called the social organism forms the best introduction to economic study, and that treatises and text-books would be improved if their opening chapters consisted mainly of descriptive matter. Dr. Hasbach, however, goes too far in demanding a complete course of study on the processes of industry as indispensable to an understanding of economics. Interesting and useful as such a course might be in itself, much less would serve the economist's purposes. The general drift of the proposal, however, is not without support among writers who have little sympathy with the extreme historical school. Professor Newcomb begins his exposition in his Principles with a book entitled "Description of the Social Organism"; and, as was noted in the last issue of this Journal,* the unfinished treatise left by Professor Jevons contemplated a similar introductory part.

That the study of economic history should precede that of economic theory seems quite inadvisable. The value of such study-indeed, the absolute need of it as a means of training in the application of economic principles-is almost beyond dispute. But it helps the student more, if undertaken after a training in economic reasoning, or, at least, side by side with it. Here again, however, there is occasion to dissent rather as to the arrangement and sequence of study than as to the subject-matter to be taught.

Doubtless, a more serious difference of opinion would be brought out if Hasbach and Schmoller had stated more explicitly what they would include under economic theory. The hints of the former indicate that "theory" would include a great deal of matter which others would call descriptive, such as a treatment of coinage, of transportation, of weights and measures. Already, English readers of German treatises (Schönberg's Handbuch, for instance) are often at a loss to know where they are, whether in the domain of economic analysis or in that of economic description and practical politics; and this uncertainty would probably be felt still more in a treatise by Schmoller and his pupils. These scholars would probably drop as completely as possible not only those "pedantic accumulations of definitions, disquisitions as to what consumption is, what is production, what is capital," which

* Vol. ii. p. 65.

Schmoller repudiates with a contempt not entirely without excuse, but also all deductions from the play of human motives under assumed conditions not corresponding literally with the facts of industry. On this point alone, a real and serious disagreement exists between the deductive economists and the advocates of exclusively historical and practical treatment. Even here, we cannot be sure that the disagreement is really serious; for the historians never have stated explicitly how far they would go in flinging away deduced principles. Very likely, a treatise from them, if finally worked out, would show at bottom only a difference in emphasis, in the degree of correctness ascribed to general conclusions, in readiness to apply them at once to practical questions, and not a substantial dissent from the essential principles of classic political economy.

F. W. TAUSSIG.

CORRESPONDENCE.

ECONOMIC THOUGHT IN RUSSIA.

CHARKOV, September, 1887.

LITTLE is to be said about the state of economic literature in Russia. Our economic literature is neither old nor is there much of it. It has had a real existence only within the last thirty years. It is true that economic works were published before, but very rarely. By way of proof, some significant figures may be mentioned. Between 1806 and 1856, no more than 1,500 economic publications appeared: whereas, in the period from 1856 to 1879, the number was 4,500. That is, in the course of half a century there were but one-third as many publications as in the five-and-twenty years following, the production per year being thirty against one hundred and forty. In the earlier period of half a century, the well-known treatises of Adam Smith, Say, and Blanqui were translated into Russian. Only a single treatise of this period can be said to show originality, and to be of some importance,- Butowsky's On the Wealth of Nations (1849). Its importance, however, lies only in the fact that it covers the whole field of economics; and it is original only in the sense of not being a translation. The author studied the literature of foreign countries, and presented the results of his studies in Russian.

The state of Russia during this period was such that no literature could well arise. The censorship during the thirty years' reign of Nicholas smothered all thought. State and society were in a condition of stagnation, and there was no stimulus to scientific thought. Literary capacity was rare, and culture was confined to a few hundred high officials.

The year 1856, after the Crimean War, was a turning-point. The war had brought the conviction that the old system of government was untenable. Reform began. The serfs were emancipated, railroads were built, a large number of credit

institutions were created, local self-government was established in cities and provinces. Economic training was required for these measures, and a demand for the study of political economy set in. Political economy became the fashion. The newspapers of that date are full of articles on economic subjects, and a periodical, the Economist, was established for their special treatment. But the foundations of economic science did not exist. There were no text-books, and the supply of all kinds of economic literature was deficient. It was of course impossible to write text-books at once; and translations of German, French, and English works were resorted to. The well-known treatises of Roscher, Thünen, Garnier, Ricardo, Mill, McLeod, Carey, appeared in Russian, with more or less of editing and modification. This translated literature maintains itself to our day. Valuable publications appear in foreign countries; and so, for example, we have had recent translations of Cossa's Italian text-book and of the second volume of Marx's Capital. But the period of translations has passed; and the most important part is now played, not by translations, but by works written in Russian. Foreign works can teach us only economic principles. We have studied them and learned something from them; but Russian society has its own problems, imperatively demanding solution. These problems have found consideration in the Russian text-books,-the land problem, for instance, the problem of clearing off the dues of the peasantry, and others. In the earlier period there was but one treatise of this kind,- Principles of Political Economy, published in 1862 by Gorlov, at that time professor at the University of Petersburg. Other treatises, by Hodsky, Ivanykov, Werden, and Antonovitch, are of very recent date, between 1880 and 1887. All are more or less successful compilations, and all are much influenced by German models.

Our monographic literature deserves more attention. Some monographs are thoroughly independent investigations, and may be compared with the best of similar foreign works. But this is, of course, not the case with the majority; and the average is mediocre. The average quality is certainly below the average, for instance, of German literature. The thoroughness of the Germans is not to be found. The Russian is more super

ficial, less serious: in this respect, he is rather like the Frenchman. But he is also like the Frenchman in another less unfavorable point. His presentation is clearer than that of the German, his style more simple and less involved. Doubtless, the character of the Russian language has its effect. Its construction is more pliable and permits greater variety than is the case with the German language, with its stiff professorial style. Our language has more resemblance to French and English. Still another peculiarity of Russian literature is this: English, French, and German writers, as a rule, are familiar only with the literature of their own country. Russian authors are more cosmopolitan. German, French, English, and in recent times not unfrequently Italian, works are regarded. Nevertheless and for all that, the average quality is not particularly high. Some monographs come from the pens of youthful writers, and, as might be expected, carry the stamp of their authorship. They are, in the main, dissertations written in order to obtain a degree, and occasionally are patchwork pure and simple.

Finally, we may note the difference between the old and the new modus scribendi. In former times, the would-be writer collected a few shelves full of books, read them, and wrote a monograph. A new book was done and ready in the course of a few months. If the writer was empty-headed, an eleventh book was simply added to the other ten. If he was a man of capacity, he enriched the literary supply with a new compilation, but, after all, only a new compilation from the same material. Nowadays, the task is more complicated and difficult, and more is demanded of a monograph. Quite a different procedure has become the fashion. The modern author must collect his material himself, at the place where it lies. He must often make wearisome and expensive journeys; he must search through the large libraries and archives of Berlin, Vienna, Rome, Paris, before he can produce a thorough piece of work. Time and money must be expended. If he has skill in working over his material, the result is good. If he has not such skill, the result is neither good nor bad, but something at least is gained in the shape of the new material. Another writer will not fail to appear, who will be able to make better use of it. This laborious procedure is not necessary for the treatment