Recent Historical Work in the Colleges and Universities of Europe and America
By Charles Kendall Adams 1
President of the Association, 1889
Annual address of the president of the American Historical Association, delivered at the annual meeting in Washington, D.C., December 28, 1889. From the Papers of the American Historical Association, vol. IV, no 1. (1890), pp. 39-65.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
During the last few years we have heard much of the tendency to give to all
great and profound studies the historical form. The contributions of Darwin to
natural history are, in a certain large sense, the result of a study of the
history of nature carried on in a scientific spirit. Studies in machinery, in
philosophy, in politics, in electricity even, are everywhere inclining to take
on the same historical methods. In all branches of study it is apparently
coming more and more to be seen that one’s chances of discovering
important new truth are quite exactly in proportion to one’s knowledge
of the truth that has already been discovered. So far as I remember, it was
the French historian Thiers that first pointed out the significance of the
historical spirit of the nineteenth century, as distinguished from the
speculative spirit of the eighteenth. This difference, indicated nearly half a
century ago, is now very generally recognized and understood.
There is another fact, however, that is not less worthy of attention. I refer
to the extraordinary development of studies in history in the colleges and
universities of the world during the last few years. This development has
amounted to a veritable revolution. Every American at all familiar with
college life in this country knows that great advances have here been made;
but a very brief presentation will be enough to show, I think, that even
greater progress has been made in many of the countries of the old world.
On this subject, as on many others, we are perhaps in some danger of confining
our attention too closely to what is immediately about us. Our eyes are apt to
rest with contentment on our material growth and our general financial
prosperity; and, while indulging in this contemplative satisfaction, it is
quite possible that we shall fail to see the greater advances which, in
certain directions, are being made in the old world. It would probably be easy
to show that notwithstanding all that spirit of enterprise of which we are
justly proud as a national characteristic, there are many directions in which
we have been far outstripped by what we have been accustomed to regard as the
more sluggish peoples on the other side of the Atlantic. We are proud of the
recent growth of some of our cities, as well as of some of our universities;
but who can compare the municipal government of Berlin or Budapest with that
of New York or Chicago, or the educational enterprise of Paris or Strasburg or
Zurich with that of the most vigorous of our own universities, without a
modest admission that, after all, we have vastly more to learn from them than
they have to learn from us? And so perhaps it will be in regard to that branch
of academic discipline which is of special interest to the American Historical
Association. Be that as it may, I have thought that on this occasion it would
not be inappropriate to call your attention to the great advances that have
recently been made in the teaching of history in the colleges and universities
of America and Europe.
In this presentation I shall purposely avoid limiting my inquiries to any
specific number of years. The scope of the subject and the brevity of the hour
compel me to deal sparingly with detaiis and critical observations. My purpose
will be satisfied, if I succeed in pointing out the most important
characteristics of this general advance. It will be convenient to look first
at the teaching of history in the United States, and then at the teaching of
history in Europe.
It was nearly two centuries after the founding of Harvard College before the
study of history in that institution had any standing whatever. So far as we
can judge from the meagre information afforded, it was customary during the
whole of that period to give an hour at eight o’clock on Saturday
morning to the hearing of compositions and declamations, and to the reciting
of history, ancient and modern. This bare statement is enough to show how
impossible it was that the subject should make any very considerable
impression. It was not until 1839 that the study of history in any American
college was first encouraged with the endowment of a special chair. To that
chair, the McLean professorship of ancient and modern history at Harvard,
Jared Sparks was called. At Baltimore, Professor Sparks had made the
acquaintance of Marshall, Story, John Quincy Adams, and others, and was
already known as a successful student and writer of American history. Mr.
Sparks’s work at Harvard, though not epoch-making or even very
progressive in its character, was an improvement on what had been done before.
In 1840 he published his edition of Smith’s lectures, and in the
following year introduced the constitutional history of England. Though in
that same year (1841) history and natural history were offered as elective
studies, yet when Sparks became president of the college, in 1849, he attacked
the elective system with so much vigor that no further advances could be made.
This distinguished historian unquestionably gave an impulse to studies in
American history, but he left the foundations and methods substantially as he
had found them. Very few lectures on general history seem to have been given
to relieve the aridity of Tytler, Keitley, and Schmidt, though some gain was
experienced by the introduction of Sismondi and Smith. The small importance
attached to this general work is shown in the fact that from 1853 to 1857 the
entire field of history was intrusted to the instruction of a single tutor.
Nor was there any very important change in method till after the accession of
President Eliot in 1869. Up to 1870 Professor Torrey had for thirteen years
done the entire work; but now it was a gain of great importance that ancient
history was transferred to Professor Gurney, and mediæval and modern
history to Professor Henry Adams. This enlargement of the force not only
enabled the professors to give fuller and better instruction, but, more
important still, it made possible the introduction of new and improved
methods. The work of Professor Adams was not distinguished by any innovating
name; but the volume of essays on Anglo-Saxon law abundantly shows that the
spirit of original investigation, not altogether unworthy of a German
university, had at length taken root in American soil. And it is gratifying to
note that the work so well begun in 1870 by Professor Adams has since that
date been carried forward in a similar spirit. The historical staff now
consists of seven professors and teachers. The number of courses offered the
past year was eighteen. There appears to be no very clearly defined seminary
work, though connected with six of the courses opportunities are offered for
something analogous to the methods of investigation that prevail in the
seminaries of Germany and the cours pratique of France. It must be
regarded as unfortunate that at Harvard, where so much excellent work appears
to be done, no provision as yet has been made for the systematic publication
of the results that are achieved. But it is no small triumph in behalf of
historical studies, that within a single administration instruction in history
has been brought at Harvard from its condition in 1869 to its condition at the
present day.
Until within a very recent period the teaching of history at Yale was not very
different from that which prevailed in the early days at Harvard. President
Stiles taught a very little ecclesiastical history at the end of the last
century, and Professor Kingsley imitated his modest example at the beginning
of this. We find that in 1822, when the first course of studies was published,
ancient history was taught in a way by means of the ancient historians, and by
means of Adam’s “Roman Antiquities” as a text book.
Tytler’s “General History” was taught during one term of the
junior year, and the first volume of Kent’s “Commentaries” was this year introduced for two terms to the senior class. This course
appears to have had little modification till the accession of President
Woolsey in 1847.
Nor was the change during Woolsey’s administration a very radical one.
The introduction of political philosophy of political science, and of
international law was undoubtedly a very considerable advance. But these were
not wholly within the domain of history. Graduates of Yale, not yet quite
venerable, remember with little satisfaction the course of history which
consisted chiefly of lessons learned verbatim et literatim from the dry
pages of Pütz and Arnold. It was, as Professor Herbert B. Adams has said,
in revolt against this juiceless and utterly disheartening method of
instruction, that Professor Andrew D. White determined to make such a fresh
and original departure in 1857 at the University of Michigan.
To the theological students at Yale, Professor George P. Fisher began in 1861
to give scholarly instruction in Church history, and for many years Dr.
Leonard Bacon lectured to theological students on the history of the churches
in America. But it was not until Professor A. M. Wheeler entered upon the
duties of his chair in 1868 that the entire energies of one professor were
required for the teaching of history, and it was not until nine years later
that Professor Wheeler was relieved of the American history. Even after
Professor Dexter began his work the courses appear to have been very largely
confined to such text-books as Eliot’s “United States,” Lodge’s “American Colonies,” Johnston’s
“American Politics,” and Von Hoist’s “Constitutional
History.” Since 1887 Professor Dexter’s work of instruction has
been taken by Professor George B. Adams. Besides a class in Roman history,
taught by a tutor in Latin, eight courses of instruction of one, two, or three
hours a week during the year are given by Professors Wheeler and Adams, and a
two-year course on the constitutional and financial history of the United
States is given by Professor Sumner. By Mr. Raynolds, an instructor, a course
in comparative constitutional history is also now given. Two of these are for
graduate students, and are conducted, more or less rigorously, in a manner to
teach methods of original research.
Columbia College nothing of importance was done till the advent of Professor
Lieber, in 1857, as professor of history and political science. And I know of
nothing that more vividly shows the conception of what in those days a
professor was expected to do, than the formal requirements of the trustees in
regard to this professorship. By special vote of the board, the following
subjects were assigned to the newly elected professor: modern history,
political science, international law, civil law, and common law. It ought not,
perhaps, to be regarded as very singular that after Dr. Lieber had staggered
under this load from 1857 to 1865, President Barnard should report to the
trustees as he did when he said: “It is quite doubtful whether modern
history in the proper sense of the word, ought to occupy any considerable
space in the teaching of our colleges. The subject,” continued he,
“is so vast, and practically so exhaustless, that the little which can
be taught in the few hours of class instruction amounts to but a small remove
from absolute ignorance.” As the result of this suggestion; a committee
was appointed “to consider the propriety of abolishing the professorship
of history,” and, in accordance with their report, the duties of the
professorship were added to those of the professor of philosophy and English
literature. Professor Lieber was transferred to the School of Law. It was not
until after ten years that this singularly unhappy policy was abandoned. But
in 1876 the call of Professor John W. Burgess from Amherst College was to open
a new era.
The School of Political Science was opened in 1880,under a plan of
organization which gave assurance of good results; and yet, if one may be
permitted with some hesitation to express such an opinion, it would seem that
the productive efficiency of the school had been not a little hindered by the
amount of class-room work exacted of the professors and students. It may well
be doubted whether, during the two years immediately before the candidate
comes up for Ph.D., more than ten, or, at most, twelve, hours a week can
profitably be passed in the lecture-room. In spite of Euclid, it is sometimes
true that a part is greater than the whole. The best of historical instruction
is such work of investigation as can be carried on under judicious and
inspiring guidance; but such investigation cannot be profitably made when the
time and energies of the students are exhausted in the lecture-room. In this
connection, moreover, it should not be forgotten that the Columbia School of
Political Science is essentially what its name implies. During the three years
of its course, the amount of history that finds a place in the curriculum is
not very large.
It has been already stated that in 1857 Professor Andrew D. White carried to
the University of Michigan an enthusiasm, born of a reactionary spirit against
what may be called the Pütz and Arnold methods that then prevailed at
Yale. Professor White also carried to his work the added enthusiasm of a
student who had just returned from three years of study in the universities of
France and Germany. This beginning of new methods at Michigan was eleven years
before Professor Wheeler began his work at Yale, and thirteen years before the
appointment of Professor Henry Adams at Harvard. And the inestimable service
of Professor White during his five years at Michigan was the fact that at that
early day, years before a similar impulse had been felt anywhere else in the
country, the study of history was lifted to the very summit of prominence and
influence among the studies of the college course. No one who was not on the
spot can adequately realize the glow of enthusiasm with which this reaction
was welcomed by the students of the university.
The work abandoned by Professor White, practically in 1863 and formally in
1867, was carried on by my myself, his successor, until 1885. Perhaps the most
notable fact during that period was the introduction of the historical
seminary in 1869. Observation in the seminaries of Leipzig and Berlin had
convinced me that even advanced undergraduates could use the methods of the
German seminary with great profit. My expectations were more than realized. At
a little later period, a working library of nearly three thousand volumes was
given by a friend of the department, and these books were made constantly
accessible to students in the commodious seminary rooms of the new library
building. Unfortunately there has been no publication fund by means of which
papers of value could be given to the public. But the monographs of Professors
Knight and Salmon, published by this Association in its first volume, are
evidence of the quality of the work done. During the year 1888–89, the
number of half year courses given by Professors Hudson and McLaughlin was
eleven, the equivalent of five full year courses of lectures and one half year
seminary course.
Cornell University was opened for students in 1868. Professor White, in coming
from Michigan to the presidency, no doubt brought all his old fire of
enthusiasm for historical teaching. But his interests now had to be divided
and subdivided between the necessities of the various departments of the new
university. The teaching of history, therefore, had to be very largely done by
Professor Russell. This was continued till 1881, when Professor Moses Coit
Tyler was called to the first professorship of American history established in
the country. Professor Herbert Tuttle, engaged at first for a part of the year
only, was in 1887 given a full chair of the history of political and municipal
institutions and of international law. In 1888 Mr. George L. Burr, having
previously acted as instructor, was placed as assistant professor in charge of
the work in mediæval and modern history. Instruction in ancient history
is given by Instructor Herbert E. Mills. During 1889–90 eleven full-year
courses are given, each extending throughout the year, besides a course in
palæography given for one term by Professor Burr. Of these full-year
courses, three are seminaries, devoted to methods of original research.
Johns Hopkins University, devoted as it has been from the first very largely
to graduate work, has offered unusual facilities for advanced instruction.
Studies in history early assumed prominence. The plan of dividing the library
into departmental sections and transferring the sections to the several
departments, with some drawbacks, offered the unquestionable advantage of
bringing the students into immediate daily contact with the great mass of
literature with which they would have to deal. The graduate students of Johns
Hopkins, therefore, are put into a kind of laboratory or workshop with all the
working tools of the university immediately about them. And this may be said
to be one of the two most prominent characteristics of the place. The other is
the admirably developed system by means of which the world gets the benefit of
whatever good thing is done. The staff of instruction is not large, four men
doing both the graduate and undergraduate work. And yet so completely are the
resources of the university at the service of the student, and so confident is
the student that whatever good piece of work he may produce he will be able to
place before the world in a manner to attract the attention it deserves, that
the department of history, in spite of all rumored pecuniary distresses, has
steadily grown until during the present year there are forty graduate students
in history working with a view to the doctor’s degree.
I have thus passed rapidly over the advances of historical studies in those
American institutions of university grade where the largest amount of work has
been done. It would be an act of great injustice not to say that in many of
the other colleges and universities of the land important advances have also
been made. In several of them work of great excellence is done. It is but just
to say that the methods employed in the great mass of these institutions are
very different from those in vogue twenty-five years ago. In several of them
there are now professors of history who received their training in the best
methods of the old world. If the results of their instruction are not all that
could be desired, the fault is in the plan of organization rather than in the
methods of instruction.
That this brief review gives evidence of very considerable advancement cannot
be denied. We shall see, however, before the end of our survey, that when we
compare ourselves with others, we have no occasion for historical vanity. But
I cannot turn from this part of my subject without indicating my judgment that
the most important need of advanced historical instruction in this country at
the present time is in each great educational centre such a publication fund
as will enable the university to give to the world in academic form the
results of thorough and advanced research. This is no doubt true in other
fields as well as in history. But the technical journals afford an opportunity
for the fruits of technical research, such as are not afforded to the
historical student. The wisdom of such provisions at Johns Hopkins University
has shown itself in growing measure with every advancing year. The proper
methods of study are already flourishing with us, and the fruits of these
labors, were the opportunity offered, would be forthcoming in measure to do
credit to American scholarship.
Turning from America to Great Britain, we find in several of the universities
almost absolutely no recognition of historical studies. History is still
practically excluded from all the Scottish universities. At Aberdeen and St.
Andrews it has not the slightest notice, and even at Edinburgh there is only a
single course on constitutional history for students of law.
In England, however, great activity has recently come to be shown at the two
great universities at Oxford and Cambridge. This activity is of surprisingly
recent growth. With a view to educating public officials and diplomatists, a
regius professorship was established at Cambridge by George I. with something
of that scholastic liberality which was shown by the Georges in giving the
great collection of historical books to the university library at
Göttingen. The regius professorship of history at Cambridge, however, was
practically a sinecure. Perhaps the most distinguished occupant of the chair
during the first hundred years was the poet Gray. It was not till as late as
1869, the position was taken by Professor J. R. Seeley, that it became really
important and began to exert an influence. But under the inspiration of this
eminent writer and teacher, history forced itself into formal recognition as a
discipline worthy of a place by the side of the classics and the
mathematics.
After due consideration, a separate tripos was established for modern history.
As in the triposes of the classics and the mathematics, three years are given
to the course. In four of the seventeen colleges preparation was at once made
for giving special lectures to prepare students for the university
examinations. Such lectures are now given by Mr. Hammond at Trinity, Mr. Oscar
Browning, and Mr. Prothero at Kings, Mr. Thornley at Trinity Hall, and Mr.
Tanner at St. John’s.
To an American student unaccustomed to English ways, such a bare statement of
facts conveys little impression. But to understand the full significance of
these lectureships, two or three conditions must be borne in mind. The English
college is scarcely more than a place of residence, each student procuring
such instruction as he may desire, and in any manner he may choose. At the end
of the necessary period the examinations are conducted not by the colleges,
but by the university. The student, therefore, is practically at entire
liberty to pursue his studies in private. He may hear lectures regularly, or
he may prepare himself for the examinations with the help of a private coach.
What we understand as the work of instruction, therefore, plays a far less
prominent part in the English universities than in our own. The work of
examinations plays a far greater part. The requirements for final examinations
are planned and carried out with a rigor that I suppose is absolutely unknown
in any other country.
The subjects on which the examinations for a degree are to be held, though
varied to meet the wants of individual classes of students, are still somewhat
limited in scope. The following are stated as the general requirements:
English history, including that of Scotland, Ireland, and the colonies and
dependencies; certain indicated parts of ancient, mediæval, and modern
history; the principles of political economy and the theory of law; English
constitutional law and English constitutional history; public international
law, in connection with detailed study of certain celebrated treaties; and,
finally, a thesis written on some one of ten proposed subjects.
During the three years, special efforts are made to accomplish two results.
These are: first, to secure a knowledge of a great body of accepted facts and
truths; and, secondly, by earnest personal thought to acquire the habit of
what may be called an historical judgment as to the real significance of facts
and events. Toward these two ends all of the very inspiring lectures of
Professor Seeley seem to be directed. The lectures of the tutors appear also
to have the same end in view. Accordingly, the examination papers are
invariably directed very largely to the work of testing the thinking powers of
the student. That the test is one of great severity may be known by a single
glance at one of the examination papers. The final trial continues for five
days, six hours a day, three hours in the forenoon and three in the afternoon.
There are thus ten papers in ten successive half-days.2
The recent outcry in England against this system of examinations (which is
carried into other subjects as well as into history) can hardly be considered
as surprising. It may well be questioned whether an examination of this kind,
put at the end of a three years’ course of study, is not adapted on the
one hand to encourage, or at least to permit and condone, idleness during the
first years of the course, and to break the health and the spirit of the
student at the end.
It is noteworthy, also, that the tripos makes no provision for what may be
called original work. There is no seminary work to be compared with that done
in Germany and France, even if there is any that will compare favorably with
the best in the United States. But, on the other hand, it may fairly be
doubted whether there is anywhere else in the world a system that secures so
general a knowledge of what may be called the great body of the accepted facts
of history, and so discriminating a judgment concerning their bearing and
their significance. The mere list of standard authors, of which an historical
student of Cambridge or Oxford is expected to become complete master, is
vastly greater than the number required of students either in America or in
continental Europe.
At Oxford the methods are not essentially different from those at Cambridge
The tripos in modern history was here established in 1870, five years before
that provided for on the Cam It teas perhaps been even more successful. While
at Cambridge there is now but one professor and five lecturers, at Oxford
there are two professors and thirteen lecturers, and a programme of courses
that reminds one of the array offered at one of the great universities in
Germany. It is certain, however, that the instruction is more elemental in
character. There are, moreover, no courses that as yet correspond in any very
exact way with the German organizations for conducting original research, and
the training of men in the art of historical investigation. But, when all such
deductions are made, it cannot be considered as less than remarkable that in
the old university of Oxford, where, before 1870, there was no organized
course of history whatever, the study has met with such favor that staff of no
less than fifteen professors and tutors is required to give the necessary
instruction.
The subject ought not to be dismissed without the remark that within three or
four years something akin to the German seminary has begun to secure a
foothold. It is interesting also to note that this movement was the result of
the efforts of an American student, the lamented Mr. Brearley, who went from
one of the German universities to complete his studies at Oxford. But, as
studies so conducted cannot well be made subsidiary to the examinations, it is
doubtful whether any very considerable success is to be expected till the
system of examinations is modified. It is chiefly for this reason that the
experiment is likely to confine itself very largely to the holders of
fellowships.
On turning to the continent of Europe one is embarrassed with the vastness of
the subject, and the number of details that present themselves for
consideration. It must suffice to give the briefest possible account of what
is done in some of the smaller nationalities, and then a slightly fuller
survey of recent advances in Germany and France.
At Leyden, Groningen, and Utrecht, the three state universities of Holland,
the law requires that three branches of history hall be taught, namely general
history, national history, and ancient history, the latter including
especially the history and antiquities of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans.
Although Leyden and Groningen have each two professors of history, and Utrecht
one, still the work is carried on at great disadvantage, and is only
elementary in character. At Amsterdam, which is not a state but a communal
university, neither the arrangement nor the work is much better.
The peculiar organization of the Dutch universities has been unfavorable to
historical progress. In these institutions five degrees of the rank of the
doctorate are given, each one for a somewhat narrowly restricted course of
study. These are: doctor of philosophy, doctor of classical literature, doctor
of Netherlandish literature, doctor of German philology, and doctor of Semitic
literature. In 1876 the universities unanimously asked for the establishment
of the degree of doctor of historical literature. The request was denied; and
this denial has generally been regarded as fatal to the advancement, in any
large sense, of historical studies. In the state universities, therefore,
history has a secondary place; and there is said to be no fit teaching, even
for the training of teachers of history in the secondary schools. To this
general weakness there is at Amsterdam one conspicuous exception. While here,
as at the other universities, very little is done in the faculty of letters,
in the faculty of theology a more generous course is provided for. Professor
Moll has established what may, with some propriety, be called an historical
school. The work is chiefly conducted as a seminary for the study of the
ecclesiastical history of Holland. It is now undertaking to explore the
religious life of Holland, from the advent of Christianity to the present day.
Excellent work is done, and good historical scholars have been trained.
Unfortunately for the teaching of history, however, the pupils trained in this
school are, for the most part, destined for the pulpit instead of the
teacher’s profession.
In Belgium somewhat more has been accomplished. Though the state has given
little encouragement to the work, the universities have been fortunate in
having a number of professors who, in spite of obstacles, were wise and
zealous enough to organize and achieve considerable success. The universities
of Belgium are four in number, two of them being state institutions, and two
founded and supported by private enterprise. The state universities, those at
Liège and Ghent, as well as the private institutions of the same
general grade at Brussels and Louvain, have excluded all advanced studies in
history from the courses leading to the doctorate. But, notwithstanding this
fact, much has been done by the enterprise of some of the professors.
Professor Borgnet, at Liège, was the pilot of this new work, though he
was not able to conduct it very far. It was in 1852 that the normal school was
detached from the university, or at least was made distinct from it, and was
given an independent course, extending over three years. In the third of these
years, a cours pratique, a kind of incipient seminary, was established.
But secondary sources of information appear to have been the only ones much
used. On the retirement of Professor Borgnet, in 1872, Professor Kurth
undertook, with considerable success, to place the cours pratique on a
footing more nearly analogous to that of the German seminary; and this was
done amid great discouragements in the faculty of letters of the university
itself. Professor Kurth had visited Leipzig, Berlin, and Bonn, in 1874, and
had carefully observed German seminary methods. The result was a most
creditable historical enterprise. In addition to his lectures, he organized a
seminary, which consisted properly of a two years’ course, involving a
section of juniors and a section of seniors. The classes were small, but the
work done appears to have been, if not of the highest order of excellence, at
least of entire respectability as original investigation. The scope of the
work was confined chiefly to a study of the middle ages, including the study
of palæography and the use of such manuscripts as existed in the
university library.
But the importance of Professor Kurth’s work showed itself quite as much
in its influence upon others as in the positive results his pupils achieved.
In 1877–78 Professor Vanderkindere at Brussels organized a seminary on
the German plan, and in 1879 a similar course was offered by Professor
Philippson in the same university. This officer had already had important
experience as professor at the university of Bonn, and his work at Brussels
appears to have shown a high order of excellence from the very beginning. The
first volume of the fruits of these studies in the seminaries of Vanderkindere
and Philippson bears the imprint of 1889.
In 1880 Professor Paul Frédéricq began his work at Liège,
where he remained till 1884, when his activities were transferred to Ghent. In
both of these universities his seminaries have been conducted quite in
accordance with the best methods of France and Germany. The Corpus
Inquisitionis issued in 1889, a volume of more than six hundred pages,
royal octavo, is the published fruit of the profound investigations of his
class in the history of the Inquisition in the Low Countries.
It is unnecessary to go into detail in regard to history in the Belgian
universities, further than to say that in spite of all governmental
discouragements progress has steadily been made. During the present year the
seminaries for advanced historical work in Belgium are no less than nine in
number—one at Louvain, two each at Brussels and Liège, and four
at Ghent. In closing what I have to say in regard to Belgium, I take the
liberty of quoting from a letter recently received from Professor
Frédéricq, in which he says: “En dehors de
l’Allemagne et de la France, il me semble incontestable que les
nouvelles méthodes historiques ont fait le plus de progrès en
Belgique.”
It would probably be quite within bounds to say that no other country in the
civilized world has made such remarkable advances in intellectual activity
within the last twenty years as those which have been made in Italy. The
unification of the state gave a great impulse to education in all its grades,
as to every thing else in the way of national progress. Exactly
contemporaneous with the unification and the transfer of the seat of
government from Florence to Rome, was the establishment of the
“Istituto degli Studi Superiori,” a kind of higher
university for the training of university professors, analogous to the
École normale supérieure of Paris. The eminent historian
Villari was placed at the head of this new institute, and, taking graduates of
the universities only as pupils, it began at once to make its power felt in
the teaching of history, perhaps even more than in any other way. Requisite
brevity will compel me to do nothing more than simply to point out a few of
the different ways in which historical work in the universities of Italy has
recently been advanced.
1. Through the very extensive new excavations and explorations carried on in
all parts of Italy, and conducted with far greater care and with far more
scientific knowledge than ever before. This work has been inspired, and to a
very large extent even organized, by Comparetti, the founder and editor of the
new Italian journal devoted to epigraphy, himself probably the first of
epigraphists, not even excepting Mommsen. Lanciani at Rome and other explorers
of kindred spirit at Pompeii and elsewhere are giving us ancient history in
the light of recent and important discoveries.
2. The substitution in the universities of the modern scientific for the old
rhetorical methods of instruction. The changes include the introduction of the
German seminary, in all but its name. Candidates for degrees are now required
to write and defend not simply a thesis, but a memoir of scientific
importance, involving the results of investigations in original sources. Among
the professors who have done most to encourage work of this kind may be
mentioned Villari of the Institute at Florence, De Leva of Padua, Cipolla of
Turin, De Blasiis of Naples, and Falletti of Palermo.
3. The study of the history of the romance languages. This work, carried on as
it is in a truly scientific spirit, has already thrown much light on some
obscure and difficult questions in the history of the middle ages. The first
great inspirer of this new activity was Professor Caix, who, one of the first
great products of the Institute, died at an early age, greatly lamented. But
the work has been carried on by others, among whom the most conspicuous are
perhaps Pio Rajna of the Institute, Ascoli of Milan, Rénier of Turin,
D’Ovidio of Naples, and Monaci of Rome.
4. The study of Italian literary history. This branch of the work is not
indeed so new as the others, but it is carried on in a new spirit and is
achieving new results. The names most worthy of mention are Graf of Turin,
D’Ancona of Pisa, Zumbini of Naples, Carducci (the greatest of living
Italian poets) at Bologna, and Bartoli of the Institute, the author of the
best history of Italian literature.
5. And, finally, the scientific study of the laws and institution of the
middle ages. Devoted especially to this great work are: Schupfer of Rome, Del
Vecchio of the Institute, Del Giudice of Pavia, Brondileone of Palermo, and
Gaudenzi of Bologna.
This great recent work in Italy ought not to be dismissed without at least
calling attention incidentally to the fact that no other nation has such
immense archives, and that these are now rapidly becoming accessible to all
historical research. Those of Venice and Florence have long been known to be
extraordinary; but every province now seems to have its historical commission,
and these are now pouring forth from the press a flood of documents of no
small importance.
In turning from Italy to Germany we come upon ground that is more familiar to
American scholars. But even at this great resort of American aspiration and
ambition we should be able, if there were time, to discover many things that
would be of interest and of profit.
The modern scientific study of history everywhere has a tap-root running down
into philology. It was F. A. Wolf who, at Halle, in the last century,
established the philological seminary. He is, I suppose, entitled to the
credit of forming the conception of bringing his advanced pupils together for
an informal discussion of their work, in order that he might point out to
them, in the familiarity of friendly intercourse, the best methods of
conducting philological research. To this new method of instruction, the word
seminar, or to use the Latin form, seminarium, was given. It was the
idea of Wolf that Ranke adopted, when in 1830 he called together a few of his
most advanced pupils for the prosecution of historical instruction in a
similar spirit. To the teaching of history, the event was the beginning of a
new epoch. About the great master were gathered such men as Sybel, Droysen,
Haüsser, Giesebrecht, Duncker, Ad. Schmidt, Wattenbach, and others, all
of whose names have since become associated with works of the very first
importance. And from that day till more than fifty years later, when the
sceptre fell from the dead hand of the great master, Germany could scarcely
count a single historical teacher or even scholar of importance that had not
been at least one semester under Ranke. It would be interesting to trace and
to attempt to measure the influence and the power of this instruction on the
development of the nation. How many thousands of Germans now in places of
official responsibility have had their ideas shaped by the instruction thus
provided!
Perhaps I may be pardoned for relating an incident that occurred one day in
the winter of 1868, at the close of an exercise in Droysen’s seminary.
The master said to me, as we were standing together on the steps of his house:
“Three of us, as we left Ranke’s seminary, had been impressed with
the idea that public opinion was going all wrong on the subject of the nature
and the influence of the French Revolution, and we determined to do what we
could to change that opinion and set it right. The fruit of this
purpose,” continued he, “has been Haüsser’s
‘History of Germany from the Death of Frederick the Great to the
Congress of Vienna,’ Sybel’s ‘History of the French
Revolution,’ and my own ‘History of Prussian
Politics.’” In connection with this striking saying of Droysen, it
is interesting to note that this fundamental idea which was henceforth to
permeate the instruction of these three great teachers has continued to be
dominant in the leading chairs of historical instruction in Germany down to
the present day. The ideas of v. Treitschke are sufficiently well known from
his books. Those of Maurenbrecher were clearly enunciated in his inaugural
address, in which he set forth the position that all true development in
politics and national life must be an outgrowth of the past, must be strictly
historical in its essential character; and consequently that revolution, which
is a breaking away from the past, is unhistorical and never justifiable.3 This statement in its completeness, however large a
grain of truth it may have, seems about as defensible as would be the
assertion that surgery is a direct and abnormal interference with the natural
laws of physical development, and therefore is never to be resorted to. But no
one can deny that such instruction has exerted prodigious power on the
development of Germany and the formation of public opinion.
The seminary instituted by Ranke was the parent of a numerous progeny.
Seminaries sprung up in all the universities, but for a little more than
twenty-five years they were left to individual support. It was to v. Sybel, at
Munich, that the credit belonged of persuading the Bavarian government to give
to the seminary an independent subsidy. The same method of support was
transferred to Bonn by v. Sybel in 1861. The next step was by v. Noorden, who
successively at Greifswald, Tübingen, Bonn, and Leipzig, showed such
remarkable power as a teacher that he was able to induce the government in
1877 to set up the great seminary at Leipzig, and still further to enlarge and
endow it in 1880.
As a means of showing the methods of seminary work, a few words in regard to
the seminary rooms at Leipzig may not be out of place. They are five in
number, grouped closely together, and filled with such books as are likely to
be needed in the investigations. One of the rooms is devoted to ancient
history, one to mediæval and modern history, one to a general library,
one to an office, and one to a general working room. The rooms are all open
from nine a.m. to ten p.m. The government subsidy and the special fees of
students yield an annual income for the library of about five hundred dollars.
At the first meeting of all the sections of the seminary last year, fifty-six
students were reported as present. They received a preliminary lecture on
methods of work by Professor Maurenbrecher, who took as his text the
instructions of Niebuhr: “Whatever you study, follow up your subject
till no man on God’s earth knows more about it than you do.”
It ought, perhaps, to be added, that the state seminaries were severely
attacked by Waitz in his remarkable address at the fifty years’ jubilee
in celebration of Ranke’s inauguration. He said it was time to be
severe, for subsidized seminaries tended to popularize the work, and he
believed that mediocrity should be excluded from training for historical
teachers. To which we are inclined to exclaim: Happy is that country, and that
condition of education, in which too many are inclined to take instruction of
the grade offered by the German seminaries! The system in its present form
undoubtedly is not without its critics; but, after all due allowances are
made, it would certainly not be too much to say, that at the present day there
is no thoroughly good teaching of history anywhere in the world that is not
founded on that careful, exact, and minute examination of sources which was
originally instituted, and has ever since been encouraged, by the German
seminary system.
It must suffice to add that in the German universities the number of courses
of historical lectures varies from ten to twenty-five each semester, and that
in each institution the number of seminaries varies from three to seven. For
the work of preparation for a career as an historical teacher even in one of
the secondary schools, not less than three or four years of successful study
in the university is requisite. As there is more historical instruction in the
German gymnasium than in our ordinary collegiate course, the training thus
acquired at the university is more than equivalent to three years of graduate
work in the American sense of the term.
It has not been without purpose that the subject of recent historical work in
France has been reserved for the last of what I fear has been a very tedious
review. For it is in France, as it seems to me, that greater progress has been
made recently in historical work than in any other nation. I refer not simply
to the number of the courses given, though in this regard the number offered
annually at Paris is about twice the number offered at Berlin. I have in mind
rather the organization and methods of instruction in the great schools for
the training of historical writers and teachers. That they are superior to any
thing now existing even in Germany, I think even a brief examination will be
enough to show.
The first of the Parisian schools entitled to mention is the
École des Chartres. In 1807 Napoleon dictated a note
embodying his idea of a national school of history. But the project did not
take form till 1821, and had but a feeble existence before 1847. After that
time, however, it assumed increasing importance under the brilliant direction
and service of M. Jules Quicherat, who continued to give it the inspiration of
his ability till his death in 1882.
The purpose of the school was to train young scholars of exceptional promise
in the sources of French history, and in the proper methods of using these
sources. Epigraphy, palæography, archæology, the Romance
languages, bibliography, the French archives, the classification of libraries,
the history of political institutions, the history of administrative,
judicial, civil, and canonical administration, these are the subjects to which
attention is especially devoted. The mere list is enough to show that the
object is not so much to teach history as to supplement the historical
instruction that the students may have elsewhere enjoyed. The object of the
school is not only to make known the riches of the French archives, but also
to give the greatest possible facility in the best methods of using them.
Pupils, to be admitted, must be at least twenty-five years of age, must have
taken the baccalaureate degree, and must have already devoted themselves for
years to historical work. But twenty students a year are admitted, the course
extending over three years. By such men as Quicherat, Himly, Paul Meyer,
Léon Gautier, and others, a very large number of the professors in the
Collège de France and in the other schools have received a most
excellent training. The testimony is uniform that the instruction in the
École des Chartres is most thoroughly scientific and complete. So
far as I am aware, Germany possesses nothing analogous to it, unless an
exception be made of the new school in Austria, and that was avowedly modelled
after the French prototype and put under the direction of Théodore
Sickel, a pupil trained in the French school.
The second of the great Parisian schools to be mentioned is the
École normale supérieure. This celebrated school was founded
as a kind of higher university for the special and final training of
university graduates desiring to become university professors. Founded at the
beginning of the century, it was improved by Cousin in 1830, and still further
by Cousin’s successors after the events of 1848. Under the guidance of
Bersot, and still later under that of Fustel de Coulanges, work of the first
importance has been accomplished. The quality of students may be inferred from
the fact that the applicants must all have taken the bachelor’s degree,
that the number annually applying for admission is about two hundred, from
whom often not more than the best twenty-five are selected. The maximum number
in all the classes is one hundred and thirty-five. These, like our students at
West Point, are for the most part supported by the government and are held to
rigid requirements. Housed in dormitories, the students are bound by rules
which condescend to such details as to require that no one shall leave the
yard except “at certain hours on Sunday and Tuesday,” and
“once a month till midnight.” Half the students are trained in
science, and half in letters. Of the latter class a fair proportion are fitted
to become teachers and professors of history. During the third year, students
are permitted, under strict regulations, to hear lectures in the
École des Chartres, and in the École pratique still
to be mentioned. After the second year, the students are required, in addition
to their regular work, to devote themselves in the most serious manner to some
work of earnest investigation. Many of the fruits of these studies have
appeared from time to time in the pages of the Revue Historique.
From what has been said, it will readily be inferred that the competition for
admission is such that it is easy to maintain a high standard of scholarship.
It is not too much to say that the school is exerting a vast influence on the
rising generation of historical workers and teachers throughout France.
The third and last of the French schools entitled here to be especially named
is the École pratique des hautes Études. This institution
was the most important fruit of the scholarly activity of Victor Duruy, who in
various ways did so much for historical teaching in France. It was in 1868
that, as Minister of Public Instruction, he reported to the emperor that the
lectures at the Collège de France were given to a promiscuous
crowd of all classes and ages, as well as of both sexes; that these lectures
made very little permanent impression, and that something should be done to
teach such methods as those that had been instituted by the great scholars of
Germany. Perhaps the most important merit of Duruy’s scheme was that it
was a carefully devised plan to break up the notion that there could be such a
thing as historical education from the mere hearing of lectures. It was the
formal establishment in France of the library, or laboratory method of
investigation, as applied to history. But this intelligent minister did not go
about his work blindly. The ambassadors, ministers, and consuls were directed
by the French government to examine and report upon the methods of other
countries, especially upon those of Germany. Some of the reports were of
remarkable merit. They revealed at once the necessities of the situation, and
the difficulties that would confront an effort to graft the new order upon the
old stock. Duruy had the very common experience of finding at the university
an imperturbable conservatism. The old professors resisted his efforts at
every point. He found it impossible either to convince them or to move them.
Finally he determined to flank them, and this he did by establishing a new
school, L’École pratique des hautes Études. The new
school was founded by imperial decree, July 31, 1868, and his purpose was
declared to be the bringing together not simply of auditors but of
pupils—élèves. The librarian of the Sorbonne, M.
Léon Rénier, was put in charge. Associated with him were
Waddington, an old student of Oxford, and subsequently minister of public
instruction; Michel Bréal, who had drawn up an admirable report on the
methods in Germany; and Alfred Maury, director of the national archives. To
the amazement of everybody, Duruy appointed young men, for the most part
unknown, in regard to whose ability he had extraordinary sagacity. One of the
most noteworthy of these was Gabriel Monod, who at once instituted a seminary
of the most approved German thoroughness, and a little later founded the
Revue Historique as an organ of expression of this new historical school.
During the first year they had but six pupils; but so excellent were their
methods, so energetic were their labors, and so admirable were their fruits,
that in 1889, twenty-one years after the founding of the school, there have
come to be some thirty professors, giving in the most approved and scientific
manner scarcely less than a hundred different courses, in which the students
are required to carry on their work by means of personal investigation. Of the
admirable character of the results accomplished by this group of young French
historical scholars, the most abundant evidence is furnished by the pages of
the Revue Historique.
But recent and special activity in historical work is not confined to the new
schools. It is manifest everywhere in preponderating influence. Of the
thirty-eight professors in the Faculté des Lettres at Paris, ten
are professors of history and two are professors of geography. Under the
Second Empire the whole number was only three. A kindred impulse has also been
felt in the provinces. The city of Paris has founded a chair for the special
study of the history of the French Revolution. A similar chair has been
founded at Lyons. Bordeaux has established a chair for the study of the
history of Southern France. In the École libre des Sciences
politiques, founded by M. Boutmy in 1872, much work in the history of
political institutions is also done. The French schools at Athens and Rome are
doing much in archæology. And so in every quarter and at every point,
France seems to be fully alive to the fact that it is in the study of history
that the present needs of the nation are to be advantageously and abundantly
supplied.
In the presence of such achievements, American scholarship finds far more
encouragement for its modesty than for its pride.
Why may not a school, with some such methods and purposes as those established
at Paris, be established in the United States? Shall it be in Washington, or
in New York, or at Harvard, or at Yale, or at Johns Hopkins, or at Cornell, or
at some other educational centre in the nation?
It is not exhilarating to our patriotism to reflect that until some such
facilities are afforded on this side of the Atlantic, large numbers, not only
of the brightest but also of the wisest of our youth, will annually flock to
the better opportunities provided by the institutions of the old world.
About the Author
Charles Kendall Adams (Jan. 24, 1835 to July 26, 1902)
had been a student of the AHA's first president, Andrew Dickson White. He
taught for a number of years at the University of Michigan, before succeeding
White as president of Cornell University in 1885. His most noted work was
a Manual of Historical Literature (3rd ed., 1889) which provided
annotated listings of the most important historical works in English, French,
and German, as well as guides to programs of historical study.[back to top]
Notes
1. In the preparation of this address I have been placed
under obligations by many persons for valuable information. I desire
especially to express my thanks to Professor H. B. Adams, of Johns Hopkins
University, Professor Paul Frédéricq of the University of
Liège, Professor E. Levasseur of Paris, Professor Willard Fiske, and
Professor Villari of Florence.—C. K. A. [back to text]
2. The following is inserted as a specimen of the examination
papers set before candidates for the degree of A.B. in the history tripos:
“1. ‘It is a fact that some men are free and others slaves; the slavery of the latter is useful and just’ (Aristotle: ‘Politics,’ I., 15). ‘We hold this truth as self-evident: that all men were created equal’ (Declaration of Independence of the United States). What arguments can you bring to support these two assertions? Show to what extent it is possible to reconcile them.
“2. Show briefly the necessity and the nature of the reforms instituted by Justinian in his legislation.
“3. The epoch of heroic kings is followed by the epoch of aristocracies (Maine). Prove this statement from Roman history and from the history of a nation of the west or north, showing the part played by these aristocracies in the development of laws.
“4. Guizot considered feudalism a species of federal government; weigh the arguments in favor of this view, and compare feudalism with other ancient and modern confederations.
“5. Consider the causes of the universal growth of towns during the twelfth century, and determine to what extent the revival of Roman institutions can be seen therein.
“6. According to the principles of Austin, what are the limits of rights of subjects against their sovereign and of the sovereign against his subjects? Discuss the application of these principles to the struggles of James I. against Parliament.
“7. Show that the following laws are not laws in the true sense of the word: Lynch law, canonical law, the law of cricket, and the law of supply and demand.
“8. Show how the penal code has been from time to time adapted to occasion, and give examples borrowed from the history of the law of treason.
“9. Show, with examples from history, what influence public opinion can have on government in countries that have neither democratic nor representative institutions.
“10. Distinguish, by the aid of ancient and modern authors, between the different methods that can be applied to the study of politics, and compare their advantages.
“11. What is the meaning of the terms ‘national will’ and ‘national conscience,’ as differing from the wishes and opinions of the citizens? Show the importance of these terms in view of the development and rank of states.
“12. Weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the different modes of electing executive power in democratic states.”
[back to text]
3. Maurenbrecher’s words were: “Nur aus dem
Boden der Geschichte erwächst die wahre Lebenskraft des Staatsmannes. Nur
diejenige Politik kann eine gute genannt werden, welche die historische
Entwickelung einer bestimmten Nation fortzusetzen, an die historisch
erwachsenen Elemente weiter anzuknüpfen sich entschliesst. Der Bruch mit
der geschichtlichen Tradition eines Volkes, das eben ist die Revolution; Gutes
kann aus der Revolution niemals
erwachsen.”—Maurenbrecher’s “Antrittsrede,” 1884, S. 16. [back to text]
E-Version:
Text scanning: Robert
Townsend 12/2/99
Text proofing and correction: Liz Townsend 1/6/00
Text encoding and annotation:
Robert Townsend 2/10/00
©2000, American Historical
Association
