Towards the end of the nineteenth century the German philosopher and pedagogue Friedrich Paulsen coined the term Neuhumanismus (neohumanism)Footnote 1 to describe what he felt to be a distinctly new approach to teaching the Classics. Paulsen's idea that a new era in German educational history began under the influence of W.v. Humboldt and F.A. Wolf and many others has shaped scholarly discussion with remarkable success ever since, although (or perhaps because) it has never been quite clear whether neohumanism designates a philosophical ideal of education or its institutional enactment.
V.B.'s book addresses the gap between these two aspects by taking a detailed look at the teachers who taught Latin and Greek at German secondary schools and by contrasting their opinions and methods with the intellectual and academic debate. The book is based on v.B.'s doctoral dissertation at Utrecht University and has been published as the first volume of the re-established Philologus Supplementary series.
The introductory chapter establishes the historical background. At the end of the eighteenth century Latin's importance both as a lingua franca and as a key to crucial knowledge was in rapid decline. But shielded by a new neohumanistic philosophy, the advocates of a classical education were not only able to prevent Greek and Latin from being marginalised in the curricula. They even managed to expand the role of the Classics by arguing that the study of classical literature in a distinctly modern way would best prepare young people for the needs of a modern society.
This leads to v.B.'s initial question ‘how the “neohumanistic” ideal of education endorsed by 19th-century academic philologists related to the practice of Gymnasium education’ (p. 6). Based on his study of around 450 primary texts, most of which were written by secondary school teachers and date from 1770 to 1860, v.B. concludes that the general classics teacher ‘subscribed to a form of humanism that was distinctly more traditional than that propagated by their well-known “neohumanistic” colleagues’ (p. 11). Consequently v.B. argues that the majority of German humanists are more appropriately labelled ‘classical humanists’. Guided by the neohumanistic paradigm, historiography of classical education has paid disproportionate attention to theoretical novelties while disregarding overall continuity. Therefore, v.B. endeavours to re-evaluate the nineteenth-century debates on humanistic education with regard to the general teacher's standpoint.
The book is divided into two parts. The first, ‘The Persistence of Classical Humanism’, characterises the alternative concept and argues for its applicability from the Renaissance to the twentieth century. V.B. singles out the life and writings of Karl Gottfried Siebelis (1769–1843), rector of the Gymnasium in the Saxon town of Bautzen, in order to derive an ideal type of nine constitutive aspects defining classical humanism. Education in this respect is directed towards refinement of human nature in every individual (1). This refinement is best accomplished in confrontation with exemplary subject matter (2) as represented by the most excellent literary texts in human history: Greek and Latin classics (3). These texts – when studied thoroughly (7) – ennoble the pupil's intellectual (4), aesthetic (5) and moral (6) faculties. Classical humanism is marked by a strict anti-utilitarianism (8) and practised with great enthusiasm (9), which is rooted in the teachers' admiration for ancient literature. V.B. indicates the teachers' self-image as being part of a long tradition by analysing the regular and affirmative quotations of Renaissance humanists and ends the chapter noting that neohumanistic philosophical considerations were not detectable in the writings of Siebelis and his colleagues.
The second part, ‘The Adaptability of Classical Humanism’, carries the book's argumentative weight. Contemporary discussions that have formerly been analysed against the background of a prevalent neohumanistic philosophy are now examined with a view to the grass root philologist's opinions. Three chapters are devoted to three challenges that humanism had to face.
The first chapter, ‘The Challenge of Science’, is dedicated to humanists' reactions towards changing notions of knowledge and science (and the implications for philology and pedagogy). V.B. asserts that the study of the Classics in the eighteenth century was put under the heading schöne Wissenschaften, a term referring to a normative take on aesthetic disciplines that focused on formal study and imitation. By the end of the century the concept of science had become more exclusive and was marked by an increased methodological rigour. V.B. condenses this general process in his treatment of Kant's Critique of Judgement, which explicitly rejected the idea of schöne Wissenschaften. V.B. concludes that ‘defenders of classical education endeavoured to transform classical studies in such a way as to make it meet the new demands of science’ (p. 75). The development of neohumanistic concepts, for example Wolf's Altertumswissenschaft, is thereby rendered as inherently defensive. Despite the academic discussions, v.B.'s sources reveal that little changed in actual Gymnasium education.
The next chapter, ‘The Challenge of the Bürgerschule’, follows the debate between classicists and the advocates of Realbildung, a concept that strengthened the proportion of natural sciences and technical subjects in the curriculum at the expense of Latin and Greek. Observing that real education was promoted with the same arguments as humanistic education, v.B. draws the conclusion, that ‘humanism and “realism” appear to have been different forms of humanism’ (p. 113). Leading the reader through a complex discourse, v.B. shows that while vocational differentiation boosted the demand for natural science education, humanists devised the idea that teaching the Classics was the best preparation for a modern age. The chapter goes on to cover proposals for teaching Latin in reform schools, for instance simplifying textbooks to make Latin more accessible or teaching another subject in Latin. V.B.'s material demonstrates that these ideas could not prevail due to humanists' reluctance to confront pupils with less than excellent Latin.
The third chapter is devoted to ‘The Challenge of Christianity’. After depicting the political climate of the Vormärz period, which for v.B. gave birth to the idea of an opposition between Christianity and humanism, he declares his scepticism about its substantiality. Although Wolf and Humboldt have been viewed as heathen neohumanists since Paulsen's influential writings, v.B. points out that their ‘allegedly pagan worldview has been constructed from scattered remarks which almost invariably derive from private correspondence’ (p. 180). Tracing the discussion of the common Gymnasium teacher mainly from the 1830s to 1860s v.B. finds that although classical humanists did not think of Christianity and humanism as oppositional, they were fully aware of the accusation, which brought them to highlight diligently ‘those aspects of classical literature that could best be squared with Christian ideas and values’ (p. 203).
‘Once again’, v.B. asserts in closing the chapter, ‘classical humanism proved capable of adapting itself to the needs of the time while remaining unchanged at its core’ (p. 203). Obviously the book lays great emphasis on continuity. But while this view appears as a welcome complement to existing research, it is surprising how seldom it is used to shine a light on consecutive events. It could for instance be taken into account when explaining the eventual downfall of the humanistic Gymnasium as the only gateway to a university education in 1900 as a consequence of the persistent refusal to react to a changing society on a non-rhetorical level. And while v.B. rightfully argues that nineteenth-century humanism is usually contemplated from the perspective of the 1900s it is astonishing that the vast majority of his own material comes from the first half of the century or earlier.
Although not every reader will always agree with the conclusions drawn, they will surely benefit from the thoughtfully arranged presentation of an impressive number of primary sources. V.B. displays the interrelations and ramifications of thoughts and arguments surrounding the debates on classical education. His special regard for the regular teacher is a valuable supplement to the historiography of humanism, and his enquiries into nineteenth-century teaching methods contribute significantly to the history of didactics.
