of the book concentrates on various kinds of
oeconomy, dealing first with ‘public oeconomy’ - which means the domains and
estates of a ruler as well as concern with the well-being of the ruler’s subjects,
with one of the headings under which the latter are considered relating to their
education in useful arts and sciences in colleges and universities. Land and town
oeconomy are then considered separately, for, while they are not in principle
distinct vis-a-vis the rules of good householding, the former has little contact
with money as a form of calculating labour and goods produced and exchanged.
Agriculture could proceed independently of monetary calculation, relying on the
application of traditional principles to establish when to sow and when to reap,
when to plough and when to fallow; while town oeconomy is based on monetary
conditions and commerce.
Fiirstenau does not provide the kind of how to text that we find in Gasser,
instead, we find a broader sweep through the subject which presupposes the
possibility of defining a domain — the oeconomy — in which certain practices
should be promoted and others left alone. While in Gasser, this oeconomy is
identified with agriculture via the unity of the ruler’s domain,35 Fiirstenau is able

32 Griindliche Anleitung, p. 80. 33 Ibid., pp. 84ff.

34 Ibid., pp. 88-99. Fiirstenau actually lists six, but his third and fourth are obscurely defined.
35 Cf. J. Bruckner, Staatswissenschaften, Kameralismus undNaturrecht (C. H. Beck, Munich, 1977),
67-8.

45
 Cameralism as a science
‘ ’

to go beyond this narrowly technical definition by virtue of his use of the notion
of householding. This usage does draw on classical sources, but it is developed
into a generalized account of economic principles, and not into an ethics or a
politics. The four humours are employed in the second chapter simply to
delineate suitable qualities for the successful management of economic affairs;
given the centrality of the householder to the household, to define such qualities
is, in effect, to indicate conditions under which economic affairs will flourish.
A survey of thirty-two German, Scandinavian, Dutch, Swiss, and Austrian
universities published in 1755 recorded only three professorial positions in
oeconomy:, at Abo in Sweden, Peter Kalm was Professor of ‘Haushal-
tungskunst’; at Gottingen, Tobias Meyer was described as full Professor of
Oeconomy and Mathematics; and Fiirstenau was described as Professor of
Haushaltungskunst, like Kalm.36 Stieda points out that Meyer was not in fact a
Professor of Oeconomy, and, as we shall see shortly, there was little direct
teaching of Cameralism in Gottingen during the eighteenth century. There were
also the chairs at Halle and Frankfurt an der Oder in 1755. Nevertheless,
considering the remarks made above about these two universities, this leaves
Furstenau at the University of Rinteln as the major mid-century representative
o the Cameralistic sciences - hardly indicative of success for the strategies
proposed by von Rohr and Sincerus some forty years earlier. In fact, the position
was not as poor as it might appear, but in order to have a better understanding of
the place of Cameralism in university teaching at this time, it is necessary to
outhne briefly some features of the development of the university system during
the hrst half of the eighteenth century.

1 In i700’tnere Tere twenty_eiSht universities in Germany, most of which had

onnn S\3t . StudentS’ Wlth a total number of students at this time of around
9 UUO. Universities were organized into four faculties of rising importance-
philosophy, law, medicine, and theology, with the Philosophy Faculty playing the
role of gatekeeper to the others, since students wishing to study law or theology
for example had to study philosophy first. The actual distribution of students
etween the faculties varied greatly from one university to another, but in general
the more progressive universities, like Halle and Gottingen, had a preponder¬
ance of law students. In fact, Halle had been founded in 1694 by adding
t eological and law faculties to an already-established ‘Ritterakademie’, or
academy for the nobility, and it never had less than 900 students, who divided
themselves between a pietistically oriented Theology Faculty and a compara-
vely progressive Law Faculty which played a leading role in the development of
eighteenth-century Natural Law.38 P

36 Stieda, Nationalokonomie, p. 65.

17 prefs Cambridge’198m If? ?”d'Un?mi? in Gmmn^ 1700-1914 (Cambridge University

38 pi’ Cambridge, 1980), 28. Eulenberg’s estimate is a high point ofc 8 500 in 1715 40

46
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

The most striking factor differentiating between universities in this period was
the distinction between Protestant and Catholic institutions. Broadly speaking,
the northern progressive universities (like Halle, Gottingen, Leipzig) were
Protestant, while the southern universities were Catholic and moribund. In the
latter case, philosophy and theology were sometimes the only faculties, and the
Jesuit Order dominated teaching and constituted a powerful obstacle to change,
opposing in particular the introduction of teaching in law, politics, and history
which reformers promoted. In Koln, for instance, where the Jesuit-dominated
university was often in conflict with the city administration, two Extraordinary
Professors of State, Feudal, and Church Law were appointed in 1726, but were
paid so little that the appointees soon left; and the creation of a Chair of History
in 1732 was not matched by any financial provision for the unfortunate
incumbent.39 There were attempts to reform Catholic universities, at Dillingen
in 1744-5, for example, but these attempts by more progressive theologians met
with little success until the Jesuit Order was abolished by papal decree in 1773.
This retention of scholastic theology as the core of university teaching on the
part of the Jesuits constituted a block to reforms within the state in which the
university was to play an important role; and because of this the control of
teaching by the Jesuit Order became a political problem for enlightened Catholic
rulers.40
As we shall see in the case of Austria, it was possible to introduce new
teaching, given a sufficiently determined ruler, and this underlines yet again the
subordination of the reformed university to the objectives of territorial rulers.
The progressive eighteenth-century university was not the product of academic
independence, expressed, for instance, in the power of the faculty to make its
own appointments; ‘enlightenment’ was the outcome of the reforming activity of
a ruler and his government, and it is for this reason that legal and Cameralistic
training became touchstones of progress in university and state. Later in the
century, a network of societies and alignments were to form the material basis of
the German Enlightenment, but the university continued its association with
‘enlightened absolutism’ - it was oriented towards government rather than
towards society.41
Perhaps the best-known case of this phenomenon is the foundation of the
University of Gottingen in 1737. Modelled on the University of Halle, it was
originally intended to create a ‘Protestant university in a Protestant state’, where
all the professors would be Lutheran. While it was under the general direction of
the Court at Hannover, the siting of the new university some sixty miles to the

39 R. HaaB, DiegeistigeHaltung der katholischen Universitdten Deutschlands im 18. fahrhundert (Verlag

Herder, Freiburg, 1952), 17-18. . ,
40 R. van Diilmen, ‘Antijesuitismus und katholische Aufklarung in Deutschland , H is tons cites
fahrbuch 89 (1969), 56, 65-6. For more detail on the organization of teaching in a Catholic
university, see W. A. Miihl, Die Aufklarung an der Universitdt Fulda mil besonderer Beriicksichtigung
der philosophischen und juristischen Fakultat (1734-180S) (Verlag Parzeller, Fulda, 1961), 4-11.
41 On this, see D. M. Meyring, Politische Weltrveisheit; Studien zur deutschen politischen Phtlosophie des
18. Jahrhunderts, Diss. (Munster, 1965), 107-8, 122.

47
 Cameralism as a ‘science ’

south of the city ensured a degree of independence for the Chancellor,

Miinchhausen. This independence also increased the chances of attracting a
number of‘foreigners’ and alien notables, for even at this time a university was
seen as a way of bringing money into a state. For the university of a territorial
state to be attended only by subjects of that state was felt to be a sign of its low
status, and everyone suffered - the large number of students from poorer
backgrounds could not afford to pay high rates for tuition, no prominent teachers
could be attracted or retained, therefore, and the quality of the teaching suffered
and facilities such as libraries were poorly maintained and financed.
Gottingen was not intended to be like this: it was set up from the beginning as
a fashionable place to study, with the best facilities and the best professors. As at
Halle, medicine was weakly represented, and theology was subjected to controls
which would ensure that theological disputations remained on a purely academic
plane. In this way it was possible for Miinchhausen to attract Catholics, assuring
alien notables a religious toleration that was not generally practised elsewhere.
Law was held to be very important, but Frensdorff denies that the university was
founded around the Law Faculty as a ‘nursery for higher service to the state’.42
Even Philosophy, the lowliest of the faculties, was carefully organized - the
teaching on offer included the traditional subjects of logic, metaphysics, and
ethics, but also empirical psychology, law of nature, politics, physics, natural
history, pure and applied mathematics, and history, together with its auxiliary
sciences such as geography and diplomacy.43 However, the relatively low status
of the Philosophy Faculty is indicated by the fact that while members of other
faculties were permitted to lecture on philosophical subjects, this privilege was
not granted to members of the Philosophy Faculty, nor, in fact, were inter¬
changes between the other faculties permitted.44
The establishment of the Academy of Sciences in 1742 helped the new
university in its aspiration to become a progressive and modern institution
attracting students from a wide area on the basis of Gottingen as a major
intellectual centre. Care was taken in the development of library holdings -
publications in law, politics, and oeconomy were systematically bought, 'and
specmi attention was paid to contemporary works appearing in French and
English. The comprehensiveness of the university library today45 testifies to
F' F Si°rff’^sten Jahrzehnte des staatsrechtlichen Studiums in Gottingen’ in Festschrift
Tjt 0Jahn£ 3ubelfeler Oeorg-Augusts-Universitdt (Gottingen, 1887), 1. Michaelis calculated
Michael fl mg Un'VerS1i br°Ught in 300 Talers per student Per 7ear to the province- f D
Main1['7S^ onnement uber dte Protestantischen Universitdten in Deutschland, i (Frankfurt-on-
43
McClelland, University, pp. 41-2

<G“nS'r * Vandenhoeck
The fact that the pre-1930 catalogue contains the original eighteenth-century entries makes it

here 7t^c^'beVeenTh^XTr n ^ ^ C0"eCtl°n T built Up' ReSardinS the texts dealt with
e, can be seen that their purchase was more or less contemporary and quite systematic
first eav11’ P°fsesses the on>y example in a West German institutional library of the
first edition of Wealth of Nations-, cf. B. Fabian, ‘An Eighteenth Century ResearchCollection
English Books at Gottingen University Library, The Library', 6/1 (1979), 215.

48
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

Gottingen’s immediate success in establishing an institution of international

merit, and the consolidation of this success through the eighteenth century.
While Gottingen did.not contribute directly to the development of Cameralistic
teaching - its primary relevance was in a reformed Staatswissenschaft, Statistik,
and Technologie - its orientation to the training of a higher level of state official
met with marked success.
In 1745, J. J. Moser submitted a memorandum to Miinchhausen on the best
ways of attracting suitable students to Gottingen, and in 1748 the latter
responded by forwarding to Moser a plan drawn up by Putter, Professor of Law
at Gottingen, for a reform of university teaching. This provoked a further
proposal from Moser, who suggested that a political academy should be
established within the university, staffed by three professors who would each
teach for an hour per day: Putter on political prudence (Staats-Klugheit);
Achenwall on recent European political history; and a third to teach ‘the written
and oral management of public affairs’.46 This proposal met with some
opposition, and as a result Moser proceeded to establish his own Staats- und
Cantzley Academie at Hanau, which opened in November 1749 with ten students.
Textbooks were composed on the business of public administration47 for higher
officials — with a consequent emphasis on the ‘affairs of state’ practised in the
Chancellery rather than on the practical aspects of economic activity. Moser’s
academy never had more than a dozen students, and with his appointment to
Wiirttemberg in 1751 the academy was closed.48 Nevertheless, this episode is
indicative of an interest outside the university in the training of officials, and the
emergence and disappearance of similar institutions - the Collegium Carohnum
in Brunswick, the Karlsschule in Stuttgart later in the century, and the
Handelsakademie in Hamburg - testify to the perceived need for practical
economic training.49
The resistance of Gottingen to the formation of a separate organization for the
teaching of potential administrators demonstrates the limits imposed by even a
progressive university on the attempt to teach the practical business of govern¬
ment, at whatever level. The university was perceived more as a place for the
imparting of relevant academic knowledge, and while there might have been an
aspiration systematically to train officials in institutions separate from those for
which they were destined, both university and ministries resisted a level of

46 M. Walker, Johann Jakob Moser and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (University ot
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1981), 177ff. ,
47 J. J. Moser, Einleitung zu denen Cantzley-Geschafften (Hanau, 1750); Einleitung zu denen neusten
Teutschen Staatsangelegenheiten (Hanau, 1750).
Walker, Moser, p. 186. , , . .
49 The Braunschweig college was founded in 1745 as a way of teaching more appropriate sub,ects
than those to be found in schools, and the first two professors appointed were also Gymnasium
teachers. Subjects taught included theology, secular history, law, ethics, and politics The mos
notable teacher was G. H. Zincke (1692-1769), appointed as Curator in 1746, an early
systematizer of Cameralism. Cf. Anon., ‘Nachricht von dem in Braunschweig gestifteten neuen
Collegio Carolino, als ein besondern Anstalt einer hohen Schule Leipziger Sammlungen 3
(1746), 707-12. The Leipziger Sammlungen carried further reports of the college up to 1 n .

49
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

training which could be deemed sufficiently detailed to make successful

completion a necessary qualification. With the foundation of the first chair in
Halle, the idea of ‘qualification’ was proposed, but, as in later cases, this was
never converted into established practice - and, given the nature of Cameralistic
teaching during the years that followed, and as has been indicated above, this is
hardly surprising.
While the universities found the idea of systematic teaching in Cameralism
and its related subjects quite resistible during the first half of the eighteenth
century, some texts did begin to appear which gained widespread recognition.
Among these, Dithmar’s Einleitung reached five editions between its first
publication in 1731, and 1755, when it was re-edited by D. G. Schreber. A new
preface was written for this 1755 edition, in which Schreber provides an account
of his reasons for republishing Dithmar’s text - a work which he admitted was
not without error, and which had in some respects been superseded by more
thorough introductions to the Cameralistic sciences. Dithmar’s Einleitung, he
wrote, ‘notwithstanding all the critical comments that had been made, still
retained the value of being the most pleasant handbook on the sciences with
which it dealt; and which are taught in this manner in various universities,
including Catholic universities’.50 Schreber claimed to be familiar with the
writings of a series of authors on Cameralism and Staatswissenschaft, expressly
acknowledging the work of Zincke, who is described as being the very first to go
into the science in any depth; nevertheless, Dithmar’s work was still the one that
he thought was the most suited to the demands of academic lectures. Dithmar’s
presentation of the basic principles of the Cameralistic sciences in the form of
short paragraphs meant that it was very easy for the teacher to supplement the
text where necessary. If lectured on daily, thought Schreber, the text could be
completed within a year. This was not the case with other introductions, some of
which lack the necessary connection to related bodies of knowledge, making it
difficult for students to gain a view of the whole, while others develop such
connections too tar, and are thus more suited to private reading than public
lecture.
Bruckner has remarked on the concise, paragraphic style of Dithmar’s text, in
which detail is excluded and the exposition of basic principles foregrounded. As
a consequence of this, the organization of the text is more evident, and some
features of this can now be outlined. 51 The first part, consisting of eleven pages,
is entirely taken up with introductory definitions, beginning with paragraph I:
Oeconomic science or the art of house economy and householding teaches the
manner in which livelihood and wealth, promoting temporal happiness, might be

50 °i rVolTede t0 J- C- Dithmar> Einleitung in die oconomischen, Policey und

cameral-Wissenschaften, 5th edn. (Frankfurt-on-Oder, 1755).
51
Bruckner, Staatswissenschaften, p. 68. The reference to Dithmar which follows is to the 1745
^d‘tl0n’ alleSe<% <ne a/*d supplemented’, but it is not apparent how the substance of the text
differs from that of 1731. The ‘economic library’ listed in the 1731 edition is, for example
reprinted without change in the later version; but since the 1745 edition is now available as a
reprint, reference is most conveniently made to that.

SO
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

achieved through the industry of country and town [Land- und Stadt-Gewerbe].’
Oeconomie, Wirtschaft, and Haushaltung are all thrown together here as equivalent
expressions for the activity of gaining a living - under the assumption, it must be
emphasized, that the purpose of this activity is the general welfare of the
industrious person, whether in town or country.
For elucidation here we can turn to the contemporary definition to be found in
Zincke’s Lexicon:
The art of householding or the art of keeping house, oeconomy, oeconomie science, is a
practical science, wherein the wisdom, prudence and art of nearly all learned sciences are
applied to the end of rightful concern for provisioning and economy [Nahrung- oder
Wirtschaffls Geschdffte] so that one can recognise the true nature and condition of on the
one hand in general the objects, purposes and specific conduct of such affairs, on the
other the assistants, tools and advantages, partly the therein included affairs of subsis¬
tence.52

As outlined above, the classical basis of the concept ‘oeconomy’ did not prevent
its generalization to cover all forms of economic activity in which subsistence was
the immediate purpose. Thus, if we turn to the entry for Oeconomie in Zincke, all
we find is: ‘see householding’.53 The Germanic term Wirtschaft, which is today
the general term for ‘economy’, is not merely arbitrarily set as the equivalent to
householding and oeconomy here; etymologically it is directly related to such
notions, since the stem, ‘Wirt’, signifies the person who keeps house, privately or
publicly. An alternative meaning for Wirtschaft was and is an inn or place where
one could obtain nourishment;54 and the activity of providing for guests can be
expressed by the verb ‘wirtschaften’.
This associated usage of Oeconomie and Wirtschaft is underlined by paragraph
II of Dithmar, which clearly differentiates the science with which he is
concerned from an ethics, stating that Aristotle’s concept of economic science as
represented by the (pseudo) Oeconomie contains nothing but moral duties. The
next move is to raise the question of whether this science can be taught in the
same way as other disciplines, since it is perhaps too heavily based upon
experience. Paragraph V answers this in the affirmative, and appends a long list
of authorities who have argued that the science can be taught and not merely
learned.
Dithmar then turns to Polizei, and states disarmingly: ‘Police Science deals
with Policey affairs / but what is understood by this / is not agreed by all / in
that some range under this only food, drink and human clothing/ others
however/far extending it and opposing it to the judiciary.’55 The general
definition which Dithmar then comes up with relates Polizei to the good order of

52 G. H. Zincke, Allgemeines Oeconomisches Lexicon, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1744), col. 1099.
53 Ibid., col. 2085.
54 Cf. H. Stoltenberg, ‘Zur Geschichte des Wortes Wirtschaft’,JahrbucherfurNationaldkonomie und
Statistik, 148 (1938), 556-61; and for this whole area, J. Burkhardt, ‘Wirthschaft, Okonomie
(Neuzeit)’, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R. Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundhegrijfe, vi
(Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, forthcoming).
55 Dithmar, Einleitung, p. 5.

51
 Cameralism as a ‘science’

a state and the welfare of its subjects, both internally and externally, although as
the preceding chapter has noted, it was more usual to relate Polizei only to the
former. Despite the fact that this aligns Polizei with Staats-Klugheit, there are
clearly aspects of its operations that are related to the oeconomie and Cameralis-
tic sciences, and it therefore has to be treated along with them.
The third principal definition concerns Cameralistic science itself: ‘Cameral-
Science teaches the proper use of the domains and Regalien of the ruler, and how
obligations of the subjects and other public funds of the ruler’s income can be
raised, improved and employed to maintain the common welfare.’56 Oeconomy
and householding are therefore conceived of as the acts of private individuals,
while Polizei and Cameralism deal with the regulation of the social order as a
whole. This bifurcation of the ruler’s economy and the economy of the private
citizen means that no general conception of economic activity can develop - and
what in fact happens later is that this division shifts by virtue of a redefinition of
oeconomy, economy, and the objects of Cameralism. At this stage it is sufficient
to note that the distinction made by Dithmar in his title involves a genuine
separation between these three principal elements, a separation which was to
alter in valency within one or two decades.
Having established these definitions, the remainder of Dithmar’s introduction
concerns the teaching of the material concerned. First he criticizes Aristotle
again for his improper definition of oeconomy and the way in which this impeded
the teaching of Polizei and Cameralism in university institutions. He suggests
that such sciences could usefully be taught at an elementary level in schools; and
in universities, subjects like geometry, mechanics, civil architecture, physics,
human and animal anatomy, law, and the German language should accompany
teaching in the economic and police sciences. Then the student should spend
some time in office and field, workshop and market, being trained in the daily
business of administration in town and country; and the introduction closes with
suggestions of some books that should prove useful for purposes of reference
(the ‘economic library’).
Section 2 deals with ‘oeconomie science’, which is said to divide itself into
Land- und Stadt Wirtschaft’ but which in fact deals almost entirely with rural
matters. The first chapter thus deals with landed property and its financial
conditions, the second with the buying and selling of such property, the third
with property boundaries, and the fourth with economic buildings. This
approach to oeconomy, therefore, is primarily juridical rather than practical and
technical. Far from oeconomy and householding being approached as a form of
administrative activity over defined objects (those contributing to the subsistence
of the household), Dithmar in fact presents the distinction of town from country
in terms of property forms. The population of the countryside appears in the
chapter on villages, but it is defined juridically, not placed within an economy:
Peasants are those who possess a heritable Gut on which is held a team of horses
or of oxen, and with them not only cultivate their fields; but also perform their
56 Ibid, pp. (y-l.

52
 Cameralism as a science
‘ ’

services, and so they are also called Hiifner or Anspanner.’’51 The text then moves
on to other categories of rural dweller; and towns are subjected to the same
treatment in the following section, ‘On Town Oeconomy’. Thus, oeconomy
does not present either a designated sphere of production (e.g. agriculture with
its various branches) or a form of action on the part of the householder. The
central concept is not subsistence and wealth, but the given order of a particular
social network.58 This has the effect of anticipating material which more
properly belongs to Polizeimssenschaft, and we do indeed find in the following
section on this subject a partial repetition of the contents of sections 2 and 3, in
some cases proceeding in the same order. Whereas the oeconomy is conceived of
as aggregated social order, it is Polizeiwissenschaft that provides this order with
structure through its evaluation of purpose and prescription of decrees. Where
the oeconomy of the countryside deals with cattle, for example, in a purely
descriptive fashion, here in the fourth section there is a brief discussion of the
tendencies which ought to be encouraged; or when towns are dealt with, the
need to assure a plentiful supply of bread at a cheap price is emphasized.
The fifth and final section concerns Cameralistic science, and, as already
apparent, this is exclusively concerned with the income of a ruler and the
administration of his domains. Chiefly it involves an enumeration of various
taxes and duties, introducing the student to the variety of sources of a ruler’s
income without providing any specific discussion of their value or advisability.
While the description of oeconomy is open to the evaluation of Polizeimssen¬
schaft, this is not the case with the various sources of a ruler’s income, since this is
a private matter, open to arguments relating to ethics or prudence but not
themselves part of the commonweal. In so far as one can talk of an economy at all
here then, it is the domain in which we find the subjects of the territorial ruler;
and where we find the ruler in the shape of his decrees and ordinances. The
ruler’s own possessions are considered separately and they do not find ready
inclusion in the objects of oeconomy. This only serves to underline the fact that
neither state nor economy existed in the modern sense: there was government,
but no unitary source of governing activity; there was economic activity, but the
spheres in which this was conducted were separated off from each other and
assessed in different ways.
In the ambivalent relation of Okonomie and Polizei, Bruckner sees a set of
conflicts and contradictions which are of necessity produced by an economic
Cameralism.59 But even later writers found it difficult to provide a clear and
unambiguous distinction according to object and material between the various
disciplines. More useful, perhaps, is a simple registration of the semantic
development undergone by each of the various terms, registering where
appropriate the implication of certain changes for contiguous disciplines.
Certainly there are ‘difficulties’ in the presentation of Dithmar’s text, the most
obvious of which is the repetition involved in the distinction of Okonomie and
Polizei. In pedagogical terms, however, this difficulty seems to have been dealt
57 Ibid., p. 70. 58 Ibid., p. 69 . 59 Ibid., p. 72.

53
 Cameralism as a ‘science ’

with simply by repeating material rather than by seeking a more systematic

solution.
It was Zincke who was the first to seek such a system. From 1740 to 1745 he
delivered public lectures on Cameralism in Leipzig, edited the Leipziger
Sammlung of economic literature, and produced a series of re-editions and
compendia which, although prolix and repetitive, represented a serious attempt
properly to order Cameralistic categories. At one level, in his Cameralisten-
Bibliothek, we find the same kind of repetition and ambiguity that was typical of
Dithmar, with Wirtschaft, Okonomie, and Kameralwissenschaft being defined in
terms of each other and synonymously. The link that emerges, however, is a
significant one: that of Nahrungs-Geschafte, activities related to subsistence or,
literally, ‘nourishment-business’: ‘To pursue Nahrungs-Geschafte with property,
or to use the same, is called economising [wirtschaften]. When however a property1
is prudently employed with application and labour, such that not only the
necessities and comforts of physical life ... but also wealth are adequate ... then
this is called gut wirtschaften.’60 According to Zincke, Polizei is concerned with
the maintenance and improvement of Nahrungs-Geschafte and economy; Camer¬
alistic science with the creation and introduction of good Polizei. Likewise, the
object of‘Land-Wirtschaft’ is the Nahrungs-Geschafte of the country, while the
object of‘Stadt-Wirtschaft’ are those of the town.61
Bruckner devotes several pages to a description of Zincke’s systematizations,
but, as she notes, many of them are indeed circular62 - which is even apparent
from the brief example noted above. Although some of Zincke’s writings were
related to his teaching — for instance, his Grund-Rift einer Einleitung zu den
Cameral- Wissenschaften of 1742-3 - these did not possess the clarity of structure
that can be found in Dithmar, and they are both lengthy and rambling. It is hard
to see whether a clear distinction between the related concepts employed by
Zincke either exists, or, if one can be found, whether a painstaking reconstruc¬
tion is worthwhile - the important feature of his writing is its lack of conciseness,
its repetition, and its ambiguity, all of which indicate that his books were aimed at
a general reader rather than at a student attending lectures. They are too long to
be used as textbooks, and are more properly to be regarded as works of
reference. So, Zincke s efforts at systematization did not lead to the production
of a more satisfactory textbook than Dithmar’s, but rather presented compendia
that could supplement such a textbook. The situation was to change in the
following decade and a half, when Justi and Sonnenfels produced texts which,
for the first time, combined system with detail and established a conceptual
topography that was to last to the end of the century.
60 G. H. Zincke, Cameralisten-Bibliothek, i (Leipzig, 1751), 31-2.
61 Ibid., pp. 147ff. Nahrungs-Geschafte can be considered as a general term for productive economic
activity.
62 Bruckner, Staatswissenschaften, p. 89.

54
4 The Viennese orthodoxy:
Justi and Sonnenfels

Since I began to reason, a greater portion of my pleasure has consisted in

attempts to make more well-known the true principles of those sciences
especially required for the government of a state, that is, the so called
oeconomic or cameralistic sciences. I have thoroughly read all the good writings
to hand in this yet little developed field of scholarship. But I have found not one
which could have presented all these sciences in their rational and inseparable
relations; so that I would almost have come to the conclusion that such
systematic relation was not possible in these sciences, that one should rather
content oneself with treating the objects which here arise either from the
standpoint of oeconomy, or from that of Polizei}

The previous chapters have shown that the early development of Cameralism as
a university discipline occurred, whether by chance or not, in northern German
Protestant universities - Halle, Frankfurt an der Oder, Rinteln. It was in
Catholic Vienna, however, that the first comprehensive textbooks originated,
thanks to the reformist inclinations of the ruling monarch which acted as a
counterweight to the intellectual conservatism of the Catholic Church. Johann
Heinrich Gottlob vonjusti was a self-ennobled adventurer who in 1750 travelled
to Vienna to take up an appointment at the Theresianum, a prominent
Ritterakademie. The lectures that he delivered on Cameralism formed the basis of
a two-volume work published in 1755, Staatswirthschaft. Joseph von Sonnenfels,
who came from a Jewish background but whose father had converted to
Catholicism, was appointed in 1763 to a newly created Chair in Polizei and
Cameralism at the University of Vienna. He lectured at first on Justi’s
Staatswirthschaft, but in 1765 he published the first volume of his own textbook,
which was to run to nine editions and remain in use until well into the nineteenth
century. From the 1760s onwards, there was a general expansion of teaching in
the Cameralistic sciences, and the systematization and elaboration offered by the
textbooks of Justi and Sonnenfels rapidly gained wide acceptance.
Insight into the dynamics and limitation of Cameralistic discourse in this
period of expansion depends on some systematic appreciation of the canonical
force of the writings of Justi and Sonnenfels. Furthermore, it is helpful to
approach these writings in a way that will both render them intelligible to a

1 D. E. von K., Vorrede to J. H. G. von Justi, Auf hochsten Befehl an Sr. Rom. Kaiserl. und zu Ungam
undBohmen Konigl. Majesldt erstattetes allerunterthdnigstes Gutachten von dem vemiinftigen Zusammen-
hange undpractischen Vortrage alter Oeconomischen und Cameralwissenschaften (Leipzig, 1754), n.p.

55
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

modern reader, and indicate the leading features of texts as they were read and
used in the eighteenth century. As it happens, these two key texts of Cameralism
originated in Vienna; but no attempt is made here to deal with them as part of a
unitary ‘orthodoxy’. While there are good reasons why Vienna was at this time
one of the few places from which one might expect such ‘standard texts’ to
emerge, the writings ofjusti and Sonnenfels entered circulation in the same way
as any other text of the time; they were read as the writings of their respective
authors, not of Austrian ‘enlightened absolutism’. This chapter, then, concen¬
trates on the textual structure of Cameralistic discourse, dealing first with Justi,
and then with Sonnenfels.

Justi was an adventurer in the seventeenth-century mould of Becher or von

Schroder; his life was dogged by penury and scandal, and ended with imprison¬
ment in a fortress for speculating with state funds. His periods of teaching were
quite brief; although he composed the first extensive and systematic teaching
text, his principal occupation was as a publicist whose extensive literary output
was heavily influenced by a pressing need for money. As we shall see, much of his
Cameralistic writing consisted of self-plagiarism, and one writer at least has
argued with some justification that Justi said all he had to say in his
Staatswirthschaft, the first of many books he wrote about the Cameralistic
sciences.2 In this respect, Justi exemplifies the last of the serious writing on
Cameralism by what we might loosely term ‘men of affairs’ (another important
instance would be Zincke). By contrast, Sonnenfels represents the beginning of
a process of professionalization which was to be completed only with Rau’s
appointment to a chair at Heidelberg in 1822, the first professor of any
significance whose own background involved a comprehensive training in
Cameralism.
Born in Briicken, Thuringia, in late 1720,3 the son of a tax inspector, Justi’s
entire life remains wrapped in obscurity and intrigue. At twenty-one he entered
military service in Saxony, and took part in campaigns in Bohemia and Moravia
before studying legal and Cameralistic sciences in Wittenberg from 1742 to
1744. This, at any rate, is what Erhard Dittrich states in his biographical entry
for Justi in the Neue Deutsche Biographie, but the question immediately arises as to
who was teaching Cameralistic subjects in Wittenberg at this time. It was
suggested earlier, for example, that Justi studied Cameralism with Zincke at Jena
- but more careful research reveals that Zincke had never taught at Jena and Justi
had never studied there.4 Frensdorff does note that Justi’s name appears in the

2 E. Klein, ‘Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi und die preuBische Staatswirthschaft’, Vierteljahrsschrift
fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 48 (1961), 146.
3 Typically, there is disagreement over his date of birth. NDB gives 20 Dec. 1720, based on the
account written by Justi’s daughter. It is certain, however, that he was baptized a Lutheran on 28
Dec. 1720; see F. Frensdorff, ‘Uber das Leben und die Schriften des Nationalokonom J. H. G.
von Justi ,Nachrich tender Kdnigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.- historische Klasse,
4 (1903), 359.
4 Ibid., p. 361.

56
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

Wittenberg records for October 1742, but he also states that the only other
certain fact that can be ascertained from his period there is that he defended a
dissertation, ‘De fuga militiae’, in July 1744. No further details are known of
Justi’s academic background.
In 1745, Justi’s first literary work was published; it was well received, and in
the same year he became editor of a Leipzig monthly journal. Then, in 1747, he
was appointed legal counsellor to the Duchess of Saxony-Eisenach; he was also
awarded a prize by the Prussian Academy of Sciences for a philosophical study of
monads at about the same time. And then, for an unknown reason, he travelled to
Vienna in 1750, and a few months after his arrival he was appointed to teach
eloquence at the Theresianum.
This institution had been founded in 1746 to educate the young nobility for
state service and thus to further those subjects which, until then, had been
blocked by conservative elements in Austria. Alongside eloquence, Justi taught a
‘Collegium oeconomico-provinciale’, which covered finance, trade, taxation,
and manufactures from an administrative standpoint.5 Stimulated by Moser’s
efforts at Hanau, a syllabus was drawn up in 1752 for a separate academy for
administrative practice, in which Justi was to teach Cameralism, commerce, and
mining, further reducing the influence of the Jesuit Order on teaching, and
introducing into Austria a range of new works, such as Montesquieu’s Spirit of
the Laws, which until then had been on the index of prohibited books. According
to Frensdorff, Justi taught German eloquence to first- and second-year law
students, and ‘Commercium et Oeconomia publica’ to third-year students.6
Two texts were eventually produced in connection with this: his Anweisung zu
einer guten deutschen Schreibart and, for the Cameralistic lectures, his Gutachten,
which, when it appeared in 1754, included his inaugural lecture at the
Theresianum from 1750. By the time the Gutachten appeared, however, Justi had
left Vienna, most probably on account of the failure of his speculative
engagement in silver mining. During 1754 and 1755 he engaged in literary and
editorial activities, moving in 1755 for unknown reasons to Gottingen, where he
became Councillor for Mines and Police Director with the right to lecture at the
university.
In this way, Justi became the first person to teach Cameralism at Gottingen in
an official capacity. Some attempt had been made by J. J. Fleischhauer a few
years earlier, but since he was not even entitled to teach at the time, the
Philosophy Faculty had prohibited his efforts. Fleischhauer had in fact
published a pamphlet in 1750 which was then reprinted in Zincke’s Leipziger
Sammlungen, but this was simply a ‘history’ of economic teachings, beginning
with Adam as the ‘first teacher of “Oeconomic”’, and with Noah as his pupil.7
Later, Fleischhauer was permitted to hold unofficial lectures outside the
5 K.-H. Osterloh, Josef von Sonnenfels und die osterreichische Reformbewegung im Zeitalter des
aufgekldrten Absolutismus (Matthiesen Verlag, Hamburg, 1970), 20-21.
6 Frensdorff, ‘Leben’, p. 381.
7 J. J. Fleischhauer, Zufallige Gedancken von dem Alter, Wachsthum und Nutzen der Oeconomie
(Gottingen, 1750), 5, 7; reprinted in Leipziger Sammlungen, 7 (1751).

57
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

Philosophy Faculty’s programme, but nothing is known of the content of this

teaching.
In June 1755, Justi proposed to lecture twice a week (from 7.00 to 8.00 a.m.),
without remuneration, on the ‘new history of commerce, police and finance’,
beginning with the discovery of the New World and of the trade routes to India.
On the days remaining, he intended to teach for one hour on the ‘culture of
countries’, dealing especially with the development of towns.8 Staatswirthschaft
had already appeared by this time, but Justi did not think that there was enough
time to teach oeconomic and Cameralistic sciences, offering private tuition
instead to anyone who was interested. Initially, then, Justi’s teaching was more
descriptive than analytical, closer to a Staatenbeschreibung associated with the
Statistik of Achenwall than to a conventional Cameralism. In 1756, Justi lectured
on mineralogy, and record also exists of a basic course in the principles of
oeconomic and Cameralistic sciences according to the Staatswirthschaft. The
Summer Semester of 1757 contained a lecture course, clearly influenced by
Montesquieu, on the nature of civil laws and the purpose of republics.9 In June
1757, Justi suddenly left Gottingen and, despite his being given leave for three
months, he never returned. The apparent reason for his sudden departure was
the occupation of Gottingen by the French, who were allies of the Austrians and
therefore a potential threat to Justi’s liberty because of the circumstances under
which he had left Austrian state service. While Dittrich suggests that the reason
for Justi’s flight was disorder in his personal finances, Frensdorff argues that the
official approval Justi received for his departure indicates rather deeper prob¬
lems than the doubtless dubious domestic and financial circumstances in which
he then found himself.10
Initially in the service of the Danish Court, Justi appears to have lived in Berlin
from 1760, occupying himself with literary work until, in 1765, he was appointed
to an inspectorate of mines, glass-, and steelworks. It would seem that at this the
enterprises promptly went into a decline, coupled with which Justi made a
number of enemies. The result of this fatal combination was that, in 1768, he
was accused of having misused state money. The King dismissed him, stripped
him of all his property, and imprisoned him in the fortress of Kiistrin, where he
died three years later, aged fifty.
As this brief outline demonstrates, although Justi’s writings were the first to be
of general use in the teaching of Cameralism, his own involvement in teaching
was brief and peripheral: two to three years at a Ritterakademie in Vienna, and two
years part-time teaching at Gottingen, where his successor, Biittner, was a
natural historian primarily interested in the comparison of languages.11 The next
8 J. H. G. von Justi, Abhandlung von den Mitteln die Erkenntnifl in den Oeconomischen und
Camera!- Wissenschaften dent gemeinen Wesen recht niitzlich zu machen (Gottingen, 1755), 18ff.
y F. Frensdorff, ‘Die Vertretung der okonomischen Wissenschaften in Gottingen, vornehmlich im
18. Jahrhundert’, Festschrift zur Feier des hundertfunfzigjahrigen Bestehens der koniglichen Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen (Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin 1901) 519
10 Dittrich, NDB, x. 708; Frensdorff, ‘Leben’, pp. 414-5.
11 Frensdorff, ‘Vertretung’, p. 543.

58
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

chapter will show how Cameralism was never systematically taught in Gottingen,
and in fact Justi’s representation of the subject-area could possibly be regarded
as the most consistent treatment that it ever received there. Nevertheless, his
reputation was not established through his actual teaching; here again we can
mark a divergence with the influence of Sonnenfels, which was evidently in part
related to his position within the Austrian university system and with respect to
his students. Justi gained his reputation as a writer, not as a teacher.
Basing his summary on an early source,12 Roscher lists forty-eight books that
appeared under Justi’s name between 1741 and 1771 (although, as Frensdorff
tartly observes, this includes at least one work that never existed - a three-
volume book on child education announced in 1748).13 These writings can be
divided into six groups: aesthetic and belles-lettres, e.g. the Scherzhafte und
satyrischen Schriften, which Roscher thought were rather lacking in brilliance and
wit; philosophical, such as the prize essay on monads; natural scientific, almost'
exclusively related to Cameralistic ends, such as the Grundrifi des gesammten
Mineralreiches (1756); historical, such as the Abhandlung von den romischen
Feldziigen in Teutschland (1748); legal and publicistic, e.g. the Chimare des
Gleichgewichts in Europa (1758), which was directed against France in the
interests of Britain and Prussia; and, finally, the Cameralistic writings, which are
what concern us here.
Justi’s output was considerable; it would be surprising if it were marked by
consistency, originality, or accuracy. To a large extent, he achieved such an
extensive bibliography by ruthless self-plagiarism. Thus Klein has pointed out
that Justi’s last work, the System des Finanzwesens, Part 1 (1766), is copied
word-for-word from Die Nature und Wesen der Staaten (1760), while Part 2 is an
extended copy of the first volume of Staatswirthschaft d4 Not only were books
reissued in this way, with minimal alterations to content but with a different title,
but sections from earlier books were lifted and integrated into later ones. A
striking example of this is a misprint containing an unintentional double negative
which first occurs in the Vorrede to Staatswirthschaft, is repeated in the Gottingen
Abhandlung of 1755, and reoccurs in the second edition of the Staatswirthschaft.15
The intimidating extent of Justi’s publications, even in the Cameralistic and
related sciences alone, is thus reduced to more manageable proportions.
It has already been noted that no definite source can be found for Justi’s
engagement with Cameralistic subjects. His educational background was legal¬
istic, as it was for so many of his contemporaries; likewise his brief periods of
employment as a secretary and a counsellor were unremarkable for the times.

12 W. Roscher, ‘Der sachsische Nationalokonom Johann Gottlob von Justi: Ein Beitrag zur innern
Geschichte von Deutschland um die Mitte des vorigen Jahrhunderts\ Archiv fur die sachsische
Geschichte, 6 (1868), 82-3. The earlier source is J. G. Meusel, Lexikon dervomjahr 1750 bis 1800
verstorbenen Teutschen Schriftsteller (Leipzig, 1802-16), vi, 354.
13 Frensdorff, ‘Leben’, p. 359. 14Klein, ‘Justi und die preuBische Staatswirthschaft’, p. 146.
15 J. H. G. von Justi, Staatswirthschaft, oder Systematische Abhandlung aller Oeconomischen und
Cameral- Wissenschaften, i (Leipzig, 1755), p. xii; id., Abhandlung, p. 5; Staatswirthschaft, i, 2nd edn.
(Leipzig, 1758), p. xix.

59
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

Klein considers the suggestion that it was Justi’s years in Austria that stimulated
his interest, both in terms of its economy and the various reform proposals that
were made in the mid-eighteenth century. During the early 1750s, however, the
state budget, so important for Justi, was not effectively organized; commerce was
by no means flourishing, while capital was in short supply; and even Haugwitz’s
reform of the administration did not succeed in creating the kind of central
authority that already existed in Prussia.16 Austria could only have constituted a
negative example to Justi in his writings on the organization of state administra¬
tion, and such texts already existed in the seventeenth century in any case - and
Schroder and Hornigk were still being reprinted at this time. Klein suggests that
Prussia could have provided a positive model, although until 1755 Justi had
never been in Prussian service. Nevertheless, information on Prussian admin¬
istration was freely available and was widely discussed at the time of Justi’s move
to Vienna. Klein is able to establish some similarities between the ideal state
economy proposed by Justi and the actual functioning of the Prussian economy,
but they are not consistent enough to allow us to regard Justi as a proponent of a
‘Prussian model’.
Such speculation on the motivating sources of Justi’s writing is provoked by
the absence of overt context to the Staatswirthschafi, whether material or
intellectual. Although the text was developed for his Vienna lectures, and the
actual Grundrifi17 was published in 1759, no indication is given of the prove¬
nance of the problems with which it deals. Likewise, Justi does not provide any
detailed commentary on, or critique of, existing literature. The most likely
filiation is to Zincke, but, as the previous chapter has indicated, his writings are
so diffuse and repetitive that establishing such a connection would be a
laborious, unrewarding, and ultimately pointless task. The reader who seeks
precision, originality, and theoretical elaboration in the writings of eighteenth-
century Cameralism is doomed to disappointment and frustration. Such quali¬
ties are not the strong points of Justi and Sonnenfels. The vast literature of
Cameralism is almost, but not quite, like a large stick of rock - wherever one
bites into it, one encounters the same terms, definitions, and redefinitions.
Confronted with such a phenomenon of unwavering repetition, it is not so
important to ask the question: where does this or that formulation originate; how
is it re-employed? A better question would be: upon what principles does this
process of repetition take place? The focus shifts away from a quest for the
specificity of text or formulation, therefore, and moves towards a consideration
of the small gap that separates sameness and repetition from perceptible
modification. In this way, it is possible to investigate the dynamic of a process of
textual production rather than statically to trace the progress of a concept or
structural principle from one text to another. Just as one cannot bathe in the
16 Klein, ‘Justi und die preuBische Staatswirthschaft’, pp. 148ff.
17 11, 9' V°n JUSt'’iSystematischer Grundrifi alter Oeconomischen u. Cameral-Wissenschaften
(Frankfurt-on-Main 1759). With some slight variations, this is a presentation of the structure of
Staatswirthschaft, confirming that the latter bears a close relation to the material presented in
Vienna. v

60
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

same river twice, no two Cameralistic texts are ever quite the same. Of course, it
is sometimes useful to examine questions of attribution and use between texts,
but this is not the main purpose here. In taking as our objective the specification
of Cameralistic discourse, we are directing ourselves to a reconstitution of a
terrain in which these texts feature. The texts represent a pathway to an
understanding of this discursive terrain; they are not the ultimate end of our
enquiry.
We should approach Justi’s presence in this terrain - a presence felt by his
contemporaries - through a consideration of the text that he composed from his
Viennese lectures, the Staatswirthschaft, or, in translation, ‘state economy’. The
question of what this ‘state’ or ‘economy’ might be is one that cannot be
confronted at this point. Maier has attributed the first use of the term to Zincke
in 1745,18 but acknowledges that it was Justi who first introduced the term in to
general use. An understanding of the nature of this ‘state economy’ must come
from the way in which Justi constructs it, not from the source of his material. The
most convenient starting point is the text of the Gutachten, dating from October
1752.
Justi describes the sciences relevant to ‘government and the great economy of
the state’ as politics (Staatskunst), Polizei, commerce, mines, Cameralism, and
finance, together with the art of householding or oeconomy.19 As we shall see, it
is just as important to understand the sequence in which such sciences are to be
exposed as it is to determine their contents, for the structure of relations
obtaining between these various elements is governed by the place that they
occupy within a course of teaching rather than by any inherent theoretical
principle.
The ultimate purpose of each and every ‘empire and republic’ consists in the
‘happiness of the state’, and it is from this principle that all others must be
deduced, especially the two leading ones: the manner in which the ruler is to
promote the happiness of the state; and the contribution of his subjects to this.
The ruler effects the happiness of the state first through its complete security,
and secondly through sufficient wealth. Security is divided into outer and inner
security. The first is the work of Staatskunst, establishing sound maxims on
relations with other states, making firm alliances, and creating a strong army; the
second is primarily the work of Polizei, surveying the life and religion of subjects,
the security of roads, and overseeing industry and food supplies. Wealth is also
divided into two main aspects: it is promoted on the one hand by creation and
acquisition (Erwerbung), and on the other by the safeguarding of its proper
circulation. Three principal means exist of achieving the first: the increase of
inhabitants, whether through the attraction of aliens, the care of existing
subjects’ health and life, the promotion of marriages, or the education of youth;

18 H. Maier, ‘Die Lehre der Politik an den deutschen Universitaten vornehmlich vom 16. bis 18.
Jahrhundert’, in D. Oberndorfer (ed.), Wissenschaftliche Politik (Verlag Rombach, Freiburg,
1962), 94.
19 Justi, Gutachten, p. 2.

61
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

foreign trade - exporting domestic products or working-up and reselling the

products of other lands, for which trading companies, harbours, and other
institutions are required; and mines, described by Justi as the ‘most certain path
to wealth’ (a judgement not applying to Justi himself, it seems). ‘All of this
belongs to Polizei in its broadest sense, for commercial science, to the degree that
it does not concern the merchant, but is needed by the state for the increase of
trade, also belongs to the institutions of Polizei.’’20 The circulation of money is
promoted by five factors: the security of money available for loan and banks;
domestic manufactures and trades; the proper disposal of artisans and other
trades; the possession of institutions opposing idleness, begging, and waste; and
well-considered laws relating to the import and export of goods and materials.
These, too, all belong to Polizei in the above sense.
The contribution that subjects can make to the happiness of the state is
composed of direct and indirect duties and obligations. Direct obligations
include such qualities as loyalty to the ruler, steadfastness in time of war, and
obedience to authorities; while indirect obligations consist of contributions to
the costs necessarily incurred by the state, whether by taxes or, in extreme cases,
through the sacrifice of property: ‘The indirect obligations of subjects consist in
the proper use [guten Wirthschaft] of their property and enterprises, for otherwise
they would be useless inhabitants, and incapable of paying their dues to the
state.’21 Here the general rules of the art of householding are to be considered,
and these include an assessment of what constitutes property, money, value, and
credit; how property is to be gained and how it is to be maintained. Particular
rules exist for the industry of town and country, for manufacture and agriculture,
and in all these consists the real so-called art of economy, or the science of
oeconomy’.
The second area of the knowledge required for the government of a state is
covered by Cameralistic and financial science. This concerns the proper ways of
raising income for the state, and the use of this income to promote the welfare of
the state. The state’s revenues derive from a variety of sources: from the domains
or Kammerguter of the ruler; from dues (Regalien) relating to mines, salt, coinage,
tolls, posts, forestry, and hunting; and from direct contributions on the part of
subjects, relating to land, manufactures, and property. Besides such regular
revenue, there is occasionally a need for extraordinary income, in which case
taxes are levied according to Stand, or a poll tax is made. The outgoings of the
state are, as far as possible, to be fixed and certain, and related in each Stand to
the imperative of the overall welfare of the state. The brief consideration of state
finances concludes with some remarks on the proper organization of administra¬
tion into directorates, which are modelled on the Prussian administration of the
early eighteenth century.
If properly delivered and elaborated, states Justi, the above will provide the
beginner with an adequate outline of these sciences; and, as such, it constitutes a
Collegium fnndamentale, to be delivered at the rate of one hour a day for a year
20 Ibid., p. 4. 21 Ibid., p. 6.

62
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

which Justi had just done at the Collegium Theresianum.22 But this does not
constitute a complete overview of the sciences. Two further years are necessary
for the student to gain an adequate knowledge, divided between five principal
courses: Polizeimssenschaft\ the science of commerce and manufactures; the
theory and practice of Cameralistic and financial science; oeconomy or the art of
householding in town and country; and mines.
The Gutachten is one of the earliest attempts to provide both a resume of
Cameralistic teaching and to suggest a definite sequence in which it should be
taught. The primary feature of Justi’s proposals is the introduction to the
Cameralistic sciences which the student receives in the first year. Here two
points can be made. First, it is evident that Polizei covers a great deal of the
ground that would normally be thought of as constituting the subject-matter of
economics. This is because Polizei involves the review, control, and management
of the human resources available to the state. The very elaboration and extent of
the domain of Polizei is a consequence of the active conception of government
implicit in contemporary notions of society and sociality, based as they are on the
‘older’ Natural Law outlined above in Chapter 2. The interests and endeavours
of human subjects are treated as given, but they in themselves are not capable of
spontaneously creating the order necessary to human welfare. On the contrary,
whenever human beings act together they spontaneously create disorder,
whatever individual intentions might be. Thus, the activity of government
involves the identification of a desirable state of order, and the direction of
human resources towards that order. The array of Polizei regulations is the
means available to the ruler to guide his subjects towards a given end, and
therefore covers all those areas of behaviours which can be mobilized to useful
effect. For the ruler of the eighteenth-century territorial state, economic
objectives were of crucial importance; hence Polizei became a form of economic
management. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the proliferating regula¬
tions is not at issue here; the important point is the general foundation for the
extension of Polizei regulation.
The second point that can be made here concerns the scope of Cameralism as
a category. Justi links it to the financial organization of the state, a restriction of
context which might mean that to use the term as a general description of the
different sciences outlined by Justi might appear inappropriate. The origin of the
term certainly limits it to the management of the ruler’s own lands, and earlier
usage tends to continue such implications. In this case, the management of the
ruler’s household and lands did not differ radically from that practised by the
higher nobility. The centralization and extension of the powers enjoyed by a
territorial ruler after the Thirty Years’ War began to alter this situation, and this
is reflected in the appearance of the literature on state management discussed
above in Chapter 2. By the eighteenth century, this process of centralization and
concentration was most marked in the case of Prussia, and Justi used this as his
model. To talk of a state apparatus in the modern sense, however, would be
22 Ibid., p. 11.

63
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

anachronistic; for, as I have already noted, the political language of eighteenth-

century Germany made no distinction between state and civil society - they
were, in effect, the same thing. And so, when Justi writes of‘the state’, this does
not imply the presence of a conception of a governing entity that monopolizes
force and political legitimacy. Rather, he has in mind the ordering element in
society, the instance of government, the exercise of rule. This absence of any
systematic distinction between state and civil society has a series of conse¬
quences for eighteenth-century political discourse, and it is one of the major
components in a comprehension of the range and structure of Cameralism.
As we have seen, Justi defines Cameralism in terms of the revenues of the
state. But he does so at a time when the state (as he understood it) was
undergoing a process of expansion and concentration. The business of the
ruler’s domains and their administration by Kammer officials is no longer the
constituting force of Cameralistic science. This has now been extended to cover
the revenue from taxes and duties, and direct contributions from subjects. The
increase in the power of the state is reflected in the extension of the fiscal base
from which it draws its revenues. In this process, the science of domain
administration becomes the science of the economic regulation of a society.
Polizei and Cameralism become complementary: the first considers the elements
of social order from the point of view of government; the second looks at the
same elements from the standpoint of finance and economy. This then doubles
back on the first, for by economy is meant - order, householding, ‘economy’ in
the means adopted to meet given ends.
This process of doubling-back inevitably leads to a blurring of the boundaries
between commercial, financial, Cameralistic, and Polizei sciences, so that, as we
saw with Zincke in the previous chapter, there is nothing to be gained from
making determined attempts to systematize and separate them. The problem
with the course of study that Justi proposes is that it begins with a general
introduction whose component parts are only superficially distinct, making
further systematic teaching problematic. The following chapter will examine
some attempts to come to terms with this, but we can note here that the Gutachten
conceals this latent difficulty by providing a more detailed account of two courses
only: Polizei, and commerce. Before moving on to consider Staatswirthschaft as
the textbook that he produced from this course, we will briefly consider the
further account that Justi makes of his teaching.
Almost seventeen pages are devoted to an outline of the headings relevant to
Polizeimssenschaft; a brief summary will suffice here. The first aspect considered
is the nature and organization of Polizei institutions and laws. These are
considered both from the point of view of the legislator and that of the obedient
subject. One objective that is identified is the improvement of morals and
nutrition among the population, which in turn implies a detailed acquaintance
with the condition of the population and the land. The separation of Polizei from
the judiciary is emphasized and a systematic dispersal of powers is outlined,
berore the three main substantive features of Polizei regulation are stated. The

64
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

first is that an adequate quantity of healthy subjects must be achieved; the

second, that security and peace must prevail, both in general and in industry and
business; and the third is that subsistence (Nahrung) and credit must be
promoted, maintaining manufacture and trade in particular in good order.
‘A country in which subsistence and commerce flourish can never have too
many inhabitants’, states Justi in an elaboration of the first principle.23 A large
and growing population is achieved through the promotion of marriage and the
restriction of unmarried life, the prevention of bondage and the prohibition of
emigration, and, for aliens, their attraction through the reputation of good
government, provisional freedom from contributions, and the favourable
treatment of skilled and highly educated foreigners. Among these principles of
population management can also be found support for education and training,
the general promotion of virtues, and a toleration of human weakness. The
physical as well as the spiritual condition of the population is a matter of concern;
and so there is a place for the purity of water as well as for the value of comedies
and diversions.
The second leading principle is elaborated in terms of a series of measures to
ensure that good order prevails in all areas - in town and village, in market and
workshop, in coffee-houses and inns, in woods and roads. This does not simply
involve listing a set of punishments for transgression. Positive measures are
included; in towns, for example, places of entertainment should be closed at ten
in the evening, patrols by the militia should be made, and the streets should be
lit. Polizei is not a system of regulation that rests on the specification of offences
and their punishment, but rather it identifies areas of disorder and seeks to
contain them through positive and preventive measures.
This active orientation is carried over into the third principle, involving
subsistence and credit. Justi proposes the development of a system of‘economic
intelligence’, to establish tabulated information on the condition of the economy
‘relating to all artisans and manufacturers in the land, according to their number,
journeymen, apprentices, casual workers, if they draw their materials from the
land or import it, what kind of working implements they find to be necessary, and
where they find them, whether they work per locationem conductionem or for sale, if
their wares are sold in the land or are exported’.24 Similarly, a register of
imported and exported goods could be built up out of toll records, and in this way
an overall view of the rise and fall of different sources of subsistence could be
gained. From such records it would be possible to judge the efficacy of various
measures for the promotion of subsistence, whether it would be more advisable
to produce goods at home or purchase them from abroad. Other measures that
Justi proposed to consider include the regulation of labour, the control of
monopolies, the creation of credit institutions, the regulation of prices and
wages, the control of idleness, insurance against fire, water, and storm, measures
for the melioration of natural infertility, and control of monetary movements.
We will return to Justi’s conception of the range and subject-matter proper to
23 Ibid., p. 16. 24 ibid., p. 23.

65
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

Polizei later in this chapter. For the moment, however, the above outline serves to
provide some indication of the scope of the activity of regul ation and, in the light
of Adam Smith’s subsequent strictures in Book 4 of Wealth of Nations on the
mercantilist ‘system of police’, clearly establishes that there is a logic to this
system for which Smith does not allow. The form of economic regulation that we
find outlined in Justi and numerous other writers of the period is far more than a
system of prohibitions, bounties, restrictions, and legislation that strangles the
inherent and natural motivating spirit of economic welfare and growth. This
‘system of police’ is based on a particular conception of government and social
order, founded in Natural Law, the consequences of which it consistently
develops. Clearly, a reduction of Justi’s arguments to such principles as ‘keep
money at home’ and ‘accumulate gold’ would be a travesty. To label Justi or any
other Cameralist writer as a ‘mercantilist’ would be grossly misleading. And yet,
if Smith’s perspective on the history of economic doctrines is accepted, as it was
in the nineteenth century, then this is the only category available to us - Justi is,
after all, no Physiocrat. There are features in Cameralistic discourse that fit
quite naturally into Smith’s conception of mercantilism - special attention to
domestic production rather than the comparative advantages of trade, concent¬
ration on flows of bullion, and, of course, the whole supporting apparatus of
legislative measures. But, as we have already seen, Cameralistic discourse is
much more than this, and must be reconstituted in its own right. In the outline of
Justi s Staatswirthschaft that follows, it would be a good idea to keep in mind
Smith’s characterization of the mercantile system:

Though the encouragement of exportation, and the discouragement of importation are

the two great engines by which the mercantile system proposes to enrich every country
yet with regard to some particular commodities, it seems to follow an opposite plan: to
discourage exportation and to encourage importation. Its ultimate object, however, it
pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade.25

How far does this have any bearing at all on the writing of Justi?
Staatswirthschaft is dedicated to Maria Theresa and dated Leipzig, April 1755
— it thus precedes Justi s period in Gottingen and theAhhandlung, which is dated
June 1755. The first edition of the work appeared in two volumes and a total of
1,245 pages, while the second, ‘greatly augmented’ edition of 1758, was just over
one hundred pages longer. The sheer bulk of the text, then, makes a concise and
systematic appraisal difficult, although for our purposes there is more of interest
in the first volume (‘On the Maintenance and Increase of the Entire Property of
the State, for which the Principles of Staatskunst, Polizei and Commercial
Science, as well as Oeconomy, are Necessary’) than the second, which deals with
the employment of state property and covers Cameralistic and financial science
proper. The approach adopted here will be the same as it was with the account of

25
A. Smith The Wealth of Nations(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976), 642. Reference is made
here to the classification established by Smith because this was what was broadly accepted in the
early nineteenth century and represents the terms in which Cameralism was rejected*^

66
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

the Gutachten - working through the text and making comments on its structure,
organization and content as circumstance dictates.
The preface of the first edition, reprinted in the second, presents an argument
for the teaching of oeconomic and Cameralistic sciences in universities. The
opening paragraphs note the material bases of these sciences in the classical arts
of householding, before outlining the progress of teaching in Germany up to the
1750s. According to Justi, Halle was still teaching Cameralism at the time of
writing, while Frankfurt an der Oder had lapsed; and this fact is attributed to the
beneficial teaching of Gasser. Since he then proceeds to suggest that what has
limited all teaching hitherto is its concentration on the art of householding and
agriculture, we can conclude that he was not well acquainted with the work of
Dithmar - in any evaluation of Gasser versus Dithmar the latter is far superior,
both as a teacher and an author. All previous textbooks, states Justi, are
incomplete and poorly organized, giving the impression that these sciences
cannot be formed into a related doctrinal system. Implicitly, this system is to be
presented and defended by Justi, since it provides us ‘with that insight that we
most need in civil and social life’.26
Universities exist, argues Justi, to educate the young to be good servants of the
state and to be of service to the population at large. If their purpose was simply to
extend knowledge, they would not be supported by the state; but, given that a
state interest exists which is translated into such support, it is therefore desirable
for the oeconomic and Cameralistic sciences to be taught there. There were
difficulties, of course, in employing academically trained recruits in state service,
whereas it could be shown that those with a legal training were capable of the
work assigned to them. But it was no longer possible for all state business to be
performed by lawyers, as had once been the case. Although the creation of an
adequate programme of teaching in universities, and its acceptance by govern¬
ment institutions, faced a number of practical obstacles, the state did, neverthe¬
less, need ‘universal cameralists’, Justi stated, and these could only be trained in
universities. Those officials who received a practical training ‘in harness’ tended
to be dominated by the interest of their ruler; the only principle that they
consistently applied was deference to him. This interfered with the happiness of
the ruler’s subjects, for such Cameralists ‘have never deduced their knowledge
and the principles of cameralistics from the concept of the nature of a republic
and the related general principles which follow from such a concept’.27
According to Justi, proper tuition in the Cameralistic sciences needs at least
two teachers: one to cover Polizei and commerce, the other for ‘oeconomy proper
and financial science’.28 In addition to this, the teaching of Cameralism must be
supported by, for example, the appointment of a Professor of Chemistry
conversant with the techniques of smelting, and a teacher of mechanics who is
knowledgeable about mining machinery. Together with a Professor of Civil and
Military Architecture, these teachers would comprise a separate faculty within
the university. Teaching should begin with a Collegium fundamental, for which
26 Justi, StaatSTPirthschafl, i (1755), p. xii. 27 Ibid., p. xviii. 28 Ibid., p. xxxii.

67
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

the first part of the Staatsmrthschaft would serve as the basis. This course would
be completed in one semester, after which the particular sciences would be
investigated. 1 he first to be considered would be oeconomy, including the
general rules of householding and consisting, therefore, of both town and rural
economy.29
Polizeimssenschaft follows next: ‘This is equally the first part of the great
oeconomy of the state, in that it comprehends the primary measures for the
maintenance and increase of the common property of the republic.’30 This
course was more extensive than the above two, and required a year to cover it
adequately. This was also the case with the fourth and final course on
Cameralistic and financial science, which considered the rational use of state
piopcrty. According to Justi, a thorough training in the Cameralistic sciences
took three years.
The end of the preface contains an announcement of four further textbooks:
on Staatskunst, Polizei, commerce, and oeconomy. While subsequent publications
did cover much of this, only the textbooks on Polizei and Staatskunst actually
appeared, and these will be considered in turn.
Before the text proper begins, Justi provides a short history of finance and
trade ‘in all peoples’. This starts with the Phoenicians and proceeds via King
David, the Romans, and Henry IV among others to more recent times. What is
noteworthy here is the way in which the rise and decline of nations is consistently
attributed to the good or bad government of a ruler. This section is very brief,
however, and the main exposition then begins with a treatment of genera!
principles and the division of material. The nature of republics and the
derivation of the ultimate end of happiness and welfare is considered, with the
discussion turning to the three forms of republic found in Aristotle - monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy. Assessment of the merits and deficiencies of such
forms is conducted in a descriptive manner reminiscent of the older tradition of
historical Staatswissenschaft which in some ways Dithmar represented. Out of
this emerge the two leading principles of government already noted at the
beginning of the account of the Gutachten: the monarch or ruler must see to the
maintenance and increase of state property', while the subjects must obediently
comply with the means chosen by the ruler: ‘But out of the united welfare of the
ruler and his subjects there arises alone the true strength of a state. This strength
consists principally in common trust and love, which a wise ruler and happy
subjects of a considerable state have for each other, so that the property of the
state can be continually maintained and increased with united powers.’31

Ibid p. xxxvi. Note that m Gutachten, it was Polizei that came next, not town and rural economy
which was p aced fourth. This linking of ‘the economy of town and country’ is effected by the
couplet Stadt- undLandwirthschaft; and since the latter term translates literally as ‘agriculture’ it
could be suggested that manufacture and agriculture’ would be a suitable alternative translation
This would, of course, imply a rigid separation of economic activity between town and country a
separation which did not in fact exist at the time. Nevertheless, Cameralistic discourse did indeed
practise such a distinction in its treatment of occupations and processes
30 Ibid., p. xxxvii. 3i Ibid., p. 45.

68
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

Definitions of oeconomy, Polizei, Staatskunst, and householding then follow,

before the argument moves forward once more.
What, Justi asks, is meant by ‘happiness’? ‘I understand here by happiness of
the subjects the good order and condition of a state such that each is able, by his
own efforts, to attain those moral and temporal goods which are necessary for a
pleasant life according to his respective Stand.’32 A pleasant life does not mean,
however, that every passion or desire should be satisfied: ‘Nature is content with
little; and a reasonable man [Mensch] can live in complete contentedness if he
does not see himself robbed of necessity, according to his Stand and circum¬
stances of life. If one can above and beyond this assure comfort; so one has
attained all that one can claim, and one has every cause to be content with one’s
lot.’33 So, on the one hand we have the subject using his own efforts and skills to
attain a reasonable life, and, on the other, the division of conditions into three
categories: those which satisfy unavoidable needs; those which contribute to
comforts; and those which are, in essence, superfluous. All have a claim to the
first, while the second is limited by the relative extent of means within the
republic. Thus, the wealth of the republic is necessary to the comfort of its
inhabitants, and this can in some respects be assessed in terms of the money or
gold in the land. But wealth in the form of money is not sufficient for happiness;
there has to be peace for it to be enjoyed. Both security and wealth, therefore, are
necessary for the comfort of the subject, allowing him to exercise his skills freely
and to enjoy the rewards of his work. This is not a panegyric to ‘liberty’, however
- the free exercise of skills requires the effective operation of Polizei regulation,
and the necessities and comforts relate to a subject as member of a specific
Stand, not as a human being or Mensch.
Internal and external security are maintained by the state. Only under
conditions of complete security can the subject work and enjoy the fruits of his
labour to the full. General political principles are outlined which describe the
wise conduct of a ruler in relations with other states. Internally, it is important
that all parts of the body of the state should be maintained in their ‘requisite
relationship’.34 All Stande and members of the common weal have a specific
relation to the state and to each other, and this specific relation must be upheld.
Persons and goods must be protected against injustice, criminal elements must
be eliminated, and moral values must be supervised. Among the considerations
listed by Justi are a concern for the harmful effects of bondage - both for the
subject and the state - and the advantages of an equitable distribution of
property among the Stande. Here again, the conception of equity is one which
does not imply equality qua human being, but as the subject and member of a
Stand.
When the text turns to the question of wealth, we find first of all a redefinition:
‘one understands however by the wealth of the land an adequate quantity of
domestic goods, necessary for the needs and comforts of life, and by means of

32 Ibid., p. 56. Cf. the discussion of‘happiness’ in Ch. 2 above, pp. 30-31. 33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., p. 90.

69
 The Viennese orthodoxy: jfusti and Sonnenfels

which subjects, through effort and labour, can find their own proper subsis¬
tence’.35 This is immediately elaborated upon as follows:
1 his wealth really consists in those goods which, according to prevailing conditions and
modes of life in the world, are needed for nourishment, clothing, housing and all other
forms of human need and comfort: and if it were possible that a land produce all these
goods in sufficient quantity itself, and had no connection and affairs with other peoples, as
the import and export of specific goods makes necessary; so one would call such a land
rich indeed, although no trace of gold and silver would be met with. No land however,
especially in our part of the world, is in such a condition.

Gold and silver are used to effect the exchanges between states that result in the
provision of those goods that a country does not produce itself. The circulation
of money represents the degree to which enterprise is flourishing, therefore -
with the quantity of gold and silver in circulation indicating a country’s actual
wealth, although it does not constitute that wealth per se. If this wealth is to be
increased, it must first be maintained, and so measures must be taken to ensure
that money is kept at home. These measures have already been enumerated in
the Gutachten: increase the number of inhabitants, trade with foreigners, and
exploit mines. These principles are then elaborated upon and considered as
forms of wealth; when dealing with trade, prudence dictates that measures
should be adopted that bring gold and silver into the land.
Money is also seen as a means of assessing the health of enterprise in a
country. One manufacture is supported by another, and the constitution of the
economy can be compared with that of the human body: wealth is the blood,
manufactures the arteries, and government the heart.36 As in the Gutachten,
information has to be gathered on the state of manufactures - the true duty of a
ruler being to ensure that his subjects are able to pursue their own economic
activities and thus pay the taxes and obligations owed to the state. In this regard,
each subject also has a duty to contribute to the general welfare of the state to the
best of his ability - those who do not are useless members of the state, and
preventive measures, such as improved education, have to be introduced. In the
short term, workhouses for the young and strong are needed.
With this consideration of the management of idleness and begging, the first
half of Volume 1 is completed. While it is, of course, considerably longer than
the Gutachten, it does not greatly diverge from it in substance. We can note the
degree to which aspects oiPolizei enter into it as forms of governing activity, and
also the manner in which it presupposes, but treats only in passing, broader
theoretical conceptions of the origin of civil society, the nature of the state, and
forms of political organizations. This is a constant theme, or rather lack, in
Cameralistic writing: to a modern reader, a detailed consideration of such
arguments as those summarized above reveals a coherent conception of govern¬
ment and politics which is superficially absent, however, from the surface of the
text. Insofar as this conception is articulated, it is only treated in banalities and
definitional flourishes. It is never developed for itself; perhaps because these
35 Ibid., p. 130. 36 ibid., p. 224.

70
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

texts were intended as textbooks for young students, and not as scholarly
treatises. After all, would we expect today to find a sophisticated treatment of the
pros and cons of state intervention or free-market economics in a first- or
second-year undergraduate textbook on macro economics? The literature of
Cameralism is a literature of textbooks, and this must never be forgotten.
The second half of the first volume of Staatswirthschaft considers the duties of
the subject, introducing aspects of oeconomy just as the first part on the duties of
the ruler did with aspects of Polizei. Apart from the idea of obedience that we
have encountered already, it is here that we find for the first time an explanation
of the idea of property:
One will here unfailingly object, that I have in this work frequently talked of the property
of the state and in so doing have included not only the goods of the subjects, but also they
themselves with their capacities and skills. This property of the state of which I speak is no
less than at one with the supposed general property of the ruler. [If we talk of the property
of the republic as a unity this is true only with respect to other republics, in respect of
which each republic is a sole body.] But it is a completely different question if one
considers the highest power alone and separately from its subjects; whether one can here
talk of a property of this power in the persons and goods of its subjects ... Its power
certainly prevails over the persons and goods of the subjects, but not by virtue of property,
but rather by virtue of a concern for common welfare, which is entrusted to the highest
power.37

Justi thus rejects the idea that the ruler has a property, in a juridical sense, in his
subjects, that their possessions are his possessions, and, therefore, that the
subjects of the state are state property. Justi does not conceive of the relation of
ruler to ruled in this way.
There is, however, a relation between ruler and ruled in which the ruled are
regarded as resources for the state and, as such, are at the latter’s disposal. This
is evident in the quotation above, which states that the control exercised by the
state is along the axis of welfare, and not along that of possession. In other words,
the subjects of a state and their possessions and qualities constitute the wealth of
a state and can therefore be treated as economic property, to be disposed of
according to economic ends - welfare and happiness. The action of the state
with respect to its subjects involves an activity of economic government. As this
activity extends, so do the claims made by the state upon its subjects - the
‘properties of the person’, such as skill, strength, endurance, and knowledge, are
progressively assimilated to the economic property of the state. We can perceive
in this process the realization of a ‘state economy’, in which the underlying
dynamic of the political model of economic government seeks to mobilize all
available resources for the achievement of universal welfare and happiness. In
arriving at this conclusion, we have finally explained the title of Justi’s textbook -
Staatswirthschaft, or ‘state economy’: a state order based not on relations of
domination per se, but rather on the creation and increase of economic property
through the action of economic government; or we could say that Staatswirth-

37 Ibid., pp. 333-4.

71
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

schaft is the activity of economic government which seeks to maximize Gliickselig-

keit through the expansion of Nahrungsgeschdfte.
Although the reach oiPolizei is extensive and detailed, economic government
does not and cannot involve the positive direction of individual subjects in the
conduct of their households. No such supervision is possible, argues Justi, for
the state would then need as many supervisors as families, and on top of this,
supervisors for the supervisors. It is conceivable that Polizei regulation could be
brought to bear on poorly run households, but this would involve a degree of
compulsion incommensurate with the freedom of human action:

But above all it is not possible to judge whether someone economises well or ill if one has
no insight into his condition, property and household affairs, an insight that must account
for the most precise detail; and this is not possible in itself and in terms of good principles.
All manner of impossibilities therefore stand in the way of forcing the subject to a good
economy by means of compulsion; instead each is in this respect left to his own devices
whether he will observe his duty to himself and his associated obligations to the state or
not.38

The state cannot command, but, as we might recall from Chapter 2 above,
neither can the subject spontaneously contribute to the welfare of the state. This
coupling is fundamental to the conception of economic government that is
developed in Staatswirthschaft. The solution to the problem is for the ruler to
make it possible for the subject to conduct his household in a rational fashion,
ptoviding both education in the long term and a framework of regulation in the
short term. The proper conduct of a household on the part of a subject,
therefore, is not the result of freedom from constraints and the ability to pursue
his own interest - on the contrary, the subject is constrained by regulations and
decrees which limit and direct his action. It is crucial, therefore, that this
direction is the correct one; and this is why the Cameralistic sciences are of such
importance, for they contain the necessary means to evaluate possibilities and
select objectives.
„ ^ rfjmainder of VoIume 1 is devoted to a general consideration of
householding’ and its applications in town and country. The principle objective
at this level is the maintenance, increase, and proper use of economic property.
he subject disposing of this property is the ‘private person’, but, as we have
seen, this person is not endowed with interests and needs that are sufficiently
motivated for the spontaneous creation of order. Calculation, foresight, planning
all these are qualities that are necessary for the successful conduct of a
household, but they have to be enumerated and disseminated; they are not
m erent qualities The economy of town and country is considered as a
collection of specific forms of production, but they do not receive the kind of
detailed and practical treatment that was to become typical of Technologie.
ns ead, different branches are listed, and their connection with the state
economy is considered.

38 Ibid., p. 377.

72
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

The second volume of Staatswirthschaft deals with the use of state property,
which is defined as follows:
The property of the state does not only consist in all kinds of moveable and immoveable
goods to be found within the frontiers of the land, belonging either to the subjects or
directly owned by the state; but also in all capacities and skills of persons belonging to the
republic; indeed the persons themselves must to a certain extent be reckoned to it; and the
general use of this state property' constitutes the supreme power.39

Prudent use of this property entails a detailed knowledge on the part of the ruler
of the condition of land and subjects. This is provided by Cameralistic and
financial science: ‘it is a science concerned with the economic collection of the
property of the republic, that is within the totality of state property the
best-founded and most available; prudently employ it for the common good of
the ruler and subjects; and maintain the necessary institutions and affairs in good
order and arrangement’.40 From this it should be apparent, states Justi, that
Cameralism has the closest connection with Staatskunst, Polizei, commerce, and
economy - and, moreover, conducts the ‘internal householding of the great
economy of the state’.
We can observe here the way in which the practice of Cameralistic administra¬
tion broadens to cover all state business. State property expands to cover the
properties, capacities, and skills of the subjects; the raising of revenues from
state property comprehends this expanded role - the science of proper
administration and levying of revenue becomes one that penetrates to all
quarters of the republic, assessing, evaluating, judging, and making recommen¬
dations. The principles upon which revenue is raised are conventional enough
for modern readers: revenue must be raised in the least damaging way possible,
and therefore from the net income of the subjects; it must not erode the basis of
state property; it must deal equally with all provinces and regions; and no use
must be made of this revenue that does not coincide with the best interests of
ruler and subjects.41 As with Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Justi’s consideration of
taxation and revenue is extremely lengthy, but nowadays this is of interest chiefly
to financial specialists and historians of accountancy. Its existence is certainly of
relevance to the present discussion, but the substantive analysis does not add to
our knowledge of the overall structure and purpose of Staatswirthschaft, which is
our principal concern here.
The second edition of the text was published some three years later, the first
having sold out at the end of 1757. A new preface claimed that the original
edition had aimed at conciseness so that the book would be suitable for teaching,
but, as we have seen, the process of definition and redefinition that typifies
Staatswirthschaft extends the work beyond the acceptable limits of a simple
handbook. In 1759, Justi did in fact publish the basic outline of the Viennese
lectures from which Staatswirthschaft had been written, and the 126 pages of the
Systematischer Grundrifi aller Oeconomischen u. Cameral-Wissenschaften provide a

39 Justi, Staatswirthschaft, ii (1755), p. 5. 40 Ibid., p. 20. 41 Ibid., pp. 23-30.

73
 The Viennese orthodoxy: fusti and Sonnenfels

text that is more appropriate to a course of lectures.42 The second edition of the
Staatswirthschaft was, as we have noted, even longer than the first, with the
additions taking the form of new footnotes and, in some cases, new paragraphs.
Justi states that much of this material consisted of details of the various
conditions prevailing in different countries, but there is one significant modifi¬
cation that is worth some attention.
The second edition of Staatswirthschaft is marked by Justi’s reading of
Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws. Where in the first edition, for example, Justi
notes the Aristotelian division of forms of government into monarchy, aristoc¬
racy, and democracy, in the second edition a footnote is added which takes issue
with Montesquieu’s distinction between republics, monarchies, and despotic
systems. The substance of the criticism offered by Justi is that ‘republic’ is a
general term for all forms of government that are distinct from conditions of
natural freedom.43 This serves to underline the generic use of ‘republic’ that
Justi makes throughout Staatswirthschaft, while at the same time emphasizing the
infrequency with which he explicitly relates his argument to its sources or to its
intended targets of disagreement. Shortly after his criticism of Montesquieu on
republics, there is a new insertion on the division of powers and the nature of the
equilibrium between them. The best constitution, suggests Justi, is one in which
executive power is in the hands of a king, the legislature is in the hands of
popular representatives, and judicial power is in the hands of the nobility.44 In
the sections on the political organization of the state, Justi is then able to draw on
Spirit of the Laws and develop the general theoretical context of Staatswirthschaft.
The only other significant alteration that Justi made in the second edition
concerns the discussion of the liberty of the subject and the conditions for
economic activity. In the sections dealing with the necessity for freedom and
secure property (discussed above), the second edition adds a number of passages
and footnotes which serve to reinforce the original. It cannot be said that any
substantive alteration is involved here, but the fact that Justi deliberately sought
to strengthen this section is of some interest. Otherwise, the supplementary
remarks and textual comments are chiefly confined to footnotes, so that there is
little shift in emphasis between the first and second editions. The second edition
is available today as a reprint, and this might explain the tendency of modern
commentators to refer to the later edition, a practice which, nevertheless, should
not lead one to believe that the second edition is in some respects more complete
than the first.
This discussion of Staatswirthschaft began with a reference to Smith’s
characterization of ‘mercantilism’, and asked how far this could be seen as
relevant to Justi’s system. Perhaps the most appropriate response would be: very
little. As we have seen there are passages in Justi which discuss wealth in terms of

42 Thl* wa^ePubllsl)ed as the Kurzersystematischer Grundnfi alter Oeconomischen und Cameralwissen-

schaften (Gesammelte Politische und Finanz-Schriften, i (Copenhagen, 1761), 504-73), but it is in
fact no shorter than the 1759 version, to which it is almost identical.
43 Justi, Staatswirthschaft, i (1758), p. 37. 44 jp,id., pp. 49, 51-2.

74
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

money and gold; there are also passages which talk of the freedom of the subject
and the security of property. In neither case are there any grounds for assigning
Justi either to a ‘mercantilist’ or a ‘Smithian’ camp. Justi’s ‘wealth’ has a
considerably wider meaning than that of Smith, and it would be a travesty to see
Justi as a bullionist. The Natural Law tradition according to which he wrote
operated with very different conceptions of human capacities to those of Smith.
It has been emphasized that the treatment of ‘freedom’ in relation to the
economic subject involved freedom from arbitrary action on the part of a ruler,
not freedom from the wide-ranging regulative activity of the ruler. It was this
regulative activity that Justi examined in the textbook which immediately
followed the publication of Staatswirthschaft, the Grundsdtze der Policey- Wissen-
schaftP5
Justi claimed that this book was the first to present its subject-matter in a
systematic and independent fashion, for until now, Polizei had been treated as
part of Staatskunst: ‘By contrast with that Polizei concerns itself with nothing but
the maintenance and increase of the entire property of the state through good
internal organisation, lending the republic all inner power and strength of which
it is capable according to its condition. To this end it seeks to cultivate the lands,
improve the state of subsistence, and maintain discipline in the common weal.’46
In the preface, Justi departs from his normal practice of not naming texts or
authors directly, and we can see how he perceives his arguments in relation to
others. First of all, he suggests that some writers have tended to treat Polizei as
part of oeconomy - Zincke does this, for instance, since he deals with his
subject-matter first from the standpoint of oeconomy, and only then from that of
Polizei, leading to an insufficient distinction between the two areas. As for the
rest, those texts which apparently devoted themselves to Polizei, like Reinking’s
Biblische Policey, brought in a great deal of irrelevant material. Two or three other
eighteenth-century works are discussed briefly, but none of them are thought to
be either systematic or detailed enough.
Within his 352 pages, therefore, Justi intends to present a textbook which both
properly organizes the objects of the science, and presents then in adequate
details. The fact that the book ran to three editions in almost thirty years
indicates that it had some success, and the reasons for this are worth con¬
sidering.
First, we are presented with a derivation of the word Polizei from the Greek
polis, indicating that it denotes the good order of towns and of civil constitutions.
The subsequent extension of the referent from town to state creates a broad
concept covering all those measures adopted internally to promote and maintain
state property and the happiness of the ruler’s subjects. In this sense, commerce,
oeconomy, and related areas are included under Polizei. In a narrower sense,
Polizei refers to all that is required for the good organization of civil life - in
particular, the maintenance of discipline among the subjects and the measures
45 Published in Gottingen, 1756; 2nd edn., 1759; 3rd edn. (ed. J. Beckmann), 1782.
46 J. H. G. von Justi, Grundsdtze der Policey-Wissenschaft (Gottingen, 1756), Vorrede, n.p.

75
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

associated with the comforts of life and the growth of subsistence.47 Variations of
this are repeated under the guise of more precise definition, and this is typical of
attempts to provide a concise and comprehensive definition of the range of
Polizei. Potentially, it covers everything that relates to a state’s property -
movable and immovable property, persons, and their skills. Justi introduces a
wide and a narrow definition, as virtually all writers on Polizei were to do. And,
like all such instances, the attempt to make such discriminatory definitions work
in a convincing manner leaves a great deal to be desired.
There is little point in pursuing the definition of Polizei any further. It is more
important to consider what Justi actually includes in his textbook, and in what
order.
Book 1 is on the ‘Culture of Different Lands’, and begins with the cultivation
of a state s lands and its relation to the number of inhabitants that can be
supported. This leads on to the establishment and growth of towns and their
manufactures, considering the fabric of the town as well as the daily organization
of urban life. The means available to promote population becomes the next
subject of attention, and the discussion here covers a lot of the ground already
dealt with in the Gutachten. Little is left unconsidered - the dangers of epidemics
which can carry away useful members of society are dealt with, the need to watch
over food is emphasized, and ‘finally also suicide which, if it once becomes
established can remove many useful inhabitants from a country, is to be
prevented through the disgrace associated with it and other wise measures’.48
The second of the four books in Justi’s textbook on Polizeimssenschaft
addresses itself to the ‘measures promoting a flourishing state of subsistence’
and what would today be regarded as ‘the economy’ is dealt with under this
eading. Agriculture comes first of all. This involves a watch over the develop¬
ment and use of agricultural land, the standardization of weights and measures
the establishment of guide-lines for cultivation, and also measures limiting the
engagement of the rural population in non-agricultural activities. Agriculture
provides the raw materials for manufactures and factories (Fabriken) (the
ifference being that the latter use ‘fire and hammer’ in their processes) If there
is a surplus of manufactured products over and above that which is needed bv a
country s inhabitants, then it is possible to develop commerce. This in turn
increases the employment of the home population, and enables them to consume
more therefore, Justi argues, it is manufacture that is the chief foundation of a
flourishing state of subsistence.49
Trade and commerce belong to the ‘remaining means of promoting the
increase of the state of subsistence’, and these are somewhat confusingly
referred to as the soul of the state of subsistence’ -Justi has a way of describing
i ferent divisions of a subject as being in turn the ‘heart’, ‘soul’, ‘essence’
oundation ’ and ‘b(asis’> turninS an apparently well-ordered classification into
an extended list of most important’ elements in which each is supposedly the
oundatron of the others. Here, thirty pages after manufactures have been
Ib,d„ pp. 3, 4. 48 Ibid., p. 77 . 49 md t p 101 50 Ibid _ pp i29ff

76
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

described as the ‘chief foundation’ of the state of subsistence, we find a

statement to the effect that the entire condition of a country’s subsistence
depends on the good state of foreign commerce. This allows more to be exported
than imported, and this maintenance of a positive balance of trade is the first
principle of foreign commerce.
Book 3 considers the moral condition of subjects and the means for the
maintenance of discipline (Zucht und Ordnung). Here Justi establishes principles
with respect to religion, whoring, drunkenness, street-fights, noise, and quarrel¬
some disputes:
Here it must be remarked that every vice and offence, however petty and however little
regard it otherwise receives from Polizei, must nevertheless be restrained and abolished
by severe punishments, as soon as it becomes habitual. The least offence and deviation, if
they become general, can give rise to great disorder and have very damaging conse¬
quences for the welfare of the state. Thus Polizei has to demonstrate its wakefulness in all
changes in the conditions of the common weal.51

Supervision of moral order is not merely negative, however; it also involves

turning subjects into useful members of the state through education, although
this heading also includes measures against the display of luxury, waste, begging,
and theft. In fact, one could draw a parallel with modern state administration by
supposing that ‘police’ was the province covered by the Ministries of Interior,
Health, Employment, Social Security, Education, and Trade, all rolled into one.
The fourth and final book deals with the exercise of the principles of Polizei
regulations and the practical knowledge ofPolizeirvissenschaft. This repeats many
of the points made previously on the general function of Polizei, and suggests
means for the modification and exercise of regulative activity. Questions of the
most suitable forms of publication of decrees, the selection of recruits to the
administration of Polizei, and the establishment of rewards for observance of
regulations are considered.
It should be evident from this brief summary ofjusti’s textbook on Polizei that
it reproduces both the substance and the intent of the relevant sections in the
Gutachten. The alteration in the order of exposition has the effect of placing
‘economic subjects’ clearly together in Book 2, while some aspects of population
are dealt with in Book 1. However, the fact that regulation of agricultural
enterprise should share the same pages as recommendations on the treatment of
drunkenness in public places, or measures to prevent suicide, is indicative of the
wide and indefinite range of Polizei. Later writers were to seek a more restricted
approach, naming the material covered in Book 2, for example, ‘Wirtschaftspoli-
zei’ or ‘economic police’. Given the contemporary emergence of Cameralism as
an overarching doctrine of state management, however, it is difficult to see how
Justi’s attempt to provide an autonomous space for Polizeirvissenschaft could have
met with more successful clarification. In an addition to the 1782 edition,
Beckmann gave his own conception of the relevant divisions of Polizei: first, the
measures taken by the ruler with respect to agriculture, to which could be added
51 Ibid., p. 208.

77
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfeis

village Polizei and that relating to mines; secondly, town Polizei, including crafts
and trades; thirdly health, religious affairs, and education; and lastly, those
‘unhappy persons who did not wish to pursue any of the occupations named’, and
so this part was where one could deal with begging, workhouses, and intern¬
ment.52 This certainly reorders the material, and, in so doing, shifts the
emphasis somewhat; but the material that he moves around in this way is already
to be found in Justi, exposed in a manner which could be said to have alternative
advantages. In 1760—1, Justi republished a vastly expanded version of his
Grundsatze, in which the sub-sections of the original edition are inflated into
books in their own right.53 The general arrangement of the text is retained,
however, although the amount of padding makes the overall structure more
difficult to detect.
So, Klein’s comment that all that is worth knowing from Justi can be found in
Staatswirthschaft has some truth then. The textbook on Polizei, the second in the
series of five announced in the preface of Staatswirthschaft, was not followed by
any others, unless Der GrundriJI einer Gnten Regierung54 is treated as the textbook
on Staatskunst. Further publications in this area simply repeat material and
arguments that have already been developed; repetition of simple principles is a
characteristic of Justi’s literary endeavours, and the salient points in his
systematization have been covered in the preceding pages. It should be apparent
that his efforts did effect the creation of a workable economic pedagogy. To
judge its impact, however, we have to examine the process by which it was
received and modified by the growing number of teachers of Cameralism in the
1760s and 1770s. First among these was von Sonnenfeis, to whom we now turn.

Joseph von Sonnenfeis was born in 1733, of Jewish parents who shortly
afterwards converted to Catholicism. In 1744, the family moved to Vienna,
where the father was appointed a master of Oriental languages at the university ,
and was ennobled in 1746. This did not make the family rich enough for
Sonnenfeis to attend the university, however, and in 1749 he entered military
service with the Deutschmeisterregiment, where he remained until 1754. Now-
in a position to study at university, he applied himself first to jurisprudence, and
then increasingly to literary work. It was the latter interest that led to his
membership of the Deutsche Gesellschaft in 1761, by which time he had some
contact with the Court and its influential circles. At the beginning of 1762, this
prompted him to apply for the Chair in Eloquence at the university, but he was
unsuccessful.
^ At the end of 1762, having been informed of the interest of the Court,
Sonnenfeis delivered a memorandum to the Empress proposing a periodical
52 Ibid., 3rd edn. (Gottingen, 1782), 6-7.
” j.,11'. G' von JuTsti’. Die Grundfeste zu der Macht und die Gluckseeligkeit der Stouten, 2 vols
(Komgsberg and Leipzig, 1760-1), a total of 1,433 pp
54 Polished in Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1759, 478 pp. This elaborates on the forms of government
and the principles of rule already stated in the Staatswirthschaft without substantial addition to the
points made there. The influence of Montesquieu is strongly in evidence.

78
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Jfusti and Sonnenfels

publication on issues of commerce and the associated establishment of a Chair in

Cameralistic Sciences. It is evident from the nature of his project that the
periodical on commerce derived in the main from his literary interest. He took as
his model tht Journal de commerce, published in Brussels and Paris from 1759 to
1761, and suggested that translations should be made directly from this journal,
selecting those sections that might be considered especially relevant to Austria.55
Sonnenfels proposed that ‘commerce’ should be detached from its maritime
associations and applied equally to internal trade, and that this should be
furthered in a practical, rather than a learned, manner.56
Doubts as to the solidity of Sonnenfels’ proposal, however, and of his grasp of
the material, arise as soon as the Journal is consulted. There was in fact precious
little in its pages that could have been construed as ‘relevant to Austria’.
Occasional news was published from Germany, but the principal items were
summaries of English works, such as Postlethwayt’s Britain’s Commercial Interest
Explained 15Improved (March 1760); extracts from Montesquieu’s Esprit des lois,
Vattel’s Le Droit des gens, and Bielfeld’s Institutions politiques (this last ran through
several issues from October 1760 to March 1761); letters from correspondents;
and commentary on laws affecting commerce. Little geographical or ‘statistical’
information was published, and in the list of booksellers that appears in the first
issue, the only German cities named were (predictably) Hamburg and Danzig.
Sonnenfels did mention the Leipziger Sammlungen and OekonomischeNachrich-
ten,57 but the fact that he chose a French journal as his model is basically a
reflection of French cultural hegemony, and is not related to the actual merit or
demerit of contemporary Cameralistic publications. Nevertheless, the Court was
sufficiently impressed by Sonnenfels’ proposal to ask him to select a textbook
and provide a commentary. This he did in mid-June 1763, when he nominated
Justi’s Staatswirthschafi, ‘for none of the available textbooks have the necessary
generality and Justi’s book, more than any other, is fitted to these lands .. ,’.58 He
noted that Bielfeld’s Institutions politiques might have been an alternative, and
went on to list a number of other texts which he felt would be of use - including
Forbonnais’s Elemens du commerce, Melon’s Essai politique sur le commerce, and
Hume’s Discours politiques. All of these works, including that of Hume, were
cited in French, although German translations had been published by this time.59
Given the importance that Sonnenfels gave to Forbonnais, it is useful to pause

55 It was published as thz Journal de commerce from Jan. 1759 to late 1761, when it became the
Journal de commerce et d’agriculture, ceasing publication in Dec. 1762.
56 Osterloh, Sonnenfels, pp. 31-2.
57 The Leipziger Sammlungen appeared in 15 volumes from 1742 to 1767; and the Oekonomische
Nachrichten in 15 volumes from 1749 to 1763.
58 Cited in F. Kopetzky,Josef und Franz von Sonnenfels (Moritz Perles, Vienna, 1882), 32.
59 F. V. de Forbonnais, Elemens du commerce (Leyden, 1754), translated as Der vemunftigeKaufmann
(Halle, 1755); J. F. Melon, Essai politique sur le commerce (Amsterdam, 1735), translated as Kleine
Schriften iiber die Handlung und Manufacturer (Copenhagen, 1756); D. Hume, Political Discourses
(Edinburgh, 1752), translated as Vermischte Schriften iiber die Handlung, die Manufacturer und die
andem Quellen des Reichthums und der Macht eines Staats (Hamburg, 1754). The question of the
diffusion of these translations is dealt with in Ch. 7 below.

79
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

at this point and briefly consider the nature of Elemens du commerce as well as
Bielfeld’s text. Spitzer, one of August Oncken’s students, has suggested that far
from Justi having been the primary influence on Sonnenfels’ teaching, as
argued, for example, by Roscher60 a more direct connection could be traced to
the French ‘reform mercantilists’.61 Before proceeding to an account of Son¬
nenfels’ work in Cameralism, we must therefore familiarize ourselves with
those contemporary French writings which might have formed (through Son¬
nenfels) an important indirect influence on the development of Cameralistic
discourse.62
Forbonnais was born into a family of manufacturers in 1722, and he initially
followed the family occupation, before moving to Paris in 1752 and collaborat¬
ing with d Alembert and Diderot on the Encyclopedic. He was later appointed to
the Controle general, where he sought to introduce various reforms in taxation
and state expenditure, subsequently being appointed General Inspector of
Coinage. Before his death in 1800, he served on the Finance Commission of
the Constituent Assembly, and during this period he published an analysis of
the financial implications of the issue of assignats and a discussion of the circu¬
lation of commodities. Schumpeter described him as the prototype of the
useful or sound economist who, while of no great theoretical note or origina¬
lity, seldom made demonstrable errors in either fact or logic.63 Although his
work has been overshadowed by the more intriguing and fashionable writings of
the Physiocrats, his reputation during the later part of the eighteenth century
was both lasting and secure; the Elemens, for instance, reached a sixth printing
by 1796.
Elemens du commerce presents an exposition of the principal features of con¬
temporary economies, and begins with an account of ‘commerce in general’,
which is described as a form of human communication carried on with the pro¬
ducts of land and industry:64
... every thing that can be communicated from one man to another for his use or for his
amusement is the substance of commerce. It is just to give an equivalent for that which is
received; this is the essence of commerce, which consists in exchange. Its general object
is to establish an abundance of substances of necessity or of convenience; and its final
ettect is to secure to those whom it employs the means of satisfying their needs.65
60 ^A^0Scber’ Teschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland (R. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1874),

K Spitzer, Josef von Sonnenfels ah Nationalokonom, Diss. (Bern, 1906), 38ff.

62 For the time being, we will ignore Physiocracy, which forms the subject of Chapter 6 The
reception of Physiocracy was very much delayed, and when it did finally occur it took place outside
the mainstream of university teaching in politics and economics. Sonnenfels’ subsequent critique
n H ^ m e m°re than a rePetltlon of the earlier criticisms of Forbonnais, who
pubhshed the most systematic contemporary critique of Quesnay and Mirabeau.
1 f f umPeter’ n‘slor>' of Economic Analysis (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1954) 174
c'1a kT ElemenJ’ he regards Forbonnais’s principal writings to be his studies of French and
Spanish finance: Recherches et considerations sur les finances de France, depnis 1595 a 1721 6 vols

(Amsterdam, Dfiir^^ * C°nSldimi°nS sur le commerce et les finances de I’Espagne,’2 vols.

65 Ibid ^e3F°rbonnais’ ETmens du commerce, 2 vols., 2nd rev. edn. (Amsterdam, 1755).

80
 The Viennese orthodoxy: jfusti and Sonnenfels

It can be seen from this approach to ‘commerce’ that Forbonnais is by no means

restricted to ‘trade’; under this heading he systematically considers all aspects of
the economy and treats them as mutually dependent. At the level of the state as a
whole, goods circulate between countries in the form of the export of superflui¬
ties and the import of foreign goods for consumption or re-export; while at the
level of the citizen, commerce involves the purchase, sale, or exchange of
commodities needed by other people and conducted with the object of profit.
These general remarks are followed by an account of the historical develop¬
ment of commercial relations up to the eighteenth century, concluding from this
that a large population is indispensable for a flourishing commerce:
Agriculture and industry are of the essence; their union is such that if one predominates
over the other it results in its own destruction. Without industry, the fruits of the earth
would be of no value; if agriculture is neglected the sources of commerce are spoiled.
The object of commerce in a state is to maintain in a condition of ease through labour
the greatest possible number of men. Agriculture and industry are the sole means of
subsistence; if the one and the other are of advantage to those whom they occupy one will
never want for men.
The effect of commerce is to invest the political body with all the might that it is capable
of receiving. This might consists in a population which attracts to the state its political
wealth, that is to say at once real and relative.
The real wealth of a state is the greatest degree of independence from other states with
respect to its needs, and the greatest superfluity which it can export to them. Its relative
wealth depends on the quantity of wealth of convention drawn to it by its commerce,
compared with the quantity of the same wealth which commerce draws into neighbouring
states. It is the combination of this real and relative wealth which constitutes the art and
science of the administration of political commerce.66

At the risk of repetition, we can see again here how inadequately the stereotype
of‘mercantilism’ summarizes Forbonnais’s writing. By treating ‘commerce’ as a
mode of relation among economic elements, rather than as ‘trade’, he is able to
assess the relative merits of these elements and their respective contribution to
the economy of the state as a whole. He still presents a conception of import and
export oriented to the gaining of advantage and the flow of specie, of course; but
this quite clearly belongs to perceptions of the power and independence of the
state and, in these terms, finds its own justification. Stated in this way, we gain a
better understanding of the potential link to a Cameralistic tradition, which, like
Forbonnais, laid emphasis on a large and prosperous population as the end of
economic policy and the means to political power.
Implicit in Forbonnais’s arguments is the presence of a legislator who watches
over and regulates the progress of commerce. Such a legislator is charged with
the supervision of luxury, for example, making sure that the equilibrium that
exists between various occupations is maintained.6^ But this does not mean that
liberty and competition are ignored. Competition, argues Forbonnais, produces
abundance and cheapness, and restriction of competition harms the overall end
of the state - the furtherance and well-being of the population. Such great

66 Ibid., i. 28-9 . 67 Ibid-, i. 35.

81
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

importance is attached to this that the second chapter of Elemens, brief though it
is, is devoted to the nature of competition, which is described as the ‘soul and
spur of industry’.68
None the less, when considering the strategically important issue of the grain
trade and grain supply, Forbonnais argues for regulation and magazines, not for
liberty of import and export. The standard of such regulation should be the price
of bread or of grain, and this price has to be maintained at a level that is related to
the purchasing power of the poor.69 Forbonnais conceived of competition as a
means of maintaining a dynamic element in the allocation of labour and of
promoting the cheapness of goods, contained, however, by a framework of
legislation which embodied norms of prices and the relative merit and import¬
ance of occupations. The discussion of magazine policy is therefore to be found
in the chapter on agriculture, not in the one on competition, for the assumption
is that the issue at stake is ‘good legislation’ and not ‘market forces’.
The first volume continues with further chapters on manufactures, navi¬
gation, and colonies, repeating the themes of balance and proportion, the
multiplication of occupations, and the expansion of population. The second
volume is concerned more with credit and money, but again concludes with a
chapter on the balance of commerce, underlining the centrality of these themes
to the text as a whole. There is no attempt by Forbonnais to promote one section
of the working population rather than another, or to argue for the production of
particular kinds of goods, or to condemn outright the consumption of luxuries. It
is all a matter of balance and proportion, to be considered by the legislator and
then made the object of wise policy.
Evidently, then, there are themes within Forbonnais’s Elemens which could
have been picked up by Sonnenfels and incorporated into a Cameralistic
discourse. What then of Bielfeld, whose Institutions politiques was considered by
Sonnenfels as a potential alternative to Justi’s Staatsmrthschajti Superficially,
Bielfeld had a similar background to many of the early eighteenth-century
writers on Cameralism. Born into a Hamburg merchant’s family in 1717, he
studied at Leyden before touring the Netherlands, France, and England in 1735.
From 1739 to 1755, he was in Prussian state service; he was appointed Curator
of all Prussian universities in 1747, and was ennobled and made a privy
councillor the following year. Practically all of his writings are in French'
Roscher, for example, cited from the French edition of Institutions Politiques’
despite the appearance of three German editions in the 1760s.70
What is not evident from Roscher’s discussion, however, is the ‘French’

68 Ibid., i. 54.

69 Ibid. l. 83-4. Aside from a persistent concern with credit and coinage, the central economic issue
n the ^id-eighteenth century was the question of the regulation of the grain trade (‘la police des
grains ) and this is also at the heart of Physiocratic doctrine. See I. Hont and M. Ignatieff, ‘Needs
and Justice in the Wealth of Nations: An Introductory Essay’, in their Wealth and Virtue (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1983), 15-18, for a concise summary. S

fmbfished irU!76E^ PP' 426“8' Tnmslated b>' * C Gottsched and J. J. Schwabe, and first

82
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

context of Bielfeld’s text, which removes it decisively from the mainstream of

German writings on politics and administration. Explicitly directed to the ‘art of
governing’ (with the German translation thus rendering the title as Lehrbegriffder
Staatskunst), ‘politique’ is defined as ‘the knowledge of the means best fitted to
rendering a state formidable and its citizens happy’.71 This might have seemed
unremarkable if it had been succeeded by an account of the financial means
through which this could be achieved, or by a discussion of the economic basis of
the people’s happiness. But this does not happen. Instead, Bielfeld first
considers ‘the ways of polishing a nation’, linking good order to the importance
of education. When la police comes to our attention at the end of the first one
hundred pages, we find that it is initially conceived of as an organization of men
concerned with the general maintenance of order - a conception which did not
gain wide acceptance in Germany until the early nineteenth century, although at
this time it was one of the term’s meanings in French. This initial approach is
indeed followed by details of order with which we are more familiar from the
German texts - cleanliness of public places, cheapness of bread, and flood
control - but this discussion precedes the chapter dealing with the promotiop of
a state’s opulence, and therefore is not treated as an instrument of policy wielded
to this end. The remainder of Volume 1 is devoted to the customary headings in
discussions of a state’s economy - finances, commerce, manufacture, navigation.
Here Bielfeld draws heavily upon the writings of Melon, and makes occasional
reference to Forbonnais.72 The second volume returns to more ‘diplomatic’
concerns: the organization of government administration; the conduct of
alliances and treaties; or ceremonial matters.
Justi maintained that while one could find everything in Bielfeld, his writing
was vague in its structure and argument and long-winded. But, as is also
apparent from even this short outline, Institution politiques was by no means part
of the tradition of Cameralist writing that was emerging in the mid-eighteenth
century - nor for that matter can we simply say that it represented a throwback to
earlier ‘court’ writing like Schroder’s, for here the question of‘good order’ was
explicitly dealt with as a matter of economic welfare. Institutions politiques
belonged to a tradition of French writing on politics which could occasionally
draw on writers like Melon and Forbonnais, but which conceived of the problem
of good order as principally a ‘political’ rather than an ‘economic’ issue. By the
mid-eighteenth century, the emergent orthodoxy of Cameralism ensured that
disquisitions on the strength of a nation and the power of a monarch would be
treated as a Cameralistic matter within the context of writing for an academic
audience. Bielfeld’s text escapes both of these conditions, and it cannot with any
justice be treated as a potential alternative to Justi’s Staatswirthschaft for
Sonnenfels’ purposes. Instead, it should be recalled at this point that Bielfeld’s
Institutions politiques had been extensively extracted in the Journal de commerce. By

71 Baron de Bielfeld, Institutions politiques, i (The Hague, 1760), 20. ,

72 The definition of manufactures, for example, is taken from Forbonnais’s Elemens (Bielfeld,
Institutions, i. 328).

83
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

the early 1760s, we might reasonably anticipate that a candidate seeking

appointment to a chair in the Camerlistic sciences would cite names such as
Dithmar, Zincke, Fiirstenau, Darjes, and, of course, Justi. Sonnenfels only
refers to Justi, and introduces a body of literature that is either irrelevant to
Cameralism (such as Bielfeld) or of tenuous relevance (such as Melon or
Hume). This is strong circumstantial evidence that Sonnenfels was at this time
only remotely acquainted with the literature of the discipline he proposed to
teach.
Indirectly, this was the assessors’ response to Sonnenfels’ proposed trial essay
on a section of Justi’s Staatswirthschaft which was devoted to the wfiys of
increasing the population of a country. They noted that instead of dealing with
Cameralistic matters, Sonnenfels first of all discussed questions of state or
Polizeimrtschaft. Much reading had still to be done — and Zincke’s writing was
singled out as of especial importance. One suggested that the chair should be
frozen for a year while Sonnenfels caught up with his reading and prepared his
lectures. Despite such reservations, the Court was anxious that the chair should
be established and filled as rapidly as possible, and so in late October 1763
Sonnenfels’ appointment was confirmed.73
His inaugural address was held in November of the same year, and directed
itself to the inadequacy of experience as the sole basis for the conduct of state
economy.74 Here Sonnenfels does cite Gasser, Dithmar, Zincke, and Darjes
when outlining the development of teaching since 1727, but he is dismissive of
them: ... what do they contain? what else, but mainly practical instruction for a
future farmer, for a future official of domain land, for a supervisor of a forestry
office, for the lessee of a ruler s lands or of some Vorwerk as one seems to call
them there’.75 By contrast, he names a series of foreign texts (French, British,
and Spanish) that were not read simply because they were not applicable to
Germany. But, one could object, the writings of Sully, or Davenant, or Ustariz
were not directed towards those attending academic lectures. And the range of
occupations that Sonnenfels lists must also have been representative of the
students who were to attend his own courses, and so such practical instruction
had its place. It was one thing to argue, as many had before, that practical
experience was not a sound basis for the training of state officials; but to accuse
the first textbooks that had been produced of being too practical for a university
context makes one wonder what Sonnenfels would teach his students.
Sonnenfels’ criticism of his predecessors’ texts amounted to a plea for a more
theoretical treatment of the Cameralistic sciences, one in which experience and

73 KaptXzky Sonnenfels, pp. 35-8. The formal appointment was to a Chair in Polizei- und
Cameral-Wissenschaften.
74 aTe^° separate versions of this address. I intend to use the version published by G L
rvc A I16 wa T ^rATTccrede VOn der Unzuliinslichkeit der dleinigen Erfahrung in den
Geschaften der Staatsmrthschafi. A different version bears the imprint of Paul Krausen Vienna no
date. Students of Sonnenfels also published his introduction to his lectures as Einleitungsrede in
Seine Akadmische Vorlesungen (Vienna, 1763). *
75
Sonnenfels, Antrittsrede, p. 8.
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

observation were not regarded as a sufficient basis for qualification. In doing

this, he repeats arguments that had already been put forward by Sincerus. When
he published the first volume of his textbook in 1765, he stated in the preface that
all the other texts that he had considered using were either too lengthy or too
limited for the ten-month course he wished to teach. He had therefore been
compelled to compose his own work, which, in the event, proved to be even
longer than Justi’s Staatswirthschaft.
In translation, the title of Sonnenfels’ textbook is Principles of Police, Commer¬
cial and Financial Science, with each topic occupying a separate volume.76
Superficially at least, the way in which Sonnenfels embarks upon his account of
Staatswissenschaft bears comparison with that of Justi: definitions of society, the
common good, and the state, with the last being provided with a position from
which it can promote the common welfare of all. Polizeiwissenschaft is described
as dealing with the principles of internal security; Handlungswissenschaft, or
‘commercial science’, deals with the ‘multiplication of the means of subsis¬
tence’,77 the consequence of an advantageous turnover of the produce of the
earth and hard work; and financial science shows the best way in which state
revenues are to be raised: ‘Polizei, commerce and finance are also covered by the
word state economy, or they are called the oeconomic sciences. The last two are
also called by the name of cameralistic sciences .. .’.78
Justi, argues Sonnenfels, was the first to identify the leading principle of state
economy as the promotion of general happiness. But while this was the original
cause of states and continues to be their ultimate purpose, it cannot be treated as
the main principle of state economy without involving a circular argument. It
would be better to consider the means by which the ultimate end has been
achieved.79 Here Sonnenfels argues that the increase in the size of civil society
through the promotion of population should be regarded as the founding
principle of Staatswissenschaft; policy measures can therefore be evaluated in
terms of their impact on the size of the population. This is turn provides a basis
for the various branches of the Staatsmssenschaften: a large population increases
the resistance to external threat and thereby secures the foundation of Politik, an
increasingly dense population contributes to a land s internal security, and this
then becomes the basis of all Polizei-, ‘the more men, the more needs, thus the
greater multiplication of the means of subsistence internally’, and hence the basis
76 Satzeaus der Polizey, Handlungs- und Finanzwissenschaft, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1765-76). By the time
that Volume 3 of the first edition had been published, the title had been changed to Grundsatze,
and the first two volumes had already been reprinted. The most commonly found edition is the
fifth, published in 1787; while this is an expanded and somewhat elaborated version of the first
edition, it is virtually unaltered in structure and argument. There are eight editions of the German
Grundsatze and the Handbuch der inneren Staatsverwaltung of 1798 covers the same materiah A
Latin translation for use in non-German speaking areas of the Austrian Empire was published in
Pressburg in 1808, under the title Principia polit. commerc. et rei aerar etc.
77 ‘Vervielfaltigung der Nahrungswege’. This is a key idea in Sonnenfels, combining the central idea
of‘multiplication’ with a conception of Nahrungthat goes beyond ‘food’ and implies, as Spitzer
rightly emphasizes, the ‘lengthy path leading from activity, that is production to acquisition, hence
to income and only then to subsistence or consumption’. (Spitzer, Sonnenfels, p. 23).
78 Sonnenfels, Sdtze, i. 18-19. 79 !bid., pp. 21-2.

85
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

ot commercial science. I he benefits of a large working population are quite

evident when considering the finances of the state, thus confirming population as
the foundation of financial science.
As the subject of the first volume of Sonnenfels’ textbook, Polizei is developed
initially from the point of view of security, although Justi’s definition in terms of
the general good is noted. Certainly, the operation of Polizei is treated as a means
of support to the exercise of the law; but even in this context Sonnenfels observes
that accidents that are not the result of human will and therefore cannot be
prevented are the proper domain of Polizei. Polizei, suggests Sonnenfels, should
concern itself with the diminution of the effects of accidents, or seek to prevent
their occurrence.80 This provides a principle by which the activity of Polizei can
be extended to cover all those hypothetical conditions judged to be deleterious to
population. Unlike the law, therefore, which is designed to judge completed
actions, Polizei is essentially a work of anticipation of sources of disorder and the
creation of measures designed to neutralize or eradicate them.
The principle which Polizei upholds is a proper equilibrium: between the
individual powers of the citizen and the general powers of society; between the
various Stdnde; between the supply of food and demand. Three factors can
disturb a given equilibrium: too much wealth; the size of one particular Stand; or
the appropriation of powers on the part of a citizen or of a Stand*1 In order to
maintain such an equilibrium, information has to be collected on the structure of
the population and the changes that it is undergoing. Guilds, for example, are
useful sources of information as well as being institutions through which
supervision and observation of the'population can be effected.82 This work of
regulation also implies a moral order acting in concert with religion, education
and the proper upbringing of children.
The reader is almost two-thirds of the way through the first volume before he
encounters a systematic discussion of the more ‘economic’ aspects of Polizei in
the form of food supply and the regulation of prices. This discussion follows’an
analysis of food supply from the point of view of health - the cleanliness of
markets, the control of quality, the prevention of adulteration. The organizing
concept behind the ‘economic’ consideration of food supply is that of want or
s ortage, either of persons or things. With respect to persons, want means
poverty and mendacity, for the prevention of which there are institutions and

mdla^b e',S°nnenfelS PresuPP°ses that the population is composed of

able -bodied workers capable of earning enough for their needs. The problem of
ood supply from the standpoint of Polizei is primarily to ensure that these
able-bodied workers can purchase food at a suitable price. Shortages due to poor
cu tivation are the concern of‘householding’, a subordinate part of commercial
science; artificially high prices should be controlled by law; only shortages due to
mtura or man-made catastrophes are the concern of Polizei. Here, magazines
controlled by Polizei regulations should be created and placed in the hands of
private merchants, thereby allowing a limited variation of prices.83
80 Ibid, p. 34. 81 Ibid, p. 36 . 82 Ibid, p. 41. 83 Ibid, pp. 189ff.

86
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

With respect to the economy, therefore, the work of Polizei is more restricted
in Sonnenfels than in Justi. Whereas in Staatsmrthschaft, Polizei was virtually
synonymous with the ordering of economic life, here it assumes a very restricted
function - for instance, the possibility of the state trying to influence the general
level of prices by manipulating the supply through magazines is specifically
rejected by Sonnenfels. The discussion of Polizei in the first volume of Satze
quickly passes to matters more related to general social order - the security of
honour, and of property. The volume ends with a treatment of the various
punitive measures and institutions available to a legislator to ensure that the
population is hard-working and honest, emphasizing the role of Polizei in
maintaining good order rather than creating a condition of welfare as in Justi.
Much more could be said about Sonnenfels’ treatment of the role and
function of Polizei, but for our purposes this would simply confirm the
‘non-economic’ bias that we have already identified. Two points at least are
evident. First, both in general and in detail, the first volume of Satze owes little to
either Forbonnais or Melon, although the treatment of Polizei has clear filiations
to Bielfeld. If anything, Forbonnais’s assignation of the overall supervision of
allocation of goods and occupations to a legislator is more closely related to Justi
than Sonnenfels. By virtue of the division of material in Satze, we might expect to
encounter a reliance on Forbonnais in Volume 2, on Handlungswissenschaft.
Secondly, while the actual substance of Polizei is broadly similar in both Justi and
Sonnenfels, the latter is dominated by a concern for social stability in the
population rather than by a conception of social welfare. Whereas in Justi, Polizei
is the means by which the legislator transforms specific state objectives into the
regulated action of the population, for Sonnenfels, Polizei is the framework
which is created to assure the future maintenance of good order among the
population - it works to secure the maintenance of a ‘proper equilibrium’. In
addition to this, Sonnenfels places Polizei first when presenting his material,
before commerce. This makes it difficult systematically to present Polizei as an
instrument of economic welfare, as became customary in the later eighteenth
century. What function, then, does the subsequent discussion of Handlungswis¬
senschafi serve?
‘It is not enough to have citizens and protect them, one also has to think of
their subsistence.’ With this extract from Rousseau as an epigraph to the second
volume, Sonnenfels summarizes what he considers to be the relationship
between Polizei and commerce. The subsistence of the population is provided by
their productive activity and the objects gained in the exchange of the products of
this activity. Exchange, then, is the business of commerce.8"* Mutual need is the
basis of exchange, and with the advance of a nation these needs multiply and
extend to wants; the progress of a nation is therefore a process in which the
‘means of subsistence multiply’.85 Export and import can be judged by these

84 Sonnenfels, Satze, ii. 14. The quotation from Rousseau is taken from his Encyclopedic article
‘Economic politique’, reprinted in Oeuvres completes, iii (Gallimard, Paris, 1964), 262.
85 Sonnenfels, Satze, ii. 21-2.

87
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

criteria: advantageous commerce involves the export of as much as possible

while satisfying domestic needs. These are the basic principles of commerce, the
detailing of which, while similar to Forbonnais’ in the range of topics that can be
considered, is markedly less elaborate as a general account of exchange and
human sociability.
A quarter of the second volume is devoted to the second chapter, ‘On
Agriculture . It is here that we find the kind of discussion that Justi would have
placed under Polizei. If landowners neglect their property, for instance, then this
would be corrected by a body of local officials charged with the supervision of
agriculture. The proper distribution of labour between trades is another matter
that has to be watched over; and the general use of resources, in both land and
labour, should be subjected to regulation. The spirit of such regulation was
reformist; thus, when dealing with servitudes, Sonnenfels emphasizes the
deleterious effects of labour services on productivity, and proposes the commu¬
tation of all such services into money and the parcellization of large estates.86
Such reforms would motivate the rural cultivator and encourage him to
improve his condition; as a result of which, of course, he would also be better
able to pay the appropriate dues and levies. This also involves the preservation of
a proper proportion between the prices of agricultural and manufactured
products; here the state has to ensure that the elements of society maintain an
equal relation in their respective contributions to general happiness. This would
occur if there was an overall parity in the number of buyers and sellers and an
adequate supply of goods - and ‘so all will very soon set itself in a balance’.87 The
population would therefore be supplied throughout the year - provided that it
was properly distributed with respect to sites of production.
Sonnenfels’ discussion of agriculture, therefore, does not deal in concrete
terms with specific forms of production - arable or livestock, for instance - nor
does it give any practical guidance on the conduct of farming. Justi had not
provided this either, of course, but then he had dealt with agriculture under the
heading of Polizei, not as a branch of commercial science in itself. As with the
discussion of manufacture that follows Polizei, Sonnenfels takes a socio-political
approach which is more concerned with the organization of labour and
land-holding than with the organization of production. Accordingly, the third
chapter of Volume 2 considers such questions of guilds and monopolies, wage
levels, prices, and the consequences of the introduction of machines for the
ultimate end of multiplying occupations. Where this reduces the number of
occupations, it is harmful to the state, no matter how advantageous such
innovation might be to the manufacturer.88
This same principle is applied to the account of foreign trade:

n general private speculation must be guided in such a way that it does not hinder the
lgher and real purpose of the state, that is the multiplication of means of subsistence
Since private individuals decide on no undertaking which does not offer them special and

^ Ibid. pp. 54ff. 87 Ibid p 77 88 Ibjd pp 169_7Q

88
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

obvious advantage; so the skill of guidance consists in the citizen, while apparently only
pursuing his private ends, becoming at the same time the instrument of the general end.89

And so again the progress of trade can be considered as means of support for the
state, in which the size and well-being of the population provide the ultimate
criterion of policy. Trade and commerce are worthy occupations, the times when
they were considered dishonourable are past, and the state should encourage
merchants through the conferral of titles and honours.
Thematically, then, Sonnenfels’ treatment of commerce follows that of
Forbonnais rather than that of Justi: the principal objective is the multiplication
of occupations and the expansion of population, dominated by a concern for
balance and proportion. The manner in which these themes are developed
differs from Elemens du commerce, however. Forbonnais considered agriculture
and manufacture as branches of ‘industry’; Sonnenfels treats them as organi¬
zations of labour and property. The sequence of chapters in the second volume
of Satze follows that of Forbonnais’s Elemens almost exactly; but it cannot be said
that Sonnenfels’ text is a strict plagiarism of Forbonnais’. In fact, considered as
an economic text, that of Forbonnais remains superior to that of Sonnenfels -
although this observation serves merely to emphasize the divergent purposes and
materials of the two writers. While we might note Sonnenfels’s heavy reliance
upon Elemens, this should not blind us to the actual nature of his own objectives.
The third volume of Satze is dedicated to state finances, and again takes its
epigraph from Rousseau: ‘One of the most important principles of financial
administration is the following: that one should pay far more regard to the
prevention of an increase in the needs of the state than to the increase of
revenues.’90 Despite this, the volume deals almost exclusively with sources of
revenue and does not consider the ‘needs of the state’ in a systematic fashion (as
Smith does, for example, in Book 5 of Wealth of Nations, published in the same
year). For this reason, Volume 3 of the Satze holds little of interest for our
present investigation - nearly 500 pages long, it simply enumerates the different
kinds of revenues from state property and the various forms in which taxation
should be levied. Forbonnais is again the authority most frequently referred to,
although some mention is made of Justi and Bielfeld; and it is most probably to
Forbonnais that Sonnenfels owes his discussion of Physiocracy and the principle
of a single tax on agricultural production.91
By the time that they were completed, the three volumes of Sonnenfels’
Grundsdtze were even longer than the second edition of Justi’s Staatswirthschaft
which they were supposed to replace. Sonnenfels’ position in the Austrian
educational system, however, ensured that his textbook was widely circulated
and that it was actually used by his students when he secured their appointments
to other universities. The text was rendered more suitable for teaching by the
publication of a number of abbreviated study texts, like that of Kopetz, whose
Leitfaden provided a precis of each volume and then set a number of questions
89 Ibid. p. 221. 90 Rousseau,‘Economie politique’, p. 266.
91 Sonnenfels, Satze, iii. 274-317.

89
 The Viennese orthodoxy: Justi and Sonnenfels

intended to test the reader’s comprehension of the subject.92 Schmid, who

taught at the Lautern Hohe Schule and the Karlsschule in Stuttgart, produced a
synopsis which, instead of keeping to a simple paragraph-by-paragraph
approach, took each section and recomposed it into a series of didactic points.
His presentation, he stated, was developed on the basis of years of teaching using
Sonnenfels, and had the additional advantage of laying emphasis on a clear
ordering of concepts in the text.93 A precis was also produced by Moshammer,
who taught at Ingolstadt, which, by the time it reached its third edition in 1820,
had grown to almost the same length as the fifth edition of Grundsdtze,94 No
other Cameralistic writing gave rise to such treatment, and the production of
these ‘workbooks’ is an indirect testament to the work’s broad and lasting
reception.

We have seen that Sonnenfels did not continue directly the discourse on state
economy initiated by Justi; even given the substantive overlaps, the emphasis
which Sonnenfels placed upon Nahrung, its multiplication, and population
distinguishes his writing from that of the predecessor he sought to replace. It
seems probable that the notion of Nahrung as a major thematic concept came
from Zincke; while ‘multiplication’ as the characteristic feature of economic
process appears to derive from Forbonnais. But, while it is proper to identify
such influences, they do not provide an adequate basis on which to evaluate
Sonnenfels’ own contribution. It is quite apparent that he made an inauspicious
start to his career by gaining a chair at the University of Vienna in a subject about
which he knew very little. The textbook which he then produced, however
represents more than simply rewriting and plagiarism, despite an understand¬
able reluctance to identify the sources of his writing. Such identification was in
any case, not usual in the eighteenth century - especially when dealing with
textbooks - and when considering these sources we are necessarily limited to
judicious speculation.
But, as the discussion of Justi has also pointed out, the identification of such
sources is not of decisive or ultimate importance when investigating the
discursive structures that gave rise to the texts in question. Justi’s Staatswirth-
schajt and Sonnenfels Grundsatze rapidly gained canonical status in the sub¬
sequent expansion of Cameralistic teaching, and we should therefore concen¬
trate on the way in which the texts were read and criticized in the later eighteenth
century, rather than seek to dismember them into sources, traditions, and
debates about originality.

92 OWuf' mP7-Q) LS{ad\n TtlVOn Sre/!elSChen Lerhuche derPohtischen Wissenschaften, 3 vols

of 62 pages of questions on the text. nlcn consisted

)’ /'USfMkl,‘ " iba dk Pdkr>-

90
5 The institutionalization of
Cameralistic orthodoxy

A university is a nursery for the state, preparing its useful members to further
the common good. It is therefore not what it should be where that science is not
taught which treats of the foundation, increase and maintenance of substantial
and material welfare.1

As Chapter 3 has shown, the first half of the eighteenth century was marked by
repeated arguments for the teaching of a practical administrative economics
within the university, while the actual implementation of effective teaching was
limited. After 1760 this began to change. Texts continued to appear urging the
utility of such teachings, but they were now able to cite actual instances and quote
related textbooks; and discussion shifted away from an emphasis on the general
benefits of Cameralism towards the Cameralistic curriculum and the most
suitable textbooks. The production of the latter now began to gather pace:
perhaps sixty general texts, introductions, and translations appeared between
1760 and 1790 that can be identified as within the mainstream of Cameralistic
teaching.2 This process conformed to the general pattern of diffusion: a slow
beginning was followed by a very rapid buildup in the 1780s, levelling off, in this
case, in the 1790s. Far from teachers settling upon specific texts, and the
production of textbooks consequently tailing off, perceived deficiencies in
teaching and textbooks maintained the impulse to improve upon existing texts
and publish new ones. However, this took place during a period when the
German university system as a whole went into a slow decline, a decline which
was then accelerated by the upheavals caused by the French Revolution and the
Napoleonic Wars.

1 D. G. Schreber, Zwo Schriften von der Geschichte und Nothwendigkeit der Cameralmssenschaften
(Leipzig, 1764), 100.
2 This can only be a rough estimate, since not all the potentially relevant titles can be examined and,
in any case, the way in which a distinction is made between ‘general’ and ‘specialized’ works is open
to debate. Humpert’s Bibliographic der Kameralwissenschaften, published shortly before the war
(Kurt Schroeder Verlag, Cologne, 1937), lists many books which can no longer be traced, since
several major collections were destroyed either in whole or in part by British and American action.
In particular, the Hamburg Kommerzbibliothek was completely destroyed, the bulk of Heidel¬
berg’s early economic holdings, and those also of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. The Federal
Republic has an excellent inter-library loan system, and in the closing stages of the research for this
book, Dieter Klippel undertook the laborious task of attempting to trace 40 selected tides recorded
by Humpert but hitherto unlocated. 19 out of 26 responses stated that the title in question could
not be found in any library of the Federal or the Democratic Republic; and so from the original list
(drawn from perhaps 150 unlocated items) only 7 works were traced.

91
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

The social and political dislocations brought about by the Revolutionary

period not only disrupted life in the German states: they shattered once and for
all the social and political world that Cameralism had sought to arrange and
govern. At the very point at which the Cameralistic sciences were at last gaining
acceptance as a university discipline, they were displaced by a new form of
economic reasoning. Economic teaching in universities was henceforth the
province of a new Nationalokonomie which emphasized the economic activity and
needs of the individual as the founding moment of economic order, and not the
activity of government over the populations of territorial states.
In so doing, Nationalokonomie could make use of arguments and curricula that
had been laid down by its predecessors; for, by the later part of the century, it was
no longer necessary-to keep on presenting the case for the teaching of
administrative sciences in the university. Nationalokonomie could succeed to the
chairs and curricula that had been established in the thirty years before 1790
without replicating the previous struggles for the development of teaching in
administrative economics. This process has itself served to conceal the real shifts
that took place at the turn of the century, since the new economics borrowed
much from the old. An understanding of the actual changes that Nationalokono¬
mie implied therefore requires a detailed knowledge of the pedagogic practice
that constituted the institutional foundations upon which it was to build.
Daniel Gottfried Schreber, a teacher in philosophy and Cameralistic sciences
at Biitzow, published one of the first detailed organizational outlines for the
teaching of oeconomic sciences’ in I7633 - and it was this outline that was
adopted by the Kameral Hohe Schule of Lautern, which, as part of the
University of Heidelberg, was later to be the most successful Cameralistic
teaching institution of the eighteenth century. Unlike many of his predecessors,
Schreber maintained that universities as they were then constituted possessed
neither the funds nor the necessary conditions for the proper teaching of the
subject, instead, he put forward a plan for an academy.
In Schreber s opinion, a favourable location was of crucial importance to such
an institution, with ready access to agricultural land and activities as well as to
manufacturing. There must be suitable buildings for assemblies and the
preservation of the possessions of the academy; and the region must also be able
to pioduce good-quality wool, silk, and linen, which were considered to be the
three main raw materials for manufacturing. In the long term, it was envisaged
that the academy should support itself through its own ‘improved’ enterprise-
while some capital would be required initially, the success of the academy in
promoting local improvement to agriculture and manufacturing would in
Schreber s view, be indicated by the extent of its financial autonomy.4
The president of the academy was to be an experienced man, interested in
promoting the different sciences involved; he was to have at his disposal five

3 2'°' Schreber> <EntwVrf von einer zum Nutzen eines Staats zu errichtenden Academie der
4 lbitT p1142^16h Wlssenschaften > Sammlung verschiedener Schriften, 10 (1763), 417-36.

92
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

teachers and a staff of clerks and assistants for farm and manufacture. First
among the teachers was to be a ‘Professor of Cameralistic Sciences or
Oeconomics’,5 who was, in addition to his teaching duties, to supervise academic
affairs. The remaining teachers were to be in mathematics and physics; natural
history; mineralogy and chemistry; and ‘Manufactur- Fabriken- und Commer-
cienwesen’. Teaching was to occupy two, three, or four hours a day for courses
which were to last either six months or one year. These courses were to be given
in German (Schreber clearly felt the need to stipulate this), and for one hour
each day every teacher was to be prepared to deliver a public lecture on the
subject that he taught. The Professor of Cameralistic Sciences was charged with
teaching ‘general’ and ‘special’ householding (Haushaltungsmssenschaft), by
which was meant general principles in the first instance, and with application to
state and region in the second. In addition to this, he was to supervise the general
distribution of teaching, keep up with correspondence and publications, and
provide any teaching that was not covered by the remaining members of staff.
The various assignments allocated to each teacher combined the exercise of
specialist knowledge with associated practical skills, and also included tasks
arising from the running of the academy. Thus, the Professor of Mathematics
and Physics not only had to teach pure mathematics, but also such practical
applications as the surveying of fields and mines, building, and astronomy; in
addition, he was charged with the care of all the premises occupied by the
academy. The Professor of Natural History had a similarly dual task: on the one
hand to teach botany, cultivation, and zoology; on the other, to supervise the
gardens, nurseries, fields, and associated properties. The Professor of Miner¬
alogy and Physics was to teach ‘physikalische’ and ‘okonomische’ chemistry - the
first to be taught in a laboratory, while the second was concerned with those
chemical processes related to manufacturing, such as dyestuffs, ceramics,
glass-making, and metallurgy. In addition to this, there was the science of mines,
which involved, among other things, the refinement and use of the products of
mining in foundries; and this professor also had charge of the manufacturing
enterprises run by the academy, and the collection of mineral specimens and
their assembly in a Mineralienkabinett. The Professor of Manufacture and
Commerce was to teach trade, manufacture, coinage, and the various aspects of
accounting. He was to look after the academy s accounts as well as the
non-chemically based manufacturing processes associated with the academy.
The academy which Schreber proposed was therefore to be both a teaching
and an economic enterprise, in which the activities of the latter were intended to
provide practical demonstrations of economic activity and, at the same time, to
form the material basis of the academy. The students are described simply as

Or^more^ precisely, the Fabrike, while Manufaktur was to be under the supervision of the Professor
of Manufactures and Commerce. The distinction is that the former is characterized by chem.cal
manufacturing processes, and the latter by mechanical processes - or fire and hammer , as the
previous chapter noted, p. 76 above.

93
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

those who wish to learn part of the whole of oeconomy’;7 much of what they
were to learn was clearly of a practical nature, with emphasis being given to the
biological and chemical processes associated with production. No specific
course or sequence of lectures was prescribed; instead, it was stated that
especially hard-working students would be permitted to attend the regular
assemblies of members and associates of the academy, where the presentation of
learned papers would lend the institution the character of a scientific society
alongside its more strictly pedagogic function.
This was the ‘nursery’8 that Schreber proposed, and it was soon followed by
other proposals to teach the Cameralistic sciences. At Halle, the young Professor
of Philosophy, J. C. Forster, declared that in the Winter Semester of 1769-70 he
would lecture on the ‘oeconomic and cameralistic sciences’ according to L J D
Suckow’s Carrieral- Wissenschajften, a recently published work that was closely
based on Darjes’ Erste Griinde der Cameralmssenschaften of 1756.9 Later in 1770
Forster published anonymously some teaching outlines that listed the’separate
parts of the Cameralistic sciences in a very similar arrangement to that of Darjes:
first the encyclopedia, then agricultural and town economy, and lastly a
treatment of Polizei. Material was to be presented in this order over a series of six
semesters, to be completed by the commercial sciences.10 In Wurzburg F. C.
Gavard proposed a course of private lectures on ‘state oeconomy’ which were
also to deal with ‘its branches, namely Politik, Polizey, Commerzien and Finan-
Zen " 1,70 1 nnn ,
s we shall see, the 1770s saw the emergence of specific courses in
Cameralism that went beyond the occasional series of lectures by the interested
awyer or philosopher. By 1782, Moshammer, appointed Extraordinary Pro¬
fessor of the Cameralistic Sciences at Ingolstadt in 1780, could combine a
discussion of teaching organization with a review of existing practices when
surveying the progress of the Cameralistic sciences.
Moshammer considered that the period when Cameralism was not regarded
as a principal subject of study was now past; nevertheless, the manner of teaching
eft a great deal to be desired - in one university nothing but agriculture would be
7 Schreber, ‘Entwurf, p. 421. 8 Ibid p 436

ass asr "d

ankommende Studierende (Halle 1781) ns up again in his Kurze Anwetsung fur

privately in Prague, and published further works in the 1790s L d' ^ Stadtsokonomie’

94
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

taught, while in another the same was true of technology.12 In support of this
contention, he cited the Plan der hohen Kameralschule at Lautern, which made a
similar point and proposed that to be effective, teaching in the Cameralistic
sciences had to be both comprehensive and systematic. Before presenting a
detailed report on the institutions at Lautern, GieBen, and Busch’s Handelsaka-
demie in Hamburg, Moshammer summarized the state of teaching in the early
1780s, referring to nineteen universities in Germany and Austria where some
teaching was available.13
The survey was followed by a plan for a ‘Cameralistic Faculty’; in Mosham¬
mer’s view, systematic teaching could not take place within a Philosophy Faculty
that had become a repository for unrelated subjects. Unlike Schreber, Mosham¬
mer concentrated his attention on the construction of a set course of study that
was to take place over three years (or six semesters), adding to his description a
list of recommended textbooks. Briefly, this is what he proposed.14

Year 1: Winter Semester

(1) Encyclopedia and the literature of all Cameralistic sciences. Recommended text:
Jung’s Versuch einer Grundlehre sdmmtlicher Kameralwissenschaften.
(2) Logic and metaphysics. Recommended text: Feder’s Logik undMetaphysik, in either
German or Latin.
(3) Pure mathematics, including arithmetic, geometry, and trigonometry. Recom¬
mended text: Kastner’s Mathematische Anfangsgriinde.
(4) History of the fatherland. No suitable text available.
(5) Natural history, including economic zoology. Recommended text: Blumenbach’s
Handhuch der Naturgeschichte.

Year 1: Summer Semester

(1) Practical philosophy, especially the law of nature and general Staatsrecht. Recom¬
mended text: Feder’s Lehrbuch derpraktischen Philosophic.
(2) Naturlehre. Recommended text: Erxleben’s Anfangsgriinde der Naturlewe.
(3) Chemistry. Recommended text: Erxleben’s Anfangsgriinde der Chemie.
(4) Statistics. Recommended text: Achenwall’s Staatsverfassung, edited by Schlozer.
(5) Natural history, including economic botany. Recommended text: Succow’s Oekono-
mische Botanik.

Year 2: Winter Semester

(1) Applied mathematics, including statics, mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, optics,
astronomy, chronology, artillery, and fortification. Recommended text: von Wolf’s
Auszugaus den Anfangsgriinden alter mathematischen Wissenschaften.

12 F. X. Moshammer, Gedanken und Vorschldge iiber die neuesten Anslalten teutscher Fiirsten die
Kameralwissenschaften auf hohen Schulen in Florzu bringen (Regensburg, 1782), 5-6.
13 Ibid., pp. 14-27. He began with Vienna, where Sonnenfels was joined in 1778 by the secretary of
the Lower Austria Economic Society, who taught ‘Oekonomie’. Moshammer then listed teachers
at Prague, Ofen, Freiburg in Breisgau, Innsbruck, Troppau, Briinn, Klausenberg - all these
being Austrian-controlled universities. Achenwall, Beckmann, and Schlozer were said to be
active in Gottingen, while in Leipzig, Wenk, Wieland, and Rossig taught in the subject-area_
Serious teaching also took place at Halle and Jena; and occasional teaching at the universities ot
Altdorf, Biitzow, Erfurt, Frankfurt an der Oder, Ingolstadt, Rinteln, and Wittenberg.
14 Ibid., pp. 51-85.

95
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

(2) Merchant accounting, especially the application of double-entry to Cameralistic

matters. Recommended text: Wiedeburg’s Anleitungzum Rechnungswesen.
(3) Technology. Recommended text: Beckmann’s Anleitung zur Technologie.
(4) Mining. Recommended text: Cronstadt’s Versuch einer Mineralogie.
(5) Veterinary science. Recommended text: Erxleben’s Anfangsgriinde der Vieh-
arzneykunst.

Year 2: Summer Semester

(1) Polizeimssenschafi. Recommended text: Griindsdtze, edited by Beckmann.
(2) Forestry. Recommended text: Suckow’s Einleitung in die Forstwissenschaft.
(3) Staatsrecht of the fatherland. Recommended text: von Kreitmayr’s Grundriss des
allgemeinen deutschen und bayerischen Staatsrechts.
(4) Civil architecture. Recommended text: Suckow’s Erste Griinde der biirgerlichen
Baukunst.
(5) Agriculture. Recommended text: Beckmann’s Grundsdtze der deutschen Landmrth-
schaft.

Year 3: Winter Semester

(1) Cameralistic finance. Recommended text: Sonnenfels’ Finanzwissenschaft.
2 Sections of German private law. Recommended text: von Selchow’s Elementajuris.
(3) Landrechte. Recommended text: von Kreitmayr’s Compendium codicis Bavarici cwilis.
(4) Commercial policy with commercial geography. Recommended text: Sonnenfels’
riandlungsmssenschaft.
(5) Oeconomic jurisprudence. No suitable text available.

Year 3: Summer Semester

(1) State economy. Recommended text: Schmid’s Lehre von der Staatsmrthschaft.
^ Jr0"5 °f German Staatsrecht- Recommended text: Heumanni’s Initiajuris politiae

(3) Landrechte. No suitable text available.

(4) Coin and exchange. Recommended text: von Selchow’s Grundsdtze des Wechselrechts
{b) Introduction to oeconomico-Cameralistic travels. Schldzer was to be asked to write a
textbook for this.

In addition, Moshammer stated that the faculty would need a suitable

collection of books, an ‘oeconomic garden’, a chemical laboratory, a collection of
raw materials and one of the various instruments associated with physical
science, and, finally, associated lands and manufactories.
Obviously, the extent of this programme goes far beyond what might be
aPProPnate today to a training in administrative economics; but it
should be noted first of all that the programme, although far-reaching is
conceived of as having a definite duration and a considered sequence of subjects.
As we shall see, this was primarily an innovation of the Lautern Hohe Schule for
all previous proposals contented themselves either with an unordered list of
subjects or, as with Justi in Vienna, presented only part of a programme that was
never brought to completion.
Moshammer argued that it was necessary to begin with the ‘Encyclopedia’ for
it was certainly extremely important that the young pupils gain, right at’the
beginning of their study of Cameralism, knowledge of all the parts of these
sciences, so that they are able to apprehend their interrelation and reciprocal

96
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

effect on the whole.15 This general introduction, however, occupied only one
part of a first semester that ranged widely over a number of abstract subjects
which were, properly speaking, only ‘auxiliary sciences’ {Hilfswissenschaften)
for the Cameralistic sciences. And, in fact, a general defect of the sequence
of teaching proposed by Moshammer was that it was not until the second
year that those subjects were taught which had a more practical and direct
bearing on the general objectives of the educational programme. The final
semester began with lectures on ‘state oeconomy that were intended to
provide a revision course on ‘all the preceding political sciences 16, employ¬
ing for this the textbook that Schmid wrote for his Lautern teaching.
Whether it was possible to cover all the ground intended and then retro¬
spectively bring it into some kind of framework is dubious. To see quite how
these problems could be dealt with, we can turn to the experience of the
Lautern Kameral Hohe Schule, the most effective and lasting of the
Cameralistic teaching institutions.
It is significant that this school grew out of the activities of an Economic
Society’. As noted in Chapter 3, Sincerus linked his proposal for the teaching
of economics with a learned society charged with the task of writing the books
that would be used for teaching. Indeed, many of the early proposals for the
teaching of economic subjects saw the need for the formation of learned
societies which were either founded specifically for the discussion of economic
matters, or which had a strong interest in such matters. The early history of the
institutionalization of Cameralism as a university subject largely bypassed this
stage, and so these proposals remained undeveloped until later in the century.
Nevertheless, the early writers were correct in perceiving societies as an
important element in the propagation and elaboration of the Cameralistic
sciences, and the expansion of Cameralism in the second half of the eighteenth
century did in fact coincide with the development of ‘economic’ and ‘patriotic’
societies.
This movement represents the institutional base of the German Enlighten¬
ment, uniting professional and social groups at a local level for the active
development of bourgeois values - reading, discussion, and reform. This was
also the social background of the later eighteenth-century teachers of Camer¬
alism The biographies of the overwhelming majority of those both writing and
teaching the textbooks studied here repeat the same details: born in a North
German village or small town, son of a Protestant clergyman, and, after attending
local schools, study of theology or philosophy at a North German Protestant
university like Jena, Halle, or Leipzig. In this respect, Cameralism grew out of
the Enlightenment - for the latter is properly understood not as a particular
system of ideas expounded by writers and scholars, but rather as a new form of
social movement founded in provincial towns and villages. The university played
a key role in the German Enlightenment, and this was reflected in the rapid

is Ibid., p. 51. '6 Ibid., p. 80.

97
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

extension of Academies of Science and patriotic societies which contributed to

the formation of‘enlightened culture’.17
We can remind ourselves of the arguments for the establishment of economic
societies by considering the propositions advanced bv Bucher in 1728 for the
formation of a ‘Societal der Oeconomischen Wissenschafften’ which were
outlined in Chapter 3 above:

W,W/St \ SJk W'th hdp °f exPerienced oeconomists / the publication of a proper

and well-ordered compendium upon which it would be possible to lecture publicly /
the same time complete system for further use and consSeration As for
arrangement / one must only .real of 1) the pemnis Oemnonticic and hi XL / 2) the
cl Oeconomicis, fields / gardens / meadows / woods etc. 3) Temporibus Oeconomicis 4) dr
rdusetAawmbusOeconomas including those legal issues which arise in the Oeconomie as

:“d“/ ^ab&irg to bees 7 and - d°- - - «

A society occupied with the composition of such a text would necessarily have

wished
wished toto dabble
dabbl13^^1
in the new “and
7UW n0t bCeconomic
modish merely 3 arts,
Sal°n but
f0r 111086 wh0
a serious
organization whose common task was the promotion of economic knowledge
through publication and discussion. While the inspiration was drawn froL
oreign societies, these features were not in themselves typical of early
eighteenth-century economic societies - the Dublin society formed in 1736 for
insfiince, had an initial membership of200 and directed its activities to economic
p i anthropy, promoting improvements with the aid of a £\ 000 grant from
Parliament, and publishing a weekly naner 1<J T atPr i7cz ^ *
formed in Rennes which, afth„ugh foL^devotdTo’ Z Z

agriculture, was in fact primarily concerned with the last of these Rmth' ’ •
was a society ofiocal notables and professionals,
ap-'culturalists among its members. Its function, therefore, was not
the exchange of practical information but rather that nf a k a ’ .. •

announcenumulf prize essay questions!^ ^ ^ *e

patriouschen GeseIIsch,fte„dii£TTlT ”? 1778: F- E"> .

Schmidtchen (eds.), Wirtschaft, Technik und Geschirhtr (\I I le ^U p afLlng ’ ln E- Jager and V.

;; kr-Boch"'
Soften: Em Beitrag Zur m^fisgeMteTs

98
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

and almost immediately eclipsed, by the formation in 1764 of the Leipzig

Economic Society, which rapidly became one of the leading organizations of its
kind. Official recognition was bestowed upon it in 1765, together with its own
seal and free accommodation. As was typical of learned societies at this time,
state recognition brought with it little, if any, direct financial support, the main
source of income for such societies being the relatively high subscriptions levied
upon full members - in the case of Leipzig an entry fee of five thalers and an
annual subscription of tentalers.20 Artisans and agriculturalists were admitted to
the Leipzig society in the capacity of advisers and they paid no fees; this at once
emphasizes their subordinate status, however, and in fact such an organization
could only exist as an assembly of notables, since they were the only ones who
could afford to finance the printing costs, prizes, and collections of models and
books. In this regard, the Leipzig society was relatively open; the membership
was by no means dominated by the nobility but had a high level of bourgeois
participation.
During the second half of the eighteenth century, a number of societies
devoted to agricultural and commercial questions were formed in the German
states, and prominent organizations such as the Gottingen Academy of Sciences
(founded in 1751) and the Royal Academy of the Sciences in Berlin frequently
set prize essay questions related to trade, agriculture, and manufacture.21 The
economic societies tended to share similar features: a membership drawn from
local professionals, clergymen, and lawyers concerned with the improvement of
local conditions; a financial base drawn from the fees paid by the members
themselves; principal activities consisting of regular meetings and the reading of
papers by individual members; the announcement of prize essay competitions,
the topics of which frequently posed some issue related to rural improvement,
the publication of prize-winning essays as well as selected lectures to the
assembled society; the exchange of such publications with similar societies, and
the accumulation in this way of a broad literature on economic improvement.
Associated with this, such societies might also found a collection of models of
instruments and machinery, and lay out an ‘economic garden’.
As part of this trend, the ‘Physikalisch-okonomische Bienengesellschaft zu
Lautern’ was founded in 17 69.22 According to one of the initiators of the society,
the impetus came as a result of several poor years for bee-keeping; and the initial

20 H. Eichler, ‘Die Leipziger Okonomische Sozietatim 18. Jahrhundert' Jahrbuchfur Geschichte des
Feudalismus, 2 (1978), 361. , ,, , d i- ?-i
21 H.-H. Muller, Akademie und Wirtschaft im 18. Jahrhundert (Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1975), 33tt.
A list of the essay questions related to economic matters set by the Berlin and Gottingen societies

22 Lautemtv^ later renamed Kaiserslautern, and at this time had perhaps 2,500 inhabitants. Many
of the societies that were formed at about this time called themselves physikahsch-okonomisch ,
1 the combination had some significance. By the second half of the eighteenth century
‘okonomisch’ referred not so much to a semi-Aristotelian conception of householding as to
agricultural activity or, at most, economic activity in a rural setting. Thus Strelin, Realworterbuc
fur Kameralisten und Oekonomen, 6 (1791), 302: ‘Oekonomtsche Gesellschafi, odei^
association of those persons knowledgeable of arable cultivation, animal T ^ ^ ^
all those disciplines belonging to Oekonomie, and whose intention is to study all that the

99
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

pmpose of the society was to remedy this situation either by example or publica¬
tion. - Johann Riem was himself a local apothecary who was more than casually
interested in bees - he had already published a work called the Praktische Bienenva-
term 1767, and in 1768 he had gained a prize from the Mannheim Academy for an
essay on ‘The Best Apiculture of Churpfalz’.^ His expertise in this area won him
wide recognition: in 1775, he was appointed Bee Inspector for the Kurmark and
teacher of bee-economy in Berlin; he subsequently became a high official in the
Silesian administration, finally being appointed permanent secretary to the
.eipzig Economic Society in 1786. He used to the full the opportunities that this
astposmon gave him for the promotion of economic publication and journalism 25
The statutes of the Lautern society limited the ordinary membership to
nineteen in all, including the director, secretary, and treasurer, and was divided
etween residents and non-residents. Among the founding members, there were
pnests teachers, local officials, and also Friedrich Medicus, a court councillor
from Mannheim who, in 1770, was to become the director and moving spirit
behind the reorganization of the society. Qualification for an ordinary resident
thC P°SS^SS'0n ‘of economic knowledge, a genuine desire for the
best for the Society and the proper conduct of rational agricultural activity’ 2* Bv
contrast, admission to the society for non-resident members was dependent on
their presentation of a learned paper.
The society was to meet three times a month; the first session was confined to

< -/37)-However, there is one meaning recorded bvZedler that is of fnrU,» • » ,

saw tm
okonomisch' defoj , « S, J JfZTZ re.LT 7 'P^ikalisch-
science’. Distinctive in this mare K! u . It enterpnses on the basis of‘natural
23 JChRvity “ “ appendage to the moral unity ofjtmehcM 1St0tdlan n0tl0n ofagricultural

2< 177i)/ZuscS» SmS NMZm db L^-Gcsendn (Mannheim,

1 tzZtzTml?der
1807, and among his other activities he was editor of S I ^f1.? s°ciety UP his death in
26 E. Muller, Zur Geschichte des hZe^ScL^
(1774-1784) (Eugen Crusius, Kaiserslautern 1899)' 5 eT^meralh^chschule ln Kaiserslautern
1770-2 are extant, and indicate theshaml!?’ u lists for the years
nobles, and the active role of‘ordinary’ hrmrcre honorary position held by
Among (he 9 resident
school principal); while among the corresponding memhe(such as the forester and the

W. BonB, ‘Praktische AuC S ”

7
while at this time there were also about 20 nobles offii a ,bers
Beckmann from Gottingen. 9 out ofthe 25 extraordinary me ’lf1^ Were,5 pnests’ 3 officials, and
were clergy> and 3 were doctors,
*ffiI?at?d ln honorary positions: N. Schindler and
18. Jahrhundert’ in R. Vierhaus (ed ) Deutsche 1atriotisch " ,n Suddeutschland und Osterreich im
International Publications, Munkh,' 1980) 298-9 Semeinnutztge Gesellschaften (Kraus

100
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

members and was devoted to the consideration of correspondence and papers,

while the second and third were open to all interested parties and were dedicated
to the reading of papers and extracts from useful writings. At the same time, the
regular publication of this material was initiated, with the preface of the first
collection stating that the aim of the society was the dissemination of ‘useful
matters proved by experience’.27 Besides a brief account of the society by a local
priest, the first volume contained four contributions: one by Riem on bee¬
keeping, a general essay on the obstacles to a flourishing agriculture (written by a
non-resident member), a contribution on pollen (by a non-member), and,
finally, an essay of ‘Oeconomic Observations’ submitted by a non-resident
member and devoted entirely to agricultural observations.
By 1770, the name of the society had been altered to the ‘Kiihrpfalzische
physikalisch-okonomische Gesellschaft’, in part the outcome of a more general
interest in economic activity, but also because of the assumption of the
presidency by Pfalzgraf Karl August von Zweibriicken and the addition of a
number of honorary noble members, including Karl Friedrich von Baden and a
future King of Bavaria.28 Medicus took over as director at this point, lending
new weight to the society’s efforts both to make useful contacts and to establish
its practical basis. To the latter belonged the laying-out of an ‘oeconomic garden’
(that is, a garden for the cultivation of economically useful plants), a tree nursery,
and a small library. To these were added a linen manufactory, which could
provide work for local people during the winter, and a fruit market in Lautern.
The first prize essay question was announced at Easter 1769, and concerned
the most suitable way of dealing with a pest which attacked vine leaves; sixteen
replies were received and the winning essay was published in the second part of
Bemerkungen for 1770.29 Webler notes, however, that the local people did not
take a great deal of interest in the activities of the society; the prizes offered for
agricultural improvement were won by the same people every year, and the
original winning essay from 1769 had been written by a member of the nobility.
By the mid-1770s, the society admitted that its original aim of directly
influencing local agriculture through a combination of examples, prizes, and
general enlightenment had met with little result. Instead, it was felt that a policy
of long-term education was required, and it was decided that the society should
establish as its principal activity the training of officials and agriculturalists in a
newly formed Academy.
It seems that Medicus had had this idea for some time, for in an article for the
Bermerkungen of 1770 he had drawn attention to the need to teach the basic
principles of ‘householding and cameralia’ to future officials. Pointing to the
work of Darjes at Jena, Schreber at Leipzig, and Beckmann at Gottingen, he
27 Bemerkungen derphysikalisch-dkonomischen undBienengesellschaft zu Lautern (1769); a second edition
was published in Mannheim in 1771.
28 H. Webler, Die Kameral-Hohe-Schule zu Lautern (1774-1784) (Historisches Museum der Pfalz
e. V., Speyer am Rhein, 1927), 10. Official status was granted to the society in August 1770,
together with an annual contribution of 600 gulden.
29 Bemerkungen der kiihrpfdlzischen physikalisch-dkonomischen Gesellschaft, 2 (1770), 22-100.

101
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

expressed a desire for Heidelberg to follow this example.30 For advice on the
organization and staffing of the academy he turned to Schreber, whose ‘Outline’
of 1763 was to be a strong influence on the new institution. Schreber also
recommended Georg Succow to Medicus, and Succow was duly appointed as
the first teacher in 1774.
The title that Succow was given in Lautern was ‘Professor of Physics
(Naturlehre), Pure and Applied Mathematics, Natural History, Chemistry and
Agriculture’ - his previous appointment had been as a member of the Medical
Faculty at Jena, and he had gained his doctorate in 1772 in pharmacology.
Departing from the usual pattern of such appointments, where the incumbents
proved incapable of representing the full range of their subjects, Succow proved
to be a good choice. In response to his appointment, he published a pamphlet on
the future organization of the academy, identifying common contemporary
failings in Cameralistic teaching, and indicating the manner in which the new
institution would avoid them.
First of all, he argued, there was the problem of a lack of communication
between those who wrote books based on other books, and those who, in
avoiding this practice, sought refuge in practical matters and were consequently
uninformed of general principles. Combined with the prevailing enthusiasm for
teaching and discussion of economic matters, this meant that coverage of the
relevant subject-areas was very patchy: nowhere did there exist an adequate
programme of teaching in the various aspects of agriculture, manufacture, trade,
Polizei, Cameralistics, and finance.31 These central areas were also unsupported
by proper training in natural history, mathematics, and related disciplines - the
so-called ‘auxiliary sciences’. The students at Lautern were to have several years
of schooling behind them - their level was envisaged in many respects as being
similar to the university students of the time, and, as it turned out, several of the
students attended the school after completing their studies at university.
Succow’s proposed course was to begin with a proper founding in the auxiliary
sciences. Unlike Moshammer, who, as we have seen, believed that a general
introduction to the whole range of Cameralistic sciences was the appropriate
starting-point in the syllabus, Succow stated that: ‘First one must be taught how
to think correctly and how to arrive at reasoned judgements before one is in the
30
F. C. Medicus, ‘Von der Nothwendigkeit okonomischer Kantnisse’, Bemerkungen, 2 (1770),
250-1. Some political geography is in order here. Kaiserslautern is situated in wooded hills to the
west of the Rhine valley (at this point, a broad plain some 25 miles wide), while Heidelberg is 40
miles to the east, on the eastern edge of the valley. Mannheim is situated on the Rhine itself,
where the Neckar (flowing through Heidelberg) joins it. Mannheim is perhaps 30 miles from
Kaiserslautern, which is in turn about 40 miles from Mainz to the north and Karlsruhe to the
south-east. Considering the geography today, the rationale for a link between the Lautern school
and Heidelberg is by no means obvious; the answer is to be found in the contemporary political
structure. At the time of the foundation of the school, the residence of the ruler of the Kurpfalz
(within which both Lautern and Heidelberg were included) was in Mannheim. The Academy of
Sciences was also to be found here; established in 1763, it eventually had a staff of 15 and
represented modern disciplines, unlike the University of Heidelberg. See P. Classen and E
Wolgast, Kleme Geschichte der Universitdt Heidelberg (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1983), 30-2
G A Succow, Plan von der okonotmschen and Kameralschule welche mit Kurfurstlich gnadigster
hrlaubms den 3 October 1774 in Lautern wird erojfnet werden (Mannheim, 1774), 5.

102
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

position to advance with surety in all other branches. This is the reason for
beginning with this science.’32 The four-semester course proposed by Succow
began, therefore, with philosophy:
Winter Semester 1
(1) Philosophy
(2) Pure mathematics
(3) Physics (Naturlehre)
(4) Natural history (animal and mineral)
Summer Semester 2
(5) Applied mathematics
(6) Chemistry
(7) Natural history (plants and herbs)
(8) Agriculture

Winter Semester 3
(9) Works, manufacturing, and fabrication
(10) Trade
(11) Polizeimssenschaft
Summer Semester 4
(12) Finance
(13) A taatsrpirthschaftsmssenschaft
(14) Guide for scientific travels.

It can be assumed that this did form the basis for the school’s initial teaching,
since the same list appears in an article on its activities published two years
later.33 It is noticeable that almost the whole of the first half of the course was
dominated by practical or ‘physical’ subjects; and it was only in the last semester,
in the course on ‘state economic science’, that students encountered a general
account which would demonstrate ‘the mutual relation and harmony of all these
parts, showing the means by which the wealth of the state was best maintained
and increased, teaching the art of discovering new sources able to extend the
happiness of the land, establishing with certainty which undertakings might be
really fruitful for each land, seeking out the useful and distinguishing them from
the dazzling’.34
Of course, there was no one available initially who could adequately present
such a lecture course, but such questions were not permitted seriously to affect
their design. Succow himself began the teaching at the new ‘Kameral-Hohe-
Schule zu Lautern’ in the autumn of 1774 with the four courses that he had

32 Ibid., p. 11. Three years later, a plan was drawn up in Munich for the teaching of ‘future
cameralists and other persons concerned with subsistence’, which likewise envisaged four
semesters and a distribution of subjects very similar to that proposed by Schreber: see W. Stieda,
‘Das Projekt zur Errichtung einer “Kameralhohenschule” in Miinchen im Jahre 1777’,
Forschungen zur Geschichte Bayems, 16 (1908), 90-1.
33 Anon., ‘Hohe Cameralschule’, Ephemeriden derMenschheit, 5 (1776), 123-4. Although this piece
is unattributed, it was probably written by Medicus, since it concludes with the observation that
the school would be placed in a more advantageous position if it were joined to the university at
Heidelberg, and would thus go some way towards rectifying the generally poor state of teaching in
the Cameralistic sciences at German universities.
34 Succow, Plan, p. 18.

103
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

outlined for the first semester, supplemented with two hours a week from a local
Lutheran priest on ‘Weltweisheit, schone Wissenschaften und Sittenlehre’.35 A
second full-time teacher was appointed towards the end of 1775 - this time
Medicus followed the advice of a local bishop and appointed L. B. M. Schmid, a
former theology student at Tubingen who had travelled in Italy and Russia.
Occasional teaching in mathematics, sketching, French, and calculation was at
this time drawn from a variety of sources.
The school gained official court recognition in August 1777, with the proviso
that its teaching should not overlap with that carried on at Heidelberg - but given
the limited and backward condition of the university at this time, it was extremely
unlikely that it would make any innovations in its outdated teaching pro¬
grammes.36 With official recognition came the right to set its own examinations;
and while the society was not formally dissolved until 1792, it was at this time
that the school gained its ascendancy, with the society’s activities henceforth
becoming auxiliary to the educational objectives of the school. The rapidly
growing reputation of the latter is shown by the appearance between 1776 and
1778 of a series of letters on the work of the school, mainly written by Schmid, in
two of the most prominent Enlightenment periodicals, the TeutscheMerkur and
the Ephemeriden der Menschheit.
Echoing Succow, Schmid’s first letter noted the poor state of teaching in the
universities, a condition which persisted despite the growing availability of
suitable literature.37 The school in Lautern had made a start at changing this,
but its activities were necessarily confined to Landeshaushaltung - a concent¬
ration on the economic administration of state or region. In this connection, he
asserted that a Kameralist was not merely a financial official, but someone
concerned with the administration of an entire economic region. Those who
ruled over such an area in the name of a territorial lord needed to know about all
the sources of economic activity and gain; and the nature of this economic
knowledge was of a different order to that possessed by agriculturalists,
manufacturers, and merchants. The purpose of the school, therefore, was the
training of those who, in the future, would be charged with economic admin¬
istration, not farming or manufacturing; and while the school could not provide a
comprehensive training for state service, it could provide a sound foundation
that could be supplemented later with practical experience.38
The next letter, which was written by Succow, emphasized this point: dealing
primarily with agriculture, he stated that the object was not to train farmers and
wine-growers, but rather to provide a sound basis for those who would have to
draft regulations governing agricultural production - ‘Ackerbau und Ackerpo-

35 Webler, Kameral-Hohe-Schule, p. 20.

36 F. A. Pietzsch (ed.), Das Inscriptionsbuch der Kameral-Hohen-Schute zu Lautern 1774-1784 und
Staatswirthschafts Hohen Schulezu Heidelberg 1784—1804 (Verlag Arbogast, Otterbach-Kaiserslau-
tern, 1961), 7.
37 L. B. M. Schmid, ‘Briefe iiber die hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern: Erster Brief, Der Teutsche
Merkur, 3 (Aug. 1776), 165.
38 Ibid., p. 176.

104
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

lizei’.39 The third letter, from Schmid, dealt with urban manufacture; the
fourth with trade, which he described as in itself ‘a private matter’, but one
which impinged upon the state in the area of export and import; an unsigned
fifth contribution reviewed Polizeimssenschaft, the sixth was concerned with
financial science; and the final letter presented an overview in the shape of
‘state economy’, just like the sequence of courses designed by Succow for
Lautern.40
The third full-time appointment to the school was Johann Heinrich Jung,
later known as Jung-Stilling. As with Schmid and Succow, his background
seemed unpromising: he had gained a medical doctorate in 1772, was known
chiefly for his eye surgery, and had a general background of self-education and
poverty. Appointed in November 1778, he quickly showed himself to be adept at
handling the various subjects entrusted to him, embarking on the writing of a
series of compendia that were sufficiently well received for him to be sub¬
sequently appointed Professor of Oeconomy, Finance, and Cameralistic
Sciences at Marburg in 1787.
Thus, by 1780, the school employed three full-time teachers, together with
two to three part-time assistants in arts and general knowledge, rhetoric, and
history. Unlike Heidelberg, where Latin still prevailed, all teaching was in
German and took up about five hours a day. Webler provides two examples of
teaching organization from this period:

Summer Semester 1780

6-7 a.m. Jung Agriculture with excursions
7-8 a.m. Schmid Natural Law and the law of nations
8-9 a.m. Jung Mechanical arts (Technologie)
9-10 a.m. Succow Physics with practical
Schmid (a) Town and village Polizei
(b) Accountancy (these subjects were taught in
succession)
10-11 a.m. Jung Forestry with excursions
11-12 a.m. Succow Chemistry with laboratory experiments
Schmid as 9 a.m. above
2-3 p.m. Succow (a) General natural history
(b) Zoology, botany, mineralogy
3-4 p.m. Jung (a) Outline of the foundation of all Cameralistic sciences
(b) Geographical history of trade
(c) History of commerce

39 G. A. Succow, ‘Zweyter Brief iiber die hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern’, Der TeutscheMerkur, 1
Gan. 1777), 58.
40 L. B. M. Schmid, ‘Dritter Brief liber die hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern’, Der Teutsche Merkur, 1
(Mar. 1777), 247-64; id., ‘Von der hohen Kameralschule in Lautern: Vierter Brief. Ueber die
Handlungswissenschaft’, Der Teutsche Merkur, 4 (Oct. 1777), 56; anon., ‘Fiinfter Brief liber die
hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern’, Ephemeriden derMenschheit, 2 (1778), 49-64; 3,1-12; L. B. M.
Schmid, ‘Sechster Brief liber die kurpfalzische hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern: Ueber die
Finanzwissenschaft’, Ephemeriden der Menschheit, 1 (1778), 20-32; id., ‘Siebenter Brief iiber die
churpfalzische hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern: Ueber die Staatswirthschaft’, Ephemeriden der
Menschheit, 10 (1778), 13-44.

105
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

4- 5 p.m. Succow (a) General natural history

(b) Zoology, botany, mineralogy
5- 6 p.m. Jung Commercial science

In addition to this, four items were to be taught as occasion demanded: Wund on

history; Schneider on logic, and the theory of arts and sciences; and the rules of
eloquence.

The Winter Semester of 1780-1 was planned as follows:

8-9 a.m. Schmid Staatswirthschaft (advanced)
9-10 a.m. Succow (a) Pure mathematics
(b) Applied mathematics (including mining)
Jung Processing (Kunstwirthschaft) or Technology
10-11 a.m. Schmid Polizei (advanced)
11-12 a.m. Succow as 9 a.m. above
Jung (a) Commercial economy
(b) Commercial geography (with the history of trades)
2-3 p.m. Jung Outline of the foundation of all the Cameralistic sciences
Schmid Finance (advanced)
3-4 p.m. Succow as 9 a.m. above
4—5 p.m. Schmid Natural Law and the law of nations (for beginners)

A greater variety of occasional lectures was planned than in the previous

semester: Succow on civil architecture; Jung on veterinary medicine; Wund on
universal history and the history of the Pfalz; Schneider on eloquence,
philosophy, and arts; Ibbeken on English language and literature; and Castillion
on the French language.41
It is not possible to reconstruct the sequence of work that would have been
followed by a student from these outlines, but it is possible to gain an idea of the
range and emphasis of the overall teaching of the school, as well as the
distribution of subjects between the three full-time teachers. Most striking, of
course, is the fact that for a school devoted to Cameralism, very little time was
spent on the teaching of the principles of this science. Mathematics and the
natuial sciences play a greater role, together with instruction in such practical
subjects as agriculture and Technologie - here we might anticipate that the
school’s possession of a botanical garden and a model collection were of
importance. If we confine our attention to the Cameralistic textbooks, we gain
the impression that Cameralistic pedagogy concentrated on imparting the
leading principles of the science, supported by auxiliary (and subordinate)
subjects. Using Lautern as an example, this is clearly misleading: training in the
Cameralistic sciences involved wide-ranging instruction that was aimed at the
production of ‘practical men’. ‘Practicality’ here did not mean knowledge of
administrative routines, for these could, after all, be learnt afterwards - it meant
a systematic training in the natural bases of economic processes.
Broadly, the programme continues the plan sketched by Schreber in 1763 and
elaborated into a definite syllabus by Succow on his appointment. All three
41 Webler, Kameral-Hohe-Schule, pp. 35-7.

106
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

teachers published works at this time which were well received, and which,
compared with contemporary writing, are of above average quality. Together
with the material that appeared in the Bemerkungen, it is possible to conclude that
the work of the school and the society was both serious and of high quality.
Medicus and Succow’s aim of providing an adequate grounding for future state
employees was very quickly translated into a functioning institution staffed by
competent teachers of high national reputation. While there is, unfortunately,
very little information on the students of this period - it can be assumed that they
were for the most part recruited locally42 - both Medicus and Jung, in lectures
delivered to the school, were able to underline its positive achievements in the
teaching of the Cameralistic sciences, which until then had been either poorly or
sporadically taught in German universities.43
Thanks to the prior activity of the society, the school also owned a reasonable
set of properties and possessions. First there was the library, which had been one
of the earliest initiatives of the society, financed by an annual subscription from
all members and 600 gulden from the Kurfurst. To this was added, in 1773, the
profits from the society’s publications and the fees of students. Records show
that the library had 936 volumes in 1778, while at the time of its transfer to
Heidelberg in 1784 it numbered 2,594 volumes, a substantial collection for such
a small institution.44
Mention has already been made of the manufactory associated with the
society, which was intended to provide winter-time work for the local population.
As well as this, the society also possessed some arable land, unfortunately at
some distance from the school and therefore both difficult to administer and to
employ for educational ends. In 1779, Jung was put in charge of this land, in line
with the kind of division of practical tasks recommended by Schreber; occupied
as he was by a full burden of teaching, however, he was not able to do a great
deal, and after the school’s move to Heidelberg the land was sold. The original
apiary established by Riem had been expanded into a botanical garden, and in
1778 this was reorganized along the lines of Succow’s Oekonomische Botanik.45 In
1777, the Kiirfurst purchased Schreber’s model collection and presented it to

42 Examples of the number of new registrations at the school are as follows: WS 1774, 5; WS 1776,
11; WS 1778,4; WS 1779, 9; WS 1780, 6; WS 1781, 6; WS 1782, 6; WS 1783, 4; WS 1784,13.
See Pietzsch, Inscriptionsbuch, pp. 11-12. Where dates of birth are given, it is evident that the
majority of the students, if not all of them, were in their 20s, and some of them are recorded as
having already attended university. The school was not concerned, therefore, with providing an
elementary technical education, but dealt with young men whose education was to be completed
by their attendance at the school.
43 F. C. Medicus, Ueber den Nuzen, den die okonomische Gesellschaft der Stadl und dem Oberamle
Lantern schon verschaffet hat, undnoch in Zukunft verschajfen wird (Lautern and Mannheim, 1780); J.
H. Jung, Dafi die Kameralwissenschaft auf einer besonders hierzu gestifteten hohen Schule vorgetragen
werden mtisse, zum Nuzen der Stauten und der Burger erdrtet (Lautern, 1780).
44 W. Wilier, ‘Die Bibliothek der Churpfalzischen Physikalisch-okonomischen Gesellschaft (1770-
1804)’, Bibliothek und Wissenschaft, 4 (1967), 267.
45 Published in Mannheim in 1777. This book was written as a text for his lectures on herbal lore,
and contains a systematic classification of plants according to their economic uses - for human
consumption (such as fruit), for manufactures, for dyes, and so forth.

107
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

the society, significantly adding to their collection of natural objects and

minerals.
Members of the school published books and articles throughout its time at
Lautern, thus bringing their work to the attention of the rising number of
persons interested in the promotion of Cameralistic teaching. Most prolific at
this time was Jung, who, apart from being a frequent contributor to the society’s
journal, soon after his arrival at Lautern embarked upon a project to provide a
series of linked textbooks in the Cameralistic sciences. The first to appear was a
general work with the same title as his 1780 lectures in the Cameralistic sciences
- and consequently running counter to Succow’s views on the proper sequence
of learning, inclining more towards the conceptions of Schreber.46 Later he was
to admit that this attempt to present a general overview as an introduction to the
subject led to an unsatisfactory and superficial treatment, hindering rather than
helping the novice.47 On this score, a useful comparison can be made with
Schmid’s Lehre von der Staatswirthschaft, which appeared the year after Jung’s
first book; not only had Schmid given the basic problems of Cameralism more
time and thought, but his recommendation to the reader of the writings of
Genovesi, Steuart, and Montesquieu indicates a more thorough acquaintance
with the literature. Jung’s semi-philosophical ruminations on the categories of
state, economy, and need indicate both his familiarity with a more general
literary world and, at the same time, the superficiality of his engagement with the
basic literature of the Cameralistic sciences.48
Jung followed his first book with others on forestry, agriculture, and manufac¬
turing, proceeding on through veterinary medicine, accounting, Polizei, and
finance until, in 1790, he finally produced a new systematization under the title
Lehrbuch der Cameral-Wissenschaft oder Cameral-Praxis.49 As is the case with all
the books that Jung published in this project, this last summary is marked by a
strong sense of categorization - indeed, a standard feature of each book is the
inclusion in the first few pages of a table which presented the subject in question
as a system of related parts and subsections. This mode of construction was not
unusual for the time, and many contemporary textbooks exhausted themselves
trying to distinguish one category from another without entering further into the
substantive technicalities of the chosen subject. Jung’s textbook on agriculture,
for instance, is principally composed of generalizations about agricultural
46
Versuch einer Grundlehre sammtlicher Kameralwissenschaften (Lautern, 1779).
jl first outlined a very incomplete plan of all the cameralistic (or better) state economic sciences
known by the general title of basic principles-, at this time it was for me as someone who only knows a
country through the writings of Biisching and Homann ..Gemeinniitziges Lehrbuch der
Handlungsmssenschaft (Leipzig, 1785), 3. Jung later indicated that he had given his first lectures at
Lautern on the basis of the manuscript of the Grundlehre, which he completed in his first few
months at the school: ‘Meine Geschichte als Lehrer der staatswirthschaftlichen Wissenschaften
statt einer Vorrede’, in Lehrbuch der Staats-Polizey-Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1788), p xxvii
48
Jung had wanted to call his treatise Kameralontologie: Versuch, p. 1 fn. Schmid’s work is discussed
further in Lh. 7 below in connection with his translation of Verri.
49
He went on to produce another following his teaching of Wilhelm IX at Marburg during 1790-1 -
Die Grundlehre der Staatswirthschaft (Marburg, 1792),

108
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

production that would be of no use to the practising agriculturalist, and

recommends a sound knowledge of botany and zoology without providing any
such knowledge.50 The text on accounting announces its basis to be the
double-entry system, and describes the categories and heading of Cameralistic
accounting, but does not provide a single example of actual accounting
methods.51 This contrasts with the technical detail characteristic of Riem’s
work on bees and Succow’s on economic botany; and, if the writings of Jung are
anything to go by, one can assume that the pupils of the Lautern school had a
firmer technical foundation in natural scientific knowledge than in the principles
of Cameralism and economic administration.
As we have already noted, in an article of 1776 Medicus proposed that the
school, then only two years old, would be better placed if it were moved to
Heidelberg and associated with the university.52 Lautern was, indeed, rather
remote; the local agriculture was not very productive, and it is evident that the
school’s location militated against its further development. The idea that the
institution should be moved to Heidelberg and linked in some way to the
university originated with the school not with Heidelberg; there was no related
teaching of any kind within the university at this time, nor any plans for its
development. Cameralism was, in the main, a product of North German
Protestant universities; and by the later part of the century, the University of
Heidelberg was in a very ramshackle state after several decades of appointments
dictated exclusively by church politics. The abolition of the Jesuit Order in 1777
was opportune for Medicus, as was the fact that the Court in Mannheim
favoured the proposal to move the school, seeing it as perhaps the last chance to
save the university from total collapse. Student numbers in the university were
falling - from a high point of 221 registered students in mid-century, there had
been a slight decline to 191 in the period 1781-5, and a rapid fall to 91 in
1796-1800.53 In the summer of 1789, Gedike, who was conducting a survey of
German university teaching for the Prussian government, visited Heidelberg
and noted that, apart from the school, the university was dominated by Catholic
placemen. He reported that the school was the most active part of the whole

50 Versuch eines Lehrbuches der Landwirthschaft (Leipzig, 1783), 3-6 and passim.
51 Anleitungzur Cameral-Rechnungs-Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1786).
52 In 1777, replying to von Moser’s proposal for a fifth faculty at GieBen for Cameralistics, Medicus
suggested that this would be an overhasty move, since teaching was still being developed at
Lautern - implying that this was the only place at that time where a systematic approach was to be
found. Not only was Lautern constructing a rational programme of study which would be upset by
the sudden emergence of competing institutions, but Medicus also pointed out that there were no
textbooks available, unless, as he put it, one wished to muddle the subject ‘a la Justi’ (letter
dated 12 Mar. 1777, Appendix to Stieda, Nationalokonomie als Universitatsrpissenschaft (B. G.
Teubner, Leipzig, 1906), 319). He requested that the plans for GieBen should be delayed for
another two years, so that Lautern could establish a teaching programme that could be the model
for further institutions.
53 F. Eulenberg, Die Frequenz der deutschen Universitaten (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1904), 164, table
VI. Klauser puts the number of students registered in 1800 at 49: see R. Klauser, ‘Aus der
Geschichte der Heidelberger Philosophischen Fakultat’, in G. Hinz (ed.),Aus der Geschichte der
Universitat Heidelberg und ihrer Fakultaten (Sonderband Ruperto Carola, Heidelberg, 1961), 275.

109
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

university.54 However, there were only 16 students registered separately with the
school at this time - a number consistent with the scale of teaching at Lautern
but hardly significant in the university as a whole.
Medicus, whose arrangements for the transfer of the school to Heidelberg
took some of his colleagues by surprise, argued in a pamphlet contemporary with
the move that ‘state economy is a science which shall only be practised by the
highest administrative instance [.Landes-Collegien] and employed for the general
good’;55 and it can be supposed that, partly because of his associations with the
Court in Mannheim, he had always aimed at university status for his endeavours.
The terms on which the school joined the university were certainly advantageous
to the former: entitled the ‘Staatswirthschafts Hohe Schule’, it remained
autonomous with respect to the four faculties, while its three full-time teachers
were assigned to the Philosophy Faculty and granted a vote in the Senate. The
courses laid down in Lautern continued;56 lectures were open to all students, but
those who wished to pursue a course were required to register, pay a fee, and
follow a definite sequence of instruction. With an income of 1,000 florins per
year from the Kurfiirst, the school was financially independent of the university,
and had its own students and staff; the society’s library, which followed the
school to Heidelberg, was also kept separate from the university' library for the
time being, and was only incorporated with the latter in 1803.
Before this occurred, two handwritten catalogues were made, one at about
1789 and the second probably in the mid-1790s. Unfortunately, this is all that
remains of the collection, which at the time of its incorporation numbered 5,145
separate works and a total of 9,145 volumes.57 However, it is possible to gain
from these catalogues some idea of the range of material thought relevant to the
work of the school and the society. The second catalogue is, in fact, divided into
headings which follow the broad sequence of the teaching programme laid down
by Succow - i.e. from physics to state economy. Examination of the section on
‘Agriculture, Forestry, Veterinary Arts’ reveals a sound collection of German
literature, including copies of works by Florinus, Colerus, and Hohberg, which,
dating as they do from the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries,
indicate that books were purchased according to a plan and not simply as they
appeared. Also striking is a scattering of French literature (although the
Physiocratic section is poorly represented with only nine entries); and, given the
way that economic societies of this period looked to England as a model for
agricultural improvement, there is a notable absence of English literature. The
54 R. Fester, ‘Der Universitats-Bereiser’Friedrich Gedike undsein Bericht an Friedrich Wilhelm II (Archiv
fur Kulturgeschichte, 1; (Alexander Duncker Verlag, Berlin, 1905), 50).
ss F. C. Medicus, Nachricht an das Publikum die Verlegung der Staatswirthschafts Hohen Schule nach
Heidelberg betreffend (Mannheim, 1784), 4.
In Summer Semester 1785, Jung lectured on his GrundlehresamnitlicherKameralwissenschaftten\ all
auxiliary sciences were taught by Succow; the commercial arts were taught by Jung; and state
economy was taught by Schmid using Sonnenfels\Anzeige der Vorlesungen (Universitatsbibliothek
Heidelberg).
Wilier, Bibliothek , p. 267. The collection was stored for safekeeping during the war in a remote
castle, where it was totally destroyed in a chance air attack.

110
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

only text of some relevance is Young’s Experimental Agriculture of 1770; the other
English-language works in this section deal with the peripheral areas of
carrot-growing and pig-rearing. The same absence of English works is apparent
in the section dealing with textbooks and systems of state economy; here we can
find a French edition of Hume’s Political Discourses, and a German translation of
Steuart’s Inquiry (the Tubingen edition), while the first note of Smith that can be
found is the acquisition of the 1802 French edition of Wealth of Nations.
Subsequent to the purchase of this translation, the four-volume Basel edition of
1791 was also acquired.58 The implications of this method of collecting
economic texts will be explored in Chapter 7; for the time being it is enough to
note that the Lautern school looked more to French (and, in part, Italian)
literature in its work, and English-language writings of the time which might
otherwise seem of relevance were not purchased.
The society moved to Heidelberg along with the school, whose teachers were
obliged to give one public lecture a year before the society. The Bemerkungen
ceased regular publication in 1783, however, and was replaced by a series of
published lectures which ran to five volumes from the winter of 1784 through to
1790, when it was announced that in future the lectures were to be published on
an occasional basis under the title Staatsmirthschaftliche Vorlesungen. Two such
volumes appeared, ceasing with the demise of the society in 1792.
We have already seen that when Gedike visited Heidelberg in 1789 he found
that only 16 students were in regular attendance of the school’s lectures; but the
termination of the society was not associated with a general decline of the school.
From 1790 onwards, the number of students gradually rose; for the Winter
Semester of 1790, 7 new students registered, while 10 joined in the following
year, 14 in 1792, and 7 in 1793. At the time of the move, 103 had either passed
through the school or were in the process of doing so; exactly ten years later, 117
had followed them, while by the spring of 1803 another 83 had registered.59 For
the most part, the students came from the families of government officials, with a
scattering of fathers who were either priests or minor nobility. This substantiates
the more general points that were made earlier about the nature of Enlighten¬
ment culture, of which the school was a representative.
The plan to rescue the university with the introduction of the school did not
succeed; from 1794, the left bank of the Rhine was occupied by the French and
the university was deprived of its sources of revenue. The peace of 1797 led to a
general reorganization of the German states, and in 1802 Heidelberg was ceded
to Baden, whose ruler, Karl Friedrich, wanted to make Heidelberg the first
University of Baden, instead of Freiburg im Breisgau. This resulted in the
comprehensive reconstruction of Heidelberg as a university in 1803, when the
school was incorporated into the Philosophy Faculty; for a time, an attempt was
made to incorporate the various disciplines into sections, of which the ‘State
Economic Section’ was the fourth, behind theology, law, and medicine, and with
58 This entry is written between the lines of the catalogue.
59 Pietzsch, Inscriptionsbuch, pp. 11-35.

Ill
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

a professorial entitlement of four chairs. This organization by section never

really displaced the faculties, however, and in 1822 the arrangement was
formally abolished.
In 1787, Schmid left Heidelberg for the Karlsschule in Stuttgart, and Jung
was appointed to a chair in Marburg. They were replaced by J. C. Erb as
‘Professor of Polizei, Finance and State Economy’, and C. W. J. Gatterer as
Professor for Agriculture, Forestry, and Technology, respectively. Stieda records
that Erb had never studied the Cameralistic sciences, although an article on
Polizei that appeared under his name in 1788 displays all the customary facility
with definition and categorization typical of this literature.60 In 1791, he retired
on the grounds of ill health, reappearing in 1812 as a Privatdozent.61 E, M.
Semer had also been appointed as an assistant professor in 1786, becoming a full
professor in 1790 and teaching state economy and statistics. He was, it seems,
stone deaf, which could not have enhanced his teaching.
There were further changes in personnel at Heidelberg as a result of the 1803
reorganization, but the pattern of teaching remained largely untouched until
Karl Heinrich Rau was appointed in 1822. (The developments of the first two
decades of the nineteenth century - the period between the reorganization and
the appointment of Rau - will be dealt with in Chapter 8.)
Our detailed treatment of first the Lautern school, and then the early teaching
of Cameralism at Heidelberg, provides us with a framework and standard for the
assessment of the development of Cameralism as a university subject in the latter
half of the eighteenth century. It is not possible, however, to deal with these
related efforts in such depth, nor is it even possible to provide a comprehensive
survey of all the courses and institutions that came into existence during this
period. Instead, a few selected cases will be outlined, before concluding with an
assessment of the trends in the textbooks produced by the growing number of
teachers in the Cameralistic sciences.
In 1764, J. F. von Pfeiffer, a Prussian state official, published the first of four
volumes to review the contemporary condition of these sciences.62 He divided
the material into four parts, with agriculture as the ‘first and most necessary part’,
and its practical and general applications, especially with respect to the education
of young Cameralists, occupying the second part. The third part was to deal with
‘urban economy’, that is, mines, factories, and commerce; while the final part
was to demonstrate the manner in which the knowledge thus assembled was to
be put to best use in the furtherance of the common good.
60 J. C. Erb, ‘Versuch die eigenthiimlichen und rechtmasigen Grenzen der Polizei zu bestimmen’,
Vorlesungen der Churpfdlz. physikalisch-dkonomischen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg, ?, (1788), 181-224!
61 Stieda, Natwnalokonomie als Universitdtswissemchaft, p. 128.
62 Lehrbegrijf sdmtlicher oeconomischer und Cameralwissenschaften, ii, part 1 (Stuttgart, 1764). Some
confusion surrounds the publishing history of this text; Humpert, Bibliographie, §801, dates the
first edition as 1770-8, but this is clearly erroneous, since the second volume of the first part was
also published prior to this date, in 1765 (the volume/part arrangement was reversed in the
three successive volumes). The Kress Library edition runs from 1764-78, but this is possibly a
mixture of the first and second editions; the catalogue, for instance, gives the dates of the editions
as 1764-73. There are eight separate parts to the four volumes in all.

112
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

The first two sections to appear, those dedicated to agriculture, forestry,

fisheries, and milling, are characterized by a wealth of technical detail not usually
found in such textbooks, and which can be attributed to Pfeiffer’s practical
experience of such matters. The second volume deals with the question that is of
greatest interest here: the training of future Cameralists, that is, state officials
charged with the administration of the economy of the territorial state.
Pfeiffer begins by considering the location of the ideal school, just as Schreber
did; and he then proceeds to outline the physical conditions required for
teaching in a way that was to become a reality at the Kameral Hohe Schule.63 As
at Lautern, prospective students would also have completed a basic education
and would be practised in Latin and French - the latter being especially
important for the travels that were to complete their education. No social
discrimination was to be practised in selecting entrants, but it was to be expected
that some would show more ability than others; as a consequence, it would not be
possible to establish a uniform course for everybody to follow. The best students
might complete their studies in four years.
The content of the teaching that Pfeiffer then proceeds to review corresponds
to the material already proposed by Schreber and elaborated upon by Mosham-
mer. Beyond this review, Pfeiffer does not suggest a set sequence of studies, and
although he devotes almost 200 pages to the nature of education for state service,
this is mainly concerned with the general characteristics of a school as opposed
to a university, and the suitability of the rural clergy as a recruiting ground for
students of the Cameralistic sciences.64
Pfeiffer is of interest here not only on account of his prolific, if repetitive,
writings on Cameralism, but also because, in 1782, he was appointed - in spite of
his Protestant faith - to be ‘public teacher of Cameralistic, Polizei and Financial
Sciences’ at the University of Mainz. There had been some efforts to establish
teaching in Cameralism here in 1765, and to require all future officials to have
some knowledge of these subjects, but the university was in a poor financial
condition at the time, and, in fact, could not even afford any tricentenary
celebrations in 1777.65 Pfeiffer began teaching in November 1782 with a course
of lectures on ‘The General Principles of the Happiness of States’, using as his
textbooks Forster’s Entwurf der Stadt-, Land- und Staatswirthschaft, and Justi’s
Von dem Natur und dem Wesen der Staaten. His intention was first to teach an
encyclopedia of the oeconomic and Cameralistic sciences, and only then move on
to agriculture, mines, technology, trade, and all the various auxiliary sciences
associated with a full programme of teaching. This is reminiscent of Mosham-
mer’s proposals which were published in the same year, but contrasts with

63 Ibid., p. 16.
64 The remaining volumes deal with population, Polizei, works and construction, trade, and
revenues. Pfeiffer published other general works in this area, among them Grundrifi der wahren
undfalschen Staatskunst, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1778-9); Grundsdtze der Universal-Cameral- Wissenschaft, 2
vols. (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1783).
65 A. F. Napp-Zinn, Johann Friedrich von Pfeiffer und die Kameralwissenschaften an der Universitdt
Mainz (Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1955), 13-14.

113
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

Succow’s programme, which avoided starting with a survey of an ‘as-yet-to-be-

taught’ science.
Pfeiffer was already sixty-four when he was appointed, and thus from the very-
beginning of his tenure the question of his successor was a matter for concern.
Accordingly, early in 1783, Pfeiffer selected two students from Mainz, Franz
Karl Spoor and Georg Adam Schleenstein, who were to be trained as future
teachers of Cameralism. First they were despatched on various educational
journeys (to the Frankfurt Fair in 1783, for instance), and in 1784 they toured
those universities which taught the Cameralistic sciences.66 In April, they
travelled to Erlangen, where they were well received but noted that none of the
announced lectures actually took place. They then went to Leipzig, but arrived in
the middle of the fair when teaching was suspended; they returned there after a
more successful visit to Halle, only to find that the Cameralistic sciences were
poorly supported, with Rossig’s lectures, for example, being attended by only
four students. In Jena, they found Suckow very enthusiastic but not much else
going on. Gottingen was their next destination, where they at last found
something worthy to report: ‘here at last that which we have elsewhere sought in
vain - the discovery of a place where we can extend our knowledge supported by
the necessary auxiliary subjects’.67 They stayed in Gottingen for a semester,
attending Beckmann’s lectures on oeconomy and technology, and Dietz’s
lectures on recent history. In mid-October they both returned to Mainz, where
they gave their first lectures in the Winter Semester of 1784-5: Spoor taught
Polizeimssenschaft and Schleenstein agriculture - both in Latin, for Mainz was a
Catholic university.
Teaching in the university was currently undergoing a general reorganization;
the Chancellor, von Bentzel, had divided the subjects into three basic groups -
‘introductory or instrumental sciences’; auxiliary or historical-statistical
sciences; and vocational sciences. The Cameralistic sciences were assigned to
the third group, along with divinity, law, and pharmacy.68 A four-year pro¬
gramme was planned to cover the whole domain of politics, law, geography, and
history, as well as subjects like agriculture, forestry, and mines. It was only in the
final year that commerce, finance, and Polizei were considered; and since this
course was preceded by a preliminary three years reading philosophy, this meant
that the Cameralistic programme at Mainz involved fourteen semesters in all.
While an elaborate and extensive programme had now been drawn up. the
Winter Semester of 1784 found Pfeiffer the only full professor, with two vacant
chairs in his faculty; following his departure from the university in 1785, there
was no teaching at all available in the Summer Semester of 1786. Spoor and
Schleenstein were both appointed full professors in 1788,69 but little is known
66 PP- 9511. Presumably they did not visit Lautern at this time because it was not yet part of
Heidelberg and therefore lay outside their brief
67 Ibid., p. 96.
68 A. F. von Bentzel, Neue Verfassung der verb ess erten hohen S chute zu Mainz (Mainz, 1784), p. 28
69 K. G. Bockenheimer, Die Restauration derMainzer Hochschule imfahre 1784 (J. Diemer’s Verlaa
Mainz, 1884), 41. See also W. Stieda, ‘Wie man im 18. Jahrhundert an der Universitat Mainz fiir

114
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy
about their further work in Mainz — as far as it can be ascertained, neither of
them ever published anything of any relevance to their teaching. In 1792, the
French closed the university, bringing Cameralistic teaching at Mainz to an end.
When Spoor and Schleenstein toured those universities engaged in Camer¬
alistic teaching in 1784, the only satisfactory programme of instruction that they
found was in Gottingen; and yet, as the previous chapter has noted, Gottingen
never engaged in the kind of systematic teaching that was conducted at Lautern,
and which was recommended in all the various plans and proposals that
appeared during the later eighteenth century. In fact, while Gottingen was
certainly of central importance in the kind of vocational training implied by the
Cameralistic sciences, the approach that the university adopted combined a
thorough grounding in agriculture, manufacture, and related subjects with
teaching in geography, statistics, and politics; Polizei and Cameralism (in its
more restricted sense of general economic principles) were of marginal sig¬
nificance. Beckmann, who was appointed Professor of Oeconomy in 1766,
subsequently regarded himself as covering the whole range of the economic
sciences, but, as Stieda observes, his strength did not lie in Polizei and
Cameralism by any means.70
This is apparent from a prospectus issued by Beckmann in 1767 announcing
forthcoming oeconomic lectures. Emphasizing the importance of beginning a
study of oeconomy with the appropriate auxiliary sciences (natural history,
physics, chemistry, and botany), the five-part lecture plan which he proposed
began with agriculture, and then proceeded through plant cultivation, animal
husbandry, and processing to the administration of lands.71 Beckmann’s real
strength and renown was in his development and systematization of Technologies
in which field his writings quickly became accepted as exemplary. ‘Technology’
he defined as follows:
the science which teaches the processing of raw materials, or the knowledge of craft skills.
Instead of simply being shown in the workshop how one should follow the instructions
and usages of the master in the preparation of goods, technology provides a systematically
ordered and thorough instruction in the achievement of this end on the basis of true
principles and reliable experience, and also how one should explain and utilise the
productions of such work.72

The system that Beckmann developed categorized the processes associated with
agriculture and manufacture in terms of materials and means employed, leading
to a classification of crafts according to these ‘technical’ aspects - a manner of
‘work without the workers’.73 This could, of course, be compared to the kind of

die Ausbildung von Professoren der Kameralwissenschaft sorgte’, inj. R. Dieterich and K. Bader
(eds.), Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Universitdten Mainz und Giefien (Historischer Verein fur das
GroBherzogtum Hessen, Darmstadt, 1907), 165-216.
70 Stieda, Nationalokonomie ah Universitdtswissenschaft, p. 37.
71 J. Beckmann, Gedanken von derEinrichlung Oekonomischer Vorlesungen (Gottingen, 1767), 6, 23-4.
72 J. Beckmann, Anleitung zur Technologic (Gottingen, 1777), p. xv.
73 In the mid-1760s, Beckmann had studied at Uppsala under Linne, whose approach clearly
influenced Beckmann in his systematization of Technologie.

115
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

expertise and perspective that Succow brought to Lautern; except that at the
school, Jung and Schmid were taken on to teach the more general subjects,
whereas at Gottingen, Justi never found a successor. As we shall see in Chapter
8, it was in the 1790s that lectures on the general principles of economics first
took their place in Gottingen’s teaching; they were conducted by Sartorius, a
Privatdozent in the Philosophy Faculty, whose chief area of concern was
eighteenth-century history and politics. Apart from Beckmann, Gottingen’s
significance is owed to the descriptive Statistik developed by Achenwall and then,
after his death in 1772, by his successor, Schlozer. History and statistics
provided respectively knowledge of the development, and the contemporarv
material constitution, of existing states, while Schlozer’s teaching of politics took
the form of a study of the ideal constitution of states based upon the principles of
Natural Law. Accordingly, these ‘sciences of the state’ (Staatswissenschaften)
displaced a disciplinary unity formed around Cameralism; and it was not until
very much later in the nineteenth century that ‘economic science' was effectively
represented in a disciplinary matrix dominated by law, politics, and historv.74
The teaching at Gottingen, although superficially dispersed among series of
random lectures, was both enduring and successful in terms of the students that
it attracted and the individual quality of the professors. This was not the case
elsewhere. In Marburg, for instance, a Staatswirthschaftliches Institut, in the
form of a teaching body to exist alongside the four faculties, had been founded in
late 1789, with Jung as Professor of General State Economy and other teachers
to take courses in Natural Law, natural history, veterinary science, historv and
statistics, and practical geometry. By 1801, there were scarcely more than two
students, although records indicate that the institute remained in formal
existence until the early 1820s.75
Summarizing the position in 1798, Stieda establishes that there were thirty-
six universities at this time with posts in the Cameralistic sciences, and that these
were occupied by thirty-two professors. Some of these, certainlv, were function¬
ing and their incumbents were competent, as their books demonstrate - Crome
and Walther in GieBen, for example, and Moshammer and von Paula Schrank in
Ingolstadt. \\ ith others, we can be less certain of the actual out-turn.76
Certainly, the rising number of appointments and nominations for additional
teaching is indicative of interest in these new subjects; and by the later part of the
centun it was quite usual to find the establishment of a new post accompanied by
attempts to establish qualifications for state sendee. While these attempts met
with only moderate success, it is significant that general opposition to the
introduction of Cameralistic teaching had virtually disappeared in the univer¬
sities. It one specific source is to be identified for the uneven and hesitant
manner in which Cameralism gained a place among university disciplines, then it

/+ See H. E. Bodecker, ‘Das staatswissenschaftliche Fachersvstem im 18. Jahrhundert’ in R

Vierhaus (ed.), Wissenschafi im Zeitalter der Aufklirung (Vandehoeck und Ruprecht, Gottinsjen
1985), 154—5. -
75 Stieda, Nationalokonomie ah Unwersitdtswissenschaft, pp. 214-16. 76 Ibid., pp. 107-8.

116
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

must be the general standard of teaching and the absence of a positive need for
students to read these subjects. There was by now no shortage of textbooks, nor
of introductory treatments.
The preceding chapter has outlined the work ofjusti and Sonnenfels in terms
of the establishment of an orthodoxy. However, while Sonnenfels’ Grundsdtze
was frequently named as an assigned text in the period under consideration,
Justi’s work was not so popular and, as we have seen with Medicus, it was
sometimes denigrated. To some extent, this is only to be expected: Justi
composed the first systematic textbook, but by its second edition it was already
too bulky for ready use. Developed as it was on Justi’s Vienna lectures,
Staatswirthschaft was intended to be the first in a series of textbooks which, taken
together, would form the basis of a complete course in the Cameralistic sciences.
As we have seen, many of the later works simply reproduced earlier material, and
Justi failed to reach the degree of comprehensiveness achieved in Sonnenfels’
three volumes.
Nevertheless, Justi did succeed in providing the literature of Cameralism with
an elaborated concept of Staatswirthschaft. This is apparent, for example, in the
textbook that Schmid wrote, even though he looked primarily to foreign
literature and recommended German translations of Genovesi, Steuart, and
Montesquieu to his readers. Furthermore, Schmid takes Justi’s concept and
applies to it the metaphor of a machine which he found in Iselin’s Versuch iiberdie
Gesezgehung, quoting the latter’s statement that ‘the state is a great machine,
whose final purpose is the happiness of the burgher’.77
We also find ready reference to Justi in Fischer’s outline of ‘teutsche
Staatswissenschaft’ to be taught at Halle: Von Zusammenhange der Kameralwis-
senschafien is entered as the primary Cameralistic work, while for a general
review of German state economy, Fischer cites Justi’s Staatswirthschaft - along
with the translation of Smith’s Wealth of Nations.78 Also in Halle, G. F.
Lamprecht published a textbook for his own teaching which relied upon Justi
when it came to a definition of, and elaboration upon, the nature of the state and
its purposes.79 Likewise, his colleague Rudiger, who was to teach a virtually
unchanged course until 1819, used Beckmann’s edition of Justi’s Polizeiwissen-
schaft as the best text available on the subject.80
It is certainly true to say that no single textbook emerged in this period of the
extension of Cameralistic teaching that succeeded in completely displacing the
works ofjusti and Sonnenfels. The manner in which these two writers set up the
basic terms and categories of Cameralism was fundamental to the literature of
77 L. B. M. Schmid, Lehrevon der Staatswirthschaft (Mannheim, 1780), i. 17, citing I. Iselin, Versuch
iiher die Gesezgebung (Zurich, 1760), 16.
78 F. C. J. Fischer, Lehrbegriff und Utnfang der teutschen Staatstvissenscha.fi (Halle, 1783), 1, 17-18.
79 G. F. Lamprecht, Entwurf einer Encyclopadie und Methodologie der oconomisch-politischen und
Cameralwissenschafien zum Gebrauch academischer Vorlesungen (Halle, 1785), 238—7. Lamprecht
was Forster’s successor, who had in turn replaced Stiebritz in 1768.
so j c C. Rudiger, Die akudemische Laujbahn fur Oekonomen und Cameralisten nach dem Ursprung
vertheidiget (Halle, 1783), 73. For his teaching, see W. Kahler, Die Entwickelung des staatswissen-
schafitlichen Unterrichts an der Universitdt Halle (Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1898), 34-5.

117
 The institutionalization of Cameralistic orthodoxy

this period, in which basic textual development extended the terms of reference
of teaching to cover a series of related and auxiliary sciences, such as technology,
economic botany, and Natural Law. This extension accounts for the increasingly
unwieldy nature of the subjects covered in any systematic treatment, as at
Lautern; but it is also partly due, perhaps, to the university practice of assigning
Cameralistic teaching to existing teachers of the natural sciences and law. As we
have noted, it was precisely this that obstructed the transition in teaching from
institutionalization’ to ‘professionalization’ — while teaching Cameralism was
eventually established in many universities, it was primarily the responsibility of
academics whose intellectual commitment lay elsewhere. This situation was not
resolved, however, by a gradual process of training and selection; instead, it was
external intellectual forces that led to the revamping of courses in administrative
economics, ultimately tearing the fabric of the Cameralistic sciences apart. Rau
is significant in this respect, because he did represent one of the first ‘pro¬
fessional’ professors, trained in the subject that he taught, and with a commit¬
ment to its principles, methods, and objectives. But Rau was not a Cameralist; he
was an exponent of a ‘new economics’.
The process by which Cameralism was displaced by Nationalokonomie has
traditionally been dealt with in terms of the impact of Smithianism on a
moribund subject — the reception of the Wealth of Nations providing the
framework for an understanding of the pace and extent of this displacement. This
course will not be followed here, although the ‘Smith reception’, together with
the reception of contemporary French and Italian literature, forms the subject of
Chapter 7.1 do not intend to use this material as a major explanatory factor in the
demise of Cameralism, however; the purpose is rather to reconstruct the
available contemporary discursive options. The ‘Smith reception’ is an event
that occurred in the final decade of the eighteenth century. Before considering
this, we must turn to an earlier body of literature which, while never influential in
the universities, for a time gave rise to a great amount of popular interest.

118
6 Physiokratie: the reception of the
Economistes in Germany

Economic government opens the sources of wealth; wealth attracts men;

together men and wealth render agriculture prosperous, extend commerce,
animate industry, enlarge and perpetuate wealth. Economic government
anticipates the dissipation of the nation’s opulence and powers. The success of
the remaining parts of the kingdom’s administration depends upon these
abundant resources.1

During the 1760s, a school of economic doctrine developed in France which

became known generally as ‘Physiocracy’, following the publication of a
collection of the group’s writings under this title in 1768. Today the contri¬
bution of the ‘Economistes’, as they were otherwise known, is principally
associated with the work of their founder, Franqois Quesnay; and the Tableau
economique, in particular, is generally regarded as the centrepiece of Quesnay’s
economic thinking. There is no doubt that the construction of the Tableau -
the first abstract representation of the exchanges that distribute goods and
revenue between specific economic agents - was a theoretical event of major
and lasting significance in the eighteenth century. But it was not the Tableau
that captured the attention of Quesnay’s contemporaries so much as the basic
principles that it was designed to illustrate: the contention that the land was
the sole source of wealth; that the unique form of productive labour was
agricultural labour; and that a rational fiscal system should levy a single tax on
agricultural producers.
The arguments advanced by Quesnay in the late 1750s and early 1760s were
never extended or elaborated upon by the school; subsequent publication
consisted primarily of popularization and repetition. The intellectual force of
Physiocracy in France was spent by the 1770s. It was at this time, however, that
interest in Physiocratic thought began to develop in Germany, and the next
twenty years saw a wave of publication, both favourable and critical, devoted to
the propositions advanced by Quesnay, Mirabeau, and Du Pont. Thus, the
propagation of Physiocratic doctrine coincided with the extension of the
Cameralistic sciences; but it took place almost entirely outside university
teaching. While having no immediate impact on the establishment of Cameralis¬
tic orthodoxy, Physiocracy did, nevertheless, play an important role in preparing
the way for later alternative economic frameworks - the early reception of

1 V. Mirabeau, L Ami des homines ou Traite de la population, vi (Avignon, 1760), 190.

119
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

Smith’s Wealth of Nations, for example, was conditioned by the prevailing

awareness of French literature associated with Physiokratie.
In the discussion of Justi’s conception of Staatswirthschaft in Chapter 4 above,
it was shown how this involved the ordering of economic activity through positive
action on the part of a sovereign. I his is the work of economic government over
subjects who are incapable of spontaneous contribution to the welfare of the
state; and a natural condition of social order prevails when this activity of
governing is effectively prosecuted. The conception of ‘natural order’ that is
presupposed by Justi, therefore, is one that is in a condition of permanent
construction. For this work to be successful, the Cameralistic sciences were
required to evaluate the possible measures that could be enacted in the
pursuance of wealth and happiness. Cameralistic knowledge was thus a neces¬
sary adjunct to the good government of the territorial state.
Physiocracy embodied a conception of economic government which not only
involved a distinct conception of the relation of government to the activities of
economic subjects, but also placed Physiocracy as a body of knowledge in a
distinctly different relationship to the work of economic government. The
conception of natural order’ which we find in Physiocratic writings is modelled
on the regularities and physical functions of a natural world which establishes
and maintains a condition of equilibrium independently of human intervention.
This natural order is self-constituting, therefore, and is prior to any state of
affairs established by excessive or ill-directed government activity.2 From this
perspective, the forces that govern economic life are inherently orderly, although
subject to distortion and disruption. The ‘economic government’ envisaged by
Mirabeau in the quotation with which this chapter opened, presupposes first, the
recognition of this orderliness with its true and unique source of wealth; and
second, the establishment of a fiscal order appropriate to it. Physiocratic doctrine
provides a set of principles which disclose this natural order and the source of
wealth; and in recognizing the force of Physiocratic argument, the ruler becomes
‘enlightened’. Thus armed, he can establish an economic order in harmony with
the natural order, and with this the work of government is essentially complete.
Henceforth, a system of liberty can prevail which will assure to the state both
wealth and a secure supply of food and raw materials.
Whereas the natural order associated with Justi’s concept of a state economy is
one that is under unceasing construction, the natural order envisaged by the
Physiocrats, once attained, requires no further action. Physiocratie did not
directly confront this divergence between the German and French conceptuali¬
zations of the nature of economic order and the role of government; but the fact
that the Physiocratic conception gained an audience in the societies and
publications of the German Enlightenment, while largely being rejected by
university scholars, does register the existence of this implicit divergence. Before

1 he NATURAL ORDER is the physical constitution given by God to the universe, and through which

Du ’,0“* Nem“rs-

120
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

turning to an account of this dual reception, however, some comment is

necessary on the main principles of Physiocracy and the process by which they
emerged. For what attracted German readers in the 1770s was not a Physiocracy
that we ‘know3 4 5 today, but one associated with a specific set of personalities and
publications both in France and Germany.
The leading exponent of Physiocratic doctrine in the early 1760s was
Mirabeau, later displaced by Du Pont. In 1756, Mirabeau had published his
L’Ami des hommes ou Traite de la population, described by Higgs as a commentary
on Cantillon’s Essai sur la nature du commerce en general? Publication of the Essai in
1755 had marked a turning-point in the major economic debate of mid-
eighteenth-century France: grain supply and the virtues of free trade. In 1754,
Goumay and others had obtained an edict to permit free trade in grain between
one part of France and another, and in 1755, Herbert published his Essai sur la
police generate des grains, which opened with the statement that:
The fruits of the earth are the most real wealth of nations. All that art can add to nature
merely produces conventional wealth, subject to the vicissitudes of time and the caprice of
custom. Only agriculture is free of such revolutions. The cultivation of the land is
constant; it is the fecund source pouring upon us all the goods which we enjoy; and it
cannot change without disturbing all parts of Government.4

This source, argued Herbert, had been neglected by the state, and the prevailing
restriction and regulation of trade discouraged both trade and production. The
introduction of commercial liberty would be both compatible with any form of
government in existence, and at the same time place it upon a more certain basis.
Liberty, he stated, was ‘the soul of commerce5.5
The basic issue in the grain debate was how best to assure the nation of a
constant and reliable supply of moderately priced grain.6 Broadly speaking,
those who argued for commercial liberty proposed that the removal of regula¬
tions and the prohibition of exports would stimulate domestic agricultural
production, and not, as was feared, simply expose domestic producers to
debilitating foreign competition. While in the short term prices might rise, the
long-term benefits outweighed immediate disadvantages. On the other hand,
regulations and prohibitions existed as a means of ensuring that domestic
agricultural produce was kept for the nation and its poor, and was not sold
abroad for profit while the urban poor starved. The grain supply, commercial
liberty, and population were therefore intricately linked. Quesnay, writing the
article ‘Grains’ in the Encyclopedic, described corn as one of the principal objects
of commerce in France, although it was in a poor state at present because of the

3 H. Higgs, The Physiocrats (Macmillan, London, 1897), p. 19. Mirabeau had had Cantillon’s
manuscript in his hands for several years.
4 C. J. Herbert, Essai sur la police generate des grains (Berlin, 1755), 1-2. Translated into German as
Versuch einer allgemeinen Kompolizei (Berlin, 1756).
5 Herbert, Essai, p. 39.
6 For an outline of the debate, see I. Hont and M. Ignatieff, ‘Needs and Justice in the Wealth oj
Nations: An Introductory Essay’, in their Wealth and Virtue (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1983), 13ff.

121
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

seductions of the manufacture of luxuries.7 Such luxuries, he suggested, should

be purchased abroad, and the resources of the nations should be properly
employed producing in abundance those basic goods of ‘prime necessity’.
Without such proper employment of the natural endowments of a nation, its
fortunes would decline together with its population - for as he argued in a
further article:

Men constitute the power of states: it is their needs which multiply wealth: the more that
nations augment the products which they need, and the more that they consume, the
richer they are. Without enjoyment and consumption these products would be useless
goods. It is consumption which renders them tradeable and which supports their price; it
is a good price and the quantity of products which makes up the annual wealth of every
nation. Thus men, in multiplying and consuming products, are themselves the original
and constitutive cause of their wealth.8

Population, stated Quesnay, grew in proportion to the nation’s revenues.9

This idea was also put forward by Mirabeau (borrowing from Cantillon),
except that he, like the Cameralists before him, saw the ‘true principle of all
wealth in the multiplication of the human species, with population as the unique
standard and measure of subsistence.10 In July 1757, Quesnay demonstrated to
Mirabeau that it was not population that was a means to national wealth, but
rather national wealth that was a means to population; and in persuading him of
this, Quesnay converted Mirabeau into one of the foremost propagandists of his
ideas. When the sixth part of L Ami des hommes appeared in 1760, it contained an
exposition of the Tableau, and the appearance of Mirabeau’s Philosophic rurale
completed the initial popularization of Physiocratic doctrine.
The subtitle o(Philosophic rurale was ‘Economic generate et politique d’agri-
culture Reduite a l’ordre immuable des Loix physiques & morales, qui assurent
la prosperite des Empires’ - it was thus conceived of as a general exposition of
Physiocratic ideas, and, in fact, all subsequent works by members of the school
merely repeat principles that can be found here. Mirabeau begins by addressing
the question of government, as in L Ami des hommes:

1 he government of the Prince is not, as is commonly thought, the art of leading men; it is
the art of providing for their security and for their subsistence through observance of the
natural order and physical laws constituting the natural law and economic order and bv
means of which existence and subsistence might be assured to Nations and to even man
in particular; this object fulfilled, the conducting of men is fixed, and each ma/leads

7 F. Quesnay,‘Grains (Economiepolit.)', Engclopedie, 7 (1757), 812.

8F Quesnay, ‘Hommes’, inFrangoisQuesnay et laPhysiocratie, ii (INED, Paris, 1958) 511-12 This
amcle was no, published a, the time; i, was replaced in the Enyclopeii, by an arn'de by Didera
( mmes, (Politique)) and another piece on population - see S. Bauer, ‘L’Article “Hommes”
de FrancoisQuesnay , Revue d his tone des doctrines economiques et sociale, 1 (1908) 3-4
9 Quesnay,‘Hommes’, p. 512.

10 n!rtnU,tAmJdel h°mmeS,’ i!l(Avign0n’ 1756)- 171> 172- This was translated into German as
Derpolitische und oekonomtsche Menschenfreund (Hamburg, 1759)
11 V. Mirabeau, Philosophic rurale, i (Amsterdam, 1763), pp’. xlij-xliij.

122
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

The emphasis upon subsistence and security recalls the Cameralistic

watchword of ‘welfare and happiness’, but, unlike the German tradition, the
propositions advanced by Mirabeau involve a quite distinct approach to the
achievement of such a condition. Physiocracy embodied a basic view of econo¬
mies in which the exploitation of domestic resources for food and raw materials
has a priority lent by their very ‘naturalness’. Because of this, the emphasis on
domestic production does not imply any kind of mercantilist doctrine of protec¬
tion and regulation; on the contrary, the viability of domestic agricultural
production is to be assured by the openness of both internal and foreign trade.
The ‘naturalness’ of agriculture is doubled with the ‘naturalness’ of unimpeded
commerce.
However, the achievement of a balanced economic order and a system of
liberty in which each individual ‘led himself’ could not simply be called into
existence by the proclamation of the centrality of agriculture and the removal of
duties and prohibitions. In this new regime of laissez-faire and laissez-passer, the
watchword was ‘pas trop gouverner’12 - an admonition not to govern ‘too much’.
‘Economic government’ in the Physiocratic sense conformed precisely to this
minimalist demand; but only after the economy had been ‘restored to good
health’.
‘All the magic of a well-ordered society consists in the fact that each works for
others while believing that he works only for himself.’13 In a society not so
ordered, one section of the population is economically subjugated to another,
and does not have the freedom to choose either a trade or an employer. Working
for others by compulsion disrupts the natural order of the economy, and for this
order to be reinstated and allowed to flourish, the social and political order has
to be freed of oppressive institutions. Only after such reforms have been carried
out would it be feasible to introduce the minimalist demands of Physiocratic
government.
The main tenets of Physiocracy condensed into the Tableau - that agriculture
is the original source of wealth, that agricultural labour is uniquely productive,
and that taxation should be levied solely upon the natural surpluses arising from
agriculture - identify the existence of economic laws which have to be adhered
to if the nation is to prosper. The task of government is to make its activity
conform to these immutable laws. Physiocracy thus delivers the principles upon
which a reforming programme of legislation can be drawn up and then enacted
by a sovereign body. This is evidently a quite different charter to that envisaged
by the Cameralistic sciences, which proposes an administrative regimen, not a

12 The principle of laissez-faire, involving the freedom of producers to pursue their chosen trades,
was first oudined by D’Argenson around 1736, while laissez-passer, the freedom of passage for
commerce, is first to be found in Ephemerides du Citoyen for 1767. In essence, Physiocracy lent the
proponents of commercial liberty a coherent economic doctrine which made these ideas its own.
See A. Oncken, Die Maxime laissez-faire el laissez-passer, ihr Ursprung, ihr Werden (K. J. WyB,
Bern, 1886), 58-9,120-1. See also G. Weulersse, LeMouvementphysiocratique en France (de 1756
a 1770), ii (Felix Alcan, Paris, 1910), 17ff.
13 Mirabeau, Philosophic rurale, i. 138.

123
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

finite legislative programme. Constructed as a body of economic knowledge for

the enlightenment of state officials, Cameralism developed naturally into a
pedagogy. Physiocracy demanded that the work of government should be
redirected along a new course; it sought to gain adherents to its view that a
thoroughgoing reconstruction of economy and polity was required, not to
establish systems of instruction.14 This was a task beyond the bounds of
tax-office and domain administration, where the rationalization of established
procedures was the dominating element of reform. Physiocratic doctrine had no
place here; it belonged instead to the salon and coffee-house.
The general state of financial crisis that prevailed in mid-eighteenth-century
France, and the intransigency of the various problems that had brought it about,
encouraged the promotion of radical solutions such as Physiocracy represented.
Transplanted to the German states, this imperative lost its edge, but it was still
assured a ready reception among reform-minded Enlightenment circles in
Germany. Reaction on the part of scholars and teachers was on the whole
negative - the first German text to address itself to aspects of Physiocratic
doctrine was J. J. Moser’s Anti-Mirabeau, prompted by a reading of Du Pont’s
Origin and Progress of a New Science,15 which Moser believed to be principally the
work of Mirabeau. Moser directed his criticisms to the more general political
aspects of Mirabeau’s work, suggesting that he did not properly understand the
lower social orders and that most subjects were not in a position to recognize
their own best interests.16 Moser’s presentation was far from clear, but he did
confront Physiocratic doctrine as an alternative conception of political and
economic order. As we shall see, this was not the course usually followed either
by admirers or critics of the Physiocratic system in Germany.
In fact, it was in southern Germany that one of the most serious attempts was
made to translate Physiocratic doctrine into policy. Carl Friedrich, ruler of
Baden-Durlach, started to correspond with Mirabeau about agrarian reform at
about the same time as he decided to introduce a single-tax system into his
territory. Taking up the Physiocratic idea of agriculture as the sole source of net
product, he wrote to Mirabeau in September 1769 asking how this net product
was to be calculated: ‘You would infinitely oblige me, Sir, if you would explain to
me the manner in which you consider the calculation might be made such that it
serve as a base for the tax, without it being necessary to enter into too many
etails disagreeable to peasant proprietors and involving expense in the country-

14
It can be no accident that after Quesnay, who was physician to the king, the most original
Physiocratic thinker was Turgot, Controller-General and Minister of Finance, Aug. 1774-fept.

15 P'/S|' nu P?nt de r)T^'E0nurs,’ l)e r°rigine et des progres d’une science nouvelle (Paris, 1768) Moser
cited a translation of 1770 which had been made by the secretary of Carl Friedrich of Baden The
best «atnre„, of the impact of Physiocracy on German political though, can be fo^Jo

DSiS.t EntWicklUng d" Theorie in

16 J. J. Moser, Anti-Mirabeau (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1771), 36-7.

124
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

side.’17 Mirabeau responded to this with generalities concerning ‘science

oeconomique’, evading the very pertinent question that had been posed to him.18
Carl Friedrich then expressed the hope of hearing more, while registering some
doubts on the applicability of the economic science that Mirabeau was pro¬
pounding.19 In general, the correspondence between the Parisian Physiocratic
theorist and the ruler seeking guidance on the use of Physiocratic doctrine as the
framework for economic reform continued in this fashion: Carl Friedrich would
ask for advice on the assessment of tax and the identification of sources of
revenue, while Mirabeau dealt in generalities and warned Carl Friedrich of the
potential difficulties inherent in Physiocratic reform.
Carl Friedrich went ahead with his experiment, introducing a single-tax
system in the village of Dietlingen, near Pforzheim, in 1770.20 The system was
under the general direction of Schlettwein, a Baden councillor who had studied
law and the Cameralistic sciences in Jena and who, in the late 1760s, had drafted
a plan for the introduction of the Physiocratic system in Baden. Schlettwein
accompanied Carl Friedrich on a visit to Mirabeau in 1771, when they sought
clarification on such questions as the ‘sterility’ of manufactures and the problems
associated with the calculation of the single tax. In the absence of Mirabeau,
Schlettwein conferred with Du Pont, and in fact, when Schlettwein suddenly left
Carl Friedrich’s service in 1773, it was Du Pont who replaced him, serving in
Baden until 1776 when he left to assume an appointment under Turgot.21
The Dietlingen experiment went well, at first, and the decision was taken in
1773 to renew it for a further three years. By the end of this second period,
however, complaints were being made by the experimental subjects, who
claimed that the single-tax system, payable as it was in a lump sum and not, as
before, in instalments and partly in kind, was more burdensome than the old
form of taxation. Nevertheless, the old system was not fully reinstated until 1792,
after a second petition by the inhabitants.
Two other villages had introduced the single-tax system at about the same
time as Dietlingen, but since they were insolvent to begin with, and no
technological improvements were made apart from altering the fiscal burden,
there was little initial success. It was not until Johann Georg Schlosser (who later
was to compose a critique of Physiokratie) was made District Governor in 1777
17 Carl Friedrich to Mirabeau, 22 Sept. 1769, in C. Knies (ed.), Carl Friedrichs von Baden brieflicher
Verkehr mit Mirabeau und Du Pont, i, (Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 1892), 4.
18 Mirabeau to Carl Friedrich, 4 Oct. 1769, in Knies (ed.), Verkehr, pp. 6-9. This was not only a
problem for Mirabeau but for the Physiocratic system in general, for the difficulties associated
with the practical calculation of‘net product’ were of critical importance both for the government
and the agricultural producer. If it proved impossible to effect such a calculation, then
Physiocracy would be no more than a Utopian project.
19 Carl Friedrich to Mirabeau, 17 Oct. 1769, in Knies (ed.), Verkehr, p. 10.
20 Although several other incidental taxes were retained: see A. Emminghaus, ‘Carl Friedrichs von
Baden physiokratische Verbindungen, Bestrebungen und Versuche, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
des Physiokratismus’, Jahrbiicherfur Nationalokonomie undStatistik, 19 (1872), 33.
21 For details of the Baden experiment, see H. P. Liebel, ‘Enlightened Bureaucracy versus
Enlightened Despotism in Baden, 1750-1792’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
NS, 55 (1965), pt. 5.

125
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

that the situation was reviewed, and the experiment was ended more abruptly
than in Dietlingen.
It could be argued - and this form of defence has indeed become the
stock-in-trade of economic projectors of the twentieth century, from War
Communists to monetarists - that the Baden experiments were neither consis¬
tent enough nor on a sufficiently large scale, and that ignominious failure was the
inevitable outcome of inadequate resolve. While the actual implications of
Physiocratic reform might appear to offer some hope to the chaotic finances of
mid-eighteenth-century France, the limitations of such proposals became
apparent when transplanted to the German context. The experience of Baden,
coinciding as it did with the diffusion of Physiocratic ideas in German
Enlightenment circles, served to focus criticism on the administrative impracti-
cality of Physiocracy as a system. It was not the more abstract political theses of
this system which attracted comment, therefore, but rather the Utopian nature of
its central fiscal and cadastral presuppositions.
It was probably for this reason that German proponents of Physiocracy
became aligned with Enlightenment circles disposed towards reform and a
progressive conception of human rights and needs. No matter how abstract
Cameralistic discourse might sometimes appear, its focus was always clearly
fixed upon the economic administration of a territorial state, an entity that was
palpable if not tangible. When Carl Friedrich published his ‘Precis of the
principles of political economy’ in the Ephemerides du Citoyen of 1772, his
opening section dealt with the ‘natural needs of man’ and the means available to
the human being for the satisfaction of these needs.22 Combined with the basic
elements ol a Physiocratic analysis of the economy, this could provide at most a
generalized economic philosophy and not a workable legislative programme.
Whereas today Physiocracy is usually admired for its theoretical elegance and
originality, it was all too evident to later eighteenth-century German critics that
its fiscal and commercial implications were thoroughly Utopian.
In what form, then, was Physiocracy presented in Germany? We can begin to
answer this question by considering the writings of Schlettwein, who, in the later
1770s, became involved in an attempt to establish a faculty at GieBen on the
strength of his publications, which were largely Physiocratic in orientation. His
‘system’ was laid out in a short book published in 1772, which develops its ideas
m a quite different way to the conventional Cameralistic texts of time. Firstly, he
enumerates the classes of men according to their differing relations to the
wealth and power of people and sovereign: these are the proprietors of land, the
agricultural producers, and the ‘sterile’ class of manufacturers and artisans.23 It
is the cultivators of land who are the original producers of commercial goods; the
artisan merely lends the objects supplied to him by agriculture a particular form.

pjflFnednch’ ‘AbreSe des pnncipes de l’economie politique’, Ephemerides du Citoyen, 1 (1772),

23 1772)S^ 1"WC1 n’ LesMoyms d’arrSter la miserepublique et d’acquitter les deties des etats (Karlsruhe,

126
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

Everything depends on the welfare of the cultivators, therefore, and wisely

conducted government will facilitate the circulation of their products as freely as
possible. A distinction can be drawn, suggests Schlettwein, between economic
consumption and production; and all taxation must be levied upon the latter, for
serious harm to the economy as a whole follows from taxes levied upon
consumption. The ‘net product’ is thus the proper object of taxation; and since
agriculture is the sole source of this net product, the entire fiscal burden of the
economy should be placed upon agriculture.
Schlettwein’s ‘system’ drew two rapid responses: one from Moser, which has
already been noted; and a second from another, anonymous critic. The principal
objections raised by the latter were to become the standard criticisms: that to
make a distinction between productive and sterile labour was invalid and
impracticable, and that the notion of a single tax on a net product would result in
increased burdens for the peasant and a general increase in prices.24 Schlettwein
responded in a manner which was also to become the standard defence of the
Physiokraten - he simply reiterated his original position, and proceeded to
publish a treatise on the natural order of politics running to over 700 pages.25
One feature of this work was the presentation of a simplified version of the
Tableau economique,26 and in the same year Iselin included a more detailed
exposition in his Versuch iiber die gesellige Ordnung, a short treatise on economic
order which based itself on Physiocratic ideas, and which, unlike Schlettwein’s
work, actually included a version of Quesnay’s original schema.27 More
important than this, however, was the appearance in 1775 of a German version
of Turgot’s Reflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses, translated from
the original manuscript by Mauvillon and thus preceding the separate publi¬
cation of the text in French by several years.28 Feder’s review of Mauvillon’s
translation appeared the same year, and he made some objections to Turgot’s
emphasis on land as the primary source of wealth, suggesting that foreign trade
was also a useful source.29 The appearance of this review in the Gottingen

24 Anon., ‘Anmerkungen iiber die franzosische Schrift: Moyens d’arreter la miserepublique' (Frank¬
furt 1772), reprinted inj. A. Schlettwein, Erlduterung und Verthaidigung der natiirlichen Ordnung in
der Politik (Karlsruhe, 1772), 5-62.
25 ‘Schlettwein’s Antwortschreiben an den Verfasser der teutschen Anmerkungen’, in Schlettwein,
Erlduterung und Verthaidigung, pp. 63ff.
26 J. A. Schlettwein, Die wichtigste Angelegenheit fur das ganze Publicum: oder die natiirliche Ordnung in
der Politik iiberhaupt, (Karlsruhe, 1772), 236ff.
27 I. Iselin, ‘Ueber die wirthschaftliche Tafel’, in his Versuch iiber die gesellige Ordnung (Basle, 1772),
72ff. Iselin (1728-82) was associated with several publishing projects, among them theAllgemeine
Deutsche Bibliothek from 1766-79, and the Ephemeriden derMenschheil from 1776-8 and 1780-2.
In 1776, he published his Traurne eines Menschenfreundes, (2 vols., Basle), a long treatise on God
and the economy which was reminiscent of Mirabeau’s L’Ami des hommes in more than the title.
28 A. R.J. Turgot, Untersuchung iiber die Naturund den Ursprung der Reichthiimer (Lemgo, 1775). This
had originally been published in parts in Ephemerides du citoyen, 11 and 12 (1769) and 1 (1770).
Only in 1788 was it published as a separate text in an altered version. Mauvillon’s text corresponds
to the French edition of 1788, except that the paragraphing varies and has been telescoped in
places.
29 J. G. H. Feder, Review of Turgot, Untersuchung, Gotlingische Anzeigen von Gelehrten Sachen, 2
(1775), 1024.

127
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

Gelehrte Anzeigen indicates that by the mid-1770s there was a growing and
significant interest in Physiocratic ideas, although, as we have seen already, it was
chiefly through popularization by German partisans that such ideas were
propagated - Quesnay’s Maximes generates did not appear in German until 1787,
while Mirabeau’s Philosophic rurale was not translated Until 1797-8, long after
general interest in Physiocracy had receded.30
The attraction of Physiocracy in later eighteenth-century Germany arose as a
result of its provision of a coherent framework within which proposals for
economic reforms could be made in a spirit consonant with the culture of
Enlightenment. It was the function of liberty in this system that was emphasized
by many writers; thus Schlettwein stated that: ‘It is therefore irrefutable that an
unlimited freedom in trade and commerce - a freedom to sell in all places, and to
buy in all places, a freedom to make individual best use of manufactured,
harvested or purchased products - is established in the right of every man to his
own happiness .. .’.31 This principle of a natural right to self-determination was
used by Schlettwein to argue against servitudes, which, since they involved
involuntary labour for another, violated the natural disposition of every human
being.- The commutation of services into money payments was the most
suitable path of reform - in the course of which process it was also perfectly
possible for the fiscal structure of the state to be recast along the lines of a single
tax on the new product of agriculture.
Arguments against guilds could be constructed in a similar manner, as the
Physiocrats themselves did; but their German followers were more cautious in
this direction, emphasizing the advantages that guild organization brought to
those trades that produced daily necessities. It might be practical to abolish guild
regulation in large cities like Paris, where the consumer could choose between a
large number of alternative suppliers; but in the small towns and villages of
Germany, the consumer would have no such protection against shoddy work and
high prices:

A principle that the French Oeconomists often overlook is that the competition of sellers
presupposes a competition among buyers twenty times as great; and that in small village
communities neither the one nor the other can be hoped or wished for.... When thinking
of the course of trade one always has in view a whole nation as a single entity, and no
1 lSl1Ven t°-the faCt Aat two'thlrds of same is dispersed in communities so
small that they are in no way touched by the movement of commerce.33

As in France, however, much of the writing by those concerned with the

diffusion of Physiocratic ideas simply repeated theses and arguments advanced
in earlier publications, and never confronted the substantive objections raised by
30

1787; this Is a

31

128
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

its critics.34 The most systematic presentation of such criticisms came from C.
W. Dohm, founder of the journal Deutsches Museum, a former student of Putter
and Schlozer at Gdttingen, and, at the time he wrote his critique, Professor of
Financial Science and Statistics at the Collegium Carolinum in Kassel. First
published in Deutsches Museum in 1778, Dohm’s ‘Ueber das physiokratische
Sistem’ was republished as a booklet in 1782 with a preface by Sonnenfels.
Unusually, Dohm begins by citing the Tableau and Maximes of Quesnay, and
then turns to a review of the writings of Mirabeau, Du Pont, and Badeau.
Schlettwein is described as the chief Physiokrat, followed by Iselin and Mau-
villon. The Physiocratic system itself is summarized in twenty-one points, which
begin with the assertion that all products originally derive from either earth or
water, and conclude with the statement that the system is best fitted to an
unlimited hereditary monarchy, where the common interest of ruler and ruled is
in the greatest possible net produce. Thus, the treatment of Physiocracy is by no
means limited to a few basic economic principles.
The first query that Dohm raises concerns the advisability of levying all
taxation upon the landowner, with some subsequent discussion of whether there
is anything in the contention that all taxes are ultimately born by agriculture.35
Next, Dohm questions the idea that manufacturing labour is necessarily ‘sterile’,
and in so doing, cites Smith’s comment that a marriage with two children is no
more ‘sterile’ than the value created by manufacture.36 More pertinently, Dohm
suggests that the value of a manufactured commodity does not merely consist in
the labour used in its production, but also in the need for the commodity and the
state of competition among purchasers - a form of argument that was not
common among German writers at this time, and behind which we can perhaps
detect Dohm’s reading of the Wealth of Nations. The conclusion that Dohm
draws from his consideration of the sources of added value is that there is no
justification for laying all taxes on landowners, since they are not a unique source
of value but one among many. It would be inequitable, therefore, for them to
bear the entire fiscal burden of a state.
The Physiocratic system is, in any case, unrealizable, suggests Dohm. The
problems associated with the exact determination of net produce cannot be
surmounted by using rent levels as a guide, since these are often outdated.
Furthermore, if the levy is to be in kind, the state would require an extensive
storage apparatus; while if the tax were to be collected in money, then producers
would be compelled to sell the greater part of their produce, depressing the price
level and discriminating against those accustomed to trade their produce locally
34 Thus, Schlettwein’s response to Dohm’s criticisms took the form of a book which repeated the
points already made in his two earlier expositions — Grundfeste der Staaten oder die pohlische
Oekonomie (Giefien, 1779), espec. Vorrede. See also his ‘Briefe an die konigliche Societal der
Wissenschaften zu Gottingen iiber das physiokratische Regierungssystem. ErsterBrief von den
ersten Grundsatzen des physiokratischen Systems’, Archivfiir den Menschen und Burger, 1 (1780),
463-7. The Archiv was published in 8 volumes between 1780 and 1784, and was primarily a
vehicle for Physiocratic ideas.
35 C. W. Dohm, Ueber das physiokratische Sistem (Vienna, 1782), 42-3.
36 A. Smith, Wealth of Nations, bk. 4, ch. 9, 674.

129
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

in order to obtain the goods they need. In addition to this, collecting the tax over
the course of the year could place the state in a position of financial embarrass¬
ment at critical times. Finally, the abolition of freedom from taxation for the
nobility and clergy was necessarily linked with the emancipation of the peasantry
- but how could one persuade the nobility and clergy of the necessity for such a
course of action? Dohm concludes that ‘ultimately a complete equality of all
“s chimerical and impossible, unless it is to end in the equal oppression

Dohm’s critique of Physiocracy prompted a reply from Mauvillon, the

translator of Turgot, who likewise called upon Smith in his discussion of the
distinction between productive and unproductive labour,38 but who did little
more than reiterate at great length the basic principles already criticized by
Dohm. Feder pointed out that Mauvillon’s position was not even supported bv
his own arguments,39 and another reviewer suggested that Physiocratic doctrine
was only of positive use in those cases where the system of taxation was in
complete disarray and was destructive of the ruler’s capital - i.e. in France 4°
Thus, another of the charges levelled at Physiocracy was that it involved an
inappropriate generalization of principles primarily applicable to France - it
could be construed as ‘cosmopolitan’, as Fiirstenau noted in an essay that he
wrote defending Physiocracy against Dohm.41
The mode for Physiocracy passed over Germany as quickly as it had done over
France by the mid-1780s there was little remaining interest in its principles
and other intellectual developments were appearing which were to have a more
as mg affect upon the constitution of economic discourses. In 1786, addressing
an assembly of students in Heidelberg, Jung simply mocked Schlettwe.n
descnbing Physmcracy as a ‘girl as beauteous as an angel, but unluckily a virgin
.... y;this time, a vain attempt had been made to create a new faculty at the
University of Gieflen with Schlettwein as a Professor of Politics, Cameralistics
and Financial Science. An announcement to this effect appeared in Mil
emphasizing that ,n future all those who wished to enter service with the state of

” —~ i
physiokratische System’, Chronologen, 7 (1780) 37-56139-62^8 11 daS
Pfeiffer, Der Antiphysiokrat (Frankfurt-on-Main 17801- A nr ’a • J8°.\ S2 i2; R von
Herrn Rathsschreiber Iselin iiberMaLlon's’PhVu ADntlPrhysl0^tische Briefe an

sogennante e.nz.ge Auflage’, Nordische Miscelaneen, 1 (1781) 14^65 Graf H m’ n t

38 feMrChen ^ °LhjetS d£ l’econ°mie politique (Dresden, 1781) ’ 1 VOn BruhI’
39 {' pu*’ Pbywkmische Briefe an den Hem, Professor Dohm (Brunswick 1780) 17 18

' l%ll^TSaXTllnsSx I"’ PhySWkmiSChe Bnefi' *** - GdU^Leigen

« Anon-’Review °f Mauvillon, Physiokratische Briefe, Teutscher Merkur 3 (1780) 76
C. G Furstenau Versuch einer Apologie des Physiokratischen System (Kassel 17791 Tt, k
general presentation of the Phvsiocratir svstem • ‘ ^ysiems tassel, 1779). The best
die Physiokratie (Nuremberg 1782) which rn 1^ a ' 'n , erman was G. A. Will’s Versuch iiber
1 ,h0r“gh literature of
42 X H' JunS> JuMrede iiber den Geist der Staatswirthschaft (Mannheim, 1787), 18.

130
 Physiokratie: the reception of the Economistes in Germany

Hesse-Darmstadt would have to have studied the Cameralistic sciences; and in

fact, the faculty had been forced upon an unwilling university by the Chancellor
of the state.43 Schlettwein’s somewhat bombastic announcement of his teaching
for the Winter Semester of 1777-8 certainly embodied the Physiocratic
principles of freedom of commerce and the importance of agriculture;44
although the basic teaching plan which he published the following year displayed
a quite conventional Cameralistic syllabus comparable to that of Lautern, except
that a two-year course was envisaged.45 GieBen had less than 100 students at this
time and the number was falling; little record is available of subsequent teaching.
No additional appointments were made, and it is doubtful if the faculty ever
consisted of anything apart from Schlettwein’s chair. Teaching ceased with his
resignation in 1785, therefore, and when Gedike visited GieBen in 1789 he
could see no sign of activity associated with the new faculty.46
While Physiokratie found one or two defenders in the universities, such as Will
and Fiirstenau (professors at Altdorf and Rinteln respectively), it never received
a great deal of attention in the more pedagogic preoccupations of university
professors; the writings that were addressed to its associated doctrines were
aimed at a wider readership beyond the university, as the number of contri¬
butions to periodicals indicates. Nevertheless, for an important period in the
later eighteenth century, Physiocratic doctrine provided a uniform alternative to
Cameralistic orthodoxy and affected the perception of foreign economic litera¬
ture. Furthermore, the introduction of Physiocracy into Germany highlighted
the divergence of German politico-economic discourse from contemporary
French and English work. The impact of Physiokratie was thus carried over into
other areas, and ultimately assisted in the establishment of new forms of
economic argument which also rested upon a framework of economic liberty and
a conception of economic equality that were foreign to the Cameralistic sciences.

43Anon ‘Stiftung einer okonomischen Fakultat’, Ephemeriden derMenschheit, 7 (1777), 92-3.

« Schlettwein’s presentation was in the form of 10 ‘crystal clear fundamental truths’: Evidente und
unverletzliche aber zum Ungliick der Welt meistens verkannte oder nicht geachtete Grundwahrheiten der
gesellschaftlichen Ordnung (GieBen, 1777). . . ..
45 J. A. Schlettwein, Grundvetfassung der neuerrichteten okonomischen Fakultat auj der Umversitat
Giefien (GieBen, 1778). The proposed teaching plan involved a similar combination of subjects to
that in Lautern and Munich; see F. Lenz, ‘Die Wirtschaftswissenschaft in GieBen’, in
Ludwigs-Universitdt, Justus Liebig Hochschule, 1607-1957. Festschrift zur 350-Jahresfeier (GieBen,
1957) 383
46 W. Stieda, Die Nationalokonomie als Universitdtswissenschaft (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1906),
170ff.

131
7 The ‘Smith reception’ and the
function of translation

Die Statswirthschaftslehre - franz. economic politique, Science de commerce et

de finance; eng. political oeconomy; ital. economia civile - hat die Griindung,
Vermehrung und Verwaltung des Nationalreichthums - wealth of nations - zum
Gegenstande.1

The sequence in which Physiocratic work appeared in translation was an

important element in the German process of reception, but we should be wary of
concluding that a work was culturally accessible simply because a translation of it
existed. While it is evident that the publication of a text in translation made it
available to a new readership, we need to consider carefully the selectivity with
which such translated texts - more or less equally available to the reading public
- were read. Here we will focus our attention on the interesting fact that, until
the final decade of the eighteenth century, Sir James Steuart’s Inquiry was better
known and more frequently cited than Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Both works
were translated into German very soon after their publication in Britain, yet it is
well known that Smith’s book was widely ignored. Steuart’s text, on the other
hand, is frequently encountered in cited literature and course announcements
until the 1790s. This provides a ready example with which to investigate the
function of translation in the propagation of new concepts and approaches in
economics.
Such factors will be taken into account in this chapter, modifying the
approach adopted with respect to Physiocracy, where a controversial foreign
doctrine quickly found native protagonists who constructed their own variant of
it. The process of reception did not depend on the actual availability of the
Physiocratic literature, whether in the original French or in German translation.
When we turn to Smith’s Wealth of Nations a different problem is encountered:
for almost twenty years little interest was shown, and then, just at the turn of the
century, a phase of‘Smithianism’ began. This is true of the reception of both the
original English edition and of the original Schiller translation of 1776-9.
Despite the rapidity with which a translation of Books 1 to 3 appeared, it was not
until the publication of the Garve-Dorrien translation in 1794 that more general
notice was taken. Both the ‘failure’ of the first publication and the ‘success’ of
the second have to be explained in a manner which eschews any resort to our
modern evaluation of the text’s importance.
1 A. Niemann, Grundsdtze der Statswirthschaft, i (Altona, 1790), §1, p. 1.

133
 The ‘Smith reception ’ and the function of translation

Various explanations have been advanced for the initial lack of interest in the
Wealth of Nations, chief among them being the poor quality of the Schiller
translation. The first of the two volumes, published in Leipzig in 1776,
contained Books 1 and 2 - that is, those books which have always been regarded
as the theoretical core of the work. Many commentators suggest that the delay in
acknowledging Smith’s ascendancy is attributable to the poor quality of the
Schiller translation, pointing for support to the rapid acceptance of the Garve
and Dorrien translation on its appearance in the mid-1790s. But a brief
comparison of the two translations disposes of this argument, for it is difficult to
see how the detected variations can be viewed as anything more than stylistic
difference. In any case, Garve himself disposed of this argument in his foreword,
where he states that it was the style of the first translation that disturbed him, and
not an obviously poor or inaccurate translation. Having read the text in Schiller’s
translation, he did not discover anything that had been hidden from him when he
turned to the original English edition.2
It must also be recognized that many academics, especially in northern
Germany, were quite capable of reading English. Indeed, it could be suggested
that German translations of English scholarly works were not primarily destined
for the ‘professional reader’, but for a more diffuse audience of students and
interested professionals.3 In addition to this, one has to be careful about using
publication histories as evidence of diffusion. The fact that Hume’s Political
Discourses appeared in translation in 1754, and then again in 1766, might lead us
to conclude that the work was popular. In fact, the reverse was the case: the 1766
edition is identical to the 1754 printing, apart from the addition of a later flyleaf.
A desperate bookseller was trying to shift his stock, not responding to demand.4
Another factor which must be taken into consideration is that, from the
German point of view, Smith’s Wealth of Nations was just one of several foreign
economic treatises to appear in the latter part of the eighteenth century. It has
already been noted that Forbonnais had a great influence on Sonnenfels, and
that Cameralistic literature regularly cited the texts of Verri, Genovesi,' and
Steuart. Today all these writers are regarded as ‘pre-Smithian’, but such a
judgement assumes the success of a reception process which we have to account
for here. In order to explain how the Wealth of Nations came to be regarded as a
touchstone of‘modern economic thought’, we need to look at other contempo¬
rary texts without those modern prejudices which, in part at least, derive from
the very tradition Smith helped to found. Accordingly, this chapter will not
2 Vorrede des Uebersetzers’, in A. Smith, Untersuchung iiber die Natur und die Ursachen des
Nationalreichthums, l (Breslau, 1794), pp. iv-v. Garve declared himself to be impressed by the easy
style of the Engl,sh original, but he was critical of its lack of conciseness, a criticism that was to
1794^ndri7%nt m 3teryearS'1 he GarVe and D6rrien edition appeared in four volumes between

3 Gf' Ci- 3 45 ab°ve' In Gottingen University Library it is customary to find copies of Italian
French and English texts in the original, but translations of these works were seldom purchased in
the eighteenth century.

4 o '^me’ VeTJSCh** S.chlftenJiber die Handlung, die Manufacturen und die andem Quellen des
Reichthums und der Macht ernes Stoats (Hamburg, 1754; 2nd edn. Leipzig, 1766).

134
 The ‘Smith reception’ and the function of translation

confine itself to the diffusion of Wealth of Nations alone, but will start by outlining
the literature of translation among which it first appeared.
Approximately twice as many translations from the French language as from
the English were published in the later eighteenth century, and Italian texts were
quite poorly represented - in part, at least, because of the difficulties in finding
Italian translators.5 Alongside the general impact of literature related to the
Physiocratic reception, it was France rather than Britain that was regarded as the
dominant foreign cultural influence; and, as the library built up at Lautern
shows, it was far more usual to find original works in French than in English in
collections of this period. One of the most successful translations of this time was
that of Forbonnais’s Elemens du commerce, which first appeared in German as Der
verniinftige Kaufmann in 1755, and was intended to be the first in a series of
translations of English and other writings on trade. It was subsequently reprinted
and published in a second edition in 1767, the same year in which a translation of
Forbonnais’s Principes et observations oeconomiques appeared.6 While the two
editions of Der verniinftige Kaufmann contain the same number of pages and are
superficially identical apart from the front matter, a closer comparison of the
texts shows that the later one is indeed a reset version, and is not composed of
sheets from the original printing. Unlike the translation of Hume’s Political
Discourses, it is safe to assume in this case that republication was a sign of success
in the contemporary book trade, rather than of failure.7
The writings of Verri and Genovesi were also well received in Germany, with
the former benefiting from two separate translations of his Meditazioni sulla
economia politica, a treatise which emphasizes the interdependence of needs,
trade, and welfare within an open economy.8 The first translation was made from
the French edition of 1773 rather than from the original Italian; and Schmid,
who had used Verri together with Iselin’s Versuche iiber die Gesezgebung for his
lectures on state economy at Lautern, published the second in 1785, adding an
essay of his own on projects.9
Schmid prefaced the textbook produced from these lectures with some
recommendations for private reading: Genovesi’s Grundsatze der biirgerlichen
Oekonomie, Stewart’s (sic) Staats-wirthschaft, and Montesquieu’s Von den Ges-
ezen.10 This was in 1780, by which time Sonnenfels’ textbook had been
5 K. Carpenter, Dialogue in Political Economy (Kress Library Publication, 23; Harvard Business
School, Boston, 1977), 52, 11.
6 F. V. de Forbonnais, Der verniinftige Kaufmann (Hamburg 1755, 1767; translation of Elemens du
commerce (Leyden, 1754)); Sdtze undBeobachtungen aus der Oekonomie, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1767). This
latter text contains a systematic critique of Physiocratic doctrine, and thus represents perhaps the
first detailed treatment of Physiocracy to appear in German.
7 Carpenter, Dialogue, pp. 78-9; samples of the two editions are reprinted on pp. 80-1.
8 Published in Leghorn in 1771. Translated as Betrachtungen iiber die Staatsrvirthschaft (Dresden,
1774)_ this also includes the detailed introduction of the 1773 Lausanne edition. A second edition
of this translation was published in The Hague in 1777; see F. Venturi, ‘Pietro Verri in Germany
and Russia’, in his Italy and the Enlightenment (Longman, London, 1972), 170.
9 P. Verri, Betrachtungen iiber die Staatswirthschaft.(Mannheim, 1785); translated from the Italian by
Schmid. Cf. Carpenter, Dialogue, p. 58.
10 Schmid, Lehre, i. 4.

135
 The ‘Smith reception’ and the function of translation

completed and Smith’s Wealth of Nations was also available in translation. Why,
then, did Schmid make such an apparently perverse selection?
An examination of Genovesi provides some clue to its suitability for the kind of
course Schmid was teaching. Lezioni begins with a chapter on ‘political bodies’
which uses the same mechanical analogy as Iselin’s' Versuche. The economic
activities of members of this body are distinguished as either productive or
non-productive, and the relation of economy to polity is stated in familiar terms:
‘Each body is a large family, which can only be maintained through labour.’11
The main themes of Lezioni are population, commerce, money, and credit -
there is not very much on policy, nor is there any detailed treatment of agriculture
and manufactures. Nevertheless, it was easy to incorporate Genovesi into
Cameralistic teaching, as Pfeiffer’s extensive use — not to say plagiarism — of
Lezioni in his Grundrifi der wahren und falschen Staatskunst shows. Roscher goes
so far as to suggest that Pfeiffer copied almost all of his book from Justi and
Genovesi; but, rather than condemning Pfeiffer, we should note that such a
charge, advanced by the leading historian of German economics, is really an
indication of the ease with which such texts as Genovesi’s could be assimilated
into Cameralistic discourse.12
The most widely cited British text of the 1780s and early 1790s was two
translations of Steuart’s Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy, and
Schmid’s reference to it in the context of Verri, Genovesi, and Montesquieu is
not untypical. The two German versions appeared at roughly the same time, a
result of resentment on the part of the Tubingen publisher, Cotta, when he
discovered that a translation of the Inquiry was being prepared for publication by
the Hamburg Typographic Society. Cotta had published a translation of
Steuart’s ‘Dissertation upon the Doctrine and Principles of Money, Applied to
the German Coin’ in 1761, believing that this text was a preamble to the Inquiry
and that he therefore had a form of copyright to continuations of Steuart’s
treatise. It would appear that Steuart had supplied Cotta’s translator, Schott,
with a copy of the Inquiry as soon as it was published in 1767,13 and thus while
the publisher’s claim to priority was unfounded, it does seem that Steuart himself
wanted the translation of his work to be undertaken by the Thbingen publisher.
A translation was rapidly commissioned and Book 1, consisting of just over 200

11 A. Genovesi, Grundsatze der biirgerlichen Oekonomie, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1776); i. 193. Further: ‘The
°f oeconomyls this: in a cultivated nation nothing may exist which is not subordinated to trade’
(i. tit). Lezioni di commercio ossia de economia civile was first published in 1765, and the German
translation is apparently from the third edition of 1769.
A detailed examination of Pfeiffer’s use of Genovesi has been made by M. D. Damianoff Die
volkswirtschajtlichen Anschauungen Johannes Friedrich von Pfeiffers, Diss. (Erlangen, 1908) 65ff
1874) 556 R°SCher’ GeschichtederNational-Oekonomik inDeutschland (R. Oldenbourg, Munich!

U feS,Veyle^rs’ tof ^ewart, Untersuchung der Grund-Sdze von der Stoats-Wirthschaft

als ein l ersuch uberdie Wissenschaftvon derlnnerlichenPolitikbeifreienNationen, i (Tubingen 1769)
The fact that most references to Steuart in the later eighteenth century misspelled his name in the
manner of the Cotta edition is a possible indication of its greater influence than the Hamburg

136
 The ‘Smith reception’ and the function of translation

pages, was published in the same year as the more substantial first section of the
Hamburg translation.14
The speed with which Cotta’s edition was prepared was partly due to the fact
that the Tubingen translator, C. F. Schott, simply copied and incorporated large
tracts of the Hamburg edition in his text - but it is not true, as some have
contended, that after thirty pages of Schott’s version the two editions are
identical. After close examination, Ken Carpenter has confirmed that long
passages certainly were lifted out of the Hamburg text in the preparation of
Cotta’s edition, but there are substantial deviations; added to which, Schott does
try to make his translation text more purely German in its language than the
Hamburg version.15 It would appear that Cotta’s edition sold quite well, with
reprints being made in a somewhat haphazard sequence as stocks ran down of
the earlier volumes.16
While this provides some insight into the business of translation in later
eighteenth-century Germany, it is more important to note that Steuart actually
drafted Books 1 and 2 of the Inquiry during a period of residence in Tubingen,
and that the text bears more than a passing resemblance to contemporary
Cameralistic literature. Exiled for his complicity in the Jacobite Rising of 1745,
he spent several years in France before moving to Tubingen in June 1757. Here
he continued the work that he had begun in 1755 on the manuscript which was
later to become the Inquiry}1 One year was spent in Tubingen, and then, after
some time in Venice, Steuart returned in October 1760 for another period of
residence, which came to an end with his departure for Holland and eventual
return to Scotland in June 1761.
Little is known of Steuart’s activities and contacts during his stay in southern
Germany: what we know of Tubingen in this period, however, gives us grounds
for supposing that Steuart could well have enjoyed direct contact with important

14 J. Steuart, Untersuchungder Grundsdtze derStaats-Wirthschaft, oder Versuch iiberdie Wissenschaft der

innerlichen Politik in freyen Staaten, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1769-70). The volumes were each of about
600 pages, and an announcement of the forthcoming translation, with a summary of its contents,
was published in May 1768 (‘Entwurf des Steuartischen Werkes von der Staatswirthschaft’,
Hannoverisches Magazin, 39 (13 May, 1768), cols. 609-24). The beginning of the first volume
contains a list of subscribers which is principally composed of the names of state officials and
councillors; of the professors noted, Schreber in Leipzig took 6 copies, and the secretary of the
Leipzig Economic Society, 2. Other academic subscribers were Suckow and Baldinger in Jena.
15 Carpenter, Dialogue, p. 84.
16 M. Humpert, Bibliographie der Kameralmssenschafien (Kurt Schroeder Verlag, Cologne, 1937),
gives the dates for the Tubingen edition as 1769-72, while the principal general bibliographic
guide for the eighteenth century, Heinsius’s Bucher Lexikon, 3, gives 1769-79. In Gottingen
University Library, the copy of Cotta’s edition bears publication dates of between 1769 and 1787
(4/2). The dates given by Humpert have proved to be the correct ones. It appears that Cotta
printed more copies of the later volumes than of the first, reprinting the first three volumes in
1779 and then single parts in the 1780s. Comparison of the various copies shows that those
bearing a later date are genuine new editions. I would like to thank Dr Marie-Luise Spiecker-
mann of the Englisches Seminar, University of Munster, for resolving these confusions.
17 General Sir James Steuart, ‘Anecdotes of the Life of Sir James Steuart, Baronet’, in The Works,
Political, Metaphisical, and Chronological, of the late Sir James Steuart of Coltness, vi (London, 1805),
371.

137
 The 'Smith reception ’ and the function of translation

political and legal scholars,18 although, as earlier chapters have shown, it was
only after this period that a Cameralistic orthodoxy began to gain ground in
German universities. However much significance is given to Steuart’s period of
residence in d iibingen, it can be maintained that the Inquiry bears a closer
resemblance to contemporary French and German literature than it does to
English texts of the same period.
The first book deals with population and agriculture, and opens with the
familiar notion of the economy modelled on the household and directed by the
head, who is both lord and steward of the family’.1^ d he ruler is ascribed the
same kind of powers and interests as we have seen elaborated in Justi’s
Staatsmrthschafp. as the guardian of the country’s welfare, he not only has to
oversee the achievement of happiness on the part of his subjects, but he also has
to adjust the relationships between his subjects ‘so as to make their several
interests lead them to supply one another with their reciprocal wants ... It is the
business of a statesman to judge of the expediency of different schemes of
oeconomy, and by degrees to model the minds of his subjects so as to induce
them, from the allurement of private interest, to concur in the execution of his
plan. Steuart does not treat this population of subjects as a static entity; he
introduces a dynamic element by linking population to agriculture or, more
broadly, to subsistence. The size of the population is strictly regulated by the
supply of food; but it should not be concluded from this that luxury is necessarily
prejudicial to agriculture and the ‘multiplication’ of the population. ‘While
no-one can dispute that agriculture is the foundation of multiplication, and the
most essential requisite for the prosperity of a state’,21 it does not follow that
„ , 757’ F- !V;, Tafl"»er' a professor in the Law Faculty, began a course of lectures on
Polizetwissenschaft nach Jusd which he was to hold regularly for the next twenty years; he had
published Institutiones junsprudentiae cameralis (Tubingen, 1754, 1775). From
Achenwajl\°^L0,hei!!Chi0ld’J1 professor;n the Philosophy Faculty, taught Statist,k according to
Achenwall s Staatsveifassung der europaischen Reiche. During the winter of 1757-8 G D Daniel

LrraldTwhileaSchoetld pol?CS’ 0CC0n0m-v’ diplomacy, numismatics, and

heraldry, whde Schott, a professor of philosophy, taught a course on trade in the Summer
Semester of 1758 See K. W. C. Schuz, ‘Ueber das Collegium illustre zu Tubingen, oder den
hrhTndert’' Wlirttemberg besonders im sechzehnten und siebzehnten
Janrnundert, Zeitschrift fur die gesammte Staatsmssenschaft, 6 (1850) 256

SoJnmy, ***’ 6 ^ (L°nd°n’ 18°5)’ L ^ 7"W )nt0 ihe Pri P<« of Political

20 3’ 4' \ later reV’eWer Sdzed on Precisely this principle in criticizing Steuart

In the first Book, on population, agriculture and trades, the author often expresses himself in a
way conducive to misunderstanding and giving rise to an improper judgement of the theses which
he advances. When Steuart has depicted the consequences of certain significant relationships
among the members of a state, he often adds: the statesman (or ruler) must thus do this or that to
prevent the occurrence of specific incongruities. If for example agriculture has too many hands so
men should be displaced from this class into another. Here every reader raises the question how
s the ruler to go about this? Whoever takes all this literally would be considerably misled
Steuart s statesman is an idea: his place is indeed frequently taken by the nature of things The
reader must often translate the principles attributed to the idealistic statesman into Lother
anguage and make out of them laws according to which the changes occurring in the civil world
re not arburanly brought about, but rather arise of themselves.’ Anon., Review of Steuart Works
in GottingischegelehrteAnzeigen, 8 and 9, (13 Jan. 1806) 77-8. ’
21 Steuart, Inquiry, p. 32.

138
 The ‘Smith reception ’ and the function of translation

everyone should be employed in agriculture. The promotion of agriculture

beyond the immediate demand for agricultural produce - the course of action to
be followed by a wise statesman - creates a need for non-agricultural classes who
can produce an equivalent acceptable to agriculturalists. Reciprocal wants must
be created by the statesman ‘in order to bind the society together’. As this
process continues, luxury and money appear, creating more reciprocities and
promoting population; while this certainly requires a proper proportion between
the forms of labour employed in each class, it does not mean that there should be
a priority of the one over the other: ‘let it therefore never be said, that there are
too many manufactures employed in a country; it is the same as if it were said,
there are too few idle persons, too few beggars, and too many husbandmen’.22
The proportional distribution of the population affects geography as well as
occupations - Steuart devotes Chapter 9 of Book 1 to the principles regulating
the distribution of inhabitants between towns, villages, and hamlets, and there is
a later chapter on the need for accurate records of births, deaths, and marriages.
‘Proportion’ and ‘equilibrium’ are the guiding principles for Steuart’s statesman,
extending to a consideration of the potentially harmful effects of the introduction
of machinery.23
Book 2 extends this analysis to trade and industry24, with commerce being
described as ‘abbreviating’ the process of barter on the part of producers:
‘Instead of a pin-maker exchanging his pins with fifty different persons, for
whose labour he has occasion, he sells all to the merchant for money or for
credit; and, as occasion offers, he purchases all his wants, either directly from
those who supply them, or from other merchants who deal with manufacturers in
the same way his merchant dealt with him.’25 This idea directly precedes
Steuart’s consideration of price and profit, which is developed out of the process
of exchange, therefore, and not, like Smith’s, from both production and
exchange. Thus, Steuart’s account of price and profit does not involve a problem
of value and its relation to the labour employed; at the theoretical level, we have
here perhaps one of the most fundamental divergences between Steuart and the
later development of classical political economy, which was to treat the problem
of value as central to economic analysis. At the same time, this focus on exchange
renders Steuart more assimilable by a Cameralistic tradition that was also
uninterested in labour value as a prime economic category. And a concentration
upon exchange and reciprocity is likewise closely related to Steuart’s conception
of the role of a statesman as preserving a balance without ‘great vibrations’ or
22 Ibid., p. 40.
23 Ibid., Book 1, ch. 9, p. 161: ‘In treating every question of political oeconomy, I constantly
suppose a statesman at the head of government, systematically conducting every part of it, so as to
prevent the vicissitudes of manners, and innovations, by their natural and immediate effects or
consequences, from hurting any interest within the commonwealth.’
2+ ‘INDUSTRY is the application to ingenious labour in a free man, in order to procure, by the means of
trade, an equivalent, fit for the supplying every want.' (Steuart, Inquiry, p. 223).
25 Ibid., p. 241. Here we can see that Steuart, like Smith, invokes the example of pin manufacture
when discussing the advantages of the division of labour, but Steuart applies the idea to the sphere
of exchange, not of production.

139
 The ‘Smith reception ’ and the function of translation

‘harmful revolutions’. Steuart does not deny that the principle of self-interest
guides the efforts of an active population; he lays emphasis instead on the
potential instability which can arise from the unfettered pursuance of such
private interest, and on the need for the statesman to embody a public interest
that is not the automatic outcome of individual activity.
Books 1 and 2 are followed by three further books: ‘Of Money and Coin’; ‘Of
Credits and Debts’; and ‘OfTaxes’. The main principles ofSteuart’s economics,
therefore, are contained and elaborated upon in the two books that he drafted in
Tubingen, and these are organized according to principles with which English
commentators have grappled ever since. He does not treat the economic subject
merely as a resource at the disposal of a ruler, as is implicitly the case in much
Cameralistic writing; Steuart’s population is a mass directed by conflicting
interests which might or might not be beneficial to the interest of the whole. As
Sen has rightly observed, Steuart is obsessed by the idea that the economy has a
constant tendency to go wrong, and it is the task of the statesman to anticipate
and correct instabilities. However, this does not give rise to what Sen dubs ‘the
economics of control’,26 an economy based upon compulsion. The tasks that
Steuart assigns to his statesman are precisely those with which Polizei was
designed to deal - and, as we have seen, this does not so much involve
‘compulsion’ as the anticipation and removal of potential mischief. Thus, in
restoring a balance, Steuart’s statesman was to ‘endeavour to load the lighter
scale, and never, but in cases of the greatest necessity, have recourse to the
expedient of taking any thing from the heavier’.27
From this summary of the main arguments of Books 1 and 2 of the Inquiry we
can perhaps begin to understand its attraction for a readership brought up on a
diet of Justi, Darjes, and Schreber. Smith, on the other hand, studiously ignored
Steuart’s work, even though it was a treatise of similar scope to Wealth of Nations
and it was available and was being reviewed in the period when Smith was
completing his text. Clearly, Smith intended his work to be in part a rebuttal of
the positive aspects o I Inquiry, and he determined to emphasize the novelty of his
principles by discouraging overt comparison with those expounded by his
Jacobite predecessor. At home, Smith was largely successful: after 1776, Wealth
of Nations enjoyed the reputation of being the most comprehensive and
systematic of the treatises on the principles of economic legislation. In Germany
however, it was Steuart who, during the 1770s and 1780s, was regarded as the
foremost Scottish writer on economic legislation. In part, at least, this was owing
to the ease with which Inquiry could be assimilated into the Cameralistic
tradition; but it was also due to the comparative lack of appeal of Smith’s ‘system
of natural liberty’. Before we consider the reaction to the initial publication of
Weahh of Nations in 1776, it is as well to recall those features of the work that are
relevant to the eighteenth-century context.
Wealth of Nations presents a model of the progress of commercial society
26 S. R. Sen, The Economics of Sir James Steuart (G. Bell, London, 1957) ch 9
27 Steuart, Inquiry, p. 308.

140
 The ‘Smith reception and the function of translation
’

founded upon the positive effects of the pursuit of self-interest on the part of its
citizens. Unlike Steuart, who feared that the unhindered exercise of individual
interests would cause conflict and disequilibrium, Smith argued that the
operation of an ‘invisible hand’ would ensure the conversion of individual
interests and actions into a totality beneficial to all - the growth and progress of
society. The actual mechanism by which this would occur is not elaborated upon
in Wealth of Nations, and it is sometimes assumed that the idea of the ‘invisible
hand’ simply represents the assertion of a deeper level of harmony in society
beneath the play of self-interest. If that were so, then Smith could easily adopt
the same position as Steuart and, while allowing for self-interest as a basic
dynamic force in society and economy, could posit the necessary supervision of a
statesman periodically to restore order. Smith does have an elaborated theory of
social order, however, which had been outlined several years earlier in The
Theory of Moral Sentiments ,28
Taking as his point of departure conceptions of human action drawn from
Hume, Hutcheson, and Shaftesbury which emphasize the human instincts of
self-preservation and propagation, Smith inflects these instincts with a social
dimension in the absence of which they can have no force. Individual instincts and
passions remain the dynamic element in society, but at the same time they become
a fundamental constituent of social integration. This leads to the Smithian
concept of‘sympathy’, in which the exercise of human passions necessarily impli¬
cates a notion of an ‘impartial spectator’ through which the achievement pros¬
pects of individual desires are assessed. The individual is rendered sociable by the
operation of this principle of ‘sympathy’, whereby each individual is judged by
spectators and in turn judges them; and, by extension, when considering an
action, the individual also considers the response he would make to such an action
ifhe were in another’s shoes. The individual interests of the human agent can only
be realized with the passive or active assistance of others, who in turn are willed
human subjects. This creates a system of reciprocities in which each judges his
own actions in terms imputed to others - and thus arises the basic structure of
social order essential to Smith’s ‘natural system of liberty’.29
The interactions within this social order also give rise to a social stimulation of
wants and needs:
For to what purpose is all the toil and bustle of this world? what is the end of avarice and
ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power, of pre-eminence? Is it to supply the
necessities of nature? The wages of the meanest labourer can supply them. We see that
they afford him food and clothing, the comfort of a house, and of a family. If we examined

28 Published in London in 1759; translated as Theorie der tnoralischen Empfindungen (Brunswick,

1770). It is worth noting that records of Smith’s library indicate that he owned very few works in
German. Bonar estimates the proportions as: one third in English, one third in French, one
quarter in Latin - and three German works, all presentation copies. See J. Bonar (ed.), A
Catalogue of the Library of Adam Smith (Macmillan, London, 1894), p. xxix.
29 See D. D. Raphael, ‘The Impartial Spectator’, in A. S. Skinner and T. Wilson (eds.), Essays on
Adam Smith (Oxford University Press, London, 1975), 87-94; and H. Medick, Naturzustand und
Naturgeschichte der burgerlichen Gesellschaft (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1973), 216.

141
 The ‘Smith reception ’ and the function of translation

his oeconomy with rigour, we should find that he spends a great part of them upon
conveniences, which may be regarded as superfluities, and that, upon extraordinary
occasions, he can give something even to vanity and distinction.30

Ambition, vanity, and the desire for approbation spur on the rich as well as the
poor; for a corollary to the doctrine of‘sympathy’ is that each seeks approval and
praise from others - ‘the distinction of ranks, and the order of society’ is founded
upon this disposition.31 The social needs thus stimulated necessarily exceed the
immediate prospects of their fulfilment - for as soon as one need is sated, it is
automatically displaced by another. The needs created by commercial society,
therefore, are, in principle, insatiable - necessarily so if the society is to be
wealthy, and, equally necessarily, this requires the existence of social and
economic inequality, for emulation and envy both presuppose and generate
inequality. Smith argues, however, that such a condition is the motive force of
commercial society, not a sign of its decline (as was argued by Ferguson); and that
a form of justice is created whereby the wealth generated by this ‘system of needs’
supports even the poorest at a level superior to that of non-commercial societies.32
This is the rational core to the account of wealth and progress that Smith
presents in Wealth of Nations. The function of liberty is to allow this system of
self-regulation to operate properly; in broad terms, limitations on an individual’s
ability to pursue his own interest will slow the overall accumulation of wealth
and, by extension, the welfare of all. As Forbes pointed out many years ago,
Smith s progress’ was part of the natural order;33 interference with the
mechanisms that create progress was equivalent to interference with the natural
order. And, most probably with Steuart in mind, Smith asserted that: ‘The
sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform
which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper
performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient;
the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it
towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.’34 Instead,
the sovereign or statesman was to secure the society against foreign invasion; to
protect members of the society from injustice and oppression; and to maintain
those public institutions which it was not in the interest of any one individual or
group of citizens to maintain, and which were of benefit to the whole of society.
While this is only a sketch of the principles underlying Wealth of Nations, it is
nevertheless apparent that a substantial distance separates a Smith from a Justi
or a von Pfeiffer. No Cameralistic writers developed the implications of their

10 A. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Oxford University Press, London, 1976) SO
31 Ibid., p. 52.
2 n ^S‘S ,elaborated ln L Hont> ‘The “Rich Country - Poor Country'” Debate in Scottish Classical
Political Economy , in I. Horn and M. Ignadeff (eds.), Wealth and Virtue (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1983). J
^ 645F°rbeS’ <Scientlfic” Wh’Sgi5111- Adam Smith and John Millar’, Cambridge Journal, 7 (1954),

34 A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Oxford Universitv Press
London, 1976), 687. ' ’

142
 The ‘Smith reception ’ and the function of translation

propositions into a systematic treatment of social and economic order that was
separate from the treatises that they composed for largely practical ends. But, as
the preceding chapters have demonstrated, it is possible to reconstruct a specific
conception of the social and economic order that was constitutive of Cameralis-
tic writing without doing violence to the sense of the discursive regularities
which emerge from a survey of relevant texts. We will never encounter an open
confrontation with the Smithian ‘system of natural liberty’ that has just been
outlined above - as we shall see, the process by which Wealth of Nations became a
canonical text, drawing approbation and criticism in equal measure, did not lead
to a sophisticated understanding of the principles advanced within it. Indeed, we
have had to provide a brief account of our modern understanding of Smith’s
writing precisely because the history of its reception represents such a sorry story of
distortion and over-simplification, but one which is the consequence of that very
process of canonization that began in the early nineteenth century. Since this is
the object of our current interest, it is not appropriate here either to judge or to
condemn the way in which eighteenth-century readers approached Smith; but it
is important to reconstruct this approach to the Wealth of Nations so that we can
understand the contemporary characteristics of its reception.
This is all the more necessary since the literature that follows the course of the
‘Smith reception’ fails to establish why German readers should have turned to
Smith rather than to Steuart, for example. In the first essay dedicated to this
theme, Roscher suggests that for the years 1776-94 there was no real com¬
prehension of Smith’s ideas; reference to the Wealth of Nations was made in such
a way that it was obvious that no great significance was being attached to the
work.35 In our examination of this ‘negative’ phase of its reception, we shall
address our attention to the reviews that Smith received, before considering his
penetration of the textbook literature.
Feder published the first review of the Wealth of Nations in the Gottingen
Anzeigen in March 1777; his review was of the English edition, but some
comparison was made with Schiller’s translation of Books 1 to 3 which had
recently appeared. Feder begins by noting that Smith was known as the author of

35 W. Roscher, ‘Die Ein- und Durchfuhrung des Adam Smith’schen Systems in Deutschland’,
Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der koniglich-sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, 19
(1867), 17; pp. 18-21 presents a brief review of some of these writings. Similar points were also
made in the relevant section of his Geschichte, ch. 25. Comparable in approach, while adding a
socio-economic history of eighteenth-century Prussia, is C. W. Hasek, The Introduction of Adam
Smith's Doctrines into Germany (Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, New York,
1925), 63ff. See also J. Griinfeld, Die leitenden sozial- und mirtschaftsphilosophischen Ideen in der
deutschen Nationalokonomie und die Ueberwindung des Smithianismus bis auf Mohl und Hermann,
Diss. (Tubingen, 1913); M. Palyi, ‘The Introduction of Adam Smith on the Continent’, in Adam
Smith 1776-1926 (Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1966), 180-233 (orig. 1928); H. Graul, Das
Eindringen der Smithschen Nationalokonomie in Deutschland und ihre Weiterbildung bis zu Hermann,
Diss. (Halle, 1928); A. Nahrgang, Die Aufnahme der wirtschaftspolitischen Ideen von Adam Smith in
Deutschland zu Beginn des xix. Jahrhunderts, Diss. (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1933); W. Treue, ‘Adam
Smith in Deutschland. Zum Problem des “Politischen Professors” zwischen 1776 und 1810’, in
W. Conze (ed.), Deutschland und Europa. Festschrift fur Hans Rothfels (Droste Verlag, Diisseldorf,
1951), 101-33.

143
 The ‘Smith reception ’ and the function of translation

The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which he (Feder) had also reviewed in the
Anzeigen; but he does not detect any particular relationship between the two
works. Instead, the comments that he made while presenting a summary of the
main points of Wealth of Nations were to establish the terms in which Smith was
to be discussed for the next two decades: it was rather repetitious, although the
investigation was a complex one and required occasional summaries; the theses
were distinct from those of Steuart, whose work was not mentioned by Smith;
and if Smith was to be associated with any current school, it was with that of the
Physiocrats.36 Soon afterwards, another reviewer, commenting on the German
translation of 1776, took a similar line,37 and a further review of the same
translation made explicit use of Physiocratic terminology when summarizing the
principles put forward by Smith, although it was noted that such terminology was
not used in the Wealth of Nations?9, Some two years later, a review of the second
volume of Schiller’s translation mentioned that Smith’s conception of annual
product differed from the Physiocrats’, but that the critique of Physiocracy to be
found in Book 4 was founded upon ‘mere logomachy’ and that Smith on the
whole agreed with the Physiocrats.39
In 1792, a third German volume was published which contained the additions
and revisions from the third English edition of 1784 - evidently this was to revive
interest in the work, for, as the publisher complained in the preface:
While this work is of undoubted importance, the sales with which the translation has met
in Germany have been for so many years so moderate that we have, especially since the
death of the translator [Schiller], long been dubious of whether the publication of the
additions and revisions would pay the effort of translation and the cost of printing.
However, since the demand has perceptibly improved in the last few years we no longer
have any objection .. .40

In a review of this additional volume, Sartorius assured the publisher that ‘reason
would in the end prevail’; although, as we have already seen, it took the
appearance of a new translation to mark the beginning of a more positive
appreciation of Wealth of Nations,41
The new translation by Garve and Dorrien was duly reviewed in thq Anzeigen
of 1794, where it was noted that: ‘if here and there one finds note of his book [i.e.
Smith’s] it is as if... he has never been read, as if he had never spoken. He has
still had absolutely no influence on the alteration of the doctrine of state

36
J. G. 11. Feder, Review of Wealth of Nations in Gottingsche Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen 1/30 (10
Mar. 1777), 234-5. ’
37
Anon., Review of Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem, i, in Ephemeriden
derMenschheit, 5 (1777), 61-101.
38
‘Px’, Review of Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem, i, in Allsemeine
Deutsche Bibliothek, 31/2 (1777), 588.
39
‘Kr ’’ Review of Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem ii in Alleemeine
Deutsche Bibliothek, 38/1 (1779), 300.
40
A. Smith, Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem, iii (Leinzie 17921 nr 1
‘Vorbericht der Verlags-Handlung’. 6’ 'P ' ’
41
5;. Sartorius, Review of Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem iii nt 1 in
Gottingsche Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen, 3/166 (19 Oct. 1793), 1662.

144
 The ‘Smith reception and the function of translation
’

economy in our Fatherland .. ,’.42 This was to change in the years that followed,
and it was Sartorius in fact who produced the first ‘Smithian’ textbook to
accompany his lectures in Gottingen. Here in 234 pages, we find a precis of the
theses advanced in Wealth of Nations, although the later sections show some sign
of accommodation between Smith and the more traditional German treatment
of StaatswirthschaflN This textbook marked the beginning of a more positive
reception of Wealth of Nations, an account of which forms an integral part of the
next chapter. What of the previous treatment of Smith, however, which, as
Sartorius noted, was as if no one had ever read a line of Wealth of Nations?
We can begin by noting that, with one or two exceptions, references to the
Wealth of Nations in Cameralistic literature date from the later 1780s - confir¬
ming the point made by the publisher of the third volume in 1792 (that there had
been a recent increase of interest), and underscoring the fact that, for some ten
years after its appearance in translation, the work was all but ignored by those
professionally concerned with the issues that it addressed. Moreover, those
references that we do find before the mid-1780s are not especially significant -
in the preface to Busch’s treatise on the circulation of money the name of Smith
follows that of Steuart, but no influence of any consequence can be detected.44
In 1782, von Pfeiffer proposed to do the interested reader ‘a service in daring
to shed a little more light upon this rather lengthy and occasionally obscure
presentation’.45 In the context of a general review of prominent eighteenth-
century writers on economic affairs, von Pfeiffer devotes some 150 pages to an
exposition of Wealth of Nations. Much of this consists of a summary of the text
without further comment; but occasionally von Pfeiffer remarks on the famili¬
arity of Smith’s propositions, or, when for example discussing the chapter on the
accumulation of capital from Book 2, he asserts that Justi and Genovesi
have made similar points. In general, von Pfeiffer treats Smith’s Wealth of
Nations as if it were simply a foreign variant of Cameralism, concluding that:
What then is the result of the investigation of Herr Dr. Smith’s work, which indeed holds
much that is good, true, and humane? It is a refined Physiocratic system which, because it
has come from overseas, is not understood by many, and draped with new clothes, seems
to be more acceptable than that which has been written on this subject by our dear fellow
countrymen. The only point at which the author differs from the orthodox Physiocrats is
that he allows a tax on luxury goods, while however subjecting it to unmistakable
difficulties; and that he lays upon everyone the duty of contributing proportionally to the
expenses of the state, without providing usable rules concerning its purpose.46

42 Anon., Review of Untersuchung iiber dieNatur und die Ursachen des Nationalreichtums, in Gotlingsche
Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen, 3/190 (29 Nov. 1794), 1903-4.
43 G. Sartorius, Handbuch der Staatswirthschaft zum Gebrauche bey akademischen Vorlesungen, nach
Adam Smith's Grundsdtzen ausgearbeitet (Berlin, 1796).
44 J. G. Busch, ‘Abhandlung von dem Geldumlauf in anhaltender Riicksicht auf die Staatswirth¬
schaft und Handlung’, in his Schriften iiber Staatswirthschaft und Handlung, i (Hamburg, 1780),
n.p. On p. 379 there is a reference to the last chapter of Wealth of Nations. Biisch later admitted
that he was barely acquainted with the work at this time.
45 J. E. von Pfeiffer, Berichtigungen beruhmter Staats- Finanz- Policei- Cameral- Commerz- und
okonomischer Schriften dieses fahrhunderts, iii (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1782), 3.
46 Ibid., pp. 150-1.

145
 The ‘Smith reception and the function of translation
’

In a later work, von Pfeiffer lifted whole sections and phrases out of Wealth of
Nations without substantially altering the Cameralistic theses he was pro¬
posing.47
In the same year Sonnenfels added a reference to the Wealth of Nations in his
discussion of manufacture in the fifth edition of the second volume of Grund¬
sdtze, noting the benefits to the manufacturer of the division of labour and the
savings made by the use of machinery. These are certainly advantageous in
terms of the number of workers employed and in terms of time; but Sonnenfels
immediately qualifies this statement by affirming that any such innovation must
not contradict the main end - the increase of employment.48 It need hardly be
said that Smith’s notion of the division of labour plays a far greater role than that
of a simple rationalization of production: on the one hand, it is the means to the
extension of the market, and on the other, it represents the principal way in
which a society expands its economic potential in manufactures. Neither of these
ideas is taken up by Sonnenfels.
The context in which Smith’s name does occur is well illustrated by the use
made of his conception of the division of labour by Walther, Professor of
Oeconomic Sciences at GieBen from 1790. In the fourth part of his System,
Walther states that his general principles of state economy had been developed
with the help of Genovesi, Schmid, Sartorius, Steuart, Verri - and Smith,
referring to the first translation and not to the more recent one by Garve.49As
this list of names demonstrates, the facility with which Cameralistic writers could
borrow ideas from the Wealth of Nations testifies more to the flexibility of the
discourse within which they worked than to its systematic nature. Niemann,
whose invocation of a Smithian conception of national wealth is cited at the
beginning of this chapter, refers to both Smith and von Pfeiffer when he states
that the enrichment of nations and (indirectly) of the public finances is the object
of state economy; and while Smith has a clear influence on the preliminary
definitions, this is followed by an exposition of the conventional Cameralistic
categories, beginning with population.50 Likewise, Jung refers the reader to
Smith merely as a useful source on Gewerbepolizer,51 and the name of Smith is
invoked in the surveys of Eggers and Gosch, teachers at Copenhagen and Kiel
respectively.52
Without doubt, one could find some more explicit, as well as implicit,
references to the Wealth of Nations, but it would be difficult to escape the
conclusion which follows from these instances - that where Smith was noted, the
specific arguments that he advanced were ignored in favour of his overall

47 J. E. von Pfeiffer, Grundsdtze und Regeln derStaatsmrthschaft, ed. J. N. Moser (Mainz, 1787), 15.
48 J. von Sonnenfels, Grundsdtze der Polizey, Handlung undFinanz (Vienna, 1787), ii. 219—21
49 F. L. Walther, Versuch eines Systems der Cameral-Wissenschaften, iv (GieBen, 1798), 29.
50 Niemann, Grundsdtze, i. 3.
51 J. H. Jung, Lehrbuch der Stoats - Polizey - Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1788), p. xlviii.
52 C- U. D. Eggers, Ueber danischeStaatskunde undddnischepolitische Schriften (Copenhagen, 1786),
37; J. L. Gosch, Entwurf eines Plans zu einem vollstdndigen System der sdmtlichen einem Sta-atsmrthe
nothwendigen Wissenschaften (Copenhagen, 1787), 4-5.

146
 The ‘Smith reception and the function of translation
’

treatment as a Physiocrat, or they were simply submerged in a generally eclectic

approach to ‘state economy’. There is one example from the 1790s of what
might, at first sight, appear to be an enthusiastic and positive response to Smith’s
writing - that of C. J. Kraus, a colleague of Kant’s at Konigsberg, and a teacher
of leading members of the Prussian reform movement whose lectures on state
economy were made compulsory for all candidates applying to the East Prussian
Finance Department.
Kraus died in 1808 and his friend, von Auerswald, edited a collection of his
papers into a five-volume text which he entitled Staatsmrthschaft. It was primarily
this text which prompted Adam Muller to dub Kraus a ‘disciple’ of Adam Smith,
considering Kraus’s work to be no more than a lengthy reworking of Wealth of
Nations with a few additions on Prussian economic conditions.53 His friends did
not deny this, and Roscher also drew attention to it in his history of German
economics.54 Staatsmrthschaft was, in fact, the substance of lectures delivered by
Kraus in the 1790s, and, since the presence of Wealth of Nations is so marked, it
has generally been accepted that these lectures did involve a systematic presen¬
tation of Smith’s doctrines which predated the work of Sartorius at Gottingen.
However, a study of the notebooks written up by von Schon from the lectures
that he attended between 1788 and 1795 moderates this view. During the Winter
Semester 1788-9, for example, Kraus lectured on ‘Encyclopedia of the
Sciences’, using as his main texts the Wealth of Nations and Busch’s treatise on the
circulation of money. Little of Smith can be found in the lecture notes, however,
and since these confirm that Kraus’s method was simply to dictate his material,
this cannot be ascribed to poor understanding on the part of the student. In
1791-2, a further course on Staatswissenschaft was delivered, but Smith is to be
found here along with Arthur Young, Steuart, Sonnenfels, Justi, Busch, Forbon-
nais, and even Gasser and Dithmar. Moreover, Kraus obviously preferred to cite
others at length rather than to provide his own summary, let alone to make any
comments. Kuhn, whose study of Kraus has generally been overlooked, presents
a summary of von Schon’s notebooks and arrives at the following conclusion:
Kraus ... was not capable of expressing a single thought without immediate recourse to an
authority. Above all it is hard for him to recognise the correct judgement among many
opinions, and he is then content to present them at as great a length as possible. It is
improbable that he did this with the idea that his listeners should be able to immediately
detect the correct opinion, for one does not gain the impression that he was sure of his
material.... We arrive in this way at the remarkable result that a scholar of reputation was
not only incapable of intellectual production or even the outlining of ideas, but that he had
exceptional difficulty in detecting something certain and correct in the range of opinions
and counteropinions before him.55

53 See A. Muller, ‘Ueber Christian Jakob Kraus’, Berliner Abendbldtter no. 11 (2. October 1810)
pp 43_4; no. 48 (24. November 1810) pp. 187—9. F. Milkowski, Christian Jakob Kraus. Lehrerder
Staatswirlhschaft in der Ubergangszeit in Preufien vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert, privately printed
(Potsdam, 1968), 3.
54 Roscher, Geschichte, pp. 29ff.
55 E. Kuhn, Der Staatsmrtschaftslehrer Christian Jakob Kraus und seine Beziehungen zuAdam Smith,
Diss. (Bern, 1902), 95-6.

147
 The ‘Smith reception and the function of translation
’

On the basis of the evidence advanced by Kuhn, this is a balanced and fair
judgement. Quite clearly, it is all to easy to overestimate Smith’s influence
during the closing decade of the eighteenth century; having shown that up to this
time textual references (with the exception of von Pfeiffer’s treatment) were
sparse and misleading, it is very tempting to seize upon a figure like Kraus who,
at first glance, seems to have been preaching Smithianismus in the lecture halls of
a famous university.
None the less, from the 1790s it is possible to detect a shift within the
discourses of economy and polity. Using the propagation of Smith’s new
doctrines as an indicator of the pace and extent of these changes may be
unreliable, but this does not mean that the Wealth of Nations was irrelevant to this
process. It would be more accurate to regard the rate of acceptance of some of
Smith’s views as evidence of transformations motivated elsewhere and which
carried along with them a new conception of the possibilities of economic order.
We have arrived at the threshold of the reformation of German economic
discourse which was to bring about the construction of Nationalokonomie.

148
8 Der Mens eh und seine
Bediirfnisse: the constitution of
Nationalokonomie

§ 1. Bediirfnisse der Menschen iiberhaupt

Das menschliche Leben ist eine ununterbrochene Kette und Entwicklung
von Bediirfnissen.1

‘Human life is an unbroken chain and development of needs’ writes Kautz in

1857, at the very beginning of the first German text to present a comprehensive
account of the development of economic science. By the mid-nineteenth
century, this assertion had become the customary way for economic textbooks
written in German to begin; human needs, their variety, and the means for their
satisfaction had become the starting-point from which the principles of
economic life were built up, and from which, therefore, the analysis of
production, distribution, price, and value followed. This is Nationalokonomie; in
positing human needs and their satisfaction as the basic principles of economic
analysis, the way was open for considering the specificity of such needs under
definite material and historical conditions. And, correspondingly, while there
was no objection to the addition of classical conceptions of value, wages, profits,
and price, no overriding importance was attached to them as the principal
concerns of economic analysis.
Clearly a major change had overtaken the way in which economic action and
economic life, the relation of the labouring individual and the source of
economic order, was conceived. The striving of individual subjects for the
satisfaction of material needs had now become the mainspring of economic
activity, replacing the government of a population differentiated only by skill,
age, gender, or location. The subject of the territorial ruler, governed by the
regulations and directives of a sovereign whose purpose was to make his subjects
happy and (thereby) his state powerful, was set free and, at the same time,
presented with a new field of action for the exercise of this freedom. The human
subject became an autonomous being, emancipated from the supervision of a
governing ruler, whose regulative force was displaced by the impersonal rule of
society and market. The economic subject was endowed with the will and the
capacity to calculate courses of action which would optimally serve as means to
the ends of that subject. The economy was redefined as the terrain upon which
these conflicting wills encountered each other and produced an outcome that

1 J. Kautz, Theorie und Geschichte der National-Oekonomik, i. Die National-0ekonomik als Wissenschaft
(Carl Gerald’s Sohn, Vienna, 1858), 1. The foreword dates the work as 1857.

149
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

was independent of individual will, be it of the humblest citizen or the mightiest

ruler.
This does not mean, however, that during the 1790s the Smithian notion of
‘natural liberty’ swept all before it, replacing the conception of a Staatswirtschaft
with that of a free commercial society in the discourse of faculty, domain
administration, and state ministry. As we shall see, from the mid-1790s onwards
there was a growing receptiveness to the idea that the Wealth of Nations was one
of the most crucial works ever written on the principles of wealth and its
promotion, but no especial attention was paid to the theoretical foundations of
these principles. As the last chapter has demonstrated, underlying the apparently
blind workings of the ‘market mechanism’ and the ‘invisible hand’ there was an
elaborated framework concerning ethics, politics, and social order; The Theory of
Moral Sentiments supplied the framework of social order upon which the
economic system of Wealth of Nations was based. But at the time, this relationship
between social order and the progress of commercial society was not explicitly
registered; and in fact, later in the nineteenth century, the infamous ‘Adam
Smith problem’ posited by Hildebrand and Knies was to identify an alleged
incompatibility between the ‘harmonious’ order of The Theory of Moral Sentiments
and the egoistic’ world of the Wealth of Nations.2 This merely underscores the
limited way in which Smith was received as the proponent of economic freedoms
whose underpinnings remained unexamined and undiscussed.
Despite this, by the turn of the century Smith was recognized as a major
contributor to the analysis of economic life. However, the readiness with which
this was acknowledged was due not to the intrinsic merits of Wealth of Nations as
the charter for a new economy, but rather to a parallel set of events from which
the reception of the work benefitted: the recasting of Natural Law and the
propagation of an enlightened Critical Philosophy.
Having said this, a reservation must immediately be made. From here, we

2 Hildebrand levelled the charge of ‘materialism’ against Smith in his Die Nationaldkonomie der
Gegenwart undZukunft, and this was taken up by Knies in 1853 in his Diepolitische Oekonomie vom
Standpunkte der geschichtlichen Methode: D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie, introduction’ to A
Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Oxford University Press, London, 1976), 20. Significantly!
Smith is reported as using the terms ‘concurrence’ and ‘concourse’ in his lectures of 1762-3, but
never competition , as the editors of Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press
Oxford, 1978) imply; all the cases listed in the index of this book for ‘competition’ prove, on
examination, to be passages in which Smith is referring to the merits of a ‘free concurrence’ as
against the regulations enforced by corporations, or where he speaks of such corporations
preventing ‘a free concourse and by that means raise the price of these commodities’ (pp. 363-4).
Such usage is quite consistent with Smith’s development of competitive activity out of barter and
exchange, and emphasizes the important fact that the equalization of prices for traded commodi¬
ties involves an implicit convergence arising from a compromise of interests. Competition for Smith
is the way in which an ‘optimum’ is achieved, and order is established; ultimately, therefore it is
also a process of settlement. In Wealth of Nations, the term ‘competition’ is used consistendy but the
passages concerned are generally comparable in argument with that of his earlier lectures. The
Oxford English Dictionary, ii. 778, lists the following five meanings for ‘concurrence’- 1) confluence-
2) occurrence together in time; 3) combination in effecting any purpose or end [this was the
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century usage]; 4) accordance, agreement; 5) ‘pursuit of the same
object; rivalry, competition’.

ISO
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

could now proceed to fabricate a general account of an important set of

ensuing changes, in which the epistemology of Kant was linked to the ‘natural
system of liberty’ propounded by Smith, and then these two were both
identified with the deliberate administrative reform of law and society symbo¬
lized by the Prussian Code of 1794 and the Stein-Hardenberg reforms.
Together, these would provide us with the foundations of Liberalism and a
new ‘economic society’, which henceforth considered itself to be the epitome
of modernity, and whose key theorists were Lorenz von Stein and Karl Marx.
Indeed, writing such an account of the intertwining of discursive and adminis¬
trative instances in the construction of modernity has considerable appeal.
But, to create this story, we would have to violate our earlier methodological
precepts governing the identification of economic discourse and the exclusion
of speculative ruminations concerning its provenance and significance; and if
this path were followed, it would also be necessary to gloss over some
inconvenient evidence which fractures the easy generalities from which such
accounts of the emergence of modernity are composed. Kant’s importance
here does not lie with his epistemology, but rather with the conceptions of
personality and sociability that he laid out in his writings on law and politics.
These did not combine with the ‘natural system of liberty’; they made it
possible for the conclusions of this system to be received without any thought
being given to its basic principles. And, while significant reforms were carried
out in education, agrarian economy, the law, and the army, they were not the
product of a unitary ‘liberal spirit’, whatever rhetorical claims might have been
made at the time. The reforms of the first two decades of the nineteenth
century certainly opened up the possibility of progress for an increasingly
commercial society, but this is not to say that they were deliberately and
programmatically imposed upon Prussian society by administrators steeped in
the ideology of commerce and liberty.
Was the assertion of the primacy of human needs in the analysis of economic
life really such a discursive novelty in the 1790s? Even in Cameralistic literature
it is possible to find some consideration of needs as the basis of economic
welfare, but, on closer examination, this can be seen to take the quite particular
form associated with the older system of Natural Law. Justi, for example, has
been cited in a previous chapter as linking the happiness of a subject to that
subject’s ability to acquire the goods thought of as necessary for a comfortable
life - but ‘according to his respective Stand1? Justi does not propose that all
subjects should be supplied with bare necessities, with the acquisition of
comforts and luxuries over and above these necessities being determined by
status and Stand, he deems ‘necessities’ to be status-specific, transcending the
needs of a subject qua human being or Mensch. For Justi, the human being does
have certain basic needs, but his existence within the society of orders is of far
greater concern. The maintenance of the individual is inseparable from the

3 J. H. G. von Justi, Staatswirthschaft (Leipzig, 1755), i. 56 (cited above, Chap. 4, p. 69, n. 32).

151
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

conditions sustaining the Standestaat, therefore; the needs of the individual are
thus thought together with, and not prior to, the conditions securing the
reproduction of status and rank - and hence social order.
This can be contrasted with the proposition with which Mirabeau opens
his Philosophic rurale, that ‘Need is the soul of all our labour’. This is what
motivates men to work, to combine together to satisfy the diversity of their
needs; and it is this community of labour that then produces the multipli¬
cation of wants - ‘Such is the object of Society’.4 It is quite evident that
Mirabeau draws heavily upon Natural Law in the construction that he places
upon the relation of individual action to social life - it is the natural prop¬
erties of man and their modification upon the entry of man into civil society
that provides the basis of his conception of economic life. The population of
Mirabeau’s economy is divided not by estate, but by class - the first, super¬
visory, on the model of a family; the second, ‘productive’, that is, employed
in agriculture; the third, ‘industrious’ but ‘unproductive’. The social order
that emerges from the interaction of families is linked and regulated by
exchange, expenditure, and consumption - the economy inheres in civil
society, it is not created by the work of regulation set in train by the
government of a territorial state.
There are some texts which attempt to combine these two contrasting
perspectives, although they are indeed marginal to the mainstream of orthodox
Cameralistic teaching. For example, in Copenhagen in 1785, Christian Eggers
published a summary of his lectures as Professor of Political, Oeconomic, and
Cameralistic Sciences.5 These began with man as an individual, the nature and
origin of states, and the satisfaction of human needs; but then moved on to
consider the obligations of states to their citizens and the expanding range of
state action necessary to assure citizens a secure and happy life. In this way, an
intention based upon a modern apprehension of Natural Law was diverted into a
restatement of the conventions of welfare and Polizei. While this is an isolated
instance, it does illustrate the inherent problems of combining a Cameralistic
understanding of the role of the state with an approach based upon a new
Natural Law which has as its starting-point the innate properties of man.6 As
long as the state was ultimately seen as the organizing moment of society, it was
not possible consistently and progressively to develop the full implications of
Natural Law for the understanding of economic activity. It was the emergence of
this tripartite relation of economy, civil society, and state at the end of the
eighteenth century that brought about the dissolution of Cameralistic ortho¬
doxy; and in this process, it was the initial separation of the spheres of state and

4 V. Mirabeau, Philosophic rurale (Amsterdam, 1763), 2, 3.

C. U.D. Eggers, Summarischer Inhalt der Vorlesungen uher die Stats wissenschaft (Copenhagen, 1785),

For a succinct general account of the properties of state and society in Natural Law see Otto
Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500-1800 (Cambridge University Press, London
1950), ch. 1. ’

152
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

of civil society that opened up the space for a redefinition of economic life and for
a series of related conceptual changes.7
As earlier chapters have already indicated, the terms ‘Staat’ and ‘biirgerliche
Gesellschaft’ were treated synonymously right up until the final years of the
eighteenth century; the regulation of civil society was thus naturally conceived of
as being the outcome of good government, of gutePolizei. This can be illustrated
by the way in which J. G. Schlosser, Goethe’s brother-in-law, rendered the
principal terms of Aristotle’s Politics in the first German translation of the work
to appear. The opening lines assert: ‘It is obvious, that every state consists of a
society’; and then, later, ‘state’ is defined as consisting of ‘several societies’.8
While there were axes along which a distinction between Staat and biirgerliche
Gesellschaft could be effected at this time,9 the crucial element here is the
perception that the proper association of the members of a civil society is not
autonomous with respect to the function of government. Articulated with respect
to property and productive activity, this is the idea that has been traced through
the preceding chapters.
The dominating purpose of‘states and societies’ which is repeated throughout
Cameralistic literature - and which it was specifically designed to serve - is the
welfare and happiness of the territorial ruler and his subjects. More closely
defined, the welfare of the ruler’s subjects is conceived of as a necessary
condition for the strength of the state - it is not a virtue to be pursued for itself.
The emergence of the human subject as the bearer of an alternative definition of
social purpose undermined this relation of state and welfare. Wilhelm von
Humboldt’s The Limits of State Action, drafted in 1791-2, proposed just such an
alternative definition which rested upon the construction of a new line drawn
between public and private spheres, and which defined this ‘true end of Man’ as
‘the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and
consistent whole’.10
The achievement of this ultimate end lay not in the work of good government,
but rather in the establishment of a realm of freedom in which each could decide
upon the best use of his endowed powers. Von Humboldt drew a direct
conclusion from this about state attempts to increase the welfare of its subjects:

7 Reinhart Koselleck coined the term Sattelzeit to characterize the period at the close of the
eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth when the field of concepts specifying
culture, politics, and society underwent a radical and connected reformation. This is charted in
detail in Koselleck’s own work, and in the dictionary of historical concepts that he has edited with
Otto Brunner and Werner Conze, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1975). See
also my introduction to Koselleck’s collection of essays, Futures Past (MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1985).
8 Aristode, Politik und Fragmente der Oeconomik, i, trans. J. G. Schlosser (Liibeck, 1798), 1, 176.
Barker’s translation of the passage cited here is: ‘Every polis is a species of association’ - Politics, p.
1, §1. See also M. Riedel, ‘Aristoteles-Tradition und Franzosische Revolution. Zur ersten
deutschen Ubersetzung der Politik durch Johann Georg Schlosser’, in his Metaphysik und
Metapolitik (Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt-on-Main, 1975), 148ff.
9 See. M. Riedel, ‘Gesellschaft, biirgerliche’, in Brunner et at, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffeii,
pp. 746-7, in which the variations of the later eighteenth-century usage are outlined.
10 W. von Humboldt, The Limits of State Action (Cambridge University Press, London, 1969), 16.

153
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

‘A spirit of governing predominates in every institution of this kind; and however

wise and salutary such a spirit may be, it invariably produces national uniformity,
and a constrained and unnatural manner of acting.’11 The element of compul¬
sion involved in even the most well-intentioned government contributes to a
weakening of the very national vitality that such intervention seeks to promote.
By freeing the private domain of the individual from public intervention, the
state is laying the basis for the full development of individuals. But there is no
freedom without security, and the former cannot be realized by separate effort.
The proper function of the state, argues von Humboldt, is to protect the
individual and his property against internal and external dangers.12
Von Humboldt’s distinction between state and society requires the estab¬
lishment of a system of codified law to specify transgressions on the part of the
state and to lay down procedures for dealing with them. Such a body of codified
law was in the process of being introduced in Prussia at the very time that von
Humboldt was writing the above, although the planned introduction of the
Allgemeines Gesetzbuch in June 1792 was blocked by elements of the bourgeoisie
and nobility, and a modified Allgemeines Landrecht was introduced instead in June
1794.13 Here ‘human rights’ are founded upon ‘the natural freedom of seeking
and pursuing one’s own welfare and well-being, without offending the rights of
others’, although the actual existence of such rights differed according to birth
and Stand, and did not inhere in the nature of the person.14 Accordingly, a Stand
was defined as: ‘Persons who through birth, nomination or occupation are
endowed with equal rights in civil society.’15 Such inflection of the privileges of
ancient society through the terminology of codified law16 was not the same as the
conceptions put forward by von Humboldt; and the successful resistance to its
initial introduction derived from a wish to minimize the legal modification of
established rights. But whatever the substance of codification and its actual
effect, it carried with it an idea that was central to the Enlightenment: that law
was an instrument for the rational government of states, and the promotion of
good government required that the diversity of state laws and regulations should
be codified according to a uniform system. The uniformity of this system would
promote consistency in the relation of ruler to ruled and would remove the
element of arbitrariness that arose from geographical and cultural variations.
Clearly there are limitations imposed by the role that a codified system of law
11 Ibid, p. 23. See also Ursula Vogel, ‘Liberty is Beautiful: Von Humboldt’s Gift to Liberalism’
History of Political Thought, 3 (1982), 80-1.
12 Von Humboldt, Limits, pp. 43, 83.
13 G. Kleinheyer, Stoat und Burger im Recht. Die Vortrdge des Carl Gottlieb Svarez vor dem preufiischen
Kronpnnzen (1791-92) (Ludwig Rohscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1959), 21ff.
14 ‘Einleitung’, Allgemeines Landrecht fur die Preufiischen Staaten von 1794 (Alfred Metzner Verlae
Frankfurt-on-Main, 1970), §83.
15 Ibid, i. Erster Titel, ‘Persons and their Rights in General’, §6.
16 Although, as Kleinheyer points out, standische differences were incorporated into the code in such
a way that they appeared to derive from it; they no longer had the priority of being political rights,
but were rights like any other: G. Kleinheyer, ‘Aspekte der Gleichheit in der Aufklarungskodifi-
kation und den Konstitutionen des Vormarz’, Von der stdndischen Gesellschaft
zur burgerltchen Gleichheit, Beiheft 4 of Der Stoat (1980) 9.

154
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

has in von Humboldt’s proposals; the private sphere is perceived as a realm of

freedom, but it possesses no inherent mechanism for the autonomous estab¬
lishment or maintenance of such freedom. Thus, the restrictions that von
Humboldt seeks to impose upon state action derive in fact from the state, so that
the prospective distinction between state and civil society is effected by the
self-limitation of the state, not by the independent assertion of the primacy of
civil society and its properties. In his account of the way in which this latter
theoretical event took place, Riedel draws attention to the role played by the
Scottish Enlightenment in the emergence of the German conception of civil
society as a zone of autonomous action.17 Indeed, the significance of Smith’s
‘new economics’ in late eighteenth-century Germany must be seen as part of a
wider reception of the works of Hume, Ferguson, Oswald, and Beattie;18
together these writers were formative influences on the Popular Philosophy of
Iselin and Garve, which was, in its turn, central to Enlightenment discourse.
We have already noted Iselin’s importance in the reception of Physiocracy in
Germany, and in his essay on social order it was ‘economic order’ to which he
gave pride of place, seeing the process of circulation represented in Quesnay’s
Tableau economique as the means for the dissolution of the bonds of Stand and
societies.19 Garve, of course, was well known as the translator of Ferguson and
Smith. It was through Popular Philosophy, a common-sense articulation of
Natural Law, that the writings of the Scottish Enlightenment were received. The
critique of the progress of societies that we can see at work in Ferguson’s Essay on
Civil Society, and the presumption of the natural basis of economic activity
discernible in Physiocratic writing - both of these can be linked to a philosophi¬
cal and ethical critique of existing society which developed in the clubs and
societies of the German Enlightenment. The Wealth of Nations provided a
charter of an altogether different cast. While its actual argument presupposed a
conception of human action and sociality that was broadly familiar among
Enlightenment circles, the form that the argument took was more suited to the
lecture room than to an assembly of the local intelligentsia. The latter might be
swayed by the argument concerning the division of labour, but the chapters on
value, capital, and price formation would be bound to have limited appeal. On
the other hand, while those involved in the teaching of economics might find
these passages of interest, one would expect them to have difficulty in accepting
the role that Smith ascribed to the ‘Statesman’ - a role that was superficially
similar to that of von Humboldt’s limited state, but which presupposed the
notion of a self-organizing society on the basis of the calculations of self-
interested individuals, a notion which Humboldt lacked.
However, the idea of an economy as a fundamental structure of civil society
was not a conception developed by the Popular Philosophers; this idea became

17 Riedel, ‘Gesellschaft, burgerliche’, pp. 748ff.

18 M. Kuehn, ‘The Early Reception of Reid, Oswald and Beattie in Germany: 1768-1800Journal
of the History of Philosophy, 21 (1983), 479-96.
19 I. Iselin, Versuch iiber die gesellige Ordnung (Basle, 1772), Vorrede, p. vii.

155
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

widespread thanks to the Critical Philosophy of Immanuel Kant - which was

itself constructed as a critique of Popular Philosophy.20}. H. Jung was only one
of many who felt themselves to be immediately liberated upon reading Kant’s
Critique of Pure Reason - liberated, that is, from the determinism of a practical
philosophy based upon Leibniz and Wolff.21 For those engaged in teaching the
Staatswissenschaften, the epistemological theses outlined in Critique were of
interest not in themselves, but rather for their implications in the development of
Natural Law. The radical appeal of the ‘Copernican revolution’ effected by Kant
lay in its revitalization of the doctrines of Natural Law, which had long ago been
reduced to a mechanical routine. The analysis of reason and understanding
presented by Kant, whereby the conditions of knowledge were located in the
individual, lent itself to a conception of sociability based on calculating subjects.
Rather than differentiating between subjects with regard to such external factors
as birth and Stand, properties were attributed to the individual which inhered in
all human beings. And, in so far as ‘new sciences’ were based upon deductions
from this proposition, the property that was of relevance in the economic sphere
was ‘need’, that which all humans shared as economic agents. The starting-point
of this new approach to the place of the person in the world of objects was the
capacities of that person — thus in the Critique of Pure Reason, ‘understanding’ is
defined in terms of the ‘capacity to make judgements’.22
Kant relocated reason, hitherto to be found in the planful activities of govern¬
ment, in the human person. The freedom of the person was a prerequisite, there¬
fore, of the proper exercise of reason: ‘Nature has ordained that Man entirely
develop everything beyond the mechanical arrangement of his animal being out
of himself, partaking of no other happiness and completeness than that created by
himself through the exercise of his own reason, free of instinct.’23 Nature, con¬
tinued Kant, made use of the antagonism within society to produce the impetus
for full self-development. Thus, the path to order and fulfilment was not pro¬
vided by the spontaneous creation of order and harmony; in fact, human capaci¬
ties were stimulated to their greatest potential power by the ‘unsociable sociability
of Men’, as Kant expressed it.24 Men had an urge to associate, but this was
accompanied by an urge to individual development that led to conflict. The
society was best served by a condition of freedom in which each could decide
upon the proper application of his capacities ‘through the exercise of his own
reason’, and, having decided upon it, would struggle to achieve this end against
other individuals bent on the realization of their own potential.

20 Kuehn, ‘Reception’, p. 480. Garve had the unhappy task of reviewing the Critique of Pure Reason
for the Gottingen Gelehrte Anzeigen, and Kant’s publication of the Prolegomena is largely a
response to what he saw as the errors of Popular Philosophy. See E. Cassirer, Kant's Life and
Thought (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1981), 219ff.
21 J. H.Jung-Stilling, Lebensgeschichte (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1976), 449.
22 I. Kant, Werke, iii. Kritik der reinen Vemunfi (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1968), 86. ’
23 I. Kant, ‘Idee zu einer allgemeiner Geschichte in weltbiirgerlicher Absicht’, in Werke, viii. 19,
Dritter Satz. This piece first appeared in the Berlinische Monatsschrift, Nov. 1784.
24 Kant, ‘Idee’, p. 20, Vierter Satz.

156
 the constitution of Nationalokonomie

Such is the general framework of Enlightenment; as Kant had stated in an

article appearing a few months earlier:

Enlightenment is the relinquishment by men of a tutelage for which they themselves are to blame.
Tutelage is the inability to make use of one’s own understanding without the direction of
others. This tutelage is self-inflicted if the cause of the same lies not in a want of
understanding, but rather in a lack of the decisiveness and courage needed to govern
oneself without the help of others. Sapere aude! Have the courage to make use of your
own knowledge! This is the slogan of Enlightenment.25

Civil society presupposed the existence of freedom to be inherent in the human

condition; happiness could not be imposed, each must seek his own in a freely
chosen manner. By contrast, a government which presumed to direct its
subjects, instructing them on howr they should be happy, like children, was,
according to Kant, ‘the greatest conceivable despotism1. Men endowed with rights
and ruled by a well-intentioned ruler should be guided by a government of the
Fatherland; here patriotism was the watchword, not paternalism.26 Equality
among the subjects of a state, and autonomy as members of the common weal are
further corollaries of the natural basis of social order, which nevertheless
remains the general specification for a framework for Enlightenment, and not
the substance of an enlightened social order.27
Caution must be exercised when considering possible extensions of Kant’s
influence: while the treatment of property that we find in the Metaphysik der
Sitten, for example, appears to be related to a transition between the ancient and
the bourgeois order, there is a great deal of dispute over the ‘Critical’ or
‘pre-Critical’ nature of this work - that is, whether these principles stem from
the 1760s, or whether in fact they are characteristic of Critical Philosophy as it
developed in the later 1770s.28 This is not the place to rehearse the different
arguments, but the implications are relevant enough: if we are to claim that the
reception of Critical Philosophy is the appropriate frame within which to place
the response to Smith’s economics, then it is important that we pay due attention
to chronology. The previous chapter has already shown that the Wealth of Nations
had little impact before the 1790s; and it has been suggested that its subsequent
positive reception was closely linked to the acceptance of Critical Philosophy. If
it can be shown that there is in fact no clear-cut break in Kant’s work, that the
Rechtslehre carries with it substantial pre-Critical elements which are, by
25 I. Kant, ‘Was ist Aufklarung?’, in Werke, viii. 35. This had appeared in the Berlinische
Monatsschrift, Sept. 1784.
26 I. Kant, ‘Uber den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die
Praxis’, in Werke, viii. 290-1 (first published 1792).
27 See D. Howard, ‘Kant’s Political Theory: The Virtue of his Vices’, Review of Metaphysics, 34
(1980), 346-50.
28 In his Der Rechtsgedanke Kants nach den friihen Quellen (Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt-on-Main,
1971), C. Ritter put forward the argument that the main elements of Kant’s legal philosophy were
in place by 1765, some 30 years before they were actually published and almost 20 years before
the appearance of the Kritik. See also the discussion of Ritter’s interpretation in K.-H. Ilting,
‘Gibt es eine kritische Ethik und Rechtsphilosophie KantsV,Archivfur Geschichte der Philosophic,
63 (1981), 325-45; and H. Oberer, ‘1st Kants Rechtslehre kritische Philosophie?’, Kant-Studien,
74 (1983), 217-24.

157
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

implication, elements of a version of Natural Law otherwise superseded by

Critical Philosophy - then at the very least, an unqualified linking of Smith to a
doctrine of Natural Law revamped by Kant becomes questionable. Under these
circumstances, our argument would revert to the ‘Kant + Smith = Liberalism’
style of writing rejected above.
It might seem that a lengthy detour into the topography of the Kant reception
is necessary at this point to establish the filaments through which a revolution in
philosophy comes into contact with, and transforms, contemporary understand¬
ing of the substance of economics. Only by entering the daily life of discursive
reproduction, in newspaper, journal, textbook, and lecture room, could we hope
properly to identify the contact and association of two related but distinct
discursive formations.29 How otherwise to escape the easy association of big
names with big concepts in the conventions typical of the history of ideas - a style
of history already dismissed in relation to the Enlightenment?
A more direct route is possible. The presentation of‘Smithian economics’ in
the previous chapter made two things clear: first, that our present-day know¬
ledge of Smith’s project and the linking of principles exposed in The Theory of
Moral Sentiments to Wealth of Nations was not a current perspective in the
eighteenth century; secondly, that Smith was perceived by the majority of his
German readers as a Physiocrat. It can safely be assumed that Kant fared no
better, that the reception of Critical Philosophy suffered just as much from
unlicensed practitioners as any other intellectual fashion.30 A detailed recon¬
struction of the propagation of the principles of Critical Philosophy would be of
great interest, of course, but it would ultimately lead us to the same conclusion as
the two previous chapters: the process of reception is a game of Chinese
whispers whose evolutions are fascinating, but whose one certainty is that the
result is quite unpredictable. Instead, we can approach our problem in two
phases: first, by considering the use made of Kantian doctrine in the Cameralism
of the 1790s; and secondly, by examining the doctrinal practices of those
teachers who were instrumental in the propagation of a ‘new economics’ in the
period 1790-1810.
At the most superficial level, we can discern a shift in the titles of textbooks,
beginning in the mid-1790s - it is fairly obvious, for instance, that J. A.
Vollinger’s GrundrifieinerAllgemeinen kritisch-philosophischen Wirthschafts-Lehreil
is intended to reflect the contemporary intellectual fashion. Vollinger taught at
Heidelberg in the Hohe-Schule, where, according to the lectures announced for
the Winter Semester of 1791-2, he was still teaching ‘Praktische Philosophic
nach Feder at this time, that is, pre-Critical Philosopny; while in his course on
Natural Law and the law of nations he used a text by Hopfner. By the summer of
1794 this had changed: practical philosophy was still read ‘according to Feder’,
29 For an outline of the ‘Kant reception’, see H. Saner, Kant's Political Thought (University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973), 110-18.

30 n07Q^C0nQm?90ral7 Sat're °n thC modishness of Critical Philosophy, see DeutscheMonatsschrift, 3

31 Published in Heidelberg in 1796.

158
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

but with ‘that related exact observation which the science has gained since
Kant’.32 In his lectures on Natural Law, the textbook by Hopfner had been
exchanged for one by Hufeland, which was also more adapted to the critical
trend in its emphasis on ‘Vervollkommnung’, or ‘perfectibility’, as a thematic
human purpose;33 and the lectures that he gave on Staatswirthschaft were no
longer according to Steuart, but were based on Vollinger’s own textbook:
Grundnfi einer allgemeinen Wirthschaftslehre. The influence of Critical Philosophy
becomes even more evident in the Winter Semester of 1794-5, when Vollinger
announced a course of lectures ‘on the Critique of Practical Reason and of
Judgement according to a tabulated summary of both works of Herr Kant, and
also practical anthropology according to his own notes’. In the same semester,
the course of lectures on Staatswirthschaft was renamed ‘The Critique of All
Economy - General Economics applied to Staatswirthschaft’, and this course was
then repeated for at least another three semesters.
The influence of Critical Philosophy terminology can also be seen at work in
the introduction to Walther’s Versuch eines Systems der Cameral-Wissenschaften,
which in the first paragraph asserts the principle: ‘increase your external
perfection’, and in the fifth, pronounces ‘Staatsklugheitslehre’ to be ‘the
empirical part of philosophical state science’, citing Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason
to support this.34 Later we can read: ‘For in oeconomy, as in all the cameralistic
sciences, there are no a priori principles. If then no pure theory (independent of
experience) is possible in the cameralistic sciences; its rules nonetheless may not
infringe purely moral laws. Thus for example the highest return is an objective
for oeconomy, but always subordinated to a higher purpose.’35 While this
terminology reappears continually throughout the rest of the book, the language
of need is not related to the existence of men, but rather to that of the state. The
fourth part, devoted to Staatswirthschaft, is an exposition of the knowledge
concerning Staatsbediirfnisse, in which economic activity is treated exclusively
from the point of view of the state, and which is therefore consistent with
Cameralistic orthodoxy.36
32 During the Winter Semester 1791-2, Semer taught Staatswirthschaft according to Sonnenfels,
while Vollinger announced a course on the same topic using the Tubingen edition of Steuart’s
Principles.
33 G. Hufeland, Lehrsdtze des Naturrechts (Jena, 1790). Hufeland had studied in Leipzig and
Gottingen and moved to Jena in 1784, where he qualified to teach in the Law Faculty and was
made Extraordinary Professor of Law in 1788 and was promoted to a full professor in 1790. In
1803, he went to Wurzburg, then Landshut, but he left in 1808 to assume the office of
Biirgermeister of Danzig. He was succeeded at Landshut by Savigny.
34 F. L. Walther, Versuch eines Systems der Cameral-Wissenschaften, i (GieBen, 1793), §1, p. 2.
33 Ibid., §6, p. 31.
36 Walther, Versuch, iv (GieBen, 1798), 1. Top of the recommended reading here is Justi’s
Staatswirthschaft. Walther’s novelty lay in his insistence that economic knowledge should be
propagated to everyone in the state, for the imperative of reason was ‘the extension by proper
means of outer perfection, and the maintenance of inner’. ‘An uneconomic man is always an
unhappy man. He is dependent upon the rich for the important needs of his life, who proffer him
gifts and loans, and occasionally makes use of him as a tool of their passions and intentions. He
loses independence, which is a material feature of a man’s character, he loses the respect of his
fellow-citizens and his influence upon then. He soon descends into baseness, sells his right in

159
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

P. E. Klipstein, a Hessian forestry official, took up some of Walther’s

categorizations and published his own ‘pure economics’ in 1797, ruminating on
the etymology of‘Wirthschaft’ and developing the term in relation to the origin
of property.3 7 F. K. Gavard, a private teacher in Wurzburg, published two hefty
volumes during the same year entitled Prolegomenon fiir eine reine und angewandlte
Staats'okonomie, although here the Kantian terminology penetrated little further
than the title. Vollinger also published a ‘Prolegemona’ to his System einer
angewandten Wirthschaftslehre iiberhaupt, defining this subject as: ‘the science of
satisfying the needs of every human condition, in every conceivable situation of
nature and freedom, with the aid of appropriate, corresponding and law-governed
resources; or the doctrine of law-governed value and prices related to the general
situation of the human condition’.38 And finally, in the same year - 1797, the
year in which Kant’s Rechtslehre was published - Schmalz published an
Encyclopadie der Gameralwissenschaften, which begins with the positing of man as a
rational being with needs requiring satisfaction, and identifies ‘our own actions,
which are called in this respect labour’ as the means by which they are to be
satisfied.39 In the second half of the text, headed ‘Staatswirthschaff, Schmalz
presents Smith’s ‘Industrie-System’ and suggests that the majority of Camer¬
alists belong to the so-called ‘mercantile system’, ‘for which national property-
consists in the sum of cash to be found in a state’.40
Clearly something has happened to the regularities of Cameralistic textbooks,
but it is not yet clear exactly how far it goes and to what extent the adoption of a
modish terminology merely rearranges a given form. A brief consideration of a
textbook produced in this period by C. D. H. Bensen will enable us to go further
than simply noting titles and phraseology. In 1797, Bensen was appointed
Professor of Cameralistic Sciences and Philosophy at Erlangen — where in the
same year he also happened to marry the sister of K. H. Rau, whose father was a
professor of theology at the university.
Like many before him, Bensen was confronted on his appointment with the
problem of selecting a text upon which he could read his lectures. And, also like
countless predecessors, he rapidly reached the conclusion that there was nothing
suitable, that he would have to write his own. The result of this was a three-part
work entitled Versuch eines systematischen Grundrisses der reinen und angewandten
Court, his vote in convention, Parliament and Office. Given the motivation (always considered bv
him to be unavoidable) and he becomes a traitor to his Fatherland, the unworthy keeper of funds
entrusted to him, the robber of those given into his care - a criminal as a result of his self-inflicted
poverty.’ (F. L. Walther, Versuch eines Grundrisses der allgemeinen Oekonomie fur Vorlesumen
(GieBen, 1795), 15-16).
37 P. E. Klipstein, Reine Wirthschaftslehre (GieBen, 1797).
38 l A. Vollinger, System einer angewandten Wirthschaftslehre iiberhaupt (Heidelberg, 1797), 166 The
‘Prolegomena zur angewandten Wirthschaftslehre’ is printed as a preface to this text.’
39
T. Schmalz, Encyclopadie der Cameralwissenschaften (Konigsberg, 1797), 2, 6. This text was
expressly for use in academic lectures. Schmalz was also the author of Das Reine Naturrecht
(Komgsberg, 792) Having studied law in Gottingen, in 1788 he was appointed to a chair in
Konigsberg, where he taught Natural Law. In 1810, he was made Professor of Law at Berlin and
first Kektor of the University.
Schmalz, Enqclopadie, p. 143.

160
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

Staatslehre fur Kameralisten, the first part of which was published in 1798 and
addressed itself to ‘pure Staatslehre’. Here the various regions of Cameralistic
science were united under the banner of‘the purpose of the state’, to the benefit of
whose welfare its principles were to be applied. The state was then clearly defined:
The state, as an association of morally free beings [who combine] with the aim of better
and more certainly attaining that which Nature has ascribed to each as an ultimate and
highest purpose, can be regarded in a dual manner: 1) with the aid of experience (a
posteriori) 2) without such; according to the nature and purpose of the associates,
disregarding a given prevailing state form (absolute, a priori). Both forms of knowledge
are equally indispensable to the Staatsxvirth, in part so that he should know the goal to
which he aspires; in part to know what it is possible to do under given circumstances.41

Bensen divided Staatslehre into pure and applied parts. The leading principle of
the former was that the state was founded upon a contract, and that by analysing
the foundations and arrangements of the state it was possible to identify an ‘ideal
form’. The ‘applied’ element concerned the constitution and administration of
the state in such a way as to facilitate the realization of this ideal. Once this was
achieved, Polizeimssenschaft could then be defined as a means of removing all
those obstacles that prevented the citizen from realizing his given purpose -
within the state. ‘And so the highest power should, in accordance with the
purposes of the state, take requisite care of the culture of the citizen, that is, for
his enlightenment and morality [Sittlichkeit\. It should facilitate, at the least by means
of institutions, his cultural advance.’42 This was to be achieved by public
education, the financing of which was systematically dealt with by Staatswirth-
schaftslehre.
What kind of literature does Bensen cite? We find Justi’s Grundsatz einer guten
Regierung at the top of his list, closely followed by Sonnenfels; but some pages
later, he does quote Adam Ferguson and Kant when considering the formation
of civil society.43 The result is the uniting of a reformed Natural Law with
material and categories drawn from the Cameralistic tradition symbolized by
Justi, which presupposes a distinct and earlier version of Natural Law. This is
underlined by the treatment of Polizei in the second part of the textbook:
The nation should gradually see itself as a single family; all individuality, with all due
regard, should vanish. [Compulsion is not however permissible, and so] The imperative
of Polizei is this: that many of its decrees for the promotion of utility and morality within
the terms of a true state purpose must be founded upon the intention that they be mere
proposals for voluntary associations of citizens, where even the slightest degree of compul¬
sion is wrong.44

41 C. D. H. Bensen, Versuch eines systematischen Grundrisses der reinen und angemandten Staatslehre fur
Kameralisten, i (Erlangen, 1798), §3, p. 2; §5, p. 3. Bensen was born in Einbeck, between Hanover
and Gottingen, in 1761, and studied first theology and then Cameralistic sciences at Gottingen.
He gained his doctorate in 1794. In 1804, he moved to the post of Professor of Cameralistic
Sciences at Wurzburg, where he died in early 1805.
42 Bensen, Versuch, i. §13, p. 9.
43 Ibid., pp. 21, 27. Bensen is clearly referring here to Justi’s GrundriB einer Guten Regierung.
44 Ibid.' ii (1799), §222, p. 15.

161
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

At the same time, Polizei was stripped of many of its accepted functions: the
promotion of population, education, the improvement of food supplies, and
pauperism. Ultimately, argued Bensen, Polizei was simply concerned with public
safety.
This was indeed to be the new definition of the scope of Polizei, but, as we
shall see, many writers contrived to combine this limited demarcation of its
function with an accumulating list of tasks that belonged to the domain of‘public
safety’, thus recovering the functions of the older, regulatory conception. This
pattern was also followed in the third part of Bensen’s book, which basically
treated state economy in the same way as the Cameralistic texts of the 1770s and
1780s had done. Perhaps this is to be expected from any approach to economic
principles which conceives of the latter in terms of ‘state economy’, notwith¬
standing the initial emphasis on human needs; and it should not be forgotten that
the whole raison d’etre of Cameralism was as a body of knowledge directed to the
administration of the economic property of the state. The critical parameter
here, then, is the manner in which this economic property is defined; to what
extent do individuals possess a property in their own person and skills, to be
disposed of it to its best advantage and to be directed by self-interest, rather than
by ‘state purposes’. It was upon this parameter that a revised Natural Law could
exert its influence and, by redefining the properties and powers of the individual,
could relocate the lines demarcating the spheres of state and society.45
This process can be seen at work in F. B. Weber’s Einleitung in das Studium der
Cameralwissenschaften. The first chapter is devoted to the ‘concept’ of the
Cameralistic sciences, and begins by noting the relevant literature. Top of the
list is Justi’s Gutachten of 1754, followed by his Grundnfi of 1759 - works that
had appeared almost fifty years earlier. Other texts that were noted as useful
included examples from Jung, Springer, and Niemann. The first paragraph of
Chapter 1 deals with the origin of states and state property:
Following an uncertain, unregulated and unfettered life men began to enter into state
associations. They subordinated diemselves and their property, i.e. their wills their
powers, capacities and goods to the laws and decrees of a supreme state power, so that the
communal good of the association be promoted by assuring its security. Each individual in
the new association or citizen [Staatsbiirger\, did retain direct control, disposition and use
of his properties and possessions; but solely under the twin condition, first, that he follow
the laws and decrees issued by the supreme power for the good of the state i e for the
achievement of the purpose of the state; second, that he would contribute a certain part of
his property, m particular, of its annual revenue, to meet the costs and expenditures of the
constituted state (annually, or at any other time determined by the state). A certain part of

45 -The '79,,’.?4Sf6'PP ?' 9- A" *ddi,ion >° ** P» sn.ph casts soma lighten this:
The .7 state economy is formed upon an analogy with “house economy”. Both still possess
a sum anty even if they must be regarded as quite distinct with respect to property rights relating
to the possessions of the private citizen and of the supreme power, and with respect to the increase
of the same etc. By Wirthschaft (Oekonomte) in its broadest sense is understood the care of the
patriarchi[Hausvater\ in promoting the best of the members of his house, as well as his own
welfare. Consequently under this the administration of the entire house, domestic legislation the
education of family members, the acquisiton of movable goods is understood as the means to an
end. Many writers conceive state economy in this extended sense.’

162
 the constitution ofNationalokonomie

the property belonging to the Staatsgesellschaft was transferred once and for all to the state
or supreme power as state pn/perty to be used as necessary. In this way state property arose
from such state associations.46

Weber then defined ‘state property’ as the mass of goods and property existing in
that state - it comprehended the individual property of citizens, therefore, as well
as the immediate possessions of the state. This form of definition has several
implications, some of which are ambiguous and contradictory.
First of all, it can be stated that a clear distinction between state and private
property' was a necessary pre-condition for the emancipation of the individual
from his treatment as a ‘state asset’ qua subject of a territorial lord, into a free
individual whose self-motivated activity would generate wealth for the nation
(rather than for the state). This can be clearly seen in the changing conception of
taxation and the nature of a state’s fiscal base. In the seventeenth and early
eighteenth centuries, the territorial lord was perceived of as the head of a
household that was based financially upon the private domains of the ruler, plus
an assortment of occasional taxes on goods, revenues from privileges granted to
individuals or corporations, and levies on subjects. This latter income, together
with the additional taxation required for military campaigns, had to be negotiated
with the Stande, which were, in effect, the guardians of those sources of finance
outside the immediate control of the ruler. As much as anything, the formation of
the modem state is a story of the emancipation of the ruler, never more than a
primus inter pares financially beholden to the nobility and to the corporations, into
the head of a state who enjoys the sole prerogative of taxation upon its members
for the support of its activities.47 The fiscal corollary of an emergent distinction
between state and civil society was that state property should be sharply
distinguished from private property, with the citizen rendering payments to the
state for activities undertaken on his behalf, but otherwise having full powers of
disposal over his person and property. While such private property might be
aggregated into the wealth of a nation, it remained quite separate when
considering the wealth of a state.
Weber appears at first to subscribe to the older understanding of the state and
its property. But the very comprehensiveness of his definition asserts a preroga¬
tive of the state which also supersedes all privilege. While the employment of the
term Staatsgesellschaft emphasizes a synonymity of state and society in Weber s

46 p B Weber, Einleitung in das Studium der Cameralwisscnschaften (Berlin, 1803), § 1, pp. ff. Weber
was born in Leipzig in 1774, studied law and Cameralism at the university there and was accepted
as a Privatdozent in 1799 and was made an extraordinary professor in 1800. In 1802, he was
appointed to a full chair at Frankfurt an der Oder, moving onto a Chair in Economic and
Cameralistic Sciences at Breslau in 1811 and then serving as secretary of the economic section of
the Silesian Society for the Culture of the Fatherland until shortly before his death in 1848. 1 he
term which is translated in the text as ‘state association’ is ‘Staatsverbindung’, in the original, and
not ‘Gemeinschaft’; this entered general use some time after this point: see M. Riedel,
‘Gesellschaft, Gemeinschaft’, in Brunner et at., Geschichlhche Grundbegnffe, u. 828ff.
47 For a detailed account of alterations in the principles of finance and taxation, see H. Schulz, /Jat
System and die Prinzipien der Einkunfte im werdenden Stoat der Neuzeit (Duncker und Humblot,
Berlin, 1982); and F. K. Mann, Steuerpolitische I deale (Gustav Pischer, Jena, 1 iSi).

163
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

understanding, it can also imply a synonymity of nation and state. Out of this
ambiguity, therefore, it is possible to combine elements of an older tradition with
principles which, at first sight, seem directly to undermine them. This is
confirmed by Weber’s definition of property: ‘the means for the satisfaction of
human needs’.48 Furthermore, these needs are described as dual - consisting in
the first place of material objects external to men, and in the second, of those
powers and capacities inherent in the human person.
Weber is able to adopt the terminology of national wealth and labour that
originated with Smith without disturbing the course of his presentation. We find
that the income of a nation is defined as the result of the labour performed by its
citizens; and it is from this source that the income of the state must also be
drawn, both private and public: ‘The real condition and contribution, the sum of
this entire national income, is called national wealth From this perspective, the
real concern of Cameralism, the analysis of the proper employment of resources
at the disposal of the state, converges with the ‘science of a legislator’, or
Staatsmann, as Weber calls him.50 Needless to say, Weber’s introduction does
not then proceed to follow the path marked out by Smith, but reverts to the more
conventional distinctions and categories of Cameralism. However, his text does
illustrate the degree of accommodation possible between Cameralistic discourse
and the implications of a revised Natural Law.
It would be possible, of course, to go on in this way, proceeding through the
textbooks produced in the following two decades, noting convergences, innova¬
tion, reiteration, and repetition. But a greater degree of focus will be achieved by
considering those texts which explicitly attached themselves to Smith’s Wealth of
Nations, and whose authors were perceived by their contemporaries to be
converts to Smithianismus.
We have already seen how Sartorius, reviewing the volume of additions and
revisions to Wealth of Nations, expressed the hope that the book would become
better known to German readers. At the time he wrote this, he was in fact
lecturing on Smith in Gottingen, as part of the lectures on politics he delivered as
a Pnvatdozent. His lectures had two main sections: first, he considered the nature
of the state and such questions as the best form of government, and then he
turned to the administration of the state. The work of government was fourfold
suggested Sartorius: security and property (civil and criminal justice at home,’
military and diplomatic affairs abroad), moral improvement and education- the
avoidance of occasional evils (Polizei); and welfare.51 It was under this’last
heading that he dealt with Smith, covering population, agriculture, skills, trade
and money, and finance.
A more detailed outline published in 1794 provides a clearer view of his
economics teaching. This began with an exposition of the ‘two systems’, the
48 Weber, Einleitung, §2, p. 7. +9 Ibid ; §3) p 9 so Ib;d , §6 12
G. Sartorius, Einladungs-Blatterzu Vorlesungen iiber die Politik (Gottingen, 1793) 23-4 Sartorius
was made an extraordinary professor in 1797, and a full professor in 1802. He later turned down
e offer of the first Chair in Statistics and Cameralistic Sciences at the University of Berlin
remaining in Gottingen until his death in 1828. *' erlin’

164
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

mercantilist and the agricultural; and then, from the principles that emerged
from the criticism of these systems, he elaborated upon the consequences of
manufacture, trade, and population.52 This approach enabled Sartorius to
establish general principles in the spirit of Smith, but at the same time to make
use of established materials relating to the various branches of economic activity.
The compromises involved in this, however, are overcome in the summary of
Wealth of Nations that Sartorius published in 1796, two years after the Garve and
Dorrien translation had appeared.53
In his preface, Sartorius stated himself to be convinced ‘that Smith has
discovered the truth, and he [Sartorius] regarded it as his duty to contribute to
the diffusion of the same’.54 Smith's book, he went on to suggest, was rather too
long for use as a textbook, however - but it was possible to omit some sections
and to avoid repetition and examples. Doing this would allow a better overview of
the whole, and the resistance to Smith’s principles which had been encountered
in Germany so far would be reduced. This by no means involved a parochial
‘adaptation’ of Smith for German readers - Sartorius shows himself to be
familiar with the criticisms of Smith made by Pownall and Hamilton and
presents a fair and accurate assessment of their positions.
This treatment is carried over to his summary of Wealth of Nations, which, by
identifying Smith’s arguments in terms of propositions and then reducing them
to bald paragraphs, avoids the repetition and discursiveness of which so many
reviewers complained. The summary is not neutral, of course - the very first
lines run: ‘The product of labour of a people furnishes them with the satisfaction
of their needs, either directly or indirectly through the exchange of a part of this
product for the commodities of other peoples’55 - representing an accommo¬
dation between the letter of Smith’s text and the discursive tendency prevailing
in Germany. Books 1 and 2 receive, over ninety pages, a fair treatment. This
concludes the first part of the book, entitled ‘On the sources from which the
needs of a nation are satisfied; or the elements of welfare’, and Sartorius then
turns to his second part: ‘On State Economy, or the rules which are to be
52 G. Sartorius, Grundrifi der Politik zum Gebrauch bey seinen Vorlesungen (Gottingen, 1794), 15ff.
The material presented here had been somewhat rearranged from the previous year’s outline.
The four-part treatment of tasks proper to the state had been recast into two main sections, the
first of which dealt with the security and protection of property, and the second with ‘moral and
physical perfection’. In this rearrangement, Polizei was distributed between the two sections, as
appropriate, while economics was covered in the second half of Part 2, which dealt with physical
welfare.
53 The Garve and Dorrien edition of Smith appeared in four parts under the title Untersuchung iiber
Natur unddie Ursachen des Nationalreichthums (Breslau, 1794—6). A reset (and presumably pirated,
for it bears no publisher’s name) edition appeared in four volumes in Frankfurt and Leipzig
betwen 1796 and 1799. The second edition of the Garve-Dorrien edition, together with Dugald
Stewart’s Life, was published in three volumes in Breslau in 1799. A third edition of this
translation was then published in 1810, again in three volumes, and a reset version of this edition
also appeared in Vienna in 1814. There was then a gap in publication, until a new translation by
Max S timer appeared in four volumes in 1846—7.
54 G. Sartorius, Handbuch der Staatswirthschaft zum Gebrauche bey akademischen Vorlesungen, nach
Adam Smith’s Grundsatzen ausgearbeitet (Berlin, 1796), p. iv.
55 Ibid., §1, p. 1.

165
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

followed by a state so that the individual citizen might be enabled to earn an

adequate income, and also provide the same for public state expenditures’. Here
the precis delivered by Sartorius shifts into commentary; the second part does
not resume immediately with a summary of Book 3 of Wealth of Nations, but
approaches Books 3 to 5 collectively in terms of the principles of Staatswirth-
schaft. The precis then continues, proceeding systematically through Smith’s
third and fourth books.
In Book 5 of Wealth of Nations, Smith considers the expense of the state from
the point of view of the duties of a sovereign; Sartorius, however, shifts this into
a question of the purpose of the state - of Staatszwecke: ‘It has to be assumed that
every citizen assents to the state purpose, and hence to the means necessary to
this purpose. The purpose is none other than the security of all inherited and
rightfully gained rights. All public institutions serving to secure all these rights
are general public institutions, to whose maintenance all must contribute in
appropriate measure.’56 In making this shift, Sartorius certainly introduces a
greater degree of clarity and order; but he also alters the principles upon which
Smith assessed the activities of the state and the distribution of the costs
incurred. Whereas Smith considered military expenses, justice, public works,
and education in a discursive and altogether pragmatic fashion which was
centred on the question of who benefited from a particular service, Sartorius
orders them according to a definite, single principle which subordinates
everyone - sovereign, merchant, and clergy - to a direct or an indirect
relationship with a higher purpose. Sartorius does not entirely ignore Smith’s
procedure, however, presenting a summary which serves to qualify his initial
systematic approach - justice, for instance, is treated in three pages,57 although
Book 5, part 1, ‘Of the Expense of Defence’, is omitted entirely.
In 1806, Sartorius published a revised version of his precis of Wealth of Nations
in which these deviations were corrected and his commentaries on Smith were
contained in a separate text. The revisions excluded the language of Staatszwecke,
and the division of the book into two was made between Books 3 and 4 of Wealth
of Nations. The brief statement of principles of good government, which in its
previous location had led into a general discussion of the proper foundation of
states (Book 3), now leads directly into a discussion of the mercantile system;
and the treatment of Book 5 not only omits the initial systematization in terms of
state purpose, it includes in the proper place a new paragraph on the expenses of
defence.58
The essays on Smith that were published at the same time are consistent with
some of the criticisms expressed in Lauderdale’s Inquiry into the Nature and
Origin of Public Wealth.59 The first essay takes issue with the theory of value
56 Ibid., §93, pp. 152-3. 57 fbid ; §94j pp 154_7
58 S.ar,t°r!us’ fon d Elemental des National-Reichthums, und von der Staatswirthschaft nachAdam

” a summ*ri“d ,r*ns“on of ,his "ork *»“'« -

166
 the constitution 0/Nationalokonomie

expressed in Wealth of Nations, which emphasizes the variations brought about by

climate, social conditions, and customs. This form of argument continues
Sartorius s earlier definition of ‘politics’ as an empirical science and not a pure
science based on a priori principles. Politics is concerned with the question:
What are the most suitable means for the attainment of the end of civil
society? ;60 this question cannot be solved by the application of general
principles, as in mathematics, for example:
There is no doubt that a mathematically true statement is equally valid in all circumstances
and in all places, while it is by contrast plain almost to a child that every general political
statement has to be modified with respect to nations, customs, climate and a thousand
other circumstances. If this is so, then one must dispense with a priori conclusions in
politics, and with the theories constructed upon this basis.61

The fact that Sartorius levels this criticism at the theory of value to be found in
the Wealth of Nations is especially significant for the development of German
economic analysis. On the one hand, Smith’s approach was shortly to be
dismissed by Muller, List, and others as ‘cosmopolitan’ - seeking to establish
general principles of economics for a differentiated world. (In a less polemical
vein, Nationalokonomie explicitly adopted this principle of variability of economic
circumstance and need as a central tenet which marked it off from developments
in France and Britain.) On the other hand, the adoption of Smithianismus was
generally associated with an allegiance to such principles. Sartorius, however,
was one of the earliest, the most consistent, and the most influential of those
associated with the diffusion of Smith’s work in Germany; and yet here he clearly
states his adherence to an ‘empiricist’ approach to economic analysis that was
quite consistent with the arguments put forward by Friedrich List, who later
went so far as to develop a climatic theory of international economic develop¬
ment.62 The language employed by Sartorius is unambiguous:
In truth the entire course of reasoning is a quite remarkable phenomenon. The effort of
finding an equal and unchanging measure of all value was ultimately so fascinating for this
excellent and sharp-witted man that he believed, through a curious fallacy, to have
discovered it in actuality in human labour - whose nature he knew so well, which he had
elaborated in such detail. He was of course aware that the labour of men is variously
rewarded at different places, at different times, even in the same place and at the same
time, and hence - in respect of real and not money wages - is estimated quite variously
63

Although Sartorius then refers to Lauderdale’s critique of Smith on value, he

suggests that Lauderdale did not really understand Smith’s intentions; and in
the second essay on frugality and the accumulation of wealth, he accuses
Lauderdale of criticizing passages from Wealth of Nations which are either taken

60 Sartorius, Vorlesungen, p. 20. 61 Ibid., pp.7-8.

62 See my discussion of this in ‘Friedrich List and the Critique of “Cosmopolitical Economy”’,
Manchester School \ol. 56 (1988) pp. 1711.
63 G. Sartorius, Ahhandlungen, die Elemente des National-Reichthums und die Staatsmrthschaft
betreffend (Gottingen, 1806), 24.

167
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

out of context completely, or with respect to one point among many. We are not
dealing here with an unthinking critic of Smith who would accept without
further consideration criticism which, superficially at least, was similar to his
own. Sartorius was a major figure in the diffusion of Wealth of Nations in
Germany, and his textbooks and teaching provided a sound basis for its
reception. But his work does not contain the kind of allegiance to ‘cosmopoli¬
tanism’ that we might be led to expect from the reaction of Smith’s hostile
German critics. And, consequently, any assumption that a line can be drawn
between the reception of Wealth of Nations on the one hand, and the emergence
of a distinct tradition of Nationalokonomie on the other, has either to be seriously
modified, or abandoned. It is more accurate to regard the process described here
as one in which the discursive structure of German economics was undergoing
profound modification, and in which various sources were introduced as
authorities likely to establish some kind of order. Foremost among these was
Wealth of Nations, but we should not look for either complete acceptance or
complete rejection. The processes of reception and of discursive transformation
are far more differentiated than this, there were different ways to read Smith
during this period.
An example of this which contrasts with the approach adopted by Sartorius is
the text produced in three parts by A. F. Lueder, Ueber Nationalindustrie und
Staatswirthschaft. Nach Adam Smith bearbeitet. Lueder was a professor of history
at the Collegium Carolinum in Brunswick and he had studied in Gottingen; he
maintained that there was a need to establish the eternal laws conditioning man’s
existence in all countries for all times. Smiths Wealth of Nations, he suggested,
was a systematic attempt to do this, but even though the work had become well
known, it remained ineffective because of the deviations and examples with
which Smith cluttered his narrative: ‘Smith becomes unclear from too great a
fear of being unclear’64 - a by no means unfair judgement on Wealth of Nations.
Lueder sought to rectify this by a thorough appraisal of the work - reassessing
propositions, filling in gaps in the argument, linking the whole together in a
clearer fashion, and providing a new Book 3, ‘On Nature’, which, he thought,
Smith had omitted.
The result of Lueder s efforts is a work that is even bulkier and more
impenetrable than the original, largely because of his universal-historical
perspective and the consequent attempt to write into the text a consistent
historical genesis of commercial society. The ‘Book 3’ that Lueder added is a
general history of man which draws on material from the Orient, the Americas,
and Europe, and which is organized in two sections: ‘How Nature affects the
collection and accumulation of capital’; and ‘How Nature affects the market’.
The ‘natural’ foundation of this account is not Natural Law, but the list of factors
to which a ‘natural’ existence can be ascribed by virtue of their empirical
confirmation in historical and comparative records. This is followed by a fourth
"4 fonn\1 •uederHy^ Nationahnduslrie und Staatswirthschaft. Nach Adam Smith bearbeitet i (Berlin,
18UU), p. xiv. two further parts appeared in 1802 and 1804.

168
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

book, ‘On the purpose of the state and of state economy’, which refers to Kant,
Schlozer, Hume, and Hufeland in developing an analysis of sociability and
labour from an initial anthropology which posits morality (Sittlichkeit) as the
ultimate end of mankind. Later parts consider internal security (Polizei is not
mentioned here), armed force, culture, and finances - the text progressively
departs from all pretence of revising and commenting on Smith and becomes a
rather loose treatment of societies and human needs.
Reviewing the literature of‘Staats-Weisheit’ in 1812, von Colin maintained
that practically all writers had drawn upon Smith’s doctrines and had borrowed
their leading ideas and founding principles from Wealth of Nations.65 While this
is an overstatement, it is broadly true that the principle form of innovation from
the later 1790s involved reference to, or elaboration upon, Smith’s work. This
does not mean that his principles were adopted blindly or even without
modification - both can be seen in the instances just cited - nor does it mean that
the shifts in contemporary understanding of economic analysis were the result of
a confrontation with Wealth of Nations. This text achieved canonical status
because it lent itself to emergent conceptions of state, society, and their
respective forms of regulation in a more direct way than any other German text
to date. The continuity of teaching which underlay this process of reception also
contributed to a more balanced assessment of Wealth of Nations than elsewhere.
As we have seen, it was Steuart rather than Smith, who, for some time, was
regarded as the ‘leading Scottish writer’ on economic affairs, and this was not
forgotten - even by those who appear at first glance natural ‘Smithians’.
Hufeland, for example, published the first part of an economic treatise in
1807, the preface of which considers previous economic systems in the classical
Smithian terms of mercantilism and Physiocracy. Hufeland denies that Steuart
adheres to any kind of system; his treatment of material from successive and
distinct viewpoints leads, in Hufeland’s opinion, to contradictions that can only
be resolved by the intervention of a Statesman. Nevertheless, Hufeland is
prepared to acknowledge that Steuart’s Principles is a work of greater depth than
Wealth of Nations,66 even if he then concludes that for Steuart money was the
only form of wealth.
Another writer whose background was in Natural Law and Critical Phil¬
osophy was L. H. Jakob, the German translator of Say’s Traite d’economie
politique, who, like Hufeland, was able to approach the categories of Wealth of
Nations in a formalized manner which laid bare the theoretical principles of
Smithian economics. He had used Sartorius’s Handbuch in his teaching at Halle
since 1799, but he found that there were ideas in Smith that were concealed by
the form of presentation; and so he determined upon the composition of his own
textbook:
My intention in this was to entirely exclude all investigations of Polizei and finance,
reducing it to a pure form: how is wealth formed in a nation, how is the increase of the
65 F. von Colin, Die neue Staatsvpeisheit (Berlin, 1812), p. iii.
66 G. Hufeland, Neue Grundlegung der Staatswirthschaftskunst, i (GieBen, 1807), Vorrede, n.p.

169
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

same promoted and hindered, how are the elements of the same distributed
among the members of the people, and how is it consumed? - What are the
general rules according to which all this occurs?67

The object, thus, was not to write a textbook on state economy, on Staatswirth-
schafi, for this expression only related to the public part of national property,
dedicated to public ends. The rulers of a nation were, in effect, the admini¬
strators (or PVirthe, as Jakob added) of this public property, not of national
property in general, which was outside their competence. Consequently,
Staatswirthschaftslehre should be seen as being restricted to teaching on finance
and Polizei. So, what should Jakob’s system be called? ‘The expression National-
Oekonomie, or National-Wirthschaftslehre appears to me most appropriate to
characterise a system of concepts in which the entire nature of popular wealth, its
origin and dissipation, thus its Physik, should be analysed.’68
Up to this point, ‘state economy’ has prevailed as a general consideration of
economic processes within the state. We have seen the way in which Weber
failed to distinguish between state property and individual properties and
capacities, making state and national property synonymous. In the same year as
Jakob’s work appeared, another ‘Smithian’ wrote: ‘A significant part of politics is
that which addresses itself to the doctrine of the welfare of a nation or to the
question of national wealth. If all which properly belongs to this science is
separated from politics and ordered into an independent science; this then
constitutes politische Oekonomie or Staatswirthschaft.’69 Jakob, however, makes a
sharp distinction between them; Staatswirthschaftslehre is restricted to those
activities of a state that are separate from the domain in which ‘wealth’ is created
and reproduced. Thus, the study of national wealth, taken up from Smith, is
centred on this domain and is not immediately concerned with the activities of
the state. As yet only implicitly, we encounter for the first time here a clear
demarcation between state and civil society, in which the study of economic
processes is a study of the self-organization of civil society and not of state
administration. Thus delimited, this body of knowledge required a name: Jakob
calls it Nationalokonomie. Until this redefinition of economic analysis was
67
Ji B.Jakob, Grundsatze der National-Oekonomie oder National- Wirthschaftslehre (Halle 1805) n v
Jakob had been one of the first adherents of Kantian philosophy at Halle, where he was made
Extraordinary Professor of Philosophy in 1789, and full professor in 1791. After publishing a
number of texts in ethics and Natural Law, from the later 1790s he devoted his energies almost
entirely to the Cameralism: sciences. When Napoleon closed Halle in 1807, he went to Kharkov
returning to Halle m 1816 See H. Pototzky, Ludwig Heinrich von Jakob ah Nationaldkonomon. Em
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Nationalokonomie Deutschlands im xix. Jahrhundert, Diss. (Bern 1905).
68
Ja ob, Grundsatze, p. vu. Hufeland expressed his basic agreement with this terminology but
suggested that it would be better expressed ‘in German, namely by Volkswirthschaft, whose contrast
with Staatswirthschaft stands out quite clearly’. He went on, however: ‘But it seems to me that there
are some doubts that are raised here, for with the term “Wirthschaft” one alwavs thinks of a
managing Hauptwirth, which is in a correct appreciation of Volkswirthschaft quite absent where
many thousands pursue their economic activities (wirthschaften) and where the association of their
intentions and their wills is quite accidental.’ (Hufeland, Neue Grundlegung i 14)
69
(Riga°A805)°7l-l 2 ^ ^ Staatswirthschafi oder die Leh n dem Nationalreichthume, i

170
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

generally accepted (which took perhaps twenty years), the name for this ‘new
economics’ had a strategic value and was itself the object of controversy.
As was customary, Jakob begins his textbook with conceptual definitions: ‘I.
Begriff von der National-Wirthschaftslehre’. These can be summarized as
follows:
§ 1. The principal purpose, in pursuit of which each enters civil society, is to lead a more
secure and happy life.
§ 2. The means to a happy life, in so far as they are within human powers, consist partly in
the private powers of individuals, partly in the public and combined powers of the
state.
§3. A happy life depends initially on the availability of means to satisfy human needs.
These are acquired or produced for the most part by the members of the nation - this
is national wealth or national property.
§4. The prime condition for the acquisition of this wealth is the security of person and
property; where private powers are insufficient to maintain or increase wealth, public
power is required.
§5. Since the security of law and the promotion of general welfare cannot be spon¬
taneous products of combined popular powers, these are vested in an ultimate
power, the state, enjoying sovereignty and executing its adherence to communal
purposes through government.
§6. It follows from this, that all means applied by the state are subordinated to the higher
national purposes and must never conflict with them.
§7. The science of the means through which government achieves its ends is called
internal or external Staats- oder Regierungs-Politik.
§8. The rules promulgated by internal politics for the closer definition of its means are
called laws. ‘Internal politics is thus no more than the science of legislation.'
§9. The object of these laws is:

(1) purposeful organization of the state - S taatsv erf ass u ngsleh re\
(2) the determination of juridical relations of the members of the state to each other
and the legal consequences - judicial legislation;
(3) security of rights and the promotion of general welfare through the specification
of certain actions and the creation of public institutions - Policey legislation;
(4) specification of the way in which public property is to be acquired and used for
public purposes - financial science or Staatswirthschaftslehre - Staats-Oekonomie.

§10 'National-Oekonomie or National-Wirthschaftslehre investigates the means through

which the populace, under the protection of the government, achieves its end,
namely the acquisition, increase and enjoyment of its property; the manner in which
national wealth arises, is distributed, consumed and reproduced or maintained; and
the influence which all circumstances and events in the state have upon this.’70

70 Jakob, Grundsdtze, pp. 1-4; §10, p. 4. In his translation ofSay (/Ibhandlung iiber die Nationalokono-
mie, 2 vols. (Halle, 1807)), Jakob appended a note to Say’s opening remark that ‘Up to Adam
Smith there was no clear conception of that which is called polilische Oekonomie’ (p. vii). This runs
in part: ‘ “Politische Oekonomie” would of course not be in German at all confused with Politik in
general. For we understand by political sciences all those which relate to the common good; but
nonetheless it is very easy to associate with this expression the exclusive influence of the
government. The expression National-Oekonomie or National-Wirthschaft indicates quite clearly
the fundamental idea of all those principles which have to be set in motion in a people so that the
means for the satisfaction of need are produced, increased, and also distributed and appropriately
used; it indicates the laws according to which both private and public persons have to work in a

171
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

While Staatswirthschaftslehrewas solely concerned with that portion of national

property associated with the activities of government, it had, of necessity, to
make use of principles drawn from National- Wirthschaftslehre in order to form a
proper assessment of the sources of its revenues and their maintenance and
increase. Likewise, National-Wirthschaftslehre was essential to Policey and finan¬
cial science; but it had to exist autonomously from these domains. In the brief
survey of the literature of Nationalokonomie with which Jakob concludes his
introduction, he maintains that no one before Smith had thought to distinguish
the theory of civil welfare from the science of government - all writers, from
Locke through the Physiocrats to Steuart, treat ‘Economic politique, political
oeconomie’ as a science of government which is primarily concerned with the
identification of sources of state revenue.71
Jakob not only presents a clear delineation of Nationalokonomie as the
economic theory of society; the substance of the text is also arranged in a novel
manner. There are three main divisions: ‘On the origin and increase of national
property’; ‘On the principles of distribution of national wealth’; ‘On consump¬
tion’. It is usually assumed that the second edition of Say’s Traite, published in
1814, was the first to introduce this tripartite division of production - distri¬
bution - consumption into the language of political economy. Instead, two years
after the appearance of the first edition of the Traite, we find Say’s German
translator already ordering his treatment of economic analysis under these
headings.72 Within these sections, Jakob presents the same kind of systemati¬
zation of Smith that we can find in Say - thus Part 1 contains successive sections
on nature and labour as sources of wealth, property rights and the state as
necessary conditions for the formation of wealth, landed property, labour, and
capital. While Sartorius adhered more or less closely to the order of exposition of
Wealth of Nations, Jakob presents ‘Smithian principles’ paragraph by paragraph,
thus reducing the more discursive presentation of Say to a well-ordered
pedagogy.
It is not entirely accurate to credit Jakob alone with the introduction and
systematization of this new concept ok Nationalokonomie, for in the same year, von
Soden published the first of several volumes with the general title of Die
Nazional-Oekonomie. Whereas Jakob was primarily motivated by his acquaint¬
ance with the work of Say and a general dissatisfaction with Sartorius’s Handbuch
as a teaching text, Soden was more concerned with the wider theoretical
deficiencies in Smith’s Wealth of Nations. These had first become apparent in the
mid-1790s, prompted by the appearance of the Garve-Dorrien translation;

welfare^ipHyiiO0111111111131 faShl°n S° that the nation can be brought to the highest degree of

71 ]Ja/°b’ Gruf]salze’ §1L p. 8. This repeats the argument advanced by Say in his Traite d'economic
politique, i (Paris, 1803), Discours prehminaire’, pp. ii-iii.
72 Cdrltl,f,)n 01 the ^tf/was organized into 5 books: 1) Production; 2) Moneys; 3) The Value
of Things; 4) Revenues; 5) Consumption. The second edition of 1814 revised and rearranged this
material under three headings: 1) The Production of Wealth; 2) The Distribution of Wealth- 3)
1 he Consumption of Wealth. ’ ’

172
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

impressed by the originality of Smith’s ideas, Soden nevertheless felt that the
work was needlessly repetitive and didactic, lacking the system, order, and
comprehensiveness that was both desirable and necessary.73 Moreover, Soden
charged Smith with failing to present the general principle of Staatswirthschaft in
a clear and direct manner: ‘In the usual sense, by the concept of Staatswirthschaft
is understood, in relation to the word Stoat, neither the mass of society, nor the
Staats-Burger, but the organised body of the state .. ,’.74
This could only be done, he suggested, by a systematic approach to the science
which provided Staatswirthschaft with its basic foundations and at the same time
circumscribed its activities. Nazional-Oekonomie was this science, proposed
Soden:
It is the Natural Law of sociable mankind with respect to the maintenance and promotion of
its physical welfare, and in the same way that the Law of Nations outlines the laws
according to which nations, in the reciprocal condition of co-existence, must adhere in
every respect; so Nazional-Oekonomie provides the principles which (comprehending in
fact the concept of several nations) must be adhered to, such that every member of every
nation achieves the highest possible degree of physical welfare, and maintains this
position.
I call this Nazional-Oekonomie partly in order to avoid the confounding of state and
nation, partly to properly express its independence, that is, to prevent its confusion with
Staats-Wirthschaft.. .7S

It is then stated that the leading principle of Nationalokonomie is ‘the highest

perfection of the physical condition of sociable mankind’: ‘But the study of
Nazional-Oekonomie cannot be in any respects empirical. It is a purely intel¬
lectual abstraction, resting upon unchanging, certain and considered principles,
which identifies the general regulator in human relationships and passions,
arranges the mechanism in accordance with this (just like the omnipotent genius
which created the world), but then quietly allows it to proceed, watching over its
calm but steady progress.’76
Evidently, Soden does not have the pedagogic intentions of Jakob; equally
evidently, he wishes to instil system and principle into Nationalokonomie. He does
this by introducing ‘matter’ (Stojf) as a unifying theme, which allows a strict
distinction to be made between the purely human origin of needs and action on
the one hand, and the material means for human satisfaction on the other. This
leads him to deny that labour is capital, for example, an idea attributed to Smith.
Labour, argues Soden, is productive power which unites with matter to produce
property. Capital is no more than a surplus over immediate need, therefore, and
should not be confounded with property in the fashion of Smith.77 As Soden
proceeds, he becomes increasingly concerned to demonstrate the universality of
this dialectic of matter and humanity as the basis of Nationalokonomie, a dialectic
which leans increasingly towards materiality. Thus, production is not treated

73 F. J. H. von Soden, Die Nazional-Oekonomie, i (Leipzig, 1805), pp. v, vi. Soden spent the years
1774_96 in the service first of the state of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and then of Prussia, after which
he went into retirement and devoted himself to literary work of various kinds. He died in 1831.
74 Ibid., p. 9. 75 Ibid., p. 11. 76 Ibid., pp. 14, 18-19. 77 Ibid., pp. 62ff.

173
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

primarily as a means to the satisfaction of social needs, but is viewed in terms of

the transformation of matter as the basis for the general satisfaction of need.78
The theme of ‘matter’ as a universal condition is carried over into Volume 2,
which deals with the relation of commerce and wealth; here the possibility of
distinguishing between ‘native’ and ‘alien’ matter is- deployed as a means of
considering the ends to which national labour should be put.79 This repetition
continues in the third volume, which is dedicated to legislation; the fourth
volume is a summary of the other three and was intended as a textbook, although
it is nearly 500 pages long. The series was only concluded in 1824 with the
appearance of the ninth and final volume.80
Soden is significant not for the substance of his economic analysis - here
Jakob is without question more incisive and influential81 - but for the fact that he
dedicated a multi-volume work to an exposition of Nationalokonomie, no matter
how idiosyncratic this exposition turned out to be. Perhaps we should also
underline here the significance of what was happening in German economics; a
fundamental shift had taken place in the regularities of economic discourse, and
this now possessed a name. The essential feature upon which all were agreed was
that Nationalokonomie was concerned with the general principles of economic life
which governed the manner in which needs arose, were satisfied, and in so doing
contributed to the progress of popular wealth. Nationalokonomie was deliberately
juxtaposed to Staatswirthschaft, which now became limited to the realm of a state
whose tasks were restricted to the maintenance of national property dedicated to
solely public ends. Such a distinction does not appear in the Wealth of Nations, of
course; the political economy which Smith develops is counterposed to the
systems of mercantilism and Physiocracy solely to exemplify the merits of
Smith’s analysis with respect to those who thereby became his predecessors. No
special branch of economic analysis is reserved for his lengthy treatment of
taxation and the proper limits of state activity; this has always been regarded as a
rather long-winded assembly of conclusions drawn from principles already
elaborated, and Book 5 of Wtalth of Nations has never received a great deal of
attention from economic commentators.
But then, Britain has not had a tradition of teaching like Cameralism. We have

78 Ibid., pt. 3, ‘Produktife Kraft der Nazional-Glieder’.

79 Ib!d'’ “(Leipzig, 1806), bk. 1, Industrielle Produktion.
80
Ibid., iii (Leipzig, 1808); iv (Leipzig, 1810). The fifth volume dealt with finance (Leipzig 1811)-
the sixth with Staats-National-Wirthschaft’, that is, economic legislation (Aarau 1816)- the
with Staats-Polizei (Aarau, 1817); the eighth with education and related matters (Aarau
18Z1); and the ninth with state administration (Nuremberg, 1824).
81
?°.me,e*amples of influence can be seen in the following: D. F. Seeger System der
W‘rtsc fislehre (Karlsruhe, 1807), 17; L. Krug, Abrifi der Staatsokonomie oder Staatsmirthschafis-
lehre (Berlin 1808), pp. xm-xiv; K. Murhard, Ideen iiber wichtige Gegenstdnde aus dem Gebiele der
National-Oekonomie und Staatswirthschaft (Gottingen, 1808); K. H. L. Pdlitz, Die Staalslehre tin
aenkenae Geschafsmdnner Kammerahsten und gebildete Leser, i (Leipzig, 1808), 10; N. T von
Gonner, Der Staatsdienst aus dem Gesichtspunkte des Rechts und der Nationalokonomie betrachtet
(Landshut 1808); J F. E. Lotz, Revision der Grundbegrijfe der Nationalwirthschaftslehre, 4 vols
(Goburg, 1811-14); A W. von Leipziger, Geist der National-Oekonomie und Staatswirthschaft, 2
vols. (Berlin, 1813 14); F. B. Weber, Lehrbuch derpolitischen Oekonomie, i (Breslau, 1813), 7.

174
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

seen that, for as long as the concept of the state comprehended economic life in
general, Staatswirthschaft was the generic name for ‘economics’ - this is, after all,
what the first substantial textbook, by Justi, was called. By the end of the
eighteenth century, however, this association of state and economy was no longer
tenable; and it was at this juncture that Wealth of Nations could be introduced to
assist in the specification of a new province for economic analysis. This did not
mean, however, that Smithianismus swept away the established tradition and
constructed a new one in the image of Wealth of Nations. Instead, the principles
that Smith advanced were integrated with the redefinition of social order that
arose from the reform of Natural Law, a reform which also implicated a
separation of the spheres of state and civil society. Smith’s economics were
construed as addressing the activity of the members of civil society; and while
Staatswirthschaft underwent major revisions and restrictions as a consequence, it
persisted as a body of knowledge associated with the new relation of state and
economy. The universalist principles of Natural Law were acceptable as a
statement of the general nature of economic activity, provided that formal
understanding of economic life was linked to a more empirical conception of the
realm of state and administration.
Negative confirmation of this can be found in Adam Muller’s lectures in
Dresden during the winter of 1808-9. Here we find a radical rejection of the
tendency that we have just been outlining; and the form that this rejection took
was an assertion of the ubiquity of the state - ‘Man is inconceivable outside the
state’82 - and the denial of a natural order external to the state: ‘The state is not a
mere manufactory, dairy, insurance institution or mercantile society,; it is the
inner connection of all physical and spiritual needs, of physical and intellectual wealth,
the entire inner and outer life of a nation - the combination of all to a great, energetic and
infinitely moving and living whole.’83 Muller’s arguments represent a reaction to
the theoretical developments of the previous fifteen years, developments which
he also saw as being related to the revolutionary movements he detested so
much. Although he was to have some contemporary influence in Prussian
cultural life, and his writings were to be of some significance later in the
nineteenth century, his arguments at this time simply mirrored a reaction that
was to have no direct intellectual influence on the progress of the Staatswissen-
schaften and their institutional development. His was a lonely voice, seeking to
deny a reorganization of intellectual life that had already taken place and which
he was powerless to reverse.
Nationalokonomie, therefore, is not political economy - not at least in the first
two decades of the nineteenth century, during the formative period of the new
discourse. It could be suggested that the combination of Nationalokonomie with
Staatswirthschaftslehre represented a body of knowledge (and teaching) roughly
equivalent to the English ‘political economy’ and the French ‘economique
politique’. But political economy did not wipe out Staatswirthschaftslehre, nor was
82 A. Muller, Die Elemente der Staatskunst, i, ed. J. Baxa (Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1922), 29.
83 Ibid., pp. 38, 37.

175
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

it simply adopted as a system of universal economic principles. It was at the very

point that German economic analysis showed signs of becoming identified with
such universal principles that the serious critique of Smithianismus began,
maintaining that it was not possible in principle to establish a general theoretical
system which could adequately address the diversity of human need and national
development. This point was reached in the 1840s - and not before - with the
publication of Friedrich List’s National System and Roscher’s Grundrifi,84
The coexistence of a new Nationalokonomie with a reformulated Staatswirth-
schaft which we encounter in so many early nineteenth-century texts should not
be interpreted, therefore, as the outcome of a rather uninspiring eclecticism.
Despite the uncertainties of teaching in some universities as a result of the
Napoleonic Wars, courses were still delivered and students continued to register
and attend lectures. The reforms of land tenure, of administration, of economic
legislation - these highlighted the need for university education in the nature of
economic processes more than ever. This practical imperative ensured that the
teaching of economics remained semi-vocational - it was presumed that the
purpose of study was more than self-improvement, that it was linked to a future
career in state service. While the teaching of general economic principles was of
some relevance to this, it had at the same time to be related to the activities of
state administrations in a manner strictly continuous with the practices of the
eighteenth century.85
An illustration of this is a prospectus written by Sturm in 1809 for lectures that
he was giving in Jena on Staatshaushaltungskunde. This might seem at first glance
to be a very traditional definition of the domain of economic analysis; but, on
closer examination, the proposed course exemplifies the points made above. The
preamble contains the customary reference to existing literature; but what is
striking about the list is that it begins with Sartorius and includes Jakob, Soden,
and Hufeland.86 No reference is made to any writer who belongs to the period
before the mid-1790s.
The business of Staatshaushaltungskunde is defined initially as: ‘a part of
Staatslehre, presenting the principles of the manner, conditional upon the rule of

84 This issue is discussed further in Chapter 10 below

85 For discussion of this, see F. Hoffmann, ‘Die Ausbildung fur Verwaltung und Praxis im
deutschen Kamerahsmus , Zeitschriftfiir diegesamteStaatsmissenschaft, 103 (1943), 177-208- C. 1
riedrich The Continental Tradition of Training Administrators in Law and jurisprudence’
Journal of Modem History, 11 (1939), 129-48; W. Bleek, Von der Kameralausbildung zur
Junstenpnvrleg (Colloquium Verlag, Berlin, 1972), ch. 3.
86
K. C. a Sturm, Prospectus zu meinen Vorlesungen iiber die Staatshaushaltungskunde (GieBen 1809)
p. iv. Two years previously Sturm had published his Grundlinien einer Encyklopaedte der
Kammerahxnssenschaften (Jena, 1807), in which he noted that the boundaries of Cameralism as a
science were disputed. He resolved the problem by first of all considering the definition of a
Cameralist: someone whose function is the administration of Staatsoconomie (p 1) He then
Mrlrad^p'r^^H the thfe‘sources ofnational welfare’- agriculture, manufacture,
and trade. Poltzei and finance then follow on from this practical identification of regions of
economic activity. In fact, Sturm divided his time in Jena between lecturing on Cameralism
during the Winter Semester, and teaching at an agricultural college that he had founded with the
assent of the local duke during the summer. He was appointed to a chair in Bonn in 1819

176
 the constitution of Nationalokonomie

law in the state, in which the greatest degree of welfare can be produced and
maintained among the entirety of state citizens’.87 At first sight, this could have
been written fifty or sixty years previously; but Sturm then moves on to list the
three component parts that have to be taken into account: Nationalokonomie-,
Polizeykunde; and finance. Together these constitute Staatshaushaltungskunde, in
which ‘Nationalokonomie is rightfully prior, since it is universal, its laws bind it to
no constitution, to no locality, to no nation; but they are instead valid for all
nations and constitutions, and are only restricted by inherent principle. By
contrast Polizey and Finance are everywhere limited, in part by their individual¬
ity, in part by the very laws of Nationalokonomie. ’88 In the summary of the course
that follows, the majority of the space is taken up with the elaboration of value,
price, capital, wages, profits - the stock-in-trade of political economy. But
although this predominates, it is only a part of the subject; population, education,
and agriculture are then considered under the heading of Polizei, while state and
national property are considered under the heading of finance.
This process of consolidation can be seen at work in the establishment of
teaching in economics at Tubingen, which, after some occasional related
teaching in the eighteenth century and the foundation of a Chair in Cameralistic
Sciences in 1796, created a ‘Staatswirthschaftliche Fakultat’ in 1817. We have
already noted in relation to Sir James Steuart’s period of residence in Tubingen
during the late 1750s that there was some teaching in Polizei and Statistik at this
time. This continued throughout later decades, although the teaching at the
Karlsschule in Stuttgart was more significant in the latter part of the century.
This had been established as a military academy in 1770, and the decision to
teach Cameralism was taken in 1773 as a means of controlling recruitment to
administrative office by the state’s officials. A number of lecture courses had
been initiated, and Schmid, one of the founding teachers at Lautern, was
appointed in 1786. It was for his teaching here that he used his own summary of
Sonnenfels, Tabellen iiber die Polizei-, Handlungs- und Finanzwissenschaft.89
In 1794, the Karlsschule was dissolved and some of the teaching was
transferred to Tubingen; as a result of this, a Chair in Cameralistic Sciences was
created in the Philosophy Faculty in 1796, but for the time being it remained
vacant. In 1798, F. C. Fulda settled in Tubingen; a student at the Karlsschule
until its closure in 1794 (where he had specialized in the Cameralistic sciences),
he had studied with Beckmann in Gottingen from 1794 to 1797, and he now came
to the attention of the university authorities. Although he was only twenty-three at
the time, it was decided to appoint him to the vacancy, and he held the position
until 1837.90 Since there was no examination in the subject and the administration
recruited primarily from the Law Faculty, Fulda had few students, a fact about
which he complained in an anonymous pamphlet of 1805. He began by
87 Sturm, Prospectus, p. 7. 88 Ibid., p. 9.
89 Published in Mannheim in 1785. See R. Uhland, Geschichle derHohen Karlsschule in Stuttgart (W.
Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1953), 238ff.
(>o \ Mayer, Friedrich Karl Fulda. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Smith scheti Schule, Diss. (Bern,
1906), 6. ’

177
 Der Mensch und seine Bedurfnisse:

rehearsing the familiar complaint about the lack of preparation among those
entering state service:

If Cameralists are those who care for public utility, if the object of the cameralistic
sciences is the maintenance and increase of national property, together with the raising
and expenditure of state property out of the same, if this object rests upon immutable
laws, if there is a theory which outlines for us in detail these laws, and the physical and
economic existence of Man - so he who is to be entrusted with the maintenance of
national property should be properly acquainted with these laws.91

While the complaint is familiar, the terms in which it was made are not. The
argument for adequate training is one we have encountered repeatedly from the
early eighteenth century, of course; but, associated with the emergence and
consolidation of Cameralistic teaching, these pleas generally urge for the student
to be exposed to a range of teaching which will equip him with the knowledge
required by progressive administrations. What Fulda is suggesting here, on the
other hand, is that the principal component of the prospective official’s
education should be a knowledge of immutable laws - of the kind that Jakob was
proposing in the same year.92 To provide some kind of incentive for this, he
recommended the establishment ol an institution charged with conducting a
form of in-service training for officials.
In fact, the appropriate educational background for state officials was not
simply a matter of the provision of suitable courses at the universities and the
conferring of certificates qualifying graduates for state service. The argument
over recruitment to state service was implicitly about privilege - for certain
offices were regarded as privileges of the nobility, and to argue for formal
qualification, therefore, was to argue against entrenched noble privilege. During
the period 1770-94, only 26 graduates of the Karlsschule entered the Chancell¬
ery, out of 2,300 students in all, among whom there were 220 lawyers and 140
Cameralists. Coupled with this, the University of Tubingen only produced
between 10 and 20 law graduates a year in the later eighteenth century, making it
relatively simple to deny the real potential of the university as a reliable source of
suitable recruits.93 Nonetheless, the eventual emergence in the early nineteenth
century of specific qualifications for various forms of employment laid increasing
emphasis upon legal, rather than Cameralistic, qualification.
This did not prevent Fulda s proposals from gaining a hearing, however, and,
in the wake ol constitutional reforms following the end of the Napoleonic Wars,
Fulda again proposed a specific course for clerks in state sendee, this time
associated with the creation of a second Chair in Cameralism and an extra-

41 F. C. Fulda, Ueberdas Kameralstudium in Wirlemberg (n.p., 1805), 5.

92
L. H. Jakob, Ueber Cursus und Studien-Plan fur angehende Cameralisten (Halle, 1805): ‘Everv
Cameralist must have thoroughly studied the mechanism according to which the wealth of a
country is increased or decreased. This is a new science which has quite certain principles, and

93
Winh,^skhJt,p IwT " m0r' “1Cdy UM-

178
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

ordinary appointment in administrative practice. Wangenheim, who was the

current Minister of Education, made a counter-proposal based on two draft
documents prepared by Friedrich List, then a young reformist official: instead of
simply appointing additional teachers, it would be more appropriate to create an
entirely new faculty, with seven chairs.94 It is interesting to note that Fulda’s
reaction to this was that it would involve too sharp a division between legal and
economic education, and he suggested instead that two kinds of official should
be trained: those to be employed in financial and domain administration should
be entered into the new faculty, the remainder should enter the Law Faculty.
And, broadly speaking, this was what happened: in June 1817, the formation of a
‘Staatswirthschaftliche Fakultat’ was announced, with, in addition to Fulda, List
as Professor of Administrative Practice, and Freiherr Forstner von Dombenoy as
Professor of Agriculture.
The teaching plan that Fulda proposed in 1818 was very like the one that had
been introduced at Lautern some forty years previously - the mix of practical,
economic, and technical knowledge was comparable, except that Nationalokono-
mie now occupied a central position, of course. If we look at a textbook that Fulda
published at this time, however, his allegiance to the ‘new economics’ is quite
evident. He begins by stating that his views have not changed since 1802, when
he published his Systematischer Abrifi der sogenamiten Kammera!tvissenschoften, and
he does indeed repeat his ‘Vorbegriffe’ concerning the nature of man as a
rational being seeking the satisfaction of physical and intellectual needs. The
principal feature of this text is its tripartite division into ‘Privat-, National- und
Staats-Oekonomie’. While the first concerns the actual functioning of branches
of economic activity (and therefore includes Technologies for example), the
second is described as addressing ‘the relation of social human beings to material
goods in general, without regard to separate nations’.95 This involves the laws
governing the creation and increase of property, and hence the progress of the
wealth of nations; Smith, Fulda argues, must be regarded as the founder of
Nationalokonomie.96 This second part directs itself to nature, labour, and capital
and the associated increase, distribution, and consumption of national property.
Turning to Staats-Oekonomie, which is divided into industrial policy and finance
(Gewerbspolizei and Finanzmssenschaft), it is stated that these do not involve a
work of regulation exercised by the state over its subjects, but rather a promotion
of desirable activity. But this does not prevent a shift into the literature of Polizei
as the form of organization of economic activity, or the listing of authorities
which reads like a comprehensive guide to eighteeenth-century literature, from
Seckendorff and Dithmar to Niemann, Weber, and Behr.97

94 K. E. Born, Geschichte der Wirtschaftsmssenschaften an der Universitdt Tubingen 1817-1967 (J. C. B.

Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, 1967), 12ff. Wangenheim’s plan differed from that of List; see
also P. Gehring, Friedrich List, jfugend- undReifejahre 1787-1825 (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
Tubingen, 1964), 164ff.
95 F. C. Fulda, Grundsdze der okonomisch-politischen Kamerahvissenschaften (Tubingen, 1816). A
second edition of this text was published in 1820.
96 Ibid., p. 102. 9’ Ibid., p. 199.

179
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

This tripartite structure proposed by Fulda, therefore, aims to combine both

old and new traditions of economic discourse, a combination which is effective
because of the assignation of theoretically incompatible discursive resources to
discrete regions of the ‘okonomisch-politische Wissenschaften’. The non-
controversial description of productive activity in agriculture and manufacture
becomes the domain of Privat-Oekonomie; the general laws of economic life
which exist independently of nation and state - roughly equivalent to political
economy - are grouped under National-Oekonomie\ while the domain of state
finance and legislation draws upon both traditional literature of state administra¬
tion and, it should be noted, the old Cameralist conception of state and society.
In many ways, the new Tubingen faculty replicates these features, both in the
capacities and interests of its staff and in the teaching programme that they
served. On the one hand, there seems to be a direct continuity with the
Cameralistic tradition - in the names given to subjects, the works that are
referred to, and the overall division of a curriculum. On the other hand, the
writings of Fulda demonstrate his familiarity with, and endorsement of, the
arguments put forward by Jakob, Hufeland, and others - although he does not
simply abandon the Cameralistic tradition as a consequence. The accompanying
appointment of List, whose academic background was limited and who, at the
time, was certainly unfamiliar with the basic literature of his discipline, should
not be permitted to overshadow Fulda’s importance at Tubingen in the first two
decades of the nineteenth century; and the divisions introduced by his Grund-
sdze were later used by Rau, as we shall see in the following chapter.
Regular teaching to appreciable numbers of students only really developed in
Tubingen in the 1820s, but this did not diminish the impact of Nationalokonomie
- as elsewhere, the ‘new economics’ found a place in the teaching schedules,
while much of the syllabus continued along fairly conventional lines, dictated, for
the most part, by the practical content of the material. Here, where the
subject-matter addressed itself to forestry, botany, mechanical arts, or trade, the
pace of change was necessarily slow and determined by developments outside
university economics, remaining relatively insensitive to innovation in the
general theoretical principles of economic analysis.
This finds confirmation in contemporary developments in Heidelberg, where
regular teaching had been established long before the end of the eighteenth
century, of course, and where the ‘Staatswirthschaftliches Sektion’ survived the
reorganization of faculties with its teaching virtually unchanged. The departure
of first Schmid, and then Jung, had seriously weakened the original Lautern
combination of technical knowledge and generalization, and the teaching in
Heidelberg was to lack coherent structure until Rau assumed academic leader¬
ship in 1822. Nevertheless, Heidelberg was not cut off from the intellectual
trends of the first few years of the nineteenth century. The lectures announced
for the Summer Semester of 1802 covered the same ground as those twenty
years previously - Natural Law, botany, chemistry, agriculture, finance,
veterinary science - but, in contrast to Succow’s earlier principles of the proper

180
 the constitution o/Nationalokonomie

order of teaching, the list that appeared in the Vorlesungsverzeichnisse was now
headed by ‘Encyclopedia of all Cameralistic sciences’, taught by Medicus. At the
same time, it was announced that Semer would teach Polizei, state economy, and
finance, using Sonnenfels’ textbook — which was certainly no corrective to
Medicus, whose publications show no particular talent for the kind of surveys his
lecture course demanded.
For the winter of 1804-5, Semer was replaced by Reinhard, who used
Sartorius’s Handbuch for his lectures, effectively bringing them up to date -
Semer is listed for this semester but no duties are assigned to him, although he
reappears in 1808 delivering a course of Nationalokonomie according to Sartorius
and Smith.The important changes in personnel here are the two extraordinary
professors: Seeger, who taught Encyclopedia from his own System der Wirth-
schaftslehre\ and Eschenmayer, who taught hunting and forest law, although his
actual specialities were law and accounting in general."
In 1806, Seeger had published an article on the categorical organization of
economics which had drawn attention to the arbitrary divisions between the
various sections and subsections of the older Cameralism.100 His System is a
brief account of the ‘new economics’ and treats Cameralism as a defunct
discourse, defining the present discourse in the following terms:
Wirthschaften is no other than the most purposive application of means for the satisfaction
of his [Man’s] (material - for this is our sole concern here) needs. We may use whatever
words we please: Kameralmssenswchaft, okonomisch-politische Wissenschaften etc., we can
further define these words as we wish: but we will discover that all these definitions must
lead back to the sole concept: satisfaction of our needs, therefore that ivirlschaften is the true
and proper concept of all those concepts under whose names one previously sought to
present our science.101

The system which he then presents is a modification of Jakob’s tripartite

division, emphasizing again the speed with which, from the initial appearance of
the new systematization of Nationalokonomie and Staatswirthschaftslehre in 1805,
it had been taken up and written into textbooks that appeared only one or two
years later.
Eschenmayer is a different case; beginning with two substantial volumes on
state accounting systems in 1806-7,102 he produced a proposal for tax reform in
1808 which was based upon the principle that the only fiscal subject capable of
providing an adequate tax base was the economically active person - taxing the
98 Aden der statswirtschaftlichen Section von den fahren 1802 bis 1809, i. 13, 14 (University of
Heidelberg Archive). Semer reappears again in 1811 teaching Nationalokonomie on Schmalz, and
then in 1811-2 on Kraus. In 1816, he is announced to be teaching finance according to
Sonnenfels, and as late as 1829 he is supposedly lecturing on Sonnenfels.
99 In 1808-9, Eschenmayer taught Encyclopedia on Sturm’s Grundlinien -Aden, i. 160.
100 D. F. Seeger, ‘Die Wirthschaftslehre’, Magazin fur Kameralisten, 1/1 (1806), espec. pp. 4-13.
101 Seeger, System, p. 17. He had published a survey of the Cameralistic sciences in ‘Die
Wirthschaftslehre’, pp. 1-13. See also his Entwurf der Staatswissenschaft (Heidelberg, 1810).
102 H. Eschenmayer, Anleitungzu einer systematischen E inrich lung des Stoats-Rechnungs- Wesens, 2 vols.
(Heidelberg, 1806-7). This text was flayed in a review by A. W. Rehberg which appeared in the
Gottingischegelehrte Anzeigen, 40 (9 Mar. 1807), 393-400; Rehberg questioned the relevance of
such detail for professional and non-professional reader alike.

181
 Der Mensch und seine Bediirfnisse:

idle rich was unjust, he claimed, since this only resulted in a reduction of their
capital.103 In 1815, he produced a short general introduction to Staatswirthschaft
which made the customary division between ‘Volkswirthschaft’ and the ‘Wirth-
schaft des Regenten’;104 he used this as his textbook for subsequent courses of
Encyclopedia until his death in 1820.
Thus, the pattern until the early 1820s is plain: while the overall teaching plan
remained stable, with teachers such as Gatterer repeating courses on agriculture
and technology year in, year out, there were two or three key lecture courses
which took up the principles of a ‘new economics’ and taught them alongside the
substantial matter of the old. But since the ‘new economics’ did not immediately
bear upon the old, there was no particular reason why, for example, Graf von
Sponeck’s courses on forestry, or his numerous publications on the same theme,
should undergo any radical shift. Nationalokonomie, Staatswirthschaft, and their
Hilfswissenschaften could coexist without any great degree of compromise, for
they addressed different areas; and in the context of a body of knowledge aimed
at state administration - which the economic sciences still firmly remained - this
in no way involved the kind of eclecticism which a perspective from contempo¬
rary France or England might have detected.
This co-existence did require some kind of system, however, and with the
appointment of K. H. Rau to Heidelberg in late 1822, the agenda moved onward
to the task.
103 H- Eschenmayer, Vorschlag zu einem einfachen Steuer-Systeme (Heidelberg, 1808), pp. v, vi. See
also his Lehrbuch iiber das Staats-Oeconomie-Recht, 2 vols. (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1809); and Ueber
die Consumtions-Steuer (Heidelberg, 1813), which reiterates the principle that taxes should only
be levied upon active economic subjects, but in such a way that their activities are neither limited
nor hindered.
104 /Vi EJs<;,henmayer> Ueber das formelle Prinzip der Staatswirthschaft als Wissenschaft und Lehre
(Heidelberg, 1815), 8.

182
 9 A new orthodoxy: Karl Heinrich
Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen
Oekonomie

The formation, elaboration and diffusion of a science concerning the modes of

subsistence of peoples, which we call Nationalokonomie, Volkswirthschaftslehre,
and which we can summarily characterise as the natural doctrine of popular
property, is an important event in the cultural history of modern times.1

In 1826, Karl Heinrich Rau published the hrst volume of a new textbook; the
Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie; revised and republished several times in his
lifetime, the ninth edition, substantially rewritten by Adolf Wagner, appeared in
1876, six years after Rau’s death.2 The arrangement and classification that Rau
established in his Lehrbuch prevailed in the teaching of economics in Germany
until the final years of the nineteenth century; those who studied economics up
to that time studied a system whose foundation rested upon these three volumes
first published between the years 1826 and 1837.3 In his History of Economic
Analysis, Schumpeter briefly acknowledges that ‘As a teacher, Rau must stand
high in the history of economics, although little can be said in favour of the book
except that it marshalled a rich supply of facts very neatly - and that it was just
what the future lawyer or civil servant was able and willing to absorb.’4 Not only
the future lawyer or civil servant though; the future economist was also (directly
or indirectly) raised on the text - both Roscher and Wagner attended Rau’s
lectures during their period of study at Heidelberg, and there is also evidence
that Menger studied Rau’s Lehrbuch in detail while preparing his own Grundsatze
der Volkswirthschaftslehre.5 Thus, the implicit influence of Rau’s definition of the
tasks, methods, and subject-matter of economics extended beyond the immedi¬
ate confines of the lecture room to the expanding world of economic affairs.
1 K. H. Rau, ‘Ueber den Nutzen, den gegenwartigen Zustand und die neueste Literatur der
Nationalokonomie’, Archiv der politischen Oekonomie und Polizeiwissenschaft, 1 (1835), 1-2.
2 K. H. Rau, Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie, 9th edn. (ed. A. Wagner and E. Nasse), i (C. F.
Winter, Heidelberg, 1876).
3 Publication of the various editions is as follows: vol. 1 - 1826, 1833, 1837, 1841, 1847, 1855,
1863, 1868-9; vol. 2- 1828, 1838-9, 1844, 1854-5, 1862-3; vol. 3 - 1832-7, 1843-6, 1850-1,
1859-60, 1864-5, 1872 (ed. A. Wagner).
4 J. H. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1954), 503, n.
2.
5 According to the foreword to the second edition of Menger’s Grundsatze, the subjective theory of
value developed by Menger dates from work that was begun in 1867, around the same time as he
read and annotated his copy of Rau’s Lehrbuch, i. See Y. Yamada, ‘On the First Draft of Carl
Menger’s Grundsatze der Volkswirthschaftslehre’, in Carl Mengers erster Entmurf zu seinem Hauptwerk
Grundsatze geschrieben als Anmerkungen zu den Grundsatzen der Volkswirthschaftslehre von Karl
Heinrich Rau (Hitotsubashi University Library, Tokyo, 1963), pp. xviii-xix.

183
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Ran’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

Schumpeter brushes Rau aside very quickly before turning to the more
significant analytical innovations made by Hermann and Mangoldt - and he is
right to assess the Lehrbuch as a work of solidity and reliability but possessing
little in the way of novelty. But it is precisely these qualities which make it of
central importance to our understanding of the foundations of German
economics in the nineteenth century. And if we accept that Rau offered little that
was new, but presented it in a form that was suitable for the ‘thinking man of
affairs, whether in business or in state service’,6 then we must have a clear
conception of the continuities which his writing served.
Rau’s text began to appear almost a century after the first chair had been
established in a German university specifically for the teaching of economic
subjects. In many respects, his work represented a continuation of those aspects
of teaching which have been the focus of the preceding chapters; and his writing
showed a genuine interest in the background to the tradition in which he stood.
In other respects, he broke decisively with the Cameralistic tradition — he
subscribed to the reorganization introduced by Jakob, Soden, and others, and
(unconventionally) recommended the translation of Ricardo’s Principles of
Political Economy to his readers.7 If we are to understand the genesis and
structure of the Lehrbuch properly, then we have to place accurately both Rau’s
innovations and his adherence to established discursive patterns.
Rau was not quite thirty when he was appointed to the chair at Heidelberg, a
position which he retained until his death in 1870, despite being nominated as
Jakob’s replacement at Halle, and Sartorius’s at Gottingen. Born in 1792 at
Erlangen, where his father was Professor of Theology, he studied the cameralis¬
tic sciences on the recommendation of his brother-in-law, Bensen, gaining his
doctorate in 1812. Influenced by Soden, who was resident in Erlangen at this
time, Rau decided upon an academic career and began teaching at Erlangen on
the Encyclopedia, agriculture, finance, and Nationalokonomie. In 1814, he won a
prize essay competition set by the Gdttingen Academy of Sciences on the best
way of avoiding the disadvantages consequent upon the abolition of guilds;8 and
in the same year, he began teaching in the local Gymnasium to supplement his
income. His translation of Storch’s Cours d’economie politique was published in
1819-20;9 his appointment to an extraordinary professorship was made in 1816
and promotion to a full chair followed in 1818. Refusing an offer of an
appointment in Giefien, he accepted the Heidelberg post in 1822.10

6 S>erifetndkatedP' A" references t0 the Lehrbuch will be to the first edition unless

7 Ibid., p. ix: ‘... here [in the Lehrbuch] Ricardo in particular is frequendy referred to, whose work
does as is known enjoy an almost canonical status in England, but has until now been less well
regarded by us than it deserves’.
8 Ueher das Zunftwesen und die Folgen seiner Aufhebung, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1816). The essav first
appeared in the HannoverscheMagazin, Jan. 1815. e essay nrst
9 St°r?’ <i“Z fic°non;jeP°lif<lue’ 6 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1815). Translated and edited in 3
vols. under the tide Handbuch der National-Wirthschaftslehre (Hamburg 1819-20).
10
r e/Ser,nd/0trC'„dCtai!f <-an be found in K. Neumann, Die Lehren K. H. Rau's. Ein Beitragzur
Geschichte der \ olksunrthschaftslehre im 19. Jahrhundert, Diss. (GieBen, 1927), 7ff

184
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

From 1806 to 1810, Erlangen was occupied by the French and the university
was neglected; little is known of this period, except that initially Rau must have
been taught Cameralistic subjects byj. P. Harl and M. A. Lips. The former was
offered the Chair of Philosophy and Cameralism in 1805 — a political appoint¬
ment - and Rau evidently had a very low opinion of his teacher, but he was later
to teach alongside him in Erlangen. The Handbuch which Harl published in 1811
is certainly uninspiring - it consists principally of definitions and citations of
other authors in a style reminiscent of the pre-Critical period, although it Was
used as a textbook in 1818 for the teaching of‘Staatswirthschaft und Finanz’.11
Another bulky and windy tome appeared in 1814-16, dedicated to the subject of
taxation.12 The nondescript nature of Harl’s writings allows us to exclude his
teaching as a significant influence on the young Rau.
Although not among the most significant of contributors to German
economics, the work of Lips was rather more serious than that of his academic
superior, Harl. Born in 1779, the son of a Cameralbeamte, Lips studied
philosophy and theology at Erlangen before visiting Gottingen in 1800 to study
history. After gaining his doctorate at Erlangen in 1801, he continued his studies
in history and theology, turning later to politics, agriculture, and technology, and
at the same time making some attempts to open an agricultural school on his own
small estate. In 1809, he was appointed (without pay) to an extraordinary
professorship in Erlangen; following some interruption, this was resumed after
the Congress of Vienna, and, along with Rau and Harl, he is recorded as
teaching a number of Cameralistic subjects for the lecture course of 1818-19.
Lips’ main textbook for this course was published in 1813; while it is both
more concise and more substantial than that of Harl, it too betrays a thorough
acquaintance with literature and forms of argument that were rapidly becoming
outmoded at this time. The list of basic textbooks, for example, begins with
Seckendorff and Justi, and there is no trace of the kind of contemporary material
one would expect; while the state is defined in traditionalistic terms as an
‘acculturating institution’ for mankind (Bildungsanstalt).13 The text also contains
a plan for the teaching of Cameralisten over an eight-semester period, beginning
with logic and epistemology, moving on to geography, Natural Law, psychology,
mechanics, and chemistry until, in the seventh semester and after thirty-one
courses of lectures (and classes in riding and dancing), some attention is
eventually given to Polizei, economics, and finance.14

n J. p. Harl, Vollstandiges Handbuch der Staatsvoirthschafts- und Finanz-Wissenschqfien, 2 vols.

(Erlangen, 1811). For the 1818/19 lectures, see the announcement in the Allgemeine Literatur-
Zeitung, 292 (Nov. 1818), col. 636. Unusually, Erlangen has been neglected by the university
historians - the only generally available text is a somewhat superficial outline by E. Deuerlein,
Geschichte der Universitdt Erlangen (Palm und Enke, Erlangen, 1927).
12 J. P. Harl, Vollstandiges theoretisch-praktisches Handbuch dergesamten Steuer-Regulierung (Erlangen,
1814-16); this contains over 800 pages in two parts.
13 A. Lips, Die Staatswissenschaftslehre (Erlangen, 1813), 19.
14 Ibid., pp. 201-4. In the same year, Harl published a list of the 26 disciplines that belonged to the
study of Cameralism; the substance and general arrangement is similar to Lips’ presentation, and

185
 A new orthodoxy: K H. Ran's Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

From this we can at least conclude that Rau was neither inspired nor
significantly influenced by the ideas of his early teachers - while resisting any
direct classification, his earliest writing follows a very different course to theirs in
both style and content. The essay on guilds and their abolition, for example, is a
balanced response to the question set in 1810 by the Gottingen Academy of
Sciences, and repeated in 1814: ‘How are the disadvantages which follow upon
the abolition of the guilds to be avoided or moderated?’ An important
assumption in the phrasing of the question is that guilds are to be abolished - it is
no longer a question of weighing their costs and benefits in considering the
possible introduction of commercial freedom. Equally, however, commercial
freedom itself is not assumed to be without its problems.
Rau deals with this first of all by maintaining that it is the advance of
manufacture which has highlighted the deficiencies of guild organization, citing
arguments to be found in Seckendorff, Schroder, and Hornigk in support of
this.15 But he credits the Physiocrats with presenting the first systematic critique
of guild restrictions - making an important distinction between the legal and the
economic grounds for criticism: legally, guilds hindered the free exercise of
powers and capacities; economically, commercial freedom would permit a
higher level of production than was possible in a managed regime. Rau suggests
that Smith the Physiocrats simply took over arguments and then extended them
beyond their purely agricultural model. Rau also emphasizes the political aspect
of guild organization - the ‘organisational form of the third estate’, which
enabled popular representation to take advantage of the decline of aristocratic
rule in town administration.16
The principal discussion of the effects of guild organization is conducted in
terms of the two leading purposes of such institutions - first, to assure a
livelihood for a specific number of hands; second, to maintain an established
body of knowledge. The various measures concomitant upon the first certainly
bring about a rise in prices, but this should not be regarded as a necessary evil if
due regard is paid to the question of quality and uniformity of product. As for the
second, the main abuses which arise in the recruitment and training of
apprentices relate to the favouring of family members; where artisans circum¬
vent this and set up on their own account, however, the long-term dissemination
of skills can suffer, as well as the overall quality of the product.
In Rau’s opinion, the sudden introduction of commercial freedom would be
undesirable. The lifting of restrictions on entry to an occupation could result in
an unequal distribution of employments which would lead to an increase in the
so could reflect the aspirations, if not the reality, of teaching at Erlangen: J. P. Harl De cultu
aoctrmarum oeconomiaepublicae rei cameralis etpolitiae (Erlangen, 1813), 9-10
15 5?U’ Zlinft”e^n’ PP- 5“6- F°r a general discussion of the debates on commercial liberty, see- D
u „ TmaS commerciorum” und “Vermogens-Geselleschaft”. Zur Geschichte okono-
rruscher Freiheitsrechte in Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert', in G. Birtsch (ed.) Grund- und
Freiheitmchtem Wandel vonGesellschaft und Geschichte (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen,
1983) 313 35’ B Voge ’ AllZememe Gewerbefretheit (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen,
16 Rau, Zunftwesen, pp. 37-8.

186
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Ran’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

prices of some goods and a reduction in others, to no particular advantage. One

outcome of this could be the encouragement of imports in specific areas, and in
the absence of mercantilist restrictions this could have deleterious effects:
The principles of the Physiocrats and of Smith lead to the optimistic expectation that the
desired equilibrium can best be brought about by unhindered rivalry, that sparsely-
occupied and consequently well-rewarded trades will be more sought after, that the
crowded trades will be abandoned, that in a condition of complete liberty the so-called
natural price will everywhere prevail. This opinion is based upon assumptions that more
exact examination will show to be untenable.17

Rau is inclined to emphasize the dangers of commercial freedom: the potential

waste of energy and capital, the end of journeying, the absence of checks on poor
workmanship, and the absence of any secure means for the transmission of
knowledge and skill. Instead, he proposes that the government should regulate
commercial activity for the common good, assuring a proper distribution and
reproduction of skills, arbitrating on disputes between different trades, pro¬
moting good relations between masters and workers, and establishing a system of
public examination for prospective artisans. These tasks could not be performed
by established institutions; a new one was needed, a ‘Ministry of Popular
Welfare’.18
There are two significant points to be made about Rau’s prize essay. First of
all, he demonstrates an easy familiarity with the ‘classics’ of Cameralism, while at
the same time giving serious consideration to the arguments of Physiocracy and
Adam Smith. Although quite ready to substantiate his narrative credentials by
referring to an established literature, he does so in an analytical fashion which
creates a critical distance with respect to this literature. The facility with which
Rau could manipulate ‘classical’ and ‘modern’ authors was quite striking for the
time; and two other essays from the Erlangen period demonstrate his ability to
relate his knowledge of classical Greece to an emergent history of the Staatswis-
semchaften}9
The second point to be noted about Rau’s prize essay is that his mode of
argument is markedly ‘post-Smithian’. Having accepted the theoretical force of
the Physiocratic/Smithian critique of guild organization, he identifies the
Utopian aspects of this regime of commercial liberty, and proposes instead that
the government should intervene to regulate economic activity. Government and
society are clearly separate for Rau; but equality and justice require that the
government should not only maintain peace and order, but also regulate and
17 Ibid., p. 105. 18 Ibid., pp. 141 ff.
19 K. H. Rau, Primae lineae historiae politices s. civilis doctrinae (Erlangen, 1816); ‘Xenophon und
Aristoteles’, in his Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft mil besonderer Beziehung auf Deutschland (Leipzig,
1821), 3-21. The first displays a good knowledge of both classical and early modern writings on
politics, and provides a genesis of Staatsmssenschaft from Aristotle and Plato through Machiavelli
to Conring and Schlozer. The second is a careful and thorough exposition of‘Greek economics’
which begins with the remark that it has become unusual to refer back to the Greeks in economic
matters, and which elaborates upon the Aristotelian complex of ethics, oeconomy, and politics (as
Staatsmssenschaft), emphasizing the ethical conception of economic property and activity to be
found in the classical tradition.

187
 A new orthodoxy: K H. Ran’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

administer the conditions of production and distribution. This is a decidedly

‘modern’ perspective and one which sets Rau apart from a Harl or a Lips. One
should not allow the decidedly pragmatic tone of his presentation to obscure it;
the tone of judicious and conservative assessment which characterizes the prize
essay is repeated in Rau’s later essay on luxury20 - unexciting to the historian in
search of theoretical insight, perhaps, but important none the less in establishing
guidelines for the consideration of economy and legislation. Rau’s combination
of a serious historical interest in his subject with a commitment to practical
considerations ensured that the latter never became a pedestrian exposition of
administration and policy.
The fact that Rau embarked upon the lengthy task of translating Storch’s
Cours d’economie politique is also evidence of an early versatility which Schum¬
peter’s judgement would appear to belie. Heinrich Friedrich von Storch was
born in Riga in 1766; he studied philosophy and law at Jena, and, significantly,
he also studied at the Kameral Hohe-Schule in Heidelberg from 1787 to 1788,
with such distinction, in fact, that there was some suggestion that he should be
appointed an extraordinary professor, presumably to cover the departure of
Schmid which took place at this time. He returned to Russia in 1788, and at the
turn of the century he was made tutor to the royal family and then Professor of
Political Oeconomy and Statistics at the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences in
1803. Originally written for his imperial charges, the Cours occupies six volumes
and runs to over 2,000 pages; it contains an outline of political economy which
leans heavily upon the work of Say.21 Noting that political economy devoted
itself to the science of the wealth of nations, Storch begins by suggesting that this
should be extended to their prosperity in general; he thus proposes to place
alongside the analysis of value, a ‘theory of civilisation’ (which in Rau’s
translation is rendered as ‘Lehre von der geselligen Bildung’).’22 Together these
form a science sociale which is devoted to the discovery of natural laws governing
the course of development of mankind, and which demonstrates the way in
which man as a social being satisfies both physical and moral needs.23
One interesting feature of Storch s text is the way in which he glosses
Smithian principles. For example, in Part 1, the ‘Theory of National Wealth’, he
presents an outline of the ‘Mercantile System’ which is borrowed from Smith,
but he then refers to Steuart and Genovesi as exponents of the system, which of
course Smith does not do. Similarly, the exposition of value and rent follows that
of Smith (and Say) quite closely, but, when considering the latter, Storch
20 K. H. Rau, Ueber den Luxus (Erlangen, 1817).
21 W. Roscher, Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland (R. Oldenbourg, Munich 1874)
802-5, draws attention to the free use that Storch makes of Smith, Say, and Hufeland. ’
22 Storch, Handbuch, i. p. iv.
23 Ibi<L P- 6: ‘Die Lehre von der biirgerlichen Gesellschafi hat zwei Abteilungen: I. Sie untersucht die
nattirlichen Gesetze fur den Entwicklungsgang der Menschheit, wie der Mensch zur Befriedi-
gung aller semer Bediirfnisse gelangt, wie Reichthum, Kunst, Kentnisse, gesellige Tugenden
entstehen, zunehmen und sich verbreiten. Dieser Theil heiBt National- oder Volksrvmhschaftslehre
(economique politique), und begreift die Lehren von dem Volkswohlstande und von der«%„
Bildung.’ (Cf. Storch, Cours, i. 13). 6 6

188
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

emphasizes the effect of location on the level of rent, and the relation of the
extension of cultivation to the price level that rent expresses.24 Part 2 of the work
is devoted to the ‘Theory of Civilisation’, which, according to Storch, could have
been created by Smith had he been more systematic, but was hindered by the
confusion of material and immaterial labour in Wealth of Nations.25
In general, Storch’s text is a traditional popularization of the Wealth of Nations-,
it seeks to introduce a greater degree of system and comprehensibility, but
eventually far exceeds the original text in length and, therefore, digestibility. The
model for Storch’s Cours is clearly the earlier work of Say; and it fulfils the same
kind of role as that work in its presentation of Smithian principles as a system
arranged around production, distribution, and consumption. Rau’s translation
was presented in three volumes of just over 1,200 pages - some compression was
introduced while rendering Storch into German. The third volume also
contained over 200 pages of notes which Rau added both to elaborate upon
theoretical points (the first concerns the definition of the scope of political
economy) and to render the text more appropriate to German conditions. This
additional work is evidence of Rau’s preoccupation with the problem of
accessibility and popularization.
Rau published a set of essays in 1821 which were developed out of these
additions: apart from the essay on classical economics already mentioned above,
there were essays on the concept of‘Volkswirthschaft’, the influence of location,
the effect of economic activity on economic development and its impact on state
administration, the balance of trade, the question of scale in the agricultural
enterprise, and, finally, some remarks on German commercial enterprise.26
Here again, it is difficult to provide an adequate summary of these various essays,
except that Rau intended them to be contributions to the wider diffusion of
economic ideas, and that they display the same judicious use of learning and
careful discrimination as the Gottingen prize essay.
Rau was still not thirty when he was appointed to the chair at Heidelberg,27
and the manner in which he united an extensive knowledge of Cameralistic
theory with a sound appreciation of German economic organization must have
commended itself to the university authorities. He quickly set about drafting his
Grundrifi, as Max Weber, his successor but one, was to do seventy-five years
later.28 This was published in 1823 as a 106-page annotated course outline

24 Storch, Cours, ii, ch. 12, ‘Ce qui determine le taux de la rente fonciere’.
25 Ibid., v. 5. In his edition of Wealth of Nations, Gamier had also pointed this out.
26 Rau, Ansichtm.
27 The other candidates considered were Lotz, Harl, and Lips. The first had never taught
professionally and was in any case over 50; it was thought that Harl would demand too much; and
Lips had recendy been appointed to Marburg, and it was thought unlikely that he would be
interested in another offer. So only Rau was left. See V. Hentschel, ‘The Economic Sciences as
an Academic Discipline at the University of Heidelberg 1822-1924’, Conference Paper,
Lfineburg, 1986, p. 3.
28 Max Weber, ‘Grundrifi zu den Vorlesungen fiber Allgemeine (‘theoretische’) Nationalokono-
mie’, Heidelberg, 1898 (unpublished). Rau was succeeded by Knies, who was in turn succeeded
by Weber in 1897.

189
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Ran’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

which began with the ‘Concept and Nature of Cameralism’. The etymology of
the word ‘Kammer’ is related in detail, the creation of administrative bodies is
described, and the development of Cameralistic science is related to the varied
work of these bodies - with reference to Seckendorff, Schrdder, Gasser, and
Dithmar. Having provided a thorough initiation into the principal features of the
eighteenth-century tradition, Rau then proceeds:
§5. Necessity of a transformation:
1. Emergence of the theory of popular wealth.
2. Restriction of the concept of Polizei.
Kameralismus als Wirthschaftslehre.
Wirthschaftslehre, VoWinger 1796, Klipstein 1797.29

With this, the introduction ends - and also, presumably, the first lecture. Having
begun with a classical exposition of Cameralism, Rau has already disposed of this
in favour of the new economics by the end of the first section, citing exactly those
‘Critical’ Cameralistic texts that were introduced in the previous chapter. Rau
continues to use the term ‘Cameralism’ to denote the subject-matter of the
Encyclopedia that he is teaching for the next four years, but this was primarily a
convenience. The basis of his teaching was a Wirthschaftslehre.
The system that Rau then begins to develop in his Grundrifi is founded on the
interplay between humans and their need for material goods. This can be
expressed in the basic concept of property or wealth (Vermogen). The link
between man, need, and goods provides a foundation for the discipline at
variance with that of political economy, which takes as its starting-point the
concepts of labour and value. We shall see that these concepts can be
incorporated into Rau’s system, but only as components in a network that
extends outward from the conception of human need as opposed to human
labour.
Rau makes an initial division of Wirthschaftslehre into ‘general’ and ‘special’
parts — the latter is then further subdivided into a Privat-Oekonomie, which
examines the nature of activities involved in carrying on agriculture, manufac¬
ture, and trade; and a ‘public Wirthschaftslehre, politische Oekonomie'. This last is
categorized as either ‘theoretical’ {Volkswirthschaftslehre) or ‘practical’ - the latter
being a doctrine of economic welfare and of finance. The consequences of this
kind of division can be summarized as follows: first, it represents not only a
complete break with the Cameralistic tradition, but it is developed on the basis of
the new economics . The study of individual branches of economic activity is
classified quite clearly as a ‘private economics’; while ‘political economy’ is the
name given to the whole of the public economic domain. This domain is not, as
in the Cameralistic tradition, identified with the state; it is composed out of the
theory of economic life which Rau calls Volkswirthschaftslehre and Jakob conti¬
nued to call Nationalokonomie. Rau’s treatment of economic welfare was
associated with this, but it was sharply distinguished from what he also called

29 Rau, Grundrifi, p. 3.

190
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

Staatswirthschaftslehre — the revenues and expenditures of the state. Thus, in this

systematization, welfare is linked to the ‘rules of economic life’, not to the
interests of the state ; the state is only considered here as a financial entity.
Rau completes this introduction to the concept and nature of Cameralism
with a discussion of its relation to politics in general and to the associated
auxiliary sciences, concluding with a historical review of the relevant literature
which begins with Lau, Dithmar, and Gasser and finishes with texts by
Obendorfer and Geyer dating from 1818. The section on ‘General Economics’
follows, citing works by Walther, Vollinger, and Klipstein as the principal
reading. The relation of human being to the world of objects is introduced first,
and this then leads into the conditions of human need (§§21, 22). Value, use, and
price are elaborated upon on the basis of need rather than labour. Thus, the
actual sequence in which the various founding categories are developed
contrasts quite clearly with the form of organization of contemporary English
texts on political economy. Value is described as arising in relation to human
purposes, and is not easily reducible, therefore, to numerical values (§25). The
economy has a purpose:
§35.1. Complete satisfaction of needs, adequate use.
2. Secure continuation of economic activity.
3. In case of an increase in needs,
a. increase of activity, or
b. excess saving.

This brings to a close the section on general economics.

It is followed by a long section on ‘special economics’ - agriculture,
manufacture, trade, and associated occupations. Here Rau’s fascination with the
detailed workings of branches of economic activity is unleashed, and he analyses
industrial and agricultural processes in the finest detail.30 More than half of the
Grundrifi is devoted to this material, so that we are well over half-way before we
arrive at ‘Oeffentliche Wirthschaftslehre (politische Oekonomie)’. Here the
basic references are to the Garve translation of Wealth of Nations, the Morstadt
translation of Say, the translation of Ricardo’s Principles which appeared in 1821,
Sismondi’s Nouveawc principes d’economie politique - and only one original
German text, Lotz’s Handbuch der Staatswirthschaftslehre. ‘Reine Volkswirth-
schaftslehre’ fares rather better - here we find the works of Soden, Hufeland,
Kraus, and Storch cited. The concept of Volks wirthschaftslehre is defined (this
process of proceeding by definition and elaboration was inherited from the
eighteenth century, of course, and was to live on into the twentieth) and the
uniform laws of the economy are stated to arise out of the unchanging relation of
human beings to the material world - with respect to their particular needs, aims,
and form of action (§219). The economy is then elaborated upon in terms of
wealth; it is in this connection that labour is considered (§230), and distribution
and consumption (§§234-45).
30 Rau’s papers in the University of Michigan Library contain more than a hundred drawings and
prints of plough-types which he collected.

191
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie
‘Applied (practical) economics’ begins with ‘economic welfare’, and Rau
describes the two circumstances under which government might intervene in the
economy: where the purposes of the state are directly involved; and where the
activities of individuals are ineffective in achieving a desired end. The objectives
of such intervention are fivefold:

1. The securing of an expanding process of production, based upon skill, labour and
capital;
2. the security of commercial enterprise;
3. a proper distribution of income;
4. useful and purposive consumption;
5. fewer paupers - support of the same. (§256)

The conditions for prosperity are also enumerated: personal freedom, security of
property, education, a secure system of credit and finance, freedom of enter¬
prise, and the involvement of science and the arts (§259). These principles are
then applied to the various branches of economic activity, such as mining,
agriculture, forestry, trade, and manufacture. Government should watch over
enterprise, and should try to maintain an overall balance - in the level of wages,
the size of particular undertakings, or the size of the population and its increase.
The second part of this ‘applied economics’ examines the financial basis of the
state which, it is immediately stated, is not governed by the same principles as
householding, where expenditure is conditioned entirely by income. The various
sources of state revenue are reviewed, and the whole course concludes with a
sketch of the financial institutions of government - omitting, it should be noted,
any discussion of the objects and nature of state expenditure.
This, then, is a precis of the content of Rau’s early teaching in Heidelberg.
While Smith’s Wealth of Nations devoted the greatest amount of space to the
sources of government revenue and their proper application - perhaps the most
neglected aspect of the work - Rau dedicates the greater part of his course to the
practical workings of industry and trade. This is not at the cost of theoretical
elaboration, however; there is a place in his treatment for questions of capital
accumulation, wages, price, and value, but these do not form the core of his
system in the same way as they would have done for a Classical Political
economist. Rau’s economics represents a consistent economic anthropology, in
which it is the interaction between man and the material world which creates a
system of needs, but which is then developed into a practical and concrete
appreciation of the function of economic life, in which the actual workings of
branches ol industry and trade are a natural correlate to this anthropology.
Above all, this system is decidedly not a Kammeralwissenschaft of the sort we have
encountered in previous chapters. Yet Rau persisted with this name for a while,
publishing a text in 1825 entitled Ueber die Kameralwissenschaft which elaborated
the principles of his course outline of 1823. How does Rau define his motives for
doing this?
The first paragraph of the new text attributes an eighty-year history to
Cameralism, during which time it came to be accepted by government, academy,

192
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie
and polite society. But now, in the third decade of the nineteenth century, it
appeared to be fragmenting into its components parts, prior to its incorporation
into a new science. But, argues Rau, while Cameralism could not remain the
same as it had been in the previous century, it might be possible to rejuvenate it;
and for this to be successful, one had to have a proper understanding of the old in
order to establish the novelty of the new.
There follows a brief conceptual history of Cameralism, which emphasizes
the way in which it related to other disciplines, especially to the indeterminate
area of Polizei:

It should have been stated as follows, if only one had then known how: Polizeiwissenschaft
is concerned with those affairs of internal administration which are unrelated to finance.
Instead of dealing with it in this way, resort was made to vague terms such as happiness, or
good order, or the enumeration of the individual objects concerned, or an attempt was
made to force all of these under one or another concept whose substance then became all
too evidently over-extended.31

It was the development of a theory of popular wealth (Volksvermogen) by the

Physiocrats and Smith that introduced the first major changes (although no deep
impression was made on Germany by the former, and the latter only began to be
accepted in the period of the Kantian reception). By the early nineteenth
century, states Rau, it was no longer admissible to publish texts based around the
older system; but the relation of this new economics to other disciplines
remained a matter of dispute. The place of Polizei was a particular problem, and
Rau argued that the extended conception of Polizei had been displaced by
Volks wirthschaft and Volksbildung - economic welfare and education as practical
concerns of administration. These had no place in traditional Cameralism; and
their exclusion made it possible to reconstruct Kameralwissenschaft on a coherent
basis. Seeger had done this, for example, renaming the discipline Wirthschafts-
lehre at the same time. Rau defines this as a discipline which directs itself to the
relation of man to the material world; everything in this material world which
corresponds to the rational ends of man is called a good. These goods are treated
as means to an end by economic science.32
The concept of economy, argued Rau, was often derived from the existence of
needs, as was the case with Seeger, for instance; but it was also necessary to
enquire after the origin of such needs. They were not simply a ‘subjective
necessity’, for this necessity had no ultimate force: needs could simply go
unsatisfied. They were also quite diverse in nature and degree, and as such they
could not form the basis of an economics. If it was aggregated and related to
specific goods, however, then this subjective conception of need became the
economic problem of demand.33 This leads to the following definition: ‘Conti¬
nuing activity which has as its purpose supplying men with objects of property, or
more briefly, the continuous concern for property, is called economy [Wirth-

31 K. H. Rau, Ueber die Kameralmssenschaft (Heidelberg, 1825), 9. 32 Ibid., pp. 15-16.

33 Ibid., p. 19.

193
 A new orthodoxy: K H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

schaft]' 34 And the science of the optimum management of the economy is,
accordingly, Wirthschaftslehre.
How, then, should this be developed? Rau suggests that one can either classify
the various branches according to the subject of the economic activity, or
according to the forms of economic activity themselves. The first of these is the
correct approach; if the second is adopted and economy is dealt with as an array
of branches, repetition becomes unavoidable. The most suitable form of
division, in Rau’s opinion, was the one that had been proposed by Fulda, in
which private, national, and state economy represented the primary forms of
classification.35
From here, Rau develops his argument towards the forms of division already
noted in the Grundrifi - with the difference that this introductory theoretical
section occupies the bulk of the disquisition, and with the similarity that finance
once again is only discussed with respect to revenue and not expenditure. In the
end, it remains unclear just why Rau used the term Kameralwissenschaft in his
title and set out with the intention of refounding it; the system which he
elaborates dispenses with both Staatszweck and Polizei, and develops an analysis
of the ‘law-governed’ nature of economic life which is quite distinct from the
Cameralistic appreciation of the need for constant ministration and regulation if
wealth and stability are to be secured. In the following year, he did break with the
older terminology when his Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie began publication.
We are now in a position to evaluate this seminal textbook.
Volume 1 carries the tide: Die Volkswirthschaftslehre - ‘this develops those
characteristic laws which can be perceived in the economic activities of peoples
regardless of the intervention of government’.36 As such, it is continuous with
the definition of Wirthschaftslehre that we have already encountered. Rau
explained his choice of title as the adoption of a name which, outside Germany,
was universally accepted; he regarded it as a vain hope that the French and the
English would pay great attention to the achievements of German economics
over the past few years.37 This makes no difference to the substance of the text
however, which conforms to the characteristics outlined above; and perhaps the
most significant feature of Rau’s choice is that, from now on, the name of the new
economics ceases to be the subject of such hot debate. This does not mean that
henceforth German economics, Nationalokonomie, is generally comparable with
the political economy practised in Britain and France: in fact, it means exactly
the opposite. In the twenty years that separated Rau’s Lehrbuch from the work of
his mentor, Soden, the pattern of this new economics had become established
The virtue of the Lehrbuch lies, in part, in the fact that it reflected this and that it
provided the first new systematization to incorporate the German post-Smithian
orthodoxy.
The introduction of the first volume begins with the material goods which
constitute the means for various human purposes. Those that are to be found at
the disposal of a subject constitute that subject’s property; while ‘that activity
34 Ibid., p. 21. 35 Ibid, pp. 23-4. 36 Rau> Lehrbuch, i, p. x. 37 jbid ; pp viii_k

194
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Ran’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

aimed at effecting a supply of material goods is called economising [ Wirthschaft],

and forms the object of Wirthschaftslehre or Oekonomie’.38 At the level of the
individual member of civil society, ‘private economics’ was made up of the rules
governing the optimum satisfaction of needs through the acquisition, mainte¬
nance, and use of material goods. At the level of the entire state, political
economy or ‘public economics’ was the science which dealt with the satisfaction
of needs by means of the allocation of material goods. The state could be defined
as both a multitude of men living together in an ordered fashion, and as a higher
authority which legislates for the achievement of specific aims established by the
definition of the state. Within the state, then, a distinction has to be drawn
between the people and the government. As for the former: ‘The needs of the
people are satisfied by the economic activity of all individuals in the state, in
which each pursues only his own interest. The basic concept of this form of
economic activity of all citizens is Volkswirthschaft.’39 Rau asserts that Volkswirth-
schaft is not a simple accumulation of private economies; rather, these are linked
together in such a way as to constitute a whole system of activities comparable, he
suggests, to an organism. It is through this structure of activities that the
individual learns that needs can be satisfied with the least effort by making use of
a division of labour and the exchange of the products of labour. In this way,
mutual interdependence is founded upon self-interest, and the advantage
enjoyed by an individual is, in general, proportionate to the amount of effort
expended for the society.40 This form of association through mutual effort is
called ‘intercourse’, or Verkehr, to use the German term which was to become a
key term in German economic discourse: ‘The Volkswirthschaft is held together
through intercourse with material goods, for example exchange, lending, etc.’41
From this complex, it is possible to observe the laws of human behaviour.
First, the formation, transformation, and destruction of material goods are
subject to natural laws; while secondly, the relation of human beings to these
goods - as indispensable means to necessary ends - is, at the level of the whole,
unchangeable. Variation occurs at the individual level, both in the nature of the
needs and in the means for their satisfaction. These natural laws of the economy
are dealt with by the theoretical part of political economy, which Rau calls
Volkswirthschaftslehre, and which investigates the trinity of production, distri¬
bution, and consumption. The task of government is limited 1) to the promotion
of economic ends pursued by the people - this can only be done at the level of the
economy as a whole, however, and not by interference in the private activities of
the citizenry; and 2) to seeing that its own needs for revenue are fulfilled.
The practical part of political economy derives from the general aims of the
state, which it is the task of Staatswissenschaft to identify. Once identified and
closely specified, it is permissible for the government to intervene in the
economy to assure the attainment of those ends which the citizens cannot
achieve by unassisted effort. Political economy is, figuratively speaking, at the

38 Ibid., p. 1. 39 Ibid., p. 3. 40 Ibid., p. 4. 41 Ibid.

195
 A new orthodoxy: K H. Rau s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

elbow of the official, citizen, and business man as they go about their affairs,
lending them a perspective that they would otherwise lack.42
Having laid out the theoretical framework of the discipline which he is to
elaborate, Rau then turns to the various systems of political economy. A basically
Smithian version of this is provided — beginning with the classical authors, he
moves quickly to the mercantile system and Physiocracy, and concludes with the
‘industrial system’, that is, the doctrines elaborated in Wealth of Nations.
Mercantilism is charged with the fundamental confusion of gold with wealth,
and Physiocracy with treating agriculture as the sole source of material goods -
both of these simply repeat Smith’s arguments, despite the addition of material
from the German reception of Physiocracy.43 The ‘industrial system’, on the
other hand, is described as escaping the one-sidedness of previous systems, and
the section concludes with a summary of Smith’s main principles.
The body of the book is divided into five sections: 1. component parts of
popular property; 2. formation of the component parts; 3. distribution of
property; 4. consumption of component parts of property; and 5. the productive
industries. Looking at the way in which the familiar categories of political
economy are distributed within these sections will allow a more precise
understanding of the manner in which this politische Oekonomie deviates from the
Anglo-French model. First, the ‘component parts’ of property are made up of
various kinds of material goods which are susceptible to personal possession -
thus sunlight and air are excluded as objects of economic property. Political
economy would approach this issue in terms of the divergence of use and
exchange value, but Rau deals with it in terms of property forms. This allows him
to move on to consider capital and value, but these do not form a central part of
his analysis by any means; the way in which goods satisfy human needs, and the
various problems arising out of the superfluity and scarcity of these needs is far
more important.
The second section concerns production. Here we find a brief discussion of
productive and unproductive labour, the division of labour, fixed and circulating
capital, wages, profits, interest, and rent. But these categories are embedded in
an account of production which emphasizes material processes and draws upon
categorizations originally developed by Technology. Again, Rau’s account can
incorporate Smithian elements, but it subordinates them to a descriptive rather
than an analytical treatment.
This is continued in the longest section, on distribution, which occupies
almost one third of the book. Here we find an identification of economic classes
according to their source of income: landowner, capitalist (i.e. the owner of
capital), entrepreneur, wage labourer - and children, the poor, thieves. The
inclusion of this last category militates against a theoretical treatment of the first
four - although it is possible to enumerate different forms of price and cost
which contribute to the creation of an equilibrium of supply and demand. The
way in which this is done is broadly Smithian - Wealth of Nations offers little
42 Ibid., p. 14. « ibid., pp. 25-6.

196
 A new orthodoxy: K, H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

more than a listing of the factors of production, whose revenues are then simply
added up to arrive at a natural price. Despite Rau’s intentions of developing a
theory of economic forces based on natural laws, what we encounter in his book,
in fact, is no more than an enumeration of economic objects without regard to
their actual or potential interconnection. While this may be wholly in the spirit of
Smith’s economics, it is not typical of Ricardo, for example, whom Rau
recommends so warmly at the beginning of his text, and to whom he makes
occasional reference as he proceeds.
The section on consumption, for instance, introduces a distinction between
productive and unproductive consumption, but then simply remarks that the
latter can be measured against a general understanding of the proper distri¬
bution tof income. In the Anglo-Scottish economic tradition, however, the
distinction between the two belonged to the debate about the overall distribution
of the product within the economy, where the question of proportion and
manner of employment was at issue. This can be seen in Smith, who links the
argument to the contributions made by economic agents to the progress of
national wealth - and, by extension, this debate carries legislative implications.
Rau ignores this: his primary interest here is in the maintenance of an
equilibrium. The fifth section presents an equally bland treatment of the various
branches of productive activity.
The second volume of the Lehrbuch was published in 1828 and was devoted to
economic welfare, or, as the title states, to the Grundsatze der Volkswirthschafts-
pflege. We have already noted that Rau approved of Fulda’s tripartite division of
economic subjects, and Volume 1 of the Lehrbuch corresponds broadly to the
second of Fulda’s divisions, ‘National-Oekonomie’. The previous chapter
emphasized that Fulda’s third section, ‘Staats-Oekonomie’, revived the litera¬
ture and principles of an older Cameralistic discourse on the state and its
subjects. Rau’s treatment of ‘economic welfare’ does indeed correspond to
Fulda’s ‘Staats-Oekonomie’; but in no way does he merely recapitulate
outmoded material as Fulda did.
While the detailed subject-matter of this second volume is not what concerns
us here, it is important that we should understand the non-Cameralistic manner
in which Rau deals with economic legislation. While Fulda managed to combine
the new and the old economics within his disciplinary structure, Rau consisten¬
tly works through the implications of the altered conceptions of state and society.
Central to this is a distinction between the wealth of an individual (which
depends on personal wealth), and that of a people (which depends on ‘popular
wealth or welfare’).44 These are not exactly identical, for under the second it is
possible to consider the question of the distribution of wealth among the
population, which allows issues related to justice and morality to be introduced.
It might seem that we are about to enter the traditional domain of Polizei here
- encountering an ever-extending list of tasks for the state in the promotion of
welfare. Not so; the activity of the state is conceived of as supplementary to, and
44 Ibid., ii. 1.

197
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Ran’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

not constitutive of, individual welfare. The impetus of the economy originates
with the desire of the individual to better his conditions, and the main task of the
government is to facilitate the realization of this desire. This can be done by the
provision of education, the encouragement of useful, but neglected, enterprise,
the removal of hindrances to individual initiative, and the maintenance of
agencies supporting commercial enterprise.45 Rau maintains that such issues
have been neglected hitherto; among those who have touched on the issues
involved he named Kraus, Soden, and Lotz.
The volume itself is divided into three sections: the first on ‘the promotion of
directly productive activities or material labours’; the second on ‘the promotion
of the distribution of produced goods’; and the third on ‘measures which relate
to the consumption of goods’. Clearly, Rau has his attention fixed upon
‘economic goods’, which prevents his consideration of legislative measures from
wandering off into legislation in general. Thus, he is able to cover issues as
diverse as immigration, servitudes, the regulation of goods and labour, weights
and measures, communications, price regulation, savings, and the control of
gambling without presuming that the role of state activity is anything other than
the supervision of economic activity which has been generated autonomously of
its own governmental intervention.
Perhaps the most general point that can be made about the first two volumes of
Rau’s textbook is that, unlike Smith or Ricardo, he consistently avoided the
adoption of a position. A great deal of space has been devoted above to the
definitions and classifications which preface Rau’s works. It is here that he draws
the distinctions which allow us to judge the intentions of the work in progress;
and the previous chapters have laid a great deal of emphasis on ‘starting-points’
as conditioning factors in the development of economic argument. In general, it
was in such starting-points that German scholars created their arguments. By
comparison, the texts which are then unravelled are relatively predictable, given
the original parameters. It is noteworthy that, for all the reviewers’ and
commentators complaints about Smith’s diffuseness and fondness for deviation,
they consistently tailed to recognize the principal argument (concerning the
system of natural liberty and the progress of wealth) behind the categorizations
and criticisms which he advanced. This motivation is stronger in Ricardo: he
presented a theoretical system designed to demonstrate the problems of
accumulation in a capitalist economy that was dominated by landowners whose
revenue was primarily drawn from the rents paid by capitalist tenant farmers.
The theory of distribution which he advanced was systematically related to his
conceptions of free trade and comparative advantage. In citing Ricardo, Rau is
totally oblivious of this - he presents Ricardo simply as someone who has
presented the given categories of economics in a different way. But then, Smith
and Ricardo did not begin their texts with a set of definitions which established a
categorical frame for what followed — which is the kind of approach one might
expect from a textbook, of course, but not from a treatise.
45 Ibid., pp. 2-3.

198
 A new orthodoxy: K. H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie
It might seem that this constituted a damning criticism of German economics;
that Schumpeter was right after all to devote no more than a dozen lines to Rau
in the hundreds of pages of his History of Economic Analysis. But Rau was
something that neither Smith nor Ricardo were: a professor of economics at a
major university whose task was to educate future administrators, lawyers, and
teachers in the basic principles of economic life. Here it was not so important to
develop a consistent argument on the proper conduct of national legislation as to
impart some notion of the diversity of economic forms and the basic regularities
that they reflected. Seen in this light, the theoretical achievements of a Smith and
a Ricardo seem less significant; they may be admired for the elegance with which
their principles systematically constructed arguments for legislative positions,
but they lack the descriptive immediacy of Rau’s treatment of economic life.
It is more relevant to measure Rau against the aim that he set himself and at
which he succeeded so well: the production of a modern textbook which could be
of general use in the teaching of economics to students and men of affairs.46
How does the Lehrbuch compare with other texts which appeared during the
same period?
First of all, we shall consider Jakob’s Einleitung in das Studium der Staatswissen-
schaften, which was intended as a guide to his own lectures at Halle. To start with,
one could note that Jakob does not open with a series of definitions and
classifications to develop the material to be considered from human nature and
the appropriation of material goods; he begins with a definition of politics as the
science of internal state organization. Accordingly, while Nationalokonomie is
described as the ‘fundamental science of the entirety of internal politics’,47 it is
dealt with only as one part of a course which directs itself principally to law and
administration. No space is provided for a consideration of the relation of
government and economy, or for the elaboration of branches of economic
activity. The account which Jakob provides of Nationalokonomie is in the context
of a brief history of economics - mercantilism, Physiocracy, Wealth of Nations,
and the German writers who developed the new economics of the early
nineteenth century. This is a commentary on the literature, and not an
exposition of economic principles.
A lesser-known candidate is Cancrin’s Weltreichthum, Nationalreichthum und
Staatswirthschaft, which is subtitled ‘an essay on the new views of political
economy’. The book is concise (just under 250 pages - an important consider¬
ation for students) and begins in a promising fashion with definitions of wealth,
production, capital, employments, and price. This takes up the first hundred
pages; there then follows a brief outline of systems of political economy before
the remainder of the book moves on to consider state expenditure and finance.48
Here again, we lack the basic development of economic principles that we find in
46 Ibid., i, pp. vii-viii: here Rau makes it clear that his text was intended not only for his lectures but
also for private study, and that he considered the work concise enough for it to be accessible to
‘the man of business, whether in commercial or state employ’.
47 L. H. Jakob, Einleitung in das Studium der Staatsmssenschaften (Halle, 1819), 17.
48 Published in Munich in 1821. Cancrin was at this time in Russian state service.

199
 A new orthodoxy: K H. Rau’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

Rau; there is no virtue in brevity if the distribution of material does not

correspond to the demands of the subject.
On the other hand, brevity is not a virtue of J. F. E. Lotz’s Handbuch der
Staatswirthschaftslehre, which extends to just over 1,400 pages. Like Rau’s
Handbuch, this text takes human activity and the appropriation of goods as its
point of departure - as Lotz puts it, ‘der verkehrende Mensch’49 - and directs
itself to the natural conditions of human acquisitive drives and their conse¬
quences rather than to the relation of government and economy. After an
introduction which establishes this position through a detailed review of
previous literature, a review which, like Rau’s, begins with Aristotle and
Xenophon, Lotz devotes the first main section to ‘the pure doctrine of state
economy’, which is the subject-matter of Volume 1 and contains sections on the
production and consumption of goods. Under these headings, Lotz includes an
exposition of value, capital and its accumulation, competition, and supplv and
demand - with the last being increasingly dominated by the idea of Verkehr.
Volume 2 presents the ‘applied doctrine of state economy’, which, while dealing
with the relation of government and economy, asserts the limitation of state
action to the provision of security against foreign enemies, the maintenance of
justice, and the creation of such institutions as are necessary to promote those
ends whose achievement is beyond the individual powers of the citizenry.50 It is
only in respect of this last area that the government is allowed to take positive
action; for there is no domain in which more harm can be done by ‘too much
government’ than in the sphere of economic activity.
It was noted by those in Heidelberg who drew up the short list for the chair to
which Rau was appointed that Lotz had never taught in a university; he had
refused the offer of a Chair in Staatsrecht in Bonn in 1819. While the overall
divisions in Lotz’s Handbuch are similar to those that can be found in Rau’s
Lehrbuch (in both cases, the third volume was devoted to finance and state
expenditure), Lotz s treatment is more diffuse — reflecting his lack of experience
of teaching, and his primarily legal training.
The same can also be said of the last of the texts to be considered here, that of
Politz, who in 1815 was appointed Professor of the History and Statistics of
Saxony at the University of Leipzig, assuming responsibility for the Chair in the
Staatswissenschaften after 1820. The textbook that he produced identified twelve
principal regions of the Staatswissenschaften, in which the fourth was ‘Volkswirth-
schaftslehre (Nationalokonomie)’ and the fifth was ‘Staatswirthschaftslehre und
Finanzwissenschaft’. The former considered ‘the outer activity of individuals
and the totality of peoples in their complete freedom and autonomy, independent
of any influence of the state and the government in the state on this activity,
developed with respect to the inner connectedness and equilibria which must
prevail between production and consumption for the welfare of the people’.51

49 J. F. E. Lotz, Handbuch der Staatswirthschaftslehre, i (Erlangen, 1821).

50 Ibid., ii (Erlangen, 1822), 13.
51 K. H. L. Politz, Die Staatswissenschaften im Lichte unsrer Zeit, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1827), i. 9

200 V
 A new orthodoxy: K H. Ran s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie

Curiously, the literature cited at the end of this introductory section not only
included Rau, but also Pfeiffer and RoBig, indicating a certain degree of
eclecticism, if not confusion. The analysis of economic theory and 'applied’
economics within a general framework of the Staatswissenschaften reduced the
sharpness with which Politz was able to define and expound his subject. The
second of the five volumes is devoted to economics, but it also includes a
treatment of Polizei not completely discharged of its eighteenth-century task of
promoting culture and welfare. If we combine this with the statement that
‘Volkswirthschaftslehre’ can be viewed as the ‘metaphysics’ of ‘Staatswirth-
schaftslehre’,52 then the likelihood of finding the same kind of clear presentation
of the subject-matter of economics as Rau provides is not great.
This was very much what Jakob had to say when he reviewed the first volume
of Rau’s Lehrbuch. He commented that, in the main, ‘the Smithian system in its
present form was followed’;53 while Nebenius also noted that Rau developed the
major elements of Smith without substantially revising established principles.54
But, as we have already seen in his essay on the dissolution of the guilds, Rau was
by no means uncritical of the ‘cosmopolitan’ nature of Smithian theory that was
to form the axis of Friedrich List’s attack upon political economy. While there
was room in Rau’s economics for the leading principles of political economy,
they were treated as descriptive rather than analytic categories - and, conse¬
quently, there was no inconsistency involved in applying them in a manner
adapted to time and circumstances, and disregarding the universalistic claims
that they embodied. Obviously, it is not easy to associate Rau’s ‘Smithianism’ with
the cosmopolitan target first of List, and then of the Historical School. Following
the publication of Rau’s Lehrbuch, how was it then that the distinction between
‘universalistic’ and ‘historical’ economics gave rise to the formation of a
Historical School which saw itself in conflict with the universalism of an
economics derived from Wealth of Nations}
52 Ibid., ii. 9.
53 L. H. von Jakob, Review of Rau, Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie, Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung,
159 (July 1827), col. 425.
54 Nebenius, Review of Rau, Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie, vols. 1,2 ,Jahrbiicherfur wissenschajt-
liche Kritik, 1/81 (1831), col. 642.

201
 10 Historical economics in prospect

If one leafs through the Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften one finds hardly
any articles dealing with topics from the discipline of politics; and similarly, one
finds only the occasional article in Bluntschli and Brater’s Staatsworterbuch from
the domain of Nationalokonomie: economics and social policy have today
practically entirely consumed all the remaining disciplines of the Staatswissen¬
schaften}

Roscher’s Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland', still the most

comprehensive survey of German economics up to the mid-nineteenth century,
appeared as one part of a general history of the sciences published by the
Bavarian Academy of Sciences. It was complemented by two other works, on the
Rechtsmssenschaften and Allgemeines Staatsrecht, and together these three volumes
represented the entire sphere of the Staatsmssenschaften.2 The implication of this
is plain: by the later nineteenth century, the domain of the Staatsmssenschaften,
which has in part been outlined in the preceding chapters, was reduced to law
and economics.
It could be argued that Roscher’s survey of the development of German
economics did, in fact, take into account aspects of political theory and history;
but set against this is his far more significant exclusion of writing which has been
shown above to be central to contemporary understanding of ‘economics’: the
literature of Polizeiwissenschaft, Technologie, and, of course, Hausvaterliteratur.
The history that Roscher constructed was founded in a nineteenth-century
conception of economics which had dispensed with this literature as ‘external’ to
an academic economics that, in conjunction with public and private law, defined
the ‘sciences of the state’.
The major mid-century revision of the domain of the Staatswissenschaften was
carried out by Robert von Mohl, and, while registering the existence of a Politik
that was too broad and diffuse to be summarized usefully, he casually placed
economics (Volkswirthschaftslehre) as a ‘merely preliminary’ study to politics. The

1 O. Hintze, ‘Roschers politische Entwicklungstheorie’, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ii (Vanden-

hoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1964), 3. The text by Bluntschli and Brater appeared between
1857 and 1870, the Handworterbuch between 1890 and 1894. Hintze, therefore, is registering the
obliteration of political science from the Staatswissenschaften between these two dates. See H.
Dreitzel, Protestantischer Aristotelismus und absoluter Stoat (Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden,
1970), 3.
2 H. Dreitzel, ‘Ideen, Ideologien, Wissenschaften: Zum politischen Denken in Deutschland in der
friihen NeuzeitNeue Politische Literatur, 25 (1980), 1.

203
 Historical economics in prospect

bulky survey that he produced did not contain any treatment of economics,
therefore.3 This was not a final judgement on economics, however, for this
dismissal of contemporary economics as an auxiliary of political science was soon
to be reversed, as Otto Hintze complained. A consideration of the place of
economics among associated disciplines in the 1820s and 1830s will provide a
more reliable picture than the one Mohl has given us.
A convenient example is a pamphlet entitled ‘On the Present-day Concept,
Extent and Object of the Staatswissenschaften’ by Carl Vollgraff, who, at the time
of publication, was Extraordinary Professor of the Staatswissenschaften in Mar¬
burg.4 Vollgraff had studied law and philosophy at Gottingen, where Sartorius
had been one of his teachers; and we can presume that the proposed system
contained in this announcement for his 1825 lectures was not idiosyncratic.
During the Summer Semester he intended to lecture on five topics: German
private law, international law, politics, Polizeiwissenschaft, and Encyclopedia and
methodology. The following Winter Semester he proposed to lecture on three:
lNational-Oekonomie, State Economy and Finance in one course’, statistics
related to the public law of individual countries, and metapolitics.5
In his treatment of the Staatswissenschaften, Rotteck also included economics
under the ‘practical part’ of politics, placing ‘Staats-Nationalokonomie’, state
economy, and military affairs together under the heading of Oekonomische
Politik.6 The reason for the rather curious formulation of the first of these is
given in the relevant section:

Economics as a genuinely practical doctrine is inconceivable without the presupposition of

the uniting of people into a state. A people not united into a state society is nothing but a sum
of individuals who might indeed find themselves, by virtue of history or experience, in
close reciprocity and even community; but who could never have a common duty with
respect to their economic activity, nor any recognisable or actually existing given interest of
pshychologically-conceivable motive.1

Ele went on to assert that the diverse interests represented by the people could
not be combined without the positive intervention of the state, that without such
intervention the array of ‘private economies’ could not come together into a
‘complete economy’. Clearly, economics is included under the ‘state sciences’
here not because, as with Vollgraff and others, it was considered an important
component in the understanding of the operation of state and society, but for the
rather more old-fashioned reason that economic life could not function without
the active intervention of the state.
As such, state and economy were closely related; but it was more usual at this
time to exclude formal economics on the grounds that its principles - relating

^ J855)1147°h1’ Dk Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften, i (Ferdinand Emke, Erlangen,

4 Ueberdm heutlgen BeSr,ff< Urnfangund Gegenstand der Staatswissenschaften (Marburg,

5 Ibid., pp. 29-30.

C. von Rotteck, Lehrbuch des Vemunftrechts und der Staatswissenschaften, ii (Stuttstart 18301 9
7 Ibid., iv (1835), 19-20. v 8 ’ 0JU;’

204
 Historical economics in prospect
human beings to the material world — were not the concern of the state. Biilau,
for example, treated Nationalokonomie and natural and international law as
auxiliary sciences’.8 Thus, although ‘state economy’, a form of applied
economics, was based on the principles of Nationalokonomie, it dealt with the
provision of means for public administration, and therefore had a place within
the Staatsmssenschaften. What is happening here is a division of economics into
pure and applied’ parts, the former operating upon principles perceived to
have a universal validity (based on the existence of human need and its
satisfaction), and the latter employing these principles to address the demands of
given state administrations. In other words, we have registered the functioning of
a division between ‘general’ and ‘particular’ economics with which the previous
chapter concluded, and which can, without too great a stretch of the imagination,
be transformed into ‘universalistic’ and ‘historical’ economics.
The publication of Roscher’s lecture outline in 1843 (which is usually treated
as the charter for an Historical School of economics which gave German
economics a particular stamp) was quite evidently broadly continuous with the
way in which Nationalokonomie established its principal terms of reference,
categories, and demarcations. There is a marked divergence between Historical
Economics and the political economy developed in Britain after Ricardo; but, as
we have seen, Nationalokonomie adopted the terminology of this foreign creation
without subscribing to its theoretical demands, however. It is notable that a new
translation of Ricardo’s Principles was published in 1837, when the earlier
translation of 1821 was dismissed as ‘careless’;9 but the translator, Baumstark,
was also the author of a Kameralistische Engiclopadie, which began with an
historical account of Cameralism reaching back to Schroder and Seckendorff,
compared the textual organization of several early nineteenth-century works,
and devoted the majority of its pages to agriculture, manufacture, and public
administration.10 The scholar who did more than most to bring Ricardo to the
attention of German academics, therefore, was by no means simply a ‘cosmopoli¬
tan’ theorist, as a simplified image of the development of Historical Economics
might lead us to believe.
Roscher himself was careful to avoid this implication in his preface, emphasiz¬
ing that:
the question of how national wealth is best promoted is indeed for us too a principal one;
but it in no way constitutes our real purpose. Staatswirthschaft is not a mere chrematistics,
the art of becoming rich; it is rather a political science, the point of which is to judge men,
to rule over men. Our aim is to depict that which peoples have thought, wished for and
what they have attained, why they strove and why they attained.11
8 F. Biilau, Encyklopddie der Staatswissenschaften (Leipzig, 1832), 7. See also his Handbuch der
Staatswirthschaftslehre (Leipzig, 1835), 1-2.
9 D. Ricardo, Grundsatze der Volkswirthschaft und der Besteuerung (Leipzig, 1837), p. vii.
10 E. Baumstark, Kameralistische Encyclopddie (Heidelberg, 1835). Baumstark had studied law and
economics in Heidelberg from 1825—8; he became a Privatdozent in Cameralism in 1829, and was
appointed an extraordinary professor in Greifswald in 1838.
11 W. Roscher, Grundrifi zu Vorlesungen iiber die Staatswirthschaft. Nach geschichtlicher Methode
(Gottingen, 1843), p. iv.

205
Historical economics in prospect

His intention was to do this by extending the range of study from existing peoples
and systems back into the past. Indeed, the establishment of reliable generali¬
zation required such extension, for it was only from a detailed comparative study
of all peoples that material and law-governed factors could be identified. This
approach was ‘far removed from that of the Ricardo School, even if it in no way
really opposes it, and seeks to use its findings with gratitude. It is thus closer to
the method of Malthus and Rau .. .’.12
The textbook which Roscher published in 1854 began, as normal, with ‘Basic
Concepts’, and, also quite conventionally, devoted the first paragraph to goods
and the second to needs.13 The lecture outline of 1843 is different. The first
section is devoted to the general methods of the Staatswissenschaften, and the first
paragraph discusses the difference between historical and philosophical
methods. The Historical Method is as follows: ‘Investigation of the political
drives of men, which can only be studied on the basis of a comparison of all
known peoples. Composition of that which is similar in the development of
various peoples as a developmental law.’14 Having established this, however, we
find a definition of ‘goods’ as that which is recognized as being able to satisfy
human needs, with the domain of goods extending with the advance of societies.
‘Economy’ is ‘that constant activity for the maintenance, increase and use of a
property ... The mental drive for this is based upon self-interest and sense of
commonality.’ And state economy: Staatswirthschaft is the doctrine concerning
the laws of development of the economy’.15 The recommended reading includes
Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Rau.
It is quite plain, therefore, that Roscher does not reject the possibility of
universal laws of economic life; but he believes that these can only be established
on the basis of exhaustive historical research. The generalizations of his lecture
outline are continuous with those that we have already encountered: production
and distribution, trade, manufacture, economic policy. In many ways, a great
deal of the material is comparable with that which, in the eighteenth century,
would have been included under Statistik, Technologies and Wirthschaftspolizei.
More importantly, such passages also bear comparison with the descriptive
sections of Rau’s Lehrhuch; for, as we have seen, it was precisely the descriptive
features of Rau’s text which made it possible for him to adapt theoretical
principles to historical circumstance.
But Roscher’s ‘historical method’ was not a purely descriptive method. He not
only believed in the possibility of universal laws, he envisaged that these
constituted specific laws of economic development. Here again, he was not
alone. We need only turn to Eiselen’s Lehre von der Volkswirthschaft to find the
following statement:

12 Ibid., p. v.
13 W. Roscher, System der Volkswirthschaft, i. Die Grundlagen der Nationalokonomie (Stuttgart, 1854),
1,2. Not so conventional is the fact that, in both these cases, he cites Hufeland’s Neue Grundlegung
der Staatswirthschaftskunst of 1807.
14 Roscher, Grundrif, p. 2. fy Ibid., §§2, 3, pp. ff.

206
 Historical economics in prospect
Our science has a completely general character as a natural doctrine of the economy. It
shows us the manner in which civil society must everywhere develop as an economic
system, which activities unite themselves with others into a whole, what the conditions
and effects ot such uniting are and what consequences follow from one or another activity
departing from its state of equilibrium with the others and emphasises its individuality.16

The association of the study of history with a conception of human development

was widespread by this time; society was tin motion’, and many writers wrote of
the economy as the ‘driving force’, the ‘spring’ or the ‘source’ of this progressive
movement.17 As Pankoke shows, this view was shared by those who celebrated
and by those who deplored this characteristic feature of modernity, and it was
also common ground between the ‘harmonies’ of Bastiat and the contradictions
of Marx.18 Roscher’s actual innovation did not lay in his advocacy of an
historical method for economic science, nor in his belief in the law-like
functioning of economic systems; it lay in his stated intention of deriving
economic laws of development from the study of past economies. The actual
specification and articulation of the economic categories that he adopted,
however, was continuous with the principles of Nationalokonomie that have been
exposed in the two preceding chapters.
As Chapter 1 has shown, ‘German economics’ was quite diverse by the later
part of the century, and it could not be summarized under the label of‘Historical
Economics’. The process of diversification of the later 1830s and 1840s was not
merely theoretical in nature; it involved an extension of economic argument out
of the lecture room and into the Press and the language of cultural criticism. The
locations of discursive production multiplied with the entry of economic
discourse into the public domain. It became a means for the articulation of
political interest on the part of radicals and conservatives alike; economic
discourse was no longer the property of universities, Academies of Science, and
Enlightenment periodicals, as it had been in the previous century. The
universities themselves began a period of growth, and a new phase of the
development of economic argument was initiated with the foundation of learned
journals - Rau’s Archiv, for example, or Mohl’s Zeitschrift fur die gesamte
Staatswissenschaft. Economic argument became a part of ‘modernity’, and has to
be investigated as such, therefore. The method we have used to study the
foundations of German economics - selected because of this restriction of
economic argument to the pedagogic functions of the university - is ill-suited to
this changed situation. To pursue our study of economic science and economic

16 J. F. G. Eiselen, Die Lehre von der Volkswirthschaft (Halle, 1843), 9. Eiselen was a professor at
Halle.
17 Cf. C. P. Pons, Physik der Gesellschaft (Berlin, 1836): ‘In human society only natural laws rule’ (p.
1); ‘... Staats-Oeconomie [is] that science containing the doctrine and rules relating the manner in
which the natural forces present in a state and the products created by the free activity of the
members of the state must be distributed such that the greatest Bildung and development of these
inherent forces be facilitated’ (p. 25). See also W. Schulz, Die Bewegung der Production (Zurich,
1843); and for an overview of the diffusion of this metaphor of ‘movement’, see E. Pankoke,
‘Social Movement’, Economy and Society, 11 (1982), 317-46.
18 R. Walther, ‘Economic Liberalism’, Economy and Society, 13 (1984), 190, 194.

207
Historical economics in prospect

argument into later nineteenth-century Germany would require a different

approach. So, our study ends at this point - with Roscher’s manifesto for
Historical Economics.
But while our study terminates here, we have not yet reached a conclusion,
however provisional and tentative. Chapter 1 suggested that the conceptions of
economic structure and process contained in German writings between 1750
and 1840 have been neglected by historians because of their tendency to think of
the history of ‘economic thought’ in terms of an evolutionary model of
development. The history which this approach produces gives priority to the
progress of economic analysis, therefore, and looks at the shifting domain of
economic discourse from the standpoint of economic theory. Quite evidently,
few (if any) of the texts outlined above make ‘contributions’ to economic theory
in the manner which this stance anticipates. But I hope the preceding chapters
have shown how much this material has to offer to the economist as well as to the
political theorist. Economic theorizing might be the most prestigious form of
activity for the contemporary professional economist; but this was not the case in
the past, nor does it provide a useful perspective on the heterogeneity of modern
economic discourse. If we are to extend our attention to this present and past
heterogeneity, we need to abandon the perspective supplied by theoretical
argument and invent methods of investigation which are appropriate to the case
in hand. In some respects, then, this book can be read as an extended exercise in
historical method, adapting the method of enquiry to the chosen material. By
focusing on the institutional context of the literature of German economics from
1750 to 1840,1 hope to have created an insight into this body of writing which a
more conventional approach does not achieve.
This is sustained by more than an extended exercise in method, however.
While the forms of economic argument that have been outlined might not
provide much in the way of a contribution to economic theory, the overall
conceptions of economic order and human action which emerge so clearly from
these writings have more general implications for our understanding of
economic processes. In particular, it should be apparent that the shift from
Cameralism to Nationalokonomie involved a radical reappraisal of the way in
which economic order was secured. As we have seen, the regularities of
economic life exposed in the Cameralistic system presupposed a human subject
whose welfare could be identified with the interest of the state, and whose needs,
therefore, could in principle be prescribed. It is important to remember here that
this work of prescription was neither geographically nor administratively centra¬
lized; it was the work of innumerable Pohzeiordnungen, which were generated by
a variety of instances to deal with situations of perceived potential disorder. Gate
Polizei was the eighteenth-century equivalent of‘general equilibrium’ - and just
as chimerical.
The new economics’ outlined in Chapter 8 above, rejected this mode of
securing the welfare of the subject and effected a ‘Copernican revolution’ in
economic thinking. Economic action was no longer seen as synonymous with the

208
 Historical economics in prospect
activity of government; it was not understood to be the outcome of the activity of
the human subject in seeking to satisfy needs which were, in principle, unlimited.
‘Good government’ was displaced by Verkehr, the free interaction of economic
subjects in which order was produced out of a mutual satisfaction of need. Thus,
economic argument underwent a significant shift, but this did not necessarily
imply a move towards more theoretical forms of analysis. The German
conception of the economy as a system of needs and their satisfaction was largely
descriptive, and unreceptive to the more theoretical preoccupations of political
economy, with its concern for value, price, and distribution. This fact should not
lead us to dismiss it, however. The form in which German economics developed
was one that was adapted to the pedagogic purposes it was designed to serve. As
such, it instilled ‘principles of economic life’ in generations of students who
participated in a national culture in which, unlike Britain, the university played
an important part. This study must terminate with the proclamation of an
Historical Economics which, in the 1870s, was to enter into dispute with the new
marginalist theories. However, the foundation had already been laid for those
arguments on economic order which have preoccupied the twentieth century -
the relation of state and economy, the nature of economic welfare, and the means
of securing such welfare.

209
 Bibliography

The above text contains biographical information without attribution, since it was
usually gathered from a number of standard reference works, and exact reference
would add unnecessary detail. The principal sources are as follows:
Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB), 56 vols. (1875-1912).
Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB) (Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, 1953-).
Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 4th rev. edn., 9 vols. (Gustav Fischer Tena
1923-9). ’
Hirsching, F. C. G., Historisch-litterarisches Handbuch beriihmter und denkwiirdiger
Personen, 17 vols. (Leipzig, 1794-1815).
Jochers, C. G.,Allgemeines Gelehrten Lexikon, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1750-1; suppl. 7 vols
(Bremen, 1784-97)).
Hamberger, G. C. and Meusel, J. G., Das Gelehrte Deutschland, oder Lexikon der jetzt
lebenden Teutschen Schriftsteller, 5th edn., 23 vols. (Lemgo, 1796-1834).
Meusel, J. G., Lexikon dervomjfahr 1750 bis 1800verstorbenen Teutschen Schriftsteller, 15
vols. (Leipzig, 1802-16).

Primary references

Allgemeines Landrecht fur die Preufiischen Staaten von 1794 (Alfred Metzner Verlag,
Frankfurt-on-Main, 1970).
Anon., ‘Nachricht von dem in Braunschweig gestifteten neuen Collegio Carolino, als
einer besondern Anstallt einer hohen Schule’, Leipziger Sammlungen, 32 (1746),
691-718.
Anon., ‘Hohe Cameralschule’, Ephemeriden der Mens chheit, 5 (1776), 121-6.
Anon., Review of A. Smith, Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von
Nationalreichlh iimem, i, Ephemeriden der Mens chheit, 5 (1777), 61-101.
Anon., ‘Stiftung einer okonomischen Facultat’, Ephemeriden derMenschheit, 7 (1777),
92-9.
Anon., Review ofj. Mauvillon, Physiokratische Briefe, TeutscheMerkur, 3 (July 1780),
75-6.
Anon., ‘Antiphysiokratische Briefe an Flerrn Rathsschreiber Iselin fiber Mauvillon’s
physiokratische Briefe an Herrn Kriegsrath Dohm’, in J. C. Schmohl (ed.),
Sammlung von Aufsdtzen verschiedener Vetfasser besonders fur Freunde der
Cameralwissenschaften und der Staalsmrlhschafi (Leipzig, 1781), 105-81.
Anon., ‘Ueber die sogenannte einzige Auflage’, Nordische Miscelaneen, 1 (1781),
146-65.
Anon., Review ofjames Steuart, Works (London, 1805), Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen,
8, 9 (13 Jan. 1806), 73-83.
Aristotle, Aristoteles Politik und Fragment der Oeconomik, 2 vols. (Liibeck, 1798).
Politics (Oxford University Press, London, 1958).
The Nichomachean Ethics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980).
Baumstark, E. Kameralistische Encyclopadie (Heidelberg, 1835).

211
 Bibliography

Becher,J. J., Politische Discurs, 3rd edn. (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1688).

Kluger Haus-Vater, Verstdndige Haus-Mutter, Vollkommener Land-Medicus (Leipzig,
1714).
Beckmann, J., Gedanken von der Einrichtung Oekonomischer Vorlesungen (Gottingen,
1767).
Anleitung zur Technologie (Gottingen, 1777).
Bensen, H., Versuch eines systematischen Grundrisses der reinen und angewandten
Staatslehrefur Kameralisten, 3 vols. (Erlangen, 1798-9).
von Bielfeld, Baron, Institutions politiques, 3 vols. (The Hague, 1760).
Lehrbegrijf der Staatskunst, 2 vols., 2nd edn. (Breslau, 1764).
von Briihl, H. M., Recherches sur divers objets de Veconomie politique (Dresden, 1781).
Bucher, S. F., Unpartheyische Gedancken Von Oeconomischen Societdten
(Frankfurt-on-Main, 1728).
Biilau, F., Encyklopddie der Staatswissenschaften (Leipzig, 1832).
Handbuch der Staatswirthschaftslehre (Leipzig, 1835).
Busch, J. G., Schrifien iiber Staatswirthschaft und Handlung, 3 vols. (Hamburg, 1780-4).
Cancrin, G., Nationalreichthum und Staatswirthschaft (Munich, 1821).
Carl Friedrich, ‘Abrege des principes de l’economie politique’, Ephemerides du Citoyen,
1 (1772), 1-51 (also published separately, Karlsruhe, 1772).
Casselmann, P. C., Desiderata oeconomica (Rinteln, 1731).
von Colin, F., Die neue Staatsweisheit (Berlin, 1812).
Darjes, J. G., Erste Griinde der Cameralwissenschaften, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1768).
Dithmar, J. C., Einleitung in die Oeconomische- Policey- Cameral-Wissenschaften
(Frankfurt-on-Main, 1731).
Einleitung in die oconomischen, Policey- und cameral-Wissenschafien, 5th edn.
(Frankfurt-on-Main, 1755).
Dohm, C. W., Ueber das physiokratische Sistem (Vienna, 1782).
Du Pont de Nemours, P. S., De Vorigine et des progr'es d'une science nouvelle (Paris, 1768).
‘Discours de l’editeur’, in Physiocratie, i (Yverdan, 1768), pp. i-lxxiii.
Eggers, C. U. D., Summarischer Inhalt der Vorlesungen iiber die Statswissenschaft
(Copenhagen, 1785).
Ueber danische Statskunde und danischepolitische Schrifien (Copenhagen, 1786).
Eiselen, J. F. G., Die Lehre von der Volkswirthschaft (Halle, 1843).
Erb, J. C., ‘Versuch die eigenthumlichen und rechtmasigen Grenzen der Polizei zu
bestimmen’, Vorlesungen der Churpfdlz. physikalisch-dkonomischen Gesellschaft in
Heidelberg, 3 (1788), 181-224.
Eschenmayer, H., Anleitung zu einer systematischen Einrichtung des
Staats-Rechnungs-Wesens, 2 vols. (Heidelberg, 1806-7).
Vorschlag zu einem einfachen Steuer-Systeme (Heidelberg, 1808).
Ueber die Consumtions-Steuer (Heidelberg, 1813).
Ueber das formelle Prinzip der Staatswirthschaft als Wissenschaft und Lehre (Heidelberg,
1815).
Feder, J. G. H., Review of Turgot, Untersuchung iiber die Natur und den Ursprung der
Reichthiimer, Gottingsche Anzeigen von Gelehrten Sachen, 2 (1775), 1023-4.
Review of Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,
Gottingsche Anzeigen von Gelehrten Sachen, 1/30 (10 Mar. 1777), 234-40.
Review of Mauvillon, Physiokratische Bnefe, Zugabe zu den Gottingsche Anzeigen von
Gelehrten Sachen, 1/1 (ljan. 1780), 1-7.
Fischer, F. C. J., Lehrbegrijf und Umfang der teutschen Staatsmssenschaft (Halle, 1783).
Fleischhauer, J. J., Zufallige Gedancken von dem Alter, Wachsthum und Nutzen der
Oeconomie (Gottingen, 1750).
Florinus, F. P., Oeconomus prudens et legalis (Nuremberg, 1702).
de Forbonnais, F. V., Elemens du commerce, 2 vols. (Leyden, 1754).

212
 Bibliography
Elemens du commerce, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1755).
Der vemiinftige Kaufmann (Hamburg, 1755; 2nd edn., 1767).
Sdtze und Beobachtungen aus der Oekonomie, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1767).
Forster, J. C. Zuschrift an die, welche die Universitat beziehen (Halle, 1769).
Anmeisung fur diejenigen, die sich der Rechts - Gelehrsamkeit und dem Dienste des Staats,
besonders den jfustiz - Bedienungen midmen (Halle, 1770).
Anmeisung me die Philosophie, Philologie und diejenigen Wissenschaften, worinn die
philosophische Fakultdt Unterricht giebt, und in welcher Ordnung und Verbindung solche
auf der Universitat zu betreiben (Halle, 1770).
Kurze Anmeisungfur ankommende Studierende auf die Universitat Halle (Halle, 1781).
Friedrich der GroBe, CEuvres de Frederic le Grand, viii. LAntimachiavel. (Berlin 1848)
59-162.
Fulda, F. C., Ueber das Kameralstudium in Wirtemberg (n.p. 1805).
^ Grundsdze der okonomisch-politischen Kameralmssenschqften (Tubingen, 1816).
Fiirstenau, C. G., Versuch einer Apologie des Physiokratischen Systems (Kassel, 1779).
Fiirstenau, J. H., GriindlicheAnleitung zu der Haushalthungs-Kunst (Lemgo, 1736).
J. H. G., Cuneuser und nachdencklicher Discurs von der Oeconomia und von guten
Oeconomis (n.p. 1713).
Gasser, S. P., Einleitung zu den Oeconomischen, Politischen und Cameral-Wissenschaften
(Halle, 1729).
Gavard, F. C., Erorterung der Frage, ob die Wissenschaft der Staatsoconomie mit ihren
Zweigen ... einem Staate niitzlich und nothrvendig seye? (Wurzburg, 1769).
Genovesi, A., Grundsatze der biirgerlichen Oekonomie, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1776).
von Gonner, N. T., Der Staatsdienst, aus dem Gesichtspunkte des Rechts und der
Nationalokonomie betrachtet (Landshut, 1808).
Gosch, J. L., Entwurf eines Plans zu einem vollstdndigen System der samtlichen einem
Staatswirthe nothwendigen Wissenschaften (Copenhagen, 1787).
GroB, J. G., ‘Entwurf eines mit leichten Kosten zu errichtenden Seminarii
oeconomico-politicij Feipziger Sammlungen, 2nd edn. 4 (1745), 342-58; 5, 448-72-
6, 505-29.
Harl, J. P., Vollstandiges Handbuch der Staatswirthschafts- und Finanz-Wissenschaft, 2 vols.
(Erlangen, 1811).
De cultu doctrinarum oeconomiaepublicae rei cameralis et politiae (Erlangen, 1813).
Vollstandiges theoretisch-praktisches Handbuch der gesamten Steuer-Regulierung, 2 vols.
(Erlangen, 1814—16).
Hegel, G. W. F., Philosophie des Rechts, ed. D. Henrich (Suhrkamp Verlag,
Frankfurt-on-Main, 1983).
Herbert, C.JEssai sur la police generate des grains (Berlin, 1755).
von Hohberg, W. H., Georgica curiosa (Nuremberg, 1682).
Hufeland, G., Lehrsatze des Naturrechts (Jena, 1790).
Neue Grundlegung der Staatswirthschaftskunst, 2 vols. (GieBen, 1807-13).
von Humboldt, W., The Limits of State Action (Cambridge University Press, London,
1969).
Hume, D., Political Discourses (Edinburgh, 1752).
Vermischte Schriften uber die Handlung, die Manufacturen und die andem Quellen des
Reichthums und derMacht eines Staats (Hamburg, 1754; 2nd edn., Leipzig, 1766).
Iselin, I., Versuch liber die Gesezgebung (Zurich, 1760).
Versuch iiber die gesellige Ordnung (Basle, 1772).
Traume eines Menschenfreundes, 2 vols. (Basle, 1776).
Jakob, L. H., Grundsatze der National-0ekonomie oder National-Wirthschaftslehre (Halle,
1805).
Ueber Cursus und Studien-Plan fur angehende Cameralisten (Halle, 1805).
Einleitung in das Stadium der Staatswissenschaften (Halle, 1819).

213
Bibliography

Review of Rau, Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie, Allgememe Literatur-Zeitung (July

1827), 159, cols. 425-30; 160, cols. 433-6.
Jung,J. H., Versuch einer Grundlehre sammtlicher Kameralwissenschaftetl (Lautern, 1779).
Dafi die Kameralwissenschaft auf einer besonders hierzu gestifteten hohen Schule
vorgetragen werden miisse, zum Nuzen der Stauten und der Burger erortet (Lautern,
1780).
Versuch eines Lehrbuches der Landwirthschaft (Leipzig, 1783).
Gemeinnutziges Lehrbuch der Handlungswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1785).
Anleitungzur Cameral-Rechnungs-Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1786).
Jubelrede iiber den Geist der Staatswirthschaft gehalten den 7ten November 1786
(Mannheim, 1787).
Lehrbuch der Staats-Polizey-Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1788).
Die Grundlehre der Staatswirthschaft (Marburg, 1792).
vonjusti, J. H. G,,AufhdchstenBefehlanSr. Rom. Kaiserl. und zu Ungam und Bohmen
Konigl. Majestat erstattetes allerunterthanigstes Gutachten von dem vemiinftigen
Zusammenhange und practischen Vortrage aller Oeconomischen und
Cameralwissenschaften (Leipzig, 1754).
Staatswirthschaft (Leipzig, 1755; 2nd edn., 1758).
Abhandlung von den Mitteln die Erkenntmfi in den Oeconomischen und
Cameral-Wissenschaften dem gemeinen Wesen recht niitzlich zu machen (Gottingen,
1755).
Grundsdtze der Policey-Wissenschaft (Gottingen, 1756; 2nd edn., 1759; 3rd edn.,
1782).
Der Grundrifi einer Guten Regierung (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1759).
Systematischer Grundrifi aller Oeconomischen u. Cameral- Wissenschaften
(Frankfurt-on-Main, 1759). Reprinted in his Gesammelte Politische und
Finanz-Schrifien, i (Leipzig, 1761), 504-73.
Die Grundfeste zu derMacht und Gluckseeligkeit der Staaten, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1760-1).
Kant, I., Werke, 9 vols. (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1968).
Klipstein, P., Reine Wirthschaftslehre (GieBen, 1797).
Knies, C. (ed.), Carl Friedrichs von Baden brieflicher Verkehr mit Mirabeau und Du Pont, 2
vols. (Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 1892).
Kopetz, M. N. A., Leitfaden zu dem von Sonnenfelschen Lerbuche der Politischen
Wissenschaften, 3 vols. (Prague, 1787-9).
Kr., Review of Smith, Untersuchung derNatur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem, ii,
Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek, 38/1 (1779), 297-303.
Krug, L.,Abrifi der Staatsokonomie oder Staatswirthschaftslehre (Berlin, 1808).
Lamprecht, G. F., Entwurf einer Encyclopadie undMethoaologie der oconomisch-politischen
und Cameralwissenschaften zum Gebrauch academischer Vorlesungen (Halle, 1785).
Langemack, L. ¥., Abbildung einer vollkommenen Policei (Berlin, 1747).
Lauderdale, Ueber National-Wohlstand (Berlin, 1808).
von Leipziger, A. W., Geist der National-Oekonomie und Staatswirthschaft, 2 vols.
(Berlin, 1813-14).
Lips, A., Die Staatswissenschaftslehre (Erlangen, 1813).
Lotz, J. F. E., Revision der Grundbegriffe der Nationalwirthschaftslehre, 4 vols. (Coburg,
1811-14).
Flandbuch der Staatswirtschaftslehre, 3 vols. (Erlangen, 1821-2).
de Luca, I., Leitfaden in die Polizeywissenschaft des Herm Regierungsraths und Professors
Joseph von Sonnenfels zum Gebrauch der Studierenden (Vienna, 1776).
Lueder, A. F., Ueber Nationalindustrie und Staatswirthschaft, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1800—4).
von Marenholz, C., FiirstlicheMacht-Kunst Oder Unerschopfliche Geld-Grube, 2nd edn.
(Weissenfels, 1703).
Mauvillon, J., Physiokratische Briefe an den Herm Professor Dohm (Brunswick, 1780).

214
 Bibliography

Medicus, F. C.,‘Von der Nothwendigkeit okonomischer Kantnisse’, Bemerkungen der

\lT\)2Z^iPhysikallsch~okonomnchen Gesellschaft vom Jahr 1770, 2 (Mannheim,

Uebe! dm Nu?m’ dfn die okonomische Gesellschaft der Stadt und dem Oberamte Lautem
scf°n verschajfet hat, und noch in Zukunft verschajfen wird (Lautern, 1780).
Nachncht an das Publikum die Verlegung der Staatswirthschafts Hohen Schule nach
Heidelberg betrejftend (Mannheim, 1784).
Melon, J. F., Essaipolitique sur le commerce (Amsterdam, 1755).
Kleine Schriften iiber die Handlung undManufacturen (Copenhagen, 1756).
Mirabeau, V., L Ami des hommes ou Traite de la population, 3 vols. (Avignon 1756' 4th
edn., 6 vols., Hamburg and The Hague, 1758-62).
Derpolitische und oekonomischeMenschenfreund, 3 vols. (Hamburg 1759).
Philosophic rurale {Amsterdam, 1763).
Landwirthschafts-Philosophie, 2 vols. (Liegnitz, 1797-8).
Moser, J. J., Einleitungzu denen Cantzley-Geschajften (Hanau, 1750).
Einleitungzu denm neusten Teutschen Staatsangelegenheiten (Hanau 17501
Anti-Mirabeau (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1771). ’ h
Moshammer, F. X., Gedanken und Vorschlage iiber die neuesten Anstalten teutscher Fiirsten
die Kameralwissenschaften auf hohen Schulen in Flor zu bringen (Regensburg, 1782).
Grundsatze der Policey, Handlung und Finanzmssenschaft (Munich, 1787- 3rd edn
Tubingen, 1820). ’ ’’
Muller, A., Die Elemente der Staatskunst, 2 vols. (Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1922).
Review of Kraus, Staatswirthschaft, Berliner Abendbldtter, 11 (2 Oct 1810) dd 43-4-
no. 48 (24 Nov. 1819) pp. 187-9.
Murhard, K., Idem iiber wichtige Gegenstdnde aus dem Gebiete der National-Oekonomie
und Staatswirthschaft (Gottingen, 1808).
Nebenius, Review of Rau, Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie, i, ii, Jahrbiicher fur
wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1/81 (1831), cols. 641-8; 82, 649-55; 83, 657-64; 84, 665-6.
Niemann, A., Grundsatze der Statswirthschaft, i (Altona, 1790).
von Pfeiffer, J. F., Fehrbegrijf sdmtlicher oeconomischer und Cameralwissenschaften i
(Stuttgart, 1764-5); ii-iv (Mannheim, 1770-8).
Grundrifi der wahren und falschen Staatskunst, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1778-9).
DerAntiphysiokrat (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1780).
Berichtigungen beriihmter Staats- Finanz- Policei- Cameral- Commerz- und okonomischer
Schriften dieses Jahrhunderts, 6 vols. (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1781-4).
Grundsatze der Universal-Cameral-Wissenschaft, 2 vols., (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1783).
Grundsatze und Regeln der Staatswirthschaft (Mainz, 1787).
Politz, K. H. L., Die Staatslehre fur denkende Geschaftsmanner Karameralisten undgebildete
Leser, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1808).
Die Staatswissenschaften im Fichte unsrer Zeit, 5 vols., 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1827-8).
Pons, C. P., Physik der Gesellschaft (Berlin, 1836).
Px., Review of Smith, Untersuchung derNatur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem,
Allgemeine Deutsch Bibliothek, 31/2 (1777), 586-9.
Quesnay, F., ‘Grains (Economic polit.)’, Encyclopedic, 1 (1757), 812-31.
Die allgemeinsten Oekonomischen Regierungs-Maximen eines Agricultur-Staates (Leiozia
1787). r
‘Hommes’, in Francis Quesnay et la Physiocratie, ii (INED, Paris, 1958), 511-78.
Rau, K. H., Primae lineae historiae politices s. civilis doctrinae (Erlangen, 1816).
Ueber das Zunftwesen und die Folgen seiner Aufhebung, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1816).
Ueber den Fuxus (Erlangen, 1817).
Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft mit besonderer Beziehung auf Deutschland (Leipzig, 1821).
Grundrifi der Kameralwissenschaft oder Wirthschaftslehre fur encyklopadische Vorlesungen
(Heidelberg, 1823).

215
Bibliography

Ueber die Kameralwissenschaft (Heidelberg, 1825).

Lehrbuch derpolitischen Oekonomie, 3 vols. (Heidelberg, 1826—37), i (9th edn., 1876).
‘Ueber den Nutzen, den gegenwartigen Zustand und die neueste Literatur der
Nationalokonomie’, Hrc/nh der politischen Oekonomie und Polizeiwissenschaft, 1
(1835), 1-43.
Rehberg, A. W., Review of H. Eschenmayer, Einleitungzu einer systematischen
Einrichtung des Staats-Rechnungswesens, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 40 (9 Mar.
1807), 393-400.
Reinking, D., Biblische Policey (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1653).
Ricardo, D., Grundsdtze der Volkswirlhschaft und der Besteuerung (Leipzig, 1837).
Riem, J., Verbdsserte undgepriifte Bienen-Pflege zum Nutzen aller Landes-Gegenden
(Mannheim, 1771).
Physikalisch-okonomische Bienenbibliothek, 2 vols. (Breslau, 1776—8).
Encyclopadie fur Deutsche, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1785-9).
Bienenschrifflen (Dresden, 1787—90).
von Rohr, J. B., De excolendo studio oeconomico tam principum quam privatorum (Leipzig,
1712).
Compendieuse Haufihaltungs-Bibliothek (Leipzig, 1716).
Einleitung zur Staats-Klugheit (Leipzig, 1718).
Einleitungzu der Klugheit zu Leben, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1719).
Roscher, W., Grundrifi zu Vorlesungen iiber die Staatswirthschaft. Nach geschichtlicher
Methode (Gottingen, 1843).
System der Volkswirlhschaft, 5 vols. (Stuttgart, 1854-94).
RoBig, C. G., Versuche iiber die Oekonomische Policey (Leipzig, 1779).
von Rotteck, C., Lehrbuch des Vemunfirechts und der Staatswissenschaften, 4 vols.
(Stuttgart, 1829—35).
Rousseau, J. J., ‘Economic politique’, in CEuvres completes, iii (Editions Gallimard,
Paris, 1964), 239-78.
Rudiger, J. C. C., Die akademische Laufbahn fur Oekonomen und Cameralisten nach dem
Ursprung vertheidiget (Halle, 1783).
Sartorius, G., Einladungs-Blatter zu Vorlesungen iiber die Politik wahrend des Sommers
1793 (Gottingen, 1793).
Review of Smith, Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthiimem,
Gottingsche Anzeigen von Gelehrten Sachen, 3/166 (19 Oct. 1793), 1660-2.
Grundrifi der Politik zum Gebrauch bey seinen Vorlesungen (Gottingen, 1794).
Review of Smith, Untersuchungen iiber die Natur und die Ursachen des
Nationalreichthums [Garve-Dorrien trans.], Gottingsche Anzeigen von Gelehrten
Sachen, 3/190 (29 Nov. 1794), 1901-4.
Handbuch der Staatswirthschaft zum Gebrauche bey akademischen Vorlesungen, nach
Adam Smith’s Grundsatzen ausgearbeitet (Berlin, 1796).
Abhandlungen, die Elemente des National Reichthums und die Staatswirthschaft betreffend,
i (Gottingen, 1806).
Von den Elementen des National-Reichthums, und von der Staatswirthschaft, nach Adam
Smith (Gottingen, 1806).
Say,J.-B., Traite d’economiepolitique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1803).
Abhandlung iiber die Nationalokonomie, 2 vols. (Halle, 1807).
Schlettwein, J. A., Erlauterung und Verthaidigung der natiirlichen Ordnung in der Politik
(Karlsruhe, 1772).
Les moyens d’arreter la miserepublique et d’acquitter les dettes des etats (Karlsruhe, 1772).
Die wichtigste Angelegenheit fur das ganze Publicum: oder die natiirliche Ordnung in der
Politik iiberhaupt, 2 vols. (Karlsruhe, 1772-3).
Evidente und unverletzliche aber zum Ungluck der Welt meistens verkannte oder nicht
geachtete Grundwahrheiten der gesellschaftlichen Ordung (GieBen, 1777).

216
 Bibliography

Grundverfassung der neuerrichteten okonomischen Fakultdt aufder Universitdt Giefien

(GneBen, 1778).
Grundfeste der Staaten oder diepolitische Oekonomie (GieBen, 1779).
‘Briefe an die konigliche Societat der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen iiber das
physiokratische Regierungssystem. Erster Brief von den ersten Grundsatzen des
physiokratischen Systems’, Archiv fur Menschen und Burger, 1 (1780), 463-7.
Schlosser, J. G., ‘Ueber das neue franzosische System der Polizeyfreiheit,
msbesondere in der Aufhebung der Ziinfte’, Ephemeriden der Menschheit, 2 (1776),

von Schlozer, C., Anfangsgriinde der Staatswirthschaft oder die Lehre von dem
Nationalreichthume, 2 vols. (Riga, 1805-7).
Schmalz, T., Das reine Naturrecht (Konigsberg, 1792).
Entyclopddie der Cameralwissenschaften (Konigsberg, 1797).
Schmid, L. B. M., ‘Briefe iiber die hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern. Erster Brief Der
TeutscheMerkur, 3 (Aug. 1776), 163-72.
‘Zweyter Brief iiber die hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern’, Der Teutsche Merkur 1
(Jan. 1777), 56-67.
‘Dritter Brief iiber die hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern’, Der Teutsche Merkur 1
(Mar. 1777), 247-64.
‘Von der hohen Kameralschule in Lautern. Vierter Brief. Ueber die
Handlungswissenschaft’, Der Teutsche Merkur, 4 (Oct. 1777), 52-69.
‘Fiinfter Brief iiber die hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern’, Ephemeriden der
Menschheit, 2 (1778), 49-64; 3, 1-12.
‘Sechster Brief iiber die kurpfalzische hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern. Ueber die
Finanzwissenschaft’, Ephemeriden der Menschheit, 1 (1778), 20-32.
‘Siebenter Brief iiber die churpfalzische hohe Kameralschule zu Lautern. Ueber die
Staatswirthschaft’, Ephemeriden der Menschheit, 10 (1778), 13-44.
Lehre von der Staatswirthschaft, 2 vols. (Mannheim, 1780).
Ausfuhrliche Tabellen iiber die Policey- Handlungs- mid Finanzwissenschaft (Mannheim,
1785).
Schreber, D. G., ‘Entwurf von einer zum Nutzen eines Staats zu errichtenden
Academie der oconomischen Wissenschaften’, in his Sammlung verschiedener
Schrifter, 10 (1763), 417-36.
Zwo Schriften von der Geschichte und Nothwendigkeit der
Cameralwissenschaften (Leipzig, 1764).
von Schroder, W., Fiirstliche Schatz- und Rentkammer (Leipzig, 1752).
Schulz, W., Die Bewegung der Production (Ziirich, 1843).
von Seckendorff, V. L., Teutscher Fiirsten Stat (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1656).
Seeger, D. F., ‘Die Wirthschaftslehre’, Magazin fur Kameralisten, 1/1 (1806),
1-13.
System der Wirtschaftslehre, 3rd edn. (Karlsruhe, 1807).
Entwurf der Staatswissenschaft (Heidelberg, 1810).
Sincerus, A., Project der Oeconomie in Form Einer Wissenschaft, 2nd edn.
(Frankfurt-on-Main, 1717).
Smith, A., Theorie der moralischen Empfindungen (Brunswick, 1770).
Untersuchung der Natur und Ursachen von Nationalreichthumem, i, ii (Leipzig,
1776-78); hi (1792).
Untersuchung iiber die Natur und die Ursachen des Nationalreichthums, 4 vols. (Breslau,
1794-6).
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 vols. (Oxford
University Press, London, 1976).
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Oxford University Press, London, 1976).
Lectures on Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978).

217
Bibliography

von Soden, F. J. H., Die Nazional-Oekonomie, 9 vols. (Leipzig, Aarau, and Nuremberg,
1805-24).
von Sonnenfels, J., Einleitungsrede in Seine Akademische Vorlesungen (Vienna, 1763).
Antrittsrede; gehalten im November 1763 (Vienna, 1764).
Satze aus derPolizey, Handlungs- und Finanzwissenschaft, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1765-76);
5th edn., retitled Grundsatze der Polizey, Handlung und Finanz (Vienna, 1787).
Handbuch der inneren Staatsverwaltung (Vienna, 1798).
Springer, J. C. E., Oeconomische und Cameralische Tabellen (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1772).
‘Ueber das physiokratische System’, Chronologen, 7 (1780), 37-56, 139-62; 8
(1780), 182-92.
Steuart, J., ‘Entwurf des Steuartischen Werkes von der Staatswirthschaft’,
Hannoverisches Magazin, 39 (13 May 1768), cols. 609-24.
Untersuchung der Grundsatze der Staats-Wirthschaft, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1769-70).
Works, 6 vols. (London, 1805).
Untersuchung der Grund-Sdze von der Staats-Wirthschaft, 6 vols. (Tubingen,
1769-72).
Storch, H., Cours d’economie politique, 6 vols. (St Petersburg, 1815).
Handbuch derNational-Wirthschaftslehre, 3 vols. (Hamburg, 1819-20),
Sturm, K. C. G., Grundlinien einer Encyklopaedie der Kameralwissenschaften (Jena, 1807).
Prospectus zu meinen Vorlesungen iiber die Staatshaushaltungskun.de (GieBen, 1809).
Succow, G. A., Plan von der okonomischen und Kameralschule welche mit Kurfiirstlich
gnadigster Erlaubnis den 3 October in Fautern wird erojfnet werden (Mannheim, 1774).
Oekonomische Botanik (Mannheim, 1777).
Sulzer, J. G., Kurzer Begriff aller Wissenschaften, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1759).
Le Trosne, G. F., Lehrbegriff der Staats-Ordnung (Leipzig, 1780).
Turgot, A. R. J., Untersuchung iiber die Natur und den Ursprung der Reichthiimer (Lemgo,
1775).
Reflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses (n.p. 1788).
Verri, PMeditazioni sulla economia politica (n.p. 1771).
Reflexions sur Veconomiepolitique (Lausanne, 1773).
Betrachtungen iiber die Staatswirthschaft (Dresden, 1774).
Betrachtungen uber die Staatswirthschaft (Mannheim, 1785).
Vollgraff, C., Ueber den heutigen Begriff, Umfang und Gegenstand der Staatswissenschaften
(Marburg, 1825).
Vollinger, J. A., Grundrifi einer Allgemeinen kritisch-philosophischen Wirthschafts-Fehre
(Heidelberg, 1796).
System einer angewandten Wirthschaftslehre iiberhaupt (Heidelberg, 1797).
Walther, F. L., Versuch eines Systems der Cameral-Wissenschaften, 5 vols. (GieBen
1793-1809).
Versuch eines Grundrisses der allgemeinen Oekonomie fiir Vorlesungen (GieBen, 1795).
Weber, F. B., Einleitung in das Studium der Cameralwissenschaften (Berlin, 1803).
Fehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie, 2 vols. (Breslau, 1813).
Will, G. A., Versuch iiber die Physiokratie (Nuremberg, 1782).
Wolff, C., Vemiinfftige Gedancken von derMenschen Thun und Lassen, zu Befdrderung Hire
Gliickseeligkeit (Halle, 1720).
Vemiinfftige Gedancken von dem gesellschaftlichen Leben derMenschen und insonderheit
dem gemeinen Wesen, 4th edn. (Leipzig, 1736).
Xenophon, Von der Haushaltung (n.p. 1525).
Zincke, G. H.,Allgemeines Oeconomisches Lexicon, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1744).
‘Gedancken und Vorschlage von einem auf Universitaten auf die
Cameral-Wissenschaften einzurichtenden besondern Collegio Statuum Europae
Camerali’, i, Leipziger Sammlungen, 34 (1746), 941-54; ii, 35 (1746), 957-74.
Cameralisten-Bibliothek, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1751-2).

218
 Bibliography

Zschackwitz, J. E., Grundliche Abhandlung der vollstdndigen Oeconomiae Politicae und

Cameralis (Halle, 1739).

Commentary and additional sources

Bachmann, H.-M., Die naturrechtliche Staatslehre Christian Wolffs (Duncker und

Humblot, Berlin, 1977).
Barber, W. J. (ed.), Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century
(Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Conn., 1987).
Bauer, S., L article Hommes de Francois Quesnay’, Revue d’histoire des doctrines
economiques et sociales, 1 (1908), 3-88.
Beck, L. W., Early German Philosophy: Kant and his Predecessors (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969).
von Bentzel, A. F., Neue Verfassung der verbesserten hohen Schule zu Mainz (Mainz
1784).
Block,9W, Von der Kameralausbildung zur Juristenprivileg (Colloquium Verlag, Berlin,

Bockenheimer, K. G., Die Restauration der Mainzer Hochschule imjahre 1784 (J.
Diemer’s Verlag, Mainz, 1884).
Bodeker, H. E., ‘Das staatswissenschaftliche Fachersystem im 18. Jahrhundert’, in R.
Vierhaus (ed.), Wissenschaften im Zeitalter der Aufkldrung (Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1985), 142-62.
‘Die patriotisch gemeinnutzigen Gesellschaften in Deutschland. Organisation,
Sozialstruktur, Tatigkeitsfelder’, MS (1986).
Bonar, J. (ed.),A Catalogue of the Library of Adam Smith (Macmillan, London, 1894).
Born, K. E., Geschichte der Wirtschaftsmssenschaften an der Universitat Tubingen
1817-1967 (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, 1967).
Bruckner, J., Staatsmssenschaften, Kameralismus undNaturrecht (C. H Beck Munich
1977).
Brunner, O.,Adeliges Landleben und europaischer Geist (Otto Muller, Salzburg, 1949).
Land und Herrschaft, 5th edn. (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt,
1973).
‘Das “Ganze Haus” und die alteuropaische “Okonomik” ’, in his Neue Wege der
Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1980)
103-27.
Burkhardt, J., ‘Wirthschaft, Okonomie (Neuzeit)’, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R.
Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegrijfe, vi (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1988).
Biisch, O., Militarsystem und Sozialleben im alten Preufien 1713-1807 (Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin, 1962).
Carpenter, K. E., Dialogue in Political Economy (Kress Library Publication 23;
Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, 1977).
Cassirer, E., Kant’s Life and Thought (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1981).
Classen, P. and Wolgast, E., Kleine Geschichte der Universitat Heidelberg (Springer
Verlag, Berlin, 1983).
Conrad, J., The German Universities for the Last Fifty Years (David Bryce, Glasgow,
1885).
Damianoff, M. D., Die volkswirtschaftlichen Anschauungen Johannes Friedrich von Pfeiffers.
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Nationalokonomie, Diss. (Erlangen, 1908).
Darnton, R., The Business of Enlightenment (Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1979).
The Literary Underground of the Old Regime (Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1982).
Deuerlein, E., Geschichte der Universitat Erlangen (Palm und Enke, Erlangen, 1927).

219
Bibliography

Dorn, W., ‘The Prussian Bureaucracy in the Eighteenth Century’, Political Science
Quarterly, i, 46 (1931), 403-23; ii, 47 (1932), 75-94; hi, 259-73.
Dorwart, R. A., The Administrative Reforms of Frederick William I of Prussia (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1953).
The Prussian Welfare State before 1740 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
1971).
Dreitzei, H., Protestantischer Aristotelismus und absoluter Staat (Franz Steiner Veriag,
Wiesbaden, 1970).
‘Ideen, Ideologien, Wissenschaften: Zum politischen Denken in Deutschland in der
friihen Neuzeit’, Neue Politische Literatur, 25/1 (1980), 1-25.
van Dulmen, R., ‘Antijesuitismus und katholische Aufklarung in Deutschland’,
Historisches fahrbuch, 89 (1969), 52-80.
Eichler, H., ‘Die Leipziger okonomischer Societat im 18. Jahrhundert'.fahrbuchfur
Geschichte des Feudalismus, 2 (1978), 357-86.
Ely, R. T., Ground under our Feet (Macmillan, New York, 1938).
Emminghaus, A., ‘Carl Friedrichs von Baden physiokratische Verbindungen,
Bestrebungen und Versuche, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Physiokratismus’,
Jahrbiicherfur Nationalokonomie und Statistik, 19 (1872), 1-63.
Eulen, F., ‘Die patriotischen Gesellschaften und ihre Bedeutung fur die Aufklarung’,
in E. Jager and V. Schmidtchen (eds.), Wirtscha.fi, Technik und Geschichte (Veriag
Ulrich Carmen, Berlin, 1980), 173-86.
Eulenberg, F., Die Frequenz der deutschen Universitaten (Abhandlungen der
philologisch-historischen Klasse der konigl.-Sachsischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften, 2/24; B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1904).
Fabian, B., ‘An Eighteenth-Century Research Collection: English Books at Gottingen
University Library’, The Library, 6/1 (1979), 209-24.
Feist, B., Die Geschichte der Nationalokonomie an der Friedrichs-Universitat zu Halle
(Saale) im 18. Jahrhundert, Diss. (Halle-Wittenberg, 1930).
Felsing, F., Die Statistik als Methode der politischen Okonomie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert
(Robert Noske, Borna-Leipzig, 1930).
Fester, R., Der Universitats-Bereiser’ Friedrich Gedike undsein Bericht an Friedrich
Wilhelm II (Erganzungsheft des Archivs fur Kulturgeschichte, 1; Alexander
Duncker Veriag, Berlin, 1905).
Fleming, D. and Bailyn, B., The Intellectual Migration. Europe and America 1930-1960
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969).
Forbes, D., ‘Scientific Whiggism. Adam Smith and John Millar’, Cambridge Journal, 1
(1954), 643-70.
Foschepoth, J. and Steininger, R. (eds.), Die briiische Deulschlands- und Besatzungspolitik
1945-1949 (Ferdinand Schoningh, Paderborn, 1985).
Foucault, M., ‘On Governmentality’, I (5 C, 6 (1978), 10-16.
Frensdorff, F., ‘Die ersten Jahrzehnte des staatsrechtlichen Studiums in Gottingen’,
Festschrift zur 150 jahrigen Jubelfeier der Georg-Augusts-Universitat (Gottingen,
1887).
‘Die Vertretung der okonomischen Wissenschaften in Gottingen, vornehmlich im
18. Jahrhundert’, in Festschrift zur Feier des hundertfunfzigjahrigen Bestehens der
Kdniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen (Wiedmannsche
Buchhandlung, Berlin, 1901), 495-565.
‘Uber das Leben und die Schriften des Nationalokonomen J. H. G. von Justi’,
Nachrichten der Kdniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen,
phil.-historischeKlasse, 4 (1903), 355-503.
Friedrich, C. J., ‘The Continental Tradition of Training Administrators in Law and
Jurisprudence’, Journal of Modem History, 11 (1939), 129-48.
Fruhsorge, G., ‘Die Gattung der “Oeconomia” als Spiegel adligen Lebens.

220
 Bibliography

Stmtorfragen fruhneuzeitlicher Okonomieliteratur’, in D. Lohmeier (edXArteet

Marte (Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumiinster, 1978), 85-107.
Gabler, H.-J ‘Machtinstrument statt Reprasentationsmittel: Rhetorik im Dienste der
Pnvatpolitic, Rhetorik, 1 (1980), 9-25.
Gehring, P., Friedrich List, jfugend- und Reifejahre 1789-1825 (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), Tubingen, 1964).
Gierke, O, Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500-1800 (Cambridge University
Press, London, 1950).
Graul, H., Das Eindringen der Smithschen Nationalokonomie in Deutschland und ihre
Weiterbildung bis zu Hermann, Diss. (Halle, 1928).
Griinfeld, J., Die leitenden sozial- und wirtschaftsphilosophischen Ideen in der deutschen
Nationalokonomie und die Ueberwindung des Smithianismus bis aufMohl und
Hermann, Diss. (Tubingen, 1913).
HaaB, R , Die geistige Haltung der katholischen Universitaten Deutschlands im 18.
Jahrhundert (Verlag Herder, Freiberg, 1952).
Hasek, C. W., The Introduction of Adam Smith’s Doctrines into Germany (Faculty of
Political Science, Columbia University, New York, 1925).
Haushofer, H., ‘Das Problem des Florinus’, Zeitschrift fur Agrargeschichte und
Agrarsoziologie, 30 (1982), 168-75.
Henderson, W. O., Friedrich List (Frank Cass, London, 1983).
Hennis, W., Max Weber: Essays in Reconstruction (George Allen and Unwin London
1987).
Herbst, J., The German Historical School in American Scholarship (Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, 1965).
Hexter, J. H., 7/pnncipe and lo stato’, Studies in the Renaissance, 4 (1957), 113-38.
Higgs, H., The Physiocrats (Macmillan, London, 1897).
Hintze, O., Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ii (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen
1964). ’
Hoffmann, F., ‘Die Ausbildung fur Verwaltung und Praxis im deutschen
Kameralismus ', Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 103 (1943), 177-208.
Hoffmann, J., Die ‘Hausvaterliteratur’ und die Predigten iiber den christlichen Hausstand’
(Julius Beltz, Weinheim, 1959).
Hont, I., ‘The “Rich-Country” - “Poor Country” Debate in Scottish Political
Economy’, in I. Hont and M. Ignatieff (eds.), Wealth and Virtue (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1983), 271-315.
‘The Language of Sociability and Commerce: Samuel Pufendorf and the
Theoretical Foundations of the “Four Stages Theory”’, in A. Pagden (ed.),
The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modem Europe (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1987), 253-76.
Hont, I. and Ignatieff, M., ‘Needs and Justice in the Wealth of Nations: An Introductory
Essay’, in I. Hont and M. Ignatieff (eds.), Wealth and Virtue (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1983), 1-44.
Hont, I. and Tribe, K. (eds.), Trade, Politics and Letters (forthcoming).
Howard, D., ‘Kant’s Political Theory: The Virtue of his Vices’, Review of Metaphysics,
34 (1980), 325-50.
Humpert, M. Bibliographic der Kameralwissenschaften (Kurt Schroeder Verlag, Cologne
1937).
Ilting, K.-H., ‘Gibt es eine kritische Ethik und Rechtsphilosophie Kants?’, Archiv fur
Geschichte der Philosophic, 63 (1981), 325-45.
Johnson, H. C., Frederick the Great and his Officials (Yale University Press, New Haven,
1975) .
Jung-Stillung, J. H., Lebensgeschichte (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt,
1976) .

221
Bibliography

Kahler, W., Die Entwickelung des staatswissenschaftlichen Unternchts an der Universitdt

Halle (Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1898).
Kasler, D., Diefriihe deutsche Soziologie 1909 bis 1934 und ihre Entstehungsmilieu
(Westdeutscher Verlag, Cologne, 1981).
Kathe, H., Geist undMacht im absolutistischen Preufien. Zur Geschichte der Universitdt
Halle von 1740 bis 1806, Diss. (University of Halle-Wittenberg, 1980).
Kautz, J., Theorie und Geschichte der National-Oekonomik, 2 vols. (Carl Gerold’s Sohn,
Vienna, 1858-60).
Klauser, R., lAus der Geschichte der Heidelberger Philosophischen Fakultat’, in G.
Hinz (ed,),Aus der Geschichte der Universitdt Heidelberg und ihrer Fakultaten
(Sonderband Ruperto Carolo, Heidelberg, 1961), 235-336.
Klein, E., ‘Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi und die preuBische Staatswirthschaft’,
Vierteljahrsschrift fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 48 (1961), 145-202.
Von der Reform zur Restauration (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1965).
Kleinheyer, G., Staat und Burger im Recht. Die Vortrage des Carl Gottlieb Svarez vor dem
preufiischen Kronprinzen (1791-92) (Ludwig Rohscheid Verlag, Bonn, 1959).
‘Aspekte der Gleichheit in der Aufklarungskodifikation und den Konstitutionen des
Vormarz’, Von der standischen Gesellschaft zur biirgerlichen Gleichheit, Beiheft 4 of
Der Staat (1980) 32-54.
Klippel, D., Politische Freiheit und Freiheitsrechte im deutschen Naturrecht des 18.
Jahrhunderts (Ferdinand Schoningh, Paderborn, 1976).
“‘Libertas commerciorum” und “Vermogens-Gesellschaft”’, in G. Birtsch (ed.),
Grund- und Freiheitsrechte im Wandel von Gesellschaft und Geschichte (Vandehoeck
und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1981), 313-35.
‘Der EinfluB der Physiokraten auf die Entwicklung der liberalen politischen Theorie
in Deutschland’, Der Staat, 23 (1984), 205-26.
Knemeyer, F.-L., Polizei’, Economy and Society, 9 (1980), 172-96.
Kopetzky, ¥., Josef und Franz von Sonnenfels (Moritz Perles, Vienna, 1882).
Koselleck, R., Preufien zwischen Reform und Revolution, 2nd edn. (Klett Verlag,
Stuttgart, 1975).
Futures Past (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985).
Kruger, D., Nationalokonomen im mlhelminischen Deutschland (Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1983).
Kuehn, M., ‘The Early Reception of Reid, Oswald and Beattie in Germany:
1768-1800’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21 (1983), 479-96.
Kuhn, E., Der Staatsmrthschaftslehrer Christian Jakob Kraus und seine Beziehungen zu
Adam Smith, Diss. (Bern, 1902).
Lenz, F., ‘Die Wirtschaftswissenschaft in GieBen’, in Fudwigs-Universitdt, Justus Fiebig
Hochschule, 1607-1957. Festschrift zur 350-Jahresfeier (GieBen, 1957), 375-96.
Lepsius, M. R. (ed.), Soziologie in Deutschland und Osterreich 1918-1945 (.Kolner
Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 23; Cologne, 1981).
Liebel, H. P., Enlightened Bureaucracy versus Enlightened Despotism in Baden, 1750-1792
(Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, NS, 55 (1965), pt. 5.
McClelland, C. E., State, Society and University in Germany, 1700-1914 (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1980).
Maier, H., ‘Die Lehre der Politik an den deutschen Universitaten vornehmlich vom
16. bis 18. Jahrhundert’, in D. Oberndorfer (ed.), Wissenschaftliche Politik (Verlag
Rombach, Freiburg, 1962), 59-116.
Die dltere deutsche Staats- und Verwaltungslehre, 2nd edn. (C. H. Beck, Munich,
1980).
Mann, F. K., Steuerpolitische Ideale (Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1937).
Mayer, A., Friedrich Carl Fulda, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Smith ’schen Schule, Diss.
(Bern, 1906).

222
 Bibliography

Mehrtens, H. and Richter, S. (eds.), Naturwissenschaft, Technik undNS-Ideologic

(Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt-on-Main, 1980).
Meinecke^F., der Staatsrdson in der neueren Geschichte (R. Oldenbourg Verlag,

Menger, C Carl Mengersenter Entwurf zu seinem Hauptwerk Grundsiitze geschrieben ah

Anmerkungen zu den Grundsatzen der Volkswirthschaftslehre von Karl Heinrich
Kau (Hitotsubashi University Library, Tokyo, 1963).
Meyring, D. MPolitische Weltweisheit. Studien zur deutschen politischen Philosophic des
Io. Jahrhunderts, Diss. (Munster, 1965).
Michaelis, J. D., Raisonnement iiber dieprotestantischen Unwersitdten in Deutschland 4
vols. (Frankfurt-on-Main, 1768-76).
Milkowski, F., Christian Jacob Kraus. Lehrer der Staatswirthschaft in der
Ubergangszeit in Preufien vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert’, MS (Potsdam, 1968)
von Mohl, R., Die Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften, i (Ferdinand Emke
Erlangen, 1855).
Mommsen, W. J., Max Weber und die deutsche Politik, 2nd edn. (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), Tubingen, 1974).
Miihl, W. A., DieAufkldrung an der Universitdt Fulda (Verlag Parzeller & Co., Fulda
1961).
Muller, H.-H.,Akademie und Wirtschaft im 18. Jahrhundert (Akademie Verlag, Berlin,

Nahrgang, A., Die Aufnahme der wirtschaftspolitischen Ideen von Adam Smith in
Deutschland zu Beginn des xix. Jahrhunderts, Diss. (Frankfurt-on-Main
1933).
Napp-Zinn, A. F., Johann Friedrich von Pfeiffer und die Kameralmssenschaften an der
Universitdt Mainz (Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1955).
Naude, W., Die Getreidehandelspolitik und Kriegsmagazinverwaltung Preufiens bis 1740
(Acta Borussica: Getreidehandelspolitik, ii; Paul Parey, Berlin, 1901).
Neumann, F., ‘Types of Natural Law’, in The Democratic and Authoritarian State (Free
Press, New York, 1957), 69-95.
Neumann, K., Die Lehren K H. Rau’s. Ein Beitragzur Geschichte der Volksnnrtschafhlehre
im 19. Jahrhundert, Diss. (GieBen, 1927).
Oberer, H., ‘1st Kants Rechtslehre kritische Philosophic?’ Kant-Studien, 74 (1983)
217-24.
Oncken, A., Die Maxime laissez-faire et laissez-passer ihr Ursprung, ihr Werden (K 1
WyB, Bern, 1886).
Ong, W. J., Ramus, Method and the Decay of Dialogue (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1958).
Osterloh, K.-H., Joseph von Sonnenfels und die dsterreichische Refitrmbeivegung im Zeitalter
des aufgeklarten Absolutismus (Matthiesen Verlag, Hamburg, 1970).
Palyi, M., ‘The Introduction of Adam Smith on the Continent’, in Adam Smith
1776-1926 (Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1966), 180-233.
Pankoke, E., ‘Social Movement’, Economy and Society, 11 (1982), 317-46.
Pasquino, P., ‘L’ “Utopia” praticabile. Governo ed economia nel cameralismo tedesco
del Settocento’, Seminar Paper (Fondazione G. G. Feltrinelli, 1980).
Pietzsch, F. A. (ed.), Das Ins crip tionsbuch der Kameral-Hohen-Schule zu Lautem
1774-1784 und Staatsmrtschafts Hohen Schule zu Heidelberg 1784-1804 (Verlag
Arbogast, Otterbach-Kaiserslautern, 1961).
Poller, O., Schicksal der ersten Kaiserslautemer Hochschule und ihre Studierenden (Verlag
der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Pfalzisch-Rheinische Familienkunde e.V.,
Ludwigshafen, 1979).

223
Bibliography

Pototzky, H., Ludwig Heinrich von Jakob als Nationalokonomon. Ein Beitrag zur Geschickte
der Nationalokonomie Deutschlands im xix. Jahrhundert, Diss. (Bern, 1905).
Preu, P., Polizeibegrijf und Staatszwecklehre (Otto Schwarz, Gottingen, 1983).
Raeff, M., The Well-Ordered Police State (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1983).
Raphael, D. D., ‘The Impartial Spectator’, in A. S. Skinner and T. Wilson (eds.),
Essays on Adam Smith (Oxford University Press, London, 1975), 83-99.
Reill, P. H., The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism (University of
California Press, Berkeley, 1975).
Riedel, M., ‘Aristoteles Tradition und Franzosichen Revolution. Zur ersten deutschen
Ubersetzung der Politik durch Johann Georg Schlosser’, in his Metaphysik und
Metapolitik (Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt-on-Main, 1975), 129-68.
‘Gesellschaft, burgerliche’, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R. Koselleck (eds.),
Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, ii (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1975), 719-800,
‘Gesellschaft, Gemeinschaft’, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R. Koselleck (eds.),
Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, ii (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1975), 801-62.
Ritter, C., Der Rechtsgedanke Kants nach den friihen Quellen (Vittorio Klostermann,
Frankfurt-on-Main, 1971).
Roscher, W., ‘Die Ein- und Durchftihrung des Adam Smith’schen Systems in
Deutschland’, Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der koniglich-sachsischen Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, 19 (1867), 1-74.
‘Der sachsische Nationalokonom Johann Gottlob von Justi. Ein Beitrag zur innern
Geschichte von Deutschland um die Mitte des vorigen Jahrhunderts’,ydn;/nf> fur
die sachsische Geschichte, 6 (1868), 76-106.
Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland (R. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1874).
Rosenberg, H., Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Autocracy (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1958).
Riibberdt, R., Die okonomischen Sozietaten. Ein Beitrag zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des xviii.
Jahrhunderts, Diss. (Halle-Wittenberg, 1934).
Saner, H., Kant’s Political Thought (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973).
Schiera, P., DelTarte di govemo alle scienze dello stato. II cameralismo e Tassolutismo tedesco
(Giuffre, Milan, 1968).
Schindler, N. and Bonfi, W., ‘Praktische Aufklarung: Okonomische Sozietaten in
Siiddeutschland und Osterreich im 18. Jahrhundert’, in R. Vierhaus (ed.),
Deutsche patriotische und gemeinniitzige Gesellschaften (Kraus International
Publications, Munich, 1980), 255-354.
Schmoller, G., Charakterbilder (Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, 1913).
Schulz, H., Das System und die Prinzipien der Einkiinfte im werdenden Stoat der Neuzeit
(Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, 1982).
Schumpeter, J. H., History of Economic Analysis (George Allen and Unwin, London,
1954).
Schiiz, K. W. C., ‘Ueber das Collegium illustre zu Tubingen, oder den
staatswissenschaftlichen Unterricht in Wiirttemberg besonders im sechzehnten
und siebzehnten Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift fiir die gesammte Staatswissenschaft, 6
(1850), 243-57.
Sellin, V., ‘Politik’, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R. Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche
Grundbegriffe, iv (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1978), 789-874.
Sen, S. R., The Economics of Sir James Steuart (G. Bell, London, 1957).
Skalweit, A., Die Getreidehandelspolitik und Kriegsmagazinverwaltung Preuftens
1756-1806 (Acta Borussica: Getreidehandelspolitik, iv; Paul Parey, Berlin, 1931).
Small, A. W., The Cameralists (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1909).
Spitzer, F., Josef von Sonnenfels als Nationalokonom, Diss. (Bern, 1906).
Stieda, W., Die Nationalokonomie als Universitdtswissenscha.fi (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig
1906).

224
 Bibliography

Wie man 1m 18. Jahrhundert an der Universitiit Mainz fur die Ausbildung von
Frolessoren der Kameralwissenschaft sorgte’, in J. R. Dieterich and K. Bader
Beitrage zur Geschichte der Universitdten Mainz und Giefien (Historischer
Verein fur das GroBherzogtum Hessen, Darmstadt, 1907), 165-216.
zur Errichtung einer Kameralhohenschule im Miinchen im Jahre
1777 , Forschungen zur Geschichte Bayerns, 16 (1908), 85-108.
Stoltenberg, H. L., ‘Zur Geschichte des Wortes Wirtschaft\ Jahrbiicherfur
Nationalokonomie und Statistik, 148 (1938), 556-61.
Stotzer, U., Deutsche Redekunst im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Max Niemeyer Verlae
Halle (Saale), 1962). y
Strauss, L., Thoughts on Machiavelli (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1958).
Treue, W., ‘Adam Smith in Deutschland. Zum Problem des “Politischen Professors”
zwischen 1776 und 1810’, in W. Conze, (ed.), Deutschland und Europa. Festschrift
fur Hans Rothfels (Droste Verlag, Diisseldorf, 1951), 101-33.
Tribe, K., ‘Prussian Agriculture - German Politics: Max Weber 1892-1997’ Economy
and Society, 12 (1983), 181-226.
‘Political Economy, Nationalokonomie und biirgerliche Gesellschaft’, in Studien zur
neuzeitliche Okonomik (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, (forthcoming)).
‘Friedrich List and the Critique of “Cosmopolitcal Economy” ’, Manchester School
Vol. 56 (1988) pp. 1711.
Uhland, R., Geschichte der Hohen Karlsschule in Stuttgart (W. Kohlhammer Stuttgart
1953). 8 ’
Venturi, F., ‘Pietro Verri in Germany and Russia’, in Italy and the Enlightenment
(Longman, London, 1972), 165-79.
Vogel, B.,Allgemeine Gewerbefreiheit (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1983).
Vogel, G., Die Okonomik des Xenophon, Diss. (Erlangen, 1895).
Vogel, U., ‘Liberty is Beautiful: Von Humboldt’s Gift to Liberalism’, History of Political
Thought, 3 (1982), 77-101.
Walker, M., Johann Jakob Moser and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation
(University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1981).
Walther, R., ‘Economic Liberalism’, Economy and Society, 13 (1984), 178-207.
Weber, M., ‘The National State and Economic Policy’, Economy and Society, 9 (1980),
428—49.
Webler, H., Die Kameral-Hohe-Schule zu Lautem (1774-1784) (Historisches Museum
der Pfalz e.V., Speyer am Rhein, 1927).
Weinacht, P.-L., ‘Fiinf Thesen zum Begriff der Staatsrason. Die Entdeckung der
Staatsrason fur die deutsche politische Theorie (1604)’, in R.. Schnur (ed.),
Staatsrason (Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, 1975), 65-71.
Weulersse, G., Le Mouvement physiocratique en France (de 1756 a 1770), 2 vols. (Felix
Alcan, Paris, 1910).
Wilier, W., ‘Die Bibliothek der churpfalzischen Physikalisch-okonomischen
Gesellschaft (1770-1804)’, Bibliothek und Wissenschaft, 4 (1967), 240-302.
Winkel, H., Die Nationalokonomie im 19. Jahrhundert (Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1977).
Wittram, R., Die Universitiit und ihre Fakultdten (Gottinger Universitatsreden, 39;
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1962).
Wunder, B., Privilegierung und Disziplinierung (R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich, 1978).
Yates, F., The Art of Memory (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1969).
Zobel, K., Polizei. Geschichte und Bedeutungswandel des Wortes und seiner
Zusammensetzungen, Diss. (Munich, 1952).

225
 Index
Abo, 46
absolute monarchies, 23, 27
centralization in, 27, 32
‘enlightened absolutism’, 47, 56
accounting, teaching and study of, 11,
36,38, 73, 93, 96,105, 108f., 181
Achenwall, 49, 58, 116
Staatsverfassung, 95, 138 n. 18
Acta Borussica, 11
administration (state), see economy,
Staatskunst, Staatsmssenschaft
agriculture, see economy, householding
(rural)
Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek, 127 n. 27,
144 nn. 38, 39
Altdorf, 95 n. 13, 131
America, 1, 2, 91 n. 2, 168
see also economics, universities
anatomy, teaching and study of, 35, 52
architecture, teaching and study of, 35,
67
civil, 52, 96, 106
Aristotle, 23, 25, 27, 37f., 44, 5If., 68,
74, 99, 100 n. 22, 187 n. 19, 200
oikos and polis, 22-3, 27
Politics, 22, 27, 153
arithmetic, teaching and study of, 95
art of governing, see economy,
Staatskunst, Staatsmssenschaft
Assessoren, 42
astronomy, teaching and study of, 35,
93, 95
von Auerswald, 147
Staatsmrthschaft, 147
Austria, 19 n. 1, 20, 24 n. 24, 46f.,
56ff., 60, 79, 85 n. 76, 89, 95
Leopold I, 21
Lower Austria Economic Society, 95
n. 13
auxiliary sciences, see Hilfswissenschaften
Bachmann, H.-M., 16 n. 32
226
Badeau, 129
von Baden, K. F., 101
Baden (-Durlach), 111, 124-6
Carl Friedrich, 111, 124-5, 126
see also Dietlingen
Bader, K., 115 n. 69
Bailyn, B., 1 n. 1
Baldinger, 137 n. 14
Barber, W. J., 2 n. 3
Barker, 153 n. 8
Bastiat, F., 207
Bauer, S., 122 n. 8
Baumstark, E., Kameralistische
Encyclopddie, 205
Bavaria, 101
Academy of Sciences, 203
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 91 n. 2
Beattie, J., 155
Becher, J. J., 27, 34, 37 n. 6, 56
Kluger Haus-Vater, 21
Politische Discurs, 21
Beck, L. W., 16
Beckmann, J., 77-8, 95 n. 13, 96, 100
n. 26, 101, 114f., 117, 177
Anleitung zur Technologie, 96
Grundsdtze der deutschen
Landwirthschaft, 96
and Technologie, 115-16
bee-keeping, dairy-farming, see
householding (rural)
Behr, 179
Bemerkungen der kiihrpfalzischen
physikalisch-okonomischen
Gesellschaft, see Lautern
Bensen, C. D. H., 160, 184
Versuch eines systematischen Grundrisses
der reinen und angewandten
Staatslehrefur Kameralisten, 160-2
von Bentzel, A. F., 114
Berlin, 2, 9, 58, 100, 160 n. 39, 164
n. 51
Royal Academy of Sciences, 99

von Bielfeld, Baron, 84, 87, 89
Institutions politiques, 79, 82-3
Birtsch, G., 186 n. 15
Bleek, W., 40 n. 18, 176 n. 85
Blumenbach, J. F., Handbuch der
Naturgeschichte, 95
Bluntschli, J. K., Staatsworterbuch, 203
Bockenheimer, K. G., 114 n. 69
Bodeker, H. E., 98 n. 17, 116 n. 74
Bohemia, 56
Bonar, J., 141 n. 28
Bonn, 176 n. 86, 200
BonB, W., 100 n. 26
Born, K. E., 179 n. 94
botany, teaching and study of, 93, 95,
105f., 109, 115, 118, 180
Botero, Della ragio di stato, 27-8
Brabant, 35
Brandenburg-Ansbach, 173 n. 73
Brater, Staatsworterbuch, 203
Breslau, 163 n. 46
Briicken, 56
Bruckner, J., 33 n. 55, 45 n. 35, 50,
53f.
von Briihl, Graf H. M., 130 n. 37
Briinn, 95 n. 13
Brunner, O., 23-4, 31 n. 44, 51 n. 54,
153 nn. 7, 9, 163 n. 46
Brunswick (Braunschweig), Collegium
Carolinum, 49, 168
Brussels, 79
Bucher, S. F., 39, 40 n. 17, 98
Societat der Oeconomischen
Wissenschaften, 98
building, teaching and study of, 93
Biilau, F., 205
Burkhardt, J., 51 n. 54
Busch, O., 9 n. 15, 94, 145, 147
see also Hamburg (Handelsakademie)
Biisching, A. F., 108 n. 47
Biittner, 58
Biitzow, 92, 95 n. 13
cabbalism, 14
calculation, teaching of, 35
Cameralism, 6, 8, 1 Of., 14, 34, 35-54
passim, 56, 60f., 73-78 passim,
79-90 passim, 91-7, 101-18
passim, 122f., 131, 137, 139, 142f.,
145f., 15 Iff., 158, 160ff., 163
n. 46, 164, 174, 176 n. 86, 181,
184f., 187, 1890ff, 192-3, 205,
208
Index
Cameralbeamte, 185
Cameralistic discourse, 17, 29, 61,
66,68,80,82,126,136,164,197
‘Cameralistic Faculty’, 95, 109, 179
Cameralistic finance, 96
Cameralistic sciences, 8, 46, 50, 52f.,
55f., 58, 62ff., 66ff., 72f., 84f., 92,
94, 97, 103 n. 33, 106f., 108 n. 47,
112-18 passim, 119-20, 123, 125,
131, 152, 159, 161f„ 170 n. 67,
177f. 181, 184, 190; chairs in, 40,
43,46,50, 79, 84, 93f, 105, 116,
130, 160, 161 n. 41, 163 n. 46,
164 n. 51, 177
Cameralmssenschqft, 34, 43 n. 28, 54,
192ff.
displacement by Nationaldkonomie, 6,
10f., 92, 118, 208
and Natural Law, 28-9, 151, 161,
164, 177f., 180
teaching of, 11, 37f., 40-3, 46, 49f.,
52, 54f, 57ff., 63f., 67, 73, 91,
94-5, 102, 103 n. 32, 106f.,
112-18, 131, 136, 178, 182, 185;
Encyclopaedia, 94f., 96-7, 113,
18If., 184, 190, 204;
Moshammer’s course, 95-7, 113;
professionalization/institutionali-
zation, 56, 94-118 passim, 124,
138, 178, 192-3; Succow’s course,
102-4, 110, 114; student numbers,
43, 116, 177, 180; textbooks for,
11, 13 n. 26, 17, 34,36,38, 40f.,
43f., 50, 55, 57, 63,67,71,73,84,
89-90, 91, 95-7, 102, 106, 108,
109 n. 52, 112-13, 117, 126, 134,
158, 160, 162, 185
Cancrin, G., Weltreichthum,
Nationalreichthum und
Staatswirthschaft, 199-200
Cantillon, F., 122
Essai sur la nature du commerce en
general, 121
Carl Friedrich, see Baden
Carpenter, K., 135 n. 5, 137
Casselmann, P. C., 13 n. 24
Cassirer, E., 156 n. 20
Castillion, 106
ceramics, teaching and study of, 93
Chayanov, 24 n. 27
chemistry, teaching and study of, 67,
93,95, 102f., 105, 115, 180, 185
chrematistics, 22, 24, 38, 205
227
Index

see also Aristotle, Brunner, O. Dithmar, J. C., 43-4, 54, 67f., 84, 147,
Church, the, decline in authority of, 32 179, 190f.
see also universities (religion) the ‘economic library’, 52
Classen, P., 102 n. 30 Einleitung in die
Cleves, 42 Oeco nom is ch e- Pohcei-und
Colerus, 110 Kameralwissenschafien, 43f., 50-3
von Colin, F., 169 Dittrich, E., 56, 58
Columbia, 2 n. 3 divinity, teaching and study of, 114
commerce/trade, teaching and study of, Dohm, C. W., 129-30
57f., 61, 63f., 67f, 73, 79, 93f, 96, ‘Ueber das physiokratische Sistem’,
105f., 113f., 138 n. 18, 180 129-30
see also economy van Dombenoy, Freiherr F., 179
composition, teaching of, 35 Dorn, W., 10 n. 19
Conrad, J., 2 n. 3, 5 Dornbusch and Fischer,
Conring, 43, 187 n. 19 Makrodkonomik, 1
Controle general, 80 Dorrien, see Smith, A.
Conze, W.,23 n. 19, 31 n. 44,51 Dorwart, R. A., 8 n. 13, 32
n. 54, 143 n. 35, 153 nn. 7, 9, 163 Dreitzel, H., 37 n. 7, 203 nn. 1, 2
n. 46 Dresden, 175
Copenhagen, 37 n. 6, 58, 146, 152 Dublin, economic society, 98
Copernicus, 156, 208 van Diilmen, R., 47 n. 40
see also Kant, I. Du Pont de Nemours, P.-S., 119, 120
Cotta, 136f. n. 2, 121, 125, 128 n. 30, 129
Critical Philosophy, 17, 150, 156, 158f., Origin and Progress of a New Science,
169, 190 124
and Adam Smith, 157
pre-Critical Philosophy, 157f., 185 economic societies, see economics,
see also Kant, I. individual headings
Crome, 116 economics, 4f., 24, 40, 63, 96, 140,
Cronstadt, Versuch einerMineralogie, 96 155, 158, 165 n. 52, 175, 177,
181,185, 203-5
d’Alembert, J., 80 American, 1, 4
Damianoff, M. D., 136 n. 12 ‘Aristotelian’, 22f., 37, 40
dancing, teaching of, 35, 185 British, 1, 3
Daniel, G. D., 138 n. 18 German, 1-8 passim, 136, 147, 149,
Danzig, 79, 159 n. 33 168, 174, 183ff, 194, 199, 203,
d’Argenson, R. L., 123 n. 12 205, 207ff.
DarjesJ. G., 84, 101, 140 Greek, classical, 187 n. 19, 189
Erste Griinde der and the Historical School, 3, 5, 201,
Cameralwissenschaften, 94 205-9 passim
Darnton, R., 15 n. 30 institutionalization of, 4, 7, 15, 44
Davenant, 84 n. 30, 118, 176; economics
Deutsche Gesellschaft, 78 societies, 97—101, 110
Deutsches Museum, 129 in universities, 1-7 passim, 80 n. 62,
Deutschmeisterreigiment, 78 91-2, 97, 116, 118, 164, 176, 180,
Diderot, D., 80, 122 n. 8 184, 199, 209; textbooks for
Dieterich, J. R., 115 n. 69 courses, 7f., 97
Dietlingen, 125-6 ‘Xenophonic’, 23, 25, 37
single-tax experiment, 125-6 see also Cameralism, economy,
see also Physiocracy Nationalokonomie, political economy
Dietz, F., 114 Economists, Les, 119
Dillingen, 47 see also Physiocracy, Quesnay, F.
diplomacy, teaching of, 48, 138 n. 18 economy, allocation and use of

228

resources, 5f., 21, 33, 52, 63, 65,
81, 87f., 164, 171 n. 70
British, 11
German, 5f., 8, 117
guild regulation, 8, 86, 88, 128, 184,
186-8, 201
and the household, 22, 27, 46, 5If.,
72, 138, 162 n. 45
land reform, 8, 88, 176
Nahrungsstand/Nahrungsgeschdfte, 33, 54,
65, 70, 72, 76, 85, 90
planned, 4ff.
Soviet, 4
pricing, 6, 9, 65, 81, 86f£, 121-2,
129, 139, 149, 150 n. 2, 177, 186,
191 f.
Prussian, 9, 11
rural, 25, 33, 94, 151
and the state, 5, 7f., 9 n. 16, 19-34
passim, 38, 45, 52, 61-2, 64—6,
68-78 passim, 81, 83, 84-90
passim, 96f, 103ff., 108, 110ff.,
116f., 119-31 passim, 135£, 138,
140ff., 145 ff., 149-82 passim, 187,
189f£, 194f„ 197f„ 200, 204ff.,
209; income, 53, 61£, 64, 70, 73,
85, 89, 122-31, 145, 162, 164,
172, 192, 194f.; as a patriarchal
household, 22£, 27, 34, 37-8, 39,
62, 73,93, 136, 138, 162 n. 45,
192; Polizeistaat, 34; population, 9,
19, 21, 61, 65, 70, 76, 81f., 84,
85-6, 89, 90, 113 n. 64, 121-2,
136, 138f., 146, 192; well-being of
subjects, 8, 19f£, 30-1, 33ff., 39,
45, 52, 61, 68f., 71, 75, 81, 85,
87-9, 117, 128, 138, 142, 149,
152f., 198
trade/commerce, 62, 64ff., 70, 75f.,
80-2, 83, 85£, 87-9, 98f., 102f.,
105, 112, 117, 121-31 passim,
135f., 139, 142, 174, 176 n. 86,
189£, 192, 198; free trade, 121,
127f., 131, 150, 186-7, 192, 198;
international, 5, 62, 65, 70, 77, 81,
88, 105, 121-2, 123, 127;
restrictions, 8, 70, 121, 123, 150
n. 2, 186; ‘tableau economique’,
119, 127
see also Cameralism, economics,
householding, Nationalokonomie,
political economy, Polizei,
Staatskunst, Staatswissenschaft
Index
Eggers, C. U. D., 146, 152
Egypt, 2
Eichler, H., 99 n. 20
Einbeck, 161 n. 41
Eiselen, J. F. G., Lehrevon der
Volkswirthschaft, 206-7
eloquence, teaching and study of, 57,
78, 106
Ely, R. T., 3
Emminghaus, A., 125 n. 20
Encyclopedie, 80, 87 n. 84, 121
Engel, F., 5
England, see Great Britain
Enlightenment, German, 47, 97-8, 104,
111, 120, 124, 126, 128, 154f.,
157f., 207
Scottish, 155
see also Physiocracy
Ephemeriden der Menschheit, 105, 105
n. 40, 127 n. 27, 144 n. 38
Ephemerides du Citoyen, 123 n. 12, 126,
127 n. 28
epistemology, teaching and study of,
185
Erb, J. L., 112
Erfurt, 95 n. 13
Erlangen, 46 n. 38, 114, 160, 184f.,
187
Erwerb, see oeconomy
Evdeben, Anfangsgriinde der Chemie, 95
Anfangsgriinde der Naturlehre, 95
Anfangsgriinde der Vieharzneykunst, 96
Eschenmayer, H., 181-2
ethics, 48, 49 n. 49, 170 n. 67, 187
n. 19
ethnology, 2
Eulen, F., 98 n. 17
Eulenberg, F., 44 n. 30, 46 nn. 37, 38,
109 n. 53
Europe, 27, 49, 168
central, 1, 2
early modern, 24
Fabian, B., 48 n. 45
Feder, J. G. H„ 127, 130, 143-4, 158
Lehrbuch der praktischen Philosophic,
95
Logik und Metaphysik, 95
Feist, B, 52 n. 21,43 n. 23
Felsing, F., 33 n. 55
fencing, teaching of, 35
Ferguson, A., 142, 155, 161
Essay on Civil Society, 155
229
 Index
Fester, R., 110 n. 54
Finanzwissenschaft, 179, 200
see also Fulda, F. C.
Fischer, F. C. J., Von Zusammenhange
der Kameralwissenschaften, 117
Fleischhauer, J. J., 57-8
Fleming, D., 1 n. 1
Florinus, F. P., 26, 110
Oeconomus prudens et legalis, 25-6
Forbes, D., 142
Forbonnais, F. V., 80-2, 83, 87ff., 90,
, 134,147
Elemens du commerce, 79, 80-2, 89,
135; legislators, 8If., 87
Principes et observations oeconomiques
135
forestry, teaching and study of, 96, 105,
108, 110, 112, 114, 180, 182, 192
Forster, J. C., 94, 117 n. 79
Entmurf der Stadt-, Land- and
Staatswirthschaft, 113
Foschepoth, J., 2 n. 2
Foucault, M., 19 n. 2
France, 2f., 28, 35, 45, 58f., 79f., 82ff.,
98, 106, 110-11, 113, 118, 133ff.,
137f, 141 n. 28, 167, 175, 182,
185,194
Constituent Assembly, 80
and the development of Physiocracy,
119-21, 124, 126, 128, 130
French Revolution, 91
Frankfurt an der Oder, 43-4, 46, 55,
67, 95 n. 13, 163 n. 46
Frankfurt Fair, 114
free trade, see economy
Freiburg, 5
Freiburg im Breisgau, 95 n. 13, 111
Frensdorff, F., 48, 56-7, 58f.
Friedrich Wilhelm I, see Prussia
Friedrich II, see Prussia
Friedrich, C. J., 176 n. 85
Fruhsorge, G., 25 n. 30
Fulda, F. C., 177-80, 194, 197
and state service, 178; proposals for,
179-80
Systematischer Abnss der sogenannten
Kameralwissenschaften, 179
Furstenau,J. H., 13 n. 24, 44-6, 84,
13 Of
Griindliche anleitung Zu der
Haushaltungs-Kunst, 44-6
Ga’oler, H.-J., 13 n. 24
230
Gans, E., 12
Gamier, 189 n. 25
Garve, 155, 156 n. 20
see also Smith, A.
Gasser, S. P., 42-3, 44f., 67, 84, 147,
190f.
Programma publicum, 43
Gatterer, C. W.J., 112, 182
Gavard, F. C., 94
Prolegomenon fur eine reine und
angewandte Staatsokonomie, 160
Gedike, 109, 111, 131
Gehring, P., 179 n. 94
Gelehrte Anzeigen, see Gottingen
Genovesi, A., 108, 117, 134ff., 145f.,
188
Grundsatze der burgerlichen Oekonomie
(Lezioni), 135f.
geography, teaching and study of, 35,
48, 114f., 185
commercial, 96, 106
geometry, teaching of, 35, 52, 95, 116
Germany, see individual headings
Gewerbepolizei, 146, 179
see also Smith, A.
Geyer, 191
Gierke, O., 152 n. 6
Giessen, 46 n. 38, 95, 109 n. 52, 116,
126, 130f,, 146, 184
Gliickseligkeit, see economy (and the
state, well-being of subjects)
von Goethe, J. W., 153
von Gonner, n. T., 174 n. 81
Gosch, J. L., 146
Gottingen, 2, 41, 46, 47-9, 57, 58-9,
66, 95 n. 13, 100 n. 26, 101,
114ff„ 129, 145, 147, 159 n. 33,
160 n. 39, 161 n. 41, 164, 168,
177, 184f., 204
Academy of Sciences, 48, 99, 184
186, 189
foundation of, 47-9
Gelehrte Anzeigen, 128, 156 n. 20, 181
n. 102
Gbttingsche Anzeigen, 143f., 145 n. 42
library, 48-9, 134 n. 3, 137 n. 16
Gottsched,]. C., 82 n. 70
Gournay, 121
grain magazines/supply, 9f., 82, 86
121,138
Graul, H., 143 n. 35
Great Britain, 2f., 19 n. 1, 28f, 35, 59
79, 82, 84, 91 n. 2, 106, 110-11,

133ff., 138, 140, 141 n. 28, 143f.,
167, 174, 182, 194
Jacobite Rising, 137
Scotland, 137, 140, 169
see also economics, economy, political
economy, universities
Greece, classical, 187
Greifswald, 205 n. 10
Gross, J. G., 41 n. 20
Griinfeld, J., 143 n. 35
guilds, see economy, Rau, K. H.
Haas, R., 47 n. 39
Halle, 2, 16 n. 32, 21 n. 10, 37 n. 5,
42f., 46ff., 50, 55, 67, 94, 95 n. 13,
97, 114, 117, 169, 170 n. 67, 184,
199, 207 n. 16
Ritterakademie, 46
Hamburg, 79, 82, 136-7
Handelsakademie, 49, 95
Kommerzbibliothek, 91 n. 2
Typographic Society, 136
Hamilton, W., 165
Hanau, 49, 57
Handlungswissenschaft, 85, 87
see also economy (trade)
Hannover, 47, 161 n. 41
Hardenberg, K. A., 151
Harl, J. P., 185, 186 n. 14, 188, 189
n. 27
Handbuch, 185
Harvard, 2 n. 3
Hasek, C. W., 143 n. 35
Haugwitz, 60
Haushaltungswissenscha.fi, 93
see also economy (and the state),
householding
Haushofer, H., 25 n. 31
Hausmutter, tasks of, 25
Hausvater, 19, 22 n. 18, 25, 162 n. 45
Hausvdterliteratur, 22, 24, 26, 39, 203
tasks of, 25f.
Hegel, G. W. F., 15 n. 31
Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts,
12
Philosophie des Rechts, 12
Heidelberg, 2f., 41, 46 n. 38, 56, 91
n. 2, 92, 102, 103 n. 33, 104f.,
107, 109-12, 114 n. 66, 130, 180,
183f., 189, 192, 200, 205
Hohe Schule, 158, 188
reorganization of university, 111-12,
180
Index
Staatswirthschaftliches Sektion of
university, 180
Heinsius, Bucher Lexikon, 137 n. 16
Henderson, W. O., 40 n. 18
Hennis, W., 4 n. 8
Hentschel, V., 180 n. 27
Herbert, C. J., Essai sur la police general
des grains, 121
Herbst, J., 2 n. 3
Hermann, J. G., 184
Hesse-Darmstadt, 131
Hessen-Kassel, Margrave of, 44
Heumanni, Initia juris politiae gen., 96
Hexter, J. H., 19 n. 2
Higgs, H„ 121
Hildebrand, 150
Hilfswissenschaften, 97, 102, 106, 113ff.,
118, 182, 205
Hintze, O., 203f.
Hinz, G., 109 n. 53
Historical School, see economics
history, teaching and study of, 2, 35, 43,
47f.,95, 105f., 114, 116, 168, 185,
203, 206
European, 49
natural, 48, 58, 93, 95, 102f., 105f.,
115 f.
secular, 49 n. 49
Hobbes, T., 19 n. 1, 30
Hoffman, F., 176 n. 85
Hoffman, J., 22 n. 18, 23, 26 n. 32
von Hohberg, W. H., 24, 26, 45, 110
Georgica curiosa, 24—5
Holland, 35, 137
Homann, 108 n. 47
Hont, I., 3 n. 4, 29 n. 38, 30 n. 39, 82
n. 69, 121 n. 6, 142 n. 32
Hopfner, 158-9
Hornigk, P. W., 21 n. 9, 60, 186
household management, see economy,
householding
householding, 22-3, 25ff., 34, 37, 39,
44-6, 50-1, 6If., 64, 69, 72, 86,
93, 101, 176
resources for, 45
rural, 23ff„ 40, 43, 45, 52-3, 54, 62,
67f., 72, 99-100
Howard, D., 157 n. 27
Hufeland, G„ 159, 169, 170 n. 67, 176,
180, 188 n. 21, 191,206 n. 13
von Humboldt, W., 154-5
The Limits of State Action, 153-4
Hume, D„ 84, 141, 155, 169
231
 Index
Discours politique, 79, 111, 134f.
Humpert, M., 91 n. 2, 112 n. 62, 137
n. 16
Hutcheson, F., 141
Ibbeken, 106
Ignatieff, M., 82 n. 69, 121 n. 6, 142
n. 32
Ilting, K. H., 12 n. 23, 157 n. 28
India, 58
Ingolstadt, 90, 94, 95 n. 13, 116
Innsbruck, 95 n. 13
Iselin, I., 129, 155
Vmuch uber die Gesezgehung, 117,
127, 135f.
Italy, 35, 104, 111, 118, 134f.
‘J- H. G.’, Curieuser und nachdencklicher
Discurs, 35-6, 41
Jager, E., 98 n. 17
Jakob, L. H., 169-72, 173f., 176, 178,
180, 184, 190, 201
Einleitung in das Studium der
Staatswissenschaften, 199
Grundsatze der National-Oekonomie,
169-72; tripartite division of text,
172,181
Jena, 10, 19 n. 1,43 n. 38, 56, 94 n. 9,
95 n. 13, 97, 101f., 114, 125, 137
n. 14, 159 n. 33, 176, 188
Jesuit Order, the, 47, 57, 109
see also universities (religion in)
Jevons, W. S., 3
Johns Hopkins, University of, 2
Johnson, H. C., 10 n. 19
Journal de commerce, 79, 83
Jung, J. H. (Jung-Stilling), 13 n. 26,
105-6, 107ff, 112, 116, 130, 146,
156, 162, 180
compendia on the Cameralistic
sciences, 105, 108; Lehrbuch der
Cameral- Wissenschaft oder
Cameral-Praxis, 108
Vmuch emer Grundlehre sammtlicher
Kameralwissenschaft, 95, 108 n 47
110 n. 56
jurisprudence, see law
vonjusti, J. H. G., 54, 55-78 passim,
80, 83-9 passim, 96, 109 n. 52,
116, 117-18, 136, 138 n. 18, 140,
142, 145, 147, 151, 185
Abhandlung, 59, 66
Abhandlung von den romischen
232
Feldziigen in Teutschland, 59
Anweisung zu einer guten deutschen
Schreibart, 57
Chimdres des Gleichgewichts in Europa,
59
Collegium fundamentale for the
Cameralistic sciences, 62, 67
financial instability, 56, 58, 62
Grundriss des gesammten
Mineralreiches, 59
Der Grundriss einer Guten Regierung,
78, 161 f.
Grundsatze der Policey- Wissenschaft,
75-8, 117
Gutachten, 57, 61-4, 67fi, 70, 76fi,
162
Die Nature und Wesen der Staaten, 59,
113
Scherzhafie und satyrischen Schriften,
59
self-plagiarism, 56, 59, 78, 117
Staatswirthschaft, 55f., 59f., 64, 66-75,
78f„ 82ff„ 87ff„ 117, 120, 138,
159 n. 36, 175
System des Finanzvnesens, 59
Systematischer Grundriss aller
Oeconomischen u.
Cameral- Wissenschaften, 60, 73-4
von K., D. E., 55 n. 1
Kahler, W., 43 n. 26, 117 n. 80
Kaiserslautern, see Lautern
Kalm, P., 46
Kameral Hohe Schule, see Lautern
Kameralwissenschat, see Cameralism
Kammergiiter, 62, 64
see also economy (and the state)
Kant, I., 147, 151, 156-60, 161, 169,
170 n. 67. 193
Critique of Pure Reason, 156, 159
Metaphysik der Sitten, 15 7
Rechtslehre, 157, 160
Karlsruhe, 102 n. 30
Karlsschule, see Stuttgart
Kasler, D., 1 n. 1
Kastner, Mathematische Anfangsgriinde,
Kassel, Collegium Carolinum, 129
Kathe, 43 nn. 27, 28
Kautz, J., 149 „
Keynes, J. M., 6
Kharkov, 170 n. 67
Kiel, 37 n. 6, 46 n. 38, 146

Klausenberg, 95 n. 13
Klauser, R., 109 n. 53
Klein, E, 10 n. 20, 56 n. 2, 59f, 78
Kleinheyer, G., 154 n. 13
Klippel, D., 29 n. 37, 91 n. 2, 124
n. 15, 186 n. 15
Klipstein, P. E., 160, 190f.
Knemeyer, K.-L., 32 n. 48
Knies, C„ 3, 5, 125 n. 17, 150, 189
n. 28
Koln, 46 n. 38, 47
Konigsberg, 147, 160 n. 39
Kopetz, M. n. A., Leitfaden, 89—90
Kopetzky, F., 79 n. 58, 84 n. 73
Koselleck, R., 10 n. 20, 23 n. 19, 31
n. 44, 51 n. 54, 153 nn. 7, 9, 163
n. 46
Kraus, C. J., 147-8, 181 n. 98, 191,
198
Krausen, 84 n. 74
von Kreitmayr, Compendium codicis
Bavarici civilis, 96
Grundriss des allgemeinen deutschen und
bayerischen Staatsrechts, 96
Kress Library, 112 n. 62
Krug, L., 174 n. 81
Kruger, D., 3 n. 6
Kriinitz, 100 n. 22
Kuehn, M., 155 n. 18, 156 n. 20
Kuhn, E., 147-8
Kunstwirthschaft, 106
Kurmark, 100
Kurpfalz, 100 f., 102 n. 30, 106
Kiistrin, 58
laissez-faire, 123
see also economy (trade/commerce)
laissez-passer, 123
see also economy (trade/commerce)
Lamprecht, G. F., 117
land reform, see economy
Landeshaushaltung, 104
see also economy (and the state)
Landrechte, 96
see also law, Prussia
Landshut, 159 n. 33
Langemack, L. F., 33 n. 51
Latin, 85 n. 76, 95, 141 n. 28
as the language of learning, 13, 25,
105, 113f.
politia, 33
status, 28
Lau, 43, 191
Index
EntwurffEiner Wohl-eingerichteten
Policey, 39
Lauderdale, Inquiry into the Nature and
Origin of Public Wealth, 166-7
Lautern, Kameral Hohe Schule, 41, 90,
92, 95ff., 101-12, 113, 114 n. 66,
115 f., 118, 131, 177, 179f.
incorporation within University of
Heidelberg, 41, 102 n. 30, 107,
109-11
library, 107, 110-11, 135
students, 107, 109, 11 Of.
Physikalisch-okonomische
Bienengesellschaft/Kuhrpfalzische
physikalisch-okonomische
Gesellschaft, 99-101, 104, 107-8,
II Of.; Bemerkungen der
kuhrpfdlzischen
physikalisch-bkonomischen
Gesellschaft, 101, 107f., Ill;
manufactory, 101, 107;
Staatswirthschaftliche Vorlesungen,
III
law, teaching and study of, 2, 35,
37 n. 6 46ff, 49 n. 49, 57, 111,
114, 181, 188, 203ff.
as the background to administration
and Cameralism, 56, 59, 94, 116,
125, 138 n. 18, 163 n. 46, 177ff.,
183
German private, 96, 204
international, 204f.
jurisprudence, 78, 96
Leibniz, 16 n. 32, 156
Leibs, J., Probe/Wie ein Regent Land und
Leute verbessem, 39
Leipzig, 2, 42, 46 n. 38, 47, 54, 57, 66,
95 n. 13,97, 101, 114, 134, 137
n. 14, 159 n. 33, 163 n. 46, 200
Leipzig Economic Society, 99f., 137
n. 14
Leipziger Sammlungen, 49 n. 49, 54,
57, 79
von Leipziger, A. W., 174 n. 81
Lenz, F., 131 n. 45
Leopold I, see Austria
Lepsius, M. R., 1 n. 1
Le Trosne, G. F., 128 n. 30
Leyden, 82
Liberalism, 151, 158
Liebel, H. P., 125 n. 21
Linne, 115 n. 73
Lips, M. A., 185, 188, 189 n. 27
233
 Index

List, F., 3, 40, 167, 179f, 201

National System, 176
‘locis oeconomicis’, see Bucher, S F
Locke, J, 30, 172
logic, teaching and study of, 38, 48, 95,
106,185
von Lohenschiold, 138 n. 18
Lohmeier, D., 25 n. 30
Lotz, J. F. E., 174 n. 81, 189 n. 27, 198
Handbuch der Staatswirthschaftslehre
191,200
Lower Austria Economic Society, 95
n. 13
Lueder, A. F., Ueber Nationalindustrie
und Staatswirthschaft, 168-9
Lukacs, G. S., 6
McClelland, C. E., 46 n. 37, 48 n. 43
Macfie, A. L., 150 n. 2
Machiavelli, N., 14, 20, 187 n. 19
Discourses, 14f.
The Prince, 19
Maier, H., 32 n. 47, 61
Mainz, 102 n. 30, 113-15
Malthus, T. R., 206
Mangoldt, 184
Mann, F. K., 9 n. 16, 163 n. 47
Mannheim, 100, 101 n. 27, 102 n. 30
107 n. 45, 109f., 177n. 89
Academy of Sciences, 100, 102 n. 30
Marburg, 46 n. 38, 105, 108 n. 49
112, 189 n. 27, 204
Staatswirthschaftliches Institut, 116
von Marenholz, C., 36
Marx, K., 151, 207
mathematics, teaching and study of 35
38, 48, 93, 95, 102f„ 106, 167
applied, 95, 106
Mauvillon, J., 127, 129f.
Mayer, A., 177 n. 90
mechanics, teaching of, 38, 52, 95
185
medicine, 46, 48, 105, 108, 111
Medick, H., 141 n. 29
Medicus, F., 100-2, 103 n. 33, 104
107, 109-10, 117, 181
Mehrtens, H., 1 n. 1
Meinecke, F., 28 n. 34
Melon, J. F., 83 f., 87
Essai sur le commerce, 79
Menger, C., 3, 5
Grundsdtze der Vdkswirthschaftslehre,
234
mercantilism, 66, 74-5, 80f., 123, 160
165f., 169, 174, 187f„ 195, 199
metallurgy, teaching and study of, 93
metaphysics, 38, 48, 95
Meusel, J. G., 59 n. 12
Meyre, T., 46
Meyring, D. M., 30, 47 n. 41
Michaelis, J. D., 48 n. 42
Michigan, University Library, 191 n 30
Mill, J. S., 3
mineralogy, teaching and study of, 58,
93, 105f.
Mineralkabinett, 93
mining, teaching and study of, 57, 6Iff.
67, 93, 96, 106, 112ff., 192
Mirabeau, V., 80 n. 62, 119ff., 122-3
124-5, 129, 152
L’Ami des hommes ou Traite de la
population, 121, 122-3, 127 n. 27
Philosophic rurale, 122-3, 128, 152
von Mises, R., 4 n. 7
von Mohl, R., 203-4
Zeitschrift fiir die gesamte
Staatswissenschaft, 207
Mommsen, W., 6 n. 11
Montesquieu, C., 58, 78 n. 54, 108
117,136
Spirit of the Laws (Esprit des lois) 57
74, 79, 135
Moravia, 56
Morstadt, 191
Moser, J. J., 49, 57, 109 n. 52, 127
Anti-Mirabeau, 124
Staats- und Cantzley Akademie, 49
Moshammer, F. X., 90, 94-7, 102, 113,
116
’
Miihl, W. A., 47 n. 40
Muller, A., 147, 167, 175
Muller, E., 100 n. 26
Muller, H.-H., 99 n. 21
Miinchhausen, 48f.
see also Gottingen
Munich, 103 n. 32, 131, 199 n. 48
Munster, 137 n. 16
Murhard, K., 174 n. 81
Nahrgang, A., 143 n. 35
Nahrungsstand, see economy
Napoleon I, 10, 170 n. 67
Napoleonic Wars, 44 n. 30, 91, 176,
178
Napp-Zinn, A. F., 113 n. 65
Nationalokonomie, 5ff., 10f., 14, 15
 Index
n. 31,29,41-2, 92, 148f., 167f., Orient, the, 168
177, 179, 181 ff., 199, 200, 203ff., Osterloh, H.-H., 57 n. 5, 79 n. 56
207 Oswald, 155
development of new concept, 170-6,
178 n. 92, 180f., 190, 194 Pagden, A., 29 n. 38
see also Cameralism, Jakob, L. H. Palyi, M., 143 n. 35
National Socialism, 1 Pankoke, E., 207
Nationalwirthschaftslehre, 170ff. Paris, 79£, 128
see also Jakob, L. H. see also France
Naturlehre, 95, 100 n. 22, 102f. Pasquino, P., 6 n. 12
natural history, see history personis oeconomicis, see Bucher, S. F.,
Natural Law, 8, 28, 37, 46, 63, 75, 94 oeconomy
n. 10, 105f., 116, 118, 150f., von Pfeiffer, J. F., 112-14, 130 n. 37,
158-9, 160 n. 39, 161, 168f., 173, 142, 145-6, 148, 201
175, 180, 185 Grundriss der wahren und falschen
and Critical Philosophy, 158 Staatskunst, 136
and Popular Philosophy, 155f. Pforzheim, 125
and social contract, 28-30, 66, 152, see also Dietlingen
173,175 pharmacology, teaching and study of,
Naude, W., 9 n. 17 102
Nebenius, 201 pharmacy, teaching and study of, 114
Neckar, River, 102 n. 30 philology, 2 n. 3
Netherlands, the, 82 philosophy, teaching and study of, 2
Neue Deutsche Biographie, 56, 58 n. 10 n. 3, 43, 47£, 92, 94, 97, 103, 106,
Neumann, F,, 28 138 n. 18, 170 n. 67, 185, 188,
Neumann, K., 184 n. 10 204
New World, discovery of, 58 as a ‘gatekeeper’ subject, 46, 114,
Niemann, A., 133 n. 1, 146, 162, 179 116
numerology, 14 practical, 30, 95, 156, 158
Phoenicians, the, 68
Obendorfer, 191 physics, teaching and study of, 48, 52,
Obrecht, 33 n. 56 93, 102f, 105, 110, 115
Oeconomus, see oeconomy Physik, 100 n. 22, 170
oeconomy (Oeconomie), 34, 37, 44ff., 48, Physikalisch-bkonomische Zeitung,
51, 61, 68f., 71, 75, 94, 98, 99 100 n. 25
n. 22, 114, 128, 138, 159, 170, Physiocracy/Physiokratie, 66, 80, 82
187 n. 19 n. 69, 89, 110, 119-31 passim, 133,
and the development of Cameralism, 135, 144f., 147, 155, 158, 169,
35,42-3, 54f.,58, 67,85,94, 115 172, 174, 186, 193, 195, 199
and Erwerb (acquisition), 37-8, 61, 71 and the German Enlightenment, 120,
and householding, 24ff., 35, 37, 45, 124, 126, 128
50, 52, 63, 67f., 162 n. 45 ‘natural order’/equilibrium, 120,
‘oeconomie garden’, 96, 99, 101 122f., 126, 128, 155, 187
and Polizei, 75, 85, 115 as a Utopian project, 125 n. 18, 126,
and trade 38, 52£, 66, 94, 136 n. 11, 187
195 pietism, 46
and the training of an Oeconomus, Pietzsch, F. A., 104 n. 36, 107 n. 42,
35-6 111 n. 59
Oekonomische Nachrichten, 79 Plato, 187 n. 19
Ofen, 95 n. 13 polis, see Aristotle
oikos, see Aristotle political economy, 139, 172, 174f., 177,
Oncken, A., 80, 123 n. 12 180, 188ff., 195f., 199, 201, 209
in Britain, 3, 6, 17, 175, 191,194, 205
Ong, W.J., 13 ff.
235
 Index
Classical, 192
in France, 3, 6, 175, 194
in Germany, 3, 5
as a model for modern economics, 3,
6 Allgemeines Gesetzbuch, 154
in Scotland, 6
see also economics, Nationalokonomie,
Staatswirthschaft
politid, 20, 34
politics, teaching and study of, 44, 47f.,
49 n. 49,61,80 n. 62, 83, 94,
114ff., 130, 138 n. 18, 167, 185,
187, 191, 203f.
Politik, 31, 33-4, 85, 94, 171 n. 70, 203
Oekonomische Politik, 204
see also economy, Staatskunst,
S taatsmssenschaft
Politz, K. H. L., 174 n. 81, 200-1
Polizei, 32-4, 39, 51-2, 54f., 61-2, 63,
64-5, 66f., 69-78 passim, 85-8, 94,
102, 105f., 108, 112ff., 140, 152,
161-2, 164, 165 n. 52, 169ff., 172,
176 n. 86, 177, 179, 181, 185,
190, 193f., 197, 201
gate Polizei, 32, 34, 44, 54, 153, 208
and modern state administration, 77
Polizeikunde, 177
Polizeiordnungen, 32, 208
Polizeistaat, 34
Policeytabellen, 33
Polizeiwirthschaft, 84
Polizeiwissenschaft, 32-3, 43, 53, 63f.,
68, 76f., 85, 96, 103, 105, 114,
138 n. 18, 161, 193, 203f.
see also economy, Staatswissenschaft
Poller, O., 100 n. 24
Pons, C. P., 207 n. 17
Popular Philosophy, 155f.
see also philosophy
positivism, 5
Postlethwayt, Britain’s Commercial
Interest Explained and Improved, 79
Pototzky, H., 170 n. 67
Pownall 165
Prague, 94 n. 11, 95 n. 13
Pressburg, 85 n. 76
Preu, P., 32 n. 49
Privatdozenten, 42 n. 22, 112, 116, 163
n. 46, 164, 205
see also universities
probabilism, 5
prudentia, 38
see also economy
236
Prussia, 8, 10, 19, 59f., 62, 82, 109,
112, 147, 154, 173 n. 73, 175
absolutism, 10
Academy of Sciences, 57
Allgemeines Landrecht, 154
army, 9f.
consolidation of bureaucracy, 8, 10,
60, 63; and the foundation of the
modern state, 8, 10
East Prussian Finance Department,
147
Friedrich Wilhelm I, 8ff., 42f.
Friedrich II (the Great), 8ff., 16
n. 32, 19
Prussian Code, 151
state income, 9; and the Stdnde, 9;
taxation, 9
psychology, teaching and study of, If.,
185
empirical, 48
Pufendorf, S., 29
and Natural Law, 29-30
Putter, 49, 129
Quesnay, F., 80 n. 62, 119, 121-3, 124
n. 14, 128 n. 30
Maximes generates, 128f.
Tableau economique, 119, 122f 127
129,155
see also Physiocracy
Raeff, M., 32 n. 49
Ramism, 13—14, 15
Raphael, 141 n. 29, 150 n. 2
Rau, K. H., 56, 112, 118, 160, 180,
182, 183-202 passim, 206
Archiv 207
early essay on the abolition of guilds
184,186-8,189,201
Grundriss, 189-92, 194
Lehrbuch derpolitischen Oekonomie
183f., 194-9, 200f., 206
Ueber die Kameralwissenschafi, 192-4
Rechtswissenscliaft, 203
Regalien, 62
see also economy (and the state)
Rehberg, A. W., 181 n. 102
Reill, P. H., 98 n. 17
Reinhard, 181
Reinking, D., 28
Biblische Policey, 75
religion, and universities see universities

Rennes, 98
Economic Society, 98
rhetoric, teaching and study of, 105
Rhine, the, 111
valley, 102 n. 30
Ricardo, D., 3, 15 n. 31, 196, 198-9,
205 f.
Principles of Political Economy, 184,
191,205
Richter, S., 1 n. 1
riding, teaching of, 35, 185
Riedel, M., 23 nn. 19, 23, 153 nn. 8, 9,
155, 163 n. 46
Riem, J., 100 f., 107, 109
Praktische Bienenvater, 100
Riga, 188
Rinteln, 44, 46, 55, 95 n. 13, 131
Ritter, C., 157 n. 28
Ritterakadeinie, see Halle, Vienna
Roder, W., 1 n. 1
von Rohr, J. B„ 36-7, 39f„ 42ff.
Compendieuse haushaltungs-Bibhothek,
38
Einleitung zur Stoats-Klugheit, 38f.
Romans, the, 68
Roscher, W., 59, 80, 82, 136, 143, 147,
183, 188 n. 21, 207f.
Geschichte der National-Oekonomik, 6,
203
Grundriss, 176, 205-6
Rosenberg, H., 8 n. 13
Rossig, C. G., 32 n. 50, 33, 95 n. 13,
114, 201
von Rotteck, C., 204
Rousseau, J.J., 87, 89
Royal Society, 19 n. 1
Riibberdt, R., 98 n. 19
Rudiger, J. C. C., 117
ruler, tasks, of see economy (and the
state, well-being of subjects)
Russia, see Soviet Union
St Petersburg, 16 n. 32
Academy of Sciences, 188
Saner, H., 158 n. 29
Sartorius, G., 116, 144ff., 164-8, 172,
176,184, 204
Handbuch, 169, 172, 181
Sattelzeit, 153 n. 7
Savigny, 159 n. 33
Saxony, 56, 200
Duchess of Saxony-Eisenbach, 57
Say, J.-B., 188f., 191,206
Index
Traite d'economic politique,169, 171
n. 70, 172
Schiera, P., 10
Schiller, see Smith, A.
Schindler, N., 100 n. 26
Schleenstein, G. A., 114—15
Schlettwein, J. A., 125f., 127 nn. 24,
25, 26, 128ff.
Schlosser, J. G., 125-6, 128 n. 33, 153
\ >n Schlozer, C., 95f., 116, 129, 169,
170 n. 69, 187 n. 19
Schmalz, T., 181 n. 98
Encyclopadie der Gameralwissenschaften,
160
Schmid, L. B. M., 90, 97, 104-6, 108,
110 n. 56, 112, 116f., 135-6, 146,
177, 180, 188
‘Briefe iiber die hohe Kameralschule
zu Lautern’, 104-5
Lehre von der Staatswirthschaft, 96,
108, 135
Tabellen uber die Polizei-, Handlungs-
und Finanzweissenschaft, 177
Schmidtchen, V., 98 n. 17
Schmohl, J. C., 130 n. 37
Schmoller, G., 3, 5f., 8, 9 n. 14
Schneider, 106
Schnur, R., 28 n. 34
von Schon, 147
Schott, C. F., 136f.
von Schrank, P., 116
Schreber, D. G., 50, 91 n. 1, 92-4, 95,
lOlf, 103 n. 32, 106ff., 113, 137
n. 14, 140
and his ‘oeconomic sciences’ library,
92-4
von Schroder, W., 19 n. 1, 20, 22, 24,
27, 34, 37 n. 6, 43f., 56, 60, 83,
186, 190, 205
Fiirstliche Schatz- und Rentkammer, 20,
33 n. 54
and the use of Staatsbrille, 33
Schulz, G. L., 84 n. 74
Schulz, H., 9 n. 16, 21 n. 12, 163 n. 47
Schulz, W., 207 n. 17
Schulze-Gavernitz, 5
Schumpeter, J. H., 80, 184, 188
History of Economic Analysis, 183, 199
Schiiz, K. W. C„ 138 n. 18
Schwabe, J. J., 82 n. 70
von Seckendorff, V. L., 24, 27, 34, 37
n. 6, 39, 179, 185f., 190, 205
Teutscher Fiirsten-Stat, 21, 38, 42
237
 Index
Seeger, D. F., 174 n. 81, 181, 193
System der Wirthschafislehre, 181
von Selchow, Elementa juris, 96
Grundsdtze des Wechselrechts, 96
Sellin, V., 31 n. 44, 33 n. 56, 34 n. 57
Semer, E. M., 112, 159 n. 32, 181
Sen, S. R., 140
Shaftsbury, Lord A., 141
Silesia, 100
Silesian Society for the Culture of
the Fatherland, 163 n. 46
Sincerus, A., 37-8, 40, 42, 46, 85,
97
Project der Oeconomie in Form einer
Wissenschaft, 37f.
Sismondi, J. C., Nouveaux Principes
d 'economic politique, 191
Sittlichkeit (morality), 161, 169
Skalweit, A., 10 n. 18
sketching, teaching of, 35
Skinner, A. S., 141 n. 29
Small, A., 21, 27
Smith, A., 3, 15 n. 31, 74-5, 118,
129f., 139f., 145ff., 150-1, 155,
157f., 160, 164ff., 170, 171 n. 70,
172f., 176, 179, 181, 187ff., 193ff.,
197, 198-9, 201, 206
Lectures on Jurisprudence, 150 n. 2
The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 141,
144, 150, 158
Wealth of Nations, 66, 73, 89, 111
117f., 120, 129, 133-5, 140-8,
150, 155, 157f., 164-9, 172, 174f.,
189, 192, 196-7, 199, 201;
Garve-Dorrien translation, 133f.,
144-5, 146, 165, 172, 191; the
‘invisible hand’ and the doctrine of
sympathy, 141-2, 143, 150;
Schiller translation, 133f., 143f.
Societe Royale d’Agriculture de Paris
98
von Soden, F. J. H., 172-3, 176, 184,
191, 194, 198
Die Nazional-Oekonomie, 172—4
Solow, Wachstumstheorie, 1
von Sonnenfels.J., 54, 55-6, 59f.,
78-80, 82, 83-90, 95 n. 13, 110
n. 56, 117-18, 129, 134f., 146f.,
159, 161, 177, 181
and the Court, 78-9, 84
(GrundjSdtze aus der Polizey,
Handlungs- und Finanzmssenschaft,
85-90, 96, 117, 146
238
Soviet Union/Russia, 2ff., 104, 188,
199 n. 48
Spain, 80 n. 63, 84
Spieckermann, M. L., 137 n. 16
Spitzer, F., 80, 85 n. 77
von Sponeck, Graf, 182
Spoor, F. K., 114-15
Springer, J. C. E., 13 n. 26, 130 n. 37,
162
Staat, formation of concept, 27-8, 153
Staatenbeschreihung, 58
Staatsbediirfnisse, 159
Staatsgesellschaft, 164
see also Weber, F. B.
Staatshaushaltungskunde, \l(y-l
see also Sturm, K. C. G.
Staats-Klugheit, 49, 52
Staatsklugheitslehre, 159
Staatskunst, 8, 61, 66, 68f., 73, 75,
78
see also economy
Staatslehre, 161, 176
Staats-(Regierungs-)PoIitik, 171
see also Jakob, L. H.
Staatsrecht, 95f., 200
Allgemeines Staatsrecht, 203
German, 96
A taatsverfassungsleh re, 171
see also Jakob, L. H.
Staatsweisheit, 169
Staatswirthschaft, 58, 106, 145, 150
159f, 166, 170, 173ff., 182, 185,
205 f.
Staats wirthschafislehre, 133, 161,
170ff, 175, 181, 191, 200f. ’
Staatswirthschaftsmssenschaft, 103
Staatsmrthschaftliche Vorlesungen see
Lautern
Staatsmssenschaft,8, 3If., 43, 49f., 68
85, 116f., 147, 156, 175, 187, 195,
200-2, 203ff.
see also economy, Polizeiwissenschafi,
Staatskunst
Staatszweck, 166, 194
see also Sartorius, G.
Stand/Stdnde, 28, 30-1, 62, 69, 86, 151
154ff.
decline in authority of, 32
and the negotiation of taxes, 19, 21
163
standesmdssig, 31
Stdndestaat, 152
state administration, see Cameralism,

economy, Staatskunst,
Staatswissenschaft, universities
statistics, 95, 112, 115f., 204
Statistik, 33, 49, 58, 116, 138 n. 18,
177, 206
von Stein, L., 151
Steininger, R., 2 n. 2
Steuart, J., 15 n. 31, 108, 117, 134-40,
141ff„ 148, 159, 169, 172, 177,
188
‘Dissertation upon the Doctrine and
Principles of Money’, 136, 159
n. 32, 169
Inquiry, 111, 133, 136-40
Stewart, D., 165 n. 53
Stiebritz, 43, 117 n. 79
Stieda, W., 44 n. 30, 46, 103 n. 32, 109
n. 52, 112, 114 n. 69, 115 n. 70,
116, 131 n. 46
Stirner, M., 165 n. 53
Stoltenburg, H., 51 n. 54
Storch, H., 191
Cours d’economiepolitique, 184, 188-9
Stotzer, U., 13 n. 24
Strauss, H. A., 1 n. 1
Strauss, L., Thoughts on Machiavelli, 14f.
Strelin, 99 n. 22
Sturm, K. C. G., 26 n. 32, 176-7, 181
n. 99
Stuttgart, Karlsschule, 49, 90, 112,
177f
Succow, G., 102-7, 108ff., 116, 180
Oekonomische Botanik, 95, 107
Suckow, L. J. D., 114, 137 n. 14
Cameral-Wissenschafften, 94
Einleitung in die Forstwissenschaft,
96
Erste Griinde der biirgerlichen Baukunst,
96
Sully, M., 84
Sulzer, J. G.,30 n. 41, 31, 32 n. 42
surgery, study of, 35, 105
Switzerland, 2
Tafinger, F. W., 138 n. 18
Institutiones jurisprudentiae cameralis,
138 n. 18
Technologie,49, 72, 105f., 115, 179,
195, 203, 206
technology, teaching and study of, 95f.,
112ff., 118, 182, 185
Teutsche Merkur, 104, 105 n. 40
theology, teaching and study of, 35,
Index
46ff.,49 n. 49, 97, 104, 111, 161
n. 41, 184f.
Third Reich, the, 1
Thirty Years’ War, the, 63
Thuringia, 56
Thiiringische Landwirthsgesellschaft,
98
trade, see economy (trade/commerce)
Treue, W., 143 n. 35
Tribe, K., 3 n. 4, 5 n. 10, 15 n. 31, 153
n. 7, 167 n. 62
trigonometry, teaching and study of, 95
Troppau, 95 n. 13
Tubingen, 40, 104, 136, 137-8, 140,
159 n. 32, 178
Staatswirthschaftliche Fakultat, 177,
179f.
Turgot, A. R. J., 124 n. 14, 125, 130
Reflexions sur la formation et la
distribution des richesses, 127
Uhland, R., 177 n. 89
United States, see America
universities, 8, 10, 43 n. 28, 67, 82, 91,
207
American, If.
Austrian, 46, 59, 89, 95
British, 2
Dutch, 46
French, 2
German, If., 7, 11, 42 n. 22, 46-7,
49, 55, 91, 95, 103 n. 32, 107,
109, 116, 120, 138, 176;
organization/structure, 40, 42
n. 22, 46-7; teaching methods,
11-13, 15-16
Landes-Collegien, 110
post-war recovery, 2
posts as reward for state service, 42-3
Prussian, 8, 10
religion in, 47f.; Catholic universities,
50, 114; as a negative feature, 37,
47, 109; Protestant universities,
47f., 55, 9l, 109
Scandinavian, 46
Swiss, 46
and the training of administrators, 34,
35-7, 38, 40f., 49-50, 67, 91-2,
176, 178, 199; textbooks for, 36-7,
38, 40, 42, 199
see also Cameralism, individual
headings
Uppsala, 115 n. 73

239
 Index
Ustariz, 84
Utrecht, 42
de Vattel, E., Le Droit des gens, 79
Venice, 137
Venturi, F., 135 n. 8
Verkehr, 30, 195, 200, 209
see also economy (trade/commerce),
Natural Law, Pufendorf, S.,
Rau, K. H.
Vermogen, 190
Volksvermogen, 193
Verri, P., 134ff, 146
Meditazioni sulla economia politica,
135
veterinary science, teaching and study
of, 35, 44, 96, 106, 108, 110, 116,
180
Vienna, 21, 55ff., 60, 73, 78, 84 n. 74,
90, 95 n. 13,96, 117
Congress of, 185
Theresianum (Ritterakademie), 55,
57f., 63
Vierhaus, R., 100 n. 26
Vogel, G., 23 n. 20
Vogel, U., 154 n. 11
Volks bindung, 193
see also Rau, K. H.
Volkswirthschaft, 170 n. 68, 182, 189,
193, 195
Volkswirthschaftslehre, 183, 190f., 195,
200f, 203
see also Rau, K. H., Staatsmrthschaft
Vollgraff, C., ‘On the Present-Day
Concept, Extent and Object of the
Staatswissenschaften’, 204
Vollinger, J. A., 159, 191
Grundriss einer Allgemeinen
kritisch-philosophischen
Wirtschafts-Lehre, 158f., 190
System einer angewandten
Wirthschaftslehre uberhaupt,
Vorwerk, 84
see also von Sonnenfels, J.
Wagner, A., 183
Walker, M., 49 n. 46
Walras, 3
Walther, F. L., 116, 146, 160, 191
Versuch eines Systems der
Cameral- Wissenschaften, 159
Walther, R., 207 n. 18
Wangenheim, 179
240
War Communists, 126
Weber, F. B., 170, 174 n. 81, 179
Einleitung in das Studium der
Cameralwissenschaften, 162-4
Weber, M., 4, 5 n. 9, 6, 189
Webler, H., 101, 104 n. 35, 105, 106
n. 41
Weinacht, P.-L., 28 n. 34
Wenk, 95 n. 13
Weulersse, G., 123 n. 12
Wichmann, C. A., 128 n. 30
Wiedeburg, Anleitung zum
Rechnungsmesen, 96
Wieland, 95 n. 13
Will, G. A., 130 n. 41, 131
Wilier, W, 107 n. 44, 110 n. 57
Wilson, T., 141 n. 29
Winkel, H., 3 n. 5
Wirthschafft/Wirthschaft, 24, 5If., 54,
61,68 n. 29, 160, 162 n, 45, 170
n. 68, 181, 193, 195
Wirtschafislehre, 190, 193ff.
Wirtschaftspolizei, 11, 106
see also Staatswirthschaft
Wittenberg, 16 n. 32, 56-7, 95 n. 13
Wittram, R., 48 n. 44
von Wolf, Auszug aus den Anfangsgrunden
aller mathematischen Wissenschaften,
Wolff, C, 16, 37 n. 5
Politik, 31
Wolffian philosophy, 11, 16f., 156
Wolgast, E., 102 n. 30
writing, teaching of, 35, 38
Wund, 106
Wunder, B., 40 n. 18, 178 n. 93
Wiirttemburg, 40, 49
Wurzburg, 94, 159 n. 33, 161 n. 41
Xenophon, 24f., 200
Oeconomy, 22-3
160
Yamada, Y., 183 n. 5
Yates, F., 14 n. 29
Young, A., 147
Experimental Agriculture, 111
Zedler, 100 n. 22
Zincke, G. H., 49 n. 49, 50, 54, 56f.,
60f., 64, 75, 84, 90
Cameralisten-Bibliothek, 54
Grund-Riss einer Einleitung zu den
Cameral-Wissenschaften, 54
 Index
Lexicon, 51 105f., 109
Zobel, K., 32 n. 48 Zschackwitz, J. E., 43 n. 24
zoology, teaching and study of, 93, 95, von Zweibriicken, K. A., 101

241
'

'

'
DATE DUE
 TRENT UN VERS TY

64 0000080

HB 107 .A2 T75 1988

Tribe, Keith
Governing economy : the
reformation of German economic
discourse, 1750-1840

500372
 ;j Ilk1.''Vi'’./
. . I, Wfk'/ j\>. -'kk :ill 'iff':.^i i. wl ;|fI|!|ip/;
'"'' <;$£> , , #!:;;;. ?:•;;! .' i; Wi, II § I Jlfe’i;#;^iSII fa#' Iff

; ££":;: ::;.. t :y - :

: '' i • ''' ' ;: £-v - ', £ : ' -;,'i£:£;-:::; i,-,','.': :.r.:'/£ ' :V.-v I -'' '

y%>mm //fill!; $: ' • £ -^! ..

' ^ / -'' mM-te X::ifP®: III If/iitf.f(S$$ i* >1 f -,;flllf /i i

( ::>.' «llimflpi/itetI:?MMmmfMm

' *> ' ..: ;•. £;!|i||l|i!: Mhi;:it!>,''£i if;: IVC

* .m,I-: -k Kflry^HniyHt

: ,i Kj' j't! f ’ ’ p; 1 \ *', j’JtA , W:-'fei,!:.! :!!• ul^P.:•'Ysk-‘r.

WM ' £ !IIS i;'i:ll!ii®|: ' s%! i! til'! i;l Sgii:#

K"‘v'.;;
,. , - -'- v. 7:,; ?-r, p•

-I!..
. £ f V;. i" : lif.il I'-:
'•' ' fJKfttM l'J I>
,' -iJti!ij.;

11 iff iiii; mmmmwM

• i• :-',i : J-:’I1'!''''1 ' :•' ^ •" "< , 1 I ''I il'- '',:! • ,1 '•;'.'!’••• ; ' c- '" ! £ (-v^V, '.'r'-j,)' ;). •hi.l'j*
:
-Viiii;n»fi ''C,

- isik' ‘”1 -*k

! £;u;£'£'v-; - ' 1
. :-i?K; :: ¥£;':"! . m:mM

-tjp,
lli pl :£$:[£;?=|£; r v; :ir'IiS» !£SS:-s 5:1®
«

:f
: ' ' I ui( Llli, mIi, ,/ 'j
I’iiihIIwImi1'IIP w^ 'iiiiiiiiii»i
I f';!
•i