Roscher recognizes what he calls a Germano-Russian (deutsch-russische)school of political economy，representedprincipally by Heinrich Storch (17661825).Mercantilist principles had been preached by a native ("autochthonen ")economist，Ivan Possoschkoff，in the time of Peter the Great.The new ideas of the Smithian system were introduced intoRussian by Christian Von Schhizer (17741831)in his professorial lectures and in his Anfangsgründe der Staatswirthschaft，oder die Lehre vom National-reichthume (18051807).Storch was instructor in economic science of the future emperorNicholas and his brother the grand-duke Michael，and the substance of his lessons to them is contained in his Coursd'économie Politique (1815).The translation of this treatise into Russian was prevented by the censorship；Rau published aGerman version of it，with annotations，in 1819.It is a work of a very .high order of merit.The epithet"deutsch-russisch"seems little applicable to Storch；as Roscher himself says，he follows mainly English and French writersSay，Sismondi，Turgot，Bentham，Steuart，and Hume，but，above all，Adam Smith.His personal position (and the same is true of Schi6zer)led him to consider economic doctrines in connection with a stage of culture different from that of the Western populationsamongst which they had been formulated；this change of the point of view opened the door to relativity，and helped toprepare the Historical method.Storch's study of the economic and moral effects of serfdom is regarded as especiallyvaluable.The general subjects with which he has particularly connected his name are (1)the doctrine of immaterialcommodities (or elements of national prosperity)，such as health，talent，morality，and the like；(2)the question of"productive"and "unproductive，"as characters of labour and of consumption，on which he disagreed with Smith and mayhave furnished indications to Dunoyer；and (3)the differences between the revenue of nations and that of individuals，onwhich he follows Lauderdale and is opposed to Say.The latter economist having published at Paris (1823)a new edition ofStorch's Cours ，with criticisms sometimes offensive in tone，he published by way of reply to some of Say's strictures what isconsidered his ripest and scientifically most important work，Considérations sur la nature du Revenu National (1824；translated into German by the author himself，1825).
A distinct note of opposition to the Smithian economics was sounded in Germany by two writers，who，setting out fromsomewhat different points of view，animated by different sentiments，and favouring different practical systems，yet，so far astheir criticisms are concerned，arrive at similar conclusions；we mean Adam Müller and Friedrich List.
Adam Müller (17791829)was undoubtedly a man of real genius.In his principal work ?lemente der Staatskunst (1809)，and his other writings，he represents a movement of economic thought which was in relation with the (so-called)Romanticliterature of the period.The reaction against Smithianism of which he was the coryphaeus was founded on an attachment tothe principles and social system of the Middle Ages.It is possible that the political and historical ideas which inspire him，hisrepugnance to contemporary liberalism，and his notions of regular organic development，especially in relation to England，were in some degree imbibed from Edmund Burke，whose Reflections on the Revolution in France had been translated intoGerman by Friedrich Gentz，the friend and teacher of Müller.The association of his criticisms with mediaeval prepossessionsought not to prevent our recognizing the elements of truth which they contain.
