Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen · 1896
Schullern’s brief scholarly review assesses the substantially revised second edition of Giuseppe Ricca-Salerno’s history of Italian financial doctrines. Its central judgment is that the book achieves a genuine history of doctrine by connecting theories with the historical development of institutions and material conditions. Schullern praises its comprehensive treatment of Italian fiscal thought and its attention to foreign scholarship wherever intellectual influence passes between Italy and other countries.
The review first establishes the advance over the 1881 edition, then explains the historical limits of Ricca-Salerno’s inquiry. His refusal to judge the present is presented as a deliberate division of scholarly labour: contemporary transformation supplies the historian’s questions, but its ultimate assessment belongs to later researchers.
Vor dem gegenwärtigen Entwicklungsstadium macht Ricca-Salerno Halt, denn ein Urtheil über dasselbe und seine Ergebnisse zu fällen, hält er für die Aufgabe zukünftiger Forscher; seine Aufgabe, die des Zeugen einer gewaltigen Umwälzung in den äusseren Verhältnissen und in den Anschauungen, sieht er darin, die Institutionen und Lehren vergangener Zeiten zu untersuchen, um so das Verständnis der gegenwärtigen Bewegung zu erleichtern und ihr sichere Fingerzeige zu bieten.
English translation: Before the present stage of development Ricca-Salerno halts, for he holds it to be the task of future researchers to pass judgment upon it and its results; his own task, that of the witness of a mighty upheaval in external conditions and in opinions, he sees in investigating the institutions and doctrines of past times, so as thereby to facilitate the understanding of the present movement and to offer it sure indications.
History thus serves present understanding without claiming a definitive verdict on contemporary doctrine. Schullern finds the work internationally significant both for its exceptional scope and for its methodologically sound treatment, but confines his substantive account to its four-period structure.
The medieval period locates the beginnings of later fiscal institutions in the city-republics. Absolutism then generates new forms of fiscal burden, provoking an intellectually productive response:
Die zweite Periode ist die des Absolutismus, welche, indem sie eine Menge neuer Belastungsformen zeitigte, eine gesunde Reaction auf Seite der hervorragendsten Fachmänner hervorrief und so die Bahn für neue Gebilde frei machte.
English translation: The second period is that of absolutism, which, in bringing forth a multitude of new forms of burden, called forth a healthy reaction on the part of the most eminent specialists and thus cleared the way for new formations.
This sequence makes doctrine responsive to political pressures, not merely an autonomous succession of ideas. The third period, the larger second half of the eighteenth century, recognizes financial policy as a branch of domestic policy and sometimes brings theory and practice into a fruitful relationship. Schullern presents it as the high point of Italian scholarship and statecraft. The fourth, extending beyond the mid-nineteenth century, brings relative stagnation.
The review’s concluding conceptual move ties that uneven intellectual development to Italy’s collective fortunes: financial science becomes a mirror of national history. Its praise rests less on particular fiscal propositions than on Ricca-Salerno’s capacity to explain how institutions, political circumstances, and learned responses develop together.
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