688 FOUNDING OF THE BERLIN UNIVERSITY. 



one of his disciples i)ossesse(l the creative impulse, nor even the glow- 

 ing enthusiasm, which move great circles of men. The i)e(lantic, often 

 emi:)ty phrases left as the residue of a great inovement, came to be the 

 target of ridicule, as before they had been the object of astonishment 

 or even admiration. 



Hegeiianism was the last of the successive i)hilosophic schools that 

 grew uj) under the eye of Frederick William III. With "Naturphilos- 

 ophie" in its more rigid, or better its more logical, development he did 

 not come into direct contact. Its exi)onent, Schelling, first Fichte's dis- 

 cii^le, then his rival, finally his successor in Jena, had soon transferred 

 his activity to Bavaria; and there he had succeeded, by bold strictures 

 on physiology and pathology, m attracting the attention of physicians 

 to himself and his system. But the influence which "il^aturphilosophie" 

 did indeed obtain in medicine lasted only a short time. So far as 

 Berlin is concerned, it might have passed without leaving a trace, had 

 Hegel not imported many details from his old friend Schelling into his 

 own system. 



It is peculiar that a few decades later, after "I^Iatiirphilosophie" had 

 passed its zenith, ten years aftei the <leath of Hegel, immediately after 

 that of King Frederick William III, an unexpected turn in affairs 

 seemed to hold out to " jSTaturphilosophie" the hope of filling the vacant 

 chair of jjliilosophy. Not long after his accession to the throne Fred- 

 erick William IV called Schelling to Berlin (1841). The largest lecture 

 halls were inadequate to hold the crowds, consisting partly of students, 

 partly of numerous representatives of all strata of the cultured, eager 

 to hear from his own lips the famous thinker's views, held almost equal 

 to a revelation. It soon became evident that, as might have been 

 imagined, the aging pliilosopher sought to cover up the weaknesses of 

 his system by all sorts of mystic additions and by a correspondingly 

 confusing piiraseology, but that in thought he had penetrated neither 

 further nor deeper. The attempt to introduce " Naturphilosophie" was 

 soon abandoned, and with the author his system vanished from Ber- 

 lin; its soil had been prepared, but also exhausted by Hegeiianism. 



A rapid survey of the inner history of our university reveals unmis- 

 takably that during the whole time of Frederick William III its devel- 

 opment took place, if not entirely, certainly to all outward appearance, 

 under the standard of i^hilosophy. Yet this monarch was neither a 

 philosopher in the strict sense of the word, nor an enthusiastic admirer 

 of philosophy. On this point we have information through his biog- 

 rapher, the court preacher, Bishop Eylert, who was in close intercourse 

 with him during those years. Biased by his ecclesiastical i^osition, he 

 may have made his report one-sided, but there is no reason for doubting 

 its truthfulness. 



Eylert says of the King: '■'■ Philosophy as such he did not care for; 

 he was not gifted with taste in that direction. In the history of philos- 

 ophy, which at least in its general features was not strange to him, he 



