THE QUESTION OF A DIVISION OF THE 
PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY. 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS 
On Assuming the Rectorship op the University of Berlin. 
DELIVERED IN THE AULA OF THE UNIVERSITY 
On October 15, 1880, 
BY 
DR. AUGUST WILHELM HOFMANN, 
Professor of Chemistry. 
SECOND EDITION, 
WITH AN APPENDIX 
CONTAINING 
TWO OPINIONS ON THE ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GRADU- 
ATES OF REALSCHULEN, PRESENTED TO HIS EXCELLENCY, 
THE ROYAL MINISTER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, BY 
THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF THE ROYAL 
FREDERICK-WILLIAM UNIVERSITY, IN ; w 
THE YEARS i86g AND 1880. 
BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED BY GINN, HEATH, & CO. 
1883. THE QUESTION OF A DIVISION OF THE 
PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY. 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS 
On Assuming the Rectorship of the University of Berlin, 
DELIVERED IN THE AULA OF THE UNIVERSITY 
On October 15, 1880, 
BY 
DR. AUGUST WILHELM HOFMANN, 
Professor of Chemistry. “■*-»< 
SECOND EDITION, 
WITH AN APPENDIX 
CONTAINING 
TWO OPINIONS ON THE ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GRADU- 
ATES OF REALSCHULEN, PRESENTED TO HIS EXCELLENCY, 
THE ROYAL MINISTER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, BY 
THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF THE ROYAL 
FREDERICK-WILLIAM UNIVERSITY, IN 
THE YEARS 1869 AND — 
BOSTON : 
PUBLISHED BY GINN, HEATH, & CO? 
1883. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, by 
GINN, HEATH, & CO., 
in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
J. S. Cushing & Co., Printers, 1:5 High Street, Boston. INTRODUCTION. 
The Inaugural Address of Professor Hofmann, the distin- 
guished Professor of Chemistry in the University of Berlin, 
which is here translated, deals chiefly with a question which 
excites great interest and no little controversy in the German 
Universities, and will, it is hoped, interest all in this coun- 
try who are devoted to the educational problems of the day. 
The question of dividing the great Philosophical Faculty, which 
has long been the pride of the German University, collecting 
and cherishing all the numerous Sciences which do not belong 
to Theology, Law, or Medicine, and of putting in its place one 
Faculty of Letters and one of Mathematics and the Physical 
and Natural Sciences, is a question which cuts deeply into the 
very fibre of modern education ; and the action of Germany in 
dealing with it cannot fail to be weighty and lasting in its effect 
on the education of the world. This Address, however, as Pro- 
fessor Hofmann remarks, owes its general interest mainly to its 
discussion of a question closely connected with the principal 
subject,—that of admitting students to the Universities without 
the literary training which a German Gymnasium affords, and 
especially without a knowledge of Greek. The history of 
this question in Germany, particularly'the active part taken in 
it by the University of Berlin, may be new to many in this 
country who are interested in the future of classical studies. 
A decree, issued at Berlin on December 7, 1870, by the Royal 
Minister of Public Instruction, Dr. von Mulder, granted to sub- IV 
INTRODUCTION. 
jects of Prussia who had completed the full course of study in 
a Realscliule of the first rank the right of matriculation in the 
Philosophical Faculty of any Prussian University, for the pur- 
pose of studying Mathematics, the Physical and Natural Sci- 
ences, or Modern Foreign Languages. By this removal of 
restrictions which heretofore had practically barred the way to 
University studies for those who had not received their prepara- 
tory training at a Gymnasium, a new set of requisitions for admis- 
sion was recognized, and a new element was introduced into the 
Universities. The Prussian Rcalschule of the first rank, as com- 
pared with the Gymnasium, entirely dispenses with Greek in its 
course of study, reduces the time devoted to Latin by very 
nearly one-half, introduces English, gives greater attention to 
German, doubles the time devoted to French, more than 
doubles that given to the Physical and Natural Sciences, and 
increases that allotted to Mathematics by nearly one-half.1 
The decree of 1870 had been preceded in 1869 by a 
note, addressed by the Minister of Public Instruction to the 
Faculties of the various Universities in Prussia, asking 
their opinion upon the question whether young men who had 
received their preparatory training in a Realschtile should be 
admitted to the Universities, and, if they were admitted, under 
1 The following tables, extracted from Wiese’s Verordnungen und 
Gesetze fur die holieren Schulen in Preussen, second edit., 1875, pp. 38 
and 44, will furnish the means for a more sj>ecific comparison, and show 
at the same time what is the Realschtile, to the training of which the Berlin 
Faculty object. The German boy regularly has completed his ninth year 
when he enters the sixth and lowest class of the Gymnasium or Realschule. 
He leaves it regularly at eighteen. In the following tables, I. and II. 
and generally III. represent two years’ study each ; the others represent 
single years: — INTRODUCTION. 
V 
what restrictions this should be done. The answers, taken as a 
whole, were distinctly opposed to the Minister’s implied pro- 
VI. 
V. 
IV. 
III. 
II. 
I. 
Religion 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
German ........ 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
Latin 
IO 
10 
10 
10 
10 
8 
Greek 
6 
6 
6 
6 
French 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
History and Geography . . 
2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 
Mathematics 
4 
3 
3 
3 
4 
4 
Physics 
1 
2 
Natural History 
2 
2 
2 
Drawing 
2 
2 
2 
Writing 
3 
3 
Total number of hours in ) 
each week ) 
28 
3° 
30 
30 
30 
30 
General Plan of Studies of the Prussian Gymnasium. 
General Plan of Studies of the Prussian Realschule of the 
First Rank. 
VI. 
V. 
IV. 
III. 
II. 
I. 
Religion 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
German 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 
Latin 
8 
6 
6 
5 
4 
3 
French 
5 
5 
4 
4 
4 
English 
4 
3 
3 
Geography and History 
3 
3 
4 
4 
3 
3 
Physical and Natural Science. 
2 
2 
2 
2 
6 
6 
Mathematics 
5 
4 
6 
6 
5 
5 
Writing 
3 
2 
2 
Drawing 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 
Total number of hours in 1 
each week j 
3° 
31 
32 
32 
32 
32 
No account is taken in the above plans of the hours given to Singing 
and Gymnastics, or to Hebrew in the Gymnasium. The time so devoted 
falls either wholly or in part outside of the regular school hours. VI 
INTRODUCTION. 
posal. The decree was nevertheless issued, and went into 
immediate effect. The reply of the Philosophical Faculty 
at Berlin is given in the Appendix (pages 39-43 of this 
translation). 
The interest in the experiment thus set on foot was not 
confined to Prussia. For the proposition that the study of the 
Classics is the best preparatory training for the higher studies of 
the University has been widely combated. This question has 
been for years the subject of lively discussion in our own 
country, where there have not been wanting doubters who have 
assailed the value of the Classics, and especially of Creek, as an 
educational instrument, sometimes with fierce impatience, some- 
times with clever derision. It is, therefore, a fact of the 
highest interest and importance, that this experiment of admit- 
ting students to the University without Greek has been tried 
for ten years in the foremost University of Germany, and that 
we have a unanimous opinion of the Philosophical Faculty of 
that University upon the change, deliberately given at the end 
of this period. It is especially interesting to all friends of 
classical studies to find that the emphatic condemnation of the 
change which was expressed by the Faculty when it was pro- 
posed in 1869 is reaffirmed in still stronger terms by the 
Faculty of 1880. And what an array of names famous in all 
the various departments which Germany includes in her hospi- 
table “ Philosophische Facultat ” — in the Physical and Natural 
Sciences, History, Philology, and Literature, as well as in 
Philosophy proper— is appended to these memorials ! As the 
Rector reminds his readers, death had reaped a sad harvest 
between 1869 and 1880 among the distinguished men who INTRODUCTION. 
VII 
signed the first Opinion, and the Faculty had been largely 
recruited by the introduction of younger men. The names of 
Dove, Haupt, Magnus, von Raumer, Rose, and Trendelenburg 
have disappeared, and the Faculty appears much increased in 
numbers in 1880. But the views of the Faculty of 1869 still 
remain those of the Faculty of 1880. 
This Opinion of 1880 (pages 47-56 of this translation), 
which a distinguished American scholar has forcibly called 
“ the most powerful plea ever made in behalf of classical 
studies,” was first made public in 1881, as an appendix to the 
second edition of Professor Hofmann’s Address. In the Ad- 
dress itself, Dr. Hofmann presents, with great clearness and 
vigour, the claims of the Gymtiasium as affording the best 
means of preparation for higher studies. It is deeply signifi- 
cant that a scholar of such authority, a scholar who has made 
his great achievements mainly in the field of the Physical 
Sciences, should announce his unhesitating belief “ that all 
efforts to find a substitute for the Classical Languages, whether 
in Mathematics, in the Modern Languages, or in the Natural 
Sciences,1 have been hitherto unsuccessful; that, after long and 
vain search, we must always come back finally to the result of 
centuries of experience, that the surest instrument that can be 
used in training the mind of youth is given us in the study of 
the languages, the literature, and the works of art of classical 
antiquity.” 
1 Throughout this translation the word Nalurwissens chaften has been 
rendered Natural Sciences. It is a term of broad application, covering 
what would be more accurately designated as. the Physical and Natural 
Sciences. VIII 
INTRODUCTION. 
The present translation, which is published with the consent 
and approval of the author, was begun last winter, but circum- 
stances have delayed its appearance until now. It was made 
in the first instance by Henry A. James, Esq., of New York. 
It then became my pleasant duty to read the proofs, and this I 
have done with no less care than interest. We have aimed to 
render the Address and the two Opinions into English with 
strict accuracy; and in the Notes, which involve much that is 
technical and difficult of expression, we have besides made 
especial effort to use terms that shall be easily intelligible. 
John Williams WHrrE. 
Cambridge, October, 1883. PREFACE. 
The author of the Inaugural Address which is now repub- 
lished, though it has appeared previously either entire 1 or in 
part2 in periodical publications, labours under no misappre- 
hension of the circumstances to which it owes the honour of 
a second edition. It is not the subject of the Address itself 
which has awakened interest in wider circles, but a question 
standing in close connection with this subject, though only 
subordinately touched upon in the Address, and that is, whether 
the Realschule of the first rank affords as advantageous a prepa- 
ration as the Gynmasium for University studies. The author, 
relying upon his own experience, has answered this question 
decidedly in the negative. 
That there are many who do not share his opinion is a fact 
of which he has been made aware in no doubtful manner by 
the thorough discussion which the matter has received in the 
public press. From all directions and in the most varying 
forms, the cause of the Realschule of the first rank has been 
taken up with great vigour, and statistics have been adduced to 
place in the most favourable light the results of the preparation 
afforded by it for University studies. Moreover, party zeal has 
been by no means confined to those immediately interested in 
1 La Question du Sectionnement de la Faculte Philosophique. Revue 
Internationale de l’Enseignement. Red. par M. Edmond Dreyfus-Brissac. 
I. 152. 
2 Zeitschrift fur das Gynmasialwesen, XXXV. p. 1. Berlin: 1881. 2 
PREFACE. 
the Realschule, who, we may say, enter the lists pro dotno; but 
in the heart of the Universities themselves influential voices 
have taken up the argument in favour of the Realschule system 
of instruction. 
In view of so many concurrent expressions of opinion, one 
might almost suppose that the conclusion to which the author 
has been led by his own experience is shared by but few. 
Under these circumstances it seems desirable that wider cir- 
culation should be given to the views which the Faculty of the 
University in this city expressed on an earlier occasion, and 
which they have recently reaffirmed. 
When the Philosophical Faculty of this University in the 
year 1869, in common with the Faculties of all other 
Prussian Universities, was called upon by His Excellency, Herr 
von Mtihler, Minister of Public Instruction, “ To report whether 
and to what extent graduates of Realschulen should be admit- 
ted to the departments of the Universities,” it declared itself 
most decidedly opposed to such admission. This declaration 
has been made public in the official printed copy of the Opin- 
ions rendered at that time.1 
In the beginning of the past year the Faculty took up this 
subject anew, induced thereto by a motion offered by one of 
its members, Professor Droysen. The motion proposed by that 
gentleman under date of December 18, 1879, and strongly 
supported both by statistics and by a clear presentation of all 
the facts,2 runs as follows : — 
“To present to his Excellency, the Minister of Public 
Instruction, the request that he subject to renewed consider- 
ation the question of the further admission of graduates of 
Realschulen to the University.” 
1 Akademische Gutachten iiber die Zulassung von Rcalschul-Abituri- 
enten zu Facultats-Studien. Berlin: 1870. 
* For the following statistical reports, which have been made somewhat 
more complete, I am indebted to the kindness of Herr Kanzleirath Skopnik, PREFACE. 
3 
The Faculty could not refuse to consider the question so 
earnestly presented by Droysen, and immediately commissioned 
who very obligingly compiled them from the records of our University. 
They furnish unmistakable proof that the preparatory training for the 
University is to-day essentially different from what it was a few years ago. 
Total number of Prussian Students in the Philosophical Department in 
Berlin who had Diplomas from Preparatory Schools. 
Total. 
With a 
Gymnasium 
Diploma. 
With a 
Realschule 
Diploma. 
Percentage 
Realschuler. 
Winter-Sem. 1875-76 
616 
465 
I5I 
24-51 
“ “ 1876-77 
749 
544 
205 
27-37 
“ “ 1877-78 
818 
580 
238 
29.09 
“ “ 1878-79 
976 
664 
312 
31.96 
“ “ 1879-80 
1167 
762 
405 
34-7° 
From these figures it appears that the number of Realschiiler among the 
Prussian students in Berlin who had diplomas rose in five years from 24.5 
to 34.7 per cent. A still more striking result is shown if we compare with 
one another the numbers of the new matriculates from the Gymnasia and 
the Realschulen in each Semester. 
Number of Prussians newly matriculated in the Philosophical Department 
of the University of Berlin on presentation of a Diploma. 
With a 
Gymnasium 
With a 
Realsc/iule 
Proportion of Gymnasiasts 
to Realschuler. 
Diploma. 
Diploma. 
Gymnasium. 
Realschule. 
Winter-Sem. 1875-76 
152 
56 
IOO 
36.8 
“ “ 1876-77 
187 
59 
IOO 
3i-5 
“ “ i877~78 
188 
76 
IOO 
40.4 
“ “ 1878-79 
229 
98 
IOO 
42.8 
“ “ 1879-80 
230 
144 
IOO 
62.6 
For every one hundred students from the Gymnasium, there are to-day 
almost twice as many graduates of Realschulen as there were four years 
ago. 4 
PREFACE. 
the Dean, Professor Iliibncr, to call upon all the Instructors in 
the Philosophical Faculty to report the results of their experi- 
ence in respect to the subject under discussion. The rich 
material thus collected was thoroughly discussed and sifted by 
the Faculty in a number of meetings. Professor Zeller finally 
undertook to incorporate the new points of view into the motion 
of Droysen, and the Memorial, as revised by him and addressed 
to His Excellency, Herr von Puttkamer, Minister of Public In- 
struction, was unanimously adopted by the Philosophical Faculty 
in their session of March 8, 1880. This document, the contents 
of which undoubtedly seem fitted to throw light upon the question 
under discussion, has not up to this time been made public. 
The reprinting of my Inaugural Address, which was mainly 
instrumental in bringing the question prominently before the 
public again, offered a welcome opportunity to give the Memo- 
rial addressed by the Faculty to his Excellency, the Minister, 
wider circulation. Since, however, the writer of a letter, as well 
as the recipient, should consent to its publication, the author 
first of all asked permission of the Faculty to have the document 
printed with the new edition of this Address. The Faculty 
granted the request with the greatest readiness and without a 
dissenting voice ; and it, moreover, addressed a request at the 
same time to His Excellency, the Minister, that he should give 
his consent to the publication of the Memorial, which he did 
immediately with the greatest kindness. 
It seemed proper to publish the earlier Opinion of the Philo- 
sophical Faculty along with the later. Since the publication of 
the first Opinion death has reaped a sad harvest in our Faculty. 
The Faculty has been to a great extent renewed by the entrance 
of a large number of younger members. Put the views which 
the Faculty of 1869 expressed are still the views of the Faculty 
of 1880. 
Aug. Wilh. Hofmann. 
Berlin, July 1, 1881. THE QUESTION OF THE DIVISION OF THE 
PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY. To the Philosophical Faculty by its nature is entrusted the Pal- 
ladium of our strivings after the Ideal, the culture of pure Science, 
the representation of these before the outside world, and when oc- 
casion requires before the government; and it is eminently fitting and 
beautiful to see spiritual impulses and forces, otherwise most dissimilar, 
marshalled as watchmen under such a standard. 
E. L)U Bois-Reymond. Gentlemen : — 
On the threshold of the new scholastic year I extend greet- 
ing and good wishes to my colleagues and fellow-students. 
May this year of study bring us profit in our labours ! 
I need not repeat the assurance which I have already given 
that I shall conscientiously try to administer the honourable 
office entrusted to me to the best of my ability; but will ask 
your permission, following the traditions of our University, to 
introduce myself to you by the discussion of a question con- 
nected with the constitution of the universities. 
On casting my eyes about in search of a theme whose treatment 
would find room within the narrow limits offered by to-day’s 
ceremony, a question suggested itself to my mind which has 
come to the surface more than once in the course of the last 
ten or twenty years, and the discussion of which has awakened 
a certain commotion in academic circles. This question, to be 
sure, concerns immediately only the philosophical faculty; but 
when we consider how large the membership is in this faculty, 
that in most of our universities it is at least equal to the entire 
membership of all the other faculties, and in many, as for in- 
stance in our own, considerably greater, — and if we reflect 
further how manifold the relations are which centre in the philo- 
sophical faculty, we cannot avoid conceding to it an exceptional 
position. If, however, there should be any unwillingness to make 
such a concession, nevertheless, confident as I am that all who 
belong to the Universitas feel themselves to be members of one 
great whole, I cherish the hope that when I attempt to throw 
light upon a question which concerns the organization of the 
philosophical faculty, the members of the other faculties also, as 8 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
well as my fellow-students in all departments, will not refuse to 
lend me a friendly ear. 
The question to which I wish to turn your attention for the 
moment is this : “ Does the philosophical faculty, with its diver- 
sified structure and its daily increasing membership, still answer 
the needs of the times; or, in view of the variety of branches of 
science represented in it, is a separation into two or more fac- 
ulties to be recommended?” Moreover, we shall not be able to 
deny that this question has a practical importance, when we 
learn that so far from belonging still exclusively to the domain 
of speculation it has already entered upon the stage of experi- 
ment, such a division having beon, in fact, accomplished at two 
German universities. 
Why is it that the philosophical faculty specially should be 
deemed in need of such a reform? The answer to this question 
is given in the exceptional position of the philosophical faculty 
already pointed out; for it has not, up to this time, occurred 
to any one to divide the theological faculty, or the faculty of 
law, or that of medicine. The growth of the three faculties just 
named has in course of time been much less than that of the 
philosophical faculty. If we cast a glance over the statistics of our 
own university, we find that since its foundation the member- 
ship of this faculty has almost trebled, while that of all the other 
faculties taken together has scarcely more than doubled.1 We 
meet a similar difference in growth in other universities. This 
difference has its foundation in the special tasks of the several 
faculties. The faculties of law, theology, and medicine belong 
to science in the service of practical life; they are always, by 
preference at least, devoted to the teaching of applied science. 
The philosophical faculty is the faculty of science free and 
untrammelled; its efforts are immediately directed to teaching 
science for its own sake. Hence it is that the tasks of the 
faculties of theology, law, and medicine, however great and 
various they may appear, and however important for the welfare INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
9 
of mankind, nevertheless, for the very reason that they are 
devoted in the first instance to practical aims, are confined 
within certain fixed boundaries, while the domain of theoretical 
investigation of the philosophical faculty, mind aifd nature, 
knows no limits. This twofold domain has been built upon 
very differently at different times. In former centuries the 
deductive sciences enjoyed preponderant care and attention. 
It has been reserved for our own century to unfold, by the side 
of these, the inductive or natural sciences to unanticipated ful- 
ness. But since now this very growth of the natural sciences, 
and the representation of their single divergent branches in the 
philosophical faculty, have contributed essentially toward widen- 
ing its limits, it cannot cause us any astonishment that it is the 
natural sciences which demand a release from the union, as a 
colony grown great and powerful desires to sever the tie which 
binds it to the mother country. 
Additional and substantial force is lent to this demand by the 
importance, we might say the position of authority, which the 
natural sciences have assumed in industry, in the arts and 
manufactures, outside of the academic circle where they are 
cultivated exclusively in the investigation of truth. In all fields 
of human activity we meet with the useful application of the 
acquisitions of natural science, and its utilization for the develop- 
ment of practical life is accomplished with such rapidity that a 
dream in physics or chemistry often seems to be realized before 
it is fully dreamed out. No wonder that the representatives of 
these sciences, which have shown themselves serviceable to the 
material welfare of mankind to a degree scarcely approached 
by any others, find the question urging itself upon them, 
whether the time has not come, in view of this present develop- 
ment, for them to step out of the position they have hitherto 
occupied in the philosophical faculty in order to construct a 
faculty of their own. 
Efforts in this direction do not date from to-day* nor from 10 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
yesterday. They appear at an early period, in fact, almost at 
the same time with the first beginnings of natural science studies 
in our universities. So far as my own information extends, the 
cause of the natural sciences was first espoused by the cele- 
brated publicist, Robert von Mold, in Tubingen, nearly half a 
century ago. “ The number of faculties,” says von Mohl in his 
Polizei-lVissenschaft‘‘is regulated by the extent to which the 
sciences are taught at the university, and is consequently by 
no means unchangeable. If one science reaches such develop- 
ment within and without that it requires a greater number of 
instructors, and forms an existing department of study in itself, 
an appropriate faculty must be established for it.” And he 
adds further : “ The time may not be far off when the natural 
sciences also will everywhere be organized as a special depart- 
ment with its own faculty.” 
It has, however, required considerable time for this expecta- 
tion to reach fulfilment even in modest measure. To be sure, 
in the course of years, the transformation of the philosophical 
faculty has been repeatedly the subject of advisement at differ- 
ent universities, but it has been impossible to arouse any en- 
thusiasm in its behalf. Thus at an early period, at the little 
University of Giessen, where toward the middle of the century 
a large circle of young investigators had gathered about the 
powerful personality of Liebig, various negotiations were carried 
on directed toward a division of the faculty, although not until 
Liebig had removed to Munich. A separation of the natural 
science branches had been suggested by the Hessian govern- 
ment. The faculty replied that a division into two parts did not 
seem desirable ; that, if any change should be decided on, a di- 
vision into three parts would perhaps be preferable. They finally 
decided, however, in favour of the existing unity.3 About the 
year i860 the idea of division was first taken into serious con- 
sideration at Tubingen, that is, at the same university in which 
the notion originated; and finally, in the year 1863, it was INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
11 
carried out. The philosophical faculty retained its name; to 
the faculty of natural sciences were assigned the chairs of 
mathematics and astronomy, of physics, of pure and applied 
chemistry, of mineralogy and geology with palaeontology, of 
botany, of zoology and comparative anatomy, and of pharma- 
cology. The newly established faculty of the natural sciences 
came into existence at the beginning of the winter-semester of 
the same year under the chairmanship of its first dean, the 
botanist Hugo von Mohl, a brother of the publicist already 
mentioned. We learn from the document published on this 
occasion,4 that the first inducement to this innovation was a 
proposal on the part of the medical faculty, which was accepted 
only after an obstinate struggle between the faculties con- 
cerned.5 It is worthy of notice that the philosophical faculty 
of that time pronounced itself as a whole repeatedly and in the 
most decided manner against the plan, although all its members 
who represented natural science branches had voted in favour of 
separation and union with the natural science members of the 
medical faculty. Not until after the academic senate advocated 
the forming of a new faculty did the government take the deci- 
sion of the question into its own hands.6 
Hugo von Mohl, who formally opened the new faculty with 
an address on October 29, 1863, evidently entered upon the 
office fully convinced of the wisdom of the innovation, for he 
concluded his speech with an admonition directed to the Ger- 
man universities, “not to remain behind the times, to recog- 
nize the importance which the natural sciences had attained, 
and to concede to them a position of independence corre- 
sponding to their importance and conducive to their further 
development.” 
“That we have attained this,” he exclaims in closing, “is 
proved by the fact that I speak to you to-day from this place. 
The establishment of the faculty of natural sciences means a 
break with the medieval view that culture can be found only in 12 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
humanitarian studies, it means the recognition of the fact that 
the natural sciences have grown up to an equality with other 
sciences, the recognition of the fact that they must pursue their 
special purpose in their own way, and the assurance that they 
may strive toward the accomplishment of this purpose without 
being led astray by foreign influences. Let us express our 
thanks to the intelligence of our government, which is the first 
in Germany to have broken with the old prejudice, and let us 
call to our sister universities : Follow us !” 
The sister universities, however, have not responded to this 
call. Some of them indeed, in consequence of the action of 
Tubingen, have taken the question of the division of the faculty 
into consideration, but further than that they have not gone. 
An interrogation addressed to the Vienna philosophical faculty 
by the Austrian government shortly before the year 1870 led to 
a thorough discussion of the question ; this numerous body 
expressed itself by a large majority against division.7 In Bres- 
lau also division was the subject of lively discussion for years, 
without resulting in any reconstruction of the faculty.8 In Kiel 
and in Konigsberg propositions for a division have been like- 
wise without result.9 The results of deliberations in Munich, 
and later also in Wurzburg, which have not led to an imitation 
of Tubingen, I shall consider particularly hereafter. 
But the mighty stream of events which has poured over our 
country since that time has added a younger sister to our 
circle. 
On the occasion of the revival of the University of Strassburg 
under Roggenbach’s wise and clear-sighted guidance, the ques- 
tion of fixing the boundaries of the faculties was the subject of 
long and careful deliberation, and it will always appear an im- 
portant step, that there, after the expiration of a year, it was 
decided to follow the example of Tubingen and to abandon the 
traditional organization of the philosophical faculty which had 
been first adopted. In addition to its philosophical faculty the INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
13 
new Strassburg University has a faculty 10 of mathematics and 
the natural sciences. 
When we enter upon the discussion of this question, we 
certainly must not undervalue the example of the University of 
Strassburg. Those who had the organizing of the new school 
were scarcely trammelled at all by arrangements existing at the 
time of its revival; they might select the one or the other form 
according as they deemed one or the other better adapted to 
their purpose. They decided finally in favour of the system of 
division which had been introduced at Tubingen. But at the 
same time we must not attach too great importance to this de- 
cision, on the one hand, because it was more a question of 
entirely new creation than of reconstruction, and, on the other 
hand, because in this case it seemed fitting to maintain the 
traditions of the French period. Even if we are compelled to 
admit that under the circumstances Strassburg chose the better 
part, it would not follow that it would be expedient likewise to 
reconstruct the already existing united philosophical faculties 
in accordance with the example of Tubingen. 
On the other hand, the changes which have been accom- 
plished meanwhile in Munich, and in a more limited degree in 
the Wurzburg philosophical faculty, have a very special bearing 
upon the discussion of the question which occupies us. In 
Munich the question of the division of the faculty, suggested 
perhaps by its large membership, was taken into consideration 
very soon after Tubingen had led the way. The division, how- 
ever, was never made. The faculty has been maintained in its 
entirety, and appears so in its catalogues. It is divided, how- 
ever, into two sections, a section of philosophy, philology, and 
history, and a section of mathematics and natural sciences, 
each of which holds separate sessions under its own dean. In 
these sessions all the business relating to the respective sections 
is transacted. Only when questions arise which concern the 
common affairs of the faculty are their deliberations carried on 14 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
in a joint session, in which the dean who lias served longest 
occupies the chair." A similar arrangement has prevailed in 
Wurzburg since the middle of the last decade, though there 
both sections have only one dean, who is chosen alternately 
from each.12 This division of the faculty, preserving its unity, 
recalls in some measure the arrangements which exist in vari- 
ous Academies of Arts and Sciences, especially our own. 
The practical results gathered in Tubingen and Strassburg, 
as well as in Munich and Wurzburg, since the introduction of 
the new order of things, have been hitherto only sparingly com- 
municated by those who are able to speak with authority, that 
is, by memliers of the faculties which have undergone the 
change. With the exception of a very noteworthy article by 
Paul du Bois-Reymond, professor of mathematics in Tubingen, 
who moreover pronounces decidedly in favour of the unity of 
the philosophical faculty,13 I am acquainted with no publi- 
cation, up to this time, which touches upon these practical 
results. 
In view of the differences in the conditions under which the 
division of the faculty has taken place at the four universities 
mentioned, and in the absence of thorough information con- 
cerning its results, a purely academic treatment of the question 
seems for the present advisable ; one which, disregarding every 
precedent, shall discuss only the reasons which have been or 
which can be adduced in favour of separation, or in favour of 
the continuance of the philosophical faculties in their unity. In 
this discussion, however, we must not lose sight of the practical 
conditions, and especially of the fact that the several universities 
show considerable differences in their internal organization, — 
for example, many have the so-called Great Senate, which has 
jurisdiction in general university matters. These special ar- 
rangements cannot be without substantial influence on the 
general question. It is to be understood then, once for all, 
that in the argument which I am about to enter upon I make INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
15 
the existing arrangement in the majority of the North German 
universities my starting-point.14 
If we ask what grounds are adduced for the separation, the 
supporters of the movement generally point first of all to the 
advanced development of the natural sciences and to the num- 
ber of special courses which are already represented or which 
will be so in the immediate future ; they say that such a body 
of sciences can no longer be denied the recognition of its inde- 
pendence ; that the grouping of the natural sciences with the 
so-called mental sciences, whose representatives build upon a 
domain of study so entirely distinct and pursue methods so 
essentially different, must exert an' obstructive influence upon 
the development of the former, and cannot be in any way 
advantageous to the latter. 
These hints may suffice to indicate the general line of attack 
chosen by the champions of division. As to special arguments, 
they point in the first place to the injury which, as they affirm, 
accrues to the natural sciences from the composite constitution 
of the united philosophical faculty ; they say that, in the present 
condition of things, the decision is always in the hands of the 
philosophers, — if I may be permitted to use this expression 
henceforth to designate those members of the faculty who are 
not concerned with the mathematics or the natural sciences ; 
that on account of this unnatural relation all decisions by vote are 
placed in doubt, and that motions which may be of the utmost 
importance to the welfare of the natural sciences are in danger 
of coming to naught; that no help can be expected from the 
casting of a minority vote, for, since the presiding officers in the 
universities are usually philosophers, or officials with philosophi- 
cal sympathies, the fate of a minority vote is almost always 
sealed at the outset. It would seem in fact that there have 
been bitter experiences in many places, owing to undivided 
faculties. “ It would indicate a very imperfect knowledge of 
men,” says Hugo von Mold, “to expect that a majority which 16 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
understands nothing of the affairs of the minority and is con- 
trolled by entirely different principles will have the self-denial 
to yield to the judgment of the minority and support its 
measures; as a rule it will follow its own views, however poor 
their grounds, and oppose the minority.” According to von 
Mold an undivided philosophical faculty must steer its course 
between peculiar dangers when it approaches the task of filling 
a vacant professorial chair. He affirms that the evil complained 
of is felt also in case of grants for pecuniary expenses of all 
kinds,— especially the philosophers are charged with having an 
insuperable disinclination to provide books on natural science. 
In the natural science division of the university library “ an 
empty abyss yawns to meet him who enters.” In this connection 
von Mold mentions a German university known to him where 
the air-pump for the physical laboratory was ordered of the local 
pump-maker in order that the money might not go to benefit a 
foreign mechanic. I do not mean to say, however, that the 
philosophers were held directly responsible for this valuable 
enrichment of the physical collection. 
A final charge is made against the union by the secessionists, 
— that of waste of time. “ Division of labour,” they cry, “ is the 
talismanic motto of to-day ; division of labour, which enables us 
to make the most of the niggard favours of time.” 
But now let us hear what they have to say who wish to pre- 
serve the faculty entire. 
Although without doubt the investigator of nature and the 
philosopher labour in different fields, nevertheless it need be ad- 
mitted only conditionally that the methods of the two are different. 
-Investigation in the cause of knowledge, irrespective of every 
practical advantage to be taken of knowledge gained, is common 
to both. The physicist, — and I shall use this name hencefor- 
ward in its ancient sense to designate the investigator of nature, 
— the physicist, like the metaphysician, starts from a series of 
hypotheses upon which the well constructed edifice of his con- INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
17 
elusions is erected. But the physicist, in his work, has aids at 
his command which are lacking to the metaphysician. The 
mineralogist, the botanist, the zoologist have observation to help 
them ; the physicist, in the narrower sense of the term, and 
the chemist have experiment; and so far the assertion that the 
methods of the two are different may be allowed. On the other 
hand it cannot be overlooked that the methods of the mathe- 
matician, whom it is the intention everywhere to include in the 
proposed natural science faculty, diverge perhaps more from 
those of the chemist and botanist than from those of the meta- 
physician. And in like manner it must be admitted that the 
physicist and the chemist have to pursue paths quite distinct 
from those of the mineralogist and the botanist, or any other 
devotee of the descriptive natural sciences. At all events, the 
apprehension, even if well founded, of disadvantage to the 
natural sciences from difference in methods between philoso- 
phers and physicists, if these were united in the same faculty, 
cannot have much force as an argument for separation, since 
even if separation should really follow, the most heterogeneous 
elements would still be united with one another. 
But is there in fact any occasion for such apprehension? 
The advocates of an undivided faculty assert that this question 
must be answered in the negative, since hitherto no one has 
produced proof that the natural sciences have suffered any 
detriment whatever by reason of their long association with the 
deductive sciences. 
The natural sciences are at this moment, and have been for a 
long time, more fully developed at our universities than in any 
other country in the world. And especially is Germany in 
advance of all other countries as regards the separate repre- 
sentation of the particular branches of natural science. But 
even with us it was no rare thing, as late as the beginning 
of this century, to find lectures in two or even three natural 
sciences delivered by the same professor. But even then a 18 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
change took place for the better, while elsewhere the incon- 
gruity continued to exist until after the middle of the century. 
I know particularly of one great and wealthy university where, 
even as late as this, the chairs of chemistry and botany were 
united. The dubious nature of his position weighed heavily on 
the soul of the fortunate double professor, and he gave expres- 
sion to his embarrassment in a somewhat naive manner. He car- 
ried visiting cards of two kinds, and, as was proper, in calling on 
a botanist, he left a chemistry card, and in calling on a chemist, 
a botany card. Nowadays no professor is expected to teach 
two distinct branches of natural science. If any one wished 
to-day to criticize the mode in which single branches are repre- 
sented in German universities, he would do better to take 
exception to the almost too narrow limits within which many 
instructors confine their departments. And it is not only the 
completeness of the organization of the body of natural science 
instructors which has given our universities an advanced posi- 
tion. The external helps which are necessary to such extensive 
cultivation of the natural sciences have been granted by govern- 
ments and legislatures with generous hand. Before the year 
1870 an advocate of secession might still have maintained, with 
some show of reason, that only at universities where the branches 
of natural science were represented by instructors of extraordi- 
nary eminence and energy had they the advantage of at all 
adequate establishments; today we can turn their weapon 
against themselves, and say that, if there are still at any uni- 
versities branches of learning which stand in need of suitable 
establishments, they are certainly only those whose representa- 
tives have manifested but meagre interest in perfecting them. 
In no other country of the world have such palaces and temples 
been erected to the natural sciences as have arisen and are still 
standing on every side in the German universities. Nor has 
this movement been neglected in other countries, and envoys 
from abroad study carefully and zealously the arrangement of INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
19 
the natural science departments at our universities in order to 
advise their governments through comprehensive reports of the 
results of their investigations.15 Indeed, we have every reason 
to be proud of the flourishing condition of the natural sciences 
at our German universities, and if we reflect that this high state 
of prosperity has developed while their cultivators tilled the field 
in company with workers in other domains of learning, it must 
be admitted that community of labour has been anything but a 
drag on them ; nay, it may be questioned whether the physi- 
cists, had they guided the ploughshare of science without the 
co-operation of the philosophers, would have reaped harvests so 
rich. 
If, now, the natural sciences have in fact suffered no manner 
of harm from their union with the philosophical branches, if 
there is no ground for fear that harm may accrue to them in 
future, then it only remains for us to select particular allegations 
of grievance, and see what they are worth. 
And first, special weight is laid upon the impossibility of mak- 
ing any calculation how an undivided faculty will vote. When 
it is asserted that the philosophers are everywhere in a majority, 
the assertion may be true enough as a rough, general statement, 
though this numerical majority is not the same at different uni- 
versities. In Berlin the number of philosophers is rather more 
than twice that of physicists; in Leipzig and Strassburg nearly 
double ; in Tubingen half as large again ; while in Gottingen 
the excess is scarcely worth mentioning. We see then what 
may be the result of a vote. Let us suppose now a faculty so 
unfortunately constituted that not one of the philosophers has 
any acquaintance with the natural sciences or feels any interest 
in them ; and suppose, moreover, that these sciences have not 
a single supporter among the government officials. In such a 
case it would be possible for the most useful, nay, the most 
necessary measure to fall through. But it is evident that 
there would have to be a rare combination of unfavourable 20 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
circumstances to produce such a result. Now let us look at 
the matter on its bright side also. The members of a united 
faculty arc not narrow-minded specialists whose circle of 
vision does not extend beyond their own hedge-row. They arc 
far-sighted men, who see in the gain of the smallest part a 
pledge of the advancement of the whole, genuine Fellows of 
the Universitas in the noblest meaning of the word. The 
members of the two parts need not possess a very deep insight 
into one another’s affairs, but they feel the need and the desire 
to understand one another. Suppose that in a faculty thus 
constituted a proposition has been introduced, on the part of 
the natural science members, which perhaps at the first glance 
seems to the others to be of no great utility, but that after a free 
interchange of opinion it has finally won recognition in spite of 
that fact, and now, supported by the vote of an entire faculty, it 
reaches the senate or the minister. How much greater weight 
will such a proposition have than if it had proceeded simply 
from a natural science faculty, which after all can consist only 
of a relatively small number of members, whose ideas, more- 
over, move in circles so closely related that a comprehensive 
discussion is hardly possible. The defenders of the united 
faculty are therefore of the opinion that, although the possibility 
that the physicists may be occasionally outvoted by the philos- 
ophers must be admitted, the injury arising in this way is 
extremely unlikely. They are especially unwilling to admit 
that in filling professorships, when not the particular gain of 
one or another part but the well-being of the entire univer- 
sity is at stake, any injury, even the slightest, has accrued to 
the natural sciences through a misuse of power on the part of 
philosophical majorities. And those who never weary of point- 
ing to the preference enjoyed by the philosophical branches in 
university libraries must not forget that in just this respect the 
philosophers have a start of centuries which the physicists can- 
not expect to make good in a few decades. The defenders of INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
21 
the united faculty on the contrary are convinced that it is pre- 
cisely the union of the representatives of both fields of investi- 
gation on which its position of authority is based, inasmuch as 
the influence of prominent members of one part must redound 
necessarily to the good of the other. 
On the other hand the advocates of union cannot and do not 
deny that faculty meetings involve a certain expenditure of time 
which might be lessened by a division of the faculty. The 
relation between the simply business duties which fall to the 
two parts is not easily fixed, and must be different in different 
universities and at different times. If we assume that the bur- 
den of business of a united faculty is distributed between the 
two parts in the ratio of their numbers, then it would seem that 
the number of meetings in a faculty of natural science might 
be reduced in the most favourable case to one-third, and in the 
least favourable case to one-half. In reality however the saving 
in time will not be nearly so great; for, in case of business 
which concerns only a part of the faculty, nothing now prevents 
the appointment of a committee ad hoc to work up the matter 
under advisement in order to bring it before the full faculty in a 
suitable state of preparation. Or we may decide in favour of 
the formation of standing committees, such as have proved use- 
ful in the faculty at Bonn for nearly half a century.10 In this 
way too the advantages arrived at in Munich might be attained 
without having recourse to a partial separation, such as has 
taken place there. 
If however as a matter of fact the physicists as well as the 
philosophers suffer a small sacrifice of time by reason of their 
union in one faculty, nevertheless the question arises whether 
this loss is not richly outweighed by the gain to both parts 
through the union. To mention no others, the external ad- 
vantages are not to be lightly valued, especially in a great city 
where the conditions of existence make personal intercourse 
difficult. The points of contact between the two parts in 22 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS, 
matters relating to learning are so many that it is difficult to 
conceive of a faculty meeting without exchange of ideas and 
consequently a double gain. In these sessions the most vari- 
ous matters relating to learning are disposed of. Every one, in 
whatever field he labours, will need assistance more or less often, 
and he knows that his colleagues are ready and willing to lend 
it, just as it will be a pleasure to him also to be of service to 
them in return. As a rule it will hardly be a question of making 
and satisfying serious demands, but only of rendering small 
services which may be of great value to the one and cost the 
other nothing. Possibly it may be only the identification or the 
explanation of a passage from the writings of the ancients, or an 
etymological derivation, or a hasty glance into the history of 
philosophy ; or it may be a question of giving a name to a new 
mineral, or to a new plant, or perhaps of baptizing a new-born 
child of chemistry. But this comfortable learned intercourse 
in little things is by no means the only result brought about by 
the united faculty; we must estimate much higher the gain to 
each individual in scientific grasp from such a community. 
Differences are sharpened by separation and smoothed away 
by association. This principle is true also of the philosophical 
faculty. The surest means of forestalling threatening misunder- 
standings between individuals, or of removing those which have 
already arisen, is personal intercourse with the whole. And this 
manifold intercourse is also our best protection against one- 
sided absorption. 
The investigator of the present seeks his salvation, as a rule, 
in devotion to one science, nay, often to oply a part of one sci- 
ence. He looks neither to the right nor to the left, in order that 
what is going on in his neighbour’s field may not prevent him 
from burying himself in his speciality to his heart’s content. We 
are far from failing to recognize the great value of this very ab- 
sorption to the progress of science; indeed, the unexampled expan- 
sion of science would hardly be possible without the self-restraint INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
23 
which the investigator exercises, for the most part of'his own 
free choice, in limiting the field of his work. But it gives 
rise also to serious alarm. Too exclusive occupation with 
details obscures our view of the great whole, the understanding 
of which is the final goal of all our efforts, 
“ Denn nur der grosse Gegenstand vermag 
Den tiefen Grand der Menschheit aufzuregen. 
Im engen Kreis verengert sich der Sinn.” 
And especially in view of the unmistakable tendency of our 
times, the disposition to combine and specialize all effort, any 
stimulus to intercourse with workers in other fields of study 
which prompts us to open our eyes to a wider prospect seems 
doubly desirable. Ceteris paribus he whose scientific work is 
furthest from that of the mere mechanic will be sure of the 
greatest success. But he who isolates himself in his work or 
who maintains intercourse only with his immediate companions 
in his own department is peculiarly exposed to the danger of 
falling into such petty mechanical labour. I share in every 
respect the recently expressed opinion of one of our colleagues, 
of whom surely it will not be said that he would be inclined to 
underestimate the value of the pursuit of the natural sciences. 
“ Natural science, when its pursuit is one-sided,” says E. du 
Bois-Reymond,17 ‘dike every other activity so pursued, narrows 
the field of view. Natural science under such circumstances 
confines the glance to that which lies immediately at hand and 
within reach, to what offers itself as the immediate result of 
sense-perception with apparently unconditioned certainty. It 
turns the mind aside from more general, less certain observa- 
tions, and disaccustoms it to exercise itself in the realm of the 
quantitatively indeterminable. In a certain sense we extol this 
as an invaluable virtue of science ; but where it is exclusively 
dominant, the mind is apt to grow poor in ideas, the imagina- 
tion in pictures, the soul in sensitiveness, and the result is a 24 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
narrow, dry, and hard mode of thought deserted by the Muses 
and the Graces.” 
Surely there is no better means of guarding against this one- 
sided deformity than community of labour in the undivided 
faculty ! 
And there is still another beneficent influence ascribed by 
many to the undivided faculty. Attention has just been directed 
to the one-sided absorption which clings to the scholarship of 
our times. Still another reproach has been made against it on 
many sides, that of arrogance. There have been scholars at all 
times with a very high opinion of themselves. Their number 
has recently increased very considerably, so much so indeed 
that a peculiar disease has developed which fortunately makes 
its appearance only in sporadic cases. There is one unfailing 
remedy against it, which unfortunately cannot be prescribed for 
every one; this is community of labor in the undivided faculty. 
Shall we be willing to give up such advantages for the sake 
of gaining a few hours by reducing the number of faculty 
meetings? 
These advantages inure to the members of the faculty espe- 
cially in their character as scholars; but they are at the same 
time teachers, indeed, we may say, teachers first of all. Let 
us therefore see what is their attitude toward the question in 
this latter character, and last, not least, how the men who study 
under them in the great fields of the philosophical and physical 
sciences are affected by it. 
In the first place, as regards the teacher, there can be no 
doubt about his interest. If it cannot be denied that a general 
insight into the contents, the methods, and the aims of cognate 
sciences, such as the undivided faculty affords, proves of great 
advantage to the man of learning and to the investigator, in 
whom some one-sidedness is pardonable, we must admit that 
such a view of neighbouring territory is an indispensable need 
of the teacher, whose business it is, above all, to attain a clear INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
25 
judgment of his position in the great field of instruction, and in 
whom narrowness would be a serious fault. He certainly ex- 
erts himself assiduously to secure a natural development of his 
subject before his pupils out of its own material, but he is always 
more or less under the necessity of reaching out beyond the 
narrow confines of his special study. The material necessary 
for a full presentation of his thought, from his hearers’ point of 
view, will be at his disposal only at a later stage of his lectures. 
He will therefore not infrequently be so situated as to be com- 
pelled to borrow of bordering departments of knowledge, and 
he will be the better able to do this the more comprehensive is 
his view of them. 
In this requirement, that the members of the faculty shall 
be teachers, lies also the essential distinction between faculty 
and academy. In the academy the didactic element is not 
represented at all, and therefore the division of the academies, 
which has often been successfully effected, cannot fairly be 
made a precedent to be followed by the philosophical faculties 
at the universities. 
Separation might appear undesirable to the teacher for still 
another reason. Freedom of instruction is one of the first 
conditions of existence for the German University. Now, cer- 
tainly no one fears that this highest good would be put in 
jeopardy by separation. But the teacher values this good so 
highly that the change of the university to a group of special 
schools, which is merely hinted at in separation, fills him with 
alarm. And his alarm is not altogether unfounded. Both 
opponents and advocates of the undivided faculty have often 
called attention to the fact that the philosophical group on the 
one hand stands in closer relation to the theological and juris- 
tical faculties, and the physical science group on the other hand 
stands in closer relation to the medical faculty, than the two 
groups stand to each other. Opponents see a ground for 
division in this circumstance,18 while the advocates of union 26 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
use it as an argument on their side.19 The latter rightly point 
out that if aspirations toward the ideal are no longer repre- 
sented in one body, as now in the philosophical faculty over 
against the faculties whose aims are more practical, if the three 
other faculties are no longer referred to one common source 
whence they may draw the preliminary knowledge necessary to 
the attainment of their special aims, a mighty bond of union 
that fastens the single departments to the university will dis- 
appear, and thereupon the practical departments, as well as 
the fragments of the old philosophical department, will be in 
danger of forming themselves more and more into special 
schools, a danger not to be underestimated in view of the 
present loosely-jointed union of departments at our German 
universities. 
But while the maintenance of the philosophical faculty in its 
completeness is of unmistakable importance to the teacher, it 
has no small significance for the pupil. Immediately upon his 
entrance into the university the student becomes conscious of 
this significance. Many of our young friends, — and perhaps 
some of our fellow students now present are in this position, 
— are very far from coming to the university with a fixed plan 
of study, and it is fortunate for them that the door of a great 
multiform faculty opens before them. Taken up into the ranks 
of the students of philosophy, they will choose the group of 
studies in which they expect to make themselves at home, 
without undue haste, and after taking proper account of their 
special talents and their circumstances. But during the entire 
period of their study they get the advantage of the wide horizon 
opened to them in the undivided faculty, which challenges them 
daily to let their glance sweep far beyond the narrow confines of 
their special study over other parts of the sciences united in it. 
To be sure the objection will be raised that no one, in what- 
ever department he may be registered, is prevented from 
attending lectures in other departments, as in fact medical stu- INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
27 
dents are in the habit of attending a large number of natural 
science courses; but we cannot fail to see that, ,when it is a 
question of attendance upon lectures outside of one’s depart- 
ment, there is a very considerable difference between not for- 
bidding and encouraging. 
But as the teacher values freedom of instruction above all 
else, so freedom of study, and, in a wider sense, academic free- 
dom is very dear to the pupil. And he may well be apprehen- 
sive that in the division of the faculty a danger really threatens 
this freedom. In fact, does not this separation of the physical 
from the philosophical branches seem like a first step, scarcely 
noticeable perhaps though it be, toward the introduction of a 
fixed regulation of studies, which, however justifiable in a poly- 
technic institute, would be inconsistent with academic freedom ? 
Indeed, in his independence of every compulsory regulation, in 
his unlimited freedom to determine for himself his course of 
study, giving him as it does confidence in his own mature judg- 
ment ripened to a consciousness of self-responsibility, consists a 
substantial advantage which the German student possesses over 
the English or French student. 
And again, as the time approaches for him to give an account 
of his study, it is a source of satisfaction to the student that 
this test takes place within the great undivided faculty. He is 
indeed forewarned that more than one-sided knowledge will be 
required of him, that he must show a general familiarity with 
one or another cycle of sciences, but, in return, a correspond- 
ingly high reward beckons him on; for the document which is 
the assurance of his scientific training does not stamp him 
merely doctor of some special science, but clothes him with the 
dignity of Doctor of Science, Doctor Philosophiae. 
That the argument in favor of the continued unity of the 
faculty has been taken up on this occasion more especially 
from the standpoint of the physicist will certainly not surprise 
any one. It would not in fact be easy for me, should I attempt 28 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
to describe for the benefit of our philosophical colleagues the 
feelings of regard and esteem which I have no doubt they cher- 
ish toward us. I take it for granted that if any one of them 
stood in my place he would pay the tribute of approval to the 
physicists, as I have bestowed praise upon the philosophers, 
and that he would be just as sorry not to see the natural science 
element in the faculty as we should be to be deprived of the 
philosophical. It is possible indeed that he might see in this 
element a protection not to be despised against many dangers 
which threaten the philosopher in his special domain. He 
might perhaps think of the warning which the Thracian maid 
called out to the wise man of Miletus, when, with his eyes 
fixed upon the stars, he did not see the ditch at his feet; or 
the oft-quoted words of Goethe might occur to him in a new 
application: — 
The philosopher separated from the physicist 
Ilebt sich aufwiirts 
Und beriihrt 
Mit dem Scheitel die Sterne, 
Nirgends haften dann 
Die unsichcrn Sohlen, 
Und mit ihin spielen 
Wolken und Winde. 
United with the physicist, 
Steht er mit festen, 
Markigen Knochen 
Auf der wohlgegriindeten 
Dauernden Erde. 
Here I might stop. But alongside of the question of the 
division of the faculty or its preservation in its entirety stands a 
second question so connected with it that with the solution of 
the one a step would be gained toward a solution of the other. 
This second question may be expressed in two words : — INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
29 
Gymnasium or Realschule ? 
For more than a quarter of a century this question has been 
the subject of a lively discussion, in which spokesmen from all 
quarters have taken part and given various answers according 
to the party position of each, and it is scarcely more than a dec- 
ade since it was subjected to a public investigation, in the course 
of which the faculties of all the Prussian universities were heard. 
Indeed this important question has been so thoroughly illustrated 
from all sides that it may almost appear a rash undertaking on 
my part to attempt now at the eleventh hour to present it from 
a new point of view. I trust, however, that I shall be permitted 
to touch upon the question, if only cursorily, in order to dem- 
onstrate that the influence of a division of the faculty would 
reach far beyond the limits of the university. 
Every one will admit the justness of the aims which the 
founders of the Realschule had in view. It is not strange that 
callings in life, which, though of scarcely noticeable importance 
before the middle of the century, have in our own times rapidly 
reached an influential position in the state and have become 
conscious of it, felt the need of having their special work repre- 
sented in the school training. Corresponding to the university 
the polytechnic institute arose, and, as preparatory to it, the 
Realschule, taking the place of the Gymnasium. By the side 
of the old, well-tried form of higher instruction, a new system of 
education, sprung from the new conditions of existence peculiar 
to our times, came into being, and though differing in aim and 
in the means employed, took a place alongside the elder system 
as its recognized complement. 
As long as this complementary system of instruction re- 
mained true to the tasks prescribed by its origin, it had the 
happiest results. But it was soon led away, by the movement 
to which it owed its origin and direction, far beyond the goal 
originally set for it. It was first of all the Realschule for which 30 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
a wider mission was claimed. Why should not a school which 
prepared its pupils successfully for the polytechnic institute be 
in a position also to pave their way to the university ? Mathe- 
matics, the natural sciences, modern languages, to which the 
Realschule is particularly devoted, — why should they not con- 
tain the same elements of mental training which have hitherto 
been exclusively accredited to the classical languages, whose 
cultivation is the care of the Gymnasium ? But if that is so, 
must not the view that preparation for the universities can be 
found only in classical studies be considered as superseded? 
The most zealous spokesman of the new movement could not 
deny that the original plan of studies of the Rcalschu/e would not 
suffice as a preparation for the university. The only question 
remaining was to what extent the classical groundwork should 
be recognized. The necessity of incorporating within 
certain limits, into the system of instruction did not seem to 
any one open to doubt; and some voices were raised too in 
favour of at least elementary instruction in Greek.20 After great 
oscillations of opinion which have not yet come to rest altogether, 
there issued from this movement the Realschule of the First Rank 
(Realschule erster Ordnung). And now began a contest of rivalry 
between the new school and the Gymnasium, which though 
not always fortunate for the former secured for it at last no 
mean success, a contest whose changing fortunes we have our- 
selves witnessed. Both oratory and the written essay have done 
service to the new movement, and it has found champions in city 
councils as well as in the I louse of Representatives. Concessions 
have been made in authoritative circles to continuous pressure 
only slowly and with great caution. The call upon the faculties 
of all Prussian universities for an expression of opinion upon the 
question, whether and to what extent graduates of the Realschule 
should be admitted to the university, will always be a striking 
testimony to the earnest care which has been bestowed upon this 
most important matter. True, all of these numerous bodies have INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
31 
not given the same interest to the question proposed to them. 
The answers of particular faculties, moreover, have been in some 
instances assenting, or, if negative, not unanimously so.21 Never- 
theless the total result of this great investigation cannot be a 
moment in doubt, and may be briefly summed up as follows : 
that the Realschule of the first rank, however generous acknowl- 
edgement may be due to what it has actually accomplished, is 
nevertheless incapable of furnishing a preparation for academic 
studies equal to that offered by the Gymnasium ; that the Real- 
schule lacks — this, for instance, is the opinion of the Philo- 
sophical Faculty in Berlin — a central point about which all 
other branches may group themselves, while the Gymnasium 
possesses such a point in the classical languages ; that all efforts 
to find a substitute for the classical languages, whether in mathe- 
matics, in the modern languages, or in the natural sciences, 
have been hitherto unsuccessful; that after long and vain 
search, we must always come back finally to the result of centu- 
ries of experience, that the surest instrument that can be used 
in training the mind of youth is given us in the study of the 
languages, the literature, and the works of art of classical an- 
tiquity. According to the unanimous judgment of experienced 
teachers in the departments of mathematics and the natural 
sciences, graduates of the Realschule are almost without excep- 
tion overtaken in the later semesters by students from the 
Gymnasia, however much they may excel them in the same 
branches in the first semester.22 Such evidence needs no com- 
ment. Still more convincing is the outspoken preference for 
teachers who owe their preparation for the university to the 
Gymnasium, expressed by the director of a highly esteemed 
industrial school in a noteworthy school ProgramP I might 
add an experience of my own to the numerous testimonies in 
favour of the Gymnasium. I have never heard a student from 
a Gymnasium express a wish that he might have received his 
training in a Realschule; how often, on the other hand, have I 32 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
met with young men prepared in the RealschuU who grievously 
regretted that they had never had part in the training of the 
Gymnasium ! 
I do not of course mean to assert that the RealschuU docs 
not send a number of excellently prepared men to the uni- 
versity. Young men of talent will prepare themselves for the 
academic course of instruction advantageously in any school; 
and it would not be difficult to name prominent men in all de- 
partments of human activity who have made their way without 
any school training whatever. If we wish to compare the rela- 
tive efficiency of the two systems of instruction, we must keep 
in view the average capacity of those who are to be instructed; 
and I hardly need emphasize the fact that the experience which 
has engaged my preferences so decidedly in favour of the Gym- 
nasium training is formed upon observation of a large number 
of young men of average gifts, part of whom had their prepara- 
tory training at the Gymnasium and part at the RealschuU. 
The views expressed in the formal opinions of the academic 
faculties in 1869 have had no influence in any way to check 
the success of the RealschuU of the first rank. On the con- 
trary, the concessions already granted it have been still further 
extended, and its certificate of graduation entitles its pupils 
to-day to register in the philosophical department, in order to 
pursue further certain subjects pertaining to this department. 
These successes of the RealschuU of the first rank are to be 
ascribed no doubt in part to the attitude of vacillation or of 
assent of certain of the faculties ; but they are probably more 
especially due to the belief so often expressed, that the official 
opinions rendered by the Prussian faculties in 1869 were rather 
the outcome of theoretical timidity than the result of experience 
based upon actual facts. 
However, more than a decade has passed since those opinions 
were rendered, and the question is surely now ripe for decision, 
how far practice has confirmed what theory could not gain cre- 
dence for. INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
33 
We dare no longer deceive ourselves. The system of pre- 
paratory training for academic studies in our German universities 
is undergoing a significant change. The number of Realschiiler 
among our students — and this need not surprise us — increases 
from year to year. The statistics of our own university leave no 
room for doubt in this respect. In the course of the past five 
years the number of students from Realschulen registered with 
our Philosophical Faculty lias nearly trebled. At other univer- 
sities there has been a similar increase. There is accordingly 
no lack of practical experience, and the result is that the belief 
which had already been entertained has been strengthened. 
Ideality in academic study, unselfish devotion to science for its 
own sake, and that unshackled activity of thought which is at 
once the condition and the consequence of such devotion, retire 
more and more into the background as the classical ground- 
work of our mental life found in the Gymnasium is withdrawn 
from the pre-university course. This is, to be sure, in the first 
instance, only a personal belief drawn from personal experience; 
but I will not omit to say that I have had abundant opportunity 
to discuss the subject with friends connected with the physical 
and mathematical sciences, and I have'found them almost with- 
out exception firm in the same conviction. 
The form and contents of university instruction, however, will 
always be dependent on the amount of preparation which the 
student brings with him to the university. A falling off in the 
requirements of this preparatory training will inevitably be fol- 
lowed by a lowering of the character of university instruction 
itself. Would then, under such circumstances, the German 
university, the glorious centre of our civilization and the object 
of the emulous admiration of other nations, remain much longer 
what it has been for so many years ? 
It is not my task to-day to enter upon the solution of this 
question. It lies also beyond the limits of this address to 
examine the means by which the danger of a lowering of the 34 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
standard of preparation for the university might be successfully 
met. It will seem to many that the best remedy must come 
from the Gymnasium itself. The Gymnasium, it must be 
thankfully recognized, has enjoyed for many years the unremit- 
ting care and attention of the most distinguished men in influ- 
ential circles, who have taken upon themselves with enthusiasm 
the advancement of this nursery of our youth. But these very 
men recognize, perhaps better than any one else, the fact that 
the Gymnasium is to-day susceptible of improvement in many 
directions, especially in its methods of instruction, without in 
any way imperilling the well-tried foundations of its efficiency. 
Perhaps this very Realschule movement is playing into the hands 
of such reformatory efforts; perhaps in so doing it fulfils its 
proper mission. The men who direct our schools have indeed 
a far-reaching and difficult task laid upon them, and they need 
not be discouraged if it cannot be at once accomplished. They 
must not forget that when it is a question of changes in a pro- 
duct of ages the results effected even by decades cannot be of 
much significance. If in our time the idea has become widely 
extended that, because physical science has taught us to de- 
spatch our thoughts with’the swiftness of lightning from hemi- 
sphere to hemisphere, the process of thinking itself goes on 
more swiftly and more easily, this is a fundamental error. We 
do not think to-day any more quickly than we did yesterday, 
and — those who were charged with the preparation of the edu- 
cation law will certainly bear me out in this — good ideas have 
not become cheaper than they were at any earlier period. We 
must not therefore be surprised if our efforts to establish a 
Gymnasium which will answer all requirements are not crowned 
to-day, nor yet to-morrow, with brilliant success. 
Many of you, my hearers, have long since perhaps reproached 
me with losing sight completely of the subject of my discourse. 
Have I really lost sight of it? I think not. When I raise my 
voice in behalf of the Gymnasium, I am arguing in favour of an INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
35 
undivided faculty. The advocates of secession are labouring, 
perhaps without being clearly conscious of it themselves, toward 
the same end as the partisans of the Realschule, — the recog- 
nition of a preparatory training for the university founded upon a 
new basis, or as they themselves love to call it, a break with the 
medieval view that this preparatory training is to be found only 
in the study of the humanities. Every cleft in a philosophical 
faculty brings water to the Realschule mill. The mighty wall 
of protection about the Gymnasium is the close phalanx of the 
undivided philosophical faculty. 
A few words more, and I am done. It may seem to some 
here and there in this assembly that I have spoken with refer- 
ence to some dissension that threatens us in the immediate 
future. Such a supposition might find support perhaps in the 
fact that the membership of our philosophical faculty is so very 
large, larger than that of any other German university, larger 
even than the entire membership of all the faculties in many a 
German university. But such a supposition would be entirely 
erroneous. I had no reason for treating my academic theme 
otherwise than in a purely academic manner. In the course of 
the fifteen years during which I have had the honour to belong 
to the philosophical faculty of this University, the idea of sep- 
aration has never even been suggested; and it would be diffi- 
cult, I am sure, to find a body in which the conviction that 
all its members belong together, the consciousness of strength 
springing from variety in its composition, the feeling of unity 
and indivisibility, are more actively developed than in our own 
philosophical faculty. And this consciousness of our solidar- 
ity, this feeling of our unity, is but a feature of that higher spirit 
of community by virtue of which the different faculties recognize 
that they are sisters, equally privileged daughters of Alma Mater, 
that spirit which is the foundation of our university, and whose 
breath preserves the bloom of our great school unfaded. In 
this spirit let us enter upon the year of study now opening 
before us viribus unitis! Opinion of the Philosophical Faculty of the Royal Frederick- 
William University of Berlin concerning the Admission of 
Graduates of Realschulen to the University, presented to 
His Excellency, Dr. von Miihler, Royal Minister of State, 
on December ij, 1869. Berlin, December 13, 1869. 
Your Excellency : — 
In the rescript of November 9, transmitted by the Rector 
and Senate to the Philosophical Faculty on November 24, 
Your Excellency has requested an opinion on the question : — 
“Whether and to what extent graduates of Realschulen should 
be admitted to the departments of the Universities.” 
The Faculty, having taken the subject anew into serious con- 
sideration, hasten most respectfully to present their views to 
Your Excellency. 
While the University has no reason to withhold its advantages, 
it must not, in its desire to make the higher education accessible 
to the greatest possible number, forget its peculiar purpose and 
its historical task. Its duty is to fit the youth for the service of 
State and Church, after they have received sufficient prepara- 
tion. The view that the complete Gymnasium course is such a 
preparation is to-day still fully justified. The instruction of the 
Gymnasium centres in the classical languages, the methodical 
study of which necessarily carries with it manifold logical and 
historical training. They furnish the most difficult, and for 
that very reason also the most effective instrument of instruc- 
tion, and it is for the interest of the State that all to whom it 
expects to intrust its offices should go through this intellectual 
training, substantially complemented as it is by mathematical 
instruction, and thus gain for themselves a liberal and many- 
sided culture, such as they could not attain in any other way. 
Such is the close tie between the University and the Gymna- 
sium, which has proved itself since the Reformation the corner- 
stone of German culture. 
By the side of the Gymnasium a species of schools has 
developed itself in recent years, which have been gradually pro- 40 
OPINION OF 1869. 
vided, in analogy with the Gymnasium, with a series of rights and 
privileges,— schools which have been called forth by a need 
lying quite apart from the University, and whose office is to fur- 
nish a fitting preparation for the higher industrial positions. If 
it is further claimed for these schools that the preparation 
which they furnish is to be regarded as sufficient for the Uni- 
versity also, then it becomes necessary to look more sharply at 
their character and at the results which they accomplish. 
They also aim at a certain completeness of education, and it 
might seem that the lower grade of training of the Realschiiler 
in one branch of study would be compensated for by greater 
proficiency in another. The Realschule fixes a higher standard 
in mathematics certainly, but the end which it attains always 
depends finally on the personality of the teacher; there are 
Gymnasia which accomplish just as much ; and on the whole 
the start gained by the average Realschiiler, so far as concerns 
his ability to acquire the higher mathematics, is insignificant. 
In regard to the natural sciences, the most notable of our 
chemists and physicists, as well as the representatives of the 
other departments, agree that the students from the Gymnasia 
on the average accomplish more. It is the general experience 
that the foretaste of these sciences obtained in the Realschule 
frequently dulls rather than stimulates eagerness for knowledge. 
Still less are the modern languages able to take the place of 
Greek and Latin ; for, since as a rule the only thing aimed at 
in their study is a certain facility of use, they cannot serve in 
equal manner as an instrument of culture. The main point is 
that the instruction given in the Realschule lacks a central 
point; hence the unsteadiness in its system of teaching. It 
embraces a collection of studies most of which cannot be pur- 
sued with the requisite thoroughness within the limits of the 
school. In a word, it has not been possible to find an equiva- 
lent for the classical languages as a centre of instruction; 
and therefore the University cannot deem it advisable for the OPINION OF 1869. 
41 
State to cease to require a Gymnasium training for its future 
functionaries. 
While, moreover, the Realschule, in accordance with the 
inherent nature of industrial conditions, seeks to hasten the 
period of graduation and dismisses its pupils generally a year 
earlier than the Gymnasium, it is not in the interest of the 
University to desire an increase in the number of students of 
seventeen years of age. It is rather a matter of importance to 
all the faculties that they shall have a body of young men 
more mature in age and training. The philosophical department 
has a peculiar interest of its own in seeing that the requirement 
of a classical education is not departed from, because it educates 
the teaching class. For while the training of the Gymnasium is 
an indispensable dowry for every department of science and for 
every higher official calling, it is especially so for the teacher. 
The Realschulen are attended mainly by those who wish to 
avoid the severe labour of Greek and Latin. If the graduates 
of these schools, after the expiration of their three years’ Uni- 
versity course, could become in turn themselves teachers in 
Realschulen, a constant falling off in standards would be un- 
avoidable ; and hence the directors of Realschulen themselves, 
who have the highest conception of the special work of their 
institutions, have with great decision fixed the requirement that 
teachers in the Realschule, like teachers in the Gymnasium, 
shall be such as have had a classical training, — that is, such 
as have been prepared for their profession in the Gymnasium 
and the University. {Kern, Vierter Jahresbericht iiber die 
Louisenstadtische Gewerbeschule, 1869, p. 13.) Thus the fitness 
of the Realschule to serve as a nursery for its own future teachers 
is denied by its own representatives. 
That which undoubtedly applies to those who are perfecting 
themselves for the profession of teaching is just as true of all 
branches of study that are accustomed to serve as a preparation 
for the higher executive positions, and especially does it apply 42 
OPINION OF 1869. 
to the administrators of the public moneys ( Cameralisien), who 
must not be without the breadth of view and historical culture 
given by the Gymnasium. Nay, even in the circles for whose 
benefit the Realschulen originated, in the great commercial 
houses and in industrial institutions, the experience of our times 
proves that those young men are more welcome who come 
from the Prima of a Gymnasium. If then, in those very 
circles, an unmistakable counter-current has set in against 
the earlier over-rating of the Rcalschule, why should the Uni- 
versity surrender its organic union with the Gymnasium, and 
be willing to obliterate a distinction in education whose exist- 
ence cannot be denied ? 
Extraordinary talents will always make a way for themselves 
to public appreciation. But the Faculty are compelled to give 
their entire recognition and approval to what has hitherto been 
the rule, that in the case of every one who aspires to the service 
of the State it may be taken for granted that his education has 
been, up to the beginning of his academical career, liberal, gen- 
eral, and not narrowed by considerations of future professional 
aims, and to utter a warning against the surrender of that which 
has been till now the common t>asis of training of all the higher 
public functionaries, and which, if it be once given up, can 
never be regained. 
The University does not close its doors to those young men 
who have not pursued classical studies. For, although it dis- 
tinguishes between graduates and non-graduates, admitting the 
latter at first to matriculation for three semesters only, still this 
period, which is measured by the average need of non-graduates, 
can be extended without difficulty, and even where by legisla- 
tive provision matriculation is not possible, the Rector may, in 
proper cases, grant permission to attend lectures. Further prop- 
ositions to facilitate the entrance of non-graduates were sug- 
gested in the report on the matriculation of imma/uri, which was 
submitted to Your Excellency by the Faculty on Dec. 3, 1868. OPINION OF 1869. 
43 
Aside from these formalities attending the reception of stu- 
dents, no distinctions of any kind exist. The University offers 
the same opportunities to all, and puts the immaturi legally on 
the same level with the other students. 
Any further concession to the demands of the Realschule 
would mean that the University ceased to regard the Gymnasium 
training as the only regular preparatory course, and recognized 
on equal terms a standard of culture which cannot in its eyes 
pass for the same thing. The Philosophical Faculty cannot 
give their consent to such a movement. They are convinced 
that no sufficient compensation is given in the Realschule for 
the lack of classical education. They fear that so decided a 
lowering of standards would be accompanied by weighty con- 
sequences, especially in such a state as Prussia. 
The Faculty, therefore, believe they owe it to the University 
and to the State to declare themselves in the most positive 
manner against a more extensive admission of Realschiller, that 
is, against placing them on exactly the same footing with grad- 
uates of Gymnasia. 
The Dean and Professors of the Philosophical Faculty of the 
Royal Frederick- William University of Berlin. 
Curtius, . . . Dean. 
Haupt. Mullenhoff. Kirchhoff. Dove. 
Trendelenburg. Rodiger. M. Ohm. G. Rose. 
Droysen. Weierstrass. von Raumer. Magnus. 
Rummer. Weber. Harms. Beyrich. W. Peters. 
Mommsen. A. Braun. E. Helwing. 
To His Excellency, Dr. von Muhler, 
Royal Minister of Stale, &rc., arc. Opinion of the Philosophical Faculty of the Royal Frederiik- 
William University of Berlin concerning the Admission of 
Graduates of Rcalschulen to the University, presented to 
His Excellency, Herr von Puttkamer, Royal Minister of 
State, on March 8, 1880. Berlin, March 8, 1880. 
Your Excellency : — 
The undersigned, the members of the Philosophical Faculty 
of the Royal Frederick-William University, take the liberty* of 
presenting the following considerations to Your Excellency, in 
discharge of their duty to that portion of the University studies 
entrusted to their care. 
It was determined by a ministerial decree of December 7, 
1870, that in the case of such subjects of the realm as should 
desire to be matriculated in the Philosophical Faculty of a 
Prussian National University for the purpose of pursuing the 
study of mathematics, the natural sciences, or modern foreign 
languages, the diploma of a Prussian Realschulc of the first rank 
might be substituted for that of the Gymnasium. In the course 
of the negotiations which preceded this decree, the Philosophi- 
cal Faculty of this University stated with great decision that they 
considered it imperative, in the interest of the thorough and 
symmetrical preparatory training of their students, to hold fast 
to the requirement of a Gymnasium preparation for all branches 
of study falling within their jurisdiction. And now that in the 
case of a number of those studies this requirement has been 
set aside for more than ten years, they deem it neither prema- 
ture nor superfluous to lay before Your Excellency the results 
of their experience during that time with reference to the effect 
of the change introduced, respectfully pointing out at the same 
time that the practical effects of the arrangement at present 
existing could not, in the nature of the case, be seen until 
sometime after its first introduction on a large scale. 
The undersigned, the members of this Faculty, find them- 
selves the more urgently challenged to this presentation of 48 
OPINION OF 1880. 
their views, the more unmistakable it becomes that the number 
and the percentage of Realschiiler among their students have 
been constantly increasing in recent years. While during the 
winter half-year of 1875-76 of 705 Prussians matriculated in 
the philosophical department 56 were newly admitted Real- 
schiiler, that is not quite 8 per cent, in the current winter 
half-year of 1879-80 of 1299 matriculated Prussians 144 entered 
from Realschulen, that is more than 11 per cent;1 and this 
increase becomes still more striking if we base the comparison 
upon the single sciences to which Realschiiler have access. 
In 1875-76 among 214 native students of mathematics and 
the natural sciences there were 1 7 Realschiiler, that is not 8 per 
cent; in 1879-80 among 460 there are 69, or 15 per cent. 
And the increase would be found to be equally large among 
the students of modern languages, with regard to whom we 
have not exact information at hand. 
It has not been possible for all the members of our Faculty 
of whose instruction Realschiiler take advantage to institute 
observations concerning the success of such scholars among the 
different classes of their pupils, and the conclusions of indi- 
vidual members do not always agree; but the great majority of 
us who are in a position to give an opinion at all have found 
the. apprehensions with which the Faculty as early as 1869 
felt compelled to regard the admission of Realschiiler to 
the University by no means allayed by our subsequent experi- 
ence. 
Those representatives of the mathematical branches whose 
lectures are more particularly attended by students in the 
first semesters, it is true, say that they have observed no 
difference between graduates of Gymnasia and Realschulen in 
the results of their studies; but, on the other hand, both of the 
full professors who are accustomed to give instruction in the 
higher mathematics hold without change to the verdict already 
1 Compare the statistics quoted in the Preface, page 3. A. W. H. OPINION OF l880. 
49 
repeatedly given by them, that the students of mathematics who 
have been prepared in the Gymnasia, in spite of the fact that 
less time is devoted to this branch in the Gymnasium than in 
the Realschule, are nevertheless, as a rule, superior to their 
fellow-students from the Realschule in scientific impulse and 
apprehension, and in capacity for a deeper understanding of 
their science. 
In concurrence with this, the representative of the astrono- 
mical department announces it as his experience, almost without 
exception, as well in the observatory as in the central office of 
the government department of weights and measures, that the 
young men who have received their preparatory training in the 
Realschule, although at first, perhaps, better informed and more 
apt than those who have been prepared in the Gymnasium, 
nevertheless cannot in the end bear comparison with the latter, 
their further development being slower, more superficial, and 
less independent, while they suffer especially in a greater degree 
from whims of independence and lack of self-knowledge. 
It is also emphasized by the instructors of chemistry that 
graduates of Realschulen do not stand upon the same level with 
graduates of Gymnasia. Professor Hofmann observes that the 
students from Realschulen, in consequence of their being con- 
versant with a large number of facts, outrank, as a rule, those 
from the Gymnasia during the experimental exercises of the 
first semester, but that the relation is soon reversed, and, given 
equal abilities, the latter almost invariably carry off the honours 
in the end; that the latter are mentally better trained, and 
have acquired in a higher degree the ability to understand and 
solve scientific problems. Professor Hofmann adds that his own 
experience in these matters is by no means new; that Liebig 
expressed himself at various times to the same effect. Professor 
Rammelsberg says, with regard to the students of the tech- 
nological schools who attend his lectures on chemistry in the 
first semester, that those of them who come from the Gym- 50 
OPINION OF 1880. 
tiasia, although without any previous acquaintance with the 
subject, evince nevertheless a more lively interest than the 
graduates of Realschulen and industrial schools, who, in con- 
sequence of their greater familiarity with the sciences treated, 
listen with a certain indifference. He says it has also been his 
experience in the examinations at the close of the semester that 
the Gymnasium men stand relatively better than the other 
classes of pupils, from whom certainly greater results would 
naturally be expected. 
Professor Peters, one of the instructors of the descriptive 
natural sciences, observes that in the students from Real- 
schulen whose acquaintance he has made in zoological exercises 
and examinations he has been struck by their defective knowl- 
edge not only of the Latin but also of the English and French 
languages ; that the names and terms borrowed from the Greek 
cannot be made clear to them, and their want of practice in 
Latin is very much felt by reason of the large number of zoo- 
logical works composed in that language. Assistant Professor 
von Martens, drawing from his experience with Realschule stu- 
dents, — which it must be noted is limited, as he himself says, to 
a small number of generally zealous specialists, — renders 
a more favourable verdict, in so far as he states that he has 
perceived no difference between them and other students, in 
power of observation, accuracy in discriminating observed 
facts, and in scientific zeal, industry, and persistence. Hut he 
also says that they often evince less cleverness and more dull- 
ness in comprehending and expressing again what they have 
heard than those who have been prepared at the Gymnasium. 
Among the representatives of the modern languages, Profes- 
sor Tobler, whose department is the French language and 
literature, expressed himself on a previous occasion to the effect 
that, among the students of modern philology registered in his 
seminary (relatively not a very large number be it said), he had 
not observed any considerable difference between men from the OPINION OF 1880. 
51 
Gymnasium and the Realschule as regarded their scientific 
capacity. On the other hand the instructor in the English 
language and literature, Professor Zupitza, has found in his 
seminary exercises that in the case of many Realschiiler their 
attainments in Latin are not so trustworthy as would be desir- 
able for a profitable scientific study of his branch, while he has 
not been struck with the same deficiency in men from the 
Gymnasia. In like manner he has often felt the want of a 
knowledge of Greek on the part of this portion of his hearers, 
making grammatical instruction more difficult. But the cir- 
cumstance seems to him still more important that among the 
Realschule men acuteness of apprehension and independence 
of judgment have been almost entirely lacking, so that with all 
their industry they are generally able to cover in their work only 
such ground as has been marked out for them. The examina- 
tions in English also which Professor Zupitza had to undertake 
as a member of the scientific examining commission showed on 
the average more favourable results in the case of men from the 
Gymnasium. 
Of the representatives of the German language and litera- 
ture, Professor Miillenhoff sums up the results of a detailed and 
thorough discussion with the words: “Judging from my expe- 
rience it is simply impossible for one who has been prepared 
in the Realschule to acquire a satisfactory scientific education. 
No man acquires it by means of the modern languages 
alone, nor without a solid foundation in the training of the 
Gymnasium." And Professor Scherer, the second regular in- 
structor in this branch, complains of the difficulties which 
beset instruction in this department, if the teacher cannot be 
sure that the most elementary comparison of a German with a 
Greek form of speech will be understood by all of his hearers, 
and does not know whether the great Greek models of German 
literature, whose development he is about to present, are at 
least in some measure familiar to them all. 52 
OPINION OF 1880. 
As regards the philosophical lectures, Professor Zeller de- 
clares that the Realschiiler, who attend them in large numbers 
on account of the requirements of the examinations for the 
higher school employments, are always a cause of embarrass- 
ment to him; for, not only in the history of ancient philosophy, 
but also in other philosophical systems, by reason of the close 
relation between modern and ancient philosophy and their ter- 
minologies, a large portion of lectures which are calculated for 
the wants and understanding of students with classical training 
must necessarily remain more or less unintelligible to those of 
his hearers to whom the Greek language is totally unfamiliar 
and who lack a living acquaintance with Greek antiquity. 
Of the instructors in economics and statistics, Professor Meit- 
zen says that in the young men without the Gymnasium 
training who were occupied in the statistical bureau he con- 
stantly found, even when they had completed a course in some 
academical study, that they had no clear consciousness of their 
own scientific capacity and no sure insight into the growth of 
man’s mental life. 
To the undersigned Faculty these verdicts of so many of their 
instructors can serve only to strengthen their conviction that 
the preparatory education which is acquired in the Realschulen 
of the first rank is, taken altogether, inferior to that which is 
guaranteed by the diploma of a Gymnasium, not only because 
ignorance of Greek and deficient knowledge of Latin oppose 
great obstacles to the pursuit of many branches of study which 
are not by law closed to graduates of Realschulen, but also and 
above all because the ideality of the scientific sense, interest 
in learning not dependent upon nor limited by practical aims 
but ministering to the liberal education of the mind as such, 
the many-sided and widely-extended exercise of the thinking 
power, and an acquaintance with the classical bases of our sci- 
ence and our civilization, can lie satisfactorily cultivated only 
in our institutions of classical learning. The Faculty find a OPINION OF 1880. 
53 
remarkable confirmation of this conviction in what has come 
to their knowledge concerning the results of the examinations 
held by the scientific examining commission for the Province 
of Brandenburg. Of sixteen graduates of Realschulen exam- 
ined by this commission since 1876, four had to be rejected on 
account of insufficient attainments ; of the remaining twelve not 
one received a certificate of the first rank, five received one 
of the second, and seven one of the third; of these twelve, 
moreover, not less than nine had to undergo a subsequent 
examination, in order to complete the evidence of their gen- 
eral scientific training, partly in religion, partly in Latin, and 
partly and especially in philosophy; and also in the case of 
the three others their knowledge of philosophy appeared only 
barely satisfactory. Such results cannot but strengthen the 
view that graduates of Realschulen very often lack the degree 
of general scientific preliminary training required for a success- 
ful course of University study. 
This defective preparation, however, not only interferes with 
the success of the studies of those directly affected, but, as our 
Faculty have already pointed out, it reacts injuriously on the 
entire instruction in all the' lectures which are attended in any 
large number by students of this class. For it compels the in- 
structor either to descend to the level of his poorer pupils, and 
by so doing to weary those who are better prepared and curtail 
what might have been imparted to them, or, on the other hand, 
if he does not take this difference into consideration, to 
lecture with the crippling consciousness that a part of his 
hearers do not fully understand him. Instruction, to be fresh, 
confident, and successful, must be fitted to the capacity of the 
pupils. If their capacity is unequal, these qualities must una- 
voidably suffer more or less severely from such an evil state of 
affairs. 
But while we lament this condition of things in the interest 
of University studies as such, we cannot refrain from pointing 54 
OPINION OF 1880. 
out the further consequences, affecting the entire scope of our 
education, that threaten to follow from the change in regulations 
concerning preparatory academical studies which has been in- 
troduced within the past ten years, and the results of which are 
becoming more and more obvious. 
The large number of students registered in the departments 
of philology, mathematics and the natural sciences (780 since 
Michaelmas, 1875) leaves no doubt as to the intention of many 
of them to enter at some time the profession of teaching in the 
higher schools and perhaps in the Universities; and the modi- 
fications in the regulations for scientific examining commis- 
sions, issued within the past ten years or recently prepared, 
show that this intention is recognized and encouraged by the 
authorities. 
The interest of the Philosophical Faculty in this rapidly 
advancing change is by no means limited to the question 
whether the elements thus incorporated bring with them the 
preparation which the Faculty must take for granted in their 
instruction. 
If the system of instruction in the Realschule, however excel- 
lent for its purpose, is in all essential characteristics different from 
that of the Gymnasium, and nevertheless both have equal recog- 
nition, then a kind of double standard is introduced which gives 
occasion for serious apprehensions. For the fact that our Real- 
schulen of the first rank dispense with Greek altogether and in 
Latin stop several steps lower than the Gymnasium exerts upon 
the sum total of the intellectual training and preparation which 
they afford an influence very noticeable in its wider consequen- 
ces. Our higher scientific and, in an intellectual sense, national 
education, will, in proportion as the preparatory studies pursued 
in our Realschulen gain wider authority, lose, together with its 
hitherto uniform foundation, advantages which wc perhaps value 
too lightly while they are still in our possession. 
France, who demolished her ancient educational system in OPINION OF l880. 
55 
the tumult of the Revolution, and then in the time of the 
Directory and Consulate set up the polytechnic system of 
instruction in its place, has been labouring with the greatest 
exertion for twenty years to bring into use again the formative 
power of classical studies for instruction in higher schools. 
Hitherto our three higher Faculties have been able to pro- 
tect themselves against the admission of students who have been 
prepared at Realschulen. Seeing that the practical aim of most, 
if not all, of the students in the fourth Faculty prepared in 
such schools is to enter the higher field of teaching, our higher 
schools are in danger of receiving a constantly increasing num- 
ber of teachers who do not possess the kind and amount of 
scientific preparation which the graduates of our Gymnasia 
must have exhibited in order to obtain their diplomas. 
This injury is not balanced, it is rather aggravated, by the fact 
that our higher schools divide up their instruction more and 
more among specialists, and that this process of specialization 
is already formally recognized in the existing rules for the ex- 
amination of candidates for school positions, and threatens to 
become still more highly favoured in the new system of rules 
which is now in preparation. 
If the idea which controlled the organization of the higher 
Realschulen, that its scholars were to have a certain share in the 
higher aims of the Gymnasium, is justified, then we cannot and 
should not wish to think of choosing other teachers for them 
than such as have been prepared in the Gymnasiu?n for the 
studies of the University. 
If it is not our purpose to transplant our system of education 
altogether from classical to polytechnic ground, then it is doubly 
hazardous, by shutting our eyes and by the introduction of all 
sorts of prejudicial rules, to bring about a result which is not 
intended. 
Upon the basis of the preceding statements, after full and 
thorough consultation and in accordance with a resolution 56 
OPINION OF 1880. 
unanimously adopted, the undersigned, the members of the 
Philosophical Faculty, respectfully address to Your Excellency 
the request: — 
“ That Your Excellency will subject the question of the further 
admission of graduates of Realschulen to the University to 
renewed consideration, having regard to the objections here- 
with presented.” 
The Dean and Professors of the Philosophical Faculty of the 
Royal Frederick - William University of Berlin. 
Hubner, Dean. Wattenbach, Prodean. 
To His Excellency, Herr von Puttkamer, 
Royal Minister of State, &*c., &e. 
The Faculty consisted at the time of the framing of this 
memorial of the following members : — 
Droysen. Kummer. Zeller. Helmholtz. Lf.psius. 
Mommsen. G. Kirchhoff. MOllenhoff. Curtius. 
Vahlen. Peters. Harms. Nitzsch. Wattenbach. 
Schrader. A. W. Hofmann. Weierstrass. Beyrich. 
A. Kirchhoff. Wagner. von Treitschke. Weber. 
SCHWENDENER. SCHERER. HUBNER. ToBLER. ElCHLER. 
Sachau. Grimm. Schmidt. Kiepert. Websky. 
Rammelsberg. Foerster. Zupitza. Robert. NOTES. 
1 Number of regular professors in the four faculties of the University 
of Berlin in the years 
Theology. 
Law. 
Medicine. Philosophy. 
1810* . . 
• • • • 3 
3 
6 
13 
1880 . . 
. ... 7 
8 
13 
38 
2 Robert von Mohl, Die Polizei-Wissenschaft nach den Grundsatzen 
des Rechtsstaats.' Tubingen: 1832. In the edition which I have at hand, 
— the second, 1844, — the passage quoted is in Vol. I. pp. 518, 519. 
3 A question addressed by the Hessian government to the philosophical 
faculty of Giessen in the year 1855, whether, in view of the proportionally 
large number of professors in the faculty and of the union of very hetero- 
geneous branches in their circle of instruction, it was not advisable to 
divide the faculty into several faculties, was answered by the faculty in 
March, 1855, unanimously in the negative. They added that if a divi- 
sion. should nevertheless take place, the number of new faculties formed 
should be three,—one for philology, history, and philosophy; one for 
mathematics and the natural sciences; and one for political science. With- 
out declaring themselves permanently opposed to such a threefold division, 
the faculty was of the opinion that the introduction into Giessen of such a 
threefold division before its trial in other faculties was not to be recom- 
mended. The senate on the other hand, in May, 1855, recommended by a 
slight majority the threefold division, referring to the heterogeneity of the 
different courses of study, and to the importance of the faculty in Giessen, 
which they thought could well afford to risk making the trial. The recom- 
mendation was never responded to by the government. 
Almost twenty years later (March, 1874) the rector called upon the phil- 
osophical faculty to declare their opinion, whether they thought a division 
* Die Griindung der Koniglichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat zu Berlin, von 
Rudolf Kopke. Berlin: i860. 58 
NOTES. 
expedient. The faculty decided (July, 1874) by eleven votes to six in 
favour of continued union. 
The author is indebted to the present rector of the University of Gies- 
sen, Trofessor Lothar Scuffert, for these extracts from the records of the 
senate and the philosophical faculty. 
4 Address delivered at the opening of the natural science faculty of the 
University of Tubingen by Hugo von Mohl, Tubingen, 1863. 
4 For more particular information concerning the circumstances under 
which the separation of the faculty in Tiibingen was accomplished, the 
author had recourse to the present rector of the university, Professor von 
Thudichum, at whose kind suggestion the dean of the philosophical fac- 
ulty, Professor E. Herzog, with the utmost kindness* took the trouble to 
communicate the contents of the reports in concise and convenient form. 
With the consent of my correspondent this communication is given 
below: — 
“The question of the formation of an independent natural science fac- 
ulty came up in the summer of 1859, on the occasion of the installation 
of a new professor of chemistry in the chair of the late Professor Gmelin, 
while at the same time the assistant professorship of physiological chemistry, 
already existing, was to be raised to a full professorship. It was on 
this occasion that a large majority of the medical faculty under the lead- 
ership of the botanist Mohl made the proposal to establish at once a 
special faculty for the natural sciences, and to give the two chemists 
places in it. According to the arrangement then existing at this university, 
chemistry, zoology, and botany belonged to the medical faculty, miner- 
alogy, physics, and mathematics to the philosophical faculty. 
“The following objections to the existing arrangement were raised by 
Mohl as representative of the medical faculty. The evil effects arc, he says, 
that the instructors in the natural sciences, divided between two faculties, 
arc not empowered to exercise supervision over instruction in these sciences, 
to determine the subjects upon which lectures arc to be delivered, to call 
attention of the government to weak spots, to watch over the regular resump- 
tion of lectures, to bring compulsion to bear upon the hearing of lectures by 
means of examinations, or to make propositions looking to the filling of 
vacant chairs and the provision of books. There is further reason to fear 
that the natural sciences divided between two faculties and in a minority 
in each will not find the proper recognition of their interests, and therefore 
it is desired that an independent position worthy of their great impor- NOTES. 
59 
tance be given them in a faculty of their own. Especially is it emphasized 
as a disadvantage, that the natural science members of the philosophical 
faculty are dependent in technical questions upon the votes of colleagues 
who, being unfamiliar with the methods of investigation pursued in the 
natural sciences, cannot properly appreciate their claims. 
“Against this view', wdthin the medical faculty itself, Griesinger, at that 
lime clinical professor (later in Zurich and Berlin), took his stand, and 
denied in the most decided manner the necessity of a change in the 
existing plan, and upheld the advantages of precisely such a distribution 
of subjects as already prevailed at Tubingen. The alleged disadvan- 
tages, he declares in a dissenting vote of June 6, 1859, have hitherto made 
their appearance only in a slight degree or not at all ; on the contrary, 
ini a number of cases it proved an advantage that, as in Tubingen, chem- 
istry, botany, and zoology should belong to the medical faculty, while 
the remaining subjects were very well off in the philosophical faculty. 
In proof of this he mentions opinions on cases of poisoning, the regula- 
tion of medical examinations, the position occupied by pharmacists, but 
especially the necessity of giving medical men corttrol over the chemical, 
zoological, and botanical institutes, in order that there might be no doubt 
of their care of w'hat was indispensable to the department of medicine. 
The presence of representatives of the exact sciences, he says, in the phil- 
osophical faculty is a great advantage to both parties, and especially to 
philosophy itself; moreover, philology and history, w'hich are not simply 
speculative branches, are represented in the philosophical faculty. It 
would be a substantial disadvantage, how'ever, that the faculty to be 
newdy created would have no students of its own; it would have to bor- 
row its students in the first semester in the main from the medical depart- 
ment; to w’hat purpose, then, should w'e separate the faculties, if those for 
W’hose instruction the faculties exist cannot be separated into corresponding 
categories? And further, he says, it will be seen that w’ith the addition of 
this new faculty the organization of the university will become more com- 
plicated, much of its business more extended, and the system of examina- 
tions more involved; and finally it is to be noted that with this new ar- 
rangement we should stand quite alone in Germany. The majority have 
had to seek an analogy for the proposed change in the Dutch universities, 
but according to his personal observation of these universities there exists 
no good reason u'hy their arrangements should be transplanted here. 
We might rather say that wdth a natural science faculty by the side of a 
philosophical faculty W’e should have something like the French faculty 
des sciences by the side of a faculty des lettres.; but other, far wdder reach- 60 
NOTES. 
ing changes in the entire system of instruction would hinge upon the imi- 
tation of this organization, and there is just as little reason to imitate the 
French as the Dutch model. 
“ Griesingcr’s view of the matter was supported by the philosophical 
faculty, and this opposition, as was to be expected, had the result of con- 
tinuing, at all events for the time being, the existing state of affairs. The 
newly appointed chemists accordingly were again assigned to the medical 
faculty, while the general and principal question remained in abeyance. 
But in the year 1S61 a change of government came to the aid of the view 
held by the Mohl party. The new minister of education, Golther, took up 
the matter with great zeal, and the struggle began again even much more 
actively than before. Griesingcr, to be sure, had meanwhile left Tubingen, 
but hi; dissenting vote exerted an influence nevertheless; and the philo- 
sophical faculty, with the exception of the representatives of mineralogy 
and physics, led with great energy the opposition to the propositions of the 
medical faculty, and the advocates on both sides expressed themselves in 
language the meaning of which was in no way doubtful. The majority of 
the philosophical faculty declared themselves not disinclined to change the 
existing system. They did not, like Griesingcr, wish to hold to the existing 
division, which had become planless, although in other points they agreed 
with him; but they wished to adopt the arrangement of other German uni- 
versities, that i.» to unite all the branches of natural science; and at that 
time the senate, which consists with us of alk the full professors of all de- 
partments, was favourable to this proposal. While the philosophical fac- 
ulty in this desire found itself upon the same ground with the medical 
faculty, in so far as it advocated the uniting of all natural science branches, it 
emphasized all the more their affinity to the whole complex body of pre- 
paratory studies for which the philosophical faculty is intended to provide. 
The natural sciences, they said, had, as it was, more than sufficient inclina- 
tion to lose sight of their relation to the ideal sciences; no encouragement 
should be lent to this tendency; one need only read the utterances of the 
medical faculty on this question, to see what a spirit of misconception 
reigns in it, indeed a spirit of depreciation of everything not tangible, 
and which is not concerned with the tangible. The collegiate association 
of different branches begets, they say, mutual tolerance, and leaves no 
room for the delusion that only one particular department of knowledge 
can be justified. They then consider more particularly the several Branches 
which it is proposed to separate from the medical faculty, in order to de- 
monstrate how they can be transferred without injury, and it is further 
pointed out that if all the natural science branches were included in the NOTES. 
61 
philosophical faculty they would no longer be in a minority. Since the 
government had also made inquiry regarding the eventual division of 
the philosophical faculty into two sections, this question is also discussed 
in detail. Here, however, a split occurred in the majority. Some, reflect- 
ing that if two sections should be conceded the concession of complete 
separation would become more attainable, would have nothing whatever to 
do with it; they believed this question should be left to the future, and the 
experiment should be first practically tried whether a united philosophical 
and natural science faculty would not answer every purpose. The others 
were more inclined to favour the formation of two sections. With respect 
to the general organization of the university, however, it was argued spe- 
cially from our peculiar circumstances that, since forty years before the 
faculty of political science had separated from the faculties of law and 
philosophy, and then a catholic theological faculty had been added, there 
were already six faculties in existence, certainly more than enough; and 
also that the separation of the political science department had not justified 
itself, — against which view this department, to be sure, entered a decided 
protest. Finally, a private letter of Argelander from Bonn, written to the 
mathematical member of the faculty, was added to the opinion of the 
faculty for the information of the government. lie wrote : — 
“. . . ‘ I would give up no one of the outward marks which bear witness 
to the inward unity of the single departments of knowledge, and as such 
I regard the grouping in one single faculty of all the different methods of 
pursuing the truth. Besides that, however, in the interest of our students 
I hold a division to be in the highest degree injurious. Unfortunately the 
pursuit of learning is becoming always more and more a matter of bread- 
winning, and whatever does not serve this purpose is put aside; but never- 
theless, through the grouping of all departments of knowledge in one fac- 
ulty, the old tradition of their inherent connection is preserved at least as 
regards a number of them. If this is done away with, then the last tie is 
loosened, and instead of the universitas litterarum we shall finally have 
only schools of specialties. Then farewell to love of knowledge for its own 
sake, farewell to the humanities.’ 
“ But all these representations were of no avail. The government soon 
decidedly inclined to the proposition of Mohl, and the senate, which had 
been before of the other opinion, likewise finally decided by a small 
majority in favour of a special natural science faculty. The question then 
alone remained, what subjects and what students should be assigned to the 
new faculty. In the first respect mathematics caused the only difficulties; 
the mathematical professor avished at first to remain in the philosophical 62 
NOTES. 
faculty, then to belong to both; finally, however, he went into the natural 
science faculty. As to students, medical students before the tentamen 
physic urn and those devoting themselves specially to the natural sciences 
were assigned to the new faculty, and the students of pharmacy were made 
Ilospilantcn. This provision of August 5, 1863, went into operation im- 
mediately with the winter semester of 1863-64. 
“Our natural science faculty has now been in existence seventeen years. 
How far the injurious consecpiences which were feared from the separation 
have actually ensued, I am not in a position to judge; it has recently 
become manifest that it is less easy for a university with a separate natural 
science faculty to maintain, against the claims of the Kealschule, the require- 
ments heretofore in force for attendance at the university. The faculty 
has taken its place without difficulty in the organization of the university, 
and the care of the institutes has gained by it.” 
6 The formation of a faculty of natural sciences at the University of 
Tubingen was provided for by the ministry of education and religion in 
consequence of a decision of llis Majesty the King of Wiirttcmbcrg of 
August 4, 1863 (cf. notes 4 and 5). 
7 Extract from a letter of Professor Adolf I.ieben in Vienna: — 
“The philosophical department of the Vienna University, as is the case 
at all the Austrian Universities, is entirely united, and comprises philosophy, 
philology, history, as well as mathematics and all the natural sciences (ex- 
cept physiology, which is taught in the medical department in connection 
with anatomy, pathology, etc.). It has no sub-divisions of any kind, and 
all the more important affairs of the faculty are ultimately deliberated upon 
and decided in full sessions after preliminary treatment in committees. 
About seven such sessions take place a year. All current matters are dis- 
posed of by the dean on his own responsibility. The number of regular 
professors in the philosophical faculty is at present forty-two. 
“ Some two years ago the government propounded the question to us 
whether a division of the philosophical faculty would not be advantageous. 
Our answer, adopted by a large majority, was to the effect that we deemed 
it judicious to abide by the ancient existing arrangement. 
“ As regards the senate, that body consists of fourteen members, namely, 
the rector, the prorector, the four deans (that is, of the faculties of 
theology, law, medicine, and philosophy), the four prodeans, and four 
elective senators, who are elected to the senate by the four faculties re- 
spectively for a term of three years. NOTES. 
63 
“The senate holds its meetings about once a month. Its sphere of 
influence, however, is actually a somewhat limited one, for all important, and 
especially all scientific matters are disposed of by the faculties independently. 
The faculties are also accustomed to communicate through their deans 
directly with the ministry of public instruction. 
“The senate, as the highest academic authority, exercises a general 
supervision, administers established foundations, distributes scholarships, 
remuneration to servants, etc., and cares for the common concerns 
of the university, while in accordance with tradition it refrains from inter- 
fering in the affairs of the particular faculties. There is no committee of 
the senate.” 
8 With regard to the very instructive course of events in Breslau, I make 
the following extract from a letter of Professor Theodor Poleck : — 
“ In the year 1864 a motion proposed by two professors to establish here 
in Breslau a faculty of natural sciences in accordance with the example of 
Tubingen was rejected by the philosophical faculty by a very small majority. 
The movers thereupon had recourse to the ministry, which likewise declined 
the proposal, but on the other hand suggested a division of the faculty 
into sections, such as had existed in Bonn since 1834 (cf. note 16), and 
desired an expression of opinion from the faculty. 
“ The consideration of this division into sections occupied the faculty for 
almost two years in numerous meetings of mixed commissions and of the 
faculty itself. A great majority of the members of the faculty were in 
favour of the division into two sections. Many plans of organization were 
introduced, but when it came to marking off the rights and duties of 
the two sections, such great differences of opinion appeared, that the plan 
of the mixed commission did not command a majority. In particular the 
degree of independence which it was proposed to give to the single 
sections, over against the collective faculty, found so little favour with the 
majority that they finally to a great extent lost sight of the purpose 
of fixing these details of organization through resolutions of the faculty. 
It was acknowledged by a great majority merely that the existing arrange- 
ment of the faculty needed improvement, and that this could be attained 
by a division into two sections under the same dean. 
“These diverging views found expression in several separate votes, which 
were handed over to the ministry at the same time. The minister then, in 
the rescript of July 19, 1866, formulated in a number of propositions the 
conditions under which he would assent to such a division of the faculty. 64 
NOTES. 
In these the independence of the single sections was reduced to a very 
scanty measure. Proposition 4 runs thus: — 
“ * The dean shall communicate the resolutions of one section to the mem- 
bers of the other section for the purpose of obtaining their vote in writing. 
Should any resolution of one section be sustained by at least a third of 
the votes of the other section, then it shall be deemed to be a resolution 
of the whole faculty. In the contrary case the matter shall be made the 
subject of advisement in a general faculty meeting, and a vote shall be 
taken. Should the resolution of the section be in a minority when this vote 
is taken, then the matter shall be laid before the minister for decision.’ 
“Under such circumstances the faculty resolved in the same year to dis- 
miss from view the plan of a division and to abide by the existing arrange- 
ment. 
“In the year 1873 a new motion looking to a division of the faculty was 
introduced by the dean. It did not get beyond the stage of a thorough 
deliberation in the faculty, and was then by motion laid upon the table. 
“The same fate was experienced by the latest attempt, made last year, 
which was occasioned by the rejection of two warmly supported candidates 
for admission as Privatdocenten in natural science, who were turned aside 
solely on the ground that they had graduated at a Realsthule. There is not 
now sufficient interest to push the matter further, because under the present 
circumstances no result can be reckoned upon.” 
9 I was interested in making inquiries about the organization of 
the philosophical faculties of all the universities, and I am especially in- 
debted for kind assistance in obtaining information to L. von Babo in 
Freiburg, M. Carriere in Munich, P. du Bois-Ueymond in Tubingen, F. 
von Fcilitzsch in Greifswald, W. Heintz in Halle, Er Herzog in Tubingen, 
A. Ililger in Erlangen, O. Jacobsen in Rostock, A. Kekuld in Bonn, II. 
Kopp in Heidelberg, A. Ladcnburg in Kiel, A. I.iebcn in Vienna, W. 
Lossen in Kdnigsberg, M. von Pcttenkofcr in Munich, Th. I’oleck in 
Breslau, E. Reichardt in Jena, J. Volhard in Erlangen, E. Wiedemann in 
Leipzig, II. Will in Giessen, J. Wislicenus in Wurzburg, F. Wohler in Got- 
tingen, and Th. Zincke in Marburg. 
With the exception of Tubingen and Strassburg, the philosophical fac- 
ulties of all the other universities, namely, Berlin, Bonn, Breslau, Erlangen, 
Freiburg, Giessen, Gottingen, Greifswald, Halle, Heidelberg, Jena, Kiel, 
Kdnigsberg, Leipzig, Marburg, Munich, Rostock, and WUrzburg, are 
constituted as units. Mention has already l>ecn made of the new organi- 
zation of the philosophical faculties in Tubingen (cf. supra, pp. 10 IT. and NOTES. 
65 
note 5), and in Slrassburg (cf. supra, p. 12 f. and note 10). Some further 
facts concerning the organization of the philosophical faculties in Bonn 
and Leipzig are given below (cf. note 16). 
Touching propositions for division, nothing need be added to what has 
already been said about Giessen, Munich, Wurzburg, and Breslau. As 
regards the remaining universities my inquiries have had the following 
result: a proposal for a division was made to the minister of instruction 
by the philosophical faculty in Kiel in the year 1877, but no response 
from him has yet been received. In the same year Kbnigsberg also made 
a proposition for a separation into two sections, each with its own dean, 
but retaining the faculty undivided. It has as yet remained unanswered. 
On the occasion of the consideration of a new statute of the philosophical 
faculty in Marburg, likewise in the year 1877, the question of division was 
also discussed; it was, however, finally decided that the faculty should 
not be divided. In Bonn, Leipzig, and Freiburg the matter has merely 
been discussed. In Erlangen, Gottingen, Greifswald, Halle, Heidelberg, 
Jena, and Rostock no propositions have ever been made up to this time. 
10 A more exact knowledge of the course of events in Strassburg 
would seem to be of especial interest for the question under discussion. 
The following presentation is taken from official documents, an exami- 
nation of which the author obtained through the kind intervention of the 
imperial governor of Alsace-Lorraine. A request to that end of August 
19, directed to His Excellency, General Fieldmarshal Baron von Manteuffel, 
was considered by him with the most obliging readiness. As early as Sep- 
tember 13, the author received, at the suggestion of the governor, through 
the under secretary of state, Herr von Pommer-Esche, copies of the follow- 
ing official documents: — 
1. Proposition of the philosophical faculty of the Strassburg University 
looking to a separation into two faculties, addressed to the Impe- 
rial Chancellor on February 1, 1873. 
2. Argument in support of this proposition on the part of the rector and 
senate, addressed to President Ledderhose, curator of the Univer- 
sity, on March 15, 1873. 
From these documents it appears that the establishment of two separate 
faculties instead of one united faculty had been taken into consideration 
even at the time of the founding of the university, and had already found 
expression in the budget for 1872. In view of these facts the philosophical 
faculty, or as it was then called the faculty of philosophy and the natural 66 
NOTES. 
sciences, made on July 2, 1872, a direct proposal to divide the faculty, 
which was supported by the senate on July 9. The report, however, said 
that there was some doubt whether such a division should be introduced 
“at that time and as a provisional arrangement,” especially seeing that a 
considerable minority (6 votes to 10) had declared against it. 
Six months later, after the faculty had meanwhile been fully appointed, 
the question was again taken into consideration, and out of nineteen mem- 
bers sixteen voted for a division; one refrained from voting, and of the two 
who voted against division only one opposed it on principle, while the 
other declared himself opposed to division only for the time being, and 
on grounds of expediency. The proposition went in this shape to the 
plenary session of the academic instructors, in which, out of the fifty-four 
persons present, forty-two decided in favour of separation, and eight against 
it, while three refrained from voting. Under these circumstances the 
faculty considered itself in duty bound again to propose a division, which 
accordingly was done on February 1, 1873. The proposal of the faculty 
was unanimously accepted by the senate, and on March 15 it was further 
specially advocated by the rector in a letter going thoroughly into the 
subject. 
The reasons for a separation, which the proposal of the faculty sets 
forth in detail, are grouped together in four paragraphs: — 
1. A division is recommended by the absence of affinity between the 
courses of study represented in the two parts. 
2. A division endangers no particular profession. 
3. Enumeration of the evils of union. 
4. Reference to the example of Tubingen. 
11 Business organization of the philosophical faculty of the Royal Lud- 
vig-Maximilian University of Munich : — 
1. The philosophical faculty, in accordance with the ministerial resolu- 
tions of May 14, 1865, and September 29, 1873, is divided into two 
sections, each of which has its special dean. 
2. All full professors in these sections are members of the same with 
the right to vote (known as Facultistcn). 
3. Members of the first section entitled, to vote are all Facultists who 
have charge of special branches in philology, philosophy, or 
history; to those of the second section belong all those whose 
departments fall in the domain of the mathematical or natural 
sciences. NOTES. 
67 
4. All Faculdsts are eligible to the office of dean who have belonged to 
the faculty exclusively for at least two years, and who have ac- 
quired the doctor’s degree of the faculty. The deanship changes 
from one scholastic year to another among those who are eligible 
in order according to their time of service. The office of dean 
may be declined. At the close of each scholastic year, each sec- 
tion reports to the senate the name of the dean for the ensuing 
year. In case of disability the dean is represented by the prodean. 
5. In each section its dean has the presidency. The deans are desig- 
nated as “Dean of the Philosophical Faculty, Section I.,” and 
“Dean of the Philosophical Faculty, Section II.” 
6. The dean of each section keeps a record of all communications re- 
ceived and documents sent out, and manages the financial affairs of 
the section. He issues its public announcements, corresponds 
under the small seal of the faculty, and makes the necessary re- 
ports to the senate in the name of the section. 
7. Matters which relate exclusively to the philosophical, philogical, and 
historical, or to the mathematical and natural science courses of 
study are considered and disposed of by the section concerned; mat- 
ters on the other hand which concern the general interest of the 
philosophical faculty are disposed of in the entire faculty. In 
joint sessions of the faculty, the older of the two deans by date of 
service takes the chair. Upon him devolves also the management 
of matters under discussion, and the preparation of resolutions, as 
well as the opening of all communications addressed to the entire 
faculty, and their distribution to the sections according to the nature 
of the subject. Communications which concern the faculty as a 
body, or are of general interest, if there does not happen to be 
a general session at the time, are transmitted to both sections in 
their sessions. In case of inability to act, the older dean in office 
is represented by the younger. 
12 Respecting the organization of the philosophical faculty of the Uni- 
versity of Wurzburg, the present rector, Professor Johannes Wislicenus, 
writes to me : — 
“The organization of our philosophical faculty is like that in Munich, 
that is, we have two sections (one for philosophy, philology, and history, 
and one for mathematics and the natural sciences); both, however, have 
together only one dean, who is taken from each by turn. 68 
NOTES. . 
The common dean takes the presidency in the separate meetings of the 
two sessions, and even at examinations for the doctor’s degree. Our experi- 
ence however is, it must be admitted, unfavourable to the whole arrange- 
ment. The division of the faculty was a half measure. There has been of 
course no increase in mutual understanding, or in interest for the needs of 
the other side on the part of the dean. A great evil, and one which a 
year ago made itself sharply felt, lies in the loss of all influence of the 
mathematical and natural science section in appointments to the chair of 
philosophy. Our request to be heard in this matter was simply declined 
by the sister section without explanation; so that in the senate we had to 
enter into a certain opposition. We have in fact only the dean, the title 
of doctor, and the graduation fees in common; otherwise we have become 
almost more estranged than is well. If there is to be separation, then a 
radical separation is certainly best. The sectional separation began in 
the year 1875.” 
13 On the Advisability of Establishing Special Faculties of Natural 
Science, by Professor Dr. P. du Bois-Reymond, Alma Mater, Organ flir 
Hochschulen, Dec. 7, 1876. 
The author of this paper, which takes up the question in a general 
way, mentions only in passing the experiments in Tubingen. Speak- 
ing of these, he says: 
“ As far as our university is immediately concerned, it is in some 
measure protected against the disadvantages which the division of the 
faculty may entail by the peculiar arrangement of its Great Senate; and 
consequently in pronouncing upon the question generally we cannot prop- 
erly use the experiments made in it as a foundation. I must recognize 
with approval the lessening of the burden of business which falls to the 
individual instructor. The time which a full professor must expend in at- 
tending faculty meetings will be indeed, generally speaking, proportional 
to the number of members in his faculty. Vet I am able to praise that 
feature thus almost unreservedly, only because I see how our seven small 
faculties are by means of the Great Senate swallowed up again, as it were, 
in a single large faculty uniting all the instructors of the university; 
whereby, to be sure, the saving of time which I have mentioned may be 
again put in question. We must look to the arrangement of the Great 
Senate to find the reason why the fears expressed by Gricsingcr in his dis- 
senting vote (cf. note 5) and by E. du Bois-Reymond in his rector’s ad- 
dress (cf. note 19) have not up to this time licen realized with us; while 
on the other hand also it must be confessed that the great expectations of NOTES. 
69 
H. von Mohl have not so far been fulfilled, but with the exception of a 
change in the mode of transacting business, everything remains as it was 
before. 
I am, however, decidedly opposed to dividing the philosophical faculty 
into two parts in universities which do not already possess or cannot intro- 
duce a compensation in the Great Senate. I reject this division for 
reasons similar to those mentioned by E. du Bois-Reymond in his in- 
augural address, and I shall meet here in a few words the objections 
which are raised against the principle of integral philosophical faculties.” 
It is asserted, the author goes on to say, that the principle of the union 
of the ideal sciences in one faculty is not practicable in the long run be- 
cause new domains are constantly opening to ideal investigation, and 
these would then have to be incorporated into this faculty. In this situa- 
tion would be found, for instance, physiology, which is to-day not less an 
independent science than physics and chemistry. He says that this objec- 
tion, however, is weak, because the natural science faculty, if made an 
offshoot, would also have to be continually enlarged ; that meanwhile, in 
all classifications, it is far easier to set up the principle of division than to 
define its limits. 
The author then speaks of the supposed injuries which are said to 
accrue to the natural sciences from association with the philosophical 
sciences. No case is known to him in which the representatives of the 
natural sciences have been outvoted by the representatives of philosophy. 
He believes on the contrary that the united faculty will have a clearer 
perception of the interests of both parts than each part separately 
would have of its own. The author recognizes the possibility of lightening 
the burden of business, but sees a natural expedient in the formation of 
standing or provisional committees. Finally, he sees in the union on prin- 
ciple of the instructors in all the independent sciences the only means of 
defending the legitimate sphere of the university in the field of higher 
instruction against the encroachments of the polytechnic schools. 
14 The constitution of the senate varies more or less in the different 
German universities, and accordingly its sphere of activity is more or less 
different. , 
The University of Berlin has a senate, called the Little Senate, consisting 
of the rector, the university judge, the prorector, the four deans, and five 
members chosen from the ranks of the full professors. The rector, with 
the five members last mentioned, is chosen by the assembly of all the full 
professors by a simple majority vote. The business of the senate consists 70 
NOTES. 
in the management of general university affairs, in the distribution of cer- 
tain scholarships and of wages to functionaries, and finally in the exercise 
of the academical jurisdiction so far as it still exists. 
The senate of the University of Bonn is similarly constituted; there, how- 
ever, since five faculties are represented by deans, only four additional 
senators are chosen from the full professors. The manner of election is 
also the same. 
The senate of the University of Breslau consists of fifteen senators. 
This larger number is occasioned by the circumstance that there arc five 
faculties, and, besides, seven senators are chosen. 
The senate of the University of Halle is like that of Berlin in its con- 
stitution. Moreover, the General Council still exists, which consists of all 
the full professors, and receives reports of the transactions of the senate 
in sessions which are held four times a year. The elections for the senate 
are also had in this council. 
What has been said of Halle applies exactly to Konigsberg; likewise 
to Greifswald and Kiel, except that at the former the senate consists of 
eleven members, and the general assembly of full professors is called there 
the Academic Council, while the senate of the latter counts ten members 
and is called the Academic Consistorium. 
The two remaining Prussian universities, Gottingen and Marburg, have 
the Great Senate, which consists of all full professors. In Gottingen, 
in addition to the senate, there is the Administrative Committee, which 
is made up of the prorector, and ex-prorector, a representative of each 
faculty, and both university councilors. Here the assistant professors also 
have part in the election of the prorector. In Marburg the University 
Deputation exercises functions by the side of the senate, and consists of 
the rector and four members of the senate, one of whom goes out every 
year, and from whom the rector i3 chosen. 
The new imperial University of Strassburg on the other hand has a 
Little Senate, which like that of Berlin consists of twelve members, the 
rector and prorector, the deans of the five faculties, and finally representa- 
tives from each of these five faculties. 
The majority of the non-Prussian universities have the Little Senate. 
Thus the University of Rostock has the concilium arckus, which con- 
sists of the rector, the ex-rector, the rector designatus, and the assessor 
perpetuus. Moreover the concilium plenum is still in existence, compris- 
ing all the full professors. 
The arrangements in are coincident with those of Berlin. 
Besides the rector, the prorcctor, the deans of the four faculties, and the NOTES. 
71 
full professor of the faculty of law, the senate embraces in addition five 
elected representatives of the faculties, two of whom are chosen from the 
philosophical faculty. Moreover, the united body of full professors 
exercises functions. 
The Bavarian universities have partly the Little, partly the Great Senate. 
The senate of the University of Munich consists of twelve members, who 
are elected in general session by the whole body of professors (full and 
assistant), but in such a manner that four representatives fall to the philo- 
sophical faculty, which consists of two sections, and two to each of the 
four other faculties. The deans are therefore not co ipso members, as at 
most of the other universities. The senators are chosen for two years; 
every year half the representation of each faculty is renewed by election. 
Whoever abstains from the election without sufficient excuse pays a forfeit 
of three ducats. By the side of the senate, and co-ordinate with it, is the 
Administrative Committee composed of six members, which has charge of 
all questions of finance. The University of Munich has a large foundation, 
establishment, possesses very large forest lands, and needs therefore such 
an administrative body. The administrative committee makes up the 
budget every year for the particular departments. The members of the 
administrative committee are likewise chosen in the general session of full 
and assistant professors. 
The organization of the senate of Wurzburg is like that of Munich, only 
the distribution is somewhat different. The theological faculty sends two, 
the faculties of law and medicine each three, and the philosophical faculty 
four representatives to the senate. There is also an Administrative Com- 
mittee like that in Munich. 
Erlangen on the other hand has the Great Senate, to which all the 
members of the different faculties belong. Every full professor who has 
delivered his inaugural address is a member of the faculty. By the side 
of the prorector, who occupies the chair, stands the prochancellor, who 
votes first in all deliberations in the senate. The prochancellorship 
changes every two years among members of the law faculty. By the side of 
the senate is the Administrative Committee, as in Munich and Wurzburg, 
which consists of one member from each of the four faculties, and has 
the prorector for president. Its members are chosen by the senate; the 
committee acts independently of the senate. The committee with the aid cf 
delegates of the faculties makes up the university budget, which must be ap- 
proved however by the senate. For the exercise of the disciplinary power 
there is a disciplinary committee, which is likewise chosen by the senate. 
At the University of Tubingen in Wiirttemberg there is a Great Senate 72 
NOTES. 
as in Erlangen, composed of all the fall professors who have delivered 
their inaugural addresses together with the chancellor of the university, 
the university magistrate (called also Syndicus), and a keeper of the 
records, who has no vote. 
In the two universities of Baden, Heidelberg and Freiburg, the arrange- 
ments differ. In Heidelberg the authority which represents the university 
and has the deciding power in most cases is the Lesser Senate, composed 
of the prorector (the grand duke is rector), the ex-prorector, the four 
deans, and two full professors chosen from the Great Senate, each for one 
year. The senate consists of all active full professors (not those on the 
retired list). To the exclusive jurisdiction of the Great Senate belong the 
decision of proposals for new regulations and new permanent arrange- 
ments (foundation of chairs of instruction, institutes, etc.); other matters 
may be brought l>efore it,*if the Lesser Senate so directs, or if twelve active 
full regular members make the proposition. 
In Freiburg there is, properly speaking, only the Little Senate, in which 
the rector and ex-prorector sit, and four full professors representing the 
four faculties. Only important matters affecting the interests of the uni- 
versity come before the whole body of full professors. 
It only remains to note that the Hessian University of Giessen possesses 
(in accordance with the statute of January I, 1880) an organization just 
like that of Heidelberg. The Collective Senate, as it is there called, con- 
sists of all full professors; the Lesser Senate, of the rector, the ex-rector, 
the chancellor, and six members to be chosen by the Collective Senate out 
of its midst for two years, of whom one each belongs to the faculties of 
theology, law, and medicine, and three to the philosophical faculty. 
The University of Jena, finally, has only the Great Senate, consisting of 
all full professors. Matters of administration as \vell as those of discipline 
are the care of special senate committees. 
14 Sur les hautes Etudes Pratiques dans les University Allcmandcs 
Rapport presente a son Exc. le Ministre de l’lnstruction publique par M. 
Adolphe Wurtz, membre de l’Academie des Sciences. Paris: 1870. 
Delle Scienze Sperimentali e in particolare della Chimica in Germania. 
Rilazione rimessa a Sua Excellenza il Ministro della pubblica Istruzione 
nell’ anno 1871 dal Giorgio Roster. Milano: 1872. 
Compare also: The Chemical Laboratories of the Universities of Bonn 
and Berlin. Report addressed to the Right Honourable the Lords of the 
Committee of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council on Education 
by A. W. Hofmann, LL.D., F.R.S. London: 1866. NOTES. 
73 
10 Concerning the very noteworthy organization of the philosophical 
faculty in Bonn, Professor Aug. Kekule writes me the following: — 
“ The organization of our faculty is in fact still precisely what it was as 
fixed by the statutes of 1834. The faculty has one dean. It is divided (§ 5) 
into four divisions or sections, of which each lias its president. These four 
sections are the philosophical, the philogical, one for history and political 
science, and one for mathematics and the natural sciences. The business 
of the faculty relates (§ 3) either to general matters (choice of dean, 
granting of scholarships, distribution of academical honors, etc.) or to 
special matters, to which belong particularly proposals for filling vacant 
professorships and for promotion of Privatdocenlen, and the regulation of 
prizes. 
General matters are decided by the entire faculty in the manner pre- 
scribed in § 4. In special matters (§ 7) the members of the section first 
vote; a sectional decision however cannot be executed without consulta- 
tion with the faculty. After this consultation, which in important questions 
(and especially therefore in cases of appointments to be made) always 
takes place in a full session and on the basis of a written and oral sectional 
report, the members of the section, likewise in a full session of the faculty, 
proceed to a final vote. Thus in all special matters only the members of 
the section concerned have a deciding voice, the remaining members of the 
faculty have only a consulting voice. The resolution of a section, passed 
after consultation with the full faculty, has the force of a resolution of the 
faculty. I have no knowledge of any official proposal ever having been 
made looking to a change in this arrangement and specifically to a division 
of the faculty. I am well aware that there has sometimes been talk of it, 
even in sessions of the faculty, but it would, I think, never have had a 
majority, and as a matter of fact our arrangement has no serious disad- 
vantages.” 
The organization of the Leipzig philosophical faculty resembles some- 
what that of Bonn. This faculty is, as has been already observed (cf. note 
9), a unit; except that three permanent sections have been gradually 
formed in it: 1. a philological section, 2. a section for history and phil- 
osophy, 3, a section for mathematics and the natural sciences. These 
sections, however, are not divided by a strongly marked line, but in pro- 
nouncing opinions on dissertations, and in other such matters, the section 
immediately concerned often reinforces itself by calling in help from the 
remaining sections. 
17 Curturgeschichte und Naturwissenschaft. Lecture, delivered on 74 
NOTES. 
March 24 before the Society for lectures on Scientific Subjects in Cologne, 
by E. du Bois-Reymond. Second edit., p. 42. 
18 In fact, if it were a question of beginning to-day to found universi- 
ties, no one would think of welding together the philosophical and histori- 
cal branches and the mathematical and natural science branches in a 
single faculty. Or is it not agreed that the latter have a much nearer 
affinity in matter and methods to medicine, a natural science developed 
toward a special object, than to the branches which are now grouped 
with them? And that, on the other hand, history and philosophy have 
many more points of contact with theology and jurisprudence than with the 
natural sciences? (Proposal of the Philosophical Faculty of the University 
of Strassburg for a division into two faculties. Cf. note 9.) 
19 The philosophical faculty forms the connecting link between the 
remaining faculties, ... if it were split, it might refuse to perform this 
mediatory service. For it is unmistakable that the connection of the 
groups into which it would fall asunder would be less close than that of 
the philosophical group icar' with the faculties of theology and law, 
or of the natural science group with the faculty of medicine, and a most 
alarming impulse would be given to the separation of the united university 
into single special schools, as happened in Paris. The reciprocal action of 
the different branches of human knowledge which takes place within the 
philosophical faculty would naturally be lost with its division, but this 
mutual influence contributes very much to widen the vision of the indi- 
vidual, and to preserve in him a right judgment of his position in relation 
to the whole. The two divisions of the faculty would finally approach the 
character of special schools; the ideal stamp of the whole would be de- 
stroyed. (E. du Bois-Reymond, Rector’s Address, 1869, p. 11.) 
i!0 It is true also that we cannot dispense with English; and I should 
be reconciled to losing it in a Realgymnasitim only on condition of gain- 
ing in another direction a substitute for it of greater value. And I take 
the liberty of expressing still another wish here, which would not be impos- 
sible of fulfilment. 
I mean instruction in Greek. To have read Homer quickens one’s 
life. The face of a gray-headed public servant, upon which the pencil of 
time has engraved the unmistakable traces of official monotony, will 
lighten, if perchance the full-sounding hexameter of the Iliad strikes 
unexpectedly upon his ear. It is as though his youth sudddenly flickered NOTES. 
75 
up again within him. What the Bible is to the common people, such is 
in many respects Homer to the educated. 
If Greek should be introduced in the upper division of the Realgymna- 
siu/n, then it would take a long step nearer its ideal. In proportion as 
instruction in Latin receded in importance, Greek might furnish an equiva- 
lent in the philological balance of the Realgymnasiwn. And for this price 
I would willingly drop English as an obligatory branch. The evil would 
in fact be remedied if a twofold division of pupils in the upper Gymna- 
sium were made, one of those who study English and another of those 
who study Greek. All the remaining branches of instruction might remain 
the same. This idea is the more feasible, since Class VII. is already 
divided into two parallel courses. 
Should four hours a week for four years be set aside for Greek, it would 
be easy to bring the pupils to such a point that they could read the Iliad 
or the Odyssey in the IX. and X. Classes. To be sure it would not do to 
pursue Greek with the same intent and by the same methods as in the 
Gymnasium ; that would of course be impossible, if for no other reason, 
because of the more advanced age of the pupils. Above all, it would be 
necessary to give special attention to exegesis, and composition would 
have to serve principally as an aid to practice in forms and elementary 
syntax. It is true that the task of those who chose Greek instead of Eng- 
lish would be harder. But this assumption of a greater burden would be 
voluntary, and those who elected Greek would be richly repaid by the 
pleasure which Homer would some time give them. 
I may also mention here this practical advantage, that students intend- 
ing to study medicine would be able to make their way so much the more 
easily through the Realgymnasiwn. There is no wish more natural than 
that they should be able to avail themselves of this means of preparation 
for their university studies. Is not the Realgymnasiwn as it has just been 
described peculiarly fitted to be a preparatory school for the study of medi- 
cine? But the further exposition of the thought in detail does not belong 
in this place, and I content myself therefore with having indicated it here. 
(Dillman, Program of the Royal Realgymnasiwn in Stuttgart at the close 
of the Scholastic Year 1871-72, p. 24.) 
21 The results of the investigation are communicated in a publication 
entitled “ Academic Opinions on the Admission of Graduates of Realschu- 
len to the Studies of the University Departments. Berlin: 1870.” The 
following table presents the results in tabular form: — 76 
NOTES. 
Faculty of Theology. 
Faculty of 
Law. 
Faculty of 
Medicine. 
Faculty of 
Philo«ophy. 
Berlin . . 
Decided refusal 
Evangel. Cathol. 
Decided 
refusal 
Refusal 
Decided 
refusal 
Bonn . . 
Refusal 
Evangel. 
Decided 
refusal 
Cathoi. 
Refusal 
Refusal 
Decided 
refusal 
Breslau . . 
Refusal 
Refusal 
Unanimous 
refusal 
1 )ecided 
refusal 
Refusal (by 
small ma- 
jority) 
Gottingen . 
Refusal 
Admission 
Admission 
(by small 
majority) 
Conditional 
admission 
Greifswald . 
Refusal 
Unanimous 
refusal 
Admission 
Conditional 
admission 
Halle . . 
Refusal 
Refusal 
Refusal 
Conditional 
admission 
Kiel . . . 
Refusal 
Refusal 
Admission 
Refusal 
Kdnigsberg 
Refusal 
Admission 
Admission 
Admission 
(dissenting 
vote) 
Marburg 
Refusal 
Refusal 
Refusal (two 
dissenting 
votes) 
Admission 
Of 38 faculties, front which opinions were obtained, 27 voted for re- 
fusal, 8 for admission, and 3 for conditional admission. 
Arranged according to faculties, the votes stand as follows: — 
11 Faculties of Theology . . 
Refusal. 
. . II 
Admission. 
O 
Conditional. 
O 
9 Faculties of Law . . . 
• • 7 
2 
O 
9 Faculties of Medicine . . 
• • 5 
4 
O 
9 Faculties of Philosophy . 
• • 4 
2 
3 
If the single universities are compared with one another, we have the 
following results: — Conditional 
Berlin 
Refusal. 
Admission. 
O 
admission. 
O 
Bonn ...... 
O 
O 
Breslau 
.... 5 
O 
O 
Gottingen 
2 
I 
Grcifswald 
I 
I 
Halle 
O 
I 
Kiel 
I 
O 
Kdnigsl)erg .... 
3 
O 
Marburg 
.... 3 
1 
O 
27 
8 
3 NOTES. 
77 
22 It might seem that the lower grade of training of the Realschiiler in 
one branch of study would be compensated for by greater proficiency in 
another. The Realschule fixes a higher standard in mathematics certainly, 
but the end which it attains always depends finally on the personality of 
the teacher; there are Gymnasia which accomplish just as much ; and on 
the whole the start gained by the average Realschiiler, so far as concerns 
his ability to acquire the higher mathematics, is insignificant. In regard to 
the natural sciences, the most notable of our, chemists and physicists, as 
well as the representatives of the other departments, agree that the students 
from the Gymnasia on the average accomplish more. It is the general 
experience that the foretaste of these sciences obtained in the Realschule 
frequently dulls rather than stimulates eagerness for knowledge. (Opinion 
of the Berlin Philosophical Faculty. Vide supra, p. 40.) 
The medical faculty and the mathematical and natural science mem- 
bers of the philosophical faculty have expressed themselves unanimously to 
the effect that a preparation in the natural sciences acquired at the Real- 
schule or elsewhere does not prove so advantageous for the pursuit of 
corresponding studies at the university as was to be expected. Lack of 
idealistic impulse, a tradesmanlike narrowness, overrating of knowledge 
already acquired, above all, indifference to the charm of natural phenom- 
ena,— easily outweigh the advantages which might accrue from being early 
engaged in the observation of nature. (Report of the Rector and Senate 
of the University of Berlin. Akademische Gutachten, p. 23.) 
23 The teachers in Realschulen, because they work for the general edu- 
cation of the higher industrial classes, and must therefore have an appre- 
ciation of the demands which their position in life makes upon those who 
belong to these classes, do not belong to these classes themselves. Like 
the Gymnasium teachers, they have to make use of science as a means of 
education, and should therefore, like them, receive a classical training, 
that is, be fitted for their profession through the Gymnasium and the uni- 
versity. (H. Kern, Vierter Jahresbericht liber die Louisenstadtische Ge- 
werbeschule zu Berlin, 1869, p. 13.) Latin Text-Books. 
Intro. 
Price. 
Allen & Greenough : Latin Grammar $0.90 
Latin Composition 90 
Caesar (four books, with vocabulary) 80 
Sallust’s Catiline 45 
Cicero, 13 orations (or 8 orations with vocabulary) . .90 
Cicero de Senectute 40 
Ovid (with vocabulary) 1.12 
Virgil (Bucolics and 6 Books of the .Eneid) 90 
Virgil (with, vocabulary) 1.12 
Preparatory Course of Latin Prose 1.12 
Allen .... Latin Primer .70 
New Latin Method 70 
Introduction to Latin Composition 70 
Latin Reader 1.1a 
Latin Lexicon 70 
Remnants of Early Latin 75 
Germania and Agricola of Tacitus ..... 1.00 
Crowell . . Selections from the Latin Poets 1,40 
Crowell & Richardson : Brief History of Rom. Lit. (Bender) . .80 
Greenough . Virgil, Vol. I. (Bucolics, 6 Books .Eneid, with notes). .90 
Virgil (with vocabulary) 1.12 
Ginn & Heath Classical Atlas (cloth) l6o 
(boards) 1.20 
Halsey . . . Etymology of Latin and Greek 90 
Johnston . . Classical Wall Maps 3.00 
Keep .... Essential Uses of the Moods in Gr’k and Lat. .28 
King .... Latin Pronunciation 20 
Leighton . . Latin Lessons 90 
Madvig . . . Latin Grammar 1.50 
Parichurst. . Latin Verb 35 
Stickney . . Cicero de Natura Deorum 1.40 
White . . . Schmidt’s Rhythmic and Metric 2.50 
Junior Student’s Latin-Eng. Lexicon (mor.) . 1.80 
, (sheep'! . 2.00 
Eng.-Latin Lexicon (sheep) 1.60 
Lat.-Eng. and Eng.-Lat. Lex. (sheep) . . . 2.70 
Whiton . . . Auxilia Vergiliana ; or, First Steps in Lat. Prosody . .16 
Six Weeks’ Preparation for Reading Caesar . .28 
Copies sent to Teachers for Examination, with a view to 
Introduction, on receipt of Introduction Price. 
GINN, HEATH & CO., Publishers. 
BOSTON. NEW YORK. CHICAGO. GREEK BOOKS. 
Intro. 
Price. 
ALLEN: Medea of Euripides . $1.00 
FLAGG: Hellenic Orations of Demosthenes 1.00 
Anakreonteia 35 
GOODWIN: Greek Grammar 1.20 
Greek Header ........... 1.20 
Greek Moods and Tenses . 1.50 
GOODWIN & WHITE: 
First Four Books of Xenophon's Anabasis . . .75 
KEEP: Essential Uses of the Moods in Greek and Latin, .28 
LEIGHTON: New Greek Lessons 94 
LIDDELL & S00TT: 
Greek Lexicon. Unabridged 7.50 
Abridged 1.50 
SEYMOUR: Selected Odes of Pindar 1.40 
SIDGWICK: Greek Prose Composition . 1.33 
TARBELL: Philippics of Demosthenes ....... 1.00 
TYLER: Selections from the Greek Lyric Poets . . . 1.00 
WHITE: First Lessons in Greek 94 
(Edipus Tyrannus of Sophocles 1.12 
Stein’s Summary of the Dialect of Herodotus . .10 
Schmidt's Rhythmic and Metric 2.50 
WHITON: Orations of Lysias 1.00 
Cojries sent to Teachers for Examination, with a view to 
Introduction, on receipt of Introduction Price. 
GINN, HEATH A CO., Publishers. 
ROSTOX. NEW YORK. CHICAGO.