[Rezension zu Carl Knies: Die politische Oekonomie vom geschichtlichen Standpunkte, Zweite Hälfte]

Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk on Carl Knies (1885)

Böhm-Bawerk’s brief review of the second half of Carl Knies’s Die politische Oekonomie vom geschichtlichen Standpunkte marks the completion of the reissue of a principal methodological work of the German historical school. It first notes the new additions, particularly a sketch of recent historical scholarship on economic theories and theorists before Adam Smith, then turns to a missed opportunity for methodological debate.

Leider hat der Verfasser sein Werk bereits mit Ende des Jahres 1882 abgeschlossen — die Vorrede datirt vom Neujahrstage 1883 — so dass er nicht mehr in die Lage gekommen ist, zu den gewichtigen Angriffen Stellung zu nehmen, die fast gleichzeitig durch die bekannte methodische Schrift Carl Menger’s gegen die historische Methode gerichtet worden sind.

English translation: Unfortunately the author already completed his work at the end of the year 1882 — the preface is dated New Year's Day 1883 — so that he was no longer in a position to take a stand on the weighty attacks which were directed against the historical method almost simultaneously by Carl Menger's well-known methodological work.

The timing matters because Böhm-Bawerk regards Knies as exceptionally capable of a substantive reply to Menger. His praise distinguishes intellectual disagreement from judgments about scholarly conduct: Knies’s moderation and impartiality promised a rigorous, fruitful controversy, qualities the reviewer pointedly finds lacking in some recent statements from the historical school. The review thus evaluates the conditions for productive methodological exchange rather than adjudicating the rival methods themselves.

Böhm-Bawerk closes by referring readers to his earlier assessment of the first half and reaffirming the book’s merits:

Sie sind derart, dass sie auch dem Gegner Achtung abnöthigen und das Buch für Jedermann lesenswerth machen.

English translation: They are of such a kind that they compel respect even from an opponent and make the book worth reading for everyone.

This concluding concession gives the notice its critical balance. Opposition to the historical school’s method need not diminish respect for its strongest scholarship; Knies’s standing makes his absent response to Menger especially regrettable.