[Rezension zu Fritz Demuth: F. Th. v. Bernhardi. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Nationalökonomie im 19. Jahrhundert]

Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of Fritz Demuth’s F. Th. v. Bernhardi (1901)

Schullern’s brief scholarly review endorses Demuth’s 1900 monograph as a recovery of an important but insufficiently studied figure in nineteenth-century economics. Its central claim is that restoring Bernhardi’s standing serves economic scholarship as well as historical justice. Schullern moves from Bernhardi’s theoretical criticism through his historical and social-policy views to Demuth’s placement of him among economic schools.

The principal theoretical achievement is Bernhardi’s criticism of Adam Smith and his followers. Schullern judges this criticism both decisive and more faithful to Smith’s intellectual significance than the allegiance of uncritical disciples. He singles out its treatment of value:

Dabei tritt B.’s Auffassung des Wertbegriffes als höchst lehrreich hervor.

English translation: In this connection B.'s conception of the concept of value emerges as highly instructive.

The review also points to Bernhardi’s position on ground rent without explaining its substance. Its emphasis lies instead on Demuth’s capacity to connect economic theory with historical understanding and social policy:

Groß zeigt sich uns Bernhardi in seiner historischen Auffassung und in seinen sozialpolitischen Ansichten, die der Verf. treffend im Zusammenhange mit seinen theoretischen Lehren darstellt (z. B. S. 37, 40, 43).

English translation: Bernhardi shows himself great to us in his historical conception and in his social-political views, which the author aptly presents in connection with his theoretical doctrines (e.g. pp. 37, 40, 43).

This connection gives the recovery contemporary relevance. Schullern identifies the significance of different sizes of landed property as Bernhardi’s central subject and a newly urgent question, urging those studying it to take his work into account. A short bibliographical intervention recommends Luigi Clerici’s study of Fichte as relevant to Demuth’s discussion of Fichte’s relationship to Bernhardi. Schullern then notes the monograph’s closing treatment of Bernhardi’s relations to the German-Russian school, F. B. W. Hermann, and the historical school.

The final assessment praises Demuth’s exposition as concise yet comprehensive in essentials, clear, and persuasive. The review thus presents historical recovery as a resource for current inquiry: Bernhardi deserves attention not merely as a neglected name, but as a thinker whose theoretical and historical insights still matter.