Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of Luigi Cossa’s Introduzione allo studio dell’Economia politica (1894)

Schullern’s review of the 1892 third, thoroughly revised edition of Cossa’s introduction presents it as a major achievement in economic methodology and the history of economic thought. Its praise rests on a connection between Cossa’s teaching and his scholarship: both cultivate rigorous inquiry without demanding doctrinal conformity. Schullern credits Cossa with much of Italian economics’ renewed international standing, especially through his transmission of English and German scholarship to students who subsequently pursued diverse intellectual paths.

So vorbereitet, liess er sie dann, ohne ein jurare in verba magistri zu fordern, ihrer Individualität folgen und jene Bahnen wandeln, die ihnen die besten schienen.

English translation: Thus prepared, he then let them, without demanding any jurare in verba magistri, follow their own individuality and walk those paths which seemed to them the best.

The independence of Cossa’s pupils supplies the review’s governing evaluative principle. Their divergent methods and conclusions are evidence of his success, not a failure to establish a coherent school. Schullern finds the same combination of learning, critical judgment, and impartiality in the book. He outlines its two parts: eight theoretical chapters on economics’ scope, divisions, relations to other disciplines, terminology, methods, and importance; and an extensive historical survey. Among the theoretical distinctions, he notes the fundamental separation between economic explanation and economic policy.

Methodology receives the closest attention. Schullern praises Cossa’s treatment as a route through the prolonged controversy over economic method. Because economics is an empirical science, it needs both deduction and induction, though their relative importance varies by subject. Deduction proceeds from economic conduct, land scarcity and diminishing returns, and the tendency of population to outgrow subsistence. Its conclusions are hypothetical laws expressing causal tendencies, whose actual effects may be modified by interfering causes.

Um nun die Mängel der deductiv gewonnenen Lehrsätze zu verbessern, kann man den deductiven Process vervollkommen oder den inductiven Denkprocess zu Hilfe rufen, um die Existenz störender Ursachen nachzuweisen und ihren Einfluss zu messen, oder doch gewisse empirische Gesetze zu gewinnen.

English translation: In order now to remedy the defects of the propositions obtained deductively, one may either perfect the deductive process or call the inductive process of thought to one's aid, in order to demonstrate the existence of disturbing causes and to measure their influence, or at least to arrive at certain empirical laws.

This account gives induction a corrective and investigative role without making it universally sufficient for explanation. Schullern reports Cossa’s allocation of predominantly inductive inquiry to production, consumption, and parts of population theory, and predominantly deductive inquiry to circulation and distribution. Historical and statistical induction are particularly important for social policy. His approval of Cossa’s discussion of mathematics follows the same concern with the limits of intellectual instruments: mathematics enables investigation and precise exposition, but cannot supply the premises or substantive material of reasoning, nor guarantee correct results.

The historical part extends the teacher’s openness into an international account of economic literature. Schullern values both its extraordinary coverage and its disciplined critical economy.

Mit musterhafter Objectivität betrachtet Cossa in ganz ausserordentlicher Vollständigkeit von der ältesten Zeit herauf die literarischen Denkmäler volkswirthschaftlicher Forschung; Sonne und Wind sind Allen gleich zugemessen; das kritische Urtheil ist immer kurz, klar, bestimmt, das Wesentliche erschöpfend und wohlwollend.

English translation: With exemplary objectivity Cossa surveys, with quite extraordinary completeness and from the earliest times onward, the literary monuments of economic research; sun and wind are apportioned equally to all; the critical judgment is always brief, clear, definite, exhaustive of the essential, and benevolent.

The survey moves through early fragmentary writings, scholasticism and humanism, monographs, empirical systems, liberal reaction, and eclecticism before discussing the precursors of scientific economics, the Physiocrats, and Smith and his successors. Thereafter, national groupings organize developments on shared scientific foundations. Schullern singles out the usefulness of the brief accounts of Scandinavian, Hungarian, and Slavic literature, which many economists would otherwise find difficult to access. Discussions of the United States and Italy precede a final chapter on contemporary theoretical socialism.

The review’s relevance lies in its endorsement of methodological cooperation and internationally inclusive intellectual history. Schullern does not develop a sustained objection to Cossa; instead, he explains why the book’s combination of analytical distinctions, measured methodological claims, and broad historical learning warrants its status as an indispensable scholarly resource. His concluding description of it as a monumental work follows directly from the virtues established at the outset: exacting research, intellectual independence, and fair judgment across competing schools.