Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: [Rezension zu Alessandro Garelli: La proprietà sociale] (1899)

Schullern’s German review examines Garelli’s theory of “social property,” balancing recognition of independent thought against skepticism about its sweeping claims and unwieldy exposition. Its central concern is the distance between an ambitious reconciliation of economic doctrines and a contribution that readers can profitably assess.

Garelli’s proposed synthesis promises to reconcile individual and collective rights while defending liberty, private property, and the family. Schullern treats these ambitions as promises rather than established achievements. Instead of attempting a comprehensive refutation, he limits his account to their announcement and the work’s organization:

Wir müssen uns daher damit begnügen, allen jenen, welche geneigt sind, den Versprechungen Garelli’s Vertrauen entgegenzubringen, diese Versprechungen selbst bekannt gegeben zu haben und ihnen einiges über die Einteilung des Werkes mitzuteilen.

English translation: We must therefore content ourselves with having made these promises themselves known to all those who are inclined to place confidence in Garelli's promises, and with communicating to them something about the arrangement of the work.

The formulation distances the reviewer from Garelli’s confidence and leaves readers to judge whether the program deserves their trust. Schullern’s restraint also expresses a criticism of scale: the time, space, and patience required to examine the system are themselves part of the problem.

The structural outline places the available theoretical treatment within a larger projected undertaking:

Der erste, derzeit vorliegende Teil der ökonomischen Trilogie soll also die Theorie des „gesellschaftlichen Eigentums“, der zweite die Geschichte seiner Entwicklung, der dritte seine Kritik bringen.

English translation: The first part of the economic trilogy, the one now before us, is thus to present the theory of "social property," the second the history of its development, the third its critique.

Within this theoretical installment, Schullern traces the foundations of social property, individual and social property rights, original social property, including monopolies, and derived social property, including state ownership. A concluding treatment of social conscience attempts to encompass its physiology and pathology in fewer than forty pages. The review thus exposes an imbalance between conceptual ambition and effective explanation. Specialized terminology further obstructs concise exposition, since presenting the system would require explanations beyond the review’s scope.

Schullern nevertheless offers a concrete test of factual precision. Questioning Garelli’s account of progressive Austrian taxation, he asks whether it refers to the abolished second-class income tax and its supplements. This localized objection does not become a systematic rebuttal; it punctures the comprehensive program with a specific demand for accuracy.

The final judgment distinguishes potentially valuable ideas from their ineffective presentation. Schullern suggests that a condensation to approximately one hundred pages could make the argument accessible to a wider readership. In its existing form, the work demands effort disproportionate to its results. His closing concern is therefore not simply that Garelli writes too much, but that excessive exposition prevents useful ideas from circulating:

Damit geht aber auch mancher gute Gedanke verloren, der speciell auf dem Gebiete der Finanzwissenschaft befruchtend wirken könnte.

English translation: With this, however, many a good thought is also lost which might work fruitfully specifically in the field of the science of public finance.

The review’s qualified appreciation culminates in this disciplinary loss. Originality and intellectual breadth matter, but their scholarly value depends on precision, proportion, and communicability—especially where insights might otherwise enrich public finance.