More than a Theologian: Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Mark on Education 

Stefan Becks 

University of Vienna 

 

Abstract 

This article examines Friedrich Schleiermacher’s 

contribution to the field of education as regards 

both the founding of the University of Berlin in 

1810 and the reform of the Prussian schools 

during the early nineteenth century. 

Schleiermacher is widely known as a theologian, 

but within the German-speaking field of 

education, he is also considered a key reformer 

and theorist, who laid the conceptual groundwork 

for the modern research university as well as 

Prussia’s public school system. 

 

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher 

(1768-1834) is viewed as a foundational theorist 

within the German-speaking field of education. 

Despite this, Schleiermacher’s work on 

education is barely known in the anglophone 

world, where he is primarily recognized for his 

Protestant theology, his hermeneutics, and his 

philosophy of language and translation. The 

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy features 

an entry on Schleiermacher some thirty pages in 

length, but less than one of those pages is 

dedicated to his contributions to education 

(Forster, 2017). Theodore Vial (2013), who 

authored an often-referenced English 

introduction to Schleiermacher, acknowledges 

the limited attention he has received beyond his 

theology. He specifically states his desire “to 

provide an introduction that covers a wider range 

of disciplines than is currently available” (p. 2). 

Yet there is no mention of Schleiermacher’s 

thoughts on education and only a brief section on 

his involvement in the founding of the University 

of Berlin (pp. 18-20). In his brief overview of 

Schleiermacher biographies available both in 

English and German, Vial names Kurt Nowak’s 

(2001) as “the definitive one” (p. 120). This 

volume is more than six hundred pages in length, 

only roughly fourteen of which are dedicated to 

Schleiermacher’s academic work on education 

(Nowak, 2001, pp. 318-327 & pp. 500-507). 

Even Wilhelm Dilthey’s (1870) seminal 

biography, Leben Schleiermachers [Life of 

Schleiermacher], does not include his pedagogy 

(Redeker, 1966, p. LXIII). 

The chief reason for the neglect of 

Schleiermacher’s educational thoughts possibly 

lies within his limited number of academic 

publications in the field. He published a review 

of Johann Friedrich Zöllner’s (1804) Ideen über 

National-Erziehung [Ideas on National 

Education] in 1805. In 1808, he wrote an essay 

on his Gelegentliche Gedanken über 

Universitäten in deutschem Sinn; nebst einem 

Anhang über eine neu zu errichtende [Occasional 

Thoughts on Universities in a German Spirit, 

with an Appendix on One about to be Founded], 

which he pointedly declared to not be “scientific” 

(Schleiermacher, 1808, p. III). Beyond that, he 

presented three lectures on pedagogy at the 

University of Berlin in the years 1813/14, 

1820/21, and 1826. In these, he examined the 

nature of education as an art (in the Greek sense 

of techne) and pedagogy as its corresponding 

theory. In his works, Schleiermacher uses the 

term Erziehung [education] to refer to the act of 

educating itself. Pädagogik [pedagogy], by 

contrast, refers to the scholarly engagement with 

education practice and theory, i.e., 

Erziehungswissenschaft [philosophy of 

education / education science]. Together with the 

work of Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841), 

his arguments are credited with establishing 

education as an autonomous academic discipline 

(Nowak, 2001, p. 502; Kenklies, 2012, pp. 272f). 

Although Schleiermacher’s lectures were not 

published at the time, they have since been 

reconstructed, from his notes, and those of two of 

his students (Beljan et al., 2017). 

Schleiermacher’s contributions to the field 

of education as a whole go beyond his academic 

work. His 1808 text had a profound influence on 

the founding of the University of Berlin in 1810. 

Although Wilhelm von Humboldt is widely 

credited with what has become to be the model of 

the modern research university, and the 



53 

 

University of Berlin is named in his and his 

brother Alexander’s honor, there is an argument 

that its blueprint bears “more Schleiermacher’s 

signature than the one of Humboldt” (Kenklies, 

2012, p. 266). He also contributed to the reform 

of Prussia’s schools as member of the 

government’s Deputation for Public Education, 

into which he was invited by Wilhelm von 

Humboldt in 1810. He served first as member, 

then as interim Director and finally as Director. 

The Deputation was tasked with laying the 

conceptual groundwork for the reform of 

Prussia’s schools in the years after the 

Napoleonic invasion and to advise the members 

of the Section for Cultus and Public Education 

(Beljan et al., 2017, p. XXXVII). These reforms 

still reverberate in the German school system 

today. 

In this paper, I introduce Schleiermacher as 

a philosopher of education, much as he was 

introduced to me. Specifically, I will show how 

his work on education was shaped by personal as 

well as political circumstances, which had a 

profound influence on both his understanding of 

the pedagogic purpose of schooling and 

university education. 

 

Historical and biographical context 

As Wilhelm Dilthey (1870) maintains, 

Schleiermacher’s philosophy can only be 

understood against the background of his 

personal life and historic context (p. I). Hence, I 

will give a brief, biographical introduction, 

focusing on his formative years and early career. 

Schleiermacher was born in November 

1768 in Breslau (today’s Wroclaw, Poland) to 

Johann Gottlieb Adolph Schleyermacher, a 

Prussian military chaplain, and his wife Maria 

Catharina. By all accounts, Schleiermacher’s first 

experience of schooling was “disastrous” 

(Nowak, 2001, p. 20) and disenfranchised the 

boy, despite his performing well. He was 

particularly troubled by his inability to organize 

the fragmented knowledge he was taught into a 

cohesive whole. Yet, he did not observe that same 

concern in his classmates, which led him to doubt 

his own abilities as he assumed what vexed him 

so must be clear to the others. He feared he would 

be discovered a fraud (Nowak, 2001, p. 20). 

Following his father’s regiment during the 

War of Bavarian Succession (1778/79), the 

family moved to the small town of Pless (today’s 

Pszczyna, Poland). There, his father came into 

contact with a colony of the pietist Moravian 

Church and experienced an “awakening” 

(Nowak, 2001, p. 21). As a result, he sought to 

place his children in the highly sought-after 

schools of the Moravian Church. Since 

Schleiermacher’s father was neither of noble 

birth nor wealthy, the Church initially declined 

his request, but granted the family a providential 

test. After Moravian custom, a lot was cast, 

which coming up positive indicated God’s favor. 

Accordingly, in May 1783, Schleiermacher, now 

aged fourteen, was admitted into the Pädagogium 

at Niesky (Nowak, 2001, p. 23). 

Here Schleiermacher received a 

comprehensive education in various languages, 

mathematics, history, the natural sciences, as 

well as music and art. Moreover, Schleiermacher 

found faith, as he professed in letters to his sister, 

Charlotte. This set him on the path of becoming 

a preacher. In 1785, he matriculated at the 

Moravian teacher seminary in Barby, about 

eighty miles south-west of Berlin (Nowak, 2001, 

p. 25f). The rules at the seminary were strict. The 

works of Enlightenment and Romantic authors 

such as Kant and Goethe were censored. Yet still, 

Schleiermacher and his friends secretly acquired 

and read this literature, leading them to question 

the seminary’s strict practices and narrow 

pietistic curriculum. Eventually Schleiermacher 

experienced a crisis of faith, prompting him to 

ask for his father’s permission to leave the Barby 

to study theology at the University of Halle. His 

father agreed to finance his studies for three 

semesters, despite his serious disappointment in 

his son not following through with his education. 

Schleiermacher enrolled at Halle University in 

April 1787 (Nowak, 2001, pp. 30ff). 

These early educative experiences seem to 

be relevant to Schleiermacher’s later works in 

two ways. Where, as a young child, he found that 

his instruction lacked meaning and order, his 

mature conceptualization of schooling stressed 

the systematic progression of learning. The 

reductive approach to content based on the 

pietistic beliefs that he encountered in Niesky and 

Barby stood in opposition to Schleiermacher’s 



54 

 

desire for a more academic and culturally open 

education. To him, religion obscured reason as 

the true source of morality (Nowak, 2001, p. 43). 

At the University of Halle, Schleiermacher 

appears to have attended only few classes, 

preferring, it seems, to pursue his studies in 

solitude. To this end, his philosophy professor, 

Johann August Eberhard, became an important 

mentor (Nowak, 2001, p. 35). The university had 

seen an academic struggle between pietistic 

theology, established by August Wilhelm 

Francke, and the naturalistic teachings of 

Christian Wolff, from which the followers of 

Enlightenment had emerged victorious. 

However, pietism still had a strong standing at 

the university (Nowak, 2001, pp. 32f). During 

Schleiermacher’s time, Kant’s critical 

philosophy gained momentum, but it was not 

well-received at Halle. Eberhard, who followed 

the tradition of Wolff, sought to return 

philosophy to its roots. At the core of Eberhard’s 

approach was a dedication to thorough critique, 

which Schleiermacher shared. He had read Kant 

even before enrolling at Halle, but he also was 

impressed by the university’s philosophical 

tradition. Thus, he tried to balance the two, 

merging “elements of [Kant’s] transcendental 

philosophy with the empirical-psychological 

system of the Halle philosophy” (Nowak, 2001, 

p. 39). In this way, Schleiermacher can be seen as 

a scholar of his time, schooled in the values of 

pietism, but open to the intellectual thought 

birthed by German Enlightenment. 

After the three semesters granted by his 

father came to an end in early 1788, 

Schleiermacher was faced with a lack of 

employment opportunity, as “the university cities 

were bursting at the seams with young academics 

looking to make a living” (Nowak, 2001, p.41). 

For lack of options, Schleiermacher remained at 

Halle a further year. Still without any 

employment prospects, and encumbered with 

debt, he then moved to his uncle’s house in rural 

Drossen, just east of Berlin. With little 

intellectual stimulus to pursue his scholarly 

interests Schleiermacher’s academic ambitions 

waned (Nowak, 2001, pp. 42-46). Eventually, he 

gave in to his father’s request that he take the 

theological examination in Berlin. It seemed to 

be the only viable option for the impoverished 

young man. He travelled to Berlin and acquired 

his licentia concionandi in July 1790 (Nowak, 

2001, p. 47). 

At this point, Schleiermacher was hired as 

a private tutor to the sons of Count Friedrich 

Alexander zu Dohna-Schlobitten, one of 

Prussia’s foremost noble families. He would also 

deliver sermons to the Dohna family at the 

Count’s request, for which he received high 

praise. Schleiermacher remained in rural 

Schlobitten (today’s Słobity, Poland) until May 

1793. During that time, he formed lasting 

friendships with the family’s two eldest sons, 

Wilhelm and Alexander, who were close to his 

age. This friendship with Alexander would have 

a profound effect on Schleiermacher’s life in at 

least two ways: In December 1796, Alexander 

introduced him to a social circle of romanticists 

in Berlin that included, amongst others, Wilhelm 

and Alexander von Humboldt (Vial, 2013, pp. 

11f). Also, Alexander zu Dohna-Schlobitten 

would serve as Prussia’s Interior Minister from 

1808 to late 1810, overlapping with 

Schleiermacher’s service to the Deputation for 

Public Education. 

After his time as tutor in Schlobitten had 

come to an end, Schleiermacher moved to Berlin. 

Driven again by financial need, he attended 

Friedrich Gedike’s Seminarium, Prussia’s first 

independent normal school catering to teacher 

candidates rather than university students 

(Nowak, 2001, p. 59). Gedike’s Seminarium 

focused on instruction practice rather than 

educational theory. Students would serve as 

adjunct teachers at the Friedrichswerder 

Gymnasium in Berlin, where they initially 

attended classes of experienced teachers, 

including Gedike himself, before they were 

entrusted with their own teaching load of eight to 

ten hours per week. The candidates’ lessons 

would be observed by Gedike and discussed 

afterward. In addition, candidates were required 

to write pedagogical and philosophical papers on 

the practice of teaching, which were discussed 

within the group on a monthly basis (Paulsen, 

1960, p. 90). Schleiermacher’s time at the Gedike 

Seminarium ended in 1794, when he moved to 

Landsberg to assume the office of adjunct pastor 

(Nowak, 2001, p. 69). Even so, as Nowak argues, 

Schleiermacher’s experience as a tutor in 



55 

 

Schlobitten and Gedike’s supervision were 

fundamental to him becoming “a notable theorist 

of education” (Nowak, 2001, p. 61). 

At the behest of Prussian King Friedrich 

Wilhelm III, Schleiermacher was appointed 

extraordinary professor of theology and 

philosophy as well as university preacher at the 

University of Halle in 1804, after he had been 

offered a professorship at the Bavarian 

University of Würzburg, as the King wanted to 

secure Schleiermacher’s scholarly talents for 

Prussia (Nowak, 2001, p. 145). He could now 

pursue his academic interests without having to 

give up on his passion for preaching. The 

following year he published his review of 

Zöllner’s (1804) Ideas on National Education. 

But his time at Halle ended shortly after, when 

Napoleon’s forces occupied the city on October 

17th, 1806. By November teaching was 

suspended and university was closed. The 

following May Schleiermacher moved to Berlin. 

 

Schleiermacher’s conceptualization of public 

schooling 

Johann Friedrich Zöllner published his 

Ideas on National Education in 1804, asking for 

critical responses to his thoughts on the reform of 

Prussia’s schools (p. VI). Hermann Patsch, editor 

of Schleiermacher’s Schriften aus der Hallenser 

Zeit 1804-1807 [Writings from the Halle times 

1804-1807], identifies Zöllner’s work as the 

“prologue of Prussian education reform” (1995, 

p. XXX). It was set in motion by King Friedrich 

Wilhelm III in 1798 by instating Julius Eberhard 

von Massow as minister of state with orders to 

create a plan to reform Prussia’s schools. Zöllner 

was a member of the Department for the Lutheran 

Church and the Schools and thus directly 

involved in von Massow’s undertaking. He 

himself was a respected scholar. He had studied 

theology and philosophy and held high offices 

within the Protestant Church in Berlin. As such, 

he was closely involved in questions of 

schooling, which were under the purview of the 

church, and he had the ear of both the King and 

von Massow in questions of education 

(Wienecke, 1910). 

In the introduction to his review of 

Zöllner’s first volume of the Ideas, 

Schleiermacher identified two parallel 

approaches to the question of public education at 

the time; on the one hand were those who sought 

to apply philosophical principles to pedagogy. 

According to Patsch, this included Kant’s 1803 

On Pedagogy. On the other hand were 

practitioners who developed new methods of 

instruction unworried by theory, which Patsch 

suggests was a nod to Pestalozzi (Patsch, 1995, p. 

3). As the Prussian state sought immediate 

reform of schooling it was no longer possible to 

wait for a philosophical solution to the questions 

of public education. But blind reproduction of 

revered practices was equally unacceptable. 

Given the political situation, Schleiermacher 

(1995, pp. 3-4) recognized that Zöllner’s work (a 

defense of the traditional social order) had to be 

submitted to careful critique, which he regarded 

as the only viable way forward in this imperfect 

situation.  

Schleiermacher’s first point of criticism 

concerned Zöllner’s definition of education 

[Erziehung] as “the continuous, purposeful 

concurrence to prepare the young human to 

become what he ought to become at an older age” 

(Zöllner, 1804, p. 1). This conceptualization, 

Schleiermacher argued, lacked clarity in regard 

to several, fundamental questions. For instance, 

education cannot be reduced to the role of the 

educator alone. It would always be partly 

determined both by the learner’s development, 

their needs and interests, as well as by random, 

circumstantial influences. These three elements 

must be balanced against each other, and 

Zöllner’s understanding of education did not 

address how that might be accomplished. Nor did 

it stipulate the specific ends educators should aim 

at. Zöllner’s definition postulated the existence of 

a specific purpose guiding all educative 

measures. It remained unclear on how this 

purpose could be determined, which by necessity 

must precede any education for otherwise it 

cannot be purposeful. Schleiermacher argued that 

this determination must be negotiated between 

the teacher and the learner. Since it cannot be 

ascertained ex ante what the student’s role in life 

would be, a general education had to be the main 

focus of instruction, ensuring that the specific 

knowledge required in future life could be readily 

acquired. Given the complexities of life, this 

raised the question of how disparate elements of 



56 

 

the curriculum could be harmoniously ordered. 

How should the constituent subjects—reading, 

writing, mathematics, ethics, and so on—be 

combined into a coherent and purposive course 

of study? (Schleiermacher, 1995, p. 6) His own 

answer was that students ought to “learn how to 

learn and to acquire the skill to acquire skills” (p. 

9).  For this, Schleiermacher pointed toward 

Pestalozzian tenets of education, which Zöllner 

had positioned himself against (pp. 9-10). 

Schleiermacher also criticized Zöllner’s 

failure to differentiate between education 

[Erziehung] and instruction [Unterricht]. To 

explain this dualism, Schleiermacher 

distinguished disposition [Gesinnung] from 

knowledge [Kenntnisse]. Instruction aims at 

developing knowledge (and skills) through 

example: Students emulate their teachers and 

thus learn mechanically to replicate what they are 

shown. Education, on the other hand, aims at 

instilling a moral disposition in students, which 

cannot be achieved through mere example. By its 

very nature, an example is always an external, 

immediate representation of a given subject 

matter. For instance, writing a word or carving a 

piece of wood can be observed and copied by the 

student. However, in the case of a moral 

disposition, no example will in and of itself allow 

the student to grasp the internal motive. At best, 

students could learn the specific, exemplary 

contexts in which a moral disposition appears, 

but they could not grasp its universal, generative 

nature as a whole. Yet the title of Zöllner’s book, 

Ideas on National Education, clearly implied the 

object of his deliberations was the moral 

disposition of Prussia’s future citizens. But in his 

considerations of how to achieve this, he 

consistently referred back to examples and 

knowledge as the means of such education, “so 

that, if one believes this account,” 

Schleiermacher concluded, “the intention is 

merely to improve the disposition through 

assorted knowledge taught to the people, which 

is a highly hollow and unfortunate thought” (p. 

7). 

Schleiermacher then turned to the purpose 

of public schooling that was set out in Prussia’s 

Allgemeiner Schulplan [General School Plan], 

authored mainly by von Massow around 1800, 

which Zöllner’s work heavily, if implicitly 

referred to. First and foremost, it addressed the 

need to unite the various ethnic groups under 

Prussian rule into a nation (p. 11). He then 

discussed Zöllner’s suggestions how to design 

public education to achieve this aim. 

Schleiermacher agreed with Zöllner’s assessment 

that the differences in language were the main 

obstacle to the purpose identified. He argued that 

“the appreciation of another as human initially 

originates from communication” (p. 12). Like 

Zöllner, Schleiermacher firmly opposed the 

forcible suppression of non-German languages. 

Zöllner suggested that all elementary school 

books should incorporate parallel texts in 

German and the locally spoken language. 

Instruction would begin in the latter and slowly 

transition to the former. Schleiermacher was not 

convinced. The more prudent approach, he 

argued, was to make German language 

schoolbooks more accessible. Zöllner also 

suggested that classes should be ethnically 

diverse, so that students learn from each other. 

Again, Schleiermacher saw this as impractical 

since regions were usually populated by people 

of the same language and there was barely any 

mixing of cultures (pp. 12-13). 

Another major obstacle for the formation of 

a nation was the unfamiliarity most of the 

population had with the whole idea of Prussia as 

a nation state. For Zöllner, this had to be acquired 

through instruction in Prussian history and 

geography, including knowledge of the heroic 

deeds of the King and his predecessors. On this, 

Schleiermacher laconically commented that “it 

might be awkward […] to foster the allegiance of 

the new subjects to throne and state based on the 

very deeds that preceded their annexation” (p. 

16). Comprehending such deeds properly, he 

argued, demanded an understanding of the 

historical context, the inner and outer 

circumstances of the state—a task far beyond the 

orbit of elementary education (p. 16). To the 

contrary, Schleiermacher argued that initial 

instruction should focus on regional specificities 

rather than the national whole. Hence his 

opposition to Zöllner’s nation-wide, unified 

schoolbooks, which would prohibit the teaching 

of localized content. Schleiermacher favored a 

common plan of how to organize such books but 

suggested leaving any curriculum decisions to 



57 

 

the provincial school authorities (p. 17). In 

conjunction with his disapproval of the idea of 

unified books, Schleiermacher also positioned 

himself against a uniform organization of schools 

themselves. Both Zöllner’s and von Massow’s 

plans sought to standardize not only books, but 

the entire curriculum and school regulations as 

well. So much so that “it almost seems as if no 

difference other than that of method should find 

room” (p. 20). But teaching method alone, 

Schleiermacher argued, cannot give a school its 

own character, especially when considering the 

high teacher turnover prevailing at the time. Such 

character can only be achieved if school 

regulation is adaptive to the specific needs of the 

student body. Trying to enforce uniformity was 

futile, because eventually principals would allow 

for deviations from regulations that were at odds 

with their school’s context, and supervising 

authorities would tolerate them, thus reproducing 

the “malady” (p. 20) prevalent in the Prussian 

state as a whole: the existence of laws which were 

knowingly not enforced. And public education, 

he insisted, must not replicate this practice, but 

instead instill “disgust” (p. 20) towards it. 

On the question of girls’ schools, 

Schleiermacher found both Zöllner’s and von 

Massow’s plans rather brief, “as if they are not 

viewed as substantial components of the overall 

scheme” (p. 21). He criticized this and 

maintained that any state—and Prussia 

specifically—should take the education of its 

daughters into account when reforming its 

schools. Otherwise, their education would be left 

to chance and the influence of untrained 

governesses and parents. It must be noted, 

however, that Schleiermacher failed to offer any 

alternative to their plans.  

Schleiermacher’s review of Zöllner’s Ideas 

demonstrates his fundamental approach to the 

question of schooling. He posited that there must 

be a systematic progression of content 

knowledge, beginning with the particular and 

expanding into the general. From the 

understanding of the specific, its 

interconnectedness with the whole can then 

emerge. A broad, general education would be the 

foundation of learning vocational skills and 

knowledge later in life. In a way, it can be argued 

that Schleiermacher advocated for what he 

himself lacked in his own school education, 

which was characterized by a profound lack of 

systematized content progression and coherence. 

Schleiermacher’s conceptualization of 

public schooling exhibited in his 1805 review 

was clearly progressive for the time. He was 

opposed to religious education in schools and 

even argued against the introduction of the Bible, 

as “nothing, absolutely nothing in the Bible, apart 

from a few disembodied sentences, is 

understandable to children in its true sense and 

context” (p. 19). He argued against a 

standardized approach to schooling, especially as 

regards elementary education, and in favor of 

individual school character (pp. 19-20). He 

demanded the inclusion of questions of girls’ 

schooling in any revision of the school system (p. 

21), and even proposed schools be granted land 

to make them less dependent on the state and to 

ensure that they were not exploited financially (p. 

24). 

In 1808, Schleiermacher published his 

treatise On the University in a German Spirit, 

outlining his ideas on the organization of higher 

education. The second chapter of this essay 

includes an examination of the 

interconnectedness of the university with its 

preparatory academic school, the Gymnasium, 

and the national academies, which serve as the 

ultimate institutions of scholarship. He likened 

the organization of these three steps to the 

structure of a guild: “School as the gathering of 

masters and apprentices, then with journeymen at 

the university, and the academy as the masters 

amongst themselves” (Schleiermacher, 1808, p. 

23). As such, the ultimate goal of academic 

education was to first lead the individual to 

insight based on the systematic pursuit of 

knowledge or Wissenschaft, the collective 

achievement and property of all educated 

peoples. This was primarily the task of the 

Gymnasium. Subsequently, individuals would 

then contribute to the furthering of Wissenschaft 

itself as members of an academy (pp. 23f). The 

university, therefore, was to be the bridge 

between the two. 

To Schleiermacher, admission to the 

Gymnasium must be based on the students’ 

“better nature and outstanding gift, which suggest 

he might be receptive to Wissenschaft or at least 



58 

 

be capable of gainfully processing a variety of 

knowledge” (p. 24). To prove themselves truly 

suitable for higher education, students had to 

display two traits. On the one hand, a specific 

talent binding their interest to a single field of 

knowledge. On the other hand, a “systematic, 

philosophical spirit” (p. 24), that is, a sense for 

the unity and coherence of all knowledge central 

to Wissenschaft. No doubt drawing upon his own 

experience, Schleiermacher was insistent that 

attending university must under no circumstances 

be dependent on the parents’ wealth. In fact, he 

demanded that those who cannot afford attending 

university should be financially supported by the 

state, so long as they demonstrate a modicum of 

talent and philosophical spirit (p. 156). The same 

logic applied to the preparatory Gymnasium. All 

citizens would have access to an academic 

education, so long as they displayed a certain 

potential. Indeed, Schleiermacher was prepared 

to admit students who appeared insufficiently 

capable, as it was near impossible to predict early 

on if a student possessed the mind necessary for 

university studies. Even if the majority of 

students admitted were not capable, “this would 

be far less disadvantageous than if one single, 

great, and staunch talent were to be deprived of 

the beneficial influence of [the university]” (p. 

52). Those students who did not progress to the 

academy would surely still be of great service to 

the state in a different capacity than that of a 

scholar (pp. 53f). 

Every student brings different talents and 

scholarly interests to their schooling. Both must 

be fostered according to the uniqueness of the 

individual. This requires directed, intentional 

effort—Schleiermacher here referred to art in the 

sense of techne, a bringing forth, or shaping of 

character. The Gymnasium thus had a twofold 

task; on the one hand, students must be presented 

with a basic outline of all content knowledge, “so 

that any dormant talent may be drawn to its 

subject matter” (p. 25). On the other hand, 

Gymnasium instruction should demonstrate the 

unity and coherence of knowledge basic to the 

concept of Wissenschaft. Given that students 

need the simplest and most reliable operations to 

approach any given subject matter, 

Schleiermacher placed mathematics and 

grammar at the center of the curriculum (pp. 25-

26). However, he acknowledged that there would 

inevitably be differences between schools. Some 

would focus more on the development of talent, 

others on the fostering of the academic mindset. 

This can be seen as corresponding with his 1805 

assessment that schools ought to have a distinct 

character. Yet one-sidedness needed to be 

avoided, which is why he suggested installing a 

superordinate administration tasked with guiding 

each school to its full academic potential (pp. 26-

27). 

Given the Gymnasium’s integral role in 

academic education, the school principal had to 

possess the same “prudence, the same 

immaculate spirit of observation as one who 

furthers Wissenschaft itself, and the development 

of the youth that he oversees is probably more 

difficult than any single study” (p. 43). As such, 

the position of Gymnasium principal must be held 

in as high a regard as that of the university 

professor or a member of an academy. Ideally, all 

three would spearhead academic matters in 

unison, infusing a sense of community among 

scholars (pp. 44f). He thus decried those 

university professors who felt themselves 

superior to teachers, and those teachers who 

regarded professors as otiose, ungrateful, and 

contributing only little to society by comparison. 

Such prejudices were at odds with the overall 

goal of Wissenschaft and must be prevented (pp. 

42f). 

Schleiermacher not only extolled the unity 

of knowledge, he also insisted on the unity of 

those who foster it. Here was the distinct vocation 

of the German people, the advancement of 

Wissenschaft would make Germany the “center 

of all Bildung” (p. 22). This project brings the 

reader to the core of Schleiermacher’s 1808 text, 

his discussion of the university. Arguably, it is 

these thoughts which proved most influential, 

notably for the founding of the University of 

Berlin. This becomes apparent when one 

compares Wilhelm von Humboldt’s On the Inner 

and Outer Organization of the Higher Academic 

Institutions in Berlin (1809/1903) with 

Schleiermacher’s proposals. 

 

Schleiermacher’s influence on the founding of 

the University of Berlin 



59 

 

Wilhelm von Humboldt is widely credited 

with the founding of the University of Berlin, 

which is known today as the Humboldt 

University, a name bestowed in 1949 to honor 

both Wilhelm and Alexander von Humboldt. 

Before that, it bore the moniker of King Friedrich 

Wilhelm from 1828 until 1945 and was called 

simply the University of Berlin under Soviet 

occupation (Berlin University Alliance, 2019). 

Its founding mission—the model of the modern 

research university—has also been associated 

with Humboldt, but again not during his lifetime. 

With these qualifications in mind, Humboldt’s 

role has to be read in the context of numerous 

other works, most notably the writings of Fichte 

(1807/1960) and Schleiermacher (1808) 

(Weischedel, 1960; Ash, 2006). 

Schleiermacher met Wilhelm von 

Humboldt during 1796, when he was introduced 

to the Berlin literary circle by his friend 

Alexander zu Dohna-Schlobitten. Between 1802 

and 1808 Humboldt served as a Prussian envoy 

to the Vatican. Although it seems they did not 

communicate during these years—there is no 

known correspondence before January 1808—

Schleiermacher initiated contact to request 

contributions to the Museum der Alterthums-

Wissenschaft [Museum of Classical Studies], an 

anthology of historical scholarship (Gerber & 

Schmidt, 2015, p. 34). In his response that March 

(Gerber & Schmidt, 2015, pp. 76f), Humboldt 

tactfully declined but expressed his interest in 

reuniting upon his return to Berlin, which he 

anticipated for the summer of 1808. Eventually a 

friendship was formed around their mutual 

interests.  

In July 1809, as head of the Section for 

Cultus and Public Education, Humboldt 

petitioned the king to compensate 

Schleiermacher for his lost income after the 

University of Halle was closed by the French. 

Humboldt also mentioned that Schleiermacher 

was strongly considered for a professorship in the 

1807 plan for the to-be-founded University 

(Humboldt, 1809/1903, p. 80). Schleiermacher 

served on the Implementary Commission, adding 

his voice to the foundation of the institution’s 

official charter, and was eventually appointed 

dean of the faculty of theology in 1810 (Nowak, 

2001, pp. 220f). 

Humboldt’s treatise on the Organization of 

the Higher Academic Institutions, written during 

1809 or 1810, set out the basic principles for what 

would become the University of Berlin. It bears 

strong parallels with Schleiermacher’s (1808) 

Thoughts on Universities, suggesting a close 

intellectual relationship between both texts. With 

Schleiermacher’s text preceding Humboldt’s, it 

can be assumed the former left its mark on the 

latter. Both discussed the nature of 

Wissenschaft—which would be the central goal 

of the university—and its relation to teaching. 

They also reflected on the relationship between 

the university and the state, and the question of 

financing. 

The task of any higher academic 

institution, Humboldt insisted, was to promote 

“Wissenschaft in its full depth and breadth” 

(Humboldt, 1809/1903, p. 251). Along with 

Schleiermacher, he understood Wissenschaft as 

the unity of all intellectual pursuits. “The success 

of one should inspire another, and make apparent 

to all the universal, primordial force that is only 

ever singular or derivational in the specific” 

(Humboldt, 1809/1903, p. 251). For both men, 

Wissenschaft was the overarching, conjoining 

theme of human endeavor at the core of German 

philosophy and the spirit of its people 

(Schleiermacher, 1808, p. 22f; Humboldt, 

1809/1903, pp. 253f). 

Wissenschaft demanded the freedom 

necessary to pursue knowledge and bring it into 

the fold of the “academic edifice,” as Fichte put 

it (1960, p. 30). Both Schleiermacher and 

Humboldt pointed to this prerequisite 

(Schleiermacher, 1808, p. 56; Humboldt, 

1809/1903, p. 251), and both combined the 

liberty of scholarship with the rights of individual 

insight (Schleiermacher, 1808, p. 43; Humboldt, 

1809/1903, p. 251). This had profound 

implications for the role of the state, which 

traditionally exercised strict control over the 

production and dissemination of knowledge. 

Toleration of ideas was not sufficient. For 

Schleiermacher, government involvement must 

not go beyond the founding and financing of 

institutions. This was the true interest of the state 

as Wissenschaft would always be beneficial to the 

nation and its citizens. Indeed, the principle is 

even more expansive as Wissenschaft is by its 



60 

 

own nature an endeavor of all educated peoples 

and therefore cannot and must not be confined to 

and by a state for narrow political interests 

(Schleiermacher, 1808, pp. 6-9; pp. 45-48). 

Humboldt, whose Limits of State Action (1851), 

offered a classic defense of limited government, 

took the argument further. Independence of 

thought and diversity of ideas are essential to 

human development (Bildung). Even in society at 

large, “one man would muse and compile by 

himself, another would seek association with his 

peers, and yet another would gather a circle of 

disciples to himself” (Humboldt, 1809/1903, p. 

252). In order to give this natural process a more 

orderly form, the state must recognize that its 

involvement will always be a hindrance to the 

natural course of the scholarly endeavor, 

including education. Its only positive role was to 

provide what was necessary to support the pursuit 

of Wissenschaft within society (Humboldt, 

1809/1903, p. 252). 

Humboldt also embraced Schleiermacher’s 

institutional triad of the Gymnasium, the 

university, and the academy. Although the 

Gymnasium worked with a body of finalized 

knowledge, it was conceptualized as a 

preparatory institution whose goal was to prepare 

students with the skills for independent learning, 

thus laying the groundwork for the scholarly 

approach at the university. It should instill 

curiosity in its students and thus set them on the 

path to Wissenschaft, enabling them to transition 

to university where they would engage in 

independent study without the supervision of 

teachers (Schleiermacher, 1808, p. 26; 

Humboldt, 1809/1903, pp. 255f). The university, 

in turn, would treat Wissenschaft as a yet 

unsolved, unfinished problem in need of 

research. Both authors agreed that schools must 

not overstep their allotted function and try to 

“anticipate university teaching, and neither are 

universities merely a congeneric complement, 

merely a higher school grade” (Humboldt, 

1809/1903, p. 255; see also Schleiermacher, 

1808, p. 31). The academy would then form the 

pinnacle of academic pursuit and scholarly 

exchange among peers (Schleiermacher, 1808, p. 

31; Humboldt, 1809/1903, p. 258). 

The ideas first expressed in 

Schleiermacher’s (1808) Thoughts on 

Universities were clearly in accord with 

Humboldt’s views on knowledge and society and 

surely influenced his arguments on the 

organization of higher academic institutions in 

general, and the University of Berlin in 

particular. But Schleiermacher’s influence did 

not end there. He served as the university’s sixth 

president in 1815/16 (from the early years of the 

university until 1934, its president would be 

elected for a one-year term). It was not 

uncommon for them to serve for multiple terms, 

albeit not successively (Humboldt-Universität zu 

Berlin, 2016). As dean of theology in Berlin, he 

was a leading voice on the commission that 

drafted the university’s statutes, which were 

presented in 1817 (Weischedel, 1960, p. XXIV). 

Most significantly, perhaps, as a member of 

Prussia’s Academy of Sciences, he presented 

lectures in 1813/14, 1820/21, and 1826 on the 

nature and importance of pedagogy as a distinct 

field of study (Beljan et al., 2017, p. XVIII). 

These influential arguments, as historians of 

German education attest, “marked the beginning 

of a modern, explicitly academic thinking on 

pedagogy […] that conclusively detached 

pedagogy from theology and philosophy” (Beljan 

et al., 2017, p. XVII, see also Nowak, 2001, pp. 

318-319).  

Following Kant, Schleiermacher’s 

philosophy of education starts with the 

generational imperative of instruction, and 

frames teaching as an acquired art that is 

instrumental to the progress of society 

(Schleiermacher, 2017, pp. 548). Like Herbart, 

he acknowledged the primacy of practice 

(Kenklies, 2012, p. 267). But he also 

recognized—in line with the concept of 

pedagogical tact—that the informed use of 

education theory could improve teaching.  

Combining the “dignity of practice” and the 

efficacy of self-reflection, the promotion of 

Wissenschaft and Bildung, Schleiermacher’s 

lectures became foundational texts of the German 

education tradition—despite the fact that 

pedagogy was never at the center of the many and 

diverse academic subjects he pursued in his 

tenure at the University of Berlin until his 

unexpected and swift death from pneumonia in 

1834. 

  



61 

 

References 

 

Ash, M. G. (2006). Bachelor of What, Master of 

Whom? The Humboldt Myth and Historical 

Transformation of Higher Education in 

German-Speaking Europe and the US. 

European Journal of Education, 42(2), 245-

267. 

Beljan, J., Ehrhardt, C., Meier, D., Virmond, W., 

Winkler, M. (Eds.). (2017). Friedrich Daniel 

Ernst Schleiermacher. Vorlesungen über die 

Pädagogik und amtliche Voten zum 

öffentlichen Unterricht [Friedrich Daniel 

Ernst Schleiermacher. Lectures on pedagogy 

and votes on public education]. Berlin: De 

Gruyter. 

Berlin University Alliance (2019). 

Umbenennung zur Humboldt-Universität 

jährt sich zum 70. Mal [Name change to 

Humboldt University has its 70th 

anniversary]. https://www.berlin-university-

alliance.de/news/items/20190208-

humboldt-universitaet-70.html  

Dilthey, W. (1870). Leben Schleiermachers. 

Erster Band [Life of Schleiermacher. First 

Volume]. Berlin: Georg Reimer. 

Fichte, J. G. (1807/1960). Deduzierter Lehrplan 

einer zu Berlin zu errichtenden höhern 

Lehranstalt, die in gehöriger Verbindung mit 

einer Akademie der Wissenschaften stehe 

[Deduced curriculum for the higher 

education institute to be established in Berlin 

and that is to stand in proper relation to an 

Academy of Sciences]. In W. Weischedel 

(Ed.), Idee und Wirklichkeit einer 

Universität. Dokumente zur Geschichte der 

Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 

(193-203). Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Forster, M. (2017). Friedrich Daniel Ernst 

Schleiermacher. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 

2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/ 

archives/fall2017/entries/schleiermacher/  

Gerber, S., Schmidt, S. (Eds.). (2015). Friedrich 

Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher. Briefwechsel 

1808 (Briefe 2598–3020) [Friedrich Daniel 

Ernst Schleiermacher. Correspondence 1808 

(Letters 2598–3020)]. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Humboldt, W. v. (1809/1903). Über die innere 

und äussere Organisation der höheren 

wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin [On 

the inner and outer organization of the higher 

academic institutions in Berlin]. In B. 

Gebhardt (Ed.), Wilhelm von Humboldts 

Politische Denkschriften. Erster Band. 

1802-1810 (250-260). Berlin: B. Behr’s 

Verlag. 

Humboldt, W. v. (1851). Ideen zu einem Versuch, 

die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu 

bestimmen [Ideas on an attempt to delineate 

the limits of state action]. Breslau: Verlag 

von Eduard Trewendt. 

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2016). Rektoren 

und Präsidenten bzw. Präsidentinnen der 

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin seit 1810 

[Chancellors and presidents of the Humboldt 

University since 1810]. https://www.hu-

berlin.de/de/ueberblick/geschichte/rektoren

_html  

Kenklies, K. (2012). Educational Theory as 

Topological Rhetoric: The Concepts of 

Pedagogy of Johann Friedrich Herbart and 

Friedrich Schleiermacher. Studies in 

Philosophy and Education, 31, 265-273. 

Nowak, K. (2001). Schleiermacher. Leben, Werk 

und Wirkung [Schleiermacher. Life, works, 

and impact]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 

Ruprecht. 

Patsch, H. (Ed.). (1995). Friedrich Daniel Ernst 

Schleiermacher. Schriften aus der Hallenser 

Zeit 1804-1807 [Friedrich Daniel Ernst 

Schleiermacher. Writings from the Halle 

times 1804-1807]. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Paulsen, F. (1960). Geschichte des gelehrten 

Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und 

Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters 

bis zur Gegenwart. Zweite Ausgabe [History 

of academic teaching at German schools and 

universities from the outset of the Middle 

Ages until the present. 2nd Volume]. Berlin: 

De Gruyter. (Original work published 1921) 

Redeker, M. (Ed.). (1966). Wilhelm Dilthey. 

Leben Schleiermachers. Zweiter Band: 

Schleiermachers System als Philosophie und 

Theologie [Wilhelm Dilthey. Life of 

Schleiermacher. 2nd Volume: 

Schleiermacher’s system as philosophy and 

theology]. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Schleiermacher, F. D. E. (1808). Gelegentliche 

Gedanken über Universitäten in deutschem 



62 

 

Sinn. Nebst einem Anhang über eine neu zu 

errichtende [Occasional thoughts on 

universities in a German spirit, with an 

appendix on one about to be founded]. 

Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung. 

Schleiermacher, F. D. E. (1995). Rezension von 

Johann Friedrich Zöllner: Ideen über 

National-Erziehung [Review of Johann 

Friedrich Zöllner: Ideas on national 

education]. In H. Patsch (Ed.), Friedrich 

Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher. Schriften aus 

der Hallenser Zeit. 1804-1807 (1-25). 

Berlin: De Gruyter. (Original work 

published 1805) 

Schleiermacher F. D. E. (2017). Vorlesungen 

über die Pädagogik im Sommer 1826 

[Lectures on pedagogy, summer 1826]. In J. 

Beljan et al. (Eds.), Friedrich Daniel Ernst 

Schleiermacher. Vorlesungen über die 

Pädagogik und amtliche Voten zum 

öffentlichen Unterricht (543-858). Berlin: 

De Gruyter. 

Vial, T. (2013). Schleiermacher: A Guide for the 

Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury. 

Weischedel, W. (Ed.). (1960). Idee und 

Wirklichkeit einer Universität. Dokumente 

zur Geschichte der Friedrich-Wilhelms-

Universität zu Berlin [Idea and reality of a 

university. Documents on the history of the 

Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin]. 

Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Wienecke, F. (1910). Zöllner, Johann Friedrich. 

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 55, 423-

425. https://www.deutsche-biographie. 

de/pnd104197102.html#adbcontent  

Zöllner, J. F. (1804). Ideen über National-

Erziehung besonders in Rücksicht auf die 

königlich preußischen Staaten. Erster Theil 

[Ideas on national education with particular 

regard to the sovereign Prussian states. First 

part]. Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manuscript received, March 9, 2022 

Manuscript revised, August 22, 2022 

Manuscript accepted, August 29, 2022