5. Since Wagner’s Finanzwissenschaft is almost 800 pages, it is difficult to believe Weber genuinely thought it “incomplete.” Heilmann also suggested that Wagner’s edition differed significantly from Rau’s first and second editions. Wagner himself claimed that not only was the third edition enlarged by more than a 100 pages but that his approach to the subject in the third edition differed substantially from the earlier ones (Wagner, 1883: VI–X; Weber, 2017a: 30–31, 33, 155). 6. Weber (2017b: 147, 155). However, there is nothing in Eheberg’s article to support Weber’s claim about Eheberg and Roscher. In terms of earlier scholars, Eheberg (1892: 503–505) held Karl Heinrich Rau in high regard and for “modern books” he singles out Stein’s and Wagner’s works. 7. Weber (2015: 53, 271–273). Wagner, Stein, and Albert Schäffle were the three major figures of the “classical epoch” of German “Finanzwissenschaft.” Heilmann suggested Weber (2017a: 22–23, 42–43) did not rely much on Stein’s work. 8. Those interested in an even more complete picture of Weber’s thinking on economics are encouraged to read Borchardt’s and Mommsen’s introductions to their volumes.

中文翻译：

---

书评：Encyclopédie Critique du GenreReview of RennesJuliette，编辑。百科全书评论类型。巴黎：La Découverte，2016 年。740 页。ISBN 978-2-7071-9048-2。

5. 由于瓦格纳的金融知识将近 800 页，很难相信韦伯真的认为它“不完整”。海尔曼还表示，瓦格纳的版本与劳的第一版和第二版有很大不同。瓦格纳本人声称，第三版不仅扩大了 100 多页，而且他在第三版中处理这个主题的方法与早期的有很大不同（瓦格纳，1883：VI-X；韦伯，2017a：30-31 , 33, 155)。6. 韦伯 (2017b: 147, 155)。然而，Eheberg 的文章中没有任何内容支持 Weber 关于 Eheberg 和 Roscher 的主张。就早期学者而言，埃赫伯格（Eheberg，1892：503-505）高度重视卡尔·海因里希·劳（Karl Heinrich Rau），对于“现代书籍”，他特别提到了斯坦因和瓦格纳的作品。7. 韦伯 (2015: 53, 271–273)。瓦格纳、斯坦因 和阿尔伯特·沙夫勒是德国“金融科学”“古典时代”的三位主要人物。Heilmann 建议 Weber (2017a: 22-23, 42-43) 不太依赖 Stein 的工作。8. 鼓励那些对韦伯经济学思想的更完整图景感兴趣的人阅读博尔查特和蒙森对他们的卷的介绍。