ment of all its more important organs. In respect to it, the economic endeavors of any epoch may be said to be represented by two great parties, the one progressive, the other, conservative. The former would hasten the period of the nation's richest and most varied development, the latter postpone its departure as long as possible; and hence it comes, that a people's economic decline is sometimes taken for progress, by the former class, and their progress for decline, by the latter. As a rule, the union and equilibrium of these parties are wont to be the greatest at the period of maturity, because, then, intelligence and the spirit of sacrifice for the common good are most general.

Finally, the public economy of a nation declines with the people. (Infra, § 263 ff.)

SECTION XV.

DISEASES OF THE SOCIAL ORGANISM.

If the public economy of a people be an organism, we must expect to find that the perturbations, which affect it, present some analogies to the diseases of the body physical. We may, therefore, hope to learn much that may be of use in

As Sallust characterizes the political apogee of the Romans: Optimis moribus et maxima concordia egit populus Romanus inter secundum atque postremum bellum Carthaginiense." See Augustin (Civ. Dei II, 18). Puchta (Institutionen, I, f. 83), with a great deal of good sense, distinguishes in every people their individual character from that which they share in common with all mankind. The latter exists among savage nations, only as a germ buried under the overpowering weight of that which is special to them. The period of the perfect equilibrium of both elements is coincident with that of a people's real culture. In the further course of development, the latter, more general element becomes gradually over-powerful, destroys the individual, and thus dissolves nationality.

Thus formulated, the principles of the two great parties, evidently, no more contradict one another than their ordinary watchwords, "freedom" and "order," are in contrast with one another. Hence all the great statesmen of the best periods of history have adopted the middle course recommended by Aristotle.

practice, from the tried methods of medicine.

In the diseases of the body economic, it is necessary to distinguish accurately, between the nature of the disease and its external symptoms, although it may be necessary to combat the latter directly, and not merely with a view to alleviation. Following the example of the physician, we should particularly direct our attention to the curative method which nature itself would pursue, were art not to intervene. "The curative power of nature is no peculiar power; it is the result of a series of happy adjustments, by means of which the morbid perturbation itself sets in motion the springs which may either destroy the evil or paralyze its action. It is, in fact, nothing but the original power which formed the body and preserves its life in contact with the external causes of perturbation and the internal disorder provoked by these causes." (Ructe.)

1 See Lotze, Allgemeine Pathologie, 1842. Ruete, Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Therapie, 1852. These analogies, obviously, should not be pushed too far. One of the most essential differences between the two consists in this, that in the diseases of the body politic, physicians and nurses are themselves part of the diseased organism.

CHAPTER II.

POSITION OF POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE CIRCLE OF RELATED SCIENCES.

SECTION XVI.

POLITICAL OR NATIONAL ECONOMY.

By the science of national,1 or Political Economy, we understand the science which has to do with the laws of the development of the economy of a nation, or with its economic national life. (Philosophy of the history of Political Economy,

1 See Ahren's very beautiful exposition, Organische Staatslehre, 1850, I, 77. National economy (Nationalökonomie = public economy); national economics (Nationalökonomik —the science of public economy. The latter term was first proposed, in Germany, in 1849, by Uhde; the former was naturalized there in 1805: v. Soden, Nationalökonomie, 1805; Jacob, Grundsätze der N.

k., 1806. In Italy, G. Ortes used it as early as 1774, in his Dell Economia nazionale, and in England it was employed, even in 1867, by Ferguson, History of Civil Society, III, p. 4. Holland. Volkshuyshoudkunde. As a rule, outside of Germany, the term political economy, économie politique, one which is somewhat calculated to mislead the student, is used. (Thus Montchr3tica sieur de Vatteville, Traité de l'Economie politique, 165; later F. J. Rousscau, Discours sur l'Economie politique, later yet the Traités d' E. p., Maillardère, Page and F. B. Say, 1801-1803). Political Economy (Sir J. Stewart, Inquiry into the principles of P. E., 1767); also Public Economy (Petty, several Essays, 1682, 35); Economia politica or pubblica (the latter by Verri and Beccaria). The title Economia civile (Genovesi, Lezioni, d' Ec. civ., 1769), has found few adherents. It has, however, been used recently by Cernuschi: Illusions des Sociétés coöperatrices (1866). The term, Economie sociale has been used all the more in France (Dunoyer, Nouveau Traité d' Ec. soc., 1830), since recommended by F. B. Say, and employed by Buat (Des vrais Principes de l' Origine et de la Filiation du Mot Economie politique, in the Journal des Economistes, 1852.)

according to von Mangoldt.) Like all the political sciences, or sciences of national life, it is concerned, on the one hand, with the consideration of the individual man, and on the other, it extends its investigations to the whole of human kind.2

National life, like all life, is a whole, the various phenomena. of which are most intimately connected with one another. Hence it is, that to understand one side of it scientifically, it is necessary to know all its sides. But, especially, is it necessary ✓ to fix one's attention on the following seven: language, religion, art, science, law, the state and economy. Without language, all higher mental activity is unthinkable; without religion, all else would lose its firmest foundation and highest aim. Through art, alone, do all these sides attain to beauty; through science, alone, to clearness. Law arises, the moment conflicts of will become inevitable and an adjustment is desired. The state has to do with them, in so far as they have any external force or validity.. Indeed, there is no human relation, not even the highest and the sweetest, but has its economic interests. It is, therefore, natural, that each of the sciences which relate to these various regions of human life should, in part, presuppose all others, and, in part, serve as a basis for

them.4

2 Stein, Lehrbuck der V. W., prefaces his "Science of Public Economy" (pp. 329-358), by a "Science of Economy" (pp. 96-328), which, however, treats individual economies only as the elements of the national economy. A science of household or isolated individual economy could, of course, treat only of the economic relations of anchorites. Those who object that Political Economy is not a real whole will be satisfied with the definition of it given by F. I. Neumann: "The Science of the bearing of household or separate economies to one another, and to the state as a whole." (Tüb. Zeitschr., 1872, 267.)

In so far as these various institutions are concerned, with objects beyond the human, or supernatural, only the manner in which they are accepted, or in which they are made use of, is an expression of national life.

4 Thus, J. Tucker thinks that religion, the state and commerce, are only the parts of one same general plan: no institution, therefore, can be called appropriate, within the limits of the province of any one of these, if it be clearly in opposition to the other two, because the harmony of God's work

But in the midst of this universal relationship, it is easy to see that law, the state and economy constitute a family, as it were apart and more closely connected. (The social sciences, in the narrower sense of the expression.)

They are confined almost exclusively to what Schleiermacher has called "effective action" (wirksame Handeln), while art and science belong almost entirely to the "action of representation" (darstellenden Handeln); and religion and language combine both kinds. Law, the state, and economy too, have their roots so deep in the physical and intellectual imperfection of man, that we can scarcely imagine their continuance beyond his life on earth (Gospel of Matthew, 22, 30). But within these limits, their several provinces and the subjects with which they are concerned are almost coincident. They only consider these from different points of view: the science of politics from that of sovereignty; the science of Political Economy from that of the satisfaction of the requirement of external goods by the people; the science of law from that of the prevention or the peaceable adjustment of conflicts of will. As every economic act, consciously or unconsciously, supposes forms of law, so, by far the greater number of the laws relating to rights, and the greater number of judgments in the matter of rights, contain an economic element. In numberless cases, the science of law gives us only the external how; the deeper why is revealed to us by the science of Political Economy.5 6 And, as to the state, who, for instance, can appreciate

can not be broken up. (Four Tracts and two Sermons on political and commercial Subjects, 1774, Serm. I.)

Riedel (National Ekonomie, 1838, I, p. 178 seq.), gives a good illustration of the difference between the manner in which law and Political Economy look at the same question. The law (to avoid strife, or to settle controversies) looks upon the debtor as the owner of the capital, and lets him run all the risk; Political Economy, on the other hand, looking deeper into the nature of the contract, reaches an entirely opposite result. The mere jurist has a dangerous tendency to undervalue the reign of the laws of nature; the merc political economist, just as readily, undervalues the element of free will. (Arnold, Cultur und Recht I, 97.) In this respect, the two sciences comple