1. A useful exception to this rule is Stephan, H., Geschichte der deutschen evangelischen Theologie seit dem deutschen Idealismus, 2nd edition rev. by Schmidt, M. (Berlin:Topelmann, 1960)Google Scholar. A much more detailed study was begun by Hirsch, E., Geschichte der neueren evangelischen Theologie in Zusammenhang mit den allegemeinen Bewegungen des europäischen Denkens (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1954) VGoogle Scholar, but he did not get beyond Schleiemacher. Drummond, Andrew L., German Protestantism Since Luther (London: Epworth, 1951)Google Scholar gives attention to the interaction of theology and church life, but his divisions of “Church and Religion” and “Church and State” almost force him to separate material that would normally belong together. See also footnote 30 below.

2. A full bibliography of German university life to 1900 may be found in Erman, W. and Horn, E., Bibliographie der deutschen Universitäten, 3 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1904-1905).Google Scholar

3. The following review of university changes is based on Kaufmann, G., Festschrift sur Feier des hundertjährigen Bestehens der Uniuersität Breslau (Breslau: Hirt, 1911), I, 8, 9, 11.Google Scholar

4. Statistics on all German universities from 1831 to 1899 (five-year averages) appear in Jahrbücher fur Nationalökonomic und Statistik, Bd. 72, (1899), 395. Yearly statistics for most of the universities between 1820 and 1850 appear in a series of articles in Academische Monatsschrift, 1850 and 1851. Some useful interpretive material and graphs for part of the period (1834–1884) are in Conrad, J., Das Universitätsstudium in Deutschland während der letzten 50 Jahre (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1884).Google Scholar

5. Carstens, C. E., Geschichte der theologischen Fakultät zu Kiel (n.p., 1873), p. 119Google Scholar. At Tübingen the division was Thesis, Exegesis, and Polemic, on which each of the three professors lectured in turn. An assistant professor covered the special field of church history: Elze, M., “Tübingen” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart [RGG], 3rd ed., VI, col. 1067Google Scholar, and von Weizsäcker, Carl, Lehrer und Unterricht an der euangelische theologischen Fakultät der Universität Tübingen von der Reformation bis zu Gegenwart (Tübingen: L. Fues, 1877), pp. 128–9, 139.Google Scholar

6. Archiv Weimar I, 155Google Scholar (burned in 1945), quoted in Heussi, K., Geschichte der theologischen Fakultät zu Jena (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1954), pp. 242–3, 336Google Scholar. Cf. Ritschl, O., Die evangelisch-theologische Fakultät zu Bonn in dem ersten Jahrhundert ihrer Geschichte, 1849–1919 (Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1919), pp. 10–13Google Scholar, and Arnold, F., “Die evangelisch-theologische Fakultät” in Festschrift zur Feier des Hundertjährigen Bestehens der Universitüt Breslau, ed. Kaufmann, G. (Breslau: Hirt, 1911), II, 187.Google Scholar

7. The reform plans of Schleiermacher, Schelling, , Fichte and others may be studied in Die Idee der deutschen Universität, Die funf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegrundung durch kiassischen Idealismus und romantischen Realismus (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959)Google Scholar. The story of how these plans were affected by the realities of the political and cultural situation in Berlin may be found in Elliger, W., 150 Jahre theologische Fakultät Berlin (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

8. Kim, O., Die Leipziger theologiche Fakultät in funf Jahrhunderten (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1909), pp. 187–8Google Scholar; Weizsäcker, op. cit., 139, 141; Elliger, op. cit., 26, 67; At Königsberg it was necessary to rescue the third theological professor, Wald, from responsibilities in Greek, Oratory, and History. Kaufmann, op. cit., 11.

9. Heussi, op. cit., 330. When Karl Hase, later a noted church historian, was called to Jena as associate professor in 1829, he considered himself a specialist in practical theology and began his Jena career in that capacity. Ibid., 243.

10. They were: Göttingen, 1810; Kiel, 1814; Heidelberg, 1819; Berlin, 1821; Tübingen, 1825; Halle, 1828, the dates usually represent the time when an associate professor reached the status of a full professor.

11. In chronological order: Gottingen, 1860; Greifswaid, Kiel, Marburg, 1863; Heidelberg, 1865; Königsberg, 1866; Bonn, 1867.

13. Arnold, op. cit., 190; Bornkamm, H., “Heidelberg Universität”, RGG, 3rd ed., III. cols. 125–126Google Scholar. Cf. Paulsen, Friedrich, Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts aiif den deutschen Schulen und Universitäten, 3rd ed. (Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1921), II. 261–265.Google Scholar

14. Kirn, op. cit., 194.

15. Weizsäcker, op. cit., 139.

16. Meyer, Johann, “Geschichte der Göttingen theologischen Fakultät” in Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für niedersächsische Kirchengeschichte, Vol. 42 (1937), 44–45Google Scholar. Giessen theologians won back control of Old Testament lectures through the public clamor which arose when a Roman Catholic in the philosophical faculty obtained permission to cover the subject in 1833. Stade, B., Die Reorganisation der theologischen Fakultät zu Giessen in den Jahren 1878 bis 1882 (Giessen, 1894), pp. 23–30.Google Scholar

17. The Jena faculty declared in 1843, and again in 1853, that it saw itself as a “representative of a moderate way of theological thinking, as a cultivator of free study, without destructive inclinations, and without fanatical enthusiasm for outdated forms. Heussi, op. cit., 265.

18. The division is that of Kattenbusch, op. cit., 41; cf. also Heussi, op. cit., 347. In 1834 Bonn's theological faculty, in an effort to show its scientific standards, formulated such strict rules governing doctorates that not a single person earned the degree. Typically, however, the faculty discharged its duties to church and state by awarding the honorary doctorate ninety-five times. Ritschl, op. cit., 47.

19. Bauer, Bruno, Kritik der evangetischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, Vo1s. I and II (Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1841), Vol III (Braunschweig: F. Otto, 1842).Google Scholar

20. The request for opinions and the corresponding documents from each faculty were collected and published as Gutachten der evangelisch-theologischen Facultäten der Königlich Preussischen Universitäten über den Licentiaten Bruno Bauer in Beriehung auf dessea Kritik der evangelischen Gesckichte der Synoptiker (Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1842).Google Scholar

21. For a bibliography of the articles and books stemming from this controversy, see Ermanhorn, op. cit., I, 413–414. Pp. 411–412 also contain material from the first “academic freedom” conflict of the century—the result of articles in Hengstenberg's, Evangelische Kirchenzeitung for 1830.Google Scholar

22. For review and documents on the De Wette ease, see Lenz, Max, Geschichte der Königlich Friedrih-Wiihelms-Uniuersität zu Berlin (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1910), I, 61–87Google Scholar; IV, 358–405. Bahnmaier was dismissed from Tübingen for complicity in the same ease; Weizäcker, op. cit., 140. Other political dismissals were: Harless from Erlangen (1845), Kantzenbach, F. W., Die Erlaager Theoogie (Munich: Evangelischer Presseverband für Bayern, 1960), p. 129Google Scholar; Baumgarten from Rostock (1858), Wolf, Ernst, “Michael Baumgarten” in RGG, 3rd ed., I, cols. 933–934Google Scholar; and Ewald from Göttingen (1866), Meyer, op. cit., 68.

23. Hausrath, A., Gesehiehte der theologiechen Faleultät su Heidelberg im 19. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg, 1901), p. 16.Google Scholar

24. O. Ritschi, op. cit., 1–7; Elliger, op. cit., 39, 40, 51; Kaufmann, op. cit., p. 170; Kirn, op. cit., 203–206; Meyer, op. cit., 72; Stade, op. cit., 30ff; Steitz, H., “Giessen” in RGG, 3rd ed., II, cots. 1573–1574.Google Scholar

25. Ritschl, op. cit., 41.

26. An attempt to study relationships with a local government in the history of one faculty has been made by Schwartz, Walter, “Die evangelisch-theologischen Fakultät der Universtät zu Breslan und das Konsistorium” in Jahrbuch der Schlesisohen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität zu Breslau, I (1955), 36–53.Google Scholar

27. Schwartz, op. cit., 49–50; Effiger, op. cit., 49, 69.

28. Smend, R., “Gottingen” in RGG, 3rd ed., II, cols. 1678–1680Google Scholar; Schrader, W., Geschichte der Friedriches-Universität zu Halle (Berlin: F. Dümmiler, 1894), II, 256Google Scholar; mann, J. A. Wagen, “Ludwig Friedrich Schöberlein” in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, X, cols. 256–257.Google Scholar

29. Kirn, op. cit., 184–185, 191–192.

30. Kähler's lectures on nineteenth century theology, Geschickte der protestantischen Dogmatik im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. E. Kähler (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1962)Google Scholar are a fresh and useful interpretation of the field. Unfortunately, Kähler's own involvement in the theological discussion limited his willingness to discuss contemporaries, so the post-Ritschlian development receives scant attention.

31. Holsten Fagerberg's article “Luthertum II: Neuluthertum” in RGG, 3rd ed., IV, cola. 536–540Google Scholar, shows the leadership of professors in the movement, while his book Bekenntnis, Kirche, und Amt in der deutschen konfessionellen Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderts (Uppsala, 1952)Google Scholar studies one aspect of its theology. A similar special study is Schultz, Robert C., Gesets und Evangelium in der lutherischen Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlaghaus, 1958)Google Scholar. For the origins of the awakening, especially in Bavaria, see Kantzenbach, F. W., Die Erweckungsbewegung (Neuendettelsau: Freimund-Verlag, 1957).Google Scholar

32. Schrader, op. cit., 126ff; for literature from the Vilmar-Heppe feud, see Erman-Horn, op. cit., II, 457; for Göttingen, see Meyer, op. cit., 67–68.

33. Hausrath, op. cit., 17; Heussi, op. cit., 303

34. Ritschl, op. cit., 62–69.

35. Meyer, op. cit., 57, 60ff, 67, 69, 73, 75ff, 82; Heussi, op. cit., 320–325. The Jena faculty so feared confessionalism that that may have governed their decision against calling Haniack as a successor to Hase, since Harnack's father was a noted confessional theologian Ibid., 328.

36. von Zahn-Harnack, A., Der Apostolikum-streit des Jahres 1892 und seine Bedeutung für die Gegenwart (Marburg: Elwert, 1950).Google Scholar

37. Elliger, op. cit., 82; H. Bornkamm, loc. cit.

38. The following discussion is based on the statistics in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Bd. 72 (1899), 395.Google Scholar

39. Exact figures and interpretation in Glaue, P., Das Eirchliche Leben der euangelischen Kirchen in Thüringen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1910), pp. 164–165Google Scholar. Cf. Heussi, op. cit., 245, 370; and W. and Grimm, W., “Zum Geschiehte der Frequenz der Universität Jena” in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Bd. 6 (1866), 30–46Google Scholar. The volume by Glane is the fifth in the series Evangelische Ktrchenkunde, edited by P. Drews and continued by M. Schian. It attempts to describe life in the various territorial churches at the turn of the century and usually gives comparative material for the previous twenty years. Almost all of the seven volumes have a section on the university backgrounds of pastors, together with other information on their education and theological direction.

40. Ellinger, op. cit., 81; Eberlein, H., Schlesische Kirchengeschichte, 3rd ed. (Goslar: Verlag der Schlesischen Evangelisehen Zentraistelle, 1952), p. 208.Google Scholar

41. Pieper, P., Kirchliche Statistik Deutschlands (Freiburg i. B.: Mohr, 1899), p. 178.Google Scholar

42. For exact figures on how many young men stayed in Göttingen and how many visited other universities, see Rolffs, E., Das kirchliche Leben der evangelisehen Kirchen is Niedersaehsen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1917), pp. 52, 54, 224, 255, 315, 457.Google Scholar

43. Heussi, op. cit., 349–350, lists eleven students of Ritschi who, between 1876 and 1892, became full professors on German theological faculties.