2,793 works, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
Land improvement, insurance, hotels, and the drying of silk cocoons all fall within “industrial” enterprise in the handbook assessed by Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen. His brief 1903 review of Ferdinando Piccinelli’s work locates its chief interest for non-Italian readers in detailed descriptions of 617 joint-stock companies. Schullern distinguishes the handbook’s accessible, broadly liberal account of Italian law from the documentary value of its company survey: chronological ordering within groups offers clues to corporate development, while financial tables record the scale of capital and indebtedness. The review provides a compact contemporary judgement of a reference work whose expansive definition of industry brings agricultural and service enterprises into view alongside more familiar industrial activities.
Municipal self-government means more here than running waterworks or transport services. In this brief 1903 review of Francesco Invrea’s Il comune e la sua funzione sociale, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out worker protection for particular praise. His telling example is Brescia’s municipal labour office, charged not only with finding employment but also with promoting workers’ moral and material advancement—a broader remit than that of its German counterparts. Schullern also reports Invrea’s insistence that greater municipal autonomy requires popular oversight through the referendum. The review offers a compact glimpse of how local independence could be linked to expanded social responsibilities, with Schullern’s selective emphasis directing attention beyond public utilities to the institutions serving workers.
Does agriculture follow industry towards capitalist concentration—and what would that mean for socialist expectations? In this brief 1903 review of G. Gatti’s Le socialisme et l’agriculture, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out landownership as a decisive test of revised Marxist doctrine. Gatti expects capitalism and cooperation together to prepare socialism’s victory, yet concedes that agricultural concentration has barely begun and that transformation will take a long time. Schullern’s qualified praise turns on this restraint, not on agreement with the predicted outcome. The review offers a compact encounter between socialist confidence and economic caution: its distinctive interest lies in a reviewer’s willingness to recognize sober judgment in an author whose expectations he does not endorse.
Can family and private property change without ceasing to be the foundations of social life? In this brief 1903 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen welcomes Giovanni Amadori-Virgilj’s answer: both institutions are primordial, not successors to an original communal order. Schullern draws attention to the book’s evolutionary method and scrutiny of evidence, but his strongest approval concerns its political implications—a vision of progress that preserves family and property while reconciling individual and social interests. He leaves particular theses open to disagreement, yet praises their challenge to partisan certainty. The review offers a compact encounter with Schullern’s standards of judgement, showing where methodological appreciation meets an explicitly sympathetic response to criticism of socialism.
A mathematically ordered progressive tax can still leave too little income protected from taxation. That tension shapes Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief review of Mario Marsilj Libelli’s Per l’imposta progressiva. Libelli places collective needs below subsistence but above other private needs, deriving a continuous, diminishing progression and a narrowly measured subsistence exemption. Schullern finds the study worth considering for anyone examining the practical feasibility of a single progressive direct tax, yet reserves serious social-policy objections, particularly about the exemption’s level. The review offers a compact distinction between finding a tax scheme useful for practical inquiry and accepting the principles that determine how much taxpayers retain for basic needs.
Scholarly recognition need not imply agreement: Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1903 review grants Teresa Labriola’s arguments serious attention while explicitly distancing himself from her views on divorce. Reviewing three studies together, he draws out their connections to social policy, especially the gap between possessing rights and having the conditions needed to exercise them. His account of Labriola’s work on personhood makes that distinction concrete: political freedom remains incomplete if society does not enable individuals to attain personal dignity. The review offers a compact encounter with Labriola through a sympathetic but dissenting reader, whose appreciation of her learning remains distinct from endorsement of her conclusions.
Can sympathy for wage earners support a defence of existing income distribution? In this brief German review of the French translation of William Smart’s Distribution of Income, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out Paul Leroy-Beaulieu’s preface for attention. The prefacer welcomes Smart’s combination of concern for workers with support for the free movement of labour and capital, interpreting it as a vindication of economic liberalism. Schullern identifies that reading with Leroy-Beaulieu’s established convictions rather than developing a defence of his own. The review offers a compact view of how a prefacer frames an economic work: here, making its treatment of distribution serve an argument for productive growth and natural freedom over legislative intervention.
Eclecticism is a virtue in Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1904 review of Augusto Graziani’s Istituzioni di Economia politica: drawing on competing schools can sharpen rather than dilute theoretical exposition. Schullern particularly praises Graziani’s treatment of subjective value, judging it both accessible and attentive to practical problems through its engagement with Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Marshall, and their critics. His notice also records a pointed distinction in Graziani’s account of property: a general theory should explain the institution, not justify it. This compact, appreciative review shows what Schullern values in an economics textbook—conceptual clarity across theoretical allegiances, and careful separation of economic explanation from institutional defence.
Can an economist’s idealism be dismissed in the name of facts whose full reality remains unknown? In this 1905 comparative review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen turns his assessment of Achille Loria’s and Maffeo Pantaleoni’s essay collections into a pointed reflection on scholarly judgement. He acknowledges that Loria’s pursuit of social justice can outrun historical realism, yet questions whether appeals to facts are necessarily less circular than appeals to ideals. Pantaleoni offers a contrasting stance: logical precision coupled with scientific tolerance and a rejection of economic schools. Schullern values both without dissolving their differences. This brief review shows how disagreement with an economist’s premises can become a reason for sustained attention rather than dismissal.
How much theoretical precision should an accessible economics textbook sacrifice to clarity? Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1905 review of Camillo Supino’s Principi di Economia politica makes that tension concrete. He welcomes Supino’s willingness to draw across schools and national traditions while retaining a classical framework, but finds the treatment of value insufficiently deep and potentially troublesome in its terminology. Rather than press these objections, Schullern judges the book by its explanatory purpose, singling out its comparison of collectivism and individualism for praise. The review offers a compact instance of critical restraint: conceptual reservations remain explicit, yet accessibility and the author’s freedom to select among competing explanations carry the final judgement.
Abolishing feudalism need not abolish dependence: this is the tension Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen foregrounds in his short 1905 review of Filippo Lo Vetere’s Il movimento agricolo Siciliano. He welcomes Lo Vetere’s challenge to celebrated reforms, reporting that the removal of customary restraints helped consolidate large estates rather than relieve Sicilian agrarian distress. His sympathetic appraisal connects this criticism with a concrete alternative: agricultural self-help organized through the Consorzio agrario siciliano and local credit cooperatives. The review offers a compact view of Schullern’s receptiveness to an uncomfortable argument about reform, while showing why, for Lo Vetere, access to credit and cooperative organization mattered more to agricultural recovery than legal emancipation alone.
Italy’s agricultural difficulties appear here as a warning to its trading partners: successful reform could make the country a more formidable economic competitor. In this short 1905 review of Italo Giglioli’s Malessere agrario ed alimentare in Italia, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen commends the Italian agricultural expert’s report to readers following trade-treaty negotiations. He takes up Giglioli’s diagnosis of cultural backwardness in parts of the population, but stresses the possibility of extending northern Italy’s agricultural advances across the country. Rather than assessing the book’s detailed evidence, Schullern reveals what he finds politically consequential in it: the prospect that national self-criticism, natural resources and agricultural expertise might alter Italy’s economic relations with Austria-Hungary, Germany and France.