JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES

IN

HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor

    History is past Politics and Politics present History--_Freeman_


NINTH SERIES

III-IV

The History of University Education in Maryland

By BERNARD C. STEINER, A.M. (Yale)

_Fellow in History_


The Johns Hopkins University (1876-1891)


By DANIEL C. GILMAN, LL.D.

_President of the University_

_With Supplementary Notes on University Extension and the University of
the Future, by R.G. Moulton, A.M., Cambridge, England_

BALTIMORE

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS

MARCH-APRIL, 1891




CONTENTS.

  THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN MARYLAND:
    Colonial Attempts to found a College
    The First University of Maryland
    The Second University of Maryland
    Cokesbury College
    Asbury College
    Other Extinct Colleges
      Mount Hope College
      The College of St. James
      Newton University
    Roman Catholic Colleges
      St. Mary's Seminary
      Mount St. Mary's College
      St. Charles's College
      Loyola College
      Rock Hill College
    Western Maryland College
    Female Education
      The Baltimore Female College
      Woman's College of Baltimore
    Conclusion

  THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY (1876-1891):
    Foundation
    Preliminary Organization
    Inaugural Assembly
    Address of President Eliot
    Inaugural Address of the First President
    The Faculty
    Distinction between Collegiate and University Courses
    Students, Courses of Studies, and Degrees
    Publications, Seminaries, Societies
    Buildings, Libraries, and Collections
    Statistics
    Trustees

  UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE




THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN MARYLAND.

BY BERNARD C. STEINER.


COLONIAL ATTEMPTS TO FOUND A COLLEGE.

The State of Maryland has been almost extravagantly liberal in bestowing
charters on colleges and professional schools. Over forty such charters
have been given by the legislature and, in many cases, the result has
proved that the gift of a charter was not warranted by the stability of
the institution, to which was thus granted the power of conferring
degrees. In many other cases, however, the institutions have grown and
flourished, and have had an honorable history.

Collegiate education in Maryland did not begin until after the
Revolution. In the colonial period there was no demand for it sufficient
to warrant the establishment of a seat of higher learning. For this
state of things there were several causes. The majority of the early
settlers were planters and frontiersmen, having little need for an
extended education and desiring it still less. Of the wealthier classes,
some were like the fox-hunting English gentry, caring for little else
than sport; and others, who did desire the advantages of a culture
higher than that obtainable from a village schoolmaster or a private
tutor, found it elsewhere. They went over to William and Mary's College
in Virginia, across the ocean to England, or, in case of some Catholics
like Charles Carroll, to the institutions on the continent of Europe.

But, though no college was established in colonial times, there was no
lack of plans and attempts for one. In 1671, while as yet Harvard was
the only American college, there was read and passed in the Upper House
of the Assembly "An Act for the founding and Erecting of a School or
College within this Province for the Education of Youth in Learning and
Virtue." The Lower House amended and passed the bill; but the plan seems
never to have progressed further. According to the bill the Lord
Proprietor was "to Set out his Declaration of what Privileges and
Immunities shall be Enjoyed by the Schollars;" and "the Tutors or School
Masters" were to be of "the reformed Church of England" or, if two in
number, to be "the one for the Catholick and other for the Protestants'
Children."[1]

A second collegiate plan was brought before the legislature in 1732;
but, having passed the Upper House, was seemingly not acted on by the
Lower. This proposed college was intended to be placed at Annapolis and
was to offer instruction in "theology, law, medicine, and the higher
branches of a collegiate education." The governor of the colony was to
be its chancellor and provision was made for a faculty of five, under
whom students were to be instructed in everything from their alphabet
upwards.[2]

A third unsuccessful attempt to secure the founding of a college was
made in 1761,[3] and a fourth in 1763, when contrary to the earlier
course of events, the rock, on which the project was shipwrecked, was
found in the Upper House. The college was to be placed at Annapolis, to
occupy Governor Bladen's mansion, and to have a faculty of seven
masters, who were to be provided with five servants. The expense was to
be defrayed from the colonial treasury, in case a tax to be levied on
bachelors should prove insufficient for the purpose.[4]

The failure of these projects did not dampen the zeal of the advocates
of higher education. In 1773 we find William Eddis, Surveyor of Customs
at Annapolis, writing that the Legislature of the Province had
determined to fit up Governor Bladen's mansion and "to endow and form a
college for the education of youth in every liberal and useful branch of
science," which college, "conducted under excellent regulations, will
shortly preclude the necessity of crossing the Atlantic for the
completion of a classical and polite education."[5] The gathering storm
of war, however, drew men's attention away from this project.


THE FIRST UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.

The Rev. Dr. William Smith,[6] head of what is now the University of
Pennsylvania, being out of employment on account of the revocation of
that college's charter, was called as pastor in Chestertown on the
Eastern Shore in 1780. To add to his income, he conceived the idea "of
opening a school for instruction in higher branches of education." As a
nucleus for his school, he took an old academy, the Kent County school,
and, beginning the work of teaching, was so successful, that in 1782 the
Legislature, on his application, granted the school a charter as
Maryland's first college. To it the name of _Washington_ was given, "in
honorable and perpetual memory of His Excellency, General George
Washington." Dr. Smith was so earnest and zealous in the presentation of
the claims of the college, that in five years he had raised $14,000 from
the people of the Eastern Shore. All seemed propitious for the college.
In 1783 the first class graduated and the first degrees ever granted in
Maryland were conferred, at the same time the corner-stone of the
college building was laid, and in 1784 General Washington himself
visited the college.

Dr. Smith prepared a three years' curriculum for the institution, equal
to that of any college of the day and similar to the one used at the
University of Pennsylvania. But the Western Shore could not endure that
the educational success of its rival section of the State should so far
outstrip its own. In the early days of the State, the sections were
nearly equal in importance and the prevailing dualism of the political
system invaded the field of education.

In 1784, two years after the founding of Washington College, _St. John's
College_ was chartered.[7] It was to be placed at Annapolis, and in it
was merged the old county Academy, "King William's School," founded some
eighty years before. By the same act, the two colleges were united in
the _University of Maryland_. This University was modeled on the English
type: the governor was to be its chancellor, and the governing body was
to be the "Convocation of the University of Maryland." The convocation
was to be composed of seven members of the Board of Visitors and
Governors and two of the faculty of each college; it was to establish
ordinances for the government of the colleges, to cause a uniformity in
the "manners and literature," to receive appeals from the students, and
to confer "the higher degrees and honors of the University." Its
meetings were to be annual, and to be held alternately at each college
on its commencement day.

The provisions of the act were never carried out; two fruitless attempts
were made to hold sessions of Convocation in 1790 and 1791, and then
nothing was even attempted. So thoroughly was the project forgotten,
that the Legislature of 1805, in withdrawing the State appropriations
from the two colleges, did not even mention the University, and in 1812,
though the old charter had never been repealed, there was no hesitation
in bestowing the name of University of Maryland on a second
institution.[8]

The two colleges which constituted this first University are still
existing and doing good work. The elder, Washington College, lost Dr.
Smith in 1788 by his return to Philadelphia and re-accession to his old
position there. He was succeeded by Rev. Colin Ferguson, a native of
Kent county, and educated at Edinburgh University. Under him the college
continued to flourish, until the withdrawal of the State's appropriation
in 1805. The constitutionality of this withdrawal is questionable, as
the original grant was to be paid annually "forever;" but the State
refused to permit itself to be sued by the college and, some years
later, on increasing its appropriation to the college, the legislature
required a release of all claims on the State under the original act.

By the act of 1805, the activity of the college was paralyzed and its
usefulness much impaired. It had not yet become strong enough to stand
alone and, when the helping hand of the State was taken away, it was
almost obliged to close its doors to students. Since that time the State
has renewed its grants to the college and has greatly aided it in
performing its functions; but from the disastrous effects of the act of
1805, the institution has never fully recovered.

Indeed, from 1805 to 1816, nothing but a grammar school seems to have
been maintained in the college building. In the latter year, however,
the college was re-opened, since the legislature had granted it a
lottery of $30,000. A year later Rev. Dr. Francis Waters became
"Principal," and under his able leadership the college bid fair to
regain its old position; but in 1827 a second great misfortune overtook
it. On January 11, 1827, the college building was discovered to be on
fire, and, in spite of the most zealous efforts, was entirely consumed.
After this misfortune the college proper seems to have been suspended a
second time, and only a grammar school maintained with one instructor.
The classes were conducted in a building intended originally for a
rectory, until that was destroyed by fire in 1839, when the school was
again moved.

Richard W. Ringgold, the principal of the school from 1832 to 1854,
seems to have been a man of ability, and under him the number of
students so much increased that in 1843 it was resolved to rebuild the
college on the old site and to revive the college course. As a result,
the present main building was erected, the corner-stone laid with
imposing ceremonies on May 4, 1844, and the college was reopened in its
own edifice on January 1, 1845. In 1849, a class of four was graduated,
and in 1854, two additional buildings were erected; one for the
Principal's residence and the other for dormitories and recitation
rooms.

The college continued prosperous during the second administration of
Rev. Dr. Waters from 1854 to 1860; but in the presidency of his
successor, Rev. Andrew J. Sutton, came the Civil War, depriving the
college of its Southern constituency and distracting men's minds from
learning. After the Rebellion, an unfortunate selection of teachers and
laxness of discipline caused the college to lose still more ground, and
Wm. J. Rivers, Principal from 1873 to 1887, had much to do to build it
up again. He was a faithful and diligent teacher, and under him the
moral tone of the college was improved and the course of instruction
enlarged. The present head, C.W. Reid, Ph.D., is still further advancing
the cause of the institution and a new career of prosperity seems
opening before Maryland's oldest college and the only one on the Eastern
Shore of the Chesapeake Bay.

St. John's College, like its sister institution, founded on a
non-denominational basis, started out under even fairer auspices.[9] It
was granted, by the State, Governor Bladen's mansion and four acres of
land surrounding it, was made heir to the funds of King William's
School, and secured £9,000 from private beneficence in the first two
years of its history. The Bladen mansion, now known as McDowell Hall,
was repaired and enlarged and, on August 11, 1789, Bishop Carroll was
elected president of the Board of Visitors and Governors and Dr. John
McDowell accepted the Professorship of Mathematics. After unsuccessful
attempts to obtain a principal from England, Dr. McDowell was chosen to
that position in the following year and continued in office, until the
State withdrew its aid to the college in 1805. He was a man of great
learning and was very successful at St. John's and later at the
University of Pennsylvania as provost. Under him, St. John's flourished
greatly and many men of a national reputation were enrolled among its
students, from the time the first class graduated in 1793.

The same disaster fell on St. John's, as on Washington College. The
Legislature withdrew the annual grant given by the State. The same doubt
as to the constitutionality of this withdrawal existed here, and the
State confirmed its position in the same way, by increasing its
appropriation in 1832,[10] on condition of the college's accepting it in
full satisfaction of all claims against the State under the original
charter. Of late years Maryland has been quite generous to St. John's,
but it has never quite recovered the station and prestige it lost by the
taking away of the State's grant in 1805.

In the first despair over the Act of the Legislature, the Visitors and
Governors voted to discontinue the college, but their courage soon
returned and the Rev. Bethel Judd, elected principal in 1807, was able
to graduate a class in 1810. After his withdrawal in 1812, matters were
in a disturbed state for some years and no classes were graduated until
1822, when Rev. Henry L. Davis, the father of Maryland's famous orator,
Henry Winter Davis, was principal. After that year there were no
graduates until 1827, when Rev. William Rafferty was head of the
college. The struggle for existence was a hard one and the wonder is
that the college succeeded as well as it did.

With 1831, however, began a third and more successful period in the
history of St. John's. In that year the Rev. Hector Humphreys, then only
thirty-four years of age, was chosen president. He was a native of
Connecticut and a graduate of Yale College in 1818, and was called to
St. John's from the professorship of Ancient Languages at Washington
(Trinity) College in his native State. The effect of his energy and
devotion was soon recognized, and, largely through his efforts, was
passed the compromise of 1832. The curriculum was enlarged, the
instruction made more thorough, and classes were yearly graduated, with
but six exceptions, until his death in 1857. His energy was very great,
his learning wide and accurate. In 1834, after travelling about the
State in the interests of the college, he succeeded in raising about
$11,000, which were used in the erection of a second building for the
college, which most appropriately has since been called by his name.
During his administration, the professors' houses were also built, as
was Pinkney Hall, a third building for the use of the college. Dr.
Humphreys also secured cabinets and philosophical apparatus for the
college and gave instruction in Political Economy, Latin and Greek,
Chemistry, Geology, Natural Philosophy, Astronomy, Composition,
Elocution, Evidences of Christianity, Moral and Intellectual Philosophy,
Rhetoric, and Logic. Verily, an encyclopaedic man of vast industry! Only
four years after Dr. Humphreys' death the War of the Rebellion broke
out, and St. John's, unlike the temple of Janus, closed its doors at the
rumors of war. The buildings were used as an hospital, and not until
1866 was the college again reopened with the well-known educator, Henry
Barnard, at its head. In less than a year he resigned to become the
first United States Commissioner of Education, and neither he nor his
successor, Dr. James C. Welling, who was principal until 1870, was able
to graduate a class. Since the beginning of the administration of the
next principal, James M. Garnett, LL. D., the succession of classes has
been unbroken and the college has steadily advanced in reputation and
usefulness. Dr. Garnett made the English department especially excellent
and, after ten years faithful service, resigned in 1880. The Rev. J.D.
Leavitt, his successor, made a departure from the old classic curriculum
and organized a department of Mechanical Engineering. After he resigned
Prof. W.H. Hopkins acted as principal for a time and introduced military
discipline, having secured the detail of an officer from the United
States Army as instructor in Military Tactics.

St. John's celebrated its centennial in 1889, and has begun its second
century with excellent prospects. The four years' administration of its
present principal, Thomas Fell, LL. D., has been a most successful one,
and St. John's is fulfilling the purpose of its founders "to train up
and perpetuate a succession of able and honest men, for discharging the
various offices and duties of life, both civil and religious, with
usefulness and reputation."


THE SECOND UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.

Most universities have developed from a college; the University of
Maryland differs from them, for it originated in a medical school.[11]

In 1802 Dr. John B. Davidge of Baltimore began a private class in
Medicine and was so successful in it, that, in 1807, he associated with
himself Drs. James Cocke and John Shaw and these three obtained from the
Legislature a charter for the school, under the name of "the College of
Medicine of Maryland."[12] There was made a close connection between the
College of Medicine and the State "Medical and Chirurgical Faculty,"
and its board of medical examiners were made _ex-officio_ members of the
Board of Trustees of the College. The Legislature also granted the
college a lottery of $40,000.[13]

Lectures, which had been carried on at the professors' houses, were
begun in 1808, at a building on the corner of Fayette (Chatham) street
and McClellan's alley, and the first class, consisting of five, received
its degrees in 1810. As the school grew and nourished, the ideas of its
founders become more extensive and, in 1812, a long act was passed,[14]
authorizing "the college for the promotion of medical knowledge" "to
constitute, appoint, and annex to itself the other three colleges or
faculties, viz.: The Faculty of Divinity, the Faculty of Law, and the
Faculty of the Arts and Sciences; and that the four faculties or
colleges thus united, shall be and they are hereby constituted an
university, by the name and under the title of the University of
Maryland." The connection with the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty was
severed and the members of the four faculties, under the name of the
Regents of the University of Maryland, were to have full powers over the
University and be permitted to hold property not exceeding $100,000 in
yearly value.

Each faculty was allowed to appoint its own professors and lecturers, to
choose a dean, and to exercise such powers as the regents shall
delegate. The Faculty of Physic was to be composed of the professors in
the Medical College; that of Theology, of the professor of Theology and
any "six ordained ministers of any religious society or denomination;"
that of Law, of the professor of Law, "together with six qualified
members of the bar;" that of the Arts and Sciences, of the professors in
that department, "together with three of the principals of any three
academies or Colleges of the State." Such a strangely formed and loosely
united body could not succeed, as a more homogeneous and closely
compacted one would have done.

The university was founded "on the most liberal plan, for the benefit
of students of every country and every religious denomination, who shall
be freely admitted to equal privileges and advantages of education, and
to all the honors of the university, according to their merit, without
requiring or enforcing any religious or civil test, urging their
attendance upon any particular plan of religious worship or service."
With these broad powers and provisions,[15] "the Faculty of Phisick,
late of the College of Medicine of Maryland, *** convened and, by the
authority vested in it by said charter and with the advice and
recommendations of learned men of the several professions of Divinity,
Law, and the Arts and Sciences, proceeded to annex to itself the other
three faculties." On April 22, 1813, the Hon. Robert Smith, formerly
United States Secretary of State, was chosen the first provost, and the
organization of the regents was completed.[16] A lottery of $30,000 was
granted the University in 1814, and another of $100,000 in 1817.[17]
From the proceeds of these lotteries and other sources was built the
building of the medical department on the corner of Lombard and Greene
streets. It was modelled on the Pantheon at Rome, and, when built, is
said to have been without an equal in America. The medical school grew
extremely fast; a loan of $30,000 from the State in 1822[18] enabled it
to build a practice hall and purchase a fine collection for its museum,
and the University hospital across the street was opened in 1823. In
1824 the number of students in attendance on lectures amounted to 320.
The other faculties took no active steps for some time and, not until
1819, did the regents urge them to proceed to deliver lectures as soon
as possible and to lay before the regents annually a report as to their
progress and condition. In 1823, possibly on account of this vote.
Prof. David Hoffman began the instruction in the Faculty of Law, his
school being known as the "Maryland Law Institute." He published part of
his lecture notes in a book called _Legal Outlines_ and continued
lecturing about ten years. After his withdrawal, the law school was
given up; but the organization of the faculty was still maintained.

The Faculty of Theology reported in 1852 "no active organization of the
faculty has ever been attempted and, in view of the character of the
department contemplated by the charter, none seems desirable." Its only
activity was a course or two of lectures on the Evidences of
Christianity, delivered before the medical students about 1823 by the
Rev. William E. Wyatt, Professor of Theology. A nominal organization of
the faculty was kept up, however, until 1878.

The prosperity of the medical department was destroyed by the effort of
some of its professors, discontented with being prohibited from having
private classes, to have the Legislature do away with the regents and
replace them with a board of trustees, in whom should vest the property.
As early as November 12, 1824, the Regents feared trouble and obtained
from William Wirt, John Purviance and Daniel Webster, a legal opinion
that their position was inexpugnable. With this conclusion the
Legislature did not agree, and on March 6, 1862, an act was passed
abolishing the Regents and appointing a Board of twenty-one Trustees in
their place.[19]

The Trustees, by decree of the courts, obtained control of the property
and forced the professors to accept them as the legal authority. So
matters went on for twelve years, until in 1837, the trustees appointed
a professor personally objectionable to some of the others, who resigned
their positions under the Trustees and opened a separate medical school
in the Indian Queen Hotel at the corner of Baltimore and Hanover
Streets. Few out-of-town students attended either school, for the
quarrel frightened them away, and the Baltimore students largely
attended the Regents' school. Feeling ran high at one time, the Regents
took possession of the University buildings by force, and bloodshed was
feared.

The Board of Regents reorganized with Ashton Alexander, M.D., as
Provost, and employed distinguished counsel to plead the case for them
in the courts. The Legislature authorized the Court of Appeals to try
the suit, and Maryland's Dartmouth College Case was decided in June,
1838, entirely in favor of the Regents. The court held that the act of
1825 was void, since it was "a judicial act, a sentence that condemned
without a hearing. The Legislature has no right, without the assent of a
Corporation, to alter its charter, or take from it any of its franchises
or property." The Trustees would not yield at once and, in March, 1839,
presented a petition to the Legislature, praying it not to pass an act
requiring them to give up the property to the Regents. The memorial was
referred to a joint committee, which reported a bill restoring the
property to the Regents. The bill was enacted and the Regents have since
ruled. During the supremacy of the Trustees, the Faculty of the Arts and
Sciences was organized. They contemplated activity in 1821, and issued a
circular, which drew down on them the wrath of Professor Hoffman,
inasmuch as they "contemplated 'academic' instruction" not intended by
the charter. The founders, he said, intended that instruction should be
conveyed by lectures and that no other form of instruction should be
allowed. The discussion which followed seems to show that he had the
idea of having work carried on, like that done by graduate students
to-day.

But nothing was done, apparently, until Baltimore College was annexed in
1830. That institution was chartered on January 7, 1804,[20] and was the
development of an academy kept by James Priestley, the first president,
on Paul's Lane (St. Paul Street). "It was hoped that it would, together
with the other valuable seminaries of education in the same city and in
the State, become adequate to the wants and wishes of our citizens," and
from the proceeds of a lottery, the grant of which was an easy way for a
State to be benevolent, a plain but convenient building was erected on
Mulberry street.[21]

It is very doubtful if it ever graduated any students, and we learn in
1830 that "the celebrity and, in some cases, the superior existing
advantages of other institutions have prevented the accomplishment of
this object." Still a school had been kept up continuously, and from
time to time, we catch glimpses of its lectures, &c. In January, 1830, a
joint petition of the Trustees of the University of Maryland and of
Baltimore College to the Legislature "proposed the charter of Baltimore
College shall be surrendered to the State, on the condition that the
property belonging to the college shall be invested in the trustees of
the University of Maryland." The petition was granted,[22] and in 1832,
we learn that "the Baltimore College *** has now been merged in the
University of Maryland and constitutes the chair of Ancient
Languages."[23]

On October 1, 1830, the Trustees issued a prospectus, from which we
learn that it was intended "to maintain an institution on the most
enlarged scale of usefulness and responsibility," and that there was a
"necessity for the proposed organization of a department in the
University of Maryland, exclusively collegiate in its system, requiring
an advanced state of classical and scientific attainments for admission
to its lectures, calculated to conduct its pupils through the highest
branches of a liberal education and to afford them advantages similar to
what may be obtained in the distant Universities of this country and
Europe." A course of study equal to that of any college of the country
was announced, and a brilliant Faculty appointed; but the time was not
yet come for a great college in Baltimore and the institution
languished away. In 1843, the Commissioners of Public Schools petitioned
to have it transferred to the city as a High School, and in 1852, it had
only one teacher and 36 scholars, a mere boys' school.

In 1854 it was reorganized as the "School of Letters under the Faculty
of Arts and Sciences," with Rev. E.A. Dalrymple, formerly of the
Episcopal Theological Seminary at Alexandria, as its head. On paper the
course was fairly complete, and the Faculty an able one, and there were
graduates in 1859, '60, '61, and '63. The course was to be a three
years' one; for "the studies of Freshman year will be pursued in the
preparatory department, where experience has shown they may be attended
with greater advantage." Gradually students fell off, it became a mere
boys' school, and finally Dr. Dalrymple was all that was left of the
"School of Letters" and the "Faculty of the Arts and Sciences," and at
his death, both formally became extinct.

With the restoration of the property to the Regents, the classes in the
medical school increased to a size somewhat like that attained in years
previous to 1825, although, owing to the opening of new schools, they
never quite equalled it. During the war of the Rebellion, the school
suffered from the loss of southern patronage; but at its close, students
came back and the school took on fresh life. It has always been in the
front rank; first of all American medical schools it recognized
Gynecology as a separate branch of instruction, and it was second in
making practical Anatomy a compulsory study. With the session of 1891 it
will require a three years' graded course of all candidates for degrees.

In 1850 the Hon. John P. Kennedy, statesman and author, was chosen
provost, and on his death in 1870, the Hon. S. Teackle Wallis was made
his successor and he now fills the office with honor.

The Faculty of Law revived the Law School in the beginning of 1870, with
a class of 25. An efficient faculty has caused a steady increase,
until, in 1890, there were 101 students in the three years' course. The
instruction is given by lectures, examinations, and moot-courts. In
1884, the Law Department moved from its former quarters in the old
Baltimore College building on Mulberry Street, to a new building erected
for it on the University property on Lombard Street, next to the
building of the Medical Department.

In 1882, the University of Maryland obtained from the Legislature
authority to open a Dental Department.[24] In 1837, the first Dental
Lectures in America had been delivered before the Medical Students of
the University, and it was quite fitting that there should be a dental
school connected with it. The first class numbered 60, the last 132, and
in eight years there have been 250 graduates. This fact and the further
one that twice has it been found necessary to make large additions to
the buildings of the department on Green Street, adjoining those of the
Medical School, will show how rapid has been its growth.

The University has, at present, flourishing departments of Medicine,
Law, and Dentistry, and worthily maintains the reputation of thorough
and careful training, which it has gained in its history of eighty
years.


COKESBURY COLLEGE.

In Maryland was the first Methodist Church in America, and it was
natural that here too should be the first Methodist College in the
world. There was no permanent organization of this denomination in the
United States, until John Wesley, on the petition of the American
churches, consecrated Rev. Thomas Coke, Superintendent for the United
States, in 1784. Dr. Coke sailed directly from England, and arrived in
New York on November 3, 1784. He thence traveled southward and, on the
15th of the same month, met Francis Asbury at Dover, Delaware. At this
first meeting, Coke suggested the founding of an institution for higher
education, to be under the patronage of the Methodist Church.[25] This
was not a new idea to Asbury; for, four years previous to this meeting,
John Dickins had made the same suggestion to him. The earlier idea had
contemplated only a school, on the plan of Wesley's at Knightwood,
England, and for that purpose, a subscription had been opened in North
Carolina in 1781.[26]

Coke's suggestion, to have a college, was favorably received and, at the
famous Christmas Conference at Baltimore in 1784, the Church was
formally organized, with Coke and Asbury as Bishops, and the first
Methodist College was founded. Thus the denomination which has increased
to be the largest in the United States, recognized the paramount
importance of education at its very foundation.[27] To the new
institution, the name of Cokesbury was given, in honor of the two
Bishops, from whose names the title was compounded. For this College,
collections were yearly taken, amounting in 1786 to £800 and implying
great self-denial by the struggling churches ill-supplied with
wealth.[28]

As early as January 3, 1785, only two weeks after the College was
decided on, its managers were able to report that £1,057 had been
subscribed, a sum that put the enterprise on a firm footing. The site
was next to be chosen, and Abingdon in Harford County was pitched upon.
Of the 15,000 Methodists in the Union in 1784, over one-third were in
Maryland, and hence, it had the best claim for the College, and the
beauty of the situation of Abingdon charmed Coke so much that he
determined upon placing the College there. It was also a place easy of
access, being on the direct stage line from Baltimore to Philadelphia
and near the Chesapeake Bay. Bishop Coke, the most zealous advocate of
the College, contracted for the building materials; but was prevented
from being present at the laying of the corner-stone. Bishop Asbury,
however, was present and preached a sermon on Psalms 78, verses 4 to
8.[29] In this sermon, "he dwelt on the importance of a thoroughly
religious education, and looked forward to the effects, which would
result to the generality, to come from the streams which should spring
from this opening fountain of sanctified learning." The building was
built of brick, one hundred feet in length and forty in width, faced
east and west, and stood on "the summit and centre of six acres of land,
with an equal proportion of ground on each side." It was said to be in
architecture "fully equal, if not superior, to anything of the kind in
the country." Dormitory accommodations were provided in the building;
but it was intended that "as many of the students as possible, shall be
lodged and boarded in the town of Abingdon among our pious friends,"[30]
Gardening, working in wood in a building called the "Taberna Lignaria,"
bathing under supervision of a master, walking, and riding were the only
outdoor exercises permitted. The students were prohibited "from
indulging in anything which the world calls play. Let this rule be
observed with the strictest nicety; for those who play when they are
young, will play when they are old."

In 1785 the Bishops issued a "Plan for Erecting a College intended to
advance Religion in America." It is quite long and many of its
provisions are very quaint. From it we learn that Cokesbury is intended
"to receive for education and board the sons of the elders and preachers
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, poor orphans, and the sons of the
subscribers and other friends. It will be expected that all our friends,
who send their children to the college, will, if they be able, pay a
moderate sum for their education and board; the others will be taught
and boarded and, if our finances allow it, clothed gratis. The
institution is also intended for the benefit of our young men, who are
called to preach, that they may receive a measure of that improvement,
which is highly expedient as a preparation for public service." Teachers
of ancient languages and of English will be provided, and no necessary
branch of literature shall be omitted. "Above all, especial care shall
be taken that due attention be paid to the religion and morals of the
children, and to the exclusion of all such as continue of an
ungovernable temper." "The expense of such an undertaking will be very
large, and the best means we could think of, at our late conference, to
accomplish our design, was to desire the assistance of all those in
every place who wish well to the cause of God. The students will be
instructed in English, Latin, Greek, logic, rhetoric, history,
geography, natural philosophy, and astronomy. To these languages and
sciences shall be added, when the finances of our college will admit of
it, the Hebrew, French, and German languages. But our first object shall
be, to answer the designs of _Christian_ education, by forming the minds
of the youth, through divine aid, to wisdom and holiness by instilling
into their minds the principles of true religion--speculative,
experimental, and practical--and training them in the ancient way, that
they may be rational, spiritual Christians. We have consented to receive
children of seven years of age, as we wish to have the opportunity of
teaching 'the young idea how to shoot' and gradually forming their
minds, through the divine blessing, almost from their infancy, to
holiness and heavenly wisdom, as well as human learning. We shall
rigidly insist on their rising early in the morning (five a.m.), and we
are convinced by constant observation and experience, that it is of vast
importance, both to body and mind.

"We prohibit play in the strongest terms, and in this we have the two
greatest writers on the subject that, perhaps, any age has produced (Mr.
Locke and Mr. Rousseau) of our sentiments; for, though the latter was
essentially mistaken in his religious system, yet his wisdom in other
respects and extensive genius are indisputably acknowledged. The
employments, therefore, which we have chosen for the recreation of the
students are such as are of greatest public utility:--agriculture and
architecture.

"In conformity to this sentiment, one of the completest poetic pieces of
antiquity (the Georgics of Virgil) is written on the subject of
husbandry; by the perusal of which and submission to the above
regulations, the students may delightfully unite the theory and practice
together."

There is something extremely ludicrous in the idea of making the average
student delight in spending his leisure hours in farming, by means of a
study of the Georgics in the original. But we can hardly laugh at these
men, they were too much in earnest. To return to the circular, "The four
guineas a year for tuition, we are persuaded cannot be lowered, if we
give the students that finished education, which we are determined they
shall have. And, though our principal object is to instruct them in the
doctrines, spirit, and practice of Christianity, yet we trust that our
college will, in due time, send forth men that will be a blessing to
their country in every laudable office and employment of life, thereby
uniting the two greatest ornaments of human beings which are too often
separated: _deep learning_ and _genuine piety_."

As soon as the building was under roof, a preparatory school was opened
and the Trustees applied to John Wesley for a President. He suggested a
Rev. Mr. Heath, and this suggestion was accepted on December 23,
1786.[31] His inauguration occurred a year later and was a grand affair.
Asbury presided on each of the three days of the ceremony, and his text
on the second day, "O man of God, there is death in the pot,"[32] was
looked on by the superstitious, in time to come, as a presage of
disaster. The faculty was filled up and all seemed to bid fair for
prosperity; but Mr. Heath remained in charge of the College less than a
year, resigning because of certain charges of insufficiency, which seem
rather trival. Another professor left to go into business and Asbury's
soul was tried by these "heavy tidings."

The good Bishop was indefatigable in his care of Cokesbury. His visits
were frequent, and while there, he was very active, examining the
pupils, preaching, and arranging the affairs, both temporal and
spiritual. Abingdon became a centre of Methodism, families moved there
to enjoy the educational advantages, and the Conference regularly
visited the College, coming over from Baltimore for that purpose.

Dr. Jacob Hall, of Abingdon, was the second President, and had under him
a faculty of three professors and a chaplain. The school prospered and
had public exhibitions of its students' proficiency from time to time.
It is doubtful if sufficient care was exercised in the expenditure of
money and, in December, 1790, the Trustees felt obliged to contract a
loan of £1000. The charitable contributions fell off, and Asbury was
forced to go from house to house in Baltimore, "through the snow and
cold, begging money for the support of the poor orphans at
Cokesbury."[33] The instruction was good, and Asbury could write to
Coke, then in England, that "one promising young man has gone forth into
the ministry, another is ready, and several have been under awakenings.
None so healthy and orderly as our children, and some promise great
talents for learning."[34] Still, "all was not well there," and on
October 2, 1793, he "found matters in a poor state at college; £500 in
debt, and our employes £700 in arrears." A year later, matters were
desperate and the good Bishop wrote that "we now make a sudden and dead
pause--we mean to incorporate and breathe and take some better plan. If
we can not have a Christian school (_i.e._ a school under Christian
discipline and pious teachers), we will have none."[35] The project of
incorporation was not favored by some, who feared that the College would
not be thereby so directly under the control of the Conference, but was
carried through, and the charter bears date, December 26, 1794.[36] By
it, the institution was allowed to have an income not exceeding £3,000.

How a charter was to avoid increased indebtedness does not appear and
the College's debt had so increased, that the Conference in 1795 decided
to suspend the Collegiate Department and have only an English Free
School kept in the buildings.[37]

Misfortunes never come singly: an unsuccessful attempt to burn the
buildings had been made in the fall of 1788, and now, on December 4,
1795, a completely successful one was made, and the building and its
contents were consumed. Rewards to discover the incendiary were offered
in vain, and Asbury writes:[38] "We have a second and confirmed report
that Cokesbury College is consumed to ashes--a sacrifice of £10,000 in
about ten years. If any man should give me £10,000 to do and suffer
again what I have done for that house, I would not do it. The Lord
called not Mr. Whitefield, nor the Methodists to build colleges. I
wished only for schools; Dr. Coke wanted a college. I feel distressed at
the loss of the library."

Asbury despaired, but Coke did not and, going to work, he raised £1,020
from his friends. After the determination was made to move the College
to Baltimore, the Church there gave £700, and a house to house
solicitation brought in £600 more. A building originally erected for
balls and assemblies was purchased and fitted up. It stood next the old
Light Street Methodist Church and a co-educational school was opened
therein on May 2, 1796. The high course planned for girls is especially
noticeable at this early period. The school opened with promises of
success, and within a month there were nearly 200 scholars.

Fatality pursued the enterprise, however, and a year to a day from the
burning of the first building, this second one was reduced to ashes,
with the adjoining church and several houses.

Asbury writes rather philosophically:[39] "I conclude God loveth the
people of Baltimore, and he will keep them poor to make them pure;" but
even Coke gave up hope at this new disaster, and it was twenty years
before a second Methodist College was attempted.

ASBURY COLLEGE.

This was the second Methodist College in the world, and was organized in
1816, the year of Bishop Asbury's death. After a year or two of
successful work, a charter was applied for and it was granted to the
College February 10, 1818.[40] The President, Samuel K. Jennings, M.D.,
a Methodist local preacher, was a rather remarkable man. Coming from New
Jersey, graduating at Rutgers, and settling in the practice of the
medical profession in Virginia, he was converted by the preaching of
Asbury, and was persuaded by him some years later, to move to Baltimore
and take the leadership of the new enterprise.[41] He was said to be, at
one time, the only Methodist preacher with a collegiate education and
was well adapted to the task, from his administrative ability and wide
learning. Around him, he gathered an undenominational faculty of four
professors and began the life of the institution in a large brick
building on the corner of Park Avenue and Franklin Street. In March,
1818, the _Methodist Magazine_ tells us that there were one hundred and
seventy students, and that "The Asbury College has probably exceeded in
its progress, considering the short time it has been established, any
literary institution in the country."[42] In that spring, a class was
graduated, and yet only a few months later Dr. Bangs wrote that the
College "continued for a short time and then, greatly to the
disappointment and mortification of its friends, went down as suddenly
as it had come up, and Asbury College lives only in the recollection of
those who rejoiced over its rise and mourned over its fall."

This statement is not absolutely correct; it is probable that there was
some catastrophe, and possibly Dr. Jennings then began to break away
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, which he left entirely, when the
Methodist Protestant Church was formed in 1828. Still some sort of an
organization was kept up under the old name; for does not good Hezekiah
Niles, of Register fame, tell us of examinations and exhibitions he
witnessed in the early spring of 1819,[43] at which time prodigies of
learning and cramming were exhibited, and do we not find in 1824, a
pamphlet published by Dr. Jennings, entitled "Remarks on the Subject of
Education, to which are added the general rules of the school under the
appellation of Asbury College." Apparently the College had passed
entirely out of the control of the church, and having lowered its grade,
was now little more than Dr. Jennings' private school. The school was
then situated on the corner of Charles and Baltimore Streets and, in
1833, when we catch the last glimpse of it, another removal had taken it
to the corner of South and Fayette Streets. It was then merely a boys'
day school and doubtless soon perished. So the second Methodist College
failed as the first had done and another was added to the many abortive
attempts to found a college in Maryland.


OTHER EXTINCT COLLEGES.

Three other attempts to found colleges demand a passing notice.

_Mount Hope College_ stood at the corner of Eutaw Place and North
Avenue, and was charted as a college in 1833.[44] The building was
constructed by the Baltimore branch of the United States Bank in 1800,
during an epidemic of yellow fever in the city. People feared to come
into town to transact business and so a suburban banking house was
built. This building was bought by the Rev. Frederick Hall in 1828 and
in it a school was begun, which was later expanded into the College. The
institution lasted some ten years and is worthy of note from the fact
that among the teachers were two young Yale graduates, who afterwards
obtained considerable renown: Professor Elias Loomis and Rev. S.W.S.
Dutton.

_The College of St. James_ was situated in Washington County and
was originally intended by its founder, Bishop Whittingham, as a
preparatory school. It was opened in October, 1842, with Rev. J.B.
Kerfoot,[45] afterwards Bishop of Pittsburg, as Principal, and had such
speedy and encouraging success, that it was chartered as a college in
1843, under the control of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

The College prospered greatly under Bishop Kerfoot's able management,
and was kept up during the War of the Rebellion in spite of the loss of
Southern students, a large portion of the entire number. In 1864,
however, General Early, of the Confederate Army, invaded Maryland and
took Dr. Kerfoot and Professor Coit prisoners, and the College thus
forcibly discontinued, was never again reorganized.

_Newton University_ was chartered by the Legislature[46] on March
8, 1845 and was situated on Lexington Street, between North and Calvert.
It was originally intended to combine the Baltimore preparatory schools
and to furnish boys, graduating from them, the means of completing their
education without leaving the city. There was an enormous list of
Trustees and the unwieldy character of the board, coupled with the
irregular habits of the President, made the failure of the enterprise
inevitable. Still it offered in its catalogues a good course of study
and gave exhibitions, at which polyglot orations were delivered. The
late Prof. Perley R. Lovejoy was the life of the institution and, after
several classes had graduated, the University finally ceased to be, when
Mr. Lovejoy accepted a position as Professor in the Baltimore City
College.


ROMAN CATHOLIC COLLEGES.

Maryland has been the cradle of the Roman Catholic Church in America, as
well as of the Methodist and the Presbyterian. The centenary of the
consecration of John Carroll, as the first Roman Catholic bishop in the
United States, occurred little more than a year ago. A few months after
Bishop Carroll's consecration, he received from the Superior of the
Order of St. Sulpice an offer to found a seminary in Baltimore for the
education of priests. This offer was accepted and, on July 10, 1791,
four Sulpician priests arrived in Baltimore. They soon bought a house
known as "One Mile Tavern" with four acres of land and there they opened
_St. Mary's Seminary_, on the first Sunday in October, 1791. The
Seminary still occupies the same site, at the corner of Paca and St.
Mary's Streets. The number of the candidates for the priesthood, who
entered the Seminary, was disappointing from its smallness and, in order
to procure clerics, an Academy was opened in the rooms of the Seminary,
on August 20, 1799. This was presided over by Rev. Wm. Du Bourg, and
proved so successful, as to demand a separate building. Accordingly, the
corner-stone of St. Mary's College was laid on April 10, 1800. At Bishop
Carroll's request, no American boys were admitted for a time and only
Spaniards and French were received. In 1803, however, the College was
opened to all day scholars or boarders, without reference to birth or
religion. This step roused some opposition and many communications upon
the subject appeared in the newspapers, which were afterwards collected
in pamphlet form.

The students soon became numerous and the institution grew to such an
extent that, in January, 1805, it was chartered as St. Mary's
University. On August 13, 1806, the first class was graduated; in that
year there were 106 students. New buildings were erected and a superb
botanical garden was laid out. The chapel, built soon after the
incorporation, was said to be the most beautiful in the United States.

The Rev. William Du Bourg, the President, was a man of great ability and
the reputation of the College rapidly spread. Many prominent men, Roman
Catholics and Protestants, were graduated from St. Mary's; but the
Sulpicians felt that their vocation was to educate young men exclusively
for the priesthood, and not for secular life, and they finally closed
St. Mary's College in 1852, in order to devote all their energies to the
Theological Seminary, which has continued its prosperous career to this
present day.[47]

A second Roman Catholic College was formed by the Sulpicians in 1807 at
Emmittsburg, Frederick County. It was begun by Rev. John Dubois and was
soon chartered as _Mount Saint Mary's College_. The exercises were
first held in a log house with a handful of pupils, who increased to 80
within five years. With the growth of the institution came the demand
for larger accommodations. Better buildings were erected and a large
stone edifice was undertaken in 1823. When nearly ready for occupancy,
it was destroyed by fire; but Father Dubois did not despair and, aided
by the people of the vicinity, at once began a new building. In 1826 he
was appointed Bishop of New York, and in the same year, the connection
of the College with the Sulpician order was terminated. Although
originally intended chiefly as a place for the education of clerics, Mt.
St. Mary's has ever kept in view the preparation of students for a
secular life, and many of its graduates have been distinguished in
State, as well as in Church. In 1838, Rev. John McCaffrey, D.D., became
president, and under his able control, the College prospered until
1871. During this period, the jubilee of the institution was celebrated
with great ceremony in 1858. The Civil War injured the College greatly
and the declaration of peace found it burdened with a heavy load of
debt. For twenty years the struggle went on and it was doubtful all the
time, whether the College could survive. Finally Dr. William Bryne, at
his leaving the presidency in 1884, was able to report that the
institution was placed on a firm financial basis as to the future, and
that the debt had been reduced to $65,000. The present President, Rev.
Edward P. Allen, has still further diminished the debt by more than half
and the attendance has been largely increased through his efficient
administration.

A third Roman Catholic College is _St. Charles's_, situated in
Howard County, near Ellicott City. It is situated on land given by
Charles Carroll of Carroll ton, and was chartered on February 3,
1830,[48] its name being taken from that of its founder and of the great
Archbishop of Milan.[49] The institution was placed under the control of
the Society of St. Sulpice and was established "exclusively for the
education of pious young men of the Catholic persuasion for the ministry
of the Gospel." The corner-stone was laid by the venerable Charles
Carroll, on July 11, 1831; but, for want of funds to carry on the work
successfully, the institution was not opened until the fall of 1848. The
first President, Rev. O.L. Jenkins, began the institution with four
pupils, and at his death in 1869, the number had grown to 140. Since the
closing of St. Mary's College in 1852, St. Charles's has been used by
the Sulpicians as preparatory to St. Mary's Seminary.

To supply the want of a college, to which Baltimore boys of Roman
Catholic families could go without leaving home, _Loyola College_
was opened in September, 1852. It is under the control of the Jesuits
and has confined itself to receiving day scholars.

The fifth and last Roman Catholic College, _Rock Hill_, was
chartered in 1865.[50] It is situated near Ellicott City, as is St.
Charles's, and is under the supervision of the Brothers of the Christian
Schools. It prepares youth for the various duties and occupations of
life with great thoroughness, and has ever been noted especially for the
attention paid to the development of the body as well as the mind of its
pupils.


WESTEEN MARYLAND COLLEGE.

In 1865, Mr. Fayette R. Buell began an academy for boys and girls at
Westminster, Carroll County,[51] and, in the spring of 1866, he proposed
to the Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, of which he was a
member, that the school should be chartered as a college and taken under
the Church's patronage. This proposition was not acceded to, but Mr.
Buell went on with his plan. Confidence in the Rev. J.T. Ward, one of
the teachers in Mr. Buell's school, induced two of his friends to lend
the enterprise $10,000, and the corner-stone of the College building was
laid on September 6, 1886. The College opened a year later with
seventy-three pupils. In February, 1868, Mr. Buell found himself so much
in debt, that he appealed to the Conference to take the property off his
hands. This was done, and a Board of Trustees appointed by the
Conference was incorporated by the legislature on March 30, 1868.

The next fall, the institution reopened with Rev. J.T. Ward as
President, in which office he continued for seventeen years. These were
years of trouble and severe work to make the College a success. There
was no endowment, and only by the most strenuous efforts was the College
saved on several occasions from being overwhelmed with debt. Still, in
spite of all disadvantages, good work was done and valuable experience
was gained. The College has been a co-educational one from the first,
and connected with it was a department of Biblical Literature, for such
as intended to become clergymen, until a separate Theological School was
opened in 1882. During Dr. Ward's administration, new buildings were
erected and, at his resignation in 1886, he left the institution ready
to be made still more efficient by his successor. Rev. Thomas H. Lewis
succeeded as President and, while he has caused the work and equipment
of the College to be further enlarged, he has also been successful in
paying off the last dollar of the debt that had hung over it so long as
an incubus.


FEMALE EDUCATION.

_The Baltimore Female College_, so long presided over by Dr. N.C.
Brooks, was the pioneer institution in Maryland for the higher education
of women. Founded in 1849, it long had a prosperous existence; but
finally was obliged to close its doors in June, 1890, on account of the
withdrawal of the grant formerly given by the State.

Besides this institution there was no successful attempt in Maryland to
found a college for female education, until the _Woman's College of
Baltimore_ was chartered in 1884.[52] It was founded by the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in honor of the centenary of its organized
existence in this country, and is "denominational but not sectarian."
For it beautiful buildings, adjoining the First Methodist Church, have
been erected on St. Paul Street. Much of the money for its endowment was
given by the present President, the Rev. J.F. Goucher, D.D., and,
largely through his influence, was it able to open its doors to students
on September 13, 1888. It has determined, very sensibly, to grant no
degrees, save to those thoroughly fitted to receive them, and so has had
no graduates up to the present. Its growth under the care of W.H.
Hopkins, Ph.D., its first President, was great in numbers and endowment
and the prospects are now fair for this Baltimore Woman's College taking
high rank among similar institutions.


CONCLUSION.

To a superficial observer from a distance, it sometimes seems as if
University education in Maryland began with the foundation of the Johns
Hopkins University, a sketch of which follows from the pen of its
honored President. Our study into the history of education in the State,
however, has shown us that Maryland, instead of being one of the latest
of the United States to conceive the University idea, was, in fact, one
of the very earliest, and that her institutions have a history of which
they need not be ashamed; though their work has not been so widely known
as some others and though the bright promise of morning, in many cases,
has not been followed by the full development of noontide.

The patient labors of William Smith, of Hector Humphreys, of Francis
Asbury, of John Dubois, and of many others, have been far from lost.
Wherein they failed, they gained valuable experience for their
successors, and wherein they succeeded, they helped to instil "into the
minds and hearts of the citizens, the principles of science and good
morals."


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: _Md. Archives_; Assembly Proceedings, 1666-1676, pp.
262-264.]

[Footnote 2: Scharf, _Hist. of Md._, II, p. 510.]

[Footnote 3: Sharpe, _Correspondence_, Vol. II, pp. 523-5 and 545.]

[Footnote 4: Scharf, _Hist, of Md_., II, p.511.]

[Footnote 5: Eddis, _Letters from Maryland_, 1769-1776.]

[Footnote 6: MS. sketch of Prof. Rowland Watts.]

[Footnote 7: Act of 1784, ch. 37.]

[Footnote 8: Act of 1805, ch. 85. The appropriation had already been
diminished by Act of 1798, ch. 107.]

[Footnote 9: _Centennial of St. John's._ Address of P.R. Voorhees, Esq.]

[Footnote 10: Resolutions of 1832, No. 41.]

[Footnote 11: MS. Sketch of Dr. E.F. Cordell.]

[Footnote 12: Act of 1807, ch. 53.]

[Footnote 13: Act of 1807, ch. 111.]

[Footnote 14: Act of 1812, ch. 159.]

[Footnote 15: _Records of Univ. of Md_., Vol. A.]

[Footnote 16: In 1815 he was succeeded by the Rt. Rev. James Kemp, D.D.]

[Footnote 17: Acts of 1813, ch. 125; 1814, ch. 78.]

[Footnote 18: Act of 1821, ch. 88.]

[Footnote 19: Act of 1825, ch. 190.]

[Footnote 20: Act of 1803, ch. 74.]

[Footnote 21: Scharf, _Chron. of Baltimore_, p. 294.]

[Footnote 22: Act of 1830, ch. 50.]

[Footnote 23: Lucas, _Picture of Baltimore_, p. 170.]

[Footnote 24: Act of 1882, ch. 88.]

[Footnote 25: Stevens' _History of Methodism_, II, 253.]

[Footnote 26: Some account of Cokesbury. MSS. of Rev. Wm. Hamilton.]

[Footnote 27: _Early Schools of Methodism_, p. 21.]

[Footnote 28: MSS. of Rev. I.P. Cook.]

[Footnote 29: Strickland's _Asbury_, p. 163.]

[Footnote 30: Methodist Discipline, 1789, p. 40.]

[Footnote 31: _Asbury's Journal_, Vol. I, p. 523.]

[Footnote 32: II Kings, 4: 40.]

[Footnote 33: _Journal_, December 5, 1791.]

[Footnote 34: _Early Schools of Methodism_, p. 31.]

[Footnote 35: _Journal_, November 21, 1794.]

[Footnote 36: Act of 1794, ch. 21.]

[Footnote 37: Rev. Mr. Hamilton's MSS.]

[Footnote 38: _Journal_, January 5, 1796.]

[Footnote 39: _Journal_, 1796.]

[Footnote 40: Act of 1817, ch. 144.]

[Footnote 41: Sprague, _Annals of American Pulpit_, VII, 279.]

[Footnote 42: _History of the M.E. Church_, Vol. III.]

[Footnote 43: _Niles' Register_, February 20, 1819.]

[Footnote 44: Act of 1832, ch. 199.]

[Footnote 45: _Life of Bishop Kerfoot_, by Rev. Hall Harrison.]

[Footnote 46: Act of 1844, ch. 272.]

[Footnote 47: MSS. of Fr. G.E. Viger.]

[Footnote 48: Act of 1830, ch. 50.]

[Footnote 49: MSS. of Rev. G.E. Viger.]

[Footnote 50: Act of 1865, ch. 10.]

[Footnote 51: Lewis, _Outline of Western Maryland College_.]

[Footnote 52: MSS. of Pres. W.H. Hopkins.]




THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

(1876-1891).

BY DANIEL C. GILMAN.


FOUNDATION.

The year 1876 is commonly taken as the date of the foundation of the
Johns Hopkins University, as in that year its doors were opened for the
reception of students. On the twenty-second of February the plans of the
University were publicly made known, and consequently "Washington's
Birthday" has since been observed as an anniversary or commemoration
day. But in reality the Trustees were organized nine years before. The
founder, Johns Hopkins, as he saw the end of life approaching (although
he continued in active business for several years afterwards),
determined to bestow a large part of his fortune upon two institutions
which he proposed to establish, a University and a Hospital. These
establishments were to be managed by separate Boards of Trustees,
citizens of Baltimore, whom he selected for their integrity, wisdom, and
public spirit. In order that the two Boards might be closely allied, the
founder was careful that a majority of the Trustees of one corporation
should also be a majority of the Trustees of the other corporation, and
in a letter which he left as the final expression of his wishes, he
declared it to be his "constant wish and purpose that the Hospital
should ultimately form a part of the Medical School of the University."
The Hospital was opened for the reception of patients in May, 1889; and
a volume which was prepared in the following year by Dr. J.S. Billings,
gives a full description of the buildings, with other papers
illustrative of the history and purposes of that great charity. But as
the Medical School, which is to form the bond of union between the two
establishments has not yet been organized, the following statements will
only refer to those opportunities which are here provided for the study
of science and literature, in the faculty commonly known as the faculty
of philosophy and the liberal arts.

Before speaking of his gifts, a few words should be devoted to the
memory of Johns Hopkins. This large-minded man, whose name is now
renowned in the annals of American philanthropy, acquired his fortune by
slow and sagacious methods. He was born in Anne Arundel county,
Maryland, not far from the city of Annapolis, of a family which for
several generations had adhered to the views of the Society of Friends.
His ancestors were among the earliest settlers of the colony. While
still a boy, Johns Hopkins came to Baltimore without any capital but
good health, the good habits in which he had been brought up, and
unusual capacity for a life of industrious enterprise. He began on the
lowest round of the ladder of fortune, and by his economy, fidelity,
sagacity, and perseverance he rose to independence and influence. He was
called to many positions of financial responsibility, among the most
important being that of President of the Merchants' National Bank, and
that of a Director in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. He was a
man of positive opinions in political affairs, yet he never entered
political life; and although he contributed to the support of
educational and benevolent societies he was not active in their
management. In the latter part of his life, he dwelt during the winter
in a large mansion, still standing on the north side of Saratoga street,
west of North Charles street, and during the summer on an estate called
Clifton, in Baltimore County. In both these places he exercised
hospitality without ostentation. He bought a large library and many oil
paintings which are now preserved in a memorial room at the Hospital.
Nevertheless, his pursuits were wholly mercantile, and his time and
strength were chiefly devoted to the business in which he was
engaged,--first as a wholesale grocer, and afterwards as a capitalist
interested in many and diverse financial undertakings. More than once,
in time of commercial panic, he lent his credit to the support of
individuals and firms with a liberality which entitled him to general
gratitude. He died in Baltimore, December 24, 1873, at the age of
seventy-nine years. He had never married. After providing for his near
relations, he gave the principal part of his estate to the two
institutions which bear his name, the Johns Hopkins University and the
Johns Hopkins Hospital. Each of them received property estimated in
round numbers at three and a half million dollars. The gift to the
University included his estate of Clifton (three hundred and thirty
acres of land), fifteen thousand shares of the common stock of the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and other securities which were valued at
seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Many persons have expressed surprise that Mr. Hopkins should have made
so large an investment in one corporation. But the stock of the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was free from taxation, for many years it
paid a dividend of ten per cent. per annum, and the managers, of whom he
was one, confidently anticipated that a large stock dividend would be
declared at an early day. Mr. Hopkins not only gave to the University
all the common stock that he held in this corporation; he also advised
that the Trustees should not dispose of it, nor of the stock accruing
thereon by way of increment or dividend. In view of the vibrations to
which this stock was subjected during the fifteen years subsequent to
the death of Mr. Hopkins, it should not be forgotten that it was his
will that linked the fortune of the great educational institution, which
he founded, to the fortune of another corporation, in which he had the
highest confidence. Fortunately, the crisis into which this union led,
has been successfully passed. The friends of the University generously
subscribed for its support an "emergency fund" of more than $100,000.
Other large gifts were made and others still are known to be in the
future. The Trustees, moreover, have changed four-fifths of their
holdings of the common stock of the railroad company above mentioned,
into its preferred stock, from which a permanent income of six per
centum will be derived. The finances of the University are now on a
solid basis, although additional gifts will be required for the
construction of buildings and for the enlargement of the course of
study, and still more before a medical department can be instituted.


PRELIMINARY ORGANIZATION.

The Johns Hopkins University was incorporated under the laws of the
State of Maryland, August 24, 1867. Three years later, June 13, 1870,
the Trustees met and elected a President and a Secretary of the Board.
They did not meet again until after the death of Mr. Hopkins, when they
entered with a definite purpose on the work for which they were
associated. They collected a small but excellent library of books,
illustrating the history of the universities of this and of other lands;
they visited in a body Cambridge, New Haven, Ithaca, Ann Arbor,
Philadelphia, Charlottesville, and other seats of learning; they were
favored with innumerable suggestions and recommendations from those who
knew much about education, and from those who knew little; and they
invited several scholars of distinction to give them their counsel.
Three presidents of colleges gave them great assistance, answering in
the frankest manner all the searching questions which were put to them
by a sagacious committee. Grateful acknowledgments will always be due to
these three gentlemen: Charles W. Eliot, LL. D., President of Harvard
University, Andrew D. White, LL. D., President of Cornell University,
and James B. Angell, LL. D., President of the University of Michigan.


INAUGURAL ASSEMBLY.

The election of a President of the University took place in December,
1874. He entered upon the duties of his station in the following spring,
and in the summer of 1875, at the request of the Trustees, he went to
Europe and conferred with many leaders of university education in Great
Britain and on the continent. At the same time he visited many of the
most important seats of learning. During the following winter the plans
of the University were formulated and were made public in the Inaugural
Address of the President, which was delivered on the 22nd of February,
1876, before a large audience assembled in the Academy of Music.

On this occasion, the Governor of the State, Hon. John Lee Carroll; the
Mayor of the City, Hon. Ferdinand C. Latrobe; the Presidents and
representative Professors of a large number of Universities and
Colleges; the Trustees and other officers of the scientific, literary
and educational institutions of Baltimore; the State and City officers
of public instruction and other invited guests, together with the
Trustees of Johns Hopkins, occupied the platform. The house was filled
with an attentive audience.

At eleven o'clock, the chair was taken by the President of the Trustees,
Mr. Galloway Cheston. The orchestra of the Peabody Institute, directed
by Professor Asger Hamerik, performed several pieces of classical music.

A prayer was then offered up by Rev. Alfred M. Randolph, D D., of
Emmanuel Church, now Assistant Bishop of Virginia, after which the
Chairman of the Executive Committee, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Jr., said:

"Our gathering to-day is one of no ordinary interest. From all sections
of our State, from varied sections of our land, we have met at the
opening of another avenue to social progress and national renown. After
two years of pressing responsibility and anxious care the Trustees of
the Johns Hopkins University present the first detailed account of their
trust. Of the difficulties attending the discharge of their duty; of the
nice balancing of judgment; of the careful investigation and continued
labor called for in the organization of the University, this is not the
place to speak; but for the Board of Trustees, I may be allowed to claim
the credit of entire devotion to the work, and a sincere desire to make
of the University all that the public could expect from the generous
foundation. Happily, our action is unfettered, and where mistakes occur,
as occur they must, the will and power are at hand to correct them. We
may say that the University's birth takes place today, and I do not
think it mere sentiment, should we dwell with interest upon its
concurrence with the centennial year of our national birth, and the
birthday of him who led the nation from the throes of battle to maturity
and peace. But it is not my province to detain you from the exercises
which are to follow. I am happy to state that we have among us to-day
one who represents the highest type of American education, and one who,
from the beginning, has sympathized with, counselled and aided us. I
know you anticipate me, as I announce the distinguished name, from the
most distinguished seat of learning in our land--President Eliot, of
Harvard University."


ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT ELIOT.

President Eliot next delivered a Congratulatory Address in which he
said:

"The oldest University of the country cordially greets the youngest, and
welcomes a worthy ally--an ally strong in material resources and in high
purpose.

"I congratulate you, gentlemen, Trustees of the Johns Hopkins
University, upon the noble work which is before you. A great property,
an important part of the fruit of a long life devoted with energy and
sagacity to the accumulation of riches, has been placed in your hands,
upon conditions as magnanimous as they are wise, to be used for the
public benefit in providing for coming generations the precious means of
liberal culture. Your Board has great powers. It must hold and manage
the property of the University, make all appointments, fix all salaries,
and, while leaving both legislative and administrative details to the
several faculties which it will create, it must also prescribe the
general laws of the University. Your cares and labor will grow heavy as
time goes on; but in accordance with an admirable usage, fortunately
established in this country, you will serve without other compensation
than the public consideration which will justly attach to your office,
and the happy sense of being useful. The actuating spirit of your Board
will be a spirit of scrupulous fidelity to every trust reposed in you,
and of untiring zeal in promoting the welfare of the University and the
advancement of learning. Judged by its disinterestedness, its
beneficence and its permanence, your function is as pure and high as any
that the world knows, or in all time has known. May the work which you
do in the discharge of your sacred trust be regarded with sympathetic
and expectant forbearance by the present generation, and with admiration
and gratitude by posterity.

"The University which is to take its rise in the splendid benefaction of
Johns Hopkins must be unsectarian. None other could as appropriately be
established in the city named for the Catholic founder of a colony to
which all Christian sects were welcomed, or in the State in which
religious toleration was expressly declared in the name of the
Government for the first time in the history of the Christian world.
There is a too common opinion that a college or university which is not
denominational must therefore be irreligious; but the absence of
sectarian control should not be confounded with lack of piety. A
university whose officers and students are divided among many sects
need no more be irreverent and irreligious than the community which in
respect to diversity of creeds it resembles. It would be a fearful
portent if thorough study of nature and of man in all his attributes and
works, such as befits a university, led scholars to impiety. But it does
not; on the contrary, such study fills men with humility and awe, by
bringing them on every hand face to face with inscrutable mystery and
infinite power. The whole work of a university is uplifting, refining
and spiritualizing: it embraces

          whatsoever touches life
    With upward impulse; be He nowhere else,
    God is in all that liberates and lifts;
    In all that humbles, sweetens and consoles.

"A university cannot be built upon a sect, unless, indeed, it be a sect
which includes the whole of the educated portion of the nation. This
University will not demand of its officers and students the creed, or
press upon them the doctrine of any particular religious organization;
but none the less--I should better say, all the more--it can exert
through high-minded teachers a strong moral and religious influence. It
can implant in the young breasts of its students exalted sentiments and
a worthy ambition; it can infuse into their hearts the sense of honor,
of duty, and of responsibility.

"I congratulate the city of Baltimore, Mr. Mayor, that in a few
generations she will be the seat of a rich and powerful university. To
her citizens its grounds and buildings will in time become objects of
interest and pride. The libraries and other collections of a university
are storehouses of the knowledge already acquired by mankind, from which
further invention and improvement proceed. They are great possessions
for any intelligent community. The tone of society will be sensibly
affected by the presence of a considerable number of highly educated
men, whose quiet and simple lives are devoted to philosophy and
teaching, to the exclusion of the common objects of human pursuit. The
University will hold high the standards of public duty and public
spirit, and will enlarge that cultivated class which is distinguished,
not by wealth merely, but by refinement and spirituality.

"I felicitate the State of Maryland, whose Chief Magistrate honors this
assembly with his presence, upon the establishment within her borders of
an independent institution of the highest education. The elementary
school is not more necessary to the existence of a free State than the
University. The public school system depends upon the institutions of
higher education, and could not be maintained in real efficiency without
them. The function of colleges, universities, and professional schools
is largely a public function; their work is done primarily, indeed, upon
individuals, but ultimately for the public good. They help powerfully to
form and mould aright the public character; and that public character is
the foundation of everything which is precious in the State, including
even its material prosperity. In training men thoroughly for the learned
professions of law and medicine, this University will be of great
service to Maryland and the neighboring States. During the past forty
years the rules which governed admission to these honorable and
confidential professions have been carelessly relaxed in most of the
States of the Union, and we are now suffering great losses and injuries,
both material and moral, in consequence of thus thoughtlessly abandoning
the safer ways of our fathers. It is for the strong universities of the
country to provide adequate means of training young men well for the
learned professions, and to set a high standard for professional
degrees.

"President Gilman, this distinguished assembly has come together to give
you God-speed. I welcome you to arduous duties and grave
responsibilities. In the natural course of life you will not see any
large part of the real fruits of your labors; for to build a university
needs not years only, but generations; but though 'deeds unfinished will
weigh on the doer,' and anxieties will sometimes oppress you, great
privileges are nevertheless attached to your office. It is a precious
privilege that in your ordinary work you will have to do only with men
of refinement and honor; it is a glad and animating sight to see
successive ranks of young men pressing year by year into the battle of
life, full of hope and courage, and each year better armed and equipped
for the strife; it is a privilege to serve society and the country by
increasing the means of culture; but, above all, you will have the great
happiness of devoting yourself for life to a noble public work without
reserve, or stint, or thought of self, looking for no advancement,
'hoping for nothing again,' Knowing well by experience the nature of the
charge which you this day publicly assume, familiar with its cares and
labors, its hopes and fears, its trials and its triumphs, I give you joy
of the work to which you are called, and welcome you to a service which
will task your every power.

"The true greatness of States lies not in territory, revenue,
population, commerce, crops or manufactures, but in immaterial or
spiritual tilings; in the purity, fortitude and uprightness of their
people, in the poetry, literature, science and art which they give birth
to, in the moral worth of their history and life. With nations, as with
individuals, none but moral supremacy is immutable and forever
beneficent. Universities, wisely directed, store up the intellectual
capital of the race, and become fountains of spiritual and moral power.
Therefore our whole country may well rejoice with you, that you are
auspiciously founding here a worthy seat of learning and piety. Here may
young feet, shunning the sordid paths of low desire and worldly
ambition, walk humbly in the steps of the illustrious dead--the poets,
artists, philosophers and statesmen of the past; here may fresh minds
explore new fields and increase the sum of knowledge; here from time to
time may great men be trained up to be leaders of the people; here may
the irradiating light of genius sometimes flash out to rejoice mankind;
above all, here may many generations of manly youth learn
righteousness."


INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF THE FIRST PRESIDENT.

In his inaugural address, the President of the Johns Hopkins University,
after a grateful reference to the founder and his generosity, and a
reminder that the endowment, large as it appears, is not large when
compared with the acquisitions of many other institutions, called
attention to some of the special distinctions of this gift. Among them
were named: the freedom from conditions; the absence of political or
ecclesiastical control; the connection with an endowed hospital; the
geographical advantages of Baltimore; and the timeliness of the
foundation. Five agencies for the promotion of superior instruction were
next briefly discussed, universities, learned academies, colleges,
technical schools, and museums. The object of these paragraphs was to
suggest the distinctive Idea of the University, and to show that while
forms and methods vary in different countries, the freedom for
investigation, the obligation to teach, and the careful bestowal of
academic honors are always understood to be among the university
functions. Wherever a strong university is established, learned
societies, colleges, technical schools, and museums are clustered. It is
the sun and they are the planets.

Twelve points were then enumerated on which there is a consensus so
general that further discussion seemed needless.

1. All sciences are worthy of promotion; or in other words, it is
useless to dispute whether literature or science should receive most
attention, or whether there is any essential difference between the old
and the new education.

2. Religion has nothing to fear from science, and science need not be
afraid of religion. Religion claims to interpret the word of God, and
science to reveal the laws of God. The interpreters may blunder, but
truths are immutable, eternal, and never in conflict.

3. Remote utility is quite as worthy to be thought of as immediate
advantage. Those ventures are not always most sagacious that expect a
return on the morrow. It sometimes pays to send our argosies across the
seas,--to make investments with an eye to slow but sure returns. So it
is always in the promotion of science.

4. As it is impossible for any university to encourage with equal
freedom all branches of learning, a selection must be made by
enlightened governors, and that selection must depend on the
requirements and deficiencies of a given people, in a given period.
There is no absolute standard of preference. What is more important at
one time or in one place may be less needed elsewhere and otherwise.

5. Individual students cannot pursue all branches of learning, and must
be allowed to select, under the guidance of those who are appointed to
counsel them. Nor can able professors be governed by routine. Teachers
and pupils must be allowed great freedom in their method of work.
Recitations, lectures, examinations, laboratories, libraries, field
exercises, travel, are all legitimate means of culture.

6. The best scholars will almost invariably be those who make special
attainments on the foundation of a broad and liberal culture.

7. The best teachers are usually those who are free, competent, and
willing to make original researches in the library and the laboratory.

8. The best investigators are usually those who have also the
responsibilities of instruction, gaining thus the incitement of
colleagues, the encouragement of pupils, the observation of the public.

9. Universities should bestow their honors with a sparing hand; their
benefits most freely.

10. A university cannot be created in a day; it is a slow growth. The
University of Berlin has been quoted as a proof of the contrary. That
was indeed a quick success, but in an old, compact country, crowded with
learned men eager to assemble at the Prussian court. It was a change of
base rather than a sudden development.

11. The object of the university is to develop character--to make men.
It misses its aim if it produces learned pedants, or simple artisans, or
cunning sophists, or pretentious practitioners. Its purport is not so
much to impart knowledge to the pupils, as to whet the appetite, exhibit
methods, develop powers, strengthen judgment, and invigorate the
intellectual and moral forces. It should prepare for the service of
society a class of students who will be wise, thoughtful, progressive
guides in whatever department of work or thought they may be engaged.

12. Universities easily fall into ruts. Almost every epoch requires a
fresh start.

If these twelve points are conceded, our task is simplified, though it
is still difficult. It is to apply these principles to Baltimore in
1876. We are trying to do this with no controversy as to the relative
importance of letters and science, the conflicts of religion and
science, or the relation of abstractions and utilities; our simple aim
is to make scholars, strong, bright, useful and true.

Proceeding to speak of the Johns Hopkins University, the speaker then
announced that at first the Faculty of Philosophy would alone be
organized, where instruction would be given in language, mathematics,
ethics, history and science. The Medical Faculty would not long be
delayed. That of Jurisprudence would come in time. That of Theology is
not now proposed.

The next paragraphs of the address will be given without abbreviation.

Who shall our teachers be?

This question the public has answered for us; for I believe there is
scarcely a preeminent man of science or letters, at home or abroad, who
has not received a popular nomination for the vacant professorships.
Some of these candidates we shall certainly secure, and their names will
be one by one made known. But I must tell you, in domestic confidence,
that it is not an easy task to transplant a tree which is deeply
rooted. It is especially hard to do so in our soil and climate. Though
a migratory people, our college professors are fixtures. Such local
college attachments are not known in Germany; and the promotions which
are frequent in Germany are less thought of here. When we think of
calling foreign teachers, we encounter other difficulties. Many are
reluctant to cross the sea; and others are, by reason of their lack of
acquaintance with our language and ways, unavailable. Besides we may as
well admit that London, Paris, Leipsic, Berlin, and Vienna afford
facilities for literary and scientific growth and influence, far beyond
what our country affords. Hence, it is probable that among our own
countrymen, our faculty will be chiefly found.

I wrote, not long ago, to an eminent physicist, presenting this problem
in social mechanics, for which I asked his solution, "We cannot have a
great university without great professors; we cannot get great
professors till we have a great university: help us from the dilemma."
Let me tell his answer: "Your difficulty," he says, "applies only to old
men who are great; these you can rarely move; but the young men of
genius, talent, learning and promise, you can draw. They should be your
strength."

The young Americans of talent and promise--there is our strength, and a
noble company they are! We do not ask from what college, or what state,
or what church they come; but what do they know, and what can they do,
and what do they want to find out.

In the biographies of eminent scholars, it is curious to observe how
many indicated in youth preeminent ability. Isaac Casaubon, whose name
in the sixteenth century shed lustre on the learned circles of Geneva,
Montpellier, Paris, London and Oxford, began as professor of Greek, at
the age of twenty-two; and Heinsius, his Leyden contemporary, at
eighteen. It was at the age of twenty-eight, that Linnaeus first
published his _Systema Naturae_. Cuvier was appointed a professor in
Paris at twenty-six, and, a few months later, a member of the
Institute. James Kent, the great commentator on American law, began his
lectures in Columbia College at the age of thirty-one. Henry was not far
from thirty years of age when he made his world-renowned researches in
electro-magnetism; and Dana's great work on mineralogy was first
published before he was twenty-five years old, and about four years
after he graduated at New Haven. Look at the Harvard lists:--Everett was
appointed Professor of Greek at twenty-one; Benjamin Peirce, of
Mathematics at twenty-four; and Agassiz was not yet forty when he came
to this country. For fifty years Yale College rested on three men
selected in their youth by Dr. Dwight, and almost simultaneously set at
work; Day was twenty-eight, Silliman, twenty-three, and Kingsley,
twenty-seven, when they began their professorial lives. The University
of Virginia, early in its history, attracted foreign teachers, who were
all young men.

We shall hope to secure a strong staff of young men, appointing them
because they have twenty years before them; selecting them on evidence
of their ability; increasing constantly their emoluments, and promoting
them because of their merit to successive posts, as scholars, fellows,
assistants, adjuncts, professors and university professors. This plan
will give us an opportunity to introduce some of the features of the
English fellowship and the German system of privat-docents; or in other
words, to furnish positions where young men desirous of a university
career may have a chance to begin, sure at least of a support while
waiting for promotion.

Our plans begin but do not end here. As men of distinction, who have won
the highest rank in their callings, are known to be free, we shall
invite them to come among us.

If we would maintain a university, great freedom must be allowed both to
teachers and scholars. This involves freedom of methods to be employed
by the instructors on the one hand, and on the other, freedom of courses
to be selected by the students.

But this freedom is based on laws,--two of which cannot be too
distinctly or too often enunciated. A law which should govern the
admission of pupils is this, that before they win this privilege they
must have been matured by the long, preparatory discipline of superior
teachers, and by the systematic, laborious, and persistent pursuit of
fundamental knowledge; and a second law, which should govern the work of
professors, is this, that with unselfish devotion to the discovery and
advancement of truth and righteousness, they renounce all other
preferment, so that, like the greatest of all teachers, they may promote
the good of mankind.

I see no advantage in our attempting to maintain the traditional
four-year class-system of the American colleges. It has never existed in
the University of Virginia; it is modified, though not nominally given
up at Harvard; it is not an important characteristic of Michigan and
Cornell; it is not known in the English, French or German universities.
It is a collegiate rather than a university method. If parents or
students desire us to mark out prescribed courses, either classical or
scientific, lasting four years, it will be easy to do so. But I
apprehend that many students will come to us excellent in some branches
of a liberal education and deficient in others--good perhaps in Greek,
Latin and mathematics; deficient in chemistry, physics, zoology,
history, political economy, and other progressive sciences. I would give
to such candidates on examination, credit for their attainments, and
assign them in each study the place for which they are fitted. A
proficient in Plato may be a tyro in Euclid. Moreover, I would make
attainments rather than time the condition of promotion; and I would
encourage every scholar to go forward rapidly or go forward slowly,
according to the fleetness of his foot and his freedom from impediment.
In other words, I would have our University seek the good of individuals
rather than of classes.

The sphere of a university is sometimes restricted by its walls or is
limited to those who are enrolled on its lists. There are three
particulars in which we shall aim at extramural influence: first, as an
examining body, ready to examine and confer degrees or other academic
honors on those who are trained elsewhere; next, as a teaching body, by
opening to educated persons (whether enrolled as students or not) such
lectures as they may wish to attend, under certain restrictions--on the
plan of the lectures in the high seminaries of Paris; and, finally, as
in some degree at least a publishing body, by encouraging professors and
lecturers to give to the world in print the results of their researches.

What are we aiming at?

An enduring foundation; a slow development; first local, then regional,
then national influence; the most liberal promotion of all useful
knowledge; the special provision of such departments as are elsewhere
neglected in the country; a generous affiliation with all other
institutions, avoiding interferences, and engaging in no rivalry; the
encouragement of research; the promotion of young men; and the
advancement of individual scholars, who by their excellence will advance
the sciences they pursue, and the society where they dwell.

No words could indicate our aim more fitly than those by which John
Henry Newman expresses his "Idea of the University," in a page glowing
with enthusiasm, to which I delight to revert.

What will be our agencies?

A large staff of teachers; abundance of instruments, apparatus,
diagrams, books, and other means of research and instruction; good
laboratories, with all the requisite facilities; accessory influences,
coming both from Baltimore and Washington; funds so unrestricted,
charter so free, schemes so elastic, that as the world goes forward, our
plans will be adjusted to its new requirements.

What will be our methods?

Liberal advanced instruction for those who want it; distinctive honors
for those who win them; appointed courses for those who need them;
special courses for those who can take no other; a combination of
lectures, recitations, laboratory practice, field work and private
instruction; the largest discretion allowed to the Faculty consistent
with the purposes in view; and, finally, an appeal to the community to
increase our means, to strengthen our hands, to supplement our
deficiencies, and especially to surround our scholars with those social,
domestic and religious influences which a corporation can at best
imperfectly provide, but which may be abundantly enjoyed in the homes,
the churches and the private associations of an enlightened Christian
city.

_Citizens of Baltimore and Maryland_.--This great undertaking does not
rest upon the Trustees alone; the whole community has a share in it.
However strong our purposes, they will be modified, inevitably, by the
opinions of enlightened men; so let parents and teachers incite the
youth of this commonwealth to high aspirations; let wise and judicious
counsellors continue their helpful suggestions, sure of being heard with
grateful consideration; let skilful writers, avoiding captionsness on
the one hand and compliment on the other, uphold or refute or amend the
tenets here announced; let the guardians of the press diffuse widely a
knowledge of the benefits which are here provided; let men of means
largely increase the usefulness of this work by their timely gifts.

At the moment there is nothing which seems to me so important, in this
region, and indeed in the entire land, as the promotion of good
secondary schools, preparatory to the universities. There are old
foundations in Maryland which require to be made strong, and there is
room for newer enterprises, of various forms. Every large town should
have an efficient academy or high school; and men of wealth can do no
greater service to the public than by liberally encouraging, in their
various places of abode, the advanced instruction of the young. None can
estimate too highly the good which came to England from the endowment of
Lawrence Sheriff at Rugby, and of Queen Elizabeth's school at
Westminster, or the value to New England of the Phillips foundations in
Exeter and And over.

Every contribution made by others to this new University will enable the
Trustees to administer with greater liberality their present funds.
Special foundations may be affiliated with our trust, for the
encouragement of particular branches of knowledge, for the reward of
merit, for the construction of buildings; and each gift, like the new
recruits of an army, will be more efficient because of the place it
takes in an organized and efficient company. It is a great satisfaction
in this world of changes and pecuniary loss to remember what safe
investments have been made at Harvard and Yale, and other old colleges,
where dollar for dollar is still shown for every gift.

The atmosphere of Maryland seems favorable to such deeds of piety,
hospitality and "good-will to men." George Calvert, the first Lord
Baltimore, comes here, returns to England and draws up a charter which
becomes memorable in the annals of civil and religious liberty, for
which, "he deserves to be ranked," (as Bancroft says), "among the most
wise and benevolent lawgivers of all ages;" among the liberals of 1776
none was bolder than Charles Carroll of Carrollton; John Eager Howard,
the hero of Cowpens, is almost equally worthy of gratitude for the
liberality of his public gifts; John McDonogh, of Baltimore birth,
bestows his fortune upon two cities for the instruction of their youth;
George Peabody, resident here in early life, comes back in old age to
endow an Athenaeum, and begins that outpouring of munificence which
gives him a noble rank among modern philanthropists; Moses Sheppard
bequeaths more than half a million for the relief of mental disease;
Rinehart, the teamster boy, attains distinction as a sculptor, and
bequeaths his hard-won acquisitions for the encouragement of art in the
city of his residence; and a Baltimorean still living, provides for the
foundation of an astronomical observatory in Yale College; while Johns
Hopkins lays a foundation for learning and charity, which we celebrate
to-day.

The closing sentences of the discourse were addressed to the young men
of Baltimore and to the Trustees.


THE FACULTY.

One of the earliest duties which devolved upon the President and
Trustees, after deciding upon the general scope of the University, was
to select a staff of teachers by whose assistance and counsel the
details of the plan should be worked out. It would hardly be right in
this place to recall the distinctive merits of the able and learned
scholars who have formed the academic staff during the first fourteen
years, but perhaps the writer may be allowed to pay in passing a tribute
of gratitude and respect to those who entered the service of the
University at its beginning. To their suggestions, their enthusiasm,
their learning, and above all their freedom from selfish aims and from
petty jealousies, must be attributed in a great degree the early
distinction of this institution. They came from widely distant places;
they had been trained by widely different methods; they had widely
different intellectual aptitudes; but their diversities were unified by
their devotion to the university in which they were enlisted, and by
their desire to promote its excellence. This spirit has continued till
the present time, and has descended to those who have from time to time
joined the ranks, so that it may be emphatically said that the union of
the Faculty has been the key to its influence.

The first requisite of success in any institution is a staff of eminent
teachers, each of whom gives freely the best of which he is capable. The
best varies with the individual; one may be an admirable lecturer or
teacher; another a profound thinker; a third a keen investigator;
another a skilful experimenter; the next, a man of great acquisitions;
one may excel by his industry, another by his enthusiasm, another by his
learning, another by his genius; but every member of a faculty should be
distinguished by some uncommon attainments and by some special
aptitudes, while the faculty as a whole should be united and
cooperative. Each professor, according to his subject and his talents,
should have his own best mode of working, adjusted to and controlled by
the exigencies of the institution with which he is associated.

The original professors, who were present when instructions began in
October, 1876, were these: as the head and guide of the mathematical
studies, Professor Sylvester, of Cambridge, Woolwich and London, one of
the foremost of European mathematicians; as the leader of classical
studies, Professor Gildersleeve, then of the University of Virginia; as
director of the Chemical Laboratory and of instruction in chemistry,
Professor Remsen, then of Williams College; to organize the work in
Biology (a department then scarcely known in American institutions, but
here regarded as of great importance with reference to the future school
of medicine), Professor Martin, then of Cambridge (Eng.), a pupil of
Professor Michael Foster and of Professor Huxley; as chief in the
department of Physics, Professor Rowland, then holding a subordinate
position in the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, whose ability in this
department had been shown by the contributions he had made to scientific
journals; and as collegiate professor, or guide to the undergraduate
students, Professor Charles D. Morris, once an Oxford fellow, and then
of the University of the City of New York.

The names of the professors in the Faculty of Philosophy, from 1876 to
1890, are as follows, arranged in the order of their appointment:

1876      BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE, LL. D   _Greek_.
1876      J.J. SYLVESTER, LL. D          _Mathematics_.
1876      IRA KEMSEN, Ph. D              _Chemistry_.
1876      HENRY A. ROWLAND, Ph. D        _Physics_.
1876      H. NEWELL MARTIN, Sc. D        _Biology_.
1876      CHARLES D. MORRIS, A. M        _Classics, (Collegiate)._
1883      PAUL HAUPT, Ph. D              _Semitic Languages_.
1884      G. STANLEY HALL, LL. D         _Psychology._
1884      WILLIAM H. WELCH, M. D         _Pathology_.
1884      SIMON NEWCOMB, LL. D           _Mathematics and Astronomy_.
1886      JOHN H. WRIGHT, A.M            _Classical Philology_.
1889      EDWARD H. GRIFFIN, LL.D        _History of Philosophy_.
1891      HERBERT B. ADAMS, Ph.D         _Amer. and Inst. History_.
1891      WILLIAM K. BROOKS, Ph.D        _Animal Morphology_.

The persons below named have been appointed associate professors,--and
their names are arranged in the order of their appointment:

1883      HERBERT B. ADAMS, Ph.D         _History_.
1883      MAURICE BLOOMFIELD, Ph.D       _Sanskrit and Comp. Philology_.
1883      WILLIAM K. BROOKS, Ph.D        _Animal Morphology_.
1883      THOMAS CRAIG, Ph.D             _Mathematics_.
1883      CHARLES S. HASTINGS, Ph.D      _Physics_.
1883      HARMON N. MORSE, Ph.D          _Chemistry._
1883      WILLIAM E. STORY, Ph.D         _Mathematics._
1883      MINTON WARREN, Ph.D            _Latin._
1884      A. MARSHALL ELLIOT, Ph.D       _Romance Languages_.
1884      J. RENDEL HARRIS, A.M          _New Testament Greek_.
1885      GEORGE H. EMMOTT, A.M          _Logic_.
1885      C. RENE GREGORY, Ph.D          _New Testament Greek_.
1885      GEORGE H. WILLIAMS, Ph.D       _Inorganic Geology_.
1885      HENRY WOOD, Ph.D               _German_.
1887      RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D           _Political Economy_.
1888      WILLIAM T. COUNCILMAN, M.D     _Anatomy_.
1888      WILLIAM H. HOWELL, Ph.D        _Animal Physiology_.
1888      ARTHUR L. KIMBALL, Ph.D        _Physics_.
1888      EDWARD H. SPIEKER, Ph.D        _Greek and Latin_.
1889      Louis DUNCAN, Ph.D             _Electricity_.
1889      FABIAN FRANKLIN, Ph.D          _Mathematics_.

At the opening of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, the principal physicians
and surgeons of that foundation were appointed professors of the
University, namely, arranged in the order of their appointment:

1889      WILLIAM OSLER, M.D             _Medicine._
1889      HENRY M. HURD, M.D             _Psychiatry_.
1889      HOWARD A. KELLY, M.D           _Gynecology_.
1889      WILLIAM S. HALSTED, M.D        _Surgery_.

In selecting a staff of teachers, the Trustees have endeavored to
consider especially the devotion of the candidate to some particular
line of study and the certainty of his eminence in that specialty; the
power to pursue independent and original investigation, and to inspire
the young with enthusiasm for study and research; the willingness to
coöperate in building up a new institution; and the freedom from
tendencies toward ecclesiastical or sectional controversies. They
announced that they would not be governed by denominational or
geographical considerations in the appointment of any teacher; but would
endeavor to select the best person whose services they could secure in
the position to be filled,--irrespective of the place where he was born,
or the college in which he was trained, or the religious body with which
he might be enrolled.

It is obvious that in addition to the qualifications above mentioned,
regard has always been paid to those personal characteristics which
cannot be rigorously defined, but which cannot be overlooked if the
ethical as well as the intellectual character of a professorial station
is considered, and if the social relations of a teacher to his
colleagues, his pupils, and their friends, are to be harmoniously
maintained. The professor in a university teaches as much by his example
as by his precepts.

Besides the resident professors, it has been the policy of the
University to enlist from time to time the services of distinguished
scholars as lecturers on those subjects to which their studies have been
particularly directed. During the first few years the number of such
lecturers was larger, and the duration of their visits was longer than
it has been recently. When the faculty was small, the need of the
occasional lecturer was more apparent for obvious reasons, than it has
been in later days. Still the University continues to invite the
cooperation of non-resident professors, and the proximity of Baltimore
to Washington makes it particularly easy to engage learned gentlemen
from the capital to give occasional lectures upon their favorite
studies. Recently a lectureship of Poetry has been founded by Mr. and
Mrs. Turnbull of Baltimore, in memory of a son who is no longer living,
and an annual course may be expected from writers of distinction who are
known either as poets, or as critics, or as historians of poetry. The
first lecturer on this foundation will be Mr. E.C. Stedman, of New York,
the second, Professor Jebb, of Cambridge (Eng.). Another lectureship has
been instituted by Mr. Eugene Levering with the object of promoting the
purposes of the Young Men's Christian Association. The first lecturer on
this foundation was Rev. Dr. Broadus, of Louisville, Ky.

A few of those who held the position of lecturers made Baltimore their
home for such prolonged periods that they could not properly be called
non-resident. The following list contains the principal appointments. It
might be much enlarged by naming those persons who have lectured at the
request of one department of the University and not of the Trustees, and
by naming some who gave but single lectures.

1876      SIMON NEWCOMB                  _Astronomy_.
1876      LÉONCE RABILLON                _French_.
1877      JOHN S. BILLINGS               _Medical History, etc_.
1877      FRANCIS J. CHILD               _English Literature_,
1877      THOMAS M. COOLEY               _Law._
1877      JULIUS E. HILGARD              _Geodetic Surveys_.
1877      JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL           _Romance Literature_.
1877      JOHN W. MALLET                 _Technological Chemistry_.
1877      FRANCIS A. WALKER              _Political Economy_.
1877      WILLIAM D. WHITNEY             _Comparative Philology_.
1878      WILLIAM F. ALLEN               _History_.
1878      WILLIAM JAMES                  _Psychology_.
1878      GEORGE S. MORRIS               _History of Philosophy_.
1879      J. LEWIS DIMAN                 _History._
1879      H. VON HOLST                   _History_.
1879      WILLIAM G. FARLOW              _Botany_.
1879      J. WILLARD GIBBS               _Theoretical Mechanics_.
1879      SIDNEY LANIER                  _English Literature_.
1879      CHARLES S. PEIRCE              _Logic_.
1880      JOHN TROWBRIDGE                _Physics_.
1881      A. GRAHAM BELL                 _Phonology_.
1881      S.P. LANGLEY                   _Physics_.
1881      JOHN McCRADY                   _Biology_.
1881      JAMES BRYCE                    _Political Science_.
1881      EDWARD A. FREEMAN              _History_.
1881      JOHN J. KNOX                   _Banking_.
1882      ARTHUR CAYLEY                  _Mathematics_.
1882      WILLIAM W. GOODWIN             _Plato_.
1882      G. STANLEY HALL                _Psychology_.
1882      RICHARD M. VENABLE             _Constitutional Law_.
1882      JAMES A. HARRISON              _Anglo-Saxon_.
1882      J. RENDEL HARRIS               _New Testament Greek_.
1883      GEORGE W. CABLE                _English Literature_.
1883      WILLIAM W. STORY               _Michel Angela_.
1883      HIRAM CORSON                   _English Literature_.
1883      F. SEYMOUR HADEN               _Etchers and Etching_.
1883      JOHN S. BILLINGS               _Municipal Hygiene_.
1883      JAMES BRYCE                    _Roman Law_.
1883      H. VON HOLST                   _Political Science_.
1884      WILLIAM TRELEASE               _Botany_.
1884      J. THACHER CLARKE              _Explorations in Assos_.
1884      JOSIAH ROYCE                   _Philosophy_.
1884      WILLIAM J. STILLMAN            _Archaeology_.
1884      CHARLES WALDSTEIN              _Archaeology_.
1884      SIR WILLIAM THOMSON            _Molecular Dynamics_.
1885      A. MELVILLE BELL               _Phonetics, etc_.
1885      EDMUND GOSSE                   _English Literature_.
1885      EUGENE SCHUYLER                _U.S. Diplomacy_.
1885      JUSTIN WINSOR                  _Shakespeare_.
1885      FREDERICK WEDMORE              _Modern Art_.
1886      ISAAC H. HALL                  _New Testament_.
1886      WILLIAM HAYES WARD             _Assyria_.
1886      WILLIAM LIBBEY, JR             _Alaska_.
1886      ALFRED R. WALLACE              _Island Life_.
1886      MANDELL CREIGHTON              _Rise of European Universities_.
1887      ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, JR      _Babylonian and Assyrian Art_.
1887      RODOLFO LANCIANI               _Roman Archaeology_.
1888      ANDREW D. WHITE                _The French Revolution_.
1890      JOHN A. BROADUS                _Origin of Christianity_.

The number of associates, readers, and assistants has been very large,
most such appointments having been made for brief periods among young
men of promise looking forward to preferment in this institution or
elsewhere.


DISTINCTION BETWEEN COLLEGIATE AND UNIVERSITY COURSES.

From the opening of the University until now a sharp distinction has
been made between the methods of university instruction and those of
collegiate instruction. In the third annual report, September 1, 1878,
the views which had been announced at the opening of the University are
expanded and are illustrated by the action of the Trustees and the
Faculty during the first two years.

The terms university and college have been so frequently interchanged in
this country that their significance is liable to be confounded; and it
may be worth while, once more at least, to call attention to the
distinction which is recognized among us. By the college is understood a
place for the orderly training of youth in those elements of learning
which should underlie all liberal and professional culture. The ordinary
conclusion of a college course is the Bachelor's degree. Usually, but
not necessarily, the college provides for the ecclesiastical and
religious as well as the intellectual training of its scholars. Its
scheme admits but little choice. Frequent daily drill in languages,
mathematics, and science, with compulsory attendance and frequent formal
examinations, is the discipline to which each student is submitted. This
work is simple, methodical, and comparatively inexpensive. It is
understood and appreciated in every part of this country.

In the university more advanced and special instruction is given to
those who have already received a college training or its equivalent,
and who now desire to concentrate their attention upon special
departments of learning and research. Libraries, laboratories, and
apparatus require to be liberally provided and maintained. The holders
of professorial chairs must be expected and encouraged to advance by
positive researches the sciences to which they are devoted; and
arrangements must be made in some way to publish and bring before the
criticism of the world the results of such investigations. Primarily,
instruction is the duty of the professor in a university as it is in a
college; but university students should be so mature and so well trained
as to exact from their teachers the most advanced instruction, and even
to quicken and inspire by their appreciative responses the new
investigations which their professors undertake. Such work is costly and
complex; it varies with time, place, and teacher; it is always somewhat
remote from popular sympathy, and liable to be depreciated by the
ignorant and thoughtless. But it is by the influence of universities,
with their comprehensive libraries, their costly instruments, their
stimulating associations and helpful criticisms, and especially their
great professors, indifferent to popular applause, superior to
authoritative dicta, devoted to the discovery and revelation of truth,
that knowledge has been promoted, and society released from the fetters
of superstition and the trammels of ignorance, ever since the revival of
letters.

In further exposition of these views, from men of different pursuits,
reference should be made to an article on Classics and Colleges, by
Professor Gildersleeve _(Princeton Review_, July, 1878), lately
reprinted in the author's "Essays and Studies," (Baltimore, 1890); to an
address by Professor Sylvester before the University on "Mathematical
Studies and University Life," (February 22, 1877); to an address by
Professor Martin on the study of Biology _(Popular Science Monthly,_
January, 1877); to some remarks on the study of Chemistry by Professor
Remsen _(Popular Science Monthly,_ April, 1877); and to an address
entitled "A Plea for Pure Science" (Salem, 1883), by Professor Rowland,
as a Vice-President of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. Although of a much later date, reference should also be made to
an address by Professor Adams (February 22, 1889) on the work of the
Johns Hopkins University, printed in the _Johns Hopkins University
Circulars_, No. 71. An address by Dr. James Carey Thomas, one of the
Trustees, at the tenth anniversary, in 1886, may also be consulted
_(Ibid._ No. 50). Reference may also be made to the fifteen annual
reports of the University and to the articles below named, by the
writer of this sketch. The Group System of College Courses in the Johns
Hopkins University _(Andover Review,_ June, 1886); The Benefits which
Society derives from Universities: Annual Address on Commemoration Day,
1885 _(Johns Hopkins University Circulars_, No. 37); article on
Universities in Lalor's _Cyclopaedia of Political Science_; an address
before the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Harvard University, July 1, 1886;
an address at the opening of Bryn Mawr College, 1885.


STUDENTS, COURSES OF STUDIES, AND DEGREES.

In accordance with the plans thus formulated, the students have included
those who have already taken an academic degree, and who have here
engaged in advanced studies; those who have entered as candidates for
the Bachelors' degree; and those who have pursued special courses
without reference to degrees. The whole number of persons enrolled in
these three classes during the first fourteen years (1876-1890) is
fifteen hundred and seventy-one. Seven hundred and three persons have
pursued undergraduate courses and nine hundred and two have followed
graduate studies. Many of those who entered as undergraduates have
continued as graduates, and have proceeded to the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. These students have come from nearly every State in the
Union, and not a few of them have come from foreign lands. Many of those
who received degrees before coming here were graduates of the principal
institutions of this country. The degree of Doctor of Philosophy has
been awarded after three years or more of graduate studies to one
hundred and eighty-four persons, and that of Bachelor of Arts to two
hundred and fifty at the end of their collegiate course.

Two degrees, and two only, have been opened to the students of this
University. Believing that the manifold forms in which the baccalaurate
degree is conferred are confusing the public, and that they tend to
lessen the respect for academic titles, the authorities of the Johns
Hopkins University determined to bestow upon all those who complete
their collegiate courses the title of Bachelor of Arts. This degree is
intended to indicate that its possessor has received a liberal
education, or in other words that he has completed a prolonged and
systematic course of studies in which languages, mathematics, sciences,
history, and philosophy have been included. The amount of time devoted
to each of these various subjects varies according to individual needs
and preference, but all the combinations are supposed to be equally
difficult and honorable. Seven such combinations or groups of studies
have been definitely arranged, and "the group system," thus introduced,
combines many of the advantages of the elective system, with many of the
advantages of a fixed curriculum. The undergraduate has his choice among
many different lines of study, but having made this determination he is
expected to follow the sequence prescribed for him by his teachers. He
may follow the old classical course; or he may give decided preference
to mathematics and physics; or he may select a group of studies,
antecedent to the studies of a medical school; or he may pursue a
scientific course in which chemistry predominates; or he may lay a
foundation for the profession of law by the study of history and
political science; or he may give to modern languages the preference
accorded in the first group to the ancient classics. In making his
selection, and indeed in prosecuting the career of an undergraduate, he
has the counsel of some member of the faculty who is called his adviser.
While each course has its predominant studies, each comprises in
addition the study of French and German, and at least one branch of
science, usually chemistry or physics, with laboratory exercises.

The degree of Doctor of Philosophy is offered to those who continue
their studies in a university for three years or more after having
attained the baccalaureate degree. Their attention must be given to
studies which are included in the faculty of philosophy and the liberal
arts, and not to the professional faculties of Law, Medicine, and
Theology. Students who have graduated in other institutions of repute
may offer themselves as candidates for this degree. In addition to the
requirements above mentioned, the student must show his proficiency in
one principal subject and in two that are secondary, and must submit
himself to rigid examinations, first written and then oral. He must also
present a thesis which must gain the approval of the special committee
to which it may be referred, and must subsequently be printed. All these
requisitions are enforced by a faculty which is known as the Board of
University Studies.

As an encouragement to the systematic prosecution of university studies,
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in this University is offered under
the following conditions.

A Board of University Studies is constituted for the purpose of guiding
the work of those who may become candidates for this degree. The time of
study is a period of at least three years of distinctive university work
in the philosophical Faculty. It is desirable that the student accepted
as a candidate should reside here continuously until his final
examinations are passed, and he is required to spend the last year
before he is graduated in definite courses of study at this University.
Before he can be accepted as a candidate, he must satisfy the examiners
that he has received a good collegiate education, that he has a reading
knowledge of French and German, and that he has a good command of
literary expression. He must also name his principal subject of study
and the two subordinate subjects.

The Board reserves the right to say in each case whether the antecedent
training has been satisfactory, and, if any of the years of advanced
work have been passed by the candidate away from this University,
whether they may be regarded as spent in university studies under
suitable guidance and favorable conditions. Such studies must have been
pursued without serious distractions and under qualified teachers.

Private study, or study pursued at a distance from libraries and
laboratories and other facilities, will not be considered as equivalent
to university study.

In the conditions which are stated below, it will appear that there are
several tests of the proficiency of the candidate, in addition to the
constant observation of his instructors. A carefully prepared thesis
must be presented by the candidate on a subject approved by his chief
adviser, and this thesis must receive the approbation of the Board.
There are private examinations of the candidate, both in his chief
subject and in the subordinate subjects. If these tests are successfully
passed, there is a final oral examination in the presence of the Board.

As an indication of the possible combinations which may be made by those
who are studying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, the following
schedule is presented:

Physics, Mathematics, and Chemistry; Animal Physiology, Animal
Morphology, and Chemistry; Chemistry, Mineralogy, and Geology;
Mathematics, Astronomy, and Physics; Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin;
History, Political Economy, and International Law; Greek, Sanskrit, and
Latin; French, Italian and Spanish, and German; Latin, Sanskrit, and
Roman Law; Latin, Sanskrit, and German; Assyriology, Ethiopic and
Arabic, and Greek; Political Economy, History, and Administration;
English, German, and Old Norse; Inorganic Geology and Petrography,
Mineralogy, and Chemistry; Geology and Mineralogy, Chemistry, and
Physics; Romance Languages, German, and English; Latin, Greek, and
Sanskrit; German, English, and Sanskrit.

While students are encouraged to proceed to academic degrees, the
authorities have always borne in mind the needs of those who could not,
for one reason or another, remain in the university for more than a year
or two, and who might wish to prosecute their studies in a particular
direction without any reference to academic honors. Such students have
always been welcome, especially those who have been mature enough to
know their own requirements and to follow their chosen courses, without
the incentive of examinations and diplomas.


PUBLICATIONS, SEMINARIES, SOCIETIES.

The Johns Hopkins University has encouraged publication. In addition to
the annual Register or Catalogue, the report of the President is
annually published, and from time to time during the year "Circulars"
are printed, in which the progress of investigations, the proceedings of
societies, reports of lectures, and the appearance of books and essays
are recorded. Encouragement is also given by the Trustees to the
publication of literary and scientific periodicals and occasionally of
learned essays and books. The journals regularly issued are:

I. _American Journal of Mathematics_. S. Newcomb, Editor, and T. Craig,
Associate Editor. Quarterly. 4to. Volume XIII in progress.

II. _American Chemical Journal_. I. Remsen, Editor. 8 nos. yearly. 8vo.
Volume XIII in progress.

III. _American Journal of Philology_. B.L. Gildersleeve, Editor.
Quarterly, 8vo. Volume XI in progress.

IV. _Studies from the Biological Laboratory_. II. N. Martin, Editor, and
W.K. Brooks, Associate Editor. 8vo. Volume V in progress.

V. _Studies in Historical and Political Science_, II. B. Adams, Editor.
Monthly. 8vo. Vol. IX in progress.

VI. _Contributions to Assyriology, etc_. Fr. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt,
Editors. Vol. II in progress.

VII. _Johns Hopkins University Circulars_. 85 numbers issued.

Another form of intellectual activity is shown in the seminaries and
scientific associations which have more or less of an official
character. In the seminary, the professor engages with a small company
of advanced students, in some line of investigation--the results of
which, if found important, are often published. The relations of the
head of a seminary to those whom he admits to this advanced work, are
very close. The younger men have an opportunity of seeing the methods by
which older men work. The sources of knowledge, the so-called
authorities, are constantly examined. The drift of modern discussions is
followed. Investigations, sometimes of a very special character, are
carefully prosecuted. All this is done upon a plan, and with the
incessant supervision of the director, upon whose learning, enthusiasm,
and suggestiveness, the success of the seminary depends. Each such
seminary among us has its own collection of books.

The associations or societies serve a different purpose. They bring
together larger companies of professors and graduate students, who hear
and discuss such papers as the members may present. These papers are not
connected by one thread like those which come before the seminaries.
They are usually of more general interest, and they often present the
results of long continued thought and investigation.


BUILDINGS, LIBRARIES, AND COLLECTIONS.

The site selected when the University was opened in the heart of
Baltimore, near the corner of Howard and Monument streets, has proved so
convenient, that from time to time additional property in that
neighborhood has been secured and the buildings thus purchased have
either been modified so as to meet the academic needs, or have given
place to new and commodious edifices.

The principal buildings now in use are these:

(1). A central administration building, in which are the class-rooms for
classical and oriental studies.

(2). A library building, in which are also rooms devoted especially to
history and political science.

(3). A chemical laboratory well equipped for the service of more than a
hundred workers.

(4). A biological laboratory, with excellent arrangements for
physiological and morphological investigations.

(5). A physical laboratory--the latest and best of the
laboratories--with excellent accommodations for physical research and
instruction.

(6). A gymnasium for bodily exercise.

(7). Two dwelling houses, appropriated to the collections in mineralogy
and geology until a suitable museum and laboratory can be constructed.

(8). Levering Hall, constructed for the uses of the Young Men's
Christian Association, and containing a large hall which may be used for
general purpeses.

(9). Smaller buildings used for the smaller classes.

(10). An official residence of the President, which came to the
University as a part of the bequest of the late John W. McCoy, Esq.

The library of the university numbers nearly 45,000 well selected
volumes,--including "the McCoy library" not yet incorporated with the
other books, and numbering 8,000 volumes. Not far from 1,000 periodicals
are received, from every part of the civilized world. Quite near to the
university is the Library of the Peabody Institute, a large,
well-chosen, well-arranged, and well-catalogued collection. It numbers
more than one hundred thousand volumes.

The university has extensive collections of minerals and fossils, a
select zoological and botanical museum, a valuable collection of ancient
coins, a remarkable collection of Egyptian antiquities (formed by Col.
Mendes I. Cohen, of Baltimore), a bureau of maps and charts, a number of
noteworthy autographs and literary manuscripts of modern date, and a
large amount of the latest and best scientific apparatus--astronomical,
physical, chemical, biological, photographical, and petrographical.


STATISTICS.

_Summary of Attendance_, 1876-90.

                         Total
                        Enrolled
Years.      Teachers.   Students.  Graduates.  Matriculates.  Special.
1876-77        29          89          54            12          23
1877-78        34         104          58            24          22
1878-79        25         123          63            25          35
1879-80        33         159          79            32          48
1880-81        39         176         102            37          37
1881-82        43         175          99            45          31
1882-83        41         204         125            49          30
1883-84        49         249         159            53          37
1884-85        52         290         174            69          47
1885-86        49         314         184            96          34
1886-87        51         378         228           108          42
1887-88        57         420         231           127          62
1888-89        55         394         216           129          49
1889-90        58         404         229           130          45
1890-91        64         427         231           142          54

_Summary of Attendance_, 1876-90 (continued).

             Degrees Conferred.
Years.          A.B.     Ph.D.
1876-77          --       --
1877-78          --        4
1878-79           3        6
1879-80          16        5
1880-81          12        9
1881-82          15        9
1882-83          10        6
1883-84          23       15
1884-85           9       13
1885-86          31       17
1886-87          24       20
1887-88          34       27
1888-89          36       20
1889-90          37       33
1890-91          --       --


TRUSTEES.

It should never be forgotten in considering the history of such a
foundation that the ultimate responsibility for its organization and
government rests upon the Board of Trustees. If they are enlightened and
high-minded men, devoted to the advancement of education, their
influence will be felt in every department of instruction. The Johns
Hopkins University has been exceptionally favored in this respect. Mr.
Hopkins chose the original body with the same sagacity that he showed in
all his career as a business man; and as, one by one, vacancies have
occurred, men of the same type have been selected, by coöptation, for
these important positions. The names of the Trustees from the beginning
are as follows:

*1867      GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN.
*1867      GALLOWAY CHESTON.
 1867      GEORGE W. DOBBIN.
*1867      JOHN FONERDEN.
*1867      JOHN W. GARRETT.
 1867      CHARLES J.M. GWINN.
 1867      LEWIS N. HOPKINS.
*1867      WILLIAM HOPKINS.
 1867      REVERDY JOHNSON, JR.
 1867      FRANCIS T. KING.
*1867      THOMAS M. SMITH.
 1867      FRANCIS WHITE.
 1870      JAMES CAREY THOMAS.
 1878      C. MORTON STEWART.
 1881      JOSEPH P. ELLIOTT.
 1881      J. HALL PLEASANTS.
 1881      ALAN P. SMITH.
 1886      ROBERT GARRETT.
 1891      JAMES L. McLANE.

* Deceased.

Notes supplementary to the Johns Hopkins University Studies in
Historical and Political Science, 1891, No. 1.




UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE.


THE SUBSTANCE OF ADDRESSES DELIVERED BEFORE THE JOHNS HOPKINS AND OTHER
UNIVERSITY AUDIENCES.

BY RICHARD G. MOULTON, A.M.,

_Of Cambridge University, England_.


I am requested to furnish information with reference to the University
Extension Movement in England. It will be desirable that side by side
with the facts I should put the ideas of the movement, for, in matters
like these, the ideas are the inspiration of the work; the ideas,
moreover, are the same for all, whereas the detailed methods must vary
with different localities. The idea of the movement is its soul; the
practical working is no more than the body. But body and soul alike are
subject to growth, and so it has been in the present case. The English
University Extension Movement was in no sense a carefully planned
scheme, put forward as a feat of institutional symmetry; it was the
product of a simple purpose pursued through many years, amid varying
external conditions, in which each modification was suggested by
circumstances and tested by experience. And with the complexity of our
operations our animating ideas have been striking deeper and growing
bolder. Speaking then up to date, I would define the root idea of
'University Extension' in the following simple formula: University
Education for the Whole Nation organized on a basis of Itinerant
Teachers.

But every clause in this defining formula will need explanation and
defence.

The term 'University' Extension has no doubt grown up from the
circumstance that the movement in England was started and directed by
the universities, which have controlled its operations by precisely the
same machinery by which they manage every other department of university
business. I do not know that this is an essential feature of the
movement. The London branch presents an example of a flourishing
organization directed by a committee formed for the purpose, though this
committee at present acts in concert with three universities. I can
conceive the new type of education managed apart from any university
superintendence; only I should look upon such severance as a far more
serious evil for the universities than for the popular movement.

But I use the term 'university education' for the further purpose of
defining the type of instruction offered. It is thus distinguished from
school education, being moulded to meet the wants of adults. It is
distinguished from the technical training necessary for the higher
handicrafts or for the learned professions. It is no doubt to the busy
classes that the movement addresses itself, but we make no secret of the
fact that our education will not help them in their business, except
that, the mind not being built in water-tight compartments, it is
impossible to stimulate one set of faculties without the stimulus
reacting upon all the rest. The education that is properly associated
with universities is not to be regarded as leading up to anything
beyond, but is an end in itself, and applies to life as a whole. And the
foundation for university extension is a change, subtle but clear, that
may be seen to be coming over the attitude of the public mind to higher
education, varying in intensity in different localities, but capable of
being encouraged where it is least perceptible,--a change by which
education is ceasing to be regarded as a thing proper to particular
classes of society or particular periods of life, and is coming to be
recognized as one of the permanent interests of life, side by side with
such universal interests as religion and politics. For persons of
leisure and means such growing demand can be met by increased activity
of the universities. University Extension is to be the university of the
busy.

My definition puts the hope of extending university education in this
sense to the whole nation without exception. I am aware that to some
minds such indiscriminate extension will seem like an educational
communism, on a par with benevolent schemes for redistributing the
wealth of society so as to give everybody a comfortable income all
round. But it surely ought not to be necessary to explain that in
proposing a universal system of education we are not meaning that what
each individual draws from the system will be the same in all cases. In
this as in every other public benefit that which each person draws from
it must depend upon that which he brings to it. University Extension may
be conceived as a stream flowing from the high ground of universities
through the length and breadth of the country; from this stream each
individual helps himself according to his means and his needs; one takes
but a cupful, another uses a bucket, a third claims to have a cistern to
himself: every one suits his own capacity, while our duty is to see that
the stream is pure and that it is kept running.

The truth is that the wide-reaching purpose of University Extension will
seem visionary or practicable according to the conception formed of
education, as to what in education is essential and what accidental. If
I am asked whether I think of shop-assistants, porters, factory-hands,
miners, dock or agricultural laborers, women with families and constant
home duties, as classes of people who can be turned into economists,
physicists, literary critics, art connoisseurs,--I admit that I have no
such idea. But I do believe, or rather, from my experience in England I
know, that all such classes can be _interested_ in economic, scientific,
literary and artistic questions. And I say boldly that to interest in
intellectual pursuits is the essential of education, in comparison with
which all other educational purposes must be called secondary. I do not
consider that a child has been taught to read unless he has been made to
like reading; I find it difficult to think of a man as having received a
classical education if the man, however scholarly, leaves college with
no interest in classical literature such as will lead him to go on
reading for himself. In education the interest is the life. If a system
of instruction gives discipline, method, and even originating power,
without rousing a lasting love for the subject studied, the whole
process is but a mental galvanism, generating a delusive activity that
ceases when the connection between instructor and pupil is broken off.
But if a teacher makes it his first business to stir up an interest in
the matter of study, the education becomes self-continuing when teacher
and pupil have parted, and the subject becomes its own educator. If then
it be conceded that the essence of education is to interest, does it
not seem a soberly practical purpose that we should open up to the whole
nation without exception an interest in intellectual pursuits?

I take my stand on the broad moral ground that every human being, from
the highest to the lowest, has two sides to his life--his work and his
leisure. To be without work in life is selfishness and sloth. But if a
man or woman is so entangled in routine duties as never to command
leisure, we have a right to say to such persons that they are leading an
immoral life. Such an individual has no claim to the title of a working
man, he is a slave. It may be cruel circumstances that have thus
absorbed him in business, but that does not alter the fact: slavery was
a misfortune rather than a fault to those who suffered it, but in any
case to be content with slavery is a crime. Once get society to
recognize the duty of leisure, and there is immediately a scope for such
institutions as University Extension that exist for the purpose of
giving intellectual interests for such leisure time. The movement is
thus one of the greatest movements for the 'raising of the masses.' With
a large section of the people there is, at the present moment, no
conception of 'rising' in life, except that of rising out of one social
rank into another. This last is of course a perfectly legitimate
ambition, but it is outside the present discussion: University Extension
knows nothing of social distinctions. It has to do with a far more
important mode of 'rising' in life,--that of rising in the rank to which
a man happens to belong at the moment, whether it be the rank in which
he started or any other. There is a saying that all men are equal after
dinner: and it is true that, while in the material wealth we seek in our
working hours equality is a chimera, yet in the intellectual pursuits
that belong to leisure there is no bar to the equality of all, except
the difference of individual capacity and desire. Macaulay tells of the
Dutch farmers who worked in the fields all day, and at night read the
Georgics in the original. Scotch and American universities are largely
attended by students who have had to engage in menial duties all the
summer in order to gain funds for their high education during the
winter. And every University Extension lecturer, highly trained
specialist as he is, will testify how his work has continually brought
him into contact with persons of the humblest social condition whom a
moment's conversation has made him recognize as his intellectual equals.
No one has any difficulty in understanding that in religious intercourse
and experience all classes stand upon an equality; and I have spoken of
the foundation for the University Extension movement as being the
growing recognition of education as a permanent human interest akin to
religion. The experience of a few years has sufficiently demonstrated
the possibility of arousing such interest: to make it universal is no
more than a practical question of time, money and methods.

But no doubt when we come to _modus operandi_ the main difficulty of the
movement is the diversity of the classes it seeks to approach--diversity
in individual capacity, in leisure, means, and previous training.
Opposite policies have been urged upon us. Some have said: Whatever you
do, you must never lower the standard; let the Extension movement
present outside the universities precisely the same education as the
universities themselves are giving, however long you may have to wait
for its acceptance. On the other hand, it has been urged: You must go
first where you are most needed; be content with a makeshift education
until the people are ready for something better. The movement has
accepted neither of these policies, but has made a distinction between
two elements of university training--method and curriculum. So far as
method is concerned we have considered that we are bound to be not less
thorough, but more thorough, if possible, than the universities
themselves, in proportion as our clients work under peculiar
difficulties. But in the matter of curriculum we have felt it our first
duty to be elastic, and to offer little or much as may in each case be
desired. Accordingly, we have elaborated an educational unit--the three
months' course of instruction in a single subject: this unit course we
have used all the resources we could command for making as thorough in
method as possible; where more than this is desired, we arrange that
more in a combination or series of such unit courses. The instruction
can thus be taken by retail or wholesale: but in all cases it, must be
administered on the same rigorous method.

The key to the whole system is thus the unit course of three months'
instruction in a single subject. The method of such a course is
conveyed by the technical terms lecture, syllabus, exercises, class. The
lectures are addressed to audiences as miscellaneous as the congregation
of a church, or the people in a street car; and it is the duty of the
teacher to attract such miscellaneous audiences, as well as to hold and
instruct them. Those who do nothing more than simply attend the lectures
will at least have gained the education of continuous interest; it is
something to have one's attention kept upon the same subject for three
months together. But it may be assumed that in every such audience there
will be a nucleus of students, by which term we simply mean persons
willing to do some work between one lecture and another. The lectures
are delivered no oftener than once a week; for the idea is not that the
lectures convey the actual instruction--great part of which is better
obtained from books, but the office of the lecture is to throw into
prominence the salient points of the study, and rouse the hearers to
read, for themselves. The course of instruction is laid down in the
syllabus--a document of perhaps thirty or forty pages, sold for a
trifling sum; by referring for details to the pages of books this
pamphlet can be made to serve as a text-book for the whole course,
making the teacher independent in his order of exposition of any other
text-book. The syllabus assists the general audience in following the
lectures without the distraction of taking notes; and guides the reading
and thinking of the students during the week. The syllabus contains a
set of 'exercises' on each lecture. These exercises, unlike examination
questions or 'quizzes,' are not tests of memory, but are intended to
train the student to work for himself; they are thus to be done under
the freest conditions--at home, with full leisure, and all possible
access to books, notes or help from other persons. The written answers
are sent to the lecturer for marginal comment, and returned by him at
the 'class.' This class is a second meeting for students and others, at
which no formal lecture is given, but there is free talk on points
suggested to the teacher by the exercises he has received: the usual
experience is that it is more interesting than the lecture. This weekly
routine of lecture, syllabus-reading, exercise and class goes on for a
period of twelve weeks. There is then an 'examination' in the work of
the course held for students who desire to take it. Certificates are
given by the university, but it is an important arrangement that these
certificates are awarded _jointly_ on the result of the weekly exercises
and the final examination.

The subjects treated have been determined by the demand. Literature
stands at the head in popularity, history with economy is but little
behind. All the physical sciences have been freely asked for. Art
constitutes a department of work; but it is art-appreciation, not
art-production; the movement has no function to train artists, but to
make audiences and visitors to art-galleries more intelligent. It will
be observed that the great study known as 'Classics' is not mentioned in
this list. But it is an instructive fact that a considerable number of
the courses in literature have been on subjects of Greek and Latin
literature treated in English, and some of these have been at once the
most successful in numbers and the most technical in treatment. I am not
without hope that our English University Extension may react upon our
English universities, and correct the vicious conception of classical
studies which gives to the great mass of university men a more or less
scholarly hold upon ancient languages without any interest whatever in
ancient literatures.

This university extension method claims to be an advance on existing
systems partly because under no circumstances does it ever give lectures
unaccompanied by a regular plan of reading and exercises for students.
These exercises moreover are designed, not for mental drill, but for
stimulus to original work. The association of students with a general
audience is a gain to both parties. Many persons follow regularly the
instruction of the class who have not participated in the exercises.
Moreover, the students, by their connection with the popular audience,
are saved from the academic bias which is the besetting sin of teachers:
more human interest is drawn into the study. The same effect follows
from the miscellaneous character of the students who contribute
exercises. High university graduates, experts in special pursuits,
deeply cultured individuals who have never before had any field in which
to exhibit the fruits of their culture, as well as persons whose
spelling and writing would pass muster nowhere else, or casual visitors
from the world of business, or young men and women fresh from school, or
even children writing in round text,--all these classes may be
represented in a single week's work; and the papers sent in will vary in
elaborateness from a scrawl on a post-card to a magazine article or
treatise. I have received an exercise of such a character that the
student considerately furnished me with an index; I remember one longer
still, but as this hailed from a lunatic asylum I will quote it only for
illustrating the diversity of the spheres reached by the movement. Study
participated in by such diverse classes cannot but have an all-roundness
which is to teachers and students one of the main attractions of the
movement.

But we shall be expected to judge our system by results: and, so far as
the unit courses are concerned, we have every reason to be satisfied.
Very few persons fail in our final examinations, and yet examiners
report that the standard in university extension is substantially the
same as that in the universities--our pass students being on a par with
pass men in the universities, our students of 'distinction' reaching the
standard of honors schools. Personally I attach high importance to
results which can never be expressed in statistics. We are in a position
to assert that a successful course perceptibly influences the _tone_ of
a locality for the period it lasts: librarians volunteer reports of an
entirely changed demand for books, and we have even assurances that the
character of conversation at 'five o'clock teas' has undergone marked
alteration. I may be permitted an anecdote illustrating the impression
made upon the universities themselves. I once heard a brilliant
university lecturer, who had had occasional experience of extension
teaching, describe a course of investigation which had interested him.
With an eye to business I asked him if he would not give it in an
extension course. He became grave. "Well, no," he replied, "I have not
thought it out sufficiently for that;" and when he saw my look of
surprise he added, "You know, anything goes down in college; but when I
have to face your mature classes I must know my ground well." I believe
the impression thus suggested is not uncommon amongst experts who really
know the movement.

Our results are much less satisfactory when we turn to the other side of
our system, and enquire as to curriculum. It must be admitted that the
larger part of our local centres can only take unit courses; there may
be often a considerable interval between one course and another; or
where courses are taken regularly the necessity of meeting popular
interest involves a distracting variety of subjects; while an
appreciable portion of our energies have to be taken up with preliminary
half-courses, rather intended to illustrate the working of the movement
than as possessing any high educational value. The most important
advance from the unit course is the Affiliation system of Cambridge
university. By this a town that becomes regularly affiliated, has
arranged for it a series of unit courses, put together upon proper
sequence of educational topics, and covering some three or four years:
students satisfying the lecturers and examiners in this extended course
are recognized as 'Students affiliated' (S.A.), and can at any time
enter the university with the status of second year's men,--the local
work being accepted in place of one year's residence and study. Apart
from this, the steps in our educational ladder other than the first are
still in the stage of prophecy. But it is universally recognized that
this drawback is a matter solely of funds: once let the movement command
endowment and the localities will certainly demand the wider curriculum
that the universities are only too anxious to supply.

The third point in our definition was that the movement was to be
organized on a basis of itinerant teachers. This differentiates
University Extension from local colleges, from correspondence teaching,
and from the systems of which Chautauqua is the type. The chief function
of a university is to teach, and University Extension must stand or fall
with its teachers. It may or may not be desirable on other grounds to
multiply universities; but there is no necessity for it on grounds of
popular education, the itinerancy being a sufficient means of bringing
any university into touch with the people as a whole. And the adoption
of such a system seems to be a natural step in the evolution of
universities. In the middle ages the whole body of those who sought a
liberal education were to be found crowded into the limits of university
towns, where alone were teachers to listen to and manuscripts to copy:
the population of such university centres then numbered hundreds where
to-day it numbers tens. The first university extension was the
invention of printing, which sent the books itinerating through the
country, and reduced to a fraction the actual attendance at the
university, while it vastly increased the circle of the educated. The
time has now come to send teachers to follow the books: the ideas of the
university being circulated through the country as a whole, while
residence at a university is reserved as the apex only of the university
system.

An itinerancy implies central and local management, and travelling
lecturers who connect the two. The central management is a university,
or its equivalent; this is responsible for the educational side of the
movement, and negotiates for the supply of its courses of instruction at
a fixed price per course.[53] The local management may be in the hands
of a committee formed for the purpose, or of some local
institution--such as a scientific or literary club or institute--which
may care to connect itself with the universities. On the local
management devolves the raising funds for the university fee, and for
local expenses, as well as the duty of putting the advantages of the
course offered before the local community. The widest diversity of
practice prevails in reference to modes of raising funds. A considerable
part of the cost will be met by the tickets of those attending the
lectures, the prices of which I have known to vary from a shilling to a
guinea for the unit course, while admission to single lectures has
varied from a penny to half a crown. But all experience goes to show
that only a part of this cost can be met in this way; individual courses
may bring in a handsome profit, but taking account over various terms
and various districts, we find that not more than two-thirds of the
total cost will be covered by ticket money. And even this is estimated
on the assumption that no more than the unit course is aimed at: while
even for this the choice of subjects, and the chance of continuity of
subject from term to term are seriously limited by the consideration of
meeting cost as far as possible from fees. University Extension is a
system of higher education, and higher education has no market value,
but needs the help of endowment. But the present age is no way behind
past ages in the number of generous citizens it exhibits as ready to
help good causes. The millionaire who will take up University Extension
will leave a greater mark on the history of his country than even the
pious founder of university scholarships and chairs. And even if
individuals fail us, we have the common purse of the public or the
nation to fall back upon.

The itinerant lecturers, not less than the university and the local
management, have responsibility for the progress of the cause. An
extension lecturer must be something more than a good teacher, something
more even than an attractive lecturer: he must be imbued with the ideas
of the movement, and ever on the watch for opportunities of putting them
forward. It is only the lecturer who can maintain in audiences the
feeling that they are not simply receiving entertainment or instruction
which they have paid for, but that they are taking part in a public
work, and are responsible for giving their locality a worthy place in a
national scheme of university education. The lecturer again must mediate
between the local and the central management, always ready to assist
local committees with suggestions from the experience of other places,
and equally attentive to bringing the special wants of different centres
before the university authorities. The movement is essentially a
teaching movement, and it is to the body of teachers I look for the
discovery of the further steps in the development of popular education.
For such a purpose lecturers and directors alike must be imbued with the
missionary spirit. For University Extension is a missionary university,
not content with supplying culture, but seeking to stimulate the demand
for it. This is just the point in which education in the past has shown
badly in comparison with religion or politics. When a man is touched
with religious ideas he seeks to make converts, when he has views on
political questions he agitates to make his views prevail: culture on
the other hand has been only too often cherished as a badge of
exclusiveness, instead of the very consciousness of superior education
being felt as a responsibility which could only be satisfied by efforts
to educate others. To infuse a missionary spirit into culture is not the
least purpose of University Extension.

I cannot resist the temptation to carry forward this thought from the
present into the future. In University Extension so described may we
not see a germ for the University of the Future? I have made the
foundation of our movement the growing conception of education as a
permanent interest of adult life side by side with religion and
politics. The change is at best only beginning; it tasks the imagination
to conceive all it will imply when it is complete. To me it appears that
this expanding view of education is the third of the three great waves
of change the succession of which has made up our modern history. There
was a time when religion itself was identified with a particular class,
the clergy alone thinking out what the rest of the nation simply
accepted; then came the series of revolutions popularly summed up as the
Reformation, by which the whole adult nation claimed to think for itself
in matters of religion, and the special profession of the clergy became
no more than a single element in the religious life of the nation.
Again, there has been in the past a distinct governing class, to which
the rest of society submitted; until a series of political revolutions
lifted the whole adult population into self-government, using the
services of political experts, but making public progress the interest
of all. Before the more quiet changes of the present age the conception
of an isolated learned class is giving way before the ideal of a
national culture, in which universities will still be centres for
educational experts, while University Extension offers liberal education
to all, until educationally the whole adult population will be just as
much within the university as politically the adult population is within
the constitution. It would appear then that the university of such a
future would be by no means a repetition of existing types, such as
Oxford or Cambridge, Harvard or Johns Hopkins. These institutions would
exist and be more flourishing than ever, but they would all be merged in
a wider 'University of England,' or 'University of America'; and, just
as the state means the whole nation acting in its political capacity
through municipal or national institutions, so the university would mean
the whole adult nation acting in its educational capacity through
whatever institutions might be found desirable. Such a university would
never be chartered; no building could ever house it; no royal personage
or president of the United States would ever be asked to inaugurate it;
the very attempt to found it would imply misconception of its essential
character. It would be no more than a floating aggregation of voluntary
associations; like the companies of which a nation's commerce is made up
such associations would not be organized, but would simply tend to
coöperate because of their common object. Each association would have
its local and its central side, formed for the purpose of mediating
between the wants of a locality and the educational supply offered by
universities or similar central institutions. No doubt such a scheme is
widely different from the ideal education of European countries, so
highly organized from above that the minister of education can look at
his watch and know at any moment all that is being done throughout the
country. On the contrary the genius of the Anglo-Saxon race leans
towards self-help; it has been the mission of the race in the past to
develop self-government in religion and politics, it remains to crown
this work with the application of the voluntary system to liberal
education.

In indulging this piece of speculation I have had a practical purpose
before me. If what I have described be a reasonable forecast for the
University of the Future, does it not follow that University Extension,
as the germ of it, presents a field for the very highest academic
ambition? To my mind it appears that existing types of university have
reached a point where further development in the same direction would
mean decline. In English universities the ideal is 'scholarship.'
Scholarship is a good thing, and we produce it. But the system which
turns out a few good scholars every year passes over the heads of the
great mass of university students without having awakened them to any
intellectual life; the universities are scholarship-factories producing
good articles but with a terrible waste of raw material. The other main
type of university enthrones 'research' as its summum bonum. Possibly
research is as good a purpose as a man can set before him, but it is not
the sole aim in life. And when one contemplates the band of recruits
added each year to the army of investigators, and the choice of ever
minuter fields--not to say lanes and alleys--of research, one is led to
doubt whether research is not one of the disintegrating forces of
society, and whether ever increasing specialisation must not mean a
perpetual narrowing of human sympathies in the intellectual leaders of
mankind. Both types of university appear to me to present the phenomena
of a country suffering from the effects of overproduction, where the
energies of workers had been concentrated upon adding to the sum of
wealth, and all too little attention had been given to the distribution
of that wealth through the different ranks of the community. Just at
this point the University Extension movement appears to recall academic
energy from production to distribution; suggesting that devotion to
physics, economics, art, can be just as truly shown by raising new
classes of the people to an interest in physical and economic and
aesthetic pursuits, as by adding to the discoveries of science, or
increasing the mass of art products. To the young graduate, conscious
that he has fairly mastered the teaching of the past, and that he has
within him powers to make advances, I would suggest the question
whether, even for the highest powers, there is any worthier field than
to work through University Extension towards the University of the
Future.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 53: The Cambridge fee is £45 per course of three months.]










--- Provided by LoyalBooks.com ---