[Rezension zu] Karl Diehl und Paul Mombert: Ausgewählte Lesestücke zum Studium der politischen Oekonomie. I. Band: Zur Lehre vom Geld. Zweite umgearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage

Ludwig von Mises: Review of Diehl and Mombert’s Zur Lehre vom Geld (1913)

Mises’s brief review of the second, revised and expanded edition of Karl Diehl and Paul Mombert’s monetary-theory reader combines a judgment on economic education with an account of editorial changes. The first edition’s exhaustion in scarcely two years signals renewed student interest in theoretical economics. Yet Mises treats this success ambivalently: attention remains directed toward older writers, while recent theoretical achievements receive little recognition. The recommended reading list supplies his concrete evidence:

Das zeigt auch das kurze Verzeichnis empfehlenswerter Schriften zum Weiterstudium, welches dem Werkchen angeschlossen ist; in dieser Aufzählung fehlen u. a. die Namen Menger, Walras, Irving Fisher und Kinley.

English translation: This is shown too by the short list of writings recommended for further study which is appended to the little work; among others, the names of Menger, Walras, Irving Fisher and Kinley are missing from this enumeration.

The omission matters because Mises distinguishes a revival of interest in theory from engagement with its contemporary development. His criticism concerns the reader’s intellectual horizon, not simply its popularity or usefulness.

The review then records the edition’s structural revisions: a continuous introduction by Karl Diehl replaces the separate introductions to individual writers, and the selection changes:

Mill wurde fortgelassen und dafür Knies und Knapp aufgenommen.

English translation: Mill was left out and Knies and Knapp were taken in instead.

Mises reports this substitution without explicitly evaluating the authors’ competing monetary doctrines. He closes with the editors’ proposed companion volume on currency systems, credit, paper money, and banknotes, predicting that it will enjoy the same popularity. The review’s significance lies in its compact distinction between successful dissemination and adequate theoretical coverage: the reader’s reception is encouraging, but the neglect of newer theorists limits what that reception establishes about the renewal of economics.