1. Ben-David, Joseph and Collins, Randall, “Social Factors in the Origins of a New Science: The Case of Psychology,” American Sociological Review 31 (1966): 451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Wundt, Wilhelm, “Die Psychologie im Kampf ums Dasein” (1913), in Kleine Schriften, 3 (Stuttgart, 1921): 542.Google Scholar

3. Müller, Georg Elias, “Eröffnungsansprache,” in Schumann, Friedrich, ed., Bericht über den VI. Kongress der Gesellschaft für experimentelle Psychologie … 1914 (Leipzig, 1914), pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

4. For a summary of the budgetary history of these four psychological institutes, see the accompanying table.

5. The most famous practitioner of this approach is Boring, Edwin G., in A History of Experimental Psychology, 2nd ed. (New York, 1950)Google Scholar, passim, and in History, Psychology and Science: Selected Papers, ed. Watson, Robert I. and Campbell, Donald T. (New York, 1963), pt. 1.Google Scholar For a critique of Boring see Ross, Dorothy, “The ‘Zeitgeist’ and American Psychology,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 5 (1969): 256–623.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed (hereafter cited as Jour. Hist. Behav. Sci.)

6. Ben-David, Joseph states in The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971), p. 128Google Scholar, that “in Germany the purpose of the psychologists was to revolutionize philosophy as an academic discipline and to obtain academic recognition for their new approach to mental phenomena.” However, he offers no evidence there or in “Social Factors” to show that the psychologists” intentions were in fact “revolutionary”; nor does he say whether their attempt to gain academic recognition succeeded.

7. Burchardt, Lothar, Wissenschaftspolitik im wilhelminischen Deutschland: Vorgeschichte, Gründung und Aufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften (Göttingen, 1975), p. 11.Google Scholar For a discussion of research outside the universities, see Lundgreen, Peter, “Forschungsförderung durch technisch-wissenschaftliche Vereine, 1860–1914,” in Rürup, Reinhard, ed., Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technischen Universität Berlin 1879–1979 (Berlin, 1979), 1: 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. von Ferber, Christian, Die Entwicklung des Lehrkörpers der deutschen Universitäten und Hochschulen 1864–1954 (Göttingen, 1956), p. 36.Google Scholar

9. Ringer, Fritz, Education and Society in Modern Europe (Bloomington, Ind., 1979), p. 35.Google Scholar

10. Ringer, Fritz, “Higher Education in Germany in the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Contemporary History 2 (1967): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Pfetsch, Frank R., Zur Entwicklung der Wissenschaftspolitik in Deutschland 1750–1914 (Berlin, 1974), p. 52.Google Scholar

12. Lundgreen, Peter, “Differentiation in German Higher Education, 1860–1930,” in Jarausch, Konrad, ed., The Transformation of Higher Learning in Europe, 1860–1930 (Stuttgart, in press).Google Scholar

13. Ben-David, Scientist's Role, pp. 131–32. See also Riese, Reinhard, Die Hochschule auf dem Weg zum wissenschaftlichen Grossbetrieb: Die Universität Heidelberg und das badische Hochschulwesen 1860–1914 (Stuttgart, 1977), pp. 62ff.Google Scholar

14. Bock, Klaus-Dieter, Strukturgeschichte der Assistentur: Personalgefüge, Wert- und Zielvorstellungen in der deutschen Universität des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Düsseldorf, 1972), p. 212.Google Scholar

15. On the role of Lehrfreiheit see Dobson, Velma and Bruce, Darryl, “The German University and the Development of Experimental Psychology,” Jour. Hist. Behav. Sci. 8 (1972): 204–7.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed On Lotze's teaching activity see Russell, Wallace A., “A Note on Lotze's Teaching of Psychology, 1842–1881,” Jour. Hist. Behav. Sci. 2 (1966): 74–75.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Von Ferber, op. cit., Table 19, p. 129; Busch, Alexander, Die Geschichte des Privatdozenten: Eine soziologische Studie zur grossbetrieblichen Entwicklung der deutschen Universitäten (Stuttgart, 1959).Google Scholar

17. Universitätsarchiv der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen. Universitätskuratorium. XVI.IV A.a. Ordentliche Professoren, 15a. Dr. Müller (4.Vb Nr. 297). See also Katz, David, “Georg Elias Müller,” Acta Psychologica 1 (1936): 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Turner, R. Steven, “The Growth of Professorial Research in Prussia, 1818 to 1848—Causes and Context,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3 (1971): 137–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ringer, Fritz, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 102ff., esp. 110–11.Google Scholar

19. Vierhaus, Rudolph, “Bildung,” in Bruner, Otto, Conze, Werner, and Kosselleck, Reinhardt, eds., Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexicon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1972), 1: 508–51, esp. p. 549Google Scholar; Paulsen, Friedrich, The German Universities and University Study (New York, 1906), pp. 149–50Google Scholar; Ringer, Mandarins, p. 38.

20. Ringer, Mandarins, p. 37.

21. Engelhardt, Dietrich v., “Die Konzeption der Forschung in der Medizin des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Diemer, Alwin, ed., Konzeption und Begriff der Forschung in den Wissenschaften des 19. Jahrhunderts (Meisenheim a. Glan, 1978), esp. pp. 61–64, 95.Google Scholar

22. For the social functions of this complex intellectual position, see Mendelsohn, Everett, “The Emergence of Science as a Profession in Nineteenth-Century Europe,” in Hill, Karl, ed., The Management of Scientists (Boston, 1964), pp. 3–48Google Scholar, and “Revolution and Reduction: The Sociology of Methodological and Philosophical Concerns in Nineteenth-Century Biology,” in Elkana, Y., ed., The Interaction between Science and Philosophy (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1974), pp. 407–26.Google Scholar

23. For the evidence behind this description and the use of the word “peopling” see Harndt, Ewald, “Die Stellung der medizinischen Fakultät an der preussischen Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität zu Berlin als Beispiel für den Wandel des Geisteslebens im 19. Jahrhundert,” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands 20 (1971): 134–60.Google Scholar See also Zloczower, A., Career Opportunities and the Growth of Scientific Discovery in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Jerusalem, 1966).Google Scholar

24. Ben-David and Collins, “Social Factors.” It is most doubtful that this interpretation ought to be extended beyond the single case of Wundt, as the authors clearly wish to do.

25. For a telling critique of Ben-David and Collins's approach and an account of other factors in Wundt's decision to change fields see Danziger, Kurt, “The Social Origins of Modern Psychology,” in Buss, Alan R., ed., Psychology in Social Context (New York, 1979), esp. pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

26. Wundt, Wilhelm, Erlebtes und Erkanntes (Stuttgart, 1920), pp. 293–95.Google Scholar Psychophysics is the study of the relationship between external stimuli and sensation.

27. Bringmann, Wolfgang G., Balance, William D. G., and Evans, Rand B., “Wilhelm Wundt 1832–1920: A Brief Biographical Sketch,” Jour. Hist. Behav. Sci. 11 (1975): 294.Google Scholar See also Bringmann, Wolfgang G., Bringmann, Norma J., and Ungerer, Gustav A., “The Establishment of Wundt's Laboratory: An Archival and Documentary Study,” in Bringmann, Wolfgang G. and Tweney, R. D., eds., Wundt Studies (Toronto, 1980), pp. 123–57.Google Scholar

28. Wundt, Erlebtes, p. 313.

29. Carl F. Graumann, “Experiment, Statistics, History: Wundt's First Program of Psychology,” in Wundt Studies (above, n. 27), pp. 33–41. Much of the large and growing East German literature on Wundt is concerned with his views on experimental research. See, e.g., Vorwerg, Manfred, “Wilhelm Wundt und die Stellung der Psychologie im System der Wissenschaften,” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 185 (1975): 337–50Google Scholar, and Sprung, Lothar, “Wilhelm Wundt: Bemerkenswertes und Bedenkliches aus seinem Lebenswerk,” in Eckhardt, Georg, ed., Zur Geschichte der Psychologie (Berlin, GDR., 1979), pp. 73–84.Google Scholar

30. Wundt, Wilhelm, “Das Institut für experimentelle Psychologie,” in Festschrift zur Feier des 500jährigen Bestehens der Universität Leipzig (Leipzig, 1909), 4: 118–33, esp. 131–32.Google Scholar Cf. Wundt, , “Psychophysik und experimentelle Psychologie,” in Lexis, Wilhelm, ed., Die Deutschen Universitäten: Für die Universitätsausstellung in Chicago, 1893 (Berlin, 1893), esp. pp. 454–55.Google Scholar Here Wundt also mentions that the membership of the Institute had recently reached twenty-five, which he calls the “maximum acceptable.”

31. Mischel, Theodore, “Wundt and the Conceptual Foundations of Psychology,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31 (1970): 1–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Blumenthal, Arthur, “A Reappraisal of Wilhelm Wundt,” American Psychologist 30 (1975): 1081–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Danziger, Kurt, “Wundt's Psychological Experiment in the Light of His Philosophy of Science,” Psychological Research 42 (1980): 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Marilyn E. Marshall and Russel A. Wendt, “Wilhelm Wundt, Spiritism, and the Assumptions of Science,” in Wundt Studies (above, n. 27), pp. 158–75. The use of the term “experimental psychology” remained ambiguous throughout the late nineteenth century. The first German Society for Experimental Psychology was, in fact, dedicated to psychical research. See Kurzweg, Adolf, Die Geschichte der Berliner “Gesellschaft für Experimental-Psychologie” mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Ausgangssituation und des Wirkens von Max Dessoir (diss. med., Free University of Berlin, 1976).Google Scholar

33. Tinker, Miles A., “Wundt's Doctorate Students and Their Theses, 1875–1920,” American Journal of Psychology 44 (1932): 630–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Reprinted in Wundt Studies, pp. 269–79.

34. The most accurate contemporary account of Wundt's philosophy in English is Judd, C. H., “Wundt's System of Philosophy,” Philosophical Review 6 (1897): 370–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; a more complete German account is König, Edmund, Wilhelm Wundt als Psycholog und Philosoph, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1902).Google Scholar An attempt to study Wundt's psychology in light of his philosophical system is in Klein, D. B., A History of Scientific Psychology (New York, 1970).Google Scholar

35. Eschler, Erhard, “Wilhelm Wundt und das wissenschaftliche Weltbild seiner Zeit,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 19 (1971): 1250–65, esp. p. 1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Métraux, Alexandre, “Wilhelm Wundt und die Institutionalisierung der Psychologie,” Psychologische Rundschau 31 (1980): 84–98.Google Scholar

36. Wundt, Erlebtes, p. 305. Wundt apparently said once in a letter that university recognition of his institute came only after he was offered a chair at Breslau. Bringmann, Balance, and Evans (above, n. 27), p. 293. Elsewhere he implied that the founding of the Philosophische Studien had been the catalyst. Wundt, “Das Institut für experimentelle Psychologie,” p. 119.

37. Wundt, by his own count, had had seventeen assistants by 1909. Of these, five ended up teaching at Leipzig, four in foreign countries, and only three—Oswald Külpe, Ernst Dürr, and Ernst Meumann—obtained permanent positions in other Germanspeaking universities. The others apparently did not go into psychology. See Wundt, “Das Institut für experimentelle Psychologie,” pp. 118–19, 121–22. The picture improves slightly when we add those scholars who wrote their Habilitationschrift (a second major piece of research after the doctorate) with Wundt, not all of whom served as his assistants. Of the thirteen such scholars listed by Ben-David and Collins (op. cit., p. 456), six ended up teaching either in Leipzig or in foreign countries, and six—including Külpe and Dürr—obtained positions elsewhere in Germany. The single borderline case is Hugo Münsterberg, who left a position at Freiburg to go to Harvard.

38. Ross, Dorothy, “On the Origins of Psychology,” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 467.Google Scholar For contemporary evidence on specialization in philosophy, see Baumann, Julius, “Philosophie,” in Lexis, , ed., Die Deutschen Universitäten, 1: 427–49.Google Scholar

39. An excellent case in point is the list of names assembled for the masthead of the first issue of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane in 1890. Included were the physiologists Hermann Aubert, Sigmund Exner, Johannes von Kries, Ewald Hering, and the illustrious former physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz.

40. That research and teaching assistantships fulfilled these functions in many fields by the turn of the century is shown by Bock, op. cit. Both Bock and von Ferber (op. cit., p. 86) deemphasize the financial aspect, suggesting that private income and support from family members were more significant. The younger psychologists, however, seem to have needed the money. Friedrich Schumann, for example, was assistant first to G. E. Müller in Göttingen and then to Carl Stumpf in Berlin for nearly twenty years and required a supplementary stipend in addition to his salary for much of that time. Boring, A History of Experimental Psychology, p. 370; Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Dienststelle Merseburg (GDR), Kultusministerium, Rep. 76 Va Sekt. 2 Tit. X Nr. 150 Bnd. 1 Bl. 26–27.

41. Sommer, Robert, “Zur Geschichte der Kongresse für experimentelle Psychologie,” in Kafka, Gustav, ed., Bericht über den XII. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie … 1931 (Jena, 1932), P. 9.Google Scholar

42. Hagstrom, Warren O. would probably call this an example of the formation of a scientific community by “dispersion and isolation.” The Scientific Community (New York, 1965), pp. 224–25.Google Scholar Other sociologists call the process of “migration” to a new method or problem area and the formation of networks of scientists to discuss common problems and findings “branching.” Mulkay, Michael J., “Three Models of Scientific Development,” The Sociological Review 23 (1975): 509–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar An example of informal networks for the exchange of personnel is the succession of assistants Carl Stumpf engaged for the Psychological Institute in Berlin from G. E. Müller's institute in Göttingen, a “traffic” which was apparently viewed as normal by the younger psychologists involved. See David Katz's autobiography in Boring, E. G., Langfeld, H. S., Werner, Heinz, and Yerkes, R. M., eds., A History of Psychology in Autobiography, 4 (New York, 1968; reprint ed., 1952): 196.Google Scholar

43. Schumann, Friedrich, ed., Bericht über den I. Kongress für experimentelle Psychologie … 1904 (Leipzig, 1904), p. xxiii.Google Scholar

44. Kurt Danziger provides an excellent discussion of the new experimentalists' theoretical views, especially those of Külpe and Ebbinghaus, , in “The Positivist Repudiation of Wundt,” Jour. Hist. Behav. Sci. 15 (1979): 5–30.Google Scholar In view of Ebbinghaus's own statement about his views, however (cited below), and of Külpe's later attempt to develop a realistic metaphysics from his own and his students' experimental results, perhaps it is inappropriate to group all of these scientists under the same philosophical rubric.

45. For the fiscal and other considerations behind the officials behavior, see Ringer, Mandarins, P. 53. For their doubts about psychology see, e.g., Riese (above, n. 13), p. 110.

46. Von Ferber, op. cit., pp. 54–57.

47. Stumpf, Carl, Über den psychologischen Ursprung der Raumvorstellung (Leipzig, 1873)Google Scholar; Tonpsychologie (Leipzig, vol. 1, 1883, vol. 2, 1890).Google Scholar The most extensive account of Stumpf's life is his autobiography, in Schmidt, R., ed., Die Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, 5 (Leipzig, 1924): 205–65Google Scholar, trans, in Murchison, Carl, ed., A History of Psychology in Autobiography, 1 (Worcester, Mass., 1930): 389–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a general discussion of Stumpf's psychological work see Boring, op. cit., pp. 362–71; for Stumpf's treatment of Lotze's theory of space perception, see Woodward, William R., “From Association to Gestalt: The Fate of Hermann Lotze's Theory of Spatial Perception, 1846–1920,” Isis 69 (1979): 572–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Stumpf, Carl, “Psychologie und Erkenntnistheorie,” Abhandl. der königl. bayr. Akad. der Wiss., I. Kl. 19 (1891): 501–2.Google Scholar Stumpf later extended this two-tiered conceptual framework to embrace all of the sciences in “Zur Einteilung der Wissenschaften,” Abhandl. der königl. Preuss. Akad. der Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., 1906, no. 5 (reprint dated 1907).

49. Stumpf, “Psychologie und Erkenntnistheorie,” p. 508.

50. Dilthey, Wilhelm, “Beiträge zur Lösung der Frage vom Ursprung unseres Glaubens an die Realität der Aussenwelt und seinem Recht” (1890), in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 5, ed. Misch, Georg (1923; 6th ed., Göttingen, 1974), pp. 90–138Google Scholar; Stumpf, “Psychologie und Erkenntnistheorie,” pp. 507–8, n. 1.

51. Dilthey, , “Ideen über beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie” (1894) in Gesammelte Schriften, 5: 139–240, esp. p. 151.Google Scholar For the role of this essay in Dilthey's intellectual development, see Makkreel, Rudolf A., Dilthey: Philosopher of the Human Studies (Princeton, N.J., 1975), esp. pp. 52ff.Google Scholar

52. Dilthey, “Ideen,” p. 139. Dilthey ascribes to “explanatory” psychology a “dominant” role in “the general spirit of the times” (note to p. 145). References to the “dominance” (Herrschaft), the “power,” and the “materialistic tendency” of this psychology appear throughout the text.

53. Dilthey, “Ideen,” p. 199.

54. Ibid., pp. 144, 193.

55. Briefwechsel zwischen Wilhelm Dilthey und dem Grafen Paul Yorck von Wartenburg 1877–1897 (Halle, 1923).Google Scholar No. 94, Yorck to Dilthey, Sept. 2, 1892: “The question of space leads me to Stumpf. You will not get him to Berlin, so long as Helmholtz lives.” No. 121, Dilthey to Yorck, Oct. 13, 1895, after an angry passage criticizing Wundt for only mentioning him once in a long section of one of his works devoted to the concept of inner experience: “to do this, as is his habit—naturally because I arranged Stumpf's appointment!”

56. Ibid., no. 107, Dilthey to Yorck, Nov. 1, 1893.

57. For the recommendations of the philosophical faculty, dated July 13, 1893, see Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Rep. 76 Va Sekt. 2 Tit. IV Nr. 61 Bnd. 6 Bl. 193–208.

58. Althoff to Miquel, August 10, 1893, Zent. Staatsarchiv, Rep. 76 Va Sekt. 2 Tit. X Nr. 150 Bnd. 1 Bl. 13–14.

59. Stumpf to Althoff, Sept. 14 and Sept. 28, 1893, Zent. Staatsarchiv, Rep. 76 Va Sekt. 2 Tit. IV Nr. 61 Bnd. 6 Bl. 298–301; Stumpf to Althoff, Oct. 9, 1893, ibid., Bl. 303.

60. Dilthey to Althoff, Oct. 10, 1893; Althoff to Dilthey, Oct. 13; Stumpf to Althoff, Oct. 14; Dilthey to Althoff, Oct. 15, Zent. Staatsarchiv, ibid., Bl. 305–7, 309–11.

61. Althoff to Stumpf, Oct. 17, 1893, Zent. Staatsarchiv, ibid., Bl. 314.

62. Stumpf to Althoff, Oct. 20, 1893, Zent. Staatsarchiv, ibid., Bl. 317–20. Emphasis mine. “The Americans” were American students of Wundt who had returned to organize similar laboratories in their homeland.

63. Althoff to Stumpf, Oct. 22; Stumpf to Althoff, Oct. 25, Zent. Staatsarchiv, ibid., Bl. 321–22, 245.

64. Agreement Althoff-Stumpf, Dec. 12, 1893, Zent. Staatsarchiv, ibid., Bl. 327–29.

65. Universitätsarchiv der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Chronik der Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität zu Berlin, Sommersemester 1894 et seq.

66. Petitions were made in 1898, 1900, 1906, 1907, 1911, and 1913. Zent. Staatsarchiv, Rep. 76 Va Sekt. 2 Tit. X Nr. 150 Bnd. 1, Bl. 94–97, 126–32, 252–57, esp. 306–13; Bnd. 2, Bl. 123–26, 159–61, 215–17.

67. Stumpf to Ministerium, Oct. 7, 1907, Zent. Staatsarchiv, ibid., Bnd. 1, Bl. 306. For published Statements of the same kind, see Stumpf, Carl, Die Wiedergeburt der Philosophie (Leipzig, 1908).Google Scholar

68. Another factor was Stumpf's increasing interest in ethnomusicology, shown by his founding of the Phonogrammarchiv, a collection of Edison cylinders recording music of primitive peoples, and in his book Die Anfänge der Musik (Leipzig, 1911).Google Scholar Stumpf did manage to continue his researches on the psychology of hearing after his retirement. See Die Sprachlaute: Experimentell-phonetische Untersuchungen nebst einem Anhang über Instrumental-Klänge (Berlin, 1926).Google Scholar

69. Stumpf, Carl, “Das psychologische Institut,” in Lenz, Max, Geschichte der königl. Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität zu Berlin, vol. 3, Wissenschaftliche Anstalten (Halle, 1910), p. 203.Google Scholar

70. Boring, A History, pp. 370 and 382, mentions Max Meyer, Kurt Koffka, and Wolfgang Köhler as doctoral students of Stumpf who became psychologists. Adding the names of Herbert Langfeld, Adhemar Gelb, Johannes von Allesch, and Kurt Lewin yields a total of seven. Five of these men later became professors in German universities, two of them—Köhler and Lewin—at Berlin. As might be expected from the statement just quoted, assistants and others who did important work in Stumpf's institute were more numerous—at least eight in all. Of these, four went on to do psychological research and teaching in Germany, two in Berlin. This yields, then, a total of eleven psychologists “produced” in Stumpf's twenty-seven-year tenure at Berlin.

71. Manegold, Karl-Heinz, Universität, Technische Hochschule und Industrie: Ein Beitrag zur Emanzipation der Technik im 19. Jahrhundert unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bestrebungen Felix Kleins (Berlin, 1970)Google Scholar; “Das Verhältnis von Naturwissenschaft und Technik im 19. Jahrhundert im Spiegel der Wissenschaftsorganisation,” in Treue, Wilhelm and Mauel, Kurt, eds., Naturwissenschaft, Technik und Wirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1976), pp. 253–83.Google Scholar

72. On Müller's career see Boring, A History, pp. 371–79 and 382–83, and Katz, David, “Georg Elias Müller,” Acta Psychologica 1 (1935): 234–40.Google Scholar

73. Stumpf to Althoff, Feb. 2, 1894, Zent. Staatsarchiv, Althoff correspondence, Rep. 92 Althoff B Nr. 182 Bnd. 4 Bl. 38.

74. Spiegelberg, Herbert, Phenomenology in Psychology and Psychiatry (Evanston, Ill., 1972), p. 34.Google Scholar Helmuth Plessner states that it was Dilthey again who put in a word for Husserl with Althoff after reading Husserl's Logical Investigations in 1901. Plessner, Helmuth, Husserl in Göttingen: Rede zur Feier des hundertsten Geburtstages Edmund Husserls (Göttingen, 1959), P. 6.Google Scholar

75. David Katz (above, n. 42), p. 198, and Spiegelberg, pp. 40ff.

76. Ebbinghaus, Hermann, “Die Psychologie jetzt und vor hundert Jahren,” in IV⁶ Congrés Internationale de Psychologie (Paris, 1901), pp. 49–60.Google Scholar On Ebbinghaus, see Jaensch, E. R., “Hermann Ebbinghaus,” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 51 (1909): i–viiiGoogle Scholar, and Shakow, David, “Hermann Ebbinghaus,” American Journal of Psychology 42 (1930): 503–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77. This has been strongly implied by Friedhart Klix, in “Hermann Ebbinghaus: Ursprünge und Anfang psychologischer Forschung an der Berliner Universität,” in Eckardt, (above, n. 29), pp. 85–109. Klix offers no evidence for this suggestion, however.

78. Recommendations of the philosophical faculty, cited above, n. 57.

79. Stumpf to Althoff, Feb. 2, 1894, cited above, n. 73.

80. Jaensch, op. cit.

81. Attacks upon “empiricism,” “positivism,” and “materialism,” directed especially against representatives of experimental or technical fields, became common in Germany from the 1890s onward, both inside and outside the academy. See Ringer, Mandarins, pp. 295–304, esp. 298–99.

82. Ebbinghaus, Hermann, “Über erklärende und beschreibende Psychologie,” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 6 (1896): 161–205.Google Scholar

83. Ebbinghaus to Dilthey, Oct. 27, 1895, quoted in Dilthey, Gesammelte Schriften, 5: 423.

84. Ebbinghaus, Hermann, Abriss der Psychologie (1908), 4th ed. (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

85. Ibid., p. 4.

86. Goldschmidt, R. H., “Bericht über den V. Kongress der Gesellschaft für experimentelle Psychologie,” Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie 24 (1912): 71–97, esp. p. 96.Google Scholar

87. For Külpe's career and philosophy see the necrology by Baeumker, Clemens, Jahrb. der königl. bayr. Akad. der Wiss. (Munich, 1916); 73–107Google Scholar, and Lindenfeld, David, “Oswald Külpe and the Würzburg School,” Jour. Hist. Behav. Sci. 14 (1978): 132–41.3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

88. For examples of this trend see Pfetsch, op. cit., Burchardt, op. cit., and Kluke, Paul, Die Stiftungsuniversität Frankfurt am Main 1914–1932 (Frankfurt a.M., 1972).Google Scholar

89. Külpe, Oswald, “Psychologie und Medizin,” Zeitschrift für Pathopsychologie 1 (1912): 266–67.Google Scholar For a more detailed discussion of the arguments in this essay, see my article “Wilhelm Wundt and Oswald Külpe on the Institutional Status of Psychology: An Academic Controversy in Historical Context,” in Wundt Studies (above, n. 27), pp. 396–421, esp. pp. 403–6.

90. Baeumker, op. cit., p. 88.

91. The text of the philosophers’ petition is translated in Ash, op. cit., pp. 407–8.

92. Wundt, “Die Psychologie” (above, n. 2), p. 528. A more detailed presentation of Wundt's argument is in Ash, op. cit., pp. 409–13.

93. Wundt, “Die Psychologie,” p. 533.

94. Ibid., p. 543.

95. Ibid.

96. Külpe, Oswald, “Philosophie,” in Deutschland unter Kaiser Wilhelm II (Berlin, 1914), 3: 9.Google Scholar

97. Marbe, Karl, “Die Stellung und Behandlung der Psychologie an den deutschen Universitäten,” in Bühler, Karl, ed., Bericht über den VII. Kongress der Gesellschaft für experimentelle Psychologie …. 1921 (Jena, 1922), pp. 150ff.Google Scholar

98. The quotation is taken from an interview conducted by the author with Prof. Edwin Rausch in Frankfurt a.M., Sept. 22, 1978. Rausch states that he was told this story by Schumann in the 1930s.

99. Von Ferber, op. cit., table II, Blatt 6, p. 207.

100. Dorsch, Friedrich, Geschichte und Probleme der angewandte Psychologie (Bern, 1963), chap. 3.Google Scholar The institutional developments are depicted most clearly in the chronological table, pp. 225ff. See also Jaeger, Siegfried and Staeuble, Irmingard, “Die Psychotechnic und ihre gesellschaftliche Entwicklungsbedingungen,” in Die Psychologie im 20. Jahrhundert, vol. 13, ed. Stoll, François (Zurich, 1980), pp. 53–95.Google Scholar

101. Eckardt, Georg, “Die Gründung der Psychologischen Anstalt in Jena (1923),” Wiss. Zeits, der Fr.-Schiller-Univ. Jena, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 22 (1973): 517–59.Google Scholar This is an excellent study based on thorough archival research.

102. For these figures, see Minerva: Jahrbuch der gelehrten Welt 25 (1921): 73.Google Scholar In the same year, the combined budgets of the Psychological Institute and the Psychophysical Seminar at Leipzig totalled 3,750 marks. Ibid., p. 522. Since the budgets of Berlin's other scientific institutes remained the same as they had been before the First World War, despite the severe inflation which had occurred in the meantime, it might be most accurate to say that the Psychological Institute's budget was cut the least, in real terms. Later evidence indicates, however, that the jump in the institute's figure was not an adjustment for inflation but a reflection of the cost of maintaining its much larger physical plant. Zent. Staatsarchiv, Rep. 76 Va Sekt. 2 Tit. X Nr. 150 Bnd. 3 Bl. 154.

103. This figure comes from a count made by the author. Counted as psychologyoriented faculty were Carl Stumpf, Wolfgang Köhler, Max Wertheimer, Kurt Lewin, Johannes v. Allesch, and Hans Rupp, the head of the institute's department of applied psychology.

104. Watson, Goodwin, “Psychology in Germany and Austria,” Psychological Bulletin 31 (1934): 755–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105. Spranger, Eduard, “Die Frage nach der Einheit der Psychologie,” Sitzungsber. der Berliner Akad. der Wiss. 24 (1926): 199.Google Scholar

106. Spranger, Eduard, Lebensformen: Geisteswissenschaftliche Psychologie und Ethik der Persönlichkeit (1913), 3rd ed. (Halle, 1922)Google Scholar, “Vorwort.” A similarly worded attack on “natural-scientific” psychology is Tumarkin, Anna, “Wie ist Psychologie als Wissenschaft möglich?” Kant Studien 26 (1921): 390–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Fritz Ringer locates Spranger's views within the “crisis of culture” mood dominant in academia during the Weimar period, in Mandarins, esp. pp. 352–66, 380–82, 401–18.

107. Bühler, Karl, Die Krise der Psychologie (Jena, 1927), chaps. 8 and 13.Google Scholar

108. “Kundgebung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie: Über die Pflege der Psychologie an den deutschen Hochschulen,” in Vokelt, Hans, ed., Bericht über den XI. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie … 1929 (Jena, 1930), p. vii.Google Scholar

109. Ibid., p. viii.

110. Geuter, Ulfried, “Der 13. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie 1933.” Psychologie- und Gesellschaftskritik 3 (1979), no. 12: 6–28.Google Scholar Geuter is currently preparing a dissertation at the Free University of Berlin on psychology in Nazi Germany.

111. Thomae, Hans, Psychologie in der modernen Gesellschaft (Hamburg, 1977), p. 168.Google Scholar