The Unknown

Max Weber
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
The Unknown
Max Weber
Paul Honigsheim
Edited and with an introduction by
Alan Ska
Transaction Publishers
New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.)
First paperback printing 2003
Copyright 2000 by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conven-
tions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing
from the publisher. All inquiries should be addressed to Transaction Publish-
ers, RutgersThe State University, 35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway, New Jersey
08854-8042.
This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Stan-
dard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 00-034405
ISBN: 0-7658-0015-2 (cloth); 0-7658-0953-2 (paper)
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Honigsheim, Paul, 1885-1963
The unknown Max Weber / Paul Honigsheim ; edited and with an
introduction by Alan Sica.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7658-0953-2 (alk. paper)
1. Weber, Max, 1864-1920Contributions in social sciences I. Sica,
Alan, 1949- II. Title.
H59. W4 H65 2000
300dc21 00-034405
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction: Paul Honigsheim and Max Weber's Lost Decade ix
Alan Sica
Foreword to On Max Weber (1962) xxiii
Part 1: The Unknown Max Weber
1. Max Weber as Rural Sociologist 3
2. Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist 17
3. Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 33
4. Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 99
and Development
Part 2: On Max Weber
5. Memories of Max Weber 123
6. Max Weber 239
7. Max Weber as Sociologist 251
8. Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 261
Name Index 277
Subject Index 285
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
Acknowledgements
Philip Schwadel scanned the four original articles and the printed
book so they could be republished in this new form; his labors were
heroic and indispensable given the limitations of scanning tech-
nology, which leave much to be desired when converting old texts
into contemporary fonts. Thanks also to my Penn State colleagues,
who allowed Phil to work as my research assistant for this and other
projects.
Anne Sica, as always, was there to help in as many ways as needed,
including retyping complex notes which"would not scan"for con-
version to word processing, and also with the tiresome tasks of proof-
reading and indexing. She has been at this task now for over twenty-
five years. How can one thank such a woman sufficiently?
Thanks also go to the original publishers of Honigsheim's work:
"Max Weber as Rural Sociologist," Rural Sociology, 11:3 (Septem-
ber, 1946), 207-218.
"Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist," Applied Anthropology:
Problems of Social Organization, 7:4 (Fall, 1948), 270-35. (Journal was
renamed Human Organization.)
"Max Weber as Historian of Agriculture and Rural Life,"Agricul-
tural History, 23:3 0uly, 1949), 179-213.
"Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background" first ap-
peared in Church History, 19 (1950), 219-239.
On Max Weber, translated by Joan Huber Rytina (New York: Free
Press, Collier-Macmillan Limited, London/East Lansing, MI: Social
Science Research Bureau, 1968).
vii
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
Introduction
Paul Honigsheim and
Max Weber's Lost Decade
Alan Sica
Raul Honigsheim's voice is unique among those who knew Max
Weber personally and decided to write about him, and in its own
way remains as useful to understanding Weber and his times as are
the celebrated remarks of Karl Jaspers. In 1960 Howard P. Becker,
famous for his brutal honesty, reflected on "Paul Honigsheim's lin-
guistic facility, amazing industry, tremendous range, and incredibly
accurate memory."
1
And with the posthumous publication in 1968
of On Max Weber,
2
scholars who, during the preceding forty-seven
years, had not noticed Honigsheim's published essays about his fa-
mous friend, were thereby treated to a style of memoir and sub-
stantive commentary which bore the mark of the genuine article.
He was one of the select few who regularly participated in the We-
ber-Kreis in Heidelberg during the second decade of the century,
whose "excellent" dissertation (on Jansenism) Weber approvingly
cited in his most famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism,
3
and who outlived his herculean friend by over four de-
cades.
The young man's frequent visits to the mansion on the Neckar
are faithfully recorded in Marianne Weber's monumental biogra-
phy of her husband.
4
Because Marianne's book remains the undis-
puted foundation of whatever intimate knowledge we have of We-
ix
x The Unknown Max Weber
bereven allowing for the selective portrait she produced, and while
we await a complete edition of his correspondence to appear (in
either German or English)it is worth quoting her at length re-
garding Honigsheim's enviable proximity to the century's preemi-
nent social analyst (circa 1908):
Weber very seldom let himself be lured out of the house, but he always
enjoyed the company of stimulating visitors [from Marianne's diary]:
Almost every day someone is here; of the scholars, it is particularly
Troeltsch, Jellinek....The friends usually come in the afternoon, now and
then also in the evening. Max retires at nine o'clock, but first he does an
enormous amount of talking.
With the older intellectuals there were important scholarly discussions
each time....The young people stood in awe of Weber and always stayed
at a respectful distance...[Marianne here names the Jaspers and Simmel
couples, Roberto Michels, Sombart, Emil Lask, and many other regular
guests.] P. Honigsheim and K. Lowenstein frequently were among the
younger men, future scholars who sought stimulation from Weber.
5
Our life is full to the brim; every day there is a visitor, at least one search-
ing soul (December, 1910)...[Marianne quotes Weber's own words]:
"Yesterday the menu was as follows: Slept well till 8:00 [visits of Gottl,
Lina Radbruch, Gundolf, SalzJ.Thus four of us until 5:15.Then exit Una
R., thus I, Gundolf, and Salz until six, then + Gothein, somewhat later
also exeunt Gundolf and Salz, then Honigsheim and I until 7:30, then +
Lask...until eight then exit Lask. Supper with Honigsheim who remained
until ten o'clock. Then Berta sent him away: Frau Professor would re-
ally be angry.' Then I turned on the electric light in my room to read the
newspaper. Berta brought a lamp and turned off the electric light: Herr
Professor would only forget. 'Then slept tolerably well with a lot of
bromide. Talked about the whole world + three villages."
6
Though idyllically responsive in these passages, especially for
young intellectuals and artists in search of a leader, the company of
Max Weber was not always so pleasantly Socratic. Other eyewit-
nesses recall a furious temper and granite stubbornness that left no
room for the easy style of give and take which Honigsheim and his
peers had obviously come to expect at the Weber "salon." Among
many examples, consider Felix Somary (1881-1956), banker and dip-
lomat, who witnessed an exchange in Vienna between Weber and
Joseph Schumpeter in 1918:
Introduction xi
Max Weber had asked me to be present at the discussion he was to have
with Schumpeter about the succession to his chair at the University of
Vienna. Weber wanted to return to Germany and he was thinking of
Schumpeter as his successor, but the two men knew each other only
superficially although Schumpeter had written an outstanding history
of ideas to accompany Weber's handbook on social sciences. I was wor-
ried about the meeting, because a greater contrast between two per-
sonalities was hard to imagine.
Max Weber was a restless, nervous type, full of "drive, "a Huguenot with
deeply-held convictions, for which he strove with every atom of his
energy. He battled on without letting up, even when only minor issues
were at stake. He was explosive in temperament, verging on intoler-
ance; those who did not know him well could easily have been put off
or even frightened at first meeting him. Hugo von Hofmannstahl tried
to explain him by saying: "He has the gifts of a Caesar who is unable to
find a field large enough for his energies. "There was much truth in that
observation: Weber was never in his life able to give his tremendous
intellectual and spiritual powers full expression. He took nothing lightly.
Schumpeter, on the other hand took nothing hard. He had been edu-
cated at the Vienna Theresianum, where the pupils were taught to stick
to subjects and not to get personally involved. The rules of the game in
every part and ideology were to be learned thoroughly, but nobody
should join a party or subscribe to a dogma....
We met in the Cafe Landmann opposite the University. Ludo Hartmann,
a historian of the Classical world and son-in-law of Mommsen, accom-
panied Weber, and I came with Schumpeter. I took no notes of our con-
versation, but can recall the elements of it that impressed me most
strongly. The talk turned to the Russian Revolution [whereupon they
disagreed about the likely outcome]. Weber said with some heat that
communism at the Russian state of development was a crimehe knew
the language and followed Russian affairs closely. He added that devel-
opments in Russia would lead to unheard-of human misery and end in
a terrible catastrophe. [Schumpeter countered that it was "a good labo-
ratory to test our theories."] "A laboratory heaped with human corpses!"
Weber replied.
"Every anatomy classroom is the same thing," Schumpeter shot
back...Weber become more vehement and raised his voice, as
Schumpeter for his part became more sarcastic and lowered his. All
around us the cafe customers stopped their card games and listened
eagerly, until the point when Weber sprang to his feet and rushed out
into the Ringstrasse, crying "This is intolerable!" Hartmann followed
xii The Unknown Max Weber
with Weber's hat, and vainly tried to calm him down. Schumpeter, who
had remained behind with me, only smiled and said,"How can some-
one carry on like that in a coffee house!"
I felt unhappy about the incident. Here were two individuals of rare
gifts, who were not far apart in their fundamental views on the economy,
and in their deep intellectual seriousness. But it was the curse of the
German and Austrian haute bourgeoisie that its all too few original per-
sonalities, if they ever met at all, immediately became deadly enemies.
They all had too much temperament to compromise on issues.
7
Expressive explosions of this kind, based as much on strongly
held intellectual positions as on quirks of personality, were often
reported whenever Weber spoke in a public or semi-public forum.
Only in his private home, among students and friends of the sort
that Honigsheim was, did Weber "lighten up"and take on the inter-
personal style more common to ordinary people. He was known
even to joke.
Considering all this, Honigsheim's special place within Weber's
world compels us to grant his reminiscences, as well as the Weberian
scholarship his privileged position made possible,
8
a degree of cred-
ibility and informativeness which can be matched by very few oth-
ers whose works are in English, for example, Karl Jaspers and Karl
Lowenstein.
9
On the basis of the intimate knowledge thus gained
about Weber, his colleagues, his personal style and intellectual con-
cerns, Honigsheim wrote over the years a series of masterful essays,
the first of which appeared almost immediately after Weber's death
in 1920, the last left in manuscript in 1963, just prior to the author's
own death.
10
But since many of them have remained either
untranslated or in journals seldom consulted by today's students of
Weber, Honigsheim's portrait of his colleague as man and sociolo-
gist has suffered unwarranted neglect, when compared to those of
Parsons, Gerth and Mills, Bendix, and others.
11
This omission is not only unfortunate on the simple grounds that
Honigsheim alone, of all these chroniclers (except Jaspers and
Lowenstein), knew Weber and was esteemed by the master of
Heidelberg. More importantly, there are certain of his essays which
open up portions of Weber's work to English-language scholars that
are otherwise obscured for lack of translations.
12
To be precise,
Honigsheim published in the late 1940s a set of four essays which
Introduction xiii
address what might be called Weber's "lost decade." Between 1889
and 1898 (and the onset of his emotional ailment), Weber published
an enormous amount of sociological, political-economic, and his-
torical writing. His dissertation on late medieval trading companies
in the Mediterranean
13
is reasonably well known by name, but has
not yet substantively penetrated Anglophone scholarship, since most
students rely upon capsulizations for their knowledge of this im-
portant work.
14
Very quickly he composed an habilitation on the
history of agrarian practices in Rome which so impressed Theodor
Mommsen, so goes the oft-told tale, that the elder publicly "anointed"
young Weber as his successor in ancient historiography.
15
With hardly
a breath, he directed what for that time was a gigantic research project
on behalf of a social policy organization, in order to ascertain the
state of agrarian economy and social structure east of the Elbe (at the
time a "hot" political issue), analyzing all the data himself. This was
published as a volume in the proceedings of the organization, and
came to 891 pages, all of which Weber either wrote, compiled, or ed-
ited for publication.
16
His next major publications included a study of
the stock and commodity exchange, published in segments between
1894 and 1896, totalling 390 pages, only sixty-five pages of which
found their way into the collected essays.
17
In addition to these, Weber managed to publish numerous po-
sition papers, book reviews, contributions to symposia, and so on.
But only taking into account the major writings from 1889 to 1896,
one confronts 1,700 pages of Weber's work, less than 10 percent of
which were included in the Gesammelte Aufsatze, and little of which
has been translated into English. In fact, from the entire decade in
question, only four essays have entered English-language scholar-
ship,
18
literally leaving 95 percent of Weber's hectic first period of
creativity untouched. This, then, is truly a segment of a promethean
career lost to our knowledge, the same period during which Weber
established his reputation in Germany as the most versatile and
brilliant of the younger social scientists. It was, in fact, these very
studies which drew young men like Honigsheim, Georg Lukacs,
and Karl Lowenstein to Weber after his partial recovery in 1903.
Today "Weberian" sociologists usually strive to imitate the sub-
stance or method of the mature work, material written for the most
part after 1911. For the earlier writings, and especially for those in-
volving ancient history, it proves enlightening to turn once again to
xiv The Unknown Max Weber
Honigsheim's solid essays on the subject, little gems which have
virtually escaped notice since their publication fifty years ago.The
first of the group "Max Weber as Rural Sociologist,"
19
concisely treats
Weber's essays on Russia, Poland, and other works in economic his-
tory, attempting to demonstrate Weber's proper claim to the label
"rural sociologist." The article is still important since with rare ex-
ception,
20
little of the material Honigsheim deals with has been
translated or commented upon in subsequent secondary studies. It
might be argued that Honigsheim overplayed his hand somewhat
in order to "place" the essay within a particular journala strategy
not unknown among practitioners today. But this in no way dimin-
ishes the importance, for instance, of Honigsheim's treatment of
the "feoffment in trust" (Fideikommis) and the importance of this
feudal anachronism in late nineteenth-century Europe, or his com-
ments upon Weber's interpretation of the Serbian Zodruga and the
Russian mir. Though less ambitious than the other three essays,
Honigsheim's initial statement about Weber in an American jour-
nal still offers a point of departure for students wishing to probe
Weber's celebrated and misconstrued distaste for traditional Slavic
social structure. (He was at the same time, however, a champion of
revolutionary movements, particularly the events of 1905.)
21
Addi-
tionally, the only scholar in more recent years who has assayed
Weber's rural sociology based most of his conclusions upon
Honigsheim's "spadework," as evidenced by numerous references
to the latter's essay.
22
Two years later Honigsheim turned his attention toward "ap-
plied anthropology," in hopes of proving that his old friend could
be counted among scholars in this field as well.
23
Here again the
contemporary reader finds an examination of Weber's interest in
subjects which have too often been ignored, in favor of the
warhorses: bureaucracy, stratification, charisma, routinization, the
market, and so on. For instance, Honigsheim aggressively makes a
case for Weber's intellectual commitment to the study of race,
ethnicity, and nationalism as mediated by ethnic attachments, so-
cial policy formation, handicraft economies, comparative social struc-
tures, and also what he calls "Ethno-Politics"or "Ethnic Social Poli-
tics" (p. 18). With slight repetition from the preceding article,
Honigsheim swiftly guides the reader through a set of essays which
have mostly eluded translators, especially those in which Weber
Introduction xv
combines the results of empirical research with prognostications
about the likely political fates of given countries and areas. His es-
says on Poland, Prussia, Russia, Bavaria, Bismarck's foreign policy,
the nation-state, the role of the national president, the condition of
agricultural laborers, and various racialist theories (of which Weber
held a low opinion), are among these.
The earlier two essays to appear in English apparently served as
Honigsheim's working papers for the third, "Max Weber as Histo-
rian of Agriculture and Rural Life."
24
This article must certainly be
judged a minor masterpiece of exegesis and comparative inquiry. It
is comparative in the sense that Honigsheim takes upon himself
the enormous task not only of stating concisely Weber's achieve-
ments in the field, but also to show, point by point, whose ideas
Weber used, whether and how he modified them in his own re-
search, and which later scholars made use of Weber's major no-
tions, and to what degree. This immense labor of love requires nearly
twenty-four thousand words and four mighty tables, on which the
author directly relates Weber's work to that of dozens of writers
from all the major European countries, and through scores of re-
search monographs.
25
It is an exercise in the sociology of knowl-
edge which is rivaled by few within its genre. In addition to the
prodigious tabular layout, Honigsheim also composed notes to the
article which are quintessentially German, and must be read to be
believed. In the first, page-long footnote, for example, he writes,
"The following authors seemingly deal with the same matters in
some of their books as Weber, but actually they do not mention
him, even in their footnotes and bibliographies, and accordingly
they can be omitted [from Honigsheim's consideration]:...,"where-
upon sixty-two scholars from the U.S., England, France, Germany,
China, Russia, and elsewhere are listed alphabetically (p.l80n).
The essay begins by enumerating the "eleven fundamentals" of
Weber's epistemology (p. 180), certainly the most parsimonious re-
port of this material one is likely to find. Thereafter Honigsheim
immediately begins his long journey, during which he elucidates
Weber's work on pre-state society, oriental and pre-occidental state
cultures, classical antiquity, and the Christian world. To do this he
must range over Weber's entire output, but, as before, he concen-
trates on the half-dozen historical and empirical studies which Weber
wrote before his debilitation in 1898. What is most useful for today's
xvi The Unknown Max Weber
student, whether regarding Weber or historical sociology in gen-
eral, is the extraordinary parsimony with which Honigsheim pre-
sents a deluge of factual and theoretical information. This is espe-
cially vivid in the tables, where one column of each is given over to
the stating of prepositional theories, noting whether they were ac-
cepted by Weber after initial enunciation by his predecessors. By
using this format, Honigsheim makes it easy for the reader to fol-
low important notions from one historian to another, and from this
country to that (for instance, about changing family structure through
history). Herbert Spencer's unequalled but forgotten Descriptive So-
ciology, in 12 volumes, comes to mind when reading Honigsheim's
tabular representation of Weber's research. Also notable are the sub-
divisions within each of the four major areas of historical interest,
for example, animal husbandry, nomadism, land communism,
seignorial property, the matrilinear family, and so on, all under the
first topic, "Pre-State Society" (pp. 182ff). To this writer's knowl-
edge, this article is in a class alone, for no other (in English) has
attempted to juxtapose systematically Weber's historical and theo-
retical analyses of premodem society with those of his contempo-
raries and immediate followers to the extent and with the com-
pleteness that Honigsheim achieves in this selection. But not only
can one quickly "locate" Weber in the intellectual current of his
time, it is also simple to learn what he himself discovered about a
range of historical phenomena which have not often been associ-
ated with his name (e.g., the Etruscans, or the powerlessness of
handicraftsmen in ancient Greece). Had Honigsheim written noth-
ing else on his mentor, his reputation as a Weber scholar would
have been assured through wide dissemination of this one article,
which unfortunately did not occur.
The last of the four articles might best be thought of as a minor
corrective and addendum to Marianne's biography (cited above). In
"Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background and Develop-
ment,"
26
we leam things about Weber which in Marianne's circum-
spect, sometimes recondite book, lay beneath the surfacefor in-
stance, that Weber's pessimism about "man's perceptive capacity"
and "inborn goodness" resonate with Kant's Religion Within the Lim-
its of Reason Alone (p. 235), but that the major difference between the
two stemmed not from arid epistemology, but from dissimilar emo-
tional reponses to Pietism and the conception of "the tragic."
Introduction xvii
Honigsheim cites as his basic references for the article remarks in
Weber's letters and his last two speeches, information provided by
Marianne, and the author's own memories. Though many of Weber's
letters have been available for some time,
27
Honigsheim remains
one of the few commentators to have consulted them to any extent.
Perhaps the greatest service this article performs is in sorting out,
definitively one might think, the thorny questions about Weber's
intellectual and emotional attachment to his Pietist heritage in con-
flict with his neo-Kantian epistemology. A careful reading of this
last essay helps tremendously in disclosing the "tension" in Weber's
life and work which resulted from the perpetual collision of "fire
and ice": the "irrational"demands of his religious heritage and fa-
milial dilemmas smashing relentlessly against the steely edifice of
his professional method and goals. Honigsheim fearlessly related
Weber's passion for Dostoevsky and Schopenhauer to his larger
Weltanschaung, and by taking these sorts of interpretive risks, soft-
ens the lines of Weber's famously humorless visage.
With interest in the work and person of Max Weber growing with
each year,
28
it would seem only prudent to look again at the work of
a man whose intellectual youth was spent in the extraordinary com-
pany of the twentieth century's greatest social scientist. From him
we may learn not only the bold outlines of a theory or two, but
more importantly, the finer shades and contours of thought which
are revealed by one person to another only during private ex-
change. Through these essays we luckily become party to those pri-
vate moments.
Notes
1. Howard P. Becker,"ForteenYears After, "in Howard Becker and Harry
Elmer Barnes, Social Throught from Lore to Science, 3rd edition (New
York: Dover Publications, 1960), Vol. 1, p. xvii.
2. Translated by Joan Rytina (New York: Free Press; and East Lansing,
MI: Social Science Research Bureau), a posthumous collection of four
essays and the first book-length item on Weber published over
Honigsheim's name.
3. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans, by Talcott Par-
sons (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958, pb ed.), pp. 212, 222,
226,229. Weber writes,"On the attitude of Port Royal and the Jansenists
to the calling, see now the excellent study of Dr. Paul Honigsheim, Die
Staats- und Soziallehren der franzosischen Jansenisten im 17ten Jahrhundert
xviii The Unknown Max Weber
(Heidelberg Historical Dissertations, 1914...)", p. 212. He later called it
"an acute analysis,"p. 229.
4. Max Weber: A Biography, trans, by Harry Zohn (New York: Wiley-
Interscience, 1975), pp. 370, 454, 455. (Reissued in 1988, with a new
introduction by Guenther Roth, by Transaction Publishers.)
5. Marianne Weber, Max Weber, trans, by Harry Zohn, intro. by Guenther
Roth (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1988), 368-370.
6. Ibid., pp. 454-455.
7. Felix Somary, The Raven of Zurich: The Memoirs of Felix Somary, trans,
by A. J. Sherman, with a foreword by Otto von Habsburg (London: C.
Hurst and Company/New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986 [I960]), pp.
120-121.
8. After immigrating to the U.S., Honigsheim prepared detailed course
syllabi for use at Michigan State College which give some indication
of the Weberian scope of his interests, and serve to remind today's
teachers how distant we are, pedagogically, from those of Honigsheim's
era. The syllabi include "An outline for the study of the war and con-
flicting social philosophies" (1942,54 leaves), "An outline for the study
of primitive peoples in North, Central, and South America" (1942,19
leaves), "An outline for the study of races and nationalities, revised"
(1945,37 numbered leaves), "Europe: Its peoples and cultures; an area
course. The Romantic western, southwestern, and southern Europen
countries and peoples; syllabus" (East Lansing, MI: Institute of For-
eign Studies, 1945,44 leaves), and "The Mohammedan World: an area
course; a syllabus" (Institute of Foreign Studies, 1946, 52 leaves). Fi-
nally, in 1970, K. Peter Etzkorn made available "Sociology of Music;
bibliography of titles selected by Paul Honigsheim" (St. Louis: Univer-
sity of Missouri Press, 1970,196 leaves), which later made its way into
a book which Etzkorn edited, Music and Society: The Later Writings of
Paul Honigsheim (NewYork: John Wiley and Sons, 1973), reissued with
new material as Sociologists and Music: An Introduction to the Study of
Music and Society, 2nd ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publish-
ers, 1989).
9. Karl Jaspers, "Max Weber: A Commemorative Address" [1920] in On
Max Weber, tr. by Robert Whelan, ed. and intro. by John Dreijmanis
(NewYork: Paragon House, 1989), 1-27, passim; Karl Loewenstein, "Per-
sonal Recollections of Max Weber, "in Max Weber's Political Ideas in the
Perspective of Our Time, tr. by Richard and Clara Winston (Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press, 1966), pp. 91-104.
10. "Max Weber als Soziologe," Kolner Vierteljahrshef te fur
Sozialwissenschaf ten,Vol. 1, No. 1 (1921), pp. 32-41, and "Erinnerungen
an Max Weber, "Kolner Zeitschrif t fur Soziologe und Sozialpsychologie,
15 (1963), pp. 161-271, both translated for the first time in On Max
Weber, pp. 125-33 and 1-122 respectively.
11. Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (NewYork: McGraw-Hill,
1937), pp. 500-694, plus dozens of later works; H.H. Gerth and C.
Introduction xix
Wright Mills, trans, and eds., From Max Weber (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1946), pp. 3-74; Reinhard Bendix. Max Weber: An In-
tellectual Portrait (NewYork: Anchor Books, 1962; reprinted by the Uni-
versity of California Press, 1977, with a new introduction by Guenther
Roth). Others include Karl Loewenstein, Max Weber's Political Ideas in
the Perspective of Our Time (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press,
1966), pp. 91-104; Arthur Mitzman, The Iron Cage: An Historical Inter-
pretation of Max Weber (NewYork: Grosset & Dunlap, 1971; reprinted
with a new introduction by the author, Transaction Publishers, 1985);
and Dirk Kasler, Max Weber: An Introduction to his L ife and Work (Ox-
ford: Polity/Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
12. An interesting exception is Fred Rosenberg's dissertation, Society and
Civilization in Max Weber's Earlier Work, 1890-1907 (New School, 1983),
especially pp. 209-275. Rosenberg used Benjamin's Nelson's
"civilizational analysis" as an entry into this terra incognita, yet he re-
lies for the most part on translations into English rather than the Ger-
man originals. Nevertheless, his study is informative and unusual given
the enormous amount of Weber literature which exists and has man-
aged somehow to avoid these earlier years entirely, particularly 1890
through 1897. For bibliographical details, see Alan Sica, Max Weber
and the New Century (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, forthcoming), which
includes a 3,000+ item bibliography of Weberiana in English.
13. Zur G eschichte der Handelgesellschaften im Mittelalter (Stuttgart: F. Enke,
1889), reprinted in Weber's G esammelte Aufsatze zur Sozial- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Tubingen: Mohr, 1924), pp. 312-443.
14. The best known are Bendix's Max Weber, pp. 1-2, and Guenther Roth,
"Introduction,"pp. xxxiv-xxxvi, in Max Weber, Economy & Society, trans,
and ed. by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (NewYork: Bedminster,
1868). These, of course, are very slight sketches of a technically de-
manding work, for the preparation of which Weber forced himself to
master medieval dialects both of Spanish and Italian; see Marianne
Weber, Max Weber, p. 113.
15. Das Romische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung fur das Staats- und
Privatrecht (Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1891), 286 pp. This work was not incor-
porated in Weber's collected essays. For details of Mommsen's famous
acclamation, see Marianne Weber, Max Weber, p. 114.
16. Schriften des Vereins fur Sozialpolitik:"Die verhaltnisse der Landarbeiter
im ostelbischen Deutschland,"Vol. 55 (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot,
1892).This work was not included in the collected works that appeared
in the early 1920s, was finally reprinted in 1984 as volume 3 of the
G esamtausgabe project, yet none of it has been translated. A useful
portrait of the Verein is in Anthony Oberschall, Empirical Social Re-
search in G ermany, 1848-1914 (NewYork: Basic Books, 1965), pp.
21-27, passim. Oberschall says a few words about Weber's role in
the Verein study of 1892, but goes into much more detail concern-
ing a later field study of factory workers which Weber conducted in
xx The Unknown Max Weber
1908 ("The Psychophysics of Industrial Work;" GAzSuS, pp. 61-109).
Again, the writings of the "lost decade" are slighted in favor of later
research. Other useful analyses include Keith Tribe, "Prussian Agricul-
ture and German Politics: Max Weber 1892-1897" in Tribe (ed.), Read-
ing Max Weber (London: Routledge, 1989), 85-130, and Martin
Riesebrodt, "From Patriarchalism to Capitalism: The Theoretical Con-
text of Max Weber's Agrarian Studies (1892-3)," in Tribe, ibid, 131-
157. See also, for comments on the Verein study, Bendix, Max Weber,
pp. 14-23,30-41.
17. "Die Borse," reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Soziologie und
Sozialpolitik, pp. 256-88; "Die Ergebnisse der deutschen Borsenenquete,"
Zeitschrift fur Gesammte Handelsrecht, 43 (1895): 83-219, 457-514; 44
(1896): 29-74; 45 (1896): 69-156; and "Die Borse," also reprinted in
GAzSuS, pp. 289-322. See also Bendix, Max Weber, pp. 23-29
18. The translated articles include: "The Social Causes of the Decay of
Ancient Civilization," The Journal of General Education, 5 (1950), 75-88;
translated from the reprint in Weber's Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sozial-
und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 289-311. Weber delivered this address in
1896 in Freiburg. The English translation has been reprinted in J.E.T.
Eldridge, ed., Max Weber: The Interpretation of Social Reality (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), pp. 254-75; "Developmental Tenden-
cies in the Situation of East Elbian Rural Labourers," Economy and
Society, 8:2 (May, 1979), 177-205, reprinted in Keith Tribe (ed), Reading
Weber, 158-187; "The National State and Economic Policy (Freiburg
Address)," Economy and Society, 9:4 (November, 1980), 428-449, re-
printed in Reading Weber, 188-209; "'Roman'and'Germanic'Law," In-
ternational Journal of the Sociology of Law, 13:3 (August, 1985), 237-246.
For a brief review of this period, see Kasler, Max Weber, 51-66.
19. Rural Sociology 11:3 (Sept. 1946): 207-17, lead article.
21. One of Weber's essays on Russia was translated for the first time not
long ago: "The Prospects of Liberal Democracy in Tsarist Russia," in
Weber: Selections in Translation, ed. by W.G. Runciman, trans, by Eric
Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 269-
84. More recently made available is Max Weber, The Russian Revolu-
tions, tr. and ed. by Gordon C. Wells and Peter Baehr (Oxford: Polity
Press, 1995), which includes his prescient essays of 1905-1906 and also
of 1917. Victoria Bonnell, a leading U.S. sociologist of Russian politics,
was astonished at Weber's acute ability to foretell Soviet history long be-
fore its lineaments became obvious to other analysts; see her review in
Contemporary Sociology, 25:6 (November, 1996), 821-823.
Weber typically used his thorough knowledge of agrarian economics
to comment upon the political futures of Poland, Russian and Prussia,
thus giving his analyses remarkable depth. A more recent stylistic
equivalent is perhaps Barrington Moore, in his Social Origins of Dicta-
torship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), and his legion
imitators.
Introduction xxi
21. Of the few appreciable statements about Weber's political sociology of
Russia (as opposed to his agrarian sociology), the most recent and
detailed is David Beetham, Max Weber and The Theory of Modern Poli-
tics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974), chapter 7, pp. 183-214. This supple-
ments Richard Pipes, "Max Weber on Russia," World Politics, 7:3 (April
1955): 371-401.
22. QJ. Munters, "Max Weber as Rural Sociologist," Sociologia Ruralis, 12:2
(1972), 129-146. This essay does include a useful bibliography of ev-
erything Weber wrote which touches upon rural sociology, plus a dem-
onstration of the fact that American text writers on the subject have
failed to notice Weber. There are nine explicit references to Honigsheim
in Munters'short essay.
23. "Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist," Applied Anthropology: Prob-
lems of Human Organization (long since known as Human Organiza-
tion), 7:4 (Fall 1948), 27-35.
24. Agricultural History 2:33 (July 1949): 179-213.
25. Honigsheim is especially keen in showing the interrelation of Weber
and Oppenheimer. At around the same time, he enlarged upon the
importance of the latter, a neglected figure, in the peerless text as-
sembled by H.E. Barnes, An Introduction to the History of Sociology
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 332-52: "The Socio-
logical Doctrines of Franz Oppenheimer: An Agrarian Philosophy of
History and Social Reform."
26. Church History 19 (1950):219-239.
27. Jungendbrief e, 1879-1893 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1936) and Max Weber: Werk
und Person, ed. by Eduard Baumgarten (Tubingen: Mohr, 1964). It is
also known that Baumgarten is in possession of many letters concern-
ing Weber's private life, which he has not yet published. Interest in
these documents was stimulated by Mitzman's book (mentioned
above) and by Martin Green's The von Richthof en Sisters (New York:
Basic Books, 1974). Thus far volumes 5 and 6 of the Gesamtausgabe
have provided letters from the Weber collection that originate in the
years 1906-1908 (vol. 5) and 19091910 (vol. 6), published in 1990
and 1994 respectively.Their availability has not yet made much impact
on Anglophone Weber scholarship.
28. The most detailed general bibliography of secondary literature on
Weber lists 2,400 items in a half-dozen languages; see Constans
Seyfarth and Gerd Schmidt, comps., Max Weber Bibliographic; Eine
Dokumentation der Sekundarliteratur (Stuttgart: Enke, 1977). My own
compilation of English-language works numbers more than 3,000
items; see Max Weber and the New Century (Oxford: Blackwell Pub-
lishers, forthcoming).
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
Foreword to On Max Weber (1962)
Paul Honigsheim came to Michigan State University by way of
France and Panama in 1938 as a political refugee from Germany. As
incongruous a figure in a provincial midwestern university as a cow-
boy in Heidelberg, Honigsheim nonetheless provided a model of
scholarship for students and colleagues alike. To be with Dr.
Honigsheim (never Raul) was to be in a perpetual seminar with the
theme ever the samethe role of history in social structure and
process, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He stood firmly in the clas-
sic tradition of sociology, and insisted that history, biography, and
social issues make up the guts of sociology. And he was ready to
prove to anyone that American sociology was too non-historical,
too oblivious to world problems, and too dependent upon statistics.
Honigsheim was a person of enormous intellectual and physical
vigor. A three-hour lecture was merely a warm-up, a prelude to a
discussion that could last for days. A self-labeled fanatic and monk,
Honigsheim devoted himself completely to scholarship. There was
little else to life. His three-room apartment was filled with books,
clippings, records, and notes. Even the kitchen cupboards were
crammed with books and papers. He planned prodigious and gran-
diose writing and research efforts, among which were definitive
volumes on Max Weber's sociology, the sociology of music, the
Mohammedan world, and the history of social and political thought.
Yet he completed none of these. Unconsciously, he kept putting off
these tasks to respond to virtually any request to write an article, an
encyclopedia piece, or a radio talk on almost any socio-historical
subject.
Reluctantly, as a response to the constant nagging of his stu-
dents and colleagues, he began work on his books in the last years
of his life. Yet they remained subsidiary tasks to be turned to in ear-
nest "once this damned article t hat ... is plaguing me for is done."
xxiii
xxiv The Unknown Max Weber
Almost as if he had a premonition that turning to the Weber book
would hasten his death, Honigsheim was uncompromisingly busy
on the Weber memoirs during his last days. He had completed a
rough draft of his reminiscences of Weber just before he died. The
draft was hand-written in German, and the style showed that he
was anxious to get down his main ideas. The Weber book was not
to be a mere assemblage of the articles already printed. He had
planned to revise his articles, to fill in certain gaps, and to incor-
porate his personal memories of Weber. But death (or rather,
Mephistopheles, as Honigsheim would have preferred) intervened.
Honigsheim's reminiscences of Weber were originally solicited
by Dr. Johannes Winckelmann of the Max Weber Archives, Univer-
sity of Munich. As a part of the Max Weber Centennial celebration,
they were published almost unedited by Rene Konig in the Kolner
Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozial/psychologie in 1963.
Paul Honigsheim was born in Diisseldorf on March 28,1885. He
pursued his higher education at the Universities of Bonn, Berlin,
and Heidelberg. His Ph.D., granted in 1914 at Heidelberg, was in
history, and his dissertation was entitled, "Die Staats- und Sozial-
Lehren der franzosischen Jansenisten im 17. Jahrhundert." It was
during the Heidelberg period that he became a member of Weber's
inner circle. Although Honigsheim was never a student of Weber's
in the formal sense, their intellectual interchange was extensive.
He was often a guest in the Weber household and remained in con-
tact with Marianne Weber until her death.
World War I was a personal tragedy for Paul Honigsheim. He
called himself "half a Frenchman" (his mother was French), and the
war struck him as a horrible fratricide. After induction into the Ger-
man army, he served as an interpreter for captured French soldiers
in the prisoner of war camp near Paderbom. It was during this time
that he became an ardent pacifist.
After the War he became assistant and librarian, Institute for So-
cial Research, University of Cologne, and held these positions from
1919 to 1921. He then became instructor and associate, University
of Cologne and, simultaneously, director of the People's University,
an adult education program of the University of Cologne. He held
these positions until 1933. He left Germany soon after the Nazis
seized power and became director of the Paris branch of the Insti-
tute for Social Research. He held this post until 1936 when he went
to the University of Panama as professor of philosophy, history, and
anthropology. Two years later he came to Michigan State College in
the Department of Sociology and Anthropology. His retirement from
Michigan State in 1950 was a formality, for he continued his frantic
pace of teaching and writing.
He was guest professor at Lewis and Clark (1950-53) and at Wash-
ington State College (1956-57). Returning to East Lansing, he re-
sumed classes and his round of informal seminars at Michigan State
University. He also lectured at numerous other American universi-
ties, made several lecture trips to Germany, and regularly attended
meetings of the American and International Sociological Associa-
tions.
Paul Honigsheim ordered his life in accord with the demands of
scholarship. He read prodigiously and possessed an encyclopedic
memory. His hand-written notes and extracts, carefully classified
and filed, would fill an ordinary office. To say that "Max Weber wolfed
down eight little cakes," as Honigsheim does in the reminiscences,
cannot be dismissed as false precision. We are sure that a note taken
about 1913 specifies this fact.
Honigsheim's scholarship ranged over numerous disciplines and
his bibliography contains well over 300 citations in German, En-
glish, French, and Spanish. Although the majority of his writings
focused on the history of ideas, many of his works dealt with such
diverse areas as the sociology of the arts, pacifism, ethnology, and
adult education. Among his unfinished works is a book-length
manuscript on the sociology of music.
Honigsheim was never happier than when surrounded by stu-
dents, either in the classroom or around a table. His impact upon
students was shattering: either they became mesmerized devotees
or fled in search of a less enriched academic fare. It is difficult to
know whether Honigsheim the scholar, or Honigsheim the human
being, was the more appealing to his students, colleagues, and
friends.
This small volume offers a sample of Paul Honigsheim's wide-
ranging scholarship bearing exclusively on Max Weber, Even this
sample would not have been possible without the collaboration of
a number of people. Joan Rytina, research associate in the Depart-
ment of Sociology, brought imagination and great energy to the
difficult task of rendering an unrevised German text into English.
xxvi The Unknown Max Weber
Liese von Oettingen, librarian, Grand Haven Public Library, assisted
Mrs. Rytina in checking and verifying certain references and idi-
oms.
We wish to recognize the assistance of others who have contrib-
uted in a number of different ways. Dr. Rolfe Schulze, Department
of Sociology, Northwestern University, served as an assistant to Dr.
Honigsheim and spurred him to prepare the reminiscences. Miss
Brigitte Utikal, Honigsheim's student helper, and Mrs. Helene Ur-
ban, his typist and friend, did yeoman service in preparing the hand-
written text of the reminiscences for publication in German. Miss
Utikal and Mrs. Elke Kochweser Ammassari provided translations
of many articles to give us a basis for deciding what to include in
the present volume. Dr. Peter Etzkorn, Department of Sociology,
University of Nevada, consulted with Mrs. Rytina on resistent por-
tions of the manuscript. Dorothy Tervo, Nancy Moore, and Sharon
L. Graham typed the manuscript, and William D. Emery helped with
the editing of the footnotes.
We gratefully acknowledge permission from Kolner Zeitschrift fur
Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Duncker & Humblot, Westdeutscher
Verlag, and Handworterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften to translate and
publish the papers found in this book.
Finally, we wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Louis L. McQuitty,
Dean of the College of Social Science, for his enthusiastic support.
Not only did he make available the facilities of the Social Science
Research Bureau, but he encouraged the enterprise in many other
ways.
Readers of this volume should be aware that, as a first draft,
Honigsheim's "Memories of Max Weber" is incomplete in many
ways. This translation is incomplete, in similar ways, but, unlike
Honigsheim's work, ours is a matter of design, not circumstance.
Those of us involved in this enterprise have tried to present what
Honigsheim actually wrote as he wrote it. To do more, to improve
on what we can only imagine were Honigsheim's intentions, was
not our wish.
/. Allan Beegle
William H. Form
Part 1
The Unknown Max Weber
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
1
Max Weber as Rural Sociologist:
In Commemoration of the Twenty-Fifth
Anniversary of His Death
The United States will be obliged to participate in a decisive way
in the rehabilitation of chaotic Europe in general, and of its rural life
in particular. This task is inextricably connected with the political
problems related to the penetration of the Soviets and their collec-
tive farms into central and southeastern Europe. In this connection
at least three types of rural organizations came into consideration:
(1) Feudalism was and still is in existence in Germany, east of the
Elbe, in Poland and in the Rumanian lowland, and was found in its
extremist form until recently, as feoffment in trust (Fideikommis).
This latter term denotes a relatively large estate, being the property
of a privileged family and, therefore, not able to be brought up for
sale, even if the owning family is indebted. (2) The rural collectivity
existed in the past as zadruga in Serbia and as mir in Russia and at
the present time as artel in the Soviet Republics. (3) The indepen-
dent peasant's farm existed and exists to a greater or less extent in
same parts of Eastern Europe, including Germany.
In the United States neither feudalism nor collective farms ex-
isted except in the South and in a few remote sectarian groups. Ac-
cordingly it may be difficult for Americans to appraise these Euro-
pean phenomena. Under such circumstances it may be of importance
to know the viewpoint of Max Weber in regard to these problems,
for he was one of the most outstanding among the German soci-
Rural Sociology 11:3 (Sept., 1946), 207-218.
4 The Unknown Max Weber
ologists, economists, and politicians of the era before, during, and
after World War I. Max Weber was very familiar with the United
States, its economic and sociological viewpoint, through his studies
and travels, and was, therefore, able to compare the Old and New
Worlds. Both his friends and enemies agree in considering him a man
of vast knowledge, keen methodological perception, incorruptible ob-
jectivity, and genuine sense of justice. While he was known in Europe
as much for his rural sociological interests as for his researches in his-
torical and theoretical fields, in the USA he is known almost exclu-
sively, not as a rural sociologist, but as a methodologist and pioneer in
the field of the sociology of religion. He will be considered in this paper
primarily as a rural sociologist. A few preliminary words on his person-
ality and background may be in order at this point.
1
Max Weber was successively a lawyer, a teacher of Roman and
commercial law, and a professor of economics in Freiburg and
Heidelberg. Because he was overworked and ill during fifteen years
while in Heidelberg, he neither taught nor appeared publicly. Later
he re-entered politics during World War I and after the peace trea-
ties for a short time before his death he was professor of sociology
in Munich. The basic element of his spiritual life was a religiously
founded ethical categorical imperative, which drove him to two
duties: (1) to investigate scientific topics objectively, that is, by elimi-
nating personal bias and judgments of value within the historico-
economico-sociological sphere,
2
and (2) to make individual deci-
sions and remain loyal to his convictions in the spheres of religion,
ethics, and politics.
3
As a politician Max Weber shifted from moderate liberalism to a
more radical democratic conviction which was not of a laissez-faire
character, but which, on the contrary, led him to work within the
influential "verein fur Sozialpolitik" for state-supported social poli-
cies. Oriented by his studies in the comparative history of rural life
and institutions
4
he debated four rural political problems, three of
which involved eastern Germany: (1) the social situation of seigniors
and dependents; (2) feoffment in trust; (3) Polish minorities; and
(4) the structure of rural Russia before and after the collapse of Czar-
ism. The discussion on the following pages is developed around
these four topics.
I. The social position of seigniors and dependents is to Max Weber a
Max Weber as Rural Sociologist 5
special case of the sociological phenomenon known as "feudalism."
This is a pattern of social life, closely connected with one of Weber's
three types of leadership, that is, the traditional one. Here the leader
is obeyed, neither because he is supposed to be a unique individual,
nor because there exists a written law in an institutionalized soci-
ety, making him a bureaucrat, but rather because of tradition.
5
Max
Weber investigates and describes the sociological phenomena aris-
ing out of this traditionalistic feudalism, such as the special concept
of honor and luxury, the denial of the calculating and capitalistic
mentality, and the refusal to be involved in trade.
6
But independent
of this general sociologico-classificatory interest, he had the special
and practical interest in and aversion to the power of the Prussian
"Junkers." This situation he describes and judges as follows.
The feudal owners of large rural estates were the regular political
leaders in the majority of rural societies in the past. In England
7
they have continued to the present time and in eastern Germany
until recently.
8
Here actually the leading social class was scattered
over the entire land; their castles and estates were centers of power
and they themselves were political autocrats, economically self-sat-
isfied, with little knowledge in economics and without much inter-
est in business. Their subordinates
9
were not only domestic ser-
vants and valets in the manors of the seigniors, but were either
permanent or transient rural workers, the latter being hired from
surrounding villages. The former were not unmarried, but had fami-
lies, and were obliged, if their families had too few workers, to hire
themselves a substitute called Scharwerker; all these were largely
paid in kind, which made them believe that they had the same eco-
nomic interests as their employers. They accepted this traditional
situation without any opposition owing to the indoctrination they
had received for many generations.
Changes have occurred during recent decades
10
due to the higher
standard of living of the bourgeois class in the cities. Especially now
it was necessary for the Junkers to maintain their social supremacy
and to attempt to raise their own standard; but the manor, thus
managed was not capable of maintaining the living standard of a
noble family. The sons had to become officers in the army or mem-
bers of very exclusive, and expensive student associations, and the
daughters, in order to be married according to their rank, were sup-
6 The Unknown Max Weber
posed to have a big dowry. Thus the Junkers were obliged to be-
came entrepreneurs with an increasingly "bourgeois" mentality and
accordingly changed their attitude toward their subordinates.
11
The
importance of perquisites decreased, while cash payments and the
number of persons receiving them increased. The dependents also
began to prefer this method although it was less secure but of-
fered greater independence. They also began to develop antago-
nism toward the proprietor, even an inclination to class struggle
and some of them emigrated to the cities to become factory work-
ers. Last, but not least, the nobles felt themselves compelled to
change the interrelationship between political power and eco-
nomic status. Formerly they had based their political power on
their unshaken and undisputed economic status; now they found
it necessary to maintain their seriously threatened economic sta-
tus through political power. The result was that they became an
economic group which turned into a pressure group using politi-
cal resources for economic class purposes. This was done by enact-
ing new state laws favoring the maintenance of the economic pro-
ductivity of their estates especially by requiring laws protecting the
feoffment in trust.
II. The f eo f f m en t in t rust , according to Weber, although it had al-
ready been known in ancient Indies, was re-originated in Byzantium,
where land, to avoid its confiscation by the Emperor, was trans-
ferred to the Church under the agreement that nine-tenths of the
land rent be paid to the family. From the Greek-Roman Empire this
institution shifted to the Mohammedans, with them to Christian
Spain and from there to England and other Christian countries, in-
cluding Prussia.
12
Here, under the pressure of the Junkers, the gov-
ernment published in 1903 the draft of a new bill concerning feoff-
ment. Immediately after its publication Max Weber, who had already
shown an interest in the problem
13
and continued later to maintain
his interest in this field,
14
collected material and published his criti-
cism, protest, and his own program. He describes the situation as
having existed hitherto as follows:
15
Land which has relatively high and riskless rent, has a tendency
to be incorporated into feoffments. This arose in considerable part
because those capitalists who had all the money they wanted but
desired security, desired to invest money in such land, in that
Max Weber as Rural Sociologist 7
way obtaining nobility from the monarch, and gaining the op-
portunity of living on the standard of a highly esteemed"rentier."
This possibility would even increase if through tariffs protecting the
grain production, the land-rent of grain-producing land could be
maintained and even increased.
16
The draft of the new bill provided
17
for the possibility of the es-
tablishment of new feoffments with the king's permission and pre-
tended to protect and strengthen by such measures the interest in
family and home. In opposition to this, Weber asserts
18
that it is the
intention of the government to combine protectionism with
feoffments, thus to maintain, and to create artificially big estates,
giving to the capitalistic bourgeoisie class the opportunity of be-
coming nobles, thus making them conservatives dependent upon
the supporters of the monarchy, and allies of the declining east-
ern nobility. He opposes the new bill for this reason and be-
lievesas he will also repeat later
19
that the effects of existing
feoffment are the following
20
: capital which Germany should use
in trade, is removed out of the world's trade and industry; peas-
ants are driven from good to bad land; rural workers settle down
definitively on or near to the feoffment's land, become again bound
to the soil, and in reality dependent upon the landlord, as happened
in the feudal era; rural workers not willing to accept such a situa-
tion, are induced to emigrate, and the owners themselves to hire
foreign seasonal workers.
Under such circumstances, Weber had always opposed
21
every
measure calculated to hinder rural workers from moving to the
city or to return them back to their former rural districts, or to
have them settle as small part-time farmers on or near the large
estates. He concedes
22
feoffments for only a small percentage of
soil used mostly for forestry but insists that all the other feoffments,
which already exist, or the establishment of which may be asked
for, should be eliminated. As a transitory measure he requires
23
expropriation with compensation of the untenable large estates
by the state, the conversion of this land in demesnes, the assign-
ment on leave of the latter to crown-land-lessees, and the protec-
tion of the workers hired by and dependent upon these tenants
with a contract which should be signed by both the state and the
lessees.
8 The Unknown Max Weber
The government became enraged at this sharp opposition and
criticism by the Heidelberg professor but felt itself impelled to with-
draw the draft of the bill. Thus actually Weber was successful, but
only to some extent, for neither his claim for abolition of feoffment
nor the positive part of his program became realized, and the Polish
minority problem in rural eastern Germany also remained, the other
aspect of the feoffment question.
III. The Polish minority in rural Eastern Germany originated thus: By
the partition of Poland at the end of the eighteenth century, some of
the Poles had become subjects and later citizens of Prussia and Ger-
many respectively. Previously, feudalism in Poland had been even
stronger than in Prussia and the latter had to some extent protected
the Polish lower rural classes from the nobility which caused the Pol-
ish masses for some decades of the nineteenth century to acquiesce
to Prussian domination. With an increasing tendency toward
Prussification and with a simultaneous development toward
Russifidation, Polish Catholic propaganda arose against Prussian Prot-
estantism and against Russian Greek-Orthodoxy, thus making the
antagonism between the nations more acute. This manifested itself,
among other things, in the Prussian laws, which restricted sharply
the use of the Polish language in the Eastern provinces.
Max Weber had always strictly opposed anti-Polish language
laws,
24
acknowledging at the same time the loyalty of the Poles in
Upper Silesia,
25
but from the very beginning of his public appear-
ance he likewise opposed the increasing Polonization of the East.
Because of this and other reasons, he blamed the Junkers and the
conservative party. His accusation ran somewhat as follows: they
give themselves an air of nationalism but actually sacrifice national
good for their own socioeconomic interests. These Junkers use hired
Polish seasonal workers coming front Russian-Polish districts be-
cause of the cheapness of the labor and the absence of any obliga-
tion to furnish welfare assistance in time of need. Last, but not
least, the feoffment in trust as they are, and most of all as they would
be, if the bill mentioned in the previous section became law, would
increase, for reasons mentioned above, the amount of seasonal work-
ers, especially those of Polish descent. Only Poles
27
would be willing
to settle on or near the large estates of the manor holders in the
completely dependent form described above. Therefore Weber's
Max Weber as Rural Sociologist 9
twofold challenge:
28
forbid the entrance of Polish seasonal workers,
coming from Polish-Russia into Eastern-Germany and abolish the
feoffments, especially for advancing Polish immigration. Apparently
the national point of view plays a role in Weber's thinking but it is
not the most important. This emphasis upon the national view-
point comes to light here because he considered it his duty to labor
where God or destiny had put him; and one of these values accord-
ing to him is the nation. This national point of view was not the
only one which led Weber to the anti-feoffment campaign, but rather
it was his religiously founded deep sympathy for the lower classes.
This feeling may help us to explain Weber's interest in the changes
of Russian rural structure before and after the collapse of Czarism,
which is regarded as his latest rural sociological interest.
IV. The rural structure o f Russia had always attracted Max Weber's
attention. Even more than that, he had always been affected by the
collectivity feeling of the Russian peasant, by the Greek-Orthodox
Saint and the passive sufferer in the fictions of Dostoevsky, and by
Tolstoy's attempt to teach and to live a life conforming to the pre-
cepts of the Sermon on the Mount. Weber did not believe in the
possibility of regulating state and politics according to those prin-
ciples. On the contrary, he had emphasized more than anyone else
the essentially tragic role of the politician because the latter was
responsible for the future of his group or country. Thus, he could
not act exclusively according to his own individual ethical conscience
without taking the future into consideration; rather he had to act in
regard to his responsibility and take upon himself the burden of
becoming, ethically speaking, guilty and, religiously speaking, a sin-
ner. Max Weber had been deeply touched by the problem and by
Tolstoy's attempt to solve it in a way, different from his own. He had
even planned to go beyond the occasional remarks and to write a
book on this Russian disciple of the Sermon on the Mount.
29
Under
such circumstances, one can hardly wonder that Russian rural life
meant so much to him, not only after the great changes occurring
during World War I, but even before. He had always been interested
in and familiar with the history of agriculture and rural life. With
this background he investigated Russian rural social structure in its
uniqueness comparing it with that of other countries. His descrip-
tion may be summarized as follows:
30
the landed nobility was al-
10 The Unknown Max Weber
ways dominant in the local government of the rural provincial dis-
tricts and yet this same nobility did not have any organization of its
own to protect itself from the czarist government and to ameliorate
its economic conditions. When the economic situation was insuffi-
cient to permit the members of an increasing family to make an
adequate living they were, more than in other countries, compelled
to cultivate connections and in that way obtain high positions in
army and administration. They, therefore, became dependent upon
the czar and carried on only in the role of a court nobility. Much
more than with this nobility, Weber was concerned with the lower
classes and with the rural collectivity, characterizing not exclusively
the Russian but also the other Slavic language-speaking peoples.
Thus, the Serbian zadruga was also of importance to him.
31
This
South Slavic form of rural collectivity had for a long time attracted
the attention of historians of agriculture as well as that of politi-
cians.
32
Even romantically minded anarchists had used it as an ex-
ample to prove the truth of their own theory. Their arguments had
been, that the zadruga is a form of life, without any legal compul-
sion and that, if such a kind of existence were possible in Serbia it
could also became a possibility elsewhere. Thus, for these romanti-
cists it would be a proof that any kind of legal compulsion is super-
fluous. Max Weber opposed such use of the existence of the zadruga
to justify anarchistic claims. He showed that where the zadruga ex-
ists there also exists legal compulsion, even if not administered by
the state, nevertheless carried out by a village community. On the
other hand the fact that the zadruga exists is for him important
because it gives him an opportunity to demonstrate, in opposition
to the state-idolaters, the possibility of a stateless legal coercion.
More than by the zadruga, Weber felt himself attracted to the Rus-
sian mir. The age of the mir is controversial,
33
and he did not feel
himself qualified to ascertain its exact age.
34
The mir centers around
a village with houses built along a single street; the fields are di-
vided into big areas and these are sub-divided into long strips. The
latter are allotted to the families, which are members of the mir,
according to the number of working members in every family. Peri-
odically repartition takes place and there exists the right to
reparticipation in such a new partition for former members who
having left the community had returned again.
35
The czarist minis-
Max Weber as Rural Sociologist 11
ter, Peter Stolypin, at the beginning of the nineteenth century had
instituted rural reform laws in opposition to these traditional mo-
res. These laws made secession from such collectivity possible.
Stolypin considered his measures liberal and favorable to the inde-
pendence of the peasants.
36
Max Weber, studying, describing, and opposing this measure
evaluated it in the following way:
37
the measure splits the peasants
into two antagonistic groups with private owners seceding from the
community and the others still remaining members of it. The ten-
dency was for the peasants, like the veterinarians and other rural
intellectuals increasingly to become adherents of the Social-Revo-
lutionaries. These were the successors of the former Narodniki and
like these a revolutionary party with less industrial and more rural
inclinations, less internationally and more Russian-minded than the
two Marxian groups, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
The Heidelbergian sociologist had the opportunity to know inti-
mately many Social-Revolutionaries who studied at his university
and he considered their movement, socio-psychologically speak-
ing, similar to a religious one. He admired these idealists, who were
willing and ready, to make the greatest sacrifice for their convic-
tions.
38
When Stolypin attempted to split the peasants by these
measures, there appeared at the same time an attempt to split the
adherents of the dangerous Social-Revolutionaries. It was espe-
cially for this reason that Weber opposed very passionately the re-
forms of Stolypin.
39
Nevertheless, the attempt made by the latter
was successful although only to same extent, since the Social-
Revolutionaries remained one of the most important revolutionary
parties, especially immediately after the abdication of the czar. Their
more moderate right wing became, in coalition with the right-wing
Marxists, the Mensheviks, for a short period the rulers of Russia
who had as their immediate problem peace with Germany or con-
tinuation of the war.
Since the beginning of World War I, the Heidelbergian sociolo-
gist, because of convictions which he continued to hold, had advo-
cated peace without annexations.
40
However, he doubted that the
government led by Kerensky who was the leader of the right-wing
Social-Revolutionaries, would be willing and able to carry this out,
especially because of the new rural problems in Russia. Weber con-
12 The Unknown Max Weber
sidered
41
the Russian peasants of that period to be almost exclu-
sively interested in the expropriation of the property of the rural
proprietor of non-peasant origin. He reasoned as follows: they de-
sire to leave the army, return home and enjoy peace; this is also the
desire of the Social-Revolutionaries, who are dependent on these
peasants. But all groups, interested in individual rural property, are
interested for the same reason in hindering the return of the revo-
lutionary-minded peasants. To keep the peasants from returning,
these groups must prefer war to peace, because the latter would
bring the peasants back. Within the anti-peasant and anti-social
revolutionary groups there are (in addition to the independent peas-
ants already mentioned, who left the mir following Stolypin's re-
form) numerous "bourgeois," who invested money in rural prop-
erty for its comparatively high degree of security. Included also in
these groups are the bankers, and last but not least, similar groups
outside of Russia upon whom the Kerensky government is depen-
dent for financial support. It is for this reason that the right wing
Social-Revolutionaries, even though they desire peace are not able
to promote it. They also are handicapped because of lack of support
by the urban workers.
42
The old prerevolutionary antagonism between the Marxists of
both nuancesBolsheviks and Mensheviksand the Social-Revo-
lutionaries of both kindsright and left wingreappear. Even
Plekhanov, the old theoretician of the Mensheviks, asserts that cheap
bread is the first requisite and considers the peasant's claims as ro-
mantic and reactionary. The peasants, adherents of the Kerensky
government, also do not agree with one another. As an illustra-
tion,
43
within one smaller political unit the partition of land may
give to every peasant only six hectares while in the neighboring
one, fifteen hectares. In such cases the peasants living within the
first one of these two units will insist on equal partitions of the land
and, of course, want to base the division on the larger political unit,
thus forcing those who hoped for fifteen hectares to get less. The
peasants, on the other hand, who live within the second area, where
the fifteen-hectare unit is hoped for, will insist on the monopolistic
attribution of the good land of their own district only to themselves,
excluding from the partition all land outside their own small unit
and all the other peasants living together in the larger political unit.
Max Weber as Rural Sociologist 13
Finally,
44
the Kerensky government is still dependent on the Duma,
that is, the elected parliament still in existence. In the latter there is
a strong majority favoring the maintenance of the specific Russian
supremacy over the many non-Russian rural minorities, such as
Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, and so on. This results in another
antagonism within the already weak government led by the social-
revolutionary Kerensky.
Max Weber's prophecy that this government would not be in-
clined to make peace with Germany was true.
45
However, the later
events have disproved his prophecy that the Bolshevik regime would
not exist long.
46
To be sure, after it had been established, boththe
Soviets as well as Weberhad to face the problem of the rural col-
lectivity the Artel, as it now was called, and its transferability to
other parts of Europe. Our sociologist under consideration had al-
ways been free from any prejudice for or against private agricultural
property or collectively owned land.
47
He considered the artel ad-
equate for a population like the Russian, which had always lived in
an agrarian communism. The Western European peasant on the
contrary sets his heart on hereditary property, fears the socialistic
workers, even prefers, when he feels himself endangered by the lat-
ter, to cooperate with the noble landlord. Therefore the probability
of an imitation of the Russian pattern in Western Europe is, accord-
ing to Weber, not likely.
48
This judgment is actually the last one within Max Weber's rural
sociologico-political activity. The man, who, although ill and handi-
capped, nevertheless felt himself religiously and ethically bound to
participate in public affairs has been hindered from accomplishing
his scientific as well as his political work by an untimely death. This
work began with investigations in the field of the history of agricul-
ture and rural life and embraced many fields, as indicated in the
beginning of this paper. It was motivated by two viewpoints: (1)
objectivity within the scientific field and (2) feeling of equity, jus-
tice, and religiously-founded brotherly love for the lowly, guiding
his participation in the fields of politics and practical activity.
Both viewpointsobjectivity and brotherly lovewere also Max
Weber's guiding stars in that part of his activities, which was the
least known in the United States, that is, his activity in the field of
rural sociology.
14 The Unknown Max Weber
Notes
1. After the death of Max Weber almost all of his publications were col-
lected and edited by his widow, Marianne Weber, in part with the help
of friends.The volumes and the articles within them, coming into con-
sideration for us, are the following: M. Weber, Gesammelte Politische
Schriften, Miinchen, Drei MaskenVerlag, 1921, (especially the follow-
ing articles: "Der Nationalstaat und die Volkswirtschaftspolitik," cited
in the following footnotes "Nationalstaat,""Zwischen zwei Gesetzen,"
cited
//
Gesetz," "Bismarcks Aussenpolitik und die Gegenwart," cited
"Bismarck, "'Deutschland unter den europaischen Weltmachten,"'cited
"Weltmachte""Deutschlands aussere und Preussens innere Politik,"
cited "Deutschland,"'Russlands Ubergangzur Scheindemokratie,"cited
"Russland,""Wahlrecht und Demokratie in Deutschland," cited
"Wahlrecht,""Innere Lage und Aussenpolitik," cited "Innere,""Politik
als Beruf," cited "Politik"); idem, Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Munchen und
Leipzig, Duncker und Humblot, 1923, cited "Wirtschaftsgeschichte,"
idem, Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Religionsriss der Sozialdkonomik,Vol. III,
Tubingen, Mohr, 1922, cited "Wirtschaft;" idem, Gesammelte Aufsatze
zur Religions-soziologie, ibid., 1921-1922, cited "Religion;" idem,
Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre. ibid., 1922. (Especially the
following articles: "Die Objektivitat sozialwissenschaftlicher und
sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis," cited "Objektivitat,""Der Sinnder
Wertfreiheit der soziologischen und okonomischen Wissenschaften,"
cited "Wertfreiheit,""Wissenschaft als Beruf," cited "Wissenschaft");
idem, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik, ibid., 1934,
(Especially the following articles: "Argarstatistische und sozialpolitische
Bertrachtugen zur Fideikommisfrage in Prussen,"cited"Fideikommis,"
"Der Sozialismus"); idem, Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur social und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, ibid., 1924, (Especially the following articles:
"Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum," cited "Agrarverhaltnisse,""Die
Sozialen Griinde des Unterganges der antiken Kulture," cited
"Untergang,""Die landliche Arbeitsverfassung," cited "Arbeit,"
"Entwickelungstendenzen in der Lage der Altgermanischen
Sozialverfassung," cited "Altgermanisch,"). Publications dealing with
Max Weber: Marianne Weber, Max Weber, ibid., 1926, cited "Marianne
Weber;" the epistemological and methodological background is dealt
with in the following publications: T. Abel, Systematic Sociology in Ger-
many, New York, Columbia University Press, 1929, pp. 116-159; H.
Becker, "Culture Case Study and Ideal-Typical Method; with special
reference to Max Weber,"Social Forces,Vol. 12, NewYork, 1934, pp. 403f.;
H.P. Jordan, "Some Philosophical Implications of Max Weber's Meth-
odology," Ethics,Vol. 48, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp.
221-231; A. Liebert, "Max Weber,"Prussische Jahrbiicher, Vol. 210, Ber-
lin, Stilke, 1927, pp. 304-320; J.P. Mayer, Max Weber and German Poli-
tics, London, Faber and Faber, Ltd., n.d., p. 30; H. Rickert,"Max Weber
Max Weber as Rural Sociologist 15
und seine Stellung zur Wissenschaft," Logos, Vol. 15, Tubigen,Mohr,
1926, pp. 222-237; R. Wilbrandt, "Max Weber als Erkenntniskritiker
der Sozialwissenschaften,"Zezrschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,
Vol. 79, Tubingen, Laupp, 1925, pp. 584-674. The whole personality,
the religious and ethical background is dealt with in the following pub-
lications: C. Diehl,"The Life and Work of Max Weber," The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University
Press, 1924, pp. 87-107; P. Honigsheim, "Max Weber als Soziologe,"
Kolner Vierteljahrshefte fur Soziologie, Vol. 1, Miinchen und Leipzig,
Duncker und Humblot, 1921; idem,"Der Max WeberKreis in Heidel-
berg," ibid., Vol. 5, 1926, pp. 271-187; idem, "Max Webers
geistesgeschichtliche Stellung,"DieVolkswirte,V. 29, ibid., 19301; idem,
"Max Weber," Internationales Handworterbuch des Gewerkschaftswesens,
Berlin, Werk und Wirtschaft, 1932; E. Hula, "Max Weber Scholar and
Politician,"The Contemporary Review,Vol. 34, London, 1928; K.Jaspers,
Max Weber, Oldenburg, Gerhard Stalling, 1932; K. Lowith,"Max We-
ber und Karl Marx," Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft,Vol. 67, Tubingen,
Mohr, 1932, pp. 53-99,175-214; J. P. Mayer,"Sociology of Politics,"The
Dublin Review,Vol. 207, London, Burns, Oates,and Washburn, 1940. pp.
188-196; A. Mettler, Max Weber und die philosophische Problemtikunserer
Zeit, Zurich, Elgg, n.d.;T. Parsons,"Capitalism in Recent German Lit-
erature." The Journal of Political Economy," Vol. 36, Chicago, University
of Chicago Press, 1929, pp. 31-51; idem,"A.M. Robertson on Max We-
ber and His School,"Ibid., Vol. 43,1935, pp. 688-696; A.M. Robertson,
Aspects of the Rise of Economic Individualism, A Criticism of Max Weber
and his School, Cambridge, The University Press, 1933; G.v. Schulze-
Gavernitz, "Max Weber als Nationalokonom und Politiker,"
Hauptprobleme der Soziologie, Erinnerungsgabe fur Max Weber, Vol. 1,
Miinchen und Beipzig, Duncker und Humblot, 1923, pp. XIII-XXI. No
one of these publications deals especially with Max Weber as Rural
Sociologist. The present author will deal with "Max Weber as Histo-
rian of Agriculture "in a special article.
2. Objectivitat, pp. 175-178; Wertfreiheit, pp. 485-502; Wissenschaft, pp.
542-555.
3. Ibid., p. 543; Politik, pp. 440 f.; Gesetz, pp. 60-63.
4. Agrarverhaltnisse, passim; Untergang, passim; Altgermanisch, passim.
5. Wirtschaft, pp. 130-139.
6. Ibid., pp. 635, 732 ff. 750 ff.
7. Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 108; Wahlrecht, p. 307.
8. Entwickelung, pp. 471, 464.
9. Ibid., pp. 474, 479.
10. Ibid., p. 472.
11. Ibid., pp. 473, 475ff., 479f., 489, 493; Arbeit, pp. 479ff.
12. Religion, Vol. III, p. 160; Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 107, Wirtschaft, p.
743.
13. Marianne Weber, p. 342.
16 The Unknown Max Weber
14. Deutschland, pp. 99-106.
15. Fideikommiss, pp. 329,331f., 369,372f.
16. Ibid.,p.322ff.
17. Ibid., p. 324-327.
18. Ibid., pp. 338,379,381.
19. Deutschland, pp. 100-104.
20. Fideikommiss, pp. 357,359,391.
21. Arbeit, pp. 459f., 462f.
22. Fideikommiss, pp. 361,378.
23. Ibid., pp. 466ff., Entwickelung, p. 507.
24. Bismarck, p. 41f., Weltmacht, p. 89.
25. Wirtschaft, p. 225, 629.
26. Nationalstaat, pp. 15f., Bismarck, p. 41., Deutschland, p. 95., Marianne
Weber, pp. 229f., 237, 542.
27. Fidiekommis, p. 360.
28. Arbeit, p. 456ff.
29. Gesetz, p. 62f., Politik, p. 441f., Wertfreiheit, pp. 467, 469,479.
30. Wirtschaft, p. 720.
31. Ibid., pp. 398f.
32. For example, F. Engels, the socialistic collaborator of Karl Marx, in
his book Der Ursprung der Familie, Stuttgart, Dietz, llth edition, No.
11, pp. 48f. and A. Meitzen, Max Weber's teacher in history of agri-
culture and in statistics, in his book Siedelunger und Agrarwesen der
Westgermanen und Ostgermanen, der Kelten, Roemer, Finnen und
Slaven, Berlin, 1896, Vol. 1, No.VIII, passim.
33. See the history of the theories concerning its age in A. Dopsch,
Wirtschaftliche und Soziale Grundlagen der Europaischen
Kulturentwickelung,Vol. 1, Wien, Seidel, pp. 40-44.
34. Wirtschaftsgeschichte, p. 34.
35. Ibid., pp. 32f., Wirtschaft, p. 608.
36. Russland, pp. 107f.
37. Ibid., p. 108.
38. Wirtschaft. pp. 295f., 751. Russland, p. 117.
39. Ibid., p. 108
40. Weltmachte, p. 76f.
41. Ibid., p.l16f.
42. Ibid., p. 119.
43. Ibid., p. 116.
44. Ibid., p. 122.
45. Innere, p. 324.
46. Ibid., p. 323.
47. Russland, p. 123.
48. Sozialismus, p. 516.
2
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist
At the present time the United States feels it necessary to aid in
reorganizing a completely disorganized Europe. At the same time
Americans must face gigantic internal problems of their own. Cer-
tainly the problems which trouble both the Old and New World today
are not everywhere the same. Nevertheless they have much in com-
mon since actually the same clashes occur everywhere, namely a
planned vs. a nonplanned economy, nomination vs. election of public
functionaries, state bureaucracy vs. monopoly-company bureaucracy.
In the last instance, all these antagonisms seem to be of economic char-
acter. Actually, however, that is not the case. In more than one instance
the century-old antagonism between peoples considering themselves
different from and even superior to one another, is basic: Asia vs. Eu-
rope, Russians vs. Poles, whites vs. Colored, and last, an almost univer-
sal hate of the Germans by the neighboring peoples. All of these but
especially the last antagonism happens to play an essential role in an
epoch in which American sociologists became increasingly interested
in and influenced by the thinking of German social scientists. Not the
German refugees themselves, but rather American-bom sociologists
such as Howard Becker, Charles P. Loomis,Talcott Arsons, and others
made the ideas of German sociologists accessible in this country. Ex-
amples are the translations and discussions of the books of von Wiese,
Tonnies
1
, Max Weber and others. Moreover, graduate seminars
make them the subjects of discussions in the field of sociological
theory. But why are they used exclusively in the field of theory?
Applied Antropology: Problems of Human Organization 7:4 (Fall, 1948), 27-35.
17
18 The Unknown Max Weber
Couldn't these men be of help in solving the troubles of the present
time? Among these men, Max Weber especially falls into consider-
ation.
Weber's position within the development of anthropological and
social sciences is as follows: in this country he is primarily known
and esteemed for his care and sagacity in epistemologically
substructuring and restricting objectives as well as for his views as
to the possibilities of obtaining knowledge within the field of social
science. Moreover, he is accepted as one of the founders of the so-
ciology of religion and for having demonstrated the Calvinistic back-
ground of American capitalistic mentality. Less known are his ac-
tivities as politician, rural sociologist, historian of agriculture and as
"applied anthropologist." Indeed, the term applied anthropology
does not appear in his writings and very seldom in the contempo-
rary German literature, which can fall into consideration. For at that
epoch in Germany the term "anthropology'' was restricted largely
to physical anthropology and the term"ethnology"to preliterate cul-
ture. That Max Weber fails to use the term "applied anthropology"
is of no importance. He deals intensively with races, nations, Ger-
mans, Poles, Jews, whites, and Negroes in America, with their agri-
culture, handicraft, industry, administration, mentality, interrelationship,
antagonism, uniqueness, or transferability. Finally based upon his trav-
els in this country, he compares the United States and its methods of
dealing with minorities with that of Germany and its methods and
indicates some possibilities of incorporating American institutions and
ways of life into the German Republic. The foregoing and related ac-
tivities during the epoch of Weber in Germany were called "social poli-
tics," "ethno-politics," or "ethnic social politics." Regardless of names,
German investigations in these fields overlap with the areas covered
by "applied anthropology" in the United States. Accordingly a sur-
vey on "Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist" is highly pertinent.
Weber's motive in dealing especially with the peoples and prob-
lems mentioned above was his religiously based rigorous sense of
duty. He felt compelled: (1) to struggle against social situations which
he considered unjust; (2) to eliminate personal bias as a judgment of
value while investigating casual relations; and (3) to abstain from
evaluating phenomena with which he was not completely familiar.
For the latter reason, he does not deal with Latin Americans, Canadi-
ans, and American Indians, who accordingly can be omitted here.
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist 19
The sources
2
of our knowledge about Weber's attitude are theo-
retical works, letters, in part written while he traveled in the United
States, and articles concerning political conflicts. Furthermore there
are his writings about special ethnic groups as well as his basic con-
cept of the role of the physico-anthropological factor in social life.
General physico-anthropological problems in Germany, while
playing an important role in the discussions at the turn of the cen-
tury, were not of great concern among the scientific specialists. The
specialists, rather, were interested in the antagonistic views of cul-
tural diffusion versus independent parallel development. Surpris-
ing though it may seem, physico-anthropological problems played
a role in the fields of politics. Out of Darwinism originated the con-
cept of the physico-anthropological superiority of some peoples and
social classes.
Weber's attitude toward the general physico-anthropological
problems is as follows
3
: we may consider difference between groups
as being caused by physico-anthropological differences only when
there are unmistakable hereditary differences (among other factors)
determining specializations and differences in cultural development.
We do not know a single phenomenon of sociological character,
Weber said, which unquestionably can be traced to inborn and he-
reditary qualities possessed by one group and not another. Further-
more, he indicated that at least six theories regarding the physico-
anthropologico-biological explanation of social phenomena could
be demonstrated as incorrect. These theories and Weber's comments
about them are: (1) Differences in the essence, structure and perfor-
mance of music among various peoples are caused by racial differ-
ences = the theory of Richard Wagner's followers in Bayreuth. To
this theory Max Weber replied that the music of the ancient Greeks
was structurally more like that of the Chinese, Japanese, Malays,
Hindus, and Arabs than to that of the modern Germans. Although
less complex, the music of some African and Pacific peoples is struc-
turally similar to the modern German music. Weber concluded,
therefore, that the music of racially different peoples (such as Mon-
golians and Mediterraneans or Negroes and Oceanians) can be more
similar than the music of racially more related groups (such as Greeks
and Germans). Factors other than race, Weber felt, determined the
structure of music. (2) Aristocracies are able to maintain their supe-
riority because they are racially purer than the dominated peoples.
20 The Unknown Max Weber
To this theory the Heidelbergian sociologist answers that the aris-
tocracies in the Old World originate largely from the patriarchs
among the animal husbandry nomads. It was precisely this group
who obtained wives through capture from anthropologically differ-
ent groups. Moreover, the patriarchs as well as their successors, the
ruling class in the early state society, bequeathed their wealth and
often their dominant social positions, to preferred sons or to the
sons of the preferred wives. The recipients often are children born
to wives of secondary rank, frequently descended from a subjected
people or from a completely different racial stock. (3) Classical an-
tiquity collapsed due to an unfavorable biological selection and es-
pecially because the eternal wars eliminated the fittest physical stock.
Just the opposite is true, says Weber. The wars of the Roman Em-
pire were waged by hired "barbarians" rather than by the elite. (4)
Differences in workers'attitudes, to a large extent, are explained by
their different racial backgrounda theory used to justify the low
salary paid rural and industrial workers of Polish and other Slavic
origin. Indeed, such differences do exist, Weber asserts. But even
under the most favorable circumstances, the investigator has only a
few generations as material for observation. How then can we state
that the special kind of attitude is inherited? Furthermore many
variations have proved to have been caused by environmental fac-
tors such as traditional economic mentality perpetuated by educa-
tion, or the willingness to accept a given situation, especially the
dominance of the ruling class. (5) Mankind is in danger of deterio-
ration through the application of such Christian principles as char-
ity since the weak and unfit would thereby tend to be preserved.
Weber's answer to this theory is that the charity principle was al-
most completely eliminated in the transition period from the Middle
Ages to modern times and the subsequent rise of Calvinism. Thus,
there is no probability that in modern occidental civilization Chris-
tian charity may endanger the maintenance of a biologically strong
population. (6) The social policies of the modem state protect and
maintain the weak and accordingly are a social and cultural danger.
This argument was often used by Darwinists and laissez-faire ide-
ologists to justify the opposition of the industrialists to state inter-
ference in the form of insurance to protect the lower classes. On the
contrary, Weber indicates, state-supported social policies give to
those who are mentally strong but economically weak the opportu-
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist 21
nity to rise and to reproduce themselves.Thus every attempt to give
emphasis to the predominance of physico-biologico-anthropologi-
cal factors in human life has failed. Nevertheless, to be completely
sure, the German sociologist under consideration suggests system-
atized physico-anthropological measuring of large populations, clas-
sified according to occupation. Since such studies, at least insofar as
Germany is concerned, have not yet been made, it is impossible to
insist upon biologically caused differences in social attitude. The
only statement which can be made according to Weber, is that sol-
idary units or groups are formed due to the subjective belief of the
individual members that they are of the same racial origin and that
they actually constitute a race. Others therefore regard that group
as a racial unit. Based on such convictions, Max Weber approached
the special ethnical problems which he had to face.
Ethnic problems in Eastern Europe, in both internal and foreign
politics, played an increasingly important role since the growth of
national feeling in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The chief
countries and their attitudes were as follows: (1) Russia, supported
by the national branch of the Greek Orthodox Church, tried to
"Russify" her non-Russian minority peoples, including the Lutheran
German feudals and intellectuals in the Baltic provinces, the Catholic
Poles, and other Slavs. (2) Austria-Hungary, although composed of
twelve different nations, nevertheless tried to maintain her unity
and even to bring Balkan Slavs under her control by promising some
cultural autonomy. (3) All Slavic peoples wanted national autonomy.
(4) Germany, after the partition of Poland, contained a minority of
Polish feudal gentry and peasants. The latter were protected some-
what by law against the feudal gentry. They hated Russia more than
Prussia and for some time were not directly hostile to Prussia, but
only later became hostile as a result of Prussian policies. On one
hand, the Prussian policy restricted the use of the Polish language
among Poles residing in Germany. On the other hand, under the
pressure of the landowning nobility, the so-called Junkers, Polish
seasonal workers from Russia were imported since they worked
cheaply and did not require social protection against illness and
accident.
Weber's attitude toward the Eastern European ethnic problems
is as follows
4
: he attempts to combine into a higher unit the postu-
lates of patriotism and justice. Among the recommendations which
22 The Unknown Max Weber
Weber gave his people were the following: (1) Abolish all laws which
aim at Prussianizing the Poles, particularly those which restrict the
use of the Polish language. (2) Block the entrance and use of Polish
rural workers, who came from the Polish part of Russia. (3) Elimi-
nate, or at least restrict, the so-called feoffments in trust, that is, the
nonmortgagable estates belonging to the aristocratic families, where
much of the seasonal Polish labor is used. (4) Settle free and inde-
pendent peasants on the soil of the former feoffment in trust. (5)
Reject any attempt to make acquisitions in the East, a suggestion
made during World War I. (6) Recognize the right of all of the smaller
Eastern nations to have a state of their own. But does this also apply
to the Jews, who were considered by other nations in the East to be
a nation rather than a religious body? This problem will be treated
next.
The Jews in Europe had become emancipated only to a limited
extent through the French Revolution and the democratic move-
ment. The Jews were still blocked from desirable and esteemed posts
in city and state administration and were restricted to occupations
such as that of lawyers, and businessmen, especially livestock deal-
ers and corn merchants in small rural places, professions which car-
ried little social esteem. Out of this situation Jews developed inferi-
ority feelings which the surrounding population resented. They were
numerically overrepresented in some professions and were almost
the only representatives of the money economy with whom the
rural and small urban middle class came into contact. The effect of
these three facts was the rise of political anti-Semitism. This move-
ment originally was espoused by the middle-class peasant, the
handicraft worker, and storekeeper, all of whom were opposed to
the money economy, banking, and industry and were favorable to a
reestablishment of precapitalistic guilds. The J unkers had begun to
lose their unrestricted power, wished to conceal their ultimate aims
and accordingly tolerated or even protected anti-Semitic parties.
The latter did not originally have a positive ideology, but were for-
tunate to find ready for their use the racial inferiority theory based
upon Darwinism. This theory was then enlarged into a philosophico-
historico-sociological system by many German intellectuals and
applied to practically every phenomenon. Formerly Ranke and
Treitschke had explained social and economic phenomena, insofar
as they studied them, as results of foreign policy; now phenomena
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist
23
were interpreted as being caused by the Jewish mentality and activ-
ity. An example would be Sombarts interpretation of capitalism.
Webers interest in the problems of the European J ews was based
on the reasons mentioned above. Furthermore, he mastered He-
brew sufficiently to study the sources, especially the OldTestament.
His arguments are as follows: (1) At least as early as the epoch of
the Pharisees, the J ews did missionary work and accordingly are
not of a pure racial stock. (2) The history of the ancient Hebrews,
indeed, is that of a diminishing importance of the peasants and of
an increasing dominance of the urban population. The prophets, he
indicated, are largely supported by the city dwellers. But this in-
creasing urbanization does not mean a rise of capitalistic mentality.
Such an association is not indicated by the prophets or their adver-
saries. (3) The piety of the devout J ew is manifested in a life op-
posed to the rationalistic attitude toward the world, a basic tenet of
the occidental capitalistic mentality. (4) In just those districts of the
Old World (such as Western Asia, the seashore of Arabia, and South-
ern Europe) where Jewish peoples had lived uninterruptedly since
the epoch of Christ, the economic traits which characterize capital-
ism have never been developed. (5) Those special economic phe-
nomena which characterize the modern capitalistic attitude (bonds
and joint stock companies, for example) did not originate out of any
previous Jewish form of economic procedure, but rather out of Hel-
lenistic and medieval German institutions. (6) Many traits thought
to be original Jewish traits actually are the effects of the exceptional
Jewish minority status; it is accordingly that there still remains a
Jewish problem. (7) Insofar as the Jews consider themselves a na-
tion, they are entitled, as every nation, to have a state of their own.
On the other hand, the Zionistic state would not be the ideal solu-
tion since it would become a semi-tolerated small state among oth-
ers. It would never satisfy the Jewish desire for justice and would
not eliminate the Jewish inferiority feeling. What solution then might
be proposed? Here Max Webers concept regarding the assimilation
of minorities in the United States enters the picture.
Webers opinion about the assimilation of other nations into the
Anglo-American culture was as follows: it has been the most com-
plete and rapid acculturation, which has ever occurred in world his-
tory. American democracy in official educational institutions as well
as in the existence of common clubs and common activities for
24 The Unknown Max Weber
schoolchildren is actually the main instrument of assimilation. In
contrast to that in Europe, assimilation in America occurs readily in
spite of, even perhaps because of, the complete tolerance of minor-
ity languages. Actually foreign languages are rapidly abandoned
voluntarily. What, then, about peoples who only to a small extent
claim to have and use a language of their own? This question brings
us back to the Jews.
The Jews in the United States have maintained to some extent a
culture of their own. The Russian-Polish Jews in NewYork and other
big cities have their newspapers and theaters in the so-called "Yid-
dish" language. This language is a mixture of older German with
Hebrew and Slavic terms. It has been used for centuries by the Jews
in Eastern Europe as an everyday language and as a literary idiom.
The literature of the Chassidim,
7
an Eastern Jewish religio-mystical
movement of the eighteenth century, especially has been produced
in this language. On the other hand, the children of those Jewish
parents who still speak Yiddish assimilate easily into the new Ameri-
can culture, especially when they no longer are orthodox Jews and
accordingly are no longer involved in an especially Jewish culture.
These facts form the basis of the findings made by our German so-
ciologist.
Weber's ideas about the future of the Jews in the United States
8
are as follows: the Western and Central European Jews are no longer
orthodox Jews and accordingly are no longer involved in an espe-
cially Jewish culture. When they remain in Europe, anti-Semitism
will always make them feel inferior, as shown above. For other rea-
sons the same will occur if they build their state in Palestine. But
when they emigrate to the United States, they can more easily than
elsewhere assimilate into the newly developing culture just as mem-
bers of almost any other ethnic group already has done. The Jews
have even less difficulties in assimilating than many other ethnic
groups because the latter usually had to forget their own national
language. Did all racial groups actually succeed in being merged
into the new North American nation? Specifically what about the
American Negro?
Weber's observations concerning the Negro in the United States
9
were connected with his travels, his sojourn to the estate of his rela-
tives in North Carolina and his visits to Negro universities. Further-
more, he incorporated the study of the Southern plantation prior to
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist 25
the abolition of slavery into his comparative historical studies by
comparing it with the plantations of Carthage and the later Roman
Empire. His observations may be summarized as follows:
There are indeed differences. In Carthage and in the main ep-
ochs of the Roman Empire the slaves live under a military regime in
barracks and usually do not reproduce themselves. In the Southern
states, however, the slaves did reproduce themselves, at least to some
extent. Nevertheless, the economic situation in both cases is some-
what similar; for plantations with slaves are rentable only if new
slaves can always be furnished and if land as well as food for the
slaves is cheap. Accordingly, the abolition of slavery in the South
occurred not only for humanitarian but also for economic and so-
cial reasons. Moreover, abolition was forced upon the South by the
North because since the Revolutionary War period the North feared
that a new feudalism, based on slavery, might grow up and because
there existed a Puritanical feeling against feudalism of any kind.
The effect of the abolition, insofar as the South itself is concerned, is
a low economic and cultural standard for the Negro. This is a result
of the treatment he still suffers at the hands of the white man. The
whites are culturally and especially ethically little higher and cer-
tainly anything but an aristocracy, a claim which they sometimes
like to make. As to the North, there is already some aristocratization
connected with the stratification of society and some disdain for
work begins to appear. Every aristocracy, of course, needs an antith-
esis, that is a social group which can be the object of disdain. The
Negro represents such an object. This is one of the reasons why a
Negro problem continues to exist in the North. Another reason is
the fact that the lower-class white disdains the Negro for being
strikebreakers. This attitude is not the result of any inborn racial
peculiarity but rather the effect of the indoctrination of submissive-
ness, unpretentiousness, and acceptance of the given situation, all
of which represent the effect of white man's pressure. Under such
circumstances the only way out for the American Negro is to as-
similate into modern, American culture. Even more, Weber says,
they must participate productively in American culture, and by so
doing, they must impress those strata of the white population which
are not involved in the process of aristocratization. The latter is only
one among the factors which change the traditional American de-
mocracy. Another is bureaucratization.
26 The Unknown Max Weber
The interrelationship between democracy and bureaucracy in gen-
eral, according to Weber, is as follows: they are of seemingly antago-
nistic character. Actually, however, they have something in common.
For both originated out of the same situation, that is, out of an al-
ready largely rationalized culture and mind. Accordingly, how mod-
em countries may have established a balance between bureaucracy
and democracy must be investigated.This problem led Weber to study
some institutions of the United States more explicitly.
Weber's impressions concerning democracy and bureaucracy in
the United States
11
were for his time considered new by Europeans.
His point of view may be summarized briefly. He felt that bureau-
cracy in the United States originally was and still is weak. This may
be explained as due to the fact that the power of the mores, the
need for trained specialists, and the separation of the private from
the public sphere were not very great. The latter manifested itself,
for example, in the fact that, much less than in Europe, the "bench"
and its judge are separated from the "bar" and its lawyer. In the
democracy the latter becomes an important man. Even more im-
portant are party bosses and party machines. The persons who have
been elected to office through the "machine" are normally less de-
pendent upon their chief but at the same time, less competent experts,
than those persons who have been appointed by the chief, who holds
his position (for example, the president of the United States or the mayor
of a city) by popular election. The number of such nonelected but ap-
pointed functionaries as in the civil service, for instance, is increasing,
because of an increasing complication of life and administration and
because of increasing change in the structure of American democracy
through the increase of the so-called second immigration of Italians,
Poles, Balkan peoples, and other groups, with their completely dif-
ferent cultural background. However, American democracy rests not
only on such institutions but also as well on the countless clubs, on
American training in "fairness," and on the practice of democracy
beginning in earliest childhood and continuing through formal and
informal educational institutions. Similar ideas have been expressed
by some American educators and sociologists. The main question
for Weber was, can the American pattern of education for democ-
racy be applied elsewhere?
Weber held that, in general, the transferability of democratic and
bureaucratic institutions from one nation to another is limited. His-
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist 27
torically many institutions may be transferable. These include for
instance, the balance established in some countries between bu-
reaucracy and democracy and the attitude of majorities towards
minorities. In both cases Weber held a transfer could be accom-
plished insofar as the United States and Germany are concerned.
Weber's criticism of Germany and his recommended changes
12
were based on his religiously founded individualism, in which he
considered the independence, responsibility, and dignity of the in-
dividual as the final goal. From this background he criticized sharply
both Prussian militarism and the lack of character of the bourgeoi-
sie. The latter, he argued, had tolerated the reduction of the parlia-
ment and even the State bureaucracy by Bismarck to the role of a
will-less instrument of his desires. Moreover, the majority of stu-
dent associations educated the sons of the bourgeoisie according to
the ideals of the feudal gentry and professional army officers. Noto-
riously it was just these associations which had the power to award
dominant positions in the administration of the state and law to
their members. Compared with these state functionaries the solici-
tor, actually one of the relatively few independent men, remained a
socially less respected person. The effect in Germany was that a
personality type had become predominant which Weber describes
in the following way. The characteristic type has, perhaps, a rela-
tively great knowledge of the matter with which he has to deal pro-
fessionally and he may be economically irreproachable. But on the
other hand, he had received an education through his student as-
sociation by which he was actually no longer a gentleman. He was
devoid of character, subservient to his superior, without real contact
with the people; he became as arrogant as a Prussian officer toward
his subordinates, the lower classes, and the subjected peoples. It
was on these scores that he was ridiculed in other countries and
was hated by the lowly and subjected. The unwillingness of the
Polish, Danish, and Alsatian minorities to assimilate into the Ger-
man Empire, among others, is caused by the dominance of this
unpopular type. Furthermore this representative of German mental-
ity was a bureaucrat rather than a politician and was unable to make
a decision of his own. Bismarck, as long as he himself was in power,
actually decided everything dictatorially. After Bismarck had been
eliminated, the Germans accustomed to obey, followed a crowned
dilettante, William II. Even during the government of Wilhelm II our
28 The Unknown Max Weber
German sociologist, Weber, thought that the only way of prevent-
ing the downfall of Germany was to eliminate all the laws and vio-
lent measures directed against national, linguistic, and political
minorities. Rather, Weber said, give the people a political educa-
tion, develop in them a political responsibility, and give politically
gifted individuals a chance to make use of their special political abili-
ties. In so doing, Weber held, it would be necessary to restrict the
power of the bureaucrats, by increasing the power of the parlia-
mentarians and by giving to the latter a chance to become respon-
sible statesmen.
Later, Weber further reiterated these recommendations at the
collapse of the Wilhelminian Empire, which he had predicted. Many
suggestions as to the reorganization of Germany were put forward
in that chaotic period. Don't represent the people through profes-
sional chambers or by proportional representation, Weber warned.
Both measures will merely place little specialists and representatives
of special interests in the top positions rather than the politicians.
Much remained to be done, according to Weber, and that much
depended upon finding an example, among peoples, whom Ger-
many could imitate at least to some extent.
To Max Weber, the United States provided the example. Indeed,
the transferability of ways of life of the United States into the Ger-
man Republic, according to Weber
13
is manifold. At least the fol-
lowing eight ways of life, developed by the people of the United
States can and must be incorporated into the life of the German
Republic: (1) National and linguistic minorities must enjoy the same
rights as others, especially linguistic ones. (2) Bureaucrats, who in-
evitably will become indispensable everywhere, must be sharply
separated and distinguished from the politicians who have to make
political decisions. (3) The power of the parliament must be restricted
by the power of the head of the executive. (4) The head of the ex-
ecutive must be elected directly by popular election rather than by a
parliament. (5) The head of the executive must be entitled to nomi-
nate his own coworkers. (6) The profession of the lawyer must cease
to be considered as less honorable than others and must be recog-
nized as one of the basic professions from which future politicians
should be drawn. (7) The party machine must be accepted as a given
and, at least at the present time, an indispensable phenomenon.
This is true, at least in the case of Germany, says Weber, since only
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist 29
two possibilities exist, each excluding the other. One of these two
possibilities would be democracy without a party machine. This re-
public would be a democracy without the true politicians at the top
but with an incapable parliament composed of "little"representa-
tives of particular interests. This republic would therefore actually
be governed by the bureaucracy of the state and of bodies of eco-
nomic interests. The other alternative for Germany would be a re-
public with a party machine. But this state would simultaneously be
a democracy with plebiscite, which presupposes the existence of
party machines. Such a democracy would have the greater prob-
ability of bringing true statesmen into leading positions. That is,
men who have a feeling of responsibility and the capacity and will-
ingness to make responsible decisions themselves. This is the pat-
tern of the United States and the only way which seems suitable for
Germany. (8) From childhood the people must be educated in "fair-
ness" and thereby in democracy, not by coercion and indoctrination
but rather by building up a club system embracing all men and
women from childhood, a basic element of American democracy.
14
In conclusion we may summarize as follows: indeed, these are
not unimportant institutions and mores which Weber saw realized
in the United States and which he considered ought to be incorpo-
rated into German life. He died a short time after the collapse of the
Wilhelminian Germany. He still had the satisfaction of seeing at
least two points of his program realized. Through his influence the
new constitution entrusted increased power to the president. Fur-
thermore, it stipulated that the election of the president be through
a plebiscite (rather than through the parliament). Both provisions
conform to the American pattern and were incorporated into the
constitution of the Weimar Republic. The Germans incorporated
even more democratic institutions into their constitution, but they
failed to leam how to use them. Psychologically they maintained
their old patterns of feeling and thinking. Based in part upon pre-
mises other than Weber's, some politicians and educators such as
Kerschensteiner, Paul Oestreich and the author of this article, tried
to alter German mentality basically through a new school structure,
youth movement, and adult education. They remained isolated and,
accordingly, they failed. Thus Germany collapsed again and more
fundamentally than in 1918. Now she needs the help of the United
States in her reconstruction. Even if we do not agree with all Weber's
30 The Unknown Max Weber
suggestions, couldn't it be that his voice may nevertheless be useful
in the work of reconstruction? As a German patriot he certainly
loved his country, as a highly scholarly sociologist he was completely
familiar with all problems of applied anthropology. To a large ex-
tent he admired the United States, although at the same time he
did not close his eyes to that country's difficulties and defects. Nev-
ertheless, perhaps for just these reasons, he was firmly convinced
that the German people should have to incorporate into its life, cer-
tainly not all, but at least some of the American ways of life.
Notes
1. F. Toennies, Fundamental Concepts of Sociology (Gemehischaft und
Gesellschaft) trans, and supplemented by C.P. Loomis, New York etc.,
American Book Company (n.d.); L.v. Wiese, Systematic Sociology, on
the Basis of the Beziehungslehre and Gebidelehre of L.v.W. adapted
and amplified by H. Becker, New York, Wiley, 1932.
2. After the death of Max Weber almost all of his publications were col-
lected and edited by his widow Marianne Weber. Those volumes and
articles which concern us, which are not translated into English and
which in our footnotes will be cited by the abbreviations mentioned
behind the titles in parentheses, are the following: Gesammelte Politische
Schriften, Miinchen, Drei Masken Verlag, 1921, esp. the following ar-
ticles: "Der Nationalstaat und die Volkswirtschaftspolitik," (Nat.),
"Bismarcks Aussenpolitik und die Gegenwart," (Bis.), "Deutschland
unter den europaischen Weltmachten,"(Welt.),"Deutschlands aussere
und Preussens innere Politik," (Pol.), "Parlament und Gegierung im
neugordneten Deutschland," (Parl.), "Bayern und die
Parlamentarisierung im Reich," (Bay.), "Wahlrecht und Demokratie in
Deutschland," (Wahl.), "Innere Lage und Aussenpolitik," (Inn.), "Der
Reichsprasident," (Reich.), "Politik als Beruf," (Ber.),"Politische Briefe,
(Br.). Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik, Tubingen,
Mohr, 1924, esp. the following articles: Methodologische Einleitung
fur fir Erhebung des Vereins fur Sozialpolitik uber Auslese und
Anpassung der Arbeiter der geschlossenen Grossindustrie" (Einl.),
"Agrarstatistische und sozialpolitische Betrachtungen zur
Fidiekommissfrage in Preussen,"(Fid.),"Discussionsrede zu demVortrag
von A. Ploetz iiber die Begriffe Rasse und Gesellschaft," (Pl.), "Zum
Vortrag von F. Oppenheimer uber die rassentheoretische
Geschichtsphilosophie," (Opp.); Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sozial - und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, ibid., 1924, esp. the following articles:
"Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum," (Ag.); "Entwickelungstendenzen in
der Lage der ostelbischen Landarbeiter," (Ent.); Gesammelte Aufsatze
zur Religionssoziologie,Vol. I-III, ibid., 1920-1921, (Rel.); Wirtschaft und
Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist 31
Gesellschaft, Grundrisse der Sozialokonomik,Vol III ibid., 1922, 2d ed.,
with unchanged pagination, (WG.). Publications of M.W., which were
translated into English and cited here in the English translation are
the following: General Economic History, trans, by F.H. Knight, New
York, Greenberg, 1927, (ec.); From Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, trans.,
ed., and with an introduction by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, New
York, Oxford University, 1946, (Gerth); The Theory of Social and Eco-
nomic Organization, trans, by A.M. Henderson &T. Parsons, ibid., 1947,
(Tr.), (A trans, of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Part I, mentioned above).
Among the many publications dealing with M.W. see the following:
Marianne Weber, Max Weber, Tubingen, Mohr, 1925, (Mar.) (here also
the very significant letters, which M.W. wrote while he travelled in
U.S. are included). Idem, Lebenserinnerungen, Bremen, Johs. Storm
Verlag, 1948, pp. 79-112; see also the review of this book by P.
Honigsheim, "Max Weber as Rural Sociologist," Rural Sociology, Vol.
XII, Raleigh, 1947; idem,"Max Weber as Historian of Agriculture," Ag-
ricultural History, forthcoming. (The two latter articles also contain
lists of other publications dealing with M.W.); H. Becker,"Culture Case
Study and Ideal Type, "Social Forces, Vol. XII, New York, 1934, pp. 403f.
3. Einl., pp. 27-33; PL, pp. 457ff., Opp., pp. 488ff.; WG., p. 222.
4. Bis. pp. 32, 40-43, 47; Welt., pp. 89ff,; Pol, pp. 95,102; Inn., p. 383;
Fid., pp. 354, 360, 392; Opp., p. 491; Ent, p. 502f.; WG., pp. 4, 225.
5. R. Wagner, Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen, 3rd ed., Leipzig,
Fritzsche, 1898, Vol. V, pp. 66-85, Vol. VII, pp. 30-124, Vol. VIII, pp. 238-
260, Vol. X, pp. 33-53; P. de Lagarde, Ausgewdhlte Schriften, Munchen,
Lehmann, 1924, pp. 3,63,83ff., 174,191-221; R. Richter, Essays, Leipzig,
Meissner, 1913, pp. 137-177,303-331; H. v. Gerlach, Erinnerungen ernes
Junkers, Berlin, Die Welt am Montag, (n.d.) pp. 107-116; F. Naumann,
Demokratie und Kaisertum, Berlin-Schoeneberg, Hilfie, many ed. p. 106;
A. Stillich, Die Politischen Parteien in Deutschland, Leipzig, Klinkhardt,
1908, Vol. I, pp. 236f.; W. Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus, Munchen
& Leipsig, Duncker & Humblot, many ed., esp.Vol. I, 2, pp. 896-919;
idem, DieJuden und das Wirtschaftsleben, ibid., manyed., esp. chap. VIII-
XIV, pp. 183-434; idem, Der Bourgeois, ibid., pp. 229-302, 337-348; E.
Fischoff,"The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, The His-
tory of a Controversy," Social Research, Vol. XI, 1944, pp. 56ff.
6. Ag., pp.84; Rel.,Vol. III, pp. 10-44, 76, 120, 245, 293f., 306, 354, 360,
436; WGpp. 269,350, EC. p. 358; Th. p. 138; Mar., pp. 477,485,566,604,
660. As to the discussions between M.W. and the Zionists see M. Buber,
Kampfum Israel, Berlin, Schocken, 1933, p. 427, & P. Honigsheim,"Mar-
tin Buber 70 Jahrealt," Die Friedens-Warte, Vol. 48, Zurich,
PolygraphischerVerlag, 1948, pp. 241-245.
7. The most important writings of the Chassidim are now published in a
modern German Translation and compilation in M. Buber, Die
Chassidischen Bucher, Berlin, Schocken, 1932; see also Honigsheim,
"Martin Buber, etc.,"loc cit.
32 The Unknown Max Weber
8. WG., p. 356; Mar., pp. 299, 316f.
9. PL, p. 460f.; Rel.,Vol. II, p. 123, footnote l,Vol. III, p. 307, footnote 1;
WG., pp. 227, 628; EC., pp. 79-83; 298-302; Mar., pp. 299,308f., 313.
10. WG.,p.752.
11. Parl., pp. 146,150; Ber., pp. 405ff., 410, 414, 422f., 427, 431,434; WG.,
pp. 501,635ff., 752; EC., p. 360; Gerth, pp. 86ff., 102ff., 107-110,114; T.
Parsons, "Introduction," Th., p. 74; H.W. Braun, "M.W. and the United
States," Southwestern Social Science Quarterly,Vol. XXV, Austin, 1944.
As to American educators and sociologists, who emphasize the inter-
relationship between the American educational system and the Ameri-
can type of democracy see especially: J. Dewey, Democracy and Educa-
tion, New York, Macmillan, 1924, pp. 228-241; idem, Schools ofTomorrow,
New York, Dutton, 1915, pp. 41ff., 164-228, 287-316; idem, The School
and Society, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1924, pp. 3, 12f.;
idem Education Today, New York, Putnam's Sons, 1940, pp. 62-73,250-
259; idem Characters and Events, New York, Holt, Vol. II, 1929, p. 781;
A.N. Whitehead, Essays in Science and Philosophy, NewYork, Philosophi-
cal Library, 1947, pp. 172ff.; H.W. Holmes, "Whitehead's Views on Edu-
cation," The Philosophy of A. N. Whitehead, ed., PA. Schilpp, Evanston
& Chicago, Northwestern Univ., 1941, p. 637; A.R. Mead, Learning and
Teaching, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1923, p. 160; C.H. Cooley, Social
Organization, NewYork, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925, pp. 48f., 53.
12. Nat., p. 26; Rjrl., pp. 144,152,182; Bay., pp. 271ff., Wahl., p. 308f.; Ber.,
p. 431ff.; Br., pp. 470, 473, 480; WG., p. 511; Mar., pp. 75, 82,408, 433;
J.P. Mayer, M. W. and German Politic, London, Feber, (n.d.) p. 18; E. Hula,
"M.W., Scholar and Politician," Contemporary Review, Vol. 134, Lon-
don, 1928, pp. 479ff.
13. Rirl., pp. 144,169; Wahl., p. 309; Reich, pp. 390ff.; Ber., p. 438; Br., p.
483; WG., p. 511.
14. As to the discussion among German educators concerning the Ameri-
can school system and its transferability to Germany see: J. Tews,
Schulkdmpfe der Gegenwarte, 2d ed., Leipzig, Teubner, 1911, p. 154; G.
Kerschensteiner, Der Begriffder staatsburgerlichen Erziehung, 5th ed.,
ibid., 1923, pp. 20,130-139; idem, Das einheitliche deutsche Schulsystem,
2d ed., ibid., 1922, pp. 141ff.; P. Oestreich, Unabhdngige Kulturpolitik,
Leipzig & Wein, Oldenburg, 1924, p. 50; idem, Der Einbruch derTechnik
in die Pddagogik, Stuttgart, Cotta, 1930, p. 72; idem, "Hat dieser
Wettbewerb einen Sinn," E dison sucht einen Nachfolger, Berlin,
FrankfurterVerlags Anstalt, 1931, pp. 73-82; P. Honigheim, "Paul
Oestreich 70 Jahre alt," Die Friedens-Warte, Vol. 48, Zurich,
PolygraphischerVerlag, 1948, pp. 133-141.
3
Max Weber as Historian of
Agricultural and Rural Life
The United States is facing the problem of rebuilding a completely
chaotic world and a disorganized agriculture. The possibilities of
doing so are limited by the antagonism between the United States
and the Soviet Union, by the basic differences between the struc-
ture of Old World and North American rural life, and by the variet-
ies of forms of rural life in the various European countries. These
differences are largely caused by, and dependent upon, the unique-
ness of the development of agricultural life in each country under
consideration. Thus, this particular historical development increases
the difficulties and even limits the possibility of changing the rural
social structure in many countries.
Under such circumstances a knowledge of the history of the ag-
riculture of the countries under consideration is not exclusively of
theoretical importance. Indeed, it is the an essential part of history
and an indispensable tool for, and step toward, the perception of regu-
larities of more universal character appearing in world history. But apart
from this feet it is a tool which is indispensable in understanding and
thus indirectly in changing the present situation of the Old World.
Under such circumstances it may be of importance to become
familiar with the ideas of Max Weber (1864-1920) concerning the
historical development of agriculture and rural life. Everywhere, in-
cluding the United States, he was considered one of the most out-
standing German sociologists and economists. He was recognized
Agricultural History 23:3 (July, 1949), 179-213.
33
34 The Unknown Max Weber
even by his greatest adversaries as a man of undeniable scientific
objectivity and justice. His work was based on a vast knowledge of
history as well as of the socioeconomic structure of his own time.
He was not exclusively interested in the perception of universal rules
of history; he was also interested in emphasizing the uniqueness of
developments in various countries. To perceive exactly Weber's es-
sential contributions to the knowledge of the agricultural history of
particular areas and eras, we shall consider the status of the prob-
lems concerning them and the answers given by scholars before
him, his own ideas, the spread of his ideas to other peoples and
cultures, and, insofar as possible, the causes of these facts.
A few preliminary words on Weber's background are indispens-
able. For a short time he was a lawyer. He then successively taught
Roman law in Berlin, economics in Freiburg and Heidelberg, and
sociology in Munich for a short time before his death. This aca-
demic career was interrupted for fifteen years at Heidelberg by sick-
ness due to overwork. During this time he concentrated on research.
Weber's philosophical convictions and his political activities lie
outside the scope of this study. Nevertheless, to understand his self-
limitation in the social sciences, it is indispensable at least to enu-
merate the basic epistemological fundamentals of his scientific work.
1
These fundamentals are as follows. (1) There is a fundamental
difference between statements of facts and judgements of value. (2)
Judgements of value are of autonomous and subjective character,
independent of authorities, and essential in the spheres of ethics
and politics where the responsible decisions must be made by the
individual at his own risk. (3) Objective statements of facts can be
made in the sphere of special sciences and are the principal content
of such sciences. (4) There exists within the sphere of special sci-
ences a fundamental difference between natural and cultural sci-
ences. (5) Natural sciences, to some extent, are able to perceive gen-
eral rules. (6) Cultural sciences have primarily to deal with the
uniqueness of cultural phenomena. (7) History, including socioeco-
nomic history, belongs to the cultural sciences. (8) Within the sphere
of historical sciences, general terms such as animal husbandry no-
madism can and must be used, but in doing so one must have in
mind that they are actually nothing but abbreviations. These are
used, according to an agreement made, to denote the sum of all
these particular historical subjects, which have the same character-
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 35
istic traits in common. (9) Within the sphere of historical sciences it
is impossible to make statements concerning an automatically ne-
cessitated process occurring within the sequence of forms of social
life. (10) Within the sphere of socioeconomic history there exists no
more than the possibility to make some statements concerning the
probability that some forms of social structure may succeed one an-
other in the same sequence more than once; but no more than that.
(11) The knowledge that some forms of social structure may suc-
ceed one another in the same sequence more than once can be used
for practical purposes; it can especially be used for the realization of
special goals that are socioeconomic in character. The realization of
such a goal is then supposed to represent a good, especially a good
supposed to be of a higher value than the nonrealization of the goal
under consideration. But these decisions about such values and value
differences are not derived from considerations made within the
scientific sphere but rather from considerations based on the au-
tonomous religio-ethical conscience of the individual.
These limits and ends, which Weber set for his own scientific
work, we must keep in mind. As scientists we likewise should elimi-
nate every personal bias and judgement even as to the value and
justifiability of the Weberian statements. With that in mind, we can
proceed to look at the various areas and eras which played a role in
Weber's treatment of the history of agriculture.
Pre-State Society
The agriculture and rural life of pre-state society did not play as
essential a role in the work of Weber as did some of the more com-
plicated cultures.
2
Nevertheless, they deserve brief consideration.
When Weber began his career, the scientific view with regard to
pre-state society was as follows. Positivistic evolutionism was al-
most completely dominant. This term was then used to denote the
conviction that there is independent parallel development from less
complicated to more complicated implements, beliefs, and forms of
life. Moreover, such shifting is more than just a change; it rather
must be considered a progression. At the end of the nineteenth
century evolutionism existed in two forms: liberal evolutionism,
which was represented especially by the Englishmen, Edward Tyior,
Herbert Spencer, and Sumner Maine, the Belgian, Emile de Laveleye
36 The Unknown Max Weber
and the German ethnologist, Adolf Bastian and his school, as well
as the economists, who mostly followed them, including the pow-
erful Gustav Schmoller and his dominant school of thought; and
socialistic evolutionism, especially represented by Friedrich Engels.
3
Only a few men at that time opposed such evolutionistic paral-
lelism and especially the sequence: hunting, herding, and crop rais-
ing. The most noted of the opponents were Eduard Hahn, whose
position was made known in the 1890s, and the cultural historical
school of Bernhard Ankermann and Fritz Graebner, and, with an-
other metaphysical background, Father W. Schmidt and his school
and its review Anthropos. These, in contrast to evolutionistic paral-
lelism, gave emphasis to the migration of peoples and cultures, even
in prehistoric times. These diffusionists suddenly became the most
discussed anthropologistsnot exclusively among Catholics but also
among other groupsin Germany, France, and Latin America, but
rather less in the United States.
4
Weber himself had never received any special anthropological
training, for there were very few if any anthropological professor-
ships in Germany at that time. Nonetheless, he was familiar with
the English and French evolutionistic writers (he considered Bastian
unreadable) as well as the anti-evolutionistically minded Hahn. The
diffusionistic school was beginning to become known only a short time
before Weber's death. For this reason its publications and viewpoints
appear in Weber's writings only to a limited extent. The latter teaches
that one should be careful and even skeptical when one makes general
statements. One should be skeptical even when one does not go far-
ther back than to the period of hoe agriculture. Weber's own interests
and statements centered particularly around the following six topics.
Automatic Sequences
Automatically occurring sequences of primitive forms of life had
been described since the eighteenth century. The Swiss, Isaac Iselin,
and many evolutionists after him had advanced the theory of the
three regularly succeeding stages: hunting, shepherding and crop
raising. Hahn was especially opposed to this theory. Weber accepted
this opposition without claiming to add anything in particular. Ac-
cordingly the later writers dealing with this subject refer to Hahn
rather than to Weber.
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 37
Animal Husbandry Nomadism
The evolutionists considered animal husbandry nomadism a form
of life through which every more complicated culture had passed. It
had existed in prehistoric times in Europe; and out of it stationary settle-
ment had originated. In contrast Hahn asserted that pastoral nomads
often originated out of later and more complicated forms of life.
Weber accepted this special theory of Hahn's as well as his gen-
eral opposition to the evolutionistic three-stage sequence and en-
larged it in the sense of denying the truth of the three evolutionistic
theories stated above. A short time after the issuance of the posthu-
mous edition of Weber's lectures containing these ideas, one of the
most widely read publications of Father Schmidt appeared. In this work,
his "circle of pastoral nomads" arose out of pygmy culture. Further
discussion in Germany, France, and Latin America centered around
this theory, and Weber went unnoticed. In the United States Robert H.
Lowie especially discussed the problem, but he likewise took Schmidt
primarily into consideration or drew upon Hahn. Regardless of whether
animal husbandry nomads ever existed or not, some peoples cer-
tainly settled down and lived in part by the raising of crops. What
then was their attitude toward the land which they occupied?
Land Communism
Land communism was claimed to have been universally the origi-
nal kind of land possession. This was asserted by many evolutionists,
especially Laveleye, Engels, and his popularizer, August Bebel. But
opposition increasingly arose from such scholars as the Englishman,
Frederic Seebohm, the Frenchman, Fustel de Coulanges, the Austrian
Catholic, Alfons Dopsch, and many Germans. Weber was one of them.
He did not claim to be original, and accordingly his writings were
never referred to. Although it is granted that private property existed
early, there remains the special problem of seignorial property.
Seignorial Property
According to the overwhelming majority of Encyclopedists,
laissez-faire liberals, and socialists, seignorial property originated
in the following ways. Some individuals within a group became more
38 The Unknown Max Weber
well-to-do than others.They used their economic power and brought
other persons under their control. Thus, by economic means, they
became politically powerful.
In contrast to this theory other socialists, especially Gaude Henri
de Saint Simon, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and later Eugen Duhring,
argued the opposite. Some individuals or groups conquered land,
brought the inhabitants under their control, and, by doing so, be-
came well-to-do siegnorial proprietors. Thus they used political
means to become economically powerful.
This later theory was almost forgotten at the turn of the century,
but it was rediscovered and supported by the Austrian, Ludwig
Gumplowicz, and his adherent, Franz Oppenheimer. Both theories
were antagonistic as far as the interrelationship between political
and economic means are concerned. Nevertheless, both are similar
as far as they are unilateral, that is, each accepted only one factor as
the cause of the origin of seignorial property.
To both these unilateral theories Weber proposed his multilateral
synthesis. He stated that Oppenheimer was right in insisting upon
the importance of the use of political means, especially conquest.
However, he was one-sided. Rather, there were at least six factors
to be considered as causing the genesis of seignorial propriety: 0)
The inability of some persons to perform military duties which led
them to put themselves under the sovereignty of other persons; (2)
subjection (as pointed out by Oppenheimer); (3) the greater oppor-
tunity of making land arable, which existed for some persons be-
cause they owned more animals and had more man-power at their
disposal; (4) the belief that one individual had superior magical forces;
(5) commerce outside their own group; and (6) control over water re-
sources in dry districts. This enumeration by Weber also seems to have
aroused little interest. So far as the discussion continued in Europe, it
centered around Oppenheimer's system. But this development of
seignorial property, just as the development of animal husbandry
life, according to Weber, was not an isolated phenomenon but rather
was connected with changes within the structure of the family.
The Matrilinear Family
For centuries the matrilinear family attracted the interest of white
men and especially missionaries. But most of all two men with very
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 39
different basic philosophies became interested in this phenomenon,
namely Lewis H. Morgan, the well-known American evolutionist,
and Johann Jakob Bachofen, an orthodox, mystical, and conservative
Swiss Lutheran. Their theories were based on different kinds of
material; Morgan concerned himself primarily with contemporary
North American Indians, and Bachofen with Oriental, Egyptian,
Etruscan, Greek, and Roman antiquity.
Although somewhat interrelated they actually came to the fol-
lowing conclusion independently. At one time or another matri-
linear society existed everywhere. It was more or less connected with
securing food through the cultivation of plants rather than by ani-
mal breeding. Everywhere it originated automatically and indepen-
dently out of a previous promiscuity.
The German professors of history and law either denied, ridi-
culed, or suppressed this concept. In contrast, Engels incorporated
it into the Marxist system of economic determinism; Bebel popular-
ized it; and it became a part of the official socialistic creed in every
country including the Soviet Union. Moreover, at the end of the
nineteenth century, it was rediscovered by some German Neo-Ro-
manticists, such as Alfred Schuler and Ludwig Klages, as well as by the
adherents of the cultural cyclical school. The "exogamous matrilineal
culture cirde of horticulturists'' was incorporated as one of the various
culture cycles into the system of Father Schmidt. The discussion be-
tween the evolutionists and the cultural historical school in Europe no
longer dealt with the problem of the existence or nonexistence of
this phenomenon, for the latter was accepted without question.
The discussion, rather, centered around the polygenetic or mono-
genetic origin of the phenomenon.
Weber wrote his main publications before the discussion con-
cerning Father Schmidt's theories began. He himself never de-
nied the existence of the phenomenon, but, accepting the objec-
tions made especially by Ernst Grosse, he denied two special parts
of the theory, namely the origin of the matrilinear family out of
earlier promiscuity and the automatic nature of its appearance.
By rejecting the latter, Weber, as with animal husbandry nomad-
ism, opposed the viewpoint of the evolutionists and approached
somewhat that of the diffusionists. But for the same reason men-
tioned in connection with pastoral nomadism, his viewpoint re-
mained unnoticed.
TABLE 1
Theories Concerning Rural Life in Pre-State Society
Theories
1. Rejection of the evolution-
istic three-stage sequence
2. Rejection of automatic
passage through the stage
of animal husbandry no-
madism
3. Rejection of original
land communism
New viewpoints sup-
posed to refute or-
iginal land communism
4. Importance of conquest
and political action in
acquiring seignorial
property
Accepted by Weber after
elaboration by the
following
Eduard Hahn
Eduard Hahn
Coulanges
Seebohm
Dopsch
-
Gumplowicz
Oppenheimer
Elaborated
Countries of these men by Weber
Germany
Germany
France Bagiand
Germany
X
Austria
Germany
Men
influ-
enced by
Weber
Theories
Multilateral origin of
seignorial property
5. Essence and structure
of the matrilineal
family
Rejection of the origin
of the matrilineal family
out of earlier promiscuity
Rejection of automatic pas-
sage through the matrilineal
stage
6. Rural dowry system
originating out of the
desire of wife's kins-
men that she become the
main wife of her husband
TABLE 1
Accepted by Weber after
elaboration by the
following
Morgan
Bachofen
Engels
Grosse
Grosse
-
(cont)
Countries of these men
United States
Switzerland
Germany
Germany
Germany
-
Men
influ-
Elaborated enced by
by Weber Weber
X
-
-
-
x Oppenheimer
in Germany
42 The Unknown Max Weber
Monogamy and the Dowry System
The socialistic theory had explained monogamy and the dowry
system in the following way. The husband was interested in having
legitimate children and in having them exclusively inherit his prop-
erty. Therefore, he married only one wife and insisted on receiving
a dowry as well as her remaining faithful to him.
In contrast, Weber asserted the man's desire for heirs could have
come about in numerous ways. As he saw the situation, the woman's
clan stipulated that she was to be the head wife and that only her
children could become heirs. Therefore, it was the interest of the
woman in assuring to her children the property of the man that was
decisive. This Weberian theory of the origin of monogamy and dowry
was accepted by Oppenheimer and incorporated into his system,
but little more than that. It is true that he sometimes cited Weber in
connection with particulars concerning pre-state rural life, but on
basic problems Oppenheimer accepted Father Schmidt completely
By way of recapitulation, Weber's participation in the develop-
ment of the history of agriculture with reference to pre-state society
is summarized in table 1.
Many ideas of Weber's system, cited in the preceding paragraphs,
were explained by special examples in which he dealt more inten-
sively with particular peoples, such as the Chinese.
Oriental and Pre-Occidental State Cultures
Agriculture and rural life in oriental and pre-occidental state cul-
tures played a much larger part in the scientific thought of Weber
than the prehistoric cultures already dealt with in this study. Some
peoples, however, deserve a somewhat more exhaustive discussion
than others.
The Chinese
The Chinese had aroused the interest of the occidental world since
the end of the Middle Ages.
5
Jesuit missionaries described China
and debated the advisability of permitting Catholic converts there
to maintain some of their old customs. Hence, the interest and ad-
miration of the physiocrats and of Encyclopedists such as Voltaire
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 43
were aroused. In contrast, the German romanticists considered
China prosaic and therefore took little interest in it. Almost every
historico-philological science in nineteenth-century Germany origi-
nated in and was based on German romanticism. Accordingly, the
Chinese were studied only to a slight extent in Germany.
Moreover, the few German investigators, Hans Conon and Hans
Georg Conon von der Gabelentz (father and son), Wilhelm Schott,
F.W.K. Muller, August Conrady, Otto Franke, Wilhelm Grube, Alfred
Forke, Georg Huth, and the Dutchman, Johann Jakob Marie De
Groot (who later taught in Germany), just as the Frenchmen,
Edouard Chavannes, Henri Maspero, Paul Pelliot, Silvain Levi,
Edouard Mestre, and their school had dealt primarily with the his-
tory of language, the religion, and the literature of China and her
minority peoples, such as the Tibetans, the Mongols, and the
Manchus. Little time was spent, however, studying the social and
economic life of the Chinese.
When Weber decided to deal with the latter, he found few ante-
cedents in this field of investigation. Consequently, he did not find
it necessary to spend much time discussing other theories relating
to the Chinese economy. Not being familiar with the language, he
had to base his judgments on translated sources. His own concep-
tion of the development of China is as follows.
The existence of an animal husbandry nomadism in the early
stages of Chinese development cannot be proven. Instead, two facts
point to an original soil culture. In the beginning the Chinese did
not consume milk, and the symbol of the emperor was the plow. In
this classic period the Chinese were peasants. Many were in a situ-
ation similar to that of the medieval English copyholder who was a
dependent tenant. They often had brought themselves under the
sovereignty of a powerful man in order to secure his protection.
This procedure has been described earlier in this study as leading to
social differentiation both in and outside of China. In addition to
some individual peasants, land was bought in common by a group
of family fathers and then distributed. Those who left the village
were paid off, but they remained under the jurisdiction of the whole
collective and could rebuy their shares when they returned. The city
dweller on the other band made his living from land rent. With this
exception, the city dweller was not essentially different from the
rural resident. He did not even enjoy particular rights and privi-
44 The Unknown Max Weber
leges. In this way the Chinese cities were different from the
occidental and especially the Christian medieval cities. This hetero-
geneity with regard to the differences which existed between the
status of the city dweller and that of the rural population in the
Orient and Occident played an essential role in Weber's interpreta-
tion of the different development in Asia and Europe.
This Weberian idea about the development of Chinese rural life
did not find many adherents or even create much interest. A short
time after his death some Sinologists and anthropologists wrote
publications dealing largely or exclusively with China, but they did
so from another viewpoint. These include: (1) Karl August Wittfogel,
who interpreted Chinese agriculture in a Marxist sense; (2) Richard
Wilhelm, who made the antagonism between northern Chinese
patriarchalism and southern matriarchalism the keystone of Chi-
nese history; (3) Oswald Menghin, Raul Leser, and Robert von Heine
Geldern, all of whom incorporated Chinese phenomena into Fa-
ther Schmidt's system of cultural migration; (4) Marcel Granet, who
used positivistic categories; and (5) countless American rural soci-
ologists and economists who have dealt with the practical aspects
of contemporary China. None of these except Wittfogel even cited
Weber. Wittfogel, however, referred to Weber's work in connection
with certain matters, which Weber himself considered of secondary
importance. To an even larger extent Weber's work in connection
with Japan was neglected.
Japan
Japan occupied an even less important place in German univer-
sities and sciences than did China.
6
The Japanese had begin rela-
tively early to assimilate occidental culture. According to the habitual
concept of the field of ethnology in prewar Germany, the ethnologist
was supposed to deal primarily with nonocridental cultures and espe-
cially those which had produced no written sources of their own. A
science corresponding to American applied anthropology scarcely ex-
isted in a country which at that time had almost no colonies and colo-
nial natives. The professional historians on the other hand were deal-
ing almost exclusively with occidental peoples and especially with
occidental states. Thus, very few, if any, groups were especially inter-
ested in Japan, and accordingly literature dealing with Japan was rare.
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 45
Therefore, apart from English publications, the writings of only
four German scholars come under consideration. Their investiga-
tions were largely based on the travel and residence of the au-
thors themselves in Japan. These were Heinrich Friedrich
Hackmann, Karl Florenz, Otto Rudorff, and Karl Rathgen. The
two former dealt primarily with the history of literature and reli-
gion; the third edited Japanese edicts. The last was an economist
and later Weber's colleague in Heidelberg. His main interest was
Japanese economics.
Weber's own explanation of Japanese economic development
is as follows. Originally the patrilinear gens was almost exclu-
sively the dominating group. Then out of that originated a feu-
dal state. The latter gave political positions to members of the
nobility for a time and compensated them by giving them the
usufruct of fiefs, likewise for a time. All these vassals were, in the
last instance, under the supreme control of the shogun, the head
of the crown vassals. Handicraftsmen, tradesmen, and peasants
remained groups without any legal protection. Again a change
occurred however, and out of this kind of administration origi-
nated a kind of rentier, a life based on land rent. But this kind of
life produced only a rentier mentality, and it would have never
produced out of itself an occidental-like bourgeois mentality.
Rather the latter had been imported in the nineteenth century
from the outside. It found as a connecting link some elements of
individualistic character, which had been developed out of the
contractual element that evolved into the investiture of fiefs for
time. Since such contractual elements existed in pre-occidental
Japan, this country could readily imitate the occidental pattern.
This is in contrast with Chinese culture. The latter was based on
the honor concept of a class of intellectuals as were the Chinese
mandarins.
This Weberian concept is actually a synthesis of the results of the
investigations of the men, mentioned above, especially of Rathgen,
and of Weber's own sociological categories, developed and often
used by himself. But he considered his own concept incomplete,
and if he had lived longer, he would have accepted completely and
even appreciated the fact that no one among the subsequent writ-
ers even mentioned his explanation of Japan. Weber was much more
concerned about the Hindus.
46 The Unknown Max Weber
The Hindus
The spiritual and socioeconomic life of the Hindus likewise at-
tracted great interest in the occidental world relatively early.
7
Here
as in the case of the Chinese the struggle between Jesuits and Do-
minicans as well as Voltaire's admiration played a part.
But the strongest stimulus to interest in the Hindus came from
German romanticism. Mystical contemplation and elimination of
man's will through asceticism attracted the interest of Friedrich von
Schlegel, Friedrich Wilhelm von Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, and especially of Arthur Schopenhauer. Out of this romantic
interest originated a Hindu philology. It dealt with comparative
and historical grammar and the literature in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and
Pali and with editing, interpretation, and translation of the corre-
sponding Brahmanic, Jainistic, and Buddhistic texts. After the fifties
of the last century, through the influence of German Lutheran mis-
sionary, Carl Graul, a Dravidian philology was also added. While it
was concerned with Tamil and Telugu grammar and literature, it took
a much less important place than the true Hindu philology. The
latter was the subject matter of many courses in all German univer-
sities. It is true, however, that there were relatively few participants
in these special classes. Even fewer were interested when teachers
such as Gustav Salomon Oppert in Berlin or Eugen Hultzsch in
Halle were able and willing to offer courses on Dravidian matters.
Only in the public lectures on Buddhism and similar subjects were
there many auditors.
Thus, many scholars, because of small teaching loads, had time
to do research. Some time was spent investigating the socioeco-
nomic life of the Hindus and especially their caste systems. Among
others, such work was done by the Germans, Albrecht Weber, Georg
Buhler, Friedrich Christian August Pick, Paul Horn, Heinrich Zimmer,
and Hermann Oldenberg; by the Frenchmen, Emile Charles Marie
Senart, and C. Bougie; and by the Englishmen, Grant Duff, John
Faithfull Fleet, Henri Baines, and the evolutionist, Sumner Maine;
and by the American, Edward Washburn Hopkins.
Weber did not master the native languages. His judgment was
based on translated sources, the German, French, and English fore-
runners already mentioned, and the English census reports and the
special census studies. He elaborated the following synthesis.
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 47
The castes did not develop out of families but rather, as espe-
cially Bougie pointed out, from religio-magical causes. The rural
order, especially the village, originated by conquest. Every village
had a common pasture and garden area. In the latter were settled
craftsmen, barbers, laundrymen, and all kinds of laborers, who be-
longed to the villagethe so-called village establishment. They were
not specifically paid for their work but were at the service of the
community in return for their share in the land or in the harvest.
The villages differed with regard to landownership. The land it-
self might belong to a king or to a joint body of full freeholders.
Moreover, there were variations in the social status of the villagers,
depending largely on the method of land partition used. In any
case, perhaps five or six rent collectors intervened between the owner
and the peasantry through the farming out and refarming of the
taxes. Within this group of rent receivers and large farmers, a nomi-
nal communism had evolved. Likewise, peasants might carry on a
communistic husbandry, but in this case they divided the harvest,
not the land. Thus, in contrast to Sumner Maine's theory of original
land communism, this case of so-called rural communism was nei-
ther land communism nor original.
As to the craftsmen mentioned above, they sometimes tried to
build guilds. These would have become similar to those of the Chris-
tian medieval epoch, but such attempts were crushed by the land-
owners. Moreover, religious reform movements, such as those started
by Buddha and Jaina, turned from roaming monks to established
monasteries where the members derived their living from an economy
based on kind. To avoid confiscation by powerful men and imposition
of unbearable taxes, some families transferred their landed property to
such monasteries. Nevertheless, by so doing, they maintained an un-
assignable right of rent; this actually was the first kind of feoffment
in trusts to appear in world history. This more than once played a
role in Weber's sociohistorical theory and political practice.
These three factorsnonexistence of guilds, monasterial economy
based on kind, and feoffment in trustshad the same effect in In-
dia, which, in China, the city dweller's livelihood, based on rent
coming from outside land, had produced. For this reason, cities in
the occidental sense (places which were inhabited by persons of
another juridical status than the surrounding country people) did
not appear either in India or in China.
48 The Unknown Max Weber
While Weber had accepted many ideas about castes and other
aspects of Hindu social life from Bougie, Pick, Zimmer, and Oldeber&
he was completely original on at least two points, namely his refu-
tation of Maine's theory about original Hindu rural communism
and his conclusion on the problem of why cities in the occidental
sense did not arise in India. This part of Weber's work did not be-
come well known. Apparently the explanation is that interest ev-
erywhere turned to the actual problems of contemporaneous India.
Weber was somewhat more fortunate when he dealt with the pre-
Greek world.
The Pre-Greek Western Asiatic and Eastern Mediterranean World
Except for the Jews, the pre-Greek western Asiatic and eastern
Mediterranean world has a relatively small place in Weber's work.
8
Weber was not familiar with the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyto-
Babylonian, Hittite, Median, or Persian languages. But he did know
the English, French, and German translations of Mesopotamian and
Egyptian inscriptions, the older works of Eberhard Schrader, Gaston
Maspero, John Gardner Wilkinson, and William Mathew Flinders
Petrie as well as more recent ones, especially those of the Pan-
Babylonian school of Hugo Winckler and his partisans such as the
three Jeremias, Alfred, Friedrich, and Johannes. Winckler empha-
sized the central role of Mesopotamia and her religious systems in
the cultural and religious development of the other Semitic peoples.
Weber's conception of the rural economic development of the
Euphrates, Tigris, and Nile countries is as follows. Inundation and
the necessity of caring for dikes was the central fact. Out of this
basic fact originated a specialized water-bureaucracy and a central-
ized administration. The cost was great, but the king could pay it
because he owned a great amount of land. The land was adminis-
trated in the font of socage farms operated by thousands of serfs
who lived in barracks. This kind of organization was imitated by
the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, who transferred it to the
occidental world.
These remarks by Weber are indeed rare as compared with his
comments concerning the Hebrews, but rather frequent as com-
pared with his observations about the Hittites, Medians, Persians,
Kariens, Lykians, and Lydians.
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 49
These groups Weber scarcely dealt with at all. The explanation is
to be found in Weber's scientific approach. He wrote his essential
publications at a time when very little about these peoples was re-
ally known, that is, before the essential excavating, deciphering,
translating, and publishing had been accomplished. For example,
the work done by Winckler and Friedrich Hrozny on Hittite inscrip-
tions found in Boghazkeui had not yet been completed. The rigor-
ous Neo-Kantian moralist would never have permitted himself to
make decisions about matters, whose accessible sources seemed to
him to be insufficient. Accordingly, his comments on Egypt and
Mesopotamia are restrained.
Historically, the place of Weber's work may be summarized as
follows. His insistence upon the importance of innudations and dikes
came from the previously mentioned Assyriologists and
Egyptologists. The role of the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians
as the transfer agents of the socage farm organization came from
Theodor Mommsen, a historian primarily concerned with Roman
antiquity. The term water-bureaucracy and the theory about its ori-
gin and role were original. The latter was accepted by Franz
Oppenheimer. Although Weber refrained from dealing with the
ancient peoples of Asia Minor, he could not escape the obligation
to deal with the ancient Hebrews.
The Ancient Hebrews
Even in Weber's personal life, the ancient Hebrews played an in-
comparably greater role than the peoples mentioned previously.
9
Three factors were probably responsible.
Weber's mother, compared with the average wife of an intellec-
tual of that generation, was relatively orthodox religiously. At the
same time, his uncle and cousin, Adolf Hausrath and Otto
Baumgarten, were both liberal professors of Protestant theology who
dealt with Biblical criticism. Accordingly, at a relatively young age
he was in a situation where he was forced to choose for himself
between the antagonistic concepts. Out of this situation, and in con-
nection with his shifting to the Neo-Kantian philosophy and epis-
temology, originated his religio-ethical conviction, to eliminate his
own personal religious bias and to investigate linguistically, philo-
logically, historically, and sociologically the sources of the religious
50 The Unknown Max Weber
creed in which he had been reared. That meant primarily the Old
Testament.
During his whole life, Weber felt religiously and ethically bound
to protect minorities and persecuted peoples, among them the Jews.
The latter, according to the anti-Semites as well as the economic
historian, Werner Sombart, were the typical representatives and
even the founders of capitalism or at least of the capitalistic men-
tality. Thus, Weber felt obliged to examine critically the beginnings
of Jewish life, as described in the Pentateuch, the Book of Judges,
and so on.
Weber's own studies on Calvinism had led him to perceive simi-
larities between it and Judaism. For these and other reasons, he not
only studied literature dealing with Biblical criticism, part of which
he appreciated highly (especially the books of Julius Wellhausen
and his pupil, Hermann Gunkel), but also the original sources in
Hebrew itself, a language which he mastered completely. In his
special book dealing with the ancient Hebrews, he described their
rural life as follows.
Pre-Christian Palestine was not a geographico-economical unit.
There existed three different districts, inhabited by the following
groups with their respective economies. In the south and east was
a sterile desert inhabited almost exclusively by nomadic bedouins,
whose economy centered around the camel. Districts of periodic
fertility were inhabited by semi-nomadic peoples, who made their
livelihood from sheep and goats by transhumance. The plains in
the center and the north were inhabited by peasants, who grew
cereals and cattle supported by the city dwellers. But this increasing
urbanization did not mean an increasing capitalistic mentality. Such
an association was not indicated by the prophets or their adversar-
ies. Accordingly, in contrast to Sombart, the origin and develop-
ment of capitalism cannot be traced to pre-Christian Judaism. Thus
the cause must be found in the occidental world itself.
This original Weberian idea has created considerable discussion
and has played a part in the struggle against anti-Semitism. Fur-
thermore, it has a similar place in the theological debate concern-
ing the question of whether the Old Testament is unique or largely
reflects forms of life common to many pre-Christian Semitic and
other eastern Mediterranean peoples. According to many theories
the Etruscans were connected with these peoples. For this and other
TABLE 2
Theories Concerning Rural Life in Oriental and pre-Occidental state cultures
Theories
1. Chinese:
Social, economic, and
cultural development
New viewpoints concern-
ing the undemonstrability
of an original animal
husbandry nomadism
New viewpoints supposed
to explain why cities in
the occidental sense did
notarise
Particulars of rural life
2. Japanese:
economic, cultural, and
religious development
Application of some
general categories such
as rentier mentality, etc.
Accepted by Weber after
elaboration by the
following
Franke
Forke
Grube
Wilhelm
Pelliot
Chavannes
Hackmann
Florenz
Rudorff
Rathgen
Elaborated
Countries of these men by Weber
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
France
France
X
X
X
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
X
Men influ-
enced by
Weber
-
-
-
Wittfogel
in
Germany
-
-
TABLE 2 (cont.)
Theories
3. Hindus:
Social, Economic, and
cultural development
Hindu epigraphs as
source material
New viewpoints supposed
to reject Maine's
hypothesis of an original
Hindu rural communism
New viewpoints supposed
to explain why cities in
the occidental sense did not arise
Accepted by Weber after
elaboration by the
following
Albrecht Weber
Zimmer
Oldenberg
Fick
Horn
Senart
Bougie
Duff
Baines
English census reports
Authors of special
Census reports
Hopkins
Hultzsch
Fleet
Buhler
Countries of these men
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
France
France
England
England
England and India
England and India
United States
Germany
England
Germany
Men influ-
Elaborated enced by
by Weber by Weber
-
-
X
X
TABLE 2 (cont.)
Theories
4. Pre-Greek Western Asiatics:
Importance of inundation and
dikes in ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia
Structure of large
rural estates in
Egypt and Mesopotamia
Development of water-bur-
eaucracy as starting
bureaucracy in Egypt
and Mesopotamia
Some viewpoints concern-
ing the spread of cul-
ture from Mesopotamia
Role of Phoenicians and
Carthaginians as trans-
mitters of the Egyptian
and Mesopotamian kind of
rural estate
5. Ancient Hebrews:
Historicity, authenticity,
and age of various books
and reports of the Old Testament
Accepted by Weber after
elaboration by the
following
Maspero
Wilkinson
Betrie
(same)
Oooenheimer
Schrader
Winckler
Mommsen
Wellhausen
Gunkel
Countries of these men
France
England
England
(same)
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Men influ-
Elaborated enced by
by Weber Weber
-
x
Oppenheimer
in Germany
-
-
TABLE 2 (cont.)
Accepted by Weber after
elaboration by the
Theories following Countries of these men
Subdivision of Palestine
into three rural economic
parts
City dwellers making their
living from land rent derived
from ownership of land out-
side cities
Decreasing importance
of peasants due to in-
creasing predominance
of the urban population
prophets supported by the
urban population
Nonexistence of capital-
istic mentality among
later pre-Christian Jews
6. Etruscans:
Autochtony in Italy; structure Indo-European group Italy and
of rural life; land partition of Etruscologists Germany
methods imitated bv the Romans
Men influ-
Elaborated enced by
by Weber Weber
X
Some liberal
x Protestant
theologians
Some liberal
x Protestant
theologians
x
x Some Liberal
Protestant
theologians;
some adver-
saries of anti-
Semitism
-
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 55
reasons Weber could not escape giving at least a tentative answer to
the question of the Etruscans.
The Etruscans
The Etruscans were the objective of the least successful of the
anthropological, archaeological, and historical investigations made
after the epoch of German Romanticism.
10
Even after more than a
hundred years of research, only a relatively few decisions in the field
have been made. The most well-known views are that the Etruscans
were a pre-Indo-European people who came from Western Asia,
that they were the last representatives of matrilinear culture, and
that they were a historically unimportant people. Most of the
Etruscologists hold the first theory. The second was the view of
Johann Jakob Bachofen, while the latter was that of Theodor
Mommsen. As the latter was an intimate friend of Weber's parents,
Weber knew him intimately and held him in high esteem. None-
theless he disapproved this dislike for Etruscan studies and pro-
ceeded to formulate his own views from archaeological findings
rather than upon linguistic investigations.
Weber viewed the Etruscans as follows. Nothing speaks in favor
of their Western Asiatic origin. They were ruled by priests and by an
aristocracy subdivided into gentes, that is, large families consisting
of persons related by blood from the male side. Moreover, they are
important for inventing the technique of land partition which the
Romans then imitated. This Weberian concept is largely that of the
Etruscologists who claimed that these people were Indo-European.
Weber considered his judgment as nothing more than hypothetical
as long as the Etruscan inscriptions remained largely undeciphered.
Actually Weber's views on the Etruscans remained unnoticed. For
a short time after his death, two groups of scholars, who pointed in
the opposite direction attracted attention and gained almost gen-
eral approval. Gustav Herbig put forward many particulars which
he considered proof that a relationship between the pre-Greek in-
scriptions found in Lemnos and the Etruscans had existed. The lat-
ter had then migrated from the eastern Mediterranean region by
sea to northern Italy. Hans Muhlestein wrote many publications
which pointed in the same direction. Indeed, the latter was often
criticized for exaggerating the role of the Etruscans in world history.
56 The Unknown Max Weber
Nevertheless, he contributed (just as did Herbig's much more philo-
logically based theories) to an increasing belief in the eastern Medi-
terranean origin of the Etruscans with the result that Weber's con-
flicting view remained unnoticed.
By way of recapitulation, Weber's participation in the develop-
ment of the history of agriculture in oriental and pro-occidental state
cultures is summarized in table 2.
For the peoples considered thus far, except the ancient Hebrews,
Weber was compelled to use translations of the sources. This is not
true for those of classical antiquity.
Classical Antiquity
The agriculture and rural life of classical antiquity was one of the
first subjects to hold Weber's scientific attention, and many influences
contributed to the development of this interest. He had received
nine years of training in Greek and Latin in a humanistic gymna-
sium. Since boyhood he had known intimately Theodor Mommsen,
at that time the most discussed historian of ancient Rome. Weber
studied law when the field included intensive training in Roman
law and its history. At the beginning of his academic career, he
lectured on Roman law at the University of Berlin, a field which
necessitated consideration of Greek and Hellenistic law, the latter
being increasingly based on the study of papyri. Accordingly Weber's
studies on the agriculture of classic antiquity in contrast with those
concerning oriental peoples are based on an exact knowledge of
the sources in their original languages. Moreover, Weber had to deal
with many theories put forward in a vast body of literature which
became increasingly almost impossible to master. On the basis of
all this material, Weber characterized ancient Greece as follows.
Ancient Greece
In contrast with the orient, the economy of ancient Greece was
based upon the conversion of woodland into arable land.
11
More-
overin contrast with the Christian Middle Agesit was not an
inland but rather a seashore culture. Kings originally resided in
castles on hills and were surrounded by many persons who occu-
pied the king's houses and enjoyed the monopoly of exchange and
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 57
commerce. Around the king's castle the nobility lived organized in
sibs. Out of this sib-society originated city and state. Meanwhile
cavalry and chariot combat became increasingly important in war-
fare. Since equipping a cavalryman was expensive, only well-to-do
persons were able to do so. Consequently, the cavalry became in-
creasingly and then exclusively limited to nobles. Others, who were
not able to do so, brought themselves under the protection and
domination of the nobility, became their clients, and worked on
their fields. The latter were located outside the towns. The clients
also were to be found here.
In this way the city itself became a place where primarily equites
lived, economically based upon the agricultural efforts of the rural
workers. The equites themselves were always ready to go to war,
especially in connection with the increasingly expansionistic poli-
cies, which aimed at conquest, subjection, and a new possibility for
the conquerors to live a life based upon the labor of subjected people.
This life was the life of rentiers without capitalistic mentality.
Moreover, there were handicraftsmen who lived in the city. They
produced necessary economic goods with the help of slaves. The
latter lived in the houses of their masters and with them formed
small economic units. These craftsmen never succeeded in becom-
ing powerful socially. Accordingly, the Greek city was certainly a
place of socioeconomic antagonisms. But in contrast with the mod-
ern occidental city, the dominant antagonism within the Greek city
was not between the social class which owned capital on the one
hand and urban craftsmen and proletarians who did not own capi-
tal on the other. The decisive antagonism in Greek antiquity was
rather between the aristocracy, who owned land and based its life
on land rent, and the masses who did not own land and accord-
ingly were dependent workers.
Where does this Weberian synthesis of the Greek rural-economic
structure stand in the development of the knowledge of the history
of agriculture?
Two of the viewpoints mentioned above had already been put
forward before Weber started. Eduard Meyer, more so than any of
the historians of antiquity, had emphasized the structure and im-
portance of the sib in the development of social life. Gaston Maspero,
primarily an Egyptologist, had emphasized the importance of the
development of cavalry in all antiquity. Weber accepted both ideas,
58 The Unknown Max Weber
but he added a new viewpoint. He held that the sib was the rudi-
ment out of which city and state originated and that the develop-
ment of cavalry and chariot combat was one of the essential causes
of change in the social structure of the rural population.
Having these two viewpoints in mind, Weber's original contribu-
tions in the field may be enumerated as follows: (1) The difference
between the oriental water-culture and the Greek culture, which
was based upon the conversion of woodland into arable land; (2)
the difference between the Greek seashore culture and the medi-
eval inland culture; (3) the sib as the rudiment of city and state; (4)
the importance of cavalry in changing the structure of rural life; (5)
the policies of expansion, whereby it was possible to base the life on
the labor of subjected people; (6) the nonexistence of capitalistic
mentality among the landowning nobility; (7) the powerlessness of
handicraftsmen; and (8) the class struggle centering around land
rent rather than around the interest on capital. Of these concepts
number 4 was accepted by Gustav Schmoiler, numbers 1-3 by Franz
Oppenheimer and numbers 5-8 by Johannes Hazebroek. Among
the investigators in the field of ancient history the latter more than
any other writer emphasized the importance of the economic factor
in the development of Greek culture. Accordingly there is a strong
influence exercised by Weber. The same is not true of Hellenism.
Hellenistic Age
Since the end of the nineteenth century, the investigation of the
epoch between the partition of the empire of Alexander the Great
and its conquest by the Roman Empire has been based on two new
kinds of sources, the ostraka, or fragments of earthenware contain-
ing inscriptions used in elections, and papyri as mentioned above.
Ulrich Wilsken and Ludwig Mitteis became the most outstanding
editors and decipherers of these two new kinds of sources. Both M.
Rostovtzeff, a Russian who emigrated to the United States, and
Weber based their work largely on these sources.
12
As noted above, earlier Egyptologists had asserted that a long
time before Alexander there were few independent peasants in Egypt
but rather latifundia often owned by the state. Rostovtzeff insisted
that these latifundia and their bureaucratic administration had con-
tinued without interruption into the Hellenistic epoch. These three
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 59
scholars, along with Weber, held each other in mutual esteem, and
the special interrelationship is as follows. Weber accepted almost
completely the work of the other three scholars; he added only a
few particulars, and these in turn were in part accepted by Wilcken
and Mitteis. Through Weber Oppenheimer became acquainted with
the material used by the three and their findings and incorporated
the results into his own system.
Rome
The rural history of Rome is usually divided into the epochs be-
fore and after the beginning of the overseas conquests.
13
Weber
described the development and changes as follows. Originally there
existed patricians who were castle owners and plebeians who were
not directly the serfs of the former but rather semi-dependent owners
of allotments. Moreover, there existed the ager publicus. This was
originally fallow land, property of the state and not of the family
clan, later increasingly also conquered land, having belonged origi-
nally to the native people who had been subjugated. To some ex-
tent, this ager publicus could be occupied privately, and the socioeco-
nomic history of Rome, at least before she became a conquering power
overseas, is largely a struggle over this fallow land and the title to its
occupation. The plebeians ascended by being hoplites or heavy-armed
infantry soldiers. In this way they increasingly became entitled to par-
ticipate in the partition of the ager publicus and thereby interested
in the conquest of non-Roman land in Italy. But changes occurred.
This interest in the acquisition of land led to overseas conquest,
that is, to the second era of Rome's rural history. Overseas expan-
sion in general and ownership of slaves in particular facilitated the
occupation of conquered land and the development of an agrarian
capitalism. The political insurrection, led by the Gracchi brothers, was
nothing but a protest against this development, and its failure actu-
ally meant the further decline of the remainder of the peasant class.
Henceforth, a new social class became dominant. Its members
lived in cities and based their life on overseas commerce and rent
from rural land. The latter was rented to coloni, who were provided
with the necessary inventory by the owner, or it was cultivated by
slaves. These slaves were bought in the slave market. They were
often worked to the point of exhaustion under overseers. They lived
TABLE 3
Theories Concerning Rural Life in Classical Antiquity
mutual
Elab- influence
Accepted by Weber orated of Weber
after elaboration by Countries by Men influenced Countries and
the following of these Weber by of these these
Theories men Weber Men men
1.Greeks
Culture based on conver. - - x Oppenbolmer Germany
sion of woodland late ar-
able bad
Culture a seasbare cul- - - x Oppeahelmer Germany
ture rather than an in-
land culture
Structure and central Eduard Meyer Germany - -
role of the sib
Slb as rudlment ofcity - x Oppeahelmer Germany
and state
Shifting from infantry Maspere France - - -
warfare to cavalry and
chaript combat
Importance of the devel- - - x Schmeller Germ any
lopment of cavalry for
the change in the struc-
ture of rand life
Policies of expansion that - - x Hazebroek Germany
of being able to live a
life based upon the laber
of objected people*
Life of equites as a life of - - x Hazebroek Germany
rentiers without capitalis-
tic mentality
Lack ofpower of handl- - - x Hazabroek Germany craft greeps in cities
Social struggle centering - - x Hazebroek Germany
around land rent
2.Hellenistic Age:
Ostraka and papyrus Mitteis Germany - - -
sources regarding every- Wileken Germany
day rural life
Particulars concerning Mitttels Germany x Mitties Germ any x
everyday rural life Wileken Germany x Wllcken Germany x
Rootontxeff Russis and - -
United States
Structure and uinter- Rootoutzeff Russia and - -
rupted continuance of the United States
latifundia and their bu-
reancracy fromancient
Egypt to Alexander's
Empire, the Hellenistic
Age, and the Roman Empire
TABLE 3 (cont.)
Elab-
Accepted by Weber orated
after elaboration by Countries
the following
Theories
3, Romens:
Patricians as castle own- Mommsen
ers
Plebeians as allotment Mommsen
owners
Ager publicns originally Mommsen
state land
Social struggle primarily Mommsen
occurring over fallow
land
Rise of plebeians by be-
coming hoplites
Increasing participation
of plebeians in land par*
tition
Interest of plebeians in
the conquest of non-Ro-
man land
Social unimportance of Mommsen
the persant class after
theGracchi
Predominance of hour- Mommsen
gools class after overseas
expansion
Existence and impor- Mommsen
tance of colonl
Socio-economic status of Rostortzeff
coloni
Particulars concerning Mitteis
rural life in the later Wlliken
Roman Empire Gummerus
Rostovtzeff
Life of slaves In the slave
barracks after oversea
expansion
of these
men
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
-
.
.
Germany
Germany
Germany
Russia and
United States
Germany
Germany
Germany
Russia and
United States
-
mutual
influence
of Weber
by Men influenced Countries
Weber by
Weber
-
-
.
-
x Oppenheimer
Below
Louis
Gras
Westermann
x Oppenbelmer
Louis
Gras
Westermann
x Oppenheimer
Louis
Gras
Westermann
-
.
.
.
x Mitteis
Wilcken
Gummerus
Rostovtzeff
Oppenhdmer
x Openheimer
Gras
of these
Men

-
-

Germany
Germany
France
United States
United States
Germany
France
United States
United States
Germany
France
United States
United States
-
.
.
-
Germany
Germany
Germany
Russia and
United States
Germany
Germany
United States
and
these
men
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
.
x
x
X
x
x
62 The Unknown Max Weber
TABLE 3 (cont.)
mutual
Elab- influence
Accepted by Weber orated of Weber
after elaboration by Countries by Men influenced Countries and
the following of these Weber by of these these
Theories men Weber Men men
shifting of the center or
life from city to rural es-
tate in the later Roman
Empire
New vtewpoints sup- - x Oppenheimer Germany
posed to rapport See- Sombart Germany
bohm's hypethesis noted Below Germany
above Gothein Germany
Dopach Austria
Hypothesis concering MSser Germany - - -
uninterrupted continu- Eichhorn Germany
ance from the Roman Roth Germany
villa to the early medie-
val feudal estate
to support Roth's hy- Sombart Germany
pothesis noted above Below Germany
Gothein Germany
Dopach Austria
Vinogradoft Russia and
England
as unmarried men in barracks and reproduced themselves through a
kind of regulated prostitution. But again changes occurred especially
near the very end of the Roman Empire, that is, after the wars of con-
quest.
The center of life next shifted from seashore and city life to inte-
rior and estate life, that is, to the villa. The landlord and his family
lived on the latter; here they were surrounded by coloni, who had
to pay fixed charges in kind, and by servi. The latter were forced to
do an unlimited amount of skilled handicraft work to satisfy the
needs of the landlord and dependents. That meant dominance of
socage estates, decay of cities, shifting to an economy based on kind,
and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Conquering tribes of Nordic
origin, speaking Teutonic languages, settled down in these self-suf-
ficient villas of the late Roman Empire and began there their own
medieval feudalism.
Where does this Weberian synthesis of the Roman agronomico-
historical development stand in the development of knowledge of
the history of agriculture?
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 63
Mommsen had elaborated the following points: (1) the patricians
as castle owners; (2) the plebeians as allotment owners; (3) the ager
publicus as state land; (4) the social struggle as a struggle primarily
over fallow land; (5) the unimportance of the peasant class after the
Gracchian reform: (6) the predominance of the bourgeois class after
overseas expansion; and (7) the existence and importance of coloni.
To these statements by Mommsen, the following additions were
made. Rostovtzeff elaborated on the socioeconomic status of the
coloni. Mitteis, Wilcken, and Herman Gurnmerus contributed par-
ticulars concerning rural life in the later Roman Empire. Frederic
Seebohm put forth his hypothesis about the shifting from seashore
life to interior lifea hypothesis that lacked convincing proof. Paul
von Roth presented a hypothesis (in contrast to the formerly domi-
nant catastrophe theory of the complete break between later antiq-
uity and the Middle Ages) which pointed to the uninterrupted con-
tinuance from the Roman villa to the early medieval feudal estate, a
hypothesis put forward without convincing proof.
Weber accepted these theories of Mommsen and Rostovtzeff and
the hypotheses of Seebohm and Roth but added the following new
parts to the whole system mentioned above: (1) the rise of plebe-
ians by becoming hoplites; (2) the increasing participation of ple-
beians in land partition; (3) the interest of plebeians in the con-
quest of non-Roman land; (4) particulars concerning rural life in the
later Roman Empire; (5) the life of slaves in barracks, a description based
on an analysis of Latin writings in the field of agronomy hitherto little
used in connection with this problem; (6) new material and reasons
supposedly supporting Seebohm's sypothesis; and (7) new mate-
rial and reasons intended to substantiate the hypothesis of Roth.
Of these Weberian ideas, all seven were accepted by Franz
Oppenheimer, numbers 1 and 2 by scholars' varied philosophies,
including the Americans N.S.B. Gras and W.L. Westermann, and
the Frenchman, Paul Louis, number 4 in part by Ulrich Wilcken,
Ludwig Mitteis, and their continuator, Herman Gummerus, num-
ber 5 by the American historian of agriculture, N.S.B. Gras, num-
bers 6 and 7 by scholars of varied philosophies, including the Aus-
trian Catholic medievalist, Alfons Dopsch, the nationalistically
minded German medievalist, Georg von Below, the economic his-
torians Eberhard Gothein and Werner Sombart, and PaulVinogradoff
(perhaps with slight modifications).
64 The Unknown Max Weber
In Roman rural history Weber was strongly influenced by
earlier scholars. Moreover, there was some mutual influence
between Rostovtzeff, Wilcken, Mitteis, and Weber but also a very
strong influence by Weber on scholars of various kinds. By way
of recapitulation, Weber's participation in the development of
the history of agriculture in classical antiquity is summarized
in table 3.
To understand the importance of Weber's theory concerning
the uninterrupted continuance of the self-sufficient large estates
from the late Roman Empire to medieval feudalism, it is neces-
sary to deal with Weber's synthesis of rural life in the Middle Ages.
Weber became interested in the agriculture and rural life of the
Christian world when he was dealing with the later Roman Empire.
His thesis for his doctorate in law dealt with an economic problem
which involved the uniqueness of the medieval city. In his treat-
ment of the various Christian cultures some peoples and eras de-
serve a somewhat more exhaustive discussion than others.
Celtic Peoples
Speaking languages and having forms of life which were differ-
ent from the surrounding world, the Celtic peoples had continued
to exist in remote parts of the occidental world. These included
Ireland, the Highlands of Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, Brittany,
and up to the end of the eighteenth century, Cornwall. The exist-
ence of such remnants supplied the inspiration for many persons
and groups to deal with the Celts, and Weber stood within the con-
tinuity of these groups.
14
The earliest of these groups were the antirationalists of the eigh-
teenth century. James Macpherson edited a translation of Gaelic
songs supposedly old High Scottish in origin, which, he asserted,
were written by Ossian. An extended discussion of their authentic-
ity began, in which Johann Gottfried von Herder, a forerunner of
German Romanticism, the young Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and
Samuel Johnson and James Boswell were involved. Both Boswell
and Johnson had traveled in the Highlands and the Hebrides and
doubted the authenticity of these songs. Their writings were widely
read and contributed much to the development of an interest in
Celtic matters.
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 65
The German Romanticists always hoped to discover an incarna-
tion of the true life in the remote past or in a remote district, and in
this case, starting with Macpherson, Herder, and Goethe, they be-
gan to deal with the Celtic past.
After French Romanticism developed, Hersart de laVillemarque
and others began to be interested in the Bretons and to edit Breton
songs, supposed to be old and original In spite of the proximity of
Brittany, the French Encyclopedists, including Jean Jacques Rousseau,
had shown almost no interest in Celtic peoples.
The Irish nationalists, influenced by the Romantic movement,
began to edit Irish sources.
The Celtic philology, strictly speaking, originated, like so many of
the special philologies, largely out of German Romanticism. Based
on and in continuance of Franz Bopp's discovery of the unity of
the Indo-European languages, the southern German, Johann
Kaspar Zeuss, elaborated the comparative and historical gram-
mar of the Celtic languages. Based on his work, Whitley Stokes
in England, Henry Gaidoz in France, Hermann Ebel, Christian
Wilhelm von Gluck, Ernst Windisch, Heinrich Zimmer, Ludwig
Christian Stem, and Kuno Meyer in Germany built up a Celtic
philology in central Europe. It is true that there was only one full
professorship for Celtic philology in Germany, the one at the
University of Berlin, in the second half of the nineteenth cen-
tury, but in some of the other universities, such as Leipzig, Bonn,
and Heidelberg, professors of comparative Indo-European lin-
guistics occasionally taught classes in Irish and Welsh grammar
and literature. There was therefore an uninterrupted continu-
ance in Celtic studies also in Germany, but the main interest of
these scholars (like almost any interest which originated in Ger-
man Romanticism) centered around the comparative history of
Celtic languages and literatures.
The socioeconomic development of the Celtic peoples had been
studied to a smaller degree. The impulse to do so came from two
sources. The American evolutionist, Lewis H. Morgan, believed
that the Celtic gens was similar to an institution which he found
among the Iroquois Indians. With regard to this and many other
assertions put forward by Morgan, the Marxists, especially
Friedrich Engels and August Bebel, followed the American an-
thropologist and by doing so made the Celtic gens popular in many
66 The Unknown Max Weber
countries. Sumner Maine, the evolutionist, incorporated Irish insti-
tutions into his system of rural collectivities which he argued ex-
isted everywhere in the beginning.
Frederic Seebohm's original interest centered around the English
village, but his attempt to find the causes of the phenomena that he
investigated led him from Anglo-Saxon and English studies to the
comparative study of the Irish, Scotch, and Welsh rural past and
laws. Based on all this material he argued as follows. The Celts
originally lived the nomadic life of the tribal system just as the
Germans did at the time of Tacitus and as almost every people in
the world had once done, for his tribal system was an inevitable
stage in the development of every people. Even after settling
down, the Celts maintained much land for pasture. The other
land was divided equally among the families. Thus the latter were
in a similar economic situation to a large extent. Even the tribal
chiefs were not much different from other persons, and the chiefs
status was not hereditary. Often the family shifted from one
dwelling to another when the extinction of one family made a
new partition inevitable. They were so accustomed to land parti-
tion that they maintained this custom even centuries later. All
this was a pure autochthonous Celtic development. In contrast
the manorial system in the Celtic islands as in Gaul and Ger-
manic lands originated by a combination of autochthonous and
Roman elements.
August Meitzen, the German rural historian and statistician, at-
tempted to define the German settlement in its characteristic traits.
That meant an elaboration of its differences from the Celtic and
Slavic settlement. Thus, Meitzen had also to define the Celtic
settlement in its essential traits. In order to do so he combined
the results of the investigations made in France, Great Britain,
and Ireland with those made in Germany and elaborated a new
synthesis.
Meitzen accepted the following five theories of Seebohm: origi-
nal Celtic nomadism; the predominance of animal husbandry for
a long time over the cultivation of crops; equal partition of land
among the families belonging to the tribe; the nonhereditary
character of the chief's position; and the maintenance of the cus-
tom of partition of land for a long time. To these theories of
Seebohm, Meitzen added two: Christian monasticism especially
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 67
contributed to the sedentary life, and in this way the chief shifted
to the position of a manorial lord; and the results of Seebohm's
Irish investigations must be combined with observations made
among the Westphalians in Germany.
In the eighteenth century Justus Moser had studied the
Westphalians. He was an antirationalistically minded emphasizer
of rural life, independent farmers, local traditions, and especially
the old Westphalian farmhouse. The latter was different from the
farmhouses in surrounding German districts. It contained the hu-
man dwelling and the stable under the same roof. It was isolated
from other farmhouses and was surrounded by its own fields. At
the end of the nineteenth century it was still in existence in some
Westphalian districts. This old Westphalian settlement as described
by Moser was, according to Meitzen, the same as the old Irish settle-
ment described by Seebohm; for both, the Westphalian and the Irish
could be traced to the same common ancestor, the original Celtic
settlement, which in Westphalia was then accepted and continued
by the German conquerors. This view, elaborated by Meitzen, is for
us of great importance.
Weber admittedly was a pupil of Meitzen, and except for the fact
that he considered the Irish-Westphalian equalization as not com-
pletely proven, he accepted and propagated the whole Seebohm -
Meitzen synthesis about Celtic rural economic development. He
expressly denied that he himself had added anything positive of his
own to it. Thus it is understandable that in the Celtological field
almost no one refers to Weber, but almost everyone to Meitzen. The
American historians of agriculture, N.S.B. Gras, Melvin M. Knight,
and Nellie Neilson, the Austrian Catholic, Alfons Dopsch, and Paul
Vinogradoff, originally a Russian, accepted Meitzen's theory of the
Irish development, the two former even his Irish-Westphalian equal-
ization, while Neilson, Dopsch, and Vinogradoff, just as did Weber,
considered this Celtic-Westphalian theory as unproven. The
Meitzen-Weber relationship was similar as far as the Slavic peoples
are concerned.
Slavic Peoples
The Slavic peoples and their agricultural past especially attracted
Weber's attention because of two phenomena, the Russian mir and
68 The Unknown Max Weber
the southern Slavic zadruga.
15
The mir had been brought to the
attention of Weber's generation in the following ways. August
Ludwig von Schlozer, one of the founders of the science of statistics
in Germany, had lived for years in Russia and had described the
Russian rural collective, the mir, at the end of the eighteenth cen-
tury. August von Haxthausen, a conservative and feudal German
Romanticist, had traveled through Russia and praised the mir as an
institution which merited survival.
The Slavophile movement of Ivan Kireevsky and his followers
went even further. In general this movement accepted the empha-
sis given by German Romanticists, such as Friedrich Wilhelm von
Schelling and Franz Xaver von Baader, to the uniqueness of every
nation in contrast to the intemationalsim of the enlightenment and
the French Revolution. Moreover the Slavophiles glorified the col-
lectivism of the past in contrast with the individualism of the eigh-
teenth century. Furthermore, this movement strengthened the ad-
miration which Haxthausen had expressed for the mir. It also
combined Schelling's emphasis on national uniqueness generally
and Haxthausen's special emphasis on the mir. In this way they
came to a glorification of the mir and the rural collective as a true
Russian and Greek Orthodox form of life.
Feodor Dostoevsky and Count Leo Tolstoy, the well-known Rus-
sian fiction and religious writers, had actually lived somewhat ear-
lier than the Weberian generation, but they were not discussed in
Germany until a short time before the First World War. They were
especially comprehended and used with respect to the simple
Russian peasant as the true Christian man, even the ideal man
himself.
The Narodniki movement of Peter Lavrov, Victor Tchemov, and
their followers, who later were called Social Revolutionaries, gave
this idea another twist. This group was familiar with Haxthausen's
ideas and accepted the theory of the especially Russian character of
the mir. But out of this conviction they drew conclusions in conflict
with those of the Slavophiles. First of all, the poor Russian peasant
should accomplish a Russian revolution, eliminate private landown-
ership, and realize a land nationalization program. Such a program
was meant to embody the basic principles of the mir.
The evolutionists, especially Sumner Maine, had claimed that the
same stages succeeded each other automatically and necessarily
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 69
within the independent and parallel development of the various
peoples. They placed special emphasis on the idea that every people,
independent of influences received from others, had passed through
the stage of original communism. Accordingly they incorporated
the mir into this system and regarded it as nothing but a remnant of
the rural collective stage, through which every people, including
the Russians, had to pass. The Marxists in general and especially
Friedrich Engels did the same.
The Russian Marxists, especially George Plekhanov and Peter
Struve, certainly accepted the Engels system, including the past of
the Russian rural collective, but they were impelled to defend their
own political program and visualize the future against the Narodniki.
In doing so they asserted that Russia would not remain rural but
would of necessity develop in a capitalistic direction. Such develop-
ment would then also destroy the rural collective.
Russian anarchists, especially Prince Peter Kropotkin, used the
rural collective as an example of the inborn tendency of man to live
a life of mutual help and as a proof that a society without any legal
compulsion is possible.
Under such circumstances Russian economists, sociologists, and
philosophers were forced to participate in the controversy. Some of
them were J. von Keussler, Konstantin Kavelin, Maxim Kovalevsky,
Isaac Hourwich, Vladimir Simkhovich, Pavel Milyukov, Nikolai
Oganovsky, Alexis Yermolov, and the Scandinavian Knud Asborn
Wieth-Knudsen.
The German youth movement held the ideal of a simple and
natural life in contrast with urban life. The latter was supposed to
be unnatural and hyperintellectual. Moreover, this youth movement
advocated a return to a life which should be based on mutual help
in contrast to present-day competition. This new youth movement
rediscovered Dostoevsky and accepted his glorification of the simple
Russian.
August Meitzen attempted to define the German settlement in
its characteristic traits. That meant an elaboration of its differences
from the Celtic settlement. With that we have dealt above. But it
meant the same with regard to the Slavic settlement. Because the
mir was declared by some of the writers mentioned above to be the
typical Slavic settlement rather than just one of the many kinds of
Russian settlements, Meitzen had to deal with it intensively.
16
70 The Unknown Max Weber
Meitzen characterized the essence of the mir as follows. The fields
were the property of the rural corporation. Every family in the vil-
lage was, ipso facto, a member of the latter and was entitled to an
equal allotment of land; this could be managed independently ac-
cording to the decisions made and orders given by the father of the
family. But new repartitions always occurred because the younger
generation had the same right to allotment as the older one.
The origin of this institution was explained by Meitzen as fol-
lows. Since the beginning of the Mongolian rule in Russia land
became more and more chartered real property. At the same time
peasants began to cede their land to the church or to the feudal
lords. They did so to escape the arbitrary actions of functionaries. By
doing so the formerly independent peasants changed their status
and as the next step became tenants for a time with the right of the
tenant to withdraw from the tenancy. But increasingly the right of
recalling diminished because in the case of withdrawal and removal
the tenant had to pay increasingly high forfeit. He often was unable
to raise it. Furthermore, the feudal lord became increasingly en-
titled to refuse the notice made to him by his tenant. In many laws
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the state sanctioned this
development; moreover it entitled the feudal man to sue the fugi-
tive peasant without superannuation and to have him brought back.
Finally the law abolished the last remaining difference between
peasant serfs and slaves and comprised both under the term bonds-
men. At the same time the community of the latter became jointly
responsible for exaction and delivery of the imposts. Thus the
bondsmen's community became interested in the settlement of
people who would be capable of working. Accordingly it encour-
aged them to do so, by showing them the advantage of settling
within a community where they would be entitled regularly to par-
ticipate in the new allotment of land. Out of this interest the mir
originated. In this manner and in contrast to the theory which had
been put forward by earlier authors, the mir was declared by Meitzen
to be a relatively recent institution, and he was one of the chief
teachers of Weber.
What was the attitude of Weber toward all these theories con-
cerning the origin, essence, and development of the mir?
17
Weber was connected with at least five of the twelve groups which
have been enumerated. Apart from being an admiring pupil of
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 71
Meitzen, Weber was in his last years personally connected with some
groups of the German youth movement. He liked them but warned
them against becoming romantic. Furthermore, he was person-
ally acquainted with some Russian Social Revolutionaries and
Marxists who studied in Heidelberg, many of whom he directly
protected. He did so for two reasons. Although he certainly was
not an adherent of either one of the ideologies, he felt ethically
bound to protect his adversaries. Moreover, these Russian revo-
lutionary students were to his mind idealists, persecuted and
willing to die for their convictions. In this respect he found some
similarity between them and himself and therefore protected
them. Besides he was deeply affected by Dostoevsky and Tolstoy,
whom he wanted to make the subject of a special study. Under
all these circumstances it would have been a miracle if this rigor-
ous Neo-Kantian Protestant had not dealt with the mir and with
Russian rural life in general. Although a middle aged man, We-
ber learned the Russian language in order to study these prob-
lems. He also studied many books which did not deal explicitly
with Russian agricultural history but rather with Russian economic
development generally. Such were the publications of the moder-
ate Marxists, Mikhail Tugan-Garonovsky, and of Pavel Milyukov, one
of the leaders of the so-called Cadets, i.e., the Constitutional Demo-
crats.
Like Meitzen and the majority of the Russian scholars, except
the Slavophiles, Weber considered the mir not a primitive Russian
institution, but rather a product of the taxation system and serfdom
of the post-Mongolian epoch and especially the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. Moreover he largely accepted the explana-
tion given by his teacher Meitzen. But at the same time he in-
sisted on the importance of some other traits. These he con-
trasted with the admiring description given among others by the
Social Revolutionaries and with their belief that the mir could
and should be maintained in contrast with an individualistic ru-
ral organization as the salvation of the economic life of present
times. To them Weber's answer was as follows. Equality of the
members, democratic character, and community of interests in
the mir existed on paper only. That was due to two reasons. The
allotment took into account how much labor force a dwelling
mustered. Thus every family which had increased in a large ratio
72 The Unknown Max Weber
was in favor of re-division; but there were other interests arrayed
against that. Many members needed implements and to be able to
buy them became indebted to the kulaks, the well-to-do and inde-
pendent middle-class farmers in the village. Accordingly they
held the mass of the propertyless members of the mir in their
power through money lending. According to whether they were
interested in keeping their debtors poor or allowing them to ac-
quire more land, they controlled the decision of the village when
re-division was asked for by the heads of enlarged families. Thus
the decision in this nominally collectivistic institution was actu-
ally often determined by individualistic economic interests. In-
deed the right to the land pertained to the individual and ac-
cordingly was perpetual. Even after the abolition of serfdom the
worker, whose forefathers had emigrated from the mir genera-
tions before, might go back and assert the right if he found it to
his interest to return unsolicited. On the other hand, the village
reciprocally held an unquestionable claim to his labor, even when
he had gone away with the permission of the headman of the
village and taken up an entirely different profession. The mir of
course was inclined to use this right when a relatively small num-
ber of persons had remained behind and the tax burden was in-
creased for them since it was a joint obligation. Consequently,
the same collective, whose decisions, as demonstrated above,
were actually often determined by individualistic economic in-
terests, limited the members' freedom of movement. For both
reasons Weber did not deplore the actual abolishment of the mir
through the agrarian reform accomplished by the Russian min-
ister, Peter Stolypin, although he did not like the way it was ac-
complished. But this conviction was completely involved in
Weber's whole social program concerning the rural organization of
the present and future. Accordingly, it does not come within the
scope of this study.
Weber was much concerned with Russian agriculture, but actually
only his ideas concerning the present and future have been noted.
More recent authors dealing with the mir, as the American, Gerald
Tanquary Robinson, cite neither Weber nor Meitzen. Others such as
Alfons Dopsch did just the same as they did in dealing with the Celtic
rural past, that is, they cited Meitzen but not Weber. In this case the
glory of the master has overshadowed that of the pupil. The same is
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 73
true with regard to the other supposedly Slavic rural collective, the
zadruga.
In the history of the investigation of the zadruga,
18
many names
already noted in dealing with the mir reappear; evolutionists (among
them Sumner Maine, Carl Bucher, and Emile de Laveleye), anar-
chists, Marxists, and Meitzen. To them must be added many south-
ern Slavic writers such as Milan Markovich and Dragolioub
Novakovitch and some Austrian writers including Dopsch. The in-
terest of both groups was, of course, at least in part, a practical one.
The institution existed until recent times in parts of Serbia as well
as in those districts of the former Turkish Empire which the Austria-
Hungarian Monarchy occupied in 1878, annexed in 1908, and lost
in 1919.
The argument about the origin of the zadruga centers around
the problem: is the phenomenon especially Slavic in character or is
it nothing but a remnant of the general agricultural communism
every people has to pass through? The latter is the theory of evolu-
tionists and Marxists; the former was formulated in its most pro-
nounced from by Meitzen.
Meitzen described the zadruga in the following way. Land had
originally been occupied by the whole clan, that is, by the unit of all
families related to one another by blood on the male side, under
leadership of the head of this clan. No partition of land among the
individual families of the clan occurred. On the contrary, all the land
was managed in common according to the orders given by the head of
the clan. The latter also nominated one of his sons or nephews as his
successor. Everything acquired by the individual became property of
the community, except for war plunder and bridal attire, or if a mem-
ber renounced his partnership and withdrew from the zadruga.
Weber accepted, for the most part, this description given by his
teacher. In addition, however, he pointed out that, although some
anarchists cited the zadruga as proof of their theory that a society
without legal compulsion is possible, they are wrong. It is true
that in the zadruga there was no legal compulsion administered
by the state, but nevertheless coercion was carried out by the
village community. Thus, he argued that the existence of the
zadruga contradicted both the theories of the anarchists and the
state worshippers. However, the existence of the zadruga indeed
proves that a stateless legal coercion is possible.
74 The Unknown Max Weber
As to the problem concerning the origin of the phenomenon, it
is scarcely necessary to indicate Weber's attitude. This Neo-Kantian
had always in principle opposed the belief in automatically occur-
ring parallel developments as conceived by evolutionists. In this
case he also denied the possibility of considering this phenom-
enon as a remnant of a universal rural collectivism of an earlier
stage. There still remained in his day, however, the yet unsolved
question of the date and special causes of the origin of this insti-
tution, and the geographical, political, or social factor could have
been the essential one. But again the Heidelbergian social his-
torian took the character of the sources, the amount of knowl-
edge available in his day, and his own unfamiliarity with the lan-
guage into account, and accordingly abstained from making a final
decision.
Under such circumstances Weber's remarks on southern Slavic
collectives passed almost unnoticed. Also in this case Dopsch cited
the teacher and not the pupil. In his studies of the German rural
past Weber had to face a completely different situation.
The Germans
The rural past of the Germans had been the object of scientific
interest in Germany since the time of the pre-Romanticists such as
Justus Moser, mentioned previously in connection with the Irish-
Westphalian equalization. On the history and especially the begin-
ning of German agriculture, many special problems and controver-
sies developed, and the following description is subdivided according
to them.
1. Were the Germans at the time of Christ primarily animal hus-
bandry people, as for example the Celts, or were the Germans
already growing crops?
19
Both theories had often been advo-
cated. The interpretation of certain passages in the writings
of Julius Caesar played a part in these discussions. Some in-
vestigators insisted that Caesar contradicted himself. They
asserted that he once described the ancient Germans as a sed-
entary people who grew crops and again as an unstable people
who migrated with their animals and only occasionally lived
long enough in one place to raise some crops. Others consid-
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 75
ered the passages under consideration as only seemingly con-
tradictory and tried to reconcile them. Some scholars, there-
fore, were proponents of German nomadism. In this group
were many of the earlier scholars, Weber's teacher, August
Meitzen, and Weber's contemporaries, Georg Friedrich Knapp
and Werner Wittich. Others were proponents of the seden-
tary character of the early German life. Wilhelm Fleischmann
made a new distinction. He argued that Caesar described the
Suebi as a migratory people with almost no tillage but that
this was the description of an exceptional situation. Weber
accepted this suggestion, incorporated it into a more univer-
sal concept, and argued as follows. At the time of Caesar, ag-
riculture in Northern Europe was not a recent invention; it
had spread to and was practiced by every Indo-European lin-
guistic people, including the majority of the Germanic tribes.
Caesar had the latter in mind when he wrote that the Ger-
mans were crop raisers. The Suebi, on the other hand, were a
migratory martial tribe; accordingly they only occasionally
grew crops. This Weberian interpretation was accepted by
Alfons Dopsch and Eberhard Gothein.
2. Did the Roman writers, Caesar and Tacitus, mean that the Ger-
mans shifted from one locality to another every year or merely
that they plowed fresh portions of land in the same locality?
20
Some investigators, especially Frederic Seebohm, decided on
the latter interpretation. Here Weber made a second distinc-
tion. Caesar and Tacitus were not contemporaries, and rea-
sonably enough they had different phenomena in mind. Cae-
sar meant change of locality, and Tacitus the two-field system.
This was also accepted by Dopsch and Gothein.
3. Was the method of using land among the Germans after Christ
the wild field grass husbandry system or already the three-
fallow system?
21
A few Romanticists, such as Carl Friedrich
Eichhorn and his followers, believed the latter, while more
recently Seebohm, Fleischmann, Dopsch, Gothein, Georg von
Below, and N.S.B. Gras accepted the former.To this last group,
Weber also belonged. Moreover, he expressly insisted that he
neither knew nor had written anything new on this subject.
Accordingly the matter of Weberian influence does not re-
quire consideration.
76 The Unknown Max Weber
4. What was the origin of the type of land partition, village loca-
tion, and structure of rural houses?
22
The history of this par-
ticular problem is relatively short. Georg Hanssen was the first
who dealt with it. He was a German who lived and worked
for a short time in Denmark. At the beginning of this career
in the 1870s, Meitzen elaborated a classification of settlement
forms according to nations. His main types were the follow-
ing. As to the structure of the settlement, the Celts had iso-
lated farms surrounded by their fields, the Germans had long
villages with the land strips immediately behind the farm-
yard, and the Slavs had radial settlement. As to the form of
the fields, the German settlements had long strips, the Ro-
mans rectangular strips, and the Slavs block strips. Meitzen's
classification of settlement forms was widely accepted soon
after its publication, first by Seebohm and later by Below and
Gothein. Between them stood Meitzen's pupil in Heidelberg.
Weber had his doubts, mentioned above in connection with
the Celts, about the possibility of correlating the Westphalian
with the Irish house. The latter had been done by Meitzen in
connection with his classification of villages and field strips.
But except for this he accepted the system elaborated by his
teacher.
5. Was land among the Germans once collective property?
23
The
German Romanticists notoriously were strictly opposed to the
economic individualism of laissez-faire and the French Revo-
lution. Accordingly they emphasized any kind of non-indi-
vidualistic economy and were interested in an original
communism which was supposed to have existed among early
Germans. Johann Kaspar Zeuss, the founder of the compara-
tive Celtic grammar, and the brothers, Jacob Ludwig and
Wilhelm Karl Grimm, who became known as editors and in-
vestigators of old German texts, supported this idea. It was
supported even more widely since the theory of an original
universal rural communism had been expounded by socialis-
tic writers such as Friedrich Engels and by nonsocialists such
as Sumner Maine and Emile de Laveleye. Weber considered
the source material cited, and especially that regarding the
original German communism, just as unconvincing as the
theory of original universal rural communism. But later some
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 77
land, owned in common, the Markgenossenschaft, was to be
found among certain German groups.
6. What was the origin of the Markgenossenschaft, the land ob-
viously owned collectively by the rural community in the ep-
och of the Carolingians and which remained outside the feu-
dal system?
24
Needless to say German Romanticism had
especially cherished this phenomenon for obvious reasons.
Eichhorn and Zeuss and their followers, Georg Ludwig von
Maurer and Otto von Gierke, as well as the Marxists and
Meitzen were interested. In contrast with these men Weber
and Dopsch were cautious. The latter denied the existence of
the Markgenossenschaft in the era of Tacitus, while the former
asserted that we know only about the existence of the phe-
nomenon in the epoch prior to the rise of the Carolingians
and not earlier. At any rate, privately owned land existed in
the period of Tacitus, but the question of who owned the land
is very difficult to answer.
7. Was the privately owned land owned by seigniors or free peas-
ants?
25
Since the time of the Romanticists, from Eichhorn
and Maurer to Meitzen and Below, the latter alternative was
the most popular. The seignorial manor theory had been ad-
vocated by Seebohm. Knapp and Wittich latter combined
Seebohm's theory with an older idea. They gave impetus to
the idea that the original animal husbandry nomadism had
been the dominant form of life. Combining both suggestions
they argued as follows. Chieftains owned herds and disdained
crop raising and related work. This work was done by depen-
dent and impoverished people. Out of this combination of
conditions the manorial system originated.
Weber was opposed to this synthesis. He applied the two
distinctions concerning Caesar and Tacitus, mentioned above,
to the new situation. He argued that Caesar recognized the
big difference between the Gallic Celts, who in his day lived
in an already developed feudalism, and the Germans. More-
over Caesar distinguished between the Germans who had
already settled on the banks of the Rhine and the Suebi who
were still migrating. But even the latter did not show the typi-
cal aristocratic patriarchalism of herdsmen but rather the com-
munism of a warrior tribe; they showed aristocratic traits even
78 The Unknown Max Weber
less than the others; they were a society of free men with the
right to equal hides and with few if any serfs or slaves. Tacitus,
in contrast to Caesar, described an already differentiated so-
ciety. But even the latter consisted of free owners rather than
manorial seigniors. Slowly changes began to occur and led to
feudalism.
8. How did feudalism originate?
26
In continuing his theory We-
ber argued as follows. Leaders in war and conquest began to
become owners of great portions of land, and in this connec-
tion they had clients dependent upon them. But this was just
one of the factors which brought feudalism. The other was
the rural situation in the late Roman Empire which was men-
tioned at the end of the earlier section on classical antiquity.
9. Did there exist an uninterrupted continuance from the Ro-
man villa into the rural estate of the Middle Ages?
27
This
problem has previously been treated from the viewpoint of
the later Roman Empire, but it must now be considered from
the viewpoint of medieval history. In the 1870s Paul von Roth
made some comments on the continuance of the Roman villa,
and Seebohm considered the possibility as probable. But as
early as 1891 Weber asserted that the Roman villa changed
into a self-sufficient large estate, based upon an economy of
kind. Thus everything was prepared for the chieftain of the
Germanic tribes to settle down on these "villas," make him-
self owner of them, and to evolve the medieval socage farm.
Some authors like E. Lipson, Sir William Ashley, Helen Dou-
glas-Irine, and Charles Seignobos considered the dependence
of the Germanic manor upon the Roman villa as unproven.
On the contrary, others, like Franz Oppenheimer, Alfons
Dopsch, Werner Sombart, Eberhard Gothein, and Paul
Vinogradoff (perhaps with slight modifications) accepted the
theory and made it popular. But Weber who brought up this
question opposed the use of this theory in a unilateral sense.
10. Was the manor with its dependencies prior to the high Middle
Ages the only kind of rural settlement, or did there still exist,
at least in some German districts, independent peasants up
to the High Middle Ages?
28
Knapp and Wittich insisted on
the former alternative, but Below especially brought forth new
material in opposition to them. Weber followed the latter with-
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 79
out claiming to add anything new, and Oppenheimer incorpo-
rated Below's viewpoints into his system. The same situation
was true of the two following viewpoints.
11. What was the status of the peasants from the eighth to the
twelfth century?
29
It steadily improved. There were not many
wars, and accordingly there was not much slave trade. On
the other hand the lord needed peasants to clear land and
colonize eastward. Accordingly he had to deal well with the
peasants.
12. Which factors were conducive to the predominance of the
manor?
30
This came about primarily by using the political
means of appropriating territorial power, that is, political rights
by usurpation and feoffment. As to these particulars Weber
neither claimed nor was supposed to have been original. This
is not true of his synthesis concerning the essence of the
Middle Ages.
13. What made the difference between the rural life of the Middle
Ages and that of antiquity?
31
According to Weber the latter
was exactly the opposite of the former. In antiquity, coloniza-
tion was by sea, the culture was seashore, the urban feudals
owned land outside the city, and there was no urban social
struggle between urban feudals and powerful guilds. In the
Middle Ages, colonization was by land, the culture was in-
land, the rural feudals lived on the manor, and the urban so-
cial struggle was between landowning feudals organized
handicraftsmen out of which originated capitalism, the fac-
tory, and industry. This Weberian antithesis of antiquity and
the Middle Ages was almost completely accepted by Below,
Johannes Hazebroek, and Oppenheimer, and through them
became popular. The antiquity-Middle Ages antithesis has
been considered by many writers to be the climax of the
Weberian historico-agricultural system.
Modern Western and Central Europe.
Weber has small claim to originality in his treatment of the cul-
tural unit known as modern Western and Central Europe.
32
Rather
he reproduced the well-known ideas elaborated by the schools
of Gustav Schmoller and Georg Friedrich Knapp. The latter has
80 The Unknown Max Weber
already been mentioned in connection with the theory of the
predominance of the manor in the early Middle Ages. Weber, as
we have seen, disagreed with that school as far as this special
concept is concerned. In contrast, he completely accepted their
concept about the dissolution of the manorial system. Accord-
ingly, later writers referred to the schools of Schmoller and Knapp
rather than to Weber. We can, therefore, omit further consideration
of the origin and spread of these theories.
Two phenomena that especially attracted the interest of Weber
were the capitalistic development of the manor and the dissolution
of the manorial system. The manor became powerful capitalistically
as explained above. It produced for the market rather than remained
self-sufficient. The development was different in the various parts
of Europe. The more Slavic a district or the nearer to Slavic-speak-
ing peoples, the more hereditary dependency developed as in
Prussia, for example. To this situation in which the nobility gained
power, the state rulers and especially centralized absolutism op-
posed. This was particularly true in Prussia and Austria. But this
situation was merely one of the causes of the dissolution of the
manorial system.
The essential causes of the dissolution of the manorial system
were the interest of the centralized government, the increasingly
complicated system of interdependence and the interest of the newly
established bourgeoisie. The latter promoted the disorganization
of the manor because it limited the marketing opportunity of the
bourgeoisie. Moreover, the not yet completely developed capital-
ism desired a so-called free labor market.These obstacles were sup-
posed to be opposed by the manorial system through the attach-
ment of the peasant to the soil.
Out of the convergence of these various factors originated the
liberation of the peasant. This occurred in three different ways. The
peasants were expropriated. This happened in a few parts of east-
ern Germany and especially in England. Though no legal emanci-
pation of the peasants ever actually took place; rather the mere fact
of the development of a market as such destroyed the manorial sys-
tem from within. The peasants were expropriated in favor of the
proprietor and became free without land.
The overlords were expatriated. This occurred in some parts of
southern Germany and in a more rapid and radical way in France.
Theories Concerning Rural Society in the Christian World
Accepted by Weber
after elaboration by Countries
the following of these
Theories men
1. Cells:
Origin, essence, and development Seebohm England
of rural life
Christian monasticism contribut- Meitzen Germany
ing to non-nomadic life
UndemoBstrabimyofMeitzen's
Irish-Westphallan equalization
2.Slavs:
Particulars concerning fendal de- Milyukov Russia
velopment
Origin, essence, and development Keussler Russia
of the air Simkhovitsch Russia
Meitzen Germany
Nonexistence of democratic char-
acter and community interest in
the mir
Mir limtting the members free-
dom of movement
Origin, essence, and development Meitzen Germany
of the zndrugs
Zadrugs administered by the vil-
lage under legal compulsion
3. Germams:
(1) Caesar's description of the Fleisehmenn Germany
Suebi as an exceptional sit
uation
Caesar'sdistiction be-
tween the Suebi and other
German tribes
(2) Difference between Caesar
and Tacitus; Caesar: mi-
gration; Tacitus: Two-field
system
(3)Use of the wi l d field grass Seebohm England
husbandry system at the
time of Christ
(4)Classification of forms of Meltzen Germany
land partition, village loca-
tion, and structure of rural
houses according to nations
(5) New viewpoints concerning
the undemonstrability of an
original German rural com-
munism
Elab-
orated
by Men influenced Countries
Weber by of these
Weber Men
.

I
-
.
x
x -
.
X
.
x Dopsch Austria
Gothein Germany
x Dopach Austria
Gothein Germany
. .
.
X
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 81
TABLE 4
82 The Unknown Max Weber
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Accepted by Weber
Theories the following men
existence of the Markgenes-
senschaft carlier than the
pre-Carolingian epoch
the theory of Caesar and
Tacitus that the Germans
were peasants rather than
manoriallords
as one of the factors leading
to fendalism
the theory of continuance of the Roman estate as one
of the causes leadingto feu-
dalism
(10)Independent peasants still Below f^frmtmm*
in existence at the end of the
early Middle Ages
(11)Steadily improving status of Below Germany
tise peasants from the 8th
to the 12th century
(12)Factors conductive to the Below Germany
(13)Essential differences be-
tween Antiquity and the
Middle Ages. Colonization:
Antiquity, by sea; Middle
Ages, by land Location:
dle Ages, Interier. Fendal
ism: Antiquity, urban; Mid
die Ages, rural. Social strug-
gle: Antiquity, land rent;
Middle Ages,guilds vs.
feudal lords
Europe:
Capitallstic development of the Schmol l er' s Germany
manor school
Dissolution of the manorialsys- Knapp's school Germany
tem
Bha-
entu
by Mon induced by Countries of these
Weber Weber men
Sombart Germany Below Germany
Gothein Germany
Dopach Austria
Vlnogradoft Russia and
England
x Oppenholmer Germany
Below Germany
Hazebroek Germany
.
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 83
The latter development was possible because the French landlord
was a courtier noble who made his living in the army or in civil
service positions. Thus no productive organization was destroyed
but only a rent relation.
The peasant became free with a part of the land. This took place
mostly in Prussia but not as far as the crownland peasants were
concerned. Already in the eighteenth century the peasants on pri-
vate holdings had largely become liberated. Here the state was com-
pelled to lean upon its landed proprietors because it was too poor
to replace them with salaried officials. Thus the kind of regulation
was very favorable to the proprietors, and the peasants actually be-
came rural proletarians. The situation of the Prussian peasants of
his day as well as the status of the Russian peasants and even North
American tenants greatly concerned Weber. He considered these
interests and activities as belonging not to a theoretical and objec-
tive science of the history of agriculture but rather to practical rural
economics and sociology. Accordingly it has been described by the
author in two special articles.
33
In recapitulation, Weber's participation in the development of the
history of agriculture as far as the Christian world is concerned is
summarized in table 4.
Weber's dependence on others, his originality, and his influence,
and the reasons for these relationships, as summarized in the four
recapitulation tables, show the following.
Weber made original contributions regarding every cultural group
except the Etruscans, the Celts and modem Central and Western
Europe.
With the exception of the Chinese, the Hindus, and the Slavs, his
contributions have found adherents somewhere. His original con-
tributions concerning the Hebrews, the Romans, and the Germans
have been most widely accepted.
Weber accepted ideas elaborated by many more scholars than he
himself influenced with his own theories. He unilaterally influenced
some Americans such as N.S.B. Gras and W.L. Westermann and the
Frenchman, Paul Louis. As to mutual influence he probably accepted
more than he gave, and this is especially true of Ulrich Wilcken and
Ludwig Mitteis. With Gustav Schmoller, Herman Gummerus, and most
of all, Rostovtzeff, Weber's giving and accepting was about equal.
Weber received influences from many countries, especially Brit-
84 The Unknown Max Weber
ish India, France, Italy, Imperial Russia, and Switzerland, which did
not accept anything from him. He accepted much more from En-
gland than it did from him. He accepted as much from as he gave to
Germany, Austria, and the United States.
With regard to the relationship between special cultures and the
home countries of the scholars, Weber had mutual interrelation-
ship with German scholars concerning almost every culture. His
mutual influence with Austria was limited to classical antiquity and
the Christian world. From the United States he accepted ideas con-
cerning primitive peoples, the Hindus, Hellenism, and Rome, and
gave theories concerning the latter.
The fact that Weber did not make original contributions con-
cerning the Etruscans and the Celts is due to his feeling that he
was not entitled to judge about matters when he was insuffi-
ciently familiar with the sources. As to modern Central Europe
others had already completed historical work which he appreci-
ated. Moreover, he felt compelled to deal with some recent phe-
nomena from a political rather than a historical viewpoint. That
his original contributions concerning the Chinese, the Hindus,
and the Slavs did not receive attention may be attributed to the
fact that other publications, written from other viewpoints, ap-
peared a short time after his death or that the interest shifted to
other aspects of the subjects. That his original contributions con-
cerning the Hebrews, the Romans, and the Germans found the
greatest acceptance is understandable. It was known that he con-
ducted completely new investigations in which he made use of
original sources. In many of these his approach or viewpoint was
completely original.
With regard to other scholars, the fact that Weber was influ-
enced by more than he himself influenced is self-evident. While
his work was based on the results of the thinking of more than
one century, only a little more than a quarter of a century has
elapsed since his death. The special unilateral influence is explained
by the age relation. The special mutual interrelationship is ex-
plained by the special interests of and studies made by the au-
thors under consideration.
The nonacceptance of Weberian ideas in countries from which
he had derived ideas may be explained in the following way. Brit-
ish India collected material for practical purposes but was less
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 85
interested in theories. France was much positivistically and
evolutionalistically minded and therefore not much interested
in the ideas of a Neo-Kantian who denied the possibility of au-
tomatically occurring parallel development. In Italy and Russia a
short time after his death independent and objective science dis-
appeared. In England the number of scholars working in the field
is relatively small. On the other hand, Weber scarcely dealt with
England but rather with the Celtic-speaking districts of the Brit-
ish Isles. The mutual influence with Germany and Austria is self-
evident. After the impoverishment of Europe and the rise of to-
talitarianism, the leadership in scientific studies shifted to the
United States. This country, which had already given something
to Europe, accepted many influences from the Old World.
The interrelationship between special cultures and the particular
countries of the authors may be summarized as follows. German
scholars during the epoch under consideration were active in the
historical investigation of many cultures. Weber likewise was inter-
ested in many of them. Accordingly an interrelationship for many
of them was inevitable. Austria was a country without colonies or
much sea navigation. Interest in oversea cultures was accordingly
not developed to a large extent. In contrast, Catholicism as well
as its spiritual adversary, liberalism, let the intellectuals deal with
the classic antiquity and the Middle Ages, and conforming to the
relations existing with Germany they gave and accepted impulses
from and to that country. The United States, a country where
many intellectuals had an evolutionistic background, had a posi-
tive and productive interest in many cultures and made original
contributions. Moreover American universities gave professor-
ships to many outstanding Europeans in the historico-sociological
fields, among them the refugee Rostovtzeff. The latter worked
in the precise field in which Weber was considered especially
outstanding. Before Rostovtzeff's emigration, these men had held
each other in mutual esteem. Accordingly the continuance of
Weber's influence on and through him into the United States is
understandable.
These influences, exercised in many countries and especially in
the United States, justifiy this extensive treatment of Max Weber as
a historian of agriculture.
86 The Unknown Max Weber
Notes
1. After the death of Weber almost all of his publications were collected
by his widow, Marianne Weber, and published by J.C.B. Mohr at
Tubingen. Those thus published are: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft
(Grundriss der Sozialokonomik, Abt. 3,1922); Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur
Religionssoziologie, 3vols.
r
1921; Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sozial- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1924 (in this volume note especially Weber's
Agrarverhaltnisse in Altertum, and his Der Streit um den Charakter der
Altgermanischen Sozialverfassung in der deutschen Literatur des letzten
Jahrzehnts); and Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 1924. This
last volume includes writings of an epistemological and methodologi-
cal character which give the background of the man and provide the
bases for some of our introductory remarks.
Not included in the posthumous editions are Die romische
Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung fur das Staats- und Privatrecht
(Stuttgart, F. Enke, 1891); and Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Munchen, Leipzig,
Duncker & Humblot, 1923), translated into English by Frank H. Knight
under the title General Economic History (NewYork, 1927).
The excellent translations of publications by Weber, The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, by Talcott Parsons (New York, 1930),
The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, by A.M. Henderson
and Talcott Parsons (New York, 1947), and From Max Weber. Essays in
Sociology, translated and edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills
(NewYork, 1946), are not of much importance with regard to Weber as
a historian of agriculture. For Paul Honigheim's review of and objec-
tions to the latter book, see the American Journal of Sociology, 52:376-
378 (1947). Paul Honigsheim,"Max Weber as Rural Sociologist,"Rural
Sociology, 11:207-218 (1946), includes a list of 21 other books and ar-
ticles dealing with Weber. See also Marianna Weber, Max Weber, ein
Lebensbild, (Tubingen, Mohr, 1926); Lebenserinnerungen (Bremen, 1948),
and Paul Honigsheim's review of this book in the American Journal of
Sociology, 55:102-104 (1949); Paul Honigsheim,"Max Weber as Ap-
plied Anthropologist,"Applied Anthropology, 7:27-35 (1948).
In this article citations to other authors are made only when the
similarities and dissimilarities between their viewpoints and those of
Weber appear distinctly.
The following authors seemingly deal with the same matters in some
of their books as Weber, but actually they do not mention him, even in
their footnotes and bibliographies, and accordingly they can be omit-
ted: Albert Edward Bailey, George A. Barton, Charles Bemont,
Alexander D. Bilimovich, George C. Brodrick, P. Hume Brown, John
Lossing Buck, Valentine Chirol, W.H.R. Curtler, A.V. Dicey, DeWitt-
Mackenzy, Samuel Dill, H.H. Dodwell, Eleanor Shipley Ducket, WE.
Durret, George Dunbar, Joseph Dunn, Henry Courtenay Fenn, Gustave
Glotz, Alexander Goldenweiser, L. Carrington Goodrich, Marcel
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 87
Granet, Howard L. Gray, Stephen Gwynn, Francis Hackett, Wolseley
Haig, Chen Han-Seng, Leonard Egerton Hubbard, George Robert
Hughes, Tom Ireland,Charles Foster Kent, Alexander F. Kerenskij, A.L.
Kroeber, P.I. Lennox, Ralph Linton, Kate L. Mitchell, Gabriel Monod,
H.V. Morton, George O'Brien, Albert Ten Eyck Olmstead, Lois Olson,
Charles Oman, Walter Allison Phillips, John E. Bomfret, Marjorie and
C.H.B. Quennel, Robert S. Rait, H.G. Rawlinson, P.E. Roberts, Geroid
Tanquari Robinson, Abraham Leo Sacher, Grant Showerman,
Alexander M. Sullivan, Edgar T. Thompson, Vladimir P.Timoshenko,
Chi Tsui, Edward Raymond Turner, LazarVolin, Milton Whitney, and
Francis Yeats-Brown. The same is true of articles in the Encyclopedia
Americana, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics, and the Dictionary of Religion and Ethics.
2. For Weber's conclusions on pre-state society, see his General Economic
History, 24-25,28-39,51-54, Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, 35, Wirtschaft
und Gesellschaft, 205-207, and Der Streit um den Character der
Altgermanischen Sozialverlassung..., 524.
For the pertinent views of others, see Sir Henry Sumner Maine,
Village-Communities in the East and West (NewYork, 1880), 1-203, An-
cient Law (Amer. ed. 3 from the London ed. 5, NewYork, 1888), 251,
and Lectures on the Early History of Institutions (NewYork, 1878), 81;
Adolf Bastian, Die Volker des oslichen Asien, 5:viii (Jena, 1869), Das
Bestandige in den Menschenrassen und der Spielweite ihrerVeranderlichkeit
(Berlin, 1868), Der Papua des dunkeln Inselreiches (Berlin, 1885), Der
Buddhismus als religions-philosophisches System (Berlin, 1893), 9, and Ideate
Welten nach uranographischen Provinzen in Wort und Bild (Berlin, 1892),
2:254; Carl Bucher, Industrial Evolution (NewYork, 1901); Eduard Hahn,
Von der Hacke zum Pflug (Leipzig, 1914), 11-23, and"Waren die Menschen
der Urzeit zwischen der Jagerstufe und der Stufe des Ackerbaus
Nomaden?"Das Ausland, 64:485-487 (Stuttgart, 1891), and Das Alter
der Wirtschaftlichen Kultur der Menschheit (Heidelberg), 1905), 91-99,131;
Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society (NewYork, 1877), passim; Friedrich
Engels, Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums, und des Staats (ed.
11, Stuttgart, n.d.), xi-xv, 1-47,105-131; August Bebel, Die Frau und der
Sozialismus (Stuttgart, 1919), 9-14,28-56; Doctrine de St.Simon, nouvelle
ed. par C. Bougje et E. Halevy (Raris, 1924), 214-216; C. Bougie, Proudhon
(Paris, 1930), 122-124; Robert H. Lowie, An Introduction to Cultural An-
thropology (NewYork, 1940), 45-53 and"Subsistence,"in General Anthro-
pology, ed. by Franz Boas (Boston, 1938), 282-322; Gladys A. Reichard,
"Social Life, "in ibid., 416-417;,Ludwig Gumplowicz, Ausgewahlte Werke,
(Innsbruck, 1926-28), 2:94-105,4:225-227; Franz Oppenheimer, System
der Sociology, 2:212-303, 321-328 (Jena, 1926), 3:146-152 (ed. 5, Jena,
1923). See the review of and the objections to this concept by Paul
Honigsheim,"Viehzuchtemomadismus, Bodenrente, Reichtumsbildung,
Staatsgrundung," Kolner Vierteljahrshefte fur Soziologie, 9:38-86); JJ.
Backofen, Der Mythus von Orient und Occident (Munchen, 1926), passim;
88 The Unknown Max Weber
Ludwig Klages, Vomkosmogonischen Eros (ed.2, Jena, 1926), 236-246,
and Der Geist als Widersacher der Seek, 3:888-923 (Leipzig, 1932);
Bemhard Ankennann,"Kulturkreise in Africa," Zeitschrift fir Ethnologic,
vol. 37 (Berlin, 1908); Fritz Graebner, "Ethnologie," Antoropotogie: Die
Kultur der Gegenwart, ihre Entwickelung und ihre Ziele, 3(5):447-521
(Leipzig, 1923); Wilhelm Schmidt and Wilhelm Koppers, Gesellschaft
und Wirtschafl der Volker (Regensburg, 1924), 256-297,539-589; Oswald
Menghim, Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit (Wein, 1931), 498-499,510-514,
523-526; and Sylvester A. Sieber and Franz H. Mueller, The Social L ife
of Primitive Man (St. Louis, 1941), 192-258,369-398. On this last book
see Raul Honigsheim's review and objections in the American Socio-
logical Review, 6:898-902 (1941).
3. For recent discussions of evolutionism and antievolutionism, see Raul
Honigsheim, "The Problem of Diffusion and Parallel Evolution with
Special Reference to American Indians," Michigan Academy of Sci-
ence, Arts, and Letters, Papers, 27:515-524 (Ann Arbor, 1942); Leslie A.
White, "History, Evolutionism, and Functionalism/'Sottf/iwestern/owr-
nal of Anthropology, 1:221-248 (Albuquerque, 1945), "Morgan's Atti-
tude toward Religion and Science," American Anthropologist, 46;218-
230), and "Diffusion vs. Evolutionism, an Anti-Evolutionist Fallacy,"
ibid., 47:339-356 (1945); Robert H. Lowie,"Evolution in Cultural An-
thropology/'ibid., 48:223 (1946).
4. For the history of the theories, see A. Bauemler, "Einleitung," in
Bachofen, Der Mythus von Orient und Occident, xc-cocciv; Karl Albrecht
Bernoulli, Johann Jakob Bachofen und das Natursymbol (Basel, 1924), 95-
177, 364-377; Georg Schmidt, Johann Jakob Bachofens
Geschichtsphilosophie (Munchen, 1929); Peter Heinrich Schmidt,
Wirtschaftsforshung und Geographie (Jena, 1925), 117-130; Wilhelm
Koppers,"Die ethnologische Wirtschaftsforechung,"Anthropos, 10:627-
645 (Wein, 1915), 11:975-981 (1916); and the following articles by Raul
Honigsheim, "Eduard Hahn und seine Stellung in der Geschichte der
Ethnologie und Soziologie," ibid., 24:597-601 (1929), "Die geistes
geschichtliche Stellung der Anthropologie, Ethnologie, Urgeschichte
und ihrer Hauptrichtungen,"Festschrift, Publication d'hommage offerte
auP.W. Schmidt, ed.byW. Koppers (Wein, 1928),851-855,"Adolf Bastian
und die Entwicklung der ethonolgischen Soziologie," Kolner
Viertelj ahrshefte fur Soziologie, 6:61-76 (Munchen, 1926),"Soziologische
Fragestellungen in der gegenwartigen prahistorischen und
ethnologischen Literatur,"ibid., 7:331-343,427-446 (1928-1929),"Ein
Wort zu Adolph Bastians 100. Geburtstag," IPEK; Jahrbuch fur
prdhistorische und ethnographische Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), 2:28-91,
"Kulturkreislehre, prahistorisch-ethnologische Zusammenhange und
primitive Kunst,"ibid., 123-132 (1929), and"The Philosophical Back-
ground of European Anthropology,"American Anthropologist, 44:376-
387 (1942). In these historical articles otherpublications under con-
sideration are listed.
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 89
5. Weber, Gesammelte A u f s a t z e z u r Religionssoz iologie, 1:20, 350-351,379;
Franz Heinrich Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bu cket (Bonn, 1883-
85), 2:771-774; Jacques Cretineau-Joly, Histoire religieu se, politiqu e et
litterairede la Compagnie deJesu s (Paris, lyon, 1845-46), 3:141-178,5:39-
68, 320-328; C.L. Montesquieu, Oeu vres completes (Paris, 1875-79),
3:279-82, 333, 4:334-335; Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire, Oeu vres
completes (nouvelle ed., Paris, 1877-85), 11:54-59, 164-81, 12:58,
167,431,432,13:167, 18:156-58, 360, 19:368, 40:304, 41:402, 47:292;
Denis Diderot, Oeu vres completes, ed. by J. Assezat (Paris, 1875-77),
4:45-47, 6:697-446,14:122,126,141; "Gablentz,"A llgemeine Deu tsche
Biographie, 8:286-288 (Leipzig, 1878), and 50:548-555 (Leipzig, 1905);
J. Lessing"F.W.K. Muller," Zeitschrif t der deu tschen morgenlandischen
Gesellschaf t (Berlin), 62:344-345; Richard Wilhelm, Ostasien (Potsdam,
1928), 11-38; Karl August Wittfogel, Wirtschaf t u nd Gesellschaf t Chinas
(Leipzig, 1931), 73,101-103,110,395,495, which cites the passages in
the publications of Karl Marx and Engels concerning Chinese agricul-
ture; Schmidt and Koppers, Gesellschaf t u nd Wirtschaf t der Volker, 341-
342,350,596,604-606,610-611,620; Sieber and Muller, The Social L if e
of Primitive Man, 425-427, 449, 464-468; Oswald Menghin,
Weltgeschichte der Steinz eit, 475,524-526, and"Zur Steinzeit Ostasiens,"
Festschrif t, Pu blication d'hommage of f erte au P. W. Schmidt, 908-942; Paul
Leser,"Westoestliche Landwirtschaft,"ibid., 416-484, and Entstehu ng
u nd Verbreitu ng des Pf lu ges (Munster, 1931), 384-411,503-515,540,565.
See also Paul Honigsheim's evaluation of Leser's book in Zeitschrif t
fu r Soz ialf brschu ng, 1:232-233 (Leipzig, 1932).
6. Weber, General Economic History, 62, and Gesammelte A u f sdtz e z u r
Religionssoz iologie, 2;297-300.
7. Weber, General Economic History, 22-23, and Gesammelte A u f s a t z e z u r
Religionssoz iologie, 126-130,160 n.4,215-216,280-287; Reusch, Der In-
dex der verbotenen Bu cher, 2:774-777; Cretineau-Joly, Histoire religeu se,
politiqu e et litteraire de la Compagnie de Jesu s, 1:152-193,398-374,5:1-38;
Montesquieu, Oeu vres completes, 5:218;Voltaire, Oeu vres completes, 15:325-
326, 21:430, 29;484,45:468,49:458; Diderot, Oeu vres completes, 13:378;
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Vorlesu ngen u ber die philosophie der
Geschichte, Tiel I, Abschnitt 2 in every edition, and Vorlesungen uber die
Geschichte der Philosophie, Orientalische Philosophie, B, Indische
Philosophie, in every edition; Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille
u nd Vorstellu ng (ed. 8, Leipzig, 1891), 1:333,419-421,450-454,458,470,
487,2:529,558,576-578,582-583,697-699,702,705, 716-718, 728-729,
733; Maine, Village-Commu nities, 1-175; C. Bougle, Essais su r le regime
des castes ( Paris, 1927), passim; J. Hertel,"Eugen Hultsch," Zeitschrif t der
deu tschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaf t (Berlin), 82:49-54.
8. Weber, A grarverhaltnisse im A ltertu m, 45 -83,283; Theodor Mommsen,
The History of Rome (New York, 1868), 2:16-30; Fustel de Coulanges,
The A ncient City (Boston, Many ed.); Gaston Maspero, History of Egypt,
Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia and A ssyria (London, 1901), 2:56-57, 62-64,
90 The Unknown Max Weber
76-77, 3:267, 4:313-317, 7:13-14; Sir John Gardner Wilkinson, The
Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (Boston, 1883), 1:279,
372, 2:388-389; Oppenheimer, System der Sociologie, 2:620, 4:364, n.9
(Jena, 1929); M. Rostovtzeff, A History of the Ancient World, 1:17-20
(Oxford, 1926).
See also the articles on"Albanier,"'Hettiter,"'Indogermanen,"'Karer,"
"Kreta,""Ligurer,""Lydia,""Mykenae,""Raeter,""Skyten,"and"Traker"
in Real-Encyclopedia der classischen Altertunwissenschaft, ed. by A.F. Rauly
And G. Wissowa (Stuttgart, 1894-1940), and in Reallexikon der
Vorgeschichte, ed. by M. Ebert, vol. 1-15 (Berlin, 1924-1932). See also
Honigsheim,"Viehzeuchtemomadismus...,"279.
On the history of the excavations, deciphering, and theories, see
Fritz Hommel, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (Berlin, 1885), 59-
146; Johannes Duemichen and E. Meyer, Geschichte des altem Aegyptens
(Berlin, 1887), 267-317; Morris Jastrow, The Civilization of Babylonia
and Assyria (Philadelphia and London, 1925), 1-119; and J. Friedrich,
"Hethitisch und kleinasiatische Sprachen," Grundrisse der
Indogermanischen Sprach- und Altertumshinde, Abteilung Geschichte der
Indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft (Berlin, 1931), II, Teil 5, Band 4.
9. Weber, Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, 83-93, Gesammelte Aufsatzezur
Religionssoziologie, 10, 15-16, 21, 44, 76 n.i, 77, 293-294, 360, and
Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 352; Werner Sombart, Der moderne
Kapitalismus (ed. Munchen, Leipzig, 1921), 1: 898-919, Die Juden und
das Wirtschaftsleben (Leipzig, 1911), 183-434, Der Bourgeois (Munchen,
Leipzig, 1913), 299-302,337-348; and Raul Honigsheim,"The Roots of
the Nazi Concept of the Ideal German Peasant,"Rural Sociology, 12:11-
12 (1947), where other publications under consideration are listed.
Weber's letters concerning Protestant orthodoxy and liberalism are in
his Jugendbriefe (Tubingen, n.d.), 20,44,52,66,106,170,196,204,224,
300,334,343,348. See also Paul Honigsheim,"Max Weber: His Reli-
gious and Ethical Background and Development,"this volume.
10. Weber, Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, 190-191.
The scholars who advocated the Indo-European and especially the
Italic character of the Etruscans are: Mommsen, The History of Rome,
1:166-169; Wilhelm Raul Corssen, Uber die Sprache der Etrusker (Leipzig
1874-75), esp. 2:566-568,577-579; and George Hempl, Mediterranean
Studies No. IV (Stanford University Publications, University Series, Lan-
guage and Literature, vol. 3, no.3, Stanford, 1932).
Those advocating the non-Indo-European, and especially the east-
em Mediterranean, origin are: Karl Otfried Muller, Die Etrusker (Breslau,
1828), 69, 75,100-101,375,403-404; Bachofen, Der Mythus von Orient
und Occident, 539-560, 595, 599; Wilhelm Deecke, Corssen und die
Sprache der Etrusker (Stuttgart, 1875), and Etrusker Forschungen, n. 1-6
(Stuttgart, 1875, and later), esp. no.l, p. 36-37, 77, no.2, p. 144-145,
no.3, p. 389; Carl Rauli, Etruskische Studien (Gottingen, 1879-1880), esp.
no.3, p. 5-6; Fritz Weege, Etruskische Malerei (Halle, 1921), 62,67; Hans
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 91
Muhlestein, Die Kunst der Etrusker (Berlin, 1929), 13-39, and Uber die
Herkunft der Etrusker (Berlin, 1929); Fritz Schachermeyr, Etruckische
Fruhgeschichte (Berlin, 1929), 88-89, 114-115, 202, 216-217, 252;
Oppenheimer, System der Soziology, 2:274,4:95-96,105-106,112-113,
169; David Randall-Maclver, The Etruscans (Oxford, 1927), 11; Leon
Homo, Primitive Italy and the Beginnings of Roman Imperialism (Lon-
don, 1926), 55-57; Howard H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World
from 753 to 146 B.C. (New York, 1939), 17; and Honigsheim,
"Viehzeuchtemomadismus...,"79-80. In doubt was Bartolomeo Nogara,
Les Etrusques et leur civilisation (Paris, 1936), 16.
For the history of the theories, see Corssen, Uber die sprache der
Etrusker, Introduction in vol. 1; Eva Fiesel,"Etruskieche,"Grundrisse der
Indogermanischen Sprach- und Altertumskunde, Abteilung Geschichte der
Indogennanischen Sprachwissenschaft,Teil 2, Band 5, no. 1 (1931);"Corssen,"
Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 4:504-505 (Leipzig, 1876);"Deecke,"M.,
47:636-637 (Leipzig, 1930); G. Deeters,"GustavHerbig,"Zeitschrift der
deutschen moegenlandischen Gesellschaft (Berlin), 5:189-201.
11. Weber, Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, 3,12-16,32,93-154, and Wirtschaft
und Gesellschaft, 555,562,566,572,583-601; Oppenheimer, System der
Sociologie, 2:623-624; J. Hazebroek, Griechische Wirtschafts- und
Geselkchaftsgeschichte (Tubingen, 1931), vii, 586, 589; Georg von Be-
low, "Agrargeschichte,"Handwoerterbuch der Staatswissenschaften (ed.
4; Jena, 1927), 49; Rostovtzeff, A History of the Ancient World, 1:218-
226; Gustav Schmoller, Grundrisse der Allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre
(Leipzig, 1904), 2:500.
12. Weber, Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, 154-190, especially 185.
Weber considered the following basic: Ulrich Wilcken, Griechische
Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien (Leipzig, Berlin, 1899); Rostovtzeff,
"Kornerhebung und Transport im griechisch-roemischen Egypten,"
Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1916), and "Der Ursprung
des Kolonats,"Klio, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1901). Weber's concept was accepted
by Oppenheimer, System der Sociology, 4:364, n.8; and Ludwig Mitteir
and Ulrich Wilcken, Grundzuege und Chrestomatie der Papyruskunde,
1:255, n.l (Berlin, Leipzig, 1912). Weber's concept was rejected in ibid.,
1:184 n.4,258 n.2,336 n.l, 339; and Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte
des romischen Kolonats (Beiheft zum Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, Leipzig,
Berlin, 1914), 403. The publications by Rostovtzeff which do not men-
tion Weber and which are not mentioned by him are: "Angariae,"Klio,
vol. 4 (1906); "Alexandria and Rhodes," ibid., vol. 36 (1936); Caravan
Cities (Oxford, 1932); Out of the Past of Greece and Rome (New Haven,
1932);"Zur Geschichte des Ost- und Suedhandels im Ptolemaeischen
Egypten," Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, vol. 4 (1908). Tenney Frank, An
Economic History of Rome to the End of the Republic (Baltimore, 1920),
379-387, is based on Rostovtzeff. On the whole problem, see William
Linn Westermann,"Egyptian Agricultural Labor under Ptolemy Phila-
delphus,"Agricultural History, 1:34-47 (July 1927). For the history of
92 The Unknown Max Weber
discovery, investigation, and theories, see Mitteis and Wilcken,
Grundzuege und Chrestomatie der Papyruskunde, i-xxvii; and Wilcken,
Observations ad historiam Aegypti provinciae Romanae (Dissertation
inauguralis, Berlin, 1885), 5-7.
13. Weber, Die romische Agrargeschichte, 3,10,49-52,119-121,140-141,
219,227-275, Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, 191-278, Der Streit urn den
Charakter der altgermanischen Sozialverf assung. . . , 296-311; Mommsen,
The History of Rome, 1:256-258,564,3:489.
Weber considered (Agrarverhaltnisse im Altertum, 286) basic the theo-
ries developed by Rostovtzeff in his"Der Ursprung des Kolonats,"Klio,
vol.1 (Berlin, 1901), "Geschichte der Staatspacht in der roemischen
Kaiserzeit,"Philologus, supplement 9 (Leipzig, 1901), and Studien zur
Geschichte des roemischen Kolonats, 133.
Weber's concepts as explained in Die romische Agrargeschichte, 119-
21,128,135-259, were accepted by Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte
des roemischen Kolonats, vi, n.l, 306, 313 n.l, 317 n.l; Herman
Gummerus, Der romische Gutsbetrieb als Wirtschaftlicher Organismus
nach den Werken des Cato, Varro und Columella (Beitrage zur alien
Geschichte, Beiheft 5, leipzig, 1906), 9-11,18020; Mitteis and Wilcken,
Grundzuege und Chrestomatie der Papyruskunde, 1:257 n.l, 259,265 n.l.
Weber's concepts as explained in Die romische Agrargeschichte, 130-
132,140,185-186,224,245,246,252, were rejected by Gummerus, Der
romische Gutsbetrieb, 59, Mitteis and Wilcken, Grundzuege und
Chrestomatie der Papyruskunde, 1:283 n.4, 342 n.5; and Rostvotzeff,
Studien zur Geschichte des roemischen Kolonats, 316,422 n.198.
A parallel development of ideas by Weber and Rostovtzeff appears
in ibid., vii, and A History of the Ancient World, 2:98,231,296-297,351-
366.
Weber is not mentioned in Rostovtzeff,"Das Ratrimonium und die
Ratio Thesaurorum," Mitteilungen des Kgl. Deutsch. Archaeologischen
Instituts (Roem. Abt. vol. 13, Rome, 1893).
The theories of Weber and Rostovtzeff were accepted to a large
extent by Oppenheimer, System der Sociologie, 4:325-406; Below,
"Agrargeschichte,"50-52; Sombart, Dermoderne Kapitalismus, 1:41-42;
Alfons Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations of European Civili-
zation (New York, 1937), 137,337; N.S.B. Gras, A History of Agriculture
in Europe and America (NewYork, 1940), 56-57,65, and his"Agriculture
in Antiquity and the Middle Ages," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences,
1:574-576 (NewYork, 1930); Paul Louis,"Agrarian Movements: Classi-
cal Antiquity," ibid., 494' Andre Pigariol,"Latifundia,"ibid., 9;186-188
(1933); William Linn Westermann, "Slavery: Ancient," ibid., 14:75
(1934); PaulVinogradoff, The Growth Of the Manor (London, 1920), 37-
87,103,106; Tenney Frank, Roman Imperialism (NewYork, 1921), 93,
108, 236, 241.
Although Weber is not mentioned, the theories of Rostovtzeff are
accepted, although in part with some restrictions, in the following:
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 93
E.G. Hardy, Some Problems in Roman History, (Oxford, 1924); HJ.
Haskell, The New Deal in Old Rome (New York, 1939), 202-204, with
restrictions; Bernard W. Henderson, Five Roman Emperors (Cambridge,
England, 1927), 228-245; Thomas Rice Holmes, The Architect of the
Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928-1931); Frank Burr Marsh, The Reign of
Tiberius (Oxford, 1931); H.St.L.B. Moss, The Birth of the Middle Ages,
395-814 (Oxford, 1935), A.M.D. Barker, A History of the Roman World
(NewYork, 1929), 119-128,288-289; Edward Kennard Rand, The Build-
ing of Eternal Rome (Cambridge, Mass., 1943); Scullard, A History of the
Roman World, 371-365.
Neither Weber nor Rostovtzeff are cited in Homo, Primitive Italy
and the Beginnings of Roman Imperialism, 219-226, and Frank Burr Marsh,
The Founding of the Roman Empire (Austin, Texas, 1922), 33-38, not-
withstanding the fact that they formulate similar ideas.
14. Weber, General Economic History, 11,15-16; Samuel Johnson, Letters of
Samuel Johnson, ed. by George Birkbeck Hill (NewYork, 1892), 1:255-
260; James Boswell, Boswell's Life of Johnson, ed. by Chauncey Brewster
Tinker (NewYork, 1933), 1:442,547, 549, 551,557, 582-582, 2:34, 83,
179-180, 438, 469, 519, and Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides
with Samuel Johnson (NewYork, 1936), passim, and Letters of James
Boswell, ed. by Chauncey Brewster Tinker (Oxford, 1924), 1:204,208-
211,228; Johann Gottfried von Herder, Herders sdmmtliche Werke, ed.
by Bemhard Suphan (Berlin, 1877-1913), 4:231, 320-325, 5:159-208,
330-334,416-420,8:391-392,9:317,542-543,11:296,14:261-266,16:88,
18:450-462, 27:301-306; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Dichtung und
Wahrheit, Teil w, Buch 13, in every ed.; Albert Bielschowsky. Goethe
(ed.23, Munchen, 1911-12), 1:117,120; Richard M. Meyer, Goethe (ed.3,
Berlin, 1905), 1:46,144-145; Herman Grimm, Goethe (ed.2, Berlin, 1880),
152; Voltaire, Oeuvres completes, 6:160-161,18:106-108,19:178; Diderot,
Oeuvres completes, 6: 433;"Zeuss,"Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 45:
132-136 (Leipzig, 1900); Heinrich Zimmer, Sprache und Literature der
Kelten im Allgemeinen,"Die Kultur der Gegenwart,Teil I, Abt. xi, 1 (Ber-
lin, Leipzig, 1909), 74-75; K. Meyer,"Die irisch-gaelisch Literatur,"Ibid.,
78-95; C. Stern,"Die schottisch-gaelisch und die Manx-Literatur,"Ibid.,
99-102, and"Die kornische und die bretonische Literatur,"Ibid., 134-
137; Morgan, Die Urgesellschaft, 301-303; Engels, Der Ursprung der
Familie, 132-135; Maine, Village-Communities, 186-187 and Ancient Law,
5-6, 12; Frederic Seebohm, The English Village Community (London,
1915), 118-119, 236-237, 244, 369, 422, 428; August Meitzen,
Siedelungen und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen und Ostgermanen, der
Kelten, Romer, Finen, und Slaven (Berlin, 1895), 1:174-232; 3: 236-237,
557; and "Beobachtungen iiber Besiedelung, Hausbau und
landwirtschaftliche Kultur," Anleitung zur Deutschen Landes und
Volksfbrschung, ed. by A. Kirchhoff (Stuttgart, 1889), 481-4%; Dopsch,
The Economic and Social Foundations of European Civilization, 110-112,
122-123; E. Gothein,"Agrargeschichte,"Die Religzon in Geschichte und
94 The Unknown Max Weber
Gegenwart, ed. by Friedrich Michael Schiele, 1: 238 (Tubingen, 1909),
288; N. S. B. Gras, The Economic and Social History of an English Village
(Cambridge, Mass., 1930), 3, An Introduction to Economic History (New
York, 1922), 65, and "Agriculture in Antiquity and the Middle Ages,"
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, I: 574-5777; M. M. Knight, "Serf-
dom," Ibid., 670; E. Lipson, An Introduction to the Economic History of
England (London, 1926), 75-76; Vinogradoff, The Growth of the Manor,
18,24,35-36,91 n. 20; Nellie Neilson, Medieval Agrarian Economy (New
York, 1936).
15. Christian von Schlozer, August Ludwig von Schlozers of f entliches und
Privatleben, 2:249 (Leipzig, 1828); Ferdinand Frensdorff,"Von und uber
Schlozer,"Abhandlungen der K gl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Gottlingen
(Philos.-Hist. Klasse, Neue Folge, v. 11, Berlin, 1909), 98-101; Friederike
Furst, August Ludwig von Schlozer (Heidelberg, 1928), 191, esp. n. 1; Au-
gust von Haxthausen, Die Idndliche Verjassung Russlands (Leipzig, 1868),
and The Russian Empire, I: 93-115, 120-140, 2: 202 (London, 1856); J.
Kirejewski, Drei Essays (Munchen, 1921), 129-139; Gesellschaft und Staat
im Spiegel deutscher Romantik, ed. by Jacob Baxa 0ena, 1924)), 177,431,
483-485; Friedrich Wilhelm von Schelling, Schriften zur
Gesellschaftsphilosophie (Jena, 1926), 206-251,375-389,463-464,716-720,
777-802; Franz von Baader, Schriften zur Gesellschaftsphilosophie (Jena,
1925), 1-452; F. M. Dostojewski, Politische Schriften (Munchen, 1923),
134-153,177,189,199-200, 221-232, 282-287; the following titles and
volumes in The Complete Works (Boston, 1914) by Count Leo Tolstoi,
Moral Tales, 12: 327-519, My Confession, 13: 3-90, The Four Gospels, 14:
207-302, esp. ch. 4, What Shall We Do Then? 17: 3-340, On Life, 20:318-
405, ch. 21-34, and Resurrection, v. 21-22.
On the Narodniki movement and the Social Revolutionaries, see
Lancelot A. Owen, The Russian Peasant Movement (London, 1937), 89,
122 n. 2,182, 246; Vladimir J. Gurko, Features and Figures of the Past
(Stanford, 1939), 590 n. 8, 618 n. 6, 623 n. 2; and Alfred Levin, The
Second Duma (New Haven, 1940), 34-37.
Maine, Ancient Law, 125, and Lectures on the Early History of Institu-
tions, 2, 7, 81; Engels, Der Ursprung der Familie, 45; P. Kropotkin, Mu-
tual Aid: A Factor in Evolution (NewYork, 1925), 97,99,137, and Ideas
and Realities in Russian Literature (New York, 1919), 266-270, 276; J.
von Keussler, Zur Geschichte und K ritik des bauerlichen Gemeindebesitzes
in Russland (Riga, St. Petersburg, 1876-1887); Konstantin D. Kawelin,
Der bauerliche Gemeinbesitz in Russland (Leipzig, 1877), passim; Maxime
M. Kovalevsky, Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia (London,
1891), 730118; Isaac A. Hourwich, the Economy of the Russian Village
(New York, 1892), 19-27, 37-42, 90-103; Wladimir G. Simkhowitsch,
Die Feldgemeinschaft in Russland (Jena, 1898), 11-70; Raul N. Milyoukow,
Russia and Its Crisis (Chicago, 1905), 366-423; Nikolai P. Oganowski,
"Die Agrarfrage in Russland seit 1905," Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik, vol. 37 (Tubingen, 1913); Alexis S.Yermoloff, La Russie
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 95
agricok devant la arise agraire ( P aris, 1907), 9-20; Ferdinand von Wranget
"Die agrare Neugestaltung Russlands," Jahrbuch fur Gesetzgebung,
Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft, 36: 11-25 (Munchen, Leipzig, 1912);
Knud Asbjorn Wteth-Knudsen, Bauernfrage und Agrareform in Russland
(Munchen, Leipzig, 1913).
On the German youth movement, its relation to Dostoevsky, etc.,
see Howard Becker, GermanYouth: Bond or Free (New York 1946). This
book is reviewed by Paul Honigsheim in the American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 53:159-160 (1947), and in Die Friedenstvarte, 47:209-210 (Zurich,
1947). See also Honigsheim, "The Roots of the Nazi Concept of the
Ideal German Peasant," 16-19, where other publications under con-
sideration are listed.
On the whole problem of the mir and the zadruga, see Honigsheim,
"Rural Collectivities," in Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle (eds.),
Rural Social Systems (NewYork, forthcoming), and"Roots of Soviet Rural
Social Structure: Where and Why It Spreads,"forthcoming.
16. Meitzen, Siedelungen und Agrarwesen..., 2:141-269,3:341-354,575,
"Beobachtungen...,"495-496,"Kulturzustande der Slaven in Schlesien
vor der deutschen Kolonisation," Abhandlunger der Schlesischen
Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Kultur (Philos.-Hist. Abteilung, v.2,
Breslau, 1861), and "Die Ausbreitung der Deutschen in Deutschland
und ihre Besiedelung der Slavengebiete," Jahr bucher fur
Nationalokonomie, v. 22. See the objections to Meitzen's concept con-
cerning the boundaries between the Slavic and German rural settle-
ment in Paul Honigsheim, "Der limes Sorabicus," Zeitschrift fur
Thuringische Geschichte und Altertumjunde, 24:303-332 (1906); this ar-
ticle lists the sources and other publications under consideration.
17. Weber, General Economic History, 17-21, and Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft,
720. See also Honigsheim,"Max Weber as Rural Sociologist/'214-217,
where the publications of Weber concerning his attitude toward Social
Revolutionaries, Stalypin, etc., are listed.
18. Weber, General Economic History, 11-12; Emile de Laveleye, The Balkan
P eninsula (NewYork, 1887), 57,227; Engels, Der Ursprung der Familie,
44; Meitzen, Siedelungen undAgrarwesen..., 2:213-218; Milan Markovic,
Die Serbische Hauskommunion (Leipzig, 1903), passim; Dragolioub
Novakovitch, La Zadruga (Paris, 1905), passim; DinkoTornasic, P erson-
ality and Culture in Eastern European P olitics (NewYork, 1948), 11,149,
156. On this last book see P aul Honigsheim's review and objections in
Rural Sociology, 14:182-183. (1949).
19. Weber, Der Streit um den Charakter der Altgermanischen Sozialverfassung...,
513,522-523,526,529; W. Heischmann,"Uber die Landwirtschaftlichen
Verhaltnisse Germaniens um den Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung,"Jour-
nalfur Landwirtschaft, 51:92, 99 (Berlin, 1903); Dopsch, The Economic
and Social Foundations of European Civilization, 82.
20. Weber, Der Streit um den Charakter der altgermanischen Sozialverfassung...,
543-544; Seebohm, The English Village Community, 344, 369; Dopsch,
96 The Unknown Max Weber
The Economic and Social Foundations of European Civilization, 38-39;
Gothein, "Agrargeschichte,"239.
21. Weber, Der Streit um den Charakter der altgermanischen Sozialverfassung...,
545; Seebohm, The English Village Community, 411; Fleischmann,"Uber
die landwirtschaftlichen Verhaltnisse Germaniens...," 96; Below,
"Agrargeschichte," 53; Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations of
European Civilization, 38; Gothein, "Agrargeschichte," 240;
Oppenheimer, System der Sociology, 4:254-262; Gras, A History of Agri-
culture in Europe and America, 96.
22. Weber, Der Streit um den Charakter der altgermanischen Sozialverfassung...,
520-521; Seebohm, The Engtish Village Community, 371; Meitzen, Siedehmgen
und Agrarwesen..., 1:32-122,3:236-237,280-319, and"Das deutsche Haus
in seinen volkstuemlichen Formen," Verhandlungm des ersten deutschen
Geographentages (Berlin, 1882); Below, "Agrargeschichte/ 53; Gothein,
"Agrargeschichte,"240; Gras, The Economic and Social History of an English
Vittage, 3; Lipson, An Introduction to the Economic History of England, 64-65,
75-76; Douglas-Irvine, The Making of Rural Europe, 19.
23. Weber, General Economic History, 23-24; Dopsch, The Economic and So-
cial Foundations of European Civilization, 34; Engels, Der Ursprung der
Familie, 137-146; Bebel, Die Frau und der Sozialismus, 65.
24. Weber, General Economic History, 7-8; Otto Gierke, Das deutsche
Genossenschaftsrecht, 1:60-80 (Berlin, 1868); Meitzen, Siedelungen und
Agrarwesen der Westgermanen..., 1:122-162; Below, "Agrargeschichte,"
52-54; Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations of European Civili-
zation, 47,156; Engels, Der Ursprung der Familie, 155,161; Bebel, Die
Frau und der Sozialismus, 65.
25. Weber, Der Streit um den Charkater der Altgermanischen Soziaherfassung...,
511-554; Gierke, Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht, 1:28-60, 89-153;
Seebohm, The English Village Community, 415; Meitzen, Siedelungen und
Agrarwesen..., 1:4,8,10; Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations of
European Civilization, 44-46,112; Gothein, "Agrargeschichte,"238, 240,
246; Oppenheimer, System der Soziologie, 2:354, 388-89, 527, 537-539,
4:299-325; Charlotte M. Waters, An Economic History of England, 1066-
1874 (London, 1925), introduction; Wilhelm Hasbach, A History of the
English Agricultural Labourer (London, 1908), 1; Lipson, An Introduction
to the Economic History of England, 10-11.
26. Weber, Der Streit um den Charakter der altgermanischen Soziaherfassung...,
538, 554.
27. Ibid., 303-304, Die romische Agrargeschichte, 278, and Agrarverhaltnisse
im Altertum, 272-276; Seebohm, The English Village Community, 270,
314; Below"Agrargeschichte,"54; Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foun-
dations of European Civilization, 54-55, 113, 164; Gothein,
"Agrargeschichte," 243; Vinogradoff, The Growth of the Manor, 37-87;
Lipson, An Introduction to the Economic History of England, 16-17; Dou-
glas-Irvine, The Making of Rural Europe, 49; W.J. Ashley, An Introduction
to English Economic History and Theory (London, 1923), 16-17; George
Max Weber as Historian of Agricultural and Rural Life 97
Caspar Homans, English V illa ge r s o f the Thir te e nth Ce ntur y (Cambridge,
Mass., 1941), 30; Henri Pirenne, Me die va l Citie s (Princeton, 1925), 11;
leme L. Plunket, Eur o pe in the Middle Age s (Oxford, 1922); Charles
Seignobos, Histo r y o f the Me dia e va l and Mo de r n Civiliza tio n to the End
o f the Se ve nte e nth Ce ntur y (New York, 1907); Sombart, Der mo de r ne
Ka pita lismus, 1:41-42; Oppenheimer, Syste m der So zio to gie , 4:325-406.
28. Weber, Der Str e it um den Cha r a kte r der a ltge r ma nische n So zia lve r ja ssung...,
509-510; Seebohm, The English V illa ge Co mmunity, 308; Below,
"Agrargeschichte,"53-54; Oppenheimer, Syste m der So zio lo gie , 2: 549;
Vinogradoff, The Gr o wth o f the Ma no r , 307-365.
29. Weber, Ge ne r a l Eco no mic Histo r y, 69; Below,"Agrargeschichte,"53-54;
Oppenheimer, Syste m der So zio lo gie , 2: 753.
30. Weber, Ge ne r a l Eco no mic Histo r y, 65-73; Below,"Agrargeschichte,"53-
54; Oppenheimer, Syste m der So zio lo gie , 2:531.
31. Weber, Ge ne r a l Eco no mic Histo r y, 131, Agr a r ve r hdltnisse im Alte r tum, 3-
6, 13, and Der Str e it um den Cha r a kte r der a ltge r ma nische n
So zia lve r f a ssung..., 293; Below, "Agrargeschichte," 49; Oppenheimer,
Syste m der So zio lo gie , 2: 410 n. 1; Hazebroek, Gr ie chische Wir tscha f ts-
und Ge se llscha f tsge schichte , 166. For the history of the theories, see
Dopsch, The Eco no mic a nd So cia l Fo unda tio n..., 1-29, and Die
Wir tscha f tse ntwicke lung der Ka r o linge r ze it (Weimar, 1912), 1:1-24; and
GustavSchmoller, De utsche s Sta e dte we se n in a lte r e r Ze it (Bonn, Leipzig,
1922), 1-38.
32. Weber, Ge ne r a l Eco no mic Histo r y, 87-94, 98-106; Schmoller, Gr undr iss
der Attge me ine n V o lksur ir tscha f tsle hr e , 2:518-531.
33. Paul Honigsheim,"Max Weber as Rural Sociologist," Rur a l So cio lo gy,
11: 207-218 (1946), and"Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist,"Ap-
plie d Anthr o po lo gy, 7: 27-35 (1948), where the publications of Weber
concerning his attitude toward the Prussian, Russian, and North Ameri-
can peasants of his time are listed.
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
4
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical
Background and Development
In the last few decades, and especially since the excellent transla-
tions by Parsons and Gerth appeared, considerable discussion of
Max Weber has taken place. Since only a few of his publications
have been made accessible, the result has been an incomplete and
oftentimes incorrect concept of the man. He is sometimes regarded
as emphasizing almost exclusively the importance of the spiritual
factor with regard to changes in the socioeconomic sphere. More
frequently, he is regarded as one who deals with religious phenom-
ena only in a rationalistic way. Both concepts of the man are equally
wrong. Thus, it is my purpose to outline his basic religious, philo-
sophical, and ethical convictions as well as the possible interrela-
tionship between such ideas and his investigations.
An understanding of Weber's religio-ethical personality is to be
sought in four kinds of sources: (1) remarks in letters and corre-
spondence; (2) remarks in the last two speeches delivered a short
time before his death; (3) information given by Weber's widow,
Marianne Weber in her publications dealing with her husband; and
(4) reminiscences of the writer, who knew Weber intimately. The
present paper is based on these sources. Weber's philologico-his-
torical investigations of religious documents (e.g., the Old Testa-
ment) do not enter the scope of this paper, due to lack of space.
This paper, therefore, restricts itself to the religious convictions and
the ethical principles inextricably connected with them. Since we are
dealing with a complex personalitya human being with concern
99
100 The Unknown Max Weber
for his own developmenta short biographical sketch of Weber's
environmental influences, as well as his intellectual, professional,
and literary development is indispensable. Only those biographical
features, of course, which have a bearing upon our central problem
will be outlined here.
1
Biographical Background
Weber was the son of an academically trained municipal politi-
cian and Reichstag deputy. His father was a member of the na-
tional-liberal party, a movement which represented the right wing
of economic liberalism. This party was supported largely by the pow-
erful industrialists, and it supported Bismarck's anti-Catholic and
anti-socialist policies as well as his foreign policies. But the Weber
household also was frequented by members of the progressive par-
ties. The "progressives" were liberals who refused to support Bis-
marck, and advocated, in part, a combination of democracy and state
socialism. This political antagonism between Bismarckian and anti-
Bismarckian liberals was one of the first antagonisms which young
Weber had to face. Another antagonism was to be found within the
family itself. Weber's mother, compared with the average wife of an
intellectual of that generation, was relatively orthodox religiously.
Weber's father, like other national liberals of the time, was little
interested in religion and at best could be called an indifferent
"liberal" Protestant.
The same political and religious antagonisms had to be recon-
ciled by Weber when he became a student of law, economics, his-
tory, and philosophy of the Universities of Strassburg, Heidelberg,
and Berlin. He was a pupil of Mommsen,
2
at that time the best
known historian of Roman antiquity and simultaneously a strong
anti-Bismarckian politician. At the same time, he was a frequent
guest of his uncle Hermann Baumgarten, an outstanding national-
liberal writer and admirer of Bismarck. He discussed religious prob-
lems with his cousin Otto Baumgarten and with another uncle,
Adolph Hausrath, professor of church history at the University of
Heidelberg. Both Hausrath and Otto Baumgarten were pronounced
bibliocritical, "liberal" Protestants. Weber definitely turned to their
position at this time, but he did not yet buttress it epistemologically.
This he began to do somewhat later, in Freiburg.
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 101
After a short period when he earned his living as a lawyer in
Berlin and simultaneously taught Roman law and its history as an
unsalaried instructor (Privatdozent) at the University of Berlin, he
was called to Freiburg as full professor of economics. The teaching
load of a German professor being small, he now had time to finish
his work on the history of agriculture and rural life,
3
which another
teacher, August Meitzen, had urged him to undertake. Here in
Freiburg (as well as in Heidelberg
4
where he was soon called to a
similar position) he came into contact with adherents of the South
German Neo-Kantian school. Among them were Rickert, the son
of an outstanding deputy of one of the "progressive" parties, and
Lask, primarily epistemologists and logicists; Jellinek and Radbruch,
philosophers of law; Windelband, historian of philosophy; and fi-
nally Troeltsch, historian and philosopher of religion. At this time
Weber formulated his own philosophy, which was a synthesis of
Protestant religiosity, Neo-Kantian epistemology and ethics, and
left-wing, socially minded liberalism. Due to a nervous breakdown
precipitated by overwork, Weber was obliged to withdraw from
teaching and political activity in Heidelberg and to concentrate on
writing. Consequently his main works in the fields of epistemology,
general sociology, and sociology of religion were written at this time
5
.
Although he did not teach, he continued to have younger friends
and students around him. Among them were many Russian revo-
lutionaries. They had been persecuted in their own country but were
accepted in the University of Heidelberg, which at that time was
among the most liberal universities of Germany. The fact that Rus-
sians of various points of view constituted an important element in
the atmosphere of Heidelberg of these days is significant, as we
shall see later.
When the First World War started, Weber felt ethically compelled
to serve his country. For some time he was a captain in the army,
but was not sent to the battlefield, due to poor health. During the
last part of the war and after the collapse, which he always pre-
dicted, of Wilhelminian Germany, he participated as a freelance
writer in political discussions.
6
Here he fought on two fronts. On
the one hand he opposed the militarists, who wanted to incorpo-
rate conquered lands into Germany. On the other hand, he op-
posed those pacifists who considered Germany alone guilty or who
insisted that Germany should now behave according to the Ser-
102 The Unknown Max Weber
mon on the Mount. Having partially recovered his health, he ac-
cepted a professorship at the University of Munich. In addition to
economics, he taught courses in sociology and general economic
history. From the latter came the book bearing the same title.
7
Shortly thereafter, still weak physically, he died from pneumonia.
This sketch shows us that Max Weber's own development was
determined, at least to some extent, by the necessity of choosing
between the conflicting philosophies outlined. His development
reveals an unmistakable shift from national-liberalism to a left-wing
and pronounced socially minded liberalism. It is outside the scope
of this paper to deal with this line of change, but it represents at the
same time a shift from a more conservative to a more liberal Protes-
tantism, from a more heteronomous to a more autonomous ethic,
from a more emotionally conceived philosophy to a conscious and
self-willed combination of Protestantism and Neo-Kantianism. That
is the reason that the entrance of the latter philosophy into Weber's
life represents the essential landmark in this paper. Thus, the article
is separated into two unequal parts. The first deals with the pre-
Neo-Kantian Protestant, the second with the Neo-Kantian Protes-
tant. The first, due to the scarcity of materials, will be shorter and
not further subdivided. The second part, however, will deal with
the following topics: the atmosphere in which Neo-Kantianism
originated and developed; the Neo-Kantian systems which are ei-
ther different from or are forerunners of Weber's system; Weber's
own concept of Neo-Kantianism, but only insofar as important for
his own religious and ethical attitude; the atmosphere out of which
the interest in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and their concepts of the
Sermon on the Mount originated; and finally Weber's answers to
these problems by means of Neo-Kantianism as a tool.
The Pre-Neo-Kantian Protestant
8
In dealing with this epoch of Weber's life, it seems preferable to
start with those elements which play a lesser role in his life and
then to proceed with those which became more important.
The forms of ritual
9
entered the range of Weber's interests only
slightly and incidentally. Otto Baumgarten, Weber's cousin, as a
young theological student, preached occasionally in and around
Heidelberg. Weber often listened to and discussed his sermons with
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 103
him. This experience provided the impulse for the young Weber to
describe various preaching methods and compare the different forms
of ritual which he had opportunity to observe during his many trips
through Germany. He preferred those forms of ritual in which the
minister was bound as little as possible by ritualistic precepts. The
ritualistic question was of primary interest to him since it involved
the problem which always troubled him, namely, the problem of
the independence of the individual within the Protestant church
and the sociological structure and situation of the Protestant church
in Germany.
10
The question of the independence of the individual concerned
Weber even as a high school boy. At his own confirmation as well
as at that of relatives, he was aware of the fact that entrance into the
Christian community carried obligations with it. Even at this time,
the conviction began to grow within hima conviction which
plagued him his entire lifethat the official German Protestant
church and in effect German Protestantism itself was moving in the
wrong direction. It was not primarily the antagonism of the theolo-
gical "liberal" against the "orthodox," but rather the opposition of
the advocate of the autonomous religious conscience to the ecclesi-
astical mechanism of the State Church, indissolubly tied to conser-
vative, feudal, and militaristic interests. Weber attacked many
adversaries but the man whom he most heartily disliked was the
"crowned dilettante" Wilhelm II,
11
who claimed to be an instru-
ment of God and who each day made a new show of his theatrical
and spurious religiosity. Weber also condemned the German "cow-
ards"who lacked the courage to be "Protestants" in the boldest and
ethically obliging sense of the word. Even when he did not agree
with the content of their thought, Weber admired those who had
the courage to be such "Protestants."
Among the religious rebels with whom Weber dealt were some
very heterogeneous personalities. The one who meant the least in
Weber's life was Baron von Reichlin-Meldegg.
12
He originally had
been a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at the state-sup-
ported divinity school at Freiburg. But he left Catholicism and em-
braced Protestantism. As frequently occurs in such situations, the
government, whose permanent employee he was, transferred him
into the School of Liberal Arts as professor of philosophy. In his
classes, to Weber's deep regret, he used every opportunity to ridi-
104 The Unknown Max Weber
cule dogma and orthodoxy. On the other hand, Weber, as a student,
had great admiration for David Strauss.
13
This interest, however, was
probably due in large part to the fact that Weber's uncle Hausrath
had a few years before completed a book dealing with this radical
biblical critic. Much more significant and pointing to the character
of the future religious and political struggles was Weber's interest
in, and sympathy for, Moritz von Egidy.
14
He was a Prussian officer
who had attempted to make Christianity primarily an ethical reli-
gion with a minimum of dogma. As a result, von Egidy had been
dishonorably dismissed from the Wilhelminian army which was
closely connected with the official Protestant church. In this instance,
as well as subsequently, Weber attacked the Protestant church be-
cause of the political methods which the powerful and dominant
orthodox conservatives used to crush their powerless liberal enemies
in the struggles over dogma during these days.
In this period Weber had definitely become a biblio-critically
minded liberal.
15
In contrast to such men as Reichlin-Meldegg, how-
ever, he understood the feeling of the orthodox believer, and, on at
least one sad occasion, he referred to the biblical text" And as thou
hast believed, so be it done unto thee"in anything but conven-
tional form. But even this conservative-liberal antagonism was un-
important in comparison with the religio-ethical problem.
The religio-ethical problems
16
which involved the relation be-
tween autonomy and law already were dominant in Weber's think-
ing. Christianity was considered as obligatory for all members of
the community, but everyone, according to young Weber, was en-
titled and even obliged to interpret it individually and to try to solve
its enigmas. By so doing, the individual was responsible only to
God and to his individual conscience. But this obligation to make
decisions was not enough; the "calling"the knowledge through
some inner voice of the conscience that one has been called for a
particular duty by the superior powerhad a role to play. Weber's
respect for the conscience and for this individual calling was very
great. Indeed, throughout his life, Max Weber considered Catholi-
cism to constitute one of the gravest threats to the autonomous
decision of the individual conscience and to the independence of
scientific investigation. Nevertheless, during the struggle which was
called the"Kulturkampf," the young scholar denounced Bismarck's
anti-Catholic laws and practices.
17
Thus, the limits of the state with
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 105
regard to the individual conscience, and the duties of the individual
toward his country were already problems to Weber. One can also
see the problem as to the religious right of the conscientious objec-
tor entering the picture. At this stage the young German Protestant
perceived only a seemingly Christian precept pointing in that di-
rection and not yet a basic antagonism between Christian precept
and the claim of the modern state.
18
In the second part of his life,
however, he changed his mind and gave another answer.
In summary, we may make the following statement. Certainly
Max Weber as a young man was already interested in many prob-
lems. Nevertheless, nothing had so deeply affected him as the
religio-ethical problem concerning the relations between the indi-
vidual and the state and between the individual and the church.
This problem occupied him from the day of his own confirmation,
and especially from the day he congratulated his brother at confir-
mation, to the day when, as a professor in Munich, he planned to
write a book on Tolstoy and struggled with his colleague, Friedrich
Wilhelm Foerster. That is to say, this problem concerned him from
the beginning of his independent thinking about the world up to
the very last days before his premature death.The problems already
faced and tentatively answered in the first period were considered
again and treated in a more systematic and epistemologically
grounded way after the encounter with, and the changes introduced
by, the Neo-Kantian philosophy.
19
The Neo-Kantian Protestant
More so than any other Neo-Kantian group the southern Ger-
man school of Windelband, Rickert, Jellinek, Troeltsch, and their
followers influenced Weber. These scholars directed their main in-
terest to problems which played only a smaller role in the thought
of the other Neo-Kantians, that is, to the epistemological background
of the cultural sciences and to the philosophy of history. To the dis-
tinction between the sphere of scientific knowledge and the sphere
of religious and ethical perception and action, they added a new
way of distinguishing between objects and methods of natural sci-
ences, on the one hand, and of cultural sciences, on the other. Espe-
cially Windelband and Rickert elaborated a system of classification
of sciences. History, they argued, deals with reality insofar as the
106 The Unknown Max Weber
uniqueness of the particular is concerned; natural sciences, on the
contrary, are interested in and capable of perceiving, at least to some
extent, general rules of automatically occurring changes. With this
dominant viewpoint they tried to locate the various special sciences,
but they did not deal to any extent with the essence, limitations and
methods of sociology. It was at this point that Max Weber entered
the picture.
It is outside the scope of this paper to deal extensively with Weber's
concept of the essence and limits of science in general and the spe-
cial sciences in particular. Accordingly only those basic concepts of
Weber which directly played a role within the development, expla-
nation, and justification of his own religious and ethical concept
can be mentioned. These fundamentals, in part coming from
Windelband and Rickert, in part purely Max Weber's own thought,
are as follows.
21
There is one fundamental division, namely, that between state-
ments of facts and judgments of value. The former can be made in
the sphere of special sciences and are the main content of such sci-
ences; in contrast, judgments of value are of autonomous and sub-
jective character, independent of authorities, and essential in the
sphere of ethics and politics where the responsible decisions must
be made by the individual at his own risk. Within the particular
sphere of special sciences, which deals with statements of fact, there
is a further essential division, that between natural and cultural sci-
ences. The former to some extent are able to perceive general rules
about an automatically necessitated process occurring within the
sequence of forms. In contrast, cultural sciences are not able to go
as far as that. To understand the meaning of this assertion, we must
have the next essential division in mind. For, within the sphere of
cultural sciences, there exists, among others, the difference between
the historical and the sociological approach. The term history is used
here in the broadest sense to include the history of every sphere of
life and thinking. History primarily deals with the uniqueness of
the particular object observed. Thus, within the sphere of historical
investigations, general terms such as animal husbandry, nomad-
ism, feudalism, bureaucracy, state, etc., can and must be used; but in
so doing, one must have in mind that such terms actually are noth-
ing but abbreviations. They are used to denote the sum of all these
particular historical subjects, which have the same characteristic traits
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 107
in common. There is no possibility of knowing about the existence
or nonexistence of an entity in the metaphysical sense correspond-
ing in reality to these terms. Moreover, within the sphere of histori-
cal investigations, it is impossible to make statements concerning
automatically occurring changes. But even within the cultural sci-
ences by applying the sociological approach and by using the result
of historical investigations made before within the field, it is not
possible as far as in the natural sciences. There is no more than the
possibility of making some statements concerning the probability
that some forms of social systems, for example, may succeed one
another in the same sequence in more than one case. Accordingly,
man cannot and never will be able to predict the future. He may
calculate only to some degree the probability of the effects recur-
ring in a given situation. However, historical knowledge can be used
for practical purposes, especially in choosing the means which are
supposed to be useful if one wants to realize a special socioeco-
nomic goal. The realization of such a goal is then supposed to rep-
resent a good, which is supposed to be of higher value than the
nonrealization of the goal under consideration. But we must repeat
again, at the end of this digression into Weber's epistemology, what
has been said at the beginning: the decisions concerning value-
systems, value-differences, and value-hierarchy are not derived from
the scientific sphere but rather from considerations based on the
autonomous religio-ethical conscience of the individual.
Weber combined these epistemological solutions with his Prot-
estantism. This combination of Protestantism and Neo-Kantianism
provided him with the tool to solve his own religious and ethical
problems. These problems increasingly concerned the compatibil-
ity of the precepts of Jesus with the demands of modern society.
The Rise of the Problem Concerning the Sermon on the Mount
Our pre-Neo-Kantian Protestant had insisted upon the right of
the individual to decide autonomously, and, at the same time, de-
nied the existence of an antagonism between Christian precept and
the challenge of the modern state. What then about the person
who, making use of the right of autonomous decision, would insist
upon such an incompatibility? This person is not a character of
fiction but one who lived in Weber's daynamely, Tolstoy. Hence
108 The Unknown Max Weber
Tolstoy, and with him Dostoevsky, as well as the Russian form of
Greek Orthodoxy, enter the picture.
Various factors facilitated the entrance of that world into prewar
Germany and, accordingly, into Max Weber's horizon. First, we must
mention the general discontent of many Germans with the institu-
tionalization of the Protestant church, the specialization of science,
and the nonexistence of an all-embracing universalistic system.
Therefore, some Germans turned to Roman Catholicism, oriental
mysticism,
21
or became disciples of the extremely anti-democratic
Catholic poet, Stefan George. George preached to his small, eso-
teric group of followers the gospel of a world-escaping "elite" life,
similar to that of the early-medieval Benedictine monks.
22
Even
more Germans were impressed by Dostoevsky's vision of the Rus-
sian peasant life of brotherly love. Along with Dostoevsky, Tolstoy
also entered the picture. Second, the situation in prewar Heidel-
berg made this place especially susceptible to this influence. For, as
already indicated in the biographical sketch, more so than in other
German universities, students who had political, racial, or other dif-
ficulties in their own countries were admitted, among them Rus-
sians of almost all political and social convictions. Max Weber, al-
though no longer a young man, had learned the Russian language
in order to follow and to judge the changes occurring in Russia. He
protected these Russian students just as he did all persons perse-
cuted for their convictions. This encounter with Russian students
was another stimulus for him to deal with Tolstoy. Finally, there
was still another impetus. After the collapse, Germany underwent
a bloody revolution. Some of the leaders emphasized the right to
use violence in the revolution but simultaneously denied its use in
war. Other Germans escaped from a supposedly evil world into ro-
mantic youth-movement
23
groups, or Christian-socialist rural
collectivites.
24
Moreover, in contrast to the militaristic mentality of
the prewar epoch, many Germans insisted on Germany's war guilt.
Among the most important was Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster, who
appealed to a Christian concept of natural law.
25
Since Max Weber
had accepted a call to the University of Munich, he became the col-
league of Foerster. The classes of the latter were disturbed by rioting
students, and Weber could not refrain from taking part in the
struggle. He respected Foerster's integrity and courage but sharply
differentiated his own views from those of his colleague.
26
Weber's
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 109
own development as well as impulses coming from the surround-
ing world converged, and, using the tool provided by Neo-
Kantianism, Weber gave his answer to the complex of problems.
His premature death prevented him from giving his answers in a
systematic fashion, but his answers can be found in his "swan-
songs," the lectures on "Science as a Profession" and "Politics as a
Profession." These recall the epistemological details already indi-
cated. We now restrict ourselves to their application to religion and
ethics.
The Tragic Religio-Ethical Dilemma
27
According to Weber's basic conviction, there is no possibility of
making statements concerning the existence or nonexistence of an
entity in the metaphysical sense which corresponds in reality to
words such as state, church, family, economic institutions, and so
on. These indeed are nothing but words, used in the boldest nomi-
nalistic sense to denote nothing but special kinds of continuing col-
lective activities performed by a more or less large number of indi-
viduals. Accordingly, if any of these institutions claims to be more
than a word used to denote such collective activity, then it exceeds
its rights: even more so, if it claims to be entitled to make decisions
within the religious or ethical sphere and to bind the individual by
them. The latter is a reality. If no group has the authority to formu-
late orders within the religious and ethical sphere, and if no branch
of philosophy or science is able to formulate judgments of value,
then only the autonomous individual remains. His conscience tells
him what to do. The conscience says if and to what extent the indi-
vidual is entitled to work, even to sacrifice itself for an institutional-
ized group, such as one's native land. Thus this conscience may
direct man to decisions which are in opposition to man's vital inter-
ests. Its existence is the evidence of the reality of a higher order and
a superior being. Max Weber's personal friends know that this rela-
tion to God, by radically and exclusively following the voice of the
individual conscience, was basic to all his decisions and actions.
But this did not mean a disregard for the group; quite the contrary.
For here is one of the tragic antagonisms of life. Man cannot live
exclusively by voluntary cooperation without compulsory forces; an-
archistic society is impossible. Accordingly, there originates the
110 The Unknown Max Weber
antagonism between an institution which is able to use compulsory
force, on one hand, and the value judgment which is made by the
individual conscience and which is opposed to the vital interests of
the group, on the other. The individual may decide: "Here I stand,
I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." By doing so the individual
takes the risk of being persecuted, even of being killed. But that is
not the worst; for in choosing between two alternatives the indi-
vidual takes the even greater risk of becoming an even greater sin-
ner than by choosing the opposite alternative. This is true since the
two ethics stand in discordant antagonism. Conduct can be directed
by a radical ethic, that is, it can be oriented exclusively toward ends
considered absolute values, or conduct can be directed by an ethic
of responsibility. The former is that of the religious prophet who
"knows the one thing that is needful" and of his followers who act
according to the precept: "The Christian does rightly and leaves the
result with the Lord." In the opposite case, that is, in the case of a
conduct directed by the ethics of responsibility, one is expected, even
bound, to give an account of the foreseeable effect of his action.
This basic difference manifests itself in antagonistic attitudes to-
ward at least five phenomena. These are as follows.
First of all as to man's dignity, the radical ethic gives the uncon-
ditioned order: "Turn the other cheek," and gives no consideration
to the consequences. The ethic of responsibility will insist upon the
individual's dignity and upon the dignity of the group which the
individual represents. Therefore, the ethics of responsibility will re-
ject this precept. The same is true with regard to the selection of
means generally. The radical ethic will reject all actions involving
means which this ethic considers ethically dangerous. The adher-
ent of such principles will act according to the commandment:"Re-
sist not him that is evil by force." But by acting according to such a
principle he will let evil triumph in the world. On the other hand,
the follower of the ethic of responsibility, because he feels respon-
sible for the effect, will resist evil by force. He knows that if he does
not do so, he will be responsible for the victory of evil. By doing so,
however, due to his own feeling of ethical responsibility, he will
charge himself with ethical guilt for using unethical means. Simi-
larly the radical ethic will reject aesthetic and scientific values, if
they endanger arriving at the "one thing that is needful"; the ethic
of responsibility will insist on the obligation of preserving and de-
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 111
veloping these values. The same is true as to property. The radical
ethic will insist on the biblical precept: "Give what thou hast,"and
will not ask about the effect, that is, who will enjoy these economic
goods and how they will be distributed. The politician will act oth-
erwise. He may or may not favor private property. Nevertheless, he
will feel responsible for men and goods and accordingly will inves-
tigate the possibilities, means, and calculable effect of the various
ways of distributing property. Finally as to war and revolution, the
radical ethic simply says: "All they that take the sword shall perish
by the sword. "The followers of the radical ethic will accept the
status of an oppressed national or social group and refuse to resort
to war and strikes, while the adherents of the ethic of responsibility
will feel bound to use them.
In a word, the radical ethic is oriented toward the image of the
saint; the ethic of responsibility toward that of the hero. The indi-
vidual must choose between the two, and, by deciding for the one,
the individual inevitably sins against the other precept.
What then about the man who is obliged to live in an epoch such
as ours in which no prophet appears who knows the "one thing that
is needful," a man who himself feels unable to make autonomous
decisions? The answer is neither the loveless contemplation of the
world as Schopenhauer taught, nor suicide, conceived by Weber as
uncharitableness toward one's fellow men and condoned in one single
case, that of an irreparable mental derangement. The answer to those
who are unable to live and to decide autonomously is: go back to
church. If one can make the "intellectual sacrifice," Weber will not
rebuke him. The simple confession of an incapacity to live autono-
mously and of a willingness to make the intellectual sacrifice has
greater intellectual integrity than ignoring the limits of philosophy
and science and claiming to be able to make, by philosophical or
scientific methods, general religious and ethical precepts.
28
Under such circumstances, is there any possibility of dealing scien-
tifically with religion, and is there any ethical precept for the one
who attempts such work?
The Ethos of the Investigator of Religious Phenomena
29
Again we must omit all details of Weber's concept concerning
epistemology as well as with regard to the ethics of the scientists.
112 The Unknown Max Weber
Only three basic attitudes will be mentioned. First, that which oc-
curs in time sequence and which is characterized by man's interfer-
ence belongs to history and not to faith. Thus, every phenomenon
which supposedly is connected with revelation falls into the sphere
of history. Sociology of religion, just as every special branch of soci-
ology, presupposes that all the phenomena to be considered have
already been investigated in a comparative historical way. Accord-
ingly, every phenomenon which claims to be connected with rev-
elation must also be the object of comparative historical and socio-
logical investigation. Second, the same imperative which may cause
a given individual to work as politician and another to sacrifice him-
self for his radical preaching, may stimulate another, and indeed
stimulated Weber himself, to deal scientifically with religion. The
essential quality then is to have the courage to deny oneself. For the
historical and sociological investigator in the field of religion must
know that he may undermine traditional beliefs which may be pre-
cious to many and perhaps even to himself. Nevertheless, if he en-
ters that field which his own personal imperative has obliged him
to enter, he must be willing to face the consequences. This attitude
helps us understand Weber's attitude toward theological schools.
The theological schools in Germany of Weber's day were part of the
state-supported universities and accordingly were objects of un-
interrupted conflicts, not only between orthodox and liberal schools
of theological thought but also between state and church as well as
between the various political parties. Weber often took part in the
controversies. He followed the literature in the field of biblical the-
ology and church history as closely as possible. Especially, he al-
ways tried to become familiar with the ideas of, and the publica-
tions written by, the men who were considered as candidates for
theological professorships. He strongly advocated the calling of lib-
eral scholars rather than the orthodox candidates who were usually
supported by the government, the feudal aristocracy, the army of-
fices, and other conservative powers. He also vigorously opposed
the "neo-romantic" believers of all kinds who played a role in pre-
war and an even larger role in postwar, Germany. He did not find
fault with orthodox Protestants and Neo-Romanticists with refer-
ence to the special content of their concepts, such as transubstan-
tiation, divinity of Jesus, and so on. Rather he found fault with them
for what he considered a lack of intellectual integrity;
30
namely, that
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 113
of failing to elaborate epistemologically the basis of their statements
and obliterating the limits between the spheres of thought. Phe-
nomena appearing within the sequence of time for him belonged
to history and not to faith; and the university to him was one of the
few places where pure science, within the narrow limits of its ca-
pacity, was pursued, rather than politics and religious preaching.
He considered both religion and politics as having enough oppor-
tunities to propagate their programs outside of the universities.
31
The scientist who deals historically and sociologically with reli-
gion, even more so than other scientists, must suffer a threefold
unhappiness. The unhappiness of undermining beloved traditional
creeds, of being limited in elaborating general laws, and of having
to refrain from passing judgments of value on that which is essen-
tial in the sphere of religion. Just as human life in general, so also is
the life of the scientist tragic in itself.
32
Nevertheless, Max Weber
chose this life. The two words "tragic" and "nevertheless" provide
us with the key to our concluding comparison.
Conclusion
By comparing the statements in the last section with those made
in the preceding section, Max Weber's originality stands out in bold
relief against the background of forerunners and contemporaries.
We shall start with a comparison which actually concerns one trait,
but which is indeed a very characteristic one. Weber often was com-
pared with Emile Zola. Of course not with Zola as the author of
naturalistic novels (although Werner Sombart recommended him
to his students as one of the best analysts of modern social life) but
the Zola of the Dreyfus Affair who threw his " J'accuse" into the face
of the French leaders to protect an innocent individual against the
persecution of a powerful group. This stand was one which Max
Weber also could have taken. Not only did Weber definitely feel a
kinship with Zola but he did not deny the comparison just made.
As mentioned previously in a different connection, Weber deplored
the fact that his own beloved German people had produced so few
men like Zola and Voltaire.
But we must turn to the camp of the Kantians if we wish to en-
counter individuals who can be compared with the Heidelbergian
sociologist under more than just this viewpoint.
114 The Unknown Max Weber
Kant not only had been the climax of the Enlightenment; he ad-
vanced beyond it. He denied the basic optimism with regard to man's
perceptive capacity as well as with reference to man's inborn good-
ness.
33
But he went no further. In his adolescence, Kant had shifted
from the pietism of his home and his university teachers.
34
This
kind of pietism had already separated the sphere of emotional reli-
giosity from the natural sciences which were in high esteem.
35
Thus,
there was actually no sharp break; the tragic finds no place in Kanfs
own personal existence nor in his conception of the world. Here,
more so than in epistemological detail, rests the fundamental differ-
ence between Kant and Weber. This dissimilarity is even more deeply
rooted than that between Kant and the other Neo-Kantians.
As to the latter, the similarity of Friedrich Albert Lange and Max
Weber is indeed striking. Both set the whole sphere of religion and
ethics outside of the sphere of philosophy and science; moreover
both were pitiless in their ethical challenge toward themselves and
inexorable strugglers for what their autonomous imperatives told
them to struggle for. Unlike that of Kant, Lange's life was a chain of
persecution, illness, martyrdom, and tragedy; but he neither con-
sidered life as tragic in itself nor ethics as anti-nomistic in itself.
This also coincided with the thought of the revisionist socialists.
After the collapse of Germany in 1918 it is true that the revisionists
and Max Weber were so close politically that Weber said: "We are so
much alike that we could be taken for one another." Indeed they
had eliminated Marxist determinism, but nevertheless maintained
progressivism and were, if not anti-religiously, then surely a-reli-
giously, minded.
Such a-religiosity, indeed, does not apply to the next Kantian group,
Ritschl and his forerunners, the various "Vermittlungstheologen." But
they all projected into the domain of faith phenomena which, accord-
ing to Weber, belongs to history. Such an accusation Weber, to be
sure, did not make of Southern German Neo-Kantianism. Indeed,
Rickert and Troeltsch especially have many traits in common with
Weber. They struggled against the same adversaries; they suffered
from the same developments in Germany and within Protestant-
ism; they limited man's sphere of knowledge and suffered from this
restriction. Nevertheless, there remains the basic difference: the non-
existence of a concept of world, life, ethics, and science as tragic in
themselves. Consequently, both Rickert and Troeltsch were "tern-
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 115
fied" when the concept of the tragic aspect of existence appeared in
Weber's swan song,"
36
and behind itthe true Weber. This attitude
of Weber, on the other hand, may have pleased many neo-romanti-
cists, followers of Tolstoy, religious socialists, members of the Ger-
man Youth Movement, and settlers in rural collectivities, as well as
Stephan George and his followers. Max Weber had many discus-
sions with the "master" and his disciples. He even helped the best
known among George's followers, Friedrich Gundolf and Arthur
Salz, in their academic careers. But he did so, as always, guided by
his ethical imperative which ordered him to protect the adversary.
At the same time, many neo-romanticists were criticized by Max
Weber for not having the courage and integrity to be scientists within
the sphere of science. What then remains? A pure philosophical
and scientific contemplation of a senseless world, withdrawal from
it, without relation to it and without interference? Such was the
thought and life of Schopenhauer. Indeed he had considered Kant
his forerunner; but at the same time he laughed at the Critique of
Practical Reason as well as the categorical imperative.
37
Is Max
Weber's further elaboration of Kant, in last instance, nothing but a
hopelessness similar to that of Schopenhauer? At this point ap-
pears the importance of the other element which, next to the term
"tragic," differentiates Weber from his forerunners and contempo-
raries; namely, the imperative introduced by the word "neverthe-
less! "Schopenhauer's answer means pessimism; Weber's answer
means"tragicism." Although the world is tragic, the ethic indissolu-
bly connected with contradiction, and the domain of science lim-
ited, nevertheless, do your work in accordance with that demanded
by your imperative!
After reading these pages is would be strange indeed if Dostoevsky
did not flash before the reader's mind. After having shown that
Tolstoy meant to Weber only one of the possible attitudes, but just
the one which Weber did not choose, certainly a comparison of
Dostoevsky and Max Weber is inevitable and necessary in order to
provide the key to Max Weber's innermost self.
Both Dostoevsky and Max Weber suffered from the tragic aspect
of life and felt man's inescapable inferiority and culpability to a de-
gree experienced by very few persons before them. Nevertheless,
both shouldered their yoke: they faced reality, especially in their
conviction that politics is inescapable and that it is the individual's
116 The Unknown Max Weber
duty to become involved in politics in order to work for his people.
Both were conscious that by so doing they became involved in sin
and guilt. Although they were similar in this respect, the two men
were different in almost all other respects. Their attitudes toward
the state, the church, the nation, and human reason were diametri-
cally opposed.
As a true Russian, Dostoevsky rationalistically conceived neither
the czarist state nor the Greek Orthodox Church to be a juridical
institution as the state and church in the West increasingly had been
since the day of the rationalistically structured Roman law. Never-
theless, for Dostoevsky, both the czarist empire and the Greek Or-
thodox Church remain mystically embraced metaphysical entities.
And life can be brought to the highest possible degree of fulfill-
ment, only if it runs its course within both. Moreover, the Greek
Orthodox Russians are not just a nation; they are a people, chosen
by God, the collective Messiah who in this capacity feel bound to
save the world by bringing it under their control, just as the secular-
ized successors of the Greek Orthodox czarism, the Soviets, who
everywhere appear in the role of a collective Messiah using vio-
lence. Dostoevsky insisted especially that Constantinople, and
thereby the Balkans, should come under czarist Russian control to
protect the Balkan peoples from being perverted by European in-
fluences,
38
again just as the contemporary Soviets assert they are
obliged to do. Indeed, Dostoevsky respects and sometimes even
loves murderers and prostitutes as his brethren in Christ. But the
same Dostoevsky does not regard as brothers those among his fel-
low prisoners in the Siberian "House of the Dead" who were
Polish insurgents against czarism.
39
To him the Poles remain those
Slavs who became traitors by way of their Roman Catholicism,
which to him meant Western rationalistic intellectualism and Eu-
ropean bureaucracy.
Max Weber also loved his nation. Next to his religiously grounded
categorical imperative, the feeling of being rooted in and bound to
his nation determined his attitude toward life and social groups.
Nevertheless, he never considered his people as the ethically supe-
rior nation or as the chosen people in a religious sense. Accord-
ingly, he never would have tried, ethically or religiously, to justify
subjection and conquest on the part of his people. He also never
tried scientifically to justify his feeling of being bound to his fellow
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 117
Germans. For his science remained separated from the religious and
ethical sphere, and only in a very special way was it possible to bring
them into relationship. Nevertheless, work in the special sciences
continued to represent for him an inescapable duty.
Science, even in the restricted sense of a tool used to realize reli-
giously or ethically conceived goals, was, for Dostoevsky, always a
senseless enterprise and an a-religious western attitude. This basi-
cally different attitude cannot be attributed to the fact that
Dostoevsky was a "novelist" and Max Weber a "scholar," but rather
to the fact that Dostoevsky was a non-European Russian and Max
Weber a European. In this difference also is rooted the difference
between the basically heteronomous ethics of the Greek Orthodox
and the basically autonomous ethics of the Protestant. For Max
Weber was not just a Protestant by birth; he was one by emotion
and feeling. To be sure, he strongly criticized German Lutheranism,
but he distinguished carefully between German Lutheranism con-
ceived as an historically explainable aberration from the basic atti-
tude of the founder, and the young monk from Wittenberg himself.
If anyone is entitled to be brought into the neighborhood of Luther,
it is Max Weber. His tragic-consciousness has manifested itself not
just in a theory emphasizing the tragic but also in a life determined
by his own religiously-conceived categorical imperative. This means
nothing other than the realization of a life conforming to Luther's
words: "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise, so help me God."
Notes
1. The main sources for the following are Marianne Weber, Max Weber
(Tubingen, 1926) and Lebenserinnerungen (Bremen, 1948), 51-58; Max
Weber, J ugenbriej f e (Tubingen, n.d.) and Gesammelte Politische Schrif ten
(Munchen, 1921); Raul Honigsheim,"Max Weber as Rural Sociologist,"
Rural Sociology, XI (1946), 207-209 includes a list of 21 other books
and articles dealing with Weber.
2. As to the role which Mommsen and his concept of antiquity played in
Weber"s life, see Paul Honigsheim,"Max Weber as Historian of Agri-
culture,"Agricultural History, XXIII (1949), 191-199.
3. After the death of Weber almost all of his publications were collected
by his widow, Marianne Weber, and published by J.C.B. Mohr at
Tubingen. The volume which contains the works in the field of his-
tory of agriculture is: Gesammelte Au f s at z e z ur Soz ial-und
Wirtschaf tsgeschichte (Tubingen, 1924). Not included in the posthu-
118 The Unknown Max Weber
mous edition is Die romische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung fur das
Stoats und Privatrecht (Stuttgart, 1891).
4. As to the Heidelbergian atmosphere of that time and the individuals
with whom Max Weber came in contact, see Wilhelm Windelband,
Kuno Fischer (Heidelberg, 1907); idem,"Zum Geleit,"in Georg Jellinek,
AusgewdhlteReden und Schriften, I (Berlin, 1911), 5-11; Heinrich Rickert,
Wilhelm Windelband (Tubingen, 1915); Ernst Troeitsch, Review of Georg
Jellinek, Ausgewahlte Reden und Schriften in Zeitschrift fur das Privat-
und offentliche Recht der Gegenwart (Wien, 1912); Paul Honigsheim,"Veit
Valentin," Die Friedens-Warte, XLVII (Zurich, 1947).
5. Those volumes which contain the works in the field of episte-
mology,general sociology, and sociology of religion, which mostly
were written in Heidelberg, are: Gesammelte Au f s a t z e zur
Religionssoziology, 1-3, (Tubingen, 1920-1921), Gesammelte Aufsdtze
zur Wissenschaftslehre (Tubingen, 1922), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft
(Tubingen, 1922).
6. The most important political publications of this epoch are collected
in Gesammelte Politische Schriften.
7. Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Miinchen, 1923): translated into Engjish by Frank
H. Knight under the title General Economic History (NewYork, 1927).
8. The main source for the following in Max Weber, Jugendbriefe.
9. Ibid., 20f., 24,45, 52, 55, 211f.
10. Ibid., 64,106f., 212.
11. Ibid., 294, 334; Marianne Weber, Max Weber, 408. As to the constant
disdain of Max Weber for William II, see Max Weber, Gesammelte
Politische Schriften, 75,187,193,343,456,477,480.
12. Jugendbriefe, 59-60.
13. Ibid., 44,205, 208.
14. Ibid., 334.
15. Ibid., 60f., 196, 229.
16. Ibid., 22, 86,106f., 213, 268.
17. Ibid., 204, 234, 311.
18. Ibid.,191f.
19. An explanation of the atmosphere out of which Neo-Kantianism origi-
nated may be found in O.A. Ellisman, "Biographisches Vorwort" in
Friedrich Albert Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus
t
I (Leipzig 1905),
12-14.
20. The following articles which are reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur
Wissenschaftslehre, contain Weber's basic epistemological theories: "R.
Stammler's Uberwindungder materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung,"
291-359,"Die Objektivitat Sozialwissenschaftslicher Erkenntniss,"146-
214,"Zur Auseinandersetzungmit Edward Meyer,"215-265. "Der Sinn
der Wertfreiheit der Soziologischen und okonomischen Wissenschaften,"
451-502. The last three mentioned among these four articles have been
translated under the tide Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social
Sciences, translated and edited by Edward H. Shils and Henry A. Finch
Max Weber: His Religious and Ethical Background 119
(Glencoe, 1949). See also Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Eco-
nomic Organizations, translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Par-
sons (NewYork, 1947), 87-157. Consult also Paul Honigsheim, "Max
Weber als Soziologie," Kolner Vierteljahrshefte fur Soziologie, I (1920).
21. For further details about these movements, see Paul Honigsheim,
"Romantische und religjos-mystisch verankerte Wirtsdiafogesinnungen,"
Die Wirtschaftswissenschaft nach dem Kriege, ed., M.J. Bonn and M, Palyi, I
(Munchen, 1925), 298-312, and "The Roots of the Nazi Concept of the
Ideal German Peasant,"Rural Sociology, XII (1947), 16-19.
22. See the collected works of George, entitled Gesamtausgabe der Werke
(Berlin, 1927-1934). Especially, consult Vol. III, Bucher der Sagen und
Sange (1930);Vol.V, DerTeppich des Lefcens;Vol.VI-VH, Der Siebente Ring
(1931);Vol.VIII, Der Stern des Bundes (1929). See also the English trans-
lation of a selection of his writings entitled Poems rendered into English
(NewYork, 1943). The main publications of the adherents of George
may be found in the review,"Blatter fur die Kunst (Berlin, 1892-1919).
Consult F. Gundolf, George (Berlin, 1920).
23. The best characterization of the German youth movement and survey
on its most important groups may be found in Howard Becker, Ger-
man Youth: Bond or Free (New York, 1946).
24. For further details, see Paul Honigsheim,"Rural Collectivities,"in C.P.
Loomis, and J.A. Beegle, Rural Social Systems (New York, 1950), 839-
846, and Georg Becker, Die Siedlung der deutschen Jugendbewegung
(Hilden, 1929), 11-41, 60-80.
25. The ideas of Foerster and his adherents were mainly propagated in
the review Die Menschheit (Weisbaden).
26. Max Weber, "Politics as a Vocation," from Max Weber, Essays in Sociol-
ogy, translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York, 1946),
122,124.
27. The basic religious and ethical ideas of Max Weber may be found in:
"Politics as a Vocation," 119-127; "Science as a Vocation, Ibid., 133,
146,149-156; Die Objektivitat Sozialwissenschaftslicher Erkenntniss,'
153; and"Zwischen zwei Gesetzen," Gesammelte Politische Schriften,
60-63.
28. "Science as a Vocation,"155f.
29. Ibid.,153f.
30. Ibid., 137.
31. Ibid., 143f., 150.
32. Ibid., 143.
33. This viewpoint of Kant appears most clearly in his book Religion Within
the Limits of Reason Alone, translated by Theodore M. Greene and
Hoyt H. Hudson (Chicago, 1934), 15-49.
34. As to the interrelationship between Pietism and Kant, see, for example,
Johann Casper Lavater, Ausgewdhlte Schriften, eds., Johann Kasper von
Orelli (Zurich, 1841,1844), II, 175, VIII, 309, and Johann Heinrich Jung-
Stilling Sdmmtliche Werke, VIII (Stuttgart, 1841), 453.
120 The Unknown Max Weber
35. As to the interest of pietists in natural sciences, see for example, Jung-
Stilling, Werke, I, 448ft., II, 31, DC 866; Johann Christian Edelmann,
Selbsbiographie, ed., Wilhelm Klone (Berlin, 1849), 103,201,314f., and
Friedrich Christoph von Octinger, Selbsbiographie, ed., Julius Hamberger
(Stuttgart, 1845), 85.
36. Heinrich Richert,"Max Weber und seine Stellung zue Wissenschaft,"
Logos, XV (Tubingen, 1926), 231.
37. Arthur Schopenhauer's attitude toward Kant's ethic can be found in
his main work The World as Will and Idea, translated by R.B. Haldane
and John Kemp, 8th ed. (London, n.d.), 133,152.
38 Dostoevski's attitude toward other Eastern Peoples can be found in
Politische Schriften (Munchen, 1928), 174-184,355-397,437-454.
39. F. Dostoevski, The House of the Dead, The Novels of Fyodor Dostoevski,
V (NewYork, 1923), 23,26, 62-3,143,264-268.
Part 2
On Max Weber
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
Memories of Max Weber
Max Weber in Heidelberg
Whoever would have a picture of Max Weber, the scholar and the
man, must see it against the background of the Heidelberg of his
time. Its university was then not only the most liberal but also the
most international in Germany. People who would have been ex-
cluded in other places on grounds of race, nationality, politics, or
religion were acceptable in the city on the Neckar. And so they were
all there, the representatives of national minorities from Austria,
Hungary, and the Balkan countries, and, last but not least, the Rus-
sians. These latter were there in all their varieties, from Greek Or-
thodox mystics to those most leftist Narodniki who didn't want to
wait any longer, but would have had the revolution start today rather
than tomorrow.
It was the same with respect to contemporary German move-
ments: the Stefan George circle as well as Friedrich Naumann's
National-Social Association (a combination of leftist liberalism with
monarchic social reform and patriotism), and all sorts of other ide-
ologiesthey all had their representatives in Heidelberg and they
found a ready audience.
The situation was similar, although not exactly so, with respect to
the faculty. It was remarkable that faculty members could have an
Paul Honigsheim, "Erinnerungen and Max Weber," Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie, 15 (1963), pp. 161-271.
123
124 The Unknown Max Weber
appointment in more than one faculty. Jellinek, for example, was
officially an Ordinarius in public law in the law faculty, but one could
take a Ph.D. under him with a dissertation in the philosophy of law,
political theory, or the history of political ideas. One could also choose
him as an examiner for a minor in government and politics. Stu-
dents made good use of both opportunities. Troeltsch's position was
similar in that he belonged to the theology as well as to the phi-
losophy faculty. Both Jellinek and Troeltsch, therefore, exercised a
strong influence, but nevertheless it was small in comparison with
that of another man. Although only a limited number of people
were able to meet him face to face, everyone knew about him, and
when he spoke his remarks were transmitted to others by go-
betweens. For this was the voice of the "legend of Heidelberg," the
voice of Max Weber.
He had lectured in Heidelberg for only a few years. The nervous
disturbance that had set in relatively early had brought his teaching
activities to an unexpectedly early end. Following the onset of his
illness he had spent many months in seclusion, several of these in
Italy. During an extended period of convalescence, years followed
during which he was not able to teach, but he did research, he wrote,
he offered a weighty opinion on public affairs and controversies,
and above all, he gathered a circle of friends and acquaintances
around him. And who could count the people or name the names
who gathered together here. In order to understand the broad range
of Weber's interests, it is necessary to name only a few of this hetero-
geneous group: the politician Friedrich Naumann and his associate
at that time,Theodor Heuss (later president), the poet Stefan George
and several members of his circle, a whole host of philosophers and
economists, and finally natural scientists and medical men such as
the botanist Klebs, the psychiatrist Gruhle, the anatomist Braus, and
the gynecologist Eymer (who later was well known and recognized
in America as a cancer researcher). At first they came alone to visit
the Webers. But as the continuation of this custom threatened to
take too much time and energy, a Sunday afternoon open house
was instituted. But that soon led to a consequence that had not
been anticipated. The guests were numerous, and they often had
things to say that they wanted to say only to the master and not to
the company at large. So on Sundays they would make an ap-
pointment for the following week, and the result was that the We-
Memories of Max Weber 125
bers had single visitors in the house during the week, as in the be-
ginning, or, instead of having just the Sunday open houses, as later
in the middle Heidelberg period, they had both: on Sundays the
house was full of guests and on work days one or another would be
there for a private discussion. Both the Sunday teas and the private
discussions shall be reported here insofar as they express Max
Weber's attitudes.
Certainly Max Weber showed a golden sense of humor at times
and he had a deep sense of charity; surely Marianne was goodness
personified. But in spite of this, dark clouds overshadowed every-
thing. They were not caused by Max Weber's illness; he was much
too selfless to allow his suffering to show or to complain about it.
Something else oppressed him much more and had the same effect
upon his friends. Weber really loved Germany and felt ethically ob-
ligated to work for his country to the extent of risking his life for it.
But he saw it taking a course that would lead to destruction. In
Bismarck's lifetime almost everyone had jubilantly praised the uni-
fier of Germany for the completed unification. The socialist and
Catholic opposition had entirely different roots and were scorned
by the so-called patriots; the lone voices of isolated federalists such
as Constantin Frantz and Planck were ignored. But Max Weber raised
his voice in the interest of the German nation: Bismarck's solitary
rule may have fostered worthy bureaucrats but this was not always
the case. "In each little city there is a house with a sign saying 'Royal
Police Court'; and in it there is a man who, in case of doubt, is a
nincompoop." And even worse:" The government likes to make
presiding judges out of erstwhile prosecuting attorneys." Weber
didn't care for them very much, as might be gathered from such a
conversation. For their careers depended on how successful they
were in condemning the largest number of poor devils, particularly
if they could put them in prison for contempt of the crown. By the
time he had been on the throne for only two years, Wilhelm II had
managed to have not less than 1,600 people put in prison for this
reason. And the Junkers from east of the Elbe were no better. Even
the less restrained Troeltsch called them, in my presence, the "worst
hucksters." As for Weber, he commented scornfully: "They might
be all right in a card game or a hunting party, but otherwise they
don't amount to anything." In addition there was the lie by which
they maintained their power position in the army, the government,
126 The Unknown Max Weber
and the diplomatic service, as patent protectors of the Fatherland.
For the crassest economic motives, they employed Polish farm la-
borers who were cheaper than German, thereby slowly filling the
eastern areas with a Slavic population.
The person whom Weber hated most was Wilhelm II. Weber called
him "this crowned dilettante," and he jeered when Wilhelm rather
pathetically had given another "nice sermon"; it made Weber furi-
ous when Wilhelm, in spite of all the warnings on the part of his
Reichschancellor Biilow, told his jovial jokes right in front of the
stiff-necked and pedantic Czar, for the Czar didn't like that sort of
thing and Wilhelm really harmed Germany in this way. Weber had
commented on the proclamation expressing the Emperor's personal
commitment to social welfare (Soziale Kaisertums) with especially
biting scorn: "I had said at the time it would last only three years,
and it didn't even last that long. "Weber hated the "Stumm era,
which followed the "social welfare era," just as much. It is true that
Max Weber was the son of a National Liberal delegate who, follow-
ing Bennigsen, had supported the politics of Bismarck. The same
party had offered the son the Reichstag seat for Saarbriicken, that
is, in Stumm's industrial empire. Weber turned it down, however,
for a highly characteristic reason: "I had just been called to Heidel-
berg and to go away so soonI really can't do that to the people
here." He had also informed himself about the political situation
and he reported it in this way: "I went there, ate lunch in a restau-
rant, but I felt as though I were being spied upon by the other guests
thereobviously engineers and higher bureaucratic officials; they
believed that I belonged to Stumm's spy system." Having heard him
express himself in this way, one felt justified in considering the ques-
tion as to whether or not the nationalization of the mines would
remedy the situation. But he was skeptical about this because of his
aversion to state bureaucrats. His wife then reminded him that he
had been embittered when the state had abandoned its plan to so-
cialize the"Hibernia." But he replied, "That was because at that time
the government had once again knuckled under to big business."
Otherwise he remained skeptical about state socialism. I once asked
him directly, "What would you decide if there were only two alter-
nativesstate socialism or trusts?" Without hesitating for a second,
he replied, "For the latter, because when there is domination by
trusts, one can still fight against them."
Memories of Max Weber 127
This basic position was the origin of another statement. At the
time of our first conversation in June, 1909, in the garden of the
legendary cafe called the "Stiftsmuhle," he explained, "It may sur-
prise you to hear this from me, but I don't put any great weight on
our social welfare politics (Sozial Politik); what good is it if the work-
ers have a little comfort in their old age if they have to obey when
their bones are young and healthy? ''But this reservation about Ger-
man social welfare politics did not prevent him from veering from
the National Liberal Party of his father to the left, to work with
Friedrich Naumann to found the Nationalsoziale Verband. Joined in
this party were ideas of nationalist power politics with social wel-
fare politics and with cultural liberalism. With respect to the
Reichstag, it certainly received no recognizable mandate; it joined
with the freisinnige Vereinigung and became the yeast of leftist liber-
alism. All of this is too well known to need repeating here. I should
like only to report a few facts. One of Weber's first opportunities for
a public appearance after his long retirement was at a panel discus-
sion before a meeting at Heidelberg of a freisinnige group. Further-
more, he told me that he had the greatest respect for Naumann as a
human being, and he said admiringly, "This man lives completely
by his pen."
Finally, it might be mentioned that Weber also took an interest in
the internal political life of other German states. One Sunday, Heuss,
one of Naumann's closest collaborators, was a guest in the Weber
house on the Ziegelhauser Landstrasse. The elections in Wiirt-
temberg had just taken place. For the Left, in comparison with the
preceding Lantag, things had gone very badly. "It's really terrible;
how could it have happened?" asked Weber. Heuss replied, "The
incumbents governed for a long time, and after something like that
people feel the need for a change." But Weber was still displeased.
The preceding makes it understandable that Weber kept his dis-
tance from Schmoiler, the chief originator of the social welfare legis-
lation of Germany. This man, born in Wurttemberg, had made a
life-long but vain attempt to lose his Swabian accent. In this he was
likeTreitschke, who was born in Saxony. They both glorified Prussia
and the Hohenzollerns, particularly the bureaucracy. Schmoiler ar-
gued like this: formerly, in the age of absolutism, the monarch (and
especially the Prussian monarch), together with an academically
trained bureaucracy, had protected the lower strata, the urban citi-
128 The Unknown Max Weber
zenry and the peasants, against the middle stratum, the all-power-
ful feudal nobility. Now, although the relationships may appear quite
different, in fact they are the same. Thus, the monarchy, and espe-
cially the German emperor, together with a university-trained bu-
reaucracy, should defend the workers, the new lower stratum, against
the all-too-powerful high bourgeoisie, by means of the social wel-
fare laws. Schmoller had considerable success in interesting socially
prominent circles in social welfare politics, and in influencing, in
various ways, the structure of the labor laws. His influence reached
beyond the borders of Germany as far as Uruguay, which reflected
the notions of social welfare politics more than any other Latin
American country. And last but not least, through his personal con-
tacts in the Prussian ministry of education, he got his students into
influential positions in the government and the university, and in
this way became a university pope such as no other university pro-
fessor had been since the time of Hegel. Weber was highly opposed
to this kind of favoritism.
I can still hear two characteristic remarks on this situation; we
had been talking about the career of Robert Michels of whom I shall
speak in another connection. A particular question had arisen in
the debate, namely, whether it might not be better to change the
system by which one qualified for academic teaching. It might be
better for the candidate to seek permission from a central commis-
sion rather than to seek the approval of the current faculty of a par-
ticular university. A central commission could at least confer the
right of formal admission to a particular discipline. Weber's answer
to all of this was: "Then Schmoller would be even more powerful
and we would see only his students in teaching posts." Another
time he angrily made a remark when he was alone with me, and I
can therefore produce no witnesses: "Everyone talks as though I
were Schmoller's student; I certainly was not; I had other teachers,
Meitzen, for example." This is not unimportant; it will interest us
later in a discussion of Weber's attitudes toward historians, and this
may serve to lift this man from an undeserved obscurity.
In general, in the larger circle, there wasn't too much talk about
politics. An incidental remark will reveal the reason for this better
than a whole chapter of theoretical explanations. Gundolf, whom
we will discuss later when we take up Stefan George, was sitting at
a table with the host and me, and something was said about poli-
Memories of Max Weber 129
tics. The door opened and two new guests, who happened to be
students, came in and sat down with us. After an informal greeting,
Gundolf said to Weber, "You were interrupted, and were saying...,"
whereupon the master answered, "I must stop; there are students
here now, and naturally I don't have the right to talk about politics
in front of them; it might influence them." So great was his respect
for the sanctity of autonomous decision and so great his sensitivity.
The following anecdote shows further evidence of this: one time he
said to me, "My wife and I are going to Berlin for two weeks." I
understood, however, "for two months." Therefore for six weeks I
didn't go to see the Webers. But Jellinek stopped me and asked,
"Why aren't you going to the Webers? He can't understand it." And
so I went there immediately. Weber met me with the words, "You
were as good as dead." I explained that I had misunderstood. He
gave a sigh of relief and said, "Oh, so that's how it is; my wife and I
racked our brains to think what we might have done to you." And I
was just a young greenhorn then. His sense of empathy was so acute
and his fear that he might hurt someone so great.
One can imagine what the man suffered when he, obliged by his
love for Germany, climbed down into the political arena only to get
covered with the mud therehe knew this was unavoidable if one
were involved with politics. And, in addition, there was his almost
demonic feeling for justice. This had interfered right at the begin-
ning of his career. Weber was, of course, the son of a Reichstag deputy,
and because of that even powerful persons in the ministry of edu-
cation might consider it wise to advance him. Although they weren't
blatant about it, they hinted that he might get an academic ap-
pointment. And who was opposed to it? None other than Max
Weber himself; and for what reason? "Professor Zeuner deserves
it more than I." He was referring to the Berlin historian of law
who was later well known in his discipline for his work on Ger-
man constitutional history in the Middle Ages and in modern
times. Now Zeuner may have deserved this recognition one hun-
dred times over (and he certainly earned it) and one may also
say that this opportunity for Weber's advancement was some-
what less meaningful because of the call to a teaching post at
Freiburg. But in spite of this, it remains that Weber belonged to
the category of professors that one can count on the fingers of one
hand: those who are willing to step back in favor of colleagues and
130 The Unknown Max Weber
rivals. I would not have been able to believe it had not Weber told
me about it after I had urged him to do so.
There is another incident in this same context. His reservations
about socialism, mentioned above, did not prevent him from defend-
ing socialists with vigor and outrage if he felt an injustice had been
done them. Thus he always became upset when the conversation
turned to Adolf Wagner. He was certainly not as powerful as
Schmoller, but he had quite a lot of influence. He was an Ordin-
arius at Berlin and a sympathizer of Stoecker's Christian Socialism,
and at one time served as a deputy to the Reichstag for the Con-
servative Party. He had, however, lent a hand in removing the right
to teach from a Dozent at the University of Berlin, because, among
other things, the Dozent was a Socialist." And now no Socialist will
so much as take a piece of bread from his hand," said Weber, and he
gave the Socialists credit for actually behaving this way.
Weber was not less embittered that Robert Michels was refused
permission to teach for the same reason. Werner Sombart was the
cause of even more severe conflict. Sombart was the enfant terrible
of the social and economic historians, and at that time had strong
Marxist views. Weber was convinced that he himself would not be
able to teach for some time. First they offered him an unlimited
leave, and finally a full pension. He declined both for a reason analo-
gous to the reason he had given for declining the National Liberal
Party's offer of the parliamentary seat for Saarbriicken, and he told
me about it in these words: "I really cannot do that to the people at
Heidelberg. I taught there for only a few years and now they want
to give me a pension. For this reason I have resigned from my posi-
tion. 'This was a noble thing to do, but it left the chair unfilled, and
there was therefore a question of finding a successor, and this would
not happen without some fighting. Weber wanted Sombart to be
his successor, probably because he liked the work that Sombart had
published, and also because he thought it unjust that Sombart was
still just an Extraordinarius. And now there was an opportunity to
see and hear Sombart in Heidelberg. The German Historians' Con-
gress met there in 1903, and it was known that Georg von Below
would attack Sombart at the meeting. Von Below was a recognized
authority on medieval German agrarian and city history as well as
on economic origins of contemporary German states. Physically,
however, nature had been a wicked step-mother to him. He was
Memories of Max Weber 131
embittered for this and for other reasons. (During the first World
War, he had favored a politics of expansion, and for this reason he
had caused his younger colleague at Freiburg, Veit Valentinwhom
we will discuss later as the chief student of Erich Marcks'to be
expelled, not only from Freiburg but from the academic world alto-
gether. Valentin was a Bethmann-Hollweg man, that is, an oppo-
nent of vonTirpitz; this latter was the chief proponent of submarine
warfare and was thus responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania
and thereby for the entry of the United States into the ranks of
Germany's enemies.) Von Below scorned everything that was even
remotely connected with Schmoller, and he therefore scorned
Sombart and spitefully criticized his book, Moderner Kapitalismus,
which had just appeared in its first edition. (Later editions of the
book were very different.) In general, von Below's criticism was
unfavorably received. It would therefore have been easy for Sombart
to win sympathy with factual arguments. But instead of this he as-
sumed the role of a cynic. The representative of the ministry at Baden
therefore told Max Weber, "The impression Sombart has made is
terrible, and there is no possibility of considering him as your suc-
cessor."
At that time I was just a young whippersnapper, a fresh-baked
Gymnasium graduate. At our local Gymnasium in Dusseldorf,
Theodor Kuckelhaus was one of the history teachers. In spite of his
early death, he was well known for his historical works on French
absolutism, particularly on Sully, Richelieu, and Richelieu's associ-
ate, Fanean; and he deserves not to be forgotten. Kuckelhaus took
me along to this meeting of the Historical Congress. I went there
with a pounding heart, because I still believed that university pro-
fessors were demigods, and I was painfully disappointed at the style
and form of the debate between Sombart and von Below. At that
time I saw only what was obvious; many years later Weber gave me
insight into the background.
Some of the people to whom Weber gave his support gave him
little thanks for it. Sombart, the Proteus of German social scientists,
who had just as many Weltanschauungen as women (and that's
really saying something), landed in the vicinity of Hitlerism after a
lot of changes; Robert Michels died an honorary member of
Mussolini's party; the breast of this superannuated socialist was
decorated with a fancy fascist medal.
132 The Unknown Max Weber
It was otherwise with Simmel. I shall not discuss in detail why he
failed to be appointed to a chair. I have already explained this in
Landmann's book, Dank an Simmel But this much might be said:
certainly Simmers Jewishness was a negative factor in the situa-
tion, and this embittered Weber deeply.
Races and Nationalities
With regard to Weber's views on race, nationalities, and peoples,
there is a certain amount of misunderstanding that must be cleared
up. Certainly he was dedicated to the German people whom he
loved and lamented so much. But that never induced him to view
other nations as having less value. On the contrary, he loved to point
out unambiguously those attitudes of other peoples which found
an echo in his own. This was especially true of the Russians. I have
already mentioned their importance in Heidelberg at that time. Max
Weber loved these revolutionaries because of their readiness to die.
They had built a Russian library on the banks of the Neckar; it was
opened ceremonially in 1913. And whom did they get to give the offi-
cial speech of dedication? None other than Max Weber. For years he
had scarcely made a public appearance in Heidelberg. But the oppor-
tunity seemed well worth a great effort. His chance to speak didn't
come until midnight, as was typical at these Russian student affairs.
He held forth then in formal dress, with elegant gestures but in grave
earnest, before an auditorium so quiet that one could have heard a pin
drop. His remarks were so profound that the speeches of von Radbruch
and Alfred Weber, meaningful as they were, paled in comparison. This
speech revealed the whole breadth of Weber's view. He underscored
the significance to world history and the human greatness of the Rus-
sian revolutionaries, but not without adding, "Should the tension be-
tween nations increase to such a point that the Russians feel obliged
to support Serbia, then we shall meet again on the field of honor."
Afterwards he was so overstimulated that the two Webers, Lukacs,
Bloch, and I went to a coffee house for awhile. As a satiric piece
follows a Greek tragedy, this deadly earnestness was followed by
relaxation, and Weber told all kinds of jokes and wolfed down eight
little cakes in just an hour.
Besides the Russians, the Poles, of whom there were a great many
in Heidelberg then, played an important part in Weber's thinking.
Memories of Max Weber 133
For him they were not only, as noted above, cheap labor for the
Junkers and thereby a danger to the preservation of the German
character of the eastern provinces, they were also something quite
different. They were people whom Bismarck and Wilhelm, with their
"silly language policies," had tried forcefully, but naturally without
success, to deprive of their mother tongue. They were driven thereby
into the arms of the Czar, even though they were his natural enemy.
No less important to Weber was this consideration: they are people
whom we are trying to rob of their culture, and yet they fight against
it, heroically and ready for death. He loved them for this.
If not to the same extent as the Russians and Poles who were
always visible in Heidelberg, other peoples played a role in Weber's
thinking and perception. This was true, although little known, of
the French. In no way did he regard them as the arch-enemy before
the first World War; on the contrary. Certainly this South German
sociologist was not a partisan of the rights of man in the sense of
the natural law theorists from the Stoa to the French Enlightenment,
however much he took an interest in Jellinek's and my work along
those lines. But he loved the French for their support of the rights of
the persecuted, even though they had produced only two persons
whose views characteristically reflected this idea. The first was
Voltaire. Certainly Weber did not share Voltaire's views on Deism,
which had originally been quite optimistic. But Voltaire, who hated
Calvinism, had supportedin spite of this or perhaps because of
itCalas, the persecuted reformer from southern France. This re-
minds one of a similar attitude of Max Weber's. He had taken an
interest in my studies of Voltaire, even though he asked me almost
pityingly, "Do you have to read those countless articles ofVoltaire's?"
The second was Zola. Weber didn't have too much in common
with his views on naturalism, heredity, or faith in the future. But
this French anti-militarist had interceded for the army captain
Dreyfus when he was unjustly accused and sentenced, and Zola
had written J'accuse on behalf of Dreyfus. Could not this article have
been written by Weber?
Since his trip there in 1904, the United States was prominent in
Weber's field of vision. It is well known that this served as a pre-
cipitant to the investigation and discussion of ascetic Protestant-
ism. I shall say only this much: he opposed the snobbish depreca-
tion of the Americans as a materialistic people. On the contrary, he
134 The Unknown Max Weber
remarked in admiration, "In spite of opposing business interests,
the Methodists have managed to have the Exposition in St. Louis
closed down during the hours of Sunday services; what would hap-
pen if we tried that?" He also said, "The Americans don't have any
state metaphysic, a la Gierke, but what difference does that make?"
His attitude on the southern states of the Union was quite different.
He thought that they constituted a different world, and even now
this is the source of lasting complications.
From other sources he was well acquainted with the problems of
the American southern states. Georg Jellinek, one of his most in-
timate friends, was not only Weber's epistemological boon compan-
ion as well as his predecessor in the formulation of the problem of
the relation of ascetic Protestantism and the social world, he was
also, essential in this particular context, the author of the book on
the theory of international relations (Die Lehre von den Staatenver-
bindungen). It may be outdated now, but at that time it was a sensa-
tion. However that may be, Jellinek was, aside from his importance
in other fields, one of the very few Europeans who had dealt in a
scholarly way with the structure of the Confederate states, i.e., with
those secessionist southern states, Alabama, Georgia, etc., whose
break with the Union had signaled the outbreak of the American
Civil War in 1861. From his contact with Jellinek, Weber was well
prepared to study the South in the United States. It is hardly neces-
sary to say that he was extremely concerned with the Negro prob-
lem. A great difficulty was that the relatives he visited were typical
Southerners, and in the ensuing arguments neither side gave an
inch. Later, Weber talked about his impressions at that time. He
indignantly labeled a "pure lie" the assertion that there was a "Ne-
gro scent," i.e., an odor peculiar to Negroes. He told of visiting re-
vival meetings at Negro churches. He thought that the departure of
the Negroes from the Methodist Church, which at that time had a
lot of tent meetings and Pentecostal movements, to the less emo-
tional Baptist Church indicated noteworthy progress on the part of
Negroes. He underscored his conviction that some day the Negroes
would be an important cultural factor in the United States.
Just as he had visited the religious services of the Negroes, the
world of an oppressed people, he observed the activities of another
oppressed people who lay closer to his heart. In New York he went
not only to the grand opera and the theatre, as other tourists did, he
Memories of Max Weber 135
went also to the Yiddish theatre. "It is true," he said,"that it is some-
times hard to suppress a smile when at a deadly earnest spot the
Jewish word is used, so that with our different usage it sounds comi-
cal; and thus, the hero at the climax of the drama, declaims: 'How
lousy life is.' "In spite of this, he was generally deeply impressed.
This was only one among many of his expressions of pronounced
sympathy for members of the Jewish faith. I can remember two other
especially meaningful remarks. In regard to the first one, he talked
to me directly: "I am thought to be apart from the usual activities of
the university, For this reason I am occasionally asked to give an
opinion on the nomination for a chair. Instead of sending in one
list, I have sent in two and have appended a note that the first list
contains only the names of three Jews; the second list designates
three non-Jews. The man who stands in third position on the list of
Jews is superior to the man who stands in first place on the list of
non-Jews. I know very well that in spite of this they will choose one
of the non-Jews." And that's just what happened.
The other remark in this context is even more characteristic, and
in any event is more consequential. One should remember his opin-
ions of Poles and Russians as well as his relation to Jews. Keeping
this in mind, one can understand how he came to say this to me:
"If someday I am well again and can hold a seminar, I shall accept only
Russians, Poles, and Jews, no Germans. A nation which has never
chopped off the head of its monarch is not cultured. "This is the correct
wording of his statement that is sometimes incorrectly cited, "A nation
which has never deposed its monarch ... "The importance of this inci-
dent is centered on the combination "Russians, Poles, and Jews." He
had used this phrase in front of other friends because, during the fruit-
less attempt to bring Simmel to Heidelberg, the opposition had trum-
peted that Simmel was the nucleus of a group of "Russians, Poles, and
Jews/This was an unbelievable, silly lie, as Weber told me in a high fury.
This great empathy for other peoples and their ways, however,
certainly didn't make him a pacifist. This is documented by the re-
mark he made to the Russian students: "We shall meet again on the
field of honor." His often repeated call to be prepared for death and
his conviction that evil cannot be eradicated in the world, which
goes far beyond Kant's position, helps to explain this. Two intercon-
nected events are firmly imprinted on my mind. In America, money
was made available to re-publish old books dealing with interna-
136 The Unknown Max Weber
tional law, thereby to serve the cause of peace. Jellinek had been
invited to edit a book of critical essays by Pufendorf. At first he didn't
want to. Later, however, Weber said to me, "Jellinek has been talked
into doing it." When I charily asked about the significance of the
undertaking, I received the answer, "The whole thing is senseless."
Another time I mentioned to Weber that I had gone to the Heidel-
berg Peace Congress. This was organized by the Friedensbiiro. At that
time it was in Bern; later it was in Geneva. Germans who were in-
volved then were Quidde and Hans Wehberg; but one of the chief
speakers at the Heidelberg meeting was the well-known French
pacifist, Baron d'Estoumelles. But before I could even begin to tell
about it, Weber shut me off with an impatient gesture.
The reader who has thus far followed my recollection of Weber's
political remarks can imagine, even without my saying so, that our
political discussions were not always peaceful. He barely tolerated
my activity as elected representative of the revolutionary soldiers of
the Senne encampment near Paderbom, where, as a corporal, I had
served during almost all of the war as a translator for the prisoners
of war. What would he have said of my pacifist position from 1921
to 1933? But this lies outside the limits of these memoirs, which deal
only with personal relationships before the First World War. One thing,
however, must not be forgotten: he encouraged disagreement, par-
ticularly among his younger friends, and I was impressed that he
did this not only in political matters but also in scholarly areas.
Philosophy and Philosophers
The next section will be devoted to a discussion of Weber's posi-
tion with respect to science. An endless amount has been written
about his philosophy, and especially about his epistemology.
Johannes Winckelmann and I have assembled a bibliography of not
less than 600 items. This will be published in the new edition of the
volume on methodology, Gesammelte Schriften zur Wissenschaftslehre.
Raymond Aron, the greatest French authority on German sociol-
ogy, asked directly, "Is it possible for one to say anything essentially
new about Weber's value theory?" Consequently a detailed discus-
sion would be superfluous here.
Several characteristic positions must, however, be pointed out.
Kant's epistemology is the unavoidable point of departure. In order
Memories of Max Weber 137
to relieve Windelband, who was sick, Troeltsch decided to give a se-
ries of lectures on the history of modem philosophy. He spoke with
Weber about it, adding that he would not lecture on epistemology. In
my presence Weber responded, "A series of lectures on Kant is natu-
rally a series of lectures on epistemology." The man whom Weber
thought of as having a position at odds with his own was Hegel. My
own position at that time was quite panlogistic. From this orientation
I expressed myself to the Webers. This called forth a remark from
Marianne that I was a "messianic young man," and Weber gave the
opinion that I was "worse than Hegel," and "these notions are com-
pletely up in the clouds." He agreed completely with someone who
said, "Whoever uses the word 'synthesis' today, without making the
meaning explicit, deserves to be boxed on the ears."
Kuno Fischer was one of the contemporary philosophers whom
Weber knew. Fischer's ponderous tomes are forgotten now but not
his tremendous vanity nor the many anecdotes about him. To be
quite truthful, Jellinek asserted that several of these stories had been
told in the eighteenth century about Christian Wolff, who also didn't
hide his light under a bushel. Weber could tell one or another of
these stories to a newcomer who might not know them. Here is an
example: "I made my first visit to the Fischers'; he had nothing more
urgent to do than to boast about how many students he had/How
many were there exactly?' he asked his wife who was sitting there
thoughtfully. She answered admiringly and promptly, giving the
exact count right down to the last student." Other Kuno Fischer
jokes that circulated in the Weber circle are so well known that it
would be superfluous to repeat them here. In addition Fischer had
little influence on the life of Weber or members of his circle.
The situation with respect to Fischer's successor, Windelband, was
almost the reverse, and is therefore worth discussing in more detail.
A few years before, Windelband had given his rectorial address in
Strassburg.The speech had been entitled, "History and Natural Sci-
ence," which perhaps was not a happy choice. This was at a time
when the methodology of natural science was still thought to be a
cure-all, by quite a few people. The speech had therefore attracted
attention and, moreover, it can be regarded as a starting point for
much that Jellinek, Troeltsch, and Max Weber had to say about meth-
odology. In addition, Windelband was the author of a textbook on
the history of philosophy. The book had a singular structure not
138 The Unknown Max Weber
often found in a work on the history of philosophy: it was organized
in terms of the history of problems as well as in terms of the delimi-
tation of various schools. This made the book indispensable, and it
is still used today in a new edition revised by Heinz Heimsoeth.
Last but not least Windelband was also the author of a book on
contemporary philosophy. This book took up simultaneously, so to
speak, a consideration of all the areas that had any relation to wis-
dom. Thus it included, for example, mathematics, natural science,
religion, and even mysticism. As Siegfried Behn has justly pointed
out, Windelband was able to write with understanding even about
people whose notions were very different from his own.
As the reader can see, there should be many points of agreement
between Windelband and the subject of these memoirs. Actually,
however, there were more points of friction. For this great historian
of philosophy had a human side that simply got on Weber's nerves.
One cannot overestimate the role that good food played in
Windelband's life. Everyone noticed this, even his students. Some
of them, as Sigsbee, had come from as far away as America to sit at
the feet of the great thinker, and were then somewhat disenchanted.
Even Weber was driven to making witty observations. Thus, for ex-
ample, I told Windelband in 1909 that I had just returned from the
Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris where I had worked for nine months.
He interrupted me with the remark, ''Yes, I remember my work there
very well; right nearby there was a little restaurant where I could
pause in my work and have Cheshire cheese and Chablis." Both
Ray Addison Sigsbee, who until a few years ago was a professor at
City College of New York, and Erich Franck, who later became well
known in both Europe and America as a teacher and author, were
students of Windelband's at that time and were present when
Windelband made the remark noted above. They both said to me
later, "Typical of Windelband; his first thought isn't for the treasure
trove of books in the Bibliotheque Nationale, but for good eating
and drinking."Even Jellinek's widow told me that, when Windelband
met her husband, the friend of his youth, after years of separation,
he was always talking about eating.
Max Weber made an observation in the same vein. At that time
in Heidelberg they had just founded "Eranos," a small circle of re-
searchers who took a scientific interest in religion. They intended to
meet once a month at the homes of various members. There were
Memories of Max Weber 139
difficulties because in some houses the rooms were very small. "No
wonder," Weber said,"because Windelband alone needs two rooms
for himself and his atmosphere." Nevertheless there was no
unbridgeable personal difference between the two men. As barriers
which could not be overcome, however, there were politics, the uni-
versity, and the emancipation of women. Windelband was privy
councillor and member of the upper house in the state of Baden,
and unfortunately, like some professors in Wilhelm's Germany, he
was the father of an active officer. This guided his judgment of the
world of politics. I part icul arl y remember one judgment of
Windelband's. It is such a characteristic illustration of the difference
between him and Weber that it should not be forgotten. One of the
many Russian revolutionaries whom the Czar later executed, although
the man was really a moderate, was in Heidelberg just then as a former
student of Jellinek's. Weber offered the man heart-felt sympathy. I re-
peated this to Windelband and received an answer which tells some-
thing about both Windelband and Weber: "Naturally, but that's only
because the man has been sitting around in prison." And in the matter
of trying to get an appointment for Simmel, for which Weber fought
and struggled so hard, Windelband did nothing at all. When Weber
considered the possibility of allowing a woman, the social welfare poli-
tician, Maria Bemays, to be formally qualified, this was just too much
for Windelband, and Weber groaned in despair, "To talk with
Windelband about either politics or the position of womenit's
simply impossible." And laughing scornfully as he sometimes did,
he recounted an anecdote which I shall give in shortened form. Frau
Jellinek was interested in protecting waitresses from moral risk, and
she particularly would have liked a law that prohibited girls from
working at night in establishments that sold alcoholic beverages.
She therefore collected signatures for a petition to be forwarded to
the proper office. The petition was also signed by Frau Windelband,
who had done so without asking her husband's permission. But he
thought it unfitting that the name of the wife of a full professor
should appear on a piece of paper that had to do with the existence
of waitresses, and he demanded that she retract her signature. Rue-
fully, "little mamma"as she was called by us younger students,
and even by Weberwent to Frau Jellinek. Smiling, Frau Jellinek
handed a pencil to Windelband's wife, who scratched off her name
and peacefully returned to her forgiving spouse.
140 The Unknown Max Weber
In addition to the army officer mentioned above, Windelband
had another son, a historian, and this only increased the tension.
Weber simply couldn't stand him and his face turned purple with
rage (such as I had otherwise never seen) when he came to speak of
the historian and said, "He messes constantly in the affairs of the
university; he is a completely shameless lout who ought to be con-
stantly boxed on both ears." The object of this criticism was prone
to make very outspoken remarks. As they often did, his parents had
invited some young guests to dinner. Among these were Erich
Franckwho was also welcome at the Weber'sand Sigsbee, as
well as Hans Ehrenberg of whom we shall speak in another con-
text, and I. On this occasion, the son made some cutting remarks
about the attitudes of Alfred and Max Weber with regard to politics
and the university, but he added, "At least Max Weber has proved
his ability, but Alfred!" He said this latter about an economist who
had already done considerable publishing on the theory of con-
sumption but particularly on the theory of the location of industry
and who later became one of the most discussed theorists of history
in America. But in these memoirs we are dealing with Max Weber,
not with Alfred, and so we shall return to him.
After these rather lengthy observations on the relationship with
Windelband, we can be more brief with respect to Rickert, particularly
since details of the relationship are widely known. This much must
be added: in his unbounded selflessness and modesty, Max Weber
underestimated his own independence from Rickert, and this has
obscured the picture of the actual relationship of the two men. The
form of the relationship between the two epistemologists was clari-
fied first by Johannes Winckelmann's work on legitimacy and legal-
ity in Weber's sociology of authority (Legitimitdt und Legalitat in Max
Webers Herrschaftssoziologie), which appeared in 1952, and Dieter
Henrich's book (which appeared quite independently of
Winckelmann's) on the integration of Weber's scientific methodol-
ogy (Die Einheit der Wissenschaftslehre Max Webers). Through these
two publications another error was simultaneously removed and a
man whose importance in this context had been overlooked, was
brought into proper focus. People have justifiably wondered about
the sources of Weber's scientific methodology, and one finds that
one of these was Georg Jellinek. The importance of the latter as a
forerunner of the Calvinism-capitalism thesis (as it is usually called
Memories of Max Weber 141
in this shortened but incorrect form) is undeniable. On the other
hand, if one is looking for the genesis of Weber's epistemology, then
Jellinek is the wrong man. For Jellinek's conception of an ideal type
is quite different from that of Weber. Because of this fact the impor-
tance of Sigwart has been obscured, if not forgotten altogether.
Johannes Winckelmann has clarified Sigwart's impact, as did his
friend, Jellinek. My own memories confirm the truth of Jellinek's
assertions, for I was the silent witness of a conversation in which
Weber spoke with great respect of Sigwart and his logic. Weber was
speaking to Emil Lask and the conversation concerned special prob-
lems of logic. In terms of personal relations, Lask was probably closer
to Weber than was any other contemporary philosopher. At most
Weber was occasionally annoyed about "this damned Jewish de-
cencyalways in a state of anxiety lest someone's feelings be hurt."
Otherwise he protected and loved this man in his touching help-
lessness. Lask had the sharpest logical mind of the whole circle, but
he was so abstract that it was sometimes hard for him to make con-
tact with the reality of life.
Lask was bom an Austrian Jew. His fatherland at that time was
very anti-Semitic. Jellinek felt this too. In Vienna, after quite a strug-
gle, Lueger had become mayor. He was the leader of a party which
was a peculiar combination of Catholicism, petit bourgeois
philistinism, and anti-Semitism. The dying land of the Hapsburgs
offered only neglect to this touchingly helpless man. Nevertheless,
he felt obliged, in conformity with the spirit of Max Weber, to go to
the front in 1914 as a volunteer. He was soon killed in the Car-
pathian Mountains. Weber was able to see a purpose in this death
on the battlefield. Driesch and I felt quite differently about it. I feel
a certain satisfaction that I could offer this lonely man a few hours
if only in a coffee housein which he could come out of his shell.
Inwardly, Lask ached to be less alone.
It might also be mentioned that Weber had great appreciation for
Riehl. He once said this to me: "If Kant were to return today, he
would find only Riehl's kind of philosophizing adequate,"Naturally
this doesn't mean that as an epistemologist Weber identified with
Riehl but that Riehl's unambiguous delimitation of the content of
philosophy corresponded to Weber's unyielding demand for intel-
lectual integrity. Where he perceived a lack of integrity he could be
quite harsh, as with Hans Driesch.
142 The Unknown Max Weber
Even before the first World War, Driesch had attracted attention
through his neo-vitalistic writings and his lectures at Heidelberg.
Shortly after the Revolution, when Troeltsch was in Berlin as under-
secretary of state, he told me that he didn't care for Driesch's paci-
fism or for his position on politics and the history of philosophy.
Nevertheless Troeltsch admired Driesch not only as a natural phi-
losopher but as a logician. Troeltsch gave Driesch a recommenda-
tion when the latter tried successfully to be appointed to a chair at
Cologne. But Max Weber and Driesch just couldn't get together; an
ocean of difference lay between them. Driesch operated extensively
with the concept of entelechy, that is, he stressed the function of
the organism in contrast to an emphasis on the mechanical, as many
Darwinists had done. Proceeding from such premises, Driesch be-
came an opponent of sociological Darwinism and as such he op-
posed power, force, and war.
I still have a clear memory of a discussion in his house on a hot
summer afternoon. We were talking about Meinecke's book on in-
ternational citizenship and national state (Weltburgertum und Na-
tional-Staat). This book was characteristically dedicated to Bismark's
biographer, Erich Marcks, whose work was definitely in the tradi-
tion of Treitschke. Meinecke's book is concerned with Romantic-
conservative groups. Meinecke tried to show how a pronounced
feeling of nationalism originally developed from the Romantic-con-
servative mentality and how this feeling finally culminated in a spe-
cific attitude of friendliness to Prussia. However, the basic idea which
runs through the book like a red thread is this: the transformation
of international citizenship to nationalism is a good thing. Except
for myself, Driesch was the only one there who put his finger on
this point, and he said directly to me, "Meinecke asserts that this
transformation from internationalism to nationalism indicates
progress; but isn't the truth of the matter just the opposite?" I cer-
tainly felt this way too; in addition, Driesch was basically inclined
toward optimism and he would have liked the world to be unified
in one metaphysical system, which, according to Weber's episte-
mology, simply couldn't be done. One can imagine that this sort of
thing would be like waving a muleta in front of Max Weber, who
stressed the tragic aspects of life and the unavoidable emphasis on
power." That this man is teaching philosophy here is really a scan-
dal. "But I am proud of having been one of Driesch's lifelong friends,
Memories of Max Weber 143
and I have incorporated some of his ideas into my own view of
reality.
Much later, about 1931, Marianne and I met and spoke of Driesch.
This was in Leverkusen, not far from Cologne. She was there as a
guest of a family we both knew. She had been in Cologne to give a
lecture on her husband, as part of a series that Leopold von Wiese
and Fritz Karl Mann had organized under the title, "Founders of
Sociology/' Without my prodding, she remarked rather sadly, "Hans
Driesch was a man with whom my husband just had nothing in
common."
On this occasion I heard again of Weber's position with regard to
another man and another group, the neo-Romantics. "He hated
Romantics," Sombart told me one time right after the first World
War. Now Sombart would have asserted all sorts of things if only
the day were long enough, but in this instance he was accurate. He
had worked a lot with Weber, particularly in the editing of the Ar-
chiv fur Sozialwissenschaft. His remark occurred in the course of a
conversation about Scheler, and it had to do directly with him. The
truth of the remark was confirmed by other evidence. Right after
the end of the first World War, Marianne had given another lecture
in Cologne. Afterwards I went with her to the home of the ge-
ographer Franz Torbecke and his wife, both of whom Marianne had
known in Heidelberg, and I told Marianne, among other things,
that I had become Scheler's assistant. I obtained the position through
the mediation of Troeltsch. Because I was supporting my parents
after the inflation, it was necessary for me to provide a financial
base for my application for admission to a faculty. The assistantship
with Scheler didn't last very long, and, as a result of a good word
from von Wiese, I became director of the municipal university for
adult education in Cologne. Be that as it may, Frau Weber was not
pleased when she heard of my relationship with Scheler. More sig-
nificant is the remark she made in 1931 after the lecture mentioned
above. This was truly in the spirit of her husband: "Scheler is the
impure vessel of a noble spirit." Under these circumstances it is
indeed necessary to take a closer look at the man to whom these
sharp words words refer; at the same time it will further illuminate
Weber's attitudes.
In 1955, Leopold von Wiese and I met in Cologne after a sep-
aration of twenty-two years. He accompanied me from his home to
144 The Unknown Max Weber
the tram. In the course of reminiscing, we came to speak of Scheler,
and we both had to agree that he was the most fantastic figure we
had ever met in our lives. Countless legends circulated about this
man. From time to time, more than one famous German had been
cited as Scheler's natural father. Actually he was the son of a Ba-
varian. This man fell in love with the daughter of a rabbi, but he
could marry her only by converting to Judaism. This sort of thing
didn't often happen, and at that time it required a lot of courage, for
anyone who did anything like that was either scorned or ridiculed.
Von Wiese and I agreed that this sort of act was to be applauded.
The product of this marriage was Max Scheler. Formally Scheler
had been a student of Euckens', but he hadn't been particularly influ-
enced by him. Then he embraced Husserl's phenomenology and Ca-
tholicism. Officially he became a Catholic. There were legends about
this, too. Troeltsch told me that Martin Buber had mentioned this to
him. Scheler then tried to combine phenomenology and Catholi-
cism in such a way that the latter would no longer have a founda-
tion based on Scholasticism. The result would be phenomenologi-
cal in Husserl's sense. However, Husserl drew an unambiguous line
of demarcation between himself and Scheler. Scheler explained that
he stood in an intellectual line of descent from the church father
Augustine. This isn't saying much, because who hasn't invoked Au-
gustine, from the extreme Calvinists with their belief in the
praedestinatio ante previsa merita, the doctrine which prevailed at
the Synod of Dordrecht in the Netherlands in 1619, to the other
extreme, the philosophy of the Jesuit Molina with its maximum of
emphasis on the liberum arbitrium. This philosophy was accepted
not only in the Society of Jesus but also in the Catholic Church,
although there were some hard battles over it. Between these two
extremes there are all sorts of formulations: systems of members of
the Dominican and Augustinian orders, and of course the Jansenists
with their theory that grace was essentiala doctrine that shook
Catholicism for 150 years after the Council of Trent.
Now Scheler, who was interested in my studies of Jansenism for
this reason, claimed to be in the Augustinian tradition. This claim
was also made by other Catholics at that time, Johannes Hessen at
Cologne, for example, but in general there was no mixture of ele-
ments taken from Husserl. In addition, a group of Catholic academi-
cians had formed a club. Among the younger members there were
Memories of Max Weber 145
quite a few with a non-Scholastic orientation. They were barely tol-
erated by Rome and felt that they were in constant danger of being
censored, for example, by having their works placed on the Index.
That had indeed been the fate of some German Catholics in the
nineteenth century; like Wessenberg, Werkmeister, and others, they
were the intellectual descendants of the eighteenth-century Enlight-
enment. But a similar thing had happened to other Catholics. This
group included people like Hermes and his numerous students,
Hirscher, Baltzer, Frohschammer, Lassaulx, and others; however they
might differ from each other, all of them had been influenced either
by Kantian or post-Kantian philosophy. The members of the aca-
demic club mentioned above and many outside the club who shared
the same ideas were naturally anxious to escape such a fate.To them
Scheler appeared as just their man. A young Catholic priest of this
persuasion once told me that Scheler really had a reputation for
being able to conceptualize the Catholic faith in modern terms.
But the relationship didn't last long. A few years later Scheler
told me that he was a kind of pantheist, and he asked me directly,
"Can you understand what these Catholics want of me? I have never
been a believing Catholic. '"This restless man was always poised to
take flight from himself and his own sensuality, and sought an au-
thority that would give him a sheltering roof; for a time he believed
he would find this in Catholicism. The power of his autosuggestion
was so great that he talked himself into believing he was a Catholic,
just as later on he thought he had never been one.
The Weber circle, however, was never much influenced by Scheler.
Among other reasons, this was because Sender's sensational con-
version to Catholicism had taken place during and after the First
World War. The influence of Husserl, Sender's temporary mentor,
was incomparably greater. There were three reasons for this. Hus-
serl wrote for Logos, which was the journal for philosophy at Heidel-
berg. Rickert, Weber, and Troeltsch supported it and published there.
The second reason was that in 1912 and 1913 Husserl's name oc-
curred, if vaguely, in connection with the question of a successor to
Windelband; at that time Husserl was only a personlicher Ordinarius
at Gottingen. The third reason was that at that time Helmuth
Plessner began to exert an influence in Heidelberg. He came from
the discipline of biology but he belonged to the Weber circle, and
even as a student he was thought to be a literary type. He wrote me
146 The Unknown Max Weber
later during the first World War to say that he rejected the rather
phenomenological position he had taken as a young man. In any
case, at that time he was familiar with Husserl's and Scheler's phe-
nomenology as few of the young men were, and he kept bringing
the conversation around to this subject. Later on, he became well
known, particularly as a philosopher of culture both through his
positions in Cologne. The Netherlands, Gottingen, and the United
States, and, for a time, as the president of the German Sociological
Society. Although his views were quite independent, he did show
some leanings toward Scheler.
At the same time Friedrich Alfred Schmidt and Nikolai von Bub-
noff worked as Privatdozenten. Schmidt had indisputable fame, be-
cause he, his wife, and the psychiatrist Gruhle participated in the
first play that was given in the Weber house on a Sunday afternoon.
Bubnoff, as his name indicates, was of Russian parentage on his
father's side; on his mother's side his ancestors were German Prot-
estants. He was known for his lectures on the history of mysticism
in which he even advanced to a typology of mysticism; he was also
known for his publications on Russian religious philosophers, par-
ticularly Dostoevsky. We shall discuss him later in this context.
At least for a time, the greatest influence on the Webers and their
circle was the result of two incidents which had to do with the dis-
cipline of philosophy. Several of the younger academicians in Heidel-
berg, along with friends from Freiburg and Strassburg, had joined
together for monthly meetings in Baden-Baden in order to have
lectures and discussions on cultural science. Several of the more
vociferous participants held an outspoken, anti-liberal position, and
had just about arrived at a "new synthesis"; in fact, they were quite
Hegelian. The most pronounced Hegelian was Julius Ebbinghaus,
but he was not then in Heidelberg. He was the son of the strongly
empirical philosopher and psychologist and, because of this, Driesch,
using Hegelian terminology, called him "the idea of the father in its
other being." Ebbinghaus later became strongly Kantian. However,
two solid Hegelians of those days, Hans Ehrenberg and his cousin
Franz Rosenzweig, did live in Heidelberg. Both were of Jewish de-
scent but felt themselves quite outside the Jewish culture. Both dem-
onstrated this later, Ehrenberg by turning to an orthodox Protestant
religiosity, and Rosenzweig through his book on Hegel and the state
(Hegel und der Staat,), which caused much discussion. Friedrich
Memories of Max Weber 147
Meinecke, whom we have already mentioned as the author of a
book on international citizenship and nationalism, was one of the
most open-minded German historians. He was so impressed with
Rosenzweig's book that he offered him a habilitation as Privatdozent
at Freiburg. Rosenzweig, however, turned it down.
How strongly both Ehrenberg and Rosenzweig identified with
Germany is demonstrated by their behavior in the first World War.
Ehrenberg was, as a relative of his wrote me, "militaristically in-
clined"; Rosenzweig was called up as a member of the ambulance
corps, but letters his family wrote me indicated that he felt obliged
to seek active duty. As a consequence he became a cripple, and it
was in this condition that he wrote his book, The Star of Salvation
(Der Stern der Erlosung), which documented his return to Judaism.
Along with the writings of his friend, Martin Buber, this book is
probably among the most impressive works which owe their origin
to a pronounced Jewish feeling.
Because of the obviously Hegelian leanings of some of the mem-
bers, the Baden-Baden group was labeled "the Hegel club" by the
envious. Now there were in Heidelberg at that time some persons
who were very concerned with professorial etiquette. They were in-
dignant and complained that the entire philosophy faculty should
have been invited to the opening meeting. Weber didn't feel this
way at all. In spite of, or more likely, because of, his dislike for Hegel
and Hegel clubs, he felt obliged to uphold the rights of others to
affirm Hegel and propagate his ideas. I can still remember this genu-
inely Weberian position because he spoke to me about it himself.
This sort of squabble became less important, at least for a time,
because of the stir caused by the appearance of two "figures from
opposite poles," as Marianne called them in her biography of her
husband. These were Georg von Lukacs and his friend Ernst Bloch.
Lukacs was then very much opposed to the bourgeoisie, liberal-
ism, the constitutional state, parliamentarianism, revisionistic so-
cialism, the Enlightenment, relativism, and individualism. Later, with
great personal sacrifice, he became a member of the Soviet govern-
ment of Hungary after the breakdown of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire.
He was therefore a committed communist, but later he would
incur the displeasure of Moscow. As a communist he dealt with
existentialism from a Marxist standpoint, and his writings on the
148 The Unknown Max Weber
subject are among the most important non-Catholic critiques that
have been produced in opposition to this new philosophical sys-
tem.
Five of his remarks made in our Heidelberg days particularly im-
pressed me. They are characteristic of the man who, as we shall see,
really played a role in Weber's thinking. Thus it is necessary to speak
of him here. Once, when we were taking a walk together, he told
me, "All this individualism is just humbug; Stefan George is allowed
to be a personality, but a policeman and coachman are not." An-
other time I spoke of the old agricultural chemist Adolf Mayer. I
came to know him by chance when I was in classical school, and in
the splendor of puberty I was very proud to talk to a real professor
just as I did to my friends. In a warm and informal fashion he
had often invited me, a mere student, to his house. I should only
have felt grateful for this, and in fact I did. In spite of that I could
not resist the temptation to show myself as the malicious knave
I sometimes was (and perhaps still am). And so I made him the
object of a nasty joke. In order to understand it, one must know
that Adolf Mayer, who later lived to be almost one hundred, not
only was an authority in his field, especially in the chemistry of
fermentation, but also had, in his old age, published poems and
philosophical and political pamphlets. I remarked that "super-
annuated natural scientists who can't work in their laboratories
any more can suffer from three ailments: they write poetry, phi-
losophize, or go in for politics. Adolf Mayer suffers from all three
ailments." Lukacs, who was standing nearby, interrupted me and
said, "That doesn't make any difference so long as he is unenlight-
ened."
Lukacs' judgment concerning the following situation was along
the same lines. We went quite often to the opera in Mannheim. The
opera had engaged some excellent singers who had not only good
voices but fine musical taste as well, for example, Baling, Felmy,
Fenten, and Kromer, among others. The company was held together
by the conductor Bodanzky, who had introduced the works of Mahler
and Schonberg. He was often called "General Mightiness"
(G eneralgewaltigen), a name that characterized the nature of his re-
lations with the people who worked for him. I complained about
this to Lukacs, but he replied, "On the contrary, that's very good; a
parliamentary theatre is simply nonsense."
Memories of Max Weber 149
Another time I went with Lukacs to a meeting of the Social Dem-
ocratic Party. Now the Social Democrats in the model little state of
Baden were not inclined to be very revolutionary, and their speaker
that night was even less so. This was Ludwig Franck, the revisionist
deputy to the Reichstag who had worked hard for the sanctioning
of the war credits in 1914, but then volunteered for the front and
was soon killed. On this evening he sharply attacked some govern-
mental agencies because they had acted "in complete opposition to
the constitution." He referred to this a number of times that evening.
As we left the meeting hall, Lukacs shook his head excitedly and
said in a rage," A socialist who wants to defend the constitution!"
Perhaps the fifth of the remarks he made to me is even more
significant and sheds even more light on his position with respect
to Max Weber. In order to understand it, it is necessary to take a
backward look at the political situation at that time. The daughter
of Wilhelm II had just married the crown prince of the Guelph House
of Hanover. As a consequence the prince was made Duke of
Brunswick, and he renounced his Hanoverian claim. A "Guelph
Party" had been fighting for the re-establishment of the Kingdom
of Hanover. Its demand was in the larger framework of a postulate
supporting a more federalistic structure of the entire Reich. This ex-
plains why their deputies to the Reichstag, although they were
Lutherans, were affiliated with the Centrist Party, whose members
for the most part were Catholic. Because the crown prince of
Hanover had of his own free will renounced his claim to the throne,
the realization of the Guelph program was at calendas gmecas, that
is, it was put off to a far distant and improbable future, and the party
had lost its reason for existence. The party's faction in the Reichstag
soon dissolved. The members really didn't have much in common
except for their program of restoring the crown of Hanover and their
emphasis on the necessity of a more federalist structure for the Reich;
although a number of them were really quite feudalistic in their
views, another one, the deputy Alpers, became a member of the
leftist-liberal freisinnige Partei. At the time all this was going on, 1
was for a change quite annoyed with Max Weber and thought him
pedantic and dogmatic in his addiction to his principles. At the
time I was given to a certain cynicism and some unpleasant persons
assert that I still have not lost this tendency. We shall not investi-
gate the extent to which this is true. In any case, I told Lukacs, "The
150 The Unknown Max Weber
people fighting for the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Hanover
are really fighting for a lost cause; therefore it should be Max Weber's
task, in spite of this or even better, because of it, to support them."
But Lukacs replied sharply at once, "You are underestimating Max
Weber!" He was quite right about this, but he was wrong when he
went on to say that "Max Weber was the man who could get social-
ism out of the miserable relativism brought about by the work of
Franck and his consorts." He referred to the same Ludwig Franck
whom we mentioned above.
Lukacs was really quite mistaken when he made the above re-
mark. For after the collapse of 1918, Social Democratic party poli-
tics involved an extension of the notions of Ludwig Franck. After
thinking about it, Max Weber remarked that these notions were
"similar enough to appear interchangeable" with his own. The last
remark by Lukacs, mentioned above, shows not only his most in-
ward feelings but also the deep impression that Max Weber had
made upon him. The feeling was mutual. The two men had dis-
cussed many things, particularly esthetic problems. Lukacs had origi-
nally begun with this interest, and indeed since the Second World
War he has taught esthetics at the University of Budapest. His book
on soul and forms (Die Seek und die Formen) appeared shortly be-
fore he came to Heidelberg and met Max Weber. This was one of
the first places in which Kierkegaard, who was almost completely
forgotten, experienced a resurrection. Kierkegaard was a Danish
Lutheran who had written in the 1840s. For several decades he was
known only to small orthodox Protestant groups. It was only after
the First World War that he became popular, both as a presumptive
precursor of Spengler (this is true only if one keeps certain reserva-
tions in mind), and as an originator of existentialism. Lukacs was
one of the very few who brought the notions of Kierkegaard back
into view before the war.
In addition to the theoretical discussions on art, Lukacs and We-
ber debated Marxist and epistemological questions. With regard to
the reverse direction of the relationship, that is, Max Weber's posi-
tion on Lukacs, one should not forget one thing: Weber's ability to
empathize with, and to interpret, the meaning of human action was,
in a manner of speaking, unlimited; he was therefore able to under-
stand Lukacs' position or, more exactly, his turning from modem
occidental individualism to a notion of collectivism. Weber explained
Memories of Max Weber 151
it to me this way: "One thing became evident to Lukacs when he
looked at the paintings of Cimabue (who painted at the beginning
of the Italian Renaissance, but who had a closer relation to the Middle
Ages than to the Renaissance), and this was that culture can exist
only in conjunction with collectivist values." In spite of this glaring
antagonism to everything that was sacred to him, Weber immediately
added, "Whenever I have spoken to Lukacs, I have to think about it
for days."In contrast he added these words: "When, on the other
hand, I see Bloch again, I must begin by working myself back into
our last conversation; this man is full of his God, and I am a scien-
tist."
With regard to Ernst Bloch it is necessary to say that he is not the
modern composer who shares that name and who is famous in
America. A misunderstanding is possible because the Ernst Bloch
of whom we speak here occasionally made notable remarks on mu-
sical matters. Lukacs introduced him to the Weber circle. Bloch's
Weltanschauung at that time was a combination of Catholic, gnostic,
apocolyptic, and collectivist economic elements. He demonstrated
all of this in part in his book on the spirit of Utopia (Geist der Utopie).
which appeared during the first World War. Afterwards Max Scheler
called him a "Luciferian hero." As all of the Weber quotations above
might indicate, Bloch did not evoke in Weber the same echo as did
Lukacs. I tried to put in a good word for Bloch in that what he said
was really something new and independent, and he therefore de-
served respect, according to Weber's principles, on the merits of
autonomy. Weber simply emphasizedthereby being true to his
own ideasthe obligations of "intellectual integrity." Weber then
said to me, "Very well, but the man who wants to be called a phi-
losopher is obliged, if you please, to construct an epistemology as a
basis for his assertions; then we shall see if he is a philosopher or
not."
On another occasion Weber became quite angry about the way
that Bloch simply ignored facts which Weber considered empiri-
cally verifiable and which in his opinion constituted objections to
Bloch's assertions. They had been speaking about theories of music,
as they often did. Bloch made all sorts of assertions which "tran-
scended into the metaphysical." Weber reminded him of some em-
pirical facts concerning the music of Asiatic peoples, but this didn't
impress Bloch at all. Several days later when I was alone with him,
152 The Unknown Max Weber
Weber spoke about it. In this case I couldn't even attempt to justify
Bloch. Weber knew my argumentative tendencies only too well and
obviously feared that I would try something like this. He therefore
let me say scarcely a word and said with great feeling, "You heard it
yourself, you were there. Yes indeed, I remember it exactly; the man
cannot be taken seriously in scientific matters." Actually it wasn't
so much the content of Bloch's system as the prophetic manner of
its presentation that irritated Weber so much. Weber liked good man-
ners (which he also found lacking in the Catholic "chaplainocracy,"
a word he coined himself). And not only Weber but several of his
friends as well saw the good fellowship of the Sunday afternoons
endangered by Bloch. In fact, several people actually stopped com-
ing because of Bloch. Friedrich Naumann who was very close to
Weber politically was, on one of his rare Sunday afternoon visits,
painfully disturbed by Bloch's behavior. Weber's student, the previ-
ously mentioned Maria Bemays, once told me that Weber had re-
marked to her, "I would like to send a porter to his house to pack
his trunks and take them to the railroad station, so that Bloch would
go away."
With respect to all of these quotations the accent was always on
the statement, "I am a scientist." However much he dedicated him-
self to epistemological investigations, he did this, in the last analy-
sis, because he felt obliged to do so for the sake of intellectual in-
tegrity. This was an important means to the end of attaining
knowledge in the sphere of the special sciences. We shall now show
Weber's position with regard to the various disciplines and their
representatives as expressed in a number of conversations.
Disciplines and Schools
Weber agreed with Windelband that psychology was one of the
special sciences. At that time the subject of psychology was a mat-
ter of some dispute. Weber had nothing against psychology, quite
the contrary. He thought, for example, that an industrial psychol-
ogy was both valid and possible. This is sufficiently demonstrated
by his essays on the methodology of an occupational survey and on
industrial psychology (Methodologische Einleitung fur die Erhebung
.. .and Zur Psychophysik der industriellen Arbeit). The existence of this
basic position is also demonstrated by a number of his remarks. He
Memories of Max Weber 153
once went so far as to say to me, "I am quite in sympathy with a
psychological conception of philosophy such as that of Cornelius.'"
To brand Max Weber as one of the principal opponents of psychol-
ogy, as is sometimes done, is just as mistaken as to brand him as the
opponent of statistics. Moreover, psychiatry was represented in
Weber's circle by Busch, Jellinek's son-in-law, who was killed when
he was still young, early in the war, as well as by Gruhle and Jas-
pers. The latter went from psychiatry by way of the intermediate
stage of psychology over to philosophy, and he has reported the
influence Weber had on him. Jaspers'particular philosophical sys-
tem was not made explicit in those conversations before the war, at
least not when I was there (and these memoirs are concerned only
with events that took place in my presence). The situation was the
same with respect to psychoanalysis. At that time, it was in an ear-
lier stage before its fundamental basis had been re-formed by Erich
Fromm.The term "psychoanalysis" was sometimes used, by Busch,
for example, but a detailed discussion of the basic principles never
took place in my presence.
Now, although he accepted psychology as a valid discipline, We-
ber was very annoyed, as was his friend Troeltsch, by a current cus-
tom of the Prussian Ministry of Educational and Religious Affairs. If
a university had two chairs of philosophy, one was sometimes filled
by aThomist as a result of pressure from the Catholic Center Rarty,
and the other by an experimental psychologist. This situation was
the cause of two jokes, which Max Weber did not invent, but which
he repeated and which were circulated in the Weber circle.The point
of the first is understandable only in connection with an Eastern
Jewish anecdote which, in shortened form, goes like this: one of
two Russian Jews gives a ten gulden bill to a Jewish woman who
wants to have her child baptized. She is supposed to give the bill to
the Greek Orthodox priest, who demands one gulden for the bap-
tism, and she is supposed to return the change. She thus returns
nine gulden to the first Jew. The other Jew is enraged and asks his
co-religionist how he can give money for the purpose of conversion
to another faith. The first answers him in Yiddish with the verbal
inversion that sounds so odd to us:" Am I pleased to see happy
faces all around me; is the woman happy, because her child is bap-
tized; is the priest happy because he has received his money; and
am I happy because my ten gulden bill was counterfeit."
154 The Unknown Max Weber
Now the Erlangen professor of philosophy, Paul Hensel, although
superannuated, was still living at that time. He had become known
through his book on evolution (Kritik des Evolutionismus) among
other things, and he was a bit of an enfant terrible in regard to South
German neo-Kantianism. His peculiarity can be demonstrated thus:
he was the descendant of a famous Jewish family, the Mendelssohns.
This family gave the world more than one extraordinary personal-
ity: Moses Mendelssohn, Lessing's friend and the prototype of
Nathan (in Lessing's play, Nathan der Weise), as well as the com-
poser. But that didn't stop Hensel from blabbing Jewish jokes, or
even inserting them in his written works, at suitable, but particu-
larly at unsuitable, occasions. He once published a widely read ar-
ticle in the Frankfurter Zeitung concerning the fact that experimen-
tal psychologists were filling chairs of philosophy. He said that one
of the chief reasons the government wanted to do this was that
philosophy and experimental psychology had nothing in common
and therefore there would be no friction, and "one sees happy faces
all around." All the initiates knew to which Jewish joke this re-
ferred, and Max Weber told those who didn't, although not without a
bitter smile. The undeniable fact hurt him deeply and caused him to be
very troubled about the future of philosophy in German universities.
He was also displeased when Kulpe, who combined philosophy and
experimental psychology, was called to the chair of philosophy at
Bonn, but he never enlarged on his reasons for feeling this way.
A more biting wit than the above was introduced by the previ-
ously mentioned Emil Lask, who said, "The filling of philosophy
chairs with experimental psychologists is best characterized by the
[somewhat shortened] title of Kant's work, "The Attempt ... to
Introduce Negative Entities into World Knowledge.'" Max Weber
gave this one his unconditional approval.
Finally it might be noted that Windelband was also embittered at
the way the experimental psychologists pushed themselves to the
fore. This was made obvious by his behavior toward the experimen-
tal psychologist Ebbinghaus (the father of the previously mentioned
Julius Ebbinghaus, the erstwhile neo-Hegelian) at the International
Congress of Philosophy in Heidelberg. In a discussion, Ebbinghaus
spoke longer than the rules allowed. Finally Windelband, who was
presiding at that session, felt obliged to cut him off. He did it with
the words, "I regret that I must deprive our colleague Ebbinghaus
Memories of Max Weber 155
of the right to speak, all the more as I have not been able to discover
a connection between his remarks and the object of our discussion."
I was there at the time; Max Weber repeated the story later and
added,"It must have gone pretty far if Windelband was so annoyed
that he felt obliged to use such words."
One discipline that Weber regarded with some skepticism, or at
least the way it was conducted at that time, was geography. I had
looked into it rather closely myself, just before I came to Heidel-
berg. Originally my major was history, but I had to consider the
possibility of taking a state examination in order to be certified as
an Oberlehrer (as a secondary school teacher was called at that time
later he was called a Studienmt). Geography appeared to be an ob-
vious minor. In addition, at the beginning of my student days, I had
a strong inclination to explain historical matters as much as pos-
sible in a natural-scientific sort of way, and geography appeared to
me to be one of the ways to do this. The older anthropo-geographi-
cal orientation of Peschel and his kind, represented last by Ratzel,
was declining. Correspondingly, a natural scientific trend toward
basing geography on geology became dominant. Richthofen, the
cousin of the secretary of state, almost completely dominated the
field from Berlin, and he put his students, such as von Drygalski,
Passarge, and others, into influential positions. Thus von Drygalski,
who had gone to the South Pole, was at Munich; Passarge, who had
been in the Kalahari Desert, was in Breslau; and Philippsohn, who
had done research on the islands in the Eastern Mediterranean, was
in Bonn. I had attended a seminar under Philippsohn at Bonn, and
because of his recommendation I was accepted in Berlin by
Richthofen in his very famous and much sought-after geography
colloquium. In Heidelberg I had discontinued such studies, mostly
because of the heavy demands of Jellinek and his seminar. Yet I re-
mained sufficiently familiar with the material that I could discuss it
if the occasion arose. Weber, however, remained very skeptical about
the subject. "These people make a Weltanschauung out of their
particular discipline." When I told him about my former teacher,
Philippsohn, he commented: "He's probably the worst." He spoke
rather sarcastically of a geographer who had once written that his-
tory asks when something happened, geography asks where some-
thing happened, and economics how something happened. Natu-
rally Weber wanted nothing to do with such a man.
156 The Unknown Max Weber
With regard to Weber's position on history, as expressed in con-
versations, the reader must remember two facts that we have al-
ready mentioned before we take up the subject. Weber had begun
his career as a historian of law, commerce, and agriculture; this is to
say that, as a historian, he worked in a rather daring combination of
areas. His wife told me a number of times that for years he had
devoted a great part of his energy to empirical historical research. It
may appear presumptuous to bring the great and the small into
intimate relation, and to speak of Weber's basic attitudes and my
own in the same breath. Nevertheless, I shall do so. I can say, with-
out exaggeration, that my interest in historical science began when
I was about twelve years old. My grandfather, whose major was
ancient history, introduced me to this field and thought that I was
old enough to read the Greek tragedies in German translation. But
for the last twenty-five years I have lived and taught in the United
States. This is the country which, in contrast to Latin America, shows
the most extreme lack of ability to see things in historical perspec-
tive that the world has ever seen. And just because of this, I have
become even more firmly convinced, to the extent that it is possible,
that history is and remains the essential foundation of social scien-
tific knowledge.
The reader will therefore not be surprised to learn that Weber
and I talked a great deal about history, and the present discussion of
history will consequently be extensive. The term "history" is used
here in its most broad and general sense and will not be limited to
political aspects. Indeed it was history that brought us together.
Jellinek introduced me to Weber at the previously mentioned Stifts-
miihle. I said openly that I had never read a line of his and knew
nothing at all about his basic position; but I blurted right out, "I
want to be a historian but I know in advance that this will come to
mean bitter resignation." Weber replied, "Yes, that is so; it is resigna-
tion." He gave me a penetrating look, and I knew that I had his
approval.
The ensuing conversations often concerned concrete historical
events or individual historians or historical schools, but the theoreti-
cal aspects of history also played a part. The essence of Weber's po-
sition has been revealed in his writings, and it has often been treated
in the literature. It is superfluous to go into it here, especially be-
cause not very much came up in the discussions that isn't more or
Memories of Max Weber 157
less well known from Weber's works on historical methodology. It
will suffice here to discuss particular historical epochs and histori-
cal schools, especially because the application of the general theory
to individual researchers and to particular trends is not always im-
mediately obvious.
Without exaggeration one dares to, indeed one must, say that he
had something to say about all of these; and more than that, he was
involved in all the squabbles among the various schools and he acted
from a deep sense of commitment and involvement. Even those
such as I and others working in the field who could not quite con-
form to his views (and who do not do so even yet) were deeply
impressed, if not actually awed, by his involvement. Under these
circumstances, it is necessary to present an outline of the various
schools and their protagonists. I shall do this here without inter-
rupting to present WebePs position. The following discussion, there-
fore, constitutes a unit unto itself.
The Contemporary Historical Schools
Socialist historians were almost completely absent from German
universities, whether or not they called themselves Marxists, like
Kautsky, or Revisionists, like Bernstein. The German Catholics were
not excluded to quite the same extent, but they still tended to be
outside academic life. Their most famous representative, Johannes
Janssen, had never been a university professor. The position of
Catholics with respect to participation in the government was simi-
lar. This, along with other factors that had to do with the nature of
Catholicism, explains why contemporary Catholic historians were
less oriented to the state and took a more universalistic interest in
the totality of cultural phenomena than the non-Catholic. In his
work of many volumes on the history of the German people
(Geschichte des deutschen V o l k es) , Janssen focused on the various so-
cial strata as the object of his presentation. The work was heavily
attacked. Finke and his school had strongly emphasized the history
of ideas in their collection of research on the pre-Reformation pe-
riod (V o rrefo rmatio nsgeschichtl icheFo rschungen) . The Jesuit priest Ehrle
and the Dominican Heinrich Denifle had done the same in their
periodical which dealt with literary and church history of the Middle
Ages (Archiv fur Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittel al ters) . (I
158 The Unknown Max Weber
shall come back to Denifle later.) This periodical also treated the
history of mysticism, universities, schisms, and anti-popes in the
Middle Ages. These investigations also received wide recognition in
non-Catholic circles. Denifle's work on Luther, on the other hand,
reminds one of the controversial literature of the days of the Kultur-
kampf and its aftermath. This was the epoch when, for example,
Majunke paraded his evidence for Luther's suicide, which met with
no approval even in Catholic circles; and members of Protestant
groups such as the Evangelische Bund and the Protestantenverein re-
peated old tales in the style of Tummel about the "baked God" which
the Catholics carried about in their Corpus Christi Day processions
or presented new evidence of the illegitimate children of Renais-
sance popes. Now, however, because there was little interest in the
Kulturkampf, Denifle's last work didn't attract much attention.
Martin Spahn had a special position in the world of Catholic his-
torians. He was the son of a leading deputy of the Center Party, and
because of the recommendation by Lenz (a follower of Ranke's) he
had become a Privatdozent and then finally an Ordinarius at the hot-
bed at Strassburg, all when he was still quite young. He was also
helped by the personal intercession of Wilhelm II. This had called
forth a lot of protest; Mommsen spewed forth the most violent ob-
jections. Since that time Spahn continually created a stir, first when
he was a Center deputy in the Reichstag in spite of the protests of a
number of party members, later as a deputy of the German Nation-
alist Party, and finally as a Nazi.
The church historians who were members of Catholic theologi-
cal faculties were even more interesting, although for a different
reason. They were in a complicated situation. On the one hand they
were priests and therefore bound by the teachings of the church,
and on the other hand they had life-tenure as officials of the state.
In the latter capacity they could not be fired; in general, the state
had no great interest in their theological conformity, and so they
enjoyed an immeasurably greater independence than their col-
leagues in the seminaries. They were limited only to the extent that
the predominantly Catholic Center Party intervened, and this tended
to happen when Rome censored a particular man or at least let him
feel its displeasure, as it had with certain writers who are now dead.
Around the year 1910 (the period with which we are concerned),
this displeasure was felt particularly by three men, Reusch, Ehrhardt,
Memories of Max Weber 159
and Franz Xaver Kraus. Because Kraus is of importance in this nar-
rative, I shall characterize him briefly. He was one of the leaders of
the so-called Reform Catholic Movement, He favored a purely reli-
gious Catholicism rather than a politically oriented or, as we said
before the war, an Ultramontanist Catholicism. He was critical of
the hostile attitude which the church had taken in regard to the
newer scientific positions in various fields. Thus he was embroiled
in constant conflict.
In our present context, however, non-Catholic historical science
is more important than its counterpart outlined above. Ancient his-
tory had long since parted company with classical philology. Never-
theless, the chief exponents had received a classical, philological
training. In addition to its school concerned primarily with textual
criticism, which included Gottfried Hermann and which found its
chief representatives in men like August Immanuel Bekker,
Lachmann, Lehrs, and Friedrich Ritschl, the research on antiquity
was directed primarily to a realistic historical interest as demon-
strated by Niebuhr and Boeckh. Thus it came about that a research
interest in ancient religious history was established. In this connec-
tion we should think of the Romantics as an offshoot of this branch
of interest in ancient history. It began with the correspondence of
Schelling and Creuzer, continued with Karl Otfried Miiller, and fi-
nally ended with Bachofen. This latter looked for traces of a matri-
archal past in oriental and ancient societies; he thought that all so-
cieties had passed through such a matriarchal form, which he tended
to glorify. Because Mommsen, a pronounced rationalist, thought that
such a view was absolute nonsense, we didn't discuss it for a long
time. This view was resurrected by Klages, Schuler, and Bernoulli
and was taken up by some of the members of the George circle.
Another group to be discussed here was quite different. This group
played a part in the classical period of the comparative history of
religion. This is not the place to discuss manifestations of their re-
search interest in oriental and Christian phenomena. Their work on
Roman and Greek antiquity must be mentioned as the basis of later
studies. The chief representatives of this group include Deubner,
Albrecht Dieterich, Erwin Rohde, Eduard Schwartz, Usener, and
Willamowitz-Moellendorf. Their investigations took them far into
the area of ethnology, and they did research on the Dionysian,
Eleusinian, and Orphic mystic cults, as well as on the Mithraic cults.
160 The Unknown Max Weber
Of the people mentioned above, Erwin Rohde and Albrecht Dieterich
are, because of their work in Heidelberg, the links between the older
group and the circle that concerns us here. The historians of antiq-
uity had been either exposed to or involved in these various inter-
ests. This gave them a breadth of information that could scarcely be
found among the younger men.
The school of the aforementioned Niebuhr was firmly pushed to
the background by the appearance of Mommsen. He was simultane-
ously a numismatist, an epigraphist, and a political historian. He
had begun by studying Roman law, and he was much respected by
scholars in this area. In Heidelberg his views were represented by
some well-known names, such as the contentious Thibaut, then by
Karlova and Immanuel Bekker, and, at the latter period of Weber's
time there, by Endemann and Gradewitz. A universality similar to
Mommsen's in the area of Roman studies was manifested by Eduard
Meyer in Greek studies. In addition, Meyer included the history of
Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and in general the entire Near East,
including its cultures, in his research and publications. Almost ev-
erybody liked his work; and yet when he was compelled to discuss
his methods, there was a difference of opinion in which Weber was
involved. Exactly the same thing happened to Rostovtzeff who, be-
cause of Czarism, had fled to Germany and later to the United States.
Even so, his relationship with Weber continued. Finally, it must be
mentioned that the field of ancient history also had representatives
who thought that in essence change took place because of the will
and the actions of particular individuals. This view was represented
by Domaszewski, who worked in Heidelberg for a long time. His
most important work was thus entitled not History of the Roman
Empire, but History of the Roman Emperors (Geschichte der romischen
Kaiser,). But this position had stronger representation outside the
circles of ancient history, although this was not so true of the non-
Catholic historians of the Middle Ages. In this area, the after-effects
of the Romantic movement lasted a long time, but on the other
hand, because of the Romantic inclination to study ancient folk cus-
toms and their manifestations, special fields of study evolved. They
finally excluded the Romantic elements and in fact killed Romanti-
cism. Thus the Grimm brothers created Germanic philology; Johann
Caspar Zeuss developed Celtic; Dietz, Romance; Miklosich, Slavic;
and Karl Otfried, Etruscan. In addition, Ranke's students, such as
Memories of Max Weber 161
Dummler, Hirsch, and Waitz among others, published a German
yearbook. Anemuller, Falk, Hegel (the son of the philosopher).
Henselmann, Lacomblet, Lappenberg, Mack, and Dietrich Schafer
became famous when they edited, bit by bit, ancient records, docu-
mentary summaries, and city chronicles of bishoprics, monasteries,
and municipalities. Schafer is important with respect to Weber's dis-
putes. Georg von Below (who was mentioned in connection with
Sombart) along with several of his students worked on the history
of social and economic phenomena, as did others.
Ranke's followers were incomparably more influential in mod-
ern history than in ancient or medieval history. Although their master
had been dead for two decades, they dominated history in the uni-
versities. That meant that history was interpreted primarily as the
history of the state and above all as the history of foreign relations.
Ranke's treatment had been more or less like this. When he dis-
cussed literature, for example, he had written only short chapters
called, "A Glimpse of Literature,"or "View of Literature,"or "Trends
in Literature." Titles like these occur in the sixth chapter of the
twelfth volume and the third chapter of the eighteenth volume of
his work on French history, as well as in the sixth chapter of the
fourth volume and the twelfth chapter of the fifteenth volume of
his work on English history, with similar treatment in other works.
Those of Ranke's followers who are of interest to us in this context
include Max Lenz and his student, Felix Rachfahl, and Hermann
Oncken; Hans Delbruck is somewhat apart. Delbriick belonged to
an old urban family from east of the Elbe. It had already produced
men such as these: the free-trader and supporter of the Customs
Union who admired and supported Bismarck until he sided with
the Center Party and favored a protective tariff; a fermentation chem-
ist, a comparative linguist, and an archeologist. Delbruck himself
was primarily interested in military history, particularly strategy; in
political affairs he was a hard fighter and was not at all inclined to
turn the left cheek if someone hit him on the right, but nevertheless
he was a "fearless knight above reproach." He was often a contro-
versial figure as, for example, when he spoke out against Prussian
policy with regard to the Poles. This was quite remarkable if one
remembers that the man had been the tutor of the Hohenzollem
Prince Waldernar, who died quite young, as well as a deputy in the
Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag for the freikonservative Partei.
162 The Unknown Max Weber
There were other exceptions. This can be explained in part by the
overlap of the Ranke school with the school favoring the Prussian-
provincial-Protestant point of view. Johann Gustav Droysen, who
had been trained as an archeologist, was the founder of this latter
school. He had written a history of Prussian politics in many vol-
umes (Geschichte der preussischen Politik). In this work he defended,
among others, the thesis that for a long time Prussian politics had
consciously been nationalistically German. Ranke had spoken out
against his coming to Berlin, and when he came anyway, Ranke
remained reserved toward this colleague who was close to his own
field. Erdmannsdorfer, Hausser, Sybel, and most pronounced among
them, Heinrich von Treitschke, as well as the previously mentioned
Dietrich Schafer (although somewhat later and only to a certain
degree), all belonged to this Prussian-provincial-Protestant group.
Schafer was primarily a medievalist and wrote a history of the Ger-
man people (Weltgeschichte des Deutschen Volkes) in a style more or
less like that used by Treitschke; during the First World War he be-
came an ally of von Tirpitz and one of the leading representatives of
the Vaterlandspartei, which put out propaganda supporting the no-
tion that territorial enlargement was the goal of the war.
These Prussian-Protestant historians named above had anti-
Catholic and anti-Austrian views, in strong contrast to Ranke's fol-
lowers; in addition they flaunted their political passions, a display
quite different from Ranke's regal coolness. Finally, Erich Marcks,
Veit Valentin, Friedrich Meinecke, and Adalbert Wahl must be men-
tioned here. Marcks was one of the most extreme in his emphasis
on artistic elements in the depiction of historical personalities, and
his biography of Bismarck received wide attention. Possibly his stu-
dent, Veit Valentin, went even further in this direction. He com-
bined elements from the work of Treitschke with elements from
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Later on he went in an entirely dif-
ferent direction and became a well-known pacifist.
The latter certainly wasn't true of Meinecke. We spoke of him
briefly in connection with Driesch. He has been assigned to very
divergent schools. In his book on Boyen, his treatment of the sub-
ject was similar to that used by Erich Marcks in his works on Wilhelm
I and Bismarck; that is, he emphasized the importance of an intui-
tive understanding of personality. He was not just a historian of
monarchs, battles, and generals but became a historian of ideas.
Memories of Max Weber 163
Therefore, many persons thought of him as a daring pioneer. And
one should not forget that for many years he was the editor of the
Historische Zeitschrift, whose title page listed the names of Max Lenz
and Hans Delbriick as co-editors. Both of these men followed the
tradition of Ranke andTreitschke, and they could not have thought
Meinecke so different from them. In addition, Meinecke's book on
international citizenship and the nation state was followed by an-
other on the subject of the doctrine of raison d'etat (Die Lehre von der
Staatsmison). This was a discussion of the famous theory that ethics
for the state was quite another matter than ethics for a private in-
dividual. In addition to Machiavelli, Meinecke treated Bodin,
Campanella, Rohan, Naude, and Pufendorf, as well as authors who
were less well known at that time, for example, Botero, Boccalini,
and Courtilz de Sandras, among others. The critical point was that
Meinecke insisted that it was impossible for nation states to avoid a
Machiavellian type of relationship with each other.
Adalbert Wahl didn't care much for Lenz, and when we were
going for a walk one time when I visited him in Hamburg in 1908,
he told me that Lenz was "a professor of liberal tendencies." Wahl
himself was unbelievably conservative, and in this spirit he wrote a
history of France in the period before the revolution (Vorgeschichte
der franzosischen Revolution). He called Rousseau a "sick genius,"
tried to whitewash Louis XV, pictured the French Court nobility as
though they were members of the Farmers'Association (Bund der
Landwirte), and complained that because of his conservative out-
look he wasn't appropriately advanced at Prussian universities.
The social, constitutional, and economic historians were relatively
independent of those who followed Ranke and Treitschke. The
Schmoller school should be mentioned first. We already spoke of
Schmoller in connection with social welfare politics. At the same
time, he was a historian, and indeed was the real founder of the so-
called "second historical school of political economists." The first
had been represented by Roscher, Hildebrand, and Knies, all of
whom likewise played a role in Weber's life. Because of Schmoller's
dual role as a social historian and as a person involved in German
social welfare politics, his followers were divided into two groups:
on the one hand there were practical economists and social welfare
politicians in teaching and in governmental offices, and on the other
hand there were economic and social historians holding chairs in
164 The Unknown Max Weber
economics and history in the universities. Among these latter were
Naude who died young, Kauske in Konigsberg, and Otto Hintze.
Hintze was the best known; he conducted a seminar on constitu-
tional history at Berlin, he was co-editor of a journal on the history
of Brandenburg and Prussia (Zeitschriftfur brandenburgischpreussische
Geschichte), and he published a number of special articles on con-
stitutional history which were later collected and edited. Later on
he moved beyond administrative history to the threshold of admin-
istrative sociology.
More or less independent of Schmoller's school was another dis-
tinct group who could be subsumed under the title of social histori-
ans. This included several Austrians; among these Gottl (who later
called himself Gottl-Ottlilienfeld) was important. At the previously
mentioned Historical Congress in Heidelberg, he gave a lecture on
the limits of history. As one could expect from the subject, the lec-
ture was quite abstract. At that time I was just a rosy-cheeked fresh-
man. However, the philosophy of history was already my most ab-
sorbing interest. All the same I have to admit I had some difficulty
in following the train of thought. It was some consolation that I
wasn't the only one. A history professor told Friedrich Mensel (who
was killed in the First World War), who later repeated it to me, "Every-
thing Gottl said is just plain nonsense." Another went even further
and said, "I came into the hall, I saw a man speaking, but it was
absolutely impossible to make any sense of his remarks." In Heidel-
berg itself, however, they felt differently, and years later his remarks
were not forgotten and were still discussed. It is not necessary to
tell the reader who was responsible for this.
The agrarian historians were relatively independent of the
Schmoller school. There were not too many of them. Georg Hanssen
and August Meitzen might be mentioned. Meitzen, in addition to
his activities as a teacher and as director of the Office of Statistics in
Berlin, had published a comprehensive account of the history of
migration, settlement, and agriculture in Europe. At the time he
was the first specialist in that field, for Maurer, along with others
who could have been called Meitzen's predecessors, was still deeply
immersed in Romanticism.
The school of historical jurisprudence was also rooted in Roman-
ticism, and this school, following Gierke, was influential until the
rum of the century. Gierke thought the fact that the German terri-
Memories of Max Weber 165
tonal states had adopted Roman law at the end of the Middle Ages
and had thereby abandoned a specifically German type of law was
not only unnecessary but even tragic. With this in mind he wrote
his "System of German Civil Law," and finally, using an enormous
mass of historical material, he wrote the history of Germanic cor-
porate law (Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht). He traced this his-
tory from the founder of the school of glossologists, Irnerius, through
the glossologists and post-glossologists, through the theories of
Baldus and others who combined Roman and canon law, to the
eighteenth century and its natural law. He conceded to the Calvin -
ist Althusius an important position in the development of natural
law. All of these matters were important in Heidelberg, particularly
in the circles with which we are concerned.
In contrast to Gierke, Lamprecht was not influenced by the Ro-
mantic tradition, but by economic history, which he interpreted in a
positivistic sense. He classified history systematically, and he
elaborated a schema of stages which, he thought, could be demon-
strated in spiritual as well as socioeconomic life. Along these lines
he wrote a multi-volumed German history (Deutsche Geschichte).
He was an academic success in spite of the fact that Ranke's follow-
ers scorned him and Delbriick called part of what Lamprecht did
mere"humbug"; relatively early he had become a full professor and
Institute director at the University of Leipzig.
Things didn't go this way for Breysig. He had begun as a member
of the Schmoller school, and had edited Prussian state documents
and was a specialist in economic history; but then he went to work
on the construction of a system based on a series of stages. Thus
within the Schmoller school, then outside it, he was considered an
outsider in the world of historians. Consequently, for a long time he
was just an Extraordinarius in Berlin.
Gothein could have met the same fate. He had begun as a his-
torian, but, because he looked at history from the viewpoint of eco-
nomics and civilization as a whole, he had little chance to become a
history professor and he accepted a call as an economist. Even this
was not without difficulties, only from another direction. In Berlin,
Adolf Wagner was dominant as well as Schmoller. When lecturing,
Wagner would often use the phrase, "My honored colleagues, and
opponent Schmoller ..." Although Wagner agreed with Schmoller
on the necessity of emphasizing social welfare politics, he also em-
166 The Unknown Max Weber
phasized the importance of theory (which wasn't often done by the
Schmoller school) and he thought economic history of little value.
Even in the lecture halls he would remark that he could scarcely
accept Gothein as an economist. Because he had a phenomenal
memory and stupendous knowledge, Wagner was able to give lec-
tures on the history of culture as well as on economics. And this
man who was neither a history professor nor a Catholic could write
papers on the Catholic Counter-Reformation with the deepest
understanding; evidence of this is the classic biography of Ignatius
Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Order.
To a certain extent Wagner thought himself the successor of Jakob
Burckhardt. It is risky to try to characterize this detached and iso-
lated Swiss historian. At most, one can call him a pessimistic in-
dividualist. To him culture was a world in which an independent
personality could developin this view Burckhardt was somewhat
like the liberal optimists. He believed that culture, as understood in
this sense, could really existand in this respect he differed from
Schopenhauer. On the other hand, the few epochs of true culture
were separated from each other by long periods of time during which
such culture did not existand in this respect he was unlike the
liberal progressives who, since the days of their extremist Condorcet,
had believed in uninterrupted progress. Burckhardt thought such
periods of culture had existed in Athens and in the days of the Ital-
ian Renaissance. He expected nothing of the sort in the near future.
On the contrary, he saw the emergence of mass society in the image
of the United States or the imperialist state. Even more characteris-
tic than his often-repeated remark, "The wife of the German pro-
fessor is a perversity of nature," were three other observations: "Cul-
ture blooms only in small nations," and the sarcastic remark he made
when he was offered Ranke's chair in history at Berlin, "I'm too
stupid for the nation of Herr von Bismarck," that is, the unified
imperialistic state. The statement that is perhaps most revealing of
him is/Tower is absolute evil."
Position on Historical Schools
The echo of these words was heard in Heidelberg. This will be
demonstrated in the context of a discussion of Weber's position with
regard to the various historical schools and historians. We shall dis-
Memories of Max Weber 167
cuss this on the basis of our numerous conversations and the re-
marks he made to me. I shall do this in the same order in which I
described the various schools in the preceding pages. In so doing, I
shall be able to present Weber's position in its purity and unity with-
out having to interrupt constantly in order to discuss less essential
matters.
Weber's judgment of the work of socialist historians is so much a
part of his total outlook toward socialism that a special discussion
here would be superfluous, considering the remarks that have al-
ready been quoted. It might be mentioned, however, that Hans
Delbriick tried to make use of and to spread Weber's Calvinist-capi-
talist theory as a type of anti-Marxist idealism; Weber protested and
told me, "I really must object to this; I am much more materialistic
than Delbriick thinks." Naturally the confusing terms "idealistic"
and"materialistic"are being used here as a kind of theoretical short-
hand. I might add that this remark was made just as I was going out
the door.
Weber didn't like Catholic historical writing. This was a conse-
quence of his basic principles. The advocate of an ethic of autonomy
that went even further than Kant's ethic could not approve an au-
thoritarian church, particularly in the discipline of history. He main-
tained inexorably that history was an empirical science, particularly
with respect to its value neutrality and independence from extra -
scientific authority. He was acquainted with Catholicism through
intensive study, through personal discussions with his Romantically
inclined relatives who were sympathetic with it, as well as through
personal contact with Catholic historians and philosophers in
Freiburg, before he had come to Heidelberg.
In Freiburg he had had the opportunity to become acquainted with
the ideas and activities of Franz Xaver Kraus. One time we were speak-
ing of the desperate battles of the non-Scholastic Catholics. Weber
related two incidents concerning Kraus. Once, when one of his works
had again been banned by Rome, Kraus ordered that it be reduced to
pulp, all with a regal and disdainful gesture. Weber also spoke of Kraus
in connection with a story told about an American student. The first
part of this anecdote (which is all that concerns us here) goes, briefly,
like this: A young man had received a stipend from his local Method-
ist church to study abroad. The only condition was that he was to take
a course in theology each semester. After he came to know Max
168 The Unknown Max Weber
Weber, the student was extremely impressed with him. He therefore
decided to study in Freiburg. Weber pointed out a major difficulty;
the theology faculty in Freiburg was Catholic. The American only
shrugged his shoulders and said in broken German, "Oh, that doesn't
matter. Where I come from they're so dumb that they won't know the
difference." The young man then took a course from Franz Xaver
Kraus and reported back to Weber, "He complains much more about
the popes than we do at home."In the long run, however, studying in
Freiburg was not particularly beneficial to the young man.
The second part of the story is relevant to Weber's position with
regard to diverse orientations in Protestant theology, and we shall
take it up at the proper time. Weber also liked a story, which he told
with a grin, about a meeting with another Catholic historian; aside
from the fact that Max Weber repeated it, the story is so good that it
deserves to be remembered. In shortened form it goes like this: At
an international historical congress in Rome, a group of Germans
were sitting together at a cafe during a break between sessions, and
among them were Max Weber, Hamack, a Catholic historian, and
the Dominican priest Heinrich Denifle, whom we have already
mentioned. The door opened and in came the Catholic historian's
wife, who stormed up to her husband and exclaimed, "Did you
forget that His Eminence, the Cardinal... has invited us to his mass
with a sacramental blessing? It's high time; come on now." Not
without showing some embarrassment, the husband obeyed and
went along with his wife. Those who remained smiled but did not
speak for a few seconds. But Harnack was a man of the world who
did not easily lose his composure. He turned graciously to the Do-
minican priest and said, "If you also have religious duties to fulfill, I
hope you won't let us detain you." In just as friendly a fashion and
with a straight face, the priest replied, "Very kind of you I'm sure,
but you see, I don't have to be religious; that's the advantage of
celibacy."
A Catholic historian whom Weber didn't like very much was
Martin Spahn. He came once to Heidelberg to a meeting concern-
ing the relations of journalists and historians and particularly his-
tory and the press. I went to one of the open meetings and told
Weber about it.He replied at once, "I can explain Spahn's behavior
only on the assumption that he wants to be in good standing with
the Catholic press," after which he dropped the matter.
Memories of Max Weber 169
The history of antiquity is certainly one of the cornerstones and
points of departure for Weber's scholarly work. First of all, he was
everything but an opponent to humanistic education, and he often
mentioned that unbiased natural scientists reported that students
who had a humanistic education at the secondary level were much
more accustomed to logical thinking and scientific observation than
others. Now, although Weber had not extended his studies of the
sociology of religion into antiquity, his knowledge of that period
was nevertheless apparent. This does not mean, however, that he
agreed with Bachofen's position. It is true that in his later lectures in
Munich Weber discussed matriarchal societies; he never denied that
such societies had actually existed. But he denied the assertion that
such societies represented a stage through which all peoples had to
pass. This was in accordance with Weber's basic opposition to a more
or less mechanistic parallelism. Yet I do not remember having heard
the names of Bachofen, Bernoulli, Klages, and Schuler at that time.
They were not generally well known until after the First World War,
when it became fashionable to look at myths. I didn't even hear
them mentioned in conversations with Salz and Gundolf, who were
friends of Stefan George, whose circle had included Klages and
Schuler for a time.
In contrast, Weber's relations with the comparative historians of
ancient religion were much more positive. He admired Usener and
this point of view was pervasive in the Heidelberg group connected
with "Eranos," which we mentioned in connection with Windelband.
But Weber was most firmly linked to Mommsen. This went back to
his days in the home of his parents. To be sure, the author of the
Roman history had joined the fretsinnige Partei, which was firmly
opposed to Bismarck, while Weber's father remained a National Lib-
eral following Bennigsen and therefore supported Bismarck. In spite
of this, the relationship between the two families continued. And
when Max had grown up and had qualified as a university lecturer,
Mommsen was said to have tried to get him a chair in ancient his-
tory or Roman law. Indeed, Weber was qualified in both commercial
and Roman law. As he said, he had had some interesting experi-
ences with regard to Roman law.
In the first place, Gierke had been annoyed when Weber had
qualified. We have already mentioned Gierke's Germanistic posi-
tion, and he was displeased with Weber's combination of commer-
170 The Unknown Max Weber
cial law (the domain of the Germanists) with Roman law. But We-
ber combined them anyway, and in his first semester as a Privatdozent
he announced a lecture on Roman law. At that time, whoever had
just been qualified to teach would have to realize that, as a man
unknown to the students, he would have a very small class in the
first course he taught, and this was the case here. Among the few
people present was a young man still wet behind the ears. He didn't
seem to know anything about the special things that were being
discussed and felt quite out of place. Naturally Max Weber realized
this and asked him, "This isn't at all what you expected?" The em-
barrassed young man mumbled something like, "Well, I guess so."
Then Weber continued, "As a beginner, I have a certain interest in
keeping at least a few people on my class list; therefore I should like
to keep your name on it. But since you aren't getting what you
wanted, naturally you don't have to pay for it." And he handed the
young man, who was so astonished he couldn't say a word, a shiny,
ten mark piece, the amount of money he would have to pay to at-
tend the two-hour course.
But even when Weber had long been established as an Ordinarius
in economics at Heidelberg, Roman law was the cause, although
only indirectly, of his being put in an uncomfortable situation. The
chair in economics at Heidelberg at that time was, as at other uni-
versities, in the law faculty, and in that prewar period one invited
one's colleagues to very formal dinners with several courses and
various wines. Such a dinner was given by the senior Ordinarius of
the law faculty, Immanuel Bekker, who was at that time one of the
most famous authorities on Roman law. In 1886, the 500th anniver-
sary of the founding of the university. He had been made rector
magnificus and was thereafter addressed as "Excellency." In addi-
tion, he was an expert on women and wine, married when he
was eighty, bought 500 bottles of French claret, and said that he
was going to let them age for five years. Max Weber related all
this with great pleasure. Weber, too, received an invitation from
Bekker soon after the move from Freiburg to Heidelberg; he de-
clined because his seminar was on the same night. A few days
later, his friend Jellinek slapped him on the shoulder and said, "I
fixed things up, but don't do it again; don't decline an invitation
with such a weak excuse. Once and for all, the obligation to teach is
never an excuse."
Memories of Max Weber 171
Jellinek knew some amazing stories about his Roman law col-
league, Gradenwitz, who was a Jewish anti-Semite. When asked
why he had not married, Gradenwitz would reply earnestly, "How
can I, when I belong to an inferior race?'' For the same reason he
declined the title "privy councillor," which was offered him when
he came to Heidelberg. Weber had deep sympathy for the tragedy
of this unfortunate man. Naturally Weber's relation to the history of
Roman law did not always involve such piquant incidents. On the
contrary, his works particularly on agrarian history showed his fa-
miliarity with and his constant study of the material. Thus he took
great interest in the work of Conrad who had come back to Heidel-
berg and occupied himself with the history of Roman law in the
Middle Ages. Weber said of Conrad, "If I had more time, I would try
to meet with him more often." To Weber, the history of Roman law
was part of the total history of antiquity, particularly of the coun-
tries of the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor. Study of the lat-
ter area is, of course, related to his position on religion and theology
and will be discussed at an appropriate time.
Eduard Meyer's research on the Old Testament also belongs in
this context. Meyer's book on methodology appeared important
enough to Weber to become the subject of a special article. This
work is widely known and is easily available in Winckelmann's new
edition and in English translation. Weber never said anything about
Meyer's methodology in my presence, however. But he had unlim-
ited admiration for Meyer's scholarship in ancient history and par-
ticularly ancient oriental history, even though he might criticize him
regarding certain details. On the other hand, he was very reserved
toward his intellectually narrow colleague, von Domaszewsky: "The
man just doesn't know how he feels about me; one time he admires
me and another time he feels a deadly hatred for me." The hatred
was probably a result of Weber's political views, because von
Domaszewsky was a pronounced anti-democrat.
We didn't talk as much about the Middle Ages as about antiquity.
Not that Weber wasn't interested; after all, as a historian of law he
had begun with the Middle Ages. At this time, however, the greater
part of his research was in other areas. Nevertheless, I can still re-
member three remarks which show clearly how important medi-
eval studies were to him. We were speaking once of the families in
the region east of the Elbe, such as Limburg-Stirum, and of other
172 The Unknown Max Weber
families just as influential. I asked about the origin of their wealth
and social position, and he said that some of these noble families
had originally been vassals of the Teutonic Order. He went into some
detail on this and then commented that the history of this order
had long since needed some new research. He thought this was
even more true of the Normans with regard to their settlement and
establishment of a state in Sicily. In these two instances I was more
the curious student; on the other hand, because of our common
interest in the sociology of religion, we met on equal ground when
we discussed the genesis of the European, particularly the French
and English, established churches. It is now necessary to recall my
studies then of Gallicanism and Jansenism.
Weber praised the work of Haller on these subjects. Haller had
presented a new theory for the first time at the Heidelberg Histori-
cal Congress I already mentioned: The Galilean declaration of free-
dom was simply an imitation of what had already happened in En-
gland. He presented this thesis later, in greater detail and with the
introduction of new material, in a comprehensive work on the pa-
pacy and church reform (Papsttum und Kirehenrefbrm). There had al-
ready been a number of investigations of this subject, although they
had stemmed from other areas of interest, for example, the works of
Fincke, Rietzler, Scholz, Wenk, and others. I was familiar with the
works of these men as well as with their sources. Using this knowl-
edge, I observed that, even in the days of Boniface VIII and Philip
the Fair, the French had unambiguously insisted on an established
church and needed at most only to borrow the English formulation.
But Weber maintained, "It is nevertheless a very profound book."
He also liked Haller as a person. As a young professor, Haller had
encountered difficulties with the university administration and had
had the courage to resign his position. As one can imagine, Weber
felt in him a kindred spirit and he tried, although in vain, to get
another position for the man.
Whenever one examines in detail the origin of the state church,
one is at the beginning of modern occidental history. Because We-
ber had a strong interest in modem historical research, the subject
had an important place in our conversations. Weber certainly didn't
identify with Ranke and, at least in my presence, he didn't often
speak of him. Yet I can see the following scene floating clearly be-
fore my eyes: on a summer evening while walking in the garden of
Memories of Max Weber 173
the old house with Marianne, Arthur Salz started to talk about Ranke
and said some words to the effect that Ranke's work would still
stand when all this "Schmollerism" had disappeared. Frau Weber
gave her unconditional approval to this remark, and she explained,
in the spirit of her absent husband, that Ranke's sovereign objectiv-
ity was quite admirable. Not everyone completely agreed with this
notion of Weber's, even in the circle of his friends and those who
shared his outlook. Georg Jellinek, for example, although so close
to Weber in so many ways, noted the unacceptable role that diplo-
mats played in Ranke's conception of history, and said sarcastically,
"According to Ranke, history is made by impeccable gentlemen af-
ter dinner, over their cigars." At that time I was, as I have continued
to be, rather anti-Rankian in my position, and I repeated Jellinek's
remark; but Marianne and Salz didn't concur. Another time I em-
phasized the value of the lectures and seminars given by members
of the Schmoller school such as Otto Lintze, of whom we will speak
again. Weber only replied, "One learns more from other people,"
namely, from Ranke's followers.
With regard to individual members of the Ranke school, I can
remember the following: Weber, with Lenz, was solidly opposed to
Breysig, as the following incident demonstrates. At that time there
was a journal called the Future (Die Zukunft). It was edited by
Maximilian Harden, a supporter of Bismarck's, but in sharp op-
position to Wilhelm. In this journal, articles by and about outsiders
of various origins were published. Breysig published three articles
on systems of history. In these articles he asserted that the downfall
of ancient civilization had been caused by too much individualism.
Max Weber commented, "Lenz and I wonder why anyone would
want to ruin his career in this way." He gave direct support to Lenz's
student, Hermann Oncken, that he might be accepted into the
Heidelberg Academy of Science, and he thought Oncken's book on
Lassalle was "of real value for us," that is, for economists.
Weber's sympathy for Oncken was the cause of his criticizing me
quite sharply. On the whole, he wasn't very pleased with me at this
time, and he had good reason for this. After receiving my Ph.D., I
had asked for an extension of time for the publication of my disser-
tation. I wanted to reorganize it and add some things. Because I
kept thinking of things to add, it looked as though I would never be
finished. It was finally published under the title, Die Staatsund
174 The Unknown Max Weber
Soziallehren der franzosischen Jansenisten im 17.Jahrhundert ("Politi-
cal and Social Ideas of the French Jansenists in the Seventeenth
Century"). Naturally, I no longer agree with many of the things I
said there, and I don't like the style at all. But the point is that I kept
dragging my feet. If the faculty and my parents hadn't had so much
patience, God knows what would have happened. The continual
delay was annoying to Jellinek, Troeltsch, and Weber, particularly
because Jellinek had recommended that I be formally qualified to
lecture. Max Weber said to me categorically, "I really don't see how
we can speak of your formal qualification when you haven't pub-
lished a single line." At that time I was also going a bit too often to
the Cafe Heberlein, and Weber told the social welfare politician,
Maria Bernays (who repeated it to me), "If he [Honigsheim] gets
the reputation of a bohemian, he's finished." My formal qualifica-
tion, urged by Jellinek, was delayed more than ever, and then, be-
cause the World War intervened, didn't take place at that time. Twice
Weber told me very bluntly how he felt about it, and twice he said
right to my face, "You will never finish."
Something else made Weber extremely angry. My dissertation
was classified under the rubric "history" and Oncken was the fac-
ulty advisor. I really should have consulted him more often, but I
didn't do it because I was embarrassed. Weber didn't like this, and
shortly after the first World War he said with vexation to Helmuth
Plessner (whom we have already mentioned as one of the younger
philosophers and who visited him in Munich), "Why didn't Honigs-
heim go to Oncken? He doesn't bite." Plessner reported this to me
in Cologne in 1920.
Weber also praised the work of Felix Rachfahl (who was a fol-
lower of Ranke's and a student of Lenz's) on the House of Orange
in the Netherlands. This, of course, doesn't say much about his po-
sition with regard to Rankianism. For Rachfahl, at the instigation of
his master, Max Lenz, was one of the first who sharply attacked the
so-called Calvinism-capitalism theory. Thus even the reader who
doesn't already know it can anticipate Weber's reactions from what
we have already said: Weber's exemplary nobility forced him in this,
as also in analogous situations, to praise those who attacked him.
And finally there was Weber's relationship with Hans Delbriick.
Neither one was inclined to turn the other cheek if someone hit
him first. The temperaments of both were similarly structured and
Memories of Max Weber 175
both were in bloody earnest about their work. Thus they were forced
to cross swords in the public arena in the fight over Sombart's being
called to a chair.
Another remark of Weber's will complete the picture. I have al-
ready noted Weber's protest against Delbriick's exploiting the so-
called Calvinism-capitalism theory as, in a sense, an idealistic con-
ception of history. Weber had said, "I am much more materialistic
than Delbriick thinks." Naturally the point at issue is this rather
shorthand designation for the otherwise confusing terms "histori-
cal idealism"and "historical materialism." Weber didn't go into any
more detail in this conversation, which took place just as I was leav-
ing. But this frequent antagonism did not prevent Weber from em-
phasizing the value of Delbriick's works on military history. Later
on, there were times when Weber and Delbriick were in agreement,
particularly in their criticism and opposition to the Treaty ofVersailles,
although Delbriick was much further to the right.
With regard to Weber andTreitschke, in retrospect I can remember
only a few characteristic remarks on the entire group of Prussian
Protestant authors and their followers. The importance of Droysen's
Historik with respect to Weber's thinking on history has been men-
tioned elsewhere and I can remember no particular remarks on this.
I remember only one remark concerning Treitschke. I emphasized
the danger of publishing a book based only on lecture notes. Weber
agreed with me, and added, "It was no service to Treitschke when
they posthumously published his Politik, which was based on his
lecture notes." I had a certain obligation to Dietrich Schafer. For his
seminar I had written a paper called "Der Limes Sorabicus." It was
written as a correction of a special point in Meitzen's book on mi-
gration, settlement, and agriculture. Schafer had taken the trouble
to have it published, although I was only in my fifth semester. On
the whole, however, I differed from Schafer's ideas on history and
politics. I emphasized this when I spoke to Weber about Schafer's
"World History of the German People." Without actually endorsing
the book in this way, I observed that Oncken recommended it for
intensive study, Weber admired Oncken indeed, as we saw, but he
regretted this recommendation very much and observed that at most
the book was good only for cramming, "like the Weber-Baldamus."
This latter was a widely used textbook for students. Naturally I had
no reason to contradict him. Schafer had also sent a letter to the
176 The Unknown Max Weber
ministry at Baden-Baden and sharply expressed his opposition to
an appointment for Simmel at Heidelberg. In this same letter he
had come out against sociology as such, and ended with the words,
"In my opinion sociology must still struggle for a position as a sci-
entific discipline. To see society as the primary determinant of social
life rather than the church or the state is, in my view, a dangerous
error/'
Whether or not Max Weber was familiar with this statement,
which has now been published, is not quite certain; in any event he,
who with Gothein and Jellinek had worked so hard for Simmers
appointment, knew that Schafer had opposed it, and his feelings
were bitter.
Much greater excitement than all this was aroused by the ap-
pearance of the first volume of Erich Marcks'biography of Bismarck.
Marcks, with his unfamiliarity with regard to questions of method-
ology and the philosophy of history, was certainly not Weber's man
in all respects. But in the presence of a number of friends, Weber
didn't hesitate a minute in saying, "He has the grasp of a historian."
In this judgment he differed from his brother Alfred. In a discussion
following a lecture Gothein had made to a large audience on this
book, Alfred said, "Marcks has prepared Bismarck as a Christmas
offering to the German Virgin." Weber had never met Veit Valentin,
the best-known student of Erich Marcks'. In Meinecke, Weber per-
ceived a nature similar to his own, and he valued him highly. Of
Adalbert Wahl, however, Weber said quite frankly to Emil Lask and
me, "I don't particularly like people who act like martyrs because of
their conservative views."
Naturally this did not hinder him from thanking Wahl, in his re-
plies to the critics of the Protestant-capitalism theory, for a valuable
hint about the Reformed and Lutheran patrician families in the
Hanseatic cities. We spoke much more often, however, of the
Schmoller school. We have already spoken of their position with
regard to social welfare politics. Weber also had some misgivings
concerning the historical research of the Schmoller school. Three
aspects were of importance to him: first, Schmoller himself had been
somewhat influenced by August Comte's notion of three successive
stages. As we have already noted, Weber didn't like systems of his-
torical philosophy, which, in his opinion, could not be made legiti-
mate either by a sound epistomology or by reference to actual source
Memories of Max Weber 177
material. Secondly, Schmolier was not only the head of a school but
a sort of university pope. And last but not least, there was the glo-
rification of the Hohenzollerns in the historical works of the school.
Because of his stringently ascetic position regarding the individual
sciences, Weber heartily disliked value judgments. Therefore he could
not approve the adulation of the Hohenzollerns. Lack of objectivity
is a mild expression for what Weber said about Schmolier and his
school. Remember the words cited in reference to Ranke's follow-
ers, "One learns more from other people," that is, not Schmoller's
students, but Ranke's.
Of social historians outside the Schmolier school, Weber had great
respect for the Austrian, Gottl-Ottlilienfeld. Six years after that His-
torical Congress, Weber and I spoke of the lecture that Gottl-
Ottlilienfeld had given there. I reported what Mensel had told me,
and Weber repeated the sarcastic observation we have already
quoted. Hesitantly I mentioned that the lecture might really have
been nonsense. Weber interrupted me at once and said, "It was
everything but nonsense." Weber had undivided admiration for
Meitzen even though he knew that many aspects of his agrarian
economic research were no longer tenable, particularly with regard
to his theory of Celtic settlement. When he once became angry in
my presence because someone had criticized him as a student of
Schmoller's, he said with humility and pride, "Meitzen was my
teacher," and he was right. His work on the agrarian history of an-
tiquity with which he was preoccupied in his earlier academic years
shows the influence of Meitzen.
He could also, as he had done on other occasions, have men-
tioned Goldschmidt as one of his teachers. Weber had taken his
doctorate in law under Goldschmidt, had delved deeply into legal
science, and was well acquainted with the history of law. Of the
legal historians in Berlin who were greatly upset at Weber's combi-
nation of disciplines for qualification as a lecturer, Gierke was fore-
most; this simon-pure Germanist couldn't bear the fact that Weber
qualified in and taught both Roman law and commercial law. I
remember another incident in regard to the relations of Weber and
Gierke, which were sometimes friendly, sometimes antagonistic.
Gierke had stressed the importance of Althusius in the history of
natural law; Jellinek protested this and asserted two things in this
context: Althusius actually thought more in terms of estates, and
178 The Unknown Max Weber
furthermore he had exerted almost no influence and had long been
forgotten by those who worked in the tradition of the natural law.
Weber accepted Jellinek's opinion, which was, of course, quite con-
trary to Gierke's view. Weber was fascinated by the history of natu-
ral law to which he ascribed considerable historical influence. At
the time, I was preparing the lecture that I gave at one of the previ-
ously mentioned meetings at Baden-Baden. Weber had shown great
interest in this as in my other studies in the area of natural law, a
matter to which we shall later return.
If Weber's judgment on the historical aspect of the Schmoller
school seemed occasionally unfriendly, it was harmless compared
with the way in which he gave Lamprecht and Breysig a dressing
down. This requires some comment because it has given rise to a
certain misunderstanding. Both of these men, but especially Breysig,
were ridiculed, and obstacles were placed in their way. I can still see
how Eduard Meyer, sitting in his study in Berlin-Grosslichterfelde,
showed me the recently published first volume of Breysig's work on
prehistoric peoples (Die Volker ewiger Urzeit), flipped over various
pages, and made sarcastic comments on some of the statements.
One might suppose that our battler for justice would come to the
rescue of these fugitives. The situation here, however, was indeed
typical of those in which Weber found himself. He had to make an
autonomous choice between two obligations: in this instance, be-
tween protection of the persecuted and the rigorous demands of
intellectual integrity. He chose the latter, for two reasons: he missed
an epistemological substructure, an empirical foundation and con-
ceptual clarity, which he thought absolutely necessary in the sort of
work these men had undertaken. In addition, he believed that his
conscience, which was so fixed upon the requirements of justice,
could be clear in this instance. It is again characteristic of this man
that the consideration of justice played a decisive role in his deci-
sion. He knew that my sympathies, up to the point of contrary evi-
dence, normally lay with those who were not well known, and he
respected my position. Also, I had not used the words "justice" and
"injustice" themselves. In spite of this, he said to me, "Breysig can-
not complain about injustice; early in his career he became an
Extraordinarius in Berlin and that is the same as being an Ordinarius
at another university." This was followed by the episode I recounted
when discussing Weber's relations with Ranke's followers regard-
Memories of Max Weber 179
ing the opinions of Weber and Lenz about Breysig's articles in Die
Zukunft,
In this disagreement with Breysig, Weber was not actually con-
demning the history of culture as such. This was clearly demon-
strated by his efforts to bring Gothein to Heidelberg. Gothein was
supposed to lecture on both the history of culture and economics.
The official in charge of appointments asked doubtfully whether
Gothein would really be able to handle all this diverse material in
his lectures. Weber calmed him with the assurance, "He can teach
many other things as well."
If there were a historian of whom Weber spoke only with obvi-
ous awe, this was Jakob Burckhardt. Here he found it unnecessary
to speak much about it. He contented himself with repeating the
words of his friend Jellinek, who, when a professor for a short time
at Basel, had dared to speak to the great isolate: "One felt as though
one stood before one of the giants of this earth."
Ethnology and Sociology
Ethnology and pre-history had at that time relatively little point
of contact with the historical sciences (this latter phrase is used in
its older meaning, which is incorrect if one thinks of history as a
systematic science). There were no chairs of ethnology or prehistory
at any of the universities. One of the roots of German ethnology
developed from Herbert's school of philosophy. This came about in
part by applying various elements of Herbart's psychology to hu-
man groups in a configuration of ethno-psychology. Theodor Waitz,
Lazarus, and Steinthal were the chief representatives; Adolf Bastian,
the tireless world traveler, had combined the ideas of these men
with elements of English evolutionism, and thus a system was cre-
ated. It went like this: each group collectively conceives of a num-
ber of so-called "elementary ideas," which follow each other in
determined sequence and are manifested in special culture forms
and values. There is correspondingly a parallel in the development
of cultural levels. In spite of this, however, there are differences be-
tween groups that are on the same level of development. They can
be explained by the existence of geographical divergence.
All of these ideas appeared in a plethora of books written for the
most part as notes on Bastian's travels. There wasn't much system
180 The Unknown Max Weber
to the presentation: there were parenthetical remarks that lasted
for pages, and even the simplest exposition would be interrupted
by these side remarks. As a result, Bastian's influence was confined
to just a few persons. Those who became well known included von
Luschan, who began his career as Dorpfeld's archaeological assis-
tant in South Greece and then turned to research on the mixing of
the natives of the Near East with African Negroes. Another was von
den Steinen, who sought out the Xingii in central Brazil and visited
Indians who still lived in a pre-Colombian culture. Others were Seler,
Preuss, and Ehrenreich, who were among those few Germans con-
cerned with ancient Indian high cultures. At the same time there
was another kind of ethnology which scarcely found expression in
the universities. It was either socialist, following Friedrich Engels,
or leftist-bourgeois, and it manifested itself in groups of free think-
ers, the Monist League, and organizations of similar orientation.
Both types were inclined to naturalism and evolutionismin this
respect not unrelated to Bastian. Miiller-Lyer was one of the most
popular authors in this line of thought.
The situation was analogous with regard to the so-called ethno-
logical science of law; here one might mention Post, who wrote on
African jurisprudence, and Josef Kohler. This story was told about
Kohler in my circle when I was a student at Berlin: "Each day he
produces a poem, each month, an article, and each year, a book."
Jellinek, who wasn't stingy with malicious remarks, wrote a nasty
poem about him and said to me, in reference to the luxuriant, free-
standing growth of hair on the head of his victim, "When I see
Kohler's hair, I'm annoyed with God because he made me only a
man and not a louse." It was also said that Kohler labored so hard
and so long over the legal arrangements of the Aztecs and other
non-occidental peoples that such arrangements could finally be fit-
ted into his own categories.
Another school of ethnology quite different from those we have
mentioned was the group that had its roots in the Romantic move-
ment. Vollgraff had given this group an extremely pessimistic char-
acter. It followed the Romantic notion that the change to a tech-
nological and mass civilization was a sign of decline. This notion
was not influential, and went almost unnoticed until it experienced
a resurrection in connection with Spengler. In the meantime, how-
ever, objections were raised from a number of sides to the dom-
Memories of Max Weber 181
inant doctrine of a parallel evolutionism. In the case of Bastian and
his followers, the element of a migration of cultural values was
present, but this element played a minor role in comparison with
the notion of parallel development. Nevertheless, there were some
who followed the theory of cultural migration: Eduard Hahn main-
tained this with respect to plough culture, Ratzel with certain bow
and arrow cultures, Anckermann with respect to several Central
African culture traits, which were said to be found in layers, and
Graebner, who discovered a similar situation in Melanesia. With
the help of Koppers, a student of American cultures, Wilhelm
Schmidt elaborated a system. According to them, a number of cul-
tures had originated in Asia and had then been carried to all the
continents. A whole school was founded on this system, which was
also widely accepted in South America but was almost completely
rejected in the United States.
Max Weber had no direct relationship to ethnology. He was not
close to the intellectual line of descent that ran from Kant through
Herbart, Drobisch, and Bobrik to Friedrich Albert Lange, and hence
he was equally distant from the branch that began with Herbart,
was continued with Theodor Waitz, Lazarus, and Steinthal, and
ended with Bastian. I can really find no reason to believe that We-
ber had any close contact with any ethnologist. Why should he?
Those circles with whom Weber felt a kinship in terms of a general
philosophy were far removed from ethnology. It was true that the
founder of the neo-Kantian movement, Friedrich Albert Lange
(whose character structure was not unlike Weber's) had used eth-
nological material in his battle against economic and naturalistic
materialism. He had both studied and cited Steinthal, Lazarus, and
Bastian. However, the physiological-psychological element that had
played a role in Lange's argument disappeared from neo-
Kantianism, and along with it the ethnology, which in the case of
Lange had become almost a kind of natural science. Windelband,
once Lange's successor in Zurich, had remarked in his Heidelberg
lectures that the destruction of the ancient Inca culture" by a hand-
ful of Spanish adventurers" was a crime against mankind. This re-
ally means something if one remembers that Windelband, of all the
people discussed here, was the most strongly rooted in ancient
occidental culture. This was the only time he made a remark of this
type, however; the Hindus played no role in his works on the his-
182 The Unknown Max Weber
tory of philosophy. And as for Jellinek and his school, Jellinek only
shrugged his shoulders at Post's attempt to depict African juris-
prudence. Troeltsch didn't go quite so far, but for him the research
on Asiatic cultures was at most only a means of obtaining com-
parative material to make possible a more exact knowledge of occi-
dental culture. In comparison with these, Max Weber's position,
particularly in his later days, was quite different.
On his American trip he had become interested not only, as we
reported, in Negroes (in line with his interest in the protection of
the oppressed) but also in American Indians. He never published
on these subjects. This follows naturally from his rigorous sense of
obligation to avoid writing about anything with which he was not
completely familiar. However, Asiatic peoples, as is generally known,
played an increasing part in his outlook on the sociology of reli-
gion; the Hindus were traced back to the days when they had no
written language; totemism played a role as did the problem of
matriarchal law in his lectures on economic history, published post-
humously. In all of this he remained true to his basic position. He
avoided constructs that seemed impermissible to him. He had not
studied Bastian. When I asked him about it, he replied, "No one can
read this," a judgment in which he certainly didn't stand alone. In
questioning him on other authors, I discovered that he respected
von den Steinen's book on the Xingu. Von den Steinen had avoided
the broad generalizations of which his mentor, Bastian, was so fond.
Weber also liked Hahn's book on domesticated plants and animals,
although with some reservation, because Hahn rejected the old
theory of three inevitable stages of evolution, which maintained that
culture developed from hunting to cattle raising to farming, of an
automatic necessity, and with the three stages quite independent of
each other. Father Schmidt and the problem he raised were over-
looked except for a single reference, in connection with totemism,
which was not especially important. In general, there wasn't much
discussion of peoples who had no written language. This might be
for a reason other than Weber's own interests. At that time I was
not so interested in ethnological questions as I had been previously
at Berlin, nor as much as I was later on.
The reader who has followed these memoirs thus far has prob-
ably asked more than once when we are finally going to discuss
sociology. After all, Max Weber is known as a sociologist the world
Memories of Max Weber 183
over, and not least in the United States. But this is the situation:
although in Heidelberg at that time many things were considered
from the standpoint of sociology, the science of society as such did
not appear in the college catalogue. Johannes Scherrer had indeed
given some lectures in sociology, and Max Weber was twice involved
in affairs having to do with this lecturer. Because of this, Scherrer
has a place in this text. Scherrer was personally a man who was
worthy of the greatest respect. His grandchildren had been orphaned
at an early age and he provided for them like a father. In 1886, the
500th anniversary of the founding of the university, he had received,
after a long wait, the non-civil service title of Extraordinarius. One
could just as well have called him an eternal Privatdozent. Because
his classes were small he earned very little. Unfortunately he was
known only to a few people. Thus the philosopher of law, Radbruch,
once asked me directly, "Is this man really alive? Isn't he a phan-
tom?" Scherrer was thus the object of many funny stories. They said
that once when the semester had ended, Scherrer had got only as
far as the apes in his history lecturesbecause he had started with
a discussion of the primeval nebula. At the Heidelberg Historians'
Congress in 1903 which we mentioned earlier, Scherrer had en-
tered the discussion that took place after Gottl's lecture. As soon as
Scherrer had the floor but before he had uttered one syllable, von
Below said in his cynical way, "Aha, it's Scherrer," and the chairman
simply cut Scherrer off after a very short time. This wasn't very nice
and certainly wasn't proper parliamentary procedure. During a meal
several years later, Windelband reported that he had never heard
"such twaddle" as Scherrer's remarks at that time. As I noted above,
Weber was twice involved in incidents concerning Scherrer. This is
his report: the university was at one time concerned with Scherrer's
personal life. Because the poor devil didn't earn very much and, as
noted, had to provide for his family, he rented furnished rooms to
students and offered the noon-day meal in order to keep his own
head above water. Scherrer was anything but a calculating busi-
nessman and he was soon headed for bankruptcy. Now there were
among the faculty a number of people who thought that a profes-
sor was no ordinary mortal but a kind of deity. German public opin-
ion at that timein this respect very different from opinion in North
Americasupported this view and was indeed probably respon-
sible for such a notion. And so a number of people thought that it
184 The Unknown Max Weber
was beneath the dignity of a man who bore the title of university
professor to go bankrupt, and they even raised the question as to
whether or not he should be removed from the list of teachers.
However, mercy prevailed over justice and things didn't go this far.
As one can imagine, Weber was very happy about this.
The other incident, as Weber told it, concerned the publication of
a work by Scherrer. At the time, when a manuscript was sent to
them with the request that it be published, some publishers would
ask one or more persons whom they thought knowledgeable and
objective whether the work should be published or not. The ad-
equacy of this measure is the subject of some dispute. For my part,
even in the United States, I have politely declined passing judg-
ment when the decision is not made known to the object of the
judgment and is, therefore, de facto, not subject to control and ulti-
mately unanswerable. In this matter, as in so many others, Weber
thought and acted differently than I. He told me that he had com-
plied with the wishes of a particular publisher and had written some-
thing like this: in view of the attractive title of Scherrer's work, there
is little risk in publishing it; this was followed by a purely mental
reservation that the work was really nothing but nonsense.
Although Scherrer's preoccupation with sociology certainly cre-
ated no stir in Heidelberg, Gothein's impact was greater. Although
he was primarily a historian, he broke through the barrier that had
kept sociology out of the universities up to this time and announced
a series of lectures on the subject. Max Weber was probably happier
than anyone else about this. Weber came even more directly into
Gothein's sphere of interest in the matter of founding a sociological
society. I have already referred to this in the anniversary issue pub-
lished for the fiftieth anniversary of Rene Konig's periodical, the
Kolner Zeitschrift. To recount this in detail would be superfluous, but
I shall recall one incident that makes manifest in a particularly ex-
pressive way the deep-rooted conflict of conscience that tore at
Weber's innermost being. Besides Weber and those of like mind
(who, in this case, included Sombart), there were other people in-
terested in the establishment of an association. These people had
different intellectual positions and, to compound the difficulties, this
difference lay at just that point which, as one can easily imagine,
was of central importance to Weberthe meaning of value judg-
ment. The best known spokesman for this other group was Rudolf
Memories of Max Weber 185
Goldscheid. He was a progressive evolutionist and he thought, as
did others of that persuasion, that his inspiring belief in progress
could be given a scientific foundation. This notion was based on the
implicit conviction that it was possible to evaluate unequivocally
the diverse cultural phenomena and cultural levels. Weber found
this idea untenable. On the other hand, Weber knew, and he told
Goidscheid freely, that most of the persons who favored such an
association tended to be progressive evolutionists. From a demo-
cratic standpoint, Goldscheid's position ought to take precedence.
Thus Weber was forced to choose between two obligations: on the
one hand, integrity of scientific practice, and on the other, respect
for the convictions of people who thought differently, and who con-
stituted the majority. The decision was made even more difficult
because of another consideration: he was well aware of the sincer-
ity and selflessness of Rudolf Goldscheid, who, as a private scholar,
was above any suspicion of acting for the sake of personal gain.
Many years later Marianne confirmed this to me in the presence of
other witnesses in Cologne, and added that Max had suffered greatly
because he felt obliged to hurt such a good man. From my own
experience I can confirm the fact that Goldscheid was a most de-
cent sort of person. I had worked with him for years at pacifist en-
terprises, particularly at international peace congresses, to our mu-
tual enrichment. Weber decided to give precedence to the principle
of value neutrality, a condition that would be the sine qua non of his
cooperation. At the next meeting, this condition was respected by
only one of the speakers; therefore Weber indicated that he very
likely would not work with them. He was certainly within his rights.
Further discussion in the Sociological Society was cut short by
Weber's unexpected death.
Other protagonists and other sorts of problems appeared and
commanded undivided attention. A few might be mentioned: von
Wiese and his Beziehungslehre, Father Wilhelm Schmidt and his cul-
tural-historical school of ethnology, and Oppenheimer and his ex-
planation of critical phenomena and changes through the nature of
the relationship of man to land. This story was embedded in a ratio-
nal Utopia of the reign of justice. Like the teaching of Karl Marx, it
was a secularization of the demands of the Old Testament prophets.
This was not unlike the ideas of Max Weber. Weber didn't object too
much if one set that part of his work which was relevant outside the
186 The Unknown Max Weber
plane of the special sciences in parallel with the role of the Old
Testament prophets. Occasionally those of us who were younger
discussed Oppenheimer, but I don't remember that Weber ever said
anything about him.
Economic and Political Sciences
As we turn from sociology to the discipline of economics, it is
necessary to warn the reader of a possible misunderstanding when
Weber is called a "political economist" (Nationalokonom). This was
the customary title in German universities at that time, but it is mis-
leading, and fortunately the present designation is simply "econo-
mist." Weber was an economist, but he was competent in other
disciplines as well. This is demonstrated by the fact that Mommsen
considered him a possible candidate for a chair in ancient history or
Roman law. That Weber was called to Freiburg as an economist was
to a certain degree accidental and was perhaps not altogether for-
tunate, for he was required, in addition to holding seminars and
other duties, to give lectures for three large courses: "general politi-
cal economy" (sometimes called "theoretical"), "special economics"
(sometimes called "applied"), and "finance." These were taught at
all universities and represented the backbone of the discipline of
economics. But this meant that Max Weber, who was trained in
Roman and commercial law, hastily had to prepare himself in areas
that he did not know in detail, even though he was not completely
unfamiliar with them. In this connection there is no doubt that he
overworked in Freiburg and thus prepared the way for his later ill-
ness. Nevertheless, he never felt that he was only an economist, at
least in his later years.
A remark by Weber's wife expresses this characteristically. Dur-
ing the First World War, because I had not previously served my
term, because I was unable to participate in active service, and
because, being half-French, I spoke French fluently, I was an inter-
preter with the rank of corporal in the civilian prison camp,
Sennelager, near Paderborn. During my leave I went to Heidelberg;
Weber wasn't there, but Marianne was. She reported that her
husband felt much better than he had before, and we discussed
whether or not he ought to teach again. She said he was not able to
do so and would like to teach sociology and a value-free political
Memories of Max Weber 187
and without being prompted by a question on my part, she added,
"His development has taken him far beyond purely economic mat-
ters." Thus in my presence there wasn't much conversation on eco-
nomic matters and on political economy as a science.
The situation with regard to political economy in Germany at
that time was quite clear and I have already touched on it in the
detailed discussion of trends in economic history. Schmoller domi-
nated the field with his combination of economics, history, and aca-
demic socialism. Adolf Wagner, whom we have already mentioned
twice, represented academic socialism, but his position was ahis-
torical, and he was much more interested in theory. In the Schmol-
ler school, theory had only a limited role. This produced the conse-
quence that one might expect: when Schmoller died, the school fell
apart. His two-volume book on the foundations of political economy
(Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre) had been one of the
most widely sold textbooks in political economics up to that time,
but in a little while one could buy it as an antiquarian piece for a few
pennies. People suddenly realized that theorists were really necessary;
one looked around for some and discovered that they could most eas-
ily be found in Austria. Here Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Philippowich,
and later Kerschagl and many others established the theory of mar-
ginal utility, but apparently quite independently of its first discoverer,
the unfortunate Gossen, who had long since been forgotten.
Schumpeter was thought to be one of its most characteristic, albeit
most independent, representatives and was regarded as one of the
keenest economic thinkers of the time. From Vienna he was invited
to go to Bonn, and then to Harvard in the United States; this latter
took place before Hitler came to power and forced many persons to
emigrate. But this lies outside narrow focus of interest of this sketch.
In the span of time under discussion, the theory of marginal util-
ity was not the subject of conversation, at least in my presence, in
the house on the Ziegelhauser Landstrasse, although the theory
certainly played an essential role in Max Weber's thinking. This is
documented by his polemic against Brentano and his thesis that
the "fundamental psycho-physical law" was the basis of the theory
of marginal utility, and that this latter was only "the application of a
special case." However, the so-called Ehrenberg case played a much
greater part in our conversation. Ehrenberg was an economist from
Rostock and the editor of the periodical Thunenarchiv, which he had
188 The Unknown Max Weber
founded. At that time all the dominant trends in political economy
conformed in their emphasis on the importance of welfare policies.
In contrast, Ehrenberg emphasized the importance of the question
of profitability. It seemed to him that this concept was endangered
by comprehensive social welfare policies. This constituted an attack
upon a position that Max Weber, in spite of certain reservations,
thought worthy of defense. Yet this would not have upset Weber
had it not been for something else that happened. He heard that an
industrial association had been pleased by Ehrenberg's remarks and
this group had offered the University of Leipzig the means to es-
tablish a research institute on the condition that Ehrenberg be made
the director. This was too much for Weber; at the meeting of the
Verein fur Sozialpolitik he brought the matter to public attention,
and the plans then fell through. But the affair had an unhappy af-
ter-effect. Hans Ehrenberg has been mentioned twice in these pages,
once in connection with an incident in Baden-Baden. He was the
nephew of the person attacked on that occasion. I knew him very
well and he dared to speak freely to me, and so he told me, "All of
us [that is, members of the Ehrenberg family] suffered because of
it." It is scarcely necessary to add what the reader will have already
concluded: Weber never allowed his argument with the uncle to
affect his relations with the nephew.
In any discussion of the younger economists in the Weber circle,
one must not for a minute forget Weber's insistence on one par-
ticular principle: he would not take part in the examination of his
own students when they attempted to be qualified as lecturers.
Thereby he may have, in fact he did, injure a few young people. For
they then had to go elsewhere for the examination. These other
professors would perhaps wonder why the student's own major
advisor would not approve him as a lecturer, and they would there-
fore regard these young men with some skepticism. Weber was aware
of this result, and often talked to me about it. Again he was forced
to choose between two obligations: on the one hand, the well-be-
ing of his own students and, on the other hand, an obligation that
seemed more essential; it seemed to him that to insist on the li-
censing of his own students was a misuse of the power position of
an Ordinarius (which doubtless existed), who, in this roundabout
way, would propagate his own views through the teaching of his
disciples. To this unimaginably humble man this seemed to be an
Memories of Max Weber 189
ethically impermissible form of the use of influence. The consequence
was that one found a number of economists both in Heidelberg
and even in Weber's own circle who were not his pupils.
Let us look at them. One might argue that a number of them
have been forgotten and one should, so to speak, let sleeping dogs
lie. Although some of them may not be particularly interesting, still
they are of importance because Weber's relations with them were of
significance. When Weber came to Heidelberg from Freiburg, he
found Leser and Kindermann there as Extraordinarien. They had at-
tained this rank under Weber's predecessors. In theory, that is, ac-
cording to the prevailing rules of the university, a man who was not
an Ordinarius still had the right to teach anything relevant to his
field of competence; in practice, it was possible for an ordentliche
professor to create all sorts of difficulties. As one can imagine, We-
ber did not do this. He told both of them, as he reported to me later,
"You are free to lecture as you will." He did this in spite of the fact
that he had no great respect for either one of them. Kindermann
took advantage of this opportunity, but Leser confined himself to
the history of economic theory. In this area Leser edited some older
publications and published some new things of his own.
I was particularly interested in the field. At the time I liked to
work with the history of social and political ideas (as I did in my
lectures) and naturally that made close contact with economic theory
unavoidable. In addition, I was just as stubborn then as now and
felt that I had to take the part of men who were unimportant, who
had suffered set-backs, and whose careers were without success. I
therefore attempted to put in a good word for these two with We-
ber. But love's labor was lost. Naturally Weber took my remarks se-
riously, but he replied with respect to Leser, "The stuff he has pub-
lished is obviously trivial," and with regard to Kindermann, "He
believes that he has a mission to fulfill, but one needs only to read
his work on political economy and art (Volkswirtschaft und Kunst) to
know enough about him." On another occasion Weber reported
that Kindermann represented one of the few cases where he, We-
ber, had gotten rid of someone, namely by recommending him to
the Academy of Agricultural Economics in Hohenheim.
At another time, however, when Weber was faced with the ques-
tion of obtaining a suitable economist at Heidelberg, the situation
was much more difficult. It was at the time that he resigned his
190 The Unknown Max Weber
chair, and the administration, as we already mentioned, didn't want
to name Sombart as the successor. They finally decided in favor of
Karl Rathgen. Some people just winked and made wise remarks:
"That's because he's Schmoller's son-in-law." But he was more than
that. In particular, he had been in Japan for years and had pub-
lished some popular pieces, as well as some strictly scientific works
on the political economy of Japan, especially on the continuous ad-
aptation to modern occidental methods. I had been in his house
myself and had also attended his lectures on practical economics
and financial science; last but not least, I had attended his seminars
and I was grateful to him. I expressed myself in this sense to the
Webers. But Weber commented, "In the long run, he gets on one's
nerves with his proper behavior and his way of never getting out of
line." Rathgen was always correct and cautious and didn't want to
offend anyone. I mentioned to the Webers that as students we had
hardly been able to keep from smiling when we saw Rathgen pull
his lecture notes out of his side pocket. They were encased in a much-
used, almost dirty, blue envelope. Weber looked at Marianne, who
smiled back at him, and he replied, "Well, thank God; at least there's
one occasion when Rathgen wasn't so everlastingly correct."
I never met the young Heidelberg social scientists Schachner and
Jaffee because both had already accepted appointments elsewhere.
I do not remember that their names were mentioned, at least in my
presence, in the house on the Ziegelhauser Landstrasse. Jellinek,
whose judgment on men and scientists often agreed with Weber's,
spoke of Schachner with great respect. He was one of the first of those
few European economists who had traveled extensively in Australia.
His interest, unlike that of Baldwin Spencer who did systematic re-
search on the natives, was concentrated on the white men's Australia
for which he prophesied a great economic and cultural future. I don't
remember ever having met Edgar Salin at the Webers'house. Unfortu-
nately I had only a fleeting acquaintance with him. Weber didn't care to
have Hermann Levy at the Sunday afternoon gatherings. He felt the
same way about Bloch, although this was not because he didn't respect
Bloch as a scholar. Weber once told me quite bluntly, "His social be-
havior is so naive that many people would stop coming to my house
if they knew they would meet Bloch here." But this opinion did not
prevent Weber, as in the case of Adalbert Wahl, from gratefully cit-
ing Bloch in his so-called Calvinism-capitalism work.
Memories of Max Weber 191
Another person the Webers didn't care for was Rudolf Biach. He
had done a lot of work on the history of mercantilism, and had a
personal relationship with Henri Bergson, the most-discussed
French philosopher at that time. Biach did not lecture in Heidel-
berg. Before the First World War, many of the younger Ph.D.s, if
they had enough money, lived in German university towns even
though they had not formally qualified as lecturers. Biach was
doing just this. He came often to the Webers' house. Later on
during the war he was a British prisoner-of-war in India for quite
a long time. Marianne told me later that they didn't care much
for him because of his inner coldness and unkindness. In any
event, as in so many cases, the relationship was terminated as a
result of the war. The relationship with Emil Lederer and Arthur
Salz was quite different. With regard to Lederer, this is demon-
strated by a remark Weber made. I told him that Lederer and I
had struck up a friendship during vacation; Weber exclaimed with
pleasure, "I'm really very glad."Weber knew him as a result of a
long period of close cooperation in editing the Archivfur Sozial-
wissenschaften. Weber was one of the founders and editors.
Lederer had to write regular reports on important events in the
sociopolitical area, as well as reviews of books and articles in
that field. Weber explained the situation to me in this way: Ac-
cording to the original intention, Lederer should be writing noth-
ing more than informative accounts. "However, Lederer goes to
so much trouble that he is actually producing strictly scientific
articles." Max Weber's position on this was ambivalent: on the
one hand he respected and admired Lederer's willingness to work
and the high standard of his output; on the other hand, he al-
most regretted that his young colleague spent so much time on
this sort of thing. He felt morally responsible for the precarious
situation of the Lederer couple. 'They are both living on what
they earn with their pens." In addition, the possibility of moving
the editorial offices of the Archiv from Heidelberg to the location
of the publisher (to the Siebeck [Mohr] offices in Tubingen) was
another threat. A great many Heidelberg writers were published
at this latter location, among them Jellinek and Troeltsch. Now
Lederer's post in Heidelberg was not permanent; he was an un-
salaried Extraordinarius. He would have to give this up, which he
presumably would not want to do. Max Weber said sadly, "I don't
192 The Unknown Max Weber
know what I ought to do. "When I interjected that both the Lederers
had a great deal of courage, he agreed and expressed his own admi-
ration for them.
We have already met Salz as an admirer of Ranke. Nevertheless,
to use one of Weber's occasional expressions, he was also "some-
thing more/' With regard to that point which was of such central
importance to Weber, that is, the theory of value neutrality, Salz
showed an uncompromising independence. This always impressed
Weber. In some respects, the two men were quite alike. In a way
that was really worthy of Max Weber, Salz aided the persecuted at
the end of the First World War, not without putting himself in se-
vere danger. In those Heidelberg days, he was also distinguished by
his friendship with Stefan George and Friedrich Gundolf. Gundolf
was the link between George, who at that time lived only within
his restricted circle, and the outside world, in particular, the Weber
household. We will take this up again when we discuss Weber's
position with regard to art and artistic genre.
To complete the picture of Weber as a sociologist and economist
and to eliminate misunderstanding, it is necessary to remember that
one does him an injustice if one calls him an opponent of psychol-
ogy as such; it is just as wrong to conclude that he neglected statis-
tics because he emphasized history so strongly. At least three char-
acteristic remarks demonstrate this. The first was his speech to
the first meeting of German sociologists in Frankfurt in 1910.
The second was a conversation with the psychiatrist Gruhle when
I was present. Gruhle was concerned with the fate of prostitutes
and asked Max Weber whether he ought to take a course in sta-
tistics. Weber replied,"I myself have never taught it, but...." I
cannot remember the rest of his words, but I do know that he
expressed himself positively with regard to statistics as such. He
gave undeniable support to statistics in a conversation with
Gothein which I overheard. They were talking about the newly
founded Academy of Science in Baden. Weber was very angry.
He thought that they were simply throwing money away to sup-
port natural science research that could be conducted in the exist-
ing, well-endowed laboratories. Sociological research, on the other
hand, needed a great statistical apparatus which it did not have and
which it could not yet finance. He felt that the Academy should
support this sort of research.
Memories of Max Weber 193
Jurisprudence
To complete the entire picture, I must add a few lines on his rela-
tion to jurisprudence and jurists insofar as this was not discussed in
connection with the discipline of history. Weber himself had begun
with the study of jurisprudence but thought that the value of knowl-
edge in this area would be limited. This was the tie that bound him
to Jellinek. This man who was officially a professor of civil law had
made four characteristic remarks on this subject, some orally, some
in print. Thus, "Philosophy was my first love; I have made a mar-
riage of convenience with jurisprudence;" further, "It is too bad that
Kant didn't write a fourth critique, namely, the critique of the juris-
tic power of judgment;" in addition, "The jurist who is aware of his
limitations remains in the empirical world where the life of the law
unfolds and where action, not theory, is sovereign;" and finally, "The
categories with whose help one can understand various social phe-
nomena are not those of the law."
All this reveals a style of thought that could not possibly be strange
to Max Weber. And thus they were friends in the fullest meaning of
the word, in spite of, or better, because of, the fact that they were
different in certain ways. Jellinek was not inclined to be very radical;
his writing, even when he expressed the most abstract ideas, had a
pleasing style. He had grown up in Vienna and that is the city
whereas I put it one timeeven drunken cab drivers curse each
other in melodies reminiscent of Schubert. But Jellinek and Weber
also had many interests in common. In fact, Jellinek had been the
first person to show the socio-historical importance of Calvinism,
particularly in North America. This was in 1891, and it constituted a
point of departure for Weber's research. In addition, both men had
a pronounced interest in the history of natural law. I myself had
given several papers on it in Jellinek's seminar. My studies of
Gallicanism and Jansenism had also touched on natural law. At the
previously described meeting in Baden-Baden, I had lectured spe-
cifically on "The Role of Natural Law in Occidental Culture,"which
I repeated forty-five years later as a guest lecturer in Heidelberg.
Weber wanted me to tell him about this lecture, and he commented
that I would have been able to talk for two weeks without exhaust-
ing the subject. In any event, this interest constituted one of the
many ties between Jellinek and Weber.
194 The Unknown Max Weber
Above all Weber admired Jellinek's "unique style" of dealing with
public law; by this he meant that Jellinek went far beyond a purely
juristic treatment and treated the subject sociologically. Jellinek, as
he told me, considered Weber his superior.This really means some-
thing, coming as it does from a man who had high regard for his
other contemporaries, he also admired persons like Adalbert Merx,
Erwin Rohde, Jakob Burckhardt, Friedrich Dernburg, and Adolf
Hausrath, among others. On the other hand, he was also capable of
being sparing with his praise, and he could make very sharp re-
marks as we saw in the case of his sarcastic observations on Josef
Kohler. Weber was one of the first, outside Jellinek's immediate fam-
ily, to visit Jellinek after he had suffered a heart attack. Weber spoke
about this soon after the visit and observed that although it ap-
peared that Jellinek would recover completely, "We will naturally
have to wait to see how his next book turns out." Jellinek was work-
ing on the second volume of his work on the law of the modem
state (Das Recht des modernen Staates). He wanted the first volume,
with the subtitle "general theory of the state," to be followed by a
second with the subtitle "special theory of the state." He was not
able to finish the work. One evening Jellinek was reading from
Goethe's West-ostlicher Divan to his wife; at that moment he suf-
fered a second heart attack, collapsed, and said, "This is the end.
Farewell. "Thus his death was beautiful and without pain.
The fragments of the second volume, which he left unfinished,
were assembled and published by his son, Walter Jellinek, in a vol-
ume of selected writings and lectures (Ausgewahlte Schriften und
Reden). The first (and in fact the only) volume treating general po-
litical theory was later re-titled Allgemeine Staatslehre. Although
Weber admired Jellinek's way of dealing with public law, he was not
pleased with the way other professors treated public law. Until just
a short time before this, the other chair in public law at Heidelberg
had been occupied by Georg Meyer. He was highly regarded by the
Weber circle and, along with Jellinek and the young Max Weber, he
had been a pronounced National Liberal and was the first to de-
velop the well-known formula for the new German state: "The sov-
ereignty of Germany is exclusively based on the collectivity of the
federalized states. The individual German states still exist as states,
but they are no longer sovereign; there can be non-sovereign states.
The old theory that sovereignty is the essential characteristic of an
Memories of Max Weber 195
individual state must be abandoned in view of the complicated struc-
ture of the federal state."
For a number of years it was customary to see Georg Jellinek and
Georg Meyer taking a walk before lunch from the university to the
old castle. Although Jellinek was aware of the greater universality
of his own intellect, he never let Georg Meyer know this. Frau Jellinek
told me later, "My husband (who was so much more than a jurist)
could, if necessary, be a jurist among jurists." Now Georg Meyer
had written a textbook on German constitutional law; the book was
well received and in many respects contained some original views.
Gerhard Anschiitz was Meyer's successor after his relatively early
death. Anschiitz had had a meteoric rise, and he brought out a re-
vised edition of Meyer's work. Max Weber had followed all of this
and he observed to me, "The new edition is quite a decent accom-
plishment, but it is not enough to rest on one's laurels."
Along with Jellinek and Anschiitz, Schonborn, a younger man,
also taught public law at Heidelberg. He was a student of Jellinek's,
belonged to his circle, and was strongly interested in history. All of
this made him a suitable friend for the Webers, but I don't remember
meeting him there or hearing any discussion about him. But this
could be due to mere chance. The not quite friendly judgment of
Anschiitz was mere child's play compared to the judgments on three
other persons who taught public law and whom Weber really didn't
like, namely, Arthur von Kirchenheim, Ferdinand von Martitz, and
Konrad Bornhak.
Von Kirchenheim had taught at Heidelberg for a long time, from
1881 as a Privatdozent, then from 1886 as an Extraordinarius. He
claimed descent from an old family of army officers, but many of
the students, because they suspected that he was trying to conceal
his true origin, knew him by the nickname of "Synagogovich." To
understand the following, one must remember that Weber, as an
economist, was originally in the faculty of law, and so Kirchenheim,
in a certain sense, was his colleague, a fact which, considering
Weber's character, put him in a somewhat painful position. At that
time there was a rule, as there was for other faculties, that a person
who was not an Ordinarius could, if he wished teach the same course
in the same semester as an ordentliche professor on the condition
that he teach as many hours as the latter. This may have been of
only theoretical significance in many faculties. The large required
196 The Unknown Max Weber
courses in physics and the official clinics in the faculty of medicine
were often under contract to the Ordinarien who served as directors
of institutes or clinics. The Privatdozenten and Extraordinarien gave
only special courses, for the most part. In the law school, it was
different in many respects. Most of the courses had to be taken by
all of the students in order to prepare for the bar examination. The
number of students interested in courses other than those required
was always small in the law school. Therefore in most semesters the
same courses would be offered at the same time by several teachers.
This was the practical purpose of the rule previously mentioned.
Although von Kirchenheim was aware of the rule, he ignored it.
The faculty politely requested that he not do that. As that didn't
help, they took energetic action against him. To a certain extent he
became an outcast. Nevertheless, Max Weber continued to greet
him first, because von Kirchenheim was the elder of the two. Fi-
nally there came a moment when by chance Max Weber did not
greet him quite soon enough, and von Kirchenheim went by with-
out speaking/' Since then I don't greet him any more," Weber told
me, and probably von Kirchenheim is the only person who enjoyed
this doubtful distinction.
Weber's antipathy toward von Martitz was for another reason. I
had attended some of his classes in Berlin, and I reported to Weber
that, among other things, von Martitz taught the history of social
and political theory. Jellinek's course on this subject was in-
ternationally famous; I was particularly interested in the subject
myself. When Weber heard that von Martitz was also teaching the
course, he just smiled and stroked his beard and repeated what he
sometimes said on such occasions: "He must be propounding a lot
of beautiful nonsense." He also knew some other unedifying sto-
ries about the man. When he and von Martitz had worked for the
Administrative Court, his chief had declared with despair that the
man was "just plain lazy."
Of all those in public law, the man Weber disliked the most was
Konrad Bornhak. He had Gneist to thank for the fact that he passed
his qualifying examinations at Berlin, as Weber said, and Gneisfs
support really meant something. For next to von Mohl, Gneist was
the most famous proponent of the notion of the constitutional state.
Apart from his general significance, he was especially important in
Heidelberg. Here we must remember Jellinek's early fate. He was
Memories of Max Weber 197
an Extraordinarius in public law and had just published his famous
book on the theory of federalism and was giving lectures on inter-
national law. A somewhat anti-Semitic administration told him to
desist; despite the fact that he was head of a family and had no
private means, he had the courage to resign his position and to re-
qualify for lecturing at Berlin. Gneist was the man who made this
possible. Just as Weber admired Jellinek for the courage he had
shown, he respected Gneist for the help he had given Jellinek and
for other reasons as well. What he could not excuse was the fact
that Gneist had helped Bomhak to qualify as a lecturer.
Bomhak was a rather astonishing figure even in Wilhelm's Ger-
many. His political conservatism surpassed anything I have men-
tioned thus far. He equated the ruler with the state, and he believed
that only the word "subject" was adequate to describe the people
living in the state; he explained that the civil servants had no con-
tractual right to any compensation and ought to receive only token
pay; he described the chambers of the Prussian diet as organs of the
King (therefore "royal Prussian deputies," as Jellinek sarcastically
called them), and in principle he denied the claims of public law. In
spite of this extreme conservatism, his success as a lecturer was lim-
ited. Weber, looking rather pleased, told an amusing story. At that
time there was a professor of Christian archaeology in Berlin by the
name of Nikolaus Muller. As Weber started to describe him, I inter-
rupted: "I see what you mean; I know a pious old maid who is a
friend of his and told me about him." Weber added at once, "Yes
indeed, he was a pious old maid himself." And he continued,"One
morning Muller was sitting there in his Institute for Christian Ar-
chaeology, but it was so terribly hot that he took his book and settled
himself in a nearby auditorium that was cooler; the auditorium was
empty so obviously a lecture wasn't being given there. He had
scarcely seated himself when a man came running in, got up on the
podium, and began to give a lecture on constitutional law. Muller
thought that the man was probably crazy, and he remembered the
rule for dealing with the mentally ill: do not, under any circum-
stances, disturb or irritate them. He therefore interrupted his read-
ing and listened patiently for an hour until the bell rang and the
speaker disappeared. Only later did he leam that the man whom he
had supposed to be mentally ill was none other than Professor
Bornhak. He had scheduled his lecture for that hour and had been
198 The Unknown Max Weber
so happy that finally someone had come in to hear him. "I imparted
to Weber that I had heard that Bornhak had meanwhile received
recognition to the extent of being invited to lecture on constitu-
tional law at the War Academy. Weber commented, "If that's the
case, it's only because of his conservative outlook."
Of other legal disciplines, criminology was not far from Weber's
interests. Criminology transcends various spheres and is ultimately
not too far from philosophy. Problems of the alternatives of free will
and determinism, of heredity and environment, of individual and
social rights play an essential role, closely bound to the problem of
value. One can imagine that these and analogous questions must
have interested Max Weber, who fought for the rights of the indi-
vidual as opposed to the demands of institutions and their bureau-
cratic representatives. He particularly hated the typical representative
of the state who opposed the unfortunate individual in the judicial
process. Thus he spoke out, not only in private conversations, but in
the presence of many people, against the Prussian public prosecu-
tor. His comments were unambiguous and sharp with regard to these
men who condemned as many poor devils as possible for the sake
of their own careers. I had no reason to contradict him; I had learned
to know a prosecutor of the worst sort when, at a dinner held by an
association of which I was a member, he announced his basic op-
position to the jury trial; and he told how, after an acquittal, he in-
formed the court: "I want no second acquittal."
Ever since the Italian, Beccaria, had opposed torture in the eigh-
teenth century and Voltaire had urged before a wide audience that
punishment be humanized, there had been constant discussion of
criminology. Theories emerged and disappeared again. I might men-
tion a few of the most important: the theory of atonement, sup-
ported by the Hegelians. The criminal act was thought to be the
antithesis of the law (therefore a negation of the thesis); the pun-
ishment was the negation of the antithesis (therefore a negation of
this negation); therefore, in the Hegelian sense, the punishment
was the synthesis. Another example is the theory of improvement.
It stemmed mostly from the notion of natural law, and like it, in-
volved an optimistic position: man was good and perfection pos-
sible, and therefore the most important or even the only purpose of
punishment was the reformation of the delinquent. One of its most
important basic principles was derived from the philosophy of
Memories of Max Weber 199
Friedrich Christian Krause. This man not only was one of the most
original of Schelling's students during his third period, but among
all German Romantics was the one who represented the strongest
combination of pre-Kantian and Romantic-transcendental elements.
A continuous line of influence extended from Krause to Jellinek
through Krause's students, Ahrens in Leipzig and Schliephake in
Heidelberg.
The arguments over these theories and their derivatives are now
part of the past. In the meantime the Italian, Lombroso, had ap-
peared with an anthropological theory of crime. He postulated a
theory of the "born criminal'' in which skull structure and other
anatomical features played a decisive role. At first he had many stu-
dents and enjoyed great popularity, but he soon had many op-
ponents. Among these opponents, the founders and adherents of
sociological theory attracted attention. They attempted to explain
the criminal and his behavior through analysis of the social milieu.
Liszt, a distant relative of the composer, was one of the pioneers.
There was also a tradition in criminology in Heidelberg, and Mit-
termaier became a world famous name. Roder, a direct student of
Krause's, represented the theory of improvement, battled against
the theory of retaliation, and favored imprisonment in individual
cells. Like most of Krause's students, he never became an Ordinarius,
and he was able to attract a large number of students only to his
courses on penology.
In Max Weber's time, criminal law and procedure were repre-
sented primarily by Karl von Lilienthal. He was certainly not so sig-
nificant a figure as Liszt, who was the real leader of the new move-
ment in criminology, but he was close to Liszt, and together they
edited the journal that was the vehicle of the movement. After the
death of Georg Meyer, he was, next to Max Weber, Jellinek's closest
friend. Weber told me that he was glad, especially after Jellinek had
his first heart attack, that Lilienthal was such a good friend of
Jellinek's, and that he himself also considered Lilienthal one of his
own friends. There was also Gustav Radbruch, then an
Extraordinarius in this field. He combined the subject of penal law
with civil proceduresnot a particularly happy combination. This
hampered his advancement. His political views hindered him even
more. He supported the freisinnige Partei, spent a lot of time with
Russian students, and spoke at the same Russian student meeting
200 The Unknown Max Weber
where Weber presented the speech I already mentioned. He iden-
tified two categories of law students: students of order and students
of freedom, and he emphasized unambiguously that he was on the
side of the latter. In his lectures on the philosophy of law, he docu-
mented the fact that he was a pronounced opponent of any group
metaphysic. Later he became a socialist and was finally the renowned
minister of justice. Both Webers respected him very much; Max even
called him an anima Candida.
Weber and the Arts
Poetry, music, and the plastic arts certainly did not play the same
role in Weber's life as those areas we have discussed in detail: poli-
tics, philosophy, history, sociology, and economics. In spite of this,
the picture of Weber would be incomplete without a discussion of
his attitude toward the arts. Several aspects of his inner conflict with
regard to the potentialities embedded in his personality were mir-
rored in his choice or rejection of particular artists and kinds or styles
of art. To the extent that this was expressed in conversation, I shall
discuss it here. If we disregard fleeting remarks, we can give our
attention to the follpwing: Ibsen, the Yiddish theatre, the French
boulevard theatre, Parisian novels, Conrad Ferdinand Meyer,
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and, last but not least, Stefan George and his
circle. If one uses a common literary slogan, one can say, with all
due reservation, that Weber belonged to the Ibsen generation. Natu-
rally this label doesn't describe the whole man, but it does clear a
path to comprehension.
Indeed, in those days before George was famous, the controver-
sial figures of various foreigners had great effect in Germany. One
might mention the names of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Strindberg,
Bjomson, and Ibsen. At that time Weber was not so deeply involved
in the new literary and theatrical movements in Berlin as his socio-
logical colleague von Wiese, who was about fourteen years younger;
in spite of von Wiese's different epistemological basis, both men
shared an interest in contemporary issues: a non-metaphysical ba-
sis for the individual sciences, and a respect for the autonomous
decision on the part of the individual. In addition, Weber wasn't in
Berlin very long. Nevertheless Ibsen meant something to him. Ibsen
acquitted of any guilt the individual who had the courage to flout
Memories of Max Weber 201
convention, and Weber was attracted to this notion. Weber made
this quite clear in a discussion of Rosmersholm. In arguments with
Lukacs, the names of contemporary German realists such as
Hauptmann, Sudermann, and Wedekind occurred more than once.
Because of sociological interest (and, in this case, also because of
his eagerness to do justice to such matters), he visited the Yiddish
theatre in New York, as well as the boulevard theatre in Paris. This
was the basis of a rather droll story. I was visiting with both of them
and gave them some pointers for their coming trip to Paris. We started
speaking of the modem theatre. Someone mentioned the words,
"Theatre Antoine." At one time this had meant something in the
history of literature, but that time had long since passed. Weber made
a negative motion with his hand and said, "In the Theatre Antoine
they show only plays dealing with adultery. That isn't particularly
interesting." Marianne replied innocently, "That depends." Max
looked at her and smiled rather roguishly and said, "Well! Just lis-
ten to that; it sounds a bit suspicious," whereupon all three of us
laughed. This incident had a certain piquancy, however, because at
that time I went at least once a week to the house on the
Ziegelhauser Landstrasse. In the eyes of the women students at
Heidelberg, I was apparently something like the young man Schiller
described in "Gang nach dem Eisenhammer": "A faithful knight
was Fridolin/'or as some of them said, "Frau Weber's brown-locked
little page.'This was repeated in the fusty little town in which my
parents lived, and it aroused a mighty chattering among the women
there, particularly because Marianne Weber was one of those fear-
ful beings who was concerned with the status of women. Naturally
Max Weber got a hearty laugh out of all this.
When Weber returned from Paris, he had a lot to say about the
world of theatre there, particularly about its comparatively low level.
Among other things, he had seen Papa, a piece that was much per-
formed. It had been written by De Flers and De Caillavet, who pro-
duced a new comedy every year. In this, their most recent comedy,
the plot (as in so many plays by these authors and others who wrote
in this genre) concerned the well-known psychological situation
where an individual had to choose between two others, a man be-
tween two women, or, as in this case, a woman between two men.
In this play the girl had to choose between the naive owner of a
country estate and his natural father, who was a good-for-nothing
202 The Unknown Max Weber
Parisian playboy who boasted about all his mistresses in typical
French fashion. But this and the luxury in which he lived were deci-
sive, and the girl chooses him rather than the son. The whole thing
is characteristic of the tourist's notion of Paris, but it certainly was
not typical of the French middle class, which was the most philis-
tine to be found anywhere.
It was unlucky that Weber happened to see that particular play. I
had to admit to Weber that I had not only seen the piece, I had also
read it, and, to make matters even worse, I actually owned a copy.
At that time all the new plays performed in the private theatres of
Paris (with the exception of a few produced in the Sarah Bernhardt
Theatre) were published in the Illustration Thedtrale. This was a
supplement to the widely circulated magazine, L'illustration. My
mother subscribed to the latter and thus she received the supple-
ment regularly. This is how I happened to have a copy of this trashy
comedy (which I still have). When I told all this to Weber, he could
only exclaim, "This, too, for God's sake!"
Weber had a strong interest in the early French realists, Balzac
and Flaubert, particularly in Flaubert's Madame Bovary, which he
discussed in some detail with Lukacs. He didn't think much of the
later French society novels; he thought they had little artistic value
even though they did provide a sociological mirror of the lives and
values of certain segments of French society. He wanted me to tell
him about the novels of Gabrielle Martel de Janville. She was de-
scended from the old nobility, and wrote under the pseudonym
"Gyp"; she wrote about those circles she knew best and often
handled the material in dialogue form. The plots were concerned
with the activities of the French nobility. Doing nothing at all, they
lived on their incomes in Paris or on their estates in the provinces,
in fashionable sea resorts or on the Riviera. The milieu always seemed
to include a governess who took care of the small children, and the
unavoidable abbe who gave private instruction to the older chil-
dren. It was not fashionable to send the offspring of the old families
to the public schools; they might meet children who had not been
so careful in their choice of parents. In addition, the schools were
an innovation of the accursed Republic that was so anti-Catholic.
For naturally an aristocrat is a monarchist, reads the Gaulois as a
daily paper, and is strongly Catholic. This latter does not hinder him
from committing adultery. At the other pole one finds the Republic
Memories of Max Weber 203
itself, industry, bankersand Jews. The attempt of Jews to gain ac-
cess to Parisian high society was the subject of one of Gyp's novels.
As I said, Max Weber wanted me to tell him about the plots, which
he found characteristic of a certain type of society. For example, an
old aristocrat was explaining how his nephew had acquired one of
the greatest fortunes in France because he had inherited wealth on
a number of sides. The aristocrat added, "Je park naturellement des
fortunes bonnetement acquis et non pas des fortunes industrielles et
financieres." Here we have a clear contrast of fortunes acquired "in
an honest way,"in this context, of course, by pre-capitalistic meth-
ods, and industrial or financial fortunes acquired as the result of
capitalistic activity. Weber found this an important source of a con-
tinuing pre-capitalistic mentality.
When Weber returned from Raris, he was also disappointed in the
Comedie Franchise, the official home of the traditionalist performance
of the works of Comeille, Racine, Moliere, and Marivaux. Among other
things, he saw a performance of Victor Hugo's Hernani here. "They
played it realistically/' Naturally this made him think that this his-
torical drama with its hollow pathos had been made to appear comi-
cal. This does not mean that Weber had no appreciation of historical
plays, poems, or novels. Just as the historical paintings commissioned
by royalty, such as those of Camphausen, Gehrts, Piloty, and so forth,
had become less popular, so time had been unkind to the historical
ballads, epics, and novels of Baumbach, Eckstein, Wildenbruch, Julius
Wolf, and others. Indeed the life of these works was prolonged only
because secondary school teachers had to know them in order to
pass the state examination qualifying them to teach German and his-
tory in the upper levels of the secondary schools, and in turn they
would require their students to read such books.
Naturally we didn't talk much about this sort of literature, but
Weber did like Conrad Ferdinand Meyer. Weber liked Meyer's abil-
ity to understand the world of the past and to portray the tragic
aspects of the use of power, to capture in a microcosm the con-
frontation of historical forces, as for example in the meeting of Hut-
ten and Loyola in the collection of poems on Hutten's last days
(Huttens letzte T ag e) . He did not particularly like the verse form, but
decided to re-read it when I offered to lend him a copy. This pro-
duced an amusing result. After a time I asked him if I could have
my book back again. He was astonished but rather embarrassed.
204 The Unknown Max Weber
"Good heavens! I put it back among my books. I had quite forgot-
ten that it was yours and not mine." But he could also be charmed
by passages which were not microcosmic replicas of world conflict;
thus he liked the figure of the little Leubelfinger in Gustav A d o l f s
Page, and upon occasion one or the other of the three of us would
read aloud from the poetry of Conrad Ferdinand Meyer if no one
else were present.
For years Weber's illness had prevented his taking part in the
world of the theatre. He was happy in those years in which he was
able to do so occasionally. He spoke of a performance of the
Wal l enstein trilogy he had seen in the Hoftheater in Mannheimat
that time the right place to go for those in Heidelberg who loved
the theatre. But all of this was of comparatively little importance in
contrast with two other subjects which we discussed: Russian works,
especially those of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, and Stefan George.
In order to outline Weber's position with regard to George accu-
rately, and to avoid misunderstanding and error, we must clarify
three matters. First, what was the relation of George and his activi-
ties to contemporary trends? Even before the war, from more than
one quarter there had been a trend away from the bourgeois way of
life, city culture, instrumental rationality, quantification, scientific
specialization, and everything else then considered abhorrent phe-
nomena. The previously mentioned Lukacs and Bloch, Ehrenberg,
and Rosenzweig were part of this trend. This neo-Romanticism, if
one may call it that, was connected to the older Romanticism by
means of many, if concealed, little streams of influence; we can cite
only examples: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and later Schelling,
Constantin Franz, the Rembrandt Germans, and the Youth Move-
ment. As was the case with all other German movements above the
level of the purely ordinary, neo-Romanticism in its various forms
was also represented in Heidelberg; and like those in the various
Russian groups, its adherents knew on whose door they should
knock: Max Weber's door.
Second, what was George's relation to the professors and the
professional world? One may almost ascribe a symbolic meaning to
one fact: outside his own circle, Stefan George saw almost no one,
least of all the university professors. On the other hand, one could
mention Gundolf and Simmel. Before Gundolf became a Do zent,
however, he was already a privileged disciple. Gundolf was every-
Memories of Max Weber 205
thing but a typical German university professor (to say nothing of
his American colleague), who is so fond of hearing himself speak at
faculty and committee meetings. This is demonstrated by the fact
that Gundolf kept his distance from everything that resembled the
faculty, the examinations, and the like. Neither was Simmel a typi-
cal professor; this helps to account, along with the other reasons I
gave, for his late advancement.
Third, it is necessary that I say a few words about my own posi-
tion with regard to George. I can serve as a source of information
only within certain limits. I neither knew George personally nor
was I present when he talked with Weber. It is probably unneces-
sary to say that I was never a member of the George circle or even
close to it, as others were, nor did anyone connected with that circle
attempt to introduce us. This was for good reason. My entire life,
particularly my thirteen years'work in adult education in Cologne,
proves that I am anything but the esoteric type who wants to par-
ticipate in the cult of a master, aside from the fact that many in-
dividual aspects of this group made my participation quite impos-
sible. Its attitude was pro-Catholic, and then there was its admiration
of Ranke and the glorification of Napoleon by Gundolf.
When Gundolf arranged the meeting of George and Weber, I was
not there. In addition to all this, I must add that a certain degree of
intimacy was presupposed, and at the time I was only a young fel-
low " who had not published a single line/' as Weber let me feel
clearly more than once. However, Weber told me about it soon af-
ter, and he mentioned George's extraordinary personal simplicity.
But Weber remained true to his own ideas. He felt obliged to work
in the world for the world, and, at most, he could only tolerate
George's esoteric spiritual aristocracy. The cult of authority in the
George circle could elicit only an unconditional nay-saying on his
part. He told me this shortly after meeting George. His remarks in
abbreviated form, were something like this: "I quoted one of George's
remarks to Gundolf, and I said to him/You must concede that this
is simply wrong.' But, true to form, Gundolf answered, 'No, I can't
concede that; for if George were to be mistaken in this matter, it
would mean that he is not infallible.'" Naturally this was all this
anti-authoritarian man had to hear.
Weber talked about George and his circle in a similar way in sev-
eral conversations with Lukacs to which I have already referred and
206 The Unknown Max Weber
which took place in my presence. Still Weber thought that particu-
lar attention should be given to the fact that George attracted so
many gifted younger people. He therefore followed the literature
on George and thereby discovered that Dora Busch, the daughter of
his friend Jellinek and the wife of the previously mentioned psy-
chiatrist Busch, had written the most perceptive article that existed
on George.
Much more significant for the discussions in the Weber house
was the fact that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were, so to speak, actually
present. Several factors converged to produce this effect. First of all,
as I already noted, there were many Russian students in Heidel-
berg; but more important than their actual number was their inten-
sity, for example, in the seminars of Jellinek and Windelband. Among
them were such personalities as Feodor Stepun who later became
very famous, and, among other things, through his book first intro-
duced Soloviev to the German public. In addition, Nikolai von
Bubnoff taught in Heidelberg; he was already mentioned and came
often to the Weber house. His field covered mysticism in general,
but particularly the Russian Greek Orthodox philosophers.
Ehrenberg once remarked that, without a strong dose of Greek Or-
thodox Christianity, the Western world would be deficient in some-
thing. And one must not forget that, according to Lukacs, Russian
religiosity and literature had an important place. When Bloch spoke
of the religio-collectivist realm of justice, for whose coming he had
hopes, he could just as well have used the formula: "A life in the
spirit of Dostoevsky."
Naturally none of this is mere chance and several of the names
we have mentioned show how the matter is to be explained. The
discontent with the West in general, and with Germany and its es-
tablished Protestant church in particular, caused the Romantics to
look back to the past; but it also caused Romantics and anti-Ro-
mantics to look to other countries. And thus these people I have
mentioned had at least one thing in common with Max Weber. In
addition, one should not forget that the notion of the autonomous
individual was one of Weber's deepest convictions. The question is
nothing less than the decision as to whether one ought to follow a
radical ethic without regard to the consequences, an ethic stated in
its purest form in the Sermon on the Mount; or whether one ought
to follow an ethic of responsibility, in which case one can be no
Memories of Max Weber 207
saint but, for the sake of responsibility, must exert power and thus
become a sinner, like the man who becomes a politician from a
sense of duty.
It was therefore unavoidable that Max Weber would be preoc-
cupied with Dostoevsky. I don't remember a single Sunday con-
versation in which the name of Dostoevsky did not occur. Perhaps
even more pressing, even inflaming, was the necessity of coming to
grips with Tolstoy. Indeed after his own day on the road to Dam-
ascus, in the period during which he was preoccupied with the ethic
of the Sermon on the Mount, Tolstoy had favored acting according
to this radical ethic with no concessions. He didn't act entirely in
accordance with his own postulate, however; he continued to live
on his estate, and explained this in his drama The Light that Shines
in the Darkness. Here he had the hero, in this case, himself, announce,
"It is my lot to be ridiculed by other people because I do not live
according to my own teachings." Weber thought this was inconsis-
tent and said so. During the war he wrote an article on the two
ethics (Zwei Moralen). Although this is of significance with regard
to Weber's thinking, the article is little known. In this article he said
that Tolstoy had attempted to realize his ideal only in the last brief
period of his life, when he actually left his estate and his family and
lived as a wandering beggar. Only the man who lives as Tolstoy did
in his last weeks can invoke the Sermon on the Mount and pro-
claim the merits of pacifism and disarmament. One might interrupt
to say that this was written during the war and is to be explained by
the situation at that time. On the other hand I must emphasize that
before the war Weber told me that some day he would have to take
a stand on Tolstoy.
Gundolf represented Weber's confrontation with literary history
as an independent discipline. Gundolf was officially qualified to teach
literary history and then was made a professor of the same subject.
We have already noted his importance to Weber. On the other hand,
Weber was skeptical, even scornful, of those who babbled about
esthetics, particularly if such talk were garnished with patriotism.
Thus he parodied their methods when, in order to endear the Queen
in Hebbel's Gyges und sein Ring to the hearts of the audience, he
compared her to Bismarck's wife. Likewise he laughed when he
saw literary history degenerate into petty philology, as for example
when I told him of the existence of the Revue des Etudes Rabelaisiennes,
208 The Unknown Max Weber
which I had discovered in the course of my studies on Gailicanism
and Jansenism.
The plastic arts were not discussed very often, but this was not
true of the art historians. Weber made fun of Henry Thode, but so
did a number of others; in Heidelberg at that time Thode was a
figure of fun to everyone except his students, the so-called Thode
Boheme. Although Thode had had a respectable beginning, he fell
into the habit of glorifying his favorite artists in his courses. His
phraseology was even more extravagant in his public lectures. Con-
sequently people would attend his lectures just to be amused. In a
similar way Thode raved about Giotto, Mantegna, and Correggio,
among others, in his works. His writing on these painters was quite
suited to the best-selling Knackfuss collection of monographs on
various artists in which it was indeed published. It is hardly neces-
sary to add that the Weber circle didn't discuss Thode at any length,
although they were quite interested in the history of art. This is
demonstrated by their positive attitude with regard toThode's suc-
cessor, Karl Neumann, who was highly esteemed. For years
Neumann was only a Privatdozent and then a mere irregular Ex-
traordinarius in Heidelberg until he was finally called to Gottingen.
Neumann's sphere of interest was broad, and in this respect he
showed a similarity to Jakob Burckhardt. At the meeting of the
Heidelberg Historical Congress which I mentioned several times
before, he gave a lecture on Byzantine and Renaissance culture. I
can still hear how several of the younger historians talked about the
lecture and agreed that it was no wonder that Neumann had re-
mained an eternal Privatdozent for such a long time: he was unable
to choose between history and art history. I was given a warning
glance on this occasion because I had allowed my broader interests
to become all too obvious.
A proper member of the Thode school who in walking seemed to
transfer his body weight to his generously developed backside, and
whom we called "the kangaroo" for that reason, told me that there
were no two ways about it: history and art history had nothing what-
soever to do with each other. The art historians at that time had the
same limited horizons as the political historians. A few art histori-
ans, however, were of a different mind: Strzygowski, for example,
was attracting attention because of his theory on the influence of
Byzantine culture and art on the West, and for a brief period he was
Memories of Max Weber 209
thought to be a possible successor to Thode. This did not come about,
and Neumann was called back to Heidelberg from Gottingen, this
time as an Ordinarius. I do not know what Weber did behind the
scenes to make this possible. In any event, Weber regarded Neumann
as a friend; Weber had met him in Italy and was happy to see him
again. Soon after, Weber said in a manner that was half understand-
ing but half regretful, "He has become much more sober."
Although the plastic arts were not discussed in great detail, one
cannot say the same about music. For Weber, music was almost a
necessity of life, and he regarded with favor someone who was
musically inclined, he valued this quality in his colleague, the bota-
nist Klebs. In a different context, we were once discussing the
Orientalist Bezold, who was also known as an Assyriologist. I had
met him only once, in a large group, but I said that students had
told me that he was very dry. Weber interrupted with the words,
"Don't say that; he is the kind of musician who sometimes has to
interrupt his playing because he is overcome with emotion." Weber
also complained to me that, because of his illness, he was cut off
from the world of music. At times he had MinaTobler play for him.
The second volume of his GesammelteAufsdtzezur Religionssoziologie
is dedicated to her. When he began to recover his health, the first
thing he did was to attend concerts again.
On his travels he attended a performance of Die Meistersinger in
Munich. When he went to Paris in 1910,1 had to prepare a kind of
musical itinerary, and, beginning in 1912, he postponed the Sunday
afternoon gatherings for an hour on several occasions, so that he
could hear the chamber music concerts that took place at that time.
Of course, the question of Weber's taste in music is much more
crucial than these external matters. An old proverb that I have modi-
fied slightly appears true: if you tell me what music you like best, I
will tell you who you are. When Weber was a student and a Dozent
in Berlin, he enjoyed the classical period of German chamber mu-
sic; he liked to speak of the Joachim Quartet. The Quartet was then
composed of different persons than later; instead of Halir, De Ahna
played the second violin. Weber was not disposed to admire only
the great man, who was, in effect, a prima-donna; he was just as
interested in the second violin, De Ahna, whom he respected very
much. The Klingler Quartet moved him greatly. In this quartet the
two Klingler brothers, one the first violin and the other the viola,
210 The Unknown Max Weber
were firmly in the tradition of Joachim, both with respect to tech-
nique and the content of the programs. Beethoven and Brahms dom-
inated the program as was the case with the Vienna Rose Quartet.
At a later time they played some of the moderns, such as Reger. But
at that time the modems were played very seldom. In any event,
Weber found the chamber music of Beethoven and Brahms quite
adequate.
This should not be taken to mean that he didn't like other types of
music; quite the contrary. Liszt meant a great deal to him, and he was
extraordinarily pleased when MinaTobler played Liszfs music. When
Weber went to Paris, as I said, I made him a sort of musical itinerary.
I told him about the two most important symphonic presentations of
the time, the Concerts Colonne and the Concerts Lamoureux. When
I added that the latter was accustomed to playing, in addition to the
more classical works, the compositions of the Impressionists, as well
as Liszt, he interrupted and said, "That alone is sufficient reason for
going there." I myself admired Liszfs compositions for the piano, as
well as his technique of orchestration. It stems from Berlioz, who was
a real revolutionary in his technique of combining instruments. On
the other hand, I was rather skeptical with regard to the program-
matic music composed by Liszt and Berlioz as well as by Richard
Strauss in his second period. Max Weber knew that. Now he was
always fond of provoking opposition. And so, in my presence, he
praised Liszt extravagantly and looked at me; I replied, "You know
indeed how skeptical I am about Liszts symphonic music." He an-
swered/That's just why I said what I did."Newer composers such as
Schonberg began to attract attention and were occasionally played in
Mannheim, but so far as I can remember these people were not men-
tioned at the Webers'in my presence.
Wagner, in accordance with the contemporary Zeitgeist, was dis-
cussed at length. If one wants to understand Weber's position with
regard to Wagner, one must keep in mind the time when Weber
grew up, as well as the role played by Wagner and ascribed to him
by his followers. It is necessary to add a few words in order to ex-
plain the apparent contradiction in Weber's attitude. The War of 1870-
71 had produced a feeling of exaltation like few other wars because
it had meant the definitive step toward the unification of Germany.
But with regard to the artistic expression of this state of mind, mat-
ters were quite different. For example, after the Seven Years' War
Memories of Max Weber 211
and the Wars of Liberation (1813-15), which, in part, concerned the
people of Middle and East Germany, the literature that was pro-
duced was of considerable significance. But the artistic response
which followed the War of 1870-71 involved pathetic painters of
battle scenes, like Camphausen, and comedies such as Der
Veilchenfresser (He Who Gobbles Violets) and Krieg im Frieden (War
in Peacetime).The plots tended to revolve around the Prussian of-
ficer, far from the front lines, who twirls his mustache and is sure to
get the girl. One must view Wagner's popularity in the context of
this national character, but the man himself must be viewed differ-
ently. In Wagner's personality there were elements of a post-Ro-
mantic, socialist anti-capitalism; Bakunin had fought along with
Wagner in the Dresden Revolution; and in addition there were even
elements of Schopenhauer and Buddhism. Why then did he use the
Nordic Edda myth as the subject of the Nibelungen tetralogy? Be-
cause he thought that here, as nowhere else, he could find a pessi-
mistic but simultaneously heroic Weltanschauung.
But the generation that grew up and lived under the influence
of the events of 1870 saw in them primarily the patriotic, Ger-
manic myth. And then Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamber-
lain, a Frenchman and an Englishman, came to Bayreuth, and both
proclaimed the supremacy of the Germans. Last but not least, there
was Cosima, Wagner's second wife. She let the world believe, as
Nietzsche's sister had done, that the whole idea was hers. She
took an interest in the public appearance of anti-Semites, such as
Zimmermann, the author of the book on the joy of sorrow (Die
Wonne des Leides), and even managed to find an understanding
word for Ahlwardt. This "Rector of all Germans," as he was sar-
castically called, behaved in such a way that even the leading anti-
Semitic party, the so-called Deutschsozialen would have absolutely
nothing to do with him.
This detour through the contemporary Wagner domain is neces-
sary if one is to have a real understanding of Weber's position on
Wagner and Wagnerism. Indeed he met Wagnerism in all its vulgar-
ity (Kitschigkeit) right outside his door. Henry Thode, whom we
have already mentioned in connection with the history of art, was
one of the most pronounced Wagnerians. His wife was legally the
daughter of the famous conductor Bulow, who had helped to make
Wagner's work popular. But everyone knew that in fact she was
212 The Unknown Max Weber
Wagner's daughter. Therefore Thode was in the innermost circle at
Bayreuth. Extravagant as he was in his courses, he outdid himself in
his public lectures on Wagnerin the presence of the fashionable
ladies of Heidelberg in their pompous outfits.
The story about the beginning of his lecture was told to me by
Jellinek, not by Max Weber himself. We have already learned to
know Jellinek as a charmingly malicious storyteller. Because the
story was told in the Weber circle, and because Max Weber liked to
tell stories of this sort, it is only a coincidence that I didn't hear the
story from him. In any event, the story is too good to be forgotten,
and so I shall tell it briefly: Thode began his lecture on Wagner
with the words, "Darkness covered the earth, the heavens were
merciful, the heavens opened, the dove of the Holy Ghost de-
scended, and the Mystery of Bethlehem was bom. And then dark-
ness again covered the earth, the heavens were merciful, the heav-
ens opened, the dove of the Holy Ghost descended, and the
Mystery of Bayreuth was born."
Nevertheless, Wagnerism had not only a droll but also a serious
aspect for Weber. We can consider one after another of Weber's re-
actions to Wagner's various works. As previously mentioned, when
he started feeling better, one of his first visits to the theatre was to
witness a performance of Die Meistersinger in Munich. The Wagner
performances in Munich were held in just as high regard as the
performances in Bayreuth, and some people even thought them
superior. When Weber mentioned that he had been there, I asked,
"Is that the cast in which Geiss sings the part of Beckmesser?" I
regarded this role as one of the most difficult in all opera. The per-
former must sing with a polyrhythmic beat in such a way that it fits
in with the singing of the whole chorus. In addition, because he is
the representative of a dying world and is fighting for a lost cause,
he must convey an impression of tragicomedy, not just comedy. His
part at the end of the second and third acts is one of the few in
history which is not only amusing but really comic. For the effect of
the Italian opera buffo is not comic, but rather amusing. This is true
of the melodies of the lightly draped muse in Milloker's Bettelstudent,
Suppe's Boccaccio, Johann Strauss's Fledermaus, and countless other
Viennese operettas. In answer to my question, Max Weber said only,
"I no longer remember whether he was called Geiss, but he sang
the part very well." Then he added, "Really, the important thing
Memories of Max Weber 213
was to have Soomer as Hans Sachs." I then asked whether Soomer
had been able to convey the humorous nuances intertwined in the
character. But Weber said only, "Not too well; but he did convey the
inner dignity."
He really liked Tristan, and he even asked me to learn the lament
of King Mark at the end of the second act so that I could sing it of a
Sunday afternoon. However, this never came about. On the other
hand, his opinion of P arsif al was negative. I can still hear how he
repeated, with agreement, the opinion of the botanist Klebs, whom
Weber, as we said, thought very musical: "Any man who is born a
eunuch should not be surprised if nothing happens to him." Natu-
rally he had in mind the scene with the flower girl in Klingsor's
garden at the end of the second act. He was not one hundred per-
cent in favor of the Nibel ungenring. Once I talked with him and
Gundolf about the possibility of a metaphysical tragedy (as I under-
stood it, based on my knowledge of metaphysics at that time), and
I said that I expected such a creation from one of my friends, who
then went in a different direction. I pointed to analogous works of
art in the past, and mentioned the Nibel ungenring in this context.
Weber cut me short, and said, "I know, I know. Alberich is supposed
to represent capitalism," and he shrugged his shoulders.
On the other hand he felt deep emotion on hearing Siegmund's
conversation with Brunhilde, who forecasts death, in the second act
of Die Wal kure, as we know from Marianne's description at the end
of her book. And thus we round out the picture; there were three
things, with respect to Wagnerism that Weber hated: the tendency
to elevate the unrealistic elements to a Weltanschauungin
Bayreuth almost to a religious cult; the nationalistic ballyhoo sur-
rounding Wagner; and finally, as mentioned before, the Wagnerian
paneroticism, which, as he told Gundolf and me, he hoped some
day to oppose in writing. Nevertheless he was moved by Wagner,
the poet of the tragic, and the notion that one's fate was inescap-
able, but one was nevertheless obliged to meet it with courage. And
he did like the music as such. This is not surprising in a man who
liked Liszt's type of orchestration.
Matters pertaining to the theory and history of music were often
discussed. One can remember the previously mentioned argument
with Ernst Bloch, particularly the sharp rejection of the position that
musical norms could have a universal validity. Questions concerning
214 The Unknown Max Weber
a sociology of music came increasingly into the foreground. I can
remember many of these quite clearly. In the spring of 1912, we
were walking in Weber's garden one Sunday afternoon. He was
having a lively discussion with a musicologist from abroad, and he
designated two sets of problems as being well worth relevant scien-
tific investigation. First, what reason is there for the fact that a par-
ticular instrumentalist chooses one particular instrument, oboe or
bassoon, for example, and not another? The second, to what extent
is the individual who plays an instrument for which few solos are
written, for example, the trombone or the tuba, satisfied with his
situation and to what extent does he regret having mastered such
an instrument? We didn't find the answers to these questions on
our brief walk; such answers could be found only as a result of care-
ful study. Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that Weber was then
preoccupied with such questions.
When he wanted to go to Paris, I called his attention to the Con-
certs Touche (not to be confused with the Concerts Rouge being
given at that time in the south part of the citythis was no better
than beer music). The Concerts Touche in the north part of the city
had a certain charm. There was a small number of instrumentalists,
often only a double string quartet, conducted by the notable first
violinist, Dorson, and Touche himself as cellist, and only one wind
instrument but not the trombone or tuba. Every evening they played
classical music for which their number was sufficient, or, in the case
of Haydn, just right. On the same evenings they would also play
chamber music, particularly compositions arranged for string and
wind instruments by Mozart, Beethoven, and others. One didn't
often have the opportunity to hear such music. The entire perfor-
mance had a slightly bohemian aura. Refreshments were served and
were included in the price of the ticket. The artists mingled casually
with the guests during the intermission.
Naturally the Webers went there. After their return, Marianne
told me that I had really done something when I directed her hus-
band there. It had been an effort to keep him from going there on
every evening for which he did not have a previous engagement.
He liked going there for two reasons: first, because of the oppor-
tunity of hearing compositions he had not heard before, an oppor-
tunity of which he always took systematic advantage whenever pos-
sible, and secondly, because he really liked the opportunity of
Memories of Max Weber 215
conversing with the musicians and he made good use of it. In par-
ticular he made inquiries into the training, the examinations, the
salaries, the retirement insurance, and like matters that had a bear-
ing on his sociological interests.
Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that before me and a
few friends he developed a theory of the factors that had a bearing
on the form of instrumental music, particularly the suite, the so-
nata, and the symphonya theory that is not contained in the manu-
script on the sociology of music left at his death. Briefly, this was the
theory: Christianity was the only one, among the scriptural reli-
gions, that had never had a cult of the dance. For Christianity ab-
horred the body. It was therefore necessary to have a music based
primarily on melody rather than on rhythm, to an extent scarcely
found anywhere else. To my mind, the theory is untenable, at least
in this form. In the first place there are at least two examples of a
Christian dance cult, in Seville and in the old Ethiopian Church, the
Monophysite offshoot lost to the Imperial Roman Church. In addi-
tion, the ancient Persian Zarathustrian religion with its pronounced
metaphysical dualism was just as inimical to the body as ancient
Christianity had been, but there is no evidence of a parallel musical
development. However that may be, this is not the place to inquire
into the correctness of a Weberian theory.
Position on Religion
Weber's personal attitude toward religion has already been de-
picted in connection with his meeting Ernst Bloch and Hans
Ehrenberg. However, the subject requires additional comment with
regard to the situation at that time. As long as he was not a Catholic
or a member of a theological faculty, the typical professor at that
time in a west or south German university had no external relation-
ship with the church. One knew that the church was closely con-
nected with the Conservative Party, the Junkers, and the highest
ranks of the officer corps, and one therefore rejected or ignored it.
Even for the liberal circles in industry and trade, the church was at
best a means to domesticate the masses, and this wasn't particu-
larly successful because the majority of factory workers regarded
the Protestant church as "the mouthpiece of reaction'' and "the
ideological face of capitalism." Finally, those circles that were labeled
216 The Unknown Max Weber
"liberal Protestant" and professed an interest in theology kept their
distance from the church. The religious development of Max Weber
is too well known to be repeated in detail. We shall discuss only the
most important names.
Who then was important to Max Weber's religious existence? His
mother, who was deeply religious but who responded emotionally,
without giving much weight to theological argumentation and
trends; his uncle Hausrath, the moderately liberal Heidelberg church
historian who, because of his loyalty to the state of Baden, was not
a strong supporter of Bismarck's Reich; and then his uncle, Hermann
Baumgarten, the well-known historian of the Protestant Reforma-
tion, who was an increasingly severe critic of the governing ability
and the mentality of Wilhelm; and, last but not least, his cousin,
Otto Baumgarten, son of the above, who was later a professor of
applied theology at Kiel, and who was also dissatisfied with the
German situation and was a particularly sharp critic of Stoecker,
Waldersee, and other "Christian anti-Semites" in the milieu of
Wilhelm II. In addition one must mention that Weber felt obliged
to concern himself with the historical criticism of the Old and New
Testaments as well as with other historical sources. This produced a
definitive rejection of Protestant orthodoxy.
But this meant, as we shall soon see, everything but a rejection of
religion and God. With regard to his position on Catholicism, one
thing is immediately understandable: this firm representative of an
ethic of individual autonomy who opposed any group that would
turn itself into a metaphysical entity was naturally an unconditional
opponent of Catholicism. At that time, Bloch and Lukacs had rap-
turous praise for Catholicism. However, Marianne said to me di-
rectly, "No, Catholicism is out of the question for us." Weber
also disliked the Catholic "chaplainocracy." He was referring to
the authority of chaplains in their capacity as local leaders of
Catholic labor organizations. He was often in contact with them
in the course of his investigations for the Vereinfur Sozialpolitik.
They occasionally got on his nerves. For the most part they were
sons of farmers, who with the help of scholarships had gone
through the Gymnasium and then through the seminary; Weber
found them somewhat lacking in good manners. And as little as he
liked superfluous formality, this man whose manners were above
reproach preferred to encounter good manners in other people. His
Memories of Max Weber 217
lack of friendliness to Bloch and Levy was related to their behavior
in this respect.
The picture produced by these remarks on Weber's position with
regard to Catholicism would be one-sided if we failed to examine
the other side of the coin. This man was almost like one possessed
with regard to freedom of conscience and the rights of minorities.
The Catholics, of course, were a minority. He was in the habit of
using every opportunity to learn more about Catholicism. It follows
that this man who had investigated Calvinism would be familiar
with the opposite pole. Namely, with the Catholic Counter-Reforma-
tion. His closeness to his friend and colleague Gothein was useful
in this respect. We have already met Gothein in our sketch of the
economists; he was really unsurpassed as an authority in this field,
particularly with regard to the Jesuits' theoretical and practical po-
sition with respect to the state, society, and economic affairs. Weber's
interest in the history of music and in sociology impelled him in the
same direction. He not only knew the Counter-Reformation, he ac-
tually loved many things about it. He had read Calderon intensively,
and he liked many of his dramas, particularly the play whose title in
translation is The Mayor of Zalamea. Weber usually called it The
Alcalde of Zalamea.
It is also important that he had relatives whose outlook was basi-
cally Romantic. They were enthusiastic about Romanesque churches
and Gothic cathedrals. Even more, they had an extensive sympathy
for Catholicism, and the Webers were almost afraid that they might
one day be converted. This had already happened in their family.
He gave a detailed account of Schnitger, a lawyer in Detmold. He
had been discontented with the state church and had first become
a Baptist; but he felt something lacking there too, and so he came to
the harbor of Catholicism.
On several occasions Weber wanted me to tell him about my Catho-
lic upbringing. I told him everything I could remember, for example,
about my mother's relatives in Roubaix and Tourcoing in the extreme
northeast of France. They were textile manufacturers and merchants.
Their situation as one of the few groups of firmly Catholic capitalists
made one feel that this would be splendid comparative material, an un-
expected outcome, to test the correctness of Weber's theory on the rela-
tion of ascetic Protestantism to the spirit of capitalism. I later investi-
gated this myself and published the results.
218 The Unknown Max Weber
I also spoke to Weber several times about my paternal ancestors,
small farmers in the so-called Bergische Land east of Cologne. I told
him about my great-uncle Hansen, who looked and acted like a
character in one of the old stories by Johann HeinrichVoss; my uncle
had a triple position as "organist, schoolmaster, and upright sex-
ton/' but in contrast to the "honest Tamm" in the poem by Voss, he
was Catholic instead of Lutheran. His church was the only one in
which I ever played the organ. Weber was even more interested in
my paternal grandfather. In general this man was typical of a whole
stratum. He knew classical philology and ancient history, as did most
of the teachers in the secondary schools at that time. He had writ-
ten two articles on the latter subject. They appeared as supplements
to the prospectus of the "Realschule of the First Rank, with Latin
instruction." in Diisseldorf. Later on this school developed into our
city Realgymnasium. My grandfather was born in 1823. He therefore
grew up at a time in which the situation of the Catholic Church was
rather peculiar. Because of the establishment of the state church,
the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the dissolution of
the Holy Roman Empire in 1803, Catholicism had received appar-
ently deadly wounds. In addition, a short time before this, in 1773,
the Jesuit Order had been dissolved by Pope Clement XIV, acting
under pressure from the Bourbon Court. It was re-established by
Pope Pius VII in 1814but this action did not have the approval of
everyone in the secular clergy, the older orders and many Catholic
laymen. My grandfather was one of the latter. He said bluntly, "I
don't like them," meaning the Jesuits, and he also disliked indul-
gences. Most of his friends, retired schoolmasters and petit bourgeoi-
sie who were church wardens, felt as he did.
What united them was their aversion to Prussia. This aversion
was of relatively recent origin. The imprisonment of the pugnacious
Archbishop of Cologne, Clemens von Droste-Vischering, provided
the decisive impetus to the formation of Catholic action groups.
Bismarck's Kulturkampf had done the rest. Thus in the seventies my
grandfather battled none too gently on the Catholic side in the
Kulturkampf. During school festivals he remained ostentatiously
seated during the salute to the old Kaiser Wilhelm, and by this un-
compromising action he forfeited his chance to become the director
of the school. All of this interested Weber greatly; this was not sur-
prising in view of the fact that he had a real aversion to Bismarck's
Memories of Max Weber 219
Kulturkampf, which denied freedom of conscience to the Catholic.
Weber was also well acquainted with various internal trends in Ca-
tholicism, especially the German Catholic heirs of the Enlighten-
ment, and the anti-Jesuit and Romantic trends. Thus he mentioned
the efforts of the Theiner brothers in Silesia to do away with priestly
celibacy, to restrict the cult of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and to ef-
fect various other reforms of which the Jesuits would not approve.
"That was really something," was Weber's comment on the efforts
of the Theiner brothers. This undertaking befitted only the abortive
movement of t he ant i-Roman, Cat hol ic spl int er church
(Deutschkatholizismus).
We didn't speak of the Old Catholics. This was another German
schism from Catholicism, an army of officers, in this case of univer-
sity intellectuals, without any troops. As in Baden, the home of the
older liberalism, it had adherents in Heidelberg among the profes-
sors, but we didn't actually see much of it.
I told Weber about my visits to Cloister Hain at Dusseldorf. At that
time it was the only Carthusian cloister in Germany. The Carthusians
were the most contemplative of all orders. Indeed, one could almost
say that, because each Carthusian father lived all by himself in a little
house, they formedhowever contradictory it might sounda soci-
ety of hermits. As a youth I had been extraordinarily impressed, and
often in the evening before going to sleep I would wonder whether
or not I ought to enter the order. Weber understood my feelings. He
told rne that he had once met and talked with a contemplative. Now
of course Weber's whole life tended to be under the sign of the vita
activa. But this man who favored entering the political arena told me,
"Indeed, there is no ethical or any other sort of viewpoint which can
justify the rejection or negation of the contemplative life. If someone
chooses to enter the contemplative lifevery wellone should not
hinder him." This is an understanding attitude that goes far beyond
that of many strict Catholics.
The mentality of the Carthusians was strikingly presented in an
essay on the apostolic effectiveness of the reflective life (Das be-
shauliche Leben, seine apostolische Wirksamkeit). It was written by a
Carthusian, appeared anonymously, and was translated into Ger-
man by the abbot of the previously mentioned Cloister Hain; he
gave me a copy. I gave it to my grandfather to read; he returned it
with the words, "I really don't think much of those monks who only
220 The Unknown Max Weber
pray. ''Weber was just as interested when I told him about my life as
an altar boy with the Franciscans, how my heart had pounded the
first time I served, the high degree of excitement felt by all of us
boys when we served, that is, assisted the priest, in our red or blue
robes with rochets and the lace vestments used at that time. We felt
this excitement especially at a sacramental mass, or a high mass
when there would be three people conducting the service: the
priestly celebrant, the deacon, and the subdeacon, or at a Holy Day
when there would be four because a Franciscan father, appropri-
ately vested, helped serve. It was a special distinction to assist the
officiating priest when during the singing of the Asperges me he
walked through the church and sprinkled the faithful with holy
water. The altar boys had to walk beside the priest in order to hold
his vestments and free his arms so that he could sprinkle the holy
water. I told Weber all about this myself, as I had once told Jellinek,
not without emotion at these beautiful memories of my early years.
Max Weber did not regard my feelings as comic or superstitious but
rather showed a complete understanding of the fact that an eight-
or nine-year-old boy could be so stirred emotionally that he felt
compelled to wonder whether or not he should be a Franciscan.
Max inquired what I had been reading at the time. I told him that,
among other things, when I was about fifteen, I read Jakob
Burckhardt's Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien. He replied, "I'm
surprised that they didn't inquire into your choice of reading mate-
rial." I answered that at the humanistic Gymnasium the Catholic
religious instructor whom we called "the holy rocking-horse" be-
cause of his waddling walk had become rather comfortable and
phlegmatic in the presence of the Lord, and like many German
Catholic intellectuals at that time, he was not quite orthodox in a
Roman or Jesuitical sense. He had become a bit careless in his re-
marks on the cult of the Sacred Heart. And so they kicked him up-
stairs to the post of capitular, to a post, that is, that had a lot of
prestige but whose occupant could do little damage, a post, more-
over, about whose occupant our religious instructor had made jokes
when he thought none of his superiors was listening.
What I have said here is all that can be said about Weber's atti-
tude toward Catholicism. The assertion that one also hears in
America, that if Weber had lived longer he would have become a
Catholic, is completely false. We would sometimes hear similar re-
Memories of Max Weber 221
marks in those days. Even Troeltsch was supposed to have declared
on his deathbed that there was only one way to salvation, the Ro-
man way. This is completely untrue. The same thing was said of
Kierkegaard. He considered himself a Lutheran, but in fact his sharp
criticism of the established church and his firm demands on the
clergy made him a belated Anabaptist, and certainly he was not
about to become a member of the Roman Catholic church, which in
a measure unknown to any other Christian group is legalistically
constructed and institutionalized. And with regard to Max Weber,
his extreme emphasis on autonomy indicates an unambiguous op-
position to a church whose members ascribed such importance to a
heteronymous ethic.
Weber's interest in Protestant affairs was incomparably greater,
because he was often strongly involved in them. He was quite fa-
miliar with all the important parties within the Evangelical Church
and with all the major trends within Protestant theology. Groups
on which he often commented included the Lutheran Missouri
Synod in the United States, which he regarded as the most conser-
vative group, denominational Lutheranism, the Positive Union, the
various nuances of the theologically mediating groups, the Evan-
gelical Union (a Centrist group), and liberal Protestant groups of
various kinds. Hans Ehrenberg, who was already mentioned in con-
nection with the revival of Hegelianism and the meetings at Baden-
Baden, gave a lecture at one of those meetings on the change in the
interpretation of the history of dogma within Protestant theology.
Max Weber had not heard it himself; I told him about it shortly
thereafter and he was not only interested but extremely pleased. He
said, '"That's really something," and commented that the lecture
ought to be published.
Thus he grimly followed the internal history of the German Prot-
estant Church. We have already noted his intense annoyance with
the hollow pathos of the sermons of Wilhelm II. He was also an-
noyed at the new Prussian law on heresy and for a reason so typical
of Max Weber that his observation on the subject should not be
forgotten. The law provided for a disciplinary committee and a pen-
sion for a pastor who was dismissed because of his teachings. The
influence of Wilhelm Kahl had helped bring this law into effect.
Kahl was a professor of church law at Berlin, a leading member of
the Evangelical Union (the Mittelpartei), and the co-author of its
222 The Unknown Max Weber
new program in 1905. In certain other respects, Weber regarded him
highly. What he disliked most about him and his law on heresy was
the fact that it made heresy almost too easy. If one is certain of
getting a pension, one needs little courage to stand on alleged he-
retical convictions and to suffer for one's views. "No," he added in
a manner characteristic of Max Weber, "one would only be making
martyrs." Indeed he dared say this because, as we know, he had
rejected the pension offered him, and he was really prepared at all
times to bear unconditional witness to his convictions.
This was also true in regard to his position concerning particular
theological areas. He was well acquainted with Protestant piety
through his mother and other relatives but mostly through the sto-
ries his wife told about her childhood. She came from Lippe. The
area had been influenced by the Pietism of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries as well as by the religious revival of the nine-
teenth century. In addition, Marianne had spent the greater part of
her youth in Lemgo. Three things characterize this city, and it is
worth repeating them for the information they convey on the style
of life there. Lemgo was the last city in Germany to have burned a
witch, it was a city that, even during part of the twentieth century,
had no railroad line, and where at about the turn of the century
there had been a rather sticky affair involving anonymous letters.
Both of the Webers knew the story and could recount it in charm-
ing fashion. The daughter of one rich merchant married another
rich merchant, but she was soon bored to death with her life of
luxury. She therefore took to sending anonymous letters describing
what had been said at a meeting about a third person, always the
addressee; but the letter would be written in such a clever way that
it could have been authored by any one of a number of people. This
went on for years; friendships, business relationships, and even an
engagement were broken off because of it. It ended with the dis-
covery of a blotter that she had used; she was sentenced to prison
because she had perjured herself in swearing that she knew noth-
ing about the letters during a court case that had involved the let-
ters. The story itself could have been written by Flaubert; the solu-
tion of the case through the discovery of the blotter could have been
the work of the French amateur detective Rouletabille or the Ameri-
can Perry Mason. But it happened in Lemgo in Lippe around the
turn of the century and characterizes the entire milieu.
Memories of Max Weber 223
Lippe is also of interest because of the confession professed there.
In contrast to the nearby area of Paderbom, which remained Cath-
olic, and the neighboring principality of Schaumburg, which was
Lutheran, Lippe was one of the few German territories that went
from Lutheranism to the Reformed faith. True Calvinists in the
Gereformeerde and the Herformete churches in the Netherlands, as
well as in the Christian Reformed and Dutch Reformed Churches
in the United States, might not have regarded the Lippe Calvinists
as the genuine article. For, in Lippe, the Calvinist faith was con-
nected with an established, monarchical church. Yet this helps ex-
plain the penetration of Pietism in Lippe. In addition, only part of
the province was Calvinist. The old commercial city of Lemgo re-
mained Lutheran. This situation merits a closer examination with
regard to the Weberian thesis. It will probably be shown that the
Reformed faith in Lippe, aside from its monarchical character, is not
too typical of Calvinism. But this will have to be proved by future
investigations. Here one can say only that both confessions dis-
played a continuing antagonism to one another that extended even
to their religious and confirmation instruction. This is seen particu-
larly with regard to the difference in teaching regarding the Eucha-
rist. Partaking of the sacrament in the communion service is just a
symbol of the heavenly gift to the Calvinist; the concept of the Real
Presence in the element has been discarded. For Luther and for
Lutheranism in general, the concept of the Real Presence remains,
and this means that the wine consumed at the communion service
is identical with the real blood of Christ. This latter notion upset the
catechist of the Reformed faith who was giving instruction to a group
that included Marianne Weber and other young girls in Lemgo. His
interpretation was, "The Lutherans pour our dear Lord down the
drain." By this simple but tasteless comparison, he meant that the
Lutherans were so shameless they poured the blood of Christ right
down their throats.
In order to understand how funny the situation was, one must
know something about the people of Lippe. On the grounds of my
frequent residence among them, I have called them the "super-
Westphalians," not just because of their notorious thick-headedness
but because of their speech. They accent the gutteral sounds even
more than the other inhabitants of Westphalia, and one can just
imagine how the gutteral sounds in "Herrgott" and "Gosse" must
224 The Unknown Max Weber
sound. The Webers, some of whose ancestors came from the area
not too far from Lemgo, could imitate them magnificently.
To understand Weber's position with regard to Protestant ortho-
doxy, it is incomparably more important to know something about
the people who were members of the Heidelberg theological fac-
ulty. At that time, the Heidelberg theological faculty was quite "lib-
eral/' Working in such a spiritto name only the most famous
were the Old Testament and Oriental scholar Adalbert Merx, the
church historian von Schubert, who was the successor to Max
Weber's uncle Hausrath, and the applied theologian Heinrich Bas-
sermann. The latter was the son of a leading revolutionary of 1848
and a member of a family that had produced the long-time leader
of the National Liberal Party in the age of Wilhelm as well as the
famous violinist and violist who played chamber music. He was a
typical figure in contemporary Heidelberg in that he did not con-
fine himself to the actual subject matter of his field in any strict
sense. He was just as likely to give lectures on general pedagogy
and the history of pedagogy in addition to his lectures on applied
theology. Emst Troeltsch went even further in extending the limits
of his field. Officially Troeltsch was a professor of systematic theol-
ogy, but he gave lectures on the history of Protestant theology and
similar historical themes.
On the other hand, the administration forced the faculty, con-
trary to its wishes, to accept a man whose views were rather funda-
mentalist. This was Ludwig Lemme. His viewpoint can best be char-
acterized by the term "biblical Pietism." He published works
conceived in this sense such as, for example, a book on the infalli-
bility of Jesus. Officially he had been hired to teach the history of
dogma, although he had published scarcely anything in this area. It
was for this reason that I said the faculty was "forced" to accept
him. It was said that he owed his post to the influence of the Grand
Duchess of Baden. She interfered now and then in the affairs of the
university. Lemme was therefore a good example of what we called
a "penalty professor." They were appointed to the faculty by the
ministry of education if they did not behave themselves, that is, were
too liberal.
Siegfried Goebel and Eduard Konig were appointed by the Prus-
sian administration to the theology faculty at Bonn for the same
reason. One could find "penalty professors" outside the theological
Memories of Max Weber 225
faculties, especially in the faculties of economics and public law.
Understandably, Max Weber could not tolerate such men at all.
Coming back to Ludwig Lemme, in addition to his biblical Pietism,
three things characterize him: he was a leading member of the Con-
servative Party. In addition, he defended a prince of one of the many
Saxon houses that ruled inThuringia who was leading the life of a
good-for-nothing in Heidelberg. He looked as though he were a
character out of Simplizissimus, a contemporary magazine that was
often really witty and that often caricatured that type of figure in a
really brilliant way. He was the subject of considerable ridicule and
it was even whispered that he would be declared mentally incom-
petent. And finally, Lemme took a leading part in a bazaar: that was
officially held for some good cause, but that in reality only gave the
fashionable ladies the opportunity they desired of showing off their
new clothes and of presenting their daughters of marriageable age
to the public. This use of religious good causes for trivial social pur-
poses was painful to pious Protestant groups.
All of this and many other things along the same lines made
many people in Heidelberg rather unsympathetic to Lemme, who
was the object of jokes that were not always kind. For example, there
was at the time an assessor by the name of Schwarz. He fancied
himself in the role of a cynic and liked to "murder" the illusions of
the younger students. Now at that time, as it is now and probably
always will be, a number of idealistic young people came to the
university, to study philosophy, to follow artistic interests, or per-
haps even, with a silent determination, to become poets. If they
fell into the clutches of Schwarz, he would try to part them from
such "illusions/' and he was not content until they buried their
hopes and decided to study law with the purpose of becoming a
lawyer or judge in some small town. In order to kill time, Schwarz
would attend all kinds of lecture courses. As he himself said, he
made his choice by the following standard: in the winter he would
attend the lecture being held in the warmest room. According to
Schwarz, this was usually the case with Lemme's lectures. We re-
ported this to Windelband who took a knavish pleasure in the tale
and declared, "I shall tell my colleagues that Lemme keeps his au-
dience warm with hot air." Whether or not it is proper to pass judg-
ment on one's colleagues in front of students may be left open in
this context.
226 The Unknown Max Weber
Weber would occasionally speak of Lemme, although I no longer
remember the exact context. I attempted to point out that perhaps
Lemme had accepted the call to Heidelberg for reasons of conscience,
even though he knew the faculty was opposed to him. Max Weber
answered unambiguously, "No, certainly not Lemme, who is one of
the worst of these types." Weber put von Kirchenheim in the same
category as Lemme. We already discussed von Kirchenheim along
with the law faculty. He was a zealous member of the so-called
Kapellengemeinde, which was a sort otecclesiola in ecclesia. The move-
ment stems from the beginning of the so-called Precisian move-
ment in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, and it involves
a small group of people who believe that they themselves are particu-
larly faithful, and who therefore keep their distance from the mass
of average Christians and children of the world, whom they regard
as the other members of the church; nevertheless such a group stays
formally within the church. In brief, it is a form of Pietism within
the church, and it is a continuation of the Pietism of North Ger-
many through the eighteenth century and through the revival that
occurred after the breakdown of the Napoleonic Empire. It is scarcely
necessary to emphasize that Weber, as a sociologist of religion, was
extremely interested in this, as indeed I was also. Whenever the
opportunity presented itself, I associated with members of the
smaller religious congregations and attended their worship services.
Thus, I visited the Darbyites (the Plymouth Brethren), the
Evangelische Gemeinschaft, and the Methodists, among others. I also
visited the Kapellengemeinde in the company of Sigsbee whom we
already met among Windelband's students. The preacher that day
was an important guest from out of town. He said something like
this: "If I knew that workingmen would go to heaven, then I would
think over quite carefully whether I would want to go there, be-
cause the workingmen today aren't a bit satisfied with their lot and
are always trying to better themselves." When I repeated this to
Weber, it was like waving a muleta before him, as one can imagine.
"This really ought to be published," he said; this was just at the
time that he was meeting and working with various theologians at
the Evangelical-Social Congress.
This Congress was the place where the sequel to the story of the
American theology student took place, the story we mentioned in
the discussion of Max Weber's relations to the Catholic historians.
Memories of Max Weber 227
We left the young man an inspired student of Franz Xaver Kraus.
Weber told the rest of the story in more or less this way: "Soon after,
the young man came running to me and said, 'A new election has
taken place in my Methodist church at home, and another group is
in the saddle. They have ordered me to send them a statement of
my beliefs. Can you help me?' I could tell him only that in general I
was more than ready to help, but asking that I write a Methodist
statement of belief is really demanding a little too much of me. See-
ing the puzzled look on the young man's face, I went on to say that
I was going to go to the Evangelical-Social Congress in a few days
and that he could come alonghe might meet all sorts of theolo-
gians there and he could perhaps pick out one who seemed suit-
able to help him prepare a statement of faith." No sooner said than
done and they went there; after some time the young man told me
that von Soden had helped him. (I am referring here to Hermann
Baron von Soden, a Berlin theology professor who was well known
and much discussed because of his critical work on the text and
history of the New Testament; he is a controversial figure even to-
day. Moreover, he was the father of Hans von Soden who was per-
haps even more famous than his father as one of the founders of
the Confessing Church and the author of the Marburg opinion on
the Aryan paragraphs.) The creed which the American student pro-
duced with the help of the elder von Soden, translated into English,
contained the following relevant sentences: "Jesus was born in Pal-
estine as a son of Joseph and Mary . . . ; that is a matter of f act . . . .
Jesus is the son of God . . . ; that is a matter of faith."In this form it
was sent to America. After a time the student came hurrying up to
me and said, "They have excommunicated me." The rest of the
story doesn't belong here (Schulze-Gavernitz, another well-known
Freiburg economist, was the protagonist in the remainder).
One must accentuate the quiet scorn that Weber had for those
theologians who took with the left hand what they had given with
the right, that is, those who always argued, "on the one hand, ... on
the other." To Weber this seemed to be an impermissible transgression
against the demands of intellectual integrity. Thus he was skeptical
with regard to some of the middle-of-the-road theologians, with the
exception of Ritschl. After all, he had constant opportunity to learn
about this man. His friend Troeltsch not only had been Ritschl's per-
sonal student, but in his early writings had followed in Ritschl's foot-
228 The Unknown Max Weber
steps before coming closer to the South German neo-Kantian no-
tions. Ritschl's sharp disengagement from metaphysics as well as
his starting point eased Weber's approach to Ritschl even though
both men demarcated the individual spheres of cognition at differ-
ent places. It seemed to Weber that the so-called liberal theologians
preserved intellectual integrity relatively better than the others. We
shall turn to this group now and discuss them to the extent that
they are relevant to Weber's life.
Everything that has the remotest connection with the Enlighten-
ment or with liberalism had not been accorded much importance in
Europe for a long time and this is especially true of liberal Prot-
estantism. At best, many people only shrug their shoulders. What-
ever one may think about it, whether one regards it as meaningful
or possible to build religion and religious life on it, one thing is
certain: the works of many of those who criticize liberal Protestant-
ism are still indebted to it. The comparative history of religion, and
the sociology of religion that is based upon it, would be unthink-
able without the spadework which the liberal scholars of the Old
and New Testaments had undertaken: for example, the way in which
they used the results of the work of Egyptologists and Assyriolo-
gists. It is essential to note in this connection that Max Weber em-
phasized the great importance of this literature, something he sel-
dom did. By no means do I wish to tag Weber with the label "liberal
Protestant." What I have said refers to only one aspect of his intel-
lectual perspective. This man who always saw the dark aspects of
life before him had nothing to do with the optimism and the evolu-
tionary belief in progress of the typical liberal Protestant. In spite of
this he not only took a great interest in liberal Protestant theolo-
gians, he went a step further and supported them.
The extent to which he was familiar with the literature on all the
trends of study regarding the Old Testament is made clear in his
preface to the second volume of his work on the sociology of reli-
gion. Naturally he placed a high value on such works that were
based on scholarly research and that attempted to show the con-
nection between ancient Hebrew and other Near Eastern cultures.
He spoke highly of the Orientalist on the Heidelberg faculty, Adal-
bert Merx. He too was, as one expressed it then, a faculty-jumper.
He had started as a Privatdozent in Old Testament theology; then he
became a professor of oriental philology in the philosophy faculty
Memories of Max Weber 229
at Tubingen, and later a professor of Old Testament theology at
Heidelberg. He had mastered nine oriental languages and, in addi-
tion to his works on textual criticism, he had authored works of a
universal historical character such as the history of mysticism. He
was thought to be vain.The following humorous story was told about
him: Question: "What is the difference between God and the Privy
Councillor Merx?" Answer: "God knows everything but Privy Coun-
cillor Merx knows everything better." I repeated this to Max Weber
but he insisted, "The man is really significant/' and to my question,
"Does he deal only with philological specialties or with larger mat-
ters?" he answered at once, "No, no, he really sees the larger rela-
tionships."
He was not so intensively preoccupied with the literature on the
New Testament. Yet I can remember two incidents with regard to
this. Once someone complained that there was too much material
that was really necessary to read and there was unfortunately too
little time. Marianne looked at her husband and said, "We absolutely
have to read the new edition of the history of the period of the New
Testament" (Neutestamentalischen Zeitgeschichte). She was referring
to the famous work by uncle Hausrath, whom we already met. Sec-
ondly, Weber was familiar with the scholarly Christological contro-
versies that were particularly lively at that time. A brief interpola-
tion must be made here about the contemporary state of research
on the life of Jesus.
The mythological theory advanced by David Friedrich Strauss had
long been rejected, as had the radicalism of the brothers Bruno and
Edgar Bauer. Both, when they were young men, had denied the his-
torical existence of Jesus. On the other hand, there was widespread
support for three theories that asserted the following: first, that there
must be a sharp line of demarcation between the three synoptic
gospels on the one hand, and that of the fourth Evangelist on the
other, as Ferdinand Christian Bauer and his so-called Tubingen
school had taught; second, both Matthew and Luke go back to Mark
as an original source, as Lachmann and Wilde had emphasized; and
finally, along with Mark as original source, there is another source,
a thesis elaborated by Christian Hermann Weisse.
In connection with these studies, however, the picture of Jesus
was not always, but relatively often, seen apart from its historical
milieu, and the fact that this milieu had a Jewish background was
230 The Unknown Max Weber
sometimes forgotten. Now, however, the pendulum swung far in
the opposite direction; the eschatological character of Jesus'appear-
ance was emphasized, and the content of the studies was closely
related to the Jewish apocalyptical movements and expectations of
those days. Along with other works of lesser influence, the works
of von Ghillany (written under the pseudonym of Richard von der
Aim), Colani, Weiffenbach, Baldensperger, and particularly Albert
Schweitzer were written under the influence of these ideas. All this
took place, naturally, long before the excavations at Qumran pro-
duced some entirely different material on the strength of the es-
chatological movements in the early days of Christianity.
Max Weber was involved in all this to the extent that he was fa-
miliar with the works of the two Weisses (not identical with the
previously mentioned Weisse), the father, Bernhard Weiss, who had
long been a famous Ordinarius of the New Testament, and the son,
Johannes Weiss, since 1908 an ordentlicher professor of the New Tes-
tament and therefore a colleague of Weber's. It is significant that,
although the father and son taught the same subject, they did not
agree with each other. With some reservation the father could be
classed with the liberal group in the tradition of Weisse to the ex-
tent that he found Mark a useful source in the history of the appear-
ance of Jesus. Likewise, with some reservation, the son could be
classified in the tradition that stemmed from Ghillany and contin-
ued with Albert Schweitzera tradition that placed decisive weight
on the eschatological elements with regard to Jesus.
As we know, Max Weber had been interested in all these ques-
tions since his days as a student, and his close relationship with his
cousin, Baumgarten, and his uncle, Hausrath, helped to maintain
his interest. Hausrath had become well known for his work on David
Friedrich Strauss; this work had appeared only a few years before
Weber became a student. Therefore Weber was familiar with the
intellectual world of Bemhard Weiss, and he thought highly of it.
He found the son less able as a critic and he regretted this. It scarcely
needs to be emphasized that church history was directly in his field
of interest. Every line he wrote is evidence of his knowledge in this
area and for a long time his relation to his uncle Hausrath was very
close. Hausrath died fairly soon after he received his pension. His
death was quite an event in Heidelberg because Adalbert Merx
(whom we have already met in connection with his studies of the
Memories of Max Weber 231
Old Testament and oriental philology) presented the eulogy by the
open grave; right at the moment he was doing so, he suffered a seizure
and fell dead on the spot. I shall never forget the shocked look on
Jellinek's face as, dressed in a dark suit and a top hat, he came out of the
churchyard, plunged up to me, and told me about it.
Now it was necessary to find a successor for the chair in church
history. Many persons thought that Grutzmacher, whom we men-
tioned once, was the obvious successor. This foundered because of
the policy of promoting no one who was already at the university; it
might establish an unsuitable precedent. And so Hans von Schu-
bert was chosen. Weber was not completely satisfied with him. It is
true that the new man used a critical historical approach; however,
he also had literary success to his credit. On the other hand he had
also worked in the Rauhe Haus in Hamburg. This had been founded
by Wichem who was also the founder of the "Inner Mission" These
happened to be affairs with which none other than Troeltsch was
concerned in the days about which these lines are written on the
milieu of Max Weber. Troeltsch was then working on the social teach-
ings of the Christian church. His work appeared first in the Archiv
fur Sozialwissenschaften, and then as a series of articles. The endless
succession of articles put Max Weber, as one of the editors, and the
owner of the Mohr Publishing House (Paul Siebeck) in Tubingen in
a quandary. Troeltsch maintained that a real social reform based on
a fundamentalist German Lutheranism was impossible; at most one
would have only a form of social welfare that was quite different
from social reform. Max Weber found this train of thought quite
adequate. But Hans von Schubert was quite opposed to social re-
form. Weber said to me directly, "He doesn't dare to support the
workers because his wife forbids it/'
It has long been known that Weber and Troeltsch's inclusion of
religio-historical materials in their works on the sociology of reli-
gion brought them into conflict with several church historians; I
shall tell only of a few incidents of which I was a witness. Hermann
Oncken, the historian in the tradition of Ranke, once said to me, "It
wasn't Jellinek in that little book of his on the origin of human and
civil rights, but rather Max Weber, who is the father of the idea of
the Calvinistic origin of the declaration of human rights in the con-
stitutions of the individual American states" (this isn't true), and in
the course of the conversation he went on to say "The Calvinism-
232 The Unknown Max Weber
capitalism theory is now definitely disproved/' He had Rachfahl's
critique in mind; this had been written at the suggestion of Max
Lenz, who taught both Oncken and Rachfahl.
Soon after this critique had been published, Troeltsch, Weber, and
I met in Weber's house. Weber originally didn't want to answer it,
for the reasons he gave later in his public reply. He thought it un-
civil of the editor to have called on Troeltsch who was only partly
involved, instead of Weber himself, to defend the theory. But
Troeltsch insisted, "You must answer/' Weber replied hesitantly, "I
could at most cite several English authors characteristic of that time,
one of whom Hermann Levy called to my attention, and then the
reader would have the alternative choice between believing those
English ascetic Protestants or Rachfahl." "You can do that if you
wish," Troeltsch replied,"but in any event you must answer." We-
ber did so, in the Archiv, and then sent me a reprint. He never spoke
much about the problem later on; he probably was tired of it.
With regard to other special investigations of church history, he
followed with interest my studies of Gallicanism and Jansenism.
This picture of Max Weber in relation to the theological faculty and
its trends would be incomplete if we did not touch on his relation to
applied theology. This would seem to be rather far from his inter-
ests, but this is mere appearance. First of all there was his favorite
cousin, Otto Baumgarten, whom he had known so well in his youth.
Baumgarten had become a professor of applied theology. In addi-
tion, it was natural that a man who, like Weber, was constantly con-
cerned about the development of Protestantism in Germany would
also be interested in the academic field that constituted almost the
only connection between the theoretical material to which the young
theology student was exposed in his courses on the Old and New
Testaments, dogma, church history, and the like, and the practical
demands that arose when he later became a pastor. Thus it is no
wonder that Weber directed his interest this way and that he did
not confine himself solely to theoretical interests but could become
quite outraged about practical matters.
The so-called Simons case gave him opportunity for this. Simons
came from a family of the Reformed faith in Wupperthal. He was a
pastor for a few years, then for a longer time he was a Privatdozent
and unsalaried Extraordinarius of pastoral care at Bonn, the author
of a number of publications for example on the establishment of
Memories of Max Weber 233
the Calvinist faith in Jiilich, Cleve, and Berg, and particularly on the
so-called "Churches under the Cross," that is, the persecuted Re-
formed congregations of the 17th century; in addition he wrote about
Tersteegen. (This latter was one of the most typical figures who ap-
peared in the Reformed Pietistic movement in Wupperthal in the 18th
century. His influence was felt on Pietism within the church as well as
on various sects, as, for example, on the group incorrectly called
"Darbyists"; they called themselves simply a "congregation." In
America they are called "Plymouth Brethren.") After many years of
service to the church and a long waiting period as Privatdozent and
Extraordinarius at Bonn, he was finally called to Berlin as
Extraordinarius with civil service status. This happened when Paul
Kleinert was still alive. Kleinert was Ordinarius of applied theology,
but, just as his one-time predecessor Schleiermacher had done, he
combined applied theology with other disciplines and for a time
served in the Brandenburg Consistory and in the upper councils of
the Evangelical Church. At that time there was no legal obligation
to retire upon reaching a certain age. Thus just as the young girl
waits in doubt for the young man to ask for her hand, the younger
Dozenten waited in desperation for a chair. In many cases, however,
the hoped-for event just didn't take place. Among those who were
waiting, the expression, "Full professors never resign and rarely die,"
was common. Thus it was with Paul Kleinert and so this is what
they did: to assist him they called in the previously mentioned Eduard
Simons, and although it was not expressed officially, nevertheless it
was with the intentionin the words of contemporary university
jargoncum spe succedendi, that is, in the normal course of events
with the expectation of succession if the person who held the office
should die or retire. But when Kleinert actually retired, they did not
promote Simons to Ordinarius as everyone had expected. Under
pressure from the orthodox, they called Friedrich Mahling from
Frankfurt.
Mahling was known for his activity in the Hamburg city mission,
and also through his writings on the "Inner Mission" and its chief
founder Heinrich Wichern. But he had never even been a Prwatdozent
at a university or even an instructor at a pastoral seminary. But with-
out this, and in spite of the fact that it went contrary to German
academic custom, he was called directly as an Ordinarius to Berlin.
Because of the prestige enjoyed by the university in the capital city,
234 The Unknown Max Weber
this meant that he had been called to one of the most desirable
positions in Germany. All interested people in Heidelberg, Max
Weber among them, were enraged, not just because of the victory
of othodoxy, but more because of two other aspects. First, this new
act of interference on the part of the administration was a breech of
academic freedom. In addition, there was this aspect of the inci-
dent: in this fashion, without further ado, they put a man who had
never endured the heavy sacrifice of serving long years as a
Privatdozent and unsalaried Extraordinarius in that kind of position.
This does not mean, however, that Max Weber had an especially
high regard for Eduard Simons. Naturally he was quite familiar with
his writing, because the Calvinism of the lower Rhineland as well
as the Pietism in Wupperthal were in the problematical area of his
(falsely) so-called Calvinism-capitalism theory. In addition, Weber
was soon involved personally in this affair. The previously men-
tioned Bassermann, who up to this time had held the chair in applied
theology at Heidelberg, died unexpectedly at the summer resort of
Samaden. It was therefore necessary to find a successor and, among
others, people thought of Eduard Simons. This is quite compre-
hensible in view of the Heidelberg mentality; he was a man of whom
it was believed that an injustice had been done because of his point
of view. I myself personally knew Simons quite well. He was the
uncle of my life-long friend, Adolf Schill; in addition he was, as I
had been, a former member of the Bonner circle, primarily a stu-
dent philological organization that had been founded in 1854 by
the students of the exegetical philologist, Ritschl. Jellinek knew of
my acquaintance with Eduard Simons and asked me in confidence
what I thought of him. I replied that it was my impression that he
was a very good and decent sort of man, but on the other hand he
was everything but a great scholar. This opinion was confirmed by
others a few days later.
In Weber's house, Weber andTroeltsch were talking about Simons
in my presence. Weber said, "He certainly isn't a great man."
Troeltsch replied, "He doesn't take himself to be one." Simons re-
ceived a bandage for his wound in 1911 when he was called to Marburg
as an Ordinarius. In a smaller way, Simons represents what happened
to Dreyfus on an incomparably greater scale: a case where a man
becomes famous out of all proportion to anything he has done sim-
ply because public opinion holds that he has been treated unjustly.
Memories of Max Weber 235
Neither Simons nor Friedrich Niebergallthe Privatdozent there,
soon to be an Extmordinarius of applied theologywas called to
the chair at Heidelberg. Max Weber did not think it tragic that
Niebergall failed to get the chair. There was an unwritten law among
the faculty that no person who had qualified to teach there should
be called as Ordinarius. Georg Griitzmacher was not called for the
same reason. He was an Extraordinarius of church history and the
author of a well-known historical investigation of early monasti-
cism; moreover he was the brother of a much better known Richard
Griitzmacher, a contemporary leader of the so-called "modem-posi-
tive" trend.
To come back to Niebergall, one finds that Weber did not quite
like him for another reason. In a fashion similar to that of Ernst
Bloch and Hermann Levy, Niebergall would have changed the form
of the Sunday afternoon gatherings. Weber told me, "The man has
an annoying habit. In the course of conversation someone may drop
a catch-word with whose content Niebergall isn't quite familiar,
Marxism, for example. Then he says, 'Can't you explain what that
means?' Then I would have to interrupt the conversation, apolo-
gize to the other guests, and say, 'We shall have to speak about
something else and make a detour.'" Now Max Weber had a sense
of proper form in all life situations, as was illustrated previously by
his remarks on the "chaplainocracy." He therefore found Bloch's
prophetic manner, Levy's pompous tactlessness, and Niebergall's
gaucherie quite tedious and good reason to keep such men away.
Bauer was finally called to Heidelberg. Weber was not especially
pleased, and he said to me, "He really isn't much; he's a nice man
and he looked at my apartment here." This was shortly before the
Webers moved from another residence to the first floor of the old
house on the Ziegelhauser Landstrasse where his uncle Hausrath
had previously lived.
Conclusion
Whoever reads the preceding pages without knowing anything
else about Weber might almost believe that he was interested only
in the intellectual and practical aspects of religion. That this is not
so is known by everyone who is familiar with his swan song,"Sci-
ence as a Vocation" (Wissenschaft als Berufl. First, and importantly,
236 The Unknown Max Weber
he had a feeling for mysticism. He listened with interest when Nikolai
von Bubnoff reported his studies in the area of mysticism; Bubnoffs
lectures on the subject stemmed from these studies. But Weber could
be pitiless when mysticism did not fulfill two qualifications: it could
not enter the sphere of the special sciences, and it had to be genuine
and not some artificial creation. In this latter case Weber could really
become angry. In order to understand his wrath one must bear in
mind a particular aspect of the situation at that time. The previously
mentioned Emst Bloch had said a number of things over which one
could only shake his head, but at least in one thing he was right. This
was when he asserted that the wife of every professor keeps a cup of
tea ready in her salon every day at five in anticipation of the Messiah
whom she expects to come straight to her. In those years, the Eugen
Diederichs Publishing House was established in Jena. Without pass-
ing judgment on his initiative, his courage, and his other publica-
tions, I shall cite only the judgment of Otto Zirker: "Eugen Diederichs
has made irrationalism suitable for the salon" This was indeed true.
Printed on hand made paper, bound in pigskin and with gilt edges,
various books by mystics appeared on the tables of ladies who talked
themselves into believing that they had a religious experience while
reading them. We know Max Weber's sharply sarcastic critique of such
behavior from his article, "Science as a Vocation." From my own ex-
perience I can add two items. First, what I saw in Cologne with re-
spect to the women following Scheler: they talked themselves into
believing that they were attracted to his philosophy when in reality
he had only excited them sexually. Second, above and beyond its im-
portance in characterizing the contemporary situation, the following
is significant for what it reveals of Max Weber's position: one of Weber's
younger friends said in desperation, "It would serve Eugen Diederichs
right to have his ears boxed continually." Max agreed without any
reservations.
On the other hand, Weber's respect for real religiousness was all
the greater. This comes out clearly in the letters he wrote as a young
man and is so well known that one further word would be too much.
This is not so with his own religious concerns. Before we go into
this and turn away from his attitude toward particular religions, it is
necessary to remind the reader briefly, in order to avoid error, that
all we have been discussing took place before two changes had oc-
curred. Max Weber was indeed closely acquainted with the litera-
Memories of Max Weber 237
ture on the history and the activities of the Quakers; he had also
studied them on his trip to America. What he did not live to see was
the revival of Quakerism in Germany. This didn't come about so
much just because here and there a few Germans became members
of Quaker fellowships, or because they formed associations of friends
of Quakerism; it happened rather because the Quaker mentality
and more or less related notions extended far into Catholic, Protes-
tant, and Jewish, and socialistic youth groups.
All that has been discussed took place before people like Karl
Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Friedrich Gogarten, and the two Niebuhr
brothers had made an appearance, at least as far as Heidelberg was
concerned, and therefore the religious and theological issues and
groupings had not yet been affected by the new ideas. A real woman
doesn't talk about her love affairs, and there is likewise a modesty
of soul. Max Weber had this quality to the highest degree. He sel-
dom expressed his innermost feelings in his writing and conversa-
tion. Once, in Wirtschaft und Geselkchaft, he spoke of the greatness
of the death of the hero, the sacrifice of life for a cause in the high-
est sense. Thus also in his swan song, "Science as a Vocation." Here
he said directly, "Today only within the smallest human circles, from
one man to another, and in pianissimo, is there a pulsation of some-
thing that corresponds to that prophetic storm which in earlier days
swept like wildfire through the nations and welded the peoples to-
gether." Some of the things Max Weber said in these rare moments
may go to the grave along with those who were privileged to hear
them and be lost forever. A god granted me one of those rare mo-
ments.
We had been speaking, as we often did, of Driesch and his neo-
vitalism, that is, his anti-mechanistic system. As we said, Max Weber
was far from being convinced by what Driesch said and wrote. He
commented, in the rather mocking manner that was often typical
of him, on Driesch's rather forced proof of the existence of God."In
order to see Driesch's God, one has to take the trouble to be at
exactly the right spot in order not to miss Him." Two closely related
modes of expression appear in Max Weber, as they once did in Pas-
cal. The one is apparently witty but is actually meant in deadly ear-
nest, namely, ridendo dicere vera. The other is in grave earnest even
in its form. So it was in this particular case. We are neither able nor
allowed to probe more deeply. Favete linguis.
238 The Unknown Max Weber
There was a man who took upon himself the fearful burden of
living in two worlds, the vita contemplativa of the researcher and the
vita activa of the politician who is obliged to choose according to
the ethic of responsibility. This man was Max Weber. He is one of
those very few who lived according to a word that had been spoken
400 years before. In that same moment in which he made the ob-
servation above, his face changed and he looked at me in deep ear-
nest and added, "This should not be taken to mean that it is not
very essential to me to stand in the right relationship to that Lord/'
He went so far and no further. Here we have a key to the under-
standing of the inner man. The imperative of his predecessor Kant
has here taken the singular form of a religiously based autonomy,
but an autonomy that obliges a man to follow not just his own con-
science but to decide on a much deeper level either for all time or in
each particular case which of two ethics he must heed: an absolute
ethic that disregards the consequences, or the ethic of responsibil-
ity whose followers assume the burden of sin. There are words that
perhaps no one but Max Weber had so much right to say, except the
man who first said them: "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help
me God."
Max Weber was born in Erfurt on April 21,1864. He studied law,
economics, history, and philosophy, particularly under August
Meitzen and Levin Goldschmidt His dissertation, "The History of
Medieval Trading Companies in Southern Europe," was written un-
der Goldschmidt. In 1892, he was qualified as a lecturer in Roman
and commercial law in Berlin, andfor financial reasonshe prac-
ticed law. In 1893, he married Marianne Schnitger, who published
his work and wrote a biography of him after his death. In 1894, he
was called to Freiburg as an Ordinarius in economics, and in 1897,
he was called to Heidelberg. His friendship with Georg Jellinek and
Ernst Troeltsch dates from the Heidelberg period. In 1903, because
of a severe nervous disturbance, he retired from active teaching for
many years, but he remained the center of a circle of scholars. He
also had lively relationships with Friedrich Naumann, Stefan George,
and Friedrich Gundolf. At the beginning of the First World War,
Weber immediately offered his services to the armed forces. As a
captain in the reserve, he became military director of army hospitals
in Heidelberg. As an expert, Weber accompanied the German del-
egation to Versailles. The attempt to send Weber to the Reichstag
and to obtain a ministerial portfolio, if possible, as a candidate of
the Deutsche Demokratische Partei failed. After he had become a pro-
fessor in Vienna in 1918, he accepted a call to Lujo Brentano's chair
in Munich; there he died of pneumonia on July 14,1920.
Paul Honingsheim/'Max Weber,"Handworterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften,Vol. II (Stuttgart:
Gustav Fischer, 1961), pp. 556-562.
239
240 The Unknown Max Weber
Ethical Foundations
Weber's Weltanschauung was based on the conviction that it was
impossible, objectively, rationally, and scientifically, to pass judgment
on the value of a fact, theory, or mode of behavior; on the contrary,
the individual must autonomously choose between alternatives. This
is especially true of ethical decisions, wherein an ethic of absolute
value is opposed to an ethic of responsibility. The former, most clearly
represented by the Sermon on the Mount, disregards the conse-
quences of decision and action; the " saint," acting according to this
ethic, feels responsible only to his own conscience or to God. The
latter ethic bases action upon responsibility to a group, such as the
family, the state, the church, or the party; therefore, whoever decides
and acts according to this ethic assumes the obligation, if occasion
arises, of sacrificing his own integrity andin a religious sense
thus becomes a sinner. This decision cannot be taken from the indi-
vidual unless he subjects himself voluntarily to an authoritarian or-
ganization, for example, the church. Weber advised everyone who
was not in a position to lead an autonomous life to return to the
church. This emphasis on the sense of duty, ultimately Kantian in
structure, is linked most intimately with the Protestant conscious-
ness of calling, whether as a politician, a scientist, orcharacteristi-
cally for Max Weberas a commercial or industrial entrepreneur.
Scientific Methodology
In his methodology, Weber is linked to the train of ideas of
Christoph Sigwart, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Jellinek, Wilhelm
Windelband, and especially Heinrich Rickert. Weber classified the
sciences as being of nomothetic or idiographic character. The natu-
ral sciences belong largely to the nomothetic sciences, which are
concerned with the crystallization of regularities, while the idio-
graphic sciences are concerned with knowledge of unique events.
The historical disciplines (including the prehistoric and ethnologi-
cal) belong to the idiographic sciences. Within the historical disci-
plines, one must deal with the pluralism of causal factors; the indi-
vidual phenomenon to be investigated is to be analyzed in terms of
all the "constituent components" coming into question. It is a mis-
take to believe, on the contrary, that a certain factor, such as, for
Max Weber 241
example, the economic factor in the Marxist system, is always the
most important, or even the only, determining factor.
The unique individual is one of the factors that determines the
development (Werden) of a unique historical situation. The individ-
ual's decision in a given situation cannot be predicted with certainty,
and hence it also cannot be taken into precise account. For this
reason, future development cannot be predicted, at least not with
the precision that many natural scientists claim to be able to attain
within their sphere (incorrectly, according to Weber).
The historical sciencesalong with statisticshave the task of pre-
paring the material which can be used for interpretive sociology. In
order to understand and interpret the "intended meaning" of the things
men do and leave undone, a meaning also expressed in institutions, "ideal
types" must be constructed. This term has nothing to do with assertions
concerning, perchance, "the idea behind the appearance," or "the es-
sence of historical reality/'or with ideals. The essence of the ideal type
is demonstrated, rather, in the way the process of its construction
takes place: one or several aspects are stressed in a consciously "one-
sided" way, and that which is common to an abundance of "diffusely
extant" phenomena is comprehended as a "mental image
(GedmkmgpUlde), in itself a consistent unity"corresponding to those con-
sciously exaggerated aspects. Likewise, the ideal type is "ideal only in a
purely logical sense"; in "conceptual purity" it cannot be found any-
where empirically, but rather exists only in the mind of the investigator.
The ideal type, however, can give direction to the process of forming
hypotheses, since it provides an ideal limitation by which reality can be
measured and can make possible an unambiguous representation of re-
ality. Included here are concrete ideas of a certain epoch, historical de-
velopments, as well as the "forms of continuous collective action."
All of these can be subsumed in the ideal type.
Weber classified possible types of judgment as he had classified
the sciences: cognitive judgments (existential judgments) are con-
cerned with matters of fact and causality; value judgments judge
conditions and modes of behavior according to their value from a
religious, ethical, esthetic, or other point of view. Cognitive judg-
ment can, to a certain extent, give man the means that are to be
used to realize the intended goals with a greater or lesser degree of
probability. (This is also important for the understanding of Weber's
own mode of behavior in both spheres.)
242 The Unknown Max Weber
Social and Economic History
Weber devoted about one-third of the time he gave to scientific
work to social and economic history. He had already, in his Berlin
juristic dissertation, placed the trading companies that he discussed
in an economic and sociological context. As an agrarian historian,
he included even prehistoric ethnological materials and then de-
veloped his main thesis: large landowners, with overseers and slaves,
existed in unbroken continuity from Babylonia to the period of the
Roman Empire. Within this period the economy was transformed from
a type involving absentee ownership of large estates and a slave and
money economy to an economy based on latifundia with resident
landowners, serfs bound to the soil, and a natural economy. The
Germanic invasions meant only a change in ownership. Moreover,
the size and organization of the landed estates remained in unbro-
ken continuity at least up to the period of the Carolingians.
In his investigation of the history of cities, Weber distinguishes
the following: the oriental city, whose inhabitants were not differ-
entiated from non-residents by the possession of special rights; the
ancient city, inhabited by slaves, bondsmen, clients, and artisans,
but without any organized craft guilds and characterized, among
other ways, by opposition on the part of those who were "politically
declasse"; and the medieval city with its own administration and juris-
diction. Social conflicts arose here between, on the one hand, entre-
preneurs and craftsmen with their rational-bourgeois conduct of life,
and, on the other hand, the land-owning "blue-bloods" (Geschlechtern)
with an aristocratic style of life. Ancient and medieval cities were trans-
formed in these conflicts from aristocratic to plebeian cities. This de-
velopment allowed the medieval city to become one of the various
factors in the genesis of modem capitalismand for this reason,
research on the city was dear to the heart of Max Weber.
Sociology
Weber thought of sociology as "an empirical science that interprets
the meaning of social action, which is based on the subjectively
meaningful intent of the actors. Sociology is therefore a science that
attempts a causal explanation of the course and consequences of
social action." In this sense, Max Weber analyzed the forms of le-
Max Weber 243
gitimate authority, the sociology of political structures, law, econom-
ics, religion, and music, especially in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
Forms of authority. Weber's three-part division of forms of au-
thority and obedience is so well known that it is sufficient to sketch
the forms briefly. In charismatic authority, a leader proclaims him-
self to be extraordinary and endowed with special qualities; other
men become his followers, as, for example, men have followed the
originators of religious or political movements. Traditional authority
is based upon a handing down of the authority system, as it is, for
example, in feudalism. Under rational authority, obedience occurs
because those who command have attained their positions in legal
ways. This bureaucratic principle with its impersonal rules is found
not onlyas it is sometimes mistakenly supposedin the modern,
so-called "constitutional state" that legitimizes itself by appealing
to its "legality," but also in churches, parties, labor unions, trusts,
and other large-scale organizations.
Political structures. Weber defined the state as a structure not the
least of whose characterizing criteria is its claim to the continuous
use of "physical force" as well as the exercise of power. In contrast to
this, the nation is a structure in which the memory of "common politi-
cal destinies of vitally decisive significance" possibly represents the most
strongly cohesive element. On the other hand, a distinctive form of
honor that links many men together on the basis of a shared quality is
symptomatic of the status group (Stand). The class represents a group
whose members have in common a "specifically causal component of
their life chance," a component completely determined by economic
interests. The party machine and party bureaucracy are characteris-
tic of parties, especially the patronage party as Weber studied it in
America and as he predicted it for the German Social Democracy.
Law. Weber understood law as a system that is effective because
people orient their action to it. In addition, it is provided with an
enforcement apparatus consisting of a staff of men. Moreover, law
stands in a sociologically necessary relationship within a specific
social structure in whose frame it is empirically effective. Weber was
particularly interested in the factors and types of people that shape
the law, as well as in the creation of law, especially natural law. Weber
himself was not an adherent of natural law, but he felt that his own
views had an inner relationship with it, and he regarded it as if it
were revolutionary law. He thought natural law was also a protest
244 The Unknown Max Weber
against state intervention in the sphere of competition within the
economic world. Here Weber's sociology of law makes contact with
his sociology of economics.
Economy. Weber understood economic action (Wirtschaften) as
the peaceful exercise of the power of control (Verfugungsgewalt),
which in its intended meaning is oriented toward meeting the de-
mand for goods and services (Nutzleistungen). His primary interest
was in capitalism, which he dealt with in its relationship to the gen-
esis of the modem state and the formation of state monopolies; in
his opinion, monopolies originally promoted capitalism, but later
on they hindered it. To Weber, the factory wasregardless of the
prevailing economic ordera workshop with a division of labor and
a type of work oriented to machinery. It is especially important for
Weber that the outcome of competition, in spite of chance and fate,
leads to the actual selection of those who have the necessary personal
qualifications in greater measure than other qualities such as devotion
to superiors or demagogic talents. This is said without implying the
value judgment that the victors in the competitive battle are for that
reason more valuable from an ethical or some other point of view.
Religion. Here the relationships of certain social strata to certain
religious attitudes are discussed in detail, and a classification is made
of forms of religious groups, types of leaders, and systems of theodicy.
In addition, his investigation of the relationships between certain
forms of Protestantism (Calvinism, Anabaptism) and the capitalis-
tic mentality is significant. The theory itself goes like this: except for
Anglicanism and Lutheranism, Protestantism teaches that the earth
was indeed cursed by God after the fall of man, but, at the same
time, the earth was given to God's elect to rule and to make use of.
Therefore, one should remain in the world but ascetically restrain
himself completely from sentiment and pleasure. Instead, one should
work all the time and thereby earn more; but because one cannot
spend his earnings, one therefore accumulates capital. Because God
gave authority to His own at a time when power was no longer
bestowed upon feudal ownership and ground-rent but rather upon
capital ownership and interest, it was quite easy to draw the follow-
ing conclusion: I have ascetically refrained from the enjoyment of
life, worked systematically, accumulated capital, and have thereby
won power over those whom God has condemned, such as Catho-
lics, Anglicans, and Lutherans; is this not proof that I shall go to
Max Weber 245
heaven as one of God's elect? This conclusion amounts to the reli-
gious legitimation of the bourgeois who perceives and manages his
affairs in a capitalistic way. Weber asserted no more than this. There-
fore, for Weber, ascetic Protestantism was not the original cause of
capitalism, and the theory is not simply "Marx turned upside down."
Plastic arts, literature, and music. On figures such as Feodor
Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Stefan George, and others with whom
Weber was so intensively preoccupied, there are only occasional
observations in a sociological context. On the other hand, in a small
monograph, the process of rationalization in occidental music is
related to the same process one finds within Western ecocomic and
social life. Thus, these special questions can be fitted into one of
Weber's chief problems.
The Politician
Several lines converge in Max Weber's politics: his father was a
Reichstag deputy of the National Liberal Party and an adherent of
Bismarck's; he was influenced along the lines of individualist, demo-
cratic, leftist-liberalism by those who, as Theodor Mommsen, fre-
quented his father's house; and finally, he felt the effect of social
welfare politics on the part of contemporary academic socialists, such
as Gustav Schmoller, and of the Vereinfur Sozialpolitik, His political
position was derived from all of these and from his feelings of rigor-
ous obligation to his beloved Germany. His position led him from
the National Liberal Patty, which had originally offered him a seat
in the Reichstag but which he declined, to Friedrich Naumann. It is
difficult to separate his share in setting up the program for the
NationalsozialeVerein in 1896 from Naumann's. After this party foun-
dered in 1903, Weber, along with most of the members, went over
to the liberals and after the war to the Deutsche Demokratische Partei.
Meanwhile he worked in the Vereinfur Sozialpolitik and presented
his convictions in numerous newspaper articles, especially in the
Frankfurter Zeitung. His political critique went back to Bismarck,
whose rnonocratic authority he held responsiblein a deeper mean-
ingfor the blind obedience to the "crowned dilettante," Wilhelm
II, whom Weber, in spite of his monarchism, despised just as much
as the era named for him. Weber saw the danger resulting from the
dominance of the feudalists east of the Elbe who had long since
246 The Unknown Max Weber
ceased to be an aristocracy but were rather an economic entre-
preneurial stratum. Their power was re-enforced artificially through
the Protestant state church, which formed a far-reaching connec-
tion between them and the Conservative Party. The ability to give
satisfaction in a duel, membership in student fraternities, and a lieu-
tenancy in the reserves all were ways of assimilating the bourgeoi-
sie into outmoded forms of feudal life and intellectual predilections,
and they also provided a means whereby unsuitable people would
attain positions of leadership.
For this reason Weber demanded that large estates be transformed
and given to tenants who would be permitted to have them tilled
only by German farmworkers because of the danger of Polish influ-
ence in the German East. He further demanded the extension of
social welfare policies, although this should not consist primarily of
the socialization of industry and the formation of a new kind of
leadership, on democratic lines "from below/' along with the su-
pervision of the civil service by parliamentary control commissions.
Weber nevertheless emphasized that he did not fail to appreciate
the "shadowy side of democracy," In particular, he did not legiti-
mize it, as often happens, by the optimistic argument concerning
natural law and the rights of man. During the war, he insisted on
Russia's guilt and Germany's non-guilt as well as on the necessity
of explaining that Germany did not seek any territorial expansion
in the west but rather a "circle of semi-independent Slavic states"
in the east. Finally after the World War, he advised guerrilla warfare
against the Poles should they occupy Danzig, and he fought suc-
cessfully for the direct election by the people of the president of the
Reich, as well as for increased powers for his office.
Weber's Position in the Total Structure of Occidental Culture
Weber's methodology was based on a long line of continuous de-
velopment. Kant separated the objects of knowledge of "pure rea-
son" from those of other spheres of knowledge. Many little streams
of influence flowed unobserved from this point, parallel to the Ro-
mantic transcendental philosophy. Their point of convergence is
Friedrich Albert Lange; he stood simultaneously against material-
ism, transcendental philosophy, Marxism, laissez-faire liberalism and
the quantitative psychology of the Herbart school from whence he came.
Max Weber 247
He separated knowledge that could be obtained empirically from all
knowledge that was supposedly non-empirical and whose substance
he designated as "fiction." This is Windelband's point of departure
(although he owed more to Hermann Lotze and Otto Liebmann); he
divested himself, to be sure, of Lange's physiological-psychological
elements and was much less agnostic than Lange. Windelband con-
trasted "history and natural science." Rickert continued this and
worked out, among other things, the two paired opposites, "natural
and cultural sciences, "as well as" cognitive and value judgment/'
Max Weber then used these terms, although with modifications.
Moreover, he connected these with the conception of the "ideal
type" as it had been worked out by Christoph Sigwart and Dilthey,
as well as with his own conceptions of "intended meaning" and
"Verstehen." Max Weber's most original contribution concerned the
way in which all of these elements were connected as well as the
way in which the function of the individual personality is limited by
and connected to the regularity of the course of history, which, ac-
cording to Weber, could be determined to a certain extent.
All of this met with approval in Germany, although with some
qualification. Among the authors who were directly or indirectly
influenced by Weber's statement of the problem and answers (al-
though they then went their own ways), we might name Edgar Salin
(although he shows a stronger connection to Alfred Weber), Arthur
Salz (although he diverged from Weber particularly in regard to value
judgment), Helmuth Plessner (although to a certain extent he was
also connected to Max Scheler), Count Max zu Solms (his work
modified by elements from the philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann),
as well as Gottfried Eisermann in more recent times. In France the
importance of Weber's theory of value neutrality was stressed espe-
cially by Raymond Aron; on the other hand, Georges Gurvitch
thought that Weber's reduction of the "social fact" exclusively to
meaning and action represented a danger of impoverishment.
In the United States of America, Weber's classification of science,
his conception of history, and his theory of value judgment were
accepted with more or less strong modifications by Weber's transla-
tors, Hans H. Gerth, C. Wright Mills, andTalcott Parsons. With re-
gard to his theory of value judgment, nowever, Heinrich Jordan and
Howard Jensen said that existence and value could not be isolated
from each other. The German-American Howard Becker accepted
248 The Unknown Max Weber
the classification of science, the theory of value neutrality, and the
concepts of causality and Verstehen, but he went beyond Weber.
Becker thought that Weber used arbitrarily created word-formations
in order to construct the ideal type. In contrast, Becker, from among
the types coming into question, insisted upon the choice of the "con-
structed type," which could be used most meaningfully for the pur-
pose of classification. Pitirim A. Sorokin raised objections on principle
against the causal concept, which was related to the runctionalistic con-
ception of cause common at the turn of the century; thus he opposed
the conception of the ideal type because, although Weber intended it
as an auxiliary construction (Hilfskonstruktion) which was thought
to be different from an adequate definition of the corresponding
phenomenon, actually it was identical to an adequate definition;
finally he opposed the pluralism of causal factors. According to
Sorokin, one could indeed determine, by various kinds of analysis,
that an effect was produced by the convergence of a number of fac-
tors, but one could not determine what role a single factor had played
in this. Obviously this issue has not yet been resolved.
From the point of view of economic history, the introduction of
ethnology signifies something new, and not just in Germany at that
time (with the exception of the Darwinistic evolutionists). How-
ever, it was in the most blunt contrast to the position of Jellinek and
Troeltsch, whose ideas were generally like Weber's. As an agrarian
historian, Weber may indeed have had a forerunner in the occasional
speculations by Paul von Roth concerning the Roman latifundia, but in
the decisive conceptions he had priority over Mikhail I. Rostovtzeff (with
whom he later had a personal relationship), as well as over Alfons
Dopsch. The contrast of the three types of dries and the type of interre-
lationship between the medieval city and the genesis of capitalism are
Weber's own work. It was widely accepted at that time. Since Henri
Pirenne, the statement of the problem has shifted.
Weber's typologies and writing concerning the sociology of reli-
gion were widely accepted and amplified, especially in America. In
the discussion of Calvinism, Weber had a predecessor in Jellinek.
But Jellinek had only pointed out Calvinism's significance in the
history of the rights of man. The economic aspect is Weber's work.
The debate itself was carried on most strongly in Germany and
America. Felix Rachfahl, the German disciple of Ranke's, rejected
the thesis a limine. But contrariwise Herbert Schoeffler and his
Max Weber 249
school in Cologne later investigated a number of English phenomena
as to their origin in a Calvinistic-Anabaptist milieu. Werner Sombart,
Pitirim A. Sorokin, Richard H. Tawney and Milton Yinger have as-
serted in opposition to Weber's thesis that the "Calvinistic mental-
ity" existed long before Calvin; Tawney and Yinger added that the
economic attitude of the early Calvinists had been medieval. Howard
Becker, Marshall Knappen, and Sorokin objected further that Meth-
odists and similar groups did not hold the doctrine of predestina-
tion, and yet they seemed to have the capitalistic mentality as de-
picted. Therefore the belief in predestination could not be of decisive
significance (although this is not opposed to what Max Weber as-
serted). In a number of articles, Parsons defended the theory against
these and other objections. The debate on this issue continues.
Evaluation
The contradictions that many critics have noted between the foun-
dations of his Weltanschauung and the program of the politician,
between the postulate of value neutrality and the hymn he raised to
dying for the fatherland (even in his scientific work) can, to begin
with this objection, be seen only as an exceptional case. On the
contrary, in the overwhelming majority of cases, he remained true
to his own demands. He remained true even though in scientific
work he often dealt with the same objects as in his political contro-
versies and even though, given his fighting spirit, objectivity signi-
fied only an endless enterprise against himself. Nevertheless, he
could still experience the scholarly joy of successfully attaining a
result in his historical research. As has been correctly noted, even a
part of his purely scientific work stands sub specie vitae activae.
Thereby he is as far as the stars from another "disenchanter," namely,
Arthur Schopenhauer, to whom he is occasionally compared in
America, not just because they both took Kant as their point of de-
parture, but especially because of the gloominess of their views of
the world. But concerning the alleged antagonism between the foun-
dations of his Weltanschauung and the postulate of the politician,
in reality he always decided and acted according to his own teach-
ing and made use of the right he preached, the right to determine
values autonomously and, especially, to choose between two ethics;
he autonomously chose either the ethic of absolute value or the
250 The Unknown Max Weber
ethic of responsibility, depending upon the object in question. Thus
he decided in favor of the ethic of responsibility when it was a mat-
ter of the economic recovery and the power of Germany, and he praised
the American "businessman" as a model; he decided in favor of the
absolute ethic when it was a matter, as he saw it, of German honor, and
he advised guerrilla warfare in the Danzig question.
His conduct in private and academic life was analogous. Wher-
ever he saw offenses against justice, as he understood it, he inter-
vened without concession; he intervened when he did not have the
remotest personal interest in the matter; he intervened even, or more
exactly, more than ever, when it concerned a scholarly or political
opponent.
Whatever else it may have involved, it was not simply a matter of
a radical unwillingness to make concessions, but rather a matter of
the feeling of obligation to make an inexorable choice in each situa-
tion and, if the occasion arose, to retreat not one step for the sake of
one's own integrity or, inversely, to make compromises for the sake
of the cause.
The obligation to decide is embedded in a kind of Dostoevskian
underground, deeper than Friedrich Nietzsche's temporary alter-
native, "Pagan or Christian!" Nietzsche definitely answered, "Pagan,"
and added unambiguously, "Dionysus against Christ! " Therefore,
away with Christ and Christendom! And Max Weber's answer shows
greater depth than that of Neitzsche's predecessor, with regard to
stating the question, and of Nietzsche's polar opposite, namely Soren
Kierkegaard, with regard to the answer given. Kierkegaard definitely
answered, "Christ," and thereby rejected occidental culture. Unlike
Nietzsche, with whom he shared the belief in the role of the hero,
Max Weber loved his fatherland; and in contrast to Kierkegaard, he
affirmed occidental culture, including its politics and its special sci-
ences. Thus he demanded an autonomous decision at each mo-
ment: "the radical absolute ethic or the ethic of responsibility!"
And thus one must make the inclusive judgment, even if one has
to say "No" without concession to Weber as a postwar politician: he
is one of the very few contemporary leaders who decided, wrote
and acted in accord with the command of the autonomous con-
science.
7
Max Weber as Sociologist:
A Word in Commemoration
When Max Weber died, the obituaries described him sometimes
as a pioneering thinker, other times as a political force. Some per-
sons, however also remember him as an unbalanced, self-contra-
dictory, charming figure, or at least refer to the abundance of inter-
ests, without apparent interconnection, that he harbored. And
indeed, for the person who did not know him in depth, it must have
been tempting to judge him in this way. Yet seldom has a man seg-
mented himself in his external relations with the world as much as
this one and on every occasion presented himself not as a whole,
but as belonging to a certain sphereas an empirical scientist in
his writing, as an academic instructor at the professor's lectern, as a
party member on the platform, and as homo religiosus in the most
intimate circle. Nevertheless the question must arise whether be-
hind all these compartments, behind these separated spheres for
which almost the only analogy is to be found in Franciscan nomi-
nalism, a totality is not concealed, indeed whether such a totality
can find adequate expression only in this way. Perhaps his develop-
ment can give us a hint.
In the beginning he had planned to become a politician, but he
was long hindered by illness from most activities of this sort; at first
a scholar of legal and economic history, he became an economist,
then an investigator of the relationships between religion and eco-
Fkul Honigsheim, "Max Weber als Soziologe/'KolnerVierteljahrsheftejurSozialwissenschaften.
Vol. 1, No. I (1921), pp. 32-41.
251
252 The Unknown Max Weber
nomic life, then a sociologist of religion, then simply a sociologist.
Again in health, he stepped anew into political life and tended to
drop the other pursuits, although he remained a sociologist. To be
sure, he separated politics and sociology more sharply than ever.
And yet one must ask: do both of these areas to which he remained
faithful, and which he simultaneously pursued, belong together in
his case? Did he feel that the external separation was necessary in
order to work out his own ultimate oneness? In order to answer
these questions to which the following lines are dedicated let us
proceed with a brief glance at some of his particular sociological
ideas.
Contributions to Sociology
The man who hitherto had been an economic historian and an
active member of the Verein fur Sozialpolitik first became known
outside economic (and political) circles through his investigation of
the connection between The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capital-
ism.
1
It was not Weber who first re-discovered the Puritans and the
troops of Cromwell; this was done by the gentle person Weber loved
and admired, Georg Jellinek,
2
who had emphasized their signifi-
cance as originators of the kind of individual political freedom later
given impetus by the French Revolution and by liberalism. But it
was through Max Weber's special investigation that the fundamen-
tal question was raised for the first time: to what extent does the
religious attitude of people form one among the possible and vari-
ous constituent components that give concrete shape to the eco-
nomic life of a certain age, a certain race, and so on? This not only
made a breach in an entirely new direction in Marxist economic
historical materialism, but, because economic life as influenced by
religion had, in turn, an effect on social strata, it provided the pri-
mary object of research to the sociology of religion and indicated a
new direction for the future. However much he was, and remained,
deeply committed to an individual science and empiricism, Max
Weber documented through this work his membership in that whole
culture complex that can be described as a reaction against the natu-
ralistic and intellectualistic agean age from which would emerge
a form of neo-Romanticism that Weber would oppose more than
once.
Max Weber as Sociologist 253
Interpretive Sociology. But before we turn to the concept charac-
teristic of his entire theoretical and practical position, that of value
neutrality, let us examine yet another of his areas of activity, inter-
pretive sociology,
3
because this presents him in the same context of
which we have been speaking.
4
His starting point is the possibility
of understanding human behavior through interpretation (Deutung).
But he rejects mere interpretation as unsatisfactory because the pres-
ence of even a large measure of evidence does not release one from
the necessity of control through the customary methods of causal
imputation. Only when causal explanation occurs does ''interpre-
tation" become "intelligible explanation/' It appeared to him that
the largest measure of evidence existed for the interpretation of in-
strumental rationality, that is, behavior that is exclusively oriented
toward "means considered adequate for ends that are subjectively
perceived without ambiguity." Despite the great evidence of tech-
nically rational behavior, sociology is not concerned solely with ra-
tional interpretation but rather is just as concerned with instrumen-
tally irrational attitudes, even though it attempts to interpret them
first on the basis of rationally intelligible relationships of action.
Sociology has to deal with action, that is, with meaningfully differ-
entiated behavior toward objects, indeed, with action related to the
behavior of others, action that is thereby co-determined and is ex-
plainable in terms of the relationship to the behavior of others.
Hereby, sociology differentiates in terms of meaningful relationships
which are not identical to any underlying psychic constellations, so
that there are categories of interpretive sociology that do not be-
long in psychology, as, for example, "acquisitiveness," which can be
conditioned by contradictory psychic elements. Accordingly, inter-
pretive sociology is no part of psychology.
This approach was completely different from that of many other,
particularly foreign, sociologists, who are likewise to be counted as
part of the previously described naturalistic age of quantification to
which we contrasted Weber. This same juxtaposition can be clearly
recognized in other ways: if the writings on the Protestant ethic
and the spirit of capitalism manifest the strongest possible empha-
sis on religious experience (therefore of the nonintellectual) in its
world historical impact, we now encounter, apart from the separa-
tion from psychology, a clarification of the instrumentally irrational
in its entire breadth; thereby, on both counts, we return to the intel-
254 The Unknown Max Weber
lectual realm that is characterized, other than by Max Weber him-
self, by a plethora of names from Bergson to Spengler, to mention
two of the best known.
The Theory of Value Neutrality
Nothing of what Max Weber has done, said, and written has been
discussed, commented on, misunderstood, and ridiculed as much
as his theory of value neutrality in the social sciences. The theory
finally turned up in parliamentary discussions, party meetings, and
in the Berlin commission charged with investigating war guilt. For
these reasons, as well as for the reason that it was, as we shall see,
truly the most personal of his theories and can be understood only
by understanding his character and life, we shall deal with it here in
some detail. But at this point it seems advisable to exclude the impact
of Weber's own psychological make-up on his theory, to leave it to a
later paragraph, and, here, to give only a summarized presentation of
the theory itself. In addition, I shall omit the often related pedagogi-
cal-organizational problem of value judgment in university teach-
ing. To be sure, this appeared to Weber as a not unimportant conse-
quence and brought him not a few enemies, but it does not belong
in the framework of this article. Let us begin with the theory itself.
5
Evaluations. Weber's approach to value judgments was related
to Rickert's theory of the difference between evaluations and value
relations, but Weber applied it independently to social science. We-
ber interpreted evaluations (in this context, exclusively practical
evaluations of social facts) as social facts "that were in practice de-
sirable or undesirable from an ethical or other cultural standpoint
or for other reasons." The first requirement for the researcher is that
he separate, as two completely different things, the substantiation
of empirical facts (to which, naturally, value judgments by individual
men or groups of men can belong) from his own practical evalua-
tions, that is, those facts which he evaluates as good or bad (includ-
ing those value judgments by individual men or groups of men). If,
mindful of this imperative, one then investigates the value position
of the people doing the evaluating, one attains an intelligible expla-
nation in the sense used previously.
The importance of using this kind of scientific procedure is that it
makes it possible to learn to know the ultimate motives of human
Max Weber as Sociologist 255
action. In addition, it makes possible an analysis of both the oppos-
ing value positions of the individual men and groups of men doing
the evaluating and, likewise, the value position of the investigator
himself. Such preliminary work further makes it possible "to de-
duce the consequences for a value position which would follow from
certain ultimate value axioms," if the value position alone is taken
as the basis of the practical evaluation of reality. In addition, one
can determine the actual consequences that would appear if the
investigated value position were to dominate the practical behavior.
This can be done by identifying the means that would have to be
used and the "side-effects that are not directly desired"; thereby,
the possibility or impossibility of accomplishing certain value de-
mands can be demonstrated rebus sic stanibus.
Evolutionary Tendencies. To those conditions that determine
whether the value postulate can be carried out or not belong those
called "evolutionary tendencies," a rather unfortunate term that the
social sciences have borrowed from the natural sciences. However,
the knowledge of the evolutionary tendencies can disclose no stan-
dard for the value position but, on the contrary, can determine only
which means may be used to realize given ends. One especially
cannot conclude from the presence of certain kinds of evolutionary
tendencies whether an attitude (or an act resulting from it) that
takes these tendencies into consideration is to be evaluated more
highly than one that does not and prefers, for example, the role of
Don Quixote. Accordingly, on the basis of such investigations one
cannot talk about the justification, the worth, or the worthlessness
of the "pragmatic politician" who takes such "evolutionary tenden-
cies" into consideration. And this is just as true in regard to so-
called "progress" in the political, economic, and social arenas to the
extent that by "progress"one doesn't mean only a "progression" in
some kind of "evolutionary process examined in isolation"; in that
case one can use the concept in a completely non-evaluative sense,
and one can, for example, speak of "progressive differentiation" in
the area of the irrational content of our psychic reactions in the last
decades.
Technical Progress. One is justified in doing the same thing with
regard to "technical progress." One must then identify the technol-
ogy with "rational behavior" and thus say: if the proposition "mea-
sure X is the only means for attaining result Y" (which can be veri-
256 The Unknown Max Weber
fied empirically) is purposively applied by men "known to have
oriented their action to result Y," then their action is technically
correct. If human behavior in this sense is increasingly correct, then
it is appropriate to speak of "technical progress"
Economic Progress. Finally, it is also possible to speak of "eco-
nomic progress"without value judgment, although only if one makes
a considerable number of assumptions, of which the most impor-
tant are: given needs, a given kind of economic order, and a given
possibility of providing the means. Using these and other assump-
tions, "economic progress" would consist of an approximation to
the optimum of satisfaction of needs. The concept of progress, there-
fore, can be based only upon techniques, that is, on the means for
an unambiguous end. Finally, if what is normatively valid for us is
made the object of sociological investigations, "as an object it loses
its normative character in this context; it is treated as existent, not
as valid." Thus, for example, when mathematics or the multiplica-
tion table (which are valid for us) becomes the object of sociological
investigation (as in a statistical investigation of the incidence of cal-
culating errors among members of various social classes or larger or
smaller groups of men working in the same place), it is nothing but
a "conventional maxim of practical behavior, valid in a circle of men
and followed with greater or lesser, precision." But the demand is
also incumbent upon the researcher to detach himself from these,
his own conventions, and to comprehend, through imaginative pro-
jection, a pattern of thought that appears to him as deviant and
normatively "false" in terms of his own customs. Thus we are back
to what we already said about interpretive sociology.
The Meaning of Science
Whoever would sum up the results of the preceding presenta-
tion would probably have to arrive at the opinion concerning Max
Weber that in this instance we are dealing with a thinker who, with
regard to the method and content of sociology, had adopted his
own point of view and had analyzed many concepts to which oth-
ers had given little attention. But we must also conclude that he
was a man who ultimately has been only unus ex multisa special-
ist who, as others also, set himself in opposition to the uncritical
transfer of natural science concepts and laws to the humanistic and
Max Weber as Sociologist 257
social disciplines, and who considered it his task to undertake pains-
taking work in an individual discipline, in analogy to psychologists
and natural science empiricists. And indeed in our day seldom has
anyone described his character as that of a specialist so sharply as
this man himself. His swan song, the Munich address, " Science as
a Vocation," makes this particularly clear.
6
But this address did even
more; it announced to those who did not already know it what so-
ciology, i.e., what science, was to him and, above all, what it was
not. For how could science mean "everything" or "the highest"
science, about whose worth or worthlessness, meaning or meaning-
lessness nothing could be said with scientific means, science which
was not in a position to lead men to nature, to God, or even to good
fortune. And so, even as philosophy was to him primarily logic and
therefore an object with which one should be concerned not for its
own sake but for the purpose of sharpening his own wits, which
one could then apply in other areas, and even as philosophy was
also epistemology, a means of remaining aware of the limits of
knowledge, thus also was an individual discipline not an end in
itself but a means for a higher purpose independent of scientific
knowledge. Science was a means, a possibility, namely, of control-
ling a technical apparatus for the realization of goals that arose from
an extra-scientific establishment of purposes which a god or de-
mon had given human beings.
The core of his existence probably lies here: Max Weber suffered
under science; with Simmel, he understood clearly that the struc-
ture which we call "science" presents a parallel to the naturalistic-
capitalistic form of life, and further, that in all the world there has
never been anything analogous to it
7
; it was a form of the "God-
distant" age in which we are condemned to live. He suffered under
this age, but he endured it, and he admonished others to do the
same. He opposed those who believed they could escape by a bold
leap into the future, and for this as well as for other reasons he
turned against socialism. But he hated the neo-Romantic who, he
claimed, lacked the courage to live in such an epoch, a man who
convinced himself that he still had the naivete or the religiosity of
the primitive or the medieval man, a man who tumbled about in
the ecstasy of mystical vision, or found his way back to the collec-
tive culture of the old church. Weber forgave the latter if he were
willing to sacrifice the intellect; Weber disowned such a man if he
258 The Unknown Max Weber
presented scientific and philosophical reasons for his step. For how-
ever much Weber suffered from living in a "God-distant" age, he did
not suffer from its agnosticism. In contrast to his older friend Jellinek
who from his nee-Kantianism longed to return to mysticism and meta-
physics, to Schelling and HegelWeber breathed a sigfr of relief as
soon as someone once again demonstrated the limits of knowledge,
the impossibility of making objective, valid value judgments.
From these value judgments it was only a step to a hierarchy of
values, to the sanctification and rank ordering of associations and
institutions, namely, of the state, the church, the party, the university,
and the school, among others. But then, in case of conflict between
one of these and one or more individuals, a norm of practical be-
havior would have been given for the individual. To hinder the rec-
ognition of such a norm appeared to him as one of the most essen-
tial tasks. He demanded instead that men strive for the goals given
them by their god or demon. In any event, his demon suggested to
him that in this not exclusively meaningful world there is an eternal
battle between two powers: the kingdom of light, namely, of those
who fight, not for a state of perfection which may come earlier or
later, but for the sake of storming against that other world, the king-
dom of darkness, namely, those organizations and institutions that
pretend to be more than they are, that in their would-be role as meta-
physical realities, as emanations, as realizations of the Divine Spirit, or
as whatever the political metaphysicians, Hegelians, or canon lawyers
of revealed religion call their institutions, seek to hinder the indi-
vidual in his free development, or even to suppress him. Indeed this
world view and its transposition into action, thanks to its ultimate
dualistic metaphysical core, brought Weber close to medieval her-
etics, the Hussite heroes, and Cromwell's Saints. With its emphasis
on continuous movement, this world view did not bring him close
to the Marxist eschatologists and revisionist relativists, but rather
into the vicinity of the anarchists and, above all, the Bergsonian
syndicalists. On one hand, this world view made him opposed to
concessions, but, on the other hand, it did not make him a Utopian.
Conclusion
Troeltsch called Max Weber a politician
8
; we have seen that he
was something more. In fact, he was a pragmatic politician, but this
Max Weber as Sociologist 259
was based upon asceticism. Even as the Puritans and Pietists, whom
he resurrected, forced themselves to the non-euphoric life of daily
work and economic gain, thus for the sake of intellectual discipline
he demanded logical and epistemological study; thus he demanded
above all the sober work in the individual sciences for the sake of
control of the technical apparatus, control that is necessary for the
realization of goals that stem from an extra-scientific source. To
Weber, one of the highest of these goals was, as described, the battle
for the sake of the battle and the transformation of men from the
instruments of those institutions, from functionaries of those meta-
physical entities, into fighters against making an instrument of
manin a word, into "human heroes." Science ought to present
the weapons for this purpose: epistemology should deny the value
claims of those who represent institutions and show that it is scien-
tifically impossible to pass value judgments and establish a hierar-
chy of values; sociology should show the plainly relativistic charac-
ter of organizations and demonstrate that any one organization is
only one form among many and can never claim a value superiority
on scientific grounds. And thus from epistemological agnosticism and
sociological relativism, Weber built a platform of negativity upon which
the human hero ought now to become activebut not just for the
sake of empty activism. He ought to be unrestrained by any
metaphysic of the state and other untenable ideas, but not, how-
ever, by sociology. He ought not to be a Utopian but rather a prag-
matic politician.
For that purpose sociology ought to be of assistance. Not that
sociology should preach about the goals of human evolution or of
one's own activities, but rather sociology could say: if you want this
form of organization, then, under given conditions, you must choose
such and such means; further, when you use these means under
given economic, foreign policy, or other conditions, then, in addi-
tion to the sociological consequences that you want, such and such
side-effects of a sociological nature occur (for example, the evo-
lution or decline of certain religious organizations).
If one is aware of these two meanings that sociology had for Max
Weber, the negative meaning that charges organizations with hav-
ing a purely relativistic character, as well as the positive meaning,
which offers the human hero the weapons for battle, then the ap-
parent contradictions that we saw in him are resolved. Moreover,
260 The Unknown Max Weber
one grasps that this man battled from a position of dualistic meta-
physics precisely because he was not a Utopian but was rather a
pragmatic politician and, because of his asceticism, had to embrace
a godless science that could give him an answer to none of the ul-
timate questions. He had to become a sociologist in order to realize
his highest goals.
Notes
1. Archivfiir Soziahoissenschaften, Vols. 20 and 21 (1904 and 1905). Re-
printed in Gesammelte Aujsdtzezur Religionssoziologie, Vol. 1 (Tubingen:
J.C.B.Mohr,1920).
2. Georg Jellinek, Die Erkldrung der Menschen- und Burgerrechte (Leipzig:
Duncker & Humblot, 1895).
3. See especially the article, "Uber einige Kategorien der verstehenden
Soziologie/'Logos. Vol.4 (1913), pp. 253-255.
4. As the publishing firm, J.C.B. Mohr, in Tubingen, advises, his compre-
hensive sociological work should appear in the next few months un-
der the title of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, as Part III of the Grundriss
der Sozialb'konomik. [ Note: The date of publication was 1922.]
5. See especially his article, "Der Sinn der Wertfreiheit der soziologjs-
chen und okonomischen Wissenschaften," Logos, Vol. 7 (1917-18), pp.
40-42.
6. Max Weber, "Wissenschaft als Beruf," Lecture No. 1, Proceedings of the
Freideutschen Bund (Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1919).
7. See especially his introduction in Gesammelte Aujsatze zur Religions-
soziologie, op. tit, pp. 1-3.
8. A memorial to Weber in the Frankfurter Zeitung.
8
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life
The United States represents one of the most crass examples of
the assimilation of immigrant masses to a certain type, in this case,
to Anglo-American bourgeois Protestantism. Except for specialists
in areas such as music, where this type was unproductive, even the
lone intellectual who arrived later had to adapt his special knowl-
edge and methods to this general pattern. As the social sciences
had already developed in a particular direction, European elements
were incorporated only with hesitation, as, for example, the ideas of
Simmel, Sombart, Tonnies, Troeltsch, von Wiese, and Max Weber.
This essay is concerned with the partial acceptance of the ideas of
Max Weber. But influence presupposesdespite all hypotheses of
unidirectional diffusionthe presence of factors that facilitate its
reception: a predisposition toward or a feeling of a certain inad-
equacy, for example. Accordingly, as a preliminary, let us list some
American characteristics that are relevant to understanding the posi-
tive or negative attitude toward Max Weber, and ignore for the mo-
ment those authors who play roles as protagonists in the process of
infiltration.
The American Sociological Milieu
American sociologists
1
had at least three basic convictions in com-
mon, namely, the concept of society, on which, because of the ab-
Paul Honigsheim, "Max Weber in Amerikanischen Geistesleben," Kolner Zeitschrift fur
Soziohgie, Vol. 3, No.4 (1950-51), pp. 408-419.
261
262 The Unknown Max Weber
sence of the Romantic tradition, organicists and holistic meta-
physicians scarcely exerted any influence; further, the belief in the
possibility and justifiability of the practical effect of sociology; and
finally, the belief in the desirability of supra-national organization.
On the other hand, at least the following four subjects were de-
bated: the limitation of Darwinism, by Ellwood and Hayes versus
the radical Darwinism of Sumner and Keller, admirers of Spencer;
then, social welfare politics, characteristically represented by Small
and Ellwood, students of Wagner and Schmoller, in contrast to tra-
ditional American laissez-faire; third, the theory that the origin of
the state was primarily through power, a conception of Ward's re-
lated to that of Gumplowicz, the antithesis of Hayes' theory of a
more peaceful development; and, last but not least, a historically
based social science, significantly represented by the previously men-
tioned Small and Ellwood, who had studied in Berlin, as opposed to
the quantifying, statistical sociology, which imitated natural science
and was dominant for a time.
Moreover, there was a wealth of studies and systems, social-psy-
chological, criminological, socio-geographical, demographic, and
ecological (somewhat related to the German theory concerning the
location of industry), which cannot be considered here. The devel-
opment of ethnology proceeded in a fashion similar to that of the
history of sociology. First, the parallel evolutionism of Morgan and
his followers appeared, then the historical school (among whose
representatives Boas, Kroeber, and Lowie were of German-speak-
ing origin) with its interest in migrations and historical process, and
finally, in contrast to these, the non-historical, functionalist school.
Likewise the economists and jurists were oriented less to history
and social welfare than in Germanywhere the linkage of both
areas of interest was for years characteristic of the two disciplines
as were the philosophers (even when they were not outspoken prag-
matists) and even the theologians. American churches, with the
exception of outsiders like the Calvinists from the Netherlands,
German and Finnish Lutherans, Mennonites, and other "sectar-
ians," often were largely social clubs that laid little stress on dogma
and were not particularly well-acquainted with their own past his-
tory. What was lacking was that typical German cross-connection
of the theological, juridical, social science, and philosophy faculties
as represented precisely by Max Weber. Why then, in spite of this, is
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 263
there at least a partial interest in Weber? In order to answer this
question, we shall look first at those of Weber's characteristic
features that have proved relevant for the incorporation of his
ideas and shall put aside for the moment any attempt to explain
why these specific characteristics rather than others are being
considered.
The Weberian Influence in America
Weber, as a political man,
2
became known through the portrayals
of Brann, Falk, Salomon, and Gerth and Mills, the two latter having
also translated some of his significant work. They stressed his op-
position to the Kaiser Wilhelm (which distinguished Weber from
the majority of his German university colleagues), as well as his
views on social welfare legislation and his positive interest in the
institutions of the United States; they also discussed his particular
conception of democracy. Because the fate of the Occident had been
to develop capitalism, the power of leaders, imperialism, bureau-
cracy, and rationality would continue to exist even in the face of
democracy and nationalism; and rationality, after all, was the es-
sence of occidental culture, science, and philosophy.
I n f l u e n c e on Phil osophy
Weber's work as a philosopher, particularly in epistemology and
ethics,
3
raised at least nine issues in the United States:
1. The the ory of val u e ju dgme n t. This concept was accepted, although
with peripheral modifications, by the translators Talcott Parsons
and Gerth and Mills, as well as by the well-known historian of
theories, Howard Becker; it was rejected by Jordan and Jensen
on the grounds that existence and value could not be isolated
from one other, and therefore the description and the establish-
ment of norms could not be isolated.
2. The the ory of val u e re l ation s. According to this theory, historical
phenomena can be made the objects of historical research when
such phenomena stand in a continuous and comparable rela-
tionship to actual facts that, in turn, have some relationship to
some of our values. Apparently only Howard Becker and Shils
264 The Unknown Max Weber
(who indeed worked in England but whose translation of Weber
was published in America and who therefore belongs here) thought
this theory worthy of note. Shils, especially, saw the possibility
that the theory would clarify the process of selection of the object
of research, particularly in view of the far-reaching separation of
sociological theory and individual research practice.
3. The concept of causality. Abel in particular described and accepted
this. Criticism came only from one side. After the seizure of power
by the Bolsheviks, Sorokin escaped from Russia to the United
States and there taught and published his metaphysically tran-
scendent system; he rejected the neo-Kantian conception of cau-
sality as belonging essentially to the functionalist idea of causal-
ity of the turn of the century.
4. The ideal type. It was accepted by Abel, Barnes, Becker, Manasse,
Salomon, and Parsons (by the latter with the rejection of several
special applications), as well as by Fischoff, although he pointed
out the danger of underestimating the time coefficient. On the
other hand, Sorokin, from his anti-nominalistic position, indicated
that the adequate definition of a mathematical or social phe-
nomenon would necessarily coincide with the ideal type. Accord-
ingly, Sorokin thought that the Weberian construction of the ideal
type was intrinsically wrong because it was meant to be an auxil-
iary construction to be understood as something different from
the adequate definition of the corresponding phenomenon.
5. The pluralism of causal factors, i.e., the interpretation of a particu-
lar historical phenomenon through the analysis of its special
constituent components. Regarding this, Fischoff and, even more
emphatically, Sorokin, insisted that one might indeed determine
that an effect had been produced by the convergence of a num-
ber of factors, without, however, learning what role an individual
factor might have played.
6. The method of Verstehen in sociology, i.e., the suspension of one's
own conception of rationality while hypothetically accepting the
concept of rationality of the group one wants to analyze, at least
during the period of investigation. Abel and Howard Becker in
particular emphasized the indispensability of this part of the pro-
cess of cognition.
7. The philosophy of history. From this, the contraposition of nomo-
thetic and idiographic disciplines was essentially adopted by
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 265
Becker, Davis, Gerth, Manasse, Mills, and Salomon; meanwhile
similarities were pointed out: with Marxism, on the one hand,
by Parsons, Gerth, and Mills because Weber, in defiance of the
idealistic historians, also stressed the indispensable function of
the economic factor; and, on the other hand, with pragmatism,
particularly by Manasse, Gerth, and Mills, because of the plural-
istic rejection of a dominant central factor.
8. The separation of soc iol og y and psy c hol og y . Despite a general agree-
ment with this position, Parsons finds the complete elimination
of psychology impermissible.
9. Ethic s. Weber gave a new twist to the Kantian categorical im-
perative. He emphasized the tragic obligation to choose between
the antagonistic demands of the Christianity of the Sermon on
the Mount and the demands of the modern state and said that,
whatever it might be, the decision would be essentially imper-
fect. Becker, Manasse, and Salomon understood this idea, al-
though they did not accept it. But Jordan pointed out that such a
formalist ethic, in contrast to an ethic based on substantive val-
ues, was philosophically just as untenable as the previously men-
tioned theory of value judgment. Finally, Gerth and Mills saw
the emotional basis of Weber's neo-Kantianism in his sense of
duty to the nation rather than in religious conviction, which here
appeared to them as rationalized and secularized; additional
evidence for this was the sociological treatment of religion and
its integration into the total pattern of social and economic his-
torical investigation.
Inf l uenc e on Soc ial and Ec onomic Thoug ht
Weber's investigations of social and economic history
4
have in
America influenced only Roman agrarian history and the discus-
sion of the genesis of capitalism. With regard to the former, Weber
began with the ideas of Mommsen, Seebohm, and Paul von Roth as
well as the ideas of the papyrologists Mitteis and Wilcken. The ba-
sic developments that he either elaborated for the first time or, had
they been asserted hypothetically elsewhere, empirically supported
are these eight: (1) upward social mobility of the plebeians as a re-
sult of their integration into the Hoplite army; (2) the interest of the
plebeians in the conquest of non-Roman lands; (3) increasing con-
266 The Unknown Max Weber
sideration of the plebeians in the distribution of the ager publicus;
(4) the unimportance of provincial grain deliveries to the capital
city in the total process of the genesis of the latifundia; (5) the life of
the slaves under military discipline on the latifundia, investigated
by consulting the Latin writings in the field of agronomy as a source;
(6) movement, in later Roman times, from coastal cities to inland
latifundia, proved by evidence and analysis in contrast to the corre-
sponding and rather vague assertions by Seebohm; (7) the devel-
opment of coloni, in late Roman times, from the former free tenants
who voluntarily chose dependence in order to avoid the load of
taxes; (8) uninterrupted continuity of the late-Roman latifundia with
their natural economy to the early medieval, Christian-Germanic
type of land ownership, a theory that was based upon sources and
analyses, in contrast to Roth's unproved hypothesis.
The best-known American agrarian historian, Gras, but also
Tenney Frank, Westermann, Pigeriol, and Paul Louis (the two latter
are indeed French, but as collaborators on the Encyclopedia of Social
Sciences they are included here) accepted those theories that con-
cerned the delivery of grain, the barracks of the slaves on the
latifundia, and the coloni. Rostovtzeffs mediation is pertinent here.
As an opponent of the czars, he emigrated first to Germany and
then to the United States, and influenced Weber with his idea of
the condition, but not the origin, of the coloni. Although he rejected
some of the Weberian details, he accepted others involving the ager
publicus, latifundia, barrack slavery, and the origin of the coloni, and
he passed them on to the American economic and social historians
Frank, Haskel, Parker, and Scullard. Meanwhile the Austrian, Dopsch,
deriving his evidence from an investigation of Carolingian and pre-
Carolingian agrarian conditions, confirmed Weber and Rostovtzeffs
thesis regarding the unbroken continuity of the latifundia from late
Roman to early medieval times, acknowledged the two authorities,
was translated in America, and was widely accepted.
On occasion there was interest in several other Weberian ideas.
These were accepted: the conception of the Confucian economic
ethic, by Parsons and Williams; the idea of slavery in Homeric times,
by Westermann; and the idea of the old Germanic free-family farms
( H ufe) , by Geiger. On the other hand, these ideas were criticized:
the definition of the gens, by Howard Becker, and the interpretation
of the Confucian and medieval economic ethic, by Sorokin. But this
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 267
latter issue is related to the incomparably more consequential dis-
cussion on religion and capitalism.
The Genesis o f Capitalism
The Calvinistic-capitalistic discussion
5
in America followed these
main stages: at first, appreciative reports appeared, and some of them
contained supplementary examples such as those by Abel, Fuller-
ton, and Salomon. Then came Talcott Parsons' translation with the
admission that Weber, as a Kantian, had somewhat overestimated
the significance of the spiritual aspect and had somewhat underes-
timated the changes in the internal development of Calvinism. This
was followed by the first objection to the basic principle: Robertson
argued that it was not permissible to explain economic changes in a
one-sided way through ideological factors, and that one could trace
the so-called Calvinistic attitude toward acquisition back to the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance. To this, Parsons replied that his
opponent, without warrant, had turned Weber into a "monistic ide-
alist" who reduces everything to spiritual factors; furthermore, Par-
sons said that Robertson argued on the basis of ecclesiastic regula-
tions, whereas Weber did not have these in mind at all but rather
was thinking of the motivation of the believers. The refutation
of Robertson by Howard Becker and Tawney followed the same
lines. Tawney, it is true, was an Englishman, but since he lectured
on similar problems in the United States and published his book
here, he must be mentioned at least as an indirect link in the
chain of influence.
Four new attacks followed: Hall objected that predestination was
by no means the most distinctive feature of Calvinism and that this
belief was disappearing as capitalism increased, that the accumula-
tion of money had been the only means for the settler in the New
World to attain social prestige, and that the typical American large-
scale capitalist was by no means always of Reformed origin. Ymger's
argument, partially based on Hall's, was that capitalism already flour-
ished in Geneva before Calvin began, and, because Calvin's church
could not hold back the new era, Calvin was forced to make ethical
concessions; that emigrants did not come to the New World prima-
rily for religious freedom but for economic opportunities; and that,
even if religious movements are autochthonous, their ethics still
268 The Unknown Max Weber
develop as a product of their environment. Hyma, who, like so many
persons in Michigan, was of Dutch origin, stressed chronological
inaccuracies, referring mainly to Dutch contexts. Fischoff accepted
the latter and went even further; he applied his epistemological
objections concerning the ideal type and causal pluralism, which
we outlined earlier, to the concrete case; and he assumed, as the
quintessence of opposition to the idea of a causal relationship be-
tween Calvinism and capitalism, a congruence as the result of the
same basic cultural elements. Further emphasizing the same point,
Sorokin maintained that even in Confucianism and in the Middle
Ages similar orientations had existed; that Protestantism was as-
sumed to be more modem that it actually was; that its historical
significance had been exaggerated; than Calvinism was not eco-
nomically prosperous everywhere; and that, on the contrary, Japan
was a country of advanced capitalism without Calvinism. Unavoid-
ably, all such criticism concerning the genesis of capitalism affects
the opinion regarding Weber's conception of other societal struc-
tures, at least to a certain degree.
Forms of Society
Weber's conceptions of particular forms of social organization
6
came to be known relatively late. Essentially this occurred in two
ways: first, through Wach's book on the sociology of religion, in
which the author borrowed not only the analyses of Judaism, Hin-
duism, Confucianism, and Taoism, but also the basic conceptions of
caste, priesthood, and the role of the prophet; and second, by means
of translations from the posthumous work, Economy and Society, ini-
tially as selections by Gerth and Mills, and then by Henderson and
Parsons.
But there were some objections. Although Parsons, as Becker,
Wach, and Gerth and Mills, essentially accepts a tripartite typology
of leadership, he argues that the "irrational" is not simply a de-
viation from the norm, "irrationality" is not simply the antithesis of
rationality, the legal competence of the bureaucrat is not identical
with the technical, and the importance of bureaucracy is over-
estimated in comparison, for example, with that of the market and
other economic factors. On the other hand, Parsons praises the
rejection of the belief that there is a "natural self-interest" and that
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 269
the occidental economic order is natural. With the rejection of such
ideas, the South German liberal stands in contrast to the majority
of American laissez-faire optimists, even more sharply than did
Veblen. A generation earlier, Veblen had described how the Protes-
tant ethic was disappearing in the ''leisure class" in the land of the
Yankees. This circumstance was taken by the translators as well as
by Becker as further evidence of the correctness of Weber's thesis
concerning the inevitability of secularization in occidental culture.
All of these particular adoptions and rejections are certainly not of
an accidental nature.
American Eclecticism Regarding Weber
The causes of the differential opinion regarding various aspects
of Weber's work are these: it is understandable that Weber was not
discussed intensively in terms of his politics. To be sure, people
were sympathetic to this man who opposed Kaiser Wilhelm and
who visited and praised the United States, but people were unfa-
miliar with the details of domestic politics in pre-war and revolu-
tionary Germany, and Weber's political pessimism was foreign to
them. With a surplus of land and for a long time without neighbors,
Americans had come to believe that the American form of democ-
racy represented the solution to many political problems.
This optimism also colored opinions about Weber's philosophy.
Its total epistemology in its broadest sense encountered the most
ready acceptance for easily obvious reasons: American sociology had
grown out of practical situations; as shown at the outset, it also
treated general questions. With increasing complication of the prob-
lems, the need for an epistemological foundation was felt; but such
a foundation was rejected when it was anchored in the metaphysi-
cal, since the corresponding needs, insofar as they existed, were
satisfied by the churches. Weber's particular interpretation of neo-
Kantian doctrine did not appear so very unfamiliar to the intellec-
tuals beyond the ocean. It underscored the character of sociology as
a separate science, and it stressed the importance of religious and
economic factors whose great significance one could see daily be-
fore his eyes. It did not reject statistics, so essential to Americans,
but only pointed out its limitations; and, despite certain points of
contact, it moved away from Marxism, which was felt to be alien.
270 The Unknown Max Weber
With reference to causal pluralism, on the other hand, this interpre-
tation seemed to be related to pragmatism, which, being a home-
grown, American product, was also familiar, even to opponents.
Then, if Jensen and Jordan raised objections against value neutral-
ity, Jordan against formalism in ethics, and Sorokin against the ideal
type, the basic metaphysical points at issue were of a non-Ameri-
can character. This was especially true of Sorokin, whose Eastern
Christianity with its strong Platonic flavor could not accept neo-
Kantian anti-metaphysics or the designation of concepts as meth-
odological constructs. But, as will be explained later, counter-strikes
of this kind and from such a side remained rare.
Typically American, on the other hand, is the amazement con-
cerning three other aspects of Weberian philosophy. First, the posi-
tion on psychology: in the Weber circle Emil Lask coined a phrase
characterizing the fact that, at that time, philosophy chairs were rather
frequently occupied by scholars who were primarily psychologists.
Referring to the title of a work by Kant, Lask said that this was an
attempt to introduce negative entities into world knowledgea stark
contrast to the American conviction of the value of a quantifying psy-
chology. Because of this, Parsons, who, in so many other ways ac-
cepted Weber, protested the elimination of psychology. Second, there
was the tragic ethic in antithesis to the largely unshaken American
belief that most men were gentlemen. Finally, there was the issue of
religion. For Weber's ethics, religiousness was fundamental. But in
spite of this or, more correctly (from the standpoint of South German
neo-Kantianism), because of this, it was not orthodox. It stood in
sharp contrast to common custom in the United States, because here
one either was religiously indifferent or found a religious home in
one of the numerous denominations, even if one were not a "funda-
mentalist" but an "evolutionist/' i.e., a Darwinist.
All of this made the acceptance of Weber considerably more dif-
ficult than in the fields of the special disciplines. Nevertheless, the
acceptance was limited here, too. As an ethnologist, Weber is to be
placed among scholars of anti-evolutionist historical orientation.
But within this orientation he was moderate, and he died before
heavy conflicts raged about the extremist, Father Schmidt. It is for
this reason that, in Latin America, Schmidt is generally accepted,
while in Anglo-America he is rejected. Moreover, in North America
there is a considerable understanding of contemporary Orientals
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 271
but less understanding of their past, because Sanskrit chairs and
professors of Semitics are rare and because the alienation from
orthodox Christianity is much more likely to occur because of
Darwinian influences than through biblical criticism and the com-
parative history of religion. On the other hand there was conti-
nuity in classical philology, as well as an interest in ancient his-
tory, which was derived from English university theology and
the needs of the churches, but there was only slight interest in
Roman legal history. Weber's work could be incorporated here.
However, Rostovtzeff worked and wrote in America and for that
reason has found greater recognition. The situation was similar
with respect to the Celts, Slavs, and Germans. Here Weber
claimed less originality for himself, and he described himself as
walking in the footsteps of his master, Meitzen, and overshad-
owed by Meitzen's fame.
That the Calvinist-capitalist formula raised incomparably more
dust is understandable. People saw themselves caught in circum-
stances of which they no longer were aware or wanted to be aware.
Robertson was the spokesman for those who felt particularly that,
in his innermost being, Max Weber, despite all his objectivity, per-
ceived capitalism as an oppressive fate of the Occident; this was the
same capitalism which, to the average Yankee, as Parsons pointed
out, was a matter of course, was identical to democracy and op-
posed to bureaucracy.. This was not so with Sorokin; in his work,
along with the previously-mentioned methodological objection
which was anchored in the metaphysical realm, it was the protest
against the world-historical role attributed to Calvinism that was
decisive, not the American antipathy to bureaucracy. The South
German democrat had warned of the danger that he perceived in
bureaucratization.This made himif we now turn to the American
opinion of Weber's conception of particular forms of associationa
sympathetic figure in the country to which many had fled in order
to escape regimentation in their home countries. In the United
States, however, people believed that they had escaped the threat;
thus it was easy, even for Parsons, to see the South German liberal
as a pessimist. For the rest, Parsons, even as Howard Becker, docu-
mented his particularly close affinity with Weberian thought, espe-
cially in comparison with a number of the other personalities here
in question.
272 The Unknown Max Weber
Weber's Intermediaries
The kind of personalities who are here on stage as protagonists is
striking: a part of the discussion takes place in Social Research. Many
articles in this journal are written and edited by members of the
New School for Social Research; a great many of these are refugees
who are at home in German scientific thought. This is true of Gerth
and Wach. Sorokin and Rostovtzeff are Russian refugees; Becker
and Parsons, both native Americans, studied in Germany as did Small
and Ellwood, the American sociologists interested in history and
social welfare politics, as mentioned in the beginning. Parsons stud-
ied in Heidelberg and Becker in Cologne, where, along with others,
there was a Max Weber tradition. Among the intermediaries of the
group are Paul Louis and Andre Pigeriol of French origin and Tawney
and Shils of English origin. (The few other discussions published by
Englishmen on value relationship, causality, and nomothetic and
idiographic disciplines
7
did not produce any lasting influence in
America.) In any case, all of those mentioned here and a few of
those mentioned earlier were at least not exclusively in the devel-
opmental continuity of American sociology depicted previously.
Accordingly, they were perceived as something new. For example,
Parsons' election as president of the American Sociological Asso-
ciation was interpreted as recognition of a " theoretician." Indirectly
this facilitated the diffusion of some of Weber's basic positions and
particular concepts. It was otherwise with Sorokin. The linkage of
his metaphysico-historical system with statistics as well as the in-
terest that socially conservative circles took in his holistic metaphysics
originally facilitated his opportunities for publication and his teach-
ing success. But his emphasis on metaphysics grew. In addition,
like a number of other Greek Orthodox in exile, he no longer re-
garded Catholicism primarily as an opponent but, in increasing
measure, as an allyand this in an originally Protestant country in
which many persons were apparently suddenly convinced that the
American-liberal non-interference of the state in internal affairs had
helped not only big business but also Catholicism into the saddle.
Meanwhile, those Americans looking for systematic thought and
methodology had increasing opportunity to become acquainted,
through translation, with the approaches of Simmel, Sombart,
Tonnies, Troeltsch, and von Wiese,
8
and to rum their interest to-
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 273
ward these and away from Sorokin. All of this decreased Sorokin's
influence and thereby the weight of the objections to neo-
Kantianism, particularly because these objections were closely con-
nected with the anti-nominalist group ontology. Finally the special
function of German refugees in the process of assimilating Weber's
work is part of the wider problem of a sociology of anti-Hitler refu-
gees. Such a problem, however important it may be, lies outside the
scope of this article.
Notes
1. For the development of American sociology and ethnology, cf.: Harry
Elmer Barnes and Howard Becker, Social Thought from Lore to Science,
Vols. I and II (Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1938), especially (I) pp. 719,
748-750, and (11) pp. 956-965; Harry Elmer Barnes, Howard Becker,
and Frances Bennett Becker (eds.), Contemporary Social Theory (New
York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1947), pp. 54-58,134-135,202-203,372-
373, 453-490, 648-665, 851-853, 861-866; Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.),
An Introduction to the History of Sociology (Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1948), pp. 138,191,774-883. For the conflict between evo-
lutionists and antievolutionists, cf. Leslie A. White, "L. H. Morgan,"in
Barnes, ibid., pp. 138-154; Leslie A. White, "History, Evolution and
Functionalism," Southwest Journal of Anthropology, I (1945), pp. 221-
248; Leslie A. White/'Morgan's Attitude toward Religion and Science/'
American Anthropologist, XLVII (1944), pp. 218-230; Leslie A. White,
"Diffusion vs. Evolution," American Anthropologist, XLVII (1945), pp.
339-356; Robert H. Lowie/'Evolution in Cultural Anthropology/Ameri-
can Anthropologist, XLVIII (1946), pp. 223-233; and Rsml Honigsheim,
"The Problem of Diffusion and Parallel Evolution,"Michigan Academy
of Science Papers, XXVII (1942), pp. 515-524.
2. Max Weber, Gesammelte politische Schriften (Munich: Drei Masken
Verlag, 1921). For more on this, see H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills
(trans, and eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Ox-
ford University Press, 1946), pp. 8-29, 32-50; Paul Honigsheim, Re-
view of German Youth: Bond or Free, by Howard Becker, American Jour-
nal of Sociology, 53 (July, 1947), pp. 159-160. Also see: Max Weber,
Jugendbriefe, ed. Marianne Weber (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1936), es-
pecially pp. 64,75,187-193,204,294,300,334,417-419,456. The most
important American works on this are: H. W. Brann, "Max Weber and
the United States/'The Southwest Social Science Quarterly, XXV (1944),
pp. 18-30; Werner Falk, "Democracy and Capitalism in Weber's Soci-
ology," The Sociological Review, XXVII (1935), pp. 373-390; Albert
Salomon, "Weber's Political Ideas," Social Research, II (1935), pp. 368-
383. For the matter as a whole, see Marianne Weber, Max Weber
274 The Unknown Max Weber
(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1926); Paul Honigsheim, "Max Weber as a
Rural Sociologist," Rural Sociology, XI (September, 1946) pp. 207-218;
and Paul Honigsheim, "Max Weber as Applied Anthropologist," Ap-
plied Anthropology, VII (Fall, 1948), pp. 27-35.
3. Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Tubingen: J.C
B. Mohr, 1922); and Max Weber, Gesammelte politische Schriften, op. cit.
Both are treated in Gerth and Mills, op. cit., pp. 129-158 (see also In-
troduction, pp. 45-50); and Max Weber, On the Methodology of the So-
cial Sciences, trans, and ed. E. A. Shils and H. H. Finch (Glencoe: The
Free Press, 1949) (See Foreword, pp. v, ix, x).The most important Ameri-
can works on this are: Theodore Abel, Systematic Sociology in Germany
(NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1929), pp. 116-159; Barnes, op.
tit., pp. 60-61; Barnes and Becker, op. tit., Vol. 1, p. 110, Vol. II, pp. 894-
898; Barnes, Becker, and Becker, op. cit., p. 30 n.10, pp. 509, 515,518-
519, 521, Howard Becker,"Cultural Case Study and Ideal Type Meth-
odology/'Sodfl/ Forces, XII (1933-34), pp. 399-404; A. K. Davis,"Veblen
and the Decline of Private Enterprise," Social Forces, XXII (1944), pp.
282-286; Charles Diehl/The Life and Works of Max Weber/Tte Quar-
terly Journal of Economics, XXXVIII (1924), pp. 87-107; Heinrich Jordan,
"Some Philosophical Implications of Max Weber's Methodology," In-
ternational Journal of Ethics, XLVIII (1937-38), pp. 22 1-230; E. M.
Manasse, "Moral Principles and Alternatives in Max Weber,"Journal of
Philosophy, XXXI (1911), pp. 31,35,42-43,60,66;Talcott Rarsons/'Capi-
talism in Recent German Literature," The Journal of Political Economy,
XXXVII (1929), pp. 48-50, Talcott Parsons, "Max Weber's Sociological
Analysis of Capitalism and Modern Institutions/'in Barnes, op. cit., pp.
287,293-295; Talcott Parsons/'Introduction/'in Max Weber, TheTheory
of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott
Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947), pp. 6,10,13, 54;
Albert Salomon,"Max Weber's Methodology,"Social Research, I (1934),
pp. 154-156,165; Ephraim Fischoff/'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism/'SocmJ Research, XI (1944), pp. 72,75; Rtirim A. Sorokin,
Contemporary SotiologicalTheories (NewYork: Harper & Brothers, 1928),
pp. 530, 587, 659, n. 89, 691, 720; Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture
and Personality (NewYork: Harper & Brothers, 1947), p. 500 n.17. For
the matter as a whole, see Paul Honigsheim, "Max Weber: His Reli-
gious and Ethical Background and Development/'Church History, XIX
(1950), pp. 3-23.
4. Max Weber, Die romische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutungfur das Staats-
und Privatrecht (Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1891); Max Weber,
Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Social- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Tubingen: J.
C. B. Mohr, 1924) (translated by F. H. Knight as General Economic His-
tory [NewYork: Collier Publishing Company, 1927]). Weber's direct
influence on America is shown in N. S. B. Gras, A History of Agriculture
(NewYork: H. F. Crofts & Co., 1940), pp. 61, 257; N. S. B. Gras, An
Introduction to Economic History (NewYork: Harper & Brothers, 1922);
Max Weber in American Intellectual Life 275
N. S. B. Gras,"Agriculture in Antiquity and the Middle Ages," Encyclo-
pedia of Social Sciences, I (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944),
pp. 574-577; W. L. Westermann, "Slavery, Ancient," Encyclopedia of So-
cial Sciences, XIV (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944), pp. 75-
77; Paul Louis, "Agrarian Movements," Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, I
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944), p. 494; Andre Pigeriol,
"Latifundia/'Encycfopedifl of Social Sciences, XI (Newtork: The Macmillan
Company, 1944), pp. 186-188; Tenney Frank, Roman Imperialism (New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1921), p. 241. On the relationship of
Weber, Rostovtzeff, and Dopsch, cf.: Max Weber, Die romische
Agrargeschichte ...,op, cit., pp. 119-121,149,185, 220, 252, 286; Max
Weber, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sozial- und Wirschaftsgeschichte, op. cit,
p. 286; Mikhail I. Rostovtzeff, A History of the Ancient World, Vol. II
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1926), pp. 98, 231,296-297, 351-
356; Mikhail I. Rostovtzeff, "Studien zur Geschichte der romischen
Kolonats," Archiv fur Papyrusforschungen, No. 3 (1914), pp. 116,133,
259 n. 1, 313 n. 1, 377, 403; Mikhail I. Rostovtzeff, "Geschichte der
Staatspacht/'PWJofogws, Suppl. 9 (1901); Mikhail I. Rostovtzeff, "Die
Ursprung der Kolonats (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1901); Alfons Dopsch, The
Economic and Social Foundations of European Civilization (London: K.
Raul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1937), pp. 137, 337. The adoption of
Rostovtzeff and Weber's ideas in America is shown in: Tenney Frank,
An Economic History of Rome (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,
1927), Introduction; Henry J. Haskell, New Deal in Old Rome (NewYork:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1939), pp. 202-204; H. H. Scullard, A History of the
Roman World (NewYork: Barnes and Noble, 1935), pp. 316-318; H. M.
D. Rirker, A History of the Roman World from 138-337 (London: Methuen
and Company, 1929), p. 288. An allusion to the Weberian theory of
economic history, which does not refer to Rome, may be found in:
Westermann, op. cit., p. 75; G. R. Geiger, TheTheory of the Land Question
(NewYork: The Macmillan Company, 1936), p. 112; Howard Becker,
"In Defense of Morgan's Grecian Gens," Southwest Journal of Anthropol-
ogy, VI (1950), pp. 317-318 (A more comprehensive work on this subject
by Becker will follow [author's note]); Talcott Parsons, "Sociological Ele-
ments in EconomicThought/'in Barnes, Becker, and Becker, op. cit., p. 635;
M. J. W01iams,"Representative Sociological Contributions to Religion and
Ethics, "in Barnes, Becker, and Becker, ibid., p. 843; Pitirim A. Sorokin, Con-
temporary Sociological Theories, op. cit., pp. 694-695. On the matter as a
whole, see Paul Honigsheim/'Max Weber as Historian of Agriculture
and Rural Life," Agricultural History, XXIII (1949), pp. 195,198, where
there are extensive references to the literature.
5. Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Religionssoziologie, 3 vols.
(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1920-1921). Rart of this work has been trans-
lated as: Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
trans. Talcott Parsons (NewYork: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930). For
the controversy on this, see: Abel, op. cit., pp. 142-143; Kemper Fuller-
276 The Unknown Max Weber
ton,"Calvinism and Capitalism,"Harvard Theological Review, XXI (1928),
pp. 163-195; Albert Salomon/Max Weber's Sociology "Social Research,
II (1935), pp. 60-62; H. M. Robertson, Aspects of the Rise of Economic
Individualism (Cambridge: The University Press, 1935); Talcott Arsons,
"H. M. Robertson on Weber and His School" Journal of Political Economy,
XLII(1935), pp. 688-696; Talcott Parsons, "'Capitalism in Recent Ger-
man Literature,"op. cit.; Talcott Parsons,"Sociological Elements..., in
Barnes, Becker, and Becker, op. cit.
f
pp. 633-635; Howard Becker/Soci-
ology in the Germanic Languages" in Barnes and Becker, op. cit., Vol.
II, p. 894; Howard Becker,"Historical Sociology/'in Barnes, Becker, and
Becker, op. cit., p. 520-522; Richard H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of
Capitalism (NewYork: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), pp. 290 n. 12,316-
317; T. C. Hall, The Religious Background of American Culture (Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, 1930), pp. 207-224; J. Milton Yinger, Reli-
gion in the Struggle for Power (Durham: Duke University Press, 1946),
pp. 78-128 (cf. Honigsheim, Review of German Youth, op. cit.); Albert
Hyma, Christianity, Capitalism and Communism: A Historical Analysis
(Ann Arbor: By the author, 1937), pp. 126,161; Fischoff, op. cit., pp. 70-
76; Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories, op. cit., pp. 531 n. 38,
539 n. 51, 691, 695 n. 58, 697; Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social and Cultural
Dynamics (NewYork: Bedminister Press, 1937), (I) p. 500, (III) p. 224,
(IV) p. 123 n. 25,175,312,362 n.14; Sorokin, Society, Culture ...,op. cit.,
pp. 591 n. 4,657,672 n. 30.
6. Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tubingen: J. C B. Mohr, 1922),
selected portions of which have been translated in Gerth and Mills, op.
cit. (cf. pp. 51-55,61-70), and Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Eco-
nomic Organization, op. cit. (cf. pp. 14-17, 26-31, 35, 40, 54-60, 75-76,
80). Cf.: Howard Becker, "Cultural Case Study ...," op. cit; Davis, op.
cit., p. 284 n. 3; Rarsons, "Weber's Sociological Analysis ..."op. cit., p.
300; Parsons,"Capitalism in Recent...," op. cit., pp. 38,51; Talcott Rir-
sons, The Structure of Social Action (Glencoe:The Free Press, 1949), Ch.
XVII; Joachim Wach, Sociology of Religion (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1944), pp. 49,212, 260, 337,347,366.
7. Cf., for example, F. H. von Hayek/'Scientism and the Study of Society,
Part II," Economica, X (1943), pp. 54-55; F. H. von Hayek, "Scientism
and the Study of Society, Part III, Economica, XI (1944), p.35; Karl Pop-
per, "The Poverty of Historicism,"Economica, XII (1945), pp. 83-84.
8. The Sociology of Georg Simmel, trans, and ed. Kurt Wolff (Glencoe: The
Free Press, 1950); Werner Sombart, A History of Economic Institutions of
Europe, trans. F. L. Nussbaum (NewYork: F. S. Crofts, 1933); Ferdinand
Tonnies, Fundamental Concepts of Sociology: Gemeinschaft und
Gesellschaft, trans, and suppl. Charles P. Loomis (NewYork: American
Book Company, 1940); ErnstTroeltsch, The SocialTeachingof the Chris-
tian Churches, trans. Olive Wyon (New York: The Macmillan Company,
1931); Leopold von Wlese, Systematic Sociology, adapted and amplified
by Howard Becker (NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1932).
Name Index
Abel, Theodore, 264, 267
Ahlwardt, Theodor Wilhelm, 211
Ahrens, Heinrich, 199
Alexander the Great, 58
Alm, Richard von der (pseud, von
Ghillany), 230
Anemuller, Detmold, 161
Ankermann, Bernhard, 36
Anschutz, Gerhard, 195
Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft, 143,
191, 231
Aron, Raymond R., 136, 247
Ashley, William J., 78
Augustine, Saint, 144
Baader, Franz Xaver von, 68
Bachofen.Johann Jakob, 39, 41, 55,
159, 169
Baines, Henri, 46, 52
Bakunin, Mikhail, 211
Balzac, Honore de, 202
Barnes, Harry Elmer, 264
Barth, Karl, 237
Basserman, Heinrich, 224, 234
Bastian, Adolf, 36,179,180,181,182
Bauer, Bruno, 229
Bauer, Edgar, 229
Bauer, Ferdinand Christian, 229,235
Baumbach, Rudolf, 202
Baumgarten, Hermann, 100, 216
Baurngarten, Otto, 49,100,102,216,
230, 232
Bebel, August, 37, 39, 65
Beccaria, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese
di, 198
Becker, Howard, ix, 17,247-249,263-
264, 266-269, 272
Beethoven, Ludwigvon, 210, 214
Behn, Siegfried, 138
Bekker, Immanuel, 159, 160. 170
Below, Georg von, 61-63, 75-79, 82,
130, 161, 183
Bendix, Reinhard, xii
Bennigsen, Rudolf von, 126, 169
Bergson, Henri, 191, 254
Berlioz, Louis Hector, 210
Bernays, Maria, 139, 152,174
Bernoulli, Karl A., 159, 169
Bernstein, Eduard, 157
Bezold, Carl, 209
Biach, Rudolf, 191
Bismarck, Otto von, 27, 100, 104,
125, 126,133,142, 161,162, 166,
169, 173, 176, 207, 216, 217, 245
Bjornson, Bjonstjerne, 200
Bloch, Ernst, 132,147,151,152,190,
204, 206, 213, 214, 216, 217, 235,
236
Boas, Franz, 262
Boccalini, Traiano, 163
Bodin,Jean, 163
Boeckh, August, 159
Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen von, 187
Bopp, Franz, 65
Bornhak, Konrad, 195-198
Boswell, James, 64
Bougie, C., 46-48, 52
Brahms, Johannes, 210
Brann, H. W., 263
Brentano, Lujo, 187, 239
Breysig, Kurt, 165, 173, 178
Buber, Martin, 144, 147
Bubnoff, Nikolai von, 146, 206, 236
Bucher, Carl, 73
Buhler, Georg, 46,52
Bulow, Bernhard, Prince von, 126
Bulow, Hans von, 211
Bultmann, Rudolf, 237
Burckhardt, Jakob, 166, 179, 194,
208, 220
Caesar, Julius, 74, 75, 77-78
Galas, Jean, 133
Campanella, Tommaso, 163
277
.278 The Unknown Max Weber
Camphausen, Wilhelm, 202, 211
Chamberlain, Houston Stewart, 211
Chavannes, Edouard, 43, 51
Cimabue, Giovanni, 151
Clement XIV, 218
Colani, 230
Comte, August, 176
Condorcet, Marie Jean Antoine de
Caritat, Marquis de, 166
Conon, Hans, 43
Conon von der Gabelentz, Hans
Georg, 43
Conrad, Johannes, 171
Conrady, August, 43
Corneille, Pierre, 203
Correggio, Antonio Allegri, 208
Coulanges, Fustel de, 37, 40
Davis, A. K., 264
dejanville, Gabrielle Mattel, 202
Delbruck, Hans, 161, 163, 165, 167,
174, 175
Denifle, Heinrich, 157, 158, 168
Dernburg, Friedrich, 194
deSandras, Courtilz, 163
Deubner, Otfried, 159
Diederichs, Eugen, 236
Dieterich, Albrecht, 159,160
Dietz, Friedrich Christian, 160
Dilthey, Wilhelm, 240, 247
Domaszewski, Alfred von, 160, 171
Dopsch, Alfons, 37,40,62,63,67,72-
77,81,82,248,266
Dostoevsky, Feodor, xvii, 9,68,69,71,
102, 108, 115-117, 146, 200, 204,
206, 207, 245, 250
Douglas-Irine, Helen, 78
Dreyfus, Alfred, 113, 133, 234
Driesch, Hans, 141-143,146,162,237
Droste-Vischering, Clemens von, 218
Droysen, Johann Gustav, 162, 175
Drygalski, Erich von, 155
Duff, Grant, 46, 52
Duhring, Eugen, 38
Ebbinghaus, Julius, 146, 154
Ebel, Hermann, 65
Eckstein, Ernst, 202
Egidy, Moritz von, 104
Ehrenberg, Hans, 140,146,147,187,
188, 204, 206, 214, 221
Eichhorn, Carl Friedrich, 62, 75, 77
Eisermann, Gottfried, 147
Ellwood, Charles A., 262, 271
Engels, Friedrich, 36, 37, 39, 41, 65,
69, 76, 180
Eranos, 138, 169
Estournelles de Constant, Paul
Balluat, Baron d', 136
Eymer, Heinrich, 124
Falk, Werner, 161,26
Pick, Friedrich Christian August, 46,
48,52
Fischer, Kuno, 137
Fischoff, Ephraim, 264, 267
Flaubert, Gustave, 202, 222
Fleet, John Faithfull, 46, 52
Fleischmann, Wilhelm, 75, 81
Florenz, Karl, 45, 51
Foerster, Friedrich Wilhelm, 105,108
Forke, Alfred, 43, 51
Franck, Erich, 138, 140
Franck, Ludwig, 149, 150
Frank, Tenney, 265, 266
Franke, Otto, 43, 51
Frantz, Constantin, 125, 204
Freisinnige Partei, 149, 169, 199
Freisinnige Vereinigung, 127
Friedensburo, 136
Fromm, Erich, 153
Fullerton, Kemper, 267
Gaidoz, Henry, 65
Gallicanism, 172, 208, 232
Geiger, G. R., 266
Geldern, Robert von Heine, 44
George, Stefan, 108,115,123-4,128,
148,159,169,192,200,204-6,239,
245
Gerth, Hans H., xxi, 99, 247, 263-5,
268, 272
Gierke, Otto von, 76, 134, 164, 165,
169, 177, 178
Giotto di Bondone, 208
Gluck, Christian Wilhelm von, 65
Gneist, Rudolf von, 196, 197
Gobineau, Joseph Arthur, Count de,
211
Goebel, Siegfried, 224
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 64,65
Gogarten, Friedrich, 237
Goldscheid, Rudolf, 185
Goldschmidt, Levin, 177, 239
Name Index 279
Gothein, Eberhard, x, 62,63, 75, 78,
81, 82, 165, 166, 176, 179, 184,
192, 217
Gotd-Ottlilienfeld, Friedrich, x, 164,
177, 183
Gracchi Brothers, 59, 61, 63
Gradewitz, Otto, 160, 171
Graebner, Fritz, 36
Granet, Marcel, 44
Gras, N. S. B., 61, 63, 67, 75, 80, 266
Graul, Karl, 46
Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm, 75, 160
Groot, Johann Jakob Marie de, 43
Grosse, Ernst, 39, 41
Grube, Wilhelm, 43, 51
Gruhle, Hans W., 124, 146, 153, 192
Grutzmacher, Georg, 235
Grutzmacher, Richard, 231, 235
Gummerus, Herman, 61, 63, 80
Gumplowicz, Ludwig, 38, 40, 262
Gundolf, Friedrich, x, 115,128,129,
169, 192, 204, 205, 207, 213, 239
Gunkel, Hermann, 50, 53
Gurvitch, Georges, 247
Hackmann, Heinrich Friedrich, 45,
51
Hahn, Eduard, 36, 37, 40, 181-2
Hall, T. C, 267
Haller, Ludwig von, 172
Hanssen, Georg, 76, 164
Harden, Maximilian, 173
Harnack, Adolf von, 168
Hartmann, Ludo, xi
Hartmann, Nicolai, 247
Haskel, HenryJ., 266
Hauptmann, Gerhart, 200
Hausrath, Adolf, 49, 100, 104, 194,
216, 224, 229, 230, 235
Haxthausen, August von, 68
Haydn, Franz Joseph, 214
Hazebroek, Johannes, 58, 60, 79, 82
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 46,
128, 137, 147, 258
Hegel, Ludwig Georg, 161
Heimsoeth, Heinz, 138
Henderson, A. M., 268
Hen rich, Dieter, 140
Hensel, Paul, 154
Herbart, Johann Friedrich, 179, 181
Herbig, Gustav, 55, 56
Herder, Johann Gottfried von, 64,65
Hermann, Gottfried, 159
Hermes, Georg, 145
Hessen, Johannes, 144
Heuss, Theodor, 124, 127
Hildebrand, Bruno, 163
Hintze, Otto, 164
Hofmannstahl, Hugo von, xi
Hohenzollerns, 127, 177
Hopkins, Edward Washburn, 46, 52
Horn, Paul, 46, 52
Hourwich, Isaac, 69
Hrozny, Friedrich, 49
Hugo, Victor, 202
Hultzsch, Eugen, 46, 52
Husserl, Edmund, 144-6
Huth, Georg, 43
Hutten, Ulrich von, 202
Hyma, Albert, 268
Ibsen, Henrik, 200
Iseiin, Isaac, 36
Jansenism, ix, 144, 172, 232
Janssen, Johannes, 157
Jaspers, Karl, ix, x, xii, 153
Jellinek, Georg, x, 101,105,124,129,
133-4, 136-141, 153, 155-6, 171,
173-4,176-180,182, 19 0 - 1,
193-7, 199, 206, 212, 220, 231,
234, 239-40, 248, 252, 258
Jellinek, Walter, 194
Jensen, Howard, 247, 263, 270
Jeremia, Alfred, 48
Jeremia, Friedrich, 48
Jeremia, Johannes, 48
Joachim, Joseph, 209, 210
Johnson, Samuel, 64
Jordan, Heinrich, 247, 263, 265, 270
Junkers, 5, 6, 8, 21, 22,125, 133, 215
Kahl, Wilhelm, 221
Kant, Immanuel, xvi, 114, 115, 135-
7,154,167,181,238,246,249,270
Kantian (ism), xvii, 145,240,258,264,
265, 267, 270, 273
Kautsky, Karl Johann, 157
Kavelin, Konstantin, 69
Kerensky, 11-13
Kerschagl, Richard, 187
Kerschensteiner, 29
Keussler, J. von, 69, 81
Kierkegaard, Soren, 150, 221, 250
280 The Unknown Max Weber
Kindermann, Carl, 189
Kirchenheim, Arthur von, 195, 196,
226
Kireevsky, Ivan, 68
Klages, Ludwig, 39, 159, 169
Kleinert, Paul, 233
Knapp, Georg Fricdrich, 75, 77, 82
Knappen, Marshall, 249
Knies, Karl, 163
Knight, Melvin, M., 67
Kohler, Joseph, 180, 194
Konig, Eduard, 224
Konig, Rene, xxiv, 184
Koppers, Wilhelm, 181
Kovalevsky, Maxim, 69
Kraus, Franz Xaver, 159, 167, 168,
227
Krause, Friedrich Christian, 199
Kroeber, A. L., 262
Kropotkin, Peter, 69
Kuckelhaus, Theodor, 131
Kulpe, Oswald, 154
Lachmann, Karl Konrad Ferdinand
Wilhelm, 159, 229
Lamprecht, Karl, 165, 178
Lange, Friedrich Albert, 114,181,247
Lask, Emil, x, 101,141,154,176,269
Lassalle, Ferdinand, 173
Latifundia, 265
Laveleye, Emile de, 35, 37, 73, 76
Lavrov, Peter, 68
Lazarus, Moritz, 179, 181
Lederer, Emil, 191-2
Lemme, Ludwig, 224-6
Lenz, Max, 158, 161, 163, 173, 174,
179, 232
Leser, Paul, 44
Lessing, Gotthold, 154
Levi, Silvain, 43
Levy, Hermann, 190, 217, 232, 235
Liebmann, Otto, 147
Lilienthal, Karl von, 199
Lintze, Otto, 173
Lipson, E., 78
Liszt, Franz, 199, 210, 213
Lombroso, Cesare, 199
Loomis, Charles P., 17
Lotze, Hermann, 247
Louis, Paul, 61, 63, 83, 265, 272
Lowenstein, x, xii, xiii
Lowie, Robert H., 37, 262
Lukacs, Georg von, xii, xiii, 132,147-
51, 200, 202, 204-6, 216
Luschan, F. von, 180
Luther, Martin, 117, 158
Machiavelli, Niccolo, 163
Macpherson, James, 64, 65
Mahler, Gustav, 148
Mahling, Friedrich, 233
Maine, Henry Sumner, 35,46-48,52,
66, 68, 73, 76
Manasse, E. M., 264
Mann, Fritz Karl, 143
Mantegna, Andrea, 208
Marcks, Erick, 131, 142, 162,176
Marivaux, Pierre Carlet de
Chamblain de, 202
Markovich, Milan, 73
Martitz, Ferdinand von, 195-6
Marx, Karl, 184, 245
Marxism, 147, 150, 241, 265, 269
Marxists, 39, 65, 69, 71, 73, 77
Maspero, Gaston, 48, 57
Maspero, Henri, 43, 53, 60
Maurer, Georg Ludwig von, 77, 164
Mayer, Adolf, 148
Meinecke, Friedrich, 142, 147, 162-
3,176
Meitzen, August, 66, 67, 70-77, 81,
101, 128,164, 175, 177, 239, 271
Mendelssohn, Moses, 154
Menger, Karl, 187
Menghin, Oswald, 44
Mensel, Friedrich, 164, 177
Merx, Adalbert, 194, 224, 228-30
Mestre, Edouard, 43
Meyer, Conrad Ferdinand, 200, 202,
204
Meyer, Eduard, 57,60,160,171, 178
Meyer, Georg, 194-5, 199
Meyer, Kuno, 65
Michels, Roberto, x, 128, 130-1
Mills, C. Wright, x, 247,263-265,268
Milyukov, Pavel, 69, 71, 81
Mitteis, Ludwig, 58-61,63,64,80,265
Mittermaier, Karl, 199
Mohl, Robert von, 196
Moliere, 202
Molina, Luis, 144
Mommsen, Theodor, xi, xiii, 49, 53,
55, 56, 61, 63, 100, 158-60, 169,
186, 245, 265
Name Index 281
Morgan, Lewis H., 39, 41, 65, 262
Moser, Justus, 62, 67, 74
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 214
Muhlestein, Hans, 55
Muller, Karl Otfried, 159
Muller, F.W.K., 43
Muller, Nikolaus, 197
Muller-Lyer, F., 180
Mussolini, Benito, 131
National Liberal Party, 127,130,224-
5
National-Social Association, 123
Nationalsoziale Verband, 127
Naumann, Friedrich, 123-4,127,152,
239, 245
Neilson, Nellie, 67
NeoKantians (ism), 49, 71, 74, 83,
101,102,105,109,114
Neumann, Karl, 208-9
Nicholas, Czar of Russia, 126, 133,
139
Niebergall, Friedrich, 159, 160, 235
Niebuhr, Barthold G., 159, 160, 237
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 237
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 162, 204, 211,
250
Novakovitch, Dragolioub, 73
Oestreich, Paul, 29
Oganovsky, Nikolai, 69
Oldenberg, Hermann, 46, 48, 52
Oncken, Hermann, 161,173-75,231
Oppenheimer, Franz, 38, 40-42, 49,
58-63, 78, 79, 82, 184, 186
Oppert, Gustav Salomon, 46
Ossian, 64
Otfried, Karl, 160
Parker, H. M. D., 265
Parsons, Talcott, 247, xii, 17,99,263-
5, 266-70, 271-2
Pascal, Blaise, 237
Pelliot, Paul, 43, 51
Peschel, Oskar, 155
Petrie, William Mathew Flinders, 48,
53
Philippowich, Joseph, Baron von, 187
Pigeriol, Andre, 265, 272
Piloty, Karl von, 202
Pirenne, Henri, 248
Pius VII, 218
Planck, Max, 125
Plekhanov, George, 12, 69
Plessner, Helmuth, 145, 174, 247
Preuss.Johann, 180
Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, 38
Pufendorf, Samuel, 163
Quidde, Ludwig, 136
Rachfahl, Felix, 161,174, 232, 248
Racine, Jean Baptiste, 202
Radbruch, Gustav von, 132,183,199
Radbruch, Lina, x, 101
Ranke, Leopold von, 22, 158, 162-3,
165-6,172-173,178,192,205,231,
248
Rathgen, Karl, 45, 51,190
Ratzel, Friedrich, 155,181
Reger, Max, 210
Reichlin-Meldegg, Baron von, 103,
104
Richelieu, Armand Jean du Plessis,
131
Richthofen, Ferdinand, Baron von,
155
Rickert, Heinrich, 101,105,106,114,
140, 145, 240, 247, 254
Riehl, Alois, 141
Ritschl, Friedrich, 114, 159, 227-8,
234
Robertson, H. M., 267, 271
Robinson, Geroid Tanquary, 72
Rohan, Henri, 163
Rohde, Erwin, 159-60, 194
Roscher, Wilhelm, 163
Rosenzweig, Franz, 147, 204 .
Rostovtzeff, Mikhail I.,58,60,61, 63,
64, 80, 160, 248, 266, 271-2
Roth, Paul von, 62, 63, 78, 248, 265
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 65, 163
Rudorff, Otto, 45, 51
Saint Simon, Claude Henri de, 38
Salin, Edgar, 190, 247
Salomon, Albert, 263-7
Salz, Arthur, x, 115, 169, 173, 191-2,
247
Schafer, Dietrich, 161-2, 175-6
Scheler, Max, 143-6, 151, 236, 247
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph
von, 46, 68,159, 199, 204, 258
Scherrer, Johannes, 183-4
282 The Unknown Max Weber
Schill, Adolf, 234
Schiller, Friedrich, 201
Schlegel, Friedrich von, 46
Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 233
Schlozer, August Ludwig von, 68
Schmidt, Father W., 36, 37, 39, 42,
44
Schmidt, Friedrich Alfred, 146
Schmidt, Wilhelm, 181-2, 184, 270
Schmoller, Gustav, 58, 79, 82, 127-8,
130-1,16^6,173,176-8,187,190,
245, 262
Schoeffler, Herbert, 248
Schonberg, Arnold, 148, 210
Schopenhauer, Arthur, xvii, 46, 111,
115, 162, 166,204,211,249
Schott, Wilhelm, 43
Schrader, Eberhard, 48, 53
Schubert, Hans von, 224, 231
Schuler, Alfred, 39
Schumpeter, Joseph A., x, xi, xii, 187
Schwartz, Eduard, 159
Schweitzer, Albert, 230
Scullard, H. H., 265
Seebohm, Frederic, 37,40,62,63,66,
67,75-77,81,265
Seignobos, Charles, 78
Senart, Emile Charles Marie, 46, 52
Shils, Edward A., 263, 272
Siebeck, Paul, 231
Sigsbee, Ray Addison, 138, 140, 226
Sigwart, Christoph, 141, 240, 247
Simkhovich, Vladimir, 69, 81
Simmel, Georg, x, 132,135,139,176,
204-5, 257, 261, 272
Simons, Edward, 232-3, 234-5
Small, Albion W., 262, 271
Smoller, Gustav, 36, 60, 79, 80
Social Democratic Party, 149
Soden, Hermann, Baron von, 227
Soden, Hans von, 227
Solms, Max zu, 247
Somary, Felix, x
Sombart, Werner, 23, 50, 62, 63, 78,
82,113, 130-1,143,161,175, 184,
190,249,261,272
Sorokin, Pitirim A., 248-9, 264, 266-
7, 268, 271-3
Spahn, Martin, 158, 168
Spencer, Baldwin, 190, 262
Spencer, Herbert, xvi, 35
Spengler, Oswald, 150, 180, 254
Steinthal, H., 179, 181
Stepun, Feodor, 206
Stern, Ludwig Christian, 65
Stokes, Whitley, 65
Stolypin, Peter, 10-12, 72
Strauss, David Friedrich, 104,229-30
Strauss, Johann, 212
Strauss, Richard, 210
Strindberg, August, 200
Struve, Peter, 69
Strzygowski, J., 208
Stumm Era, 126
Sudermann, Hermann, 200
Sully, Maximilien de, 131
Sumner, William Graham, 262
Suppe, Franz von, 212
Sybel, Heinrich von, 162
Tacitus, Cornelius, 66, 75-77
Tawney, Richard H., 249, 267, 272
Tchernov, Victor, 68
Thibaut, Anton Friedrich Justus, 160
Thode, Henry, 208-9, 211-12
Tirpitz, Alfred von, 131, 162
Tobler, Mina, 209-10
Tolstoy, Leo, 9,68, 71,102,105,107,
108, 115, 200, 204, 206-7, 245
Tonnies, Ferdinand, 17, 261, 272
Torbecke, Franz, 143
Treitschke, Heinrich von, 22, 127,
142, 162-3, 175
Troeltsch, Ernst, x, 101, 105, 114,
124-5, 137, 142-5, 153, 174, 182,
191,221,224,227,231-32, 234,
239,248,258,261,272
Tugan-Garonovsky, Mikhail, 71
Tylor, Edward, 35
Usener, Herman, 159, 169
Valentin, Veit, 131, 162, 176
Veblen, Thorstein, 269
Verein fur Sozialpolitik, 188,245,252
Villemarque, Hersart de la, 65
Vinogradoff, Paul, 62, 63, 67, 77, 82
Vollgraff, Karl Friedrich, 190
Voltaire, Francois, Marie Arouet de,
42,113, 133,198
Voss, Johann Heinrich, 218
Wach, Joachim, 268, 272
Wagner, Adolf, 130, 165-6, 186, 262
Name Index 283
Wagner, Cosima, 211
Wagner, Richard, 19, 210-12
Wahl, Adalbert, 163, 176, 190
Wattz, Theodor, 161, 179, 181
Waldersee, Count Alfred von, 216
Ward, Lester F., 262
Weber, Albrecht, 46, 52
Weber, Alfred, 132, 140, 176, 247
Weber, Marianne, ix, x, xvi, xvii, 99,
125,137,143,147,173,185-6,190-
1,201,213,214, 216,222-
3, 229, 239
Wedekind, Frank, 200
Wehberg, Hans, 136
Weiss, Bernhard, 230
Weiss, Johannes, 230
Weisse, Hermann, 229-30
Wellhausen, Julius, 50, 53
Westermann, W. L., 61, 63, 80, 266
Wichern, Heinrich, 233
Wiese, Leopold von, 17, 143-4, 184,
200, 261, 272
Wieth-Knudsen, Knud Asborn, 69
Wildenbruch, Ernst von, 202
Wilhelm, Richard, 44, 51
Wilhelm I, 162, 218
Wilhelm II, 27, 103, 125-6,133, 149,
158, 173, 197, 216, 245, 263, 269
Wilkinson, John Gardner, 48, 53
Willamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von, 159
Williams, M.J., 266
Wilsken, Ulrich, 58
Winckelmann, Johannes, xxiv, 136,
140-1, 171
Winckler, Hugo, 48, 49, 53
Windelband, Wilhelm, 101,105,106,
137-40, 145, 152, 154-5, 169, 181,
183, 206, 221, 225- 26, 240,
247
Windisch, Ernst, 65
Wittfogel, Karl August, 44, 51
Wittich, Werner, 75-77
Wolf, Julius, 202
Wolff, Christian, 137
Yermolov, Alexis, 69
Ymger, J. Milton, 249, 267
Zeuss, Johann Kaspar, 65, 76, 160
Zimmer, Heinrich, 46, 48, 52, 65
Zirker, Otto, 236
Zola, Emile, 113, 133
T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k
Subject Index
absolute ethics, 250
absolutism, 127
academic specialization, 257
agrarian history, 164
agricultural life, 33ff
American Indians, 18, 182
American Negroes, 134
American sociology, 26Iff
American South, 134
American student at Freiburg, 167-168
Anabaptists, 221
anarchists, 73
ancient Hebrews, 23
ancient history, xvi
Anglo-American culture, 23
anti-Polish language laws, 8
anti-Semitism, 22,132,171,197, 211
antithesis of antiquity and feudalism,
79
applied anthropology, 18ff
Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaften, 143,
191,231
aristocracies, 19-20, 25
artel, 3, 13
asceticism, 46
Asiatic cultures, 182
assimilation, 24
Australia, 190
authority types, 243
Aztec law, 180
Baden-Baden, 178
Balkan Slavs, 21
Balkans, 123
barbarians, 20
Benedictine monks, 108
Bergische Land, 218
Berlin, 129, 196
Bolsheviks, 11-12
bourgeois mentality, 45
brotherly love, 13
Buddhistic texts, 46
bureaucracy, German, 27
bureaucrats, 28
Byzantium, 6
Calvinism, 20,133,144,193,223,267-
68, 271
Calvinism, and Weber, 18
Carthusians, 219
categorical imperative, 115
Catholic capitalists, 217
Catholic Center Party, 153, 159
Catholic historians, 157
Catholic historiography, 167
Catholic rituals, 158
Catholic theology, 158
Catholicism, 8,84,104,144,145,168,
216-21, 272
causality, 264
Celtic agrarian ism, 72
Celtic tribes, 66
Celts, 80, 83, 177
Central America, 181
Centrist Party, 149
charity, 20
Chassidim, 24
Chinese agriculture, 42ff
Christian ethics, 110
Christian ideals, 68
Christian principles, 20
Christology, 229f
civil service, U.S., 26
clans, 73
class struggle, 6
collectivism, 72
Cologne, 143, 185, 205
coloni, 266
colonization, 78
communism, 37
comparative archaeology, 180
comparative history, 169
comparative religion, 228, 237, 268
Concerts Touche, 214
285
286 The Unknown Max Weber
Confucianism, 266
constitutional law, 194
Counter-Reformation, 166, 217
crown-land lessees, 7
cults, 159
cultural sciences, 34
Customs Union, 161
Czar, 10, 125, 133
czarism, 116
Darbyites, 226
Darwinism, 19, 20, 22, 262
Deism, 133
democracy, 71
democracy, U.S., 26
democratic institutions, 29
diffusionism, 36, 261
dikes, Mesopotamian, 48
Don Quixote, 255
dowry system, 42
Dravidian philology, 46
Dreyfus Affair, 113, 133
Duma, 12
duty, 18
economic progress, 256
economic theory, 187
economics, 186ff
English copy holding, 43
English feudalism, 5
English villages, 66
Enlightenment, 114,133,147,219,228
Eranos, 138
eschatology, 230
Estonians, 12
ethics, 109,110,265
ethics of responsibility, 110, 111,250
ethnic groups, 18
ethnic social politics, 18
ethno-politics, xiv
eth no-psychology, 179
ethnology, xxv, 18, 179ff, 248
Etruscans, 83, 84
Evangelical-Social Congress, 226-227
Evangelical Union, 221
Evangelische Bund, 158
evolutionism, 35f, 68, 73, 85, 154,
179, 255, 262
experimental psychology, 154
fascism, 131
feoffment, 79
feoffment in trust, 6, 7, 47
feudalism, 3, 5, 8, 70
feudalism, origins of, 77
Fideikommis, xiv, 3
Franciscans, 220
Franco-Prussian War, 210
Frankfurter Zeitung, 154, 245
Frnsinnige Partei, 149, 169, 199
Freisinnige Vernnigung, 127
French literature, 202-203
French nobility, 163
French Revolution, 22, 76, 252
Frifdensburo, 136
functionaries, 26-27,
geography, 155
German agrarianism, 74ff
German catholics, 157
German chauvinism, 211
German farmworkers, 246
German government opposition to
Weber, 7-8
German Historians' Congress, 130,131
German liberalism, 100
German nationalism, 125
German Romanticism, 43, 65,68,77
German Sociological Society, 146,
192
German theatre, 204
German university life, 233-234
German versus Roman law, 169-170
German youth movement, 69, 71
Germanists, 177
Germany, 7
Germany, Weber's criticism of, 27
global crisis, 17
global economy, 7
glossology, 165
grass husbandry system, 75
Greek Orthodoxy, 8, 9, 21, 108, 116,
117, 123,272
Greek Orthodox philosophy, 206
Greek-Roman Empire, 6
Guelph House (Hanover), 149
Hamburg, 231
Hegel Club (Baden-Baden), 147
Hegelianism, 198, 221
Heidelberg, xxiii, xxiv, 4, 164, 166,
176, 183, 184, 234
Heidelberg Historical Congress, 172,
208
Subject Index 287
Heidelberg University, 224, 225
Hindu, agrarianism of, 46ff
Historians' Congress, 183
historical jurisprudence, 164
historical method, 106
historiography, 156
Historische Zeitschrift, 163
history of ideas, 157
homo religiosus, 251
ideal-types, 241, 247, 264, 270
Illustration Thedtraie, 202
Incas, 181
Indian castes, 47
Indian cities, 48
Indian guilds, 47
Indian villages, 47
individual dignity, 27
injustice, 18
interpretive sociology, 253
investiture of fiefs, 45
Irish farming, 67
irrationalism, 236
irrationality, 268
Italian Renaissance, 151, 208
Italy, 124
Jansenism, ix, 144,174,193,208,232
Japan,190, 268
Japan, agrarianism of, 44f
Japan, economic development, 45
Jesuits, 42, 217, 218
Jews, 22, 23, 24
Joachim Quartet, 209
Judaism, 147, 153
Junkers 5, 8, 21, 22, 125, 215
jurisprudence, 193ff
Kalahari Desert, 155
Kantianism, 145
Kapellengemeinde, 226
Kingdom of Hanover, 150
Kirchenreform, 172
Kolner Zettschrift, 184
Kulturkampf, 104, 219
labor organizations, 216
laissez-faire, 76
laissez-faire ideology, 20
land communism, 47-48
land nationalization, 68
land partition, 75
land use patterns, 76
latifundia, 242, 248, 266f
Latvians, 12
law, sociology of, 243
law school curricula, 195-196
leaderships, types of, 5
Lewis and Clark College, xxv
liberal Protestantism, 216
liberalism, 4
liberum arbitrium, 144
Lippe, 223
Logos, 145
Lusitania, 131
Luther, 110
Lutheran Missouri Synod, 221
Lutheranism, 117, 176
Madame Bovary, 202
Manchus, 43
manor system, decline of, 80
manorial system, 66
marginal utility, 187
Markgennosenscahft, 77
Marxism, 147, 157
Marxists, Russian, 71
mass society, 166
matrilinearity, 38f
Max Weber Archives, xxiv
Melanesia, 181
Mennonites, 262
Menshiviks, 11-12
mercantilism, 191
Mesopotamia, 160
Methododists, 227
Michigan State College, xxv
Middle Ages, 165, 171
military history, 161
mir, xiv, 10, 68ff
modern European agrarianism, 79ff
Mohammedans, 6
monasticism, Christian, 66-67
Mongols, 70
Monist League, 180
monogamy, 42
music, anthropology of, 19
music, theories of, 151
mutual aid, 69
mysticism, 146, 206, 229
Narodniki, 123
Nathan der Weise, 154,
288 The Unknown Max Weber
National Liberal Party, 127
National-Social Association, 123
national uniqueness, Schelling on, 68
Nationalsoziale Verband, 127
Nationalsoziale Verein, 245
natural law, 177, 193
naturalism, 113
Nazism, xxiv
Negro in U.S., 24f
Negroes, 182
Neo-Kantian epistemology, xvii
Neo-Kantian Protestantism, 102,105
Neo-Kantianism, 14, 181, 228, 258,
265, 269-70
Neo-Romanticism, 112, 143
New Testament, 229, 230
nomadism, 37, 74
nomothetic versus idiographic sci-
ences, 240
Oberlehrer, 155
objectivity, 13, 34, 177, 257-58
objectivity and causality, 107
Old Testament, 99, 171, 186m, 228,
231
pacifism, xxv, 185
Paris, 210
Parisian Theatre, 201
party machine, 29
patriarchalism, 77
patriarchy, 20
patriotism, 21
peasant liberation, 80
peasants, condition of, 83
peasants, Russia, 11-12
Persian agrarianism, 48
personality theory, 162
phenomenology, 144, 145
philosophy of law, 183
phrenology, 199
physico-anthropological problems,
18ff
Pietism, 114, 224-226
planned economy, 17
plantations, Southern, 25
Poland, partition of, 21
"Polanization" of the east, 8
Polish agrarian workers, 126
Polish minorities, 4
Polish minority in Germany, 8
Polish, Slavic identities, 20
political conservatism, 197
political economy, 187
political science, 186ff
politicians, 29
Positive Union, 221
pre-state societies, 42
promiscuity, 39
proportional representation, 28
Protestant Ethic thesis, ix, 167, 174,
175, 190, 232-33, 234, 248, 249,
252, 253, 267f, 271
Protestant orthodoxy, 224, 227
Protestantism, 232
Protestantism, American, 261
Protestantism and the Enlighten-
ment, 228
Prussia, 6, 142
Prussia, rural structure of, 9
Prussian officers, 27
"Prussianization," 22
psychiatry, 153
psychology, 152ff
public law, 194
Puritanism, 25
Puritans, 259
pygmy culture, 37
Quakers, 237
racism, 132ff
Real Presence, 223
Reform Catholic Movement, 159
relativism, 259
religion, sociology of, 244
religious dogma, 104
religious ethics, 104, 105, 109
religious ritual, 103
rentier mentality, 45, 57
Revue des Etudes Rabelaisiennes, 207
ridendo dicere vera, 237
Roman agrarian history, 265-66
Roman commercial law, 4
Roman Empire, 242
Roman Empire, slavery in, 25
Roman Empire, wars of, 20
Roman history, xiii
Roman law, 171
Romanticism, 159, 160,206,217, 262
Rome, 168
rural collectives, 66, 69
rural collectivism, 74
rural communism, 76
Subject Index 289
rural reform laws in Russia, 11
Russian emigres, 108, 132
Russian land reform, 12
Russian language, Weber's knowl-
edge of, 71
Russian peasantry, 108
Russian politics, 11
Russian Revolution, 101
Russians, 135
"Russification," 21
RussoGerman political relations, 13
Sanskrit literature, 46
Scharwerker, 5
Schmollerism, 173
"Science as a Vocation," 257
seasonal agrarian workers, 8-9
seignorial manor theory, 77, 78, 79
seignorial property, 37
Serbia, 132
serfdom, 71, 72
Sermon on the Mount, 9,102,107fF,
206, 207, 240
Seven Years'War, 211
Simplizissimus, 225
sinology, 43
Slavic agrarianism, 67ff
Slavophile movement, 68
socage farms, 48, 49
social clubs, U.S., 26
social welfare policy, 128
Social Darwinism, 142
Social Democrats, 149, 150
Social Research, 272
socialist historians, 167
sociology of knowledge, xv, xxv
sociology of music, xxiii
sociology of religion, 112, 231
South German Neo-Kantians, 154
South Pole, 155
Soziale Kaisertums, 126
St. Louis Exposition, 134
state socialism, 126
Stefan George cult, 204ff
Strassburg, 137
strikebreakers, U.S., 25
"Stumm era," 126
sub specie iritae activae, 249
suicide, 111
Telugu grammar, 46
Teutonic Order, 172
Thedtrv Antoine, 201
theological schools, 112
Thunenarchiv, 187
Tibet, 43
tragedy, 113, 115
tragic sense of life, xvi
Treaty of Versailles, 175
Turkish empire, 73
U.S./German comparison, 28
U.S.-Soviet conflict, 33
Ukrainians, 12
Ultramontanist Catholicism, 159
University of Berlin, 101, 130
University of Cologne, xxiv
University of Heidelberg, 100,123
University of Leipzig, 188
University of Munich, 108
University of Panama, xxv
Upper Silesia, 8
Uruguay, 128
Utopian thought, 185
value-freedom, 249, 254
value-judgments, 254ff, 263
Vaterlandspartei, 162
VereinfurSozialpolitik, 188, 216, 245,
251
Versailles, 239
Verstehen, 247, 248, 264
Vienna, 193
vita activa, 219
vitalism, 142
Wagner cult, 21 Iff
Washington State College, xxv
Weber and art, 200
Weber and Beruf, 238
Weber and Dostoyevsky, 207
Weber and Judaism, 135, 141
Weber and music, 209-215, 217
Weber and mysticism, 236
Weber and Pascal, 237
Weber and personality theory, 247
Weber and plastic arts, 208f
Weber and religious belief, 238
Weber and Schopenhauer, 249
Weber and Sornbart, 131
Weber and Tolstoy, 207
Weber and tragedy, 142
Weber and Wagner, 213
Weber and Windelband, 138-139
290 The Unknown Max Weber
Weber and World War I, 239
Weber as economist, 186
Weber, as "legend of Heidelberg," 124
Weber, death of, 102
Weber, epistemology of, 106-107
Weber, Marianne, and Lemgo, 222
Weber on Catholicism, 217ff
Weber on contemplative life, 219
Weber on criminology, 198
Weber on history, 156f
Weber on Protestantism, 22Iff
Weber on socialism, 130
Weber on statistics, 192
Weber, scholarly influences upon, 80
Weber's attitude toward Schmoller,
128
Weber's character, 251
Weber's definition of sociology, 242ff
Weber's early teaching career, 170
Weber's empathy, 129, 150
Weber's epistemology, xiv, 34f, 259
Weber's ethics, 239
Weber's Huguenot characteristics, x
Weber's influence in U.S., 263ff
Weber's integrity, 178
Weber's law courses, 196
Weber's literary interests, 200ff
Weber's "lost decade", xiii
Weber's methodology, 241
Weber's methodology and Jellinek,
140f
Weber's methodology and Sigwart,
141
Weber's ontology, 258
Weber's pedagogical ethics, 188,189
Weber's personal relationship, 188
Weber's philosophy, 263ff
Weber's philosophy of science, 136ff
Weber's pietism, xvii
Weber's political life, 126
Weber's politics, 129
Weber's religiosity, 215ff, 216
Weber's scholarly influence, 83-84
Weber's sense of privacy, 237
Weber's sociology of religion, 169
Weber's Sunday afternoon "salon,"
124f, 190
Weber's U.S. trip, 133ff
Westphalian farming, 67
Wtrtschafi und Gesellschaft, 237
World War I, 143, 186, 192
Yiddish, 24
Yiddish theatre, 201
zadruga, 3, 10, 68ff, 73
Zionism, 23
Zukunft, Die, 173, 179