Karl Theodor von Inama-Sternegg · 1879
Karl Theodor von Inama-Sternegg’s first volume traces German economic history through the close of the Carolingian period. Its organizing problem is how settlement, communal institutions, and the concentration of control over land and people created an increasingly coordinated economy. The movement from early settlement to Carolingian lordship supplies both its chronological structure and its explanatory argument: productive development depended on changes in the organization of economic powers, not simply on the accumulation of resources.
Inama-Sternegg begins by asserting the disciplinary competence of political economy:
Wie die Rechtsgeschichte von Juristen, die Geschichte der Industrie von Technikern, so muss die Geschichte der Volkswirthschaft von Nationalökonomen in Angriff genommen werden.
English translation: Just as legal history must be undertaken by jurists and the history of industry by technical specialists, so the history of the national economy must be undertaken by political economists.
This program directs attention beyond institutional forms to their economic operation. The narrative takes the definitive settlement of the peoples who would constitute the German nation as its starting point. That national framing makes occupation of territory foundational, while the analysis distinguishes shared rights in land from personal bonds: membership in a village’s communal land association does not itself establish a personal relationship among its members. Such distinctions matter because the later growth of lordship cannot simply be read back into earlier communal arrangements.
The early-period discussion proceeds through economic institutions to money and valuation. Here Inama-Sternegg resists treating prescribed valuations as general measures of value or binding prices. The distinction between a legally assigned equivalent and an economic price anticipates the volume’s concluding return to monetary valuation, where purchasing power likewise proves insufficient to explain the particular valuations under consideration.
Book II turns to Carolingian settlement, social transformation, landed estates, and productive organization. Its central conceptual move is to interpret the concentration of authority as a response to an earlier lack of coordination:
Es fehlte mit einem Worte die Organisation der volkswirthschaftlichen Kräfte; und erst mit der Veränderung der Genossenschaftsverhältnisse in Staats- und Volksleben, mit der Concentration der Gewaltbefugnisse über Menschen und Güter in wenigen Händen schien das Mittel gegeben, um nun auch alle Leistung zu steigern und die Wirksamkeit der Gesamtleistung für die Deckung der nationalen Bedürfnisse zu erhöhen.
English translation: In a word, what was lacking was the organization of the forces of the national economy; and only with the transformation of associative relations in the life of state and people, with the concentration in a few hands of powers of authority over persons and property, did the means seem available to increase all output and enhance the effectiveness of aggregate output in meeting national needs.
The passage links social hierarchy to economic capacity. Lordship gathers powers previously dispersed among communities and individuals, permitting a larger scale of coordinated production. Yet the argument also exposes a tension: the consolidation that increases aggregate performance restricts the possibilities available to those entering an already apportioned world. Inama-Sternegg’s account nevertheless emphasizes the protection and support furnished within the lordly association. His interpretation thus gives an affirmative economic function to dependence, making the relation between productive development and concentrated authority a central issue for critical reading.
The estate’s significance culminates in its capacity to produce beyond subsistence:
Ihre Wirthschaft war darauf angelegt, den Eigenbedarf zu übersteigen$^{1)}$; die Production für den Markt war eine innere Consequenz der Beherrschung aller volkswirthschaftlichen Kräfte auf weitem Gebiete; ein allgemeines öffentliches Interesse an solcher Production machte sich geltend wie das in den Wirthschaftseinrichtungen Karls d. Gr. besonders deutlich und wohlverstanden zum Ausdruck kömmt.
English translation: Their economy was designed to exceed their own needs; production for the market was an inherent consequence of control over all the forces of the national economy across an extensive territory; a general public interest in such production asserted itself, as finds particularly clear and well-conceived expression in Charlemagne’s economic arrangements.
Market production consequently enters the argument as an outcome of estate organization, rather than solely as an external force transforming it. Charlemagne’s arrangements exemplify the connection between organized surplus and wider public needs. Concluding analysis and evidentiary appendices complete a volume whose enduring interest lies in this conjunction of institutional differentiation, economic valuation, and productive coordination—and in the evaluative weight it gives to lordship as an agent of economic development.
This work was divided into 81 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 81 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian