The archive.

Averages can mislead as well as clarify: this practical danger gives a sharp focus to Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1907 review of Rodolfo Benini’s Principii di Statistica metodologica. Schullern warmly endorses the treatise, but his selected comments reveal the standards behind that judgement. He values its sober examination of errors in statistical inquiries, warns of the consequences of superficial handling of averages, and notes Benini’s predominantly mathematical approach to them. His attention to Italian mortgage statistics, singled out for Austrian specialists, connects methodological appraisal with a specific practical interest. The review offers a compact encounter with a reader of Benini who asks not merely how collective regularities are identified, but how statistical procedures can support—or compromise—sound judgement.

One half of a Tyrolean farm passed through sixteen owners between 1600 and 1738—a striking complication of the image of settled peasant property. In this 1907 article, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen explores the Verfachbücher, registers preserving legal documents, through the fortunes of a predominantly peasant lineage. Sales, remarriages, inheritances and long-lived debts reveal how holdings changed hands and wealth accumulated or dispersed. His distinctive concern is what such records permit historians to count—and what they do not. A sale price may conceal assumed debts; a child’s disappearance may indicate migration rather than death. The article offers both concrete evidence of rural mobility and a disciplined account of why family histories, however richly documented, cannot yet stand as population statistics.

Mathematics may clarify an economic law without providing a reliable method for discovering it: this distinction sharpens Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s 1909 review of Adolphe Landry’s Manuel d’économique. Welcoming the textbook’s breadth and combination of theory with factual material, Schullern nevertheless tests its definitions, methods, and social priorities. He values its attention to the gap between homo oeconomicus and people shaped by family commitments, imperfect foresight, and inconsistent attitudes toward risk. His reservations also reach beyond technique: he wants a firmer account of legislation’s responsibilities toward economic and social relations. This brief review offers a concrete encounter with his standards for economic education—conceptual precision and methodological openness, joined to concern for the purposes economic knowledge should serve.

Did nineteenth-century public finance create a new theory, or refine ideas already developed in the eighteenth? In this brief 1909 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen endorses Carlo Torlonia’s study of Forbonnais as evidence for continuity. His notice singles out taxation’s economic effects, public debt and the distribution of tax burdens as subjects of that earlier theoretical inquiry. Schullern’s praise also sets a revealing limit: he judges Torlonia’s treatment comprehensive insofar as Forbonnais’s doctrines still command contemporary interest. The review offers a concise example of a financial scholar assessing historical scholarship by both its care and the continuing relevance of its subject.

Restoring Adam Smith’s standing need not mean declaring his theory beyond criticism. In this brief 1909 review of Emilio Cossa’s study, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen welcomes the painstaking scholarship while resisting its unconditional defence of Smith’s theory of value. His reservation centres on a concrete distinction: the supposedly invariant labour required by a kind of commodity versus the labour actually embodied in an individual unit. The review offers a compact encounter with a sympathetic but discriminating reader of classical economics. Schullern’s closing plea is not for Smith’s infallibility, but for judging his arguments through careful reading rather than through doctrines associated with his successors.

Mercantilist habits of thought persist, Schullern observes, even among readers unwilling to judge mercantilism fairly. His brief review of Emilio Cossa’s study welcomes an explanation of precious-metal accumulation not as wealth hoarding for its own sake, but as a response to the monetary needs of expanding exchange. In Cossa’s account, policies later condemned by economists become intelligible within the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Schullern’s interest lies in this recovery of historical rationale, yet his approval stops short of accepting every defence: Cossa’s enthusiasm, he suggests, occasionally overshoots its mark. The review offers a compact instance of the distinction between explaining why an economic policy made sense in its circumstances and endorsing its claims without reservation.

A tax on rising urban land values may have a coherent fiscal rationale yet leave its social consequences unsettled. In this 1909 review of Fabrizio Natoli’s study, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen makes that distinction decisive: could the levy itself raise building-site prices and produce social harm? He credits Natoli’s systematic treatment but finds this question left unanswered. His reservations also concern taxable capacity: against Natoli’s general emphasis on wealth, Schullern argues that income ordinarily provides the relevant measure, while accepting a marginal-utility account of tax sacrifice. This brief review offers a precise encounter between fiscal reasoning and social-policy scrutiny, showing why a justification for collecting a tax does not by itself establish the desirability of its effects.

Must the state know before it acts—and refrain from regulating labour whenever it does not? In this brief 1909 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out that demand in Herman Schoolmeesters’s argument against an eight-hour law, prompted by proposed working-hour limits for Limburg’s future coal mines. Schullern carefully translates the pamphlet’s conditions for legitimate state action without endorsing them. His closing judgement is pointed but qualified: the argument seems strangely out of place in contemporary literature, yet he concedes that he may not fully understand it. The review offers a compact encounter with a restrictive justification of nonintervention and a reviewer’s effort to combine fidelity with intellectual distance.

A useful survey need not yet warrant a settled judgment: that distinction shapes Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief review of Marco Fano’s study of note-issuing banks. Schullern identifies Fano’s comparative framework—a movement from monopoly through banking plurality and freedom to renewed restrictions and monopoly—but reserves fuller assessment because the study is a preliminary chapter of a larger work on exchange mechanisms. Readers gain a concise account of Fano’s organizing idea and a precise sense of the reviewer’s qualified approval, including his particular notice of the discussion of the Austro-Hungarian Bank.

A socialist movement’s leadership need not mirror its working-class constituency. In this brief 1909 review of R. Michels’s study of Italian socialism, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out its university connections, predominantly urban intellectual leadership, and shortage of agrarian leaders. He reports Michels’s estimate that some sixty Italian university teachers openly belong to the Socialist Party and another eighty sympathize. Writing for specialists already familiar with the earlier German studies, Schullern offers a selective notice rather than a sustained critique. His emphases show what he finds instructive in Michels’s proposed analytical history of political parties: concrete evidence connecting a movement’s social composition with its development.

Money raised for war is not yet a means of defence: the distance between fiscal policy, treasury receipts and military expenditure gives this brief collective review its focus. Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen assesses three studies by Luigi Einaudi and Giuseppe Prato on Savoyard finance during the War of the Spanish Succession, distinguishing historical analysis from the accounting needed to trace how revenues were spent. His concrete interests range from tobacco and spirits taxation to the difficulty of calculating war costs. Rather than testing individual findings, Schullern uses the studies’ complementary methods to defend detailed historical research against those who discount its relevance to contemporary economic policy. The review offers a compact statement of what he values in fiscal history: documentary care joined to an account of how state finance actually works.

When do production costs govern exchange ratios—and what happens when competition is restricted? In this brief 1911 review of Augusto Graziani’s Problemi speciali di valore di scambio, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out the conditions behind that theoretical claim: continuous production and competition unrestricted both legally and practically. His appreciation centres on Graziani’s historical treatment of the barriers that prevent those conditions from being fully realized. The review offers a compact account of why apparently settled value theory still leaves substantive questions open, while distinguishing Graziani’s positions from Schullern’s assessment of their interest. Its particular value lies in the reviewer’s attention to the distance between a general economic proposition and the circumstances under which it holds.