The most eminent member of the group was without doubt Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781).This is not the placeto speak of his noble practical activity，first as intendant of Limoges，and afterwards for a brief period as finance minister，orof the circumstances which led to his removal from office，and the consequent failure of his efforts for the salvation ofFrance.His economic views are explained in the introductions to his edicts and ordinances，in letters and occasional papers，but especially in his Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses (1766).This is a condensed but eminentlyclear and attractive exposition of the fundamental principles of political economy，as they were conceived by the physiocrats.
It embodies，indeed，the erroneous no less than the sound doctrines of that school；but several subjects，especially thevarious forms of land-economy，the different employments of capital，and the legitimacy of interest，are handled in agenerally just as well as striking manner；and the mode of presentation of the ideas，and the luminous arrangement of thewhole，are Turgot's own.The treatise，which contains a surprising amount of matter in proportion to its length，must alwaysretain a place among the classics of the science.
The physiocratic school never obtained much direct popular influence，even in its native country，though it strongly attractedmany of the more gifted and earnest minds.Its members，writing on dry subjects in an austere and often heavy style，did notfind acceptance with a public which demanded before all things charm of manner in those who addressed it.When Morellet，one of their number，entered the lists with Galiani，it was seen how espirit ；and eloquence could triumph over science，solidindeed，but clumsy in its movements.(11)The physiocratic tenets，which were in fact partially erroneous，were regarded bymany as chemerical，and were ridiculed in the contemporary literature，as，for example，the imp?t unique by Voltaire in his L'homme aux quarante écus ，which was directed in particular against Mercier-Larivière.It was justly objected to the groupthat they were too absolute in their view of things；they supposed，as Smith remarks in speaking of Quesnay，that thebody-politic could thrive only under one precise régime，--that，namely，which they recommended，--and thought theirdoctrines universally and immediately applicable in practice.(12)They did not，as theorists，sufficiently take into accountnational diversities，(13)or different stages in social development；nor did they as politicians，adequately estimate theimpediments which ignorance，prejudice，and interested opposition present to enlightened statesmanship.It is possible thatTurgot himself，as Grimm suggests，owed his failure in part to the too unbending rigour of his policy and the absence of anyattempt at conciliation.Be this as it may，his defeat helped to impair the credit of his principles，which were represented ashaving been tried and found wanting.
The physiocratic system，after guiding in some degree the policy of the Constituent Assembly，and awakening a few echoeshere and there in foreign countries，soon ceased to exist as a living power；but the good elements it comprised were not lostto mankind，being incorporated into the sounder and more complete construction of Adam Smith.
ITALY
In Italy，as in the other European nations，there was little activity in the economic field during the first half of the eighteenthcentury.It was then，however，that a really remarkable man appeared，the archdeacon Salustio Antonio Bandini(1677-1760)，author of the Discorso sulla Maremma Sienese ，written in 1737，but not published till 1775.The object of thework was to raise the Maremma from the wretched condition into which it had fallen through the decay of agriculture.Thisdecay he showed to be，at least in part，the result of the wretched fiscal system which was in force；and his book led toimportant reforms in Tuscany，where his name is held in high honour.Not only by Pecchio and other Italian writers，but byRoscher also，he is alleged to have anticipated some leading doctrines of the physiocrats，but this claim is disputed.Therewas a remarkable renascence of economic studies in Italy during the latter half of the century，partly due to French influence，and partly，it would appear，to improved government in the northern states.
