sion, though it has received of late some valuable contributions, (S. Feilbogen, Smith und Turgot, 1892; E. Cannan, Introduction to his edition of Smith's Lectures, 1896; H. Higgs in Economic Journal, December 1896; and W. Hasbach in Political Science Quarterly, January 1898) cannot be regarded as concluded. It is now generally recognized that there are not inconsiderable portions of Adam Smith's treatise of a distinctly Physiocratic character. And it will probably be found that the contribution of Physiocracy to the production of the Wealth of Nations was even greater in two other ways,—in raising questions in Adam Smith's mind, which left to himself he would never have put, and in providing him with a phraseology which of himself he would never have hit upon.
Page:Reflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches by Anne Turgot.djvu/18
