1736. The imperial sanction of the scheme had been given three years before (13th January 1733), and the university was formally opened 17th September 1737. The king himself assumed the office of “rector magnificentissimus,” and the liberality of the royal endowments (doubling those of Halle), and the not less liberal character of the spirit that pervaded its organization, soon raised it to a foremost place among the schools of Germany. Halle had just expelled Wolf; and Göttingen, modelled on the same lines as Halle, but rejecting its Pietism and disclaiming its intolerance, appealed with remarkable success to the most enlightened feeling of the time. It included all the faculties, and two of its first professors—Mosheim, the eminent theologian, from Helmstedt, and G. L. Böhmer, the no less distinguished jurist from Halle—together with Gesner, the man of letters, at once established its reputation. Much of its early success was also due to the supervision of its chief curator (there were two)—Baron Münchhausen, himself a man of considerable attainments, who by his sagacious superintendence did much to promote the general efficiency of the whole professoriate. Not least among its attractions was also its splendid library, located in an ancient monastery, and now containing over 200,000 volumes and 5000 MSS. In addition to its general influence as a distinguished seat of learning, Göttingen may claim to have been mainly instrumental in diffusing a more adequate conception of the importance of the study of history. Before the latter half of the 18th century the mode of treatment adopted by university lecturers was singularly wanting in breadth of view. Profane history was held of but little account, excepting so far as it served to illustrate ecclesiastical and sacred history; while this, again, was invariably treated in the narrow spirit of the polemic, intent mainly on the defence of his own confession, according as he represented the Lutheran or the Reformed Church. The labours of the professors at Göttingen, especially Putter, Gatterer, Schlözer and Spittler, combined with those of Mascov at Leipzig, did much towards promoting both a more catholic treatment and a wider scope. Not less beneficial was the example set at Göttingen of securing the appointment of its professors by a less prejudiced and partial body than a university board is only too likely to become. “ ‘The Great Münchhausen,’ says an illustrious professor of that seminary, ‘allowed our university the right of presentation, of designation, or of recommendation, as little as the right of free election; for he was taught by experience that, although the faculties of universities may know the individuals best qualified to supply their vacant chairs, they are seldom or never disposed to propose for appointment the worthiest within their knowledge.’ ”[1] The system of patronage adopted at Göttingen was, in fact, identical with that which had already been instituted in the universities of the Netherlands by Douza. The Erlangen. university of Erlangen, a Lutheran centre, was founded by Frederick, margrave of Baireuth. Its charter was granted by the emperor Charles VII., 21st February 1743, and the university was formally constituted, 4th November. From its special guardian, Alexander, the last margrave of Ansbach, it was styled “Academia Alexandrina.” In 1791, Ansbach and Baireuth having passed into the possession of Prussia, Erlangen also became subject to the Prussian government, and, as the 19th century advanced, her theological faculty became distinguished by the fervour and ability with which it championed the tenets of Lutheranism.
On comparison with the great English universities, the universities of Germany must be pronounced inferior both in point The English and German universities compared. of discipline and of moral control over the students. The superiority of the former in these respects is partly to be attributed to the more systematic care which they took, from a very early date, for the supervision of each student, by requiring that within a certain specified time after his entry into the university he should be registered as a pupil of some master of arts, who was responsible for his conduct, and represented him generally in his relations to the academic authorities. Marburg in its earliest statutes (those of 1529) endeavoured to establish a similar rule, but without success.[2] The development of the collegiate system at Oxford and Cambridge materially assisted the carrying out of this discipline. Although again, as in the German universities, feuds were not infrequent, especially those between “north” and “south” (the natives of the northern and southern counties), the fact that in elections to fellowships and scholarships only a certain proportion were allowed to be taken from either of these divisions acted as a considerable check upon the possibility of any one college representing either element exclusively. In the German universities, on the other hand, the ancient division into nations, which died out with the 15th century, was revived under another form by the institution of national colleges, which largely served to foster the spirit of rivalry and contention. The demoralization induced by the Thirty Years' War and the increase of duelling intensified these tendencies, which, together with the tyranny of the older over the younger students, known as “Pennalismus,” were evils against which the authorities contended, but ineffectually, by various ordinances. The institution of “Burschentum,” having for its design the encouragement of good fellowship and social feeling irrespective of nationality, served only as a partial check upon these excesses, which again received fresh stimulus by the rival institution of “Landsmannschaften,” or societies of the same nationality. The latter proved singularly provocative of duelling, while the arrogant and even tyrannical demeanour of their members towards the unassociated students gave rise to a general combination of the latter for the purposes of self-defence and organized resistance.
The political storms which marked the close of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century gave the death-blow Extinction of German universities during 1798-1815. to not a few of the ancient universities of Germany. Mainz and Cologne ceased to exist in 1798; Bamberg, Dillingen and Duisburg in 1804; Rinteln and Helmstedt in 1809; Salzburg in 1810; Erfurt in 1816. Altdorf was united to Erlangen in 1807, Frankfort-on-the-Oder to Breslau in 1809, and Wittenberg to Halle in 1815. The university of Ingolstadt was first moved in 1802 to Munich. Landshut, and from thence in 1826 to Munich, where it was united to the academy of sciences which was founded in the Bavarian capital in 1759. Münster in Prussia was for the first time constituted a university in four faculties by Maximilian Frederick (elector and archbishop) in Münster 1771. Its charter was confirmed by Clement XIV. in 1773, and again by the Emperor Joseph II. The university was abolished in the year 1818; but two faculties, those of theology and philosophy, continued to exist, and in 1843 it received the full privileges of a Prussian university together with the designation of a royal foundation. Of those of the above centres which altogether ceased to exist, but few were much missed or regretted—that at Mainz, which had numbered some six hundred students, being the one notable exception. The others had for the most part fallen into a perfunctory and lifeless mode of teaching, and, with wasted or diminished revenues and declining numbers, had long ceased worthily to represent the functions of a university, while the more studious in each centre were harassed by the frequency with which it was made an arena for political demonstrations. Whatever loss may have attended their suppression was more than compensated by the activity and influence of the three great German universities which rose in the last century.
Munich, after having been completely reorganized, soon became a distinguished centre of study in all the faculties; and
- ↑ Hamilton, Discussions, p. 381.
- ↑ “Volumus neminem in hanc nostram Academiam admitti, aut per rectorem in album recipi, qui non habeat privatum atque domesticum praeceptorem, qui ejus discipulum agnoscat, ad cujus judicium quisque pro sua ingenii capacitate atque Marte lecturas et publicas et privatas audiat, a cujus latere aut raro aut nunquam discedat.” Koch expressly compares this provision with the discipline of Oxford and Cambridge, which, down to the commencement of the present century, was very much of the same character (Koch, Gesch. des academischen Pädagogiums in Marburg, p. 11).
