Categories
Amherst Columbia Economists Germany Wisconsin

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus, James Walter Crook, 1898

 

This posting is another in the irregular series, “Get to know an economics Ph.D. alum”. I stumbled upon Professor James Walter Crook’s photo while working on the previous autobiographical posting for John Maurice Clark who was a student of his at Amherst and later a colleague. Crook spent a year in Berlin as a student and overlapped with W.E.B. Du Bois there and to whom we see below he had been introduced.

____________________

James Walter Crook (1859-1933)
Columbia Ph.D., 1898

James Walter Crook was born Dec. 21, 1859 in Ontario, Canada. His family emigrated to the U.S. in 1868. According to the 1880 U. S. Census he was the Census Enumerator for the 1st Ward of the City of Manistee in Manistee county, Michigan where he (21 years of age) lived with his mother and six younger brothers.  While a few younger brothers were  registered employed in a saw mill, James Walter Crook was listed as attending school. He married Eva Maria Lewis Sept 16, 1881 in Manistee. His occupation was “school teacher” according to the record of marriage.

Crook received his B.A. from Oberlin College in 1891 where he stayed on as a history instructor the following year. This was followed by a year of graduate work at the University of Wisconsin where he was listed as a Fellow in Economics, 1892-93.

He studied at the University of Berlin in 1893-94 where he happened to be introduced to W. E. B. Du Bois, himself an American student in Berlin. In Dubois’ papers there is a letter Crook wrote (January 21, 1905): “I suppose you do not remember me, but I recall with pleasure my meeting you in Berlin, Germany introduced by our mutual friend Knowlton, now of Fargo, N. Dakota.” In particular Crook was looking for advice regarding a sociological survey he wished to conduct among the ca. 200 African-Americans living in Amherst (population about 3,000 total).

After Germany Crook went on to do graduate work at Columbia University in 1894-95. The next year he was hired to teach Political Economy at Amherst where he worked through retirement.  Crook was awarded a Ph.D. from Columbia in 1898, publishing his dissertation as German Wage Theories: A History of Their Development. Vol. IX, No. 2 of Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. New York: Columbia University, 1898.

According to the U.S. Census reports he and his wife Eva lived at  21 Main Street in Amherst for at least the four censuses 1900-1930.

James Walter Crook, died in Springfield, MA 1933.

Source: From faculty pages in the Amherst College Yearbook, Olio, 1905, page 24. Also the Dubois papers at the University of Massachusetts and U.S. Census reports.

________________________

PROFESSORS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
Amherst College (1877-1910)

1877

Anson Daniel Morse, LL.D. 1878
1892 John Bates Clark, Ph.D.

1895

1892

Charles Augustus Tuttle, Ph.D., Associate Political Economy and International Law 1893
1895 James Walter Crook, Ph.D., Assistant

1899

1899

James Walter Crook, Ph.D., Associate 1907
1907 James Walter Crook, Ph.D.

1908

Glover Dunn Hancock, Ph.D., Assistant 1910
1910 John Maurice Clark, Ph.D., Associate

 

Source:   General Catalogue of Amherst College including the Officers of Government and Instruction, the Alumni and Honorary Graduates, 1821-1910. Amherst, Mass., p. 9.

Image Source: From faculty pages in the Amherst College Yearbook, Olio, 1905, page 24.

 

 

 

Categories
Amherst Columbia Economists Germany Johns Hopkins Smith

Columbia. John Bates Clark, Faculty Memorial Minute, 1938

 

Memorial minutes give us a snapshot appreciation of a deceased economist by colleagues. One really doesn’t read these to get any new significant items for the biography, one hopes instead to cull some insight into the minds and hearts of those who knew both the person and the work. “Innate modesty and a genuine kindliness” are a pair of expressed recessive traits that perhaps help to distinguish John Bates Clark from brilliant economic theorists of more recent vintage.

This biographical note for Clark from 1894 provides an earlier testimony.

____________________

Memorial minute for Professor J. B. Clark
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
April 22, 1938

 

JOHN BATES CLARK
1847-1938

In recording the death of Professor Emeritus John Bates Clark on March 21, 1938, at the age of ninety-one, the Faculty of Political Science is moved not only by a feeling of loss but also by a feeling of gratitude for great services rendered to mankind.

Born in Providence in 1847 and graduated from Amherst in 1872, Professor Clark set an example followed in the next three decades by scores of young American economists in going to Germany for graduate work. The interests in historical and anthropological studies that he cultivated in Heidelberg and Zürich were lasting characteristics of his mind—a fact often overlooked by commentators upon his later work.

On returning to this country, he began the searching analysis of economic relations that developed gradually into his peculiar contribution to social sciences. A little later than W. Stanley Jevons in England, Karl Menger in Austria, and Leon Walras in France, but quite independently of them and with an emphasis all his own, Professor Clark discovered how the utility of goods influences their values and prices. A collection of his early papers, The Philosophy of Wealth, published in 1885, revealed him as the keenest economic theorist of his time and country.

After teaching at Carleton, Smith, Amherst, and Johns Hopkins, Professor Clark joined this Faculty in 1895. It was while teaching at Columbia that he developed the full implications of his insights. His way of seeking to understand the complicated processes of economic life was to seize upon a set of fundamental factors, and to examine what results they would produce in the absence of disturbing circumstances. Work of this character obviously required logical powers of a high order and constructive imagination. What is less commonly appreciated, to make the results significant the work must be guided by sound intuitive judgments regarding the factors to be admitted to the problems treated and the factors to be excluded. How admirably Professor Clark’s judgment served him and how cogently he reasoned upon the basis of his assumptions were demonstrated by The Distribution of Wealth, published in 1899. That book still stands as the most important contribution of our country to pure economic theory.

Professor Clark’s later books, The Control of the Trusts, 1901, The Problem of Monopoly, 1904, and The Essentials of Economic Theory, 1907, show how effectively he could use his abstract constructions in dealing with practical problems, and how he could bridge the gulf that seemed to yawn between the timeless statis state of his Distribution of Wealth and the ever shifting condition of the work in which real men make their livings.

Of the service that Professor Clark rendered as the first Director of the Division of Economics and History of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, his co-workers in that field can speak with fuller knowledge than we possess. But we may note that no one deficient in a sense of reality, and no one without fervent interest in the welfare of his kind could have planned and carried through as he did the detailed record of the horrible sufferings that the War of 1914-1918 brought upon the world.

With intellectual distinction and integrity there was joined in Professor Clark and innate modesty and a genuine kindliness that won the affection of all who came into personal contact with him. Of what we deem finest in human achievement and character he was an example to be cherished and emulated.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1920-1939. pp. 825-6.

Image Source: Amherst Yearbook Olio ’96 (New York, 1894), pp. 7-9. Picture above from frontispiece. Another link.

Categories
Germany Michigan

Michigan. Philo Parsons’ gift of the Karl Heinrich Rau personal library, 1871

 

The fact that the University of Michigan’s library was able to acquire the personal library of the Heidelberg economics professor Karl Heinrich Rau (1792-1870) in 1871 and thereby  increase its holdings by an estimated 20-25% has fascinated me. I was curious to find out more about the man who paid $1200 (gold-basis) for Rau’s books and pamphlets. The collection is described and the story is told by Z. Clark Dickinson in his paper “The Library and Works of Karl Heinrich Rau” in  Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical EconomicsBd. 114, H. 4. (1958), pp. 577-593.

For this posting I include an image of one of the book labels from the collection, an announcement of the acquisition in the 1871 report of the President of the University of Michigan to the Board of Regents, and an excerpt from Philo Parsons’ brother’s privately printed Genealogy of the Family of Lewis B. Parsons. (Second) from 1900 that provides some biographical detail about Philo Parsons, who among other career accomplishments was the  founding president of the First National Bank of Detroit.

One puzzle remains. There was a small steamship (136 feet), owned by Selah Dustin and named the Philo Parsons, that ran a regular schedule between Detroit and the southern ports of Lake Erie, including Sandusky.  The Philo Parsons played a featured role in Civil War history after Confederate agents highjacked the side paddle wheel packet steamer in a failed plot to free confederate prisoners held on Johnson Island in Lake Erie, near Sandusky, Ohio. Why the ship bore that name is something I haven’t been able to figure out (yet). Perhaps the fact that Philo Parsons’ brother, Lewis B. Parsons, served as Major General in the U.S. Army during the Civil War as the Chief of Rail and River Transportation could have played a role? 

 

__________________________

THE “PARSONS LIBRARY.”

Until the beginning of the present year no considerable donation has ever been made to the University library. Since that time, however, a very large and valuable private library has been purchased and presented to the University by Philo Parsons, Esq., of Detroit. It consists of the entire collection of the late Professor Rau of Heidelberg, made during his long service of fifty years as Professor of Political Economy in Heidelberg University, and embracing all the most valuable literature contained in the European languages on political science and kindred topics. The number of volumes in this collection is 4034, and of pamphlets more than two thousand. While this munificent gift is of great importance on account of the intrinsic worth of the collection, it is not less valuable as an example which cannot fail to find imitators.

Many of the volumes, as is almost always the case in libraries of this kind, are unbound, or require rebinding before they can be placed on the shelves and catalogued. Mr. Parsons, I understand, has already made arrangements for the binding necessary to be done.

The Librarian has prepared a general description of this collection as a part of his report on the General Library. It is undoubtedly as nearly perfect as a library can be made on the specialty which it represents. And it was the well authenticated statement of this fact, which influenced the authorities at Yale to send an order for the purchase of it before it was known to have been secured for this University.

While, however, it possesses this specific character, it contains also a large number of works of inestimable value on other subjects. The most important of these is the series of volumes issued by the Academy of Vienna, and those on the original sources for the history of the house of Hapsburg; a work of great importance in the study of European history. The languages represented in the Parsons library are German, French, English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, Hollandish, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, Servian [sic], Polish, Hungarian, Russian, and the Slavic languages of the Lower Danube. A perfect university library must contain, first, all the standard literary productions, or classics, of all polite languages, and, second, all works in all languages necessary to the investigation and treatment of every special branch of science and learning. The building up of such a library is of itself a great work, not indeed to be perfected by one generation. Nothing, however, can contribute so much to its consummation as the acquisition from time to time, as opportunity may offer, of those complete topical libraries, so often collected in these days by eminent German and English savans, and not unfrequently offered for sale after their decease. At the same. time it should be observed that a university library which is known to be perfect even in one branch of knowledge, has gained much in the estimation of the literary public.

Source: President’s Report to the Board of Regents for the Year Ending June 30, 1871 published in Proceedings of the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan from January, 1870, to January, 1876 (Ann Arbor, 1876), pp. 115-116.

__________________________

TRIBUTE BY JOSEPH L. DANIELS OF
OLIVET COLLEGE, MICHIGAN,
TO
PHILO PARSONS.

Mr. Philo Parsons was born at Scipio, N. Y., February 6th, 1817. He was the second in a family of ten children. His father, Lewis Baldwin Parsons, was born at Williamstown, Massachusetts, April 30th, 1793, and died at Detroit, Michigan, December 21st, 1855. He was a man of rare native gifts, uncommon energy and force of character, independent and positive in his religious belief, yet catholic and tolerant toward all. His whole life was one of systematic benevolence and he left most of his property for the founding of Parsons’ College at Fairfield, Iowa.

He was married November 10, 1814, to Miss Lucina Hoar, a member of the famous Hoar family which migrated to this country in 1640 and located at Concord, Massachusetts. She was born at Brimfield, Massachusetts, October 31st, 1790, and died at Gouveneur, New York, October 3d, 1873. Mrs. Parsons was a woman of even temperament and self-poise, a devoted mother, an intelligent and earnest Christian, maintaining a lively interest in affairs of church and state, even to the advanced age of 83 years. Her pastor, Reverend Joseph R. Page, describes her as a “Mother in Israel, and a model in all the relations of life and of all the Christian graces.”

From such an ancestry with a record traceable back to the founders of Massachusetts was Mr. Philo Parsons descended. His early years were spent in Gouveneur, Homer and Perry, New York. At the latter place he entered into business with his father under the firm name of L. B. Parsons & Son. And he also married there in 1843 Miss Ann Eliza Barnum, Their long and happy married life was terminated in 1893 by the death of Mrs. Parsons, Mr. Parsons following her three years later, dying at Winchenden, Massachusetts, January 20, 1896. Eight children were born to them, of whom seven survived their parents. In 1844, Mr. Parsons removed to Detroit, Mich., and entered upon the grocery business under the firm name of Parsons & James. A few years later he established a private bank. In 1861, when the Government created the National banking system as an aid in carrying on the war, Mr. Parsons was the leader in organizing the First National Bank of Detroit, and was its first president and for many years one of its directors. He did much to promote the commercial prosperity of Detroit. He entered heartily into the project for bringing the Wabash Railroad into the city, was an active member of the Board of Trade, and for a time its President. For many years he represented his own city in the National Board of Trade and was honored repeatedly as one of its Vice-Presidents. His discussions in these National Conventions show a wealth of information, a candor and breadth of view and a discrimination akin to prophesy. He was an ardent lover of his own city and State, and yet on one occasion explained his vote, apparently against their interests as “for the greatest good of the greatest number.”

Mr. Parsons was active in the municipal affairs of Detroit, and for a time was a member of its council. The State, too, more than once conferred upon him honors and trusts; notably as Commissioner to the Yorktown Centennial, and as chairman of the Commission to secure the statue of General Lewis Cass to be placed in the Capitol at Washington. He brought to this work all the enthusiasm of a lifelong friendship and a patriotic pride for the honor of his beloved State. The statue, almost vocal with life, crowned his many months of toil and effort, and was one of the joys of his life. He honored himself in honoring the State.

Yet political offices and honors he did not seek. He even declined to consider them when they merely appealed to his personal ambition. Too much Puritanic and Revolutionary blood flowed in his veins to ever regard public offices as anything but a sacred trust, a patriotic service. Mr. Parsons had a lively interest in agriculture, was an active member of the State Agricultural Society of Michigan and served most acceptably as its President. He was an enthusiast in horticulture and fruit culture, and found relaxation and pleasure in personal work in his own garden, one of the finest in Detroit. He was a royal entertainer and was never happier than when sharing the hospitality of his elegant home with his friends.

His benevolence was a matter of principle. He took special delight in aiding young men who were preparing for the work of the Christian ministry. He was one of the largest and most systematic givers to the cause of missions. He was an enthusiastic believer in education.

While several institutions were looking with eager eyes toward the Ram [sic, Rau is correct] Library at Heidelberg, Mr. Parsons bought and donated it in its entirety to the Michigan State University [sic, University of Michigan is correct]. In keeping with his father’s spirit, he was especially devoted to the Christian College. He early became interested in Olivet College, Michigan. For thirty-six years he was a member of its Board of Trustees. He built his name into the history and even the very walls of the College. Parsons Hall and the Parsons Professorship are honored words to-day. Not only his munificent gifts, but his wise counsels and his lifelong devotion to the work at Olivet are gratefully remembered. And no less were these deeds of benevolence a grateful remembrance to Mr. Parsons himself. They were his glory and joy in his later years of illness. He found a rich reward in the satisfaction of building himself into institutions of education and religion. Olivet College grew dearer to him. His home church, the First Congregational Church of Detroit, grew dearer. His beloved pastor and his intimate friends at Olivet received frequent letters full of gratitude and joy for what he had been permitted to do, and full of trust and hope in prospect of a blessed immortality. In this spirit, he entered into rest. His death was literally a sleep. He slept on earth to awake in Heaven.

Source:  Genealogy of the Family of Lewis B. Parsons. (Second).  Parsons-Hoar (St. Louis, 1900), pp. 48-51

 

 

Categories
Bibliography Chicago Germany Harvard

Germany. Articles on German Universities by Edmund J. James, 1880s

This post assembles five articles on German universities published by one of the founders of the American Economic Association, its twelfth president Edmund Janes James who like many of his contemporaries received his training in economics in Germany. It is interesting to see how in the 1880’s “Seminar” was italicized as a foreign word. Visitors to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror with experience in German/Austrian universities should find James’ observations and comparisons interesting as well. Biographical information about James is provided in today’s post as an extra bonus.

Americans studying in Germany, 1878

Biography of Edmund Janes James up to 1896

Publications of Edmund Janes James

“What is a German University” (1881)

“The Lecture versus the Recitation System” (1882)

“German Student Life” (1882)

“Political Economy in German Universities” (1882)

“The Degree of Ph.D. in Germany” (1888)

 

___________________________________

Americans studying in Germany, 1878

The number of American students at German universities during the year 1878 amounted to 94, of whom 35 were at Berlin, 16 at Bonn, 30 at Göttingen. 2 at Breslau, 2 at Greifswald, 4 at Halle, 1 at Kiel, 2 at Marburg, and 2 at Münster. These students were scattered among all the faculties: 8 study theology, 11 law, 25 medicine, 22 philosophy and philology, 25 mathematics and natural sciences, and 8 financial science.

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 3 and 4 (July and August, 1881), p. 43.

 

___________________________________

 

Biography of Edmund Janes James up to 1896

Dr. Edmund J. James, President of the Academy, leaves the University of Pennsylvania for the University of Chicago, February 1, 1896. In the University of Pennsylvania Dr. James was Professor of Public Finance and Administration in the Department of Finance and Economy (Wharton School), and Professor of Political and Social Science in the Graduate Faculty (Department of Philosophy). In the University of Chicago he will be Professor of Public Administration in the Department of Political Science, and Director of the University Extension Department.

Edmund Janes James was born May 21, 1855, at Jacksonville, Morgan County, Ill. He was prepared for college in the High School Department of the Illinois State Normal School, at Normal, Ill., from which he graduated in June, 1873.

He entered college at the Northwestern University at Evanston, Ill., in the autumn of 1873. Having been appointed Recorder on the United States Lake Survey he joined (May 1, 1874) the party of Engineer Terry, engaged on the upper St. Lawrence and the lower part of Lake Ontario. At the end of the season he entered Harvard College, matriculating November 2, 1874.

In July, 1875, he went to Europe to study political economy. He matriculated at the University of Halle, October 16, 1875, and after spending four semesters at that institution—during which time he attended lectures also at Berlin and Leipsic—he graduated from Halle in August, 1877, taking the degrees of M. A. and Ph. D.

On his return home in the autumn of 1877 he was appointed principal of the Public High School, in Evanston, Ill., from January 1, 1878. In June, 1879, he resigned this position to accept the principalship of the High School Department of the Illinois State Normal School at Normal, Ill., beginning work in September of that year. He resigned this position at Christmas time, 1882, in order to continue his studies in Europe, which he pursued during the summer semester of 1883 at various German universities.

On July 3, 1883, he was elected Professor of Public Finance and Administration in the Wharton School of Finance and Economy, University of Pennsylvania, to begin work the following September. Since 1886 he has had practical charge of this department. Under his influence its corps of instructors was largely increased, the subjects of instruction multiplied, and its curriculum extended from two years to four, changes which were followed by a large increase in the number of students. It was owing to his personal efforts that instruction in statistics, journalism, sociology, transportation, municipal government, jurisprudence, and politics was added to the work in history, economics, and finance. During this period the Wharton School of Finance and Economy became not only a successful department for higher commercial education, but also one of the leading centres for the study of economics and politics in the United States.

Shortly after going to the University of Pennsylvania, Professor James was also appointed December 12, 1883, Professor of Political and Social Science in the Graduate Faculty (Department of Philosophy), and from January, 1884, to January, 1888, was Secretary of this Faculty. While Secretary he proposed the regulations which with few changes, have remained the rules governing graduate study in the University until the present. He was also the first instructor of the Faculty to introduce the seminary method of instruction which has become such a marked feature of all advanced work in the University. He was in Europe on leave of absence during the academic year 1888-89.

On April 8, 1891, he was elected President of the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, an association organized to promote the introduction and development of University Extension methods of instruction throughout the United States. He held this position until September 1, 1895, during which time the work of the society was greatly extended and strengthened. The number of lecture courses rose from 42 in 1890-91 to 126 in 1894-95; while the number in attendance increased from 7400 to 20,000.

While at the University Professor James declined various calls to other institutions either as president or professor. He was offered the presidency of two leading western State universities. He was also offered an Assistant Professorship in Political Economy at Harvard in 1890 and the head Professorship of Political Science at the University of Chicago in 1892. He was appointed delegate from the University of Pennsylvania to the tercentenary celebration of Trinity College, Dublin, in 1892, and to the bicentennial of the University of Halle in 1894.

Professor James is an active member of various societies and associations of a scientific and practical character. He has been a member of the National Educational Association since 1879. He was elected a member of the National Council of Education in 1884 and has delivered addresses before the association on “College Education for Business Men,” “University Extension ” and ” Normal School Education.”

He was chosen a member of the American Philosophical Society, April 18, 1884.

Since September, 1885 he has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; since 1891 a Fellow of that body. He was Vice-President and Chairman of Section I in 1891, and has read papers at its sessions on “The Share of Labor in Distribution,” “Manual Training in the Public Schools” and “The Farmer and Taxation.”

Since 1885 he has been a member of the American Social Science Association; was Secretary of the Department of Social Economy, 1887-88, and one of the directors of the association for the years 1890-92. He has read papers on “The Bullitt Bill Charter of Philadelphia,” “Schools of Political and Social Science,” “The Single Tax Theory.”

As one of the early members (1883) of the Public Education Association of Philadelphia he delivered addresses before that body on “Financial and Administrative Aspects of Public Education,” “The Need of Reorganization in Our Public School System,” etc., and has been for two years past Chairman of the Executive Committee of that body.

He was one of the founders of the American Economic Association in 1885, and, as Chairman of the Committee on Organization, reported the plan which has proved so successful in practice. He was for some time Vice-President and has been a frequent contributor to its series of publications.

Having been much interested in the movement for the preservation and better management of our forests, he was one of the original members (1886) of the Pennsylvania Forestry Association and of the Council of that body. He delivered addresses before the association on “The Relation of the State to our Forests,” “The Economic Significance of Our Forests,” etc.

He was actively concerned in the organization of the Pennsylvania College Association in 1887, which was subsequently converted into the Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools in the Middle States and Maryland. He delivered addresses at its sessions on ”The American University,” “University Extension,” and “The American College,” and was for some time treasurer of the association.

He was one of the founders of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, and, at the first meeting for formal organization December 14, 1889, was elected President, an office to which he has since been annually re-elected.

He was one of the first to take part in the recent movement for the improvement of city politics in the United States; was one of the organizers of the Municipal League of Philadelphia (out of which the National Association of Municipal Leagues has grown) and served as its first president from December 1, 1891.

Professor James’ contributions to the literature of the subjects in which he has been interested have been numerous.

With Dr. Charles DeGarmo, President of Swarthmore College, he founded the Illinois School Journal, now the Public School Journal, one of the most influential educational periodicals in the West. As editor of this magazine for two years, 1881-82, he contributed many papers to the current discussion of the time, relating to the pedagogical and administrative aspects of public education.

As editor of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science he has for the past five years directed the policy of this periodical. Under his direction it has expanded from a quarterly to a bimonthly with numerous supplements, and has grown steadily and rapidly in scope and influence.

In addition to the work on the above periodicals, Professor James was one of the leading contributors to the “Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy and United States History,” edited by John J. Lalor, Chicago, 1882-84. (Referred to below as Lalor’s Cyclopaedia.)

Source: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 7 (January, 1896), pp. 78-86.

___________________________________

For more biographical information after 1896:

Edmund Janes James: Twelfth President of the Economic Association, 1910American Economic Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1944).

Ernest Minor Patterson. The career of Edmund Janes JamesThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 301, (September, 1955), pp. 97-100.

 

___________________________________

Publications of Edmund Janes James

James B. Childs. A Bibliography of the Published Writings and Addresses of Edmund Janes James (Library School Seminar, University of Illinois, Second Semester, 1919-20).

 

___________________________________

 

WHAT IS A GERMAN UNIVERSITY?

by Edmund Janes James

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 5 (September, 1881), pp. 1-2.

            A German University is a corporation whose objects are the increase and spread of knowledge. Like all institutions of learning the German University consists of professors and students together with the various directors and officers connected with the corporation. The former are divided into four faculties, according to the various branches in which they respectively give and receive instructions, viz., the Theological, the Medical, the Law and the Philosophical faculty. The first three terms explain themselves— they comprehend about what we in this country include in our Law, Medical and Theological schools. The last mentioned faculty, viz., the Philosophical, gives instruction in all branches not included in the three former. It corresponds, to a certain extent, with our College of Liberal Arts. It teaches, not only Mental, Moral and Speculative Philosophy, but also Ancient and Modern Languages, History, Archaeology, the Physical Sciences, Mathematics, the Fine Arts, Political Economy, Sociology, Diplomacy, etc., including about every branch of human science, and quite a number of arts, such as dancing, fencing, riding, drawing and singing, in all of which branches there are instructors in the ordinary university.

These faculties are all independent of one another and yet all most intimately connected. A student enrolled in one has a perfect right to hear any and all the courses in the other faculties without additional expense. Candidates for graduation in one faculty are often required to take studies in another. As for instance, the Medical students are required in some places to hear a course in Speculative Philosophy, while those in Political Economy are expected to hear courses in International Law and the Constitutional History of Germany. The professors in each faculty, and consequently in the whole university are further divided into three classes, viz., ordinary professors, extraordinary professors and privat docenten. The first mentioned are appointed and paid by the government. Taken together, they either constitute or elect the academical senate—the executive body of the university. The extraordinary professors are nominated by the university senate and confirmed by the government. They are entitled to no pay; but it is almost universally the custom to vote them a small salary,—600 or 1,000 thalers. The privat docenten are appointed by the university authorities. They receive no salary, and depend altogether on their fees in case they have no other means of support. These three terms have been translated into English as full professors, assistant professors, and tutors. But the similarity is not great enough to justify such translation. Our assistant professors are simply assistants. They are expected to take the drudgery off the hands of the professor, to take the classes he doesn’t want, to do the elementary work. And our tutors might be called assistant-assistant professors; for they stand in the same relation to the assistant professor that the latter does to the full professor. The relation of the three mentioned classes to one another in the German institution is, however, radically different. The privat docent is just as independent as the ordinary professor. He has the right to lecture on the same subjects, to appeal to the same class of hearers, in a word to compete in the freest manner for the patronage of the students. His certificate that the student has attended his course of lectures counts for just as much in the eyes of the university authorities as the ordinary professor’s certificate. He is on the same footing as the ordinary professor except that he has no salary from the government. These privat docenten may be considered as candidates for professorships. A young man graduates from the university, and desires to devote himself to a university career. He spends a year or two as the case may be in preparing a course of lectures. He then applies for permission to locate in some university. He posts the announcement of his lecture on the bulletin board, and at the time appointed he begins his lecture. Three or four students drop in to see what the new man is like. If he has something to say and can say it in an attractive and forcible manner, he may count upon a full lecture room. If the ordinary professor in that subject has become fossilized or negligent, he may experience the mortification of seeing his lecture-room deserted, and perhaps be finally compelled to hand over his larger lecture room to the younger man because the latter can draw the larger crowd.

We dwell on this matter of the privat docenthum because it seems to us that it is one of the most important elements in the German system. By it is secured, as a rule, constant exertion on the part of the older professors to furnish something new and solid, and to keep themselves fresh and active, lest the younger men supplant them. It offers further, to those young men who wish to follow a university career, an opportunity to begin their work as soon as they have graduated, and if they have the ability, a chance to succeed from the very first. And thus they retain the very cream of the rising generation for university work.

 

___________________________________

 

THE LECTURE VERSUS THE RECITATION SYSTEM

A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE METHODS OF INSTRUCTION IN GERMAN AND AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES.
by Edmund Janes James

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 11 (March, 1882), pp. 13-14.

            In considering the merits of any system of instruction, we ought to have regard to its relations toward both classes of individuals most affected by it, viz., the pupils and the teachers, the students and the professors. We ought to adopt that system which, on the whole, secures the best results for both parties. The catechetical, or recitation system has too exclusive reference to the pupils; the lecture system as practiced in many places, is too exclusively on the side of the teachers. A college professor is an entirely different person in Germany, from what he is here. The Germans make a world-wide difference between the Professor and the Lehrer, or instructor. That difference disappears in our economy. Our professor, as far as we use the word in a technical sense, is one who teaches college boys—the kind of work is exactly the same as the public school teacher’s—the only difference is that he has different subjects, though that isn’t true to the same extent now as formerly. We confine our teachers to the mere routine work of putting into the minds of their students a certain number of text-books. We overload them with work so that they have no chance to develop. We require them to teach, so many different subjects that they can never acquire more than a text-book knowledge of them. We impose so many hours’ work and so much outside responsibility upon them that they are thoroughly wearied, when they get a few moments’ or hours’ leisure, and need all the time to recuperate their health. This complaint comes from nearly every college in the country. The faculty of Yale College asserted only a few months ago, that every professor in the institution had too much drudgery to perform. In this way we deprive ourselves, as a country, of one of the most powerful means of promoting general culture. We impress upon our professors the fact that they are first, last and all the time, primarily teachers. They are not expected to make new discoveries. We do not care to have them add to the sum total of our knowledge. All that we desire is that they shall teach our boys what is known.

So far has this spirit been carried at times, that, in a prominent institution of one of our large Western States, a professor who was busily engaged in preparing a much needed text-book, was informed that if he engaged in any more such undertakings his services would be dispensed with. In Germany things are radically different. A professor is primarily a scholar. He is expected to be a student. Only about five hours’ work a week is required of him. He can devote his time to original investigations and give the results of his labors to the world in the form of lectures. He has no responsibility of government. He has no examination papers to correct. He can lecture at the time most convenient to him, and as many hours or as few (not less than five a week, however) as he chooses. In a word, he is a man paid by the government for devoting himself to original investigation and research, with the condition of formulating his results into lectures; and indeed this is an actual aid, rather than a hindrance in his work. It compels him to put into a concise shape the result of his investigation, and enables him to present the same in a systematic form, to the consideration of a number of educated young men. How different the case of the American college professor, who stands before a class, one half of whom do not care anything about, and the rest of whom do not stand in need of, that weary quizzing of the know-nothings, which it is a part of his duty to perform. How easy it is for one to become wooden and mechanical in doing that sort of work! and no wonder either, for it is, after all, a mechanical thing.

If, then, our American theory is the correct one; viz., that it is the professor’s business to see to it that a certain number of students have committed a certain text-book to memory, which he himself has previously committed as a part of his preparation, then the dialogical (I had almost said diabolical) method is the correct one. If, on the contrary, the Germans have the right idea, if a college professor is a student, whose business it is to present the result of his studies in an impressive and attractive form to a crowd of enthusiastic and earnest learners, then the lecture system is the only valuable and practicable method of realizing this idea.

 

___________________________________

GERMAN STUDENT-LIFE

by Edmund Janes James

Source: Illinois School Journal, vol. I, no. 9 (January, 1882), pp. 13-15.

Let us look for a moment at the means at their disposal for prosecuting their studies. In the first place we have the lectures which we have already mentioned. We found that they were, for the professors, the best method of instruction. Now we may ask the question how is the lecture system adapted for the student? Can he retain what he hears so as to make it of any permanent value to him? I answer yes! Of the possibilities of the system we know almost nothing in this country. This power of retaining what one hears is a mere matter of practice. You have all heard the story of the father, who required his little boy to tell him each Sunday, what the preacher had said, and who finally succeeded in training him so that he could repeat the sermon almost word for word. The little German child is trained in the same way. Stories are read to him once, and he is required to write them out from memory and to keep up this practice until he can write almost everything he hears in a lecture of forty or fifty minutes. Such is the boy as he comes to the university. He can listen to the professor an hour, and come out and repeat the lecture substantially from beginning to end. We can not realize, I will not say the possibilities, but the actualities achieved under this system, until we have come in actual contact with them.

But even if the lecture system did not serve its end so well as it does, it might still be borne with, since it is supplemented, 1st, by private societies among the students, which are kept up by those who take an interest in some one branch, as for instance, mathematics or history. 2nd, by seminars, or small clubs conducted by the professors. I desire to call your attention especially to this feature as it has been but little noticed so far as I know by writers on German universities, and but little enjoyed by most Americans who study in Germany. In my opinion, these seminars are the most important element, in many respects, of the German university. They are but little more than methodically conducted conversations in reference to the subjects chosen for discussion. They are generally held at the house of the various professors, although, if too large, or if the professor’s house is too far away, they are held in the college building. The plan pursued varies with the subject and the professor. In the politico-economical seminar for instance, a list of subjects was generally proposed at the beginning of the term upon which essays were to be written. Each member chose one or more subjects according to his inclination, and as he had time, studied it up, and gave notice when he should read it. The members of the seminar looked up the same subject somewhat, so as to be ready for the discussion which always followed the essay. After a thorough discussion, the professor summed up what had been advanced on each side, giving his own opinion and his reasons for it.

In the philosophical seminar we read the first term, Spinoza, simply pronouncing the Latin, and if we came across a difficult sentence, stopping long enough to translate it. We would read a paragraph and the professor would stop and ask some one what he thought of that, or if that was a new idea in philosophy, first imported by Spinoza, or where did he steal that point? or who developed it after him? or, is that sound logic? &c, &c, varying his questions now and then by a biographical one. Prof. Haym, who conducted the seminars, was one of the most popular men at Halle. He was a really eloquent speaker, and his lectures on the History of Philosophy were well attended. I must relate a little incident which happened in connection with our seminar under him, and which illustrates the peculiar temperament and manner of the man. It was the close of our term on Spinoza. There had been seven of us in the club; we had met regularly at his house, and he had always set out the cigars and told the boys to help themselves. As the days grew long and warm, for it was the spring semester, he had refreshments of various sorts, and some of the boys concluded that we ought to make him some return for the pains he had taken. After due deliberation, we contributed, as heaven had blessed us, and appointed a committee to purchase a copy of Leibnitzen’s works. For some inscrutable reason which I have never been able to ascertain, the committee concluded to purchase, instead, a bust of the philosopher, Kant. “When I took my book to the professor to sign, he asked me to step into the hall and inquired if I had had anything to do with that thing, raising as he spoke, a cloth which covered a bust of the immortal Kant. “It came from my seminar, I understand. I hope it won’t be repeated. I wish to invite you to take supper with me on next Monday evening where you will meet the other members of the seminar.” At the appointed hour we had all arrived and were sitting in the parlor, expecting every moment that the professor would lead the way to the dining-room, when he slowly arose and said, “Gentlemen, I should like to see you in my study for a moment, if you please.” We followed him into his sanctum, where upon the table stood our bust of Kant. As soon as we had all come in, he turned half way toward the bust, and half toward us, and began: “Gentlemen, although I recognize your honorable intentions in making me this present, yet it has grieved me more than I can tell you, to see that you have tried to pay me off in this way. I gave you my time gladly and will do it again whenever yon feel a desire to pursue your studies on this subject further, but I am very sorry that you should attempt to get even with me in- this manner. I must therefore decline this present, in the first place, because I never accept presents, on principle. In the second place if I should accept a present, I could not take a bust. You see that I have no room for one,” and he pointed to the walls of the room, which really presented no position where a bust could be placed. ” In the third place, if I should be willing to accept a bust, I do not care for one of Kant’s, for I have one already. And finally, even if I should be willing to accept one of Kant, I should not want that, for it is really the poorest bust of Kant that has ever been made. It does not bear the slightest resemblance to him. The merchant has sold you completely. It not only does not resemble Kant, but it has no merit whatever in an artistic point of view. I asked Prof. Herzblerg to-day (who was senior professor of art in Halle) if I might put it in the university chapel, but he said he would not have it there. To save you from all loss, so far as I could, I went to the merchant who sold it to you, and he has agreed to take it back, and refund all the money but two marks, which he claims as expense for delivering and taking it back again, so here is your money; never attempt to make me a present again. Supper is ready, let us go;” and with that he led the way to the dining-room. It is needless to add, that we followed his wishes to the letter, in reference to making him presents:

It will be seen from our above description of seminar work, how valuable these seminars are as supplements to the lectures. If one joins such a society, one is sure of finding young men who are pursuing the subject in earnest, no idlers or dilettants are admitted. As they are gratuitous and private, the professors have the right to refuse admittance to any they choose, and they exercise this right pretty regularly, to keep out those whom they think wish to join for mere appearance-sake. One finds among the members, men who have been pursuing the subject from six months to three years, and consequently has from the very first, the most intimate intercourse with students who know more of the subject than himself. There is, beside, the advantage of personal contact with the professor, as the sessions are generally held at his private house.

 

___________________________________

 

 

POLITICAL ECONOMY IN GERMAN UNIVERSITIES

by Edmund Janes James

Source: The Nation, September 28, 1882. pp. 261-62.

To the Editor of The Nation:

Sir: The notice, in a recent number of the Nation of Professor Fredericq’s report on instruction in history in the German universities, suggests the thought that perhaps a short account of the instruction in political economy in these schools would be of interest to your readers. I describe the work as it is laid out in the University of Halle, both because I am better acquainted with that institution and because, in the opinion of competent critics, the work there is, on the whole, better organized than at any other similar school in Germany.

Instruction in political economy is given, in the first place, by lectures. There are three professors in this department. In the course of a year they offer several series of lectures on the following subjects: History of Political Economy, Theoretical Political Economy, Practical Political Economy (the discussion of the economic problems of modern society), Science of Finance, Statistics, Police Supervision, and Administration. lectures upon other subjects are occasionally given, especially upon economic topics of current interest.

These lectures are supplemented (1) by the politico-economic Seminar, and (2) by the politico-economic debating society. The former is organized as a department of the University; its object is to provide opportunities for those who wish to make a specialty of economics. It is a society of students under the direction of a professor. It meets for two or three hours, regularly, once a week, sometimes oftener. The exercises consist of essays by the students on subjects suggested by the director, followed by discussion and criticism of them. At the beginning of the term the professor prepares a list of subjects, theoretical, practical, and historical, from which each of the members of the Seminar chooses two or more which he agrees to present during the term. A programme is made out, and one or two of these essays assigned to each session. The subjects being known beforehand, each member of the society is expected to prepare himself for the discussion which follows the reading. Such subjects as the following are assigned: Value, Banks of Issue, Double Standard, Income-Tax, State Ownership of Railways, etc. The student is expected to know, for instance, in the first case, the opinions of all prominent economists in reference to the subject, and their definitions of it. He must be able to give reasons for his own view, accompanied with refutation of the views he rejects, etc. It will be seen that the director has an excellent opportunity in his questions to test the thoroughness and extent of the student’s investigation and to form an opinion of his ability.

The object of the society is really to promote original work in economics. A liberal amount of money is appropriated to the purchase of all recent publications of value in any language for the Seminar library. The society, although not yet fifteen years old, has done valuable original work, and its publications are rapidly acquiring an enviable reputation in Germany. A recent pamphlet by one of the members on “American Competition in European Markets” attracted the attention of the Government, and the young man who wrote it was offered a place on a commission which was to come to America and investigate the whole subject and report to the Imperial Government, but he was prevented from accepting by his election to the Reichstag. All possible assistance is given to those who aim to do original work, and the keen but sympathizing criticism of professor and fellow-student is no small aid in preventing mortifying blunders and mistakes. Professor Conrad, who now has charge of the society, is a really great teacher, able to inspire enthusiasm for his work, and wisely to direct the efforts of his students. There is also a statistical Seminar under his charge, which makes a specialty of original work in statistics.

The politico-economic debating society is under the control of the students, and discusses economic questions in the form of resolutions. It occupies itself, naturally enough, rather with practical questions of current interest than with purely theoretical problems. Its work is more serious and valuable than the work of corresponding organizations with us, because each of the members has had a tolerably complete course in political economy before he enters it.

It will be seen that the advantages offered the liberally-trained student who desires to specialize are excellent. Such a system would, of course, be of no value in our ordinary colleges, whose students need the drill and training of school-boys much more than they do opportunities for original research.

E.J. James

Normal, Ill., Sept. 12, 1882.

 

___________________________________

 

 

THE DEGREE OF PH.D. IN GERMANY

by Edmund J. James
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.

Source: The Andover Review, vol. 9, no. 54 (June, 1888), pp. 611-623.

            The conditions on which the degree of Ph. D. should be granted has formed a subject of debate among American college authorities for some years past. The result of the discussion up to the present time has not been all that one could desire who likes uniformity in such matters as the giving of academic honors.

It may help towards its solution if we examine the condition of things in Germany at the present time in regard to this question. As is well known, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is preeminently a German degree. It was the German universities which, by adopting it as the highest literary degree which they conferred, have given it a standing among the learned institutions of the world. It has been used in this country to so large an extent as an honorary degree, and given away so lavishly to men of high station and low station, and, indeed, of no station at all, that those who hold it on examination are almost ashamed of it, and finally, in order to defend themselves, have adopted the expedient so long in vogue in England of writing after their degrees the name of the university from which it is taken.

In the discussions on the subject which have occurred in this country it has been quite generally assumed that the conditions of granting this degree in Germany are practically uniform. This is true in a certain degree, but it is by no means true to the extent generally supposed. I propose in the following article to give a summary of the conditions required for this degree in Germany, so far as they can be deduced from the printed requirements of the various institutions, and from a somewhat extended personal investigation on my own part.

The rules and regulations of the different faculties in regard to the granting of this degree have been all collected and published by Dr. Baumgart, in a small book, dated Berlin, 1885. [3rd edition, 1888]There is a certain normal procedure in course for this degree which may be deduced by taking the requirements which are common to the larger number of universities. The requirements in the Prussian universities are somewhat more uniform than those of the other German states. For the purpose of this article, therefore, it will be best to describe the course for the Prussian degree, and then note the variations in the case of each university.

A Prussian who wishes to take the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from a Prussian university must first graduate at one of the schools which are recognized by law as entitled to prepare students for the university. These schools are of two kinds: the classical colleges or gymnasia, whose course of study, extending over nine years, is chiefly devoted to Latin, Greek, and mathematics, with some attention to history, modern languages, and natural science; and the Latin scientific, or real schools, whose course, of equal length with that of the gymnasia, differs from it in having no Greek, and giving much more attention to modern languages and natural science. After graduating at one of these schools the candidate must attend a German university for at least three years.

If he desires to come up for his degree at the earliest possible moment he must, during these three years, prepare a dissertation on some topic connected with the line of study to which he has devoted most attention. When he applies for permission to be examined for the degree he must present certificates showing his graduation from one of the above-mentioned preparatory schools, and also that he has completed the academic triennium. He must also present his dissertation, and designate two subjects in which he is willing to be examined besides philosophy, in which all candidates must pass an examination. The application must be in Latin. He must append to the dissertation certain propositions or theses which he is willing to defend against all critics. If his dissertation is considered satisfactory, and his certificates are in order, he is then admitted to an oral examination, in the presence of the faculty, on the subjects before mentioned. This examination may last from two to four hours. If the candidate successfully passes this ordeal, he must then defend his dissertation and the appended theses in public against certain specially selected critics, in some cases chosen by himself, in others appointed by the faculty. If this test is pronounced successful, he is then admitted to the formal act of graduation, and the degrees of Master of Liberal Arts and Doctor of Philosophy are conferred upon him.

Such may be called the normal course of events in the progress toward this degree. There are variations from it in almost every university, and the sum total of variations is large, though in no case is a variation made which is regarded as of vital importance. How important such deviations are, can be best seen from a comparison of the requirements of different universities with regard to each of these elements.

The course of pre-university education necessary for this degree is determined in Prussia by the State Department of Education. The government determines what schools may prepare for the university, and then carefully prescribes the course of study of such schools. Prior to 1870 only graduates of the gymnasia or classical schools were admitted to the Prussian universities. In that year the government ordered that graduates of the Latin, scientific, or ” real schools of the first order,” as they are technically called, should also be admitted to the universities in the philosophical faculty, that is, the department which includes everything but law, medicine, and theology. They are admitted to examination for the degree of Ph. D. on the same terms as the graduates of the classical colleges, except they must, of course, not choose subjects in their final examination for which a knowledge of Greek is considered necessary, such as classical philology or ancient history. The law permits students from outside of Prussia to be admitted without these certificates of graduation, on their showing to the satisfaction of the faculty that they possess the requisite maturity and mental discipline to pursue successfully university studies. As a matter of fact, no inquiry is made in regard to students from outside of Germany in regard to their qualifications. All who apply are admitted, unless they are women, or are evidently immature. If they wish to come up for degrees, the case is somewhat different, and will be noticed later.

There are twenty-one institutions within the present limit of the German empire which have power to grant the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Of the ten Prussian institutions only one, namely, Göttingen, makes in its rules any express distinction between the graduates of the gymnasia and the real schools. Göttingen limits the choice of subjects of the latter class, in their final examination, to mathematics, natural sciences, and modern languages. In the case of the other nine universities the same restriction certainly exists tacitly, even if they would admit candidates to a somewhat wider range of choice than the University of Göttingen. The government does not permit the graduates of real schools to present themselves for the public examination for teachers in any other branches than those mentioned in the rules of Göttingen, and while this provision does not bind the universities to make the same requirements in the case of graduation, yet the tendency to do this, it must be admitted, would naturally be very great.

Of the more important non-Prussian universities, Leipzig requires, as a rule, graduation from a gymnasium, but the faculty may, in its discretion, accept the diploma of a real school as the equivalent of the former. Erlangen and Würzburg accept the real school certificate when one of the following subjects is selected as the principal branch: mathematics, physics, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, botany, or zoology. In all other cases they require the gymnasium certificate. Freiburg requires simply “evidences of satisfactory preparation,” and reserves to the faculty the right to decide what evidences are satisfactory. As a matter of fact it accepts the two certificates as equivalent. Giessen accepts the real school certificates in the case of candidates who have chosen either natural, mathematical, political, or technical science, but requires the gymnasium certificate in other cases. Heidelberg takes much the same position as Freiburg. Jena accepts the same rule as Göttingen. Munich follows the same policy as Erlangen, except that it also grants a doctor of political science, for which it accepts real school certificates, and in general reserves to the faculty the right to accept other certificates as the equivalent of either of these. Rostock and Strasburg make no distinction between the two certificates. Tübingen grants the doctor of philosophy only in philosophy, philology, languages, and history, for which it requires the gymnasium certificate; but it also grants a doctor of science of equivalent rank, for which it accepts the real school or any equivalent certificate.

All the universities admit foreigners to the examinations if they can show by satisfactory testimonials or by examination that they possess what the faculty regard as a preparation fairly equivalent to that required of German students. Strasburg requires, however, that all candidates, whether German or foreign, shall prove their ability to translate from Greek or Latin, while the rules of Leipzig provide that, in the case of foreigners, the school and university certificates usual in the country of the candidate will be accepted, if they are sufficient to convince the faculty of the fitness of the candidate.

In general, then, it may be said that the German universities all require some knowledge of Latin, mathematics, and modern languages as a prerequisite to the degree of Ph. D. How much is required can be known from the fact that the course of the school whose certificate is accepted as unquestionably giving the necessary preparation is nine years in length, and keeps a boy busy from his ninth to his eighteenth year. On the other hand, no German university requires a knowledge of Greek for its highest literary degree, including not merely the doctor of philosophy, but also the master of arts as well. A German Ph. D. need not know one Greek letter from another, and will yet be acknowledged as entitled to the privilege of entering the academic career.

The requirement of three years’ residence at the university is made in nearly all the German universities, except those of Bavaria, where four years are required of Bavarians. The certificate of any German university is accepted by each of the other universities as fully equal to its own. Berlin and Göttingen accept the certificates of attendance not only from German universities, but also from all universities organized on the general plan of German universities. Erlangen accepts three years spent in a polytechnic school as equivalent to two of the three years required. Freiburg and Rostock accept time spent in foreign universities and foreign or domestic technical schools of high rank as equivalent, term for term, to that spent in the university. Giessen permits the faculty to make such requirements of foreigners as may seem proper to it, allowing them to dispense with testimonials of the sort required of native students. Heidelberg and Kiel do not require any definite number of years, reserving it for the faculty to decide whether the candidate has studied a satisfactory length of time. Three years is probably taken here also as the normal period. Leipzig demands, ” as a rule,” from candidates from the German empire, a certificate of three years’ attendance at some university where the German language is used as the ordinary medium, recognizing in this way the equality of Austrian, Swiss, and Germano-Russian universities. Corresponding certificates are required of foreigners, though the faculty can waive the requirement in either case. Munich and Würzburg require “evidence of several years’ study of the principal branch offered,” and at least four years in the case of Bavarian applicants. Strasburg requires at least three years in the case of native students, though the faculty is authorized to make exceptions when it may seem good to them. The rules of the other universities contain nothing at all on this point, or simply provide that three years’ attendance at a university is required.

The dissertation must be in the Latin language. Provision is made in all cases for special exceptions to be made, except when the candidate comes up for examination in ancient philology. Berlin, Bonn, Göttingen, and Königsberg prescribe that if the thesis relates to topics connected with classical and Oriental philology and antiquities or ancient history and philosophy it must be written in Latin. In all other cases the faculty may, at its discretion, accept a thesis in German, but in case it does so, the candidate may be required at the public examination to show that he can read and translate a passage assigned him from some Roman classic. Breslau and Greifswald limit the topics in which Latin must be used to classical philology and ancient history. Erlangen, Jena, Munich, Tübingen, and Würzburg allow either Latin or German, and the faculty may accept other languages. Freiburg says nothing of the language in which the thesis shall be written. Giessen allows either Latin or German, but in case of students of philology the thesis must be in one of the languages which the candidate chooses for his principal subjects. Göttingen expressly prescribes “that no translation, poems, or any other writings whose excellence consists chiefly in their rhetorical or stylistic form, nor any mere expressions of personal convictions on religious, political, aesthetic, and other questions, will be accepted. There must at least be an attempt to treat the subject in a scientific manner, either historico-critical or demonstrative.” Halle requires Latin in all cases, except “those in which the subject offers serious difficulties to the use of Latin,” and the faculty must decide whether this is true or not. Heidelberg does not require a dissertation, and is indifferent as to what language is used, if one be submitted. Kiel, Leipzig, Marburg, and Strasburg require Latin only in case the thesis relates to classical philology. The faculty of Leipzig may accept theses in other languages. Minister requires Latin only in case the thesis relates to the classical languages or literatures. Rostock requires Latin, as a rule, in the case of classical philologists; in other cases, German, English, or French will be accepted.

Freiburg, Giessen, and Jena require that the dissertation shall be truly scientific in character. Kiel requires that the dissertation shall be a science-furthering one. Konigsberg speaks of it as a “specimen of the scientific knowledge of the candidate.” Leipzig prescribes that “the dissertation will not be satisfactory unless it shows clearly that the candidate is thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and can discuss it with some independence of judgment. It must contain exact references to all the more important sources of information used by the candidate. A good form and correct language are absolutely necessary conditions.” Munich provides that in case there are any serious doubts as to the scientific value of a dissertation it is to be refused forthwith. Tübingen uses almost the same language in describing the kind of dissertation which will be satisfactory, as Leipzig. The other statutes merely call for a dissertation, or a ” scientific dissertation,” or a “dissertation on some scientific topic.” Some of the universities permit papers previously published to be used for theses, others require that they shall be specially prepared for graduation.

The oral examination comprises, as a rule, three subjects, one of which must be designated as the principal subject, and two as subordinate branches. In Munich alone, a written examination is also required. Three questions are agreed upon by the professors of the principal branch selected by the candidate, and handed, sealed, to the candidate, who must answer them, in writing, within two hours, in the presence of the Dean and one professor. The object of the oral examination is declared in the rules of Leipzig to be chiefly to ascertain in how far the special knowledge displayed in the dissertation is associated with a more comprehensive knowledge of the whole department, and of those departments most closely allied with it. In many universities philosophy and Latin are required in all such examinations. Philosophy, as used in the requirements, except where it is taken as a principal subject when it means much more, includes usually such a knowledge of logic, mental philosophy, ethics, and history of speculative philosophy as a student might get from preparing himself to pass examination in a course on each topic embracing, say sixty to ninety lectures, or in some text-book on each topic, such as we use in our American colleges. Berlin prescribes nothing as to the number of subjects chosen, but prescribes that the examination is to be conducted by four ordinary, that is, full professors, two of whom must represent the principal branch of the candidate, and every other ordinary professor shall have the right to put any questions he chooses to the candidate. This would seem to imply that the candidate will also be examined in subordinate or allied branches. The choice of subjects may be made from the whole list of subjects represented in the faculty of philosophy. In Bonn the examination consists of two parts, that looking to the degree of master of arts, and that looking toward the doctorate. In the first part the candidate is examined in philosophy, mathematics, natural sciences, ancient languages, and history. In the latter the proficiency of the candidate is tested in the special knowledge of those branches in which he professes to have made special studies. In the statutes of Bonn there is a distinct acknowledgment of the professional character of the degree of Ph. D. They say in one clause that the doctor examination differs from that for master of arts by a particularly careful and thorough test in those branches to which the candidate has specially devoted himself, and in which he thinks that he can soon begin his career as teacher. In another place they say distinctly that the degree of Ph. D., which is higher than master, may be properly conferred only on those of whom it can be truly said that they possess a tested efficiency as teachers in their branch of study. Breslau provides that the examination shall include the chief subject of the candidate, and some subordinate branches, including philosophy, and in the case of philologists history also. Erlangen prescribes that the examination shall extend to the branch to which the thesis relates as principal branch, and also to two other branches to be chosen by the candidate, and designated by him to the Dean before the examination. The choice of subjects is limited somewhat by the division of the faculty and studies. The studies are arranged in two groups, as follows: —

  1. Systematic Philosophy, History of Philosophy, Pedagogics, Classical Philology, Classical Literature, Classical Antiquities, Germanic Philology, Romanic Philology, English Philology, Oriental Philology, History, History of Art, and Political Science.
  2. Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Mineralogy, Geology, Botany, Zoology.

The three studies chosen may all either be taken from one group, or the candidate may take two from one and one from the other.

Freiburg prescribes three subjects to be approved by the faculty. Giessen prescribes three subjects to be chosen from the following list: Philosophy, Classical, Oriental, German, Modern Philology, History, Science of Art, Political Economy, Forestry, Agriculture, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Mineralogy, Botany, Zoology. Göttingen prescribes two subjects, “which may not be mere branches of one and the same subject.”

Greifswald prescribes that every candidate must be examined in philosophy, also in his principal branch, and the appropriate subordinate branches, according to the following scheme: —

  1. If Philosophy is the principal subject, the candidate must be examined in all branches of philosophy, and one subject out of the philological-historical field, and one out of the mathematical or scientific fields.
  2. To Classical Philology belong Greek and Latin Philology and Ancient History. To German Philology, German Language and Literature, and one other historical or linguistic branch. To modern Philology, Romanic and English Philology and one other philological or historical subject. To Linguistics, comparative philology and some branch of ancient or modern Philology. To Oriental Philology, that language to which the candidate has specially devoted himself, with the allied languages of the same system, and in one branch of Classical Philology.
  3. To History, as principal subject, belong all parts of historical science, and one language.
  4. To Mathematics belong all branches of Mathematics and Physics.
  5. To Physics belong Mathematics and Chemistry.
  6. With Chemistry must be taken Physics, and any one of the descriptive Natural Sciences.
  7. With the descriptive Natural Sciences, Physics and Chemistry.
  8. With Geography, Physics, and either Mathematics, Natural Science or History.
  9. With Politics, History, History of Civilization, and Political Science.
  10. With Cameralia, Statistics, Political Science, and Industrial Science.

It will be seen that the choice in the subjects is much limited by thus grouping them together. It is significant that the faculty should think it necessary to thus prescribe the combination of subjects.

Halle prescribes three subjects, one of which must be philosophy. Heidelberg gives a list of subjects from which three must be selected by the candidate. In addition to those mentioned in the list of Erlangen, the following may be noted, — paleontology, agriculture, public law, international law, administrative law, statistics, science of administration. It is also prescribed that in case such a subject is taken as Shemitic languages, for example, a thorough knowledge of at least one language will be required, and a general acquaintance with all the languages of the group. It is furthermore provided that, besides the subjects given in this list, parts of them, or branches, or allied sciences, may be chosen as secondary subjects. But in such cases a more thorough knowledge of the subject will be demanded. It will be seen from this that a candidate can practically limit himself to one subject in his examination, and still get his degree. Jena gives a list of seventeen subjects from which a choice of three must be made. The list is similar to that of Erlangen. Königsberg prescribes that the candidate shall be examined chiefly in the subjects to which ho has specially devoted himself, but every professor has the right to put questions in other branches also, particularly philosophy, philology, history, mathematics, and natural sciences. Leipzig requires three subjects, which shall be related to each other, and shall be selected with due regard to the wishes of the candidate. Marburg prescribes philosophy and the subjects allied to the chief subject selected by the candidate. Munich prescribes three subjects, and gives a list of eighteen from which the choice is to be made, but reserves to the faculty the right to accept others, or parts of others, if the candidate wishes it. Münster prescribes four subjects, one of which must be philosophy. If the chief subject is philosophy, the other three may be selected by the candidate, with the restriction that one at least must come from philology or history, and one from mathematics or natural science. If the chief subject is one of the classical languages, the other must be offered also. If German, then history. If a Romanic language, then Latin. If English, then German. If Sanskrit, Latin or German. If history, then Latin. If art, political economy, or related sciences; the choice of the other subjects is free. The choice of the fourth subject is free, but is limited to one of the foregoing subjects. If the chief subject is mathematics, physics or astronomy must be offered. If physics or astronomy, then mathematics. If chemistry, then physics. If one of the descriptive natural sciences, then at least another of these same sciences. The choice of the fourth subject is free. Rostock prescribes three subjects, and gives a list of seventeen from which they must be chosen. It is interesting to note that whereas Rostock gives political science as one of the subjects of three which must be chosen, Heidelberg divides the subject so that one can limit himself to political science. Strasburg prescribes three subjects, and that candidates in classical philology shall be examined in Latin, that is, that language used in the examination, and that all candidates shall be examined in the translation of a Latin author. Tübingen prescribes two subjects only, and faculty may excuse from oral examination. Würzburg prescribes the combinations, any one of which may be chosen for the examination. They closely resemble those given above for Greifswald.

A public disputation or defense of the thesis, and the appended theses, is absolutely required at Berlin after the oral examination. The disputation is to be in Latin, except when the faculty gives permission to use German. Bonn prescribes that among the opponents of the candidate in this public debate there shall be at least one ordinary professor appointed by the faculty for this purpose, and who closes the side opposed to the candidate. Latin must be used in the disputation when the thesis is required in Latin. Erlangen, Leipzig, Freiburg, Giessen, Greifswald, Heidelberg, Jena, Rostock, Strasburg, and Tübingen do not require a public disputation. Göttingen allows the candidate his choice between a public ceremony, to which the public disputation belongs, or a private ceremony in a committee of the faculty, without disputation. Halle requires a public disputation by all who wish to enter a Prussian university as privat docenten. Other candidates may dispense with this ceremony. Kiel requires the candidate to deliver a short lecture on some topic chosen by himself, and make a public defense of his dissertation and appended theses, though the faculty may dispense with the defense of the dissertation. Königsberg, Munich, Münster, Würzburg, require a public disputation. The faculty of Marburg may excuse from the disputation at the request of the candidate.

The graduation ceremony is, at different universities, quite different, and on different occasions, at the same university, depending often, as described above in the case of Göttingen, on the wish of the candidate. It varies from a very solemn and ceremonious act, with a procession of members of the faculty in full academic costume, to the mere handing over to the candidate of his diploma by the Dean of the faculty, in a private room, in the presence of two or three professors.

The degree of Ph. D. is not granted by any of the universities in absentia, except when it is honoris causa. Bonn allows the faculty to grant the doctor’s degree ” without examination, only as a voluntary acknowledgment of excellent services to science. In very exceptional cases it may also be granted to show respect of the faculty for other than scientific services.” Würzburg also provides in the published rules for degrees honoris causa, in case two thirds of the corresponding committee of the faculty agree to it. The rules of the other faculties say nothing of such graduations, but in nearly all of them the degree is granted honoris causa, but, as a rule, only in the case of distinguished services to science.

The rules of Halle prescribe that “whoever wishes the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy must not only possess that general culture which is necessary to any high degree of scholarship, but must also have pursued with success some branch of science which is represented in the philosophical faculty. The certificate of graduation from a gymnasium or real school testifies to the former, and the dissertation and examination before the faculty to the latter.”

A careful consideration of the foregoing provisions will give one a clear idea of the conditions of the German Ph. D. It is evident that any boy of good abilities and good health, who can go to school from the beginning of his seventh year, can attain to the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy by the close of his twenty-first year, having divided his time as follows: three years in the primary school, nine years in the gymnasium, and three years in the university. As a matter of fact, owing to the circumstance that the average age of those who graduate from the gymnasium and real school is about nineteen, and that the average student spends much of the time at the university, during the first year, in recreation, thus requiring another year to complete his course, he will not get his degrees before he is twenty-three or four.

When we compare this condition of circumstances with that prevailing in American colleges, most of us will, I am sure, be surprised at the result. If we take any of our leading colleges we shall find that twenty is below the average age at which the classes leave college, and that if the college gives the doctor’s degree on examination, it usually prescribes at least two years’ further study, bringing the lowest age at which this degree is granted to at least twenty-two. The average age of some of the recent graduating classes at Harvard College was twenty-three and one half. Counting two years more as necessary for the degree, candidates would be on the average twenty-five and one half before they would be admitted to the examination. In some of the other colleges, where the average age is at least one or one and one-half years younger, as at the University of Pennsylvania, the age of applicants would still be twenty-three or twenty-four, — the same age as that of the German applicants.

One can also get a pretty clear idea as to the extent and severity of the examinations for the degree. They certainly cannot fairly require more in the way of knowledge than what a man can acquire within three years faithfully devoted to study. This means, of course, very much more in some studies than in others, owing to the place which certain lines of study hold in the preparatory course of study. Thus the gymnasium course is a special preparation for the course in philology, and it is, of course, perfectly fair to require of the candidate in this department a much more extensive knowledge of his subject than in political economy, for example, where all the candidate knows of the subject is what he has acquired in his three years’ course.

Taken all in all, it is pretty certain that it requires more hard work to get the degree of Ph. D. from a good American college, requiring post-graduate residence for two years, than from a German university. Why is it that the latter is considered of more value? This can only be answered after a discussion of the different conditions under which the two degrees are acquired, which would take a lengthy article for itself.

 

Image Source:  Edmund Janes James: Twelfth President of the Economic Association, 1910American Economic Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1944).

Categories
Gender Germany

Berlin. Mansplaining economics, 1895

While surfing through some early volumes (1890-1895) of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, I stumbled across the following announcement for a Berlin set of a dozen public courses to be held by distinguished scholars (of course the courses would have been offered in German, but it is handy here to have everything translated).

What simply caught my eye is highlighted below in boldface.

My question to anyone who sees this: what do you think was meant by putting the quotation marks around others, including educated women beyond of course indicating that this was an exact translation from the announcement? Was it a serious “Look, they let women attend!” or perhaps an ironic statement “Note, there must be no women lawyers, clergy, teachers, public officials, or journalists!” or worse still “What, women can attend?”

Please add your opinions below to the comments section.

 ______________________________________

Notes

[…]

THE GERMAN VEREIN FÜR SOZIALPOLITIK decided on the 17th of March of this year to organize a vacation course of lectures in Political and Social Science, to be held in the buildings of the University of Berlin from the 30th of September to the 12th of October. The people for whom these lectures are primarily intended are lawyers, clergymen, teachers, public officials of all classes, journalists, and “others, including educated women.” Twelve courses of six lectures each have been arranged. The price of an inclusive ticket has been fixed at 25 marks; the price for any one week for all lectures given in that week at 15 marks, and for the single course of six lectures at 3 marks.

Professor Conrad, of the University of Halle, will give one course on “Population, Colonies and Emigration ;”
Professor v. Miaskowski, of Leipsic, on “The Establishment, Preservation and Extension of the German Peasant Class;”
Professor v. Philippovich, of Vienna, on “Recent Commercial Policy;”
Professor Brentano, of Munich, on “The Wages Question;”
Professor Knapp, of Strassburg, on “Money ;”
Professor Neumann, of Tübingen, on “Finance;”
Professor Sering, of Berlin, on “Agriculture;”
Professor Bücher, of Leipsic, on “Modern Industry;”
Professor Wagner, of Berlin, on “Private Property;”
Professor Elster, of Breslau, on “Social Problems of the Modern State;”
Dr. Oldenberg, of Berlin, on “History and Theory of the Social Democracy;”
Professor Schmoller, of Berlin, on “Social Classes and Social Struggles.”

 

Source: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 6 (July, 1895), pp. 163-164.

 

Image Source: Playbill for The New Woman (1894) by Sydney Grundy. From the Sally Fox Collection. Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Germany

Columbia. Political Economy Courses Compared to Courses at the University of Berlin, 1897

___________________

 

An excerpt from a newspaper report comparing political economy as taught in New York at Columbia University with political economy as taught in Berlin was published in the Columbia University Bulletin in 1897.  The unnamed author of the report concluded that “the primacy which Germany enjoyed a few years ago has passed away”. Compare this to a report (1884) overflowing with praise for the research “seminary” of  German universities.

___________________

In the Evening Post of October 25, 1897, will be found an interesting discussion of the value of German university degrees in comparison with similar honors in American universities. The writer, who is apparently a student in the University of Berlin, holds that the requirements for the degree of Ph. D. are higher in several American institutions than in the average German university. His points are, first, that it takes a shorter time to obtain the degree in Germany than from any of the reputable American universities; and second, that the average size and value of the dissertations of Harvard and Columbia doctors of philosophy are certainly greater than those of the German universities, with the exception, probably, of Berlin. Indeed, he concludes, “the progress of American universities has been so rapid in recent years, and the entrance requirements have been so largely increased, that the bachelor’s degree is actually approaching the German doctorate in essential worth.” A few selections from the body of the article, comparing the instruction in political science at Columbia with that given at Berlin, are of special interest.

“Further light on the question will be thrown by a comparison of the courses of lectures in American and German universities. Confining attention to the various studies in the domain of political economy and social science, we may select Berlin as the strongest representative of German Institutions.* * * * Of the American schools of political science, it is not easy to select the strongest. Columbia is usually regarded as the best equipped, although several others are but little inferior. Let us compare, then, the courses offered at Columbia and Berlin in political economy.

“At Berlin, Professor Wagner gives three courses, aggregating ten hours, that cover the field of general and theoretical economics, and practical economics, including money and banking, etc. At Columbia, almost precisely the same field is covered by Professor Mayo-Smith’s “Historical and Practical Economy,” running through three semesters and aggregating nine hours. Almost the only difference is that Professor Wagner devotes more time to agricultural economics, a subject that has as yet received little attention in American schools of political economy. In finance Professor Wagner offers a four-hour course for one semester. Professor Seligman at Columbia covers the same ground, with more discrimination, in a two-hour course running two semesters. He also offers in alternate years a two-hour course on the financial history of the United States.

“In economic or industrial history Columbia stands the comparison very well. It has an introductory course on the economic history of Europe and America conducted by Professor Seligman and Mr. Day, and an advanced course on the industrial and tariff history of the United States by Professor Seligman. The two courses aggregate the same number of hours as Professor Schmoller’s “practical political economy,” which is nothing but industrial history, and history of Prussia at that—a course valuable to the specialist, but not of great value to the average American student. Professor Meitzen also gives a course on the history of agriculture, but it concerns the early land systems of Europe and other subjects that can have no application to American conditions. The essential forms of land tenure are described at Columbia in Professor Mayo-Smith’s historical political economy.

“In the field of statistics, the subject of demography or population statistics is treated at Berlin by Professor Boeckh in a two-hour course, and at Columbia by Professor Mayo-Smith in a similar course. Economic statistics are treated by Professors Meitzen and Mayo-Smith in much the same manner, while the history, theory, and technique of statistics receives attention in both institutions.

“At Berlin, Professor Wagner reads a critique of socialism and Dr. Oldenburg gives its history. The two courses aggregate the same number of hours as Professor Clark’s course on socialism at Columbia. Professor Clark’s criticism of “scientific socialism” is at least equal to that of any German professor, and it proceeds from the Anglo-Saxon point of view. In a second semester Professor Clark deals with projects of social reform, especially those of American origin. Somewhat similar is Dr. Oldenburg’s course on Socialpolitik at Berlin, and Dr. Jastrow reads in addition a course on labor legislation.

“In social science Columbia is clearly in advance of Berlin. Sociology is scarcely recognized at the German universities, but at Berlin Dr. Simmel, privat-docent, offers a two-hour course on sociology and political psychology. This is the nearest approach to a study of the growth and structure of society that one finds at Berlin. Columbia, on the other hand, offers a course on the evolution of society and social institutions, with a review of the principal theoretical writers, and another course on sociological laws. These are both given by Professor Giddings, who also reads courses on crime and pauperism. No such practical study of these problems is made in Berlin.

“Several minor courses are offered at each university—as, for example, railway problems—and all of the professors conduct seminars for the purpose of encouraging and supervising original investigations. The only subject in which Berlin offers superior advantages is agricultural economics, while Columbia is doing much more work in both theoretical and practical social science. Two courses remain to be mentioned. One of these is a course by Dr. Jastrow at Berlin on the literature and methodology of all the political sciences, an introductory course of considerable value to freshmen, which has no parallel in any other German or American university known to the writer. But Columbia offers a course that can scarcely be duplicated in Germany, namely, the abstract theory of political economy given by Professor Clark, one of the acutest and most original thinkers of our day. It is a course that is taken by not more than a dozen or fifteen men, but they are advanced students who can appreciate such a course. Professor Clark’s power of inspiring young men to do theoretical work of high quality is evidenced by the writings of such men as the late Dr. Merriam, of Cornell, and Professor Carver, of Oberlin College. But in Germany pure theory has been neglected since the time of Hermann. Only now, as the result of an impulse proceeding from Austria, is theory regaining its place in German economic circles. Professor Dietzel and some of the other younger scholars are doing good work in this line, which is hardly comparable, however, with that of Professors Clark, Patten, etc., in the United States, and Marshall in England. German economists are making valuable contributions to economics in other ways, but the primacy which Germany enjoyed a few years ago has passed away.”

 

Source: Columbia University Bulletin, Vol. XVIII (December, 1897), pp. 67-69.

Image Source: The University of Berlin between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. Digital ID: ppmsca 00342.

 

Categories
Columbia Germany Harvard Johns Hopkins Michigan Undergraduate

American Colleges and German Universities, Richard T. Ely, 1880

The economist Richard T. Ely was 25 years of age with a freshly earned Heidelberg doctorate when he wrote the following article on American colleges and German universities in late 1879 or early 1880 while still in Germany. According to his autobiography, he was down to his last three pfennige when the check came in the mail from Harper’s New Monthly Magazine. I have highlighted a few passages in the article for those in hurry.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_________________________________

 

“This article served to get me out of a very tight spot. One day I had left in my pocket, if I recall correctly, the total sum of three pfennigs, about three-quarters of a cent. What was I to do? At the University of Halle, another fellow-student and American was Marcus Hitch, who afterwards became a lawyer in Chicago. I put on my hat and made my way to my friend’s home about a mile away. When I got there, I said, “Marcus, I am dead broke, I have come to you for a loan.” He replied, “I was just putting on my hat to come to you.” He, too, had reached the end of his resources. I then returned to my room, trying to think of what to do next. What friend did I have in Berlin who could help me out in the present emergency? When I arrived at my room, I found a letter from Harper and Brothers, London, with twelve pounds sterling in it, in payment for my article “American Colleges and German Universities.” I was delighted with this amount. Twelve pounds sterling was equal to two hundred and fifty marks, which was about fifty dollars in New York at that time. My spirits rose and I made my way to my friend Hitch to tell him the good news. When I did, he replied that he had just received a remittance from home and was about to visit me to tell me of it and also to help out.”

Source: Richard T. Ely, Ground Under Our Feet, An Autobiography. New York: Macmillan, 1938, pp. 52-3

_________________________________

AMERICAN COLLEGES AND GERMAN UNIVERSITIES.

by Richard T. Ely

Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Vol. LXI, No. 362 (July, 1880), pp. 253-260. Copy at Hathitrust.org.

MANY excellent articles and addresses on college and university education in the United States and Germany have been written during the last ten years, but the authors have usually taken it for granted not only that all have clear ideas as to the character and purposes of these institutions, but also that perfect harmony exists between these ideas. The discussion has, therefore, turned upon the means of realizing a character and accomplishing ends not plainly defined. Had, however, each educational reformer first obtained a clear conception of the actual “final cause” of American and foreign universities and colleges, and then compared that conception with the desired “final cause,” it is safe to assert that the present notions in respect to both would be far less confused.

The comparison universally made is between our colleges and the German universities. It is shown that the condition of higher education in the United States is in a sad state—and about this there can be no doubt; that in Germany, on the contrary, it is in a flourishing one; ergo, let us turn our colleges into German universities. The next question is, How? In answer to this it is explained that in the German universities the studies are all elective and optional; in the colleges of the United States, compulsory. The conclusion is not difficult to be drawn. Make all studies in the colleges elective, and the work is done! The country is provided with a set of first-class universities! The German universities have thus been taken as models, and a sort of blind attempt made to imitate them in the way described. German universities are an acknowledged success, it is true; but what does it mean to pronounce an institution a success? It signifies that a harmony exists between the intentions of its founders and managers and the accomplished results. The questions then naturally arise, What is the purpose of the German university? What is its real distinguishing feature? Then, after having answered these, the further questions, Do American colleges have the same aims? If they do not, is it desirable that they should?

The answer to the first questions is not difficult. A German university is, from beginning to end, through and through, a professional school. It is a place where young men prepare to earn their “bread and butter,” as the Germans say, in practical life. It is not a school which pretends or strives to develop in a general way the intellectual powers, and give its students universal culture. This is the first point which should be clearly understood by all trying to Germanize our institutions. As soon as the student enters the university he makes a selection of some one study or set of studies—law, medicine, theology, or some of the studies included in the “philosophical faculty”— chemistry, physics, Latin, Greek, philosophy, literature, modern languages, etc. If a student pursues chemistry, it is because his chemistry is to support him in afterlife; if Latin and Greek, because he is preparing himself for a position as teacher; so it is with the other branches. The first question a university student asks before selecting a study is, “Of what practical benefit will this be to me ?” An opportunity is given to extraordinary talent and genius of developing, however, by allowing a certain freedom in “learning and teaching.” There is no regulation to prevent a student of law from hearing a lecture, e. g., on the Agamemnon of AEschylus; but this rarely happens. Each one has the examination in mind which is to admit him into active life, and, as a rule, pursues only the studies required for passing it, and what is more, pursues them no farther than is likely to be demanded. If a smattering of the history of philosophy is required, as in the theological examination in Prussia, the candidate will read the little work by Schwegler, but stop there. There are exceptions: some study for the love of study, for the love of science, of truth; but they are few. The professors who teach sciences not required for some examination complain that comparatively few students attend their lectures. Professor Wundt, the distinguished psychologist and philosopher of Leipzig, explains in this way the little attention paid to philosophy by German students. In the philosophical magazine Mind, for November, 1877, he compares the German and English universities. “The German student does not,” says he, “like his English compeer, reside at the university simply with the object of general scientific culture, but, first and foremost, he pursues a ‘Brodstudium.’ He has chosen a profession which is to procure him a future living as doctor, practicing lawyer, clergyman, master in one of the higher schools, or the like, and for which he must establish his fitness in an examination at the close of his university career. But how enormously have the subjects of instruction increased in the majority of these professions! …….It requires either compulsion or a specially lively interest to bring our doctors, lawyers, philologists, to the philosophical lectures. But of late compulsion has for the most part ceased.” Professor Wagner, the political economist, of Berlin, has not long since expressed himself quite similarly. He says only a small number of the law students hear his lectures on political economy, or any other lectures which are not absolutely required for examination. In the University of Berlin there are over three thousand matriculated students, and nearly two thousand non-matriculated attendants at lectures; but so celebrated a man as Zeller has only a small number of hearers at his lectures on psychology, because it is a subject required for but few examinations. At Halle in the winter semester 1877-78 only one course of lectures on psychology was announced, that, however, by a clever young man, an author of some philosophical works. Although there are nine hundred students at Halle, the lectures were not delivered, because two could not be found who desired to hear them. The only one who presented himself was the writer, a foreigner, and when he was trying to find number two, and proposed to others to hear the lecture, the answer was, “It is not required for the examination.”

This shows how seriously those college professors and trustees have erred who have imagined that they were turning our American colleges into German universities by making the studies elective and optional. The German institution which corresponds to an American college as a school of general intellectual training is the gymnasium, where there is but a minimum of election in the studies; e.g., Hebrew is optional, and the student has perhaps a choice between English and some other study. The Germans suppose that experienced teachers and men of tried ability, who have devoted years to investigating the matter, are better able to judge of the studies advisable for the general development of the intellectual powers of boys than the boys themselves. It would seem that they might be in the right. On the contrary, the essence of the freedom which each university student has of electing his studies is simply the freedom given to men of selecting their own professions. The door through which every German must pass into office or profession is the examination; but the Minister of Instruction and other public authorities prescribe very minutely the studies required for each examination. Each German student is required to have pursued certain sciences, differing according to his intended profession, before he can enter active life. He has only the liberty of pursuing them when, where, and in the order which he will. He selects his own books, professors, and has his own method. He may be five years in preparing for the examination, or ten, if he chooses to waste time. This is truly a considerable liberty, but far less than it is generally supposed the German students enjoy. Professor Helmholtz, in his inaugural address, delivered October 15, 1877, as rector of the University of Berlin, acknowledges that many German fathers and statesmen have demanded a diminution of even the existing liberty of university life, and adds, farther, that a stricter discipline and control of the students by the professors would undoubtedly save many a young man who goes to ruin under the present system.

There are three departments of our colleges or universities which correspond to three of those of the German universities, and offer no insurmountable difficulty in the perfection of our school system. These departments are those of law, theology, and medicine. The reforms necessary must be evident to men of the respective professions: greater freedom of the schools from the principle of private money-making institutions; a longer and more thorough course of study, as in Germany, where the time required to be passed in previous study for admittance to the professions of law and medicine is about double what it is in the United States; higher requirements for admittance to these professional schools. That here is a place where the government, if not the central, at least that of the separate States, has a duty to perform, no political economist or statesman of note is so given to the laissez-faire principle as to deny. All of our States recognize this, and exercise some control as regards physicians and lawyers. If a tailor makes me a poor suit of clothes, no great harm is done: I try another next time. Besides, I can demand samples of his work beforehand, and even if no tailor myself, am not utterly unable to judge of his work. Here the principle of private competition is the only proper one. But the principle of private competition in respect of law and medicine is not sufficient. If a medical quack kills my child, it does not help the matter to reply to my complaints, “Well, try another doctor next time.” It is heartless. My child is dead, and nothing can help the matter now. “But you should have known that the man was a humbug, ” says some one. I should have known nothing of the kind. It is precisely because I do not know, because I am no physician, that I require one. Again, in many small towns there is only one physician, and the people have no choice. It is the same case with lawyers. An ignorant or incapable man may cause me the loss of my property, or even my neck. This “next time” theory helps the matter not at all. It is too late. There is for me no next time. The man appeared to me clever; he talked well, and I tried him. I judged as well as I could, but my not being a lawyer made it impossible for me to be a competent judge of his abilities. The State, then, does its citizens a real service, and one they can not do for themselves, in forcing candidates for the legal and medical professions to submit themselves to an examination by competent authorities, who pronounce upon their fitness for exercising the functions of lawyers or doctors. This principle is recognized by every civilized government in the world, though perhaps nowhere so laxly and negligently as in the United States. What is necessary, then, as regards these professional schools is for the State by proper legislation to raise the standard of requirements, and so assist the colleges and universities in giving us an able and properly educated set of professional men, as in Germany, where actual legal and medical malpractice are exceedingly rare. England has lately been forced to take a step in the right direction by making the requirements for becoming a physician severer. The profession was too open to the principle of free competition, and the abuses became intolerable. One other means of improving these professional schools would be to bring them in closer connection with the college departments, so that a medical or law student should have the liberty of hearing lectures on history, political economy, etc., if he wished. All the different schools should, of course, have one common library. This is the plan pursued on the continent of Europe. It frequently happens, too, that students of different departments have the same studies, and it is a waste of time, money, and force to separate them here. The law student is not the only one who needs to understand “international law,” nor the medical student the only one who ought to have some knowledge of physiology and hygiene.1

1 The writer does not consider the theological schools, because that is a matter which each Church must take care of for itself, so long as state and church are entirely separate. Where there are so many sects as in the United States it may be well that the schools of divinity should be by themselves.

The so-called college department, or “college proper,” is the one which offers most difficulty to the reformer, and the one where the most confusion prevails. When the course of study is simply one for general culture, it is no part of a university, in the continental European sense of that term. There is, therefore, in America a want of a school offering opportunities to large and constantly increasing classes of men for pursuing professional studies—a want which is deeply felt, and which sends every year many students and millions of dollars out of the country. Where in the United States can a young man prepare himself thoroughly to become a teacher of the ancient classics? A simple college course is not enough. The Germans require that their teachers of Latin and Greek should pursue the classics as a specialty for three years at a university after having completed the gymnasium, which as a classical school would be universally admitted to rank with our colleges. Every college professor of Latin and Greek must admit the need of better preparatory teachers. The poor entrance examinations, when the candidates for admissions do not come from some one of our few old and excellent but expensive academies, like Exeter, Andover, and the Boston Latin School, bear only too strong witness of their previous training. If an American wishes to pursue a special course in history, politics, political economy, mathematics, physics, philosophy, or in any one of many other studies lying outside of the three professions, law, medicine, and theology, he must go to Europe. Even to pursue the study of United States history, the American will do better to go abroad. From Maine to California, from Minnesota to Texas, there is no institution which teaches United States history thoroughly. Many colleges require no knowledge of it, either for entering or graduating. Others imagine that they have done their full duty in demanding a few historical names and dates as condition of admittance. As many—in the country the majority—of our lower schools do not teach history, the result is sad enough. English papers have with reason spoken slightingly of historical instruction in our country. Again, whoever desires, even in theology, medicine, or law, to select some one branch as a specialty, must go to Europe to do so. But these professional schools are already organized, and their needs recognized.

What is to be done about the college department? How get system out of the confusion of our system, or rather no system? for we have in the United States, with the exception of a few States, no school system, although some good schools.2 Until we have adopted a satisfactory system, we may rest assured that thousands of parents will continue to educate their children in Europe.

2 He who would be convinced of the unreason of our educational organization, can do no better than read the able and interesting address delivered by Andrew D. White, LLD., now United States Minister at Berlin, before the National Educational Association at Detroit, August 5,1874. It is entitled, “The Relations of the National and State Governments to Advanced Education,” and published in pamphlet form by “Old and New,” Boston.

We have the materials in the United States for a good school system, beginning in the common school and ending in the university; the need is organization. Dr. Barnard would have three grades—the school, academy, and college.3 But should not a. fourth be added—the university? It is not necessary that the university should be separate from the college, though in some places it might be, as in the Johns Hopkins University, which started with the intent of becoming a university. Harvard will serve as an illustration. If Harvard required a college education for entering any one of its departments, placing them all on a level, made all studies elective except in examination, and enlarged its curriculum so as to enable one to pursue special courses in Latin, Greek, political science, etc., it would become in every respect a professional school, i. e., a. university.4 Those who entered would already have finished their general studies, and would go there to prepare for some particular profession, as that of teacher of Latin and Greek, or some one or two of the natural sciences, or to become physician, editor, etc. Now it is different. Harvard demands very limited requirements for entering its professional schools, but desires that the students of these schools should first complete the college course of four years. So long as this is expected, it seems impossible that the requirements for admission to the college department should be raised. If a young man is eighteen years of age upon entering, he is not able to begin his professional studies before twenty-two, which makes him at least twenty-five upon entering practical life—quite old enough. Harvard’s requirements for admission give the American student a rather longer course before beginning his professional career than is required from his German compeer, who commences them at twenty or thereabouts. If Harvard continues to increase its conditions for admission to the college department, it can not expect the lawyers, doctors, and clergymen to pursue just the college course. The result would be that more young men than at present would begin their professional studies without having previously pursued even an ordinary college course. The solution of the difficulty lies in rather diminishing than otherwise the requirements for admission to the college proper, or academic department, of Harvard, in putting the extra studies in the graduate courses, which latter form part of the university proper, and in requiring a college education at Harvard or some other good college as a condition of entering any department of the university. The writer would thus separate distinctly college education and university education. Their methods and aims are different. The college should adhere to its old plan, give thorough instruction in Latin, Greek, French, German, mathematics, general history, etc. The courses should be, for the most part, prescribed, and contain such studies as would fit young men for taking a position in society as educated gentlemen; then should follow business or professional studies. It would seem that this course ought to be finished at twenty, as Dr. McCosh recommends. In other countries the corresponding courses of study do not require more time, though in most the professional courses are longer and severer, as they will surely become in the United States, as they must become, in a time when all professions are making such strides, and the number of studies increased proportionately. If colleges, then, consecrated themselves to this more modest but more useful plan of becoming higher academies, and nothing more, we should find that our four hundred and twenty-five colleges were not such a great superfluity as we now think. Great laboratories, costly observatories, and apparatus indispensable to a university, would be entirely unnecessary. Thoroughness, of which there is now great lack, should be one of the main points. In some places in the West there would be still too many colleges, but by uniting in some places, and by a better local distribution in others, this could be remedied. Let us compare the statistics of two other countries, in which the excellence of higher instruction is admitted alike by friend and foe— France and Germany. In 1874 Germany had 333 gymnasia, besides 170 progymnasia and Latin schools. The progymnasia are a low grade of academy, but some of the Latin schools rank with the gymnasia. Since 1874 over twenty new gymnasia and progymnasia have been established. We can calculate, therefore, that Germany has at least 350 gymnasia or classical colleges. But besides these there were, in the beginning of the year 1874, 106 “Realschulen erster Ordnung, ” which have a curriculum similar to the Latin and scientific course of some of our colleges, as Cornell. Germany has, therefore, over 450 “colleges proper,” scientific and classical, and is increasing the number. Germany’s population is a trifle greater than that of the United States. Prussia, with less than 26,000,000 inhabitants, had, in 1874, seventy-nine “ Realschulen erster Ordnung, ” with 23,748 scholars ; 228 gymnasia, with 57, 605 students; together, 81,353. It is not to be forgotten that the scholars enter the gymnasia and Realschulen when very young, so that the time required to complete the course is eight years. The programmes of these schools and the statistics seem to justify us in ascribing to a little less than one-third of the scholars the rank of American college students, say, 25,000 in Prussia.

3 Dr. Bernard‘s position is not here accurately stated. In his Albany address he was considering general, and not professional, education; and his complaint was that the ground is taken away from under any possible university proper, in this country, by clothing every petty college with university powers.—Editor Harper’s Magazine.

4 The term university is here used in the sense in which it is, or has come to be, used in Germany. It is not the primary signification. The German universities have developed into professional schools, while the British, originally identical in form with those of the continent, have not undergone that development. Is not the power of conferring degrees, as Dr. Barnard suggests, the distinctive function of a. university, i. e., of a university in the European sense of the term? Are not all the elements that go to make a school a university simply those which fit it for the exercise of this function?— Editor Harper’s Magazine.

France, with a smaller population than the United States, has eighty lycées, with 36,756 scholars, and 244 colleges, with 32,744 scholars; together, 69,500. These schools resemble German gymnasia, and we shall not probably be far out of the way in giving 20,000 of them the rank of American college students.

According to Dr. Bernard’s statistics, as given in Harper’s Weekly, the number of under-graduates in all American colleges is 18,000. We see that a greater proportion of the youth of France and Germany devote themselves to liberal studies than of America. Besides, there are over 19,000 university students in Germany, not to speak of those in the mining and technical schools, undoubtedly many more than in the graduate and professional schools in the United States. In France, in 1868, the attendance at university lectures amounted to 11,903. But in France the faculties have the right of holding examinations and granting diplomas. Twenty-seven thousand six hundred and thirty-four examinations were held in the same year; 9344 received diplomas.

As America becomes older and wealth increases, we might expect, a priori, the proportionate number of Americans availing themselves of the advantages of higher education to increase. This is unfortunately not the case, as the careful statistics of Dr. Barnard too clearly demonstrate. Many reasons can be given for this decrease. One may be the higher standard required for admission by some of the best colleges. One would hardly like to say that, abstractly considered, even Harvard‘s requirements were too severe, but they stand out of all relation to the condition of the lower schools in the greater part of the country. It is not daring to assert that there are entire States in the Union where scarcely a suitable preparatory school for institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia exists. Now parents may be willing to send their sons away from home at sixteen, but most fathers and mothers do not like to do so when they are only ten years old. The remedy lies in a better provision and more careful supervision of grammar and high schools. It were very desirable that none but college graduates, or those who should pass an examination implying the same amount of knowledge as a college graduate is expected to have, should be permitted to occupy the higher positions in these schools. The government has manifestly the same right to demand this that it has to require the present minimum of knowledge. It seems childish to argue the question, but so many good people among us are blindly attached to the laissez-faire principle of the last century that it may be well to put one or two questions to them. What right has the state to force those who wish to teach to pass any examination at all? How can one limit this right, once conceded, so as to make it meaningless? If the government has the duty of seeing that the rising generation is educated, why should it not have the right of using such means as will enable it to accomplish its duty effectually? Nay, what right has the government to use the people’s money, or allow it to be used, in employing public servants who are incapable of performing their duties efficiently? At present the requirements are so low that the supply of teachers greatly exceeds the demand, and that American has had an experience as happy as rare who has not repeatedly seen brazen effrontery take the place away from modest merit. The Germans, whom we often accuse of a lack of practical understanding, exhibit more common-sense in these matters than we. In Germany the requirements are proportioned to the grade of the teacher, and are kept so high that the demand for teachers is slightly in excess of the supply. There is thus a tendency toward a continual advance in quality. Every encouragement is offered to excellence, as it is rewarded proportionately. Another probable cause of the small number of college students is the discredit brought on higher education by Western institutions like the “universities” of Ohio, of which not one, according to so distinguished and well-informed an educational authority as Minister White, can rank above third or fourth class, “judged even by the American standard.” The chief struggle and chief rivalry of each seems to be to obtain a larger number of students than its neighbors. One institution in Ohio has been promised a large sum of money when the number of its students attains a certain figure. The effect on entrance and other examinations is self-evident. Besides, one can not avoid reflecting that that is a rather low state of culture in which men are valued like sheep, at so much a head! To learn what a wise system of State action can do, we have but to look to Michigan, whose educational system, ending in the university at Ann Arbor, is an honor to the country.5

5 For a farther consideration of this point, see the admirable address on advanced education by Dr. White.

A third reason why there are so few college students is palpable in a literal sense—as palpable as gold and silver. The expenses of living at the first-class colleges have increased faster than the wealth of those classes which supply them with their under-graduates. A student can not live comfortably at Harvard for less than $700 per annum, but in the wealthy State of New York there are towns of several thousand inhabitants where a man can easily count on his fingers all the fathers who can educate their sons at such an expense. The scholarships at Harvard are not equal to the demand, and many who would otherwise go to Harvard are too independent to accept them. The tuition fee of $150 is comparatively enormous. The same number of hours’ instruction at an expensive German university, e. g., Heidelberg, do not cost one-third so much, at the University of Geneva not one-sixth. In fact, it is cheaper to go to Europe to study than to go to Harvard. If men of wealth would employ their money in reducing the expensiveness of the first-class colleges, and so opening them up to new classes of society, they would confer a benefit on their country.

When it becomes generally understood that a college education is not a university one, but, according to the old idea, an intellectual training which is desirable for every man who is able to enjoy its privileges, whatever is to be his business or profession, and when colleges return to their former aims, often too hastily forsaken, we may expect to see classes of the people flock to their learned halls who up to this time have neglected them.

Universities are needed, and a few of the best colleges, the development of which already lies in that direction, ought to supply this want. These colleges are well enough known—Harvard, Cornell, the University of Michigan, and, since it has been under President Barnard’s management, Columbia. Many think that Columbia has a special duty in this direction on account of its wealth. It has also the good fortune of being situated in a great city—the only place for a true university, however it may be with a college. Columbia is, too, less expensive than Harvard and some other New England colleges. In fact, in a city like New York one can live upon what he will. Columbia’s generosity in regard to tuition fees, and the way they are remitted, is truly praiseworthy. It is said that one-third pay none whatever; but the. writer was a member of a class in Columbia three years without learning the name of one classmate who did not pay his tuition.

Let no one blame the presidents and professors of our best institutions for not doing more. They are men who do not suffer morally or intellectually by comparison with the faculties of the most renowned European universities. If they had the same advantages as the German professors, they would not do less in advancing science; but at present they are overloaded with work. They are also less independent than the German professors. Science is a tender plant, and requires favorable circumstances for a high development. A professor ought to be lifted above all fear of party and sect.

Germany has twenty-one universities, including the academy at Münster, which has the same rank. We might in the course of time support as many. Once more here is a place for government interference, for we may as well make up our minds once for all that private initiative is not sufficient. England’s educational history proves it as well as America‘s. It is doubtful if in the whole history of the world one single case can be pointed to where private competition and private generosity have proved themselves sufficient. None but universities should be allowed to call themselves such. The government has precisely the same right to forbid this that it has to prevent me from travelling about as Mr. Evarts, and thus securing the various advantages which might accrue to me from representing myself as the Honorable Secretary of State.

The colleges could continue to give the degree of artium baccalaureus, as the French collége and lycées do ; but it should be clearly understood that it is a college and not a university degree. The universities could give the artium magister, or still better, as being more distinct from the baccalaureus, the doctor philosophies, doctor juris, doctor medicinae, doctor scientiarum naturalium, etc., as the German universities do. It should be clearly stated on the diploma in what subject the student had passed his chief examination, as is also the case in the German universities. If a student desired to teach Latin or Greek in an academy or college, he should be obliged to take a course of Latin or Greek at a university. But his doctorate of ancient classics ought not to assist him in securing a position as professor of astronomy.

 

Categories
Cornell Economists Germany Johns Hopkins Michigan Socialism

Cornell. Germany and Academic Socialism. Herbert Tuttle, 1883.

The Cornell professor of history Herbert Tuttle, America’s leading expert on all matters Prussian, wrote the following warning in 1883 against the wholesale adoption of German academic training in the social sciences. Here we see a clear battle-line that was drawn between classic liberal political economy in the Anglo-Saxon tradition and mercantilism-made-socialism from the European continent.

In the memorial piece upon Tuttle’s death (1894) written by the historian Herbert B. Adams of Johns Hopkins University following Tuttle’s essay, it is clear that Tuttle wrote his essay on academic socialism as someone intimately acquainted with European and especially German scholarship and political affairs. In the 1930s European ideas were transplanted to American universities typically by European-born scholars. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, the American graduate school model was essentially established by young Americans returning from Germany. Cf. my previous posting about the place of the research “seminary” in graduate education. One wonders whether Herbert B. Adams deliberately left out mention of Tuttle’s essay on academic socialism in his illustrative listing of Tuttle’s “general literary activity”.

I have added boldface to highlight a few passages and names of interest.

 

____________________________

ACADEMIC SOCIALISM
By Herbert Tuttle

Atlantic Monthly,
Vol. 52, August 1883. pp. 200-210.

It is a striking tribute — and perhaps the most striking when the most reluctant — to the influence and authority of physical science, that the followers of other sciences (moral, not physical) are so often compelled, or at least inclined, to borrow its terms, its methods, and even its established principles. This adaptation commonly begins, indeed, in the way of metaphor and analogy. The natural sympathy of men in the pursuit of truth leads the publicist, for example, and the geologist to compare professional methods and results. The publicist is struck with the superiority of induction, and the convenience of language soon teaches him to distinguish the strata of social development; to dissect the anatomy of the state to analyze political substance; to observe, collect, differentiate, and generalize the various phenomena in the history of government. This practice enriches the vocabulary of political science, and is offensive only to the sterner friends of abstract speculation. But it is a vastly graver matter formally and consciously to apply in moral inquiries the rules, the treatment, the logical implements, all the technical machinery, of sciences which have tangible materials and experimental resources constantly at command. And in the next step the very summit of impiety seems to be reached. The political philosopher is no longer content merely to draw on physical science for metaphors, or even to use in his own way its peculiar methods, but boldly adopts the very substance of its results, and explains the sacred mystery of social progress by laws which may first have been used to fix the status of the polyp or the cray-fish.

It is true that this practice has not been confined to any age. There is a distinct revelation of dependence on the method, if not on the results, of the concrete sciences in Aristotle’s famous postulate, that man is “by nature” a political being. The uncompromising realism of Macchiavelli would not dishonor a disciple of Comte. And during the past two hundred years, especially, there is scarcely a single great discovery, or even a single great hypothesis, which, if at all available, has not been at once appropriated by the publicists and applied to their own uses. The circulation of the blood suggests the theory of a similar process in society, comparative anatomy reveals its structure, the geologic periods explain its stages, and the climax was for the time reached when Frederick the Great, whose logic as well as his poetry was that of a king, declared that a state, like an animal or vegetable organism, had its stages of birth, youth, maturity, decay, and death. Yet striking as are these early illustrations, it is above all in recent times, and under the influence of its brilliant achievements in our own days, that physical science has most strongly impressed its methods and principles on social and political investigation. Mr. Freeman can write a treatise on comparative politics, and the term excites no protest. Sir Henry Maine conducts researches in comparative jurisprudence, and even the bigots are silenced by the copiousness and value of his results. The explanation of kings and states by the law of natural selection, which Mr. Bagehot undertook, is hardly treated as paradoxical. The ground being thus prepared — unconsciously during the last century — consciously and purposely during this, for a close assimilation between the physical and the moral sciences, it is natural that men should now take up even the contested doctrine of evolution, and apply it to the progress of society in general, to the formation of particular states, and to the development of single institutions.

Now, if it be the part of political science merely to adapt to its own use laws or principles which have been fully established in other fields of research, it would of course be premature for it to accept as an explanation of its own phenomena a doctrine like that of evolution, which is still rejected by a considerable body of naturalists. But may not political science refuse to acknowledge such a state of subordination? May it not assert its own dignity, and choose its own method of investigation? And even though that method be also the favorite one of the natural philosopher, may not the publicist employ it in his own way, subject to the limitations of his own material, and even discover laws contrary to, or in anticipation of, the laws of the physical universe? If these questions be answered in the affirmative, it follows that the establishment of a law of social and political evolution may precede the general acceptance of the same law by students of the animal or vegetable world.

At present, however, such a law is only a hypothesis, — a hypothesis supported, indeed, by many striking facts, and yet apparently antagonized by others not less striking. A sweeping glance over the course of the world’s history does certainly reveal a reasonably uniform progress from a simpler to a more complex civilization. This may also be regarded in one sense as a progress from lower to higher forms; and if the general movement be established, temporary or local interruptions confirm rather than shake the rule. But flattering as is this hypothesis of progressive social perfection to human nature, it is still only a hypothesis, and far enough from having for laymen the authority of a law. The theologians alone have positive information on the subject.

If evolution be taken to mean simply the production of new species from a common parent or genus, and without implying the idea of improvement, the history of many political institutions seems to furnish hints of its presence and its action. Let us take, as an example, the institution of parliaments. The primitive parent assembly of the Greeks was probably a body not unlike the council of Agamemnon’s chieftains in the Iliad; and from this were evolved in time the Spartan Gerousia, the Athenian Ecclesia, and other legislatures as species, each resembling the original type in some of its principles, yet having others peculiar to itself. Out of the early Teutonic assemblies were produced, in the same way, the Parliament of England, the States-General of France, the Diet of Germany, the Congress of the United States.

Yet it may be questioned whether even this illustration supports the doctrine of evolution, and in regard to other institutions the case is still more doubtful. Take, for example, the jury system. The principle of popular participation in trials for crime has striven for recognition, though not always successfully, in many countries and many ages. But from at least one people, the Germans, and through one line, the English, it maybe traced along a fairly regular course down to the present day. Montesquieu calls attention to another case, when, speaking of the division of powers in the English government, he exclaims, “Ce beau système est sorti des bois!” that is, the forests of Germany. But in all such instances it depends upon the point of view, or the method of analysis, whether the student detects the production of new species from a common genus, or original creation by a conscious author.

Even this is not, however, the only difficulty. Evolution means the production of higher, not simply of new, forms; and the term organic growth implies in social science the idea of improvement. But this kind of progress is evidently far more difficult to discern in operation. It is easy enough to trace the American Congress back historically to the Witenagemot, to derive the American jury from the Teutonic popular courts, to connect the American city with the municipality of feudal Europe, or of Rome, or even of Greece. The organic relation, or at least the historical affinity, in these and many other cases is clear. But it is a widely different thing to assert that what is evidently political development or evolution must also be upward progress. This might lead to the conclusion that parliamentary institutions have risen to Cameron and Mahone; that the Saxon courts have been refined into the Uniontown jury and that the art of municipal government has culminated in the city of New York.

The truth is that there are two leading classes of political phenomena, the one merely productive, the other progressive, which may in time, and by the aid of large generalizations, be made to harmonize with the doctrine of evolution, but which ought at present to be carefully distinguished from the manifestations ordinarily cited in its support. The first class includes the appearance, in different countries and different ages, of institutions or tendencies similar in character, but without organic connection. The other class includes visible movements, but movements in circles, or otherwise than forward and upward. Both classes may be illustrated by cogent American examples, but it is to the latter that the reader’s attention is now specially invoked.

Among the phenomena which have appeared in all ages and all countries, with a certain natural bond of sympathy, and yet without a clearly ascertainable order of progress, one of the earliest and latest, one of the most universal and most instructive, is that tendency or aspiration variously termed agrarian, socialistic, or communistic. The movement appears under different forms and different influences. It may be provoked by the just complaints of an oppressed class, by the inevitable inequality of fortunes, or by a base jealousy of superior moral and intellectual worth. To these and other grievances, real or feigned, correspond as many different forms of redress, or rather schemes for redress. One man demands the humiliation of the rich or the great, and the artificial exaltation of the poor and the ignorant; another, the constant interference of the state for the benefit of general or individual prosperity; a third, the equalization of wealth by discriminating measures; a fourth, perhaps, the abolition of private property, and the substitution for it of corporate ownership by society. But widely as these schemes differ in degree, they may all be reduced to one general type, or at least traced back to one pervading and peremptory instinct of human nature in all races and all ages. It is the instinctive demand that organized society shall serve to improve the fortunes of individuals, and incidentally that those who are least fortunate shall receive the greatest service. Between the two extreme attitudes held toward this demand, — that of absolute compliance, and that of absolute refusal — range the actual policies of all political communities.

For the extremes are open to occupation only by theories; no state can in practice fully accept and carry out either the one or the other. Prussia neglects many charges, or, in other words, leaves to private effort much that a rigid application of the prevailing political philosophy would require it to undertake; while England conducts by governmental action a variety of interests which the utilitarians reserve to the individual citizen. The real issue is therefore one of degree or tendency. Shall the sphere of the state’s activity be broad or narrow; shall it maintain toward social interests an attitude of passive, impartial indifference, or of positive encouragement; shall the presumption in every doubtful case be in favor of calling in the state, or of trusting individual effort? Such are the forms in which the issue may be stated, as well by the publicist as by the legislator. And it is rather by the extent to which precept and practice incline toward the one view or the other, than by the complete adoption of either of two mutually exclusive systems, that political schools are to be classified. This gives us on the one hand the utilitarian, limited, or non-interference theory of the state, and on the other the paternal or socialistic theory.

Now although this country witnessed at an early day the apparent triumph of certain great schemes of policy, such as protection and public improvements, which are clearly socialistic, — I use the term in an inoffensive, philosophical sense, — it is noteworthy that the triumph was won chiefly by the aid of considerations of a practical, economical, and temporary nature. The necessity for a large revenue, the advantage of a diversified industry, the desirability of developing our natural resources, the scarcity of home capital, the expediency of encouraging European immigration, and many other reasons of this sort have been freely adduced. But at the same time the fundamental question of the state’s duties and powers, in other words, the purely political aspect of the subject, was neglected. Nay, the friends of these exceptional departures from the non-interference theory of the state have insisted not the less, as a rule, on the theory itself, while even the exceptions have been obnoxious to a large majority of the most eminent publicists and economists, that is to say the specialists, of America. If any characteristic system of political philosophy has hitherto been generally accepted in this country, whether from instinct or conviction, it is undoubtedly the system of Adam Smith, Bentham, and the Manchester school.

There are, however, reasons for thinking that this state of things will be changed in the near future, and that the new school of political economists in the United States will be widely different from the present. This change, if it actually take place, will be due to the influence of foreign teachers, but of teachers wholly unlike those under whose influence we have lived for a century.

It has been often remarked that our higher education is rapidly becoming Germanized. Fifty years ago it was only the exceptional and favored few — the Ticknors and Motleys — who crossed the ocean to continue their studies under the great masters of German science; but a year or two at Leipsic or Heidelberg is now regarded as indispensable to a man who desires the name of scholar. This is especially true of those who intend themselves to teach. The diploma of a German university is not, of course, an instant and infallible passport to employment in American colleges, but it is a powerful recommendation; and the tendency seems to be toward a time when it will be almost a required condition. The number of Americans studying in Germany is accordingly now reckoned by hundreds, or even thousands, where it used to be reckoned by dozens. It is within my own knowledge that in at least one year of the past decade the Americans matriculated at the University of Berlin outnumbered every other class of foreigners. And “foreigners” included all who were not Prussians, in other words, even non- Prussian Germans. That this state of things is fraught with vast possible consequences for the intellectual future of America is a proposition which seems hardly open to dispute; and the only question is about the nature, whether good or bad, of those consequences.

My own views on this question are not of much importance. Yet it will disarm one class of critics if I admit at the outset that in my opinion the effects of this scholastic pilgrimage will in general be wholesome. The mere experience of different academic methods and a different intellectual atmosphere seems calculated both to broaden and to deepen the mind; it corresponds in a measure to the “grand tour,” which used to be considered such an essential part of the education of young English noblemen. The substance, too, of German teaching is always rich, and often useful. But in certain cases, or on certain subjects, it may be the reverse of useful; and the question presents itself, therefore, to every American student on his way to Germany, whether the particular professor whom he has in view is a recognized authority on his subject, or, in a slightly different form, whether the subject itself is anywhere taught in Germany in a way which it is desirable for him to adopt.

In regard to many departments of study, doubts like these can indeed hardly ever arise. No very strong feeling is likely to be excited among the friends and neighbors and constituents of a young American about the views which he will probably acquire in Germany on the reforms of Servius Tullius, or the formation of the Macedonian phalanx, or the pronunciation of Sanskrit. Here the scientific spirit and the acquired results of its employment are equally good. But there are other branches of inquiry, in which, though the method may be good, the doctrines are at least open to question.

One of these is social science, using the term in its very broadest sense, and making it include not only what the late Professor von Mohl called Gesellschafts-Wissenschaft, that is, social science in the narrower sense, but also finance, the philosophy of the state, and even law in some of its phases.

The rise of the new school of economists in Germany is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable phenomena of modern times. The school is scarcely twenty years old. Dr. Rodbertus, the founder of it, had to fight his cause for years against the combined opposition of the professors, the governments, the press, and the public. Yet his tentative suggestions have grown into an accepted body of doctrine, which is to-day taught by authority in nearly every German university, is fully adopted by Prince Bismarck, and has in part prevailed even with the imperial Diet.

The Catheder-Socialisten are not unknown, at least by name, even to the casual reader of current literature. They are men who teach socialism from the chairs of the universities. It is not indeed a socialism which uses assassination as an ally, or has any special antipathy to crowned heads: it is peaceful, orderly, and decorous; it wears academic robes, and writes learned and somewhat tiresome treatises in its own defense. But it is essentially socialistic, and in one sense even revolutionary. It has displaced, or rather grown out of, the so-called “historical school” of political economists, as this in its time was a revolt against the school of Adam Smith. The “historical” economists charged against the English school that it was too deductive, too speculative, and insisted on too wide an application of conclusions which were in fact only locally true. Their dissent was, however, cautious and qualified, and questioned not so much the results of the English school as the manner of reaching them. Their successors, more courageous or less prudent, reject even the English doctrines. This means that they are, above all things, protectionists.

It follows, accordingly, that the young Americans who now study political economy in Germany are nearly certain to return protectionists; and protectionists, too, in a sense in which the term has not hitherto been understood in this country. They are scientific protectionists; that is, they believe that protective duties can be defended by something better than the selfish argument of special industries, and have a broad basis of economic truth. The “American system” is likely, therefore, to have in the future the support of American economic science.

To this extent, the influence of German teachings will be welcome to American manufacturers. But protection is with the Germans only part of a general scheme, or an inference from their main doctrine; and this will not, perhaps, find so ready acceptance in this country. For “the socialists of the chair” are not so much economical as political protectionists. They are chiefly significant as the representatives of a certain theory of the state, which has not hitherto found much support in America. This will be belter understood after a brief historical recapitulation.

The mercantile system found, when it appeared two centuries ago, a ready reception in Prussia, both on economic and on political grounds. It was singularly adapted to the form of government which grew up at Berlin after the forcible suppression of the Diets. Professor Roscher compares Frederick William I. to Colbert; and it is certain not only that the king understood the economic meaning of the system, but also that the administration which he organized was admirably fitted to carry it out. Frederick the Great was the victim of the same delusion. In his reign, as in the reign of his father, it was considered to be the duty of the state to take charge of every subject affecting the social and pecuniary interests of the people, and to regulate such subjects by the light of a superior bureaucratic wisdom. It was, in short, paternal government in its most highly developed form. But in the early part of this century it began, owing to three cooperating causes, to decline. The first cause was the circumstance that the successors of Frederick were not fitted, like him and his father, to conduct the system with the patient personal attention and the robust intelligence which its success required of the head of the state. The second influence was the rise of new schools of political economy and of political philosophy, and the general diffusion of sounder views of social science. And in the third place, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, and the complete destruction of the ancient bases of social order in Germany revealed the defects of the edifice itself, and made a reconstruction on new principles not only possible, but even necessary.

The consequence was the agrarian reforms of Stein and Hardenberg, the restoration to the towns of some degree of self-government, the agitation for parliaments, which even the Congress of Vienna had to recognize, and other measures or efforts in the direction of decentralization and popular enfranchisement. King Frederick William III. appointed to the newly created Ministry of Instruction and Public Worship William von Humboldt, the author of a treatise on the limits of the state’s power, which a century earlier would have been burned by the common hangman. In 1818 Prussia adopted a new tariff, which was a wide departure from the previous policy, and in its turn paved the way for the Zollverein, which struck down the commercial barriers between the different German states, and practically accepted the principle of free trade. The course of purely political emancipation was indeed arrested for a time by the malign influence of Metternich, but even this was resumed after 1848. In respect to commercial policy there was no reaction. That the events of 1866 and 1870, leading to the formation, first, of the North German Confederation, and then of the Empire, were expected to favor, and not to check, the work of liberation, and down to a certain point did favor it, is matter of familiar recent history. The doctrines of the Manchester school were held by the great body of the people, taught by the professors, and embodied in the national policy, so far as they concerned freedom of trade. On their political side, too, they were accepted by a large and influential class of liberals. Few Germans held, indeed, the extreme “non-interference” theory of government; but the prevailing tone of thought, and even the general policy of legislation, was, until about ten years ago, in favor of unburdening the state of some of its usurped charges; of enlarging in the towns and counties the sphere of self-government; and of granting to individuals a new degree of initiative in respect to economical and industrial interests.

But about the middle of the past decade the current began to turn. The revolt from the doctrines of the Manchester school, initiated, as has been stated, by a few men, and not at first looked on with favor by governments, gradually acquired both numbers and credit. The professors one by one joined the movement. And finally, when Prince Bismarck threw his powerful weight into the scale, the utilitarians were forced upon the defensive. They had to resist first of all the Prussian scheme for the acquisition of private railways by the state, and they were defeated. They were next called upon to defend in the whole Empire the cause of free trade. This battle, too, they lost, and in an incredibly short space of time protection, which had been discredited for half a century, was fully restored. Then the free city of Hamburg was robbed of its ancient privileges, and forced to accept the common yoke. Some minor socialistic schemes of the chancellor have been, indeed, temporarily frustrated by the Diet, but repeated efforts will doubtless break down the resistance. The policy even attacks the functions of the Diet itself, as is shown both by actual projects and by the generally changed attitude of the government toward parliamentary institutions.

Now, so far as protection is concerned, this movement may seem to many Americans to be in principle a return to wisdom. In fact, not even American protectionists enjoy the imposition of heavy duties on their exported products; but the recognition of their system of commercial policy by another state undoubtedly gives it a new strength and prestige, and they certainly regard it as an unmixed advantage that their sons, who go abroad to pursue the scientific study of political economy, will in Germany imbibe no heresies on the subject of tariff methods. Is this, however, all that they are likely to learn, and if not, will the rest prove equally commendable to the great body of thoughtful Americans? This is the same thing as asking whether local self-government, trial by jury, the common law, the personal responsibility of officials, frequent elections, in short, all the priceless conquests of Anglican liberty, all that distinguishes England and America from the continent of Europe, are not as dear to the man who spins cotton into thread, or makes steel rails out of iron ore, as to any free-trade professor of political economy.

To state this question is to answer it; for it can be shown that, as a people, we have cause not for exultation, but for grave anxiety, over the class of students whom the German universities are annually sending back to America. If these pilgrims are faithful disciples of their masters, they do not return merely as protectionists, with their original loyalty to Anglo-American theories of government otherwise unshaken, but as the advocates of a political system which, if adopted and literally carried out, would wholly change the spirit of our institutions, and destroy all that is oldest and noblest in our national life.

Protection, it was said above, is not the main doctrine of the German professors, but only an inference from their general system. It is not an economical, much less a financial, expedient. It is a policy which is derived from a theory of the state’s functions and duties; and this theory is in nearly every other respect radically different from that which prevails in this country. It assumes as postulates the ignorance of the individual and the omniscience of the government. The government, in this view, is therefore bound, not simply to abstain from malicious interference with private enterprises, not simply so to adjust taxation that all interests may receive equitable treatment, but positively to exercise a fatherly care over each and every branch of production, and even to take many of them into its own hands. All organizations of private capital are regarded with suspicion; they are at best tolerated, not encouraged. Large enterprises are to be undertaken by the state; and even the petty details of the retail trade are to be controlled to an extent which would seem intolerable to American citizens.

And this is not the whole, or, perhaps, the worst.

The “state,” in this system, means the central government, and, besides that, a government removed as far as possible from parliamentary influence and public opinion. The superior wisdom, which in industrial affairs is to take the place of individual sagacity, means, as in the time of Frederick the Great, the wisdom of the bureaucracy. Now it may be freely granted that in Prussia, and even throughout the rest of the Empire, this is generally wisdom of a high order. It is represented by men whose integrity is above suspicion. But the principle of the system is not the less obnoxious, and its tendencies, if introduced in this country, could not be otherwise than deplorable.

This proposition, if the German school has been correctly described, needs no further defense. If Americans are prepared to accept the teachings of Wagner, Held, Schmoller, and others, with all which those teachings imply, — a paternal government, a centralized political authority, a bureaucratic administration, Roman law, and trial by executive judges,— the new school of German publicists will be wholly unobjectionable. But before such a system can be welcome, the American nature must first be radically changed.

There are, indeed, evidences other than that of protection — which it has been shown is not commonly defended on political grounds — that this change has already made some progress. One of these is the growing fashion of looking to legislation, that is, to the state, for relief in cases where individual or at least privately organized collective effort ought to suffice. It is a further evil, too, that the worst legislatures are invariably the ones which most promptly respond to such demands. The recent act of the State of New York making the canals free, though not indefensible in some of its aspects, was an innovation the more significant since the leading argument of its supporters was distinctly and grossly socialistic. This was the argument that free canals would make low freights, and low freights would give the poor man cheaper bread. For this end the property of the State is henceforth to be taxed. A movement of the same nature, and on a larger scale, is that for a government telegraph; and if successful, the next scheme will be to have the railways likewise acquired by the separate States, or the Union. Other illustrations might be given, but these show the tendency to which allusion is made. It is significant that such projects can be even proposed; but that they can be seriously discussed, and some of them actually adopted, shows that the stern jealousy of governmental interference, the disposition rigidly to circumscribe the state’s sphere of action, which once characterized the people of the republic, has lost, though unconsciously, a large part of its force. No alarm or even surprise is now excited by propositions which the founders of the Union would have pronounced fatal to free government. Some other symptoms, though of a more subtle kind, are the multiplication of codes; the growing use of written procedure, not only in the courts and in civil administration, but even in legislation; and, generally speaking, the tendency to adopt the dry, formal, pedantic method of the continent, thereby losing the old English qualities of ease, flexibility, and natural strength.

But, as already said, the bearings of schemes like those above mentioned are rarely perceived even by their strongest advocates. They are casual expedients, not steps in the development of a systematic theory of the state. Indeed, their authors and friends would be perhaps the first to resent the charge that they were in conflict with the political traditions of America, or likely to prepare the way for the reception of new and subversive doctrines. Yet nothing better facilitates a revolution in a people’s modes or habits of thought than just such a series of practical measures. The time at length arrives when some comprehensive genius, or a school of sympathetic thinkers, calmly codifies these preliminary though unsuspected concessions, and makes them the basis of a firm, complete, and symmetrical structure. It is then found that long familiarity with some of the details in practice makes it comparatively simple for a people to accept the whole system as a conviction of the mind.

Such a school has not hitherto existed in this country. There have of course always been shades of difference between publicists and philosophers in regard to the speculative view taken of the state and the division between governmental patronage and private exertion has not always been drawn along the same line. But these differences have been neither great nor constant. They distinguished rather varieties of the same system than different and radically hostile systems. The most zealous and advanced of the former champions of state interference would now probably be called utilitarians by the pupils of the new German school.

It has been the purpose of this paper to describe briefly the tendencies of that school, and to indicate the effects which its patronage by American youth is likely to have on the future of our political thought. The opinion was expressed that much more is acquired in Germany than a mere belief in the economic wisdom of protection. And it may be added, to make the case stronger, that the German system of socialism may be learned without the doctrine of protection on its economic side. For the university socialists assert only the right, or at most the duty, of the state actively to interfere in favor of the industrial interests of society. The exercise of this right or the fulfillment of this duty may, in a given case, lead to a protective tariff; in Germany, at present, it does take that form. But in another case it may lead to free trade. The decision is to be determined by the economic circumstances of the country and the moment; only it is to be positive and active even if in favor of free trade, and not a merely negative attitude of indifference. In other words, free trade is not assumed to be the normal condition of things, and protection the exception. Both alike require the active intervention of government in the performance of its duty to society.

But with or without protection, the body of the German doctrine is full of plausible yet vicious errors, which few reflecting Americans would care to see introduced and become current in their own country. The prevailing idea is that of the ignorance and weakness of the individual, the omniscience and omnipotence of the state. This is not yet, in spite of actual institutions and projected measures, the accepted American view.

Now I am not one of those who are likely to condemn a thing because it is foreign. It may be frankly conceded that in the present temper of German politics, and even of German social and political science, there is much that is admirable and worthy of imitation. The selection of trained men alone for administrative office, the great lesson that individual convenience must often yield to the welfare of society, the conception of the dignity of politics and the majesty of the state, — these are things which we certainly need to learn, and which Germany can both teach and illustrate. But side by side with such fundamental truths stand the most mischievous fallacies, and an enthusiastic student is not always sure to make the proper selection.

It seems to me that in political doctrine, as in so many other intellectual concerns of society, this country is now passing through an important crisis. We are engaged in a struggle between the surviving traditions of our English ancestors and the influence of different ideas acquired by travel and study on the continent. It is by no means certain, however desirable, that victory will rest with those literary, educational, and political instincts which we acquired with our English blood, and long cherished as among our most precious possessions. The tendency now certainly is in a different direction, as has already been discovered by foreign observers. Some of Tocqueville’s acute observations have nearly lost their point. Mr. Frederic Pollock, in an essay recently published by an English periodical, mentions the gradual approach of America toward continental views of law and the state. There is, undoubtedly, among the American people a large conservative element, which, if its attention were once aroused, would show an unconquerable attachment to those principles of society and government common to all the English peoples, under whatever sky they may be found. But at present the current is evidently taking a different course.

It would, however, be a grave mistake to regard this hostile movement as a forward one. Not everything new is reform; but the socialist revival is not even new. Yet it is also not real conservatism. The true American conservatives, in the present crisis, are the men who not only respect the previous achievements of Anglo-Saxon progress, but also wisely adhere to the same order of progress, with a view to continued benefits in the future; while their enemies, though in one sense radicals, are in another simply the disguised servants of reaction, since they reject both the hopes of the future and the lessons of the past. They bring forward as novelties in scholastic garb the antique errors of remote centuries. The same motives, the same spirit, the same tendency, can be ascribed to the agrarian laws of the Gracchi, the peasant uprisings in the Middle Ages, the public granaries of Frederick the Great, the graduated income-tax of Prussia, the Land League agitation in Ireland, the river and harbor bills in this country. They differ only in the degree in which special circumstances may seem to render a given measure more or less justifiable.

The special consideration is, however, this: these successive measures and manifestations, whether they have an organic connection or only an accidental resemblance, reveal no improvement whatever in quality, no progress in social enlightenment. The records of political government from the earliest dawn of civilization will be searched in vain for a more reckless and brutal measure of class legislation than the Bland silver bill, which an American Congress passed in the year 1878.

It is the same with the pompous syllogisms on which the German professors are trying to build up their socialistic theory of the state. Everything which they have to say was said far better by Plato two thousand years ago. If they had absolute control of legislation, they could not surpass the work of Lycurgus. It is useless for them to try to hide their plagiarism under a cloud of pedantic sophistry; for the most superficial critic will not fail to see that, instead of originating, they are only borrowing, and even borrowing errors of theory and of policy which have been steadily retreating before the advance of political education.

If the question were asked, What more, perhaps, than anything else distinguishes the modern from the ancient state, and distinguishes it favorably? the unhesitating reply from every candid person would be, The greater importance conceded to the individual. We have attained this result through a long course of arduous and painful struggles. The progress has not, indeed, been uninterrupted, nor its bearings always perceived; but the general, and through large periods of time uniform, tendency has been to disestablish and disarm the state, to reduce government to narrow limits, and to assert the dignity of the individual citizen. And now the question is, Shall this line of progress be abruptly abandoned? Shall we confess that we have been all this time moving only in a circle; that what we thought was progress in a straight line is only revolution in a fixed orbit; and that society is doomed to return to the very point from which it started? The academic socialism invites us to begin the backward march, but must its invitation be accepted?

Herbert Tuttle.

 

____________________________

 

THE HISTORICAL WORK OF PROF. HERBERT TUTTLE.

Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1894, pp. 29-37.
Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1896.

By Prof. Herbert B. Adams, of Johns Hopkins University.

Since the Chicago meeting of the American Historical Association one of its most active workers in the field of European history has passed away. Prof. Herbert Tuttle, of Cornell University, was perhaps our only original American scholar in the domain of Prussian history. Several of our academic members have lectured upon Prussia, but Tuttle was an authority upon the subject. Prof. Rudolf Gneist, of the University of Berlin, said to Chapman Coleman, United States secretary of legation in Berlin, that Tuttle’s History of Frederick the Great was the best written. The Pall Mall Gazette, July 11, 1888, in reviewing the same work, said: “This is a sound and solid piece of learning, and shows what good service America is doing in the field of history.”1

1One of Professor Tuttle’s Cornell students, Mr. U. G. Weatherby, wrote to him from Heidelberg, October, 1893: “You will probably be interested to know that I have called on Erdmannsdörffer, who, on learning that I was from Cornell, mentioned you and spoke most flatteringly of your History of Prussia, which he said had a peculiar interest to him as showing an American’s views of Frederick the Great. Erdmannsdörffer is a pleasant man in every way and an attractive lecturer.” The Heidelberg professor is himself an authority upon Prussian history. He has edited the Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, a long series of volumes devoted to the documentary history of the period of the Great Elector.

It is the duty of the American Historical Association to put on record the few biographical facts which Professor Tuttle’s friends have been able to discover. Perhaps a more complete account may some day be written.

Herbert Tuttle was born November 29, 1846, in Bennington, Vt. Upon that historic ground, near one of the battlefields of the American Revolution, was trained the coming historian of the wars of Frederick. Herbert Tuttle went to college at Burlington, where he came under the personal influence of James B. Angell, then president of the University of Vermont and now ex-president of the American Historical Association. Dr. Angell was one of the determining forces in Mr. Tuttle’s later academic career, which began in the University of Michigan.

Among the permanent traits of Mr. Tuttle’s character, developed by his Vermont training, were (1) an extraordinary soundness of judgment, (2) a remarkably quick wit, and (3) a passionate love of nature. The beautiful environment of Burlington, on Lake Champlain, the strength of the hills, the keenness of the air, the good sense, the humor, and shrewdness of the people among whom he lived and worked, had their quickening influence upon the young Vermonter. President Buckham, of the University of Vermont, recently said of Mr. Tuttle: “I have the most vivid recollection of his brilliancy as a writer on literary and historic themes, a branch of the college work then in my charge. We shall cherish his memory as one of the treasures of the institution.”

Herbert Tuttle, like all true Americans, was deeply interested in politics. The subject of his commencement oration was “Political faith,” and to his college ideal he always remained true. To the end of his active life he was laboring with voice and pen for the cause of civic reform. Indeed, his whole career, as journalist, historian, and teacher, is the direct result of his interest in politics, which is the real life of society. From Burlington, where he was graduated in 1869, he went to Boston, where for nearly two years he was on the editorial staff of the Boston Advertiser. His acuteness as an observer and as a critic was here further developed. He widened his personal acquaintance and his social experience. He became interested in art, literature, and the drama. His desire was quickened for travel and study in the Old World.

We next find young Tuttle in Paris for nearly two years, acting as correspondent for the Boston Advertiser and the New York Tribune. He attended lectures at the Sorbonne and Collège de France. He made the acquaintance of Guizot, who recommended for him a course of historical reading. He contributed an article to Harper’s Monthly on the Mont de Piété. He wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly in 1872 on French Democracy. The same year he published an editorial on the Alabama claims in the Journal des Débats. About the same time he wrote letters to the New York Tribune on the Geneva Arbitration. Tuttle’s work for the Tribune was so good that Mr. George W. Smalley, its well-known London representative, recommended him for the important position of Berlin correspondent for the London Daily News. This salaried office Tuttle held for six years (1873-1879), during which time he enjoyed the best of opportunities for travel and observation in Germany, Austria, Russia, and the Danube provinces. Aside from his letters to the London Daily News, some of the fruits of these extended studies of European politics appear in a succession of articles in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1872-73: “The parliamentary leaders of Germany;” “Philosophy of the Falk laws;” “The author of the Falk laws;” “Club life in Berlin.”

In 1876 was published by the Putnams in New York, Tuttle’s book on German political leaders. From 1876 to 1879, when he returned to America, Tuttle was a busy foreign correspondent for the great English daily and a contributor to American magazines. Among his noteworthy articles are: (1) Prussian Wends and their home (Harper’s Monthly, March, 1876); (2) Naturalization treaty with Germany (The Nation, 1877); (3) Parties and politics in Germany (Fortnightly Review, 1877); (1) Die Amerikanischen Wahlen (Die Gegenwart, (October, 1878); (5) Reaction in Germany (The Nation, June, 1879); (6) German Politics (Fortnightly Review, August, 1879).

While living in Berlin Mr. Tuttle met Miss Mary McArthur Thompson, of Hillsboro, Highland County, Ohio, a young lady of artistic tastes, whom he married July 6, 1875. In Berlin he also met President Andrew D. White, of Cornell University, who was then our American minister in Germany. Like Dr. Angell, President White was a determining influence in Tuttle’s career. Mr. White encouraged him in his ambitious project of writing a history of Prussia, for which he began to collect materials as early as 1875. More than one promising young American was discovered in Berlin by Mr. White. At least three were invited by him to Cornell University to lecture on their chosen specialties: Herbert Tuttle on history and international law, Henry C. Adams on economics, and Richard T. Ely on the same subject. All three subsequently became university professors.

Before going to Cornell University, however, Mr. Tuttle accepted an invitation in September, 1880, to lecture on international law at the University of Michigan during the absence of President Angell as American minister in China. Thus the personal influence first felt at the University of Vermont was renewed after an interval of ten years, and the department of President Angell was temporarily handed over to his former pupil. In the autumn of 1881 Mr. Tuttle was appointed lecturer on international law at Cornell University for one semester, but still continued to lecture at Ann Arbor. In 1883 he was made associate professor of history and theory of politics and international law at Ithaca. In 1887, by vote of the Cornell trustees, he was elected to a full professorship. I have a letter from him, written March 10, the very day of his appointment, saying:

You will congratulate me on my election, which took place to-day, as full professor. The telegraphic announcements which you may see in the newspapers putting me into the law faculty may be misleading unless I explain that my title is, I believe, professor of the history of political and municipal institutions in the regular faculty. But on account of my English Constitutional History and International Law, I am also put in the law faculty, as is Tyler for American Constitutional History and Law.

Professor Tuttle was one of the original members of the American Historical Association, organized ten years ago at Saratoga, September 9-10, 1884. His name appears in our first annual report (Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. I, p. 43). At the second annual meeting of the association, held in Saratoga, September 10, 1885, Professor Tuttle made some interesting remarks upon “New materials for the history of Frederick the Great of Prussia.” By new materials he meant such as had come to light since Carlyle wrote his Life of Frederick. After mentioning the more recent German works, like Arneth’s Geschichte Maria Theresa, Droysen’s Geschichte der preussischen Politik, the new edition of Ranke, the Duc de Broglie’s Studies in the French Archives, and the Publications of the Russian Historical Society, Mr. Tuttle called attention to the admirable historical work lately done in Prussia in publishing the political correspondence of Frederick the Great, including every important letter written by Frederick himself, or by secretaries under his direction, bearing upon diplomacy or public policy.

At the same meeting of the association, Hon. Eugene Schuyler gave some account of the historical work that had been done in Russia. The author of The Life of Peter the Great, which first appeared in the Century Magazine, and the author of The History of Prussia under Frederick the Great were almost inseparable companions at that last Saratoga meeting of this association in 1885. I joined them on one or two pleasant excursions and well remember their good fellowship and conversation. Both men were somewhat critical with regard to our early policy, but Mr. Tuttle in subsequent letters to me indicated a growing sympathy with the object of the association, which, by the constitution, is declared to be “the promotion of historical studies.” In the letter above referred to, he said:

You will receive a letter from Mr. Winsor about a paper which I suggested for the Historical Association. It is by our fellow in history, Mr. Mills, and is an account of the diplomatic negotiations, etc., which preceded the seven years’ war, from sources which have never been used in English. As you know, I am as a rule opposed to presenting in the association papers which have been prepared in seminaries, but as there will probably be little on European history I waive the principle.

After the appearance of the report of our fourth annual meeting, held in Boston and Cambridge May 21-24, 1887, Mr. Tuttle wrote, October 18, 1888, expressing his gratification with the published proceedings, and adding, “I think the change from Columbus to Washington a wise one.” There had been some talk of holding the annual meeting of the association in the State capital of Ohio, in order to aid in the commemoration of the settlement of the Old Northwest Territory.

From the time of his return to America until the year 1888 Mr. Tuttle continued to make valuable contributions to periodical literature. The following list illustrates his general literary activity from year to year:

1880. Germany and Russia; Russia as viewed by Liberals and Tories; Lessons from the Prussian Civil Service. (The Nation, April.)
1881. The German Chancellor and the Diet. (The Nation, April.)
1881. The German Empire. (Harper’s Monthly, September.)
1882. Some Traits of Bismarck. (Atlantic Monthly, February.)
1882. The Eastern Question. (Atlantic Monthly, June.)
1883. A Vacation in Vermont. (Harper’s Monthly, November.)
1884. Peter the Great. (Atlantic Monthly, July.)
1884. The Despotism of Party. (Atlantic Monthly, September.)
1885. John DeWitt. (The Dial, December.)
1886. Pope and Chancellor. (The Cosmopolitan, August.)
1886. Lowe’s Life of Bismarck. (The Dial.)
1887. The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre. (The Dial, January.)
1887. Frederick the Great and Madame de Pompadour. (Atlantic Monthly, January.)
1888. The Outlook in Germany. (The Independent, June.)
1888. History of Prussia under Frederick the Great, 2 vols. (Houghton, Mifflin & Co.)
1888. The Value of English Guarantees. (New York Times. February.)
1888. The Emperor William. (Atlantic Monthly, May.)

The great work of Professor Tuttle was his History of Prussia, upon which he worked for more then ten years after his return from Germany. From November, 1879, until October, 1883, Mr. Tuttle was engaged upon the preparation of his first volume, which covers the history of Prussia from 1134 to 1740, or to the accession of Frederick the Great. He said in his preface that he purposed to describe the political development of Prussia and had made somewhat minute researches into the early institutions of Brandenburg. Throughout the work he paid special attention to the development of the constitution.

Mr. Tuttle had brought home from Germany many good materials which he had himself collected, and he was substantially aided by the cooperation of President White. Regarding this practical service, Professor Tuttle, in the preface to his Frederick the Great, said:

When, on the completion of my first volume of Prussian history, he [President White] learned that the continuation of the work might be made difficult, or at least delayed, by the scarcity of material in America he generously offered me what was in effect an unlimited authority to order in his name any books that might be necessary; so that I was enabled to obtain a large and indispensable addition to the historical work already present in Mr. White’s own noble library and in that of the university.

Five years after the appearance of the first volume was published Tuttle’s History of Prussia under Frederick the Great. One volume covered the subject from 1740 to 1745; another from 1745 to 1750. At the time of his death Mr. Tuttle left ready for the printer some fifteen chapters of the third volume of his “Frederick,” or the fourth volume of the History of Prussia. He told his wife that the wars of Frederick would kill him. We know how Carlyle toiled and worried over that terribly complex period of European history represented by the wars and diplomacy of the Great Frederick. In his preface to his “Frederick” Mr. Tuttle said that he discovered during a residence of several years in Berlin how inadequate was Carlyle’s account, and probably also his knowledge, of the working system of the Prussian Government in the eighteenth century. Again the American writer declared the distinctive purpose of his own work to be a presentation of “the life of Prussia as a State, the development of polity, the growth of institutions, the progress of society.” He said he had been aided in his work “by a vast literature which has grown up since the time of Carlyle.” The description of that literature in Tuttle’s preface is substantially his account of that subject as presented to the American Historical Association at Saratoga in 1885.

In his Life of Frederick, Mr. Tuttle took occasion to clear away many historical delusions which Carlyle and Macaulay had perpetuated. Regarding this wholesome service the Pall Mall Gazette, July 11, 1888, said:

It is quite refreshing to read a simple account of Maria Theresa’s appeal to the Hungarians at Presburg without the “moriamur pro rege nostro” or the “picturesque myths” that have gathered around it. Most people, too, will surely he glad to learn from Mr. Tuttle that there is no foundation for the story of that model wife and mother addressing Mme. de Pompadour as “dear cousin” in a note, as Macaulay puts it, “full of expressions of esteem and friendship.” “The text of such a pretended letter had never been given,” and Maria Theresa herself denied that she had ever written to the Pompadour.

In the year 1891, at his own request, Professor Tuttle was transferred to the chair of modern European history, which he held as long as he lived. Although in failing health, he continued to work upon his History of Prussia until 1892 and to lecture to his students until the year before he died. A few days before his death he looked over the manuscript chapters which he had prepared for his fourth volume of the History of Prussia and said he would now devote himself to their completion; but the next morning he arose and exclaimed, “The end! the end! the end!” He died June 21, 1894, from a general breakdown. His death occurred on commencement day, when he had hoped to thank the board of trustees for their generous continuation of his full salary throughout the year of his disability. One of his colleagues, writing to the New York Tribune, July 18, 1891, said:

It was a significant fact that he died on this day, and that his many and devoted friends, his colleagues, and grateful students should still he present to attend the burial service and carry his body on the following day to its resting place. A proper site for his grave is to be chosen from amid the glorious scenery of this time-honored cemetery, where the chimes of Cornell University will still ring over his head, and the student body in passing will recall the man of brilliant attainment and solid worth, the scholar of untiring industry, and the truthful, able historian, and will more and more estimate the loss to American scholarship and university life.

 

One of Professor Tuttle’s favorite students, Herbert E. Mills, now professor of history at Vassar College, wrote as follows to the New York Evening Post, July 27, 1894:

In the death of Professor Tuttle the writing and teaching of history has suffered a great loss. The value of his work both as an investigator and as a university teacher is not fully appreciated except by those who have read his books carefully or have had the great pleasure and benefit of study under his direction. Among the many able historical lecturers that have been connected with Cornell University no one stood higher in the estimation of the students than Professor Tuttle.

 

Another of Professor Tuttle’s best students, Mr. Ernest W. Huffcut, of Cornell University, says of him:

He went by instinct to the heart of every question and had a power and grace of expression which enabled him to lay bare the precise point in issue. As an academic lecturer he had few equals here or elsewhere in those qualities of clearness, accuracy, and force which go farthest toward equipping the successful teacher. He was respected and admired by his colleagues for his brilliant qualities and his absolute integrity, and by those admitted to the closer relationship of personal friends he was loved for his fidelity and sympathy of a spirit which expanded and responded only under the influence of mutual confidence and affection.

 

President Schurman, of Cornell University, thus speaks of Professor Tuttle’s intellectual characteristics :

He was a man of great independence of spirit, of invincible courage, and of a high sense of honor; he had a keen and preeminently critical intellect and a ready gift of lucid and forceful utterance ; his scholarship was generous and accurate, and he had the scholar’s faith in the dignity of letters.

 

The first president of this association, and ex-president of Cornell University, Andrew D. White, in a personal letter said:

I have always prized my acquaintance with Mr. Tuttle. The first things from his pen I ever saw revealed to me abilities of no common order, and his later writings and lectures greatly impressed me. I recall with special pleasure the first chapters I read in his Prussian history, which so interested me that, although it was late in the evening, I could not resist the impulse to go to him at once to give him my hearty congratulations. I recall, too, with pleasure our exertions together in the effort to promote reform in the civil service. In this, as in all things, he was a loyal son of his country.

 

Another ex-president of the American Historical Association, Dr. James B. Angell, president of the University of Michigan, said of Mr. Tuttle:

Though his achievements as professor and historian perhaps exceed in value even the brilliant promise of his college days, yet the mental characteristics of the professor and historian were easily traced in the work of the young student. * * * By correspondence with him concerning his plans and ambitions, I have been able to keep in close touch with him almost to the time of his death. His aspirations were high and noble. He would not sacrifice his ideals of historical work for any rewards of temporary popularity. The strenuousness with which in his college work he sought for the exact truth clung to him to the end. The death of such a scholar in the very prime of his strength is indeed a serious loss for the nation and for the cause of letters.

 

At the funeral of Professor Tuttle, held June 23 in Sage Chapel, at Cornell University, Prof. Charles M. Tyler said:

Professor Tuttle was a brilliant scholar, a scrupulous historian, and what luster he had gained in the realm of letters you all know well. He possessed an absolute truthfulness of soul. He was impatient of exaggeration of statement, for he thought exaggeration was proof of either lack of conviction or weakness of judgment. His mind glanced with swift penetration over materials of knowledge, and with great facility he reduced order to system, possessing an intuitive power to divine the philosophy of events. Forest and mountain scenery appealed to his fine apprehensions, and his afflicted consort assures me that his love of nature, of the woods, the streams, the flowers and birds, constituted almost a religion. It was through nature that his spirit rose to exaltation of belief. He would say, “The Almighty gives the seeds of my flowers — God gives us sunshine to-day,” and would frequently repeat the words of Goethe, “The sun shines after its old manner, and all God’s works are as splendid as on the first day.” (New York Tribune, July 15, 1894.)

 

Bishop Huntington, who knew Mr. Tuttle well, said of him in the Gospel Messenger, published at Syracuse, N. Y.:

He seemed to be always afraid of overdoing or oversaying. With uncommon abilities and accomplishments, as a student and writer, in tastes and sympathies, he may be said to have been fastidious. Such men win more respect than popularity, and are most valued after they die.

 

Image Source: Herbert Tuttle Portrait. Cornell University. Campus Art and Artifacts, artsdb_0335.

 

 

Categories
Economists Germany Johns Hopkins

Germany. The Seminary Method. Reported by Herbert B. Adams, 1884

  • The “Seminary” was the graduate student research workshop of its day. This innovation that combined research with graduate education was imported from Germany at the end of the nineteenth century. The historian Herbert Baxter Adams at the Johns Hopkins University provides us with a wonderful tour of the leading German seminaries of history, art/archeology, economics and statistics. Seminary libraries and museums provided the texts and artifacts that served as the toys of these scientific nurseries. 

The Seminary Method. Introduction.

Heidelberg Seminaries

Bluntschli’s Seminary

Knies’ Seminary of Political Economy

Historical Seminary at Bonn

An American Student on German Seminaries

Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries

Seminaries of Art and Archeology

Seminary Libraries

Statistical Seminary in Berlin

 

Excerpt from: II. New Methods of Study in History by Herbert Baxter Adams (1884)

 

[p. 64]

4.— THE SEMINARY METHOD.

The Seminarium, like the college and the university, is of ecclesiastical origin. Historically speaking, the seminary was a nursery of theology and a training-school for seminary priests. The modern theological seminary has evolved from the mediaeval institution, and modern seminary-students, whether at school or at the university, are only modifications of the earlier types. The Church herself early began the process of differentiating the ecclesiastical seminary for the purposes of secular education. Preachers became teachers, and the propaganda of religion prepared the way for the propaganda of science. The seminary method of modern universities is merely the development of the old scholastic method of advancing philosophical inquiry by the defense of original theses. The seminary is still a training-school for doctors of philosophy; but it has evolved from a nursery of dogma into a laboratory of scientific truth.

A young American, Professor of Greek at Dartmouth College, John Henry Wright, in an admirable address on the Place of Original Research in College Education, explains very clearly the transitional process from the theological seminary to the scientific seminary. “The seminaries were instituted that theological students, who expected to teach on the way to their profession, might receive special pedagogical training in the subjects in which they would be called upon to give instruction in the schools. As the subject-matter of liberal instruction was mainly the languages and literatures of Greece and Pome, the seminaries became philological in character. The first seminary that actually assumed the designation of philological was that founded at Goettingen in 1733, by Gesner the famous Latinist. This seminary has been, in many respects, the model for all later ones.”1

1 An address on The Place of Original Research in College Education, by John Henry Wright, Associate Professor of Greek in Dartmouth College, read before the National Educational Association, Department of Higher Instruction, July 14, 1882, Saratoga, N. Y. From the Transactions, 1882. This address and Prof. E. Emerton’s recent contribution on “The Historical Seminary in American Teaching,” to Dr. G. Stanley Hall’s volume on Methods of Teaching and Studying History, are the best American authorities on the Seminary Method.

[p. 65]

The transformation of the Seminarium into a laboratory of science was first accomplished more than fifty years ago by Germany’s greatest historian, Leopold von Ranke. He was born in the year 1795 and has been Professor of History at the University of Berlin since 1825. There, about 1830, he instituted those practical exercises in historical investigation (exercitationes historicae) which developed a new school of historians. Such men as Waitz, Giesebrecht, Wattenbach, Von Sybel, Adolph Schmidt, and Duncker owe their methods to this father of historical science. Through the influence of these scholars, the historical seminary has been extended throughout all the universities in Germany and even to institutions beyond German borders. Let us consider a few seminary types.

 

Heidelberg Seminaries.

At the university of Heidelberg, as elsewhere in Germany, there are seminaries for advanced training in various departments of learning, chiefly, however, in philology and in other historical sciences. The philological seminary, where the use of the Latin language for formal discussion is still maintained at some universities, is perhaps the connecting link between mediaeval and modern methods of scholastic training. In the Greek seminary of the late Professor Koechly, at Heidelberg the training was pre-eminently pedagogical. The members of the seminary took turns in occupying the Professor’s chair for one philological meeting, and in expounding a classical author by translation and comment. After one man had thus made trial of his abilities as an instructor, all the other members [p. 66] took turns in criticizing his performance, the Professor judging the critics and saying what had been left unsaid.

In the historical seminary of Professor Erdmannsdoerffer, the method was somewhat different. It was less formal and less pedagogical. Instead of meeting as a class in one of the university lecture-rooms, the historical seminary, composed of only six men, met once a week in a familiar way at the Professor’s own house, in his private study. The evening’s exercise of two hours consisted in the critical exposition of the Latin text of a mediaeval historian, the Gesta Frederici Imperatoris, by Otto, Bishop of Freising, who is the chief original authority upon the life and times of Frederic Barbarossa. As in the Greek seminary, so here, members took turns in conducting the exercises, which, however, had less regard for pedagogical method than for historical substance. Each man had before him a copy of the octavo edition of Bishop Otto’s text, and the conductor of the seminary translated it into German, with a running comment upon the subject matter, which he criticised or explained in the light of parallel citations from other authors belonging to Bishop Otto’s time, who are to be found in the folio edition of Pertz’s Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

From this method of conducting the seminary, it would appear as though one man had all the work to do for a single evening, and then could idly listen to the others until his own turn came once more. But it was not so. Subjects of discussion and for special inquiry arose at every meeting, and the Professor often assigned such subjects to the individuals most interested, for investigation and report. For example, he once gave to an American student the subject of Arnold of Brescia, the Italian reformer of the twelfth century, who was burnt to death in Home in 1155, having been delivered up to the pope by Frederic Barbarossa. The investigation of the authorities upon the life-work of this remarkable reformer, the precursor of Savonarola and of Luther, occupied the student for many weeks. On another occasion, Seminary discussion [p. 67] turned upon the origin of the Italian Communes, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin. An American student, who had been reading Guizot’s view upon the origin of municipal liberty, ventured to support the Roman theory. The Professor referred the young man to Carl Hegel’s work on the Constitution of Italian Cities and to the writings of Von Maurer. That line of investigation has occupied the American student ever since 1876, and the present work of the historical seminary at the Johns Hopkins University is to some extent the outgrowth of the ererni brought to Baltimore from the Heidelberg seminary.

 

Bluntschli’s Seminary.

As an illustration of seminary-work, relating more especially to modern history and modern polities, may be mentioned the private class conducted for two hours each week in one of the university rooms by the late Dr. J. C. Bluntschli, professor of constitutional and international law at Heidelberg. In his seminary, the exercises were in what might be called the comparative constitutional history of modern European states, with special reference to the rise of Prussia and of the new German empire. Bluntschli himself always conducted the meetings of the seminary. Introductory to its special work, he gave a short course of lectures upon the history of absolute government in Prussia and upon the influence of French and English constitutional reforms upon Belgium and Germany, lie then caused the seminary to compare in detail the Belgian constitution of 1830 with the Prussian constitution of 1850. Each member of the seminary had before him the printed texts, which were read and compared, while Bluntschli commented upon points of constitutional law that were suggested by the texts or proposed by the class. After some weeks’ discussion of the general principles of constitutional government, the seminary, under Bluntschli’s skillful guidance, entered upon a special and individual study of the relations between [p. 68] church and state, in the various countries of Europe, but with particular reference to Belgium and Prussia, which at that time were much disturbed by conflicts between the civil and the ecclesiastical power. Individual members of the seminary reported the results of their investigations, and interesting discussions always followed. The result of this seminary-work was an elaborate monograph by Bluntschli himself upon the legal responsibility of the Pope, a tractate which the Ultramontane party thought inspired by Bismarck, but which really emanated from co-operative studies by master and pupils in the Heidelberg seminary.

 

Seminary of Political Economy.

At Heidelberg a seminary in political economy is conducted by Professor Knies, who may be called the founder of the historical method as applied to this department. His work on Politische-oekonomie vom Standpunkt der geschichtlichen Methode was published in 1853 and ante-dates the great work of Roscher by one year. The seminary method encouraged by Knies consists chiefly in the reading and discussion of original papers by his pupils upon assigned topics. The latter were sometimes of a theoretical but quite frequently of an historical character. I remember that such topics as Turgot’s economic doctrines were often discussed. The various theories of wealth, from the French mercantilists and physiocrats down to Henry C. Carey, were examined. The meetings of the seminary were held every week and were not only of the greatest service in point of positive instruction, but also, in every way, of a pleasant, enjoyable character. Men learned to know one another as well as their professor. A most valuable feature of the seminaries in political science at Heidelberg was a special library, quite distinct from the main university library. Duplicate copies of the books that were in greatest demand were at the service of the seminary.

 

[p. 69]

The Historical Seminary at Bonn.1

1 See L’Université de Bonn et l’enseignement supérieur en Allemagne, par Edmond Dreyfus-Brisac, (editor of the Revue international de l’enseignement). “Les Séminaires.”

The object of this seminary, as of all German historical seminaries, is to introduce special students to the best methods of original research. The Bonn seminary is one of the most flourishing in all Germany. It is an endowed institution. It was instituted in the year 1865 and enjoys the income of a legacy of forty thousand marks left it by Professor Wilhelm Pütz. The income is devoted to three stipends, each of about 600 marks, for students of history and geography who have successfully pursued one or both of these sciences for two years. Said stipends are awarded annually by the philosophical faculty upon recommendation by the director of the seminary. It is said that a student of Bonn university has a better chance of obtaining such stipend than does a candidate from outside. In addition to this endowment of ten thousand dollars, the Bonn seminary of history is allowed a special appropriation, in the annual university budget, for general expenses, for increasing the seminary library, and for the director’s extra salary. Any unused balance from the fund devoted to general expenses is expended for library purposes.

The historical seminary of Bonn has now four sections, each under the guidance of a professor, representing a special field of history. The four professors constitute a board of control for the entire seminary. The director is appointed from year to year, the four professors rotating in the executive office. The student membership for each section is restricted to twelve. The meetings occur once a week, from 5 to 7 o’clock in the evening. All members are expected to be present, although no individual student makes more than one contribution during a semester. Members are subject to expulsion by the board of control for failure to discharge any obligations, for inadequate work, or for mis-use of the library.

[p. 70]

The library consisted, in 1879, of 308 works, and was kept in the charge of one of the members of the seminary. Among the books noticed by Dreyfus-Brisac, at the the time of his visit, were the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, the complete works of Luther, the Annales Ecclesiastici edited by Baronius, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Muratori’s Scriptores Rerum Italicarum, The Glossary of Mediaeval Latin, by Ducange, a set of Sybel’s Historische Zeitschrift, Forschungen (Munich), the writings of Curtius, Mommsen, Ranke, Sybel, etc.

Dreyfus-Brisac mentions other seminaries at Bonn University, notably that of the late Professor Held in Political Economy, held privately in his own house, and the pedagogical seminary of Bona-Meyer. The observing, critical Frenchman says that he knows of nothing more remarkable in German educational methods, nothing more worthy of imitation, than the seminaries of Bonn.

 

An American Student on German Seminaries.

Dr. Charles Gross,1 an American student who has recently taken the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Goettingen in the department of History, with the highest honors, and who is now studying English Municipal History in the British Museum, has written by request the following account of German historical seminaries, in which he has had long and varied experience : ” The German historical seminary aims to inculcate the scientific method. It is the workshop in [p. 71] which the experienced master teaches his young apprentices the deft use of the tools of the trade. In the lecture room the professor presents the results of his investigations; in the Seminar (or Uebungen) he shows just what he had to do in order to secure those results. The German student lays far more stress upon his seminar than upon his lectures. He may “cut” the latter for weeks at a time, while he is very assiduous in his attendance upon the former. The latter may be obtained from books or from the Heft of some more conscientious student ; but the scientific method, the German maintains, is the gift of time and the seminary only, — the result of long contact between the mind of the master and the mind of the disciple.

1 Dr. Gross presented for his doctor’s dissertation at Goettingen a thesis on the Gilda Mercatoria, an important contribution to English municipal history, originally suggested by the late Professor Pauli. The subject has an interesting bearing upon the merchant associations, which furnished men, capital, and government for the English colonies in America. Dr. Gross is now writing an Introduction to American Municipal History, to be published in this series.

” Two different kinds of work predominate in the German historical seminary : the writing of short theses (Kleine Arbeiten) or the critical reading of some document or documents, more frequently of some chronicler or chroniclers. The professor selects a list of subjects for theses from the field of his special line of investigation and assigns them to the students, the latter’s particular tastes being generally consulted. A member of the seminary rarely has more than one thesis during the semester, frequently not more than one during the year, and during his first two or three semesters none at all. The professor points out the sources and authorities, and the student consults with him whenever difficulties arise in the preparation of the work. One or two critics (Referenten) are appointed for each thesis, who comment upon the production after it has been read. A free discussion of the subject then follows, the professor and students doing all in their power to show the utter lack of Wissenschaft in the author’s method.

“As regards the other element of seminary work, viz., critical reading of some chronicler, to each student is assigned a certain portion of the text, which, — with the aid, if necessary, of other contemporaneous sources pointed out to him by the professor — he is expected to treat in accordance with the canons of historical criticism, the other students commenting ad libitum.

[p. 72]

” Now these two elements are variously combined in different Seminars. Generally both are carried on side by side, an hour perhaps being taken up with the thesis and the other hour of the session with some text. (That, e.g., is the plan of Prof. Bresslau of Berlin). Sometimes the seminary is divided into two sections, one for the Kleine Arbeiten and the other for the critical manipulation of some chronicler (e. g. Giesebrecht’s Seminar in Munich). Sometimes one of the two elements is excluded (v. Noorden in Berlin had no theses in my day ; Droysen nothing but theses). Sometimes the students are not required to do any work at all, the professor simply commenting upon some text for an hour or two. (That was Weizsäcker’s and Pauli’s method).”

 

Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries.

One of the best accounts of German university instruction in history is that given by Paul Frédéricq, Professor in the University of Liège, Belgium. He made two excursions to German university-centres in the years 1881 and 1882, and published a most instructive article in the Revue de l’instruction publique (supérieur et moyenne) en Belgique, in 1882. The article is entitled, De l’enseignement supérieur de I’histoire.1 It will probably be soon translated for publication in America. M. Frédéricq visited Berlin, Halle, Leipzig, and Goettingen. He describes, in a pleasant way, the various lectures that he attended, the professors he met, and the methods that he learned. To one acquainted with life at the Berlin university, its professors of history, and its lecture-courses, M. Frédéricq’s picture seems almost perfect. One sees again, in fancy, Heinrich von [p. 73] Treitschke, the brilliant publicist and eloquent orator, with his immense audiences, everyone of them an enthusiastic seminary of Prussian Politics. The following felicitous sketch of Gustav Droysen will be appreciated by all who have seen that distinguished professor in the Katheder : “Je le vois encore, tenant en main un petit cahier de notes à converture bleue et accoudé sur un grossier pupitre carré, exhaussé au moyen d’une allonge, qui se dressait à un demi-mêtre au-dessus de la chaire. II commença à mi-voix, à la manière des grands prédicateurs français, afin d’obtenir le silence le plus complet. On aurait entendu voler une mouche. Penché sur son petit cahier bleu et promenant sur son auditoire des regards pénétrants qui perçaient les verres de ses lunettes, il parlait des falsifications dans l’histoire. … A chaque instant une plaisanterie très réussie, toujours mordante et acérée, faisait courir un sourire discret sur tous les bancs…. J’y admirai la verve caustique, la clarté et la netteté des aperçus, ainsi que l’habileté consommée avec laquelle le professeur lisait ses notes, de manière à faire croire à une improvisation.”

1 Another good authority upon the subject of German seminaries is M. Charles Seignobos, of Dijon, France, in his critical article on L’enseignement de I’histoire dans les universités allemandes, published in the Revue Internationale de l’ enseignement, June 15, 1881. Cf. pp. 578-589.

The historical seminary conducted by Professor Droysen is one of the best at the University of Berlin. Although Professor Frédéricq failed to obtain access to this seminary as well as to that of Mommsen’s, being told qu’ on y exercait une critique si sévère, si impitoyable que la présence d’un étranger était impossible, yet he quotes in a work1 more recent than the article above mentioned the observations made in 1874 by his colleague, Professor Kurth, of Liège: “M. Droysen, dans sa Société historique, tient aux travaux écrits, parce qu’ ils semblent donner plus de consistance aux études et que c’est quelque chose qui reste; ils fournissent plus facilement l’objet d’une discussion, ils font mieux apprécier le degré de force d’une élève ainsi que ses aptitudes scientifiques; enfin, ils permettent [p.74] à ses condisciples de profiter mieux de son travail. La correction de celui-ci en effet, est confiée à un autre élève qui, sous les auspices du professeur, en critique les erreurs et le discute dans la réunion suivante avec l’auteur; de là, des controverses souvent animées, auxquelles chaque assistant peut prendre part, et qui offrent l’aspect d’une véritable vie scientifique.”

1 De l’enseignement supèrieur de l’histoire en Belgique, XV. Published as an introduction to the Travaux du Cours Pratique d’Histoire National de Paul Frédéricq. [Gand et La Haye, 1883.].

M. Frédéricq describes with evident pleasure the privilege he enjoyed, through the courtesy of George Waitz, in being admitted to the latter’s seminary, held every Wednesday evening, for two hours, in his own house. The seminary consisted of nine students. They were seated at two round tables, which were loaded with books. The students had at command the various chronicles relating to the times of Charles Martel. The exercise consisted in determining the points of agreement and disagreement among original authorities, with reference to a specific line of facts, in how far one author had quoted from another, &c. “The professor asked questions in a quiet way, raised objections, and helped out embarrassed pupils with perfect tact and with a kindly serenity.” M. Frédéricq noticed how, at one time, when a student had made a really original observation, the professor took out his pencil and made a note of it upon the margin of his copy of the chronicle. In such simple ways the spirit of independent thought and original research is encouraged by one of the greatest masters. George Waitz is the successor of G. H. Pertz as editor of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. To see upon the professor’s desk great bundles of printer’s proofs for this vast work, only deepened M. Frédéricq’s impressions that here in this private study was really a workshop of German historical science.

 

Seminaries of Art and Archeology.

M. Frédéricq describes another phase of historical training which is eminently worthy of imitation in all colleges or universities, where there is convenient access to an archaeological [p. 75] museum. Ernst Curtius is perhaps even more famous in Berlin as a classical archaeologist than as the historian of Greece. His lectures upon Grecian art are accompanied by a weekly visit of his class to the museum, where an hour or two is spent in examining plaster-casts and fragments of antique sculpture under the guidance of Curtius himself. Having enjoyed this very experience on many occasions in Berlin, the writer can attest the literal truth of the following description:

” L’après-midi, M. Curtius nous avait donne rendez-vous au Musée des antiques où il fait chaque semaine une leçon sur l’archéologie grecque et romaine. A son arrivée les étudiants qui l’attendaient en flânant à travers les collections, le saluèrent silencieusement, puis remirent leur chapeau. M. Curtius resta couvert aussi et commença sur-le-champ sa promenade de démonstrations archéologiques. Armé d’un coupe-papier en ivoire, il allait d’un objet à l’autre, expliquant, indiquant les moindres particularités avec l’extremité de son coupe-papier, tantôt se haussant sur la pointe des pieds, tantôt s’agenouillant pour mieux détailler ses explications. A un moment même il se coucha par terre devant un trépied grec. Appuyé sur le coude gauche et brandissant de la main droite son fidèle coupe-papier, il s’extasia sur les formes élégantes et sur les ornements ravissants du petit chef-d’oeuvre. On comprend aisément combien des leçons faites avec chaleur par un tel professeur, dans un musée de premier ordre, doivent être utiles aux élèves. La leçon que j’ai entendue ne roulait que sur des points secondaires : trépieds, candélabres, vases en terre cuite, etc., et malgré cela il s’en dégageait une admiration communicative et une sorte de parfum antique. On m’a assure que lorsqu’il s’occupe de la statuaire, M. Curtius atteint souvent à l’éloquence la plus majestueuse ; et je le crois sans peine.”

The same method of peripatetic lectures, as described by M. Frédéricq, was also pursued when I was in Berlin, 1874-5, by Herman Grimm for the illustration of art-history. Once a week he would meet his class at the museum for the examination [p.76.] of works illustrating early Christian plastic and pictorial art, for example, that of the Catacombs; also works illustrating Byzantine and Germanic influences, and the rise of the various Italian, French, German, and Flemish schools of painting and sculpture. More was learned from Grimm’s critical commentary upon these works of art, whether originals, photographs, or engravings, than would be possible from almost any course of lectures upon the philosophy of art or aesthetics, without concrete realities to teach the eye. The wealth of that great museum of Berlin — for student-purposes one of the finest in the world — is best appreciated when a man like Grimm or Curtius points out its hidden treasures.

The same illustrative methods in ancient and modern art were also practiced by the late Professor Stark, the archaeologist and art historian of Heidelberg. Although the museum of the latter university is small, when compared with that of Berlin, yet it serves to illustrate what any institution of moderate resources can accomplish for its students in the way of supplying original sources of art-history, at least in the shape of casts, photographs, and other fac simile reproductions of artistic objects. If Stark did not have original tripods, candelabras, and terra cottas, he had, nevertheless, images of almost every important object mentioned in his lectures. One of the exercises in Stark’s archaeological seminary consisted in the explanation at sight, by individual members, of pictorial representations upon Greek vases, which were inexpensively reproduced in colored plates, so that every man could have before him a copy of the work under discussion. There is a great future for American student-research in the field of arthistory, which Herman Grimm used to call die Blüthe der Geschichte. The quick success in England of Dr. Charles “Waldstein, a pupil of Stark’s at Heidelberg, shows what possibilities there are beyond German borders for the science of art and archaeology. The popularity of Professor Norton’s seminary and art-courses at Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows that interest in such matters is kindling upon this side of the [p. 77] Atlantic. The art collections begun by Yale, Amherst and Smith, Vassar and Cornell, Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University indicate that the day of art seminaries is not far off. Indeed, since this writing, there was instituted (March 1, 1884,) in Baltimore a so-called Art-Circle, consisting of about twenty graduate students, under the direction of Dr. A. L. Frothingham,1 a fellow of the University, who has lived many years in Rome and is a member of the Società dei Cultori dell’ Archeologia cristiana. The Circle will meet every Saturday morning in the library of the Peabody Institute, and, under the guidance of Dr. Frothingham, will spend an hour or two in the examination of plates, photographs, and other works illustrating the history of art. The subjects of study for this semester are: the catacomb frescoes; the sarcophagi; mosaics; ivory sculpture ; metal sculpture ; romanesque architecture; gothic architecture; sculpture in France (gothic period); renaissance sculpture in Italy; schools of painting in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. An art-club, with eight members, has also been instituted among the undergraduates for the systematic reading of art-history.

1 Dr. Frothingham is the author of the following monographs: L’Omelia di Giacomo di Sarûg sul Battesimo di Constantino Imperatore (Reale Accademia dei Lincei, 1881-2) ; Il Tesoro della Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano dal XIII al XV Secolo (Roma, 1883) ; Une Mosaïque Constantinienne inconnue à Saint-Pierre de Rome (Revue Archéologique, Paris, 1883); Les Mosaïques de Grottaferrata (Gazette Archéologique, for December, 1883-January, 1884); Letter to the Society for Biblical Archaeology on a Hebrew inscription on a mosaic of the V cent. at Ravenna.

Dr. Frothingham and Dr. Alfred Emerson (fellow of Greek and classical archeologist) have been the most active spirits in lately founding an Archeological Society in Baltimore, which will enjoy the co-operation of distinguished archaeologists in the old world.

 

Seminary Libraries

One of the most interesting and important features of the German historical, political, and archaeological seminaries is [p. 78] the special library, distinct from the main university collections. We have already noticed the existence of such libraries at Heidelberg and Bonn ; and it may be said in general that they are now springing up in all the universities of Germany. So important an auxiliary have these seminary -libraries become that in some universities, where the seminaries have been recognized by the state, a special appropriation is granted by the government for library purposes. The government of Saxony granted Professor Noorden of Leipzig 6,500 marks for the foundation of his seminary-library and an annual subsidy of 1,200 marks. This revenue for the purchase of books is considerably increased by a charge of ten marks per semester, paid by every student who has access to the seminary -library. The privileges of this working-library are regarded as analogous to the privileges of using laboratory apparatus or attending a clinique.

In addition to a special library, German seminaries are now procuring special rooms, not only for regular meetings, but for daily work. The historical seminary at Leipzig, embracing four sections like that at Bonn, has had, since 1880, five rooms at its disposal ; one consultation-room or Sprechzimmer for the professors, one room for maps and atlases, and three large rooms where the students work, with their special authorities around them. Every student has for himself a table containing a drawer of which he keeps the key. The rooms are inaccessible to all except members of the seminary, who are intrusted with pass-keys and can enter the library at any time from nine o’clock in the morning until ten o’clock at night. The rooms are warmed and lighted at university expense. Each student has a gas-jet above his own table and is absolutely independent of all his neighbors. Individuality is a marked feature of student-life and student-work in Germany. Men never room together ; they rarely visit one another’s apartments ; and they almost always prefer to work alone. Society and relaxation they know how and where to find when they are at leisure. By general consent German [p. 79] students attend to their own affairs without let or hindrance. This belongs to academic freedom. It belongs to the seminary and it belongs to the individual student.

M. Seignobos, in his excellent article on l’enseignement de l’histoire en Allemagne,1 says “tout seminaire historique d’Etat possède sa bibliothèque propre et sa salle de travail réservées à l’usage de ses membres. Là, au contraire, tous les livres sans exception, restent à demeure, afin que l’étudiant soit toujours sûr de les trouver.” M. Seignobos gives a list of some of the chief works that are to be found in the historical seminary library at Leipzig. He noted Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum; Jaffé, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum ; Böhmer, Regesta imperatorum ; Böhmer, Fontes rerum Germanicarum ; Muratori, Scriptores; Bouquet, Historiens des Gaules; Wattenbach and Lorenz, Quellengeschichte; Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte; Archiv der Gesellschaft fur deutsche Geschichte; Historische Zeitschrift; Walter, Corpus juris Germanici; Zöpfl, Rechtsgeschichte; Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte ; Gengler, Codex juris municipalis; Annales ecclesiastici; Migne, Vies des Papes; Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit; Giesebrecht, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches; Scriptores rerum prussicarum ; Huillard-Bréholles, Frédéric II; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte; Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom; Collection Byzantine; Sickel, Monumenta graphica ; Potthast, Bibliotheca medii aevi.

1 Revue internationalde l’enseignement, June 15, 1881. “Bibliothèques.”

 

The Statistical Seminary in Berlin.2

2 Authorities: Dr. Engel, Das Statistische Seminar des Königl. Preussischen Statischen Bureaus in Berlin, 1864. Programmes of courses.

This government institution, while dealing with Prussian statistics, is also a regular seminary for the training of university graduates who have passed the examinations required for [80] entrance to the higher branches of the civil service. The seminary, which was first opened in November, 1862, was under the direction of Dr. Edward [sic, “Ernst” is correct] Engel, chief of the Bureau of Statistics, aided by various university professors. The idea was that the government offices of the statistical bureau should become laboratories of political science. Not only are the facilities of the department utilized for training purposes, but systematic courses of lectures are given to the statistical seminary by university professors co-operating with the chief and his assistants. Subjects like the following are treated: the theory and technique of statistics; agrarian questions; conditions and changes of population; political economy in its various branches ; insurance; social questions ; administration; prison discipline and prison reform in various countries ; sanitary questions, physical geography, etc.

The amount of original work produced by the bureau and seminary of statistics is very great. One has only to examine the Verzeichniss der periodischen und anderen Schriften,1 which are published by these government offices, in order to appreciate the scientific value of the scholar in politics. These publications are of international significance, by reasons of the lessons which they teach. Whoever wishes to study, from a comparative point of view, the subject of national or municipal finance; the relations of church and school; sanitation; insurance ; trade and commerce ; industries ; population ; land and climate; cities; development of the science of statistics; statistical congresses; markets; fairs; genealogies of royal families; tables of mortality; education; administration, etc., will be richly rewarded by consulting the published works of the Prussian Statistical Bureau, which can be obtained at catalogue prices.

1 For this catalogue, one should address the Verlag des Koniglichen Statistischen Bureaus, Berlin, S. W., Lindenstrasse, 28.

 

[p. 81]

Library of the Statistical Seminary.

Among the publications of the Prussian Statistical Bureau is the catalogue of its library in two royal octavo volumes. In the first, the authors and titles are arranged according to the sciences which they represent. In the second, the contents are grouped by States. Probably there is in existence no other such complete guide to political science in its historical, theoretical, and practical aspects.

This library, now numbering over 70,000 volumes, has been used by Johns Hopkins University men, two of whom have belonged to Dr. Engel’s Seminar, and they would fully endorse the published statement by Dr. Engel, in his account of the Statistical Seminary, made as long ago as 1864. He says: “If we may believe the admissions of many specialists, there exists far and wide no library so rich, no collection of periodicals so select, no map collection so excellent, as those in the royal bureau of statistics. All new contributions to this branch of literature, whether in Germany, France, England, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, North and South America, are brought to the eyes of members of this seminary. A series of more than seventy special magazines of political economy, statistics, and the allied branches of industry, agriculture, commerce and trade, public; works, finance, credit, insurance, administration (municipal and national), social self help, — all this is not only accessible for seminary-use, but members are actually required to familiarize themselves with the contents of these magazines inasmuch as one of the practical exercises of the seminary consists in the preparation of a continuous report or written abstract of these journals.”

 

Source:

Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, ed. by Herbert B. Adams.
Second Series: Methods in Historical Study. January-February, 1884.

 Image Source: Portrait of Herbert B. Adams (between 1870 and 1880). Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs.