- The “Seminary” was the graduate student research workshop of its day. This innovation that combined research with graduate education was imported from Germany at the end of the nineteenth century. The historian Herbert Baxter Adams at the Johns Hopkins University provides us with a wonderful tour of the leading German seminaries of history, art/archeology, economics and statistics. Seminary libraries and museums provided the texts and artifacts that served as the toys of these scientific nurseries.
The Seminary Method. Introduction.
Knies’ Seminary of Political Economy
An American Student on German Seminaries
Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries
Seminaries of Art and Archeology
Statistical Seminary in Berlin
Excerpt from: II. New Methods of Study in History by Herbert Baxter Adams (1884)
[p. 64]
4.— THE SEMINARY METHOD.
The Seminarium, like the college and the university, is of ecclesiastical origin. Historically speaking, the seminary was a nursery of theology and a training-school for seminary priests. The modern theological seminary has evolved from the mediaeval institution, and modern seminary-students, whether at school or at the university, are only modifications of the earlier types. The Church herself early began the process of differentiating the ecclesiastical seminary for the purposes of secular education. Preachers became teachers, and the propaganda of religion prepared the way for the propaganda of science. The seminary method of modern universities is merely the development of the old scholastic method of advancing philosophical inquiry by the defense of original theses. The seminary is still a training-school for doctors of philosophy; but it has evolved from a nursery of dogma into a laboratory of scientific truth.
A young American, Professor of Greek at Dartmouth College, John Henry Wright, in an admirable address on the Place of Original Research in College Education, explains very clearly the transitional process from the theological seminary to the scientific seminary. “The seminaries were instituted that theological students, who expected to teach on the way to their profession, might receive special pedagogical training in the subjects in which they would be called upon to give instruction in the schools. As the subject-matter of liberal instruction was mainly the languages and literatures of Greece and Pome, the seminaries became philological in character. The first seminary that actually assumed the designation of philological was that founded at Goettingen in 1733, by Gesner the famous Latinist. This seminary has been, in many respects, the model for all later ones.”1
1 An address on The Place of Original Research in College Education, by John Henry Wright, Associate Professor of Greek in Dartmouth College, read before the National Educational Association, Department of Higher Instruction, July 14, 1882, Saratoga, N. Y. From the Transactions, 1882. This address and Prof. E. Emerton’s recent contribution on “The Historical Seminary in American Teaching,” to Dr. G. Stanley Hall’s volume on Methods of Teaching and Studying History, are the best American authorities on the Seminary Method.
[p. 65]
The transformation of the Seminarium into a laboratory of science was first accomplished more than fifty years ago by Germany’s greatest historian, Leopold von Ranke. He was born in the year 1795 and has been Professor of History at the University of Berlin since 1825. There, about 1830, he instituted those practical exercises in historical investigation (exercitationes historicae) which developed a new school of historians. Such men as Waitz, Giesebrecht, Wattenbach, Von Sybel, Adolph Schmidt, and Duncker owe their methods to this father of historical science. Through the influence of these scholars, the historical seminary has been extended throughout all the universities in Germany and even to institutions beyond German borders. Let us consider a few seminary types.
Heidelberg Seminaries.
At the university of Heidelberg, as elsewhere in Germany, there are seminaries for advanced training in various departments of learning, chiefly, however, in philology and in other historical sciences. The philological seminary, where the use of the Latin language for formal discussion is still maintained at some universities, is perhaps the connecting link between mediaeval and modern methods of scholastic training. In the Greek seminary of the late Professor Koechly, at Heidelberg the training was pre-eminently pedagogical. The members of the seminary took turns in occupying the Professor’s chair for one philological meeting, and in expounding a classical author by translation and comment. After one man had thus made trial of his abilities as an instructor, all the other members [p. 66] took turns in criticizing his performance, the Professor judging the critics and saying what had been left unsaid.
In the historical seminary of Professor Erdmannsdoerffer, the method was somewhat different. It was less formal and less pedagogical. Instead of meeting as a class in one of the university lecture-rooms, the historical seminary, composed of only six men, met once a week in a familiar way at the Professor’s own house, in his private study. The evening’s exercise of two hours consisted in the critical exposition of the Latin text of a mediaeval historian, the Gesta Frederici Imperatoris, by Otto, Bishop of Freising, who is the chief original authority upon the life and times of Frederic Barbarossa. As in the Greek seminary, so here, members took turns in conducting the exercises, which, however, had less regard for pedagogical method than for historical substance. Each man had before him a copy of the octavo edition of Bishop Otto’s text, and the conductor of the seminary translated it into German, with a running comment upon the subject matter, which he criticised or explained in the light of parallel citations from other authors belonging to Bishop Otto’s time, who are to be found in the folio edition of Pertz’s Monumenta Germaniae Historica.
From this method of conducting the seminary, it would appear as though one man had all the work to do for a single evening, and then could idly listen to the others until his own turn came once more. But it was not so. Subjects of discussion and for special inquiry arose at every meeting, and the Professor often assigned such subjects to the individuals most interested, for investigation and report. For example, he once gave to an American student the subject of Arnold of Brescia, the Italian reformer of the twelfth century, who was burnt to death in Home in 1155, having been delivered up to the pope by Frederic Barbarossa. The investigation of the authorities upon the life-work of this remarkable reformer, the precursor of Savonarola and of Luther, occupied the student for many weeks. On another occasion, Seminary discussion [p. 67] turned upon the origin of the Italian Communes, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin. An American student, who had been reading Guizot’s view upon the origin of municipal liberty, ventured to support the Roman theory. The Professor referred the young man to Carl Hegel’s work on the Constitution of Italian Cities and to the writings of Von Maurer. That line of investigation has occupied the American student ever since 1876, and the present work of the historical seminary at the Johns Hopkins University is to some extent the outgrowth of the ererni brought to Baltimore from the Heidelberg seminary.
Bluntschli’s Seminary.
As an illustration of seminary-work, relating more especially to modern history and modern polities, may be mentioned the private class conducted for two hours each week in one of the university rooms by the late Dr. J. C. Bluntschli, professor of constitutional and international law at Heidelberg. In his seminary, the exercises were in what might be called the comparative constitutional history of modern European states, with special reference to the rise of Prussia and of the new German empire. Bluntschli himself always conducted the meetings of the seminary. Introductory to its special work, he gave a short course of lectures upon the history of absolute government in Prussia and upon the influence of French and English constitutional reforms upon Belgium and Germany, lie then caused the seminary to compare in detail the Belgian constitution of 1830 with the Prussian constitution of 1850. Each member of the seminary had before him the printed texts, which were read and compared, while Bluntschli commented upon points of constitutional law that were suggested by the texts or proposed by the class. After some weeks’ discussion of the general principles of constitutional government, the seminary, under Bluntschli’s skillful guidance, entered upon a special and individual study of the relations between [p. 68] church and state, in the various countries of Europe, but with particular reference to Belgium and Prussia, which at that time were much disturbed by conflicts between the civil and the ecclesiastical power. Individual members of the seminary reported the results of their investigations, and interesting discussions always followed. The result of this seminary-work was an elaborate monograph by Bluntschli himself upon the legal responsibility of the Pope, a tractate which the Ultramontane party thought inspired by Bismarck, but which really emanated from co-operative studies by master and pupils in the Heidelberg seminary.
Seminary of Political Economy.
At Heidelberg a seminary in political economy is conducted by Professor Knies, who may be called the founder of the historical method as applied to this department. His work on Politische-oekonomie vom Standpunkt der geschichtlichen Methode was published in 1853 and ante-dates the great work of Roscher by one year. The seminary method encouraged by Knies consists chiefly in the reading and discussion of original papers by his pupils upon assigned topics. The latter were sometimes of a theoretical but quite frequently of an historical character. I remember that such topics as Turgot’s economic doctrines were often discussed. The various theories of wealth, from the French mercantilists and physiocrats down to Henry C. Carey, were examined. The meetings of the seminary were held every week and were not only of the greatest service in point of positive instruction, but also, in every way, of a pleasant, enjoyable character. Men learned to know one another as well as their professor. A most valuable feature of the seminaries in political science at Heidelberg was a special library, quite distinct from the main university library. Duplicate copies of the books that were in greatest demand were at the service of the seminary.
[p. 69]
The Historical Seminary at Bonn.1
1 See L’Université de Bonn et l’enseignement supérieur en Allemagne, par Edmond Dreyfus-Brisac, (editor of the Revue international de l’enseignement). “Les Séminaires.”
The object of this seminary, as of all German historical seminaries, is to introduce special students to the best methods of original research. The Bonn seminary is one of the most flourishing in all Germany. It is an endowed institution. It was instituted in the year 1865 and enjoys the income of a legacy of forty thousand marks left it by Professor Wilhelm Pütz. The income is devoted to three stipends, each of about 600 marks, for students of history and geography who have successfully pursued one or both of these sciences for two years. Said stipends are awarded annually by the philosophical faculty upon recommendation by the director of the seminary. It is said that a student of Bonn university has a better chance of obtaining such stipend than does a candidate from outside. In addition to this endowment of ten thousand dollars, the Bonn seminary of history is allowed a special appropriation, in the annual university budget, for general expenses, for increasing the seminary library, and for the director’s extra salary. Any unused balance from the fund devoted to general expenses is expended for library purposes.
The historical seminary of Bonn has now four sections, each under the guidance of a professor, representing a special field of history. The four professors constitute a board of control for the entire seminary. The director is appointed from year to year, the four professors rotating in the executive office. The student membership for each section is restricted to twelve. The meetings occur once a week, from 5 to 7 o’clock in the evening. All members are expected to be present, although no individual student makes more than one contribution during a semester. Members are subject to expulsion by the board of control for failure to discharge any obligations, for inadequate work, or for mis-use of the library.
[p. 70]
The library consisted, in 1879, of 308 works, and was kept in the charge of one of the members of the seminary. Among the books noticed by Dreyfus-Brisac, at the the time of his visit, were the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, the complete works of Luther, the Annales Ecclesiastici edited by Baronius, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Muratori’s Scriptores Rerum Italicarum, The Glossary of Mediaeval Latin, by Ducange, a set of Sybel’s Historische Zeitschrift, Forschungen (Munich), the writings of Curtius, Mommsen, Ranke, Sybel, etc.
Dreyfus-Brisac mentions other seminaries at Bonn University, notably that of the late Professor Held in Political Economy, held privately in his own house, and the pedagogical seminary of Bona-Meyer. The observing, critical Frenchman says that he knows of nothing more remarkable in German educational methods, nothing more worthy of imitation, than the seminaries of Bonn.
An American Student on German Seminaries.
Dr. Charles Gross,1 an American student who has recently taken the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Goettingen in the department of History, with the highest honors, and who is now studying English Municipal History in the British Museum, has written by request the following account of German historical seminaries, in which he has had long and varied experience : ” The German historical seminary aims to inculcate the scientific method. It is the workshop in [p. 71] which the experienced master teaches his young apprentices the deft use of the tools of the trade. In the lecture room the professor presents the results of his investigations; in the Seminar (or Uebungen) he shows just what he had to do in order to secure those results. The German student lays far more stress upon his seminar than upon his lectures. He may “cut” the latter for weeks at a time, while he is very assiduous in his attendance upon the former. The latter may be obtained from books or from the Heft of some more conscientious student ; but the scientific method, the German maintains, is the gift of time and the seminary only, — the result of long contact between the mind of the master and the mind of the disciple.
1 Dr. Gross presented for his doctor’s dissertation at Goettingen a thesis on the Gilda Mercatoria, an important contribution to English municipal history, originally suggested by the late Professor Pauli. The subject has an interesting bearing upon the merchant associations, which furnished men, capital, and government for the English colonies in America. Dr. Gross is now writing an Introduction to American Municipal History, to be published in this series.
” Two different kinds of work predominate in the German historical seminary : the writing of short theses (Kleine Arbeiten) or the critical reading of some document or documents, more frequently of some chronicler or chroniclers. The professor selects a list of subjects for theses from the field of his special line of investigation and assigns them to the students, the latter’s particular tastes being generally consulted. A member of the seminary rarely has more than one thesis during the semester, frequently not more than one during the year, and during his first two or three semesters none at all. The professor points out the sources and authorities, and the student consults with him whenever difficulties arise in the preparation of the work. One or two critics (Referenten) are appointed for each thesis, who comment upon the production after it has been read. A free discussion of the subject then follows, the professor and students doing all in their power to show the utter lack of Wissenschaft in the author’s method.
“As regards the other element of seminary work, viz., critical reading of some chronicler, to each student is assigned a certain portion of the text, which, — with the aid, if necessary, of other contemporaneous sources pointed out to him by the professor — he is expected to treat in accordance with the canons of historical criticism, the other students commenting ad libitum.
[p. 72]
” Now these two elements are variously combined in different Seminars. Generally both are carried on side by side, an hour perhaps being taken up with the thesis and the other hour of the session with some text. (That, e.g., is the plan of Prof. Bresslau of Berlin). Sometimes the seminary is divided into two sections, one for the Kleine Arbeiten and the other for the critical manipulation of some chronicler (e. g. Giesebrecht’s Seminar in Munich). Sometimes one of the two elements is excluded (v. Noorden in Berlin had no theses in my day ; Droysen nothing but theses). Sometimes the students are not required to do any work at all, the professor simply commenting upon some text for an hour or two. (That was Weizsäcker’s and Pauli’s method).”
Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries.
One of the best accounts of German university instruction in history is that given by Paul Frédéricq, Professor in the University of Liège, Belgium. He made two excursions to German university-centres in the years 1881 and 1882, and published a most instructive article in the Revue de l’instruction publique (supérieur et moyenne) en Belgique, in 1882. The article is entitled, De l’enseignement supérieur de I’histoire.1 It will probably be soon translated for publication in America. M. Frédéricq visited Berlin, Halle, Leipzig, and Goettingen. He describes, in a pleasant way, the various lectures that he attended, the professors he met, and the methods that he learned. To one acquainted with life at the Berlin university, its professors of history, and its lecture-courses, M. Frédéricq’s picture seems almost perfect. One sees again, in fancy, Heinrich von [p. 73] Treitschke, the brilliant publicist and eloquent orator, with his immense audiences, everyone of them an enthusiastic seminary of Prussian Politics. The following felicitous sketch of Gustav Droysen will be appreciated by all who have seen that distinguished professor in the Katheder : “Je le vois encore, tenant en main un petit cahier de notes à converture bleue et accoudé sur un grossier pupitre carré, exhaussé au moyen d’une allonge, qui se dressait à un demi-mêtre au-dessus de la chaire. II commença à mi-voix, à la manière des grands prédicateurs français, afin d’obtenir le silence le plus complet. On aurait entendu voler une mouche. Penché sur son petit cahier bleu et promenant sur son auditoire des regards pénétrants qui perçaient les verres de ses lunettes, il parlait des falsifications dans l’histoire. … A chaque instant une plaisanterie très réussie, toujours mordante et acérée, faisait courir un sourire discret sur tous les bancs…. J’y admirai la verve caustique, la clarté et la netteté des aperçus, ainsi que l’habileté consommée avec laquelle le professeur lisait ses notes, de manière à faire croire à une improvisation.”
1 Another good authority upon the subject of German seminaries is M. Charles Seignobos, of Dijon, France, in his critical article on L’enseignement de I’histoire dans les universités allemandes, published in the Revue Internationale de l’ enseignement, June 15, 1881. Cf. pp. 578-589.
The historical seminary conducted by Professor Droysen is one of the best at the University of Berlin. Although Professor Frédéricq failed to obtain access to this seminary as well as to that of Mommsen’s, being told qu’ on y exercait une critique si sévère, si impitoyable que la présence d’un étranger était impossible, yet he quotes in a work1 more recent than the article above mentioned the observations made in 1874 by his colleague, Professor Kurth, of Liège: “M. Droysen, dans sa Société historique, tient aux travaux écrits, parce qu’ ils semblent donner plus de consistance aux études et que c’est quelque chose qui reste; ils fournissent plus facilement l’objet d’une discussion, ils font mieux apprécier le degré de force d’une élève ainsi que ses aptitudes scientifiques; enfin, ils permettent [p.74] à ses condisciples de profiter mieux de son travail. La correction de celui-ci en effet, est confiée à un autre élève qui, sous les auspices du professeur, en critique les erreurs et le discute dans la réunion suivante avec l’auteur; de là, des controverses souvent animées, auxquelles chaque assistant peut prendre part, et qui offrent l’aspect d’une véritable vie scientifique.”
1 De l’enseignement supèrieur de l’histoire en Belgique, XV. Published as an introduction to the Travaux du Cours Pratique d’Histoire National de Paul Frédéricq. [Gand et La Haye, 1883.].
M. Frédéricq describes with evident pleasure the privilege he enjoyed, through the courtesy of George Waitz, in being admitted to the latter’s seminary, held every Wednesday evening, for two hours, in his own house. The seminary consisted of nine students. They were seated at two round tables, which were loaded with books. The students had at command the various chronicles relating to the times of Charles Martel. The exercise consisted in determining the points of agreement and disagreement among original authorities, with reference to a specific line of facts, in how far one author had quoted from another, &c. “The professor asked questions in a quiet way, raised objections, and helped out embarrassed pupils with perfect tact and with a kindly serenity.” M. Frédéricq noticed how, at one time, when a student had made a really original observation, the professor took out his pencil and made a note of it upon the margin of his copy of the chronicle. In such simple ways the spirit of independent thought and original research is encouraged by one of the greatest masters. George Waitz is the successor of G. H. Pertz as editor of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. To see upon the professor’s desk great bundles of printer’s proofs for this vast work, only deepened M. Frédéricq’s impressions that here in this private study was really a workshop of German historical science.
Seminaries of Art and Archeology.
M. Frédéricq describes another phase of historical training which is eminently worthy of imitation in all colleges or universities, where there is convenient access to an archaeological [p. 75] museum. Ernst Curtius is perhaps even more famous in Berlin as a classical archaeologist than as the historian of Greece. His lectures upon Grecian art are accompanied by a weekly visit of his class to the museum, where an hour or two is spent in examining plaster-casts and fragments of antique sculpture under the guidance of Curtius himself. Having enjoyed this very experience on many occasions in Berlin, the writer can attest the literal truth of the following description:
” L’après-midi, M. Curtius nous avait donne rendez-vous au Musée des antiques où il fait chaque semaine une leçon sur l’archéologie grecque et romaine. A son arrivée les étudiants qui l’attendaient en flânant à travers les collections, le saluèrent silencieusement, puis remirent leur chapeau. M. Curtius resta couvert aussi et commença sur-le-champ sa promenade de démonstrations archéologiques. Armé d’un coupe-papier en ivoire, il allait d’un objet à l’autre, expliquant, indiquant les moindres particularités avec l’extremité de son coupe-papier, tantôt se haussant sur la pointe des pieds, tantôt s’agenouillant pour mieux détailler ses explications. A un moment même il se coucha par terre devant un trépied grec. Appuyé sur le coude gauche et brandissant de la main droite son fidèle coupe-papier, il s’extasia sur les formes élégantes et sur les ornements ravissants du petit chef-d’oeuvre. On comprend aisément combien des leçons faites avec chaleur par un tel professeur, dans un musée de premier ordre, doivent être utiles aux élèves. La leçon que j’ai entendue ne roulait que sur des points secondaires : trépieds, candélabres, vases en terre cuite, etc., et malgré cela il s’en dégageait une admiration communicative et une sorte de parfum antique. On m’a assure que lorsqu’il s’occupe de la statuaire, M. Curtius atteint souvent à l’éloquence la plus majestueuse ; et je le crois sans peine.”
The same method of peripatetic lectures, as described by M. Frédéricq, was also pursued when I was in Berlin, 1874-5, by Herman Grimm for the illustration of art-history. Once a week he would meet his class at the museum for the examination [p.76.] of works illustrating early Christian plastic and pictorial art, for example, that of the Catacombs; also works illustrating Byzantine and Germanic influences, and the rise of the various Italian, French, German, and Flemish schools of painting and sculpture. More was learned from Grimm’s critical commentary upon these works of art, whether originals, photographs, or engravings, than would be possible from almost any course of lectures upon the philosophy of art or aesthetics, without concrete realities to teach the eye. The wealth of that great museum of Berlin — for student-purposes one of the finest in the world — is best appreciated when a man like Grimm or Curtius points out its hidden treasures.
The same illustrative methods in ancient and modern art were also practiced by the late Professor Stark, the archaeologist and art historian of Heidelberg. Although the museum of the latter university is small, when compared with that of Berlin, yet it serves to illustrate what any institution of moderate resources can accomplish for its students in the way of supplying original sources of art-history, at least in the shape of casts, photographs, and other fac simile reproductions of artistic objects. If Stark did not have original tripods, candelabras, and terra cottas, he had, nevertheless, images of almost every important object mentioned in his lectures. One of the exercises in Stark’s archaeological seminary consisted in the explanation at sight, by individual members, of pictorial representations upon Greek vases, which were inexpensively reproduced in colored plates, so that every man could have before him a copy of the work under discussion. There is a great future for American student-research in the field of arthistory, which Herman Grimm used to call die Blüthe der Geschichte. The quick success in England of Dr. Charles “Waldstein, a pupil of Stark’s at Heidelberg, shows what possibilities there are beyond German borders for the science of art and archaeology. The popularity of Professor Norton’s seminary and art-courses at Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows that interest in such matters is kindling upon this side of the [p. 77] Atlantic. The art collections begun by Yale, Amherst and Smith, Vassar and Cornell, Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University indicate that the day of art seminaries is not far off. Indeed, since this writing, there was instituted (March 1, 1884,) in Baltimore a so-called Art-Circle, consisting of about twenty graduate students, under the direction of Dr. A. L. Frothingham,1 a fellow of the University, who has lived many years in Rome and is a member of the Società dei Cultori dell’ Archeologia cristiana. The Circle will meet every Saturday morning in the library of the Peabody Institute, and, under the guidance of Dr. Frothingham, will spend an hour or two in the examination of plates, photographs, and other works illustrating the history of art. The subjects of study for this semester are: the catacomb frescoes; the sarcophagi; mosaics; ivory sculpture ; metal sculpture ; romanesque architecture; gothic architecture; sculpture in France (gothic period); renaissance sculpture in Italy; schools of painting in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. An art-club, with eight members, has also been instituted among the undergraduates for the systematic reading of art-history.
1 Dr. Frothingham is the author of the following monographs: L’Omelia di Giacomo di Sarûg sul Battesimo di Constantino Imperatore (Reale Accademia dei Lincei, 1881-2) ; Il Tesoro della Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano dal XIII al XV Secolo (Roma, 1883) ; Une Mosaïque Constantinienne inconnue à Saint-Pierre de Rome (Revue Archéologique, Paris, 1883); Les Mosaïques de Grottaferrata (Gazette Archéologique, for December, 1883-January, 1884); Letter to the Society for Biblical Archaeology on a Hebrew inscription on a mosaic of the V cent. at Ravenna.
Dr. Frothingham and Dr. Alfred Emerson (fellow of Greek and classical archeologist) have been the most active spirits in lately founding an Archeological Society in Baltimore, which will enjoy the co-operation of distinguished archaeologists in the old world.
Seminary Libraries
One of the most interesting and important features of the German historical, political, and archaeological seminaries is [p. 78] the special library, distinct from the main university collections. We have already noticed the existence of such libraries at Heidelberg and Bonn ; and it may be said in general that they are now springing up in all the universities of Germany. So important an auxiliary have these seminary -libraries become that in some universities, where the seminaries have been recognized by the state, a special appropriation is granted by the government for library purposes. The government of Saxony granted Professor Noorden of Leipzig 6,500 marks for the foundation of his seminary-library and an annual subsidy of 1,200 marks. This revenue for the purchase of books is considerably increased by a charge of ten marks per semester, paid by every student who has access to the seminary -library. The privileges of this working-library are regarded as analogous to the privileges of using laboratory apparatus or attending a clinique.
In addition to a special library, German seminaries are now procuring special rooms, not only for regular meetings, but for daily work. The historical seminary at Leipzig, embracing four sections like that at Bonn, has had, since 1880, five rooms at its disposal ; one consultation-room or Sprechzimmer for the professors, one room for maps and atlases, and three large rooms where the students work, with their special authorities around them. Every student has for himself a table containing a drawer of which he keeps the key. The rooms are inaccessible to all except members of the seminary, who are intrusted with pass-keys and can enter the library at any time from nine o’clock in the morning until ten o’clock at night. The rooms are warmed and lighted at university expense. Each student has a gas-jet above his own table and is absolutely independent of all his neighbors. Individuality is a marked feature of student-life and student-work in Germany. Men never room together ; they rarely visit one another’s apartments ; and they almost always prefer to work alone. Society and relaxation they know how and where to find when they are at leisure. By general consent German [p. 79] students attend to their own affairs without let or hindrance. This belongs to academic freedom. It belongs to the seminary and it belongs to the individual student.
M. Seignobos, in his excellent article on l’enseignement de l’histoire en Allemagne,1 says “tout seminaire historique d’Etat possède sa bibliothèque propre et sa salle de travail réservées à l’usage de ses membres. Là, au contraire, tous les livres sans exception, restent à demeure, afin que l’étudiant soit toujours sûr de les trouver.” M. Seignobos gives a list of some of the chief works that are to be found in the historical seminary library at Leipzig. He noted Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum; Jaffé, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum ; Böhmer, Regesta imperatorum ; Böhmer, Fontes rerum Germanicarum ; Muratori, Scriptores; Bouquet, Historiens des Gaules; Wattenbach and Lorenz, Quellengeschichte; Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte; Archiv der Gesellschaft fur deutsche Geschichte; Historische Zeitschrift; Walter, Corpus juris Germanici; Zöpfl, Rechtsgeschichte; Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte ; Gengler, Codex juris municipalis; Annales ecclesiastici; Migne, Vies des Papes; Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit; Giesebrecht, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches; Scriptores rerum prussicarum ; Huillard-Bréholles, Frédéric II; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte; Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom; Collection Byzantine; Sickel, Monumenta graphica ; Potthast, Bibliotheca medii aevi.
1 Revue internationalde l’enseignement, June 15, 1881. “Bibliothèques.”
The Statistical Seminary in Berlin.2
2 Authorities: Dr. Engel, Das Statistische Seminar des Königl. Preussischen Statischen Bureaus in Berlin, 1864. Programmes of courses.
This government institution, while dealing with Prussian statistics, is also a regular seminary for the training of university graduates who have passed the examinations required for [80] entrance to the higher branches of the civil service. The seminary, which was first opened in November, 1862, was under the direction of Dr. Edward [sic, “Ernst” is correct] Engel, chief of the Bureau of Statistics, aided by various university professors. The idea was that the government offices of the statistical bureau should become laboratories of political science. Not only are the facilities of the department utilized for training purposes, but systematic courses of lectures are given to the statistical seminary by university professors co-operating with the chief and his assistants. Subjects like the following are treated: the theory and technique of statistics; agrarian questions; conditions and changes of population; political economy in its various branches ; insurance; social questions ; administration; prison discipline and prison reform in various countries ; sanitary questions, physical geography, etc.
The amount of original work produced by the bureau and seminary of statistics is very great. One has only to examine the Verzeichniss der periodischen und anderen Schriften,1 which are published by these government offices, in order to appreciate the scientific value of the scholar in politics. These publications are of international significance, by reasons of the lessons which they teach. Whoever wishes to study, from a comparative point of view, the subject of national or municipal finance; the relations of church and school; sanitation; insurance ; trade and commerce ; industries ; population ; land and climate; cities; development of the science of statistics; statistical congresses; markets; fairs; genealogies of royal families; tables of mortality; education; administration, etc., will be richly rewarded by consulting the published works of the Prussian Statistical Bureau, which can be obtained at catalogue prices.
1 For this catalogue, one should address the Verlag des Koniglichen Statistischen Bureaus, Berlin, S. W., Lindenstrasse, 28.
[p. 81]
Library of the Statistical Seminary.
Among the publications of the Prussian Statistical Bureau is the catalogue of its library in two royal octavo volumes. In the first, the authors and titles are arranged according to the sciences which they represent. In the second, the contents are grouped by States. Probably there is in existence no other such complete guide to political science in its historical, theoretical, and practical aspects.
This library, now numbering over 70,000 volumes, has been used by Johns Hopkins University men, two of whom have belonged to Dr. Engel’s Seminar, and they would fully endorse the published statement by Dr. Engel, in his account of the Statistical Seminary, made as long ago as 1864. He says: “If we may believe the admissions of many specialists, there exists far and wide no library so rich, no collection of periodicals so select, no map collection so excellent, as those in the royal bureau of statistics. All new contributions to this branch of literature, whether in Germany, France, England, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, North and South America, are brought to the eyes of members of this seminary. A series of more than seventy special magazines of political economy, statistics, and the allied branches of industry, agriculture, commerce and trade, public; works, finance, credit, insurance, administration (municipal and national), social self help, — all this is not only accessible for seminary-use, but members are actually required to familiarize themselves with the contents of these magazines inasmuch as one of the practical exercises of the seminary consists in the preparation of a continuous report or written abstract of these journals.”
Source:
Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, ed. by Herbert B. Adams.
Second Series: Methods in Historical Study. January-February, 1884.
Image Source: Portrait of Herbert B. Adams (between 1870 and 1880). Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs.
