ABSTRACT
When we speak of the necessity for an ‘interpretation’ of Physiocracy, what we usually have in mind is the necessity for an approach to the doctrine which will bring out its ‘meaning’ in such a way as to throw light upon its ‘validity’. The antiquarian may be interested in the problem of the ‘meaning’ of Physiocracy for its own sake; but the contemporary economist, living in a different world which he is accustomed to analyse in terms of a different set of concepts, is interested in the problem of ‘meaning’ mainly for the sake of the light it may throw upon the problem of ‘validity’. We adopt one set of concepts today and the Physiocrats in their time adopted another: in what sense, then, can their doctrines be said to be ‘false’ and ours ‘true’—or vice versal? This is the basic question which most of us would want an ‘interpretation’ of Physiocracy to answer.
