Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of Emilio Cossa’s L’interpretazione scientifica del Mercantilismo (1909)

Schullern’s review of Cossa’s 1907 study advocates a historically grounded reassessment of mercantilism. Its opening identifies a discrepancy between the persistence of mercantilist thinking and the educated public’s capacity to understand it:

So sehr wir heute noch uns nur zu oft in merkantilistischen Gedankenkreisen bewegen, fehlt unserem gebildeten Publikum doch das Verständnis des Merkantilismus und die Fähigkeit oder auch der gute Wille, ihn gerecht zu beurteilen.

English translation: Much as we still all too often move today within mercantilist circles of thought, our educated public nevertheless lacks an understanding of mercantilism and the capacity, or indeed the good will, to judge it justly.

This contrast makes historical interpretation a corrective to contemporary prejudice. Schullern welcomes Cossa’s inquiry because it promises both an analysis of mercantilism as economic policy and a clarification of its intellectual content:

Es ist daher erfreulich, wenn wieder einmal der Versuch gemacht wird, das Wesen dieser wirtschaftspolitischen Richtung zu analysieren und ihren wissenschaftlichen Inhalt klarzulegen.

English translation: It is therefore gratifying when once again the attempt is made to analyse the essence of this direction of economic policy and to lay bare its scientific content.

As Schullern presents the argument, Cossa situates mercantilism within the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The accumulation of precious metals becomes intelligible as a means of providing the monetary resources needed for exchange, production, and increasing wealth, rather than merely as an end in itself. The review thus emphasizes the historical circumstances that gave mercantilist measures their rationale.

Schullern follows Cossa’s discussion of restrictions on cash exports, forms of the balance of trade, and commercial and colonial policy. The underlying issue is how these measures relate to general economic principles. Mercantilist intervention, in this account, sought adequate domestic circulation and a distribution of precious metals that would align prices with production costs where such conditions could not yet emerge spontaneously.

The review also reports Cossa’s argument that classical economics implicitly recognized mercantilism’s purposes and achievements. The stronger assertion that the classical school remains the secure foundation of contemporary economic knowledge belongs to Cossa’s position as summarized by Schullern. Schullern’s own judgment is appreciative but qualified: he regards the study as an act of historical justice, while suggesting that its defensive enthusiasm occasionally carries it too far. The review consequently endorses contextual explanation without turning rehabilitation into unconditional approval.