Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk · 1894
Böhm-Bawerk’s German review of the English translation of Friedrich von Wieser’s Natural Value treats translation and exposition as substantive contributions to economic scholarship. He welcomes the edition as evidence of Austrian economics’ growing international standing, particularly in England, but leaves Wieser’s already familiar original largely undiscussed. His central judgment concerns the independent merits of Christian A. Malloch’s translation and William Smart’s editorial guidance and explanatory preface:
Aber die Uebersetzung besitzt so selbständige literarische Verdienste, dass ich mir wohl erlauben darf, ihr an dieser Stelle einige Worte zu widmen.
English translation: But the translation possesses such independent literary merits that I may well permit myself to devote a few words to it in this place.
The review develops this judgment through a portrait of Smart, whose earlier career as a Glasgow manufacturer supplied practical knowledge and realism for his subsequent theoretical work. Böhm-Bawerk connects this experience to Smart’s exceptional ability to make difficult arguments intelligible:
Es ist erstaunlich, mit welch sicherem Instincte er an den verwickeltsten theoretischen Fragen stets diejenige Seite ausfindet, von welcher sie sich am natürlichsten an geläufige Vorstellungen anknüpfen und mit dem geringsten Aufwand an Worten fasslich machen lassen.
English translation: It is astonishing with what sure instinct he always finds, in the most intricate theoretical questions, that side from which they may most naturally be linked to familiar conceptions and be made intelligible with the least expenditure of words.
Smart’s method proceeds from familiar facts through carefully managed transitions to abstract principles. Böhm-Bawerk contrasts this with German theoretical writing that can estrange lay readers through both its subject matter and its language. The distinction is not between rigorous theory and popular simplification: Smart’s achievement is to preserve conceptual depth while making the route toward it seem natural.
The final section situates the edition within Smart’s broader mediation between theory and practice and his sustained engagement with the Austrian school. His earlier exposition had deliberately treated certain difficult questions only briefly, anticipating their fuller presentation through a translation of Wieser. The new preface thus continues Smart’s own theoretical work, while Malloch’s translation extends his explanatory art. Böhm-Bawerk closes by quoting Wieser’s assessment of his interpreters:
Der Text schien mir in Ihrer Uebersetzung klareren und tieferen Sinn gewonnen zu haben.
English translation: The text seemed to me to have gained a clearer and deeper meaning in your translation.
This concluding endorsement makes the review’s strongest claim: successful translation can do more than circulate an argument; it can clarify its meaning even for its author. The review’s relevance lies in its account of how Austrian theory reached an English readership through practical understanding, pedagogical skill, and interpretive precision.
This work was divided into 1 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 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian