- ANNEMIEKE J. A. KOUWENBERG
‘De kennis der Duitsche taal is voor een geleerden hedendaags onontbeerlijk’
Duitse natuurwetenschappen en pedagogiek in nederlandse genootschappen rond 1800. With a summary in English.
- Amsterdam & Utrecht 2010.
- X, 269 pagina's / pages / Seiten. Met 5 afb. / with 5 ills / mit 5 Abb.
- Ingenaaid / Softbound / Broschiert, 23x15 cm. (ISBN 978 90 302 1272 0)
- Prijs / Price / Preis: EUR 40 (in EU: excl. BTW / excl. VAT / exkl. MWS)
In view of the large number of translations, the popularity of German culture, literature and science in the Netherlands around the year 1800 is beyond dispute. German books were translated in huge quantities in the Netherlands, and were valued by the Dutch public, as reviews testify. In journals, not only translations were discussed, but also scientific discoveries, political news and cultural information. A broadly oriented journal such as the Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode (General Art and Literature Messenger) (AKLB) devoted extensive attention to news from the German lands: the appointment of German preachers, the lives of heads of state and schoolmasters and the latest scientific news were featured in the AKLB.
The popularity of German science and culture in the journals and translations seems to indicate a general interest in German ideas. If this interest was indeed generally felt, we should be able to find its traces elsewhere too. One of the places where this interest came to the fore was the societies. They held a central position in the eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century cultural and scholarly constellation. It is only logical to assume that they also played an important part in the reception and distribution of German ideas. In research into Dutch sociability, the international contacts of the societies have only received scant attention up to now. Research can be divided into three approaches, first into the society history in general and the societies as institutions, then into society ideology and the contents of society activities; lastly, a very limited and cautious effort has been made to gain some perspective on the infrastructural aspects of sociability. Especially the latter approach is valuable for the investigation of the German influx in Dutch societies. This concerns contacts between societies and the resultant exchange of information. It affords societies a central position in the enlightened interchange of knowledge and information. This is precisely the point of departure relevant to the present research.
To appreciate the position of the Dutch societies with regard to the influx of German culture and science, I have researched the archives of the Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen (Dutch Science Society), Felix Meritis and the Maatschappij tot Nut van ‘t Algemeen (Society for Public Benefit) concerning interest in German ideas and contacts with German societies, scientists and intellectuals. Archival material of these societies is amply available. Moreover, each of these had its own position in the cultural constellation of the eighteenth century: the Hollandsche Maatschappij was the scientific society; Felix Meritis represented the Amsterdam cultural elite; and the Maatschappij tot Nut van ‘t Algemeen was a national platform for enlightenment of the public and educational innovation. The societies therefore offered an opportunity to investigate the German influences in different fields. The society archives yield strikingly little on the German influences, if there were any. Only the Hollandsche Maatschappij had a substantial number of foreign members (a first indication that a society was interested in developments abroad). Felix Meritis made cautious efforts to establish an international membership, but appears to have had little interest in maintaining international contacts. The Maatschappij tot Nut
The large number of German members of the Hollandsche Maatschappij leads us to a second approach to investigate the German influx: what can be gleaned from the society’s correspondence with these German members? Although we may assume that the contact with foreign, in this case German, members was of great importance to the exchange of scientific news, the Hollandsche Maatschappij devoted strikingly little attention to this. The correspondence with the foreign members did not involve much more than the exchange of the Verhandelingen (Proceedings) or the forwarding of medals. An exchange of scientific news did not often take place.
Apart from the study of the membership files and the correspondence, the possible interest in German ideas can be traced through the societies’ lectures and competitions. In Felix Meritis’ various departments, weekly lectures were given, both by members and by outsiders. At “het Nut” and the Hollandsche Maatschappij, competitions were organised on a wide range of subjects. Both the lectures and the competitions can supply us with more insight in the societies’ interest in different subjects on which they were oriented. Moreover, the entries for these competitions can show us whether this interest was shared by other people.
But the study of the competitions and lectures is not without complications. Although the sources do indeed reveal what subjects were of interest to the societies, it is not self-evident that the background and the origin of possible new developments were lucidly represented. In most cases, it is not specified whether they were based on foreign (German) discoveries or on research particular to the society itself. It is also difficult to link competitions to specifically ‘German’ subjects. An exception is the competition organised by the Hollandsche Maatschappij concerning the arguments for the existence of God in Mendelssohn and Kant. In many cases, the backgrounds of the competitions were not explicitly mentioned.
At the societies mentioned, there is ample extant archival material. In lectures and competitions, a large array of subjects was treated. For Felix Meritis and even more for the Hollandsche Maatschappij, the number of subjects is so extensive that a proper survey is not even feasible. But it is hard to make a well-founded selection, in view of the lack of information about the origin of the subjects concerned.
The study of lectures and competitions, though, yields other results: for they make the actions of the societies visible. The selection of subjects treated in the societies appears to be largely dependent on the person proposing the subject. Therefore, it seems that not the societies themselves, but the lecturers at the meetings and the organisers of the competitions stimulated interest in German ideas. They introduced the subjects and so determined what was discussed at the societies.
In view of the important role individuals played in the influx of German ideas, the position of the societies may be appreciated differently. On the basis of the first results, I have shifted my focus from the societies to their individual members. How did they acquire their knowledge of the important German developments in their profession? Why was German science held in such high regard? And by what means did they distribute the newly acquired knowledge in the Netherlands? With these questions in mind I established four fields of interest, giving a cross section of the German influx: pedagogy, astronomy, chemistry and phrenology.
Whoever was interested in matters concerning upbringing and education at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century could not get round the Dessau Philanthropists. Their ideas were trend-setting for large parts of Europe, and were also well-received in the Netherlands. The Maatschappij tot Nut van ‘t Algemeen played an important part in the innovation of elementary education at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It did not copy the Philanthropist ideas: it studied these with interest but did not use them as the self-evident point of departure for its own policy. It appears that “het Nut” rather employed the German ideas to confirm the initiatives of the society itself, to give these more authority.
The position of “het Nut” with regard to the Philanthropists and the German enlighteners of the public demonstrates how it established its own profile nationally and internationally. The society used aspects of the Philanthropist ideas which fit in with its own objectives. The elitist practice of a large part of the Philanthropist education did not mix well with the egalitarian goals of “het Nut”. Partly for that reason, in an important report issued in 1798, Algemeene Denkbeelden over het lager onderwijs (General Ideas Concerning Elementary Education) the society pointed to pedagogues similar to the Philanthropists, but specialised in education of lower-class children. Friedrich Eberhard von Rochow, who enjoyed the admiration of the Philanthropists themselves, was the most important example for “het Nut”. Later on, “het Nut” developed a substantial interest in the Swiss pedagogue Pestalozzi, who also occupied himself explicitly with poor children.
In the interest of “het Nut” for German pedagogical innovation and public enlightenment, we can discern a distinct attention to practice. In most cases, it was interested not in the theoretical background of the innovation – which was either sufficiently well-known, or was perfectly attainable through the educational expertise of the society itself – but in the actual implementation of these plans. Both with Rochow and with Pestalozzi, “Het Nut” was looking for direct proof of the successes both pedagogues had had in their educational practice. Direct and personal contacts enlarged confidence in the new information. This explains the extensively motivated proposal to send someone to Pestalozzi at the expense of “het Nut”. This person could experience the practice of his education himself and would be able to apply the method on his return in the Netherlands.
“Het Nut” could afford this predominant interest in practice. Already earlier in the eighteenth and even in the seventeenth century, upbringing and education had been the subject of conversation. This uninterrupted debate, kept up by both specifically Dutch and foreign authors, was the basis for knowledge and opinions current in “het Nut” about pedagogy and enlightenment of the public. This basis was in many cases similar to that of the Philanthropists; to a certain extent, both the Dutch and the German tradition were rooted in Rousseau. With this basis, “het Nut” did not really need the theoretical background of the German education innovators. It just wanted to know whether the new ideas could prove their value in practice.
The attention to practice appears to have been conclusive also in other subjects. Both in respect to astronomy and in the field of chemistry, there was a lot of interest in the Netherlands for practical applications of new insights. Especially this interest was determining for the influx of German ideas.
During the eighteenth century, astronomy was not particularly popular. In the Netherlands, this interest grew from the 1790s on. The revival of astronomy in the German lands, just before that, played an important part in this. The influx of German astronomical interest in the Netherlands was conducted through the Amsterdam society Felix Meritis, which held a prominent position in the field of astronomy. Not only was there sufficient interest, but the society building was also fitted out with an observatory with excellent equipment. The influence of German developments in astronomy can therefore best be traced in Felix Meritis.
Pieter Nieuwland and Jan Frederik van Beeck Calkoen were the most important instigators of the Dutch interest in (a part of) German astronomy. Their visit to the German astronomer Franz Xaver von Zach, in Gotha, strongly determined the course of Dutch astronomy in
For Van Beeck Calkoen – Nieuwland died at a young age – his visit to Germany was the start of his career in astronomy. He worked hard at the proliferation of the new ideas he had learned. He published articles in Von Zach’s journals and gave lectures at Felix Meritis, mostly on the basis of observations and measurements conducted at the observatory of the society. In this way, he also did Felix Meritis a service: the society acquired a serious scientific reputation. Partly due to the contribution of Van Beeck Calkoen, five foreign members joined in 1802, all astronomers and largely originating from the German lands. The fact that these well-known astronomers were willing to be associated with Felix Meritis indicates that the society was taken seriously in scientific respect. Especially Von Zach’s practical approach had a lot of success in the Netherlands. The possible applications of the calculations he was so excellent in had repercussions here. Also in astronomy, practice was more important than theory.
In the field of chemistry, the practical attitude of the Germans was equally valued. The Dutch interest, for instance demonstrable in the Amsterdam apothecary Petrus Kasteleijn, was obviously directed at the good economic results the Germans had reached by focussing on chemistry education. The improvements implemented over the years would also contribute hugely to raising the level of Dutch chemistry practice. Thus, Kasteleijn stated, the Dutch competitive position could be much improved. The innovation of chemistry education did not only
The authority the German lands gained in the field of chemistry also influenced the contents of the profession. In the process surrounding the acceptation of Lavoisier’s new theory, Kasteleijn kept a close watch on German reception. He seriously doubted Lavoisier’s theory, notwithstanding experimental proof, and initially found like-minded people in the German lands. In numerous articles, he referred to the Germans to motivate his doubts. Apparently, he was of the opinion that chemistry in Germany was at a high level and could therefore be considered trend-setting. This confidence was based in Kasteleijn’s personal contacts with German chemists.
Kasteleijn was not the only one to admire the Germans, although he was one of the most fanatical; but he was the only one to doubt Lavoisier’s insights. Nonetheless, his behaviour in this matter is interesting. Kasteleijn made strategic choices to transmit his ideas as clearly as possible to the right audience. The importance of personal influence, as we have seen for astronomy, was also huge for chemistry. Kasteleijn’s effort for a large part determined the “success” of German chemistry in the Netherlands. The societies, in this case primarily Felix Meritis, were less involved in the German influx than is assumed; they appear to have played a passive role.
The Dutch reception of the phrenological teachings of the Vienna doctor Joseph Gall had little to do with professional considerations. The Dutch dismissal was preponderantly socially and culturally determined. In this way, the matter of Gall is rather similar to the subjects treated above. Here also, personal contacts determined the final judgment, which in this case was not positive, but extremely negative.
Gall had developed a theory in order to determine character traits on the basis of the skull’s shape. After Vienna had banned his performances, he roamed across Europe with his assistant to give lectures. In Germany, he had considerable success among the public at large, but scientists were critical of his theory. The German success caught on in the Netherlands. In the journal De Ster (The Star), plans for a visit of Gall’s to the Netherlands received a lot of attention. He was even featured in his own words, through the publication of parts of his letters to Dutch acquaintances.
In preparation of his visit, not all news on Gall was positive. The Amsterdam anatomist Gerard Vrolik was, on the basis of his anatomical knowledge, very critical about Gall’s statements. The physicist and philosopher Jacob Elisa Doornik objected to the philosophical implications of the theory. In both cases, Gall’s claims with regard to the possibility to acquire information on someone’s character on the basis of the shape of his skull were debated. The relation between form and content could never be as unequivocal as Gall claimed, the physicist objected. From the philosophical standpoint, a further objection was made against the implication of the predetermination of character, which turned man into nothing more than a senseless animal. Both Vrolik and Doornik presented their objections before Gall’s arrival at the society Felix Meritis. Moreover, they published their treatises. But the Dutch reactions to Gall’s behaviour had little to do with these fundamental objections.
The hype surrounding Gall, partly instigated by De Ster, could not prevent that the visit itself turned into a disaster. Directly after Gall’s first appearance at Amsterdam, De Ster published an initial reaction of an audience member, which was anything but positive. Remarkably, this
Once again, although in a very different way from the former subjects, it appears that personal contacts were decisive for the reception of (German) ideas in the Netherlands. Notwithstanding the objections before his visit, there was considerable interest in the ideas put forward by Gall, but his behaviour tipped the scales against him. The Netherlands was not alone in its critique on Gall: although he had had success in Germany, there had been a lot of criticism against him to.
On the basis of these four case studies, a number of conclusions can be drawn about the influx of German (scientific) ideas in the Netherlands, and the position of the societies in this.
First, it is remarkable to what extent personal contacts influenced the influx of German ideas. Each of the subjects researched shows that personal contacts with the German scientific world were decisive. The persons who promoted German insights in the Netherlands invariably based their knowledge on such contacts: the substance of their message was based on the ideas of their German colleagues and tutors. These contacts were also invoked to emphasise the trustworthiness of the German ideas. The contacts in the German lands were mostly not the terrain of the societies themselves, but of their individual members. In some cases, the societies did have foreign members, but the contacts with them were limited. For the substantial aspects, we have to look at the individuals.
A second remarkable aspect of the influx of German ideas is the great value that was set by practical applications as opposed to theoretical thoroughness. This is especially clear as regards chemistry and astronomy, but also appears from the interest of “het Nut” for pedagogical innovations. Finally, the attention of the public at large for Gall was much more connected to his performances (and therefore his practice) than to the scientific background of his ideas.
Especially the critical role of individuals puts the involvement of the societies in a different light. The central position attributed to them was apparently not due to their performance in the international scientific circuit. They presumably did not consider it their task to play a central role in the cultural and scientific discussions. They mostly profited from the contacts and knowledge of their members.
Through this attitude, the societies undermined their own position. On the one hand, they profited from the position of their members in the international scientific world, but on the other hand, they were strongly dependent on these members for the influx of new ideas. To be able to operate internationally, they sorely needed their members. The members sometimes chose to publish their opinions outside of the framework of the society. Those who had a message, took care to make it public to the right audience, which did not necessarily coincide with the membership of the societies. Especially as regards chemistry, it is clear that the societies were not the only option. Petrus Kasteleijn chose his public critically: when his message was directed at the broad public, he presented it in a society or in articles in the AKLB; more specialist subjects he published through a strategic outlet: his own journal, the Chemische en Physische Oefeningen (Chemical and Physics Experiments)
We may conclude that societies played a rather passive role in the international exchange of culture and science. They were in a split position: they had everything necessary to participate in the modern, enlightened transfer of knowledge, but were at the same time bound to the old customs of the Republic of Letters. The decisive role played by personal contacts is the most convincing proof of this. (Translation: Han van der Vegt)