Ernst Kantorowicz Collection 1908-1982

/

Prof. Ernst H. Kantorowicz, 68,
Of A dvanced Study Institute Dies

PRINCETON, N. J., Sept. 9
—Dr. Ernst Hartwig Kantor-
owicz, a professor in the School
of Historical Studies of the In-
stitute for Advanced Study, died
of an aneurism last night at his
home. 22 Alexander Street. He
was 68 years old.

Dr. Kantorowicz, a native of
Poznan, Poland, I attended the
Auguste Victoria Gymnasium
there and the Universities of
Berlin and Munich. In 1921 he
received his Ph.D. degree in
history from Heidelberg Univer-
sity. :

in 1930 Dr. Kantorowicz'
joined the facultv of the Uni-I
versity of Frankfurt, and four!
years later he became a visiting j
professor of history at Oxfonj
University. From 1939 through!
19.^1 he taught at the Univer-
sity of California at B:rk:l^--

Special to The New York Times

attaining the rank of professo:
of history in 1945.
\ After a brief sLiy at Dimbar-
ton Oaks as a visiting scholar,
Dr. Kantorowicz came to the
I Institute for Advanced Study as
la professor of history in 195'
I In 1959 he was awarded an
j honorary Doctor of Laws de-
Igree by Lawrence College and
in the same year he received the
Haskins medal of the American
Medieval Academy.

Dr. Kantorowicz held mem-
Ibership in the American Acad-
emy of Arts and Sciences, th
American Historical Associa-
tion and the American Renais-
sance Society. His published
works include "The King's Two
Bodies: A Study in Medieval
Political Theology" and "Fred
eriok JI.''

]

He l-^ave.s no survivors.

/ '<)t2,

/

3d for future publication, will also be in

rshall story is more than the biography of i
ic chapter of American history. Look is ]
its more than 34,000,000 readers.

On newsstands t

IN6, INC.

1

y

^

o

^

ot,^

5'^'/^/

-^

A^-^^-^SC^^^l^^A^

^.^^l^Ljy^^ ^

-4^

<— i''^?^--^i-<a.0^u<^ C!_^ C_

^ y^

^-c^

..^ /<^

^yyy~-T\

I

_'5'-< ^-^ -x--^

r

^<C) ^'Cx^

CXJU^^ V C.-<^^

■^ f^^ -TOo'^'^C*'

-^

^

/

^^^^

^■^kJc^

"^JC 'tCuvv

Cy c/VtA>L<;

■rr^N

-9

6V-t>6L^

A^-

/:

r

\

otlUl

Cu^^

fi-CUi.'r^t

-^

-S"

-^^

y^

4

J

^i

f

\

^ \v

A

-\

V^

}^-^r^

-t-V_

■J
.«

KANTOROWICZ, Ernst

b. 1895-d. 1963

Historian (Prof) Medievalist

5-^

-sc

AR 7216

Box 1 Personal papers including CV, will,

bilbllography, lecture series,

oath controversy Germany 1933* oath

controversy Berkeley, 1949-5I
photos, genealogy

Box 2 Unpublished MSS.

r

Card -2-

J

1

■

■

■ '

' ' *

' ' .

■*

•• ».

'.

,

1

1

' •.

*

>

w

• /

.

. ,

.•

> ■

•"

.'

•

i..

b

t

'«

-

/ *

* '

■•

,

'

I

•

kflMMMMiWMilMfi^&iiiteil^^

■ A.'-.

ttaaa^mmmt^mmi^^m.

I kktm^mtm^

KANTOROWICZ, Ernst
Card 3

AR 7216a

Box 5

Box

Papers of Gertrude, Clara and Angle
Kantorowicz, Genealogical material,
materials on Nazi seizure of power!

5 & 7 Materials on the 'loyalty oath*
controversy, Kantorowicz' later

correspondence. See inventory i.st

• !■.*"■

• *«• • .

■;T* "'■••:

■^^^

■"v^

KANTOROWICZ, Ernst
card -2-

Box 3 & 4 Published Mss.

See Inventory list

[ii<yi^iadattfiaiMwtlMa^«lr • i fMi 1 1 umimistiMMtUttgtKtt

AR 7216 f

1. name 2. Berufe Historiker 3. Stammbaum,
Kantorowicz Ernst 3. Stammbaum, Kaliphari,
Salomon, gen. Posner 4. Fotos, Kanturowica E.
5. Emigration USA 1933-^5 6. Loyalty Oaths
Germany 7. Loyalty Oaths, USA

M^A^MkatoM

Mha«kM*i«i**Mri4a^.

KANTOROWICZ , Ernst
card 4

AR 7216b

Box 8, file 1: Papers of Richard Kandt
(nee Kantorowicz), 1867-1918? African
explorer, discoverer of the White Nile, and
German administrator in the protectorate of
East Africa (Ruanda) . File of poems,
letters, and obituaries, mostly from 1918.

\

«,' '.V.
•I ^*f •

M,

\

i

t^mm^m ■' i^iiiti

mamtm^mtmam t

Kantoronicz, Krnst H. lP9ti-l963 ad 7 .rr

"Pr»nf ^^r»v,,.4- TT tr . /in— O.Ob I)

irof, :,rnsi JI. Kantorov/icz, GH, of 2309

AdvancGd Study Institute Diog'' Tho Now York *
S^pt.lO, 1963 newsp.clip Ip

Times

/

Historiker

AK-B.40b
4496

Kantorowicz, li^rnst ,

1^96-1903
Autograph on
!• brief an (Hans} Lieboscliuetz i^mstelvcen (Holland)
2cd.7.VJ7,9 Msch.Schr u eig. Unterschr 2p
Uober i^robleine doa Emigrantenlebens

l.naine 2.Beruf Historil

riicor

K.-'ff

' • • •■->..'/■"

jV

■ ... ,»^.

,-^ si,,*. .

■irv-

•.■'''■»">'i' ■■>■»■■

l.Narae o.^Q^oif Hisoriker 3. Autograph Karr.orowicz
4.Liebeschuotz ,Hans ( '^

'-* -r-v

'-•'•'', '''■*''''

• ■v;'^.vv--.-/l?^.,:;v,..A..

■sir:; .

* ■

4r ,.-

^1/ r. ■

y :

f

AR 12\f^

KRNST M. KANTORCV\'iCZ

Ernst H. Kantorowicz (1895-19S3)
Intellectual Historian, Medievalist
born May 5, 1895 Posen
died Sept. 19G3 USA
Emigrated 1938 to England

1939 to USA

Published works include:

in German: KAISER FRIEDRICH DY.K ZWEITE
in English: LAUDES REGIAE, 1946

KING'S TWO BODIES, 1957

1927

EHK became honorary Professor in Frankfurt in 1930 and two years
later Professor Ordinarius with C^^air in Medieval and Modern History.

In April 1933 he went on leave to protest antisemitic regulations
and thus lost his C^air.

In 1939 he emigrated to the USA via England. After having 'o^^n
at the University o^ California at Berkeley ^or 10 vears EHK was
asked in 1949 to sign a "Loyalty Oath" (anti -comnunist , reuuested
of all state employees). He refused to sign and read a statement
on the floor of the Acadeniic Senate warning against oaths in
history. Consequently he was fired as a "non-signer". He fought
his dismissal in Court (California State Court), and in 1951
won his case together with 18 others.

In the meantime he had accepted a professorship at The Institute
For Advanced Study in Princeton, where he remained until his
deat!i in 1963.

Languages: German, English
Copyright: LB I

Restrictions: when quoting from unpublisTied works refer to

instructions included in specific papers.

DONOR: Prof. Ralph E. Giesey
Dept. of History
University of Iowa
Iowa City, lA. 52242

AR 7216

ERNEST II • KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

Box 1

older

1) Essay on Ernst H. Kantorowicz by Pro^. Ralph Gresey,
English - 27 pp

2) Curriculum Vitae

3) Personal papers - Italian Driven^ License

4) Mein Lebensbild

by Salomon Kaliphari, gen. Pcsner (Genealogy)

5) University o^ Frankfurt "Einschreibe-Liste "1933/34 (Testatbuch)

6) E.K. Library in Germany

7) E.K. items from England includes letter re: Emigration
from Germany 1938

8) Bibliography of E.K. publications

9) E.K. Lecture Themes

10) List of E.K. acquaintances
11) Last Will and Testament of EK, 1962

12)

ca. 20 photos of E.K

13) Tapes on Kantorowicz

14) Statements, Correspondence, Newclippings
Re: Oath Controversy 1949-51, Cal.

15) University of Cal. (Berkeley):
Transcript for Tenure, Jan. 10, 1952. 18 pp.

16) Pamphlets describing oath at University & Controversy

17) Pamphlet: "The Fundamental. "

Issue - Documents & Marginal Notes on the U.of Cal.,
Loyalty Oath by E.K.

18) Pamphlet on Court case, involving signing of loyalty oath
1951/52. ^

AR 721f^

T ka::tcpov .._ COL^^^nON

BOX 2

19) P:- . -lets on sec^r*

1950

20) Kisc. off

prints.

folder 1 -

Unpublished short MS - Medieval History
(Note restrictions on quotations in each folder)

1) "Synthronos"

English, 33 pp, 31 pp notes

2) "Charles the Bald & the Natalos Caesarum"

English, 34 pp

3) "Roma and the Coal" - 2 versions English.

Penultimate draft, 44 pp; ultimate iraft, 28 pp - 1/2 complete

4) "Coronation Scenarios - Eastern & Western -

Epiphany 6. Coronation"- English 60 pp

5) Kcn^an Coins 6c Christie--. Rites"
2 copies, English - 24 ^^ & 34

t^t^

6) "Grenzen, Mdglichkoi ten und Aufcra:
mittelalterlic'ier Geschichte "
German, 33 ^p, & rela^'^'' off ^---^s.

7) Das Geheime Oeutsc'^.lard -
German, 22 pp

Jer Jarstelluncr

8) "Wandei des Zei tgefillhls

•I

2 versio-s, German

~ - - ir^ir'

9) "Was ist Adel?"
German, 29 pp

10) "Zum Cttcne-^ild i- Aacnener Evanaeliar
German, 21 ^^, I ^^oto

11) The Idea of Permanency ? -^ "^^e T''^^>-tee'^
English- 2 versions - 26 ^p <^ 35 ^p

Century"

* a •

12) - manities & History"
Engl is'- - 5 pp

13) "The I>ukes of Burgundy & the Italian Renaissance"

English, 27 ^^

-3-

")

ERNEST H. K^^
COLLECTION

^ovir?.

PCX 3

Published material - {sc^-e -^ntes,
relating to i ^-^i ^'■idual wor-

Folder # - up^er rig'it in pencil
Oriainal Inventory ^ - i-'pper left

5.-.^

.j^ies, correspondence
*-- respective folder)

folder 1-S Book Reviews

Review of Antonio de Stefano ' I- ' i iieo ^T^^eriale
di Federico II" (Florence 192'^} i- Historische Zeitsc'
CXL (1929), 449-450 (original inventory #5)

Review of Eleanor Shi^aej. Duckett -r.n^ic-^axon Saints and
Scholars" (New York, 1947) in Classical P-iloloQV, XLIII
(1948), 255-2'S. (original inventory =^24)

:rift

Review -- Reto R. Bezzoia, i^as
de la litteratare coartoise en (
(Paris, 44), in Comparative _,
(original i -^^^entor ;' ^?^)

igines et la formation
ccident: 500-1200"
terpture. I (lQ^o> P4-Q7

3o Review of Leonardo Olschki ,
and Los Angeles, .....,, - - ho]
^^1 , 281-284. (ori- -* -

of Felt" (B'^rkeley
-a-:ce Phil c 1 oa\' , I V
"tory #30)

4.

La

Review Zi-^ EaJes :je D-
ed. Henry Waguet vParis

'1952), 321-322 (origma^ . inventory #32)

roisa^ . _ .jouis VII. "

" ^O"^ e n re P'- i lo 1 pay ,

M

Kevie\A artini episcopi Bra car ens is opera omnia
ed. Claude W. Bar]- (Papers u i^onographs of the
Americ: Acade- . __ w Haven, 1950),
^^ - ric- ■ , : . :.: hi ^ , LM (1952 ), 22^ -2 30 .

(origin- ''

tcry #34)

Review of Johan Huizinga "Geschichte .Itur -
Gesammelte Aufsaet2e"m ed. Krrt Kt^ster (Stuttgart , 1954) ,
in America-. Historical Revie-w, ^. ^955), 853-855
(original inventory #44)

Review of Charles Till Davis, "Dante and the Idea
(Oxford, 1957) i-: SK-eculur. XXXIV (1959), 103-109.
(original inventory ^^51).

^ Rone

ar^u Pout: Lne j^

-^xe^

i i D

1961)
Inventory ]fSG/j

- 1

t

^=c:rn,mt^:;u

f^^r^ (J- nai

-4-

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

AR 7216

BOX 3 (cont'd)

Folder 9. Dissertation. "Das Wesen der muslimischen Handwerkerverbaende -

Heidelberg, 1921, 104 pp. (original inventory #1).

10, Clippings and notes for Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (original
inventory #'s 2,3,4,7).

11

12

13

15.

16

Offprint and clippings. "Mythenschau ** in Historische Zeitschrift
OCLJ 1930, pp 457-47} . (original inventory # 6). ""^

-Deutsches Papsttum" in Vom Schicksal des deutschen Geistes
(Berlin: Verlag die Runde, 1935) 42-57; Castrum Pereaini XI
(1953) 7-24 (original inventory # 12).

"Petrus de Vinea in England •' in Mitteilunoftn des Oesterreighisghen
Instituts fuer Geschichtsforsrhnnn , L^ (1937), 43-88 (original
inventory #13) .

14. Offprint and clippings. -Die Wiederkehr gelehrter Anachorese
im Mittelalter*'. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1937, 13pp. (original

inventory # 10) .

••The Este Portrait by Roger van der Weyden" in Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes III (1939-1940) 165-^80
(original inventcry #11).

••A Norman Finale of the Exultet and the Rite of Sarum in Harvard
Theological Review, XXXIV (1941), 129-143 (original inven^^^T;

# 12) . ^

17. -Plato in the Middle Ages*' in The Philosophical Review LI (1942)
312-323, and reviews of other works on Plato (original inventory

# 13

18. -Ivories and Litanies", Journal of the Warburg and Courtland
Institutes. V (1942), 56-81 (original inventory # iJ)"!

19. -Anonyiri 'Aurea Gemma ', " in Medievalia et Humanistica, I (1943)
41-57 (original # 15). "^ u^^:j;,

20. -An 'Autobiography* of Guido Faba*' in Medieval and Renaissang^
Studies, 1 (1943), 253-280 (original inventory # 15).

21. "A Diplomatic Mission of Francis Accursius and his ©ration before
Pope Nicholas III-, in English Historical Review. LVIII (1943),

424-47 (original inventory # 17).

-5-

AR 7216

ERNST H* KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

BOX 3 (cont'd)

Folder 22,

23.

"The Problem of Medieval World Unity" in American Historical
Association, Annual Report for 1942, III (Washington. 1944),
31-37 (original inventory # 18).

"The King's Advent and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of
Santa Sabina" in Art Bulletin XXVI (1944) 207-231, (original
inventory # 19) .

24-5 "Laudes Regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Medieval
Ruler Worship" in University of California Publications in
History, XXXIII. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 194<S, 292 pp. (original inventory # 20),*
the

27. Notes on Christus vincit Legend on Coinfe -UC - LA (inventoy #21)

28. Western College Assn. : Adresses on the Problem of Administrative
Overhead. (original inventory #22) .

29. "The Quinity cf Winchester

Art Bulletin XXIX (1947) (or.inv.23)

30. "Christus-Fiscus", in Synopsis: Festgabe fuer Alfred Weber
(Heidelberg, 1948) 223-235. (orig. inventory 25) .

31. Introduction to Luis Weckmann - Las Bules Alejandrinas de 1493

y la Teoria Politica del Papado Medieval (Mexico City, 1949) 7-11
original inventory #2 7

32. The Fundamental Issue: Documents and Marginal Noted on the
University of California Loyalty Oath - San Francisco:
Parker Printing Co., 1950. 40 pp. -(orig. inventory #28).

Box £
Folder 1. "Pro patria mori in Medieval Political Thought", in American

Historica 1 Review, LVI (1951), 472-492. ( original inventory
# 29).

2. "Dante's 'Two Suns ' , " in Semitic and Oriental Studies Presented
to William Popper (University of California Publications in
Semitic Philology, XI, 1951), 217-231. (original inventory # 31).

3. "Der Gastfreund, " in Albrecht Bernstorf f zum Gedaechtnis
(Munich 1952), 53-56 (original inventory #33).

4. "Kaiser Friedrich II und das Koenigsbild des Hellenismus, "
in Varia Variorum : Festgabe fuer Karl Reinhardt (Muenster-
Koeln, 1952), 169-193. (original inventory # 35).

-6-

AR 7216

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

Folder

BOX 4 (cont'd)

5. "Deus per naturam, deus per gratiam: A Note on Mediaeval Poli-
tical Theology,** in Harvard Theological Review, XLV (1952),
253-277. (original inventory # 36).

6. Greek article in American Journal of Archaelocrv> LVII (1953) ,
65-70. (original inventory # 37)

7. "Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English
Coronation Oath in the Thirteenth Century,** in Speculum, XXIX

(1954), 488-502. (original inventory #38).

8. •'Mysteries of State: An Absolutist Concept and its Late Medieval
Origins,** in Harvard Theological Review, XLVIII (1955), 65-91,
and Spanish Translation by Rodriguez Aranda : •*Secretos de
Estado, " Revista de Estudios Politicos. LXV (1959), 37-70,

(original inventories # 39-40) .

9. "Invocatio Nominis Imperatoris : On vv. 21-25 of Cielo d'Alcamo's
Contrasto**, in Bolletino del Centro di Studi f ilologici e
linguistici Siciliani, III (1955), 35-50. (original inventory # 41)

10. •*Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias

Friend, Jr.;' ed. Kurt Weitzmann et al. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1955, and *'The Carolingian King in the Bible
of San Paola fuori le mura, " in Late Classical and Mediaeval
Studies, 287-300. (original inventories # 42, 43).

11. "The Baptism of the Apostles," in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, IX-X
(1956), 204-251. (original inventory # 45).

12. "Feudalism in the Byzantine Empire, *" in Feudalism in History,
ed. Rushton Coulborn (Princeton, 195*^), 151-166. (original
inventory # 46) .

13. "Zu den Rechtsgrundlagen der Kaisersage, " in Deutsches Archiv,
XIII (1957), 115-150. (original inventory # 47).

14. "The Prologue to Fleta and the School of Petrus de Vinea,"

in Speculum, XXXII (1957), 231-249. (original inventory # 48).

15. "On Transformations of Apolline Ethics," in Charites : Studien
zur Altertumswissenschaft (Festschrift Ernst Langlotz) ed.

Konrad Schauenburg (Bonn, 1957), 265-274. (original inventory # 49).

16. "The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology."
Princeton University Press, 1957. 568 pp. (original inventory # 50)

-7-

AR 7216

Folder

ERNST H, KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

BOX 4 (cont'd)

17. "The Archer in the Ruthwell Cross", in Art Bulletin, XLII
57-59. (original # 52) .

(I960),

18. "On the Golden Marriage Belt and the Marriage Rings of the Dumbar
ton Oaks Collection," in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIV (1960),
2-16, (original inventory # 53) .

19. "Kingship under the Impact of Scientific Jurisprudence, " in
Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society,
ed. M. Clagett, G. Post, and R. Reynolds, 89-111. (original
inventory #54).

20. "The Sovreignty of the Artist: A Note on Legal Maxims and
Renaissance Theories of Art, " in De. Artibus Qpuscula XL;
Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, (New York, 1961), 267-
279. (original inventory # 55) .

21. "Gods in Uniform, " in Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, CV (1961), 368-393. (original inventory # 56).

22. "Puer exoriens : On the Hypapante in the Mosaics of S. Maria
Maggiore", in Perennitas (1963) , 118-1 35. (original inventory
# 57).

23. "Oriens Augusti - lever du Roi, " in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVII
(1963), 119-177. (original invoice # 58).

24. "Constantinus Strator: Marginalien zum Constitutum Constantini, "
in Mullus : Festschrift Thtodor Klauser, ed . Alfred Hermann
(Jahrbuch fuer Antike und Christentum, 1964), 181-189. (original

Inventory # 59) .

.-HW»"

' ,? '

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ (SALZ) COLLKCTiON

AR72irDa

BOX 5

Folder 1

Cataloged correspondence of Gertrude, Clara and Angle
Kantorowicz, including a letter from Theresienstadt,
a manuscript by K^te Ledermann on Angle Kantorowlcz!
correspondence on attempts to emigrate from Germany
in 1941, and a detailed 'who's who' of all names
appearing la the correspondence

Folder 2

T

Folder 3

Published manuscript by Gertrude Kantotowicz, "Ober den
M^rchenstil der Malerel u-.d die Slenische Kunst des
Quattrocento," poetry esienstddt, xeroxes of

photos of Gertrude Kantctowicz

Correspondence ot K:!K with other historians and Felix

Frankfurter (1934 1939) on possible jobs outside of

Germany; Curriculi^m vltae, passport applications, ship
tickets

Folder 4

Correspondence, genealogical tables and a manuscript
on EHK's family and ancestry

Folder 5

EHK material concerning t^^e Nazi seizure of power in 1933,
on 1933 boycott, on Nazi takeover at the Jniversity of
Frankfurt

BOX 6

Materials concerning the 'loyalty oath' issu.

Folder 1

Drafts, letters, m.emos, articles pertaining to the
loyalty oath, 1949-1950

Folder 2

Group for Academic Freedom materials relating to the
loyalty oath

Folder 3

Correspondence of EfiK loncerninq t^e loyalty oath
1949-1951

Folder 4

Folder 5

Legal papers and correspondence dealing with the
loyalty oath action, and the subsequent compensation
suit, 195^-1955

Miscellaneous clippings , notes, pamphlets concerning
the loyalty oath and compensation issues

-?-

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ (SALZ) COLLECTION

AR 7216a

Box 7

Folder 1

Folder 2

Folder 3

Folder 4
Folder 5

Guide to dates of the loyalty oath controversy (1949-
1953), drafts of loyalty oath statements by EHK and
others, materials related to the Academic Senate of the*
University of California at Berkeley

Correspondence and miscellaneous material related to
EHK's first jobs in the USA, correspondence with other
Universities, Committee on Social Thought , 1940-1943,
correspondence concerning job offers and lectures, 1950-51

Materials related to the National Refugee Service,
correspondence concerning post-war Germany

EflK's correspondence at Princeton, 1951-1963

Miscellaneous materials including review by EHX,
list of his publications, reprint of article on EHK,
obituaries of EIIK, coni)lence letters including one from
Olga Schnitzler

Folder 6

Miscellaneous materials including reprints of articles
by EHK, honorary degree 6rom Lawrence University and
related correspondence, documents related to other
honors

.■»s .s»«. ««»«•; ,«i»»,-._WiVji

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ (SALz/ COLLi^CTION

AR 7216a

Box 7

^

(

p

Folder 2

Folder I Guide to datei, of ll;o ]ovaltv oi^h ^^. f.

1053), (drafts o^ IovmUv oath st-,f-«mr.^4- J^^'^y U949-.

ethers, .aterinls xo,..,^, to the I"d",^- ^^ ^"^ ""^
university of C.lilorni. .t Berkeley ' °' ''°'

,^;',^,y^"^^^^^r^'^''^''^^ r;aterial related to

LliK s first jobs .n t ^.. a:.A, correspondence with othe
Universities, Com.ittoe on So.ial Thought , I940.I9J5
correspondence .^cncerni.u, job offers and lectu

Materials related to the National R3fuc,ee Service
correspondence concerDinf post-war Germany

EHK's correspondence at Princeton, 1951-1963

Folder J

Folder 4
Folder 5

P'older

6

Folder 7

er

r

res, 1950-5

mscellancous Prtonal.s including review by EHK
list of h.s publications, .eprint of article on'z,^.
obituaries ol .iiK, c.uM.nc. letters including one from

Micluding reprints of articl-

Olga Schnitzlcr

xMiscel lai^eous r.iatoj ia] ';

'0 ° — .i-...lo:„-.., ,„,..„„,„„t., related " otJer

» i o n o I o

EKas certificate of registration (original) in Encl^nfl
issued at Oxford, 1934; photocopies of 9^^i f^^^"^ »
and military identification p^p^rs JlJ-f^ (SJI^JniJir"*
File of correspondence with publishers. booksellSS and
similar material re: reprint of Friedrich tt' /AJ!!>!;"^

Box 8
Folder 1

Biography;

AR 721f>h

Papers of Richard Kandt (Kantorowicz) i

born: Pgsen, 17 December 1867 Awj-.c'a*

died: Nurnberg, 29. April 1918.

cousin of Ernst Kantorowicr. (abandoned Judaism and
changed name) . Kandt known as explorer and Africanist;
financed 5 year expedition to German protectorate in north-
west Africa, 1897-1902 (Like Kivu. discovered sources of
White Nile, and East Africa-Ruanda); book Caput Nlli
(Berlin 1904) with Kandfs inscription in LBI library

Res?dfnt^cM.r?H'''''°" ^^°^-''' ^PP°inted Kaiserli^her
Resident (Chief Administrator) and Judge of Ruanda. c.1908-14-
volunteered m World War I, died as a lesult of injuries
on the Eastern Front.

Poems, letters, maps, and obituaries about the life of R Kandt/i
Most material from 1918. *

.^JlTiTliJ

<i~

ERNST II. KANT0R0WIC2 (SALiJ) COLLKCTiON

AR72ir3a

BOX 5

Folder 1

Folder 2

Folder 3

Folder 4

Polder 5

BOX 6

Folder 1

Folder 2

Folder 3

Folder 4

Folder 5

cataloged correspondence of Gertr„ri« -i

Kantorowicz, including a letter f^om'Thi'". '"^ ''"^'"
a manuscript bv KiH-^ r ^ '•®'^^®^ ^^<=>^ '^'^eresienstadt,

-correspondence^of a^te^pL'tr °- ""''^'^ ^-torowicz.'
in 1941, and a detaileT Ws^:;o'"o1 flT "^^^'^'^
appearing in the correspondence "^"^^

M^'cH^llirdrr^MaL'rer u^^T^^^"^°^°^^-' "^-- <^-
Quattrocento," Poe%^T LorTh^^esirn^Jal: '""^' '^^
photos of Gertrude Kantotowicz ' ''^''°^^^ °^

Correspondence^^jl^^it,, other hist^i

Germany; Curriculum "'^ ''°''''^'^ ^^'^^ °"t^i<^« °f

tickets

laiis and Feller
s outs
vitae, passport applicati^

ons, ship

Correspondence, aenealnrri ^=.i *. l.-i

on EHK's famii; and ancesf^' "^"'"^ ^"^ ^ rr.anuscript

icestry

Frankfurt w^eover at the Jniversity of

Materials concerning the 'loyalty oath' issue

Drafts, letters, memos, articl
loyalty oath, 1949-1950

es pertainin9 to the

igs^^r"^"" '"""-^"'-- """"=1= "1"'

ng to the

Correspondence of
1949-1951

EHK concerning the loyalty oath.

loya'lt-J^th :;\^. — P-^— dealing with the
suit. [9?o!l9?5 ' '"' '^" subsequent compensation

th:'^roJ:rtT:a?h'a"^d"'^ - "°'^" ^^^^^^^^^ concerning
yaicy oath and compensation issues

^.t.KNST H. KANTOROWICZ (SALZ) COLLECTION

AR 7216a

Box 7

Folder 1

_Folder 2

Folde-' 3

f

Folder 4
-Fo l^er 5

j«

Folder 6

Folder 7

?

Ou de to dates of the loyalty oath controversy (1949-
19b3). drafts of loy.Uy oath .statements by t4 and
others materials related to the Academic Senate of the'
University of California at Berkeley

Correspondonco and miscellaneous material related to "-
EHK s first 3obs in tho asA, correspondence with other
Universities. Committeo on Social Thought , 1940-1945
correspondence concern L,u, Job offers and lectures/l950-:

.Materials related to the National Refugee Service
correspondence concerr.in., post-war Germany • '

EUK's correspondence at Princeton. 1051-1953

MjHCBllaneous materials including review by Ei<

list of his publications, reprint of article onEmc
obituaries of EIIK. okMohco letters includ^r. ;
Olga Schnitzler i^^t.i. including one from

es

rinan,

.i»ila._„»„,., „= rep.I„.''S^Sa,£?^-|^«=,;rf

Box 8
Folder 1

Biography;

Papers of RichardJCandt (Kantorowicz) , ^^ ^^^^^

born: Pgsen. 17 December 1867

died: Nurnberg, 29. April 1918 P^^'O-a^

ch;,no^^^" of Ernst Kantorowicz (abandoned Judaism and
changed name) . Kandt known as explorer and Africanisf

Whff« M^tf A l~ °L^^*^^ '^^^"' discovered sources of
iSlti^ ton;^^"'? ^^^"^ Africa=Ruanda) . book Caput mu
.Z^^ ir^^ ""^^ Kandt -s inscription in LBI Library-

ResiSfnt (ChLr^f '°" ''°^-'' appointed KaiserlLher
Resident (Chief Administrator) and Judge of Ruanda. c 1908-14-
volunteered in World War I. died as a result of iniuries
on the Eastern Front. injuries

Poems, letters, maps, and obituaries about the life of R Kand^/.
Most material from 1918. R. Kandt/;

iKSEnamsmLt aaaii

-7-

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ (SALZ) COLLECTION

AR 7216a

Box 7

'^

Folder 1

Folder 2

Folder 3

Folder 4
Folder 5

Folder 6

Guide to dates of the loyalty oath controversy (1949-
1953), drafts of loyalty oath statements by EHK and __
others, materials related to the Academic Senate of the*""
University of California at Berkeley

Correspondence and miscellaneous material related to
EHK's first jobs in the USA, correspondence with other
Universities, Committee on Social Thought , 1940-1945,
correspondence concerning job offers and lectures, 1950-51

Materials related to the National Refugee Service,
corx^Bspondexice^cpncerning post-war Germany [

EFIK's correspondence at Princeton, 1951-1963

Miscellaneous materials including review by EHK,
list of his publications, reprint of article on EHK,
obituaries of EHK, confclence letters including one from
Olga Schnitzler

Miscellaneous materials including reprints of articles
by EHK, honorary degree cfirom Lawrence University and
related correspondence, documents related to other
honors

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ

AR 7216

I

■

iirnst H. Kantorowicz (1895-1953)
Intellectual Historian, Medievalist
born May 5, 1895 Posen

died Sept. 1963 USA

Emigrated 1938 to England

1939 to USA

Published works include:

in German: KAISER FRIEDRICH DER 2WEITE
m English: LAUDES REGIAE, 1946

KING'S TWO BODIES, 1957

1927

EHK became honorary Profes^sor ILti T^anTrTT^v^^r-T^^ :^-t —

rs
story,

an/Ss lo'st hL^Chair? '^^^^ '° ^^°^^^^ antise.itic regulations

^; If^^J^^ emigrated to the USA via England. After having been
as\ed"iri04^'to' °' ^^^^^^°-- ^^ Berkeley for 10 years Ih^^::.
of aU state'e^^ir^" ? ''^""''^^ °'^-^" (-"ti-comn,unist. reauestod

on the floor of'^thfr^; ^ ''"'"'^'' ^° "'^" """^ "^<3 ^ statement
Mstorv con,! '^'^^/'^f ^'^^'^ Senate warning against oaths in
history Consequently he was fired as a "non-signer". He fouaht
his dismissal in Court (California State Court)! and in 1951
won his case together with 18 others. '» n m x.:,x

For'^Advanced'st J" '^^^.^^^^P^^'^ a professorship at The Institute
death In r^sa!^ '" Princeton, where he remained until his

Languages: Geimian^ English
Copyright: LBI

Restrictions: when quoting from unpublished works refer to

instructions included in specific papers.

K

DONOR

DONOR

Prof. Ralph E. Giesey
Dept. of History
University of Iowa
Iowa City, lA. 52242
of Supplementary material
B.R.Salz

22 5 5t:h bLieet East ^
Saskatoon, Sask.
Canada sm — tB5^

^

(Ernst H. Kantorowicz-Salz) : (tXICo.')

^7A/ Jg7

AR 7216

Folder

!

ERNEST H. KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

Box 1

1) Essay on Ernst H. Kantorowicz by Prof Raloh rl^.^
English - 27 pp "Y -.rroj.. Ralph Gfesey,

2) Curriculum Vitae

3)
4)

5)

Personal papers - Italian Drivers License

Mein Lebensbild

by Salomon Kaliphari, gen. Posner (Genealogy)

University of Frankfur^-'Einschre ibe-Liste "1S33/J4

6)
7)

E.K. Library in Germany

(Tes^atbuch)

E.K. items from England includes letter re- Emi^r-.^,-^
from Germany 1938 J-etter re. Emigration

ons

8) Bibliography of E.K. publicati

9) E.K. Lecture Themes

10) List of E.K. acquaintances

11) Last Will and Testament of LK, 1962

12) ca. 20 photos of E.K.

13) Tapes on Kantorowicz

15) ^"i-ersity Of cal. (Berkeley):

Transcript for Tenure, Jan.'lo, 1952. 18pp.

^6) Pamphlets descrihT.,^

Oescrib.n, oath ,t „„i„„3ity s. Controversy

17) Pamphlet; "The Fundamental ■■
IB, pamphlet on Co„rt oa.e. Involving al,„l„, o. lo.au, o,.-

- 2 -

^^^'^^'ST KANTOROWICZ COLLECTION

AR 7216

»

ts-

19) Pamphlets on secur-i-f-w „=. ^

security vs. freedom , I950

20) Misc. offprints.

BOX 2

Unpublished short MS - Medieval Historv
(Note restrictions on guotations^i^'^re^, folder)
folder 1 -l)"Synthronos"

English, 33 pp, 31 pp notes

^/ "Roma and the Cn^i " o '-

Penultimate dra?t 44" L T.°''" ''"^''"^•

aratt, 44 pp; ultimate draft, 28 pp

4) "Coronation Scenarios - Eastern ^ w^ ^

Bpiphany . Coronation "-InlrCh^o^pp"^" "

5) "Roman Coins ^ Christian Rites"

2 copies, English - 24 pp & 34 pp

6) "Grenzen, Mfiglichkeiten nn,i a * ^
mittelalterlicher GescMchte^^ ^ '" '"" Oarstellung
German, 33 pp. & related offprints.

7) Das Geheime Deutschland -
German, 22 pp

- 1/2 complete

PP

ler Evangeliar"

8) "Wandei des Zeitgefdhls"
2 versions, German - 35

9) "Was ist Adel?"
German, 29 pp

10) "zum Ottonenbild im Aachen
German, 21 pp. 1 p>,„to

11) The Idea of Permanency in the Ti.,-r*-««. ^,
Englia.- 2 versions - 26 pp & Mpp "^"

^2) "Humanities & History"
English - 5 pp

13) "The Dukes of Burgundy & the itan^n p ■

English, 27 pp '" Renai^sar

nee

II

i«

i

-3-

;^R 7216

BOX 3

ERNEST H. KANTOROWICZ
eCLLECTION

Published material - (Gome notes, photocopies, correspondence
relating to individual work is included in respective folder)

Folder # - upper right in pencil

Original Inventory # - upper left in print or ink

folder 1-8 Book Reviews

5,

6.

7.

1. Review of Antonio de Stefano ". L'Idea imperiale

di Federico II" (Florence 1927) in Historische Zeitschrift
CXL (1929), 449-450 (original inventory #5)

2. Review of Eleanor Shipley Duckett "Anglo-Saxon Saints and
Scholars " (New York/ 1947) in crassical Philology, XLIII
(1948), 265-266. (original inventory #24)

3. Review of Reto R. Bezzola, "Les origines et la formation
de la litterature courtoise en Occidents 500-1200"
(Paris, 1944), in Comparative Literature, I (1949), 84-87.
(original inventory #26)

3a Review of Leonardo Olschki, "The Myth of Felt" (Berkeley
and Los Angeles; 1949), in Romance Philology, IV
1951, 281-284. (original inventory #30)

4. Review of Eudes de Deuil, "La Croisade de Louis VII."
ed. Henry V?aquet (Paris, 1949), in Romance Philology,
V (1952), 321-322 (original inventory #32)

8.

Review o ;^ "Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera omnia"
ed. Claude W. Barlow (Papers & Monographs of the
American Academy in Rome, XII; New Haven, 1950),
in American Journal of Archeology, LVI (1952) , 229 -230.
(original inventory #34)

Review of Johan Huizinga "Geschichte udn Kultur -
Gesammelte Aufsaetze"m ed. Kurt Kc^ster (Stuttgart, 1954) ,
in American Historical Review, LX (1955), 853-855
(original inventory #44)

Review of Charles Till Davis, "Dante and the Idea of Rome ^'
(Oxford, 1957) in Speculum. XXXIV (1959), 103-109*
(original l^nventory #51) .

Review of Walter Ullmann, "Principles of Governm.ent

and Politics in the Middle Ages" . :/ (New ¥02^];:,

19G1) in Speculum, XXXIX (?:964') , 344-351. (original
Inventory "3f SOA

1

AR 7216

-4-

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

— - __ __ .,^ n,uslimischen Handwerkerverbaende .

.Ider 9. Dissertation I^--^-^^

Heidelberg, 1921, iu^ FF

10.

11

T2T

13

14

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

15?B

Clippings ana notes for Igissr

inventory rs 2. 3,..7,. . ,„ ,,,„,u=he Z^iMSiuUt

Offprint ana clippings . ^^ZT^^'":^'^'^^^^^^

CXLI 1930. pp 457-471. vory ^^^^

-oeutsches Papsttu^: in Jom J^i^^fygg^^^S^

m*.rlin' Verlag die Runde. 19Ji» ^

^--^3)' 7-24 (o.i.inaX inven.o. #12) ^^^^^^^^.^

inventory #13) . „T,^r-*.se

-Die Wiederkehr gelehrter Anachorese
Offprint and clipp.ngs. J- -^^^^^ 1937, 13pp. (or.g-al
im Mittelalter . srui:x;y
inventory « 10) . ^__ ^__^ ^ ^

■The Este Portrait by f„fJ,:::/!^",?,3,-1940, 165-lSO
(original Inventory # ID • ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^

.;, „or™.n Finale of "« f-;«^,"t29-!43 (original Inventory

*'^'' ., „vi^,i Review il <15''2)

.p,,to m t.e Miaaie Mes; - ^.fetS^t^rtil^ ^-'"'°"

312-323. and reviews of other wor

* ^^* ,1 of the WarbursL §ii^ SSiiltland

"ivories and Lxtanxes 'J^^-J^^^^,,^ inventory # 14).
Tn«<-itates, V (1942). 3o ,1943),

r.n™a' " in Medievalia et mmanistxca. I (1943)
"Anonymi 'Aurea Gemma . m EL

.;.„ 'A-toblography o£_^.rao P.ba^^^ 1;^;^;;^ * 1^' •

itoalss.. 1 l""^'- .ration before

,. ... oiplo»atlc -r."in°LS^'JiS^'^^- '^ '""'■
Pope Nicholas III . ^^ 623—-

pope oj-^^'iv/- — — iL M\

424-47 (original inventory #17)-

r

ERNST H. KANT0R0WIC2
COLLECTION

-5-

AR 7216

BOX 3 (cont'd)

Polder 22.

23.

^ ^7 (original inve^^^^^#-Y^^^^^' ^^i- (Washington, 1944)7

inventory # 19). SJiiiStia SCVI (1944) 207-231, (original

24-6 "Laudes Regiae- A <?<-„/i, •

Ruler worship" 'in V^Sr^Tl^^fJ'''''''^'''-^^ -^ Medieval
gff2EZ,,iSDaiI, B^Ti^iliTlf-^^^Sa^j^pa Publications in
California Press. 1946. 292 1 L^^^^^' University of
the ^ PP- (original inventory # 20)

^/. Notes on Ghrastus -yinot^ To^^ ^

vincit Legend on CoinS --vr ^ ta i-

"® UC ^ LA (mventoy #21)
^w. Western Colleae Arq„ »^

overhead. (original* in vent'o'^J^JJ) '"' '^°''^"' °^ Administrative

29.

30.

"The Quinity of Winchester

Art Bulletin XXIX (1947) (or.inv.23

f^P

31

I

32

"Christus-Piscus" i« e,

(Heidelberg. 1948)' Lf-JS''?: ^^^^^^^e fuer Alfred Weber

" ^j:>. ( or ig. inventory 25).

y"la°TeorirPo?itica dlj^'pap^d: Jf^ ^"'?%^'"^^"<^'i"^« ^e 1493
original inventory #27 ^ Medieval (Mexico City. 1949) 7-11

P^-^itTo^'^Cau'fo^^nia"^^^^^^ -d Marginal Note, on the
Parker Printing Co.. 1950 "^40^0°"!?-^" Francisco:

-^^ pp. -long, inventory #28).
Box 4

Folder 1 "Pro ¥ •

* 29). '' ^/^ 492. ( original inventory

2. "Dante's 'Two Suns' " in <s^ •..•

^ SOiliam Paeeer (Univ^ffS^ ^.f^^"^^ ^^^^^ Presented

Semitic Philology, xi. I951)r 2°f7-l3i f°(o"rLr:;a'l''^''°"^^^^

-"•i. ^original inventory # 31)

3. "Der Gastfreund. '• in Albr*.^T,^- n

(Munich 1952), ^3-56 ^^^ffl^i ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ Gedaechtnis

voriginal inventory #33)^

^- "Kaiser Friedrich tt m«^ ^

i" ^Sria Vario^"estaabe% '"'^'^''^ ''^^ Hellenismus. «

Koem, 19^^7rii?:i^?^,fST ^^ S^ii^hardt (Muenste;-

"»-^J. (original inventory # 35).

-6-

ERNST H, KANTOROWICZ
COLLECTION

AR 7216

BOX 4 (cont'd)

■

Folder

5.

IP*
1^

fcS'

253-27 7,_(cJiln^l^^f^

'• 65-75. " (oriJina^I^f^^ ^^^^^ ^ ^^^i^^'
'^* lorigmal inventory # 37)

LVII _ (1953),

8

and Spanish T^^i^n^i^SrSSJ^ ^^^^^' "''""- '>«=). 65-91,
(original lnventorlem9^0)° ^ •' '^ «959), 37-70,

10. Late Classical and Medieval c<-„-^-

Friend. Jr.; ed. Kur^ weltzJ n !^ !" "°"°^ °^ ^^^«^t Mathias
university Press, 1955 and "tL'p ^^'^^^--^ton: Princeton

Of San Paola fuo;i le mura - Inj^tn':'"''"' ""^"^ ^" ^'^^ ^^^^^
^^ii^ies, 287-300. (orLrnal' in^^ J^^ ^^'^^^^^^ ^^ ^J^diaeval

vuriginai inventories # 42, 43).

il. "The Baptism of the Apostle<? " ,•« o t.

a«6,, 204-251, (crC%"";ve;2o?frflf ^ «^^- ^^

inventory # 46). "^''"™"=°"- 1956), 151-166, (original "

"■ Sl'a95'r"l?5"1^''!:.?"n.^''""r'" '" fi^-i^^ i^dli^.

-t-»w. ^original inventory # 47)\

"• in"LSsr'^^:i''57r i;r-Lr^ °^ ^"'- - «"-■

o/y. ^31-249. (original inventory # 48) .

15. "On Transformations of Apolline Pt-hi^^ « •

^ Altertnn,.^. o.^„-^., rf°'^^"f n^ M ' '" Sharitesi studien

=/;. ^65-274. (original inventory # 49) .

16. "The King's TWO Bodies: A study in Medieval Pol^^- , .

Princeton University Press 1957 ^TfT \ Political Theology."

i:y i-ress. 1957. 568 pp. (original inventory # 50)

-7-

Polder

ERNST H. KANT0R0WIC2
COLLECTION

AR 721

BOX 4 (cont'd)

17. "The Archer in the Ruthwell rr-„o-- •

57-59. (original # 5" " ' '" ^^ Bulletin . _XLi^ (196C

le

19

20

21

22.

23.

24.

"On the Golden Marriage Belt »nrt ^^. «

ton Oa.s collection. " in^L^ton Oa^^a^f "'v'^ °' ^^« ^^^^
2-16. (original inventory"# 53) ^^^ Pagers. ^CIV (1960).

' ^S^LSS SLS'^nd :he^1:„^\^^= --isprudence. - in
ed. M. Clagett. Gn5jt~TnTT ^"""'^^^^^".l of Modern Society
inventory #54). ' ^""^ ""' ««ynolds. 89-lII71^rZ^i;jIl '

"The Sovreigntv of th> a^^-.;^^ , ., .

—Renaissance Theories of Art - \n T^"*^^^ '^^'^^^'^ ^nd
ISsa^ in Honor of Erwin pIL^I^ 2£ A^Ubus Oesi^cuJ^ 2^:
279. (oriil^ ~ ^fgjy^^fl^' (New Yorkriiiir: J?7-

* 57). Ui*bj;. 118-135. (original inventory

alltu ulTy^ ' (:;rgina"wn;oic: rflff^ 2^ ^^^^' ^^

"Constantinus Strator- Ma^,,,- i-

in Mullus^ Festschr.-^; ^f^,'"\l;^" ^"™ Constitutum Constantini. "

f-^^^^b^ch fuer Antike und chrLpT^^' ^^' '^^^^^"^ ««^"'ann
inventory # 59). Christentun,. 1954). 181-189. (original

I

^^m i^'o

1

hY n 9-r l/a lA \ro rO\kj( CL Cr\\ ec ^ c.

e<S9\/^ CM ^ s ^ '^v^^r^

u

f^-\AO'^]^iA. U I A

'-i^

.4WM

t. i , Giesey

t/.^i^^

N^ "^^^

Ernst Pi. Kantorowicz

O^ /^

The first issue of the journal Traditio to appear after
the death of Ernst H. Kantorowicz in September, I963, was
dedicated to him by a Latin inscription which can be translated
this way:

In memory of Ernst Kantorowicz, a man out of the
ordinary, who by his erudition and his humanity
enriched gloriously the art of history on both
sides of the ocean.
Cis oceanum et ultra; the German who became famous overnight
in 1927 for his biography of the thirteenth-century Emperor
Frederick the Second, the American who published most of his
works in English, the most memorable of them The King's
Two Bodies in 1957.

The two citizenships Kantorowicz lived was a c

ommon

phenomenon of his generation: a Jewish German forced into
exile by the Nazis. To be exiled from one's native land must
always be distressful, and particularly for those who, like
Kantorowicz. produce notable documents extolling their national
culture and are then themselves proclaimed to be alien to it.
The scholarly merit of Kantorowicz 's biography of Frederick II
stands apart from and above its nationalistic strain, but its
Idealization of the heroic leader was mocked by the advent of
Nazism ^jid its perversion of patriotic sentiment and the
principles of rulership. In Kantorowicz 's later work, we find

3

individuals writ small and emphasis given instead to the
traits and ideals of rulership which have prevailed over the
centuries for better or for worse. The King:'s Two Bodies is a
monument to the essential tension that exists between ruler
and rulership.

The recollection and reputation of Kantorowicz survives
today in somewhat different ways in Germany and in the
English-speaking world. Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite is still
in print, but its scholarly apparatus, the footnotes and
excurses, exists in a separate second volume which most
Germans do not know; for most, therefore, Kantorowicz appears
as a learned popularizer. The American audience of
Kantorowicz has been more limited and self-selected. Medieval
German emperors have no great following here, regardless of
how romantic and stirring the biographies of them, and the
rest of Kantorowicz *s work was written precisely for scholars.
That work does retain currency, however: both books written
in English, the Laudes Regiae (19^6) and the King's Two Bodies
(1957) are still in print, as is a posthumously printed col-
lection of twenty-five of his articles, entitled Selected
Studies. ^

Kantorowicz 's reputation derives on one hand from his
precision as an intellectual historian, equally an art and a
craft, and from the wide range of subjects he covered with a
great variety of techniques. He moved easily from antiquity
to early modern Europe, and was adroit in handling such

- '■• Mhmiinri I - mn rr "

auxiliaries and sister disciplines as art and liturgy,

num

israatics, ceremonial and legal fictions. He would have

accepted being called an archaeologist of intellectual
history, a gatherer of the verbal and visual shards of ideas
with which to reconstruct the characteristics and convictions
of a society. If rulership was most often his theme, this
involved besides kings ruling subjects politically individuals
ruling themselves intellectually and morally.

Frederick II first aroused the interest of Kantorowicz
not from the usual traversing of medieval history that one
would expect, but from the circuitous route of Islamic studies.
Kantorowicz 's interest in Islam began during the two years of
World War I service he spent in Turkey. After the war he took
up the study of history and political economy at Heidelberg,
and in 1921 wrote his thesis on "Islamic Corporations." One
seminar taken in these years was devoted to the influence of
Islam upon other cultures, and Kantorowicz chose to study
Sicily, where Frederick II was king by maternal inheritance
before succeeding his father as Holy Roman Emperor.

Kantorowicz drifted away from Islamic studies after
finishing his thesis, however, and for a while considered
ancient history; in the GAonnasium he had been well trained in
Latin and Greek. The seminar paper he wrote for the ancient
historian Alfred Domaszewski, entitled "The Godly Attributes

'

;

of Alexander," fits in with the theme of god-king mimesis so
prominent in his later work, but he seems not to have been
interested in the ancient world all by itself. Instead, his
teacher said, "he pursues any and every subject which links
the East with the West."^ East and West correspond here for
the most part with Ancient and Medieval, and if to these
geographical and temporal dualities were added the topical one
of God and King then the major part of Jiis life's work would
be embraced.

The serious commitment to Frederick II concurred with the
close friendship Kantorowicz developed with Stefan George in
the early 1920s. As Maurice Bowra has written about those
days in Kantorowicz 's life, George "provided the attachment
which Ernst needed, . . . built up his confidence, excited his
imagination, and made him work." There is no doubt, too,
that the young scholar characterized the Staufen Emperor in
terms congenial with the mature poefs vision of the heroic
personality in history, for George was in this respect avowedly
a follower of Nietzsche. Frederick II stands forth in
Kantorowicz 's work not as a Teutonic hero, but as a Roman
Emperor. The German world was made more civilized by the
infusion of Mediterranean culture through Frederick II, who
was born, raised and lived most of his life in Italy.
Kantorowicz presented the character of Frederick II not in
Wagnerian but in Dantesque terms. He always regarded Frederick
as a true progenitor of the Renaissance.*^

• •

Firsthand reminiscences of Kantorowicz 's relations with

George have been recorded by members of the "George circle.

II

'

Although Kantorowicz was at most only on the periphery of the
Georg:ekreis during the poet's lifetime and rejected the very
idea of the circle later on, his biography of Frederick II is
one of the scholarly masterworks that appeared in Blatter fur
die Kunst. Since this series of the Bondi publishing firm v/as
devoted to the works of George and his followers, Kantorowicz
was attached to a man and a movement that have a special place
in early twentieth-century German culture.

The success with the general public of the Frederick II
derives from its romantic and nationalistic character. Younger
scholars also felt it was a breath of fresh air in the heavily
positivistic atmosphere of German historiography. But the
intellectual biography of a great national leader--here the
veritable Caesar of the high middle ages--had to provoke
controversy. The absence of footnotes limited the work's
scholarly value: those hospitable to the thesis could not
readily verify its sources, those hostile to it could allege
the defeat of the evidence by the author's imagination
creatrice. That gallic quip came from the distinguished
medievalist Albert Brackmann. who in May 1929 delivered an
address before the Prussian Academy of Sciences, which was
immediately printed in Historisches Zeitschrift. warning the
scholarly world against the danger of this kind of history
emanating from the "George-School."^ Kantorowicz replied in

the pages of the same journal, defending the "Mythical View"
smartly as a thirteenth-century creation which he only sought
to recapture, and for which a creative imagination was surely
less to be feared than the rgalisme destructeur of the devotees
of "pure fact."-^^

Kantorowicz's full reply to the criticism of having
written according to an idSe fixe was to spend two years com-
posing a whole separate book of learned references to the
biography, a volume of footnotes annotating every page of the
text and adding ten learned excurses. This £r gan z ungs band
(1931) may not have changed the minds of his ideological
opponents, but it did provide his sympathizers with a full
critical apparatus with which to assess his style of intellec-
tual history. He resolved never again to publish a serious
work without an apparatus criticus.

The biography of Frederick II brought Kantorowicz a
position at the young University of Frankfort, first as
Honorary Professor in 1930 and two years later as Ordinarius
with the chair of medieval and modern history. His tenure
was short. In April, 1933. he put himself on leave in protest
against antisemitic regulations that were imposed in the wake
of the Naxis • advent to power and in 1934 he lost his chair

and was forced to retire and become professor emeritus.
The five years between leaving the University and

12

leaving the German nation had to have been distressful for
Kantorowicz. Not only was the dignity of his ethnic origin

i

1;

I

offended, but also his sense of national pride was humiliated.
Much of these years was spent outside the country. In England,
he wrote the first of his articles on the legal-intellectual
relations between Norman Sicily and Norman England. In Belgium
and France he did considerable work on the Burgundian Duke
Charles the Bold. But most of the time was spent in Berlin,
working on what might be called "early medieval political
liturgy." A complete manuscript was ready for publication by
1938, but new laws against Jews' publishing thwarted that."^^
The work did not appear until 19^6, after having been rendered
in English by the author under, the title Laudes Re^iae: A
Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship.

The Laudes ' preface propounds some basic principles of
the history of western civilization which shaped most of
Kantorowicz 's work. First of all, in terms of the work at
hand involving the use of liturgical elements, he observed
that before the twentieth century the professional medievalist
rarely ventured to lose himself in "the magic thicket of
prayers, benedictions and ecclesiastical rites."

In this respect the ancient historian differed profoundly
from the mediaevalist. Not even in our age of habitual
superspecialization would a scholar in classics venture
to study, or pretend to understand, the political and
cultural history of antiquity without an intimate knowledge
of the cults and religious customs of Greece, Rome, and the
Near East. In the ancient world there was no split between
the holy and the profane. The ancient historian, therefore,

8

i

had the great advantage of being himself the "theologian
and the "church historian" of his period."^

•I

If eiafiMEaB 1>ba?tr religious prejudice is obviously to blame for
breeding the "dualism of Holy and profane" with which medieval
studies was afflicted, it is less appreciated how this
dualism has saddled us with an awkward legacy of professional
periodization. In most countries "Medieval and modern history'
have been bound together, but not "ancient and medieval," so
that

the ideological approach to the Middle Ages /has been/
much too often determined .by problems suggested in view
of modern history, and modern problems are far remote
from cults of the gods, religious rites, and liturgical
functions. ^

Recent historians of late antiquity have established the links
between near eastern religious ideas and early Christianity
and revealed the influence of the cult of the emperors upon
the image of Christ, but the consequences of this for early
medieval history has been shunned by the medievalists. If, as
Kantorowicz maintained, western religious sentiment up to
about 1200 A.D., was much more closely related to the cults
of late antiquity than it was to any modern ecclesiastical
institutions, then a major transformation of western civiliza-
tion must have taken place during the twelfth century.

Seen in these terms, the Laudes Regiae forms a companion
volume with the King's Two Bodies, the Laudes dealing with the

I

early Middle Ages, when the ideal of priest-king was strong
and the cult of the ruler embedded in liturgical chants that
look back to antiquity, the King's Two Bodies dealing with the
high and later Middle Ages, when the ideal of king as judge
and lawgiver carae to prevail and theology was the handmaiden
of politics in defining the office of the ruler in the evolu-
tion of the modern state. Maitland. whom Kantorowicz greatly
admired, once said that modern political notions were often
forged in medieval legal smithies; Kantorowicz might have
added that the metal wrought in those legal smithies was often
mined from theology.

The King's Two Bodies starts with Christ-centered kingship
(chiefly the eleventh century), and moves through law-centered
kingship (where Frederick II appears in different guise than
thirty years earlier) and polity-centered kingship (where the
metaphor of the mystical body of the church becomes the
mystical body of the state) to how notions of continuity and
corporations affected kingship ("the king never dies"). The
lawyers of Tudor England who developed the fiction of the
"king's two bodies"--the body natural which is mortal and the
body politic which never dies-~had no idea of the deeper
origins of this concept and, indeed, might have been quite
disturbed to know how much it owed to romano-canonical jurists
and Catholic theologians. The intellectual historian who uncovers
this process, allowing us to see what a past generation did not know
about its own beliefs, also provides us with some better chance of

i

10

probing our ovm subliminal prejudices. For, aside from the
aesthetic satisfaction of showing the true contours of ideas
that defined some bygone paradigm, such feats of intellectual
history prod us to wonder what vital (or moribund) notions
may be behind our own set of beliefs. The Kin^*s Two Bodies
does not go beyond the seventeenth century, but it provokes
reflection in myriad ways about rulership in the twentieth.
Concommitantly with his main work on medieval kingship
Kantorowicz composed many short studies which have no explicit
connection with rulership. He referred to them already in the
late 1930s as "Studies in Mediaeval Learning and Education."
They included such topics as "Bolognese Rhetors and Writers

of the 12th and 13th Centuries," "The Reappearance of the
Secluded Scholarly Life" and "Nobility Achieved by Education.
Ten published articles recount what the life of learning in
mediaeval time meant for Kantorowicz, and during two crises
in his life he sacrificed his own professional position to
defend the dignity of the scholarly profession.

The first instance, in Frankfort in 1933-^i stemmed from
an offensive against his ethnic origin, the second, in
Berkeley in 19^9-5if from an effort to supervise his profes-
sional conscience. Impassioned personal declajnations by
Kantorowicz go with these events and ask to be quoted in
extenso. The first is a letter addressed to the Minister of
Education on 20 April 1933 » the day after the trustees of the
University of Frankfort issued an order that would require

..16

11

Jews who conducted seminars to enforce antisemitic actions. ^
Even though I, who volunteered for war service in August
1914, fought at the front during the war and after the
war against the Poles, the Spartacists and the Republic
of Councils in Fosen, Berlin and Munich, do not expect
an exemption from service because of my Jewish ancestry?
even though I, because of my publications about the
Stauffen emperor F.rederick II, do not need any credentials
from yesteryear or today about my sentiments toward a
national reoriented Germany; even though my fundamentally
positive disposition toward a nationally governed Reich
lies beyond the currents of time and daily events and has

not even wavered in the light of the most recent

most
occurrences; and even though I certainly need not expect

any disruption of my teaching from my students and need
not think that the teaching activities of the university
will be disturbed on my account; still I see myself
forced, as a Jew, to draw the consequences of what has
happened and to set aside my professional duties in the
coming summer semester. For as long as each German Jew--
as now in this period of upheaval--can immediately be
considered as almost a traitor to his country because of
his origin; as long as every Jew as such is deemed
inferior in racial terms; as long as having any Jewish
blood implies at the same time a defect in one's con-
victions; as long as every German Jew sees himself laid

12

open to daily insults to his honor without the chance of jn-
3'3tinr, on personal or legal satisfaction; as long as his
academic citizenship as student is denied him and he is

allowed to use German only as a "foreign" language, as the procla

allo^^ed
mations / to be posted in the university itself by the

Deutsche Studentenschaf t demand; as long as official
orders require Jews, as seminar leaders, to participate
actively in activities hostile to Jews (circular letter
of the Trustees. April 19, 1933» Nr. 1049. Fupgi.l); and
as long as every Jew, precisely when he advocates a
national Germany unfailingly falls under suspicion that
his declaration is grounded in fear, in search of per-
sonal advantage, of sinecures and of economic security;
so long will every German and truly patriotic Jew, who
wishes to escape such suspicion have to hide his
patriotism shamefully instead of proclaiming it
unembarrassedly ; as long as these things are true, so
long does it seem to me incompatible with the dignity of
a university professor to continue his duties responsibly,
basing them only on unutterable truths and, to the shame
of his students, to /resume* his teaching duties pretending
nothing has happened.

When the University of Frankfort planned the celebration
of its fiftieth anniversary in 1964, Kantorowicz was chosen
as one of two former professors to be feted. He might have
returned for the occasion, but he died some months before it

■A'Si

13

took place. The festivities thus became a memorial. The
element of atonement was plainly, though dignifiedly, given
in the Rector's opening remarks, and the address given by his
later-day successor in the chair of medieval history, Josef
Fleckensteim, is the fullest appreciation of Kantorowicz 's

work that has appeared.

18

■I

:!

The second great crisis of Kantorowicz 's professional
life came after he had been at the University of California
for ten years--certainly one of the happiest decades of his
life. The Regents of the university, caught up in the anti-
communist hysteria of the cold war years, added to the
traditional oaths of allegiance to the federal and state
constitutions (required of all state employees) a disclaimer
required only of faculty members that he or she had never been
a member of any subversive group. On 1^ June 19^9 • within days
of the announcement of the new form of the oath, Kantorowicz
read a statement on the floor of the Academic Senate in which

he warned about oaths in history. Citing specifically those

IQ

of Mussolini in 1931 and Hitler in 1933» he declared: ^

It is a typical expedient of demagogues to bring the
most loyal citizens, and only the loyal ones, into a
conflict of conscience by branding non-conformists as
un-Athenian, un-English, or un-German. . . . The true
and fundamental issue at stake /Is/ professional and
human dignity. There are three professions which are
entitled to wear a gown: the judge, the priest, the
scholar. This garment stands for its bearer's maturity

>■:

Ik

I

I

of mind, his independence of judgment, and his direct
responsibility to his conscience and his God. It
signifies the inner sovereignty of those three inter-
related professions: they should be the very last to
allow themselves to act under duress and yield to
pressure.

At the height of the controversy a year later, Kantorowicz
published a pamphlet whose title, The Fundamental Issue, was
drawn from his Senate speech the year before. By then the
conflict had been redefined in the eyes of majiy, so that
disclaiming membership in the Communist party, which the
Regents' oath pretended to enforce, was less important than
whether the Regents had the power to require any oath other
than the traditional one. An additional oath might be legal
if the professors were to be regarded as employees of the
Regents, but if they were regarded as officers of public trust,
like the Regents themselves, then the Regents had no power to

impose special oaths upon them.

20

In the interim, one regent

.

had likened professors to janitors and gardeners as employees
of the regents. That posed the question of unionization:
why had professors, or for that matter judges or ministers,
not founded unions?

Why is it so absurd to visualize the Supreme court
justices picketing their court, bishops picketing their
churches, and professors picketing their university?
The answer is very simple: because the judges are the

15

Court, the ministers together with the faithful are the
Church, and the professors together with the students
are the University. . . . According to the oldest
definitions, which run back to the thirteenth century,
"The University" is the universitas mar-istroruri et
scholarium, »*The Body Corporate of ::asters and Students."
Teachers and students together are the University
regardless of the existence of gardens and building, or
care-takers of gardens and buildings. One can envisage
a university without a single gardener cr janitor, with-
out a single secretary, and even--a bewitching rr.irage--
without a single Regent. The constant and essence of a
university is always the body of teachers and students. ^^
These sentiments look backwards to older times, such as
the statement of Theodor Momm^sen a century earlier that

"it is far easier to dethrone a Cabinet Minister than it is
to dismiss a full professor."^ Lest one think that
Kantorowicz was moved solely by this notion, which can easily
seem, tinged with superciliousness in today's more egalitarian
milieu, let it be added that he also proposed at one juncture
that the faculty bind itself to quit its duties if the regents
did not withdraw the oath at a forthcoming meeting and, even
more, to resign as a body if the Regents dared to dismiss any
of the teaching staff, including Teaching Assistants^ for the
sole reason of not signing the oath.^^

16

Kantcrowicz fought the oath successfully in the courts
along with eighteen ethers fired as non-signers in 1951.
The California Regents' atonement therefore took the forn: of
a court order to indemnify the dismissed faculty and offer
them reinstatement. Kantorowicz had in the meantime, however,
accepted a professorship at the Institute for Advanced Study
and spent tne last twelve years of his life in Princeton.

The Kind's ?wr Bodies, published in 1957. is the crowning
publication of this period, but well before it appeared
Kantorowicz was occupied with yet another field of medieval
rulership: Byzantium. His relationship with the Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library began in Berkeley days, aind it grew
closer due to more frequent visits when he moved to Princeton.
He always participated in the arjiual symposium on Byzantine
studies, and his last large scholarly project was to have been
a series of six studies to appear in Dumbarton Zaks Jaiers.
One of them, was completely finished and published posthumously;
a long essay entitled "Oriens Augusti--Lever du Roi" which

follows the image of the king as the rising sun in Hellenistic

23

times, in Byzantium, and in Bourbon France. ^ Besides ful-
filling the East-West connection predicted by his early
teacher--whc also guessed that Byzantium might become his
special subject--it is clear that the full history of the
transmission of late antique ruler cults into Christianity
and thence into the medieval world required that there be added
to Frederick II, the Laudes Reriae, and the Kinp-'s Two Bodies,

17

what happened in the Greek Christian err;pire centered in
Constantinople during the thousand years before it fell.
The five unpublished Byzantine studies, all of them in at
least lecture form, constitute the most important part of
Kantorowicz 's scholarly Nachlass .

Those who have already written about Kantorowicz have

taken special care to describe his lively personality, his

conviviality and hostship, his talents as a chef, his love

25

of fine wines.

Conversations with "£ka"--his nickname,

derived from his initials E.K. pronounced in German--were
unusually well-remembered events, whether they were witty
or serious, and usually they were both. Nor can those who were
near him in the last year of his life forget his fortitude,
almost nonchalance, when he knew he was going to die.

All these things can be summed up in the term humanitas.
That theme permeated the lecture courses he gave. It is found
recurrently in his works, consummately in the concluding
chapter of the Kinr's Two Bodies entitled "Man-Centered
Kingship: Dante." Some critics have frowned on that chapter
as being an inappropriate coda for the topic of the king's
two bodies, but it does provide to my mind a perfect coda for
the life and aspirations of Ernst Kantorowicz.

The heart of the matter is found towards the end of the
Purgatorio, when Dante is bid adieu by his guide Vergil.

;

18

Vergil says: "Free, upright and whole is they will, and
twere a fault not to act according to its prompting; wherefore
I do crown and mitre thee over thyself.

Te sopra te corono e mitrio
Herewith the emperor's crown symbolizing temporal and
intellectual values is joined with the pope's mitre symbolizing
spiritual values, and both are invested in Dante as an
individual. It is the very declaration of the sovereignty
of the individual. If the jurists had artfully brought forth
the tension between the king's natural body and his body
politic, "it remained to the poet to visualize the very tension
of the Two Bodies in man himself, to make humanitas the
sovereign of homo. " The idealized Dignity of all mankind
is the office which every mortal human must try to fulfill.
Kantorowicz learned it through living and studying, and gave
it back in his writing, his teaching, and his human relations.
That is what Erwin Fanofsky meant when he composed this
inscription as the frontispiece for the posthumous printing of
his friend's Selected Studies;

D. M.
ERNESTI H. KANTOROVaCZ

MGISTRORUr*: IVAGI3TRI
DISCIPULORM DISCIIULI
AMICCRUM AMICI
VITAM AMVIT WORTEM NON TIIVnjIT

II

To the memory of iirnst K. Kantorowicz: a teacher's teacher,

a student's student, a friend's friend; he loved life, he
feared not death. "

Ralph E. Giesey
University of Iowa

19

Notes

Traditio XX (1964), 1: "In Memoriam Ernes ti Kantorowicz
Viri Eximii Qui Eruditione Pariter et Humanfijiate Cis Oceanum
et Ultra Artem Historicam Insigniter Auxit." The temporal
span of Kantorowicz *s life was from 3 ^:ay 1895 (Posen. Germany)
to 9 September I963 (Princeton, N.J., USA); he never married.

By the year 1939 Verlag Bondi in Munich had published
five editions, about 15»000 copies, of the text volume of
Friedrich der Zweite, according to a note in the Kantorowicz
archive (below, n. 24); volume two ( "Erganzunfjsband" ) was then
being sold separately. Kantorowicz allowed the work to be
reprinted in 1964 due to the persuasiveness of his friend
Helmut Kupper, by then proprietor of the Verlag Bondi, but
only on condition that the two volumes be sold together so
that the scholarship of the second would balance out the time-
tattered nationalism of the first; also, the "Secret Germany"
preface of volume one was eliminated--see Salin (as in n. 5,
below), 9-11. The Verlag Kupper (Helmut Kupper himself now
deceased) currently lists the two volumes for sale separately.
Neither the English translation by E. 0. Lorimer (London,
1931--available currently from Frederick Unger Publishing
Company, N.Y., N.Y.) nor the Italian one by Maria Offergeld
Merlo (Milan, 1939). include the Er^anzungsband.

19

Notes

Traditio XX (1964), 1: "in Memoriam Ernesti Kantorowicz
Viri Eximii Qui Eruditione Pariter et Humanf^ate Cis Oceanum
et Ultra Artem Historicam Insigniter Auxit." The temporal
span of Kantorowicz 's life was from 3 May I895 (Posen, Germany)
to 9 September I963 (Princeton, N.J. , USA)j he never married.

By the year 1939 Verlag Bondi in Munich had published
five editions, about 15,000 copies, of the text volume of
Friedrich der Zweite. according to a note in the Kantorowicz
archive (below, n. 24); volume two ( "Erganzungsband") was then
being sold separately. Kantorowicz agreed only begrudgingly
to the photomechanical reprinting of the rork in I963, insisting
that both volumes and not jut the text be available and that
the "Secret Germany" preface of the text volume be eliminated'
(on this, see below, n. 8). Griinewald (below, n. 4), pp. I58-67
relates the negotiations leading up to the I963 edition. The '
Erf^Snzunf^sband is not included with the English translation
by E.O.Lorimer (Frederick the Second. llQ/,-12S0 /London, 193l7,

republished in 1957 and currently available from Frederick Unger
Publishing Company, New York, N.Y.) nor the Italian ones by
Maria Of fergeld-Merlo (Federico II di Svevia /Milan, 193^^ and
by Gianni Pilone Colombo (Federico II. Imperatore /Tlilan,

1976^, although the latter does append some elements drawn from
it.

20

J

The Laudes Rep^.iae went through two editions at the

University of California Press (19^7f 1958) and is now
available from Kraus Reprint Corporation, Millwood, N.Y.
The King's Two Bodies also has had two editions (1957» 1966)
at Princeton University Press^ "^.e second of them, which has
minor corrigenda, is now printed by that press in pace with

ijf^

;he demandj^ An Italian translation now seems imminent.
elected Studies (J. J. Augustin, Locust Valley, N.Y., 1965)

^^|. y is still available from the publisher.

\

v!

This happenstance was once related to me by Kantorowicz,
but it should be said that in later years he seldom spoke
about his earlier life and usually just for whimsical reasons.
Since I sira concerned here only with Kantorowicz 's intellectual
career, I refer the reader for fuller biographical sketches
to the essays by Malkiel and Salin (below, nos. 5» 8); for
extensive appreciation of his writings to the articles by
Fleckenstein and Baethgen (n. 18); and for a sensitive por-
trayal of his personality to the r^Iemories cf Sir Maurice
Bowra (n. 6).

^Edgar Salin, "Zum k, Dezember 1963'*, 2-3. This privately
printed little piece apparently takes its title from the
thirtieth anniversary of the death of Stefan George, but is
actually a memorial to Kantorowicz.

20

The Laudes Regiae went through two editions at the
University of California Press (194?, I958) and is now
available from Kraus Reprint Corporation, Millwood, N.Y.
'^^^ Kinig's Two Bodies also has had two editions (1957, I966)

at Princeton University Press, and a paperback edi^tion has
been available since late I98I. An Italian translation is
immanent. Selected Studies by Ernst H. Kantorowicz (J. J.
Augustin: Locust Valley, N.Y., 1965) is still available from
the publisher.

This happenstance was once related to me by Kantorowicz,
but it should be said that in later years he seldom spoke
about his earlier life and usually just for whimsical reasons.

l(antorowicz.s career in Germany has recently been documented

extensively by Eckhart Griinewald, Ernst Kantorowicz und .c;tpf..

GeorA-e; Ren tra^e zur Riopraphie des Hi.tnrikers hi. ..... .....

1?^8 und zu seinem Ju^endvverk "KaJser Frledrlch Hp'r ZwelteT..

(Steiner Verlag: Wiesbaden, 1982), a conscientious work that
goes far beyond the sources used by me 4.n this paper
(as below, nos. 5, 6, 8, 18) without, however, superseding them

as intellectual history. Thirty letters written by Kantorowicz

Archzv, Stuttgart) are used^to elucidate the relationship between
the old poet and the young scholar in great detail, but they do
not alter the conception of the subject long since established
by those who knew it at first hand. My failure to provide Mr.
Grunewald with the Kantorowicz papers I possessed (o£. cit.,
1, n.2; the papers now in the Leo Baeck Institute in New York
city-see below, n. 2Z,) was more by inadvertence than design.

but makes little differenrp. Qo-iro -r^-^

uxt. uxiierence. save for a couple of unpublished

lectures from Kantorowicz ' s Frankfort days that would have
supplemented Grunewald »s account, the bulk of those papers
belong to Kantorowicz »s later life.

1

21

C. M. Bowra, Memories. 1898-1919 (London, I966). 289.
Some of George's reminiscences of Kantorowicz are gathered
in L. Helbing and Glaus Victor Bock, eds., Stefan GeorjcrA.
Dokumente seiner Wirkun^ (Publications of the Institute of
Germanic Studies, University of London, vol. 18: Amsterdam,
197^), l'4.6-8, but the fullest account of the George-
Kantorowicz relationship is given in the essays of Salin and
Malkiel cited below in note 8.

David Abulafia, "Kantorowicz and Frederick II",
HistOTiT. LXII (1977). 193-210, provides a full exposition of
the work and an appreciation of its enduring influence in the
scholarly world fifty years after its publication; see pp.
193-5 for the close relationship between some George poems
and themes in Kantorowicz 's book.

[

Kantorowicz as a Georgean is the main theme of the two
pieces by Edgar Salin (himself a member of the Georgekreis) .
especially the essay mentioned above in note 6. and also in
Historisches Zeitschrift. GIG (1964). 551-55?. The two long
biographical sketches of Kantorowicz written by Yakov Malkiel
were inspired largely by his interest in George and the
Georgekreis: in Romance Fhilolofry. xvill (1964), I-I5, and
in Arthur R. Evans, Jr.. ed. On Four Modern Humanists
(Princeton. 1970). 146-219. Peter Gay. Weimar Culture
(New York. I968) devotes some pages to Kantorowicz in a

21

^Edgar Salin, "Zum k. Dezember 1963", 2-3- This privately
printed little piece apparently takes its title from the
thirtieth anniversary of the death of Stefan George, but is

actually a memorial to Kantorowicz. See also Salinas piece
in Historische Zeitscrift, 199 (196/f), 551-57,

C. M. Bowra. Memories, 1898-1939 (London, 1966), 289.
Some of George's reminiscences of Kantorowicz are gathered
in L. Helbing and Glaus Victor Bock, eds., Stefan George,
Dokumente seiner VJirkung (Publications of the Institute of
Germanic Studies, University of London, vol. 18: Amsterdam,
197^) • 1^6-8, but the fullest account of the George-
Kantorowicz relationship is given in the essays of Salin and
Malkiel cited below in note 8.

'^David Abulafia, "Kantorowicz and Frederick II",
History, LXII (1977). 193-210, provides a full exposition of
the work and an appreciation of its enduring influence in the
scholarly world fifty years after its publication; see pp.
193-5 ^or the close relationship between some George poems
and themes in Kantorowicz 's book.

Q

The extensive quotations from Kantorovvicz-to-Geforge letters
by Grunewald (above, n.4) provide private insights into that
relationship, abetting v;hat Salin, himself a member of the
Geor^ekreis, has written about the subject (above, n. 5)* Peter
Gay devotes some pages to Kanto^o\^dcz in a chapter on George
entitled "The Secret Germany" (V/eimar Culture /Nev/ York, 19687,
Z4-6-51)f hut see Grvinev/ald's excursus on "Das ' Geheime Deutsch-
land'," (o£. cit. , 74-80; also passim) for a more precise account.
A lecture written (but probably never delivered) by Kantorowicz

22

■

■

chapter on George entitled "The Secret Germany"; details on
the origin and manifestations of the cryptic idea of Das
^eheime Deutschland are given by Edgar oalin, Urn Stefan George
(Munich, 195^/19^87). 324, n. 123J Ae^ JU^ ix^ u^^<^iM.^^cJie^

9..

Kaiser Friedrich II. in 'Mythischer Schau*," Historisches

Zeitschrift CXL (1929). 53^-59. esp. 548.

10...

Mythenschau* : eine Erwiderung von Ernst Kantorowicz, "

Historisches Zeitschrift. CXLI (1930), 457-71, esp. 471.
Brackmann, an editor of the journal, got in the last word by a
seven-page rebuttal directly following Kantorowicz 's article,
able now to document his ad hominem arguments about Kantorwicz
with reference to Friedrich VJolter's new "official" biography
of Stefan George. The entire Kantorowicz-Brackmann controversy
was reprinted in Gunther Wolf, ed.. Stupor iv^undi (Darmstadt,
1966), 5-48, and is artfully summarized in Abalufia,
"Kantorowicz and Frederick II", 20I-3.

And further, as he once related to me, always to have
footnotes and not endnotes.

12

See below, at note 17. for an elaboration of these

events.

22

in late 1934 reveals what he really felt about the subject; Leo

Baeck Institute Archive ^ Th^ ^^r^ ir.v.«. -u- -l. •

J* ine tv/o long biographical

sketches of Kantorowicz written by Yakov Malkiel were inspired
largely by his interest in George and the Geor^ekreis: in
Romance Philology, oVJII (196/+), I-I5, and in Arthur R. :.vans,
^^•5 ed., On Four Modern Humani stP, (Princeton, I970), l/f6-219.

9

"Kaiser Friedrich II. in 'Mythischer Schau\" Historisches

Zeitschrift CXL (1929), 53^-59. esp. 548.

" 'Mythenschau* I eine Erwiderung von Ernst Kantorowicz,"
Historisch^ Zeitschrift. CXLI (1930), 457-71, esp. ^71.
Brackmann, an editor of the journal, got in the last word by a
seven-page rebuttal directly following Kantorowicz 's article,
able now to document his ad hominem arguments about Kantorwicz

A

with reference to Friedrich Wolter's new "official" biography
of Stefan George. The entire Kantorowicz-Brackmann controversy
was reprinted in Gunther Wolf, ed., Stupor Mundi (Darmstadt,
1966), 5-48, and is artfully summarized in Abalufia,
"Kantorowicz and Frederick II", 20I-3.

And further, as he once related to me, always to have
footnotes and not endnotes.

12

See below, at note 17, for an elaboration of these

events.

23

13

A list of publications drawn up by Kantorowicz early

in 1939 (now in his archive--see below, n. 24) has this

entry: "1938: Laudes Regiae. Studien zu den liturgischen

Herrscher-Akklamationen des Mittelalters (planned as a private

print, but withdrawn by the publisher quite recently)."

Ik

Laudes Re^^iae. A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and

Mediaeval Ruler Worship (Berkeley and Los Angeles. 1958),

Vll.

15

Ibid.

16,

Mentioned in a "Curriculum Vitae" and notes of work in
progress, written in 1938. now in his archive (below, n. 24).

Dokumente zur Geschichte der Frankfurter Juden, 193?-
1345 (Frankfurt-am-Kain, I963), 99-100.

TO

Frankfurter Universitatsreden. Heft 34: Ernst Kantorowicz

zum

Gedachtnis (Frankf urt^am-Main, 1964), 11-2?. with the

rector's introduction on the preceding two pages. Also note-
worthy as an appreciation of Kantorowicz 's work is the article
by his friend Friedrich Baethgen in Deutsches Archiv fur
Srforschun^ des Mittelalters, XXI (1965). 1-14. H. M. Schaller's
bibliography appended to this article (pp. 14-1?) is not as
complete as the one published the same year in Kantorowicz 's
Selected Studies, xi-xiv.

4 '^ ^

2k

19

The version of this senate speech given by David p.

Gardner, The California Oath Controversy (Berkeley and Los

Angeles, 196?), 3^-36, documented as bein£:- the "Text on file

in the office of the Academic Senate, University of California.

Berkeley", omits the four sentences quoted by me here after

the word "un-German" ; my text is from Kantorowicz 's The

Fundamental Issue: Documents and Marginal Notes on the

University of California Loyalty Oath (San Francisco, 1950),
4-6.

20

Ibid. . 15-16.

21

Ibid., 33.

22

Gardner, California Oath Controversy. 120-21.

23

Dumbarton Oaks Papers. XVII (I963), II9-I77.

See Ibid. , 118, for a note on these five papers.
According to the terms of Kantorowicz 's testament, nothing
not already in press was to be published after his death and
his "letters and correspondence" were to be destroyed.
His "unnublished aT-ticles, not-es and lec^.u^e notebooks'*
ve-e bequefi^ei to Michf^el <-herniavsky qnd myself. A select
portion of them ha\ e been t^ -reserved, alon/^ ^'ith the author *s
copies of his published ^-orks (many of them heavily annota^ed)^

24

19

The version of this senate speech given by David p.

Gardner, The California Oath Controversy (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 196?) , 3^-36. documented as being the "Text on file
in the office of the Academic Senate, University of California,
Berkeley", omits the four sentences quoted by me here after
the word "un-German"; my text is from Kantorowicz 's The
Fundamental Issue: Documents and Marginal Notes on thP
University of California Lovaltv Oath (San Francisco, I950).
4-6.

20

Ibid. , 15-16.

21

Ibid. . 33.

22

Gardner, California Oath Controversy. 120-21.

23

Dumbarton Oaks Papers. XVII (I963), II9-I77.

24

See Ibid. , 118, for a note on these five papers.

According to the terms of Kantorowicz 's testament, nothing

not already in press was to be published after his death and

his "letters and correspondence" were to be destroyed.

II5s '^unpublished articles, notes and lecture notebooks"
v^ere bequea^^ed to Michael <^herniavsky and myself. A select
r)ortion of them have been t> re served, alon^^ ^^ith the au ^hor * s
copies of his published '^orks (many of them heavily annotated)

7

?y.

::>

and ha\e recently been donated to the Leo ^aeck Institute
in Kew Vork City. oorne personal memorabilia concerning
Kantoro-icz has also been r;iven to that Institute by
family heirs, especially documents and pam lets relating
to the California ^ath controversv.

25

To the writings by colleagues and friends already

mentioned there should be added an article of special charm
published by a former student, Grover Sales, Jr., "The
Scholar and the Loyalty Oath," The San Francisco Chronicle.
December 8, I963, pp. 27-30.

King's Two Bodies. 495.

26

Addendum

Kantorov/icz stoutly resisted efforts to honor him on his
sixtieth birthday, in 1955. He openly opposed a Festschrifts
although a couple of articles published in professional journals
about that time by his students were dedicated to him. A gron;ip
of friends did conceive, and almost have executed, an imposing
commemorative project, the medal pictured here, Kantorowicz

got wind of the scheme before it got to the stage of production
and insisted that it be stopped.

The reverse type v;as suggested by Erv/in Panofsky. It draws
upon an emblem of Andreas Alciati, "Vino prudentiam aup:eri". in
which Pallas Athena and Bacchus stand in friendly juxtapostion.
The accompanying verses that develop the theme include the words
lun^unter merito (."rightly are they joined") that provided the
legend for the medal, symbolizing two parts of Kantorowicz' s
personality: the scholar and the connoisseur of wine. His friends
will remember how, as host, he blended find talk with fine v;ine.

The medal v/as designed ty Waldemar Paemisch. It is not known

^7

what happened to his models, but these photos he made of them
show the piece at a late stage of design. The medal was to have
been struck at the French mint in Paris,

A small group of close friends did manage to give Kantorowicz
a personalized gift on his sixty- first birthday, the ex-libris

shown here. If the gift was a surprise, the device on it was
not. Sometime earlier, in a conversation about unusual coin
types, Kantorov/icz had mentioned an aureaus of Septimius Severus
which showed the head of Meduasa v/ith the legend Providentia.
Although his research had revealed that the numismatic history of
the coin was quite prosaid — a type that originally had the fully
armed figure of Minerva as Providence had degenerated into a type
shov/ing Just her shield and then to one showing Just the shield's
Gorgon's head — the metaphysical anomaly of Medusa as Providence
had irresistable appeal for his love of the ironical.

Anthony de Francisci created the ex-libris around a picture
of the coin taken from the catalogue of the Montage Collection
(Paris, April, 1896), PI. XVI, No. Zf85. The Meridan Gravure
Company gratuitously printed a host of examples of it on premium
quality stock.

Addendum

Kan'-orc^'icz s^oullv resisted efforts fo h

onor him

on his sixtieth : rthda

'- r^

, m ^'^^^p. he onenlv opposed

a Festschrift, althou^';h a couple of articles published
in professional journals abou^ that time by his student
were iedic^ted ^o him. A rrroup of friends did conceive

and almost have executed

, an iTiPosine comnemora'f-ive nro^'ect

o

to

T

the

ne

draws upon an emblem of Andre^^s Alciati

M

It

mc pruden*: iam

aufceri

M

, m viaici

T3q1

^11

juxtaposition

as^
^ne accompanying verses th^t develop the

11 Sacchus stand in friendlv

■-heme include the i-c rds

unf^untur merito, " light Iv a^e thev

joined", "hat nrovided the le -end for the medal. In formal
terms ^ the medal sho^-^s two parts oT the man, "he scr.olar and
^he cqhoisseur of wine; his friends ^-dll remem r^r how .»^^

V-

blended

:he

fine tc>lk

i^^(

^

:C^

^^

line wine

medal was designed bv Waldemar Raemisch

t is not

know what ha pendd to his models, but thes

y^

e

hotc*s he made

of tr.em show the piece at a la"e stage cf design. -^h

e medal

was to have been struck at the r^

rench mint in Paris

A small group of close friends did manage to give Kanto-

ro^icz afrersonalized gift on his sixt^-first birthdav: th

/V

e

ex-libris

s show here

1

f ^he gift

^as a surprise, the device

on it

-as not. Sometime earlier, in a conversation abou^ ex^ra-

ordinarv coin t -pes, he had mentioned an aureus of Septimi
Severus ^'tiich showed the nead of I

us

ieiusa with the legend Provi-

denti^a. Although his research had revealed that the
history of the coin -^as quite prosaic--a t-pe that

numism^atic

originallv

had the .""ullv armed fi<zur

gure Oi. ^^-iinerva as Providence had degenera-

ted into a t-'pe showing just her shield and th

en

o one shoeing

just the shield's Gorgon»s head-.the metaphysical anomaly of

■»^'i n

n ^ r*. "^ * "♦*» '♦'» ~ c ~ c

o 1

'"O"^ l.af. lO'*^

cf

cvef^

. - ■\,

^i T

^\^

n r *' c

*- r>'^

- e • -

"V -

!-on^^ 'U€

jn

•he Merid«^n "rfivn^^e

ri". ijn GUfi^it:v

! f

^

>

i.

L-'-^i

^ /.

r

i- \ ^ /'

^iSi

r ..iC-f Us^ "icnifir Cc<Vfr-^-'r^/^

^'■^^/

1

C^'

1 , I ■ ,

^

A :Bl

vita**

L^

:ST HARTWIG

■— ■~-- ' ■».. •> •«> «^i

f was bam in 1695

jeosan, capital than of a prussian prorlao*, wkcr* » fa-
^ * "^-L-i'-"*' factory, f evaded by his grandfathar in 1825

*^ «*_£»»•» at the Itoyal Aoffuste Victoria G

state<~8ahool, which I left

as^ia^f 1

aequdLnted with the world of trade, f

jolxiftd

1914 • After
In

ojxt in Aiigust 1914. I

and

in the battles

the

volunteered

1917, to

1916 • Then^ after w reoevczy

Verdun I

Septi

:>0l

where I
In 191S I took
iunlchf

in Tisr:
till

1918

Euasla

to

economi0» and history h.t the univer^itiea of

Then

them
to

He

Dr.phil,

Gothein

at lieidelbers, where I took

9 Creo^raplgr

lande
Arabic Philo

subieete

.tie Zi

Mber,

(

History of

, which I spent mostly at Eeidel«

^or

1927,

the

■1th the prt>bleBis of

'or the followlos ;
^ f « I worked en abook

Cll$4-125C), which was i, ^ ,

editlozis (abeat 15.00© copies) and has
falgll^h (1931; the book ~
Middle Agee", published

S«r«^SZ.%£l . ^^ ^ CMstable a Co.I.td. In London). An
nan TwrsiM la* ;just now prepared by ftratelli lErevw at MUa!

been

five

of

2)

•fpWrtWBity a« well o£ lecturing as of tutoring soma advanoad

^^Sf^?*' ^,^^°.^^ lecturaa at St. John- « Collcga Oxford aadat
the Uadlaayal Sociaty, presided by Professor F.K.pSiricke. As I fcIS

J!<-i^^^ iff^ ^"'? **^f ierisam 3oard of iiMUwatioiwI «u touad %•

return to this oountiy in July I954., ^^ ^^ "•'■^ »•

had to\2?3fSd^b^^J^iiLj°ia5t2*^ ^* f^anfcfort. I
ad in Barli^, where I oontiS!ad*^oJk!'BSt'M^oSrnJ? exUST
^^""f^* iTt^J"^*^ ®? * »ubje«t concerning Garoan HistoryTl
r$*ff ^r ?°P^«* docuisents on the historj- of the Dukas of Burguaiy
of the Valois race. As I could travel in thoaa days. I aould SSt
use of the awshives and libraries at Bmasels, ^-ii, VwiJe. kS-
tua ana other places. But sinoe 1958 things altered: now I oin Nei-
ther travel aoroad nor car I use the archives of this eowkrr. Sa
for the MMnt, I have also put aside the work on the Dulces of B«<-
***°^ *^.^.-"? preparing a collection of a few publiahcd and of wo-
i!*?S^ J^**^ ^"^r" °" ^^^ history of Mdiaev^l knowledge and ete -
?»**?*»^^o^J^*^^^ »«»• «V the traces of the late Ch.H,Ha«kiM,
i..j.iactow and other Aa^rican scholars, who have been leadin<c in
this section of historical learnine. ^et, the slight chanoe of sub-
lishing books or pap«r8 in >iensan language has Tsalshed alaost mb-
? r^^' ;^°® Vienna, vdxarm I published a paper on "?etrus de Viasci
i^^gliind" as late as January 1938, becaae garmn bv the 'AasohSr
fortunately, therefore, I have no possibilities of wcrklag pro-^

— .-^'^ *°*^ taowledge of Englia* I aay aM, tl»t I had an •nglidi
ffZfP^ft '^r *^ 'i'^* twelve years of ny life and that I had as
dlffir^Tiity at uxford either in lecturing or in teaching. Ft r^t^-

i^iJ !!5^-."*"*?-S *^? harden of fiow College, ixof .F.il.Powicke
orr^ f^ ^^t^f oxford), i»of, 0:.S.R.Boa»e (Courtauld Institute,
^«°J^°^^S?r*» ^1.5.,i**Ai»tiii jjum f—lM (St.John's Collagi
Oxford) and Dr.C.E.Bowra (Wadlm Collegw Orfcrd).

Berlin, 2nii July, 1958.

'^« M. iCa.i.i>c^<~v«/%'

?•

Kr. Bernard Flexner
570 Lexington Avem
New York, N,Y.

New York, 15 February I939.
Hotel Parle «
West End Avenue/ 97th str.

/

/

Dear Mr. Flexner ^

referring to our conversation this moming I should like to
give you some itens as to my present situation.

In July 1938, being then in Berlin, I received a letter from
Dr.Demuth asking me whether I were prepared to apply for a pro-
fessorship in California, (cfr.enclosiire I) I answered in the
affirmative handing over to hia my curriculum vitae ( of r. enclo-
sure II) and applied immediately for a passport. After having re-
ceived invitations from Harvard, Yale and Smith College to read
a paper when coming to this country, I was granted finally, on
november 29th, 1938, a passport and a visitor* s visa to the U.S.
On December 6 I left for Oxford, where I was staying with the
Warden of Wadham College, going then to London, where I lect\ired
at the Courtauld Institute (University of London) in January 1938
Then I crossed to the U.S., arriving at New York ten days ago.

My intentions in this country are

a) to read the papers I was asked to read, that is to say, at
Harvard, Yale and Smith College as well as at Columia University,
New York. One or two other invitations are supposed to follow.

b) to wait and see, whether I should be elected by the Califor-
nia State University or not. By some odd chance I learnt from
Professor Byrne (Columbia University) that the prospects may
turn out not to be too bad, after all. He kad been eonsulted

on my person and my work by the Faculty some months age, and he
was kind enough to offer me his help for my coming in touch with
the University at Berkeley, suggesting an invitation so as to
give some lectures at that place.
e) to try and get s«m other appointment should I fail to get

ji

II

th U(,;,

/r

V-

hP

f^t-

<€'

^'L^^

Currlciilum vltae.

■ BSB^a:

I

^

I

It the undersigned ERIIST HARTWIG KAWTOHOifICZ, was born In
1895 f May 5th, at Posen, where my father owned a fectory, I
was educated at Posen at the Royal Au^uste Victoria Gymnasium,
a classical state-school, which I left in I913 after having
passed the final examination (Abiturium)^ As my father sugges-
ted to me to join him in his business , I went to Hambiirg in
order to become acqainted with the world of trade, finance and
economics • When war broke out I volunteered, joined the colors
and was sent to the front in j?rance in France in September
1914; July '16 I was v;ounded in the battle of Verdun; after ay
recovery I was sent to Russia and, in '17, to a German staff
in Turkey • In '18 I returned t* the French front where I re-
mained till war ended.

In I9I8 I be^an to study economics and history at the Uni
versities of Lerlin, «:.unich and heidelber^* Hy teachers at Ilei
delberg, where I took my D.Ph. ma^na cum laude in 1921, were
Alfred Weber, Eberhard Gothein, Karl Haaqpe. My special sub-
jects were Economics and History, Geography and Arabic jt^hilolo
SS* - For the following 6 years, which 1 spsnt at Ileidslberg,
I worked on a book on the Swabian Emperor •Frederick the Se-
cond" (1194-125C), which was published first in 1927, ran
through five editions (about 15.000 copies) and has since X^^^n
translated into English (1931; Constable & Co • Ltd •, London) . An
Italian version is just now prepared by Fratelli Treves at
Hilan,

After having published this book I spent some time at Horns
wtere I worked at the Vatican Archives and at the Istituto Sto
rico Prussians In 1931 I published the second volume of "Fre-
derick the Second", containing the authorities and several re-
searches on the subject mentioned above.

By this time, in 1930, I had received a call to the Univer
sity of Francfort (Main) as a professor by title (Honorarpro-
fiMsor), which I accepted* When the chair of Mediaeval History
fell vacant in 1932, I became a professor in ordinary at Frano
fort* The subjects of b^ lectures were: History of Hiwawlsa,
History of the Normans, History of Papacy and the political
history of various periods*

When the new regime came into power, In 1933, I applied for
leave and accepted an invitation of the viarden of Kew College
the Rt.Hon.H* A.L.FISHER, who asked me to stay at Oxford as an
Honorary Member of the Senior Common Room of 5ew College for
two terms. Living in College I was given the opportunity as
well of lecturing on the "Secularisation of the iiliddle Ages''
as of tutoring some advanced undergraduates. I also gave lec-
tures at St .John's College, Oxford, and at the Mediaeval Soci-
ety, presided over by Professor F.M.POWICKE. As I had no loi>-
ger leave from the German Board of Education, I was bound to
return to Germany in July 1934.

In november 1934 I definitely lost my chair at Francfortj
I had to retire guad became a professor emeritus. From then on
I stayed in Berlin, where I continued my researches on "Medi-
aeval knowledge and education". Most of these researches re-
mained unpublished owing to the fact that Jewish historiams
were not allowed to publish within Germany. I am now preparing
an English version of these studies, a volume of about 450 pa-
ges. Apart from that I began to collect the documents on the
History of the Dukes of Burgundy in the 14th and 15th century,
and made «se of the archives and libraries at Brussels, Paris,
Venice, Naples, Mantua and other Italian places, and I also
worked at the Record Office in London, the British libuMum and
the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

In 1938 I began ty prepare mj mmLgratlon because I could
no longer continue my work either abroad or within Germany. In
December 1938 I succeeded to get my passpart. I left immediate
ly for Oxford, where I stayed for two Months with the Warden
of ffadham College, Dr.C.M.Bowra. In January 1939 I lectured
at the University of London fiind then followed some invitations
to lectxire at rale. Harvard and Smith College. I arrived in
this coxmtry as a Temporary Visitor 1939fi?'ebruary 4th, gave
my lectures and had the opportunity, too, of lecturing twice
at Columbia University. As I am willing to stay in this count-
ry I am looking out for an appointment at a University in the
United States*

£.H.£antorowios.

Publications <»

1921: Das Wesen der nxuslimischen Ilandwerkerver banda •
Ihesie (imprinted), Heidelberg*

1927; Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite

Publisher: Georg Bondi, Berlin.

1929: "Mythensohau" .

Eistorische Zeitschrift 140 •

1931: Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite

Srg&nzungsband: Qci^llexmachweise und Ezkurse*
Publisher: Georg Bondi, Berlin.

1931: Frederick the Second (1194-1250).
Inglish Version by E.O.Lorimer.
Publisher: Constable & Co. Ltd., London.

1933: Deutschea Papsttum.
Private print.

1937: Die Wiederkehr gelehrter Anaohorese 1b Blttelalter.
Publisher: W.Kohlhaiamer, Stuttgart.
Rivate print.

1938: Petrus de Vinea in England.

Mitteilu2igen dee Ssterrelchischen Instituts
t\ir Geschichtsforschung 31.

1939: ••Laudss regiae*. Die liturgischen Herrscher-AkklaBft-*
tionen des Mittelalters.

(planned as a private print, but withdrawn by
the publisher quite recently)

In preparation:

Studies in the History of Mediaeval
Thought and Education.

lyxJjiuU

io i><

f "t r n ^

u W v<. 0*^

\

2.

tilt prof«ft8orshlp in Jallforula. In this oas« I would prefer t by
fn sore than anything elset to have the opportunity of Making
ready to go to press and translating Into English a voluise of
about 400 to 500 pages containing ay researches on the History of
HaAlaeval Thought and Education. This book wotUd contain several
studies I was not able to publish in Germany i for instance , on
the Bolognese Rhetors and mriters in the 12th and 15th Century
such as Guide Faba, Pierre della Vigne and others; on Ab<lard aat
ietraroai on the transformation of the Nature of Time in the IJth
Centuryi on the Five Scnsesj on the problem of the revival of
Stoicism in the 12tli and 13th Centuryj on the auestion of acqui-
ring Debility by Eduoationi on the Imperialism of Charles of An-
Jou| on the Italian Benaissanoe at the Court of Charles the Bold|
the edition of an unprinted work of an Oxford Humanist in the
early 15th centuryi and besides that several papers on liturgical
subjects. I would love to be in a position to make those papers
ready for the press and to publish them, as they represent a con-
siderable paart of my work during the last four years « I suppose
a years time would be sufficient, if I were at a place where a
food library was available. I believe my prospects pi getting a
professorship, they too, would improve, if this volume could be
published.

This is about all I have to tell you about the present state
of my affairs. Ify address, where letters always woiad reach me,
even if I am not in New York, iss

c/o. Professor Br.KUrt Hiealer
270 Riverside Drive.

May I add how y%ry grateful I am for yoinr taking this interest in
my affairs.

Tours very sincerely

Schrif ten:

1921: Das V/esen der muslimischen Ilandv'erkerverbande

(Diss. Pleidelber^j)

1927: ..aiser Friedrich der Zweite

(Georg "Rondi, Berlin)

1929: "Mythenschau".

(Ilistorische ^eit schrif t i^.^. 14C)

1931: Frederick the Second (1194-1250)

(Constable & Co. London)

1931: Kaiser Friedrich ler Zweite.

Ergansungsband: Quellennachweise und Exkiirse.
(Georg Bondi, Berlin)

1935: Deutsches Papsttiun

(Privatdruck)

1937: Die './iederkehr gelelirter Anachorese im i.ittelalter.

( Pr iva t driick : V/ . Kohlha^^^er , Stut t gart )

1938: Petrus de Vinea in England.

(Mitteil.des Osterr .Instituts fur
Geschichtsforschiing Bd.51, V/ien)

1938: LATJDES r: GIi\E. Uber die liturgischen Ilerrscher-

Akklamationen des Mittelalters .
(Privatdruck in Vorbereitung)

Seit 1933 habe ich grosser^ Arbeiten, obv^ohl gros5:tenteils
druckfertig, nicht mehr publizieren konnen.

Publications.

1921: Das Wesen der musllmischen Handv/erkcrverbande.

Thesis (unpriiited) ,TMiversity of Heidelberg.

1927: Kaiser Friedrich der Zwelte.

Publisher: Georg Bondi, Berlin.

1929: "Illythenschau".

Ilistorische Zeitsohrift 140.

1931: Kaiser Friedrioh der Zweite.

Erganzungsband: Quellennachv/eise und Exkurse.
Publisher: Georg Bondi, Berlin.

1935 t Deutsches Papsttum.

Private print.

1937: Die ITiederkehr gelelirter Am^chorese im lattelalter.

Publisher: W. Kbhlhanmer , Stuttgart.
(Private print)

1938: Petrus de Vinea in England.

Mltteilungen dea ust err eichischen Instituts flir
Geschichtsforschung 51.

1938: LABDES REGIAE. Studien zu den liturgischen XattXM

Herrscher-Akklamationen des Llittelalters.

(Private print in preparation).

/

[j^ L

iA (^/^ t^CH 'U<

C ^^

j»-

^<rV. C^f( /^ ^^^

t^

/<lx..^\

-,^Jlc2tJZ^ a^ a^^/^'^'^-^-J

^^^ ^s^

u

Curriculum vitae»

4

i? ^^i-^ "^"^^ having passed the final examination (Abitur4uMt a.
my father su^ijested to me that I should ioin Mm -i ^s= v ^^ * ^ ,
went to Hamburg in order to beoSme ac inted StS'tSe wS^of* ^
trade, finance and economics. When war broke o^t in aLSSiq?!
I volunteered, joined the colours and was sLt to thff?ont ?i*
vl^?,°^ i" f°P*°'"b«r 1914. JvOj 1916 I was vv?Sded in the Sit Jl. at
Verdun. After my recovery I was sent to Russia and in iqi7 +i: ^
German staff in Turkey; in IQIO T i-P+n^«i^+r^^.- *. •'•?^I» *® *
where I remained Ulfwar ended. ""^^"^'^^^ *° *^^^ ^'^^^oi^ ^^ont,

<.^ + aJ:\1^1^ 1 began to study econotaics and history at the Univ*-*^
wierf l1oor^"leS°%Sf DrlSi'^"^- '"^ teacheJ/at^.^eidSb^S.

were Alfred\SerMb'^^h^^d StSSi*^riSi°SLp'^%'jp^SSl'2S£
Jects were Hconomics and History. GuOCTanhv an^^A^^hV^ .^f?Z?^ '"^

-.« 1 f°^ the following sftx years, which I spent at iieidolberir t

r'fboit if n?r"^o f^^lis^ed first in 1927, ran t?irough five editloS
?tS?^* ll'J^i^ copies) and has since been trartslated into English
ii««"' *^^^°?^.^e""°^^^<^ ^ ^^^ies called "r.lakers of th. " Idfle
So^ -f.^f H''^^^ ^^ constable & Co. Ltd., London). An Italiar ver-

ne^StiaM^o^^ "?'i^v,^f^^^"^tf ^^ ^^'ratelli Treves at ...ilan, and pr J^t
negotiations with the "Revue ITouvellc . ncaise" Ocv result in 1
French translation. ai,.ciAi>t, ckt„, resixxt m a

^sh^^/i^^l ^V-^ published this book I spent some tim. at Rom«.
??SisiL^ if IQ^I*?^ Vaticaaa .^chives and at the Istituto Storico
ot„^ T^:,, '^..■'•^51 I publxshed the second voluiae of "Frederick th«

tS SthnMtf''''^"^^^^'^* ,^uelleniiachweiso und ::xkurse") containing
above several researches on the subject tioned

of s-rJn>?5ji+ l^tl ^ }^^^» ^ ^^ received a call to the IJiilversity
?L;^?^ f?"?"7*^®"- ""^"^ ^^ -^°^ 3^ without salary ( ilonorarpro-
5. ^!°f^» *?^°!j I accepted. ,7hen the chair of Mediaeval History f«ll
v«canx iii iJ52, I becarae Ordinary Profes:.or at i'raxikfort. The sub-
i..^- °f ?? •'•'^ctures wtre: History of Humanism, History of the Kor-
■ajM and the political Historj,- of various periods.

.,hen the new rǤgime came into power in 1933, I applied for
XMve and accepted the invitation of the Warden of New College, the
KX.Kon. H.A.L.Fisher, „ho asked me to stay at Oxford as an honorary
■emoer of thu Senior Coirmon Room of New Colle^'e for two terms. :'
I was in position to continue my researches on the fcrman "Inter-
re^iKi (1250-1308) and, more important even, I was given the op-
portunity as well of lect-aring as oi tutoring some advanoed \inder-
STMuateB, I also gave lectures at St.o'ohn's College, Oxford, and
A r t ^'®^i^eval Society, presided over by j-rofessor F.il.Powicke.
A» I had no longer leave from the German Board of Education, I w«
bound to return to this country in Jxily l'^34.

In november 1934 I definitely lost b»-' chair at Frankfort. I
nacl to retire and became a professor emeritus^ From then on I

-ed in Berlin. As I could not expect to have a book printed on

?

i

2)

y4

\W

subject concernin^j German History, I began to collect the dociiments
on the History of the Dukes of Bur^rundy of the Valois race. As I
could travel in those days, I could make use of the archives and
libra/ries at Brussels, Paris, Venj.ce, Naples, Ilantua and other
places. But since 1938 things altered: now I can neither travel
abroad nor can I use the archives of this country. So, for the mo-
ment, I had to put aside the v/ork on the Dukos of Biir^xindy and an
preparing a collection of a fev^ published and of more unpublished
papers on the history of mediaeval knov/ledge and education, follo-
vvin^ in some wa^^ the traces of the late Gh.H.Haskins, L.J.Pactow
and other American scholars, who have been leading in this section
of historical learning. Yet, the slight chance of publishing books
or papers in German language has vanished almost completely, since
Vienna, where I published a paper on "Petrus de Vinea in England"
as late as January 1938, became german by the "Anschluss". Unfortu-
nately, therefore, I have no possibilities of working productively
at l^resent and am longing to find a suitable post in the United
^ ua ues.

As to my knov/ledge of English I may add, that I had an English
governess for the first twelve years of my life and that I had no
difficulty at Oxford either in lecturing or in teaching. For refe-
rences I may mention the ;/arden of New College II. A. L.Fisher,
Professor F.M.Powicke (Oriel College Oxford), Professor T.S.R.Boase
(Courtauld Institute, 20 Portraan Square, London 7.1), '.Ir .Austin
Lane Poole (3t.John*s College Oxford) and Dr. C.L^.Bowra (Wadham Col-
lege Oxford) .

Berlin-Charlottenburg, August 1938.
Carmerstr.l4«

^Iaaa yih.

y

'■'VUimiim

f\e. -7A\&

i/3

F^^^^ I/B ]A^c roiuic-^ C^UechcTv}

^'^ ^S/l^

f^K,ovi9' ^pi'S - "l^-^Gliavi DhV/s U^^e^s^

^ 13

. m^S^^i^^'f^^WF^rti^^

CIRCOLAZIONE
DEGLI AUTOVEICOLI

(R. D. 31 dicembre 1923, n. 3043)

-^V^'

'St*"-

r«:

.«l^

Patents di abilitazii
di 1° grado

is .'

X-

0<J

AVVERTENZA

Questa patente deve essere portata
sempre suirautoveicolo per esibirla ad
o^ni richiesta di funzionari o di agenti
(an. 26 e 83).

t\

/'

*^>i^i^uz^ /^^

/ireytu,f^»

Nome, cog name, pater nita

. 6AO

PATENTE DI ABILITAZIONE
DI F GRADO

nato /•/ f tri^rC^^^fUt O ^£^ f
Residenza Of\yQ><yri,fi,^'^\^ )

II Prefetto della Provincia di 0\ Oo/l/Uv^
ViSTE le disposizioni vijj^enti ;
ViSTO il certificato di idoneita rilas( iato

N. .£4-0-- in data ^hMvQ^^^^'ly

AUTORIZZA

11 Signer \\ChVi)^.^^A^

a condurre (i) ....«AdA/[^0/vVL^ iJlA''

con motore aX2) ^^yA^i^r^^^Vi^

.,■ 27 HB W Anno VI

/ \ . * \ ll-y«PREFETTO —

rUiXAiM'TTioMli p tnolocicli. /
(>\ (.' leH'eii^rgia inoR-ire.

J(/'

N.

PATENTE DI ABILITAZIONE
DI P GRADO

• • -

II Prefetto della Provincia di
ViSTE le disposizioni vigenti ;
ViSTO il certificato di idoneita rilasciato

N.

in data

AUTORIZZA

il Signor

a condurre (1)

con motore a (2)

addi jg2

lu Prefetto

I Ji olio J

(:) Auloniobili o niotocicli.

(2) ("ifiiere <lell'eiifixia motrire.

PRIMA REVISIONE

II Prefetto della Provincia di

in seguito a revisione avvenuta per (i)

conferma il rilascio di questa patente.

addi 1(^2

II. Prefetto

(Bollo)

SECONDA REVISIONE

II Prefetto della Provincia di

in seguito a revisione avvenuta per (r)

conferma il rilascio di questa patente.
addi ig2

II. Prefetto

(Bolloj .

(1) Derreto Miiiisteriale — Ortlitie prefettizio.

SANZIONI

VIDIMAZIONI ANNUALI

(segue a tergo)

/<. ^^^((^

%

B^yn^i i/jdiA-oircnAjicz Co[\ecUav\

-^' v.?/y

1/9

I

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY

PRINC FTON, NhW JERSKY 08540
SC HOOI Of HISTORIC Al STUDIES

Mein Lebenabild

Im Anoohluss an sieben Ahnenbilder

dargestellt ▼on

Salomon Kallphari mmsLm Foener >

hsrauagegeben von seinem ttltesten Sohn©

•68 Landsberger zu Posen

tind au8 dem Hebraisohen ttbertragen
von aeinem lilnkelsohne
Dr» Iforltz Landsberger.
Rabbiner zu Liegnitz.

I I

I I

t~i

- 1 .

Hit selnem gegtnwErtlgen Lebensbildt hat dar Verfaseer, meln
•eliger OroBsvater, if It tr sioh in der Elnleltung bu dleBar
Sohrift auBBprloht, Beinan eahlreiohan Angahttrlgen Eun&ohat
•Inen Eraatz bu blatan gawtlnaoht dafur, dass er denaalban
trotz vialaeltlgan Blttena kein Portrait von aioh hatta an-
fertigan laaaen* Er mainta, %t haba aowohl in aelner Jugand
al» In aeinam Ifcuinesaltar BeBseraa, Jedenfalla Drlngendaraa
BU tlxon gahabti ala ainam Maler bu sltzen, und naohdea ar alt
gaworden, Bal an ihxn niohts mehr daa Malena wart gabliaben»
Was Wtoa tibrigena auoh viel darauf an, waloha rarpargaBtalt
odar GaBlchtsform elner gahabt; fttr dan nahren Wart einaa
Mknnaa kOnne Ja dooh nur die innare PeraOnliohkait entsohai-
dan, das Grawioht der Ideen und InteraBsen, von danan bt aioh
in aainam Leben vorzttglioh haba laiten laaaan. Von walohar
Art diaaa Latzeran bai ihm gawaaan aain, haba ihm am HeTzen
galagan dan Salnlgan mltzutelleni Da jedooh ainaa der waaent-*
liohatan lllerkmala daraalban dia groaae Piat£Lt aai, naloha %r
Btata fUr aaine ••hailigan* Ahnen ampfundeni deran Gfeiat er
BU arhalten und bu beljban gesuoht, ao haba bt nioht ^iyn>''< n
kbnnan, zugleioh ainiga Skizzan von dam Laban und .<irkan
aainar Ahnen bu antnarfani inaoweit er hiartiber aelbat, thalls
mtlndlioh thaila sohriftlioh aina aichere Kanntnisa genonnen
hat« Sr vemahrt aioh hierbei auf daa ^ntaohiedenata gagan
ainan atwaigan Vorwurf dar Ruhmradigkeit , die ihxn vollatlndig
fernliaga, und er bittat BUglaloh dia Varatorbenan ub Verzai-
hung, wann ar ihrer Baaohaidanheit aollta bu naha gatratan

I I

I I i~i

*««s#l

- a -

••inj er habe tloh vl«l»ehr dtautigen wollen, laden: er sioh
tmx«h diest Brlantrongen d«n AVstfuid zua B#wu«8t»ein braohte

der hohen 3 tuft wi«»aii»ohaftlloh«r uad r«ligl6«er
B#deutung, «u der jena •ngporgestiegtn, und derjenigen, dlt
Mr s^tot eljm&hme, uM er habe aeinen laohkomBen dasselbe
B^wueatseln als ^uatrieb mxl immer hSherea Streben versohaffen
uM gegenw&rtlg erhalten wollen*

Jlerdinga beeteht ein grosser Thell dieeer Srinnerongen in
der Mttheilung von Proben der rabb. ffelehreamtoeit und ..els-
halt seiner Ahnen, deren Bllder der Verfasser adt solehsn
In der That der Aufbewahning nioht unwtirdlgen KLttthen am
schensten su sohMioken melnte, woTon jedooh nur das Italgste
in der deutschen Uebertraguiis dea allgemeinen Verstindnlese
sugSiiglieh geiaaeht werden konnte; aueh in BeEiehung auf die

^iten, die der Verfasser von sei-

biogr&phisohen Cen:;r

J • •»

nBn -tJtinen giebt, sohien mir wenlger eine wtrtliche als in-
haltTolle «ledergabe und theilweise Bearbeitung des hsbr*
Originals geboten«

leh habe daher des VerfAisssrs eigene Darstellungs- und .us-
draoksveise nur mit x^uswahl, wo es besonders nStig sohien,
so namentlioh grSs stent hells in dessen Selbstbiographie wie-
dergeben kSnnen* Ss rerstskt sich| dass bel solo!i#r Sbpie
Aas Kolorlt des Originals riel Ton seiner ursprtlngliohen
Frisohe unA W&mS| die der Verfasser ait seiner Isgelsterung

I f

I I

t~i

*/ ''v" r ■,'i'-' ^ '^■*' u, ■'^'a

- 5 -

und Spraohangewandheit Ihin bu g«b«n geiiu«Bt, rerloren hat.

Deanooh hoffe loh, daas dlBae Ahnenbilder auoh in ihrer ab-

g»bla««ten oat Y«rkarBt«n Gestalt Mlnen d«a Habrtlaohen un-

InaiAlgan Verwandten aioht unwillkoninen «ein werden,

■In den goldeaaa Bahaan dar PamilienanhEngliohkeit gafaaat,-

aagt dar Verfaaaar, -warden dleaa Bilder laloht an dan ?-&nden

tmaerer Heraen elna Stelle flndanl"

Aua Pietftt entatandan, kopirt xmd vervielftltigt , mOgan dla-

••^*** gleiohfalaa der * ietat "zur iirinnerung bestana ampfoh-

len aeln".

II II l~l

- 4 •-

I# Salomon harophu aeiDhardi Kali harl^

Der MMm, bis zu welohem wir unsoire Pamiliengeaohiohta t&-
terlioherseits BurtlokfUhren k5xinen, hiess aalomon Kallphari,
dar iirzti ein Spanler. jllne in tmaarer Familia vererbta Tra-
dition l&aat denaelben, mit dem Titel eines Don, bei einam
Bpanisohen oder portngiasischen KOniga Laibarat geweaen und
mit dan JUdiaohan Umigranten au3 der pyrenaiaohen Halbinael
( wahrsoheinlioh um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts ) gafltioh.
tat aeinj auoh aain Paailiennaaa Pialiphari aoll auf einen
apanisohan Uraprung hinmeiaan^ Jedonfalla wird derselbe von
aeinam 3ohne Samuel Israel in dessen Vorrede «u ainar ga-
druokten Sohrift »it dem in der Uebersohrift angegabanen
vollen Haman, alao auoh mit der Bezeiohnung •ein Spanier"
ausdrUoklioh ganannt*

Zu Ende daa 16. JahrtattndLarta ( atwa von 158C ab ) bafand
aioh derselbe unzveifelhaft in Krmkau tmd ganoaa daaelbat
daa allergr5aste ^naehen* Ea lat una zvar nioht bekannt,
valohe 3tellung ex ixinerhalb dar Krakauar JUd« Oaaeinda
eingenommen, aber aus dar iirt, wle die bedeutendaten seit-
ganSaaiaohan Sohriftsteller besondera Jenar Stadt und Cragand
ihn in ihren laxken eitieren, iat deutlioh lu erseh.n, daaa
ar eine Euaserat bekannte iera5nliohkeit von hervorragandar
^irkaamkeit gewesen aein muaa^ 9r wird iiioht bloaa allgamein
"der geaoheita Arzt" genannt, dar in allan mediziniaohen
und in den zur Heilkunde in Bezlehong atehanden rituallen

- 6 -

Fragen eolbstverstllndlioh zu Rate geBOgen wlrd, sondern er
1st auoh In lediglloh rabblriiaohjn Din^en eine Autorit&t,
deren Anslthten erbrtert und berUokaiohtlgt werden; auoh
soheint er ainen raoht anaehnllohan Wohlatand beaeaaen odet
dooh ao Bu aagen ein groaaes Haua geftihrt zu haben* Man titu-
llert ihn In versohiedenan Sohriften bald -FUraf Oder -Ober-
haupt", bald -ain ohrwtlrdiger Greia^ bald "Chaaaid-, und
vollenda dar glelohzeitlge Rabbiner Krakaua, der berUhmte
■air Lublin, redet Ihn In einem Sohrelben, daa er In aalnar
Reohtagutaohtenaammlung mltthellt, folgendermaaaaan an: "dea
Sngelglelchen, dem In V/lsaensohaft und Fr5iamlgkelt auagaeeloh-
neten, Priede Ihm und alien Im Sohatten seiner Hochzeit Val-
lenden! *

Von einem andern bertlhmtan Krakauer aohriftateller, der aioh
aelner aus frUheater Kindheit als einea sehr alten l^annes er-
innert, arfahren wlr nooh, dasa er '•am .nda aelnaa T^bens^
(wahraoheinlioh um 1600) naoh i'aiaiatina gewandert iat.

II ♦ Samuel Israel Kaliohuri,

Der nohn Salomon* a, Nuiana Samuel Israel, tritt una aelbat ala
Sohriftateller entgegen. 2^t war offenbar ein Mann von dem um-
fassendaten Wlaaen in der JUd. Thaologie und von dem lebendig-
aten 3ifer fUr aeine Religion,

loh bin, sagt er, von Jugend auf unter groaaan .*eiaen heran-
gawaohaen, deren Worte ioh mit Durst getrunken und auf die

I I

I I

fi

- 8 -

Tafeln melnes HerEens gesohrleben habe, zum Ged^ohtins fUr Gott.
J5r hatte das BedUrfnlss auoh andereri v*n dem Vorrat, den tr ge-
sazmnelt, mltEuthellenj Zeugnlas davon geben seohs versohiedane
von ihm verfaaste tind genat naoh Titel und Inhalt von Ihm auf^
gefUhrte, wie as sohalnt, umfangreiohe ..erke, die sioh so ziem-
lioh ttber •ammtliohe Stoffe der Jttd* Theologie verbr.iten.

ins daraalben, ein iiommantar zu den SprUohen der Vttter, bati-
talt: -Weinberg Saloman's- war, wie eben sohon der Titel angibt,
dem Gedaohtniss seines Vaters gewidmat. Mit einem anderen V^er-
ke, aus desson Vorrada wir dieaa Notizen entnehmen, und daa ba-
titelt i8t:*EB freua sioh Israel- (Anspielung auf seinen eiga-
nen Hainan) wollte er einem dringenden BadUrfnisse aeiner Zeit
AbhUlfe versohaffen, '•loh habe die Geistesarmuth dieaer Zait
geschaut, der dae reohte Augenlioht fehltj wir gleiohen ^Iner
Heerda, die unherirrt, lun ihro aiganan Pehlgeburten zu sehen*'
Er ermahnt seine Kollegen, unter Tlinwais auf vorliegandas Buch,
"^daaa aie nun mit sainan gesoharften Ffoilen zielen mBgan, um
naoh Reoht und Gesetz zu entsohoiden." Das »»erk war )in alpha-
betisch geordnatas Handbuoh zu dan 4 Theilen das Sohulohan -
aruoh und wurde sahr gttnatig aufganoininen.(Es wurda 8ftar kom-
ttantiert und gedruokt, das letzte Mai Wien 1865) • Trotz die-
ear sohriftstellerisohen Fruohtbarkeit erfahren wir leidar von
ihm dooh Niohts ttber seine sonatigen Lebanaverhaitnissej wir
kOxmen Jedooh aiis einem iins arhaltenen Schriftatttoka seinea
3ohnaa Salomon antnehaan, dass er Jedenfalla Kabbiner zu Laut-
sohtt^war und daaalbst im Jahre 1624 eine furohtbare Judan-

I I

I I i~i

I I

- 7 .

▼erfolgung erlebt hat. Sa ist hOohst wahrsoheinlioh, dass er
von deraelben irgend wle mit betroffen vorden, und nohl meglloh,
dass die poetiaohen Sohluastiorte der genannten Vorrede, die ex
ein halbea Jahr apttter verfaaat hat, gowisae (Jefahrcm, die er
ttberatanden Oder nooh zu beatehen hatte, andeuten aollten; ale
laiiten: ••So will ioh aingen meinam Freundo werth,

mt dem ioh mioh erhoben fUhl* geehrt,
Dem ioh gehcJr' iixid dor auoh mir gehQrt,
Zu Gott ioh ruf', dem Felaen trou bevr&hrti it
Kur ein besoheiden Theil aei mir gewdhrt,
Hioht zum Verderben aei mein Looa gekehrt,
Und nioht sei duroh Verfolger ioh erndhrt!
Zu Zeugen ruf • ioh Hiaaael an und ::rdi,

Daea aolang* meine Kraft, mein Odem w&hrt,
Ioh (Jott mit ganzem Herzen dienan ward • I *•

III. 3alomo Kalipharl II >

Von dem sohn Samael laraela, Namens Salomon, wiaaon wir duroh

authentiaohe mlindliohe Ilittheilung, daas er der li'aohfolger aei-

nes Vatera im Rabbinate zu Leutaohtltz war. ^:1t hat ein hebrd-

isohea KLagelied und Buaagebet, (das gedruokt ist), auf die oben

erwahnte, aonst, wie ea aoheint, eben nioht viel bekannte Ju-

denverfolgung gediohtet und l^itet daaaelbe mit den «orten ein:

••Dieatae KLagelied habe ioh im Jahre 1624 zu LeutaohUtz im Lehr-

■i
hauae meinea Vatera verfaaat, ala aan gegen una mit frevelhaften

I I

I I I— I

• 8 •

Verleumdungen auftrat und unsohuldige, troue Manner in Pe«.
•em sohlug} aoh, w.gen unaerer SUudan Mange aind ale eraohla^
B^n und verbrannt worden, Bur Helligung aeinea grosaen Na-
aiens; ea flelen die Helden am 7^ Adar d. Jb.**
Am Sohlusae dlaaaa tlbrigana aehr langen und kunatvoll angeleg-
ten Liedea untaraohrelbt er aioh mit aelnein vollen Hamen '•Salo-
mo, Sohn daa Samuel Kaliphari und Sohwiegeraohn dea Herrn
Juda, ArEtes in Poaen^" In letzterer Eigenaoh£rft gibt er aloh
auoh In dem Liede aelbat duroh eln Akroatiohon zu erkennen. In
welohem er den Namen aeinea Sohwiegervatera, dar wohl b aondera
al8 anagezaiohneter Gelehrter aine hervorragende Bedeutung hat-
te, tituliert^

IV> Joaeph Hadaraohan^ (Per Predi/^er),

Die Beziehung zu ioaen, die der letztgenannte :>alomon erCff-
net hatte, aollta duroh aainen Sohn Joaaph in nooh anderarVeise
fortgeaatzt und aeitdam in unaerer fiaailie xmunterbroohen er-
halten warden© Vorarat aber hatte deraelbe nooh eine groaaa
Lebenagefahr, aihnlioh wie aein Vater und Groaavater, au ba-
atehen. Ea war zur Zeit, ftls die bekannten Chlemaohen Judan-
verfolgungan faat atomtliohe JMiaohen Gemainden daa Uatli-
ohen Euro pa in einen grauenhaften Gohreoken ve»aatzt an und grSaa*
tantaila wirklioh aufrieben ( 1648) • Joaeph befand aioh da-
mala ala Jiinger Studierender (Talmud J Ungar) mit aainem Praun-
da Sabbatai Gohn, dem naohmala ao berUhmten •Sohaoh*', lehrer

E,~ X -ItWrB

- 9 •

Am

KlAC<

lied varewigt hat, «u Weisaenfild, wahrsoheinlloh in MEhren,
( die Stadt wird mit hebraisohem Diamen in dem genannten Kla-
gelled ausdrlioklioh aufgefuhrt ),j -als die Prevler in die
Stadt einfielen," beschloes m sie beide, naoh dem jud. Pried-
hofe zu fltiohten, um, wenn ihnen der Tod besohieijen, nenig-
stens auf geweihter Brde zu sterben und zu ruhen* Zwei Tage
hi^lten ai^ sioh dort hintern Grabern versteokt und nahrten
•ioh von den Krautern, die dort wuchsen; am dritten Tage er-
Btiegen si^^ einen hohen Leiohenstein und eahen ganz deutlioh,
wie gerade Ihr hoohverehrter Lehror, dar Rabbiner der aemein-
de, auf der Straaae mit StCoken zu Tode geaohlagen wurde.
Trotz der siohtbaren Gefahr, in der sie Jetzt selbst aohweb-
ten, wiohen sie dooh nicht von der Stelle; si-J verriohteten
dii tlbliohen Sterbegebete, damit dir Gmisshandelte, der sie
bemerkt zu haben und mit ihnen zu beten aohien, "aeias »eine
Seele ih Heiligkeit ausathme''; bitterlioh weinend atiegen
sie nach deaaen erfolgtem Tode niedar und hlelten aioh nooh
lange veratookt, bis sie erfuhren, daas '•die i^lllMerer* die
Stadt verlassenj si-^ besohaftigten sioh sodann mit der Be-
stattung aller der ••Gereohten und Prowsen** , die sie tot wieder-
gejfunden batten*

In Betreff aeinea neiteren Studiengangea wiaaen nir, Aaaa er
ein SohttlGr von Lipmann Heller, dem Verfaaaer des Toaaphat-
Jom-tob, war, wahraoheinlioh von Krakau her, wohina er aioh zur
Portaetzung seiner Studi n begab. Im Jahre 1659 wurde er, wie

f I

I f

'•^•t , » ^." " « i<^ • . -C> . J 'i> ,'

.'--■; ,, ^/v.

■i'>-s'«{?»v'i' ■»»,■'-•-■ •^.•-'■:^*'><>»«i^l

- 10 -

er eelbst axigibt, in ioson als daraohan (Jtrediger) der dortigen
Jtidisohen aemelnd ; angestellt und blleb in dieaer Stellung bis
Bum Jahre 1696, wo er sioh von aller iSffentliohan TEtigkeit «u-
rUokzog und aussohliesslioh aeinen frommen Studien widmete,
die er in der alten JTosener Synagoge und dem daran etossenden
••Lehrhause'^ den ganzen Tag Tind grosatentheiis auoh die Jftohte
jahrelang fortaetzte.

Von den vielen theologiaohen Schriften, dio er verfaaat hat,
Bind zwei, groastentheila I'r^digtaammlungen enthaltend, mit
den Titeln: '•ffrundlage Joajph'a'* uiid "Trglnengefilde** gedruokt
(beide in Frankfurt a*0.1679) und zwei andere, daa eine: '•Und
Joaeph verpfltgte^' (Genesia 47,12), daa andere: "Und Joseph
sfiimnelte'' (ibid. y.IA) von den JUdiaohen Bibliographen ala
If jrthvolle Manuskripte erwahnt,

Wclohe hohw* persOnliohe Bedeutung der Mann aonat gehabt, geht
zum Theil aua den vialen Correapondenzen h^rvor, die deraelbe
HbAr die veraohiedenaten religionawiaaensohaftlichen Materien
mit den gelehrtesten M&nn^rn aeiner Zeit gefuhrt hat, zum Theil
aber auoh achon aua der folgenden Spiaode, die lugleioh die
Art seineabjjffentliohen Auftretena oharakteriaiert.
Sa bestahd bekanntlioh unter den JUd. Gimeinden dea t5atliohen
Europa aehr lange Zelt ein aogenannter Vier-Lttnderbund, deaaen

A¥geordnete zu gewiaaen Zeitabsohnitten zuaaanentraten, um
liber geraeinaohaftliohe Angelegenheiten zu berathen und zu be-
aohlieaaen. Zu einer dieaer Veraammlungen hatte nun die i o-
aener Gemeinde, in Abweaenheit dea Landearabbinera, ihn, den

•i<,^(i«iv. v.i- .KV-^-iffilf^Bip

- 11 -

darso^n, abgesandt, und, von der VerBanmluiig zu ihrem Vor-
•Itzenden erw&hlt, erOffneta er dlesclbe mit elner Snapraohe,
In der er unter anderem folgendea amgt«:

*i:;s helast in dem Buohe der Kiohter (17,6): •In dlesen Ta-
gen war kein KOnlg in Israel, ein Jeder, was Feoht war in
selnen Augen, that er.*' Das muss nioht bios, wie gewehnlioh
erkiart wird, «um Tadel, sondern kann auoh reoht wohl zum
Lobe Israels gesagt seln. a war swar kein Herrecher da, des-
sen Autoritat, dessen Maohtgebot allein sohon die Auf reoht-
erhalttmg von ffesetz \ind Ordnung bewirken konntaj aber Jeder
Elnzelne im Volke bvoiferte sioh, dass er nioht b anderea tat,
als was naoh seiner baaten Ueberzougung das Eeohtc? und Guts
wmt. Auoh der gsgwiiwtrtigen Varsammlung hier,** fuhr er fort,
''fehlt heute das reoht e Oherhaupt, der Mann, andessen S telle
ioh hierher geaandt worlen, war verhindert zu ersohein^-ni ioh
kann daa Gewioht und Anaohen meiner Foraon nioht geltend maohen
urn daduroh allein aohon die V«'tlrd 3 d3r V^rsammlung zu wahren
und zu aiohe rni mBge denn Jeder von una um so gewissenhafter
beatrebt aein, nur das^enige hier zu tun, was in aeinen eige-
nen Augen unb3dingt das Eeohte iat, ml5s^ kein per8bnlioh:iS

und kjin jfartei* Inte

, sondern nur der G.idanke an den

hohen und heilig3n Zwuok, zu dem wir hier v^rsaaanelt sind ,

uns leiten, "und Gott wird fest st^hon in d.r Gemeinde des
HerrnI* (Fa, 8;a,l). In dieaen Tagon iat ki^in KOnlg in larael,
■Sge dainm ein Jader solbat, aua iigenem -^.ntriebe , thun, was
reoht und geroht iat in aeinen Augenl •

t^^l^^g^VKf^

- 12 -

Y» Arle Loeb^ darschan, hakadoaoh^

Die beruhmteate PeratJnliohkoit uas^rer Famille war der 'ohn
Jos ph't hadaraohan, Namena Are Lo'^b. Kit auagezjiohneten
Geisteaanlagen begabt, war er auoh in phyaisoher Beziehung
von Geburt an ein aogemanntea -underkindj aeiae LTatter hatte
ihn in ihrem 5C.ten Lehenajahr zur Welt g.^braoht. Sohon ala
13 jahrigjr Knabe predigte er 5ffentlioh in der altjn t3ynago-
ge zu i oaen und wurde in iinun frUhen JUnglingaalter zuerat
aaoh Peiaern und aodann naoh Samtern als Rabbiner b ^rufen.
Im Jahri 1714 trat er die von seinim Vat.r aolangj 5tjit b^-
kleidigte * redigerstelle in roajn an. r hatte in dijaem Am-
te zugleioh den Oborrabbiner der Gemeinde in alien Punktionen
deaaelben zu vertreten, ein Umatand, der ihm naoh 22 jfthriger
Wirkaamkeit aohliesslioh entaetzlich v jrhUngniavoll werdon soil
to. loh meine seinen Mttrtyr:jrtod , dem er den Beinamen Kadosoh
(Heiliger) verdankt. Di-^ ^iaohe hat aioh, soweit sie ihn aelbat
betraf , f olgendenaaaa m zugetWkfen.

Am RUattage dea JUd, Neujahraf .at :?» 5496 (1736) verbreitete aioh
in der JUd. Gemeinde zu Toaen pll5tzlioh die Sohreokensnaohtioht
daas ein ohriatlioh-ir Knake lNl€t auf^efunden vworden und man
di Juden des Mordea deaa<5lben beaohuldigte, Ea dauerte nioht
lange, und dor daraohan v?urdo, an der Stelle des Ob ^rrabbin^ra,
der zufailig verreist war, ergriffea und abgefUhrt. Zwar hatte
aeine Prau schnell genug ftir einen bereitat henden . agen go-
aorgt, auf dem er npoh reoht wohl (bu Vorwandten naoh Maaeritz)

t-s-'~;ir» ■-■im -

r.'V-,"'-:

- 13 -

Wltte entfliehen kOnnen* xaijln er war diiroh k Inerlel Bit-
ten Eur Fluoht EU b^wogeni '•nij,'* sagte er, "soil ioh In eol-
oher Zelt melne Gemelnde verlaeeen? Und hatte ioh es nioht zvl
verantworten, wenn an melner o telle vielleioht viele andere
und bedeutJHderj SlEnner ergrlffon wtlrdenf* Ale man ihn ab-
ftthrte, wandte er sieh eu der Menge, von der die Judengaeee
angefUllt war, und die ihr laagegeachrei erhaben hatte, :
•Was Bohreit Ihrv Habt Ihr nioht erst heute morgan das Oebet
von den zehn KgLrtjrern gesproohen? Aber ioh fUrohte," spraoh
er, *dasB ioh, Yienn ioh Jetzt storbe, kf^in: 10 liSute bei mir
haben werde , um den Kamen Grottes zm heiligen, so lasset es mioh
Jetzt tun: Ioh bin bereit und entsohlissen, Deinen Naaen, main
(rott, zu heiligen. Gelobt aeist Du, wiger, der Du Deinen liamen
heiligen lILssest vor dir It^insol"^ Und weinend tief di ) ganat
Milge: •Amen!*' Man jrinnerte 3ioh doppelt lobhaft der worte,
die derselbe Mann wjnigs Woch^n vorher auf der Kanzel gespro-
ohen und die damals nioht g ringes ^lufseh.n geaaoht hatt^n.
■r predig%« Uber die Stelle des sabbatliohen Voohenabsohnittss
(Humeri 25,16): "ner Edhlt den naub Jaoobe ubd die Zahl des
ViertelKs Israels! 0, dass meine Seele stUrbe den Tod dor i ed-
liohen, und daas mein ndo Jenem gliohel* l^r deut ^te dies^n
oatzk auf die Leidenag aohioht. Jsraels. •W^>r, rief ar aus,
lahlt den 3taub , zu welohem, und Cnt rdrtlokungen, »it d nBn
man ihn herabgasatzt , getreten und gesohEndst hat; war zlihlt
die Zahl des •Vlertel* Israjls, d*h. derer, die man aus Israel
um ihres Glaubens willen buohst&blioh *geviertelt" hat, ger&-

f I

- II

- 14 •

dert uad lirriMan hat! 0 gewlsa, eln eoloher -od Ist .ohreok-

llohi loh mOohte lleb^r d.;/i od dor Ulohan *irb n, d.h. in
Prloaen und Im hohcn Orelsemlter^ aber, iriiin nde, mjIh i.oo«
in der Zukunft, In der wigkelt wtinsohto loh, dass as . .nem
gllohe, dem der l^lrtyrerl** .rsoh»pft war r naoh dles^n or-
ten auf aein ^vng sioht g fallen, unt ee Imtte elfie Well- ge*
dauert, ohe or eelne iredigt fortes teen konnta^ V/le es Ihm
In der Unt .reuohiingehaft und In dor Folt^rkamier eraaageA let^
Isi wm Th'jll nooh von Ita eelbet ^rsthlt wortsn* r hatte die

ereten Polt^rqualen standhaft, ohne eelbet «u etOhnea und zn
•eufzen, ertragant Da glanbt ^ nan an irgend eln =n Zauber, der
fcaaondere In den llaaran l&ge, Oder man stellte si oh dooh so
an, als ob man dies glaubte^ aan befahl, Iha den gansen Haar-
wuohs des KDrpers abzunehaeni am melsten sohsearftfte ihri hlorbel
die Sohmaoh, dass or nun s^lnan Bart rerli ren sollt, und er
bat flehentlioh, dooh v rg bens, dass man ihm dsns. Ib^n lassen
alga, er volltc sioh dafUr auf sine halbe StunAe lAnger der
Polt ir unt xn often. Die sohnerst.n Polt rgualen waren fttr Ihn
dlo Bo kehrungsvarsuohe, die man nan uns&hllge Mai, bali sohreok
lioh drohsai, lifild ▼'?rfUhr-rl8oh lookend, mlt ihm anst jllte.
Vollends an oin^m Sabbat Raohmittar traten swel IfAnxier, als
littatiaohe Juden g.^kl.idet, in seine Zelle, sl*^ stellten sioh

ihin als iiXd. Kaufleutc Tor, die eur Messe naoh Lelpsig rdlstea,
sie h&tten, sagten sle, da sle von der sohr^okllohen Oesohioh*

te, die hler Tovcsfallen, g hOrt, ^^s mOglloh zu maehen gesuoht,

im Gkih^lm^n su Ihm su gelang^^n, lun ihm vorsustellen, dass ^r

- 15 -

naoh talmudlsohen Grundsatzen, in der.n Auseinander.atzung sie
ihm eine grotse Golehrsamkait zu bewel.en •uohten, den verlang-
ten Raliglonsweohsel nohl tun kOnne, Insofern er ihn eben nur
Boheinbar, mlt dam Ifunde, und nioht mit dem Herzen tue. iSr gab
Ihnen keine Antwort, er lleas eie, y^le er aelbet arzahlte, ra-
den, bia ale mUde wurden. Ss waren getaufte Judan und Jaaulten.
Endlich, urn den letzten Versuoh zur 3rpro^aaung elnes Gestand-
nisses zu maohan, aohritt man zur Tottur in der Naoht vom 7.
zum 8. Cheohwan, vor deren Vollendung er aioh die Gnade aua-
bat, eine halbe Stunde allein aein zu dUrfen; ar aohloaa in dar-
aalben mit aeinem Leben fei^rlioh ab.

Die Bohreoklioho Proaedur selbst zu sohildarn iat wohl wedar
nbtig nooh gut mOgliohj bamarkt sei nur, daaa as ihm, dam dar-
sohan, mindaatana besaer erging als dam Leidenagafahrten, den
er hatte, dam Syndikua dar Poaener Gemainde, namena Jacob, dam
man nooh obanein dta Saelenpain angetan, daaa er diaaalbe bai
Jenem in alien Sinzelhjiten mit ansehen, Ja sogar dazu Iwuoh-
ten maaata, um sia unmittelba^ darauf in gleiohar ..eisa aalbat
beatehan zu mtlasen*

Han braohte beide Mannar am andaren Morgan zeraohlagen und zar-
riaaen naoh Hauaej aie atarhan beida kurz darauf an dan Polgen
Jenar Naoht, der daraohan am 18. Kialaw 5497 (17S6); ar hatta,
wie er sagte, dan algantliohen Todeaatoaa aohon ampfundan, ala
man ihm die glUhenden eiaernen Ffannen unter die iirme und in
die Hande l^gte*
Der Prozeaa dauert tlbrigena trotzdem nooh oa. drei Jahre fort

- 16 •

und wurde Bulet?it In der Hauptstadt des polnlsohen Ruioh^a, in
Wartohau, g^fUhrt^ Die Poe^ner Oem^ilade war geaCtigt, sioh von
Wien her Keohtsanwftlt ; zu vcrsohaffen, da die ..araohauer Geist-
liohkelt den dortigen Hochtsanwaiten untersagt hatte, sioh der
iosener Juden in ileaer Angelegenheit anzunehmen.
Sas blutige imrtyrerhemd , in Twelchem man den darschan naoh Hauae
braohte, haben zwei seiner Kinder, soin Sohn -liah und seine
Toohter Taube untor aioh geteilt^ die eine H&lfte, von dem ge-
nannten :)Ohn vererbt, nird gegen^S^rtig von melnem Oheim Kosos
landsberg In Fosen aufbewahrt, Ub^r den Verbleib der anderen
Half t J JedooJ)i, Bonrie tiberhaupt Uber Sohioksale und Kaohkommen
dor genannten Tooht r ist niohts ivelt.r bekannt* Von einem an-
deron Sohn des darschan, namens Jaoob, der Fabblner su Meisling
nar, existieren nooh gegenwttrtig in direkter i^bstamnaung Raeh-
kominen in »osen, die den Naci^n Kallpharl fUhren,
Bel der grossen Verwlrning, die damals in ^ osen h^rraohte, glng
lolder auoh der bei lueitjm grbaaere Tell seines Naohlasses, ver-
lorenj von dem Wenlgen Jedoch, dass sioh erhalt in hat, 1st ausser
melieren talmudisohen ^iblriandlungen und eln^m vom Tage stiner Ver-
haftlmg datlerte(^ Briefe an selnen 3ohn Eliah, besonders •ine
Sohrift intjressant, betltelt: Tagesordnung, die er 3ben fUr
den genannten viohn auf dessen .<tnsoh, als er bei demselben in
Sohwerin a..*, au Boauoh war, kaum zwei Jahre vor seinem Tods
▼erfasat hat und aus der wenigatons etwaa, einige Studien und
Lebensregeln, hler ihr^i Stelle finden mOgen,
• Sohreibe Dlr b^i DeJn^n studien fl^issig auf, was Bu -Vissms-

I f

f I

'■".'^■if'^f^-i'^^F^riiy;"'^*^^'^

- 17 -

wertes erfahren test, es hei.st in den SprUohen der Vater:
Sr^irb Dir Delncn aenossen (beim Studleren) , ioh will Mr aagen,
wer die«er Cfenoaae siin muse, Deinj P. der,

K»rk« Dir den oraten Buohetaben des ..Iphabe's, das ..leph, es ent-
hait die Anfangsbuchetaben der drei hebraiachen ..orte: ";,ahr-
heit lerne Dein ILundl"

Auoh in gleiohgultlgen Dingen, eowohl in der ^isaeneohaft «!•
±m Verkehr ndt den Mansohen, s-i Dir die -ahrheit h-ilig,
OewWine Dioh nioht an Sohwur und Beteuerungafomeln und nooh
weniger an Sohimpfworte, entfernc den Zorn aua Deinem Rerzen,
"die .jorte der weiaen laasen aich mit Mllde Tsrnehiaen." (Ko-
hel. 9,17.)

Versohaffe Mr keine .hre duroh Beschamung anderar, habe keizia

bOae Zunga und ftihre k^^ine ^Jpottreden.

Ifaoh^ k;ine unnutigen Greldausgaben, aber sel g^wlss^nhaft In

d^er Abgabe dee Zehnten und freigi ;bie in der ohlt^tlgkelt.

Gehst Du Eu einer Pesi liohkeit , so engage vorh^r, tlber welohan

angemeseenen Stoff Du Diih nur untirhalten wiilet*

Bedenke alio Zeit, dass der lleneoh da ist, vm den allien seines

Sohbpfers «u tuni dor Lohn kommet von selbet, "Jott enth&lt das

Gute denen nioht vor, die in Pracmiigkjit iiandelna''(3p.vSal. j

Beherrsohe Dioh, urn den Prieden zu liebjn sowio Uber nl^xnand

Sohleohtes zu rjden, und gsselle Dioh zu den Guten."

t I t i

}

•jggHS?"

• 18 •

^. iii^lah aua * o»»n>

-^^c- — ^ah,

a tB Jahre 1710, mr nioht minder wi- •ein

?orfahx Ton olaar rudaxrrerfolgung bedroht, und «wax achon ala

« Isi

ahre» 1716 (dan 6,4b, ) fand in Feaan ale-

der elnaal e^ln^r der bt^ilai&t-adereii *Jadanhetsan* ttatt, san

fllalitcte in di yaagoga, die fUr solohe FtLle ala elne -ajrt
ifMi SalHiia valor dlanan sraeete^ der kauE eeoha;&hrlfa Baabe Ter-
Bteekte aiali hxi^xer das TTorhar.g dea ^llerheiligatan, vurde abar

trotsidem

^littern elnea Pejiaterai duroh deaaen

eiaerne L&dan mar. hinela geacboaaan hatte, mm Oehlrnknoohen
atajrk Terletaty awe ffltlek aar* a nlatat lebenagef&hrlioh| obglaloh
aar wmim Iii%aalang davam alaa laxbe bakielt, Jelne Kntter, na«-
aiiM Treine, Terlor Kit rielen Andaren an jenaaa Tage ilur Le-

Wm^tMmu er aiak wtt% Vlaklay 9aalrt--r Aaa PAbblaara Hlraoh an

^ohwerin ^. .^ nacbaallcaai tebbiner an Meaerita 1b Foaen'aohen

T .rheirat^l

ei:.e bei aeinett Schwiegarrater, Stadie-

raBahalber, aufg3haltam

falfta

er Zuati

aai-

la^a Vaterai elnaxs kafe aaah jumtertmm In daa Lehrhaua dea aehr

ILlah Korden, mit das er frthar In Paaam

atudicrt und intime Freundaohaft gaa^loaaaa hatte« Er wurda

la Jflnaterdaa ait ^aaa#r i^^uaaeiohnnng aufge

vldA bahan-

€mVt,

Xi&ok t

9 Infolc^ ^*^ laohricht

dexr Mfcrtyr^rtod aeiaaa Vatera, wleder aurtiok, nlcht ohne
Ibat dabei alader la ^Ine andaraxtigc Labenagafahr %n garaten.

- 19 -

«r hatte ntollch die Btickr.l- untr w^lreii^ 0.1 ite .u
t^iff angetreten, aber ..her tag. d*r.uf bra.h In fOrohter-
11 Cher S...tTmt •«. d.r da. Sehiff Ir. ,ied.tt iiugenbliok ,u rer-
>i«li«.n droht., in i.»t.*to Melt mn d.«lbe berelt. fflr wlrk-
IWH «t.rf»gangen Imd tranerte ern.tllch tut d.n hoehreitllen-
t.n Mann, d.r dab.l eeln.r Tod gefund.nj inde.een wurd. da.
Sohiff doch noeh gltckllch In d.n Hafc-n Ton .^.terdaiL rurtlak-
e«trleben, un& al. iZliah In der Paallle Sordet', ^BtBlloh
w±fT er.ohlen, spraoh derMl»« ¥M .elneiE ^nblloke den S..

: -Selobt selBt Da wlger, <5er Tote b lebt.« Per ihn
war die... Lrlebni. eine em.te Mahntmg an ielnen Tater. der

ihn .Iztst bel .eineit

•d. ati.drticklioh gebeten hatte,

nioM tM Schiffe z-a rel.en.

Zn Ilass. ange

n, war:=!e er bald nach '.^re.ohen nM ron ia

n»e>: L&ndstorg a.W. ale Rabbin r berufen. In letEterer aenelnd
.oil er da. Rabblna-* oe. 5C Tahre rerwaltet hab nj er vt§X%

depelb.t lit Jahre 180S, tlber 9C Jato« It, Von llai

leiname Landeberg, toa .In '^ell .elner KaohkoMdn gegenwlrtig

flihrt, er .elb.t unter.chrleb .Ich, wle aaaentlich au. rerechie-

nten zu er. hen l.t: 211ah aa. Fe. n, labbin r cu
Land.berg und Uflq^egend.

lEch.t Tlel.n gelehrten Schrlften, die Ton Ite noob -rhalten

.ind, wlrd bMMSivr. eln Glllekwim.ch.ahr.lWa atifbawahrt, d&.k
.r ax. den Verfa..er dle.er 3rlnnerujagen, .elnen JSnk l.ogn, «n
a«.MA Hochrelt.feler §.rlcht t hat, und norin .r A.a..lb.a

seine. Tater, •«•• ■Ullgen" , obgeaannte Schrlft

f I

I f

p

iTf ^-t^-'!-' ■■■■'---"^•«i;"*viis'**w*»»rjt«t

- 20 -

•fagesordnung- hlnwei.t, die er .loh absohreiben und auswen-
dig lernen aBga, -Iid tibrigen,- fugt er hlnzu, "kannst Du Dir
Dtinen tige nen Vater in alien Dingen zvan Vorbild nehoen."
Charakterittisah i.t, dast er bei dieser aelegenheit aeinem
^ake3 ganz besonderi ant H^te legt, nur Ja mit dem Rabbiner
der Oemeinde, in der er «ich niederlatsen wollte, ein gutea
und friedliohaa ISinvernelaiaii zu halten, Br sahlieast mit den
lorten: ••Wer den Mensohen angenshm ist, igt eg atioh (Jott**

VII ♦ JoaeDh Landsberfc^

Der Sohn ^aiahs hiete Joeeph^ er war ia Jahre 1756 «u Wre-
BOhen geboren oind sohon frUh in einem hohem Grade duroh aeist
und Pr^mmigkeit auagaaeiohnet. Saahdem er in teinen Jtlnglings-
Jahren versohiedene talmudisoha Hochaohulen, Gr.Glogau und
Berliner unter Anderm besuoht hatte, wurde er eelbst, ale er
Bioh in loosen verheiratet und niedergelaaeen, gar bald von
einer Menge von 3chtllcjrn und ZuhBrern lUigeb^n, deren Studien
er leitete. Seine Oattin, namens (Jitel, eine Groseoousine von
ihiD - (Ihr Vater war JitEsohak Kaliphari eu Focen, Sohn dea
obgenannten Jacob ^ Babbiner am ■titling} - beaase aoviel Ge-
ach&ftakenntnia y daaa aie allein den ganzen Hauabedarf erwarb,
aia leitete mit beatem Erfolge ihren Handel wie ihr Hauaweaen
umA nioht minder die HlrEiehung ihrer fUnf Kinder , denen aie
eine hBhere Bildung eu geben wuaate. 3ie hatte ea aioh Eur
Pflioht und zum Dienate ftralahan laaaen, ihrem gelehrten

fcm ^itiftmiT lii I ,

I I

f f

»

- 21 -

und fronmien Kanne voile Muas. «u seinen Studien zu v^r.ohaf-
fen, die derselbe f^st ununterbrooh.n, grSastenteil. In der
Itttte seiner zahlreichen JUng.r, Tag und Haoht b^trleb, ale
trug selbat da« -Ihrlge dazu b 1, dass derselbe versohledene
Eabbinerstellen, die man ihm angetragen, aussohlug. Es aohlan
Ihm vor allem der Eetllglonawlasenachaften, denen er oblag,
am wurdlgaten, dasa al. um ihrer aelbat wlllen gepflegt und
geferdert wUrden. Auoh ala dlePOaener Oemelnde b«l -Ingetre-
tener Vakanz Ihrer CbarrabblneratdUe Ihn auf das ..llerdring-
llohate bat, daas er wenlgatena Mltglled Ihrea Eabblnata-
kollegluma warden und die Leltung Ihrer rabblniaohen Hooh-
sohule Ub.^rnehmen m^ge, Hess er sioh hlerzu nur unter der
ausdrliokliohen Bedingung bereit finden, dass daraus fUr ihn
kelnerlei persSnlioher Vorteil, nloht einmal Irgsnd weloher
Gteuererlass entstehe, und dass die Genuinde ihrerseits dis
Wahl eines Oberrabbin-irfl naoh wi , vor arnstlloh betr^lbe. Er
stand in Posen in dsm allergrOsstan -tinsehjn und genoss eben-
so in Berlin, no er einige Zeit in der von Llpmann Tausk,
(Grossvater Meycjrbeer 's) gestifteten Klaussynagoge studierte,
in woiten Kxi^jsen ho he xiohtung, was joamentlioh in rUhrender
leise ein Kondolenzsohreiben bezeugte, das Frau .^malie Besr,
(Mutter Mjyjrbeer's) an seine xxng-^hi5rigen naoh Posen gerioh-
tet hat, als sie v4n seinem, einige Jahre naoh seiner Etiok-
kehr von Berlin erfolgten Tode K^^nntnis bjkania Der Name Joseph
Lanisberg, nie man ihn nannte, sohloss fttr alle, die ihn kann-
ten, den Inbegriff tiefster rabbinisoher Gelehrsamkeit und

f I

f f

mT'Xp^"^i'-ix^/iBmji

* 22 -^

•elten^r mlt W)rktatiger Liebe gepaarter FriJmmigkelt in sich.
B.wundeningawUrdlg war besonderB s ine Besoh .Idenheit; er ver-
bat ernstlioh d-^n Selnigen, von ihm mlt besonderem Lobe zu
spreohen Oder aloh seiner zu rllhmen: -V/as habe loh denn getan,
sagte er, Im Versleloh zu dem, was mlr oblagi Slneg nur sel
:uoh gestattet; sagot ea In melnem Namen, wenn Thr In guter
Gesellsohaft selet, unser alter Vat.r hat uns folgende drel
Ermahnungen ertellt: 1. uns von b^sen Zungon sowle von leerem
GesohwatE fern zu haltenj 2. und vor Ehrenbez jugungen ebenso
Wie vor Zankerelen zu fllehen, und 3* den Prleden Uber alles
zu lleben.^ Seln Testament lassen wir am Schlusse folgin. ^':r
etarb zu Poaen im Jahrj 1825 im .ater von 78 Jahron, und we-
nlge Jahre darauf seine Gattin im ^xlter von 78 Jahr^3n«

VIII, Salomon Ilaliphari, gen> Posen,

Indem wir nur das L^bensbild des Varfassers selbat daratellon,
lasaen wir denaelben zun&oha' aoviel als mtJglloh aelbat apre-
ohen und begleiten ihn mlt ainigon erg^nzenden Ilotlz ^n. Er
aohtittet vor allom seln Herz in Dankbarkelt vor dem SohSpf ^r
aua, iaas er ihn von aolohen frommen .Jltern habe enl^prieaaen
lassen, (er war gebor n zu toaen im Jahre 178Cj die "beida
desaelben odl -n Stamm^s Zweige gjweaen* und die ihn auf ieda
Weiae mit grosser Anstrengung zu fSrdvjrn gesuoht, *Wiit mehr,
ftla ea der Natur bellebt habe, ihn auazuatatten" und welt mehr,
ala .Itern aonat zu tun pflegan. * Ja" , ruft er aua, "Ihr Heilig

rir

'j *-'• , is/, i *^ I v,j-t ^~ ,ri" " ^' - «. I.-'

• 23 -

gen droben, Ihr habt viel an mit getani Ihr habt all .^re Kraft
auf mioh verwendet, habt meine Jrziehung :uoh sohi»er werden las-
sen, habt den Sohlaf l^uoh von den Augen g3soh«oht, urn mlr alles
aute 2u gewahren, habt mir troffliohe L^hrer und edles Belspiel
gegeben, tun mlr bu zelgen, welohss d^r reohte .Veg des L^bens
ael und von welohem hoiligen ^Uamme ioh komroo , was die Planner
b^deutiten, welche dl. Kjtte uns^rer Famllle bllden, damlt Ioh
Ihnen riloht zur 3ohande g^relohe^ Damlt lob mloh zu der Bahn
mie-h erh^be, die si- geebnet, und nloht welohe von der Pahne
Ihres Lagers."

"Ioh war nooh Jung,* erzahlt er welter, "als mloh Gk)tt, (5558,
d.1.1793), malne Lebsnsgefahrtln flnden Hess, P?lnde, "^oohter
von leao Lasker aus Lubranltz, (ihre L::utter, namens Esther, war
elne geborene Nasohelska), der «elne Famllle bis auf den bertihm-
ten 3alomo Lurla, Ja bis auf Easohl zurtlokftlhrte* E« war eln
merkwtirdlgee Zusammentreffen von Umatanden, die duroh die Vor-
eehung geleltet und duroh verehrte Fanner vermlttelt wurden, en
war eln- gltlokllobe Verblndung. Melne Prau unt rzog eloh mlt red
lloh^r Bemtlhung dem ^rwerb, um mloh nooh elne Kolhe von Jahren
mlt Musee In den >obrlften der alten und JUngeren Gesttzietor,
sowle In homlletlsohen und moralphllosophlaohen -erken welter
studleren zu lasoen. Auoh Ihxj .Itern untirstUtzten mloh wah-
rend dleser melner Studlenzelt, aodass ioh an Kenntnls und la-
sjnsohaft zunahm und bald elnen Kamen unt )r den Gel hrten be-
kamj man trug mlr eln ansehnllohoa Rabblnat an, alleln melne
Prau wlderrlet mlr deasen Annahme* 31e m inte, Ioh mBohte nur

< y' 5

'•^— ^••^"H'lawi

- 24 -

H

die Saohe Gott anheiia«tellen, er i?Urde meine Arbeit im Handel
und Gewerba, den ioh nun selbet betreiben sollte, segnen und
meine geringe Habe mehren, nur solle ioh die Zeit, di. das Go-
sohUft ffiir ttbrig lassen werde, mit alien Kr^ften dem Studium
und der HeligioneausUbung, sowie namentlioh der Erziehung und
dem Unterrioht meiner Kinder widmen^ '•Ioh hCrt auf ihren Kat,
ioh beugte meino echwaohe, ven»eiohlichte Sohulter unter das
Joch von Gesohaften, an die ich nioht gewGhiit war^ mioh hielt
kein Sohnee, keine KUlto oder Ilitze von den weiten Eeisen ab,
die ioh nun maoh-jn musetc , und nooh dazu untor einem fremden
Volke, dessen 3praohe ich nioht einmal veratand, ttber Berge von
Sand Oder duroh sumpfige Tiefen, ohne reohtes HachtQ.uartier
und chne regelm&ssige Nahrung, ioh trug mit Ausdauer diese und
thnliohe ITUhen und Lasten, zu denen gar oft noch manoherlei au-
ssergewOhnliohe Drangsale hinzukamen, wie Gesohaftsstookungen,
Orenzsperren, Kriege , Insurreotionen, Pest und HungersntJte, die
nachat der allfemcinen KalamitS./t| von der sfte begleltet waren,
mir manohmal nooh ihre besondern Gefahren und "^ohreoknisse be-
reiteten. Gott hat mioh dies Allea glUoklioh bestehen lassenj
ioh gebe ihm heute Treis und Dank ftlr seine Gnaden, die er mir
iinzahlbar arwiescn, fUr selnen 3ohutz und Schirm in alien NOten,
fUr all* die wunderbare Ililfe, die ioh gef undent ioh danke ihm
insbesondere , dass er mir in niviinen Gesohaften GlUok gegeben und
mioh daduroh in dan Stand geaetiii hat, mein Ifeus in Bhren zu be-
stellen tind die Meinigen in ^ohlstand zu versorgen."
Auf seinen Reiaen hatte er atets Religionssohriften mit sioh, in

- 25 •

denen ^r unteinifegs las und 3toff zu emsigem Naohdenken fandj
sowle er aber heimgek hrt war, suohte er, naohdem er aeln© G%-
BOhaftsangelegenhelten aohnell geordnet, sofort sein Studier-
zimmer ftuf, ••da muaterte ioh/ erzahlt er, "Mine kleine Heerde,
meine Sohafchen, um ale an den Strttmen herrlioher Taier weiden
zu laaaen, ( er hatte 10 Under, 7 SOhne imd 3 TOohter,) und
auoh meine Kraft suohte ioh zu verJUngen, indem ioh mioh in den
Geiet unaerer heiligen Lehre und in die Auaaprtiohe unserer vVei-
sen veraenktej ioh habe dann im doppelten Sinne Jene . orte dea
Psalmena&ngers an mir erfahren ( 119,59) : •Ioh ttberdaohte meinen
Weg, 0 Gk)tt, und lenkte meinen Puaa wieder zu Deinen Zeugniaaen
zuruok!* Duroh die versohiedenen wrlebniase , mtint er, die er
unterwega gehabt, duroh die Betraohtxmgen, die ihm auf "aeinen
legen" auf der Heiso defi freiea Blick in die Natur und der le-
bondige Verkehr mit allerlei Menaohen nahe gel^ggt hatte, nar

ihm eino treffliohe i^nleitung

giworden ftir das tiefere Veratand-

nis der Religionawahrheiten und Satzungen, er war Jedeamal go-
dankenvoller, reif^r und feater geworden, von *'aeinen Wegan**
zurtiokgtkehrt zu den "Zeugnissen Grottea** , zu den tcuellen ewiger
Woiaheit*

In 29ner Ztit verfasste er mehrera Sohriftenj die erate betitelt
••Oeaang der HoohmUtigen'* (Jes* 25,5) geiaaelt die Hassliohkeit
des DUnkala \ind dea Hoohmutea namentlieh bei den JUngern der Jia
aenaahafti die, Ton Katur talentvoll, gar oft sioh erkUhnen, "dlt
Ehra von Mannern der Weiaheit herabzuaotzon, wahrend ea ihnen
aelbat vor allem an der nOtigen Ruhe und Boaonnenheit fehlt,

'^^'r:^^'i'^^!eS9fl*1^^!fM!^!ti''''f^^^^'^'*7'''?ffl

- 28 -

tohon urn nur auazul-iatlren an den v/orten des Lehrhauaes, uin sioh
in die Wisaensohaft zu vertiefen und an ihr zu erlenohten, und
dio Worte der Vmhrhoit auf der Wage der Oereohtigkeit zu wigen."
Bine andere ^ohrift mit dem Titel -Haufo soi Zeuge" (Oenei.
31|47, .Vorte Jacobs, als bt eloh von Laban trennte und eln#n
Steinhaufan zum Denkmal erriohtete, zugleioh hat das hebr. V.ort
••Haufe'' den Zahleni»ert 33 ), enthait eino Saimnlung von 33 ..uf-
eatsen fllr sein3 SChne, ala er dieselben, die "aus 3ohafen zu
BOoken gefforden waren** , naoh ia^uswarts auf hBhero Sohulen sand-
te, "^vienn b±^ etwa" , aagt r darin, ^♦an einon Ort bttaer a-JiJills-
sor verderbtor Sitten ktaen^ vtena sioh leiohtf jrtige Preunde «u
iiinen gosellten, Mensohen ohn© Charakter, Spioler, SpUtter, Keu-
erer, Llodynarxjn Oder wilde ^ifsrer, die keine Zuoht und Bildung
kennen, da, daohto ioh, raOge "dieses Haufloin* ein Zeuge sein
zwiaohon mlr und itimn auoh in der lexae , insbesondere eine Mah-
nung, daas sie nioht Jenen tBriohten Jttnglin^en naohahmen, die
Sohinahung im Munde fUhren gegen Ldnner der .^issenschj^ft , gegen
Manner von Oharakter und aefUhl, weil sie nioht mit ihnen glei-
ohv^r Ansioht sind Oder ihnen nioht gonug hre angetan oder nioht
genug Geld gegeben, dass sie ebenso wenig Uber ihre eigenen Ge-
nossen aburtoilen oder si3 gar in Uebereilung tmd Uebertreib\xng
als ganzlioh unwissend bezeiohnen, und dass sie endlioh in ihren
Studien nioht fortwahrend von §inem Gegenstand zum anderon ab-
springen oder Viel^rlei zugleioh betreiben, sondern die "itoffe
zu durohdriugen suohen sollen, idar und grtlndlioh."
Auoh fur die JUngeren Knaben sammelte er eine Sohrift von 38

J

I I

f I

i~t

-.}> ^ . .^ " " .

-!■ v:,y2^!iij

- 27 -

en" sosohrieben hat-

Aufsat^on, die .r .b#i .Vlnter*mte im Lad
te; er warnt aie dgrin vox den Gefahr^n d . s Msalgganga, dea Her-
umlauferia und dea Spieltisohes , er suoht ihiien Liebe zn ?ltlaa
und ijinaigkelt, Aohtun^^ vor J.der .rbeit, vor dem tllohtigen Hand-
werker, wie gor Jeder Kuna und wiaaeusohaft einzufldaaen. J)r
nannte dioae Sohrift ''Thau der JuGend%(Thau bat Im Hebr. den
Zahlenwert von 39} «damit diesom Thau aus den Fiirohen Ihr.r em-
pfangliohen Herzen die BlUten der Vernnnft, die Prliohte der Tu-
gend dea Heilea entapriesqen! *•

Endlioh ordnete or an.oh «3iatter zur Ileilung" ftir seine Tttchter,
^ym aie zu Jieilen von alien Krankhelten der 7,eit und ihron Zau-
berkUnsten, von dem Jag^n nach .luszeiohnung, naoli Gold, naoh
SohUnheit, von der Grefallanoht ¥rio von der »raoiitllebe, von der
Vernaohiaaaigung der i eligion oder der .^irtaohaft, von den all-
zuvielen 3ohwatzen und Ipielen, vcn den zu haufigon Deauohen dea
Theatera und d r 5ffentlloh n Garten, und endlioh von alljm Ge-
kiataoh und Oezank.**

Die >ohriften wurden agLmmtlioh abgeschri ^b n, aie drangen in
weitere Kreiae ein und haben manoherl i Sagen go8tift:?t«
••Auoh darin,** fdhrt er fort, ^'hat n\x Gott wunderbar sein^ Gnade
erwi-sen, daaa er mioh fUr m ine Kinder gltickliohe und ana^hn-
liohe iShebUndniaee elngeh^n lieaa,; as iat rair gelungen, m^inen
Sehnen fromme, g-bildet • Prau n, '"bohter von bedeutenden hoohge-
aohteten MRnnern und meinen TBoht ?rn tUohtige, rjohtsohaffendt
MUnn.r, unterriohtet in allgemeiner wie in Jttdiaoher .iaaenaohaft
zu gebenj und auoh die I'linder, die ihnon geboren wurden und Uber

I f

I I

- 23 .

di3 Gott walten wolls, habon die '.Ve^e Cottes erw&hlt; m6ge ar
soinen 3eg3n ihrien haufen tauaeiidfaoh! *♦

So Viatte 3r 4C Jahrj lang gjlebt, d.h. von seiner Verheiratung
bis naoh Verheiratung seiner JUngsten Tochterj "ioli war," aftgt
er, •^glUoklioh mit Dank tnd Lob zu GrOtt, sin .irbeiter, der sei-
ne Arb-iit iDit Hcrz und oeel? beatellt und nioh freut aber Aa«
loos ^'das ihm ins Liebliche gefullen**- mit J>arer l!utter* Und
sohon waren die Tage des .xlt^ra genaht, da ioh daohte, ein Le-
bon h8h8r(ur Vollkcimnenh.^it zu fUhron, wio es sioh zIolH:^ nenn
as heisst; Zg achweige (hebr* bedeutet das Vort zugleioh die
Zahl 65) alleo Fleiooh, eine h-^ilige VerkUndung fUr (Jott!(Seoh.

Da wurde er im ^^.Itar plotzlioh aus seinor Huhe aufgosohreokt
iind von sohwerer Bedrlngnis h ing isiioht.

Er hatte ntlmlich seine Jttngste Tooht.>r an ein n sehr reich n
und angesohenen Mann in Littauen verheiratet und befand sioh
bei denselben 2:u Besuoh, wdhrend seine Frau sioh bei den Kin-
dern in Deutachland aufhielt. &B gcfiol ihm bei seinor Tochter
s.'hi gut, ai^:^ war *'ftlrstlioh eingoriohtot* , und da 3ioh in ih-
rem Hause auoh eine schCr.e Hauasynagc^e nit einsr reiohen Bibli-
othek befand, jo vmr er nahe daran, hi r zu bleiben, um au 1 r-
neii und r.n lehren,** u^ad es farodcn sioh auoh in der Tat einige
Leute bei ilim, ^dio mit Durst die Vorte seiner Lehre tranken."
Da wurde sein r.ohwi-gereohrx info] go grosser Ocldverluste , die
ex erfahran, plotzlioh sohiiemilltigi er begRnn mit seiner Frau
allerloi Streit, der zu heftigen 3oen n fuhrto der alte Vater

'1'/__.vfi" '^w"^

- 29 -

.elite slch ins mtel lege., wollte ftu.el.lch.c, alleia es half
niohts, und ebeneo wenl, konnt. dersslb. , als die 3aohe iminer
Bchlimmer v^arde, eine Trennung zuatande brlr.gen. .rst naoh unend-
lioh langan Unterhandlungen, di. ihn auf 3ohK..rzli ohete auf-
ronton und mlt Illlfe von aeBoMft8fre.;nden des ^^oh^iegerBOhnee,
die au0 der Parne herbolkair.n, uin demselb.n Ins Gei^iasen zu re-
den, and denen or e.^ auoh ar dlescr Stella hcrzUch dankt, g#.
lanft es ihm, eine Soheidang jener Ehe zu bewirkan, und so relate
er von dort mit der unglttoklichen Toohtar (rjather) naah War-
aohau und hi^lt sioh bel derselben Wngers Zelti in einer oigene
fUr ihn in der Voratadt elnger- ohteten V/ohr.ung auf , irholung au-
ohend in aeinen frommen Stndien, die er jet/.t ungostbrt fort-
eetzte,

Aber bald aollte ilin eine nooh sohwerere H^lmauohun- treffen*
1*ine Frau, der die VorgM.n<re in Littanen tlbrircns vollstaindig
unbekannt geblieben waren, xind die inswieohen von Poaan aue eine
Beauohareise zu ihren 3Bhnen naoh Cberaohlesien geniacht hatte,
war ntiob ihrer EUc) * \t 4n Poaen nao^ '^^ri m Kranl: : nlag^ r am
ZZ. Kllub 5GC7 (1647) gestorben. twa 14 Tag ^ frtlher war sie
dort auf den Grabern ihr r iihnen rew pen und l-xntte den .una oh
geftusacrt, auf demaelben Priedhofe doreinat ruhen zu dtlrfen.
Ihr ».unsoh wai ihi* sobnell in rfttllung gegangen, aie wurde in
I'oaen mit groaaen Ehren bestattet, Als der tonn ic der Perne,
Aeii aan dieaen Tod ao lange ala mBglioh verheiirlicht hatt , end-
lioh, von bBaen Ahnujigen langat beiinruhigt, ihn erfuhr, war aelne

I I

i

- 30 -

Trauer Mlber diese Zjr8t(5rung seines Tompels" imerinesslioh gross;
trots ••Fasten und Beten" fand er kcine Euh bei Tag und Kaohti
noh ware/ aa-t er, «ln coinsm Slenda fast unte rgegang Jn, v/cnn
nioht Gott, aer Barmherzige, mioh in seiner Lehre Mtte Bsruhl-
giing finden lasson," Er hielt Jet^t z^m Cefteren Bffentliohe re-
ligiase Vortr^ge, in denan er beaonders viele uatze der ulten
Icloen erkllrte ujnd nachwies, wie ditsolbsn es so trofflioh ver-
stgndan haben, im Ilerzen das Volkes die Religion zu festigen und
daduroh das Jooh der V'elt 1 icht zu maohen, "damit ^ir nioht un-
t0r der Last der Zeit und den *.echselfllllen des G Lohiokss erlis-
^^en, scndern auf Cott unaer Vertrauen setzen und darin Beruhi-
goag find en in alien Zeiten der I^iot und Bedrangnis** Er konnte
bci diooer Gelegonheit von seinem eigenen Kummer spreohen und

ST::.£:lcioh der

r-

ndcn der Vsrstorbenen g^denken, die "ihm nur

au8 don ^..ugen und nioht aus dera Herz-^n gesohieden war* und fand
hierdurch Trost und r.rleichterung. J)en Inhalt dieser Hede gab
•r in einer 3ohrift wi^dar, die dsm .^nd^nken der Verstorbenen
gswldmot ijmd ihram Namen ur^jf^hr entspreohjnd den Titel fUhrte:
••Eindin der Liebliohkeit** (Spr* Sal. 5,19)* lir preisst in der-
salben die VorzUgs mtA Verdienste seiner Gattin, die nioht bios
ihn und seins 3j}hne im ^Jtudium untersttttzt, aondern die .»issen-
schaft und Ihre JItBftr Ub'^ahuupt geu-hrt und ebenso ^rmen und 3s-
drflngten mit Aufopferong baig^-staxiflen hatj besonders sohildart
or, wio sla sioh um ^jranke und Leidende bemtiht und wahrhaft ver-
dient gsmaoht hat, wie sio diosclben auf^esuoht, wie sie ihnsn
persttnlioho HUlfsleiatung gebot n, Gelduntersttitzungen, wo as

i

- 51 ^

netlg ..ar, und Erfrisohixngen gebracht, uM wie ale sloh Uber-

haupt auf ihre Behandlung verstftnden habe; er fUgt dann hinzn,

-sie hat das (JlUok gehabt, ^irklioh vlele aus Oefahren zn erret-
ten.**

-mt Reoht/ aagt .^r, -prelat der P^almen^angw den Fromman,
(1,3), dasa er einen Baruno gleloht, sepflanzfc an v^aeaerbachen,
der seine PrUohte .'^Ibt znr reohten Zeit und dossen 31&tter nioht
welken, nnd alios, was er tnt, gellngt ihsi," d.h. moht 4hm rei-
ohB Preude, ••und der elneiti sohattenrelchen Baurae gloioht, dsr
imverdroGsen und unei.-enntltzig alien Bedtlrftlcen aeint Labung
glbt, nell ihm der Mohste Lohn und Segen Ist, dans er gentlrdlgt
ward, Gutes stlfton zu kt5nnen. Die Fruoht des Gerechten ist eln
Bauin des Lobena und der kV .Ise erobert die ''>eele! "(s^r, Sal. 11, 30^
Duroh die Lleblicblcclt und Aaatiit, mlt der die Spraahe des W«lg«B
sloh alttellt, englrbt or auoh die Pernstehenden fttr die ^rkennt-
nis, dasB die PrUohto, die auf dem Bcden der PrBmralgkait spriesse^^
Lebon spendend slnd, Leben ftlr die r^mpf Singer wle ftlr den Grtber
solbst, Lebtn flir Z Itllohkelt und Ewlgkolt," *Solohe ./eish^it,'*
sohllesst er seine Betraohtung, '•hat die V^rstorbsne gehabt, und
geubt; xnOge sie die Hald G-ottea sohauen in seiner helllgen Hal-
le in Ewig'celt!"

Ea liess ihm nun in dor Perne keine Ruhe mohr; er reist^j naoh
Posen, wo er von seinam Jllteston 3ohne looses und desaen Gattin
Laah ( seiner Kiohtc), aowie von seinor Toohter T&ubohen und d#-
ren Gatten Helmann Marous und den Kindern balder Pamillen, und

-sa-

vor alleir. von solnor hochv- rehrten, hoias^Qllebten Sohweater Hen-
dal "iind auaserdein von vielan Verwandten und Freunden mit groeser
Fr«ud9 anfganoHiwon vfurde^ seine AnsehCrlgen wollten ihn flir immer
Jort feaneln, nnd er ?!'.■> Ibat ba^ann ber^its in gev^ohnter ..eiae sei-
ne fitudien dasjel.bst fortzuaeV.zeaj er arbeitote nainenllioh liber aei-
non berelts in Warsohau beso-'unuafa V/crke: "Aoker dines ^..naen" ,
(letz+ares .'.'or-!; enthait. j.m Hebriliachen zxigleioh sine .aiapielung
anf 30lnen Ranen 3alomon) , dns r^rteriuigen liber den Pentateuoh
und flesflen FBBohi ~ Koircaentar cntlu'lton scllte, Oa soliien as, ale
ob dtts Klima Utti nlc}it bekftme, er liefund sich kCrpRrlioh nioht
wohl, er meints auoh, date ihn. der lEngerc unseTiolinte .lUfenthfolt
in der grosBtn, gor&uscbvollien Stadt uicht behage , f^enug, er ent-
BcMosB pJoh, 80 vinznfrle(ien aiioh die 'leinigon in foa&n durliber
weren, vorlftnfig nach Obcrschlesicn zu reiaen und dort etwa ein
Jahr bei ceinen SCbnen zu bleiben, um danr; naoh Joan zurUckzu-
kehren. lOemnachBt hielt er Bioh etwa eln halbea Jahr bei soinem
Sohne Arie Loeb in ZUlz auf , der dawils dort Rabbiner «ar, (gegen-
iitrtiG i3t dereelba Rabbinor in Rioolai,) und reiste aodarm zu
Bcinen: -ohne I^llah, neinora Vater, nach Lo.lau, der dort Kabbiner
l.t. Tn Lo«lan gefiel os ih.a gut. Baa StOdtohen ist klein und hat
eine gesunde L.ge, nnd er far^. dort. auaaor den uxxgoatort.n Um-
ganc. ..it meinen Faterr., auoh n-hrere reliclt^s gosinnte und unterrioh
tete Lenta, die so.oW a.lnen talmdiaoh-n ala «,r,lphiloBopld.ohaa
Unter3uchun.,en v^ Auecrtmnderaetzungen rait vide. luterea.e folg-
ten .xr.d ihn .fter ,ohl auoh au Jredigten in der Syr^goge veran>
laasten. Er liosa aich hierbloibend rAeder ux^ entsohloaa sioh

socar, auf Veranlassung vielor PrennAe und untor ZnstlmmiDS bAI-
ner Kinder, jsiim Z7?elten Male eino eigtne Hftusliohkait «u btgin-
nen, indem er aioh daselbat rclt einer aohtbaren Witwe varh^ira-
tete, deren Kinder varsorgt waren, iind der nm eine fromma Ge-
nngtnung gtfrahrte, dieaen allgem3in verehrten greiaen Mann, der
etwaa Heillgea an aioh hatte, ala Oattin km pflegen und in aei-
n«m Umgamg zn leben« Hr dankt ea ihr auoh an dieaer ^>tell^ , daat
er duroh ihre ante in den Stand geaetzt nar, einige Jahre in Rtihe
und mit Eif'=)r aeinen Stiidien obgnliegen.

Sr befasste aioh iet^.t be«=iondera mit dem Ordnen aeiner vielen
Sohriften, vor allem braohte er hier den oben genannten Penta-
teuoh und Raaohi - Kommentar p.um Absohluaa; aodann ein Verk tlber
das Buoh ^58ther, das er aeinem T^effen Joaua Palk, dem Sohne aei-
ner Sohweater Hendel, der kinderloa (am ?• Sohwat 5596 Oder 1836)
gestorbon war, widmete und ndt Anapielung auf daa Gebot der Sohrift
(Lev. 25,49) •Seln Oheim lOst ihn aua" betitelteo Auoh aeinen
Enkeln widmete er eine Sohrift, betitelt: "Der Bau dea Hau»ea%
in der er denaelben ans Herz legt, daas sie bei eheliohen Ver-
bindungen, die aie eingehen v/ollen, nioht bloa nach VermBgen
Oder augaerem Glanz trachten und namentlioh eioh nioht «u leeren
und leiohten Kenaohen, Oder gar zu Raohkonmen von '•Uebeltatern
und BOageainnten** geaellen sollten, denn von soloher Verbindung
gelte daa V/ort {^vr. Salorco 5,4): -und ihr Hlnde, ihre Zukunft
iat bitter wie Wenmith,*' Und endlioh verfaaat ^ er, auaaer vle-
len Oelegenheitaaohriften, nooh zwei v^'erke, daa eine "Liohtatrah-
len** betitelt, enthait Anleitungen und Winke ftlr daa Taljnudatu-

-so-

dium, und das an^ere: -Sin Witer der Weinber^e- genar^t, let tixi#
AU9elnaiv5er«et2ung, wie man b6i ^en Anfor^ierungen, die daa Leben,
naaientlioh das g^sohaftliohe, stolit, dooh a*oh den v^einberg det
Herrn, das hejhere Leben htlten, die Pflioh-en als Israelit erfttl-

len kenne.

Oern will er nur. anch an dieser '^telle selnen rindern vjiA Freun-
don Gin letEtea Kahnwor^ der Feligion zunifen, zivar, aagt er,
••tfcisa ich nlobt, iro ante^ngen imd wozu? Soil loh H^ioh etwa er-
aahnen, Gott zu dienen und seine Lehre zu lieben? Oder die .?ei-
sen zu ehren und ihre Worte zu beherzigen? Oder gate sitten tnd
reohtnohaffene arundsatze ISuch anzuelgnen? Oder alle niederen
Leidensshaften •nit LOwenloraft* zm beiiaiti<:en? Oder ^eien -^tein
dea Anstosaea von i^rem Wege zu entfornen? Oder 3uer Gebet zu
Gott rein und andiohtig sein zu lassen? Wisaet Ihr denn nioht daa
alios aolbst, •die Ihr Ja an Gott fost anhanget", und aind Suoh
nioht dio ..erke der alten Welsen zug&nglioh, yjs denen Ihr eol-
ohe "Srmahrungen und nooh weit mehr tmd in erhabener Daretellunj
lesen kbnnt?*

•Allein OS iat ftlr einen Eann, der von Jugend auf in Religion
und 'TlBaensohaft herangewachscn, ein tiefes BedUrfnii, daas er,
zuisal wenn 4i« Zeit seines Kndea nahet, sioh Jener orte erinnere,
die von d^m fatriarohen d:;r Sohrift rcesagt worden, damit er sei-
nen Kindern ur^d atin^m Hauae naob ihr bef^hl , das^ ale den eg
Cottea beobaohten und Becht und Gerechtigk°it tlben. ^a ist ihm
cin BedUrfnis, den Geinigtn etwaa von elneir ewigen ^^egen zu hin-
terlaaaen, ob auoh der Inhalt deasen, was er ala nahnend mitzu-

- 56 -

f ilsn hat. bereit. uiulhlig. KAl* ron and.r.n g..Agt und g.-
■alirlebtn nordan •ei.*'

•30 will lah ^fxh den Eat der Alttn d#nn •rt#il#r., 4«r loh salb.t
auar miter Vattr bin: in alien Dingen, die Ihr beginnt, Tertraxxt
OT* tdtt und seine iaife. I^anket ihm, menn er selM Httlfe SMk
geasndet, betrUbt Sttsli aber aioht alliu eehx, mbb er Saeh ein
venlg damtf i»rten lEest* fflaubet l±t, loh habe das allea in sei-

j&mm Leben erfahreni ioh babe ea offen

erifiannt, daaa

wtT &uf der lalt keiaa baaaere Sttitie ale daa Gottv^rtrauen, Daa
mllein gibt una in alien Sahwaakungen der Seit, bei alien Zvei-
f In und B^^denkeni Ton denen daa aahvaoha MaBaabanhers gar oft

fees

wird ,

Imiaren Halt, eine innere Pestigkeit xuad

SaAa, Aaaa wir aeoer ra Tiel wagen, nooh luriel aajex.! daaa wir

tollkSLbn, noah

lah £itternd v

I aondern mit

t uBd Kraft I ebexiao Toraiohtig wie Uberlegt, ale aohnall unA
antachloaaan die Angalegaaiialten daa Loliana betreiben, veloher
Art Aiaaelben auah sein wMffUtf n^ mm aiah mi gaaah&ftliohe Un-
temalMBagan x^nd&lt, Oder us Kaaaregaln fUr die Odsandheit,

Oder

one Sinriohmuisaa, odar ua faaallige 3exiehungen,

Oder US daa .^iahtigate, vaa den XL tarn obliagt, ua Krsiehung
Aaabildung der £lader, Ja aelbat unaer Verhiltnia su Gott findet
dureh daa Gottrertrauen daa reohte Kaaa der welhevcllen Betati-

guiig» •

•Dnd lah , aagt der Paaine ., •dureh Dmlxxm groaae Gnade, o

Wbtt, Icaaaaa lah in i>ain Haua und bUoice aiah au Seiner heiligen
ftOle in Palnar Furoht. Die Erinnerung, aeint deraelbe, die iha

"-.^t'.••^*'ii^-^J^;v%.

- 57 -

Wt

Ir. der B-dr' :An t all ^eworden an Oottea OoAda, hab#
^'-r.rv remcM, amih .c^gtnwltrti- Oott m dlantn, d-.ss tr dtr

Sorgtn nlaht und der Oesoblfte a^litt^ts , die Ihn Tom tottaahMM
t»rr h£.lttB won ten, dast tr aTMk 1b ialten dtr lot, da Ck^tt
•Par«hf tibar die M&aabaa sMaaiat, daanooh fwerslohtllah •ioh

In dar halli^ar lalla Molrea

, •alna liikun^t getroat aal
allend: •Iferr Isite mioh In Delner (^^r«chtigk»it
■and •%»% Tor adr Dalaaa ^aj!' (ihld. V.8).
•A^ich Mln aeligar Tatar bat ua im laMa selnas Tatars ausdrtiok-

llc*5 an«hnt nit dan lortan: •BDttt laah ror der Batrtibnis daa
aaiste« und 4«r Scjhlaffhalt , die si? 1« Oefolga hat! Und aann^a

aateb las nahiwal nlaht

Wuna#!i gaht, wii irenn at^i

lia Hoff-

▼aralt^lt lat, i»eriet nloht sleioh slaasntis und betrabat

ra

r, Tertranet an.? 3<?tt; Xr wird a-ar

•n alias

l^Alsan. AVar bctet sa 1!9 la Afiiacht und FHhrwif t ^ijai der Bara-

liarilge wird 2Tier (Hb-t anne
Zr '-ft.»

und ?^ioh ^adaihan laaaan In dar

Sr a^!!lleaat diese BetracMoc imoh aeitarer ^kl&rung einiger

BlbelsT}!' '^it ait -^en Ausrul*:

rt aei ^er

, dar auf Oott rert

• (Jer. 17,7). Daa

aban ist der Grand aai stt^laiah die lirkung sAlnaa Segans, Aaaa
er, rlt dar Kraft daa Got^rertrauena gartls^el , seln Leban la Gal-

ate taA dam tmtar den Beltta&de Oottet gaataltet! Kge aolcher
Seger Her Thell aaln In der tfialgteitM

Una llegt Um

WBT%9n, daa er auaapreohen

ahe 9T aalnen letataa Wlllea nlederaehrelbtt :r aagt, seitdaa %t

I I

II

.,:i\'WX^- ^i'

.'. '-i''^ ,-

rf"*, i, %•} * "*. > " 'A-^v-^-V

V

se ^

rui rlrermtiiic; t Uit-i . f lichl rekoawi,, hfef -i st»ts d&s Be-
str ben ...bt, "rit of: am Aii«e la beiraeht-n oal tit laut«a
B»i:rnnt.ni8 zu v,"^ ■'icon, welohe 3«te mlr vor All^m von CJott, «3-
4£..iir eber auch von fl' • n, die ,' ii jmnfll, sr^i^asn

r . "en." Ee let iha ein« Pflisht, von fersoasa eu •preoliaa, dit
Ihffi durch "Tort ucd Tat nohlg-tan, d«nn nur durch solcke "doj-
pelte Ee-tracMur-g der . '-iltaten, dl« aac ▼on Oott und lff«iis2h«n
«mpf anc:er, , sts.rkt mar eloh in dtn t)eid«r. ob'sratsa 5rundsitB«a
der liliglrn, Ir der Li< : .• 2U 5ott und \n d«r liebe s-j den »»n-

e '•* V> c: v" »

5 BO ' r i«jtt irbrtlnatig nlatifit seine n litem aueh

ceinen Lehrarn und Freurden all«n, die -s so treu irlt ilm ^emeiat
5::;"£.iji seiiien siatlichen Vlnderi-, ' ohvie£ftreM'. ': r und ohwieger-
ttC^t^rn, ''die ihn viel hr^ txmI Liebe bewt#tiftR, m^hr •!• Isli
i;cl>:nt r ~'"-ht> " ferner All* den an veischiedenen Orttn nohn-
Itt. n "IMLi. .n von ..nsehen, die Eileh I^t^t . :^ z% Ifcxee 7er-
tranenc, ihree T3iiiss»jagi^e ottr ihrer S^e^Mi'tsver'blnflan.g ^eelli*'
dirt," und eMlic^ nejner. . oh* lerr, -.ti.6 Z':*hBrern, "deaeft« die

£LUf '^'^-ini

'tlmse

*te der lellf

I oral

r-r , BGVJie denen, die eloh an ^%9.^m Sa^lMLl; "tm «1«^ •rtMrteft

ai. haben nit Anre^pinf: g»g«*«n an lerr.c it r tehrea Wi Tiele

^nteil :. *' ' n ra Jj«aeji s-n c^er. Terdlenv^t, C*1rt am lieb#B und ati

fUrchtei. unci in £

.. ru

In::;^

;dere ftlhlt er aloh £;©a7,'im|^m

aSaitlich in ioaeu

i^f w^

rUhxrrtenr-Vcrwanftt.en (melaeF

_ -/

, f-._

rsc

, die

n: vcr

iila» Bieinea be-

chereeixa)

f I

- 59 -

•i.ylbft lg»r, "der sloh hernhgrlafeer. , mich zn einea tielner Ver-
trButen unfl Eet.geber zu macher. und air Bfcibst erlautt hat, In
teir.er G-cgennrerl rellclcr-sgeset^llch? ritcchaidrngcn »u f&ll»n,'
BOdonn seines Cheimc uxid elnptisen Lehrere felf Fiallpharl (Mttt-
-tprbruder) , eowic endllch seines 3m<!ers laao Landsbarg, "mlt

("eit loV' 90 lange "elt r-u4aJBB«n si:udlert urnJ glelche

en ^e-

o

teilt," und seiner 5 Sohwestsrri I'eta, Tsrwitwete Branil , and ver-
ebellchte 'aphtall L'osas, Taiaba v^rshslichte " '.ibarj und HeMel
verwlfwele Heimarin 3atil.

Bel Eenrnng des letzteren Naicena Handel gar&t ar In alna ^pahrhaft
felerllohe be^tegt* Stlranani^i er nennt dieaa Sohweator, die dia
itlttela+e dsr Gesohuister mar, "die TroBBa, t.atenrelohe, anga-
nehae und bertthmte ?rau, dsren segenareiohe ..lri:aamkeit wtithin
bekannt ist." "Sie hat ihrcn Eltarn," sagt er, -urxauaapreohliche
Frende bareltet, Ihre Famllis in Hah und Fern, Klein und &ro.8
unaufhonich irit Liebe und ^ufiuerksair.kelt bev-Amelt uod dar faensoh
heit Elt all* den relchen Kraften. die Ihr Sott gageben und gadal-
kan lleaa, gedlent, *o e^ nur Imuer Irgend anging. Sla hat dia
drei S6"alen der v eit nSchtig ge.ttlttt: Lahre , &otte«dlenst ur^
ichltatigkelt. Sie iniaste jede. betmbte uM gebeugte CJamlit auf-
rurichten, ^eden. .rz.an und Barlxangten zu helfen, ftlr Studierende
ru soxgan, da. Herz der .it., z. erfre.en, ven-aiate I'lnd^r .r-
.lehen ru lassen und ar.a Brlute auszu.tatten, uM tat dia. all.,
xnit da. sinnlgstan Ver.t«Lndnls und mlt «.rte.t.r S^pfindWl ^
•r dia Kaohricht von ihra» Tode .ernon..an, ( .!• -t.rb i. .ahre
IWC). habe er eine Trau.rf.ier .oran.taltet und ihr .in. G.dEoht-

ti^tLmtft^mi

I I

I I

: -Ui 53 • . I ' V

•% "'^^^ ';

- 40 -

nlsrede genldmeti In der •r auselnandertetzto , vie dltse Frau dtn
ganien Gesang, den der Dlohter dcr Sohrift auf ein •ttlohtiges
lielb** anstimmt, (Spr, Sal. 31, 21-31), wOrtlloh 3atE ftlr Sate
mlt ihrer Klugheit und PrOmmlgkeit beneihrt habe. Kan kOnne und
MUsse daher, so sohloss er seine Betraohtungi auoh den letsten
Sat£ Jenes Gesanges auf sie annenden: "Gebet Ihr von den Prtioh-
ten ihrer Hand und lobet in den Toren ihre .lerkel* "Duroh sol-
ohes wohlverdiente Lob,* ruft er aua, •enreokt man Naoheiferung,
belebt man fUr kommende G^sohleohter die 3amenkCrner von den Frtlok
ten, die sie gestreut, das sind •die PrUohte ihrer Hand,'' die wir
ihr geben kBnnen, das ist ihr sohCnst^r Lohn! Und wie sie bis su
ihrem spEten Alter eine Krone nar unserem Haupte, so walte sie
legnend tiber uns auoh aus dexn Reiohe der Verkiarung, in das sie
sum enigen Leben eingegang^n! •

In seinem -Letaten Willen* nun, der vom 14. Cheschwan 5622 datiert
und sehr kurz gefasst ist, nimnrt ^r suY^rderst noohmals von den
Seinen herslioh ^bsohied und legt es ihnen wiederholt ans Hers,
in den «egen seiner V&ter su wandeln, Oder "mindestens* dooh in
dem seinigen, -der hinter jenen soviel surliokgeblieben- , sodann
tlbergibt er gegenwartige Bliitter der Erinnerung nebst dem Testa-
ment seines Vat.rs seinem Ultesten 3ohne Moses, -der uns alien
von :e ein gutee Auge nar,- von dem sie Jeder, der sie wumsoht,
absohriftlioh erhalten kOnne; mn mCge in derselben 4mu seiner
dereinstigen Jahrseitf .ier lesen, die er nioht duroh Fasten be-
gangen nissen will, nohl aber duroh b^^sondere Andaoht und J. ild-
tttigkeit und duroh wi derholte Beherzigung der l^ahnung, 'lliss-

I I

- 41 .

gunat, Sinnllohkeit und Bhrsuoht »u fllehen*, * "Ifooh* 6s wle ioh/
eagt er, '•wenn Ihr im tagllohen Morgengebete die Stelle in dem
Liede vom roten Mtere apreohet: ♦•Das i«t der Gott meines Vaters,
den ioh erhebe/ "so verge genu Ertigt Euoh dab^i lebhaft das Bild
©ares Vaters und ^rer I^mtter, wie Ihr diestlban gekannt habt,
als sie nooh mit i:iich lebten, wis einst der Patriarch Jossph,
naoh alter Tj^dition , in der Stunde sittlioher Gefahr duroh das
Bildnis seines Vaters, das ihin im Geiste ersohien, gerettst wur-
de, so werdst auoh Ihr daduroh von aller Unreinheit gerettst wer-
ten, und ausserdem Euoh der Mtthe ttberheben kBnnen, £U den Grabern
der Verstorbenen weite Reisen 2u maohen*'*

Bndlioh wUnscht er nun nooh, dass

su seiner Bestattting keine

besonderen Peierliohkeiten und Uastande maoh , dass man ihm nioht
mehr Ehre antue als andern einfaohen Leuten, in der Leiohenrede,
nenn tlberhaupt eine seiche gehalten warden sollte, nioht mehr Lob
spende, als dass er ein "ehrlioher Kann" gewesenj "wollte Gott,"
fUgte er hinzu, ""dass ioh wenigstens auf dieser 3tu|e einst im
Jenseits bestehe!*

Ir ordnete fplgende Insohrlft an, die man auf sein Grabmal setsen
soil: "Hier ruht der 3ohn Joseph's dee Oereohten, genannt Salomon
Posener," Er starb haoh kurzem Krankenlager im Alter von 83 Jahren
zu Loslau am I jar 5623 (1863) und raht auf dem dortigen Jtidisohen
Prisdhofe. gin einfaohas Denkmal von Holz bezeiohnet sein Grab und
trftgt unter der von ihm angegebenen Insohrlft einen kurzen hebr&-
isohen Vers, mit dem Aohrostiohon seinas Kamens Salomon ungef&hr
folgendjn Inhalts: Des Vaters «ort zu ht5ren, war uns iflioht, dies

■m

it* ri^^~'- 7i-.''^-- . fes

■;Jt;^f';»l;

sw

- 42 -

Denkmal drum keln v.'ort des Lobes apriohti Wie soil's auoh solchen
Maxmes Lob bszeugeni- Ihm iat des Lobes soMnsts Spraohe - Sohnei-

Pass er tlbrlgens fUr die Insohrift auf dem Grabmal sioh selbst den
Beinamen i'osener gab, gesohah offenbar, ijeil er wusste, dass er
unter dlesem Eamen besaer gekannt sela als unter dexn Hamen Kail-
phari, ;r hatte sonat die Gfewohnheit, sioh gern mit dem letzteren
Hamen zu untersohreiben, fUr dessen Restituierung in seine Familie
er sioh konseguent, wenn auoh vergebens bemtlhte. Von seinen seohs
Bhnen fUhren die drei aiteaten: Mos s, liah und .iri^ Loeb, die

3

in Posen und Sohlesien wohnen, den von ihrem Grossvater, resp.
Urgrossvater herrUhrenden Eamen Landsberg, wRhrend die drei jUn-
geren Mordeohai, Jaoob und Samuel, die in Russisoh-K olen wohnen,
den von ihrem Vater daselbst geftlhrten, Oder vielmehr denselben
dort beigelegten Pamiliennaman .osner bewfthrt haben. Seine drei
Teohter h^^lssun; Esther varoheliohte Kamioner in Warsohau, &ub-
ohen verJholiohte Marcus in 7osen und Tosalie, verohelioht in -ar-

sohau*

Polg nde Tabaie stellt die Abstammung unserer Familie bis zu den

Kindern des Verfassers Uberaiohtlioh dar.

I I

^i.<ji»¥^»i^"?it*^'''. •■- •"•' r-r^f^l^iSl

- 43 -

STAMMUM.

1. Salomo harophe sephardi Kalipharl, gestorben oa.l600.

2. Sanjuel Israel Kalipharl, Rabb. zu Lentaohtitz, g««t. oa. 1630,
3o Salomo Kaliphari, Rabb. bu LentaohUtz, gest. oa. 1650,

4* Joseph hadarsohan in koaen, gestorben oa. 1700.

•v Juda Arie Jj^^Q^j daraohan in rosen, geat. als Mttrtyrer 1736.

Jaoob, Rabb. bu Meialing Tauba, (gaat.?).

Jltzohak

Arie Loeb, «olf, Alex SUaskind

Jaoob Kaliphari

6* Sliah, Rabb. «u Laniaberg (1710-1803).

Desaen Gattin: Miohle aua Sohi?erin a.W.
7. Joseph Tiands^^rg in Foaen, (1749V-1826)
Q. SaloDK>n, Jitzohak, Itleta, Hendtl, Taube ( - 1863).

v^.

/

9e H0868| Eliahy Arie ltoab| Mord^ohai| Abraham, Jaoo^D, Samuel ,

Bather, T&ubohen, Eoadlie.

. i,

l>.*t«3>V(Sf^£,-«

X^'-'.^'"

" AA m

Anagttg ama dem Teatament, das mein Urgroaavater JoseDh Landabarg
In Poaen, fUr aeine Kachkommen hlnterlaaaan hat.

1. loh warn^ iiluoh vor der Trftghalt und vor der Betrtibtheiti werdat
nioht miaamutig, wenn Grott nioht allu :-ure ^Unaohu erfttllt, aa
iat allea aum auten, Aber betat daruber in Aiidaoht und Rtihrung,
und Crott, der Barxnh-^rzlge , luird ihier (Jobet erh^ren und aa b\LOh
am iilnde wohlergehen laaaen.

2. Spreohet mit b ^sender r i^ndaoht die tibllohen oijg^xiaaprliohe, (in
dan Gebeten) , apreohet aie langsiTain .^ort fur ^.ort und aohtet da-
bei auf den Sinn einas Jedan fortes. Denket namentlich bei dan
Wortan: "Dar \ina geheiligt hat duroh seine Gabote" an dia Be-
deutiing unaerer Religion, um deren willen Crott una auaerxiahlt
hat. Denkat dabei, dasa er una aeine Lehre zu unserem Heil© ga-
g#ban| dflonit nir seine GrSsse erkennen, aeine Gfcbote erfullen
und daduroh einer hSheren Vollkommenhsiit tailhaftig warden.

3. Dankat daran, daaa Jeder Menaeh vor allem aeinam Monde Zauxa
und Ztlgel anlegan muaa} denn der ^.lund iat dis Uraaohe oder dooh
der Ort fUr viele leiohte und aohnere oiinden, fUr LUQen, bOae
Zunge, Heuchalei, SpOttereii mUaaigoa Gaaahaatz, unzUohtige Re-
dan, Zorn, Zdnkarei, Ganuaa verboten^r Spaiaen, etc.- 0, anthal-
tet Jhxch dooh nur ja daa Zankes und daa Ublon H^dens Uber dia
Menaahenj aeid naohaiohtig bei Unbill, dia Ihr orfahren, und
hat Euoh auoh Jamand hart bejajandalt, duldet ein irenig, ea iat
diaa daa garingara Uebal und hat dan Vortail, daaa i^er Oegner
deato achneller aain Unreoht einaehan nird. Ihr aber werdet Gunat

._i. . .-A,

•» 49 ^

uad Wohlgofallen flnden in den Augen Gottes und der Mensohen.

4. Wenn Ihr an einer Versammlung ftlr Gem Indeangelegenheiten tell-

/
nehmt, sagt 3::ure Melntng frel, ohne rart*illohkelt und perstJn-

liohes IntJres3^^, lediglloh urn Gtott s vrlllen, aagt aber nlcht,

Ihr mtlsst durohaug melne Melnung annehmen! Denket Yielmehr, dass

naoh dom Gesetz unserer Lehre der Eeohtsspruoh gilt: "Naoh der

Mehrhelt 1st zu entaoheldeni •• (Sxod. 23,2).

5* In Betroff dor Erzlehiing .urer Kinder legi? loh :::uoh ana Herz,

loltet sle mlt IJllde! Lasaet ;Ja k^ln Sohlmpfwort lurom Mand« ent-
fahren; welset sle mlt Virsfdndlgen Worten zureoht, die sloher
elne zarte IDrnpf^ngliohkelt flnden. Auoh 1st es reoht, dass illtern
zu Gott besonders dafllr beten, daas er die Herzen Ihrer Kinder
zu seiner Lehre und zu selnem Dlenste stUrke,

G. Melnc llebsn 3l5hnc und Tc3ohter und Enkol! loh bitte Euoh sehr,
seld gewlssenhaft In der Helllgliaitung dee "^abbats, be llet Euoh

In d-ir Vorbereltung zu s Inem

angj , damlt Ihr nloht, Gott be-

hllte!, Euoh verspttet und den Sabbath entwelht.
7o Seld gen^lsscnhaft In dor Abgabe des Zehnten, ftlhret dartiber ge-
nau Euoh und gewBhnet hire Kinder daran, denn das ist die beste
Anleltung zur ..ohltatlgktlt Uberhaupt. - Un Gottes wlllen aber
haltot Plrlode unter Kuoh selbst, unterstutzet ;^uoh In alien Dln-
g^n und xiaoh grSsster MBgllchkelt und traget elnander nlohts naoh*

f\K ll\(.

^/5

Fwi-f i/SK-foroi^ncz coiicc^.a^^

^^e/q

/I

p^

y^voLf^4Li*.i.<4^a^

' f. /f 3 3

/^Lh^L.i^ic< r, /3vt/jni| (^-^^ CcCa, au /^'%jiAjfuo

/.J hr-C* Ki>^ A<t/t

1

z.) 7^. ^

S.J -

r

U€L\

t, CJlxa^

/

/I

HJif Uci, y-ai

7

Ca

y i^ct/y ^

/-

ic

'J

/•Ot^a v*n

?.)

A*. <5

/.

■J

^u

Jv-iM^

&i -T-uAt*.!.^

^^' ^ X.i.^r«-/3t,^,

y

C4 /C t

/^

1

?■

y-it/A^fi'**'-***'*^ »*-u-t-t<.

^_/, /f 5 3

^^^^,^iC(. y. /3^Mr.ii A^ ^U ^' ^'•^^^

/,") H~^- fC^)-^ ■'-•^

\

UA^

^ A-^^ ^'^y

3 J />^-^:aa /3 '-'a-v**^

f

■J

^'1

/

/■

Ku

v-i^-M

45 -j.UiOm.j.j^

SiX^^ r« - /3 ti /uc4 /c c^

k

HISTORISCHES SEMINAIT
DER UNIVERSITAT

y rtj^x

7N

y ff)

fif

$

FRANKFURT a. M., DEN

MERTONSTR. 17

7?

,- 1

I

V \

y^' 5 , ^^t fi^ ,.

X

, J -^ , c/V -

— *

I Jf

Untt)erftidi $ranffur< am :Batn

iBinter

flcr i95>?/^..y

(§tnf(^ret6e«£iffe

fiir Mc

Soffefw}^ be^ iOerrn profeffor Dr. [jJuUfYi}^i^'(!^

t

fiber MJ^ioJ^ ff^ U- f^. n-M).

1

3)r.

v/ *

\/

:)la m e

(Sfuhicnfad)

3m tpJeDielten

©emefler

fletjen (Sie ?

/

iluM- j^-d^-^

\ f- -r

'J

\J a

\/ 9

II

0 6~»'^'> (?. 1

l2Mid(^ ^^6^%

^Wt".

^A'A

IBof^nung

%

s

<^.

<A^^ —

f^^rtrvr-r- pi^^f ^•*^<^^-4k- ^ « •^-

(jUcjuacui^ t^^

Hi'

V

10

il^uftAr. "^^'l.

^Wt^ ,

#-

//

i^c^. //*

■fffcrJ

I'^f^AiMi^^It

/^^..:^:J^..

3000. (500 a) 5- 11. 2« a. A e

'.

^,

-' /

:»c(c(j'
:}]r

1/

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

15

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

25

29

30

:?ia m c

©tubienfad?

3m tp(eDle(ten

©emeffer

(leJjen ©ic ?

IBof^nung

U ^

(I

Hi

%

flA^cu.

■■/-

■l^j:c.'j,%-

I

i '

Q

..L.jf...\J....}...

\\

-v<«f

J L

»

yiT.

6

0

6

0

yiamt

<5tub>enfad>

}tni t^lt^!t!Jcn

6>emeftcr
fteben 6>w?

19ot)nund

/

c

^

25elefl
Jlx.

Tlamt

^tubienfa*

3ni mieoteiten
ftemefter

:®of>nun(|

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

J

6

.*.

4

9

//

0

S

\J

i^lK^

1

^^mf(.

*^ %

2^

'

j

3

4

5

6

— -'

.— ...,— i

7

6

1- — ..................

9

0

\

II Mir

u ^

-/ u

A/<7;i(^ %

.^vio^"h UsiAioLOiuicz ^^li^rhci^

— ,

i^M,

I < I

.-•■< I

Kl

iA Ch

.-^k

u

I^r

h

Itinera Gonetauii

ovee L
• Magnum

Hi

li aliioTMi a

BftnnoTer 1
Antwerp^m

Hietoriae fwrnctrro!!^ armo Ohrlstl IXJOuu

ad aim. r XJOIT (1285)

(900)
Frankfurt 1596

Statuta alml at perlnfilnguls collegil n^iioTls

Sa2i0ti Clanantia Bononiaa 1^^"^

Privllegil at aapiti&li oon altra gratia ooncesaa «

fidellBsiiaa Citta dl Hapoll et raguo ^erll
Saranlssiai SL dlfi Caaa da Aragona

Mailand 1 1 cJw

Annali

Italia aowpllatl te LoA*Saratari

Kiiljmd 1756

iRocolta dalla opara minorl dl L.A^Muratori

21 Bd. (Band 9 fehlt) laapal 1757-68

inriiccr. Ohronologiei Moratorianl Turin 1885

Ustoira ganarala at particallera &€ Bourgogna

4 RInda Dijon 1739-4t

Don aDOchl Pirrit Sicllla Sacra Laydan 17?

Cor^m inriE civilie edid. Dlonys* Oothofrad atc»

aditio noTm (nor Band 2) Coloniaa Moaatianaa 1781

Constitatlonom Bagni Siclllaraa.^aoca dit««o0aaantarte

ad Priderici II Imparatoris at r^la costitutionem

Baapal 1773

Raoaail daa Elstoriens daa Crolaa daa Hia tori ana Qaiantem

(nor Band 3) Paria 1884

S«lTanaei Libri oalnf»ue contra oamaa kaar^iaa

tonf^on 1702

SDlatolanoi Patridia da Tlnala eanallarii quon. n

Prideri "i II eto# Idbui VI Maal ?

aon erblntt

l.v.BanKai S'lmtlicha Warka 54 Bftnda Lalpsig 1873-90

2 Bftndat Kantorowiozi Priedrich II Bondi 1927

ongabunden, Druckbogant mlt Notizen a ^nnftrVan^n

1 riini'MT Mrtnnnlrrlriti Mittelalterlicha <>aachichta

1 Mappa mit Briafaohaftany j^tos etc.

1 Ijirton ait Briafwaohself Manuakriptan u.a. aua daa Jalira 1933

(Unircrsitat Frankftirt)

2 Mndal (Mappa?i w»^ Ifeftar) »i«aakrinta ate.

47 X Kantorowicai gelehrtar Anaoaaaaa i.Mitlelalter.

Sonderdruoke, Stuttgart 1937

DiGs.a.Oaroapt Daa ScMf arwaaan in dar dautachan Liter^^tor daa

17. Jabrbr F^nkfurt 1938

(losa SchreilMMiDoninanblatter)
f«V«litla latolf von Hababoi^B angl# Politik

iMtfidacliTiftlloh (aaiinararbait?)
Korraapoadanz Zimmar^BoffaaaaatMl batr. Baaiiga lafl>M— athal

BrialVachcal T#4«DaaaiiAa» 1937

3 X BfKantorowloEi ^Hytbaa^atea* iamdard^ .^k

lift Qme

B«lAVis9«i Histoirc franoe 9 3d. (18

Hapu-^jomt Meooiren HII Bd. ^^^^Betaung
Heraog ▼•Hovlgoi Memoiren '^ tm^t^e cur Se

)

■i ^ .-..T t.

1

xeoiyi)

Paris

OOTTBG^'^^ ^^ ^^ ' - --eon !• "^2 B<^»

Tie ^# £4apox0ou« <t jod*

Hontholom Oeschichto '9'wr>Tr-n»ich« unter Wa^ nit*'

ioar/?"audi deschichte FraaK^rei^iiS unxer Napoler .

3 B . l^ersetzung

F^ELrclieisont Napoleons Unter^ng. 4 Bd#

JmB Casost Denkw' :eiten v,St»Helena* tfbersei;

Hapoleont Brief e. ^^'^ .ong
Bapoleonj Schriften uiiu Ge
lorsi Oorrespondenz Hapoleons*
Oraf Itohnai lapoleon in Prlhjali]
Bfanii Venezian* SesandtBChaftsb
G.Cliaatellaim Oeuvrea 7 Bd.

Miwaoires *^ ''•Hiatoire de Prance

l^it>7

i1

1623

1823

X\m

t)herf?f»t2ung
1 07

A r^m

2
2

1907
^er das fMnkreleh Hasarloa
Br -.-^^ 1863
27 Bd. Parie 1785/6

Thlerst Oesciiichte der PranaSa.RoTOlutlon 6 Bd, 1844

fraa v.Staifli PT«^r!5!?5s. Revolution. %erBetzg. 5 Bd» 1818

V39

1831

1825

1857

1 ^^
1

1

:> Bd.
4 Bd«

2 B

Hietoire dee SttMi ae iiour#osiie 10 Bd.

Bu Preenei M«ftoire de Cliarlee VII 2 B

De Tilleneuv© jsurgomonti Bene d^Anjon

Hapoleon IIIi ^%rte t!llGreetzun«

SaeMnile Weeti Saint Joan of Arc

Inatole francei Vie de Jeanne J^Arc

His to ire de Sil Blae 2 Bd.

Hietoire de lapoleor "ir Segar

(JooYion SaintHMQpcr Oyn Tagebuch der AsiMe v.Oai.

Oonstan^t Meaoirent Hapoleon I **^erset..v^^

2 X Dahlmanni Prans5os» RerolAtion

B. Talent ini lapoleon Bondi

Sraf H5deren fiagebiioh (Umgebuiig Bonapartes)

Seguri Hapoleon tJbersetzuxig

01. Tschudii Marie Antoinette

Souvenirs dn Macdonald

Ibnig J&rdse one? seine laiailie (Briefe

Sapoleon Anekdoten Mur Bd. 2

Major Ifeoniulni Unter Hapoleona FataBaa

J.Michelett Franatts. ReTolution. nur W.^% 5

Graf York v.Wartenburgi lapoleon ala Feiaheirr

Ch.v.Son Hapoleon and der Herzog v.TLae&aa

Saartei De Hapoleon

Bleibtreui Maracbi^lle, Genemle Hapoleons I

■apoleoni Doouments, Biscour^s, I^ttrea

Eiroheiefm Briefe Hapoleona nur Bd. 2

1823

t

45
on

i'^04

I 45
1923
1

1835
Saelaa

1892

-'-^'nun^en) 1870

1908

Berlin 1910

amalwirg^Berlin

2 Bd« ISSv
1837
P^rlB

Insel 1921
1910

,-j».

laen

•»vi

T3-.,

o r

Br

Bapoleon I a Marl0--XiDal8«t LettrM Ineditoa
Kauslert I leons (Jmx ze and Anel

Klrchelseu Graf pbiii^ v.Segur
His to lire populaire de oleon
d#^^argoin^ Au^ ^^^ Papier en ^^^ ^^"^ . vr^*^
H^Perlt Hapoleon i 7enetl«n

v«a,Gk)l85i Krx te im

9«Klrch0l8eni Hapoleon a.., die
H«I^pft Pierre Dabols
L*Tallni Le due de Hormandle
H»3teliii Olivier de la Harohe
van der Lindeni Itineralres d» ^>^* -^les,
G«0 lemenoeaai (Jrandeurs et miyeres ^^
I Iree de Duo de Ohoisenl
W^Mtamseni TbtAI^'^^ Hlohelieu
W.Pl ' )ffi Dae 2ieltalter Luc
^•Heatssi Bidwlg ZI^
P.Chasqploni Le vol XI

Henolren vom Bofe Ludwi XIV
Cholac ^p Ohax)niqaee et Iteaolre;
H.Doaoti Hintoire de BooTiSogne
J«Hiohelett Hlotolre de Franoe
J«Bendai Hlstolre d»9 Pranoais

Langlolet Le3 aonnaisaance <^e 1:

au Mofen A^e

Longuont Lee pr- ----«- '♦outre-»©r au iiagen A,::o
langlolat Lo 3ociete fi iae au IIII® Slecle

CharleL> ^-rdont Briefe Ui, ^ ..eT^uohblltter
Joseph ae Mais tret Betrachtun er Prankreich

■vjreri (Jirort de lottselllon
Phlll- v.OoBBiynesi DenJcwardi --^^-n

1935
7

1 925

1901
1 07

10

/!% "?5r* ? 1 1* <» <►

3 XIV.

•H uoire de Pr- -^e

:> i^f?

ore et du MonAe

lb? !*!•

1
1910

1

ogno BrOasel
Paris 1930

1

1922

1936
Berlin
p, '

i-^r

*« •-»

75

Psrls

i<>it

,oa

1908

• 4

1:;*aO

;e9Chichte> Art vn rH etlunattheorlet Blog^phien

lorentjo Shlbertis J com msntarli (Zom.iiam^^be v^J^v.Sohosser)

Her' 1"

a^Vasarit Le vlto de' Plttorl etc, Trieste 1862

Tlzlani KUnstler Monographien (Velhagen ft riaalng) Lei

Tentarli One dl Baffaello In Hoiaa

H, Leohter Berlin 1909

A^Xle dauszi Claiis Slater Pfetris

Petraroai Zeichnungen

Tenturlt II Cara vagglo

t.Stelnt Baffael

Asoanlo Condlvlt Miohelangelo

••Glasert Vincent van Oogh 8#

H»Kehrert Heill/^en Brei Konl^e in der Kunst

¥• Artelti Mittelalterl, -lalogdarstellung

J. hloeseri Oberltalieni e freoentlsten

H.lMaaniit Der Bamberger Belter (Sonderdraok)

Plor«» 1933
BDsa 1921

Bond I )

1324

1321 Lelpsig

1904
1934

iy2i
iy32

>

Tf

'irich Zlmmer i •

:

1

TianteB GWtt;.. i^ t ^^"f^ ^

1 , •

!»■.

r-alleri Mi " ' ^ ij

-1

1

Boua^t The a: in the Satiii ?

)m

©irflni

11 Tintoretto x.

.«._ ^^

1

Rotbi^Bt Ttrboroh I #70

't

r.41/42

WtWarringert A «^^t^+^ E-. i«

Pl^f>r»

1

'

J.lttr^ • 1 WLe 7 ^ ^ tst

«

J^Rashint iMaa • Li U#

v*oo

^•Burohhardtt Ituiat —

J#Poatens ariaoh* Laaa. rten (nar i

1 '»

Oranach-Ai og I.Textf II •

Berlii

a 1937

Masae '^^ ^T" v-^i<*« offioiel)

T^OT'-' r?

Tpr^-'^ .4ri^ d.lT"'''-^— - fer^^^""-"-^ ">'"''

--^1,

VjXCiXl

1932

Man rits fre ( OII-XVI t.)

PariB

1^37

Pranz50« Ku^* . lar L (Ai

- ■_> /

Bai

.37

O.f ^ -^if Oollezi ^.sa^oai

Veneg:^

13

Alaxandar Zschokka ^st

Soya: <!a8 oollaotions da Prancft
■oBtrat Iconografica Ooiusa, '
G»lAdbiart Statua Bonlfaz VIII (S<
Mostra Siotteroa XJtftzlen florenas

Avignon

Dijon auolen et modema
Boman^ Baokuns-^ i Kialn
Schloas Ostrau Krala Bitterfeld
Kaltbauten d .la lam
JtWiiAalBianni Waiica 6 Bd#

JtWinkelmaiini Teisuch ainer Alle^^
J#Wii!lcelmaimi y<?T^"^h elner A"^^^^^
J.'Wi ^ Ijoanns K ii t des Altr
Sprli: -Wolteret KuBBt dea Altertuaa
B^Curtiosi Anecdota Dc^'^^Moa
Oolllgnoni L* Arched ogie Grequa
K^O^L— ^e^i at^ ologia der Kuast
FartwgLaglext Dxe Idea des To des in t
Lanormaatt Anf ar Kultar

A»H»Iiagardi Nineveh and Babylon Leipslg

Ludnen J Mosaioi nail Antioo Pair- ' Lut. (Sonderdruok) 1955

1920

''J- e

|V "'.

Venee:*

13

E«]4

32

30

Man+-

- 37

34

1 37

n

no

Bonn

i>c2

Stuttgart

>

7

Leipzig

! »60

Srssden

1766

Berlin

' "0

' 26

Berlin

1d63

tarii

1830

mat der Srl-^

en 1 ^60

1375

B«Laaglot7j eatlaauag d^r rotfig» Taaeaaalarai

g.Ian^lotzt F^ , :) Antika VI)

B#Ianglotzi - ' Idenraliafs (Sont^erdruok Antika TI)

2 X B.Langl i Qrl • Taaonl er
H«Boehringen Antlitz Platons
H«55ch^,feri Bildnis im AlteXgyptan
Prasohnitzen Kratisoha Kunst

lasohnitz-Weinbergf Studian zor Porttfitkunst
TTJabnt Bar^; t ellungen d •Bandwerks i • "^ • 4ntlka
Maglat Pietaa Soaterdruok

H.Spomt Pra^MQt ainMi Vaiwrt«Tonrellafla S ardruoft
L«Curtlust Astragal d*8otadaa Haidalbarg

D0MUiK«W8klf Zvvei R5m.Raliafli Heidelberg

Halbivgi Piihrer duroh Antikuxsaomlungenln Itom, 1«Bd» 1912
?apar of the British School at Roma Vol* VI 1913

ttWlabakingt EinfluS AmWmmi»BmmahAtt 1817

1922

1935
1921

1921

1926
1df8

♦ftftsi 1932

1

1932

1910

s>

TT.

""lentlni '"1 — 'eliaann
dlmaniit riefe

m

Wre

Lite^

aeataoh

la Poeele

fxAventala 3 B<

i*

•altfranz^^a*
1 Itilie

Bpen

bill 0 7.

le (Band 5 fa) It)

Am

deutsoh

fatties de Madame de SeTlgne

Lettres chAlBles de Madames da SaKi^n^

Rousseau 6 bd»

Balsaet ^ i^exile Gr-^ t
Balsaci nerlre 3 Bd»

Flo riant Oom;
iBurielt His to ire
Chrestomathie
Oedichte der Trubadours
lew Poesle der Troubadours
Diez% Leben der Troubadours
laoine A Mnde
Olochlcii F Is r
Las P eo
Mcina 2 Bands

Ktoina 5 B e
Mintarqaien 7
Oomeilla 4 Binde

Voltaire! Grosohichte der 751ker 5 BUnua
Voltniret GreBobichte Peters d^Srossan t Bd# '
tomartinei Vogage en Orient 2 Bd.

^•Porohai B ' " ira

iires 3 (deutsoh) 2 Bd»

lirei lies as a

Baudalairei Lee 71eurs du Mai
lauclelairei Lee Fleurs du Mai
HLaubertt Heisebriefe

Prau Bovary Insel

Irois contes
3ouvard u ' ^ "lohet
Pnnl Verlaina

t Le manna/^e de Pi o
Pr#Yllloni Yeuvres oomplataa
Brantomai Vies '^es dusias galantae
Du Bellayi .1 . onee et illuotration de la J^nsnim
Paul Verlainei Vers (TJrtext)

Pierre dn Bousardi VeuTras coiapl*
Les Oant Hovrallae
Boilaaut Veuvras eomp.
n^Tainei y an It' lia
Th« fa^ n (deu

Dt _ l.cj Veuvres conpl*

Delacroixi Brlefo I

Petrarcai le Rime 2 Bd»

Fetraroai apistolea 3 Bd»

L.Oeigerj Petraroa
fu .l^pal ' en Petraroa
B#fblfi Pet

Petrarcit Brlcfa ftTberGctauiig)

Petraroai Oeul e (^IberGctzung)
Lorenzo do* i: Gredi elite (Urtert)

G. "^Aimunziot Alci ue
Gm x*eopardii J Gantl
L.Vallaa elagantiarum
D.G.Bossettii poeauMndtraAslations
Dante I vitu naova
Dantei ©5ttl. Kom 'e Ubere.v.
2 X Dantat Oottl.Kcmadia •• •

Dantei Qottl^Eoin^die •• •

Paris

u. Z

Xi'C

12

1634

Zwl

O '• " i • >

A. ■ - A. •»

Berjuiii

3 ..';.(

1852
1913

1

1. .

1808

1833

1833

1835

1930

1925

Plaube''ti

II --^ tt

Him' U
Beaum '

Leipzig
Paris

1921

1922

. .19

2 B^nde

Paris

Paris

2 Be'nde

1364

1B98

U 3t:hi

VJ26
18f37

Bas«l

1 18

P-irie

1836

?lorenz

1862

Leipzig

1879

Bonn

1926

^26

SDBd«

Berlin

1.'36

Wien

1 26
1933

Basel

l*^?!

Oxford

• y19

Inael

1921

(Teorge

Bin.

1j12

tt

Bin,

1921

N

Bin. '

1925

o)

ie
vii

in^

3 (Dante Un
(Kom.Atsgibe v^OlschVri)
logia MusuL. .^aen

e l^aqulta)

'PS* UmKO

xgen zum

. •v.Bc
sUssen

n

l*^eiot/V ontit r/

T)antei ie Mo

F«v«Kems Huma^

Dante > ^Ivina cu,

Asin Palacloet La

L«Tallit Bivini Comodia (luGuvoe*^

L.Vallit mnte

D^mtei Das nour - ''"'^-

Dantei Tm vulgari

K«Voii8lert Fhilosoph.

Michclangeloi nichtun/^en

I elan^eloi Lettere

Boccaccioi II Deoamorone

I/iudaut Giovanni Bocaccio

Paaoolii Poemi Itallcl

Vlttorio Oolonnat Sonette

Pellioot Prose e Poeeie

O.Oavaloantis Rime

Bo linii Ragguaglidi P

G^Pfivinii Poeaie e Proae

Ugo Fosoolii Liriohe Scelte e Sepolcri

Drei Italieniiiohe Lustspiele (Ariosto, IjOV,d«Medi

W.Schlogeli Spanisohes Theater 2 B^inde

Qrr- '^-^ -^chi Spanisohes Theater nur Band 2

Oaiaeroni " ^ oiele (ttbers^v^Grios) 9 Bd#

Ohr. Marlowe $ Works

Shr'-^'^-earei Sonette, Umdicht'* -^ ^ ■ v^Rtef^^^ "'-eoj -
Pr#uuxi(;olft Shakespeare u.d.deux ' ^ Gelst
Pr.Gondolfi Shakes re in v' oher Spraohe Bd,9

Pr»Gandolf$ kespeare sein Wepten und Werk 2 B .

Mil

1

Helde 1 be

■adrld 1

1

19

.V i^C

Roia

1

(tJbers .M.KommGrell)
2 B^nde

nur Band I?
2 Bd* )itil./

ISO

)

H.Balogh) 1925
Stil Heiaelb|Pj.1904
Prankft, 1 31

1^10
1865
1877
1914
1858
Plorenz 1893
1933

AlMt«rd.1669
Plorenz

Florenz

ol ,llacohiaTot-^ - "*

1

-1 •

Shakespearei Works 7 B e

Shakespeare! Playa 3 BSnde

Shakespearei Merry Wives of Windsor
SV.nVne-an0i.ei The Merchant of Venice
Sx^:^.^cL -rei Othello

P.Wislicenusi S' "espeareB Totom^ :' c
M.Gotheim 7t«Worfisworth 2 a

A^PoPet orks 9 B 3

Bnglands Helton finijiiw

Lord Byront Poems (Urtext)
Tennysoni Poems
SQOhville-Westi The Land
A.Trollopei Barch- ^er Towers
Oh.Dickensi A Tale of two ...
A#Huxlcyt Mttflic at night
J»Keatst Gedichte (tibers* A«v«Baniiui)
M^J'Gothelns J^Keats
Lord A.Douglast lyries
Lord A^Douglast Sonnets
W.B^Teatss Later Poeas

Oxford

Bon

Bon

Bon

Ik,.

Tauchnit^, Leinsii^

"O

London
Lo^-^^n
Lo ii

BAsel
Lo n

ijuxxaOn

Oxford
Tauchnitz Leipzi|[

London

Hftgamanst Tief onten (tTbersstson^)
Lyrik der RMUilaaaiioe (ital« Trans •Span.B / l«^ers«)
Swinburnet Lyrical Poena Tauohnitz

Fr.Lolieei ]>er Herzog v.Morny unO die Oaaallsohaft des

2.KaisGrreiJhB hist •Roman Berlin

1 10

10^

1928
1868
1804

1904

1809
1

1911
1893
1803
1925
1921

1903
1927
1935
1931
1931
1911

1897
1935
1935
1931
1929

1910

1913

Alte Qeeohlchte

Reerent Handbuch d.Oesohlch e fl.AltertuHs flettiivcen 1817

Bunokeri flteschichte dea Altertuas Bd.1, 1, 3, 4 Berlin 1857
Meyeri Geschichte des Altertums Bd.I1 , 12, III, IV, 7 Ht'ittgart
loininelt (Jesohlchte Babylone u.Aesyrlene Berlin 1885

T^ielei Babylonisch-aBsyriiiche Gesohiohtt Ctotha 1886

7)

Br©sl9u

■v« T> .-^

i> .Hvje

'^ )ldaiaithi Qe lor Ori en v/ur

''sent G^eejohichte d.Hellenisnufl B 2,3

ruiaanm Ge vohte d.Verfalln d.^rrir . n

Mullen Ore ' u.f^.Miu'^pr

Mttllert orier 2 . ire

i^-nieri Etrueker 2 B

oucxtiasi Griechische Geschiu^iue r*'

?T4 .. ^j MnzedoniF"' '- Sta/^ten 3

aent Griooh .Kriogoalt ert iiiaer
oohoemannt Griech.AltertUiaer 2 ♦e

MUllert Mazedonien

.^aixni Jtudion aas den Landdm der alten Kultur
Curtiusi Mtadt(5esohiohte von Athen
Belochi Att .Folltik
Bockhi Stantehauahaltun^ der Athoner
Droyseni Athen and der Weaten
Szantot Atti.^ohe Biirgerr ^ te
Oaueri Parteien und Folitiker u.Megara a.Athon

It offontl.Arbeiten im grieoh.Altertunie Diss. Lelpzg.

GIddo :{oraan Snip ire 12 Blnde

aoldemithi Geachiohte der RCirier

J Oescbic}]te Hoas

.J R(5m. Gesohichte
Brycej Tie ... Ronia Empire
Domaszewskij Belluai llarsioua
L^Hahni Dao Kaisertum
aeffkeni Kaier Juliamui
Neanderi iCoiaer Julianas
Arqulllierei L* August Inisme politique
Gregororiuss Hadrian
Burckhardti Konotantin
Uxkullt-Gylienbaudj A stos
Langei Rom.Altertilinor
Diehli Byzance

Gelzeri Byzantin.Theraenverfasfgtmg
Hnutmanni Bysant.Ver altong Italiena
Holm: Sizilien im Altertum 2 Bande

Mittoiei GeBChichte d.Erbpaoht i.Altertua Sitzber M«a

Lpz*
l.Meyen Ursprung u.Anf ^a e deo Chris tentuMi
Bollinger: Die R5m.K.irche i.d.l.ffafte d*3.Jahrhundert8
Uxkyll-Gylionbaudt Augustas Gedichte Son orband

2 de

6 Bande
5 B^nde

Leir)2ig

Wiirzhar^';:
KBnigsbg.

Sitzber isrien

3 B^nde

Leipzig

Wien
P'^ris

15

1 Q *
1 i.

1825

1MfS4

1 ..i
1884
1651
1882

1 "'^
1 1'^^0

^ in

^::■ 1
1813
1 34
1920
1397
1924
1913
1914
1812
1J34
1884
1880

1865
1920

1899

1889

1879
1901

1921

1B53

1^30

Antike Autoren und Seoundirliteratur

Aeschylos: luasniden, Perser, Schatzflehenden, Igegen, fhebeiit

Amssanoni Totens endcrinaen, gef ess •Prometheus
Coersetunit Mineoh-vltz Stuttgart

Der gefesselte Prometheus Insel Bucher

Agamemnoa (ni^ere.v.Wllh.v.Huaiboldt) Leipeig
Tragoediae (Text; G.Dindorf) Leipzig

Anaoreontis Carmina graece et geraanice StraSburg

Anacreoni Text; v.V.Hose Teubner Leipaig

Aisch^'^losi
Aesohylost
Aeschylos I

Anaoreontis Carmina rect

Andocidis Orationes Heei

Ap iani Romanoruo Hlstoriarua

Apollodori Bibliotheka
Apuleii Opera
Aristotelis opera omnia

Aristoletis Fragments

Aristotlei Constitution of Athaaa (fext roc: Kanyon)

1845

iait161(
1857
1919
1876

Brancki Tauohnitz Lelpzg,

Oar.Sohiller Leipzig 1835

Bd.I-IV Leipzig 1878

rect R.Wagner feubner Lpzg. 1894

2 Bande Sweibriioken 1788

reel ?h#Balile nur Bd#5

ZvveibrUcken-Augsburg 17'j1-1808
rect Tal.Bose Teubner J^Bg. 1866

1891

Afdstotelest

c

Strwsj "g

Ari'tolelisi opei*a omnia Vol 1-16 *a I*zg»

Arititoteleei Rhetorlk und Poetik ibere.L.Roth Stutt-.
Iristoteleci Or^non tTbere.V.Zell StUw,.,.

Ariatotelepi ' iften z.Naturpholosophie B"#1-10 Stuttg*
Arletoteleei Bchriften a.theoret •Philosophie 1-11
Ariototelesi Schriften z, Phlloeor^hie 1-8

Arlf^totolesi Nikomaohinche Bthik T«ct
Aristotelesi Polltik criec>» ".-^r^utsch rec*5*aB«»lhl

2 mnde
Ariptophaneei IScholia (Jraecn In rec.Dindorf

ArietophnneBi ^^ ^ ''bere^L.S^eger

Arrlani ie ex . Alexander reo.R.G

AugBbfr»

1 1

1901

1835
1836

1847
1860

ir^56

1S49

Lei^f^ig 1879
Bd.> I^ZF»1836
Gotta Stutt^ '^rt
l4)Zg«Teabner 1871

Athenaei deip
Bacohyliilie corn _ ^

Pine -i Orationen
Diodori T' ' ricae

Diodore histor. '' 1
pio^^'orn nibliot

histae Bc^a-IV
rec«Pr#Blass
. :jers«A«We8ter^«5inn
tubers. F.A.PabL I:

rev , Ed •Maetznf^i
6 Knde

iothek 4 ^^

•v,A..W^xhmurid

1 "^

JMS^ .-Taachn.

Teubner Ip«g«
Stuttgart
? "Ra. stutte'^irt

Berlin 1 .

Tauchnltz Leipzig

• V.I. /arm Stntt -. 1831

■-' " • 1db6
fauci^iratk. Lpzg.1895
Teuber Lpzg

2 Bdt

1^ 1

rloe:enie Laertii itis Philosophorua

Dioriis O^irysoBtomi Orationes roo*Dindorf

Pionysi Ealic, Antiguitatum Romanarum Libri A^Kiesslin/^

•^ 4 Bande Le

Pionyeii Hiie. itat. reo. lUlIeener Bo*«.

Euripides e reo.Nauck Ipz.'-.T---- --r

Harpoomtion et Moenis rec.J.BecVer Berxiu

Herodiani Historiarum BeisanaruB Libri fauchniti: Leipzig
Herodoti Hisoriarum Libri rec.-nindorf-Mliller taria

Herodeti historiae 3 »u.. Tauohnit- teipzlg

fieaiode r- ^— • E.Eyth Berlin

] ,e L v.i'.Bbstein Inn-.^. Buoherei rar.1^1

Honeri 0 dye sea
HoHieri Odye^ und
Hymni Homerici

57
60-70

1o57
1833

1858
1^^27

rec. Dindorf Teabner \^- --^a^ , ..o6

Gamina minora Her»a^ rauciiiiitz ipzr:- 1827

rec. Aug.Matthiae Lelpaig 1800

oers.v.Stulberg

v.Teuffel

Tubingen

fa

i;bers •V.Christian Stuv
rec.Richter LeipLj.<i

lomert '3child d. Achillean
Hypere^ ^'^ i i"'-'''rgos libere.

3 M * 2 lir^nue

3Dri oiaii: 2 Bande

Oalliiaach: hymni et Epigraomata reo.tiJ3xa.--.nxxo2id Slj^«

Lucianusj *fert rec. weiae Bd.I, Illf IT Leipzig

nuciani dialogl mortuoruM ^ ^li^

L ysiae et Aeeohinia orationee ree.H.Brea octna

Meleagri caxmina reo. Bruno k Leipzig

Meleagroat Ber Kranz deo ixriechen Jbern.A^Oehlor Berlin
Mare Aurelt t^oH^ '^ ichtuagen tibers. Jena

■are Anton: Se -^^n "^mohtn n crlech. u.arabioch Wien
Howi 2Lonyslacornr libri rec. G.H.Moser Ueinelberg

Paosaniae deecriptio traeeiae rec^Chr.Sohubart
Pindaros* Siee^es/^ea^nge berp.W.Portw^'ngler

Pindnrl canaina y^^^^. fycho Moiansen

Orphioa Proeti hymni, Mas., Callimaohi
Philonie opera omnia 8 B^nie

1940
1 65
)«g.1820
1 35
1 26

1«7

1892
1P32
18 26
178U
1920
1906

1831

1809

12 mrAe
tTbera. Hiinebrandt
Apelt
nur Band II v.Apolt
tjbers .v.CcnleierDiacher

Platoni fext

P la torn Oaatnahl

P la torn Parmenidea

platont Geeetze

Platont Laches

Plitouif^conririuia Phaedraa rec. Eorjannn

Platoua lerke 'Jbersetzuag 3 Bande

Lpzg^Teubner 1853
Freiburg 1859
Berlin 1666

LeiDsig lauchnitz
Leipzig lb^3

EweibrUcken 178b
Leipa* Meinert 1 r

ft

Leipzig

iieipzig Teubner 1905
Stuttgart 1853

9)

3 »4nde
9 1 e

! -f-/:?,-"^

gQp,.,1.-, .-

5

Teu

P iTQbB \ e x\f;

Polj . - rec. B ^^

Polybii Kioto * ' rum 4 B-'^^^-e 1'

Polyaenl btrat©, — roc* i:.»f,G ""iim

Cl«Ptoi«tfMiee Q«ographla rec« A*Nobbe
P . 3 ao Phooyiidie C ^ ^me.

P, ifi:orae Pooaata (et Phooj
Sappho ;Triech a.deut^oh linl^ C^M.Bowr^
1 Expl« d.erstcn Auflf:., 1 Expl. d.
iifc ^' etzt v,Gr?if Stolb
Sophooiis tragoc * le rcc. ^cr h
StcphanuB Bysant reo^Ber oi

Stubaal Plowilegium roo» Kei ; re
Strabouls Oeof^raphloa rec. I^r*^ ^..^
Strabois Greographit ^er^.K -^x.er
Theokrit Gredichte Hbern.J.IUVor^^

The '' "* " r^aeoa at latine r©c# Kie^sxi
fheopliraeti Charaotcres u^Bpioteti Manu
Thucycii:Us historic rec» Ha^jse

fsetzae oarmlna
lenophontis o^'^ra
Xenc^hoas Oyruj^adie

XGnopi]ons G-aet-^-'^-l

Xanophone Me»oraoilien

S' -ft vom Krliab i t-

Anthologia Greaca (Palati

Anthologia Lyrlca reo*Th»Bersrh Te'

Evotici script, Graeci rec» ...archer 2 Bd« T

Ppagaenta comiooruia Graecoruia rec#Mein<^^''-e oditx.

Poetae seenic Graeoortam rec.^^*^ ''orf x

Poetae liyrici Graeci rr . • h

Poetae Graeci Gaoniici

Or-^^toree Atlici roc.O^Mu r 2 x nur
"^cae hiatoria Byzantina rec»Jm«Belrkf5r
.H element um Lyrioum reo^Dlehl

-t 18 53

1844
3g*1836

r i^9Sg» 1360

• 1898

1604

1551

i 1938

eg 1823

zg*1858

^ 5

r L
r I

■^ uUtt

P' rio

6 BHiKle

Hertlein Ko-^-^.Text
^bors. '^ ixuG
'tbere •

t • •¥• ?liha

;3,

r» T

1d29
: 34
zfl-.l 79

' t 1853

rt iri28
rt 1865

1938
'%1819

^ "M

r b

»V/ -I *i*

uzan/?

rec.Bruder

Ambrosii, Orrilli et Tertull. Opusoula
iUBbrosli deflde
4rrian (Jb ' 1 25ttrv?

hug ini de olritate del

3t BetraohtuA eii
jiniust BekenntnisBe
A» rrrng^j^2iasi OonfeBeionea
.au.^^i:*tinii de syBibolo
Aagtintinii Euchiridien
AQCUatinii de eocleeia
At "?tinii de fide etc.
Ansonlus Moaella !fezt a*'JbGr£?« W«Jolm
Bfisiliis de splritu aancto

Caeoarie coBonentarii de bello Gall., oivi It mism
Caesart Gall.- u^BUrgerkrie^; Obera^Baiu...^ r..

Caesarla cinnentarii de bello Ga^lf civili etc.

1847

. U^69

1853

5g*1887

1858

1834
1917

1869

^1

^0
roo.

reo*

Oodr^

- 1 ^

f

Oasnius Did H?5n. Geec' '

Oatu 1, Tibull, P ?rz

Oatull, Tibull, Proper«

Cicero I Wei4ce bf>rfl.

Cicero t Aoademioa

Cicerouie de divinatione

Gioeronia opera Bd»5 u.7-12

Oioeronis oratione« lee. C.Clnrk

rf

d B

7 HUide

reo.Wobbe

18 55

: 5

"i .18 57

^r-i--rg V'^l
Tauo ' •■^-2 34)2.

L

L

Iii^olatadt 1 ^6

Trier

L:

Stuttgart 1854

Lei ig 1819
Stuutgart 1837
Teubner Lpzg. 1913
Tauolin#Li)Bff« 1
3tutt( ^ . 1oi>5

tauoh«Lpzg. 1 49

n

n

Zvv'exn
Oxfov

en

1780
1905

-^A

01a(i:> iB or rec

•;ono» I
1. n 0 ^

rian o

,:. .ru;>i." -evleriurn ^-' ^'

liui tJT^ere.

V I tome rexnm Bom

(reli; ootiam Atticarum
Hleronymi epietolae
Horatii opera
Hortitii opera
H^^ tii opera oamla
d* no race et ^ -? Vi~
Jtineraritiiii Aieoa
Jostini historian

Horn

z

^<>o« )A

jurnpi'
rec*
n phili

cr

2 B^.
lat ♦— ri^ane.
i

2 X

rec. e

rec»Scimei(iewin

10 Br'.
8 Bu.

Juvenali5=j et Peraii fl. eoti
Martial Juvenal Pe:t .m
Laotantli opera 2 Bd»

Iiivios Text ♦ . "'^^^'^^-tar weisenborn
liivius t^ers t^^ux^ von Oertel

Phareahia
iucreti ue reroB ara rec. O.i lann
Lacrot iibers tzun^ . i

;robii .>#ra 2

.. .rceTlini opera
MaraolilnoBt Roia.creschichte ; bc^^ ^t^iuiv?:

Minuoitts Felix -^ ^ h. G^ *""*^om 2 x

Minucius fellx e& v^ypriam jionun — itate

J. v.ower
t'berr

•^ er

(ibers* Kttamorpl

;ibelia

-1

3 B-inde

5 Bande
fir

U«Uepoe a«C«lu.fU3

C.Nepolirvitae

Ovi 8 laso

Ovi Mi MetamomhOBea Komm*

Ovi ^ii. fasti rec* R.Merkel

O-vI .3 fiaso opera rec# R.Iiarkcl

Ovi xua Saao opera rec. E.Merkel

Potrouil aatyrlon rec. P.Burmaiin

Pllnli aec. historiae iiat«

jiPlliiii aec. eoistolae rec. «

Pllnli aec. 3fcolie et paneggr-

Plinli sec, epistolae et r)mneggT±oa&

Phaedri tabulae

Qaintilianl ae inatituta oratoria rec • Liineiaann

C.Hufi Hiwtoriae rec. Th.Vo/^el

O.Rufi historiae

icriptores hiotorlae .uita# rec.J.Poter

^criptorssi tJberpotir

^ .a,ia8ti ae coniarfitlo Cat. et de bello Jn i

lext und Koacaentar B.Ja. .i
Seaeuae Iragoedlae
Beneoaet Vom glUcksal. Leben u.a. -^bere.v. Jleicheu-

nel 1777/ 3

London
Lc; ) n

' *^don

.^ohn.Lpz^.

*-uttg. 1829

I'aucbn.Lpzg.

Lp2g.187

ffondon

Tav .Ipzg. 182

TauGi....Lp«^.1''^

Lelt>^.ig ..v,^9

JtrKL/mm I0l8

TaucriiuLpzg*
he 1844

T I^8g.1«6

Z ^u. n 1786

Berlin 1856-80
Stut^ -rt 1840
taivv . -zg. 190
Berlin 1d71

art 1868
en 1788

•!*««• 1921
:;, ,rt 1853

1603

rt ^r

• Lt)Zg.1f521
1797

.J41

r i4)«g. 187

« 1851/5:

1781

:. 1783

1739

Ts.

Z

Le.

i.

.m. t^-v V!

Beneoae o onm at rhetorum

rec .Kien sling

ck. 1789

i: over 1826
Tu^oner Lp««»189'.
Pario 1'2(

fe Ii .1o65

rt 183^57

Berlin 1855

Zweibrioken 1785
-Busswaren
Berliii

Teubner Lpiig,187i

Sllii Poniconm librl

Silvias vel potios Aetheriae psregrlnatio

Suetonl de Tita Caesarum rec. M.IhA

Smetoniufl ^Jbereetzung 3tut-^" rt

Saetonil vltae Ia-perat03nim Text u.Kom. H.Breha .rich

.Loi«.1912
Heidelbg. V 08
Teubner Ii)«|f.190^

183^
1S2(

Bextl historia
Syrl Ssntsntiae etc. reo.Zell
Tacitus ab sxoessa dlvl August 1
•acitl opera 2 Bnnde

E

rec .Ealm

uLpsg. 1o2^

rt 182<

Teubn.Lpig. 191(

Balls 1 79:

* • #

T

}

linnalen
3ra

•^f^moedllfl

HP ^. V (*

-.-I--* 1

m

era
le '
Ter

.. - -ii c. .-.
Valer ulax ^«'

Valer ax
Vnrro/iis :'^ ^^
Yarronis ue niui,
Velleli P-
?ergll3 6 te

Vergila 1 i •
. ,,.,-gllii

yitxL.:va.v e Arohltectara

Obere.

rt

3

»si«

« reo •

Lln^enbrofr

1774

:

1 55

".J

H.Keller

"/

1882

iujii'^ 1''^'^

• Ixaasiua

1.

t

1651

!•

«

1 1

m

T 1

»

:3

!I 1

ilia

7.'- ♦»l'hr'!rj]<-fn

1783

V* V

1 >p

- -f ....

rec* Mueller

JaI^

J

l.Jf

2 B'--'e

1738

rec,Krau-c

-

-> --> ':»

Ti

Ko . dewlK,

»rlin

•V,J#H#V0D8

Leir

f«^^ ^« 1 30

?+t . . 1877

Secun^

2 r

■ 1 .'."^■^'»^

0.

.1 .

': Tractatua de Crraeoorua T

^ ., jordia 0 (bei (

A^v.^j-UF'^^'^' ill (JriccL* ^

Ih."" "^ J. J Oicero

l#bui. u* idti CreBChichtsschroibung d.T^'^"''^
Bowret Pindar, '^ thia . ^-

WtF.Ottoi Vergii '"^ rede)
Uxl^ 1-G "1.

lompelffi lax

?^__._ , : cin^^ ^

Bori---..xs ie .Arrt^ ,, .

C». • '•--'? .Lyrik poetry
l.R^ -if ten

Ancienl

id? !3ruc
Reit.. .-, -eini M^nd^^.iacl'e u«»jie

0 T

.Li-

a
) DiE •

16-i6

0
T
L

-*-

r

1 -"!

^7

■J

1951

■)1

11 . i

1924

1936
1901
1925
1933
1933

1930 xmi

<-^'•^

Petei^eni Zwux-^ bersy^^v^iw

*-

.0

Se

^..'

r-Lltcratur

I lit J ui

ihi Mutter
i^.Ho. jai Geburt

V .en Kleine
ihr • Or en« en Syiau -
Y/tOttoi Hie Manen
Bowr : Hie 'itu^^ '
Uxkuii-C^llen^ t
Dnmeeiffi Anti

II an Si.ntflu
Lohmayen Vom g !•
W«F»Ottoi /juc altf^rio

hi im Kultofl uiivi
'^ ^Helegic

It en Teetameut (

Wohl^ i

c • (k)ttrniidee

Ot-'

te)

Tabelln^i Enter larum
Ii.Prellen Dsaeter u.Perephone
Prellert IBa^Mythologie

/

I

L ir.ri

b<13

zif

24

Tf

. 13

H

1B2S

Berlin

i:.o-'

in

>^

)

•I- 3''

nn

13 •

rg

1,

P'^rlin

?f

>

l-«

Bexxj.,

iX

If

12>

TTv-.T

f% \ ■> I'i -^

Berlin

en d.ariec
>ehunglehren

• ± J >_ JL
If

Berlin

fix 'Hi

t«

1321

1 20

1 i03

1911

1911

1924

1926

1B70

1920

1857

1938

1937

C. Robert t Vie i;ri-~''^
•olngert Platon van c ji-x
Bosohert Die .... Prir i.en one
Itoeoheri Cie 1 ikr
Dllleteri Anac en

Uxkull-Gyllenbaudi Grlech.

Sallnt Olvlta dei

Onckem Staatalehre d.AristoteleB

Prellert "Das Altertum , , „i ^.^

Otto» 'le griech. Welt und die Naohwelt- Sonderdr. Stuttg.

2 X Bowrai AriL'toteles hymn to ... Sonderdr. london

Bowrai The poeo of pamenileB So rdr. Loudon

Riezlert T5q9 hom. GleiohniB u.d. '^"^ uck Antike XII

I.Riezleri Parmenides ^^^^^f'^^J

Sohaidti Bpikura Philosophie .^ i?S

LJ-^agert Aristotelea '■in ' '

K.Si r/ Platon u.die earop.Entscheidung .. ^^rg .'^^i,,

K.Hiiaebrandti Hietzscheo Wettkampf mit Sokrates u.Plato T)re^.192^

Iriederapnni Piston Bon^J ?® n,?

K.Hlldebi tt Platon .^?^^.^2rii

Bibliothek Warburg Vortrlfre 1330-311 '^■- ^ ^^le ^*^*«

Hehm Kultorpflanzen > 'otiere n2!!Tr«

A.Bogkht me 3onnenkreine der \lten ttt,

Boethlust TrOKt der Pholosophie l'?t,/ . -ixn
SoBebll historiae eoclesiaBtioae
Higue Pntrolo«Tie 3d. 214, ?15, 216, 217 (Innocent! Ill opera)

S.B«ne< 1 '=0 terlorum i>uim

Hyppolytj oanoes red Mtinohen

Plores patres Latinorum rec. K lexer „^„.^„

Aupastinoat wn-rVe, 3 B^'nc^e, trb-raetzung Mmchen

31
. j33

1877

32

1891
1928
1870
1853
1911

DOBascewBkij Relieion d.rom.Heeres
ferrerot Unte-r ~ ^r antlken Zivilisatlon
Kocht Oer-timvorenrung im alten Italien

'^.Anealalt Liber oura T)eus 1 reo.P.H.Schmitt

I. ^ • '. -'3 technlrche Produktion der Homer

So -druck aua Sitzu" beriohten

E

Trier
rt

'ffT^'n rt

Bonn

1H95
1922

1f»33
1929

Leipzig 1"'H)

\

H»f*Helmolti
J.B«B088uett
K.Tr.Buchert

Waltg»acV:ichte

Weltpeschiohte, 6 Bd. Opt- u.Hordauropa Leipzig 1921
Discours au3 I'hietoire universelle 2 Bd. Paris 1ft39
Waltechichte l.^eil (Gech ' •' der alten Welt)

Berlin 1841

^f^y,ant The in of aaa ... upon h orj

"a«8Chichte der europ.Staaten, herausgegeben v.H.L.Heeren,
p.A.Ukert, V.v.Oiesebrecht a.K.Iflnprccbt
EuBLindi 2 Bd, von A.Bruckner
f^l Tene;iigt 2 Br. v.H.Kr^techaar
i»v| »^4vN,m -t"-*.-!*. 1 Bd, v.Moritz Boech

Bd. V. A. Ruber
Bd. v.C.Tirecek
3 Bd. v.P.Pr.Kaindl
aoBanisa* 2 Bd. v.M.Torfra

Oaaohiohte dee roiaani ohen Reiches. v.J.W.Zinkeiom

^t B^.nde
P.J.BXokt Geochiohta der Niederlanda 6 Bd.
H.A.L, Pishert A ITietory of Europe 1 Bd.
SiBondi Siamondii Storia della Hepubblicke itallana
, 16 Btinde

V B.Schmit Bitter v.Taverat ffaschichte der Hagierun- de

o t»Hnri«> Tnin«?r8 Waxiniliaix I. 1 o1-l8b7

Tene;iigt 2 Br
Kirsimt t-iatt 1
Oaoterreichi 5

t 1
larpathenL inde r

lOBSnient

Got ha
Gotha
Gotha
Gotha
Gotha
Gotha
Gotha
Bisbg.

London

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1

Oapolago

ion

89<

905

'80

885
911
907
905
110

902 1
935

1831

190?

uro

, 1 •. /-> r*^* r, , -i V, "< r» V" -f o

♦ -^ /

Pirenne nrraOTT Ge chi . e Bel'^i'^na

•♦ » Hie toire cie Be
Mill- torli Annali ^•it^^x.

1A

A#H#mn{iert O^echi

4

2 , Bruxelles 1

1 princlpio 'r^n«era volgare
17 Ti'!. Mn'^'^nna

der Chris tl. Reli/rlon and ..xxjhe

13 B-diJ'^ H'-'-irg

ff.

'J '7

c* -

1753
1832

ff.

t^.

OesnMR^Tfcp des Jietr. K

103?

1 " ff .

1 0 ff.

G; .lia 1903

1 31 ff.
1877

atee v.Joh.Graf Maixath
5 B Imle Bambvirg

Oeechichte von It-^lien v.H.^ 2 ? Hftmbtirg

Oeechichte von ty-nemark v.f .C.T^hlmann 3 B . Hamburg
0«p 'ohte Ita liens v.I..M.Hart.'nann 5 B('. (1 M.fehlt)
Oesc :ichte Spaniena v.W.Lembk© 3 Bd. '*^^^'Jf«

(Jeaohichte Grieohenlanaa v.Fr.Wertzberg 5 Bd. Gotha ,„„„,,„_

Oeecl ichto der Biefierlande v. U.J. van Kempen ^ogister v.J.H.Meiler

jiaaDurg l o^ /
j.v.Mtlllerj 2^ Bucher nll^om. C Ichten besonders der europalechen

Menachheit 3 Bd, Stut^ ia<:a

W.K.A.Hippoldi Wilhelm III. Prinz von Oranion (1650-1702)

ff.Ronem Oeachlchto der Ttlrkei 1826-1856 Jf^P^i^

O.Hari I /lus nicilicn, Kultur- «md Oepchichtsbllder

J.BOialniBt HelLKaltur des 17. Jh. Jena

A.- ipf/ OeecMoht.e der otadt Bologna 1116-1^ '0 Bin.
J.iluisiskaj Sobre el estado aotoal de la oiencia Historlca

Graf Darns Geschichte der Republik Vensdig 1 Bd. ' - ' • 1-59
Peter (Jianonnet Btigerl. Gen.chichte rtes Konipreichs 'leapel 4
(Von der VerfaeBing deo Roichesunter p» enten aus

dMi oesterr.Hsuae) ,- "^'^^ ' ' '"

ff.

1900

1866

1867

1933
1910

la

1935

1

1758

1753

IT^poli

1591
1572
1922

Benedetto Bi^gii P ia imperiaie _ i»^«<v^ i .

H. Pirenne* Lea Anciennefl Denooratles des fays-»aB ,J'^*^. . n

E.L.Rooselt, Genchic r 1.b 12. Knnig3 v. .^^^'^^^f ^"^^^

H.Pirennet Bibliograpide de I'hiatoire de T i^'^®, _"^^"*«^i|* ^^'^
F.HUffert La Idea Inrerial Bapanola uactriM ^^jy^1i-.,r,

SlneftL, (Hrsg.) . Alfonso I «.?errante I v.ifeanel Jena 1912

P Oi-^nonnet f prl. Geschichte des KSAigreichs jei.

' 3 Bnnde

J.Origliat Totoria dello atudio di Rapoli 2 Bd.Napoli
-Itomao Cooto* compendio -Dell'lstoria <^e*^RePJ0 "^^^

St.Rhetot PandulpM Hiatoriae ''•^P^^g^^Jg^,

P.Gregoroviust , Ge-chichte «•' St-.dt Rom im «ijf«j«^*|'

4. und 5. Band stuttgirx

f.Solmitthennerj • .^ AnoT)rHohe dea Adels und Volkes der '^tadt

ROB aaf TergHbung der Kaioerkrone w^ihrend des
InterregnuiM Benin ^^C7

A.Graf, Boiaa nella aemoria e nelle^.. .. del -Jij^J^o ^^^

A.de Waal, -er Santo f ^^^^utschen zu Rca ^^^f ^^| J^^6

W.GroBs, Pie Revolaticnen in der Stadt Ro« 1219-1-54 "^riin iy34
J SSrsSria 'olla Republics di, V.ne^ia ] Jf -^^^^l^^JJ^^
Gh.-^ehl/ vonublique patricienne, Venize Pa^^is ' ^^i

Aug.Pr.Gfrbrert Gescidchte VenedifiR von seiner Grtmdung

bia zuo Jahre 1004 ^^ ^ ^^ rflLlir 185-i

T^m, Geochichte der Republik Venedig 4 Bd. Leipzig 185::.

H.Siffionafeld, Tier Pondaco dei Tedeschi in Venedig an- -^« .. ,87

dt.-venezianirchen Handelsbeziehun^ven T^VaI' iq?2

P.Gotheim Prancesoo Barbaro, Steatskunst in VeneUg B'^^i^ 1^5^
Aag.laer, Pie Beziehun-en Venedigs zuo .aierreioh i" J^^^^^^ ,

stauf .Zeit

Bur

14)

70

R^ariesert utin Axelat tu uer eux . '" von oer Mitte dee

10. bis zum kuBf ^ dee U# ux;. v ^^^^.^^^i^) 1929

S^Bavldaohni ?orj zar *" deaoiiicute von ^ . .^ ^^

FloreiUB ^ B e ^ 1^^'^f ^^*

R.Baviclsohns aeec e von Vlorens. 4 B<^. i/9 ••il«ft Berlin 1896

kmJXfTent Studlen r Florentlner ftsgeechichte

2 . Stuttg. 1 01

A#T»Renmontt Lorenzo de Medici 11 llaAx.-. ioo Leip«. 1B74

0#M,Riooioi J llot^menti di Matteo Spi--'*'*^ -^n Oiovena«»o. Hapoli
H.Spangruberrt ^ ~nd.e della Soala v»^>«-»^20) Berlin 1 o^^^i

Cr.Teroii Stori 1 Beelinl Baeeano 1779

r i iovil novocomGneie spiecopi ••«• "^lo la ▼irorua bellioa

virtuao illaBtrium, neris ouppovi ae apad MuaaM

opectnntuBt in libiror? septan digeata Banileae 1571

W.Heywoodi A History of Periigia I> n 1 10

p -^oeBco Mataraz20t Ohroiiik von Perugia 1492-1503 ^rs.) Jena

Giovanni Aoatoj '^ --ia cli an ^^- iottiere* Firense 1B8i?

Pier* "^ Deoeiaoriot Xiober e %li '^ Marifi Visconti and

\GB P Sforza ( re.) Jena Vn3

tJPtimt Cola di Pienzo Wien 1 131

Pr.'^t. •$ Oe lohte Prai. . ■ foraae u 3r it J . ri

Leipzig 1 365
firenz0 1825 if.
Pirenze ^&2^ if.
dor rotaanischen Volker dee Mitteltaeer-

Mtlr-^-n 1906

©•Swiftf The life and txines of James the P4rox tne Oouo -^ -^

Oxf

Matteo Villamit Ghronloa
Giovanni Tillanlj c^-'' ""^'^'^
Sohaubef Handels xuiiuu

gebl'-tea

forzas u

6 B^nde
8 L. **ae

5

Greographie

Haramer-PiirgBtallt ^or die arabische G

Pr.Patzeli Polit.Geog^^ hie

E.Kbnigt entingerstucien

L.Georgi:'"Alte G^opgraphie II. Abtlg. ^^ ^ >^

G.Pahaiaeli aeofi:raT)hif> le de !• Europe

S.Briimi K

J.G.Worbst C. - te on a L^

der Ilrasen in Syrien

-t-» . — ^

e v.^i^aninn* Wien 1855

«r\ 1904

-RW.'^-fV; 1 ^14

: 40

A. 1 931

1867

jS

Mrlitz 17

1818
1918

J.v.HaT^«^i Pie 9#eohiohte der Arsft^.tii^n aoa mor^^r en

v<u.ellen Stuttjaj

P.O.Bndreet Pie IWrkei / . ^ ^ Munchen

J.Hellaaer (Hreg.) Das tUrkieeh^ Icioh (Wirtacha tl.Darsteilung)

Berlin '^ **

j^Ol ^ Tttrken und dJie oeinannlBChe Reich Beipzig

K.Haaserts i'kiache Reich

J.Aechbaohj Cteechichte der OaBKtlgaden in Spanien
J.Wellhauaent Prologomeiia zur OeBOhiohte Israels
H.Vambergi Sittenbilder aus dem Morgenlajade

R.B.BrehDit ^s Inka-Reich . ^^^ ^^ r 4 « iai^o

O.Webrrt :' \ Glaeers Por - -reisen in Sfidarabien Lelpz. 1OT9

O.Weborf Po lungsreiaen in ibien bis zob Antreten

Ed ^ Glasers Lelpz. l^Of

AraV sfOT dem Islam ifP** XfrX

Priedr.Ulmen Hanamrabi eein Land irnd aeine Zeit Belps. I90f

Mitteilu^ ^^^^ ''ur osmanirchen Gencbiohte Bd.1 1 21/22 1.-3. Heft

R.v.L. Zllx w-..ohichte der Araber vor Muhamed Berlin 1836

<i

Tubingen \^\6
Wien 1860
Berlin 1 05
Berlin 1876
Jena 1385

15)

i>^u3ere»roi ~

Berlin 100

lUC '^j/ *-» ^1

1A

T _ - -., ^

.- -^

n 1789
1887

1918
1900

1800
1911

J "II Das ara^i "'■''■ "•■''^^ "'^ ' onir. 3tur*

01. H ■ " ■ ' ■ r Aii

Joi . li.Tf.veiTi r ieobachtunciaa ^i>er "-rail -''■

Or ' 3TV!i
Th*" 9k*t Auf 9« dor perslschen Ocsohlohte
A,.^,.arig (Hrsg. ie Eroberun^ von Mexiko dr ? , ,

A.T.Maham The '-">^T*-n of Asia J^^

' Im Jahre 1795 Hambttx*

H.v.ll Msi' » ^else dea Arabars Ibu Batutn uroh

Indian and China (14. Jh.) Hamburg

A.y.Kr«wn Aagypten LTeil 5®^ ■ ^i?S'

A.Euppim Syrian 'la Wirtsohaftsgebiet 2®^:^^ l^lf

J.Wellhfluaeni laraeliti e u.jlld.Oe^ e Berlin 1904

H.Graaki TolkBtiimliche Oeachiohte der Juden Bd. Leipzig
E&rl of ■■^n-r-^: Das heutige Aagypten 2 B . Berlin 19C

P.Vfitenic-xai v-aers.) Das H<'"'*-°"'^n der Mtthamnic - '.md

le arab. tJbere. ^-- "'ak.^ a Oelianua ^xn/ren 1^

/J- ' • -ler t iiedif "' dem Kimh,) .rvyutiiv:en iHbO

I ie Sherife n Me i ir - *II Jh.) GBttincen 1805

Me ♦'tadthalter von Xgypten z.Zt. des onalifen IHO

Gf ^. 'pr fBtlmiden-Ohalifen (Jot • x- '31

(allea In oinera i» )

Philosophie

Th.v.Aquini Sa^am. thaologloa, 9 Bd. ^arl» 1868

0 ""cula Selecta 2 Bd, He^ensborf
Sjfjauoli Apostolonm -nnbure

E.Rolfesi Tie Philo--^ '^ le dea Th, \ .^.^v^o-i.

J.Baumanru -' "' >.eoai.eiire dea hi. Th.v.Aquin

0

Leipzig 1920

I.oi-— » • ^ ,) 2

Lc

;j.j-/^J..:

Tl.Portnann (Hrg.) 'Ober die Regiermit; der iriii ' . . , ^ . „

(ein compendium der PoUtlk d.hl.rrx.v.A; xa) iuzem 4-9

JoB.v. ^r Borgi Francis ci Isslsiatis. ra omnia

_ jft-Bonn-Bmsael 1849

-.-' •*^f..nert '-^e kleine Philothe l.aili..— T^nz v.^^^^b ^^^^

J.M. n Beati Alberti Hiigni P ilau . i^mt-^t iraw

A B ' 3anoti Anselmi liber Medxa?tionim Koln-Bor ^o^ i«^i

Pr.O' ' )eok» ¥• viichte und fu«end der aittelfllteixa.^ii«n

Soholastika Basel 1^17

I.Scottts ErigBat Ober die Binteilung der Sator. LeiDSi«,JS70

I.Abt. das 1.-3. Bach with. fc«M-^^4.7

MeiBter Bokehartst Schriften und Predigten 2 Bd. Jena 1919

5 Bd.

Bonn 1914

fUbx.H,en 1934
lagensborg
Begenaburg 1038
MBnchen 1921

J.Tauleri Auagewahlte Predigten

Thoaaa Horet Utopia

B.Seebergt Meister Bokhart

J.v.oarreat Me ohriatLlyatlk

J.ffarreai AthenaaiOB

J.oerresi Bheinischer Merkur ^ ^ .*

J.Uhlaannt J.OOrrcs und die deutsohe Binheita u.

Terf'^aaungsfx^ije bla earn Jahre 1824
W.v.ftaaooldtt Der Staat (Ideen au ein«an Terauoh, die

^^ Wlrtcarteit dee Staates su beatiMen)

Berlin (TJt.Bibl.)

l.T,ll*ioiatt tJber die Aufgaben dea (Jesc '-"^ssohreihers. Leipzig

W.v.Humboldti tJber die Terschiedenheit dee '■^"^"'^^^"^^^g)!'

K.Selli W.v.l«aiboldt in seinen Briefen Leipelg 1909

Leipzig 1912

1

«

*c.

- loabr

lae A^ot

t

?

"^van^ar

Stmat

3

nils;:

eTi B^

« •

t

ire

F-.

i .

Tf ^T'^r''

p»>

•es a

i^ikel and Kunst

L

L

a To^^e I

I

I -

Berlin* I 1:^^

wds " n 1920

n 1920
ire pariB 1866

(Bine Auflwahl) M nen 1
rp.T.fh.Hfte r) Tnnsbr.l '^

1

Basel 195<^

B«rijL2i '^
Brealau 1:^52

Stuttg* 1932
Leii^siir 1006
Be3 ?

J. .

l.Salirf -'"•Ba.. -x^ii^rw V .r FietBsche
B«frank*i Dr* --hlanr and -"er Forderalisana

-^ni "ler and nor"^ ^ " * -^

t MBri ine lie Bntwiccloiig ter

abeni en - lattn^eta. . ^k

Backe $ T(Mi Sein and Ttm Baben der 5eele

Ii^|f^»lb^Tgf 3)tr dritt^ ff^iaaiiisBai
1N>^ .-> ^ersexu Bae ^.^aksal der ■ask ron der ^.. .^ a sur

O^geoMirt Breelaa .

l.Frommelt Toxs ^'^-^'':sal dee deateehen Geietee. 1.?Dlg0f

Me j^gegBong ait der Intike Berlin i:^;^^

A«Kl ri T' * Boafen f[l: aie c e fireer ft u

Lit era tar .. ben 1 .^^

i . lert 12 Beden tiber die Ber^dssakeit and deren Terfall in

Deutschland lUnclUB 1920

A*Biegfriedt Lee State-Onis d* Paris 192^

E«Iicolsout The leaning '^^ ^'^^»'»^1o^e Oitobridge .^^

Pr^Bollt Steraglaabe one Tong AFUC 630 Leipeig 1919

K»Xiegler a»8>0ppe«lfce1i sel^an^^rBSHg in Sage and WlssenBObaft

— 1 720 Leipzig 1921

S»3prangert Deutoi^ der Tormasetsu t in den 6e es-

wisseBsotaaften Berlin 1

B«Jaar«* fierlegeaisB tea hl« fnow von Aae&sl Leipzig 1 32

W.T.^* eineou Vos heilieen Oeist des Hlttelalters (A«T«0anterbar7

Bemhard T.Clairraax) Breelac *'^26

W«Patert laagliiftre Portrats Leipzig 1.03

1 •Paters Miseel 1 anaeiie Btoc^ies (a reries ol is»»s^^s) London 1900
■ara Bloebs Lee Bets flia— tnrgea StvaSbiurg-Paris 1924

B«Beast BeclBeeia Spirltoalis. Kirchenidee and Oaechichtstheologie

der Tranziskanisehen Beforaatioa Stattgart 1934

Pr.Heilen Bas Oebet. Bine rellgimwife rliche oad rell^ons-

psTChologisehe trntersaobn^ BEhiel^^B 1Q»

L-*Geigert Johann Benoklin* Sein Leben oad seine Werke
¥ •Paten Appraeiations with on essay on style London 1931

17)

Ttmo Xl„- •! Wf^'

A '^AST

J Mt^ «M tf~-

iL*R<^

i.

'«^X-(

• » r o » tt

C

IS mT^t^T^OXU Tff

Bo

V •

O.f

1«»ff

^ *fisaxio« in 1^
^&<.vgung in Wort

* nen

i» 1 ©r (

Lei :»

FT'-I!'.. :■.* 1908

Lelp«l« "'-•^5

1 «.•*

dM 1 .B" .

I ^:

Bers

I.Teilt Pi^t
"ntv j:^

■>>

:•?

Al

53
20

I

- IB^ '^

103^

E.T

H

I P

31 &e

e fler Phi
llthey ("' una drnt Q^r

xi i.i*-Lu. -r^"* in aer araiK* iidfi Dei

Balle 1d7>

: ii iemi 106

ler mi— . : . : en PI > ia

''i VI.Bandi MLe .Tn -r ^^ ute Hegele

a znT Seac^ ^^^s IdealismoB

T7i»^^ >N

rs Gr€ '^''Achte

'%—

far.

Pr.'^'--^

- t = 11
Also sr*7^ic»>>
7oM I

"ft ^ T ,. «^

er xnBae.
2

^-Berlin ^ "'i

*

le oer

Berlin 1
ie Leipzig 1

A.iyunaoxf and K.nxa

J Kietf

e al8 Ei

Lei

er ur

^
^

^4

rei

19

W.Steint lirtzsche and die biloen
ZJbBiTTt Das EBPital. I.Bend

K»Marxs Das koi^..^^8tlceh€ Maiiile'^''
K.Merxi Brroluticn and Kontre-Ber
H^Vebert O^oajuulte Aafsatse zar &sxi^x
lI»Vebez^ rie iBtionalsn aad aos' >gieciien irrun

d€»r

•lin 1^25
S ^. )

Be-

. »>.
^ ua. f'bint
dew 1118 i]r
an ' 1

33

— -1

M.T^ebePi IlXaiaa -ft6Bi (:i. Z^.r

in BciSland^ .loE^:. si: Kum Sc
III.!)er Ste^^t (einc soiiiol.UnterBi
■•W^ben laJLlrccbt ^..^ Demo 1 r tie in Deutso^^
M*Weberi O^saanMilte poll' " Schriften

l»8ou'*"''^tt Der «or;eme lUi, ' 3muB 3 Bc# ^

7^:.G«ka8a77ki Stir rase«te»€ s- Bad Islirl

2 Be .
J.'^. fent Das Si rre

l#v,? . . . , .J C :_ _

A 3 Blnce
l^lDhlsf Dxt Sr.Tv.'^:.. __^ dec deoteohen Urtedaaftelebene In IS^^u.

iSrxr LelpEig 1908

DrJDRrl Diehli g---^- •»•-«'- - — "^aftliche Brx.uterun, en su DarAd

lic^ra©^t ^ze 1. tt.2.Teii Le:' 1905

Iff 1 * wwwp ,

■CUku. * "'I

en-Lel i^l6

iloao
Jeiu

Basel 1
e. f ibingen 1-18

^ _108

le

18)

Blbllotb^oa iByetiowet ar^cetica ooritineas Pra^olpes Aufitonm

Medli Aerl Opue. . ^^ati 4lberti Ma/oml -Brik 185

© Triarier B»t 1858

J*Gr5rre8t

F« Lb Ballet 0<

1 - 5

lel

ij^

^vJ ^

A»I/)Cithi Bine ...:. ^ err v....^.*^ -^#li#w

G rxQB der S" ''^^*'' >mik . IJ.Abt*

fr.Ii'' '"^i Tr±^^^^ '^' Li:

<*all8ma0

Iksv^hlatandee

, «l»lokonoBiik. S(

OvSlniiCxi R«

.•:4-

'v. . .-. ^. Lebr

^•Si mei/ Phi lose
J.Relntenst ^e

icar
tsp]

tze

,1 V ''I % ''M • • »

rucKfB bau und
n
i Ta^^ her und Brief e

112- 1848

Leipzig 1919
W-^^-Vi 1923
©a 1918

:ex

\U\€rro5 ->>ei Welt und £ _

•^ , ^ ? i.c:i.ernirichere R

-1# At 3 (Rede)

jhaff 6

in Lf

!.nn'

f Sta.

\t

Einzel:

n

J'>h> h t^^r ^hilooc • der

^^chflen and Anhalt, Jahrtuoh der Eistori?

xj riroucii 'I

I

Jahre«bf*ric> n^r die f ^keit s Wise en

I'ox Yer5ffentlic^* ^er Sc^'

Universit'^tsgei^e^x. ^-^ ft
' "' .Versaamlung '^

elberg 1920/21

1 • ;• • etl

^o^T ^.on fiir ?.u.f •

_vj

9 • IWw

her iiistoriker in ""'-

1 :^>c:

Inetitutf

' t

' cs'"*

t 1 GeieteA-*

er die t ^keit
der Bleed— liD

Frankfurt an I' e 1

^-ohe Vierteljahresschri . r Literr^tn?-^spr

geeohichte* J .If Heft 3| . . -^
dto. 6*Jg* Heft 4, 19»8
dto. Inhaltstfbereicht 1.-12.Jg. 1923-1934

The new OoMWWPWilth Quart eOy Hr.1 A^ril-Juae 3

u»a. B.Jackht Welt-Zeit

TTille und Macht Jg. If Heft 19, 19? 5

u*a. R.Burin^en St.^eor^e, der Hation isori iisMoe

file ¥imee Coronation Bay 1937

ae ArcMv der Oeselleohaft . altere deut^ deeohiohtekiiri'i^e

50 •Bar. , 3 •He ft . 35
dazut Rrp^ipter «u Band 41-50
dasui Begieter za Band 56

WiT^amm% Bolletlno la f^e tfi Storioa Marearaana 1924

xentia" 1-VI-1932

erstand 9.J6* Oktober 1934 ^ ^

xwschrirt *ur die Oeschichte der Jad«n in Dentschland

T^.Jg^ UHeft, April 1930
Ber Sch«alNL»aae Bimdt Sine Mooateechrift aae Oberdeutechland

I.Jg. 6,Heft, Wr» 1920

^o

it

•iften

Vj)

Bl tt

ie Kunsti
U »-.W)2, AugttHt 1893f WiT% 1^-94,
Fe....>35f WiTL . ,3, Jtmi 1896,
1899 (4»Folf^ III u.IV, Band .

August

.1894

5.folge
6«folgo
7#folge
B.folge
9.Folr:e
10#?olge

1 ^ /01
1902/05

1904

1910/

2 z

i .fl

11. a.12.Polge *Jl9
Blatter fUr die Kunsti Bin© Auslese aus

Jahrbuch ftlr 'Ue g*tige Bewe.^ung br««« ▼•Pr.G
1910, 1911, 1912 (I., !!•, III.'T.)

a 1904-1 J09
1898-1 )04
1892-1^93

2 X

t z

•Wo It ere

HisuorisGne kieil^ohrifti

87* ]

Bar

8 \

ft

89.

ft

90.

n

91.

n

92.

ff

93.

^!

95.

;»

114.

ti

115,

ff

116.

^1

117.

t«

118.

M

11 ,.

H

120.

ff

121.

ff

12?.

ff

127.

ft

128.

tf

12 .

n

130.

ft

131.

ft

132.

ff

133.

tt

141.

If

148*

tt

1.-3. Heft
2.U.3. "

N
fl

2.

1 .U.3.

2.

1

ft

ti
ft
?i

H

?

n

N
II

n

N

II
«

n

H

m
m
n

H

■

1901

1902

1902

1903

1903

1903/04

1904

1005

1915

1916

1916

1917

1 "

1

1 1

1. :■■

IfiPO (an :5nde unvolj

1923

1924
1924
1925
1125
1)26

1933

-I -.

Helene Wiemiszowskij Vom Imperium zum

torirche Zeitschriftt

149. Band 1, 2, u*3.Heft

150. • *

1 51 . "

ii I

tionalen Kdni^--ui

ft

n

1954
1934
1935

Ti*ter)tar- and Ge" "^ ■ ' * -jgefc

i+A

U^ -^ iavelllt Oeeaomelt^
A.Fi.eaDaeri Die nnir- -
A#Bu<?in8fiikyi o Univ^

I el Alter

e

:. u r X

S*Bandtt

leo Hunanlsmus in Ini

ivf

ir^nchftn 1925
. «...«««.^ oin* tjj^
^raelben Im
rlin 1876
V>01

T» «

(—

»- .

I

1.

xxkxm

an-Bln. 191?
I'^e 1928

'T88

»

23

-oe

f

A.v.Martim lllttelalterliche It- and Lv

vm c?^5/^,t.qX der Schriften
HaeiciiiBi The iiemi -^e of t>- ^— ^/^^-r Outury
E.Berr" t Mittelaii^orliohe ...>....- -iv. ih.v

' Politik tind Geyoxij. jy^jiiuxt
O^Sutteri ./ 1 a^ Hri ^ a aeo V ' ' v - ; - ... i

O^de Bagardei XIII • Sieole

H#HriGkinoi Sti ^ in the hiatory of Mediaeval Soienoe Oambrid^e 19<i4
jjjT.-.oTH-nn| stiidiGC in mediaeval Iture Oxford 1329

H/^*o.,xueri Oxford Essays in Mediev^^^ W story Oxford r^34

H.Reatert G^eaohiohte der rel. Aufklu*.^^ im Mittelalter

^ ^^. Bf^-^'^in 1 . >

H»He ^li Dietrich v.Nic Mu^xl. cer 1952

A.v.Martim Goluccio ialut ...

i deal Lei g 1:^1^

A.Vt^'-'-^tint Golaooio Salutati'i .ati Vom Tyrannen Berlin 1013

J-^'-^ ..X es Freien Deutrjchen Hoohptiftee frr .am M*'in 1"i*1

B.uutheint Die Culturentwicklimg S Jd-ItaliBri/^ Breelaw 1386

Th.Klettei Beitr^ige zur Oesoh. a. Bilder it. l... :leh-^'^r^^'=»nai^?^ 1»

H.Bohjner: ~ie Jesuiton (ANuG)

Die Predigten dee Pranziskanerr. Berthoxu v. isburg. Hreg.^ *i-. •u^^oei

ReKens^ " : 1906

iT^v.Millleri Oeeo: x sohweizerischer Eiif^en iisHaeohaft.

and eingeleitet vor* r.Gkinr' If T

L.Olschkit Bildung and Wir iter der Rena

in Italien
lit T>-"V-)ffs Bntntehong and BewirtGOhaftun^; eines osu

aroQbetriebes " Koni.,

Alex.Y.BOMt De tran«latione L: :in ^^-^^

nas v.Osnabrlloki De pree tiv?i rorr rxi

hrer.. . ^i-"^

A.P#Horberti Letter to the electors of Oxford Ur rsity
E.Rhysj (Everyman's libmrv eseays and Belles-

On the Scope and *. /bare of onivr -aity edaoation
Gardina J»H«Neifman
H.Kampfi Pierre Daboie and '^ ^ ^1-tl en Grand •- en dee f^^na.

Hi'itionalbewusotBeins jm l>Uv} Le^. ^.ig o

C.H.Beokert Da« Srbe der Antike in Orienx ana Oicisia nt LeipBig
K.BFardaohi Reformation, issance, ^nus Berlin 1926

K.Bardachf Vom Mittelalter zar Reformation

Band II - 1.2.Bd. ;j4.5.Teil (Rienoo) Berlin 1913-r.

Banr' Yii - 1933 ^ ^^, ^^^^

^•Bardaaht Vorn iel UBand, I.Teil (Mittelalter) pll* 1925

Otto Hartwigi Ofte tTbersetzan^^sliteratar tTnteritaliens in

i.1 Bd, der Epoohe Leip«ig lOlsb

K.Burdaoht Sinn and Uro ning dor Worte Renalssanoe ana ^^^™^;J57
Pr.Ganr?olfi Paraoelsue . ^^ .^ B^lin 1^^'

H.Hesas Die Hataran-^^ aaang der RMaisMBM In Italien »f^arg 1 J^4
K-Rieslert Traktat vw^ SohHnen ..or Ontologle der Kunat »»»J[^^ 1 ^^5
P. ' neideri Die Bpitaphien der PHpete and andere stadtr^leohe

laeohriftwa dea Mittelaltera (IV^a. XII •Jh») 1933

1 ~'^'1
1b^>i

' >

Li

- r

.L

P>

I--'^8 Int. ZeitGoVri-Pt filr Phllos. der Kultur Bd.IX 1920/21 Heft 2
F^^xmont VorauBSt v^v^.^. ..>. /eaen der mitt elalterliobf-n

Univeroit^it tutt^. 19^^

R.Iaralakii ^or Por-r Ittsgedanke in der f '^ .Aufklc.x .ai€

"^•rfart 1933

fji^E von Hoftnarke privilegien b Bayem 1934

I.Si^'^rj Die geisteegf • Bedeutung dee ital.P iB 1

P.Oo.xA .1 PhilipB Melanchthon Halle 1

H.Zimmert '^^' Geschichte rom indischen Ktinig mit dem LelOmim Bln.1
FtRotht Ter lanflaBC dee Homaniiemas una der Reform aul

Erziehongs- und ' "alwesen Halle 1-'^f^

B^Sohimrzt Vom che chen Denken » ^^i

J.v.Ne^eleini Oertnanieohe Mythol e (ANuG) 1 n9

X.BiriEert Das Oeld als Zeiohen f®*^. ^ ?^

M.Preih.v.Taubet Die v.Uxkull I. Tell Berlin 1930

B#Hir8ch -""^t Romantieche Medizin i^t^^Jig 1930

H.Liebeeonatzi Pulgentias Metaforalis Leipzig 1926

H.Zimmcri ohopenhauer a Indien 1938

E.Kriechf Die Emeuerun^ der Tlnlvr It t Frankr. T -^^

W#Hellpachi "Das be (Jesicht lbg.19.7

P.J.Schneidert ,- i.le and die doubsclie Rok^mti
A.Pischeri tJber Binn up^l w©rt -oHchic; er t^h :in/^ in der

Gegenv/irt n 1932

H#"' rt Umrisae indischer Seel'^^f'ilirung
H. ri Zur Rolle '~3 Yoga in u«x geiati, elt Indiene

unM

^•'■-chen 1931
aen
^ Is 1)32

ir der

?echun

A. "Uhu

F. . :iaert Zur n L " ireien L ... .

alter
A.Salaj ber das Problem der ♦'7>eka. . . .'• dee Islam
H.Noyesj The institution of property (Book rcviewe)
H.Faaltoberi Tk^t Reichseinheitagedanke in der Lit

Karolin£;erseit bi:j zuiii Ver>,-.^o ^'^^ ^'
W.Loppi The pronation service
^UWihlken Ausleee und Ausmerze - Herri^, uid IJntergang des

d Hooliadela ih-

A.BergstriHseeri Lorenzo Medici '^®''** 'IL^

P^Funkt ttberwelt und Welt iTn M ttelalter i^:>i

P^CHiterboo^M iVT'^naolini onH das wirtachaftsByetem r^F^ flMoHiGtir n

W.LoBgB ( V*)f Wohnt d r MuBik ein beattmmtea ^uxvu^ inne*^
A*v.Martini Zur tiirnozlologiechen Probleoatik der Geietea-

geeohiohte (Aue iff d-B MittelBfiltfjrB)
Gerda Oaaparvi Me lnVA'ioklunr-,7:rundlagen fi^r die eozia o

pBychiache Terse ^mg der l :erlk3hen

deutaohen Frau uift die Jahrhun^^ertrj^^e * Jelbf;. i

E.Salini Zu Methode und Aufgabe der ^irtnchaftapRS. ^^noher ^

E.SohraMM tfcer Illuetrationer ^^ zur mittelal..- liohen Kulturgeocn.

P.i^.MatheBoni Gorman visitors to Bngland 1770-1795 and their

UvreBsionfl Oxford 1930

l.PeterBBnt 7olk, Hation, Stint and Spracha 1931

H.Barom Leonardo Bruai Arotino huiafaniatiaoh^philosophinohe

chriften oipBlg i J^

P.Bec :i Studien zu Llonardo ...oni Berlin VjK

H.lioefigi Latoiniaohe Hymnen r- - -^Uohen ^^^i'tur.ien

dee TeJOHpexoruenB Parohlm Ib/o

E^

1 4 --f nVi/s fir

1 ^V>

LOO

Ocsohiohto der europ-'ioo

10

3. 5.
Bavl*! F^-^p^ ""^^ ^^'^ritory of E.

donth of '

' r»e Serieet

The

1 . '^ . ^
2."

S*** Th
G.Maoanlay ^^ave
R^Pauli: Si: ion Vi

Der c'

K.ioaixxx

/.IS

Br.Villierai
H*Txu

M-BuiTOWsi The

H.Belloc: A

C . ♦ I No

/^

08

ft

<aten

teri
fehlen
^^'t 1:

from *^^ "

I^Ob
1/01
1900

4. w^nde

jjei -g 1 a;

ib«vg 1

;4.

- ^ . J3 ,. ^

oh Amerioa ^

11a N«w Zenl^nd. ffH«maniat British Hew (^*

t^^>^ 1[Jmnl

1^

T.n-^r'f^r!

I f

•'■' . Ton

ii U J. w^X Uf ux -^

vuxA ijex'^0Ql/6rf

^r G^-

n'i^

7

e

Lchte der An le

Bonn 1921

iB

ooialii u Jiov^' '^nt in "^

"^ Oulturbi '*"-'- X1U-.

'ivxx.i
^. Der8»; k; B
tor-/ of the forr* i poiioy of Of
of 1

i8 I

a

u

t Britain

I

1 X) /
25

1!#,^. in — ^rjinanns ..a.a.x.iaia the Conqueror

H^Aunuor ' ^ ^-f-^ tq^t engl# Polltiii uj ' ''^•^ &01?

L . ;05

1015

London i^ "

^^x -] ^ ..

of the nr

E*JankB (?)?
l«Alr)ort5 n u

«-l wi - .. , ... 3ltr#i
H#Onokent Cromwell (4 Is^eyo
Fr^Harrieons Oliver Oroiawell
f •H»Ed"wardri Die Traj^Cdie
Herm.Freih.v.Ec^ ^itelni

'3
bis Asr " ^th

J lit* Wi lab

' Bln»l^25

(99

Berlin 1933
-»* '^ie F'ihrong einer Nation) ^ 1935

L r.don r^"0

*^

VIT.

liche lri>^ >'

.il L

3.)

L#Straclniyi fueen Victoria

f •M.Stentont Norman London

R»Hankini llie Iltlarquis d« Ar,;:en«OT> «*Slehar4 II -

T«P»Tontf Ec^i»ar<^ the Piret

Maxi^ ""olimitet D^r engl. In'^^'-titarstreit

Gr«Ta vies u.F'jK.T'ortei En£:lLinu in the Bidelle k.z^e

P^Ctllahlmanni Oeeohlchte der en^l* Revo lut Ion

I)«C»Someix)ellt ''> aeli unci T" "stone

Fr.I B^ma : ial : ndnrioh II VtEngland Heidbgt190'

UTB.J.R.O^rmmm Henry tlo Seer Lonion 1900

a.Leaokel Beitr^ige ear Gee ni.: Hie da r.OemifftlT Bin. 190

T.F.Tonti The Hictcry of Bn^. ..u (1216-137y> 1930

F.M.St inton (?)f V/illlam the Conqueror 1925

^' ^lin ly^J

ireeden 1127
Berlin 1925
London 1934
London 1931
L. ..on 1^6
Inr.3 brack '. ,.
London i

Leipzig 1a44
Lon^4n 1^225

Rr ^^ t

•^ /

H»r,T' 'It aclt;t des : i

m veraohiedetian

4

LeiD2lg -irdA

J^ltonMent RomlGohes irifre

Lei r, V

Gomns inrls clvilis

3

lin 1114

Oor inrlB oivilis

2 W\n6f*

'n'^^vlin 1647

T.Ko.iu-^' ■ ■•'' -ni D r Creif..»t Aer

-^ r» p

.,.>.litz 1^4

Gfal lm3i.jLuuuio oo* -^^--rii ^.u...

uuuor

Leipzig 1913

Insti^tmlini Iru-uitiiti

Berlin 1921

StV.Be

tion (M 'jruKe<

; 1 >05

H.Sohat Inct:

;yst0x 8 rom..

3

Wtnohen 1919

PtTino£{7r:iv'offi i^ornr^r Taw in ._

ro^e

. ..-.ord 1 ,29

J.P'" "»^"^'i,rdti .. . ..svorv/altmi^

T.ftl-^T^/- ^ '^^

J. ' •v.x ' • ^ ^ T7 in Scoti'^^'''^

iii-"-

0#Hi'^ aohun —^

^r^--^- ^-r R87nl"

v.:

icnte

<J.G: t ^ V ine S"';

'•

^tutt:;. r

E •Mayers .

e von der Go

■^*"

1 d

L ;ig 1

G"»ff^ll ■ 5 I in '■'Gr , i

TO

H -Ihg,',

A* .^^.....^..i -... ^^-inr :.,:

Tnlterlio^^ri Synibo

lo, p n-nr!

E^AueraUllprj Gui.w..4.whte der

Tf .- ..-"',

^.othoden
ng Elailands in rlen Jahren Id

'"Tie 1881

bis 111^ vj^j-tiiiortation)

ue 1 sum Mtlhllx*

lannj him . - ' ;

. „ r Juden L .c>» J^izili

Im ^2. and 15* Jaiirliandert (Pisee. t.) 11 ^Ibg. >
P»l»Plnde*'^f^'^ ^ers Die (reL ,_:e (^r^^- ^^iohsl -^ vo: "irll- vr»?^

11.11.1158 (Son. 1^ v-ei.iiar n^l)

L.'teer^?': ^ '^"--+'fv — • > -mi^ nreoht B.ori i^.v-

L.Hovlei Oui. ' janishmGnt oi Oriminous c).erlC8

(Son'^ -Jk Manchester 1933)

p.p. tio im i yher u ( ion) ^jdi

)

Vv

H.^.Torj
H.NiecGt

• 'oil t

R.Gheiett Dao

H.Goset Die
J.Hatscliekt

^* n ^.

tum un c (" bzug)

le Pro\ ;e in it (Verfast > Wirt-

-- -t, Kultur) 8tMtt.?.iq33

.. aiti...M.iOlische Kirciienreoht an'^ ^ ?Gt -..^oe

.,J^ .Jm J CJ ^^ I ii I 1

••■^'^- oht iK^i,'..^t^ 1

>r -iriiHo iiaetie in -'^?c/aiii eioixxaw

Halle 1910
lechtave: in Pn rlin 1910

;. _3 en^l. - u.a ;3 i

2 B Q u.l ' . f^iin : /

ueiarich-?"^ ^^ T^nglands rlin \ 7

^l^^he Vqi * o.^ ^eaohichte oio 3;i]n ller^^ igsentritt
feji jwvjiiigin Viotoixu. Siu-uic an 1913

TtG. 3ea Law Soa power I "^n 1910

S.F; t rne spirit Ox the ooxanon law Bo>- uon 1921

:U /. and A.J.Carlyiei A I of mo^io I political Theory in

the weet. .. irgh an: London 1928

KtBolsisftnni VmusoB.7nrf->s&un^5r8Pre8o} te Winchen a«Bln.1j10

A.de jleon WClMbur.*? 1813

2»30i-xout Heiohs3tra3en and r^ Vvraltuni im E nigreioh l.il

Italian (754 a. ^^J^ v--^aeertation) u.Beiheft 25 '^tuttg.
Jurio iii^erpretea 3aeo. IIII. Neapel 1924

O.Salutatif Traktatue da Tyrannaa rierlia-Leipzlg 1914

St,K'ittnf?ri Eine Dekrotsanrae dee Johannaa onine 1332 ( ^dnick)

Pr.J.Picheri ttber die Kntstohunt^ezeit dea Sacliaanaplegel?

Innebruok 1859

Reoht

7.

J.Fir-

F.

« n

» •

^ t W • vTX

•| Vv)n

101 (G.v.r

rf)

i /'« '. <-».

11 VS '« flP/^ C" ,

r» f^

.iiueix

H?,

fi$ a

G.il

\0 . M

i ■ . •

n i ^

'■^•1 .oriui£

idp

^ 'liter

: )20

' ^18

1862

<•

1 «5

en

itn :_.2

t»

•

xn 1886

T.

i I •;

en I

1

1^99

e
1860

t 1919

I ^ ••*- ^-*. ^-fc

.4-,

it

^\ u,».- f-" I ^-» 7 T «/« C ■ ^jV"i ^ .**"•

fV^o't:lno| 9m

e W

> ^nr'jr^bo 1

!;er

u^»- 1 Brief e an Aa
Fr.ui^-iv^olfi Groethe.

nThopg (ii^_

4-'^-

1 ..

Til -.

• T

.■J^: ^ .*!

^4

P ! tnnj G-er

i.uXXv

t 1

i)

'' /". ■^,"'

)

1 4 i 4- i

I .j^j

J.viuli Titan. '^

J .Alt I J •Paul •

J •Fault Brief e. . "^

' .^ ^t J •Pauls werK. u^i.x.

rt ^''^^rko (Ii'
(GroBe Wil-
.lilj^ori Wei*e^ 1^18 f^<»
L.Sadeei Vom deutyuhen Plat n

ooliichte dee deotr

t 1846
l-^Leipi-

^ •

KC

o

• 4«Ba.iid fehlt*

• . "I Bel-.i

mi

. y y

t < -^ sa • I ■ •* wv »-j

onn

iefe. 1 p-1 w1

HoV'lls* Werke in ei"''"'^ Bai^ •• , ^.^^
H.v.Kleinti Werke. 2 ; -^g. ?orli^^
fr«a»Andolfi H^v.Klei8t« ** i 1^^^

Horderi w-rke. 36 '^^ -. 1^50'j tf.

a"borf;i Der politiocl.o cr. Jraz 1v,>id

Lee 1 . i -o» 5 M •

Pr^Oundolfi Leaain^ (node).
H^v.Hoftoannsthalt Oe^ .w.ijeltc iverV?^, 9

Hu.o YOU aofmannetliMlt Dtjo Ooi -^H uber Oedichte (Bibli'^-^viiie Aufig^)
o von TTcftiannflth^.li l>:o Souri- utua ale rreistlger BaUiu v»^r Nation

H V - >fn n»^'?thalj hlesc^ te (s-fl

Httf:o von Hofmann»thelt Dae F (I? -i)

Bu^o Ton HoftnamiRthalt Danae oder ^ . .^ Uheirt (30 rdruok}

■ago ron Hoftaannethali Silvia im Stnm (Sonderdruok2.

/

M

±!^T*^t\XT

f^ ) ♦in(!

^^ « „ .-1 ^

u

HtBerstlt Der Moselaa* Wl«n 1933

Or "fin Uxtcullt Geciir"' -^^ Berlin V)31

fr.Oiu ft aediohte. Ber^ " 1930 (2 x von ^j:i>

pr.Ou) .ft Oaesar. Berlin 1^24

Fr.G -ft Oaeear . • Berlin V)2G

F-# W-. 'St Der Wa r (12 Oee oh©). Berlin 1924

fr^Gondolft Diohter- unrl H«lden. Heidelberg 1

Fr^Wolteret Jerrec ^ vu^i Dienst. Opua 1 (Blbli ♦

2.AaBg-iJvt f^'*'^ ohiert) Berll'^ '''^'^ ^
Fr«Wolteret Lobgec ~ e uxiu pealmen* Berxxxx
H.v#Heiseleri Binsiexreden (PrUhe^Geclicbte)
fr^Wolterst Wandel und Olaube. Berlin 1911
E««dlfekehlt OeeaHielte Diohtungen. Berlin
l.Bertramt Yom deatsohen Sohiok^tl* Oediohte. I is ©J
B.Tallentim Heroieohe Masken. Berlin 1927
M^Koamerellt Oeepr^ich'^ '^ue der Zeit ^er f^r>!

Berlin ^j£,j
pr.GimaojLxt Hatten, Klopetookt Amdt (3 Rtv.c-iij ^^"''
B.Tallenti s - oleon und die D utsche^
l^y.Gebharati Arohangela (Bin Myett
O.Puohat Manfred (line Tra«edie) Damstaati iju:>
li^Treuget Huldigungen (Bibllophlele Aaogabe) • Bor
..•f»T»fiu^t@t AU8 Peregrina. Berlin 1912

R#»**imert H^ldcrlinB Be^^^^an.<? wit Go "^ ux . ir^ 1

«!•!• Gtotheimi Bb-^^^-^d Gx. . .ain. tjuttg - :J1

PrtWolterst Vi r iwut- 'ber --s Vaterland* T^-^-.r.- v n i
E#Mt5rik9t (]>er elte worke. . "^'^de. Leingi j^jj
B#lKJriket Oedioiite (Znael BUonerei)
Pr«3olil<igeli tJber die neuerr (Jeeohlohte* "^^1

H51derlini JKmtllohe 1« rke. C le. Berli i j

Heiderlim Hymnen an die Ide.- 3r Mensohheit (Ineel-B )

Holder lint Der Toa d<p" *?T)ed( • Inoel Terlag 1910

l.TtHellingratht . • . . Ibei ^-.agung von Holderlin. Jt * 1

Pr.Gimdolft HBlderlins Arohlpelagun. Heid^iherg 1 .

Pr^HOlderlint Motima ^ „^ ^ r 4 4 ^ o-i

me Briefe der Diotima^ Herausgegeben 0#7ietor* Le? ^g l^^^l

O.lhgnert HOlderlin und die Vorsokratiker# W -burg ""T

Httlderlint Homers Iliade* Berlin 1922

Liohtenbergt Aphoriemen. Imiel-Wi

01#Brentanot Oediohte* Mtinoher

Droste^BRilshoffi Briefe, Oc . bt^, ilun^en, Winchen 1

Heinee Werket 7 '''nde* Leipziij

Pr.mickertt Pirduai. 3 F^-^e. 1^90 .. « u ^^ 4. a^cm

Pr.Ruckertt Die Yer 'andluogen dee Abu 3eid v#Semy. tuttgart 1S54

K.T.Ounderodei Diohtungen. Htinohen 1922

Me (Hmderode. 2#Teil. Leipeig 1840

Slarooki Baa Heldenbuoh^ 3 Mnde. ntu ;i ?.rt 3

Simrookt Die Bdda. Stuttgart 1871

Simrooki Par«iTal und Titurel. attgart 1849 «.. ^ ^ /^

Duapfe froamel und berauaohter Oongt Waohdlchtun/ on v»Klabund (Ine.B.

lo«antlker-Briefe* Jena 1907 ^ ^ . , t 4 4 -i

(l#Preyta«i Der Kronr^rinss und die deuteohe Kaiserkroaet Leipisl' 1
G^PtGruppei PirduBi. Stuttgart 1856 ^ ^^ _ . ,. .^..

n.y.AMprineBnt K.Prierloh II v.Hoheaatauffen ^ "«3^^«ii* ^^44
Jtff.PiBOhert Priedrioh II. Y.Hohenst. (Hirtorieone Tra^ttdie) ?tr.^
P«T«Prob8tt IfalBer Friedrlch II. Berlin 1861 (DMMttie)
H.T.Weeaenbergt Kaiser Priedrioh II (Traueroplel) Preiburg 1
toni Bothmundt Caroline Sohlegel (lenan) Leinjsig

Litf?rf>tar

BtKochi Die Sage vom Kaieer Priedrlo i iLytT % uuerbliok Uber

die modeme Hibelu lohtung. Die Waberlohe in der Nlbe-

lon^dlohtung. Leipelg 1 B6
A^Suar^Bi ll© Pahrten dee Oondottiere. Elne i .•Relee. 1914
Ohr* und Irledrich Leop. Gy^-^en z\x colhergt GFo'lohte* 2 Mnde.

Wlen 1821
are^joroviuBi Wanderjfihre in Italien* 2 BHnde, i^elpzlg 1915
araf York von Wart enbargt Italleni -"^ee Tagebuoh. Bar -^ It 1927
H^Zlinneri ''Indisohe Mythen im Liohx neuer Peyohologie' j^erlln 1934
Dae Gilgameech-Kpoe. ubor0*v»A#Ungerad. QR5ttingen 1911
M.Bubert Die Oesohiohty dee Habbi Naohraan
Bubaiyat of Omor Khayyam • London 1 20

!• Adrian! Das Pest der Ju en^ un<:i Jugendgecllchte* Berlin 1919
J.Wortigi Der Wendepunkt in der neuen deutschen Novelle und seine

Oestaltmi (Dissertation) Frankfurt 1931
R#Rloki Die Neokenburg (Bin ritterlich Spiel) • Wien^-Le" Ig 1)23
R.Oonrndi NiederrheiniBohe Bpographlk ▼cm 8.-1 3. Jh« (Disnort tion)

Frankfurt 1931. Europa.Ein My»terii«
O.Keesleri ^r Prosaroman vom Knlrif^r dktavlan (Dissertation) Linberi

Lydla Batht prrsGnliohkeit und Dlohtung dos jun';on ..caabe Im Hin- oj

bllok auf seine Frauengestalten ("^ssertation) Dilli^' ^n ir.
C.Bezoldi Die Entwloklung der semltioohen Phllolocie im r^eutsoiieu

Reich. Heidelberg 1917
J.lenzingi Zur Oes^ol ite von ser als Hilfszeitwort bei len intrr n-

sitionon Verben Ira Spanicohen (Dissertation) Kille 1.}31
k.-..Lo4erhosei Die Lands. . ftegestaltmig in Hermann Lons Prosawerk

(Dissertation) Frankfurt 1930
aobert Elslcrt Die messianisohe UnabK-'-^ •< -^^--Itsbev/egun* v . .^..-

treten Joh.des T^ufers bis ;it^: uxiuergang Jakob des

Oerechten (Buohbespreohuni! in Deut sober Liter^tur-

Zeitung 193o - Sohmollers Jahrbuoh
H.Waffensohmidti Symbolinohe Kunst in den Romanen Th.Pont'ines.

( Dissertation) 1 37
J.Sohwalmt Reise nach Oberitalien und Burgund im Herbnt 1901
A.Quadoli Notice zur les corporations de eh damas.
(J.Bondit Das Verh 'Itnis von Hallers philosophinchen Gedichten

zur Philosophie seiner Zeit. (Dissertation) Lei^'^"^.^ 1 :. 1
E.IFyroffi Dae Heimaterlebnis in den Werken Otto Ludwigs 1y^> (Disp.)
PtM.Powickei The Christian Life in the middle ages and other

leeaye (Bue reohun^:;)

H»2SlHieri Indische Mythen ale 3ymbol<le. Z ^i - 35

Sonderdruokt Logos i 1j31

Edith Landmannt Steftin Oeorge, Dae neue Heich
Herta K*rtent Chancers literarische Beziehun^jen su Boooaoele.Rostoc

i . JO
H.Zlmiert -ohopenhauer, die Hunde und die Prnuen (Sonderabdruok)
Blioabeth axMuaelt Studien ilb<^r den Wandel dee Alejianderbildes in

der deutschen Diohtung (Dieeertation) Lumburg 1 31
H.Oonve«not (Zeitnohrift) Introdocione all» opera di Stefan George

1937
A.Wienert Die Parag Ba»d Ali*ida-Liter*ir (lisnertation) StrRflbg.1^13
Hertha Trenki Die Frankfurter Gelehrte Zeitung (1736-1772)

(Dissertation) Augaburp 1931
D.Piokermannt tTbor die metrirchen Subskriptionen der Passio-Trudperti
L.Hoteei Das Leitaotiv In der neueren deutschen Romandichtung

(Dissertation) 1931
K.Wolfekehlt Ulais. Berlin 1897

Iilteratur

K#r-^'-'^n Tr llmlttel dea ...... ^nfljeriohteter Begrlffe

del "teli-^'-'eutoohen Bpii •) Wltten r^^l

R#Iiall#n D«r wj o Aleacandtr (l^Lso*) 'IjJj
H»HaiiMmnt ll*> Hoh«Mitauf«i als lyrlker irx Hire ^^io ?

(Sondordi ) 1935
K.J!«inhardtt Dft« Parleurtell* '^mnicfu. ' ^

K»L*-..^ .1 "Baj.ire^' Im litf^Tr* rice ben %± 00

Ter ohledene Buohbesprcw. ^..-^en
La Orltloa (Zeiteolirlft) 1939
n#Bngelt Madrigal and Vlllanalle (Sondr--^-— «-^
M^Baerbolimi Tha Poeta Comer (Satlrl '^"^

Stafan Oaorgei aaaaatauagabai Bar Wer ^e faBsun^

« •• I TtiB Flbol (Auawahl err ' lin 1901

« »• t Die BU ^ der nirten >te der #n

and S»M?e und der Miv-enden arirten* .AuM« Berlin 1

and 1895
^ * I Salaotlon froa his worka (tranalataa Into Bngllah

by Oyni Scott) L-' ^-- 1910
« " I Der Stem daa Bon . --^--^-^ ^ 2. 4^--. -•1.

loha Blohtangi H: rauagageiien una aln^^lel't®^ voii fan Oaorga
and Karl . i .Band J#F ' x)

^•Banu Qoothe.
Btef^^ (3^oTge/ Tage und fatan f Aal mun^an on

te Ausgabe. Be^ ^ 1925 ( ^

Stefan j4

C3

10 c)

. ©rweiteiv

rft<

t De?r Slebente Riiv^. '^-^'^

♦ I -/ ■

3 Stollen aujd vier u ^

s Drei Gee'

■?;!

r — -! -^ ,, - . J- —

jjerJLiui I

r» J. /t

Stefan Georgai ftr^lbert Mai e v
Btafian Gaorget fage Tagan. 1

0«M*Bowrai t3tef!nn (ktonre In;
Stefan Geore^ai - ^^^ -

.n K

Mr Bidafweoha

OKfoFd-Ofitlaok 1^34

er. Berlin i 13

1« u. ...
Isohan Geor'^ und Hoftaannsthal* Barli.* • ^ x)

Sabine Lepeiusi \ • ^e^ ^-'"-0 einer Preur^- -^^^ rr>n .-

Stefan Oeorgei Hymnen-Pi irten-A i. ^abal .

Stefan Gaorgei Briafa and liaaa

Pr#aandolfi Stefan George in r.jiaerer Zeit. Heidell

Gaorglkat Daa Waaen daa Mohtara Stefan Ge rfrei

Umrlaaaelnee Werkaa

Uarlaa aalner Wlrknng. Heldcj-ijo ^^ 1 120

Pr.Gandcafi Gaorget Barlln 1930-1920

Uxkull-G^llenbandi Daa rrrolution ra Btiaoa bel Stefan George. ? ^

¥«Pialiti StefBtn Gaorga* Heidelberg 1931
0*Pallagrlnli Stefan George. Malland 1934 and Berlin 193.>
MtLadhten Zum Ged4ohtnlB Stefan G^or^ea. Berlin 54
A.Tarway und L.van Dayasalt Aufe ..-^ tefan George und die

jilngata dlohterlaohe Ba?/agv*.n,* tJbartragen v.'^'^^f •G^«rr#

Berlin .^./5
0«Augii«t Klelnt Tdc Rendung ateiaa Oeorgaa. Berlin '''^'^5
Stefan Gaorget Der Kr leg. 1. und 2.Attagaba. Berlin iji7
Fr^Wolterai Stefan George Ui eBlatter fttr die Kunnt. Barlln l^X)

Baadalalrat lie BlujMn dea B5aan. Umdiohtung v. . p. 3#Aufl.

Berlin 1914

ItPorti Stefan George. Bin Protest. Ulm 1^1^?

L#Kla,/asi Stefan George. Berlin 1902

R^Parrelli Stefan Gaorgaa BaEiahaagen aor angllsohan Dlohtung. U m)

Bar!-''- 1937
A«Tay««yt Main Ter 1 oefan George. 1i;>o

G.Bondli Brlnnarungan an i George. Berlin 1934

S.Iawarant St. George und R. . 3. Berlin 4

w%»

'n«A.j». <t >'^')

X/

IT

1 "'^9

^ ;3^^

1

rt 1

Htra . 1 185# 2 »inde
QPatfllr. Berlin 1318

Geraian J^ynsiiti of to- (a aoieotj r*''^^

P.Homi Of 1 del ^b. Lltera^ar.

L^Gteigeri mg der

A*OaBparyi to der 1 . Lit

SC orpr-^«l9:i»lj Geschlohte leats

"". x-..i M-^^ .te der Literatur des skandinavlaohen Nordona. Iipag.l .

ii«j.nrlch Ooui,;£ieni (Jeocbiohte der volkswiirtucha ft 1. Literatur ijn Mittel-

'^Uer. Leipzig 1869
.ncrnot A aiiaiet irol lom kinaseehaoa* Bad&pest
n Zeit 1st wle Bwigkelt. (Lyrik lur^ dem Barak) 1
W^Cloettai Beitrige «ur Liter<iturgc lichte dca Hittelaltera der

BeaalMMAoe* Halle 1
Wlr glauben! Jun«^e Diohtung der Ck^-f%«?fart* 1 57
Dae Lied der Oetreuen* 1938

K^Baaet Bae geistl* Schr^'^ -^iel. Lei Ig 1858 /1 913

Oliarl.Westermanni Brlefe asr I' 'e u^m 3 Jh« deutocher Vergangenhelt./
L^Olaohkii Oee ' ^hte der neuspraolil.wieaenBChnftl.Literatar^ Heldel-

1. von 2 B m ber/ 1 18«

P^LelBMims Die Parodie Im Mittelalter* MUnchen 1922
Bl'Hen und Perlea deutsober Di ong* Eannover 1B73
festrosem Meiaterweke ep^ ler Dichtong. H^nnovnr 1872
r*NordB»nni Bantes Zeltalter* Dresden 1852
J#PiriBi La T* ^-''erature Franoaise an moymage* Parle 1888
Oxford Book ox t«]nglish Veroe 1250*1900
The Oxford Book of LieeteettOentttry Terse • 1932
The Oxford Book of He^:enoy Terse* 1 28
fhe Oxford Book of Italian Terse. 1
The Oxford Book of Seventeenth Terse. 1934
The Oxford Book of Portuguese Terse. 1925
The Oxford Book of Oreek Terse in Translation. 1 .38
Dss Arohipoeten erhaltene Gkidiohte (lat./deutech) Ba.
Helm ladsfelli Tte Wanderung scholars. Lo^^-- ^^26
H.Manltiast Ge iohte der ohristl.lateinisciieu i^oesle bis sor Mltte

dee 8.Jh* Stuttgart inoi
P.Brlttalni The aediaval latin and ronanoe Lyrio to a«d#1 0. Gaibj.,.1 j:5'
A^SohnltEi Das h5flsche Leben zur Zeit der Mlnnes-'n^er. Lei ». 1889/ 21d
A^Kelleri ffudrun (aus Eittelhoohdeutsch Ubers.) L t^^rt la^O
K.Slarocki Walther von der Torelweide ((Jbers.) Lei » J53

Des Kinnesangs Prfihling. Leipzig 1888
Pie Geoiohte Waltheisvon der Togelwelde. Berlin 1853
K-Bardachi Walther von der Toeelwelde. I.Tell. Leipzig 1900
P utsche Oe'3ichte des 12.Jh. I.Tell. 1<''37
La oh«B0on de Rolsmd. Paris

me Lieder Heldharts v.Reuentbal. £sipsic 1910
B.WechBleri Das Kulturproblsai des Winnesangs. Hille 1909
W.dea Oartaarei Meier Helabrecht. Hrsg.v.Fr .Panzer. Halle 1 '11
Angel .^ileslast S^mtllohe Werke. 1 Band. Hegensburg 1862
BartB.v.Auet Lieder und der arse Heinrlch (mandat.v.Will Terppr)

laachto 1906
W«T#np#n Tristan and Isolde und Paroival
Pr.Chindolfi Andreas Oryphlus. Heidelberg 1927
M^Krebat Hermnn Steht^ Sein Werk im Zusasmssihsng des reli/^5i:*)Qen Be-

wusstseins der ile4?cemrart (Dissertation) , 32
I.v.Helliiigrathi HSldirlin. MUnohen 1921
Pr.Oundolft Ralner Maria mike. Wien 1 J37
A.Brodersem Stefan George. Berlin 1935
K.WolfskehltBer tftekrels. Berlin 1927
M#KoB!merelli Jean Pauls Terh^ltnls su Bdu : • 1-25
A.Sohnlert lHohtuag^i

K.Wolfskehlt Saul. Berlin 1905 ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^

K.M.eterldh$ Oesohlohte der bysant. and neugrleoh.Llteratar. Leipz.1902

ure

I

Llteratur

I leotrlnat Untereuonuiv eu an"' *--^- 'ib d«r aeutscv^r, »nA engl.Phlloi

fr.Gandolff Caesar In d#r dent
ir»Hf>inh?? I NletBsohes Klage

ATiaane i. iaeraruoic)

Oenoh^

x^&l^n

SS (script ores) I-XIII / TKXI Teil 1 a. 2 (2 x)| ixni

Tafal II-X «u OS XXXI Tell 2

•nlploittat : Knrollngert ■ sent K* nraci 11. ^ be,

Idbelll de llste I-III

Bplotolae pontlfiann aIII m« «^^^ ^^^^^^^

lMe\jn Seotlo II and III <1.Teil) Oapltu .i regun franoorua

Teil II Concilia
Poetae latimi aeri ^— olini com! HI partis alterins
Tordanls Homana et g©&ioa

Constitationes et acta puljlioa. I-IV, 1 u.2 ^4-,.4.^i«i4.^^„

Lpotthartt Is^weiser durch di< Geecldchtsweri^© dee e-™'o.Mittelaltere
y bis 1500# Berlin 189 6* 1 und ^

WOHi DBS Heglster Oregors VII^* ^I*B'ieh I-IV

II.Buoh V-IX

MGHi Tiie Ghr^^^^V'^ '^^inrich Taabes ▼•Sell h

MGHt Die Olir . uohannes ▼•Wintjrferthnr

MGHt Ide llct ^ He sua Frieden von S.Germano 1250

■OBi Selects Vbci-1250 3*Band, Zeit der salinchen Kaiser

UWBm Itorsilil de Fadoa defensor pacis

umt lis Briefs Heinrichs IV.

KnlefJe^'^GeJlSnSJrJ^^^^

Qa«ll«n ©•tttnoblniWIa Ira 14.Jh. HrtBg.J.rr.BBiaaer

t 1#15
• • BexBanoa Altahenalfl and andere n««?ohicht »llen

Deateci'land Im 13.Jh. Stutt, rt 1843

■ ■ Martyrluo Arnoldl .... im 12.jrh» 1B53

■ • Henrlcena de Dlaeaentiofen ... i«;jP*i*er9n V^ '*-"' -;^*"r. 186
Archivlo della R.Soolata ftmaaa «• Storia Patrla X. 2 Bt^ e i-x v .Homlbfi
Se oSonlk aaa allinbena v.t«r«a (*!*),^««'^ -^^ Alfred ]toran. 2 Bd.

)dt8Ch) Lelpsslg 1914

-.- T>hrl)y Cher von Genua (dtsoh) Obers.W.Amdt. 1 B id. Leipzig
Hie Ghronik Arnolds r.Hibeck (dtaoh) ?^f^'^»J«^;^» ^e^** f«:f^^^ '
Das Register Innooena II. Uher die Relohof rage 1198-1209. m,o^. .
^ * 0«»rgln« faugh. Lelpeig 1923 , , A

■•Brdmimt Studien ssar Brlefliteratur iJeutBOhlands in 11. Jh. Lei - r it

HOHt Hyooardl de sancto geroano ■^*»**,^«'*^fi^ °^^**5^, ^,. ,„^
W.Sttenbaabi Qeutsohlands (Jeschlohtsquellen in Mittelalter bie zur

Mitte des 13.J11. Berlin 1 5H
B.SaoKurt Sibylllr^ -' -^ Texte and Forschongen. Halle 1^98
l.Mt«er$ Zar Eenm,nx^ der for«ttlar«aaBlttn,T dee It. -^ ▼.Profl.

Heidelbe'T 1 10
B.Sohneidert ItaLOeocvichtasohreiber der 12, r-^ ' ij.Jh. Leipzig 1^09

|un?g«JAmiden and acta iaperii 1335 ".iJ'?-,^^ •/f?'?g^ .n,, 1935
P^ehn Berloht !ber die Heraos^'. der ■« V w, 1 32 (2x), 1933, 1935

cMi.«< . f)Ono r r^^■^K

f.Philippii linfahrang in die Urtrundeniehr. des '^^ MiUelalter.

Die HBmerkriege sua Plutarch Cftaar JeHjf- Suetonlua, '•JJJ»« «"«

jao . Oemanla . Fbera. J.Hoi*:el. Leipzig. so »

Die lauten der Bohenetaufen in Unteritalien. r- -azanjaband " J'*'**

v.B.Sthwaer. T.Capltw»»a. Leipsig 1912

^•M«MAkkMi*M

J^iffti Regee
J.v. men h
« t

.- 1

" ; i^ontifioluii liumr^norum I '^-^^^ II • B^'^^-'n 4
ita imperii (Karolinrer) iimaorr ' <>:?
j^ Fr furt 3

-^ta iii orii (Karoli -) Irmsb : 1

n^ and Register

1 59

~'"^, '/eiiar 1^329

hte dee
1 1198-1273 (:

egeb

• s ^^^^..en 11-^-1272/ I.

III. ^-^^ ^^^T

• • Eege«ta 1273 - 1313. 1. ^
HiBtoria Diplomatioa Pri orioi 1.
Piokert R0g0«ten 1108-1272 1.u i.Brui.
C-nnr^-lne Tanglj len zum E r I ^^^^
iu^i^^ei Acta aragoneneia. Band 1 2. 1
Winkeliaannt Acta Imperiis Urkunden and

I.t^d* Kaisenrei'^J^'^s and ^'«^ F^^nlft^

II. Bd. 12w-1400 (V ^ . ^. . V

Bohmeri Arti linperil eelecta (UriL^.dr- '^eutecher Kp^-«^ im^ ^^nlge)

1 o ( w • 2 '- 6

B.OapasMt Hlstoria Diplomtica Regni .iicixx 1250-1260. M 1874

J.Hallerj i.« Quellen zur Oesc e der les Kx.-.:

g^-,-„, 1,^^,1, Quellen zur O«schiohte de8 Investiturstreites, 2 T , 1 13
(j!js.uin;zexi M-IIasBi ""te pol.Tentamente der Hohenzollem I.
am Co<^ioe ■ " bico del reguo di Osrlo I und II

P« '0 II.Teil u.III.Teil 1902

1069 , . _

H«lnrin'-' von Ptaclem Aufzeio en liber 3kauer ^. He

v.Pr.Bpstoin. 1 i30
•nocuMenti inediti Aratti dal Regestrom Recognitionam c ^■jramentorttm

fldelitatlB Oivltatum sub Innocontio VI. 1887

Ohronioon Placentiaun et Chronioon d. rebus in Itnlia Geotle. 1856
Pritz Kern (Hreg.) Acta Imperii Angliae et ?ranolae ab a. 1267 a*»»^^^'

onuEionti itorici I.Serie cronache (Cooieta ' -' 'i storio.

patria) 1888
Codioe Dlplomatico del Saracenl rfi T,u:ira. .^17 „• .pi«^, i .7

Albert v.Beham and Regesten Papst Jiocenz IV. ( .v.O.H'iier; i 4r

S^^^tistnn, id est Abu Dachaferi Hohanimed Ben T)e -ir Ettaberli Annales

regam at que legato rum del. 1 31
P.goheffer-Belchersti Zur Geschichte des XII und XIII Jh. iploia- >ie

?or; '. Berlin 1897

OTOTwnhP ane del seoolo XIII e XIV i . ie ?ilippo molse

1 Band, 2. Tell. Pirenze 1944
LaooniB graaaaatici geota Danorum. Hr8g.v.A.Hold«r. : ^^irg

The anglo-Saxon ohroniole (transl.hag. J.Ingram. I^'^^o" J^'^^,^
E.rthameri Studien "iber die Bizilinchen Hegiater Priedrich- IT.

Sonderdrucke, 1920 und 1925, 1y30

Th.B.MoimMem Kine Hiedewltaioher I*^^^*^ J^<3«,,t^%^!^?;i^ ilrtf*!
E.f5thaaer» Original unci Register in der sizil: len Verwaltung Karla I

von Angon (Sonderdru. ' >) x^r.,-/^ t,

fh.l.Moimas.m Zur Preislnger Urkunden-'tberlieferung (nonderd.)l 937/1 u. II
W.Holtzmanm Un ekannte Stauferurkunden und Helohe j^^on. .derd.li^o
J.»M»okerat On ekannte Urkunden z.ReichagepOiinhte de» 12. und 14.Jii.

Sou^ rdruck, 1935

P.Gilterbockt Teroneser Annalen naoh einer Handachrift aue dera lachlafi

Sigonio's (Sonderdruok;

B.Stha«er» Bruchst e ■ittelalterlicher Bnqueten aus Unteritnlien

(Son Irudk, 1933, <at

A.HortBChansky u.M.Perlbaoht (Hersg.) lombardisoiie ^'^^^^"^^{^^'^^'^q

Pr.Bocki ludevioinia (Kritisohe Untersuchun -n «u Urkunden IwdwlCT d.

Bayem) Sondcra -'' , ^ j \

j.StudtiMiwii Si* ...fomel der nittelalteriionen Urkun««n (Sonderdr.)

;

p.

«

t loebmals H^tk •*••' iser

3 V

-'— -k)

5,'

''"*"»*'5-»vi^ w*v» / <lT'»ri

(
hlt« Brlefe aua der Sailer

-»* • 1 . -1

^ - ' \A

Jmhy
is

• 1 r^5

^ixazfjai BorsiasC^''^- ^^te) B iber. 1)33

buoiieis* 4MM c]c» 1933

inus Verinusi yrlcr iandua r#«tt:i et I«'^^<J}^^ ^ffj^

I ^r<^c r lei - unci He e ItAlSdns* D^ ^

4 ^ . tnrieb 1B68

.T b'loher des De. ^^ ^^^ saoha* Haute. Hrn,|,v.L.Ite

i .^„^ !• Berlin 7

(3e*^ ^i {olchfl unter K5ni,«: Helnrioh !•

her <ies ^ ' -*» ^r lleinrio'. III. 2 B'^n^e

v.^v. . 2i^ 1 74

v.lj.OelsnAr. i

^-- es JDeutsohen .o^^. .. .<arl (1.C^ro«s«r!

v.S.AbGl* Band 7 - , ^>.^788- ' -- ^

- ^^-•-•- unter Karl ' "^

V. . . .n--741 L^ 1

^ - l.DUMtlcn G e dGs Onti) ^

er des *=v ^^ .- ^ *itf?r - ^^

W.Bemii.xJii Kon^d III. 2L . .^^^

^.'"imonofeldi Pix. .ri-^^ I. I.fell n^..- . i-^i^ •

E./ ^ ^Muni Phil.". . ' ^n ^ J 4 4Qry

Otto i¥ v.i5niujaoohiiei4S <i x»u. Lelpslg lo/:

• friedrich II. 2 ^^- Lei -^.- 188*

M.Kraimer: en zur Gesc . ^- . ^ ^^^^ "^

KurfUrstenJkollegs. L 1^11 ^ Helte

Aegldius Boiaanr. s ^ ecclesias --ja r^otop-*^ • Hrs^.i . . . aigr

Pc ^s rerum ansuriaoarum! . --^;

scriic er J-Li^i vv j.g. "^^ '^ «

I/II

>

»md- ui y5rterl

fttndr^ ^ d.r klasB. Altertuaw-WlaaanBc,. .1
a) Griechische (JraaMatik. IT'nohen 1900

c) to^driB°der griech. 0«8Chiohl!« Most wu.llenkunde ▼.Rob.Pohlaann

me griech.Staats- and techtaaltortttMr y.Oeorg B«ao^*' !f!*«J«]^ ^^^
Oeao^l hte d«r antiken Philooophio v.W.Wlndelband. Mnnchen 1917
Relirx^a and Kaltua d#r ROiaer v.G.Wi«s<»w«. Wlnohan 1 012

v.W.Chrltt. M en 1898

h) 0«BC ite der byzantlninnhen Uteratar v.Ju.. "Ian -1453
' v.T.Krtuibacher. .. nchen 1^97

n.v.Wllaaowlk-Koellendorffi «.■«] 3 ««r Philologie. feipalg 1921

r^- Religion in (JeBchic^te und Oegenmrt (ffiindwBrterbuch f t Throlocx^

and R«ll^lonflwis««iPohaft)

Sonderdruckei Adeotatue, Agatho, Agapet I/II, A^^^rt {(J«geW«t)

Alexander I-TI, Anablet lA^. Anaatasloa I-IT, Anjjet
AnteroB, Benedikt I-XIV, lonifatlue I-IX, Caiue, Oallset
I-III. ChrlstophoruB, Clemens I-7III, Ooel In I-V»
Oornelios, Suwsoa I-II, DMsdeotit, Dionyaioe, UtoBkor,
llentheruB, Intyohlanua, fablan, Peliz !-▼, foiBMO.,

I ^

.n

la8»

J-^'

«v,^

t AT" T

m J^

)

a) Aix
b)

e) Pliji

^«iif%^

A*

Bp^-» tefat

%t * - *

Tio

SOJ

9 A-

T\1_

una M

.r»m«

)

-J m

gar Qaellc

*— »>aT3 rin
riMiftii^ for Worts ii
xh% Bton (hil«iar for Lr
.*an aaarian ±i\ Oxf
!>09»o naaglar bana?

^aaaa 1._;— 1 24- 3

J j.-7*n4n aalbt - adlger

^.aoa 1956/??. ^-^-^

iB

a »

4 i^

far Srlaohan

H

a©

1^ 1

X ^ J?^-.

lan

ioa^ioiifi eii daa lirrj " ^

an mm Honort
lar Baj^llaar Jv

'^ tinier auroTiaan. Paria

>r {'aa ^n Q^wc ita. I»B

'4 ^ * .-. ^ "ijie

llb"^"^ " ^

# •

"«- e

•

rrr- r

A. •J

'^%

ier 1

'hyaolog

iiaa

V v^ ^ •'■-•»

. dar re
I hraaa*^^ ^ *ia • ^
Toeaa^uitira Syat^aatlqu* at ou^-

. >rkf.1Y10
•Bonn 1

■attete la ^ I^

Hataalja«»?^ ^ I i i - ^

Mayara 8p *. l^i

Oaapars tngl»L v**ra&.- -aiiJuuiiBtlk. ItoltolWinB 1c^7

mi^ /iTiar rnrfFTt-Hf Ober .. ^xabtschaii 15rter i* f^puuUohan
A.tPcxoat Arablaaha '"--T—atlk* Barlla 1918
A#' "TMTimt ■ar»*alaii iaoha W9rtar ia Deataohaa* Berlin 1920
?t Fa 3 da LakBan aoi'iia— i Lt Sa«a« Farla 1839
gt liaxikoa arablco-latiaMi* IHlle 1"30* 4 Mnda

• •

K

^ m

^filk

41 ■* * -'»■"

■"v. 4? iP*. »^ 1

_ei.v:Ai,uc;x.

*# 1

1

#»£l«iJMi M^ Bufrcloag

• - «

T

^3m^ A.X, -r

V •^UM.Z'Uii;..- cs-

Brlc

AOJtiC

';i.iMit

• «•

^lB.1

ium

iiJy^M#l

A« Ji^.

:)BLt

»#.

&l

fitST I

tNin

lb»Jk^Jr

T:>.iry*i.i cr^ju.

i»i3.

■n

Wjm^'^^^iim 1»^

-IMI Ik

u

.l^'Krt.f. Ai'^ QlJkfk <^

■n.T^ J

ich« Bi

e2i.

..^j.

1

^1 0#

•B

'Fii

^*-M.,^k

• ' •

Be

. y%|fc<^ ^

TT-,

1

-*aii|;«Biy^*«l^fli&»*« x£

n 4

in

i?*! T>e

•& 1

«i^

JliF Hfl^

• '- •

ef

mynM

1lf*Tl It

Ift w«ltk:rl€j&

r^T-

X*t

-, T^-.— ,4^

J^«ir

Ma.«. ^jLJuk'^c"

2 B&a&«

• ^ •

•ven

«t-

^^^4t

1.

-T T

;;. iiU9. J^<

a^#« Be- —

r^Blji

• «

u ^

*i. ^V/"- ^^

I Da'utsoha

(r

ri»cbft mk^

* •

'>.. J

81, gTOEl#

T.^

oe*

tm«t*Xfi^^?i* i» i^^ ^

€ 5er W«ltr»oliti*^

J i>

aiitsc

.Irs.,

J^^

2

i6»ie)is1»N^<^^^^^ ^^'^^ An^Kt

>CftlT^

•>/

Ec -

•K^

■'1

£«flotbaiiu P^fi^
O»A«BDrg0s«t Ck

25

w Tortt 1937

^-*«iw FrmalLftirt 1 35

iiur&lMXS 1918

xn

■ -tr Tr

T^eVTT, D>Mi,.i urany aai XiLte
Ooriirxm alia

1 J06

A#lal ?,t Bar
#oa

It

ortaataliaa^ F^-aga^lm polit

JaJbotu) LaipsU 1

(ipj

2liL£

er ¥«r«

Sta^i;an*

gtir: ^l»ia
CM

(l7*and 1 •

192? (Sdr.
1933

H^Boeton ^*®

te^ribanMtew Fraalcf

^l^alTl^Oluwiallr ter Ji^MiJiob-eliiAaalftoban

ICT.1911-Aa«#19l2

Basia

llxisaf I>ar atrRta«t»cba Aufteu ««i Waltlcriag*

U-18. Barli& 1^30

^^-fniaterf'^ ^OadaidnraAa 1

aa QUFQMiJL &er 8^

i^BDXi^Baan •ottfriec ^l*
1 . PrciiuTjPlrokai

Fr.BaatlBcam

BRlle. Bal^

c »

30

(2MLaaartatioB

) 1931

Fr«l*=*rTe«

t&a*

tea laar 1^17« la«#v» !**•▼• fcH
1?56

(Sattdardraok ) nraiiaa 1932

)

ardnatok* 1932

(te^aakrada) 1934

(laaL.

1933

HJtayi^rt
I. "

• •

Tn<

• •

i 1

Textb5^

1 •« -o

%i^

J.v#Gf

» •

jr»T*T'

k

• *

9t

J.

• a

M*Hort

r^

$

i Tex

"Pff-mT'.

^-w

ld«iib#r.^i

Ton

I Yoffi

jaT»»

I

^ • romeri

Rel*,

« •

fyrX

4

0

Lut

\^ »^ v>

* ji

-Tmtr«

i ^

-rs i.

• • •

r moh

1^33

♦^r»-v"f.f»

V •

Halle 1

h.TUb

• (

'^^. OieP**"^ ^

^11 uu.

d i"

.ut.

1

-.es Kstbnl If^li^inai

T^.-^

. t. u

!•

• L«

Aral

i0& lelam ^^vf^'

, Bieleie
3 1914

:hte der Arabi 1 /O

M \ U.

^.-. X. \-* J,

i($a

w i

4 n

^

tbK)6

I ^-•

d#9

^4/^^.nr. ^e9 T#da»

• —

Bi*rlin 1 17
vi^ — -»,t ;»-» « ^t^^j.^ TJi'^4^^v.i«^i|^ Jena

<en TSker.

■«_

X •

des

eis

.A •

1 j^t

l^lrou • Sesohichte

;uku:ut« Be:

m ^

• •

■^-< -

erli:
r dec lebenclen
i^ Kaltaa das

^

(Tibet;.

«tw« Siesser

-rg 1

^c

SntTTldlilsng der j ^ *. . ^ ♦ re

liaasen 1

M.Carriere! Das chr" l.Altwrtua on" ^-r lalM. ''«ipsl« 1868

. eoi T«rritori

iatt

J..

IT? V

I Mittelaluwx

LBT&ntehandels in Mitt«lalter, S%«tt|^rt It. l
m^^mtmk ilittelalt«r» 1197-1492. MUncher 1 ■.
a-taohcB iKiobas la littalalter 3«it d«B i^.va.

2 B% Halle '"65
6* der tllMMvig* . Berlin 1-5
^ der Kreaa«fic«« Leipzig 1643
.« . ^«.„^......-r- fl««c ... aotha 1922 (H.f .Poraohni,

K.aaHpet Im»o«» IV. and die -^^iUech. ^•^- °^ JJJ^^j. '^ J*!,

«-A.»reemar » IBT &«BOh«ichte dee Mlttelaltere . Straaimrg 1886
f, t : S^che r i«n. Berlin 1789 (Aafe.anrt Tortral^e »ur

B utechen (>«»c hte)
• I a*r te d«B deatschen Yolkee bie sob AoaflMK tr Ott«

' L«lpsl« W2

Fr.^lkem (j« -^■-'-Te dox x.-*ea«8J«». 7 Sbade. Leiiwig 1 07

2 z

L^ elai'*^^^T"»nh« CM^?

I ^Kne
J. Pi

^. uvi im 13. uTi'i 14. Jb. '^ ^

• (i#aaiiic# and iLal8«ri(!#« bei

< ^'

rt

. Kaiitrreich in a^iiunQ unlv- rsalen
••eie » 3br

0»|iftf$i! Verao ^11 Alborl del Pri )ti in I

I.„v ..^^vt (i'^'^r ^ Ce Preuaiien*. Koni T?bor^ 1
l.dieaebrc t Oesohichta dmr <»w«
J.^^ -'^-rt V ^-ich8farstfinsta>'^'^"
0. iii.v.THiii^fioni Ber Her--
0. • Ik deutsohe R(

politic c he

U95^ Lei 5

W.K:ienaeti e (? 3n

lode pbll ■

T 'vT .n C? I'N'Pl

Is ten.
;ionalen

. Bolo^ritt^ 1336

f 1 fehlt)
; 63 6 Bd.

er

i •

P.Eaffi -^^'^ ? Die deutr^^'^ ^'"'^^serldee ±i.
Pr.Stiev©! Die deut
Fr." rni Qott

v.Frankreich.
-id I.Teil

f\. -.■ V -« /^ /X (-^ "1

J. V

^reciiu i^

Vr.v.Bauaen ••«

•o

ifer

Ber

1

^ ie £.^aure
iff son

'' nc.i©ii 1w., 6
. Wmoh.lil
ttelalter.

6 Bd.

J. Ha lien Pepettum an Kin

^ t lti& Papsttum. 1 . iii

T-^n«-.^^Pi (}^<f -^^ =* i^te CCS P^'**' v^vJUS. 1. ►
'^•'ja poiawx^A^l* '^'^"^ lae selectae
vi*i#eonl8 ifagEi Boaa: tiiicie eermonee ndrl is^±fj^^l

•c:

1 - .0
Heisterbacenaie monaohl ordlnis dietercionr i logum

2 Bnnde miraetaloruai Textum. re^; .J. -tran^e.1851

Gr.. cl^- reri Die urepnin^l che Twplerre^pl. eib
J.v.Dbllin^eri Die Papat-Pabi»ln dee Hit Iterf* » 0

G.Voigti Bnea Sirio de Picooxw.ini als Papst Pi... ._ ^^r^ ^•^'^t

Berlin K ^.. ^ ^
J, . , ; ^xert He Mtlgkeit an ^ ^t-llan|^ der o--^-^-* "^^ '^is j,,^^^^

BonltsLz vIII. Freiburg i jo
De Mb rei VoBiPapste. 1. Band. M len 1923
A.KnoT)flori Lehrbuch Lroheiigeschichte. Freiburg 1

B.^ r« Aus der altpapetlichan Mplomatie (So racn:;

Pr.i..^- ueri (Jeschichte Papat Innocenz III. vm.. zei Zeitgenossen.

^ 2 B&nde. ^bin ;en 1635

^•Saclcars ^ie ...niacenaer bis zar Mitte dea 11. Jh. 2 Bd. Halle 189
H.Ch.Lear Oer-"ichte der T-quiaiticn im Mittelalter. 3 3d. Bonn 1905
B.Breait Papat (rregor IX. oxs sua BeginrjB elaea pontifioata* Heidelbg.191
A«0rei]iaohert '^e Anacbauongen dee Papatea likolaoal. Ibrr daa Tezw

Mltnie von Staat and Klrohe. Berlin 1909
A.Wredet Bmat der Bekenner. Her»og Ton Braunrch\v if and Kineborg.

■alle iaJ6
M»Heimlenderi Die Orden and Kongreiatlonen ^ er Irfith.Kirche. 2 Bd.

1 lerbom I^^^T
W.a.Reitz S.J.i fiaa Hegiater Gregors I. Prelbarg 1917 .qq^

A«Pienert ter Intatehnngageechichte 6^,t at Indigen Huntlataoen. Preiog.
A«T«lMMontt fttMMielli • Papat Cleamia XIV ^ aeine Briefe a.aeine Zei1

Berlin 1B47
H^Preaaat Tie fferatellongen von Anticliriat ia apliteren Mittelnlter

bei Iiither anu in der konfeaaionellen Polemlko Leipzig 1906
A^Harnackt mgmmru^^fiohtohtm. T ■^•^en 1914 _ ^ ^

S.Sugenheimt Oet .ate der Jeaai . .. in l>e«taohl«ad 1540-1773* Ptltf#184

B«Baacht Die BeW3rden and Bofbeaaten der ^. .^jstliohen Earie dea 13*Jh*

Xbnigrberg 1936

jr

f V4.^-7 « T 4- ,x^2^J^^yj^ Q.^r nV,A '^Vi'^^

Illume erete, rr

der

Li'l

Lei

-8

1826

rpi^^«i

I. !)le er«^t€ Aucst^^-'-*^^"' -^^^e Cr^Tri-f'oeion 153C

II. - futatir -% .XV ux "in., von (!en B^^oBti--'* f^>

-^^ eoxogen. Prankfurt/Oder 1
W.F,Wiloket a«« 't^e de« Ter?ptlherr lo. 2

^•Mollati Le» Pap«8 rignon (1305-1:>r.. l^

S*Ri#alf?rt "Mie literarisc Lder«ach«r der

Baiern. : olpzlg \

V#Grc5nes He p^^^t-Gend^-^nhte* 2 Mnde. Re^ensburg 1864
Hildognrd Ooetu«rt Der ^.uigekalt in "^^ .alr^h rr^ 1*^00 1

von Itominikanerpreaii^ vwm (. ^.* ,i

H.Mev'ert lupoli von Bebenburg. Stadiam za aeinen ^^ ^en. Prelbt^, ,jO

H.Heidenheinieri 'O Korrespondena Sr^^-tn Bajaeet^fe iJ:# mit Pf^pet

4lexander VI. 1882
^•Liebeeohlitzi Das allegorische Weltbi - ^ i li - i Hilde^ard von

Bingen. Berlin- Leipzig 1 30
A-Dunskij Rudolf J.vor, Habsburg and die . laerlcroiM wKhr^iid Am

Pontificate des Nlkolaoe III f dissertation 1906)
Pr.Bockf Die aeheimschrift in der Kanzlei JoL .- iS XXII (Sonderdr.
L.v.Heinsttaimi Der Patriciat der deutachen Kbnige (Habilitetlons-

sohrift) 1888
J.Jaegeri Klo^^torl n im Miti^ Iter, imrzoujrfr 1 03
V/^faohsi Die Besetzung der deuteohen Bistttmer unter Paps-c

and bis «aa Regienxngsantritt Papst Innooenz IV.
C.Erdmanni Bndkaiserglaube iind Kreuz«ugsgedanke im 11. Jh.
Fr^Booki Studien zum politischen Inqai8itionsT>roze8S Jol

"^nrfx 1935/36

A.v.HamacKt Ohristus praesens - Vicarius Chriati. r^« kirchene,,e-

schichtliche ^tu/lie. Son:^erabdruck ^Jc.^
O.Vehsei Benevent :ils Territorium d^s Kirchens"- tea bis zum Bef^--^

der AvignonesiBchen Upoohe. Rora ^J:>d
O.Vehset Aus dem Caetaniarohiv in Rom. So^ rabdruck 1927
C.l?rdiaanni Das Wap r)en und die fahne der rom.Kirche. Rom 1931
P.aUterbockKaiser, Papst and Lombard enb and nach dem Frieden von

Vonedig. Sonderabdrack
Pi-.Bockt Die Prokaratioren Kaiser Ludwir« TV an V^vmt Benedikt XII.

4

f

J X

' A
( Son
e TXII*

1

I, I Vj^ i * ■

, effer-Boichhorsti Kleinere Porsohungen zur Greochicii. "^

Mittelalters (Son^er-^^-*' -^k)
Fr«Baethgem Quellen \m^, Untersuobangen zur Oeschichte der F*

liohen Hof- and Pinanzven^'altan§ unter Bor^

(Sonder" ^)

Ir.Bftethgem leae B#ltTM« ^"^^ Oesobichte c stlichen PimM-

wesens on die wende des 13.t)nh. (3onder^bd2?uck(
J.Schmidlini Die geschichtsphilosoph. on.^ kirohenpolitiache ^©l^^J^-^^

sohauong Ottos v.Preising. Preibf.1906 (unvollst ndi
E»Koni^l Kardinal Giordano Orsinl (gest.1438). Freiburg 1^6
W.v.d.Steineni Pranziskus und Dominikus. Breslau 1926
L.Pastori Histoire des papes deouis la fin du MMienage 1911 rr.

12 »inde (7. und 1 1 .Band fehlen) ^pQ.-

C.Rodenbergi Innooens IV uno das KOnigreich Sicilian 1 . 45-1254.HalM
H.v.Schuberti Der Koianunismus der Wlec^ertHufer in Winster und se^ne

Quellen* Heidelberg 1919 , ,. ,u ^% -o^^x

Dan.Lessaanm Papst Innocenz IV. und flirst Michael aiinski. Bln.1830
B^OUtschowi Innocenz III. und England. M^inohen 1904
Pr.Baethgsai Beitrnge zur Oeschiohte C51eFtins V. Halle 1934
W.Iordeni Das Papsttum und Byzans bis 1*53. Berlin 1903
B.Saken m)er die Anf n^re der Signorie in Oberitallen. Berlin1900
Oraf von Hoensbroeohi Das Papsttu» in -einer sosial-kulturellen

Wlrksaakelt. 1.u.2.Teil. Leipslg 1907 _

B.Caspart Vom Wesen des Deutsc ho r dense taates (Rede) K(5ni/^?»bf r- 1b.^;
P.Lemert Kardinal Isco Oandidus (Diss.( 1932

Iterliohe (Jeac

H#J«WurBii Car""'
U#BUiig«rt Konli^
B«da 6%m Khrwfir

T

bom 1892

^''^omoz; "-T 2. Beg'^"^^'*'^'' -*•» Kl^'^"^^*^ -tan tee* Pader-
III# von BBg'^ani u pst Qx^ikmim TI .Bin. 1909

en engeaohichte deir ' len, sowl#

1 ibald*s L^^ben r'es i Boni • .... n.

^ff aen 1R^>0
f»»Larabertt Pie it^a.Liteirar.aegner Luthers, ! burg 1 : .
E.Gotheint Reformation and Gfe.^f»nrefoi^'^tion# fe Inchon 1924
M^Halnb'--' ert Die Orden and K:on^re«atj.waen der V-'^'i^Kl-^^^ -.1 .Bd.Padb*
Jgn.r.T)oxxingeTt Klrohe und K.1tc' — ^ P^pattuin - i.irc :aat#lfllnch#186'

Grr ing QQs

':3 c no

■.^.

B^Oaapari Hermann von " Iza imd aif

in n. f'Ub^

K»Sohl#y#rt AnHiage des jjallikanifr
A.IIamert ^ie Lehre von Kirohe uno
A.Ziateren Oregor X un.^ Rudolf v.

^'^'^iehungeno ?r"ib"'»"'^ 1891
A^HbuBi Karaj.ix»l Oktavian Ubol< x.^i ein St^^nt^-^'^-^^
St«L#derars Der spon. Cardinal Jo^-^n von foTiiu.-^

seine '-ohriften. Prei ' 1879
T.'^.R*'^' t ^onifaoo VIII» J on 1933

L#'Oehio/ Innioenz 17 und England • Berlin 114
J.rx)llinfreri "^le Reformation. 2 ^, H burg

.a,Tyif»n.Qli T)er papstl»Eir 1 aul :ie Bischofsv

wcihrend des 13.Jh. (Tdaeertation) 1932
E.Gk)th0int Politischc und reliei^>ee Vollcsbewei:i:ungen -^^r^

tion* Brealau 1898

oaataatea

1137

•Jh« Berlin

1 Zv/ln-ll. m 1930

] ihren b!*iderp»itigen

ij.Jh. Heidb^*191
ae:*^ "^leban un"

1884
in

sohland
r'er Refonna-

n

t Rafael unf' ^ r Abt Gre.^orio Corteee* H'^i

- .. ■^

ni 'loh
berg 1914

Fr#Baethgeni "Die Regeniischaft Papat Innocenz III.

Icilion.
O^M^'llorj f Ludwlga dea lem mit der rtlir.#- arle# 2 Bd. Tnb.lBdi

R.Polzf Le concordat gormanique et I'eletion dea eveqaea de Metz.-" ' 2l9:>
W.taltheri either ir neueston T'6m. Gericht, 3 Bi.nda, lie 1884 fi.
W.Kawernnt Thonaa Murner un^i die Kirohe dea Mittf^l niters • Halle 1
J^Heringi T>oktor Homeranust Hohannes Bogenhagen. ...ille 1888
?r*Rotbf iliboia Pirkheimer. Halle 1887

K.Baratht Go ohichte der Reformation in Venedig. Halle 1 86
H^Hol^^teini Tie Refer "^ion ±m S')iegelbild der dramat^Lit •:ur ora

16. Jh. TT-aie 1386
SepalTedftt T llisal Albomoz. jlogne 1664
Joh.Burc-^rauai Alex __ 3r VI. und aein Hof. t

fr.J.Sentiai "Die •*wonarohia f^icula". Freiburg 1
et.Beisael S.J.t ie Aachenfahrt. Preiburg 1^02
Stefano Infeaaurai '^'^mlscbea Tar^ebuoh^ Jen^ .13
^•Ladnert fheologie and Politic von dea Investiturstreit* Bnden b.
Haucks Kirchen^c^eachicbte laaa* 4. and 5i :i.2 Bd. Leipzig 1925
J.Klaozkot Jules II (?) P^ria 1906

W^v.^.Steinert Otto der rrro(3e# Brealau 1926
E.Tahaei Kalaer Otto der Grotle und aein Zeitalter. Zeit 1867
R,K5pke und E.TWfflmleri Kaiaer Otto der Oro'3e« Leipzig 1876
Th.E.lommaeni Studien mm Ideen.^ehalt der dau^aohon Aa'^enpolitik im

Zeitalter d^r Ottonen und Salier (Dlaaartatlon 1930)
Wipot Daa Leben Kaiear lonrad II ('tbers.) Berlin 1877
g^Kantorowiozi Priedriob II (Er^^nsungaband) Berlin 1931
W.Oohns Haa Zeitalter der Hohenstaufen in Siiilien. Brealau 1925 ^qj

Baa Leben Iser Priedriob II. v. Ho henatau fen ar«Mhlt J.O.Plafl«ann#JaAa
P.Graefei Tvie publiziatik in der letzten Bpoche Kaiaar Priedricbf? II.

(1239-1 250) Heidelberg 1909
fr»Knc5r)pi me Stellung Priedrioha II und aainer balden Scibna zu den

deutaohen Stndten. Berlin 1928
g.Winkelmannt Oeach.Priedrioh II und seiner Reiche 121 2*^1 250 • Berlin B53
W.v.a.Steinent Baa Kalaertum Friedrioha II nach den Anacv^-^^ungen

aainer gtaatabriefa. Berlin un Leipzig 1 y^2
K*ltaBpai Kaiaar frielrich II tn der Aufftiaaung dar Machwelt. Stuttg.1925
••Schultheiaai Die dautaoha Yolkaaaga Toa fortleben and darHadarkalir

Kaiaar Prieclrich II • Berlin 1911

Mil

A»fol2i 7"^'^"V Friedricb II ""i^ vnr)f.f. jp.

J 1 1244-45.) Sfc i-'^'^

Pr.J.Bie- i K-in-~ ""- .^ji II.

Be ge *e uer x

der Bamalung deo T •

K.' ?• T * zig 1

• ¥• • aineni c ';sbriefe ^

Antoniv. le Stefanoi Federioo li

'nz IV (Ihr Kampf in den

^ '*! 4 '^

iaj mlt

Binl.v.

. Brealau 1923
ti spirituali ^^l ruo t«apo

Roma i v22

n v^

" die r^m.Kardiii'le
ledrioh II (^ls^J•)1
n« der welt.

B.Stltterlint "^Ue Politik K*^^' -r Priearloh IJ
ij^ r ... ,-, 1 239^1 ^:;0» Heidc1^^-^§ 1

I. Mikallni r in den Heeron

II • niasiufli nig BRziOo Breslau 1834

III# Haapci i ^icdrich II. in Cev Ac n^ der welt. 325

(allec in fri'i^^ )

Fr#w.schirrmach«rt Kaiaer Prie TI. ^ >. Mttin^i^en 1 .9 ff.

« t K#?r.II u.n»^ die Hohenstaufen. Berlin 1874

Tehset lUe amtliche Propcgruada in o^.. ... +^'^-'inst "''^iser a'-iedrich IIo

I 1 _.
Punk-f Oe: i-on; " Priedrich II* j.-^x i and Preyiixudt 1792

C 't#Hofier$ I :"iedrioh II. Miaiv; uen c 4

Pr.v.Raumert Konig Friecrioh II one f^eine Zeit (1740-176;; eipzig 1836
In oine i

I. Zar Ge dee . i.:ti ) am : Iner Fr* rich II.

II. lacenpuoohi Kaieer Frie - :. II and ._ . ICon. titaionen v.Hulfi
IILMerkeri Die ''oollekta" in der Monar'^^la Sicala Kaiser Priedr.II.

IV. Vier griechie^che Brief e Kaiser ?ric..xi.ch II.

V. Or Salazaroj L'aroo di trienfo oon le torri dl "^ xuu II a (

VI. J. Pi' -^t Konig Monfreda

G.Gaibalt Arinand de Breacia et les He i- Paris 1868

pr.3ohirrmi»oheri le letzten Hohenetaufen. ttin.en 1*^*71

Preidhofi lUe :.. ite Tuaciens z.Zt.Manfreds. lotz ^,

a.Blondeli Etade sar la politiqae de l^emperear Prer--^' "^ «n Allemc"*" -

A.de "' iiox L^i^ I -i ;)->riale di Pederico II. Pirenze 1928
Pr.Ftievc! "Sxeelino v. Romano* ' ' 1909

0. lieri: Peter v.Aragon and aie aizilJ le Vesper. Heidel .VQ

Blieabeth von Weatenholzi Kardimil Rainor v.Viterlo. Heidelberg 1912
J.K«nT)fi Ge Ichte dei2 "^c iren en Interreg-

nums 124 5-1273
AJCarsti ^^ ohichte Manfreda v^o'ode Pr.II. ,9 zu 'rinz-if>T l,._ \rmg (12%*

1258) Berlin 1
H.Amr'ti Sta('''^'> zar inneren K-ipvir/^^'^'^^^'^^'^r*- + ^nfreda. Heidelbg.191'

A.BergEttinnt K.ofiig Manfred v.SjLkixj.ien i^-wr-uu. ntj-Lw.uxuerg 1909
K«lMipet Urban IV and Manfred (1261-64). Heidelb 1"n5
H.Sternfeld/ Karl v.Angon als f ^ der Provenoe (1^4>-1265) Bin. 1888
H.Cordanusi Konrad von Hostaden, rzbischof von Koln (1233-61) Koln18a0
K^Hempei (Jeachichte Konradina v.Hohenataufen. Ii. rack 1(>34
O.Aoeli i: inig Philipp d.Hohens .e. Berlin 1852
O.Abelx Kaiser Otto IV and Priedrioh II (120^-1212) Berlin 1856
E.lKillen Pot or v.presaat ein Pablizist der Zeit dea Interre>^uma.

Heidelberg 1913 jq27

Olaa^Ooc o) Pederico II. legiolatore e il regno di eioilia. Torino

M Frnm — t ' lohagedanke dea staafieohen Kaiserhauaea. Brealaa 1908

H.Pratzi .liaer Priedrioh I. 3.Bande (1166-1177) Danzig 1871
H^Meyeri Le Militflrpolitik Priedrioh Barbaroaaaa lot Zvmmmmmaimng mlt

;einer Italienpolitik. T<r>i^iin 1930

PtHlldebrrin r Ludien Uber die L rchie Heinrioh det v/en (^aa.)1931

J.Hallcrt T 3tarz Heinrichi? ^^s Kwen. L^l,jzig 1j11
A.Pioh on Herzo^ Priedrich T-^^ ._.0r letzte Bobenberger. Innabruok 1884
Th.Toechei Kaioer HeiA^rich vl. Leipzig 1867
A.Obermanni Grafin Mathilde v.Tosoien. I '^'' 1G96

K.L.Hitzfeldi St ^ .i gu den religitJaen ^^ ^P^Hn^iq^"" An^o auungen

Priedrioh III. von Sizilien# Berlin 193Q

40

KittelalterlioJie (ieuchichte

Dietrich von GladiBt Beitra^e zur Gesoijiohte der staafischen

Reiohsministerialitat .
G.v.Villehardonini Die Eroberimg von Konstanpinopel daroh die Kreuz-

fahrer im Jahre 1204. Leipzig
lUPranJcfartht (Jregorias de montelongo. Marburg 1898
V.Jjer.enne ,^en.Jennyj Walther von Pallaria, Kanzler des norm#-etaar.

Reiches. Bonn 1906 ^ ^

D^ Michele Amarit Un periodo delle istorie Siciliane del sioolo XIII.

Palermo 1842
Willy Gohn: Pas Zeitalter der Normannen in Sizilien. Bonn 1920
E. Caspars Ro{^er II (1101-1154) and die Grilndong der nomanisch-

sioilischen Monarchie. Innsbruck 1904 . ♦

G.U.P^Tafelt Komnienaiind Normannen -(1 2. and 13.Jh.) Ulm 1852
WcVogelt Die Normannen und das fran^:. Reich (799-^11) Heidelberg 1906
E^'pfeil* Die faT^nkioohe and deutsche Romidee des fruhxxen Mittelalters

Miinchen 1929
E^Patzelt: Die Karolin.'^isohe Sear* Renaissance. Wien 1924
WoV.d.Steinenj Karl der GroBe. Breslau 1928 . . ^.4. *

Karl der G-roQe oder Charlemagne? = 8 Antworten deutsoher Gresci:aciits-

forscher. Berlin 1935
Notker: Die Geschichte v^Karl dem GroSen. (Insel-Biicherei)
C.B.Depping uiid F.Ismar: Die Heerfahrten der Nonaannen bis zu ihre-r

fe.qten Niecierlassung in Franlcreich^ Hamburg 1829
a» Jacob: Arabische Berichte v.Gesandten an germ^Fir^^tenhofen aus dem

9. und 10 •Jh* Berlin 192?

L.v.Rankes ae3a..mielte Werke. 2.A!uflafi:e* 54 Bande. Leipzig 1873 ff.

a.Ritter: Luther: Gestalt und Symbols Lrijichen 1925

K.Breysig, Pr.Y/orbers, B..Vallentin, F.Andrea: Grundrisse una L teme

zur StaatsH' una zur Greschichtslehre. Berlin 1908
RoL,.Poole: The Exchequer in the twelfth century* Oxford 1912
Lohtr: Priedrioh II und <:iYvem. 1878

Hessel: Albrecht I* von Habsburg. M'inciien 1931 »

Grafet PersonlichJieit Kaiser Heinriohs VII • Leipzig 1911
Prowe: Die Finanzverv.altung Heinriolis VII.
Kahleri Das Gesohlecht Habsburg. Mlinchen 1909-
Gottlob: Karls IV Beziehun-^en zu Prankreich. Sonderdruck 1d8:5
Cartellieri: Philipp der Kilhne. Leipzig 1910
Scholz: Phili-D der Klihne und Bonifaz VIII. Stuttgart 1903
Hofler: RuDreoht v.d.Pfalz. Freiburg 1861 ^^>,^

Aschbaoh: Kaiser Sie.'^und. 4 Bande. Hamburg 1838/45
Stirling: Klosterlebens Karls V, Dresden 1853
Baumgarten: Oeschichte Karls V. 4 Bande. Stuttgart 1c85
Werunskv: Kaiser Karl I¥. 3 Bande. Innsbruck 1 0
Friedjung: Kaiser Karl IV. Wien 1876
Presoott: Charles the Fifth* London

qonf^Ardrucke: und Dissertationen: Berlin 1931

l^c^m, SlavSiniision and Renova^io Imperii d.J.800. Sitzungsberxcht
Hampet Karl d.Grosse and Widukind. Vergangenheit/Gtosenwart XXIV
pitzlerx Kolonialpolitk Philippe II.

Hamuej Welfen and Waiblinger . „ .^ -,4. -.r •„ ^ -cw, t

Brackmannt Wandlong der Staatsanschaaan^en im Zeitalter Kaiser Fr.I.

Hildebrandj Honarchie Heinriohs d.Lowen. 1930

Osteri Anna Komnena. 1tJ70

M.Mevert Preiheitsroland a.Gottesfrieden . ,

Hildebrandj Der sachaische "Staat" Heinriohs des Lowen

Kehrt Aas den letzten'Tagen Karls III.

Hiittebrttokert Kampf um das Lutticher Priedensgericht

HUttebreaakert Ein Reiohsgeriohtshofprozess zar Zeit Larls iv.

Hitttebraoker: Die Vikarie Karls IV in ^^"^"tsclll^^f Rifonna

Sella* Costitaziono dello State- della Ghieaa Antanono alia Rllonna
oexxcj.1 ^ ^lbomnc>^iana

;

1 -

V

m.

♦1

u

Sitttlalterliche 0#9^

e nn<J

s i

f Vor

«(i2a« Be

-^-^

ifc'irt _ ■«. -»<^

e

'•'■? aft Pi^n:)i-
i :

'.a vi 'ell » leani i

Ml f « f

''mt||

10 PI
6 "^ dim

ju «

-oa:r

U,

e
iaer fried

v.i^irox

!!•

TT

pi of

Boc\|

iohaf f ex>-Bo ichiio 1

mi

* ^ liaohe She

^-^ tmd Kalaer Helnrich 71

^ f

'16

VB I-III,

II U-

r ^'■•.

9aet'

S

ohn

i> ei.*Iiii lOi'J

3 3i0 A

9rledrioh3 !•

! ^

't '

a.

4 V- -*»■*-• O. 4.

"Oail

•

C

•07»

'9 Xil i

1 me

^ li /"« ^ • .i\.

■■."I "^

..1

^ » »—

aim \' •

.ece daa Ar€itt*0

J^JJL

> «-

r Manfredd Orientjolitik

\n der Terbii ..loag

Er .1 Irioun an'5 iDR

Bookt «3te Prozaas v#1321

Me- f latbirg

ir« f u. tsschratbu . . aw E -»ris

1, I £.._ ^J-^"K»a Bl'- at

r J Kaiearl. )atl. . .^ .1 i.hohon M

Otitor r.s Obtone a A raaa

t La oontea 'ia f«' Impe' ; iaaT#i*iaiiiot

A^ 12 \G

i 7

PvK^-l' \JB\L\i3[o\/s\c7 roH-rr-h(pv]

^ ^■^/ ^

/I

' 7

HfTENTIONAL SBOOND EXPOSURE

386

THL TIMIS riTIRARY SUPPIIMIiNT IKIDAY JUNE 23 1961

A MASTER-HISTORIAN

A tascinaiing biography of one
of tlic most attract vc and
signiticant figures in history,
ihc embodiment of p >1 tical
and literary romanticism, a
dreamer, poet, and pohtician

ail

in one person.

lllustratt'd.

35>

ALLEN & UNWIN

■-J' FRIHDRICH SIHliHRCi

[51 Chateaubriand

[Dl

151

[Dl
[3l
[Ol

[n1

m

[nl
Id)
[al

[Dl
[Dl

[d1

[Dl
[Dl
'Dl

[d)

[Dl

[Dl

[Dl

[Dl

[Dl

[Dl

[Dl

iDl

[Dl

iDl

[Dl

[Dl

[Dl

(Dl

iDl

[Dl
fnl

VINCENT STARRHTT

The Private Life Of
Sheriocic Holmes

Written with charm and
scholarship^ this is a scmi-
scri(>us, imaginative re-creation
lU the best loved character in
modern literature.

Illustrated. 2is.

ALBERT LAMORIS.'^E

Tripina
Balloon

Virtually a
sequel to that
great success
The Red Bal
loon. Superbly
illustrated in
cpjour and black
and white with
photographs from
the film of the same
name.

JOHN UNETT

Making
A Pedigree

I2.V.

The author not only outlines
how to start, but gives details
of all the main classes of re-
cords, how they came into
existence, and how the fullest
use can be made of them. i6,v.

ROBERT POVCTiLL

Zen and Reality

An approach to sanity and
happiness on a non-sectarian
basis, taken from a series of
lectures given to the Buddhist
Societv in I,ond(m. 2i>.

Reprint's

EDWARD CARPENTER

Love's
Coming-of-Age

Representative of the most
modern thought on a ereat and

IN 1^39 there appeared the lust
volume of a great book by a
notable French medievalist. Its
title was La StHiitc jcodalc, and
fellow scholars of .Marc Bloch in
England will recall the emotion with
which they received its sequel, in
1940. as from "'an author on active
service "". The earlier books of Marc
Bloch had led them to believe that
this would be a work of major im-
portance, and they confidently ex-
pected that it would be followed by
other studies of equal importance.
Only one of these hopes was to be
fullilled. I he uork which had been
delivered into their hands was in
truth to become in the words of Pro-
fessor Postan, ■' the standard inter-
national treatise on feudalism ". But
Marc Bloch. himself, was soon to
enter the last and most distinguished
phase in his career. In 1940 this
middle-aged scholar who had fought
for France with honour in the First
World War joined the Resistance :
in 1941 he was captured and sub-
jected to torture; and on June
16. 1944. he was led with others
into a field near Lyons and shot. He
fell with the cry *' Vive la Franc^e "".
He was then fifty-eight years of age.

H's influence on medieval sc-holar-
ship has been profound, and it is
remarkable therefore that his
last major work of erudition, so large
in scope and so fundamental in con-
tent, has never until now been trans-
lated into English. The appearance
o{ hci4(ial Society is thus wholly
to be welcomed, and Mr. F. A.
Manvon deserves our gratitude.
His translation is not impeccable,
but it is competent and ade-
quate, and it may serve to intro-
duce to a wider English public a
seminal scholar and remarkable man.
This is certainly to be desired. For
Bloch never addressed his work solely
to professional historians, and it was
his aim to relate history not only to
cognate studies but also to those
problems of contemporary life with
which he was himself so closeh con-
cerned. A distinguished American
medieN-alist has rightly called atten-
tion to Bloch s " conviction oi the
unity of all history, and of the living
connection between past and pre-
sent ■'. And it is noteworthy how many
of the questions discussed with de-
tailed learning in Feudal Society
appear as topics in Strange Defeat.
that moving fragment of autobio-
graphy, which was written in the
months before his death, and
published after his murder.

1 he general character of the present
book may help to account for the

supieiil.icv «.'! «» cia^^ (>i -p^^-i-^U"
i/ed warriors; ties o\ obedience
and protection which Hind man to
man. and, within the warrior class,
assume the distinctive form called
vassalage; fragmentation of authority
leading inevitably to disorder; and in
the midst of all this the survival of other
forms of association, lamily and State
such seem to be the fundamental fea-
tures of European teudalism.

Though a slightly different emphasis
might now be given to some of the
terms notably the dale at which
salaried service became important
the summary, after twenty years,
could today hardlv be bettered. But
even this statement did not comprise
the full scope of this inquiry. The
ideas, and the ideals, of men must
also be examined to analyse and to
explain a social organization and its
unifying principles. " Like all the
phenomena revealed by that science
of eternal change which is history,
the social structure thus characterized
certainly bore the peculiar stamp of
an age and an environment.""

This wide treatment of the subject
has a special relevance to English
feudal studies which have in the main
been concentrated more exclusively
upon the military and legal aspects
of feudalism. Since the days of
Round the origins of English feudal-
ism have been sought predominantly
in thove contracts which William the
Conqueror made with his fnagnates
whereby these, in return for their
lands, were required to come to the
service of the King with a specified
number of trained and fully equipped
mounted knights. This military
organization, it is said, ignored Old
English precedent, and. in this sense,
it has been concluded that '" it is
hardly possible to speak o\ any trend
towards feudalism in England before
1066 "'. Moreover, much of the later
development of English public law
and constitutional growth is found to
have depended upon these arrange-
ments, and the manifold obligations
they entailed. These too may, thus, in
their turn, be referred back to the
events which followed the Norman
Conquest events which gave a new
aristocracy to England, but which
had no corresponding effect on the
life or the condition of the English
peasantry.

The special value of this approach
(thus inadequately simimarized) to
the particular problems of English
medieval history need not be empha-
sized. Certainly. Bloch gave full
prominence to such ideas in his own
book, a large section of which
describes the origin and character of
vassalage with a wealth of erudition.
On the other hand, in his view, the

tipf wa«J i^nlv on*»

■i>» thr»in»h Qr«

meticulous examination ol ihc avail-
able evidence. His conclusions on
points o\' detail were naturally not
invariably correct, and (to take a
specific example) his re-dating of the
first life of Edward the Confessor
was probably wrong. But. in general,
he is admirably critical, and when he
found finality impossible he was
scrupulous to proclaim uncertainties
as dubious. His theories, in short,
were formidably buttressed by fact,
and he lived up to his own precept
that ■ those who teach history should
be continually concerned with the
task of seeking the solid and the
concrete behind the empty and the
abstract "".

Equally remarkable was the range
o\' his investigations, and his constant
endeavour to utilize new types of
evidence. It is a truism that the
materials o( the historian are multi-
tudinous, and are not confined to
written records. But Bloch was par-
ticularly successful in his search for
additional testimony. Some eight
years before the appearance of
Feudal S(n'iety. he had published
what some would regard as his
greatest book : Les caracteres
originau.x de I'histoire rurafe
jran<^aise. wherein place-names
aerial surveys, ancient implements
and folk-lore are all profitably called
in to assist the elucidation of the
relevant documents. The result
was perhaps the nu)st illuminating
exposition that exists of the realities
of French peasant life in the Middle
-Ages. Soil and topography, tech-
niques of cultivatitm. and forms of
settlement were for Bloch among the
essential sources of exact history,
and they were particularly important
in describing an age in which agri-
culture was the basic occupation of
men.

Bloch"s interests were strongly
directed towards the material bases
of historical development. His Chair
was that of Economic History, and
the review which he conducted with
Lucien Febvre the Annates

d'histoire econoniique et sociale —
became a principal forum for the
discussion of such topics. His own
personal concerns led him also in the
same direction. Bloch was keenly
interested in the industrial problems
of his own age. and not aloof from its
political controversies. It deserves
emphasis, therefore, how resolutely
he refused to restrict himself, in his
interpretation of the past, to the
observation of economic phenomena.

And if man is not to be treated
merely as an economic animal, so
also is he not to be retiarded solely

the poet wiih his theme. There is
the ■■ folk memory " which he finds
expressed, for instance, in the Sonf*
of Roland: there is the religious
background with its hopes and haunt-
ing terrors ; there are the foundations
of law, chivalry an! 'ho rules nf
aristocratic condUvl

It IS not to bj suggested that the
more immediate sjurjes of informa-
tion have bjen thereby neglected, for
the basis of the work remains the
feodaries and cartularies, the law
books and surveys oi the age. But
here it is not only military .service,
not only tenures and dcpjndencies,
not only legal obligations, and the
modes of military ajtion, that are so
thoroughly examined, but also the
motives which underlay their estab-
lishment. The Rayeux Tapestry, here
so carefully considered, was not made
in order to prov je historians with
evidence for the techniques of
medieval mounted waifare: charters
were compiled in answer to a present
need, and not to supply later com-
mentators with testimony about the
development i)f contracts. The pre-
cise nature of vassalage must be
elucidated, but we must also ask
■' what it was in the actions and hearts
of men that constituted the real
strength of vassalage as a social
cement ".

A book thus planned and executed
may be held to present a fuller and
more authentic picture of European
society in the feu Jai age than can be
supplied by any treatise restricted to
a more limited conception of
feudalism. But perhaps the greatest
quality of Feudal Society, and that
which has ensured its enduring
influence, is that. like all the greatest
works of historical scholarship it is
unmistakably 1^ from an inward
individual fire, and stamped from first
to lasPwfth the author's own vivid
personality. Fi>r that reason, the
erudition displayed, which is both
detailed and profound, is here
illumined by human warmth and
sympathy, and as a result it is para-
doxically true that while Feudal
Society, always intensely readable,
remains the best first introduction
for any student to the subject with
which it deals, it serves, also, for the
specialist, as an inevitable starting
point for further research. The
scholarship and the life of Marc
Bloch were both of heroic texture.
Together they have placed him
unassailabh amonu the masters.

FAMILY
PLANINIING

ihc sanu

lUlllC.

I2s. iiii.

JOHN UNIiTT

Making
A Pedigree

The author not only outlines
how t«) start, but gives details
of all the main classes of re-
ci>rds, how they came into
existence, and how the fullest
use can be made of them. i6v.

ROBERT POWELL

Zen and Reality

An approach to sanity and
happiness on a non-sectarian
basis, taken from a series of
lectures given to the Buddhist
Society in London. 2i>.

Reprint's

EDWARD CARPENTER

Love's
Coming-of-Age

Representative of the most
modern thought on a creat and
mcreasingly important theme.

Paper J 6s.

S. CHANDRASEKHAR

Population and
Planned
Parenthood
in India

' an important contribution not
only to Indian thinking but
to world thinking on this
central and overshadowing
problem of our age.' -Julian
HUXLEY. 2nd cduion. 12s. 6d.

KENNETH K. KURIHARA

Introduction to

Keynesian

Dynamics

A coherent and compact study
of macro-dynamic analysis in
general and particularly of the
two outsLanding * post-Keynes-
sian ' developments in the
held -dynamic theories of cycli-
cal fluctuations and secular
growth analysis. 4^// imp. 2i\.

W. A. LEWIS

The Theory of
Economic Growth

' a remarkable intellectual tour
de force ... a landmark in the
contemporary approach to
economics.* — ANTHONY
CROSLAND, The Observer.

' an extremely important book.'
— Ihe Economist.

'of the utmost value.' — The
Guardian.

' one of the few professional
economists who write really
well, with a facility for makmg
economics almost an exciting
subject.' — Financial Times.

^th imp. 305.

iiji
[Dl
01
[Dl
[Ol
01

[ol
[ol
[ol
[ol
[ol
[ol
[ol
[ol
[ol
lol

[ol
[ol
[ol
[ol

[ol
[ol

[0
[0

lol

[ol

[ol

lol

lol

lol

[ol

lol

In

il

[0

lo

[0

lol
[ol

in

[0

[ol

b9oks t\)at maittr

iciu. iia.s iicvci uiili
lated into English.
o\ hi'iidiil Society
lo be welcomed.
Man><>n deserves
His translation is
but it is
quate. and

now Ucen lian»-

The appearance

is thus wholly

and .Mr. I.. A.

our gratitude.

not impeccable.

competent and ade-

it mav serve lo intro-

I V 1.1 M 1

duce to a wider English public a
seminal scholar and remarkable man.

I his is certainly to be desired. For
Bloch never addressed his work solely
to professional historians, and it was
his aim to relate history not only to
cognate sUidies but also to those
problems of contemporary lite with
which he wa.s himself so closdy con-
cerned. A distinguished American
metlievalist has rightly called atten-
tion to Bloch's " conviction of the
unity oi all history, and of the living
connection between past and pre-
sent *'. And it is noteworthy how many
of the questions discussed with de-
tailed learning in Feudal Society
appear as topics in Strange Defeat.
that moving fragment of autobio-
graphy, which was written in the
months before his death, and
published after his murder.

The general character of the present
bcK>k may help to account for the
iniiuence ol Marc Bloon, whicn oiner-
wise might be diflicult to explain.
BltKh was not the greatest French his-
torian of bis generation, nor does his
prose aJways possess that limpid
lucidity wbich is peculiarly character-
istic of the best French scholarship.
None the less he is of the same
company as Fustel de Coulanges.
who was one of his predecessors at
Strasbourg, or of Ferdinand lot and
Joseph Bcdier who were among his
colleagues at Paris.

He had the ability to paint on a
wide canvas without ever losing his
mastery of detail ; he could draw
illuminating analogies from past and
present events ; and he could lay bare
the essentials of his subject without
indulging in " those paper wars in
which scholars have sometimes en-
gaged ". 'History", he remarks,
•• not historians, is my concern '*, and
for this reason the integrated biblio-
graphy which he added to his text was
not the least interesting part of his
book. This has, fortunately, been
reproduced, almost intact, in the
present volume, and it ts nearly as
valuable today as when it first
appeared. The same praise cannot
however, be accorded to the short
supplement which has apparently
been added by the translator, for this
includes at least three itemN which
are incorrectly cited, mcluding one
magisterial book by Bloch himself.

Feudal Society is as important for
its method as for its content.
'* Feudalism " is a term of many
meanings, and Bloch gave it the
widest possible connotation, recalling
wittily that present officers of the
Legion dHonneur are required by its
constitution *' to combat . . . any
enterprise tending to re-establish the
feudal regime ". And w hat were the
marks of that regime in his historical
setting ?

A subject peasantry' ; widespread use of
the service tenemerit (particularly the
fieO in place of salary , , .; the

Wkrc Bloch: Feudal Soa'ety. Trans-
lated by L, A. Man yon. 4*)8pp.
Rout ledge and Kegan Paul. £2 lOs.

service of the King with a specified
number of trained and fully equipped
mounted knights. This military
organization, it is said, ignored Old
English precedent, and. in this sense,
it has been concluded that " it is
hardly possible to speak oi an> trend
towards feudalism in England before
1066 ". Moreover, much of the later
development of English public law
and constitutional growth is found to
have depended upon these arrange-
ments, and the manifold obligations
they entailed. These too may, thus, in
their turn, be referred back to the
events which followed the Norman
Conquest events which gave a new
aristocracy to England, but which
had no corresFK)nding effect on the
life or the condition t)f the English
peasantry.

The special value of this approach
(thus inadequately summarized) to
the particular problems of English
medieval history need not be empha-
sized. Certainly, Bloch gave full
prominence to such ideas in his own
book, a large section of which
describes the origin and character ol
vassalage with a wealth of erudition.
On the other hand, in his view, the
fief was»<^nly one *»le«Tient though an
importii'it one, in feudal organiza-
tion; aid to concentrate too exclu-
sively on the military and aristo-
cratic reatures of feudal society
would be, for him. to oversimplif>
its nature. Only by means of a far
wider inquiry did he hope to eluci-
date the social structure of western
Europe between, say, 850 and 1250.
and to account for its distinctive
features There was, of course, within
this epoch the division marked by
the middle of the eleventh century
when economic change, and the
growth of settled administration, pre-
pared the way for the twelfth century
renaissance and the great medieval
monarchies. But the same broad lines
of dexelopment can be traced
throughout, and the framework of
institutions then established 'can in
the last resort be understood only
through the knowledge of the whole
human environment ".

In keeping with these ideas this
great teatise falls naturally into
two pi'Tts. The first describes
the s«)cial background which
began to form when western
Europe was. so to speak, in a
state of siege, vexed with the attacks
of Muslims. Hungarians or North-
men. Then were evolved those bonds
of interdependence between men

'vl^l. i»^r^.-■» fl^O*^ r\ .^. tl^'.rt '- .-.Irr, «>" ■ • »»

». ..v»i, ,.iiriv iiian uii^ tiling vi.^v. grtv^r^

to feudi i society its special character,
when ai istocracies organized for war.
and sus ained by a servile peasantry,
seemed essential to the defence of
Europe. The other section of the
work concentrates more particularly
on the development of social classes
until at last the resuscitation of cen-
tral authority, economic progress, and
the rise of the bourgeoisie begin to
presage the end of feudal society.

The value of such an extended
inquiry depended of course on the
manner in which it was conducted,
and the merit of this book derives in
the first instance from the massive
scholarship upon which it is based.
Bloch's command of his material is
always impressive, and his generaliza-
tions w *re securely founded upon a

i 1 ^

exposition that exists of the realities
of French peasant life in the Middle
Ages. Soil and topography, tech-
niques of cultivation, and forms of
settlement were lor Bloch among the
essential sources of exact history,
and thc> were particularly important
in describing an age in which agri-
culture was the basic occupation of
men.

Bloch s interests were strongly
directed touards the material bases
of historical development. His C hair
was that of Ect>nomic History, and
the review which he conducted with
l.ucien Febvre the Annates

d'histoire econonii(/ue el sociale —
became a principal lorum for the
discussion of such tiipics. His own
personal concerns led him also in the
same direction. Bloch was keenly
interested in the industrial problems
of his own age. and not aloof from its
political controversies. It deserves
emphasis, therefore, how resolutely
he refused to restrict himself, in his
interpretation of the past, to the
observation of economic phenomena.

And if man is not to be treated
merely as an economic animal, so
also is he not to be regarded s^olely
as a rational being. Ihe institutions
he creates, the social structures he
builds, cannot be explained without
reference to "* modes of feeling and
thought ". Thus the method of
Feudal Society has to be related (in
Bloch's earlier work) not only to his
fundamental studies of the French
peasantry but also to his equally
remarkable R(>i.\ rhautnatur^es — a
fascinating investigation of the super-
natural character attributed to the
royal power, particularly in France
and England. And this treatise in
its turn has exercised a wide influence
which is to be discerned, for instance,
in the more recent studies of E. H.
Kantorowicz. It was entirely charac-
teristic of Bloch to remark :
There are two categories of Frenohmen
who will never grasp the Nigniificance of
French history: tho>e who refuse to be
thrilled with the Consecration of our
Kings at Rheims. and those who can
read unmoved the account of the
Festival ot Federation.

Bloch's sympathies were not to be
circumscribed, nor was his intellec-
tual curiosity to be restricted. A Jew
by birth, he confes.sed that he had
" never professed any creed whether
Hebrew or C hristjan ", >ct he would
not depict feudal Europe without
due regard for the religion which in-
formed it. Passionately French in
TttS^pairioiism and m niycuiiUiC, his
work never bore any trace of pro-
vincialism. And the sincere integrity
of his scholarship was matched by
his pervading reverence for justice.
The austere morality which pervades
his work was perhaps in part derived
from an ancestor who fought in the
Revolutionary Wars, and almost the
last words he wrote were taken from
Montesquieu : "' A State founded on
the People needs a mainspring; and
that mainstring is Virtue. "

All these preoccupations find ex-
pression in Feudal Society. The
peasant appears in company with the
knight, the manor alongside the fief,
and throughout there is displayed the
formative undercurrent of emotions
and ideas. The worker is questioned
in the field, the scholar in his study,

quality ol tcuilal Society, and that
which has ensured its endurint-
influence, is that, like all the greatest
works of historical scholarship it is
unmistakably \jX. from an inward
individual fire, and stamped from first
to lasTwfth the author's own vivid
personality. For that reason, the
erudition display ed. which Is both
detailed and profound, is here
illumined by human warmth and
sympathv. and as a result it is para-
doxically true that while Feudal
Society. alwa\s intensely readable,
remains the best lirst introduction
for any student to the subject with
which it deals, it serves, also, for the
specialist, as an incsitabic starting
point for further research. The
scholarship and the life of Marc
Bloch were both of heroic texture.
Together they have placed him
unassailablv among the masters.

FAMILY

PLANNING
AND

MODERN

PROBLEMS

^V

S. cic Lestapis, S.J.

The most complete and auihorifaiive
Catholic statement availahlc tm the
burning problem of " pvnpulation ex-
pl»)sion '". The Catholic Church is
bitterly criticised tor its resistance to
the two most tVeqiienilv proposed
remedies: contraception .uid legalised
abortion, and I .<ther de I estapis here
sur\e>s world demographic problems,
the problem^ ol 'he contracepiive society
and explains the C athoiic position from
a solid background of facts and detailed
siatistics.

J 44 pp.

30s.

THE CHURCH
IN CRISIS

1

n

Philip Hui^hes

\ highly miportanl sur\e> of theGcneral
Councils of the Church from Nicaea lo
the \atican C ouncil o\ 1X70. tracing the
intricacies of doctrine the> discuss, the
conflicting personalities that took part
and the histor> and ch.iractci unique lo
each cf them

34:pp. 35s

THE CHURC
AND SOCIA

JUSTICE

h\
J.-Y.Cal\e7

& J . Pcrr-

A complete sur\c>
attitude to the pol
>>(>cijl pi ' ihicms ot
sOcicliCN Jc. elopet'
Leo \ni to Piuv

466pp.

BURN^

July 7, 1961

The Editor

Tlmee Litterary Supplement
Printlrig House Square
London, E.C^lt, England

Sir,

While I quite often disap:ree profoundly with your reviewers, I am in full
accord with the scholar who reviewed MARC BLOCK, Feudal Society ^ in the article
"A Master-IIistorian," in your issue of June 23, 1$61«

Would you be kind enough to convey to your reviewer the following messaprei
that I am full of admiration for his competent and accurate review of Karc Floch's
book placed in the correct historical and (sit venia verbo) metaphysical perspective;
but that I was slightly puzzled, though greatly honoured, by the fact that from
among h\indreds of scholars upon whom Marc Ploch exercised considerable influence,
your reviewer saw fit to single me out by mentioning my name.

It is perfectly true that I was gre'^tly impressed by his Hois thaumaturges.
I actually met ?>arc Bloch in Oxford, dining with him, in 193li, at Criel, and
talked with him until far into the small hours after our kind host. Sir Maurice
Powicke, had left us alone with a good supply of Bordeaux and Whisky. Both of us
got so excited in the course of our conversation that we did not sit down but
stood in front of the fire-place to exchange our arguments and places and quotations
about any relevant subject. I, too, felt that his historical scholarship was
"unmistakably lit from an inward individual fire" so often absent from the works
of historians. But exactly this was a quality which, alas, I could not borrow
from him. I am sure there are many others who were far more dependent on him
than I was, though it be far from me to deny the great impresnion his studies
and his personality made upon me.

Thank you for conveying this message to your reviewer.

Sincerely yours

Kmst H. Kantorowicz

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Jllly "^th, l96l

SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL STUDIES

TO WHO SURVIVES [DIRECTOR? FELLOWS

I

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL STUDIES

0.

erzAy-^ta^ ,

^attign ^ttitt,

A,

24th October, 19;5B.

irivate & Confidential.

l\ly dear Warden,

Thank you for your letter of uctobei' 18th.
I have much G^inpathy with your desire to ussict
Professor Kantorov/icz in his efforts to leave
Germany, Unfortunately, hov/ever, my exi)ei'ience
is that any foreign pressure exercised in matters
such as triis, v/hich concern a German national, is
resented by the Germ.an autnorities ana is likely to
reaouna to the disaavantage ratiier ti.an to the
advantage of tiie person wj^iom one is anxious to
assist .

in the present case "^ think this is particularly
true, "^he GeiTuan autiiorities iiave shovvTi themselves
quite indifferent to the fate of their Jev/ish nationals
and nov; no longer grant ijassports to persons whose
journey abi'oac v/ould be undesirable from tne official
German j'>oint of view. A stage has nov; been reached

v/here

The Varden,

V/adham. College,

where the grant of a passport for foreign travel
alrost amounts to in act of official favour: and
I believe that passports are being withdrav/n or
their renev;al refused in a very great number of
cases v/here there is no urgent reason from the
point of viev; of the German State for the person
concerned to go abroad.

In viev/ of this I am afraid that the German
authorities may resent our interference and make
it more difficult for Irofessor Kantorowicz to leave.
If, however, I get an opportunity of doing so v/ithout
making m.atter£ v/orse for him I vail mention the
Professor's name to the German /imbassaaor. And, in
order to prevent any avoidable delay, when once he
has obtainea nis passport, I am sending a copy of
your letter and of my ansv/er to the i::m.bas6y in Berlin
so that the Passport Control Officer v/ill be avmre of

the details of the case.

i

1£ 7.

r

A

VC

)^ I' i^i sf L^aki<5<T7uyi"a Colic cM (M

^ Q3/^

V vll

bgr<5p^/ (^i ^hlics^htc^

^Ik

SELECTED STUDIES

hy

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ

y

8jxn", XVI, 4i6pages text, 4ocollot>'pe plates, cloth $12.50

16S2

JJ. AUGUSTIN PUBLISHER • LOCUST VALLEY, NEW YORK

A descriptive subtitle to this volume might be: ^'Essays in Rulership, and Theology, Law, Art and
Education from Late Antique Times through the Renaissance." The selection was made by Kantorowicz
himself, not long before his death, when he was asked to list a score or more of his short writings
which would illustrate the range of his scholarly interests. All have been printed before, but some

have known very limited distribution.

Table of Contents

CYN0PONOC AIKHI

Gods in uniform

Puer exoriens. On the hypapante in the Mosaics of S.Maria Maggiore

The * King's Advent' and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina

The Problem of Medieval World Unity

The Carolingian King in the Bible of San Paolo fuori le mura

The Archer in the Ruthwell Cross

The Quinity of Winchester

Deus per naturam, deus per gratiam: A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology

InaUenability: A note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation Oath

in the Thirteenth Century

Kingship under the Impact of Scientific Jurisprudence

The Prologue to Fleta and the School of Petrus de Vinea

Plato in the Middle Ages

An 'Autobiography' of Guido Faba

Petrus de Vinea in England

Anonymi 'Aurea Gemma''

Kaiser Friedrich IL und das Konigsbild des Hellenismus

Zu den Rechtsgrundlagen der Kaisersage

Pro patria mori in Medieval Political Thought

Dante's 'Two Suns'

Die Wiederkehr gelehrter Anachorese im Mittelalter

The Sovereignty of the Artist: A Note on Legal Maxims Renaissance Theories of Art

The Este Portrait by Roger van der Weyden

Mysteries of State. An Absolutist Concept and its Late Mediaeval Origins

On Transformations of Apolline Ethics

Order Form

To J.J.AuGUSTiN Inc. Publisher
Locust \'^alley, New York 1 1 5 60

cop.

Please send

Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Selected Studies

XVI, 4IG pages, 40 plates, Cloth $12.50

□ I enclose check, money order

D Send C.O.D.

□ Charge account

NAME

address

CITY state

If you havt no account witii us pleasf stnJ payment in advance or references; othtrwiu books will be delivered C. O.D.

I

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WRITINGS

The author drew up this bibliography not long before his death. He did
not include occasional writings, such as newspaper articles, but some of
these are mentioned by Yakov Malkiel, *'Ernst H. Kantorowicz," Romance

Philology, XVIII (1964), 1-15.

Starred items (*) are reprinted in this book.

1. Das Wesen der mxislimischen Handwerkerverbdnde. Dissertation (ts^Descript) ; Heidel-
berg, 1921.

2. Kaiser Friedrich der Z^^^^^- Berlin: Georg Bondi, 1927. 651 pp. [Known as Vol.
I, and the Ergmzungsband, below. No. 7, as Vol. II.]

3. . English translation by E O. Lorimer: Frederick the Second, London:

Constable, 1931. [Ergdnzungsband not indnd^d.']
4. . ItaHcLn translation by Maria Offergeld Merlo; Federico II di Svevia.

Milano: Garzanti, 1939. 2 vols. [Ergdnzungs band not included.]

5. Review of Antonio de Stefano, Uldea imperiale di Federico II (Florence, 1927), in
Historische Z^^schrift, CXL (1929), 449-450.

6. "Mythenschau," Historische Zeitschrift, CXLI (1930), 457-471.

7. Kaiser Friedrich der Z^^i^^' Ergdnzungs band, Berlin: Georg Bondi, 1931. 336 pp. [Cf.
Nos. 2-4.]

8. *'Deutsches Papsttum," in Vom Schicksal des deutschen Geistes (Berlin: Verlag Die
Runde, 1935} 42-57; cf. Castrum Peregrini, XI (1953), 7-24.

*9. "Petrus de Vinea in England," Mitteilungen des Osterreichischen Instituts fur

Geschichtsforschung, LI (1937), 43-^8.
*ll0. Die Wiederkchr gekkrter Anachorese im MitUlalter. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,

1937. 13 pp.
*ji. "The Este Portrait by Roger van der Weyden," Journal of the Warburg and

Courtauld Institutes, III (1939-40), 165-180.

XI

x^

Xll

12.

*13.

14.
*15.
*16.

17.

*18.

*19.

20.

21.

22.

*23.
24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

*29.

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ

"A Norman Finale of the Exultet and the Rite of Sarum," Harvard Theological
Review, XXXIV (1941), 129-143.

"Plato in the Middle Ages," The Philosophical Review, LI (1942), 312-323. [A
review of Raymund KUbansky, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the
Middle Ages (London, 1939) , and PL A TO LA TIN US, Vol I: Meno interprete Henrico
Aristippo, ed. Victor Kordeuter (London, 1940).]

"Ivories and Litanies," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, V ( 1 942) , 56-8 1 .
''Anonymi 'Aurea Gemma','' Medievalia et Humanistica, I (1943), 41-57.
"An 'Autobioo-raphy' of Guido Faba," Medieval and Renaissarwe Studies, 1 (1943),
253-280.

"A Diplomatic Mission ofFrancis Accursius and his Oration br:rore Pope Nicliolas
III," English Historical Review, LVIIl (1943), 424-447. [Together %Nirh George L.
Haskins.]

"The Problem of Medieval World Unity," American Historical Association, Annual
Report for 1942, III (Washington, 1944), 31-37.

"The 'King's Advent' and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Sauta Sabina,"
Art Bulletin, ^XVl (1944), 207-231.

Laudes Regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship. (Uni-
versity of California Publications in History, XXXIII.) Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1940. 292 pp.

. Jsfotes on the Christus vincit Ugend on Coins. Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press, 1946. [Reprint of Chapter 1 (pp. 1-12) and
Appendix II (pp. 222-230) oi Laudes Regiae.^

"How the Pre-Hitler German Universities Were Run," Westem College Association:

Addresses of 1945 (Fall Meeting, November 10, 1945, Mills College, Cahfornia), 3-7.

"The Quinity of Winchester," Art Bulletin, XXIX (1947), 73-85.

Review of Eleanor Shipley Duckett, Anglo-Saxon Saints and Scholars (New York,

1947), in Classical Philology, XLIII (1948), 265-266.

"Christus-Fiscus," in Synopsis: Festgabe filr Alfred Weber (Heidelberg, 1948),

223-235.

Review of Reto R. Bezzola, Les origines et la formation de la Uiterature courtoise en
■ Occident: 500-1200 (Paris, 1944), in Comparative Literature, I (1949), 84-87.

Introduction to Luis Weckmann, Las Bnlas Alejandrinas de 1493 y la Teoria Politica

delPapado Medieval (Mexico City, 1949), 7-11.

The Fundamental Issue: Documents and Marginal Notes on the University of California

Loyalty Oath. San Francisco: Parker Printing Co., 1950. 40 pp.

''Fro pairia mori in Medieval PoUtical Thought," American Historical Review, LVI

(1951), 472-492.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WRITINGS

Xlll

30.

*31,

32.

33.
34-

*35.

*36.

*37.
*38.

*39.

4U.

41.

42.
*43.

44.

45.
46.

>i:

47,

*48,

Review of Leonardo Olschki, The Myth of Felt (Berkeley and Los Angeles,

1949), in Romance Philology, IV (1951), 281-284.

"Dante's 'Two Suns'/' in Semitic and Oriental Studies Presented to William Popper

(University of California Publications in Semitic Philology, XI; Berkeley and Los

.Vngelcs, 1951), 217-231.

Review of Eudes dc Deuil, La Croisade de Louis VII, Roi de France, ed. Henry

VVaquet (Paris, 1949), in Romance Philology, V (1952), 321-322.

'*Der Gastfreund," in Albrecht Bernstorff zum Geddchinis (Munich, 1952), 53-56.

Review of Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera omnia, ed. Claude \V. Barlow (Papers
and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, XII; New Haven, 1950),
in American Journal of Archaeology, LVI (1952), 229-230.

''Kaiser Friedrich II und das Konigsbild des Hellenismus," in Varia Variorum:
Festgabe fur Karl Reinhardt (Munster-Koln, 1952), 169-193.

''Deus per naturam, deus per gratiam: A Note on Mediaeval Political Theolog>^"
Harvard Theological Review, XLV (1952), 253-277.

"r/N0PONOI AlKHI," American Journal of Archaeology, LVII (1953), 65-70.
"Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation
Oath in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, XXIX (1954), 488-502.
"Mysteries of State: An Absolutist Concept and its Late Mediaeval Origins,"
Harvard Theological Review, XLVIII (1955), 65-91.

. .Spanish Translation by Rodriguez Aranda: "Secretos de Estado," Revista

de Esludios Politicos, LXV (1959), 37-70.

''Invoaitio Nominis Imperatoris: On vv. 21-25 of Ciclo d'Alcamo's Contrasto;'

Bollcttino del Centro di Studifilologici e linguistici Siciliani, III (1955), 35-50.

(Co-editor) Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr,,

ed. Kurt Weitzmann et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.

"The Carolingian King in the Bible of San Paola fuori le mura," Late Classical

and Mediaeval Studies (see No. 42), 287-300.

Review of Johan Huizinga, Geschichte und Kuliur: Gesammelte Aufsatze, ed. Kurt

Koster (Stuttgart, 1954), in American Historical Review, LX (1955), 853-855.

The Baptism of the Apostles," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, IX-X (1956), 204-251.

Feudalism in the Byzantine Empire," in Feudalism in History, ed. Rushton
Coulborn (Princeton, 1956), 151-166.

"Zu den Rechtsgrundlagen der Kaisersage," Deutsches Archiv, XIII (1957),
115-150.

"The Prologue to Fleta and the School of Petrus de Vinea," Speculum, XXXII
(1957), 231-249.

<(•

i(

XIV

*49.

50.
51.

*52.
53.

*54.

*55.

'56.

*57.

58.
59.

60.

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ

c^On Transformations of Apolline Ethics/' in CHARITES: Studien zur Alter tu^^^
^t^c^^^^^^^^ ^'' Konrad Schauenburg (Bonn, 1957),

255-274

The Kin^s Two Bodies: A Study ^n Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton: Princeton

Universky Press, 1957. 568 pp.

Review of Charles Till Davis, D«n^. andthe Idea of Rome (Oxford, 1957), .nSpeculum,

XXXIV (1959), 103-109.

"The Archer in the Ruthwell Cross," Art Bulletin, XLII (I960), 57-59.

»On the Golden Marriage Belt and JeMarff Rings of the Dun^barton Oaks

Collection," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIV (1960), 2 -lb.

1- T r^^rt nf Srieiitific Turisprudcnce," in Twdjth-Centwy

(Madison, Wisconsin, 1961), 89-111.

• . f tv,<. Xru'.f A Note on Legal Maxims and Renaissance 1 heo-
Z:ft"TXf^ o;m- E..,. ..V, ,fE^. P..m «^. Mmara

Meiss (New York, 1961), 267-279. _

"Gods in Uniform," Pro...i/n.- of the American Philosophical Soc^eiy, CV ^1961).

368-393.

o„ tl,P Hvoanante in the Mosaics of S. Mana Iviaggiore, in
7"" rT^ri M^rO^r... 70. Cebunsta,, cd. Hugo Rahner SJ and
Perenmlas. P. Thomas Mien Gg^^hichte des Alten Monchtums und

Emmanuel von SeverusOSB(Beiti age zuroc^u iiq 135

des Benediktinerordens. Supplementband 2; Munster, 1963), "^-^^S .

"oriens Au,.ti - U.er du ..," D.mUrton Oaks Papers, XVII (1963), 119- 7-

SttrChtLttr:^^^^^^^^^ 1^ Monster, 1964), 181 189^

Review of Walter Ullmann, FnW^/« of Goverr^ment and Politics m .A. M«M. Ages
^n"w York, 1961), in %.«/««, XXXIX (1964), 3-44-351.

I I

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY

PRINCETON, 'NE\^ JERSEY

May 16, 1963

Dear Protector of senile scholars.

Here, finally, is the Bibliography of ihich I send you two copies.
So you may mess up one.

For the volume of Selected Studies^ I would sup^est the foPowinp:
In German; Nos.8, 9, 3^, li6. They amont to approximately 12G pap:es. y
All the others are in English; t>/^^^ y '^ ^ ^

Nos.lO, 12, 1<, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23(??), 29(?), 31, 36, 37, 38(?), 39(?),
h2, I.i7, h8, ^2, ^),, <^, ^6. • ^^^^

These amount to ca. 300 pages, or more, since many are published in ouarto
and since I may wish to add a few odds and ends which have accumulated.
If you want to have reviews, it would be worth while to think of 26, 30, '^O,

perhaps also 2U.

No. 28 is the Fundamental Issue. It does not really fit into that volume. Vve

shall have to discuss that once more.

Now at least you have an idea what it is all about. Thank you for your
letter und your good wishes. I drove down to Viasblngton (wineJ) with Weitzmann
and Ihor, back with l.eitzmann alone, because Ihor and Karrie staid/in Washington
^ after the Bliss luncheon. The Symposium was not too good, although individual
Lectures (Oleg Grabar, Grunebaum, Miles) were very good, ^ut the Director of
the Symposium did not read his own paper \ind was very mediocre, or less than
that, at introducing and concluding the Symposium. Socially it was as nice
as It always is, and as exhausting. I also drank too much for too many nights.

Cambridge, Mediaeval Academy, was quite pleasant. I had lunch id.th George
Viilliams, nice as always. I saw also Spike - unfortunately as a rather sick
man, a shadow of his fomer bouncing self, mainly Diabetis, but in a bad shape
and in bad health altogether. I was awfully sorry.

Beginning of June Bowra will be here, and I shall drive him to Washington
where he has to stay for a few days. T can pick up also a few cases of an
excellent light wine from the Berry, a 1960 Sancerre, which we (Ihor and I)
sampled here. But we had our usual sampling meeting in the Hotel after the
Meeting of the Board of Scholars, were however unable to sample all the bottles
I got from Burka's on Wisconsin Avenue.

I am tired and don»t like myself a bit. Put I am looking forward to end
of August when you are here and I come back as dark as though escaped from
Birmingham, Alabama. There are no black Muslims in St. John, but there are

sharks.

Love

<:-vc,

t-i

IAtUi mi- 1-^ -iAMfC

« t

Bibliography

!• Das Wesen der muslimischen Handwerkerverbande, Dissertation (typescript)
Heidelberg, 1921.

2. Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927), 651 pp.

3. [5"] Review; Antonio de Stefano, L'ldea imperiale di Federico II (Florence,
1927), in: Historische Zeitschrift, CXL (1929), 449f.

4. fl] "Mythenschau," Historische Zeitschrift, CXLI (1930), 457-471.

5«r7] Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite; Erganzungsband (Berlin, 1931), 336 pp«

6.(3] Frederick the Second, trsl. by B.OoLorimer (London, Constable, 1931)

7«rf J "Deutsches Papsttum," Vom Schicksal des deutschen Geistes (Berlin,

Verlag Die Runde, 1935), 42-57; cfo Castrum Peregrini, (Amsterdam), i^n'ry

7-24.

S.nl "Petrus de Vinea in England," Mitteilungen des Osterreichischen
Instituts filr Geschichtsf orschung, LI (1937), 43-88

9.WC>| Die Wiederkehr gelehrter Anachorese im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, Kohl-
hammer, 1937), 13pp«

iio./nj

"The Este Portrait by Roger van der Weyden," Journal of the Warburg
and Courtauld Institutes, III (1939-40), 165-180

I I

ll.//2j"A Norman Finale of the Exultete and the Rite of Sarum," Harvard Theo-
logical Review, XXXIV (1941), 129-143

12.f/5] "Plato in the Middle Ages," The Philosophical Review, LI (1942), 312-323,
a Review of Raymund Klibansky, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition
during the Middle Ages (London, 1939)

13.(4] Federico II di Svevia, trsl. by Maria Offergeld Merlo (Milano, Garzanti,
1939), 2 vols.

14. "Ivories and Litanies," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes,
V (1942), 56-81

15. "Anonymi 'Aurea Gemma'." Medievalia et Humanistica, I (1943), 41-57

16. "An 'Autobiography" of Guido Faba," Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies,
I (1943), 253-280

(^

17.

A Diplomatic Mission of Francis Accursius and his Oration before Pope
icholas III." Enplish Historical Review, LYIII (1943), 424-447 (together

with George L, Haskins)

18. "The Problem of Medieval World Unity," American Historical Association,
Annual Report for 1942, III (Washington, 1944), 31-37

19.

•The 'King's Advent' and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina,
Art Bulletin, XXVI (1944), 207-231

ff

20 . Laudes Regiae; A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler
Worship (University of California Publications in History, XXXTTI;
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1946), 292 pp.

21. "Notes on the Christus vincit Legend on Coins," (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1946), an offprint of two chapters of No.20o

22.

^

tt

How

the Pre-Hitler German Universities were run," Western College

Association (Fall Meeting, November 10, 1945, at Mills College,
California), 3-7.

23. "The Quinity of Winchester," Art Bulletin, XXIX (1947), 73-85

24. Review: Eleanor Shipley Ducket t, Anglo-Saxon Saints and Scholars (New York
1947), in Classical Philology, XLTII (1948), 265f

25. »'Christus-Fiscus," Synopsis; Pestgabe fur Alfred Weber (Heidelberg, 1948),

223-235.

\i

26. Review: Reto R. Bezzola, Les origines et la formation de la litterature

courtoise en Occident; 500-1200 (Paris, 1944), in Comparative Literature,
I (1949), 84-87

27. Introduction to: Luis Weckmann, Las Bulas Alejandrinas de 1493 y la
Teoria Politica del Papado Medieval (Mexico, 1949), 7-11

V

28. The Fundamental Issue (San Francisco, 1950), 40pp.

29. **Pro patria mori in Medieval Political Thought," American Historical
Review, LVI (1951), 472-492

^ 30. Review: Leonardo Olschkip The Myth of Felt (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1949), in: Romance Philology, IV (1951), 281-^284

31. "Dante's 'Two Suns'," Semitic and Oriental Studies Presented to William
Popper (University of California Publications in Semitic Philology, XI;
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1951), 217-231

^^ 32. Review: Eudes de Deuil, La Croisade de Louis VII g Roi de France,, ed.

Henri Waquet (Paris, 1949), in: Romance Philology, V (1952), 321f

33. "Der Gastf reund,'* Albrecht Bernstorff zum Gedachtnis (Munich, 1952), 53ff

%/ 34. Review: Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera omnia, ed. Claude W. Barlow

(Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, XII; New Haven,
1950), in American Journal of Archaeology ^ LVI (1952), 229f.

^ 35.

"Kaiser Friedtich II» und das Konigsbild des Hellenismus ," Varia
Variorum: Festgabe fur Karl Reinhardt (Miinster-Koln, 1952), 169-193

^ 36. "Deus per naturam, deus per gratiam: A Note on Mediaeval Political
Theology," Harvard Theological Review, XLV (1952), 253-277

^ 37. "CYNQPONOC /iTKHI," American Journal of Archaeology „ LVII (1953), 65-70

i/ 38

"Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation
Oath in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum^ XXIX (1954), 488-502

f

39. "Mysteries of State: An Absolutist Concept and its Late Mediaeval Origins,
Harvard Theological Review, XLVIII (1955), 65-91

i«

U-

40. M "Invocatio Nominis Imperatoris : On vv. 21-25 of Cielo d'Alcamo's Contrasto,
Bollettino del Centro di Studi filologici e linguist ici Siciliani, III
(1955), 35-50

41. 5*/ J Co- edit or Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias
Friend, Jr. , ed« by Kurt Weitzmann (Princeton, 1955)

42J'«/lJ "The Carolingian King in the Bible of San Paolo fuori le mura," Late
Classical and Mediaeval Studies (see No. 41), 287-300

?»

/

43. fy/? Review: Johan Huizinga, Geschichte und Kultur: Gesammelte Aufsatze, ed
by Kurt Koster (Stuttgart, 1954), in: American liistorical Review. LX

(1955), 853-855

44./*i^J "The Baptism of the Apostles/' Dumbarton Oaks Papers, IX-X (1956),

204-251.

45 Lt] »»Feudalism in the Byzantine Empire," Feudalism in History, ed. by Rushton
Coulborn (Princeton, 1956), 151-166

46. ftfl "Zu den Rechtsgrundlagen det Kaisersage," Deutsches Archiv, XIII (1957),
115-150

y ^^-rW] "'^^^ Prologue to Fleta and the School of Petrus de Vinea," Speculum,
XXXII (1957), 231-249

t^

48

.[•fqj -On Transformations of Apolline Ethics,- CHARITES: Studien zur Altertums-

wissenschaft [Festschrift Ernst Langlotz], ed. by Konrad Schauenburg (Bonn,

1957), 265-274

49.

h

The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton,

1957), 568pp

i^

50

(fij Review: Charles Till Davis, Dante and the Idea of Rome (Oxford, 1957),
in Speculum, XXXIV (1959), 103-109

51.[yft|"Secretos de Estado.- Revista de Estudios Politicos, Fasc. CIV (Madrid,
1959), 37^70

52.

•The Archer in the Ruthwell Cross," Art Bulletin, XLII (I960), 57-59

^ 53. "On the Golden Marriage Belt and the Marriage Rings of the Dumbarton

Oaks Collection," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIV (1960), 2-16

^ 54. "Kingship under the Impact of Scientific Jurisprudence," Twelfth-
Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society, ed. M. Claggett,
G. Post, and R. Reynolds (Madison, Wisconsin, 1961), 89-111

/ 55. "The Sovereignty of the Artist: A Note on Legal Maxims and Renaissance
Theories of Art," De Artibus Onuscula XL: Essays in Honor of Erwin
Panofsky, ed. by Millard Meiss (New York, 1961), 267-279.

V

56. "Gods in Uniform," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,
CV (1961), 368-393

57. '^Puer exoriens: On the llypapante in the Mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore,"
Festschrift Thomas Michels (Munster, 1963)^ /'S -/35

58. "Oriens Augusti - Lever du Roi," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVII (1963), //?'/>9:

59. •♦ConstantinusStrator: Marginalien zum Constitutum Constantini ,'* Fest-

>

N>^

y .

^v

sc

hrift Theodor Klauser (Supplementband zum Jahrbuch ftir Antike und

Christentum; Mtfnster, 1964), 1^1 -'^1

.^^^M. "Justinian's Toga picta/* Festschrift Percy Ernst Schramm

6i. Review: Walter Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics in the
Middle A-es (New York, 1961), in Sneculum, XXXYIII (1963), 3V|t-.35r/

X

4

! I

i

K L^^-^^f^ ^^u^ ^ c; c^ 4 iio^ i^ ^^ ^ lt4.'^<t Cii. /^fit s

'4.c^> '^4 4.4-$ ^' > ♦•!. Jr /

,■>

/ ♦

/^^t^'

*

f( .

/// .

V

J

Tr^'^Qk^ /C<l4,^s'^n:

. /^r^t^-u.'sfc -. Sen y^'^/>^t<.

7

^■//

. /A

c^ ,t,XJj\^

cv ^%

-Pu ^€>^Vv;

7).^ ^a.^c, >.Y^e 'i&^iljl^* '

Jl3tV<»^t

^///

Au<.

ytfcy^f^cki^ :

■o

/

^ y^^'

l>-<Xi€

;c .

/(^^^^/^H^^' /Wi^^S''^*^' ^'

i^C'^>^^'^^-^^* ^'.t,^iiUPA4^,

'^t^U.^

^. ^.v;.ttt^< T'-^rlr^

\

Plv

flL^ C^ C

f

MericAC V<5tC KutcJxSU^p .

I

t.

11/

. Otto"«-

4 55^^*-**-!

Vlf : /^t:>c5"N>U*5M4.

Vol. ^ot^M-t VC^^s: ^\:>^^ircU<;<^.

I:.

i t*< ^ $ 4* ^

/

•:< L.) C <Si UQ9.X tu. ^ic cCtW^i >h^

"&'

/(iU^% VCff <ft4^Ci.* pi

ecd.*

A

^* -4. » -fc- ■>

^% fc% fx^Cu% Pt.^u.%

3m.'^c Xmic ^

c Cv^>

J

*^

/

/

///

v^

7

A^*^^^ ^w^i.

s O

/

«i

A

4-*

cc-t4.;^4

ytyi"*^' */

C^t.X^*'^ 'f/-*^^. -^^ C $ C3

/

yn /Ct.^

V t.^*

/ S c * ^

y ^{ -«.^^

J€^

/

/■ ^

/

r '

t^

k//

• 4

ic-^

/-la

t* *X * ^

y

^>^-i^^*^^

c-fc'V^^

<4^ ^-4^4^

^^•♦.♦■•^fc,

t^/9r^ i

/

V/o;^^

,^'^ -^^-^^ ''^'^*^^

^J4.V

^ c/c4^^ f r

^///

y^

Uv>r«^v

4. UV

^C^t3 04

i^ lb

# f c

/^i

^> ^^-^

9

f. r If /

T>

iVM.U€.

\JL^ 47^

\»u

f L

UA, ^*^^ ^ • ^ ^^^ ^^-^ '^^

4

c -V*-*^*

**^#^

''^

/6Li4^%r^% fua^UA f*^^^

^.

^L^.4^

J^^ijl

i^

/I

u^'s

/3 ^'C4-i^ CjcK/Ai^aufC /^ '^•ic U4/i'iXc *^(

I . d 'H -fyc^O^ f '*^ V** .' (X>^4^ ♦V

r:

c^o^ c

ix^

«t4 4*

^

///

V V

r

C

A- tCrd '^^^

/ ♦ t

/ / »

L^r^^

C€ U

•//

1

U J

^a^^

(f /^ i V /cj 6^3 j( /5y5 A

/ s

vv

' »

//

/

' /

l^lf

f • ♦

^

y^ o^i.^4, f fiu

/>rct cl ^

^fflO'j

^Ui

^

wr2 ><

A ^< ^ 3 i i

rOt w rt-. €►

{Ct4/^ccu /iT'^^i^'U^^

fi'UtMt^e/'C^

4ctJi^ • 4.^^

r

t

,-^4/ f:>A j.i c (^

/

/

c^CcJ^^^'t^'^cct.x.s

/x

X

L

CCC)

/ * / •

/

r.

-ri

J

/ics

>

^^

<^

fii^'^JjL * </t^ ^-^

ac>

//

I — 4

r.

/

; <►

\ c^ - yJ(^4,oiu^(-*fM,

1

'^'^J^rr,/ /^

rs K /^

^L^L.

y

fl^>

Publications.

I92I: Das Wesen der muslim"' ^-^''"'=^'^^ rTc...r^--'^vr.:^^Tr.y;y:^^f^n ^
Thesis (uiiprinted) , Heidelberg.

1927: Kaiser Friedrich der Zweitc.

Publisher: Georg Bondi, ""orlin.

1929: ''Lythenschau" .
Historisch-^

..rift 140.

I93I: Kaiser Friedrich der "cite.

Ero^^ii^uii^sbund: ^u^^^^.x^.o.chweise und Exkurse
Publisher: Georg Bondi, Perlin.

I93I: Frederick the Second (1194-1250).
English version by E.L.Lorimer
Publisher: Constable Ltd., London.

1935: Deutsches Papsttun.
Private print.

1937: Lie ^ie'-^^rkehr ^elehrter Anachcrese im I'ittelalter.
Publisher: W.Koh" er, Stuttgart.
(Private print) .

1938: Pctrus de Vinea in Sn^' ::'.

Iw'XLieilangen des Osterreichen Instituts
fur Geschichtsforschung 51.

1938: 1... DS FJ]GIAE. Studien zu den liturgischen
Herrscher-Ai:kl tionen des I.'ittelalters.

(planned as a priv te print, but withdrawn
by the publisher (luite recently).

)

Ik -.V.'

< «4

4

l^j-.-p^'', 1>p'frYr'---t-^ |--'"--Ttri^

/

^

V

0

0

In the Press:

Laudes Regiae. Studies in Liturgical Acclamations ___
and Mediaeval Ruler .Vorship /eL>4,^^>^/"?'^^i^

(Berkeley Press; 420 pages manuscript) ' "^

Mediaeval World Unity

(American Historical Review)

^j^^jjiit*, ^/£«3C#T^

P^

Ecology of History

(presumably: The Philosophical Review)

P^ ) S^ MnATJ

Adventus; The Enigmatic Panels in the Door of Santa Sabina.
(presumably: The Art Bulletin)

Adventus Animae et Re^is^

(presumably: Harvard Theological Review)

Charles the Bald and the Natales Oaesarum

(presumably: Mediaevalia et Humanist ica)

Books in Preparation^

C Phases of Mediaeval Rulership.

(Gultual and Liturgical Backgrounds of Mediaeval
Kingship and Political Theories)

O Permanence, Perfection, Progress.

(A Study in the History of Thought of the 13th century)

Q Charles the Bold and the Italian Renaissance.

1 1

I I

|H^'

%U

Publications.

rsis:

V-

p

I

:<'##'-'i
^t^^

i^y

1921: Bas ^esan der Muslimir^chen liandwerkcrvurbnnde.

,-..a.D* DiSoOrtalion: .. ivIeHjur,:)

1927: Kaisor .. rledric;h der Zweite (vol,!)

(G.Bondi, 1 erlin* Tenth edition publ.in 15i34)

11)29:

"::ythen3 ^ i.^

(iiianori^icne Zei^.5chrift , /ol.i4o)

1931: Oiiaer Friadrioh der ....veite (vo.Il)
iirganzungsbar^d: v,;uellc Jise ur.

(IJ'O :di, orlin)

1931: ?r<.a^j.-i.wA. i.i.; ^woond, 1194-125^.

lish V^crsion by E.G^Lorlmer
^v;ori V 10 :;o. , iiOndon)

1935: - ^atsj^ien ^ sttt.

(Verl^^g Die I.iindt-, . ..rivate ^riiit;

1937: Die v/iederkehr ^elehrter Aruiohorr^r.vt j

(l.Kohlhax'iier, -tut^^art)

xkiirse

ittelalter

193

iru:3 de Vinea in x^rx^L^ma
(wittoilu. i des GesterroioM L^cnci
i.,.r J-eschicnts* or. if .i^If+3*^c5;

iiiiiuituts

1959:

1^4

ederico oecondo . >veYia (^ vcle.,
■ v'^r1u'/.5ono Italluna di . ^-Id ..erlo

vu:irr..^.T)ti d it ore, ilan)

Ine .:.8c^ iorM'-»xt i^^ ..Jcj*^'"-*'* w .44. aer «?eyaen

(Jovirn.of the /arburg 'ourtauli institutes,

jII,i65-loj)

1941

wL t

te

/I Ox... I. ii.ale of tbo ■- -

of S/irum

(Harvtard Theological viov/; ..i\/,li j-x43;

194*:; iic^to in the idUe /i^es

(The J hilGr>ox>hioul ucvicv,!! ,31 - . 3/

1943: :^ryomiii\ * kurea ' ^^i' .

^;^TdI~v.r^ el i£tJca,I,4l-:> i ;

1943: Ivories a^ .itanits, ^

(Joxa-nal of th< rbia->:, a Courtauld .i3titutes,vol. v;

1943: An 'Autobio^aphy' of Guido .aba ^ ^ .,^.>

i(:^odi;eval and .renaissance :;tudie8,I,255-28u;

1943: A Diplomat io ia^ion of -rancxb .coursius
aiid bin Oration btifore ^ ope .:ionolai5 ill.
;..ngli9h Historicnl eview,vol.ijVXlI)

Xn^the^^resB^

Laud 3 s

Re^iae. Studies in liturKlcril Acclamations
and ..ediaeval hulei-Z/orship.

(Uriversity of California ir'ress; 420 pp.inanascript)

The Problem of ; er^iaeval Vorld Urity.
(Ameriuiin :. is tor leal i.eviewj

R®^4i-,??^ ifl?!. ^-"^•

AdvcIit

Adve

xhfc r^ni^im^oxc j^unelt^ in the i.oor of
S ant a .'> -li ina .
(prebumably: ihe Art Lulictin)

ntus anim<^e -- adve. . f ^^jj-^ *

Ecology of History

(pre r>u!r ably: ihe philosophical . eview)

Ch/irler. the .aid and the I^LLtales
(pr- rjij -^

l^tioa)

T jT^o^^'*^, *• "^ 1 ' V .-> p ' » v}>* "h n f^n

Phases of . ediaeval .Aulership

(dealing witn the Gultual and ritual I ground of
Kuiersbip from Constantine to s-irt Louis)

e

roe- perfection, xTogre^^-s
^a study in the History of thought df the 13th century;

Charles of rgundy and the Italian .itiuance.

':

<-^

^ UA.067*-, /4

^.

//? r ^

;j

^ J • ^7-,

5.) A

°^Pf^Y^- ^^ //, }4^;^^

vj ^^^^^^^o'l^i^Y'''^ ^.

V--^/

- ^f ^

I

/,

-•-M. Ua

/)

;^ L.

-/

J''^'^-t>^,-^.>^,f-^

Uc)

Rene Choppin, De domanio Franciae (Paris, 160^), hU9, Lib. Ill, tit.^.

LATE

ANTIQUE

AND

MIDDLE

A G E, S .

I. SYNTHRONOS.

II. EPIPHANY AND BYZANTINE CORONATION.

III. CHARLES THE BALD AI^TD THE NATALES CAESARIB.I.

IV. PROFECTIO REGIS.

V. PATER ET FILIUS, REX ET SACERDOS.
VI. ROM AND THE COAL.

a ^

VII. PONTIFEX FiAXIMA.

APPENDIX:

1. Phrygiiim and Officium Stratoris.

2. The King in the Bible of San Callisto.
5. The King's Prostration.

4. The Sacring of the Garolingians in Eastern Franconia.

I I

iTCrUfttwN ^^

T^^^'

I, K-^M.tcOLtv ^CM-t

kV

\ -rt' -u u (kx^

^ (.' r^«u^

'^^ i. t 1 VA-

s

h

n

' N

L^

4

s

.''u ^> f-Uxcu-o-^

f^

i. (v^^^ to. fxcc. /-«-ru,

1

la^

tc^fn r^ C

i

L

c>>

ftnr-iit(?

o

t^iy&C

dUfi

\ fn'^l^eutd^ C ajc^<ivt-<-<^

Cixo^t-

-O

ll<5L

3\ ^pp^^-^j

C Cr^rtM f ct f X ^C^

ec<^<^

u?.

:>

r^-u^

^Pf 1p£c

J

c<

-^ I I iMiii I

y

5)

•^

I

J

3.

/

\

Berlin, Aug. 31, 1938.

Dear Professor Kofka,

may I, in accordance with our conversation, suggest to you
the following subjects, one of which you might find suitable for
being lectured at your College.

1. The transformation of the nature of Time in the later Midrlle
Ages.

2. Oedipus, a mediaeval Saint.

3. Charles of Anjou and the rise of Imperialism.

4. 'Imago* or 'Verbun' . The hierarchy of senses in mediaeval though

5. Charles the Bold and the Italian Renaissance.

6. Secularized hermitage and the cult of S.Jerome in the Renais-
sance.

Themen^j^

1) Chaundler und en^^lischer Fruhhiunanismus.

2) Renaissance-Italien und der Hof Karls d.PC.

3) Bild und Wort.

4) Problem des Bildungsadels.

5) Wandel des Zeitgeflihls.

6) Gelehrte Anachorese.

7) Alfons X.

8) Oedipus in der Hagiographie.

9) Stoische Moralphilosophie.

/

<sXC.

/>wir^ /

; ^fr>^>u

JiJ^^^'^

/! -

h

if,.

I I

J

[n^M^ MUj^^

{■

X

- V hM.

OJ^}

■u

(U^

]

i

J

1 /c l-^i h '3-1

10

rn^si \ji-'^\\-\o}o

Cr[},ec^^'^

^^IH

LiS-i^

F

v..

H> L. cS iA Cjg>j -|-

/Ar(c(«^.s- .

Vio

Dr. Aziz S. Atiya

Department of History
University of Utah
Salt LaKc City, Utah

Professor Priedrich Baethgen
Aiblinper Str«3
Munchen 19

Professor Bernhard Bischoff

27 Riifflni AUee
Planef,g b. Munchen

Prof. Thomns N. Bisson
Department of History
Swarthmore College
Sv'arthmore, Pa.

T.S.R. Boase, Esq.
Masci«ilen College
Oxford, England

Dr. Arno Borst

(21a) Miinster (Westf . )

Gertrude nst r as se 3

Professor Williaxn Bowsky
Department of History
University of Nebraska
IJ.ncoln S, Nebraska

Proi es&or Dr. uolf^ang Braunfels
Khein.-Vvcstf . TeCiUi. liochsciuAle
Inst i tut fur Kunstgeschichte
51 Aachen, Germany

Professor C^uiriuus brecn
Department of History
University of Oregon
Bugene, Oregon

Professor Robert Drentano
Department of History
University of California
Berkeley 4, California

Dr. Richard Brilliant
American Academy
Via Angelo Masina* 5
Rona

Dr« Herbert A* Cahn

c/o Mlinzen und Medaillen A*G«

Malz^asse 25

Basel, Switzerland

Professor Marry Cap Ian
Department of Classics
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Dr« M. Chatzidakis
Benaki Museua
it (>dos Kounbari
Athens
Greece

Profersor Gilbert Chinard
93 Mercer Street
Princeton, New Jeraey

Paul A. ClcTDcnt
University of California
Department of Classics
Los Angeles 24, California

professor Moward Comfort
Ravorford Colle:;o
Haverford, Pennsylvania

Miss Dorothy Corbett
A -111 Kassaohusetts Hall
Harvard University
Cambridpie 38, Kass.

Dr. Paul Corenians

Centre national de rechcrches

"Primitifs Flaroands**

10, P£.rc du Cinquantenaire

Brin:clles

Mile. Marlc-Therfere a'Alverney
58 rue de Vaugirarc
Paris VI, France

Professor Claude David
6 Avenue rroile /ola
Paris (XV), France

Professor Charles Till Davis
Department of History
Tulane University
New Orleans, La.

V.r. Luiz Ka.2.areno ie As5uinp(?£o Filho
Rua Kartim Francisco, 669
Sao Paulo - Est. S.Paulo
Brasil

Professor Joseph Jeer

Cl?raweg 6

Bern, Switzerland

Professor P.W. Deic.uuann

Deutsches Archacologisches Institut Ron

Via S&rdegna, 79

Koma

Luis Diez del Corral
Jorge Juan 7
Madrid

i

Rev. Leonard Dosh, 0*S»B.
St. John's Abbey
Collegeville, Minn.

Professor Williao H. Dunliaa
Department of History
Hall of Graduate Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

P. Dr. Leo Eizenhofer
Stift Ncubcrp

Heidclbcrr7'icgcl^*"»«n
Germany

Dr. Reinliard Elze
Beethoven Platz 10
Bonn

Herrn Walter Erbcn
Konigsseerstr#57

Berchtesgaden
Germany

P. I.T. Eschmanr O.P.

Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies

59 Queen's Park Crescent

Toronto 5, Canada

Professor Angel Ferrari-Nuftez

Lista 8

Madrid

Spain

Herrn Norbert Pickcrmann
Schutzallee 77
Berlin-Zchlendorf

Professor Walter Pischel

Depart nicnt of Near Eastern Languages

Berkeley 4, California

Professor Robert Polz
4 rue Colonel Marchaud
Dijon (Cote d'or)
Prance

Mr. iheodorr Van Fosscn
55 Lcxiii toil Avenue
Colunbus 15, Ohio

Professor George B. Fowler
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh 13, Pennsylvania

Mrs. Tenney Frank
110 Elmhurst Road
Baltimore 10, Maryland

Profcsijor oy<hJcy .1. 'f' cdocrg
hog.; Art Muscuni
iiarvard University
Cambridge 3fi, Massac uusct is

Professor Kurt von Fritz
Munchen 22
Veterinarstrasse 2

Professor Dietrich Gerhard
Department of History
Washington University
Saint Louis. Missouri

Professor ^yron J'. Oilwore
Department of history
iiarvard University
Cambridge, ./assacnusct ts

Dr. H.H. .'ombricri
University of Londori
The Warburg Institute
uoburn Square
London. I^.C. 1, England

P. Paul Grcsjean, S.J.
Soci^tl des Eollandistcs
24, Boulevard Saint-Michel

Bruxellcs 4

AopSnicr milii^ire honoraire
Grand Quarticr G^nlral
Service du Chiffre enneai

Miss Yvonne Hackenbroch
7 Bast 85th Street
New York 2», N.Y,

Dr. Jack Harrison
Room 5500

49 West 49th Street
New York 20, N.Y,

Professor Georpe L. ^^sV.ins
Peunsvlv.inia Law Scnool
University of Perir.sylvanir
Philac^.elo^ia, Pennsylvania

Dr. ■ "'

Licbfrauc • i ,
i>oi;n, _^

-rofessor ivilliani ♦cc<6ci.er
iict Kur.sthislofisc* Tnstituut

der i<i jks-'Jniversiteit
Drift 25, Utreciit

IVofcflflor Dr. Hormann H«lmpol
Max-Planck -Institut fUr Ooschichte
Hoher Wep: 11
Cbttingen, Germany

Dr. Alfred Hermann
Arj^.elandcrstr. 89
Donn, Germany

Prof. Or. L.U. Hcydenrcich
Zentralinstitut fur Kunstfjcschichte
Mciserstrasse 10
Munich, C»ecmany

Dr. Konrad Hoffmann
Kunsthistorisches Institut der
Univeraitat Tubingen
Tubingen, Germany.

Prvif <\«?''.or Jozef Karpat
rid':lova A
Bratislava
Czechoslovakia

Professor Hajo Uolborn
Department of ilistory
Yale University
New iiaven, Connecticut

?rofp?r.or 'v'alter Horn
Depurtinc*nt of Art
Miilvcrsity of Cjilifornia
ncrkclc?y 4, California

rroicstor Stukrt lioyt
Dcpiirtucnt of History
Uiiiversily of Minnesota
Miimck^olis 14, Miiaiesota

Dr. lielmut HuCke
Musikwissensohf tl. Institut
der Job • Wolf g.Goe the -Universit&t
(16) Frankfurt/Main
Mertonstr. 17-25

Professor Grnest i-. Jacob
All Soul's College
Oxford, Iin';land

Dr. Jamos R. Johnson

The Cleveland Museum of Art

Cleveland, Ohio

Professor Werner Kaegi
Miinsterplatz 4
Basel/Schweiz

Dr. Viilhelm Bcrnhard Kaiser
BruV«^cnstr»3
Steinheia a«i«Vain
GercAuy

P. Priedrich Kcmpf^5.J#
Pontificia Univcrait[l Gregorian*
Piazza della Pilotta, 4
Roma (204)
Italy

Professor Cui.lo Kjsch
415 .^est 115 Street

New I'ork 25, N. Y.

H*^rm Professor Theodor Klauser
F. J. Dlilror-Tnr>Utut
Unlversltat Bonn
Bonn an Hhein, Germany

Mr. Hans von Klier
via Lesmi 7
Milan, Italy

Dr. Rudolf M. Kloos
iiainstrasse 39
Bamberg

President Douglas Knight
Lawrence College
Appleton, Wisconsin

Professor N, M. Kontoleon
Liberopoulou 16
Psychlko
Athens, Greece

Professor Jarl il. Kraeling

S[)eri:y Road

Bethany, New Haven 15, Connecticut

Profesror .diehard Krautheiraer
Institute of Fine Arts
1 Bast 78th Street
New York 21, N. V.

C. G. Lambie

British Medical Associacion

New South Wales Branch

British Medical Asso. House

135 Macquarie Street

Sydney, New So. Wales, Australic

Frederick C. Lane, Chairman
Department of History
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore 18, Maryland

Professor Rensselaer W, Lee
Department of Art jiud Archaeology
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey

Mr» Arthur Lchmann
P.O. Dox 1673
Curmel, Californien

Lester K. Little
Department of History
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

William C. Locrke
Art Department
Hrown University
Providence 12, Rhode Island

Prof .Dr. Wo If gang Lotz
Plbliotheca Hertziana
Via Gregoriana 28

Rom

Prof. E. B. Lewinsky
Dept. of Music
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Proressor Otto Maenchen
10 Greenwood Coramon
Berkeley 8,
California

Domenico Maffei

Universita Di Siena

Siena, Via delle Cerchia 19

Professor Norman Malcolm
The Sase School of Philosophy
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Professor Kemp Malone

Dox 181

The Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore 18, Maryland

Ilerm

Professor Dr. Harri Kieier

Dekan der Philosophischen Fakultat

Am Hof 10

Bonn am Rhein, Germany

Hcrrn V;ilhclm Messerer
Grafelfing b. Munchen
Rottenbucherstr. 3a

\

)r. J. If. Mundy
621 PayerwcatluT /fall
Columbia University
New York City, N. Y.

Professor Hrneat Napel
Department of I'hilosophy
Columbia University
New York 27, N. Y.

Mrs. linrico De* Negri
54 Sunset Lane
Berkeley 8, California

Miss ' it), riincljaru
10 OaUlei.'jh Park Avenue
Chislchurst , Kent
En;.:lar J.

Professor Howard Adelson
American Numismatic Society
Broadway at 156th Street
New York 32, N,Y*

Professor Carlos Ollero
Institute de £studio8 Politicos
Plaza de la Marina £spafk>Ia
Madrid

Dr. Gottfried CH>itz
K'»oniitientft Gcrnaniae Historica
Meisorstrasso 10
Munchen 2

Herrn Dr. Jurgen Petersen
c/o Deutschlandfunk
Lindenallee 7
Koln-Marienburg, GERMANY

Dr. Jolin L, Phclan

Dcpartnent of History

187 Bnscoxa llail

The University of Wisconsin

Madison 6, Wisconsin

Dr. Joseph Polxer
Allen R. llitc Art Institute
University of Louisville
Louisville S, Kentucky

Prof. Gnines ^ost
Dept. of History
Princeton University
Princeton, N.J.

Herrn Prof. Dr.
Karl Prelsondanz
Stelccrweg 61
Heldelborg

i^rolcssor Peter uicscnberg
Department o( .listory
v^ashington University
St. Louis, ^k).

t «.*

\l

Professor Martin Sarl6s
Fozsonyi-ul 50
Budapest XIII, Hungary

Hcrrn

Dr. Friedrich Cnrl Sarrc
Rossmarkt 14, (II
Frankfurt am Main

1 rof cssor Meyer Schapiro
279 ucst Atli Street
*\ew York 14, N. Y.

Dr. Richard J. Schoeck
St. :^iicl>iicl's Collcf;e
University uf leronto
Toronto 5, C:in.ia£.

Prof. Kenneth Setton
Dept. of History
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

Hochw. Ilorm

Pat^r Prior Dr. Krimanuel v. Severus

'ihTl Maria Larch

Abt Kerwefzen-Institut

Dr. ilcllmut Sichtermann
Istituto Archeologico Gcrmanico
Via Bocca di Leone, 78
Roma

Professor Theodore Silverstein

Department of English
The University of Chicago
1050 Bast 59th Street
Chicago 37, 111.

P. Anseiui Strittmatter, O.S.B.
Saint Anseln's Priory
Washin;;ton 17, D.C.

Professor Archer Taylor
Department of German
University of California
Lierkelcy A. California

Prau Dr. Wiebke von Thaddcn
Got tinmen
llandelstrasse 3

Profoflsor Samuel E. Thome
Harvard University
Law School
Combridse 38, Mass.

Jii^A.* .

Professor Cornelius Vcrracule
Museum of Fine Arts
Boston 15, Massachusetts

Pr. ton Urns Wcntzel
Tcchnische Ilochscliule Stuttgart
Lchrstuhl fur Kunstr;eschichtc
(14a) Stuttc-art N. Hubcrstrassc 16
Postschliessfach 560, Germany

Professor H WilVinson
Department of History
University of Torooto
Toronto, Canada

Dr. Miciiael ^Nilks
Birkbeck College
Malet Street
London, W.C.I, Rn^aand

Professor Schafer Williaros
University of Massachusetts
Department of History
AFJierst, Massachusetts

Francis Wormald, Esq.

Institute of Historical Research

University of London

Senate House

London, W»C. 1

England

Mr. Philippe Vcrdier
The Walters Art Gallery
UaXtiiaore X, Maryland

Alfbldi, Andreas

Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, New Jersey

Alfbldi, Maria R. , Miss
Stattl. Mlinzsammlung
Residenzstrasse 1
Munch en, Germany

Alexander, Paul
Department of History
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

American Academy in Rome
Via Angelo Masina, 5
Rome, Italy

American Numismatic Society
Broadway at 156th Street
New York City, New York

Anastos, Milton
Dumbarton Oaks
Washington 7, D.

C.

Archaologisches Institut der Universitat Bonn
Hofgarten Nr. 21
Bonn, Germany

Baker, Robert, Mrs.
Kenyon College
Gambler, Ohio

Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaf ten
Marstall-Platz 8
Mlinchen 22

Bellinger, Alfred
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Benaki, Lukas
c/o Benaki Museum
Athens

Benson, Robert L.
Department of History
Wesleyon University
Middletown, Conn.

Benton, John

Department of History

Calif. Institute of Technology

Pasadena, California

I

I

Berlin, Isaiah, Sir
All Souls' College
Oxford, England

Berliner, Rudolf

6812 Connecticut Avenue

Chevy Chase 15, Maryland

Bieler, Ludwig
22, Villiers Road
Rathgar, Dublin
Ireland

Biggerstaff, Knight
Department of History
West Sibley Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Boehringer, Erich

Der Larchenhof

Riederau am Ammersee, Germany

Bohringer, Robert, Dr.
Au Bout du Monde
20, Crete de Champel
Geneva, Switzerland

Boodberg, Peter

Department of Oriental Languages
University of California
Berkeley 4, California

Bowra, Maurice, Sir
Wadham College
Oxford, England

Brieger, Peter

Department of Art and Archaeology

University of Toronto

Toronto, Canada

Campbell, P. Gerard J., S.J.
Loyola College
4501 North Charles Street
Baltimore 10, Maryland

Chaney, William A.
Department of History
Lawrence College
Appleton, Wisconsin

Cherniavsky, Michael
Department of History
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York

Cherniss, Harold

Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, New Jersey

Colodny, Robert
Department of History
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Demus , Otto
Bundersdenkmalamt
Hofburg, Schweizerhof
Vienna, Austria

Der Nersessian, Sirarpie, Miss
Dumbarton Oaks
Washington 7, D.C.

Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Rom
Via Sardegna, 79
Roma, Italy

Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Berlin

Maienstr. 1

Berlin W. 30, Germany

Dbrner, F. K.
4 A Dodostrasse
Miinster i. W. , Germany

Downey, Glanville
Department of History
University of Indiana
Bloomington, Indiana

The Dumbarton Oaks Library
1703 Thirty-Second Street
Washington 7, D.C.

Dvornik, Francis
Dumbarton Oaks
Washington 7, D.C.

Dumbarton Oaks Library
1703 32nd Street
Washington 7, D.C.

Edelstein, Ludwig
The Rockefeller Institute
York Avenue at 66th Street
New York 21, New York

Ehrhardt, Arnold, The Rev.
St. Clement's Rectory
Marlow Street, Longsight
Manchester 12, England

Dr.

Erdmann, K.

University of Istanbul
Department of Art and Archeology
Is tanbu 1 , Turkey

Ettlinger, Leopold, Dr.
The Warburg Institute
Imperial Institute Buildings
London, S. W. 7, England

Fellner, William
131 Edgehill Road
New Haven 11, Conn.

Genzmer, Erich
Friedrichstrasse 4, ptr.
Munich 13, Germany

Giesey, Ralph E.
Department of History
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis 14, Minn.

Gilbert, Felix

Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, New Jersey

Gilliam, James

Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, New Jersey

Grabar, Andr6

2, Avenue Dode de la Brunerie

Paris (16) , France

Greene, Rosalie, Miss
McCormick Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey

Pontificia University Gregoriana
Piazza della Pilotta, 4
Roma (204), Italy

Griffiths, Gordon
Department of History
University of Washington
Seattle 5, Washington

Guttridge, George
Department of History
University of California
Berkeley 4, California

Holtzmann, Walther
Istituto Storico Germanico
Corso Vittorio Emanuele, 209
Roma, Italy

Institute of Fine Arts
1 East 78th Street
New York 21, New York

Jacobson, Roman
Harvard University
Boylston Hall 301
Cambridge, Mass.

Kahler, Erich
1 Evelyn Place
Princeton, New Jersey

Kempner, Walter
1505 Virginia Avenue
Durham, N. C.

Kitzinger, Ernst
Dumbarton Oaks
Washington 7, D.C.

Kristeller, P. 0.
Dept. of Philosophy
Columbia University
New York, N. Y.

Kuttner, Stephan, Dr.
Department of History
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Ladner, Gerhart
Dept. of History
University of California (LA)
Los Angeles, California

Langlotz, Ernst
Lutfridstr. 10
Bonn

L' Orange, H. P.
Dept. of Classics
Oslo University
Oslo, Norway

Mcllwain, Charles H.
c/o Mediaeval Academy
1430 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge 38, Mass.

Mango, Cyril
Univ. of London
London W.C.I, England

Monumenta Germaniae Historica
Meiser Str. 10
Miinchen 2, Germany

Morgenstern, Oscar
152 Westcott Road
Princeton, New Jersey

Neugebauer, Otto
Brown University
Providence 12, Rhode Island

Nordenfalk, Carl
National Museum
Stockholm, Sweden

Odegaard, Charles E., Dr.
President, Univ. of Washington
Seattle 5, Washington

Olschki, Leonardo, Mrs.
1012 Keith Avenue
Berkeley, California

Perry, Adam
Dept. of Classics
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Peters, Vera M. , Mrs.
747 N. American Street
Stockton 3, Calif.

dePalol, Pedro
Seminario de Arqueologia
Universidad
Valladolid, Spain

Partsch, K. J.
Universitat
Jur. Fakultat
Mainz, West Germany

Pfeiffer, Rudolf

Philologisches Seminar der Universitat

Mlinchen, Germany

Placzek, Els, Mrs.

Chalet Phenix

Crans s' Sierre Valais

Switzerland

Plucknett, Theodioe F.

17 Crescent Road

S.W.20

Wimbledon, England

Powicke, Maurice, Sir
Oriel College
Oxford, England

T.

Rich, Norman
Michigan State Univ.
East Lansing, Mich.

Richardson, H. G. , Esq.

The Grange

Goudhurst, Kent, England

Roman i , George T.
Dept. of History
Northwestern Univ.
Evanston, 111.

Rosenthal, Bernard, Inc.
120 E. 85th Street
New York, New York

Rubinstein, Joseph
2039 E. Juanita
Tucson, Ariz.

Salin, Edgar
Philosophische Fakultat
Universitat Basel
Basel, Switzerland

Salz, Beate, Dr.
Dept. of Anthropology
Univ. of Penn.
Philadelphia, Pa.

Sayles, G. 0.
King's College
Aberdeen, Scotland

Schlunk, Helmut

Istituto Arqueol6gico Aleman

Serrano, 159

Madrid, Spain

Schramm, P. E.
Herzberger Landst. 66
Gbttingen, Germany

Sessions, Roger

57 College Road West

Princeton, N. J.

Sevcenko, Ihor
Dumbarton Oaks
1703 32nd St.
Washington 7, D.C

Seyrig, Henri
P.D.B. 1424
Beirut, Lebanon

Solmsen, Friedrich
208 Wait Ave.
Ithaca, N. Y.

Southern, R. W.
Balliol College
Oxford, England

Stickler, P. A. M. , S.D.B.
Pontificia Universita Gregoriana
Piazza della Pilotta, 4
Roma (204), Italy

Steinwenter, Arthur
Goethestr. 50
Graz, Austria

Strayer, Joseph R.
Dept. of History
Princeton Univ.
Princeton, N. J.

I

Thomson, S. Harrison
Dept. of History
Univ. of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado

Syme, Ronald, Sir
Brasenose College
Oxford, England

I

I

Tierney, Brian
Dept. of History
Cornell Univ.
Ithaca, N. Y.

Tillich, Paul

Harvard Divinity School

Cambridge 38, Mass.

Underwood, Paul
Dumbarton Oaks
Washington 7, D.C.

Wangenheim, Lucy, Baroness
90 Banbury Road
Oxford, England

Univ. of London
The Warburg Institute
Woburn Square
London, W.C.I

Weckmann, Luis
General Cano 10
Mexico 18, D.F.

1

White, Lynn T. , Jr.

Dept. of History

Univ. of California

Los Angeles 24, California

Weitzmann, Kurt
30 Nassau St.
Princeton, N.J.

Williams, George H.
Harvard Divinity School
Andover Hall
Cambridge 38, Mass.

Wieruszowski , Helene
Dept. of History
City College of N. Y.
New York, N. Y.

Wind, Edgar
Trinity College
Oxford, England

Woodfill, Walter
51 College Park
Davis, California

Woodward, Llewelyn, Sir
30 Museum Road
Oxford, England

AUiJRESSBi

i

'xy^^

■*». >

^^:(N^'

^4

'1*^

ai

i

Ik

\*i

TEZIUTLAN 7

CDYOACAN,

MEXICO 21. D. F.

^^

Jljj^i i i^^"-^'^

^.

i/

^yj

SJUA"

^

.^

/

'/

':; i< «-

,::^i^cA^4L

Z€

^

}

"JL^

^.

1

1/

lT^<^du^z:f.

C

dUty^

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

/•i^Sy? (-^t^t.

5'^tVcAr OH^sw^-f-^

TELEPHONE.

h

CU^Jid^

^U>rxc\

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

-\

NAME AND ADDRESS

7/

^A. < 1M> '/*<

^.

/Q-

r.

jfeu^K^^cy?- of-

a-M>#c *^<c-*jt_

D

t^ /

r

^

AJL

C,

)'JU*t

/-iJ

\i\

iioUo^ f>^ X^/^ ^^^-pTiA

')\v*s

'EiJj^i^oTUcf )

:?

A44M/

h

/A^\^

M

CC

^z.D ;}pui^i sr.

^ iX.i.4^ /rzicM,

ccic^, (o-L

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

O^i. K'i-S'CS^

i Jiv>\%c'iWu^«UY"'Elft

Ft

^,U.HTltO

Mil ft«UlXfir<(H ij^,

U^_ /xox^UolM , LM.

n

!^1 s- /Vcrj/^ j-f. , A^f^cxf /, ?ra . \^

I

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

h«*S/\<2^ \a)

/^O* ^^\

/"cA V /V<*^t.#c

■»< e N

\

\

^ I

f^^cAiMiL ^-^

^::i^6

tn<i

'^-iicZi

tl

R

t

NAME AND ADDRESS

<-»

« «-•> e.

H

■fOH't -Ib'R ^■-

S<L<3L.<f l<t- » K CK. 1^ oo a( (o (1 ^

NAME AND ADDRESS

H

J 1

/:

i • (cL>i.<L L\>r<^t

G

•<xn

?ec

V-

2. i4x». y ^ i\i. .^ (a /^T I «. t<jtJi ML

^

LC^VO-?/ ''

'i

f?

r

^

-NJ

/^<^ '<>£\t\'^..^i>eJX^f)\/U^/M,

°^

i»'<^cl\^ ft>f~v'au.c-

v<^'

(\

VMATi "^

^

"FW. . i+o^..^^ ftUc M-

•?

AiJL^- L^^'-'^^i Qo^lh-^ i^tx^ft^

^74'2

NAME AND ADDRESS

J±

^-^'(i

ecJt^CK

\

L

1

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

TL/"-yJ /I VC- X

•

1 -V <7 -.

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

1

«

O-'y^h'i^^ f^. ^jiv Jh^i, .

f c i-'^-i^

^0 .

i

1

1

1

1

1

1

, _4

J

1

lI

1

IM

l

i

; 1

I

i

1

i

1

1

1

1

A

■

1

M

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

1 fH iir^

IW

S-L64.

<-l 4

L«,<^'i)'lO

(V

m

NAME AND ADDRESS

(O:

l-T^

V

NAME AND ADDRESS

Z'fOf (4><!'(tL/-t /g. c

A c

A-A._

i~

-i u

Zl-bOh'UA-

C^^ ^, )

V(L

l<

aA-M

(?L

!^aj*:

*♦ r>f

4 »]

^

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

-V:i

NAME AND ADDRESS

U

'JL

|^^.

■■■I ' » 1

■— r

' «>

^

P O. BOX 1673
CARMEL. CALIFORNfA

NAME AND ADDRESS

"''^, MT^

^^^^ --^ r t§r<*^»iY ■ / ^ / - xf^^iMi 'Qku^af ^ Ji, £( ,

^-0-U.4_CA

A^

iL^«E«_< Y 1 I ^

M

i>.

X.

^

g^-^^ C ^V < w^ .

7^3 ^-.

Z.

/j r-z^c> 4 V .^^J

r^

^ <"/' r

r t f f\ y V. <i

^7 ?S g>

,^^/ \
i^__

L , 2/e ^ait^

.?^^^gL_ A*^/.

PO-T'^ufc , *<it^ l^y^s.

^»/rA //-.-.rV,- ?.-'.'-'-Ct,

^

/SAP

L

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDNESb

-i'^^^U-^

?.I^4t». <^^. fvq , NLcvi^^_ UL.

^

l^\a >r K S <^}-<-v-<^^'^

±^i% OUv^a^a^ UclkUc^^^ , A/^^i

5f

^i^ 2.'?^ 1^

Aie,L

f

/^

;r

ff uL4^«^cU.CA-<

^><>^-?MiwUk.<ju .4-^^€^

/

^ ■■ u Uiit:,

o' 'f r ^

J'

^-2772:

r

Vj^^^<u74ik^4^_/^11^^ 5^^

NAME AND ADDRESS

/V

NAME AND ADDRESS

/7i

TELEPHONE

oc2c , /^,y

K- ^/ ^Uoi- ^o^ku. ^ Ccu..S^. 12

M

^^JUuum

^

/ru- .<? - fiSV

kJ

iPku^ULJ/LX-

^^

<LK

-♦^^--^^A jOH^-A-w»„

^AaJUci/>^^

/6^2^ - 29/^/^./^^/ ^^-/^/y-^iT^

^

N

t

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

rt|

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

eU-

1;

c-/a

^H)cK Hy<<.

Ihl K

'f-^*' CA 4 c

en.

S^ ^

^*

l-\'5cr

U,

0/ ^

X2

V/ "^ -^^ff/

R!

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

y y ■ ^t>£v«jjtA O ^<-o-.t r<

J

'^

-^^^ >ro c n ^ hr. /7 ^ ^ ff^UMu^xHJi ^Si/<'{

D(^ /-i^.

L^^<^{ 6i

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

c^. Jf. ^^^^-^

SCHAFER WILLIAMS. Ph.D.

R. F. D. No. I

SOUTH SHAFT8BURY. VERMONT. U. S. A.

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

/W

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

i».

t

NAME AND ADDRESS

I'fU

r /f

TELEPHONE

./

^±AR.

li>\0 La. U<^

Mo-u^k^

Ub - lS-Htf.Qa^r^..^J

/ kAiJUb^JL.

I t\ Cl ( k C '^,

,, ')*^'-<--

'il'^ol < J . A

V^

^A JJ^Ua.*,^ f-t>-<4

^^^u.^ ^OTS^

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

NAME AND ADDRESS

V^lLcx^

f

i Voum /

^

<'iA,i-^S'Z2

I

O "T

n

^1

*T

NAME AND ADDRESS

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

'55

WARTA ZUELZER

geb WOLLMAN

(fruher Potsdam)

ERNA STERN

"• Colorado

NAME AND ADDRESS

r

f

NAME AND ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

r ^

^ 7'iHr

'

1

1

\

i

.?'.#,

■^ M^F****"" : -^ •■ ■"~' ^Js:» v.^t,^' ■-

NAME AND ADDRESS

(^'^

Kl

.ci^(fcjt» ■"' "

loccc CU.PCU

^f, / /"iv -• ■'

n

M

^

^^je, ^r-

^^d!^

\ \0t tclo^

u;.

■->(!. /^.> <iA4.<XM.

J

U?/!

u.

> '>

?.3

'R^^«

f^j c^-'^-'^^c^-<X- . /^^

C -i

V. I

! (

^

4-

^

V I

'1

GEORGE LEE HASKIN8

ROUTE 4

WE8T CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA

\ < rj\G i-

/h

^■^v\s.Y \la^\A Jor2?u/ic? Co[[eC-l>rAA

/V

fji'U -^ leSte''^'^' ' L.L^.^i5&3

14

I, ERNST fl. KANTOROWICZ, residing an i domiciled at
No. 22 Alexander Streei, in tiie Borough of Princeton, in ihe County cf
Merce-r and State of New lersey, do hereby make, publish and d-clare

W

a I l(r

hv tv\ '

►rher

i

I

, 1

I

and Qxiicils heretofore made by me.

KIKS'I: It 16 m> o< siv

r.'

'*■ i.rcinatit;U within leii ho irs

of my death or as soon thereafter as may be possible and lawiul. I do
not wish to have any kind of funeral. If, however, the phybicians of the
Princeton Medical Group, Ltd., desire a post-nrvortem examiaition of
my entire body, they are hereby given my pei mission to do so. I direct
my Executor to send my ashes to my niece, DR. BEA^rE R. SALZ.

SECOND: I direct my Executor herein named to pay all my
just debts and cremation expenses as soon after my decease as may be

practicable.

THIRD: 1 give aiid bequeath to my housekeeper, MRS.
LAURA GABLE, of R.D. 1 - Box 360, Princeton, Now jersey (Monmouth
Junction), the sum of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) for the ser-
vices she has rendered to me during the last twelve years. This sum is
to be paid from such cash as 1 shall have in my possession at the time of
my death, including deposits in bank accounts both in this aiuntry and
out of this country. In the event tliert is insufficient cash u> pay chiu
legacy, thr^ amount of this legacv shall cun«ist ? ^ fv . ril

able cash, a^ a' i. i cK> ikh w^ni rr.ei a » u lit ruu lu pay

this legacy.

! »'

FOURTH: Subject to th.* pro/isions of this Article, I
give and bequeath one-half of all of the decuruies owned by nrse at the
time of my death to my cousin, VERA M (MRS. ERNEST J. ) PETERS,
of 747 North American Street, Stockton, California, and the other half
of my said shares of securities to the issue of my late sister, HIE

(MRS. ARTlft.JR) SALZ, me surviving, in e^jual s^iare^, jgei stirptrs and

not per capita. In the event that my residuary estate, disposed of in
and by Article ELEVENTH, below, should contain insufficient readily
saleable property to bring enough cash to discharge all of my debts,
funeral and administration expenses and inheritance, death and succession
taxes, my Executor, hereinafter named, sUall be empowered ro sell suf-
ficient shares of my said securities to bring in such additional cash as
may l^ lequired for the aforesaid purposes and to use ttx' proceeds of
the sale of said part of my said securities as a part of my residuary es-
tate for the aforesaid purposes and only tlie remaining balance of my said
securities shall then become the subject of the bequest made by this
Article FOURTH.

FIFTH: I give and bequeath such of my books as may
be determined to be useful to the Institute for Advanced Study, as here-
inafter provided, to the Institute. Such books as shall be determined
to be not useful to the Institute, shall be sold through Bernard M.
Rosenthal, Inc., of 120 East Eijjhty-fifth Street^ New York, New York,
and the net proceeds of such sale shall become a part of my residuary
estate. The determination of wliich books shall be of use to the Institute
shall be made by the Librarian of the Institute, Dr. Judith Sachs, or her

-2-

¥

i!

l\

i

I

1

ftUCw

:esaor, Prolessor Harold Chemiss of the Institute, and any other

member o' the faculty of the Institute, such other mennber to be chosen
by Dr. Sachs or her successor and Professor Cherniss. If for any

OiemlM i9 uxukbke or is unwilling to act in this capa-
'^^ttttrvr ritwH ^ff^^ one other nr>ember of the

^^9 i^* >"^ •''* ^^

fucultv of Che 1

m met In his *umsL

SIXTH: 1 give and bequeath my Rodin water-color to

my said cousin. VERA M. PETERS.

SEVENTH: I give and bequeath my Greek vases to the Insti-
tute for Advanced Study. If the Institute is unwilling U) accept them, I
give and bequeath them to the persons mentioned in Article NINTH of
this Will on the same terms as set forth in Article NINTH.

EIGHTH: I give and bequeath all of my rable silverware
and all of my silver c*«ndle slicks to my said niece, DR. BEAIE R. SALZ.

WNTH: 1 give and bequeath all the rest of my furniture
and household effects, and my works of art not o herwite bequeathed to
my former students and assistants, DR. MICHAEL CHERNlAVSKY of
The University of Qiicago, Chicago, Illinois, and DR. RALPH E. GIESEY
of -^he University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, who are to
divide the same among themselves and take whatever they \Tant. If,
however, any dispute arises out of this distribution, of any nature what-
ever, it shall be settled conclusively and without further recourse by my
Executor. U bome of my said furniture, household effects and works of
art are not wanted by these, my former students and assistants, the same
Bh*ll be ri.jld ana the net proceeds of the sale shfell bticome a part of my

-3-

r

j| residu-iry estate.

TENTH:

I give and bequeath any automobile or auto-

I

4

I

;

I

i

!

(

:

nu)bHeii'th«» 1 may own at the tinie of my death, to the said DR.

%muki'- ^jwwtujiwy

\*

.EVENTH: i gtve, <ieviae aid lM|Meirtif^ all tbt rest and
rmnaiiider of my property, both real and personal, of whatever nature
and wheresoever situated, of which I may die seized or possessed, or

I to which 1 may be in any way entitled at the time of my death, together

with all pro|p(wrty over vhich I may have any power of appointment or
other di«rritxition by Will (all comprising my residuary estate), to the
iMwe uf my late sister, SOPHIE SALZ, me surviving, in equal shares,
per 8tirpe« and not per capita.

TWWjnrH: I direct my Executor to collect all of my
letters and corresfjondence and burn them.

THIRTEENTH; 1 direct my Executor to collect all of my
ui^publiahed articles and essays, my fioces and my lecture notebooks. If
euiier of my forrner student* and asaisi^&ts, the said DR. MICHAEL
CHE»MAVatY0t OtL. RALPf^ K. GIESEY, wish to use these papers
in coiMiqlan wMtliltMr4r WMrt^ iben I give and bequeath these papers to
them. If any Attfmm mmm <w« «f Ms distribution, of any nature what-
ever, H shall te wmmt^ fmm. »4M*»i>ly and wichou: further recourse by

kny Exccuioi . It is my express direction to my Executor, however, and
^ Wve evty^i any of Hf|«r pmg^ti^ are itiairlbuiea m accordance with tms

-4-

\

•

f

Article, I hereby make it an express condition of this distribution, that
none of these papers be published posthumously. In the event neither
of my former students and assistancs take any oi these papers, i direct

POUltTMNTii: ki najf cane in whsldi, utt^^r iIk' provisions
hereof^ any bequest or devise is dependent upon the Icgawe or devisee

I

I

thereof surviving me, if such legatee or devisee and I die under auch
circumstances that it shall not be possible in the opinion of my Executor ,
after investigation deemed by him to be reasonable, to deter mine whether
such legatee or devisee or I died first, it shall be presumed that siich

legatee or devisee did iK>t survive me and my estate, or such portion
thereof as shall be affected, shall be disposed of in accordajKe with the
provisions hereof governing in rtie case of the failure of buc^ legati^e or

deviaae to survive me.

FIFTEENTH:

I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PRINCETON, of Princeton, New Jersey,
as Executor of this my Last Will and Testament and I direct that it shall
not be required to file any bond or otfier »icurity for the faithful perform-
ance of its duties as Executor hereof in any JurisdictioD whatever.

SIXTEENTH: My Execator hereinbefore named shall

have the following pciwers and authority d a di.scretionary nature:

(a) To retain any share of my estate or any inccmie which
becomes payable co a minor until siich minor wttaias the age of twenty-one

Hi'

-5-

I

years or sooner dies, with all the powers of investment and management
hereinafter in this paragraph granted to him, and subject to the provisions
of Article SEVENTEENTH, and to collect the income therefrom and to
pif OMT m «i9lr ^ ^ ^^ #^^ ^ ^^^^ income therefrom as he may
(ieeni nMeMary ot marH^Jam^ mm tmcftm uk, Mpport, nMlmenince
a«f mtmmmn «< mmh oMMBf wmm by fmymem mnctif to radi minor
or to his or her parent or guardian or to the person with whom he or she
may reside, or by payment directly for goods and services furnished to
•uch minor. The receipt of any person to whom such payment is made
ehall be deemed full and aurficlem acquittance therefor.

0) To retain any part or all of my estate in the form in
frtllch 1 leave it even though not In the form of investments allowed under
the laws of any )uriadiction far an exe<;utor.

(c) To divide or distribure my estate in cash or in kind
or partly in cash or partly in kind with power for that purpose to deter-
mine the values of such property,

(d) To sell, nx>rtgege, divide, exchange, lease and other-
wise manage and dispose of at public or private sale all property both
real and personal, without the application to any court.

ifi) To Invest any and all of the property and funds of my
settle in any real or personal property including, but not being limited
to, investments and securities o* any class including common stocks. It
is not my intention to limit my estate tc investments classified as legal
Jor executors In any jurisdiction.

-6-

*

►

(0 Tc

all VDiing a;id ollur nghis m cDaicci

M

in ail sccuiiiicr, ci:ia inv...'>wM.wu. .ii my cstaf.^ inr^riin.T rh^ rtghi:

n> to vote in ixn^jon or b. proxy, (2) to dck. discreaonary powers.

(A) lo I'jjn M

»• K)*l L

tive c:ommir^''<' .v>l makf 'inv

p.ivi'n<nprR ip ron'vrtinn rhoTPWirn, (4) i<^ ..ii«»-nr to rlu- r eoi H«*iii/-aLion ,
' ii .anon, fer^c*' » Jibs;nuMou u. a i i^;uraiion 't^'^ '"'^ 'o :*x-

-U ' ->.

I! arni Hjrcliase stock rights and to make any and a'l payments

in connecnon rhorewirh.

(g) To settle, compromise and adjust any and all claims

by or against me or my es'ae,

fli) To N)rrow frn^n anv source, including itself, such sum
or sums of money as is necessary or pro^x^r for the aovanrageous seiiic -

titciu and adrnmisrration of my estate.

(i) To cause any and all securities to t>,^ registered in bv.

ii.i lie ot a nominee or nominees.

(j) To deteniiine what expenses are to tx. piid out (;l

mco:ne aiui pruicipal respectively.

M To set aside or not set aside income to amortize any
pr. mi am over the par value of any security received or ptrchased.

SEVENTEFN^^H: The followinjj administranve aid inter-
pretive provisions shall govern the administration of Jiiy ( state and H^e
c> d'X-t of tny sa* ' Pxcr^^'nr hf^reunder.

Person aiing with my said txecutor snail ivn !>• obligated

\

-7-

u

i t

cation of any moneys pa d to hinv

IN WITNESS WUhKtA)!', I, .tiL^tiu ic-^iauvr, I N \'^T fJ
KANTOROWICZ, have hfreunm "f-f niv hiiid f.nd s>;al this ^L'
,)f Nov r, in the y;:-ar of our Lord, »> (K.jwa... in. . hundrt-d j

xtv-<wo.

_<^>-u-^//V»-

L><_

ifr^r rf^-/-f t ^

LJTrr

Siiined, Sv^aled, Publistied and
neclarcd by HRNST Fi. KAKVOROWICZ,
V above-nan^ed Testator, to he his
I .ist Will aiKi Testanriem, in the presence
oi js, wtK/ in his presence and in the pre-
sence of each other, have h^^reunto sub-^
scribed our names as Witnesses this /j£/t
day of iNtr/ember, 1^2.

L.:icdk<J:.<^^- ^2r_U^,L<.^ 4^^

J

-V-

u.

/

r'_^j>

.^Lu^LL^Ll^

-8-

yi^j2L-i^i^/:^-/^'

^

._^j^^^K^^^-^-^^C^^L^ jLl:--.-

X»<d. ^ ' i'- - <^ - -^- _i:,^l

y \^^<1C.^~J>^^ , V/

^

4.

f)^ -1^

XD

1

m

K yr.^-^ \(Bi(.'"-rojoia. ColiecWcvx

i. Q

f I

// V

V\ao^O^

QsiN'\xOHO

( -^

,'\D

^ ?^3f ^'ov

ly/^s

r

3S5^

(I

-^

f.'^S

e

u

'6x)

^

r^^.

•r

/I

/

V:

i;^

l/\

^.

3 1^^

^tyS

&iA '4

<5>*^«-* /• >^ '^a-*4, 4rr<V»

&

1

Q^j^^tli 5fi-

r

I I

<i<-*^'-^^v6k<^

<rf^

7/^^m4k)

/?^ 7.a/(p

^

I

f<^

I I

<i

^td h^ c^^^/5

•

tt. $^^^

>

-i-.-.f-

--5

TjlT-

"K <»L c f i^X- -

7a .^ J-, /5'i-<:r

^'

/'

/

(S

\A

^^^^"^ P^L^J^

«U^

^

'UL,^^.

1 /

^

>

/

\

I I

/

^— -

/

m ^'^^G A

fo

F Ki/i ^^ USc) \A\cr<7)jr cz <^^^'^r Un^

c

V^/^

'^^P

c g\f\ \L^\a\0YO1a/i,C\

d

i3

*

"- Cc. ^US

V,.

The Scholar and the Loyalty Oath

H\ (,riivof Suit's Jr.

XT was vtl:^^ lu u\oilook tlic
-* scant obituary on the Ijack
pages with the misspelled
heading: 'Professor Cntor-
ovvicz Dies at 68."

Those who carefully icad
the coUimn witli the pas-
sionate hope that the late
'Ernest H. Catorowicz"
would prove to be someone
else a'.togelhei", were stunned
to learn this was indeed the
death notice of FCrnst llart-
wig Kantorowicz ~ the great
medieval historian, writer,
lecturer, a profound
-^e on more than one
■■,iu.i^ of scholars, and a
.'ure in the most
' and destvuctivr
ever to
the lareest unixersitv in

to a

f 0-(!n

eii

ired.

well-

milv in

Pos-

Kan-

iced

Kan-

el

;i'i
lier-

n the

I

■■**

tiadition of ihe European
gentleman - scholar, he ac-
quired a classi'2a) education:
!.atin and Greek amc
a dozen other languages, uis-
tory, poetry • ' and thi ^ •
manities.

Followiiii^
when he was -.cm..
Turkey as a c^'v--Tr\- rifn,,,-

he obtained h
Tnivcrsity of J

From 1927 to i!
wicz wrote his; mom, il

two-volume hi
ich the St
German Kais
'"entuiy. A fusion
and creative res^arcii

clarity of thought and
superb n a r r a t i \' e st;
"Friedrich de Zweite" won
immediate recognitioi
'^^mic circles as o
iiic outstanding histories oxci
^^•ritten.

When the Aazi
wei". books b; u-.-ii

■ ic:: were lemovcu .om '■
m-i c nnd withdrawn ^■-

Forced 'i^-

!^^ came to the
. California at Bei
!'>\ ill 1939 as a lecturer: in
1945 he was appointed pro-
fessor of medieval history.
The title was misle;

in actualitv. Kantoro-

..^

?^l

\

wicz became a one-man hu-
manities department for a
cotei'ie of biilliant poets,
writers. linguists, econo-
mi.<-ts. artists and law stu-
dents who crowded the tiny
cla.isroom to audit his in-
( ( iible courses in the 13th
^' •'•••y. the Renaissance
i{;nrriich Constitutional
History.

minutes befoi'e class
V an acolyte graduate

le

would be
!.i. wilting

at the

a dozen

•mes and phrases

in the lecture,

students would

J y be hearing foi"

ime — but certainly

last: Ivo of Char-

^ ^^ e r t Grosseteste,

.,..., fault-

J, Kantorowicz

into the classroom

tangible aura of

A'citement and

ii an approv-

d smile towards

ard, he took I?is

a bare table' and

" c 28

• I

SHETLAND

;.», EATER

.V

W

Page 27

PARTY FAVORS • TOYS • GAMES
DOLLS • CHINA AlTD GLASSWARE
NOVELTY ITEMS rOR CARNIVALS
BAZAARS AND ORGANIZATIONS •

This Week's Special at

KG

/

ci-

he>

yc

fo

d.

or

c

nii left

■i,

i?»

$

« V

Jt-lt':<:'. ..,'.. .i:.MjjJ.'.Jt^LMi:

TZ^Kf^KU

INTENTIONAL SBC30ND EXPOSURE

Pagfe 28

W

SALE!

WeVe slashing prices on practically every
marble table in stock— hundreds to choose
ifrom— you'll be amazed at the

LOW, LOW PBICKS

\\'c lionor vour ''

■»■

BANKAMERICARD

MARBLE

TABLES!

* You Can Buy Labor but . . .'

tj^'f

Continued from Page 27

withdrew from his pocket a
completely typed lecture,
each one a shimmering liter-
ary masterpiece, the result
of untold hours of meticulous
research and editing.

His compelling face aglow
with the passion of history,
he delivered these lectures
in a curious sing-song Tal-
mudic chant, the effect of
which seemed invariably
hypnotic.

NOTHING was alien to tliis
agile mind, roaming
freely over the centuries, as
it unfolded the drama of
man: his laws and govern-
ments, his religion, his art,
music, poetry, his money
and his language.

On the first day of class,
one could observe the stupe-
faction of those who had
blundered into the course be-
cause "The Renaissance"
seemed inviting in the Uni-
versity catalogue, as Kanto-
rowicz discoursed on Cicero,
Dante and Petrarch. A
skilled dramatist, he ended
the hour on a climactic note,
preparing the student for the
wonderment of the lecture to

come.

His rare departures from
the prepared notes became
celebrated: Tn the Middle
Ages, people were concerned
with the Immaculate Concep-
tion, whereas today, ix^ople
are concerned with the im-
maculate non-conception."

mmmi^

PROFESSOR KANTOROWICZ

the Law School's Max Radin,
musicologist Manfred Bukof-
zer and linguist Leonardo 01-
schki.

There were fishing tiips in
the High Sierra and the food,
wine and climate of the Bay
Area that he had grown to
love. Often he confided to
friends, with obvious relief,
that his house on Euclid ave-
nue would be his last — 'I'll
never have to move again."

He could not foresee that,
once again, he would be
forced into political exile.

T\ March, 1949, when the na-
■*- tional hysteria over * 'loy-
alty" was reaching fetishi.s-
tic propoitlons, the Regents
of the University of Califor-
nia passed a resolution re-
(|uiring all faculty members
to sign a special oath, dis-

Sce Vage 29

\

t'

r

MARBLE

■^

TABLES!

Round marble

COCKTAIL TABLE

on Antique

Vi'hite & Gold

pedestal.

BRANCUSl

586 Washington St., San Francisco, '" 1-3546
Mon. thru Fri., 9:30-6. Closed ^^tjrdays

textured Mccmt for tuny item . .

DRAMATIC
GRASSCLOTH WALLPAPER

Elegant imported GniMCloth Wftli-
paper adds warxntfa to any room m
your home or office Handwc'cn and
v.;i dyed in 25 distinctive textures and
tones Applies as easily as ordinary
wallpaper.

UmMmd Off«r

5.95

Per roil, incl. tax

(FOB San frmn

ciaco Warehouse)

AvaHable in 2-roll units
()'ft24 •nly)

5ame quality GraasQotb usually rcUs
for $9.00 and up per roll Eacb VtlT
Send 2Bc Cash for 25 SempU roll coven 36 square feet. 6 roUs us«-
SwaicKei end order fomn ally cover oske wall <rf dinmg room,

den or b«^room, waiting room or office.

GRASSCLOTH
UNLIMITED

»M MISSION ST.
SAN FRANCISCO I

DEFT. CH »-5

CALiFOKNIA

TIte Chronicle is FIRST

in daily circulation
in Northern California

NOTHING was alien to this
nd. roaming
froely ./vci luc- centuries, as
it unfolded the drama of
man: his lav- p^^^^ rrAvern-

nicnts, his n..- ^ art,

music, poetry, his money
and his language.

On the first day of class,
one could observe the stupe-
faction of those who had
blundered into the course be-
cause *'The Renaissance"
seemed inviting in the Uni-
versity catalogue, as Kanto-
rowicz discoursed on Cicero.
Dante and Petrarch. A
skilled dramatist, he ended
the hour on a climactic note,
preparing the student for the
wonderment of the lecture to
come.

His rare departures from
the prepared notes became
celebrated: "In the Middle
Ages, people ^^ere concerned
with the Immaculate Concep-
tion, whereas today, people
are concerned with the im-
maculate non-conception."

MacArthur's triumphal re-
turn to San Francisco brought
the comment: ''Did you see
that remarkable picture of
the General in The Chronicle
this morning'' With that won-
derful gaze fixed upon infin-
ity — which is fully three
feet away?"

An accomplished cook, he
hosted a series of gourmet
dinners for his students, giv-
ing them an appreciation of
dining and European wines,
which he could identify blind-
folded. His exquisite carving,
accompanied by an intricate
and witty historical mono-
logue, would have done cred-
it to the grand chef of the
Palace.

A friend, who once watched
him packing for a trip, no-
ticed a can of truffles slipped
in among the shirts. 'Eka,
are those truffles a present
for a friend?'' *'0h no.*" was
the off-hand reply: *'I never
travel without truffles.'"

The graduate seminar in
medieval studies was his
Platonic Academy. Here, sur-
rounded by devoted and to-
tally dedicated scholars, the
research was done that led
to the pubh cation in 1957 of
'The Kmg's Two Bodies: A
Study in Medieval Political
Theology.''

In Berkeley . Kantorowicz
gave every appearance of
the contented teacher and re-
search specialist. The great
University Library provided
him with documents vital to
his field. He had his gifted
students and a circle of
faculty iiiends that included

PROFESSOR KANTOROWICZ

the Law School's Max Radin.
musicologist Manfred Bukof-
zer and linguist Leonardo 01-
schki.

There were fishing trips in
the High Sierra and the food,
wine and climate of the Bay
Area that he had grown to
love. Often he confided to
friends, with obvious relief,
that his house on Euclid ave-
nue would be his last — '"Fll
never have to move again."

He could not foresee that,
once again, he would be
forced into political exile.

TN March. 1949, when the na-
-*- tional hysteria over * 'loy-
alty"* was reaching fetishis-
tic proportions, the Regents
of the University of Califor-
nia passed a resolution re-
quiring all faculty members
to sign a special oath, dis-

Sce Page 29

r

Chronicle

WANT ADS

REACH MORE READERS THAN
ANY OTHER DAILY WANT ADS

PHONE TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO
GA Mill

MARIN
GL 4-6331

PENINSULA
LY 3-1654
EM 6-5751
RE 9-3212
JU 9-8080

PERSON TO PERSON
ONE LINE • ONE WEEK • TWO DOLLARS

East Bay-HI 4-1414

Marin County— GL 4-6333

Peninsula--Ly 3-7654

i^

i*

\.. Not the Scholarly . . /

Lutiiinucu from Page 28

rupting University lite to such
an extent that, fourteen
years later, it is doubtful if
the Berkeley campus has yet
recovered.

Lifelong faculty iriends no
longer spoke; seminars and
classes were constantly inter-
rupted by meetings, cau-
cases and cabals, and an at-
mosphere of suspicion and
subterfuge was all-pervading.

The faculty of a proud and
venerable institution seemed
helplessly manipulated by a
master strategist among the
Regents — a cagey corpora-
tion la\^ yer named John
Francis Neylan, emphasizing
the dictum of C. Wright Mills
that "the American univer-
sity system seldom provides
political training — that is,
how to gauge what is going
on in the general struggle for
power in modern society."

Social scientists have had
little or no real contact with
such insurgent sections of
the community as exist . . .
This vacuum means that the
American scholar's situation
allows him ... to become a
political tool without any
shift of political ideology and
with little political guilt."

During this long and cor-
rosive struggle, faculty and
students naturally sought
leadership among the promi-
nent liberals in the Academic
Senate, but many of the
liberals signed the "loyalty"
oath without protest, remain-
ing curiously silent through-
out the controversy.

There was little in the
background or temperament
of Ernest Kantorowicz to sug-
gest him as a leader of the
anti-oath faction: '1 am gen-
uinely conservative," he
wrote, "and never have been
taken for anxthing else."
Long had he been the despair
of his left-wing students and
admij-ers who lamented: i
simply cannot understand

Eka — this incredible mind
-- utterly divorced from the
political realities of our
time."

To University President
Robert Gordon Sproul he
wrote, *i have twice volun-
teered to fight actively, with
rifle and gun, the left-wing
radicals in Germany; but 1
know also that by joining the

white battalions 1 have pre-
pared, if indirectly and
against my intention, the
road leading to National-So-
cialism."

From first to last, Kantoro-
wicz's opposition to the oath
was unequivocal. For the
anti-oath faulty headed by
Professor August Tolman, he
was to outline the historical
and philosophical basis for
the refusal to sign, and to
frame the definitive answer
to the recurrent question:
"If you're not a Communist,
why won't your sign the
oath?"

At a meeting of the Aca-
demic Senate on June 14,
1949, Kantorowicz warned his
colleagues:

'"Both history mid expe-
rience har>e taught us that
every oath or oath formula,
once introduced or enforced,
has the tendency to develop
its own autonomous life. At
the time of its introduction,
an oath formula may appear
harmless, as harmless as the
one proposed by the Regents
of this University. . . . All
oaths in history that I know
of, have undergone changes.
A new word will be added. A

short phrase, secmmgly in
sigyiif leant, will be smuggled
in. The next step may be
an inconspicuous change in
the tense, from present to
past or from past to future.
"The consequences of n
new oath are unpredictable.
It will not be in the hayids of
those imposing the oath to
control its effects, nor of
those taking ?t ever to step
back again."'

TT was exactly as ne had
-'' predicted. One week later,
the Regents passed an even
more stringent oath require-
ment, and in May 1950 the
oath was attached to a "con-
tractual equivalent' that had
even more alarming conse-
quences. Long experienced in
evaluating documents, Kan-
torowicz seized upon a star-
tling fact that other proies-
?^ors had overlooked: The
ru'wly worded oath, while
odious, was merely a smoke-
screen for an assault on the
foundations of academic ten-
ure — the traditional right of
a professor, once he had
demonstrated h i s compe-
tence and character, to hold
his job unless proven unfit

Until May 1950, faculty
members with tenure re-
ceived an annual salary ac-
ceptance form reading:
"Your salary for the year
ending June 30. 1950 as Pro-
fessor of \^ as fixed

at $ " The new form,

containing the "anti-Commu-
nist " statement read. This
is to notify you that you have
been appointed Professor of

for the period of

July 1, 1950 to June 30. 1951
with a salary at the rate of

$ per annum."

Nor was this all. for follow-
ing the 'oath' was the
clause, "I understand that
the foregoing statement is a
condition of my employment
(!) and a consideration of pay-
ment of my salary."

See Page 30

^^IM^t

r^ ^ r ^ ^ r^ k.*'l

/

ai:^'»

t

^

i^

IAS

ER with

Classics

HE HILLS OF

>AN FRANCISCO The sfory of

>an Francisco — from >\^e days of the
• panlsh explorers, through Gold Rush
lays, to the present — told In ternns
'f its spectacular hills. Handsomely
llustrated, including a color map,
■oreword by Herb Caen.

'the city a book for all those
vho love San Francisco. A brilliant
ribute in few words and many photo-
|raphs to the dramatic, cosmopoli-
an, romantic city by the Bay. With
I foreword by The Chronicle's peri-
)atetic Stanton Delaplane.

The ideal gift for the sportsman!

inting and fishing in California. The

find useful tips on technique and

fishing grounds. Illustrated by Wil-

OUPON TO ORDER COPIES
SICS DIRECTLY FROM THE
tOUGH YOUR FAVORITE

'der) including 4% Sales Tax

^ .. Conscience^

'

Continued from Page 29

To warn the faculty that
they were about to sign, not
only an unpleasant docu-
ment, but also a waiver to
their claims to tenure, and
"had been taken in by a
skillfully managed confi-
dence trick," Kantorowicz
wrote, published and circu-
lated a remarkable 40-page
pamphlet titled The Funda-
mental Issue," whose cover
also bore the inscription
FIAT LlfX (motto of the T^ni-
versity of California).

''Where tenure is violated,
academic freedom goes. If a
professor is not sure of his
permanent tenure, if he has
to fear dismissal for unortho-
dox opinions or nonconform-
ity, he loses Jus freedom of
action and speech. The same
is true with regard to the
judge who loses his conscien-
tious freedom and freedojn
of prejudice if his judgment
was impaired by the fear of
losing his job."

In answer to Regent Sidney
Ehrman, who argued that
professors, like janitors, are
employees of the Regents,
and therefore have no 'vest-
ed rights to the position." he
replied

'Why is it so absurd to vis-
ualize the Supreme Court Jus-
tices picketing their court,
bishops picketing their
churches and prof essors pick-
eting their university? The
answer is very simple: Be-
cause the iiirines ARE the
court, the ? e?s together

a I

t I,

the faith fid ARE the
church, and the professors
together with the students
ARE the university . . . they
are those institutions them-
selves, and therefore have
prerogative rights to and
w ithin their institutions
which ushers, sextons and
beadles aiid jn}iifnr<i w.. r»,',f
have.

''And here, tfiere emerges
yet another difference be-
tween janitor and professor:
You can buy labor, but you
cannot buy Passion and Love,
nor the Scholarly Conscience.
For once there is something
that is not marketable

For refusing to sign the
loyalty" oath. Kantorowicz,
in 1950, was "fired" with 21
other faculty members of
the I'niversity of California.
At the behest of J. Robert
Oppenheimer, he was ap-
pointed to the Princeton In-
stitute for Advanced Studv,

where iie pubiis! I

taught until his i

September 8 of thi^ y.ai.

According to his obituai>,
"he was employed at the
University of California at
Berkeley from 1939 to 1950."
an ironic turn of phrase he
would have appreciated.

"There are three profes-
sions,'' Kantorowicz once re
minded his students and col-
leagues, "which are entitled
to ivear the gown: the judge
the priest and the scholar
This garment stands for its
bearer's maturity of mind, his
independence of judgment,
and his direct responsibility
to his conscience and his God.

''It signifies the inner sov-
ereignty of those three inter-
related professions: they
should be the very last to
allow themselves to act un-
der duress and yield to pres-

T,,

U X', CI

*

^t na^G "^l^Lj

evv}S\ UsVi^'orcTUACl. CcfV\er^,(7w

^ Q9/II

iippn.M

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

WASHINGTON SQUARE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
WASHINGTON SQUARE, NEW YORK 3, N.Y.

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

TELEPHONE: SPRING 7-2000

December 11, 19^0

Prefer^ sor Ernst H. KantoroY^icz
11421 Euclid Avenue
Berkeley 8, California

Dear Professor Kantoro-wicz :

Thank you for a copy of your pamphlet, "The Fundarrental Issue",
which you sent me v/lth your compliments. It makes ver;',' interesting
reading and explains some aspects of the controversy I was not familiar
wi-th.

As you may know from my writings, I re^rard as the main issue in
the controversy, the nature and degree of control of the University
to be exercised by the Faculty. If I understand you, this is your
position also.

However, there is another line of argument in your pamphlet that
seems to me to weaken the force of the main argument. This is your
insistence that the loyalty oath per se is incompatible vd-th academic
freedom. If this is true, then those who refused to take the oath on
that ground should have, in all consistency, refused also to take the
oath to uphold the national and state constitutions. Indeed, one argu-
ment I heard often used against the special oath was its superfluity,
since it was a specific application of what was generically implied in
the oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions. There is no
getting around the fact that these constitutions are political documents
and that subscription to them is a political test — and because of the
multiplicity of the provisions they contain — a more comprehensive
political test than a special loyalty oath.

My own point of view is that all oaths, including those to uphold
the constitution, are uiinecessar;^^ in educational institutions. They
never achieve the purpose for which they are intended and therefore
are foolish in the educational field.

The decisive point, however, is that such oaths involve the vio-
lation of academic freedom only when they require an individual to
subscribe to something he does not believe in. For example, if I were
a convinced Platonist in political theory I could not consciously take
an oath to uphold a democratic constitution. But since I am a democrat
I can take this oath without violating my beliefs although I am convinced
that the oath is unnecessary. However, I would never take an oath to

M

Professor Ernst H. Kantorowicz

-2-

Deceraber 11, 1950

uphold the constitution of a non-democratic coiintry. Lumping the tifo
together seens to me to blur the main emphasis on the autonomy of the
educational enterprise. It is enough to say that one refuses to take
the oath because it has been imposed by the Regents against the wishes
of the Faculty and that such actions of the Regents, whether in respect
to an oath or amrthing else, is a violation of the conditions of aca-
demic freedom. But if the Faculty itself were to be so foolish as to
require an oath of its own members which did not involve a violation of
their beliefs, this would not be per se a breach of academic freedom.

Further, in contradistinction to your A.ppendix F, I believe that
the legality or illegality of a political party has nothing to do m th
the question of academic freedom. Any man who has been certified as
competent by his peers and who has professional integrity — no matter
what his beliefs: Communist, Fascist, Platonist, Seventh Day Adventist,
etc., etc. — should be permitted to teach. But if an individual is a
member of any group, legal or not, which acts on official instructions
to "take advantage of his position in the classroom" to indoctrinate for
a party line, to capture control of departments, rewrite texts according
to instructions received from an outside source, etc., he is professionally
unfit to be a member of the academic community. His present and active
membership in such a group, no matter what group, is an action which
clearly declares his intent to violate the elementary duties of the
scholar and teacher. This declaration of intention is prima facie
evidence of unfitness.

There is much more that one can say, but this is sufficient to
indicate what my position is and why I think that the fundamental issue
in the outrage of the Rerents of the University of California against
its faculty becomes obscured if any oath per se is regarded as a
violation of academic freedom.

Yours very truly.

Sidney Hook

Chairman

Department of Philosophy

P. S. I am enclosing for your own interest and information a carbon
copy of a letter of mine replying to some criticisms of my
writing received from Mr. John Francis Neylan.

SH:AK

Peceaber 6, 19?0

Mr. John Francis Nay Ian

1 llontgo«ery Street

San Francisco h, California

Dear ?fr» Neylan:

This will acknowledge receipt of your cornmuri cation of November 28
in criticism of my letter in the New York Tiinos Book Review of November 19.
When I -wrote that the Board of Rorentg 'initiated" the loyalty oath I had
in mind the fact that Pi-«sident ::5proul was a member of the Board of Regenta,
I Icnew that he originally proposed the oatli to his fellow-Ragents, I waa
not awBre th:it ho was acting under instructions from, or on the advice of,
an academic advjsory cor-mittee. If this ie true, then the fact that the
ivcademic .'^dvisory Comraittee reversed itself is just as pertinent.

After oxairdning the materials you sent me, I must confess that it is
extremely difficult for mo to understand vour position.

If, as you sugffMt, the Board of Regents was intererted only in
implenenting a policy adopted by the Faculty, then, since the Senate
repudiated its own comittces, this repudiation should ^lavc been the
guiding consideration in the action of the I^gents. .Secondly, the
coa^roaise plan adopted by the Regonts sews to make it quite clear
that those »i«bers of the faculty not signing their individual contracts,
who were cleared by the Faculty Cxxnmittee on Privilege and Tenure, vrould
not be dismissed. This was the way I understood the formulation when I
first roc-d it, and apparer.tly the overwhelming majority of the Faculty
was under the same inpression. A large minority of the Regents (at on#
meeting:, an actual majority) concurred. The reversal of the Iteft^nts*
action at Lhe August meeting seens to me to be a clear repudiation, not
only of a previous agreement but a fatal blow to the entire principles
of faculty participation in determining educational policy. I am
acquainted with no teacher at any university who believes otherwise.

Lagalims aside, it seems manifest that the overwhelming majority
of the Faculty originally was opposed to a special loyalty oath. The
vote of I!arch 22 was taken obviously to avoid a still more unwelcome
alternative. To profess a willingness to be guided by the desires of
the Faculty in this matter, and then to insist on some kind of loyalty
a#th, as a majority of the Regents did, ii the face of the action of

i

Mr, John Francis Neylan

-2-

December 8, 1950

the \cademic 'senate before March 22 , is extremely puzzling. To have
accepted the Alumni connromise plan «ind to have taken the action at the
August meeting is even more puzzling and has turned out to be an edu-
cational disaster of the first magnitude.

As one who has studied t^is whole problem verj' thoroupMy (see my
articles in the New York Times, February 8, 19U9, October 8, 19^0;
^^turday Evening: Post, September 10, 19l;9; Kew Leader, May 6, 19^0;
Comnentary, October, 19li9), as one who disagrees with the position of
the A, A. U. ?•, and as one w'r;o is a well wisher of the University of
California, whose courtesies I have enjoyed in the role of visiting
professor, it seeirs to me that the only way the present situation can
be adequately met is not only to adopt t^e recommendations of President
Sproul and the Committee on Academic Privilege and Tenure, and reinstate
the dismissed professors, but to abolish the special loyalty oath for the
Members of tha t'niversity.

I feel so stronp-ly about this thfit I should like the privilege of
appearing before the Board of Regents to plead in behalf of these
recorjnendations.

Yours ver^r truly.

vStidney Hook

Chai rraan

Department of Philosophy

SHiAK

CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE ^"ELIX FRANKFURTER

October 26, 1950

Dear Kantorowicz:

am

Hivea chough you had no evidence of ohe fact, you will I
sure ueiieve me j.f i teii you that you have been much in my raina ^

1 don't mean merely the University and all tne nonsense of which it
continues to oe the center, but you yourself. I mve oeen noping
you would do nothing foolish without good reason - and of course that
would make it wise and not foolish.

1 ani looking forward to tne pamphlets which you are sending
me, but in the meantime please tell Monroe Deutsch that even the great
admiration that 1 have long felt for him has become deeper.

What a civilized country England is. We had an altogether
aelightful time there and 1 need hardly tell you especially delight-
ful when we were under tne happy hosLsnip of i-iaurice. You may or may
not have heard that misfortune has hit his household - Frau urofe, while
vacationing in Vienna, had a stroke. Characteristically, i^aurice flew
to Vienna to see her but, alas, at least for a time he will have to fend

for himself.

When are you coming east?

WiUi warm regaras,

Sincerely yours.

(K<yCyC

C

-cA^Ct:^

Prxjfessor Ernst Kantorowicz.

I I

u

CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE FELIX FRANKFURTER

Nov<auber 3> 1950

Dear Kantorowicz:

My warm thanks for your "The Fundamental issue" - for writing it

as well as for sending it to me. Now be true to your generous nature and

/

send me six more copies.

And I also want to draw further on your scholarship:
!• Please filch two days from your life and give me the results of the
work of "a historian who lias investigated and traced the histories of quite
a number of oaths." If you cannot spare the time to do this will you at least
send me references to authoritative historical works where 1 can dig out the
histories of the oaths that you have in mind? [page 4-.]

2, Please give me a reference in Dante to the quotation from Aristotle
cited in your letter of October J^, 1949- [page 6.]

3. Likewise, be good enough to give me a reference to the place in
Plutarch where 1 can find your quotation; "Children are to be deceived with
toys, men with oaths." [page 13.]

4.. Finally, refer me to the quotation from Momiisen on page 33 •
With warm regards and all good wishes,

Very sincerely yours,

/

Professor Ernst H. Kantorowicz.

.lacga«a^ -^:^:^rr.

^/^g^

av

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
BERKELEY 4, CALIFORNIA

March 2, 1930

Dear Hay,

let me round out that not quite pleasant, but at least
Quite honest and sincere conversation of yesterday afternoon by
sending you the oopies of the two documents I mentioiied. They
■ay induce you to ponder for a minute over my at+:itude as
intensily as you obviously enjoy musing over the a*.+itude of
Mr. EhrmJn. You may find that it makes little difference whether
a man is Christian or not so long as he bears in his heart an
image of humauitas which is unshakable and uncompromising, and
which may justify the mention of the name of God even In a
senate Meeting of a State University. You may include me with
those you have castigated for scholarly pride, or you may call
my "idealism" Jewish or Germn. But I am, or try to be, both as
Je* and as German also an "eternal anti-Barbarus," no matter
whether the Barbarianism be brown or blackor red and emerges in
the ugliness of Mr.Stalln, I^lr.Hitler. or iS^Heylan et ooi.sortes.

I do not believe you will accuse me of complacency and
lack of fighting spirit in the name of anti-Barbarus. But our
JonJerLtlfn h^ cSnvinoed me that with the diplomatic expedien-
cies of campus policy the things I am willing to stand for have
little to dS; tLt ii. to save at lea.t tiie/PP**^*^^* *"?,,
imace of. if not huMn beauty, at least professional dignity
whl5h. ai I feel, this struggling ^^^ perhaps doomed faculty
owes to the world without, to the world west of the Iron Curtain.

The thing that prevents me from resignirig at this
moment is that probably I would resign together with r-residen.

Sproul. And fortunately you have '^^f-^ff »• *? I'^efusHf
associations every step we take me lead us. Yet I "^;^8e ^^
"take things easy" which are not easy, or to make them seem
weightless on the background of eternity.

Cordially

I I

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

VIRUS LABORATORY
BERKELEY 4, CALIFORNIA

April 11, 1951

Dear Professor Kantorowicz:

Many thanks for your kind letter of April 7 regarding
the Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and the
very welcome court decision.

Our Committee has called an informal meeting of the
faculty for this Friday for the presentation of the general,
as well as the legal, implications of the decision. The
Coninittee is also addressing all members of the Senate with
a statement which expresses the profound gratitude of the
faculty to those colleagues who, with firm faith in their
legal protection under the Constitution of the State of
California, have pressed the issue with steady courage to its
unequivocal determination.

I am enclosing, herewith, a copy of a form letter
which contains the information regarding additional copies
of the Report.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

^-

^

W. M. Stanley, unairman
Committee on Academic Freedom

mis : dg
Enc.

Professor Ernst H. Kantorowicz

The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

Harvard University

1703 Thirty-Second Street,

Washington 7, D. C.

Deal-

In rf: * o your

infoi

on Acadei x

tion, of -V ^^n-^T-rr?

lifcrn

The first i^

4-^1. UXiv

Academic Senate, Noru '-^ction^ uidver.
persons : • d to the rt.portj henc -^o copi«i .
for or mode s to thr •

response to ts from a d other p^r..
in the Unive' /, the publication of t or o
by the Northern Section of the /c,
and a second printing has now been icc.
pany for distribution t^-ough regular tr^

Single copies ox ghxc pixiiuiag may be ordei^.-
bock store; froic the At'3')ciated Students of U-
of California Store, University of C.nlifornia,
California; cr from the Campus Textbook ^xclian,;
Way, Berkeley h. California, at 5>0 cents per c-
for 25 Oi' more copies at 25 cents per copy may be
the University of California ^''-f-ss. -keleAr L,
atterition, Mrso /nna Fassell

.."O

It

A\

t.;iii*-L;i Cj-.v ;¥ *^ "y

-^ J'-

Wo I?. Stanl-
Ccirmittee on Ac

W.S: jle

April 7, 1951

Dear Profesi>or Ztanleyt

ft* It is a rather
T feel very nauch
most flourishing
could have been
irresponsible

This is to thank you and your
Committee very much Indeed for the excelie it work you
have done in prepari/ig your Report on the damages with
which the University of California has been afflicted
by the scandalous action of the Re, ent
horrifying document, and as a scholar
distuurded by the idea that one of the
institutions of learning and research
shaken to its very foundations by one
action.

The sweepingness of the court decision is over-
whelming* Cur Law School - excepting Frank Newman - has
proved to have judged the situation wrongly from beginning
to end, The news has made an enormous imprecision even in
•leepy Washington; it was transmitted in the evening as well
as in the morning over all radio stations; and the ngMng^on
lost as well as the N.Y.Times repor*:ed the court ruling on
the front pages - the la^^^er, excellei^tly.

Two thirds of the damage done to the University
could now be redeemed if the Senate deaand categorically
the resignation of the culpable regents. For co..slderi;rig
the humanly feeble wits of that group and the character
of their protagonist it cannot be hoped that they act decently
by their own free will.

Th;. aituation, however, has changed enormously*
Ihose faculty members who have signed against their will,
Mua threaten with taking action against the re^^ents for
coercioa because, under the threat of economic sanctions,
they hMVo been forced to commit an illegal and uncons*:it-
utional act, and for deiamation of character because by
yielding to that coercion they suiter from ^he ^e.ieral loss
of reputation which the university has sufrered.

I am r%ry curious to see how the Senate is going
to act.

If you should have a few spare copies of your
Report, I would oe very graceful to you for sendii.g
five or six copies.

Good luck and best wishes!

Sincerely yours

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY
LOS ANGELES 24, CALIFORNIA

April

^9

1951

Prof. 2rnst H. Kantorowicz
Department of History
University of Oalifornia
Berkeley 4, :alif .

Dear Doctor Kantorowicz,

This is to request that you send, if you can, a

copy of your referenceon the Fundamental Issue, Documents and Marginal

Kotes on the U. of 3. Loyalty '^ath to Professor aalph 3erard, Department

of Physiology, University of Chicago, Chicago 57, HI.

Dr. Jerard is preparing to lay the matter before
the American Physiological Society at its annual meeting this month for
possible resolution and this is an unusually critical action by a pro-
fessional society because the Regents have publicly announced the new
Medical School will open here in the fall and they have yet to appoint
a whole staff of physiologists to do the first year teaching. Dr. 3erard
has most of the literature he needs but he asked me to try to get this
item which is listed on the bibliography of the faculty committee.

Thank you for your attention.

Yours truly.

^tu^ ll ^-Ui^

UN1\ERSIT\^ OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
SEATTLE 5

/

June 28, 1962

Professor E. H. Kantorowicz
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey

Dear Eka:

You were very generous to let us have three of your £-«*«? ivV^
remaining copies of the Fundamental Issue. What I have always liked
about it is the convincing demor.sirat ion that this is a conservative
cause, in the best sense of that abused word. You can be sure that
1 will make good use of it. I have put one copy in the hands of our
attorney; I wish I could send one to the judge. He has been good
enough to grant us a teaporary order, restraining the administration
from imposing the oath, pending hearings July 13 to hear a motion
from the State Attorney General's office to dismiss the case. If
win then, we shall have an injunction until the heariang on the
merits in August. Eventually we may arrive at the Supreme Court,
whose decisions yesterday against God and for dope and immorality
have given rise to such alarm. Did you see Joe Tussman's book which
Oxford has just published: the Supreme Court on Church and State ?
I find it fascinating reading.

we

I have written to the Parker Printing Company to see
whether they may still have a supply of the Fundamental Issue.
so, I shall suggest the local bookstores lay in a supply.

If

I shall remember you to the President when I see him next.
He has been a good president and has had our support right down the
line. This spring many of the faculty took exception to a policy
regarding visiting speakers but \ii at impressed me was his concern to
arrive at a policy which could be rationally defended. At Berkeley,
tne president would not have understood the issues except as a
personal attack. The policy here is in any case much more liberal
than Berkeley's.

On the Oatn matter there is no such bitterness as divided
faculty from administration at Berkeley. The President and Regents
are required to enforce the law; they did not originate or desire
it. As an historian and a scholar, he understands our position from
the beginning; at Berkeley even "the good regents" had to be educated.
As a sigillographer, you will no doubt understand this difference
between being and becoming by comparing the Lux Sit on our seal with
Berkeley's Fiat Lux. There is no John Francis Neylan exploiting the

-2-

oath to unseat the president^ and promoting political «nds at the
university's expense, while accusing the faculty of being the party
which was wrecking the university. This administration knows that
we want to get rid of the oath for the good of the University.

Best wishes for the sunsner.

Sincerely,

^\d^M^

Gordon Griffiths
Associate Professor

GG :gg

June 1^. '.<>62

Professor Gordon viriffitns
Department of History
University of Washington
Seattle 5, i^vasiunjiton

Dear Cordon:

Xharik you very much for your letter, thoujrh I don't really know whether there is
any reason for taanking you for your disgusting information, I an sendinr^ you
tiiree copies of the f-unaanental Is rue. I have only very few left iitd have no !^ea
whether the Parker Printing Company of San Francisco would have any copies left.
I believe that tiiey sent rae all tliey had printed, and I nsyself an? surpri.^ed how
lew copies there are left.

I saw your President, Charles Odegaari, a couple of months ago when he was in
i^rinceton. he aiUnU oicnlion the loyally oath at that tirj, hut T !rnow r»bcut
his feelings %dth regard to those thinj^s from the Berkeley diys when he was
furious about the Regents of the l-niversity of California. At any rate, T be-
lieve that >OL will find some tackine ir your endeavours, ^nr^ c'or'f ff>r^*t thrt
he is not a boomer such as Gordon Sproul, unblessed be his piemory.

i>Q far as 1 can see your case is different I'toLi tnc Califcrriar c::se s^vce it
is not a matter of high-handed action on the part of the Rcipents. Yours is an
oath introduced by the governwent , and it will «e iifficult to prove this as an
uncoiiititutional action, aU the r.ore so since our Federal "ovcrncrrnt Ucelf
has linked aliSirailar oath to the harmless matter of students* loans. Tt would,
of course, be far more appropriate to let the various govcrn«»nts swear that they
will not indulge ir. subversive action? and not try to cve-t*:rov\ destroy or ^Itrr
the subjects by throwing fallcwt into their milk and other food, or destroy wan-
tonly and childishly the Van Allen belt. But, as a cartoon in the New Yorker
iaii4;c>oned it so correctly by shovvin- ten per.t*. or enerals around a table, one of
whoa said; "but we cannot know whether the Van Allen belt is protectee and has
any function at all before we have ripped it."

I hope that you and your fifty-five colleagues will have a irood subversive c'^ay in
court. If X can do anything for you, please let me know. I shall always be glad
to &Siist you in this r*atter. By the way, if you want to Xerox the Fundmertal Issue
you are fully entitled to do so, since the copyright is mine anyhow.

In all other respects I hope thin,;s are all r 1^,1.1 with you in- your fanily.
give them «y bjst, and sliould you happen to meet your Resident, dH give him
greetings too. With my best wishes for a pleasant summer.

^l^ase

Cordially yours.

Ernst

i •

Kantorowicx

I I

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

SEATTLE 5

^ - M- hi^

^SL%/^ ^ ft<^ ,

d>.

n

Cv\/

\Af^ti^

ju^ ^ -■# 1^ -^-u^

\

.^^ , ^

R^j

Ci ^

Ou> A^^<^ "A

Cl

e.^-^

^ )

\

\ ^

^

l^Mt'

(^

f^^ u §*-^,

VoA '^

VJ^

o-

^^\{\-

^^^ A^^^

V)J^

O'U-

A"-^^^^

cxr^

Jk

-M^

5^

PjVK^

£UJ^

)

\Av'

Vv*fl

ew4yv>^^

^ - "^^

^ ^.,J^ ^-\^V'<-^,

iAi- ^

V>A

^^^i^la

e^ -^T*"^'

^5^

;

^^

vj^

Vv&-*J^

i^wt

LM.

_^ e^t, ...a ^ ^

iiUfiiiiiiniiiiwni

I I

%•

i

^ji^<X

(^rW^-t

Uwit

to

V

•-'vxl.

^

acxx>

,«^v^

9 u.v^i;-'-^-^'-'^.

:( rtAA

QJ\M

\Z^ ^

,m^ ss^ ^

ZLJ-^

-^^jAA^v^

r "3'

Uv. 7^

tu

VXWvA>^

lU UAO.

Wi:^ \ <M^;^---

II

iA/>-

.T)U ^

(5.<^cUvicUa^

OX. I

fcjJ-^ \

OsA

-y<aa

I

M

tu ^^

^^

nA-

Cii\3<i^^

U^A -

lU. StXN^^

t

L ^ti>vOAt.

Tx\ C)

3^

\ i^^^ f r^

jsu/3

/OL

i?c4i>^

'w^/V^'^

T _ y^Ai^^

U5^ ^^T^

.^ - S"

»^u^V>-^

CUA ^^

i^ojll^

)Q(3vvj

u:>

Iw^

o^jvA '

V5

<5\(JUfVL

University of Minnesota

211 Burton Hall
Minneapolis 14

Office of Educational Research

HiTiiKAU OK Institutional Research

BuHKAJT OF Educational Research,

AND Field Studies

March 16, 1951

I

Dr. Ernest H. Kantorowicz

The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library

and Collection
1703 - 32nd Street
VJashington 7i D. C* ' "*"

Dear Dr. Kantorowicz:

I very much appreciate your courtesy in sending
me a copy of your pamphlet. I have recently had the pleasure
of conversing at some length with Professor Griffin of the
Department of Journalism. His analysis of the political set-
ting of the California dispute, together with your own insights
into the effect of the struggle upon university government,
have added greatly to my appreciation of the complexity of the
problem. I do not know whether I should say that I am any
clearer about the matter, because it seems to me that its most
outstanding attribute is its lack of clarity.

Thank you again.

Very since

Robert B. Sutton

Assistant Professor of Education

RBS:EL

lOtl FOUNDED IN THE FAITH THAT MEN ARL ENNOBLKD BY UNDERSTANDING • DEDICATED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF IQCI
Iq^X LEARNING AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH • DEVOTED TO THE INSTRUCTION OF YOUTH AND THE WELFARE OF THE STATE LZ7 nJ I

I I

In an as y^t rather obscure mass execution, so popular
nowadays and so typScal of religious and ideological warfare,
157 anonymous "employees'*^ ^all of them presumably non- Communists,
because otherwise they would have been adequately pilloried, have
been "liquidated" by a firing squaxi. Ihey formed and hors d^oeuvre
of "small fry" whose economic, acsdemic, and legal position was too
linimportant and too weeik to offer successful resistance. The hot
potato, 62 professors, has been spared for dinner on July 21 as the
true piece de rc^sistance.

But as the great liberal, Theodor Kommsen, with the histo-
rian's wisdom and insight into humein affairs and public relations
said: "It is far easier to dethrone a Babinet Minister than it is to
dismiss a full professor."

A policy which starts from a humanly false f\mdcanental pre-
mise ("sign or be fired") is doomed a T;^iori» It is a bungling over
the most elementary rules in the primer of statesmanship toplace men
before an impossible alternative with no way out, because such action
iinfailingly hits back. Unless the Regents choose ifr the last minute to
eliminate the offensive passages from the contract for the new aca-
demic year, they have Jeopardized their freedom of action, because
now they themselves are faced with an impossible alternative, l^at-
ever th^ are going to da is boimd to be wrong and a glaring defeat
of their inflexible policy. If they do not dismiss the 62 faculty
members, there may be 620 non- signers the next time, as Tegent llhr-
man has pointed out quite correctly. If , on the other hand, the Regents
do fi^re, the dissenters, they will wreck the University and witness
an impagalielled exodus of scholars, not to mention that this new
mass execution will be spiced by quite a pleasant and sensational
court action. And all that, in order to "save face", and what a facej
Vivat facies regentium, pwreat universitas J

A prominent Berkel^ professor, until May 15 among the non-
signers, has recently received an honorary degree from an Eastern
College not only for his scientific achievements, but also "for his
vigorous stand in defense of academic freedom" on the Berkeley cam-
pus. If the Regents continue to "save face", it will soon be deemed
an honor in a scholar's record to have been fired under the present
regime from the University of California.

I I

TO

IT Ai C

^ 3 unfortun^lrely T b ve oeen re red In the belief,

-Aii^ for more than fifty yejrs actually h-.v3 uelloved, that
an o th ir . thing both holy and 8 icred, rx: therefore
me '^1 ' wil nd vvorth t '\ in^ for; nd

Where Sp In ths ; 3 ^r^i of the Inoarnatlo of 1345 -^nd
195C, in th:i c*^'te of Oullf ornl x, not. excluding thereuy the
uf oremeatlonvid state's Qnlver^ ty , I h.iVe successfully under-
gone a oourse of re-educutlon ir .^rbu^a s henceiorth I snail
be convinced th it an oath, except: 3pch ;s jidminlstered in
Cour*- or I". i, is void of any -aning and merely

ridiculous;

I h..ve deeld d to take 3 ^..llforr.lan 3UirER-0ATH, and
therefore declare hereby ^oth pliLli?ly -md soleisnly, in order
to ivoH^ furbh^^r oonfllcts with ii> scv. reign i-ords, the
he. arts of t^e .c:iverslty of .illforrlj, to whom I owe oced-
ience ir.c'- corifor"1'"j ur'51 ia.th xiz p..rt, .nu ulso to avoid
trlbul.tlcnd a;, i -i. 1 in. nli , ixKK thf.'- 1 ner«witn

nm slKnlrvr, o .ce • for li, *r1+y(cvit reservation, iTe,xtul
or other, y future cat}' ;.r. *^ell ' -u,> •(iuiv>ilent th-i-eof
and liiii .iddition thereto, that may be deemed ry by

who-.jso8vcr, or xy be r . ^ A " 're, p, .le.uird, .-id

3 VQ v^l I ♦■soever auriiig the pr='i'eitt ori;.!* uni^ -^ii> cri&is to
come 111 ■■^rlA .-i^.^out enC, ' n.^r-^y hope to prove ay
loyalty ..a . cltleen not soriteiL-piaiu^ the overthrow of any

govcri t - -3au.uai£t, .'il, or ot!u.r - by force and

violence.

GROUP FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM

HOTEL SHATTUCK
BERKELEY 4. CALIFORNIA

Prof. £rnst H. Kantorowicz
Dumbarton Oaks
Washington 7, D. C,

I I

r Ernst H, ICantorowicz
'^ June 14-th, 194 9.

As a conp.ervHtive historian who has investi^^at " md
traced the histories of aii.te •. nuni:)er of o*^ths, T feel
competent to make a statenient indicating the £;;rave
dan-'ers residing in the introduction of an enforced oath,
and to e:x'-res5 at the same time, from a human and orofes-
sional point of view my r^^nn^^t concern ahout the steps
taken by the Regents of this University.

1)

Both history and experience have tautrht us that every
oath or oath formula, once introduced nr enforced, has
the tendency to develop its own autonomous life. At tl.e
time of its introduction an oath formula may upjuar harm-
less, as harm.less as the one proposed by the Re£,ents of
this University. ?-ut nowhere and never has there been a
^aranty that an oath formula imposed on, or ext^-'-^ed
from, the subjects of an all-pov;erful state v/ill, or .^ust,
remain unchanged. The contrary is true. All oaths in
history that "^ Irrow of, have undergone ch _es. A new
word will be added. A sentence, a^^^.arently ^^^'-i^mif -^ ca-t ,
will be -^u^^^led in. The next step .nay be a seemAn^^ly
harmless change in the tense, from present to past:
"I have never believed in and have never supported a
party... ""j or from the present to the future: "I shall
never believe in and sriali never support..." The con-
se-^uences of an oath are unpredictable. It will not be
in the hands of those imposing; the oath to control its
consequences, nor of those taking; it ever to step back
a/rain. And the definition and interpretation of

^'subversiveness" may "become even fli^-^pior and more super-
'^^cial tliuii at present. Any party - ./hite Rose or Fed
Rose, Roman Church or Reformed Cnui-ch, RepuLlicans or
Democrats - may appear "subverr.ive" from the other's point

of view.

The harmlessness of the proposed oath is not a pro-
tection when a principle is involved. A i^irmless oath
formula, which conceals the true issue, is always the most
dangerous one cecause it baits even the old and experienced,
fish. Tt is the harmless oath that }-noVc. , t>nt is, before
it has under^'one those changes that will render it, bit by
bit, less harmless. Italy of 1931, Germany of 1333 are
terrifying and warning examples for the bit-by-bit proced-
ure in connection with political enforced oaths.

2

)

The oath formula in its present form is, all by itself, so
colourless that it means next to nothing; and is super-
fluous. T assume that all of us have taken, one time or
other, a similar o?t>> Just as T did at the time of my
immiKration and naturalization. The repetition of an oath
that binds man for all tirr-es, is superfluous and dci.-.a^-in-;.
An annually repeated oath is a bi:rbarous m^onstrosity from
a le^al po-^rit of view, and it is a frivolous blasphemy in
other respects. An oath, if it has ^ny -pr-irio- at all,
is a sacred thin^, and it is rarely demanded. It either
binds for all times or not at all, but it never expires.
The ann.ual repetition does not duplicate or triplicate the
effects of an oath, but devaluates the very institution of
the oath. And it characterizes a government v/hich has to
stoop to such measures to secure allegiance.

5)

History shows that it never ^-ai/z to ^'.tuid to ^■■' — ---ot of
momentary hysteria, or to jeopardize, for the sake of tem-
i:orary ^-^ temporal advantages, the per.:ia:ient and eternal

jat /

values. Tt was just tha"^ i^ind of

A

some hundred thousands ir. recent ye.nrs a,.d the ^^enerations
before ours to leave their homes and seek the shores of
this Continent and Country. The new oath, if really en-
forced, will ndan-er certain ^^enui^p values the ^.^randeLir
of which is not in proportion with the alleged advantages.
Besides, this oath - invalid anyhow because taken under
duresse - will cut also the other way: it will have the
effects of a drum heating up "^'^r CoiP^urist and Fascist
recruits.

4)

ni

he nev; oath hurts, not by its wordin-, but by the partic-

ular circumstances of ^t^- imposU.ion. Tt tyrannizes
because it brings all of us into a conflict of consc-* p^^r>e.
To create alternatives - "black or white" - is a co.unon
privilege of modern and bygone dictatorships. Tt is a
typical expedient of those dictatorships to bring the most
loyal citizens into the conflict of conscience by branding
the Non-Conformists simply as T;n-.-ithe..ian, Un-English,
Un-Ceraian, and - which is worse - by placing the'U before
an alternative of two evils, difCerent in kind, but e(iual

in danger.

The crude method of •'Take it or leave it" - "Take your
oath or leave your job" - creates a condition of duresse
close to political blackmail. This impossible alternative

which will make the official either jobless or cynical,
leads to ^mother completely false alternative: "If you
don't sign, you are a Communist who has no claim to
tenure.'* This whole procedure is bound to make the loyal
citi^'.en, one way or other, a liar and untrue to hlnself
because any decision he makes will bind him to a cause
which in truth is not his own. Those who belong , ^e facto
or at heart, to the ostracised parties will always, ^ind
it easy to si^n the oath and make their mental reservat-
ion. Those who do not si^n will be, now as ever, also
those that suffer - suffer, not for their party creed or
sympathies, but because theu defend a superior constitut-
ional principle far beyond and above insipid party lines.

5)

T am not talking about political expediency or academic
freedom, nor even about that oath without value, but wish
to emphasize the true issue at stake: the human dignity.

There are three professions which are entitled to wear
a govm: the jurfge, the priest, the scholar. This gariaent
tands for its bearer's maturity of mind, his independence

s

of judgment, and his direct responsibility to his con-
science and to hi* God. It signifies the inner sovereignty
of those three interrelated professions, v/hich should be
the very last to allow themselves to act under duresse.

It is a shameful and undignified act, it is an affront
and a violation of both the human sovereignty and the
professional dignity that one has dared to bully the
bearer of this gown into a situation in which - under the
pressure of a bewildering coercion, - he is compelled to
give up either his tenure or, together with his freedom of

judgment, his human dip;nity and his responsible sovereign-
ty as a scholar.

,r\

The ROinan Oath For-'uL.e.

Jr' aly-»fissowa, Rea len zj < lop&d l e « vol.Xil, p.l255f,

s.v. V^ '. ur nduai . "

is;rwlri oeidl, i)er ii^id Im rbnisoh-a.^^ptibchen Provii 1-

recht i,i:AxiiOheaar i:ei^r^'^€ zur ^ .p^ rusf or-
Bchuag and antlken Rech^s^eschicr '♦•e , v Is.
17 -/id 24), ..unioh, 1^33, l'i3'->.

1. Gaths

^:he Gods,

Ti-iKi 1.0 .n», ft n- ^ur 1, svore r:y the £,ods, . illj^
Juppl^er ^he x %es, but clIso uy other gods aacord-

ing to olrcii.iii^t<4a;;es (Hercules, ijioccures e^c.)*

2> Octth b/ the l;.mreror.

Beginning with . ^gir'tus *-h*: O'^th Included the
the e paror. Kis .-
ana the x tea:
"(iiaret) per Jovem et d^vu^ Aurur-^-iL^ deosq.ue fe;i..tab.

of

. wciS Interj.a ^ed ; *-w«tn Juppi^er

3 > Per. jury,

"h xalse o-ith b> the gods: let the gods defend them-
selves" (deorum in.jurjas^ dlis curae; Tucitui., ...^.-^l^a,

1,75).

That is to c.x^, perjury ^.^ ao^ punished nor ever pun-
ishable so long •:.3 ^n n th .v.s taken by the godc -lo-e;
they th alves '^ere expoc^ed to punish, or not punish,

th: perjurer.

The flioaient the emperor's i^ame was Introduced in*-o ^he

Oith, perjury became a punj. ulc- crlire .r crj gn

''^ f '

t; b

e n -. jes Vi'^^s.

iNiOr, for ^hat tm^^^r, yvi.s perjury punish ^ble in En^l r.d
(see iollock .rd ^•tl..u, .Actor, of En^li^h ^ w, IT,
541). T would jxpect th .t perjury le- i punlshuile rot
c .rli.^r than in Tudor ♦'Imes ^vhen pr-^bntly the ki t's
niime wc.3 introduced, but I have not reall^ i..ves^l^;^ed
the :i*Aitter.

- 2 -

e

4> v^ctth by r,n^ ^myeror^s Genius,

hei:t..iSn^ with Domitian (81-96 .i.D.) the o^h vv::
1 r>ed to iriclude the n.mas of the deified enperori^ s
well IS the ^:eniu8 (i^reek: tyohe) oi the living e peror.
The e-peror's ge.ius ^r du.aiy b^. e an inde- dent
deity. Joins, e:pioially of the third century, display
mor . <And mors often the Genius Au,<?us^i wnich t>ec ^
alrio^t identical with the Genius x opull Aort 1 , T-^ the

0 ;th for:nuli; the ger.lus h d its Bet pl.;ce preced n^; the
i«ii.i.«:. txnd following Jupp-^'^er 'y' ^he deified or rcht:

""iuret per Joveuj et divoxn ^u^u^i-um ceterosq^ue dives
(scil. iipjr "ore.) o nes e^ (per) GeiJur? Iraperatoris
Caesaris M(arci) Aureli... deosque Per.a^cs."

5, oath hj the £,ai:,^ror ..lo.^e.

The next o^.^c^ w s that Juppie^r d the xe.ia^es die-
apie.ired from the Oath forns ^nd th " the o th was taken
hy the emperor, or his f^enius , lone.

1 do not know ex ctly when ^hit. new form w..s introduced
^n Tt:ly and L- ^est; in Lgypt, houevt:r, it w. s the
our tO: ^vcr iince ^lU^stus.

The develop-nent in ii^gypt is weil known Ovwirifc' to the

papjri. I - r the itole :i-^ ^)" o.^^h WciS t.:*ken

-by the .^int; Ptolemy -ad thti wueen Berenike -nd by
thu divii.e kin^s (loiio.'. th. iieb of the deified
predecessor rin^s; of. ' ove A) ^^rid by Tsis nnd
Sar pis nd 11 the other gods .: d goddesfces.

Perhaps : .re .vn^hony w,s ^he fir?^^ ^o o^it in Efrypt the

invocation of the gods (i.e., to o..it the seco a half

of the o-:th) and to h^ve hi ..elf done invo/ced.

Thii: i:^ cer^ .inty under ..ujus-us ksM who, as early hs

in 5v./:^9 i..G. (one ye r fter Actlum!), whs invOKed

alone and in a truly pre-gospel form:

"Ly the Kmperor Ga. ^^ar Lion of God**

(per

rex

Imp r torevti del flliuji!).

- 3 -

Since .ntoninus ?1ub (138-161) th# word torlos, ..crd

(donlnus) . -;. ,aded to the « ^eror's naue.

bince ^c:-ittan (61-96) ^i-e invc - ion reiers for centuriM

to come to the _^ ryi tgenlusj of the cniperor without in-

v: "ioii 01 .J other gods:

"By the Tycha of tn« ^^peror . .wsar Domitianub
Hu^u^tus etc."

Only under Diocletian (284-;>v.p;, when the cult of Mithras

sol invlctus oegan to pr^v 1 1 d ^he e iperor wis qaasi

■ — — . ^-<

iden^if^od vi th *:hc; Invictu. , * .3 there ul led the iitkm
( '-orj ) cf -^h c reror:

tt

tne Tb^cnc ^ita i^iice (Genius and Victories) of the
i})Td Liocletlan etc.''

7> Spirit >:>lizxtion ox the Chri^^i n ^mr'^r r

Under Com -^ntine the ^n.^t the ti^-ie Kxrios, nov. ^itle
p r exceller-ce of Christy di , e red..

:.r his :i Cons .. < .o:.;* .^xitius II the formula

it;.ilf changes slightly; the o th is t. /.en

•by '''he divine cele tial r ^ of the ..uus^i...*

Little 1. r, I ■ r V.li..:tini i. t3U-375) -^^d his co-
e p^rors Valens and Gr^tian, 'l^ spiri^ualiz^-^ion pro-

"bv the divine /^ccxv) and celeii^ic.1 (--,>nww^ Tyohe
of ^ our L.L1-C. _^eriii^ I;etpots the e^wrns.! Augus*^i

The it is olviou?: :. laing the epithets 'divi/.e"

1 -celc^ '■ 1* the ::^iri8tio.n er;peror8 try to make tue
Ceddess Tycfce somewhc^t transcend© 1, "o dematerlnll jre
)li¥opeKSrepltft4tityfrr^l taloniti^j iigedito fMn^^- -^"
has tht ^ct of "r mcendentaljriiig tr^e e -eror i^s

"Idea.*

- 4 -

Baglnniri^ with 'Ph^ddosius II (4c 6-430) th« Jhrlstlaii God
apre JTS In thft OM*:h for^ul^^0. }{% t^kts the pi »c« which
origii. .J (ab0v#, i-^) '*cr L..d. held. Theodoslus

rc^,^ -^ -iso the T^yche r> ^Fletj* v»ufeerei&) of the

e - eror:

"l,> :od the : t^lora^or id by *he Ple^y of the
Ell-co .^-erl-i^ eternal --.u^s*!."

, ther« is .. w^r'^'ali. ^^avdrix^ 1:. the formulae
* seeve uns^.cle. T^yche reappeiurs; so does l>;ike

in .^ '^^^^ .r i'.^^lized'* sense. .ar /. tkSt£,.siuB (491-513)

we find the for ul:.:

•:, uwd the ^-.tokr.tor ar.d the dirine and celestial

lire of the ^^ll-conq aer in^ Lord of the inhabited
world (oJJniTene) ri^vi^e ^-o^staaiae etc."

~ ler Justir^iar. a v.rl^. t shows for the first time the
Holy Trinity, followed by the erspercr's l^che or KIko or
Ewiwbela. In the lest It is the •Majesty- (Ve6ttius,2,5):

•per deuB et Chris^iw e saaotiat &pir^tu& et per
Kities'^tea iayer^ ^oris • •

Th9 TJrche *^ppears for the last ti«e under Her&elius I,

i doewsc of 616 ^•I. , cut I^ike cor.tinues, ar.d in

rysantiUB the ia^eri^l e re ins an in^aredie t of the

Qhith formula.

9. I^^h Vj the Sodhe^I

Ii: tlM lest the Lacf^^ri^l nase -- tm frox the outh

forn:ul:ie, probably dj the fifth ©•atiiry. Only the Trinity,
•r ^od, or Christ jtre inroked. The develop -ent tna^ oc^s
ran the full circle.

fi^L ^h ri.-, of tnc ., ior^l monarchies Ir. *he iest,
the fifidie of the ruler !a y at:^iB have been Introduced;
but thi- ^roblw* x*^* never Ltci. 1 investigated.

« 5 -

h*. i.[^X\i. i

lil ter.

V Err.£t .chraM. .. r. ...^ anfilj^^h Coronation.

C :-s.?, 193'/7^'i-^pt«r VII, c ^^ ^o ple'e

, . i . li otth oi wrtioft I aa givins

c _ L fttit highlights.

A coronation Order of C5a.960 A.I. :i«erlhe<l to ot.Ovastmat

shows In tthfctt & h^jrmlssb Xi&shioi. i ^-^x i^e^^n.
..-s er.:ier. ril. *itL ^re pr . ar ,-vd fOfuluia. oo did

th« En^xisn worori..riim iioass of ths IGth csntury. On that
occasion, however, the Wr.g hlmstlf addressed the psopls
after th .- . er- I;urir.. the he h^d i>##ii consco-

r-.ted I crorawi; thsreaiter he was ses-ed on his throne.
r^s firs^ act af^er his coi.&ecraMon was the proclamat'on
of ^ set of "U-vs,- of tnree i^-a^.ta ad popaluTP. He dem-

) that the Church and the people shmil* al^vays OLs^rve

true peace;
V) - * e for e all ranks of pe^fle to co^ it robi

ies ^^I-d ir.iQ.uitiea;
e) thi.^ eqLT?*"-^ ^^r.d mercj

were to prevail in all co rts

L:-.ch of tliose inandata were

ttea, Ijy the resj

It was £. highly limrr-i^
Cor tlon kass «;iAw.fea.

followed, as the ki:^ procl
. e present, : vlr^ 'A»en.'
-Tzd " •ion In which tlie

2, OerwiiatlMi Oat> (proalssiOi,
Thirteen ye^r^u later, in 973, -^ ^^

coronation of iing
Ld5^, th. C€:.c.rio h^d ch..-^ed. The three -i>- -- ,^'^
not forgotten, t;ut they were ch...ged Into a eromlsgio
re^ls: instead of ordering the pewfle to otserre certain
fui...;^ental rules, ht :Jm prc^.-«d tw people that he, the
Wing, woml* OD serve tliaae rules.

- 6 -

Accordingly the trip rtite prcolaMBtion was not promul-
gated after the coro:. tion and at the end of the MasSi
but before the. ccrci.a-ion ut the very beginning of the
ii^^ss, uier the Te i>eum, '^he king said:

i .i. s^

"In the nume ef Christ, I pronli^c ti.o: e tnr©« ti*i
to the people. . •*"

und then went on m the first person sayln^j that he would
observe pe.ce, s.ie'y, jus^-ice, a: \ 'Tjercy. u.oreover, this
"s^lo had . een ^r.ited as a charter which the kl.-^,

after re.*dln^ it, ^^ro^ed or. ^he nl^-.r - an a>8olu"ely
binding oath deliverevi In the most solemn forra,

This promise nade , or Oi-th t^^.en, efore the con-
secration was to become henceforth a •coi.dltion,* quasi
the condition for appoint .ent to klr^gshlp.

crc

tier. :h^^T'^t.rs.

*rip:.rti^f {.rrUssio rer^.Ai, -a.ch^:-^ed for -any a
cen^urv. Jr. fact, It Is ^ the bo^^oci of the coram non
oath which King ueorje M ^ook in 1>37 (C. Stephenson and
F.G.LurchiaZB, sources of i^ni^l, C^ -it. Histoxj, Harper &

^ro^hers, 1937, p. 891)

Instec^d of chaining the oath ^.e generalities of which
proved insufficient as tljw passed, additional or secon-
dary pror.ises were de-r.r.^.ied or aade.

The Conftssor, e.g.. h.d to recOcT^.lte the validity of ^he
er^^^-^n^^ D'^n'^sh laws.

V^illlax Rufus h^^- ^c -eir - \n c^dditlon ^o the first
»L.nda^\xa - -^hcwt he would observe also the llLcrtas
Eoclesise ani tha- he would e-er follow the advice of

- nc It riL^v be not^i ta^t the caauitior. of the words
•freedom of the .h^ch* fell In wi^h the demands of the
bregorl— r 'O of the 11th century. It is, at the same

rta

^1: ■wuod ecclesla

time, - ^s ris »v>:-ign ^ .

xuigliciioi libera sit,"

Those additional proi-lses or second oaths aade by thm

king still hud the fori;, of ^ ^^nt. They were first tied

together by Ecnry I and published 6> him, In 1100, as a

• 7 -

QO^Tiprehensiv© "Coronation ChLT^er.*

bimil;ir C;oro..>*tion Ch..rtv.r£ were published by Stephen
(e:ivl.,t. wip nuch grcnJ "-.c \c Jler^, ) '^ud ^ H«:Ar:- IT.
Richard I Ofjaitted a Chnrter; so did King John. But John
finally wa» forced to concede to the barons a gre tly
enlarged repetition of the ^L.r-^^r of h^nry I, and that
ueicA-^ea ''uorcnation Charter" Is m...M'^ Charta, which ted
to be oorifirmed I., the following Iri gs.

^L-JM.

^h :.s 3crutinlum

.iliVl

j^ .)arth Cl use

The trlpi.rtite ott^h proper whs taken by ail kint,8,l no lad-
ing iidward If ir* the old Angio-i^'.^xon form.
The greut chai.^^e ^ook place in 1308, .vKen Kdward IT was
erowvned under conditions unfavorable to the Crown and
f:^vorable to the ij ,^. ites.

In the first place, the clauses no«^ appear as neither a
oandcxtuip mx nor a i romlsslo, but as ^ scrutlniur. The
crow r ..rchV-*. sh#p of dn^erbury now asked the xing, i e-
ftare tn^ coni^ecruticii, the fund ..a)c...t-;l (iucBtions:

"Sire, will you rrant and A.eep ' by yo:r oa'h
coixfiri:. to the. people of . 1 the Uws a/d

cuotoms triven ^o . the previous. .. kinjii,

and especic.llj the Ic. . , cu.^oms and liberties
granted to the clerzy ^^^ people by the glorious
iTlng Edw^ard, your prcufccesbor?''

tTiereupon the kin^: a .swered:

"I grc*nt L.nd promise th m."
The second question referred to the peuc of the people,
Church, £.nd cler^^y; the third, as customary, to lustice,
equity, txnd .ercy in court.

iH.ll three clauses had undergone e ehangwa an* showed

some accretions A i iite iu-por",an^ . pirf Ications. But
tiie awtin change consisted in the Introduction of a new

f ou th cl use.

''Sire, do you ^rant to be held ^nd observed the
Just la;ys ana cus^o.ns ^h<. ^ ^he com unity of your
realm shall deterjiine, and will you» so

1

- 8 -

far as in you lies, J.^erid and B^reii^then
them to the ho**our of God?"

to ot reirve

"I ^xaiLi Jiiiu proojlso thoaa." y

Hitherto the kin^ hud promised (see first- cliuse) ^ne

la.vb c.u<. ca..^ornB ^^^^^^ ^-^ ^^^ '^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ P^**^- -^^
Mi^d.vc.rd II had to prorise the oti^erv .tion xlso of tha

l.t.«s ma oust.oms of the futirre such as the coraa^unlty of
tho re..lin (ntill jaainly thti n -m.^es) "shall ie»--r ane."
Th^ crucial point is the oha/v t^ro'i th^j pis^. or present
to ^h-. future ten^^e. Tlie French version rends (E.C.Lodge
and vj. A .Thornton, i^n/yji.^h oonstitutlo I jjocuiaeats,
C..mlrHge Jnivcrslty Press, 1935, p. 10; also Stephe yOn
and X. iroham - above, §3 - p. 192): ''Ics qLuiolc; la Cornraun-
aut^ de voi'tre Roiaimie Aura esleu.** /\nd in L/itin: '•q.uas...
elegorit."

This 'itlonal cl iuse may h::;ve referred, In 1308,
to certain inteationc> of the barons, not - ^s has of^en
been assumed - to *:h^^ "Com^nons." However, once th.t clause
h *d become part of th \ coroua^^ton oa^h it implied a ulank
cheque "^o 11 future le^^^ bla^-ion of -i^n-tes and/or
people. Tt implies, in any respects, the .judication of
th*3 cro^n.

nor

■nia

Qo-

i^*

The new v^c^adrlp.rti te Coronation o th was valid at tho

coron-i^lonb of ^ ard III .icv 1 7Ji^,]^i|^i» omUlq to

^ycliffe a. the a.oxi.^rd heresy, ^ ae** J^lXMxm ^. .aded -

during thi reign Of Richard II, but sworn to only by the

., J clause '.^hioh
Lancastrian and .or a kiuoS - ^'^ " -econd

concerned the peace of th: Church. In order to pr^veat
th sculrl7'it1on of Church p . -^y the king was held ^o
declare cl>ra woce that he ..oul-^ o. orve the ca:_.onic-?m
privi^erlum .ad woald "defend the Church" (a ai..s tVie
liOllards iiid other here'^cs).

- 9 •

6.

YTTT.

Apart fro . thOw^e miuor c: _^.s the oath form Of aiud^vard II
re JueJ vulid until lieury VIIT.

As iBigh^ be expc ted, thio kiri^ would not suffer artr-roach-
-;ents of the royul pov/er, ked to see th . Cororitition

Oath, A . ^ tYL%n corroctc nl red.ioted the o»th according to
hi.i .vi;^iiC3. M% aotu^xxy i^till have the original autograph
fiViOv/lng all "^h.. letions Mnd chi\\^,es he '^.iid'3 with his own
h^ind (ed. u/ j.eopold G. ^icio . ^Liegg, iL-.^lfsh Coroi.a^ion
i\iicord:.>, «iact iJ ^ex-^, 1901, p.240f).

To alsvms'j * ^he charii-e^ ;-)::ld -j -t .vard here, later-

ei,*:ii.g, how^uver, is his change of the fourth crause. Me
cha.gea the futur^^ f.ense (auru esleu) into the past and
.irrote: "lue le gentez du people avont faj-^ez . jsliez, "
He sinplj said \n the fourth clii^e .^Yui"- h 1 .d said
in the first: to observe the existing law.

: ... r ch-.nges of t: ;oron.i^ion oath ar ox' le^.^er

:■' noe. In 16S9 a coapl^tel^ new oath wa firafted on
the basis of the ola one, and thi. o th of 1689 rt^ . ined

vaiui, bj -I., l-rge, until 1957.

I I

Caths in Gorrnanv.

1. C„. ^ho of QfriciulL. until 1918.

Thei-c vjere slight variants in the Gernun States. Thour^^ all
oaths were est'^entiaily the tiamvj, it i;^ .it^verthelesb inter-
aiili..t, to note whure the Varr..s3ung h.s its place. Also,
Prussia is i^o, ^at more poiw] ou3 th . "he others.

B A D ill 11 :

Ich a.'hwore ^reue C, arosr>he:rzo^^ und der V^-ri .m^,
Gehors.^m deu. jesv^t^., de-o rurs^en wle dc s Va^er: les
rt^ohl nc^oh. Kxaftei. zu befbrderu, und Uierhuupt ail
rriichtt^^n 1^3 uAr ubertraoenen A^^tes gewla-.}nJ^ial t zu

erfullen.

BAVARIA :

Ich schwdre Treue den K5nit^, Gehoraam de» Geaetz^ und
lieouaw^htun^ dor :.^a:■..^•:^v^r^^obUT^g:; ion s.hwore ^^^'^5^»_^
alle uiorne Obli^v-e iheiten ii.s .-ea.nter ,:etreu zu eri\i±±en

P n U S o T i^i :

Ich suhAore, I^ss Stiner Koni^lichen I^ajestqt yor
Preussen, in^nem Aller ' ^ ^ >^en Ilerrn, \0'a un^erta.ii^,
treu und feehorsatt sein und aiie ulr vermbr,e leines
Amtes oblie.enden priiohten :ia.:h aalneru Lessen Wlssen
und Gewissen ,^enau erfuilen, auch die Verxas — _^
gewissenh^ft ueobach^en vlll.

It is xoG* r3T:.rka^ le thtt, whereas Baden and Bavaria
(and similar l^v the others) svvear obedience "to the law",
the iru3siar.s , .r oi rs tieace "to ^ king" - to the
peroon, ml :io^. to t) - ^Lhw above the King."

2. ':J\Q C^'h I ^r the -elmar :;erublic.

The nev. c.t.h. it.trouuccd on ..u^ ^ U, 1919 (R«1 chs^^setz-

blatt. 1915, p. 14x9, -0.153), fo.^^d ..rtlcle 176 of th»

Du'^r.-hex. .l^lohea. Tlii^ was Its simple text:

Veric.^iua^ -"a-^ --^c

Toh schwiire "-raue d«r Verf'-asum^, aehors-.m de .
Ger,et«oii uad i^cwii-ssrihuf te £riuilu/ .eliier ad s-
pfltoh^en.

T may ^.ention that the oath und.r the Empire as well as
under the Republic -*a3 c-lled Me..-^teid, "Service Oath."

- 2 -

r

• ft

5. Oath Introduced i;^ ilitler after he became Chancellor,

On i)e: er 1, 1933. ten ^iO iths after his aCs^ession to

chJ.ncellorshIp under v. Illndenburg, nitler decreed a set
of laws ••^o KXJtULk ensure the utijt. of iMrt;y and S^ate"
("Geset-.z zur 31cherung d.r ILinheit von P.rtel and Staat;
Keiohs:-esc;^zblatt, 1935, I, p. 1016). In tha^: connection
a nev oath was Introduced (Ibii., p.l017) .hich read:

Ich schv'wore: Teh werde 7olk una Vciterland Treue halten,
Verfassung und GesG*;ze beach^en, und TelT?e Airtspflich+en
gewibsenhaft erfuilen, so wahr nlr Gott helfe.

Loyalty Is sworn to Volk und Va^erland. not to ^he
constitution ?hich, aion^- ;^l^h the L.-:..v, the ofiic r prom-
ises zu leachten • :i very we.ik »';ord, ^ea:.ln£: "co .sider."
Obedience has disappeared completely.

LlS' ^:jh introduced .^fter Hindenbur^f>*s Teuth.

On iai. t 2, 1934, hiudenbura died. The armv was sworn in
to Hitler aii Gomnandvr-in-Jhief iui. i^di^-^^ely. On August 20,
1954, Hitler published the new o th ^/v^iich was to be taken by
ail officii^ls, incluaiui^ univt^rsit^ LrofessorsCueichSf:e:>etz-*
bla^t, 1934, I, p. 785). It henceforth fomed §4 of the
,i;eutsche3 iioamten-uesetz ^sue Keiiiert, Iveich^bect Vea- und

^, 14th ed., :'erlin,19^4, p.AlT; also in:

'.e, Leok'scher Verlag, ^unioh .x Berlin. 1)33, P. 7)-

The taking of the oath was combined ^ith co i^ider^cble cer-
emonial (deajribea in tu^ ±i\tivut\ju'ki q^uoted a*.ove) a:.d
a special report and a charter had to be issued (similar to
the i^e^^^J^^s* d«>:.Kxnd). The text ran;

Ich schwbre: Ich werde dem iTuhrer des Deutschen Relches
und Voiiceii, ^doif aitlcir, ;:reu and oruhoraaia sein, die
Getietfs? beachten, uiid r.eine /uatspf II ci.ten ^.ewl &&enhaf t

erfuilen, so wahr nir dott htilfe.

The (Jonstitutlon nov. h-ts disap^-eared comple'-ely .

4

/

i

- 5 -

Volk und Vaterland have found th«lr Inoiarnatlon In the
F'ihrer. The o-xth now v/ae ofiici-.lly s^-yled Tr^wid
(Lovaltj Oath) insfe<Acl of Dieui^tcid (Service Oath).
Since the o.^-^-h nov/ was an 0:>h of pcriiork^l uiiegiance,
and no loiiger an Ocxth to "he Constitution, People, or
"I^atherlund," it had to be tak. . :, .ll ofi'iol'ilt-
even though they had been In office kmitxm --:i^i h^^
tak-^n a iJiensteid before, nic; cojitinuity ".hbre^w: th had
gone; it .vas rei>l,..c;^u Ly t rsonul loyalty. Accordini;ly

jn^ prc.^fiu.l« of the oath says:

^]jie besondore Verbundtinheit. mi!. . lirer und Heich^^
bekraftigt der Beamte mlt f oli:or. ^ ,» Lid: (text;.

It is the return to lordship axiu vu..b.aage of the feudal

Thl* cruel..! point, of oo^ar^.: , 1^^ th^ f.ict that "o.tdlence"
now is 3worn, not to the l^.w, but to the person of ..doif
illtltrr - ax.a thc^ ^-ere not identi:. 1!

Question 2 (lunphlr^t p,6):

ee ij^nte, ])© Iv.o..->rchl>., I, o,12 («
soiae editions):

o

k^

©•14, according to

"Henoe the Phllobopher (ijriss ^oti' ) says in his Politics
thut in ar obli.xue (pervert d) s^-ate th« i^o ;a nn ia a
tad citizen; in n good si ate, however, good nan and
£Ood aiti?.Qn ure •xchi-ing^able terrus.*'

Unde Ihllosophus In suia iolltlcls ait <i>id in
pollti • obliqua Lonus homo est rnalua clvls; in
rocta vero, .onus horo et civis bonus confer ^untur.

The reierence is r-^ristotle, politics, TII,4ff.

s/tt#stion y (jr^amphlct p. 13):

Saa ilut..rch, .4>opl ' "a i..oonloorum (Sayings of tha

op^rtana) - Plut:iroh, .oralia, 229bi Loeb adtion of
the Loriilia, vol.TII, p. 373.

Plutarch G^vb, o-i.}d^en ->-^ de^e-'vcd w' ^h '•Vnuokle-bones
(ajjtr^^^iloi) which wore uaed >^ir dioas, T transit tad
"with toys***

Question 4 (Paapnlet p. 33):

sen: The quotation ia from a oook
^.o^'^sen und ^ili-rowitz: 5rief-^ach^-al

AliO

As usual, ^he bOJk 0n% naada cannot o% found in tha
i.lt)r ry, lo^:^ or dl^pluced. Ho. av-^r, the relti-ciice 1b
to some Professor at Strassburg, if T am not mistakan.
The book is sure to be In the i^ibrary of Congrasa
(DG 206 iA8 A4), and aome young frierid of yours who
reads Garman, will spot the (iuot..tion without difxiculty
when running tnrough that rather in*;erfesting corrasj;:on-
dance.

I I

June 11, 1951

Dr. Edward C. Tolm&n today was awarded an honorary Doctor of Science
degree by Yale University bearing the foUov-ing citation:

♦•Builder of strong theoretical foundations for a youthful science, ^
explorer of the causes of ha-nan actions and of ruin^s ways of learning,
your gifts have also served your country in its hour of need.
Valiant defender of the freedom of the mind, Yale confers upon you
the degree of Doctor of Science".

/

imi tlM^i llii t&mA^ %mmm Ite <mi

«klaft mA dl }«tti^ mmi wiiNmi af tNt JMteMt^ i«Mt« l^umi iti AtllbiHr timm

#,-»

^MNUi AMMMkriU

IMtar tiw elyfiamtmiiii it m^'^M im fiwmmmttmm t^it iffr imhMN»p i»f itii

fMNdlQf to ffiMMk liv i&l his f#i!.ii«» fM

idiiiftteritii^dyiflC of Ihi i^liidi m at««npt to oan^Iiln Iht

ipotiit

of Ylwr piMtiifi 10 %i III wtMt* fhli lypttoli i« «iut>toritoi V ao o^felidi
or iiwpt ^^ ^* ^^ ^^ olstieMil ^ M offiofaa or on %oioff IoIrI' nfolriwMin
%% li M!fMi)^ tho offoH Oft ttio i»«rl o# oft i^ofoii' to oofiiliiAii tho oit«b»tloft
M lio unAMftteftio It* A ooftsAoto oai fuillr oMMVuto •t^tom<9At wmH 0ft3cr ^
fOMft&oMt tr^ oaMftltiMoft vttli owrr ^nA^Nmlty onploifoo oftA tiio i%r»a«tioft

MftSA iprolkfililirf oftlT Ini oMpoi irtth m

ojniHiiMy oiftO'^tt^fiir n^stetefto #o tAiftPft «m ftMitiltr
o mmtsfk^ oftlllfto of ntfofoooorinl #ttlti»loo mtkn it

4iiio«iiti«ic or

%hti^% im ipopftlor

jftjotiio ftl otrffti io 00% ftftl ftifor htm ^mm Vm loyftltr ^ t^
wlmftwitr Aftft^itr- ^WNftii ti»ft Nowftto ootglftRllr iKroooriMt tho oot>t tNrt^ ffM

Mt f oMf thut thi MftlOftWttr^O

w ftlftltttotrit.tl^ni oo^lOBTooo ftoro

itiawwii vtlkMil tawtaff mr Hmiap* tiirflM»«t«i viiMr «m« Mdi«k3« «»

•11 &«

m\«Rr lh»t t}» ^roMNia Av m oftHi wMtaMti «« •

^rtar^lont Iftit fortwoto^r olftrt OfM» of rot fioMo. ^truoft tkft INMMftlo lOftWoH

iMk f&ro ftWiiwt tlftpooto of «Mh Mon okjNNitloaoWlo
li^fOmWOfm it o ti o «>«i tuo o^wntr- «• o wiwi

thot tho foftol^ ol^Mtod to thi fint oivt^ dpNMt Iftii

ooTwift fr^fti ofto

If «• f«i4«ia lirair •ililwJ 1w>wta *• mm- 1% l»pli«« tfwt %>» »Mlwf«l%y

mm^ ta 1mm MCitrol M«f iMilltf • mA T^^^imA in* tnMirlAna «• mm» m%

sftilrt

viMI lN|0iiKI%ff ii#% Wflll A fil(Miliy #INMnf¥4MI fliMft filiVlltttMi

•»%!% !n P. n^^r^W I

V,^:/

?

«f hm lo tgffliiMmt vtltMil Ite »»|w4fWiiit csf M Mtii lit p«ll«^* itf n^

f 0tiN«^ piillo:>^ iM^h hm

in f^fiWI tiJtM ItNK) Vithmit

9m mXk m It trnm iriMMlt piwitiit l^thir

IPWWliP^

2 4» soXflMAl^ swtftr (or ftfflra} ttet I will

fmppmrt th« CuMtlttttifiii «f tK« U

StatM

orslAt *»4 thibt I vill falthfttUjr di«idMirf«
Mui 4«tl«« «r agr tff !•• ik««trtl«c ^ th« bMt

•f «r Ability I that X aa a»t «

•r %!!•

ist pArty« or waAmt §j^ tatht or a

]^rty to aagf *|^#«i«ttt» or iiaior aogp

iOillMOit tliot lo lA ooafllot vltli w^
obXlfotiono ttiiAor thio ooth*
Ol^OA f trot V«lAf eoAfrootod vith tho ooth tho raootion of oA«o «oo
lAiifflAtioA at tbo i«pllo4 olioUAflio to th#ir Ioyolt/*«MAA tho mm

rOAOtiOA AO if AAA WOTO AOkod tO OAOOT tl^Ot hO «A0 AOlthOT O

AAT A kOA|>or of A AAAAO Af ill fA«IO« AftAT AttttATiAl^ tO th«Mrolv»« AAAgf*

Aovoror* rAolisod that tho rofaoot for tho oath «aa loAroly a roflootioa
of tho iiotarted otato of tho ora* Somo hoA takoA oroa acnto ohJootioAOhlo

oatho ahilo vortiiiA on projaait for tho fodoraX gmmttmm%» Althonih

thv 4W n«t XiU, th. .ath U..y took U-fln. I. to. ..nn.tlon tMt m

fmmn th. f*.uUy I«U.t.. 1« th. -.Intw*-.. of .a.4.«l« fr..*«fc
MM! »f th... «h. h.». •lr.«-y ta1t«i «.. o*th .ajr m»v •<" «»•• •*• ""^

3

frt«iMU

V

tktf rmmhw «»• t—tt tt tb* mutv y^n tfurUt «»«l«h tii* an*"**
Ii«l7«« th* DaiT*r»l%y •bt.lm Ito itmw* mtwUl •t.tar.. AlthMgh
fTMAoii Witt *• rlaci"* ^^^ "••* ^^ **»• "^"^ *»*^ •' O****** •***

MfwdU fwlty. tli^te tJ»t «»• ««lT«.Uy .f 3alir«r«U I. a ttat.
iMtltutlM aai wit. th»t tnrnn^mtk «m «Mwtrjr t»»» »riirm»U» •*«»«•
n*la.t 1 ,y*lty •b«»l» l-v. >««i *•!«'. »>/ «•• ' -^ '^ «*»'**• ••* «*"''"•
tMtltutUM. •»•/ r««lU« th«* ttMi tMk ttf «»• »««•«*. U t. .tMi •• a

<*«lty whUh MMTvr right it «7 k* U Iti »t*a4 U m»% *!»/• t««
.rti««l.t, .. far a. «»• »• 1« «.. .tr«% U •mmw»mi. «iay aypraaUt.

Mill«|l^lM^

,«a.tla» tha raapa-lblllty I. «»t that .f *k. Rasavk*. tt 1. art thajr
k«t tha faa«lty wha ha»a tha lw4at. »f taaahlae •!••' *«»ly«i« "^ l""**
Mrt pra^r aBiarataailae af fundaMrtal prlnolpl aa.

AM4a«ta rra««a« la aw of tha fa»<a«af 1 ?rl»alplaa •• ahlah a«r
fraa aaaiaty raat. i*lah la nat ataaya taa wall ap,raaUta« U tka tolta*
•tataa. Oa-rall, apaaUas AMriaa-a te -at hal4 prafaa.ara la a. hi#
r«apMt a. 4a mrapaaaa. Tka pubUa' • o.t aaaa»taMM Utaraat tea kaaa
1. .aya of p«ttla» kaaiAatfea ta uaa. Tka ;»-af aaaara' att«*laa la ua-ally
tmw»*i aa thaaratiaal aaaaWaratloaa. Tha atarta baab auawa ha*

thtaratlaai apaaalatla. la tha -ataral aala—a mX^ ba aara -.Ml thaa
••^Uai praatlaal raaaarah but tha »«aaai.t. aa4 tha aoaUl aalaatlata
tera nat yat te4 aa ay^a^twiU ta ^ir. a. dra-atla a ia-«-tratla. af tha
yaiat la thalr flaW aa tha phyalaUta <IU at ulraahl-.

5

taWM th«t hi. X^^irlm my ..«.tl>«. l-d te *«>i>«r.r3r p-bUe -iWy
fr«»u«tly IMMM «!• •rth.dwl- .f T.»mrrm. It I. .ltf«m»=rt »h»t

„l.a^ .«! th.lr r«,«-lt.aitr •• «•*• »*- —■ ^^— «>^"" *^"*»'^»

J«*l.Ury. ili.ll.rly th. .•h-Ur «.k. »h.t h. b. f«mltf- f fll- th.
truth «)i«r.^«r It !»«• i»l- ««»i^«-.l*l-. .^ft«r . ^l«< T s.r.b»tl«
U -hi* *a ln.tlt«tl«o my t«.t m lwilTW«»l'. M^^tM* *•*• «r«»^
♦«,. to th.lr ^^m»^n, A. l« tt- *.• .f 3«*«« ^>- «"« ^ «»*
.rtlon l. t. —Ule th. 5«-of«.T t. ...k th. truth « h. ..- It. fr..
fr.. -.t«.Ul ..-.U-r.*!.- w-.rnlns th. nttrnt .f hU «<rt«mli»tl«.
«p«A %li« rvtMlion of hit jo-)*

fM«« »h. .PPM. th. «tth f** that It. i«M»i*lw *«•- • *♦*•*
t. .«t4«il« fr.i4wi. thiy b.ll.». th.t th. ^..ulty lt..lf U »-•
^1 If 1.4 *. A.t*'.!.. th. ,«.lin«»tl«i irf l»« -wi ■•fcw^. 2h«y »««»•
th.t ..««-A. f«r. U l.?«-ll«* •»»•- *»- «.«Slti3«. — * ^^ • "-

f«..r h.. •...?*- -pi«»y-«» »y «b..,«.«tiy b. oi..T^..d .iiK«.t hi.

w .k. i-«..ltl« .f . M» »«li lNsr«< th. tr.4ltl.»l «•«« •*

.-^

pl.4f. tf wpjwt t. th. C««tltutl.». fkW f^ «* *«•* *«**'^*

nt th. Cllf.«U .ft. .^-tltutua .pmitimUy «*.Ur.. ««t .ush *«
Mth u4 m .ih.r .h»U b. r*|ulr.« .1 »i.» .tafc. «ff U*- ^V »ii**l«
that •h.th.r .r mt f««lty — *-« -X t..^^-Uy b. » .U*. ..-«.«

^ ., ^ ^.»^.4«i*MtiMt« Th#y ••i^ tilt WfWM"*

fatuity mmt^mru ar« n0t so imIt^ »• wst to f«Llit# t^t Cu—fUta uni
t%h«r (?aTot««» of t«tiillt«ri*tt 4»etrlii«> aiHi hlirhly utaik*ly to b« g«o4
f««ulty MtorUI. 7h# dOi^Mtio ohor*«t«r odT %km 9ftjr^ 11m« th« luformtivo
9«rty dU«l^Ilti«« tho party** m^loTidliM ttiotloo ml mMori fs te4ly with
tho iruo toholAr** objoctlYo pursuit df truth* llitio tiho objoot to tho

1>*rty Miiribor»hl$> oomo4# that loaliorohtf

•nforood objiarotSoo of
1a tho CoHHiuiitt ^rty rolooo m iMfojiiftioa of oooiloittio loooapotoiMio but
oo o BAttor of priftolplt thoy 4ooIlao to afroo thot that jMroounptiou
ftooooi&rily lo r(aiiP>>l|J» la aU ooooo* 8mv io AOit vioh to os^loy or to
iofoKd OttlhrorolYo ia4iYiduolo« Mt thmy boliovo tliat ^uootloao ol dlo*
loyolty oad aoodo»io iiiotf otnoiio should not bo 4oi|^tieolly Aotomlnod by
ooouaptioao rootijif ujpM p^rty iMWiiirsKlyt r^ll^loua oroo4« rooo« oolor« or
OAy ethor g;rouJ3d thaii tbo trodltloMt iMwrloiMi booio of iadividiokX ^uilt
dotonolnod by full omI ooroHil Inquiry Into opoolflo ooooo um ^hmy &rUo»
Tho <3iotin0tloii it oubtlo* fbo prootiool rooulto i^obobXy would bo
tlio ooMo uudor oltbor formulo iai oooo m Coormljt ohoul4 ottoeii^t to oor^

hli ooy into tho fooulty* Yot «Miy o
oollod 100 iMirooflfl Mmmtimmm if tuot

AifM

boa ttot bOMi •• Abnooi* fifnly

bolloTo that tho dlfforoooo la proooduro io i«portont« To ooyhoilto tho
li^ortoiif^or iM^opor tooboiquoo ooo nood »oroly ooll oMHMKilMi to a Iooo«i
ifl| Xooraod im high oohool ohosUtry* Ouo ooa oofoly pour v»at«r l«to o
boater of oulyliiirlo aold hut if Jtio al^oafpto to fHMir suXalMirlo aoid

Ittto a

boaxor of vrtor dioaator rooulto*
oppooli^ tho oath alao havo a poraoaal objootloa*

hOTO no

pi objootloii i»

oonroroatloa to otatlai; that tnoy aro not

OMMtaloto b«t hmUmg to tho ilopublioaa or DoMoratU or frohlbitioaiot
or aoM othor ^arty^aa tho oaoo my bo. iut thor •^i^^ ^« ^•^^ ^•^••*
to mkm a atatoMHt uador tho Mpllod throat tHat othonriao thoy will

looo tholr Jrt. Thoy ofpoao tho oath aot booauo thigr aro OiHMal •%•
but booauo o thi^ bolioro tho ioaiotoMO ujma ouoh l««uirloo ioto i>arty

Miihorohlp lo totalitarlwit la offoot hovoror uatatontioual la pMTfOOO*
no iirofaooorUl Mliid rooo«itUoo wma^ gradatloao of oolor botwoaa tho

y

\

7

UMk •e t»t«llt#rUm •MwimiM mai tli* whlt« ©f 100 pM^Mit AMTlMaiw

•it ftM4Mi« iiM«iK^#r If irrlt%t#i by WUt twwt fero#d without ^^m%

•MM t» Mtoto ^« fM^ r«asm lot* u *#it^«r*#r* ^HHiitiM iri^er« ^ fttharUf

f|i« fm«t tiian tlM pmMU through «»• l«^Ulati»r« «m hM«%«4

f ikm f»«lt^»i Uyiklty #MS mt rmmmtU th# Mi Jnrnri. fhigr Wil«T#

Hol^ stoUfa^t «i l#i4 «i# i«y to •ouiMltr i^ui^lU thUkUf ~ «»• i"***
«i«y te M% ^llorii tK«t th« o#th «M iMMiooo i«o f»r|M« ©^ dririas •!*•
Ytf^slTOs frtNi «i#»MYor»ity»t ranko. Qm f«Mi !• wlXUog; t© MWlt troMM
wUl OMrooIy drw tho liM ot pori«ri«ft kl»*if* mtfir f^el th^t ^rphi^toYcr
gMt rotoUi th# prum U too croot. Ir odoptior a fiiOoXty ooth tho
loiTirolty t.f CoUformlP cm. €«- ^^T** ^^ f«oltlo« of tho ,i«-ioao
Ao«i»oliitioo of Valrortitr ?«ro«.o.-i ^\^ wonU 4iii«o tho owipfMo ooA

p. As otto of tko truly i;root Uotltvtioat U tho
lt« iirlMipol ooi^otitioii U ^tte lastUutUiw i&to Hormrd, Oolui:^U
oai atfMi* •^l**^ <• "»* roquirt Mok fooolty ootta wni tir.o Haliror.Jty
MO o«rf «•• f rt» o cr«ot hooiloof to *aAUc to ito ttoff booouio
OlA«ro «oo lo tuo MftH • tKroot to oood««lo frooiM* Aloo liwo at tho

nndor a dlood'voiito^o i^ofc

ialTirslty Itoolf It pUmm m fttultgr

th«y diseuot evrrottt :>olltl»al problMW with yovoco

LupotloMo with tho doTottt froo iAi«h tho

tort

yoothfa

«yftt«R tiiffora lUt

oil tthor oyoto«t —te ^^m tl^ o pr^ to OoMioiot pr

H^Mlty orsoMKta oro ol«wt dUniotod 2^ %dvo»oo on tho thotry Uiot

tho foor profoootr io

oy hU toifi aoi

ITB oa o^Jootlvo

I

i'V

I I

/

tMk% mm threat to toaur* U ta»MMl>< ad/i anjr whiftli bajt %«ii»l— lly «ii«t
is •U#il Ir ^« ''•ply ttet tii«r# la a braair la tkm wall af aaailiffla

a •Mil

la a

_^

f^aal %mmA%9i if IM

af %IM aa%k« Hia afflai* U U

affaat aakai ta avaar Hit layalty ta tfea aaaatlte^tlaa* ta raaff Ira 1%

HPT Aaalariii^ «*t lia la aat a

0f tha ffa— aaUt farty» aa« than a|;aU

ti-t 1^ la «t lylac. IMr ^^i^^* ^^ '^^^^ ^•^ *^"'^* •^'^ •'•'••

aha«14 aafflaa altlMMi^

yaaat^tara

«i;^aatai aa
tvla lira%Kar

wltaaaaai Hy tut ^aa rf %ka flTa.yaar.aM .Ha r<

•B«mNi lv«r

Mf t-it.. o..^-. — ♦ — * •*3-**- '•'*•* ^ «•• **• «»^'»"

-^ ^ rraat aaUai to l»a«ra alaatoraX fraatfaa ^«i

^ .^^, T th. WU^. that party -**-.Vp lU. r.lUi«- aTf llUtU.

(It* fMtyi

pirt7 whlah !•

It MM

fwr«r

th«

Stateaent and Hotion ty J.Ro Caldwll and TcJ. Kent^ Jr.

Nov. 13, 1953

In Januaiy 19U9 the then current Board of Aegenta attempted to Inpoae on the Faculty of
thia university a formula of abjuration which carae presently to be known aa a '♦loyalty
oath"o An overwhelming majority of the faculty at once protested thia imposition as an
attack on intellectual freedoa and upon academic tenure o

A gradually mlninating sertes of events proved that these protests were well Justified
The determined virulence of the attack manifested itself in a number of malignant
maneuvers and was made brutally clear on August 25, 1950 when in violation of tenure,
of contract^ and of law, a bare majority of the Board of Regents flouted the rocommen"
dations of our committee on privilege and tenure^, overrode President Sproul aad evicted
sixteen of our colleagues from their postSr The reputation of the University of
California fell at this point to its lowest ebbr^

In the meanwhile the Faculty j, the Administration, and all but half of the Board of
Regents had in various degrees and with various degrees of pronyptness assumed the great
responsibility of reversing this action^ of vindicating the reputation of the universityn
We joined indeed a struggle of impressive magnitude and consequence in order to show the
academic world that at California attacks on intellectual freedom, invasions of ^nure,
contempt of the will of a loyal and competent faculty would be resistedo We dared con-
front an arrogant faction of the Board of Regents which was determined to punish and
discredit all who opposed its willo

We have not been guiltless in this struggle of waveriz^, of credulity p of blunders-
Nevertheless it has been on the whole a struggle well waged, a responsibility faithfully
borne, let no one doubt (and I say it with due gratitude to Regents and others who have
been our partisans) that such victozy as we have won has been the ultimate effect of our
own efforts, of our steady support of those colleagues who spearheaded our defense o The
decisions of the court stand as justification of our pains and as an index of our success
up to the presents

Bat oxir responsibility as Faculty and the responsibilities of the Administration and the
Board of Regents is evidently not yet discharged^ The lawless action of the coterie of
Regents has not been wholly reversed o To some of us, happily returned as we thought to
our normal pursuits of scholarship and teaching^ this fact will come as a shocko

It is nevertheless plainly true that rights of tenure and intellectual freedom are not
vindicated as long as those who dare exercise them are made to suffer for so darings
The fame of the UolTersity of California is not cleared while loyal axx) competent men
are^ at the will of thoae who in the first instance attacked our tenure and freedom^,
fined in effect for resisting that attack. The fate of those sixteen resistors, deprived
as they have hitherto been of the compensation and tenure due them in most obvious
justice, hangs over us all Their px*esent case is a warning all too eloquent of the
price of resisting even the most arbitrary action of even a discredited group of the
Boazti of Regents^

- 2

Unireroitles and imiversity profeasoro suffer In upheavals such as we have lately
undergone. The prospect of actively resuming the struggle wherely we have thus
far defended ourselves and our colleagues must be to all of us a painful onec It
is however ny conviction that the men and women of this Faculty will find the energy
and stamina necessary to see the task which they have undertaken through to a just
conclusion; that we will not have resisted blatant and open attempts to punish cer-
tain of our colleagues only to accept a less direct form of chastisement In this
conviction I offer the following sense resolutions to this meetingi

RESOLVED s

That the faculty members of the University of California here
assembled are profoundly disturbed by the fact that proper
restitution of lost salaxy and tenure to the sixteen members
of the Faculty purportedly discharged from the university
August 25o 1950 and restored ty court order as of October 1,
1953f although it has been recommended by the President and
other appropriate officials of the university has not yet
been madeo

That they believe permanent failure to make this restitution
would constitute in effect fine and penalty against members
of the faculty merely for resisting violation of intellectual
freedom and of academic tenure ^

That if members of the faculty are to be subject to such fines
and penalties neither intellectual freedom nor tenure can be
truly said to exist at the University of California.

That the faculty members here assembled are aware that a majority
in the present Board of Regents favors this restitutiono To the
Regents composinfc, this majority it expresses approbation and
9rspporto

That this body is further aware of the need of all skill and
wisdom in meeting the shifts and devices of that ruthless faction
of the board which would deiy restitution. It believes however
that no legal or technical obstacle should be allowed to prevent
an action of such manifest justice and of such manifest necessity
to the honor and good name of the university o

A Sis Vonth Plan for a G^oup to Protect tte lMiTm*tit/

I« Qtanml Object !▼••

^* ^ y^gtora acadenic fr»»doiB# tenure and faculty autonoiBY In the
UniTersity» TAoademio^freedOMrTa a baaio deBK>oratio ri^Jtitj it la tne right of
teaohera ittd atudenta to teaeh and be taught t free of any apocia!U partisan or
political preasurea and innueneea* Tenure impliea a Teated ri|s^ of a uni«
Tertity teaelMMr* after the yeara of apprent ioeahip^ in the continuity of hia
office* Htmrm tenure ia violated* acadeodc fteedoa epee« If a profeasor is
not aure of hia pertoanent tenure* if he haa to fter dismiaaal for unoz-thodox
opiniona or noaeociforrnity* he Icaea hia freedcs of action and Mneeah* hit

dcBi of conscience and hia freedom from prejudice* Faculty autoncaiy reaenrea the
right to the faculty to elect and reject the menbers of ixs"""3an body; it is up
to the Hefiants to appoint and disDdaa ihom reoomneaded by the faculty for
appnintMNid or diasdaMkl* The Hegesta eannot act vithout previous consultation
of the faculty* since they lack adequate ji:dp»Bt idth rencrd to tte profeasional
qualificaticma of & acholar«)

%m To restore the badly shaken confidence of the aoadesdc world and
of ^m citizens of the Stste in Ihe intedrity of the University; irore particularly

^» '^'^^ clear to the public the nature and f unctl on of a University*
(the task of a University conaiata in guiding ycuni: laen anTwcaasn to a
participation in the cultural heritage of civilised neoA. The existence
of a State University is the laark aa veil aa Urn teat of the or— s unity* a
claim to a ahare in the world* a culture*)

2» Kfcke clear that academic freedop* faculty autonoay and tenure
ere an absolutely essential condition to a free University*

S* yake clear that these* and not Ccapuniaa* are the real issnt
in the oath controveray* (The true and genuine dangers of Cosaminissi
IS^nTSeen exploited in thia controversy for propaganda purpoaea which
were not deaigned to eliminate nsiinfsta* or at asQr rate failed ccxapletely
to do ao* In the oouree of what haa been an eaaentially political oam-^
pai^A* certain Befisnts have succeeded in destroying aeadenic fyeedoa in
the University* and while pretending to prevent the uae of the claasrooai
for tte spread of political propaganda* have ^leaeelvea ueed the ini-
versity aa a tool for private political anMtion*)

n. specific Projeota for a Fonsal ^ganisation.

A* Satabliah an office* and engage a paid adninistrator
assistants*

B* Retain legal and pwblio-^relationa counsel*

paid

- 1 -

I I

C. Introduo» and support in th# St>t» L#gi»latur» a bill
misdaMMLnor puniahabla by fina or imprifonsiairt to irTterfWi

■aklng it a
ira ivith tba

aaadflnie fraadon of taaahara aad atadantt in any school raaaivinn Stata
support. (Whila aoadexaio fraadosi oan hardly ba lecisl&tad* suoh a bill
would hsTa tha affaot of aducating Isgislators and providing; a fooal
point for oitisan su{^ort of tha rif^ta of taaohara and studants.)
8aa appandiz for tart of suoh a bill«

!• t rita and arran^i for irtrodnatioii of bill
2« Proiaota aditorial and Toeal citisan aiiq^x^rt
S« BneafS tha intarast and aaypart of all public
collag^a and achoolsj thair fr lands and alunni.

^» P^P^^ and dlstributa printad inforration^ and arranga and
sponsor laoturaa by asiabars of tha faculty snd alussai* Addraaa aluMni*
businaaat profaasional and civic £iroupa* wcnsan^s clubs* labor ortanisa*
tionSf ate*

1« Covar tha ralarant pointa laantionad in 1 abova«

a) Matarials alraa47 airai labia s

1) Ths psmphlat "To Bring Tou -Uia Facts"

Z) A psophlet of broa(tor scopa and graatar datailt

antitlad "Tha ^^indansntal Issua*" now in praparation by

Prof* Kantoroarias*

S) ttr* Haiti's patition in tha casa of Tblisan v«

TMdarhill.

4) Qsorsa K. Staaart*s book, Tha Yaar of tha Oath#

tha pnblishar is willing to print a low*cost revised adit ion
in larga quantity for tha purposaa of this group. Excerpts
are now available withoxrt royalty*

5) Articles alraadlf prixrtad in Life* Saturday P^viaw*
Sat. Sva. Post* Pacific Spectator* and nawspapara.

6T~Px*oaaedinga of the Vsaatam Collega Aasn., 1949«*50
(on acsdswla fraadoa k related subjects)

2. Ask for f inanoial aontributicsia*

8. AA for au];^ort of tha Is gialativa pro|pran by writings flMBiag
or viaiting Stata raprosantativaa in S&craaanto*

4. Aak for support of t^varsity by writing to Bagazxta*

^ Sxplora tha poasibility of mediation between faculty and Haganta.

1. Praas for a Tenure agrasnent. (Baatoration of tiie old contract
foma for faauliy Msibara having tenure by rank or length of aervioe»
foraa which do not iwply an annually isiiewsil appointeMut but a status
of contlnuil^i sbolition of an annually repeated constitutional oath
vAiieh standa as a symbol of Htm laak of continuity of appointraantai
abolition of any kind of ocnditional appointoant excepting the tradi-*
ticnia oonditiccia of "caod bafaavior and efficient service" i regagnltion

* 2 •

by tht R»f«iits of Hxm autonoBOWi rl|fht of 1li9 faoulty to el tot and
rajoot its mmAmnt restoration of tha ri^jhta and praro^jBtiTaa of tha
Praaidast and of tte faculty Coaaittaa on PrlTlla^ and Tanura. }

2« Modify tha praaan% loyalty oath raquirantfot* (8«iribatltuta
▼oltmtary afflrnation of tha naar Stata loyalty oath for tha praaant
raquirad oontractital agraanant* Batain tha standard oonatitutlonal
oath but elixiinata tha yaarly rspatition*)

tha

anr oao

^ ^^P^mmmr md proBota a National Confaranaa on ^Iha latnra wmM fteetiona
of a Stata tniTarsity in"1ft Daiaocratio Society ," to bring to tha aoadanio
world at lar^ a sanaa of tha TinivarsityU villin^naas to a^lora opanly
its problo!ia* to oosBsmioata its exparianoa* and to as&ioas ita national
raaponaibilitiaat likawiaat to halp raatora the public* a oonfidonoa in
tha University as a ffee instituticm

!• 1/^ith the co-operation of the University adiainiatraticny invite
repreaentativea of all major university fficultieat administrative and
goveminc boards*

2. Arrange for a distin^uiidbed prograa of addreaaea and discussions*

8* Arrant for auitable publicityt inoludini; printing of the
proceedings by the i'niveraity preaa*

^* ^^''o—P'^ ^ University yeek in idiich parenta and citisens ^^rnvmlly
VQul^ be invTted to see the University in operationt neet the facultyt
attend classea» inspeet labat aee art and aporta exhibits* attend
student plays and coneertat etc.; thus to daatimstrete directly the
nature and function of the University*

III* Six Konth udget

(in preparation)

• 3 -

III. Specific Projects

A. Legislative Program^ To introduce and suport in the
State Legislature a till making it a misdeanieanor poinishable by
fine or imprisonment to interfere with academic freedom in any
school receiving State support, ("acadeaiic freedom" meaning the
right of teachers and students to teaph and be, taught, ?ree of
any special, partisan or political pressures^^nd influences.)
See appeiidix for text of such a >lll.

1, Write and arrange for introduction of bill

2, Promote editorial and vocal citizen support

3, Engage the interest and support of all public

colleges and schools, their friends and alumni

B Prepare and distribute printed information, and arrange
and sponsor lectureFTy members of the faculty and alymni, for the
alumni in particular and the public in general^ Address alumni,
business, professional and civic groups, women^s clubs, labor
organizations , etc ,

1,. Covering the relevant points mentioned in I & II
above .

a) Materials ateady available

(1) The pamphlet ^to Bring You the Facts7
{2) A pamphlet of broader scope entitled

"The Fundamental Issue" now in preparation

by Prof. Kant-rowicz.

(3) Mr. Weigel»s petition in the case of
Tolman v. Underhill

(4) George R. Stewart »s book. The Year of
the Oath. The publisher is willing to prin|
a^>;ecial, low-cost edition for this purpose.

(see IV. Budget)Exc^rpts available without royalty
(») Articles already printed in Life, Harv^er^s,

The Saturday Review, mtm^, Sat. Eve. Post, etc.
,6.)Proceedirigs of HicVf^i iJpcc/aA«^

2, Asking for financial contributions^ uofll support Jqt

of legislative program by writing to State representatives

in Sacramento; supi^^ort of faculty by writing to Regents

C Sponsor a National Conference or "The Nature and Functions
of a State University in a Democratic Society," to bring to the aca-
demic world at large a sense of the nature of its own problems, and
torestore the public's conf idence ttat the University of Caxifornia
;yffYrtt»gYtt»-Kwytt"»»^T^"P""fe^^^^^ as a free institution.

1 With the co-operation of the University administration,
invite representatives of all State University faculties,
administrative and governing boards

2. Arrange for a distinguished program of addresses and
discussions

3. Arrange for suitable publicity, including printing
of the prodeedings by the University Press

D. Promote a University Week, in which parents and citizens
generally would be enabled to seeTEe University in operation- attend
classes, inspect labs, meet the faculty, see art and spurts exhibits,
attend plays and concerts, etc. — thus to demonstrate directly the
nature and function of the University.

E. Support > financially and oth^Brwise, the Faculty of
the University in its specific aims with regard to^cademic freedom
including the defence and support of non-signers.

F. Administer these projects through a formal organization,
having a business office, a paid administrator, anaTpSid assistants!

G. Retain legal and public-relations counsel.

JUSTICE

AND THE

COMMUNIST

TEACHER

A Reply to Sidney Hook

By Milton R. Konvitz

I
I

WHAT is the proper course of action for a university
or colicfge when it is disclosed that a member of
the faculty whojias tenure is currently an avowed mem-
ber of the Communist party? The answer to this question
given by Professor Sidney Hook deserves the most care-
ful, serious consideration, for his own commitment to
freedom and his record of private and public service on
its behalf are known wherever men who enjoy freedom
of thought meet.

Professor Hook's position may be briefly summarized
as follows: Membership in the Communist party is mem-
bership in a group which instructs the professor to betray
his academic trust and is, standing alone, evidence of
professional unfitness. The test is professional fitness.
By joining the Communist party, a professor in fact
takes on the all-encompassing obligations of a party
member as primary and as superior to his obligations as
a teacher. In taking this step, he proclaims thenceforth
his professional incompetence. He need not be given a
trial to determine whether or not he has stopped teaching
and begun to indoctrinate, because, first, there is ample
evidence that party members are required to indoctrinate;
second, proof of indoctrination is difficult, and perhaps
even impossible, to obtain; and, third, the process of
obtaining such proof would itself create evils. Member-
ship in the party should not, however, mean automatic
or categorical dismissal. The matter, says Professor
Hook, should be left in the hands of the faculty, which
should administer the rules "with the customary discre-
tion with which all rules are intelligently applied."

On the whole, I find it easy to accept Professor Hook's
statement. The only fault I find is that he speaks merely
in passing of the role of the faculty as the proper tribunal
to determine the fate of the professor brought up on
charges. This is due, I believe, to the fact that in Pro-
fessor Hook's mind party membership practically seals
the fate of the professor; for, since he is committed to
indoctrinate, and since the faculty ought not to go into
the question of whether or not he has practiced indoc-
trination, what can possibly save the professor from dis-
missal? Party membership becomes, in effect, a con-
clusive presumption of professional incompetence. Per-
haps it is because of my legal training and experience

The above article by Professor Milton R. Konvitz of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell Uni-
versity, first appeared in The New Leader magazine and subsequently in the Cornell Daily Sun. Because it is a partic-
ularly cogent analysis of important issues relating to academic freedom and teachers with Communist affiliations,
the article has been reprinted at their own expense by the following members of the Cornell University Faculty:
Michael H. Cardozo, Morris A. Copeland, Melvin G. de Chazeau, Edward C. Devereux, Jr., J. L. Hoard, Alfred E.
Kahn, Robert B. MacLeod, Chandler Morse, Henry A. Myers, William R. Sears, Benjamin R. Siegel, Alpheus W.
Smith, N. Arnold ToUes, Bertram F. Willcox, Robin M. Williams, Jr., Robert R. Wilson. Members of the group
do not necessarily agree with Professor Konvitz on every point but they do believe that the general view he has
so ably expressed is one that merits serious consideration and wider attention. Permission of the author and
publisher is gratefully acknowledged.

I

I

that I find myself reluctant to see a man convicted by a
process which seems to put more emphasis on definition
and presumption than on the facts in the specific case.
To me, academic justice is closely linked with academic
freedom; and both justice and freedom are important
in the fight against Communists.

Among all peoples, there is a general law comparable
to the Sixth Commandment: ^Thou shalt not kill." To a
layman, this law is simple and offers no difficulty. But
if we look at the statutes of any one of our states, we
will find that it is far from an easy thing to define killing.
There is the difference between murder in the first degree
and murder in the second degree; there is manslaughter
in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree;
some statutes distinguish excusable from justifiable homi-
cide. There is the unwritten law which leads juries to
give special consideration to persons charged with murder
when the facts show a case of euthanasia or when the
defendant killed his spouse and her lover detected in
flagrante delicto. In other words, the admission of the
killing is only the beginning, and by no means the end,
of a long, intricate, humane process set up to determine
guilt or innocence in accordance with our sense of justice.
So, too, I would say, admission of membership in the
Communist party should serve merely as the initiation
of a process within the faculty whereby, after spending
on the case many days or even weeks, a decision will
be reached as to guilt or innocence and, even more signi-
ficant, the quality and degree of guilt or innocence, and
the type of punishment.

While it is certainly a fact — at least I, like Sidney Hook,
am convinced that it is a fact — that party members are
pledged to carry out instructions and to maintain party
discipline, it is also a fact that the Communist party
often meets with a formidable obstacle: human nature.
I have not thus far been able to convince myself that cdl
party members are invariably good Communists — good,
of course, from the party point of view. From that stand-
point. I would assume that there are many bad and indif-
ferent Communists — persons who are often governed by
their own wills and judgments, who are inclined to ques-
tion orders, who hate to be told what to do, who think
they are being pushed around by party upstarts, who
think that they ought to be treated with more considera-
tion and more dignity.

In a report on "Subversive Influence in the Educational
Process" by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, there is quoted the testimony of former
Communists "that a loyal Communist will use every
opportunity to further the expansion of Communist in-
fluence and that, if he is a teacher, he will use the class-
room and his personal contacts with students for that
purpose." The same report quotes from the testimony
of a Brooklyn College professor, a former party member.
that at party meetings a teacher at times would explain

how he managed to "introduce the principles of Marxism
into his particular area"; but the witness added this
significant remark:

"I want to emphasize again in this connection that
I think, by and large, many of these people made no
attempt of this kind. I don't know for sure. I know
that some people took pride in it, and my assumption
is that the people who didn't talk are people who were
either not successful or didn't want to."

The witness stated that, because of his "mental reser-
vations from the beginning," he felt he could not intro-
duce the party line into his teaching. There were pres-
sures on him, though; it was probably decided that he
did not have a suflBcient "feel" of the party as a "working-
class party." There were other teachers similarly cir-
cumstanced. They were told to go out and sell the
Daily Worker on Sundays in order to acquire the proper
"feel." "Some of the teachers did this. I could never
see my way clear."

Testifying before the House Un-American Activities
Committee last February, a professor at the University of
Chicago who was once a party member testified that

"it was a curious sort of thing . . . that there was, as
best I can recall, never an effort made to effect what
one said in the classroom or to the student. Never-
theless, the fact that members of the faculty were in-
terested politically and lent their names to political
groups may have affected the attitudes of students."

Testifying before the same committee, Granville Hicks
said that the danger of Communist indoctrination in the
colleges has been exaggerated, for the evils of Commun-
ism are generally known. "In this situation, it seems to
me," he said, "it would be very hard for the most de-
voted Communist teacher to make very many converts."

There are today 30,000 or 37,000 Communist party
members. (I have seen each of these figures used author-
itatively.) It is estimated that there are some 700,000
ex-Communists. The turnover is staggering. The party
rolls have had a very large number of summer radicals
and sunshine revolutionaries. The party was a funnel
rather than a sieve. Some persons took their time getting
out because of party threats, pressure from other mem-
bers, a fear of isolation (they had no other friends) ; but
many gave up their party convictions long before they
tore up their membership cards.

It seems to me that such facts and considerations
ought to be before a faculty committee when it sits in
judgment on a colleague who is a party member. They
should try to find out a great deal about him: his back-
ground, his home, his personal problems and difficulties,
his relations with faculty and students, his work for the
party, his motivations. They may, in fact, know him
as a campus "character." They might decide to punish
him by recommending not his dismissal, but his suspen-
sion for a year. In some cases, I feel sure, a show of

»

►•

\

interest may help take him away from the party; for
often a person joins the party at a time of great personal
stress and strain, when he feels himself alienated from
others and from any significant human or social process,
and a show of humanity may redeem him.

The case of the hardened Communist, with whom
one can do nothing, is easy, for his own words and
actions will betray his incompetence. He has chosen
to work for the party rather than for the university
or college. The faculty will have no alternative but to
dismiss him. For a person who, in his lectures, profes-
sional writing or relations with his students, follows the
party line rather than his own conscience and intelligence
has no place in the teaching order.

At the other end is the professor against whom there
is no evidence except party membership, and who re-
fuses or fails to present proof in his own behalf. Such a
case, however, is hardly likely to arise, for it would mean
that the accused stands absolutely mute and that the
faculty committee had failed in its task of thoroughly
investigating his case. Normally, a case will show many
relevant and significant facts, apart from party mem-
bership, so that the faculty will have the great task of
interpretation and evaluation of all the disclosed data.

Professor Hook is. of course, right in pointing up the
grave difficulties inherent in procedures involving faculty
investigation of charges and defenses; but such difficulties
must be faced whenever and wherever the judicial process
is used. They are inescapable and are to be met with the
best resources and intelligence that one can gather. To
run away from the difficulties means to run away from
the judicial process — a process employed by fallible
human beings for humane ends that are projected but
not guaranteed.

If a jury and court are required to try a defendant
only under the presumption of innocence even when the
charge is first-degree murder, and if a judge, before he
sentences him, is required to give careful consideration
to all the facts relating to the defendant's personal life,
ought less to be expected from a professor's colleagues?
I agree with Granville Hicks, who told the Un-Ameri-
can Activities Committee that "each case ought to be
looked into on its own merits ....

The charge should be professional incompetence, not
party membership. But if he were not a party member, he
would not need to face a faculty trial committee. Mem-
bership in the party should have the force of an indict-
ment, a finding that there are sufficient facts to subject
the professor to a trial for professional incompetence. He
is not innocent oi party membership, but he is presumed
to be innocent of the charge of incompetence. This charge
must be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the
faculty tribunal: and the degree of incompetence must
be established (as in the case of homicide) and the qual-
ity of his guilt determined (as must the judge before
he imposes sentence).

Freedom is one of our highest values; but so is justice.
There can be, in fact, no academic freedom if its guaran-
tee does not include the substance and process of justice.
We must pursue freedom in such a way as to avoid creat-
ing a condition which, by weakening our sense of justice,
may only tend to facilitate weakening our freedom.

It was this consideration, perhaps, which led Senator
Robert Taft to say:

"I would not favor firing anyone for being a Com-
munist [professor] unless I was certain he was teach-
ing Communism and having some effect on the de-
velopment of the thought of students."

At one time, justice was a matter of black or white,
guilt or innocence. Civilization took a great step for-
ward when the notion of the degree and quality of guilt
or innocence and individualization of punishment came
to be generally accepted. This has meant a refinement
of the sense of justice, carried out in the spirit of Ezek-
iel's great pronouncement:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die; the son shall
not bear the iniquity of the father with him, neither
shall the father bear the iniquity of the son with him;
the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him,
and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him
.... Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should
die? saith the Lord God; and not rather that he should
return from his ways, and live?"

The professors in our universities and colleges should
be among the last to do anything that might tend to
blunt the edge of our sense of justice. They ought to
make every effort to be, at one and the same time, hard
toward those whose guilt is hard, and soft toward those
whose guilt is soft. Only in this way will their judicial
process be a sword against the guilty and a shield for

the innocent.

Communist party membership is not a crime under our
laws. Under the Smith Act, the leaders of the party
are guilty of conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the
Government by force or violence and to organize the
party as a group for that purpose — mere membership has
not been outlawed. Furthermore, in the Oklahoma loyalty-
oath case, decided unanimously by the U.S. Supreme
Court last December, it was held that, in order to be
constitutional, a loyalty-oath law must differentiate in-
nocent from guilty or "knowing" membership. The de-
cision means that the law may reach out to affect the
public-employment rights of a person who maintains
his membership when he knows that the purposes of the
organization are subversive. It is not enough to prove
that he ought to know, or that others know, that the
purposes are subversive; the person in question must

himself know.

This decision conforms with the Supreme Court's
thinking in the Dennis case, in which the party leaders,
and only the party leaders, were charged with knowledge
of the subversive purposes of the party. A member on

f

r

I

the periphery has no doubt heard that the party is
generally believed to have subversive purposes. If he were
to read the opinion of the Court in the Dennis case, he
would know that the highest tribunal in the land is con-
vinced that the party has subversive purposes. But lie
may not believe what he hears or reads, and he nia\
have no direct, personal knowledge — not being a part
of the party's inner apparatus — of the facts which show
that the party is a subversive organization. Under our
criminal laws, such a person today stands protected in
his naivete, damn-foolishness, state of idiocy, or what-
ever you may want to call such a state of mind, because
our criminal laws are founded on the principle of per-
sonal, knowing guilt. Knowledge is always personal, not
vicarious. And if knowledge is the test, guilt can be only
personal, and not vicarious or by association.

These decisions of the Supreme Court must be kept
in mind as we consider the Communist professor. Before
his individual guilt is established, the subversive character
of the party must be shown to have become personalized,
concretized in him. The guilt of Eugene Dennis cannot
be extended to the professor, for the Dennis case has not
departed from our principle of individual guilt and our
rejection of the principle of guilt by association. Associa-
tion may, and often doesy contamincUe ; the testy however,
is not association, but contamination — and the degree
and quality of the contamination are extremely im-
portant.

Under this test, there can be no automatic or mechan-
ical application of laws or principles; they must be ap-
plied according to the circumstances of each case. This
approach requires an emphasis always on personal guilt
and judicial individualization: an adaptation of the
judgment to the concrete case, and doing only that which
will serve the ends of justice. These principles con-
form with our basic belief in moral responsibility, emanat-
ing from a free will, as the moral basis of exoneration
or condemnation, or a mixture of both. To judge moral
responsibility, one must get away from any notions of
frontier justice, rough-and-ready justice or a mechanical
jurisprudence, and must be guided by a great sensitivity
for the righteousness of the righteous and the wickedness
of the wicked, and the mixture, or even confusion, of
both righteousness and wickedness in a person's acts and
character. To depart from these principles is to . start
going back to the primitive mind and trial by fire or
water. Especially in these days of tremendous stress
and strain, everything must be done to prevent a primiti-
vization of brutalization of our sense of justice and of
the administration of justice. We cannot be reminded
too often of the great saying of Kant that, where justice
is dead, life is not worth living.

"Teachers," Justice Frankfurter said in the Oklahoma
case, "must fulfill their function by precept and practice,
by the very atmosphere which they generate; they must be
exemplars of open-mindcdness and free inquiry." An

avowed Communist parl\ member at a trial before a
faculty committee would face this professional test. What
of the professor who refuses to tell a Congressional com-
mittee, on the ground that his answer may incriminate
him, whether or not he is a party member? I would say
that such a person would find it even more difficult than
the avowed member to satisfy the colleagues in his
f)rofession that he meets this test; for by his refusal
he generates an atmosphere that is the very opposite
of that which is generated by persons who are "exemplars
of open-mindedness and free inquiry." Almost by de-
finition, a professor is a person who is eager to profess
what he knows, what he thinks. But this person, too,
must be given an opportunity to defend himself before
his colleagues against the serious charge of professional
incompetence.

It is only as we keep the ends and means of justice
before our eyes, no less than the dangers of Communism,
that academic freedom will be preserved. For teachers.
Justice Frankfurter has said,

"cannot carry out their noble task if the conditions
for the practice of a responsible and critical mind
are denied to them. They must have the freedom of
responsible inquiry, by thought and action, into the
meaning of social and economic ideas, into the
checkered history of social and economic dogma."

The chief condition that allows professors the practice
of a responsible and critical mind is the security of
justice. As our history demonstrates, teachers will deny
themselves economic security, they will live on a low
economic level, and they will even gladly drink from
the cup of hemlock, sooner than give up the practice of
a responsible and critical mind.

Emphasis on academic justice as a guarantee of aca-
demic freedom may mean that some Communists may
talk themselves out of punishment that they justly de-
serve; but — if I may paraphrase Justice Holmes — for
my part I think it a lesser evil that some criminals
should escape than that a university should play an
ignoble part. And the university does play an ignoble
part, I think, when a faculty member who enjoys tenure
is dismissed by the administration without allowing for
effective faculty participation in an orderly judicial
process or in the administration of the disciplinary rules
with the customary discretion," as Professor Hook says,
with which all rules are intelligently applied."

Such action implies a strong distrust of the faculty,
as if they were all fellow-travelers and could not be
trusted with a case involving a Communist professor.
The effect of such an attitude is bitterness, suspicion and
anxiety on the part of many members of the faculty. It is
a great tragedy of our time that our liberation from
Communists who would enslave us is sometimes effected
in such ways as to blur, rather than sharpen, what sep-
arates enslavement from liberation. The separation should
be marked by an abyss rather than by a thin line.

it

*(

PflRKeR

RinrinG compRnv

ISO FIRST STREET • SAN FRANCISCO 5, CALIFORNIA • TELEPHONE SUTTER 10545

SOLD TO

Ernst H. Kantorovlcz
IU2I Euclid ATenu©
Berkeley, California

DATE Oct. 31, 1950

YOUR ORDER NO.

YOUR REQ. NO.

OUR INVOICE NO.

5^771

OUR JOB NO.

6236U

SHIPPED 10/19

1,000 copies - The Fundamental Issue

800 cards "With the Campllments of the Author"

Sales Tax

$ 1^25.00

7^50
532750

$ kk7.6k

TERMS: NET; NO DISCOUNT

I I

Ernst H. Kantorowicz.

Statement
June U, 1949*

As a historian who has investigated and traced the
histories of quite a number of oaths , I feel competent
to make a statement indicating the grave dangers residing
in the introduction of an enforced oath, and to express
at the same time, from a huiaan and professional point of
view, my deepest concern about the steps taken by the
Regents of this University.

1) Both history and experience have taught us that every oath
or oath formula, once introduced or enforced, has the
tendency to develop its own autonomous life. At the time
of its introduction an oath forniula may appear harmless,
as harmless as the one proposed by the Regents of this
University. But nowhere and nevex has there been a garanty
that an oath formula imposed on, or extorted from, the
subjects of an all-powerful state will, or must, remain
unchanged. The contrary is true. All oaths in history
that I know of, have undergone changes. A new word will be
added. A sentence, apparently insignificant, will be
smuggled in. The next step may be a seemingly harmless
change in the tense, from present to past: "I have never
believed in and have never supported a party..."; or from
present to future: "I shall never believe in and shall
never support..." The consequences of an oath are un-
predictable. It will not be in the hands of those imposing
the oath to controll its consequences, nor of those taking
it ever to step back again. And the definition and inter-
pretation "subversiveness" may become even more dangerously
flimsy and superficial than at present. Any party -
White Rose or Red Rose, Roman Chia-ch or Reformed Chxirch,
Republicans or Democrats - may appear "subversive" from
the other's point of view.

2) The harmlessness of the proposed oath is not a protection
when a principle is involved. A harmless oath formula
which conceals the true issue, is always the most dangerous

one because it baits even the old and experienced fish«
It is the harmless oath which hooks; it hooks before it
has undergone those changes that will render it, bit by
bit, less harmless. Italy of 1931, Bermany of 1935, are
terrifying and warning examples for the harmless bit-by-bit
procedure in connection with political, enforced oaths.

3)

History shows that it never pays to yield to the impact of
momentary hjrsteria, or to jeopardize, for the sake of temp-
orary or temporal advantages, the permanent or eternal
values. It was just that kind of a '•little oath* that
prompted hundred thousands in recent years, and others in
the generation before ours, to leave their homes and seek
the shores of this Continent and Country. The new oath,
if really enforced, will endanger certain genuine values
the grandeur of which is not in proportion with the
alleged advantages. Besides, this oath - invalid anyhow
because taken under duresse - will cut also the other way:
it will have the effects of a drum beating up for Communist
and Fascist recruits.

4)

The new oath hurts, not by its wording, but by the partic-
ular circumstances of its imposition. It tyrannizes
because it brings the scholar sworn to truth into a con-
flict of conscience. To create alternatives - "black or
white" - is a common privilege of modem and bygone
dictatorships. It is a typical expedient of those dictator-
ships to bring only the most loyal citizens into a con-
flict of conscience by branding Non-conformists as
Un-Athenian, Un-English, Un-German, and - which is worse -
by placing them before an alternative of two acknowledged
evils, different in kind, but equal in danger.

The crude method of "Take it or leave it" - "Take your
oath or leave your job" - creates a condition of duresss
close to political blackmail. This impossible alternative,
which will make the official either Jobless or cynical,
leads to another completely false alternative: "If you
don't sign, you are a Communist who has no claim to tenure.

••

I

This whole procedure Is bound to make the loyal citizen,
one way or other, a liar and untrue to himself because any
decision he makes will bind him to a cause which in truth
is not his own. Those who belong, de facto or at heart,
to the ostracised parties will always find it easy to sign
the oath and make their mental reservation. Those who do
not sign wil be, now as ever, also those that suffer -
suffer, not for their party creed or sympathies, but because.
they defend a superior, constitutional principle far beyond
and above insipid party lines.

5) I am not talking about political expediency or academic

freedom, nor even about that oath invalidated the moment It
is taken, but wish to emphasize the true issue at stake:

the human dignity*

There are three professions which are entitled to wear
a gown: the judge, the priest, the scholar. This garment
stands for its bearer's maturity of mind, his independence
of iudgment, and his direct responsibility to his conscience
and to his G-od. It signifies the inner sovereignty of
those three interrelated professions; they should be the
verj last to allow themselves to act under duresse*

It is a shameful und undignified act, it is an affront
amd a violation of both the human sovereignty and the pro-
fessional dignity that one has dared to bully the bearer of
this gown into a situation in which - under the pressure of
a bewildering coercion - he is compelled to give up either
his tenure or, together with his freedom of judgment, his
huTian dignity and his responsible sovereignty as a scholar.

If

auX b

iL'if Z,^ iC.X '^Jf

X «.^<s..^x

£€ th.w it

-. >v^ ;..

ea. lore-.

i* .^-^ i^ G ^ JL 4

ly aitkinst t

* :m .1 1 1ll I

jli as

~ c; Jti,i; C-. L, L

ti

I

X w .*

Ix.

to

ept

Jt- •• .0. K

V ^

« .\w one

c

r t

le

.. - »

reasons whi<»h m^:^ jul^^Xx^ i^y

of c '

W w

itude.

rT^. c:. -^^ * nL-'

osed oathf e.j^.

^ J ' w

.a

X

.tvr

^^

»^.-? »

••4^ /

f / •

k. V w kr.^4k.^ tfw*.A A-i^

verslv

3t net a lo6€u (tne

^x^o the advisors

1. ^ ' J - -^ t ion of

it^. .

jk. w ••

ri

u V u-T

x^tjLf x:?*i J* »

XtLX «»w4'>'^

itles I. 1 bm i^rofmiA of th«

. . .... tc of tLu .versi ".

tlv
tyr y oi
It/ ila

^o«Bitt^%-c on w..<*#jiierioafi *^,ilv
irican att . . «d 6y

J. on in^AC c ^ion»

.. ^r#at /ersity lir in ^er - not :-s . r

n.i;iing activiti .. on t:. rt o.f namujitsita, Dut

..ui^u ../ /.iii^ up of its imitj/ f'-"'

4$«ooo ^1^ c

i,irt»«^uw united with the

jonf idencr

thf~ inteli

V W

V 1 to the j£a.tii

culty, .11 b© 1«* I »vith
.^;1 ifittt^cri t V .

it . .^ ^^ I to the xACiilty to hiave th^ jonfidence

_^.,. ^^ the *..- . Lut it is .^uite inaisp^na^uDlfe to have

iLQ c :e of t: r to di. ge as a

te t-or , .ithiuxxj une duties of our office

^Qcordiu. %.o the i.ct of our abilities. *

.0 taKe the :- .tic . - our 1

IB. ' t ;d pervert tne vurj pui

sit. institute of education.

-ow c cr . classrocic if every £

,xxowea to c e to teach onl^ because our con-

\ioulu- nal, -- u_-i. for bread-and-butter reasons

■>ili-ix to . •. t

e c

.t k

iver—

3 th^it

;» «. «,

..i

students.

Ti

'^txtutcu,not lur the
nnot billo*^ itself to

but for the
jrt of the

5)

Ihe senseless struggle about ^ ^w.-seless on\
t© obft^;.rve a er o — has iDiie e ^«^h

oath tciken

t rri

\ r.tc

jLiijm top tc DOttom. It

lorced a soore or two of serious ^^rAd sincere scholars to
1; t their scientific ; rod ion, i should be pro-
tects , *'- or "* to i^ervt on ^c ittees, to

BSfcwii^i^, to dro^ft sMMOranda, or to ^-. •- otner-
,._.... vhelr ti--;© in sterile activities, ^ rira^r
dut/ of t i to wat er, iii.v. secure (so i.r - ;. it
Is in t '^ pommrj 4,1*^ y^dlfcuu^ uca productive work oi v..e
University, but not to — ier it.

£.ven greater dankur-e ^ill be doae if thf -nts continui
their -face-savli. • u-tivitics. This futile strugcl* ^^
about to open Wf m deplorable and serious - pei ^r long

-Wt |k>

tines to eone irrttparmbl« - rift between

a)
b)
c)

t c

.j;<i rucuityj

Signers and Non-Signers within t

.culty;

» i ,

oulty.
;0 to t h. *

be^in to oust ^f-n'^wned -ni Internatioriallv r :^
wno cure vely ti->^oiikriuni3t or

t .wv--^ ;".: ,. .CXI.. tu i*Ot .>t i.. .;■ a ^u. -. ■ ■

.**. . *.iicience# ^r else, thev *'X^- oruate on tn pufc ^ud.

I lOlik. \'ii^

.. ill

- r 3

-tf

1

jd

f>

W . . . . ^ , . -/ fci

xne on.-*. J »*ti^ v /c x !'.

t /m wll^ for t

p (

rs;

■► »

A \r ^Vi'. ^ fr^ r

;ith

.r u .

te

lie Oath i&auc

■i. i ■•

- - . UX^M& o£

rautual

c

*

n

.8

i b i.X XU if-V ji A.

5 M

itees t ue u^iv;! t —

Wi4^ i *. ^w

t. tne notiona o/

.>

4) -..„ ititutlin o^ tnicj c try i.. not t ised on cc ivAftn

or .tri «/ ux uy t/ir s^oa: ibt

i^c^rty , toir.AXiwuri i>4rawi-o, or 4^^ xuj.A4.ud new shoots of
statisB* I, tricrexore, r« — e to r .
L - -t . .

• III II ■! I ■ I - ■ * ■ I ■ I, I. I

ta -t to rup w ^;.- ^ riiicipie of inuividual ::uixt ^uul ii^uiv-
Iduiil 8uti^>ioion, lA u^ »«rife, *hOir. I u^^ ,. .^ , ort , ^.cre m

. iit, iBili tiic _ents dijt ^ divorce jise fire

ae? i^'or ixi i case I mm BMpyQrXLiic, a ^o ...iU^.i^ty <a... I ^n

slao "under oath, or ^ rty to ar ^^'re- e .^i^^r .x jon-

mitffjent t is in c . t h j c ^ urid r i lij;

c . *• ■ .^. ;rii.cipx--; or ccxi-ctivi. . .. iaur..

thor ill be no huka of buspioioi^, xcnonciationt and absurd it

I re V J to reoogrisRe
that merely because T
University of ::alifc

Lii, T

, or to r
^ of the faculty of the
priori a perbon -t^by

.oil

f of ail a.

extent as 'Aouxa

I *-'fuo., also to oie-^ -. - t' of an a. ad ^ '^i-

I iu.^ L . , .ve cast tne

the Individual, ^ th-supported, corapu^., ^inri of t>

b

Commor

t

UUX Wj' ti.

ge . tmmmmmmatf^ / t: elv '.; ;: .v-. div <-d«

.1 sit H5 jud^^e in iilu o^./i cuot^. ' i u x. iui>w

*^o b<f proseoutor, Jud^w, -^1 ju^'^ «t t>

xi s ' ' r oi i,irie ^o nist

''^-'-"^•^^ ' of the government by

and "^ ^

force should je le^^-^l or ^r c .:e is con-

st it- 1 by

b/ nii- .uaocriaf bkii^

proper tribunal. ^-

lid be confronted
;xu*... aimself be^'^^e u
tly or by in ido,

von

to bt; iiuu jijiw;c«-;u uu cOiltrCtlve SUSpiC—

» /^ii

R V

se ,

1 1 V

who for soii/iv. dthical, ^.rofes:^ioiu\l, era.

ft r

I, I

air

h

1 ^ to t^: ' ..-A ^.-- ' ^ t^ Uv*ti: O

aar« to be considered either dislo^ ^ or unc^o-
.-t^aiust the verv J;i.ii - ^ , lu'. r

J ve sv. ' . .

I ix*a^ , hOAevux, recjLuest an FBI investigation a^^alnst ra:/^self

to clecir jn^/ise^- -^ j sinnaferous su , i which.

to uti u

.. :i^^ i^

r of

th wo clc If, I am buujected

acuity of th riiverslty of Clifor-.la,

5)

/inully, t. :tern:itive of pay roll ^ir.i cc \ ^-

;ra ;o 11 ic \:i:'oral, no fijatici .^t!T the oath formulary
fi« directl n-^ected with e a cruet or not. .lie

nd of I • > ict tjltntjr -- .i^'.- i.v ir

( , their conviction una jud^ent , or else lobe tht^^ir

U.nure, creates a state of morbil, pr^ ly al»o of le;/,il,
x^ritfss, I r .^e to actt and, r lure.i., .ru^vt

j^ ii»e nay freedom oC ju ^ ent :. i x.^ L.if*c*st«!.i.jr
scholar, aina<) it Aould prevent ree from dii: ^harcin^ f^ll

the duties of n&y offica according to tha beat of i^y aoiiity.

Class of Service

This is a tull-rate
Telegram or Cable-
pram unless its de-
ferred characrer i? in-
dicated by a suitable
symbol above or pre-
ceding the address.

TERN

"S^ T

UNIGsK.

W. p. MARSHALL. PRESIDENT

1201

SYMBOLS

■%

nL=Day Letter

N'L=NiRht Letter

LT=hn'l LetterTelcRraiii

VLT=Int'I Victory Lrr.

ThP filinc time shown is the date line on telejrrani^ and day leitera is STANDARD TIME at point of origin. Time

of receipul b^?^DA^D T

at point of dt^iii.

WT152 PD=TDO BERKELEY CALIF 6 550P=
PROF ERNST KANTOROWICZ=

HARVARD UNIV DUMBARTON OAKS I705 32ND ST WASHDC=

VICTORY FULL REINSTATEMENT BRAVO=

MICHAEL=

•w

THE COMPANY WILL ATPKKClATK SUGGESTIONS FROM ITS PATRONS CONCERNING ITS SERVICE

\X'

Class of Service

This is a full-rate
Telegram or Cable-
pram unless its de-
terred character is in-
I dicated by a suitable
I symbol above or pre-
I ceding the address.

S f

WE

1201

V% 1951 APR 6

W. P. MARSHALL. PRESIDENT

SYMBOLS

^

DL=Day L^ter

NL^NIght Letter

[S(f'"'^''"3"^gh""

\ LT-iiit"l Viciory Ltr.

TWT155 PD=TDO BERKELEY CALIF 6 516P=
E KANTOROWICZ=.

DUMBARTON OAKS RESEARCH LIBRARY^

nt of origin. Time of receipt is STANDARD TIME at point of destination

-COURT DECISION IN FAVOR OF FACULTY UNANIMOUS DECISION
VIOLATION STATE CONSTITUTION LOVE=

ALTERA

THK COM

OMPANY WILL APPRLCIATE SUGGESTIONS FROM ITS PATRONS CONCERNING ITS ^Lli\ l. L.

Class of Sir vice

This is a full-rate
Telegram or Cable-
gram unless its de-
fcrred character is in-
dicated by a suitable
symbol above or pre-
ceding the address.

WE S TE RN

1201

UNI

IC2).-..

W, P. MARSHALL. PRESIDENT

SYMBOLS ]

DL=

■Day Letter

NL-

-Niv:lit Letter

LT=

Iin'l Litter TtlccTiiHi

\'LT

= l!,i] \'ictory L*T

Tl)« filinf time shown in the Hate line nn te]pi»ram= ami H«v Jott «»r« i« ST AMI^AKn Tl MW at nnint «f "»ig1n, TlOnt ofjp^ceipt js ^TANDAKD TIME at point ci destioation

.V/PO7O PD = TDO BERKELEY CALIF 7 9^%=

PROFESSOR ERNEST H KAI!TOROV;l CZ =

t 1

Ur/iBARTON OAKS =

O Q

COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY REGENTS OAK UNCOMSTI TUT I OHAL ORDERo
REINSTATEMENT. LETTER FOLLOV;S =

GROUP FOR ACADEiVilC FREEDOMr

1 HE COMPANY WILL Armtfl ATK :<UGGKSnON8 FROM ITd PATRONS COXCEHNING ITS SERVICE

763

0. CRA020 CGN NL PD=CARMEL CALIF 8=
PRO KANTOROWICZ=

DUMBARTON OAKS WASHDC=

VERY HAPPY ABOUT YOUR VICTORY HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS LOVE=
LENf AND ARTHURS,.

'4^ U

I ^

R

( I

FRIENDS OF THE UNIVERSITY

\ciidf tU

The general objectives of this group are 1) to assist
in the development of an informed citizenry with respect to
the University and its functions, and 2) to assist in the
restoration of mutual confidence and good-will among the
Faculty, Regents, and Admini strati on •

Specifically, this group will act to accomplish the
following t

I Restoration of the confidence of the citizens of
the state and the academic world generally in the
integrity of the University.

A* Interpretation of the essenltial nature and
functions of the University,

1. Emphasis upon the direct and indirect con-
tributions to welfare of citizens,
B, Interpretation of the role of academic freedom
including faculty autonomy and tenure in the ^

i

.^.ri. *>^

effective functioning of the University,
C, ^larificntlon of the "Communism" issue.

v^

xfti^

of O'^'^-i'oC ^^ Restoration of academic free lom including faculty

O

autonomy and tenure,

A, Promotion of an academic freedom bill in the
state legislature.

B, Pi^o^notion <yf^a tenure agreement between the

Faculty and the PeLentsr""4^^"^=*«

I. !■ 1^ I

C, Promotion of Alunini Compromise revision*^- ^^t

^

. /

J s f

LKr

{ v^T'at^X^.r

^f ft^ ^ -i^ ^-4.A„K^A^^ >- Mjpcfc-/ *^ c^4AJ^^A*^

f

H y

\ '^

F

rt:

III Preparation of public opinion for long-range

efforts to change regentlal system particularly
with respect to abolition of four or five
ex-offlclo positions.

In seeking the accomplishment of these objectives
this group or Its designated representatives will:

I Prepare and/or distribute Informational materials
to such groups or Individuals as the following i

A, University of California alumni

B, Editors and publishers

C, Professional groups and organizations - lawyers, ministers,
doctors, teachers, etc,

i^. Legislators

E, Chambers of Commerce

F, Labor unions

G# Colleges and universities

H. Genrral Federation of Womens Clubs

!• League of Women Voters

J, Veteran groups

II Conduct legislative program to introduce and support
passage of an academic freedom bill in the state

/\a '

legislature. /^^

liO

i-TT} yc /

'Y^^^^iM^, ir<^j:^ '^

c-

atrrf

n C

^^. A

r'!^ a

/ ^-f r .^

> r

^•)

' ' - >^x

r^^ r

^ ffitr

jUr

;' ■^^<« ^

s

luo

III Sponsor a Spring Conference at the University of
California on the Nature and i'^inctions of a State
University in a Democratic Society - the proceedings
to be published in book form by the University Press.

IV Sponsor such meetings of individuals or groups as
give promise of facilitating the achievement of the

objectives of the group.

V

V

/.

fr-r-

In the District Court of Appeal for the State of California
In and for the Third Appellate District,

Edward C. Tolr^n, Arthur H. Brayfield, Hubert

S. Coffey, Leonard A. Doyle, Ludwig Edelstein,

Edwin S. Fussell, idargaret T. Hodgen, Ernst H.

Kantorowicz, Harold V, Lewis, Hans Lewy, Jaco'b

Loewenberg, Charles S. l^uscatine, John M. 0' Gorman, Stefan Peters

Brewster Roger son, Edward Hetzel Schafer, Pauline Sperry, and

Gian Carlo Wick,

3 Civ. No. 79^6

Petitioners ,

vs

Filed: Apr. 6, 1951

Robert H, Underbill, as Secretary and Treasurer
of The Regents of the University of California;
The Regents of the University of California,
a public corporation established by Article IX,
Section 9, of the Constitution of the State of
California, Earl Warren, Goodwin J. Knight, Sam L.
Collins, Roy E. Simpson, Arthur J. McFadden, William
G. Merchant, Robert Gordon Sproul, Edward Augustus Dickson,
John Francis Neylan, Sidney M. Ehman, Fred Moyer Jordan,
Edwin W. Pauley, Brodie E. Ahlport, Edward H. Heller,
Norman F. Sprague, Mnvirice E. Harrison, Victor R. Hansen,
Famham P. Griffiths, Earl J. Fenston, Chester W. Nimitz,
Jesse Steinhart, C. J. Haggerty and John E. Canaday, each
and all as raeiabers of said corporation, The Regents of the
University of Calif oii^ia, and each as a P^gent of the
University of California,

Respondents.

This is an original proceeding for a writ of mandate to compel
the Board of Regents of the University of California and Robert M. Underbill,
as Secretary and Treasurer thereof, to issue to petitioners herein letters
of appointment to positions as members of the faculty of the University
for the academic year of July 1, 1950 to June 30, 1951.

The petition alleges that petitioners are members of the facility
of the University of California of Academic Senate rank; that respondents
are each members of a public corporation known as the Regents of the

1.

University of California; that the Regents, in accordance with authority
granted to them ty toe State Constitution, have established an SeSc

2sL^ 1 / rJ"^ "^^'"^ P°^"^^ '"^'^^^^e *° appointment, t^ure anf dis-
mssal 01 faculty members; that the Regents on April 21, 1950, adopted a
resolution more particularly set forth hereinafter) carrying oStceJtaL
recommendations of the California Alumni Association rel^iJe ?o the
thf?^.h nr ,«°-««lJff;'Loy^"y Oath" by the faculty of the University;
that each of the petitioners (all of whom are non-signers thereof) , pur-
suant to the resolution, petitioned the President of the University for
l.lZr f f ""^y *^^ Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the
i^tS «^t^"^^^^ f * ^!f petitioner appeared before the said committee
vhich, after full investigation, recommended the appointment of each

?nw Jr^foS ''^ff"'' ^°^* °'' ^^ ^^°^*y °f ^^^ University; that on
+^^p ' i^^w' "P°" ■">« recommendation of the President of the University
the Regents by resolution appointed each of the petitioners to his JJsJec-1
tive post; that notwithstanding their appointments, respondent Underbill
refused to transmit letters of appointment to petitioners; that subseouent--
ly on August 25, 1950, the Regents refused to recognize the appointment of
petitioners; that if resj)ondent Underbill is not ordered by this court
to transmit the letters of appointment, irreparable injury to both
petitioners «nd the people of the State of California will result: that
petitioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.

To this petition respondents filed their general end special
demurrer and answer. This court on September 1, 1950, ordered that
respondents take no action to enforce any resolution with respect to the
non-appointment of petitioners or termination of their posts end that
the ten day period granted petitioners by respondents should not expire

Zl\Ll^ 1^^^ following any further order of this court specifying that such
period shall commence to run.

+V,. ^-T Before discussing the facts of the dispute which culminated in
^ /^K^^'f this petition it is important to note by way of background,
that the Regents of the University in 1920 by resolution provided "that
appointment as associate or full professor carries with it tiie security of
tenure in the full academic sense." At no time prior to the present contro-
versy was that resolution superseded or modified. It further appears
that since 1920 the Regents and the faculty of the University have con-
sidered professors of the designated rank as not subject to arbitrary dis-
missal and entitled to all the incidents of tenure as it is commonly under-
stood in yuaerican universities. j -^ ^^

V, .*- . ^® r''?f*^ further discloses that for approximately a year and a
half prior to April 21, 1950, the regents, the faculty and the Alumni Asso-
ciation had considered the question of ways and means to implement the
stated policy of the Regents of barring members of the Communist Party fro"
employment at the University by means of a "Loyalty Oath." These discussions
culminated in a ir^eting held on April 21, 1950, at which the Regents passed
a resolution providing that after July 1, 1950, the beginning date of the
new academic year, conditions precedent to employment or renewal of employment

at the University would be (l) execution of the constitutional oath required
of public officials of the State of California, and (2) acceptance of ap-
pointment by a letter which contained the following provision:

"Having taken the constitutional oath of
office required of public officials of the State of
California, I hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance
of the position and salary named, and also state that I am
not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization
which advocates the overthrow of the government by force or
violence, and that I have no commitments in conflict with ray
responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free
pursuit of truth. I understand that the foregoing statement
is a condition of ray employment and a consideration of payment
of my salary."

The resolution further provided that,

"In the event that a member of the faculty fails to comply
with any foregoing requirement applicable to him he shall have
the right to petition the President of the University for a re-
view of his case by the Committee on Privilege and Tenui'e of the
Academic Senate, including an investigation of and full hearing
on the reasons for his failure so tc do. Final action shall not
be taken by the Board of Regents until the Committee on Privilege
and Tenure, after such investigation and hearing, shall have had
an opportunity to sutmit to the Board, through the President of
the University, its findings and recommendations* It is recog-
nized that final determination in each case is the prerogative
of the Regents •"

Some thirty-nine professors at the University who refused to
sign the affirmation set forth in the Regents' resolution accepted \diat
they apparently believed to be the alternative to the signing of the
oath as set forth in the resolution and petitioned the President of the
University for a hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure
of the Academic Senate. The hearing resulted in favorable findings
and recommendations by that committee as to each of the professors •
On Jiily 21, 1950, the Regents met and by a vote of 10 to 9 accepted
those recommendations and appointed the non-signing professors to the
faculty for the coming academic year. Following the passage of the
resolution one of the Regents gave notice that he would change his vote
from "No^' to "Aye^ and move to reconsider at the next meeting. At the
next meeting of the Regents, on August 25, 1950, a motion to reconsider
the matter of the appointments was passed by a vote of twelve to ton
(one absent member stated by telegram that he would vote "no" if he
were present) , and the resolution adopting the recommendations of the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure and appointing the professors to the
faculty was defeated by a like vote of twelve to ten. Following this a

3.

»»

motion was unanimously carried granting the non-signing professors ten
days in which to comply by signing the statement prescribed in the
resolution of April 21.

Petitioners herein were among those professors who refused
to sign the so-called "loyalty" statement. All of the petitioners are
scholars of recognized ability and achievement in their respective
fields. Additionally it should be noted that it is conceded that none
of the petitioners hai been charged \dth being a member of the Communist
Party or in any way subversive or disloyal.

Article IX of the Consitution v^hich declaies the policy of
this state as to education provides at the outset in Section 1 thereof
that education is "essential to the preservation of the rights and
liberties of the people . . •"*' Section 9 of that article establishes
the University of California as a "public trust, to be administered
by the existing corporation known as 'The Regents of the University of
California,' with full powers of organization and government, subject
only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure com-
pliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and the
security of its funds."*' "Riereafter follow detailed provisions re-
lating to the membership of 1±Le Board of Regents and their powers and
duties. The Section concludes with this provision: "The university
shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence
and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the
administration of its affairs • ..."

It is evident therefiom that the Consitution has conferred
upon the Regents broad powers \/ith respect to the government of the
University, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary
to insure compliance with the tenriS of the endowments of the University
and the security of its funds. (Hamilton v. Regents of the University
of California, 219 Cal. 663; Vail v. Board of Regents, 38 Cal. App. 2d
69s) It follows that this court may not inquite lightly into the
affairs of the Regents, and should exercise jurisdiction only where
the Regents have acted without power in contravention of law.

Tne validity of the action taken by the Regents on August 25,
1950 is first challenged by petitioners on the ground that the affirm-
ative statement demanded as a condition to their continued en^loyment
is a violation of Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution which
prescribes the form of oath for all officers, executive and judicial,
and concludes with the prohibition that "no other oath, declaration
or test, shall be required as a qualification for any office or public
trust."

Respondents' answer to this argument is that the constitutional
provision is not here applicable because members of the faculty of tlie
University do not hold office or positions of public trast- In support
of their position respondents place great reliance on Leymol v. Johnson,
105 Cal. App« 694. There it wbs held that Section 19 of Article IV of
the Constitution, which provides that "No Senator or member of Assembly
shall, during the term for which he shall have been elected, hold or

/(.•

accept any oifice, trust, or employment under this St&te; provided, that
this provision shall not apply to any office filled by election by the
people/ did not preclude a er of the legislature from also holding
a position as a teacher in the public schools of the city of Fresno. The
court's holding was that the position of instructor in a public snhool
vas not an ^office, trust, or employment under this State," as those terms
are used in Section 19 of Article IV of the Constitution.

That the decision is limited to the particular provision of
the Constitution there in question is indicated by the fact that the
court gave serious consideration to the pui'poses of the people in adopt^-
ing that section of the Constitution, citing Chenoveth v. Chambers,
33 Cal. App. lOi^, viiere this co^^irt held that the intent and purpose of
said section vas that "those ^^lio execute the laws should not be the same
individuals as those vho make the laws**^

There is no'thing either xn Me Lejinel case or any other case
cited by respondents vhich is conclusive of the status of petitioners with
respect to the constitutional oath of office as set forth in Section 3
of Article XI. Furthermore it is necessary in this case, as it vas in
the Leynel case, in dealing with another provision of the Constitution, to
consider the p^arposes and intent of i^e people of California in adopting
said Section 3 of Article XX. '^"hile the courts of this state have had no
occasion in the pest to discuss specifically the piirposes behind this sec-
tion, the history of the English and Arierican peoples in their struggle
for political and religious freedom offers ample testimony to the aims
vhich motivated the adoption of the provision.

A similar provision is found in Clause 3 of Article 6 of the
Federal Constitution where it is stated that all legislative, executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states,
shall be bound by oath or affinnation to support the Constitution; but no
religious test shalj ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust uzjder the United States. Speaking of this provision, Mr.
Chief Justice Hughes, in his dissenting opinion in United States v.
Macintosh, 233 U.S. 605, 631, 75 Law Ed. 1302, 1313, which views were
later upheld in Gircuard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61, 90 L. Ed. 108A,
said:

"I think that the requirement of the oath of office should
be read in the light of our regard from the beginnir-g for freedom
of conscience. . . To conclude that the general oath of office
is to be interpreted as disregarding the religious scruples of
these citizens and as disqualifying them for office because
they could not take the oath with such an interpretation would,
I believe, be generally regarded as contrary not only to the
specific intent of the Congress tut as repugnamt to the fundamental
principle of representative gcvemnent."

Again, in the c.&e of United States v. Schwixnoer, 279 U.S. 6jU^, 73
L. Ed. BB9, Mr. Justice Holmee, whose dissenting views were likewise upheld
in the Girou&rd case, said at page 654, "... if there is any principle

of the Constituoioi* t*:iat, l: v : : craoiv.
other it ie the principle of :"/:?■
agree with us but freed oir; for the 'v

cf^ls for attachinent ::> n any
t free thoiight for those who
we hate.**

In the Girouard case, which was the last in tliis line of cases in-
volving aliens who had been barred froa naturalization beceuse their then
religious beliefs would not permit them to bear arms to defend the coun-
try, Mr. Justice Douglas, speaking for the court in approving the views
expressed by fiughes and Holmes and holding that such aliens were not barred
from citizenship, succinctly stated at page 69: "The test oath is al:hor-
rent to our tradition.^

This "be sic principle was also discussed by Mr. Justice Jackson in
Vest Virginia State Board of Education v, Bamette, 319 U.S. 624., 87 L. Ed,
162B, the last of the "flag salute'" cases where, in speaking for the court
he said at page Gl2i

^'But freedoir to differ is not limited to things that do not
matter mi-. . . TliKt would be a mere shadow of freedoiL. The test
of its subf.t^nce is the right to differ as to things that touch

the bear-t of the existing order,

^ If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constella-
tion, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what
shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force 2iti2-ens to confess 'oy word or act

their faith therein.

n

At this late date it is hardly open to question but that the
people of California in adopting Section 3 of Article XX also meant to
include in our sttte Constitution that fundamental concept of what
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes referred to as "freedom of conscience'' and
Mr.. Justice Holmes called the ^principle of free thought.** Paraphrasing
their words we conclude thct trie people of California intended, at least,
that no one could be r i^tod, as a condition to holding office, to
any test of political or religious belie: other than his pledge to
support the Constitutions of this state and of the United States; that
tnat pledge is the highest loyal "Dy that can be demonstrated 'ay any
citizen, and that the exacting of any other test of loyalty would be
antithetical to our funaamental concept of freedom. Any other con-
clusion would be tc approve that -which from the beginning of our govemiaent
has been denounced bs tiie most effective means by which one special
brand of political or economic philosophy can entrench and perpetuate
itself to the ex i-lueicn of all others; the imposition of any

more inclusive test would oe the forerunner cf tyranny and oppression »

It is a well established principle of constitutional inter-
pretation that the meaning of any particular provision is to be ascertained
by considering the Constitution as a whole and that the duty of the court
in interpreting the Gc .xution is to harmonize all its provisions*
(In re Oliverez, 21 Gal« iJ5; Edler \ .llopeter, 2U Cal. 127.) A
strikingly analogooff applit^ation of this principle of construction is found

6o

I I

i.-n Vest Virginia : i oi I

slice Jackson said pt naf?€

1 V, B

a, where Mr,

u \J,

"lii weighxi^ ..i:'g:iinent8 of the parties it is important t^
distinguish bet^-een ohe due process clause of the FourteenUx

rltting the principles of
in which it is applied for
ion viiich collides vith the
-rs with princi ' -^
: t^st when the

o*.

Amendment as an. ' for tr

the First ^ .iment and those c.

its ovjn : . The test c:

Fourteenth Amendment, bt it

the First, is much inore definite

Fourteenth is involved, l^^ich of the vB^ie^ss of .^e ^le pror

^m-e- disai '^ —'■'^ISi T^' .^..^;i.2ES of the . _^

becor^e its su '■^-^ oMXi ■ ,

In the pT ■ic oi rpre-tj.tion vith -wtixor we fire presently

confronted, ve'find in tbe sp^r.lfic mandate aX Section 9 c.1 Iffticle
IX of our Constitution, prov. . University simll b.^ ^f^ire.y^

indcTJendent of all political o: .:Ctsri£n ixX- ■ "^ ^\ r ^ ,"L
to decide ii>e question of vhether or not tt.e- petitioner.- _h6;re.n are u^ be
included vithin the term ^of f ice or pj^lc tnistn as usee in Sect-ion 3 of
Article XX. It goes without saying taat in the practical conduct of the
affaire of the Uriversity the bcirden of so preserving it free xrom secta-
riar. and politiceJ influence nr.st be borne hy the faculty as wexl as bj^
the Repents. Hence, if the faculty of the University can be subjected to

Z moL nat^ov test of IcyaJ.ty ^^ tae ^^^^^^^f if'^i./tt-J'S' fS'S;ed
tutional. mandate in Section 9 of Article D: would be, eifectively iras. rated,
and O'or great institution nov dedicated to learning and the searcn for
trath reduced to an organ for the propagation of the ephemeral pontic
religious - social and econoiric philosophies , vhate^-er they may be , ol
the majority of the Board of T -ts of thst moment.

It mast be concluded that the meF.bers of the fp.culty of the

University, ir cam'ing out this most important te.sk, fa._^ witein the

class of persons to whom the framers of the C -itu- - ^o

extend the protection of Section 3 of Article XX.

W'll- iis court is mindful of the fact that the action of
the Re-^entswis at the cutset undoubtecly motivated by a desire to pro-
tect toe University fron. the influences of subversive ^l*^"^°i,^^^^°^J^^
to the overthrow of our constitutional gove.^ent and ^^^^J'^J^ ^^
our civil liberties, we are also keerJy aware that equal to ihe d^g^^
STsubversion from vrithout t^ means of force and violence is the daiger
of Bubversion from within "Cy the gradual whittling avay ana -che resu.
disintegration of the very pillars of our ireeoMB.

It necessarily followE Tina-, the requirement that petitioners
sign the fon. of conti-act prescribed in the ^g^^^^'/^f ^!;°; °^ g^^
2171950, wa.. and is invalid, being in violation bo^ of S««Jio° ^ of
Article XI and Section 9 of Article H of the Constitution ol the State of
SSilomia, and that petitioner, cannot be <i«f ^^ ^^^PP^^^J.^^^J Jf ,^
posts solely because ol their failure to comply vi^r. the invelia conait.on

therein set forthc

Subject to such reasoiiauie nu.es oi tenure as the F -ts F^ay
adopt, the appointment and dismissal of professioiml personnel of the
University is a matter largely vathin the discretion of the Regents.
(Vail V. Board of Regents^ supra.) Nevertheless, in the event of proof
of an abuse of discretion the "propriety of the remedy . . e is clear J-
(Landsborough v. Kelly, 1 Cal, 2d 739.) Thus in the present case the
imposition of the oath in question being violative of the applicable
constitutional provisions, the ebuse of discretior? is clear, and hence
this court may compel the reinststement of petitioners to their respec-
tive positions. (See also Inglin v. Kopoin . I56 Cal. ^83.)

In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary to consider the
further contentions of petitioners that the resolution of July 21, 19f>0
constituted an irrevocable appointment of the petitioners, and thet the
action or the Regents con'stituted an arbitrary dismissal in violation
of petitioners* tenure rights*

Therefore, since the letters of appointment issued to petition-
ers following the JRegents' resolution of April 21, I95O were subject to
the condition that the petitioners sign letters of acceptance of appoint-
ment containing the affirmative statement, the requirement of which we
have held to be invalid, it is the order cf tliis court that the writ issue
directing respondents by their secretary, respondent Underhill, to issue
to each of the petitioners a letter of appointment to his regular post on
the faculty of the University, which appointriient shall not be subject to
the aforementioned invalid condition. Provided that, if any of petitioners
has not yet executed the constitutionel oath of office as provided in the
said resolution of April 21, 1950, the respondents mey require that such
petitioner, as a condition precedent to his appointment, e>ecute said
constitutional oatho

Let the writ issue.

Peek. J.

V»e concur:

Adams, P. J.

Van Dyke, J.

o

Mwmm mmn

BERKELEY • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • LA JOLLA • DAVIS
SAN FRANCISCO • SANTA BARBARA COLLEGE • MOUNT HAMILTON

^•MTI".^

'•*••«••••**

Vol. 2, No. 20

A WEEKLY BULLETIN FOR THE STAFF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

January 4, 1954

MONTHLY MEETING OF THE REGENTS

._.r-i

State appropriations of $60..'^82,714 will
l)e soiijiht to l)alantt' a proposed biulgel of
18;78.97().(W8 approved by the Regents of the
I'niversily of (California at their nieetinji on
liie I.«»s Antr«'les '•anipiis Friday, Dec. 18,
1953, for the operations of all eijjht cam-
puses diirin<i the 1954 55 fiscal year.

The difference of $18,587,381 will he avail-
able from student fees, auxiliary enterprises
and or<ianized activities (such as hospitals,
student residence and flininjr halls), en-
dowments, donations, allocations from fed-
eral appropriations, and overhead on federal
contracts.

The total is $6,802,362. or 9.4 per cent,
fireater than the 1953 54 biidjiet of $72,167,-
736. The increase is unavoidable, principally
for two reasons. President Robert (». Sproul
t(d(l the Re<ients in reconunen(lin<z the pro-
posed bud<iet.

The University must provide for expan-
sion of its medical schools in both Los An-
ji( iCs and .^an Francisco, in acc<»rdance
with plans ajiproved by the State in prior
sessi(»ns of the Lejiislature. This is the most
expensive type of professional instruction
and accounts for $3,405,787 of the increase.
At the same time, it is under pressure to
aufrment its teaching facilities, primarily at
the undergraduate level, in anticipation of
the tidal wav«' of prospective students now
coming up through the lov\er schools.

Earlier this year, the Divisicm of Budgets
and Accoimts, State Department of Finance,
estimated that the University could antici-
pate 56.700 students by 1960 and 76.100
students by 1965. The 1960 figure is mor«'
than two-thirds greater than current total
enrollment. If the I niversity is to prepare
for this teaching load, there must be con-
tinual additions to the facilities and staff,
with consequerit ii'creases in operating costs
even during the i)resent peri<»d of almost
static enndlments.

However, of the total increase. President
Sproul pointed out. $1,934,137 is offset by
increased operating income from hospitals,
residence and dining halls, bookstores and
other income-producing ent«'rprises. leaving
a net increase of $4,868,225 or 6.7 per cent
of the current year's budget.

The principal items of this net increase

are

O

Medical Center Developments

7. To bring into use the new Los Angeles
medical facilities and provide urgently

needed service and training for Southern
California and the State as a whole

$1,452,057.

The opening of the new 320-bed Los An-
geles teaching hospital is scheduled f(»r Dec.

I. 1954; and the Medical School is building
toward an expansion of classes to 50 stu-
dents per year as contrasted v\ith the pres-
ent 32 per year. Simuhaneously the School
of Nursing must expand to provide clinical
nursing instruction on a 40-wfvk basis in
accord with licensure and registered nurse
requirements.

2. Similarly. t(» bring into use the new

II. (.. Moflfitt Teaching Hospital, which will
be in operati«m at the San Francisco Med-
ical (Center during the 1954 55 fiscal year,
and to provide for related cost increases in
instruction in the Schools of Medicine,
Nursing. Dentistry, and Pharmacy

$634,599.

State-w^ide

AcMitional costs due to earned promo-
lions and merit salary increases, under
schedules accepted by the State authorities,
t.itals $992,000. Additional staff in the C(.n-
troller's Office and the Personnel Office, to
provide service for the new San Francisco
and Los Angeles hospitals and the new
Uidleges of L«'tters and Science at Davis
and Riverside; continued modest develop-
ment of the Institute of Marine Resources,
with headquarters at La Jolla, to promote
the exploitation of fish and other sea re-
sources as an important addition to the
food supply and the economy of the .*^tate
and the nation; and minor increases in
state-wide research coincident VNith the
(•pening of the new School of Public Health
Ruilding at Berkeley bring the total in-
crease under this state-wide categcy to
$1,120,723.

Los Angeles Campus

An increase of $728,856 (exclusive of the
-Medical Center) is proposed. Almost (me-
third will be used t(» improve the student
health services, the cost of which is met
from the incidental fee paid by the stud«'nts
themselves; somewhat more than one-third
will provide for urgent initial equipment
needs of departments of instruction moving
into new buildings, which cannot otherwise
be used effectively, and f(»r modest, but
necessary, strengthening of instructional

offerings and research activities of a cam-
pus which is rapidly approaching the size
(d the Berkeh-y campus and is not jtresently
as fully staff«'d. Tin* remainder of the in-
crease, except f(»r very minor increases in
library services and agricultural science in-
struction and research, will cover unavoid-
able plant optiating costs due to thousands
of square feet of added space in new build-
ings.

Riverside Campus

The new (j)llege of Letttrs and Science
will open to freshman, sophomore, and
junior classes in February. 1951. and will
come into full (»peration in the academic
year 1954 55, with the addition c»f senior
courses, with an increase of $436,710 in ex-
penditures.

Davis Campus

Of the $209,438 increase in this category,
slightly more than one-half vsill improve
offerings and services by the Agricultural
Sciences (hpartments made necessary by
the demonstratetl needs of (-alifornia farm-
ers. The remainder of the increase, except
for $23,000 to continue proper devtdopment
of the young College of Letters and .Science,
will provide for general camj)us functions
serving both the (College of Agriculture and
the (-idlege of Letters and Science, such as
plant maintenance and operation, and li-
brary development.

Santa Barbara Campus

The modest increas«> of $137,769 proposed
for Santa Barbara (College will be due prin-
cipally to the transfer next summer to the
new campus at Goleta with its 415 acres
and 337.172 square feet of maintained buihl-
ing space as compared with the 13 acres
and 161.518 square feet of maintained build-
ing space on the Riviera canq)us. which
will dr(»p out (»f the budget picture except
for a stand-by maintenance cost of $6,500.

Berkeley Campus

The nei increase of $131,128 proposed for
Berkeley is only a fraction of one per ttul
greater than the current budget, and about

The concluding section of "In Defense
of a Subject Pattern," the report mode
by Herman A. Spindt, Director of Ad-
missions for the University, to the Cali-
fornia Committee for the Study of Edu-
cation, w^c« originally scheduled for
inclusion in this issue. Due to space
limitations, it is being held over for the
Jan. 1 1 issue.

1^

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

Page 108

January 4, 1954

35 per cent of the increase is re(|uired for
maintenance and operation of new build-
ings. The balance is spread in minor in-
creases over many departments.

La Jolla and Mount Hamilton
Net increases of $16,217 for La Jolla and
$728 for Mount Hamilton are recommende<l,
the former to provide principally for needed
library expansion and the later incident
upon the completion of the 120-inch teh'-
scope building and the placing in service of
the Tauchmann Reflector and the 5-inch
Crocker Telescope.

Following is the breakdown of the pro-
posed 1954 55 budget by campuses:

State-wide $17,248,170

Berkeley 22,155,519

Davis 7,117,768

La Jolla 930,556

Los Angeles 17,446,086

Mount Hamilton 187,310

Riverside 2,975,278

San Francisco 8.432,450

Santa Barbara 2,476,961

Total $78,970,098

The Regents granted acadenuc salary in-
creases ranging from 21-2 to 7V-> per cent for
Associate Professors and Professors and
e(juivalent ranks, effective Oct. 1, 1953.

The Regents, without adjusting existing
official salary range schedules pending
further consideration, granted to nonaca-
demic employees salary increases compar-
able in dollar amount and as to effective
date to those approved by the State Per-
sonnel Board for State employees.

Committee Report

Consideration of the following report sub-
mitted by the Special Committee to Con-
sider Claims of yXttorney Weigel in Case of
To/man vs. Underbill was deferred to the
January meeting of the Regents:

Your Special Committee appointed to con-
sider the claims set forth in two letters ad-
dressed to the Regents by Stanley A.
Weigel, Ksq., under date of October 8,
1953, reports as follows:

Mr. tfei gel's letters are formal demands
upon the Regents for payment of sums of
money to twenty-two former or present mem-
bers of the Faculty in individual amounts
ranging from S2/y00 to $23,000.

The aggregate amount demanded by Mr.
Weigel is in ex (ess of $.100,000, but this does
not represent the maximum, which could
reach $730,000.

Rather than undertake the refutation of
many recitals by Mr. Weigel, which are at
variance with the facts and the records,
your Committee hereivith places before the
Regents a narrative of the subject insofar
as it relates to the present claims.

All twenty-two of the claimants refused
to sign a non-Communist statement sug-
gested by the Faculty, on referendum, March
22, 1930, formulated by a Committee of
Alumni April 20, 1930, prescribed by the

Regents April 21, 1930 and discontinued
by the Regents October 19, 1931.

Twenty of the claimants did not execute
the Levering Oath, enacted by the Legisla-
ture and signed by the Governor October 3,
1930, requiring all State employees to sub-
scribe prior to November 3, 1930.

One claimant executed the Levering Oath
October 20, 1930, and another executed it
May 14, 1932.

Fourteen executed the Oath after being
ordered by the Supreme Court to do so as a
condition of employment.

Six refused to sign after the Court de-
cision.

None of the twenty-two claimants ren-
dered any service to the University after
July 1, 1930.

On October 17, 1932, the Supreme Court
of California rendered eight decisions on
the subject of "'loyalty oaths" and state-
ments.

Some of these involved professors and
teachers in colleges and schools; some with
tenure, and some without, including Tolman
vs. Underbill, the action Mr. Weigel main-
tained on behalf of some of his clients.
Seven of the claimants were non-litigants.
The record shows that Mr. If eigel urged
upon the Court all pertinent and material
factors affecting the rights of his clients.

The Court elected to decide the substan-
tive issues common to all the cases in that
of Pockman vs. Leonard.

Fockman was an Associate Professor, with
tenure, at San Francisco State College. He
actually rendered his usual services as a
teacher in the months of October and No-
vember, 1930.

He refused to execute the Levering Oath.
The Court held that the Levering Oath
was not unconstitutional ; that it did not
violate academic freedom; that it did not
violate tenure; that past conduct and loy-
alty have a reasonable relationship to pres-
ent fitness of public servants, and that the
State had a right to require a declaration of
loyalty.

The Court ordered that Mr. Pockman be
paid for his services "up to and including
30 days following October 3, 19.50, the effec-
tive date of the Statue, but having failed to
take the Oath, he is not entitled to <ompen-
sation for any subsequent period.

'"Insofar as Petitione'- seeks payment of
salary or other relief for any period sub-
sequent to 30 days after October 3, 1950,
the Application is denied. Let a Writ of
Mandate issue for the limited purpose of
directing payment of Petitioner's salary
up to and including 30 days after October
3, 1950."

In Bowen vs. County of Los Angeles, the
Petitioner, a civil service employee, had
worked up to November 29, 1950, but re-
fused to sign the Levering Oath.
The Court Order read:
"Let a Writ of Mandate issue for the lim-
ited purpose of directing payment of Pe-
titioner's salary up to and including 30
days after October 3, 1950."

In Fraser vs. The Regents, the Petitioner
refused to sign the Levering Oath and was
discharged December 11, 1950. lie de-
manded restoration and "compensation in^
accordance with the terms of his contract."

The case went off on Demurrer and a
Writ was denied.

In Bisno vs. Leonard, the Petitioner was
a teacher, without tenure, who refused to
take the Levering Oath. The Court Order
read:

"Insofar as Petitioner seeks payment of
salary or other relief for any period sub-
sequent to 30 days after October 3, 1950,
the Application is denied. Let a Writ of
Mandate issue for the limited purpose of
directing payment of Petitioner's salary
up to and including 30 days after October
3, 1950."

In Horowitz vs. Conlan, the Petitioner
was a teacher in the San Francisco Unified
School District, with tenure. The Court held
he could be compensated only up to Novem-
ber 3, 1950.

"Let a Writ of Mandate issue for the lim-
ited purpose of directing payment of Pe-
titioner's salary up to and including 30
days after October 3, 1930."

In Hanchett vs. Leonard, the Order was
identical.

Having in mind all of these Orders by the
Court in all of the cases, the closing para-
graph of the dissenting opinion of Judge
Carter in the Pockman case throws light on
a substantive matter btfort the Cuurl uttnt
of the cases.

"There is no question of loyalty involved
in any of these cases. So far it appears
from the records before us every employee
here involved was fully investigated and
there is no suggestion of any conduct
even bordering on subversive activity on
the part of any of them."

With all of these pronouncements of the
Court in mind, we quote the last two para-
graphs of the decision of October 17, 1932,
in T(dman vs. Underbill, which decided the
rights of these claimants.

"No question is raised as to Petitioners'
loyalty or as to their qualifications to
teach, and they are entitled to a Writ
directing respondent to issue to each of
Petitioners a Letter of Appointment to
his post on the faculty of the University
upon his taking the Oath now required of
all public employees by the Levering A< t
{See Fraser vs. Regents of U. C.) .
"Let a Writ of Mandate issue for the lim-
ited purpose above indicated.''

On November 21, 1952, the Regents pre-
pared to comply with the decision of the
Court, but a difference of opinion arose as
to whether the Court's Order contemplated
back pay.

Mr. Weigel asserted there could be no
reasonable doubt that the decision carried
back pay.

After study and discussions in the meet-

January 4, 1954

Page 109

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

ings of January and February, 1953, the
Regents decided to reifuest clarification.

Meanwhile, Mr. Weigel made Application
to the Supreme Court for a Peremf)torY
Writ.

Under instructions of the Regents, its
counsel filed a I^etition for Clarification, and
Regent Brodie K. Ahlport was represented
by counsel.

All parties filed Briefs or Statements of
Authorities.

Mr. Weigel pressed upon the Court's no-
tice prior to the decision of October 17,
1952, the matter of compensation, and in
his Brief filed March II, 1953, in support
of his Application for a Peremptory Writ,
discussed the matter at length.

A copy of that Brief is attached to this
report, and establishes that Mr. W eigel, with
emphasis, directed the attention of the Court
to the back pay issue.

Additionally, he declares repeatedly, in
substance, there could be no other fwssible
interpretation of the Order of October 17,
1952, except that the Court had disposed of
the issue and intended the Petitioners
should be paid.

Finally, he submits authorities which he
claims demonstrate that the Court intended
his clients should be paid.

In its Order of April 23, 1933, the Court
directed the Petitioners to sign the Levering
Oath as a condition precedent to appoint-
ment, and ordered the Regents to issue
f^etters of Appointment only after this was
done.

Simultaneously, it not only ignored Mr.
Wei gel's interpretation of its previous
Order, but used even more restrictive lan-
guage—

. . . "And it appearing to this Court that
a Peremptory Writ of Mandate condi-
tioned and limited as herein specified
should issue," etc.

Mr. Weigel also submitted a form of
Writ which he asserted would resolve the
controversy in accord with his ideas.

The Court ignored this form and expressly
limited its Order to giving these Petitioners
a chance of re-employment.

As a matter of law, there is not only no
authority for back pay, but direct and re-
peated decisions against payment of any
funds even for services rendered after No-
vember 3. 1950 in the absence oi the exe-
cution of the Levering Oath.

In dealing with the claims of Mr. WeigeVs
clients your Committee finds it impossible
to reconcile a number of conflicting ele-
ments.

The claim for back pay is predicated upon
the theory that the non-signers were vindi-
cated in their stand. This theory is without
foundation, and is refuted by the division
of Mr. WeigeTs clients.

If the non-signers were vindicated, why
do six of Mr. W^ei gel's clients refuse to sign
the Levering Oath and ask for severance
pay under the resolution of August 23,
1950?

The fact is these six, whether mistakenly
or otherwise, stood by their convictions that
a loyalty oath or statement teas a violative
of academic freedom and tenure.

If Mr. Weigel says his clients had no op-
portunity to sign the Levering Oath, how
does he explain its execution in October,
1930, by his client Dr. John W. Caughey?

All twenty-two of the demands had a com-
mon origin in the expressed conviction of
the claimants that the requirement of a non-
Communist loyalty oath or declaration as a
condition of employment constituted an in-
vasion of academic freedom and violated
tenure.

Historically, the Regents as early as Oc-
tober 11, 1940, adopted a policy barring
Communists from employment in the Uni-
versity on the ground they were incapable
of objective teaching.

This policy had never been questioned
until January 4, 1950, when a Committee
of the A< ademic Senate served notice upon
the Regents that it could not cooperate in
implementing the policy because the ma-
jority of the Senate was opposed to the
policy itself.

On March 22, 1950, by a majority of 80
per cent, the Faculty, on referendum, sus-
tained the policy of the Regents, and simul-
taneously requested that a form of oath
theretofore suggested by a Committee of
the Academic Senate be withdrawn and
that the policy be implemented by an ap-
propriate statement on the annual Letter of
Ac< entancf

On April 21, 1950, this suggestion of the
Faculty, as formulated by a Committee of
distinguished alumni, was adopted by the
Regents.

Thereafter, on July 21, 1950, on motion
of the President, and by unanimous action
of the Regents, several of the claimants
were deemed to be no longer in the employ
of the University. They were:

John L. Kelley
R. Nevitt Sanford
Harold W inkier

On August 25, 1950, the Regents by a
majority vote held the remainder of these
claimants were no longer in the employ of
the University.

On August 28, 1950, some of these claim-
ants petitioned for a Writ of Mandate in
the Third District Court of Appeals.

It will not be questioned that as a direct
outgrowth of the controversy precipitated
by these claimants the State Legislature on
October 3, 1950, passed, and the Governor
signed, the so-called Levering Act. embody-
ing a drastic anti-Communist Oath to be
subscribed />\ all public employees, includ-
ing the staff and Faculty of the University.

On October 20, 1950, the Regents took
action to facilitate the execution of the
Levering Oath by all persons employed by
the University.

A copy of that resolution is attached to
this report.

More than 99 per cent complied.

In April, 1951, the Third District Court
of Appeals filed a decision holding a "loy-
alty oath" unconstitutional, an invasion of
at ademic freedom and a violation of tenure.

The Regents having been advised by our
counsel, Eugene M. Prince, Esq., that the
decision was erroneous, were debating the
matter of Petition for Rehearing when ad-
vised the Supreme Court of California had
divested the District Court of jurisdiction.

On October 19, 1951, in an effort to re-
store harmony, the Regents discontinued the
requirement of a non-Communist statement
on the Letter of Acceptance and thereafter
the sole oath required was the Levering
Oath.

A copy of that resolution is hereto at-
tached.

On October 17, 1952, the Supreme Court
decided the eight cases already referred to
involving interpretation of Loyalty Oath
provisions.

The (^ourt held such an oath did not vio-
late academic freedom, and did not violate
tenure; that the State had a right to in-
quire into the associations of persons desir-
ing the privilege of teaching, and that such
a regulation was not invalid, even if it re-
quired disclosure that might amount to
self -in crim in at ion.

In the case involving the University regu-
lation, which had already been withdrawn
by the Regents, the Court held the regula-
tion invalid, only because the State in the
exercise of its police power had preempted
flu- field

It is very significant and important to
bear in mind that the only ground for set-
ting aside the Regents' regulation was the
fact that the State enacted such a regula-
tion to protect all public agencies, includ-
ing the L'niversity.

The Supreme Court only decided which
authority should impose a perfectly valid
regulation — to which these claimants ob-
jected.

This objection to a loyalty oath or state-
ment was raised by all twenty-two claimants
prior to decision by the Supreme Court.

However, our examination of the records
disclosed that both before and after decision
the claimants had split into a number of
categories holding irreconcilable views,
some invoking different remedies and others
doing nothing.

Your Committee invited Mr. Weigel to
present any views he might care to urge
in support of his demands.

Mr. If eigel apparently was not advised of
the facts in relation to some of the claim-
ants and as a solution offered only the sug-
gestion that the Regents should initiate
some legal proceeding nothwithstanding the
decisions of the Supreme Court.

Even if the Regents attempted such an
extraordinary method of dealing with this
matter, they ivould encounter the identical
difficulties which confront Mr. ff eigel.

Some of these difficulties are as follows:

1. The Supreme Court has already decided
the issue, and its decision is final.

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

Page 110

January A, 1954

2. Seven of the twenty-two claimants
rendered no service for two and a half years,
took no legal action to remedy any alleged
wrong, and have no standing as benefici-
aries of the IVrit of Mandate.

.'^. Fifteen of the claimants were litigants,
and of these some execnted the Levering
Oath as directed hy the Snpreme ('onrt, and
others did not. I nquestionably, all of these
stood on a parity np to the time of the de-
cision, yet claim is made for two and a half
years' pay for some and one years' severance
pay for others.

4. Of the fifteen, two executed the Lever-
ing Oath, resigned within a few days, and
now claim two and a half years' pay.

• ). Mr. ff'eigel was apparently unaware of
tile fact that one (laintant had signed the
Levering Oath in October, l^.'^O. and an-
other had signed May 14, 1952.

On behalf of one of these. Dr. John W .
C.aiighey, claim is made for >>l l.OOO. and on
behalf of another, Harold If inkier, claim is
made for 88,600.

) oiir (lommittee can ofjer no explanation
or theory why claim is made for two and a
half years' pay for these non-litigants and
lor only one years' pay for some of the liti-
gants who resigned after the Supreme Court
decision.

(). The Regents have no information as to
the reasons for refusal of the remaining
twenty claimants to sign the Levering Oath
until ordered to do so by the Suj)reme
Court as a condition of ap])ointment.

7. The Re^icnts have nc it})>^rn>.at!(*>} as to
why twenty-one of the claimants did not
sign the Levering Oath in October, 79.57,
when the Regents' non-Communist state-
ment requirement ivas withdrawn.

8. The Regents have no information as to
the reasons whi( h inijielled some of the liti-
gants to resign rather than comply with the
Order of the Supreme Court to execute the
Levering Oath as a condition of appoint-
ment, and why Mr. If eigel asks only sever-
ance pay on their behalf.

In exploring all ])hases of the subject
your Committee reviewed exhaustively the
IHtssibility of some token settlement baseil
upon the period, July 1, 1950, to November
3, 1950.

7 he absence of any direction by the
Court, legal considerations based upon the
finding the State had preemj)ted the field,
the conflicting positions of litigants and
non-litigants, the conflicting positions
among the litigants made it impossible to
find any justification.

NeitluT the Court nor the Rrjirnts liad
the power to extend the eflfeetive date <»f the
Leverinjr Oath heyond N»>venil)er 3. 19r>(),
which fact was emphasized repeatedly in
I he (Court's decisions.

A summary of the entire record shotvs
the Supreme Court was fully advised ujton
all phases of the controversy involving loy-
alty oaths and statements which had been
the subject of debate and litigation from
May, 1949, including problems of compen-
sation and back pay.

Light difjerent cases were before the
Court from April. 1951 to October, 1952,
and were disposed of in decisions ivhich
bear the imprint of thoughtful considera-
tion of problems which had kept the State,
political subdivisions, and educational in-
stitutions in turmoil.

The small minority of non-signers has
had its day in i.ourt.

The records of the office of the Secretary
and the Controller establish that the I ni-
versity complied with the Order of Court
in good faith months before the ff rit of
Mandate nas served on October 13, 1953,
fire days after the date of Mr. If eigel's
demands.

In conclusion, your Committee directs at-
tention to the fact that if the Regents had
not complied fully and in good faith with
the Peremptory ff rit of April 23, 1953, Mr.
If eigel would have discharged his duty to
his clients by having the Regents cited for
contempt.

Your Committee recommends that out of
a proper respect for the decisions of the
Supreme Court of California, and for the
Regents' responsibilities as Trustees of the
finances of the I niversity, the claims em-
bodied in Mr. If eigel's letters of October
H, 1953, be rejected.

John Francis Nkylan
RnoDiK K. Am roKi
Kdvn AKi) A. Dickson
Eaiu, J. Fknston

(llIKMKK W. NlMITZ
KdWIN W . P\\ IKY

The Regents appr(»ved arran<ieinents
wherehy University employees desiring to
register as students under existing personnel
rules may enroll in r«'gular session courses
of three units, or one course, whichever is
greater, upon payment of 50 per cent of the
incidental fee. Kmployees so registered will
he ineligihle for the services and facilities
of the ('ounseling Center, the gymnasia, or
Student H«'alth Service (other than fi»r re-
tpiired vaccinations and screening exami-
nation for contagious diseases). The ahove
will not apply to Sunuuer Session or Uni-
versity Extension courses.

President Sproul reported the following
appointments:

P. A. Miller. \ ice (Chairman. Department
of Plant Pathology. Riverside Los Angeles,
effective Jan. 1. l^.")!: Roherl K. Rohinson,
Acting Chairman. Department o( Knglish.
Santa IJarhara College, effective spring se-
nu'ster. 19o4.

The resignation of Hays and (ioodpaslor
as executive archilecis for the Santa Rar-
hara College Residenc«' Hall wa< accepted:
and Pereira and Luckman were appointed
executive architects for Residence Hall
units 1 and 2. and utility engineers for
Santa Rarhara College.

Award of the following construction c»)n-
iracts was authorized:

Berkeley campus whh Hugh Taylor,

Inc., |iS7.416, steam line from l-Mdeman
Hall to (College Avenue.

Riverside campus with llo«ler (lonstruc-
tion Co., $2r),47.'). Insecticide (Compounding
Ruilding.

San Francisco campus with Fis llokin
and (iaivin. $3M,1 16, campus (ire alarm sys-
tem.

Lngineering Field Station, Richmond —
with Monson Rrotlwrs. .$1 18.9;i(), Adminis-
Iratioii Ruilding atid l.ihrary.

'i'he Regents also acted on the following
reconunendations of President Sproid:

Changes in Status:

John l>. Lagen, Associate I'rofessor ol
General Medicine and Associate Dean.
School of Medicine, San Francisco; addi-
tional appointment as Director, Out-Pal ieni
Department, effective July 1, V)5?>.

Leaves of Absence:

(Effective Jan. 1 to June 30, 1954, unless
otherwise noted.)

(Miarlolle F. IJiester. Prof»'ssor of Home
Fconomics. Santa Rarhara. «ffeclive Nov. 1.
1953, to Jan. 4, 1954, illness.

Philip C. Rurton, Lecturer in Music.
Rerkeley. effective Jan. 4 to Feh. 21. 1954.
for an Faslern concert lour.

.Sidney A. (iriller, L«'cturer in Music,
Rerkeley, effective Jan. 4 to Feh. 21, 1954.
for an Eastern concert tour.

Colin Hampton. Lecturer in Music. Rerke-
ley, effective Jan. 4 to Feh. 21, 1954, for an
Eastern concert tour.

Family H. Hiinlinglon. Professor of Eco-
nomics. Rerkeley. sahhatical.

.Max Kleiher. Professor of Animal Hus-
handrv and Animal Hushandman in the Ex-
periment Station. Davis, effective March 1
to June 30. 1954, sahhatical,

F. Dean McCJusky, .Associate Professor
of Education, Los Angeles, sahhatical:
Head, .\udio-\ isual Education, University
Extension, Los Angeles, effective Feh. 1 to
June 30, 1954, sahhatical.

xMaurine McKeany, Associate Professor
of Social welfare, Rerkeley, sahhatical.

Arthur J. O'Rrien, Lecturer in .Mu^ic.
Rerkeley. effective Jan. 4 to Feh. 21. 1954,
for an P.astern concert tour.

John W. Olmsted. Piofessor of History
an<l (chairman. Division of Humanities, Col-
lege of Letters and Science, Riverside, effec-
tive Oct. 21 to Nov. 25, 1953. to interview
candidates for t«»aching positions.

David H. Temph'ton, Assistant Professor
of Chemistry, Rerkeley, sahhatical.

Theodore \'ermeulen. Professor of Chemi-
cal Engineering. Rerkeley. effective July 1.
19.53. to June 30, 1954, sahhatical.

Deaths:

The President reported, with regret, the
death of Louis Rarnier. form«'r Associate in
French on the Rerkeley campus, Nov. 14.
and Alexander S. Mornell, Associate in

January 4, 1954

Page 1 1 1

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

Slavic Languages on the Los Angeles cam-
pus, Nov. IH.

Gifts:

The R<'genls accepted gifts totaling $248,-
2.52.84, allocated to: Rerkeley, $66,.384.27;
Davis, $1,870; La J.dla. $1,978; Los An-
geles, $126..567.12: Riverside, .$3,050; San
Francisco, .$39, 785.. 36 ; Santa Rarhara, $6,-
118.09; and stale-wide. ,$2,.50(). Pledges
were reported totaling $24,318, allocated to:
Rerkeley, .$7,.550; Los Angeles, .$7,800; and
San Francisco, $8,968,

April 25, Monday, to April 30, .Saturday —

.*^|)ring recess.
*May 30, \l(Miday Memorial Day.
June 4.. 'Saturday lii»lrui lion «'nds,
Jime 6. Monday, to June 16, Thursday —

Final examinations.
June 16, Thursday .Spring semester ends,

RoHKHT C. SiMtoi L, President

OFFICIAL
ANNOUNCEMENTS

PRESIDENT

Academic Calendar for 1954-55

The following calendar has h<'en adopted
for the academic year 1954 55. It will apply
t<t all campuses with the exception of Sum-
mer Sessidiis dales, which ap|)ly to the cam-
puses indicated. Registration dates will vary
on the several campuses and will he an-
nounced locally.

.SiMMKK Skssions. 1951:

Rerkeley and San Francisco Two ses-
sions of six weeks each. June 21 to July 31,
and Aug. 2 to Sept. II.

Davis -Two sessions of six weeks each,
Jun«' 21 to July 31, and Aug. 2 to Svpl. 11;
special session of --ix weeks, July 6 to Aug.
14,

Los Angeles One session of six weeks,
June 21 to July 31 ; one sessi<m of «-ight
weeks, June 21 to Aug. 14; special courses
of four weeks; two special engineering ses-
si(»ns of six weeks each, June 21 to July 31,
and Aug. 2 to Sept. 11.

Santa liar bar a (-allege One session of
six weeks. June 28 to Aug. 6.

*July 5, .Mon«lay Independence Day.
*.Sept. 6. Monday Lahor Day.

Fall .Skmk.stkk, 1954 55:

Sept. 13. Mon<lay -Fall sem«'ster hegins.
Sept. 20. Monday Instruction hegiiis.
*Nov. 25, Thursday Thanksgiving Day.
Dec. 20. Monday, to Jan. 1. .Saturday —
(ihristmas recess.
*Dec. 24 and 25, Friday and .*^aturday

Christmas holiday.

*Dec. 31 and Jan. 1. Friday and .^^aturday

— New Year's h(»liday.

Jan. 3, Monday Instruction resumes.

Jan. 15, Saturday Instruction ends.

Jan. 17, Mon<lay. to Jan. 27, Thursday

Final examinations.
Jan. 27. riiursday Fall semester ends.

Si'KiNc; Skmkstkh. 19.55:

Feh. 7. Monday Spring semester begins.
Feh. 11. Monday Instruction hegin<.
*Feh. 22, Tuesday W ashingtons
birthday.

• Academic and .\dmiiiistr.iti\t.- holiday.

CHANCELLOR AT BERKELEY

Al the reipiest of the (California Slate
Fmployet's' Association and with the ap-
proval of President .Sproul and the .State-
wide Persoimel Advisory (>ommitle«', a
grievanee procedure has been established
for Rerkeley campus personnel.

The procedure may be used for all griev-
ances of Rerkeley campus nonacademic per-
sonnel except for matters (d job classifica-
tion. Fvery employee having a grievance he
wishes to adjust shall have the right to act
for himself or through a representative of
his own choice at any st«'p provided in the
procedure.

The grievance i)rocedure invidves five
steps, nanndy: adju-tment within tin* de-
parlmenl; appeal to Rerkeley campus per-
sonnel officer; review conunittee; personnel
appeals board; and appeal to the Presid«'nl.
Although use of the first step is reconi-
im-nded. it may be hy-pass«'d. In addition.
ullimat«' ap|>eal to th«' Regent» of the Lni-
versity of (alilornia is pctssible

Copies (d the grievance pnxedure. setting
forth the steps in ilelail, have been circu-
lated to department heads and administra-
tive officers. In addition, copies may be «d>-
tained from the Personntd Offi<e. 2260 Tele-
graph Avenue.

Clahk Kkkk. Chancellor at Rerkeley

VICE-PRESIDENT-BUSINESS AFFAIRS

FfTective Jan. 1. 19.51. Cniversity of Cali-
fornia travel rules relating to reindiurs**-
nient f(»r noon meals on one-day trips will
be changt>d to conform with the Slate Roard
<d Contrtd regulation^; namely, that a maxi-
mum of 7.5(* may be < laimed a-- reimbur<-«'-
ment for lunche(»n expenses on >ue\\ one-
day trip*^, when luncheon is the only meal
claimed.

Javiks H. Coklky
Vice-President liusiness Affairs

OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER

Federal Income Tax Withholding Statement

On or before Jan. 31. 1951. statements
will Im' mailed to all -tail numbers, showing
earnings from the Iniversity. rejiortahle for
lax purpose^, for the calendar year 19.53.
and taxes withheld therefrom. TheM' state-
nu-nts are for use in connection with the
preparation of the individual- income tax
return for 1953.

Refore these statements are prepared, it

would be extremely helpful if anyone wh<»
has changed his name or address during
the past year would complete and submit
Form 2194 (Notice of (Change of Fmployee
Nam«' and/or Address) promi)tly so that
statements may reach the proper addresses
without undue delay.

G. E. Steven.s, Assistant Controller

CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER

F iinds have been allocated by the Regents
to increase the salaries of employe«'s in cer-
tain nonacademic classes effective July 1 or
Oct. 1, 1953. These adjustments, usually 5
per cent, are comparable to those received
recently by .State employees, and will be
granted to those persons in affected eiasse>
on the payroll through Nov. 30. including
those currently at or over the maxinunn of
the salary range. Persons empl(»yed on or
after Dec. 1. 1953, will not receive this in-
crease.

Vo changes in salary rang«'s are being
made al this lime as a result of these ad-
justments.

Fmi)loy«*es paid from g<»vernment con-
tracts are eligible for the increase only if
funds from these sources are made avail-
able. The (>(»nlroller"s Office will consult
departnu'nts operating federal contracts to
iletermine availability of funds for this pur-
pose.

In the case of increases to pe-rsonnel
ihargeable against donations, endowment
incom*', and "'h t '^p»'cia!-f'.!r.d grants, ap
prttpriations will be ma<le to supph-ment
regidar salary apjfroprialions. Appropria-
tions will not be made to (ieneral Assist-
ance unless departments justify augmenta-
tion of such budgets.

The adjustment will be mad*- automati-
cally fi»r per-<Mis paid on ihe Salary Roll
and on (»«neral Assistance payndls without
the nee«'ssity for submission of forms by de-
partments. If possible, January earnings
will be paid al the new rates. Issuing the
payment for the retroactive adjustment in
1951 gives employees the advantage of the
low»-r income lax rate. I*>ecau>e of tlu' pre-
sche<luled workload involved in the prepara-
tion «d 1953 income tax withholding state-
ments an<l other work involving the prep-
aration of the pers«»nnel roster, it is not
possible to issue the retroacliv*- checks in
January. (!h«'cks c(»vering the retroactive
amounts due will be issued to C«'neral As-
sistance employees on Feb. 23, 19.54, and to
I^alary Roll employees with the regular Feb-
ruary < heck.

Primary ex<lusi<ms from this adjustment
are employe«>s in certain of the lower cla-si-
tication> such as (;ierk. Aciount (!lerk, .M«'s-
senger. Stores Helper, Laboratory Helper,
and relat«'d classes, and th«)se paid on a
"prevailing rate" basis.

Questions concerning adjustments sh<tuld
be addressee! to your campus Personnel
Offic.-.

BOYNTON S. KaISKK

Chief Personnel Officer

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

Page 110

January 4, 1954

January 4, 1954

Page 1 1 1

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

2. Seven of the twenty-two claiinants
rendered no service for two and a hall years,
tooli no /efial action to remedy any alleged
wrong, and have no standing as benefici-
aries of the U rit of Mandate.

3. Fifteen of the claimants were litigants,
and of these some executed the Levering
Oath as directed by the Supreme Court, and
others did not. I ncjuestionably, all of these
stood on a parity up to the time of the de-
cision, yet claim is made for two and a half
years' pay for some and one years' severance
pay for others.

4. Of the fifteen, two executed the Lever-
ing Oath, resigned within a few days, and
now claim two and a half years' pay.

5. Mr. If eigel was apparently unaware of
the fact that one claimant had signed the
Levering Oath in October, l^W. and an-
other had signed May It, l'^)'i2.

On behalf of one of the.se. Dr. John If .
(aughey, claim is made for ^^11,000, and on
behalf of another, Harold W inlder, claim is
made for Sli.OOO.

Your (Committee can ofjer no explanation
or theory why claim is made for two and a
half years' pay for these non-litigants and
for only one years' pay for some of the liti-
gants who resigned after the Suprenie Court
decision.

(>. The Regents have no information as to
the reasons for refusal of the remaining
twenty claimants to sign the Levering Oath
until ordered to do .so by the Supreme
(.ourt as a condition of appointment.

7. The Rf'^enfs have no infnrmafion as fo
why twenty-one of the claimants did not
sign the Levering Oath in October, lO.^I,
when the Regents' non-(.ommunist state-
ment ret/uirement was withdrawn.

H. The Regents have no information as to
the reasons ivhit h impelled some of the liti-
gants to resign rather than comply with the
Order of the Supreme Court to execute the
Levering Oath as a condition of appoint-
ment, and why Mr. if eigel ashs only .sever-
ance pay on their behalf.

In exploring all phases of the subject
your Committee reviewed exhaustively the
po.ssihility of some token settlement ha. set!
upon the period, July I. lO'iO. to November
:i, l*).W.

The absence of any direction Ity the
(nurt. legal considerations based ufton the
finding the .State had preempted the field.
the < oufficting positions of litigants and
non-litigants, the conflicting positions
among the litigants made it impossible to
find any justification.

iNfMllnr llir (loiirt in»r llir H«ji«nts had
tll«* powrr ^^^ rxtriid llir rffiM ti\r <jatr of lln'
l-r\«'rin;: Oalli lM'>«»n«l NoNcmlur .'i. 1950,
whirh faj'l nnhs cnipliasiMMJ rfpratiMJIy in
llir (ioiirts dfM'isions.

A summary of the entire record shows
the .Supreme Court was fully advised upon
all phases of the controversy involving loy-
alty oaths and statements whi( h had been
the subject of debate and litigation from
May, I'fPf, including problems of <ompen-
sat ion and ba( k pay.

Light different ca.ses were before the
Court from April. P).')l to October. /'>.)2,
and were disposed of in decisions which
bear the imprint of thoughtful considera-
tion of problems which had kept the State,
political subdivisions, and educational in-
stitutions in turmoil.

The small minority of non-signers has
had its day in Court.

The records of the office of the Secretary
and the Controller establish that the I'ni-
versity complied with the Order of Court
in good faith months before the ff rit of
Mandate ivas served on October l-'i, lO.i.'i,
five days after the date of Mr. ffei gel's
demands.

In conclusion, your Committee directs at-
tention to the fact that if the Regents had
not complied fully and in good faith wit It
the l\'reniptory If rit of April 2'i, /9.).V. 1//.
If eigel ivould have discharged his duty to
his clients by having the Regents cited for
contempt.

Your (.ommittee recommends that out of
a proper respect for the decisions of the
Su])reme Court of California, and for the
Regents' responsibilities as Trustees of the
finances of the Iniversity, the claims em-
bodied in Mr. f^ eigel' s letters of October
H, I'Jy.i, be rejected.

John Kkwcis Nkyi.\n
Hhudik K. Am.iMnn
Fj)\\ xki) a. Dickson
Eaki. J. Fknston

CUKMKK W. NlMITZ

Edwin W. Pm lky

Tlir Kr^riil- approvrd arraii}i«Miirnts
vvhrrrhy I'nivrrsity rmpl<»yers drsiriiiji lo
rrjiistrr as slii(l«'nts uiidrr rxislinji prrsonnrl
iiiirs may «'nroll in rrjiular session roiirsrs
of tlirrr units, or onr rourse-. wlii(lir\rr is
jirratrr. up(»n pa>nirnt of .')() prr rrnl of llir
incidrntal fer. Employees so rejiisteretl will
he in«'lijiihle for th«* services and facilities
of the* (]ounselinji (Center, the gymnasia, or
Stndriit Hralth Service (oiIkt than for rr-
(|uirrd \arcinations and scrrrninj: rxami-
nalinii for contajiioiis di>rases>. The alio\e
will not apply to Summer Session or I ni-
versily Extension courses.

Prrsidrnt Spn»ul rrportrd tlir f»dlowin}i
appoi!itiiirnl<>:

P. A. Millrr. \ icr (!liairman. Drpartinrnt
of Plant Patholojiy. Hi\rr>idr Los An<:rl«'<.
rfTecti\e Jan. 1. 1954; Rohert E. Hohin^on.
Acting (Ihairman. Department of English.
Santa Harhara (!ollrgr. jfTeclive spring se-
mester, 1954.

(he resignation of Hay-* and (ioodpa-^lor
as rxrruli\r ar«hitr<ts for llir >anta Har-
hara (!ollrgr Hr^idrncr Mall wa^ accepted;
and Pereira and Euckman were appointed
exeoulive architects for Residence Hall
units 1 an<l 2. and utility engineers for
Santa Harhara (College.

\ward of the following construction eon-
tracts was authorized:

Berkeley campus with Huyli Taylor.

I IK-., $57,416. strain line from Eshlrman
Hall to College' Ave-iuir.

Riverside campus with Horfrr doiislrue'-
tion Co., $25,475, Inse'clicide Cemipoiindiiig
Ihiilding.

San Francisfo catnpus with Els Hokiii
and (iaivin, $38,116. rainpus lire- alarm sys-
Iriii.

Lngineering Field Station. Ri< hinond —
with Monsoii Rrolhrrs. $11K,9;U), A<lminis-
tralion lUiildiiig and Eihrary.

Tlir Regents also acted on the' fe)llowing
recoiiiiiKiKlalioiis <»f Prrsidrnt Sproiil:

Changes in Status:

John 1). Lagrii. Associate' Pre>f«-ssor eif
(General Mrdicinr and Associate- Dean.
Seliool e)f Me'elieine-, San Franeiseo; achli-
linnal appoinlmrnt as Dirrrlor, Out-Paliriil
Drparliiiriil, rl]r(ti\t' July I. I95.i.

Leaves of Absence:

(Effective Jan. I to June 30. lOvi. unless
otherwise noted.)

(Iharlotte- E. Rie-sler. Professor e>f Home'
Ee-onomirs. Santa IJarhara. rffrelive' Ne>\. 1.
195.i. lo Jan. I. 195 1. illiir>v.

Philip (]. nurlem. Eeeturer in \Iusie-.
Rrrkeley. effrrtive' Jan. 4 to Ee-h. 21, 1954,
for an Eastern ee)neerl le)ur.

Sidney A. (irilirr, Ee'eture-r in Music,
Berkele'y, efTe'ctive' Jan. 4 te) Eeh. 21. 1954.
fe>r an Easte'rn conee-rt le)ur.

(!e)liii Hampton. Eeeture'r in Musie-, Re'rke-
ley, e'lie'eiive' Jan. 4 to Feh. 21. 1954. feu an
Easte'rn ee»ne«rt te)ur.

Emily H. Hiintingteui. Professor <»f Eco-
nomie-s. IJe'rke'le'y, sahhalieal.

Max Kle-ihe-r. Profe'ssor of \nimal Hus-
handr> and Animal llii>liandmaii in the- F.x-
pe'riment !^tatiem, l)a\ is, e-fTe-clive Mar« h 1
te) June- M). 19.54, sahhatieal.

I". Dean McCJusky, Associate- Pre>fes>e>r
etf Edueatieui. Eos Ange'les, sahhatieal;
Heael. Auelio-\ isual Edueation. I nixe-rsity
Exte-nsie»n. Eeis Vnge-h-s. e-fTe'cti\e- Eeh. 1 fo
June- M), 1954. sahhalieal.

Maurine' MeKe'any. Assoeiate- Pre)fe->>or
of .'•^eieial Welfare-. Re-rke'h'y, sahhatieal.

Arthur J. ORrie-n. Ee-eture'r in Musie',
Re-rke-ley. eflFective Jan. 4 to Feh. 21, 1954.
for an Eastern e-eme-erl teiur.

Jediii W. Olmsteel, Piofes.sor of History
ami (Jiairman. Division of Hiimanitie's, (]ol-
le-ge- e>f Ee-lle'rs anel Seie-nee-. Rive-rsieJe'. e'fTe'C-
tive' Oet. 21 to Ne»\. 25, 195.3. te) inle-r\ i«'w
eanelidate's for te-aehing positions.

Daviel H. Te'mj)le'te)n. Assistant Pre»fe-sse)r
e>f (;iie-mistry. Rerke-h->. sahhatieal.

The-oelore \ e-rme'iih-n. Profe-ssor of (Ihe-mi-
eal Engineering. Re-rke'ley, efFeclive' July 1.
19.5;i. to June M). 1954. sahhatieal.

Deaths:

The Preside-nt re-peirte-d. with re-gre-t, the*
ele-ath e)f Ltui«« Uarnie-r. former Asse>eiate* in
Ereneh on tin- Be-rke-le-y campus, Nov. 14.
and Ale-xaneler S. Me>rnell, Associate- in

Sla\ie- Language-s on tlir I <>- Angrle-s cain-
|)us, Nov. 18.

Gifts:

The- Regents aceepte'd gifts totaling $248.-
252.84, alloral.-d lei: Rrrk.lry. $66.;i84.27;
Davis, $1,870; Ea Jedla. $1,978; Eos An-
ge-le-s. $126,.567.12; Rivrrsidr, $.3,050; San
Eraneiseo. $;i9.785..36 ; Santa Harhara, $6.-
118.09; and slatr-widr. .$2..5()0. Ple-elge's
we-re re'porle-d totaling $24..318. alleicate-d to:
l?«-rk.'le-y, .$7,.').5(); Eos Ange-lrs. .$7,800; and
Sail Kranrise-o, .$8,968.

OFFICIAL
ANNOUNCEMENTS

PRESIDENT

Acaedemic Calendar for 1954-55

rii(- ft>ll(t\\ iiig ralriidar has hrrn adeijdrd
for the- aeaele'iiiie- ye-ar 195 f 55. It uill apply
to all eampnst-s with the- e'xce'pti(»n e>f Siim-
mrr .Se'ssietns date-s. wliieh apply te) tlir eam-
puse-s indirale-d. Re'gistrati<»n elalrs will vary
(•n llir se-ve-ral e-ampuse-s and uill l»r an-
nejiinee-d loeally.

Si MMKK Skssions. 1951:

lierkeley and San Francisco — Twei ses-
sions of six wee'ks eaeh. June 21 to July .31.
and \iig. 2 to Srjil. I I.

Davis Twe> se-ssions of six we'eks e-ach.
June' 21 to July 31, anel Aug. 2 to Sept. 11;
spreial -r^sinii of sjx \\rrk». .jldv 6 to Aug.
IE

Los Angeles One- se-ssiem of six we-e-k^.
June- 21 to July 31; one* se-ssiem etf e-iglit
weeks, June- 21 lo Aug. 14; special e-ourse's
of fe»ur weeks; two spe-eial e-ngine-e-ring se-s-
sie»ns of six we-e-ks e-aeh. June- 21 to July 31.
and Aug. 2 lo .Sept. 11.

Santa liarbara (.allege One se'ssiem of
six weeks. June 28 to Aug. 6.
*JuIy 5. Metnelay Inde-pe-nehne e- I)a>.
*Sept. 6. MtMielay Lahor Day.

Fall Skmkstkh. 195 J .55:

Sept. 13. Monelay Eall seine-ste-r he-gins.
Si'pt. 20. Monelay Insiruetieui he-gins.
*Nov. 25. Thurselay Thanksgiving Day.
Dee. 20. Meuiday. to Jan. 1. Saturday- -
( Jiristmas re'ee-ss.
*Dec. 24 anel 25. Erielay and Saturda\

( Jiristmas holiday.
*Dec. 31 anel Jan. 1. Eriday anel Saturday
Ne-w \ ear's heilielay.
Jan. 3. Monelay Instruction re'sunies.
Jan. 15. Saturday In-truelion e-nels.
Jan. 17. Memday. to Jan. 27. I'hiirselay -

Einal examinatieuis.
Jan. 27. Thurselay Eall semester enels.

Si'UiNc; Skmkmkh, 1955:

Eel). 7. M<»nday Spring seme-ster he'gins.
Ee'h. 1 1, Monday Instruetion he'gins.
*Ee'h. 22, Tue'seiay Wasiiingttm's
hirthilav.

April 25. M(»ii(lay, to April 30. Satiirelay
Spring recess.
*May 30, Metnelay — Me'morial Day.
June' 4. Satiirelay Instruction enels.
Jiinr 6, Monelay, to June» 16, Thurselay

I'inal rxaiiiinatie>ns.
June- 16. Thursday Sjiring senie-ste-r e-iid.-

ReiHKirr (',. Si'uoi i.. Fresident

* Academic .iiid Adrniiiisti.iiivi- holid.iv.

CHANCELLOR AT BERKELEY

Al llir re-que'si e)f ilie' (lalihtmia .^tate
Employees' Asseieiatieui and with the' ap-
proval of Pre-siele-nt .Spredil and the- .State'-
wide- Pe-rsonne-l Aelvisory Committe-e-. a
grirvane-r preie-edurr has he-rii e-stahlislie-d

tor Hrrkrlrv eainplis prrsonilrl.

The- procedure' may he use-d fnr all grie-v-
ane-e-s of He-rke-le-y campus nonacaele-mie- pe*r-
se>nnrl exee-pt for iiiatte-rs (»f joh dassitiea-
lie)n. Every employee- having a grievane-e- he-
wishe's te> adjust shall have' the right lo act
for hinise-lf or tlire)ugli a re-pre-se-ntativ*' eif
his own elioiee- al any sirp pro\i(l«-d in tin-
proce-diire-.

Ihe- grirvanee prore-ehirr iiiv(dve's fl\e'
steps, namely: aeljnstme-nt v\ithin the- ele-
{)arline'iit ; appeal lo Re-rkeh'y eampiis per-
sonnel offirrr; review e-ommilte-e; pe-rsonne-l
appe-als hoarel; and app»-al t<» the- Pre-siele-nl.
Mllioiigh use e>f the' first ste-p is rrreuii-
iiirnde-d, it may he- hy-passe-el. In additie)n.
ultimate- appe-al te» the Regents of the I ni-
ve'rsity of California is possihie.

Copies e>f the' grievance- proe-eelure, se-tting
forth ihr ste'ps in ele-tail. have- he-e-n eireii-
lale-d te) de-partme-nt he-aels and aelministra-
li\e e»ffirrrs. In aehlilieui. eopie-> may he- oh-
laine-d fr(»m the- Pe-rseinnel OfHee-. 2260 Te-lr-
graph \\rniir.

Clakk. KhKli. Chancellor at lierkeley

VICE-PRESIDENT-BUSINESS AFFAIRS

Etleetive- Jan. 1. 19.54, I niversity of (^ali-
fe)rnia trave-l riile-s relating to reindmrse'-
ment for noe)n me'als on one'-elay trips will
hr ehange-el t(» e'onfe)rin with the- .^tate- Hoarel
of (ietntrol regulations; namely, that a maxi-
mum of 7.5<^ may he claimeel as re'imhiirse-
me'ut for lunelie'e)n e-xpenses on ~ue li one'-
elay trips, whe-n lunehe-on is the- only niral
elaime'd.

JxMKs H. Ce)KLKY

I i( e-President Business Affairs

OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER

Federal Income Tax Withholding Statement

On or hefore Jan. 31. 19.54. statements
will he* mailed to all staff me-nd)e'rs. showing
earnings from the Enive-rsity, reportahle- for
tax purpose-^, for the- ealendar year 19.53,
and taxe-s wilhhe-ld there-freun. Tlie-se- state'-
ments are fe»r use' in ee)nne'etion with the'
pre-paration of the inelividiial's ineemie- tax
re'tiirn fe»r 1953.

He-fore- these statements are pre-pareel, it

would he- e-xtre-me'ly he-lpfiil if anyone who
has changed his name* or adelress eliiring
the' past year woiilel complete anel suhmit
Eeirni 2194 (Notice e>f Change e)f Employee
Name' and/or Adelress) premiptly se» that
statrme-nts may re'ach tfir [irofx-r addre'sses
uilhoiil iinelue delay.

(,. E, .Stkvkns, Assistant (Controller

CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER

F' iinels have heen allocate-d hy the* Re-ge-nts
te> increase the salaries e)f emple)yee's in cer-
tain nonaeade'mie- elasses e'ffe'ctive July 1 or
Oet. 1, 1953. These' adjiistme-nts, usually 5
per cent, are eeuiiparahh- lo those re-ceive-d
rece-ntly hy .State* employees, anel will lie
granteel to those persons in affected classes
on the* payroll through Ne>v. .30. ineliieling
the>se* ciirre'ntly at or e»ver the' maximum eif
lhe> salary range'. Pe'rsems e-mploye'd on e>r
after Dec. 1. 1953, will not receive- this in-
crease.

I\o changes in salary ranges are- he'ing
made' al this timr as a result of tlirse- ad-
just me-nts.

Employe-e's paid from ge)vernment con-
trae-ts are- e'ligihle- for the increase only if
funels from ihe-se se)iirces are maele avail-
ahle-. The' (>ontrolIe'r's Offiec will eonsiilt
ele-partme-nts operating feeleral ce)ntraets to
ele-terniine availahility of funels fe)r this pur-
p(»sr.

In the' ease' of ine-rease's to prrsonn«-l
ehargeahh' against eionations, endowmrnl
income, and «>»h'>r special-fund grant?, ap
propriations will he made- lej siipple-me-nl
regular salary approprialieuis. Appropria-
tieuis will iKit hr maele' tei (iene'ral Assist-
aiirr iinle'ss de-parlmrnts justify aiignie-nla-
tioii of such huelge'ts.

The" aeljustment will hr maeir automati-
cally for pe-rsons paiel on the* Salary Roll
anel on (General Assistance payrolls without
the ne-e-e-ssity for siihmissiein e»f feirms hy ele-
partme-nts. If p<»ssihle. January earnings
will he- paiel al thr ne-w rate-s. issuing the-
payme-nt fetr the- retre>active aeljustment in
1951 gives employees the- aeivantage- of the
lowe-r income tax rate. Hee-ause of the pre-
sche'eluleel we>rkload inve)lveel in the pre'para-
tion e»f 19.53 iiieimie- tax withhe)lding state'-
me'nts anel e)tlie-r work in\»dving the- pre-p-
aration <d the pe-rse»nnel re)ste-r, it is ne>t
pe)ssihle' to issue the retroactive* checks in
January. Cheeks covering the retretaetive-
amounts eliie will he- issiieel te) Ce-ne-ral As-
sistanee- employees on Eeh. 23, 19.54. and \<>
.^alary Roll e-mploye-es with the- re-gnlar Ee-h-
riiary eheek.

Primary exe lusions fre)m this aeljustme-nl
are employee* in certain of the le)wer classi-
fications such as Clerk, Account Clerk, .Me*s-
se-nger. Stores He*lpe*r. Eahorate)ry He!pe*r.
anel relateel classe*s. anel those- paid em a
■■pre-\ailing rate-" liasis.

(^)iie-stie»ns concerning adjustments should
he aeidressed to your campus Perseinnel
Office.

Be)\NTe>N S. K MSKH

Chief Personnel Officer

r*;

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

Page 112

January 4, 1954

January 4, 1954

Page 113

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

f

DAVIS: FACULTY RESEARCH LECTURE

I

f

i

Following is the report of the Committee
on the Faculty Research Lecture, 1953-54,
Davis Campus.

Alflt'M S. Crafts, Professor of Botany in
the (loUege of Letters and Science and
Botanist in the Experiment Station at Davis.
lias Itcen elected Faculty Research Lecturer
for the year 1953 51 by the Academic Sen-
ate, Davis branch, of the Northern Division.

Professor Crafts was born in Fort Collins,
("olorado, in 1897, and received his B.S.
degree in 1927 and his Ph.D. in Plant
Physiology in 1930 from the University of
(California, lie held a postdottorale National
Research PVIIowship in 1930 31 at (Cornell
University. He joined the faculty of the
University of California at Davis in 1931
and was advanced to the rank of Professor
of Botany and Botanist in the Experiment
Station in 1946.

In addition to his formal education. Pro-
fessor (Crafts has had valuable experience
in agriculture which has been of importance
for his field of investigation. After one year
in the University, he spent the next seven
years on a farm in Mendocino County, Cali-
fornia. It was here that he acquired his first
interest in weed control and performed his
first experiment in the chemical control of
weeds by applying sodium arsenite to morn-
ing glory as the result of an article pub-
lished in the Pacific Ru/ul Press. In 1923
he enrolled in the University at Davis. Here
he met Professor W. W. Bobbins and be-
came impressed with the importance of the
study of weed control by chemical means.
He completed his undergraduate work on
the Berkeley campus, where he worked with
Professor P. B. Kennedy on the control of
m(»rning glory. His doctoral thesis, done
under Professor J. P. Bennett, dealt with
the translocatiim of organic materials in
plants.

The highly productive research career of
Professor Crafts has result«'d in outstanding

contributions to theoretical and applied
botany. His studies in the field of physi-
ology of herbicidal action have placed the
Experiment Stati<m at Davis in a leading
position in this field of endeavor and are
the foundation upon which is being devel-
oped, on this campus, a comprehensive pro-
gram of weed-control research, both theo-
retical and practical. No less significant are
Professor Crafts' contributions on various
phases of translocation of food and other
organic substances in plants, and on water
relations of plants. His writings, which ex-
ceed 90 in nund)er, include original research
papers, many invitational reviews, and two
books (with co-authors), one on weed con-
trol, the other on water in the physiology
of plants.

Professor Crafts' researches have received
wide recognition in this country and abroad.
In 1938 he was a (Guggenheim Foundation
Fellow at Harvard, where he investigated
the structure and formation of phloem
under Professor Irving W. Bailey. In 1947
Professor Crafts received a grant-in-aid for
study and consulting service on chemical
methods of weed control in sugar cane in
Puerto Rico. As a result of this study, he
published with Aurelio Emanuelli the first
two reports in the Spanish language dealing
with chemical control of weeds.

He has presided repeatedly at scientific
meetings, has been secretary of the Ameri-
can Society of Plant Physi(dogists, and is
now Vice-President of tlie same organiza-
tion.

Professor Crafts has cont-ributed to re-
search not only by his personal studies but
also by sharing generously of his time and
knowledge with his students and colleagues.

Luther D. Davis
Harold (ioss
Frank J. \'kihmkyer
Edward E. Wilson
F. A. Brooks, (Chairman

RESEARCH NOTES

LA JOLLA

Ocean Water Loss

The oceans lose ten billion billion grams
of water between October and March, ac-
cording to research being conducted at the
.Scripps Instituticm of Oceanography.

This amount of water, about as much as
is contained in Lake Michigan, lowers
world sea level by approximately one inch,
says Miss June Pattullo, Graduate Research
Oceanographer.

The water is probably stored on land in
the form of snow, vegetative matter, and
ground water, says Miss Pattullo, who is
seeking estimates of the amounts so stored.

The water "loss" was indicatcfl in a study
of seasonal variations in sea level.

RIVERSIDE

Hangman Plant

A fungus plant that literally strangles
microscopic worms attacking citrus tree
roots has been discovered in Southern Cali-
fornia orchards by Citrus Experiment Sta-
tion scientists.

Forming a series of loops along its fine,
thread-thin branches, the tiny plant lies in
wait for the worm-like nematode, which is
believed io be one of the causes of the cur-

rent decrease in fruit size in Southland
citrus orchards.

Once a nematode glides into one of the
loops, the fungus tightens the noose and
slowly strangles the struggling worm. Other
fine threads from the plant penetrate the
victim and devour it.

The helpful fungus was found in a saw-
dust mulch spread around the trunks of
citrus trees in an effort to encourage the
development t»f new feeder roots. Loss of
these roots, probably due to attacks by
nematodes and other destructive soil organ-
isms, is suspected as one of the reasons for
the current small sizes of Southland citrus
fruit.

The fungus is known to exist in other
fruit orchards, particularly under moist con-
ditions. Local sci«'ntist.^ now investigating
cultural practices that may favor the rapid
development of the beneficial fungus are
T. A. DeWolf, L. J. Klotz, R. C. Raines, and
P. W. Moore.

BERKELEY

Tear Gas on Flowers

Tear gas, long used by police to "smoke
out" criminals, has become a potent weapon
in agriculture's arsenal. (California chrysan-
themum growers plan to use it this year on
a large scale to wipe out their worst
enemy — a fungus disease called verticillium
wilt.

(Jhloropicrin, as the gas is officially
known, will probably save growers thou-
sands of dollars. In past years they have
lost as much as 90 per cent of their crop to
the fungus, which creeps into chrysanthe-
mum roots and up the stem, withering
leaves and sometimes killing the plant.

Use of the gas as a soil fumigant climaxes
six years of study by Stephen Wilhelm,
Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology, and
Richard H. Sciaroni, Farm Advisor in Half
Moon Bay. During the past year, practical
tests, in cooperation with 55 members of
the California (Chrysanthemum Association,
gave excellent residts. Nearly all Northern
(California mend)ers of the Association plan
to fumigate with the gas.

The cost of applying chloropicrin is about
one cent per square foot. This rules it out
for control on many crops in which verti-
cillium wilt is a problem, such as tomato,
potato, strawberry, and such flowers as
roses, dahlias, and snapdragons. It is not
excessive for a (juality crop like chrysanthe-
mums.

"Chloropicrin has amazing properties,"
said Professor Wilhelm. "It does its work
quickly and then leaves the ground. It
doesn't burn the hands. And it is not
treacherous, like some gases — you can al-
ways tell where it is, by the smarting effect
it has on the eyes."

LOS ANGELES

Evaluation of Hypnotism

Hypnotism is a reputable diagnostic and
therapeutic tool in general medicine as well

y »

as psychiatry, states Professor Roy M. Dor-
cus of the Department of Psychology. Pro-
fessor Dorcus says hypnotism is being used
more and more in treating bor<lerline cases
where emotional and organic factors are
intertwined. He cites two examples:

In one instance a patient's hearing had
become impaired. It was difficult to deter-
mine whether a head injury had damaged
the ear organically or whether psychological
factors were involved. Hypnosis was used
and it was determined that the latter was
the case. The hearing dillicully was subse-
quently overcome.

In another case, a diabetic patient was
having frequent blackouts, apparently asso-
ciated with diabetes. By using hypnotic
regression techniques, the doctor was able
to determine that ihe black(»uts began be-
fore diabetes devtdoped in the patient. Thus
it seemed certain that emotional factors
were involved.

Although hypnotism is becoming increas-
ingly useful in medicine and dentistry. Pro-
fessor Dorcus believes its wider adopti(m
will be hindered because of the time de-
mands it places on busy medical practition-
ers and because some patients are extremely
negative to hypnotic suggestion.

Bone Growth

Our bones stop growing at a certain
period in our lives because the tearing down
process apparently catches up with the
building up process, reports Richard C.
(ireulich, Instructor in Anatomy.

Bones and teeth, like (»ther tissues, con-
tain living cells and are in a constant state
of flux with the body fluids, Creulich points
out. When they are growing, the building
process is dominant, and during early stages
may be the sole process.

He says bone growth apparently stops
when the processes of building up and tear-
ing down are equal. Then the mineral salts
that make up much of our bone structure
are constantly being dissolved and rede-
posited on the matrix, the organic frame-
work of the bone.

DAVIS

More Beef per Acre

Experiments with four lots of steers at
the Imperial Valley Field Stati«»n have
shown that, in pounds of beef per acre,
feeding of fresh-cut green alfalfa has out-
produced three other steer-feeding meth-
ods— rotation grazing, strip grazing, and
wilt soiling (in which the cut forage was
wilted in the field before chopping and
feeding) .

In tests over 168 days, the yearling Here-
ford steers showed no significant differences
in their actual weight gains, the scientists
disclosed. But a check on the amount of
acreage used to supply feed to the animals
under the four feeding systems showed de-
cided differences.

The wilt soiling method put on 36 per

cent more beef per acre than rotation graz-
ing, and strip grazing 39 per cent more.

The researchers pointed out, however,
that cost of forage harvesting and handling
ecpiipment, labor, and the ease of fitting the
program into the over-all farm operation
may erase a saving from feeding efficiency.

SANTA BARBARA COLLEGE

Nurse Personality Factors

A study of the personality attributes of
student nurses as contrasted with college
women was undertaken recently by Alma
P. Beaver, Associate Professor of Psychol-
ogy, and reported in the Journal of Applied
Psychology.

Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Person-
ality Inventory test, Beaver selected as sub-
jects for her study students from -Santa
Barbara (College and from the Knapp ("<d-
lege of Nursing in Santa Barbara, matched
for sex, age, race, and aptitude.

Sixty-six items were found which dis-
criminated between the two groups, offer-
ing evidence that the student nurse presents
a significantly different personality patt«'rn
from that of the undergraduate college
woman. Compared with the college coed,
the student nurse is more stable, less hypo-
chondriacal, generally less neurotic, but
more fastidious in her attitudes, the investi-
gation indicated.

SAN FRANCISCO

Blood Serum Concentrate

Development of a bl(»od serum concen-
trate for the treatment and prevention of

rare but serious <(tmplications of smallpox
vaccinati(m has been announced at the
School of Medicine.

The concentrate, called vaccinia immune
gamma globulin, was developed by Dr. C.
Henry Kempe, Assistant Professor of Pedi-
atrics, in the E. Charles Fleischner Memo-
rial Laboratory.

The concentrate is now available to any
licensed physician or health officer, and it
will be supplied free of charge by the Amer-
ican National Red Cross, which bore the
cost of processing the material.

The serum was developed as a result of a
study Dr. Kempe conducted in India last
year. The scientist had collected blood from
volunteers in the L. S. Armed .Services
men who a short time previous to donation
had had good smallpox vaccination "takes."
The serum was extractetl, and contained
high concentrations of antibodies against
the virus used to vaccinate against smallpox.

In India, the scientist showed that the
serum, when used together with vaccination,
greatly reduces the incidence of the disease
among those who have been exposed.

Later, at the Medical Center, Dr. Kempe
tried the serum against complications of
smallpox vaccination. In rare cases, a child
with eczema or other skin conditions may
become infected inadvertently from some-
one in the household who has been recently
vaccinated. In other rare instances, small-
pox vaccination itself produces complica-
tions dangerous to the young child.

The scientist found that the serum is
highly effective in combating these compli-
cations.

NEWS FROM THE CAMPUSES

SANTA BARBARA COLLEGE

Reorganization of Placement Office

The Office of Teacher Placement on the
campus has been assigned to the Bureau of
Scho(»l and (Cidlege Placement. This ofl&ce
will be reorganized to serve graduates of
the College in teacher placement as well as
in business and industrial placement. This
is a new tyi)e of organization, which has
been adopted to tneet the needs of Santa
Barbara (College.

E. L. (Chalberg has been appointed Place-
ment Executive in charge. He will also serve
as Alunuii (Counselor to assist in coordinat-
ing the activities of the alumni association.
(Chalberg was graduated from the Los An-
geles campus in 1947 and took an active
part in undergraduate activities, serving as
editor of the Daily Bruin during his senior
year. He earned the master's degree in
journalism at Columbia Lniversity and for
the past two years served on the faculty of
Eastern Washington College of Education.

Notional Committee

Kermit A. Seefeld, (Chairman of the De-
partment of Industrial Arts, has been
elected to the national Policy and Planning
Committee of the Industrial Arts Education
Division, a section of the American \ o( a-
ticmal Association.

The Committee, which is the executive
body of the Division, consists of 19 mem-
bers from all parts of the nation and is
charged with the responsibility ff»r fostering
various programs in the field of industrial
arts.

LA JOLLA

Return of "Spencer F. Baird"

The I niversity research vessel Spencer F.
liaird has returned from a six-month voyage
to the Aleutian Islands and Japan in the
course of which she collected information
in a part of the North Pacific Ocean never
\isited by an oceanographic vessel before.

The Haird was engaged in Trans-Pacific
Expedition. Scientific leader of the expedi-

UNIVERSITY BULLETIN

Page 114

January 4, 1954

lion was Warrni S. Woostrr, Scripps liisti-
lulioii of ()<t'aii(»«:rapli>.

Diiiiiij: IJM' NcsscTs slay in Japan, llu'
scinitific party was jiianlcd a 30-iiiinul»'
audience willi Knip«Tor lliroliilo. Iiiniself a
^lll(lenl of marine l)i«»lo^y. Noriyuki Nasii,
Japanese jiraduale sliideni at the Scripps
Institution, acted as interpreter.

RIVERSIDE

Buildings Accepted

riie five buildings constnu'ted to house
the new (]oll«'<ie of l-«'tters and Science ha\e
been accepted hy the University, and ad-

ininislrative s

taff

s are now niovinji

fi

(»in

temporary quarters in the (litrus Experi-
i.K III Stati(»n.

All administrative offices for the campus
will he hou.-ed in the south uin<i of the
new Social Sciences an<l Humanities Huild-
injz;. Offices now in the Kxperim«'nt Station
A<lnnnistration Huildinji will he remodeled
to afford increased research facilities.

More than 27,()()() volumes have been
moved into the new library, and these are
beinj: arranjicd hy subject matter around
v\ell-li<ihted readinji areas t(» make possii)]e
maximum use (»f the open-stack shelves.

I.aboratories in the Physical Sciences and
Life Sciences buildinjis are now ix'inj:
ecpiipped. and the lariie swimminir pool ad-
j(»inin^ the Physical Kducation Huildinji has
been filled w ith \val«'r.

Roads and walkways are novN beinji
•iraded in preparati(»n for the openinji of
classes I'eh. 15.

BERKELEY

Presidency of American Chemical Society

Joel llildebrand. Professor of (Jiemistry,
Kmeritus. has been chosen President-elect
<»f the American (Jiemical Society.

Professor llildebrand. the first University
ol (California facultv mend)er to be elevated
to this post, was elected in a national ballot
<d the Society's TO.OOO chemists and chem-
ical engine(»rs. lie will assume <»ftice. for a
year, beginninji Jan. 1. 1%5.

Tlu' chemist is widely knovsn for his work
<tn solubilitv. and has carried out extensive
research in the fields of fluorine chennstry.
(•midsions, fused salt mixtures, and licpiid
alloys. It was he who sujijiested the use of
a mixture of h«lium and oxyjicn to prevent
diver's ''bends.'" He also ma<h' important
scientific contributions in both world wars.

In his versatile l,i years of service at the
University, Professor llildebrand served in
major adndnistrative posts, including the
positions of Dean of Men, Dean of the (]ol-
lege of Letters and Science, and Dean of
the (lollege of (Jiemistry. He retired in
1952.

Report on the South Pacific

Knowles A. Kyerson, Dean of the College
of Agriculture, Berkeley, has returned to

Herkeley after ha\ing h<'aded the lO.i-mem-
ber delegation of I lutrd States scientists
at the Lighth Pacific Science (Congress in
Manila, and attended the New (Caledonia
meeting of the South Pacific Scieiu-e (!om-
mission. He also inspected livestock and
plant projects on Fiji and \isited the agri-
cultural college at the National University,
Taiwan ( Formosa) .

He bMind the general outlttok for the
South Pacific brighter than at the close of
World War II. Nati\(' leaders from hun-
dreds of islands from Pitcairn to New
Caiinea are now meeting periodically^lu
exchange information.

"Up to now." the Dean reports, "they
were hardly aware that other islands ex-
isted. This kind (»f cooperation should lead
to progress."

Dean Ryerson travelled in a dual capac-
ity as a member of the South I^acific (Com-
iiHssion and as chairman of the Pacific
Scieiue lioard. The (Conunission is an ad-
visory grou}) to nations having interests in
the South Pacific. The lioard is a division
(d the National Research (J)uncil.

The (Commission heard reports indicating
tangible accomplishments toward solving
the islanders* health, educational, and eco-
nomic problems. Progress is being made in
malaria contrcd. Dictionaries, textbooks, and
films are being supplied to native schocds.
On the economic front, copra prices remain
firm; the introduction of a new cacao va-
riety shows promise; and (Connnission-spon-
s(»re<i livestock and forestry projects indi-
cate a future pay-off.

LOS ANGELES

Oil Monograph

Prctfessor lialph (lassady. Jr.. Director of
the Bureau of Business and Economics Re-
search, is the author of Price Makirifi and
l*ri(e livhavior in the Petroleum Industry,
a study of the actual technicpies of business
rivalry made with the full cooperation of
the oil industry.

The book, to be published by the Yale
University Press this month, is a detailed
analysis of the nature (d competition, eco-
nomics principles underlving competitive
behavior, and the complex factors deter-
mining pricing at crude, refinery, tank
v\ag(tn. and retail hovels. li al^o shows ho;,
individual companies operate in the attempt
to wrest business away from one another,
how a |)rice war is waged, and what legal
problems enter into a system of competitive
arrangements.

Governmental Research

A non-technical guide for the 5.000 men
and women in the United States who devote
a consi(l«'ral)le part of their time as civil
service commissioners has been prepared by
the Bureau of Oovernmental Research.

The guide. Hearings (tnd Appeals: A
Guide for lAvil Service (.uniniissioners, was
authored by Professor Winston W. Oouch,
Director (d the Bureau, and Judith Norvell
Jandson, Public Admiidstration Analyst in
the Bureau. Publisher of the guide was the
(Civil Service Assembly of the United .Stales
and (Canada.

According to Kenneth O. Warner, Direc-
tor of the (Civil Service Assend)ly. this is
the fii'-t time an effort has been made to
provide p«rsonnel boards and commission-
ers with a statement on the appellat*' work
of civil service commissions in n(»n-tech-
nical language.

RADIO PROGRAMS

Science Editor

A conmientary on the news (d the week
from scientific laboratories throughout the
world: Ki',0 (San Francisco), 8:15 p.m.,
Monday, Jan. d; KECCA (Los Angeles), 8
p.m., Tuesday, Jan. 5.

University Explorer

"Search for Utopia," a story of the numer-
ous ill-fated experimental colonies in (Cali-
fornia. Authority is Robert \. Iline. Instruc-
tor in History, Riverside. KN\ (Los
Angeles), K(CBS (San Francisco), and the
C. B. S. radio network. 10:30 a.m., Sunday,
J;in 10.

I^IVEIISITV BlLLnL\

Vol. 2, No. 20 January 4, 1954

A periodic-ul f<»r inenibers of the University of
C^alifornia staff.

Issued each Monday in fall and spring
semesters except durinu Christmas and spring
recesses, and every other Monday durinu
Smnmer Sessions.

All matters concerning the "University Bul-
letin" should l)e addressed to one of the
lollovving:

Berkeley Maynard T. M«)rris

Davis Ralph D. Smith

La Jolla Thomas A. Manar

Los Alamos David M. Stearns

Los Angeles Andrew J. Hamilton

Mount Hamilton Daniel M. Wilkes

Riverside Howard S. Cook, Jr.

San Francisco. Daniel M. Wilkes

Santa Barliara George Obeni

College of Agriculture. William F. Calkins

University Extension Wilson Schooley

(north), and
Miss Ann Sunniei
(south)
Produced hy Olfice of Official Publications,
Office of Agricultural Publications, and the
Printing Department of the University ol Cali-
fornia.

141

im'EI/nONAL SBOOND EXPOSURE

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTTES UNION-NEWS

Page S

3=

€ri§;is( at the UniTerisit;^ of Calif oriiia, II

A Further Statement to the People of California by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

The Civil Liberties Union which seeks to defend
all the Freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights,
believes that no kind of freedom is more useful to
the nation than that which enables its university
scholars and teachers to serve the community
without improper interference by any one. It
seems to the Union important, therefore, that the
People of California should be informed about,
and should think about, the present crisis at the
University. When our professors declare, as they
now do, that the freedom needed for their work
is limited and denied, the People should listen to
the accusation and should pass sober and in-
formed judgment on it. What, then, has the Re-
cent majority done? Why does the Academic
jnate condemn that action? As a help toward
the answering of those questions the Civil Liber-
ties Union offers the following statements and
discussions about the Issues involved in the con-
flict and about the Gains and Losses which it has
brought to the University.

First, then, what is the action of the Regents
which has brought them into controversy with
the faculty?

After a year and a half of rapidly changing and
confusing fighting about principles, the Regents,
in August, 1950, dismissed a number of teachers,
including some of the most respected and dis-
tinguished professors. (A temporary courts order
has stayed this action, but the teachers are out
of service and their salary payments are stopped.)
In September 1950, the Faculty vigorously con-
demned "the action of the Regents in dismissing
loyal and competent members of the faculty." It
also gave approval to a plan under which, by vol-
untary assessment. Faculty members are raising
funds to pay the salaries of their dismissed col-
leagues.

The dismissed professors are charged with an
offense which, in the judgment of the Regent
majority of 12 to 10, justifies dismissal. What is
that offense?

or informally established. This means that, after
years of trial and testing, professors in the higher
ranks, are assured that they will not be subject to
dismissal except on charges of incompetence or
moral turpitude, clearly defined and carefully
judged by their colleagues. No one denies or
doubts that in the making of contracts between
universities and professors, that assurance of ten-
ure is a "consideration" of the greatest impor-
tance. The presence or absence of that assurance
is commonly decisive in the accepting or rejecting
of appointments. And, for that reason, the break-
ing of a tenure agreement by arbitrary dismissal
is rightly regarded as an act of bad faith, destruc-
tive of the good name of a university.

In the offering and accepting of appointments
at the University of California, the "tenure sys-
tem," has, in the past, been "taken for granted."
If that had not been true, the assembling of the
present Faculty, in competition with other imi-
versities, where tenure is assured, would have
been impossible. The Regents, it is true, have
never enacted the system by explicit vote. But
it has been assumed in the drawing of Faculty
regulations, in Regent and Faculty documents of
many kinds, and especially in official letters con-
cerning appointments. In actual procedure, nei-
ther professors nor administrators have doubted
that the tenure system was in operation and that
it could be counted on as men planned their
careers.

The tenure issue is raised in the present situa-
tion by the fact that a number of the dismissed
professors had reached tenure status. And the
legal question is whether or not these men whose
assured callings and careers, are wantonly de-
stroyed by such arbitrary dismissal, whose liveli-
hood is swept away, can find redress and restitu-
tion in the Courts. That legal issue has been pre-
sented as one factor in an appeal for reversal of
their dismissal which eighteen of the dismissed
professors have recently made to the State Dis-

friff rV»nrf r\f Arkrw»al T-F fVitt anif oon Vu» xwrny^ r>r»

Does the "non-signer" refusal to sign the Re-
gent "oath" or "contract" justify dismissal from
a Faculty? To answer that question we must find
out exactly what the non-signers have said and
done. They are commonly reported as having re-
fused to affirm their loyalty. That statement, as
we have seen, is not true. All of them have taken
the "standard" oath of loyalty prescribed by the
State Constitution for all officers of public trust.
But the oath which they have refused to take is
not a "loyalty" oath. It is an oath of "conformity,"
of "submission" to authoritative control over
thought and speech and political affiliation.

The crucial difference between an oath of
loyalty and an oath of conformity becomes clear
if we put side by side the two oaths which, in their
original form, the Regents voted to impose on the
Faculty. They read as follows :

1. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case
may be) that I will support the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California, and that I will faithfully dis-
charge the duties of my office according to the
best of my abihty."

2. (To this pledge the Regents added) "I do not
believe in and am not a member of nor do I sup-
port any party or organization that believes in,
advocates or teaches the overthrow of the United
States government by force or violence."

The non-signers have taken oath number one.
But they have refused to take oath number two,
in any of its variations. The difference which they
find between the two pledges may be stated some-
what as follows: "Yes, I am loyal to the Nation,
the State, the University. And that loyalty re-
quires me to pledge it openly. I therefore give
that pledge, and, further, I will keep it. But it is
the keeping of that pledge which forbids me to
take the second oath. I cannot submit to control
over beliefs and advocacies and affiliations, either

rviii^.11 lias brought them into controvcitoy witii
the faculty?

After a year and a half of rapidly changing and
confusing fighting about principles, the Regents,
in August, 1950, dismissed a number of teachers,
including some of the most respected and dis-
tinguished professors. (A temporary court*, order
has stayed this action, but the teachers are out
of service and their salary payments are stopped.)
In September 1950, the Faculty vigorously con-
demned **the action of the Regents in dismissing
loyal and competent members of the faculty." It
also gave approval to a plan under which, by vol-
untary assessment. Faculty members are raising
funds to pay the salaries of their dismissed col-
leagfues.

The dismissed professors are charged with an
offense which, in the judgment of the Regent
majority of 12 to 10, justifies dismissal. What is
that offense?

It is now clear that the men dismissed are not
charged with Communism. This is shown in two
ways. First, the Faculty, which insists that the
accused teachers should be continued in office,
has voted, by a large majority, that Communist
Party members are not qualified for that office.
And second, it is explicitly agreed by both parties
to the dispute, that no one of the dismissed teach-
ers has been accused, or even suspected, of Com-
munist Party membership or sympathy.

It is equally clear that the issue is not about
Loyalty or about a refusal to swear Loyalty. All
the dismissed teachers have taken the "standard"
oath of loyalty, prescribed by the State Consti-
tution.

Wlmt, then, is the offense? It is "disobedience"
to a Regent order which requires that persons in
the service of the University shall sign an oath or
contract about their political beliefs and advoca-
cies and affiliations. The great majority of the
Faculty, acting as individuals, have, for one rea-
son or another, obeyed that order in some one of
its changing forms. But the "dissident majority"
have refused to obey. And, at this point, the
Faculty, as an organized body, officially respon-
sible for the welfare and good repute of the Uni-
versity, has taken issue with the Regents. The
Faculty denies that scholars and teachers who
have refused to obey the Regent order have,
thereby, shown themselves to be unfit for the
work which their colleagues know them to be
doing satisfactorily.

I

Issues

A citizen of California who tries to judge the
rights and wrongs of the Regent action and the
Faculty protest against it, will find three primary
issues waiting for his consideration. These issues
are both educational and legal. On their educa-
tional side, they require decision by the University
itself. On the legal side, appeal must, of course,
be made to the Courts.

1. The most obvious of the three issues arises
from the charge that the Regents have violated
"tenure" agreements. In practically every college
or university of high standing in the nation, a
system of "permanent tenure" has been formally

aTTpuS^iUit;. ilxe Kegenls, it is true, liave
never enacted the system by explicit vote. But
it has been assumed in the drawing of Faculty
regulations, in Regent and Faculty documents of
many kinds, and especially in official letters con-
cerning appointments. In actual procedure, nei-
ther professors nor administrators have doubted
that the tenure system was in operation and that
it could be counted on as men planned their
careers.

The tenure issue is raised in the present situa-
tion by the fact that a number of the dismissed
professors had reached tenure status. And the
legal question is whether or not these men whose
assured callings and careers, are wantonly de-
stroyed by such arbitrary dismissal, whose liveli-
hood is swept away, can find redress and restitu-
tion in the Courts. That legal issue has been pre-
sented as one factor in an appeal for reversal of
their dismissal which eighteen of the dismissed
professors have recently made to the State Dis-
trict Court of Appeal. If the suit can be won on
that issue, the Civil Liberties Union is convinced
that it will be a great victory for freedom and fair
play, not only at California, but for every college
or university in the Nation.

But, whatever may be the outcome of the legal
struggle, the Regent breaking of tenure under-
standings and the Faculty condemnation of that
breach of faith have made it clear that the Uni-
versity itself must now deal decisively with the
tenure issue. The time has come when the tenure
system must be officially recognized and estab-
lished by explicit and recorded action of the Re-
gents. Now that the issue of good faith has been
raised, only such definite and official adoption of
tenure policy by the Regents can restore the con-
fidence of the Faculty, can bring back to the Uni-
versity its good repute among the scholars and
other universities of the Nation.

2. The second major issue has arisen from the
fact that, on a question of the qualifications of
teachers and scholars for membership in the
Faculty, the Regents have over-ruled both the
President of the University and the Faculty Com-
mittee on Privilege and Tenure. Such action by
Regents or Trustees is condemned by scholars
and teachers everywhere. It destroys the Faculty
"self-government" which is essentisd for the doing
of university work. When men are given respon-
sibility for research and for the education of
youth, they may not be dealt with as "employees"
who may be hired and fired at the arbitrary will
of persons who are not competent to judge either
their work or their qualifications for it. They must
be judged by their colleagues. And together with
their colleagues, they must decide what shall be
taught, how it shall be taught, by whom it shall
be taught. On this issue no legal help is imme-
diately available. But the University of Califor-
nia must help itself. It needs, and must have, an
explicit and recorded agreement between Regents
and Faculty that no professor will be appointed
except on Faculty recommendation, that no pro-
fessor will be dismissed except with Faculty con-
sent.

3. But the most vital issue of the controversy
is concerned, not with these questions of pro-
cedure, legal or educational, but with the essen-
tial wisdom of the Regent action by which profes-
sors have been dismissed. It is precisely that
question which the citiaens of th« State should
get clearly in mind.

the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California, and that I will faithfully dis-
charge the duties of my office according to the
best of my ability."

2. (To this pledge the Regents added) "I do not
believe in and am not a member of nor do I sup-
port any party or organization that believes in,
advocates or teaches the overthrow of the United
States government by force or violence."

The non-signers have taken oath number one.
But they have refused to take oath number two,
in any of its variations. The difference which they
find between the two pledges may be stated some-
what as follows: "Yes, I am loyal to the Nation,
the State, the University. And that loyalty re-
quires me to pledge it openly. I therefore give
that pledge, and, further, I will keep it. But it is
the keeping of that pledge which forbids me to
take the second oath. I cannot submit to control
over beliefs and advocacies and affiliations, either
my own or those of anyone else, because such
control violates the Federal Constitution, the
State Constitution, and the basic beliefs and pur-
poses of the University. Loyalty is not conformity.
On the contrary, it forbids conformity."

Opinions may differ — as they obviously do dif-
fer— as to the wisdom of this "non-signing" judg-
ment. But there can be no doubt whatever that,
in every case, it was made with courage and hon-
esty, out of loyalty to the University, and at the
cost of great personal sacrifice. Are these quali-
ties which, in the judgment of the Regents, ren-
der a man unfit for University work ?

The issue here raised has both educational and
legal aspects. On the educational side, the pro-
fessor's refusal to submit to regulation of his
mind and speech must be judged by reference to
the work which he has undertaken to do for the
university and the State. And when so judged,
his demand for freedom will be found to express,
not his own individual desire to be free from con-
trol, but rather his duty to be free from control.
A university teacher is commissioned by the State
to search for knowledge and understanding and,
so far as he finds them, to make them available
to his pupils and to the community at large. And
that work he cannot do properly unless both
pupils and community have a justified confidence
that the teacher's mind is free from external
domination, that his thought and speech are his
own. Whether he be dealing with Agriculture or
Politics, Engineering or Theology, his conclusions
must not be for sale. Men must know that no one
can compel him by force, by inducement, to be-
heve this or to say that. And the dreadful irony
of the Regent requirement of oath number two
is that it seems to be a dehberate attempt to rob
the professor's mind of that independence upon
which public confidence in his integrity depends.
Any one who would thus prescribe to a teacher
what he shall say or not say, shall believe or not
believe, does not know what teaching is. Such
action, if persisted in, will quickly destroy a
university.

The same issue, in its legal form, applies to all
citizens of a free society, including those who are
professionally engaged in teaching. When free
men think, they differ. And when they differ,
there arises the question about the right relations
between a majority and a minority between the
party in power and the members of conflicting
parties. In every democratic nation that has been

jl

I I

I^'I'ENnGNAL SEX30ND EXPOSURE

Page 6

:sas

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

1 1 rti

zzs

TT*

^'"'""■-' ■

the fighting issue of political freedom. And the
answer of our own Constitution is strong and
decisive. In the field of thought and speech, of
opinion and advocacy, the majority may never
abridge the freedom of the minority. Under demo-
cratic rules, minority men are, of course, rightly
required to obey laws which they think unwise
or unjust. But they are never rightly required to
believe that those laws are wise and just, nor to
say that they think them wise and just. On the
contrary, the duty of a minority man is, when
occasion comes, to express his disapproval of pre-
vailing policies, to advocate changes with sharp
and out-spoken words. Any law which limits the
freedom of that minority attack, has forfeited
its right to obedience. If men are loyal, it must be
disobeyed. So far as belief and the expression of
belief are concered, there are, under the Consti-
tution, only two forms of disloyalty. The first of
these is the attempt to dictate what other men
shall believe or say. The second is submission to
that dictation.

Here, then, is the underlying issue which the
Regent-Faculty conflict has brought out into the
open. This issue, too, in its legal form, has already
been presented to the State District Court of
Appeal, in the suit already mentioned. The Civil
Liberties Union is convinced that it should be
fought through to a finish, by every legal proce-
dure available. There is reason to hope that, un-
der the provisions of the State Constitution, the
Regents may be ordered to reverse their action,
to abandon their policy of ''test-oaths" and intimi-
dation.

But, whatever help the courts may give or not
give, it is the clear duty of the university itself,
and of every citizen who cares for its welfare, to
fight for the freedom of the Faculty to do its work
properly. Men who do research and teaching must
have freedom of mind and, therefore, tenure of
appointment, not because they are asking for
special privileges for themselves, but because,
without freedom and tenure, they cannot meet
the high obligations which the People of Califor-
nia have laid upon them as a "public trust.'*

n

Gains and Losses
Under the heading of "Issues" the Civil Liber-

2. In the current year, 1950-1951, further dis-
astrous effects of the Regent action have become
quickly evident, —

a. Twenty-six "loyal and competent" teachers
are missing from the staff and, in general, they
have not been replaced. And for this reason, some
forty or fifty regular courses are not being
offered.

b. A number of other professors have resigned
in protest against the Regent action.

c. Some well-known scholars who have been
invited to join the Faculty have refused, on prin-
ciple, to do so.

d. It is reliably reported that many valuable
members of the Faculty are planning to resign
when they can find positions elsewhere.

3. The state of mind within the university is
matched by the consternation and condemnation
with which the scholars and teachers of other
universities have judged the Regent action, —

a. Powerful groups from many Faculties have
sent messages of protest and, in many cases,
these have been accompanied by offers of finan-
cial aid in providing salaries for the dismissed
teachers. These messages express the strong and
clear conviction that, for the sake of higher edu-
cation throughout the nation, the California
Faculty must win its fight against the Regents.

b. The American Psychological, Mathematical,
and Philological Associations have already taken
official action recommending to their members
that they should not accept positions at the Uni-
versity of California until the principle of tenure
is re-established there.

c. The American Association of University
Professors, an organization with 35,543 members
in 872 institutions, is natioi^ally responsible for
the formulation and acceptance of the principles
of freedom and tenure. It has been asked by its
California chapter to investigate the local situa-
tion in accordance with its usual procedure. In
response to that request, a committee of the Asso-
ciation will come to California and will make a
thorough study of the conflict in all its phases.

their families, they have been forced into viola-
tion of the basic principles of their profession. No
man whose life is professionally dedicated to the
pursuit of truth can suffer that without being
maimed in mind and spirit.

c. In a resolution published in the Daily Cali-
fomian on October 23, 1950, the Executive Com-
mittee of the Associated Students took its stand
on the Faculty side of the conflict and strongly
condemned the Regent action. This condemna-
tion was based on the statement, "The damaging
effects of the Regent action are thus shown to
bear directly on the students of the University."
"The inevitable consequences," it was said, "will
be a decline in the caliber of educators accepting
positions at the University and a drop in the level
of instruction offered students."

d. But probably the most serious and far-
reaching damage done by the Regent repression
is to be found among the graduate students, the
teaching assistants, and young instructors. These
young people, at the very beginning of their
careers, have suffered the disillusionment of see-
ing many of their elders driven into denial of their
beliefs. In the middle of the year, 1949-50, they
had been deeply shocked by the summary dis-
missal of Irving David Fox, a teaching assistant,
whom the Regents declared to have failed to
meet "minimum requirements." And, in July,
1950, they saw one hundred and fifty-seven of
their friends and associates summarily dismissed,
without a word of effective protest, either from
the Faculty or from the President of the Univer-
sity. Throughout the controversy, this group had
stood steadfast in defense of freedom and integ-
rity. Now, many of them will leave the profession.
Many others will go on, but will do so with the
cynical realization that persons who serve the
State of California in its university are not re-
garded as free and independent scholars. They are
"employees" whose duty it is to believe what they
are told to believe, to say what they are told to
say.

m

Here, then, is the situation at the University
which, in the judgment of the Civil Liberties Un-
ion, must be understood and dealt with by the
People of California. As in all democratic socie-

Regents may be ordered to reverse their action,
to abandon their pohcy of "test-oaths" and intimi-
dation.

But, whatever help the courts may give or not
give, it is the clear duty of the university itself,
and of every citizen who cares for its welfare, to
fight for the freedom of the Faculty to do its work
properly. Men who do research and teaching must
have freedom of mind and, therefore, tenure of
appointment, not because they are asking for
special privileges for themselves, but because,
without freedom and tenure, they cannot meet
the high obligations which the People of Califor-
nia have laid upon them as a "public trust."

II
Gains and Losses

Under the heading of "Issues" the Civil Liber-
ties Union has, thus far, argued that the Regents
of the University have violated the basic prin-
ciples on which the State had established its uni-
versity. But there is another way of judging the
Regent action. Whether right or wrong in prin-
ciple, what good has it done? What harm has it
done ? As that balance-sheet of gains and losses is
made up, the People of California may judge the
practical efficiency of their Regents, may decide
whether or not they meet the "minimum require-
ments" of the work they have to do.

The record of that side of the balance-sheet
which deals with gains is clear and brief. The an-
nounced purpose of the Regents, when they im-
posed an oath or contract, was to expel Commu-
nists from the Faculty. How many Communists
has the procedure expelled? Not one! Either be-
cause there were no Communists to expel or be-
cause the method used was badly planned, the
Regent action, as judged by its own intention,
has accomplished nothing.

But, on the other side of the balance-sheet, the
accomplishment of the Regents is enormous. Both
within the university and outside, the damage
already done is very serious. And men who are
qualified to judge believe that the evils thus far
experienced are only a slight beginning of the
total disaster.

The Civil Liberties Union has no access to the
documents which would tell of the wreckage done
to the university. It is to be hoped that investiga-
tion by Alumni or Faculty will soon give to the
People of the State an accurate accounting of that
wreckage. Meanwhile, the Union can only list
here the "kinds" of damage done, so far as they
have become generally known.

1. The academic year 1949-1950 will long
be remembered by the students, teachers, and
administrators of the university as a period of
horror and failure. The regular work was seri-
ously hindered by loss of time and energy spent
in quarrelings and misunderstandings. In large
measure, good will was replaced by mutual dis-
trust. Single-minded confidence in the university
and its work gave way to uncertainty and despair.
And no one can tell how soon, or by what means,
that break-down in morale can be repaired.

clear conviction that, for the sake of higher edu-
cation throughout the nation, the California
Faculty must win its fight against the Regents.

b. The American Psychological, Mathematical,
and Philological Associations have already taken
official action recommending to their members
that they should not accept positions at the Uni-
versity of California until the principle of tenure
is re-established there.

c. The American Association of University
Professors, an organization with 35,543 members
in 872 institutions, is natioi^ally responsible for
the formulation and acceptance of the principles
of freedom and tenure. It has been asked by its
California chapter to investigate the local situa-
tion in accordance with its usual procedure. In
response to that request, a committee of the Asso-
ciation will come to California and will make a
thorough study of the conflict in all its phases.
The usual practice of the Association, wherever
the principles of tenure and freedom are found to
be seriously violated, is to recommend to its mem-
bers throughout the United States and Canada
that they refuse to accept appointments until the
actions condemned have been withdrawn. It seems
very probable that the University of California
will be found to have violated the principles of
tenure and freedom which the Association de-
fends. And, in that case, the university will suffer
an official black-listing. The effect of such an
action upon the repute of the university and upon
the quality of its work would be disastrous.

4. But the damage done to the university goes
farther and deeper than injury to its good repute,
than difficulties in the recruiting of its staff. The
most deadly blow has come in the discovery that
the men who have legal control of the University
do not recognize their own lack of competence
in the field of education, do not understand what
are the duties and the qualifications and the
status of women and men who serve the State
by taking charge of its higher education. That
disheartening discovery has been forced upon the
mind of the university community by every phase
of the Regent action.

a. Teachere who have served the university
for more than two or three decades, who have
been honored and trusted by colleagues and by
generations of pupils, are now "thrown out" of
the university as "unfit," because they are true
to their principles. The shame of that unwise and
cruel act will eat into the morale of the com-
munity for decades to come. Confidence in the
university and its work will be weakened by recog-
nition that, in the long record of higher educa-
tion in the United States, no offense against
freedom and justice has equalled in scope or in
ruthlessness, the offense now committed at the
University of California.

b. Many of the teachers who "signed" and,
hence, wei^g not "dismissed" have, also, been
deeply injured by the Regent action. Either be-
cause of their anxious care for the welfare of the
university or because of their need to provide for

1950, they saw one hundred and fifty-seven of
their friends and associates summarily dismissed,
without a word of effective protest, either from
the Faculty or from the President of the Univer-
sity. Throughout the controversy, this group had
stood steadfast in defense of freedom and integ-
rity. Now, many of them will leave the profession.
Many others will go on, but will do so with the
cynical realization that persons who serve the
State of California in its university are not re-
garded as free and independent scholars. They are
"employees" whose duty it is to believe what they
are told to believe, to say what they are told to
say.

m

Here, then, is the situation at the University
which, in the judgment of the Civil Liberties Un-
ion, must be understood and dealt with by the
People of California. As in all democratic socie-
ties, the health and sanity of the university are
essential to the health and sanity of the State.
Upon it is laid the heavy responsibility of leading
the way in the acquiring of knowledge, of un'^er-
standing, of wisdom, both material and spiritual.
For that reason, the People of the State invest
annually in their university many millions of dol-
lars. But, more than that, they invest in it their
faith, their hopes for better living.

But the plain fact is that the majority of the
Regents, by an act of blundering incompetence,
taken in direct defiance of repeated protests by
the Faculty have damaged seriously both the
morale of the university and its good repute
throughout the nation. In every college and uni-
versity in the United States, the University of
California has now become a sjnnbol of unwise
and unjust repression of freedom.

And the source of the Regent blunder can easily
be seen. In the face of overwhelming historical
evidence to the contrary, the majority of the
Regents have Ipeheved that a man's loyalty or
disloyalty to the university, his fitness or unfit-
ness for learning and teaching, can be discovered
by the use of a "test-oath" about his beliefs. Cen-
turies of European and American experience have
shown that opinion to be false. They have shown
that a test-oath is effective only in doing the exact
opposite of what it is intended to do. In a society
devoted to freedom, test oaths, when used for
purposes of detection, cannot catch men who are
liars. They can, and do, catch men who speak the
truth. They cannot catch those who hate free-
dom. They do catch men who love freedom. And
this means that men who resort to the use of
test-oaths in the management of a university do
not understand what the work of a university is,
nor how it is done. And, because of that lack of
understanding, they betray the "public trust"
which, legally is committed to their care. That
betrayal, its causes and its cure, need careful
consideration and decisive action by the People
of the State of California.

December, 1950.

Additional copies of this statement may be ob-
tained by writing to

American Civil Liberties Union,

503 Market St.,

San Francsico 5, Calif.,
or telephoning EXbrook 2-3255.

151

i

I

J

♦ ,Hjsr^?«cKi«i^'

i

0

n

i

Two Bills on
VC Reds' Die
In Assembly

Special to The Chronicle

SACRAMENTO. June 13 — By
voice vote, and with no dissents,
two Assembly committees today
killed the Levering resolution and
the McCarthy bill, measures which
proposed action against "subversives
in the University of California."

Assemblyman Harold K. Levering
(Rep-Los Angeles) voted to kill his
own resolution, which would have
called for an FBI investigation of
UC's faculty, staff and students.

And Assemblyman Robert Mc-
Carthy (Dem-San Francisco) re-
quested that his bill be killed. It
called for dismissal of any UC em-
ployee connected with Communist
front organizations.

The day'!? Assembly actions were
a sharp reversal of legislative at-
tacks on the university, set off last
week by a report from the State
Senate Committee on Un-American
Activities.

That report charged that UC was
and s "aiding and abetting an in-
ternational (Communist) conspir-
acy." and resulted in a series of
anti-subversive bills aimed at al-
leged disloyalty within the univer-
sity.

The Assembly Education Com-
mittee tonight summed up its feel-
ings with a sweeping vote of con-
fidence in the "loyalty and compe-
tence of the university's top man-
agement and faculty" after a long
hearing on the Levering resolution.

Stanley E McCaffery, executive

Continued on Page 4, Col. 5

Assembly on
'UC Reds'---
Two Bills Die

Continued from Page 1

manager of the U. C. Alumni Asso-
ciation presented several speakers
against the resolution: Dean Wil-
liam Prosser of Boalt School of
Law, Professor Ivan Hinderhacker
and others.

They stressed UC's own actions
to bar Communist infiltrations and
repeatedly denied charges made in
last week's report. Assemblyman
Levering then moved to postpone a
vote on his resolution.

He finally joined in the commit-
tee vote of confidence, proposed by
its chairman, Thomas Caldecott
(Rep-Berkeley), a UC alumnus him-
self.

Two other anti-subversive bills
were killed by Assembly actions to-
day. The Rules Committee voted
down a proposed $10,000 investiga-
tion of the State's public education
system. The Governmental Effi-
ciency Committee tabled a bill
similar to McCarthy's

The McCarthy bill called for dis-
missal of any UC faculty member
or employee who is or who becomes
a member of anl Communist front or
Communist action organization.

Under McCarthys definition a
Communist front or Communi.st ac-
tion group is one .so designated by
the Federal Internal Security Act of
1950 or "any organization cited as
such by the most recent report of
the State Senate Un-American Ac-
tivities Committee."

McCarthy requested that his bill
be killed because of doubtful con-
stitutionality.

The Senate meanwhile passed, 30
to 0, a bill authorizing State col-
leges to fire teachers for supporting
Communist activities. j

This bill does not include the'
University of California in its
authorization to fire teachers sup-
porting subversive causes. It applies
only to such public-supported schools
as San Jose. San Diego, San Fran-
cisco and other Slate colleges.

UC and FBI

We wonder whether Assemblyman Lever-
ing thought twice about his proposal for an
FBI screening of the State's university and
college teachers. Nobody, we suspect, would
be more distressed at the idea than the FBI.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation had,
at the outset of the current year, less than
10,000 field agents altogether, which means
at most a few hundred in California.

These few hundred have their work cut
out for them. The Korean war has multi-
plied the problems of keeping surveillance
over first-order suspects who might be ex-
pected to undertake sabotage of communi-
cations or of military cargoes bound over-
seas. In addition to special responsibilities
resulting from the war there is the more or
less routine business that goes on all the
time, of investigating suspected criminal
activities that come under Federal jurisdic-
tion. And now the Supreme Court's deci-
sion upholding the conviction of the 11
leaders of the national Communist organ-
ization has opened the prospect of a whole
new category of evidence-gathering activ-
ities, in case the Government chooses, as it
probably will, to broaden the scope of its
attack upon the party leadership.

Besides all this, the FBI has the job of
screening hundreds of applicants for Fed-
eral jobs, including those employed on the
many Federal projects in security cate-
gories on the various State campuses.

Confronted with the assignment of
screening all of the thousands upon thou-
sands of State teachers, the FBI could only
accomplish this by expanding its force many
fold. If this process were followed nation-
wide, we would find an FBI not of 10,000
m.en'but of 100,000 or 200,000 or more. And
somewhere along that course of expansion
it would lose its character as the FBI and
begin to assume the characteristics of a

GPU.

We recognize the necessity for counter-
acting Communist doctrine in the schools.
But it isn't a police job. The exclusion of
this kind of wrecker is the proper respon-
sibility of a school's faculty and adminis-
tration, who have the parallel responsi-
bility of erecting suitable defenses within
the minds that are the targets of the Com-
munists. On that score we like the Univer-
sity of San Francisco's idea of teaching ex-
actly what Communism \^. The American
system has nothing to lose, and everything
to gain, when both philosophies are held
up to th« same light.

'9 «^«r«i***ta*«

the Senate Republican r-^ -^ (

Sproul Denies UC
Is Infiltrated by Reds

State Senate Committee's
Charges Called 'Fantastic'

President Robert Gordon Sproul of the University of
California yesterday described as "fantastic" charges that the
university is "tolerant of Communists or permits Communists
to enter the university's employ or to operate unchecked on

any of iis campuses or in anj' of "

its activities."

These allegations were levelled
against the university in a 291-
pape report issued Friday by the
State Senate Committee on Un-
American Activities.

In a detailed, seven-page state-
ment. Dr. Sproul took up the charges
ol the committee one by one.

"The report of the Senate com-
mittee is an exposure of the mfil-
tration of schools, colleges and uni-
versities by the Communist party,
but, the highly selective publicity
which it has thus far received cre-
ates the utterly false impression
that the University of California
has aided and abetted these sub-
versive activities.

It is regrettable that an institu-
tion which has contributed so much
to the progress and preservation of
America should be thus mahgned,"
Dr. Sproul declared.

The controversy caused by the
committee's report, however, brought
threats of action against the uni-
versity in Sacramento.

Two AssembhTnen announced

-v •w-ill ask that the Federal
_ . ernment send in G-Men to' in-
vestigate all teachers in public
universities, colleges and high
schools in California.

At the same time. Professor Ed-
ward C. Tolman. leader of the 18
nonsigners of the University of Cal-
ifornia loyalty oath, gave a brief
*^"' spirited answer to the criticism
^: mm in the report.

The report also defended the po-
sition of the UC regents who voted
to make as a condition of employ-
ment the signing of a loyalty oath
iby all faculty members.
I Asaemblyman Harold K. Lever-
ing (Rep-Los Angeles), author of
the State Loyalty Act. said he and
Assemblyman L. H Lincoln (Rep-

Parfial text of SprouPt
answer on Page 13.

-^

Oakland), would introduce a con-
current resolution tomorrow asking
for the screening of California
teachers by the FBI. Levering said
they were prompted to action by
the committees report.

The resolution. Levering said, will
also call upon the Attorney Gen-
eral to prosecute under the Cali-
fornia Criminal Syndicalism Act
any teacher found to be a Commu-
nist, and would also ask the Attor-
ney General to prosecute for per-
jury any teacher swearing falsely
to a loyalty oath.

"I think it is time we used all the
laws on the book to prosecute these
people who are undermining our
State and Nation." Levering said.
•'Our resolution will ask that the
president of the University of Cali-
fornia, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the Attorney Gen-
eral get the help of the FBI in
screening our teachers."

The Un-American Activities Com-
mittee's report particularly criti-
cized Professor Tolman, who had*
opposed the loyalty oath. The report '
listed SIX organizations to which

Continued on Page 13, Col. 7

« »

PARTIAL TEXT OF SPROUL REPLY I'O UN-AMERICAN GROUP

The State Senate Committee on
Un-American Activities' charges
against the University of Califor-
nia, made in a report issued Fri-
day, were replied to in detail last
night by U. C. President Robert
Gordon Sproul.

Sproul. in taking up the charges
one by one. said the criticism of the
committee "has to do with its al-
leged tolerant, apathetic attitude j
toward these activities. The charges
are supported by references to
meetings held on the university
campuses, and to a magazine pub-
lished by the University Press,
which is said to be Communist-
dominated.

"None of the cases cited in sup-
port of these charges is less than
six years old and one of them is
ten years old," Dr. Sproul declared.

OATHS CITED

His statement continued:

1— "Every employee of the Uni-
versity of California has signed the
State of California Loyalty Oath,
and in addition has signed a state-
ment accepting, as a condition of
his employment, the clear-cut Anti-
Communist policy of the Regents
of the University of California."

This latter reference is to the
special loyalty oath imposed by the
Regents in June of 1950 for all fac-
ulty members and other employees.

3_"Persons in the employ of the
University of California who are
engaged in secret or other classified
research for the U. S. Government
are in addition subjected to Federal
clearance procedures."

3— "The policy of the Regents of
the University of California on
membership in the Communist
party, which has been a matter of
public record since Oct. 11, 1940, is
stated in the following resolution:

•• The Regents believe that the
Communist party gives its first loy-
alty to a foreign political move-
ment, and. perhaps, to a foreign
government, that by taking advan-
tage of the idealism and inexperi-
ence of youth, and by exploiting the
distress of underprivileged groups,
it breeds suspicion and discord, and
thus divides the democratic forces
upon which the welfare of our coun-
try depends. They believe, there-
fore, that membership in the Com-
munist party is incompatible with
membership in the faculty of a
State university. Tolerance must
not mean indifference to practices
which contradict the spirit and the
purposes of the way of life which
the University of California as an
instrument of democracy is com-
mitted.' "

4 — "The Academic Senate of the
University of California, made up
of all professors, associate profes-
sors, assistant professors and in-
structors, has by general vote ex-
pressed its acceptance and agree-
ment with this policy."

5— "As President of the University
I have on many public occasions
reiterated this poHcy and elab-
orated upon it to make certain it
iwa>; clearly understood . . ."

6— "The Hollywood Writers' Con-
gress, which the Report denounces.

wa.i invited to hold It^ 1943 meet-
ing on the Los Aiigeles campus (the
report says Berkeley campus) by
the local administrative officers, a
.<:imilar meeting having been held
there in 1941. with seemingly good
results and no unfavorable criticism.
I acted as one of the sponsors of
Ihe 1943 Congress, and spoke at its
first meeting in respon.se to a di-
rect, personal request from the
■President of the United States,
[Franklin D. Roo.sevelt."
I 7_"The publication of the Holly-
wood Quarterly, an outgrowth of
'the Congress, was undertaken by
I the administrative officers on the
|Lcs Angeles campus, and of repre-
Isentatives and conservative mem-
bers of the faculty, because there
was need for 'a scholarly journal
on a professional level and with
the highest scholarly and scientific
i standards.' These standards have
I been adhered to strictly. The mem-
Ibership of the Editorial Board, to
1 which the report refers, has been
'changed from time to time in order
better to achieve the purposes of
the Quarterly, which is now definite-
jly under university control."

8_'*The two-day Institute on La-
bor, Education and World Peace
was held on the Berkeley campus
in May. 1946. under the auspices
of the University Extension, and
Dr. B. M. Woods, who is in charge
jOf that division of the university,
;ha.'« made the following statement:
" 'The Institute was presented
jointly by the California Labor
School and the University of Cal-

Students Try
To Fly Red Flag
At Alaska U.

FAIRBANKS, June 9 (U.R)— The
president of the University of
Alaska today reported that two
students had lowered the American
flag on the campus, trampled on
it and atempted to raise a red flag.

President Terris Moore said the
incident occurred during the May
21 commencement exercises at-
tended by Governor Earl Warren
jof California. Moore said one of
the students had been identified
and expelled. He said the Federal
Bureau jf Investigation was inves-
tigating.

ifornia Extension. The collabora-
tion of the California Labor School
was secured in order to (a) Co-
operate with an education institu-
tion active in certain phases of
labor education, ^b) Utilize the
ncauaintance of the school with la-
bor unions in promoting attendance.
(c> Recognize the difference in
function of a privately op>erated
labor school and the State Uni-
versity Extension. There is unan-
imous agreement that the tone of
jthe Institute was good, that noth-
!:ng of a radical or .subversive char-
iacter appeared, and that the mcm-
|bcrs of the California Labor School
I participated in an appropriate man-

ner. The university has not on any
other occasion co-operated with the
California Labor School.'"

9— "The Institute on Human Re-
lation."^ was held on the Berkeley
campus in June, 1946. under the
auspices of University Extension.
Concerning this in.stitute Dr. Woods
makes the following statement:

" 'The Institute on Human Rela-
tions was a co-operative student-
faculty enterprise, designed to as-
semble and present for the study of
the participants information on
human relations, and especially
race relations, which had been ac-
quired by various groups working
on the problem, and to recommend
techniques for its resolution. It was
hoped that the institute might
serve to emphasize those elements
of the American philosophy on
which there could be common
agreement, and which make the
I American democratic way of life
ithe finest of which we have knowl-
jedge. The speakers named in the
report were balanced by others of
I quite different views and associa-
tions'."

10— "The report calls attention
to 'efforts to infiltrate and propa-
gandize the atomic bomb project of
the University of California.' The
security measures in connection
I with this project are completely
under the control of the United
i States Army and other agencies of
ithe Federal Government. The uni-
jVerslty has no authority whatever
I in relation to them."

11— "Tlie report criticizes the
employment and retention of cer-
tain members of the faculty who
have been or are members of what
its de.scribes as 'Communi.st-front'
organization.s. Each of these per-
sons has met the full requirements
of the regents, and has signed all
the oaths and statements which
are now a condition of university
employment, or i«; no Innqpr em-
ployed.

"One member of the faculty men-
jtloned, who is not now in university
employ, voted for the Academic
Senate re.solution that Communists
are ineligible for university em-
ployment, and was reported by the
Senate's Committee on Privilege
and Tenure, after investigation, to
be 'not a member of the Communist
party or of any other organization
[which advocates the overthrow of
jthe Government by force of vlo-
|lencc'."

! <^The latter paragraph apparently
I refers to Dr. Edward Tolman, uni-
versity psychology professor dis-
charged for failure to sign the
Regents special loyalty oath and
now a visiting professor at the Uni-
Iversity of Chicago.
i 12— "The report stresses and
[documents the existence among
I students on the Berkeley and Los
Angeles campuses of Communist
groups and this is undoubtedly true.
However, these groups are granted
no official recognition, no head-
quarters, no meeting place or other
privileges by the university. There

is no way In which the university

can exercise control over these

groups unless they break the law

or engage in activities on the cam-
pus which are forbidden by uni-
vcn:ity regulations. These regula-
tions are strictly enforced, with
t,he aid of the university police, who
keep in clo.se touch with the staff
of the Senate Committee on Un-
American Activitie.i and with Fed-
eral agencies. "

1.3 — "In connection with the
loyalty oath, the report states that
'there seems to be little controversy
concerning the idea that actual
members of the Communist party
would not be permitted to teach in
our schools. Among those who have
voiced such opinions are General
Dwight D. Eisenhower, recently
president of Columbia University,

CCCCAAA PACE 13

SUNDAY, )UNE 10. 1951
San Francisco Chronicle

and President James B. Conar.t of
Harvard University.

"To these names might well t»
added the name of President Robert
G. Sproul of the Univcr.sity of Cali-
fornia, as the record of his innum-
erable articles, addres.se,'^, and of-
ficial acts will abundantly testify.

In the light of the facts I have
stated, it is fantastic for any group,
even one as well-intentioned as th<»
Senate Fact-Pinding Committee on
Un-American Activities, to imply
that the Regents of the Univer^.ity
of California, or any of their «fd-
ministrative officers is tolerant of
Communists or permits Comr ^

to enter the university's emp..^^ ^r
to operate unchecked on any of it«
campuses or in any of its activities,"
Dr. Sproul's statement concluded.

DENIAL BY PROF. TOLMAN,
NEW MOVE BY ASSEMBLYMEN

Continued from Page 1

Professor Tolman allegedly buonged
some years ago.

Professor Tolman. a psychologist,
presently is a visiting professor at
The University of Chicago. He tel-
ephoned friends on the UC campus
at Berkeley yesterday and asked
them to issue the following state-
ment on his behalf:

"As a loyal American citizen. I
«am fed up with vague innuendoes
that liave no baris In fact.

"There i% not a shred of truth in

an> msmuation tnat I have ever
supported subversives

"I am unalterably opposed to
Communism and all its works, in-
cluding the smear technique, char-
acter assassination and guilt -"
is^ociation.

During my lifetime." Profes.s©r
Tolman's statement concluded. • ;';e
millions of Americans, I have oe-
lor.eed to many orc-^"'^-- ^' • "^ it
I have never kno
to or been atfiUated with any
versive organization.**

UC Faculty Brands
Burns Report 'False'

Committee on Academic Freedom Colls Red
Charges by State Senate Unit 'Shocking'

(Text on Page 14)
The Lniveisity of California faculty committee on academic free-
dom today denounced the Burns report on un-American activities at UC,
saying its major accusation is "as false as it is shockmg." The Burns
report — issued last week by the State Senate committee on un-American
activities — charged the university with "aiding and abetting an inter-
national conspiracy"; that is, com-

munism.

Tre faculty statement likewise
termed false the Burns report's im-
plication that there are secret
Communists on the UC faculty.

DETAILED REPLY

Then the faculty ook up the
Burns report's detailed accusations
and innuendos one by one and de-
nied the validity of all of them:
There is not a sinjfle member
of the faculty char^red with beinjf
a member of (he Communist
Party.

There are no Communist Party
orji!:anization« on the campus,
either amon^ the students, fac-
olty .or other employes.

The university has. with the
consent of the faculty, barred
Communists from any university
.job.

President Robert Gordon Sproul
ha-s, contrary to the Burns re-
port, provided vigorous leader-
ship in the fis:ht af:ainst com-
munism at the university.

The statement said the faculty
Is opposed to Communism but
"places no faith in loyalty oaths"
and quoted from the Burns report
itself to bolster its argument that
loyalty oaths are ineffective in
weeding out subversives.

REPRESENTS FACULTY

The Committe on Academic Free-
dom represents the faculty mem-
ber.s at Berkeley. Davis, and San
Franci.sco. Us member.*; are James
R. Caldwell, professor of English:
"William R. Dennes, professor of
philosophy: Ewaid T. Grether. dean
of the School of Business Adminis-
tration; Robert A. Misbet. a.ssociate
professor of sociology; and Wendell
M. Stanley, professor of bio-chem-
istry and Nobel Laureate.

warren says uc on
'guard against reds

By United Press

SACRAMENTO, June 12.— Gov
ernor Warren today said a con
stant screening process is going
on at UC to keep it "free from sub- i
versivc influences."

Governor Warren, commenting
on the report of a joint fact-find-
ing committee on unAmerican ac-
tivities, said it was a policy of the
regents to maintain a constant vigil
against subversives creeping into
the faculty.

"I'm sure the president is follow-
ing that policy and is doing what
(Ton) to Pace S, Column &.)

THE SAN FRANCISCO NEWS--"Tuesday, June 12, 1951

.XCISCO NEWS

UC Calls Red
Charge False

Faculty Commiftee
Hits Burns Report

(Continued From Page 1)

can be done to prevent subversives
from coming into the university."
the governor said. He has not read
the 191 -page report which charged
that Communist cells were active
at both UC and UCLA, as well as
Stanford and several other col-
leges in the state.

SCREENING URGED

Asked for reaction to a resolu-
tion by Assemblyman Harold K.
Levering <R., L. A.) calling for a
Federal Bureau of Investigation
screening of UC faculty members.
Governor Warren said:

*I don't .see how the state could
make the FBI screen anybody. The
FBI does screen all per.sonnel in
Federal projects that have been
initiated on the campus of any!
university in the state — public or'
private.

"But our own experience is thatj
the FTBI will not screen any state
or local personnel the>' may be re-
quested to investigate because of
lack of time and facilities.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Other developments at the War-
ren press conference:

1. — The governor said it would
be a "pretty good guess" that his
commission on organized crime
would be in operation by the latter
part of the summer.

2.— He said he felt it "would not
be an orderly progression" to cut
$1,800,000 from the budget of the
State Department of Mental Hy-
giene and keep its standards at the
1950-51 level. The governor said
the department had planned a step-
by-step improvement program last-
ing five years and he believed it
should be continued.

INTENTIONAL SBCX}ND EXPOSURE

I

UC Faculty Group Issues
Statement on Red Report

Charges Mode by State Senate
Committee Answered in Detail

- Following is text of a UC faculty statement issued today
concerning the recent report of the State Senate's Un-Ameri-
can Activities Committee:

The Committee on Academic
Freedom, representing the faculty
on the Berkeley, Davis and San
Francisco University of California
campuses, believes that the report
of the State Senate committee on
un-American activities, and espe-
cially the attendant misleading
publicity, have done the university
a great disservice and much dam-
age by undermining public confi-
dence in the university.

The accusation by the Burns
committee that the university is
"aiding and abetting an interna-
tional conspiracy" is as false as it
is shocking. The inference that
Communist "faculty units" exist on
the campus today is likewise false.

•UTTERLY MISLEADING'

The use in the Burns report of
such phrases as "usually the faculty
members who secretly belong to the
Communist Party" is utterly mis-
leading, for no evidence has been
brought forward that a single mem-
ber of the University of California
faculty today belongs to the Com-
munist Party. Now what are the
well-documented facts?

Number 1. — No present member
of the faculty is charged, even in
the Burns Committee report, with
being a member of the Communist
Party. The records of the Third
District Court of Appeals show that
the Regents, faculty and legal
counsel for both sides agrees that
none of the non-signers of the
special declaration is a member of
the Communist Party. The head-
lines are utterly misleading, for
there is absolutely no evidence that
a single member of the faculty is a
Communist.

Number 2.— No campus Commu-
nist organizations are known to
exist today among the students,
faculty or employes of the univer-
sity. Long ago, such organizations
were barred. A few students are
undoubtedly engaged in off-cam-
pus Communist activity, but these
are grnted no official recognition,
no headquarters, no meeting places
or other privileges by the univer-
sity, and such off-campus activity
cannot be controlled by the uni-
versity.

•NO SUCH UNITS*

The Burns Committee report de-
votes a section to "faculty units,"
but presents absolutely no evidence
and makes no charges that Com-
munist faculty units exist at the
University of California. Certainly,
no such units are known by the
faculty today.

Number 3— The Academic Senate
In 1950 passed overwhelmingly the
foUowinff resolution: "No oerson

lions of loyal Americans are join-
ers of lodges, of service clubs and
of patriotic and other organiza-
tions. Some belong to only one
group and others to many.

During World War II, when
Russia was our ally, many legiti-
mate pro-Russian organizations
were started and some of these
were aided by high authorities In
Government. Some of these appear
subsequently to have become Com-
munist front organizations. It is
neither fair nor honest to smear
a person today for former mem-
bership in a once-respectable or-
ganization which has now fallen
into disrepute. What is important
is whether or not any given person
is knowingly engaged in a subver-
sive activity.

No. 6.— The faculty is bitterly
opposed to communism, but it
places no faith in loyalty oaths and
believes that they tend to weaken
rather than strengthen our bul-
warks against communism. Even
the Burns report contains the fol-
lowing quotation: "Nor are loyalty
oaths of the slightest aid in restor-
ing intellectual integrity where it
has been undermined, or in pre-
venting the academic fellow travel-
ler—and for that matter even the
party members— from battling for
the party line. (A loyalty oath) is
an empty gesture, recognized even
by those who administer it as point-
less."

CONSERVATIVE TRADITION

The faculty hope that the loyalty
oath controversy soon will be
brought to an end, for it has been
very damaging to the university.
The faculty position has been, and
remains, one essentially conserva-
tive of the best traditions of our
academic and democratic heritage.

The University of California is
an institution whase record in the
service of our country is known by
literate men and women around
the world. In the cultivation of un-
derstanding, in loyalty to America
and its free institutions, in the
development of creative thought, in
every field of literature, science and
rat, in the training of scientists, en-
gineers and technicians who today
are building the defenses of the
free world, in the everlasting quest
for truth in classroom, library and
laboratory, the University of Call,
fornia is a source of invaluable
strength in these days of crisis.

This institution is a treasure
house of Western culture, and an
arsenal for the moral and intel-
lectual armament of the free world.
It is a university which has done
so much to give to the world the
inirppip of atomic enerev and othe^^^^

iiidermuiiiig puoiic conli-

dence in the university.

The accusation by the Burns
committee that the university is
"aiding and abetting an interna-
tional conspiracy" is as false as it
is shocking. The inference that
Communist "faculty units" exist on
the campus today is likewise false.

•UTTERLY MISLEADING'

The use in the Burns report of
such phrases as "usually the faculty
members who secretly belong to the
Communist Party" is utterly mis-
leading, for no evidence has been
brought forward that a single mem-
ber of the University of California
faculty today belongs to the Com-
munist Party. Now what are the
well-documented facts?

Number 1.— No present member^
of the faculty is charged, even in
the Burns Committee report, with
being a member of the Communist
Party. The records of the Third
District Court of Appeals show that
the Regents, faculty and legal
counsel for both sides agrees that
none of the non-signers of the
special declaration is a member of
the Communist Party. The head-
lines are utterly misleading, for
there is absolutely no evidence that
a single member of the faculty is a
Communist.

Number 2.— No campus Commu-
nist organizations are known to
exist today among the students,
faculty or employes of the univer-
sity. Long ago, such organizations
were barred. A few students are
undoubtedly engaged in off-cam-
pus Communist activity, but these
are grnted no official recognition,
no headquarters, no meeting places
or other privileges by the univer-
sity, and such off-campus activity
cannot be controlled by the uni-
versity.

•NO SUCH UNITS'

The Burns Committee report de-
votes a section to "faculty units,"
but presents absolutely no evidence
and makes no charges that Com-
munist faculty units exist at the
University of California. Certainly,
no such units are known by the
faculty today.

Number 3— The Academic Senate
In 1950 passed overwhelmingly the
following resolution: "No person
whose commitments or obligations
to any organization. Communist or
other, prejudice impartial scholar-
ship and the free pursuit of truth
will be employed by the university.
Proved members of the Communist
Party, by reason of such commit-
ments to that party, are not ec-
ceptable as members of the faculty."

This was the first such action
by the faculty of any major uni-
versity. Far from "aiding and abet-
ting an international conspiracy," it
is perfectly clear that the ad-
ministration and faculty want no
Communists in the university, and
abhor communism or any other
ideology which does not permit
freedom of inquiry, of opinion and
of teaching.

LEADERSHIP CITED

Number 4— The faculty believes
that the president has provided
vigorous leadership in the fight
against communism, and it has
complete confidence that he will
continue to do so.

Number 5.i— The faculty believes
that every citizen has a right to
join any organization which he
feels exists for a good cause, and
that smear tactics based solely on
such BiSsociation are as un-Amer-
ican as a Soviet conspiracy, and
have no place in these U. S« Mil-

niunist front organizations. It is
neither fair nor honest to smear
a person today for former mem-
bership in a once-respectable or-
ganization which has now fallen
into disrepute. What is important
is whether or not any given person
is knowingly engaged in a subver-
sive activity.

No. 6.— The faculty is bitterly
opposed to communism, but it
places no faith in loyalty oaths and
believes that they tend to weaken
rather than strengthen our bul-
warks against communism. Even
the Burns report contains the fol-
lowing quotation: "Nor are loyalty
oaths of the slightest aid in restor-
ing intellectual integrity where it
has been undermined, or in pre-
venting the academic fellow travel-
ler—and for that matter even the
party members — from battling for
the party line. (A loyalty oath) is
an empty gesture, recognized even
bv those who administer it as point-
less."

CONSERVATIVE TRADITION

The faculty hope that the loyalty
oath controversy soon will be
brought to an end, for it has been
very damaging to the university.
The faculty position has been, and
remains, one essentially conserva-
tive of the best traditions of our
academic and democratic heritage.

The University of California is
an institution whose record in the
service of our country is known by
literate men and women around
the world. In the cultivation of un-
derstanding, in loyalty to America
and its free institutions, in the
development of creative thought, in
every field of literature, science and
rat, in the training of scientists, en-
gineers and technicians who today
are building the defenses of the
free world, in the everlasting quest
for truth iii classroom, library and
laboratory, the University of Call,
fornia is a source of invaluable
strength in these days of crisis.

This institution is a treasure
house of Western culture, and an
arsenal for the moral and intel-
lectual armament of the free world.
It is a university which has done
so much to give to the world the
miracle of atomic energy and other
outstanding achievements in nearly
every branch of learning. Over
100.000 graduates testify to its con-
tribution to this state and nation.
Could all this come from an insti-
tution riddled with Communists?

The University of California has
earned indexed theh full confidence
and support of all citizens of the
state. It must have this confidence
and support if it is to maintain
its high position in the state and

naion.

♦ ♦ ♦

The statement given above Is by
the committee on academic free-
dom of the Northern section of the
academic senate of the University
of California, and concerns the re-
port of the state Senate commit-
tee on un-American activities. The
members of the committee on aca-
demic freedom are: James R. Cald-
well, professor of English; William
R. Dennes, professor of philosophy
and dean of the graduate division;
Ewald T. Grether, Flood professor
of economics and dean of the school
of business administration: Robert
A. Misbet. associate professor of so-
ciology and social institutions, and
Wendell M. Stanley, professor of
bio-chemistry, director of the viru*
laboratory and chairman of ihf
oommittM. ^^

m

FimfcD IN TWO SBCnCNS

THE NEW YORK TIMES. TUESDAY. MARCH .^1. 1953.

Text of the Academic Freedom Policy Adopted by Universities

Following is the text of a state-
ment on "The Rights and Respon-
sibilities of Universities and Their
Faculties,' issued yesterday by the
Association of American Univer-
sities:

I

Role of the University
in American Life

f

I

I

vi

For three hundred years higher
education has played a leading-
role in the advancement of Amer-
ican civilization. No country in
history so early perceived the im-
portance of that role and none
has derived such widespread ben-
efits from it. Colleges moved
westward with the frontier and
carried with them the seeds of
learning. When the university idea
was transplanted from Europe, it
spread across the nation with ex-
traordinary speed. Today our
universities are the standard bear-
ers of our whole system of educa-
ton. They are the mainstays of
the professions. They are the
prime source of our competence
in science and the arts. The names
of their graduates crowd the hon-
or rolls of two world wars and of
the nation's peacetime affairs.
By every test of war and peace
they have proved themselves in-
dispensable Instruments of cultur-
al progress and national welfare.
In the United States there is a
greater degree of equality of op-
portunity in higher education than
anywhere else in the world. A
larger proportion of Americans
study in universities and colleges
than any other people. These uni-
versities have shown, and con-
tinue to show, greater responsive-
ness to the needs of our society
than their European counterparts.
They have equipped our people
with the varied skills and sci-
ences essential to the development
of a pioneer country. They have
imparted the shape and coherence
of the American nation to form-
less immigi'ant groups. American
ideals have been strengthened, the
great cultural tradition of the
West has been broadened and
enriched by their teaching and
example.

Modern knowledge of ourselves
and of our universe has been nur-
tured in the universities. The sci-
entific, technological, medical and
surgical advances of our time
were born in them. They have
supplied intellectual capital as es-
sential to our society as financial
capital is to our industrial enter-
prise. They have more than jus-
tified the faith of the public in
our distinctive system of higher
education. They have proved them-
selves dynamic forces of Ameri-
can progress.

11

The Nature of a University

A university is the institutional
embodiment of an urge for
knowledge that is basic in human
nature and as old as the human
race. It is inherent in every in-
dividual. The seai'ch that it in-
spires is an Individual affair.
Men vary in the intensity of their
passion for the search for knowl-
edge as well as in their com-
petence to pursue it. History,
therefore, presents us with a se-
ries of scholarly pioneers who ad-
vanced our knowledge from age
to age and increased our ability
to discover new knowledge. Great

To censor individual faculty mem-
bers would put a stop to learning
at its outlet.

For these reasons a university
does not take an official position
of its own either on disputed
questions of scholarship or on po-
litical questions or matters of
public policy. It refrains from so
doing not only in its own but in
the public interest, to capitalize
the search for knowledge for the
benefit of society, to give the in-
dividuals pursuing that search
the freest possible scope and the
greatest possible encouragement
in their efforts to preserve the
learning of the past and advance
learning in the present. The
scholar who pursues the search
on these terms does so at maxi-
mum advantage to society. So
does the student. To the scholar
lie open new discoveries in the
whole field of knowledge, to his
student the opportunity of shar-
ing in those discoveries and at
the same time developing his
powers of rational thought, intel-
ligent judgment and an under-
standing use of acquired knowl-
edge. Thus essential qualities of
learning are combined with es-
sential qualities of citizenship in
a free society.

To fulfill their function, the
members of university faculties
must continue to analyze, test,
criticize and reassess existing in-
stitutions and beliefs, approving
when the evidence supports them
and disapproving when the
weight of evidence is on the other
side. Such investigations cannot
be confined to the physical world,
the acknowledged fact that
moral, social and political prog-
ress have not kept pace with
mastery of the physical world
shows the need for more intensi-
fied research, fresh insights, vig-
orous criticism and inventive-
ness. The scholar's mission re-
quires the study and examina-
tion of UfipOpular ideag^.of i'dejaa
considered abhorrent and even
daiTfei'dus. For, just as in the
case of deadly disease or the mil-
itary potential of an enemy, it is i|
only by intense study and re-
search that the nature and ex-
tent of the danger can be under-
stood and defenses against it per-
fected.

Scholar's Silence Assailed

Timidity must not lead the
scholar to stand silent when he
ought to speak, particulaily in
the field of his competence. In
matters of conscience and when
he has truth to proclaim the
scholar has no obligation to be
silent in the face of popular dis-
approval. Some of the great pas-
sages in the history of truth have
involved the open challenge of
popular prejudice in times of ten-
sion such as those in which we
live.

What applies to research applies
equally to teaching. So long as
an instructor's observations are
scholarly and germane to his sub-
ject, his freedom of expression in
his classroom should not be
curbed. The university student
should be exposed to competing
opinions and beliefs in every
field, po that he may learn to
weigh them and gain maturity of
judgment. Honest and skillful ex-
position of such opinions and be-
liefs is the duty of every instruc-
tor; and it is equally his privi-
lege to express his own critical

ions. This fundamental truth
underlies the assertion and defi-
nition of individual rights and
freedom in our Bill of Rights.
How does it apply to universities?
In the eyes of the law, the uni-
versity scholar has no more and
no less freedom than his fellow
citizens outside a university.
None the less, because of the vital
importance of the university to
civilization, membership in its
society of scholars enhances the
prestige of persons admitted to
its fellowship after probation and
upon the basis of achievement in
research and teaching. The uni-
versity supplies a distinctive
forum and, in so doing, strength-
ens the scholar's voice. When his
opinions challenge existing ortho-
dox points of view, his freedom
may be more in need of defense
than that of men in other pro-
fessions. The guarantee of tenure
to professors of mature and
proven scholarship is one such
defense. As in the case of judges,
tenure protects the scholar
against undue economic or po-
litical pressures and ensures the
continuity of the scholarly proc-
ess.

There Is a line at which "free-
dom" or "privilege" begins to be
qualified by legal "duty" and
"obligation." The determination
of the line is the function of the
legislature and the courts. The
ultimate interpretation and ap-
plication of the First and Four-
teenth Amendments are the func-
tion of the United State.7 Supreme
Court: but every public official
is bound by his oath »f office to
respect and preserve the liberties
guaranteed therein. These are not
to be determined arbitrarily or by
public outcry. The line thus
drawn can be changed by legisla-
tive and judicial action; it has
varied in the past because of pre-
vailing anxieties as well as by
reason of "clear and present"
danger. Its location is subject to,
and should receive, criticism,
both popular and judicial. How-
ever much the location of the line
may be criticized, it cannot be
disregarded with impunity. Any
member of a university who
crosses the duly established line
is not excused by the fact that
he believes the line ill-drawn.
When the speech, writing, or
other actions of a member of a
faculty exceed lawful limits, he is
subject to the same penalties as
other persons. In addition, he
may lose his university status.

No Endorsement of Views

Historically the word "univer-
sity" is a guarantee of standards.
It implies endorsement not of its
members' views but of their
capability and integrity. Every
scholar has an obligation to main-
tain this reputation. By ill-ad-
vised, though not illegal, public
acts or utterances he may do seri-
ous harm to his profession, his
university, to education and to
the general welfare. He bears a
heavy responsibility to weigh the
soundness of his opinions and the
manner in which they are ex-
pressed. His effectiveness, both
as scholar and teacher, is not re-
duced but enhanced if he has the
humility and the wisdom to rec-
ognize the fallibility of his own
judgment. He should remember

»V..» Vin tm na. ~<.

.U .. 1 _. .

his qualifications for membership
In its society.

In all universities faculties ex-
ercise wide authority in internal
affairs. The greater their auton-
omy, the greater their share of
responsibility to the public. They
must maintain the highest stand-
ards and exercise the utmost wis-
dom in appointments and promo-
tions. They must accept their
share of responsibility for the dis-
cipline of those who fall short in
the discharge of their academic
trust.

The universities owe their ex-
istence to legislative acts and
public charters. A state univer-
sity exists by constitutional and
legislative acts, an endowed uni-
versity enjoys its Independence
by franchise from the state and
by custom. The state university
is supported by public funds. The
endowed university is benefited
by tax exemptions. Such benefits
are conferred upon the universi-
ties not as favors, but in further-
ance of the public interest. They
carry with them public obligation
of direct concern to the faculties
of the universities as well as to
the governing boards.

Legislative bodies from time to
time may scrutinize these bene-
fits and privileges. It is clearly
the duty of universities and their
members to cooperate in official
inquiries directed to those ends.
When the powers of legislative
inquiry are abused, the remedy
does not lie in non-cooperation
or defiance; it is to be sought
through the normal channels of
informed public opinion.

IV
The Present Danger

We have set forth the nature
and function of the university.
We have outlined its rights and
responsibilities and those of its
faculties. What are the implica-
tions for current anxiety over
Russian communism and the sub-
versive activities connected with
it?

We condemn Russian commu-
nism as we condemn every form
of toltalitarianism. We share the
profound concern of the Ameri-
can people at the existence of an
international conspiracy whose
goal is the destruction of our
cherished institutions. The police
state would be the death of our
universities, as of our Govern-
ment. Three of its principles in
particular are abhorrent to us:
the fomenting of world-wide rev-
olution as a step to seizing pow-
er; the use of falsehood and
deceit as normal means of per-
suasion; thought control— the dic-
tation of doctrines which must
be accepted and taught by all
party members. Under these
principles, no scholar could ade-
quately disseminate knowledge or
pursue investigations in the ef-
fort to make further progress to-
ward truth.

Appointment to a university
position and retention after ap-
pointment require not only pro-
fessional competence but involve
the affirmative obligation of be-
ing diligent and loyal in citizen-
ship. Above all, a scholar mu-i
have Integrity and independence.
This renders impossible adher-
ence to such a regime as that of
Russia and its satellites. No per-

!f.«K "^^P *^<^ePt» or advocates
such T>rinrin1*« •«<<• .^«4.t.-'- «

shield for those who break th«
law. Universities must cooperate
fully with law-enforcement offi-
cers whose duty requires them to
prosecute those charged with of-
fenses. Under a well-established
American principle, their inni»-
cence is to be assumed until thev
have been convicted, under aue
process, in a court of proper
jurisdiction.

Unless a faculty member vio-
lates a law, however, his disci-
pline or discharge is a university
responsibility and should not be
assumed by political authority.
Discipline on the basis of irrre-
sponsible accusations or suspicion
can never be condoned. It is as
damaging to the public welfare
as it is to academic integrity. The
university is competent to estab-
lish a tribunal to determine the
facts and fairly judge the nature
and degree of any trespass upon
academic integrity, as well as to
determine the penalty .such tres-
pass merits.

As the professor is entitled to
no special privileges In law. so
also he should be subject to no
special di.scrimination. Universi-
ties are bound to deprecate spe-
cial loyalty tests which are ap-
plied to their faculties but to
which others are not subjected.
Such discrimination dnei harm {^-r
the individual and even greater
harm to his university and the
whole cause of education by de-
stroying faith in the ideals of
university scholarship.

V

Conclusion

Finally, we assert that freedom
of thought and speech is vital to
the maintenance of the American
system and is essential to the gen-
eral welfare. Condemnation of
communism and its protagonists
is not to be interpreted as readi-
ness to curb social, political, or
economic investigation and re-
search. To insist upon complete
conformity to current beliefs and
practices would do infinite harm
to the principle of freedom, which
is the greatest, the central.
American doctrine. Fidelity to
that principle has made it pos-
sible for the universities of Amer-
ica to confer great benefits upon
our society and our country. Ad-
herence to that principle is the
only guarantee that the nation
may continue to enjoy those bene-
fits.

P

M

Willi the varied skills and sci-
ences essential to the development
of a pioneer country. They have
imparted the shape and coherence
of the American nation to form-
less immigrant groups. American
ideals have been strenpthened, the
great cultural tradition of the
West has been broadened and
enriched by their teaching and
example.

Modern knowledge of ourselves
and of our universe has been nur-
tured in the universities. The sci-
entific, technological, medical and
surgical advances of our time
were born in them. They have
supplied intellectual capital as es-
sential to our society as financial
capital is to our industrial enter-
prise They have more than jus-
tified the faith of the public in
our distinctive system of higher
education. They have proved them-
selves dynamic forces of Ameri-
can progress.

II

The Nature of a University

A university is the institutional
embodiment of an urge for
knowledge that is basic in human
nature and as old as the human
race It is inherent in every in-
dividual. The search that it in-
spires is an individual affair.
Men vary in the intensity of their
passion for the search for knowl-
edge as well as in their com-
petence to pursue it. History,
therefore, presents us with a se-
ries of scholarly pioneers who ad-
vanced our knowledge from age
to age and increased our ability
to discover new knowledge. Great
scholars and teachers drew stu-
dents to them, and in the Middle
Ages a few such groups organ-
ized themselves into the first uni-
versities.

The modern university, which
evolved from these, is a unique
type of organization. For many
reasons it must differ from a cor-
poration created for the purpose
of producing a salable article for
profit. Its internal structure, pro-
cedures and discipline are proper-
g] ly quite different from those of
business organizations. It is not
so closely integrated and there is
no such hierarchy of authority
as is appropriate to a business
concern; the permanent mem-
bers of a university are essen-
tially equals.

Like its medieval prototype, the
modern American university is an
a.ssociation of individual scholars,
Their effectiveness, both as schol-
ars and as teachers, requires the
capitalizing of their individual
passion for knowledge and their
individual competence to pursue
it and communicate it to others.
They are united in loyalty to the
ideal of learning, to the moral
code, to the country and to its
form of government. They rep-
resent diversified fields of knowl-
edge; they express many points
of view. Even within the same
department of instruction there
are not only specialists in various
phases of the subject but men
with widely differing interests
and outlook.

Free enterprise is as essential
to intellectual as to economic
progress.

Critical Freedom Essential

A university must, therefore, be
hospitable to an infinite variety
of skills and viewpoints, relying
upon open competition among
them as the surest .safeguard of
truth. Its whole spirit requires In-
vestigation, criticism and presen-
tation of ideas in an atmosphere
of freedom and mutual confi-
dence. This Is the real meaning
of "academic" freedom. It is es-
sential to the achievenjent of its
ends that the faculty of a unlver
slty be guaranteed this freedom
by its governing board, and that
the reasons for the guarantee be
understood by the public. To en-
join uniformity of outlook upon a
university faculty would put a
stop to learning at the source.

orous criticism and inventive-
ness. The scholar's mission re-
quires the study and e- •-
tion of impOpular ideaft^ o: .__aa
considered abhorrent and even
dangerous. For, just as in ihe
case of deadly disease or the mil-
itary potential of an enemy, it is
only by intense study and re-
search that the nature and ex-
tent of the danger can be under-
stood and defenses against It per-
fected.
^ Scholar's Silence Assailed

Timidity must not lead the
scholar to stand silent when he
ought to speak, particularly In
the field of his competence. In
matters of conscience and when
he has truth to proclaim the
scholar has no obligation to be
silent in the face of popular dis-
approval. Some of the great pas-
sages In the history of truth have
involved the open challenge of
popular prejudice in times of ten-
sion such as those in which we
live.

What applies to research applies
equally to teaching. So long as
an instructor's observations are
scholarly and germane to his sub-
ject, his freedom of expression in
his classroom should not be
curbed. The university student
should be exposed to competing
opinions and beliefs in every
field, ."o that he may learn to
weigh them and gain maturity of
judgment. Honest and skillful ex-
position of such opinions and be-
liefs is the duty of every instruc-
tor; and it is equally his privi-
lege to express his own critical
ffpinlon and the reasons for hold-
ing It. In teaching, as in research,
he is limited by the requirements
of citizenship, of professional
competence and good taste. Hav-
ing met those standards, he is
entitled to all the protection the
full resources of the university
can provide.

Whatever criticism is occa-
sioned by the.se practices, the
universities are committed to
them by their very nature. To
curb them, In the hope of avoid-
ing criticism, would mean dis-
torting the true process of learn-
ing and depriving society of its
benefits. It would invite the fate
of the German and Italian uni-
versities under fascism and the
Russian universities under com-
munism. It would deny our so-
ciety one of its most fruitful
sources of strength and welfare
and represent a sinister change
in our Ideal of government.

Ill

The Obligations

and Responsibilities

of University Faculties

We must recognize the fact that
honest men hold differing opin-

io be determined arbitrarily or Dy
public outcry. The line thus
drawn can be changed by legisla-
tive and judicial action; it has
varied In the past because of pre-
vailing anxieties as well as by
reason of "clear and present"
danger. Its location Is subject to,
and should receive, criticism,
both popular and judicial. How-
ever much the location of the line
may be criticized, it cannot be
disregarded with Impunity. Any
member of a university who
crosses the duly established line
is not excused by the fact that
he believes the line ill-drawn.
When the speech, writing, or
other actions of a member of a
faculty exceed lawful limits, he Is
subject to the same penalties as
other persons. In addition, he
may lose his university status.

No Endorsement of Views

Historically the word "univer-
sity" is a guarantee of standards.
It implies endorsement not of its
members' views but of their
capability and integrity. Every
scholar has an obligation to main-
tain this reputation. By ill-ad-
vised, though not illegal, public
acts or utterances he may do seri-
ous harm to his profession, his
university, to education and to
the general welfare. He bears a
heavy responsibility to weigh the
soundne.ss of his opinions and the
manner in which they are ex-
pressed. His effectiveness, both
as scholar and teacher, is not re-
duced but enhanced If he has the
humility and the wisdom to rec-
ognize the fallibility of his own
judgment. He should remember
that he is as much a Irayman as
anyone else in all fields except
those in which he has special
competence. Others, both within
and without the university, are
as free to criticize his opinions
as he is free to express them;
"academic freedom" does not in-
clude freedom from criticism.

As in all acts of association,
the professor accepts conventions
which become morally binding.
Above all, he owes his colleagues
in the university complete candor
and perfect integrity, precluding
any kind of clandestine or con-
spiratorial activities. He owes
equal candor to the public. If he
is called upon to answer for his
convictions, it is his duty as a
citizen tn speak out. It is even
more definitely his duty as a pro-
fessor. Refusal to do so, on what-
ever legal grounds, cannot fail to
reflect upon a profession that
claims for itself the fullest free-
dom to speak and the maximum
protection of that freedom avail-
able in our society. In this re-
spect, invocation of the Fifth
Amendment places upon a profes-
sor a heavy burden of proof of
his fitness to hold a teaching po-
sition and lays upon his univer-
sity an obligation to re-examine

We have outlined its rights and
responsibilities and those of its
faculties. What are the implica-
tions for current anxiety over
Russian communism and the sub-
versive activities connected with
it?

We condemn Russian commu-
nism as we condemn every form
of toltalltarlanlsm. We share the
profound concern of the Ameri-
can people at the existence of an
international conspiracy whose
goal Is the destruction of our
cherished Institutions. The police
state would be the death of our
universities, as of our Govern-
ment. Three of its principles in
particular are abhorrent to us:
the fomenting of world-wide rev-
olution as a step to seizing pow-
er; the use of falsehood and
deceit as normal means of per-
suasion; thought control— the dic-
tation of doctrines which must
be accepted and taught by all
party members. Under these
principles, no scholar could ade-
quately disseminate knowledge or
pursue investigations in the ef-
fort to make further progress to-
ward truth.

Appointment to a university
position and retention after ap-
pointment require not only pro-
fessional competence but involve
the affirmative obligation of be-
ing diligent and loyal in citizen-
ship. Above all, a scholar must
have integrity and Independence.
This renders Impossible adher-
ence to such a regime as that of
Russia and its satellites. No per-
son who accepts or advocates
such piinciples and methods has
any place in a university. Since
present membership in the Com-
munist party requires the accep-
tance of these principles and
methods, such membership ex-
tinguishes the right to a univer-
sity position. Moreover, if an in-
structor follows communistic
practice by becoming a propa-
gandist for one opinion, adopting
a "party line." silencing critl-
cl«m or impairing freedom of
thoughL and expression in his
classroom, he forfeits not only
all university support but his
right to membership in the uni-
versity.
"Academic freedom" 1? not a

it, ii J 1 I ''I I i*-*

communism and its protagonists
is not to be Interpreted as readi-
ness to curb social, political, or
economic investigation and re-
search. To insist upon complete
conformity to current beliefs and
practices would do infinite harm
to the principle of freedom, which
is the greatest, the central,
American doctrine. Fidelity to
that principle has made it pos-
sible for the universities of Amer-
ica to confer great benefits upon
our society and our country. Ad-
herence to that principle is the
only guarantee that the nation
may continue to enjoy those bene-
fits.

V

M

M.

C'-'n^.^ti-tr-

V

PACE 2 SUNDAY, APRILS, 1951

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE^

CCCCAA

Warren on Ruling

Governor Says Loyalty Decision
Satisfies His 'Sense of Justice'

Governor Earl Warren yesterday! Oreek and vice chairman of tlie
approved the Appellate Court's de-i group of 1« who took the board's

Jobs for Those in
Minority Groups
To Be Discussed

Civic, business and religious lead-
ers will hold a panel discussion at.
the University of San Francisco
Thursday on "Employment of Mem
bers of Minority Groups."

Warren View Appears Upheld

Oath Ruling Confuses the Legislature

to the

State cers both of the United States and
of the several States shall be bound
by oath or affirmation to support
the Constitution but no religious
test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any public office or

By EARL C. BEHRENS |^'0"ld run counter

Political Editor, The Chronicle | Constitution.

1 SACRAMENTO, April 7— Gover- The Appellate Court decision held

I nor Earl Warren's viewpoint in thei^^at the loyalty oath in the contract
•university of Cahfornia loyalty oath j^^^^^jj^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^

. [controversy appears to have been r'n«;titution Public trust under the United

-rnui i:-- "- ^ ^ „ jfuUy sustained in the third Apellate j violation of the State C^"s^^^""°"-,^tates "

J ^v^o A^noHfltr Court's de- proup of 18 who took the board's bers of Mmonty Groups. Court decision yesterday invalidat- The Court recognized that sub- ^^ ' ,, , , ,. ^, „,.

ed the Appellate C«u rt « ^e g P ^^^ ^^^^.^^ sponsored by the ^o^r decisio y y ^^^^^^^^ ^ ..^^^^^.^ reasonable rules of | The Appellate Justic^s^ quo

cision overthrowmg the University I (dismissal acuon 10 cout. a |San Francisco Junior Chamber of ^^ ^""^ I tenure as the regents might adopt. I from the Girouard case, stai

of California's special loyalty oath.! they had ''agreed not to make anyL,^^^^^,.^^ ^^i^ ^e^^in at 2 p. m. ini^he Appellate Court decision, ofladdopint and dismissal of the fac-|"The test oath is abhorrent to our

. . .^- .„.„. . ... .^g Library Building. Icoursc will be carried into thejulty members "is largely within the tradition

Panel members are: higher courts I discretion of the regents." Then! The Appellate Justices declared:

Father William Dunne, president ^^^^^j^^jj^g members of the Leg is -the Court declared "in the present I "We conclude that the people of

of the University of S^n Francisco; I. ^^^^^^ ^^^ '^^^ ^^ agreement over case the imposition of the oath in CaUfornia intended at least that no

Elmer D. Samson, president of the|^^_ .„__* ^t ♦!,« ^r^iri«« i-.r. th*» nM^ctinn <thA invnlt.v oath> beina'one could be subiected as a con-

in??
.stated,

of Californias special loyaiuy ua,ix*.p"-a -° juommeice. wm uc^^m

He said it satisfied his "sense of J"'" ■•''";'"J"L'''l i!!!.f "S'^l". °/,/tV.' "^l.^^''^^''^^!,""'""!:

h

Ir

wi

va

as

$(
rr

G

c
c

tice.

However. Edward H. Schafer, as-

The lovaltv oath was declared un-Uistant profe-ssor of Oriental Ian
constituUonal by the Third District .uages. described it as ' a victory
rnurt of Anneals in Sacramento Fri- foi democracy.
SarThe decision ordered 18 non-| The Appellate Court held that
signing professors reinstaipd.

I am happy to read the decision

of the court," Governor Warren said
in a statement. "I hope that the
final judgment will be in accord-
ance with its pronouncements.
Tt confirms my opinion of the

the special oath violated sections

of Article IX and XX of the State | of the State Chamber of Com
Constitution providing that theimerce; Charles Roeth, area man
'.miversity "shall be entirely inde

Elmer D. Samson, president of thCi^^^^ eitect of the decision on the question (the loyalty oath) being one could be subjected as a con-
Junior Chamber; Supervisor Dori|^^^.^^ loyalty oath issue. Iviolative of the applicable consti- dition to holding office to any test
Fazackerley; Adrian Falk, president j rpy^ ^ „ ^ug Legislature sent'tutional provisions the abuse of dis-jof political or religious belief other

Thursday, the Legislature sent'tutional provisions the abuse of dis-jof political or religious belief other
lalong a constitutional amendment crction is clear and hence this ^' '" - -.--.-- ^ ^ *i~- ^

merce; Charles Roeth, area man-j^^^ submission to the voters at the Court may compel the reinstate

.«i*yc.ox.^ «..- -. -- ager of the Department of Employ- 1^^^^ general election on the loyalty |ment of petitioners to their respec

pendent of all political or sectarian ment: Fred Breier, professor of eco-|^^^j^ ^^^^^

nomics at the University of San ^he amendment would require all

lav^- upon which I acted when the constitutional oath ^th jts^pledge
matter was before the Board of Re-
gents, and it satisfies my sense of

justice."

Edward A. Dickson of Los An-
L'eles, chairman of the regents, an-
nounced that the fight to save the

'pfluence." , , ^

The court held that the regular Francisco; Howard Carver, person-

controversial oath would be carried
to the State Supreme Court. The
regents have 40 days in which to
appeal. Eugene Prince of San Fran-
cisco, counsel for the board, had
said earlier he "assumed" such an
appeal would be made.

Next full meeting of the board is
>:ch^-duled for April 20 at Davis

of allegiance to the State and Na
tion was sufficient and "the highest
loyalty that can be demonstrated
by any citizen.

"While this court is mindful of
the fact that the action of the re-i- • . p,,-/;-^;,,*,^

gents was at the outset motivated TOUnCl in Ourimgame

elective Governors, the Judges and

nel manager of the Emporium, and ^^^ ^^^^^ employees, as well as the
Walter Haas Jr.. personnel manager '^ . _ ..,

of Levi Strauss Co.

Three Seattle Boys

University of California faculty and
staff to take a prescribed loyalty
oath.

But in light of references to a
U. S. Supreme Court decision which

tive positions

The Appellate Judges, Justices Paul
Peek, Annette Aboott Adams and
B. F. Van Dyke cited a U. S. Su-
preme Court decision in the case of
Girouard vs. the United States to
buttress their views regarding the
California case.

It is this case that some of the

by a desire to protect the univer-
sity from the influence of subver-
sive elements ... we are also keenly
aware that equal to the danger of
subversion from without ... is the
danger of subversion from within
by the gradual whittling away and
the resulting disintegration of the

Three Seattle boys— aged 13. 14
and 15— were picked up by Burlln

was quoted in the Appellate Court lawyer-legislators think might be an
decision, some doubt is cast by a | obstacle to a final judicial approval

Ludwig Edelstein. professor of very pillars of our freedom.

few legislators on the ultimate fate | of the proposed new California con-
of the new constitutional amend- stitutional amendment which would
game police as'they hitch-hiked into ment. .specifically include the University

town early yesterday Last year tne Governor and thejof California faculty among those

The lads told police thev belonged -members of the Board of Regents i required to take a loyalty oath,
to "a tough gang in Seattle" where who sideti with him in the contro- , The Appellate Court cited a pro-
thev had burglarized numerous versv contended that to require the vision in the Federal Constitution
home.s and stores. They were being, State university faculty members to "where it is .stated that all legis-
held for Seattle Juvenile authorities, take an oath not required by others lative executive and judicial offi-

than his pledge to support the Con
stitution of this State and of the
United States . . . that pledge is
the highest loyalty that can be
demonstrated by any citizen and
that the exacting of any other test
of loyalty would be antiethetical to
our fundamental concept of freedom.

The Governor objected last year
to singling out one class of public
employees — the university faculty
and making them take a loyalty
oath.

In submitting the loyalty oath for

I

.^ ,..J«fll

UC Regents Split

New Bitterness on Loyalty Oath,
This Time Over Whether to Appea

By CAROLYN ANSPACHER

New bitterness flared up yester-
day among the University of Cali-
fornia's Regents, again over the
controversial "loyalty declaration."

This time the argument was what
to do about the two-week-old de-
cision of the Third District Court
jof Appeals that the affirmation re-
quired by the Board of Regents was
unconstitutional, and that 18 non-
signing professors must be re-
instated in their jobs.

These were yesterday's devel-
iopments:
I 1— At 9 a. m. Eugen« Prince, spe-

cial attorney for the Regents, filet
a petition in the Appellate Cour
for a rehearing of the case, claim-
ing the decision was contrary tc
precedent.

2— At 2 p. m. the regents met at

j Davis, and engaged in bitter debate

las to whether or not the petition

was authorized or desirable.

i a_At 4 p. m. the regents voted,

ill to 10, to '.vithdraw the petition

from court and let the decision

stand.

4— Immediately after the vote.
Regent John Francis Neylan changed
his "no" vote to "yes"— a parlia-
mentary maneuver which enables

him to move for reconsideration at
the next meeting of the regents.

5— The regents then pa.s.sed. by
the same majority, a resolution
carrying the case to the State Su-
preme Court. Neylan again changed
his vote and moved for reconsidera-
tion.

The result of this action was to
\ Continued on Page 2, Col. I

JFct^JL, 4r^'» ^', '^n

/

More About
UC Regents

Loyalty Oath:
Split Again

Continued from Page 1

,the control of an "invisible govern-

leave the petition for a rehearing ment."

in the Apellate Court, which is re-; Warren replied. "I have been sub-

quired to rule on it by about May 7. jected to no pressure. The best rea-^

However, it appeared that since son for not appealing is that the,

the next regular meeting of thej^^^^gj. ^^^ been going on for two,

regents is May 25, ^»"d.,*/^'P\^;"^ years, to the great harm of the uni-
Court appeal must be filed by Mayi^^^'' • "^ ^„,„y,pr« of the

16 the board would not be able to versity. The 18 members of the
appeal as a whole. ^ faculty who have been m limbo for

However, .six of the regents said | a year have a right to have their
that regardless of future action by j^^gj. settled.

the board they, as individuals, would' «^j^gj.g j^ ^q rea.son that the Uni-

carry the case forward by appealing ^^^^^^^ qJ California .should be the

it to the State Supreme Court, ^^j^^^ ^-.^ j^^ ^11 loyalty oaths.

These six were Edwin Pauley. Lieu- Q^j^g^ ^^^^^ ^^^ pending before

tenant Governor Goodwin Knight, ^j^j-joys courts throughout Cahfornia

Brodie Ahlport, Sam Collins, Ed- ^.^jj jj^cide the status of other oaths."

ward A. Dickson, and Neylan. . j,^ ^^eir business ses.sion early in

Neylans parliamentary strategy the meeting, the regents voted to

[was "the same as that he executed foundly affecting the future of the

'last July, when. the board voted, 10 give President Robert G. Sproul a

(to 9, not to fire the nonsigners. By three-month leave of absence to at-

I changing his vote on that occasion tend the 500th anniversary celebra-

'and bringing the matter up at a tion at the University of Glasgow,

subsequent meeting, previously ab- Scotland.

sent regents turned the tables and Routine business of the Regents
voted the ousting which resulted in included acceptance of gifts and
the court test. i resignations and the approval of

The only two regents absent from apr>ointments.

yesterdays meeting were Sidney Among $314,500 in gifts was the

Ehrman San Franci-sco attorney. 6000-volume library of the late;

and Dr' Norman F. Sprague of Los novelist Jim Tully, which also con-j

Angeles-both members of the Ney- tained numerous origmal manu-;

lan faction. Both are expected to .scrips. The library will be housed

attend the next meeting of the at the Los Angeles campus.

board Among the four resignations ac-

Yesterdays meeting was charac- cepted by "^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i

terized by bitter exchanges between Wolfgang K. H Panofsky, associate

Neylan and Governor Earl Warren, professor of physics and a leading

whn i. nresident of the Board of experimental nuclear physicist, and

who i.s president of tne noara oi ^^ ^^^^^^ Meiklejohn. as.sociated

university." and called the decision Alexanoer Meiklejohn.

an "extraordinary document." Sir Richard V. Southwell, profes-

He said "pressure groups" were be- sor of engineering at Oxford Uni-

; hind the move not to appeal and versity, was named visiting professor

i added that the university is under of engineering. ^^^^^

THE DAILY CALIFORNIAN

Thursday^ April ^2, 1951

Students €Bpprave ^aath^ decisi^rsl

By DICK HOLLER

With the decision last Friday of
the Appellate court declaring the
Regents' loyalty declaration uncon-
stitutional, a controversy that has
affected the University for over two
years appeared to be on its way to
a settlement.

Faculty members were happy;
the non-sig:ners were happy and
even Governor Earl Warren was
happy over the outcome of the case
. . . but what about the students?

Of the students contacted, of
those voicing an opinion ... all were
satisfied at the outcome.

Philhp Wolfe, a graduate student
in mathematics, said tliat he was
"very happy that it came out the
way it did. It's a pity it didn't come
out that way a lot sooner," he said.
Although he thought it was "such

a stupid thing to make a fuss over
in the first place," Riley Kapfer,
sophomore, "was very glad that it
came out."

Feeling virtually the same way,
Berverly Macauley, a senior in
general curriculum said. "I'm glad,
although I think they were silly
not to sign it."

Jim Carrol, pre-dental junior,
voiced his opinion. "I think it's a
pretty good deal. I thought the edi-
torial (on page 1 of Monday's Daily
Calif ornian) was pretty strong. The
Regents were the personification of
the popular thought. They were
acting in good faith."

Walter Pfefler, senior in psychol-
ogy, was "very happy over the de-
cision." He also felt the reinstate-
ment of two of the non-signers,
Edward Tolman and R. Nevitt

Sanford, would be quite a boost to
the department.

Two months over from Sweden,
Anders Stenstedt, in business ad-
ministration, said he wasn't too
familiar witli the whole issue al-
though he was "glad that the court
overruled the decision. I'm quite
sure such an oath would have been
very unpopular in Sweden."

Warren Stenbert, mathematics
student, thought "it was the best
thing that ever happened."

A graduate student in optometry.
Fred Shorr commented; "A very
fair decision. Such a decision was
to be expected. It will go far toward
preserving our democratic ideals."

Harry Roth, a graduate student
in the medical school, said he "was
quite happy to see the decision go
the way it did. I thought the opin-
ion was a step in the right direc-
tion. I hope when the vote goes to
the people that they'll turn it
down." Roth didn't believe that
University employes should be sub-
jected to an oath of this kind.

Colleen Mitchell, a senior student
in general curriculum from Pasa-
dena: "It's a good move. Im cer-
tainly glad about it."

"I was very pleased with it. I
thought a decision of this Icind was
Mng overdue," said Bent^" '^ t vnn.
'^ in forestrv.

Another .student who was happy
over the decision because it would
reinstate one of the profe.s?ors was
Hadden Roth, an English major
"It's great! Particularly, I'd like to
see (^Brewster) Rogerson back."

Summing up the opinions was
Ljubo Lulich, senior student in
Slavic languages. "I'm very glad
about it."

\

PACE 4 TUESDAY. APRIL 17, 1951 CCCCAAB
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

/

*>

Regents to Ask Riehearing
On Invalidated UC Oath

i-

A petition asking the Third Dis-
trict Court of Appeal to reconsider
its invalidation of the University of
California loyalty declaration will
be filed in Sacramento before Sat-
urday, it was disclosed yesterday.

Eugene M. Prince, special counsel
for the Board of Regents said last
night the petition is now being pre-
pared and would be filed before ex-
piration of the 15-day deadline.

The Appellate Court held the
University loyalty oath unconstitu-
tional last April 6 and directed the
regents to rehire 18 ousted profes-
sors.

DISTRICT COURT

Prince, although declining to re-
veal the possible grounds for his ap-
peal, said the matter might have
been carried directly to the State
Supreme Court, out added he pre-
ferred to wait until the Third Dis-
trict Court had ruled on the rehear-
ing request. \

In Sacramento yesterday the
State Senate adopted a resolution
urging the UC Regents to appeal
the Appellate Court's decision to
the Supreme Court.

The resolution, authored by Sen-
ator Hugh M. Burns (Dem-Fresno)
said the ruling cast grave doubt on
the constitutionality of the State
loyalty oath — the Levering Act-
now required of all State em-
ployees.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The resolution also asked the
State Attorney General's office to
offer its services to the Regents in
carrying the appeal to the Supreme
Court. The resolution was adopted
without debate by a vote of 28-0.

The university's regents are
scheduled to hold their regular
monthly meeting in Davis on Fri-
day. Members of the board, polled
yesterday, said they had not yet
decided whether they would ask the
State Supreme Court to rule on the
loyalty pledge decision.

In its unanimous decision the
Third District Court held the
regents had no right to ask uni-
versity personnel to take other than
the traditional oath of allegiance to
the State and the Nation as a con
dition of employment.

I

/

'Oath Injuring UC

Faculty Committee Finds Regents'
Actions Drive Off Top Scholars

1

By RUTH NEWHALL

The University of California has
been grievously injured" and no
longer attracts the cream of the
academic profession.

That waa one of the conclusions
of a faculty committee appointed
by the Academic Senate to sjtudy
the long-range results of the firing
of 26 professors by the university's
Board of Regents last August.

The five-man committee, whose
report was mailed out yesterday to
members of the Academic Senate,
was headed by Wendell M. Stanley,
Nobel prize-winning biochemkist.

The group was appointed last
July, under the name "Committee
on Academic Freedom of the Aca-|
demic Senate," to receive material
that might be forwarded by depart-
ment chairmen, faculty members
and others who were in a position
to note the effect of the outconne
of the "loyalty oath" controversy
on the university.

The 26 professors had been fired
by a 12-10 vote of the regents after
a faculty committee had recom-
mended their retention. Eighteen of
the group are currently engaged in
a legal test of the regents' right to
fire them for "insubordination,"
since many of them claimed tenure
under standard university practice.
The faculty committee's 63-page
report is a summation of letters,
resolutions, and other conwiunica-
uions forwarded to it.

RESIGNATIONS

These are the facts presented in
the report: I

l~Besides the 28 Senate mem-
bers who were fired, 37 additional
members of the academic staff have
resigned in explicit protest.
2— Fifty- five courses have been
dropped from the University cur-
riculum as m result of the ejection
of the 26.

3— More than 1200 professors in
some 40 American colleges and uni-
versities have sent letters of pro-
test.

4— Forty-seven offers of appoint-
ment to the university have been
refused with specific statements
that the refusal was on account of
the regents' action.

5— Nineteen professional socie-
ties have passed resolutions con-
densing the regents' action, sev-
eral of them recommending that
none of their members accept po-
sitions at the University of Cali-
fornia unless the ejected faculty
members are reinstated.

REFUSALS TO SERVE

The committee quotes extensively
from letters and reports, and cites
exampf eminent men who re-

fused to eohie to the university u
a result of the oath controversy.

Among the men who refused to
come were Robert Penn Warren,

professor of English at the Univer-
sity of Minnesota and author of
'All the King's Men." Howard
jMumford Jones, professor of Eng-
ilish at Harvard and president of
the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, and Joseph L. Strayer,
chairman of the department of his-
tory at Princeton University.

Author Warren wrote: "My re-
lusal to come to the University of
California is motivated simply by
the conviction that the present
policy of the Board of Regents con-
stitutes a threat not only to acad-
emic freedom but in the end to
ordinary freedom and decency."
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT

Some departments at the univer-
sity were Aard hit, the report indi-,
jcates.

The chairman of the Department
of Physics wrote emphatically of
the sufferings of his department,
which had headed the field in nu-
clear research.

'These losses," he wrote, "include
three of oui four theoretical physi-
cists and our nwst promising ex-
perimental physicist. The serious-
ness of such losses is enormously
magnified by the difficulty that
confronts us in any attempt to find
adequate replacements. As a result
of the conditions recently created
here, this Institution has become an
object of pity or of scorn through-
out the educational world."

The decay could be arrested, and
the university gi-adually restored to
its prestige, the committee said, if
the 26 were restored to their posi-
tions and a stable agreement on
academic tenure established be-
tween regents and faculty.

"Such an agreement might, in-

jdeed, almost warrant the pain and

cost which the university has suf-

fired in the past year and one-half.

"Meanwhile, and in lack of these
measures, there is every indication
that we aj-e fated to continue a
t»agic course toward bankruptcy in
those resources of repute, intellec-
tual power and integrity which are
the university's essential treasures,"
the report concluded.

Besides Dr. Stanley, other mem-
bers of the committee are James R.
Caldwell, professor of English; Wil-
liam R. Dennes. professor of philos-
ohpy and dean of the Graduate Di-
vision; Ewald T. Grether, professor
of economics and dean of the School
of Business Administration; and
Robert A. Nisbet. associate profes-
sor of sociology.

(
1
s

a
ti
J.
c<
P

n

S(

H
Ir

G

S
b

I

r.

t
h

0
SI

tl
w
ni
1£
te
th
wi

Ri
ed
Dj
th
ke

H.
Pa

1

pic-

Pi(
pr(
the
I
th#»
imj
Cur
the
that
fr

a
tl
w

C

C

h
h

Spanish Black Market

MADRID. March 1 (^P) — Almost
100 persons have been arrested in
a widespread black market meat
scandal Involving official corrup-
tion, reliable sources reported to-
day.

V
b
C

F
a
1
s

i

i

J

V

UNIVERSITIES BAN
REDS ON FACULTIES

Continued From Page 1

rooms also have no ri^ht in Ameri-
can universities, and forfeit the
protection of academic freedom.

fl Qualifications of professors
who invoke the Fifth Amendment
against self-incrimination in refus
Jng to answer questions asked by
competent authorities should be
*'re-examin«d," and the professors
should bear a "heavy" burden of
proof of their fitness to continue
teaching.

^Cooperation should be extended
to legislative investigating com-
mitees, and abuses should be met
by appealing to public opinion
rather than by non-cooperation or
defiance.

^Cooperation should also be giv-
en to law-enforcement agencies
when faculty members are charged
with violations of the law.

fl Professors owe to their univer-
sities and to the public "complete
candor and perfect integrity, pre-
cluding any kind of clandestine or
conspiratorial activity."

^Academic freedom does not in-
clude freedom from criticism, and
is not a "shield" to protect viola-
tion of the law.

<IFaculties should recognize their
responsibility to maintain the high
est standards of appointment and
promotion.

<!Not only governing boards but
also faculties have public obliga
tions because of the public benefits
they enjoy, including support of
state universities by funds and aid
to endowed universities by tax
exemptions.

Academic Freedom Protection

On the protection of academic
freedom against interference with
free expression the association
held:

^Faculty members must contin-
ue to examine all ideas, even "un-
popular, abhorrent and dangerous"
ones, on the same theory that
deadly diseases and enemy mili-

THE NEW YORK TIMES, TUE

HELPED WmXE REPORT:
Dr. A. Whitney Griswold, pres-
ident of Yale University, who
headed five-man committee of
Association of American Uni-
sities that drafted the g;roup's
policy on Communist teachers.

tary potentials are studied to per-
fect defenses against them.

flEven in the face of popular dis-
approval timidity should not lead
a scholar or teacher to stand silent
when he must speak in matters of
truth and conscience, particularly
in his own special field of study.

^The spirit of the university re-
quires "investigation, criticism and
presentation of ideas in an atmos-
phere of freedom and mutual con-
fidence," relying upon "open com-
petition as the surest safeguard
of truth."

fl Faculty members who meet the
requirements of citizenship, com-
petence and good taste are entitled
to "all the protection the full re-
sources of the university can pro-
vide."

^Unless a faculty member vio-

lates a law his discipline or dis-
charge is a university responsi-
bility and should not be assumed
by political authority.

^Discipline on the basis of irre-
sponsible accusations or suspicion
can never be condoned.

fl Professors, while not entitled
to special privileges in law, should
not be subject to special discrim-
inations, such as loyalty oaths
that others are not required to
take.

^Academic freedom and freedom
of expression are not merely fac-
ulty rights, but are vital to the
American system and the general
welfare.

fl Insistence on complete con-
formity would do "infinite" harm
to American freedom.

Five Members Drafted Report

The report was drafted by a
committee of five headed by Dr.
A. Whitney Griswold, president of
Yale University, as chairman.
Other members were Dr. Arthur H.
Compton, Chancellor of Washing-
ton University, St. Louis; Dr.
Franklin D. Murphy, Chancellor of
the University of Kansas; Dr.
John E. W. Sterling, president of
Stanford University, and Dr. Henry
W. Wriston, president of Brown
University.

In preparing the report the com-
mittee consulted with Dr. Dodds
as association president, Dr. J. L.
Morrill, president of the University
of Minnesota and association vice
president, and Dr. C. E. de Kiewiet;
president of the University of
Rochester and association secre-
tary.

Other members of the a.saocia-
tion, all of whom have approved
the report, are:

Le© A. DuBridsre. prpsident. Cali-
fornia Institute of Technology :

The Rev. Patrick J. McCormIck,
rector, Catholio University of Amer-
ica:

Howard B. Jefferson^ president,
Clark University ;

Grayson Kirk, president, Columbia
University;

Deane W. Malott, president, Cornell
University;

A. Hollis Edens, president, Duke
University ;

Paul H. Bush, chairman of the

administrative committee, Harvard
University;

Herman B. Wells, president, Indi-
ana University;

D. W. Bronk, president, Johns Hop-
kins University;

F. Cyril James, principal, McGill
University ;

J. R. Killian Jr., president, Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology;

J. Roscoe Miller, president, North-
western University ;

Howard L. Bevis, president, Ohio
State University;

Virgil M. Hancher. president, State
University of Iowa;

Robert G. Sproul, president. Uni-
versity of California; *

Lawrence A. Kimpton, chancellor,
University of Chicago:

George o. Stoddard, president, Uni-
versity of Illinois ;

Harlan H. Hatcher, president, Uni-
versity of Michigan;

F. A. Middlebush, president. Uni-
versity of Missouri ;

R. G. Gustavson, chancellor, Uni-
versity of Nebraska ;

Henry T. Heald, chancellor. New
York University;

Gordon Gray, president. University
of North Carolina ;

William H. DuBarry, acting presi-
dent, University of Pennsylvania ;

James P. Hart, chancellor. Uni-
versity of Texas ;

Sidney E. Smith, president. Uni-
versity of Toronto :

Bennett Harvie Branscomb. chan-
cellor, Vanderbilt University:

Colgate W. Darden Jr., president,
University of Virginia;

Edwin B. Fred, president. Uni-
versity of Wisconsin;

Henry B. Schmitz, president, Uni-
versity of Washington.

India'* «*— *

Pr

tu:

lit.
M)
di;
tic
to
wc
an
of

L

]
(UI
am
en
ins
the
giv
tor
Mo

—tmmmimm

roaa toward tinai peace.

i

t

n

;a

PATES

3 Mos.

t<.25

3.75

4.60

140.00
375.00
160.00
.75
1.25
ostsi
275.00

S A.

$35.00
35.00
50.00

Dept.

0 the

•dited

and

PTfln.

lereln

lave
eap-
fare
ften
vith
ime
rom
vith
lust
:ast
tiis-
nse
for

ast<'

THE FREEDOM OF THE SCHOLAH

The Association of American Univer-
sities, acting through a committee of
five eminent university presidents
headed by Dr. A. Whitney Griswold of
Yale, has just come forth with a
policy statement on academic freedom
and academic responsibilities which
ought to satisfy any reasonable person.
Indeed, this statement, unanimously
adopted by all members of the Associa-
tion, la in the great tradition. It an-
swers those ignorant and petty souls
who conceive of universities as places
of indoctrination. It answers also the
misguided men who think that univer-
sity teachers possess rights but do not
also have responsibilities.

The Association speaks of academic
freedom as a kind of "free enterprise"
in intellectual adventure. The scholar,
it points out, must undertake "the
study and examination of unpopular
ideas, of ideas considered abhorrent
and even dangerous." The university
itself must be the judge of freedom.
It should not and cannot condone "spe-
cial loyalty tests which are applied to
[its] faculties but to which others are
not subjected."

This freedom does not mean that the
university professor owes nothing to
anyone. The Association holds that it
is "his duty as a citizen and a professor
to speak out if he is called on to answer
for his convictions." If he is in fact a
Communist, and if in fact he accepts
the Communist program of "falsehood
and deceit as the normal means of
persuasion," he has betrayed his high
calling and has no place in an institu-
tion of free research and unbiased
teaching. But — and this is an impor-
tant part of the statement — the univer-
sity itself "is competent to establish a
tribunal to determine the facts and
fairly judge the nature and degree of
any trespass upon academic integrity."
In other words, this group of eminent
men, devoted to the truth, pledged to
freedom, do not propose, if they can
help it, to let American universities be
badgered by committees of snoopers
from Congress or anywhere else. They
make one's pulses quicken with pride.
This is America speaking. This is
the expression of the freedom of the
scholar in a democracy.

ub-
on

\-

EINSTEIN'S NEW THEORY

For about a century the idea has
gained ground among physicists that
we ought to stop talking about "mass"
and talk instead about the "field,"
which is a region of influence. A brick
is therefore part of a field, a region.
Einstein placed this conception on solid
ground when he formulated his general
theory of relativity. He taught us to
give up the notion that planets move
in determined orbits because they are
"attracted" by the sun and to think of
then> as part of a gravitational field.

Physicists accepted this view when
it came to gravitation, but found it
inapplicable within the atom. Events
are more important than substance in
an atom. To explain what happens in
an atom when it emits light or heat
the physicist had to develop a compli-
cated theory of probabilities. Since
there is no certainty within the atom
there can be none in the vast universe.
So we have two kinds of physics. One
holds good for the outer universe of
space and time, the other for the in-
visible atom.

This dualism is intolerable to Ein-
stein. For more than a quarter of a
century he has been trying to bridge
the abyss that yawns between the uni-
verse and the atom. He wants a theory
which, as he says, will represent "events
themselves and not merely the proba-
bility of their occurrence." We have
learned from him that space and mat-
ter are inseparable constituents of one
"continuum." If he has at last found
his unified field theory we shall have
to regard light and other electromag-
netic effects as part of that continuum.
He himself points out how hard it will
be to prove this prediction by observa-
tion and experience. As it is, the ma-
jority of physicists are pitted against
him. He sees uniformity, perfection
and continuity in the universe from
galaxy to atom, his opponents nothing
but chance and discontinuity.

Einstein is following what Broadway
would call a "hunch" in holding that
the universe is the orderly structure
that it seems to be and that atoms are
part of this orderly structure. He
would reduce the universe to a single,
colossal field, tf he proves to be right!
his unified field theory will be a
supreme achievement of the human in-
tellect. There is much more than
mathematical genius in all this. The
equations which were published yester-
day, and which must have been as un-
decipherable to the public as the hiero-
glyphics of an Egyptian tomb, must be
regarded as a kind of sublime mathe-
matical poetry— an expression of a
deep, almost mystical conviction that if
we can only disentangle our confused
sense impressions we shall come a
little nearer to what we call "reality."

Wr

m

m

M'

m

n<

t:

si

St
t£

e^

n'

a

F
I

i

t

c

r
s
r
h
c
c

I
I

]
]

FII/ffiD IN TOO SECTIONS

Regent's Wrangle Over Oath

48 DC Employees Refuse
To Sign Special Declaration

The University of California's (Robert Gordon Sproul that 48 pro-
long and bitter loyalty oath con- 1 lessors, instructors and other em-

troversy exploded yesterday at the I Pl'^J'^^^f^^^^ P""^^^"^"^^^ associated
monthly meeting of the Board of
Regents here.

It was reported by President

with the original loyalty oath dis-
pute—have refused to sign the uni-
versity's new employment agree-
ment with its special regent-de-
manded declaration.

Dr. Sproul raid that all the 48
have signed the State-required Le-
vering oath and were variously mo-
tivated in refusing to sign the ad-
ditional regents' anti-Communist
affirmation.

REASONS GIVEN

Some of the professors have re-
fused to sign the new contracts be-
cause they fell a second oath is un-
necessary.

Others have refused to sign as
a protest against the treatment of
professors who originally failed to
sign the regents' oath. The major-
ity, however, have indicated their
failure to sign the new agreement
stems from a change in the basic
wording of the contract that no
longer implies tenure.

The contracts of past years said
merely that "in your capacity as
professor (or assistant professor, or
associate professor) your salary for
the academic year will be $— ."

The new contract begins: "You
are hereby appointed professor lor
academic year 1951-2 . . ."

STILL TEACHING

All the 48 new nonsigners are still
teaching at the university, but none
has yet been paid.

It was emphasized by the non-
signers that the present faculty
protest is unorganized and many
who attended yesterday's meeting
[were "astonished" at the number
who refused to accept the new
contract.

Reportedly included in the group
are five full professors, including at
least one of the university's top
scientists; one associate professor,
six assistant professors, two in-
structors, one clinical professor, five
lecturers, seven teaching assistants,
ja research assistant and 20 miscel-
|lajwbus employees.
WTTER DEBATE
i /Yesterday's meeting, attended by
20 of the board's 24 regents, was
ulted into violent and acri-

monious

old McLaughlin moved that the|
snetial loyalty oath be discontinued!
lor current and future appointees.
A m nority eroup. headed by|
JoJm Frances Neylan. deman-ledi
<< postponement of the vote, and
vva« d*fr? - ■> to « M '1 tin's

I ninricn t(j . p, dl the o^tu nmjh b^'i
U-ne same vo'c. but emplovine »'

_ Ji9" special Ueciaration

IT

anfl bitter

ti

r.

K:..

II "o-^

ofttn con-

V at t:

.-•ert Gordon Sproul that 4fi ;

•••'•""•' and other em-

• - ■ ■ - ^ ,^

pute — have r t.o sign :

s new c menl a^ee-

i with lU ip; .«: re««nt-de-

! Dr. that all the 4S

jhare signed tbf State- rf

;%^nng oath and vere -,

:.s' ar... .
.-:iiriri&.t}on

REASONS GIVEV

Some of tlie professors have re-

* "" '- ■ ~ the new contr?.

:il a second oath ** ^..^

Others have refused to rign as
a protMit asamst the treatment of
{MofenfMini who originaDy fail^ • •>

-^rn the rcfcnW oath. The me,
■;. however, have indicated :
:fi..'iire to sxgn the new agreer.-
f^*'- * from a change in the basic
g of the contract thst no
impli«; tenure.

^ of past years said

"^^ ^ ywir ca{M«ty as

mssisteat profeMur. or

l»»ociate professor) yoar salaxy for

the academic year will be S — ."

Th* new ctwitrict besins: *^:\:
are beraby a|>patnl«! prafossor icr
!«»deBiic year 1951-2 . , .-

i STILL TEACHING

I Ai: the 48 new nonsigners are stUl
teaciunc at the tmivecBtsr, bat acne
btt f«t beeo paid.

It wi* emphasised by the non-
signers that the present faculty
PfftJtest is unorganized and manv
"^~ atteadid ygierdays
• '^artaoMhed*' at the n
' who refused to accept \ht new
:ract.
iveporiedly inrlmied m txie group

are five full prOdHBOrK 1-nrTnr'— ?. '.t

lleaA: one of the o

jscittitists: one atsociate professor,
|ax mmifant pmttman, two m-
stTucten, one dtaileml pratasor, tivt
leoturen, leven i*mr^hii%^ ^tfflrtami,
a research asrirtint and 30 miscel-
lyj^feot eaptoyeea.
nfTEE Pinn*TF
/^Yestercr. attended bv

20 of the board's 24 re«enla. was
catapulted into vioier;t and

f

n mo-ed that the,

futti-ic . -j£th be diacontfmiMl ^*

far mrrent end future ap;

*- " *y croup, he^aec d^

Jof^n i :c.. ci5 Sf deman'^ec

«• p;"Stpc'n.ement <■ ^ri** «■"'•'

••£» d»f<^at*d 1? t.^

rrjntirn to rtpeaJ tne o=tn won b"

■f>e same vo*c. *: eg

•-•'i-mentg-' -^ ^. .j 3

iir Pc the .Ls

meetings ""rooie AhJport switched

:m5. vot*' from "No"" to "Vy> and

•tnmed for re'i-onsideratioryy/^

The mceiirg was mirkeO b>
three stonny clashes between Ney-
iand and Sproul. •nith Owernor
Bui Warren interi'ening to chide
iKeytan for u^ng "insuitiof and
low terms."

The meeting became so tenae the
re;:ent« did not diicuss the mst-
i^' of a chamnrtlor for UCLA, arid
trie entire matter of the oath.
ttohf with the protoiem of the new
rjon-Bign«^, wat oel erred untiJ
nact jBHnlh'a ■— **i"f ai the be

tasaaty of the resentfr io}-.
aath. as ^elJ as the &tft.e'5 LeN*--
ing Act. IS preseotlsr ty^fore the
e Court

•int"

^Ut^i

765.

Colleges Vote Freedom Code
Banning Reds From Faculties

!

i

\37 Universities in U. 5. and Canada Demand

Staff Memthers Be Loyal Citizens and

Fearless in Ideas and Teaching

Bv RT SSELL POKTER

Ttif Association of American ; and itF subversive activities. sAorz
Universities declared yeste' '-ith all other V

itiiat full academic f'-'>"'—-r ri.c... ,np other, in a-.r-.u...^ a.t.
)lbe fTuaranteed to pi. . .rs anci fi-eeaom. it assp'^f' "free -
scholars, but it should not include prise' was as i al to -

the right to membership in the lectual prop-ess as it v-as to eco-

nomic projrress.
j To protect its -

^- Ities ET' —

m. tl-
■t prin
tiollow:

^Loyal citizenship.

j Communist party.

Dr. Harold W. Dodds. p"

of PriT'"^' -r University, if i.td. .'

the a: ibn. which speaks o'

matters of common policy fo

thirty-seven leading American and
, Canadian educational institutions.

In a report that took six months independence as well as pioies-

to prepare, the association ex- sional e shouid be re-

jplamed that it shared the '•r>-^- r,, ...... ;ng and retainmg

! found concern" of the Ame!

and Canadian people ovei an inter- ^Loyalty, mtegrrity and inde-
!^ national conspiracy that would de- pcndence are mcompatible v
.. stroy all free institution.'^, mclud- membership in the Cor
j^jing the universities But it ?'• m or t< -..o the iuv^eL ^n-

j^i stressed its desire for the pu:... ,ot\ r-- cc.t.utes.

,.^. I to understand the nature and func- C": ,je n-es-nnt party rr.p— -

tion of the university and why bership "cxti:.. '.'S the rif
.^freedom of expression should be a university position."

- "d to faculties in the pub- TThose wht u- the par,

ill u..^: -.-St as well as then own. ,and silence criucisru of it in ciasi-
On one hand the b^'-'"'-- ''-t

condemned Russian c;> Continued on Pare IS, Golmmil

t

X.

tV-

^;

Text of statevieni ov acadeviic

m 18 on Page 12.

•••• #N ^ »

r..MPi, T^ ^ sRcrrrcNS

I

Regents Ban
Back Pay in
Oath Case

Regents of ihe University of
ralifornia. by a vote of 14 to fi.
terday refused to pav the'
bttck salaries of 22 professors]
^'/ho were ousted in 1950 for re-l
fusinjr to sifrn the sppcial loy-
alty oath and then ordered rein-
stated by the State Sunrrmr
Court.

A spr)kesman for the profes-
sors said the\ would challenge
jthe re^rentc' latest ruling in the
I courts.

The board accepted a report

by a special committee headed

by Regent John Francis Neylan,

which recommended rejectinj:

,the professors' claims foi sal"

laries lor the two and a half

[years they were without jobs.

The final vote was talven after

stormy debate in which Regent

Jesse Steinhart ur^ed that the

matter of back pay be decided

by the courts by filing a suit in

declaratory relief.

Steinhart said such a suit

would be the most expeditious

.nieans of getting an early deci-

Jsion. He also said it would pre-

; vent a multiplicity of action.-^ bv

the professors acting as Individ

uals.

Neylan. militanl proponeni ,m
the loyalty oath, bitterlv al-^
tacked Steinhart for suggestinj:
that the regents "promote liti"
gation against them.selves /" |y

Edward C. Tolman. s-
man for the professors,
a statement after the rv
action:

" . . The effects of this action
upon the value of tenure and
contracts held by members of
the faculty of the University of
C^ahfornia is clear. Any faculty
meml)ei who rightfulh- dis-
agrees with wrongful action
must not only go to court oner
to prove he is right, but must
go to court a second time to ob ,
tain fair compensation for ha\
ing acted ri^htfullx- in the first,
place." I

The regents alsc. adopted « ■
report by Chancellor Clark Kerr,^
on alleged statesments made b\ J
Assistant Professor H a r o 1 d ^
Winkler and quoted in the Daih '
Californian. * ^

Kerr said he believed grounds'^
I for discipiinary actiorwiid not; J
[exist. He did, howeveT**expiPS' ^
belief U^inkler acted irresponsi
bly in not correcting the report J
when he was given the oppor- ii
tunity to do so y

■ 1 • » II 111 4 .'. /i; i»>t

"^inj. vjorn thp sppoial loy-

' > oath and then ordfiod rein-
stated by the State Supreme
Court.

A spokesman for the profes-
sors said they would (•hallenc;e
ihe legen**^' latest ruling in the
courts.

The board accepted a report ,
by a special committee headed
by Regent John Francis Ncylan. .
which recommended rejecting!
ihe professors' claims for sal
arles lor the two and a ha
ycais they were without jobs. ^
The final vote was taken after |j
stormy debate in which Regent '^
Jesse Steinhart urged that thej
matter of back pay be decided I
by the courts by filing a suit inL
declaratory relief. Ij

Steinhart said such a suit I (
would be the most expeditious ^
means of getting an early deci-:
sion. He also said it would pre-lj
vent a multiplicity of actions by^
the professors acting as individ-L
uals. [^

Neylan. mililaiU proponent of
the loyalty oath, bitterly at-
tacked Steinhart for suggesting _
that the regents "promote liti-
gation again.st them.selves."

Edward C. Tolman. spokes- 1'
man for the professors, issued I
a statement after the regent.<5'|
action: i

". . . The effects of this action
upon the value of tenure and
contracts held by members of
the faculty of the University of I
California is clear. Any faculty
member who rightfully dis- i
agrees with wrongful action 'i
must not only go to court once,]
to prove he is right, but mu.st
go to court a second time to ob-
tain fair compensation for hav-
ing acted risrhtfulh- in the first
place.

The regents also adopted a
report by Chancellor Clark Kerr
on alleged statesments made by
Assistant Professor Harold
Winkler and quoted in the DailN
Californian.

Kerr said he believed grounds
for disciplinary action did not
exist. He did. however, express
belief Winkler acted irresponsi
bly in not correcting the report I
when he was given the oppor-iii
tunity to do so g

Kerr said he said he talked to 1:
Winkler, the Daily Californian
reporter and many who were.i
present the night the contro
versial statement was made

"There were differing ac
counts." he said, "but there was t
general agreement Winklet was
describing the political activity I
of an earlier generation. i

"I am convinced he wa.s not, |C
In any way. directly or indirect- 'i
h. advocating that young people c
join the Communist party." p
The regents were told that
^Winkler's dismissal had been a
^ recommended by a committee of 'i'<
^ his c-olleague.s in June of IP-'iS, 1<
^jsome months before he spoke C
OP the idealistic motivation of A
youth.

At that time, they were told
the faculty committee recom
mended that Winkler be dis-
I missed for failing to maintain |,
his own academic standmg. jj
At their meeting, the regents ^
also accepted gifts and pledges ^
to the university totaling $886,- ,,
685. L,

1

(

t

ei

h

J.

t-

it

d
n
?r
e-

o
B

FUimD IN TWO SECTIONS

EDUCATION

BOARD OF REGENTS meets at Calilornia, watched by a crowd ol students
^in the doorway. Second from the right is Jolin V. Neylan, proponent of the non-

Comrnunij^l oath. At far ri^ht is CaHfornia's Lieutenant Governor Goodwin J.
Kniglit, who went along with Neylan although Governor Warren opposed him.

BOARD OF REGENTS meets at California, watched by a crowd of students
ill the doorway. Second from the right is Jolin F. Neylan, proponent of the non-

Communist oath. At far rifjht is California's Lieutenant Governor Goodwin .1.
Knight, who went along with Neylan although Governor Warren opposed hini.

THE nEGEmS VS. THE mOFESSOBS

University of California drops 40 courses as battle over non-Communist oath is carried into court

At the University of California last week a very
sad fact was being proved. The fact was that in
opposing (Communism, Americans sometimes
rreate another evil. Already 163 professors had
been dismissed, and 40 courses in subjects from
Greek drama and physics to psychology and
economics of insurance had been dropped from
the university's curriculum because there were
no qualified men to teach them.

The trouble began in June 1949, when the
niversity's Board of Regents asked all U. of C.
rofessors to sign a non-Communist oath. Most
igned it, but after over a year's wrangling 31
till refused, among them many distinguished
cholars. Their position was that while they too
)pposed Communism, they also o[)posed the

dictatorial attitude of the regents and felt that
their academic freedom was threatened. There-
upon the regents {above), egged on by John F.
Neylan, former attorney for the university's
big benefactor, W illiam Randolph Hearst, and
Oilman Ed Pauley, whom the Senate did not
confirm in 1916 when President Truman tried
to make him Under Secretary of the Navy,
gave the professors their choice: sign or resign.
Not even the most vociferously anti-Red re-
gent publicly claimed that the 31 professors had
Communist leanings. In fact several regents,
including University President Robert Gor-
don Sproul, Governor Earl W arren and Admi-
ral Chester Nimitz, were opposed to the "sign
or resign" ultimatum and wanted to keep the

31 on the faculty. They were overruled. In the
face of this, six professors decided to sign the
oath and avoid further trouble. One resigned.
Twenty-four took no action at all and were dis-
missed, joined by three other faculty members
whose cases were still in doubt. Eighteen of
these, led by 64-year-old Psychologist Edward
Chace Tolman {next page), decided to take
their fight w ith the regents to court. On Sept. 14
a district court of appeals heard their case for
reinstatement and took it under advisement —
it may take as long as seven months before a
decision is reached. Meanw bile the professors,
who have not been paid since last July, will con-
tinue to draw no salaries, and the University of
California will continue to offer fewer courses.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

43

FTLMED IN TWO SECTIONS

Regents

CONTINUED

ANTIOATH LEADER GETS SUPPORT BUT GOES ON EMPTYING HIS DES

EDWARD TOLMAN, professor of psychology, is
tlie leader of the light against the non-Coinnumist
oath. He is 61, has taught at California for 32 years.

FACULTY SYMPATHIZERS, most of whom
signed oath, chat with him in faculty dining room. He
has lost some fri«'nds, "which was the hardest part.

HE GETS ENCOURAGEMENT from friends—
M.I.T. Associate Professor Richard Bolt {left) and
his parents. Leaving, Bolt said, "Don't let it get you.'*

HE EMPTIES DESK, taking home a load of pa-
pers each day. "I don't think of myself as a martyr,"
he says. "The students have gotten the raw deal."

\

I
I

iiOi r II' ■titmmmtm.^Mmi^ «:'m<*i'^

'^^.

EDWARD TOLM AN, professor of psychology, is
the leader of the figlit against tlie non-Coniinunist
oath. He is 61, has taught at California for 32 years.

FACULTY SYMPATHIZERS, most of whom
signed oatli, chat with hitiiin faculty dining room. He
has lost some friends, "which was the hardest part.

»?

A STUDENT STOPS HIM to shake hands. Cam-
pus paper hlames professors and regents, says no oath
rrcpiirement should have heen imposed in first place.

CROSSING CAMPUS on way to faculty club, he
passes under arch given hy Class of 1910 in memory
of Phoche Apperson Hearst, W. R. Hearst's mother.

ik f

0m,

HE GETS ENCOURAGEMENT from friends—
iM.I.T. Associate P'rofessor Richard Bolt (/<//) and
his parents. Leaving, Bolt said, "Don't let it get you."

HE EMPTIES DESK, taking home a load of pa-
pers each day. "I don't think of myself as a martyr,"
he says. "The students have gotten the raw <leal.'*

44

Regents continu

eo

HISTORIAN KiMsl Kan
tnidwic/, .").), lias l)0('n ul
(ialilortiia (or I I years, has
H rillcri roiirljooksolincdi-
r\al history. Poh'sh -horn,
iiou a I .S. citizen, lie was
woiMided in l*H8in Munich
hallliti<^ (]oinnuinisls. Ife
too relused to -i'ln: "I Avoiild
not acce[»t a contproinir>e.

»

HISTORIAN l.(.niar.jo
( )l>chki,65,was tliro a

of Germany by the Nazis,
out of Italy by Mu- "lini-
lle refused to sij^n, -
I ha\«Mheinij»ressi<
fiflhtin^ the same lot
oalli is iiiade(|uate .
]iici(»iis . . . hariniul 1**'^'^
I re>iiu('ol in) pr(»lcs>idii

i

ing.

am

riie

per-

I

ECONOMIST Kmily H.
Huntington has taught at
L . oi C. lor 21 years, served
on the National WarLahctr
Hoard and (California State
Industrial Welfare Com-
mission. She relused to sign
lor a long time, finalh did:
" To take up my roctts would
be a very serious problem."

PSYCHOLOGIST War
ner Brown, 68. ha> been al
University of (Jalilornia lor
42 years, has been chair-
man ol bis (lepartnicnt ioi
several periods. He too re-
sisted but signed al last:
''If you don't have an office
and facilities for research,
you're pretty well out of if . '

I

\ ^ V^-^The City's Oihiy Home- Owned Newspaper sJ

Founded by M. H. de Young, Publisher 1865 to 1925

GEORGE T. CAMERON. Publisher

PAUL C. SMITH, Editor

EDITORIAL PAGE

PACE 16

MONDAY. MARCH 5. 1951

CCCC

Dire Aftermath of Oath'

;

Because it provides facts and light, in-
stead of argument and heat, the recent
report of a University of California faculty
committee on the consequences of the firing
of 26 professors last August, in violation of
their tenure rights, is an indispensable
document.

It is exactly the kind of report that the
people of California, the members and
Regents of the University and the scholarly
world in the United States at large need for
the formulation of further judgment. For
there must be a further, and ultimately a
sound, judgment of a course of action which
has brought nothing short of intellectual
and moral calamity to a great University.

The issue, at the present stage in the
loyalty oath controversy, is not whether
"Communist professors" shall be permitted
to teach in the institution. No responsible
voice advocates that they should be. As the
title of the faculty report implies, the issue
is "The Consequences of the Abrogation of
Tenure," and has nothing to do with toler-
ating Communists on a faculty which not
only forbids but moreover does not contain
any Communists. Although it has compli-
cated involutions, the issue is briefly ex-
pressed in these words of a faculty member:

"The statement of the Regents reserving
their right to dismiss competent senior
members of the faculty despite the recom-
mendations of the faculty is a denial of
tenure and a threat to the academic free-
dom of this University."

It is this state of affairs, this denial, or
abrogation, of professorial tenure which
has brought down upon the University of
California the protests of 1200 professors in

some forty American colleges and univer-
sities; which has led 47 scholars to refuse
offers of appointment with avowals that

their refusal was owing to the Regents' de-
nial of tenure; which has led to the con-
demnation of the Regents' action by 19
professional learned societies and recom-
mendations that none of their members
accept positions at California until the
action is corrected.

All of these "grievously injurious" con-
sequences of the Regents' action last August
25 are fully set forth in the report, leading
to the conclusion that "to pretend that
the present (scandal) will not destroy — is
not now destroying — the repute of this Uni-
versity is mere flight from fact."

Tempers have had a chance to cool since
the stormy meeting of the Regents of Au-
gust 25, and it is time to proceed to an
intelligent repair of the damage. And the
time is now, because the morale and pres-
tige of the University are every day worsen-
ing. A rot has set in that must be arrested.
Two steps are required: The reinstating of
the discharged 26 professors and the com-
ing together of the Regents and faculty on
a stable agreement about the meaning of
academic tenure.

Something less than this act of repair
can be done — if prejudice, hurt pride and
an airy dismissal of the report are per-
mitted to dominate the Board of Regents
and their supporters. But nothing less than
reinstatement can spare the University of
California from a progressive decline which
could well become the worst disaster ever
experienced by American education.

WSSF lauMuches campus drive tadau

^ -k ic

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

Court voids Regents oath

AN EDITORIAL

Sanity nvins aut

The University and the country owe an immeasurable
debt to the 18 professors whose struggle for a principle cul-
minated Friday in judicial nullification of the Regents'
special "loyalty oath" requirement.

Cutting through the peripheral questions upon which
even the most optimistic friends of the faculty had expected
the decision to be based, the court grounded its unanimous
opinion squarely in the state constitution. The judges
pointed to the prohibition against any oath of office other
than the standard pledge to support the state and federal
constitutions; they further chided the Regents for ignoring
their obligation to keep the University free from ''political
and sectarian influences.*'

The decision establishes for the first time the principle
that University faculty members have the privileges and
responsibilities of ''officers of public trust,*' immune from
arbitrary subjection to the whims of the Board of Regents.
The action which brought the University into international
disrepute and cost it some of its most distinguished profess-
ors is undone. For that alone we must be grateful.

But Friday's ruling has meaning far beyond its implica-
itons for the University. It may well provide a basis for
nullification of the Levering act, a piece of legislation sim-
ilar in provisions and in spirit to the Regents' own ill-con-
ceived action.

Most important of all, perhaps, the victory of the 1 8 pro-
fessors sets an example of courage for others who are trying
to combat thoughtless destruction of civil liberties. It shows
that sanity can win out over the hysterical orthodoxy which
parades under the x\merican flag and forgets the things the
flag stands for.

The faculty non-signers have demonstrated their Amer-
icanism the hard way; but it is a way to be proud of.

— Senior Editorial hoard y the Daily Calif ornian.

Unanimous decision orders
reinstatement of non-signers

By BOB McGUIGAN

The Board of Regents' controversial loyalty declaration was declared unconstitutional Friday
by a unanimous decision of the third district court of appeals in Sacramento. The court in rend-
ering its decision ordered the University to reinstate the 18 professors who refused to sign the
special non-Communist declaration as a condition of employment. The long-awaited decision
ended the first court test of the dispute which has rocked the University for nearly two years.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Paul Peek and concurred in by Presiding

Justice Annette Abbott Adams and Associate Justice B. F. Van Dyke.

The court's 12-pfige decision was

The Daily

CalHornian

MONARCH OP THE COLLEGE DAILIES

Vol. 144 Berkeley, Calif.. Monday, April 9, 1951 No. 44

devoted almost entirely to the con-
stitutional issues. Faculty tenure
and prior court decisions concern-
ing irrevocability of public officers*
contracts, which counsel for Re-
gents and faculty alike had stressed
in their arguments, were discussed
only briefly in the opinion.

BASES FOR RULING

The court based its decision on
the constitutional provision that no
oath shall be required of public of-
ficers other than the oath which all
state officers must take. The sec-
ond constitutional point was from
Article IX, section 9, which states,
"The University shall be entirely
independent of all political or sec-
tarian influence and kept free
therefrom ..."

This is the first time a California
court has ruled that University pro-
fessors are public officers.

The court declared that the Re-
gents were guilty of abuse in de-
manding University personnel to
affirm their allegiance beyond the
100-year-old oath which all state
officers must take.

LEVERING ACT NEXT?

The decision said. "We conclude
that the people of California in-
tended, at least, that no one could
be subjected, as a condition to hold-
ing office, to any test of political oi
religious beliefs other than this
pledge to support the constitution
ol this state and of the United
States."

(The wording is believed in some
quarters to cast doubt on the con-
stitutionality of the Levering act*

The decision continued, "that the
pledge is the highest loyalty that
can be demonstrated by any citizen,
and that the exacting of any other
test of loyalty would be antithetical
to our fundamental concept of free-
dom.

"Any other conclusion would ba
to approve that which from the be-
ginning of our government has
been denounced as the most effect-
ive means by which one special
brand of political or econonftic pi
osoohv ca^n evitr'

91

i^

Monday, April 9^ 1951

THE DAILY CALIFORNIA

Regents' loyalty oath unconsitutional;
court orders non-signers reinstated

(Continued from page 1)
the University free from subversive
elements, but the court said. "We
are also keenly aware that equal to
the danger of subversion from
without by means of force and vio-
lence, is the danger of subversion
from within by the gradual whit-
ling away and the resulting dis-
integration of the very pillars of
our freedom."

FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY

Mindful of the faculty's responsi-
bility the court said, *'. . . in the
practical conduct of the University
the burden of so preserving it free
from sectarian and political influ-
ence must be borne by the faculty
a.s well as the Regents.

"Hence, if the faculty of the Uni-
versity can be subjected to any
more narrow test of loyalty than
the constitutional oath the consti-

tutional mandate would be effect-
ively frustrated . . .

"Our great instiiution, now dedi-
cated to learninii and the search for
truth would be reduced to an organ
for the propagation of ephemeral
political, religious, social and econ-
omic philosophies whatever they
may be. of the majority of the Re-
gents at that moment."

Stanley -A. Weigel, attorney for
the 18 non-signers, expressed "grat-
ification" for himself and his ch-
ent.s when he received word of the
decision. He said the decision may
mean "the turn of the tide against
a dangerous and un-American
trend to judge men by what they
sign instead of what they are.

'FIGHTING FOR PRINCIPLE'

"Fiehting for the principle that
loyalty in America is to be judged
by the substance of men's lives and
actions, 18 distinguished American
teachers have gained much for all
Americans." he said.

Weigel said the decision "can
pave the way for an end to the mis-
understandings which have plagued
our great University." adding, "I
am confident that if the interested
parties promptly sit down and talk
it over directly with one another,
the result will be final and har-
monious settlement of all differ-
ences.

"Ending the controversy now will
be victory for Regents and faculty
alike because it will be a victory for
the University they are both joined
in serving.

"I invite and urge a conference ni
that interest." Weigel concluded.
F.ACl LTY REACTION

On campus, an air of satisfaction
and relief pervaded the atmos-
phere. The general attitude among
faculty members can be summed up
in the words of Charles A. Gulick,
professor of economics, who said.
"My first reaction to the news of
the decision is one of deep and
humble gratitude to my courageous
colleagues wlio brought the suit and
to the equally courageous judges
who rendered such an unequivocal
decision. '

It is not known whether or not
the Rpcents vjll appeal the deci-

sion to the Siate Supreme court.
President Robert Gordon Sproul is
in the East and was unavailable for
comment. Other University officials
refused to comment on the decision.
EIGHTEEN WINNERS

The 18 professors in the suit
against the Regents were: Arthur
H. Brayfield. education; Hubert S.
Coffey, psychology, now temporar-
ily at Harvard; Leonard A. Doyle,
business administration; Ludwig
Edelstein, Greek; Edwin S. Fussell,
English; Margaret T. Hodgen, soci-
ology;

Ernst H. Kantorowicz, history,
temporarily at Harvard's Dumbar-
ton Oaks school; Harold W. Lewis,
physics, temporarily at the Prince-
ton Institute for Advanced Study;
Hans Lewy, mathematics;

Jacob Loewenberg. philosophy;
Charles S. Muscatine. English;
Stefan Peters, mathematics; Brew-
ster Rogerson, English; Edward H.
Schafer, Jr.. Oriental languages;
Pauline Sperry, mathematics: Ed-
ward C. Tolman. psychology, tem-
porarily at the University of Chi-
cago; and Gian Carol Wick, phys-
ics, temporarily at Carnegie Tech.

John M. 0"Gorman. chemistry, is
on the Santa Barbara campus. The
others are all from this campu.s.

FIWIFD IN TWO SEtnONS

(

w

I

t

TELEPHONE
YOUR WANT AD TODAY

SUtter 1-2424
The Examiner

Corner Market-Third Sts. ^
East Bay— TEmplebar 2-2424 ^

X'..^.

SUHer (.2424

awoward^ xjf ^iiyij^ % <9am<«

»i«.u.«.PAT. orr.

VOL CLXXXXIV. NO. 97 '■

CCCC* •FINAL SAN FRANCISCO, SATURDAY. APRIL 7, 1951 ?^'H^VoT/„'"i'i;i DAILY 7 CENTS, SUNDAY 1

B

U. C. Loyalty Oath
Void; Court Orders
Reinstating of 18}

Case May Be[]
Appealed

EXAMINER BUREAU,
SACRAMENTO, April 6.—
The State district court of ap-
peal here ruled today that the
anti - Communist affirmation
required by the University of
California regents is uncon-
stitutional, and ordered eigh-
teen dissenting faculty mem-
bers reinstated.

It was expected that the ap-
pelate court's decision would bo
appealed to the State supreme
court.

The court said the university

faculty could not "hp subjected
to any more narrow test of loy-
alty" than the oath of allegiance
specified in the State constitution
for all State officers.

HIGHEST LOYALTY--

"We concluded," the opinion
said, "that the people of Cali-
fornia intended, at least, that
no one could be subjected, as a
condition of holdini;- office, to
any test of political or rellg-ious
beliefs other than his pledge
to support the Constitutipn of
the State and the United
States; that this pledge is the
highest loyalty that can be
demonstrated by any citizen,
and that the exacting of any
other test of loyalty would be
antithetical to our fundamental
concept of freedom."

Govcrnof Wai rcn, who opposed
the special anti-Communist af-
firinalion foi- the univorsity

••w««««w««ia^«^ a^i

B

D;

at
hi
ar
d

fi

n-

t<
d

S

t^

tl
n"
a

t
V
c
t
C

L

.^t

Ju
ar
pi

»

pe

ll

Reinstating of 18f

Case May Be
Appealed

]

EXAMINER BUREAU,
SACRAMENTO, April 6.—
The State district court of ap-
peal here ruled today that the
anti - Communist affirmation
required by the University of
California regents is uncon- g
stitutional, and ordered eigh-
teen dissenting faculty mem-
bers reinstated. ^

Tt was expected that the ap- at
pelate court's decision would bo hi
appealed to the State supreme ar
court. d

The court said the university fj
faculty could not **h<» subjected
to any more narrow test of loy-
alty" than the oath of allegiance
specified in the State constitution
for all State officers.

HIGHEST LOYALTY—

"We concluded," the opinion
said, "that the people of Cali-
fornia intended, at least, that
no one could be subjected, as a
condition of holding: office, to
any test of political or rellgfious
beliefs other than his pledge
to support the Constitutipn of
the State and the United
States; that this pledge Is the
highest loyalty that can be
demonstrated by any citizen,
and that the exacting of any
other test of loyalty would be
antithetical to our fundamental
concept of freedom."
Govcrnof Waircn, who opposed
the special anti-Communist af-
firmation fo«- the university
alone, subsequently sponsored a
more drastic loyally oalh for all
Stale, county and city public
employes. State Controller Thom-
as H. Kuchcl ruled that this
applied to all persons on the uni-
versity payroll. This oath is now
under contest in the State dis-
trict court of appeals in San
Francisco.

DISCLAIMER

On the possibility that this
oath. too. may bo declared invalid
by the courts, the State Icgisla
tiire recently passed a proposeci
constitutional amendment that
will be submitted to the voters at
the 1952 general oleclion.

This would require a disclaim
or of affiliation, present or past,
with any organization seeking to
overthrow the gove;;nment by
force or violence.

If adopted by the voters, thi.^
loyalty oath would become/ffa^t
of the State constitution'
would affect members of
legislature, the jud^larv^culty
and employes of (the University
of California, and the others on
State, county and city payrolls.

Stanley A. Weigel. San Fran-
cisco attorney who it?presented

"Continued on Page 5, Col. If)

rr

t(
d

S

i\

tl
rr
a

t
V
c
t
G

St

ar
pr

pe

tei
m(
tor
C

RO!

tha
be 1
thai
full:
fess
sistt
Julii
R

Jo

The

noui

into

said

Fr <

ho a

on 1

son

Brit

J

Fra

mil

pos

pro

alS'

Mo

of

■ry.
ere
8.
inv
out
/ith
ited
/ast
rial

0.

lr«ili«t. She WH% the late Mn. Kai.er'. chief nurte and eu..,^-
eompanion. —International N>w« Smindphom.

Court Overturns UC Oath.
Orders Reinstatement of 18

rns

1 6.-
' corn-
led a
swept
le Dow

Dow
•ould
tcly.
jblic
I here

(Contmurd fr
the professors, commented on the
court ruling:

"The decision can pave the
way for an end to the niisun-
derstanjfinffs which hav«'
plagued our great University of
California.

"I am confident that if tlie
Interested parties promptly sit
down and talli it over directly
with each other, the result wiW
he final and harmonious settle-
ment of all differences. Ending:
the controversy now \>in be a
victory for regents and faculty

om Page One)

I alike, because it will be a vio

j t«ry for the university they am
joined in serving;. I invite and

! ur?e a conference in that in-
terest."

Death on Turn

SANTA FE (N.M. ). Apri' 6.—
(AP)— William Roy Hines, 51. of
Salinas, Calif., died yesterday
when his car missed a turn on
United States Highway 66 a mile
west of Grants. New Mexico.

^""WED IN iwo SECrrcNS

iBettelej) Bailp

16 PAGES

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 7, 1951

Entrrcd as Second CIbba Matter at the Postn
Calif., on April 27, 1892, under the Act o

/

PLANF

0

lAR-
One

top

gov-
xlay

Bi
L.
Firing at UC N

^ Court Voids
rOath Refusal

om-
irst
as
son
>ast

I a

hth
at-

The Third Disirict Court of
Appeals has found the Univer-

^"°* sitv of California lovaltv oath
unconstitutional and ordered
the school to rehire 18 persons
who were fired for refusing to
sign it!

According to the State court

ruling, issued in Sacramento,

the special University of California'

loyalty oath was in violation to

ith I Section 3, Article XX, of the Cali-

?an fornia Constitution which provides
an oath for all public officers.
The section says "no olher oath,
declaration or test shall be re-
quired." ' I

The pledge provided in the Con-
stitution was "the highest loyalty
that can be demonstrated" and
imposition of "any more inclusive
te.st would be the forerunner of
tyranny and oppression," accord-
ing to the opinion. i

The court took note that the
University regents had protection
of the Univeristy in mind when re-
quiring the oath. But it added any
other conclusion ihan that reached
favoring the teachers would "be to
approve that which from beginning
of our government has been de-
nounced as the most effective
means by which one special brand .
of political or economic philosophy!
can entrench and perpetuate itself
to the eventual exclusion of all
others." i

The UC loyalty oath under dis- '
pute was first adopted at a meet-
ing of the regents at DavLs. Calif.
Regent L. M. Giannini resigned
when the compromise measure was
^.j,j. adopted because he felt the oath
.4^. iwas not spvore enouch, ^

th
to

d

G<
plant
sigh^
Sou 'I
son.-

T

I

CAPT ^

— P>

T •01

Lu
Pa

M

ff.nl *^

top

gov- 1 q"he Third District Court ot
^^^yj Appeals has found Iho Univpr-
sity of California loyalty oath
iinconstitntional and ordered
the school to rehire 18 persons

)ilot

Dm-
irst
as
lso,n
*ast

who

fired for iv''*"'^'"'^^ ^^

1 a

,hth
at-
•ith

sed
ce-
ccs
tal,
ght
ea.
ur-
ere

sign

were
it:

According 1o the State court
ruling, issued in Sacramento,
the special University of California
loyalty oath was in violation to
Section 3. Article XX. of the Cali-
ban ;fornia Constitution which provides
an oath for all public officers.
The section says "no other oath,
declaration or test shall be re-
quired."

The pledge provided in the Con-
stitution was *'the highest loyalty
that can be demonstrated" and
imposition of "any more inclusive
test would be the forerunner of
tyranny and oppression," accord-
ing to the opinion.

The court took note that the
JJniversity regents had protection
of the Univeristy in mind when re-
quiring the oath. But it added any
other conclusion than that reached
favoring the teachers would "be to
approve that which from beginning
of our government has been de-
nounced as the most effective
means by which one special brand

th
to
d'

G«

plan
sigh
Sou
son.'
T

>

f

Ar-
•aft

ic

CAP7

■nu-

nce.

ex-

rter
nan
jrge
N.
n a
was
the

list I of political or economic philosophy

can entrench and perpetuate itself

to the eventual exclusion of all

others."

The UC loyalty oath under dis-

i pute was first adopted at a meet-

; ing of the regent.s at Davis, Calif.

I Regent L. M. Giannini resigned
when the compromi.se measure was

! adopted because he felt the oath
was not severe enough.

AMENDMENT PROPOSED

The State Legislature had before
it as the court made its ruling, a
Constitutr:nal amendment by As-
semblyTnan Harold Levering (R-
Los Angeles) that would require a
.similar oath. It would require ev-
ery public official who got a por-
tion of his income from tax funds
to take the oath. j

In Berkeley the court'.s decision
was hailed by professors as "the,
turn in the tide against an Un-
American trend to judge men by'
what they sign." \

Stanley A. Weigel, the San Fran-
cisco attorney who represented the
— ; profes.sors who refu.<^d to sign,
^s said "my clients and I are very
much gratified."-

"Fighting for the principle that
loyalty in America is to be judged
.uriby the substance of men's lives
»ps]and actions, 18 distinguished Amer-
ican teachers have gained much
for all Americans in all walks of
life."

er
at

nb
jr-

so

(te
im
se

is-
re

>t

ilt

•r-

nd
ra-

ng
)ps

lU-

ind

— P

u

M

I The
\ crew n
aboard
missinj
Santa

Crew

Capt
Francis

Co-pi
Altos.

Purs(
game.

Pas.s<

Mrs.
Wash.,
the ,A

Gak
daugh

Job
editoj
Pres.<:
publi
field

Mi
ria.
petu

Pc

University of California faculty -^^^
members reinstated by the court's'
ruling were: Edward C. Tolman, i
Arthur H. Bray field. Hubert S.|
Coffey, Leonard A. Doyle, Ledwig

C

For«
. L

Fiel

are j Edelstein. Edwin S. Fussell, Mar-' L
in garet T. Hodgen, Ernest H. Kan- Arn
jtorowicz, Harold W. Lewis. Hans Va.
t is ' Lewy, Jacob Loewenberg, Charles
tly|S. Muscantine, John M. OGorman,
Stpfan Peters, Brewster Rogrr.son.
F:dvvard Hetzel Schafer. Pauline
Sperry. and Gian Carlo Wick.

»n-

L
For

C
Clai

E
Rd.

Regents Will 't
Appeal Ruling !C

The ; y ofilh qxiprvrl -a^-^h^- ..«

for 14 months has f;-
r v^ersjty of Californ:;

*: 'Cl iiraded yesterday for *'"^

lilt .-.cj.e Suprc^me Court.

t" rip h-,;-'-'-^ f

r*^ . said »n spnfaJ a

^•r coun .-

i-iic ru.ing M the Third DiFtnri ..
Court of Appeal, which d- ::

thP «;npr;5l l/--,-r'*i- .-.T-v, he T\

»' the f

Djckson refused to roirOTentl *'I
further, on grounds that the mat- 'not 1
ter IS still p? • - ■ ^^id theiworV
T)otice of apptc.. v.c.^.c be mad'
by Attorney Eur--* Pnnce. i.
representing the rt^ ' prov

Prince similarly refused to! *?
make any statement, except to and
Fay that the matter was bf ,ci

'---dered -- - • • the board haa pro-
- : ys in ,, ; . - --r.r.. ■ .«

In Sacramerto G "^'ar-Kai

ren said the court c .n in- unt

\'al J dating the special lox-alty }^

'"' '^^ '"'" "'• of Californii Bes

*■ '-S iav..,j..es my tense of ma^^

'"r h

of 18 prOfP'^'^f""^ r"^rr«.r-

ated by the A; _...,,• f

... meanwhile remained un-r^*<T

bus
Dv me regents ' „

^ al am.- j,Lan

tris a c - A

of €• ; . .„ they hi . ,^j

•ought the court test to gam rt - ••*]

i ment. p^.-^.

in finding the specia] r.e.ih. :- .;-•
^--'" nn of the Ce :a Con-

f -n, which prcMues that -

; - - ... officers should take no lut

C«itinned Page 2, Col. ji

I

• •

»p-

!um-
Carl

pri.

de-

D.

orite
i re-

clec-
e re-

V r--
lev, 5--
?d J.

U.C. Regents
To Appeal Oath
Upset Ruling

Continued From Paire 1

'wil
Al

.^.,l

then
for .
hone:
ht V

pAei<v

K&

other oath, except the pledge lo ^n cr

uphold the Federal and State two ;

mpli- : Constitutions, the court w-amed ^^^J^
extra against "threaU to academic free

lO

■•m.

ii.. 1

devot

comp;

and h

the 2

to be

He

kindr
LAS

erjij^j *ABl SE OF DISCRETIOV

well < It called the oath requirement

ns. j an *'abuse of discretion by the re-

j gents," and said the imposition c'

" provided in
j^_ Lne ConM.^_w-r., -a Duld be the
^j.jj forerunner of tyranny and oppres-
q£_ si on.**

I In Berkeley, the court's deci-.alw?
^- sion was hailed by professors as i^e,'
.nry "the turn in the tide against an, I"
ser.i un-American trend to judge men Ka
-- bv what they sign.'* *^^1

^nd: Stanley A. Weigel, the San ^^^
j.on, Tt---

■rv

anr

c

v.-'ho repre-
s€ 1 refused

to sign, said "my clients and I ^'^
ht are very much gratified."

^n, HAVE GAINED MICIT

S.

•'Fighting for the principle
ty in America is to be ;
by the substance of men's .
and actions, 18 d * --

American teachers he . •. .

r much lor all Ame—'r-"*
j'' walks cf life.**

V':vcrsity of California fac

sn

iVes

chi
Ho;

T.al
In
saic
T

?m

: members reinstated by the court's pc

ijor
jro-

es*t
'ely
ers.
.zed

ruling are:
Arthur H.

f~ . ±1 ^.

Edward C. T
E- ' -Id. Hube:-.
-v.. A. Doyle. "
...:..' -r.^--'-'-- S. F
= t T. - Err

wicz, Karold W. Lewis.
Hans Jjevry, Jacob Loewenberc.
^Charles S.* Muscarime, John M.
W..1 O'Gorman, Stefan

Kai
THI

H

mid
the

tern
ru-

bers

st.er

Sc^'-'

Ce:

..li-LX

1, Ec ^ t-. -I
ne Sperrj' and

Col. Lindeman

T
the

i

Regents on
UCOath

Vote Is n-10
Not to Appeal
Reinstatement

A divided University of Cali-
fornia Board of Regents yes-,
lerday took action to reinstate
38 professors who had refused
to sign the regents special

loyalty affirmation.

By «Ti 11-10 vote, the regents
•d tn withdraw an appeal to the
.,,.,;,c Supreme Court.

This is the background:

On April 6, the Third Appellate

Court unanimously ruled in favor

'of the 18 protessors who were ask-

jinp reinstatement without sipnmg

'the regents' special anti-Communist

affirmation. The court ordered their

reinstatement.

At the April 20 meeting of the
repents, the board voted 1-10 not to
nlp an appeal. However, Regent
.loiin Francu; Neylan, who favored
the firing of the professors and ap-
pealing the Third Court's ruling,
r-r —Pd his vote from "No" to "Yes"

.., iBt appeal* and by that parlia-

jmentarj' maneuver was able to an-
nounce that he would move for
recon.sideration at the next meeting
Last week the deadline for filing
an appeal tame up. The regents'
attorney. Eugene Prince, concluded I
that the board's action was incle-j
cisivc, and filed the appeal. i

Yesterday. Neylan was hospital- \
ized in Los Angeles and hence |
absent from the meeting. The onlyi
other absentee was Regent Arthur
J. McFadden, who also favored ap-i
peal. I

Governor Warren as chairman
[allowed Regent Sidney Erhman to
:make the move f^ reconsideration.
The vote came after hot debate, and
wa*s 11-10 lor withdrawing the ap-
peal and letting the reinstating de-
icision stand.

1 Attorney Prince was out of town,
but was expected •io senc notice of
the board's action to the Supreme
Court early next week.

Regent Edward Dickson, who was
re-elected chairman of the board in
the early part of the meeting, de-
clared that in the absence of Neylan
and McPadden the board was being
ruled by a minority. He stated aiso
that a number of regents would
immediately go ahead, hire their
town lawyer, and carry the appeal
! to the Supreme Court as individuals. |
i (Prince had previously notified the
'board that he would act only lor
the whole group.)

Several regents, some of whom
are lawyers, stated thai such a
move IS not legally possible, that a
decision against a board a? such
cannot be appealed by individuaJ

■members.

1 After the vote on the appeal, the
board went into executive session to
discuss the appointment of a chan-

icellor lor the University of Cali-

Ifornia at "Loi- Angeles

' They adjourned without an ap-
pointment, with the decision that

j President Robert G Sproul should
"take the matter under investiga-
tion."

SAM FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, SATURDAY, MAY

« .-M^ 1

Oaths

Editor — Supporters of Senate
Bill 1665 should require every ap-
plicant for a dog license to take
the oath. How else can our pooches
rest easy suspecting their masters
may harbor ideas of nationalizing
all telephone and light poles— with
severe penalties for sabotage of
state property. The thought of
pooches rta)ising en masse to as-
sert their rights is frightening
indeed! GEORGE SORENSEN.
Albany.

I San IFranrtsro lixamturr

j Saturday, May 26. 1951 ¥ CCCC

UC Regents Refuse to Appeal
Decision on Anti-Red Pledge

The University of California

j board of regents refused again

yesterday by a vote of 11-10

to appeal the adverse derision

ion its non-Communist affirma-

jtion.

I The vote came with two advo-
^ cafes of the affirmation absent.
R.-^gent Edwaid A. Dickson of
Los Angeles vainly sought to
convince Governor Earl Wairen.
presiding as chairman, that the
record should show the vote
would have been 12-11 for an ap-
peal had the full board been
present.

' An appeal is likely, despite the
board's action. Several regents
have given notice they will appeal
as individuals.

T|i«» issue first came up at the
board's April meeting, after the
Third District Court of Appeals
had held unconstitutional the non-
Communist affirmation required
by the board of all university
employes.

At that meeting the board
voted 11 to 10 not to appeal to
the Slate supreme court, but Re-
gent John Francis Neylan of San

{Continued on Page j}. Col. fjt.

U. C. Delay on
Chancellors

Regents Put Off Action
On Two Posts

Srloction of mrn to fill the new
posts of chancellors at Berkeley
and UCLA was delayed indefinite
ly by the University of California
Board of regents yesterday.

The UCLA job for which Gen.

Mark W. Clark has been men-
tioned most prominently, was on
the board's agenda at yesterday's
meeting. After a brief closed ses-
sion, Dr. Robert Gordon Sproul,
univei-sity president, repoited:

"It was itnanimonsly agreed
that more tJme should be taken
in the conshleraflon of persons
uho might be both worthy and
available for the chancellor-
ships, and I was given freedotii
to make the necessary investi-
gation."
While talk centeied on thf
southern campus, Doctor Sproul
pointed out that "since the .|obs
are comparable, obviously any In-
vestigation I make would apply
to both places."

He declined to mention the num-
bei- ot candidates now under con-
sideration, with the comment
that it is subject to addition, but
did disclose undei- questioning
that "three military men are on
the list of possibilities."

These he declined to identify,
even as to whether they are all
from the same branch of the
armed forces.

He said the regents are agreed
that the chancellors should be
picked as soon as possible. The
next board meeting is June 22,
in Los Angeles.

Regents Spurn
Appea

Again Refuse to Fight
Decision on Pledge

(Continued from Page One)

Francisco kept the issue alive by
moving to reconsidei-.

Neylan is ill and was not pres-
ent yesterday to vote foi- his own
motion Nor was Regent A. J.
McFadden of Santa Ana. another
.supporter of the affiimation.

Adm. Chester A. Nimitz. an-
other regent, told the board dur
ing the argument :

'*\Ve are in the midst of a
legal morass. If we drop this
case \\f» will continue to have
dissention and disharmony."

Eugene Prince, the board's at
torney. has in the meantime filed
an appeal with the supreme
court. He did so to protect the
recoid in the event the board had
i-eversed itself.

Regent Sidney M. Ehrman ot
San Francisco warned the board
the supreme court might decide
not to accept a petition to with-
draw the appeal.

Because of this possibility, the
board delayed action on a motion
to rehire eighteen professors who
were dismissed for failure or re-j
fusal to sign the affirmation. ' I

zur

Dokumente
Geschichte der Frankfurter Juden

1933-1945

Herausgegeben von der

Kommlsslon zur Erforschung der Gesdiidite

der Frankfurter Juden

1963

Verlag Waldemar Kramer, Frankfurt am Main

I I

LBEN

g ZU

Da-

ufier
I be-
bar"
und
^ugt,
/lafi-
ibeit
erde
ridi-
s ist
wel-
»cut-
und

fiir
wer-
nah.
ver-
Not
Exi-
isti-
ern-
Vlan
von
sab-

In-
and

>2W.

die
zin,
len,
lent
nen
ssor
Be-
ing,
ihre
ben
.en-
Th.

Universitat

99

Visdiers nlcht mehr zutreffen wird: „Oberall, wo geforsdit wird, ist Gott",
so sollte dodi nicht so weit gegangen werden, dafi man die Wisscnsdiaft nur
an die nationalen Belange kniipft. Was in den Ictzten Tagen geschehen ist
und in den nadisten vielleidit nodi gesdiehen wird, wenn die Regierung
dem Verlangcn der Studenten, die erst nodi erzogen werden sollen, nadigibt,
ist mehr als die Brodosmadiung der zu erledigenden Gelehrten, in gewissem
Sinne werden sie audi ehrlos gemadit, da ihnen attestiert wird, sie ermangel-
ten des Ethos ihrer wissensdiaftlidien Arbeit und seien keine guten Deut-
sdien und deshalb unwiirdig, Lehrer der Jugend zu sein. Wir glauben man-
dien der Gemafiregelten zu kennen, den dieses Verdikt bis ins tiefste Herz
treffen wird. Ob und wie die Beurlaubungen den Rang unserer wissensdiaft-
lidien Anstalten sdiadigen werden, ist nidit zu prophezeien, ein Unibau ist
geplant, und nidits konnte erwiinsditer sein, als wenn er Deutsdiland und
der deutsdien Wissensdiaft und Kunst zum Segen gereidien wurde. Es gilt
uns heute nur, all den Beurlaubten, die, wie wir glauben wollen, ihrer Wis-
scnsdiaft redlidien Willcns gedient haben, zu danken, und ihnen die mensdi-
lidie Anteilnahme an ihrem Sdild^sal auszuspredien, die jcdcm gebiihrt, der
fur seine Gesinnung fallt oder ohne personlidie Sdiuld zum Opfer wird.

Frankfurter Zeltung, 27. 4. 1933, Zweltes Morgenblatt S. 1.

Professor Dr. Ernst Kantorowicz an den Minister fiir Wissenschaft, Kunst
und Volksbildii?2g, 20. 4. 1933.

Von meiner Tatigkeit als o. o. Professor fiir mittlere und neuere Ge-
sdiidite und fur historisdie Hilfswissensdiaften bitte ich, midi fiir das Som-
mer-Semester 1933 beurlauben zu wollen.

Obwohl idi als Kriegsfreiwilliger vom August 1914, als Frontsoldat
wiihrend der Dauer des Krieges, als Nachkriegskampfer gegcn Polen, Spar-
takus und Raterepublik in Posen, Berlin und Miindien eine Dienstentlas-
sung wegen meiner jiidisdien Abstammung nidit zu gewartigen habe; ob-
wohl idi auf Grund meiner Veroffentlidiungcn iiber den Staufer-Kaiser
Friedridi den Zweiten fiir meine Gesinnung gegeniiber einem wieder natio-
nal geriditetcn Deutsdiland keines Ausweises von vorgestern, gestern und
heute bedarf ; obwohl meine jenseits aller Zeltstromungen und Tagesereig-
nisse begriindete, grundsatzlidi positive Einstellung gegenuber einem natio-
nal regierten Reidi audi durdi die jiingsten Gesdiehnisse nidit hat ins Wan-
ken komnien konnen, und obwohl idi ganz gewift keine Storungcn meiner

I

'■♦. *■!■■' ■■ 7-'"'

I I

100

AUSSCHALTUNG AUS DEM OFI tNTLlCHEN LeBEN

Lchrtatlgkelt seitens der Studenten zu crwartcn habe, sodaft eine etwaigc
Riickslditnahme auf den ungestorten Lehrbetrieb der Gesamt-Universitat
damit fiir mldi entfallt, so sehe idi mich als Jude dennodi gezwungen, aus
dem Geschehcnen die Folgerungen zu Ziehen und im kommenden Sommer-
Semester meine Lehrtatigkeit ruhen zu lassen. Denn solange jeder deutsdie
Jude — wie in der gegenwartigen Zeit der Umwalzung — schon durch seine
Herkunft fast fiir einen „Landesverrater" gelten kann; solange jeder Jude
als soldier rassemaf^ig fiir minderwertig eraditet wird; solange die Tatsadie,
iiberhaupt jiidisches Blut in den Adern zu haben, zugleidi einen Gesinnungs-
defekt involviert; solange jeder deutsche Jude sich einer taglidien Antastung
seiner Ehre ausgesetzt sieht ohne die Moglichkeit, personlidie oder gericht-
liche Genugtuung zu erzwingen; solange ihm als Studenten das akademische
Biirgerrecht versagt, der Gebrauch der deutschen Sprache nur als „Fremd-
spradie" gestattet wird, wie es die audi im Universitatsgebaude selbst an-
gcsdilagenen Aufrufe der Deutsdien Studentensdiaft fordern diirfen; so-
lange durdi Dienstbefehl audi den Juden als Leitern der Seminare zugemutet
wird, sidi aktiv an judenfeindlidien Aktionen zu beteiligen (Rundschreiben
des Kuratoriums vom 19. April 1933, T. Nr. 1049 Abs. 1); und solange
jeder Jude, gerade wenn er ein nationales Deutsdiland voll bejaht, unfehl-
bar in den Verdadit geriit, durdi das Bekunden seiner Gesinnung nur aus
Furdit zu handeln oder bloft seinen personlidien Vorteil sudien, nadi Pfriin-
den jagen und seine wirtsdiaftliche Existenz sidiern zu wollen; solange da-
her jeder deutsdie und wahrhaft national gesinnte Jude, um einem derartigen
Verdadit zu entgelien, seine nationale Gesinnung eher sdiamhaft verbergen
mujR, als daft er sie unbefangen kundtun diirfte: solange ersdieint es mir als
unvereinbar mit der Wiirde eines Hoclisdiullehrers, sein nur auf innerer
Wahrheit begriindetes Anit verantwortlidi zu versehen, und solange audi
als eine Verletzung des Sdiamgefiihls der Studenten, seine Lehrtatigkeit, als
ware nidits gesdiehen, stillsdiweigend wieder aufzunehmen.

Frankfurt/M, Kuratorium der Universitat, Pcrsonalakten.

Der Dekan der Medizinischen Fakultat an Professor Dr. Marcel Trangott,
28, 4. 1933.

Der gesdiaftsfiihrende Vorsitzende des Kuratoriums hat niidi als Dekan
der Medizinisdien Fakultat beauftragt, einzelnen von ihm bezeidineten Mit-
gliedern der Fakultat, darunter audi Ihnen, den Rat nahezulegen, in An-

(

Universitat

betradit der j
der von ihn
Sdiwarzen Bi

Frankfurt/M, K

Der Minister
Martin Buhei
sitat Frankfu

Auf Grun
amtentums v(
an der Unive

Frankfurt/M, R

Professor Dr.

Euer Mag
Als idi h{
wollte, began
ein Teil in SS
klimpern, daf
dciiten offent
hindern, und
verlieft idi dei
Sekretariat.

In Bestati
nodi mit: Die
sehen nadi un
trat, ob idi de
der Anfiihrer
namlidi der i
die Judcnpoli
TillidiS Saloi

* Nichtjudc.

^.'^^lllla^ ■,» m\t^

Ernst Kantorowicz

V \m Scptomhor i^c% vergiinpeuen Jfi.Lrrt st«.rb
iia AlU?r w-n Gd Janren der McJiavUt Ernst H^i^
y/^\g K»r.t ^rcwict, dor bit U'33 eino ortlcntlichePro-
fe.s,»jur an tier Univf rsitiit P'ra^kfurt hckleidet, Ba«li
seiner Erni^n^tioa iua dom nationAl»OEialiFtift^hei|
Deutschland eincn Lchrstuhl in Princeton renraJtet
hattp. Dnirh wine Bioffraphie Friedrichs II., det
Stsirfcn-Kidsfrs, war der jung-e Gelehrte einsi be-
riihmt fftvordcn, hntte er aber anoh die Fama dot
deutiwrhnationalcn Geo:-gianers anf sich genoraroen,
die in der VorstcUunir dea gebildeten Publiknins
iiicht mehr von ihm gewichen ist. Daa Bild des bcdeo-
tenden Mannea '«'ird nun abgrerundet durch einea
Brief vom 20. April 1933, dcr in dem Band <Dok3i-
ment« zur 0«schicht« der Frankfurter Jndcn 1933
bis 1945» (Veriftg Waldemar Kramer, Frankfort
a. M,) pnblitiert wordcn ist nnd den wij hicr wieder-
geben.

AN DEN MINISTER Fl^R WIS9ENSCHAFT,
ijLUXST UXD VOLKJtiBLLDUNQ

"^Toa mi-ih^V Titi jkeit ali oT 5/ Profc*f<>r. (mt

itiitflfre und nenerc Gcscbichte nnd fur bistorisclie
iJilfswissonsc^iaflon bitte ich, mich.fur daa Som-
mer'Sv''mfr5ter 1933 beurlaiiben zu wollen.

Obwohl ich al« Kriegrsfrciwilliger vom Angnat
1914, rJs Frontaoldat wiihrend der Daner d« Krie-
gres, als Nnphkricgskampfrr gegen Polen, Sparta-
ku8 und Ratcrepublik in Posen, Berlin nnd Mun-
clicn eine Dien5tcnt]a5;.sung^ wegen meiner judischcn
Abstammung nicht zu j^ewfirtigrn hal)e; obwohl ich
auf Grnnd meiner Veroffentlichun|fen iiber den
Staufer-Kaistr Friedxich - den Zweiten fur meine
Gesinnung: gegeniibcr einera wieder national gerich-
tetcn Deutschland koines Aasweises von vorgeetem,
gcstem und heute bcdarf; obwohl meine jenseita
allfr Zcitstniraung^n i nd Tage^rerpigniiise beg^riin-
deie, grundsatzlich positive Einstellun^g gegcnuber
einem national regierten Reich aiich dureh die
jiingsten Qcsch^'hni&se nicht hat ina Wanken kom-
men konntn und obwohl ich gana gcwiQ keina
Storun^en meiner LehrtiLtigkeit Reitens dcr Stnden-
ten zn erwarten habe, so d&B eine etwaige RQck>
aichtnahme auf den ungefitiirten Lehrbetrieb der
Ge«airituniver8itat damit fur mich entftllt, so ftche
ich mich ala Jude dcnnoch gezwungen, aua dem

--i.

Gotchehfnen die Fo!|.t>r-angen zn rJehea v.nd im
konime!id<?n Sownit^i-^eracatfr meino ^iehrtiitigV.cit
rubcn m ki^en. Dens r.o!angc jodc-r dT^it^cha Jude

— wie in dcr gr£v'>n^iiirti;.:en Zeit drr Vrcm:izxLr^

— schon durch seine Herkunft ffr.*t filr eiticn
«Lande8verniter> gtltcn kann; solango jcder Jude
als soleher ras5eniiiPig fiir minder^'eilig crachtet
wird; solange die Tntsache, iiberhai-pt jfidis^-he*
Bint in dca Adem zu haben, zugleich rinen Gwin-
nnn^dpfokt invohnert; solange jec'er deutsche
Jnde sich einer tSgliohon Antastun^ scuner Ehre
ausgesetzt sieht ohne die Mofirlichkeit, pers?5nliche
oder gerichtliche Genngtuung rn ertwingsn; so-
lange ihm ala Studenten das akademif^che Biirger-
rocht versagt, dcr Gebrauch drr deiitsrhen Sprachc
nnr als cFremdspraohe» gestatfct wird, wie es die
auch im Universitiitsffehando solbst ar^cschlagenen
Aufnife der Deutschen Stndentcnschnft fordcrn
diirfen; solange durch Dienstbcfclil anch den Jaden
als Leitcm der Seminare zugremutet wird, sich aktiv
an judenfeindlichen Aktionen zu boteiligcn (Rund-
schr( iben des Ku rat ori urns vom 19. April 1933,
T. Nr. 1049 Abs. 1) ; nnd solanfre jedr r Jude, ge-
rade wenn er ein nationalcis Deufschl'ind voll b^
jaht, unfehlbar in dm VcrdatLt gcriit, durch da«
Beknnden seiner Qesinnung nnr aus Furcht zu haa-
deln cdpr bloB soinen personlichcn Vorteil suehen,
nach Pfriinden jagcn nnd sfine %v'i7-t«ehaftliche
Fxistenz sichcm zu wollen; solang-e dahcr jeder
dcut5che nnd wahrhaft national goinnte Jtide, nm
eincm dcrartiijen Vcrdacbt m cntjrohc^t, reine natio-
na'e Gc«innung eher BchAmhaft verberj<?n mnS, ala
d&3 er «ie unbefatiLj^^n knnc^tun dUrfte: folange er-
scht^int OS mir als nnvere.nbar mit der Vriirde eines
IIoch?ohnllchrer«<, scin nnr auf innercr Wahrheit
bfjjrundetcs Amt verantv.'CTtl'ch ru vcraohm, nnd
solange auch als einc Wrlctzir.j de:s Schamgefuhls
dcr Studenten, seine I^hrti'tii^lccit, als wiire nichts
gcfcbcben, stillschwcigcud wicdrr aufr.nnchmcn.

-^n^Tu !ro

^^p^t

^ fO-/v-^y

^^ . A\

o

1 1

Oath Form A

STATE OF WASHINGTON

Statement and Oath for Teaching Faculty
of the University of Washington

I the undersigned, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws
of the United States of America and of the state of Washington, and will by precept and example pro-
mote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the state of Wash-
ington, reverence for law and order, and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States;

I further certify that I have read the provisions of RCW 9.81.010 (2), (3), and (5); RCW
9 81 060- RCW 9.81.070; and RCW 9.81.083, which are printed on the reverse hereof; that I under-
stand and am familiar with the contents thereof; that I am not a subversive person as therein defined;
and

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a member of the Communist party or knowingly
of any other subversive organization.

I understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the penalties of perjury.

f

i

(Signature)

(Title and Department)

Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me this.

day of _

19

Notary Public in and for the state of Washington,
residing at — — •

(To be executed in duplicate, one copy to be retained by individual.)
NOTE : Those desiring to affirm may strike the words "swear" and "sworn to" and substitute "affirm" and "affirmed," respectively.

I I

Subversive Person Ineligible for Public Employment.

"No subversive person, as defined in this act, shall be eligible
for employment in, or appointment to any office, or any
position of trust or profit in the government, or in the
administration of the business, of this state, or of any county,
municipality, or other political subdivision of this state."
(RCW 9.81.060)

Definition of Subversive Person, Subversive Organisation,
and Foreign Subversive Organisation.

" 'Subversive person' means any person who commits, at-
tempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or advocates,
abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to com-
mit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission of any act
intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the
overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional
form of the government of the United States, or of the state
of Washington, or any political subdivision of either of them
by revolution, force, or violence ; or who with knowledge that
the organization is an organization as described in subsections
(2) and (3) hereof, becomes or remains a member of a sub-
versive organization or a foreign subversive organization.
RCW 9.81.010 (5))

" 'Subversive organization' means any organization which
engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a
purpose of which is to engage in or advocate, abet, advise, or
teach activities intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to
assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the con-
stitutional form of the government of the United States, or
of the state of Washington, or of any political subdivision of

either of them, by revolution, force or violence. (RCW
9.81.010 (2))

" 'Foreign subversive organization' means any organization
directed, dominated or controlled directly or indirectly by a
foreign government which engages in or advocates, abets,
advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or
to advocate, abet, advise, or teach, activities intended to
overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow,
destruction or alteration of the constitutional form of the
government of the United States, or of the state of Washing-
ton, or of any political subdivision of either of them, and to
establish in place thereof any form of government the direc-
tion and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by
or under, the domination or control of any foreign govern-
ment, organization, or individual." (RCW 9.81.010 (3))

Communist Party Declared to be Subversive Organisation.
"The Communist party is a subversive organization within
the purview of chapter 9.81 and membership in the Communist
party is a subversive activity thereunder." (RCW 9.81.083)

Oath Required of Employees of State of Washington.
". . . Every such person, board, commission, council,
department, court, or other agency shall require every
employee or applicant for employment to state under oath
whether or not he or she is a member of the Communist
party or other subversive organization, and refusal to
answer on any grounds shall be cause for immediate termi-
nation of such employee's employment or for refusal to
accept his or her application for employment." (RCW
9.81.070)

I

I I

^

7j

A . ,

ieiL

/ c^. A 'Vf^.

A r

I •

^>''^'. ^<^\\ju, ■■ U v^ ^^i- c^

I I

TO WK ALUMSI . OT

OP CALIFORNIA

JhitMt tlie prM#iir« of th« Oath Controversy at the University of
California a -GROUP FOR kCaDEMIC FHKisJJOM" haa been aatabllshe*
whloh is not Identioal with, nor ahould It be «i8tMken for^ the

ttflAfi: C. IfTKE ON ACAx ^ DOtt*

Whereaa the'Seitote Com/Tdttee on AoadeiolG Free4Mi'*la i^hMrged with

the epeoifi© task to keep a watchful eye on all infringe rente of

aoadenlo freedom affecting mewbera of the i.uademlc Senate and the

faeulty at Ictrge, and to report about the effects of eiich inf rlnfe -

aents^ the otjeotlvea of the "Group for Academic Freedom" tb^^t

to thoae without, In the firat place to the Alunol and in the

accond place to ull thoae who ujay be oulied "Frlenda" of the

Unlveraity of California,

Tha general objectives of the '•Group for Acadcfliic Freedom" are

mainly twot

(1) to i:iform Hlumni, Frlendat and citizenry at large atout the
University and its functiona, either regularly or at Irregular
intervale aa need be, and to make thd aoaetli»ea Involved and
complicated problem* of the Faculty i^rticulate to the non-

acadeolo puulio;

(2) to assist In the restoration cf mmtmal cmmfldemoc and good-
will u iong the Faculty, the Admlnietratlcn, and the Regenta
of the Unlveralty of California, and to heal the wounds af-
flicted to the^a^emio body by the recent etru^le caused ,

or touched off, by the oath controversy*

..ore specifically, the "Group for acudemlc /reedom* will act to
accomplish the following objectives:

I. Reatcimtion of the badly ahmken confidence of the academic
world and of the citizens of the State in the essential
integrity of the ttilversity.
A. Nature uad functions of ^Vte University,

The task of teaching at a university consists In
guiding young men and women to a participation in

the oulturil heritage of civilised men, a heritage whic
i» newr in ^ fixe4 and flml etate but la oon3*:aatly
expanding and changing* ?he creation of a university,
therefore, is the aeeettbling; of a iproup of nen who in a
joint 10 JLmost corporate caj^^aoity are ^bXe to perfom
thlii vital fuxiv;t.xgu for the CO r unity* ISie exleteziee
of a jtiite Uxiiverslty is the mark as well as the test
of th© Qommmnlt^'A own oliiim to a share in the world's
culture.

Phis, as Mar Radln expressed it, is the universities
direct and indirect contribution to edu^^^.ion and wel-
fare of the oitl&inaL^ of valifor.iia.

^^ Aoademie freedoa, Faculty autonomy, and tenure are in-
dispensahle for the fulfily.ent of!lfoivergitys t-xr^kz.
?enure implies a vested right of a university teacher^
after the years ef apprenticeship. In "he continuity of
his office.

Where tenure is vlolnted academic freedoa goes. If a
professor is not sure of hi^ permanent tenure, if he
has to fear dismissal for unorthodox opinions or r.o;-
oonforrdty, he los}fes his freedoa of action and speech.
In this respect * rofessor does not differ xroa the
Judge* The kludge loses his oOAscientiovts freedom and
freedom of prejudiee if his Judgment is iapaired by the
fear of losing his job. He, too, has *'ten*re.* Hence,
there ean be no true academic freedoa unleso tenure! is
asswred.

JPaoulty autone^y reserves the? exclusive right to wiaKt
the i-aoulty to eieot and to reject the aeai^ers of its
OmU body corporate, whereus it is up to the Regents to
appoint and dissiiss those reoessionded tm by the Fftoul-
ty for appointment and diSAissal. The Regents act by th.
authority ves^-ed in their Board by tht. sovereignty of
the People of California. TTie Regents, however, have
no right to appoint or illstniss without previous consul-
tation with, and on reooTtittondation of, the faculty sino<^
they are lacking Judgaent with regard to (|ualificatlon

I I

•r dlaquallfloatlon of a scholar* Hor oan the Co«»an^
dtr-ln-Chief of the armed forces arbitrarily and with-
out odtisultatlon with, or on reo#Miend«tlon of, thoee
oonoemed appoint or disalss officers*

C» The Issue of "O0'?:'^imlsy,*^

Hie Faculty of the University of California has ex-
preased Itself against the appointment of persons
whese oomnltments or obligations to any organisation,
Coamunlst or other, prejuilee laip^irtlal acholarship
and the free pursuit of truth*

BiouKh not on record before rarch 7, 1950, this policy
hi\z been/obierved fox ut least ten years.
At the time of the introduction of the special Loyal^
Oath In Search, 1949, the real Issue was not a '•purge*
of the University of Cullfornla from subversive elem-
ents. It was, frott the very beginning, a move of pol-
iticians exploiting the true and genuine dangers of
Coawasiew for pro nda purposes of a nature which
ttff*not acadeaic but political. The -purge- of the
Unlveraity, result less aii^how, w^a not isqportuiit. that
inxH important was tha advertising campaign, was the
propaganda value of the purging activity.
It is obvious that a btate University has to be kept
out of the i^irlpoola of daily shifting and ephemeral
political ojiWpiAlgns, electoral or others. The Univ-
ersity has not been feimded to become Instrumental to
the political alm«> of individual regents or adainist-
ratora. Faoxilty «eBibers are not supposed, or even
allowed, to use or abuse the rostrua for the apread of
poll*;leal propagandai. The Regents are 1»ouad to show
the ease restraint lest the University beoesie a sport
of their political ambitions*

II* lastoration of aoadealo freedoa, tenure, and Faculty
iiutonOflQ|7f and its laBplem«nf:atlon«

A* Mediation between Fu^ultj- and the n»K«nt<i*

Te restore acadeadc freedom, tenure, and i?^aculty auto-
noisy the aotive support of mtkwLX ^jrougs other than the
Faoulty will he needed, both to back up the Fiioulty and
to eonvinee the hegente*

Other Universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and
Columbia have offered their woral and/or fiiiaauial bup-
port to the Faculty of the University of Calif orn5La.
It will, hov^ever, be xxiudiiaxtaulc above all a noble
task of the Aluoni or^ni«ationi> of the U.of C. itself
to act as mediators between Faculty and Regent b*
•Phe Alumi will have to demand

(1) thiit the University be governed by a Beard of

Regeuts which is workable; the present Board of

Hcjants is hopelesslj^ split into two groups of

approximately the same ©ise; the reault is o^ luck

ef st#»diness In the re^entlal policy, a reversal

of rrgentiil deaisiens, >md a vacillation w»hlch

lii datrin^ntal to the whole academic body. The

only
absence' of /one Regent, caufsed by a flue or other

indisposition, frMi a monthly meeting maj at
present seriously influence the University policy
over long periods •

(2) that teniire be restored and its observation be
^Ufluranteed. This would imply the restoration of
the old contract forms for Faculty members having
tenure by raiik or length of service, formb which
do not imply an arnually renewed appointment but
a status of continuity i the abolition of an annu-
ally repeated mmtkpciuikii constitutional oath
which appears as a symbol of the lack of contin-
uity; the abolition of any kind of ••conditioned
appointment" exeepting the traditioxial conditions
of '•good behavior and efficient service;" full
reeogmitiou on the part of the Regents ef the

aut«a#ii9Ud right of the Fuouity to alaot and r«J«ot
its memterfis und full r«»toratioa of th^ rights and
prero£.-ctive:3 of the Faculty COHidttee on xrivilojo aM
Teniire •

B. A-romotion of an ACi^UiiaC FE. OB BILL in the State
Le^lsl i ture.

To iioplenent axii to guarantee those objectives the
Alircnl organlMtions of the U. of C. should consider
m bill on acadettio freedoie similiir to that of the
University of Minnesota

n

ic 121C

^'h<o

Bvr^-^ ^^"^

'"( CoUi€r4-iry\A

w

f I i?1

F

1

H

dS

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY

PRINCFTON, NFW JERSFY 0«S40
S( HOOl OF HISTORICAI STUDIFS

CLMM

C

Ozcfk

I

I I

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

Monday, January 21, 1952 at 4:30 p.m.
Auditorium, Benjamin Ide Wheeler Hall

For consideration:

Report of the Special Unified Committee en Tenure
R. W. Jennings, Chairman, Northern Section

TKOxMAS P. STEEL, Secretary
Academic Senate, Northern Section

Berkeley, January 10, 1952

(1775-1,^52)

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL UNIFIED COMMITTEE ON TENURE

To the Academic Senate, Northern Section:

The Special Unified Committee on Tenure submits its report and tenta-
tive recommendations for consideration by the Senate as a basis for implementing
our system of tenure. The Committee has requested that a special meeting of the
Senate be held, the call ■^f which accompanies this report, at which this report
will be placed before the Senate for full discussion and consideration. The
Committee requests that the Senate not act on the report at this meeting. At
and after the meeting the Committee will welcome proposals from members of the
Senate. After considering any such proposals the Committee will submit its final
recommendations to the Senate.

Respectfully subm.itted,

Northern Section

Southern Section

January h, I952

W. L- Bostick

I. B. Cross

H. P. Gotaas

Miss E. H. Huntington

D. G. Mandelbaum

V . J . Pur year

R. W. Jennings, Cliairman

G. H. Ball

N. H. Jacoby

E. A. Lee

A. E. Longueil

K. Macgowan

W. C. Putnam

W. W. Crouch, Chairman

PART I:

HISTORICAL ANT) LEGAL BASIS FOR TENURE AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Professors and Associate Professors

Tenure for professors and associate professors was customarily under-
stood to exist at the University of California even before formal action on the
matter by the Regents in 1920. This appears from a statement of the Admin-
istrative Board (then acting as the administrative authority of the University
in absence of a president) made to the Board of Regents and appearing in its
minutes for November 11, I919 (vol. 21, p. 205 ) :

"The record of the dealing between the Regents of the University
of California and the Faculty of the University of California
in regard to all matters with reference to professorial appoint-
ments is ample proof of the regard which the Regents have for
the necessity of safeguarding as far as possible the security of
tenure of those who devote their full time to teaching in the
University in a satisfactory manner."

The principal official action on tenure was taken by the Regents on
March 0, 1920, as shown by the minutes for that day (vol. 21, p. 2^7):

"Your Finance Committee has the honor of recommending. . . 'that
appointments as assistant professor be for a period of three
years with a recognized right on the part of the University to

-1-

terminate the appointment at the end of this period; that ap-
pointment as associate or full professor carries vith it security
of tenure in the full academic sense. '

"On motion the Regents approved the report of the Finance Com-
mittee and adopted as the action of the Board all recommenda-
tions contained in the report as to action to be taken by the
Board. "

This vas, in effect, a definite statement of policy by the Regents to the effect
"that appointment as associate or full professor carries with it security of
tenure in the full academic sense." The Regents' acknowledgment of tenure for
professors and associate professors thus -is quite explicit.

From time to time the Regents have implemented this policy. On
August 12, I93B, the following provision was added to the Standing Orders of
the Regents (vol. 30, p. 353):

Ch. IX, 1(c). "The President shall recommend to the Board. . .
demotions, and dismissals of the officers and employees of the
University. Whenever such action shall affect a professorial or
equivalent position, such action shall be taken only after the
President shall have consulted a properly constituted advisory com-
mittee of the Academic Senate." (Manual of the Academic Senate,
November, 19^5, Appendix B, p. 231]

This Standing Order was amended on March 3I, 1951> to provide:

Ch. IX, 1(c), "The President shall recommend to The Regents appoint-
ments, promotions, demotions and dismissals of all officers and
employees of the University, except the Vice-President - Business
Affairs, and except as herein otherwise provided. "Whenever any such
action shall affect personnel under the administrative jurisdiction
of a Chancellor, Provost or Director, such action shall be taken only
after consideration of the recommendation of such Chancellor, Pro-
vost or Director. When such action relates to a professor or asso-
ciate professor (or equivalent position), the Chancellor, Provost or
Director shall consult with a properly constituted advisory committee
of the Academic Senate."

The Standing Orders of the Regents were also amended as follows on
August 12, 1938 (Ch. XIV, 2(1,):

"The principle of serverance compensation is approved in the case of
premature and compulsory retirement of a faculty member with acquired
tenure and not subject to dismissal, whose removal from service seems
to be in the interest of the University. .

It

The existence of tenure for professors and associate professors has
long been acknowledged and in practice respected by the University's admin-
istrative officers. Several examples will confirm the point.

In December, 1927, Professor Robert J. Kerner was appointed Professor
of History at the University. Upon receiving the letter of appointment for the
year July 1, I928 to June 30, 1929, Professor Kerner sent the following tele-

-2-

tP*-

gram to President Campbell:

"RECEIVED APPOINTMENT SPECIFYING PERIOD 1928 TO 1929 WHICH MAY
3E INTERPRETED AS TEMI'OR^Y APPCINTMENT FOR ONE YEAR ONLY.
INVITATION WAS FOR APPOINTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1928 WHICH I
ASSUMED WITHOUT'QUESTION TO BE ON PERMANENT TENURE. WOULD MUCH
APPRECIATE WIRE WHETHER ERROR HAS BEEN lAADE IN OFFICIAL
NOTIFICATION AND WHETHER APPOINTMENT IS DEFINITELY ON FERMNENT
TENURE."

In response to this telegram Vice President Walter Morris Hart wired:

"PERMANENT TENURE IS ASSURED FOR ALL FULL PROFESSORS AND ASSOCI-
ATE PROFESSORS STOP YOUR NOTIFICATION IS IN PRECISELY THE FORM
SENT ALL NEW APPOINTEES." (Emphasis supplied)

Provost Gordon S. Watkins of Riverside reported that when he came to
the Los Angeles campus of the University of California in 1925 as Professor of
Economics "verbal answers to my inquiries about privilege and tenure indicated
that for professors and associate professors this status was guaranteed." He
often has stated since, as an administrator, that "for professors and associate
professors tenure is guaranteed." Professor Joseph A. Brandt reported that
President Sproul told him that his "appointment was set but that it would have
to go before the Regents since it was a tenure appointment." A letter from
President Sproul to Dean E. T. Grether, dated February 3, 19^+8, included this
phrase: ". . .appointments to positions of permanent tenure such as associate
professorships and full professorships. ..." Dean Vern 0. Knudsen by letter
of December 1^4-^ 1950, stated that "appointments to ranks carrying permanent
tenure should be made only after thorough consideration of the candidate's
record. "

Another illustration of the administrative acceptance of tenure was
Vice-President Hutchison's letter to a department chairman at Davis, April 6,
1951. When asking for a statement in regard to an assistant professor then in
his fourth year of service in that rank, after quoting Appendix A of the Sup-
plement to the Senate Manual of September, 19^8, Dean Hutchison stated: "A
scrupulous and objective review of each junior member of the staff prior to
his attainment of tenure can be of great value in strengthening the faculty."

A point frequently made by Dr. Monroe E. Deutsch when he was Vice-
President and Provost was that if a man is advanced from the status of
assistant professorship to that of associate professorship, the University
thereby was committed to permanent tenure for that individual. As one of many
applications of this view. Dr. Deutsch, and upon occasion the President, urged
Professvor B. H. Lehman as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and as
chairman of the Department of English to give especially careful consideration
to promotions to the associate professorship. They and later Dean A. R. Davis
stressed the importance of that step in rank, clearly on the ground that after
promotion to an associate professorship a faculty member had tenure rights.
Professor Lehman further stated to our Committee:

"In short, all my experience as administrator and all my confer-
ences with superiors and all my appointment letters to new staff
assumed that associate professors and professors had tenure, both
by what was said of and to instructors and assistant professors

"3-

I I

and what was said of and to the more advanced appointments. I
never heard this assumption questioned. I never heard President
or Provost or Dean say a word that suggested that a University
could be conducted if the assumption were not true, admitting
testing in the lower grades and creating security in the higher."

Dr. Deutsch regularly applied this tenure policy. He wrote, on July
5, 19^+0: "This is to certify that Albert I. Elkus holds appointment on the
faculty of the University of California as Professor of Music. His annual

salary is and by virtue of this appointment he has permanent tenure."

A letter by Provost Deutsch on March 2, 19^5 > stated: "As to the matter of
tenure, it is understood that the two grades of professor involve permanent or
indefinite tenure in the ordinary academic sense of the term." This was further
specifically illustrated in a memorandum issued on July h, 19^5^ concerning
Professor A. Tarski, in which Provost Deutsch stated:

"This is to certify that Professor A, Tarski holds the rank of
Associate Professor of Mathematics in the University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, and this rank is regarded 'as continuing
during good behavior and efficient service*. In short, it is
considered as permanent in the sense in which that phrase is
used in the academic world. The position involves indefinite
tenure. "

The two top classes of Agricultural Experiment Station employees have
tenure. The following is a portion of a report by the Regents* Committee on
Agriculture which was adopted by the Board of Regents on February 1^, 1928
(vol. 25, p. 197):

"That Experiment Station titles be recognized by the Board of
Regents as equivalent of the corresponding academic titles in
other parts of the University in so far as any questions relating
to tenure of office, leaves of absence and retiring allowances
may be concerned."

This granted associate and full agronomists, etc., tenure righte equivalent to
those of associate and full professors.*

President Sproul's circular statement of May 27, 19^8, "The Functions
of Departmental Chairmen in the University, " states :

"It should be remembered that Instructors and Assistant Professors

■^The Regents have granted equivalent tenure privileges to astronomers and
associate astronomers (Extracts from the Standing Orders of the Regents, Ch.
XIV, ^(a); Manual of the Academic Senate, November, 19^5, Appendix B, p. 237);
and to clinical professors and associate professors in the College of Dentistry
(Regents* Minutes, April 30, I9U3, vol. 33, p. 3I1O) .

Ch. XIV, l+(a) of the Regents* Standing Orders further provides: "The
equivalent academic rank of members of departments and stations where titles
other than professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and in-
structor are used, shall be fixed by the President, subject to approval by
the Board." (Manual of the Academic Senate, November, 19^5, Appendix B,
p. 237.)

-i^-

have been given temporary or probationary appointments. It is
not, therefore, the obligation of the University to prove defects
in the individual. The individual himself must show, affirmatively
that he has qualities justifying retention and promotion. If he
does show superior ability, he should be promptly recommended and
urged for advancement. In Justice, both to the individual and the
University, a decision should be made as early as practical as to
those who have not proved themselves worthy of permanent appoint-
ment." (italics added.)

The above paragraph obviously implies that when the assistant pro-
fessor is promoted to a higher rank his position is no longer temporary and that
he has achieved tenure .

Administrative and academic officials have long officially distin-
guished between tenure and non-tenure personnel. An example is found in the
printed "Instructions to Appointment and Promotion Committee" for the year
19^7- These instructions read:

"In submitting recommendations, the committee should bear in mind
that normally the University will terminate appointments of
assistant professors who do not qualify for promotion after three
terms (each of two years) of service in that grade. Associate
professors, however, who do not qualify for further promotion
will be retained indefinitely in that grade, but assistant pro-
fessors should not be recommended for promotion unless there is
reasonable expectation of further advancement."

It should be noted that the above paragraph clearly states that
associate professors, even though they do not qualify for promotion to the full
professorship, ". . .will be retained indefinitely in that grade. .

II

Official use has customarily been made of the terms tenure and non-
tenure. Two of the budget sheets (formerly signed by President Sproul and now
signed by the Chief Budget Officer) sent to chairmen of departments are labeled
as follows :

"Sheet 1 - Academic positions with tenure"
"Sheet 2 - Academic positions without tenure"

This is a clear indication, over official signature, .that there are certain
academic positions which carry tenure.

In brief, prior to the controversy over the Oath which began in June,
19^9^ the faculty, the President and the Board of Regents proceeded on the
assumption that tenure existed for professors and associate professors and that
the conditions respecting tenure would be adhered to by all parties, the faculty
on the one hand and the Regents and Administration on the other.

Tenure by Reason of Length of Service in Ranks other
than Professor and Associate Professor

Prior to October 6, 19^7, faculty members who had served long years
in a rank other than professor or associate professor were considered to have
acquired an expectation of reappointment vaguely characterized as "moral
tenure," In its "Resolutions Concerning Promotions, Appointments, and Tenure"
of the above date the Senate regularized this undefined expectation. The

-5-

pertinent passage in the Resolutions runs:

"Officers of instruction who have served for a series of terms in
excess of a total of eight years in the grades of instructor, assist-
ant professor, lecturer (on more than half-time appointment), or
associate (on more than half-time appointment), should thereby have
attained tenure by reason of length of service: that is, their
appointments should be regarded as continuing during good behavior
and efficient service." (Supplement to Manual of the Academic
Senate, September, 19^8, Appendix A, p. TJTT)

Under present promotion regulations, which require from departments a
positive commitment on instructors at the end of two years and on assistant
professors at the end of four, few instructors or assistant professors can
attain tenure by length of service. It still applies, however, to associates
and lecturers. This type of tenure is granted, not automatically, but after a
review of the individual case by the Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental
Relations. The minutes of March h, 19^8, and later, of the Committee on
Budget of the Northern Section of the Senate reveal that the committee makes
regular "appraisals. . .of all persons now serving in their sixth or seventh
year," and the annual report for 19^+8 of the Committee on Budget of the Southern
Section speaks of the "evaluating appraisal of faculty members prior to their
attainment of tenure by reason of length of service."

Tenure by reason of length of service is in a somewhat different
position than tenure by reason of rank. It is more recent, particularly in its
formal promulgation. It has been neither approved nor disapproved by the
Regents. The administrative officers of the University, however, have in
practice accepted it. And the Senate and its committees have proceeded on the
assumption that it is as actual as tenure by rank.

Thus tenure, in a wide range, and in a very specific sense, has been
recognized in the University of California as an established and accepted
practice.

The Controversy over Tenure

The controversy over tenure arose when on June 2k, 19^9^ the Regents
required of the faculty a loyalty oath over and above the oath of allegiance
to the state and federal constitutions required by their action on August 13,
1918, and again on June 12, 19^2. The additional oath was later changed to a
statement made part of the notification of salary. A number of members of the
Senate who had tenure refused to sign the contractual statement end were
discharged.

On February 2h, I95O, during the oath controversy, the Regents re-
corded the following action, again confirming tenure for professors and
associate professors:

"In relation to all other questions [than the Loyalty Oath] re-
garding tenure the Regents reaffirm that the responsibility for
Judging members of the faculty is a common concern of the faculty,
of the President and of the Regents, in accord with the terms of
University Regulation No. 5, promulgated in revised form June 5,
19^4-^^-, The Regents will, therefore, adhere to their traditional
practice of taking no action against any member of the faculty

-6-

on grounds other than membership in the Corrjnunist Party without
referring the case through the President to the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate for full findings and
reconmiendations as in the past." (Executive Session Minutes,
Vol. 3, p. 279)

Yet sut sequent actions by the Regents left the meaning of tenure un-
certain. Professors and associate professors who were certified by the Presi-
dent and by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate to be
loyal and competent, and who were conceded by the Regents not to be Communists,
were afterwards summarily dismissed for failing to make the required oath or
affirmation. Rightly or wrongly, the inference has been widely drawn that the
Board of Regents has in effect withdrawn the authority it had previously
delegated to the President and the Academic Senate to erect and administer
standards for the disqualification of tenure members of the faculty.

This uncertainty as to tenure rights was further aggravated by the
change in April, 1950^ of the form of letter annually sent to persons having
tenure to notify them of their salary and rank. The letter regularly used by
the Secretary of the Regents before 195^ for professors, associate professors
and their official equivalents had stated: "At the annual budget meeting cf
the Regents of the University of California, your salary for the year ending

June 30,

as Professor of

was fixed at $

fi

This was an em-

bodiment of the policy of the Regents and implied a contractual recognition cf
legal tenure.

In April, 1950> however, following the Regents' action of April 21,
1950, prescribing a new form of contract, the annual letter sent to professors,
associate professors and their equivalents was changed to read: "This is to

notify you that you have been appointed Professor of for the period

July 1, 19 , to June 30, 19 , with a salary at the rate of $

per annum.

This form of appointment letter was also used for the fiscal year July 1, 1951^
to June 30, 1952.

It thus appeared that although the Regents and administrative officers
accepted the principle of tenure, faculty members of tenure rank were in fact
being offered annual appointments which carried the possible inference that
employment might be abruptly terminated at the end of any appointment year.
Some members of the faculty refused to sign an acceptance of the new form of
appointment letter on the ground that such an acceptance might be construed as
a waiver of tenure rights.

On November I6, 1951; "the Regents adopted a resolution discontinuing
the special declaration as applied to appointments for the current academic
year and in the future. In addition, the form of letter of notification and
acceptance used prior to April, 1950 was restored. This action of the Regents
reestablishes the basic conditions with respect to tenure which existed prior
to the oath controversy. The form of letters of notification and acceptance is
not an immaterial matter. The principle of tenure was jeopardized when, by
the terminology of the annual appointm.ent letter, it was made to appear that
persons in tenure ranks received annual appointments only, with continuation
from year to year at the pleasure of the Regents. It is important for the pro-
tection of the principle of tenure (existent and prospective) that the form of
notice sent annually to members having tenure be different from the forms used
for those individuals not in tenure ranks, and that the Regents specifically
prescribe the form of notice to be used.

»t

-7-

In previous years the Academic Senat*^ has never felt it neceseary to
ask the Regents to define the tenure which by their actions they had formally
established.

Professor Ira ?^. Cross, who on behalf of the present Unified Committee
checked the I9IO-I95I minutes of the public and executive sessions of the
Regents, and the minutes of the Senate, failed to discover any record of a re-
quest by the Senate for the Regents* approval of its resolutions en tenure. On
April 7, 1920, the S?*nate adopted Resolutions concerning tenure and other
matters and voted to refer them to the President and, subject to his approval,
to have them printed and circulated. (This was a month after the Regents had
established tenure for professors and associate professors on March 9, 1920.)
There was no request that the Resolutions be referred to the Regents. On
October 25, 1939, the Senate amended the above Resolutions, tut did not vote
to refer them for approval to the President or the Regents. This was also
true of the amendments adopted by the Senate on October 6, 19^7. Apparently
the Academic Senate, relying upon the 1920 grant of tenure by the Regents, has
not since considered it necessary to ask the Regents to define tenure.

To recapitulate:

1. From 1920 up to the time of the oath controversy In 1950,
the Regents* actions consistently recognized that professors
and associate professors at the University of California
possessed permanent tenure. The Regents* policy was con-
sistently adhered to by successive Presidents and by other
administrative officers. Moreover, there has been a clear
understanding among members of the faculty since 1920 that
professors and associate professors had tenure.

2. The 1950 action of the Regents in discharging, because they
failed to sign the prescribed contract form, professors and
associate professors who were admittedly loyal and competent
and not Communists, has created uncertainty as to the status
of the tenure at the University of California, the more so
since the action was taken contrary to the recommendation of
the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

3. It is clear that the interests of the University now re-
quire the formal adoption by the Regents and the Academic
Senate of a clear definition of academic tenure and of
policies for its attainment and protection.

PART II: TENTATIVE RECOMMEDJDATIONS FOR FURTHER IMPLEMENTING

TENURE AT THIS UNIVERSITY

Tenure is not an end in itself hut only a means to an end. That end is
the creation of conditions under which the pursuit of truth may proceed in an
environment congenial to its success. A failure to grasp the inseparable re-
lation between tenure on the one hand and productive research and teaching on
the other may lead to a complete misunderstanding of both the nature of tenure
and its importance.

-8-

The function of the scholars who form the faculty of a university is to
seek and teach the truth. If this function is to he sustained, the scholar-
teacher must feel free to pursue and present knowledge in his chosen field with-
out fear and without concession to expediency. Tenure, the right of the scholar-
teacher to be secure in his position during good behavior and efficient service,
is a means to this end. Without it there can be no continuing academic freedom.
And without academic freedom there can he little lasting pursuit of truth. At
the same time it must be recognized that academic freedom presupposes an academic
responsibility for maintaining high professional standards--a responsibility
which university teachers must be prepared to assume.

The system of tenure and the rules under which it has operated have never
been set forth by the Regents in a clear and detailed manner. In addition, no
specific procedures have been set up by the Senate to guide the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure in its consideration of dismissals and demotions of officers
of instruction who have tenure. It is important that the Academic Senate and
the Regents should reach a specific agreement with respect to tenure conditions
for faculty members, and enact appropriate Standing Orders and Senate Resolutions.
This legislation should thereafter be changed only after consultation among
the Senate, the Administration, and the Board of Regents. The recommendations
of this Committee are made in the light of these considerations. They have been
arrived at after a close examination of the practice in force in other univer-
sities. (See Appendix)

This Unified Committee makes the following tentative recommendations for
consideration by the Senate as a basis for implementing our system of tenure.
The Committee believes it essential that a meeting of the Academic Senate be
held at which this report shall be presented to the Senate for full discussion
and consideration, but without any action being taken at that meeting. At and
after this first meeting this Committee will welcome proposals and recommen-
dations from members of the Senate. After considering any such proposals and
recommendations the Committee will submit its final recommendations to the
Senate .

^« Regents^ and Senate Legislation. We recommend that the Senate
"Resolutions Concerning Tenure, Appointment, and Promotions" of October 6, 19^+7
be revised, and that the Senate petition the Board of Regents to adopt Standing
Orders, with respect to the following points:

A. Definition of Tenure.

There is now no explicit definition of tenure in the "Resolution".
We reooinmend that this definition be inserted:

"Tenure" is the right of a person to hold his position until the age of
retirement, with dismissal or demotion therefrom only for specified causes
under the procedures adopted by the Academic Senate and approved by the
Board of Regents.

B. Appointment of Persons having Tenure to Administrative Positions.

There is nothing in the present "Resolution" which covers the tenure of a
Senate member appointed to an administrative position. We recomjnend that the
following paragraph be inserted:

Appointment to the position of president, vice president, chancellor,
provost, dean, assistant dean, director or chairman of a department,

-O-

I f

or to any other administrative position in the University or removal
therefrom, shall not deprive the person so appointed, or so removed,
of tenure in the highest rank of the faculty of the University which
he held with tenure prior to his appointment to such office or con-
jointly with such office.

C. Notice of Appointment and Notification of Salary for Tenure Members.

Because of the important "bearing on tenure of the form of the annual notice,
we recommend that the following fcrms be used.

1. For notification of tenure members who have been granted an advance in
in rank and for new tenure appointments:

"You have been appointed to the tenure position of (Professor)

(Associate Professor) of at the University of California

as of (date) . Your salary has been fixed at $ for the

year

ft

2. For notification of tenure members as to salary under the annual budget,
or any amendment thereof:

"Your salary as (Professor) (Associate Professor) of has

been fixed at $ for the year ." (This form of annual

notice was used regularly prior to 1950.)

D. Grounds for Dismissal or Demotion of Tenure Personnel.

The resolutions of the Academic Senate now provide that tenure shall con-
tinue "during good behavior and efficient service." The Unified Committee
believes that grounds for dismissal or demotion should be specific. We
suggest the following formula:

Persons having tenure may be dismissed or demoted only upon proof of
one or more of the following causes:

(a) incompetency; (t) physical or mental incapacity; (c) neglect of duty;
(d) dishonesty; (e) moral turpitude; (f) (pursuant to the Regents' policy
adopted October 11, 19^10 and action of the Academic Senate adopted March 7^
8, 195^) mpmhershlp in the Comrannist Party.

Proceedings for the dismissal or demotion of such persons shall be con-
ducted in accordance with the rules of procedure prescribed by the
Academic Senate.

E. Review Procedure.

Under the traditional practice for handling dismissal cases of faculty mem-
bers having tenure, the Regents, except during the controversy regarding the
oath, have consistently accepted the recommendations of the President after
he has consulted with the Faculty Comjnittee on Privilege and Tenure. Similar
practices are deeply imbedded in the traditions of all great Am.erican univer-
sities and are essential to the maintenance of academic freedom.

This Unified Committee believes that the Board of Regents, in order to foster
the continued progress of the University and to protect it from unnecessary

-10-

harm, Bhould continue the foruer practice of accepting as final the
recommendations of the President, after he has consulted with the Committee
on Privilege and Tenure. This Unified Committee therefore recommends that
the Senate petition the Board of Regents to adopt the following statement of
principle as a Standing Order:

No member of the faculty who has acquired tenure as defined herein
[nee above page 9] shall be dismissed or demoted except upon recom-
mendation of the President after he has consulted with the Committee
on Privilege and Tenure, which shall hold a hearing.

F. This Unified Committee recommends that the Academic Senate petition the
Board of Regents to adopt as a Standing Order the Senate Resolution of
October 6, 19^^7, relating to tenure of officers of instruction other than
professors and associate professors amended to provide as follows:

Officers of instruction who have served for a series of terms in
excess of a total of eight years in the grades of instructor,
assistant professor, lecturer (on more than half-time appointment),
or associate (on more than half-time appointment), or in any
sequence of these grades, should thereby have attained tenure by
reason of length of service. Such persons shall be dismissed or
demoted only upon proof of one or more of the following causes:

(a) incompetency; (b) physical or mental incapacity; (c) neglect of duty;
Td) dishonesty; (e) moral turpitude; (f) (pursuant to the Regents' policy
adopted October 11, 19^0 and action of the Academic Senate adopted March 7,
8. 195 -) m'^mbership in the Communist Party.

Proceedings for the dismissal or demotion of such persons shall be con-
ducted in accordance with the rules of procedure prescribed by the
Academic Senate, (new matter emphasized)

Some difficulties have arisen in connection with administering this rule.
The Unified Committee therefore recommends that the Senate request the Com-
mittee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations, in consultation with the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure to study problems involved in administering
the rule and report its findings and recommendations to the Senate.

II. Rules of Procedure of Committee on Privilep;e and Tenure. We
suggest that the Academic Senate, by resolution, establish rules of procedure to
govern hearings of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure and recommend the
following rules :

1. Principles. The defendant shall have an opportunity to face
his accusers at a hearing and to he heard in his own defense
by all persons who pass judgment on his case. In the hear-
ing of charges of incompetence, the testimony of faculty mem-
bers in the same field, either from his own or some other in-
stitution, shall always be taken.

2. Procedure.

a. Complaint. Charges against a person having tenure may
be filed with the Committee only by the President, or
with the consent of the President, by the following:

-11-

b.

c.

The Chief Administrative officer of the campus involved,
the Dean of the School or College, or the head of the
Department. The charges shall be in writing, shall be
entitled uhe "complaint", and shall contain a plain and
concise statement of the facts constituting the basis
of the charges.

Service of Complaint. Upon receipt of the complaint,
the Chairman of the Committee shall promptly deliver
a copy to the defendant or send it by registered mail
to his last known place of residence.

Answer to Charges. The defendent shall have fourteen
days from the date of receipt in which to file an answer
in writing with the Committee. The Chairman of the Com-
mittee, on written application filed with him, may grant
a reasonable extension of time for the filing of an
answer .

d. Notice of Hearing. Upon receipt of the answer, or upon
failure of the defendant to file an answer, the Committee
shall set a date for the hearing. The defendant shall
be given, either personally or by mail, at least ten days*
notice of the time and place of the hearing.

^' Hearing . At the time and place fixed, the Committee shall
hold a hearing on the charges. V.o member of the Committee
shall sit on a matter that involves a member of his division
or department. A majority of the Committee shall constitute
a quorum for the conduct of the hearing.

Except as hereinafter provided, the hearing shall be conducted according
to such rules as the Committee may from time to time establish.

The hearing need not he conducted ac
to evidence and witnesses. Any pertinent oral
received, but the Committee shall as a matter
of irrelevant or unduly repetitious evidence.
the Committee shall be supported by and in ace
Every party shall have the right to present hi
mentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence,
examination as may be required for a full and

cording to technical rules relating
or documentary evidence may be

of policy provide for the exclusion
All findings and recommendations of

ordance with substantial evidence.

s case or defense by oral or docu-
and to conduct such cross -

true disclosure of the facts.

The defendant shall be entitled to be present at all sessions of "the
Committee when evidence is being received and to have with him an adviser of
his own choice who may act as counsel. Likewise the person preferring the
charges shall be entitled to be present d'oring the progress of the hearing,
and to be represented during the hearing by any person of his choice.

A full stenographic record of the hparing shall be made and shall be
available only to the parties concerned.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee shall promptly make its
findlrgsandreronrnendatinns, the original of which together with the stenographic
record shall be filed with the President. Copies of the findings and recommen-
dations shall be transmitted to the defendant and to the person preferring the

charges . The findings, reconmendations and stenographic record of the hearing,
original and copies, shall he confidential.

^* ^resldemlal Review, The President snail review tne findings
and recDErr.endatione of the Cocinittee and confer vith the de-
fendant if the latter so requests. If the President's recom-
mendation vould result in disidlssal or demotion, he shall
thereupon make a report to the Board of Regents with respect
to the disposition of the case.

III. Fa c ul t y Handb ook . The Unified Conmittee recommends that the Office
of the President include in the Orientation Eandtook for Faculty Members the
Standing Orders of the I^oard of Regents and resolutions of the Academic Senate
governing appointment, promotion, and tenure.

-13-

AI

FACULTY TEIIURE AT OTffiR UNIVERSITIES AIvTD COLLEGES

Replies to the quest! onnRire prepared "by this Coininitte*' and sent to
5^ colleges and universities in the United States and Canada vere received from
52 institutions. In 3^ instances replies were received from "both the president
or his designated representative and from one or more faculty members. In 9
instances replies have not been received from the faculty member to whom the
Questionnaire vas sent. In the case of 9 institutions, the information vas re-
ceived from a faculty representative, but no reply was received from the admin-
istration. A joint faculty-administration reply was received from 2 institutions;
2 others failed to reply to the questionnaires sent out although a fcllov-up
letter was dispatched. Replies received, however, are from institutions located
in all regions of the United States. State supported universities, large en-
dowed universities, small liberal arts colleges, technical schools, and agri-
cultural and mechanical colleges are represented. A large number of the replies
followed the questionnaire outline metjculously. Many wrote general letters and
enclosed copies of manuals or other publications.

It is apparent that many institutions have adopted formal regulations
concerning both the appointment of faculty to tenure positions and the dismissal
or discipline of faculty only within the past 7 or S years. In a small number
of instances, boards of trustees have adopted or given favorable recognition to
the statement of principles of academic freedom and of tenure formulated by the
American Association of University Professors and the American Association of
Colleges in 19^0. In some instances the trustees have adopted other similar
statements of policy and principle. Replies to the Committee questionnaire were
delayed in a number of instances because discussions were going on during the 195^*
1951 college year regarding changes in rules and policies pertaining to appoint-
ment in tenure positions. Cornell was a good example of this, Fenn State was
another. The reply from the University of Colorado was delayed because cf a
lengthy hearing in a ten-ore case that had been conducted before the Faculty Com-
mittee on Tenure and Privilege and the President.

Many institutions that had proceeded for years purely according to
custom, or have had only fragmentary written r^oles . ve found it desirable to
think out and formulate rules and procedures. In some institutions this came
after a distressing incident. Judging from the letters, however, it would appear
that most of this tendency to write out statements of policy and specifications
of procedure has arisen from an awareness of new problems and a desire to improve
faculty personnel policies before -'incidents" arose. In the majority of in-
stances, it wo^Jild appear that the initiative in this work came from the faculty,
but in some the administration took the lead, inviting faculty proposals.

Inspection of the materials sent to the Committee makes clear that
emphasis has been placed upon (a) definitions of tenure stated in terms of rank,
(b) statements of policy delimiting the length of the probationary period for
instructors and assistant professors, (c) statements of principles to govern
tenure and academic freedom. In other words, there has been more preoccupation
with the appointment and promotion process than witn procedural matters involved
la d-ismissals. At the pame time It should cause no surprise that tne amount of
faculty participation in the appointing process, as well as in the disciplinary
proced^ore, varies widely. In general, however, it would appear that there is a

-lU

I I

strong trend toward increasing the extent of faculty participation in university
government. With this trend has come the development of stated procedures,
handbooks, manuals, policy statements, formal interpretation of rules. This
appears to be more pronounced among the large state universities than among other
institutions of higher learning.

From the evidence contained in the replies to our questionnaire, it
would appear that the president is the customary channel for making nominations
to tenure ranks in the faculty. While the board of trustees or the board of
regents has legal authority, it is a commonly accepted practice that the board
appoints only upon the recommendation of the president. Most institutions report
that appointment to tenure rank is made with advice of the faculty. In the major-
ity of schools this is upon the recommendation of the chairman and senior members
of the department. The college dean reviews the appointment and makes a recom-
mendation to the president. Almost no reports were received of appointments hav-
ing been made to tenure positions without faculty advice; however, some reports
of promotion to tenure rank without faculty advice were included. In addition to
departmental recommendation some institutions have standing committees of the
faculty to review tenure appointment proposals. Some employ ad hoc committees
for this. Those having standing committees of one type or another include
Pennsylvania, Princeton, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Montana, Wisconsin,
Stanford, Dartmouth, Beed, Pomona, Oregon and Saskatchewan. Those with ad hoc
committees of review include Texas, Johns Hopkins, Amherst, Toronto and British
Columbia. Few have as extensive a system of standing ad hoc committees of the
faculty to advise upon appointments to tenure ranks as that found at the Univer-
sity of California.

Forms and procedures for notifying a faculty member of tenure rank of
his appointment vary almost as widely as institutions. As in the case of Harvard,
Princeton and Columbia, the notice of appointment is a handsome certificate.
Yale sends the appointee a copy of the appropriate minute of the corporation show-
ing the appointment. The majority of institutions indicated that some form
letter or notice is used. In a few cases individual letters are sent; in still
fewer, notification is made orally by an administrative officer. In most
instances, however, where a formal notice is sent, that notice indicates whether
the appointment has been made for indefinite tenure or for a specific term. In a
relatively few instances, the appropriate by-law or statute defining conditions
of faculty tenure is printed on the notice form. Twenty-three answers indicated
Bpecifically that faculty are not required to sign the notice of appointment or
"contract" form. Ten indicated that a signature or some acknowledgment was
required, and the remainder did not specify. Thirty-three institutions indicated
that they do not use annual contracts. The original notice cf employment is re-
garded as sufficient. If there is a change in salary, most institutions have a
printed slip or form that is sent indicating the new salary. Some use the same
procedure to notify of a promotion, wnereas others send a new appointment form or
letter indicating the higher rarik and the conditions of tenure pertaining to it.
Five institutions replied that they used annual contracts, although not all cf
those required a signature to the form referred to as a contract. The practice
followed by the majority appears to regard the appointment of a faculty member
with indefinite tenure as having been completed when the board acted upon the
nomination of the president which in turn had been supported by faculty advice.
The form or letter of notice is regarded as an action "following through" and
informing the person of the action and of his status which resulted. The "annual
contract" for faculty members presumed to have permanent tenure is recognized
only in minority practice.

-15-

Of the institutions studied, Ul have statutes or by-laws governing
appointment to tenure positions. In a large nuir.ber of instances, these rules or
statements of policy are printed or mimeographed and distributed (or are a.v^^il-
able) . Forty-seven report that professors have permanent tenure. Some, for ex-
ample, Columnia and Amherst, indicate that all appointments are "at the pleasure
of the Board of Trustees," although in practice those of professorial rank have
permanent tenure. Some others, for example. Brown and Penn State, indicate that
professors had permanent tenure if specifically recommended and voted for the
individual. Fifteen institutions report that they have a "probationary" period
for professors appointed from other institutions. Reappointment carries perma-
nent tenure. These initial t.^rm appointments range from 1 to 5 years, with 3
years most common.

Forty-one institutions report that associate professors have permanent
tenure. Twenty-two have "probationary" terms for those appointed to the rank from
other institutions. Some, for example, Yale, give permanent tenure to this rank
only by specific vote in individual instances, but grant permanent tenure to
professors generally.

A most commonly stated rule recognizes a probationary period of 6 to 8
years for assistant professors. Few schools grant ten'ore autom-atically at the
end of that time. Only 3 or 4 schools reported that permc'.nent tenure is given
regularly to assistant professors under specific rule or definite practice. Most
regulations reported in this survey provide that assistant professors shill be
apDointed for 'i-yeex terms. Renewal of appointment beyond the probationary period
indicated is stated as establishing permanent tenure for the individual. In most
instances, the rule is that the department and the administration shall review
the record at the end of 5 "to 6 years and shall recommend either promotion cr a
1-year terminal contract. In some instances the time spent in other institutions
is credited formally toward the completion of the probationary period. For ex-
ample, Ohio State grants an assistant professor permanent tenure after three
years if appointed from a.nother institution where service has been at that rank.
New York University gives recognition for service in other institutions in deter-
mining the number of years to be served before permanent tenure is acquired at
anv rank.

Fewer institutions reported specific legislation or by-laws regarding
dismissal procedure than reported specific procedures for appointment to tenure
positions. Thirty-six have some statement regarding these procedures. Twenty cf
this number specify certain grounds for dismissal. Included among those grcuucs
are: felony or deliberate breach of law or established code of moral concj-t,
gross immorality, incompetence and neglect of duty. Several institution?, both
publicly supported and endowed, include financial exigencies of institutions as
one reason for possible release of faculty members on permanent tenure. In a few
instances, for example, Kansas and Oklahoma, state law limits all appointr.jcntn to
one year on the theory that the state cannot be bound to commitments or o:; c-ju.i-
t'ores in the future. Similar legislation applies to faculty in ccrta-ii. sc'iools
and colleges at Cornell. However, the University Regents there have auc-:^'-ed a
statement of policy assuring faculty members with permanent tenure in bow^n the
endowed and the state-supported colleges of continuance unless state funds are
drastically reduced in the future.

Several institutions that have formal statements regarding dismissal
indicate only that a faculty member on tenure may be removed for "cause." Most
of the statements specify a short list of causes for which dismissal may be made.

-16-

Tventy-five of the institutions studied specify that a dismissed faculty
member shall be entitled to a hearing. Three or i'our provide specifically that
a faculty member may be suspended by the president or dean pending a hearing.
Eighteen provide for some tyve of standing committee of the faculty to hear cases
involving a member vith indefinite tenure or a faculty member who has been dis-
missed before the end of his normal term. Often these committees are committees
of general reference that advise the administration on appointments and other
matters of university and faculty welfare. Th<^ others provide for ad hoc com-
mittees, usually selected by the president. In some, provision is made for hearing
before an ad hoc conmittee composed of 1 or 2 faculty members selected by the
accused faculty member, an equal number selected either by the president or by the
chairman of the board, and an additional member chosen by the other members of the
committee.

Colorado, Texa.T, V/ashington and Minnesota Universities have standing
committees selected by the faculty to hold hearings on cases involving faculty
tenure. Minnesota's committee is called the "Judicial Committee." A second
committee composed of faculty representatives and adminiptrative officers and
chaired by the vice-president meets periodically to interpret tenure rules and
legislation.

Pennsylvania, Cal Tech, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana State, and Texas
A and M refer in their by-laws to dismissal hearings before a commattee of the
governing board. In som^ instances, the faculty committee and the trustees'
committee are permdtted to sit jointly, or the latter is directed to confer with
the faculty committee.

Princeton, Stanford, Cornell, Penn State, Rutgers, Texas, Cklahcmxa,
Utah, Colorado and VJashington indicated mr^re or less specifically that the record
of the hearing before the faculty committee, together with the recommendations
of that committee, shall be transmitted to the governing board. In several such
rules, it is not clear whether the president is simply the channel of communica-
tion. His responsibilities for making a finding and recommendation to the beard
are not specified. In institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago and
Stanford, however, it is very clear that the president has full responsibility
for advising the board. The rules of the Stanford Trustees specify that individual
Trustees m.ay not interfere in a dismissal case. The President is directed to lay
the record and recommendations before an open meeting of the Trustees. A m^ajority
vote of those Trustees present decides.

Only a few of the most recently drawn regulations specify procedures for
notifying a dismissed faculty member of the charges against him. Several replies
to the questionnaire stated that so few dismissal cases occurred in that institu-
tion that procedures had not been formalized; however, that it was assumed to be
the responsibility of the department chairman to inform^ the dismissed member of
the charges against him. In others, the dean of xhe appropriate college or the
president was regarded as responsible for this action. In those institutions
where the regulations provide for a review of the record by the governing board,
reference is made more or less specifically to the opportunity of the accused to
make such statements as he desires in his defense, and that those statements will
be included in the record and made available to the president and the beard of
trustees .

Penn State, Texas, Cornell, Oklahom.a, Colorado, Michigan, Washington,
and Nebraska indicate that stenographic reports are required of hearings.

-17-

MisGouri^ Utah, Illinois, and Stanford state that a summary or "record" of pro-
ceedings shall be kept and shall be forwarded to the governing body. Others do
not specify.

Eighteen of the institutions studied specify in some manner that a
statement of accusation shall be furnished the accused. Not all specified that
it shall be in writing. Utah requires that the President shall give a full state-
ment to the Faculty Council as well as to the individual. Pennsylvania states
that the accused shall be informed in writing within 10 days after being suspended
from employment. Several institutions provide that a faculty member shall be
dismissed "immediately" in a case involving moral turpitude.

A small number of the university regulations provide that except in
cases where moral turpitude is proven, or in case of treason, compensation shall
be paid the dismissed faculty member for one year beyond the date of dismissal.

From the replies received, it appears that 3 institutions have some
type of oath prescribed by the governing board. Sixteen reported that state oath
requirements for teachers applied to their faculty. In two instances, a state
law that had been in effect for several years had been interpreted recently to
apply to the college or university faculty for the first time. The information
is not entirely complete because some replies indicated that the Legislature was
contemplating an oath requirement, but that the outcome was not known at the time
of reply. Almost all state oaths were stated in terms of supporting the consti-
tution of the state and nation and of upholding the established form of govern-
ment. The new state oath in Oklahoma goes much beyond those requirements,
however, Faculty members in the State of Washington are required by law to
subscribe to two oaths .

Most replies to the questionnaire stated that there had been no dis-
missals of tenure faculty members for many years. Therefore, no answer could be
given to the questions regarding practice. In some instances, it was reported
that the faculty member had resigned and had not requested a hearing; a few
instances reported removals for mental unbalance, and in almost no such instance
was a faculty committee consulted. Missouri replied that it was still on the
AAUP disapproved list for having dismissed a tenure faculty member some years
ago. However, the University Board has adopted a policy within the past two
years concerning academic freedom and tenure that is based upon the AAUP policy
statement of I9U0.

The University of Washington sent a digest of the hearings before a
faculty committee of five faculty members charged with membership in the Communist
Party. The committee divided in its findings and recommendations. Ultimately
two of the five men were dismissed by the board.

The University of Colorado, likewise, sent a copy of the report and
recommendations of the Comihittee on Privilege and Tenure and a statement by the
President regarding a hearing on a case involving a faculty member who had been
accused of being a member of the Communist Party and of having concealed this
membership when employed by the University, The committee presented a unanimous
finding that the allegations mentioned above were contrary to fact and that other
allegations were insufficient to warrant dismissal. Therefore the ccmmittee
recommended that the faculty member be retained. The governing board accepted
the recommendations of the faculty committee.

-18-

f]t 'I9\J^

/d^

[^vv\i\ K^\A-^arcnw ci CoUec-^\ (^k

^"^m

?Qrf\pW^ r^^icnbtn^ oa^W ^M- ClAvu^€^-^i^

Cavi-iiov^f^U

±

To Bring You the

Facts . . .

*The issue is not
Communism; it
is the welfare
and dignity of
our University."

[a message for all officers and council members of the

ALUMNI associations OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA]

"Agahi, for that other conceit that learn-
ing should xuidertnine the reverence of laws
and governtnent, it is assuredly a mere de-
pravation and caluniyiy, ivithout all shadow
of truth. For to say that a blind custom of
obedience should be a surer obligation than
duty taught and understood, it is to affirm
that a blind man may tread surer by a guide
than a seeing man can by a light. And it
is without all controversy that learninn doth
make the minds of men gentle, generous,
maniable, and pliant to government, whereas
ignorance makes them churlish, thwart, and
mutiyious; and the evidence of time doth
clear this assertion, considering that the most
barbarous, rude, and unlearned times have
been most subject to tumults, seditions, and

changes . . ."

Francis IJacon,
The Advayicement of
Learning (1605)

August 17, 1950

Mr. Maynard Toll, President, California Alunnii Association
Mr. John E. Canaday, President, U.C.L.A. Alumni Association
Mr. Herbert E. Barker, President, Calilornia Aggie Alumni Associa-
tion
Mr. F. P. O'Reilly, President, Santa Barbara College Alumni Associa-
tion

Dear Fellow Alumni:

We believe that the University oi Calilornia, its President and its
future are in dire peril. 'Fhe day can be saved only by a return to
reason, good sjxjrtsmanship and good faith.

We believe that the alunnii associations must now act to make their
inlluence felt.

I'o bring you the facts, we append four letters. The first, to Gov-
ernor Warren, deals with the provisions of the Alumni compromise;
the second expresses the views of Professor John D. Hicks on the same
matter; the third states the general problem as seen by Dr. Monroe
E. 13eutsch; and the fourth, by Professor Edward C. I'olman, shows
who some of the non-signers are and why they have stood their ground.

Ihey are long, they are not easy reading, but they present con-
siderations to which we invite your earnest attention. From them you
will find, we believe, that the issue is not Communism: it is the wel-
fare and dignity of our University.

If you believe, as we do, that there must be no repudiation of the
July 21, 1950, action of the Regents in approving the reconnnendations
of President Sproul, we urge that you make your views known to the
Regents prior to their next meeting at Berkeley on August 25th.

Sincerely,

Charles A. Ramm '84
James K. Moefitt '86
Herbert C. Moefitt '89
William Denman '94
Alexander M. Kidd '99
Monroe E. Deutsch '02
Emma M. McLaughlin '02
Robert Sibley '03
Irene H. Gerlinger '04

Robert Mc Williams '04
Albert M. Paul '09
W^ALTER A. Haas '10
Daniel Koshland '15
Arthur W. Towne '16
Ruth A. Turner '17
Harriet J. Eliel '19
Harley C. Stevens '22
Edward G. Chandler '26

Copies to all Officers and Council Members
of the above Associations

1

August 16, 1950
His Excellency, Earl Warren
President of the Regents

of the University of California
Sacramento 14, California

Dear Governor Warren:

It seems to us that the question concerning the 40 nonsigners has become
a very narrow one, namely:

Does the resolution adopted by the Regents on April 21, 1950, provide
for a hearing by the Senate Faculty Committee on Privilege and I'enure as
an alternative to signing the special letter of acceptance?

If it does, surely every Regent would want that alternative to stand in
good faith.

We suggest that an important key to the answer appears largely to have
been overlooked and forgotten. It lies in the recommendations of the Alumni
Committee chairmanned by Mr. Bechtel. These recommendations, dated
April 19, 1950, were the basis of the Regents' resolution two days later.

VV^ith that in mind, we invite your attention to the core of the Commit-
tee's report.

On the second page, the Committee carefully defined the problems it
undertook to solve. These are the exact words:

"1. Should faculty and other employees of the University be re-
quired to declare individually their status with respect to membership
in the Communist Party?

"2. Should the President and the faculty have the same right of
review in cases of members who refuse to conform to a firm policy
which excludes members of the Communist Party from employment in
the University, and the right to recommend to the Regents the action
to be followed, as they do in all other matters affecting tenure?"

Is it not perfectly clear from the foregoing that the Committee regarded
the right of review as a major aspect of the over-all problem?

After discussing both of the quoted two-fold problems, and after stating
that "the Committee finds almost unanimous opinion among ail groups
that there should be no departure from right of review by Faculty and Presi-
dent, with right to recommend to Regents", the Alumni Committee proceeds
to make, unanimously, its five-point settlement recommendation.

The recommendation as to the signing of the new contract of employment
(containing the clause that the signer is not a member of the Conmiunist
Party, etc.) reads as follows:

"3. All parties be invited to sign the 'New Contract of Employ-
ment', but those who have already signed the so-termed 'Loyalty Oath'
will not be required to sign the 'New Contract of Employment' for the
current academic year."

Now if the recommendation of the Alumni Committee was, as some claim,
that signing the new contract of employment be the only means of obtaining
re-employment, it is simply incredible to us that the word "invited" should
have been used. It would have been so easy to use the word "required" or

2

otherwise to make it clear, if such was the recommendation of the Alumni
Committee, that "no special contract, no job".

But, of course, that was not the recommendation of the Committee, as
can be seen from the fifth recommendation, which reads as follows:

"5. Non-signers * * * who fail to sign for any reason * * * may
petition through the President for a hearing by the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure, after which the Regents will consider the find-
ings and recommendations of the Committee and the President before
making a decision. This has been the long standing procedure on this
and similar matters and in no manner interferes with or changes the
so-termed 'Tenure or Review' Privileges which are so close to the
hearts of the faculty."

Do not these perfectly plain words make it crystal clear that the Alumni
Committee held out to non-signers the honorable alternative of petition and
review? And since the Regents' resolution was intended to carry out that
compromise, is it not incumbent upon the Regents, as a matter of good
faith, to honor the recommendations of the President of the University and
of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, unless the Regents, as to any
particular individual recommended for reappointment, have some genuine
basis for denying reappointment on the ground that that individual is a
Commimist or Communist sympathizer or otherwise unfit to teach?

We respectfully urge upon you that the question now is no more than
one of good faith in honoring the provisions governing the settlement of
the oath controversy.

In fact, we wonder if the question now before you may not be even
narrower. A majority of the Regents at the last meeting acted to approve the
recommendations of the President in regard to the 40 non-signers. Surely
this action, so well justified by the facts, should not now be repudiated.

Yours for the University,

James K. Moffitt, 1886
Monroe E. Deutsch, 1902
Harlev C. Stevens, 1922

cc: Dr. Robert Gordon Sproul,
President of the University

of California
Berkeley, California

3

Mr. Stephen D. Bechtel
244 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, California

August 3, 1950

Dear Mr. Bechtel:

You will recall that at Davis last April, following the meeting of the
Board of Regents which adopted the Alumni Compromise, I said something
like this to you: "You have prevented mass murder, but when the executions
begin one at a time, we shall look to you again for help." You then took
little stock in my statement, and tried to assure me that our troubles were
over.

It now appears that I was wrong even in my assumption that the Alumni
Committee had prevented mass murder. At the July meeting of the Board,
thirty-nine tenure memlicrs of the faculty, all of whom the Senate Conmiittee
on Privilege and Tenure had cleared of the slightest taint of Communism,
were saved from dismissal only by a ten to nine vote. Thereupon Regent
Neylan changed his vote from the minority to the majority, and served notice
that at the August meeting of the Board he would move a reconsideration.
Following this, the University Attorney ruled, quite mysteriously and unac-
countably, that the Secretary of the Board of Regents would have to wait
until after the August meeting before sending out contracts to the thirty-nine
non-signers, as the ten to nine vote had ordered. A count of absentees at the
July meeting makes it seem almost certain that, if Neylan can only get a full
meeting of the Board, he will succeed in his determination to see the execu-
tions carried out.

Such action, by any rational interpretation of the Alunnii Compromise,
must be construed as a complete breach of faith. If the pledge to refer the
cases of non-signers to the Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure meant
anything at all, it meant that the Regents could be expected to give favorable
consideration to the report of the Committee. This was the understanding
of the President, of the faculty, and certainly of about half the Board of
Regents. It was on this understanding that the Committee of Seven, which
I headed, laid down its arms, and returned some $12,000 cash in hand to the
donors. Any other interpretation of the Alumni Compromise would have
made it conform with the well-known vigilante concept, "Give a man a fair
trial and hang him." I am totally unwilling to believe that the distinguished
members of the Alumni Committee could ever have been capable of making
so fraudulent a proposal.

If the Neylan faction of the Board succeeds in carrying through its pro-
gram, it is hard to see how the faculty can ever again have faith in the Board
of Regents. Such action would constitute the second complete double-cross
of the faculty by the Regents within a few months. The first instance came
when we were assured by spokesmen for the Regents, both privately and
publicly, that if we could get the Senate on record in support of the Regents'
policy opposing the employment of Communists, the oath requirement would
be handled in such a way as to satisfy the faculty. Believing what we were
told, and acting in good faith, we put over on a mail ballot by nearly an
eighty percent majority the kind of resolution that we were told the Regents
desired. But at their next meeting they refused, although only by a ten to

.. I

ten vote, to rescind the requirement of the oath. We should have been
warned by this experience, but we convinced ourselves that there were
enough men of good will on the Board that, with the backing of the Alumni
Committee, we could count on a fair interpretation of the proposed com-
promise. It now appears that we can count on nothing. At the last meeting
of the Board even the new President of the Alumni Association voted against
us. Surely, surely your Committee can do something about that.

You remember, I trust, that I was one of the first to sign the Anti-Com-
munist oath, and that my only objection, personally, to the contract pro-
posed by the Alumni Committee was the way in which, by requiring annual
repetitions, it completely vitiates any legal claim to tenure rights on the part
of the faculty. My interest in this case stems in no way from sympathy with
Communists or Connnunism. No one on this faculty or on the Board of
Regents, has fought these wreckers any harder than I have. If any member
of the thirty-nine non-signers were tainted with Communism, I would be
against him. But the integrity of these men has been abundantly proved. 7 he
matter before us has nothing to do with Communism. The question is merely
one of good faith. Will the Regents keep their implied pledge, or will they
flout it?

I need not tell you how serious will be the consequences of the dismissal
of these thirty-nine men, many of them scholars of world renown. The repu-
tation of the University will drop to an all-time low. There will be the
customary investigation by the American Association of University Profes-
sors, followed by a devastating and well-publicized report. The University
of California will be blacklisted, and all good men will be warned to avoid
it. There will be few immediate resignations, for most of us cannot afford
that luxury, but gradually the valuable men on our faculty will accept calls
elsewhere, while our efforts to recruit competent scholars from the outside
will fail (as they are already failing) . The same dry-rot that has virtually
destroyed the University of Texas, following a similar episode, will set in
at California. • • •

May we not count on you to help us prevent this "lasting havoc" from
being wrought upon your Alma Mater?

Sincerely,

cc: Paul L. Davies

Milton H. Esberg, Jr.
Kathryn K. Fletcher
Don H. McLaughlin
Governor Earl Warren
President Robert Gordon Sproul

John D. Hicks

[Copy of Dr. Deutsch's Leiter to Each Regent]

San Francisco, California
Mr. Earl J. Fenston July 17, 1950

504 Helm Building
Fresno 1, California

Dear Mr. Fenston:

As one who has served the University of California for forty years, as an
alumnus of the University, and not least as a citizen of the State who has
taken the greatest of pride in the University of California, I am taking the
liberty of writing you at this critical moment in the history of the University.

There is great danger that sight will be lost of what has been the purpose
the Regents have ever had in mind. I'hat was clearly and undeniably to pre-
vent the employment of Communists in the University. Accordingly (regard-
less of the past history of the incident and the misunderstandings which have
occurred) the one question and the only question which should arise jeopard-
izing the position of anyone in the University ought to be: "Is he a Com-
munist?" To ascertain this, the Regents established a form of contract in
which the individual has the opportunity to declare he is not a Communist.
But the Regents, recognizing the hostility of some members of the University
to signing such a statement, expressly provided that those who for any reason
objected to signing, would have the right of a hearing before the Faculty
Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The recommendations of that commit-
tee (presumably on the one question of Communist membership) were to
go to the President, and after he had considered them he was to submit his
recommendations in each case to the Regents.

The Faculty assumed— and had a right to assume— that these recommenda-
tions would not be lightly considered. After all it is obvious that the Commit-
tee (like any jury) took into account the attitude of the individual when he
appeared before it, and besides the members of the Committee had had many
an opportunity to know much of his general point of view.

Certainly if the Regents (or any of them) had evidence disproving the
recommendations submitted, they have a right and a duty to present it.

But the issue (it must not be forgotten) rests on the one point: "Is he a
Communist?" If there is well-grounded evidence to doubt in any case, I should
feel that it would be in accord with the previous action of the Regents to refer
the new material to the President to be considered by the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure for later report to him, and a subsequent recommenda-
tion by him to the Board. Surely the Regents do not wish to be in the posi-
tion of both prosecuting attorney and judge, nor condemn a man without
his having opportunity to present his evidence on a charge that may be
against him.

Moreover, it must be remembered that in the Standing Orders of the
Regents it is provided that the President shall submit recommendations as
to appointments, promotions, demotions and dismissals, and in reference to
such acts it has been wisely the settled policy of the Regents to accept the
President's recommendations. For the Regents to endeavor to take over these
functions would mean the certain and inevitable destruction of the position
of the University. Even if they limited themselves to dismissals, it would un-
questionably jeopardize the University, for the causes which would prompt
their actions, would inevitably become more and more numerous. And as

a result of the destruction of the principle of tenure recognized in all Uni-
versities in the group to which California has belonged, and the interference
with freedom of thought (and not merely academic freedom) , men and
women of scholarly standing and self-respect would refuse to remain in the
University or come to it.

Those who have not signed have been impelled as much by their con-
sciences as have the so-called "conscientious objectors." They may not be driv-
en by religious motives, but I have never heard that that is the only thing that
disturbs a man's conscience. I believe with Cardinal Gibbons that "conscience
is the supreme law which under no circumstances can we ever lawfully dis-
obey". Besides the Regents' action expressly permitted men to decline to
sign for any reason whatsoever; it was not limited to religious motives.

The Faculty have made absolutely clear that they agree with the Regents'
policy in excluding Communists. If proof— and convincing proof— can be evi-
denced that a man is a Communist, they will have no ground to protest.

When the Regents acted on the report of the Alumni Committee, I
urged the Faculty to cooperate with the Regents' action on the assumption of
good faith on both sides. To dismiss a man for other than proved Commun-
ism is (I say it respectfully) not in good faith.

It has been rumored that the Regents may exempt from their dismissal
eminent members of the faculty, men with war service records, and consci-
entious objectors on religious grounds. I have already discussed the last
group. As to men of eminence, may I remind you that Justice in our land
should never distinguish between the eminent or the wealthy or the power-
ful, as against the humble, the poor, the powerless? "Is he a Communist?" is
the only issue.

As to war service it is obvious that that depended wholly (and I repeat
the word wholly) on age, physical condition, and sex. Is the accident that one
was too old or too young for military service to determine his dismissal?
Surely that is not Justice in the American sense of the word.

It may be objected that I have used the word "dismissed," when what is
in mind is a non-renewal of a contract. That is a distinction without a dif-
ference. The world will quickly learn who these men are and they will be
"smeared" as Communists despite their complete innocence. Moreover this
will seriously impair their opportunity to secure another post.

Already economic pressure has operated on a considerable number and
caused them, despite their strong opposition, to sign the contracts. Many
have written letters making their positions clear. Should there be pride in
the fact that men have yielded their conscientious views to protect their
families? I suspect that such motives have caused innocent men in Soviet
courts to confess "crimes" which they did not commit.

The University has already suffered greatly from this whole controversy.
While the past cannot be undone, yet for the present the matter may be
brought to a close if the Regents do what the Faculty had a right to assume
they would do— i. e. accept the recommendations of the President as to the
non-signers, based upon the reports of the Faculty Committee. It was an
extremely strong and able Committee; the loyalty of its members is unim-
peachable.

I pray with all the strength I can command that at the meeting on July
21 this step will be taken. Sincerelv

\

Monroe E. Deutsch

July 18, 1950

Pri.sidknt Robert Gordon Sproul
University of California
Berkeley, California

Dear President Sproul:

I respectfully address you on behalf of members of the faculty of the
University of California who, for reasons of principle, have followed the
procedure for petition and review provided in the April 21, 1950, resolution
of the Regents of the University of California. In a larger sense, our message
could well be addressed to the students, administrators and faculties of all
American universities, as well as to the people of our country.

At the outset, it is important to bear in mind that the resolution of April
21st, a copy of wliich is attached, makes it clear that faculty members who
chose not to sign the prescribed form of letter of acceptance were provided
by the Regents with "the right of petition and review" which "will be fully
observed". The stated right of petition and review was specified, by the reso-
lution, to consist of review of each case "by the Committee on Privilege and
1 enure of the Academic Senate, including investigation of and full hearing
on the reasons" for the failure to sign the special letter of acceptance. All
for whom I speak have, in good faith, folhiwed this procedure designated by
the Regents and have done so in their belief that the Regents recognized that
investigation by our fellow-teachers is at least as reliable a means of determin-
ing loyalty as the mere signing of a statement.

Another important preliminary matter which should be set out is this:
The Regents have never repudiated either the findings or the recommenda-
tions of the C^ommittee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate.
The tradition has been inviolate that, for all practical purposes, that com-
mittee determines the fitness of facultv members.

4

These considerations as to the significance of the effect of the resolution
of April 21, 1950, are, it seems to us, not only clear from the express words
of that resolution, but were made doubly so by repeated statements of spokes-
men for and on behalf of the Regents in urging faculty acceptance of the
compnmiise contained in that resolution.

There is a final preliminary. We do not address you, and through you
the Regents, in any legalistic manner. At the same time, we think that some
support, at least, for the views we shall express may be found in the Consti-
tution of our State, which declares that the University of California is a
public trust, that it shall be kept entirely independent of all political or
sectarian influence and, in another section of the State Constitution, that no
oath, declaration or test beyond that of the oath to support the Constitutions
of the United States and of the State of California may be required as a
qualification for any public trust.

Appended is a partial list of the men and women who address this message
to you. You know them and their families well. Many are eminent scholars
and scientists; all are loyal to the United States of America; all have served
our country in or out of uniform; all share a deep love for their University;
most have served it for years; some have dedicated their entire adult lives to
that service.

8

\

On July 21, 1950, the Regents will make a decision of vital importance to
the nation, to our University and to the lives of ourselves and our families.
That decision will bear upon an issue which for more than a full year has
profoundly disturbed all concerned with the welfare of the University.

If the year of turmoil had clearly defined the issue and really settled it,
we would not now be addressing you. The tragedy, it seems to us, is that it
really has not been defined and settled. Therefore, we propose to state the
issue as we see it and to submit our suggestions for fair settlement.

The one basic issue is and always has been academic freedom— freedom to
teach the truth in good conscience and without fear.

To face that basic issue, one must clear away matters upon which there
is no disagreement. May we try to do so at once?

1. Loyalty to the United States, its Constitution and its laws is a
prerequisite to the privilege of teaching. All of us stand ready to swear
to defend and support the Constitution of the United States.

2. Membership in the Comnumist Party or any other organization
whicii advocates the overthrow of the government by force or violence
disqualifies anyone from the privilege of teaching at the University of
California. All of us recognize that loyalty to any doctrine of totalitar-
ianism shackles the free pursuit of truth.

S. Final authority over all the affairs of the University of California
lies in the Regents. The Constitution of the State of California so pro-
vides.

4. The basic issue is not changed by the crisis in Korea. All history
proves that it is in just such moments of crisis that liberty is most
dangerously threatened by fear and passion; therefore, these are times
in which it is more imperative than ever to stand firm for the freedoms
which distinguish democracy from totalitarianism.

Recognition and understanding of the real issue calls for our clear answer
to those who ask, "Well, if you're not Communists, and if you don't believe
in overthrowing the government by force and violence, why aren't you will-
ing to sign up and say so?"

To give such answer is the burden we now assume.

We believe that the one basic difference between democracy and totali-
tarianism (whether the latter takes the guise of Communism or Fascism or
Nazism) is this: In a democracy a man is judged and his rights are deter-
mined on fair evidence, fairly considered and fairly acted upon by a fair tri-
bunal. In a democracy, neither a man nor his rights nor his reputation are
condemned because of mere whisper or hate or prejudice or because he re-
fuses to tip his hat or to Ik)w or to scrape or to sign on the dotted line.

In a totalitarian state, any man, his rights and his reputation may ar-
bitrarily be destroyed for such trivial reasons. His worth, his dignity, his
conscience and his competence may be swept aside by the nod of the head
or the turn of the thumb.

Here in America, neither lives nor jobs nor property are condemned
without a fair hearing and fair action based upon facts. Our very wav of
life and our form of government are based upon the fundamental principle
that we presume the innocence and not the guilt of human beings; that
presumption is the bulwark against arbitrary' exercise of power.

If we are "fired" from work with the University and students to whom
we are devoted only because we cannot in good conscience sign on the dotted
line, isn't that a species of arbitrary condemnation? Isn't it the nod of the
head or the turn of the thumb?

And is it not especially so in view of the fact that on April 21, 1950, the
Regents assured us that "in any case of failure to sign . . . the right of petition
and review will be fully observed"?

All of us have exercised that right and have appeared willingly before
the hearing connnittee specified by the Regents.

We are advised that that committee has found that there is neither Com-
munism nor disloyalty nor any other incompetence in any of us. This is the
solid fact as to all of us. It applies e(|ually to the several of us who could
not in good conscience make oral statements equivalent to the written state-
ment which all elected not to sign. Surely those who stood so staunchly on
principle should not be victimized. Academic freedom can be frustrated by
sacrificing a single innocent person.

Are, then, the findings of the faculty Committee on Privilege and Tenure
to be disregarded? Are we now, having followed the very alternative offered
to us by the Regents, to be discharged from our jobs and our students be-
cause we still choose not to sign?

It seems to us that if the findings of our traditional Committee on Privi-
lege and Tenure are rejected and if we are told to get out, the damaging
and unfair public assumption will be that the Regents have undisclosed evi-
dence against us. Even more important, if the findings of our colleagues are
discarded, not only is our individual academic freedom destroyed, but that
of the faculty as a whole is threatened.

It is threatened for a very real reason. At all free American institutions
of higher learning, the ultimate governing authority has traditionally honored
the findings of the faculty in regard to the fitness of teachers. 1 hat tradition
has been the cornerstone of academic freedom. Arbitrary action which dis-
regards findings, as to fitness of teachers, made by duly constituted faculty
committees imperils the tradition and, therefore, academic freedom itself.

No one has seriously contended that the taking of the oath or the signing
of the statement would insure the elimination of Connnunists from the fac-
ulty. The Regents in their resolution of April 21st recognized, wisely we think,
that the purpose sought could as well be served by the hearing procedure
which it prescribed and which we have followed. To us, that procedure seems
not inconsistent with academic freedom. That is why, in complete good faith,
we have followed it.

This still leaves it for us to make it unmistakably clear why we still do re-
fuse to sign the special letter of acceptance. We believe there are many good
reasons. We state only three.

1. W^e choose not to sign on the dotted line because the one thing
that has kept freedom in American universities is the traditional right
of teachers to be judged by their peers as to ability and integrity. Once
the privilege of teaching the young becomes dependent upon signing
any super-imposed statements, we believe our capacity to teach, freely
and honestly, is imperiled. The first signing on the dotted line may
seem trivial and unimportant, but in the tensions of the world today,

the trivial and the unimportant all too readily become the precedent
for the dangerous and the evil.

2. If we sign on the dotted line, we risk losing the faith of our stu-
dents. They ask us (and, more important, ask themselves) , if we are
then still free to speak and teach and write the unadulterated truth.
Or, they ask us and themselves, must we measure our words and gauge
our teaching and scan our writing to be sure that we do not offend
those who required us to sign on the dotted line.

I hese factors of the faith of our students are of the utmost im-
portance. The rights of students are profoundly involved. Indeed, their
freedom is more important than ours. It seems to us that you can hardly
have free students if they are taught by men whose freedom to pursue
the truth is impaired, no matter how slightly, by arbitrary conditions of
employment. And in the climate of a university, where the theoretical
is quite as important as the practical, it does not suffice to say that the
letter of acceptance imposes no practical restraint.

3. We hate and deplore totalitarianism. We despise its stifling of
the individual and of freedom. Therefore, we resist the idea that coer-
cion of teachers is requisite to preservation of free institutions.

If the facts have fairly established that any of us are members of the Com-
munist Party or of any other organization which advocates the overthrow of
the government by force or violence, we ask the Regents so to state and to
refuse us the privilege of teaching at our University. Or if the facts have
fairly established that for any other real and substantial reason we are not
fit to teach, we ask the Regents so to state and to refuse us that privilege.

Otherwise, we petition the Regents to prove to the nation, indeed, to the
world, that the privilege of a loyal and competent man or woman to serve
on the faculty of the University of California does not turn upon anything
so arbitrary as signing on the dotted line.

Our faith in American institutions, in the University and in those who
govern it fortifies our hope that the Regents will continue to support the
faculty connnittce upon which they have traditionally relied and which they
have never repudiated.

We petition the Regents not to discharge, for arbitrary reasons, any in-
nocent person.

Sincerely,

Carbon copy to each
member of the Regents
of the University

Edward C. Tolman
Professor of Psychology

10

11

Resolution Adopted by the Regents of the University
of California on April 21. 1950:

The Regents of the University ot California confirm and emphasize their
poli(y designed to bar members of the Communist Party from employment
by the University as members of the faculty or otherwise, as embodied in
various statements and resolutions including those of October 11, 1910 and
June 24, 1919, which policy is hereby reaffirmed. The Regents are gratified that
the Academic Senate, both Northern and Southern sections, has concurred
in this policy by an overwhelming vote, reported on March 22, 1950.

The Regents have given further consideration to the most effective meth-
ods for the implementation of this established policy, and it is their view that
the objectives previously defined and announced can best be achieved in the
following manner:

After July 1. 1950, which will mark the beginning of a new academic
year, conditions precedent to employment or renewal of employment of
American citizens in the University shall be (1) execution of the constitu-
tional oath of office required of public officials of the State of California and
(2) acceptance of appointment by a letter which shall include the following
provision:

Having taken the constitutional oath of office required of public
officials of the State of California, I hereby formally acknowledge my
acceptance of the position and salaiy named, and also state that I am
not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which
advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, and
that I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with
respect to imfyartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand
that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment and a
consideration of jmyment of my salary.

Inasmuch as aliens are not lawfully subject to an oath of allegiance to
the United States or the State of California, their letters of acceptance shall
be drawn without reference to such oath but shall otherwise in all respects
be identical with those of American citizens.

In any case of failure to sign the constitutional oath and the prescribed
form of letter of acceptance the right of petition and review (referred to
below) will be fully observed.

The foregoing is intended to govern employment and reemployment
alter June 30. 1950. For the balance of the current academic vear, to wit,
until July 1. 1950, account must be taken both of the large majority of fac-
ulty and employees who have subscribed to the loyalty oath of June 24, 1949,
and of the minority who have not. The Regents have on various occasions
nidicated that an alternative affirmation would be accepted from the latter
group if in form approved by the Regents. It is hereby provided that execu-
tion of the constitutional oath of office required of public officials of the State
of California, and acceptance of appointment in the form herein stated, will
be acceptable affirmation in lieu of the oath of June 24, 1949.

The Secretary of the Regents shall promptly mail to all faculty members
and cmjjloyees of the University new letters of acceptance of appointment for
the academic year 1949-50, containing the text of the provision set forth

12

above, and accompanied by the text of the constitutional oath of office of
the State of California. Acceptance in the form prescribed shall be obligatory
for all who have not filed with the Secretary the loyalty oath previously re-
quired by the Regents. Those who have already taken the latter oath need
not follow the described procedure for the current academic year but may
do so if they wish. In such case the oaths to which they have subscribed may
be withdrawn.

In the event that a member of the faculty fails to comply with any fore-
going recpiirement applicable to him he shall have the right to petition the
President of the University for a review of his case by the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate, including an investigation of
and full hearing on the reasons for his failure so to do. Final action shall not
be taken by the lioard of Regents until the Committee on Privilege and
Tenure, after such investigation and hearing, shall have had an opportunity
to submit to the Board, through the President of the University, its findings
and recommendations. It is recognized that final determination in each case
is the prerogative of the Regents.

In order to provide a reasonable time for completion of the foregoing
procedures, the Regents hereby fix May 15, 1950 as the date on or before
which the constitutional oath and contract form shall be signed, and June
15, 1950 as the date on or before which all proceedings before the President
and the Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall be completed and their
findings and recommendations submitted to the Regents.

Ihe regulations and procedures herein enacted, as applied and enforced
by the administrative authorities of the University, will henceforth govern
and control over all previous actions of the Regents to the extent they may
be inconsistent with such previous actions to the end that the policy of the
Regents and the Academic Senate barring members of the Communist Party
from employment in the University may be fairly and effectively implemented.

13

PARTIAL LIST OF
FACULTY MEMBERS REFERRED TO IN ATTACHED LETTER

ARIHUR H. BRAVllELD, Ph.D.

Age 35. Assistant Professor of Education, U. C; B.S., University of Minnesota, 1939, cum

laudc; Ph.D., University of Minnesota. 1946.
Major Field: Personnel Psychology; Minor Field: Educational Psychology.
Positions: Dean of Student Personnel, Long Beach City College, 1946-48; Assistant Dean of

Student Personnel, Colorado A. & M. College, 1940-41; Personnel Consultant, U. S. Armed

Forces Institute, Washington, D. C, December 1943 to April 1944; taught in ASTP

Personnel Psychology at University of Minnesota, June to November, 1943; Instructor and

Lecturer, University of Miiuiesota, 1941-1946.
Publications: Contributed sections to A Design for General Education in the Armed Forces,

American Council on Education, 1944; contributed sections to Training of Vocational

Counselors, Wav Manpower Commission, 1944.
Books: Readings in Modern Methods of Counseling, 1950; with M. E. Hahn, Occufmtional

Laboratory Manual Job, Exf)loration Workbook, Science Research Association. 1945; with

D. C Paterson and (... S. Dickson, section on Vocational Counseling in Encyclopedia of

Kduratinnrd Research, 1950.
Organisations: American Psychological Association, American College Personnel Association,

National Vocational Cuidance Association.

JOHN W. CAUCHEV. Ph.D.

Age 4H. Professor of American History; 20 years' service U.C.L.A. Chairman, Department of
History, 1945-47; managing editor. Pacific Historical Review; general editor, Chronicles
of California.

Publications: History of the Pacific Coast, 1933; Bernardo de Galvez in Louisiana, 1934;
McGillivray of the Creeks, 1938; California, 1940; Hubert Hoice Bancroft. Historian of
the West, 1946; Gold Is the Cornerstone, 1948; Rushing for Gold, 1949; and more than
forty articles. Editor of The Emigrant's Guide to California. 1932; The Los Angeles Star,
1047; Robert Oxcen, Social Idealist, 1949; East Florida, 1783-1785, 1949.

Native Sons of the (.olden West Fellow in Pacific Coast History, 1928-29. Technical director.
Paramount Pictures' California. 1945-46; consultant. Calif. State Lands Commission, in the
tidelands litigation.

Member: Phi Beta Rappa, Pi Camina Mu, E Clampus Vitus, California State Landmarks
Committee, Am. Historical Assoc. Miss. Valley Historical Assoc; Director, Historical Soc
of Southern Calif.; member, executive council. Pacific Coast Branch, Am. Historical .Asso-
ciation.

HUBERT S. COFFEY. Ph.D.

Age 40. Assistant Professor of Psychology; Chief of Training, Office of Administrator. Fed-
eral Security Agency, 1946.

War Service: Lieutenant Commander, U.S.N. R.. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. Aviation
Psychology Section. Author of 6 monographs on Methods of Training in Aerial Free
Gunnery.

Publications: "Community Service and Social Research," Journal of Social Issues (June 1950),
and \arious articles on psychological research and service.

Member of Sigma Xi; Clinical Fellow, American Psychological Association; Group Leader,
National 1 raining Laboratory; Principal Investigator, Project in Group Therapy, U. S.
Public Health Service.

LEONARD A. DOYLE, Ph.D., C.P.A.

Age 37. Associate Professor of Accoimting; 8 years' service at U. C.

War Service: Consultant, .\rmv Quartermaster Corps.

Director of Education, San Francisco Chapter, National Association of Cost Accountants;

Management consultant.
Author of several atticles on economic theory and accoimting procedure.

LUDWIG EDELSTEIN, Ph.D.

Age 48. Professor of (ircek: awarded Capps Fellowship of the American Archeological Insti-
tute, School of .Athens, 1917; Lecturer in History of .Ancient Science, Berlin University,
1932-33; Associate Professor of the History of Medicine, 1 he Johns Flopkins University.
1934-47; Professor of Classical Languages and Literature, University of Washington
Seattle, 1947-48.

14

War Service: Taught A.S.T.P. courses in German, Johns Hopkins University.

Publications: Peri Aeron und die Sammlung der hippokralischen Schriften, Berlin, 1931;

Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. 2 Vols., Baltimore, 1945;

The Hippocratic Oath. Translation and Interpretation, Baltimore, 1943; Poseidonius.

(forthcoming, Johns Hopkins Press); and over 30 articles on Greek Philosophy and

Science and related subjects. Also, Ed. Hindu Medicine, 1949.
Member of American Philological Association; History of Medicine Society; History of Science

Society. President of History of Ideas Club; Tudor and Stuart Club. Editorial Committee,

California University Press.
Honors: Summa Cum Laudc, Heidelberg.

WALTER D. FISHER, Ph.D.

Age 34. Assistant Professor of .Agricultural Economics; December 1940-June 1942, Assistant
Agricultural Econoiuist, United States Department of .Agriculture, .Agricultural Marketing
.Administration, Fruit and Vegetable Branch.

War Service: February 1943-March 1946 U. S. Army Air Forces; electronics officer, AACS;
June 1944-December 1945 in China-Burma-India Theater of Operations and Officer-in-
Chargc of isolated detachment.

Publications: The Consumer Demand for Lemons in the United States, 1943; Canning Toma-
toes: Situation in California, 1947; Dry Edible Beans: Situation in California. 1949.

Member of: American Farm Economics .Association, Western Farm Economics .Association,
.American Statistical .Association and Econometric Society.

EDWIN S. FUSSELL, Ph.D.

Age 28. Instructor in English.

War Service: Lieutenant (jg. ), U.S.N.R., destroyer-escort duty.
Publications: 1 hree forthcoming articles on .American literature.
Phi Beta Kappa, High Honors (Pomona College).

MARGARET T. HODGEN, Ph.D.

Age 60. Associate Professor of .Sociology and Social Institutions; 25 years' service at U. C.
Publications: Doctrine of Sun.'ivals, 1935; Dated Distributions and Social Change. 1950; and

7 or 8 articles on history and anthropology.
University Fellow, 1921-23; Chairman of Department, 1937-39; Graduate Research Lecturer,

1939; Fellow, .American Association of University ^^'omen.

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ, Ph.D.

.Age 55. Profes.sor of History, II years' service at U. C; Visiting Professor of History, Oxford
University, 1934; Visiting Professor, Harvard University (Dumbarton Oaks), 1951.

\Var Service: Instructor, .A.S.T.P., University of California.

Publications: The Emf>eror Frederick the Second, The King's Two Bodies. Petrus de Vinea in
England, The Problem of Medieval World Unity, and over 20 articles on medie\al and
late antique history and art.

Member: Medie\al .Academy of .America, American History Association; corresponding mem-
ber, Monumcnta Germaniae Historica, etc.

HAROLD W^ LEWIS, Ph.D.

.Age 27. Assistant Professor of Physics.

War Service: U. S. Navy, 1944-46.

Fellow in Physics, University of California, 1946-47; Member of Institute for .Advanced Study,
Princeton, 1917-48.

Publications: (.All of the following published in the Physical Review) Multiple Production
of Mesons, 1948; Reactive Terms in Quantum Electrodynamics. 1948; Analysis of Exten-
sive Cosmic-Ray Shower Data, 1948.

HANS LEWY, Ph.D.

Age 46. Professor of Mathematics; 15 years' service at U.C.

War record: Expert Mathematician, Army Ordnance in .Aberdeen, .Md., specializing in prob-
lems of explosives and fragmentation.

Over 20 publications on the theory of partial differential equations, on differential geometry,
and on hvdrodvnamics.

15

JACOB LOEUENBERC. Ph D.

Age 68. Professor of Philosophv. ?5 ^ ears' sen ice at V. C. Former chairman of the Depart-
ment.

Publications: Dialogues from Delphi, 1949; Knouledge and Sonety, (co-auihor) 1958; Hegel
Srlcdions, l^-^d: numerous article* in philosophical j>eriotlicals.

Phi Beta kappa; Visiting Lecturer at Hanard, 1947-48; Past President of American Philo-
sophical Association.

CHARLES LOCH MO WAT, Ph.D.

Age r»8. Associate Professor of Hisior>: 14 \ean. at L.C.L.A. Currenth chairman of Com-
mittee on Educational Polic\. L'.C.L..A. \ isiting associate professor University of Chicago.
summer quarter, 1930.

Publications: East Florida as a British Prmince (1945), and fifteen articles on British and
British Empire histon.

Member: American Historical .AssociaticMi. Economic History Society (England), American
Association of L'ni>eniit> Professors; Guggenheim Fellow, for research in England, 1947-48.

CHARLES MUSCATINE, Ph.D.

Age 50. Assisunt Professor of English.

War Ser\ice: Lieutenant. US N.R.. Na\igator U.S.S. L.S.T. 555. No\ember 1942-.April 1945;
North African Operations, Sicily Landing, Salerno Landing, Normandie Landing; Navv
Commendation ribbon from Commander in Chief .Atlantic Fleet for rescue Kork on D-dav.

Honors: "Honors with Exc^-ptional Distinction" (Vale. 1941 ); Willis Tew Prize (Yale Grad-
uate School, 1942); Numerous Fellowships (Vale/, Phi Beta Kappa.

Member ol Phi Beu kappa. Modem Language .Association of America.

STEFAN PETERS. Ph D.

Age 41. -Associate Professor of Insurance, School of Business Administration, U. C; Lecturer

in Mathematics, U. C.
War Service: Served as enlisted man in U. S. .Armv, 1945-5 (2 year^ abroad).
Positions: .Assistant Editor, Xth International Congress of .\ctuaries. Rome, 1955-4; .Assistant

Actuary. C^mf>ensation Insurance Rating Boaid. N. V . to 1945; Mathematical .Anahst.

West Coast Life Insurance Co.. S. F.. 194^-8; Consulting Actuary for California Inspec-
tion and Rating Bureau since 1949.
Honors: First placr in nationwide civil service examination for position of Chief .Actuary of

the California Insurance Department. 1948.
Publications: "Theorie der unendhchcn .Abdschcn Gruppcn." Math. Ann. 104, 1951; "Unter-

gruppcn und Quoticntcngruppen uncndlicher .Abclscher Gruppcn," Math. Ann. 105;
Ex -Medical Co\ erage- Workmen s Compensation," FCA5, XXVII, 1, 1940; "Discussion

of the Ratemaking Procedure in Workmen's Compensation Insurance; A Method of

Testing Classification Rclati\ities," PCAS. XXVIII, 1, 1941.
Fellow of the Casualty .Actuarial Society; Associate of the Society of .Actuaries.

JOHN .M. O'GORM.AN, Ph.D.

Age 55. .Assistant Professor of Chemistn (SB): 4 vears' service at U.C.

War Service: Instructor in charge of chemistn. for Nav% \'12 Engineering Oftcer Candidates

Cal. Tech.
Publication: Seven scientific and technical papers in publications of the .American Chemical

Societv since 1944.
Memlx-r: Sigma Xi and .American Chemical Society.

MARGARET PETERSON O'HAGAN, Ph D.

.Age 48. .Associate Professor in .Art, 22 years' service at U. C.

Publications: One-man shows of paintings: California Palace of Legion of Honor, San Fran-
cisco. 1955; Raymond and Raymond Galleries, San Francisco, 1945; San Francisco .Museum
of .Art. Civic Center, 1950; "San Francisco Art Asscxriation— Emmanuel Walter Fund Pur-
chase Prize. " 1942: San Francisco An .Association Exhibition, Honorable .Mention, 1945;
San Francisco An .Association Show, October 1947, First Prize; San Francisco Women's
-Art .AsscK:iation Show, October 1957, Seccmd Prize.

16

LEONARDO OLSCHkl, Ph D.

Age 65. Lecturer and Research Associate in Oriental Languages; Lecturer in History and

Italian, Johns Hopkins Uni\ersity, 1939-4U.
Publications: (Published in the United States, 1940-50) Marco Polo's Precursors, 1943;

Machiavellt the Scientist. 1945; Guillaume Boucher: A French Artist at the Court of the

Khans. 1946; The Genius of Italy. 1949; The Myth of Felt, 1949; and 54 books and

articles on history and Oriental languages.
Cf. Who's Who in .America, Dictionary of .American Scholars, World Bioeiaphv Encidopedia

Italiana (1948). or. r

BREWSTER ROGERSON, Ph.D.

Age 29. .Assistant Professor of English; Instructor in English. Vale University. 1944; Member

of Modern Language .AsscKiation, .American Society of .Aesthetics.
War Ser\ice: Instructor. .A.S.T.P. at Princeton. Navy V-12 at Vale.

R. NEVITT S.ANFORD. Ph.D.

.Age 41. Professor of Psychology, 10 vears' service at U. C.

War Ser\ice: Office of Strategic Services.

1940-45, Research .Associate. Institute of Child Welfare. University of California; 1944-48,
Co-Director of Berkeley Public Opinion Studv.

Publications: Physique, Personality and Scholarship. 1945; The Authoritarian Personality,
1950; during war and shortly thereafter published 15 scientific papers on the war morale
and democracy and 7 papers on measurement of scKial beliefs and attitudes.

Elective offices of the .American Psychological .Association: Representative to National Re-
search Council; Special Consultant to .Mental Hvgiene Division of U. S. Public Health
Service; .Associate Editor. Journal of Consulting Psychologists; National Chairman of
Group of Psychoanalytic Psychologists; Member of Committee of .American Psychological
.Association on Training in Clinical Ps\chologv.

DAVID STEPHEN SAXON, Ph.D.

.Age 30. .Assistant Professor of Physics: 31^ years at U.C.L.A.

War record: Staff member. Radiation Lab. .MIT. 1942-46 (a war research lab. oj>erated under

contract with OSRD: field of research: radar).
.Allied D\e & Chemical Co. tellow, 1943; Consultant to Northrop .Aircraft. 1948; Consultant

to the Institute of Numerical .Analysis; Natl Bureau of Standards, 1949.
Publications: Several pajjers in theoretical physics in the fields of electromagnetic theory, elec-

trcxlvnamics and theory of solids.
Member: Sigma Xi. Am. Instit. of Phvsics. Am. Physical Society. .A.A.AS; .A.AUP.

EDWARD HETZEL SCHAFER, Ph.D.

.Age 37. -Assistant Professor of Oriental Languages.

.Military Service: In Office of Chief of Naval Operations and staff of U. S. Seventh Fleet. .At
present. Commanding Officer, Organizcrd Communications Supplementary .Activities Group
12-4, Alameda, California, with rank of Lieutenant Commander.

Pubii' ■ "^ on a Chinese Word for Jasmine, Journal of the .American Oriental ScKiety

i> -■■.,. .-.- \oun Classifiers in Classical Chinese. Language 24.408-415, 1948; The
Camel in China Doun to the Mongol Dynasty, Sinologica Vol. 2, parts 5 and 4 (Basel,
Switzerland, 1950).

Phi Beta kappa; Rockefeller bellow in the Humanities, 1946; .Associate Editor. University of
California Publications in Linguistics; Chairman of Committee for China Middle Dynas-
ties Project. East .Asiatic Institute, University of California.

PAULINE SPERRV. Ph.D.

.Age 65. .Associate Professor of Mathematics, 55 years' service at U. C.

During the war taught calculus to Navy recruits.

Publications: Properties of a Projectively Defined Two-Parameter Family of Curves on a

General Surface, .American Journal of Mathematics. 1918; Spherical Trigonometry, 1926;

Bibl: ' V of Projective Differential Geometry.

.Member .. ..aerican .Association of University Professors, American .Mathematical Society,

.Mathematical .Association of .America (Chairman, .Northern California Section, 1915-46),

Sigma Xi, Phi Beta Kappa.

17

EDWARD C. lOLMAN. Ph.D.

Apr* r>4 Professor of Psvcholoj^v, 32 vears' servicr at T. C.

Publications: Purfiostix hchavinr tn AntmaLs and Men, 1932; Drives Toward War, 1942; and
over eiphrv articles in Psvcholop^ical Periodicals.

President, Western Psvcholopical Association, 1922; Fellow, American Association for Ad-
vancement of Science. 1922: President. .'American Psvcholopical As.sociation, 1937 (Council
1932 1934), (Board ol Directors 194f> 1947); Member. National Academv of Sciences,
1937-; Vice President, American .Association for Advancement ol Science, 1944: Member,
American Philosophical Societv , 1947; racult\ Research Lecturer, University of California
Berkeley, 1947; Phi Beta kappa; Sipiia Xi; leliow, American Academy of Arts and
Sciences. 1949.

War Service: Psvchfilogist, Office of Strategic Services. ]ulv 1 944-1 ebruarv 1945.

HANS W'ELTIN, Ph.D.

Assistant Professoi ol Phvsics, I C. ,SB). Instructor (Summer) Institute for Nuclear Studies.

Oak Ridge, lenn.. 1950. .Assistant Prolessoi ol Physics. Santa Barbara Coliepc Consulting

Psvsicist, Donne] Laboratories, 1945.
War Service: Instructoi in Arnn Specialized Training Program and in Na\7 V-12 Program

194 ■1-45.
I'ublicaticms: Several articles on experimental phvsics.
Member ol Phi Beta Kappa. Sigma Xi.

GLAN CARLO WICK

Age 41. Professor of Physics; Profes.sor of Phv.sics. Lniversitv of Notre Dame, 1946-1948;
Consultant. Office of Naval Research. 1946 1948, Research in Atomic Energy Radiation
Laboraiorv, Berkelr\ , 1948 and 1949; I eliow of American Phvsical Societv; Fellowship,
Roval Acadenn. Rome. Hl-Jh J ano Fellow, University ol Turin. 1931; Sella Prize. Academv
of Lincei. Rome. 1935.

Publications: Over 40 articles on nuclcai phvsics.

HAROLD WINKLER, Ph.D.

Age 36 Assistant Professor of Political Science: Instructor in Government at Hanard. 1940-42;
Director of Research for Council for Democracy (an organization headed by Ravmond
Gram Swing. Executive Secretan, C. D. Jackson. President of Life Magazine; financed bv
Luce, Rockeieller. etc.. to combat hvsteria which threatened democratic institutions in
r. S., 1940-41).

War Service: Lieiuenant, U. S. Navy, mainh on carriei duty in Pacific; Bronze Star.

A.B. (^Summa Cum Laudc). Ph.D. (Harvard): Member of Phi Beta Kappa. American Politi-
cal Science .As.sociation (Committee on Labor).

18

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Interim Report of the Committee on
Academic Freedom to the Academic
Senate, Northern Section, of the
University of California

February 1, 1951

I, '

It

THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE ABROGATION OF TENURE

An Accounting of Costs

CONTENTS
Prefatory Remarks 5

I. Loss of Staff 9

1 26 Faculty Members Ejected; 37 Resignations in Protest)

II. Disruption of Program 14

(55 Courses Dropped from the Curriculum )

III. Reactions in the Profession 21

( Signed Protests from over 1200 Colleagues in more than
Forty American Colleges )

IV. Refusals of Offers of Appointment 36

( To Date, 47 Refusals of Offers of Appointment )

V. Resolutions of Learned Societies 45

( Condemnatory Resolutions by 20 Professional Societies
and Groups)

Conclusions 56

PREFATORY REMARKS

It is the purpose of the following report to reveal the consequences
to date of the abrogation of tenure at this University, an abrogation
perpetrated in the course of efforts to enforce upon the faculty a special
form of contract,— in effect a loyalty oath. It is not intended here to
reargue the case against special oaths and contracts. Fact rather than
argument is our present object. On the other hand, no pretense is made
by this Committee of indifference to the facts which this report reveals.
We shall, therefore, not hesitate to comment upon the evidence as we
present it, to emphasize its significance when necessary, and on occa-
sion to warn against underestimation or distortion of it. Naturally we
have been concerned primarily to report the situation on the Berkeley
Campus. We have, however, included some relevant information vol-
unteered by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure at U.C.L.A.

The course of action initiated some twenty months ago, and cul-
minating in abrogation of tenure on August 25, 1950 has been fraught
with consequences at every stage. The earlier ones were at once
spectacular, and difficult to measure. Tensions and disaffection within
the faculty, man-hours lost, damaging publicity, the spreading word
among the profession that academic freedom was here under attack
by those charged to defend it. the undermining of public confidence in
the University,— these were immediate, obvious results, and they were
costly to a degree literally inestimable.

After April 21, 1950, however, the involvements and consequences
of the Regents' policy appeared on the surface to be diminishing. The
originally broad and basic issues seemed narrowing toward the point
of competence of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and of the
President. The resistance at first including almost the whole faculty
seemed shrunken to a score of determined men. At this stage many out-
side sympathizers were either misled into believing that a solution had
been reached, or simply perplexed to silence. Within the faculty, how-
ever, even before the August expulsions, strains and resentments though
submerged had never vanished. The August action made clear to every-
one the state to which the faculty had been reduced. The vacant desks
of our ejected colleagues were vivid reminders. The voluntary levies od

salaries began. At present, on the face of it, the struggle for tenure has
quieted, pending the decision of the courts on the suit of the non-
signers, but it will surely be vigorously resumed unless the 26 are
reinstated and tenure unequivocally restored. Meanwhile courses re-
main unmanned, programs of instruction and research are suspended,
resignations have occurred and others are in prospect. Refusals of
offers of appointment steadily multiply. Condemnatory resolutions con-
tinue to be passed by learned societies. Committee A of the A.A.U.P. is
presumably now conducting its investigation. The consequences and
costs of the policy have, in fact, been constantly and ominously cumula-
tive.

The extent which they have already attained will come as a shock
even to many within the University community. The numbers of resig-
nations and of refusals of appointment here are formidable indices of
the harm done. Among informed and responsible persons, however,
there will be no disposition to see the situation simply in terms of num-
bers still employed or available. At this University, as at others of
impaired reputation, the majority of the faculty continues at work;
large numbers of students continue to be taught. Candidates for ap-
pointment continue to be found, whether acquiescent to the abrogation
of tenure, or eager to join in an effort to regain it. A university, how-
ever, is not merely a "going concern"; its standing is not to be meas-
ured in terms of numbers unable or unwilling to resign their posts,
nor by quantitative success in the "teacher-market." The positive vigor
of a great institution is the vigor of self-respect, concordant purpose
and confidence in the governing agency. These are presently impaired
among us. The high repute of a university derives from the scrupulous
approbation of a profession which still holds academic freedom and
tenure as essential conditions. Scandals less flagrant than the one
presently besetting this institution and involving far fewer individuals
have elsewhere sufficed to destroy university reputations. To pretend
that the present one will not destroy— is not now destroying— the repute
of this University is mere flight from fact. It is by the judgment of the
profession that universities are approved or condemned, that they are
able or unable to hold their own in the competition for the best teachers
and scholars. And in the judgment of the profession the University of
California is being ever more widely condemned as a place unfit for
scholars.

We believe the present situation of the University, unpleasant as it is

to contemplate, should be fully known not only to the faculty, and the
responsible officers of the University, but to the Alumni and the people
of the State, that efforts to minimize or conceal it from them are neither
honorable nor in the ultimate interest of the University. The situation
will therefore be surveyed under the following topics. 1. Loss of staff.
2. Disruption of program. 3. Reactions in the profession. 4. Refusals
of offers of appointment at this University. 5. Resolutions of learned
societies.

I

I

LOSS OF STAFF

(26 Faculty Members Ejected; 37 Resignations in Protest)

The precise number of staff members of all classes severed from the
University as the result of the present policies of the Board of Regents
is probably not determinable; 157 were at one point recommended for
dismissal by the President. It is the common understanding that this
figure included non-professional employees, individuals ineligible for
reappointment, and persons who, though eligible, did not seek to be re-
employed. How many of these were actually dismissed, how many com-
plied with the Regents' orders, and were subsequently reappointed,
how many others among the assisting staff or minor officers complied
and then resigned in quiet revulsion is not known. The number of
Senate members ejected from their posts is of course known to every-
body as 26. Thirty-seven additional members of the academic staff have
resigned in explicit protest.

Again, only the ignorant will estimate the loss to the University in
terms of these numbers. What is important is obviously the loss in
power. The brilliance and renown of the 26 has been amply described
in the earlier report of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and
further emphasis on the point might seem superfluous. One Regent,
however, speaking of a world-famous historian among the group,
Professor Kantorowicz, confessed that he had no knowledge of any
lustre reflected on the University by this individual. Professor Kan-
torowicz has in the past few days been called to a permanent appoint-
ment at the Institute for Advanced Study. Now since a very guardian
of the University thus admits ignorance of the renown of one of tlie
most distinguished members of the faculty, it is perhaps desirable to
remind all concerned that among the 26 ejected are included figures of
international reputation in psychology, history, mathematics, philoso-
phy, physics and classics, for example, as well as younger men whose
brilliance and promise are known widely in their professional areas.

I'

Another of this group, Professor Winkler, has, for example, recently
been appointed Visiting Lecturer in Government at Harvard. In an-
nouncing his appointment his Chairman declared that "although the
Department was merely picking the best available man, it was glad to
give refuge to one of the California dissenters." Still another. Professor
Wick, has just been appointed to a new professorship at Carnegie
Institute of Technology. In announcing this appointment President J.
C. Warner said, *'We are grateful to the Buhl Foundation for making
it possible to bring another first-ranking scientist here. We look for-
ward to his contribution to our education and research."

Among the thirty-seven who have resigned in explicit protest against
the abrogation of tenure are three full professors including a Professor
of Psychiatry internationally celebrated, and immediately appointed
by a prominent eastern university, three associate professors including
one of the most distinguished experimental physicists in the world, ten
assistant professors, four lecturers, three instructors, thirteen (known)
teaching and research assistants.

Other resignations are clearly in prospect. The departments of Art,
Physics, Public Health, Bacteriology, Mathematics, Biochemistry, Eng-
lish, Sociology and Social Institutions, and the Statistical Laboratory
all report individuals who will certainly resign unless the non-signers
are reinstated and tenure restored. That other members of the faculty
are quietly seeking appointment elsewhere is common knowledge. In
the New Republic of January 8, 1951 appeared the following letter,
captioned by the Editors— "U. C. Ten Years from Now."

"Sir: Your readers may be interested in a letter I received a few days ago from
a friend of mine who is a member of the faculty of the University of California.
He says: 'If you hear of a teaching job in my field at any other university I'd
appreciate it very much if you would let me know. Physically I couldn't be more
comfortable than I am here in Cahfornia; but the loyalty oath has made me feel
that I want to get out, if I possibly can.'

"My friend, I might add, is a non-political person, not in any sense left-wing
and never under the slightest suspicion of radicalism. He signed the oath, and
undoubtedly will sign anything else that he is asked to. When the chance comes
he will quietly leave UC and get a job somewhere else.

"I wonder how many others like him there are on the faculty? I wonder whether
the real harm of the loyalty-oath business won't show up 10 years from now, in a
steadily deteriorating faculty, rather than in anything sudden and dramatic in
the immediate future?" », ,r , ^. _

New York City Wilson K. WUson

10

One thing is certain ; namely that the loss of those who have resigned

represents an incalculable loss in high mindedness and moral integrity.

Letter after letter bespeaks the devotion of these resigners to principle,

their courage to suffer therefor and their sincere concern for the future

of the University. One, described by his Chairman as a Quaker wholly

antithetical in his beliefs to Communism in any form, writes in part:

"I have made the standard affirmation of allegiance to the Constitution of the
United States and to the Constitution of the State of California. This affirmation
is in my opinion satisfactory evidence of my whole-hearted support of the Ameri-
can form of Government, and no additional or specific negative declaration adds

anything to the meaning or strength of this standard affirmation I have faith-

fully discharged my duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability and it is
with sincere regret that the above circumstances compel me to sever my connec-
tions with the University. I cannot compromise my conscience on this fundamental
American concept of personal freedom of speech and thought."

Another writes :

"Since I am a member of the more conservative political party and am strongly
opposed to Communism and all forms of totalitarianism, you may wonder at my
objection to a policy which is intended to combat communism at this University.
I have no objection to stating my own political beliefs and have done so in the past.
However, I do object to making such statements and such beliefs a condition for
employment on the faculty. I do not believe that Communism can be combatted
by adopting some of its worst principles and denying those principles of freedom
and justice from which our democracy draws its strength ... the statement of
the Regents reserving their right to dismiss competent senior members of the
faculty despite the recommendations of the faculty is a denial of tenure and a

threat to the academic freedom of this University I have faith that you and

the faculty, along with the people of the State and the members of the Board of
Regents will continue to work for a return to those principles of justice and
academic freedom which have made this nation strong and this University great.
It is with genuine regret that I shall sever my connections with the University of
California, and I shall continue to follow its progress with the interest of a true
alumnus."

A third writes:

"To resign appears to me to be the only way of registering a protest. I have
felt very strongly that the oath was a dangerous encroachment on academic
freedom as well as completely ineffectual as a means of excluding undesirable
elements from the University; and I have felt the same not only about the
'Alumni Compromise,' but even about the Senate's own suggested compromise
as suggested in the resolutions of March 30. I believed it was the duty of the
Senate, as a body of citizens entrusted to a large extent with the intellectual
leadership of the Slate, to take a firm stand on principle in the whole fight, and
that the fight could have been won if such a stand had been taken, and that grave

11

harm has been done to the University, the State and to tlie cause of freedom
everywhere by our playing with words instead of facing up to the issues. . . . Except
for this last year my association with the University has been fruitful and reward-
ing and I am extremely sorry that matters had to come to a point where I find it
impossible to continue my work here. I hope with all my heart that some of the
damage suffered by the University during this year can be undone in the not too
distant future so that it may return to its proper position as one of the world's
great centers of learning."

Yet another writes :

"The Regents have created the impression that the faculty is subversive when
they should have stated that we are one of the more public-spirited and loyal
groups of citizens. My interest in the University will only revive when the more
enlightened section of the Board of Regents obtains decisive control."

In a letter dated June 30, a Lecturer in the School of Medicine writes :

"It now appears that those of us who expected the procedures antecedent to the
Regents' meeting of June 23 to resolve the basic problems which we face were
naive. Employees have been discharged without having had hearings, and without
adequate opportunity for self defense. Faculty members are to continue to be
affronted by protracted consideration by the Regents, and in all probability many
of them who — at the risk of their careers and their livelihoods — have had the
courage to oppose what they regard a serious threat to American principles will
be discharged, without any proof of political subversion or disloyalty. I have,
therefore, decided to reconsider my course of action, and have concluded that so
long as the present situation prevails I cannot continue to serve this University
and retain my self respect and dignity."

One more quotation will suffice:

"As a young officer in the late war who served in the top secret service of the
armed forces for almost five years — I soon came to realize that the higher echelons
with the long range views were well aware of their objectives, and it hence became
the duty of the lower echelons to carry out orders to the best of their ability. I
served in several capacities overseas and always did the best I knew how. . . .
A man, after all must live with himself. I remember at one of the Academic Senate
meetings a professor arose and advised all members to sign the oath. 'After all,'
he said, 'What's involved anyway. It's only a little principle!' But I knew many a
young friend who was ground into nothing in Sicily and Italy and France because
of 'a little principle.' Thus I cannot bring myself to swear to something 1 abhor, or
to be a party to an act which I feel would be cheating the memory of men who
died so that this would not happen here."

Further multiplication of evidence is unnecessary. It would simply re-
inforce what is already clear, that the Board of Regents in coercing the
faculty into oaths and afl&rmations— abrogating tenure in the process—

12

has dispersed a treasury of probity and high mindedness. Obviously,
also, the professed intention of "ridding the University of Communists"
has miscarried dismally. Without raising the question whether the as-
sumption that there were Communists in the University was not in the
first place as false as it was damaging, we believe these letters indicate
that the men who have been forced out under the present policies of the
Regents are precisely those to whom all forms of totalitarianism are
equally loathsome. In any case, your Committee believes that no mere
financial peculation could approach in cost to a University such wilful
squandering of moral resource.

13

II

DISRUPTION OF PROGRAM

(55 Courses Dropped from the Curriculum)

Fifty-five courses have been dropped from the curriculum of the Uni-
versity as the result of the ejection of the non-signers. But even this
formidable number is but a crude, quantitative index of the disruption
and injury done by the Board of Regents to the University's program
of instruction and research. Evidence on this point is clear. In the De-
partment of Physics, for example, where three out of four of the depart-
ment's theoretical physicists have been lost, only three graduate courses
have been actually dropped from the curriculum; nevertheless, rear-
rangements have been necessitated in fourteen courses. Extra loads in
graduate research instruction have been assumed. In certain sections
the enrollment limit, already high, has been perforce raised. Three
additional staff members were urgently needed and authorized in the
budget to take care of increased graduate enrollment, but as the result
of the present crisis, the staff has actually been reduced. In Public
Health two courses have been dropped, the curriculum in Medical Care
Administration has been, as the Dean writes, "Crippled." For the de-
velopment of this curriculum the School of Public Health had been in
a peculiarly advantageous position. Certain other departmental de-
cisions and undertakings essential to the development of a program
have been stalemated. Professor Odegard, after describing the gaps left
in the Department of Political Science by the ejection of Professor
Winkler, and citing the number of scholars who have refused profiFered
appointment, concludes:

"In searching for personnel for a badly understaffed department, I am sure that
the action oT the Regents on August 25 has seriously impaired our ability to
attract and bring to California outstanding scientists and scholars."

From the Department of English comes the following specific account:

"In the Fall term of 1950-51, there had to be cancelled two sections of Fresh-
man Composition; two sections of Freshman Reading; two sections of the Sopho-
more Survey course; two sections of the required Junior course in Critical Theory;
the Upper Division lecture course in Shakespeare, an essential part of the work
of the English major.

14

"In the Spring term, unless in the meantime the non-signers are restored, we
shall be hampered by the dropping of a section of Freshman Reading; two sec-
tions of Sophomore Survey; one of Junior Criticism; two sections of essential
Senior restricted work (151K and L) ; a lecti-re course in American Literature;
a lecture course in the English Lyric; the essential lecture course in the Age of

Chaucer.

"Thus it is evident that the Department's effectiveness is hampered at every
level of undergraduate study. In addition, the operations of committees within the
Department have been disturbed. The Library Committee has been deprived of a
vital unit in its coverage of the field. The M.A. Oral Committee is short a member
of a three-man board of examiners. Graduate work has suffered less immediately
than undergraduate, but in the long run, perhaps, through effect on potential
graduate student body and in nature and quality of seminars, may have to pay
the heaviest toll.*'

Landscape Design has suffered the loss with the resignation of Pro-
fessor Royston, of what the Chairman describes as an outstanding
course in site-planning, "one limited to the best students" and hitherto
a distinguished feature of the department's program.

In Philosophy Professor Loewenberg's courses are all vacant. Four
hundred students who had enrolled in advance for his section of
Philosophy 6a had to be told to revise their course programs after the
opening of the semester. Professor Loewenberg is regarded throughout
the nation as the leading authority on Kant and Hegel, and his course
in Kant had been hitherto an essential part of every graduate student's
program. For this instruction they must now go elsewhere. One gradu-
ate student, who had come from New York to study with him, was with
difficuhy dissuaded by the Chairman from demanding that the Uni-
versity reimburse him for railroad fare! The Acting Dean of the School
of Business Administration writes:

"We had two non-signers in our Department. This forced us to abandon one
course in accounting and two courses in insurance in the fall semester, and the
plans for the spring semester are necessarily indefinite. This has created consid-
erable hardship in the case of a number of students.

"One of the most serious aspects of the whole situation is the loss of research
momentum on the part of some members of the staff. They have not only been
called upon to meet with committees working on the problems created by the
loyalty oath, but have found it difficult to settle down to their normal activities.

"♦The Department Chairman informs us that the proposal for reimbursement
came from the Department, not from the student.

15

From the Department of Psychology has come a communication so
specific and informative that it seems desirable to quote it practically
in full :

"It is rather surprising to learn the extent to which the eflfectiveness of the
Department has been reduced and the way in which this argument has spread its
deteriorating influence throughout nearly all phases of our program.

"In terms of the teaching staff we have lost either temporarily or permanently
the services of four of our senior members. One professor has resigned, one was
separated from the University, while two others are temporarily not employed
pending settlement of the controversy. This has been a demoralizing blow to a
rather small staflF, and is keenly felt by all of us regardless of our opinions about
the oath. Many readjustments have had to be made in various administrative
assignments, in graduate advising, and in other forms of committee work for
which the affected members were responsible,

"The loss of these men is keenly felt in graduate instruction. Each one was
recognized nationally in his field and had attracted a coterie of graduate students.
Each was responsible for one or two seminars a year, and each one was carrying
a large instructional assignment in thesis and special problems research. Several
very promising graduate students studying with these men discontinued their
work at California following the Regents' action of last August.

"The loss in undergraduate instruction also has been severe. Three of the
affected members have their professional interests in the area of clinical and
personality psychology— an area which has experienced a tremendous expansion
since the war. Their undergraduate courses were very popular carrying enroll-
ments during the year in excess of 1000 students. When these courses were starred
the study programs of hundreds of students were affected.

"The action of the Regents against these psychologists has had repercussions on
a national scale which have dealt crippling blows to any remedial measures which
the Department might entertain. The American Psychological Association has
gone on record requesting that none of its members accept an offer from the Uni-
versity until conditions of academic tenure are improved. The effect of its pro-
nouncement seems very clear— no reputable psychologist will entertain the idea
of coming to the Department until tenure is a fact. Tangible evidence of the
effect of the action of this association is found in the refusals of reputable psy-
chologists to accept appointments in our summer session. This state of affairs
promises to snuff out many phases of our plans for the future. As you are aware
the Federal and State needs for professionally trained psychologists is far outrun-
ning the number being trained. With the Korean War the ratio will be greater.
The Department has formulated a long range program to solidly expand its
offerings and facilities to meet these needs. The inability to obtain psychologists
from elsewhere will prevent the realization of much of this program.

"Another fact should be mentioned and that concerns the state of morale of the
staff. In my twenty years at California I have never before seen so many manifesta-
tions of discontent as occurred after last August, and which still continue to be
seen. There is no question but that the teaching and research effectiveness of the
staff has been lowered.

16

"Some of the most regrettable effects from the oath are the changes it has
produced in our graduate instruction. There has been a marked deterioration in
the morale of our graduate students. Some of them are inclined to abandon their
plans for an academic career, feeling that it no longer presents the opportunities
they have anticipated. Others appear to be marking time while they wait for
further developments.

"There has been a serious defection in the quality of graduate students this
present year. Several of our teaching assistantships have not been filled because
of the lack of qualified graduate students. The prospects for next year are not
rosy. For the last academic year we had over 1000 inquiries concerning our
graduate offerings. To date during this present academic year there have been
fewer than 300, and the date for having applications filed is only a month or so
away. I have personal information to the effect that enrollments in graduate
psychology in four leading state universities have increased despite a loss in over-
all enrollments in these institutions.

"It is to be hoped that any solution to the oath controversy will not only restore
our faculty members to their rightful positions, but will guarantee us the type of
tenure which will restore the University's capacity to draw scholars, both teachers
and students."

No member of this faculty will be surprised to hear that from numer-
ous other department chairmen come reports of loss of morale among
staff-members and graduate students, of the resentment with which
contracts have been signed and the Regents' conditions accepted. A
member of the Department of Mathematics in accepting the contract
wrote :

"Although the University of California has become a second rate institution
within the last year, I nevertheless have decided to enhance my chances of re-
maining thereat by signing the 1950-51 contract 1 feel my action constitutes

a disservice not only to my profession, but to the United States. I try to excuse
this disservice on the rather shaky grounds of social, professional, and economic
expediency. To those patriots who continue the resistance, I accord my admira-
tion, respect, and support. If bigotry continues unchecked, it will not be long
before even this sort of admiration must be foresworn by those allowed to remain
on the faculty."

In the belief that general deterioration of morale was too obvious to
need documenting, the committee has made no inquiry on this point.
However, from Music, from Spanish, from Sociology and Social In-
stitutions, from Zoology, and from City Planning have come voluntary
statements of the feelings of "disgust" or of "resentment" or of "un-
easiness" among the staff. That this demoralization extends into the
graduate school is indicated by the following excerpt from a letter
written to the Dean of that division by a graduate student:

17

"This letter is to inform you why I have abandoned my graduate work at the
University of California.

"I came to the University of California a year ago September because of its
fine reputation in the East and on the specific recommendations of fellow students
and faculty members at Harvard.

"Soon after my arrival the academic freedom controversy began to interfere with
academic work. Its effects included feelings of suspicion directed at faculty mem-
bers, time lost from study in student. Senate, and non-Senate faculty meetings,
and the growth of a general feeling of tension over the whole issue. The recent
dismissals and resignations of many faculty members will probably aggravate this
situation.

"Two other factors influenced my decision. First, curricula deficiencies due to
loss of faculty members. Second, and most important for a future college teacher,
the loss of prestige of the University. An indication of the latter is the recent
statement of the American Psychological Association."

In the University's programs of institutes and symposia, in enter-
prises involving the cooperation of learned groups, the effect of the
Regents' August action is likewise unfortunately clear as indicated by
the following report from the Institute of Personality Assessment and
Research :

"The Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, established in 1949 as
an adjunct to the Department of Psychology for the investigation of the char-
acteristics and determinants of superior and effectively functioning persons,
suffered immeasureably from the Regents' requirement of a special oath or
equivalent affirmation in the new form of contract required in 1950.

"R. Nevitt Sanford, Professor of Psychology and Associate Director of the
Institute, was separated from the University by action of the Regents in their
July, 1950 meeting. Dr. Sanford was one of the six who refused to make any
statement concerning his political affiliations or sentiments. Dr. Sanford had
participated in the original planning for the Institute and carried large responsi-
bilities in the setting up of its initial researches. Midway in their execution, Dr.
Sanford was dismissed.

"Erik H. Erikson, Professor of Psychology, who participated in the work of
the Institute and contributed in its first year of operation some of the most basic
hypotheses of its research, disheartened and disillusioned by his experiences as a
professor (1949-50 was his first year of appointment), resigned from the Uni-
versity last summer. Professor Erikson had refused to sign the oath, but had
appeared before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure and had stated to them
that he was not, and had never been, a member of the Communist Party.

"Francis X. Barron held an appointment as Research Assistant in the Institute
in 1949-50. Although he was still a graduate student, he contributed as creatively
as did any senior member of the staff to the work of the Institute, and, having
received his doctorate last spring, he was offered a Research Associateship for the
current year. He had not signed the oath and, rather than sign the new form of

18

contract, he asked for a hearing and on the basis of it was recommended for
appointment. When this turned out to be an empty formality, rather than sign, he
left the University.

"In its first year of operation the Institute also lost its very capable secretary,
Mrs. Elizabeth Steinke. She, too, had asked for a hearing, and was recommended
for reappointment. Assuming, as did other non-academic personnel, that her
statement to the committee that she was not, and never had been, a member of
the Communist Party was an "equivalent affirmation," she worked through the
month of July, but found on August 1st that her check would be withheld until
she signed. Since this was her only income, she was forced to sign. But she forth-
with resigned from University employment.

"One of the Institute's able statistical workers, who was on general assistance,
Rolfe La Forge, was another casualty of the Regents' demands.

"In the budget for 1950-51 provision was made for four research assistants.
It has been possible, however, to fill only three of these positions. Harold Webster,
who was to have had one of these appointments, refused to sign the required new
form of contract.

"The loss of personnel has not been one which could be remedied by the
making of substitute appointments, since the formal action of the American
Psychological Association binds members of the profession not to accept positions
at the University of California until conditions of tenure are improved.

"The loss of personnel has cost the Institute a $25,000 contract with the Office
of Naval Research. Last year the ONR approached the Institute with a request
that it make a study of chief petty officers. The Institute drew up a research
proposal which was approved by the administrative officers of the University. The
proposal was subsequently approved by the Research and Training Branch of
the Office of Naval Research and by the Bureau of Personnel of the Navy and
forwarded to the Contract Officer for the writing of the contract with the Uni-
versity. At this point, the ONR learned of the Institute's loss of personnel, and
forthwith interrupted the negotiation of the contract.

"In addition to these tangible losses of persons and resources, the impairment
of the work of the Institute through months of uncertainty and lowered morale of
the staff has been incalculable."

From the Statistical Laboratory comes word of a serious set-back in

plans to publish from this campus a learned journal. Negotiations were

well under way between the Institute of Mathematical Statistics and

this University's Committee on Scholarly Journal Publications, looking

to the revival here of Statistical Research Memoirs. The present hiatus

in these negotiations is indicated in the following paragraph from a

letter signed by the Chairman of the Institute's Committee on Statistical

Research Memoirs:

"I should inform you that the Council of the Institute will consider the ad-
visability of taking some kind of action with regard to the oath and tenure situa-
tion at the University of California. If something unfavorable to the University is

19

decided, this might aflfect the question of sponsorship. I should also add that our
committee favored Berkeley as a possible home of the journal because of the
very high caliber of the statistical group there. One prominent member has already
resigned because of the oath; should the group disintegrate further, we should
have to reconsider this matter. I am sorry these unpleasant considerations have
to darken what would otherwise be an occasion for great rejoicing."

A similar difficulty has arisen in the field of mathematics, which may
prevent future meetings of the American Mathematical Society from
being held on this campus. On November 13 a group of ten members
of the society at Stanford protested the scheduling of the November 25
meeting of the society for the U.C.L.A. campus. "In view of the recent
actions of the Board of Regents," their protest read in part, ". . . it
would seem to us that the University of California should be out of
bounds for the holding of any scholarly meetings." A decision on this
point of policy is understood to be presently under debate in the society.

Trouble has also arisen in connection with the Graduate School of
Linguistics sponsored in part by the Linguistic Society of America.

"In June, 1949 an agreement was concluded between the university and the
Linguistic Society of America whereby a summer graduate school of linguistics
would be held on the Berkeley campus under their joint sponsorship. After the
difl5culties between the faculty and the Regents, a number of members of the
Society felt that the Socisty would be justified in withdrawing from the arrange-
ment. This was discussed at the annual meeting of the Society held in Chicago on
December 29, 1950 at which time a resolution was passed to the effect that,
whereas the agreement between the Society and the University of California had
been made prior to the Regents actions with respect to tenure of professors, the
Society's continuing with the agreement was not to be interpreted as implying
any approval of the Regents' action."

Again, from the area of mathematical statistics, it is reported to your
Committee that the Annual Summer Symposium to which experts in
this field have hitherto come from a number of American and foreign
Universities, will, if conditions remain unchanged, be impossible to
hold simply because scholars from other universities are refusing to
participate.

20

III

REACTIONS IN THE PROFESSION

(Signed protests from over 1200 Colleagues in more
than forty American Colleges and Universities)

These disruptions of program are obviously related to difficulties in
recruitment, and these latter will presently be discussed. But first it is
appropriate that some indication be given of the loss of repute suffered
by the University as indicated by communications from individuals
and informal groups— these as distinguished from specific refusals of
offers of appointment here, and from formal resolutions of learned
societies.

It will be remembered that during the year 1949-50 when the con-
troversy was widely publicized, the faculty committee received scores
of communications carrying in all hundreds of signatures expressing
support of the facuhy and condemnation of the then prevalent faction
of the Regents. Since the ejection of the 26 and the abrogation of
tenure, there has appeared a change in the emphasis of communica-
tions from colleagues elsewhere. The condemnations naturally tend to
include the whole institution as now functioning, and sympathy for
this faculty to be conditional upon the continuance of its efforts to
regain academic freedom and tenure. It is a sympathy, moreover,
which does not prevent attitudes and actions which, in the short run at
least, are by implication damaging to all of us. Thus a world-famous
Harvard scientist writes:

*T should have added to my foregoing letter the statement that if my advice is
sought by any candidate for the opening in the Department at California, I would
advise them to be careful about joining that institution unless its tenure situation
is clarified. I have confidence that within a year the situation will be rectified and
that the discharged professors will be recalled; but even so, the experience of
the past year should make any young man very cautious if he is contemplating a
life's work at the University of California."

Your committee has a copy of a letter from one distinguished figure
in landscape design to a colleague, neither of them in this faculty, com-

21

menting upon the situation here. It affords the opportunity to over-
hear, as it were, a sample discussion of the University among profes-
sionals not immediately engaged in the current conflict :

"What has happened? The faculty of one of our greatest universities — now no
longer so — has been cowed and beaten so that hundreds of the most brilliant
people in this country have been forced to accept conditions they resent and
intellectually reject. These people have been forced to give up a certain amount
of personal liberty. Very few of them give it up willingly. Very few volunteered
to take this oath. It was rammed down their throats. And why were they beaten?
Because each one of them had a vulnerable spot which made this liberty attack-
able. 1. Some were settled in homes and didn't want to move. 2. Some were poor
and couldn't afford to lose their jobs. 3. Some wanted so much to teach at Cali-
fornia that they were willing to make this sacrifice to do so. . .

"Who passes into anonymity — the hundreds of grey faces who stay on to fill
their little cubby holes in Berkeley? Or the forty who said, '. . . we move out and
stand firm for what we believe in.' Who loses — those who stay and teach a course
in how to design a good garden at the cost of liberty? Or those forty who have
become a symbol of liberty and carry the fight with them wherever they go?
What's more important to teach students — facts or freedom? And how do you
teach men except by example?'*

National waves of indignation and condemnation of the abrogation of
tenure run high in those professional areas most obviously maimed by
the Regents' action. For example, the summary dismissal of Professor
Loewenberg, after thirty-five years of service to the University (the
circumstances of which were made known by a letter sent to depart-
ments of philosophy elsewhere) evoked a resounding protest among
philosophers the nation over. The letters voicing this protest were, as it
happened, collected by Professor Loewenberg's chairman and delivered
to this committee. Equally impressive collections pertaining to other
distinguished figures would have been presented had space allowed.

September 22, 1950
is back of you, and counts on you not to take it

"Everybody here at

lying down. Our department, as soon as it can meet — probably next Monday — is
going to invite Loewenberg as visiting professor for next year. But it is you
fellows who have got to lead the fight— in the way in which you, who know all
the ins and outs of the situation, judge best.*'

-o -o

"I want to thank you for your mimeographed letter of September 12. 1 am glad
indeed that you have sent this to departments of philosophy. It is a shocking and
shameful business. I have always had the highest personal and professional regard

22

for Professor Loewenberg, and agree with you that, if he is dismissed, your
university and department will suffer a great loss. I have asked our dean whether
we are in a position financially to offer Dr. Loewenberg a visiting professorship

here at ."

o- -o >o

September 22, 1950
The University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma

"In response to your letter of September 12, I am pleased to say that our de-
partment wishes to express its deepest sympathy in regard to your colleague.
Professor Loewenberg. We sincerely hope that your Board of Regents will re-
consider its action in this case before it is too late."

■o o -o

September 22, 1950
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

"Thank you for yoar circular letter of September 12, informing us of the action
of the Board of Regents of the University of California, and of the position taken
by Professor Loewenberg

"With your permission I propose to read your circular letter to our chapter of
A.A.U.P. at its first meeting this Fall."

<> -o o

September 28, 1950
•'The undersigned members of the philosophy department of the University of
Minnesota wish to communicate to you and your department their regrets regard-
ing the imminent dismissal of several members of the University in violation of
their basic civil rights. We regard this as an unpardonable action on the part of the
regents of your university.

*We are particularly concerned with the case of Professor Loewenberg. It is
scarcely necessary for us to affirm our high esteem for Professor Loewenberg, a
man of truly great stature as scholar, teacher and personality. We fervently hope
that justice will be done and that Professor Loewenberg and his colleagues will
be speedily restored to their rightful status."

■o o- o-

September 21, 1950
The University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee

"May I reprint your letter concerning Professor Loewenberg in the Philosophers'
Newsletter? If permission comes in time I'll put it in the October 1st issue; if not
it would appear in that of November 1st.

"I have an article coming out in the fall or winter number of the A.A.U.P.
Bulletin that expresses my ideas on this sort of situation. Please let Professor
Loewenberg know that I for one, and everyone else with whom I have spoken on
the matter, am completely in sympathy with the action he took. Would that there
were more of us like him!'*

23

Princeton University September 22, 1950

Princeton, New Jersey

"Naturally we are all shocked here by the medieval (or is it modern Russian)
unenhghtenment of your Regents. I am one of the Steering Committee respon-
sible for our faculty message to your Senate.

"We got your extremely nice letter about Loewenberg. Scoon will probably
answer it officially. Meanwhile I want you to know how much we all feel for you
all in this business."

■«> o •<>

«*,, , , , , October 3, 1950

All the members of the Philosophy Department at Princeton have read with
profound regret your circular letter in regard to the general situation produced in
your University by recent decisions of the regents, and the particular situation of
Professor Loewenberg; and we wish to send to your Department and to Professor
Loewenberg individually our lively sympathy. We are shocked that such things
can happen m a great State University in America in the middle of the Twentieth
Century, and would like unanimously to associate ourselves both with your feel-
ings and your efforts to ameliorate the condition."

„T,, , . , October 2, 1950

rhank you for your letter of September 12. It gives us in the Department of
l^hilosophy at Stanford an opportunity to express our unanimous respect and
gratitude for the stand taken by Professor Loewenberg. He and the other mem-
bers of the faculty who have refused to sign the special oath or to resign, and the
rest of you at California who have in various ways opposed the oath, put all of us
who believe m freedom of thought and expression in your debt. We join you in
the hope that the action of Professor Loewenberg in behalf of the liberties which
have made American democracy possible will not be in vain.'

»»

«"ru DLi L T^ September 29, 1950

Ihe Philosophy Department at Harvard, at its first meeting of the academic
year, yesterday, agreed to assure your Department that we share in your deep
regret at the action of the Regents which is severing Professor Loewenberg from
your teaching program, to the detriment of all American scholarship. To Mr
Loewenberg himself, who is the friend and colleague of most of us. the teacher of
several of us, we would convey our loyalty and sympathy. So far as we may pre-
sume to do so, we wish to asssociate ourselves with you in the stand which you
express in your letter of September 12."

■*><»■-«>

TT • .. r^r. . . September 30, 1950

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, Va.

**My colleagues and I wish to express to you and your colleagues in the Depart-
ment of Philosophy our deep appreciation of your communication of Sept 12th
And we would ask you to convey to Professor Loewenberg our admiration of hia

24

t

courage— courage commensurate with his distinction as a philosopher. We are
horrified by the action of the Regents, and hope that the Regents will retreat from
their position not merely because of the irreparable loss that will fall upon the
Department of Philosophy at California if Professor Loewenberg must carry out
his resolve.

"I follow at a distance in journals and newspapers the story of what is happen-
ing in the University of California and find it all inexplicable. It would be un-
forgiveable but somewhat understandable if this had happened at some small
institution — but to have it happen at California is quite another matter."

•o o o

September 29, 1950
"The members of the Department of Philosophy at the Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity feel very strongly about the action of the Regents of the University of Cali-
fornia in summarily dismissing Professor Loewenberg and other members of the
faculty who refused to obey the will of the regents, as reported in your letter of
September 12th.

"We applaud Professor Loewenberg for his courageous stand. The action of
the Regents we look upon as a blow to freedom of thought, to the purpose of Uni-
versities in general, and of Philosophy Departments in particular. And we regret
the loss to you and to our whole profession in the dismissal of so excellent a
philosopher and teacher as Professor Loewenberg."

-o -o

September 19, 1950

University of Utah
Sah Lake City, Utah

"This is a time when the affairs of men are so fraught with conflicting possibili-
ties as to demand of all a serious consideration of those specific acts which seem
either portentous or promising.

"It is out of regard for what seems fundamental to the American tradition, out
of concern for our country's future, and out of alarm at those types of attitudes
and actions which seem to threaten that future that we feel impelled to address
you, in protest, concerning the case of Professor J. Loewenberg, who has been for
the past thirty-five years in the Department of Philosophy at the University of
California.

"To those who know Professor Loewenberg, who know his devotion to the cause
of human enlightenment, there must be a strong prima facie case against any ac-
tion of the Regents which dishonors the man who so obviously should be receiving
public commendation for his services to his university, his state, and his nation."

September 22, 1950

-o -o- o

Drew University
Madison, New Jersey

"It was very good of you to send me the mimeographed statement about the
forthcoming dismissal of Professor Loewenberg. The entire affair is sickening, but
it is only one more symptom of our sick country.

"One must remember the Apology.

"I wish there were something I could do to indicate my good wishes for Professor
Loewenberg, and my most cordial endorsement of his position."

25

State University of Iowa October 17, 1950

Iowa City, Iowa

"Your letter of September 12, 1950, rej^arding recent actions of the Regents of
the University of California and the bearing of these upon the case of Professor
Loewenberg prompts us to make the following statement.

"In the first place, from the purely legal standpoint, we feel that the action of
the Regents has been most deplorable. The purpose of granting tenure to faculty
members who have proved their worth as scholars and teachers is precisely to pro-
tect them against such arbitrary actions as those taken by your Regents. If the
University of California does not offer such protection through its commitments
as to tenure, it is in a most unenviable position as a supposedly first-rank university.
"In the second place, the best interests of a university call for a clear under-
standing of the respective responsibilities of the governing board and the faculty,
and a sincere attempt to put such an understanding into practice. It would seem
that the Regents of the University of California, by their action of August 25,
1950, did not live up to their own earlier explicit understanding of the responsi-
bilities of the faculty committee on Privilege and Tenure, as embodied in the
actions of the Regents of April 21 and July 21 of this year. This again is a de-
plorable situation.

"In the third place, we wish to say that we recognize that the formal and legal
issues are bound up with larger social questions, involving of course basic civil
liberties as guaranteed by the American Bill of Rights. It is the opinion of some
that membership in the Communist Party as a matter of fact requires the advo-
cacy of a forceful overthrow of our government, that such membership itself de-
mands a giving up of the very right to think and speak freely which the Bill of
Rights seeks to protect. Thus, a governing board of an American university may
be within its rights and even performing its obvious duty in expelling from its
faculty any person proved to be a member of the Communist Party. These are con-
troversial matters, however, that need not be gone into here since apparently they
form no part of the issue in the present case. There should be complete unanimity
in the conviction that it is most unwise to compel staff members to take special
oaths or sign special statements under the threat of an ultimatum. This kind of
procedure is ineffective and injudicious, it may serve to encourage that sort of
mass hysteria which it should be the special duty of our institutions of higher
learning to help America avoid.

"It seems particularly inappropriate that a man of Professor Loewenberg's
sound scholarly attainments, unimpeachable moral integrity, high ideals as a
citizen, and long and distinguished service to the University of California should
be the object of the arbitrary action outlined in your letter. We hope you have the
opportunity to bring our sentiments in this matter to the attention of President
Sproul and to your Board of Regents.**

o -o- -o

October 5, 1950
"The undersigned, the members of the Department of Philosophy of the Col-
lege of Liberal Arts in Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, have received
your statement of September 12 regarding Professor Loewenberg's status with
respect to the action of the Regents of the University of California on August 25
of this year.

26

"We join our voices with the many others that have sincerely been raised in
protest against the action of the Regents in their violation of the honored rights
of freedom, privilege, and tenure, an action which can be regarded by men of good
will as nothing less than unjust.

"We sympathize with the plight of Professor Loewenberg, whom we honor for
his long and excellent service to philosophy and to the University of California,
and we praise his courageous act of conscience in the face of injustice. It is our
hope that some fair and amicable solution can eventually be found to this present
difficulty, which will enable him to return to your department, both for the sake
of Professor Loewenberg and for the honor of the University, which has served the
cause of free learning so long and so well. How may we help?"

O- "O o

October 24, 1950
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio

"Because reports coming to us from the University of California, both by way
of the public prints and by way of communications from colleagues there, have
aroused in us much concern and some anxiety, we feel the need of calling to your
attention certain questions.

"As you are aware, the University of California has long maintained a distin-
guished reputation among communities of scholars at home and abroad for the
research and teaching achievements of its faculty. That this deserved reputation
is in danger of being compromised by the action of your Board of Regents, which
by a twelve to ten decision on August 25, 1950, required special oaths of disavowal
as the basis of the appointment of or the continued status of faculty members,
seems all to evident. We have observed that among academic communities there
is fear that the University of California will acquire everywhere a new and ad-
verse reputation as a consequence of that action.

"As members of the department of philosophy of Ohio University we especially
regret the dismissal of Professor Loewenberg of the department of philosophy of
the University of California. In his case the issue of communism or loyalty deter-
mined that Loewenberg was not a communist; and, along with the President, this
committee recommended that Professor Loewenberg be reappointed. His dismissal,
or any impairment of his status, could be caused solely by his conscientious objec-
tions to signing the demanded additional affirmation of loyalty as a political quali-
fication for teachers in the University.

"The action of the Regents reflects lack of confidence in a constitutional oath
that would avow devotion to democratic and representative government. By sin-
gling out the academic community and by vetoing the favorable recommendations
of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure and of the President of the University,
the Regents presume to stand to the faculty in the relation of responsible citizens
to irresponsible wards of the state. The methods employed were not pertinent to
the end desired of eliminating those who were Communists or otherwise disloyal.
In reducing the issue to one of obedience or disobedience to the will of the Re-
gents, the Board subverted and trivialized its primary and proper function which
is to maintain the conditions hospitable to the growth of inquiry and understand-
ing that are the true ends of a University.

27

"As philosophers we lament the harsh action against one of our fellows. As
teachers and as citizens of a democracy we wish respectfully to submit our con-
cern about the action of the Regents, an action which seems to harass rather than
to promote the free and democratic search after truth in institutions that are both
the finest flower and seed of American democracy.

"Will you be so kind as to transmit this letter to the secretary of your Board of
Regents for consideration by that Board.

"Please be assured, Sir, of our continued interest in your University and of our
continued respect for your distinguished office."

■o -o- -o-

October 25, 1950
The University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

"The members of our department share your regret at the loss of Professor
Loewenberg. We have all been among his colleagues who have admired him and
his work, and all of us join in regret at the situation created by the Board of Re-
gents which has been responsible for Dr. Loewenberg's decision. Anything which
threatens the morale and continued achievement of the faculty of the University
of California is a catastrophe in American scholarship."

-<> -o -«>

But while disciplines which have here been specifically invaded by
the Regents have been peculiarly quick and vigorous in reaction
throughout the nation, faculty-wide responses have been numerous.
More or less informal groups of colleagues elsewhere have sent the
following messages, which are reproduced without signatures in order
to save space. These signatures are in excess of 1200 and include such
distinguished names as the following:

FRANK AYDELOTTE

President of Swarthmore College from 1921-1940; Director of the Institute for
Advanced Study, 1939-1947; President of the Association of American Rhodes
Scholars since 1930; Trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching since 1922; and many other offices of distinction too numerous to
mention.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

Nobel Laureate in Physics and member of the Institute for Advanced Study.
Distinguished for his discovery of the theory of relativity and for many other out-
standing contributions in theoretical physics.

ARCHIBALD MAC LEISH

Distinguished poet, lawyer, publicist, and public servant ; Boylston Professor of
Poetry, Harvard University; Librarian of Congress, 1939-1944; Assistant Secre-
tary of State and Director of the United States Office of Facts and Figures. Im-

28

portant contributions to UNESCO, first as Chairman of the American Delegation
to the London Conference in 1945, and finally as a member of the Executive Board
of UNESCO.

JOHN VON NEUMANN

Member of the Institute for Advanced Study since 1933 and distinguished for
his many contributions to mathematical physics. Recipient of the Medal for Merit
and Distinguished Civilian Service Award in 1946 and member of several honorary
societies.

REINHOLD NIEBUHR

Outstanding clergyman and Professor of Applied Christianity at Union Theo-
logical Seminary since 1930. Author of many important contributions to theologi-
cal literature and recipient of honorary degrees from several American and foreign
universities.

J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER

Director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey since
1947 and distinguished as the Director of the laboratory at Los Alamos that per-
fected the atomic bomb. Chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the
Atomic Energy Commission and noted contributor to scientific thought.

1. 1. RABI

Noted physicist who has held a position as Professor at Columbia University
in New York since 1937. Member of the General Advisory Committee of the
Atomic Energy Commission since 1947 and consultant to the Joint Research and
Development Board since 1946. Nobel Laureate in Physics in 1944. Recipient of
other important scientific awards.

ARTHUR MEIER SCHLESINGER

Francis Lee Higginson Professor of History at Harvard University since 1939.
Trustee of Radcliffe College; member of the American Council of Learned So-
cieties; and member of many distinguished educational organizations.

SUMNER H. SLICHTER

Lamont University Professor of Business Economics at Harvard University
since 1940; Chairman of the Research Advisory Board Committee for Economic
Development since 1942; former President of the American Economic Associa-
tion; and perhaps the most influential industrial economist in America.

WALTER STEWART

Trustee and Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation since 1943;
Chairman of the Board of the General Education Board since 1942; and Professor
of Economics and Politics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since
1948; Economic Advisor to the Bank of England from 1928 to 1930; and American
member of an international committee of the Bank of International Settlements.

29

The Institute jor Advanced Study

"We, the resident professors and professors-emeriti of the Institute for Ad-
vanced Study being aware that the Regents have dismissed members of your
faculty contrary to the recommendation of your Committee on Privilege and
Tenure and that this action violates the policy of tenure and the principle of the
faculty's self-determination and responsibility hitherto recognized by the Univer-
sity of California, unanimously wish to encourage you to unite in defense of your
traditional policies and principles against encroachment."

Harvard University

"Since all scholars belong to the community of scholarship, the undersigned
members of the faculties of arts and sciences and law of Harvard University are
profoundly concerned by the injury which has recently been done to that com-
munity by the Regents of the University of California. In all large controversies
the greatest danger is that the basic principle will be obscured by secondary
issues. The latest action of the Board of Regents renounces its faith in the respon-
sibility of scholars, repudiates the established traditions of the University of Cali-
fornia, and violates faculty rights of academic freedom and tenure. We hope and
expect that the Academic Senate of the University of California will relentlessly
defend the principles from which the heahh of all universities derives."

A similar statement has been communicated from the University of

Minnesota. n ■ , xr .

rrinceton University

"We, the undersigned, members of the facuhy of Princeton University send
greetings to the Academic Senate of the University of California and assure the
Senate that we have observed with deep concern the recent action taken by the
Regents of the University of California in dismissing members of the facuhy
against the recommendation of the Senate's Committee on Privilege and Tenure.
We recognize that this action of tlie Regents constitutes a denial of an enlightened
policy of tenure and repudiates the principle of the self-determination and re-
sponsibility of the faculty which the Academic Senate and the Board of Regents
of the University of California have hitherto steadfastly maintained. We trust that
for the sake of academic freedom in the University of California and in all
American universities the Academic Senate will vigorously defend its traditional
policies and principles, and we assure the Senate of our whole-hearted support
in its cause and of our readiness to assist it with any means at our command."

Similar statements have been ronnnunicated from i\ew York Uni-
versity, Rut}iers University, and Oherlin Collefie.

Columbia University

"The undersigned members of the faculties of Columbia University have been
following with intense interest the recent events at the University of California
We have been greatly perturbed at the action of the Regents of that University in
dismissing members of its faculty contrary to the recommendations of the Com-

30

mittee on Privilege and Tenure of the Senate. This action seems to us a reversal
of the policy of tenure that has long governed the University of California, and a
denial of the principle of the self-determination and responsibility of the faculty
in educational affairs, firmly established at California and vigorously upheld by
its Academic Senate. This policy and principle are of vital concern to all Amer-
icans, and especially to your professional colleagues on the faculties of other
American universities. We are confident that the Senate will do everything in its
power to maintain and defend them, and we wish to assure you of our concern and
our wholehearted support in this our common cause."

Yale University (Telegram)

"Undersigned members Yale Faculty hope academic senate will not endorse
action of Regents dismissing professors not signing contract with anticommunist
clause. Such clause self-defeating, misses unscrupulous communists, eliminates
scrupulous liberals by not proving in individual cases unfitness for teaching pro-
fession, violates tenure."

The Johns Hopkins University

"We, members of the faculty of The Johns Hopkins University, herewith send
warm greetings and salutations to the Academic Senate of the University of Cali-
fornia. We feel that the action of the Regents of the University of California in
dismissing members of the faculty contrary to the recommendation of the Senate's
Committee on Privilege and Tenure directly attacks the principles of faculty self-
determination and responsibility, in whose support the Academic Senate and the
Board of Regents have hitherto been so felicitously and properly united. Those
principles are more important than the attainment of any specific and immediate
objective to be achieved by ignoring them. They comprise the essence of constitu-
tional government in the academic world, and so are of vital concern to all of us.

"Therefore we urge the Academic Senate of the University of California stead-
fastly to maintain its stand in support of these principles, vital to higher educa-
tion, and so to the nation. We assure the Senate of our wholehearted support in
this shared cause and duty, and trust that it may prevail on the Board of Regents
to reverse its stand and revert to the enlightened policy which had previously
marked its relations to the faculty, and had constituted so conspicuous an example
of educational and political wisdom."

Dartmouth College

"We, the undersigned members of the faculty at Dartmouth College, send greet-
ings to the Academic Senate of the University of California. We have observed
with deep concern the recent action taken by the Regents of the University of
California in dismissing members of the faculty against the recommendation of
the Senate's Committee on Privilege and Tenure. Denial of an enlightened policy
of tenure and repudiation of the principle of self-determination and responsibihty
of a university or college faculty are actions which we consider unfortunate and
dangerous. For the sake of academic freedom in the University of California and
in all American universities and colleges, we hope that the Academic Senate will

31

defend vigorously its traditional principles and policies and that the Regents of
the University of California may be prevailed upon to reconsider an action which
can do tremendous harm to American higher education.

"We assure the Senate of our interest in its cause and our readiness to render
such assistance as wc can in this crisis."

Telegram from Bryn Mawr College

"We the undersigned members of the faculty of Bryn Mawr College present
one week before the opening of college express the hope that the Senate of the
University of California will be successful in restoring its traditional policies of
academic tenure which have been violated by recent actions of the Board of Re-
gents. Failure would, in our opinion, not only undermine the position of a great
university, but also constitute a serious threat to academic freedom in the United
States."

Bryn Mawr College

"As members of the faculty of Bryn Mawr College and with the concurrence of
its chapter of the American Association of University Professors, we, the under-
signed, wish to express our support of your stand for the principle of academic
freedom and the tradition of academic tenure, in particular as upheld by you in
the resolutions adopted September 26th and October 9th.

"We believe that the recent action by the majority of the Board of Regents of
the University of California has not only injured the University and impaired its
essential role in our democratic society, but that it also constitutes a serious threat
to academic freedom throughout the United States.

"We are opposed to the imposition of special oaths on members of academic
institutions because such imposition carries an implicit threat to the freedom of
discussion vital to university teaching. Moreover, it is evident that it is a totally
ineffective protection against disloyalty.

"We believe that it is essential to institutions of higher learning and research
that the conditions of academic tenure be clearly formulated with the advice and
consent of those whom they affect; and furthermore we are convinced that their
wise administration and just application to individual cases can be assured only
if the elected representatives of the faculty participate in such decisions. In order
to render its unique and fundamental service to our democratic society, an insti-
tution of higher learning inevitably depends on the devotion of its faculty to the
free pursuit of learning as essential to the public good. The loyalty and effective-
ness of a faculty can be assured only so far as its responsibilities are clearly rec-
ognized and freely exercised. The faculties themselves are the wisest and most
reliable judges of the qualifications of those who are to be admitted to academic
privileges and entrusted with academic duties.

"A copy of this letter is being sent to Governor Warren as President of the
Board of Regents, to Mr. Edward Augustus Dickson as Chairman of the Board of
Regents, to Mr. Robert M. Underbill as Secretary and Treasurer of the Regents,
and to President Sproul."

The University of Buffalo
"The Department of Psychology of the University of Buffalo strongly supports
any action which in principle opposes the imposition of a loyalty oath on mem-

32

i

I

bers of the academic profession. We hope that you will agree with us that this is
the time for more rather than less freedom of expression."

Vassar College

"The Faculty of Vassar College protests the attack upon academic freedom and
tenure at the University of California.

"We hold that it is the duty of the governing body of any University to resist
political or other pressure and to protect the independence and integrity of the
University.

"We reaffirm our conviction that the welfare of the nation requires the fullest
protection of the ri^jhts of free speech and free inquiry. Only if Faculty and stu-
dents are free to choose their problems for investigation, to hear and consider
conflicting opinions, and to carry on their search for truth in their various fields,
can the University fulfill its function in a democratic society. Only through free
inquiry and freedom of expression of diverse vie-vs can the nation reach sound
decisions on matters of public policy. Any restriction upon such freedoms inter-
feres with the function of the University in developing citizens capable of under-
standing and dealing wisely with controversial issues.

"Therefore, no special statement or oath concerning political or religious affilia-
tion should be required of University teachers. Such statements imply a limitation
upon the freedom of inquiry that is the life of the University, and cannot assure
the integrity or scholarship of present or prospective members of the Faculty,
qualifications which are of the deepest concern to the teaching profession. The
Faculty has the responsibility for maintaining the tradition of scholarship, and
it alone is the competent judge of the qualifications of its members. Its freedom
to choose its members and the protection of the rights of tenure must be assured
if the University is to be free.

"Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty of Vassar College urges the Board
of Regents of the University of California to uphold these principles of academic
freedom, and to rescind the requirement of a statement concerning political affilia-
tion by members of the Faculty.

"And be it resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the
University of California for transmittal to the Board of Regents, and that copies
be sent to the Governor of California, to the Faculty of the University of Cali-
fornia and to the press."

Simmons College

"At a meeting of the Faculty, held on November 7, 1950, the following resolu-
tion was passed:

"That the Faculty of Simmons College expresses its support of the Academic

Senate of the University of California in its effort to maintain the principles of

academic freedom and tenure, principles in which this Faculty wholeheartedly

believes.

"The Secretary was instructed to send copies of the resolution to the Academic
Senate of the University of California and to the Board of Regents."

Sarah Lawrence College
**We the undersigned members of the faculty and administration of Sarah
Lawrence College wish to support our colleagues of the University of California

33

in their defense of academic freedom. We have foUowed with interest and concern
the series of events leading up to the dismissal of those faculty members who re-
fused to sign an oath which they fell to be both unjust and unnecessary. The
Regents of the University of California have violated the prmciple of faculty
responsibilitv for educational policy, in rejecting the recommendation of your
faculty committee on privilege and tenure. This is a matter of deep concern to the
entire academic community in America. We hope that the support of your col-
leagues, in our institution and in many others throughout the country, will en-
courage you to continue your struggle until there is a just settlement of the present
issue."

The University of Rochester
"We the undersigned members of the faculty and staff of the University of
Rochester, do support the Academic Senate of the University of California in its
opposition to the action of the California Board of Regents taken August 25, 195U.
We condemn this action which resulted in dismissal of tenure members of the
California faculty because they refused to comply with a special loyalty test im-
posed upon them, ^e, undersigned, believe that the Regents' action intimidates
and restricts the teaching profession, that it is a grave threat to academic freedom
and that, if unchecked, such action will lead to permanent impairment of freedom
of thought and inquiry."

Protestant Theologians for Academic Freedom

"Being mindful of the tradition of our Church in defense of the liberties of the
human mind and spirit,

"And counting it a shame to stand by in silence while a great university, which
is neighbor to us, is stripped of its liberties, ^ t ^ •

"We, the undersigned, professors at the several Protestant theological faculties
in the State of California, x u t' •

"Do herebv affirm our sympathy with the members of the faculty of the Univer-
sity of California who have been unjustly expelled for failure to sign the loyalty
oath, and do repudiate the action of the Regents in so expelling them.

"We can understand a desire to exclude from the faculty any person who is
hostile to the academic ideals of a democracy.

"But we cannot understand the expulsion, in the name of patriotism, of facultv
members who are officially cleared of subversive intent, and whose record as loyal

Americans is bevond reproach. i v. u ii

"We appreciate the desire of the Regents to devise a mechanism which shall
keep off the facuhy all persons who are traitors to the ideals of liberty and of
truth which are essential to the academic profession in any free land.

"But we regard as contradictory, ridiculous and intolerable the punishment for
•recalcitrance' of facuhy members who refuse to comply with a device which docs
not clearly exclude such traitors, but which does obviously exclude many loyal

persons.

"Therefore, we commend Governor Warren and President Sproul for their cou-
rageous stand on this issue, and we commend all those Regents who stood with
them;

34

"And we invite the Regents of the University of California to correct imme-
diately a grave injustice against loyal citizens in the faculty, against the Univer-
sity itself, and against freedom and democracy everywhere."

Union Theological Seminary

"A number of the members of the faculty of Union Theological Seminary have
sent the following endorsement of the statement made by Protestant theological
faculties in the State of California on the problem of academic freedom in the
University of California.

"We, the undersigned members of the faculty of Union Theological Seminary
desire to associate ourselves with the statement of the professors in Protestant
theological faculties in the State of California concerning the action of the Re-
gents in expelling members of the faculty of the University of California because
of their refusal to sign the 'loyalty oath.' "

To show the sympathy for and massive support of the faculty posi-
tion that is so eloquently expressed in these communications (grateful
as we must be for them) is not the point of presenting them here.
They are here given merely as an indication of the numbers of indi-
viduals within the profession for whom the University of California has
come to represent an institution where liberty of dissent has been in-
vaded, and men dismissed with no charges save those of conscientious
objection to the peremptory and possibly illegal orders of a bare ma-
jority of the Board of Regents.

Finally and for the sake of completeness, it should be recorded that
one member of the faculty of Rutgers University sent to the Committee
on Privilege and Tenure at U.C.L.A. a letter disparaging the faculty's
stand, and his own colleagues for their support of it.

In this connection, certain members of the Board of Regents have
indicated that they too have received numerous communications sim-
ilar in purport. These, presumably have come from lay bodies, civic
organizations, etc. The misunderstanding on the part of such or-
ganizations of the motives, character and loyalty of this faculty is a
distressing manifestation. Your committee earnestly believes that mis-
representation of the faculty position and insidious suggestions that the
facultv has been "infiltrated" by communists have produced these mis-
understandings. We urge members of the faculty to seize every oppor-
tunity to correct them. Neither the Board of Regents nor the faculty
itself can afford an indifferent or cavalier attitude toward any segment
of public opinion.

35

IV

REFUSALS OF OFFERS OF APPOINTMENT

(To Date, 47 Refusals of Offers of Appointment)

The refusals of eminent men called by this University, to accept ap-
pointment here represent in a sense the ultimate consequence of the
chain of events set in motion in June 1949. They are, so lo speak, final
precipitations of the tragedy begun at that time. In a fashion most
vivid and obvious, they measure the cost of the Regents' actions. In
estimating the effects in this area of the Regents' abrogation of tenure,
several facts should be borne in mind. It should be realized first of all
that in a number of departments Chairmen have feh it unwise, in the
light of present circumstances, to undertake a really vigorous program
of recruitment. They were, of course, at once aware of the paralyzing
disadvantage to which the Regents' abrogation of tenure had put them.
In several cases, preliminary explorations brought the facts grimly
home. The Chairman of the Department of Physics last September

7 wrote :

"II is my belief that we cannot now induce & single first class theoretical physi-
cist to accept a position at Berkeley."

On January 16, 1951 he wrote as follows:

"Since July 14, 1950 we have lost two members of the staflf by direct action of
the Regents at the August, 1950 meeting. One of these (Wick) has been our chief
theoretical physicist. He has now accepted a position at the Carnegie Institute of
Technologv, starting with the Spring 1951 semester.

"As a direct result of the Regents' action, three additional members of the staff
have already resigned and others, including at least one of our most distinguished
meml)ers, are seriously considering doing so. One of the three who has already
resigned is Professor Wolfgang Panofsky, whom we consider the most promising
young experimental physicist in the entire country. It is completely impossible lo

replace him. i u • i

"Over a period of many years the Department of Physics has been laboriously
buih up until it is generally acknowledged to be the leading physics department
of the country. This result has been attained by the use of foresight, good judg-
ment and persuasiveness in acquiring the staff and by the use of fair employment
tactics in retaining it. The latter objective is just as difficuh to achieve as the
former, since numerous offers, at substantially higher salaries, continually come
to our staff members from leading institutions of the country. But in spite of such

36

offers the staff has been held virtually intact. In fact, in the entire history of the
department, up to July, 1950, only three members of the staff have been lost,
against the definite desires of the department.

"But much of our armor, both offensive and defensive, has now been swept
away, through no fault of our own. Already within the space of seven short
months there have been five losses, with others threatened. These losses include
three of our four theoretical physicists and, as already noted, our most promising
experimental physicist. The seriousness of such losses is enormously magnified by
the difficulty that confronts us in any attempt to find adequate replacements. As
a result of the conditions recently created here, this institution has become an
object of pity or of scorn throughout the educational world. It has already been
formally ostracized by certain professional organizations."

Elsewhere the chairman of this department indicates that in the loss
of these men, the Department of Physics has been grievously impaired

as an agency of national defense.

"Nearly all these men, I need not remind you, have 0 clearance for the Atomic
Energy' Commission. All are willing in the future as they have been in the past,
to work when necessary on national defense, and on their brains the fate of the
nation may well depend, if another major war comes."

The contribution of the University's Department of Physics before
dismemberment in the development of the atomic bomb, and in other
major achievements is too well known for comment.

On September 19, 1950, a member of the Department of Sociology
and Social Institutions wrote his Chairman as follows:

"It was part of my function to canvass available candidates for the Depart-
ment, and I think I should inform you concerning the effect of the present situa-
tion at the University on the willingness of prospective candidates to join the
staff. Out of eight candidates whom I interviewed, three indicated that they were
very interested in joining the faculty, but that they would be unwilling to do so
as long as conditions of academic freedom were what they are at present. I should
perhaps emphasize that three out of the eight is a significant number primarily
because the three who so declared themselves are precisely those in whom we
should be most interested both in terms of qualifications and experience."

The Chairman of the Department of Economics on September 19

wrote :

"I have deliberately refrained from approaching men elsewhere until the situa-
tion here became clearer, because I am sure that an offer to join this Department
would be considered with less than complete enthusiasm."

A number of other departments also report that they believe efforts
to recruit at this time are handicapped to the point of practical use-
lessness.

37

It should be further noted that declinations of offers received to date
precede in many cases official proscriptions of this University by the
learned societies of the disciplines which the "decliners" represent.
And of course, all precede that most serious condemnation, a resolution
(which appears likely) of censure by the American Association of
University Professors.

Finally, it will perhaps not be too repetitious to turn again to the
"quantitative" argument.

At a recent meeting of the Board of Regents, one member of the
Board is alleged to have countered the announcement that at that time
twelve men had declined appointments here with the retort that sixty
had meanwhile been appointed. This remark was presumably facetious
in intention. It is impossible to believe that anyone with even rudi-
mentary knowledge of the nature of a University could seriously reckon
loss and gain "by the head." The number who have declined invita-
tions either to the permanent or to the summer staff is, in fact, much
increased since this eccentric comment was made. At the moment of
writing this report, it has reached a total of 47 on this and on the San
Francisco Campuses. In addition, three declinations are described as
possibly the result of the Regents' actions. But again, the loss to tlie
University is not to be reckoned quantitatively, for among those who
have declined appointment here are figures who would have reflected
a lustre on the University evident to the dullest eye. Specifically the
men who have refused to come to the University of CaUfornia as the
result of what has been done by the action of the Regents to tenure and
academic freedom are men of surpassing eminence, national and inter-
national leaders in the profession. Among them are the following :

Professor Howard Mumford Jones, Professor of English at Harvard
University, former Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
at Harvard. President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
representative of the Humanities at the World Conference of Scholars
with which Harvard celebrated its Tercentenary. Poet, scholar, play-
wright, and author of many books.

Professor Jones was invited as Visiting Professor for the 1951 Sum-
mer Session at U.C.L.A. He wired in reply:

"In view of the good repute of the University of California until recently, and

38

especially in view of the unique opportunities for scholarly research in the Los
Angeles area I am strongly drawn to your offer of a visiting summer term profes-
sorship in 1951. I hope this offer can be renewed under happier circumstances.
But until your board of regents ceases to violate the ordinary principles of aca-
demic tenure and honest agreement between parties to a contract I cannot in good
conscience accept. In view of the condemnation of the unparalleled action of your
board by professional bodies and groups of scliolars and scientists over the coun-
try I am regretfully taking the liberty of making this reply public."

The story of Professor Jones' refusal was carried in newspapers
throughout the nation.

Professor Robert Penn Warren, Professor of English, University of
Minnesota, Pulitzer Prize Winner in Fiction, 1947. holder of the Chair
of Poetry al the Library of Congress 1944^5, one of the founders
and editors of The Southern Review, author of All the King's Men,
etc., wrote:

"I am sorry to have been so long in answering your kind letter of July 25, but
I was waiting for news of the action of the Regents at their meeting of late Au-
gust. I have, of course, now had that news, first from the newspapers and more
lately by reports from California. I consider that news deeply distressing, not
only as it may affect my personal situation but as it will certainly affect the whole
temper of the academic community in this country. It seems to me that the action
of the Regents of the University of California would reduce the academic com-
munity, both faculty and administration, to the level of hired hands serving at
the whim of a group of men whose acquaintance with intellectual life and its
responsibilities is, in some cases at least, of the most rudimentary order. Under
these circumstances, it is impossible for me to consider the extremely attractive
and flattering prospect which the University of California has held out to me. If
circumstances should change, and if you and the Department of English should
then wish to reopen the discussion, I should be very happy. But for the present
there is no course open to me but that of derlining your offer.

"Perhaps I should say one more thing, at least for the record. I am not and
have never been a member of th.e Communist Party or of any organization asso-
ciated with it. Therefore my refusal to come to the University of California is
motivated simply by the conviction that the present policy of the Board of Re-
gents constitutes a threat not only to academic freedom hut in the end to ordinary
freedom and decency.

"And one thing more: I am very grateful to you for your personal interest and

long patience."

Professor Rudolf Carnap, Professor of Philosophy. University of
Chicago, described by a member of the Department of Philosophy as
'*one of the three leading philosophers alive today," invited here to
deliver the annual Howison Lecture, declined as follows:

39

"When I returned to Chicago at the beginning of this month, I found your
letter of September 7, renewing the invitation to give the Howi8on Memorial
Lecture on the Berkeley Campus in the spring of 1951. I wish to express my best
thanks.

"When I indicated to Professor Dennes last spring my willingness to accept
the invitation if it were renewed for 1951, I assumed that a fair solution of the
controversy concerning the loyalty oath would be found. This hope has not been
fulfilled. I regard the peremptory dismissal of eminent scholars, without regard
for their tenure rights and their long distinguished service to the University, as
a shocking violation of academic freedom. As long as these conditions prevail,
I am unwilling to accept an honor from the University, and therefore I decline
the invitation with sorrow and regret. For the same reason I have refused to be
considered by the Department of Philosophy of the Los Angeles campus for their
Flint visiting professorship.

"I wish both refusals to be regarded as expressions of solidarity with the dis-
missed colleagues, and of protest against the violation of the principle that schol-
arship, teaching ability, and integrity of character should be the only criteria for
judging a man's fitness for an academic position. I am in deepest sympathy with
all efforts to restore full academic freedom at the University of California, and
thereby to help the University to regain its old honored place among our uni-
versities."

Professor Joseph R. Strayer, Dayton-Stockton Professor of His-
tory, Princeton University, Chairman of The Department of History,
Vice-President and Fellow of the Mediaeval Academy of America,
Delegate to the American Council of Learned Societies, writes:

"I have long wanted to visit Berkeley and in ordinary circumstances I should
be delighted to teach in your Summer Session. I know that I would gain a great
deal from association with you and members of your Department, and that life
in Berkeley would be most pleasant.

"Unfortunately, I feel that accepting a position on the summer staff would
constitute approval, however unimportant, of the recent actions of the Regents
of the University. I cannot take an appointment in a place where the basic rules
of academic tenure are violated and where a man in my own field, whom I re-
spect and admire, has been unjustly treated.*

"Perhaps I can visit Berkeley in happier times; I have too much confidence in
the Faculty of the University and the people of the state to believe that the
present difficulties will long continue. You know that I write this letter with deep
regret and with the friendliest feelings towards you and your colleagues."

Professor Henry Scheffe, Professor of Mathematical Statistics, Co-
lumbia University, former Consultant and Senior Mathematician,
Office of Scientific Research and Development, Member Board of Edi-

* Professor Strayer is evidently here referring to Professor Kantorowicz. Cf. p. 9.

40

tors, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Member National Research
Council, etc., declined an invitation to teach in the Summer Session as
follows :

"Many thanks for your invitation to teach in the 1951 summer session at
Berkeley. Much as I would enjoy this opportunity for scholarship and seeing old
friends, I feel I must deny myself the pleasure because of the present poor state
at the University of California of academic freedom, tenure, and faculty control
of university affairs."

Others declining invitations to come here (or to U.C.L.A.) include:
the Chairman of the Department of Physics at a major west coast uni-
versity, "One of the ablest theoretical physicists in the country";
Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at a great mid-western
university, a fellow of the A.A.A.S., consulting editor of The Encyclo-
pedia of Social Sciences; a practising landscape architect, described
as the most widely known and greatly admired landscape architect in
the world today; a distinguished author and student in the field of
Political Theory, Chairman of the Research Committee of the Ameri-
can Political Science Association; a Professor of International Rela-
tions, Member of the U. S. Delegation at the Dumbarton Oaks Confer-
ence, Consultant to the State Department; a distinguished anthropolo-
gist, and former official in the O.S.S.; a Professor of Sociology at
Columbia University, etc., etc. Their letters of declination provide evi-
dence patent enough of what illustrious men in the profession regard
as "minimal standards" in tenure and academic freedom, and of this
University's present failure to meet these standards. Characteristic
ones are here given :

"I need scarcely reiterate my devotion to the University of California and my
interest in seeing it resume its distinguished academic reputation. My loyalty to
my country is also unquestioned. It is based on a profound faith in the traditional
values expressed in its founding documents. I am deeply concerned by attacks on
those traditions from radicals of the extreme right and extreme left. I recall my
distress at the supine role of many intellectuals when Germany was coming under
the Nazi Party. The miserable moral position of intellectuals in the USSR is too
well known to need comment. I should not like to be counted among those who
will justify any means for ends that may be laudable. However futile gestures
against such means may sometimes be, not to make them is the beginning of
personal and social degradation. In all conscience I cannot feel that I would be
loyal to our country if I abet the adoption of methods used by ideological systems
antipathetic tb those of our democracy.

41

"I have served for the last five years in a sensitive agency of our government.
I know how demoralizing suspicions and repeated questioning of motives, thoughts
and actions can be, and I also know that the nation is ill served when such de-
moralization attacks its employees.

"I consider this invitation an honor for me and normally would be very happy
to accept it. Unfortunately, in the present circumstances, when due to the con-
flicts at your University, some of my colleagues there have lost their positions, it
would be impossible for me to teach at the University of California. I must there-
fore, regretfully, decline your invitation."

"As you know, the issue of the oath and its disruptive effects on the University
led me to seriously reconsider my decision to go to Berkeley and prompted me to
write you last month.

"From the beginning I have been disturbed by the oath itself. I hold no brief
for the Communist Party or its members. I feel that their willingness to abuse
human rights justifies the forfeiture of their claim to the protection offered by
those rights in many situations. At the same time, I am convinced that a com-
pulsory, non-Communist oath is a crude, ineffective method of dealing with
particular individuals in a university.

"A teacher holds a position of obvious public responsibility, and if he demon-
strates that he is disloyal or dishonest he can be fired for violation of this re-
sponsibility. The oath is not required for this purpose. Nor is it required as a
preventive measure to head off after-the-fact dismissals. The latter is better re-
garded as one objective of the regular examination of a man's qualifications for
employment. Thus I can't see that the oath has much to be said for it as a
practical method of dealing with Communists, although I agree that some method
should be provided. On the other hand, the oath can be viewed as a dangerous
precedent as far as academic freedom is concerned.

"The Regents' position, that they are disciplining the faculty and that Com-
munism is not now the issue (they found no Communists) , demonstrates a danger
arising from the oath. So long as the ultimate authority for the oath's administra-
tion is vested in a narrow-minded group of political appointees, it is impossible to
predict what actions they will take. Judged by their actions, I am sure that the
majority of the Regents either care nothing for the distinction between a Tolman,
a Laski, or a genuine Gerhardt Eisler — or they are incapable of understanding
the distinction.

"The oath and the Regents* actions have stirred up emotions among lots of
people for whom such devolpments are not yet a real issue, but for me they
constitute a real problem which I have worried about for some time. Had I been
at Berkeley, I believe that I would have signed the oath unenthusiastically and
tended to discount my imaginings of future dangers. However, in contemplating
a move to Berkeley now, I am under no pressure. I know how the Regents are
inclined to administer the oath and deal with those who object to it, and the most
effective protest that I can make is to return them an unsigned contract."

-o- -o- -o-

"I regret very much that I shall be unable to accept an invitation to teach in
either of your Summer Sessions of 1951. I could not see my way clear to come to

42

Berkeley so long as the principles of academic freedom are being violated by the
Regents. It seems to me that it is my duty — in this case, a hard duty — to be un-
willing to come. Only thus can I join the permanent Berkeley faculty in fighting
for the rights of those of you who have not been allowed the freedom due them as
teachers.

"You, above all, must understand how hard it is for me thus to dismiss a chance
to return and visit a place which is very dear to me and my wife. You must under-
stand that I mean my action to support that being taken by your Academic
Senate and faculty organizations all over the country.

"I trust that you will be successful in your fight to restore the rights of our
friends at Berkeley and that one day the damage will be undone. Then, I hope,
you will ask me once more to join your Summer Session faculty. I ask that you
ask me, and that you understand this letter for what it is — an attempt, however
small, to help in the common fight."

•o- -o o

"I was very much elated by your offer via the telephone to teach at Berkeley for
one of the summer sessions and naturally my first reaction was to feel honored
and express my interest in going to Berkeley. However while at the convention in
Chicago at Xmas time I had the occasion to speak with many statisticians regard-
ing recent events at the University of California connected with the oath question.
I regret to say that the attitude of most of the statisticians was such that I feel it
would be wrong to go to Berkeley at this time. This is particularly regrettable
because I consider the Statistical Laboratory an ideal place to work and because
of the great esteem I have for you and your colleagues."

■o -o- -o

"REGRET REGENTS' SHAMEFUL TREATMENT FACULTY PREVENTS
ACCEPTING OTHERWISE ATTRACTIVE INVITATION."

"Since talking to you earlier in the year, the turn of events at the University,
particularly the recent actions of the Board of Regents, has forced me to recon-
sider my decision regarding assisting in your department this coming year.

"Much as I would like to teach, I find myself unable to lend my support to a
situation to which I am definitely unsympathetic."

-o -o -o

"... I am sure, as you say, that California offers an opportunity in the field of
regional planning and resources management unique in the country, and for this
reason I should be most anxious to come. However, things do look mighty black
from here on the issue of academic freedom; and if the picture as we see it ... is
at all accurate, then despite all other favorable factors, I should not want to accept
a permanent appointment at California."

Commenting on the writer of this (excerpted) letter, the Chairman

of the Department wrote as follows :

"Week before last I talked to . . . about this matter. He assured me that, al-
though he himsdf had no objection whatever to signing the Regents' statement,

43

he could not consider a permanent appointment at the University of California
until the men who had been dismissed by the Regents were restored to their
posts. He was particularly emphatic on this, saying that he viewed the Regents'
action as a gross breach of the principle of academic tenure since it involved the
dismissal of members of the faculty in violation of the established procedures
agreed by the Board itself."

44

RESOLUTIONS OF LEARNED SOCIETIES

(Condemnatory Resolutions by Twenty Professional
Societies and Groups)

The effect of the refusals of distinguished individuals to accept ap-
pointment here is obviously not limited to our loss of the knowledge
and ability which these famous men represent. On the contrary, second-
ary effects must be anticipated, extending as far as the influence and
example of the individuals extend. More ominous for the future of the
University are the massive pressures exerted by the learned societies.
No evidence of the present predicament will be to members of the
faculty and to friends of the University as disturbing as these. In the
resolutions of these bodies, there is either direct or implicit warning
that members will accept and retain posts here only at the peril of their
standing in the profession. The texts of resolutions thus far com-
municated are as follows:*

The Modern Language Association

"The Modern Language Association, at its sixty-fifth annual meeting on De-
cember 27, 1950, approves and refers to its new executive council the following
resolution: In view of the present unsatisfactory tenure conditions for teachers and
research personnel in the state university system of California, the Modern
Language Association recommends to all its members that they not accept posi-
tions in that university system until such time as tenure conditions improve.**

The American Historical Association

"During the past year the American scholarly world has watched with mounting
concern the actions of the Board of Regents of one of our great universities, the
University of California. This institution has in the past attained an enviable
reputation as a leader in research, teaching, and service to the state and nation.
The relations between its governing board and its staff have contributed much to
create the atmosphere in which free scholarship can work with security based on
the fundamental right to tenure for faithful service, and the observance of pro-

Italics ours.

45

cedures long accepted at California for the appraisal of academic fitness. By a
series of steps the Board has undermined the good feeling hitherto existing be-
tween it and the faculty. By replacing tenure with an annual appointment as an
overhanging threat, academic freedom has been imperiled. The American His-
torical Association at its meeting in Chicago, December 29, 1950, records its con-
cern at the effect of these policies on the University of California and on higher
education everywhere. It authorizes its secretary to transmit this expression of
concern to the members of the Board of Regents of the University of California
together with its hope that the Board will find it possible to review its recent ac-
tions dispassionately and find a solution in keeping with its past creditable record
in the conduct of the university's affairs."

Guy Stanton Ford, Secretary

The American Psychological Association

"In view of the present unsatisfactory tenure conditions for teachers and research
personnel in the State University system of California, the Board of Directors
of the American Psychological Association by unanimous agreement has instructed
the associations placement service to refuse assistance in filling vacancies in this
system until such time as tenure conditions meet acceptable standards — further-
more, it is recommending to the association s members that they not accept posi-
tions in the State University system until such time as tenure conditions improve"

o <» -o-

The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

"The following resolutions were passed unanimously at the annual
meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues on
September 3rd, 1950:

"(1) The Society strongly disapproves the action of the Board of Regents of
the University of California, (a) in disregarding questions of evidence of
actual loyalty to the university and to the nation, and (b) in discharging
faculty members because of decisions taken by the Regents with regard to
faculty oaths of allegiance.

"(2) The Society is recommending to its members that they refuse to accept
positions which would be replacements of persons discharged in violation
of traditions of academic freedom.

"(3) The Society wishes to report that it is considering a policy of voluntary
assessments to provide a fund for legal defense or other purposes, as
needed, in cases of psychologists involved in disputes over academic
freedom.

"(4) The Society requests that its officers be given suggestions of measures
which might be taken by this organization to bring about a satisfactory
solution of the California controversy and thus further the causes of
academic freedom generally."

46

American Mathematical Society Resolution Passed at Cambridge,
Massachusetts, at the International Congress of Mathematicians

**The Council of the American Mathematical Society deplores the harm done
to academic freedom and scientific progress by the recent action of the regents
of the University of California in imposing arbitrary and humiliating conditions
of employment on the faculty. The Council notes that this action has already
resulted in a great discontent and loss of morale in the California Faculty, and in
the consequent desire of many distinguished faculty members to move elsewhere.
The future effects of this action upon the scientific and academic work of the
California Faculty and upon the standing of the University will be disastrous.
The Council therefore urges that the regents reconsider their action so as to re-
store academic freedom and to insure the continued high standing of the Univer-
sity of California."

o o- -o

American Philological Association

"The Board of Directors of the American Philological Association censures the
Regents of the University of California for voting to dismiss 31 members of the
faculty of that university against the recommendation of the Faculty Committee
on Privilege and Tenure and for denying the traditional right of tenure that has
hitherto obtained in the university.

"The Board of Directors advises the members of the Association not to accept
positions on the faculty of the University of California until the present policy of
the Regents in respect of tenure has been reversed.

"The Board of Directors particularly recommends that no member of the
Association accept any position made vacant by the dismissal of a member of the
Association from the University of California contrary to the recommendation of
the Faculty Committee on Privilege and Tenure of that university."

Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association

"Be it resolved that the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical
Association

"a. deplores the violation, by the Regents of the University of California, of
long estabhshed traditions of academic freedom and tenure, in failing to
reappoint members of the faculty who had been recommended for reappoint-
ment by the President, after having been cleared by the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure ;

"b. urges that the Regents reconsider their action of August 25, both in the
interests of the faculty members concerned, and because of the harm this
action has done to one of the country's most distinguished universities;

"c. urges upon the Regents a return to the principles of academic freedom and
tenure thus threatened at the University of California;

"d. requests its members not to accept faculty appointment at the University of
California until the Regents take such action."

47

Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association

Resolution adopted at the meeting of the Pacific Division of the American
Philosophical Association meeting at Berkeley, California, December 29, 1950.

"Be it resolved that the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical
Association

"a. deplores the violation, by the Regents of the University of California, of
long established traditions of academic freedom and tenure, in failing to
continue in appointment members of the faculty who had been recommended
for continued appointment by the President, after having been cleared of
charges against them by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure;

"b. urges that the Regents reconsider their action of August 25, both in the
interests of the faculty members concerned, and because of the harm this
action has done to one of the country's most distinguished universities;

"c. urges upon the Regents a return to the principles of academic freedom and
tenure thus threatened with destruction at the University of California;

"d. requests its members not to accept faculty appointment to the University of
California until and unless the members of the faculty facing dismissal have
been secured in their positions under the traditional principles of academic
freedom and tenure"

American Anthropological Association

"The Regents of the University of California, by the vote of a bare majority of
its members, has imposed upon the faculty of the University of California a con-
tract incorporating in substance a special test oath not required of other public
servants of the State.

"All members of the faculty of the University of California have traditionally,
in the manner expected of public servants, afiSrmed their loyalty to the State and
federal constitutions.

"The imposition of special test oaths, either directly or indirectly, is discrimina-
tory and contrary to well-founded principles of the American democratic tradition.
It serves to introduce into a community of teachers, scholars and scientists an at-
mosphere of crass intimidation and insecurity incompatible with the democratic
spirit of free inquiry essential to the growth of knowledge and the nourishment
of our free society. Further, such test oaths are ineffective and actually protect
subversive elements who will not hesitate to sign such test oaths.

"The Regents of the University of California have arbitrarily dismissed members
of the faculty solely because, in their dedication to high ideals of democratic
rights and academic freedom, they felt they could not in conscience accept the
discriminatory contract imposed upon the faculty by the Regents, By this action
the Regents have harshly abrogated the rights of tenure to which faculty members
are traditionally entitled.

"Therefore be it resolved that the Council of Fellows of the American Anthro-
pological Association condemn the action of the Regents of the University of
California as an arbitrary act of injustice destructive of the morale of scholarship
and inimical to the interests of American society.

48

"And further, that all members of the American Anthropological Association
be urged to oppose such test oaths in all universities and to assist in every
practicable way to find suitable positions for qualified persons who have suffered
dismissal in consequence of their refusal to subscribe to the discriminatory con-
tract; and that each member be urged to respond as generously as possible to
appeals for financial assistance on behalf of the dismissed members of the Uni-
versity of California faculty.

"By this action the American Anthropological Association supports the stand of
the Governor of the State, the President of the University, the minority of the Board
of Regents, and the University faculty in support of established tenure and
freedom of thought and expresses its faith in the ultimate right solution of this
controversy and in the future of the University of California as one of the world's
great institutions of learning."

-o -o-

Phi Beta Kappa— The United Chapters
"At the annual meeting of the Phi Beta Kappa Senate on December
2, the Senators unanimously adopted the following resolution:

"The Senate of the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa expresses its grave
concern over the events which have been reported affecting the status of academic
tenure at the University of California. The accepted principles of tenure, of
academic procedure and government, and of freedom of teaching are intimately
associated. These principles, now in jeopardy, should be the most cherished in-
terest of those entrusted by the State of California with the administration of what
has been counted one of the nation's great universities. When the status of tenure
is threatened, academic freedom is imperiled and standards of teaching are in
danger. The Senate desires also to support and encourage the Faculty in its efforts
to maintain and protect these principles in a very difficult situation.

"Copies of the resolution are being sent at the Senate's request to the President
of the University, to each member of the Board of Regents, to the secretaries of
the Phi Beta Kappa chapters at Berkeley and Los Angeles, and to the Chairman
of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the University Senate."

(('

«i

Institute of Mathematical Statistics; Council Committee on the
Situation at the University of California

The Committee feels that the facts warrant the following statements
about the issues :

*1) Communism is not an issue in the controversy between the faculty and the
Board of Regents. The controversy started with the imposition of a qualifica-
tion for University teaching other than the traditionally recognized ones of
professional competence and personal integrity, namely an anti-communist
oath. In the process of enforcing this oath, the Board of Regents has taken
the position that the basic issue is one of discipline of the faculty and the
submission of the Academic Senate to the Board of Regents.

49

"2) During the controversy the Board of Regents overruled recommendations
of the Faculty Committee on Privilege and Tenure and has now in effect
abolished all tenure rights at the University.

"3) Irreparable damage has been done to the University of California. The
faculty has been demoralized, numerous distinguished scholars have refused
to go to the University, distinguished faculty members have left, and un-
doubtedly more will leave if the situation is not remedied.

"4) The issues go beyond the troubled situation in California. In view of the
attacks on freedom throughout the world, it is especially important that
American Universities preserve their traditions of free inquiry and un-

regimented science." t> o rk r->\. •

° P. S. Dwyer, Chairman

o

Missouri State Philosophy Association

"Inasmuch as the Missouri State Philosophy Association is inherently con-
rerned with the protection and development of the intellectual and educational
life of our state, and therefore — since basic intellectual and educational values are
not geographically divisible — of our country as a whole, this Association cannot
but be concerned by recent developments at the University of California. The
Association does therefore resolve:

"1) That it opposes any attempt to limit academic freedom, however admirable

may be the motive;
"2) That it opposes any procedures for evaluating educational and scholarly
competence by agencies composed of persons other than educators and
scholars;
"3) That it expresses its admiration of our colleague. Professor J. Loewenberg,
for thirty-five years a distinguished teacher of philosophy at the University
of California, who has refused to sign an oath which he regards as an inroad
upon academic freedom. We lament the spirit of the Regents in looking
upon such fidelity to principle as an act of insubordination. And as an
association which includes a number of members who are products of the
philosophy department of the University of California, and who owe so
much to its great past, we deplore the serious weakening of the future of
this department, which the dismissing of Professor Loewenberg will cer-
tainly entail.
*'4) That it commends the American Psychological Association and the Ameri-
can Mathematical Association for recommending that their members do not
accept appointment at the University of California until conditions con-
ducive to security of tenure have been reestablished there.

The Mountain-Plains Philosophical Conference
University of New Mexico— Department of Philosophy

"The Mountain-Plains Philosophical Conference, comprised of teachers of Philo-
sophy in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico,

1

50

meeting in Denver, Colorado, October 13-14, has adopted the following resolution
for transmittal to the Academic Senate, the President, and the Regents of the
University of California:

"Be it resolved, that the Mountain-Plains Philosophical Conference express its
emphatic disapproval of the action of the Regents of the University of California
in dismissing numerous members of its Faculty on grounds incompatible with
essential principles of academic freedom and responsibility and with the tradi-
tional self-government of university faculties as regulated by these principles.

"We recognize and deplore the injury that has been done to individual teachers
and scholars, among them our own respected colleague. Prof. Jacob Loewenberg.
More importantly by far, we recognize in the action protested a major attack upon
essential preconditions of university life throughout the nation.

"Be it resolved further, therefore, that we offer full support to the Faculty of the
University of California in action it may take to restore that full measure of
individual liberty and collective responsibility without which no university can
function as a creative center of scholarship and education."

Dr. Archie J. Bahm, Secretary

Association for Symbolic Logic

"The American Section of the Council of the Association for Symbolic Logic
deplores the harm done to academic freedom and scientific progress by the recent
action of the Regents of the University of California in imposing arbitrary and
humiliating conditions of employment on their faculty. The Council notes that
this action has already resulted in a great discontent and loss of morale in the
California faculty, and in the consequent desire of many distinguished faculty
members to move elsewhere. The future effects of this action upon the scientific
and academic work of the California faculty, and upon the standing of the Uni-
versity, will be disastrous. The Council therefore urges that the Regents recon-
sider their action, so as to restore academic freedom and to insure the continued
high standing of the University of California."

Michigan Sociological Society

November 18, 1950

"Be it resolved that: The Michigan Sociological Society recommends that the
Committee on Professional Freedom and Tenure of the American Sociological
Society cooperate with the American Civil Liberties Union and the American
Association of University Professors in assisting members of the American Socio-
logical Society involved in difficulties growing out of requirements for signing any
type of discriminatory oath or affirmation required exclusively of academic per-
sonnel."

Vernon Fox, Secretary

51

The Ohio State University Chapter
The American Association of University Professors

December 13, 1950
"To the Honorable Members of the Board of Regents and the President of the
University of California:

"The Ohio State University Chapter of the American Association of University
Professors, the members of which have taken the disclaimer oath prescribed for
them, views with deep concern the threat to academic freedom, the disturbance
and frustration of the normal business and purposes of a great University, and
the disappointment of legitimate expectations of secure tenure that have resulted
from the action of a majority of the Board of Regents of the University of Cali-
fornia in dismissing, against the recommendations of a duly constituted body of
their colleagues, (the Academic Senate's Committee on Privilege and Tenure),
faculty members whom the board itself has not charged with disloyalty.

"Aware of the educational values that are at stake, not only for that University
but for the community of scholars throughout the field of American education,
this Chapter accordingly affirms its sympathetic support of the traditional princi-
ples of academic freedom and tenure and of the faculty's responsibility in educa-
tional affairs."

Lewis C. Branscomb
-o- -o- o

The Oberlin College Chapter of the American Association of

University Professors
Oberlin College October 7, 1950

Oberlin, Ohio

"The Oberlin College Chapter of the American Association of University Profes-
sors expresses its deep appreciation to those Regents who voted consistently to
uphold the recommendations of the faculty committee on privilege and tenure. By
so doing, we believe those Regents recognized the integrity and dignity of the
teaching profession as a whole. We share their confidence in the inherent strength
and high morale of a democratic society of self-governing men who believe that
'error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.' "

Robert G. Gunderson, Secretary

o -<>

Brooklyn College Chapter of the American Association of

University Professors

"To the Regents of the University of California, Greetings:

"We, the undersigned members of the teaching staff of Brooklyn College, wish
to communicate to you our profound concern over the recent action of the Board
of Regents in dismissing from their positions members of the University faculty
whose retention had been recommended by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure
of the Academic Senate. We feel that this action was particularly, indefensible in

52

view of the thorough review by the Committee, of each individual case, as au-
thorized by the Regents themselves.

"We believe that harm is done, not only to the University of California, but to
the entire teaching profession, when conscientious, capable, non-communist
teachers in the University are dismissed from their positions under these circum-
stances. The professional status of all college teachers is damaged by the refusal
of the Regents to respect the right of honored members of the faculty to act as
their consciences demand, when no possible harm to the University is entailed.
Such a relation between controlling boards and faculties is intolerable, not only
to members of the teaching profession, but to all others as well who feel that
teachers are entitled to be treated as self-respecting human beings.

"We sincerely hope that a way may be found whereby the Regents and the
Faculty may face and solve these problems in a spirit of mutual faith, trust, and
responsibility."

Northwestern University Chapter of the American Association of

University Professors

ResolutioRi adopted by the Northwestern University Chapter of the
American Association of University Professors, November 28, 1950.

"Whereas, the Regents of the University of California have required that mem-
bers of the faculty of the University sign a contract which incorporates the sub-
stance of the test oath originally proposed, and

"Whereas, this test oath was to be required in addition to the oath of loyalty
to the state and federal Constitution which for years had been taken by the
faculty,

"D Resolved, that the Northwestern University Chapter of the American
Association of University Professors express its belief that to require a test oath
of persons who have already taken a general oath of loyalty is contrary to
American ideals and establishes a dangerous precedent; and that to require in
a contract of employment what is in effect a test oath is as objectionable as a
formal test oath.

"2) Resolved, that the Northwestern University Chapter of the American As-
sociation of University Professors urge its members and all other members of
the faculty interested in the cause of academic freedom and tenure to respond
as generously as possible to any appeals for contributions to aid those members
of the faculty of the University of California who have been dismissed because
of their refusal to sign this contract.

"3) Resolved, that the Northwestern University Chapter of the American As-
sociation of University Professors urge its members and all other members of
the faculty to call to the attention of their professional associations the unsatis-
factory conditions of academic freedom and tenure now prevailing at the Uni-
versity of California.

53

f

"4) Resolved, that the Northwestern University Chapter of the American As-
sociation of University Professors, as individuals and as members of academic
and professional organizations, make every effort to find suitable positions at
Northwestern University and at other universities and colleges for qualified
persons who were dismissed from the University of California or whose con-
tracts were not renewed because of their refusal to sign the contract which in-
corporates the substance of the test oath.

"5) Resolved, that the Northwestern University Chapter of the American As-
sociation of Unversity Professors send copies of these resolutions to the ap-
propriate representatives of the faculty, to the President, and to the Regents of
the University of California."

Stewart Y. McMullen, President

New York State College for Teachers at Albany Chapter of the
American Association of University Professors

"Whereas the members of the chapter of the American Association of University
Professors at New York State College for Teachers at Albany are sensitive to the
integrity of their profession in its free pursuit of truth and wish to defend that
integrity against any threat whatsoever;

"Whereas blind adherence to Communist Party-dictated dogma is clearly recog-
nized as constituting such a threat; and no less clearly recognized as an equal
threat is the imposing as a condition of academic employment of any oath of
specific denial of membership in any constitutionally permissible political party;

"Whereas the members of this chapter wish to endorse action already taken on
behalf of their colleagues in California by faculty groups at such private institu-
tions as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia, and at such state institutions as
the Universities of Wisconsin and Illinois and the Ohio State University, and by
such professional organizations as the American Psychological Association, the
International Congress of Mathematicians, and the American Philological As-
sociation;

"Whereas in California, although such professional groups as the State Bar
Association have successfully resisted the imposition of an anti-Communist oath
upon their members, claiming that such a measure was an affront to their profes-
sional integrity, the Regents of the Universtiy of California have subjected the
faculty of that institution to such a condition of employment, disallowing in the
behalf of this profession protests the cogency of which has been otherwise recog-
nized;

"Whereas the instrument loosely referred to as 'the loyalty oath,' both in its
original form of separate oath (or affirmation) and in its present version of con-
tract clause, is not in fact a declaration of positive loyalty to this nation and to
the State of California but is a statement of specific political denial CI am not
a member of the Communist Party. ...'), thus establishing a condition of em-
ployment which, once admitted, has in principle no limits;

54

"Whereas the University of California faculty has for several years subscribed
with full willingness to the ordinary California constitutional oath required of all
public servants (and which the state constitution itself provides shall be the sole
required declaration), and since 1940 the Board of Regents has had a standing
rule against the employment of Communists, without a single faculty member ever
having been charged with, much less convicted of. Communist membership or
activity under these existing safeguards;

"Whereas the Regents have, by a bare majority vote, dismissed thirty-two mem-
bers of the university faculty, nonsigners of the Regents' proposed oath or contract
clause, all of whom had been recommended for continued employment by a faculty
committee before whom they had elected to appear and whose approval they had
been led to suppose was a valid alternative to the signing of the said oath or
clause; and has effected this dismissal only by a reversal of previous fully legal
vote of its own; and has publicly stated that not one of the discharged men was
in any way suspected of Communism but that their dismissal was solely a matter
of 'discipline':

"Therefore be it resolved that the members of this chapter communicate to
the Regents of the University of California their condemnation of the Regents'
action as being a plain violation of the principles of academic freedom and right-
ful tenure of employment;

"That they communicate to the Academic Senate of the University of California
their profound concern for these jeopardized principles and their encouragement
to the faculty as now constituted to be firm in the defense of them;

"That they communicate to the discharged faculty members, especially those now
bringing the Regents' procedure to the test <.f law, their full sympathy and moral
support, in recognition that the cause at stake is their own and that of all people
who value intellectual liberty."

55

CONCLUSIONS

The foregoing report has in a literal sense been written not so much
by this Committee as by hundreds of University Professors throughout
the nation. Formidable as is the evidence it provides of nationwide dis-
may and indignation among professional men, of loss to this University
of brilliant staff, of serious disruption of programs of teaching and
research, of shattered morale, it is still but partly indicative of the
wreckage present and prospective. The Committee is itself in possession
of more evidence confirming these losses than it has been able to present
here. We have, for obvious reasons confined ourselves to ponderables,
to facts that could be clearly documented. From these alone it is ob-
vious that we have only begun to pay installments on a bill of damage
which will continue to mount as long as the decision of August 25
stands.

In setting these facts clearly forth your Committee is aware that to
some individuals, it may seem to have rendered a disservice to the
"going concern" which must continue as best it can to serve the State;
to them it may appear that by the publication to the Senate of this
report, we are accelerating that very process of decline which the re-
port reveals, and which all of us deeply regret. To this reproach the
Committee must answer first, that it has been expressly charged by the
Academic Senate with the collection and presentation of these facts,
and it has accepted the charge with no doubt of the Senate's wisdom in
so instructing it. Obviously it is the right and duty of every member of
the Faculty to keep informed of the professional standing of the in-
stitution to which he is attached. Here the dictates of self interest and
of the interests of the institution are in full accord. This right your
Committee will therefore continue to implement according to its in-
structions.

It believes, moreover that in the gathering and presentation of these
facts it is discharging also a responsibility to the profession as a whole.
The scholarly world is plainly entitled to know the extent to date of its
response to an abrogation of that tenure upon which its very ability to
function depends. It is entitled to the reassurance herein provided of
its collective alertness and massive resistance to this infraction.

56

Finally, the Committee believes that it is here discharging a duty to
the Regents, Alumni, and people of the State; the duty, namely, of dis-
covering and reporting truth in this as in other areas. It is aware, in-
deed, of an especial responsibility to those members of the Board of
Regents who anticipated the havoc now being wrought, and attempted
to forestall it. Prominent among these was Robert Gordon Sproul,
President of the University. On June 23, 1950, Mr. Sproul addressed
the Board of Regents in part as follows:

"Consequently, if the unanimous recommendations of the Committees on Priv-
ilege and Tenure are flouted in the cases now before us, the effect upon the whole
facuhy — not upon a dissident minority, I assure you, will be tragic, and perhaps
irreparable. For the Committee on Privilege and Tenure commands the confidence
of the faculty, as do most of the petitioners also, many of whom, you must have
noticed, have military records— some quite distinguished records, and many of
whom have been cleared for secret and sensitive security projects, right up to
Q clearance for the Atomic Energy Commission. The findings of the Committee
will be generally regarded in our own and all other university groups as just and
fair. If the carefully considered recommendations of the faculty's representatives
are not acted upon by this Board with reason and magnanimity, the University
will be seriously injured for many years, if not permanently. I do not say that there
will be riot and civil rebellion, for professors do not act that way, but some of the
heart will definitely go out of the enterprise, and the cream of the teaching pro-
fession will no longer be attracted or held by the University of California."

And the President was not alone in this foresight. As early as the
fall of 1949 the four-man Conference Committee of the faculty warned
the Board of Regents in the following reserved and cautious words:

"The ultimate decision to accept or reject an offer often turns on the answer
as to the conditions under which scholars are enabled to carry on their teaching
and research. While the University has long been in a particularly favorable posi-
tion in this respect, if those conditions deteriorate, so too do the faculty and the
reputation of the University. Ultimately this deterioration means inability to at-
tract men of distinction and loss of some members of the faculty to other institu-
tions. Even before the quality of the faculty is noticeably impaired through this
process, the deterioration of morale becomes evident to the outside world, with
consequent damage to the reputation of the University. Nor can the University's
reputation be maintained if it imposes on its faculty conditions which the highest
representative organizations of the academic profession have publicly condemned."

That these predictions were not mere alarmism, that they were wise
and prophetic, the evidence makes amply clear. The flouting of the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure, the rejection of tht advice of the
President, the ejection of the 26 colleagues, are the focus of profes-

57

sional attention and indignation. They are deemed, as predicted, un-
reasonable, arbitrary acts. The University is grievously injured, and
"the cream of the profession" no longer attracted. The deterioration
of morale is common knowledge in the outside world. Harvard, Yale,
The Institute for Advanced Study, Stanford and other institutions are
steadily taking distinguished figures from the laboratories and desks
of this University. More than a hundred scholars have been lost by
ejection, resignation, or refusal of appointment, among them some of
the illustrious minds of our generation. A great university, famous for
its sacrifice in war, for its scientific and humane accomplishments, for
its devoted service to the State, and for the prideful regard in which it
was held by the citizens has in the space of about six months been re-
duced to a point where it is condemned by leading scholars and
learned societies as a place unfit for scholars to inhabit.

From the injury thus far done it, the University will not, in the
opinion of your Committee, soon recover. Any hope that the contro-
versy will of itself "blow over," that the ejected colleagues will be for-
gotten, the power to attract great scholars of itself return, the morale
and program of the University be restored by time, seems illusory.
Until the 26 are fully restored there can be in this faculty no peaceful
progress and in the profession at large no removal of the interdict.
Let no one be deceived on this point. Only when this step has been
taken, and when the Regents and faculty have in mutual confidence
arrived at a just and stable agreement on the meaning of academic
tenure, can the process of decay be arrested. Such an agreement might,
indeed, almost warrant the pain and cost which the University has
suffered in the past year and one-half. For not only could it go far to
resolve the present distress, it would almost certainly provide a model
for other faculties and their governing bodies and so replace the Uni-
versity in its rightful position of leadership. Meanwhile, and in lack
of these measures, there is every indication that the University is fated
to continue a tragic course toward bankruptcy in those resources of
repute, intellectual power, and integrity which are its essential treasure.

James R. Caldwell, Professor of English

William R. Dennes, Professor of Philosophy,
Dean of Graduate Division

EwALD T. Grether, Flood Professor of Ecotwmicsy
Dean of the School of Business Administration

Robert A. Nisbet, Associate Professor of Sociology
and Social Institutions

Wendell M. Stanley, Professor of Biochemistry,
Director of the Virus Laboratory,

Chairman, Committee on Academic Freedom

In response to requests from alumni and other persons interested in
the University the publication of this report was authorized by the
Northern Section of the Academic Senate, University of California,
on March 6, 79.5/.

58

The Pacific

1

ASIA IN CHANGE

The Spectator's Appraisal

THE ANIMATED FILM

Fantasy and Fact

Also

Bessie Breuer, James R. Caldwell
Bernard DeVoto, George R. Stewart

WINTER 1950

Vol. IV, No. 1

Price $1.00

THE PACIFIC SPECTATOR

Editors

John W. Dodds, Chairman

Frederick Hard

Wallace Stegner
George R. Stewart

Dixon Wecter

Edith R. Mirrielees, Managing Editor

The Pacific Spectator is published quarterly by the Stanford Univer-
sity Press for The Pacific Coast Committee for the Humanities of the
American Council of Learned Societies and twenty-seven supporting
colleges and universities on the Pacific Coast (see inside back cover for
names of supporting institutions). Correspondence regarding contri-
butions and other editorial matters should be sent to Miss Edith R.
Mirrielees, Managing Editor, Box 1948, Stanford, California. All
contributions should be accompanied by stamped, self-addressed en-
velopes in order that they may be returned if not acceptable.

Subscriptions, changes of address, and all correspondence relat-
ing to business matters should be addressed to Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California.

The subscription price of The Pacific Spectator is $3.50 per year, single
copies are $1.00 each.

Entered in the International Index of Periodicals.

Foreign agents: Great Britain, Oxford University Press, Amen House,
Warwick Square, London EC4, England; Latin America, Henry M. Snyder
and Co., 440 Fourth Avenue, New York 16, New York.

Entered as second-class matter January 8, 1947, at the post ofi&ce at Palo Alto, California,

under the Act of March 3, 1879.

Copyright 1950 by The Pacific Coast Committee for the
Humanities of the American Council of Learned Societies

Printed in the U.S.A.

SHALL THE PROFESSORS SIGN?

by Lawrence A, Harper

TO SIGN or not to sign" is the question which many professors
at the University of California have been asking themselves
since the so-called loyalty oath was first introduced there. It is not
merely an academic question. Public interest in what is happening
in our schools has been stimulated by the Soviet challenge to free-
dom in general and America in particular. But the public interest
in the problem is accompanied by general uncertainty about the
reasons for the various faculty attitudes on the issue.

It would be presumptuous for any one member of the faculty to
attempt to speak for his fellows. This article is authorized by no
official or group; it is not the statement of an official nor of an "un-
official spokesman"; it is merely the effort of one professor to state,
as best he can, the points which are involved and to explain the
reasons why some members of the faculty object to signing the oath.

The relevant history of the controversy may be summarized very
briefly. The objections center around additions to the customary
oath of allegiance to the Constitution which were added by the
Regents in the spring of 1949 — presumably as a preventive back-
fire against the threat of stronger measures pending in the State
Legislature. At the request of the Academic Senate, the Regents
amended the first draft of the oath during the summer. They elimi-
nated certain features which had been found objectionable but
added others. Although the Regents subsequently failed to accede
to a faculty request that they ask only for the traditional oath of
allegiance, they sought to obviate individual scruples about the
phraseology of the new oath by expressing a willingness to accept
an equivalent affirmation. They have also stated their readiness to
continue discussions on the issue with faculty representatives.

The oath, as it now stands pending further conferences, consists
of three parts: (1) the standard oath prescribed for state officials
by the state constitution to which no one objects; (2) an abjuration

SPECTATOR

21

SHALL THE PROFESSORS SIGN?

of membership in the Communist part^y^; and (3) an assurance that
the oath is being taken without reservation. To quote:

I do solemnly swear (or afiBrm ) thai 1 i^-ill support the Constitution ol
the United States and the Constitution of the State of CaHfomia, and that I
"wilH faithfuDy discharge the duties of my ofi&ce according to the best of my
ability ; that 1 am not a member of the Communist party, or under any oath,
or a party to any agreement, or under any commitment that is in conflict
with my obligations under this oath.

Many of those who signed the oath without objection welcomed
the opportunity to reassure the public as to the loyalty of the fac-
ulty. Some had taken even stronger oaths while working on projects
for the federal government. Others when first confronted with the
oath were surprised and often indignant at the implied challenge
to their loyalty — indignation which would be much the same if one
were asked to swear that he was neither a thief nor a keeper of a
house of iD-fame. Yet on reflection they realized that in the present
disturbed era, with the threat which totalitarian Russia offers to
free America, it was inevitable that some of the public should worry
about Communist infiltration in our schools and that it would re-
quire repeated reassurances to remove such fears.

Those who accepted the oath found in it no intention to attack
anv basic principle of academic freedom. They saw it merely as a
combination of two earlier policies of the Regents — ^the pre-vious
requirement of the traditional oath to support the Constitution and
the Regents* declaration in 1940 that ^'membership in the Com-
munist party is incompatible with membership in the faculty of a
state university." They did not believe that the oath would lead to
a purge of the faculty. They knew their colleagues and were confi-
dent that few, if any, were Communists. Their confidence that the
basic principles of academic freedom were safe was based on the
record of the many y^ears during which the Regents maintained
the essentials of academic freedom and at the same time helped
the University attain its present material stature.

Their attitude is entirely understandable. Although they regret
that the Regents did not feel able to speak out for academic freedom
in the ringing words of the Hansard Board of Overseers when a jx)-

22

THE PACIFIC

LAWRENCE A. HARPER

tential alumnus donor asked for greater control of the activities of
Harv^ard's faculty, they know that the University of California is a
state institution — and as such answerable to the public. They note
that throughout the covmtry the positive stands against loyalty
ciiecks have been taken by the heads of private, not public, institu-
tions. In state imiversities the task of governing bodies like the
Board of Regents at California is to act as a buffer between a public
which may misunderstand academic attitudes and a faculty which,
however right it may be in its stand, is not always articulate so far
as the average citizen is concerned.

To the challenge that the public's attitude toward the oath is
wrong, the signers answer that the fault is not the Regents'. It is not
the Regents who have the burden of teaching the people of tlie
stale. It is the faculty which does and it is the professors tliemselves
iriio are to blame if the public's attitude is unenlightened about
the finer points of academic freedom. The Regents have merely
tried to preser\^e its essentials by yielding to public opinion in the
minor matter of the oath.

The position of those who have not signed (as also of some who
for one reason or another have done so) is more complex. They
object to the oath not because of any subservience to or sympathy
for Russian totalitarianism. They realize that Communism offers
a definite threat to us, and that we must protect ourselves against it.
They believe, however, that the "loyalty*' oath is not a good means
of achieving that end. To understand their objections one must keep
in mind at least a half dozen separate p)oints.

1. Foremost is the fear that imposition of the oath threatens aca-
demic freedom. Those holding this belief argue that academic
tenure and therefore academic freedom is imperiled when the con-
ditions under which a professor has accepted employment may sub-
sequently be changed without his consent by the imposition of a new
oath, beyond the traditional oath of support to the Constitution.
They answer the argument that no threat to tenure is intended and
any which may technically exist is slight, by replying that the
Regents' action constitutes a breach of academic freedom and even
ill breach in a dike is dangerous.

SPECTATOR

23

SHALL THE PROFESSORS SIGN?

Insistence upon academic freedom, like maintenance of freedom
of the press, they point out, has social values far beyond the imme-
diate interest of those personally involved. The real scholar is
impartially engaged in the pursuit of truth. He knows that his in-
quiries may sometimes lead to temporary public outcry but he pur-
sue? them nonetheless, realizing that the heresy of today frequently
becomes the orthodoxy of tomorrow. It is significant that there are
three professions which traditionally wear a gown in public cere-
monies: the priest, the judge, and the scholar. All three must exer-
cise independent judgment subject only to the dictates of their
consciences, and their responsibility to God. Free countries, unlike
totalitarian states, guarantee freedom of religion. In the United
States we have set up many guaranties, including life-tenure, to
secure the independence of the judiciary. Similarly the scholar asks
that he be permitted to follow the truth wherever it leads him. Uni-
versities, after a period of probation in which an institution may
test an individual's competence, grant tenure to their professors.
As in the case of judges the reason for such action is to enable the
professor to seek the truth as he sees it, free from material considera-
tions concerning the effect of his search or its result? upon the

retention of his job.

2. Closely akin thereto is the constitutional argument. Article
XX, Section 3, of the California State Constitution provides that
"no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualifi-
cation for any office or public trust" than an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of
California, and to discharge the duties of the office according to the
best of one's ability. The supporters of this point maintain that since
the University of California is stated elsewhere in the Constitution
to be a public trust, its staff should be required to take only the first
part of the oath as proposed by the Regents — ^the standard consti-
tutional oath — to which all members of the faculty are ready to
subscribe. It is also claimed that when the Regents added the con-
troversial clauses they did not heed the injunction of Article IX,
Section 9, of the state Constitution that they keep the University
free from sectarian and political influences, and ran afoul of the

24

THE PACIFIC

LAWRENCE A. HARPER

prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Consti-
tution by restricting freedom of political affiliations.

3. There are also, of course, personal reasons for objecting to
the oath. Some feel insulted by its wording. The affiant is in effect
asked to swear to his loyalty to the Constitution, to reaffirm it by
declaring that he is not a member of the Communist party, and then
again avow that he is not lying. The objectors believe that with
adults one statement should suffice. Among youngsters such re-
dundancy is to be expected, as witnessed by the case of the five-
year-old who reassured her twin brother, "But I promise — I really
do — cross my heart — on the Bible — Boy Scout's honor."

The element of duress worries a good number. They have no
objection in personal conversation to stating that they are not Com-
munists but that they belong to the Republican or Democratic or
Prohibitionist or some other party, as the case may be. But they
object to being forced to make a statement under the implied threat
that otherwise they may lose their jobs. They oppose the oath not
because they are Communists but because they believe that the
insistence upon such inquiries into party membership is totalitarian
in effect, however different it is in purpose. They are irritated by
being forced into an "either-or" position where, by adhering to
their antitotalitarian principles, they appear in the eyes of many
to be Communists. They believe the principle for which they stand
is correct and important; they feel that to >neld merely for the sake
of expediency is stultifying. To them the issue becomes: "Are we
men or mice?" Thus one such academic dissenter declared, "I have
killed Communists, but I shall never take the oath."

4. Many believe the forced abjuration of membership in any
legally constituted party is un-American. These points are stressed:
that our government goes to great pains to insure electoral freedom
and tlie secrecy of the ballot; that party membership like religious
affiliation is a private and personal matter; and that the mainte-
nance of our free institutions depends upon political freedom to join
all legally constituted parties, a status the Communist party still
has, at least in California. Today in California it is membership
in the Commimist party, and that only, which is proscribed to faculty

SPECTATOR

2S

SHALL THE PROFESSORS SIGN?

members. Already in the Midwest, it is said, membership in the
Progressive party of Henry Wallace has been found cause for aca-
demic dismissal; tomorrow it may be the Republican party in Mis-
sissippi or the Democratic party in Vermont.

Faculty members are fully aware that Communists and other
devotees of totalitarian doctrines are highly unlikely to be good
faculty material. The dogmatic character of the party line, the man-
datory party discipline, the party's tortuous tactics, all accord badly
with the true scholar's objective pursuit of truth. The differences
of opinion which arise revolve about how best to handle the Com-
munist menace. Some say that a member of the party by the mere
act of joining puts himself beyond the academic pale just as a woman
who dresses immodestly, flirts suggestively, and keeps bawdy com-
pany is apt to be treated like a prostitute and excluded from polite
society. On the other extreme some would not object to admitting a
few Communists under carefully controlled conditions for demon-
stration or experimental purposes much as the university labora-
tories keep some deadly viruses or poisons under lock and key.
Most of those who object to the enforced abjuration, however, would
probably not go so far. They concede that membership in the Com-
munist party raises a presumption of academic incompetence, but
as a matter of principle they decline to agree that that presumption
is necessarily irrebuttable in all cases. They do not wish to employ
or to defend subversive individuals. But they believe that questions
of disloyalty and academic incompetence should not be determined
by assumptions resting upon party membership, religious creed,
race, color, or any ground other than the traditional American basis
of individual guih determined by full and careful inquiry into
specific cases as they arise.

The distinction is subtle. The practical results probably would
be much the same under either formula in case a Communist should
attempt to worm his way into the faculty. Yet many sincere Ameri-
cans, who might well be called one hundred percent Americans if
that term had not been so abused, firmly believe that the difference
in procedure is important. To emphasize the importance of proper
techniques one need merely call attention to a lesson learned in

I

26

THE PACIFIC

LAWRENCE A. HARPER

high-school chemistry. One can safely pour sulphuric acid into a
beaker of water, but if one attempts to pour water into a beaker of
sulphuric acid disaster results.

5. Adoption of the oath, some believe, deprives the University
of California of the position of leadership which it should assume.
They contend that many state universities and other public institu-
tions look to the University of California for leadership and that it
has therefore a special responsibility to provide the best possible
example. They argue that instead of giving way to popular excite-
ment and embarking upon a "loyalty check" with all the dangers
to American principles involved in such a program, the University
— confident in the patriotism and integrity of its staff — should
stand fast and lead the way to sounder public thinking on the
issue.

6. Even if the issue is reduced merely to one of relative expe-
diency the opponents of the oath believe that theirs is the better case.
They do not believe that the oath can achieve its purpose of driving
subversive elements from the University's ranks. One who is willing
to commit treason will scarcely draw the line at perjury. They feel
that, whatever good results, the price is too great. By adopting a
new oath the University of California has failed to maintain the
position of the American Association of University Professors,
which would judge the competence and loyalty of scholars in indi-
vidual cases rather than by virtue of oaths or party membership.
As one of the truly great institutions in the country, the principal
competition of the University of California is with institutions like
Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago, which do not require such an
oath, and the University now suffers from a great handicap in add-
ing to its staff because scholars elsewhere see in the oath a threat
to academic freedom. Also, within the University, it places faculty
members under a disadvantage when they discuss current political
problems with their students. There are a few of these who tend to
fall prey to Communist propaganda because of youthful impatience
with the defects from which the American system suffers — like all
other systems. These students are the ones who most need sound
guidance, but they dismiss faculty arguments almost in advance in

SPECTATOR

27

SHALL THE PROFESSORS SIGN?

the belief that the poor professor is bound by his oath and dare not
form an objective judgment.

There remain two points which should be stressed.

First, all members of the faculty wish sincerely to uphold aca-
demic freedom. The difference of opinion arises over the problem
of how best to maintain the essentials of such freedom against
the threat offered it by totalitarian Communists. Some say the
wisest solution is to follow our customary policy of tolerance of
political differences. They believe that it involves no risk, because
if there are any Communists in the faculty their number is negli-
gible. Others believe Communists to be so treacherous and danger-
ous that their presence in the faculty, in however small numbers,
may pervert academic freedom within the University and may
cause the public to misjudge the entire institution and thus lead to
irreparable damage. To those holding this point of view the oath
is not a threat to academic freedom ; it is merely a device to protect
the University against greater dangers. The Regents and those of
the faculty who accept the oath are in the position of a pilot who
learns of tempestuous seas ahead. He may well shift his course
slightly to avoid the full fury of the gale. He does not abandon his
original destination; he seeks only to reach it more quickly and

more safely.

Second, those who object to the oath do not refrain from signing
because they are Communists or disloyal. They contend that it is
sounder seamanship in times of stress to follow traditional routes
even directly into the teeth of the storm than to go into uncharted
waters and risk wreck on hidden reefs and shoals. More specifically
they believe that the oath imperils academic freedom and academic
tenure and is unconstitutional; that it injures them personally by
challenging their veracity and forcing them to choose between their
integrity and their job; that it goes counter to established American
principles of political freedom and imperils the University's lead-
ership, and that, even considered as a matter of expediency, it
will not keep out Communists but will keep distinguished scholars
from joining the faculty and will diminish the effectiveness of those
now teaching at the University. The points they raise are anything

LAWRENCE A. HARPER

but totalitarian or alien. The very diversity of views demonstrates
an abhorence of authoritarianism.

Critics who may think that the nonjurors are merely impractical
theorists should remember that the star dust in their eyes does not
come from the Red Star of Moscow; it descends from the long line
of American idealists who struggled for the principles they be-
lieved to be right. The motto of the dissenters is not taken from
the gospel of Karl Marx; it is the good old American maxim,
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

ONE THING OR ANOTHER
Cleo Sibley Gross

Downward and swift the heavy wings
Splintered the impartial air.
And summer grasses felt a small
Anguish bleed to silence there.

Furred and broken, my heart pulsed
The captive's terror into death;
But beaked and taloned, too, it crouched,
The predator with blood-stained breath.

How can it bleed the death of one
And share the hunger of the other?
0 for its quiet, heart should be
Wholly one thing or another.

28

THE PACIFIC

SPECTATOR

29

[Reprinted from the Bulletin of the American Association of
University Professors, Vol. 37, No. 3, Autumn, 1951]

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM^

By JOHN WALTON CAUGHEY

Pacific Historical Review

There is not an academic person in America who does not think
himself entitled to academic freedom. The triteness of the things
most necessary to say about it also points up its basic importance.
It is a subject which Mr. Arbuthnot, the New Yorker^ clich6 ex-
pert, would relish. Academic freedom, I can hear him say, is one
of the finer things in life. Like health, it is taken for granted when
you have it. Like youth, it is appreciated only when it is gone.

Yet for all the familiarity of the phrase, even among scholars
academic freedom does not have one clear, unmistakable meaning.
Too often the definitions voiced, written, implied, or felt break oft
in the middle. They may, for example, stress the right to teach,
without apparent recognition of the equally vital right to learn.
Or they may narrow academic freedom by undue emphasis on the
word "right." A right it is, but it is also a privilege and a re-
sponsibility. The individual scholar should understand this
meaning of academic freedom, and should claim it as inherent in
scholarship and essential to the delivery of scholarship's full serv-
ice to society.

The significance of academic freedom and its rationale are well
stated in the preamble to the 1940 Statement of Principles on
Academic Freedom and Tenure which was formulated and agreed
upon by representatives of the American Association of University
Professors and of the Association of American Colleges. This
statement reads as follows:

The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding
and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon

» An adaptation of an address given on December a8, 1950 in Chicago, Illinois,
on the occasion of a dinner meeting sponsored by the Mississippi Valley Historical
Association and the American Historical Association. ^

428

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. Institu-
tions of higher education are conducted for the common good
and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or
the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the
free search for truth and its free exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to
both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental
to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching
aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher
in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries
with it duties correlative with rights.

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (i) Freedom
of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a
sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession
attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic
security, hence tenure, are indispensable to the success of an
institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.^

Another error in the conception of academic freedom is excessive
personalization, through which this freedom is made to sound like
a gateway to selfish advantage. In the course of the recent con-
troversy in the University of California, one professor issued a
public statement reproaching his colleagues for opposing the re-
gents. "My academic freedom," he said, "has not been infringed.*'
But academic freedom is not a private property of the individual
scholar. More significantly it is a possession which inheres in
scholarship, in institutions dedicated to scholarship, and in the
entire community of learned and learning scholars.

Most frequently, academic freedom is taken to mean simply a
sort of on-the-job protection, a guard against invasion of the class-
room and censorship of textbooks. When censorship takes either
of these forms, realization of common interest makes scholars
aware that it is a present or potential loss to them all. Particularly
so, if there is a dismissal.

Curiously, however, if the dismissal is divorced from texts and
classes— if it comes, say, through an arbitrary change in the con-
ditions of employment— the violation may go undetected. This

of Am^Inr'.n'l-^fl '^^ ^f ^"S^" Association of University Professors, Association
r/n^A " ? "^^?A ^"^?"^*? Library Association (with adaptations for librar-
?-^nM''°^'^"T°^^"^'"'%"i'^r Schools, American Political Science Associa-
UoiK i^crican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and Department
of Higher Education, National Education Association. cparcmcnt

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

429

calls to mind a method of duck hunting practiced by the California
Indians. Hiding under a decoy-like helmet, the hunter would
wade quietly into a covey of sitting ducks. Then he could pull one
bird under without alarming the rest, then another, and another.
If there is no gunfire of classroom invasion, scholars may be
bagged in somewhat similar fashion while some of their colleagues,
with honest imperception, do not realize that academic freedom is
being flouted.

Realistically approached, academic freedom is more than a
matter of on-the-job protection. Its very cornerstone is what is
called tenure — the right of the employed scholar, after he has dem-
onstrated his qualifications and proved his worth, to count on
security in his job. Without tenure, the inviolate classroom is only
an illusion.

The bare essentials of the meaning of academic freedom oflFer
valid reasons to cherish it. They indicate a happy mixture of
values, personal, professional, and patriotic.

II

One impelling reason for the observance of the principles o
academic freedom is that these principles are inherent in the sci-
entific method in which we are trained and to which we are ha-
bituated and deeply committed. The scientific method means the
sifting and the weighing of evidence before reaching conclusions.
The scientific method requires open-mindedness and resistance to
biased or preconceived views, whether the bias or the preconcep-
tion of views be one's own or be ordered by some governing author-
ity.

Scholars, furthermore, work in a tradition of intellectual freedom
which is older than the scientific method and older also than our
constitutional freedoms. This tradition reaches back to the
Renaissance and even to Aristotle and Socrates. Thus the more
history-minded scholars are the more they feel an obligation of
loyalty to intellectual freedom and to the unfettered university
which institutionalizes this concept of freedom as an essential of
scholarship.

As Americans, moreover, we stand committed to a philosophy of
govcrmment which in essence is the scientific method set to politics

430

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

We begin with no postulates superior to reason, such as the divine
right of kings or a pedestalled ruling class. Our dogma comes
nearer to being that, in Lincoln's phrase, "you can't fool all the
people all the time." I take this to be a way of saying that, in the
long run, in a free competition of ideas those which are sound will
prevail. We take it for granted that governmental forms and
practices shall be subject to change. We stand ready to experi-
ment. We try to keep the door open for suggestion of improve-
ments. We encourage minorities, at least to the extent of prom-
ising them a chance to be heard. And for that purpose we an-
nounce, and to a fair degree we foster, freedom of speech and free-
dom of the press.

In American practice freedom of worship got early enunciation.
It did not become universal in the colonies, but there were con-
spicuous examples. Freedom of the press appeared as an ideal
and a principle almost before there was a press. Freedom of speech
also has respectable antiquity. But in view of the state of early
American education, of the elementary quality of the curriculum,
the emphasis on rote learning, and the stress on training for the
ministry, it is understandable that academic freedom was less
emphasized. The schools, to begin with, were not the prime in-
tellectual force, and well into our national period editors, poets,
and public men, rather than professional scholars, took the lead in
formulating ideas. In the Declaration of Independence, in the
Bill of Rights, in Wilson's Fourteen Points, and in Roosevelt's
Four Freedoms, academic freedom did not make the grade.

Yet the more fundamental truth is that these several freedoms
are merely diflferent facets of one central freedom. Freedom of
religion is a variety of freedom of conscience, freedom of the press
a printed version of freedom of speech, and so on. On the relation-
ship of academic freedom to this cluster a regent of the University
of California, the late Chester Rowell, wrote as long ago as 1921:
**I think it is the central liberty of civilization without which no
other liberty could long survive or would be worth keeping."

Ill

Notwithstanding all these powerful arguments in its favor, the
principle of academic freedom, or the integrity of scholarship, is

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

431

recurrently in danger. The historic examples unfortunately are
legion. They have exhibited much variety. They have run
through cycles, such as the one in which the highest crime was to
be at variance with the prevailing religion, and a later pattern in
which the most dangerous heresy was to advocate economic re-
form.

At one time or another scholars have been in jeopardy for such
diverse sins as favoring or opposing the abolition of slavery, fa-
voring or opposing segregation, advancing the Darwinian hy-
pothesis, defending progressive education, making honest report on
the nutritive values of oleomargarine, withholding outright con-
demnation of the New Deal, and admitting that San Francisco
had been visited by an earthquake. Despite the miscellaneous
sound, this is not just hit or miss. A safe generalization is that no
one has jeopardized academic freedom by endorsing the status
quo or by siding with the vested interests. So far as academic
freedom is concerned, the safest place to march is not quite abreast
of current public opinion, but a few steps back and to the right.

Teachers have alleged and no doubt have experienced deroga-
tion of academic freedom at the hands of department chairmen.
In other instances deans and presidents have appeared to be the
prime agents in making it wither. In still other instances, a
militant newspaperman, a mortgage-holding banker, a past or
prospective benefactor, or a political demagogue has spearheaded
the attack. Yet, the organization of our colleges and universities
being what it is, no drive on academic freedom, at least none so
violent as to produce a dismissal, can carry through without the
consent and usually the active support of the institution's board of
trustees. The board thus looms as the focal point in such issues.
For almost every curtailment of academic freedom it gets the
blame. Perhaps this view exaggerates the actual rAle of the
board. It does help to explain why proposals in behalf of
academic freedom so often dwell exclusively on reforming boards of
trustees.

The companion question is more vital: Characteristically,
who comes to the defense; who are the trustees of academic
freedom^

In a Latin American university one would count on the students.

43i

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

Our undergraduates north of the border can, on occasion, be as
ebullient. They have been known to rally several thousand strong
to urge a college head not to go to another job, or to reason with
the authorities that a coach's tenure should be lengthened or
shortened.

Do the alumni rush to the rescue? They, as is well known, have
an expansive goodwill toward alma mater. They could be a
doughty phalanx in academic freedom crises, yet their more natural
m6tier seems to be through participating in homecoming, providing
scholarships, reducing the mortgage, or recruiting athletes. They
are rarely concerned with academic freedom.

Then there is the impressive array of presidents, chancellors,
provosts, registrars, bursars, comptrollers, business managers,
vice-presidents, deans, subdeans, and archdeans with which every
reputable school is now equipped. This hierarchy wields an effec-
tive veto power and sometimes has been a stalwart line of defense.
An example is the recent discomfiture of free-charging investigators
in Springfield, Illinois.^

Or, as the defensive platoon, what of those who bear the title
overseers, fellows, directors, regents, trustees? It has happened;
for example, when the President of Harvard University could
delegate to a member of the institution's Corporation the responsi-
bility of replying to Alumnus Ober.'

But are any of these the real trustees of academic freedom?
There may be times when an editor, the students, the alumni, a
public official, a university administrator, or the governing board
will bear the brunt of the defense. Yet any of these, or all in con-
cert, can hardly guarantee academic freedom unless scholars buckle
on their armor. It will be very difficult to save academic freedom
unless the academicians want it saved.

More bluntly, if academic freedom is lost, who ultimately will
get the blame? The answer of posterity is easy to predict. It
almost certainly will be the academicians. The inevitable ques-

* Legislative investigation of the University of Chicago. Apropos of this in-
vestigation Mr. Laird Bell, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University,
prepared an excellent statement, entitled "Are We Afraid of Freedom?" For text
of this statement see Bulletin^ American Association of University Professors,
Summer, 1949, pp. 301-310.

« For text of the reply to Alumnus Ober, see "Freedom at Harvard," Bulletin,
American Association of University Professors, Summer, 1949, pp. 313-334.

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

433

tions will be: Where were the professional scholars during the
years 1 948-1 951? Why did they let it happen?

IV

Instead of theorizing about the behavior of scholars as trustees
of academic freedom, I should like to turn to an actual example at
the eight-campus University of California. Even if it should
happily prove to be abnormal rather than typical, it involves the
largest and strongest university in half a continent, with a faculty
of about two thousand scholars equipped with the Ph.D. or its
equivalent, and by its very dimensions claims a prominent place in
the intellectual history of our times.

Fortunately, there is no need to recite the whole story. Such
an account would only be repeating what may be read in detail
in George Stewart's Year of the Oath and in articles in The Saturday
Review of Literature^ The American Scholar^ Pacific Spectator^
Harper's^ the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists^ and the Bulletin of
the American Association of University Professors.

At the close of the spring semester of 1949 the Faculty of the
University of California was suddenly confronted with a request,
soon revealing itself as a requirement, of a special oath denying
membership in the Communist party. There were objections that
the requirement was a slur on the loyalty of the Faculty, that it
was unnecessary, that it would be ineffective, that it constituted a
political test for university teaching, that it employed the un-
scientific criterion of guilt by association, that its effect, if not its
design, would be to silence minorities and to intimidate the un-
orthodox, that it would be used as a precedent for other encroach-
ments, that it was unconstitutional, that it nullified tenure rights
and thereby infringed on academic freedom, that it ran counter to
the ideal of a free university, and that it violated the principles of
proper relationship between the University's Faculty and Regents.

Some members of the Faculty felt none of these compunctions
and signed at once. Others, on a variety of grounds within and
beyond the list just given, were convinced that the requirement was
unwise and should be opposed. Arguments, circumstances, and
pressures induced most of these individuals to make personal com-
pliance. With varying degrees of protest and delay they signed

434

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

435

the oath or its later equivalent as a contract statement. Still
Others held out.

Meanwhile, there was a counterplay of faculty resistance and
regential insistence, sometimes expressed in cool reasoning, some-
times in warmer debate, at times in hot temper. One crisis came
in February, 1950, when the Regents issued a sign-or-be-fired
ultimatum. Two months later, in April, at the suggestion of an
alumni committee, they voted to rescind the oath requirement and
offered two ways of continuing on the Faculty. One was by sign-
ing a revised annual contract incorporating the essence of the oath.
The other was by submitting one's self and record to scrutiny by a
Faculty committee, review by the President, and final decision by
the Regents.

A sharper crisis arose in August, 1950, when the Regents by vote
of 12 to 10 broke faith with their April proposal, rescinded con-
tracts voted in July, refused to accept any favorable recommenda-
tions from the Faculty Committee and the President, and dis-
missed all who were trying to qualify for retention through the
second announced avenue — that of committee inspection.

Earlier in August the salaries of all in this category had been
stopped as of the preceding June. In mid-September they were
ordered to stop work. Later that month a state court took under
advisement a plea by a score of these professors for delivery of the
contracts promised in April and voted in July and for recognition
of the tenure rights which had been traditional in the university.

In April, 1951, the District Court ruled in favor of the petition-
ers, basing the decision on California's constitutional ban against
test oaths for officers of public trust and on the constitutional re-
quirement that the University "shall be entirely independent of
all political or sectarian influence" and "kept free therefrom. . . in
the administration of its affairs. . . ."^ At successive meetings in
April and May the Regents voted, 11 to 10, not to appeal to the
State Supreme Court. On its own motion, however, that court
has taken the case under review.

Pending its verdict the dismissed professors remain dismissed

* For the complete text of the Court's opinion in this case, see "The University
of California Loyalty Oath Situation," Bulletin^ American Association of Univer-
sity Professors, Spring, 1951, pp. 92-101.

I
»

and for the Faculty as a whole the contract form for 1951-1952 is
the one which the District Court declared to be in violation of the
state constitution. Nor has it fazed the hostile Regents that dis-
missees have willingly subscribed to the new oath enacted by the
legislature in the fall of 1950 in which all state employees are re-
quired to deny treasonable or disloyal record, intent, or affiliation.

Whatever character the dispute may have had in its early stages,
since August, 1950, it has had crystal clarity as a disciplinary ac-
tion, a question of confidence or lack of confidence in the Faculty
and the President, and a test of tenure. Back of tenure lie the
larger ramifications of academic freedom and the integrity of scholar-
ship.

At several points along the way the Faculty unequivocally re-
corded its sentiments: in June and September, 1949, asking re-
peal of the oath requirement; in March, 1950, denouncing the Re-
gents* sign-or-be-fired ultimatum; in September, 1950, censuring
the Regents for the dismissals of the preceding month; and, more
recently, in subscribing a considerable sum for grants in lieu of
salary to those dismissed and to press home the fact that the Fac-
ulty must have a recognized r6le in the control and direction of a
well-ordered university.

Actions such as these bespeak a strong and consistent wish to
preserve academic freedom. Yet so insidious was the attack, so
difficult the defense, that this veritable army of well-intentioned
scholars found itself confuted. And this despite the stalwart
support of the Governor of the State, a famous admiral, enough
other Regents to add up to almost half the Board, and the scholars*
professional organization, the American Association of University
Professors.

Why was the defense of academic freedom in the University
of California situation so difficult? There are many answers:
among them the hyperindividualism that is the scholar's occupa-
tional disease; the hostility of most of the California press; and
the California climate, which has encouraged the hostile Regents
to believe that no matter what happens, they can have the pick
of the nation's brains. These factors are self-explaining. Two

436

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

Others are less obvious. One is a matter of auspices, the other a
matter of hostages.

As to the first, this drive on academic freedom came beautifully
camouflaged and with all the panoply of innocence by association.
Customarily the attacks on the freedoms are in the name of ortho-
doxy, loyalty, or Americanism even unto the hundredth per cent.
This one took the unassailable ground that the Faculty should be
loyal. All the Faculty, as a matter of fact, had pledged full loyalty
to state and nation through California's century -old constitutional
oath.

The announced target, as is also customary when civil libertes
are being abridged, was the minority element currently the most
feared and hated. The proposal, moreover, was offered as a neces-
sary safeguard for impartial scholarship and honest teaching it
came, in other words, in the guise of academic freedom. It came,
furthermore, from a governing board of excellent repute, and
through a president whose strongest point had been his record as a
supporter of academic freedom. Although the proposal had the
earmarks of a political test for teaching, it was first presented so
politely that it seemed to be optional and even with explicit denials
that it had any connection with contracts and salaries. It thus
was surrounded and encrusted with almost every good auspice.

Still other compelling arguments were used in its behalf, openly
and privately, and at the outset and later: that it was a necessary
element in the cold war, that it was requisite to success in Korea,
that it was needed to save the University, that without it the Presi-
dent would be lost, that anyone who took an opposite stand was
being incredibly naive. Thus, as to arguments as well as to tactics,
the advocates of academic freedom were thrown completely on the
defensive. Whoever proposed to joust for academic freedom found
himself up against a host bearing the banners of sweetness and light.

The second observation that this California experience has under-
lined is the appalling degree in which scholars have given hostages
to fortune. The reference is not to wives and children and other
dependents, although this is a factor that has made many a man
cautious, even though his family shared to the full his awareness of
responsibility to academic freedom.

The reference is rather to other hostages such as the one in the

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

437

pattern of the scholar's earning. Its elements are a long period of
preparation and training at heavy cost, then an apprentice-like
starting wage, and gradual increase. A professor in midcareer
probably has three-quarters of his income still to collect. This
pattern of delayed compensation impels toward caution.

In a category less mundane, the professor in midcareer almost
certainly has ahead of him more than half of his opportunity with
advanced and graduate students. Concern about the immediate
welfare of a group of students can be a potent reason for hedging
in the defense of academic freedom.

Another type of hostage, less tangible yet real, is a sentimental
attachment to a region or state, to a school, to a department, to a
group of colleagues, or even to a course. Or it may be in a rational
and sentimental devotion to a specific career in which the achieve-
ments of necessity will be cumulative.

A university Faculty is fantastically irreplaceable. Yet certain
factors dull this weapon almost to uselessness. One is that most
scholars are very low in mobility. Modern higher education may
look like an assembly-line process, but its parts are not inter-
changeable. Instead they tend to be geared to a particular library
or laboratory, to the program of a particular school, to the needs of
a particular student body, and to the service of a particular com-
munity. They are not tied to the soil like medieval serfs, but they
are not migratory laborers either.

Their immobility shows itself in another more embarrassing
fashion. Everybody knows that when a baseball team such as
Connie Mack's old Athletics is broken up by sales and retirements,
it usually takes years to rebuild to championship caliber. Scholars
know that when retirements and departures take sudden toll of a
top-flight department it may be just as difficult and just as expen-
sive to rebuild to the original luster. Yet so much of what they do
is recondite, so much is gauged for long-term results, that when a
school decHnes in whole or in part, the public may not find out until
much later, many students may not realize it, and the Regents are
not necessarily impressed. This is a peculiar hostage that scholars
have given to fortune.

So far as I was concerned the thought of hostages given was far
more arresting than all the sound and fury of arguments for com-

438

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

pliance. Some of the latter seemed clearly fallacious, others were
at least doubtful, and still others seemed to betray lack of under-
standing of the essential purpose and nature of a university.
Furthermore, in so far as I am a historian, my conscience works in
terms of the probable decision before the bar of history. And as
I reflected on history, especially American history, I found it
difficult to think of instances in which authoritarian stoppage of
thought, silencing of criticism, and hounding of minorities escaped
an ultimate verdict of condemnation.

For my colleagues en masse my information is more fragmentary.
Clearly there is a paradox in the behavior of so many who con-
demned the oath yet signed it, and who deplored the infringement
of academic freedom yet did less than they wished to in its defense.
My impression, for what it may be worth, is that most of the ex-
planation lies in the hostages to fortune which expose modern
scholars to fear and force.

True enough, among the reasons given for ceasing to resist there
were some that reflected the good auspices, but a much more for-
midable list of reasons for giving in was the one in which the ele-
ment of fear and compulsion was paramount. This list, compiled
from actual examples, included: to hold onto my job, to protect
the family income, to avoid confiscation of retirement annuities,
to ward oflF personal attacks, because of ill health, because of going
or being about to go on sabbatical, because of being summoned to
military duty and wanting assurance of a job to come back to, to
preserve eligibility for government work, because of being a dean
or a department chairman, so as not to imperil or handicap the
work of one's department or school, so as not to become unemploy-
able, because of youth, because of old age, or, worst of all, because
of middle age. Add all these and the result is Irving Stone's phrase
"Twisted Arms among the Ivy.'*

VI

I know of no panacea that can be invoked to safeguard academic
freedom from all the dangers to which it is exposed. One sugges-
tion is to insert a professor or two in every board of trustees. A
far better alternative would be to keep the boards strictly lay

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

439

bodies, but bring them to recognize that their proper function is
the supervision of the financial and business aspects of institutional
operation. These reforms would be steps in the right direction;
they are not a complete cure.

A more basic suggestion is that academic freedom, the reasons
for it, and the necessity of it for our national welfare must be ade-
quately explained to the public, to the alumni, to the students, to
trustees, and even, it would appear, to the professional scholars
themselves. To this task the American Association of University
Professors has been and is dedicated.

Many other channels for explaining academic freedom are open.
Bill-of-Rights Week is one; speeches of welcome to an entering
class or of parting advice to graduates are another. In certain
philosophy courses the theory of academic freedom would be
appropriate subject matter. Indeed, in all college courses it
should have a place, perhaps most often under the denominator of
scientific method. For the presentation of the concept to young
Americans, no courses are better suited than the ones which his-
torians oflFer, especially those in American history. Every such
course is an invitation to stress how our nation and people have
benefited by encouraging open-minded inquiry, by insisting on a
free competition of ideas, and by pursuing the truth wheresoever
it may lead.

An educative program such as this has the cardinal virtue that
it can go on constantly. Too often, the friends of academic free-
dom have been roused to action only when there was a full-scale
attack to repel, a last-ditch stand to make, or a salvage job to do.
They have been like the shiftless man with the leaky roof. Be-
tween rains they saw no need to fix the roof. When it rained they
could not fix it, and usually all they did was to set a bucket to catch
the drip.

As an element in an educative program designed to put a proper
roof over scholarship, it would obviously help a great deal if it
were clear that, like the doctors and the lawyers, scholars have
a code of professional standards to which they owe adherence,
and that this code exists for the good of society. There is general
recognition of the secretness of the confessional, of the lawyer's
obligation to respect the confidences of his client, and of the code

440

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

of the physician, but there is no such clear awareness of the exist-
ence of an ethics of scholarship.

Perhaps what is needed is a Hippocratic Oath with the Ph.D.

This oath of the scholar would consist of ideas already familiar,
though some have fallen into neglect. It should have the clarity
of simple wording. It should set forth the nature of the scholar's
calling, the obligations that scholars assume, the reciprocal duty of
society to scholarship, and the fundamental requirement of schol-
arly integrity.

Such an oath might properly be administered to claimants of
the Ph.D. as part of their initiation into the full privileges and
duties of the profession. In time the ritual might be judged a
more useful exercise than publication of the dissertation or defense
of the thesis.

Such a credo would be a standard to repair to in time of stress.
It would be a weapon to fight with, a succinct statement of prin-
ciples affording inspiration, a yardstick for self-measurement, an
explanation that would persuade the public, an avowal that would
earn the confidence of students, a guide to presidents and regents,
and a warning to those who at times are tempted to limit or destroy
academic freedom. The content of such a credo has already been
developed by the American Association of University Professors.
What is still needed is a more succinct and specific statement of
this credo in the form of a professional commitment that might be
required of all who enter the academic profession. The modern
Hippocrates who puts this credo into clarion words, along with
those who have developed the principles of academic freedom, will
deserve the endless gratitude of his fellow scholars and of society at
large, which will be equally benefited. The reason can be stated
very simply:

The world today, as never before, stands in need of honest and
untrammeled scholarship, for the preservation of what is known,
for the extension of the boundaries of knowledge, and for improved
understanding of the problems of mankind. Totalitarian dictator-
ship prefers a limited, captive scholarship. But our nation, as a
democratic republic, depending in the last analysis upon an alert
and informed citizenry, cannot afford to limit inquiry or to restrict
the interchange of ideas. Thus in true patriotism, those who

TRUSTEES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

441

enter the profession of scholarship are under obligation, to the
best of their abilities, to strive to deliver impartial research and
honest teaching. The profession is under equal obligation, in
season and out of season, to remind itself, to remind the public,
and to insist that the establishment and maintenance of academic
freedom are absolute requisites for rendering to society the bene-
fits of scholarship. This is the first duty for those who claim the
name of scholars, and who are, above all others, the trustees of
academic freedom.

Editors' Note: On April 19, ic)5o the American Association of University Pro-
fessors intervened in the University of California loyalty oath situation referred to
in the article, "Trustees of Academic Freedom," in an appeal to the Regents of the
University to reconsider the requirement that members of the Faculty subscribe to
a disclaimer loyalty oath. The action of the Regents to continue this requirement
led to an investigation by the Association. The report of this investigation will be
completed in the near future. Recent developments in this situation are indicated
in the telegraphic communications which follow:

Ralph E. Himstead to Robert G. Sproul November 21, 1951

HAVE NOTED RECENT ACTION REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALL
FORNIA RESCINDING PREVIOUS ACTION REQUIRING DISCLAIMER
LOYALTY OATH OF MEMBERS OF FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY. DOES
THIS ACTION PROVIDE FOR REINSTATEMENT MEMBERS OF FAC-
ULTY WHO WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
REGENTS' PREVIOUS ACTION REQUIRING DISCLAIMER LOYALTY
OATH? PLEASE SEND ME VIA AIR MAIL FULL TEXT RECENT ACTION
OF REGENTS, NAMES OF REGENTS PARTU:iPATING IN THIS ACTION,
AND THEIR VOTE, AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR NEGATIVE. THANKS.

Robert G. Sproul to Ralph E. Himstead December 9, 1951

REPLY TO YOUR TELEGR.AM NOV 21 HAS BEEN DELAYED AWAITING
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF REGENTS MEETING. MEANWHILE QUES-
TIONS SUCH AS YOURS HAVE BEEN ASKED BY OTHERS AND WILL
COME BEFORE REGENTS NEXT FRIDAY FOR ANSWER. 1 HAVE
LETTER PARTIALLY PREPARED WHICH 1 SHALL SEND YOU AIR
MAIL AFTER THIS MEETING.

Note: John Walton Caughey, the author of "Trustees of Academic
Freedom," is Managing Editor of the Pacific Historical Review.
From 1930 to 1950 he was Professor of History, University of
California at Los Angeles. He was one of twenty-six professors
dismissed because of non-compliance with the requirement of the
Regents of the University of California that all members of the
Faculty subscribe to a disclaimer loyalty oath.

— The Editors

I

1950-1951

ANNUAL REPORT

TO JUNE 30. 1951

Fear

and

Suspicion

^•T»BNAk
VMILAMCt
■TTHSMirtO*
LIIBBTV

American
Civil Liberties

of Northern California

503 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO 5

January 1952

lOc Copy

»••

)i!S,vsi>

Prineiptes and Purposes

OUR constitutional guarantees of freedom of
speech, pY'ess and assembly are not self-enforc-
ing. Constant and vigorous efforts are necessary
to maintain the BiU of Rights especially in times
of crisis when fear and intolerance of dissenting
minorities are aroused. On the maintenance of free-
dom of speech, press and assembly rests the whole
structure of our political democracy. And that free-
dom for all of us is threatened by denying it to any
form of expression, however obnoxious. Nobody's
political rights are safe if anybody's rights are sac-
rlilced.

The American Civil Libertie« Union has since
the first World War been the only national non-
partisan organization defending the rights of all
wlthoot distinction.

The Civil Liberties Union stands on the general
principle that all thought on matters of public con-
cern should be freely expressed without interference.
The right to hear as well as to speak is a necessary
function of democracy. Orderly social progress is
promoted by unrestricted freedom of opinion. The
punishment of mere opinion without overt acts is
never in the interest of orderly progress. Suppression
of opinion makes for violence and bloodshed. This
is the historic American position on civil liberty,
stated once and for all by Thomas Jefferson:

*lt Is time enough for the rightful purposes of
civil government for its officers to interfere when
principles break oat Into overt acts against peace
and good order.**

The Union's interpretation of "dvil liberty" there-
fore covers the right of any group to organize, to
conduct propaganda, and to engage in all sorts of
economic and political activities short of violence,
attempted violence, preparations for violence, per-
sonal libel or obscenity. Its principles forbid dis-
crimination on the ground of religion or race. They
exclude all advance censorship of publication or
distribution.

The Union's sole source of income is membership
dues and contributions from its eighteen hundred
and fifty-five members, who thereby made possible
the work reflected by this report. The Union needs
additional support. If you want to join or make a
contribution to the worli, please fill out and send to
us the form on the back cover page.

THE YEAR

(To June SO, 1951)

One might echo last year's Annual Report, so far
as the main preoccupation of the Union h^ be^
concerned. A furious Red-hunt, coupled with the
technique of guilt by association, continues unabated
and as before, by no means all of those atta^^^^
Communists or Communist sympathizers. The ^^
tinumg ' pohce action" in Korea and the failure so
far to effect a satisfactory truce have kept public

vantage of by groups interested not so much in anti-
Communism as in the suppression of all dissent In
some respects civil liberties during the past year have
reached a low point not experienced in AmerfcrsSc^
the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In consequence, the major part of the Union's work
has involved cases directly or indirectly connected
with the current witch-hunts - loyalty checks for fed-
eral employees, aggravated by the new yardstick of
reasonable doubt;" security tests for employees of
a dozen federal agencies, generally in addition to
loyalty checks; security screening of waterfront and
maritime workers by the U.S. Coast Guard- new
political tests for aliens under the McCarran Act
which in certain respects grants the Immigration
bervice almost uncontrolled discretion; political tests
for citizens seeking passports from the U.S State
Department; and discharges of dissidents from the
Levering Act, as well as other problems presented
by that law. Before the Levering Act was adopted
the Union opposed proposals in many communities
for "loyalty oaths" for public employees and the re-
gistration of Communists. It also opposed the re-
newed drive at the 1951 session of the California
Legislature for conformity oaths, suppression of
alleged subversives and restrictions on academic
freedom. Also, it campaigned actively against the
Regents' conformity oath for the faculty of the Uni-
versity of California.

In other fields, the variety of the Union's coverage
has been maintained, even though the Red-hunt has
been its No. 1 problem. For a wonder, the Union
was barely mentioned in the 1951 Burns Committee
report. In general, last year's summing up may be
repeated: "Since the situation promises to become
worse before it becomes better, the Union faces a
critical year."

It should be noted that this report is late solely
because of the pressure of civil liberties business.
The Union hopes to publish its next Annual Report
in the Fall of 1952.

Page 3

Red-Hunting

Levering Act: In a matter of five days and without

an opportunity for public discussion,
a special session of the California Legislature adopt-
ed the Levering Act (approved by the Governor Oc-
tober 3, 1950), requiring a conformity oath of all
"civil defense workers." The latter was defined as
including "all public employees." In addition to the
usual oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of
the State and Nation, a civil defense worker is re-
quired to swear that he does not presently and will not
in the future, either advocate or belong to a group
advocating the violent overthrow of the government,
and he is also required to list any such groups he has
belonged to during the past five years. Moreover,
the Act conscripts public employees alone for civil
defense duties. Perjury or violation of the law is a
felony punishable by 1 — 14 years in prison.

Passage of the Act resulted in a flood of confer-
ences, telephone calls and letters to the Union, most-
ly from those who wanted to know just which or-
ganizations to which they might at some time have
belonged were supposed to advocate overthrow of
the Government by force and violence. There could
be no answer to this except the inquirer's own know-
ledge.

The Union supported the suits filed by attorney
Wayne M. Collins on behalf of four San Francisco
State College teachers, and one draftsman for the
city water department, all discharged for non-signing
of the oath. These suits, which challenge the con-
stitutionality of the Act, are still under consideration
by the State Supreme Court.

Just prior to the adoption of the Levering Act, the
Union unsuccessfully opposed the adoption of loyal-
ty oaths for public employees in Berkeley, Oakland,
Albany, Millbrae and Richmond. Similar proposals
for San Francisco and Marin counties were dropped
when the Levering Act was adopted. Proposed ordi-
nances to register Communists were abandoned in
a number of communities in Northern California,
including San Francisco, after the Federal McCarran
Act was adopted.

Loyalty and Security Checks: The Union appeared

in 21 federal em-
ployee's loyalty check cases during the year, and,
for the first time since the program was established
in 1947, it lost a case. The Union also appeared in
behalf of three federcd employees previously cleared
on loyalty charges against whom security risk pro-
ceedings were filed under Public Law 808. An un-

Page 4

favorable decision was handed down in one of these
cases. Also, the Union assisted a Naval reservist who
faced a dishonorable discharge because he contributed
money to the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
subscribed to "In Fact," and expressed opinions that
were unorthodox. He received an honorable dis-
charge at the expiration of his service, but with a
recommendation against re-enlistment.

The unfavorable ruling by the Loyalty Review
Board in Washington involved a messenger for the
Veterans Administration, an honorably discharged
veteran of World War II. He denied admitting to
associates that he was ever a Communist or sympa-
thetic to the principles of Communism. He admitted
subscribing to the Daily People's World as well as
attending a class at the California Labor School. He
was charged with being "an intimate friend and
associate of" three named persons who were alleged
to be Communists, but at least two of them turned
out to be ex-Communists. The employee exasperated
the members of the Review Board panel by stating
that both the United States and Russia were respon-
sible for the mess in which the world presently finds
itself. The Board apparently wanted to hear a con-
demnation of the Soviet Union alone.

The unfavorable decision in the security risk case
involved a physicist at the Ames Aeronautical La-
boratory, who had been cleared after a loyalty hear-
ing. He was charged with demonstrating a sym-
pathetic tolerance for Communists, Communist
sympathizers and Communist propaganda. His as-
sociations with Communists and Communist sym-
pathizers was alleged to demonstrate lack of the
judgment and discretion necessary to protect the
security of classified material relating to the nation-
al defense. The Security Board's ruling was upheld
by the head of the department, thus ending the case.

On April 28, 1951, the President amended his
loyalty order to provide that the standard for re-
fusing employment or removing from employment
is that on all the evidence the person involved has
failed to establish his loyalty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The term "reasonable doubt" was not defined.
The new order thus imposed a more stringent and
obscure test than the previous one which required a
board to find that "reasonable grounds exist for be-
lief that the person involved is disloyal to the Gov-
ernment of the United States."

Limitations of space do not permit a review of
the various loyalty cases that were handled during
the year. Particularly noteworthy, however, is the
case of a stenographer against whom no specific
charges were brought, but who had apparently

Page 5

married into a family with Communist leanings.
Another employee was accused among other things
of owning "phonograph records in a foreign lan-
guage, believed to be Russian." The only explanation
he could offer for the alleged Russian records was
that he had experimented with a wire recorder which
he often played backwards. Possibly the resulting
noise sounded like Russian to suspicious neighbors.

Also, a student who had specialized in Russian
military histor>' during his college days became sus-
pect for that reason. And, in another case, at the
age of 13 or 14 the employee had attended both a
camp and a Jewish language school which were
operated by the International Workers Order. She
had also been a member of the American Student
Union, which is not on the Attorney General's list,
and had associated with two women who were alleged
to be Communists. In still another case, involving a
person who had been a member of American Youth
for Democracy and a subscriber to the Daily People's
World for a brief time ten years ago, the charge
was also made that "Your present librar>' consists
mainly of Communist books by Marx, Engels, and
Lenin." As a matter of fact, out of a library of a
couple of hundred books, only three of them con-
tained any Communist writings, and at least two
of these were used in college courses.

Coast Guard Screening: Up to June 30, 1951, the

Union intervened in ex-
actly 27 U.S. Coast Guard security screening cases.
Under the authority of a law enacted August 9,
1950, and a Presidential order issued thereunder,
the Coast Guard required security clearances of all
seamen sailing on any vessel of 100 tons or more,
and any person having access to the docks. Thus
far, screened dock workers have merely been denied
access to Army and Navy docks. On the other hand,
a seaman who is screened immediately loses his job
and is not reinstated unless he is successful in a so-
called appeal or hearing.

Hearings in the San Francisco area did not get
under way until the latter p)art of January, 1951, and
the whole procedure has been an extremely slow
and cumbersome one lacking in due process. Because
tri-partite hearing panels provided by the regulations
had not been named and cleared, the hearings were
held before an independent hearing officer until
sometime in June, 1951.

No specification of charges is received by the
screened worker. The notice of screening usually
advises the subject that he is suspected of being
either a member of or sympathetically associated

Page 6

r

with a subversive organization. At the hearing, the
accused is not confronted with any witnesses against
him, and the hearing panel has before it a secret
file of an investigation on which the screening was
based. At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel
makes merely a recommendation to the Commandant
in Washington, and he makes the decision, which
may be appealed to an Appeals Board in Washington,
which again makes merely a recommendation to
the Commandant.

Up to June 30, the Union did not have any cases
reach the appeal stage in Washington. Most of the
27 cases were awaiting hearings or rehearings before
tri-partite boards, while 8 of them had received favor-
able decisions after hearings, and one person was
di^afted into the armed forces before a hearing could
be arranged in his case. Even if a screened worker
is finally cleared, the Army and Navy have thus far
not seen fit to allow such a person access to its docks,
and no procedure has been provided whereby this
can be accomplished.

In one case, a seaman was screened on November
20, 1950. He received a hearing on March 21, 1951,
and a favorable decision was handed down on May
2, 1951. During this 5^ -month period he was out of
the industry, the hearing officer suggested, simply
because he has a brother who is believed to be a
Communist. In another case, the apparent basis for
the classification was the fact that the man held a
policy of the International Workers Order.

Many Negroes are the target of security screenings.
Such persons find themselves in a dilemma because,
if they support the left-wing leadership which is
opposed to racial discrimination, they face screen-
ing by the Coast Guard. On the other hand, if they
support the right-wing union leadership, which fa-
vors racial discrimination, they also face the loss of
their jobs.

Travel Documents: A number of cases arose during

the past year in which the Gov-
ernment declined issuance of travel documents for
undisclosed reasons.

In one case, the Passport Division of the State
Department denied a passport to Prof. Humbert W.
Smith of San Francisco State College, after his
appointment to a Fulbright Fellowship for study in
France. No reason was given. The Union provided
Prof. Smith with the assistance of competent counsel
in Washington, D. C, who learned informally that
the professor was accused of being a "fellow trav-
eUer" during the period 1939-1942. The Union helped
Prof. Humbert W. Smith prepare a lengthy affidavit
concerning his activities during the period in ques-

Page 7

tion, on the strength of which the passport was finally
issued. In a couple of other cases, the Passpon Di-
vision refused either to explain or reconsider its
action in den\'ing passports.

A couple of cases also arose in which the Army,
"Without explanation, refused to permit American
citizens to visit Japan on business. No remedy was
found in these cases.

The Fox Case: Irving David Fox, former Univ. of

California teaching assistant, who.
on December 16, 1949, was arbitrarily disniissed by
the Regents for standing on his constitutional rights
and refusing to answer certain questions before the
House Committ€*e on Un-American Activities, on De-
cember 4, 1950 -was indicted by a Federal Grand Jur\'
in Washington, D. C, for refusing to answer 16 of
the questions. Since more than sixt>' similar cases
were pending in Washingfton, the national office of
the ITnion agreed to handle the matter as a test case.

The former '" essman from California, By-ran

Scott, agreed v.' j r-present Mr. Fox, and, at his trial,
the charges were dismissed.

The Legisl&ture and the B^Hiint: Sweepkic 'loy-

alt>'oath" bills,
Communist i- _ ation measures and restrictiow
on academic freedom stood out in a rash of suppres-
sive proposals at the 1951 session of the California
Legislature. The l^nion helped in killing some of IlK
M'orst bills. These included a measure which would
have required a conformity oath of ever>^ holder of
a state license to carrj' on an occupation — ^wiiich
would have covered docsfears, la^w^^ers, barbers, bematj
operators, chiropodists, imdertakers, veterinanaiBR,
and man\- other professions and trades. The Governor
pocket -vetoed the most vicious red-hunting bfM
adopted by the Legislature. It would have allowed
the disml^'^-^ of State Coliege teadhers who, witting-
ly or ur: - . . ..ngly. joined tw gave "activ^e support"
to Communist fronts, or who actively and persistent-
ly participated in public meetings of such groups-
Two constitutional amendments adopted by the
Legislature will face the voters no later than the
1952 genera] election. T^e first measure places the
Levering Act "loyalty oath" for public employees
in the State Constitution, while the second measure
would allow the Legislature to set up a loyaltv' rtieck
program for all public employees, including prof»-
sors at the University of California.

Six bad biUs were pMned by the Legislature
and ^ifgosA by the Governor. One would allow dis-
barment ur suspension of an> attorney who adv^ocates
the violent overthrow of the government. A second
measure seeks to prevent Commumsts from using

Pupe 8

i

school buildings as meeting places. Another law sub-
jects civilian defense workers to loyalty checks. Still
another new law would allow the dismissal of any
teacher advocating or teaching Communism "with
the intent to indoctrinate any pupil uith, or inculcate
a preference in the mind of any pupil for Com-
munism."

Also, candidates for public office henceforth must
take a loyalty oath before their names can appear
on primarj^ election ballots. (The Attorney General
has ruled that this law does not apply to independent
candidates, since they do not run at the primaries.)

Finally, the Senate Fact Finding Committee on
Un-American Activities (Bums Committee) was re-
established with an appropriation of $50,000.

Academic Freedom

••Crisis, 11": In December, 1950, the Union published
a "Further Statement to the People
of California" on the Crisis at the University of
California brought about by the imposition of the
Regents' Oath. Written by Dr. Alexander M. Meikle-
john, it brought up to date the events following the
action of the R,egent majoritv-, discussed the issues
involved, and described "the gains and losses which
it has brought to the University."

In the wonis of "Crisis XT': "In the current year,
UBO-1951, ... 26 'loyal and competent' teachers are
nstasing from the staff, and . . . some 40 or 50 regular
courses are not being gtven. A nimiber of other
prof(.MMMiL have rerigned in protest against the
R,egents' action. Some well known scholars who have
been invited to join the facultv- have refused, on
principle, to do so." The study outlined the dsimage
done to the reputation of the university through
condemnation by national associations of scholars,
and to the morale of those teadiers who felt obliged
to sign, of the students as a whole by the "drop in
the level of instruction," and particularly of graduate
stiuSeots, teaching assistants, and young instructors,
wiio "^t the very beginning of their careers have
suffered the disillusionment of seeing many of their
elders driven into denial of their beliefs. . . .

"In a society devoted to freedom, test-oaths, when
used for purposes of detection, cannot catch men
who are liars. They can, and do, catch men who
wpeaik the truth. They cannot catch n>en who hate
freedom. They do catch men who love freedom." The
Bej^nt majority does not "understand what the
work of a university is, nor how it is done," and,
through that ignorance, it has betrayed the public
trust committed to it.

**CriBi« H," besides being published as a supplement
to the monthly NETW'S. was also issued as a booklet

In all, 21,000 copios were distributed throufrhout the
country. The national office plans to publish a
reprint early in 1952

On April 6, 1951, the Third District Court of
Appeal unanimously^ held the Regents' oath to be
unconstitutional. The Regents thereupon voted 11
to 10 not to appeal to the California Supreme Court,
but that court took jurisdiction of the case on its
ov^Ti motion and heard arguments June 27, 1951. As
yet, no decision has been handed dou'n.

Watsonville Teachers: The Union sent a letter of

protest to the Superin-
tendent of Schools of Watsonv'ille, who had "recom-
mended" that teachers should not attend a United
World Federalists luncheon meeting in Loma Linda
becausf this was a "controversial'" group. A large
number did attend.

Free Speech and Assembly

"Witnesses* Barred from Auditorium: On objection?

by the Veter-
ans of Foreign Wars, the Yuba County Board of
Supervisors rescinded an agreement to rent the
Marysville Memorial Auditorium to Jehovah's Wit-
nesses for a conference in Februar\% 1951, and re-
turned the rental which had already been accepted.
The conference place had been widely advertised.
In a letter to the Board, the Union challenged its
arbitrarj^ action in suddenly withdrawing a use which
its agent had granted. "The damage that has been
done to the Witnesses ma\- be relatively small (they
secured another hall in Marysville). but the damage
that has been donf^ to the cause of freedom and ttit
democratic processes is significant." The Union's
letter was published in the Marx'sville Appeal -De-
mocrat.

State CoDegre Meeting:: The Union intervened suc-

BBBfully in an attempt by
San Francisco police to prevent San Francisco State
College students from holding a meeting in Duboce
Park to protest discharge of teachers under the
Levering Act.

Harrj Bridges: The Union filed an amicus curiae

brief in the U. S. Court of Appeals
in San F^anciscc^ against revocation of Harrj- Bridges'
bail in liis appeal from a perjurj conviction, and at
tht same time sent a protest to Attorney General
J. Howard McGrath, in which it said that **the Go-
vernment is attempting to revoke Mr. Bridges' bail
mereh because he has exercised his right of free
speech wittiin his union and because of his associ-
ations." (He had discussed the Korean war at a
union meeting.^ Bail was restored a short time
later.

10

i

The Union also protests to the American Broad-
casting Company against its exclusion of Bridges
from the final news commentar\' program given over
that network by Sidnej- Roger. Bridges had been
scheduled to give his views on Korea, which he said
had been distorted by the daily press. The New
York headquarters of the American Broadcasting
Company ordered him barred without even ascertain-
ing the nature of his proposed remark*.

At the same time the Union condemned the action
of the local American Broadcasting Company station.
KGO, in refusing to renew Roger's contract, saving
that "the exclusion from the radio of unorthodox
opinions is not in the public interest, but conforms
uith totalitarian concepts." It asked the Federal
Communications Commission to investigate both
matters, to which the FCC made its usual reply that
it had no power to prescribe the contents of any
broadcast, but would consider both accusations when
it made its periodic review of the licensee at the
next application for renewal.

Ilmilx People's World: The State Senate refused to

a reporter for the Daily
F*eople's World the floor privileges extended to all
members of the working press, and the Assembly
soon thereafter took similar action. "Hie Union pro-
tested this "violation of the spirit of our constitution-
al guarantees of speech and of the press." and
pointed out that it had also objected when former
Governor Culbert L. Olson had barred reporters of
the San Francisco Examiner from his press confer-
ences. The action was not rescinded by either House.

San Francisco Beef>rder: The Union obtained a

prompt retraction of a
statement published by the Becorder, a legal paper,
charging that the ACLU had opposed the appoint-
ment of Judge James M. Carter to the Federal bench,
assertedly because of Judge Carter's anti-Communist
stand. This accusation had been made originally by
Federal Judge Claude McCoUoch. of Portland. Ore-
gon, who immediatelj' vTote the Keiior&er that he
had got his "information" from a newspaper stor\%
and that he nov found it was the Lawv-ers' Guild,
not the Union, which had opposed Judge Carter's
appointment. Judge McColloch added: "I did not
say or suggest that the Civil Liberties Union is a
Communist organization."

Racial Matters

Kenuneiatior: Suit*: On April 29. 1948. Federal Judge

Louis E. Goodman of San Tran-
Cisco revalidated the citizenship of 4.315 Nisei on thf

11

ground that they had signed renunciations of citizen-
ship under governmental duress. In January, 1951,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, yielding apparent-
ly to the current loyalty hysteria, ruled that Judge
Goodman had erred in not giving the Government
an opportunity to show that the "coercive conditions"
did not affect individual renunciants, and in con-
sequence the cases of nearly all the adults involved
were returned to the District Court. The Appeals
Court did confirm Judge Goodman's ruling as applied
to minors (nearly a quarter of the cases) and with
respect to eight mentally incompetent persons ( whom
nevertheless the Government had permitted to "re-
nounce" their citizenship!).

Also reversed by the Court of Appeals was the
decision of Judge Goodman ordering the release of
138 renunciants who were in technical custody for
removal to Japan as alien enemies. Judge Goodman
denied that Nisei are dual citizens, and held that
renunciation of U. S. citizenship does not by itself
create Japanese citizenship while the renunciants re-
side here. The Court of Appeals held, however, that
the issue is to be determined bj- Japanese law, which
is a fact to be determined by the trial court.

Both the Department of Justice and the renunciants
appealed the decisions to the United States Supreme
Court, but that court refused to hear the cases so the
decisions of the Court of Appeals stand.

The renunciants are represented by attorney
Wayne M. Collins, and the suits, which have been
pending since November 13. 1945. have the full
support of the ACLU of Northern California.

Aliens

Unreasonable Detention: Mrs. Freda Alexander, a

Canadian citizen, came to
the United States with her infant daughter in Sep-
tember, 1950. in order to divorce her American hus-
band. Stranded in Reno, she represented herself as
an American citizen in order to secure employment
as a "change girl" in a gambling establishment, and
this was the ostensible reason for her being held in
custody for three and a half month "for further
questioning." The actual reason undoubtedly was
that Mrs. Alexander had belonged to the Communist
Party for a short time when she was 19 years old.
and that she had had a personal relation with a man
connected with a Canadian spy ring.

Although a final deportation order had been issued
against her. and she had waived the right of appeal,
Mrs. Alexander and her baby were detained in the
detention quarters in the Appraisers Building in San

Page 12

Francisco from December 13th to March 29th, under
conditions adverse to the health of both mother and
child. Following the Union's intervention in the case,
Mrs. Alexander was questioned by a Federal Grand
Jury and swiftly returned to her home in Montreal,
from which she wrote the Union: "I see now that
the only hope for victims of persecution is the ex-
istence of organizations such as yours."

McCarran Act Detention: The Union also intervened

in behalf of one John
Magusin, whose criminal record w^as the basis for a
deportation order in 1930, but who has remained in
this country' because of the inability of the Govern-
ment to execute the warrant of deportation. On
January 11, 1951, upon his release from Folsom
Prison, the alien was again picked up by the Immi-
gration Service which claimed that, under the
McCarran Act, it could hold him for six months after
the issuance of a warrant, especially since his de-
portation was imminent. The fact was, however,
that the Government was still unable to procure
travel documents for the alien so, aiter the Union's
intervention, he was paroled on May 1, 1951.

Self -Deportation: In the case of an ex-Communist,

also dating back to 1930, in which
the Government has been unable to execute a warrant
of deportation, the alien, in March, 1951, under the
McCarran Act, was ordered to deport himself or
face prosecution under that section of the Act w^hich
makes it a felony punishable up to ten years in
prison for an alien against whom a warrant of de-
portation is outstanding to "willfully fail or refuse
to depart from the United States wathin a period of
six months from the date of such order of depor
tation, or from the date of the enactment of the"
law. whichever is later. Whether the Government
will prosecute in this case possibly depends upon the
outcome ol a Southern California case which is now
pending in the courts.

McCarran Act Charge: A deportation case that has

been kicking around the
ACLU office since 1935 is now the subject of action
under the McCarran Act. The alien had originally
been charged with illigal entr>' and membership in
a group advocating the violent overthrow of the Go-
vernment. The latter charge resulted from his being
a dues paying member of the Communist Party from
February- to July of 1934. The Government was never
able to execute a warrant of deportation, and, follow-
ing the decision in the Strecker case holding that the
statute did not permit deportation for past member-
ship in a prohibited group, the political charge was

Page 13

dropped. In February, 1951, however, the alien was
charged under the McCarran Act of 1950, which per-
mits deportation of an alien who at any time has
been a member of the Communist Party. The alien,
who entered the country at the age of three, has
been ordered deported on the McCarran Act charge
(the illegal entry charge was dropped), and his case
is once more on appeal to the Central Office of the
Immigration Service.

Peruvian- Japanese: During World War II a number

of Japanese residents of Peru
— some of them native-born, some naturalized Peru-
vian citizens, and the rest of twenty year's average
residence in that country — were brought to the
United States by the Army, without legal process,
and interned for the duration. Peru confiscated their
property and allowed only a handful to return. The
Immigration Service then sought to have them de-
ported to Japan as illegal entrants into the United
States. Wayne M. Collins filed suits in their behalf
in 1946 in the Federal District Court in San Francisco
which saved them from deportation. The Justice
Department stated at that time that it did not desire
to litigate the issues.

In May, 1951, however, the Immigration Service
again demanded their deportation and in some cases
has refused to recommend suspension of deportation,
which relief is ordinarily available to aliens of good
character who have resided here for seven years or
more. The matter was still in abeyance at the end
of the year.

Naturalization Cases: Two naturalization cases in

which the Union intervened
in behalf of the aliens are of special interest.

In one, the German-bom mother of two World War
II veterans was objected to by the Examiner because
she was a member of the United World Federalists.

In the other, a German Jewish refugee, a veteran
of the French Army, was accused of being a Com-
munist by a woman who had been his landlady
several years ago for a few days when he attended
the Bach Festival in Carmel. The landlady testified
at his hearing. Her "general impression" was that
he was "against our form of government." It was
apparent that she considered all Jews to be Russian
Jews, and all Russian Jews to be Communists. In-
cidentally, the alien is opposed to all forms of total-
itarianism— Communist as well as Nazi.

In both cases, the aliens were finally granted ci-
tizenship.

Page 14

Miscellaneous

Censorship: Federal Judge Louis E. Goodman of
San FYancisco ruled, as had been ex-
spected, that Henry Miller's books, "The Tropic of
Cancer" and "The Tropic of Capricorn," which had
been seized by Custom officials and ordered destroyed
when they arrived from abroad for Prof. J. Murray
Luck of Stanford University, were obscene. Owner-
ship had been transferred to Ernest Besig in order
to secure a court ruling on the obscenity charge.
A jury trial was waived. Needless to say, the Union
does not defend pornography, but in the interest of
freedom of the press it believes such matters should
be decided in court instead of by a self-appointed
censor.

The judge ruled that the two books contained
passages which were "filthy, revolting, and obscene,
and (which) have no reasonable relation to any
literary concept inherent in the books' themes." He
had previously refused an offer of testimony by
competent critics as to the literary value of the
books. The decision is being appealed to the Court
of Appeals.

Freedom Crusade: Over the protests of the Union.

the San Francisco Board of Edu-
cation voted in September, 1950, to permit circulation
in the public schools of the scroll of the so-called
Freedom Crusade. The Board did, however, bam the
direct collection of funds in connection with the sign-
ing, though it allowed teachers to inform pupils
where they could make contributions to finance anti-
Communist short-wave broadcasts in Europe. The
Union has no objection to any private citizens circu-
lating such a scroll or collecting money for this pur-
pose, but it does object to pressuring school children
into signing a political document, with the inevitable
ostracism of children who do not sign. In fact, the
Education Code expressly forbids the circulation of
propaganda in the public schools. The protests of the
Union and of many parents seem to have resulted
at least in emphasis on the voluntary nature of the
undertaking.

Illeg:al County Jail Sentences: Last year the Union

secured the release
of three prisoners at the San Francisco County Jail
who were serving two-yc^r sentences on misdemeanor
charges, whereas the courts have ruled that the
maximum sentence on a misdemeanor is one year.

The fourth and last in this series of cases was
concluded in July, 1950, when attorney Bzirbara
Steiner, acting for the Union, procured the release

Page 15

from the County Jail on a writ of habeas corpus of
John Soares, who had been in the jail for more than
20 months. He had been convicted on two misde-
meanor charges, and given one sentence of one year
and one of two, the sentences to run consecutively.

Draft Cases: The Union protested to Federal Judge
George B. Harris in November, 1950
agamst a 5-year sentence imposed on Thomas Henry
Burgtorff, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses who
was convicted under the Selective Service Act on
the ground that the sentence was "highly excessive"
for a run-of-the-mill case. Burgtorffs claim for
mmistenal status had been rejected by his draft
board and he then refused to be inducted into the
Army. Smce the protest was made the sentences in
this judicial district have been more moderate.

An interesting draft case was that of a registrant
who was a member of the Jain sect of Hindus, strict
vegetarians who refuse to kill any living things. At
the Union's intervention this man was reclassified
as a non-combatant, but that did not settle the
matter. He was afraid that his dietary rules could
not be obeyed in the Army— suppose the same fork-
that had touched meat should also touch the vege-
tables he would be given to eat, and thus contaminate
them? Fortunately for all concerned, on physical
examination the registrant was re-classified as a 4-F.
The Union has given advice and counsel in other
cases of conscientious objectors to military service,
and, in some instances, has provided bail for regis-
trants who have been prosecuted. The problem of
such objectors will become more acute under the
draft law signed by the President on June 18, 195L
The new law provides that the objector unwilling to
perform non-combatant service may be "ordered by
his local board, subject to such regulations as the
President may prescribe, to perform (for a period
of 24 months) such civilian work contributing to
the national health, safety or interest as the local
board may deem appropriate . . ." The new re-
gulations have not yet been issued.

Organization

Annual Meeting: For the first time the Union had

difficulty in securing a hall for
its annual meeting— sufficient evidence of the atmos-
phere of suspicion and fear in which we live today.
The haU in which it had met for a number of years
was closed to it. It finally succeeded in obtaining
a basement hall in the Western Women's Club,
which was too small to hold comfortably the 400
persons who came, on October 20, 1950, to hear Dr.

Page 16

William W. Feamside, of the University of California,
and attorney Clarence E. Rust, a member of the
Union's Executive Committee, speak on "What Is
the Legal Status of the Communist Party Today?"
The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons presided, and di-
rector Ernest Besig reported on the Union's recent
activities.

Executive Committee: The Union's annual meeting

was saddened by news of the
death, that very day, of a highly valued member of
its Executive Committee for eleven years, Margaret
James Porter, the wife of the well known artist Bruce
Porter and daughter of the philosopher William
James, Only a month before, the Committee had
reluctantly accepted Mrs. Porter's resignation on the
ground of ill health, and had named her an honorary
member.

Elected to the Committee for three-year terms
commencing November 1, 1950 were Robert Ash, Se-
cretary, Alameda Central Labor Council (AFL), who
subsequently dropped out because of inability to
attend meetings; Prof. Edward L. Barrett of the
University of California Law School; Arnold F.
Campo, representative. United Steel Workers of
America; Prof. Van D. Kennedy, Ass't. Prof, of In-
dustrial Relations, Dep't. of Business Administration,
Univ. of Calif.; Rev. Harry C. Meserve, Minister,
First Unitarian Church, San Francisco; Fred H.
Smith, IV, San Francisco businessman; Dr. Carl B.
Spaeth, Dean, Stanford Law School.

Relations with National Office: The second confer-
ence of ACLU afili-
ates was held in New York in May, 1951. The ACLU
of Northern California was represented by Executive
Committee members Dr. Alexander M. Meiklejohn
and Philip Adams, and the local director Ernest
Besig.

Proposals were made by the national office to
integrate national and local membership and fi-
nances, and to place control of such matters ex-
clusively in the hands of the national office. These
proposals were finally abandoned, although some of
the smaller branches have voluntarily entered into
such arrangements with the national office.

The conference adopted new By-Laws which, among
other things, establish a voting system for the corpo-
ration under which national board and committee
members are granted automatic proxies to cast
ballots for such members who fail to vote. The
local Executive Committee turned down the new
By-Laws because of the new voting system, and also
because a national board resolution of February 5,
1940, excluding persons with certain opinions and

Page 17

associations from holding office in the Union, which
was applicable only to the national office and ^ewly

^n^nTi^?''^''^ ^^^ ^^" ^^^^y incorporated
into the By-Laws. The question of the new By-Laws
still remains unsettled. J' ^ws

A number of policy changes were voted by the
corporation during the past year, all of which the
local branch disapproved. One change now puts the
Union in the position of not objecting to barring
Commumsts or other totalitarians from holding
offices in trade unions. Another has the ACLU
acquiescing in denial of permanent entry into the
United States as well as citizenship to aliens who are
Communists or members of other totalitarian groups.
The Executive Committee felt that barring of Com-
munists and others from union offices is not only
ineffective but encourages witch-hunting in unions,
and that political tests and the principle of guilt by
association have no proper place as tests for aliens
and citizens alike.

Membership: The Union's membership conUnued
■iQ.,0 1- ^^^ steady growth which started in

.o^. 'Tu^'' *^^ membership stood at 624. On June 30,
1951, there were 1844 members in good standing as
against 1564 on June 30, 1950. In addition, there
were 250 separate subscribers to the monthly News
now in its sixteenth year.

Finances: The budget for the fiscal year ending
October 31, 1951, augmented by special
appropriations, amounted to $15,350. For the fiscal
year ending October 31, 1950, there was a surplus
of $52.63 in the Operating Fund, besides Reserve
Funds aggregating $3,807.70. During the year the
Union also collected a fund of $518.75 to help pay
the costs of the Levering Act loyalty oath test suits
pending in the California Supreme Court

THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION

OFFICERS

Roger N, Baldwin, Chairman, National Committee
Ernest Angell, Chairman, Board of Directors

Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons
Dean Lloyd K. Garrison
Frank P. Graham
Pearl S. Buck

Vice'Chairmen

B. W. Huebsch

Treasurer

Patrick Murphy Malin

Director

Arthur Garfield Hays
Morris L. Ernst

Counsel

NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Sadie Alexander Mrs. Agnes Brown Leach

Thurman Arnold Max Lerner

Bishop James Chamberlain Baker Hon. Robert Morss Lovett

Francis Biddle
Van Wyck Brooks
Prof. James R. Caldwell
Dr. Henry Seidel Canby '
Dr. Allen Knight Chalmers
William Henry Chamberlin
Grenville Clark

Prof. Robert S. Lynd

Archibald MacLeish

John P. Marquand

Mike Masaoka

William Mauldin

Bishop Francis J. McConncU

Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn

Prof. Henry Steele Commager Karl Menninger

Morris L. Cooke

Prof. George S. Counts

Prof. Robert E. Cushman

Elmer Davis

J. Frank Dobie

John Dos Passos

Melvyn Douglas

Sherwood Eddy

Frederick May Eliot

Thomas H. Eliot

Walter T. Fisher

Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick

Dean Charles W. Gilkey

Abram L. Harris

Earl G. Harrison

Quincy Howe

Dr. Robert M. Hutchins

Dr. Charles S. Johnson

Dr. Mordecai W. Johnson

Benjamin H. Kizer

Dr. John A. Lapp

Prof. Harold D. Lasswell

A. J. Muste

Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimcr

Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam

James G. Patton

A. Phihp Randolph

Will Rogers

Elmo Roper

John Nevin Sayrc

Rt. Rev. William Scarlett

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

Joseph Schlossberg

Prof. Odell Shepard

Robert E. Sherwood

Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver

Lillian E. Smith

Edward J. Sparling

George R. Stewart

Mrs. Dorothy Tilly

William W. Waymack

Aubrey Williams

L. Hollingsworth Wood

Dr. William Lindsay Young

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Page 18

Mrs. Katrina McCormick Barnes

Dorothy Dunbar Bromley

Carl Carmer

Richard S. Childs

Norman Cousins

Edward J. Ennis

John F. Finerty

H. William Fitelson

James Lawrence Fly

Osmond K. Fraenkel

Walter Frank

Varian Fry

Walter Gellhorn

August Heckscher

Rev. John Haynes Holmes

Rev. John Paul Jones

Dorothy Kenyon

James Kerney, Jr.

Corliss Lamont

Prof. Eduard C. Lindeman

Merle Miller

Herbert R. Northrup

Merlyn S. Pitzele

Elmer Rice

Whitney North Seymour

Telford Taylor

Norman Thomas

William L. White

Raymond L. Wise

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

of Northern California

Sara Bard Field, Honorary Member
Joseph S. Thompson, Honorary Treasurer
Rt. Rev. Edw. L. Parsons, Chairman
Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn, Vice-Chairman
Helen Salz, Vice-Chairman
. Fred H. Smith, IV, Secretary-Treasurer
Ernest Besig, Director

Philip Adams

Prof. Edw. L. Barrett, Jr.

John H. Brill

Prof. James R. Caldwell

Wayne M. Collins

Rev. Oscar F. Green

Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Ruth Kingman

Seaton W. Manning

Rev. Harry C. Meserve
Rabbi Irving F. Reichert.
Clarence E. Rust
Dean Carl B. Spaeth
Prof. Wallace E. Stegner
Beatrice Mark Stern
Kathleen Drew Tolman
Stephen Thiermann
Franklin Williams

Types of Membership

Associate Member, $3

Annual Member, ^5

Business and Professional Member, ^10

Family Membership, ^23

Contributing Member, $50

Patron, ^100 and over

Membership dues includes subscribtion to the
'American Civil Liberties Union — News" at ^1 a year.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California
503 Market Street
San Francisco 5, Calif.

Please enroll me as a member of the American Civil Li'

berties Union at dues of $ for the current year.

Enclosed please find $ Please bill

me

Name.
Street.

City 6r Zone.

Occupation.

WESTERN COLLEGE ASSOCIATION

Addresses

What Are the Responsibilities of a Free College

in the Present Day?

Proceedings of
Meetings during 1949 - 1950

SPRING MEETING

Saturday, April 1, 1950

Santa Barbara College, University of California
Santa Barbara, California

CONTENTS

PAGE

Institutional Membership, 1949-1950 3

Officers and Committees for 1949-1950 3

Officers for 1950-1951 4

Past Presidents of the Association, 1924-1950 .... 4

Constitution and By-Laws 5

Addresses:

Presidential Address:

What Are Academic ResponsibiUties within

the Framework of Academic Freedom? 9

Monroe E. Deutsch
Vice-President and Provost Emeritus, University of California

What Is Academic Freedom within the

Framework of Academic Responsibility 17

Ralph H. Lutz

Professor of History, Stanford University

President, American Association of University Professors

Economic Factors Affecting Academic Freedom ... 28

Alice John Vandermeulen
Assistant Professor of Economics, Claremont Men's College

Professional Growth and Academic Freedom ... 34

W. H. Cowley
Professor of Higher Education, Stanford University

Minutes of the Meeting of October 1 5, 1 949 46

Minutes of the Meeting of April 1, 1950 48

Program of the Stanford University Meeting,

October 15, 1949 ^4

Program of the University of California,

Santa Barbara Campus, Meeting, April 1, 1950 . . . 55

WESTERN COLLEGE ASSOCIATION

Organized April 19, 1924 at Poniona College, Claremuiit, California
Institutional Membership 1949-1950

versity Members

Saint Mary's College

San Diego State College

San Francisco College for Women

San Francisco State College

San Jose State College

Scripps College

Stanford University

University of Arizona

University of California, Berkeley

Campus
University of California, Los

Angeles Campus
University of California, Santa

Barbara Campus
Universitv of Nevada
University of Redlands
University of San Francisco
University of Santa Clara
University of Southern California
Whittier College

College and Uni

Arizona (Flagstaff) State College

Arizona (Tempe) State College

California Institute of Technology

Chapman College

Chico State College

Claremont College

Claremont Men's College

College of the Holy Names

College of the Pacific

Dominican College of San Rafael

Fresno State College

Humboldt State College

Immaculate Heart College

La Verne College

Loyola University of Los Angeles

Mills College

Mount Saint Mary's College

Occidental College

Pasadena College

Pepperdine College

Pomona College

Associate

John Randolph Haynes and

Dora Haynes Foundation
Henry E. Huntington Library and

Art Gallery

Officers and Executive Committee 1949-1950

President: Monroe E. Deutsch

Vice-President and Provost Emeritus, University of California

Vice-President: Robert E. Burns

President, College of the Pacific

Vice-President: W. H. Cowley

Professor of Higher Education, Stanford University

Secretary-Treasurer: Charles T. Fitts

Emeritus Professor of Education, Pomona College

Executive Committee: James A. Blaisdell (Honorary); George H.
Armacost, President, University of Redlands; Earl Cranston, Dean,
School of Religion, University of Southern California; Lee A.
DuBridge, President, California Institute of Technology; William
J. Dunne, President, University of San Francisco; Frederick Hard,
President, Scripps College; Hubert C. Heffner, Professor of Speech
and Drama, Stanford University; J. Paul Leonard, President, San
Francisco State College; Lawrence E. Nelson, Professor of English,
University of Redlands; J. Harold Williams, Acting-Provost,
University of California, Santa Barbara Campus.

Members
Los Angeles Public Library
Southwest Museum
Western Personnel Institute

Officers and Executive Committee 1950-1951

President: Lee A. DuBridge

President, California Institute of Technology
Vice-President: William C. Jones

President, Whittier College

Vice-President: J. E. Wallace Sterling
President, Stanford University

Secretary-Treasurer: Charles T. Fitts

Emeritus Professor of Education, Pomona College

Executive Committee: James A. Blaisdell (Honorary); George C. S.
Benson, President, Claremont Men's College; Arthur G. Coons,
President, Occidental College; Monroe E. Deutsch, Vice-President
and Provost Emeritus, University of Cahfomia; William J. Dunne,
President, University of San Francisco; E. Wilson Lyon, President,
Pomona College; J. Paul Leonard, President, San Francisco State
College.

Past Presidents of tfie Association

Director E. C. Moore, Univ. of Calif, at Los Angeles 1924-1925-
President J. A. Blaisdell, Claremont Colleges ....

President W. F. Dexter, Whittier College

Dean T. G. Burt, Occidental College

President C. K. Edmunds, Pomona College

President V. L. Duke, University of Redlands ....
Dr. E. R. Hedrick, Univ. of California at Los Angeles . 1931
President R. B. von KleinSmid, Univ. Southern California 1932
President R. D. Bird, Occidental College .... 1933

President E. J. Jaqua, Scripps College 1934-

President H. M. Duce, Loyola Universitv of Los Angeles 1935-
President E. M. Studebaker, La Verne College . . . 1936-
President W. O. Mendenhall, Whittier College . . 1937-
Dr. W. B. Munro, California Institute of Technology . 1938-
President Russell M. Story, Claremont Colleges . . 1939-
President E. J. Anderson, fjniversity of Redlands . . 1940-
Vice-President Robert G. Cleland, Occidental College . 1941-
President Robert G. Sproul, University of California . 1942-
President E. Wilson Lyon, Pomona College . . . 1943-
Dean A. S. Raubenheimer, Univ. of Southern California 1944
Dean John W. Dodds, Stanford University . . . 1945-
President Arthur G. Coons, Occidental College . . 1946-
President Lynn T. White, Jr., Mills College . . . 1947-
President Frederick Hard, Scripps College .... 1948-
Vice-Pres. Emeritus Monroe E. Deutsch, Univ. of California 1949

1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950

WESTERN COLLEGE ASSOCIATION
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS

Revised April 1950

ARTICLE I. Name and Object

This organization shall be entitled WESTERN COLLEGE ASSO-
CIATION. Its object shall be the promotion of interests common to
the region which this Association undertakes to serve.

One of its functions shall be the accreditation of four-year and
upper-division colleges and universities, giving liberal arts degrees, in
the region which this Association undertakes to serve.

ARTICLE II. Membership

There shall be three classes of members: (1) institutional: college
and university, (2) institutional: associate, (3) individual.

Institutional members: college and university. Western colleges
and universities, both public and private, giving liberal arts degrees,
may be elected to membership at any regular meeting of the Associa-
tion, on recommendation of the Executive Committee, provided, how-
ever, that the Executive Committee shall not nominate any institution
for membership unless it has been formally approved as eligible by the
Committee on Membership and Standards appointed to act in such
matters.

(a) Inactive institutional members: Upon recommendation of
the Committee on Membership and Standards and approval by the
Executive Committee an institutional member may be placed on in-
active status for such period as it may fail to maintain the standards
approved for membership in the Association. The Executive Com-
mittee's action shall be subject to review by the Association at a regular
meeting provided such review is requested by the institutional member
affected.

Institutional members: associate. Other educational and cultural
institutions of the West are eligible for associate membership. Such
institutions shall be elected under the same method as provided for the
election of colleges and universities.

Individual members: Presidents, deans, other officers of adminis-
tration, and faculty members in colleges and universities of the West
who are not associated with any member-institution of the Association;
also interested residents of Western communities. Such persons may
become members on recommendation by the Committee on Member-
ship and Standards and election by the Executive Committee.

ARTICLE III. Officers

The officers shall be a president, two vice-presidents, a secretary-
treasurer, and five others who with the preceding shall constitute the
Executive Committee. The chairmen of the four standing committees
shall be ex-officio members of the Executive Committee.

Five members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a
quorum.

5

The duties shall be such as usually appertain to the several
officers.

The Executive Committee in any fiscal year shall have the power
to assess institutional members up to fifty per cent of their membership
dues to provide for emergency expenses of the Association.

The elective officers shall be chosen at the regular Spring Meeting
and shall hold office for one year or until their successors have ac-
cepted office. A plurality shall be sufficient for election.

ARTICLE IV. Meetings

There shall be two regular meetings annually, one in the Fall and
one in the Spring. Other meetings may be called at any time by the
president or Executive Committee. A representation of one-third of the
active member-institutions shall constitute a quorum for the trans-
action of business. A smaller number may adjourn to a particular day.

ARTICLE V. Voting

Prior to each meeting of the Association each active member-
institution shall be requested to designate an official voting representa-
tive, who shall act as the accredited delegate of that institution for the
purpose of voting on critical issues w^hich may be expected to arise
at the meeting of the Association.

Each active institutional member, including associate members,
shall be entitled to one accredited delegate.

Where critical questions are at issue only the authorized delegate
of each institution, or his duly appointed alternate, shall be qualified
to vote.

The presiding officer shall be required to put any question to a
vote by the authorized delegates, if any accredited delegate requests
the presiding officer to put such a vote.

It is understood that the presiding officer himself would always
have the authority to ask for such a vote.

In the ordinary conduct of business the usual method of viva voce
voting shall be employed.

ARTICLE VI. Amendments

This Constitution may be amended by two-thirds vote of accredited
delegates at any regular meeting, previous notice having been given
to all member-institutions of the Association.

ARTICLE VII. Standing Committees

Executive Committee, constituted as above described.

Nomination Conimittee, a committee of five appointed by the
president and Executive Committee, w^hich shall present the names of
the nominees for the offices at the regular Spring meeting.

Committee on Membership and Standards, a committee of six
members, each serving three years, and appointed by the president
and Executive Committee. Those chosen for the year 1950-51 shall be
assigned terms as follows: two for a one-year term, two for a two-year

term, and two for a three-year term. No account shall be taken of
service prior to the adoption of this section. On the completion of the
designated term, the member of the committee shall be ineligible for
reappointment for a period of at least one year.

The committee shall consider applications for membership and
present the same with its recommendations to the Executive Committee
and shall have supervision of the maintenance of the standards ap-
proved for membership in the Association.

Committee on Research, a committee of six, appointed by the
president and Executive Committee, which shall be responsible for
initiating and developing an Association program of research.

ARTICLE VIII. Representatives

Representatives of the Association on the American Council on
Education.

Of the three representatives of the Association on the American
Council on Education, one shall be appointed by the president and
Executive Committee for a period of five years. He shall be a person
who presumably can attend the meetings of the American Council on
Education with regularity during his term of office. The other two
representatives shall be appointed annually by the president and the
Executive Committee.

BY-LAWS

ARTICLE I. Dues

The annual dues of active institution-members having a total
annual enrollment of all students, full time and part time, of 2,000 or
over, shall be $150 each; of all other active college and university
institution-members shall be $75 each; of all associate members, $30
each. The annual dues of individual members not associated with any
member-institution shall be $2 each. Institution members on inactive
status pay no dues during the period of such status.

ARTICLE II. Statement of Standards

In considering applications from any institution for membership
in the Western College Association, the Association is concerned with
two questions: first, the success of the institution in providing a general
or liberal education; and second, its success in preparing students for
advanced graduate study. An applicant college shall provide the Asso-
ciation with information on the following matters: its purposes and
aims, the nature of the curriculum designed to achieve these purposes,
the training of its present faculty for these purposes, its methods of
grading, the personnel and counselling services which it offers its
students, its plans for development, its financial resources for carrying
out these plans, any limitations or restrictions which may be laid on
the beliefs and actions of members of its faculty, its success in pre-
paring students for advanced graduate study, and the record its grad-
uates have made in graduate schools.

ARTICLE III. Accrediting Procedures

Length of Accrediting

In general, accreditation is for a five-year period, but the Execu-
tive Committee, on recommendation of the Committee on Membership
and Standards is empowered, if it deems best, to give one extension
of a five-year period vsdthout the necessity of a formal visitation, but
the usual fee for accreditation, exclusive of visitors' expenses, will be
required.

A report, however, the content of which is determined by the
Committee on Membership and Standards, is required of every institu-
tion every five years, due at the normal time for visitation.

Times for Visitation

The Executive Committee has power to set the years for visitation
at each institution, on recommendation of the Committee on Member-
ship and Standards.

Fees

The fee for each period of accreditation is $100, plus the expenses
of visitation, these visitation expenses not to exceed $200. The fee is
payable when formal steps are taken toward the accreditation of a
particular institution.

8

Presidential Address

WHAT ARE ACADEMIC RESPONSIBILITIES
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM?

Monroe E. Deutsch

Vice-President and Provost Emeritus

University of California

President, Western College Association, 1949-1950

The topic on which I am to speak is not of my own selection; the
Program Committee felt it to be of importance to our membership
and asked me to make it the subject of the Presidential Address. Under
the circumstances I regarded it as a duty to accept and to do my best
to find an answer to the question as it has been formulated.

The fact that for 28 years I served as an administrative officer of
the University of California doubtless led the Committee to think that
I would speak from the standpoint of an administrative officer. I fear
I shall disappoint them, for throughout my university career I never
forgot that the faculty is the university and that administrative officers
exist to help make wise choices for the faculty and then to do every-
thing possible to aid them in their work. We are not "bosses" with
"employees"; we are colleagues in the cause of education. And I per-
sonally never felt myself in any way separate or apart from my associ-
ates of the faculty.

It is necessary to ask first: "Why academic freedom?" The answer
has often been given and is clear. The function of a professor is to seek
the truth and to teach it. And in seeking the truth he must be free to
follow whatever path he has the slightest reason to believe will lead
to it. The natural scientist tries first this experiment, then that, in the
hope that he may for example discover the cause of cancer. There is no
limitation as to the chemicals or drugs he may employ or the equip-
ment he may use to find even a fractional answer to his question.

We shall, I am sure, agree that he who seeks the truth, shall have
no obstacles set before him to obstruct his path.

If then his purpose is to ascertain the truth, there should be nothing
to hinder his publishing the results of his search, whether they be
affirmative or negative. In the latter case he will either discourage
other scholars from pursuing the path he has mistakenly followed, or
will lead his colleagues to see what the flaw was in his experimentation.
In either event, publication disseminates the knowledge that has thus
far been obtained concerning the specific problem. In neither the
search for truth nor the publication of the results of such research
should there be any limitation whatsoever.

Whatever has been discovered, should naturally be included in
instruction, whenever it is germane to the field covered. Obviously,
since we seek to inculcate in our students a desire for truth, whenever
new light upon the material under discussion has been secured bv the
instructor, it should appropriately be made known to his students,
especially in advanced classes where the methods of research are being

acquired. However, it must be admitted that sometimes professors are
so absorbed in their own research that they drag its results into courses
where it is inappropriate or they devote time to it out of proportion to
its importance in that particular area of instruction.

We have spoken (necessarily hastily) of three phases of
academic freedom— the actual research, its publication, and its place
in instruction.

There is also the question of publication through lectures and
addresses. Certainly before learned societies it is as fitting and neces-
sary to reveal the success or failure of research as it is by articles or
books. What of lectures before the general public? Obviously if the
presentation of such results is useful and beneficial to the people as a
whole, preventing them from obtaining false impressions as to cures
for colds or cancer, it is highly desirable that truthful information be
given. But it may be argued: "Such scientific findings will stir up the
pharmaceutical companies that make certain drugs." I should answer
that under those circumstances it is all the more important that an
honest, dispassionate statement be made; I should urge that the scholar
set forth the truth as he sees it.

My illustrations have been drawn from laboratory fields— and
there the problem is comparatively simple.

It is when one gets into the Social Sciences, especially political
science and economics, that the shoe pinches. But again I feel that the
truth must be told. In these areas, to be sure, it is not possible to follow
the procedures in Chemistry and Physics and submit the problems to
one experiment after another. But it is in precisely these fields of study
that mankind is yearning for the answer to pressing questions. When
one thinks of the meticulous accuracy with which problems in the
physical sciences are studied, and compares the manner in which, for
example, our legislators deal with questions on whose wise solution
may well hang peace or war, or on the other hand, the well-being or
misery of large numbers of our people, it is evident that not only must
the social sciences be intensively studied and the research carried on
with complete objectivity and freedom, but society as a whole must
be taught what has been thus ascertained and so earnestly taught that
a stout bridge be made between the results of research and the
legislation that is adopted.

Suppose, for instance, a scholar is convinced that our economic
system is in this or that particular faulty and should accordingly be
changed: should he be estopped from teaching his conclusions or
presenting them by article or word of mouth? The first responsibility of
the professor is that in the area being taught and presented, he be
really a scholar and have arrived at his conclusions by careful research.
If his field is Latin, he has no more right to discuss or write about
economic systems than any other citizen. He should no longer rely
upon academic freedom or his academic title, but merely the freedom
accorded to every other individual. He should be free to speak, but it
is unfair to his institution if he fails to make clear that he is not a
specialist in this field. In the case cited, I wonder if it would be too
much to ask that his writings be signed: "John Doe, Professor of Latin,

10

Appleton College," and thus warn the readers that he does not speak
with the background of an expert. This statement is of course a
sweeping one and is capable of many exceptions. A scholar in the field
of Roman History will of course find it necessary to deal with economic
conditions, and similar circumstances will occur in numerous fields of
study.

In writing or lecturing in a field as difficult as the Social Sciences,
a true scholar will not rush forward precipitately, but will take time
to feel assured that his work has a solid underpinning before he hastens
to publicize his views. I need not remind you that there are some
professors who eagerly seek the spotlight and love nothing more than
spectacular pronouncements. For, after all, despite certain special
characteristics, professors are human beings, and there are as many
kinds of professors as there are of human beings.

Let us always state our results with the modesty which befits
scholars. Often our conclusions are but hypotheses; hi any event it is
seldom that one can say the results are certain "beyond the perad-
venture of doubt." It is in that spirit that we should announce our
conclusions. Moreover, outside of his own field of scholarship, one
should not ask for or expect greater freedom than any other citizen.

We now arrive at a question which is much to the fore. I shall
present the problem without evasion. A state institution is dependent
primarily on the Legislature for the funds for its support. A private
institution seeks gifts or endowments from its alunmi and friends. In
both instances we may find the funds possessed or controlled by nien
and women with very definite views. What should be the attitude
of the scholar in the social sciences under these conditions? That he
should not be muzzled is axiomatic. A University is not a University
unless its motto be that of Harvard, Veritas. If he is convinced after
long thought and careful research that he is right-or as right as his
finite intelligence permits- he should speak out, but with the modesty
of a true scholar. In entering upon such an enterprise, the scholar
should be particularly sure of his ground, eschew any desire for the
limelight and set forth his considered judgment with due humility.

It is not easy either to define the scholar's proper attitude or to
live up to it. Certainly under no circumstances should truth become a
slave of Mammon. Far better is it that the institution suffer the loss of
some funds and make the necessary economic adjustments (difficult as
this is certain to be) rather than become what in effect is an intellectual
lackey or serf.

Early in 1949 this question became acute at Harvard University,
but the reply of that great institution should be the reply of all colleges
end universities: "Harvard, like any great privately supported univer-
sity, badly needs money; but Harvard will accept no gift on the
condition, express or implied, that* it shall compromise its tradition
of freedom."

The professor should in his classes be as scrupulous in confining
himself to that which is estabhshed as truth as in his publications.
Sometimes a professor is a bit careless of the exact truth in presentation

11

to his classes and makes statements more sweeping than can be wholly
substantiated. If we are to inculcate a love of truth and an esteem for
the utmost accuracy in its pursuit, we have no right to do anything but
teach in the classrooms with the same precision as we give to
our own research.

And teaching should never be neglected for the sake of research.
Assuredly academic freedom is not to be interpreted as implying that
a professor shall cut his classes or neglect his preparation for them to
go to Salinas or Sacramento to give a lecture. Unless he is definitely
a research professor, his obligations as teacher and his other collegiate
duties, should take precedence over his research or public utterances.

As has been said, outside of his field of expert knowledge, a profes-
sor has no more and no less freedom than any other citizen. But we
should stress the fact that he is entitled to all the freedom that any
citizen enjoys. He may engage in politics, if he will. But he should
weigh carefully in what field he can do most good. Certainly he should
discharge his duty as a citizen, but he must weigh the comparative
advantages of serving as county chairman of his party against that of
giving the additional time to the kind of work for which he has trained
himself through life. Here, too, men and women differ; some, though
engaged in collegiate teaching, have a special political talent, and I
would not have you think I should interfere with it. But the professor
should only follow such a career after careful reflection and taking into
account the sacrifices it would involve. And let us not forget that
often— too often— political life calls for unswerving allegiance to a
partv rather than to truth, the goal which the university and the
scholar set for themselves.

There is a field in which I feel professors should be especially
careful in their statements— and that is Philosophy. They should
remember the effect their ex cathedra utterances may have on the
thinking of their students and indeed on the religious belief of these
young people. They come from a diversity of homes with all types
and degrees of religious faith; they are in this respect, as in so many
others, a cross-section of the American people. Their faith is usually
that of their parents. I^t the professor of philosophy recall that while
on the one hand he may be freeing the mind of a student from some
untenable point of view (as the professor thinks), on the other he may
be leav-ing the student at loose ends, having removed his religious
moorings, and at the same time may well sever one of the most
pow^erful ties binding him to his family. How shall one act in this
dilemma? He should tell the truth as he sees it, but with all the reser-
vations that should be attached to his statement, making clear that in
this realm there is no possibility of speaking with the assurance of those
who work with crucible or balance. He should also speak with due
regard for the feelings of those he is addressing. He should set forth
his views with modesty, making crystal clear that he is voicing his
opinion in a field where there is a myriad of opinions. But after making
such reservations he should not hesitate to set forth what he consci-
entiously believes to be the truth. If he is not permitted to do this,

12

then we are in effect saying that while academic freedom exists for
the chemist or physicist, it does not exist for the philosopher.

What has been said as to the philosopher is true in varying degrees
of the anthropologist, the psychologist, the geologist, and the teacher of
literature. In the latter case the ideas expressed by great men of letters
range well-nigh over the universe and should stimulate reflection on
some of life's greatest problems.

And yet with all the limitations that I have set forth and others
that might be added, we must still give the scholar the right to present
the truth as he sees it. It may unfortunately at times have a serious
effect on a student's faith; at other times it may well strengthen it-
and in a more rational manner than had characterized it before it
came into contact with college teaching.

Having faced two of the great problems in the field of academic
freedom, let us resolutely take up a third.

I say flatly that a fanatic in any realm should not be on the staff
of a college or a university. A fanatic is one whose eyes are so blinded
that he cannot see the real world but only that which he constructs for
himself or accepts without reflection or investigation. A fanatic does
not seek the truth nor see it; he is interested solely in propagandizing
the views which are his. A fanatic does not deserve academic freedom,
for his ovm mind does not seek the truth-it feels sure that it has the
truth. A fanatic may be in the fields of politics or economics; he may
also be in the field of philosophy or religion. His is the antithesis of
the open mind. But it is the fanaticism of which he is guilty that should
bar him from university teaching. I can conceive of a Republican or a
Democratic fanatic, though by no means as readily as a Communistic
fanatic. To be sure each one of us has his special prejudices, his strong
leanings. Being human beings of given heredity and living in a par-
ticular environment, we naturally look at the world through glasses
of somewhat different colors. This we cannot avoid; indeed it is hard
to conceive of human beings whose minds are wholly blank so that
each impression is as important as every other. One brought up in
wealth will have a certain point of view; one who has fought his way
up from poverty will have another. Inevitably, a teacher will at times
slant his instruction in one direction or another. But this is very
different from the teaching of an instructor who deliberately seeks to
indoctrinate his students. Academic freedom is intended only for those
who are themselves intellectually free. By this I do not mean that the
freedom of speech guaranteed to everyone is to be denied anyone, but
I am seeking to draw a distinction between freedom of speech and
academic freedom.

What I am about to say represents my own views exclusively.
Certainly I cannot speak for^ any institution nor for this Association,
and I am not trying to do so.

I personally would be reluctant to appoint a Communist to the
faculty. There is a strong presumption that Communists owe their
first loyalty to the U. S. S. R., that as members of the party they will
use their teaching positions to propagandize for Communism, that while
publicly disclaiming the intent to use force to overthrow our form of

13

government, they would nonetheless condone it, as they have done
in Czecho-Slovakia.

While it might be argued that there is no certainty that a Com-
niimist would abuse his position, on the other hand we are far from
certain that he will not do so. Let us suppose a person were proposed
for appointment and it were known that during his life he had twice
had a serious mental breakdown. Even though he were regarded as
cured, would one not hesitate to appoint him? I do not mean necessarily
to imply that every Communist is suffering from a mental aberration.
Do you remember the story told of President Conant of Harvard? He
was asked what he would do if a member of the faculty were to come
to him and say: "I am a Communist." Conant replied: *'I would tell
him to go to a psychiatrist."

Seriously speaking I wish to point out that no one has a right to
be appointed to a professorial position, but on the contrary a college
has a right to decline to make an appointment, where there is a
question as to the physical or mental fitness of the person under
consideration or his intellectual integrity.

And I feel that it is among the obligations of the faculty (especially
of the department concerned) to see to it that the administration of the
college has all possible information concerning the applicant, including
his membership in the Communist party if he is so affiliated.

Let us now turn to the case of those who are already on the staff
of the institution but are suspected of bein^ Communists. I am not of
course referring to the loose charges made against liberals but the
question of actual membership in the party. I think it is the duty of a
faculty member who is led to believe that X is a party member, to
report the case without fail to the president and the faculty committee
on privilege and tenure. That committee should at once set an investi-
gation on foot, not as to X's membership in the party but whether his
teaching has been tainted by that fact. While to be sure there is a
presumption that he has abused his position as a teacher, no one should
be deprived of a post on the basis of a presumption. That is wholly
contrary to the American theory of justice. If it be argued that member-
ship in the Communist party is itself a crime, then we as a people
should forthwith proceed to bring charges in our courts against every
member of the party. If not, then certainly we should not dismiss a
member of the faculty on the basis of a presumption. This is turning
back by several centuries our theory of Justice, and it is easy to see
how danpferous a road that would be and to what dreadful injustices
it would lead.

If faculties have freedom, they must assume the responsibilities
it imposes. They have no right merely to participate in appointments
to the staff but wash their hands of any obligation to "clean house"
where a need is shovsni. And the investigating committee should not
regard itself as a board of defense for accused professors but as a jury
charged with the greatest of responsibilities. They should be no less
walling to recommend the dismissal of the individual if he has dem-
onstrated' his inability to seek the truth and his desire merely to fill
the minds of his students with propaganda, than to urge his retention

14

if, despite his liberal point of view, he does not let fixed opinions blind
him to the facts in the situation. And I hope the committees would
go even further than this, that they would not hesitate to reprove a
professor who claims the opinions which he expresses are indisputable
facts or takes pleasure in hurting the feelings of those of this or that
religious faith or political view.

However, I feel certain that every Communist, as a result of his
membership in the party and his obligations to it, will abuse his posi-
tion in the faculty, either within the classroom or outside of it and
as a result properly subject himself to dismissal. Moreover a strict
control of appointments added to a careful scrutiny of those in the
faculty charged with being members of the party should completely
cleanse the institution of every individual infected with the disease.

But it is entirely proper to dispense with the necessity of proving
that a Communist has abused his position as a member of the faculty
and merely establish beyond the peradventure of a doubt membership
in the party, provided that the contract of appointment makes clear
that such membership will automatically render the contract null and
void and result in the dismissal of the individual.

But tragic it would be if difference of opinion in the method of
dealing with Communists should to their glee result in the destruction
of a college or university. Those entrusted with responsibility for an
institution— trustees, president, faculty— all eager for its well-being,
should be able to reach a proper accord and one that will not harm
those who are innocent and loyal.

In short freedom must be used as it is intended that it be used—
not as a cloak for propaganda, nor for making the uncertain appear
certain, nor for sadistically hurting the sensibilities of young students,
but to permit a search for truth, carried on with all humility, with
emphasis on the significant and without the slightest desire for self-
aggrandizement.

On the other hand the faculty should regard themselves as guar-
dians of academic freedom and see to it, for example, that the financial
considerations of which I spoke previously, shall not lead to efforts
to curtail that freedom. The faculty should not yield but should point
out that if teaching is expected to follow the list of gifts, it would be
better frankly to close the institution than to distort truth or muzzle
those chosen because they have made truth their guide.

The faculty should in return realize how great a boon is theirs
and use it wdth wisdom and fairness. Indeed because adherence to it
may well result in financial loss to the institution, the faculty should
all the more make their teaching superlatively good, perform all their
academic duties fully, carry on their research with fidelity, announce
the results with due caution, and seek to inculcate in their students
a loyalty both to truth and to the form of government which permits-
nay encourages— freedom of investigation and freedom of utterance
concerning its results.

In carrying on research, a professor has an obligation to know
what his predecessors in this field of study have announced as their

15

views or conclusions. He should moreover be regarded by his colleagues
as learned in his department of scholarship; he must remember that
academic freedom is granted as the fruit of scholarship. Were it not
that, then every Tom, Dick, and Harry would regard himself as en-
titled to be heard with the respect due our foremost scholars.

It should also be realized that everything printed even in a learned
journal is not necessarily another stone in tne temple of Truth. Some
deal with matters so small that they may fairly be termed inconsequen-
tial. This may occur when a young man is pushed precipitately into
publication. Let him have a chance to think and reflect, and to broaden
his knowledge— in short to season. What we should be interested in,
when we consider the young man's advancement in the faculty is his
scholarship; how broad is it? Is he advancing in learning? Or is he
resting content on the hood of the doctorate? He should be expected to
grow intellectually. And even conversation should elicit what he has
read, with how much enthusiasm he deals with his subject. I am of
course here not alluding to other qualifications for advanceinent, not-
ably preeminent teaching skill.

In return for the precious gift of freedom— a gift which men
in many another profession would prize-, what obligations has the
professor?

I have already stated those pertaining to his research. The freedom
he must remember is that accorded him as a professor. In return he
should fulfill his duties as teacher and member of the faculty with
exemplary zeal. He should be as accurate in teaching as in scholarly
research. He should be keenly interested in teaching and not resent
the interruption in his private studies. He should seek to fire his students
with enthusiasm and in turn be stimulated by them. He should scrupu-
lously meet all his University or collegiate obligations, be they in
classroom or in faculty or committee. He should in all sincerity feel
himself one of the Lord's anointed in being granted the privileges that
are his. He should remember that in his classroom he has the oppor-
tunity to make his impress upon a group of the next generation. He
should appreciate that academic freedom is an integral part of an
academic career, and that he who neglects his academic duties does not
deserve academic freedom; he is, like a gambler, seeking the return
without putting forth the effort.

It is one of the great privileges of an academic life; it should be
used wisely and not recklessly, but it should not be curtailed in the
slightest, standing as it does for the untrammeled search for truth.

16

WHAT IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ACADEMIC RESPONSIBILITY?

Ralph H. Lutz
Professor of History, Stanford University-
President, American Association of University Professors

The fundamental principles of academic freedom are in my
opinion only part of the larger concept of the freedom vouchsafed
us in Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and the bill of rights of the American
constitution. No intelligent person who believes in our form of consti-
tutional government doubts the validity of freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press. While these
principles are not questioned in a democratic free society, the applica-
tion of these principles again and again has been the subject of
prolonged debate. Juridically this is comparable to the present conflict
between the once honored rule of stare decisis and the contemporary
trend toward flexible logic. As Justice Holmes aptly said "general
propositions do not decide concrete cases."

In this present period of international tension it is apparent that
the principles of academic freedom are being seriously challenged in
America by governing boards of colleges, administrators and legislators.
This freedom is, as you are all aware, of modern orjgin and was un-
known to the Greeks and Romans who often employed slaves as
teachers. The theologians in medieval universities condemned pro-
fessors now and then as heretics because these theologians assumed
(1) that they knew the whole truth and (2) that all knowledge vyas
their private domain. The great and wicked Abelard was not tried
because of his extra-curricular activities with Heloise but for his
utterances concerning the Trinity and the Virgin Mary. This fact
was a serious shock to such a modern realist as Mark Twain. Today
not heresy but often the power of the purse removes the obstreperous
professor from his academic chair. What then are today the funda-
mental principles of American academic freedom?

We must never forget that principles are stated in general terms
which when applied to specific situations require interpretation and
that this very process of interpretation often gives rise to differences
of opinion. Academic freedom from the professor's point of view should
coincide with academic freedom from the regents' point of view or
with that of any other member of an intelligent citizenry.

Anyone who questions the significance of academic freedom today
is also questioning the validity of our constitutional system. Now these
guiding principles have at present general recognition and are gener-
ally observed by those charged with the administration of our colleges
and universities. By the nature of the academic world, these principles
must be applied bv governing boards of regents, trustees or state and
municipal officials, presidents and other administrative officers of
institutions, professors, and the several associations concerned with
higher education.

Professor Chafee's address on Freedom and Fear, published in

17

the autumn 1949 Bulletin of the American Association of University
Professors, states cogently that we should "meet objectionable ideas
from abroad by living up to our own ideas— give increased drawing
power to our great traditions of democracy and freedom." Fear and
insecurity have always been the basic causes of the threats to academic
freedom.

One of the first cases of conflict over academic freedom in this
country was in the disciplining of Henry Dunstan, the first president
of Harvard College. In the early days of the republic Fisher Ames
declined the presidency of Harvard because of ill health and gave to
Emerson that immortal description of democracy which has never
been surpassed. The early attacks on freedom of teaching in American
colleges were generally over religious issues.

At the close of the eighteenth century the issues became chiefly
political. Then as now we were waging a cold war against an aggressive
and propagandizing revolutionary regime which attempted to establish
subversive and Godless agitators on the territories of potential enemies
and former allies. Several American colleges disciplined professors
who did not speak out against the excesses of the French revolution.

Then in 1830 came the first attack on academic freedom on
social grounds as professors in both the north and the south heard
the siren song of the abolitionists. Three professors were forced to
resign from Western Reserve University. The professor of astronomy
at the University of North Carolina was driven from his academic
position because he favored the abolition of slavery.

The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and the advocacy
bv Huxley and others of the hypothesis of evolution had a profound
effect upon American college faculties. In 1870, Professor John Fiske
fTot into trouble at Harvard. There were purges in numerous denom-
inational colleges and even in state institutions.

Between 1885 and the entrance of America into World War I
the chief issues were economic and political. They involved primarily
the money question, the conduct of large corporations, and the position
of women and their social rights. In 1897 President E. B. Andrews
of Bro\vn University felt it necessary to resicjn because the university
trustees objected to his advocacy of bimetallism. In 1900, Professor
Ross was dismissed from Stanford University. Professor Ross's public
utterances concerning the Southern Pacific Railroad, the Chinese
Exclusion Act, and the Big Four were anathema to the surviving
founder, and Professor Ross was dismissed. Later, the Board of Regents
of the University of Wisconsin urged the ouster of Professor Ross, who
had accepted a position at Wisconsin, for writing Sin and Society and
escorting Emma Goldman around the campus and inviting her to
lunch. Fortunately Professor Ross was in China when President Van
Hise cabled him that the motion to oust him had failed. This great
university later approved of the following pronouncement:

*Tn all lines of academic investigation it is of the utmost
importance that the investigator should be absolutely free
to follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead.
Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry

18

elsewhere we believe the great state university of Wisconsin
should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting
and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

Between 1914 and 1923, we, as a nation, appeared to put the
clock back to the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Scott Nearing
case at the University of Pennsylvania was only a prelude to the
many attacks on academic freedom which occurred in this period of
national tension. "The Espionage Acts of 1917-1918 were aimed,"
wrote Harold H. Fisher, "not only at actual espionage and the pro-
tection of military secrets, but to prevent war was considered by the
majority to be disloyal propaganda which might obstruct the war
effort." From 1920 imtil their repeal in 1923, the Lusk Laws of New
York State compelled teachers to hold certificates of loyalty, prohibited
the employment of teachers who had criticized the government of the
United States, and provided for the summary dismissal of teachers
for seditious or treasonable utterances.

Again, during the insecure years of the depression, the several
states required teachers to take oaths to support the federal and state
constitutions. Today 26 states and the territories of Alaska, Hawaii,
and Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia impose on teachers in
the public schools either an oath of allegiance or a certificate of loyalty
to the United States. Georgia requires all persons on the public
payroll to take an oath that,

"I am not a member of the Communist Party, and that
I have no sympathy for the doctrines of Communism, and
will not lend my aid, my support, my advice, my counsel,
nor my influence to the Communist Party or to the teachings
of Communism."

In 1940, Congress passed two acts— one to punish advocacy of
insubordination or disloyalty in the armed forces and the other, the
so-called Smith Act, which makes it a serious crime to advocate the
overthrow of any government in the United States by force or to be
an organizer or a member of any group which advocates such over-
throw. Several Trotskyite Communists in Minnesota have been con-
victed under this act and now the eleven leaders of the Stalinite Com-
munist Party have been convicted in New York.

In July 1949, the National Educational Association with 425,000
members and 800,000 affdiated members voted by a large majority
against admitting Communists as members and against permitting
Communists to teach in American schools. At the same time, the
annual convention of the NEA voted unanimously against loyalty
oaths for teachers and against witch hunts in class rooms.

The Educational Policies Commission composed of 20 well known
leaders in education, including General Eisenhower, President of
Columbia and President Conant of Harvard, declared that state laws
requiring special loyalty oaths of teachers were a menace to educational
freedom. The commission urged citizens to condemn the careless
application of such words as Red and Commimist to teachers who
merely have different views from those of their accusers.

19

Chancellor Hutchins of the University of Chicago says in sup-
porting this view, that to require oaths of loyalty from all because of
the eccentricity of an infinitesimal minority is an unnecessary and
derogatory act. And, he goes on to say. it will have no effect and also
\4olate academic freedom.

What then does academic freedom which is not a constitutionally
guaranteed civil liberty really mean? Institutions of higher education
are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of
the individual teacher or even the institution as a whole. "The common
good." the majority of teachers and administrators assert, "depends
upon the free search for truth and its free expression." Freedom in
research is so fundamental to the advancement of truth, and its free
exposition that I need not elaborate at length on this point. Every
teacher should be free to experiment, to modify existing h^'potheses
and to teach any conclusions for which there is, in his considered
opinion, conclusive e^'idence. Academic freedom in its teaching aspects
is fundamental for the protection of the teacher in teaching and of
the student to freedom in learning. Ever\' teacher should enjoy freedom
of teaching and research which President Lowell called "the unfettered
search for truth" and. within the limits of professional and civic pro-
priety, of extra-mural activities. There are duties correlative with
these rights, as I shall try to explain later, but two basic rights above
these enumerated are economic security and tenure.

Implicit in the philosophy of any teachers' organization w^orthy
of the name is the concept that college and university teachers are
an integral part of the institution on whose faculty they serv-e and
that the relationship between administrators and professors is that of
"associates in a joint enterprise for the welfare of society."

"Universities and colleges." ^^Tote Professor W. T. Laprade,
"exist primarily to enable members of their faculties to do their peculiar
work, which is to cherish and enhance the store of human knowledge
and understanding, transmitting that which they have received from
the past to the succeeding generations, enlarged and expanded. Those
charged with the fulfillment of this trust need freedom to delve and to
criticize, which requires security of sustenance and residence in a
community aflording access to essential apparatus and to ^'OUtEs able
and willing to receive and transmit this precious heritage."

Academic freedom never means academic license or academic
irresponsibility, but it does imply that the teacher has the freedom
of all other citizens. On this latter point the 1940 statement of prin-
ciples on academic freedom and tenure generally observed in accredited
institutions of this country is pertinent:

(a) "TTie teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in
the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance
of his other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should
be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution."

(h) "TTie teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in dis-
cussing his subject, but he should be careful not to introduce into
his teaching controversial matter w^hich has no relation to his subject.
Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of

20

the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the t^
appointment.

(c) "The college or university teacher is a citizen, a member of
a learned profession, and an officer of an educational institution, \yhen
he speaks or writes as a citizen, he should be free from institutional
censorship or discipline, but his special position in the community
imposes special obligations. As a man of learning and an educational
officer, he should remember that the public may judge his profession
and "his institution by his utterances. Hence, he should at all times
be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect
for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate
that he is not an institutional spokesman."

Dr. John Dewev of Columbia University, the A.A.U.P.'s first
president was authorized at the organizational meeting in January 1915
to appoint a committee on academic freedom and academic tenure
w^hich should also include members of the joint committee of the
American Economic Association, the .\merican Sociological Society
and the American Political Science Association which was already
making a study of this problem. The Committee appointed by Dr.
Dewev presented its final report December 31, 1915, to the annual
association meeting. It was adopted and is kno\vn to the academic
world as the "1915 Declaration of Principles." In 1925 the American
Council on Education called a conference to prepare a succinct state-
ment of good academic custom and usage as these had evolved under
progressive university and college administrations.

This 1925 statement of principles is a milestone on the road toward
a uniform procedural goal of academic freedom and tenure in this
country. Since it was a joint statement by college presidents and pro-
fessors^ it possessed authority which the 1915 statement lacked. But
there were certain ambiguities in the terminology of even this state-
ment so that the Association of American Colleges and the A.A.U.P.
commenced in 1934 another series of joint conferences which resulted
in the 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedorn and 'Tenure
This statement was adopted by the A.A.C.. the A.A.U.P. and wa«r//
endorsed bv the Association of American Law Schools and the .\meri-
can Association of Teachers Colleges. In fact, it is now Standard XII
of the latter's minimum standards for accreditation. Every college and
university worthy of the name should, if it has not already done so,
implement the 1940 statement of principles.

In my considered opinion the preamble of this 1940 statement
expresses "succinctly the principles as they apply to an institution
whose function is to instruct youth to promote inquire and to advance
the sum of human knowledge. When Thomas Jefferson was estab-
lishing the University of Virginia he \yT0Xe to prospective teachers
that "this institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the
human mind for we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may
lead nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
Freedom under law has. I am well aware, its risks even with appropri-
ate safeguards against its abuse, but these are insignificant when com-

21

/

pared with the risks of repression, which has only flourished under
autocratic or totalitarian governments.

What then are the responsibilities of the teachers and investifrators
in a free society? For their life work they must be carefully prepared,
well qualified to explore the sources of knowledge, skilled to impart
the collective investigations in their chosen field to their students and
to interested citizens. We all know the negative charges which are
usuallv brought against a young teacher who ''just doesn't fit" in his
department. He is. above all, dull, generally sarcastic, only too often
listless and inhibited by the Messianic directives from graduate and
undergraduate deans and departmental heads. Moreover, our defend-
ant is not posted on the literature of his subject and finally is non-
productive, and in a word, ^'incompetent."

But you will see at once that the positive qualifications of all who
hold the venio Icfrendi must be clearly stated. For bre"\dty's sake I vsdll
enumerate them.

1. Academic training.

2. Exceptional intellectual capacity.

3. Teaching ability with breadth of viewpoint not the narrow
outlook.

4. Integrity.

5. Ability to work in faculty situations.

6. Ability to work with outside groups.

7. An insight into human affairs.

8. A zest for research or for the interpretation of research.

9. A mature sense of justice.

10. Leadership of vouth into the fields of courage, tolerance, gen-
erosity and self restraint.

In February, 1949 I had the good fortune to hear an address
entitled *'A University Trustee Views the Academic Profession" by
Ora L. Wildermuth, secretar\' of the_as§ociation of governing boards
of state universities and allied institutions and president of the board
"bf-tfusTees of Indiana University. Mr. Wildermuth had made a careful
examination of the statutes of a number of states and had come to the
conclusion that, in many American commonwealths, governing boards
are authorized by existing law to act in an arbitrary% autocratic, and
even unjust manner toward their faculties.

"It is a truism," stated the president of Hiram College, "that no
stream rises higher than its source. Likewise it is true that no college
rises above the level of its trustees." "This is," the president adds,
"apparent when trustees invade the prerogative of any administrative
officer or faculty member, or interfere "wath the established program or

\ educational policy of the college." One general weakness of governing
boardf: in this country is the small percentage of alumni who are

I members.

The major difficulties of recent years have arisen when presidents
or governing boards, who were harried by pressure groups, have
taken the execution of freedom and tenure policies out of the hands
of the university faculties themselves. This has happened unfortunately
in a number of state-supported colleges and universities as well as pri-

22

vately endowed institutions. Many of these are still unaccredited or
marginal institutions without tenure codes or even elementary prin-
ciples of academic freedom. "In the last analysis, wrote Sidney Hook
in the New York Times Magazine of February 27, 1949, there is no
safer repository of the integrity of teachii^^g and scholarship than the
dedicated men and women who constitute the faculties of our colleges
and universities."

In 1948 Henry Wallace became a candidate for the presidency
and asserted political, economic and social views which an overwhelm-
ing majority of the American people repudiated. Among those who
supported Wallace were a few members of the academic profession
which caused several college presidents to warn these professors that
their political activity in l^half of Wallace was an embarrassment to
their institutions, and would vitiate their activities among patrons,
donors, and supporters. Eight professors out of this minority group
stood on their rights as citizens, and were dismissed from their re-
spective institutions. The president of Evansville College was so
alarmed over the presence on his faculty of a man who stood forth
openly to advocate the election of Mr. Wallace that he cancelled his
contract, paid the full salarv^ promised, but refused to let the faculty
member render the services for which he was paid. This was a clear
\aolation of the principles of academic freedom and tenure endorsed
by this association.

At the annual meeting of the A.A.U.P. February 1949, the fol-
lo\^ing resolution on Science and Dogma was presented by several
members of the Johns Hopkins Faculty, and adopted without a dis-
senting vote. The resolution stated:

"Recognizing that certain scientific theories and propo-
sitions are by some governments treated as dogmas to which
college and university teachers must adhere and that this
condition may provoke a similar attitude toward scientific
theories among ourselves and among administrators in insti-
tutions of higher education in the United States, and recogniz-
ing that such an attitude would not only be contrary to the
spirit of science, which admits no absolute unrevisable scien-
tific theories, but would also be a serious threat to freedom
of inquiry, thought and expression, this, the Thirty -fifth
Annual Meeting of the American Association of University
Professors reaffirms unequivocally its adherence to the
general principle that no scientific theory or proposition
should be elevated to that status of a dogma to which mem-
bers of the academic profession must subscribe."
The beginnings of the present crisis are stated clearly by President
Conant in his 1947 report to the board of overseers of Harvard. He
analyzed cogently the basic problems of the armed truce in the present
di\aded world, noted the danger of an interference \\\xh the freedom
of American universities as a consequence of this truce and asserted
that. "The bedrock on which the scholarly activities of a university
are founded is a charter of free inquiry; without this you may have

23

an institution of advanced education, a technical school, or a military
college for example, but you do not have a university."

This raises the specific question "Is a communist party member
per se disqualified as a teacher?" Dr. Conant stated for example "I can
imagine a naive scientist or philosopher with strong loyalties to the
advancement of civilization and the unity of the world who would
be a questionable asset to a government department charged with
negotiations with other nations; the same man on the other hand
because of his professional competence might be extremely valuable
to a university."

The 1948 annual meeting of the A.A.U.P. considered the specific
problem of membership in the Communist Party, and the general
conclusion stated was that "guilt is personal." Elaborated, this was
said to mean:

"If a teacher, as an individual, should advocate the
forcible overthrow of the government or should incite others
to do so; if he should use his classes as a forum for
Communism, or otherwise abuse his relationship with his
students for that purpose; if his thinking should show more
than normal bias or be so uncritical as to evidence profession-
al unfitness, these are the charges that should be brought
against him. If these charges should be established by e\ddence
adduced at a hearing, the teacher should be dismissed because
of his acts of disloyalty or because of professional unfitness,
and not because he is a Communist. So long as the Communist
Party in the United States is a legal political party, affiliation
^^^th that party in and of itself should not be regarded as a
justifiable reason for exclusion from the academic profession."

A number of scholarly articles have been written about this
controversial issue. In the New York Times Magazine. February 27,
1949, Professor Sidney Hook argues that communists should not be
permitted to teach, and March 27, Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn, former
president of Amherst, states that known communist party members
should be allowed to teach in American colleges and universities.

Professor Hook makes the following points:

1 . The communist is pledered to the Leninist line of the party
and to the triumph of Soviet power in the U.S.

2. His philosophy of dialectical materialism recognizes a
party line for every area of thought from art to zoology.

3. His conclusions on history, political science, philosophy,
economics, etc., are not reached by a free inquiry^ into
the evidence.

4. Once he joins and remains a member, he is not a free
mind, and therefore not free to seek the truth.

5. He takes "orders from Moscow" and is subject to "thought
control by a foreign power."

Dr. Meiklejohn in challenging the views of Dr. Hook argues:

1. Communist teachers are wdth some exceptions "moved by
a passionate determination to follow the truth where it

24

seems to lead no matter what may be the cost to them-
selves and their families."

2. A communist teacher's acceptances of doctrines and poli-
cies is not "required" but "voluntary" and the only
enforcing action is dismissal from the party.

3. "A slave to immutable dogma and to a clandestine organi-
zation masquerading as a political party does not resign."

"Committee A believes," writes Dr. Ralph E. Himstead in answer
to this question, "that a member of the academic profession who mis-
uses his professional relationships with his students by propagandizing
for communism or who is guilty of other subversive acts should be
excluded from the profession. Committee A believes that the most
effective way of dealing with the subversive teacher is to proceed
against him pursuant to the well-established principles, constitutional,
legal and academic, on the basis of evidence of the professional behavior
of the teacher concerned pursuant to the specific well-established
principle of Anglo-American law that guilt is personal. Committee A
believes that to act in this manner is to act wisely because of its regard
for the values derived from the observance of principles. Committee A
believes that to seek to protect our institutions of higher education from
suWersive teachers pursuant to the formula of guilt by association
is to act unrealistically and hence ineffectively because this formula
does not enable us to cope with the crypto-communist or the fellow
traveler or a member of the Communist Party who has not disclosed
his membership or who would falsely deny that he is a member. Com-
mittee A therefore proposes to deal with each case in which it is alleged
that a teacher is subversive on the basis of the facts of that case whether
or not the teacher concerned is a member of the Communist Party,
a crypto-communist or a fellow traveler."

Trustees of certain academic institutions are however experi-
menting with another way. A number of the regents of the University
of California, having learned this year that you can yoke professors
in academic teams to pull peeled logs of doctrine over greased skid-roads
of intolerance, have set aside the month of April, 1950, for all their
professors to take a loyalty oath plus a special oath that

"... I am not a member of the Communist Party or under any

oath or a party to any agreement or under any commitment

that is in conflict with my obligations under this oath."

By a vote of 12 to 6 the board of regents has made April 30 the deadline

for University employees to sign the oath or be discharged.

Governor Earl Warren of California said recently that he is
against the University of California loyalty oath because the professors
have already taken what "is universally understood to be a complete
oath of loyalty"— the oath taken by everybody from the President to
the latest recruit in the armed forces. And he is against it because
it is not "an oath required by law" and therefore no communist taking
it could be punished for perjury. It is also an oath any card-carrying
communist party member would take with a laugh.

The British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, said in clear and vigor-
ous words, "Any state or university, which demands that its teach-

25

ers shall accept or that they shall reject the doctrines of Marx or of
Thomas Aquinas or anybody else from Confucius to Stalin, is failing
in its elementary duty and cannot be admitted to the courts of
learning.*'

Said Dean William Z. Prosser at Berkeley, "I think a good many
men on this campus view this demand for a special oath on the part
of the faculty precisely as they would view a demand that they indi-
vidually sign an oath they are not a bigamist and are not operating
a house of prostitution."

The following resolution on special loyalty oaths was unanimously
adopted at the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the A.A.U.P., March 26,
1950:

"Our democracy is founded upon the principles of free-
dom of thought, speech, and conscience, and any invasions of
these civil liberties not necessitated by direct governmental
responsibilities of the persons involved or by their access to
secret information vital to national security threatens to
bring about those very totalitarian restrictions which we are
most concerned to avoid. We recognize that limited safeguards
against espionage by such persons must be maintained; but
to subject the members of the teaching profession to tests and
prescriptions of loyalty beyond those which bind other citi-
zens is a particularly grave blow to the intellectual freedom
and moral integrity that are the greatest heritage of our
educational system.

Be it therefore RESOLVED, by this the Thirty-Sixth
Annual Meeting of the American Association of University
Professors, that:

1. We are opposed to the requirement by any authority,
political or academic, that teachers, students, or research
fellows, except those who have direct governmental re-
sponsibilities or access to officially secret (classified or
restricted) information, shall take special loyalty oaths
or shall disclaim membership in organizations listed as
subversive.

2. We express our disapproval of singling out for special
investigation the personal convictions or the political be-
liefs and connections of teachers or students who do not
have access to officially secret information.

Such practices are ineffective to identify dangerous in-
dividuals, who may not hesitate to comply falsely; and the
imposition of such requirements or resort to such investiga-
tions casts unjustified suspicion upon the teaching profession.
Their true gravity lies, however, in their tendency to sap
the strength of American education, American thought, and
American institutions by requiring conformity to official
orthodoxy of opinion and conduct."

The test of a teacher, the editor of the New York Times has said,
cannot be in any form of words: the test of a teacher is teaching. The

26

answer to communism in the colleges and universities is not oaths
nor espionage by administrative informants but a fearless emphasis
on the undistorted fact. The professor who bows to the yoke of com-
munist absolutism will always betray himself in a free university.
He will sooner or later distort the facts both in teaching and research.
American students can be relied upon to penetrate any aura of mystery
yet devised to protect the ox of communistic dogma. Moreover you can
always depend on the colleagues of this yoked professor to do the
necessary and fearless winnowing and sifting to find this out.

In recapitulation may I repeat that we are living in the most
critical period of modern history, in an era of international tension
which tragically resembles 1913 and 1938. At its roots this international
tension is a conflict between two ways of life in the contemporary
world. The United States of America with its great moral and material
resources stands at the forefront of those peoples who seek to maintain
freedom for the individual citizen as opposed to that state which regu-
lates without any deviation all phases of the life of the individual.
Only through education can we give to the younger generation the
knowledge and spiritual power essential to survive in this epic struggle
between two ways of life. The secondary schools, the colleges and the
universities of America can play a decisive part in this struggle of
democracy against collectivism only if American education is alive,
dynamic and free.

27

ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Alice John Vandermeulen
Assistant Professor of Economics, Claremont Men's College

Shortly after the invitation to speak at this conference arrived,
one of your officials came to call on me. He was suspiciously fervent
in urging me to accept. He reminded me that a woman seldom is given
an opportunity to appear on a program where all the other speakers
are male and eminently august. Elated at the thought of my good
fortune, I hastened to mail my acceptance.

Then I began to brood on the elements of my case which promised
to make me such an interesting performer. Of course, the answer was
that I might be expected to exhibit the clinical symptoms of advanced
academic schizophrenia. As assistant professor, I would display un-
tamed zeal for giving voice to Truth. As wife of associate professor,
I might admit the wisdom of keeping one's mouth shut occasionally
in order to earn food to put into it. And, as economist, I could certainly
reduce the question of professorial freedom to a matter of dollars and
cents.

I am fraid that my symptoms of internal conflict may disappoint
you. Until I began to prepare this paper, I had never considered my
two freedoms— academic freedom and freedom from want— especially
related. The truth is that I find myself a college professor, not by
design, but because of a series of historical accidents. I have collected
diplomas somewhat fortuitously, and I have never faced starvation
from indignation if omnia iura, conceded in each diploma, were not
respected by an employer. However, my topic seems to call for a dis-
cussion of the appropriate economic relationship between an employer, /I
who is in the business of education, and an employee who is protected Jj
by the age-old rights of scholars. Upon considering my rights as a ||
scholar, I find that they are not very different from my rights as a
worker. But I shall try to make them explicit, so that you may correct
me if I seem too demanding or too submissive.

The cornerstone of the economic relationship which I desire wdth
employers is payment in accordance with my worth. This statement
recalls elementary economics, where, under the imaginary conditions
of perfect competition, the worker is paid the value of his contribution
to the product. I believe the theory is fundamentally sound. It rules
out payment according to such extraneous factors as the number of
children a worker has to support. I certainly do not want colleges to
give preference to bachelors in hiring faculty members in order to
minimize instructional expense. Nor do I want to have to procure
raises in my husband's salary by sheer fecundity. It seems to me that
the terms of compensation for teaching should be struck like any other
business bargain; seller and buyer should each think his owrn gain
is maximized by the transaction.

The fact that academic stipends are likely to be lower than the
salaries of comparable workmen in business or government does not
upset the market analysis. Let us admit that teaching is more pleasant
than most nine-to-five jobs in government or industry. What other

28

I

I

vocation offers such unlimited opportunities for considering problems
which interest us— and, even better, making others consider them?
And there are always minor sports to divert the professor, such as the
manipulation of a committee to his own ends, the drawing-out of the
human element in student conferences, or surreptitious inquiry into the
capabilities of his colleagues. Part of the remuneration of an academic
position is the agreeableness of the duties, just as part of the pay of a
missionary comes in the form of a firmer toehold in heaven.

But, in contrast to the restrictions on conduct inherent in the
theological profession, I do not feel that the academic calling entitles
the employer to cast an influence over the total behavior of those who
are called. I should prefer to have the duties of an academic position
clearly defined, with common understanding of those facets of a faculty
member's life which are not restricted by the requirements of the
position.

In my opinion, the responsibilities of a teacher are like those of a
hairdresser, or a waitress, or a sorcerer's apprentice— or any other
non-specialized employee. Briefly, they are three:

First, to contribute to the quality of the product;

Second, to get along with the customers;

And third, to add to the fame of the firm.

At the moment, I hope I am adding to the fame of the firm of
Claremont Men's College. When I grade papers, I am endeavoring to
add to the quality of the product— educated man. And when I explain
the resultant F's to the recipients, or worse, to mothers of recipients,
I try to get along with the customers.

I assume that if I become very efficient at any one of these tasks,
it v^U be my prerogative to relegate the remaining two to other mem-
bers of the organization. In every large faculty, specialists develop.
Deans and presidents usually excel at getting along wdth the customers.
A separate corps of amenable and unaggressive men usually provides
a foundation of good teaching. They enhance the fame of the firm
through the success and loving memory of former students, even
though they do not excel at that vital function called "pubHshing."
Finally, there is usually a small group of emaciated, mole-hke, pale,
and unattractive men who are the intellectual giants. And how I should
like to join their ranks! They specialize in increasing the fame of the
firm. They often teach poorly and consider students a necessary an-
noyance. Paradoxically, the academic freedom of these bold intellectual
pioneers, who break new paths in print, is less often threatened than
the freedom of teachers who timidly follow in their trails. This greater
freedom is the price which talent can command, since leaders in the
development of thought can also move on to other universities.

Let me summarize my argument so far: I have said that I think
the salaries of faculty members should be based on the quality of the
performance of their duties, and that there are three duties: (vulgarly)
teaching, public relations, and publicity. Now, freedom on the job
goes with competency. This is an inescapable fact of life. The way to
obtain freedom is to convince your employer that he cannot replace
you. And this is the ideal relationship between employer and employee.

29

Why are we so concerned with freedom on the job in academic
circles? Are we not competent enough to win such freedom as we
desire? Why do we feel the need of a kind of union to protect our
"rights"? I think we often feel that our freedom is jeopardized because
we fail to make a clear distinction between the justifiable restrictions to
freedom implicit in the duties of the position and the unjustified re-
strictions which often surround the private and professional lives of
faculty members.

The authority which colleges exert over the lives of faculty mem-
bers is obviously economic in origin. It stems from the power to dis-
miss and promote. This power seems to me to be a basic right of em-
ployers, which wdll be asserted in one way or another. Therefore, I am
inclined to minimize the importance of tenure and promotion com-
mitments, because they can be circumvented so easily. Realistically,
tenure is a useful weapon against academic oppression only when an
entire staff is affected by administration policies. There are other
weapons, such as publicity, to deal with these cases. But tenure is of
little value in protecting the rights of an individual instructor. If we
are frank, we must admit that it is always possible for a college to
make life so unbearable for any unwanted professor that he will leave
of his own accord. There are a host of indignities which can be inflicted
by the administration to make the protection of any tenure or pro-
motion policy meaningless. One of the simplest ways to insult a pro-
fessor is to bore him— merely snow him under with elementary teach-
ing, and then express surprise and keen disappointment at his failure
to progress professionally. And if resignation comes too slowly from
chronic suffocation, the administration can always add petty breaches
of professional etiquette as a contributing irritant.

I must further admit that I do not see why we should expect a
college to guarantee continuous employment to a teacher for his re-
maining working life on the basis of a few, or perhaps no, years of
previous association. Nor do I think that college presidents actually
consider the appointment of a full professor as the making of a life
contract, for better or for worse, until old age or death does them part.
At least if they do, they are more willing to select life-time associates
on the basis of correspondence and reputation than most sensible men.

I suggest that instead of searching for tenuous moral obligations
of employers, we look rather to strengthening the independence and
the value of the employee. To this end, I should like to present an out-
line of three economic areas in which I think faculty members should be
allowed the maximum freedom consistent with the three duties enum-
erated above.

Freedom Area One would secure to the employee the privilege of
consuming his income as he sees fit. This would weaken the conomic
ties binding the employee to the institution and to the teaching pro-
fession. Specifically, I should welcome federal social security rather
than private pension plans. Any insurance payments should be either
voluntary or enforced by law, rather than paternalism. In addition,
I disapprove of remuneration in kind for faculty members, such as
low rent for college-owned housing or free meals if eaten with students.

30

1

I prefer a clean-cut bargain in which I take home my pay check and
spend it in the market with other workers. If I buy from my employer,
I want to wear a hat and be treated like a customer. And I do not
want my employer to hold it against me if I choose to buy elsewhere.

Note that this freedom of consumption does not extend to con-
spicuous consumption which would impair the performance of my duty
to enhance the fame of the college. For example, I think I should be
allowed to spend some of my salary on liquor if I choose, without
having the dean out counting the bottles at my curb on trash-collection
day. But I should not regard it as part of my fundamental rights as a
consumer to appear tipsy at the tea this afternoon. Any responsible
position carries with it restrictions on social behavior.

Freedom Area Two is the liberty of employees to seek to better
themselves by changing academic positions. For this freedom to be
real, college presidents and department heads would have to cooperate
in making information available regarding vacancies, and also, they
must not bear grudges against employees who are discovered scanning
the vacancy notices.

At the present time, nearly all academic positions are filled by a
hit-or-miss word-of-mouth system. When a vacancy occurs, the chair-
man of the department opens the professional directory and wonders
who might be willing to move and what the customers would think of
him. Employers do not turn to the plaintive "positions wanted" listings
in the professional magazines, because those who advertise their avail-
ability are likelv to be lemons. As a result, the only wav for an in-
structor to look for a new position is to hint darkly to his closest associ-
ates that he might be willing to move. Then there is nothing for him
to do but try to publish like mad and hope that his friends will rec-
ommend him when they hear of an opening. Under the present system,
there is too much reliance on the long arm of circumstance. As econ-
omists would say, imperfect knowledge of the market prevents both
buyers and sellers from concluding the most advantageous bargains.

I think the solution to this problem must come from employers.
I take for granted a continuing stigma on the "positions wanted"
columns. Therefore, we must attack the situation from the "help
wanted" side. There is some stigma attached here, also, because of
the feeling that no college with the proper connections with the grape-
vine would resort to advertising vacancies. Certainly, no college would
want to state salaries, since there must always be a range for higghng
and playing hard-to-get. Such an organization as the Western College
Association could do a great service by collecting information concern-
ing openings among its member-colleges and making this information
available, perhaps by fields of interest to professional academic associ-
ations. Evidence of large-scale migration from one institution w^ould
also give a warning signal to job-seekers. The colleges would have
the added burden of sifting, and replying to, increased inquiries con-
cerning their vacancies, but this additional trouble should more than
pay for itself in a better selection of candidates. I feel that we must
overcome the traditional shyness of non-profit employers and ivory-
tower employees with respect to the vulgar and unmentionable matter

/

31

of the economic contract. I suppose that I lack the aristocratic reticence
in pecuniary affairs which a well-bred academician should possess. But
as a woman-shopper, I can testify that I am much happier with a
bargain after I know the alternative opportunities which the market
has to offer.

The liberty of employees to seek to better themselves has other
corollaries in addition to the main requirement of market information.
Employers must give maximum notice of their dissatisfaction with
employees. Colleges should warn instructors who hold dead-end jobs.
Employers and employees alike should forget the prejudice against the
record of a teacher who has changed positions frequently. Life is too
short to spend an extra year on a job simply to lend an air of stability
to the record. In sum, if the market for academic positions could be
made more perfect, there would be an escape valve for aggrieved pro-
fessors in those two fundamental words, "I quit!"

Freedom Area Three is less definite. It concerns securing to the
employee the right to diversify his occupations or hobbies. I can never
draw a clear distinction between occupations and hobbies, because I
would never choose an occupation that I did not enjoy, and I would
never choose a hobby that did not promise to make me a wiser, and
therefore, more valuable person.

This freedom might take the form of the ability to migrate in
and out of the academic profession, or it might be the opportunity to
teach and perform simultaneously. I always have great respect for
instructors who can practice what they teach. But performance is
sometimes embarrassing to the colleges. A music master may be able
to give concerts wdth impunity, but an economist has to be careful
about accepting consultant's fees. However, I think college administra-
tions should make a great effort to permit faculty members to use
their leisure to pursue their primary interests.

Migration in and out of the academic profession is difficult, partly
because those of us with the Ph.D. union card and many hours chalked
up in libraries tend to feel that no amount of business experience is an
adequate substitute for a continual association with theory. Thus, an
instructor may sell his academic birthright when he accepts a job in
industry, and he loses stature if he remains very long in civil service.
This prejudice is reinforced by the fact that there are few employers
other than universities who are politically antiseptic. If you work for
a labor union, or big business, or one of the governmental Deals, you
risk being barred from readmission to the ivory towers because your
past might frighten a donor or a voter.

My solution to this problem is to make diversification of occupa-
tion commonplace. Temporary excursions from scholarly cloisters
would be expected and accepted. Here, also, I think organizations such
as the Western College Association could perform a service in facili-
tating the interchange of employees between business and education.
Increased opportunities for leaves-of-absence from the academic pro-
fession would improve the morale of both faculty members and admin-
istrators. Each could have a change wdthout having to wait for the

32

other to reach sixty-five, and the mecca of outlasting one's associates
would decline in importance.

As you can see, my interpretation of economic freedom is a bargain
between willing buyer and willing seller. I am content, as a seller of
my services, if two conditions hold: First, there must be no restrictions
on my use of the proceeds of the sale. Second, there must be more
than one buyer, so that I am not at the mercy of a monopsonist. I will
be able to conclude a satisfactory bargain if there are competing alter-
native opportunities to sell.

In summary, I do not think that academic freedom will be seriously
impaired if there is ample opportunity for the professor to leave his
desK at any time. The economic freedom which I crave is freedom to
leave an unsavory position, not the freedom to stay in it. To quote a
scholar who was deeply concerned with liberty of thought and dis-
cussion, John Stuart Mill, "The only freedom which deserves the name
is that of pursuing our ovm good in our own way."

33

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

W. H. Cowley
Professor of Higher Education, Stanford University

-1-

Problems of freedom crowd in upon the American of 1950 more
pervasively than probably ever before in our history. The Revolution
and the Civil War had their foci in specific issues of freedom, but today
newspapers and magazines bulge with stories about one or another
kind of freedom. Is a physician free to ease a dying patient out of life?
What penalty should be given a scientist who has betrayed the freedom
of his adopted country to spy for Russia? Are the miners free to work
only three days instead of a full week? Shall movies like Oliver Twist
and books like Little Black Sambo be banned? Is the security of the
country in such danger that the FBI should be permitted to tap the
telephone of free citizens? Is the secretary of state free to continue
to be the friend of a former associate convicted of high national security
crimes.

The headlines blazon "Hiss," "Coplon," "Harry Bridges," "Univer-
sity of California Loyalty Oath," "Fuchs," "Dorothy Kenyon." Yester-
day they paraded the names of the Thomas Committee, Elizabeth
Bentley, the University of Washington, Paul Robeson, Louis Budenz,
the Tenney Committee, the Feinberg Law, and on and on. Tomorrow
will have other such headlines, and perhaps they will be even more
serious than now. Clearly the intelligent American needs to determine
where he stands on questions oiP freedom. Few if any of his
responsibilities are more urgent than this. *

In particular, academic people need to be clear about what they
mean by academic freedom and equally clear about how to protect
and to further it. At this juncture these are primary points of needed
professional growth. Believing this deeply, I do not apologize for
devoting the first several pages of this paper on Professional Growth
and Academic Freedom to discussing what seems to me to be the
nature of freedom in the large. Only by relating academic freedom
tc freedom in general does it seem possible to avoid being either
superficial or unrealistic.

To begin with, freedom is not an absolute. If he would survive,
an Eskimo is not free to dress as scantily as a Fiji Islander, nor a Fiji
Islander to bundle himself up like an Eskimo. A high school student
who has done low-grade work is not free to enter a good college nor an
untrained person to become a physician, lawyer, or engineer. Professors
are not usually free to own so extravagant homes or to live as luxuri-
ously as the Mickey Cohens, the Rita Hayworths, and the Glenn
McCarthys. No one, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, is free
to yell "Fire!" falsely in a crowded theater or to commit a thousand
other unsocial acts. In short, freedom is not an absolute. It is always
controlled by law, and social freedoms are political rights earned after
centuries of struggle. They continue in force only so long as man
maintains free societies.

34

At least five considerations must be discussed in appraising the
nature of freedom: first, man's vital urge to survive individually and
collectively; second, man's need of social order; third, the continuous
conflict of competing conceptions of social order; fourth, man's peren-
nial strivings for a better world, and fifth, the source of authority for
the management of the world.

-2-

Man's first need is to survive. He is a freedom-loving animal,
but he is also an obeying animal. He obeys that he may remain alive.
He accepts the limitations imposed by natural law because instinctively
he knows that if he would continue to live he must. He also early learns
the power of the social laws that relate to his personal survival, and
similarly he learns the importance of the man-made laws that deter-
mine the quality of his social survival— laws and customs which if
transgressed lead to his incarceration or ostracism and which thereby
lessen his status as a person and hence his freedom. More elemental
than man's demand for freedom is his urge to survive.

In the second place, man's need for order is also more elemental
than his need for freedom. Only when order has been established does
freedom become possible; and when order is in jeopardy, crucial kinds
of freedom immediately disappear. This is as true of a free society as of
a police state. Wars and other extraordinary emergencies illustrate the
fact and the principle that without order no society can survive.
Indeed, the terms society and social order are synonymous.

This brings into focus the third element in the appraisal of
freedom, to vsdt, the continuous conflicts among those supporting com-
peting conceptions of social order. Men crave not order in the abstract
but particular kinds of order, and they differ widely and often violently
concerning the kinds of order they desire. The bloodiest and cruelest
wars are ideological wars because they are fought not to enrich men
materially but to defend or to extend a way of life, a conception of
social order. Thus the cold war divides the world not only into geo-
graphic parts but also into two ideological sectors; and some citizens of
the democracies betray their own countries to the Russians because they
believe that the social order promised by Communism will be a better
social order than the Western way of life. These men are traitors; but
many if not most of the 50,000 members of the American Communist
Party and of their 500,000 fellow travelers are also idealists willing to
lie, spy, and even die for their visions of a better social order.

However deluded these men may be, they illustrate the fourth
consideration underlying man's craving for freedom, namely, the
ceaseless striving of the race for a better world. In fighting Com-
munism, as we most certainly must we frequently overlook or forget
the fact that Karl Marx and his associates were Utopians who dreamed
of a perfect world, made blueprints of it, and charted a campaign for
establishing it. Criticize a communist for the atrocities in Russia and
its satellites, and promptly he retorts that they are temporary measures
preparing the way for the classless society, for the disappearance of the
state, for the establishment of the perfect social order. The Marxians

35

can be understood only by recognizing them to be deluded idealists
sunk in the fallacies of an unworkable perfectionism.

The American way of life, it must not be forgotten, is also a
titanic adventure in idealism. As President White of Mills College
expressed it in a brilliant address to the Stanford Class of 1945, "The
Stars and Stripes are a banner of even more fundamental revolution
than the Hammer and Sickle." The revolution achieved by American
idealism is so much more fundamental than Russian Utopianism that
the Communists in every possible way conceal its tremendous triumphs
from the people they control. They conceal them because American
idealism functions in the here and now and is not held in storage for
some fictional future. They conceal them because they fear to have the
people under their dominance see the operations and achievements of a
society which, despite glaring but slowly disappearing differences
between the ideal and the reality, constitutes man's most successful
effort through all time to create and maintain a better world.

The American dream continuously becomes the American Reality
in large measure because, nurtured in belief in the dignity of every
individual, it takes a revolutionary position on the fifth of the problems
of freedom, to wit, the source of the authority for the management of
the world. In non-democratic states a small cabal has acquired and
keeps the authority to determine the nature of the social order and to
run it, but in the United States we move ever closer to the ideal of all
the people participating in government. Contrast Lenin's pronounce-
ment that "liberty is precious— so precious that it must be rationed"
with Lincoln's immortal description of a free society as "of the people,
by the people, for the people."

But what is a free society? In terms of the five considerations
just described, a free society is a society willing and able to permit
its members freedom of civilized action, freedom of expression con-
cerning the management of the social order, and freedom of participa-
tion in that management. A free society is free, first, because it is
strong enough to be free: it has the strength to survive attacks upon it.
A free society is free, second, because it has faith in the soundness:
of its liberal system of order. A free society is free, third, because it is
willing and able to allow freedom of thought and action to individuals
with competing conceptions of social order on the conviction, in the
words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that "the best test of truth
is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
market." A free society is free, fourth, because it believes that such
"free trade in ideas" makes possible a better world than can ever be
designed on the drawing boards of any social architect or architects.
A free society is free, fifth, because it is "of the people, by the people,
and for the people."

Enemies within and without a free society take advantage of its
freedom to undermine it, and thus the sixty-four billion dollar question
of a democracy is how to maintain order and at the same time to con-
tinue to be a free society. In times of calm the question seldom comes
into the open, but in times of stress like the present it rushes out from
a hundred hiding places. By definition a free society allows consider-

36

able freedom of action and almost unlimited freedom of expression to
self-interest groups and to pressure groups, and some of them are bent
upon destroying freedom. To suppress them would be to abandon free-
dom. To fail somehow to check tnem would be to endanger the survival
of free society.

This is the democratic dilemma; and it is also the dilemma of
academic freedom, a particular kind of freedom vital to the ongoing
of the free democratic way of life. Of its many facets, only two can
be considered here; first, the maintenance of free colleges and univer-
sities as institutions and, second, the freedom of faculty members to
teach and to investigate and thereby to grow as people and as mem-
bers of society's pivotal profession, the profession that trains all the
other professions.

-3-

The maintenance of free colleges and universities funnels down to
the core question of who shall control them. It might appear that he
who pays the piper calls the tune, but in higher educational institutions
this is by no means as true as most people seem to think. For example,
one of my students has just finished a study of ten of the great philan-
thropies to American colleges and universities during the period be-
tween the Civil War and Pearl Harbor; and he has discovered that
although seven of the ten philanthropists clearly stated their desires
that their money be used to promote vocational as opposed to liberal
education, the institutions thus established or thus aidea in one way or
another diverted the funds to other purposes. Stanford constitutes a
case in point. Senator Stanford originally planned an institution in
which agriculture and commercial subjects would be dominant, but
David Starr Jordan educated him and Mrs. Stanford to a different
conception of the kind of university to be developed. Similarly, in his
will Paul Tulane made the strong suggestion that his bequest be used
for vocational education, but the board of trustees to which he left his
money disregarded his expressed but legally unsupported vsdsh and
endowed the institution that became Tulane University. Private donors
have great influence upon colleges and universities, but they are by
no means all powerful.

Nor do legislatures have as complete freedom to determine the
policies and programs of state universities as it may appear. In" the
seven states that have constitutional state universities, for example,
the legislatures can starve the universities, but they cannot control
them. To illustrate: one of these seven constitutional state universities,
the University of Michigan, has successfully rejected funds appropri-
ated by the legislature because the Board of Regents did not wish to
undertake the educational programs for which the funds were voted.
In a 1928 decision the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota stated
the principle that applies to all the constitutional state universities.
The management of the university, it ruled, stands "beyond the dan-
gers of vacillating policy, ill-formed or careless meddling and partisan
ambition that would be possible in the case of management by either
legislature or executive chosen at frequent intervals. ..." These seven
constitutional state universities-and the University of California is

37

one of their number— are constitutional corporations independent both
of the legislative and executive branches of state government "except
as a law of the regents might conflict with the police power of the
state."

The other state universities of the country have varying degrees
of independence from the executive and legislative branches of gov-
ernment. Constitutional provisions and judicial decisions give the gov-
erning boards of these state universities rights which legislatures cannot
invade except by abohshing the universities. In short, boards of regents
have large powers to govern state universities which limit the tune-
calling ability of legislatures.

All of this means that in operational fact boards of regents-or, as
they are more frequently called, boards of trustees- control colleges
and universities. But even this statement must be hedged because two
other groups during the past century have acquired legal or customary
powers which limit the freedom of action of boards of trustees-the
alumni and the faculty. Since 1866, for example, the alumni of Harvard
have been its real governors. Thirty of the thirty-two members of the
Harvard Board of Overseers are elected by the alumni, and the Board
of Overseers must ratify all policy enactments of the Harvard Corpora-
tion. At Dartmouth the Alumni Council has no such legal status as
the Harvard Board of Overseers, but it elects five of the twelve mem-
bers of the board of trustees and has acquired extraordinary prestige
in shaping Dartmouth policy. These are but two examples among
many which illustrate the increasing governmental power of alumni.
State university alumni have much less direct power, but everyone
knows that they exert highly important indirect influences. In brief,
in almost all American colleges and universities the alumni have ac-
quired legal or moral rights which circumscribe the control vested in
boards of trustees.

Similarly the faculty has become an increasingly important factor
in academic government. Except for brief periods during the early
histories of Harvard and William and Mary, faculties had no gov-
erning status until after the Civil War. Boards of trustees held power
tightly and also participated actively in administration. Many boards
even examined students for their degrees. Today, however, few boards
mix into administrative matters; and without fanfare they have turned
over to faculties almost complete authority over curricular policy and
other educational matters. Boards retain right of veto, but they seldom
employ it in educational questions. In practice, faculties largely de-
termine educational policy although the threat of board veto serves
as a check on as rapid change as many professors would like.

Books like CattelFs University Control, Upton Sinclair's The Goose
Step, Veblen's Tlie Higher Learning in America, and Beck's Men Who
Control Our Universities-this last published in 1947- would lead one
to believe that trustees control colleges and universities completely and
in the interests of the business point of view; but their authors have
entirely overlooked the increasing and strategical governmental power
of alumni and faculties. Moreover, they have by-passed the little-
discussed but vastly important legal developments in the membership

38

of boards of trustees. These developments have come along under a
principle known as functional representation, that is, the required
place on boards of trustees of members of specific interest groups. At
the University of Wisconsin, for example, agriculture, "the manual
trades," and women must be represented on the board of regents. Many
states have similar representational requirements. A significant develop-
ment in this area took place in 1945 when the New York Legislature
amended the Cornell Charter to require election to the Cornell board
of three representatives of organized labor.

These changes in the make-up of boards of trustees have come
along so quietly and have been so little discussed that few professors
appear to recognize the fact that under the American system control
of academic government boards of trustees changes as the power groups
in society change. Thus until 1871 the Yale Corporation had always
been composed exclusively of clergymen, but in that year the alumni
gained governmental power and elected a group of lawvers. Today
the Yale Corporation has only one clergyman member. Slowly, and
admittedly with considerable social lag, the interest groups on boards
of trustees change as society changes.

Meanwhile, as pointed out, boards of trustees have given consider-
able authority to alumni and to faculties. These enormously significant
developments make it obvious that no one interest group controls the
universities permanently. It may be that the business group has ascen-
dancy at present; but the legal machinery exists for shifting influences
as the center of social power shifts in our national life. Thus colleges
and universities are continuously and properly subject to the third of
the five elements of freedom discussed in the first section of this paper:
their control changes under the impact of the continuous conflict of
competing conceptions of social order.

Some professors appear not to like this plan of academic govern-
ment. They maintain that a university should be a company of self-
governing scholars unchecked by society at large. In particular, they
deplore the existence of boards of trustees and of college and university
presidents; and they point to the medieval university, the pre-Nazi
German university, and the historic British universities as the models
that we should follow. The latest expression of this point of view ap-
peared two years ago in Harold La ski's book. The American Democ-
racy. It also appeared in the San Francisco newspapers four years ago
w^hen a group of University of California and Stanford University
professors declared that "the true university is preeminently a com-
pany of scholars" and that "professors are not hired men to execute
policies determined by others."

Several observations must be made about this point of view. First,
an objective study of European universities makes it clear that although
they were able to operate independently for long periods, public au-
thority eventually exerted itself and took away their assumed inde-
pendence. For example, the British government left Oxford and Cam-
bridge free to govern themselves from the middle of the 1 7th century
to the middle of the 19th, a fact which led them to believe that they
existed entirely independent of public control. The university reforms

39

acts passed by Parliament in 1854 and 1876, however, relieved them
of this misconception; and although both universities continue to enjoy
large self-governing powers, they are no longer "independent communi-
ties of scholars." As for the German universities, examples abound of
the civil authorities exerting their authority during every period of
stress throughout the 19th century and up until the Nazis took over. In
short, historic and European citations do not support the professors who
believe that universities should be independent entities governed
entirely by professors.

In the second place, the increasing power of faculties in academic
government belies the allegation that professors are "hired men" who
must "execute policies determined by others." For three quarters of a
century American college and university professors have been ac-
quiring ever-increasing rights of participation in the determination
of institutional policies. These rights may be considerably less complete
than most of us would like, but they are great indeed compared with a
century ago; and they continue to increase. To ignore the trend and
also to sneer at the legal governors of colleges and universities is no
way to further it. Boards of trustees, like wooden boards, may some-
times be narrow, thick, and even warped; but they are instrumentali-
ties of the American democratic way of life and must be so recognized.

This observation leads to the third point, namely, that however
praiseworthy European systems of academic government may be, we
are committed to the American system; and we cannot break with
our history. This history leaves no question that the American people
will not permit professors to be independent of society as a whole.
To paraphrase a statement of Clemenceau's about war and generals,
the American people consider colleges and universities to be far too
important to leave them entirely in the hands of professors or of any
other group. The government of colleges and universities increasingly
becomes a cooperative enterprise in which an expanding number of
interest groups participate. Professors are only one of these groups, a
primary group, but only one among several.

To summarize the first of the two problems of academic freedom
being discussed, that is, the maintenance of free colleges and univer-
sities as institutions: the core question has to do with their control;
and the American system puts control of each institution in the hands
of a legally established governing board, most of which during the
past century have extended their memberships to include several addi-
tional interest groups and have also given growing: powers to alumni
and to faculties. By these means academic, like civil, government looks
more and more for its authority to all the people and becomes increas-
ingly "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

-4-

All members of a free society have a stake in the continuity of
free colleges and universities. They also have a stake in the growth
of professors as people and as members of the profession that trains
all the other professions. Professional growth is a kind of personal
growth, and the key fact about it is its increasing narrowness resulting

40

from the mighty and unremitting spread of specialization. In short,
professional growth has shoved all other kinds of personal growth
into neglected if not forgotten corners. This is particularly true of the
professional man who, unprotected by unions to limit his working
hours and deeply devoted to his specialty, has little time to grow in
other than professional directions. The Spanish philosopher Ortega y
Gasset has commented on this unhappy and dangerous situation in his
Mission of the University. "The new barbarian," he writes, "is above
all the professional man, more learned than ever before, but at the
same time more uncultured— the engineer, the physician, the lawyer,
the scientist."

Ortega goes on to assign blame for the appearance of this new
professional-man barbarian, and he assigns it to the university:

The blame for this . . . barbarity . . . rests with the . . .
university of all countries. . . . The guilt of the universities
is not compensated for by the prodigious and brilliant service
which they have rendered to science.

We could stop to debate the justice of Ortega's accusation, but so many
people believe it that it seems the part of wisdom to assume it to be
just and to see where it leads on the topic in hand.

To begin with, it should be related to the three great functions
for which universities and professors are responsible: pushing forward
the frontiers of knowledge and understanding of the universe and
of man; training the world's workers of the higher and highest intel-
lectual levels; and educating these workers as people who have lives to
live and responsibilities to assume beyond the boundaries of their
specialties. These three functions— research and scholarship, special
education, and general education— compete with one another for the
budgets of universities and for the interest of professors. In this com-
petition few disagree that general education has been underprivileged.
Research and special education dominate the modem university with
the result that professional men, including professors, have become the
"new barbarian . . . more learned than ever before" but dangerously
out of touch with "the system of vital ideas" of other specialties and
of society at large. One of the most vital of these, perhaps the most
vital, is the idea of freedom.

Ortega's accusation checks with those of many others and leads
to the conclusion that at this critical juncture in history when free
societies struggle to survive against powerful enemies, professors, the
educators of all the other professions, need to discuss their professional
growth less in terms of becoming better specialists and more in terms
of becoming better educated in "the vital system of ideas" of our age
and particularly in the idea of freedom. In sum, education in the idea
of freedom should immediately become a central consideration in the
professor's efforts toward professional growth.

This is all very well, some might say, but it's quite impractical.
Professors cannot be expected to drop their career interests and com-
mitments to become students of and campaigners for freedom. They
have their work to do, and it cannot be neglected. The fact is, however,
that in times of crisis professors have no choice in the matter. They

41

are forced to give attention to attacks on freedom because they strike
them in the face. To be specific: what attention during recent months
have members of the University of Cahfornia faculty been able to
give to research and scholarship? Or the members of the University of
Washington last year? Or the professors of the scores of other institu-
tions where academic freedom has been attacked? When questions of
freedom take the center of the stage, everything else moves into the
background if not into the wings. This is so because freedom of teaching
and research can survive only in free colleges and universities and
because free colleges and universities can survive only in free societies.

But periods of crisis, it may be suggested, do not last. They break
into the professor's working time for a few weeks or months, come to
an end, and then everyone returns to his neglected affairs. This seems
to be the point of view of most professors; but with all respect, it must
be declared to be a thoroughly uninformed position. Problems of
academic freedom come out into the open only now and then; but like
the problems of freedom in general, they have been with us always
and will remain with us always. The times in which we live are so full
of agitations that they will become more and more frequent, more and
more insistent, more and more time consuming.

If this be true, then it seems to me that at least three things need
doing. First, immediate and continuing professorial education in the
nature, history, and issues of academic freedom; second, vigorous and
intelligent education of the general public in the cardinal importance
of academic freedom in the ongoing of our free society; and third,
greater attention to the general education of that part of the public
now attending colleges and universities. By these means both profes-
sorial and public growth in understanding and defending freedom
can be furthered without interfering with each professor's growth in
his specialty.

The first of these three courses of action requires the appointment
of several specialists of high academic rank in a subject to which no
one in the United States has ever given full-time attention: the subject
of academic government. I have been condemning excessive specializa-
tion, and yet I am proposing the establishment of another specialty.
This is not inconsistent. We need more specialization, not less. The
more complex a biological or social organism becomes, the more pro-
nounced the specialization. The greater the increase in specialization,
however, the more insistent becomes the need of systems of communi-
cation between specialties. Nature has accomplished this biologically,
but we are a long way from achieving it socially. The efforts go on
with only feeble success thus far, but we cannot wait for them to
mature before establishing urgently needed specialties including one
in academic government.

As I have suggested in the earlier sections of this paper, questions
of academic freedom constitute a subdivision of the topic of academic
government which, in turn, is a subdivision of the topic of government
in general. It would appear to follow, therefore, that the several spe-
cialists that I have proposed should be attached to departments of
political science. That would be a most desirable plan, but it seems

42

that as yet no department of political science in any university over
the country has established such a specialty or, indeed, even a single
course in academic government. As far as I can discover, I teach the
only such course offered anywhere; and I am a lowly educationist.
But questions of academic government should be studied somewhere;
and if departments of political science default, then they will have to
be developed in schools of education. This would have obvious draw-
backs.

The proposed specialists in academic government would investi-
gate all current questions of academic government— including in par-
ticular academic freedom— against the background of historic develop-
ments in practice and in theory; they would organize and expand the
literature of the field; and they would keep professors, administrators,
and trustees informed of their findings. They might well begin by
publishing a case book of academic freedom controversies beginning
with the dismissal of Harvard's first president because he opposed
infant baptism, and coming down to the plethora of cases today. Among
other things this volume would show that problems of academic free-
dom have been especially intense since about 1890 and that most of
the questions with which earlier generations struggled still await
solution.

The proposed specialists could also produce a volume or series of
volumes describing the developing and present status of academic
government in the broad including the impact of medieval and Euro-
pean conceptions upon American colleges and universities, the legal
foundations of our American board-of-trustee system, the extending
prerogatives of alumni and faculties, the relation of various methods
of financing colleges and universities to their control, and a score of
other such considerations. Finally, they would describe and appraise
competing theories of academic government.

The individuals appointed to these posts could be leaders in the
second of the three enterprises suggested: the education of the general
public in the importance of academic freedom. And does anyone doubt
that the public needs educating? A Fortune poll of last year turned up
the estimate that 29 per cent of Americans believe that "there's a lot of
communism being taught in the colleges"; and I would guess that the
Hiss Case, the Fuchs Case, the discovery of the former membership
of Frank Oppenheimer in the Communist Party, and a number of
other recent developments have increased the percentage. Hiss and
Fuchs have never been professors; but Fuchs holds the Ph.D. degree
which the public associates with professors; and Hiss has been repeated-
ly described in newspaper and magazine stories as an "intellectual,"
that is, a first cousin of professors. The distrust and fear of all intellec-
tuals and especially of professors reaches deep into the minds of many
Americans, in particular of businessmen; and the possible consequences
are frightening. If they are not prevented, we talk in vain about pro-
fessional growth in our specialties: our plight could one day be like
that of Russian professors in 1917 and of German professors in 1933.

The necessity of educating the general public in the acute im-
portance of academic freedom need not be labored. It must be obvious

43

to every educator who reads the newspapers. The question of how
to go about the business stands beyond the scope of this present dis-
cussion, but one thing seems to me to be clear: we cannot turn it over
to the committees and commissions which appear during crises and
then silently die. I shall be uncomfortably specific. Several years ago
this association appointed a committee on "The College and Its Rela-
tion to the Community" which reported at the Spring meeting of 1947;
that is, before the present situation had developed. In his paper as a
member of the committee, Louis B. Wright wrote:

There is danger that fear may produce a witch hunt in
which critics of the colleges, either ill-informed or ill-inten-
tioned, will use the term Communism as a smear-word to
describe any political belief with which they do not agree.
We must face squarely the fact that the colleges will inevi-
tably become the targets of hysterical and absurd charges.

A good many people heard or read this statement and others
like it in the committee's report, but apparently no college or uni-
versity in our territory did anything to prepare for the predicted days
of turmoil. The days came and have stayed, and they have caught
practically everyone with his guards down. Thus it usually happens
with committees and commissions unless they are continuing enter-
prises-which they seldom are. We could profit from the establishment
of a Western Commission on Academic Freedom; but it should be an
enduring body, should be composed of laymen as well as educators,
should be liberally financed and permanently staffed.

The methods of going about educating the public cannot, as ob-
served, be discussed extensively here. Enough to urge emphatically
that the task should be undertaken promptly and thoroughly. Nor is it
possible to do more than point to the third of the three proposed under-
takings for improving public and professorial understanding of free-
dom: greater attention to the general education of that part of the
public now attending colleges and universities. Today research and
special education command the colleges, and general education takes
the leavings. Among the many risky results of this uneven situation
is the barbarism of which Ortega so eloquently spoke in his 1930
lecture from which I have quoted— M/^^zoaz of the University. Observe
the date, 1930, three years before the Nazis took over in Germany and
precipitated the present chapter of the world's woes. Ortega had been
educated in German universities, and he had witnessed there and
elsewhere in Europe the smothering of general education by research
and professional education. In his lecture and in his book of the same
year. The Revolt of the Masses, he predicted the rise of Hitler and
ipointed to the universities as unconscious but nonetheless prolific seed-
plots of totalitarianism. I quote another passage from his 1930 lecture:

The convulsive situation in Europe at the present mo-
ment is due to the fact that the average Englishman, the
average Frenchman, the average German are uncultured:
they are ignorant of the essential system of ideas concerning
the world and man which belong to our time. This average
persons is the new barbarian, a laggard behind the contempo-

44

I

rary civilization, archaic and primitive in contrast with his
problems which are grimly, relentlessly modern. . . .

Hence it is imperative to set up once more in the uni-
versity the teaching of . . . the system of vital ideas which
the age has attained. This is the basic function of the univer-
sity. This is what the university above all else must be.

In the thick of life's urgencies and its passions, the uni-
versity must assert itself as a major "spiritual power" . . .
Then the university will once again come to be what it was
in its grand hour: an uplifting principle in the history of
the western world.

Ortega's criticism and Ortega's challenge apply to American
higher education no less certainly than to European universities. If we
do not heed them, if we do not promote general education as our best
hope for developing communication between specialists and for coun-
teracting the forces that make professional men narrow and barbaric,
we flirt seriously with the same consequences as those suffered in
Europe. We have won two world wars primarily because of the high
quality of our special education and research, but these cannot win the
ideological war now raging. This can be achieved only through general
education which must therefore be made at least equal in importance
with special education and research.

Eventually— and it may be soon— we will see the folly of slighting
the general education of college students and then having to spend
great energy if not huge sums of money to win their support for aca-
demic freedom after they have graduated. Much more intelligent
would it be to do the work of general education so effectively with our
present students that as undergraduates they will become devoted
champions of academic freedom and throughout their lives guardians
of our free society.

American higher education performs three imperative social func-
tions: research, special education, and general education; and the
greatest of these is general education. I believe this to the core of me
though I am a professor in a graduate school and do not participate
in the general education enterprise.

I have been describing the three courses of action that professors
should sponsor to further their professional grovs^h in understanding
the nature and the problems of freedom in general and of academic
freedom in particular. I believe that they will stand up under analysis;
but whether or not they do, may I express the hope that the Western
College Association will furnish the leadership that will help the faculty
members of the institutions in these western states to see the problem of
professional growth in broad perspective. As the profession that trains
all the other professions, professors must be superbly equipped for their
exalted task and thoroughly fortified for meeting the recurring attacks
upon academic freedom and upon our free society.

45

MINUTES OF THE FALL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION
Stanford University, October 15, 1949

Stanford University, the Association's gracious host in 1944,
repeated at the Fall Meeting held October 15th in Northern California.

Memorial Hall was the scene of the morning and afternoon ses-
sions, the attractive Little Theatre being filled to capacity with slightly
over 200 delegates and guests.

Ever since the State Legislature established the Commission to
make a survey of the needs of California in the field of higher educa-
tion, and since the Commission made its report in 1948, interest in
this field had been mounting. It seemed appropriate to the Association
committees to select as program themes "The Structure of Higher
Education in California," "The Implications of the Survey," "Develop-
ments in General Education," and the activities of the California Com-
mittee for the Study of Education. The result of the selection, imple-
mented by an excellent choice of speakers, produced one of the most
stimulating meetings in Association history.

Luncheon was served in the flower-bedecked environment of the
Allied Arts Guild of Menlo Park; tea in the cordial atmosphere of the
home of President and Mrs. Sterling.

BUSINESS SESSION

The Business Session of the Association was called to order at
4 p.m. in the Little Theatre, Memorial Hall, by President Deutsch.
Inviting attention to the growdng national prestige of the Association,
now a constituent member of the American Council on Education, he
spoke of the most recent advance in the formal recognition of the
Western College Association as one of the six national regional accred-
iting associations.

1. Executive Committee Recommendation

The Chairman announced that the "International Association
of Universities" Bulletin No. 143, Higher Education and Na-
tional Affairs of the American Council of Education, of date
August 9, 1949, had been distributed to member-institutions
for study prior to this session. Copies were available also for
all delegates present.

This bulletin contained a report of the Conference on the
Role of Colleges and Universities in International Understand-
ing held under the auspices of the American Council on Edu-
cation in cooperation with others at Estes Park, Colorado,
June 19-22, 1949, at which the Association was officially rep-
resented by Dr. Morris A. Stewart of the University of Cali-
fornia.

President Deutsch directed attention to the item of special
significance in the report, the statement and recommendations
concerning an International Association of Universities unani-
mously adopted at the Conference.
Voted, unanimously, by roll call of official delegates present,

46

to accept the following recommendation of the Executive
Committee:

Voted, to recommend for vote by officially appointed dele-
gates of the Association's member-colleges and universities the
principle of the American Council on Education recommenda-
tion.

2. Committee on Membership and Standards

President Deutsch commended the work of this committee,
Dr. L. E. Nelson, chairman, announcing that it had completed
its revision of the Statement of Standards.

3. Resolution of Appreciation

Voted, unanimously, to approve the following resolution:

RESOLVED

That the Western College Association express its
warm appreciation

To Stanford University for the generous use of its
facilities for this meeting.

To President Sterling for his warm and sincere
words of welcome, and at the same time to extend the
very best of wishes for great success in the task to which
he has just set his hand.

To President and Mrs. Sterling for their kind and
friendly hospitality.

To the Program Committee, consisting of Messrs.
J. Paul Leonard, Robert E. Bums, W. H. Cowley and
Hiram W. Edwards, for the preparation of a program
dealing with topics of significance to all the institution-^
constituting our membership, and

To the Committee on Local Arrangements, con-
sisting of Professors R. D. Harriman, John W. Dodds,
Harold Bacon, W. H. Cowley and H. Donald Winbigler,
for the pains they have taken to render our meetings
successful.

In conclusion President Deutsch expressed his personal apprecia-
tion to the Association in electing him to his high office, delighting his
audience with his "emeritus" anecdote.

Adjournment.

47

MINUTES OF THE SPRING MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION
Santa Barbara College, University of California, April 1, 1950

The live issue of academic freedom and academic responsibility
attracted more than 300 delegates and guests to the beautiful Riviera
Campus of Santa Barbara College of the University of California for
the Association's Spring Meeting of 1950. Provost Williarns welcomed
the Association and gave an illuminating sketch of the history of the
host-institution.

The main theme of the day being "What Are the Responsibilities
of a Free College in the Present Day?", President Deutsch, in the
keynote address of the morning session held in the Auditorium, dis-
cussed "What Are Academic Responsibilities Within the Framework
of Academic Freedom?", and Dr. Ralph H. Lutz, President of Xh(*
American Association of University Professors, "What Is Academic
Freedom Within the Framework of Academic Responsibility?"

Turning in the afternoon session to the subject "What Are the
Prerequisites for Professorial Freedom?", Professor Alice Vander-
meulen of Claremont Men's College viewed the topic from the angle
of "Economic Factors Affecting Academic Freedom" and Dr. Cowley
of Stanford University from that of "Professional Growth and Aca-
demic Freedom."

All addresses were heartily applauded, and at the conclusion of
the afternoon session President Deutsch paid high tribute to the Pro-
gram Committee: Raymond G. McKelvey, Occidental College, Chair-
man; D. Mackenzie Brown, Santa Barbara College, Universitv of Cali-
fornia; Merrimon Cuninggim, Pomona College; Father Charles S.
Casassa, Loyola Universitv; Walter R. Hepner, San Diego State Col-
lege; William C. Jones, Whittier College; Vern O. Knudsen, University
of California at Los Angeles; Tracy E. Strevey, University of Southern
California.

At the luncheon served in the College Cafeteria, the host-institution
initiated an innovation in Association entertaining, namely, table
favors in the form of boy and girl dolls attractively costumed in the gay
Spanish style so popular in Santa Barbara. Spanish troubadours provid-
ing the music during the luncheon hour, carried out the same motif.

Through the courtesv of Provost and Mrs. Williams, tea, accom-
panied bv musical selections given by college groups, was served as
the conclusion of the day's successful program, a final feature of which
was a special bus trip to the new site of the Santa Barbara campus of
the University at Goleta.

BUSINESS SESSION

President Deutsch called to order the Association's Business Ses-
sion promptly at 11:40 a.m., and announced the Constitution provisions
for official voting.

I. Report of the Secretary -Treasurer

1. Membership

The institutional membership of the Association now num-

48

bers 43, 38 of which are colleges and universities of the states
of California, Arizona and Nevada.

During the year 1949-1950 one institution has been admitted
as an associate member, the Western Personnel Institute.
Approximately 22 institutions have expressed to the Com-
mittee on Membership and Standards an interest in becoming
members of the Association.

2. Meetings

As reported last year, in addition to the local Fall and Spring
Meetings, the Association is receiving a rapidly increasing
number of invitations to send official delegates to national meet-
ings. In December also the Association accepted a request to
send a fraternal delegate to the Northwest Association's meet-
ing in Spokane and has reciprocated, a delegate from that
Association being present at our meeting today.

3. Publications

Three issues of the Newsletter (May 1949, June 1949, Janu-
ary 1950) have been published, and with the excellent assist-
ance of administrative officers in member-institutions, over
3,000 copies have been circulated during the year.

Addresses and Proceedings Spring Meeting 1949

This was the 25th Anniversary edition, containing Addresses
on "Twenty-five Years of Higher Education in the West" and
"The Future of Higher Education." One thousand copies of this
printing were distributed. The supply of this souvenir edition
is practically exhausted. A few of the remaining copies have
been placed in the Lobby for free distribution.

Addresses Fall Meeting 1949

500 copies of addresses on "The Structure of Higher Educa-
tion in California" and "Developments in General Education'*
were printed and distributed.

Addresses of Spring Meeting 1950

These will be printed during the next two months, and a
copy wall be sent to every delegate who has registered here
today.

4. Financial

SUMMARY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1949

Receipts

Balance from year 1948:

Standard Account $1,171.18

Committee on Economic Development 2 7 1 . 62

$1,442.80

Dues for 1949 $2,610.00

Refunds (for reprints, etc) 164.60

Special Assessment (College and University
members) for organization of accrediting (one-
half amount of annual dues) 1,275.00

TOTAL RECEIPTS .$5,492.40

49

Exj)en(litures

Standard Account $3,092.04

WCA-CED Account 271.62

Special Accrediting Account 779.28

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,142.94

Balance, January 1, 1950

Standard Account $ 853.74

WCA-CED Account 0.00

Special Accrediting Account ^95.72

TOTAL BALANCE Si. 349.46

Voted, that the report be received and approved.

n. Executive Committee Recom^mendations

Tlie follo\N-ing proposed amendments to the Constitution and
Bv-Laws. recommended by the Executive Committee, were
presented bv the follo^^'ing committee members: Father Dunne,
.\rticles Vli and VIII of the Constitution; President Leonard,
Article I of the By-Laws: Dr. Nelson, Article III of the By-
Laws:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSTrrLnriON

ANT) BY-L.\WS

The EXECL'TIVE COMMITTEE recommends the following
amendments, to be acted upon at the Business Session. Spring Meeting,
April 1, 1950.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSTrTLTION

Article VII. Standing Committees

Change statement on Committee on Membership and Standards to read:

Committee on Membership and Standards, a committee of six
members, each serving three years, and appointed by the President
and Executive Committee. (Those chosen for the year 1950-51 shall be
assigned terms as follows: two for a one-year term, t^vo for a two-year
term^ and two for a three- year term. No account shall be taken of
service prior to the adoption of this section.) On the completion of the
designated term the member of the committee shall be ineligible for
reappointment for a period of at least one year.

The committee shall consider apphcations for membership and
present the same with its recommendations to the Executive Committee
and shall have supervision of the maintenance of the standards ap-
proved for membership in the Association.

Article VIII. Representatives
Add:

Representatives of the Association on the
American Council on Education.

Of the three representatives of the Association on the American
Coimcil on Education, one shall be appointed by the President and

50

Executive Committee for a period of five years. He shall be a person
who presumably can attend the meetings of the American Council on
Exlucation with regularity during his term of office. The other two
representatives shall be appointed annually by the President and the
Executive Committee.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS

Article I. Dues
Change statement to read:

The annual dues of active institution-members having a total
annual enrollment of all students, full time and part time, of 2,000 or
over, shall be Si 50 each: of all other active college and university
institution-members shall be 875 each; of all associate members, $30
each. The annual dues of individual members not associated with any
member-institution shall be $2 each. Institution members on inactive
status pay no dues during the period of such status.

Accrediting Procedures

^ , , Article III. Accrediting Procedures

Add:

Length of Accrediting.

In general, accreditation is for a five-year period, but the Execu-
tive Committee, on recommendation of the Committee on Membership
and Standards is empowered, if it deems best, to give one extension
of a five-year period without the necessity of a formal visitation, but
the usual fee for accreditation, exclusive of \isitors' expenses, will be
required.

A report, however, the content of which is determined by the
Committee on Membership and Standards, is required of every institu-
tion everv five years, due at the normal time for visitation.
Times for Visitation.

The Executive Committee has power to set the years for visitation
at each institution, on recommendation of the Committee on Member-
ship and Standards.

Fees.

The fee for each period of accreditation is $100, plus the expenses
of visitation, these visitation expenses not to exceed $200. The fee is
pavable when formal steps are taken toward the accreditation of a
j>articular institution.

Voted, unanimously, to approve and adopt the recommendations.

III. Report of the Committee on Research

Chairman Heffner of Stanford University reported briefly
for his committee. During the year the Committee on Research
has been engaged in a study concerning the place of and the
importance attached to research by colleges and universities
in the Association's area.

In order to ascertain facts, a questionnaire consisting of nine
questions was sent to each of the 38 college and university

51

member-institutions. 37 replied. One of the interesting results
of the responses is the indication of great emphasis placed upon
teaching ability. In a number of institutions ii was frequently
stated that teaching abilit}- is considered ahead of research,
both in appointment and in promotion of faculty members.
A copy of the complete report ha.<^ been submitted to the
Executive Committee and to each member-institution respaaA-
ing to the questionnaire.

Voted, 'wdth commendation to the chairman and his colleagues,
to accept the report and place it on file.

rV. Report of the 'Nomination Committee

For the Nomination Committee. Chairman Earl Cranston rec-
ommended the folio-wing officers and Executive Committee for
1950-51:

Officers: President: Lee A. LhiRridge, President- California
Institute of Technology'; Vice-President William C. Jones,
President. "\Miittier College; Vice-President: J. E. Wallace Ster-
ling. President. Stanford University; Secretary-Treasurer:
Charles T. Fitts, Professor Emeritus, Pomona College.

Executive Committee: George C. S. Bensoru President. Clare-
mont Men's College; Arthur G. Coons. President Occidental
College; WiUiam J. Dunne. President, University of San Fran-
cisco; J. Paul Leonard. President. San Francisco State College;
E. Wilson Lyon. President. Pomona College; *, Monroe E.
E>eutsch. Vice-President and Provost Emeritus. University of
California, ex-officio).

Voted, to accept the nominations and to instruct the Secretary
to cast a unanimous ballot for the nominees.

V. Resolutions

1. L'^niversir^' of California Special Loyalts" Oath

For the Executive Committee. President Deutsch preHBUted
the follo-vving resolution, unanimously recommended by the
committee for the approval of the Association:

RESOLimON OF THE
WESTERN COLLEGE ASSOCIATION

concerning

THE SPECLAJ. LOYALTY' OATH

OF THE I^^IMiJlSrri' OF CALIFORNL^

RESOLVED, that the ^^'ESTERN COLLEGE ASSOCI-
ATION, assembled in regular meeting at Santa Barbara on
April 1, 1950. express profound regret at the failure of the
Regents of the Universit;\' of California to find, as yet. a
solution for the controversy over the loyalty oath in the
institution, especially in ww of 1^ patriotic action of the
Academic Senate.

S2

0

We agree %\'ith tlie Senate and the Regents in opposing
the appointment of members of the Communist party to a

college faculty.

The imposition of the so-called loyalty oath will seri-
ously damage an institution in whose greatness all its sister-
colleges and universities take pride.

RESOLNTD. also, that, in the considered judgment of
this Association, it is a matter which transcends a single
institution or the faculty of one institution but is of utmost
concern to the entire acadejnic world.

The imposition of the special oath would certainly not
ferret out Communists in tlie faculty, should there be any,
but would only serv^e to drive from tlie University, now and
later, men and women of the neatest eminence and un-
questioned loyalty who resent tlie suspicion being cast on
them.

Voted, unanimously, that the resolution be approved.

Appreciation

For the Association. President Deutsch submitted a resolu-
tion of warm appreciation to Santa Barbara College of the
University of California for many courtesies in connection
vvith the meeting; to Provost Williams and to the Committee
on Local Arrangements.— Catlierine Campbell, Edna Meshke,
Helen Sweet. Marie Wilson. Van Christy, Maurice Faulk-
ner and George Obem— under the able and untiring chair-
manship of Professor Harrington Wells.

Prior to adjournment. President Deutsch called President-
elect Lee A. DuBridge to the platform ''happily to turn over
an extremely interesting task" to his successor. Dr. DuBridge
replied in happy vein, stating his pleasure at the opportunity
to say that he would do his best and. as his first action in
office, to express appreciation and a sincere vote of thanks to
Dr. Deutsch and other officers who have served the Associa-
tion so well during the past year.

Adjournment.

Respectfully submitted,

CH.\RLES T. FITTS

Secretary'- Trea surer

53

Program for

WESTERN COLLEGE ASSOCIATION

Fall Meeting

Saturday. October 15, 1949

Stanford University

9:15 a.m. Registration

Memorial Hall

MORNING SESSION

Little Theatre. Memorial Hall
Presiding: Robert E. Bums. President, College of the Pacific

10:00 a.m. Welcome to Delegates

J. E. Wallace Sterling, President, Stanford University

10:10 a.m. Subject:

The Stritcture of Higher Education

In California

Implications of Survey- of Needs of California

in Higher Education

Monroe E. Deutsch

Vice President and Provost Emeritus. University of California.

and Member of Committee for Survey of Needs of

California m Higher Education

Implications of the Report for the Universities

Baldwin M. Woods
Professor of Enpineering and Director of I'niversity Extension

University of California
Implications for the State Colleges

J. Paul Leonard
President. San Francisco State College
Implications for the Private Colleges

E. Wilson Eyon
President. Pomona College
Implications for the Junior Colleges

Henry T. Tvler
President. Modesto Junior College

11 : 30 a.m. Admission of Stt'dents for the Ji'nior Year

Herman A. Spindt
Director of Admissions, University of California

Luncheon Allied Arts Guild, Menlo Park

I

12:30 p.m.

2:00 p.m.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Little Theatre. Memorial Hall
Presiding Frederick Hard. President. Scripps College

Subject:

Developments in General Edi^ cation

Patterns of General Education

Clarence H. Faust
Dean of Humanities and Sciences. Stanford University

Practices in the Social Sciences

Edward W. Strong

Associate Dean of College of Letters and Science,

University of California. Berkeley

54

3:30 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

Developments in Music

William Loran Crosten
Associate Professor of Music. Stanford University

Developments in Natural Sciences

Lloyd M. Bertholf
Dean of the College. College of the Pacific

Report on the Acti\dties of the California Committee
on the Study of Education

Ra\Tnond D. Harriman
Professor of Classics, Stanford University

Business Session Little Theatre, Memorial Hall

Presiding: Monroe E. Deutsch, President,

Western College Association

4:30 p.m. Tea at home of President and Mrs. Sterling

Program for

^^T:sTERN college association

Spring Meeting
Saturday, April 1, 1950
Santa Barbara College, University of CaHfomia
9:15 a.m. Registration Lobby, Administration Building

Ri\-iera Campus

morning session

Auditorium. Administration Building. Riviera Campus
Presiding Robert L. Nugent Vice-President. University of Arizona

10:00 a.m.

10:10 a.m.

10:40 a.m.
10:55 a.m.

11:25 a.m.
11:40 a.m.

Welcome to Delegates

J. Harold Williams
Provost. Santa Barbara College, University of California

Presidential Address:

What Are Academic Responsibilities within the

Framework of Academic Freedom ?

Monroe E. Deutsch
Vice President and Provost Emeritus. University of California

EKscussion

What Is Academic Freedom within the
Framework of Academic Responsibility?

Ralph H. Lutz

Professor of Historv. Stanford University

President. American Association of University Professors

Discussion

Business Session

Presidmg: Monroe E. Deutsch. President,
irn College Association

12:30 p.m. Luncheon

College Cafeteria

55

AFTERNOON SESSION

Auditorium, Administration Building, Riviera Campus

Presiding: Earl Cranston, Dean, School of Religion

University of Southern California

2:00 p.m. Subject:

What Are the Prerequisites for

Professorial Freedom?

Economic Factors Affecting Academic Freedom

Alice John Vandermeulen
Assistant Professor of Economics, Claremont Men's College

2:30 p.m. Discussion

2:45 p.m. Professional Growth and Academic Freedom

W. H. Cowley
Professor of Higher Education, Stanford University

3:15 p.m. Discussion

4:00 p.m. Tea and Music in the College Quadrangle

56

Reprinted from:

Harpers

M A C A^Z I N E

9

A University in Jeopardy

John Caughey

THROUGHOUT the past year and a half the
University of California has been riven
by a faculty-regents dispute which has
mushroomed to epic proportions. It began
as a debate over loyalty, which seems non-
sensical because of course we all agree that
only the loyal deserve faculty posts. But there
was sharp difference of opinion about how to
detect and keep out the disloyal— through an
oath of non-membership in the Communist
party, as the regents proposed, or through the
traditional and tested routines of faculty self-
inspection.

Intermittently there were indications that
the drive against Communism was being used
to cover other purposes. Finally, at the
August 1950 meeting of the regents, this be-
came quite clear. In connection with a mo-
tion to dismiss thirty-two members of the
faculty this interchange occurred:

"Do I understand," Governor Warren
asked, "that we are firing these people
merely because they are recalcitrant?"

"It is not a question of Communism,"
said Regent Arthur J. McFadden, "but one
of discipline."

Not disloyalty but discipline— these four
words define the real issue. The tragic feature
is that these men have been disciplined out
of their jobs for following a course supposedly
set up in good faith by the regents.

Inevitably there are overtones and conse-
quences, some of which touch matters of vital
concern to the existence of a true university.
For example, when confronted with a so-
called loyalty oath, which in reality was an
oath of political denial set up as a condition
of employment, the faculty opposition coun-
tered that it was completely and unreservedly
loyal. It feels, moreover, a patriotic duty to
safeguard a principle vital to Americanism
and to the democratic republic in which we
live. That principle goes under various
names— freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, and academic freedom. Academic free-
dom is usually taken to mean the right of a
qualified scholar to teach and to speak and to
write in the field of his expertness without
interference. A fundamental thereto is that
such a scholar shall not be censored out of
eligibility to get or to hold an academic job.

On the loyalty front the oath and its sequel
have not exjxjsed a traitor or improved a
patriot. Academic freedom, however, has
been put in grievous jeopardy. Rights and
guarantees that the faculty thought secure
have been whisked away. A tradition of
faculty self-government has been under-
mined, and faculty morale has been shat-
tered.

Because this is the largest university in the
land and one of the four or five most produc-
tive in scholarship, a narrative of how it hap-

John Caughey, who has taught American history for twenty years at the
University of California, was a full professor there until he v)as dis-
charged last summer in the dispute xuhich he here describes in detail.

Reprmted from Harper's Magazine, Nor., i950.
Ccpyrigbt, 1950 ky Hmper & Brotbert. All Rights Resrried.

A UNIVERSITY IN JEOPARDY

HARPER'S MAGAZINE

pened here may have some intrinsic worth.
For the same reasons, the California pattern
is bound to be noticed by those who shape
the destinies of other schools, and it may, fpr
good or ill, set in motion other events of a
similar kind. This possibility, in fact, ex-
plains why I have put down the following
account. The perspective is admittedly per-
sonal; this is a report of the university's
ordeal as I saw it develop.

The first intimation that the university
would apply a political test came in June
1949. True enough, the Faculty Bulletin of
the preceding month had a terse announce-
ment of a loyalty oath. The sound, however,
was that of a positive pledge of loyalty, and no
one expressed, and I think no one felt, any
reluctance about complying.

As unveiled on June 12, however, the
regents' oath turned out to be a special one
featuring a denial of belief. To it the faculty
voiced a philosophical objection. We had all
signed and we all preferred the straightfor-
\vard pledge of loyalty written into the state
(onsdtution by California's founding fathers
in 1849:

I do solcrflnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of
California, and that I will faithfully dis-
charge the duties of my office according to
the best of my ability.

For all state oflTicers this oath had served
well through the entire hundred years of state-
hood. For a number of years this oath had
also been asked of the university faculty and
had been taken with never a hint of reluc-
tance. As men of integrity, furthermore, we
have regarded this oath as a pledge of com-
plete loyalty, with no loopholes left or wanted
lor unpatriotic action of any description.

Hindsight now makes clear that we should
have held out for this constitutional oath and
no other.

II

At the time, the more conciliatory ap-
/\ proach seemed to be to suggest an
/ % additional general clause denying com-
mitments contrary to the oath proper. On
]unc 24, after the faculty had scattered for
the sunnner, the regents accepted this sug-

gestion, but vitiated it by inserting a phrase
of specific denial— "I am not a member of the
Communist party." This demand for a spe-
cific denial is the crux of all the subsequent
trouble, for it most palpably sets up a
political test. As amended tlie oath now read:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of
California, and that I will faithfully dis-
charge the duties of my office according to
the best of my ability; that I am not a mem-
ber of the Communist party, or under any •
oath or a party to any agreement or under
any commitment that is in conflict with my
obligations under this oath.

The objection to being made to say "I am
not" is not confined to the minority that is
under attack. A forced declaration of the
obvious is equally distasteful. Thus when the
Romans went around prodding men to deny
that they were Christians, some good old
pagans were incensed. When Catholic rulers
at the time of the Reformation applied the
same kind of pressure to root out Protestants,
and when Protestant England used the device
against Catholics, objection was not confined
to the minority.

To Americans, because of a greater respect
for individual rights and a greater awareness
of the usefulness of minority opinions, test
oaths have always been abhorrent. The fathers
of our country took a strong stand against
them. So did the fathers of our state; having
spelled out the constitutional oath, they
added this injunction: "And no other oath,
declaration, or test shall be required as a
qualification for any office or public trust."

Through the summer of 1949 there was
official pretense that the special oath was re-
quested but not required. It soon became
apparent, however, that the only way to get a
contract ^\as to sign the oath. In the circum-
stances it is perhaps remarkable that any sub-
stantial niunber of the faculty refrained from
signing.

From June to November the one reason
assigned for the special oath was that Com-
munists arc victims of thought control and
therefore cannot possibly carry out the im-
partial scholarship and honest teaching to
which the university is dedicated. All along,
the facidty has been ^ware that the whole
strength of our foreign policy has been mar-

shaled to resist the spread of Communism. In
support of this program we, if anything, have
gone further than the general public. If the
peril to our nation becomes greater, if the fed-
eral government decides on more drastic meas-
ures, we stand ready to make any useful con-
tribution that we can.

But if the concern of the regents is over an
invasion of the university by charlatans and
propagandists, we submit that no oath or
declaration can be as sure a protection as the
faculty's own method of selecting and screen-
ing its membership.

Since the early twenties the University of
California has had a well-developed system of
facidty self-government. The present mem-
bers of the faculty are where they are because
of a procedure of selection by their peers on
the basis of character, competence, and per-
formance. This selective process is not infalli-
ble; errors of judgment and of charity have
been made. But we do maintain that the only
trustworthy and effective means of building
and maintaining a proper faculty is by reli-
ance on the expert judgment of scholars. The
alumni may be the best judges of football
coaches. The regents may be better connois-
seurs of capital investments. But just as we
rely on the lawyers to decide who shall be
admitted to the bar and on the doctors to say
who may practice medicine, the only sound
procedure is to have the scholars in the sev-
eral disciplines decide who shall constitute a
university faculty.

By resolution and by delegation the faculty
several times reminded the regents of the
cogency of this principle. We pointed to this
method of selection as a main reason for the
university's distinction. We expressed confi-
dence that anyone sacrificing scholarly integ-
rity on the Communist altar would be de-
tected and disqualified through the regular
faculty procedure. We reminded the regents
that, although since 1940 they had had a
standing rule against employment of Com-
munists, not once had they had occasion to
apply it against a member of the faculty.

THUS passed the first half of the year of
the oath. The arguments so cogent to
us seemed strangely ineffective with the
regents. In November 1949 we got a hint
as to the reason. The oath, we now were offi-
cially told, was traceable to State Senator Jack

B. Tenney, the Martin Dies-J. Parnell
Thomas-Joseph McCarthy of California. A
measure he had ready for the state legislature
early in 1949 so alarmed the university's legis-
lative representative (or, in translation, lobby-
ist) that this worthy communicated his fears
to the president, who, in turn, proposed to
the regents in March 1949 the institution of
the special oath.

This revelation put a worse cast on the
matter. If the regents were concerned to pro-
tect the university against the fraudulent
scholarship of a typical Communist, the fac-
ulty could collaborate on safeguards that
would be both honorable and effective. If,
however, the regents were playing politics, to
wha" extent could the faculty go along?

A new faculty committee, nevertheless, was
set up and sent, on January 4, 1950, to meet
with a corresponding committee of the
regents. The keynote of this conference was
the regents' insistence on an explicit anti-
Communist program. They had in mind the
possibility of action for perjury against an
oath signer who might turn out to be a Com-
munist. Aware that special tests and restric-
tions surrounded the Radiation Laboratory
and other government-sponsored secret ac-
tivities in the imiversity, they saw no reason
why the same rigors should not be extended
to all departments. More bluntly, they wanted
to know why anyone who was not a Com-
munist would object to saying so.

The faculty representatives insisted that
under such restrictions a real university was
impossible. They stressed the necessity of
relying on the faculty to police its own ranks.
They asked confidence in the facidty, and as
one piece of evidence cited the president's
statement that he knew of no Communist in
the faculty. They expressed no love of Com-
munists, but neither did they like the applica-
tion of a political test which could easily be-
come a precedent for further narrowing of
the base of eligibility for the faculty.

We adjourned with the express understand-
ing that the two committees would confer
again before reporting to the board of regents
or to the faculty. To our dismay, however, at
the next meeting of the board of regents,
their committee made its report and had it-
self discharged.

A month later the regents reiterated their
antiC'.ommunist policy. They added a proviso

A UNIVERSITY IN JEOPARDY

HARPER'S MAGAZINE

that before firing a Communist professor (if,
as, and when one could be found) they would
submit the evidence to the faculty for inspec-
tion. With heavier emphasis the regents
aflirmed an anti-non-signer policy. They an-
nounced that anyone who did not sign the
special oath or an identical affirmation by
April 30 would be dropped at the end of the
semester. For such a person there would be
no hearing whatsoever.

The charitable interpretation would be
that it was by inadvertence that the regents
set up a more considerate routine for Com-
munists than for loyal and perhaps distin-
guished professors who balked at the special
oath. Some observers were not so sure. Sev-
eral of the regents, for example, had taken
great umbrage at a faculty resolution reciting
apparently unacceptable facts about the rela-
tive spheres of activity for faculty and regents
in a well-ordered university. If the regents'
main purpose was to bring the faculty to heel,
then the February ultimatum was logical.

One ray of encouragement was that the
action had not been unanimous. With eigh-
teen of the twenty-four regents present, the
vote had stood at twelve to six. Regents Earl
J. Fcnst(m, Farnham P. Griffiths, Victor Han-
sen, and Edward H. Heller voted against the
ultimatum. So did Governor Earl Warren
and President Robert G. Sproul. The sup-
port of these six was most heartening. This
was particularly true of the Governor, who,
in an election year, was ready to brave an
inflamed segment of public opinion, and of
the president, who courageously admitted
that he had changed his mind about the wis-
dom of the oath requirement.

Ill

WHATEVER its intentions, the ulti-
matum roused the faculty as nothing
else had. The northern half of the
Committee on Conference began a campaign
of publicity and persuasion. It convened the
Berkeley deans and department chairmen and
got their support. It went to work to find a
solution that would have the endorsement of
the vast majority of the faculty. Similar steps,
though more tardily, were taken at Los Ange-
les. Incidentally, it should be remarked that
a major handicap to the faculty in this whole
campaign has been its dispersal on eight

widely scattered campuses. Here is an unex-
pected illustration of the Roman maxim
divide et impera.

On March 7 and 8 the assembled faculties
at Berkeley and Los Angeles considered reso-
lutions condemning the sign-or-be-fired ulti-
matum and calling for rescinding of the spe-
cial oath requirement. In the north the vote
was a vociferous 900 to zero; in the south an
estimated 400 to 10. The faculty then ordered
a mail ballot on the committee's proposed
solution. This proposal, in essence, was a re-
turn to the constitutional oath, plus a contract
form placing the signer liable to, but not
necessarily in endorsement of, the university's
previoiisly announced rules of employment.
Nor was the contract to embody denial of a
specific political membership. The proposal
carried, 1,154 to 1.S6.

In the preceding fortnight much else had
happened. One regent, in an open letter to
the president, extolled the special oath as a
blow against "communism, of which social-
ism is the first step. " He pointed to England
where, he said, freedom had been destroyed
by socialism. Herein was more than a hint
that the anti-Communist policy could readily
expand to bar other minority groups.

Another regent attacked the faculty as
Communist tools. Communist dupes, and
Communist-led. The whole oppositicm to the
oath stemmed, he said, from a "dissident
minority" to which the more stable faculty
members had submitted. True enough, the
various pressures applied had brought the
non-signers down to a small fraction. But
many had signed under protest, and the fac-
ulty votes, one after another, had been by
thumping majorities. At no time did it
appear within the faculty that opposition to
the oath was monopolized by a "hard core" or
a "dissident minority."

Another plaint of this same regent was that •
the faculty was actually and purposely shield-
ing Communists. In the light of his repeated
attacks, many of us were not surprised to find
in a newspaper report of one of his statements
a passing reference to "seven admitted card-
carrying Communists" in the faculty. By the
time this report reached Los Angeles the
number was twelve. Actually the regent's
statement had been a hypothetical one that
"even admitted card-carrying Communists '
would or would not do thus and so. By typo-

graphical error an "$" was added and "even"
became "seven"!

We were, as a matter of fact, under the
handicap of having to wage this campaign in
the realm of pure theory. Lacking a flesh-
and-blood example of the group under at-
tack, our argument had to be on the off
chance that such a person whom we would
consider eligible by competence and loyalty
might sometime show up. Possibly no such
person existed. If that were so, our argument
still was that the regents' method was not the
proper means of insuring exclusion, that it
was inherently inefficient, and that it was a
most dangerous precedent. But for lack of a
live specimen in our ranks, we were restricted
to intangible and theoretical resistance.

This circumstance, together with the urg-
ing of the most vocal of the regents, seem-
ed to account for the faculty's motion on
March 7 to send another proposition to mail
ballot. It stated that proved members of the
Communist party, by reason of their anti-
stholarly commitments, are not acceptable to
the faculty. This statement, of course, is a
direct contradiction of the stand of the Ameri-
can Association of University Professors.
Curiously, some members of the faculty
argued that the statement did not affirm guilt
by association but was an individual rather
than a group condemnation. Others, influ-
enced by the temper of the times, cast a j)oli-
tic affirmative vote. In the university-wide
poll this proposition carried, 1,025 to 268.

Subsequently a faculty leader revealed that
there had been a bargain. This proposition,
in his words, was "put over" after assurances
that the regents would be satisfied with it as
a substitute for individual oaths of denial.

In the June-to-March palaver over the spe-
cial oath, the faculty reminded me— and I
hope I am Irish enough to be allowed to use
the anecdote— of the Russian family dashing
through the snow with the wolves in hot pur-
suit and saving itself by throwing out a baby
whenever the wolves got too close. W^e also
had been making sacrifices at regular inter-
vals. In this second proposition I thought wc
had thrown out one baby too many.

Wiser tacticians thought not. And the
sequel seemed to bear them out, for on
March 31, when the board of regents, slightly
revised through two new appointments, took
up the faculty proposal of liability through

contract, the motion to rescind the special
oath failed by ten to ten.

No one took the tie vote as final All looked
forward to reconsideration at the next meet-
ing of the regents.

IV

THE faculty campaign, some weeks since,
had been entrusted to a new committee
which, by chance or otherwise, was more
cautious than its predecessor. The policy it
followed was one of limited publicity, almost
no response to attacks in the Los Angeles and
the Hearst press, co-operation with the presi-
dent, and reliance on finding an additional
vote somewhere in the board. The grapevine
—how reliably I do not know— had it that a
vote or two could be counted on and that the
faculty proposal would squeak through.

At almost the eleventh hour the president
and his immediate advisers decided that such
a margin was not enough. In order to in-
crease it they invited the Berkeley Alumni
Council to appoint a special committee to
investigate and, as it developed, to mediate.
The alumni committee took the task seri-
ously. By private plane they flew from one
end of the state to the other, interviewing
most of the regents, consulting at length with
three members of the faculty, and more briefly
with a few others. As mediators they found
it difficult, if not impossible, to understand
that the faculty had already made every con-
cession consistent with principle. They looked
for a solution somewhere between the last
stand of the faculty and that of the regents.
This was the settlement which the alumni
proposed and the regents adopted:

(1) The regents would escape from the un-
tenable position of the ultimatum by with-
drawing the special oath and with it the sign-
or-be-fired stipulation.

(2) Although the oath as such was no more,
as an "c(juivalent affirmation '* it would
transmigrate to the annual contract.

(:{) Every new appointee would have to sign
this affirmation.

•This clause reads: ". . . that I am not a member of
the Communist party or any other organization which
advocates tlie overthrow of the government by force
or violence, and that I have no commitments in con-
flict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial
scholarship and free pursuit of truth."

A UNIVERSITY IN JEOPARDY

(4) Any member of the present fatuity, how-
ever, could appeal for review by the Commit-
tee on Privilege and Tenure, including in-
vestigation and full hearing on his reasons
for not signing. Recommendations of the
committee would be subject to review by the
president and final decision by the board of
regents.

The board welcomed this "solution" by a
vote of twenty-one to one, with the lone dis-
senter bewailing a Communist victory that
would set the bells to ringing in the Kremlin.
If there was any rejoicing in the faculty I did
not hear about it. A few optimists hailed the
new order as the first step toward a settle-
ment. Many heaved a sigh of relief that the
controversy could now be committed to his-
tory.

Others recognized a complete defeat for the
faculty. The political test as a condition of
employment is, if anything, more effectively
enshrined in the contract than it had been in
the oath. Ordeal by oath had given place to
ordeal by inquisition.

A committee to act as a court of last resort
for tho«e who are on the point of dismissal
is standard equipment in most universities.
Almost always, however, those who appear be-
fore it are there to answer charges of gross
neglect of daty, incompetence, or moral turpi-
tude. When I joined the U.C.L.A. staff
twenty years ago, the last thing I expected was
that I should ever appear before such a com-
mittee.

Under the alumni formula anyone who ob-
jects to the political test is liable to dismissal
unless cleared, not merely by his committee,
but also by the president and the regents.
This three-fold ordeal, furthermore, was to be
an annual rite, and since my life expectancy
in the university ran another twenty years
before retirement, my professorial head would
be on the block sixty-three times in the years
to come.

A reasonable question, I believe, is whether
a moderately sensitive person could be
expected to do his best in the classroom
and in research under this routine of multiple
jeopardy.

Aft

A

FTER April 21 the faculty had little choice
but to submit to the formula worked
out by the alumni and adopted by the

regents. Now it was left to each individual
to consult with his conscience whether to
sign the contract statement or to appeal for
a hearing. Those non-signers whose worry
had been solely in terms of a special oath now
could sign without a qualm. Others, measur-
ing their resources against the dire threats by
certain of the regents, reluctantly let pru-
dence lead them to signing. A remaining
few showed confidence that the board of re-
gents' authorization of the route of app>eal
was made in good faith. These executed the
constitutional oath and appealed for a hear-
ing on their reasons for not signing the state-
ment.

Full and careful hearings were held, the
president reviewed the reports, and on
June 23 the regents met to take final action.
After hours of spirited debate they voted (a)
to defer action on all these reports so that
they could study each case individually, and
(b) to fire 157 employees who had neither
signed the new contract for the period to
June 30, 1950, nor requested hearings. Ac-
cording to the press reports, most of these
157 were nonacademic employees and few
if any were regular members of the faculty.
According to the press reports, most if not
all the 157 were leaving the university as of
June 30. Firing them was thus an empty
gesture, though it certainly was not intended
as a compliment.

Practically all the discussion concerned
those who had chosen the alternative of a
committee hearing. Certain of the regents
expressed great displeasure that so many had
appealed and had been approved. One said
he had understood that the hearing avenue
was only for Quakers. The attitude of one
was, "Th^y have had their hearings, now let
us discharge them." The reasons for not sign-
ing were attacked as "the flimsiest excuses."

Other regents, notably the Governor, the
president, Fenston, Griffiths, Hansen, Heller,
and (recently appointed) Jesse Steinhart, took
the stand that under the formula of April 21
appeal to the committee was a perfectly legiti-
mate move. It was authorized in the plain
reading of the regents' resolution. They
would not admit that mere recourse to the
appeal route constituted grounds for dismis-
sal.

They also argued that arbitrary disregard
of the recommendations of the committees

HARPER'S MAGAZINE

and the president would play havoc with the
university.

A FTER a month in which to study the com-
/\ mittcc reports, the regents met again
/ % on July 21. Once more, the bone of
contention was whether to countenance any
use of the appeal route. The argument did
not touch on the loyalty or disloyalty of any
individual. Instead, it had to do with the
intent and meaning of the regents' resolution
which had set up the hearings option.

The faculty was not iii position to testify
as to intent, but it did try to clarify the mean-
ing as received. A professor who had been
one of the first to sign, two non-signers, sev-
eral members of the Committee on Privilege
and Tenure, and, most eloquently, Provost
Emeritus Monroe E. Deutsch made statements
to the board, either in writing or in person.
All agreed that the entire faculty understood
and had been given to understand that appeal
was legitimate and presumably safe for any-
one not a Communist.

Finally the regents voted. In the first
quarter of the roll call the votes were almost
all to fire, in the middle they were more
evenly divided, and it took every vote toward
the end of the alphabet— Nimitz, Simpson,
Sproul, Steinhart. and W^arren— to carry the
day, ten to nine. One regent, elderly and in-
valid, had to leave just before the vote. He
had been consistently in the opposition.

Without debate and without dissent the
regents then voted to accept signatures, resig-
iiati(ms. and clerical corrections which
brought the 157 fired in June down to 83. In
similar fashion they voted to fire six members
of the faculty, as recommended by the presi-
dent on the basis of committee reports, not as
Communists but for refusal toco-operate with
the examining committee. On any other day
this action would have made the headlines.
In the context of the debate that had pre-
ceded, it was eclipsed by the "rehiring " of
those who had committee endorsement. All
the papers treated this as the chief news of
tlie meeting.

Just before adjournment the chief cam-
paigner against the faculty went back to the
previous question, changed his vote to "aye."
and announced his intenti(m of moving re-
consideration at the next meeting. But in
answer to a reporter's question, the setieiary

of the regents said he would send contracts
to these men.

He did not do it. Early in August we read
in the papers that, pending possible recon-
sideration, we who had refused to sign but
had been recommended by the committee and
the president would get no contracts and no
salary payments. We were not told to stop
working, but in effect the message was, "You
may be fired on August 25, therefore your
pay is stopped as of last June 30."

The August meeting, by all accounts, was
as heated as any of the others. This time, the
long debate was on the motion to reconsider
the hiring of the group recommended by the
committee and the president. Governor War-
ren as presiding officer ruled the motion out
of order and further that the action it pro-
posed was illegal. On the latter point the uni-
versity attorney agieed. Ably supported by
Regents Steinhart and Hansen, Governor
Warren argued this point at length, citing a
Los Angeles City Council case as providing an
analogy that would hold. Undeterred by this
legal opinion, the nine opponents of the
previous month, plus three men then absent,
voted to overrule the chair. By the same tally,
twelve to ten, the board voted to overrule the
recommendations of the faculty committee,
to turn down the recommendati(ms of the
president, to reverse its own action of July,
and discharge the appeal-route professors.

Before the vote to dismiss, Regent Heller
demanded to know, for the record, if any
regent had any charge of Communism or any
evidence of disloyalty to lodge against any of
the persons whose fate was about to be de-
( ided. No such charge or evidence was
brought forward. It was at this point that one
of the hostile regents said. "It's not a question
of Communism, but one of discipline."

After the vote to discharge, the leader of
the twelve turned magnanimous. He proposed
that the dismissed in all categories, whether
they had had hearings or not, and whether
the findings had been favorable or not, should
have another ten days in which they might
sign and be rehired as of July 1 last, with no
questi<ms asked. Further, he proposed that
anyone who now chose to resign could claim
up to a year's severance j)ay— prop<irtionately
reduced if he found an academic job sooner.

Regents Steinhart. Hansen. Fenston. and
Warren. I'm told, hit the ceiling at this pro-

A UNIVERSITY IN JEOPARDY

posal, saying that the men involved were
either fit for employment and should have
been retained, or unfit for employment and
should be cut off entirely. They did not
approve of using the taxpayers' money as re-
wards for resignations.

Some regents undoubtedly voted for this
proposal out of compassion for those who
otherwise were so suddenly deprived of work
and income. It carried.

As of early September, when this is written,
the latest development is a suit for writ of
mandamus to compel the issuance of thc^con-
tracts voted in July. If it succeeds some of us
will be allowed to teach and to draw pay
until next June.

Meanwhile, the number of contenders has
been reduced to a token. As of April 21 there
were said to be about 280 who had refused
the special oath. Of these 69 went through
committee hearings and were on the regents'
docket in June. Signatures and resignations
cut the number hoping for clearance in July
to 40, in August to 32, and as of today to
perhaps 25, some of whom will be moving to
other jobs no matter what the outcome of the
suit may be.

As ONE of those summarily dismissed, after

/\ half a lifetime of service to the uni-

r\ versity, I find it hard to be sent into.

exile, and all the harder because the action

of the regents has been arbitrary and in bad

faith.

Along with every other member of the
faculty I was perfectly willing to take the con-
stitutional oath of loyalty, which I have done.
I was and am perfectly willing to give addi-
tional positive assurances of my loyalty to the
United States, my preference for its basic
institutions, my devotion to its historic ideals,
and my willingness to serve it without stint
in time of peace and without question in
time of war.

I stand ready to answer any charges brought
against me and to submit my whole record to
inspection and all my actions to investigation.
In going through the hearings procedure, this
in effect is what I have done.

My concern, however, is not just personal.
I am distraught at the damage that this action
of the regents does to the university and to
its students. Through the course of this con-
troversy the university has suffered incal-

culable loss in disturbed teaching, interrupted
research, emotional exhaustion of many per-
sons involved, and indelible distrust within
and between the faculty and the regents.

The tragedy is the greater since in many
respects the University of C:alifornia faculty-
regent relationship had been a model of ex-
cellence. It is true that certain regents some-
times verged on a proprietary attitude in mat-
ters such as the architectural decoration of
new buildings, or the question of who might
speak on the campus. In the epoch of the
New Deal, too, the regents had been adamant
against acceptance of PWA money, with the
consequence that students to the third and
fourth academic generations are still crowded
into classroom, laboratory, and dormitory
space that is much less than adequate. Yet
until the hysteria of the <5ath, our regents on
the whole had an exemplary record. The uni-
versity was able to attract good men to its
ranks, not simply because of fair salaries, not
simply because of a bonus in climate, but
more significantly because it had the reputa-
tion of being effectively safeguarded from
political interference by a devoted and dis-
interested board of regents.

The long-term record of the board offers
hope in the present crisis. Within the board,
too, there is a strong determination to restore
the university to its proper condition. Within
the faculty there is a corresponding will.
These forces, backed by the unwillingness of
the people of California to have less than a
first-rate state university, are capable of
rescuing the university from the jeopardy in
which it now is.

Perhaps it will be by pumping the original
meaning back into the April formula. More
probably it should be by improving upon that
formula. Ideally it should involve cancella
tion of the whole requirement of a political
denial. Certainly it must include removing
the stigma of the recent dismissals.

More broadly and basically there is the
necessity of restoring the old climate of
mutual confidence that used to prevail be-
tween regents and faculty. Even more funda-
mentally there is the need to redefine the uni-
versity as a community of scholars dedicated
and free to pursue the truth wheresoever it
may lead. This is no small task. For myself,
for the university, and for the nation I hope
California has men who are equal to it.

3 Civil No. 7946

Group for Academic Freedom

Hotel Shattuck

Berkeley 4, California

n

<

5

o

7

9

4

6

In the

District Court of Appeal
State of California

Third Appellate District

Edward C. Tolman, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and
Treasurer of The Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Respondents.

Answer to Respondents'
Petition for Rehearing

Stanley A. Weigel,

275 Bush Street.

San Francisco 4, California,

Attorney for Petitioners.

PARKER PRINTING COMPANY, ISO FIRST STREET. SAN FRANCISCO

SUBJECT INDEX

I

m

Page

I. The Petition for Reliearing Merely Reiterates Arguments
Previously Urged Upon and Fully Considered by the
Court 2

IT. The Petition for Kehearinj? IMisconceivvs the Funda-
mental Issue Determined by the Court 3

III. Conclusion 5

Appendix

AUTHORITIES

Cases

Pajres

Bradley v. Clark (1901), 133 Ccd. 196 App.

Cohen v. Wright (1863), 22 Cal. 293 App.

Communist Party v. McGrath, Civil No. 419-51, U.S.D.C,
Dist. of Columbia 2

Estnte of Royer (1899), 123 Cal 614 3, 4, Apj).

Ex parte Yale (1864), 24 Cal. 241 App.

Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, etc. (1951), 78 Atl.(2d)
660, U.S , 71 S.Ct. 565 2

Shub V. Simpson (1950), 76 Atl.(2d) 332 2

Thorj) V. Board of Trustees, etc. (1951), N.eT , 79

Atl.(2d) 462 2

Constitutional Provisions
Constitution of the State of California :

Article IX, Sec. 9 2, 3, 4

Article XX, Sec. 3 3, 4, App.

Miscellaneous

Wheeler, Benjamin Ide, **The Abundant Life," Univ. of
Calif. Press ( 1926) 4

3 Civil No. 794(i

In the

District Court of Appeal
State of California

Third Appellate District

Edward C. Tolman, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and
Treasurer of The Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Respondents.

Answer to Respondents'
Petition for Rehearing

T

i

To the Honorable Annette Abbott Adams, Presiding Jus-
tice, and to the Associate Justices of the District Court
of Appeal for the Third Appellate District of the State
of California:

In answer to the Petition for Rehearing, it is respect-
fully stated:

I. The Petition for Rehearing Merely Reiterates Arguments
Previously Urged Upon and Fully Considered by the Court.

P^xamination of the Petition for Kehearing will disclose
that every point now urged was pressed in resi)ondents'
briefs and in oral argument preceding the Court\s decision.^
This is enipliasized by the fact that of 21 cases cited in the
present i)etition, all but four were exhaustively urged, con-
sidered and argued prior to submission. Of the four, one —

Thorp V. Board of Trustees, efe., N.J , 79 Atl.

(2d) 4()2 — was called to the attention of the Court by coun-
sel for respondents ])rior to decision. All four cases, as can
quickly be ascertained, are merely cunmlative of other
authorities long before the Court. None of them involve
a constitutional prohibition against special loyalty declara-
tions, coupled with a constitutional provision, such as Arti-
cle IX, Section 9, of the California Constitution, declaring
the State University to be a public trust and directing that
it "shall be entirely independent of political and sectarian
influence and kept free therefrom in the ajopointment of its
regents and in the administration of its affairs."^

The decision of the Court makes it perfectly clear that
the Court determined the constitutional issue to be con-
trolling. The Court was, therefore, under no obligation to

^For documentation, see Appendix.

^The referenced cases are Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of

Elections, 78 Atl. (2d) 660, U.S , 71 S.Ct. 565 (oath

restricted to overthrow by force and violence, no constitutional pro-
vision comparable to Calif. Const. IX, 9), Shub v. Simpson, 76
Atl. (2d) 332 (same oath, same al)sence of constitutional provision),
Thorp V. Board of Trustees of Schools for Industrial Education,
79 Atl. (2d) 462 (no state constitutional provision either banninp:
oaths beyond standard constitutional oath nor any sucli provision
comparable to Article IX, Sec. 9 of California Constitution) and
Communist Party v. McGrath, Civil No. 419-51, U.S.D.C, Dist. of
Columbia (a United States District Court action of no conceivable
pertinency to the case at bar).

I

I

pass upon contentions as to subsidiary issues. Nor is there
any recpiirement that the opinion of the Court refer to any
or every case urged as important by either party.

II. The Petition for Rehearing Misconceives the Fundamental Issue
Determined by the Court.

The Petition for Rehearing manifests a misunderstand-
ing of the status of faculty members of Academic Senate
rank at the T^niversity of California. As in the briefs and
in oral argument on behalf of res])ondents, there is reiter-
ated insistence that a i)rofessor at the University of Cali-
fornia holds no public trust. This contention again brushes
aside the i)lain mandate of Article IX, Section 9, of the
California Constitution in determining the status of faculty
members with respect to Article XX, Section 3, prohibiting
special oaths, declarations and tests.'*

It is the University which is the jmblic trust, not the
Regents.^ This distinction was recognized by our Supreme
Court in Estate of Royer, relied upon by coimsel for re-
spondents (Petition for Rehearing, page 9), for, in a later
portion of the opinion not quoted by counsel, it is stated :

^The constitutional mandate of Article IX, Section 9, is tliat the
University is a public trust to l)e kept free from all political or
sectarian influence. Such freedom must necessarily be maintained
in the appointment of its faculty, if the public trust itself is to be
kept free of such influence. Thus, the Court found that, for this
])urpose, petitioners are within the class of those who hold a public
trust to whom Article XX, Section 3, of the California Constitution
applies,

'***The University of California shall constitute a public trust, to
be administered by the existing corporation known as 'the Rep:ent»s
of the University of California,' with full powers of or^ranization
and provernment, subject only to such lej^islative control as may be
necessary to insure compliance with the terms of the endowments
of the university and the security of its funds." (First sentence,
Art. IX, Sec. 9, California Constitution)

". . . Tliey [the Ke^ents] liave no duties or powers
beyond the purpose of their creation, which was to
take the custody and control of the university property
and to perform certain prescribed duties in the man-
agement of the university. The law intrusts Hhe im-
mediate government and discipline of the several col-
leges' to their respective faculties, 'to consist of the
president and the resident professors of the same/
These faculties are part of the university and 7iot of
the regents " (Page 622, emphasis added)

As the decision of this Court shows and as Benjamin Ide
Wheeler ])ut it, i)rofessors "are not employees of the T^ni-
versity, but members of it."'' The I^niversity is not a mere
shell of em])ty Imildings and inanimate eciui])ment. It is a
living, functioning organization. Without a faculty, it is
not a university.

Eecognizing these fundamental facts, the decision of this
Court nu\kes it clear that Article IX, Section 9, and Article
XX, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Califor-
nia stand as constitutional bulwarks against shackling free-
dom to ]mrsue the truth at the University of California.

Special loyalty declarations gnaw at the vitals of aca-
demic freedom. They place the University in the shadow
of censorship. They may be needed for university ])rofes-
sors in totalitarian nations, but they have never been and
are not the American way. As the decision of this Court
shows, they are wisely proscribed by our State Constitution.

nVlioeler, The Abundant Life, Univ. of Calif. Press (1926) at
129. ^'

III. Conclusion

Tradition and connnon sense have established the rule
that rehearing will be granted only when there are errors
of law or fact so material that, if corrected, they would sub-
stantially alter the original decision or opinion. The Peti-
tion for Rehearing does not meet this requirement; there
are no errors of law or fact to be corrected. The Petition
for Rehearing stresses the im])ortance of the proceeding.
True, the proceeding is important, but the gravity of issues
is not a reason for rehearing, (irave issues call for one full
hearing and for one well considered decision— not for two.

The original petition for mandanms, tiled with this Court
on September 1, 1950, alleged that "the welfare, dignity and
future of the T'niversity of California, a public trust, are
in dire i)erir' and, by other allegations, pointed out the
danger of seriously impaired functioning of the University,
of the loss of irreplaceable faculty members and of curtail-
ment of vital teaching and research programs (Petition
for Writ of Mandate, par. IX). The accuracy of these dis-
turbing allegations, as well as the danger to the University
of protracted litigation, has become increasingly and widely
apparent. The Petition for Rehearing should be denied.

Dated: Aiu-il 2S, 1951.

Respectfully submitted,

Stanley A. Weigel

Attorney for Petitioners.

(Appendix follows)

APPENDIX

Eeferrin<2^ seriatim to tlie eleven [)oirits iir^ed in tlie 1 Petition for
Keliearinf]^ as tliere stated and numbered : 1 . As to the ar^mnent con-
cerning cases n])]ioldin^^ si)ecial loyalty oaths, see Brief for Res])ond-
ents, pp. 7-14, as well as Api)endices V, VI and VII thereto and Reply
]\remorandum for Res])ondents, pp. 8-10. 2. As to the claimed distinc-
tion of the ''flao: sahite" cases, see Reply T^remorandmn for Res])ond-
ents, ]){>. 13-14. 3. As to contentions re*,^ardin^^ the holdin.i;' in Kx
VRvte Yale (18f)4), 24 Cal. 241, see Brief for Res])ondents, p. 3S, and
Reply Memorandnm for Res])ondents, ])]\ 21-23 and p. 29. 4. As to
the alle<j:ed si<j:nificance of the holding- in Estate of Royer (1899), 123
Cal. ()14, see Transcri])t of Oi-al Ar^^ument, ]>. 49, lines 11-2G, where
counsel made the same points and quoted exactly the same lan^ua^e
requoted at i)a^^e 9 of the Petition for Rehearinc:. 5. As to counsePs
ar^^ument claiming loyalty oaths not to he a political test, see, for ex-
ample. Reply Memorandum for Respondents, pp. G-19. 6. As to tlie
claimed contrariety of the ])resent decision to Bradley v. Clark (1901),
133 Cal. 196, and Cohen v. Wright (1863), 22 Cal. 293* coupled with the
claimed consistency between the loyalty statement and the constitu-
tional oath, see Brief for Respondents, pp. 37-39, and Re])ly ]\lemoran-
dum for Respondents, pp. 27-29. 7. As to this argument about special
loyalty oaths measured against Sec. 3, Art. XX of the State Constitu-
tion, see Brief for Respondents, pp. 37-39, Appendices V, VI and VII
thereto and Reply Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 20-32. 8. As to
arguments on jurisdiction, see Brief for Respondents, pp. 39-44, Reply
Memorandum for Respondents, ])p. 51-52. 9. Counsel's Comments on
the Court's statement of facts are manifestly but the springboard for
contentions urged and re-urged ])i-ior to decision. 10. The comment
concerning tenure and academic freedom is concededly repetitious, Pet.
for Rehearing, p. 22. 11. As to the contentions made to su])])ort the
"conclusion" that "the decisirm is wrong," see Brief for Respondents,
]). 14, Reply IMemorandum for Res])ondents, p]). 16-19 and Appendices
T and II.

Petitioners' Briefs and Argument, of course, presented the case in
opposition to the foregoing. It will be noted, further, that, while the
arguments in the Petition for Rehearing are se])arately numbered to
total eleven, several are repetitious or cumulative of each other. The
reiterative character of the Petition for Rehearing is significantly con-
firmed also by the frequent reference back— 50 times in all— to prior
briefs of respondents.

Receipt of a cjpy of the within is hereby acknowledged this

day of April, 1951.

Attorneys for Respondents

Crisis at the
University of California, 11.

A Further Statement to the People of California

by the American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California

December i95'0

CRISIS AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 11.

The Civil Liberties Union which seeks to defend all the Free-
doms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, believes that no kind of
freedom is more useful to the nation than that which enables its
university scholars and teachers to serve the community without
improper interference by any one. It seems to the Union important
therefore that the People of California should be informed about,
and should think about, the present crisis at the University. When
our professors declare, as they now do, that the freedom needed for
their work is limited and denied, the People should listen to the
accusation and should pass sober and informed judgment on it.
What, then, has the Regent majority done? Why does the Aca-
demic Senate condemn that action? As a help toward the answering
of those questions the Civil Liberties Union offers the following
statements and discussions about the Issues involved in the conflict
and about the Gains and Losses which it has brought to the
University.

First, then, what is the action of the Regents which has brought
them into controversy with the faculty?

After a year and a half of rapidly changing and confusing fight-
ing about principles, the Regents, in August, 1950, dismissed a
number of teachers, including some of the most respected and dis-
tinguished professors. (A temporary court order has stayed this
action, but the teachers are out of service and their salary payments
are stopped.) In September, 1950, the Faculty vigorously con-
demned "the action of the Regents in dismissing loyal and compe-
tent members of the faculty." It also gave approval to a plan under
which, by voluntary assessment. Faculty members are raising funds
to pay the salaries of their dismissed colleagues.

The dismissed professors are charged with an offense which, in
the judgment of the Regent majority of 1 2 to 10, justifies dismissal.
What is that oflFense?

It is now clear that the men dismissed are not charged with Com-

Crisis at the University of Calif ornia^ II.

munism. This is sho-wn in nx'o ways. First, the Facu]t\% which in-

• *

sists that the accused teachers should be continued in office, has
voted bv a large majorit}* that Communist Parrv members are not
qualified for that office. And second, it is explicitly agreed by both
parties to the dispute, that no one of the dismissed teachers has been
accused, or even suspected, of Communist Parrv^ membership or
sympathy.

It is equally clear that the issue is not about Loyalt^" or about a
refusal to s^wear Loyaln'. All the dismissed teachers have taken the
^'standard" oath of loyaJt}', prescribed by the State Constitution.

What, then, is the offense? It is ''disobedience" to a Recent order
'W'hich requires that persons in the sen-ice of the Universit\' shall
sign an oath or contract about their political beliefs and advocacies
and affiliations. The great majorit}' of the Facultw acting: as indi-
viduals, have, for one reason or another, obeyed that order in some
one of its changing forms. But the "dissident minorirv'" have re-
fused to obey. And, at this point, the Facult\\ as an orgamzed body,
officially responsible for the v^elfare and good repute of the Uni-
versit}% has taken issue -w'ith the Regents. The Faculrv denies that
scholars and teachers ^^'ho have refused to obey the Re^^ent order
have, thereby, shown themselves to be unfit for the 'work which
their colleagues know them to be doing satisfactorily.

A citizen of California ^'ho tries to judge the rights and "wrongs
of the Regent action and of the Faculty- protest against it, will find
three primary- issues -w^aiting for his consideration. These issues arc
both educational and legal. On their educational side, they require
decision by the Universit\^ itself. On the legal side, appeal must, of
course, be made to the Courts.

I ) The most obvious of the three issues arises from the charge
that the Regents have violated "tenure" agreements. In practically
tvery college or university' of high standing in the nation, a s\'stem
of "permanent tenure" has been formally or informally established.
This means that, after years of trial and testing, professors in the
higher ranks, are assured that they will not be subject to dismissal
except on charges of incompetence or moral turpitude, clearly de-

Cm// at the University of California, II.

fined and carefully judged by their colleagues. Xo one denies or
doubts that in the making of contracts between universities and
professors, that assurance of tenure is a "consideration" of the
greatest importance. The presence or absence of that assurance is
commonly decisive in the accepting or rejecting of appointments.
And, for that reason, the breaking of a tenure aijreement by arbi-
trarv' dismissal is rightly regarded as an act of bad faith, destructive
of the good name of a university.

In the offering and accepting of appointments at the University
of California, the "tenure system," has, in the past, been "taken for
granted." If that had not been true, the assembling of the present
FacultA', in competition with other universities, where tenure is
assured, would have been impossible. The Regents, it is true, have
never enacted the system by explicit vote. But it has been assumed
in the dra^^■ing of Facult\^ regulations, in Regent and Faculrv docu-
ments of many kinds, and especially in official letters concerning
appointments. In actual procedure, neither professors nor adminis-
trators have doubted that the tenure system was in operation and
that it could be counted on as men planned their careers.

The tenure issue is raised in the present situation by the fact that
a number of the dismissed professors had reached tenure status. And
the legal question is "w hether or not these men whose assured call-
ings and careers, are wantonly destroyed by such arbitrary dismis-
sal, -whose livelihood is swept away, can find redress and restitution
in the Courts. That legal issue has been presented as one factor in an
appeal for reversal of their dismissal w hich eighteen of the dismissed
professors have recently made to the State District Court of Ap-
peal. If the suit can be -won on that issue; the Civil Liberties Union
is con\'inccd that it will be a great victorv^ for freedom and fair play,
not only at California, but for ever)' college or universit\- in the
Nation.

But, vv hatever may be the outcome of the legal strueele, the
Regent breaking of tenure understandings and the Facult\^ con-
demnation of that breach of faith have made it clear that the Uni-
versity' itself must now deal decisively with the tenure issue. The
time has come ^\ hen the tenure system must be officially recoenized
and established by explicit and recorded action of the Regents.
NoM" that the issue of good faith has been raised, only such definite

Crisis at the University of California, IL

and official adoption of tenure policy by the Regents can restore
the confidence of the Facultv, can bring back to the Universit\^ its
good repute among the scholars and the other universities of the
Nation.

2) The second major issue has arisen from the fact that, on a
question of the qualifications of teachers and scholars for member-
ship in the Faculr\ , the Regents have overruled both the President
of the University and the Facultv Committee on Privileije and
Tenure. Such action bv RegenLs or Trustees is condemned bv
scholars and teachers cvervwhcre. It destroys the Facultv *\self-
governmcnr" which is essential for the doing of university work.
When men are given responsibility for research and for the educa-
tion of youth, they may not be dealt with as "employees'' who may
be hired and fired at the arbitrars' will of persons who are not com-
petent to judge either their work or their qualifications for it. They
must be judged by their colleagues. And together with their col-
leacfues, thcv must decide what shall be taucrht, h(m it shall be
taught, by whom it shall be taught. On this issue no legal help is
inmiediately available. But the University of California must help
itself. It needs, and must have, an explicit and recorded agreement
between Regents and Facult\' that no professor will be appointed
except on Faculty- recommendation, that no professor will be dis-
missed except with Faculty consent.

3 ) But the mo.st vital issue of the contro^^ersy is concerned, not
with these questions of procedure, legal or educational, but with
the essential wisdom of the Regent action b^' which professors have
been dismissed. It is precisely that question which the citizens of the
State should get clearly in mind.

Does the ''non-signer'' refusal to sign the Regent "oath" or "con-
tract" jiLstify dismissal from a Facultv^? To answer that question wt
must find out exactly what the non-signers have .said and done.
They are commonly reported as having refused to affirm their
loyalt\. That statement, as we have seen, is not true. All of them
have taken the ".standard'' oath of loyalty prescribed by the State
Constitution for all officers of public trust. But the oath which they
have refused to take is not a "loyalt}'" oath. It is an oath of "con-
formity," of "submission" to authoritative control over thought
and .speech and political affiliation.

Crisis at the University of California, IL

The crucial difference between an oath of loyalt\" and an oath of
conformity^ becomes clear if we put .side by .side the ruo oaths
which, in their original form, the Regents voted to impose on the
Facultv. They read as follows:

1. I do solemnly suwar (or affirm as the case may he) that 1 ivill
support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
of the State of California, and that 1 will faithfully discharge the
duties of my office according to the best of my ability,

2. (To this pledge the Regents added) 7 do not believe in and
aw not a mcTnbcr of nor do 1 support any party or organization that
believes in, advocates or teaches the overthrow of the United States
government by force or violence.

The non-signers have taken oath number one. But they have
refused to take oath number tuo, in any of its variations. The differ-
ence which they find berween the tu o pledges may be stated some-
what as follows: "Yes, I am loyal to the Nation, the State, the
Univensirv. And that loyalt\' requires me to pledge it openly. I
therefore give that pledge, and, further, I will keep it. But it is the
keeping of that pledge y^hich forbids me to take the second oath. I
cannot .submit to control over beliefs and advocacies and affiliations,
either my own or those of anyone else, because such control violates
the Federal CoiLstitution, the State Constitution and the basic beliefs
and purposes of the Universitw Loyalt\' is not conformity'. On the
contrary, it forbids conformity'.

Opinions may differ— as they obvioasly do differ— as to the wis-
dom of this "non-signing" judgment. But there can be no doubt
•whatever that, in everv case, it "was made "s^ith courage and honest)',
out of lovalrv to the University and at the cost of great personal
sacrifice. Are these qualities which, in the judgment of the Regents,
render a man unfit for Universit\' work?

The issue here raised has both educational and legal aspects. On
the educational side, the professor's refusal to submit to regulation
of his mind and speech must be judged by reference to the ^^•o^k
which he has undertaken to do for the Universit)' and the State.
And when so judged, his demand for freedom will be found to
express, not his own individual desire to be free from control, but
rather his durv to be free from control. A universirv teacher is com-
missioned by the State to search for kno^^ledgc and understanding

Crisis at the University of California, IL

and, so far as he finds them, to make them available to his pupils
and to the community at large. And that work he cannot do prop-
erly unless both pupils and community have a justified confidence
that the teacher's mind is free from external domination, that his
thought and speech are his own. Whether he be dealing with Agri-
culture or Politics, Engineering or Theology, his conclusions must
not be for sale. Men must know that no one can compel him by
force, bv inducement, to believe this or to say that. And the dread-
ful irony of the Regent requirement of oath number two is that it
seems to be a deliberate attempt to rob the professor's mind of that
independence upon which public confidence in his integrit)^ de-
pends. Any one who would thus prescribe to a teacher \\hat he shall
say or not say, shall believe or not believe, does not knoM- what
teaching is. Such action, if persisted in, ^^^ill quickly destroy a
university.

The same issue, in its legal form, applies to all citizens of a free
society, including those who are professionally engaged in teach-
ing. When free men think, they differ. And when they differ, there
arises the question about the right relations between a majority and
a minority, between the party in power and the members of con-
flicting parties. In every democratic nation that has been the fight-
ing issue of political freedom. And the answer of our own Consti-
tution is strong and decisive. In the field of thought and speech, of
opinion and advocacy, the majorirv^ may never abridge the freedom
of the minorit\\ Under democratic rules, minority men are, of
course, rightly required to obey laws which they think unwise or
unjust. But they are never rightly required to believe that those
laws are wise and just, nor to say that they think them ^\^ise and just.
On the contrary, the duty of a minorir\' man is, when occasion
comes, to express his disapproval of prevailing policies, to advocate
changes with sharp and outspoken words. Any law which limits the
freedom of that minorirv^ attack, has forfeited its right to obedi-
ence. If men are loyal, it must be disobeyed. So far as belief and the
expression of belief are concerned, there are, under the Constitu-
tion, only two forms of disloyaltv\ The first of these is the attempt
to dictate what other men shall believe or say. The second is sub-
mission to that dictation.

Here, then, is the underlying issue which the Regent-Faculty

f

Crisis at the University of California, IL

conflict has brought out into the open. This issue, too, in its legal
form, has already been presented to the State District Court of Ap-
peal, in the suit already mentioned. The Civil Liberties Union is
convinced that it should be fought through to a finish by every
legal procedure available. There is reason to hope that, under the
provisions of the State Constitution, the Regents may be ordered to
reverse their action, to abandon their policy of "test-oaths" and
intimidation.

But, whatever help the courts may give or not give, it is the clear
duty of the University^ itself, and of every citizen \\ ho cares for its
welfare, to fight for the freedom of the Facult\^ to do its work
properly. Men who do research and teaching must have freedom of
mind and, therefore, tenure of appointment, not because they are
asking for special privileges for themselves, but because, without
freedom and tenure, they cannot meet the high obligations which
the People of California have laid upon them as a "public trust."

II

Gains and Losses

Under the heading of "Issues" the Civil Liberties Union has, thus
far, argued that the Regents of the University have violated the
basic principles on which the State had established its universit\\
But there is another way of judging the Regent action. Whether
rie^ht or wrong in principle, A^hat good has it doner What harm has
it doner As that balance-sheet of gains and losses is made up, the
People of California may judge the practical efficiency of their
Regents, may decide -whether or not they meet the "minimum re-
quirements" of the work they have to do.

The record of that side of the balance-sheet which deals with
"gains" is clear and brief. The announced purpose of the Regents,
when they imposed an oath or contract, was to expel Communists
from the Faculty. How many Communists has the procedure ex-
pelled? Not one! Either because there were no Communists to
expel or because the method used w as badly planned, the Regent
action, as judged by its own intention, has accomplished nothing.

But, on the other side of the balance-sheet, the accomplishment
of the Regents is enormous. Both within the University and outside,
the damage already done is vers' serious. And men who are qualified

Crisis at the University of California, IL

to judge believe that the evils thus far experienced are only a slight
beginning of the total disaster.

The Civil Liberties Union has no access to the documents which
would tell of the wreckage done to the University. It is to be hoped
that investigation by Alumni or Faculty will soon give to the
People of the State an accurate accounting of that wreckage. Mean-
while, the Union can only list here the kinds of damage done, so far
as they have become generally known.

1. The academic year 1949- 1950 will long be remembered by
the students, teachers, and administrators of the University as a
period of horror and failure. The regular work was seriously hin-
dered by loss of time and energy spent in quarrelings and mis-
understandings. In large measure, good will was replaced by mutual
distrust. Single-minded confidence in the University and its work
gave way to uncertainty and despair. And no one can tell how soon,
or by what means, that break-down in morale can be repaired.

2. In the current year, 1 950-1 951, further disastrous effects of
the Regent action have become quickly evident,—

a. Twent\-six "loyal and competent" teachers are missing
from the staff and, in general, thev have not been replaced. And
for this reason, some forty or fifty regular courses are not being
offered.

b. A number of other professors have resigned in protest
against the Regent action.

c. Some well-known scholars who have been invited to join
the Faculrv^ have refused, on principle, to do so.

d. It is reliably reported that many valuable members of the
Faculty are planning to resign when they can find positions else-
where.

3. The state of mind within the Universitv^ is matched by the con-
sternation and condemnation with which the scholars and teachers
of other universities have judged the Regent action,—

a. Powerful groups from many Faculties have sent messages
of protest and, in many cases, these have been accompanied by
offers of financial aid in providing salaries for the dismissed
teachers. These messages express the strong and clear conviction
that, for the sake of higher education throughout the nation, the
California Faculty^ must win its fight against the Regents.

8

Crisis at the University of Calif ornia, IL

b. The American Psychological, Mathematical, and Philologi-
cal Associations have already taken oflicial action recommending
to their members that they should not accept positions at the
University of California until the principle of tenure is re-estab-
lished there.

c. The American Association of University Professors, an
organization with 35,543 members in 872 institutions, is nation-
ally responsible for the formulation and acceptance of the prin-
ciples of freedom and tenure. It has been asked by its California
chapter to investigate the local situation in accordance with its
usual procedure. In response to that request, a committee of the
Association will come to California and will make a thorough
study of the conflict in all its phases. The usual practice of the
Association, wherever the principles of tenure and freedom are
found to be seriously violated, is to recommend to its members
throughout the United States and Canada that they refuse to
accept appointments until the actions condemned have been
withdrawn. It seems very probable that the University of Cali-
fornia will be found to have violated the principles of tenure and
freedom which the Association defends. And, in that case, the
Universit\' will suffer an official black-listing. The effect of such
an action upon the repute of the Universit)'^ and upon the quality
of its work would be disastrous.

4. But the damage done to the Universit\^ goes farther and deeper
than injury to its good repute, than difficulties in the recruiting of
its staff. The most deadly^ blow has come in the discovery that the
men who have legal control of the University^ do not recognize
their own lack of competence in the field of education, do not
understand what are the duties and the qualifications and the status
of women and men who serve the State by taking charge of its
higher education. That disheartening discovery has been forced
upon the mind of the University^ communit>^ by every phase of the
Regent action.

a. Teachers who have served the University for more than
two or three decades, who have been honored and trusted by col-
leagues and by generations of pupils, are now thrown out of the
University as "unfit," because they are true to their principles.
The shame of that unwise and cruel act will eat into the morale of

Crisis at the University of California, IL

the community for decades to come. Confidence in the Univer-
sity and its work will be weakened by recognition that, in the
long record of higher education in the United States, no offense
aorainst freedom and justice has equalled in scope or in ruthless-
ness, the offense now committed at the University of California.

b. Many of the teachers who "signed" and, hence, were not
"dismissed" have, also, been deeply injured by the Regent action.
Either because of their anxious care for the welfare of the Uni-
versity or because of their need to provide for their families, they
have been forced into violation of the basic principles of their
profession. No man whose life is professionally dedicated to the
pursuit of truth can suffer that without being maimed in mind
and spirit.

c. In a resolution published in the Daily Calif oruian on Octo-
ber 23, 1950, the Executive Committee of the Associated Stu-
dents took its stand on the Faculty side of the conflict and
strongly condemned the Regent action. This condemnation was
based on the statement, "The damaging effect of the Regent
action are thus shown to bear directly on the students of the
University." "The inevitable consequences," it said, "will be a
decline in the caliber of educators accepting positions at the Uni-
versity and a drop in the level of instruction offered students."

d. But probably the most serious and far-reaching damage
done bv^ the Regent repression is to be found among the graduate
students, the teaching assistants, and young instructors. These
young people, at the very beginning of their careers, have suf-
fered the disillusionment of seeing many of their elders driven
into denial of their beliefs. In the middle of the year, 1949-50,
they had been deeply shocked by the summarv^ dismissal of
Irving David Fox, a teaching assistant, whom the Regents de-
clared to have failed to meet "minimum requirements." And, in
July, 1950, they saw one hundred and fifty-sev^en of their friends
and associates summarily dismissed, without a word of effective
protest, either from the Faculty or from the President of the
University. Throughout the controversy, this group had stood
steadfast in defense of freedom and integrity. Now, many of
them will leave the profession. Many others will go on, but will
do so with the cynical realization that persons who serve the State

10

Crisis at the University of California, IL

of California in its university are not regarded as free and inde-
pendent scholars. They are "employees" whose duty it is to
believe what they are told to believe, to say what they are told
to say.

Ill
Here, then, is the situation at the University which, in the judg-
ment of the Civil Liberties Union, must be understood and dealt
with by the People of California. As in all democratic societies, the
health and sanity of the University are essential to the health and
sanity of the State. Upon it is laid the heavy responsibility of lead-
ing the way in the acquiring of knowledge, of understanding, of
wisdom, both material and spiritual. For that reason, the People of
the State invest annually in their university many millions of dol-
lars. But, more than that, they invest in it their faith, their hopes for
better living.

But the plain fact is that the majority of the Regents, by an act of
blundering incompetence, taken in direct defiance of repeated pro-
tests by the Faculty, have damaged seriously both the morale of the
Universitv" and its good repute throughout the nation. In every col-
lege and university in the United States, the University of Cali-
fornia has now becoiue a symbol of unwise and unjust repression
of freedom.

And the source of the Regent blunder can easily be seen. In the
face of overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary, the ma-
jority of the Regents have believed that a man's loyalty or dis-
loyalty to the University, his fitness or unfitness for learning and
teaching, can be discovered by the use of a "test-oath" about his
beliefs. Centuries of European and American experience have
shown that opinion to be false. They have shown that a test-oath is
effective only in doing the exact opposite of what it is intended to
do. In a society devoted to freedom, test-oaths, when used for pur-
poses of detection, cannot catch men who are liars. They can, and
do, catch men who speak the truth. They cannot catch those who
hate freedom. They do catch men who love freedom. And this
means that men who resort to the use of test-oaths in the manage-
ment of a univeristv^ do not understand what the work of a uni-
versity is, nor how it is done. And, because of that lack of under-
standing, they betray the "public trust" which, legally, is com-

II

Crisis at the University of California, 11

mitted to their care. That betrayal, its causes and its cure, need
careful consideration and decisive action by the People of the State
of California.

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

yo3 Market St.,San Francisco s, Exbrook i-^iSS

12

'n

^ '^21 G A

1

g viAS-r Uoi ^.-^r' rcn.oic7 (h U cc-Hcv^

S ^3/11

kJo+CA ck (^ «. ^^^/-.

THE
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE

Documents and Marginal Notes on the
University of California Loyalty Oath

by

ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ

FIAT LUX

(Motto of the University of California)

PREFATORY NOTE

"If you are not a Communist, why can't you sign the oath?"
How often has this question been asked and still is asked? The
answer is that from the very beginning it was true that "The issue
is not Communism; it is the welfare and dignity of our University"
(Alumni Letter, August 17, 1950). The forcibly imposed oath with
its economic sanctions and encroachments on tenure, rejected almost
unanimously by the Faculties of the University of California, was
at first one of the most thoughtless and wanton, later one of the
most ruthless attacks on the academic profession at large. In order
to enforce the oath which "is not required by Law" (Governor
Warren: February 28, 1950), the faction of the Board of Regents
headed by Regent Neylan has not only violated the rules of tenure;
bit by bit they have succeeded in virtually abolishing the very idea
of tenure as well as that of trial by jury. Finally those gentlemen,
victors pro tempore, could allow themselves to put their foot on the
prostrate body of what has been one of the world's proudest and
most renowned Faculties. They could assume the power to dictate
what was crime and what not, demand of the Faculty uncondi-
tional obedience to the Board of Regents even in matters of con-
science, and crush non-conformists by an open "breach of faith"
(Governor Warren and his group: August 24, 1950) .

Why I did not sign the oath — although, or because, I am not and
never have been a Communist, and although, or because, I am
genuinely conservative and never have been taken for anything else
— I shall indicate in the following pages. This is not intended to
be the history of "The Year of the Oath." This subject has been
admirably dealt with by Professor George R. Stewart. I merely wish
to illustrate, by a few documents and a few marginal notes, some
aspects of the oath controversy and its fundamental problems.

What the fundamental issue is has been obvious to me from the
minute the controversy started. Perhaps I have been sensitive be-
cause both my professional experience as an historian and my per-
sonal experience in Nazi Germany have conditioned me to be alert
when I hear again certain familiar tones sounded. Rather than
renounce this experience, which is indeed synonymous with my "life,"
I shall place it, for what it is worth, at the disposal of my colleagues
who are fighting the battle for the dignity of their profession and
their university.

Nothing would have been easier for me than to sign, sit back,
tend my garden, books, and manuscripts, and be that "naive profes-
sor" that has been caricatured once more during the oath controversy.
However, where a human principle, where Humanitas herself is
involved I cannot keep silent. I prefer to fight.

The true nature of the problem has since been recognized by
many individuals as well as learned societies of the country. The
American Psychological Association has recommended that its mem-
bers not accept positions at the University of California "until such
time as tenure conditions meet acceptable standards." Other pro-
fessional associations have announced, or are ready to announce,
similar actions, and the haze shrouding the affair is about to vanish.
With the present paper I wish to support also our supporters.

The first of my documents is my own warning to my colleagues,
delivered to the Academic Senate on the first meeting in connection
with the oath. It is, so to speak, an expression of my convictions as
a historian. The second illustrates, if in shorthand, my personal ex-
perience. The third, a letter from my friend Walter W. Horn, Act-
ing Chairman of the Department of Art, who kindly agreed to its
publication, illustrates the grave conflict of conscience and savage
economic coercion to which, after fifteen months of pressure and
struggle, he had finally to yield. He shared the fate of hundreds of
colleagues, highly respectable and upright men, who for the sake of
their families and for lack of economic independence could not
afford to hold out to the last.

In the "Marginal Notes" I shall try to bring into focus what
appears to me as "The Fundamental Issue." They do not exhaust the
matter. The documents in the "Appendix" speak for themselves.
They refer to the problem of tenure.

The quotes reproducing the words used at the meeting of the
Board of Regents on August 25, 1950, are taken from the transcript
printed as Appendix VI of the "Petition for Writ of Mandate" filed
by Mr. Stanley A. Weigel, Attorney for the "Non-Signers," at the
District Court of Appeal, State of California, Third Appellate Dis-
trict, in Sacramento, California.

For the reader's convenience I give here the names of the Re-
gents. The Board is divided into two groups, one led by Governor
Warren, the other by Regent Neylan.

Governor Earl Warren, Earl J. Fenston, Farnham P. Griffiths,
C. J. Haggerty, Victor R. Hansen, Edward H. Heller, William G.
Merchant, Chester W. Nimitz (absent at August meeting), Roy E.

Simpson, Robert Gordon Sproul (President of the University),
Jesse Steinhart;

John Francis Neylan, Brodie E. Ahlport, John E. Canaday, Sam
L. Collins, Edward A. Dickson, Sidney M. Ehrman, Maurice E.
Harrison, Fred Moyer Jordan, Goodwin J. Knight (Lieutenant
Governor), Arthur J. McFadden, Edwin W. Pauley, Norman F.
Sprague.

Berkeley, California, October 8, 1950.

DOCUMENTS

I.

STATEMENT

READ BEFORE THE ACADEMIC SENATE

NORTHERN SECTION

June 14. 1949

As a historian who has investigated and traced the histories of
quite a number of oaths, I feel competent to make a statement in-
dicating the grave dangers residing in the introduction of a new,
enforced oath, and to express, at the same time, from a professional
and human point of view, my deepest concern about the steps taken
by the Regents of this University.

Both history and experience have taught us that every oath or oath
formula, once introduced or enforced, has the tendency to develop
its own autonomous life. At the time of its introduction an oath
formula may appear harmless, as harmless as the one proposed by
the Regents of this University. f But nowhere and never has there
been a guaranty that an oath formula imposed on, or extorted from,
the subjects of an all-powerful state will, or must, remain unchanged.
The contrary is true. All oaths in history that I know of, have under-
gone changes. A new word will be added. A short phrase, seemingly
insignificant, will be smuggled in. The next step may be an incon-
spicuous change in the tense, from present to past, or from past to
future. The consequences of a new oath are unpredictable. It will
not be in the hands of those imposing the oath to control its effects,
nor of those taking it, ever to step back again.

The harmlessness of the proposed oath is not a protection when a
principle is involved. A harmless oath formula which conceals the
true issue, is always the most dangerous one because it baits even

fThe original text of the so-called Loyalty Oath, as suggested in June,

1949, read:

"... I do not believe in and am not a member of, nor do I support
any party or organization that believes in, advocates or teaches the over-
throw of the United States Government by any illegal, unconstitutional

means.

the old and experienced fish. It is the harmless oath that hooks; it
hooks before it has undergone those changes that will render it, bit
by bit, less harmless. Mussolini Italy of 1931, Hilter Germany of
1933, are terrifying and warning examples for the harmless bit-by-
bit procedure in connection with political enforced oaths.

3.

History shows that it never pays to yield to the impact of momentary
hysteria, or to jeopardize, for the sake of temporary or temporal
advantages, the permanent or eternal values. It was just that kind
of a "little oath" that prompted thousands of non-conformists in
recent years, and other thousands in the generations before ours,
to leave their homes and seek the shores of this Continent and
Country. The new oath, if really enforced, will endanger certain
genuine values the grandeur of which is not in proportion with the
alleged advantages. Besides, this oath, which is invalid anyhow
because taken under duress, may cut also the other way: it may have
the effect of a drum beating for Communist and Fascist recruits.

4.

The new oath hurts, not merely by its contents, but by the particular
circumstances of its imposition. It tyrannizes because it brings the
scholar sworn to truth into a conflict of conscience. To create alter-
natives— "black or white" — is a common privilege of modern and
bygone dictatorships. It is a typical expedient of demagogues to
bring the most loyal citizens, and only the loyal ones, into a conflict
of conscience by branding non-conformists as un-Athenian, un-
English, un-German, and — what is worse — by placing them before
an alternative of two evils, different in kind but equal in danger.

The crude method of "Take it or leave it" — "Take the oath or
leave your job" — creates a condition of economic compulsion and
duress close to blackmail. This impossible alternative, which will
make the official either jobless or cynical, leads to another completely
false alternative: "If you do not sign, you are a Communist who
has no claim to tenure." This whole procedure is bound to make
the loyal citizen, one way or another, a liar and untrue to himself
because any decision he makes will bind him to a cause which in
truth is not his own. Those who belong, de facto or at heart, to the
ostracized parties will always find it easy to sign the oath and make
their mental reservation. Those who do not sign will be, now as

ever, also those that suffer — suffer, not for their party creed or
affiliations, but because they defend a superior constitutional prin-
ciple far beyond and above trivial party lines.

5.

I am not talking about political expediency or academic freedom,
nor even about the fact that an oath taken under duress is invalidated
the moment it is taken, but wish to emphasize the true and funda-
mental issue at stake: professional and human dignity.

There are three professions which are entitled to wear a gown:
the judge, the priest, the scholar. This garment stands for its
bearer's maturity of mind, his independence of judgment, and his
direct responsibility to his conscience and to his God. It signifies
the inner sovereignty of those three interrelated professions: they
should be the very last to allow themselves to act under duress and
yield to pressure.

It is a shameful and undignified action, it is an affront and a
violation of both human sovereignty and professional dignity that
the Regents of this University have dared to bully the bearer of this
gown into a situation in which — under the pressure of a bewildering
economic coercion — he is compelled to give up either his tenure or,
together with his freedom of judgment, his human dignity and his
responsible sovereignty as a scholar.

II.

October 4, 1949.

President Robert G. Sproul
University of California
Berkeley 4, Calif.

Dear President Sproul:

Dante, quoting Aristotle, has remarked that "every oblique ac-
tion of government turns good men into bad citizens." I deeply
deplore that under the impact of the recent events I feel compelled
to reckon myself — perhaps self-righteously — among the "bad aca-
demic citizens," since I cannot conform to the demands of the Board
of Regents to sign a political oath.

My political record will stand the test of every investigation. I
have twice volunteered to fight actively, with rifle and gun, the
left-wing radicals in Germany; but I know also that by joining the

white battalions I have prepared, if indirectly and against my in-
tention, the road leading to National-Socialism and its rise to power.
I shall be ready at any moment to produce sworn evidence before
the court of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has admitted
me to citizenship during the war. But my respect for the University
of California and its tasks is such that I cannot allow myself to
believe that the base field of political inquisition, which paralyzes
scholarly production, should be within the range of its activities.

Yours very respectfully

Ernst H. Kantorowicz
Professor of History

III.

August 23, 1950.

President Robert G. Sproul
University of California
Berkeley, Calif.

Dear President Sproul:

In compliance with your directive of August 4th to Chairmen
and Administrative Officers requesting information as to prospects
of reactivation of members of their staff who have Reserve status
in the Armed Services, I am communicating to you that I was re-
activated, on August 21, for the purpose of a final physical exam-
ination and that I expect to receive a call for active duty as Captain,
Infantry, for a minimum period of 21 months as soon as my physical
examination report has been reviewed.

Being thus confronted a second time with a disruption of my
academic career, and feeling unable to expose my wife and my son
to the consequences of being denied continuance of my civilian oc-
cupation upon return from military duty, it is with profound regret
that I find myself compelled to yield to the pressure which the Re-
gents saw fit to exercise in order to extort from me a declaration
concerning my political beliefs. I am enclosing the requested state-
ment, signed.

I should like to make known that, in doing so, I am acting
against the better precepts of my conscience and for no other reason
than that of protecting my family against the contingencies of
economic distress. In a letter addressed to you on May 12th, I have

set forth as one of my essential reasons for opposing the oath and
its contractual equivalent the fact that their imposition has coerced,
under the threat of dismissal, hundreds of honorable men and wom-
en to lend their signatures to a form of employment which they
consider detrimental to the welfare of the University and an insult
to the academic profession at large. It was in avoidance of pres-
sures of this type that I left Germany in 1938 and came to this
country. And it was in the desire of contributing to the eradication
of such methods that I volunteered during the last war to take up
arms against the country of my birth.

I am expecting my recall to active duty in the present conflict
with the bitter feeling that, this time, I shall be fighting abroad
for the defense and propagation of Freedoms which I have been
denied in my professional life at home.

A report on the department as a whole with regard to expected
enlistments and reactivations will follow prior to September 1st and
as soon as the last answers have been received from members who
are out of town.

Yours sincerely

Walter W. Horn
Acting Chairman
Art Department.

8

MARGINAL NOTES

I.

Sanior Pars.

Mediaeval Canon Law has developed a curious theory of evalu-
ating votes, that of the maior vel sanior pars. Usually the majority
(ma'tor pars) would decide an issue. A minority, however, had
nevertheless some chance to defeat a nonsensical decision if that
minority proved to be the "saner part" (sanior pars). The votes, in
that case, were not counted but, so to speak, "weighed." They were
weighed according to the prestige and authority (auctoritas) of the
voter, his intellectual faculties (ratio), his moral qualities (pietas),
the purity of his motives (bonus zelus), and the fairness of his judg-
ment (ae quit as).

Much can be said against this principle; but had it prevailed at
the meeting of the Board of Regents of the University of California
on August 25, 1950, the group headed by Governor Warren, in-
cluding Admiral Nimitz and President Sproul, would probably have
carried the day by auctoritas as the "saner part." Since, however,
votes in a democracy are not weighed but counted, which has its
great advantages too, the faction headed by Regent John Francis
Neylan decided the issue. Thirty-one professors were ousted by a
12-10 majority, thus reversing the decision of Governor Warren's
10-9 majority in July. Had Admiral Nimitz been present at the Au-
gust meeting, the majority would have been 12-11; for he wired
he would have cast his vote with Governor Warren — as it were,
with the "saner part."t

If "sanity" in the sense of Canon Law has anything to do with
logic and consistency, those qualities were heavily clouded on many
occasions at the August meeting. "Gentlemen, that does not make
sense," said Governor Warren. "While it is inconsistent, I shall
vote for it," declared President Sproul. "You are asking me to vote
for a motion now that reaffirms the policy that I have voted against,"
complained Regent Steinhart. The lack of "sanity," it seems, was
very obvious to the "saner part."

fWhenever, in the following pages, I am talking about the "Regents"
without qualification, I am always referring to the August majority, thus
excluding the sanior pars.

Communism Not the Issue.

For fifteen months the oath controversy had been carried on. The
battle-cry was to purge the University of California of Communists.
Various methods were subsequently applied to implement that
clearly expressed purpose: a Loyalty Oath, a treacherous "Equiva-
lent," a Faculty declaration expressing itself against the appoint-
ment of Communists, finally a statement inserted in the annual "con-
tract" and, as an alternative for that statement, a hearing of non-
signers before a jury of equals, the Faculty Committee on Privilege
and Tenure.

As might have been expected, Communists have not been found
on the Faculty, either among the non-signers or, so far, among the
signers. Thus, when Regent Heller, at the August meeting, re-
peatedly asked the crucial question whether "it is understood by all
Regents that there is no accusation of Communism made against
any of the thirty-two that we are about to fire," even the most
adamant members of the majority group agreed or kept silent. Re-
gent Neylan himself, on another occasion, could even heckle: "Does
anybody here want to — Regent Heller, or anybody — want to charge
them with being Communists .'^"

"Obedience."

The matter of Communism and the fiction of screening Com-
munists, which so long had befogged the fundamental issue as well
as public opinion, was quite cynically dismissed from further dis-
cussion. "Whether they are Communists or not is now a secondary
matter," said Regent Ehrmann. "No Regent has ever accused any
member of the Faculty of being a Communist," echoed Regent
McFadden. "There is no longer an impugning of those individuals
as Communists," summarized Regent Haggerty of Governor War-
ren's group and, clarifying the stand of his opponents, continued:
"It is now a matter of demanding obedience to the law of the
Regents."

"Obedience" of the Faculty to the Board of Regents, "discipline,"
and "conformity" to the Regents became the new issue. Governor
Warren described it correctly: "We are discharging these people
because they are recalcitrant and won't conform."

Conformity.

Vice-President and Provost emeritus Monroe E. Deutsch, in a
letter to the Regents of July 17th, has emphasized that the issue rests

10

on the one point: "Is he a Communist.^" On August 25th, however,
the issue changed completely when the old charge, or implicit ac-
cusation, of "Suspect of Communism without self -signed affidavit"
had to be dropped. Instead a new charge was introduced, "Non-
conformity to the Board of Regents." The crime of being one of
a non-conforming minority was considered grave enough to justify
dismissal without trial or hearing, to justify the suspension of the
autonomous rights of the Faculty and the elimination of jury trial
before the Faculty Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

"Conformity" to Whom?

What the Regents demanded was conformity in view of a highly
controversial matter. The Presidents of practically all the great Uni-
versities of the country, also Phi Beta Kappa, the American Associa-
tion of University Professors and innumerable other highly respect-
able individuals and associations have publicly taken a stand with
Governor Warren and his group. But to conform with The Board
of Regents of the University of California is a next to impossible
task. The present Board of Regents is hopelessly divided, and since
the split goes right down the middle, the Board's working ability
may be seriously questioned. The Board is ready to reverse its de-
cisions monthly, and the August decision may be challenged in
October or November. There will, perforce, always be non-con-
formity to either one or the other faction. In that situation it is
extremely difficult to tell what "conformity" means, or to tell why
conformity to Governor Warren and the sanior pars should be
deemed morally so inferior to conformity with Regent Neylan's
one- vote majority group that it furnishes a reason for dismissal.

Conformity in Controversial Matters
a Condition of Appointment.

To what, so we may ask, does that see-saw nonsense of ever-
changing one-vote majorities lead except to destruction.^ A pro-
fessor can be legally dismissed for "gross incompetence," which is
not the issue here, or for "moral turpitude." Are we now urged to
acknowledge that non-conformity to Regent Neylan (= conformity
to Governor Warren) is "moral turpitude".^ The Regents* August
majority had obviously not thought the matter to its proper con-
clusion when they decided to make, implicitly, conformity a condi-
tion of appointment, and non-conformity a reason for dismissal.
Nor have they, with regard to "conformity in a matter of con-

11

science," drawn the ultimate consequence of their verdict which
would suggest that only a conscience forced to conformity with
some faction, or otherwise violated and perjured, promises to pro-
duce the ideal teacher and to guarantee the proper amount of "im-
partial scholarship and free pursuit of truth" which the Regents
themselves demand. Are we going to introduce again subscription
to the Thirty-Nine Articles or to some political faith as a requisite to
taking a university degree? Do we need again a "University Test
Act" to abolish such outmoded customs? Experience has shown long
ago that a university forced to conform to a factional orthodoxy is
in danger to end in sterility.

Legislature.

Things become rather involved for the majority group once they
themselves have admitted that "Communism is not the issue."
In fact, it has never been the true issue. It has been suggested that
without a loyalty oath the legislature would threaten to refuse to
vote the budget or that, were the non-signers retained, the legislature
would not appropriate money for the University. To others this
suggestion appeared as highly improbable (Max Radin, in The
American Scholar, July, 1950).

Propaganda.

The real issue was, from the very beginning, an irresponsible
exploitation of the true and genuine dangers of Communism for
propaganda purposes of politicians with, unfortunately, the Uni-
versity of California as the victim. The "purge" of the University,
resulting in the detection of not a single Communist on the Faculty,
was not important. What was important was the advertising cam-
paign, the propaganda value of the purging activity itself — im-
portant, obviously, for political, and not academic, purposes although
the statutes wisely demand that the University be kept clear from
political interference and machinations.

To anyone who has lived through the bitter experience of Hitler
Germany, the use and abuse of the Communist menace for politi-
cal and propaganda purposes is a familiar device. It leads, whether
so contemplated or not, almost automatically to the establishment
of absolute power, to totalitarian management and the demand for
unconditional obedience in the name of anti-Communism. It leads,
which is worse, to fictitious "victories" over Communism and entails

12

a dangerous and frivolous underestimation of the true power and
genuine danger of Communism.

NaVvefre.

The non-signers, it has been said repeatedly, are distinguished by
"a naive ignorance of what Communism is" because as scholars
they are "inexperienced in the ways of the world." This is the old
pattern of lampooning the "professor" of bygone times. It is an
insult to the historian whose knowledge of the ideological conflicts
of the past gives him a rather clear insight into the ideological con-
flicts of the present. The argument of "naivete," moreover, has a
rather stupid ring in the ears of one who has lived in Communist
occupied cities and areas and has actively fought against, and been
wounded by, those very radicals about whom allegedly he knows
nothing. The matter which indeed is often not recognized distinctly
enough is what generation of vipers can originate from "White Bat-
talions," once they don the brown shirt.

On the other hand, talking about naivete, is there anything
more naive than the belief of those Regents allegedly "experienced
in the ways of the world" that by means of tom-fooleries and
mummeries a danger so grave as Communism can efi^ectively be
fought? "Children are to be deceived with toys, men with oaths"
(Plutarch).

IL

Religious Scruples and Conscience.

At the August meeting some Regents made statements to the
effect that the hearings before the Committee on Privilege and
Tenure were intended only for non-signers whose religious scruples
made them conscientious objectors. Utterly inaccurate though these
statements are with regard to the general purpose of both the hear-
ings and the Committee, they imply a fallacy worth exposing.

Conscience is not the private property of any particular denom-
ination. It is inter-denominational, and its violation is painful no
matter whether that conscience belongs to a Lutheran or Roman
Catholic, to a Quaker or Unitarian, or even to a scholar who may
claim to have a professional conscience. It is obvious that the
scholar's conscience, though non-denominational, is as "religious"

13

as the professional conscience of the judge and the minister; and it
should be equally obvious that it is his conscience which makes the
scholar what he is, and that to act according to his professional
conscience is indeed the function of the University professor.

A Debate.

Functions and rights of the university professor were the sub-
ject of a somewhat heated debate at the same August meeting of
the Regents. The discussion, mainly between Regent Ehrman and
Governor Warren, is so crucial and the clash of opinions so illum-
inates the general problem that some rather lengthy excerpts from
the transcript are warranted here. The argument pivoted around
the question whether the analogy of a legal case — MacAlister vs.
Baker — was relevant to the case of the thirty-one professors.

Regent Ehrman: I want to point out that it seems to me . . .
that there is this point of distinction: Firstly, the professors,
employees, or whoever they are, recommended under the Presi-
dent's motion to be accepted for employment, are not officers,
in any sense of the word, of the university. They are employees.
... In the second place, it seems to me that if we assume
that they have been employed, what does that mean.^ Do they
have any vested rights to the position.^ It merely means that
they have the right to enjoy the salary for the year . . .
They [the dismissed professors] would be entitled to their
salary, and that is all, if they had a vested right in the appoint-
ment, which I doubt very much because they are merely em-
ployees of the Board of Regents and they are not officers . . .
The Baker case refers to people who are entitled to a public
office. It has no reference whatsoever to people who are em-
ployed.

If this doctrine of the Baker case applied to the university,
it would mean that a man who was employed as a gardener
on the grounds, a janitor in the buildings, would have a vested
right to the office. I cannot see [that], whether a man is em-
ployed in one capacity, such as I have used for purpose of
illustration, [or is] employed as a professor or an instructor,
that there is any distinction between them.
Governor Warren: Regent Ehrman, as far as I am concerned,
I am of the opinion that whether these people are public offi-
cers, or whether they are executing a public trust, is a distinc-
tion without difference. We recognize that these people are

14

performing important public functions. That is the reason we
are having this discussion today; and the importance of the
appointment of a President of this University, or a Vice Presi-
dent, or a Dean, or the head of a department, or a professor,
or even an instructor, it seems to me, is of equal importance
to the public as the appointment or election of any other pub-
lic officer; and I don't believe that we have the right to con-
sider here that these people don't rise to the dignity of a City
Councilman or a constable or other public officers who come
under this rule. They are performing a public function just as
much as I am as Governor of this State. And I believe that
their rights and their prerogatives and their status before this
Board should be treated with equal solemnity and considera-
tion.

We cannot, I think, be grateful enough to Governor Warren for
his fine defense of the status of the profession. But our thanks
should go also to Regent Ehrman, who, being himself the founder
of a professorship (and not a janitorship) on the Berkeley campus,
has certainly given many a thought to the academic profession and
to whose generosity the present writer personally is greatly in-
debted. We are grateful to him for having made his views so per-
fectly clear.

Janitors and Professors.

Regent Ehrman said he cannot see that there is any distinction
between janitors and professors, since both are "employees of the
Regents." With all due respect for the duties of gardeners and
janitors, we may ask whether there is really no difference between
their occupation and that of university professors. Are they really
undistinguishable and equally exposed to being "hired and fired"
at the will of the Regents.^

Unions.

One great difference between janitors and professors stood out
very distinctly during the recent strike of the janitors at the Uni-
versity of California: the janitors, who have no annual contracts
and may claim "permanent tenure," are unionized and tlierefore
can press their demands against the Regents almost to the last penny.
But there is no union of university professors to back up even the
loudest outcries and most unanimous protests of a Faculty. Nor, for
that matter, is there a union of judges or of ministers and priests.

15

Why have unions of those professions not been formed? Is that
omission due only to the naivete of those professions, or are they
too conceited to join organized labor? Why should not the judges
form the Honorable Union of Court Employees, and the ministers
establish themselves as the Holy Union of Church Employees, fol-
lowed by the professors' Enlightened Union of University Em-
ployees ? Why is it so absurd to visualize the Supreme Court Justices
picketing their court, bishops picketing their churches, and profes-
sors picketing their university?

The answer is very simple: because the judges are the Court,
the ministers together with the faithful are the Church, and the pro-
fessors together with the students are the University. Unlike ushers,
sextons, and beadles, the judges, ministers, and professors are not
Court employees, Church employees, and University employees. They
are those institutions themselves, and therefore they have certain
prerogative rights to and within their institutions which ushers, sex-
tons, and beadles or janitors do not have.

Accessory and Essence.

Moreover, the comparison between gardener-janitor and profes-
sor is misleading because it is fundamentally wrong. A university
could exist without gardeners and janitors, who are accessory; it
could hardly exist without professors and students, who are es-
sential, actually the only essential part of a university. According
to the oldest definitions, which run back to the thirteenth century,
"The University" is the universitas magtstrorum et scholariuni, "The
Body Corporate of Masters and Students." Teachers and students
together are the University regardless of the existence of gardens
and buildings, or care-takers of gardens and buildings. One can
envisage a university without a single gardener or janitor, without
a single secretary, and even — a bewitching mirage — without a single
Regent. The constant and essence of a university is always the body
of teachers and students.

Why Not a Professors' Union?

This answers also the question why there is not a union of uni-
versity professors. The professors, hitherto, did not need to form a
protecting professional organization because, similar to judges and
ministers, they were a corporation anyhow — a corporation which
in this case was identical with the body corporate which they served,

16

the University. This again distinguishes them from gardeners and
janitors whose unions are bodies which do not coincide with the
corporation they happen to serve.

Vested Rights.

For the same reason the professors have certain vested rights
in the institution which they both serve and constitute. They have
certain rights which gardeners and janitors, who serve the comforts
of the institution, have not. The fact that gardeners and janitors
as well as professors receive their wages from the same public purse
and through the agency of the same trustees of the People of Cali-
fornia does not reflect upon absence or presence of vested rights.

Employees of the Regents.

Above all, it would be putting the cart before the horse to main-
tain that the professors do not serve the University but serve the
Regents, and that consequently they are not officers of the University
but employees of the Regents. Has a spectre or has megalomania
wrought havoc with proportions and contours? Does the University
exist for the sake of the Regents, or do the Regents exist for the
sake of the University, of a public institution constituted by the
body of teachers and students?

In a private business corporation it might be said that the Board
of Directors constitutes also the corporation especially if the Di-
rectors are also the shareholders. In a State University, however,
the Regents are neither shareholders nor paid directors. They are
unpaid trustees. They are the intermediaries and administrative
agents of something they are not identical with — the People of
California — and for something they are not identical with either
— the body of teachers and students. These agents honoris causa
can never claim, nor do they normally claim, to constitute "The
University." They are those who, along with many other functions,
have to protect the University against attacks and keep unrest from
their "ward." They are, in that respect, the police of the University.
But where, except in the caricature of the Prussian "Police State,"
does the police constitute The State or The People?

Public Institution.

Moreover, the University of California is a public institution.
The professors serve a public institution. They receive their salaries
mainly from public funds, from the People, if through the agency

17

of the People's trustees, called Regents. And they receive their
salaries in fulfilment of public functions or of functions for the
public, but not to fulfil under a private contract private functions
for the private benefit of the Regents. They do not serve a private
whim of "employers" who might hire and fire, for their private
stage, actors and clowns as they please. The Faculty members are,
one way or other, public officers, or officers of a public institution
and public trust, but not the private employees of the Regents. And
therefore the right to "hire and fire" those officers cannot be an
undisputed prerogative of the Regents alone. "What touches all
shall be approved by all." The Faculty will not accept an inept
teacher forced upon them by the Regents without or against Faculty
approval, and they cannot allow the dismissal of an able teacher
without or against Faculty approval, because either action would
mean an infringement from without upon their own body corporate;
and because, to quote President Harold E. Stassen, "the faculty is
the judge of its own membership" (San Francisco Chronicle, Octo-
ber 7, 1950).

Business Corporation.

The great confusion of these complicated relations, which need
clarification by the law courts, apparently derives from the super-
ficial similarity of modern business corporations with the very much
older corporational structure of a University. Governor Warren has
obviously felt those difficulties when, distinguishing also between
"employees and Faculty members," he defined the University of
California very ably as "a quasi-public institution with practically
all the attributes of a private corporation organized for a public
purpose" (Oakland Tribune, Sept. 22, 1950). In the case of an
ordinary business corporation the hiring and firing, within the
limitations of the law of contracts, is indeed completely at the will
of the Directors. If, for example, the manager of the gambling
casino "Cal-Neva," on the Nevada-California border, sees fit to
require all his employees — "dealers, pit bosses, waitresses, janitors,
and even the nude model who poses in a champagne glass for the
customers" (San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 9, 1950, p. 2) — to take
an anti-Communist loyalty oath before a Reno judge, telling them
in a truly Regential fashion "Sign or get out," he is acting doubtless
within his legal competences. However, the "employer-employee"
relationship does not apply to the teaching staff of a university, least
of all to that of a State University.

18

»

Dangers.

In fact the application of business analogies to a University has
some socially serious aspects, and I wish to state most emphatically
that the radicals among the Regents, who are trying to undercut the
traditional structure and the prerogatives of the University of Cali-
fornia, are playing a very dangerous game damaging what politically
they wish to preserve.

The hitherto unquestioned University structure would be over-
thrown completely if indeed the professors were, by definition, noth-
ing but "employees" of the Regents and the Regents their "bosses."
For only so long as certain vested and autonomous rights of the
body of teachers and students are respected can the professors refrain
from forming a "union." If the professors are nothing but hirable
lecture machines and firable employees, who, above anything else,
have to obey and conform, regardless of their qualities as men and
as teachers; that is, if really they are hired on a business basis, then
they will have to organize in a business fashion and establish their
union. Actually, the present intransigent and shortsighted policy of
the anything but conservative radicals among the Regents of the
University of California might very easily touch off a general move-
ment aiming at unionizing the American university professors. But
from that moment onward the aspect of American universities would
change profoundly. Mass decapitations of professors such as have
taken place monthly in California's academic abattoir (157
+ 6 + 31), would unfailingly lead to statewide, perhaps nation-
wide, refusal to work on the part of the unionized professors, and
little opportunity would be left to any Regents to exercise absolute
power.

However that may be, the Regents' effort to make teaching a
trade is entirely revolutionary. Should they succeed, their inconsider-
ate experiment would violently transform one of the few remaining
conservative institutions, the University, and it would uproot one of
the few relatively conservative sectors of modern society, that of
university professors.

Trade and Profession.

It is obvious that in the argument about janitor and professor
some fundamentals have been hopelessly confounded, above all the
difference between a trade and a profession.

The janitor is paid by the hour. He has his shift during which
he is held to perform certain well described duties. His work is

19

clearly defined and definable. Once he has performed his daily
duties and has left off work he is a completely free man. Addi-
tional work is neither expected nor demanded, except by special
agreement and with special pay.

The defined duties of a university professor are few. His class-
work at the Universit}' of California may consist in five hours of
lecturing and in a seminar of two hours. In addition, the professor
will have to do some committee work, sit on examination boards,
have conferences with his students during office hours, guide their
work for advanced degrees, and may run through the catalogues of
second-hand book dealers to order books for the University Library.
If we except the registered classwork, his duties are anything but
clearly defined. Nor is he paid merely for the seven hours during
which he meets his classes and seminars. The amount of time and
efiPort he wishes to invest in preparing for his classes, is left to his
own judgment. Whether it takes him two days to prepare a single
lecture, or two hours, or two minutes or less, is left to him. Whether
he revises his lectures by integrating his own research work and that
of others, or simply rehashes some textbook, is left to him. Whether
he devotes much or little of time and care to the M.A. and Ph.D.
theses of his pupils, is his own business. It is left to him whether
he indulges in research work from which his classes would profit
and his universit}^ would reap fame. And it is left to him how much
time and energ\' he puts into his committee work, into his confer-
ences with students, or into the aggrandizement of his university's
library. In short, it is entirely up to him how much of his life, of his
private life, he is willing to dedicate to the University to which he
belongs and which he, too, constitutes. The exact amount of time
he invests is bound by no regulations. It is purely a matter of Pas-
sion, of Love, and of Conscience.

And here there emerges yet another difference bet^-een janitor
and professor: you can buy labor, but you cannot buy Passion and
Love nor the scholarly Conscience. For once there is something
that is not marketable, and the poorly informed Regents should
know that by tr}^ing to make our conscience venal they kill our pas-
sion and love for our institution because we cease to be one with it.

Conscience.

Through the sheer existence of this conscience, which is unde-
fined and undefinable, the scholar ceases also to be an "employee"
of the Regents in any sense whatsoever of business language. It is

I

3

through his conscience that he acquires vested rights in his office. By
this conscience, which is inseparable from his genuine duties as mem-
ber of the academic body corporate, he is clearly distinguished from
gardener and janitor. That almost criminal superficiality of the
comparison between janitor and professor breaks down at this point.
Trade and profession are not identical. A profession, as the word
itself would suggest, is based upon conscience, and not upon work-
ing hours as in the case of modern trades, or on Time in general.
In this respect the scholar resembles tlie judge whose duties are not
disposed of by sitting in court, or the clergyman whose duties are
not exhaustively described by the mention of ritual performances
and sermons on Sundays. The conscience is actually the essence of
the scholars "office" (offidum) which he is entrusted with and
through which he becomes truly a "public trust."

From whatever angle one may look at the academic profession,
it is always, in addition to passion and love, the conscience which
makes the scholar a scholar. And it is through the fact that his
whole being depends on his conscience that he manifests his con-
nection with the legal profession as well as with the clergy from
which, in the high Middle Ages, the academic profession descended
and the scholar borrowed his gown. Unlike the employee, the
professor dedicates, in the way of research, even most of his
private life to the body corporate of the University of which he is
the integral part. His impetus is his conscience. Therefore, if you
demoralize that scholarly conscience, that love and passion for re-
search and for teaching, and replace all that in a business fashion
by strictly defined working hours, prescribed by the "employer,"
you have ruined, together with the academic profession, also the
University! Only the culpably naive ignorance on the part of malevo-
lent Regents, not knowing what a scholar's life and being is, could
venture to break the backbone of the academic profession — that is,
its conscience — in order to "save the University." nay, to dismiss a
scholar for that very conscience which makes him a scholar.

Folly, like the spirit, bloweth where it listeth. All that stupid
destruction of genuine values and valuable human beings is carried
on for the sake of a hysterical demand the utter folly of which has
been attested to nationwide; it has been attested to also by the
professors' new company, the gambling-house nude, who takes her
loyalty oath to pose in a champagne glass for the customers. Folly
knows no limit. We can only pray with Erasmus: Sancte Socrates,
ora pro nobis!

20

21

III.

Why Reduce the Status of Professors?

There remains one last question to be answered: For what rea-
sons did the majority of the Board of Regents try to reduce dignity
and self-respect of the Faculty of the University of California and
thereby of the academic profession at large ? Why did those Regents
try to blur the lines of distinction prevailing bet\\^een janitor and
Faculty member and deprive the professor of his vested rights in
his own body corporate? After all, those gentlemen have been en-
trusted with preserving the University, not with revolutionizing and
radicalizing it. They as guardians should have been eager to defend
their ward and to raise the reputation of the academic profession to
the highest possible level instead of doing their best to whittle down
the self-respect of the Facult}\

The answer, again, is simple: that strange attitude of the majority
Regents is the direct outcome of their efforts to enforce high-
handedly a special loyalty oath. In order to enforce that oath and
to establish that unspeakable alternative "Sign or be fired" two main
obstacles had to be removed. The first was constitutional ; the second
referred to tenure.

The Constitutional Obstacle.

The additional oath "is not required by law." It may be even
unlawful. The Constitution of the State of California prescribes
the taking of an oath to the Constitution of the United States and
the State of California, and then continues:

"And no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a
qualification for any office or public trust" (Article XX, Sec-
tion 3).

Whether or not an additional oath could be imposed upon the
Facult}^ at all, would depend upon whether or not the term "office
or public trust" applied to the members of the Facult}^ of the State
Universit}'. It would be, writes Max Radin, "a question of chopping
and paring and refining and adjusting verbal symbols. But surely
no one who can read can doubt the general purpose of the constitu-
tional inhibition."

On August 25th, Governor Warren held that it was a distinc-
tion without difference whether Faculty members are public officers
or executing a public trust, but he maintained unambiguously that

22

they "are performing a public function just as much as I am as
Governor of the State." He finally claimed that 'their rights and
prerogatives and their status before this Board should be treated
with equal solemnity and consideration" — that is, "equal" to that
of public officers.

Governor Warren's opinion was not shared by his opponents.
The loyalty oath, as demanded before April 21, 1950, could be
enforced without violation of the Constitution only if the professors
had no public status whatsoever and if they were like hired hands
private "employees" of the Regents, which "merely means that they
have the right to enjoy the salary for the year."

The constitutional issue explains sufficiently the endeavors to
reduce the status of the professors from men having public func-
tions to private employees. Once the Faculty member has become
the private employee of the Board, hired like the nude in the cham-
pagne glass for entertaining the customers, probably students, those
Regents were free to demand any additional oath, any declaration
or color of hair they desired. The Constitution, at least, with its
impractical inhibition, no longer barred tlie way.

It is not quite impossible that the law courts, at one time or an-
other, will make a decision concerning the status of professors in ac-
cord with the view of Governor Warren, meaning that the Constitu-
tion (Article XX, Section 3) actually does apply to professors. In
that case the Regents would have coerced, by means of economic
threats and moral pressure, hundreds of Faculty members to commit
an unlawful act. Aggravating would be the fact that acquiescence
to the demand of the Regents on the part of those Faculty^ members
might appear as an equivalent of the money paid to a blackmailer
for not revealing a discreditable secret, that is, for not divulging tlie
discreditable slander intimating that the non-signer was a Communist.

Tenure.

The loyalty oath, after it had haunted the Faculty for eleven
months, was rescinded on April 21, 1950. It was replaced by the
so-called "contractual equivalent." During that Spring campaign
the second obstacle, the problem of tenure — though always active —
came to the fore.

Where tenure is violated, academic freedom goes. If a professor
is not sure of his permanent tenure, if he has to fear dismissal for
unorthodox opinions or non-conformit}% he loses his freedom of
action and speech. The same is true with regard to the judge who

23

loses his conscientious freedom and freedom of prejudice if his
judgment were impaired by the fear of losing his job. Hence, there
can be no true academic freedom unless tenure is assured.

The oath as well as its contractual equivalent could be imposed,
and the Faculty forced into submission, only if the rules of tenure
were flouted. So long as the rules of tenure prevailed the alterna-
tive "Sign or be iired" was meaningless because it could not be put
into effect. Therefore tenure had to disappear: a tampering with
the so-called contracts began and, at the same time, the Faculty Com-
mittee on Privilege and Tenure was frozen out.

RuSes of Tenure.

At all American Universities it is customary to recognize a claim
to tenure, in one way or another, of all professors and associate pro-
fessors, including usually also other instructors who "have attained
tenure by reason of length of service" (Manual of the Academic
Senate). Many universities, including State Universities, acknowl-
edge explicitly a right to tenure. The State University of Iowa, for
example, declares quite specifically in the letter of appointment
how many years an instructor or assistant professor has been ap-
pointed for; and in the case of an associate or full professor the
formula reads: "with tenure extending continuously" (Appendix A).
At the University of California the legal right to tenure seems to
have been kept vague, nor was it ever so clearly defined as in Mid-
Western and Eastern Universities. Nevertheless there were certain
rules of tenure. The Manual of the Academic Senate makes it per-
fectly clear that professors and associate professors possessed a claim
to tenure, and that others acquired tenure through length of service,
that is, after eight years. The Instructions to Appointment and Pro-
motion Committees, valid in 1943, made it no less clear that tenure
was respected for the grade of associate professor and above that
rank. The instructions read:

"The Committee should bear in mind that normally the Uni-
versity will terminate appointments of assistant professors who
do not qualify for promotion after two terms (six years) of
service in that grade. Associate professors, however, who do
not qualify for further promotion will be retained indefinitely
[!} in that grade."

The Committees were held to consider promotion to the grade of
associate professor most carefully because that rank implied tenure.

24

Accordingly, in 1940, the Vice-President of the University, Provost
Dr. Deutsch, acting for the President, could congratulate a Faculty
member on the promotion to associate professorship, and write:
"This not only marks an advance in itself but places you on the
permanent status which is so important in the academic career"
(Appendix E). Similarly, the ninth year of appointment to one of
the lower grades of the academic hierarchy was considered of special
importance because after eight years a Faculty member acquired
tenure "by length of service."

Nothing would be easier than to assemble more material evi-
dencing the existence of tenure de facto. The Manual of the Aca-
demic Senate reproduces a Senate resolution to the effect that the
tenure members of the Faculty are understood to be appointed "con-
tinuously during good behavior and efl^icient service." This rule,
valid since 1899, was laid down, at the latest, in 1919. It was
adopted by the Academic Senate in 1920, and was re-adopted in
1939. The rules of tenure have not been challenged by the Regents
and have been generally observed for thirty years or more. There
was, to say the least, a "tacit understanding" according to which
tenure existed and was observed even though it was not expressed
in unambiguous legal terms. However, a "tacit understanding" is
as binding among honest men as a legal stipulation; and if a 'tacit
understanding" remains uncontradicted by either party over a period
of thirty years or more, there accrues a moral obligation and an ob-
ligation in equity to observe that understanding which is hardly
less binding than a legally stipulated obligation.

The Facult}% therefore, confident in the fairness and loyalt}' of
the Board of Regents, could rightly assume that in view of tenure
they were just as secure, and certainly not worse off, than their
equals at the other great Universities of the country.

Painful Awakening.

It was, under those circumstances, a most painful awakening
for most professors when, at the meeting of the Academic Senate
on April 22, 1950, a furious and indignant Faculty was told quite
bluntly by President Sproul that no Faculty member on the Uni-
versity of California's eight campuses enjoyed any rights of tenure
whatsoever. The President declared that even professors and asso-
ciate professors were appointed for one year only and no more.

In other words, to enforce the oath or its equivalent by threat
of summary dismissal the Regents had to abolish a, perhaps not

2^

legally codified, but morally existing right to tenure guaranteed
by custom, tradition, and by certain rulings which had not been
contested, or had even been agreed to, by the Regents over a long
period, and which were rightly considered a powerful obligation on
the part of the Regents. But what are moral obligations! Did not
Regent Giannini even wish to organize against the Faculty a gang
of "20th century vigilantes" and, contemning the courts, take the
law in his own hands!

Confracfs.

The Faculty now realized that it was unprotected against any
arbitrary action on the part of the Regents. Nor did it take its mem-
bers very long to learn what the new concept of "non-tenure" was
like.

Until May, 1950, the Faculty members of putative "tenure status"
received annually a salary acceptance form which they had to sign.
It read:

"At the annual meeting of The Regents of the University of
California, your salary for the year ending June 30, 1950, as
Professor of . . . was fixed at $ . . ." (Appendix B).

This traditional form was changed surreptitiously. The new forms,
distributed at the height of the oath controversy, in May, 1950, and
now containing the anti-Communist statement, as well as the most
recent forms for the year 1950-51, showed the following text:

"This is to notify you that you have been appointed Professor
of . . . for the period July 1, 1950, to June 30, 1951, with a
salary at the rate of $ ... per annum" (Appendix D).

The Confidence-Trick.

This new contract form appears as a masterpiece in the art of
prestidigitation. While the eyes 6i the Faculty members receiving
that new form were fixed, sadly perhaps and certainly with disgust,
on the obnoxious loyalty statement, very few noticed that the true
trick was pulled, and the genuine venom found, in the preamble.
And very few noticed that they were signing not only a most un-
pleasant document, but that actually they were signing away their
claims to tenure. By acknowledging that they were appointed for
the well defined period "July 1 to June 30" with a salary rated
explicitly per annum they had put in jeopardy their tenure. Now-
even the fiction of tenure, that "tacit understanding," had gone. The

26

Faculty had been taken in by a skilfully managed confidence-trick.

But what had actually happened.'^ For a mediaeval historian it
is daily bread to study, compare, and handle forged, falsified,
garbled, or tampered documents. It did not take the present writer
very long to discover the model draft or prototype of the new sub-
stitute "contract" and to unravel, on that occasion, the threads of
a texture the woof of which was mala fides, "ill faith."

Here are the results of that little investigation in the field of
modern diplomatics.

Two Forms.

The University of California had two letter forms which, at the
beginning of the academic year, went out to members of the Faculty.
We may call them the "Appointment Form" (Appendix C) and
the "Salary Acceptance Form" (Appendix B). The Appointment
Form referred to Lecturers, Visiting Professors, with slight variations
to Teaching Assistants, and perhaps to others as well who were ap-
pointed— as President Sproul termed it repeatedly on August 25th
— "on a strictly annual basis" or for one semester only. The Salary
Acceptance Form referred to those who were termed by President
Sproul as having "Senate status" including tenure, but usually ex-
cluding instructors and assistant professors.

For those Senate members with tenure the form was used which
began: "At the annual meeting, etc." It seems to have been the form
originally used for all Faculty members; around 1914 even a young
assistant professor would receive that letter. It is a simple notifica-
tion about the salary for the coming year; it contained neither the
word "appoint" nor "reappoint" and took continuity for granted.

For the strictly ahnual appointees, very reasonably, the "Ap-
pointment Form" was used. It began with the words: "This is to
notify you that you have been appointed, etc." It fixed the salary
at a rate "per annum" and clearly defined the period "July 1, 19
. . ., to June 30, 19 . . ., only."

The difference of forms made it perfectly obvious that there
was also a difference of matter and substance involved and expressed.
The Salary Acceptance Form ("Your salary for the year ending
June 30, 1950, was fixed at . . .") did not imply an appointment,
even less a completely new appointment. As mentioned before, it
notified a person permanently attached to the Faculty of the salary
he could expect for the coming year. The form itself implied one
thing only: Tenure.

27

Tampering with Contracts.

When the disruption of tenure, nay, of the semblance of tenure,
became imperative in order to enforce the "Sign-or-be-fired" com-
mand of the Regential firing squads, the Salary Acceptance Form
disappeared completely, and there is no hope for its reappearance
under the present regime. Now all Faculty members were treated
equally, for now all of them received the Appointment Form hither-
to used exclusively for "strictly annual" appointments. So far as the
contracts were concerned there was no difference between a pro-
fessor of 30 years service and a new Teaching Assistant, and only
the janitors formed an exception because they receive no annual
contracts but enjoy permanent tenure during good behavior and
efficient service. The "Appointment Forms" were generally sent
out to tenure members of the Faculty after the so-called "Compro-
mise" of April 21, 1950, although in individual cases they had
been foisted upon Faculty members throughout the year of the
oath. One professor, thinking it was a clerical error, actually re-
turned the "Appointment Form" and asked for the normal "Salary
Acceptance Form."

With those manipulations the former "tacit understanding,"
based upon mutual confidence, fairness, and good faith, to the ef-
fect that tenure existed and was respected, was radically wiped out.
And with the old "Form" there went confidence, fairness, and good
faith.

I do not know whether it is legal to change contracts without
notifying the contracting party of the intention — an impossible act
as to union members — or whether it is considered fair to substitute
for a good contract an inferior one, which cuts out all the preroga-
tives and privileges of the contracting party, in the hope "to get
away with it." However this may be, it is a clear case in which un-
bridled absolutistic might bends and deceives moral right. Although
I am sure that very much stronger words would stand a libel suit
and would be appropriate to characterize that kind of procedure
it may suffice here to call it an act of misdemeanor and a breach of
faith, perpetrated against unsuspecting honest men now delivered,
hopelessly and without protection, to arbitrary will, economic pres-
sure, and implicit bribery.

Conditioned Appointments.

This, however, is not yet the whole story. Tenure had been, in
the golden age of the University, unconditioned "during good be-

28

havior and efficient service." With the new and strictly annual ap-
pointments, as many conditions could be inserted into the contracts
as pleased the Regents. It was evidently to make possible the inser-
tion of new conditions that the formulae were changed. It would
not have made sense to inform a professor politely that his salary
for the coming year was fixed at a certain rate, and thereafter to
add some novel conditions. They could not be enforced and would
have been irrelevant in the face of tenure. It was, therefore, for
the sake of inserting the anti-Communist loyalty clause that the
normal Salary Acceptance Form was found inappropriate and was
supplanted by the Appointment Form. It proved necessary to stress
henceforth the fact that every professor, tenure professors included,
was quite newly appointed at the beginning of every academic
year. Only if tenure was disrupted, a conditional reappointment be-
came possible, allowing also for the insertion of the clause:

"I understand that the foregoing statement is a condition of
my employment (!) and a consideration of payment of my
salary."

It will be noticed that the word "employment" now has crept into
the appointment form.

The disruption of tenure, as expressed by the new forms, was
an act indispensable for the introduction of the new pattern of
"conditioned appointment," conditioned not by the character and
professional qualification of the appointee, but by his obedience to
the Board of Regents, by his conformity in matters of conscience,
and by his willingness to make a completely empty political state-
ment the voidness and wantonness of which have been stressed in
recent months — so as to mention only two names — by General
Eisenhower and by Archbishop John J. Mitty of San Francisco.

Constitutional Oatli.

The sabotage of the idea of tenure, inseparable from the new
form of "contract," may be gathered from yet another monstrosity
contrived by the creative genius of those concerned and responsible.
For almost ten years -the custom has been observed to let every
newly appointed member of the Faculty take the standard oath as
prescribed for officers and public trusts by the Constitution of the
State of California:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Con-
stitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State

29

of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties
of my office, according to the best of my ability."

Whether the taking of this oath would mean by implication that the
university professor is considered an officer or public trust, is of
minor importance here. Important is the fact that this oath had to
be taken once and for all at the time of the first appointment to
the Faculty. According to the newly introduced practice, however,
this oath has to be taken annually.

Repetition of Oaths.

It would be easy to argue that the repetition of an oath that
binds man for all times, is superfluous and damaging; that an oath
either binds for all times or not at all, but that it never expires;
and that the annual repetition does not duplicate or triplicate the
effects of an oath, but devaluates the very institution of the oath
which is a sacred thing. Such arguments would be completely beside
the point. The barbarous monstrosity of an annually repeated oath
is merely another symptom of the sabotage of tenure. It stresses the
fact that the professors are appointed for one year only, "on a
strictly annual basis"; that by the end of the academic year the
oflTice expires so radically that the whole procedure of initiation has
to be repeated all over again; and that there originates every year,
from June 30th to the date of signing the new contract and repeat-
ing the constitutional oath, a vacuum or interregnum during which
the whole Faculty is technically dismissed without being as yet re-
appointed. The professors are, for that period, without a job.

Interregna.

It goes without saying that the legal consequences of such
interregna are unpredictable, especially when good faith does not
prevail. Since every professor would be supposed to know that his
connection with the University expires radically, and legally is
severed, by June 30th of every year, the Regents would not even be
obliged to tell the man that they do not intend to reappoint him —
which is exactly what happened to the group of non-signers whose
salaries were withheld without notification.

Esclieat.

The professor's reappointment thus becomes a "charity" on the
part of merciful Regents, and it depends upon the arbitrary will

30

of those Lords whether or not they are inclined to invest a man
again. What it really amounts to is, in feudal terminology, an annual
"escheat" of office and tenure. The professor forfeits annually office
and tenure — normally the punishment for felony — because both
lapse to the feudal lord, in this case to the Regents as the self-as-
sumed Lords of the University. If it pleases those feudal Lords, a
new infeudation and investiture may take place at the beginning
of every academic year, including homage and oath of fealty, to
which soon some feudal "incidents" may be added such as a dagger
for every Lord as "Relief" on investiture day and an ass on New
Year's.

At any rate, the new procedure as introduced in 1950 A. D. by
Regents and Administration of the University of California indi-
cates the intention of those responsible for the new arrangement to
abolish completely the remnants of continuity and of tenure.

Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

The final step taken by the majority group of the Regents falls
in perfectly with, and follows logically from, (as we now may say)
the "intention" to do away with tenure, and therewith implicitly
with academic freedom: the Senate Committee on Privilege and
Tenure, too, had to be killed or, at least, be frozen out and con-
demned to inactivity. What do the Regents need a Committee on
Privilege and Tenure for if "Tenure" is gone and the professor's
chief privilege consists in being fired! Why resort to a clumsy cross-
questioning if a little double-cross, or two, can do the job.'^

Meaning of the Committee.

What does the Committee on Privilege and Tenure mean to a
Faculty.^ Dean Prosser, of the U. C. Law School, at Berkeley, has an-
swered that question (San Francisco Chronicle, April 15, 1950):
"They [the rules of tenure] provide that no professor may be
discharged without specific charges made and proved against
him, at an open hearing at which other members of the Faculty
sit in judgment.

They are the professor's right to due process and his day in
court. They are his only protection against false accusations,
which are all too easily made, against malice, against politics,
and against other men who merely want his job. To a pro-
fessor they are the most important things in a university be-

31

cause they mean the security for which he has given up all
other things in life . . .

Whether the Regents intend it or not . . ., it places the Regents
in the position of asserting the arbitrary power to fire from the
University of California any man they please with no hearing
at all.

If the authority exists to discharge a professor because he will
not sign this oath on demand, then it exists to fire him because
he will not sign an oath that he is not a Catholic, not a Mason,
not a consumer of beer. Once the only barrier that stands in
the way of arbitrary discharge is swept away, there is no place
to stop."

Committee Disregarded.

That only barrier has now been swept away. The Committee on
Privilege and Tenure has been disregarded by the Regents, and not
only once. The findings of the Committee did not impress those
gentlemen. They paid no attention to the results of the Committee's
work of many weeks. They accepted the scandalous recommendation
of President Sproul to fire six members of the Academic Senate.
They rejected the guilt-conscious recommendation of President
Sproul to retain the thirty-one members of the Senate. And they
decreed on their own authority that no Faculty member was a
Communist, regardless of the recommendation or non-recommenda-
tion of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.

There followed the new double-cross: overriding customs, stat-
utes, regulations, and standing orders governing appointment, ten-
ure, and dismissal, they fired the thirty-one members of the Aca-
demic Senate, not because they were Communists, but for disobedi-
ence and non-conformity to the slender majority of the Board of
Regents. Those Senate members have been discharged "without
specific charges made and proved against them, at an open hearing
at which other members of the Faculty sit in judgment." They have
been discharged without even being given an opportunity to defend
themselves against the false charge of "disobedience," itself a
slander detracting from the character of those dismissed and seri-
ously affecting and damaging their reputation as educators. They
have been discharged, arbitrarily and capriciously, on the sole au-
thority of the Regents who, by eliminating the authority of the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure to hear a charge, have violated

also the fundamental right of citizens to due process and trial by
jury.

Why I Did Not Sign.

It will be easy now to realize why I did not sign either the oath
or its "contractual" equivalent. These are the reasons which I men-
tioned also before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure:

Because I refused to act under duress, work under the threat
of supervision by vigilantes, yield to compulsion, intimidation, and
economic pressure, or even respond to an alternative comparable to
an intellectual and moral hold-up;

Because I refused to buy and sell my academic position and
scholarly dignity at the price of my conviction and conscience;

Because I was shocked by, and disgusted with, the lack of hon-
esty, decency, fairness, and the tendency to pettifogging and trickery
which those responsible for the procedure against the Faculty have
shown from beginning to end.

In addition to all that there v/as, I admit, some professional
curiosity. I had the historian's curiosity to see how far the Regents
were willing to go; whether really they would fire the non-signers
against law and reason; and who, in the long run, would prove
the stronger — Regents or Faculty. Should it really be possible in a
free country that a small ruling group, split in itself, is entitled
to enslave the will of 2000 mature scholars; to disregard, override,
and rule against the articulate will of the repeatedly protesting
Faculties of the world's largest University; to refuse to listen to the
tortured voices of hundreds of honest men under their guard, and
thus to act in an "un-Christian, un-democratic, and un-American"
fashion (Professor E. V. Laitone: San Francisco Chronicle, April 7,
1930) }

Conclusions.

Theodor Mommsen, with his great human wisdom and with the
historian's insight into human affairs and public relations, once
wrote: "It is far easier to dethrone a Cabinet Minister than it is
to dismiss a full professor." What he alluded to were those vested
rights of the professor which cannot easily be attacked or ignored by
those in power without assailing, at the same time, certain funda-
mental rights of society. This was true in imperial Germany; it is
true also in this country, and the Regents of the University of Cali-
fornia will have to learn a lesson, whether they like it or not.

32

33

A policy which starts from a fundamentally false human premise
is doomed a priori. It is a bungling over the most elementary rules
in the primer of statesmanship to place mature men before an im-
possible alternative — "Sign or be fired" — with no way out, because
such action unfailingly hits back. The moment they chose to decree
that childish alternative the Regents, not the Faculty members, had
lost their freedom of action. The Regents themselves now were
faced with the impossible alternative of either carrying through their
threat or losing face and authority. They did not realize that they
had lost face and authority by creating that alternative, and that the
best they could do was to regain face and authority by stepping
back. And there were several occasions on which the Regents could
have stepped back in an honorable fashion, the last time on August
25th. They chose to "save face" — what a face! — instead of saving
the University, and sought, like other weak people before them, to
compensate for lack of wisdom and truly human experience by un-
justified violence and brutal power.

It cannot be pleasant for the Regents of the University of Cali-
fornia to find — broadcast over the whole nation and beyond — their
dignified corporation serving as a school model of "political stupid-
ity." Professor R. E. Fitch, of the Pacific School of Religion, at
Berkeley, defined stupidity "as a talent for not doing what you set
out to do, and for doing wdiat you want to avoid to do."

"According to this definition (said Dr. Fitch) the loyalty oath
at the University of California is a classic instance of poHtical
stupidity. It is supposed to keep Communists off the University
Faculty. There is no clear evidence that it has done so. It is
not supposed to expel loyal and patriotic Americans from the
Faculty. There is evidence that it has done just that" {Berkeley
Gazette, September 15, 1950).

Similar judgments have been passed on the Regents from many sides
and by scores of prominent citizens. It all reflects unfavorably on
the University of California itself.

It probably was this humanly weak disposition of the majority
group of the Regents which the late Dixon Wecter, my colleague
in the Berkeley History Department for far too short a time, may
have had in mind and alluded to when, in a public speech at Sacra-
mento, in connection with the California Centenary celebration, he
said:

"As a native Texan perhaps I feel this peril with peculiar alarm
having witnessed the lasting havoc wrought upon the largest

34

institution in that state by a group of regents determined to
trim down the university to a size they can comprehend."

Those perils have been outlined also by the President of Hiram Col-
lege, quoted by Professor Ralph H. Lutz, at Stanford University
(Western College Association, Proceedings, Spring Meeting, April
1, 1950, p. 22) as follows:

"It is a truism that no stream rises higher than its source. Like-
wise it is true that no college rises above the level of its trustees.
. . . This is apparent when trustees invade the prerogative of
any administrative officer or faculty member, or interfere with
the established program or educational policy of the college."

It was exactly one of those inroads into the prerogative of the Faculty
which has brought about the present scandals at the University of
California. The State University is far too precious an institution to
become instrumental to the political ambitions and aims of its Re-
gents or others. It was the idea of the founders of this University
when they entrusted it to the care of a body of Regents to keep that
institution out of the whirlpools of daily shifting political constel-
lations, of ephemeral political campaigns, electoral or ideological,
and of political hysteria. Now the trustees themselves have dragged
the University into the eddies of political contingencies. The Uni-
versity regulations demand that Faculty members "always respect,
and not exploit, their University connection" by making it a plat-
form for unqualified propaganda. The same restraint has to be ex-
pected on the part of the Regents. They are the natural protectors
of academic freedom; but in their endeavor to protect academic
freedom they have destroyed it when they attacked the right of
tenure.

Other State Universities are contemplating bills to their legisla-
tures defining academic freedom, making acts restricting such free-
dom unlawful, and providing penalties for violating academic free-
dom (Appendix F). Whether it would prove useful to prepare a
similar step in the present case is a question that shall not be dis-
cussed here. But unless the Regents give certain guarantees concern-
ing tenure and the strict observation of the right of tenure, which
includes academic freedom, there will be no peace between the
Faculty and the Board of Regents, and unpredictable damage will
continue to be done to one of the hitherto most democratic State
Universities of the country.

35

APPENDIX A

By the authority of the State Board of Education

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

has appointed

to the rank of
PROFESSOR
with tenure extending continuously.

President

APPENDIX B

The Regents of the University of California

Berkeley 4, California

Oct 3 1949

ROBERT M. UNDERHILL

Secretary and Treasurer

My dear Professor X:

At the annual budget meeting of The Regents of the University
of California, your salary for the year ending June 30, 1950, as Pro-
fessor of

was fixed at $

subject to deductions as provided in the Retiring Annuities System
adopted by The Regents of the University of California and in force
at the date hereof, and State and Federal tax deductions.

Will you kindly sign the enclosed letter and return it to me before
the first of next month.

Yours very truly,

R. M. Underhill

36

APPENDIX C

The Regents of the University of California

Berkeley, California

October 28, 1944

ROBERT M. underhill

Secretary and Treasurer

My dear Mr. X:

This is to notify you that you have been appointed Lecturer

m.

for the period July 1, 1944 to June 30, 1945, with salary at the rate
of $ per annum.

Appointment is subject to such deductions as may be required
under the Retiring Annuities System or the State Employees' Retire-
ment Act, and State and Federal tax deductions.

Before this appointment can become effective it will be necessary
for you to sign and return the enclosed letter of acceptance. Please
do so at the earliest possible date.

Yours very truly,

W. W. Holstrom
Assistant Secretary of the Regents

37

APPENDIX D

The Regents of the University of California
Office of the Secretary and Treasurer

May 1, 1950

ROBERT M. UNDERHILL

Secretary and Treasurer

GEORGE D. MALLORY

Assistant Secretary and
Assistant Treasurer

MARJORIE J. WOOLMAN

Assistant Secretary

GEORGE F. TAYLOR

Assistant Secretary

240 administration BUILDING
Berkeley 4, California

My dear Professor X:

This is to notify you that you have been appointed Professor

of

for the period July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950

with salary at the rate of $ per annum.

Salary is subject to such deductions as may be required under the
Retiring Annuities System or the State Employees' Retirement Act,
and State and Federal tax deductions.

It will be necessary for you to sign and return the enclosed letter
of acceptance of the position and salary in the form prescribed by
the Regents on April 21, 1950; and subscribe and swear to the
enclosed oath before a notary public.

Yours very truly,

Personal

George D. Mallory
Assistant Secretary

38

APPENDIX E

June 15, 1940

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

Dr. X:

Faculty Club
Campus

My dear Dr. X:

Let me congratulate you most warmly on your promotion to the
grade of Associate Professor. This not only marks an advance in
itself but places you on the permanent status which is so important
in the academic career. Such a decision resting upon the careful
study by various academic bodies should be a source of greatest
satisfaction to you. My warmest of congratulations and all good
wishes for the future.

Cordially,

Monroe E. Deutsch
Vice-President and Provost

39

APPENDIX F

Proposed House or Senate Bill

A Bill

For an Act Defining Academic Freedom for Members of the

Teaching Profession; Making Acts Restricting Such

Freedom Unlawful; and Providing Penalties.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Act, the phrase Academic
Freedom shall mean the right of a member of the teaching profes-
sion, including any person employed as a teacher in any public school,

college or institution of the State of [ } supported by public

funds of this state, to engage in all lawful civic activities acknowl-
edged to inhere in the civic duties, responsibilities, and privileges of
the private citizen, and to belong to any lawful political party, labor
union, or other lawful organization of teachers in this state or any
subdivision thereof.

Section 2. Certain Acts Prohibited. Any person who shall in-
terfere with the Academic Freedom of any teacher as above defined,
or who shall intimidate or threaten said teacher by reason of said
teacher's exercise of said Academic Freedom, or who shall in any
way impede said teacher in the exercise of said freedom, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor. Any member of a school board or of the
State Board of Education, officer or employee of the State Depart-
ment of Education, President or officer of any State School, College
or Institution, Superintendent or other administrative officer of any
public high school or elementary school, who shall individually or
as a member of said board, interfere with the exercise of Academic
Freedom as above defined, or who shall make any teacher's employ-
ment or discharge contingent upon the exercise or the non-exercise
of said teacher's Academic Freedom as above defined, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor.

Section 3. Certain Contracts Unlawful. Any contract of em-
ployment between a teacher and any employing authority, school or
board of this state, which makes it a condition of said employment
that said teacher surrender his Academic Freedom as herein defined,
is unlawful, null and void, insofar as it provides such a condition
for employment.

Section 4. Penalties. Any person found guilty of a misdemeanor
for violating the provisions of this act as defined in Section 2 hereof
shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than
thirty days and not more than ninety days, and by a fine of not less
than one hundred dollars and not more than five hundred dollars.

Section 5. Repealing Conflicting Acts. All acts or parts of acts
in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

40

PARKER PRINTING COMPANY

•AN FIIANC(SOO
1950

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
BERKELEY 4, CALIFORNIA

March 2, 1950

Dear Ray,

let sa round out that not quite pleasant, but at least
quite honest and sincere conversation of yf !^;;;^^y42r"°?Lf
MuSVoS%r?J:ierfraTinJ?nJ:rn^ a^tfit^e^as 7^

S'^"^ - i^ fed^Li VSi^ ^^^i^^ wLther
r;an^ShriI°^aror St so long as he bears in his heart an
l„^e Of hS^MJaS Shich is unahfkable and uncompromising and
iSch my lustify'the mention of the name of God even in a
semte^eetlng of a State University. You my include me with
fhSte you ha?f castigated for scholarly pride, or {0^°^?^°^^^,

T do not believe you will accuse me of complacency and
-. V ^* ^-^l^Mn^ Li^it in the name of anti-Barbarus. But our
lack of fighting spirit in ^^® ?tt with the diplomatic expedlen-
conversation has convinced me that '^^^'^.;^°Jt^X^''zt^t.^ ^or have
cies of campus policy the things I am ^^Jri^^^J^^J^nce a°d
iT?+i« to do' that is, to savs at least the appearance ana
l^ie of if 'not human beauty, at least professional dignity
image or, ^J nox a»^" stru^lling and perhaps doomed Faculty
:S^f to'the iTril withoutni tSf worl? west of the Iron Curtain.

■The thinx that prevents me from resigning at this
moment is Slt'^ofably /would resign together with President
Sproul. And fortunately you have reminded me to Il^'tp^^.^rto
SsoS^tions every step we take me If "^^f l/!;^^^ thei teem
-take things easy" which are not easy, or to ma^e them seem
weightless on the background of eternity.

Cordially

ii!f«ii ^»^4 ^m^

yN»» ^-^rtw* ■»-*■> t H^^gM III'' i >!■ > iiwiP—T'^ ■■ 1 ■miiffiiiw^M ^ mm ^^ym

J^

.1

wm,>im-mtr

Ernst H. Kantorowicz

Statement
June 14, 1949.

As a historian who has investigated and Iraced the
histories of quite a number of oaths, I feel competent
to-make a statement indicating the grave dangers residing
in the introduction of an enforced oath, and to express
at the same time, from a human and professional point of
view, my deepest concern ahout the stepe talren |}y the
Regents of this University.

1) Both history and experience have taught us that every oath
or oath formula, once introduced or enforced, has the
tendency to develop its own autonomous life* At the time
of its introduction an oath formtila may appear harmless j>
as harmless as the one proposed by the Regents of this
University. But nowhere and never has there been a garanty
that an oath formula imposed on, or extorted from, the
subjects of an all-powerful state will, or must, remain
unchanged, The contrary is true. All oaths in history
that I know of, have undergone changes. A new word will be
added.. A sentence, apparently insignificant, will be
smuggled in. The next step may be a seemingly harmless
change in the tense, from present to past: "I have never
believed in and have nevex supported a party..."; or from
present to future: ••I shall never believe in and shall '
never support..." The consequences of an oath are un-
predictable. It will not be in the hands of those imposing -
the oath to controll its consequences, nor of those taking
it ever to step back again. And the definition and inter-
pretation "subversiveness" may become even more dangerously
flimsy and superficial than at present. Any party -
White Rose or Red Rose, Roman Chxirch or Reformed Church,
Republicans or Democrats - may appear "subversive" from
the other* s point of view.

2) The harmlessness of the proposed oath is hot a protection
when a principle is involved. A harmless oath formula
which conceals the true issue, is always. the most dangerous*

~~**3W»^Bg»f .1B_»I> ' "".'

T-r"— —— ■■ , ' M ^ftimi •.

',.*»:ufmii^^

«

*' >'»'"">T^!T-.<"-^*«S.

one because it baits even the old and experienced fish.
It is the harmless oath which hooks; it hooks before it
has undergone those changes that will render it, bit by
bit, less harmless. Italy of 1931 » fiermany of 1953, are
terrifying and warning examples for the harmless bit-by-bit
procedure in connection with political, enforced oaths.

3^

History shows that it never pays to yield to the impact of
momentary hjrsteria, or to jeopardize, for the sake of temp-
orary or^ temporal advantages, the permanent or eternal
values.. It was just that kind of a "little oath" that
prompted hundred thousands in recent years, and others in
the generation before ours, to leave their homes and seek
the shores of this Continent and Country, The new oath,
if really eixforced, will endanger certain genuine values
the grandeur of which is not in proportion with the
alleged advantages. Besides, this oath - ijivalid anyhow
because taken under duresse - will cut alpo the other way;
it will have the effects of a drum beating up for Communist
and Fascist recruits.

4)

The new oath hurts, not by its wording, but by the partic-
ular circumstances of its imposition. It tyrannizes
because it brings the scholar sworn to truth into a con-,
rflict-of conscience. To create alternatives - "black or
white" — is a common privilege of modem and bygone
dictatorships. It is a typical expedient of those dictator-
ships to bring only the most loyal citizens into a con-
flict of conscience by branding Non-conformists as
Dn-Athenian, Un-English, Un-German, and - which is worse -
by placing them before an alternative of two acknowledged
evils, different in kind, but equal in danger.

The crude method of "Take it or leave it" - "Take yoxu:
oath or leave your job" - creates a condition of duresse
close to political blackmail. This impossible alternative,
which will naake the official either jobless or cynical,
leads to another completely false alternative: "If you
don*t sign, you are a Communist who has no claim to tenure.

■I

\

JTbis irbole procedure is bouDd to make the loyal citizen^
one way or other, a liar ar*d untrue to hiinself because any
decision he r^akes will bind hdin to a cau^e which in truth
is not his own. Those who belong, de facto or at heart,
to the ostracised parties will always find it easy to sign
the oatb and zLa^e tbeir isental reservation. Those who do
not sign wil be, i^om as ever, also those that suffer -
suffer, not for their party creed or sympatLies, but becausa.
they defend a superior, constitutional principle far beyond
and above insipid party lines.

5; I am not talking about political expediency or academic

freedom, nor even about that cath invalidated the xcoment 4t
is tak-en, but wish to cicphasise the trv^ issue at stakes

the feoitan dignity..

There are three professions which are entitled to wear
a gown.1 the c-udge, the priest, the scholar. This garment
stands for its bearer's inaturity of mind, his. independence
of ;udgaent, and his direct responsibility to his conscience
and to his G-od. It signifies the inner sovereignty of
those three interrelated professions; they should be the
v^rj last to allow theiiselvea to act under duresse*

It is a snameful una undignified act, it is an affront
mm^ a ^riolation of both the huinan sovereignty and the pro-
fessional dignity that one has dared to bully the bearer of
this- gown into a situation in which - under the pressure of
a bewildering coercion - he is cosipelled to give up either
his tenure or, together with his freedom of judgment, his
human dignity and his responsible sovereignty as a scholar.

^

III. I u

[■■III l» "I !■ ^ ^ ^m

Er 4.1.5 U -H» .,.Kantorowic
June ■14th, 1949.

^ <S— ^"^ •

-As a conservative historian who has investigated and
"traced the histories of q^uite a n-om'ber of oaths, I feel
competent to make a statement indicating the grave
dangers residing in the introduction of an enforced oath,
and to express at the same time, from a hiimanand profes-
sional point of view my deepest concern about the steps ^
taken hy the Regents of this University.

1)

•■^rc:

.:^«ki-.j ^^wf" '•_■'«

Both history and experience have taught _ us that every
oath or oath formula, once introduced or.-erxf orced, has
the tendency to develop its own autonomous life^ At the ^
time of its introduction an oath formula may appear harm-
less, as harmless as the one proposed ty the Regents of
this University. But nowhere and never has t_iiere ceen a
garanty that an oath formula imposed on, or extorted
from, the suhiects of an all-po-jverful state will, or must,
remain unchanged. The -contrary is true. All oaths in
history that I lm:iow of, have undergone changes.. A ne;v
vroTl will "be adied. A sentence, apparently insignificant,

"U

wi__ r:e smu

u><^

jled in. The next step may "be a seemingly

harmless change in the tense, from present to past:
"I have ne\''eT believed in and .have never supported a
party..."; ox from the present to the fut;;jre: "I shall
never believe in and shall never support..." The con-
sej.uences of an oath are unpredictable. It will not be
in the hands of those imposing the oath to control its
consec^uences, nor of those taking it ever to step back,
again. And the definition and interpretation of

p .

^subversiveness" . may "become even flimsier and pore super-
ficial than at present. Any party - White Rose or Red
Rose, Roman Church or Reformed Church, Republicans or
Democrats - may appear ^'subversive"" from- the other's point
of view*

The harmlessness of the proposed oath is not a pro-
tection when a principle is involved. A harmless oath

. ■ ■ - . -.*.-■%'

formula,, which conceals, the true issue, is Always the. most
dangerous one because it baits even the old and experienced
fish^ It is the harmless oath that hooks';" that is, before

■ .-' . ■ . • -.■' '"^ "•* "*-•"- ■-•:- i"^-'^»'-*'^5i,4-^Tr' ." ■

it has undergone those changes that wilL_ render it, bit by
bit, less harmless. Italy of 1931, Gerinany of 1933 are .
terrifying and warning examples for the bit-by-bit proced-
ure in connection with political enforced oaths..

2)

■he oath formula in its present form is, all.by itself, so

CO

louj-less that it means next to nothing and is super-

fluous. I assume that all of us have taken, one-time or
other, a similar oath Just as I did at the time of my -^.^
immigration and naturalization. The repetition of an oath
that binds nan for all times, is superfluous and damaging.

A

n anrniallj reoeated oath is a barbarous monstrosity from

a legal point of view, and it is a frivolous blasphemy in •
other respects. 'An oath, if it has any meaning at all,
is a sacred thing, and it is rarely demanded. It either
binds for all times or not at all, but it r.ever expires.
The an::ual repetition does not duplicate or triplicate the
effects of an oath, but devaluates the verw institution of
the oath. And it characterizes a government v;hich has to
stoop to such measures to sec^-ire allegiance.

•.■■■^.f if^ 'u: .•••'"">,Vv. '» l^'-'S'^f 'I^ii' •. ■ •r'.;V>f'"

1.., > t

3)

History shows that it never pays to yield to the. impact of
momentary hysteria, or to jeopardize, for the sake of ten>-

'♦little oath'* that ^ '

porary or temporal advantages, the permanent and' eternal
values. Tt was just that kind of a

some hundred thousands in recent years and the generations

. *• >• ""^ ,• . ■ ■ ' *

"before ours to leave their homes and seek the shores of
this Continent and Country. The new oath, if really .en— .
forced, will endanger certain genuine values the grandeur'

of which is not

in proportion with the-, alleged advantages.

Besides, this oath - invalid anyhow because 'taken under
duresse - will cut also the other wayr.^it- will, have the ..-

.r#^ "

ef-i'ects of a drum heating up for Communist and Fascist '"''''"^
recruits.

4)

The new oath hurts, not "by its wording, "but by the partic-
ular circumstances of its imposition. It tyrannizes
cecause it brings all of us into a conflict of conscience.
To create alternatives - "black or white" - is a common
privilege of modern and bygone dictatorships. It is a
typical expedient of those dictatorships to bring the most
loyal citizens into the conflict of conscience oy branding
the Non-Conformists simply as Un-Athenian, Un-English,
Un-Cerman, and - which is worse - by placing them before
an alternative of two evils, different in kind, but eaual
in danger.

The crude method of "Take it or leave it" - "Take your
oath or leave your job" - creates a condition of duresse
close to political blaclcmail. This impossible alternative

• j'.'i'V

-> »

e'

v^ ./..'- " t*.

*^';-

,-'a I'Vi .. .

o», 1-

•r. - V

:^4.

^M. h . ^ «r

ivhich will make the:fpfficial , either jobless-^or .cynical,
leads to another completely false alternative: "If you "''
don't sign, you are a Cormnunist who "has no claim to
tenure." This whole procedure is bound to make the loyal
citizen, one way or other, a liar and untrue to himself
because any decision he makes will bind him to a cause
which .in truth is not his O'vvn. . Those who belong, de fact.

-• :;>.;;-,v or at heart , to the ostracised parties- wilL always. find ::^'
it easy to sign the oath and make their 'mental reservat-

-'^r..

y'K.:.'-ir:'y^^-:.^- ■r^r:^:J-'' .

■" f-rj "'/''•;• ••^.-.i

ionr'-'Those who do not sign will be, .now as. ever, also l,^''

- , . t . .. • . -.. -. ■•' ... ■ fC . ■-.'•'• '»'•■>•■' -f .'. "-.""■ i':^- ''Vt -'(• •••f f V •- '

those that suffer - suffer, not for; their party,..creed.'or .

• %* *- » ,

sympathies, but because theci defend a superior constitute
ional principle far beyond and above insipid party lines^^

5)

•• -»•* •»-•#*»■.

I am not talking about political expediency or academic
freedom, nor even about that oath without value, but wish
to emphasize the true issue at stake: the human dignity.

There are three professions which are entitled to wear
a gown: the juSlge, the" priest, the scholar. This garment.^
stands for its bearer's maturity of mind, his independenc<
of judgment, and his direct responsibility to his con-
science and to hi^ God. It signifies the inner sovereignt;
of those three interrelated professions, which should be
the v^^ry last to allow themselves to act under duresse.

It is a shameful and undignified act, it is an affront
and a violation of both the human sovereignty and the
professional dignity that one has dared to bully the

V

bearer of this govm into a situation in which - under the
pressure of a bewildering coercion, - he is compelled ^to
Kive uo either his tenure or, together with his freedon o

-".• ,'.■•- ». .• » ' i >•- .»•■ . ..■ « ...-«.

."»r-f>r*^->»i«'-f. K-^.*

V . . """" . '*r.*. .<•. . - • ^ -^ .

-^ ••*». • ,* ,

\

>

/

'■ T^ • . I .. , .1 . , . ^ - -- '--,*. »

.' '. ^ .'"■'t^'-'V .

IW.» 1 »W1.1«.'J> iPfi>"Tli

-.ty -

•--Vi--i-.--.r

. -h r-f.bc-
..t ....,.'.■,.■-..■ tTTiJf.. •i':. ..' .

judgment, .his human dimity and his responsible sovereign-

. . -, . .. •/'■•r .■•■•* ..■,^,' ^„S J...- ji-«-*ju •*.■ •••'• ••

ty as a scholar

-';-; :4v^»Tj^-;.-

•i'-^-^-

, ..... " S". ■ .

■■• -y^ •.'),■•. ■ .r ... .

■■■:''-^.

iV >;■ •M. •'. .'V- J.,,;;; ;,■;•*,•>.';:;.-•:.'.'.' ;••'":

: *.,.

....•..•>>

"•Tf ..■ ;.. •

•f .

i:...;.b

re?-

•

.■

.v.A.:

\

f\\^ niG '-ii$

em^y US^\^ cr ovu 'CI Coiie^HG^\

^^3/<U

S'Q^vUyU^

4

/

A PLEA
TO THE REGENTS

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

By John Walton Caughey

A PLEA
TO THE REGENTS

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

spoken at their meeting

on July 2 1, ip^o

when they were ponderifig dis?nissal

of forty professors

certified as to loyalty

and scholarly integrity

by the faculty committee on privilege a7id tenure

By John Walton Caughey

I

i

Governor Warren, President Sproul,
Members of the Board of Regents:

I am one of those who took the route of appeal to the committee on
privilege and tenure, the president, and the regents. 1 am here not so
much to enter a plea for myself as for the group which chose this
harder way, and not so much to plead for this group as for the wel-
fare of the university as a whole.

Some of you know me, but let me introduce myself briefly. After
graduate work at Berkeley I went to U.C.L.A., where I have been
for twenty years. I am an American historian with a special interest
in California history. I have a dozen books to my credit and have
worked with thousands of undergraduate students and a hundred or
more graduate students. I am editor of the Pacific Historical Review,
general editor of the Chronicles of California, a member of the Cali-
fornia State Landmarks Committee, and consultant for the California
State Lands Commission in the Tidelands litigation. At forty-eight
I am, statistically, at the halfway point in my career in the university.
The gods willing, I have another twenty years before retirement.

My specialization in California history is an extra tie binding me
to our university. But I am not unique in having a great devotion to
the university. The whole faculty has this feeling, and so, I am sure,

do you.

Men who have the interest of an institution so much at heart as you
do and as we do ought to be able to find an area of agreement. We
should be able to find a way out of this great and tragic misunder-
standing.

I have no illusions that we can argue our way out of it. I am here
not to argue, but to try to explain why some of us chose the route of

?

appeal and why we count on being continued in the university fam-
ily through that route.

First, let me make clear that there is no conspiracy among us. We
have not, for example, tried to get before you a group of men all
equipped with military records, FBI clearance, the right religious
connections, and long tenure in the university. I, for example, be-
cause of physical disability was ineligible for military service. My
specialization being what it is, I have not come under FBI scrutiny.
Having been brought up a Presbyterian rather than a Quaker, I do
not rest on religious scruple. All these factors, however, seem to me
extraneous. We appellants acted individually, impelled by reasons of
conscience and principle. We did so in spite of the fact that we rec-
ognized that the route we were choosing, as compared to simple and
automatic clearance by signature, was a much harder course.

Second, we are loyal Americans. We gladly took the constitutional
oath. To us it meant a pledge of full and unqualified loyalty. Further-
more, our loyalty, along with our competence and character, has
been carefully investigated by the committee on privilege and ten-
ure, and the committee reports have been carefully weighed by the
president. In these reports and recommendations you have evidence
that is worth more than a mere assertion by a possible suspect and an
interested party.

The reasons why we prefer not to sign the statement of denial of
membership in a designated political party vary, person to person.
Mine include the following:

The political test as a condition of employment seems to me to in-
fringe on tenure as we have known it.

To sweep through the university and demand of every employee
a political denial seems to me to violate the spirit of the state consti-
tution.

The political test, by oath or contract, seems to me very much like
the tactics of totalitarianism, which I abhor. I could not help notic-
ing the alarm of several colleagues who had seen the same sort of
thing happen under Hitler.

Required denial, by oath or affirmation, is a farcical way to insure
loyalty or to exclude Communists. I don't believe it has exposed a

I

traitor or improved a patriot. Committee investigation and presiden-
tial review can give a much sounder certification of loyalty, and it
was partly on this account that I chose this route.

As an American historian I have a special awareness that a demo-
cratic republic such as ours needs to have functioning and vocal
minorities. The majority endangers itself and the country when it
attempts to silence them. As a historian, too, I am well aware how
an action of this sort can easily become a precedent justifying an-
other such step. I see involved the principle of minority rights, or
rather of the wisdom of permitting minorities to exist and operate.

Along with other members of the faculty I have dedicated my life
to the pursuit of knowledge. I try to make my classes a place where
my students and I constantly try to learn. I take seriously the uni-
versity's dedication to the free pursuit of truth and its full exposition.
The political test as a basis for eligibility in the faculty seems to me
to violate this vital principle— that a university must rely on truth to
combat error.

In a totalitarian state there may be logic in having a party-line uni-
versity. For us I do not believe there is logic or safety in having less
than a free university. Academic freedom is usually taken to mean
the right of a qualified scholar to teach, speak, and write in the field
of his competence without interference. A fundamental thereto is
that such a scholar shall not be censored out of eligibility to get or to
hold an academic job.

These arguments against the special oath and the special contract
still seem to me to be valid.

In April the board of regents announced two methods of quahfy-
ing for continuance in the faculty. One was simple and automatic:
the other more complicated, full of hazard for an incompetent schol-
ar or a traitor, but presumably safe for a good patriot and good schol-
ar. To the faculty policy committee on April 19 and to the faculty
as a whole on April 22 and 24 and May 6 and 7 the formula was ex-
plained in this fashion. It also is the clear reading of the document it-
self, which sets forth two ways to stay in the university— one easy and
broad, the other awkward and tortuous, but still a route advertised
as open.

'I

It was with this understanding that the faculty accepted the for-
mula and that a few score men chose the route of appeal. It is in this
spirit that a few of us still count on this establishment of our eligibil-
ity. We think we acted within the clear authorization of the regents.

In the last couple of weeks some of my colleagues who went
through the committee hearings have found reason to abandon that
route and to switch to the other. Personally, I cannot see my way
clear to make such an about-face.

To do so now would imply lack of sincerity in my original stand.

To do so now would look like an act of fear.

To do so now would indicate loss of confidence in the committee
on privilege and tenure and in its action in clearing me.

To do so now would be a similar desertion of the president. I cher-
ish a couple of letters of commendation from him written in quite
different contexts and prior to this whole controversy. I also am
proud to know that his approval is on the favorable report of the
committee on privilege and tenure. I don't see how I could run away
from my present position without betraying lack of trust in the wis-
dom and efficacy of his recommendation.

Also, for me to sign now would indicate no confidence in the good
faith of the board of regents.

My wish is that the regents, with confidence in the faculty re-
stored, would cancel the whole requirement of a political denial. My
immediate plea, however, is merely that the board honor its word of
April 2 1 , that the road of appeal be treated as a legitimate pathway,
and that the reports and recommendations of the committees and the
president be received by the board with the respect that they deserve
and which the faculty had every reason to expect would be accorded.

Such action will be a long step toward the reestablishment of that
concord within and between the faculty and the regents which we
all recognize our university must have.

Under different title these re?mrks appeared in the August /j, i^jo,
issue of Frontier.

3 Civil No.

In the

District Court of Appeal
State of California

Third Appellate District

Edward C. Iolman, et al.,

Petitioners^

vs.

Robert M. Undkrhill. as Secretary and
Treasurer of the Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Respondents.

Points and Authorities in Support
Of Petition for Writ of Mandate

Stanley A. Weigel,

275 Bush Street,

San Francisco 4, California,

Attorney for Petitioners.

PARKER PRINTING COMPANY. 180 FIRST STREET. SAN FRANCISCO

SUBJECT INDEX

Page
Introduction 1

The basic facts shown by the petition 1

Facts alleged in the petition showing the necessity of mandate
as a remedy and the reasons why the application for man-
date is addressed directly to this court 5

Argument 7

1. Petitioners' appointments to their respective posts on
the faculty of the University of California, a public
trust under the State Constitution, became vested and
irrevocable when made on July 21, 1950 7

A. Preliminary considerations 7

B. The appointment of petitioners on July 21, 1950,
was an irrevocable act entitling each to his or her
respective f)ost on the faculty of the University
and leaving open only the ministerial act of formal
notification 8

C. There are no compelling considerations weighing
against applicability of the doctrine of MacAlister

V. Baker to the instant case 10

II. Concerning paragraph XIII of the petition 12

III. Conclusion 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases

Pages

Board of Education v. McChesney (Ky. 1930), 32 S.W. (2d)
26

12

Clark V. McBaine (Mo. 1923) , 252 S.W. 428 12

Davie v. Board ot Regents (1924), 66 Cal. App. 693
Draper v. State (Ala. 1911) , 57 So. 772

Eason v. Majors (Nebr. 1923), 196 N.W. 133
Estate of Royer (1899) , 123 Cal. 614

Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California (1934),
293 U.S. 245, 55 S.Ct. 197

7
10

11

7

7,8

MacAlister v. Baker (1934) , 139 Cal. App. 183 8, 10

Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 54 [2 L.Ed. 60] 9

Patton V. Board of Health (1899) , 127 Cal. 388 11

State V. Barbour (Conn. 1885) , 22 A. 686 10

State V. Hardin (Tenn. 1931) , 43 S.W. (2d) 924 9, 10

State V. Tyrell (Wis. 1914) , 149 N.W. 280 10

State V. Wadhams (Minn. 1896) , 67 N.W. 64 10

Taylor v. Board of Education (W. Va. 1931), 160 S.E. 299. .10, 12

Vincenheller v. Regan (Ark. 1901) , 64 S.W. 278 11

Wallace v. Regents of the University of California (1925),

75 Cal. App. 274 7

Williams v. Wheeler (1913) , 23 Cal. App. 619 7

Wolfe V. Henegar (Tenn. 1943) , 173 S.W. (2d) 554 9

Constitutional Provisions

Constitution of the State of California,

Article IX, Sec. 9

Article XX, Sec. 3

7
13

Treatises and Miscellaneous

89 American Law Reports 1 32

Bacon, Francis, "The Advancement of Learning," 1605

Jones, "Primer of Intellectual Freedom," Harvard Univ.
Press, 1949

10
14

14

In the

District Court of Appeal
State of California

Third Appellate District

Edward C. Tolman, et al.,

Petitioners^

vs.

Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and
Treasurer of the Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Respondents.

Points and Authorities in Support
Of Petition for Writ of Mandate

INTRODUCTION
The Basic Facts Shown by the Petition.

Petitioners are 20 members of the faculty of the Uni-
versity of California. Five have served the University for
more than 30 years; the length of such service of the re-
mainder ranges from 25 years downwards. Included among

the petitioners are many renowned scholars. Most of j>eii-
tioners have distinguished records of service, in and out
of uniform, to the nation.

All petitioners assert that on July 21, 1950, by valid ac-
tion of the Regents of the University of California, they
were appointed to their respective posts on the faculty and
that such appointment was then and there irrevocable.

They claim, both under and independent of tenure rights,
that subsequent efforts to revoke or reconsider their ap-
pointments are unlawful.

Their petition and the appendices thereto show that
on April 19, 1950, a committee of the California Alumni
Association proposed a settlement of the so-called loyalty
oath controversy which had been raging at the University
for over a year. It is shown that the settlement thus pro-
posed would, if adopted by the University, permit any fac-
ulty member of Academic Senate rank (all petitioners hold
such rank) either to sign a special declaration [Petition,
Appendix III] in a special form of contract or to follow the
alternative of hearing and review before the Academic
Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The petition
alleges that the alumni committee recommendation was
the basis for a resolution of the Regents of the University
of California, adopted two days later, on April 21. 1950.
and that such resolution provided the same alternatives.
Both the recommendations of the alumni committee and
said resolution are set forth in full as appendices.

The petition shows that each petitioner, in accordance
with the provisions of the resolution, sought and was
granted the hearing, that each appeared before the Com-
mittee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate,
that each was fully investigated by said committee, that
the committee recommended the appointment of each

petitioner to the President of the University, that the Presi-
dent of the University reconnnended it to the Regents
and that on July 21. 1950, the Regents duly appointed each
petitioner.

The petition then proceeds to show that notwithstand-
ing such appointment, respondent Underbill, Secretary
and Treasiner of the University, "has unlawfully refused,
neglected and failed to transmit letters of appointment to
petitioners and still refuses, neglects and fails to do so."
[Petition, paragraph VIII, p. 6.]

The petition acknowledges that at a subse(|uent meeting
of the Regents of the University of California, by a vote of
12 to 10, an attempt was made to revoke the appointments.
The full facts on this meeting of the Regents are brought
to the attention of this court by the incorporation of a
transcript of the public proceedings of the Regents on
August 25, 1950.

Such transcript discloses, in detail, that the attorney
for the Board of Regents publicly advised that body, prior
to the attempted revocation, that the appointments were
irrevocable. The transcript also shows that, after ftill dis-
cussion and extended consideration, the Governor of the
State of California, presiding as President of the Board of
Regents, ruled that the motion looking toward revocation
of the appointments [technically, it was a motion for recon-
sideration] was inilawful, declaring:

"Governor Warren: Regent Ehrman, as far as I
am concerned, I am of the opinion that whether these
people are public officers, or whether they are execut-
ing a public trust, is a distinction without a difference.

'We recognize that these people are performing im-
portant public functions. That is the reason we are
having this discussion here today, and the importance
of the appointment of a President of this university,

or a Vice President, or a Dean, or the head of a depart-
ment, or a professor, or even an insirucior, ii seems lo
me, is of equal importanc:e lo the public as the ap-
pointment or election of any other public officer, and
1 don't believe that we have the right to consider here
thai these people don't rise to the dignity of a City
Councilman or a constable or other public ofFicers
who come under this rule. They are performing a
public function just as much as I am as Governor oi
this State. And I believe that their rights and their
prerogatives and their status before this Board should
be treated with equal solemnity and consideration.

"Now, gentlemen, I might say that unless there is
further discussion, I am going to rule in accordance
with the opinion of the attorney for the Board of Re-
gents, namely, that Regent Neylan has taken what
steps are nec:essary to bring before this Board a proper
motion for reconsideration, but I am going to hold
in accordanc:e with the opinion of the atiorne) for
the Board that this is an executive act and not a leg-
islative act: that the power of this Board in the ap-
pointment was fully executed when we voted at the
last meeting to retain these members of the Faculty,
and that, therefore, the motion as a matter of law is
not subject for reconsideration at this time, and I
sustain the point of order of Regent Hansen."

Petition, Appendix VI, Tr. pp. 88-39.

The same appendix shows that the ruling of Go-vernor
Warren was appealed from and that the appeal was sus-
tained by a vote of 12 to 10, subsequently leading to a A'ote
at the same meeting by the same majority having the effect
c^f purporting to revoke the appointments made the previous
month.^

'^A tt'lepram troiu Admiral Chester M\ Nimitz, read b\ ttie Governor at
the meeting makes it clear that had Repent Nimity been present ai the
meeting, the vote would have been even narrower, i.e., 12 to 11. (Petition.
Appendix VI, Tr. p. 42.)

The petition challenges tlic xahdiiy of the attcmpicil
revocation.

In essence, then, the petition seeks, in accordance with
the theory upon which it is grounded, the order of this
court commanding the respondent Dnderhill, Secretary and
Treasmer of the University, to cany out a ministerial act
incident to the appointment of each p>etiiioncr by issuing
the letter of appointment.

Focfs Alleged in the Pefifion Showing the Necessity of Mandate
OS Q Remedy and fhe Reosons Why the Application for Man-
date Is Addressed Directly to This Court.

Paragraph IX of the petition shows that despite the fact
that petitioners have, since July 1, 1950, regularly per-
formed and at all times stood ready to perform the duties
of their respective jx)sts to which they clann they have been
appointed, they have received no compensation and that
as a Lunsequence their well being and that of their families
is in serious jeopardy. The same paragraph shows addi-
tional facts of even greater and more pressing imp>ortance.
Such facts are summarized as follows:

1. Subparagraph B of paragraph IX of the petition
alleges jeopardy to the people of the State of Califor-
nia and peril to the welfare, dignity and future of the
University of California in that, unless the petition
be granted: The functioning of the University will be
seriously impaired, petitioners engaged in vital teach-
ing and research programs, some of which are con-
nected with and essential to national defense, will be
unable to perform their work effectively or at all: stu-
dents receiving educational benehts under the G. I.
Bill of Rights will be deprived of the full \alue of
those benefits: and the training and research programs

of the University, in fields connected with national
defense, will be interfered with and delayed.

2. Subparagraphs C, D and E of paragraph IX of the
petition, collectively, declare that the challenged ac-
tion of a slender majority of the Regents on August
25, 1950, will, unless this court intervenes, arbitrarily
cut off and destroy valuable rights of petitioners with-
in ten days from August 25, 1950, thai petitioners
are being deprived of the privileges, prerogatives, fa-
cilities and benefits to which they are entitled b} vir-
tue of their claimed appointments and thus their
careers, reputations and opportunities are being ir-
reparably injured, and that the security of faculty
members of Academic Senate rank will have been un-
dermined by the substitution of arbitrary and unlaw-
ful action for laws, statutes, regulations and orders
governing appointment, tenure and dismissal.

Finally, paragraph X of the petition, alleging that peti-
tioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law,
points up the imperative need for early determination in
these words: "A speedy determination ol the matter is,
furthermore, important to the students of the University
of California, as well as to petitioners, because the fall
semester begins September 18, 1950."

1
I

I

ARGUMENT

I. Pefifioners' Appoinfments to Their Respective Posts on the
Foculty of the University of Colifornio. o Public Trust under
the State Constitution. Became Vested and Irrevocable When
Mode on July 21. 1950.

A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

The University of California is a public irusi and is so
established by Article IX, Section 9, of the State Constitu-
tion.

The Regents of the University of California comprise
a corporation vested, by the same section of the Constitu-
tion, with full powers of organization and government,
subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary
to insure compliance with the terms of the endowments
of the university and the security of its funds.*'

. . Bv the Constitution of 1879 the University of

California was raised to the dignity of a constitutional

department or function of the state government, by the

provisions of section 9 of article IX thereof ..."

Williams r. Wheeler (1913), 23 Cal. App. 619, at

622.

To the same effect and supporting the same concept, see:
Estate oi Royer (1899), 128 Cal. 614: Davie v. Board of
Regents (1924) , 66 Cal. App. 693: Wallace v. Regents of the
University of California (1925) , 75 Cal. App. 274; Hamil-
ton V. Regents of the University of California (1934) , 293
U.S. 245, 55 S.Ct 197.

In the Hamilwn case, supra, the Supreme Court of the
United States, referring to an order of the Regents, de-
clared :

". . . by the California Constitution the regents
are, with exceptions not material here, fully empow-
ered in respect of the organization and government of
the University which, as it has been held, is a consli-

8

tutional department or function of the state govern-
ment. Williams V. Wheeler (1913) , 23 Cal. App. 619,
623, 138 P. 937; Wallace v. Regents (1925), 75 Cal.

App. 274, 277, 242 P. 892 Tfie meaning of statute

of any state' [in Sec. 237 (a) Judicial Code, 28
U.S.C.A., P. 344 (a) ] is not limited to acts of state
Legislaiures. It is tised to inchide every act legislative
in character to which the state gives sanction, no dis-
tinction being made between acts of the state Legisla-
ture and other exertions of the state lawmaking pow-
er." (At pages 257-258.)

B. THE APPOiNTMEKT OF PETITIONERS ON JULY 21, 1950. WAS AN IRREV-
OCABLE ACT ENTITLING EACH TO HIS OR HER RESPECTIVE POST ON
THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY AND LEAVING OPEN ONLY THE
MINISTERIAL ACT OF FORMAL NOTIFICATION.

The leading California case stipporting the argument just
stated in the heading is Mac A lister v. Baker (1934), 139
Cal. App. 183. This case, read aloud by the (governor in
its entirety at the August 25th meeting of the Regents is,
it is submitted, determinative of the present petition.

Its facts, in summary, are these: On May 8, 1934, the
City Council of Los Angeles voted to fill a vacancy (as the
charter empowered it to do) by electing Robert S. MacAl-
ister thereto. The next day. May 9th, one councilman moved
for reconsideration of "the vote by which Robert S. Mac-
Alister was appointed to fill the vacancy". The President
of the council declared the motion out of order. The mov-
ant appealed the decision of the President. The motion to
reconsider was put and carried.

The next day. May 10th, petitioner took the oath of
office before a notary public, the City Clerk ha\ing been
enjoined from administering it. Petitioner MacAlister then
demanded of the council that he be allowed to participate
in its proceedings as a councilman, but was denied.

9

The matter was put to a legal test by petition for writ
of mandate to reqtiire MacAlistcr's recognition as a dtily
appointed coimcilman. The writ was addressed to the Dis-
trict Court of Appeal of this state. Second Appellate Dis-
trict. An alternative writ was isstied.

On the return, the court held that 'An appointment to
office is complete and beyond change, anntilment or recon-
sideration by the appointing power when everything re-
quiring the action of the appointing power has been done."
(At page 187.)

Drawing a distinction between legislative acts, not in-
volved in appointments, and exectitive acts, which are in-
volved in appointments, the court traced back the irrevo-
cability of executive acts of appointment to Marbury v.
Madison, 1 Cranch, 54 [2 L.Ed. 60]. One reason, at least,
for the ruling of irrevocability of appointments was stated
by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in State v. Hardin
(1931) , 43 S.W. (2d) 924. There the court held that where
a county cotirt of 53 magistrates was authorized by statute
to elect the county superintendent (apparently the county
superintendent of schools) ^ the person elected at the morn-
ing session of the meeting of the magistrates could not be
supplanted by reconsideration or revocation, after a lunch-
eon recess, at the same meeting on the same day. Holding
that the person elected in the morning was irrevocably ap-
pointed as against the claim of the person purportedly
elected on a basis of reconsideration in the afternoon, the
court observed: ". . . Where, as in this cause, the vote is
close, if the legislators are permitted to reconsider the ap-

'■^A reading of the Hardin case does not make it wholly clear that the
office involved was county superintendent of schcx>ls. The term used in
that case is solely "county superintendent". Clearly indicating that the
office was county superintendent oi schools, see Wolie v. Henegar (Tenn.

1943), 173 S.W. (2d) 554 at 556.

10
pointment, it affords an opportunity for corrupt bargain-
ing and a resort to coercive tactics which should be dis-
couraged." (at page 928)

MacAlister v. Baker speaks the tuiqualified and unchal-
lenged law of the State of California, as well as the weight
of authority in other jtirisdictions. Other leading cases evi-
dencing the weight of authority include: State v. Wadhams

(Minn. 1896), 67 N.W. 64; Drapery. State (Ala. 1911),
57 So. 772; State v. Barbour (Conn. 1885) , 22 A. 686; State
V. Tyrrell (Wis. 1914) , 149 N.W. 280; Taylor v. Board of
Education (W.Va. 1931), 160 S.E. 299; State v. Hardin

(Tenn. 1931), 43 S.W. (2d) 924, stipra.

For still further authorities, a few to the contrary, see
the annotation in 89 A.L.R., commencing at page 132.

C. THERE ARE NO COMPELLING CONSIDERATIONS WEIGHING AGAINST
APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF MAC ALISTER V. BAKER TO THE
INSTANT CASE.

It may be urged that university professors are not public
officers and that the doctrine of irrevocability of appoint-
ments is confined to public officers. For several reasons,
any such contentions would be grotuided in error.

In the first place, such contentions are unsupported
either by common knowledge or common sense. The Gov-
ernor of the State was exactly right in suggesting, as he
did, that w^hether petitioners are public officers or whether
they are executing a public trust is a distinction without a
difference. Surely, if the University of California is a public
trust, the chief responsibility for executing that public
trust lies in the faculty. The impact of the University upon
the public is the impact of the faculty upon students, par-
ents and citizens. The University, as a trust or otherwise,
would be an empty shell without a factilty.

11

This truth was well piu by the Supreme Court of Ne-
braska in Fmsou v. Majors (1923), 196 N.W. 133. There,
dealing with a (juestion as to whether or not a state normal
school teacher held an oflice within the meaning of a state
stattue governing remedies for removal from office, the Ne-
braska Stipreme Cotirt observed:

"In the case cited it was held that a sanitary in-
spector appointed by a legal board of health under
power conferred by the health act of the state is the
inctimbent of an office. Can it be said that the teacher
who distributes the bounty of the state is less engaged
in a public duty than such an inspector? The teacher
has a special place by the nature of things in the gov-
ernmental system, so far as it provides for education.
He is appointed and paid by the state. His place— we
may well say his office— is created by the state because
only through him can its free education be transmitted.
Nor is he a mere conduit. Quite the contrary. For edu-
cation cannot be poured out to people like water from
a pitcher. It must be carried to them in such a way as
to engage their interest and reach their understanding,
a labor involving knowledge of method, exercise of
authority, and wide use of discretion. A teacher must
prescribe courses, establish discipline, convince, lead.
In the due performance of his duty he not only en-
gages in a work of public concern, but wields a portion
of sovereign power." (At page 134, emphasis added.)

And the cpiotation gains especial force in the light of the
fact that in Patton v. Board of Health (1899), 127 Cal.
388, a health inspector of the City and County of San
Francisco was held to be a public officer. Compare Vincen-
heller v. Regan (Ark. 1901) , 64 S.W. 278, in which is was
held that the office of vice director and pomologist, created
by resolution of the Board of Trustees of the University
of Arkansas, was a public office subject to abolishment by
legislative act.

f

12

There is yet another, better and more direct answer to
any contention that the doctrine of the MacAlister case
fails to apply to facility members because they are not pub-
lic officers. In Taylor v. Board of Education (W. Va. 1931) ,
160 S.E. 299, supra, the doctrine of irrevocability of ap-
pointment was applied to a high school teacher. In Board
of Education v. McChesney (Ky. 1930), 32 S.W. (2d) 26,
the doctrine was applied to an attempted revocation of the
appointment of a cotuity stiperintendent of schools. And
compare Clark v. McBaine (Mo. 1923), 252 S.W. 428,-in
which it was held that a claimed libel against a professor of
law at the University of Missouri w^as subject to the qtiali-
fied privilege of fair comment on the acts of ptiblic oflicers,
the court declaring:

"The appellant having sought to be reinstated as a
teacher in the law factdty in the University, a ptd^lic
position of great responsibility and obvious interest
to citizens generally of the state, his fitness and (juali-
fications for that position were stibjects for public com-
ment, and as such were privileged ..." (At page 432.)

II. Concerning Paragraph XIII of the Petition.

To save the point, but not now to argtie it (in the inter-
est of the timely presentation to this cotirt of the petition
and these points and atuhorities) , the cotirt's attention is
respectfully invited to the grotnid of mandate set forth in
paragraph XIII of the petition. The theory and materiality
of its inclusion, briefly, is this: The referenced section of
the Constitution declares that members of the Legislature
and all officers, execiuive and judicial, shall take the stand-
ard oath or affirmation of stipport of the Constittuion of
the United States and the Constittuion of the State of Cali-
fornia and of faithful discharge of their duties. There fol-
low these words:

13

"And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be re-
(juired as a (jualification for any office or public trust."

Of course, if petitioners are the holders of a public trust,
within the meaning of the quoted portion of Article XX,
Section 3, of the State Constitution, it should be held, in
passing upon this petition, that the substitute for the loyalty
oath in the form of the special declaration [Petition, Appen-
dix III] constitutes an effort to impose a cjualification made
invalid by the State Constitution itself. All petitioners have
taken the oath prescribed by Article XX, Section 3 of the
State Constitution.

Counsel for petitioners, for the reasons indicated above,
has not had time to research and brief this point adecjuately
to do more than respectfully to raise it and suggest it to the
court at this time.

III. Conclusion.

Petitioners are before this court resting their cases upon
what they are convinced is the law of the state in estab-
lishing that their appointments for the current academic
year were and are irrevocable.

It would be an injustice to them, however, if it were not
suggested that they are before the court in support of con-
victions transcending even their desires to continue their
service to the University of California, to which they are
devoted and which so many of them have served so well
and faithfully for so many years.

The record presented by their petition, indeed, their
very action in initiating this proceeding, demonstrates that
they have risked their careers and their reputations in sup-
port of their profound convictions that academic freedom is
consistent with, not contrary to, the welfare of the state

14
and of the nation.* Their actions show, further, their un-
flinching dedication to their concept that teaching is a
noble profession, calling for adherence to the highest stand-
ards of individtial conduct and personal conscience. 1 hey
have evidenced a commendable determination that stich
standards mtist not, tenure-wise or otherwise, be imperilled
by the imposition of naked wills or arbitrary discipline.

At the same time, the record makes it clear that peti-
tioners themselves arc not arbitrary, stubborn or imyielding
to proper aiuhority. In good faith, they ptirstied a cotirse
which they believed was laid down for them by the Re-
gents, the governing authorities of the University. Ihc
reasonableness of their belief that stich was the cotirse laid
down is attested by the fact that the President of the Uni-
versity took the same view, as did the Governor of the
State of California, and as did nine other Regents of the
University, additional to the Governor and the University
President. More convincing even than stich testimony are
the plain words of the alumni committee recommendations
of April 19, 1950, upon which the Regents' resolution was
concededly based.

'^For an interesting compilation tracing, historically, the importance ot
academic freedom in protecting civilization and progress, see Jones, Primer
of Intellectual Freedom, Harvard University Press, 1949. One of the essays
included in this compilation observes:

"Again, for that other conceit that learning should undermine the
reverence of laws and government, it is assuredly a mere depravation and
calumny, without all shadow of truth. For to say that a blind custom of
obedience should be a surer obligation than duty taught and understood,
it is to affirm that a blind man may tread surer by a guide than a seeing
man can by a light. And it is without all controversy that learning doth
make the minds of men gentle, generous, maniable, and pliant to govern-
ment, whereas ignorance makes them churlish, thwart, and mutinous; and
the evidence of time doth clear this assertion, considering that the most
barbarous, rude, and unlearned times have been most subject to tumults,
seditions, and changes . . ." (Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learn-
ing [1605]) Primer of Intellectual Freedom, pp. 179-180.

15

Finally, their compliance with the course dictated by
the Regents of the University of California is incontro-
vertibly and irrevocably established by the fact that at a
regularly convened meeting of that body, petitioners were
appointed, on July 21, 1950, to their respective posts.

They should not be deprived of their appointments by a
course of action taken, it would appear from the record,
in plain disregard of the law. Rather, their own merit and
the merit of their stand should be confirmed by this court
of jtistice.

Dated: Atigust 31, 1950.

Respectfully submitted,

Stanley A. Weigel,
Attorney for Petitioners.

E40 Chadbourne

Loi

Angel

es

49

Decision

OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT,

Concerning tlie Special Loyalty Declaration
at the University of California

In a Suit for Writ of Mandate Brought by the Fol-
lowing Members of the Faculty of the University of
California: Edward C. Tolman, Arthur H. Brayfield,
Hubert S. Coffey, Leonard A. Doyle, Ludwig Edelstein,
Edwin S. Fussell, Margaret T. Hodgen, Ernst H. Kan-
torowicz, Harold W. Lewis, Hans Lewy, Jacob Loewen-
berg, Charles S. Muscatine, John M. O'Gorman, Stefan
Peters, Brewster Rogerson, Edward Hetzel Schafer,
Pauline Sperry and Gian Carlo Wick.

(Reprinted from Advance California Reports (A.C.A.),

April n, IVU.)

[Civ. Xo. 7946. Third Dist. Apr. 6, 1951.J

EDWARD C. TOLMAN et al., Petitioners, v. ROBERT M.
UNDERIIILL, as Secretary and Treasurer of Regents
of University of California, et al.. Respondents.

[1] Universities— Powers and Duties— Legislative Control.— Const.,
art. IX, §9, confers on the Regents of the University of
California broad powers with respect to the government of
the university, subject only to such legislative control as may
be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of the en-
dowments of the university and the security of its funds.
[2] Id.— Powers and Duties— Judicial Interference.— In view of
the broad powers of organization and government which are
conferred on the Regents of the University of California by
Const., art. IX, § 9, the court may not inquire lightly into the
allairs of the regents, and should exercise jurisdiction only
where the regents have acted without power in contravention
of law.
[3] Public Officers— Oath.— In adopting Const., art. XX, § 3, the
people intended that no one could be subjected, as a condition
to holding office, to any test of political or religious belief other
than his pledge to support the Constitutions of the state and
of the United States; that that pledge is the highest loyalty
that can be demonstrated by any citizen; and that the ex-
acting of any other test of loyalty would be antithetical to
our fundamental concept of freedom.
14] Constitutional Law— Construction of Constitutions— Harmo-
nizing of Whole.— The meaning of any particular provision
of the Constitution is to be ascertained by considering the
Constitution as a whole, and it is the duty of the court in
interpreting the Constitution to harmonize all its provisions.
15] Universities— Regulations— Loyalty Test.— In view of the con-
stitutional mandate that the University of California shall
be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence
(Const., art. IX, ^9), members of the faculty are to be in-
cluded within the term ''office or public trust" as used in Const.,
art XX, §3, and cannot be subjected to any more narrow

[1] See 25 Cal.Jur. 411; 55 Am.Jur. 7.
[3] See 21 Cal.Jur. 867, 869; 42 Am.Jur. 884.
[4] See 5 Cal.Jur. 583; 11 Am.Jur. 611.

McK. Dig. References: [1,2,5,6] Universities, §8; [3] Public
Officers, §35; [4] Constitutional Law, §19; [7] Universities, ^9.

[3 J

test of loyalty than the constitutional oath prescribed in that
section.
[6] Id. — Powers and Duties — Appointment and Dismissal of Pro-
fessional Personnel. — Subject to such reasonable rules of tenure
as the regents may adopt, the appointment and dismissal of
professional personnel of the University of California is largely
within the discretion of the regents.

[7] Id. — Judicial Remedies. — The imposition by the Regents of
the University of California of a "loyalty oath" more narrow
than the constitutional oath prescribed by Const., art. XX,
§ 3, and in violation of that section, as a condition to appoint-
ment to the faculty, is an abuse of discretion for which manda-
mus will lie to compel the reinstatement of nonsigning faculty
members whose rights of tenure are otherwise unquestioned.

Proceeding in mandamus to compel Board of Regents of Uni-
versity of California to issue letters of appointment to posi-
tions as members of faculty for academic year. Writ granted.

Stanley A. Weigel for Petitioners.

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Eugene M. Prince and Francis
R. Kirkham for Respondents.

PEEK, J. — This is an original proceeding for a writ of
mandate to compel the Board of Regents of the University
of California and Robert M. Underbill, as secretary and
treasurer thereof, to issue to petitioners herein letters of
appointment to positions as members of the faculty of the uni-
versity for the academic year of July 1, 1950, to June 30, 1951.

The petition alleges that petitioners are members of the
faculty of the University of California of Academic Senate
rank ; that respondents are each members of a public corpora-
tion known as the Regents of the University of California;
that the regents, in accordance with authority granted to them
by the state Constitution, have established an Academic Senate
vested with certain powers relating to appointment, tenure
and dismissal of faculty members; that the regents on April
21, 1950, adopted a resolution (more particularly set forth
hereinafter) carrying out certain recommendations of the
California Alumni Association relative to the signing of a so-
called ''Loyalty Oath" by the faculty of the university; that
each of the petitioners (all of whom are nonsigners thereof),
pursuant to the resolution, petitioned the president of the
university for a review of his case by the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate ; that each peti-

[4]

tioner appeared before the said committee which, after full
investigation, recommended the appointment of each peti-
tioner to his regular post on the faculty of the university;
that on July 21, 1950, upon the recommendation of the presi-
dent of the university, the regents by resolution appointed
each of the petitioners to his respective post; that notwith-
standing their appointments, respondent Underbill refused
to transmit letters of appointment to petitioners; that sub-
sequently on August 25, 1950, the regents refused to recognize
the appointment of petitioners; that if respondent Underbill
is not ordered by this court to transmit the letters of appoint-
ment, irreparable injury to both petitioners and the people
of the State of California will result ; that petitioners have no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.

To this petition respondents filed their general and special
demurrer and answer. This court on September 1, 1950,
ordered that respondents take no action to enforce any resolu-
tion with respect to the nonappointment of petitioners or
termination of their posts and that the 10-day period granted
petitioners by respondents should not expire until 10 days
following any further order of this court specifying that such
period shall commence to run.

Before discussing the facts of the dispute which culminated
in the filing of this petition it is important to note by way
of background, that the regents of the university in 1920 by
resolution provided "that appointment as associate or full
professor carries with it the security of tenure in the full
academic sense." At no time prior to the present controversy
was that resolution superseded or modified. It further appears
that since 1920 the regents and the faculty of the university
have considered professors of the designated rank as not
subject to arbitrary dismissal and entitled to all the incidents
of tenure as it is commonly understood in American uni-
versities.

The record further discloses that for approximately a year
and a half prior to April 21, 1950, the regents, the faculty
and the alumni association had considered the question of
ways and means to implement the stated policy of the regents
of barring members of the Comnuinist Party from employ-
ment at the university by means of a "Loyalty Oath." These
discussions culminated in a meeting held on April 21, 1950,
at which the regents passed a resolution providing that after
July 1, 1950, the beginning date of the new academic year,
conditions precedent to employment or renewal of employment

[5]

at the university would be (1) execution of the constitutional
oath required of public officials of the State of California, and
(2) acceptance of appointment by a letter which contained the
following provision :

"Having taken the constitutional oath of office required of
public officials of the State of California, 1 hereby formally
acknowledge my acceptance of the position and salary named,
and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party
or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of
the government by force or violence, and that I have no com-
mitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to
impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. I understand
that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment
and a consideration of payment of my salary."

The resolution further provided that,

"In the event that a member of the faculty fails to comply
with any foregoing requirement applicable to him he shall
have the right to petition the President of the University for
a review of his case by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure
of the Academic Senate, including an investigation of and
full hearing on the reasons for his failure so to do. Final
action shall not be taken by the Board of Regents until the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure, after such investigation
and hearing, shall have had an opportunity to submit to the
Board, through the President of the University, its findings
and recommendations. It is recognized that final determina-
tion in each case is the prerogative of the Regents."

Some 39 professors at the university who refused to sign
the affirmation set forth in the regents' resolution accepted
what they apparently believed to be the alternative to the
signing of the oath as set forth in the resolution and petitioned
the president of the university for a hearing before the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate.
The hearing resulted in favorable findings and recommenda-
tions by that committee as to each of the professors. On
July 21, 1950, the regents met and by a vote of 10 to 9 accepted
those recommendations and appointed the nonsiguing profes-
sors to the faculty for the coming academic year. Following
the passage of the resolution one of the regents gave notice
that he would change his vote from "No" to "Aye" and
move to reconsider at the next meeting. At the next meeting
of the regents, on August 25, 1950, a motion to reconsider
the matter of the appointments was passed by a vote of 12
to 10 (one absent member stated by telegram that he would

[6]

vote "No" if he were present), and the resolution adopting
the recommendations of the Committee on Privilege and
Tenure and appointing the professors to the faculty was
defeated by a like vote of 12 to 10. Following this a motion was
unanimously carried granting the nonsigning professors 10
days in which to comply by signing the statement prescribed
in the resolution of April 21.

Petitioners herein were among those professors who refused
to sign the so-called "loyalty" statement. All of the petition-
ers are scholars of recognized ability and achievement in their
respective fields. Additionally it should be noted that it is
conceded that none of the petitioners has been charged with
being a member of the Communist Party or in any way sub-
versive or disloyal.

Article IX of the Constitution which declares the policy
of this state as to education provides at the outset in section
1 thereof that education is "essential to the preservation of the
rights and liberties of the people ..." Section 9 of that
article establishes the University of California as a "public
trust, to be administered by the existing corporation known
as 'The Regents of the University of California,' with full
powers of organization and government, subject only to such
legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance
with the terms of the endowments of the university and the
security of its funds." Thereafter follow detailed provisions
relating to the membership of the board of regents and their
powers and duties. The section concludes with this provision :
"The university shall be entirely independent of all political
or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appoint-
ment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs. . . ."

[1] It is evident therefrom that the Constitution has con-
ferred upon the regents broad powers with respect to the
government of the university, subject only to such legislative
control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the
terms of the endowments of the university and the security
of its funds. (Hamilton v. Regents of the University of Calx-
fornix, 219 Cal. 663 [28 P.2d 355] ; Wall v. Board of Regents,
38 Cal.App.2d 698 [102 P.2d 533].) [2] It follows that
this court may not inquire lightly into the affairs of the regents,
and should exercise jurisdiction only where the regents have
acted without power in contravention of law.

The validity of the action taken by the regents on August
25, 1950, is first challenged by petitioners on the ground that
the affirmative statement demanded as a condition to their

[7]

continued employment is a violation of section 3 of article XX
of the Constitution which prescribes the form of oath for all
officers, executive and judicial, and concludes with the pro-
hibition that *'no other oath, declaration or test, shall be
required as a qualification for any office or public trust."

Respondents' answer to this argument is that the constitu-
tional provision is not here applicable because members of
the faculty of the university do not hold office or positions
of public trust. In support of their position respondents
place great reliance on Leymel v. Johnson, 105 Cal.App. 694
[288 P. 858]. There it was held that section 19 of article IV
of the Constitution, which provides that ''No Senator or
member of Assembly shall, during the term for which he shall
have been elected, hold or accept any office, trust, or employ-
ment under this State; provided, that this provision shall not
apply to any office filled by election by the people," did not
preclude a member of the Legislature from also holding a
position as a teacher in the public schools of the city of Fresno.
The court's holding was that the position of instructor in a
public high school was not an ''office, trust, or employment
under this State," as those terms are used in section 19 of
Article IV of the Constitution.

That the decision is limited to the particular provision of
the Constitution there in question is indicated by the fact
that the court gave serious consideration to the purposes of
the people in adopting that section of the Constitution, citing
Chenoweth v. Chambers, 33 Cal.App. 104 [164 P. 428], where
this court held that the intent and purpose of said section
was that "those who execute the laws should not be the same
individuals as those who make the laws."

There is nothing either in the Leymel case or any other
case cited by respondents which is conclusive of the status
of petitioners with respect to the constitutional oath of office
as set forth in section 3 of article XX. Furthermore it is
necessary in this case, as it was in the Leymel case, in dealing
with another provision of the Constitution, to consider the
purposes and intent of the people of California in adopting
said section 3 of Article XX. While the courts of this state
have had no occasion in the past to discuss specifically the
purposes behind this section, the history of the English and
American peoples in their struggle for political and religious
freedom offers ample testimony to the aims which motivated
the adoption of the provision.

A similar provision is found in clause 3 of article 6 of

[8]

the federal Constitution where it is stated that all legislative,
executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of
the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to sup-
port the Constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be re-
quired as a qualification to any office or public trust under
the United States. Speaking of this provision, Mr. Chief
Justice Hughes, in his dissenting opinion in United States v.
Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 631 [51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed. 1302,
1313], which views were later upheld in Girouard v. United
States, 328 U.S. 61 [66 S.Ct. 826, 90 L.Ed. 1084, said:

"I think that the requirement of the oath of office should
be read in the light of our regard from the beginning for free-
dom of conscience ... To conclude that the general oath of
office is to be interpreted as disregarding the religious scruples
of these citizens and as disqualifying them for office because
they could not take the oath with such an interpretation would,
I believe, be generally regarded as contrary not only to the
specific intent of the Congress but as repugnant to the funda-
mental principle of representative government."

Again, in the case of United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S.
644 [49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889], Mr. Justice Holmes, whose
dissenting views were likewise upheld in the Girouard case,
said at page 654, ". . . if there is any principle of the Con-
stitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than
any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought
for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that
we hate."

In the Girouard ease, which was the last in this line of cases
involving aliens who had been barred from naturalization be-
cause their then religious beliefs would not permit them to
bear arms to defend the country, Mr. Justice Douglas, speak-
ing for the court in approving the views expressed by Hughes
and Holmes and holding that such aliens were not barred from
citizenship, succinctly stated at page 69: "The test oath is
abhorrent to our tradition."

This basic principle was also discussed by Mr. Justice Jack-
son in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624 [63 S.Ct. 1178, 147 A.L.R. 674, 87 L.Ed. 1628],
the last of the "flag salute" cases where, in speaking for the
court he said, at page 642 :

"But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do
not matter much. That would be a mere shadow^ of freedom.
The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that
touch the heart of the existing order.

[9]

*'If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constella-
tion, it is that no official, hig^h or petty, can prescribe what
shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act
their faith therein."

At this late date it is hardly open to question but that the
people of California in adopting section 3 of article XX also
meant to include in our state Constitution that fundamental
concept of what Mr. Chief Justice Hughes referred to as "free-
dom of conscience" and Mr. Justice Holmes called the ''princi-
ple of free thought." [3] Paraphrasing their words we con-
clude that the people of California intended, at least, that no
one could be subjected, as a condition to holding office, to
any test of political or religious belief other than his pledge to
support the Constitutions of this state and of the United
States; that that pledge is the highest loyalty that can be
demonstrated by any citizen, and that the exacting of any
other test of loyalty w^ould be antithetical to our fundamental
concept of freedom. Any other conclusion would be to approve
that which from the beginning of our government has been
denounced as the most effective means by which one special
brand of political or economic philosophy can entrench and
perpetuate itself to the eventual exclusion of all others; the
imposition of any more inclusive test would be the fore-
runner of tyranny and oppression.

[4] It is a well established principle of constitutional in-
terpretation that the meaning of any particular provision is
to be ascertained by considering the Constitution as a whole
and that the duty of the court in interpreting the Constitution
is to harmonize all its provisions. {In re OUvcrez, 21 Cal. 415 ;
Edler v. HoUopeter, 214 Cal. 427 [6 P.2d 245] .) A strikingly
analogous application of this principle of construction is found
in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnetfe, supra,
where Mr. Justice Jackson said at page 639 :

**In weighing arguments of the parties it is important to
distinguish between the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment as an instrument for transmitting the principles
of the First Amendment and those cases in which it is applied
for its own sake. The test of legislation which collides with
the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with
principles of the First, is much more definite than the test
when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vague-
ness of the due process clause disappears when the specific

[10]

prohibitions of the First become its standard.*' (Emphasis
ours.)

[5] In the problem of interpretation with which we are
presently confronted, we find in the specific mandate of
section 9 of Article IX of our Constitution, providing that
the university shall be entirely independent of all political
or sectarian influence, a standard by which to decide the
question of whether or not the petitioners herein are to be
included within the term ''office or public trust" as used in
section 3 of article XX. It goes without saying that in the
practical conduct of the affairs of the university the burden
of so preserving it free from sectarian and political influence
must be borne by the faculty as well as by the regents. Hence,
if the faculty of the university can be subjected to any more
narrow test of loyalty than the constitutional oath, the con-
stitutional mandate in section 9 of article IX would be ef-
fectively frustrated, and our great institution now dedicated
to learning and the search for truth reduced to an organ
for the propagation of the ephemeral political, religious, social
and economic philosophies, whatever they may be, of the ma-
jority of the board of regents of that moment.

It must be concluded that the members of the faculty of the
university, in carrying out this most important task, fall within
the class of persons to whom the framers of the Constitution
intended to extend the protection of section 3 of article XX.

AVhile this court is mindful of the fact that the action of
the regents was at the outset undoubtedly motivated by a
desire to protect the university from the influences of sub-
versive elements dedicated to the overthrow of our constitu-
tional government and the abolition of our civil liberties, we
are also keenly aware that equal to the danger of subversion
from without by means of force and violence is the danger of
subversion from within by the gradual whittling away and
the resulting disintegration of the very pillars of our freedom.

It necessarily follows that the requirement that petitioners
sign the form of contract prescribed in the regents' resolution
of April 21, 1950, was and is invalid, being in violation both
of section 3 of article XX and section 9 of article IX of the
Constitution of the State of California, and that petitioners
cannot be denied reappointment to their posts solely because
of their failure to comply with the invalid condition therein
set forth.

[6] Subject to such reasonable rules of tenure as the
regents may adopt, the appointment and dismissal of profes-

[11]

sional personnel of the university is a matter largely within
the diseretion of the regents. (Wall v. Board of Regents,
supra.) Nevertheless, in the event of proof of an abuse of dis-
eretion the ''proprietj^ of the remedy ... is clear." {Laiids-
horovgh v. Kelly, 1 Cal.2d 739 [37 P.2d 93].) [7] Thus in
the present case the imposition of the oath in question being
violative of the applicable constitutional provisions, the abuse
of discretion is clear, and hence this court may compel the
reinstatement of petitioners to their respective positions. (See
also Inglm v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 [105 P.2d 582].)

In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary to consider the
further contentions of petitioners that the resolution of July
21, 1950, constituted an irrevocable appointment of the peti-
tioners, and that the action of the regents constituted an
arbitrary dismissal in violation of petitioners' tenure rights.

Therefore, since the letters of appointment issued to peti-
tioners following the regents' resolution of April 21, 1950,
were subject to the condition that the petitioners sign letters
of acceptance of appointment containing the affirmative state-
ment, the requirement of which we have held to be invalid, it
is the order of this court that the writ issue directing respond-
ents by their secretary, respondent Underbill, to issue to each
of the petitioners a letter of appointment to his regular post
on the faculty of the university, which appointment shall not
be subject to the aforementioned invalid condition. Provided
that, if any of petitioners has not yet executed the constitu-
tional oath of office as provided in the said resolution of April
21, 1950, the respondents may require that such petitioner,
as a condition precedent to his appointment, execute said con-
stitutional oath.

Let the writ issue.

Adams, P. J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.

3 Civil No.

7946

Group for Academic Freedom

Hotei Shattuck

Berkeley 4, California

CO

n

t— ' •
<!

5

o

7

9
4

6

In the Supreme Court of the
State of Cahfornia

Edward C. Tolman, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and
Treasurer of The Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Respondents.

Answer to Respondents' Petition for Hearing
by the Supreme Court

After Decision by the District Court oi Appeal, Third Appellate District,
and Numbered Therein 3 Civil No. 7946.

Stanley A. Weigel,

275 Bush Street,

San Francisco 4, California,

Attorney for Petitioners.

PARKER PRINTING COMPANY, 180 FIRST STREET, SAN FRANCISCO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Statement of the Sole Question Presented 1

No Other Question Is Presented - 2

Statement of Pacts 3

Argument - 4

I. The District Court of Appeal Has Correctly Decided
the Precise, Limited and Special Issue Presented by
This Case 4

II. There Is No Conflict of Decision Within the Meaning

of Rule 29 of the Rules on Appeal 6

III. The Result Reached by the District Court of Appeal

Is Sound on Each of Several Distinct Legal Grounds 16

IV. The Present Petition Appears, Upon Its Face, Not to
Be Responsive to the Official Action of the Regents of
the University of California 17

Conclusion - 19

Appendices :

Appendix A — Concerning * * Reply Memorandum for Respond-
ents" Filed Shortly Before Oral Argument in the District
Court of Appeal App. 1

Appendix B — [Excerpts from] Interim Report of the Com-
mittee on Academic Freedom to the Academic Senate,
Northern Section, of the University of California— Feb-
ruary 1, 1951 App. 9

Appendix C — Extract from the Minutes of the Academic
Senate, Northern Section, April 30, 1951 App. 22

Appendix D — Resolution of Executive Committee of Asso-
ciated Students, University of California, at Meeting of
April 18, 1951 - App. 24

Appendix E — Excerpts from Court Reporter's Transcript
of Public Meeting of the Regents at Davis, California, on
April 20, 1951 App. 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases Pages

American Communications Ass'n v. Douds (1950), 339 U.S.

382

7,8

Barsky v. U. S. (1948), 167 F.(2d) 241, cert. den. 334 U.S.

843 11

Bisno V. Leonard (pending), First District Court of Appeal,

Civ. No. 14878 2

Caminetti v. Board of Trustees (1934), 1 Cal.(2d) 354 App. A

Cohen v. Wright (1863), 22 Cal. 293 11

Communist Party v. McGrath (1951), Civil No. 419-51, U.S.
D.C., Dist. of Columbia, 96 F. Supp. 47 10, 13

Estate of Royer (1899), 123 Cal. 614 15

Ex parte Yale (1864), 24 Cal. 241 15

Friedman v. Schwellenbach (1946), 159 F.(2d) 22 10

Garner v. Board of Public AVorks (1950), 98 Cal. App. (2d)
493 12

Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, etc. (April 12, 1951)

U.S , 71 S.Ct. 565 12

Goldsmith v. Board of Education (1923), 63 Cal. App. 141...App. A

Hamilton v. The Regents of the Univ. of Calif. (1934), 219

Cal. 663; aff'd 293 U.S. 245 9

Hammond v. Lancaster (Md. 1950), 71 Atl.(2d) 483 11

Hartigan v. Board of Regents (W. Va. 1901), 38 S.E. 698 App. A

Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1948),
170 F.(2d) 247 7

Lawson v. U. S. (1949), 176 F.(2d) 49

Loew's Inc. v. Cole (1950), 185 F.(2d) 641.

McAuliff'e V. Mayor etc. of City of New Bedford (1892),
155 Ma^s. 216, 29 N.E. 517

National Maritime Union of America v. Herzog (1948), 78
F. Supp. 146

Pockman v. Leonard (pending), First District Court of Ap-
peal, Civ. No. 14879

11
11

10

7,8

Table of Authorities Cited

111

Pages

Raisch v. Board of Education (1889), 81 Cal. 542 App. A

Rathbone v. Wirth (1896), 150 N.Y. 459, 45 N.E. 15 10

Ross V. Board of Education (1912), 18 Cal. App. 222 App. A

Shub V. Simpson (Md. 1950), 76 Atl.(2d) 332 11,12

State V. Hummel (1944), 42 Ohio Law Abstract 40, 59 N.E.

( 2d ) 238 1 1

Steiner v. Darby (1950), 98 Cal. App. (2d) 481 12

Taylor v. Board of Education (W. Va. 1931), 160 S.E. 299. App. A
Thompson v. Wallin et al. (1950), 301 N.Y. 476, 95 N.E. (2d)

886 10, 14, App. A

Thorp V. Board of Trustees, etc. (N.J. 1951), 79 Atl.(2d)

462 12,13

Washington v. Clark (1949), 84 F. Supp. 964 10

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943),
319 U.S. 624 10

Constitutional Provisions

Constitution of the United States :

Article I, Sec. 8, subdiv. 3

Article I, Sec. 10

First Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment, Sec. 1

8
4
4
4

Constitution of California:

Article IX, Sec. 9 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, 16

Article XX, Sec. 3 1, 4, 13, 14, 15

Statutes

Public Law No. 831, c. 1024, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (Internal
Security Act of 1950), U. S. Code Congressional Service,
1950, No. 10, p. 3740 (McCarran Act) 2,6,13

Cal. Stats. 1868, pp. 248-249 9

Cal. Stats., 3d Ex. Sess. 1950, c. 7 (Levering Act) 2, 6

Laws of Maryland of 1949, Ch. 86, Sec. 1, Sec. 15 12

Treatises and Miscellaneous
Wheeler, The Abundant Life, Univ. of Calif. Press (1926) 15

3 Civil No. 7946

In the Supreme Court of the
State of CaUfornia

Edward C. Tolman, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and
Treasurer of The Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Respondents.

Answer to Respondents' Petition for Hearing

by the Supreme Court

After Decision by the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District,
and Numbered Therein 3 Civil No. 7946.

STATEMENT OF THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED

The sole qtiestion presented is whetlier the District Court
of Appeal was correct in deciding, in this particular case
on its particular facts, that, as to faculty members of Aca-
demic Senate rank holding tenure at the University of
California, Article XX, Section 3, of the Constitution cou-
pled with Article IX, Section 9, i)recludes sunnnary dis-
missal, by action of a bare majority of the Regents, of such
facultv members solelv because thev elected not to sign a
special loyalty declaration.

NO OTHER QUESTION IS PRESENTED

No other question is involved. No other action, law or
regnlation is challenged. No other pending proceeding will
be governed by the decision. No conflict of authority exists.^

Counsel for respondents have laid great stress upon a
variety of loyalty measures adopted by Federal, state and
local authorities for various purposes. We respectfully sug-
gest that the issue before this Court must not be confused
with those involved in a dozen or more different situations
which are or may be brought before other courts. We go
further and submit that the determination of other im-
portant litigation should not be prejudiced by considera-
tion now of issues extraneous to the instant case.

The scope and effect of the decision of the Appellate
Court are expressly and necessarily restricted to the issue
arising at the I'niversity of California, as to faculty mem-
bers of Academic Senate rank holding tenure at that in-
stitution. The decision applies only to such faculty mem-
bers and to them only in their status as such faculty mem-
bers. There is no basis whatever for assuming that such
wholly different cases as Bisno r. Leonard, Pocl'man v.
Leonard, pending in the First Division of the First Dis-
trict Court of Appeal, and still other different cases pend-
ing there and elsewhere, will not be decided ])roperly by
the courts charged with the responsibility of correct deci-
sion.

That the Supreme Court of the United States may have
various measures pending before it for consideration, or
that Congress has enacted the McCarran Act, or that the
State Levering Act was passed as emergency legislation,

^Emphasis ours throughout, unless otherwise noted.

or that measures against Communism occupy the attention
of various governmental agencies — all such matters are
without relevancy as grounds for hearing by this Court
of this case.

This is true not only because Communism is concededly
not an issue as to the professors in this case.^ It is true as
well because loyalty oaths and programs which apply un-
der different circumstances to different persons are not the
measure of the soundness of a decision limited to the Uni-
versity of California.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The petitioners on whose behalf the District Court of
Appeal granted mandate are eighteen members of the fac-
ultv of the Universitv of California, all of Academic Senate
rank (Petition for Writ of Mandate, Par. I) ; three of these
men and women have served the University for more than
30 years; the length of such service of the remainder ranges
from 25 years downwards (Ibid., App. I). Included among
them are many reno^med scholars; most of them have dis-
tinguished records of service to the nation, in and out of
uniform (Ibid.). Each petitioner claimed the action de-
scribed in the petition was a violation of his rights of ten-
ure, of contract, of appointment and of rights secured to
petitioners by applicable constitutional provisions.'

2' 'The record also shows that the committee [Committee on Privi-
lege and Tenure of the Academic Senate of the University of
California] found as to each petitioner that he was not a Com-
munist (Appendix to Petition, p. 75). a finding which respond-
ents do not challenge." (Respondents' Petition for a Hearing, p.

8).

^Counsel for respondents appear to be under the impression
that no violation of the Federal Constitution is involved or as-
serted. We submit that the record clearly shows attempted de-
nial of due process of law with respect to vested tenure rights

The record in this case, as well as all the voluminous
briefs, memoranda, exhibits and appendices filed with the
court, is conspicuously barren of even a hint that any of
the petitioners is or ever was disloyal or incompetent or
immoral or careless or lax or otherwise unqualified for the
performance of his duties as a member of the faculty of
the University of California of Academic Senate rank or
that any petitioner is or was a Communist, in the sense of
membership in the Communist Party or in the sense of
support of the views of Karl Marx or in the sense of sym-
pathy for Communism or in any other sense whatever. On
the contrary, the record affirmatively shows that all peti-
tioners are American citizens, that all have records of dis-
tinction in scholarship and teaching, that fourteen have
served their country in World War II, that fifteen are mem-
bers of one or more leading American scholastic societies
and that fifteen are authors of publications relating to their
special fields of learning. (Petition, Par. VI, A])p. I and
App. VI)

ARGUMENT

I. The District Court of Appeal Has Correctly Decided the
Precise. Limited and Special Issue Presented by this Case.

The District Court of Ai)peal held this and no more than

this:

That Article XX, Section 3, of the Constitution,

^'Members of the Legislature, and all officers, execu-
tive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may

(Fourteenth Amendment, Section Ij. Petitioners for mandate
hereby further allege, and submit that the record shows : Violation
of Federal constitutional provisions protecting free speech and
other civil riplits (First Amendment) ; mij)ainnent of the obliga-
tion of contracts (Article 1, Section 10) ; and denial of equal pro-
tection of the laws (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1).

be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the
duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe
the following oath or affirmation:

** 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may
be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of California,
and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the
office of , according to the best of my ability.'

"And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be re-
quired as a qualification for any office or public trust."

interpreted in the light of the relevant portions of Article
IX, Section 9,

"The Universitv of California shall constitute a

«

public trust . . . The University shall be entirely inde-
pendent of all political or sectarian influence and kept
free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and
in the administration of its affairs "

precluded dismissal of members of the faculty of the Uni-
versity of California of Academic Senate rank, holding the
academic tenure vested in them, solely on the ground of
their election not to sign the following statement:

"Having taken the constitutional oath of office re-
quired of public officials of the State of California, I
hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance of the
position and salary named, and also state that I am
not a member of the Communist Party or any other
organization which advocates the overthrow of the
Government by force or violence, and that I have no
commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with
respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of
truth. I understand that the foregoing statement is a
condition of my emplo^^Tiient and a consideration of
pa^Tnent of my salary."

And it must again be emphasized that the sole effect of the
decision was carefully limited to faculty members of the
University of California solely in their capacities and
status as tenure faculty members.

Beyond the foregoing, the decision sim])ly does not go.
No amount of argument or contention can extend its effect,
intent, implications or residt. The fears of counsel for re-
spondents that **the decision of the Appellate Court" makes
"the State loyalty oath and antisubversive policy pre-
scribed by the Levering Act seem necessarily invalid"
(Petition for Hearing, page 14), or that "the Appellate
Court's view of the law" would make "unconstitutional"
the McCarran Act (Ibid., page 28), or that the decision
"makes impossible any loyalty or anti-Communist policy
with respect to public employment in California" (Ibid.,
page 14), or that the decision of the court impairs various
and sundry oaths and measures for dealing with the prob-
lem of Communism are seen to be without foundation when
the decision of the District Court of Appeal is carefully
examined.

II. There Is No Conflict of Decision Within the Meaning of Rule
29 of the Rules on Appeal.

The Petition for Hearing reiterates, in one form or an-
other, the contention that

"In holding that an anti-Communist statement as a
condition of holding a ]K)sition is invalid as a political
or sectarian test, the decision is contrary to ... an un-
broken line of cases throughout the country." (Peti-
tion for Hearing, page 13)

As has been seen, the District Court of Ai)])eal made no
such general holding. We shall now show that the cases re-

ferred to by counsel for respondents are not in point either
on the particular facts or on the particular doctrine of this
case and that, over and beyond this, most of respondents*
cases wholly fail to support even the very general proposi-
tion under which they are lumped together.

Of the 37 pages of respondents' petition following the
designation *'Argumext," more than 21 are devoted to a
section preceded by the heading: "Numerous Cases In-
volving Such Oaths or Statements Have, However, Aris-
en AND IN All of Them the Requirement as a Condition
of Employment Has Been Upheld." (Petition for Hear-
ing, page 16). The 21 pages cite 20 cases.*

Of these 20 cases: 14 simply do not involve special loy-
alty oaths as a condition of employment; two are lower
court decisions on the Taft-Hartley oath which preceded
the final decision of the United States Supreme Court (the
Douds case, which doesn't support the claims made by re-
spondents); one held political tests unconstitutional; and
none presented facts even close to those in the case at bar.

Three of the cases in this "unbroken line" involve the
oath requirements of the Taft-Hartley Act, two of the
three being decisions of lower courts (Inland Steel Co.
V. National Labor Relations Board (1948), 170 F.(2d)
247, and National Maritime Union of America v, Herzog

^Elsewhere in the petition, respondents make similar sweeping
references to the eases in this section: Pagre 3— ''many cases
. . . without exception . . . uphold such oath . . ." ; Page 13 — "The
decision of the District Court of Appeal stands alone in the
country in invalidating a loyalty or non-Communist oath...";
Page 15— "The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States so far rendered ... are contrary . . ."; Page 16— "unbroken
line of cases throughout the country"; Page 27— "Throughout
the countrv," etc.; Page 36— "authorities are unanimous," etc.
The psychological value of such characterizations may well be
found to exceed their legal accuracy.

8

(1948), 78 F. Supp. 146) antedating tlie Supreme Court
decision in the Douds case (1950), 339 U.S. 382. As to the
Dotids case, the language in the i)revailing opinion of Chief
Justice Vinson unmistakably shows that the case is not
one "upholding the requirement of a non-Conununist state-
ment as a condition of employment" (Petition for a Hear-
ing, p. 16, as there emphasized).

"The unions contend that the necessary effect of
§ 9(h) is to make it impossible for persons who can-
not sign the oath to be officers of labor unions The

statute does not, however, specifically forbid persons
who do not sign the affidavit from holding positions of
union leadership nor require their discharge from
office. . . . We are, therefore, neither free to treat § 9(h)
as if it merely withdraws a privilege gratuitously
granted by the Government, nor able to consider it a
licensing statute prohibiting those persons who do not
sign the affidavit from holding union office." (At pages
389, 390)

It should be noted additionally that the ruling in the
Douds case turned upon the power of Congress over inter-
state commerce (Constitution of the United States, Article
I, Section 8, subdivision 3). The broad sweep of that i)ower
is not qualified by any constitutional connnand (such as the
State Constitution applies to the University of California)
to the effect that interstate conunorce shall be kei)t entirely
independent of all i)olitical or sectarian influence. The doc-
trine of the Douds case is that the ])ower and responsibility
of Congress to maintain a free flow of interstate commerce
justified some interference with conduct bearing some at-
tributes of ''])olitical" activity. Tn reliance upon it here,
counsel for respondents overlook the vast difference be-
tween the free floAv of commerce and the free flow of ideas,

concepts and thoughts which lead to truth. Overlooked, too,
is the section of the California Constitution, establishing the
University as a public trust and recognizing that political
or sectarian influences are road blocks to reaching the goal
of truth. ^

Overlooked finally, in this connection, is the organic law
governing the University." The legislative counterpart of
the constitutional command of Article IX, Section 9, pro-
hibiting all political or sectarian influence is found in the
following explicit provision of the organic act:

". . . And it is expressly provided that no sectarian,
political or partisan test shall ever be allowed or exer-
cised in the appointment of Regents, or in the election
of professors, teachers, or other officers of the Uni-
versity, or in the admission of students thereto, or for
any purpose whatsoever; nor at any time shall the
majority of the Board of Regents be of any one re-
ligious sect, or of no religious sect; and persons of
every religious denomination, or of no religious de-
nomination, shall be equally eligible to all offices, ap-
pointments and scholarships." (Stats. 18G8, p. 254)

^Counsel for respondents have suggested that the express provi-
sions of Article IX, Section 9, of our Constitution merit no par-
ticular consideration because they merely ap])ly ''to the University
a general rule established by other constitutional provisions." (Peti-
tion for Hearing, page 17). This, we submit, is rather cavalier
treatment of express constitutional commands against political or
sectarian influence in the affairs and administration of a public
trust. The more so, because no other creature of our Constitution
is thus singled out for such express protection. The quoted pro-
visions of the organic act governing the University emphasize
the significance and importance of the express constitutional safe-
guard of academic freedom at the University of California. And
there is great good common sense in the especial protection given
the University, for democracy, in the American sense, cannot long
survive if shackles are imposed upon the pursuit of truth by the
scholar and the teacher.

«Stats. 1868, pp. 248-259. That this organic act must be con-
sidered in matters pertaining to the University, see Hamilton v. The
Regents of the University of California (1934), 210 Cal. 663.

10

The three Taft-Hartley cases thus apart, there remain
a balance of 17 in respondents' unbroken line.

Fourteen of the remaining 17 cases do not hold that a
non-Communist oath may be imi)osed as a condition of em-
ployment. These 14 cases, the respective subject matter of
each and the page reference to the Petition for Hearing
are:

Bathbone v, Wirth (1896), 150 N.Y. 459, 45 N.E. 15
(state law setting up political test for office of
l)olice connnissioner), page 16.^
West Virginia State Board of Education r. Barnette
(1943), 319 U.S. 624 (State flag salute law), page
20.''
McAuliffe V. Mayor etc. of City of New Bedford
(1892), 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.Pl 517 (ordinance pro-
hibiting political activity by i)olicemen), page 22.
Communist Party v. McGrath (1951), 96 F. Supp. 47,
Civil No. 419-51, U.S. District Court, District of
Columbia (Connnunist l^arty recpiired under the
MeCarran Act to register as a "Connnunist-Action
organization"), page 28.
Washington ik Clark (1949), 84 F. Supp. 964 (Fed-
eral loyalty review administrative procedures),
page 29.
Friedman v. SclnveUenhacli (1946), 159 F.(2d) 22
(Discharge of Federal employee after investiga-
tion and hearing), page 30.
TJiompson etc. v. Wallin et al, (1950), 301 N.Y. 476,
95 N.E. (2d) 806 (New York State Feinberg Law,
imposing no loyalty oath or statements), page 30.

^Law lield unconstitutional.

11

Cohen v. Wright (1863), 22 Cal. 293 (Civil War loy-
alty oaths for private attorneys), page 30.

Hammond v. Lancaster (Md. 1950), 71 Atl. (2d) 483
(court refused jurisdiction, no justiciable cause
presented), page 32.

Shuh V. Simpson (Md. 1950), 76 Atl. (2d) 332 (loy-
alty oath for candidates for office), page 33.

Loeiv's, Inc. v. Cole (1950), 185 F.(2d) 641 (effect
upon private employment contract of refusal to
answer question of a Congressional committee),
page 36.

Lawson v. United States (1949), 176 F.(2d) 49 (legal-
ity of a Congressional committee and its right to
ask certain question), page 36.

Barshy v. United States (1948), 167 F.(2d) 241, cer-
tiorari denied 334 U.S. 843 (indictment for re-
fusal to produce records on subpoena of Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities), page 36.

State V. Hummel (1944), 42 Ohio Law Abstract 40,
59 N.E. (2d) 238 (affidavit by political party as
prerequisite to a place on ballot), page 36.

By far the most important of the above 14 cases is Shuh
V. Simpson (Md. 1950), 76 Atl. (2d) 332 (a three to two
decision in the state court). The loyalty oath there in-
volved as a condition of candidacy for public office was not
sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States until,
upon that Court's insistence, it had been watered down so
that the "candidate need only make oath that he is not a
person who is engaged 'in one way or another in the at-
tempt to overthrow the government hy force and violence/

12

and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization
engaged in such an attempt."*

See Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, etc. (decided

April 12, 1951, U.S , 71 S.Ct. 5G5), in which the

Maryland law (in a short per curiam opinion of the United
States Supreme Court expressly construing Shuh v. Simp-
son, supra) was upheld only on the oxi)ress condition that
the actual affidavit required would be limited as aliove
quoted and on the express understanding with the State
Attorney General that it would be so limited.^

The foregoing analysis leaves three cases: Steiner v.
Darby (1950), 98 Cal. App. (2d) 481, Garner v. Board of
Public Works (1950), 98 Cal. App. (2d) 493, and Thorp v.
Board of Trustees (N.J. 1951), 79 Atl. (2d) 462. This
Court having recently passed upon the Steiner and Garner
cases by denying a hearing in each case, it would i)erhaps
be presumptuous to spell out the differences in facts and
principles between those cases and the case at bar. This
Court will recall the different character and purpose of

^Emphasis, the Supreme Court's.

®Tlie profound sij?nificance of the Supreme Court's acticm i.s em-
phasized by the fact thnt the Maryland statute defined a subversive
person as follows: " 'Subversive person' means any person who
commits, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or advo-
cates, abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to com-
mit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission of any act in-
tended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow,
destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the Gov-
ernment of the United States, or of the State of :\raryland, or any
political sub-division of either of them, by revolution, force, or
violence; or who is a member of a subversive or^'anization or a
foreigrn subversive orpranization." (Laws of Maryland of 1949,
Chap. 86, Sec. 1). The statutory requirement was that each candi-
date must file an affidavit that he or she is not a subversive person
as above defined (Ibid., Sec. 15). The vast difference between the
affidavit contemplated by the statute and that permitted by the
United States Supreme Court is so manifest as to call for no further
comment.

13

the oaths there required, the different factual situations,
the emphasized protection against arbitrary dismissal af-
forded })y Civil Service requirements and the complete
absence of any express and controlling constitutional pro-
vision comparable to Article IX, Section 9 of the Constitu-
tion of the State of California.

As to Thorp v. Board of Trustees, the New Jersey State
Constitution, it will be found, has neither any provision
banning oaths beyond the standard constitutional oath, i.e.,
anything remotely comparable to Article XX, Section 3, of
the California Constitution, nor any provision even re-
motely comparable to Article IX, Section 9, of our Consti-
tution.

In fairness to counsel for respondents, it should be
pointed out that some of the 20 cases referred to above ap-
pear, in the immediate context, to be cited for other pur-
poses; but this does not change the erroneous impression
resulting from repeated references to the entire body of
the cases as a long and unbroken line sustaining special
lovaltv oaths as a condition of employment. ^^

It

^*^It may be further observed that a number of the statements in
the immediate context of the citations appear to be grounded in
error. For example, at page 28 of the petition, after summarizing
the Internal Security Act, including the provisions thereof pro-
hibiting the employment of certain persons, respondents say with
reference to Communist Party v. McGrafh, that the Internal Se-
curity Act ''was sustained by an emergency three-judge court."
This is error. The court merely refused to issue a preliminary
injunction because "plaintiffs have not exhausted their adminis-
trative remedies and for the further reason that the public inter-
est is paramount to any threatened loss or damage to plaintiffs
pending final determination of the case" and, moreover, one mem-
ber of the court specifically said that it is ** important to note
that only the Communist Party and two of its officers are seek-
ing relief. There are no alleged 'Communist-front' orp^anizations
here nor are there any individuals who have been denied or are
imminently threatened with denial of non-elective federal em-
ployment under §5, defense facility employment under §5, or

14

Respondents' insistence that faculty members of Aca-
demic Senate rank are not public officers is wide of any
pertinent maik — the decision of the District Court of Ap-
peal does not declare them to l)e i)ublic ollicers. It is care-
fully limited to the holding that they have the requisite
status — and no more than the requisite status — of holders
of "an office or public trust" within the meaning of Article
XX, Section 3, of the State Constitution. Counsel for re-
spondents overlook the fact that this section does not even
mention the term "])ublic officer.'^ The term ''oflRcers'* will
be found in it; the term "offices" will be found in it; but
the term "public officer" is conspicuous by its absence.

So respondents* argument here, addressed again and
again to the District Court of Appeal, that the section can-
not apply to members of the faculty of the University of
California of Academic Senate rank because thev are not
"public officers" is wholly fallacious — even if the unestab-
lished assertion that they are not public officers is con-
ceded.^^

passports under §6." (96 P. Supp. 47, 48). At pajre 31 of the
petition, referring? to Thompscm v. Wallin (1950), 301 N.Y. 476, 95
N.E.(2d) 806, counsel for respondents dechire : ''Yet tlie hijrliest
court of New York state in sustaining' the Peiiiber}? Law did not
decide — as did the A])pellate Court here — that an oath to uphold
the Constitution is exclusive or all-sufficient as a test or condition
of a teacher's employment." The implication that the decision is
contrary to that of the Third District Court of Appeal is wholly
unjustified, for the only matter before the Third District Court of
Appeal was a special loyalty oath and no such oath of any kind was
before the New York State Court.

^^Respondents have frequently asserted that there are Cali-
fornia cases holdinji elementary and hi^h school teachers not to
be public officers. There are such cases controlling: on the par-
ticular facts and statutes each involved. But there are no cases
holding that members of the faculty of the University of Cali-
fornia of Academic Senate rank are not public officers. And there
is strong persuasive authority that they are public officers. (See
Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Man-
date, pages 10-12, Petitioners' Reply P>rief, pages 17-25.)

15

Ex parte Yale (1864), 24 Cal. 241, likewise fails to bolster
the contentions of respondents. There, in holding that a
private attorney at law was not the holder of an office or
public trust within the meaning of Article XX, Section 3,
the court pointed out that an attorney or counsellor merely
exercises a privilege or franchise, performing, as an attor-
ney per se, no duties on behalf of the government and there-
fore executing no public trust (at page 244).

To argue that under a constitutional provision (Article

IX, Section 9) denominating the University a public trust

to be protected against all political and sectarian influence,

faculty members have no ''duties that are of a public

nature" is straining, indeed. And the strain is not eased

by the quotation from Estate of Royer (1899), 123 Cal.

614 (Petition for Hearing, page 47), to the effect that the

Regents are not a public trust. In a later portion of that

opinion of this Court, not quoted by counsel, it is stated :

". . . They [the Regents] have no duties or powders
beyond the purpose of their creation, which was to
take the custody and control of the university prop-
erty and to perform certain prescribed duties in the
management of the university. The law intrusts 'the
immediate government and discipline of the several
colleges' to their respective faculties, 'to consist of the
president and the resident professors of the same.*
These faculties are part of the university and not of
the regents. . . ." (Page 622)

As the decision of the District Court of Appeal shows
and as Benjamin Ide Wheeler put it, professors "are not
employees of the University, but members of it."^^ Article

i2Wheeler, The Abundant Life, Univ. of Calif. Press (1926), at
129.

16

IX, Section 9, of the Constitution does not envision the Uni-
versity as a mere shell of empty buildings and inanimate
equipment. The University is a living, functioning organ-
ization. Without a faculty, it is not a University. But if we
13ursue the argument of counsel to its inevitable conclusion,
the prohibition against political or sectarian interference
is directed against inanimate objects, which, in the usual
state of affairs, are not known to hold political views or
religious convictions.

Note : The District Court of Api)eal i)ermitted counsel
for respondents to file, a week before oral argument,
an additional and closing brief, the one denominated
Reply Memorandum for Respondents. Errors in it,
therefore, had to be met in oral argument. Several
merit notice here and are dealt with in Appendix A
hereof.

III. The Result Reached by the District Court of Appeal Is Sound
on Each of Several Distinct Legal Grounds.

The opinion and ground of decision of the District Court
of Appeal are, we have undertaken to show, governed by
controlling constitutional provisions which admit of no
contrary result. However, even assuming, arguendo, that
there were no such comjmlsion in the constitutional com-
mands, nevertheless the writ of mandate ordered by the
District Court of Ap])eal would have to issue on any one
of three other basic grounds flowing from the relevant
facts and law.

That violation of vested tenure rights of petitioners re-
quires the issuance of the writ, see Petition TTT, TV, TX C,
D and E and Petitioners' Reply Brief, images 37-38, coupled
with Appendix A, pages 1-12; that the issuance of the writ

17

is required as to petitioners by the doctrine of irrevocabil-
ity of appointment, see Points and Authorities in Support
of Petition for Writ of Mandate, pages 7-12, and Peti-
tioners' Reply Brief, pages 17-31; that the writ should is-
sue to preclude violation of fundamental rights grounded
in the law of contract and in the law of offer and accept-
ance, see Petitioners' Reply Brief, pages 31-37.

Since the result reached bv the decision of the District
Court of Appeal is sound not only on the ground specified
in its opinion, l)ut on each of three other independent
grounds, any one of which would bring the same result, we
submit that there is no sound reason to grant the Petition
for Hearing.

IV. The Present Petition Appears, Upon Its Pace, Not to Be Respon-
sive to the Official Action of the Regents of the University of
California.

At page 12 of the Petition for Hearing, counsel for re-
spondents state :

"On April 20, 1951, the Regents, by an 11 to 10 vote,
passed a motion to the effect that a hearing of this
case should not be asked of the Supreme Court. By
motion for reconsideration the effect of this motion
was stayed pending the next meeting of the Regents.
This meeting is scheduled for a date (May 25) after
the time would ex])ire for tlie filing of this petition for
hearing by this Court (^lay 16)."

The Petition for Hearing thus plainly shows upon its
face, bv the frank statement of counsel, that the onlv action
of the Board of Regents, the real respondent in interest in
this proceeding, was the vote of a majority at a duly con-
vened meeting opposing the filing of the present peti-

18
tion.^^ Should the result of the vote at the ensuing meeting
be the same or should reconsideration fail because of a tie
vote, we assume, of course, that counsel for respondents
would feel im})elled to Avithdraw the petition on behalf of
the Board of Regents.

Whatever may be the vote on reconsideration, the im-
portant fact to be emphasized at the present time is that
the division of the Regents, not only with respect to the
filing of the petition for hearing, but with respect to the
arbitrary dismissal of the professors, is just about even.
In the exercise of its discretion, in ruling on the petition,
this Court may, in any event, give such consideration as it
deems ai)propriate to the circumstance that the position
taken by respondents does not have the wliole-hearted sup-
port of all respondents.

To put tlie matter in another way, as to the respondent
The Regents of the University of Calilornia, a j)ublic cor-
])oration (it must be remembered that the individual Regent
respondents are sued not as individuals, l)ut only in their
capacities as members of the public cor])oration), the pres-
ent |)etition is before the Court only upon the slender thread
of the claimed suspensive effect of a technical motion for
reconsideration.

^•''The quoted statement concerning the effect of the motion for
reconsideration is a conclusion based upon contention as to the
effect of a provision of the Standinji' Orders of the Rejrents. The
curious consequences of the contention are set forth in another
connection in Petitioner's Reply Brief at pages 27-28.

19
CONCLUSION

The Petition for Writ of Mandate declares that *'the
welfare, dignity and future of the University of California,
a public trust, are in dire peril'' and, by other allegations,
points out the danger of seriously impaired functioning of
the University, of the loss of irreplacea])le faculty members
and of curtailment of vital teaching and research programs
(Petition for Writ of Mandate, par. IX).

The extent of the damage to the University, already re-
sulting from the so-called loyalty oath controversy, is shown
by a recent official report of an official committee of the
Academic Senate of the University of California. Excerpts
from the report, set forth in Appendix B hereto, show
grievous loss of faculty members, totalling at least 63 ; dis-
ruption of program, consisting of the dropping of at least
55 courses from the curriculum; receipt of signed protests
from over 1200 colleagues in more than 40 American col-
leges and universities; 47 refusals of offers of appoint-
ment; and condemnatory resolutions by 20 professional
societies and groups.

Following receipt of this report and following the deci-
sion of the District Court of Appeal in this case, the Aca-
demic Senate of the University of California unanimously
adopted the resolution a copy of which is attached as Ap-
pendix C, while the Executive Committee of the Associated
Students of the University of California adopted the reso-
lution set out in Appendix D. Appendix E shows the view
of the Chief Executive of the State and President of the
Board of "Regents of the University of California.

If it be consonant with law and justice, the tragic con-
sequences of the so-called oath controversy should be

20

brought to an end with the unanimous and well considered
decision of the District Court of Api)eal.

Since the decision and the effect of the decision of the
District Court of Appeal are carefully limited so that they
apply only to faculty members of the University of Cali-
fornia in their capacity as such faculty members ; since no
other case pending or decided involves the issues thus
limited; since hearing is therefore not necessary to secure
uniformitv of decision ; since the result reached bv the Dis-
trict Court of Ai)peal is legally sound on each of three addi-
tional and applicable doctrines of law; since a majority of
the members of the respondent public corporation, The
Board of Regents of the University of California, have
voted against seeking a hearing by this Court; and since,
above all, the clear conmiand of the governing provisions
of the Constitution of California requires issuance of the
writ of mandate as ordered by the District Court of Appeal,
the Petition for Hearing should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Stanley A. Weigel

Attorney for Petitioners,

May 26, 1951.

(Appendices follow)

Appendix A

Concerning "Reply Memorandum for Respondents" Filed Shortly
Before Oral Argument in the District Court of Appeal

At page 17 of that menioranduiii, tlie statement is made
that "Cases upholding the oath are UHommedieu v. Board
of Uefjents of the University of the State of Neiv York
(1950), 270 App. Div. 494, 95 N.Y.S.(2d) 443, quoted in
our former brief (p. 12), and the companion ease of Thomp-
son V. Wallin (1950), 276 App. Div. 463, 95 N.Y.S.2d 784,
. . ." As examination of the cases will show, the plain fact
is that no oath or loyalty statement of any kind was in-
volved in either of those cases nor in the legislation to
which they pertain.

At page 34, the statement is made, in the text of the
memorandum, that every case cited by the petitioners for
mandate involved a public officer. This statement is quali-
fied by a footnote declaring that such cases included a few
out of state cases which, contrary to the alleged Califor-
nia rule and contrary to the great weight of authority, con-
sidered teachers to be public officers. The textual state-
ment is erroneous ; the footnote compounds the error. As
to the statement in the text, the doctrine is one of irrevo-
cability of ai)pointment to office, not C(mfmed to public
office. As to the footnote, Hartigan v. Board of Regents
(W. ^^a. 1901), 38 S.E. 698, relied upon by respondents,
holds that in West Mrginia teachers are not public officers.
Yet the same Sui)reme Court of the same state, in no way
holding teachers to be public officers, held that the doctrine
of irrevocability of appointment ai)plied to teachers (a
grade school teacher, as we read the decision) in Taylor v.
Board of Education (W. Va. 1931), 160 S.E. 299.

2 Appendix A

At page 48 of the Reply Memorandum for Respondents,
the statement is made that the petitioners for mandate
"themselves go no further than to claim that tenure 'pro-
tects faculty members of tenure status against arbitrary
dismissaP ". This quotation, lifted out of the whole context
of the position of the faculty members, is utterly mislead-
ing, as will be seen by the most cursory examination of
paragraphs III and IV of the Petition for Mandate, of sub-
paragraphs C, D and E of paragraph IX thereof and of a
wealth of other material in the record which makes it clear
that the position of the petitioners for mandate on tenure
is this: Tenure not only protects against arbitrary dismissal,
but also provides that there may be no dismissal, arbitrary
or otherwise, for any reason except moral turpitude or in-
competence, determined after the filing of written charges
and a fair hearing thereon by the Academic Senate Com-
mittee on Privilege and Tenure.

At pages 49-50 of that Reply Memorandum, it is stated
that petitioners for mandate "rest upon one provision only
of the Standing Orders of the Regents for a showing of
'regental recognition of tenure.' " This is patently errone-
ous. The regental recognition of tenure is predicated upon
the material set out in Appendix E to the Reply Brief and
upon the whole course of conduct of the Regents specified
in the petition and appendices thereto.

Manifestly erroneous also is the italicized statement at
page 50 of the Reply Memorandum for Respondents to the
effect that the Regents, having voted severance pay, pro-
vided the only remedy to which petitioners ''could he en-
titled even on their own statement of their own claims/*
The Standing Order of the Regents regarding severance

Appendix A 8

pay is only partially quoted by respondents. It goes on
to provide that "the President shall make an appropriate
reconunendation to the Regents, after discussing the pro-
priety of severance with the Committee on Privilege and
Tenure of the Academic Senate. In establishing the amount
of severance compensation, each case shall be dealt with up-
on its merits." (Appendix to Petitioners' Reply Brief, page
6) As to the petitioners for mandate, the President made no
such recommendation to the Regents. The President did
not discuss the i)ropriety of severance with the Committee
on Privilege and Tenure. Each case was not dealt with
upon its merits. (Petition for Mandate, Appendix VI) No
provision for severance pay whatever, in the sense of the
Standing Order, was made ; as an afterthought, following '
arbitrary dismissal, one Regent moved, and the motion
carried, that payment should be made to those dismissed,
provided they handed in their resignations. (Ibid.) As
one Regent pointed out, this was in the nature of a bribe
for procuring resignations. (Ibid.) It had none of the at-
tributes of the severance pay contemplated by the Stand-
ing Orders.

At pages 51-52 of the Reply Memorandum for Respond-
ents, cases cited earlier in support of the italicized proposi-
tion, ''There is no jurisdiction to r/rant the writ [of man-
date] to enforce a contract as distinguished from a stat-
iitory riffht'^ (page 41), are repeated in support of another
statement of the same contention. (The contention is not
only erroneous, but limited, because, of course, the writ is
sought upon three grounds independent of contract,
namely: tenure, irrevocability of ap])ointment and lack of
constitutionality.) That respondents' contention as to con-
tract enforcement, on the facts of this case, is wholly in

4 Appendix A

error, see Raisch v. Board of Education (1889), 81 Cal. 542;
Ross V. Board of Education (1912), 18 Cal. App. 222; Gold-
smith V. Board of Education (1923), 63 Cal. App. 141;
Caminetti v. Board of Trustees (1934), 1 Cal. (2d) 354 at
356, and the authorities cited in the foregoing cases.

Appendix B

Appendix B

The following appendix consists of excerpts from
University of California, Interim Report of the Com-
mittee on Academic Freedom of the Academic Senate,
Northern Section, University of California, February
I, 1951. The Committee consisted of and the report
was issued by James R. Caldwell, Professor of English;
William R. Dennes, Professor of Philosophy, Dean of
Graduate Division; Ewald T. Grether, Flood Professor
of Economics, Dean of the School of Business Admin-
istration; Robert A. Nisbet, Associate Professor of
Sociology and Social Institutions; Wendell M. Stanley,
Professor of Biochemistry, Director of the Virus Lab-
oratory, Chairman, Committee on Academic Freedom.

The numbers in brackets refer to page numbers
appearing at the bottom of the page of the official
report. The typography is that used in the official
report.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Interim Report of the Committee on
Academic Freedom to the Academic
Senate, Northern Section, of the
University of California

February 1, 1951

8

Appendix B

THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE ABROGATION OF TENURE

An Accounting of Costs

CONTENTS

Prefatory Remarks [ 5 ] 9

I. Loss of Staff [9] 9

(26 Faculty Members Ejected; 37 Resignations in Protest)

II. Disruption of Program. [14] 1 1

(55 Courses Dropped from the Curriculum)

III. Reactions in the Profession [21] 13

(Signed Protests from over 1200 Colleagues in more than Forty
American Colleges)

IV. Refusals of Offers of Appointment [36] 15

(To Date, 47 Refusals of Offers of Appointment)

V. Resolutions of Learned Societies [45] 19

(Condemnatory Resolutions by 20 Professional Societies and Groups)

Conclusions [56] 20

Appendix B

PREFATORY REMARKS

It is the purpose of the following report to reveal the consequences to date of the ab-
rogation of tenure at this University, an abrogation perpetrated in the course of efforts
to enforce upon the faculty a special form of contract -in effect a loyalty oath. It is not
intended here to reargue the case against special oaths and contracts. Fact rather than
argument is our present object. • ♦ • [5]

The numbers of resignations and of refusals of appointment here are formidable indices
of the harm done. Among informed and responsible persons, however, there will be no
disposition to see the situation simply in terms of numbers still employed or available.
At this University, as at others of impaired reputation, the majority of the faculty con-
tinues at work; large numbers of students continue to be taught. Candidates for appoint-
ment continue to be found, whether acquiescent to the abrogation of tenure, or eager
to join in an effort to regain it. A university, however, is not merely a "going concern";
its standing is not to be measured in terms of numbers unable or unwilling to resign
their posts, nor by quantitative success in the "teacher-market." The positive vigor of a
great institution is the vigor of self-respect, concordant purpose and confidence in the
governing agency. These are presently impaired among us. The high repute of a uni-
versity derives from the scrupulous approbation of a profession which still holds aca-
demic freedom and tenure as essential conditions. Scandals less flagrant than the one
presently besetting this institution and involving far fewer individuals have elsewhere
sufficed to destroy university reputations. To pretend that the present one will not de-
stroy—is not now destroying— the repute of this University is mere flight from fact. • • •

We believe the present situation of the University, unpleasant as it is [6] to con-
template, should be fully known not only to the faculty, and the responsible officers of
the University, but to the Alumni and the people of the State, that efforts to minimize
or conceal it from them are neither honorable nor in the ultimate interest of the Uni-
versity. The situation will therefore be surveyed under the following topics. 1. Loss of
staff. 2. Disruption of program. 3. Reactions in the profession. 4. Refusals of offers of
appointment at this University. 5. Resolutions of learned societies. [7]

I

LOSS OF STAFF

(26 Faculty Members Ejected; 37 Resignations in Protest)

• •••••••••

Again, only the ignorant will estimate the loss to the University in terms of these
numbers. What is important is obviously the loss in power. The brilliance and renown
of the 26 has been amply described in the earlier report of the Committee on Privilege
and Tenure, and further emphasis on the point might seem superfluous. One Regent,
however, speaking of a world-famous historian among the group. Professor Kantorowicz,

10

Appendix B

confessed that he had no knovledge of any ]ui.tre reflected on the University by this in-
dividual. Professor Kantorowicz has in the past few days been called to a permanent ap-
jKjintment at the Institute for Advanced Study. Now since a ver) guardian of the Uni-
versity thus admits ignorance o£ the rcnoMH of one of the most distinguished members
of the faculty, it is perhaps desirable to remind all concerned that among the 26 ejected
are included figures of international reputation in ps>cliolo^, history, mathematics.
phik»sophy. physics and classics, for example as veil as yomigcr men whose brilliance
and promise are kno%*-n widely in their professional areas. |91 Another of this group,
PToicmoT Winkler, has, for example, recently been appointed \*isting Lecturer in Gov-
ernment at Harvard. In announcing his ap|X)intment his Chairman declared that "al-
ibou^ the Department was merelv picking the best available man, it was giad to give
refuge to one of the California dissenters." Still another. Professor Wick, has just been
appointed to a new proCcssorship at Carnegie Institute c»f Technology. In announcing
this appointment President J. C. Warner said. "We are grateful to the Buhl Foundation
for making it possible to bring another first-ranking scientist here. We look forward to
his contribution to our education and research."

Among the thirty-seven who have resigned in explicit protest against the abrogation
of tenure are three full profetsors including a Professor of Psychiatry- internationally
celebrated, and immediateh appointed by a prominent eastern universitv. three associate
profetsors including one of the most distinguished experimental phvsi cists in the world,
ten assistant profenors. four lecturers, three instructors, thirteen (known; teaching and
researcfa assistants.

Other resignations are clearly in prospect. The departments of .Art. Physics, Public
Health, Bactcriolog\% Mathematics, Biocbemistn. English. Sociology and Social Institu-
tions, and the Statistical Laboratory all report individuals who will certainlv resign un-
lets the non-signers are reinstated and tenure restored. That other memhcrs of the faculty
are quietlv seeking appointment elsewhere is common knowledge. • • ♦ 1 10]

Further multiplication of e>-idefioe is unneoetsarii . It would simply reinforce what if
alreadv clear, that the Board of Regents in coercing the facultv into oaths and affirma-
tions—abrogating tenure in the process— [12] has dispersed a treasun of probity and high
mindedness. Obiiovsly, abo, the profetted intention of "ridding the University of Com-
munists'* has miscarried dismally. Without raising the question whether the assumption
that there were Communists in the University was not in the first place as false as it was
damaging, we believe these letters indicate that the men who have been forced out under
the present policies of the Reagents are predseiy those to wbdrn all forms of touhtarianism
are equallv loathtone. In any cate, your Committee belie>es that no mere financial pecu-
lation could approach in cost to a Uni^ersirT tnch wilful squandering of moral resource.

C:*3

Appendix B

11

II

DISRUPTION OF PROGRAM

(55 Courses Dropped from the Curriculum)

FiF-n-FiVE coiRSES have been dropped from the curriculum of the University as the re-
sult of the ejection of the non-signers. But even this formidable number is but a crude,
quantiutive index of the disruption and injury done by the Board of Regents to the
Universitvs program of instruction and research. Evidence on this point is clear. In the
Department of Physics, for example, where three out of four of the department's theo-
retical phvsicists have been lost, only three graduate courses have been actually dropped
from the curriculum; nevertheless, rearrangements have been necessitated in fourteen
courses. Extra loads in graduate research instruction have been assumed. In certain sec-
tions the enrollment limit, already high, has been perforce raised. Three additional staff
members were urgently needed and authorized in the budget to take care of increased
graduate enrollment, but as the result of the present crisis, the staff has actually been re-
duced. In Public Health two courses have been dropped, the curriculum in Medical
Care -Administration has been, as the Dean ^^Tites, "Crippled." For the development of
this curriculum the School of Public Health had been in a peculiariy advantageous posi-
tion. Certain other departmental decisions and undertakings essential to the develop-
ment of a program have been stalemated. Professor Odegard, after describing the gaps
left in the Department of Political Science by the ejection of Professor Winkler, and

citing the number of scholars who have refused proffered appointment, concludes:

'In Marching for pcnoaiiel for a badlv understaffed department, I am sure that the action of the

Regenu on Augwi 25 has MrioiHly impaired our ability to attract and bring to California outstanding

idaimtt and Kteian."

From the Department of English comes the following specific account:

In the Fall tcTtn of 1950-51. there had to be cancdJcd two sections of Freshman Composition; two

Mctiom of Frckhman Reading; two teciions of the Sophomore Suney course; two sections of the required

Junior ooune in Criucal Theorr; the Upper Division lecture course in Shakespeare, an essential part of

the wort of the English mzjor. [14]

• In the Spring term, unleat in the meantime the non signers are restored, we shall be hampered by

the dxx»pping of a tcctioo of Freshman Reading; two sections of Sophomore Suney; one of Junior Criticism;

two fcctkHK of CHcntiai Senior restricted work HSIK and L/; a lecture course in American Literature;

a lecture course in the Englbh Lvric: the etiential lecture course in the Age of Chaucer.

Thus it ii oident that the Department'i effectiveness is hampered at oery le\el of undergraduate

Kudy. In addition, the operations of commitieo within the Department ha\e been disturbed. The Library

Coounittee has been deprived of a vital unit in iu co\erage of the field. The .Vf. A. Oral Committee is
a member of a three-man board of examiners. Graduate work has suffered less immediately than
luate. but in the long run. perhaps, through effect on potential graduate student body and in
and qualit^ of seminars, ma\ have to pay the heaviest toll."

Landscaj,' !> sign has suflFered the loss with the resignation of Professr>r Royston, of
what the Chairman describes as an outstanding course in site planning, "one limited to
the best students" and hitherto a distinguished feature of the department's program.

In Philosophy Professor Loewenberg's courses are all vacant. Four hundred students
who had enrolled in advance for his section of Philoy>phy 6a had to be told to revise
their course programs after the opening of the semester. Professor Iy>ewcnbcrg is re-

12

ApprndtK M

tiiroughoui tht nation us the kadiiij; auiiiorit^ cm Kant and Hepel, and hi*
course in Kant had been hitherto an essential part of cver^ graduate student '». program.
For this instruction they must nov go elsewhere. One graduate student, who had come
from New "i ork to study with him. was with difficult^ di.s.suaded bv the Chairman frantt
demanding thai the l)niversir\ reimburse him ior railroad tare.* 7'he Acting Dean of
the School ol Business Administration write.s

"We had two iioit-sipncT>. in out Iicpanniem Tliis forced t» to abuiuinn oiu cour«- in arcnuntiiig;
and two courses in lasuruurt in tht fall seniestci and tlu ptan^ ior tht sf)riiip seniesrei art iieccKarily
iiuichnitc This has created cnnsidcrabU hardjiliip in tht cast of a number of NtiidcntK.

"Out oi tlu most .'icnoa'^ a.sj»ecLs oi tht whoh sitiuition is tlit loss of research momentun] on the
pan ol .sonif menibcr> o: tl»t stafi The^ lu>vt not oiiK bt^n called ufuni ir meei with rtminiirttfes work
inp on au probienL'^ crtmted b^ the iovalr^ oatl; bui liavt tound n difhcul: if settit down u their
normal activittob "

From tiie Department oi Psychology has c:fmie a communication so specific and in-
formative tliat ii seems desirable to quot« it practicalh in full:

"li ii> rather surprising to Icam the extent to wlncii tht eftect»venes.v of tht Departnieni ha^ tieon
reduced and tlie way in which this arpumen: has spread its detcrioratinp influeii::« thrtjuplitni: nearlv
ali ullage ol out propram

"in terms oi tlit tcaclunp stafi wt havt losi eitlic! tenmorari}^ or permanentlv tht servlce^ of fou!
oi OUT senior member. Out protessoi iia*^ resipnet^ out wa.^ separated trom the Dniversir^ while twr
others art temporarily not enipioved pcnduip settlement ol tlu ctiiicrtwers^ This ha-^ been a ilemoralizinp
bioK to a rather small stall and is keenlv felt b\ all of u.s regardless oi our cipimons about tht oath
Manv readiastnients havt had u 1m made in various aannnisiratjvt assipnmenti. m graduate advising, and
in other forms of commttiet work toi whicli the affected members were responsible.

• • • • • • •

fm vou are aware tht Fetleral and Statt needs foi professional^ trained jxsvcholopisti; is tar outrunning
tht number being trained Witl. tlu Korean War the ratio will bt prcaier. The I>epanmeni haj« formu
lated it lonp ranpt proprani tc .solidt^ exnand its oflerinps and tacilities ic meet tliest ucmh, The inability
to obtain psvclioioput.^ tnm. eliewliert wil prevent tlu rcahziiiion ol niucli ol tins propram

' .'\ii()tiie' tact should Ik meiuionei ant: thai concern tlu statt oi niorau oi tlu stafi in nn rwenr\
vears at Calitomia I havt ueveT tietort seen so man^ manitestations ol disconteni a. occurred after iasi
Aupast and which still coiuinm «> bt seen Then ls no tjuestion but that tht leachiiig and research
eflectiveness oi tlu staf lias been lowered Ilf>3

« • ■ • • • •

In the University s programs oi institutes and svmposia. in enterprises involving the
cooperaticm of learned groups, the effea of the Regents' August acti(m is likeM'ise un-
fortunately clear as indicated b^ the following report from tlie Institute of Personality'
AHessmeni and Research:

• •••••••• *C1Q

"Tlu loss of j>ersoniieI has cosi the Instituu n S2.- .(MM contract with tht Offict of Naval Roearch
Last vear the ONK approaclied tht lasiituu witli a reijuesi that it make a stud^ o! chief }ietr\ u8icen>
The lastitutt drew up a researcli proposal which was approved b\ tlu adniini.straiive ofiicerr of the Uni
versir\ Tin iirojiosal wa*^ subset luentt' ;ipjm»vt:d b\ tlu Kescarcli and 7 raining branch of the Office
ol Nava! Kesearcl am In tlu Itureai. ot I'ersonne] of tlu Naw and iorwarded lo tlu Cinitraci Oftcei fm
the writing oi tlu contract witi tlu ImivcrsirA At this poiiu the ONR learned ol tlu Institutes loss of
^>ersonnei and forthwitl interTupied tlu negotiation of the contract

"In addition to that tanpibit losses of ptn^oas and resourceh. the impairnif*nt of the work of tiie
laituuu throupi moiitlLs oi uncertalllr^ ami hiwcrei: morale of the stafi has been incalculable '

• • • ••••## •riPi

•Tlu l>e|xirtmeni Chairman mlornu as that tlu proposal tm reimbunemcni came from the Dtn^art-
meiii not from the student [IB]

Appendix B

13

A Mmilar dif&cult\ has arisen in the field oi mathematics, which may prevent future
meetings of the American Mathematical Society from being held on this campus. On
Nowanber IS a group of ten members of the society at Stanford protested the scheduling
of the SmtmktT 25 meeting of the sodet^^ for the U.C.L.A. campus. "In view of the
recent actions of the Board of Regent&r their protest read in pan, ". . . it would seem
to us that the University of California should be out of bounds for the holding of any
sciiolarh meetings." A decision on this point of police is understood to be presently
under debate in the socieri \

Trouble has also arisen in connection wjth the Graduate School of Linguistics
sponsored in part by the Linguistic Society of America.

4lgfun, from the area of mathematical sutistics. it is reported to vour Committee
that the Annual Suaaaer Symposium to which experts in this field have hitherto come
from a number of .American and foreign Universities, will, if conditions remain un-
changed be impsBible to hold simph because scholars from other universities are re-
to participate. [20]

III

REACTIONS IN THE PROFESSION

protests from over 1200 Colleagues in more
fort^' .American Colleges and Universities)

Thest wsRii'TJONs of program are olnii.usly related to difficulties in recruitment, and
liese latter will patiently be discussed. But first it is appropriate that some indication
be given of the loss of repute suffered by the Universit\ as indicated bv communications
from individuals and informal groups— these as distinguished from specific refusals of
ofiers of appointment here, and from formal resolutions of learned societies.

IThrre io...:m rr.essagef '>' ^'^r.i^^f Ur,^ many institutions and individuals, including the
follounng:]

••••♦•••• •[21]

riLANK A'iDELOTTE

President ol SwarthnoR Coliefrc from IPl'J 394(> Dirocior of the Insutute lor Advanced Study. 1959.
1M7 President of the AMOoauoc of Amencaii tLktoda SdMUn tmot 1950, 1 nis ice of the Carnegie
Foundation fo) the Advanoene&t of Teacfaanf nacx 19S; and mmj ocbei otboa of distincxiaa too numer-
ous to mention.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

SAohel Laur<»te is PfavucB and flwwher «f tibe
■rtJMW^ (' !'<> of cfie tlieon of relativitv aad for asaiiv otfacx

Adv

Studv. DtMiofuishcd for hit
tc theoretical pbytia.

ARCHIBALD MacLEISH

TlinfinpiiiniiiKl poet lawvcr. jiiiWiniil. »m6 pubht smant hovhton Profrmor of Poetrv Hanard L'ni-
MMstOiam of Coiic;reK. 1999 IDIl; Awirnint Vecreur> of ^ - cwi Diraaor of ifie Lnitcd Sute»
of Facts and Fifurea. Im- t28J partant oaMtthwdoM to L •_. ,a im ac Chairman of the Amer
itran lo the LondoB Cmdnmee is 1945. and finally at a aMaaber of the Executive Board of

14

Appendix B

JOHN VON NEUMANN

Member of the Institute for Advanced Stud> since 1933 and distinguished for his many contributiom
to mathematical phvsics Recipient ol the Medal for Merit and Distinguished Civilian Service Award in
1946 and member of several honorar\ societies.

REINHOLD NIEBUHR

Outstanding clergvman and Professor of Applied Christianity at Union Theological Seminary since
19S0. Author ol man^ importani rontrihutions in theological literature and recipient ol honorar\ degrees
from several American and foreign universities.

J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER

Director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Nev Jersey since 1947 and distinguished
as the Director of the laboratory at l.os Alamos that perfected the atomic bomb. Chairman of the Gen
cral Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energ\ C^ommission anil noted contributor to scientihc thought.

I. I. RABI

Note<i phvsicist who has held a position as Prolessoi at Columbia University in New York since 1937.
Member ol the (.eneral Advison C^ommittet of the Atomu Energ\ Clommission since 1947 ami consultant
to the Joint Research and Development Board since 194G. Nobel Laureate in Physics in 1944 Recipient
of other important scientihc awards.

ARTHUR MEIER SCHLESINGER

Francis Lee Higginson Professor of History at Harvard Universit\ sina 1939 Trustee of Radclifle
College: membei ol the American Council of Learned Societies; and member ol many distinguished educa-
tional organizations.

SUMNER H. SLIGHTER

Lamont University Protessoi ol Business F.conomics at Harvard Universit\ since 1940 Chairman of
the Research Advisory Board Committee for Economic Development since 1942. tormei T'resident of the
American Economic Association ami perhaps the most influential industrial economist in America.

WALTER STEM ART

Trustet and Chairman ol the Board of the Rockeiellei Foundation since 194.1 Chairman of the Board
of the (.eneral Education Board since 1942 anil Protessoi of Economic- and Politics at tlu Institute for
Advanced Stud\ in Princeton since 1948: Economic Advisor w the Bank oi England from 1928 to 1930;
and American member of an international committee ol tlie Bank oi international Settlements [29]

The Institute for Advanced Study

Harxmrd University

Princeton University

New York University

Rutgers University

Oberlin College

Columbia Uniitersity

Yale University

The Johns Hopkins University

Dartmouth College

• • • •

Bryn Maun College

The University of Buffalo

J'assar College

Simmons College

Sarah Lawrence College

The University oj Rochester

Protestant Theologians for

Academic Freedom
Union Theological Seminary

Finally and for the sake of completeness, it should be recorded tliai one member of
the faculty of Rutgers University sent to tlie Committee on Privilege and Tenure at
U.C.L.A. a letter di.sparaging the faculty's .stand, and his own colleagues for their su})})ort
of it.

Appendix fi

15

In this connection, certain members of the Board of Regents have indicated that
they too have received numerous communications similar in purport. These, presumably
have come from lav bodies, civic organizations, etc. The misunderstanding on the part of
such organizations ot the motives, character and loyalty of this faculty is a distressing
manifestation. Your committee earnestly believes that misrepresentation of the faculty
position and insidious suggestion.s that the faculty has been 'infiltrated" by communists
have produced these misunderstandings. We urge members of the faculty to seize every
opportunity to correct them. Neither the Board of Regents nor the faculty itself can
afford an indifferent or cavalier attitude toward any segment of public opinion. [.^0-35]

IV

REFUSALS OF OFFERS OF APPOINTMENT

(To Date, 47 Refusals of Offers of Appointment)

The refusals of eminent men called by this Uni\ersity. to accept appointment here rep-
resent in a sen.se the ultimate consequence of the chain of events set in motion in June
1949. They are, so to speak, final precipiutions of the tragedv begun at that time. In a
fashion most vivid and obvious, they measure the cost of the Regents* actions. In estimat-
ing the effects in this area of the Regents abrogation of tenure, several facts should be
borne in mmd. It should be realized first of all that in a number of departments Chair-
men have felt it unwise, in the light of present circumstances, to undertake a really
vigorous program of recruitment. The\ were, of course, at once aware of the paralvzing
disadvantage to which the Regents' abrogation of tenure had put them. In several cases,
preliminan explorations brought the facts grimh home. The Chairman of the Depart-
ment of Physics last September 7 VTote:.

"It is m\ belief that we cannot nov induce a single first dass Lheoreuca] physicist to accept a posi-
tion at Berkeley.'

On January 16, 1951 he vTote as follows:

"Since July 14, 1950 we have lost two members of the staff by direct action of the Regenu at the
August. 1950 meeting One of these (Wick ) ha? been our chief theoretical physicist. He has now accepted
a position at thr Carnegit Institutt of 7echnolog\ starting vith the Spring 195] semester.

'As a direct result of the Regents action, three additional mtmben of the suff have alreadv re-
signed and others inciudinp at lent one of our most distinguished members a^e scriouslv considcriM
doing »o One of the three who has alreadx resigned is Professor Wolfgang Panofskv, whom we consider
the most promising voung experimental phvsicist in the entire coimtri. It is completd\ impossible to
replace him

'Over a jieriod of manv vears the Department of Phvsics has been laborioush built up until it is
generalh acknowledged tt> be tht leading phvsia^ depaniuent of the coimtn. This result has been atuined
b\ the vai of foresight, good ludgmeni and persuasiveness in acquiring the staff and bv the use of fair
emplovmeni tactics in retaining it. The latter objective is just as difficult to achle^c as the former, since
numeTow< offers, at substantialh higher salaries, contuiualh come to our staff members from leading insti-
tutions oi the countn But in spue of such [36] offers the staff has been held virtually intact In faa,
in the entire hision of the department, up to Jul^. 1950. only threr members of the staff have been lost,
against the definite desires of thf department

"But mucii oi out armoi . both offensive and defensive, has now been swept away, through no fault of
our own Alread^ within the spate of seven short months there ha^e been fiit losses, with otliers threat-
ened. These losses include three of our four theoretical phvsicists and, as alreadv noted, our most promis-
ing ex}>enmental phvsicist The seriousness of such losses is enormously magnified by the difficulty that

16

Appendix B

Appendix B

17

confronts us in any attempt to find adequate replacements. As a result of the conditions recently created
here, this institution has become an object of pity or of scorn throughout the educational world. It has
alread) been formally ostracized by certain professional organizations."

Elsewhere the chairman of this department indicates that in the loss of these men,
the Department of Physics has been grievously impaired as an agency of national de-
fense.

"Nearly all these men, I need not remind you, have Q clearance for the Atomic Energy Commission.
All are willing in the future as they have been in the past, to work when necessary on national defense,
and on their brains the fate of the nation may well depend, if another major war comes."

The contribution of the University's Department of Physics before dismemberment
in the development of the atomic bomb, and in other major achievements is too well
known for comment.

On September 19, 1950, a member of the Department of Sociolog) and Social Insti-
tutions wrote his Chairman as follows:

"It was part of my function to canvass available candidates for the Department, and I think I should
inform you concerning the effect of the present situation at the University on the willingness of prospec-
tive candidates to join the staff. Out of eight candidates whom I interviewed, three indicated that they
were very interested in joining the faculty, but that the\ would be unwilling to do so as long as condi-
tions of academic freedom were what they are at present. I should perhaps emphasize that three out of
the eight is a significant number primarily because the three who so declared themselves are precisely
those in whom we should be most uuerested both in terms of qualifications and experience."

The Chairman of the Department of Economics on September 19 wrote:

"I have deliberately refrained from approaching men elsewhere until the situation here became
clearer, because I am sure that an offer to join this Department would be considered with less than com-
plete enthusiasm."

A number of other departments also report that they believe efforts to recruit at
this time are handicapped to the point of practical uselessness. [37]

It should be further noted that declinations of offers received to date precede in
many cases official proscriptions of this University by the learned societies of the disci-
plines which the "decliners" represent. And of course, all precede that most serious con-
demnation, a resolution (which appears likely) of censure by the American Association
of University Professors.

Finally, it will perhaps not be too repetitious to turn again to the "quantitative"
argument.

At a recent meeting of the Board of Regents, one member of the Board is alleged
to have countered the announcement that at that time twelve men had declined appoint-
ments here with the retort that sixty had meanwhile been appointed. This remark was
presumably facetious in intention. It is impossible to believe that anycmc with even rudi-
mentary knowledge of the nature of a University could seriously reckon loss and gain
"by the head." The number who have declined invitations either to the permanent or to
the summer staff is, in fact, much increased since this eccentric ctmimenl was made. At
the moment of writing this report, it has reached a total of 47 on this and on the San
Francisco Campuses. In addition, three declinations are described as possibly the result
of the Regents' actions. But again, the loss to the University is not to be reckoned quan-
titatively, for among those who have declined appointment here are figures who would

have reflected a lustre on the University evident to the dullest eye. Specifically the men
who have refused to come to the University of California as the result of what has been
done by the action of the Regents to tenure and academic freedom are men of surpassing
eminence, national and international leaders in the profession. Among them are the
following:

Professor Howard Mumford Jones, Professor of English at Harvard University,
former Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. President of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, representative of the Humanities at the World
Conference of Scholars with which Harvard celebrated its Tercentenary. Poet, scholar,
playwright, and author of many books.

Professor Jones was invited as Visiting Professor for the 1951 Summer Session at
U.C.L.A. He wired in reply:

"In view of the good repute of the University of California until recently, and [58] es|>eciallv in
view of the unique opportunities for scholarly research in the L« Angeles area I am strongly drawn to
vour offer of a visiting summer term professorship in 1951. I hope thu offer can be renewed under
happier circumstances. But until your board of regents ceases to violate the ordinary principles of aca-
demic tenure and honest agreement between parties to a contract I cannot in good conscience accept. In
view of the condemnation of the unparalleled action of your board by professional bodies and groups of
scholars and scientists over the country I am regretfulh uking the liberty of making this reply public."

The storv of Professor Jones' refusal was carried in newspapers throughout the
nation.

Professor Robert Penn Warren. Professor of English, University of Minnesota,
Pulitzer Prize Winner in Fiction. 1947, holder of the Chair of Poetry at the Library of
Congress 1944-45, one of the founders and editors of The Southern Review, author of
All the King's Men, etc., wTote:

"I am son-y to have been so long in answering vour kind letter of Julv 25. but I was waiting for
news of the action of the Regents at their meeting of late August. I have, of course, now had that news,
first from the newspapers and more lately by reports from California. I consider that news deeply dis-
tressing, not only as it may affect mv personal situation but as it will certainly affect the whole temper
of the academic community in this country. It seems to me that the action of the Regents of the Uni-
versity of California would reduce the academic community, both faculty and administration, to the level
of hired hands sening at the whim of a group of men whose acquaintance with intellectual life and its
responsibilities is. in some cases at least, of the most rudimentary order. Under these circumstances, it is
impossible for me to consider the extremely attractive and flattering prospect which the University of
California has held out to me. If circumstances should change, and if vou and the Department of English
should then wish to reopen the discussion, I should be very happy. But for the present there is no course
open to me but that of declining vour offer.

"Perhaps I should say one more thing, at least for the record. I am not and haye never been a
member of the Communist Party or of anv organization associated with it. Therefore mv refusal to come
to the University of California is motivated simph bv the conviction that the present policy of the Board
of Regents constitutes a threat not only to academic freedom but in the end to ordinary freedom and
decency.

"And one thing more: I am very grateful to you for your personal interest and long patience."

Professor Rudolf Carnap, Professor of Philosophy. University of Chicago, described
by a member of the Department of Philosophy as "one of the three leading philosophers
alive today," invited here to deliver the annual Howison Lecture, declined as follows:
[393

"When I returned to Chicago at the beginning of this month, I found vour letter of September 7,
renewing the invitation to give the Howison Memorial Lecture on the Berkeley Campus in the spring of
1951. I wish to express my best thanks.

18

Appendix B

"When I indicated to Professor Dennes last spring my willingness to accept the invitation if it were
renewed for 1951, I assumed that a fair solution of the controversy concerning the loyalty oath would be
found. This hope has not been fulfilled. I regard the peremptory dismissal of eminent scholars, without
regard for their tenure rights and their long distinguished service to the University, as a shocking violation
of academic freedom. As long as these conditions prevail, I am unwilling to accept an honor from the
University, and therefore I decline the invitation with .sorrow and rcgrcl. For the same reason I have
refused to be considered by the Department of Philosophy of the Los Angeles campus for their Flint
visiting professorship.

"I wish both refusals to be regarded as expressions of solidarity with the dismissed colleagues, and of
protest against the violation of the principle that .scholarship, leaching ability, and integrity of character
should be the only criteria for judging a mans fitness for an academic position. I am in deepest sym-
pathy with all efforts to restore full academic freedom at the University of California, and thereby to
help the University to regain its old honored place among our universities."

Professor Joseph R. Strayer, Dayton-Stockton Professor of History, Princeton Uni-
versity, Chairman of The Department of History, Vice-President and Fellow of the
Mediaeval Academy of America, Delegate to the American Council of Learned Societies,
writes:

"I have long wanted to visit Berkeley and in ordinary circumstances I should be delighted to teach
in your Summer Session. I know that I would gain a great deal from association with you and members
of your Department, and that life in Berkeley would be most pleasant.

"Unfortunately. I feel that accepting a position on the summer staff would constitute approval, how-
ever unimportant, of the recent actions of the Regents of the University. I cannot lake an appointment
in a place where the basic rules of academic tenure are violated and where a man in my own field, whom
I respect and admire, has been unjustly treated.*

"Perhaps 1 can visit Berkeley in happier times; I have too much confidence in the Faculty of the
University and the people of the state to believe that the present difficulties will long continue. You
know that I write this letter with deep regret and with the friendliest feelings towards vou and your
colleagues."

Professor Henry SchefFe, Professor of Mathematical Statistics, Columbia University,
former Consultant and Senior Mathematician, Office of Scientific Research and Develop-
ment, Member Board of Editors, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Member National
Research Council, etc., declined an invitation to teach in the Summer Session as follows:
"Many thanks for your invitation to teach in the 1951 summer session at Berkelev. Much as I would
enjoy this opportunity for scholarship and seeing old friends. I feel I must deny myself the pleasure
because of the present poor state at the Universitv of California of academic freedom, tenure, and faculty
control of universitv affairs. '

Others declining invitations to come here (or to U.C.L.A.) include: the Chairman
of the Department of Physics at a major west coast university, "One of the ablest theo-
retical physicists in the country"; Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at a
great mid-western university, a fellow of the A.A.A.S.. consulting editor of The Encyclo-
pedia of Social Sciences: a practising landscape architect, described as the most widely
known and greatly admired landscape architect in the world today; a distinguished au-
thor and student in the field of Political Theory, Chairman of the Research Committee
of the American Political Science Association: a Professor of International Relations,
Member of the U. S. Delegation at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, Consultant to the
State Department; a distinguished anthropologist, and former official in the O.S.S.; a
Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, etc., etc. • • • [41]

•Professor Strayer is evidently here referring to Professor Kantorowicz. Cf. p. 9. [40]

II

Appendix B

19

V

RESOLUTIONS OF LEARNED SOCIETIES

(Condemnatory Resolutions by Twenty Professional
Societies and Groups)

The effect of the refusals of distinguished individuals to accept appointment here is
obviously not limited to our loss of the knowledge and ability which these famous men
represent. On the contrary, secondary effects must be anticipated, extending as far as the
influence and example of the individuals extend. More ominous for the future of the
University are the massive pressures exerted by the learned societies. No evidence of the
present predicament will be to members of the faculty and to friends of the University
as disturbing as these. In the resolutions of these bodies, there is either direct or implicit
warning that members will accept and retain posts here only at the peril of their stand-
ing m the profession. The texts of resolutions thus far communicated are as follows:

[The organizations adopting resolutions were the following:]
The Modern Language Association
The American Historical Association
The American Psychological Association
The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
American Mathematical Society Resolution Passed at Cambridge,
Massachusetts, at the International Congress of Mathematicians'
American Philological Association
Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association
Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association
American Anthropological Association
Phi Beta Kappa-The United Chapters
Institute of Mathematical Statistics; Council Committee on the
Situation at the University of California
Missouri State Philosophy Association
The Mountain-Plains Philosophical Conference
University of New Mexico-Department of Philosophy
Association for Symbolic Logic
Michigan Sociological Society
The Ohio State University Chapter
The American Association of University Professors
The Oberlin College Chapter of the American Association of

University Professors
Brooklyn College Chapter of the American Association of

University Professors
Northwestern University Chapter of the American Association of

University Professors
New York State College for Teachers at Albany Chapter of the

American Association of University Professors [45-54]

20

Appendix B

CONCLUSIONS

• • * 'Y\\Q Committee is itself in possession of more evidence confirming these losses
than it has been able to present here. We have, for obvious reasons confined ourselves
to ponderables, to facts that could be clearly documented. From these alone it is obvious
that we have only begun to pay installments on a bill of damage which will continue to
mount as long as the decision of August 25 stands.

In setting these facts clearly forth your Committee is aware that to some individuals,
it may seem to have rendered a disservice to the "going concern" which must continue
as best it can to serve the State; to them it may appear that by the publication to the
Senate of this report, we are accelerating that very process of decline which the report
reveals, and which all of us deeply regret. To this reproach the Committee must answer
first, that it has been expressly charged by the Academic Senate with the collection and
presentation of these facts, and it has accepted the charge with no doubt of the Senate's
wisdom in so instructing it. Obviously it is the right and duty of every member of the
Faculty to keep informed of the professional standing of the institution to which he is
attached. Here the dictates of self interest and of the interests of the institution are fn
full accord. This right your Committee will therefore continue to implement according

to its instructions.

• •••••••• .[56 J

Finally, the Committee believes that it is here discharging a duty to the Regents,
Alumni, and people of the State; the duty, namely, of discovering and reporting truth
in this as in other areas. It is aware, indeed, of an especial responsibility to those mem-
bers of the Board of Regents who anticipated the havoc now being wrought, and at-
tempted to forestall it. Prominent among these was Robert Gordon Sproul, President of
the University. On June 23, 1950, Mr. Sproul addressed the Board of Regents in part as
follows:

"Consequently, if the unanimous recommendations of the Committees on Privilege and Tenure are
flouted in the cases now before us, the effect upon the whole faculty— not upon a dissident minority, I
assure you, will be tragic, and perhaps irreparable. For the Committee on Privilege and lenure com-
mands the confidence of the faculty, as do most of the petitioners also, many of whom, you must have
noticed, have military records— some quite distinguished records, and many of whom have been cleared
for secret and sensitive security projects, right up to Q clearance for the Atomic Energy Commission. The
findings of the Committee will be generally regarded in our own and all other university groups as just
and fair. If the carefully considered recommendations of the faculty's representatives are not acted upon
by this Board with reason and magnanimity, the University will be seriously injured for many years,
if not permanently. I do not say that there will be riot and civil rebellion, for professors do not act
that way, but some of the heart will definitely go out of the enterprise, and the cream of the teaching
profession will no longer be attracted or held by the University of California."

That these predictions were not mere alarmism, that they were wise and prophetic,
the evidence makes amply clear. The flouting of the Committee on Privilege and Ten-
ure, the rejection of the advice of the President, the ejection of the 26 colleagues, are the
focus of profes- [57] sional attention and indignation. They are deemed, as predicted,
unreasonable, arbitrary acts. The University is grievously injured, and "the cream of the
profession" no longer attracted. The deterioration of morale is common knowledge in
the outside world. Harvard, Yale, The Institute for Advanced Study, Stanford and other

Appendix B

21

institutions are steadily taking distinguished figures from the laboratories and desks of
this University. More than a hundred scholars have been lost by ejection, resignation, or
refusal of appointment, among them some of the illustrious minds of our generation. A
great university, famous for its sacrifice in war, for its scientific and humane accomplish-
ments, for its devoted service to the State, and for the prideful regard in which it was
held by the citizens has in the space of about six months been reduced to a point where
it is condemned by leading scholars and learned societies as a place unfit for scholars to
inhabit.

From the injury thus far done it, the University will not, in the opinion of your
Committee, soon recover. • • • [58]

James R. Caldwell, Professor of English

William R. Dennes, Professor of Philosophy,
Dean of Graduate Division

EwALD T. Grether, Flood Professor of Economics,
Dean of the School of Business Administration

Robert A. Nisbet, Associate Professor of Sociology
and Social Institutions

Wendell M. Stanley, Professor of Biochemistry,
Director of the Virus Laboratory,
Chairman, Committee on Academic Freedom

In response to requests from alumni and other persons interested in the University the
publication of this report was authorized by the Northern Section of the Academic
Senate, University of California, on March 6, 1951.

22

Appendix C

Appendix C

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Extracf from the Minutes of the Academic Senate,
Northern Section. April 30, 1951

Resolution Relating to the Loyalty Oath. — Professor

Landauer presented text of a resolution that was
adopted at an informal meeting of the Faculty on
April 13, 1951 and moved that the statement be adopted
as a formal expression of the view of the Northern
Section of the Academic Senate. This motion was sec-
onded and voted without dissent. The text of the reso-
lution as thus adopted f ollow^s :

RESOLUTION FORMALIZING THAT PASSED AT THE

INFORMAL MEETING OF THE FACULTY

ON APRIL 13, 1951

The Academic Senate, Northern Section, wishes to take
this opportunity to express its profound gratitude to those
colleagues who, with firm faith in their legal protection
under the constitution of the State of California, have
l)ressed the issue with steady courage to its unecjuivocal
determination.

By this decision of the Third District Court of Appeals,
the great tradition of the University of California as an
institution of learning free from sectarian and political
influence is reaffirmed. The responsibility for preserving
this freedom, for keeping the L^niversity free from inner
and from outer subversion, is memora})ly defined as the
shared Imrden of both faculty and Regents. The broad
powers of the Regents and the security of the faculty under
reasonable rules of tenure are likewise reaffirmed.

Appendix C

23

Here is an opportunity, manifest and invaluable, to allay
the turmoil and repair the losses presently afflicting the
University. On this solid and just ground it is surely pos-
sible for faculty and Regents to join without further litiga-
tion in a connnon effort toward continuation of the achieve-
ments which have brought greatness to the University of
California.

James Caldwell,
Joseph E. Fontenrose,
Robert A. Gordon,
Carl Landauer,
Charles B. ^Morrey, Jr.

Attest:

Thomas B. Steel

Thomas B. Steel, Secretary
Academic Senate, Northern Section

Berkeley, ]\ray 7, 1951

I I

24

Appendix D

Appendix D

Resolution of Executive Committee of Associated Students,
University of California, at Meeting of April 18, 1951

The Executive Committee of the Associated Students,
University of California, has observed with deep regret
the curtaihnent of curricula, disruption of academic pro-
grams and injury to the reputation of the University which
have resulted from the protracted dispute over the special
contractual statement adopted by the Board of Regents on
April 21, 1950. At this time the committee, desiring that
the dispute not be prolonged at the risk of further damage
to the University, respectfully urges all interested parties
to reach an amicable settlement on the basis of the decision
of the Third District Court of Appeals.

Appendix E

Appendix E

25

Excerpts from Court Reporter's Transcript of Public Meeting
of the Regents at Davis, California, on April 20, 1951

Governor Warren: ...it seems to me that the main
reason that we ought to get this litigation closed is because
it has been going two years, and has disturbed the Uni-
versity for two years, has disturbed the life of many mem-
bers of the faculty, and even these people who are involved
in this lawsuit specifically are entitled to have their lives
settled to some extent, because here they have been dis-
charged and have been in a state of limbo for an entire
college year.

Now the question is, are we going to pursue this thing
with all the venom that we can gather, so as to keep these
people from having a fair opportunity to earn their liveli-
hood in their chosen profession for another year . . .

Now it seems to me that there is no particular reason why
the University should be the guinea pig for all of these
loyalty oaths. There is the Levering oath . . . The Legis-
lature has presented to the people a Constitutional Amend-
ment that will determine whether the Legislature itself

has the right in the future to provide for such an oath

The University doesn't have to be the guinea pig for this
whole thing, and keep the University disturbed over an-
other college year The Levering case, as Mr. Neylan

says, is in the District Court of Appeal. The Los Angeles
Loyalty oath is in the District Court of Appeal. There are
other cases in the courts at the present time and the Legis-
lature has presented a constitutional amendment to the
people.

. . . This thing is all going to be determined in due course,
and the one thing I am interested in is to take the Uni-
versity, if we can, out of this turmoil and give it an oppor-
tunity to prosper as it has in the past, and it is with that
feeling that I would vote to abide by the decision of this
court.

t I

II

eico.

ADVANCE
CALIFORNIA REPORTS

(CITED A.C.)
Official Advance Sheets of the Supreme Court

San Francisco

October 28, 1952

Pages 693-733

39 A.C. No. 25
CASES REPORTED IN THIS NUMBER

Page

BISNO V. LEONARD 731

Memorandum opinion.

BOWEN V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 726

Public employees; loyalty oaths applicable to county employees.

ERASER V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 729

Public employees; applicability of Levering Act to state university employees.

HANCHETT v. LEHMAN 733

Memorandum opinion.

HIRSCHMAN v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 715

Public employees; propriety of loyalty oath required by county civil service
employee.

(CONTINUED ON INSIDE COVER)

t

Edited by
BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY

Publishers of Official California Reports

Copyright 1952, by Bancroft-Whitney Co.

Printed and Published by

THE RECORDER PRINTING & PUBLISHING COMPANY

Publishers of Advance Sheets for over 50 years
99 So. Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, 3 — 408 So. Spring St., Los Angeles, 13

Annual Subscription Price $30.00 for Advance California Reports and Advance California Appel-
late Reports. Single copies 50 cents — to Subscribers 30 cents. Separate subscription to Advance
California Reports, $12.00 per year.

Published every Tuesday. Entered as Second-Class Matter March 28, 1941, at the Post Office at

San Francisco, California, under Act of March 3, 1879.

VOLUME 13, NUMBER 44

CASES REPORTED IN THIS NUMBER (Continued)

Page

HOROWITZ V. CONLAN 732

Memorandum opinion.

POCKMAN V. LEONARD 693

Public employees; construction and validity of oath provisions of Levering Act.

TOLMAN v. UNDERHILL 720

Universities; propriety of requiring university personnel to execute loyalty
oath other than that prescribed for all state employees.

REHEARING TABLE

MINUTES

INDEX

CUMULATIVE TABLE OF CASES

•

REHEARING TABLE

Cases in Which Rehearings Have Been Granted Up to and

Including October 24, 1952

[Line two beneath an item indicates the final disposition of the case, and
wherever the asterisk (*) precedes an item it indicates first listing.]

Gary v. Wentzel

(L. A. 22028, 38 AC 373, 240 P2d 304)
(39 AC 500, 247 P2d 341)

Gill V. Hearst Publishing Co.

(L. A. 22038, 38 AC 286, 239 P2d 636)

Hamasaki v. Flotho

(L. A. 22006, 38 AC 363, 240 P2d 298)
(39 AC 619, P2d )

In re Lopez

(Cr. 5304; writ of habeas corpus denied Jan. 31, 1952)
(39 AC 122, 245 P2d 1)

Leipert v. Honald

(L. A. 21850, 38 AC 337, 240 P2d 288)
(39 AC 472, 247 P2d 342)

Rose V. Melody Lane

(L. A. 21984, 38 AC 354, 240 P2d 307)
(39 AC 491, 247 P2d 335)

Swift V. Superior Court

(8. F. 18503, 38 AC 602, 241 P2d 217)
(39 AC 368, 247 P.2d 6)

To provide faster service, printer's proofs of Advance Sheets
are not read by the Justices before publication.

i

ADVANCE CALIFORNIA REPORTS

CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT
PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY

THE RECORDER PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CD.

[S. F. No. 18349. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

LEONAIiD T. POCKMAN, Petitioner, v. J. PAUL LEON-
ARD, as President of San Francisco State Collepre et al.,
Respondents.

[1] Public Employees— Levering Act— Constmction.— Provisions
of Levering Act (Gov. Code, §§3100-3109) which declare
public employees to be civil defense workers, "subject to such
civilian defense activities as may be assigned to them by their
superiors or by law," do not impose on public employees a rule
of martial law nor conscript public workers into military ser-
vice.
[2] Id.— Levering Act— Civilian Defense— Activities of Teacher.—
Levering Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109) does not improperly
subject teacher at state college to activities outside and beyond
his regular duties, although it declares workers subject to
such civil defense duties as may be assigned to them, since
such tasks as the holding of fire drills and the instruction of
pupils regarding their behavior during atomic explosions or
air raids are within the scope of a teacher's duties and may be
properly required of him regardless of the fact that they may
also constitute civil defense activities.
131 Id —Levering Act— Validity— Delegation of Legislative Power.
—Provision of Levering Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109) that
civil defense workers are subject to such activities "as may be
assigned to them by their superiors or by law" does not in-
validly delegate legislative power to define and impose civil
defense duties; the reasonable construction is that the su-
periors, in making assignments, are limited to such authority
as they already have or may subsequently be granted by law.
[4] Public Officers— Oath— Form.— Const., art. XX, §3, contain-
ing the form of oath to be administered to state officers and
declaring that "no other oath, declaration, or test shall be

[4] See Cal.Jur., Public Officers, §52; Am.Jur., Public Officers,
§7.

McK. Dig. References: [1-3, 8-17] Public Employees; [4, 5] Pub-
lic Officers, §36; [6, 7] Public Officers, §35.

( 693 )

■ ^-rr-f^t m IT

694

PocKMAN V. Leonard

f39A.a

required as a qualification for any office or public trust," does
not prohibit the Legislature from prescribing an oath to such
officers in a different form of words from that therein used,
if the intent, object and meaning of the Constitution be not
violated.

[5] Id. — Oath — Form. — Const., art. XX, § 3, prohibits any oath or
declaration which imposes a religious or political test.

[6a, 6b] Public Officers— Oath— Persons Included.— The prohibi-
tion in Const., art. XX, § 3, against any oath or test other
than the one prescribed therein will be read as applying to
every state and local officer and employee, such construction
being in accord with the basic purpose of safeguarding the
public and its servants by forbidding oaths and declarations
regarding matters that bear no reasonable relationship to
governmental service.

[7] Id.— Oath— Persons Included.— Const., art. XX, § 3, requiring
the oath therein prescribed to be taken by all officers except
"inferior officers" exempted by the Legislature, shows that the
requirement is not limited to the officers mentioned in Const.,
art. V, and that it at least includes all inferior officers who are
not exempted.

[8] Public Employees— Oath— Form.— Oath provisions of Gov.
Code, § 3103, relating to membership in organizations advocat-
ing overthrow of the government by force or unlawful means,
can reasonably be construed as referring only to affiliation
with organizations known by the public employee to belong to
the proscribed class, and each clause of the oath must be
interpreted as requiring knowledge of the character of any
group as to which a declaration is required.

[9] Id. — Oath — Form. — Portion of oath prescribed by Gov. Code
§3103, requiring affiant to list any organizations, to which
he has belonged in the five years preceding taking of the oath,
that advocated overthrow of the government by force or
violence or other unlawful means, calls for a statement of past
loyalty which is relevant to present and future loyalty, and
is not inconsistent with the spirit or intent of the oath pre-
scribed by Const., art. XX, §3.

[10] Id. — Oath— Form.— Oath required of public employees by
Gov. Code, § 3103, is not a test of religious opinion, nor does
it compel disavowal of any political belief or membership in
any named party.

[11] Id.— Oath.— Form.- While the oath prescribed by Gov. Code
§ 3103, requires the affiant to swear that he does not advocate
or belong to any party or organization which advocates over-
throw of the government by force or violence or other un-
lawful means, these may not properly be called matters of
political opinion, since the word "political" imports orderly
conduct of government, not revolution.

Oct. 1952]

PocKMAN V. Leonard

695

[12] Id. — Oath — Form. — Oath required of public employees by the
Levering Act (Gov. Code, §§3100-3109) does not go beyond
the object or meaning of Const., art. XX, § 3, and is not the
type of "other oath, declaration or test" which was intended
to be prohibited by that section.

[13] Id. — Regulations — ^Validity. — A person's associates, as well
as his conduct, are relevant factors in determining fitness and
loyalty, and the state, under its police power, may properly
limit a person's freedom of choice between membership in
organizations advocating overthrow of the government by
force and employment in the school system.

[14] Id. — Regulations — Validity. — Past conduct and loyalty have
a reasonable relationship to present fitness and trustworthiness,
and public servants may properly be required to furnish in-
formation regarding past membership in organizations that to
their knowledge advocated the overthrow of government by
force or other unlawful means.

[15] Id. — Regulations — Validity. — The fact that divulging past or
present membership in an organization advocating the over-
throw of government by force or other unlawful means may,
under some circumstances, amount to self-incrimination does
not render invalid a statute requiring such disclosure as a
condition of public employment, since disclosure of the re-
quired information is a reasonable condition or qualification
of employment.

[16] Id. — Regulations — Validity. — Assuming that a permanent em-
ployee of a state college, with teacher's tenure, has a contract
right to his position, an implied condition of the agreement
is that he will be loyal to the government and that he will not
advocate its overthrow by force, and the state under its police
power may, as a means of implementing the implied condition,
require such employee to make a declaration of loyalty and
furnish relevant information.

[17] Id. — Levering Act — When Applicable. — Since public em-
ployees were given a 30-day period of grace after the effective
date of the Levering Act (Gov. Code, §§3100-3109) within
which to decide whether or not they would take the oath pre-
scribed therein, the officers of a state college may not properly
withhold payment for services rendered by a permanent em-
ployee thereof prior to the date on which he was required by
law to take the oath, but, having failed to take the oath, he is
not entitled to compensation for any subsequent period.

PKOCEEDING in mandamus to compel officers of state
college to certify name of associate professor on public pay-
roll and pay him salary withheld because of failure to execute
oath required by Gov. Code, §§3100-3109. Writ granted.

696

PocKMAN V. Leonard

[39 A.C.

Wayne M. Collins for Petitioner.

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, H. H. Linney, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, and Herbert B. Wenig, Deputy
Attorney General, for Respondents.

GIBSON, C. J. — This is an original proceeding in man-
damus brought by an associate professor at San Francisco
State College to compel respondents to certify his name on the
public payroll and to pay him salary which was withheld be-
cause of his failure to execute the oath required by sections
3100-3109 of the Government Code, known commonly as the
Levering Act. (Stats. 1951 |3d Ex. Sess. 1950, ch. 7], p. 15.)

The statute declares that all public employees are ''civil de-
fense workers, subject to such civilian defense activities as
may be assigned to them by their superiors or by law," and
it defines public employees as all persons employed by the state
or any county, city, city and county, state agency or pub-
lic district, excluding aliens legally employed. (Gov. Code,
§§3100-3101.) "Subject to the provisions of Section 3 of
Article XX of the Constitution," all civil defense workers
are required to take the oath prescribed by section 3103 of
the Government Code within the first 30 days of employment.
(Gov. Code, § 3102.) It is further provided that no compen-
sation shall be paid to any civil defense worker by any public
agency unless he has subscribed to the oath, and that it shall
be the duty of the person certifying to public payrolls to ascer-
tain and certify that the oath has been taken by such workers.
(Gov. Code, § 3107.) Section 3108 declares that it is perjury
to make false statements in the oath, and section 3109 makes
it a felony for a person, after taking the oath and while in
public employment, to advocate or become a member of an
organization which advocates overthrow of the government by
force or other unlawful means. The remaining sections (Gov.
Code, §§ 3104-3106) specify the manner of taking and filing
the oath and provide that compliance with the act shall be
deemed compliance with Government Code sections 18150-
18158* relating to the taking of oaths by state employees.

The act went into effect October 3, 1950. Petitioner failed
to take the required oath within 30 days thereafter, and re-
spondents refused to certify his name to the public payroll

*Gov. Code, H 18150-18158, provide that every person appointed to a
state position, whether civil service or noncivil service, shall within 30
days of appointment take a prescribed oath which is the same as that
set forth in Const., art. XX, ^ ^.

Oct. 1952]

PocKMAN V. Leonard

697

•

^^

or to pay his salary for services rendered during the months
of October and November.

[1] The first (luestion is whether the provisions which de-
clare public employees to be civil defense workers, ''subject
to such civilian defense activities as may be assigned to them
by their superiors or by law," render the entire act invalid.
(Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3101.) Petitioner asserts that the statute
imposes on public employees a rule of martial law and "herds
them into a headless, tailless and nondescript military body."
There is nothing in the act, however, which purports to con-
script public workers into military service or which declares
them to be subject to martial law. [2] Petitioner also claims
that the act improperly subjects him to assignment to activi-
ties outside and beyond his regular duties. It is clear, how-
ever, that a teacher may properly be assigned certain duties
relating to civil defense, such as the instruction of pupils re-
garding their behavior during atomic explosions, air raids or
other attacks. Tasks of this type, like the holding of fire
drills, are within the scope of the duties of a teacher and may
be properly required of him regardless of the fact that they
may also constitute civil defense activities. There is no com-
plaint that any specific civil defense duties have been imposed
on petitioner under the act, and we should not assume that
any improper assignments will be made. [3] The provi-
sion that workers are subject to such activities "as may be
assigned to them by their superiors or by law" does not, as
asserted, invalidlv delegate legislative power to define and
impose civil defense duties. Instead, the reasonable con-
struction is that the superiors, in making assignments, are
limited to such authority as they already have or may sub-
sequently be granted by law.

We turn now to other arguments made by petitioner, ine
oath which he has refused to take reads as follows :

ii^ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of California against
all enemies, foreign and domestic ; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of California ; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion ; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties upon which I am about to enter.

''And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate,
nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or
otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Govern-

698

Pock MAN v. Leonard

[39A.C.

merit of the rnitcd States or of the State of California by
foree or violence or other unlawful means; that within the
five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or
affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organi-
zation, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow
of the (lOvernment of the United States or of the State of
California by force or violence or other unlawful means
except as follows:

(If no affiliations, Avrite in the words 'No Exceptions')

and that during such time as 1 am a member or employee
of the . . 1 will not

(name of public ag^ency)

advocate nor become a member of any party or organiz'-ition,
political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the
Government of the Tnited States or of the State of Califor-
nia by force or violence or other unlawful means." (Gov.
Code,'§8]();i)

Section 3 of article XX of the state Constitution provides :

"Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive and
judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law ex-
empted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their re-
spective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or
affirmation.

'T do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faith-
fully discharge the duties of the office of . ,

according to the best of my ability.'

"And no other oath, declaration, or test shall be recjuired
as a qualification for any office or public trust."

When petitioner was appointed to the state college faculty
in 1946 he took an oath identical to that prescribed in section
3 of article XX, and he argues that he is exempted by the
last sentence of that section from taking any "other oath,
declaration or test" and, hence, cannot be required to take
the oath prescribed by section 3103 of the Government Code.

When resort is had to the historical background of the con-
stitutional provision, it appears that the words "oath, declara-
tion or test" have an important connotation in connection
with qualifications for public service. The English "test"
act of 1673, which w^as so odious to the people, required all
civil and military officers to take "oaths" of allegiance and
supremacy and to make "declarations" regarding matters
of opinion, particularly religious beliefs. (Stat. 25 Car. II,

•

•

Oct. 1952]

PocKMAN V. Leonard

699

c. 2; see 4 Blackstone Commentaries 59.) This act was un-
doubtedly in the minds of the framers of state Constitutions
when they used these words in drafting constitutional pro-
visions similar to ours, (reoplc v. Hoffman (1886) 116 111.
587 [5 N.E. 596, 605, 8 N.E. 788, 56 Am.St.Rep. 793] ;
Attorney General v. City of Detroit (1885) 58 Mich. 213 [24
N.W. 887, 889-890, 55 Am.Kep. 675] ; Rogers v. City of Buf-
falo (1888), 3 N.Y.S. 671, 673-674 [affirmed, 123 N.Y. 173
1 25 N.E. 274, 278-279, 9 L.K.A. 579]].)

[4] The prohibition contained in section 3* was consid-
ered in the early case of Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 293, where
it was said at page 310, "In our judgment it was not intended
to limit tlic action of the Legislature to the i)articular set
form of words used in the Constitution, and it is clearly with-
in their power to prescribe any form, so that they do not go
beyond the intent, object and meaning of the Constitution."
And in Bradley v. Clark\ 133 Cii\. 196, 201 |65 P. 395 1, it was
stated that the language in section 3 "leaves as the only
matter for determination the single questitm, whether [the
statute there involved | does impose an oath or test substan-
tially different from that prescribed by the Constitution."
[5] In this connection, it wtmld seem clear that any oath
or declaration which imposes a religious or political test is
prohibited. (See Bradley v. Clarl\ 133 Cal. 196, 201 [65 P.
395] ; Rogers v. City of Buffalo, supra, 3 N.Y.S. at pp. 673-674 ;
Attorney General v. City of Detroit, supra, 24 N.W. at p.
890 [concurring opinion] ; cf. United Public Workers v.
Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 100, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754].)
It has been recognized, however, that such a constitutional
prohibition does not prevent the examination of public em-
ployees, for skill, education, or other qualities reasonably re-
lated to (jualifications for public .service. As said in Rogers
V. City of Buffalo, 123 N.Y. 173 [25 N.E. 274, 278, 9 L.R.A.
579], in answer to a contention that "nothing but the bare
oath" mentioned in the Constitution could be required, "We
do not think tliat the provision above cited was ever intended
to have any such broad construction. Looking at it as a
matter of common sense, we are quite sure that the framers
of our organic law never intended to oppose a constitutional
barrier to the right of the people through their legislature
to enact laws which should have for their sole object the pos-
session of fit and proper qualifications for the performance
of the duties of a public office on the part of him who desired

*At the time of the Cohen case the provision appeared in $ 3,
art XI, Const, of 1849.

700

Pock MAN v. Leonard

[39A.C.

to be appointed to such office." (See, also, Attorney General
V. City of Detroit, 58 Mich. 213 [24 N.W. 887, 889-890, 55 Am.
Rep. 675].)

Before proceeding? to determine whether the oath set forth
in section 3103 of the Government Code is substantially the
same as the constitutional oath, we shall consider respondents'
contention that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of
the constitutional prohibition because, it is asserted, he is not
the holder of an "office or public trust" within the meaning
of that provision. [6a] The terms "office" and "public"
trust" have been said to be nearly synonymous {Ex parte
Yale, 24 Cal. 241, 243 [85 Am.Dec. 62)), but the particular
positions to which they apply have not been clearly defined.
Different results have been reached in classifying public posi-
tions involving similar duties and responsibilities, and the
meaning and extent of the term "office" tends to vary with
the purpose of the statute in which it appears. (See, for ex-
ample, Patt07i V. Board of Health, 127 Cal. 388, 393-397 [59
P. 702, 78 Am.St.Rep. 66] ; People v. Wheeler, 136 Cal. 652,
654-655 1 69 P. 435] ; Wall v. Board of Directors, 145 Cal.
468, 471-472, 473 |78 P. 951] ; Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181,
185-187 [201 P. 120] ; Spreckels v. Graham, 194 Cal. 516, 525-
532 [228 P. 1040] ; Brooks v. City of Gilroy, 219 Cal 766,
770-772 [29 P.2d 212] ; People v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636, 639-
640 [107 P.2d 388] ; Sims, ''What Is a Public Office in Cali-
fornia,'' 8 So.Cal.L.Rev., 11 [1934].) Accordingly, the cases
which have dealt with the term in construing statutes unre-
lated to the subject involved here are not particularly help-
ful, and we must look to the purposes of section 3 in order
to ascertain the intention of its framers.

[7] There is no merit in respondents' suggestion that the
only persons entitled to the benefit of the prohibition are mem-
bers of the Legislature, judges and the seven executive officers
mentioned in article V of the Constitution.* The provision
of section 3 requiring the oath to be taken by all officers,
except "inferior officers" exempted by the Legislature, shows
that the requirement is not limited to the persons named in
article V and that it at least includes all inferior officers who
are not exempted. It would do violence to the plain mean-
ing of the words used if the section were read as providing
that the Legislature might exempt "inferior officers" from

* Those officers are: governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state,
controller, treasurer, attorney general and surveyor general. Pursuant to
Const., art. V, $ 19, the office of surveyor general was abolished by Pol.
Code $ 690, in 1929.

Oct. 1952]

PocKMAN V. Leonard

701

•

•

taking the prescribed oath and at the same time compel them
to take some other kind of "oath, declaration or test."
[6b] We are unable to find any place where a line can rea-
sonably be drawn so as to place some positions within and
others outside the constitutional prohibition, and, in our
opinion, there is no justification for excluding any public
servants from its protection. The prohibition should there-
fore be read as applying to every state and local officer and em-
ployee. This construction is in accord with the basic pur-
pose of safeguarding the public and its servants by forbidding
oaths and declarations regarding matters that bear no rea-
sonable relationsliip to governmental service and particu-
larly those that involve political and religious beliefs. Per-
sons in the lower levels of government are just as much en-
titled to this protection as those in higher positions. Any
other interpretation of the prohibition would lead to the
absurd result that the relatively few persons who occupy
the most important positions could be required to take only
the constitutional oath, while those who work under them and
execute their orders could be compelled to submit to various
other oaths, declarations and tests.

We come now to the question whether there is any sub-
stantial difference between the oaths prescribed by the
state Constitution and by section 3103 of the Government
Code. The constitutional oath consists of a declaration or
pledge of loyalty to the state and federal Constitutions, and
a promise or pledge of faithful performance of duty. The
first paragraph of the oath required by section 3103 contains
substantially the same pledge of loyalty and faithful per-
formance of duty as that found in the constitutional oath,
with only immaterial differences in language. In the second
paragraph the affiant swears to three matters, namely, (1)
that he does not advocate or belong to any organization that
advocates overthrow of the government by force or violence
or other unlawful means: (2) that within the five years im-
mediately preceding the taking of the oath he has not been
a member of any such organizations except those which he
lists in the space provided on the face of the oath; and (3)
that while employed by the designated agency he will not
advocate or become a member of any organization that advo-
cates such doctrines.

[8] It should be noted at the outset that the oath provi-
sions relating to membership can reasonably be construed as
referring only to affiliation with organizations known by the
employee to belong to the proscribed class, and each clause

702

PocKMAN V. Leonard

[39A.C.

of the oath must be interpreted as requiring knowledge of
the charaeter of any group as to which a declaration is re-
quired. (See Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S. 716, 723-
724 [71 S.Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317].)

The first and third parts of the second paragraph are
essentially a declaration of present and future loyalty to
the government of this state and of the United States. A
person obviously cannot be loyal to a government and at
the same time advocate its violent and unlawful overthrow.
By the same token, voluntary unexplained membership in an
organization known by a public employee to advocate such
doctrines indicates that he has interests which are incon-
sistent with his pledge of loyalty and faithful performance
of duty, and the Legislature, by requiring this oath, has
in effect found that such membership is incompatible with
loyalty.* In the recent case of Adler v. Board, of Education

of City of New York, U.S. [72 S.Ct. 380, 386, 96

L.Ed.^ ], the United States Supreme Court sustained as

reasonable an implied legislative finding that ''the member
by his membership supports the thing the organization stands
for, namely the overthrow of the government by unlawful
means. ' '

[9] The middle part of the second paragraph of the oath
calls for disclosure of information relating to past loyalty.
In it the affiant is required to list any organizations, to which
he has belonged in the five years preceding taking of the
oath, that advocated overthrow of the government by force
or violence or other unlawful means. Information as to past
affiliations may be relevant in determining whether an em-
ployee can be placed in a position of present or future public
responsibility. (See Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S.
716, 720 171 S.Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317] ; Adler v. Board of

Edncation of City of New York, U.S. , [72

S.Ct. 380, 385, 96 L.Ed.^ ].) Nothing in section 3 of

article XX is intended to prevent the state from requiring
disclosure of facts relating to an employee's fitness and suit-
ability for public service, and inasmuch as this portion of

♦Since 1947 Gov. Code, ^ 1028 has provided: "It shall be sufficient
cause for the dismissal of anv public omploveos including: teachers
in the public schools or any state supported educational institution
when such public employee or teacher advocates or is a member of
an oreranization which advocates overthrow of the Government of
the United States or of the State, by force, violence, or other un-
lawful means."
'• '^L. Ed. Adv. Opn. : Page 295.

Oct. 1952]

PocKMAN V. Leonard

703

•

•

•

the oath, in effect, calls for a statement of past loyalty which
is relevant to present and future loyalty, it is in no way in-
consistent with the spirit or intent of the constitutional oath.

[10] The oath recpiired by section 3103 is obviously not a
test of religious opinion. Neither does it compel disavowal
of any political belief or membership in any named political
party. [11] While it requires the affiant to swear that he
does not advocate, or belong to any party or organization
which advocates overthrow of the government by force or
violence or other unlawful means, these may not properly be
called matters of political opinion. The word "political"
imports orderly conduct of government, not revolution, and
the term is not applicable to advocacy of a belief in overthrow
of the government bv force or violence. (See Lockheed Air-
craft Corp. V. Superior Court, 28 Cal.2d 481, 485 [171 P.2d 21,
166 A.L.R. 701].)

[12] We are satisfied that there is nothing in the Levering
oath which goes beyond the object or meaning of section 3 of
article XX and that it is not the type of "other oath, declara-
tion or test" which was intended to be prohibited by that
section.

Nearly all of the contentions made by petitioner concern-
injr asserted violations of federal constitutional guarantees
are answered adversely to him by recent decisions of the
United States Supreme Coui-t. It has been held that a govern-
mental body has the right to direct that its employees shall
not belong to organizations which they know advocate over-
throw of the government by force or other unlawful means,
and that they may be required to make sworn statements simi-
lar to the oath prescribed by section 3103 as a condition to
obtaining or continuing in public employment. (Adler v.

Board of Education of the City of New York, U.S.

72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed.^ ] ; Garner v. Los Angeles Board,

341 U.S. 716 [71 S.Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317] ; Gerende v. Board
of Supervisors of Elections, 341 U.S. 56 [71 S.Ct. 565, 95 L.Ed.
745] : cf. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 [71 S.Ct. 857,
95 L.Ed. 1137] ; American Communications Assn. v. Bonds,
339 U.S. 382 [70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed 925] .) [13] A person's
associates, as well as his conduct, are relevant factors in deter-
mining fitness and loyalty, and the state, under its police
povrer, may properly limit a person's freedom of choice be-
tween membership in such organizations and employment in
the school system. {Adler v. Board of Education of the City

IL. Ed. Adv. Opn.: Page 295.

704

PocKMAN V. Leonard

[39A.C.

[72 S.Ct. 380, 385, 96 L.Ed.

of New York, U.S.

' — ].)

[14] Past conduct and loyalty have a reasonable relation-
ship to present fitness and trustworthiness, and public serv-
ants may properly be required to furnish information re^^ard-
inj»' past membership in ornfanizations that to their knowl-
edge advocated the overthrow of j^overnment by force or
other unlawful means. (See Garner v. Board of Public Works,
341 U.S. 716, 719-720 [71 S.Ct. 909, 95 ' L.p]d. 1317].)
[15] The fact that divulj^inof past or present membership
may, under some circumstances, amount to self-incrimination
does not render the act invalid since the disclosure of the re-
quired information is a reasonable condition or qualification
of employment. (See Chrisial v. Police Commission, 33 Cal.
App.2d 564 [92 P.2d 416] ; 64 Ilarv.L.Rev., 987-996; 28 Cal.
L. Rev., 94-95 ; cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S.
75 [67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754].)

[16] Petitioner is a permanent employee of the college
with teacher's tenure, and he claims that the act has been
applied so as to impair contractual obligations. Even if we
assume that petitioner has a contract right to his position,
there can be no question that an implied condition of the
agreement is that he will be loyal to the government and that
he will not advocate its overthrow by force. Under its po-
lice power the state may, as a means of implementing the
implied condition, require its employees to make a declara-
tion of loyalty and furnish relevant information. **The
policy of protecting contracts against impairment presup-
poses the maintenance of a government by virtue of which
contractual relations are worth while, — a government which
retains ade(|uate authority to secure the peace and good order
of society." (Home Bldr/. d' Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S.
398, 435 [54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413, 88 A.L.R. 1481] ; cf. East
New York Sav. Bank v. Hahn, 326 U.S. 230, 232 [G6 S.Ct.
69, 90 L.Ed. 34, 160 A.L.R. 1279] ; Lincoln Union v. North-
western Co., 335 TT.S. 525, 531-532 [69 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.
212, 6 A.L.R.2d 473] ; Veix v. Sixth Ward Bldg. cf- L. Assn.,
310 U.S. 32, 38 [60 S.Ct. 792, 84 L.Ed. 1061].) [17] It ap-
pears, however, that respondents applied the act improperly
in withholding payment for services rendered by petitioner
prior to the date on which he was required by law to take
the oath. (Stats. 1951 [3d ex. sess. 1950, ch. 7* §2] pp. 15,
17.) Employees were given a 30-day period of grace after

IL. Ed. Adv. Opn.: Page 295.

:

•

•

Oct. 1952]

PocKMAN V. Leonard

705

the effective date of the act within which to decide whether
or not they would take the oath, and it would be unreasonable
to hold that the Legislature intended to require a forfeiture
of the salary earned during this period in the event that an
employee chose to leave his position rather than comply with
the condition.

It follows that petitioner is entitled to compensation for
services rendered up to and including 30 days following
October 3, P)50, the effective date of the statute, but, having
failed to take the oath, he is not entitled to compensation for
any subseciuent period.

Insofar as petitioner seeks payment of salary or other relief
for any period subsequent to 30 days after October 3, 1950,
the application is denied. Let a writ of mandate issue for
the limited purpose of directing payment of petitioner's salary
up to and including 30 days after October 3, 1950.

Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and
Spence, J., concurred.

CARTER, J.— I dissent.

The only word of commendation which I can speak for
the opinions of the court in these cases is that they bring
into sharp focus the loyalty oath hysteria which has pervaded
this country and particularly this state during the past five
or six years. The concept that a person exposed to subversive
activity may be immunized against such exposure by the
taking' of a so-called loyalty oath opens the door for vast
exploration in the field of metaphysical research. While this
process is taking place the loyalty of every public employee
is impugned even though he has taken the oath prescribed by
the Constitution many times and has obeyed it religiously. It
must be conceded, however, that those who have been loyal
may become disloyal and that "eternal vigilance is the price
of liberty," but it should not follow that vigilance against
disloyalty of public employees requires that they take an oath
proscribed by the Constitution. The holding of the majority
in these cases requires the taking of such an oath.

From the records before us in the various cases decided
by the opinions this day filed, it would appear that many days,
weeks ami yiossibly months were ccmsumed by the state Legis-
lature, the Board of Regents of the University of California
and the various boards of supervisors and city councils of
the counties and cities of California in the preparation,
discussion and adoption of various loyalty oath proposals. In

706

PocKMAN V. Leonard

[39 A.C.

addition to the time consumed in the legislative field, these
cases have been before the various courts of this state during
the past two or three years where thousands of pages of
transcripts and briefs have been prepared and filed and the
time and effort of numerous judges and lawyers has been
consumed in their disposition. In my opinion all of this time
and effort, as well as the money necessarily expended in con-
nection with the legislation and judicial proceedings, which
must have amounted to thousands, if not millions of dollars,
was, and is entirely wasted, and has been and wdll be of no
benefit whatsoever either to the general public or the in-
dividuals affected thereby. There can be no escape from this
conclusion when we consider that the Constitution of this state
expressly and specifically declares the form of oath required
of all persons holding any public position under the law of this
state, and expressly provides that: "No other oath, declara-
tion or test shall be required as a qualification for any office
or public trust.'^ (Cal. Const., Art. XX, §3.) The oath
prescribed by the Constitution is a simple, concise declaration,
solemnly made by the person taking it, that he will support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office or employment which he is undertaking to the best of his
ability. The constitutional provision, by implication at least
confers upon the Legislature the power to require that this
oath be taken by all who occupy any office or public trust
under the law of this state and the Legislature saw fit to
require that all state employees take such oath. (See Gov.
Code, § 181.10 et seq.) It is a conceded fact in each of these
cases that every employee of the state here involved took the
constitutional oath long before the enactment of the acts which
constitute the basis of this litigation. Notwithstanding this
undisputed fact, the majority of this court holds in each of
these cases that these petitioners are required to take another
oath prescribed by the so-called Levering Act (Stats., 1951
[3d ex. sess. 1950, ch. 7, p. 15] ) w^hich, it is said, is no
different than the oath prescribed by the Constitution. The
majority nevertheless holds that because each of the peti-
tioners has failed to take the oath prescribed by the Levering
Act, they have forfeited their position with the state in ac-
cordance with the provisions of that act. This is indeed
strange and paradoxical reasoning. In effect the majority
says: No employee of the state is recpiired to take any other
oath than that prescribed by the Constitution, but even though
all employees of the state have taken the constitutional oath,

•

•

•

Oct. 1952]

PocKMAN V. Leonard

707

they must also take the Levering Act oath which is the same
as that prescribed by the Constitution, and if they do not
take the Levering Act oath, they are ineligible for employment
by the state. If there is any logic or common sense in such
reasoning, it is not apparent to me and I have grave doubt that
it will appeal to any thinking person.

I have no doubt as to the good intentions of the various
legislative bodies which adopted these loyalty oath proposals,
and I do not consider it the function of the judicial branch
of the government to pass upon the wisdom of such proposals.
The sole and only question before the courts is whether the
enactments contravene some provision of the fundamental
law— the Constitution. This is true even though a very grave
question of public policy may be involved. It is for the
Legislature and not the courts to declare the public policy
of the state, providing such declaration is not in conflict with
the Constitution.

We are therefore met at the outset of this discussion with
the problem of what was intended by the framers of the Con-
stitution when they wrote into article XX, section 3, the
words: "And no other oath, declaration, or test shall be re-
quired as a qualification for any office or public trust."

The section as it now appears in the Constitution of 1879 is
precisely the same, word for word, as it was in the Constitu-
tion of 1849. There it was article XI, section 3. (Browne,
The Debates in the Convention of California on the Forma-
tion of the State Constitution, Wash. 1850, App. X.) Though
there was debate on changing the language in the 1878 Con-
vention, no change was made.

It seems clear that what the delegates to the original con-
vention in Monterey in 1849 had in mind is the mandate of
article VI, clause 3, of the federal Constitution and the ex-
perience leading up to the adoption of that clause. The debate
in the 1849 Convention was singularly short. The committee
which brought in the clause proposed the following (Browne,
Debates, p. 255) : ''Members of the Legislature, and all officers,
before they enter upon the duties of their offices, shall take
the following oath or affirmation: I (A B) do solemnly swear
(or affirm), that I will faithfully and impartially discharge
and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , accord-
ing to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably
to the Constitution and Laws of the United States, and of
this State; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm^ that
since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a
citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly

708

PocKMAK r. Leonard

[39A.C.

weapons within this St^te, nor out of it, with a citizen of thi-
State, rior have I sent or accepted a chaDeug-e to fight a duel
with y weapons, with a citizen of this State, nor have I

acted as second in carrying a "^fHllenge. or aided, or advised,
or assisted any person thus c. ... ..ing. So help me God."

Thus it will be seen that the committee proposed that all
members of the Legislature and ''all officers'* take an oath
in twc> part,s, one as to the Constitution of the State and of the
United States and the other as to not having participated in a
duel. (The convention had just adopted article XI. section 2,
providing that anyone who after the adoption of the Con-
stitution participated in a duel shall be deprived of, inter
?. h( any office of profit under the Constitution,

iirowne. i>fL»ates. p. 255.)

Mr. Halleck thereupon j
guage of the present article XX. ^
stitute was the most s - he v
of the C

bates, p. 25':. Mr AT--!)
grour.d that the ~ n as pi
necessary to carry out th'^ ^>b^ect of the preceding section. A
V le was taken ou the r^ . .e: it was adopted, and became
a part of the proposed Constitution.

A comparison of the language of article XI, section 3, now
article XX, section 3. shows a striking similarity to the lan-
guage of article VI, clause 3, of the federal Constitution. A
look at the federal constitutional debates should therefore
prove helpful.

The idea that the . '^tive, executive ana . ' ' ' "" ^-^
within the several s* ' t to be bound by oatii to sup-

" ^' Articles of tLe I bjoli was pro- ' by Mr. H ' '
(5 Eiiiott. Debates on the p^ " ' .r-;,

Sherman. G^rry and L " Martiu icji The : •:! in-

truded ' >n TJ - Mr. I -I's id-a

prevailed i5 Eiiiott 183, 351, 352 i. '■ ring the • - Mr.

'^ilsuij said ''he was never fond of oaths, e/ ring them

as left handed security only. A good government did not need
Ti em, and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported."
(5 Elliott 352.)

a s^ ite in the lan-

n 3, because "this sub-
find on the ^ ! in anv

•

■ 'wne. De-

on X:-:

d bv the com: was

The idea that "no r-

t or qu ation shall ever

be annexed to any oath of office under the authoritv of the
United States" was first proposed to the convention by Mr.
Pinckney ^5 Elliott, 446, 496). Mr. Sherman thought it un-
necessary, "the prevailing liberality, being a sufficient security
against such tests." (5 Elliott, 498.) But the convention was

>

f

•

Oct. 1952]

Pock MAN r. Leonard

709

cautious and adopted ^Mr. Pinckney 's views (5 Elliott, 598),
just as the whole country was cautious in insisting on the
first ten -amendments, now known as "The Bill of Rights."

The two ideas were combined and emerged as Article VI,
clause 3 (5 Elliott, 564). Thus, it appears, if anything, that
the California delegates, though taking a leaf from the federal
Constitution, went further and proscribed not only religious
test oaths, as had tlie federal delegates, but any test oath.

Nor did the debates in the 1878 convention change the pic-
ture. Four amendments to the 1849 language were suggested.
All of them were defeated. Ill Debates and Proceedings of
the Constitutional Convention of the State of California
[1878]. pp. 1390-1391.1 The first dealt with a requirement
of bonds for sheriffs and marshals. The second deleted the
word "executive," replaced it with "ministerial" and added
oath requirements as to dueling, bribery, and employment of
Asiatics. The third was an amendment to the second and
deleted the words "members of the legislature," "judicial"
and "ministerial." and added the words "state, county, town-
ship, district and municipal, executive, legislation, judicial
and mini.sterial." The fourth struck out the word "test."

Each of these suggestions was defeated, one by one. If
anything can be gleaned from this legislative history, it is
that the delegates of 1878 determined to leave the provision
as it had always been — in simple language meaning what it
said : That only oiu oath could be required for those in the
public employ and one only. Th^ abhorrence for test oaths for
the servants of the publif which prevailed in Monterey in
1848 and in P' hia in 17^7 prevailed in Sacramento in

1878. It would prevail today were it not for the hysteria and
name <■ -h has tended to obscure the traditional con-

cept of the ' rs of both Constitutions.

It *il be notpd that the Levering Act oath is strikingly

si in its h; ire and tone to the third and fourth

a; nts su<.'. 1 at the Constitutional Convention of

1878. Indeed the first paragraph of the Leverinif Act is almost
idpTit^fal, word for word, with the first paratrraph of the
d' . .. d 1878 amendments. And the second paragraph re-
fs^.ni .Is as though in echo to the sentiments which moved the
g. J i men in 1878 to propose an oath that one had not em-
ploy^^d Asiatics.

But historir'al eoincidenee asido. the Leverinfr Act oatli and
the constitutional oath are as different as day from nijrht both
in content and intent. In the first place, the constitutional
oath is not a perjury oath. It relates to a state of mind, a

710

PocKMAN V. Leonard

[39 A. C.

promise in good faith to perform one's duties to the best of
one 's abilities. That an oath of office as relates to the future
I>erformanee of duties does not relate to perjury was recog-
nized by the Legislature even before the 1879 Constitution
was enacted. (See Pen. Code, § 120.) Furthermore, it is clear
that the constitutional oath is a promissory- declaration in-
tended to solemnize an occasion and to impress upon the mind
of the employee the trust upon which he is about to enter. It
is not intended to inhibit one's thinking nor erne's associa-
tions.

The majority holds that "We are satisfied that there is
nothing in the Levering oath which goes beyond the object or
meaning of section 3 of Article XX and that it is not the Uipe
of 'other oath, declaration or test' which was intended to be
prohibited by that section." With this statement, I most
emphatically disagree. The constitutional oath relates to the
future : "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be)
that I unll support the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of California, and that I vnll
faithfully discharge the duties of . " There can be no
other meaning than thai fro-w the tunc of taking employmcnf
and the oath the affiant irHl svpport fhe constitutums. The
Levering oath, on the other hand, calls for an oath regarding
past activities: ''that within the five years immediately pre-
ceding the taking of this oath ( or affirmation ) I have not been
a member of any })arty or organization, political or otherwise,
that advocated So far as the balance of the Levering

Act is concerned, : . : jiossibly be inferred from the

constitutional oath that in swearing to support the two con-
stitutions, the affiant impliedly swears to defend them ''against
all enemies, foreign and domestic ' ' and that he would not be-
come a member of any organization advocating the overthrow
of the two governments by for(^e and violence since the two
matters just set forth would be, in reality, one and the same
thing. But the fact remains that the words so stating are
not in the constitutional oath except by implication. No such
implication may be read into the constitutional oath with re-
spect to that portion of the Levering Act relating to past
affiliations. The above quoted statement from the majority
opinion is deceptive in its simj)licity in that it seeks to uphold
the Levering Act, since that is the popular thing to do, but
must in some manner avoid the clear, positive and unequivocal
mandate of the Constitution that ''no other oath, declaration
or test shall be required as a qualification for any office or
public trust. ' ' The only way to avoid that provision is to say

Oct. 1952]

Pock MAN v. Leonard

711

# •

c §

that there is no substantial difference between the two oaths.
And to say that there is no substantial difference between the
two is the height of absurdity. As was said in ^ 'ly v. Shinn,
103 Cal. 325 [37 P. 393], the Constitution will not be so con-
strued as to permit an evasion of it ; and to give effect to that
instrument it has been declared to be as much the duty of
the court to see tka-t it is n-ot eva^^d as th^t it is not directly
violaUd. Inasmuch as constitutional provisions are, and have
always been, unless expressly provided to the contrary, to be
construed as prospective in operation, what can the result
reached here be considered but an evasion of the provision
declaring that no other oath, declaration or test sh<ill be re-
quired ?

If, as stated by the majority, there is no substantial dif-
ference between the two oaths, it would appear tliat the Lever-
ing Act adds nothing to the constitutional oath and is, there-
fore, a nullity. All these petitioners have taken the constitu-
tional oath and, if the two are the same, there appears to be
no sound reason why they should lose their positions and
means of earning a li^ -d because they have refused to

do a The law does no: .ire useless acts (or

so we have always been t' but if we follow the reasoning

of the majority to its ill , law does require,

on pain of dismissal from employment, the doing of such an

act.

An act of government ur^- r^aken without constitutional
authority and in excess of co; tional limitations is a nullity

in law and may properly be ..: . .eyed or resisted. "The con-
stitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable
by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative
acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the Legislature
shall please to alter it.

*'lf the former part of the alternative be true, then a
~ _ 'ative act contrary to the constitution is not law; if the
latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd at-
tempts, on the part of the j V to limit a power in its own
nature illimitable.

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions
contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount
law of the nation, and, c( tly, the theory of every such

government must be, that an act of the J .ture, repugnant

to the constitution, is void." {Marlmry v. • on, 1 Cranch

137, 177.)

It is admitted by the majority that the two early cases of
Cohe'n V Wrlaht, 22 Cal. 293 and Bradley v. Clark, 133 Cal.

712

PocKMAN V. Leonard

[39 A.C.

196 1 65 P. 895 J, held that tho question involved in liti^ration
of this sort was whether the Lep:islature had, in prescribing:
an oath, frone "beyond the intent, objeel and meaning of the
Constitution" and whether- the Lej?islature had prescribed
an oath or test substjintially different from that prescribed
by the Constitution. As 1 have heretofore pointed out, the
Leverinp: Act provision relating): to past affiliations ai least
goes far beyond the intent, object and meaning of the Consti-
tution. It cannot then be said, with a clear conscience, that the
two oaths are substantially similar inasmuch as the Consti-
tion in this respect speaks only of the present and the future.
It cannot be denied that the two Constitutions are the supreme
law of the state and of the United States and, as said by John
Marshall, the gr(»atest Chief »lustice this country has ever
known: ''Those, then, who controvert the principle that the
constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law,
are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must
close their eves on the constitution, and see onlv the law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all
written constitutions. It would declare that an act which,
according to the principles and theory of our government, is
entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligator^'.
[Such doctrine cannot be tolerated under the Constitution.]
It is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contem-
plated that instrument as ii rule for the government of courts,
as well as of the legislature.

^''VVhy otherwise does it [the Constitution] direct the judges
to take an oath to support it ? This oath certainly applies in
an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character.
How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used
as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violat-
ing what they sw(»ar to support'" [Marhurff v. Madison, 1
Cranch 137, 178-180.)

The above (juoted language of C'hief Justice Marshall ap-
plies with equal force to the evasion practiced by this court
in subverting the clear mandate of this provision of the Con-
stitution to the additional requirements imposed by the
Levering Act.

The })rinciple here involved is of tremendous importance
to those who believe in preserving the constitutional guar-
antees of fundamental civil liberties. These constitutional
guarantees were written in the light of bitter experiences
arising out of the exercise of arbitrary power or usurpation
of power by the legislative or executive branch of the govern-
ment. Constitutions were written to protect the individual

t •

# •

Oct. 1952^

Pock MAN v. Leonard

713

against the exercise of such arbitrary power. The lessons of
history reveal that at various times under the stress of in-
flamed public opinion both the Legislature and the Executive
have attempted to circumvent constitutional restrictions by
adopting measures which seemed expedient in view of the
exigencies of the situation at hand. In my opinion the Lever-
ing Act is such a measure. I think it is apparent from the
language of the act that its proponents believed that the
Legislature had the power to prescribe a diiTerent oath for all
employees of the state except the constitutional officers, and
that it was under this mistaken belief that the act was adopted.
Now that this court has held that the constitutional prohibi-
tion against any other oath, declaration or test applies to every
state and local* officer and employee, the Levering Act which
was designed to apply to all employees of the state except
constitutional officers, should fall.

To my mind it is too plain to permit of argument that it
was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that ''no
other oath, declaration or test" should ever be required of
any public officer or employee of the state or any of its
political subdivisions than that specificaUy provided for in
article XX, section 3 of the Constitution. The action taken
at the constitutional conventions clearly demonstrates the
correctness of this position. The defeat of proposed amend-
ments which sought to enlarge the scope of the oath, the failure
to confer upon the Legislature power to do an^-thing other
than exempt such inferior officers as it saw fit from taking
the prescribed oath and the specific prohibition against re-
quiring any "other oath, -ation or test as a qualifi-
cation for any office or public tr *s it crystal clear
that the framers of the Constitution intended to prevent just
what the Levering Act is d d to accomplish. In other
words they sought to limit and define the power of the
Legislature in what history had revealed to be a most con-
troversial field. Such being the obvious and unmistakable
intention of the framers of the Constitution, the language of
Chief Justice Marshall in Marhury v. Madison, snpra, is par-
ticularly pertinent: ". . . |T]he powers of the legislature
are defined and limited ; and that those limits may not be mis-
taken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what pur-
pose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limita-
tion committed to writing, if these limits may. at any time
be passed by those intended to be restrained ? It is a proposi-
tion too plain to he contesi(d, that the Constitution controls
any ri,tive act repugnant to it: or, that the legisl-ature

714

PocKMAN V. Leonard

[39A.C.

may alter the Constitution hy an ordinary act. Between
these two alternatives there is no middle ground. The Con-
stitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by
ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative
act, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall
please to alter it. . . . If an act of the legislature, repugnant
to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its in-
validity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?
It is emphatically the privilege and duty of the judicial de-
partment to say what the law is. . . . So, if a law be in opposi-
tion to the Constitution ; if bpth the law and the Constitution
apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide
that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitu-
tion, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law ;
the court must determine which of these conflicting rules shall
govern the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."

But the majority of this court by its decisions in these
cases is forsaking its sworn dutj- to support the Constitution
of the State of California, and has abdicated its power, for
the sake of expediency, to uphold an act which invades the
constitutional guarantees of civil liberties of those affected by
its mandates.

There is no question of loyalty involved in any of these
cases. So far as appears from the records before us every
employee here involved was fully investigated and there is
no suggestion of any conduct even bordering on subversive
activity on the part of any of them. They have merely sought
to stand on their constitutional right to take the one and only
oatl> which the Constitution prescribed. On this stand I un-
qualifiedly join them.

I would, therefore, grant the writ praj'ed for and restore
petitioner to his position.

Oct. 1952] HiRscnMAN v. County op Los Angeles

715

• ^

• t

[L. A. No. 22035. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

JUNE niRSCHMAN et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES et al.. Respondents.

[On hearing after decision by the District Court of Appeal,
Second Appellate District, Division Two, Civ. No. 18282 (104
A.C.A. 196, 231 P.2d 140) affirming judgment of the Superior
Court. Judgment affirmed.]

[1] Public Employees— Oath— Form.— A county civil service em-
ployee mav properly be directed by the board of supervisors
to swear that he is not, and since December 7, 1941, has not
been, a member of any organization which advocates the over-
throw of the government by force, except those which he may
list, including those specifically named if they should ever
be determined bv a court of law to advocate such overthrow,
since such direction, when properly construed, requires him
to designate only those of the named organizations which he
knows advocates overthrow of the government by force, or
which to his knowledge has been held by a court to advocate
such action.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. W. Turney Fox, Judge. Affirmed.

Proceeding in mandamus to compel county ci\il service
commission to set aside its decision upholding discharge of
county employees for failure to sign an oath of office. Judg-
ment denying writ affirmed.

' Mar^olis & McTernan, John T. McTernan, William B.
Murrish, Wirin, Rissman & Okrand, A. L. Wirin, Fred Ok-
rand and Nanette Dembitz for Appellants.

Harold W. Kennedv, County Counsel, Gerald G. Kelly,
Assistant County Counsel, and Robert L. Trapp, Deputy
County Counsel, for Respondents.

GIBSON, C. J.— Plaintiffs, permanent civil service em-
plovees of the county of Los Angeles, were discharged be-
cause they refused to execute the oath and affidavits prescribed
bv orders of the county board of supervisors made in 1947

[1] See CaLJur., Public Officers, §52; Am.Jur., Public Officers,
§7.
McK. Dig. Reference: [1] Public Employees.

716

IlmscHMAN V. County of Los Angeles [39 A.C.

Oct. 1952] HiRscHMAN V. County of Los Angeles

717

and 1948.* The county civil service commission sustained
the discharges after a hearing upon stipulated facts, and plain-
tiffs sought a writ of mandate in the superior court to compel
their reinstatement and the payment of wages retroactive to
the date of discharge. This appeal was taken from the judg-
ment denying the requested relief.

The oath and affidavits are as follows :

''A. Oath of Office or Employment

''1. — do solemnly swear (or affirm) that

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution and laws of the State of California,
against all enemies, foreign and domestic ; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office or emploj^ment on which I am about to enter or am
now engaged, so help me god.

*'B. AFFiDA\nT RE SuB\rERsrv^ AcTmTY

*'I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor
am I now a member, nor have I been since December 7, 1941,
a member of any political party or organization that advo-
cates the overthrow of the Government of the United States
or State of California, or County of Los Angeles, by force or

violence, except those specified as follows :

(the organizations here to be listed embrace all organizations
advocating the overthrow of government by force or violence
including any of the hereinafter named if they should ever
be determined by a court of law to advocate the overthrow
of government by force or violence) ; and that during such
time as I am an officer or emploj-ee of the county of Los An-
geles, I will not advocate nor become a member of any political
party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the
Government of the United States, or State of California, or
County of Los Angeles, by force or violence.

*'C. Affidavit re Aliases

*'I do further swear (or affirm) that I have never used
or been known by any names other than those listed as
follows:

*Tlie oath and affidavits as originally adopted in August, 1947 were
upheld by the District Court of Appeal in Stciner v. Darhij, 88 Cal
App 2d 481 [199 P.2d 429]. On Deceml)er .'>, 1949, under the title of
Farl-er v. Los Angeles County, 338 U.S. 327 [70 S.Ct. 161, 94 L Ed 144]
writs of certiorari were dismissed by the United States Supreme Court on
the ground that the federal questions presented were "not ripe for
decision. ' ' ^

%

4

I

"D. Membership in Organizations

''I do further swear (or affirm) that I have never been a
member of, or directly or indirectly supported or followed
any of the hereinafter listed organizations, except those that I
indicate by an X mark." [Next follows a list of 142 organi-
zations which were selected from those mentioned in one or
more of the reports of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee of
the California Legislature on , Un-American Activities in
California.]

All of the facts pertinent to this case were stipulated to by
the parties when the matter was before the county civil serv-
ice commission. It appears that plaintiffs were given an op-
portunity to take the oath and make the affidavits but did not
do so. Thereafter, on April 27, 1948, the board of supervisors
ordered all department heads to direct the employees under
them to execute the oath and affidavits immediately. Plain-
tiffs were advised of this order and were informed that refusal
to comply would be considered insubordination. On or about
May 5th plaintiffs refused to obey the order on the ground
that the oath and affidavits were unconstitutional.

On July 20th a new order was adopted by the supervisors
which provided as follows: "(1) That unless the employee
executes parts A, B and C of the oath and affidavit attached
hereto and made a part of this order, by 5:00 p.m. on the 26th
day of July, 1948, that the department head will discharge
such employee at that time. (2) That if the employees re-
fuse on the 26th day of July, 1948, to execute paragraph D
of said oath and affidavit they will be discharged for such
refusal if and when the loyalty test litigation now pending
is finally concluded with a determination that the County was
.iiistified in requiring from its employees the information em-
bodied in paragraph D." Thereupon plaintiffs were directed
by the heads of their departments to execute ''parts A, B and
C of said oath and affidavit," and they refused to take *'the
oath and affidavit or parts A, B and C" within the prescribed
time. Plaintiffs were notified that they were discharged as of
July 26th on the ground of insubordination because of refusal
to execute the oath and affidavits in full on May 5th, and re-
fusal to execute parts A, B and C pursuant to the order of
July 20th.

The civil service commission held a hearing to review the
discharges, and on November 23, 1948, it found and concluded
that plaintiffs' "failure to sign the Loyalty Oath and Para-
graphs A, B, and C of the Affidavit, after having been ordered

718

HiRSCHMAN V. County of Los Angeles [39 A.C.

to do," justified their dismissals for insubordination. The
decision of the commission makes no reference to paragraph
D or to plaintiffs' failure to take the oath and make all of the
affidavits as directed by the supervisors in their order of April
27, 1948. As noted above, the board's order of July 20, 1948,
provided that employees who refused to execute part D "will
be discharged for such refusal if and when the loyalty test
litigation now pending is finally concluded with a detennina-
tion that the County was justified in requiring from its em-
ployees the information embodied in paragraph D." The
''pending" litigation referred to by the supervisors {Stciner
V. Darhy, 88 Cal.App.2d 481 [199 P.2d 429]) was not finally
concluded when the civil service commission rendered its de-
cision sustaining the discharges. Therefore, under the terms
of the board's order, the commission could not properly con-
sider plaintiffs' failure to execute part D as a ground for dis-
missal, and the commission's decision shows that it was based
on and restricted to plaintiffs' refusal to execute paragraphs
A, B and C. The trial court concluded that plaintiffs' refusal
to execute parts A, B and C constituted insubordination and
sufificient cause for discharge, and in view of the commission's
decision we may disregard the further conclusion of the trial
court that plaintiffs' earlier refusal to execute paragraphs
A, B, C and D likewise furnished sufficient cause for dis-
missal. It follows that we need not pass upon the issues raised
with respect to part D, and inasmuch as plaintiffs stipulate
that they do not have, and never did have, any objection
to paragraphs A and C, the validity of paragraph B is all
that remains to be considered.

Substantially the same provisions as appear in paragraph
B are to be found in the oath prescribed by the Levering Act
(Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109), the validity of which was upheld

in Pockman v. Leonard^ ante, fP- [ P-2d ].*

There is only one difference between the two w^hich requires
discussion. [1] The employee is directed by paragraph B
to swear that he is not, and since December 7, 1941, has not

•j-Advance Report Citation : Ante, p. 693.

*Tlie Levering Act did not ro into effect until after plaintiffs were
discharged, and the question of its operation is not involved here. It
may be noted, however, that the oath and affidavits wliich are before us
in the present case cannot now }>e properly required by the county, since
the Levering Act lias fully occupied the field of legislation on the subject
of loyalty oaths for public employees in California. (Bowen v. County

of Los Angeles post, ^p. [ P.2d ] ; cf. Jraser v. Regents

of University of California, post, ''p. [ P.2d ].)

^Advance Keport Citation: Post, p. 726.

"Advance Report Citation: Post, p. 729.

•

•

•

Oct. 1952] HiRsciiMAN V. County of Los Angeles

719

been, a member of an organization which advocates the over-
throw of the government by force, except those which he lists
in a space provided for that purpose, and immediately under
this space appears the folh)wing: "(the organizations here to
be listed embrace all organizations advocating the overthrow
of government by force or violence including any of tlie here-
inafter named if they should ever be determined by a court
of law to advocate the overthrow of government by force
or violence)." The "hereinafter named" organizations re-
ferred to are those listed in paragraph D, and the county
concedes that each employee was expected merely to fill out
the form in accordance with his information on the date that
he executed the document. The quoted language, when prop-
erly construed, required plaintiffs to designate only those of
the named organizations wliich they knew advocated over-
throw of the government by force, or which to their knowl-
edge had been held by a court to advocate such action. They
were not required to speculate upon what the courts might
determine in the future. As thus interpreted, the require-
ment was sufficiently certain to be understood and applied,
and it must be sustained under our decision in PocJiman v.
Leonard, ante, ^p. [ P.2d ], that public em-
ployers may properly be required to furnish information re-
garding tlieir memberships in organizations which, to their
knowledge, have advocated the overthrow of the government
by force and violence.
The judgment is affirmed.

Shenk, J., Bilmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and
Spence, J., concurred.

CARTEK, J.— I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pock-
man v. Leonard, this day filed, ante, ^p. [ P. 2d ] ,

I would reverse the judgment with directions to the trial court
to issue a writ of mandate in accordance with the prayer of
plaintiffs' complaint.

^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

720

TOLMAN V. UnDERIIILL

[39A.C.

[Sac. No. 6211. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

EDWARD C. TOLMAN et al., Petitioners, v. ROBERT M.
UNDP]RIIILL, as Secretary and Treasurer of the Re-
gents of the University of California et al., Respondents.

[On hearinj;^ after decision by the District Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District, Civ. No. 7946 (103 A.C.A. 348, 229 P.2d
447) granting writ of mandamus in the superior court. Writ
granted.]

[1] Universities — Powers and Duties — Legislative Control. — Laws
passed by the Legishiture under its general police power will
prevail over reguLations made by the Regents of the University
of California with regard to matters which are not exclusively
university affairs.

[2] Id. — Powers and Duties — Legislative Control.— Loyalty of
teachers at the state university is not merely a matter in-
volving the internal affairs of that institution, but is a subject
of general statewide concern.

[3] Id.— Powers and Duties— Legislative Control.— Constitutional
limitations on the Legislature's power are to be strictly con-
strued, and any doubt as to its paramount authority to require
University of California employees to take an oath of loyalty
to the state and federal Constitutions will be resolved in favor
of its action.

[4] Municipal Corporations — Local Regulations — Conflict With
Statute. — Although the adoption of local rules supplementary
to state law is proper under some circumstances, local regula-
tion is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements
in a field which is fully occupied by statute.

[5] Id.— Local Regulations— Conflict With Statute.— Determina-
tion of the question whether the Legislature has undertaken
to occupy exclusively a given field of legislation depends on an
analysis of the statute and a consideration of the facts and
circumstances on which it was intended to operate.

[6] Id. — Local Regulations — Conflicts With Statute. — Where the
Legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular sub-
ject matter, its intent with regard to occupying the field to the
exclusion of all local regulation is not to be measured alone by
the language used, but by the whole purpose and scope of the
legislative scheme.

[1] See Cal. Jur., Universities and Colleges, § 2 et seq. ; Am. Jur.,
Universities and Colleges, § 6 et seq.

McK. Dig. References: [1-3] Universities, §8; [4-6] Municipal
Corporations, § 237 ; [7, 8] Public Employees.

Oct. 1951]

TOLMAN V. UnDERHILL

721

«

•

[7] Public Employees— Oath— Rules Governing.— Where the Legis-
lature has enacted a general and detailed scheme requiring all
state employees to execute a prescribed oath relating to loyalty
and faithful performance of duty, it could not have intended
that they must at the same time remain subject to any such
additional loyalty oaths or declarations as the particular
agency employing them might see fit to impose.

[8] Id.— Oath— Rules Governing.— Where state legislation has
fully occupied the field of legislation involving loyalty oaths
of all state employees, university personnel cannot properly
be required to execute any other oath or declaration relating
to loyalty, and an additional declaration as to loyalty required
by Regents of the University of California is therefore in-
valid.

PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel Board of Regents
of University of California to issue letters of appointment
to positions as members of faculty for academic year. Writ
granted.

Stanley A. Weigel for Petitioners.

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Eugene M. Prince and Francis
R. Kirkham for Respondents.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Gerald G. Kelly,
Assistant County Counsel, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Re-
spondents.

GIBSON, C. J. — 'This is an original proceeding in man-
damus to compel the Regents of the University of California,
through their secretary, Underbill, to issue to each petitioner
a letter of appointment to his regular post on the faculty of
the university.

On April 21, 1950, the regents passed a resolution which
provided that, effective with the academic year beginning
July 1st, ** conditions precedent to employment or renewal
of employment of American citizens in the University shall
be (1) execution of the constitutional oath of office required
of public officials of the State of California and (2) accept-
ance of appointment by a letter which shall include the follow-
ing provision:

'' 'Having taken the constitutional oath of office required
of public officials of the State of California, I hereby formally
acknowledge my acceptance of the position and salary named,
and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party
or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of

722

TOLMAN V. UnDERHILL

[39A.C.

the Government by force or violence, and that I have no com-
mitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to
impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth. 1 understand
that the foregoing statement is a condition of my employment
and a consideration of payment of my salary.' "

Petitioners have taken an oath identical to that prescribed
in section 3 of article XX of the state Constitution, as re-
quired of all state employees by sections 18150 et seq. of the
Government Code.* However, when notified of their ap-
pointment to their regular position on the faculty for the
academic year, petitioners refused to execute letters ot accept-
ance in the form required by the resolution and have brought
the present proceeding claiming that the requirement is in-
valid.

We need not discuss the numerous questions raised by peti-
tioners with regard to alleged violation of their civil rights
and impairment of contract because we are satisfied that their
application for relief must be granted on the ground that state
legislation has fully occupied the field and that university
personnel cannot properly be required to execute any other
oath or declaration relating to loyalty than that prescribed
for all state employees.

The historical background of the established practice of
limiting the number and types of oaths and tests which may
be required as a qualification for public employment has been

discussed in our opinion in Pocknmn v. Leonard, ante, *p.

[ P.2d ]. In California our Constitution has always

provided that members of the Legislature and all executive
and judicial officers, except such inferior officers as may be
exempted by law, shall take the oath now set out in section
3 of article XX, and that "no other oath, declaration or test,
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public
trust." The state Legislature has never exempted any public
officer or employee from taking the constitutional oath but,
to the contrary', has expressly provided that it shall be re-
quired of every state employee and, by a series of statutes, has
enacted a general and comprehensive scheme relating to execu-
tion and filing of the oath by all such persons.

*Tho oath prescribed by section 3 of article XX is as follows: *'I do
solemnly swear (or aflfirm, as the case may be) that I will support
the Constitution *of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties
of the office of , according to the best of my ability."

Gov. Code, $ 18150 et seq. provides that an identical oath shall be taken
by all state employees.

^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

•

•

Oct. 1951]

TOLMAN V. UnDERHILL

723

Section 1360 of the Government Code provides that before
any officer enters on the duties of his office he shall take and
subscribe to an oath which is identical with that set forth in
section 3, article XX of the Constitution. (Enacted 1943.
Based on former Pol. Code, §904, [1872].) Section 1364
makes it unlawful to remove a person * ' from an office or posi-
tion of public trust" because of his failure to comply with any
law, charter or regulation prescribing an additional test or
qualification, other than tests and qualifications provided for
under civil service and retirement laws, if he has taken or
offers to take the oath prescribed by section 1360. And sec-
tion 1365 states that an officer cannot lawfully be removed
from office because of his refusal to require additional tests or
qualifications of persons he appoints to positions of public
trust. (Enacted 1943. Based on Stats. 1901, ch. 167, p. 552.)
In 1941 the Legislature enacted laws requiring all state em-
ployees, whether members or nonmembers of civil service, to
take an oath identical with the constitutional oath (Stats.
1941, ch. 159, p. 1199 and ch. 236, p. 1302), and this require-
ment was incorporated into the Government Code as sections
18150 et seq. in 1945. Section 18152 provides, as to nonmem-
bers of civil service, that the manner of taking and filing the
oath required by section 18150 shall be the same as is pro-
vided for oaths taken pursuant to section 1360, and section
18154 provides that refusal to take the oath shall result in
forfeiture of position. As to members of civil service, section
18153 prescribes the manner of taking and filing the oath,
section 18155 provides that refusal to take the oath shall be
grounds for dismissal, and section 18156 states that every
civil service employee who takes the oath within the time pre-
scribed by sections 18150 et seq. **is conclusively presumed
to have been and to be legally holding his position as far as
laws requiring him to take, subscribe, or file an oath are
concerned."*

Eespondents contend that state legislation like sections
1360 et seq. and 18150 et seq. of the Government Code is in-
applicable to university personnel because of that portion of

*The provisions of <!«^ 18150-18158 were superseded in 1950 by Gov-
ernment Code H 31 03 31 00. commonly known as the Levering Act., which
rrquirca all city, county and state employees to take a loyalty oath which is
substantially the same as the constitutional oath. (See Pod-man v. Leon-
ard, ante, *p. [ P-2d 1.) The act did not pro into effoct until

several months after the filin>? of the present proceeding:, and the ques-
tion of its operation is not directly involved in this case. {Cf. Fraser v.
Begentfi of University of California, po.tt, 'p. [ P. 2d ■ -].)

^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

'Advance Report Citation: Post, p. 729.

724

TOLMAN V. UnDERHILL

[39 A.C.

section 9 of article IX of the state Constitution which provides
that the University of California shall be administered by
the regents, ''with full powers of organization and govern-
ment, subject only to such legislative control as may be neces-
sary to insure compliance with the terms of the endowments
of the university and the security of its funds." [1] It is
well settled, however, that laws passed by the Legislature
under its general police power will prevail over regulations
made by the regents with regard to matters which are not ex-
clusively university affairs. (See Wallace v. University of
California. 75 Cal.App. 274, 278 [242 P. 892] ; WiUiams v.
Wheeler, 23 Cal.App. 619, 624-625 [138 P. 937].) [2] There
can be no question that the loyalty of teachers at the uni-
versity is not merely a matter involving the internal affairs
of that institution but is a subject of general statewide con-
cern. [3] Constitutional limitations upon the Legislature's
powers are to be strictly construed, and any doubt as to its
paramount authority to require University of California em-
ployees to take an oath of loyalty to the state and federal
Constitutions will be resolved in favor of its action. {Cf.
Collins V. Rilejf, 24 Cal.2d 912, 91.5-916 [152 P.2d 169].)

[4] Although the adoption of local rules supplementary
to state law is proper under some circumstances, it is well
settled that local regulation is invalid if it attempts to impose
additional requirements in a field which is fully occupied by
statute. (Pipohf v. Benson, 20 Cal.2d 366, 370-371 [125 P.2d
482, 147 A.L.P. 515] : Easflich v. City of Los Anqeles, 29 Cal
2d 661, 666 [177 P.2d 558, 170 A.L.E. 225].) [5] Determi-
nation of the question whether the Legislature has undertaken
to occupy exclusively a given field of legislation depends upon
an analysis of the statute and a consideration of the facts
and circumstances upon which it was intended to operate.
(Eastlicl' V. City of Los Angeles, svpra, 29 Cal. 2d at p. 666;
Pipoly V. Benson, svpra. 20 Cal. 2d at pp. 372-375; In re Tver-
son, 199 Cal. 582. 586-587 [250 P. 681]; Ex parte Daniels,
18.? Cal. 636, 642. 643 [192 P. 442, 21 A.L.P. 1172].)
[6] Where the Legislature has adopted statutes governing a
particular subject matter, its intent with regard to occupying
the field to the exclusion of all local regulation is not to be
measured alone bv the laniruaire used but by the whole pur-
pose and scope of the lecrislative scheme. (Eastlich v. Citif of
Los Anaeles. svpra. 29 Cal.2d at p. 666; Pipoly v. Benson,
svpra. 20 Cal.2d at 371-373 : Ex parte Daniels, svpra, 183 Cal
at p. 642-643.)

[7] It is immediately apparent, upon applying these tests

Oct. 1951]

ToLMAN V. UnDERHILL

725

•

•

to the statutes here involved, that the loyalty of state em-
ployees is not a matter as to which there may reasonably be
different standards and different tests but is, without doubt,
a subject requiring uniform treatment throughout the state.
As we have already seen, the Legislature has enacted a general
and detailed scheme requiring all state employees to execute
a prescribed oath relating to loyalty and faithful perform-
ance of duty, and it could not have intended that they must
at the same time remain subject to any such additional loyalty
oaths or declarations as the particular agency employing
them might see fit to impose. Multiplicity and duplication
of oaths and declarations would not only reflect seriously upon
the dignity of state employment but would make a travesty
of the effort to secure loyal and suitable persons for govern-
ment service.

[8] We are satisfied that the Legislature intended to
occupy this particular field of legislation by enacting Govern-
ment Code sections 13G0 et seq..and 18150 et seq. and that
there is no room left f(n' supplementary local regulation.
{Cf. Pipoly V. Benson, 20 Cal.2d 366, 371, 373 [125 P.2d
482, 147 A.L.R. 515] ; Eastlick v. City of Los Angeles, 29 Cal.
2d. 661, 666-667 [177 P.2d 558, 170 A.L.R. 225].) The decla-
ration as to loyalty required by the regents is, accordingly, in-
valid.

No question is raised as to petitioners' loyalty or as to
their qualifications to teach, and they are entitled to a writ
directing respondents to issue to each of petitioners a letter
of ap]>ointment to his post on the faculty of the university
upon his takiujg the oath now required of all public employees
by the Levering Act. (See Eraser v. Regents of University
of California, post, ^p. [ P.2d ].)

Let a writ of mandate issue for the limited purpose above
indicated.

Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and
Spence, J., concurred.

CARTER, J.— I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in PocJc-

man v. Leonard, this day filed, ante, -p. [ P. 2d ] ,

I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

^Advance Report Citation: Post, p. 729.
-Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

I

726

BowEN V. County of Los Angeles [39 A.C.

I

1

[L. A. No. 22012. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

MARJOllIE A. BOWEN, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS

ANGELES et al., Respondents.

[1] Public Employees — Oath — Form.— Oath required of all public
employees by the Levering Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109)
does not constitute a religious or political test.

[2] Id. — Oath — Rules Governing. — The loyalty of county employees
is not exclusively a local affair but is a matter of general state-
wide concern, and the Levering Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109),
which fully occupies the field of legislation on the subject of
loyalty oaths for all public employees, is applicable to county
employees and precludes the imposition of supplementary local
requirements.

PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel county to reinstate
a civil service employee and pay compensation withheld fol-
lowing suspension for refusal to sign oath required by Gov.
Code, §§ 3100-3109. Writ granted.

Wirin, Rissman & Okrand, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Rich-
ard W. Petherbridge and Nanette Dembitz for Petitioner.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Gerald G. Kelly, As-
sistant County Counsel and Robert L. Trapp, Deputy County
Counsel, for Respondents.

GIBSON, C. J. — Petitioner, a Los Angeles County civil
service employee, was discharged because she refused to sign
the oath required of all public employees by the Levering Act
(Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109), and she has brought this original
proceeding in mandamus seeking reinstatement and payment
of compensation which was withheld following her suspension.

Before the Levering Act went into effect, petitioner exe-
cuted an oath almost identical with that prescribed in section
3 of article XX of the state Constitution, and she also took the
oath and made the affidavits required by the board of super-
visors of Los Angeles County.* Thereafter she was directed

[1] See Cal.Jur., Public Officers, §52; Am.Jur., Public Officers,
§7.

McK. Dig. References: [1, 2] Public Employees.

*See Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles, ante, ^p. [ P.2d

J*
^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 715.

Oct. 1952] BowEN V. County op Los Angeles

727

•

•

by hei^ superior to take the oath prescribed by the Levering
Act, and upon her refusal to do so she was suspended without
pay as of October 30 and was discharged on November 29, 1950.

Nearly all of the questions raised by petitioner with respect
to the constitutionality and application of the Levering Act
have been answered adversely to her in Pockman v Leonard,

ante, ^p. [ P.2d ]. She makes two additional

contentions, however, with respect to asserted conflicts between
the act and the provisions of the Los Angeles County Charter.
[1] The first of these, namely that the oath requirement vio-
lates section 41 of the charter,* falls by reason of our holding

in the Pockman case, ante, at -p. , that the Levering

oath does not constitute a religious or political test.

[2] Secondly, petitioner contends that the Levering Act
is inapplicable to her because, she asserts, the power to regulate
the qualifications of county employees is governed exclusively
by the provisions of the Los Angeles County Charter adopted
pursuant to section 7^2 of article XI of the state Constitution
which authorizes county charters to provide for the regula-
tion by boards of supervisors of the appointment, duties, quali-
fications and compensation of county employees. Under the
charter the board of supervisors is empowered to provide for
the appointment and compensation of county employees, a civil
service system is set up, and the power to prescribe rules
for the classified service is vested in a county commission.
(L.A. County Charter, §§ 11, 34.) There is nothing in section
7V2> however, which can be construed as in any way limiting
the authority of the Legislature to make regulations under
its police power concerning the loyalty of persons in the serv-
ice of the state and its political subdivisions. We held

in Poclman v. Leonard, ante, ^pp. , [ P. 2d

], that the Levering Act was adopted by the Legislature

in the exercise of its police power, and there can be no doubt
that the loyalty of county employees is not exclusively a
local affair but is a matter of general statewide concern.

It follows that the Levering Act is applicable to em-
ployees of Los Angeles County, and it is evident from the
language and purjwse of the act that it fully occupies the

*Soctioii 41 i)rovidt's: * * No person in the [county] classified service,
or seeking admission thereto, shall be appointed, reduced or removed or
in any way favored or discriminated against because of his political or
religious opinions or affiliations,"

^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. G93.

'Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 703.

•Advance Report Citation: Ante, pp. 701, 703.

728

Bo WEN V. County of Los Angeles [39 A.C.

field of legislation on the subject of loyalty oaths for public
employees. (Cf. Frascr v. Regents of University of Califor-
nia, post, ip. f P.2d ] ; Tolman v. Underhill,

ante, -p [ P.2d ].) The act establishes a gen-
eral and detailed plan with uniform standards for all public
emploj^ees, and, as we have held in the Tolman case, ante, at

^P- , with respect to earlier statutes the act precludes the

imposition of supplementary local requirements. The oath
prescribed by the Levering Act is therefore, the only oath or
declaration relating to loyalty which may now be required
of Los Angeles County employees as a condition of their
employment. (Cf. Fraser v. Regents of Viiiversity of Cali-
fornia, post 4pp. , [ p.2d ].)

Since petitioner refused to execute the Levering oath,
she is not entitled to reinstatement. She is, however, entitled
to compensation for services rendered up to and including
30 days following October 3, 1950, the effective date of the

Levering Act. {Pockman v. Leonard, ante, ''pp. ,

[ P.2d ].)

Petitioner's application for a writ directing her reinstate-
ment as a civil service employee is denied. Let a writ of
maiulate issue for the limited purpose of directing payment of
petitioner's salary up to and including 30 days after October
3, 1950.

Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Sehauer, J., and
Spence, J., concurred.

CARTER, J.— I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pock-
man V. Leonard, this day filed, ante, ^p. [ P. 2d ] ,

I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

^Advance Report Citation: Post, p. 729.
^Advance Report Citation : Ante, p. 720.
3 Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 725.
^Advance Report Citation : Post, pp. 729, 730.
'^Advance Report Citation : Ante, pp. 693, 705.
^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

t

•

•

Oct. 1952] Eraser v. Regents of University of Cal. 729

[S. F. No. 18428. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

RUSSELL A. FRASER, Petitioner v. THE REGENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al.,
Respondents.

[11 Public Employees — Oath — Rules Governing. — Since the Lever-
ing Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109) in effect supersedes Gov.
Code, § 18150 et seq., and expressly provides that compliance
with its terms shall, as to state employees, be deemed full
compliance with those sections, the act is applicable to state
university employees, and the oath prescribed therein is the
only oath or declaration of loyalty which may now be required
of teachers at the state university as a condition of their
employment.

PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel Regents of Univer-
sity of California to reinstate instructor and to pay him com-
pensation in accordance with terms of his contract of employ-
ment. Writ denied.

AVirin, Rissman & Okrand, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand and
Nanette Dembitz for Petitioner.

Calkins, Hall, Conard & Johnson, Jno. U. Calkins, Jr., A. H.
Conard and John E. Landon for Respondents.

GIBSON, C. J. — Petitioner broufrht this oripfinal proceeding
in mandamus to compel respondents to reinstate him to the
position of instructor at the University of California and to
pay him compensation in accordance with the terms of his
contract of employment. Respondents' return to the alter-
native writ was by demurrer and answer. Inasmuch as we
have concluded that the demurrer must be sustained, it is
unnecessary to give any consideration to the issues of fact
raised by the answer.

Petitioner alleges that he was discharged from his posi-
tion as instructor because of his failure to execute the oath
required by sections 3100-3109 of the Government Code,
known commonly as the Levering Act. C Stats. 1951 [3d Ex.
Sess. 1950, ch. 7], p. 15.) At the time of his appointment for
the academic year July 1. 1950, to June 30. 1951, petitioner
as required by sections 18150 et seq. of the Government Code,
took an oath identical to that prescribed in section 3 of

[1] See Cal.Jur., Public Officers, §52; Am.Jur., Public Officers,

§7.

McK. Dig. Reference: [1] Public Employees.

730

Fraser v. Regents of University of Cal. [39 A.C.

article XX of the state Constitution. In addition, he signed
the regents' declaration relating to loyalty which has been

held invalid in Tolman v. UnderhiJl, ante, ^p. [ P. 2d

-] . After the effective date of the Levering Act, October

3, 1950, petitioner refused to take the oath prescribed therein
for all public employees, and he alleges that he was discharged
on December 31, 1950.

The constitutionality of the Levering Act was sustained in

Pockman v. Leonard, ante, -p. [ P.2d ] . With

reference to the applicabiilty of such legislation to university

employees, we held in Tolman v. UnderhiJl, ante, ^p

[ P.2d ] , that the loyalty of teachers at the university

is a matter of general statewide concern, and that sections
18150 et seq. of the Government Code, requiring all state
employees to take an oath identical with that prescribed by
our state Constitution, applied to members of the faculty of
the university. [1] The Levering Act in effect supersedes
sections 18150 et seq. and expressly provides that compliance
with its terms shall, as to state employees, be deemed full
compliance with those sections. (Gov. Code, §3106.) Accord-
ingly, there can be no question that the act is applicable to
university employees, and the language and purpose of the
statute, together with the reasoning of our decision in Tolman
V. Underhill, make it evident that the act fully occupies the
field of legislation on the subject of loyalty oaths for public

employees. {Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, ante, ^p. ,

[ P. 2d ] .) The oath prescribed by the Levering

Act is, therefore, the only oath or declaration of loyalty
which may now be required of teachers at the university as
a condition of their employment. Since petitioner refused
to take that oath, he is not entitled to reinstatement.

The demurrer is sustained, the alternative writ is dis-
charged, and the peremptory writ is denied.

Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and
Spence, J., concurred.

CARTER, J.— I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pock-
man V. Leonard, this day filed, ante, ^p. [ P.2d ] ,

I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

^' ^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 720.
2' ^Advance Report Citation : Ante, p. 693.
^Advance Report Citation : Ante, pp. 726, 727.

Oct. 1952]

BisNO V. Leonard

731

«

[S. F. No. 18348. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

HERBERT BlSx\0, Petitioner, v. J. PAUL LEONARD,
as l*resident of San Francisco State College et al., Re-
spondents.

PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel officers of state
college to reinstate an assistant professor discharged for failure
to take oath prescribed by Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109. Writ
granted.

Wayne M. Collins for Petitioner.

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, H. H. Linney, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, and Herbert E. Wenig, Deputy
Attorney General, for Respondents.

THE COURT. — This original proceeding in mandamus was
brought by an assistant professor at San Francisco State
College who did not have teacher's tenure but held his posi-
tion by appointment from year to year. The issues raised are

identical with those in Pockman v. Leonard, ante, ^p.

[ P. 2d J, this day decided, and on the authority of

that case petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation
for services rendered up to and including 30 days following
October 3, 1950, the effective date of sections 3100-3109 of
the Government Code (Stats. 1951 [3d Ex. Sess. 1950, ch. 7]
p. 15), but, having tailed to take the required oath, he is not'
entitled to compensation for any subsequent period.

Insofar as petitioner seeks payment of salary or other re-
lief for any period subsecpient to 30 days after October 3,
1950, the application is denil'd. Let a writ of mandate issue
for the limited purpose of directing payment of petitioner's
salary uj) to and including 30 days after October 3, 1950.

CARTER, J.— I dissent.

F'or the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pock-

man v. Leonard, this day filed, ante, ^p. [ P.2d ] ,

I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

732

Horowitz v. Conlan

[39 A.C.

[S. F. No. 18347. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

JOHN HOROWITZ, Petiliouer, v. LOUIS G. CONLAN,
as President of San Francisco City College et al., Re-
spondents.

PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel officers of city
college to reinstate a teacher discharged for failure to take
oath required by Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109. "Writ granted.

Wayne M. Collins for Petitioner.

Benjamin Dreyfus, Francis J. McTernan, Jr., Norman
Leonard, Jonathan Rowell, Laurence R. Sperber, William B.
Murrish, Hugh B. Miller and Charles R. Garry, as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Dion R. Holm, City Attorney (San Francisco), Walker
Peddicord, Deputy City Attorney, Irving G. Breyer, M. M.
McCaffery and Frank P. Mack, Jr., for Respondents.

THE COURT. — This original proceeding in mandamus was
brought by a teacher who was omi^loyed by the San Francisco
Unified School District and had teacher's tenure. The issues
raised are identical with those in Packman v. Leonard, ante,
^P- [ B.2d 1, this day decided, and on the au-
thority of that case petitioner is entitled to payment of com-
pensation for services rendered up to and including 30 days
following October 3, 1050, the efl'ective date of sections 3100-
3109 of the Government Code (Stats. 1951 [3d Ex. Sess. 1950,
ch. 7] p. 15.), but, having failed to take the required oath,
he is not entitled to compeni^ation for any subsequent period.

Insofar as petitioner seeks payment of salary or other relief
for any period subsequent to 30 days after October 3, 1950,
the application is denied. Let a writ of mandate issue for
the limited purpose of directing payment of petitioner's
salary up to and including 30 days after October 3, 1950.

CARTER, J.— I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pock-
man V. Leonard, this day filed, ante, ^p. [ p.2d ],

I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

^Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

•

Oct. 1952]

Hanchett v. Lehman

733

[S. F. No. 18346. In Bank. Oct. 17, 1952.]

EDWARD L. HANCHETT, Petitioner, v. RALPH H. LEH-
MAN as Principal of the High School of Commerce et al.,
Respondents.

PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel reinstatement of
probationary teacher discharged for failure to take oath
required by Gov. Code, §§ 3100-3109. Writ granted.

Wayne M. Collins for Petitioner.

Dion R. Holm, City Attorney (San Francisco), Walker
Peddicord, Deputy City Attorney, Irving G. Breyer, M. P.
McCaifery and Frank P. Mack, Jr., for Respondents.

THE COURT. — This original proceeding in mandamus was
brought by a probationary teacher employed by the San Fran-
cisco Unified School District. The issues raised are identical

with those in Pockman v. Leonard, ante, ^p. [ P.2d

], this day decided, and on the authority of that case

petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation for services
rendered up to and including 30 days following October 3,
1950, the effective date of sections 3100-3109 of the Govern-
ment Code (Stats. 1951 [3d Ex. Sess. 1950, ch. 7] p. 15),
but, having failed to take the required oath, he is not entitled
to compensation for any subsequent period.

Insofar as petitioner seeks payment of salary or other re-
lief for any period subsequent to 30 days after October 3, 1950,
the application is denied. Let a writ of mandate issue for
the limited purpose of directing payment of petitioner's
salary up to and including 30 days after October 3, 1950.

CARTER, J.— I dissent.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pock-
man V. Leonard, this day filed, ante, ^p. [ P.2d ] ,

I would issue a writ of mandate as prayed for in the petition.

1 Advance Report Citation: Ante, p. 693.

MINUTES

San Francisco, Oct. 20, 1952.
In Bank.

— (3d Crim 2394)— Application
of Tate for Writ of Error Coram
Nobis. Petition denied.

S F 18723 (1st Civ 15601)— City
of South San Francisco v. Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Co. The
above entitled cause and motion
filed therein are transferred to the
District Court of Appeal, First Ap-
pellate District.

Crim 5291 — People v. McCracken.
Petition for stay of execution de-
nied.

S F 18702— Stout et al. v. Demo-
cratic County Central Committee.

It is ordered that service of the
alternative writ in the above mat-
ter on the respondents and real
parties in interest may be made by
serving the writ personally on
counsel for the respondents and
real parties in interest.

The following appeals are trans-
ferred to the District Court of Ap-
peal, Second Appellate District:

L A 22559 — Mademann v. Sex-
auer.

L A 22560— Wilson v. Nobell.

L A 22563 — Enterprise Develop-
ment Corp. v. Terry, doing busi-
ness as Interstate Rubber Products
Co.

The following appeals, now pend-
ing in the District Court of Appeal,
First Appellate District, are trans-
ferred to the Supreme Court and
retransferred to the District Court
of Appeal, First Appellate District:

S F 18725 (1st Civ 15595)— Rice
V. Blair Holdings Corporation.

S F 18726 (1st Civ 15600)— Es-
tate of Erwin.

— (2d Civ 19369)— Application
of Screen Writers' Guild, Inc. v.
R.K.O. Radio Pictures, Inc. The

above entitled appeal, now pending
in the District Court of Appeal,
Second Appellate District, is trans-
ferred to the Supreme Court and
retransferred to the District Court
of Appeal, Second Appellate Dis-
trict.

— (3d Civ 8329)— Baker v. Floto.

The above entitled appeal, now
pending in the District Court of
Appeal, Third Appellate District,
is transferred to the Supreme
Court and retransferred to the Dis-
trict Court of Appeal, Third Ap-
pellate District.

San Francisco, Oct. 21, 1952.
In Bank.

— (1st Civ 15192. Div 1)— Gil-
man V. Nordin. [112 A.C.A. 890.]

Appellant's petition for hearing de-
nied. Schauer, J., is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted.

L A 22492— Grayhill Drilling Co.
V. Superior Oil Company. The judg-
ment is affirmed. Traynor, J. We
concur: Gibson, C. J.; Shenk, J.;
Edmonds, J.; Carter, J.; Schauer,
J.; Spence, J.

L A 22050— Peterson et al. v.
Johnson et al. Judgment affirmed.
Traynor, J. We concur: Gibson,
C. J.; Shenk, J.; Edmonds, J.; Car-
ter, J.; Schauer. J.; Spence, J.

L A 21956— Richfield Oil Corp. v.
Crawford et al. The judgment is
affirmed. Traynor, J. We concur:
Gibson, C. J.; Shenk, J.; Edmonds,
J.; Carter, J.; Spence, J.; Van Dyke,
J. pro tem.

San Francisco, Oct. 22, 1952.

In Bank.

S F 18463 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 205, Oct. Term, 1952)— United
States of America v. Public Utili-
ties Comm. Order of U. S. Supreme
Court filed granting petition for
writ of certiorari.

S F 18464 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 206, Oct. Term, 1952)— County
of Mineral v. Public Utilties Comm.
Order of U. S. Supreme Court filed
granting petition for writ of cer-
tiorari.

L A 21949-21950-21951 (U. S.
Supreme Court, No. 7, Misc. Oct.
Term, 1952)— Mock v. Davies. Or-
der of U. S. Supreme Court filed
denying petition for writ of cer-
tiorari.

L A 22211 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 269, Oct. Term, 1952)— City of

(1)

Minutes

Los Angeles v. Housing Authority.

Order of U. S. Supreme Court filed
denying petition for writ of cer-
tiorari.

Sac 5277 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 17, Misc. Oct. Term, 1952) —
Hodges on Habeas Corpus. Order
of U. S. Supreme Court filed deny-
ing petition for writ of certiorari.

Crim 5292 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 60, Misc. Oct. Term, 1952) —
Polk V. Teets, Warden, etc. Order
of U. S. Supreme Court filed deny-
ing petition for writ of certiorari.

Crim 5311 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 49, Misc. Oct. Term, 1952) —
Booth V. King, etc. Order of U. S.
Supreme Court filed denying peti-
tion for writ of certiorari.

Crim 5327 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 31, Misc. Oct. Term, 1952) —
Neal V. Heinze, Warden. Order of
U. S. Supreme Court filed denying
petition for writ of certiorari,

Crim 5336 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 45, Misc. Oct. Term, 1952) —
Gresham v. People, etc. Order of
U. S. Supreme Court filed denying
petition for writ of certiorari.

Crim 5342 (U. S. Supreme Court,
No. 83, Misc. Oct. Term, 1952) —
Ponce V. Heinze, Warden. Order of
U. S. Supreme Court filed denying
petition for writ of certiorari.

San Francisco, Oct. 23, 1952.
In Bank.

S F 18728— (1st Civ 14914, Div 1)
—French v. Richell et al. 1 112 A.C.
A. 923.] Appellant's petition for
hearing granted and cause trans-
ferred to this court. Gibson, C. J.;
Shenk, J.; Edmonds, J.; Schauer, J.;
Spence, J.

L A 22061 — Estate of La Mont,
Deed.; Gunness v. La Mont. |39
A.C. 583.] Respondent's petition for
rehearing denied.

Crim 5321 — People v. Southack.
[39 A.C. 595.] Appellant's petition
for rehearing denied.

— (1st Civ 15155, Div 1)— Dor-
san v. MacNeil. [112 A.C.A. 909.]
Appellant's petition for hearing
denied.

— (1st Civ 15393, Div 2)— Neu-
stadt V. Superior Court, San Fran-
cisco. [112 A.C.A. 935.] Petitioner's
application for hearing denied.

— (1st Civ 15042, Div 2)— Wyene

V. Durrington. [112 A.C.A. 932.]

Appellant's petition for hearing de-
nied. Carter, J. is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted.

— (1st Crim 2793, Div 2)— Peo-
ple V. Cole. [113 A.C.A. 293.] Peti-
tions of appellant and respondent
for hearing denied.

— (2d Civ 19010, Div 1)— Morris
v. Harbor Boat Building Co. [112
A.C.A. 990.] Respondent's petition
for hearing denied.

— (2d Civ 19089, Div 1)— Led-
erer v. Greenwood. [Aug. 26, 1952.]
Appellant's petition for hearing
denied.

— (3d Civ 8074)— Jansen v.
Southern Pacific Co. |112 A.C.
A. 943.J Appellant's petition for
hearing denied. Edmonds, J.,
Schauer, J. and Spence, J. are of
the option that the petition should
be granted.

— (3d Civ 8124)— Ponti v. Bura-
stero. [112 A.C.A. 955.] Appellant's
petition for hearing denied.

— (4th Civ 4295)— Gould v. Ex-
ecutive Power of the State. [112
A.C.A. 998.] Petitioner's applica-
tion for hearing denied.

— (4th Crim 854)— People v.
Evans. Petition denied.

The following appeals are trans-
ferred to the District Court of Ap-
peal, First Appellate District:

S F 18724— (1st Civ 15607)—
Leonard v. Huston. (2 Appeals.)

S F 18727— (1st Civ 15608) —
Estate of Weymouth.

S F 18730— (1st Civ 15603)—
Pahlka v. McCormick. The above
entitled appeal, now pending in

Edward Oscar Heinrich, b.s.

SAN FRANCISCO: 24 CALIFORNIA ST.
BERKELEY: looi OXFORD STREET

Consulting Exfert in

DISPUTED

HANDWRITING

Typewriting, Ink, Paper, etc., in con-
nection with their use as Legal Evidence

EX brook 2-0491 (Office Tel.)
LAndsCape 4-3646 (Laboratory Tel.)

I

8

Index

the District Court of Appeal, First
Appellate District, is transferred
to the Supreme Court and retrans-
ferred to the District Court of Ap-
peal, First Appellate District.

— (2d Civ 19370)— -County of
Los Angeles v. Southern Counties
Gas Co. The above entitled appeal,
now pending in the District Court
of Appeal, Second Appellate Dis-
trict, is transferred to the Supreme
Court and retransferred to the Dis-
trict Court of Appeal, Second Ap-
pellate District.

S F 18729— (4th Civ 4626)—
Young v. Young. The above en-
titled appeal, now pending in the
District Court of Appeal, Fourth
Appellate District, is transferred
to the Supreme Court and retrans-

ferred to the District Court of Ap-
peal, Fourth Appellate District.

San Francisco, Oct. 24, 1952.
In Bank.

S F 18614 — Duprey v. Shane

et al. By the Court: The judgment
is affirmed.

L A 22092— Ward v. Jones. The
judgment is affirmed. Shenk, J. We
concur: Gibson, C. J.; Traynor, J.;
Schauer, J.; Spence, J. Dissenting
opinion by Carter, J. Dissenting
opinion by Edmonds, J.

L A 22396— Sunset Milling &
Grain Co. v. Anderson etc. The
judgment is reversed. Edmonds, J.
We concur: Gibson, C. J.; Shenlt, J.;
Carter, J.; Traynor, J.; Schauer, J.;
Spence, J.

CITATIONS

CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION

,^ . PAGE

Art. V, $ 19 700

IX, $ 9 724

XI, $ 7 1/2 727

^X, $ 3 696, 703, 706, 713, 722

STATUTES

PAOX

1901, p. 522 723

1941, p. 1199 723

PENAL CODE

SECTION
120 . . ,

PAOS

. 710

POLITICAL CODE

SECTION
690 . . .

PAGE

700

SECTION
904 . . .

PAGE

723

GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION PAGE

1028 702

1360 725

3100-3109. .695, 718, 726, 729,

731-733

3100 696

3101 696

3102 696

3103 696, 698, 700

SECTION PAGE

3106 696, 730

3107 696

18150 723

18150-18158 696, 706, 722

18152 723

18154 723

18155 723

18156 723

#

INDEX

[References are to pages where headnotes appear. Figures in brackets refer to

headnote numbers.]

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

Local Regulations — Conflict With Statute, 720 [4-6]
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

Levering Act — Civilian Defense — Activities of Teacher, 693 [2]

Construction, 693 [1]

Validity — Delegation of Legislative Power, 693 [3]

When Applicable, 695 [17]
Oath— Form, 694 [8-11], 695 [12], 715 [1]

Rules Governing, 721 [7, 8], 729 [1]
Regulations— Validity, 695 [13-16]

PUBLIC OFFICERS

Oath— Form, 693 [4], 694 [5], 726 [1]
Persons Included, 694 [6, 7]

UNIVERSITIES

Powers and Duties — Legislative Control, 720 [1-3]

CUMULATIVE TABLE OF CASES IN

39 A.C.

PAGI

Aetna Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. West 204

Allen V. Franchise Tax Board 113

American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle ■ 216

Atha V. Bockius 653

Bisno V. Leonard . 731

Bowen v. County Los Angeles 726

Calif omia- Western States Life Ins. Co. v. Industrial Ace. Com. 107

Cary v. Wentzel 500

Chan V. Title Insurance & Trust Company 264

Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' State License Board 577

Clark V. State Bar 167

Clifford V. Ruocco 337

D. L. Godbey & Sons Construction Co. v. Deane 440

Decter v. Stevenson Properties, Inc 418

EWerhardt v. Bass 1

Eli V. Murphy 614

Ericksen v. Southern Pac. Co 385

Estate of Adams 319

Estate of Bloeh 586

Estate of LaMont 582

Fascination, Inc. v. Hoover 271

Feinstein v. State Bar 555

Fireman 's Fund Indem. Co. v. Industrial Ace. Com 541

Flores v. Brown 640

Eraser v. Regents of University of California 729

Gantner v. Gantner 282

Green v. Gordon 241

(4)

Cumulative Table of Cases

PAGE

Hamasaki v. FJotho 619

iianchett v. Lehman 733

Handler v. Board of Supervisors 293

Hansen v. Cramer 33I

Hill V. Estate of Westbrook 468

Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles 715

Holmberg v. Marsden 609

Horowitz V. Conlan 732

In re Barr 26

In re Katcher 30

In re Levi 43^ 112

In re Lopez 122

Kelley v. Upshaw 185

Knell v. Morris 461

Kuchel v. Tolhurst 235

L. B. Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitchell 5p

Lawrence Barker, Inc. v. Briggs 671

Lazzarevich v. Lazzarevich 50

Leipert v. Honald 472

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Industrial Ace. Com 525

Masaoka v. People 229

McMahon v. State Bar 376

Mountain States Creamery Co. v. Tagerman 365

Norris v. Pacific Indemnity Co 431

Panzich v. Gaylord 53

Paterson v. Comastri 6g

People V. Ballentine I99

People V. Burnett 57I

People V. Cook 507

People V. Evans 253

People V. Gilliam 246

People V. LeBeau 151

People V. McCracken 345

People V. Southack 595

Pfingsten v. Westenhaver I3

Pockman v. Leonard (593

Benner v. Huntington-Hawthome Oil and Gaa Co 95

Rodabaugh v. Tekus 300

Rose V. Melody Lane 49I 570

Bosicrucian Fellowship v. Rosicrucian Fellowship

Non-sectarian Church 127

Scott V. Burke 399

Sexton V. Brooks I59

Solon V. Lichtenstein 77

Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Ace. Com 85

Sutter Hospital v. City of Sacramento 33

Swift V. Superior Court 368

Thomas v. California Emp. Stab. Com 513

Tolman v. Underbill 720

Watson V. Watson 315

Zentz V. Coca Cola Bottling Co 447

•

•

Announcing—*

BAR EXAMINATIONS

AND

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

TO THE BAR

GDmptefe In one volunae (498 pages) — Reporh of the fwelve menn-
bers of the Advisory and Editorial Committee on Bar Examinations
and Requirements for Admission To The Bar: together with a very
important and Informative Consultant's Report.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

State and Federal Courts

Other Jurisdictions

Foreign Common-Law Jurisdiction

REQUIREMENTS OF CHARACTER AND EDUCATION

Investigation

Law School Accreditation

BAR EXAMINATIONS

Administration, Preparation, Grading

Scope

Testing Devices

Improvements

Statistical Studies

Nationally Administered

National Conference

Published for the Survey of the Legal Profession under the auspices
of the American Bar Association.

Order from the publisher .... $5.00 0 copy

Shepard's Citations

Colorado Springs
Colorado

SPEED. . .

in the release of decisions handed down by
Appellate Courts is of prime importance to
the legal profession. Through the years The
Recorder has established an

ADVANCE PROOF
SCR VICE. . .

making available decisions immediately after
they have been set in type and read for
accuracy, and in advance of their release in
pamphlet form.

This service, used frequently by lawyers
throughout California, is obtainable at a very
low cost — For subscribers to Advance Sheets,
30 cents; for non-subscribers, 50 cents.

Recorder Printing & Publishing Co.

99 SO. VAN NESS AVE. • SAN FRANCISCO, 3
408 SO. SPRING ST. • LOS ANGELES, 13

#

CALIFORNIA TITLE COMPANIES

AUmeda Connty:
Alameda County-East Bay Title In-
svirance Company, 1510 Webster St.,
Oakland.

Oakland Title Insurance and Guaranty
Co., Title Insurance Building. Fifteenth
and Franklin Sts., Oakland.

Fresno Connty:

PYesno Title Guaranty Co., 2040 Fresno
St., Fresno.

San Joaquin Abstract Division of Title
Insvirance and Trust Company, 1117
Van Ness Avenue, Fresno, California.

Merced Connty:

Merced County Title Company, for-
merly Slmonson-Harrell Abatraet Co..

Merced.

Oranre Connty:

Santa Ana Abstract Division of Tltl*
Insurance and Trust Co., 416 North
Main St., Santa Ana.

San Diepo Connty:

Southern Title and Trust Co., Security
Title Insurance Co., 940 Third St..
San Diego.

San Joaqnin Connty:
Stockton Abstract and Title Co., 36
South San Joaquin St., Stockton.

To Members of the Bar
in all sections of the State:

The Recorder, official organ of the courts in
Son Francisco, maintains a special depart-
ment to serve lawyers in the filing and publi-
cation of legal notices.

Attorneys outside San Francisco may mail
papers direct to the Recorder's legal adver-
tising office, 340 Kearny Street, San Fran-
cisco, for filing and publication in San
Francisco or in surrounding counties.

The Recorder Printing & Publishing Co.

340 KEARNY STREET

SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF.

for

ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER

■

Revised and Enlarged Edition

1951

LARMAC INDEX

A MUST for the busy lawyer!

Saves valuable time and endless digging— leads directly to the
needed statute— pays for itself over and over again.

The Complete Index to All California Statutory Law

A One-Volume Index Under One Alphabetical Listing to

All 25 Codes, The General Laws and State Constitution

Plus Rules of the Supreme, Appellate, Superior

and Municipal Courts

Many thousands of changes and additions were required to cover the
1950 and 1951 legislative enactments.

Each item of the index starts with a key word, keyed to direct you to the
subject as covered in any of the Codes, General Laws, or Constitution.

Price $21.00 [ s'.?J.VJX".'« ]
Order NOW fo Insure Earliest Possible Delivery

The Recorder Printing & Publishing Co.

f9 SO. VAN NESS AVENUE, SAN FRANCISCO 3, CALIFORNIA

•

f

3 Civil No. 7946

GROUP FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Hotel Shattuck
Berkeley 4, California

In the

District Court of Appeal
State of California

Third Appellate District

Edward C. Tolman, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

RoBKRT M. Underhill, as Secretary and
Treasurer of The Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioners' Reply Brief

Stanley A. W^eigel,

275 Bush Street,

San Francisco 4, California,

Attorney for Petitioners.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellatioji, it is that no official,
high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism,
religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act
their faith therein."

THE SUPREME COL RT OF THE UNITED STATES

(319 U.S. 642)

1

SUBJECT INDEX

Page
Introduction |

Concerning the Status of Academic Tenure at the University
of California; Its Application in This Proceeding; Its Rela-
tionship to Academic Freedom 3

Concerning This Brief in Relation to the Points and Author-
itias Filed with the Petition and in Relation to Respondents'
Brief „ ^ 3

Statement of the Questions Presented 5

Argument _ ^ _ 5

I. The Special Declaration Demanded of Petitioners Vio-
lates Controlling Proviiiions of the Constitution of the
State of California 5

A. The Demanded Declaration Is in Conflict with the
Constitutional Mandate of Article IX, Section 9.
Which Establishes the University of California a.s
a Public Trust and Declares That ''The Universitv

•

Shall Be Entirely Independent of All Political or
Sectarian Influenct' and Kt'])t Fr(^e Therefrom in
the A}>pointment of Its Regents and the Adminis-
tration of Its Affairs'* 5

B. The Demanded Special Statement Ls a Declaration
or Test Prohibited by Article XX. Section 3, of
the State Constitution 10

II. The Regents' Api)()intment of Petitioners, on July 21,
1950, to Their Respective Posts on the Faculty of the
University of California Was and Remain-s Irrevocable 17

A. Even if It Were True That the Rule in Mac-
Alister v. Baker Applies Only to Public Officers.
It Applie*} in the Case at Bar Becau.se Members
of the Faculty of the University of California Are
Public Officers „ 17

u

Subject Index

Page

B. While the Regents May Have and Have Exercised
Full Constitutional Authority to Establish a Rule
Permitting Reconsideration of Certain Matters,
No Such Rule Permitted Reconsideration of the
Appointments Here Involved 25

C. Application of the Doctrine of the MacAlister
Case Cannot Be Avoided Here on the Contention
That the Doctrine Does Not Apply to Bodies
Which Have Both the Power of Appointment and

the Power of Dismissal 30

D. Independently of the Doctrine of MacAlister v.
Baker, the Irrevocability of the Appointments on
July 21, 1950, Is Established Under Elementary
Principles of the Law of Contracts. The Regents'
Resolution of April 21, 1950, Was an Offer Made
by the Regents; It Was Accepted and Fully Com-
plied with in Good Faith by Petitioners ; and the
Regents, on July 21, 1950, Acknowledged Such
Acceptance and Compliance. Therefore the Re-
gents Could Not Thereafter Validly Avoid the
Resultant Contracts 31

E. Petitioners' Established Rights of Tenure Pre-
clude Their Arbitrary Dismissal as Attempted by
a Bare Majority of the Regents at the Meeting

of August 25, 1950 _ 37

III. Comments on Respondents' Brief „ 38

IV. Conclusion _ 4q

Appendices :

A— Concerning the Status of Academic Tenure at the Uni-
versity of California ; Its Application in This Proceed-
ing ; Its Relationship to Academic Freedom App. 1

B— Academic Freedom (I Encyclopaedia of the Social

Sciences, 384) (By Arthur 0. Lovejoy) App. 13

C— Freedom in the College : A Policy, by Wilbur J. Bender,

Dean of Harvard College App. 23

Subject Index

111

Page
D— Excerpt from Message of Covernor Alfred E. Smith,
May 18, 1920. Vetoing Lusk Law, Which Would Have
Required High School Teachers to Obtain Certificates
of Loyalty from the State Commissioner of Education.

App. 25

E— Standing Orders of the Regents of the University of

^^^if«^»i^i App. 26

Excerpts from Official Minutes of the Meeting of the
Regents of the University of California, March 9,
^^20 App. 26

F— The Issues as Framed by the Petition and Answer App. 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases Pages

Abraham v. Sims (1935), 2 CaL(2d) 698 20

Abrams v. U. S. (1919), 250 U.S. 616 App. 8

Alleman v. Dufresne (La. 1944), 17 So. (2d) 70 30

Bailey v. Baker (1915), 28 Cal. App. 537 39

Board of Education v. McChesney (Ky. 1930), 32 S.W.(2d)
26 _ 24

Communist Party v. Peek (1942), 20 Cal.(2d) 536 7, 9

Consumers Salt Co. v. Riggins (1929), 208 Cal. 537 40

County of Fresno v. Canal Co. (1886), 68 Cal. 359 40

Danskin v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (1946), 28 Cal
(2d) 536 _ Ig

Davis V. Jacoby (1934), 1 Cal.(2d) 370 _.... 36

Eason v. Majors (1923), 111 Neb. 288, 196 N.W. 133 23,24

Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Campbell (Ky. 1909), 121 S.W. 1040 ' 37

Estrin v. Superior Court (1939), 14 Cal. (2d) 670 5

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Fresno Flume & Irr Co

( 1911 ) , 161 Cal. 466 35

Fidler v. Board of Trustees (1931), 112 Cal. App. 296 20

Fry V. Board of Education (1941), 17 Cal. (2d) 753 21

Garner v. Board of Public Works (1950), 98 A.C.A. 694 11

Goldsmith v. Board of Education (1923), 63 Cal. App. 141 39

Hamilton v. Regents (1934), 293 U.S. 245 23, App. 3

Hudson V. Craft (1949), 33 Cal. (2d) 654 L. 5

Hunter v. Sparling (1948), 87 Cal. App. (2d) 711 IZ 37

Imbrie v. Marsh (1950), 3 N.J. 578, 71 A. (2d) 352 14,15

LejTnel v. Johnson (1930), 105 Cal. App. 695 19,20,21,25

Table op Authorities Cited v

Pages

MacAlister v. Baker (1934), 13!) Cal. App. 183

4, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 36, 40

Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 54 (2 L.Ed. 60) 26

Marshall v. Wents (1915), 28 Cal. App. 540 ...Z. 5

Martin v. Fisher (1930), 108 Cal. App. 34 20

Miller v. Imperial Water Co. No. 8 (1909), 156 Cal. 27 40

Neal Publishing Co. v. Rolph (1915), 169 Cal. 190 40

People V. Common Council of San Diego (1890), 85 Cal. 369... 5
People V. Rapsey (1940), 16 Cal. (2d) 636 22

Rathbone v. Wirth (1896), 150 N.Y. 459, 45 N.E. 15 15

Saxton V. Board of Education (1929), 206 Cal. 758 39

Schaeffer v. U. S. (1920), 251 U.S. 466 App. 8

Steiner v. Darby (1948), 88 Cal. App. (2d) 41 H

Taylor v. Board of Education (W. Va. 1931), 160 S.E. 299 24

Thorne v. Squier (1933), 264 Mich. 98, 249 N.W. 497 28

VerBryck v. Luby (1945), 67 Cal. App. (^d) 842

Vincenheller v. Regan (1901), 69 Ark. 405, 64 S.W. 278.
Von Arx v. San Francisco G. Verein (1896), 113 Cal. 377.

5

24
40

Wall V. Board of Regents of the Univ. of the State of Cali-
fornia (1940), 38 Cal.' App. r2d) 698 30,38

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943),
319 U.S. 624 ' 9^10

Wood V. Cutter (1884), 138 Mass. 149 '29

Constitutional Provisions

Constitution of the State of California :

Article IV, Section 19 „ _ _ 19

Article IX, Section 9 4, 6, 11, 13

Article XX, Section 3 4, 10, 11, 13, 19, App. 2, App. 3

Constitution of the State of New York :

Article XIII, Section 1 , 12

vi Tabi.e of Authorities Cited

Pages
Codes and Statutes

Civil Code, Section 1584 35

Code of Civil Procedure :

Section 452 _ c

Section 475 c

Section 1085 09

Treatises and Miscellaneous

Academic Freedom, ' ' I Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences
384 (MacMillan, 1944 Reprinting) App. 7, App. 13

''Academic Freedom and the Schaper Case" (University of
Minnesota Bulletin, Vol. XIA, No. 67, 1938) App. 8

77 American Law Reports 1148 37

Brown, Debates in the California Convention ^ n

21 California Jurisprudence 819 2I 22

Chafee, Freedom of Speech (Cambridge 1940) App. 7

3 Debates and Proceedgigs of the California Constitutional
Convention of the State of California (1881) 12

Dewey, *'The Case of the Professor and Public Interest'*
(The Dial, vol. 63, 1917) App. 7, App. 8

Goodwin, Debates in the California Convention 12

Jones, Primer of Intellectual Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press,
^^^^) App. 8, App. 23

Mason, Manual of Legislative Procedure for State Legisla-
tures and Other Legislative Bodies (California State Print-
ing Office, Sacramento, 1943) 29

Progressive Democracy : Speeches and State Papers of Alfred
E. Smith (Harcourt Brace and Company, 1928) App. 25

Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention
of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending the Con-
stitution of the State of New York (1921) 12

Restatement of Contracts :

§ 72(1) (c) 3g

§90 z: 37

Table op Authorities Cited vii

Pages

Roberts' Rules of Order 29

Selected Writings of Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (Fallon Law
Book Co., 1947) App.8

By-Laws and Standing Orders of the Regents of the Univer-
sity of California :

Chapter II, Section 5 „ 27

Chapter IV, Section 2(g) " jg

Chapter XV, Section 2(i) ZZIZZIZIlApp. 6

Wheeler, ''The Abundant Life" (Univ. of Calif. Press, 1926)

App. 12

Willkie, ''Freedom & the Liberal Arts" (The Humanities

After the War, Princeton Univ. Press, 1944) App. 8

35 Words and Phrases 21

Wriston, H. M., "Academic Tenure" (American Scholar,

Vol. IX, No. 3, Summer 1940) App. 8

3 Civil No. 7946

In the

District Court of Appeal
State of California

Third Appellate District

Edward C. Tolman, et al.,

vs.

Petitioners,

Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and
Treasurer of The Regents of the Uni-
versity of California, et al.,

Resp07idents.

Petitioners' Reply Brief

INTRODUCTION

The Petition declares that tlie questions involved in this
proceeding "are of great imhlic importance'' and that their
"early and final determination is essential to the welfare
of the state and of the jniblic trust, the University of Uali-
fornia."^

The record eloquently supports those allegations.

Eighteen American men and women who have been de-
voted members of the facultv of the Universitv of Cali-

^Petition, p. 9.

fornia for terms of service running to as long as 35 years,^
present themselves to this Court. They seek decision ui)on
their claims that they have been unjustly and unlawfully
barred from their work.

The particular facts which have impelled these men and
women to seek the redress of this Court are unprecedented
in the history both of American jurisprudence and of
American institutions of higher learning.

The record before the Court— not merely the Petition
filed on behalf of the eighteen, but, as well, the Answer,
Demurrer and Brief filed by counsel for the Regents of the
University of California— will be searched in vain for so
much as a whisper that any of the eighteen are or ever
were disloyal or incompetent or inmioral or careless or lax
or otherwise unqualified for the performance of their duties
as members of the faculty of the University of California.
To the contrary, the record affirmatively shows— and it is
nowhere denied— that all eighteen Petitioners are Ameri-
can citizens, that all have records of distinction in scholar-
ship and teaching, that fourteen have served their country
in World War II, that fifteen are members of one or more
leading American scholastic societies and that fifteen are
authors of one or more publications relating to their spe-
cial fields of learning.^

In this proceeding, these eighteen men and women assert
rights which, they are satisfied, are clear and compelling
under the laws and the Constitution of the State of Cali-
fornia. They object to the subtle suggestion of counsel for
Respondents that they are here as ^'martyrs" to insist that
their private opinions and preferences override the regu-
lations of the University.^ Their resort to this Court is not

^Petition, Appendix I.
'Petition, Appendix I.
^Respondents' Brief, p. 47.

8

for martyrdom, but for justice under the law. They neither
claim nor seek special privilege or treatment.

CONCERNING THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC TENURE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; ITS APPLICATION IN THIS
PROCEEDING; ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC FREE-
DOM.

For the textual material under this heading, reference
is respectfully made to Appendix A. This perhaps unus-
ual treatment in a brief springs from our desire to avoid
a long factual and historical statement i)rior to meeting
the contentions of Respondents' Brief — especially since we
are satisfied they can be met readily.

At the same time, since the facts of academic tenure—
not as an abstraction, but as a body of University law es-
tablishing legal rights in Petitioners— are pertinent to the
legal issues, the presentation of the facts on tenure merits
more than incidental treatment.

Therefore, it has been decided (w^e hope agreeably and
conveniently to the Court) to invite attention to the matter
here, in the main portion of the Brief, but, because of the
length of the treatment, to set it forth in the Appendix.

CONCERNING THIS BRIEF IN RELATION TO THE POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES FILED WITH THE PETITION AND IN RELATION
TO RESPONDENTS' BRIEF.

In preparing this reply brief, it has been sought to avoid
reiteration of matters covered in the Points and Authori-
ties which accompanied the Petition. TIil^ law^ as there
stated is neither affected nor changed by Respondents'
Brief. How^ever, learned counsel for Resi)ondents have
challenged the Petition, directly and obliiiuely, on almost
every conceivable ground.

They pervasively contend and urge as relevant, to pre-
sent a partial list, that: The constitutional authority of

the Eespondents over the organization and government of
the University of California is "limited only l)y provisions
as to funds and endowments which are not material here"^
(Brief for Respondents, p. 5) ; "as a part of the background
of'^ this case, reference should })e had to two decisions of
the District Court of Appeals, Second District, respectively
sustaining loyalty oaths and procedures imposed upon em-
ployees, in the one case, by a Los Angeles County ordinance
and, in the other, by an ordinance of the City of Los An-
geles (Ibid., pp. 7-14) ; this Court lacks "jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the suit" (Ibid, p. 22) ; the rule against
reconsideration of appointments applies only to public of-
ficers (Ibid., p. 23) ; the rule "never" applies where the
parliamentary rules of the appointing body provide for
reconsideration (Ibid., pp. 23-24); the rule never ai)plics
where the appointing body also has the power of dismissal
(Ibid., p. 24) ; the case of MacAlister v. Baker has never
been cited in any California case (Ibid., p., 24); the Cali-
fornia law determining the status of university professors
as public officers or holders of a public trust is conclusively
and finally determined by a case relating to a high school
instructor (Ibid., p. 28) ; the Legislative Counsel has ren-
dered opinions declaring that Article XX, Section 3, of
the State Constitution does not preclude the Regents of the
University of California from requiring faculty members to
take a special oath that they are not Connnunists (Ibid.,
pp. 37-39); mandamus does not lie here because in one
case the District Court of Appeals refused to issue a writ
of mandate compelling discharge of a faculty member
(Ibid., p. 40) ; courts cannot order one man to work for an-

5A contention at variance with the constitutional provision's
requirement that ^^The University shall he entirely independent of
all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the
appointment of its Regents and in the administration of its af-
fairs (Emphasis throughout this brief is ours unless otherwise
stated. )

other nor order one man to put another to work (Ibid., p.
40) ; the rule declared in an appeal from a trial court de-
cision (in Ver Bryck v. Luby (1945), ()7 C.A.(2d) 842), in
an action to cancel a deed, that the api)ellate court would
not pass upon the trial court's denial of a motion for a
new trial because the appealing party failed to argue or
supply authority, applies here to prevent this Court from
considering matters of tenure or determining whether the
Petitioners in this proceeding in mandate were appointed
to certain positions" (Ibid., p. 45); and, throughout, that
the Regents acted constitutionally and lawfullv.

To undertake to meet, seriatim, these and other conten-
tions and references of counsel for Respondents would in-
vite distraction from the basic problems presented by the
Petition and the pleadings responsive thereto. At the hear-
ing on September 14, 1950, this Court indicated its desire
to reach the merits of the matter and to avoid technicalities.
Accordingly, there now follows (1) statement of the (pies-
tions presented and (2) argument as to the law^ controlling
the issues.

'The rule applicable here is, of course, that since the Petition
challenges the legality of action of the Regents, the Court Is not
restricted, by technicality or otherwise, from examination into and
consideration of any and all matters bearing upon the validitv of
the challenged actions. Code of Civil Procedure, §§452 475- Hud-
son V. Craft (1949), 33 Cal.(2d) 654, mi;Estrin v. Superior Court
(1939), 14 Cal.(2d) 670, 677; Marshall v. Wentz (1915), 28 Cal.
App. 540, 547; People v. Common Council of San Dieqo (1890)
85 Cal 369, 37L J \ ).

STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The basic issue in this proceeding is whether or not the
Petitioners are entitled to restoration to their respective
posts on the faculty of the University of California." The

^P^r an analysis so showing, see Appendix F, "The Issues as
Framed by the Petition and Answer."

legal questions to be decided in determination of tliat basic
issue are these:

1. Does the Regents' recjuirenient of a special
loyalty declaration violate controlling provisions of
the Constitution of the JState of California?

2. Was the action of the Regents at the meeting of
July 21, 1950, in appointing Petitioners to their re-
spective posts on the faculty binding and final f

I.

ARGUMENT

THE SPECIAL DECLARATION DEMANDED OF PETITIONERS
VIOLATES CONTROLLING PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTI-
TUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

A. THE DEMANDED DECLARATION IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTI-
TUTIONAL MANDATE OF ARTICLE IX. SECTION 9. WHICH ESTABLISHES
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AS A PUBLIC TRUST AND DECLARES
THAT "THE UNIVERSITY SHALL BE ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF ALL
POLITICAL OR SECTARIAN INFLUENCE AND KEPT FREE THEREFROM
IN THE APPOINTMENT OF ITS REGENTS AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF
ITS AFFAIRS." ~ "

It is clear from the record that Petitioners' refusal to
sign the demanded declaration stems from that abiding
belief in the dignity of the individual, in freedom and in
liberty which, in the end, is the essence of opposition to
Communism and to totalitarianism in any form. It should
be noted, further, that Respondents fully recognize (Peti-
tion, Appendix VI), that no charge of C^onmumism or of
sympathy for Comnumism is directed to Petitioners and
that the merits or demerits of Conununism, either in the
sense of a political and economic ])hiloso])hy or in the sense
of a treasonable conspiracy, are not an issue in any way
between Petitioners and Respondents who are united in
their opposition to Conununism.

However, neither opposition to nor hatred for a doctrine
and its practices is, in America, grounds for disregarding

the law. When and if ever that occurs, the first long step
toward totalitarianism will have been taken.

The law— the constitutional mandate— is that ^*The
University shall be entirely inde])endent of all political or
sectarian influence and kei)t free therefrom in the ap})oint-
ment of its Regents and the administration of its affairs."
This is a broad declaration: The University shall be '^en-
tirely" independent of "all" political influence and be kept
free therefrom.

Now the Comnmnist Party in this State, however odious
it may be, has not been outlawed by the people of the state.
As the law now stands, citizens are free to organize under
the Communist name and banner and, by following the ap-
propriate procedural steps, (pialify as a political party
(Commymst Party r. Peek [1942] 20 Cal.(2d) 536). It can
be argued that the Comnumist l^arty, even in the restricted
sense of a political organization dedicated to the peaceful
furtherance of the doctrines of Karl ]\[arx should, l)y an
appropriate amendment to the Constitution, be outlawed
in this State. But that has not hajipened. Not only has it
not happened, but many high in the councils of the leading
political parties have opposed proposals to outlaw the Com-
munist Party as such. Our Supreme Court has held that the
legislature is without i)ower to deny a party calling itself
Conununist a place on the ballot (Communist Party r. Peek
(supra)).

Constitutional provisions nuist be enforced, however
much their enforcement at a particular time may offend
an overwhelming public opinion; otherwise written consti-
tutions lose their meaning. This is a government of laws
and not of ]mblic opinion. It is i)art of the web and woof
of both our Federal and State Constitutions that minorities
are to be protected in their rights even when the nuijority
consists of everybodv but one.

So long as the Communist Party remains, within tlie pur-
view of the Constitution, as an actual or potential political
party— just so long will the imposition of a disclaimer of
membership in it as a condition to teaching in the Univer-
sity constitute a violation of the constitutional connnand
that the affairs of the University be kept entirely free of
all political influence.

To be sure we have drawn a distinction between Com-
munism in the sense of a peaceful advocacy of the doc-
trines of Karl Marx and Communism in the sense of
a treasonable conspiracy against the Government of the
United States. No one would contend that affiliation with
a treasonable conspiracy against the Government consti-
tutes political activity protected by the Constitution. But
this distinction is not drawn in the statement which the
petitioners were ordered to sign. If it had been, much
confusion and much soul searching miglit have been
avoided.

The purpose of the demanded declaration can hardly be
deemed Ihnited to that of ferreting out a treasonable con-
spiracy against the Government. If that were its only
purpose, an almost even division on the issue among the
distinguished members of the Board of Begents would be
beyond understanding. And if that were its purpose, the
means employed would be naive indeed. One does' not
squelch a conspiracy by asking a conspirator if he is one.
No, if this were all that was meant, not only would the con-
stitutional provision have no application, but there would
have been no division in the Board of Regents on the issue,
there would have been no widespread indignation voiced
by faculties throughout the land. The most that can be said
IS that the declaration is ambiguous and may be interpreted
by one person in one way and by another in another way.

9

If the statement applies exclusively to unlawful organi-
zations, then the Regents have arrogated to themselves
police powers vested in other arms of the Government.
If more and something different is intended, i.e., to pro-
scribe membership in lawful political organizations, then
clearly the constitutional mandate is being violated.

In the unfolding course of events, it may well become
increasingly apparent to the American people that any
distinction between the peaceful advocacy of Conununist
doctrines and the Conununist conspiracy abroad in the
world constitutes, at least for all practical purposes, a
distinction without a difference. But today, as a matter of
law, that distinction does exist. (Communist Party i\ Peek,
(supra)). Any party calling itself Conmiunist and peace-
fully advocating political and economic theories can consti-
tute itself a political party and exert its influence in political
affairs. And popularity is not the test of the right.

It is in just these situations in which im})lic opinion is
inflamed that our courts must stand and act with calm and
rational disregard of aught but fact and law. For that func-
tion of the courts, carried out in that wav, is bevond anv-
thing else the best guarantee to every American against
ultimate surrender to the doctrines of totalitarianism.

In view of the present state of the law and in view of the
various interpretations to which the disputed statement is
clearly subject, the action of the Regents is a breach of the
constitutional mandate governing the conduct of the Uni-
versity's affairs. This constitutional provision should be
protected from any impairment, however slight, as it ex-
presses a fundamental concei)t, not only in relation to the
functioning of a great University but in relation to our
democratic way of life. As the United States Supreiiie
Court, speaking through ^\v. Justice Jackson, said in West

10

Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S.
624 at 642 :

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional con-
stellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can pre-
scribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism,
religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens
to confess by word or act their faith therein."

B. THE DEMANDED SPECIAL STATEMENT IS A DECLARATION OR TEST
PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE XX. SECTION 3. OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

Article XX, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of
California declares :

** Members of the Legislature, and all officers, execu-
tive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may
be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the
duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe
the following oath or affirmation :

** ^I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may
be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of California,
and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the
office of , according to the best of my ability/

"And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be
required as a qualification for any office or public
trust."

The emphasized language makes it clear that, as to any
office or public trust, the sole oath, declaration or test shall
be the specified oath or affirmation. The plain words of the
Constitution indicate that neither the Legislature nor any
other body subject to the mandate of the Constitution may
change, vary, add to or subtract from the specified oath,
declaration and test.

That the declaration demanded of Petitioners is an
*' other'' declaration than the constitutional one is not open
to reasonable argument.

11

The specific question thus placed before the Court is
whether or not members of the faculty of the University
of California of Academic Senate rank hold office or public
trust. That question is completely open. There are no cases
in California (including Garner v. Board of Public Works
(1950), 98 A.C.A. 694, and Steiner v. Darby (1948), 88 Cal.
App.(2d) 481) nor in other states having a comparable
constitutional provision, which deal with the question of
whether or not university professors hold an '* office or pub-
lic trust" within the meaning of our Constitution's Article
XX, Section 3. It is a different question, even, from the
public officer question discussed (post, p. 17) in connection
w^ith Respondents' contentions concerning the doctrine of
the MacAlister case. As there pointed out, what does or
does not constitute the holding of a public office varies with
each situation and in each context. Strong as is the case
for holding Petitioners to be public officers in a generic
sense, as there urged, the case is even more compelling for
deciding faculty members of the University of California
as being holders of an "office or public trust" within the
meaning of the present constitutional provision.

This answer fiows with especial force from the fact that
Article IX, Section 9, of the Constitution denominates the
University as a public trust and directs that that pul)lic
trust shall be kept free from all political and sectarian in-
fluence. It flows, also, from the background of Article XX,
Section 3.

While source material on this California constitutional
provision is limited, it is of considerable help on the (jues-
tion at hand.* It discloses that Article XX, Section 3, [)rob-

^Brown, Debates in the California Convention shows that origi-
nally a section wa^j proposed which contained a jreneral oath of
allegriance and a special oath against duelling. The present section
was moved as a substitute. The substitute carried. The elimination
of the oath against duelling, and the circumstances of its elimination

12

ably came from Article XIII, Section 1, of the New York
Constitution. (See Goodwin, The Establishment of State
Government in California (1914), p. 241.) The policy under-
lying adoption of the prohibition of other oaths, tests or
declarations was well stated by General Koot in the 1821
New York Constitutional Convention where the provision
was first written. In answer to a motion to strike the pro-
vision, he said:

If this provision be struck "future legislators may intro-
duce religious tests— your officers and legislators will be
required to swear to religious creeds, and then we shall
have political tests and political creeds, and such may be
framed. Then you indeed permit the hypocritical Christian,
and pretending patriot, to take their seats as thev will
take the oaths; but you will exclude men who feel their
religion at their heart, and the truest friends of their coun-
try." (See Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the
Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amend-
ing the Constitution of the State of New York (1921), p.
207.)

The California constitutional policy against the imposi-
tion of special oaths and tests applies with greater force to
members of the faculty of the University of California than
to constables, public health officers and city attorneys. The
young people of the state can be assured a complete and
adequate education for survival in a democratic societv
only if University faculty members are free to pursue truth

sugrgest an intent to limit the oath to its present content and to pre-
clude additions or subtractions (See pp. 255-256). 3 Debates and
Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Cali-
fornia (1881) [for the 1879 Constitution] suggests the same con-
clusion. There it is shown that a sul)stitute oath was rejected which
would have required a statement that the affiant had no mental
reservation, had not fought a duel, did not employ Asiatics etc
(See pp. 1390, 1391). ' *

13

and expound knowledge as they find it without imposition
of tests recjuiring conformance to the particular ortho-
doxies of the moment. Hence the public policy should be
in favor of holding that University of California faculty
members hold an ^'office or public trust" within the mean-
ing of this constitutional provision — especially in view of
Article IX, Section 9, denominating the University a public
trust and commanding that its affairs be kept free from all
political or sectarian influence.

The status of Petitioners as the holders of ''office or
trust" is dealt with, post, commencing at the bottom of
page 22 and running through the first paragraph of page
24. What is there pointed out is respectfully referenced as
pertinent here.

There is one further ])oint in connection with the appli-
cation of Article XX, Section 3, to the facts in the case at
bar. Counsel for Respondents, in their Brief, at ])age 39,
make the bald statement, without supporting authority or
argument, that there is no inconsistency in substance or
spirit between the oath specified in Article XX, Section 3,
and the special declaration which the Regents would impose.
In addition to what we have pointed out al)ove, this con-
tention appears to us to be in error for further reasons.

The resolution of April 21 states that there shall be re-
quired '^(1) execution of the constitutional oath of office
required of public officials of the State of California and (2)
acceptance of appointment by a letter which shall include"
the special declaration under consideration. This indicates
an obvious intent to call for a statement different from and
in addition to that specified in Article XX, Section 3. And
the intent was most certainly effectuated. By singling out
a particular party or organization (even so re])rehensible
a one as the Comnumist ]*arty) and by recpiiring the de-

14

clarant to say that he has "no coininitments in conflict Avith
my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship
and free pursuit of truth," the declaration clearly exceeds
both the spirit and the substance of the constitutional man-
date.

There are some helpful precedents. Very recently, one
of the strongest courts in the United States held invalid an
oath which appears to have differed less from the constitu-
tional oath than the one here. In Imhrie v. Marsh (1950),
3 N.J. 578, 71 A. (2d) 352, Chief Justice Vanderbilt. writ-
ing for the majority of the Supreme Court of New Jersey,
held a New Jersey statutory oath unconstitutional. The
New Jersey Constitution provided that every state officer
should "take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to sup-
port the Constitution of this State and of the United States
and to perform the duties of his office faithfully, impartially
and justly to the best of his ability." The Court held (1)
that this oath, though not expressly made so as in Cali-
fornia, was exclusive and (2) that the statutory effort to
impose the following oath was unconstitutional:

"I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of this State
and to the Governments established in the United
States and in this State, under the authority of the
people; and will defend them against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I do not believe in, advocate
or advise the use of force, or violence, or other unlaw-
ful or unconstitutional means, to overthrow or make
any change in the Government established in the
United States or in this State; and that I am not a
member of or affiliated with any organization, associa-
tion, party, group or combination of persons, which
approves, advocates, advises or practices the use of
force, or violence, or other unlawful or unconstitutional

15

means, to overthrow or make any change in either of
the Governments so established; and that I am not
bound by any allegiance to any foreign prince, poten-
tate, state or sovereignty whatever. So help me God."
(p. 355)

In the Imhrie case, the statute, stricken as unconstitu-
tional, would have required not only ])ublic officers, but
candidates for public office, to lake the quoted oath. The
action was brought by nominees of the Progressive Party
for office in New Jersey to enjoin the Secretary of State
from printing the legend "refused oath of allegiance" un-
der the names of the individual plaintiffs on the ballots to
be used in the 1949 general election in that state. Holding
that the si)ecial oath could not be required even of nominees
for office, the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice A'anderbilt for
the majority of the court — a majority of five to two — mav
be read with profit as a comi)rehensiye history of lovaltv
oaths and oaths of allegiance.

In Rathhone v, Wirfh (1896), 150 N.Y. 459, 45 N.E. 15,
23, the Court held invalid a provision of the state law that
no person was eligible to the office of police conmiissioner
in Albany unless he is a member of the political i)arty hav-
ing the highest or next highest representation on the com-
mon council. One of the justices of the majority discussed
the application of the "no other oath" provision to this
statute. After referring to the "law of the land" clause and
the "no other oath" clause, he said: "When the two sec-
tions of the constitution above referred to are read to-
gether, and all are read in the light of the historical events
and notorious abuses of ])ower which led to their insertion
in the constitution, it cannot, I think, be doubted that they
are broad enough in their terms, and that they were in fact
intended, to prevent the enactment of laws proscribing any

16

class of citizens as ineligible to hold office by reason of
political opinions or party affiliations. The section of the
constitution last cited comprehends more than a mere pro-
hibition of test oaths, such as are familiar to the student
of English history. It deprives the legislature not only of
all power to exact any other oath, but also any other decla-
ration or test as a (lualification for office. That the statute
under consideration does prescribe a political test as a
qualification, and makes party adhesion a condition, of
holding office cannot well be denied."

For a significant recent California decision in which an
oath, not unlike the declaration demanded of Petitioners,
was declared to have been unlawfully demanded (although
authorized by statute) as a condition of use of a high school
auditorium under the Civic Center Act, see Danskin v. San
Diego Unified School District (194G), 28 Cal.(2d) 536.

The invalidity of Resi)ondents' demand of Petitioners is
not limited to violation of controlling constitutional pro-
visions, sufficient as that is to strike down the demand. As
will next be seen, Petitioners' rights to their posts are
independently clear under the doctrine of MacAlister v.
Baker (19:U), 139 (^al. App. 183, and for other reasons.

17
II. THE REGENTS' APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONERS, ON JULY
21, 1950, TO THEIR RESPECTIVE POSTS ON THE FACULTY
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WAS AND REMAINS
IRREVOCABLE.

Of some 25 pages of that ])ortion of tlieir ])iiof denom-
inated "Argument," fourteen are devoted l)y counsel for
Eespondents in the interest of distinguishing and discredit-
ing MacAlister v. Baker (1934), 139 Cal. Apj). 183, on the
contentions that (1) the rule of the case applies only to
holders of public office and that mem])ers of the faculty of
the University of California are not public officers, (2) the
Regents' rules of procedure, claimed to i>ermit reconsidera-
tion, take precedence over the doctrine of MacAlister v.
Baker, which does not apply, even to public officers, if the
parliamentary rules of the appointing body provide for
reconsideration, and (3) that the rule of the MacAlister
case does not apply to bodies which have the power of dis-
missal as well as of appointment.

A. EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE THAT THE RULE IN MacAUSTER Y. BAKER
APPLIES ONLY TO PUBLIC OFFICERS. IT APPLIES IN THE CASE AT BAR
BECAUSE MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALI-
FORNIA ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS.

A casual reading of the point covered in Respondents'
Brief at pages 26 to 31 leaves the impression that Re-
spondents' counsel contend the doctrine of MacAlister v.
Baker is inapplicable in any situation except those involv-
ing public officers.^ A more careful reading of page 2() of
Respondents' Brief will dissipate that first impression. At
the outset, the MacAlister case is correctlv referenced as
purporting to state only a rule with respect to **an appoint-

'^Resi^ondents cite not a sinjjle cane to support the apparent con-
tention.

18
ment for office." Note that the word "'public'' ahead of
*^office" is conspicuously absent. Tliis observation is then
followed by another to the effect that neither the MacAUster
case nor any other cited by us states the rule as applying to
anything except appointment to office. It is then stated that
the -^rule [of the MacAUster case] could not apply to an
emplo>nnent, as distinguished from an office, because em-
ployment cannot become irrevocable," employment being
ordinarily revocable at will. The next statement is that con-
sequently ''MacAUster v. Baker is not applicable unless
Petitioners can maintain their contention that they are
puhUc officers."

While Respondents' statements (1) that emplo>nnent is
revocable at will unless otherwise provided by statute or
contract, and (2) that MacAUster v. Baker is inapplicable
here unless petitioners are public officers follow each other
in grammatical sequence, there is a vast gap in legal se-
quence.

Counsel for Respondents have not filled that gap, pre-
sumably because they cannot do so. To do so would require
production of authority that the rule of the MacAUster case
applies only to *'an appointment for puhUc office," as dis-
tinguished from the fact that the doctrine, as apparently
conceded by Respondents, is much broader, applying to
"appointment for office." We know of no such authority.

It is so manifest that a member of the facultv of the
University of California of Academic Senate rank (which
all Petitioners hold) is an appointment to office that no
opposite contention has even so much as been advanced
by counsel for Respondents.'^

'^That notification is a mere ministerial act. see Chapter IV, Sec.
2. subsection (^). of the Standin? Orders of the Regents of the
University of California, Appendix E hereto.

19

But even assuming, contrary to any authority before the
Court, that the MacAUster case doctrine extends only to
puhUc office, it will not be unfruitful to examine into the
question of the status of members of the faculty of the
University of California of Academic Senate rank as pub-
lic officers. (Their status as the holders of any office or
public trust is involved in the point (supra, p. 10), that the
demanded declaration contravenes Article XX, Section 3,
of the State Constitution. While it is not the identical ques-
tion there that it is here, there are denominators common to
the answers there and here.)

In arguing that faculty members are not public officers,
but, rather, employees of the University, counsel for Re-
spondents denominate, without qualification, as "The CaJi-
fomia Law" (Respondents' Brief and emphasis, p. 28) a
statement in the opinion in Leymel v. Johnson (1930), 105
Cal. App. 694.

In the light of the facts in that case, it is clear error to
characterize a statement in that opinion as the California
law governing the status of members of the faculty of the
University of California.

Leymel v. Johnson decided no more than that an instruc-
tor in the Fresno High School did not hold an office within
the meaning of Article IV, Section 19, of the State Consti-
tution, which provides that "No senator or member of
assembly shall, during the term for which he shall have
been elected, hold or accept ^ny office, trust or employment
under this State; provided, that this provision shall not
apply to any office filled by election by the people."

The contention that the Leymel case states the law ap-
plicable to faculty members of the Univ^ersity of Califor-
nia is erroneous for two reasons. Tn the first i)lace, we are

I I

not here ccmcenied with an iastnaclor in the Fresno High
School" and, in the t^coii ' .ucie, at the very outftet of con-
sjdermg tiif' t-:,.. ^ i the iiigi. ^ ] instructor unr^pr tine
cv ---^■tutional provision inTolved in Lcym^l v. John^o'^t, the
comi-T pointt^d out that:

"7/ is oomoeded ikai the po^istM^ofi of in^lrucior m a
^' 1 a *i y/.der this stale' >^' f^/v'^' r>^r-

Ucvimr pi :.f the Com.: -w 'h-'iU %..

sideredS^ 105 Oal App. at ^95.

The petitMMiws here air xxiTj.ixi..er? of the facnltr r>f a
•uniTersitT -which is a of the State Constitution,

therein de._^. ■ . : ^•onstitute a public trust. The Fresno
High School is nca a ' ire of the Stalbe Constitution.
Moreover, whDe., in a f««fieric sense, both Mfja R-hool in-
Mimetors and university profess^ors are teachers, their
qwdifications, duties, r^- ^ bilitifis and ];)rerogatives dif-
fer both in kind and in degree..

The plain fact u Undt tybe CaMornia law is oamfkMtf
•poi «xi the ^pD«tioD M to vbUihu or Dot faculty inenibers
of the UniTersitj of California wt% rttirr puhiic officers or
teUeTE of a public trost under mf iMMe or «et «f facts.
The question is one of first impression in this stat.e and, if
r% Si deddfid m. tUs caae, this case will make tl» Oalifonia
!^"5r on the subject.

The c! ons relied upon by counsel for R^espond^
sue: -e in Le^mel r. Joh'r,. . ,. supim (Fresno Higfc

S^"^">'1 instruct.or ) , Ahral v. Sims (1<^)), 2 Oal (2d)
G9^ (lieMiber in the elementary- schools of Bimwlev, Cali-
fornia), Morfm r. Ftsher (193(^), 108 C^lL App. M .(<dl«.
■MBtar}- grade school teadhcr in th^ ^ idido Sdbnol Dis-
trk!t of San ILt^. Counts-), Fidler r. Board of Truaf^^.s

]]

Honorablf and impan-ant tu^ thai atrmuit is.

21
(1931), 112 Cal. App. 29(> ihiirh school teacher in the Kose-
ville Union Hi<xh Scliool) and Frif r. Board of Education
(1941), 17 Cal.(2d) 753 (San Francisco hi^rli school
teachers) — these cases and others footnottKi hy counsel for
Respondents (all dealing with hi*rh school or elementary
school teachers or instructors) can l>e of but limited aid —
if, indeed, anv — in reaching a proi>er conclusion on the
question as lo vviieuier or not faculty meml>ers of the Uni-
versity of California are holders of public office. They have
no force wliatever, i>ersuasive or otherwise, as to the status
of Petitioners as holdini^r offices of public trust.

To reach a sound conclusion as to whether or not Peti-
tioners hold either status, it is of elemental importance to
l>ear in mind that the ineaniuirs of the terms, as inten^reted

U\ tut* C^.»Ui t-A, *<ai4^» t%lt.Ai t-liC v'UlllCAw Uiivi Aii liiC ^civ*«.4iui

s s in which they are used. For exami)le, 35 Words

and Phrases (Permanent Ed., including the 195() Cumula-
tive Annual Pocket Part) devotes not less than r>97 j^ara-
graphs to definitions of the term "public offif-er." Holders
of the same and similar j positions are couMdered jiublic
officers in some situations and not in others. Persons in
some states held to be public officers under c*ertain statutes
or in connection with certain sets of facts are, in other
states, held not to be under like statutes and facts.

The labyrinth of cases is not, however, without guides.
General ]>] ^ ^'S ffmer^e to |»rovide standards affording
a start, at least, in reaching a \)ix)\nii dL-cL-Mon in any given

One of hundreds of authorities supporting these observa-
tions is Ltifmd r. Johnson, supra, so strongly relie<l uj>on
by (^TOise! for Resj»<»n dents. There the fourt fjuot^^d with
apj»roval 21 CaL Jur. p. ^19, as follows:

"^The words *public office' are used in so many senses
that the courts have affirmed that it is hardly possible

I I

22

to undertake a preciBe definition which will adequately
and effectively cover every situation. Definition^; and
aj)j)li(iation of this phi-awf dejiend, not uj>on how the
particular ofiBce in question naay be desiftTiated nor
ujion what a statute may name it, "hut upon the power
granted and wielded, the duties and functions per-
formed, and other circumstances whi(^h manifcf^t the
nature of the jiosition and mark its chaT-actiiir, irre-
sjiective oi' any fonnai designation. But so far as
defimtioD has been attempted, a public office is said
to be the ng-ht, authonty and duty, creatod and con^
f erred by law — thf tenure of which is not transient,
occasional or incidental — ^by which for a g^ven perioi
an individual is invested with power to perform a pub-
lic function for public benefit.
• »••••♦

*'0f the various (ifcaracteristics attached to public of-
fice by definition, some are regarded as indisj»en5;able,
and othei's, while not in themselves conc>]usive, are vet
said to indicate moi-e oi' less sti'ongJy the legislative
intent to create or not to create an office. One of the
prime requisites is that the office be created by the
Constitution or authorized by some statute And it a
essential that the incumbent be clothed with a part of
tht sovereignty of the state to be exercised in the in-
terest of the public." 105 Cal. App. at 6.97.

In People T. Bapsei/ (1940), 16 Gal. (2d) (536 (holding that
both the position of City Attorney and that of City Judge
of a city of the sixth class are public offices), tlie just
quoted language was r^ • • ted witli approval by our Bu-
pi-eme Court.

Members of the faculty of tlie University of California
fal] wel] wjtlim the definitioD and standards delineated in
the quotation. Their j)OBitions are created by law. The
Begents, ac^ting as the legislative arm of the state govern-
ment with dire(rt aiitlioritv froiu the Rtate 'Constitution

.(see BamiHon v, ReqcnU (l<m), 29;^ U.S. 245, 256-258),

create or sanction cremation of the faculty ]>ositions whicli
filmll exist in the University and ap]XMnt the individuals to
fill them. The duties of facultv meml>ors of Aoadoniio
Senate rank are co-ntinuing and j^ermanent. not transient,
oocasionai (\r iru ' \ Manifestlv, such a facuitv lueni-
ber is ^invested with ]>ower to ]x^rfonu a public function for
fMybiife IjcaRefit.'' He exercises a vital ]>ortion of the sover-
eign power of the state, for few state functions are so
sacred as the education of its citizens. **Tn the due |>er-
formance of his duty he fa university profei^sor] not only
'e»^;a^:'es in a work of public concern, but wields a ]x>rtion
of ^ - - -r- - -^ -er.'^ Easom v. Majors (1923), 111 Neb. 288,
196 N.W. IrJS, at 134."

If the University of California is a public trust 'as it
iDOst in- - 'ly is by constitutional declaration), if those

regularly engaged in its mo^i vital work of educating citi-
zens are holders of that trus; ^as thev most certainlv must
be, unless the c ■ : nal dec-laration is meaningless),
then who more man faculty members may be said to hold
J. ms of j>ublic trust with the University? The Consti-

tution itself suggests the answer that not even the Regents
are any more to be ^ -idered holders of a public trust
than are members of the faculty. r the constitutional
command is that "the University of California shall con-
stitute a fynblie trust." It aff»ds reason to - _ - — and
hence the suggestion has never been made — that the Re-
gemts of the University are the University. As to person-
nel, ti.. ..:, -ntial iii|T«i*wsts of a university arp Regents
mmi Caeolty. A university without Regents is conceivable:
iKEke w A a faculty is not. Bo he who argues that faculty

X

/

irr- .1

">-iaCr

r is refipertfuIlT made to the dificnarioo appetrinjr at

•f '"^^i for Writ of Mmndtitt.

24
members of a state public university, created by a state
constitutional provision designating the university to be
a public trust, do not hold positions of public trust argues,
it seems to us, unreasonably. Nor is reason lent to such
argument if the plain words of the Constitution be strained
into the contention that since the Universitv is to be ad-
ministered by a public corporation known as the Regents
of the ITniversity of California, the Regents alone hold the
only positions of public trust connected with the University.
Such a contention would restrict the obligation of the trust
to those of necessity most remote from its execution. It
would be to say that those — the faculty — who reallv carry
out the constitutional trust are without constitutional re-
sponsibility for ])reserving it. ]t would be to argue that
those u]»on whom, i)erforce, the Regents must rely to con-
stitute the Tniversity and carry out its most vital function
are somehow insulated from the trust res})onsibility.

If, then, the contention is correct that the doctrine of
MacAlistcr r. Baker is limited to public officers (a conten-
tion which, as will be seen, is unsound), it does not follow,
as counsel for Res})ondents contend and urge, that applica-
tion to members of the faculty of tlie ITniversity of Cali-
fornia is excluded. And as against the cases dealing with
grade and high school teachers as })ublic officers in an en-
tirely different frame of ]-eference, there stands Taylor v.
Board of Education ("VV. Va. 1931), 160 S.E. 299, in which
the doctrine of irrevocability of ap]»ointment was applied
to a high school teacher, and Board of Education v. Mc-
Chcsne.y (Ky. 1930), 32 8.W.(2d) 2(i, in which it was ap-
l)lied to a county sui)erintendent of schools — to say noth-
ing of the cases of Eai>on v. Majors, su])ra, 111 Nebr. 288,
190 N.W. 133, and Vincenhcller r. Regan (1901), 69 Ark.
405, 64 S.W. 278, in which faculty members of universities
were held to be public oflBicers.

26
In summary on this point: Whether a ]mrticular position
has or has not the status of public office depends u]>on the
particular statute and the particular facts involved. Leymel
V, Johnson, su])ra, so heavily relied upon by counsel for
Respondents as a ground for avoiding application of the
doctrine of MacAlistcr v. Baker, holds no more than that
an instructor in a high school is not a public officer within
the meaning of a constitutional prohibition against mem-
bers of the Legislature holding other public offices. It is not
a holding, obviously, that Fniversity of California profes-
sors are not public officers. It is not even a holding that a
high school teacher is not a public officer within the doc-
trine of the MacAlister case. Any such holding in any other
California case dealing with elementary and high school
teachers is conspicuous by its absence from Respondents'
Brief. And the only holdings which deal with the particular
question as to whether or not high school teachers come
within the doctrine of irrevocability of appointment enun-
ciated in MacAlister r. Baker — the only such cases hold
exactly contrary to the contention of counsel for Respond-
ents.

B. WHILE THE REGENTS MAY HAVE AND HAVE EXERCISED FULL CONSTI-
TUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A RULE KKiilTTING RECONSID-
ERATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS. NO SUCH RULE PERMITTED RECON-
SIDERATION OF THE APPOINTMENTS HERE INVOLVED.

The core of the contentions of counsel for Respondents
in support of the proposition that

'The MacAlister case could not override the Regents'
own rule jjermitting reconsideration, since the Regents
have full constitutional authority to establish such a
rule. Further MacAlister v. Baker does not apply
where reconsideration of appointment even to public
office is j)rovided by the parliamentary rules of the
ax)pointing body.'' (Respondents' Brief, p. 31)

26

depends upon the merit of an earlier contention of counsel
for Respondents that

"the whole discussion of the point fin MocAlister v.
Baher] relied on by petitioners, namely, irrevocability
of ap})ointment, was unnecessary to tlie court's deci-
sion;" (Ibid, p. 24)

To put the matter in another way, if the doctrine of
MacAlister v. Baker is, as Respondents contend, one turn-
ing upon judicial interpretation of parliamentary rules of
order, then Respondents' contentions presently under con-
sideration must, perforce, be answered: if, on the other
hand, MacAlister v. Baker lays down the substantive rule
that an appointment to office, once made, is irrevocable, the
parliamentary technicalities are of no imi)ort. We believe
that the latter is the fact and that counsel are in error in
suggesting the opposite.

It seems to us that more persuasive, on this point, than
the contentions of counsel for either party is what the
court itself, speaking through Presiding Justice Stephens,
observed. After determining that ''An appointment to office
is complete and beyond change, annulment or reconsidera-
tion by the appointing power when everything requiring
the action of the api)ointing power has been done" (139 Cal.
App. at 187) ; that ''the doctrine of the best reasoned cases
justifies the conclusion that the appointing power is execu-
tive in nature * * * and anything that is definitely required
to be done by a clerk after the executive has acted is minis-
terial, and that the appointment is complete and not subject
to reconsideration even if the clerk has not acted" (Ibid),
and after carefully su})})orting those determinations by
reference to and discussion of cases commencing with Mnr-
hury r. Madison, the court declared, on the next to the last
page of its opinion :

27

"While we are convinced that reconsideration of an
executive act of the council cannot be had and that
parliamentary rules relating thereto do not apply,
except in a limited way to preliminary proceedings,
we deem it appropriate to more particularly consider
the proceedings had under the motion for reconsidera-
tion."

The language just (luoted, it is submitted, does not com-
port with Respondents' contention that "irrevocability of
appointment was unnecessary to the court's decision." It
points in quite the opposite direction. However, this Court,
as the court in MacAlister v. Baker, may well wish to give
consideration to the technical questions of parliamentary
law, adduced by Respondents in their strenuous efforts to
escape the doctrine of the MacAlister case.

The Regents' rule on reconsideration, relied upon by Re-
spondents as justifying revocation of the appointments
here involved (Standing Orders of the Regents, Chapter
II, Section 5, set forth in paragraph VI of the Answer to
the Petition) is this:

"No motion for reconsideration, repeal or rescission
of any action taken by the Board or for the change or
rescission of any policy adopted by the Board shall be
voted upon at any later meeting unless notice of such
motion shall be given by mail to each member of the
Board at least five days prior to the meeting at which
such motion is voted upon."

Counsel for Respondents argue that the quoted section
"applies generally to all action taken" (Respondents' Brief,
p. 32, and Respondents' em^jhasis). Now that construction,
which is necessarv to avoid the doctrine of MacAlister v.
Baker on the parliamentary ground, will, on just a little
consideration, be found to be wholly untenable. It must be
noted that the Regents' rule fixes absolutely no time limit

m

H

28

as to what later meeting may be resorted to for recon-
sideration. So far as the rule is concerned, it can be the
next succeeding meeting, a month later, or a succeeding
meeting ten months or twenty years later. The only time
limitation is the requirement of five days' advance notice
of the making of the motion for reconsideration. An illus-
tration or two will show^ the unreasonableness of counsel's
interpretation of the significance and effect of the rule.
Suppose that at one meeting, the Regents enter into a per-
fectly valid contract for the construction of a building:
Does this parliamentary rule authorize withdrawal from
the contract at a meeting three months later, so long as five
days' notice of reconsideration has been given by some mem-
ber of the Board? Suppose that at one meeting the Regents
hire a licensed architect on definite terms and conditions for
a term of six months' employment : Does this parliamentary
rule authorize revocation of that hiring at a meeting three
months later, so long as five days' notice of reconsideration
has been given by some member of the Board?

To state such questions is to answer them and to point
up that the parliamentary rule of necessity applies only
where the action taken at the prior meeting is incomplete.

To escape the force of this fact, counsel for Respondents
must, to invoke the parliamentary rule, establish that ap-
pointment to office is revocable. To establish that, resort
is had to a parliamentary rule which obviously is of no
force with respect to an irrevocable or completed act.

Respondents rely upon two cases to accomplish a legal
lifting by one's own bootstraps. Thome v. Sqnier (1933),
264 Mich. 98, 249 N.W. 497, fails to provide the legal
hoist. There, the parliamentary provision provided that
the motion for reconsideration, if made by one who voted
with the prevailing side, would be in order provided it was

29
filed with the City Clerk ^^witbin forty-eight (48) hours
of the time the motion to be reconsidered was passed."
The court sensibly held that the appointment there in-
volved *'was not complete and beyond recall until the
power to reconsider had been cut off by the time stipu-
lated" in the rule. Exactly the same distinction applies
to Wood V. Cutter (1884), 138 Mass. 149, where the ap-
pointment was changed by a vote to reconsider taken and
carried at the same meeting.

In summary: The Regents' rule, relied upon as a par-
liamentary provision avoiding the doctrine of MacAlister
V. Baker, has not and cannot possibly have any such effect.
To argue the contrary is to argue that no final action can
ever be taken by the Board of Regents, because under its
rules '*all action taken at any meeting" can be reconsid-
ered at any subsequent meeting. From Respondents' point
of view, it may be unfortunate that ''the Regents have
adopted no parliamentary manual, but have always pro-
ceeded under their own rules" (Respondents' Brief, p.
31). Operation under a parliamentary manual, such as
Robert's or Mason's, might have enabled the interested
Regent to have made a timely motion for reconsideration
at the July 21st meeting (although what he did at that
meeting (Petition, Appendix, p. 20) fell far short of the
reconsideration requirements of either authority) and, in
any event, the interested Regent not only placed entire
reliance upon the quoted regental rule but emphasized that
*'the Board of Regents has always made its own rules and
has not ever adopted at any time either Robert's Rules of
Order or any other." (Petition, Appendix, p. 23)

I f

30
C. APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE MacALISTER CASE CANNOT
BE AVOIDED HERE ON THE CONTENTION THAT THE DOCTRINE DOES
NOT APPLY TO BODIES WHICH HAVE BOTH THE POWER OF APPOINT-
MENT AND THE POWER OF DISMISSAL.

Kespondents appear to claim (Respondents' Brief, p.
35) that the Regents have arbitrary power to dismiss fac-
ulty members of Academic Senate rank. In support of the
indicated contention, Wall v. Board of Regents of the Uni-
versity of the State of California (1940), 38 Cal. App.(2d)
698, is cited. That case does not so hold. It holds no more
than that an alternate writ of prohibition would be denied
to prevent the Regents from continuing the employment
and paying the salary of Bertrand Russell, who, accord-
ing to the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice McComb, was
an instructor. The short opinion of the court will be
searched vainly for any statement that the Regents have
any arbitrary power of dismissal. The fact that the
Regents concededly do have ultimate authority over all
University affairs does not, of course, mean that they may
at any given time strike down a body of enactments, pro-
tecting professors against arbitrary dismissal, nor does it
mean that they have arbitrary power, by dismissal or
otherwise, to defeat previously vested rights. Assuming,
arguendo and contrary to the facts on this case, that the
Regents have an absolute power of removal or dismissal,
it will be noted that only one case is cited by Respondents
—Alleman v. Dufresne (La. 1944), 17 So.(2d) 70— in sup-
port of the broad statement that ''As to a body having
power of removal, or grounds of dismissal, a rule against
reconsideration does not apply'' (Respondents' Brief, p.
35). There is no point in extending the length of this brief
by argument over this Louisiana case. Examination will
establish to the satisfaction of any reader that the quota-
tion is the sheerest obiter dicta.

31

In summary: The contention that the doctiine of the
MacAlister case does not apply to bodies which have the
power not only of ap])ointment, but also of dismissal, lacks
the support of any authority before the Court. Its sole
enunciation is obiter dicta of the Louisiana Court of Ap-
peals. The contention begs the l)asic (juestion at issue in
this case. Even if the contention were reasonable, its adop-
tion would re(juire this Court first to hold that neither con-
tract nor tenure nor comi)liance with conditions delineated
by the Regents themselves are a barrier to arbitrarv dis-
missal.

D. INDEPENDENTLY OF THE DOCTRINE OF MacALISTER v. BAKER. THE
IRREVOCABILITY OF THE APPOINTMENTS ON JULY 21. 1950. IS ESTAB-
LISHED UNDER ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS.
THE REGENTS' RESOLUTION OF APRIL 21. 1950. WAS AN OFFER MADE
BY THE REGENTS: IT WAS ACCEPTED AND FULLY COMPLIED WITH IN
GOOD FAITH BY PETITIONERS: AND THE REGENTS. ON JULY 21. 1950.
ACKNOWLEDGED SUCH ACCEPTANCE AND COMPLIANCE. THEREFORE
THE REGENTS COULD NOT THEREAFTER VALIDLY AVOID THE RESULTANT
CONTRACTS.

These general facts in this case are beyond dispute : The
Regents adopted a resolution on A])ril 21, 1950. That reso-
lution made some kind of provision for hearings, before
the Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic
Senate, of those who for any reason failed to sign the con-
troversial loyalty declaration. Petitioners were among those
who so failed. Petitioners sought and had hearings before
the Senate Connnittee. The reconnnendations of the Com-
mittee as to each Petitioner were favorable. The Regents,
on July 21, 1950, with the reconnnendations of the Connnit-
tee and of the President of the University before them,
adopted the reconnnendations of the President for appoint-
ment of Petitioners to their respective posts on the faculty.

While the general facts just stated are not disi)uted, it is

Pi?

32

claimed by Respondents that they are not sufficient to estab-
lish Petitioners' claims to their respective faculty i)osts as
against action of the Regents subse(iuent to July 21, 1950.
The validity of Respondents' contention hinges, it seems to
us, upon the answer to a simple question, namely, was the
resolution of April 21, 1950, an offer to Petitioners whicli
has been accepted by them, thereby creating a completed
and valid contract?

In our view, the answer to the question nuist be in the
affirmative.

That the resolution of April 21, 1950, was an offer com-
municated to Petitioners is not open to question.^^ In the
statement of facts in the Brief of Respondents' counsel, it is
conceded that the resolution of April 21, 1950, provided for
a hearing and that they did apply for it (Respondents'
Brief, p. 18). Since the application was responsive to the
resolution, claim of lack of communication cannot be made.

The crucial question is this: Did the resolution of April
21, 1950, delineate the signing of the so-called loyalty decla-
ration as the sine qua non of appointment for that aca-
demic year, or did it provide two alternatives, either of
which might be followed by a faculty member to accept
appointment for such year! We believe the facts estab-
lish that the resolution of April 21, 1950, offered these two
alternatives: First, acceptance of employment by signing
such declaration; second, in lieu of signing the declaration,
submission to hearing l)efore the Committee on Privilege
and Tenure and being bound by the results flowing from
such hearing. Counsel for Res])ondents disagree. They
declare, in a portion of their Brief headed '*The Facts"

'^Respondents' claim of failure of communication of an oflPor
(Respondents' Brief, p. 46) is related to the Regents' action on
July 21, 1950, not to that of April 21, 1950.

33
that "petitioners refused to enter into the contract in the
form required by the Regents' resolution or to make the
loyalty affirmation as part of that contract or to comply
with the regulation of the I^niversitv established bv its
governing body." (Respondents' Brief, pp. 18-19).

In support of Respondents' view, it may be urged that
the resolution of April 21 does declare that "Condition
precedent to employment or renewal of employment of
American citizens in the University shall" include "accept-
ance of appointment by a letter which shall" contain the
loyalty declaration (Petition, Appendix III, p. 10).

More, however, supi)orts the opposite view, because the
resolution also provides that

"In any case of failure to sign the constitutional
oath and the prescribed form of letter of acceptance
the right of petition and review (referred to below)
will be fully observed." (Ibid)

Lnmediately following, this sentence appears :

"The foregoing is intended to govern employment
and re-employment after June 30, 1950." (Ibid)

The resolution also provides that

"In order to provide a reasonable time for comple-
tion of the foregoing procedures, the Regents hereby
fix May 15, 1950 as the date on or before which the
constitutional oath and contract form shall be signed,
and June 15, 1950, as the date on or before which all
proceedings before the President and the Committee
on Privilege and Tenure shall be completed and their
findings and recommendations submitted to the Re-
gents." (Ibid, p. 11)

and that

"The regulations and procedures herein enacted, as
applied and enforced by the administrative authorities

of the University, will henceforth govern and control
over all previous actions of the Regents * * *" (Ibid)

If the provisions of the resolution itself leave any doubt
that faculty members were given the alternative (to the
signing of the controversial declaration) of submitting to
hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure and
being bound by the results thereof as a right, rather than
as a mere grant of revocable grace — if there be any such
doubt it will be resolved, it seems to us, by the alumni
recommendation.

The Petition declares (paragraph V) that:

"On April 21, 1950, the Regents of the University of
California adopted a resolution, hereby by reference
incorporated herein and a true copy of which is at-
tached hereto as Appendix III hereof. Said resolution
was based upon, intended to carry out and did in fact
carry out the recommendation of a committee of the
California Alumni Association referred to in a letter
dated April 19, 1950, of that association, addressed to
President Robert Gordon Sproul, President of the Uni-
versity of California, by Stanley E. McCaffrey, Execu-
tive Manager of said California Alumni Association, a
copy of which letter and a copy of which recommenda-
tion dated April 19, 1950, is attached hereto as Ap-
pendix IV."

The foregoing allegations of the Petition were not with-
out purpose. They were alleged in the expectancy that,
because they stated the clear facts, they would not be denied.
Thev have not been denied. Thev cannot be. Thev make it
clear that the controversial Regents' resolution of April
21, 1950, was intended to carry out and did carry out the
alumni reconunendation. Therefore, that reconnnendation
becomes a useful aid in resolving any controversy as to the
terms of the resolution.

i

i

85

The core of the alumni recommendation consists of the
five points set forth in the Appendix to the Petition, com-
mencing at the bottom of page 15. Point I recommends a
New Contract of Employment containing the statement
which Petitioners refuse to sign. Points 2 and 3 appear to
us to be determinative. They read (and the emphaj-is is
the Committee's, not ours) as follows:

"2. All parties he required to sign the Constitu-
tion Oath in the form required of all State officials
(except for non-citizens who cannot be required to sign
this form).

"3. All parties he invited to sign the ^New Contract
of Employment.' Those who have already signed the
so-termed 'Loyalty Oath' will not be required to sign
the 'New Contract of Employment' for the current
academic vear; thev mav do so if thev wish, and there-

• • • • 7

upon may withdraw their 'Loyalty Oaths' if they so
desire."

Plainer words could hardly be found, we submit, to
destroy the contention, inherent in all of Respondents'
position on the facts in this case, that Petitioners were
not afforded the two alternatives claimed bv Petitioners to
have been offered to them. The words "All parties be
required to sign" the constitutional oath (which all Peti-
tioners have signed) in contrast with the words "All ))arties
be invited to sign" the New Contract of P^mployment, clearly
indicate, it is submitted, that signature of the latter is not
and never was a condition precedent to appointment for the
current academic year.

Be that as it may. Petitioners accepted the offer of the al-
ternative, followed it in good faith and received their ap-
pointments on July 21, 1950, by action of the Regents, thus
completing a chain of circumstances which, on ordinary
principles of contract law, closed a binding contract between

^

36

the Regents and Petitioners. On this theory, the irrevo-
cability of Petitioners' appointments springs not from the
doctrine of MacAlister v. Baker, but from elementary prin-
ciples of the law of contracts. And on this theory, irrevo-
cability applies whether Petitioners' status is that of pri-
vate employees, public officers, or holders of a public trust.
Regardless of how the facts before the Court mav be in-
terpreted or classified, it is clear that Petitioners hold valid
contracts. We have interpreted the facts on the view that
the April 21 resolution of the Regents was an offer. Thus
the contracts were completed by Petitioners' acceptance in
following through with the prescribed hearings, since "It
is elementary that when an offer has indicated the mode
and means of acceptance, an acceptance in accordance with
that mode or means is binding on the offeror." {Davis v.
Jacohy (1934), 1 Cal.(2d) 370). And over and bevond ac-
ceptance by offerees, the contracts were ratified bv the Re-
gents on July 21, in accordance with the reserved power of
"final determination." But suppose that, because of the
reservation by the Regents of the right of final determina-
tion, the April 21 resolution be considered as an invitation
for an offer from Petitioners. Then Petitioners have made
the invited offer by com])liance with the hearing provisions
in the manner ])rescribed, and the Regents accepted by the
vote on July 21, 1950, apjminting Petitioners. Formal com-
nmnication of the ai)pointment was not contemplated or re-
quired in the "offer" or the "invitation," and is not required
by law." Indeed, not only was formal conuuunication of the
July 21 resolution unnecessary, ])ut mere silence on the part
of the Regents would have completed the contract.*''

'*C.C. 1584. "Performance of the conditions of the proposal
* * * is an acceptance of the proposal."

^^Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Fresno Flume & Irr. Co.
(1911), 161 Cal. 466; Restatement of Contracts, §72(1) (c) and

37

E. PETITIONERS' ESTABLISHED RIGHTS OF TENURE PRECLUDE THEIR
ARBITRARY DISMISSAL AS ATTEMPTED BY A BARE MAJORITY OF THE
REGENTS AT THE MEETING OF AUGUST 25. 1950.

We shall not here restate the theory and practice of ten-
ure, as set forth in Appendix A, under the heading "Con-
cerning THE Status or Academic Tenure at the Univer-
sity OF California; Its Application in This Proceeding;
Its Eelationship to Academic Freedom." It is there shown
that the Board of Regents has enacted a number of Stand-
ing Orders which, coupled with an authorized resolution of
the faculty Academic Senate, insures tenure grade mem-
bers of the faculty of continuous appointment during
good behavior and efficient service. The Petition shows
Petitioners' reliance in this proceeding upon rights of ten-
ure, both by describing Petitioners as being "of Academic
Senate rank" (Petition, paragraph I) and by the allega-
tions of paragraph IX of the Petition, particularly sub-
paragraph E thereof.

It is not here contended that the Eegents of the Univer-
sity may not revoke tenure rights which they have granted.
It is contended onlv that the revocation mav not have an
ex post facto effect and that a necessary condition preced-
ent to dismissal of Petitioners is independent procedure
appropriately i)resenting the specific facts in each case to
the Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The Re-
cases cited in California annotation thereto; 77 A.L.R. 1148 Can-
notation). In Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Campbell (1909 Ky.), 121
S.W. 1040, an order wa« obtained ''subject to approval and ac-
ceptance" of the home office; a contract was found although the
company had never formally ''accepted" the order.

Moreover, rejrardless of whether the resolution of April 21 be
treated a.s an offer from the Regent*, or an invitation to Petitioners
for an offer from them, it is suggested that Petitioners' compliance,
coupled with all the facts before the Court, ])rings into phiy the
contract doctrine of promissory estoppel. See Restatement of Con-
tracts, §90, applied in Hunter v. Sparling (1948), 87 Cal. App. 2d
711.

II

38
gents' "sign or get out" ultimatum of August 25, 1950 fails
to meet requirements binding upon the Regents by their
own prior action which vested tenure in petitioners.

III. COMMENTS ON RESPONDENTS' BRIEF

The major points at issue in this proceeding have been
considered under the- prior headings of our argument.
There remain several matters to which it is desired to
invite the Court's attention, many of them appearing per-
vasively in Respondents' Brief.

Respondents urge that the Petition fails to' show that
the subject matter of the suit is within the jurisdiction of
the Court because engagement of faculty members is not a
matter for judicial control and because courts will not
''order one man to work for another" or "order one man
to put another to work" (Respondents' Brief, p. 40).

To begin with. Respondents' assumption that this case
involves "engagement of faculty members," while, at first
blush, apt and reasonable, is not, on a second look, what is
involved here at all. The judicial control sought here is
to compel the honoring of a completed appointment or, if
counsel insist, a completed engagement. This Court is not
being asked judicially to control selection of faculty mem-
bers. In the second place. Wall r. Board of Regents (1940),
38 Cal.(2d) 698, the sole case cited by Resimndents, does
not stand for any such ])roposition, as has been heretofore
pointed out (supra, p. 30).

The suggestion that it is elementary that courts will not
order one man to work for another or order one man to put
another to work has, in conunon with the first contention, a
first blush relevancy. Here, again, a second look indicates
that while it is a true statement of equitable doctrine in
certain cases, the doctrine has no pertinence here. Either
the Petitioners have been irrevocably api)ointed to their

1

39

respective posts on the faculty of the University for the
current academic year, or they have not. If they have not,
neither specific performance nor injunction nor mandamus
nor any other proceeding will avail. If they have been so
appointed and wrongfully deprived, mandamus is obviously
the proper remedy.

It needs but little citation of authoritv to show the reach
and scope of the writ of mandate in such situations. Many
of the grade and high school teacher cases relied upon by
Respondents are illustrations of the appropriateness of
that remedy in these situations.

The very purpose of the writ is defined by statute to be
one directed

"to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or per-
son" (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1085)

and

"to compel the performance of an act which the law
specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station; or to compel the admission of a
party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully
precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board
or i)erson." (Ibid)

Accordingly, mandanms has been held the proper rem-
edy, to cite but a few illustrations, to compel reinstatement
of a teacher discharged in violation of a tenure statute
{Saxton V. Board of Education (1929), 206 Cal. 758); to
compel payment of salary to a wrongfully discharged
teacher (Goldsmith v. Board of Education (1923), 63 Cal.
App. 141) ; to compel delivery of rei)levied property to the
plaintiff (Bailetj v. Baker (1915), 28 Cal. App. 537); to
compel defendant canal corporation to construct a bridge in
compliance with an order of the board of supervisors
{County of Fresno v. Canal Co. (1886), 68 Cal. 359); to

II

1^1

**

¥H

40

compel a former secretary of a private cori)oration to de-
liver office and books to newly elected secretary (Consumers
Salt Co, V. Rig gins (1929), 208 Cal. 537) ; to compel a nm-
tual water company to deliver water to a member-stock-
holder having a contract right thereto (Miller v. Imperial
Water Co. No. 8 (1909), 156 Cal. 27) ; to compel petitioner's
reinstatement in a mutual benefit society (Von Arx v. San
Francisco G. Verein (189G), 113 Cal. 377); to compel the
mayor to sign a contract with petitioner, who had been
awarded the contract by the board of supervisors (Neal
Publishing Co. v. Rolph (1915), 1G9 Cal. 190).

IV. CONCLUSION

The attempted imposition upon Petitioners of the spe-
cial loyalty declaration must be rejected in the light of the
applicable, clear and compelling law. The demand for the
declaration violates the constitutional mandate that the
University be kept entirely independent of all political in-
fluence in the administration of its affairs, as well as the
mandate against the imposition of special oaths, tests or
declarations. It disregards the doctrine of MacAlister v.
Baker that appointments to office are irrevocable. It ne-
gates elementary principles of tlie law of contracts. It sets
at naught vested rights of tenure. In all of this, the at-
tempted imposition of the special loyalty declaration is
contrary to law.

A peremptory writ of mandate should issue in accord-
ance with the prayer of the Petition.

Dated : November 10, 1950.

Respectfully submitted,

Stanley A. Weigel

Attorney for Petitioners

(Appendices follow)

Appendix A

CONCERNING THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC TENURE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; ITS APPLICATION IN THIS
PROCEEDING: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC FREE-
DOM.

In tlie introduction to this Brief, attention has been
called to the fact that the record is free of anv indication,
or even any su<?gestion, that any of Petitioners are dis-
loyal or unqualified or incompetent or iimnoral. Tliat being
so, the question arises as to why it is necessary for them
to seek the aid of this Court in retaining their rights to
serve on the faculty of the University of California.

One possible answer can be eliminated immediately. It
does not appear from the record that there has been anv
curtailment in the funds available to the Universitv nor
any necessary reduction of personnel emi)loyed. Again to
the contrary, the record affirmatively shows that the
eighteen Petitioners can have their positions and their
salaries— without the order of this Court— if they will but
sign a statement demanded of them by a bare majority of
the Regents.

The Petitioners have refused to sign the demanded state-
ment. This proceeding stems from that refusal to sign, and
from nothing else. Why are Petitioners so steadfast in
their refusal!

In large part, it is because they regard the obdurate de-
mand for their signatures as an invasion of their clear
legal rights. That is the answer upon which their i)rimary
reliance is placed in this i)roceeding in Court. But there
are other answers, deeper answers. They not only underlie
the legal issues; they are inextricably part of them.

2 Appendix

University professors— just as accountants, clergymen,
dentists, doctors, lawyers — have and are governed by a
body of law compounded of tradition, privileges and rights.
In American colleges and universities, these professional
codes are not ordinarily set forth in statutes, as are, for
example, the tenure rights of elementary and high school
teachers in this state. Rather, they are an integration of
custom and tradition, universal at all institutions of higher
learning, private and public, into the governing rules and
regulations of each particular university.

The University of California, as a state university, pre-
sents a typical case. In conunon with most state universities,
it is a creature of the State Constitution,^ enjoying, there-
fore, a status of rather unique independence from other
agencies of the body politic. By our State Constitution, the
University is expressly denominated and constituted a pub-
lic trust.

The governance of the University is given to a public
corporation entitled ''the liegents of the University of
California." The Regents, provided by the Constitution to
be 24 in total number, are of two classiiications. Eight ex
officio members hold membership on the Board of Regents
by virtue of their positions, namely: Governor, Lieutenant
Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, Superintendent of
Public Instruction, President of the State Board of Agri-
culture, President of the San Francisco Mechanics Insti-
tute, President of the University's Alumni Association and
the President of the University itself. The remaining six-
teen members of the Board are appointed by the Governor
for terms of sixteen vears.

That these provisions for membership in the governing
body of the University are calculated to preserve the in-
dependence of the University is not only intrinsically mani-

1 California Constitution, Article IX, Section 9.

Appendix §

fest, but also from the express constitutional admonition
that:

"The University shall be entirely independent of all
political or sectarian influence and kei)t free therefrom
in the appointment of its Regents and the administra-
tion of its affairs . . .''-

In exercising the constitutional trust imposed upon them
to administer the University of California, the Regents
have, over a period of 81 years, developed a body of rules
and regulations, having the dignity of state law.-^ These
rules and regulations— again consonant with the custom in
American universities and colleges generally— include pro-
visions establishing and delineating the responsibilities,
duties and powers of the various officers and intra-uni-
versity bodies through which the work, administrative and
otherwise, of the University is carried out. Accordingly,
these rules and regulations have established a facultv or-
ganization known as the Academic Senate, vested certain
powers in that body and provided for a professional right
denominated tenure.

A large part of the governing legislation enacted by the
Regents is referred to as Standing Orders of the Regents.
This body of enactment includes certain provisions salient
to determination of issues before the Court. Thus, the
Standing Orders of the Regents provide that:

"The President shall reconnnend to the Board [of
Regents] appointments, promotions, demotions, and
dismissals of the officers and employees of the Uni-

2A portion of Article IX, Section 9, of the California Constitu-
tion neither quoted nor referred to in the Brief filed by counsel for
Respondents.

^Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California (1934),
293 U.S. 245.

Appendix

versity. Whenever any such action shall affect a pro-
fessorial or equivalent position, such action shall be
taken only after the President shall have consulted
with a properly constituted advisory committee of the
Academic Senate .

"4

The Standing Orders of the Regents also ])rovide for
organization of the Academic Senate and the powers of
that body. These ijrovisions are before the Court.'^ They
show: That the Academic Senate consists of the President,
Vice-Presidents, Provost, Deans, Directors, Registrars,
University Librarians on the Berkeley and Los Angeles
campuses and all professors and instructors giving instruc-
tion in any curriculum under the control of the Academic
Senate; that the Senate shall determine its own member-
ship and choose its own officers and conunittees as it may
determine; that the Senate shall perform such duties as
the Regents ma>^ direct and exercise such powers as they
may confer upon it ; that it shall recommend all candidates
for degrees, shall authorize and supervise courses of in-
struction ; and, most importantly, that

^*The Academic Senate shall determine the mem-
bership of the several Faculties and Councils, except
the Faculties of Hastings College of the Law, Cali-
fornia School of Fine Arts, and Santa Barbara
College . . ."«

In the exercise of the powers given it, the Academic
Senate adopted, on October 6, 1947, a resolution pertaining
to ** Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure" which pro-
vides, in pertinent part, that:

"No professor, associate professor, or other officer
of instruction who has accjuired tenure by length of

^Petition, Appendix, p. 5.

^Tetition, Appendix, pp. 7-8.

**The full text is in Petition, Appendix, op. cit.

I

Appendix 5

service as immediately hereinafter defined, should be
dismissed or demoted without the privilege of a hear-
ing before the Conunittee on Privilege and Tenure of
the Academic Senate, after written charges against
him have been filed with the President. . . .

"Officers of instruction who have served for a series
of terms in excess of a total of eight years in the grades
of instructor, assistant professor, lecturer (on more
than half time appointment), or associate (on more
than half time appointment), or in any sequence of
these grades, should thereby have attained tenure by
reason of length of service; that is, their appointments
should be regarded as continuing during good behavior
and efficient service."^

Several clear facts emerge from the quoted provisions
of the Standing Orders of the Regents and of the refer-
enced resolution of the Academic Senate as to ai)point-
ments, promotions and tenure. It is clear that as to "pro-
fessorial or equivalent positions," the President may not
even recommend as to appointment, promotion, demotion
or dismissal without prior consultation with the appro-
priate committee of the Academic Senate. It is clear that,
subject to the basic ultimate authority of the Regents, "The
Academic Senate shall determine the membership of the
several Faculties and Councils," and it is clear that in the
exercise of that power of determination, the Academic
Senate has provided for and defined tenure so as to insure
that faculty members of tenure status shall have appoint-
ments "regarded as continuing during good behavior and
efficient service."

The foregoing recitals as to the provisions of the Stand-
ing Orders of the Regents and the resolution of the Aca-

^The full text Ls in the Petition, Appendix, p. 9.

6 Appendix

deiiiic Senate contain nothing wliieli, except by inference,
shows regental approval or adoption of tenure as a law
of the University — indeed, the recitals up to this point do
not even show regental recognition of tenure. Tt would be
error, however, to assume that such recognition, ap])roval
and adoption are lacking. Chapter XV, Section 2, subsec-
tion (i) of the By-Laws and Standing Orders of the Re-
gents of the University of California, relating to severance
compensation, declares :

"The principle of severance compensation is ap-
proved in the case of premature and compulsory re-
tirement of a faculty member with acquired tenure and
not subject to dismissal, whose removal from seiviee
seems to be in the interest of the University; and, in
such cases, the President shall make an appropriate
recommendation to the Regents, after discussing the
propriety of severance with the Committee on Privilege
and Tenure of the Academic Senate. In establishing
the amount of severance compensation, each case sliall
be dealt with upon its merits."

nn

The phrase "acquired tenure and not sul)ject to dismis-
sal," as used by the Regents of the University, is perfectly
clear and unani])iguous in the light of what has gone before.
It has no significance, indeed, it has no meaning except
as a regental enactment recognizing and showing that ten-
ure— the right to continuance of appointment during good
behavior and efficient service — is a rule with the force of
law which protects faculty members of tenure status
against arbitrary dismissal from the University of Cali-
fornia.**

** Appendix E, post.

"It should be noted that the just quoted Standinj,^ Order relates
to a species of separation of faculty members from the University,
despite tenure. The sij^nifieant point, however, is tiuit the exception
not only recognizes tenure, but provides the most careful safe-

Appendix 7

In the light of the foregoing, there is an irreconcilable
conflict between tenure and the purported dismissal of
Petitioners. As has been pointed out, the record will be
searched in vain for any charge that any Petitioner has
acted in any way inconsonant with good behavior and
efficient service.

The spelling out of the facts of tenure at the University
of California has been prefatory to inviting the attention
of the Court to an issue which underlies every legal ques-
tion in this proceeding.

That issue is academic freedom.

The cornerstone of academic freedom is academic ten-
ure.^^ Academic tenure insures members of the faculties of
American institutions of higher education that once they
have demonstrated fitness by proof of ability and length
of service, they are secure in their positions during good
behavior and competence.

There can be no such thing as academic freedom so long
as teachers must measure what thev teach to make sure

«

of conformity w4th the views, preferences or even preju-
dices of those who may, at any given time, hold the ultimate
legal i)ower to hire or fire. In the absence of tenure, how
can there possibly be developed and protected in American
institutions of higher learning that *'free trade in ideas"

guards in those instances where tenure may be departed from. If
adhered to, it precludes direct rejrental action, setting up two con-
ditions precedent, the first being that the matter is to be initiated
by the President's recommendation to the Regent.s, and the second
being that prior to such recommendation, the President shall have
discussed i)ropriety with the committee of the Academic Senate
which is the traditional guardian of tenure — the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure. It must also be borne in mind that the Re-
gents' actions in the cases of these Petitioners are not, nor are they
claimed to be, under the authority of the (pioted Standing Order.

^'^See Appendices B, C and D immediately following. Useful
material will also be found in: Chafee, Freedom of Speech (Cam-
bridge 1940) ; Dewey, ''The Case of the Professor and Public

^

g Appendix

or the concept that "the best test of trutli is the i)ower of
the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of tlie
market/' which Mr. Justice Hohiies characterized as "the
theory of our Constitution.""

If by disregard of tenure, faculties in American uni-
versities nuist conform to arbitrary retjuirements of those
vested with legal authority, what protection shall they and
the young American men and women they teach have lest
the "majority, swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone
in the future, as it has often been in the past, to stamp as
disloyal opinions with which it disagrees.'^^^ Tenure ab-
sent, what, to paraphrase Mr. Justice Cardozo, shall stand
in the way lest arbitrary authority "take unto itself exclu-
sively the instruction of the young and mold their minds
to its own model by forbidding them to be taught" any-
thing other than that approved by those in authority.^'^

In the zeal with which all Americans detest Conununism
and totalitarianism, shall we emulate and adopt the doc-
trine that truth is the exclusive possession of those in
power? And if we are to avoid that in our universities, who
can bring forth a sounder means than preservation of

tenure f

Now these observations may seem remote from the prac-
ticalities and immediacies of this case. Quiet analysis will

Interest" (The Dial vol. 63, 1917) ; Jones, Primer of Intellectual
Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press, 1949); ''Academic Freedom and
the Schaper Case" (University of Minnesota Bulletin, Vol. XLI,
No. 67, 1938); Willkie, ''Freedom & the Liberal Arts" {The
Humanities after the War, Princeton Univ. Press, 1944) ; Wriston,
H. M. (President, Brown University), "Academic Tenure" (Amer-
ican Scholar, Vol. IX, No. 3, Summer 1940).

^Kihrams v. U. S. (1919), 250 U.S. 616, dissent.

i^Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting in Schaeffer v. U. S. (1920),
251 U.S. 466.

^^Selected Writings of Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (Fallon Law
Book Co., 1947), p. 298.

I

Appendix 9

show that they are not so remote. Each Petitioner has re-
fused to sign, under the exercise of arbitrary authority de-
manding signature as the price of remaining on the faculty,
a statement wliich, on first blush, appears to be perfectly
fair and reasonable. The statement is :

"... I am not a member of the Connnunist Party
or any other organization which advocates the over-
throw of the Government by force or violence, and
that I have no commitments in conflict with mv re-
sponsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and
free pursuit of truth. 1 understand that the foregoing
statement is a condition of my employment and a con-
sideration of payment of my salary."^^

It is not necessary to argue as to the reasonableness of the
mere 'words of the statement because the conflict with aca-
demic tenure and freedom lies in something ai)art. That
conflict derives, first, from the arbitrary **Sign or get out!"
requirement and, second, from the knock on the door of the
classroom which, whether availed of or not, is afforded by
the second sentence.

It is no overstatement to have described the regentai
ultimatum as **Sign or get out !" Its precise effect, as shown
by the record in this case, is to say to every faculty mem-
ber: "No matter how long you have taught at the Uni-
versity, no matter how ably, no matter how free you may
be of Communist sympathy, no matter how completely your
conduct in and out of the classroom comports with the re-
sponsibility of impartial scholarship and free pursuit of
truth, regardless of the tenure you have acquired, no mat-
ter how much vour conscience as a scholar and vour con-
cept of your duty to your students may rebel, sign here or
leave."

'^Petition, Appendix, p. 10.

9

)

10 Appendix

It is too clear to recjuire laboring that the arbitrary de-
mand for the statement does mortal violence to the whole
body of traditions and vested rights which have served to
provide academic tenure for the Petitioners and their col-
leagues on the faculty of the University of California. No
matter what the finding of the Senate Committee on Privi-
lege and Tenure, traditionally the guardian of academic
tenure, -failufo to sign becomes the sine qua non of con-
tinued service at the University of California.

The second blow to academic tenure and freedom is no
less destructive. Once the statement has been signed, com-
pliance has become a condition of employment and of pay-
ment of salary. From that moment forward, the sword of
Damocles hangs over the signer's head. Continued em-
ployment is contingent upon conformity with standards
which mean different things to different ])eople. Whose
wisdom shall determine, for example, wiiether or not an
individual has conmiitments in conflict with responsibilities
to impartial scholarship? Will it be someone who shares
the views of Senator McCarthy or someone who shares
those of James Conant! Is membershii) in the American
Association of University Professors^"' a conuuitment in
conflict with responsibilities to im])artial scholarship and
free pursuit of truth? These are two cpiestions of scores
which point up the fact that once the statement has been
signed, continued right of employment hinges upon inter-
pretation of words sufficiently vague to invite conflicting
interpretation. The important thing is that, for all prac-
tical ])urposes, the controlling inter])retation is in the hands
of those who have the i)ower to fire. It is no answer, so far
as academic tenure and freedom are concerned, to urge, as

^•''The organization so violently attacked by one of the leaders of
the slender majority of the Regents who demand the statement in-
volved.

I

Appendix 11

may well turn out to be the fact, that the power to chal-
lenge com])liance will not be abused or that it will be tem-
perately exercised. The character of exercise is not the
measure of power. It is the right to knock on the door
quite as nmch as the knocking which undermines academic
tenure and freedom.

There is another affront to academic tenure and freedom
in both the demand for the statement and the compulsion
afforded for compliance. It is in submission to small en-
croachments that liberty is lost. The mere words of the
statement demanded todav is one which affronts verv few.
Today those charged with testing compliance may be rea-
sonable and temperate. Tomorrow the statement as well
as those who demand and enforce it mav be verv different.

Now it should not be interpreted that there is any ma-
ligning of the motives of those of the Regents who elected
to seek to impose the arbitrary signing on the dotted line
as a condition precedent to appointment upon the faculty
of the University of California. In the passions and fears
engendered by a bitter conflict of ideologies, by a cold war
and by areas of actual armed conflict, men may honestly
differ as to means of meeting threats to national security.
We agree with coimsel for Res])ondents that the tvisdom
of any particular method in any particular exercise of gov-
ernmental authority is not the concern of the courts (Re-
spondents' Brief, p. 3). But the lc(/aliti/ and constitutiohalifi/
of anv such method is verv much the concern of the courts.
And determination of legality requires determination of
the effect of any challenged method.

The effect of the demanded statement is to destroy aca-
demic tenure and thus to destroy the cornerstone of aca-
demic freedom. And academic tenure, it must be emphati-
cally re-emphasized, is not an abstraction. It is the rule —

12 Appendix

recognized and applied by the Regents of the University
of California— that appointments on the faculty in all cases
of acquired tenure are continuing during good behavior and
efficient service. So the decision of this Court will deter-
mine whether or not the regental conduct which infringed
tenure comports with the law and the Constitution of the
State of California. If it does, the governing body, the
Regents, having provided tenure, may remove or qualify
it; however, if conduct which directly or incidentally de-
stroys tenure at the same time violates the state law and
Constitution, the conduct will be proscribed and hence ten-
ure will be preserved.^^

^«Perhap.s no better short statement showing (1) the importance
of pre^ser^'ingr tenure, (2) its relationship to academic freedom and
(3) the position of faculty members as transcending that of em-
ployees is to be found anywhere than the one made by Benjamin
Ide Wheeler on August 30. 1915. Speaking on "The American
State University" and referring to the three elements of the Uni-
ver.sitv organization as "regents, faculty, president," he said:

"The board of instniction constitutes the second element in our
university organization. It is really the first, and for three good
reasons: (1) the other two were historically differentiated out of
it; (2) instruction and nurture are the central purpose of the in-
stitution; (3) the duties and opportunities of the teachers are not
limited ; the board of instruction naturally takes over such func-
tions as the two other factors of the organization do not assume.
The individual professors continually perform at need offices not
'nominated in the bond. ' They are not employees of tlafi Jiniv^rsity*.
but members of it. The rigSt attitude of service in the manifold
deSands of the university can not be obtained or expected from
men uncertain of their tenure ; neither can freedom of thought,
research or expression, especially in subjects traversed by the
daily thought of the community. Without such freedom we lose
the full value of the teacher's presence among us. If the teacher
is hampered, wbnse ideas^doe* he teach? Those of the regents? V
of the president? or of the legislature? But science does not fol- /
lew the election returns. Within the range of the teacher's special *
equipment and knowledge, not as oracle at large nor as bearing an
arbitrary hcense, but in the name of his science, he must be free
to teach. Otherwise the university is an imitation and a sham."
(Wheeler, The Abundant Life (Univ. of Calif. Press, 1926)
at 128, 129).

i

Appendix

Appendix B

IS

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

(I Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 384)
(By ARTHUR O. LOVEJOY)*

Academic Freedom is the freedom of the teacher or re-
search worker in higher institutions of learning to investi-
gate and discuss the problems of his science and to exx)ress
his conclusions, wliether through jmblication or in the in-
struction of students, without interference from political
or ecclesiastical authority, or from the administrative of-
ficials of the institution in which he is employed, unless his
methods are found by qualified ])odies of his own ])rofession
to be clearly incompetent or contrary to ])rofessional ethics.

The freedom of opinion, speech and publication claimed
for the university teacher is not in extent significantly dif-
ferent from that usuallv accorded to other citizens in mod-
ern liberal states, and the reasons for maintaining it are
in part the same. It is peculiar chiefly in that the teacher
is in his economic status a salaried employee, and that the
freedom claimed for him implies a denial of the right of
those who provide or administer the funds from which
he is paid, to control the content of his teaching. The jjrin-
ciple of academic freedom is thus, from the purely economic
point of view, a ]mradoxical one; it asserts that those who
buv a certain service mav not (in the most im])ortant vmr-
ticular) prescribe the nature of the service to V)e rendered.
The reason whv such fre(»dom is nevertheless sociallv reces-
sary lies in the fact that there are certain i)rofessional
functions generally recognized to be indispensable in the

•Profes.sor Emeritus, Johns Hopkins T^niversity; A.B., Califor-
nia; M.A., Harvard; LL.I)., California; Litt.D., Princeton.

14 A-ppoidix

life of a civilized comirmnity which cannot be performed if
the specific manner of their ])erformance is dictated by
those who pay for them, and that the profession of the
scholar and teacher in higher institutions of learning is
one of these.

There are three aspects of the social role of the scholar
which make such freedom essential. In the first place, he
is the technical exi)ert, given a prolonged training and
often a costly equipment, and set apart to investigate prob-
lems which it is not practicable for all men to investigate
thoroughly and at first hand for themselves. His function
is thus in part that of ex])ert adviser or informant of the
community at large on the questions which fall within his
science. Secondlv, his office has for the same reason some
analog^' to that of the judge. His opinions must be not only
competent but disinterested. No one indeed is constrained
to acce])t them; but if specialized knowledge and methodical
inquiry by trained minds are to have in the long run the
I)art in the shaping of general opinion and social policy
which it is desirable that they should have, it is important
that those who are aj)])ointed to this function should be free
from intimidation and subordination. They should, more-
over, be beyond reasonable sus])icion of subjection to such
influences, especially from economic groups. The third rea-
son is the most important. The university is not only a
vehicle for transmitting to successive generations knowl-
edge already gained : it is, more distinctively, the chief or-
ganized agency for the advancement of science and the can-
vassing of new ideas. It is the outpost of the intellectual
life of a civilized society, the institution set uj) on the
frontier of human knowledge to widen the dominion of
man's mind. The i)erformance of this function of seeking
new truths will sometimes mean, as it has rej^eatedly meant

Appendix 15

since the beginnings of modern science, the undermining of
widely or generally accepted beliefs. It is rendered impos-
sible if the work of the investigator is shackled by the
requirement that his conclusions shall never serionslv de-
viate either from generally accepted beliefs or from those
accepted by the persons, private or official, through whom
society provides the means for the maintenance of uni-
versities. Others still remain free to adopt or reject, to
apply or disregard, new discoveries or hypotheses, but the
university's most characteristic task is to seek for them,
cautiouslv and criticallv, vet without external restraints.

• • •

Academic freedom is, then, a prerequisite condition to
the proper prosecution, in an organized and adequately
endowed manner, of scientific inquiry and the comnmnica-
tion of the results of it to the public and to students in the
higher stages of their initiation into the intellectual life
of their age. In the needs and rights of such students a
further reason for maintaining the teacher's freedom is
apparent. They are entitled to learn the contem])orary
situation in each science, the range and diversity of opin-
ion among specialists in it: it is not the pedagogic province
of the university to acquaint students merely with facts of
conmion knowledge and with opinions accepted by the gen-
eral public or the donors of endo\Mnents. The same rights
of the student, however, demand of the university teacher,
in his function of instruction as distinct from investigation
and publication, special care to avoid the exclusive or one-
sided presentation of his ]>ersonal views on (]uestions upon
which there is no agreement among experts. He is not en-
titled to take advantage of his position to imjxjse his beliefs
dogmatically u]>on his students: the nature of his office
requires that alternative oj>inions be fairly ex]>ounded, and
that the student be encouraged and trained to reacli his

16 Appendix

own conclusions on such questions through critical reflec-
tion upon carefully ascertained facts.

It has been held by some writers that in state institutions
freedom of teaching: conflicts in certain cases with another
and more fundamental right — that underlying the principle
of the religious neutrality of the state. Upon this principle
the opponents of state religious establishments have usually
based their case. But it has been argued that *'if it is wrong
to comy)el peox)le to support a creed in which they dis-
believe, it is also wrong to compel them to support teaching
which impugns the creed in which they do believe." And if
the teaclier in institutions maintained by taxation is free
to "teach" the theories he himself accepts, he may, and
usually does, impugn the creed of some body of taxpayers,
and sometimes of the ma.iority of them. This argument has
usually been emi)loyed by those who have attempted, in a
number of American states, to obtain legislation prohibit-
ing the "teaching of evolution" in state schools and uni-
versities— attempts which have been successful in Ten-
nessee (1925), in Mississippi (1927) and (through popular
referendum) in Arkansas (1928). The hypothesis of evolu-
tion, it is contended, is in conflict with the belief of citizens
who acce})t literally the Biblical narrative of the creation:
hence the rights of the taxpayer are violated if instructors
paid out of public funds are permitted to teach tha^ hy-
pothesis.

This argument, especially in its application to universi-
ties, is subject to two criticisms. First, it involves an am-
biguous use of the word *'teach." To "teach a theory" might
mean merely to expound it ; or to exi)ound it and also to
state the arguments of its adherents; or to do both of
these and also to indicate the prevailing opinion of experts
with regard to it; or to let the teacher's own opinion con-

Appendix 17

cerning it be known; or to inculcate it dogmatically or to
proselytize in behalf of it. If laws prohibiting the "teach-
ing" of certain theories in state institutions are construed
only in the last, i.e. in the strictest, sense they do not essen-
tially conflict with the princii)le of freedom of teaching as
above set forth. Thoy would leave entire liberty of inquiry,
discussion and undogmatic expression of personal oi)inion
to both teacher and student. The principal objection to
them when they are so interpreted is that it is difficult or
impossible to define so precisely and comprehensively, in
terms of concrete acts, what would constitute violations of
them as to bring the matter effectively within the scope of
the criminal law.

If, however, ])rohibition of the "teaching" of any scientific
theory not accepted by all taxpayers is construed in any
other sense, it is incompatible with the maintenance by the
state of institutions performing the characteristic functions
of universities. It is evident that the principle of state
neutrality cannot consistently be limited to a single hypoth-
esis, but must apply to any "teaching" which any taxpayers
believe to conflict with their religious or ethical convictions.
A state may, in short, have a university or do without. But
it cannot have one, in the usual and proper sense, if it
excludes, under a misconception of the principle of neu-
trality, both a large part of the subject matter of 'science
and also the method of free inquiry and free expression,
which is necessary to the functioning of this type of social
mstitution.

There exist in most communities private institutions of
learning which do not fully accept the principle of academic
freedom, and therefore do not undertake to ])erform the
functions mentioned. The legitimacy of their existence is
generally admitted, but it is evident that a conmiunity in

18 Appciidix

which only institutions of this type exist lacks adequate
provision for the advancement of science and for the main-
tenance of that really fruitful "neutrality" in higher edu-
cation which depends upon liberty of unbiased investiga-
tion and thought. Even in institutions of the restricted kind,
however, it is commonly recognized that the limitations im-
posed should be fornmlated with reasonable definiteness in
the charter or statutes, so that teachers may know, before
accepting employment, to what requirements they are
bound, and that the restrictions upon their liberty of opin-
ion and teaching may not be subject to arbitrary and vary-
^ ing interpretation by administrative officers.

In some cases teachers have been dismissed or otherwise
penalized because of their exercise, outside the university,
of their ordinary political or personal freedom in a manner
or for purposes objectionable to the governing authorities
of their institutions. While such administrative action is
contrary in spirit to academic freedom, it is primarily a
special case of the abuse of the economic relation of em-
ployer and employee for the denial of ordinary civil liber-
ties.

There are several principal means, aside from an en-
lightened public opinion, for the effectual maintenance of
academic freedom. It is evident that the governing boards
of universities or similar corporations should decline all
endowments for the inculcation of opinions specified by
the donor. The general control of admission to the teach-
ing office should be in the hands of members of the scholar's
profession, and primarily in those of specialists in the sub-
ject to be taught. The recommendations, with respect to ap-
pointments, of bodies representative of university faculties
should not be rejected by state officials or lay governing
boards unless there is evidence of corruption, favoritism or

Appendix 19

the acceptance of discreditably low standards of j)rofes-
sional competence in the action of tliose l)odios. l^ut the
chief practical requisite for academic freedom consists in
guaranteed security of tenure in professorial ])ositions, un-
less removal for some grave cause (such as ])roved incom-
petence or moral delinquency), other than the content of
the teaching of the ])rofessor concerned, becomes necessary.
Experience has shown that such cause may sometimes be
officially alleged for dismissals which are in fact due to
])ressure from economic, sectarian or other groups desirous
of restricting freedom of teaching in some particular. Re-
moval from i)rofessorial office should therefore be possible
only through some definite form of judicial procedure in
which the faculty, as the local representatives of the aca-
demic profession, should responsibly participate. The
American Association of University Professors, which has
contributed much to the formulation of a jirofessional code
for university teachers in the United States, has adopted
the principle that "every university or college teacher
should be entitled, before dismissal or demotion, to l^aye
the charges against him stated in writing in specific terms
and to have a fair trial on these charges before a special
or permanent judicial committee of the faculty senate or
council, or by the faculty at large. At such trial the teacher
accused should have full opportunity to present evidence'*
(General Report on Academic Freedom, 1915, in Bulletin
of the Association, vol. i). This rule, however, does not ap-
ply to teachers on definitely limited or probationary ap-
l)ointment. But since the withholding of reappointment
may also involve a covert or open denial of the teacher's
freedom of thought or utterance, the (|uestion should, ac-
cording to the declarations of the same association, always
be passed upon by a competent faculty body.

Appendix

The principle of academic freedom could not influence
the policy and organization of universities until its two
presuppositions had been fonnulated and become familiar:
first, that science is not static nor even merely cunmlative,
but is a continual quest of new knowledge, to which old con-
ceptions must be constantly readjusted; and second, that
truth is more likely to emerge through the interi)lay and
conflict of ideas resulting from the exercise of individual
reason than through the imposition of uniform and stand-
ardized opinions by authority. These two ideas in conjunc-
tion first became conspicuous in modern thought in the
seventeenth century. The new conception of a university
as a place devoted to the continuous ^^advancement of learn-
ing'' through an organized and cooperative ^'inquisition of
nature" was vigorously enunciated by Bacon ('*Prome-
theus" in De sainentia veterum, 1609, and Netv Atlantis,
1627) ; and both presuppositions found their most eloquent
expression in Milton's Areopagitica (1644) : "If the waters
of truth flow not in a continual progression, they sicken
into a nmddy pool of conformity and tradition"; and
"though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play
upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously
by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength."

Yet in England these principles remained without actual
application to universities for nearly two centuries. It was
in Germanv that academic freedom had its birth. In 1673
Spinoza was called by the elector palatine, Karl Ludwig,
to a professorship in the University of Heidelberg, with
the assurance that he would be given philosophandi liher-
tatem amplissimam — though upon the understanding that
this freedom would not be "abused to disturb the religion
publicly established." Spinoza declined the call, partly on
the ground that it was not clear how much was implied by

Appendix 21

the proviso. The principle of freedom of teaching was fur-
ther extended in the subsequent new foundations in Ger-
many, notably in the universities of Halle (1694), Gottingen
(1734) and of BeHin (1809). The principle that "science
and the teaching of it are free" became an article of the
organic law of Prussia in the constitution of 1850.

The first non-sectarian university in England, the Uni-
versity of London (afterwards London University College),
was opened in 1828. Not until 1854-56 were creedal recjuire-
ments for the taking of degrees (other than in divinity)
abolished in the older English universities. In 1871 the Uni-
versity Tests Act abolished all theological tests (with the
same exception) for the holding of professorships, fellow-
ships, scholarships and other emoluments in these univer-
sities and their colleges.

The early American colleges, founded by religious bodies,
were subject in varying degrees to sectarian restrictions.
These limitations, in force until the nineteenth century,
were eventually abolished in all the more important of the
older institutions. The earliest state university, established
in Virginia in 1819 upon the plans of Jefferson, was non-
sectarian, but there was no express enunciation of the prin-
ciple of academic freedom in the act creating it; and the
first appointee to its faculty, Thomas Cooper, though chos-
en by Jefferson himself, was removed under pressure from
certain religious leaders. In later times interference with
freedom of teaching in the L^nited States has usually taken
the same form: it has consisted in attempts by sectarian,
political, economic or other groups to impose limitations
not prescribed by statute or by the charters of the institu-
tions concerned, usually through the dismissal of teachers
whose opinions or utterances were obnoxious to these
groups.

22 Appendix

The above mentioned formulation ])y American univer-
sity teachers of a code for the preservation of academic
freedom indicates not only a growing professional coliesive-
ness but an increasing general awareness of the problem.
Overt attempts at the control of teaching have probably
become less frequent and, when made, less effective in re-
cent years. The great and expanding cost of maintenance
of a modern university has made private institutions —
which are especially numerous and important in America
— dependent upon a steady flow of large gifts from persons
of wealth; and this situation, it has often been asserted,
causes the teaching of the social sciences in such institu-
tions to reflect unduly the interests and views of a single
class. This interpretation has been expressed most forcibly
by Thorstein Veblen. The greater gifts to American higher
education have, however, usually been notably exempt from
formal restrictions upon freedom of teaching; and in a
number of privately endowed universities it has been better
assured than in many state institutions. While ambitious
administrative officers chieflv concerned for future endow-

•

ments have not seldom imposed upon teachers in these
subjects an unwholesome and unbecoming timidity and sub-
servience, there are some indications that this condition is
becoming more rare. Although exception nuist be made of
certain sections of the country, it is probable that in the
greater part of the United States, at the close of the third
decade of the twentieth century, freedom of thought and
speech in universities is growing wider and less insecure.
The price of liberty is, however, the same in universities
as elsewhere.

Arthur O. Love.ioy

Appendix

Appendix C

FREEDOM IN THE COLLEGE: A POLICY''

By WILBUR J. BENDER
Dean of Harvard College

THE WORLD IS FULL OF DANGEROUS mEAs, and we are both
naive and stupid if we believe that the way to prepare
intelligent young men to face the world is to try to pro-
tect them from such ideas while they are in college. Four
years spent in an insulated nursery will produce gullible
innocents, not tough-minded realists who know what they
believe because they have faced the enemies of their be-
liefs. We are not afraid of the enemies of democracy who
are willing to express their ideas in the forum. We have
confidence in the maturity and intelligence of Harvard
students. We have confidence in the strength of our free
and dynamic American democracy. There is no danger
from an open connmmist which is half as great as the dan-
ger from those who would destroy freedom in the name of
freedom. These decadent descendants of Jefferson and
Lincoln reveal their lack of faith in American ideals and
in Americans. If Harvard students can be corrupted by an
Eisler, Harvard College had better shut down as an educa-
tional institution.

I know of no faster way of producing communists than
by making martyrs out of the handful of connnunists w^e
now have. Forbidding them to speak would be not only
treason to the ancient traditions of Harvard and America:
It would be proof that we have something to hide, that we

•Reprinted from Harvard Alumni Bulletin for March 12, 1949,
in Jones, Primer of Intellectual Freedom (Harvard University
Press, 1949)

24 Appendix

have lost faith in our princii)les and in our way of life. It
would be accepting connnunist practices in the name of
Americanism. Whatever may have happened elsewhere,
Harvard still believes in freedom and the American way.

Our policy for student organizations is simple. Any
recognized student organizations can hold a meeting in a
Harvard building, if they can find a room available, and
listen to any speaker they can persuade to come. The fact
that a man speaks at Harvard does not mean that Harvard
in anv w^av endorses his views or even that the organiza-
tion involved does. If the Dean's Office were to attem])t to
decide who would be allowed to speak to a Harvard organ-
ization, whose views were safe and whose weren't, the views
of those permitted to speak would then carry Harvard's
official endorsement. Furthermore, it would be impossible
in practice to agree on what speakers threatened to cor-
rupt our youth. Some people would bar President Truman,
others Senator Taft. Still others would bar anti-vivisec-
tionists or op])onents of birth control or World Federalists
or Christian Scientists or ^Monsignor Sheen or Colonel Mc-
Cormick. The answer is not suppression of "dangerous"
ideas as in Russia or Japan or Hitler's Germany, but more
vigorous statement of American ideas, and faith — which
would be well-founded— in the ability of our students to
distinguish between good and evil.

Harvard College is dedicated to the task of producing
mature and independent educated men. I devoutly hope
that the time will never come when we are faced with the
sorry spectacle of a great University and a great country
trembling timorously in fear of the words of a connnunist
or of a demagogic conunentator.

Appendix

Appendix D

EXCERPT FROM MESSAGE OF GOVERNOR ALFRED E. SMITH.
MAY 18. 1920. VETOING LUSK LAW. WHICH WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS TO OBTAIN CERTIFI-
CATES OF LOYALTY FROM THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF
EDUCATION.*

No teacher could continue to teach if he or she enter-
tained any objection, however conscientious, to anv exist-
ing institution. If this law had been in force prior to the
abolition of slavery, opposition to that institution which
was protected by the Constitution and its laws would have
been just cause for the disqualification of a teacher. There
is required of the teacher not only loyalty to the Constitu-
tion and laws of the State but also loyalty to what is de-
scribed as the institutions of the United States and of the
State of New York.

Opposition to any presently established institution, no
matter how intelligent, conscientious, or disinterested this
opposition might be, would be sufficient to discpialify the
teacher. Every teacher would be at the mercy of his col-
leagues, his pupils, and their parents, and any word or act
of the teacher might be held by the Connnissioner to indi-
cate an attitude hostile to some of *'the institutions of the
United States" or of the State.

The bill unjustly discrhiiinates against teachers as a
class. It deprives teachers of their right of freedom of
thought; it limits the teaching staff of the public schools
to those only who lack the courage or the mind to exercise
their legal right to just criticism of existing institutions.
The bill confers upon the Connnissioner of Education a
power of interference with freedom of opinion which strikes
at the foundations of democratic education.

•Reprinted from Progressive Democracy: Speeches and State
Papers of Alfred E. Smith (Harcourt Brace and Company, 1928)

26

Appendix

Appendix E

STANDING ORDERS OF THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Chapter IV — Provisions Relating to Duties of Officers

2. Secretary.

(g) The Secretary shall notify all appointees to
University offices, positions, fellowships and scholar-
ships, of their appointments.

Chapter XIV— Miscellaneous

2. Privileges and Obligations of Officers and Em-
ployees of the University.

(i) The principle of severance compensation is ap-
proved in the case of premature and compulsory retire-
ment of a faculty member with acquired tenure and not
subject to dismissal, whose removal from service seems
to be in the interest of the University; and, in such
cases, the President shall make an appropriate recom-
mendation to the Regents, after discussing the pro-
priety of severance with the Committee on Privilege
and Tenure of the Academic Senate. In establishing
the amount of severance compensation, each case shall
be dealt with upon its merits. (As adopted May 29,
1947).

EXCERPTS FROM OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, MARCH 9,
1920.

"Report of the Finance Committee:

"The Finance Committee presented the following report:
"Your finance committee has the honor of recommending:
"* * * I recommend that appointment as assistant pro-
fessor be for a period of three years, with a recognized

Appendix 27

right on the part of the University to terminate the appoint-
ment at the end of this period; that appointment as asso-
ciate or full professor carries with it security of tenure in
the full academic sense.

"On motion the Regents api)roved the report of the
Finance Committee and adopted as the actions of the
Board all the recommendations contained in the report
as to action to be taken by the Board, President Barrows,
Regents Cochran, Crocker, Earl, Foster, Mauzy, :McEner-
ney, Ramm, Roeding, Taussig, Wheeler and Young voting
aye, voting no, none; Regent Creed having arrived late."

I

28

Appendix

Appendix F

THE ISSUES AS FRAMED BY THE
PETITION AND ANSWER

Examination of the Answer to the Petition will reveal
that while the express admissions are few indeed,^ such
admissions, coupled with failure to deny, leave intact the
great body of the Petition.^ Unqualified denials are also

* Counsel confines express admissions to just four facts, namely:
(1) "that Respondent Underbill has not transmitted letters of ap-
pointment to Petitioners" (Answer, par. VI), (2) that said Re-
spondent will not transmit such letters unless so ordered by this
Court (Ibid, par. VII), (3) that Petitioners have not been paid
(Ibid, par. VII) and (4) that the fall semester at the University
of California begins (began) September 18, 1950 (Ibid, par. VIII).
All other admissions are by failure to deny.

2Thus it is not denied that the Petitioners are American citizens,
citizens of the State of California; that many are qualified electors,
registered voters, property owners and taxpayers in the City of
Berkeley, County of Alameda, State of California; that at least
five Petitioners have more than 30 years of service on the faculty
of the University; that the data concerning the Petitioners set forth
in Appendix I is accurate; that the University of California is a
public trust of state-wide scope and location; that Respondents
have been properly named and identified; that the Regents of the
University of California, a public corporation, have, during a pe-
riod of over 30 years, promulgated a body of laws, statutes, regula-
tions and orders governing the appointment, tenure and dismissal
of members of the faculty of Academic Senate rank; that the Re-
gents have established and recognized the Academic Senate and
have vested in it certain powers, privileges and prerogatives relat-
ing to appointment, tenure and dismissal ; that, among other things,
a Standing Order of the Regents has conferred upon the Academic
Senate, subject to the approval of the Board, the power and duty
to determine the membership of the several faculties and councils
of the University; that a Standing Order of the Regents provides
that the President shall recommend appointments, promotions and
dismissals and that whenever such action aff'ects a professorial or
eciuivalent position, it shall be taken only after the President shall
have consulted with a properly constituted advisory committee of
the Academic Senate; that the Academic Senate, pursuant to au-

Appendix 29

few in number.^ For convenient reference, we now set
forth, seriatum, the substance of the denials and averments
of the Answer, followed, as to each, by statement of the
issue thus engendered.

thority vested ni it by the Regents, has adopted a resolution pro-
hibiting dismissal or demotion without hearing before the Com-
mittee on Privilege and Tenure, after the filing of written charges-
that the resolution of the Regents of the University of Aprir2li
1950, 'Svas based upon, intended to carry out and did in fact carry
out the recommendation of the Committee of the California Alumni
Association," as attached to the Petition as Appendix IV thereof;
that each Petitioner did petition the President for a review of his
case by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure ; that each petition
was granted; that each Petitioner did appear before the Committee
on Privilege and Tenure and was fully investigated; that upon the
conclusion of the investigation and hearing, the Committee sub-
mitted its findings and recommendations concerning each Peti-
tioner, which were favorable to each, recommending appointment
of each to his or her regular post on the faculty; that on July 21,
1950, the President recommended to the Regents the appointment
of Petitioners; that on that date the Regents adopted the recom-
mendation of the President; that Respondent Underbill has refused,
neglected and failed to transmit letters of appointment to Peti-
tioners (though not unlawfully) and will not do so unless ordered
to by this Court.

^The uncjualified denials are limited to denials: That any of
Petitioners is a member of the faculty (Answer, I) ; that Peti-
tioners have, or that any of them has, accepted alleged appoint-
ment or reappointment to the faculty or is a member thereof,
that- any Petitioner is or ever was ready or able or willing to
perform any of the duties incident to the alleged appointment or
reappointment (Ibid, V) ; that the action of Respondent Underhill
in not transmitting letters of appointment was unlawful, that at
the meeting of August 25, 1950, or at any other time or in any other
way the Regents unlawfully or otherwise refused to recognize any
right of Petitioners, that Petitioners or any of them have been
appointed to the posts claimed (Ibid, VI) ; that the allegations of
paragraph IX are true (except that it is admitted that Respond-
ent ITnderhill will not transmit letters of appointment unless
ordered to do so and it is also admitted that Petitioners have re-
ceived no compensation during the period stated), that Petitioners
are entitled to any compensation, that any conduct or action by the
Regents specified in paragraph IX or elsewhere was in any respect
arbitrary or unlawful (Ibid, VII) ; that the conduct specified in
paragraph XIII of the Petition or elsewhere is or was in any respect
unlawful, that the Regents have taken any action in conflict with
Article XX, Section 3, of the State Constitution (Ibid, IX).

]

30 Appendix

Answer. Paragrapli I denies that Petitioners are, or
that any of them is, a member of tlie faculty of the Univer-
sity of California or holds any right or position therein or
thereon. It avers that the Petitioners have not been ap-
pointed or reappointed to the faculty for the academic year
beginning July 1, 1950.

Issue. Were Petitioners, on the facts stated, duly ap-
pointed to their respective posts of Academic Senate rank
on the faculty of the University of California?

Answer. Paragraph II (responding to allegations of
paragraph III of the Petition concerning appointment, ten-
ure and dismissal) avers that the right of final determina-
tion in each case was and is vested in the Regents and that
no provision otherwise or granting any contrary power
has ever been made by any regulation or order of the
Regents.

Issue. What is the legal effect of the regental regula-
tions, resolutions and orders governing appointment, ten-
ure and dismissal of members of the faculty of Academic
Senate rank?

Answer. Paragraph III repeats, verbatim, the averment
of Paragraph II, adding only a special averment to the
effect that a certain specific resolution of the Academic
Senate set forth in paragraph IV of the Petition and at
page 9 of the Appendix thereto ''is not part of and has
not been adopted by any Standing Order or other order of
the Regents.'*

Issue. This is substantially the same as that precipi-
tated by paragraph II of the Answer, i.e., the legal effect
of regental and Academic Senate resolutions, regulations,
and orders governing appointment, tenure and dismissal
of members of the faculty of Academic Senate rank.

Appendix jj

Answer. Paragraph IV, directed to paragraph VI of
the Petition, avers that no reason considered valid or rea-
sonable by the Regents was submitted by any Petitioner to
the Connnittee on Privilege and Tenure or to the Regents
for failure or refusal to comply with the resolution adopted
by the Regents on April 21, 1950, and that the right of final
determination as to the appointment, tenure and dismissal
of each Petitioner is and was at all times vested in the
Regents ; that no provision otherwise has ever been made
by any regulation or order of the Regents and that the said
resolution provides that final determination with respect to
the employment of Petitioners and each of them is the pre-
rogative of the Regents.

Issue. What is the proper interpretation and effect of
the Regents* resolution of April 21, 1950 (Petition, Ap-
pendix III, p. 10)?

Answer. Paragraph V is an averment, coupled with
denials. The averment is that innnediately following the
''alleged appointment or reappointment of Petitioners on
July 21, 1950, a timely motion was made for reconsidera-
tion.'' The denials are that Petitioners were appointed or
reappointed on that day or at anv other time, that anv Peti-
tioner has accepted appointment or reappointment to the
faculty, or is a member thereof, and that Petitioners are
ready, able or willing to perform the duties incident to the
respective appointments or reappointments.

Issue. Are Petitioners lav/ fully entitled to the posts
they respectively claim on the faculty of the University
of California?

Answer. Paragraph VI, addressed to paragraph VIII
of the Petition, denies that Respondent Underhill unlaw-
fully failed to transmit letters of appointment to Petition-

f.

32 Appendix

ers. It denies that the Regents acted unlawfully on August
25, 1950, or that they unlawfully or otherwise refused to
recognize any right of Petitioners. It denies that Peti-
tioners were a])pointed to the posts that they respectively
claim. It avers that the Regents acted lawfully on August
25, 1950. It sets forth a provision of the Standing Orders
of the Regents relating to reconsideration and alleges that
such provision was duly met in connection with the recon-
sideration had on August 25, 1950.

Issue. Here, there is a framing of the crucial issue as
to the lawfulness of the action of Respondents.

Answer. Paragraph VII, addressed to paragraph IX of
the Petition, admits that Respondent Underhill will not
transmit letters of appointment unless ordered by the Court
to do so and admits that the Petitioners will not be paid
during the period stated in the Petition. It denies all other
allegations of paragraph IX of the Petition, denies that
Petitioners are entitled to compensation and denies that the
Regents have acted unlawfully or arbitrarily as specified in
paragraph IX or elsewhere in said Petition or otherwise.

Issue. Once more, there is a framing of the same cru-
cial issue as to the lawfulness of the action of the Regents.

Ansiver. Paragraph VIII, addressed to paragraph X of
the Petition, admits (we cannot resist commenting that it
boldly admits) that the fall semester at the University
began September 18, 1950. It denies all the other allega-
tions of paragraph X (the burden of such allegations being
as to the lack of a plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law),
avers that the Petitioners have an adecjuate remedy at law,
that the Court has no jurisdiction to control by mandamus
the actions of the Regents or grant the relief prayed and

Appendix 33

that the Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of
this proceeding.

Issue. The issue thus precipitated is whether or not
mandamus is the proper remedy and whether or not this
Court is here empowered to provide that remedy.

Answer. The final numbered paragraph, IX, directed
to paragraph XIII of the Petition, denies that the conduct
specified in that paragraph of the Petition or elsewhere is
or was in any respect unlawful. It further denies that the
Regents have taken any action whatsoever in conflict with
Article XX, Section 3, of the State Constitution.

Issue. Here, again and finally, the issue framed is the
basic one as to the legality of the action of the Regents in
denying Petitioners the respective posts they claim on the
faculty of the University of California.

It is thus apparent from careful measurement of the
Petition against the Answer (and no significant difference
would result from testing tlie Petition against the De-
murrer) that the one basic, clear and dominant issue pre-
sented for the Court's decision is whether or not, under
the facts and governing law, tlie Regents of the University
of California have acted lawfully in denying Petitioners
the respective faculty posts they claim.

II

PARKER PRINTING COMPANY

SAN FRAKCISCO

BULLETIN #1
October 26, 1950

GROUP FOR ACADEiVIC FREEDOM
Room 439 - Hotel Shattuck
Berkeley, California

STATUS OF THE FIGHT FOR FACULTY TENURE AND AUTONOMY
AT THE UNIVi^RSITY OF CiiLIFORNI/l

RECAP Twenty-five (25) members of the Academic Senate of the University of

California have been denied the right "to offer instruction or to perform any of
the other of the duties" of their positions (directive from President Sproul,
September 15, 1950), and have had their salary checks withheld since July 1,1950.
This is the result of the Regents* action of August 25, 1950 reversing the appoint^
ments to position made by the Regents on July 21, 1950. At the August meeting
Governor IVarren disapprovingly summarized the action as follows:

"V^e are discharging these people not because they are Communists, not
because they are suspected of being Communists, but because they are
recalcitrant and won't conform to the orders of this Board."

Eleven (ll) Regents, including Governor V;arren, Admiral Nimitz, and President
Sproul, opposed this arbitrary action. Twelve (12) Regents, headed by John
Francis Neylan, long-time Hearst attorney, and Lieutenant-Governor Goodwin Knight,
long-time V^arren foe, voted for the dismissal. The traditional hearing before
the Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure to consider the new charge of "non-
conformity" and "disobedience" was not extended to the offending faculty members.

Thus faculty autonomy and tenure were abrogated at the University of California.

•

TOLMAN et al. v. UNDERBILL and the REGENTS On August 31, 1950, eighteen of

the above 25 Senate members filed in the District Court of Appeal, State of Cali-
fornia, Third Appellate District, a petition for a writ of mandate requiring the
Regents to reinstate them and directing that the 10-day period of grace for sign-
ing set by the Regents (August 25) should. not expire until 10 days. after the
petition was acted upon by the Court. The Court accepted jurisdiction, issued an
order to the Regents to "show cause," and extended th^ 10-day grace period until
10 days after the Court rendered a decision. Preliminary hearings have been held,
and the next hearings (presumably final) are to be held early in December.

Pursuant to the Court order the 25 are not "finally" discharged. But by order of
the Regents they cannot perform the duties of their position nor receive compen-
sation. * •

The Court test may be decided on the narrow ground of the Regents' right to re-
voke an appointment once made or may be extended to the larger issues.

RECENT SENATE ACTIONS. ...*. .At a special session on September 26, 1950 the Senate
voted approximately two-to-one to adopt a resolution presented by Provost Emeri-
tus Monroe E. Deutsch which expressed heartfelt thanks to those members of the
Board of Regents who supported the faculty position and rebuked the bare majority
of the Board in the following terms*

1.

"That inasmuch as the majority of the Regents has grossly violated its
own resolution of April 21 and has moreover arbitrarily dismissed mem-
bers of the faculty, despite the fact that not one of them is charged
with being a Communist, and said majority has broken faith with the
Senate and has furthermore revoked reappointments lawfully made by the
Board, and has above all violated the principle of tenure, an absolutely
essential condition in a free university.

Therefore Be It Resolved: That the Northern Section of the Academic ^^
Senate condemns such acts on the part of the bare majority of the Board/

On the same date the Senate voted in approximately the same proportions to approve
a formal resolution urging its members to contribute financially to the support
of their colleagues whose salaries have been withheld by the Regents. Since then
a Faculty Committee on Financial Assistance has been organized to receive and
transmit funds to be used primarily for the direct personal maintenance of the
non-signers and their families.

On October 9, 1950 the Senate voted unanimously to invite the Committee on Privi-
lege and Tenure to make further review of the cases of the five persons whom the
Committee was unable to recommend favorably ("for lack of cooperation ) in its
report to the President of June 16, 1950 and expressed the "sincere hope that
through its efforts and recommendations these persons may be fully cleared of all
imputation of disloyalty and honorably restored to the enjoyment of their respec-
tive positions."

On the same date the Senate also voted unanimously to set up a special committee
to study tenure conditions and arrangements at the University of California and
elsewhere, and to bring back to the Senate recommendations to form the basis for a
tenure agreement. The committee was empowered to study only and not to negotiate
with either the President of the University or the present Board of Regents.

RECENT ACTIOKS BY PROFESSICKAL AND FACULTY GROUPS On September 6, 1960 the

American Psychological Association notified officials of the University that it
was recommending that its members decline offers of positions as teachers or re-
search personnel in the State University System of California until such time as
tenure conditions improve. The American Philological Association has taken a
similar course, and the American Mathematical Society has condemned the Regents
stand. Comparable action is known to be contemplated by other professional or-
ganizations.

The University of California Chapters (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara) of
the American Association of University Professors have requested an investigation
by the National Office. An investigation by Phi Beta Kappa also has been re-
quested.

The faculties of a number of colleges and universities have sent messages of en-
couragement and support. All these actions have contributed greatly to strength-
ening the determination of the Academic Senate to stand firm on the basic issues.

2.

I

JS

STATE LOYALTY, QATH. ....... In con^junction mth- civilian defense legislation Governor

Warren proposed a state loyalty oath late in September at a special meeting of the
state legislature. The legislation was passed and approved by the Governor on
October 3, 1950. The relevant provisions are:

CHAPTER 8. OATH OR AFFIBATICN OF ALLEGIANCE FOR CIVIL DEFENSE V.ORKERS
AND PUBLIC EI.:PL0YEES .

3100. It is hereby declared that the defense of the civil popu-
lation during the present state of world affairs is of paramount state
importance requiring the undivided attention and best efforts of our
citizens. In furtherance of such defense and in the exercise of police
power of the State in protection of its citizens, all public employees
are hereby declared to be civil defense workers subject to such civilian
defense activities as may be assigned to them by their superiors or by

law/ - ' . II •, ^

3101. For the purpose of this chapter the term 'civil defense^
worker" includes all public emplcyees and all volunteers in any civil-
ian defense organization accredited by the State Disaster Council.

The term "public employees" includes all persons employed by the State
or any county, city, city and county, state agency or public district,
excluding aliens legally employed.

3102. Subject to the provisions of Section 3 of Article XX of the
Constitution, all civil defense workers shall within the first 30 days
of employment take and subscribe to the oath or affirmation required

by this chapter.

3103. The oath or affirmation required by this chapter is as

follows: . , . J

"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and

defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of

the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic; that

I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United

States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take

this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of

• evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon

which I am about to enter. '

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor
am I a member of any party or organization, political pr otherwise,
that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States
or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful
means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of
. • this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or

organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of
the Government of the United States or of the State of California by
force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

[ " ' . (If no affiliations, write in the words 'No Exceptions*)

and that during such time as I am a member of employee of the r^^y^^ jf
. . I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or

public agency)

organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of
the Government of the United States or of the State of California , by
force or violence or other unlawful means."

3.

3107. No compensation nor reimbursement for expenses incurred
shall be paid to any Civil defense Tkforker by any public agency uiiless
such civil defense worker has taken and subscribed to the oath or
affirmation required by this chapter. It shall be the duty of the
person certifying to public pay rolls to ascertain and certify that
such civil defense worker has taken such oath or affirmation,

3108. Every person who, v.'hile taking and subscribing to the
oath or affirmation required by this chapter, states as true any
material matter which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury,
and is punishable by iirprisonment in the state prison not less than
one nor more than 14 years.

3109. Svery person having taken and subscribed to the oath or
affirmation required by this chapter, who, v/hile in the employ of,
or service with, the State or any county, city, city and county,
state agency, public district, or civilian defense organization ad-
vocates or becomes a member of any party or organization, political
or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the
United States by force or violence or other unlawful means, is guilty
of a felony, and is punishable by iirprisonment in the state prison not
less than one or more than 14 years.

Sec. 4. This act is an urgency measure necessary for the immedi-
ate preservation of the public peace, health or safety within the
meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate
effect. The facts constituting such necessity are:

IXiring the present emergency in world affairs loyalty and alle-
giance to the United States and the principles for which it stands
are of utmost irportance. Immediate assurance that persons in civil
defense are lo^-al to this government and are not in fact advocates of
its overthrow by force or violence is essential to the well-being of
the State and I'ation and the confidence of the people. It is therefore
necessary that this act take effect imirediately.

Following the a
would not autho
ployees unless
appeal for a ru
oath applied to
they must sign
C-ctober. Ircni
gents' contract

doption of this legislation the State Controller announced that ha
rize the payment -of salary checks to University of California em-
they complied with the previsions of the new legislation. Upon his
ling. Attorney General Fred Howser gave the opinion that the state

University of California regents, officers, and employees and that
before ITovember 2, 1950 in order to collect salary or expenses for
cally, this ruling does not extend to the non-signers of the Re-
, since they ar^ not on the payroll of the University.

At a special meeting called by President Sproul on October 18, 1950 the Academic
Senate, Northern Section, discussed the provisions of the legislation but ad-
journed without making any formal statement.

The Regents met on October 20 and discussed the situation created by the enact-
ment of a state oath. The following passage from the San Francisco Chronicle,
Saturday, October 21, is a factual account, including the heated atmosphere in
which discussion took place.

*At the beginning of the meeting. Board Chairman Edv/ard Dickson sug-
gested taking the oath en masse.

4.

the

Before risiixg, K«fMit John Francis Keyltn said: *I an delighted
to tfek© the oath, although I do not subscribe to the theory that it
has been prescribed either for the regents or the university. •

Resolutions adopted by the regents provided:

1. That the regents reserve their rights to seek a legal challenge
of tha requirements of the State oath of university enployees;

2. iiat officers, amployees, and others are 'requested* to sign
oath in order that they suffer no financial disadvantBge pending pos-
sible }egal action;

5. Hiat the U. C. cooiptrcller be authorized to set up machinery
to get signatures to the oath;

4. That the attorney for the board prepare a report and opinion
«s to possible legal action.

5, ^Rifet 'special cases.' people not signing, people absent from

ths State, etc., be dealt with by the finance conciittee of the regents,
ofi r«ooansndation of the comptroller.

6. Ihst a special loeeting of the regents be held next Friday in
San Francisco to consider the financial situation involved in the State

The State's order preciptsted angry discussion, in vjhich Regent
John Francis Keylan, who led the fight for the anti-Cornmunist clause
in university contracts, this time is leading the fight against the
State oath.

Only 14 of the 23 active regents -were present at the jaeeting.
ijnong those absent Tft^ere Governor Earl T^arren, and Speaker of the
Assembly SaiL Collir.

ISeylan iras e:

tic in his denunciation of the act creating the

leyalty oath and its imposition on the university.

1 T

t sets aside the university's independence and

nity, and

can later be invoked to destroy the university, ' he said,

I^ost of the re^ei^ZB agreed in the discussion that refusal to pay
salaries to people who did not sign the nein' oath would be a violation
of contract.

BensBt fiarl Fenston sug^rested that the State -re quired oath might
be a 'happy solution' for the long-standing dispute over the university
contract, since it was not aimed at university personnel alone. Regent
Sidney Ehrman demurred, saying that the present suit by 16 dismissed
professors skould first be decided as it was 'one of the most irg^ortant
in the histcjry of the university' in defining the regents' poTi'ers.
(The case is due to .co&e up in December.)"

In short, eereral of tiie fieescts oppose the state loyalty oath and, by implication,
may wish to provide financial support to those xDembers of the faculty who decline
to .sign it. The status of the original non-signers (class of '49) remains un-
ctoar-tti and the suit initiated by Professor Toljnan end his 17 colleeg'jes will
▼Igoriyusly be oontested br the BaesntB, thas tvrther attesting to its significance.

GROUP FOR ACkDmnC FruILXiiL This group is oamposed of all Berkeley and Santa

lara noQ-signers of the original Regents' oath and its contractual equivalent
hatw asitfeer resi^asd nor taken positions elsewhere. It maintains an office
one paid off lea enplofve. Steard C. ToliDan serves as Chaixsan and three mem-
bers, Brserster loflsracB.^ general office, Harold Lewis, financial, and Arthur

5.

Brayfield, inTormatiqri, conduct the day-to-day activities of the office. An Ex-
ecutive Comrittee considers general policy^ and the entire membership decides
major policy issuee.

The Group was formed late in June 1950 and became increasingly active during the
summer months. The following functions have evolved to date:

1. To provide direct financial support to members and their families.

2. To engage in a law suit aimed at restoring "ttie mrembers to their regular

University status.

5. Tc help to clarify the fundamental issues throu^ informational and legal

activities.

4. To serve as a "rallying point" for those individuals and groups '■dio are
oonoerned vrith the fundamental issues both locally and nationally.

The activities of this group to date have been made possible only throu^ the
generous support of friends throughout the nation. Despite urgent financial needs,
the most heartening response of all has been the messages of support and encourage-
ment addressed not only to the Qroup but also to the Senate, the President, and
the Regents. In addition, the Group has received financial assistance which has
im^ it possible to support some members since June and to issue October salary
checks to the membership who desired such aid. The Qroiap is hopeful that ttie pre-
sent financial campaign of the Faculty Committee will make it p(?BEible by Decem-
to relinquish this financial responsibility to the Committee.

Gifts from generous donors, and from oiie in particular, hav« im6» it possible to
retain outstanding legal counsel tc piirsue the court test. This financial obliga
tion will have to continue to be assumed by the Group until the courts hare ren-
dered a final decision. Legal action may continue throu^ early Spring.

Such financial support also has mt^ae it possible to engage in informational and
coordinating activities.

mFOBRljiTICBI The following publications furnish sound information on

troversy at the University of California t

con-

1.
2.

Z.

Vev.T of

the

Otth

fey

George Stewart. Doubleday, ifZ.

a pamphlet prepared 'by ei^rbeen prominent alumni

I5ay be ob-

' ■• r

names and DtciLgrounds of present

Includes

tained directly from the Qroup without charge.

The Fundamertal Issue by Ernst E. Kantorowics. This emiiieat his-
ToriL^ lit-i -^rtpir^'Z t penetrating analysis of the issues which would
be particularly helpful to faculties eljeifeere. liay be obtained
directly from ProfesBor Kantorowict-, 1421 Euclid iivenue, Berkeley 6,
California.

Petition for Y.rit of liar.dEte and Points and Authorities by Stanley

a full and accurate

A. "VVeigel^ iittorney for Petitioners, incluckes

transcript of the August 25 meeting of -ttie Be^eots. Beoauee of the

limited supply, the distribution must be restricted to representatives

of formal or informal groups, liay be obtained directly from the

(A contribution of >1.25 to make possible- further printings would be

appreciated).

6.

I I

^n^

HOVii YOU CiiK HELP ¥any of the persons to whom this Bulletin is eddressed have

given most generously of money, time, end energy. For this the members of the
Group are deeply grateful. "iVe have drawn strength from the knowledge that there
are so many others in all walks of life who are deeply committed to the ideals to
whioh we and our colleagues at California have given our allegiance. Your efforts
have sustained us.

It is gratifying that so many have written to ask how they can be of most help.
At this particular time we believe that individuals and groups can make their
greetest contribution in the follov.lng ways.

1. Engag-e in and encourage the fullest discussion of the fundamental issues.
Certainly the members of the Group will feel thfct the cause has best
been served if the public generally is alerted to the issues and comes
to understand more clearly than it now does the role of institutions of
higher learning in a democratic society and the safeguards which must be
built up around such institutions.

Contribute funds directly to the Group for the Functions described on
page 6. The next two Tt.onths will provide a severe financial strain. V.-e
anticipate an operating deficit of approximately ^4000 per month during
this period. Under the direction of one of the members of the Group, a
professor of accounting, adequate accounting procedures have been instal-
led so that v/e have a record of all receipts and disbursements. We expect
to use in full all gifts received.

Encourag-e the adoption by nori-pcllticE>l groQ^s of resolutions favorable
to the stanT"the non-s'lgners of the Academic Siiate have taken. Cop i e s
"ST such reBolun"onE should be sent to President Sproul, to Governor T.arrer;
and to the Group. The Group is able to facilitate their widespread dis-
tribution and appreciates having permission to do so. Vdthin the next
month the Group expects to publish selected resolutions and communica-
tions in pamphlet form. Such communications will be particularly helpful
in creating a "sympathetic climate of opinion" during crucial times ahead.
I'^aintain "eternal vigilance" in their own communities a^-ainst attacks

2.

S.

4.

w

'*.e regret that we and our colleagues
^rfesp the full significance of this ancient and honorable

upon free democratic ir-stl tut ions.

were" slow to

injunction.

Inquiries, copies of resolutions and gifts should be forv^'arded to the GKOUF FOR
ACaDEK'HC FREEDC^'i, Room 439, Eotel Shattuck, Berkeley, California.

Extra copies of this bulletin are available upon request. Please bring it to the
attention of other interested persons.

7.

I I

U.C. Loyalty Oath
Battle Starts Again

Await Court
Decision

1

The two year battle over
the University of California's
special loyalty affirmation
broke into the open again un-
expectedly yesterday at a
Board of Regents meeting
here.

A board majority voiod to
scrap the anti-Communist pledge,
only to have its decision delayed
by a warmly contested tactical
move.

AWAIT DECISION

Before the issue is joined again,
it was predicted, a decision
will come from the State supreme
court to clarify the contest but
not necessarily to end it.

The storm broke, when, to tbe
'obvious and vocal surprise of sev-
'eral among the twenty regents
present in the Crocker' Building,
'Repent Donald H. McLaughlin,
,a Warren appointee, offered a
I motion to obliterate the anti-Red
pledge for university .teachers |
and other university employes, i
It would depend, instead, upon'
the more stringent Levering anti-
subversive oath now required of
all State employes.

\DATE CHANGE

The State supreme court now
is studying five separate legal
suits to reach a ruling on both
Levering and university oaths.
The tribunal consolidated the
actions on its own volition.

Amid heated statements thai
sometimes involved personalities,
the board first voted. 12 to 8, to
consider McLaughlin's motion im-
mediately. Then by the same vote
it passed the motion. Rorro»,-
Brodie E. Ahl'^ort. of Los Ant
gained a delay by changifig his
"no" vote to "aye" and giving
notice he would move foi- recon-
sideration next month.

SPROLL BLAMED

The McLaughlin move took pro-
ponents of the loyalty affirma-
tion by surprise because the re-
gents had just adopted unani-
mously a conciliator^' resolution
offered by Regent John Francis
!^eylan to seek a solution of the
.oyalty issue and any other issue
that might arise between fac-
ulty and regents.

Neylan's resolution amended
the by-laws to provide that here-
after regents should have the
right to confer directly with the
faculty or representatives of the
faculty on any question and, in
turn, any faculty group delegated
by a vote of at 25 pet cent or
more of the faculty could carry
any problem directly to the re-
gents.

Heretofore any such approach
has been through President
Robert Gordon Sproul. who is
blamed by all of the loyalty af-

Continued on Page .9, Col. 7)

U. C. Loyalty Oath Dispute
Erupts AgamAmong kegents

^Continued from Page Our)
firmation proponents and many ploye of the State of California.

of the opponents for the entire
loyalty snarl.

It was Spi-oul who first pro

in or out of the university, except
those working on secret federal

posed surh .n orr V~' '-^nP^'^J^'^^' ^"^^ as scientists in the
In^^H ^ . a^t'^n^ation and cyclotron project at Berkeley

Ipeaded for its adoption. When' Before the meeting. President
h ran into opposition by a fac-|Sproul sent regents a confidentia
ulty group. Sproul tried to quash | letter. It reported forty-eight unT
the affirmation but the regents, i ^'f^^'sity employes, a tiny percent-
supported overwhelmingly by the i?^.? ^^ ^^^ ^"^^'"^ working force
'alumni, refused to back down \ff'„f ^".l'^" ^^^ ^^^^^^^y affirma-
Governor Warren had sup- TuLda; '^CSud:d^H^^^^'
ported the anti-loyalty oath teachers of UTe'st^J'"^^^^^
group in the regents and then "fte.^ lesser"^ instriciors and

had surprised everybody bv spon-
soring the hastily drawn ^Lever-
ing Act. which goes far beyond
the language adopted by the
regents.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Many lawyers expect the su-
preme court to knock out aH or
'^■"•t of the Levering Act as un-i
-titutional but to uphold the
right of the regents to impose'
a loyalty pledge. By his appoint- i
ments to the board of regent
since the oath controvery began ->
Governor Warren has taken com- n
mand of a majority of the board n
If the Levering Act is voided s'
by the supreme court, and ^
terday's action of the regent
reaffirmed at the next meet
the total rrsult will be no lovalu •
oath ov pffiv-nation for any - "

twenty other employes.

5^

P\R 75,1(3 1

/ic\

F^^n5l ilSiAciorvjia CcUtcM,(N\

S

"fj/U

•cm^wm^f^tt^^mft^'

viaaBgKWFWiwa^?-7^r.'g

?r>AA^ ' l(^

ou secA^iA' ^; \ja, j-\ej?^_dm^.

~s

A I

' /'

^

SECURITY MEASURES

AND

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

by

MARIE JAHODA
STUART W COOK

RESEARCH CENTER FOR HUMAN RELATIONS

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

316

THE YALE LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 61:295

!13

colleague who had been investigated : "It was an elderly lady about to retire.
She was accused of having belonged to organizations for helping the Negro,
aid to Spain, and other welfare organizations. She did this on a strictly
Christian basis with a Christian attitude of wanting to do good. There wasn't
anything political about it. She was completely panicked — afraid of losing
her retirement and too old to start over again on another job. She became
violently ill. The attitude of the loyalty board which heard her case was
very circumspect. It was a necessary procedure as far as they were concerned.
The case hung fire for over a year. The woman was given a hearing and
acquitted."

The punishment in this particular case was a year of personal agony and
damage to physical health. The fairness of the loyalty board could do nothing
against this punishment which preceded its final action.

Another respondent reports that a colleague '*who had been born in Russia
and came to this country at the age of twelve was asked to show cause why
he should not be suspended, with no recitation of precise charges. This man
hired an attorney at considerable expense. The charges against him we^c
then ascertained, satisfactory answers were given at a hearing and he was
cleared." In this case, as in others reported by respondents, a "fine" — the
fee for a lawyer — is added to the penalties incurred during investigation.
Apparently this financial burden leads many to feel that they cannot afford
to stay and contest the charges. In the hypothetical case asked about in the
interview, leaving the government at the first inkling of a possible charge was
recommended by a few respondents because of the expense. "I am thinking
of a stenographer with a family to support. It might be better for her to get
a job somewhere else, preferably when she receives a letter of inquiry before
actual charges are made." Actually the hiring of a lawyer is the most frequent
recommendation respondents offer to a friend under suspicion.

To the mental agony, the possible damage in physical health and the "fine,"
some respondents add another advance punishment : the loss of reputation.
One person commented that he knew of a case very similar to the hypothetical
one we presented : "We knew he wasn't guilty of anything, but he was scared
to death over being investigated, having investigators talking to neighbors
and friends who didn't know him too well. He decided to fight it. He was
losing money that way. After he was cleared, he found that some of the
people he was working with didn't trust him, simply because they had been
interviewed by the FBI and from those interviews got the impression that he
was guilty. So he quit the government after all and took an outside job."

Loss of reputation is said by other respondents not to be restricted to the
accused's present federal position : "Will an outside employer today hire a
man whose loyalty has been questioned? Even if cleared by the board he
might have a hard time to get other people to trust him."

Punishment preceding the final verdict of guilt is probably a frequent
occurrence in many legal procedures involving prolonged investigations before
a trial. But this factor is probably socially more powerful in loyalty and

1952]

SECURITY MEASURES

317

security investigations than in most court procedures, in part because the
number of innocent people involved in the former is many times greater than
is generally true for other legal cases,^^ and in part because the criteria for
determining guilt are less clear, thus increasing the uncertainty of the outcome
even for one who knows he is innocent.

The lack of relief from penalties following clearance

Many respondents maintain that not only are the penalties incurred during
investigation not undone in the cases eventually acquitted, but, what is worse,
clearance does not end the punishment. Talking about a colleague, one
respondent says: "He was cleared but he is always frightened that this thing
will be reopened and he will never know whether any charges of the same
type will be made again." Or, another case: "He was glad that he fought
it because in a sense he cleared his name. But at the same time even though
he was cleared there are some people who still react to him as though he
had not been cleared. The suspicions aroused during the investigation are
not easily erased by a loyalty board decision. The damage continues."
Another respondent remarks: "A lot of people think that even if you are
cleared you are left with a black mark." It is in this connection that the
phrase "where there is smoke, there is fire" is used by one respondent after
the other. It is said factually as a description of general opinion, or as an
expression of personal conviction, or with bitter resentment.

Several respondents comment that the repetition of the same charges after
clearance, frequendy in connection with a transfer from one department to
another, indicates the ineffectiveness of current procedures for clearance.
Here is one example: 'This person had a low-level professional job in a
non-sensitive agency doing statistical work. The material he handled was
not classified but actually published. This person had been accused once
before but had been cleared after a written explanation. More recently he
was again accused for basically the same reason, i.e., for once having lived
with a person now charged with being a communist. The accused hired a
lawyer at the expense of several hundred dollars and the case dragged on for
several months before a hearing was granted. During this period he was
continuously in a nervous state which affected the quality of his work.
Eventually he was cleared. Now he wonders when it will come up again."

In this context a remark by Kurt Lewin is appropriate. "Not present
hardship in the usual sense of the term, then, but rather certain aspects of
the psychological future and the psychological past, together with feelings of
being treated fairly or unfairly, are most important in determining the
amount of one's suffering."-^

19. According to an official statement, there are about 60 employees who are cleared
in full field loyalty investigations for every one who is not cleared. Only 1/2% of all loyalty
forms processed by the F.B.I, between March 1947 and September 1951 contained evidence
warranting a full field investigation. N. Y. Times, November 10, 1951, p. 32, col. 1.

20. Lewin, Resolving Social Conflicts 107 (1948).

f\\Z 19- \G

A

00

f Hi^F U9^ii-(cyoiMi'c7 ^(7(/er(-7c>ui

^

V.%.

1^1

\i

5(X- isy)e n^. q Male ^

_ /)"

q

1

;e^

REPRINT FROM

iWonatsiijefte
ftir Beutfcfjen ®nterrid)t

A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE TEACHERS
OF GERMAN IN THE SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES OF AMERICA

Published at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, Madison, Wisconsin

DIE DEUTSCH-AMERIKANER

2u dcm Buch von John Hawgood "The Tragedy of German- America''

Dieter Cunz
University of Maryland

Mehr und mehr beginnt man sich fiir amerikanische Immigrationsge-
schichte zu interessieren. Die Epoche der groBen Volkerwanderung nach
den Vereinigten Staaten ist zu Ende — das Quotengesetz von 1924 und die
erste passive Einwanderungsbilanz der letzten Dekade beweisen es. Er-
schopfend dargestellt ist diese Epoche, oder genauer: dieser Sektor der
amerikanischen Geschichte noch nicht. Doch es sind in den letzten Jahren
Anfange gemacht worden, die vorwartsweisend sind und die einen Faden
anspannen, der gewiB von vielen Handen weitergesponnen werden wird.^

V^oraussetzung dafiir ist, dafi zunachst einmal gewissenhafte Vorarbeit
ini Einzelnen geleistet wird, daB Monographien iiber die Einwanderungs-
geschichte einzelner Volksgruppen oder bestimmter Staaten — nicht nur
geschrieben— , sondern auch auf cineni hoheren wissenschaftlichen Niveau
gehalten werden als das bisher meistens der Fall war. Wohl kaum eine
andere amerikanische Einwanderungsnation hat sich so viel mit ihrer
eigenen Geschichte beschaftigt wie die deutsche. Trotzdem ist die
deutsch-amerikanische Geschichtsschreibung ein recht dornenvoUes und
steiniges Feld, auf dem nur wenig Blumen wachsen, an denen man seine
Freude haben kann. Die durchgangige Grundhaltung der meisten deutsch-
amerikanischen Geschichtsschreiber ist apologetisch. Aus dem Gefiihl
heraus, daB die Verdienste des deutschen Elements in Amerika stets un-
gebiihrlich vernachlassigt wurden, iiberhohen und iibersteigern sie nun
die Beitrage der Deutschen in einem solch haltlosen und marktschreieri-
schen Ton, daB einem jeden anstandigen Deutschen mitunter die Scham-
rote ins Gesicht steigen muB. Das macht so viele der alteren, oft von
Dilletanten geschriebenen, gut gemeinten, aber relativ wertlosen Mono-
graphien so unbrauchbar fiir jede Weiterarbeit, die versucht, wissen-
schaftlich zu sein, und sich jener „mesotes" befleiBigt, die Voraussetzung
ist fiir jedes historische Werk.

Glucklicherweise haben sich die Germanisten Amerikas von Zeit zu
Zeit dieses Gebiets angenommen. Das gnmdlegende Buch von Professor
Faust ist noch immer das unentbehrliche Hilfsmittel eines jeden deutsch-
amerikanischen Historikers." Daneben gibt es aber auch noch eine Reihe
sehr verdienstvoller Einzelarbeiten, besonders auf dem Gebiet, das die
Germanisten legitimerweise wieder durchaus als das ihre beanspruchen
konnen: der Geschichte des deutschen Theaters in einzelnen amerikani-
schen Stadten, (New York, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, New
Orleans, Baltimore u. a.).

DaB seit Kurzem von aussen her einzelne Abschnitte aus der Ge-

^ Carl Wittke "We Who Built America" (New York 1939). Marcus L. Hansen
■*The Adantic Migration" (Boston 1940).

=^ A. B. Faust "The German Element in the United States". Erste Auflage in zwei
Bandcn 1909. Neuauflage in einem Band 1927. (New York).

344

Monatsheftc fiir Dcutschen Unterricht

schichte des deutschen Elements in Amerika untersucht werden, darf als
besonderer Gliicksfall angesehen werden. Die Aussicht, die „Ressenti-
nientquote" (ob nun positiv oder negativ gewandt) zu reduzieren, ist bei
einem Aussenstehenden sicher groBer als bei einem Deutschen, einem
Amerikaner oder einem Deutsch-Amerikaner. Dies ist der Grund, wes-
halb hier einem kiirzlich erschienenen Buch eines Englanders, John Haw-
good, Professor an der Universitat Birmingham, besondere Aufmerksam-
keit geschenkt werden soU.^

Das Thema, das sich der Autor gesetzt hat, ist die Geschichte jener
breiten Gruppe deutscher Einwanderer nach Amerika, die nach ihrer
Landung weder reine Deutsche blieben, noch reine Amerikaner wurden,
sondern in jener eigentiimlichen Zwitterstellung verharrten, die man seit
Langem mit dem Namen „Deutsch-Amerikanertum" zu belegen gewohnt
ist. Es sei vorweg genommen, daB Hawgood sein Versprechen nicht rest-
los erfiillt. Deutsch-Amerikaner gab es, seiner eigenen Aussage nach, vor
1848 iiberhaupt nicht. Das Kemstiick seines Buches behandelt jedoch
Probleme, deren Losung in den dreiBiger und vierziger Jahren des vori-
gen Jahrhunderts zur Diskussion stand, und die um 1855 schon iiberholte
Anachronismen waren.

Im Zentrum seiner Betrachtungen stehen die Versuche zur Griindung
eines „Neu-Deutschland" auf amerikanischem Boden. VeranlaBt wurden
sie ebenso durch ideologische wie durch wirtschaftliche Griinde. Als sich
mit den Karlsbader Beschliissen die konservativen Regierungen Deutsch-
lands neu gefestigt batten, tauchte in vielen Kopfen der Gedanke auf, auf
dem jungfraulichen Boden Amerikas ein deutsches Staatsgebilde zu schaf-
fen, das frei war von politischer Unterdriickung und reaktionarer Polizei-
gewalt. Hinzu kamen okonomische Motive: tibervolkerung und Land-
hunger. So entstanden nach 1830 verschiedene Auswanderungsgesell-
schaften. Das Programm war, ein Stiick deutschen Lebens in die Neue
Welt zu verpflanzen, wo man unbehindert war von den politischen, sozia-
len und wirtschaftlichen Einengungen Europas. Das Entscheidende war
jedoch, die kulturelle und biologische Substanz dieser deutschen Siedler
rein deutsch zu erhalten, sie geographisch isoliert anzusiedeln, sie politisch
und okonomisch unabhangig zu machen, mit einem Wort: zu verhindem,
daB sie in dem Schmelztiegel zu Amerikanern umgeschmolzen wurden.

Der erste Versuch zur Grundung eines „Neu-Deutschland" wurde in
Missouri gemacht. Ins Werk gesetzt wurde er von der Giessener Gesell-
schaft unter der Fiihrung von zwei liberalen Burschenschaftlern, Paul Pol-
len und Friedrich Munch. Wie alle spateren utopischen Ideen eines Neu-
Deutschland, so schmolz auch diese erste vor der amerikanischen Realitat
sehr schnell dahin. Der Plan der Missourisiedlung wurde jedoch sehr bald
wieder aufgegriffen von der Philadelphia German Settlement Society, die
nach sehr sorgfaltigen Vorbereitungen tatsachhch eine Siedlung zustande
brachte, die noch heute existiert: Hermann in Missouri. (Es ist fiir den

* John A. Hawgood "The Tragedy of German-America". (G. P. Putnam's Sons,
New York 1941.) XVIII, 334 Seiten. Prcis $3.

Die Deutsch-Amerikaner

345

romantischen Geist dieser Untemehmungen durchaus kennzeichnend, daB
man einen Namen aus der urgermanischen Mythologie nahm.) Es zeigte
sich schon nach wenigen Jahren, daB das Experiment miBgliickt war, vor
allem dann, als das Kiiken kliiger zu werden begann als die Henne, d. h.
als die Siedler in Missouri und die Herren von der Siedlungsgesellschaft
in Philadelphia verschiedene Wege zu gehen begannen, und als die Ent-
wicklung der Siedlung durch wirtschaftliche und verkehrgeographische
Schwierigkeiten ins Stocken geriet.

Weit hoffnungsvoller lieB sich der Versuch an, der in den vierziger
Jahren in Texas, zu der Zeit ein Freistaat, untemommen wurde. Die An-
regung ging aus von ein paar kleinen deutschen Fiirsten, die sich im so-
genannten Adelsverein zusammenschloBen, um eine organisierte deutsche
Emigration nach Texas zu propagieren. tJber ihre Motive ist viel hin und
her geraten worden. Sicherlich stand bei den adeligen Herren das Motiv
einer liberalen Staatsgriindung nicht so sehr im Vordergrund wie bei den
revolutionaren GieBenern. Hawgood hat sicher Recht, wenn er die kom-
merzielle Seite der Sache unterstreicht; der Wunsch in dem neuzugriin-
denden Staat einen Absatzmarkt fiir die deutsche Industrie zu schaffen,
hat sicherlich mitgewirkt. DaB philantropische Motive hinzukamen, ist
gewiB, doch sind sie wahrscheinlich nicht so ausschlaggebend gewesen, wie
oft angenommen wurde. Wie auch immer: in den Griindungen in Texas,
New Braunfels und Fredericksburg, haben wir die erfolgreichsten und
dauerhaftesten Siedlungen vor uns, die auf dem Boden dieser Neu-
Deutschland-Ideen unternommen worden sind. Die Texas-Kolonie war
bewuBt auBerhalb des Bereiches der amerikanischen Union aufgebaut
worden. Es war dies ein so entscheidender Programmpunkt, daB die Griin-
dung — nicht in ihrer gesamten Existenz, aber in ihrer urspriinglichen
Konzeption als „Neu-Deutschland" — zusammenbrach, als Texas von den
Vereinigten Staaten annektiert wurde. Besonders aufschluBreich ist das,
was Hawgood iiber die Beteiligung Englands an der Texasgriindung sagt.
Es ist immer wieder behauptet worden, daB englisches Gold in der Kolo-
nie gesteckt habe, weil England in der deutschen Siedlung eine Barriere
gegen amerikanische Annexionsgeliiste gesehen habe. Hawgood hat alle
verfiigbaren Quellen untersucht und er entlaBt England vor dem histori-
schen Tribunal mit dem Verdikt „nicht beweisbar." Hawgood zeigt deut-
lich, daB die Interessen Englands und des Adelsvereins vollig parallel hefen
und daB der Adelsverein Versuche gemacht hat, England fiir den Fort-
bestand der Griindung zu erwarmen. Ob nun England die ausgestreckte
Hand ignorierte oder ob es so geschickt manipulierte, daB nie etwas von
der Sache heraus kam, ist nicht mehr zu beweisen.

Als Drittes untersucht Hawgood ahnliche Neu-Deutschland- Ver-
suche, die in Wisconsin eingeleitet wurden. Es ist nicht ganz ersichtlich,
warum, denn es stellt sich, bei Lichte besehen, heraus, daB es in Wisconsin
solche Griindungen expressis verbis nicht gegeben hat. Bei der friihen
deutschen Einwanderung spielt das religios-kirchliche Element eine ge-
wichtige Rolle und es iiberwuchert bei Lutheranem wie bei Kathohkcn

346

Monatshefte fiir Deutschen Unterricht

das deutsch-nationale Motiv. Nicht ein neuer Staat, sondern eine neue
Kirche sollte gegriindet werden, und wenn man ein gewisses Interesse an
der Erhaltung der deutschen Sprache hatte, so war dies nur akzidentiell;
fiir die Kirchenfiihrer war die deutsche Kultur unter den Siedlern niehr
Oder weniger ein Vehikel fiir die ihrem Herzen weit niiher stehenden
kirchlichen Belange. So kommt es in Wisconsin nicht zu einer exclusiven,
isolierten deutschen Siedlung wie in Texas, sondern zu einer zwar ver-
diinnten, dafur aber mehr gleichmassigen Durchdringung des Staates mit
deutschen Siedlern. (Naturlich war der deutsche Bevolkerungsanteil in
den verschiedenen Counties verschieden stark.) Die Deutschen waren die
ersten, die in Wisconsin die Vorherrschaft der eingeborenen Amerikaner,
die bis 1 848 das Territorium beherrschten, aus dem Sattel hoben.

Mk dem Beginn der funfziger Jahre setzt eine neue Epoche in der
Geschichte der Deutschen in Amerika ein. Etwa zur gleichen Zeit tau-
chen zwei Elemente auf, die hart aufeinander prallen: die amerikanischen
Nativisten, d. h. die Knownothings und die hberalen Fluchthnge aus
Deutschland, d. h. die Achtundvierziger. Aus diesem Zusammenprall ent-
stand das, was es vor 1848 nicht gab: die Deutsch- Amerikaner. Hawgood
macht es nicht ganz klar, ob die verschiedenen Versuche, ein exclusives
Neu-Deutschland zu griinden, der Grund war, daB sich die Angriffe der
amerikanischen Nativisten viel mehr gegen die Deutschen als gegen die
Iren richteten. Gerade zu dieser Zeit bekamen die Deutschen in den eben
eingewanderten Achtundvierzigern zum ersten Mai eine aktive, politisch
erfahrenc Fuhrung. Sie schloBen sich zusammen und machten ihren Ein-
fluB geltend in der jungen Republikanischen Partei und bei den Prasi-
dentenwahlen der funfziger und sechziger Jahre. Waren sie an sich schon
langsamer als die meisten iibrigen Einwanderer von dem Assimilierungs-
prozeB erfaBt worden, so wurden sie jetzt dutch die hitzigen Angriffe
der Nativisten auf diesem Wege noch zuruckgeworfen. Sie riegelten sich
ab, grundeten eigene Vereine, Kirchen, Schulen, Zeitungen, und errichte-
ten um ihre deutsch-amerikanische Eigenart einen Wall, der noch die
Assimilierung der nachsten Generation verhindern sollte. Voraussetzung
fiir den Bestand des Deutsch-Amerikanertums blieb jedoch eine unver-
minderte deutsche Einwanderung. Als darum gegen Ende des Jahrhun-
derts die deutsche Einwanderung hinter der neuen Immigration aus Italien
und Siidosteuropa zuriickzubleiben begann, zeigten sich bald die ersten
Risse im Gebaude, das dann wahrend des Weltkriegs endgultig zusammen-
brach. Die Aera des „Bindestrichs" (Hyphen-Americans) geht rund ge-
sagt vom Biirgerkrieg bis zum Weltkrieg.

Was ist nun nach Hawgoods Ansicht „das Tragische" in diesem gan-
zen ProzeB? Es ist dies, daB das Deutsch-Amerikanertum gewiBermassen
eine historische Anomalie ist, - daB sich auf Grund eines negativen Ge-
meinschaftserlebnisses (die Abwehr gegen den Nativismus) eine Gruppe
bewuBt der geschichtlichen Entwicklung entzogen und ein abgeschloBenes
Sonderdasein gefiihrt habe, das schlieBlich aufgegeben werden muBte, weil
man sich in gleicher V/eise der Entwicklung des Ursprungslandes ent-

Die Deutsch-Amerikaner

347

fremdet, wie der Kultur des Einwanderungslandes ferngehalten habe.
Hawgood macht die durchaus richtige Beobachtung, daB die Deutsch-
Amerikaner die Begriffe „Volk und Geist" besser verstanden hatten als
„Reich und Kultur", und wenn einige der alten Achtundvierziger im Bis-
marckreich die Erfiillung der Ideale der Paulskirche gesehen hatten, so
zeige das nur, wie weit sie sich von der deutschen Wirklichkeit entfernt
und wie wenig sie sie verstanden hatten. DaB noch heute in den Biblio-
theken deutschbesiedelter Gegenden mehr Nachfrage ist nach Romanen
im Stil des „Griinen Heinrich" als nach deutscher Literatur des 20. Jahr-
hunderts, zeigt wieder, daB gewohnlich das Mitgehen der Einwanderer
mit der Kultur des Heimatlandes dort aufhort, wo sie die Heimat ver-
lassen.'^

Die historischen Kapitel in Hawgoods Buch, die die verschiedenen
kolonisatorischen V^ersuche darstellen, ruhen auf solide gezimmerten Fun-
damenten. Bei den kulturkritischen, interpretatorischen Abschnitten kon-
nen wir jedoch nicht immer mitgehen. Assimilation ist, zumal in einem
Immigrationsland wie Amerika, nicht ein einseitiger, sondern ein wechsel-
seitiger Vorgang. Bis zu einem gewissen Grade formen die Neuankomm-
linge auch die Alteingcsessenen um, wenn auch dieser Vorgang sublimer
und nicht so aufFallend ist wie der umgekehrte ProzeB. Es fragt sich da-
rum, ob die Deutsch-Amerikaner in ihrer Resistenz nicht Werte kon-
serviert haben, die in langsamer Transformierung in die amerikanische
Zivilisation iibergingen, die aber bei iiberstiirzter Assimilation verloren ge-
gangen waren. Hawgood macht es sich auBerdem zu leicht, wenn er die
Deutsch-Amerikaner en bloc behandelt. Die verschiedenen sozialen Schich-
ten der Deutsch-Amerikaner haben auf den Anruf der Neuen Welt ver-
schieden geantwortet und sie haben, gerade was die Akklimatisierung
anlangt, durchaus nicht immer einheitlich reagiert. Die oberen Schichten
haben den Zugang zur amerikanischen Kultur viel rascher gefunden als
die iMittel- und Unterklassen, die darum viel 1 anger gezwungen waren,
ihre kulturellen Bediirfnisse aus dem vertrauten Kulturfundus des Mutter-
landcs zu decken. Es ist dies wahrscheinlich der Grund, weshalb das Kul-
turleben der Deutsch-Amerikaner meist einen solch provinziellen An-
strich hat. (Man sehe sich z. B. einmal die alten Theaterprogramme der
deutschen Biihnen in Amerika an.) Es liegt dies daran, daB die kulturelle
Oberschicht nicht mitmacht, das sie sehr viel friiher den AnschluB an die
Kultur der neuen Heimat findet. Solche soziologischen Gesichtspunkte
vermissen wir bei Hawgood. Sie werden nicht nur bei Hawgood, sondern
in der deutsch-amerikanischen Historiographie generell zu wenig beachtet,
und doch wiirden sie, trotz der Komplikationen, die sie mit sich bringen,
dazu beitragen, ein echteres und wahrheitsgetreueres Bild zu zeichnen.

Oberhaupt muB man eine gewisse Einschrankung bei der Lektiire
dieses Buchcs stcts im Auge behalten. Hawgood behandelt nur einen be-

* Professor F.rnst F'cise hat auf dicse intcrcssante Erschcinung schon friiher hin-
gewiesen in scineni erkcnntnisreichcn Aufsatz "Colonial Petrification", (German
Quarterly, May 1940, Vol. XIII, 117-124).

348

Monatshchc fiir Deutschcn Untcrricht

srimmten Ausschnitt der deutschen Einwanderung des 19. Jahrhunderts,
was er jedoch nicht immer nachdriicklich genug betont. Die allgemeine,
nicht organisierte Einwanderung war quantitativ und qualitativ viel wich-
tiger als alle Versuche der GieBener Gesellschaft und des Mainzer Adels-
vereins. DaB neben dieser in gut gezogenen Kanalen laufenden Kolonisa-
tion die „wilde" Immigration der Deutschen taglich weiterlief, die sich
um Neu-Deutschland-Ideologien und koloniale Absatzmarkte den Teufel
kiimmerte, daB es Tausende von Deutschen gab, die reibungslos den As-
similierungsprozeB durchliefen, hatte starker herausgestellt werden miis-
sen. DaB Carl Schurz ganz leise, so leise, daB es die Deutsch-Amerikaner
niemals gemerkt hatten, Deutsch-Amerika aufgegeben habe und Ameri-
kaner geworden sei, ist nicht richtig. Sie haben es wohl gemerkt und iibel
genug vermerkt.

Besonders Beachtung verdient dagegen ein Kapitel, das allgemein die
Sonderheiten der deutschen Einwandcrer charakterisiert. Hawgood hat
in diesem Abschnitt eine Menge von ungeheuer interessanten und teils
neuartigen Beobachtungen zusammengetragen: der Hang der Deutschen
zu Gruppensiedlungen (was dann spater wieder die AssimiHsation ver-
zogert), ihre VorHebe, im Wald und an Fliissen zu siedeln, ihre Angst,
sich in die groBen, baumlosen Ebenen hinauszutrauen. ErstmaHg hort man
die Behauptung, daB die Deutschen keine eigentlichen Pioniere gewesen
seien; ihr Sinn fur solide, intensive Landwirtschaft und ihre Abneigung
gegen Bodenspekulation stehen damit wohl in Zusammenhang. Fiir die
alte Immigration stimmt diese Beobachtung Hawgoods nicht; in der Sied-
lungsgeschichte der Deutschen ini Osten, New York, Pennsylvania, Mary-
land, Virginia, sind die Pioniere und ihr Karnpf mit der offenen Grenze
unbestreitbare Tatsache. Fiir den Mittelwesten jedoch mag Hawgoods
Aussage zu Recht bestehen, - er weiB es jedenfalls sehr recht uberzeugend
darzulegen. Auch H. L. Mencken hat den Deutsch-Amerikanern Wage-
mut und Abenteurerlust vollig abgesprochen.'*

Die Zeit von der Jahrhundertwende bis zur Gegenwart ist von Haw-
good nur sehr kurz abgetan worden. Hier schlieBt sich jedoch gewisser-
massen als Fortsetzung das Buch von C. J. Child an,« das die politische
Aktivitat des Deutsch-Amerikanischen Nationalbundes, besonders in der
kritischen Zeit des Weltkrieges, vor uns ausbreitet. „ . . . oder der Binde-
strich als tragisches Moment" konnte als Untertitel sowohl iiber dem Buch
von Child wie dem von Hawgood stehen. Konnen wir uns auch nicht
mit allem, was in ihnen gesagt wird, idcntifizieren, so soil doch voll und
ganz anerkannt werden, daB sic die w crtvollstcn Beitrage darstellen, die in
den letzten Jahren zu dem vernachlaBigten Gebiet deutsch-amerikanischer
Geschichtsschreibung beigesteuert worden sind.

s Vgl. Die Neue Rundschau, Band XXXIX, Teil 2, Scire 4S6 ff. (1928).

« Clifton James Child "The German-Americans in Politics 1914-1917", (Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis., 1939) ^93 S. 2.-. Das Buch bictet einc
vortreffliche Erganzung zu Carl Wittke: "The German-Americans and the World
War" (1936).

•

BUCHERBESPRECHUNGEN

War and the German Mind,

Wm. K. Pfeiler. Columbia Press, New
York, 1941. XX and 349 pp. $3-2 S

The foremost task of scholarship is to
investigate a given situation, unravel the
tangle of complications and come as close
as possible to the truth. It makes Httle
difif^rence to scholarship whether the
chosen field is far removed from present
day life or closely related to it, if only
the results bring us greater clarity and
better understanding.

Some ten years ago the world's best
seller in the book mart doubtless was Re-
marque's "All Quiet on the Western
Front". This novel, however, was just the
winner in a large field of entries. Fiction
dealing with the first world war had been
written from 1914 on, a considerable
amount during the war, not so much im-
mediately after the war, since shortly
after the great conflict tlie generals and
politicians deluged the public with their
memoirs. But from about 1925 on, the
soldiers who had fought the battles had
gained enough perspective in viewing the
events in which they had participated to
want to hear of them again and speak
about them. This receptivity explains the
vogue of war fiction a decade ago.

War novels were written in France,
Germany, England, the United States and
other countries. The German war novel,
however, won first place in importance
among its competitors. Why? The con-
sequences of the war - especially since
it was a lost war - showed up more in
Germany than in the other nations.

German scholars (Cysarz, Pongs, Lin-
den and others) endeavored to present a
critical picture of the above literary
phenomenon, but were only partially suc-
cessful, since they dealt with a topic
highly controversial in itself and ham-
pered by political restrictions. The task
of presenting a history of the German
war novel as objectively as possible fell
to an American scholar, Wm. K. Pfeiler
of the University of Nebraska, who after
ten years of research now offers us the
results of his investigations in his book
"War and the German Mind".

Much clearer than this somewhat sen-
sational title is the subtide: "The Testi-

mony of Men of Fiction who Fought at

the Front".

In order to furnish a background for
the German war stories Prof. Pfeiler de-
votes the first three chapters of his book
to a historical survey, tracing the changes
of the German mind from 1914 to 1938.
He points out that the Weimar Republic,
among other shortcomings, failed to win
the youth of the country and the good
will of the war veterans, because Ger-
many after 191 8 was led poHtically by
old men. Hitler and his followers fully
understood the spirit of the young people
and the psychology of the men who had
fought at the front, and when the Wei-
mar RepubHc failed economically in 1929
the road for National Sociahsm was open.
The chief objective of the book, of
course, is to arrange and interpret over
one-hundred war novels. Prof. Pfeiler has
succeeded in this to a remarkable degree.
Dividing the material into the two groups
of the "egocentric" and the "ethnocentric"
novel mav seem to be artificial and arbi-
trary at the first glance, but it serves a
useful purpose. The novel which extols
the individual and advocates liberty of
the person is called "egocentric" and un-
der this heading are included most of the
pacifist books. Opposed to the individual
is the "Gemeinschaft" with its collective
interests, and Prof. Pfeiler uses the term
"ethnocentric" to characterize the novels
which plead the national cause.

x\n attempt, praiseworthy indeed, has
been made to preserve chronology as
much as possible, and, deservedly, the
collected letters of students who fell in
the war (chapter 4) are mentioned first,
ft)llowed by two writers who gained the
car of the world during the conflagration:
Walter Flex and Fritz von Unruh (5).
Andreas Latzko and Ernst Junger as war-
time realists (6) are strange company,
while Dehmel, Garossa and Binding seem
to fit together better with their diaries
from the Front (7). Arnold Zweig is
given a separate chapter (8), and Re-
marque is treated with others in a chap-
ter entitled "Men of Feeling" (9). The
great number of authors who present
their war experiences as such are put into
a group called "Realists" (10). With
Franz Werfel's "The Forty Days of Musa
Dagh" (11) the "egocentric" novel reach-

292

Monatshefte fiir Dcutschcn Unterricht

es a climax. The "ethnocentric" type de-
veloped side by side with the latter but
assumed a greater importance with the
advent of the nationalist regime. It is
treated in several chapters: "The People
in Battle" (12), "The Vision of the
Reich" (13), "The Soldier and His Com-
rades" (14), and "The Soldier and His
Leader" (15). In the last chapter (16)
the experiences of prisoners of war are
told.

An interesting survey covering the
"Stand der Forschung" is added as ap-
pendix; it might have been more illumi-
nating at the beginning of the book as
part of the preface.

Considered as a whole, the book views
with great clarity a segment of "Zeitge-
schichte" as seen through the eyes of
fiction writers and should serve as a re-
liable guide to all readers who wish to
venture into that special field.

Having a presentation of the German
war novel, we now need an investigation
of the "Kriegslyrik", because poems show
how the people experienced the war,
while the novels express more what the
people thought about it later. It would
be interesting, too, to learn how far the
German drama dealing with the war
complements the novel and the lyric
poetry.

Our wishes might even go further and
ask for a comparison of the German war
literature with that of other countries.
In fact, the war influenced all the arts,
the most visible testimony being the war
monuments which were erected in differ-
ent countries. A revealing study could
be made of them by an art historian.

But to come back to Prof. Pfeiler's
book — one must not forget the friendly
foreword by Pres. George N. Shuster,
the extended bibliography and the excel-
lent index, which add so much to its use-
fulness. The workmanship by the Co-
lumbia University Press is above criticism
and only a few misprints were noticed.
On pages 306 and 332 the name of Prof.
Sophus Keith Winter should be spelled
Winther.

Hermann Barmtoff

University of Missouri.

Anfange deutscher Geschichtsschrei-
bung,

Friedrich Giindolf. Verlag Elsevier, Am-
sterdam, — N ordeviarin, New York. 1939.
Pp. i-]6. 5.—

Das vorhegende Buch, das der groBe
Heidelberger Gelehrte im Friijahr 193 1

kurz vor seinem Tode bcgann und das
erst nach fast einem Jahrzchnt von Elisa-
beth Gundolf und Edgar Wind aus dem
NachlaB herausgegcben wurde, ist nur
cin Fragment, — nur die Einlcitung zu
einem groBen VVerk, das den Titel fiihren
sollte„Deutsche Geschichtsschreibung von
Herder bis Burckhardt." Sclbst diese Ein-
lcitung ist nicht mehr ganz vollstandig;
sie bricht bei der Darstellung J. J. Win-
kelmanns. Herders unmittelbarem Vorlau-
fer, ab.

Es mag auf den ersten Blick seltsam
erscheinen, daB ein Literarhistoriker ein
so groB angelegtes Werk iibcr Geschichts-
schreibung geplant hatte. Aber wer mit
Gundolfs Gesamtwerk vertraut ist und
die umfassende Universalitat dieses Man-
nes kennt, wird sich nicht wundern, daB
er hier mit kiihnem Schritt in ein Nach-
bargebiet wandert und zeigt, daB er hier
ebenso zu Hause ist wie die Historiker
vom Each. Freilich, es muB gleich ge-
sagt werden, daB Gundolf bei dem Wort
Geschichtsschreibung den Ton auf die
zweite Halfte legt, daB bei seiner Unter-
suchung mehr das Wie als das Was im
V^ordergrund der Betrachtung steht. Von
der Geschichtswissenschaft aus ist man
selten mit asthetischcn AlaBstaben an die
Historiographie herangegangcn, zumal es
den Historikern in friihercn Zciten ver-
diichtig, in unseren Tagen iiberfliissig er-
schien, Wahrheitswillen mit Schonheits-
willen zu verbinden; noch im 19. Jahr-
hundert galten in der historischen Zunft
gutschreibende Historiker als suspekt: ein
Marburger Professor wollte Mommsens,
selbst Rankes Werke nicht in die Biblio-
thek aufnehmen wegen allzugroBer Schon-
gcisterei. In der Wisscnsschaftsgeschichtc
unscres Jahrhunderts waren der neue Stofl^
und die neue Methode gewohnlich die
WertmaBstabe fiir die Beurteilung histori-
scher Literatur. Gundolf will diese AlaB-
stabe nicht vollig umwerfen; aber er will
Geschichtsschreibung auch ansehen als
einen Teil der Literatur, er will die His-
toriker auch ansehen auf ihre bildschaf-
fende Kraft, auf ihre Gabe, Geschichte
sprachlich kund zu tun.

Gundolf zeigt einleitend, daB den deut-
schen Historikern diese Gesichtspunkte
durchaus nicht fremd waren: das beweist
die Intensitat, mit der sich alle groBen
Historiker an die antiken Autoren als
stilistische Muster und Mcister gehalten
haben. Alle entscheidenden deutschen
Historiker der letzten beiden Jahrhun-
derte, von Herder und Johannes von
Miiller bis hin zu Ranke und Jacob

V

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE

M. BLAKEMORE EVANS: Ph.D. Bonn 1902. Professor, University of Wisconsin
1903-1911; professor and chairman, Ohio State University since 191 1. Principal
field: Older German Drama. An Historical a?jd Critical Introduction to the Lu-
cerne Passion Play in press as a volume of the Monograph Series of the Modem
Language Association of America.

ERNST FEISE: Ph.D. Leipzig 1908. University of Wisconsin 1908-1917; Colegio
Aleman, Mexico City 1920-1924; Ohio State University 1924-1927; The Johns
Hopkins University since 1927; Director, Aliddlebury College School of German
since 193 1.

A. R. HOHLFELD: Ph.D. Leipzig 1888; Honorary Degree Doctor of Modern Lan-
guage, Middlebury 1938. Vanderbilt University 1889-1901; University of Wis-
consin, chairman department of German 1 901 -1936. Emeritus since 1936. Presi-
dent A4odern Language Association 191 3. Publications in German hterature, espe-
cially Goethe.

FRANK O. HOLT: Ph.B. 1907 and Ph. M. 1921 University of Wisconsin; D.Ped.
1933 Milton College. Superintendent of schools at Sun Prairie, Edgerton and
Janesville, Wis. Registrar of University of Wisconsin 1927-1935. Dean of Uni-
versity of Wisconsin Extension Division since 1935. Past president of Wisconsin
Education Association, director of University of Wisconsin Alumni Association,
member of Madison City Board of Education, and since its creation, chairman of
University Public Relations Committee.

BAYARD QUINCY A10RGAN: Ph.D. Leipzig 1907. University of Wisconsin 1907-
1934; professor of German and chairman of department, Stanford University.
Publications include: scholarly studies, textbooks, methodology, anthologies, trans-
lations, reviews, etc. Magnum opus: Critical Bibliography of German Literature
in English Trajislation 192 2- 1938.

HENRY W. NORDMEYER: Studied in Leipzig (Sievers, Witkowski, Lamprecht,
VV^undt) 1910-1913; Ph.D. Wisconsin 1914. Professor of German and chairman
of department, University of Michigan.

EDWIN ROEDDER: Ph.D. University of Michigan 1898; Litt. D., ibid, 1939; Ehren-
biirger of the University of Heidelberg 1933. Assistant in German, University of
Michigan 1895- 1896; teacher of modern languages and history, Jarvis Hall Military
Academy, Montclair, Colorado 1896-1897; member of German Department, Uni-
versity of Michigan 1897-1900; University of Wisconsin 1900- 1929; head of Ger-
man department, City College, New York, since 1929. Author of Das siidivest-
deutsche Reichsdorf,' La.hr, 1938; Volksprache und Wortschatz, New York 1936,
and numerous contributions to Germanic periodicals.

DETLEV W. SCHUMANN: Studied at Universit>^ of Berlin. Ph.D. in German
Literature from Hamburg 1923. Came to United States in 1926. Associate pro-
fessor of German Literature at Brown University at present.

OSKAR SEIDLIN: Ph.D. Basel 1935. Assistant Professor at Smith College. Publica-
tions: Otto Brahm als Theaterkritiker 1936, a volume of poetry, and two novels
for children (German editions published in Switzerland, English editions in
America). Contributed to various periodicals. At the present time serving with
the United States Army.

W. F. TWADDEL: Ph.D. Harvard 1930. University of Wisconsin since 1929; chair-
man since 1936. Publications in American and European Linguistic Journals.

ROBERT H. WEIDMAN: Ph.D. University of W^isconsin 1938. Swiss-American
Exchange Fellow at University of Zurich 1931-1932; studied at University' of
Munich 1932-1933. Instructor in German and French at University of Wisconsin
in Alilwaukee 1936- 1940; Assistant Professor since 1940. Author of "The Ortho-
graphic Conflation of Nominal Compounds in AIHG" in Corona (in honor of
Samuel Singer 1941), "Nominal Compounds in AIHG" in The Journal of English
and Germanic Philology, July 1941.

Biicherbesprechungen

293

Burckhardt wollten nicht nur neue Tat-
sachcn zu Tage fordcrn, sondcrn cbcn
auch als Historiker die dcutsche Sprache
kunstvoll mcistcrn und wciterbilden.

Gundolfs Obersicht beginnt mit dcni
Ausgang dcs Mittclaltcrs, d. h. mit dem
Endc dcs 15. Jalirhunderts. Dabei fallt
es sehr bald auf, eincn wie wescntlichen
Bcitrag zur deutschcn Geschichtsschrei-
bung die Schvveiz geliefert hat. Der Titel
des Gesamtwerkcs deutet schon darauf
bin, daB Gundolf in dem Schweizer Jacob
Burckhardt den Endpunkt der groBen
deutschen Geschichtsschreibung sah. Und
ein anderer Schweizer, Johannes von
Miillcr, wird bier von dem barren und
ungerechten Verdikt, das oft iiber ihn
gesprochen wurde, rehabiHtiert als Ran-
kes nachster und groBter Vorganger, als
„der Begriinder der zugleich vvissenschaft-
lichen und kiinstlerischen Geschichts-
schreibung". Doch schon lange vor Miil-
ler regte sich in der Schweiz der Sinn
fiir Geschichtsschreibung; Gundolf legt
es ausfiihrlich dar und beweist es vor
allem an der Figur des Aegidius Tschudi,
dessen kiihle und ruhige Objektivitat in
der deutschen Geschichtsscheibung des
16. Jahrhunderts kaum eine Parallele hat.
Nicht die Geschichtsforschung, son-
dern die Geschichtsschreibung ist fur
Gundolf interessant. Darum legt er soviel
Nachdruck auf den groBten Historiker
der Lutherzcit Sebastian Franck (1499-
1545). Gundolf weiB sehr wohl, daB
Franck nicht der Historiker par excel-
lence ist, daB ihm Sammeleifer und Sto-
berfreude vollig abgehcn, doch entschei-
dend ist, daB bei ihm als einem der ersten
das Prinzip der Deutung erscheint, daB
nicht der Figenwert, sondern der Zeichen-
wert der Fakten ihn Geschichte schreiben
heiBt, daB er die Ereignisse transparent
zu machen und in einen groBen Bogen
einzuordnen versucht. Und darum auch
ist ein Alann wie Sebastian Franck fiir die
Entwickung des deutschen Geistes wich-
tiger als die zahllosen anderen, viel ge-
wWnhafteren Polyhistoren und Ge-
schichtsschreiber zwischen Franck und

Herder, darum ist er weit bedeutsamer
als der beriihmteste Gelehrte des 17.
Jahrhunderts Samuel Pufendorf samt An-
hangern, die bei all ihrem wackeren
SchulmeisterfleiB keine Ahnung batten
von dem Kraftewandel, der sich in den
Geschichtsereignissen niederschlagt. Un-
wichtig in diesem Zusammenhang sind
darum auch all die groBen Sammelwerke
und Kollektivarbeiten, glcichgiiltig ob sie
im 17. Oder im 20. Jahrhundert entstan-
den, unwichtig ist die ganze historische
Literatur des 17. und beginnenden 18.
Jahrhunderts, der moralische Unterwei-
sung wichtiger war als eigentliche Ge-
schichtserkenntnis, (J. J. Mascov, H. v.
Biihnau u.a.). Der einzige, der in dieser
stagnierenden Zeit den von Franck begon-
ncnen Faden weiterspinnt, ist Gottfried
Arnold mit seiner groBen „Unparteyi-
schen Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie"
(1800), einem riesenhaften Traktat, zwar
behaftet mit alien Schlacken seiner Zeit,
doch getragen von dem Geist christlicher
Toleranz und von der Idee einer aufge-
klarten Humanitat. Damit kommt Gun-
dolf auf den Hohepunkt seiner Darstel-
lung, zum letzten Kapitel seiner Einlei-
tung, das einzig dem Namen Johann Joa-
chim Winkelmann gewidmet ist. Hier ist
die Stufe crreicht, auf der Herder seine
groBe fruchttragende geschichtsphiloso-
phische Konzeption aufbauen konnte. Mit
Winkelmann erhebt sich „die Geschichts-
kunde zur Geschichtskiindung."

Mitten in dem Winkelmann-Kapitel
bricht Gundolfs letztes Werk ab. Es ist
trotz seines Fragmentcharakters eines der
mitreiBendsten und aufschluBreichsten
Biicher, die es iiber deutsche Historio-
graphie gibt. Es besticht ebenso durch
den einheitlichen GuB der Darstellung,
durch den ausgefeilten und abgewogenen
Stil wie durch die crstaunliche Sach-
kenntnis und Materialtreue. Es bestatigt
aufs Schonste Gundolfs eigenes Wort,
„daB die echten Seher der Welt auch
immer ihre griindlichsten Kenner waren."

—Dieter Cunz

University of Maryland.

Effective with the October, 1942 issue, the

MONATSHEFTE FtJR DEUTSCHEN UNTERRICHT

will discontinue club rate subscription with the GERMAN QUARTERLY.

The annual subscription price of the Monatshcftc is $2.00 (eight issues) ; 30c single issues.

Mail subscriptions to:

MONATSHEFTE FCR DEUTSCHEN UNTERRICHT
87 Bascom Hall Madison, Wisconsin

^^ 1X\G

'I I n

1

B V i/l St ^9 U ^C^CTwiCl Col Uir^CAA

£ '^9/

>' P\ M^v^ria( ^f

/ (-fSl^vj2// J^U-k^^'OVSiCT

\

^Lo^

A Memorial of Anai ("Esther") Kantorowicz (c. 1904-1944) by
Kaete Ledermann, 1954 (photo 1942/3), in the
Ernst Kantorowicz Collection, Box 5, folder 1, Leo Baeck
Institute, 129 East 73 St., New York, NY 10021
[The ins is a photocopy of a typewritten copy (hard to read).
It appears to me that Kaethe Ledermann 's manuscript was
typed by somebody else. Some words seem to have been
misread, for instance, on p. 5 where it should read
"Maechte" instead of "Maedchen." The illegible noun in front
of it might be "Daimon" or "Daemon." Clearly, Ledermann's
text was not revised. Syntax and vocabulary are
idiosyncratic and may show Hebrew and/or English influences.
This does not detract from the powerful and moving statement
it is. Most remarkable, the text is reminiscent of a
medieval hagiography. G. Roth]

Postscript March 5, 1994. I thank Mr. Daniel Levy for
checking Hebrew and/or geographical terms. G. Roth

Esther in Freundschaft

zu ihrem 50. Geburtstag und

20jaehrigem im Landesein.

Ein anderer Mensch haette wohl mal gefragt, wer seine
Eltern seien. Angi hat eigentlich nie sich darum gekuemmert
und die Erklaerungen glaeubig hingenommen. Ihre Mutter,
Kunsthistorikerin, Dichterin, dem Stefan George Kreis und
seinen innigsten Freunden nah befreundet, Gundolf , Margarete
Susmann, war Studentin des Nationaloekonomen Professor der
Universitaet Georg Simmel. Spaeter uebersetzte sie Bergson
ins Deutsche und arbeitete auch mit Simmel gemeinsam. Sie
war ganz jung, als sie in Posen, wo ihre Eltern eine grosse
Likoer-und Schnapsbrauerei hatten, nach Berlin kam: es war
wohl fuer damalige Verhaeltnisse etwas Aussergewoehnliches,
dass ein junges Maedchen allein zum Studium faehrt, durch
ihre ungeheure geistige Intensitaet und Lebendigkeit hat sie
sich sofort den Weg gebahnt. Nach seinen Worten hat Simmel
"7 Jahre um sie gedient wie Jaakov um Rachel." Die Liebe
zwischen beiden war sehr gross, so wenig sie es nach aussen
zeigen durften, sie lief en sich im Sturm entgegen, wenn sie
sich nur treffen durften. Spaeter hat Angi's Mutter, als
Freundin des Hauses, sie auf alien Reisen begleitet, war mit
dem Sohn Hans Simmel, befreundet, und wohl kaum ein Mensch
wusste, wie innig die Liebe zwischen den beiden war. Als sie
schwanger war, fuhr sie nach Italien, etwas fuer sie nichts
Aussergewoehnliches, eine Kunstreise, wie sie viele machte,
zumal sie ein Buch ueber die Sixtinische Kapelle schrieb.
Sie sagte Angi's Vater nichts, und er erfuhr es erst im
letzten Moment. Dieses Geheimnis allein tragen zu muessen
und die Verantwortung fuer das Kind und den Mann war wohl
das Schwerste, was sie zu bewaeltigen hatte, fuer sie war es
nur moeglich, auf das Kind zu verzichten, das heisst von

Ferne an seiner Entwicklung teilzunehmen . Sie gebar es in
Bologna, nannte es Maria Angela Bolzana und liess es als
Findelkind einschreiben . Nach wenigen Wochen, nachdem sie
das Kind untergebracht hatte, fuhr sie zu ihren Eltern in
die Schweiz, ohne auch nur das Geringste zu verraten .
Spaeter brachte sie dann Angi nach Belgien, wo sie dann
fuenf Jahre blieb. Sie war bei einer katholischen aelteren
Buergersfrau, die sehr einfach war und Angi ungeheuer
verwoehnte und verzaertelte. Sie bekam alles, was sie nur
wollte, und wenn es nicht genau nach ihrem Kopf ging, warf
sie sich auf der Strasse hin . Einmal im Jahr kam die Mutter
sie besuchen, sie nannte sie "marraine", Patin, im Gegensatz
zu ihrer Tutta, der Erzieherin; einmal sah Angi ein Bild an,
einen Soldaten mit dem Schwert. Da sagte sie, sie moechte
auch so sein, und die Tutta erwiderte, so darfst Du nicht
sein, Du bist ein kleine Maedchen, und nur Maenner muessen
stark und tapfer sein. Als die Mutter diese Erklaerung
hoerte, beschloss sie sofort, das Kind von dort
f ortzunehmen , wo keine heldenhafte Erziehung dem Kinde
zuteil werden konnte. Das war bezeichnend fuer die
Einstellung der Mutter; das Wichtigste: das Heldentum und
der Adel. Angi wurde bis dahin streng katholisch erzogen,
brachte immer der Mutter Maria weisse Rosen, das stoerte die
unreligioese Mutter nicht.

Sie brachte sie nach Marburg zu einer Frau Meren
[Maren?]. Diese Pflegemutter hat fuer Angi's Entwicklung die
groesste Bedeutung, ich glaube, es war fast der wichtigste
und von ihr geliebteste Mensch. Frau Meren war Lehrerin,
eine sehr schoene, schlanke Erscheinung, fromm christlich,
sehr gebildet und tolerant. Als junge Lehrerin war sie
Erzieherin bei den Kindern eines Arztes und zwischen beiden
war eine grosse Liebe. Da der Arzt sich von seiner Frau
nicht trennen wollte, ging sie als Hauslehrerin nach Japan
auf mehrere Jahre und hat dort viel Interessantes gesehen.
Als sie zurueck kam, war inzwischen die Frau des Arztes
gestorben, sie heiratete den damals schon sehr kranken und
um viele Jahre aelteren Mann. Sechs Jahre lebte sie noch in
grossem Glueck mit ihm, gebar einen Sohn, Ernst Meren, und
dann starb der Mann und sie blieb mit dem fuenf jaehrigen
Kind zurueck. Sie wollte ein zweites Kind zu sich nehmen zur
Erziehung mit dem eigenen und auch um sich ihre Situation
etwas zu erleichtern.

[S. 2] Als Angi nach Marburg kam, sprach sie nur
franzoesisch, war sehr verwoehnt und unendlich traurig und
voller Heimweh nach Belgien. Den ganzen ersten Monat hoerte
sie nicht auf zu weinen, und das einzige was sie ablenkte,
waren wunderschoene Maerchen, die ihr die Pflegemutter
stundenlang erzaehlte. Wenn sie eines beendet hatte, sagte
Angi: encore une histoire, und dann folgte die zweite.

Allmaehlich vergass sie die belgische Zeit und
befreundete sich mit der Pflegemutter und ihrem Bruder. Die
ersten zwei Schuljahre unterrichtete die Pflegemutter sie
selbst, in einer kleinen Gruppe von drei Kindern. Alles was
mit der Pflegemutter in Beruehrung kam, lebte fuer Angi und

war eine ruhige stille Freude. Diese Frau, die damals wohl
schon grosse Sorgen hatte und ein einsames Leben fuehrte,
verstand es, iede Minute, die sie mit den Kmdern
verbrachte, zu einem Fest zu gestalten. Das Einkaufen, der
Mutter den Korb tragen duerfen, das gemeinsame Kochen und
Ranken alles waren wichtige Ereignisse in Angis Tag. Die
KiSng am lonntag, das feierliche in die ^irchgehen die .
herrlichen Ausfluege in die Dairaranuehle, die einige Stunden
weit von Marburg entfernt war, und das Pilzsuchen, bei denen
sie iedes Pilzchen unterscheiden lernte. Am Abend, wenn die
Sonne unterging, durfte Angi noch lange vor dem Hause
spielen, und dann war sie so gluecklich ueber die
Schoenh4it, dass sie ganz laut schreien musste. Mit dem
Inegebrid4r verband sie eine eigene Phantasiesprache und
qrollrpapierpuppen, Robote, die ihr eigenes Leben fuehrten.
I£e? Ichoener als aile Spiele mit Kindern w^^. ^^^^^f ^^J^'
wenn ihr die Pflegemutter von ihrer ^^^^^f ^indheit und
Jugend erzaehlte und von Japan. Jedes Wort und Gedicht hat
sie sich bewahrt und die Zeit der frueheren Jugend ist fuer
inai die zlildes vollkommenen Gluecklichseins gewesen, dies

wonach sie immer Sehnsucht hatte, wie das ;{^^l°^^f • ^.^^^en
Paradies blieb ihr die Marburger Zeit m dem sehr emiacnen
Kuf Sinnbild des erfuellten Lebens, des ^eichtums derer ,
die sich bescheiden koennen. Esist also auch nicht
verwunderlich , ^ass Angi sich nieerkundigt hat wer^

Nam^r dln'in lem ^einerstaStchen^niemand. verstand, aber
ha?S'im Grinde nie das Gefuehl der Andersheit, wie es viele
iuedische Kinder im christlichen Milieu hatten, sie war
JoIlUg zugehoerig zu diesem Hause und glaubteohne ^eden
Zweifel, dass beide Eltern bei einem Erdbeben m Italien
umgek™n seien und eine Verwandte, die Mutter (genannt
P^tin^ sich urn ihre Erziehung kuemmerte.

IkglsVaTer starb 1917 [1918]. Die Mutter ging damals
nach Konstantinopel als Krankenpf legerin ^':;d hat dort
Grosses geleistet. Spaeter arbeitete sie in Berlin in der
wohnungsfuersorge. Sie hatte sich im Felde mit einer
adeliaen Krankenpf legerin innig befreundet und beschloss
stleter ein HaSlin der Naehe von Ulm mit ihr zusammen zu
klu?en in diesem sehr schoenen Landhaus in Herrlingen waren
viele bedeutendlMenschen zu Gast, alles Freunde der Mutter,
ein groSr K?eis sehr kultivierter und gebildeter Menschen.
Ms die Mutter das Haus so schoen und reich emgerichtet
halte seSnte sie sich doch nach ihrer Tochter und sie lud
sie zu den grossen Ferien ein. Angi fuhr ungern fort von
Marburg und fuehlte sich auch fremd in dieser reichen
buerqe?lich gerichteten Atmosphaere, und auch ^le sehr
heftige! intensive Mutter war ihr fremd. Amende der Ferien
sa§te^Iie ihr, dass Angi nun in Herrlingen bei ^hr bleiben
wuerde und in Ulm aufs Gymnasium gehen [solle]. Das war ein
grosser Schlag fuer die arme Angi; sie war furchtbar
?erzweifelt, dass sie oft Fl^chtplaene schmiedete und sehr
an der Sehnsucht nach der geliebten Pflegemutter litt Auch
das durchgeistigte Milieu war ihr fern. Dazu kam, dass sie

- . "

sie

von Anfang an die Freundin der Mutter, die schoene Gudrun,
nicht leiden konnte, und wenn Angi ^^-^f/^tipathie einem
Menschen gegenueber empfand, dann war [S. 3 ] sie stark una
rueckhaltilos. So war ihr das Zusammensein mit dieser Frau

unertraeglich^ bereitete sie selbst aufs Gymnasium vor,
hatte sShr vill nachzuholen, da sie vorher in ein Lyzeum
qeqangen war und musste nun auf einmal Latein und
?raSzoesisch und Griechisch anfangen. Sie holte dann in
kuSzeSter Zeit die Klasse ein und war dann bis zum Abitur
Sf blltf Die Stunden bei der Mutter war [en] aber eine
nicht lerinqe Qual , sie selbst war eine aussergewoehnlich
Srachblqabte F?au und merkte natuerlich die ebenso
unaSSliche slgabung der Tochter; und obwohl sie eine
sehr gSSld'ige LeLerin mit fremden Menschen war war sie

nnri alJ si4 endlich ins Ulmer Gymnasium kam, war sie sehr
f?oh! Lgf leSte in einer Knabenschule, in der g^nzen
Klasse lernte nur noch ein Maedchen ausser ihr, die Schule
Kiasse lernue \''^'- qchuelern auf altmodische Weise

war unmodern, in der den Scnueiern du ^ canzen

«ar, wie Mathematik, bewaeltigte sie, 1™""^°^*
nltii sfi.ehrunaen einfach ausuendig lernte. neberhaupt
Sen) Sr SaeStnis und die Moeglichkeit aus"endig zu
T^iS„phaenc.e„al^ Die Mutter .achtesie. Bjer^zeit^ ^^^

S?^^^ i^f uS^rSrehlte^frr^aerchea Sie koonte ^nderbar

ausiendig die sie dann ihr Leben lang begleiteten Eme
i" rLrS/i^srr"cb=r/2a.S-^;:r"nr a s\ie

HuSSf des fueLSr^fs i?eS!iiren^Mf„sS „^se.r

DenkinSweise sehr bleinflusst, wenn sie auch spaeter den
GruSdInken les auserwaehlten feises der wenigen die
von clburt und Adel dazu bestimmt ^?;"f ' ^^? ^!f ^"'''^^ ^^
S^SiwSen-S^nf SS^efu^.r"tetrfef irSif wl!? der „.tter

von groesster Bedeutung.

Trotzdem bleibt sie ihren alten Marburger Gewohnheiten
treu, es quaelte sie, dass sie nicht selbst das Haus
aufwischen konnte, weil sie so frueh nach Ulm fahren musste
und es ja genug Bediente [sic] gab, so stand sie sonntags
frueh auf , und wenn alle noch schliefen, hatte sie schon die
Treppen gewischt. Vom Gaertner lernte sie Blumenzucht und
von den Koechen das Kochen der feinen Speisen. Sie war
Mitglied des Dorfturnvereins, bis die Mutter zu ihrem
Entsetzen einmal sah, dass sie groessere Gewichte stemmte
als die staerksten Bauernjungen, und es ihr fuer spaeter _
untersagte. Als Angi 14 Jahre war, am Heiligabend, dh. em
halbes Jahr nachdem die Mutter sie zu sich genommen hatte,
gebarte [offenbarte] sie ihr die Geschichte ihrer Geburt. Es
war ein grosser Schlag fuer Angi, da sie doch die
Pflegemutter viel inniger und kindlicher liebte, und das
fremde Gefuehl des Abstandes der Mutter gegenueber me ganz
ueberwinden konnte. Sie quaelte sich dann sehr mit
Gewissensbissen und viel spaeter wussste sie nicht mehr die
beiden Frauen zu vergleichen und j'ede in ihrer besonderen

Weise zu lieben. .

[S. 4] In einer Winternacht wurde Angi konfirmiert, und
obwohl ja die Mutter nicht religioes war, und auch Angi kaum
noch, war doch beiden die feste Form der kirchlichen Form
selbstverstaendlich. Ebenso seltsam vielleicht mag es uns^
erscheinen, dass die Mutter Angi gesetzlich adoptierte, _ dies
war fuer beide in lustiges Fest und von da an hiess Angi
Kantorowicz. In der Zeit wurde sie auch in die grosse
Familie der Mutter auf genommen, zwischen deren Mitgliedern
ein besonders herzliches, liebevolles Verhaeltnis herrschte.

Angi war immer still verschlossen, ungeheuer
hilfsbereit, sie sagte sehr selten in Gegenwart der Mutter ^
ihre Gedanken, aber in ihrer natuerlichen Intensitaet und m
der Unbeirrbarkeit des eigenen Ausdrucks machte sie grossen
Eindruck auf ihre Verwandten, und es bestand vor allem ein
herzliches Verhaeltnis zu ihr.

An den langen, einsamen Winterabenden veranstaltete die
Mutter Lese-und Tanzabende, zu denen einige gleichaltrige
Knaben und Maedchen aus dem Dorf eingeladen wurden. Darunter
war der Sohn des Dorfkaufmanns, der musikalisch Geige ^
spielte auch bei den Zusammenkuenften . Die 16 [ 15? ] jaehrige
Angi verliebte sich in den Knaben und war berauscht von dem
neuen, sehr starken Gefuehl der Liebe. Schon nach kurzer
Zeit der schoenen Spaziergaenge merkte Angi's Mutter, wie
stark die Bindung fuer beide war und verbot das weitere
Zusammentreffen. Ein Jahr hielt sich Angi an das Verbot, em
Jahr der Pubertaet gehorchte sie der Mutter, die fuerchtete,
dass die grosse Leidenschaf tlichkeit des Vaters[?] sie zu
frueh binden wuerde und spaeter, wenn Angi laengst der
Bindung entwachsen sei, sie durch das Versprechen der Treue
fesseln wuerde. Diese Angst war natuerlich berechtigt, sie
hatte aber zur Folge, dass die Liebe zwischen beiden wuchs ,
und sie durch heimliche Zeichen und Brief e [sich
verstaendigten], und als sie nicht mehr gehorchen konnten,
durch heimliche Zeichen die Zusammentreffen ausmachten. Das

war ein ganz grosses Netz der Luegen, morgens vor
Sonnenaufgang, wenn Angi ueber das Gartengitter kletterte,
urn mit dem Jungen einen schoenen Waldspaziergang zu machen,
waehrend die Mutter noch schlief. Jahrelang hat die Angst,
man koennte sie entdecken, Angi in den Schlaf hinein
verfolgt. Spaeter merkte die Mutter, dass ihr Verbot
durchbrochen wurde, aber sie hielt es dennoch aufrecht.

Diese erste Beziehung berauschte Angi vollkommen, sie
war grenzenlos in ihrer Hingabe, und in der Zeit sind wohl
schon die ersten Gedichte entstanden. Der Knabe hatte das
Gefuehl des grossen Abstandes zu Angi's Milieu und Ehrfurcht
vor ihrer Begabung und fuehlte, dass die Bindung sich loesen
muesste, und gerade seine Furcht veranlasste Angi zu
Beteuerungen der Treue und Ausdauer. In diese Zeit faellt
Angi's Abitur, ein schoenes, heiteres Abschiedsf est , die
erste Reise nach Berlin, in die grosse Stadt, die dem
Dorfkind feierlich [feindlich?] und unheimlich stemern und^
unpersoenlich war. Und dann die Frage nach der Zukunft. Angi
schwankte zwischen Medizin und Altphilologie, und waehlte
schliesslich unter dem Einfluss der Mutter das letzte. Die
Mutter verlies damals auch Herrlingen, und sie gingen_ ^
zusammen nach Freiburg. Von Angi's erstem Semester weiss ich
wenig, nur dass sie mit grossem Fleiss und Eifer zu lernen
anfing, aber sich sehr quaelte, well sie inzwischen der
Liebe zu dem Herrlinger Freunde ganz entwachsen war und nur
noch aus Treue an ihm hing, um ihm nicht weh zu tun. Aber
ihr wurde immer klarer, dass da ein klarer Trennungsstrich
zu Ziehen sei. Ende des Semesters trennte sie sich von ihm.

Die Jahre des Studiums fuehrten Angi zur vollen
Entwicklung ihrer Persoenlichkeit . Um den ganzen Reichtum
dieser Welt zu begreifen, muessen wir verstehen, dass
Altphilologie ein Each ist, was nur wenige damals waehlten,
und besonders in Heidelberg, [S. 5] Goettingen und Kiel, wo
Angi studierte, waren es nicht viele. In den Semmaren fuer
Fortgeschrittene waren es auserwaehlt wenige, die sich
schnell kennen lernten. Das Kolleg verband Professor und
Schuler durch Zwiegespraeche, Seminarfeste und Ausfluege,
die gemeinsam unternommen wurden. Fuer diesen Kreis hatte
die antike Welt eine ueberzeitliche Bedeutung, [sie war] die
Grundlage der abendlaendischen Kultur. Der homerische ^
Mensch, der jugendlich einfach ist, dabei nicht primitiv und
derb oder ungebildet, der die dunklen Maechte des Lebens
kennt und ihnen selbst die Goetter unterstellt, hat erne
Feinheit der Umgangsformen, den Charm der Geste, die zarte
Ruecksicht den Menschen gegenueber, die vielleicht kaum erne
andere Zeit kannte. Er ist ein Wesen in dieser unendlich
belebten Welt, wie [der] Kosmos belebt vom Eros und
[Daimon?] und alien diesen [Maechten], Gott und Mensch und
Element sind beieinander, nichts darueber hmaus, das
Schickskal ein letztes Unfassbares, nach dem es keine Frage
qibt well es das schlechthin Notwendige ist. (Aus Angi's
Homerarbeit.) In fuenf jaehriger intensiver Arbeit macht[e]
Angi sich diese Welt zu eigen, und um in sie einzudringen
und das Ueberzeitlichgebundene zu erkennen, bedurfte es der

Kleinarbeit, der Textkritik und des stumpf sinnigen
Auswendiglernens. Der so erdgeborenen Angle fiel das nicht
leicht, und sie suchte fuer ihre grosse Kraft immer
irgendwelche Auswege. So arbeitete sie fast immer bei einem
Gaertner und brachte als Entlohn die schoensten Blumen heim,
und konnte die vielen nahen Freunde damit beschenken. Die
Budenfeste und die Maskenbaelle, auf denen Angi aus dem
Kaffeesatz weissagte, alles dies hat den Charakter wahrer
Heiterkeit und Frohsinns. Angi konnte ein Zimmer verwandeln
durch ihre Blumen in Schalen, ein Festessen gestalten mit
phantastischen Speisen. Das grosse Glueck dieser
Studienjahre war, dass sie die adequaten Freunde fand, mit
denen sie dann Zeit ihres Lebens befreundet blieb. Alle
politische Beschaef tigung blieb diesem Kreise fremd, die
Theorien des Sozialismus sagten Angi nichts. Soweit sie mit
sozialem Elend zusammentraf , war sie an dem menschlichen
Unglueck daran erschuettert und versuchte, menschlich _
darauf zu erwidern. So hat sie in jeder Stadt, in der sie
studierte, einige arme Familien betreut, die sie durch die
Wohlfahrt zugewiesen' bekam. Mit 21 war sie die emzige
Geburtshilfe bei einer schwer krebskranken Frau, spaeter die
Patin des Kindes . Allen diesen Menschen war Angi wie em
guter Engel in der grossen Hilf sbereitschaft und ohne ^
iegliche Bereicherung[ ? ] des Einsatzes ihrer Kraefte. Sie
hatte immer genug Geld, um selbst gut leben zu koennen,
naehrte sich aber monatelang von Broedchen und getrockneten
Feigen, well sie das Geld immer noetig[er] brauchte fuer
andere, die es noetig hatten. So hatte sie auch nie neue,
qekaufte Kleider, sondern erbte immer von Freunden und
Verwandten, genau so, wie sie dann wieder die schoensten an
andere welter verschenkte.

Das Entscheidenste in diesen Jahren war die sehr enge
Freundschaft mit einem ihrer Professoren, der im Mittelpunkt
ihrer seelischen und geistigen Welt stand. Aehnlich dem
Schicksal ihrer Mutter, war auch sie Freundm des Hauses,
liebte seine Frau von Herzen und war semen Kmdern VorDiia
in ihrer Freundlichkeit und Haltung. Fuer die so sehr ]unge
temperamentvolle Angi war die Liebe zu dem viel aelteren
Mann verbunden mit vielen Schmerzen der Entsagungen— aber da
gab es keine Wahl . Viel spaeter erst, als sie das Studium
beendete, verwandelte sie allmaehlich diese Liebe in em
nicht weniger starkes Gefuehl der grossen menschlichen
Naehe. Jede freie Stunde, viele Tage und Wochen verlebte sie
in diesem Hause, und als der kleine, geliebte Sohn starb,
war fuer sie der Verlust schmerzlich wie der emes eigenen

TC 1 Tl f^ f-^ ^

rs 6] Kurz vor dem Abschluss des Studiums war Angi das
erste Mai wirklich ernstlich krank. Ein Aufzug hatte ihr den
Finger geklemmt, und sie lag mit schwerer Blutvergiftung
wochenlang in Lebensgefahr . Dem so kraeftigen, gesunden
Menschen war das Bekanntwerden mit Schmerzen und Schwaeche
ein richtiges Erlebnis. Spaeter erholte sie sich schnell und
bestand das Examen sehr gut und ohne Zeitverlust.

8

Der Abschluss des Studiums bedeutete fuer sie mehr als
der Uebergang zur praktischen Lehrtaetigkeit . Er hiess vor
allem Trennung von diesen Freunden und dem Kreis der ihr
nahestehenden Freunde, Studenten und Professoren.

Das erste halbe Jahr der Referendarzeit verbrachte Angi
in einem Landschulerziehungsheim in der Nahe von Frankfurt
a/Oder, in einer Realschule, in der sie Latein und Deutsch
unterrichtete. Wie immer an neuen Orten, war sie auch dort
sehr ungluecklich, bis sie sich mit den Kindern befreundete
und auch zwei Lehrerinnen recht nahe kam. Dann machte es ihr
grossen Spass, auch im Tagtaeglichen mit den jungen Menschen
in Beruehrung zu kommen. Eine schoene Fahrt ins
Riesengebirge befestigte die Beziehung von vielen Knaben und

Maedchen.

Sie fuhr fast jedes Wochenende nach Berlin, wo damals
eine ihrer nahen Freundinnen an einem Gymnasium
unterrichtete, und an den Sonntagen tauschte sie ihre
Erfahrungen aus . Angi lernte Berlin kennen, die Stadt in
ihrer Schoenheit und Groesse. Nach einem halben Jahr wurde
auch sie nach Berlin versetzt, an' dasselbe Gymnasium wie die
Freundin. Dies hatte sie sich besonders gewuenscht. Die
Schule hatte ein ausserordentliches Niveau--Lehrer , denen
der Beruf Inhalt des Lebens war und sehr begabte
Schuelerinnen, wenige in jeder Klasse. In den hoeheren
Jahrgaengen war die Arbeit mit den Seminaren der
Universitaet vergleichbar . Angi's Stunden in Latein und
Griechisch waren sehr spannend, es gelang ihr immer, die
Klasse zu fesseln, den Schuelerinnen mehr beizubringen,
ihnen mehr als das rein Lernmaessige des Stoffes, ihnen das
Einmalige des Wesens der Antike nahe zu bringen. Dabei
machte ihre Persoenlichkeit in ihrer Frische und
Natuerlichkeit grossen Eindruck auf die Schueler und Lehrer.
Sie war so in sich sicher, dass sie auch die schwierigste
Klasse sofort fesselte. Damals befreundeten wir uns, in
unendlicher Intensivitaet machten wir uns mit unseren Welten
bekannt, sie verstaerkte mir das Wesentliche der Antike.
Gewiss wie Goethe in seiner Groesse, und ich erzaehlte ihr
zum ersten Mai von der Problematik des Judentums . Es war
Ende des Jahres 1931. Von aussen bestand noch kein Zwang,
sich zum Judentum zu bekennen. Keiner von Angi's Freunden
war juedisch, sie leugnete damals nicht, dass sie zur
juedischen Rasse gehoerte, aber ohne jede Beziehung zur
geistigen Welt des Judentums erkannte sie die Forderung des
Volkes nicht an. Volk und Heimat waren ihr Deutschland. Es
waren harte Kaempfe, die wir fuehrten, ich dachte damals
noch, man koennte Angi durch Logik in Diskussionen
ueberzeugen, bis ich merkte, dass das ein voellig
unfruchtbares Mittel war. Was ihr das Herz nicht sagte,
konnte sie nicht annehmen, da half keine Logik.
Entscheidungen kamen ploetzlich von innen heraus, ohne
Gruebeln und ohne irgendwelche Einfluesse anderer. So hat
sie mir auch damals in nichts beigepf lichtet , nur dass sie
durch mich mit den chassidischen Geschichten (von Martin

I I

Buber erzaehlt) bekannt wurde, die ihr dann fuer immer
wertvoll blieben, lange Vorbild des Lebens.

Sie lernte auch schon, mir zum Gefallen, hebraeisch,
und nach kurzer Zeit lasen wir gemeinsam Tanach und lernten
zusanunen Gedichte. Angi hatte nie Gelegenheit, sich der
Jugendbewegung anzuschliessen, ihre Kindheit und Jugend ^
waren viel zu erfuellt gewesen, als dass sie em Beduerfnis
nach Freiheit und Gemeinschaf t erwecken muesste. Bevor sie
nach Berlin kam, nahm sie an einem Arbeitslager
sozialistischer [S. 7] Studenten und Arbeiter teil, ein
Lager, in dem Landarbeit mit gemeinsamem Lernen und Smgen
verbunden war, und dies hat ihr sehr gefallen. Nun lernte
sie durch mich die juedische Jugendbewegung kennen. Sie nahm
an den Gruppenabenden der Werkleute teil, und lernte auch
mit Begeisterung alle Landsknechtslieder von mir, aber sehr
schnell lehnte sie jeden gemeinsamen Weg fuer sich ab.Sie
konnte nie eine Entscheidung anerkennen, die nicht m ihr^
selbst bis aufs letzte gereift war, und daher waren ihr die
Forderungen dieser engen Lebensgemeinschaft unertraeglich.

Trotz der interessanten Taetigkeit an der Berliner
Schule und der neuen Freundschaft, die zu dem alien sehr
ihren Tag ausfuellten, litt sie an der Grosstadt, an dem
Gefuehl, in dieser Mi .lionenstadt ganz unterzugehen, ohne
jemandem eine wahre Hilfe zu sein. Aus diesem Gefuehl heraus
wandte sie sich an die Wohlfahrt, und man uebermittelte ihr
die Betreuung einer Frau, einer kranken Schriftstellerin,
die mit ihren fuenf kleinen Kindern in einem Keller wohnte
und unter der Last der taeglichen Sorgen voellig
zusammenbrach. Angi war nach kurzer Zeit Freundin und
Vertraute der Frau, es gab nichts, was sie ihr je ^
abgeschlagen haette. Sie uebernahm alle schwere Arbeit im
Haus, wusch die Kinderwaesche bis tief in die Nacht hmem,
holte aus dem naechsten Krankenhaus das uebriggebliebene
Essen fuer sie und sorgte fuer Kleider und verbrauchte
ein[en] Grossteil ihres Monatswechsels . Sie schickte die
Frau in kurzen Abstaenden zweimal auf ihre Kosten zur
Erholung und blieb (waehrend ihres Examens m der Woche der
national-sozialistischen Revolution) mit alien fuenf Kindern
allein und musste ohne die Frau von emem Keller m den
anderen Ziehen, sie gab ihr auch ihr einziges Paar Schuhe,
well es der gesunden Angi ja wenig ausmachte, wenn sie mir
zerrissenen Sohlen ginge. Oft, wenn die kranke Frau zu muede
war, uebernahm sie auch die schriftstellerische Arbeit, die
Edierung der Ullsteinromane. Diese Hilfe hat bis zu Angis^
Aliiah [Aliyah?] gedauert. Angi wanderte erst aus, als sie
die Frau von Berlin fort nach Kiel gebracht hatte und ihr
eine schoene Wohnung und ihren eigenen Freundeskreis
uebermittelt hatte, und den aeltesten Knaben, dessen Vater
juedisch war, in das Landschulheim nach Herrlmgen gebracht

Bald stellten sich ihr auch noch andere Aufgaben. Ein
sehr stilles, verschlossenes Maedchen, die sie m der Schule
in Griechisch unterrichtete, fehlte oefters m der Klasse
und ging in ihren Leistungen merklich zurueck. Angi spracn

10

mit ihr, und Maria, die sie gluehend verehrte, vertraute ihr
[an], dass die Mutter sie und die Geschwister nicht mehr
ernaehren konnte, und sie selbst gezwungen war, nachts in
einer Fabrik zu arbeiten. Da sie aber nicht aufs Abitur
verzichten wollte, bot ihr Angi an, sie privat
vorzubereiten. Von da an war Maria taeglich nach der
Fabrikarbeit bei uns bis tief in die Nacht. Wir arbeiteten
einen richtigen Stundenplan aus, und wenn sie zu muede war,
zahlte ihr Angi den Wochenlohn und sie blieb acht Tage lang
ganz bei uns. Es ist klar, dass nur Angis Freundschaft und
Hilfe Maria rettete und half, ihre schwere Situation zu
ertragen. Oft musste sie, urn noch Geld zu verdienen, nachts
im Variete auftreten, und all das ertrug sie, well Angi ihr
eine geistige Welt aufbaute, frei von alien Schlagworten.

So vergingen die zwei Jahre in Berlin in einem intensiv
ausgefuellten Tag: Angle gewoehnte sich an die Grosstadt und
ihren Laerm, sie hatte kindliche Freude daran, alle Stadt-
und U-bahnstationen auswendig zu lernen, die Nummern und
Linien aller Autobusse zu wissen, und wie man am schnellsten
von einem Platz zum anderen kommt." Sie unterrichtete in
alien drei Maedchengymnasien, die es in Berlin gab und
ueberall schloss sie Freundschaf ten, und damit alles zu
seinem Recht kam, musste sie jede Minute ausnutzen, schrieb
die schoensten Brief e im Fahren, lernte und bereitete (S. 8]
Stunden vor im Warten auf Freunde in der Stadtbahn und im
Gehen. Oft traf ich mich mir ihr under der Normaluhr am
Alexanderplatz, und Angi stand, die Mappe zwischen den
Fuessen, und las seelenruhig ein philosophisches Buch.^

Das Lehrerexamen fand in den ersten Tagen des April
1933 statt. Die nationalsozialistische Umwaelzung hatte Angi
mit einem Schlag von alien Zweifeln befreit, jetzt spuerte
sie ihre Zugehoerigkeit zum juedischen Schicksal und
bekannte sich dazu. Darueber hinaus rang sie um den
Anschluss an die Tradition, besuchte Synagogen und nahm
spaeter regelmaessig an den Schabbat-Abenden in der
Grenadierstrasse teil; die Heiligung des Schabbath war
Angi's wertvollstes neues Gut, ihre starke Beziehung zur
ueberlieferten Form verlangte von ihr auch in der neuen
Religion die gesetzmaessige Bindung. So trat sie nach
herkoemmlichem Brauch zum Judentum ueber, ohne auch nur ^
irgendein Gesetz zu vernachlaessigen. Damals aenderte sie
ihren Namen, waehlte nach dem Gebet aus Schmuel I 2 der

Channah den Namen. . t • u

Auch die Entscheidung zur Alija kam ganz ploetzlich.
Das Gegebene war Angi's erster Plan, sie wollte in
Deutschland oder in England an einem juedischen
Landerziehungsheim nicht-arische Kinder unterrichten.
Mehrere Lehrer baten sie um ihre Mitwirkung. Ich war damals
in Frankreich, Angi's Mutter in der Schweiz, meine All] a war
schon bestimmt, als Angi mich besuchte, um sich von mir zu
verabschieden. Ich hatte Bedenken an ihrem Plan, fand, dass
sie ins Land kommen muesste als Chaluz [Pionier] und ganz
abbrechen mit allem Frueheren, da gerade Menschen mit dieser
Arbeitskraft gebraucht werden. Wie immer, wich sie nicht von

II II

11

ihrem Plan. Erst als die Mutter sich mit uns traf und in
ihrer grossen Lebhaf tigkeit Angi's Stellung als einzig
moegliche darstellte, sagte Angi sehr ruhig: Und natuerlich
hat die Kaete recht — ich werde nach Palaestina gehen. Im
Augenblick war die Entscheidung gef alien, und nie wieder
wurde das andere erwogen. Die Vorbereitungen dauerten nicht
lange, in der Wartezeit arbeitete Angi als Fuehrerin an der
ersten Jugendalijah, die spaeter nach En Charid ging und
heute in Alenim ist. Im November [1934] kam sie ins Land,
nachdem sie sich von den verschiedensten Freunden in alien
Teilen Deutschlands verabschiedet hatte. Sie bat in der Olej
-Germania, dass man sie in einen Kibbuz einteilte, wo nur
Hebraeisch gesprochen wird. Bei ihrer Fahrt durchs Land
hatte sie Beth Sera besucht und sich dort sehr wohl
gefuehlt, nur wurde zu wenig Wert auf die Sprache gelegt.
Deshalb entschloss sie sich, nach einem anderen Ort ohne
Deutsche zu gehen. Man schickte sie nach Gevath. Damals war
es noch eine kleine Kwuzah [?], alle waren von Kindheit an
miteinander bekannt, alle aus Pinsk, und Angi die erste
Deutsche. Es war unendlich schwer fuer sie und fremd. Ganz
allmaehlich erst befreundete sie sich mit einigen Familien.
Die Arbeit war ihr ein grosser Trost. Sie hatte ungeheures
Verlangen nach schwerer Erdarbeit, nach Pflanzen und Saeen.
Als man sie zum Kuechendienst einteilte, wie das so ueblich
ist, ging sie in den freien Stunden in den Gemuesegarten
arbeiten, und als man es ihr verbot, weil ja kein Chawer
[Mitglied] mehr als 9 Stunden arbeiten soil, war sie sehr
betroffen. Es war fuer sie wie der Verlust der persoenlichen
Freiheit, dass man ihr untersagte, ausser der geforderten
Arbeit der geliebten Beschaeftigung nachzugehen, Blumen und
Gemuese zu pflegen. Schlimm genug war es schon, wenn alle
mit dem Laeuten Schluss machten und das auch von ihr
verlangten. Es wurde aus diesen Zusammenstoessen immer
klarer, dass dies nicht der Weg sei. Im ersten Winter zwang
sie sich, trotz grosser Muedigkeit an den Versammlungen
teilzunehmen, aber ihr war die Art der Diskussionen und das
viele Reden an sich so verhasst.

Nach einem dreiviertel Jahr verliess sie Gevath, um
einige Zeit in Jerusalem zu leben. In diesem Winter lernte
sie intensiv hebraeisch. Wir veranstalteten schoene
Leseabende, in denen wir Shakespeare gemeinsam mit Freunden
lasen, machten [S. 9] schoene Ausfluege und Spaziergaenge m
die Altstadt. Angi fuehlte sich in Jerusalem heimisch und
liebte die Stadt in ihrer Landschaft mit reichlichem
Heimatgefuehl, und immer wieder in spaeteren Jahren zog es
sie zu ihr hin und gab ihr Kraft, in anderen Teilen des
Landes zu leben. Nach einem halben Jahr, in dem sie m der
Stadt als Koechin arbeitete, ging sie zurueck aufs Land,
diesmal nach En Chaj ins Seharen, um sich ganz mtensiv im
Gemuesebau auszubilden. Ich hatte damals als Lehrerin m
einer Altstadtschule Jerusalems ein kleines Maedchen Nefa zu
mir genommen, die in grenzenloser Armut, verkommen an der
Klagemauer bettelte, kaum sprechen konnte, und wie eine ^
kleine Wilde herangewachsen war. Angi nahm das Kind zu sich

12

in ihr kleines Stuebchen nach En Chaj . Sie verdiente 20
Grusch pro Tag und war nach ihren Begriffen millionaerisch
reich. Das Kind entwickelte sich gut und wurde allmaehlich
ein kleiner Mensch.

Es war dies ein ruhiges, glueckliches Jahr, die meisten
Schabbetot verbrachten wir gemeinsam, und da ich mich auf
das Lehrerexamen vorbereitete, lernte Angi alles mit mir
mit, die schwierigen Stellen im Tanach und der Mischna und
alles, was ich lernen musste.

Im Fruehling [1936?] kam Angis Mutter zu Besuch, sie
gingen gemeinsam nach Mogged, wo Angi fuer ein neues
Landschulheim den Gemuesegarten einrichtete. Dann entschloss
sie sich, in einem Moshav Ovdim zu arbeiten, um die
gemischte Wirtschaft kennen zu lernen, well diese Form der
privaten und doch gemeinsamen Wirtschaft ihr am meisten
zusagte. Sie ging nach dem Sueden, nach Beer Towia,
befreundete sich innig mit der Familie, bei der sie
arbeitete, und fuehlte sich in diesem Dorfe sehr wohl . Und
doch beschloss sie nach Verlauf eines Jahres, etwas Eigenes
zu gruenden, sie sehnte sich sehr "nach eigenem Schaffen.
Durch Zufall erfuhr sie von einer Gruppe, die auf dem
Carmel, in einer Art Cooperative spaeter ein Moshav Avodah
[?] sein wollte, am Bau der dorthin fuehrenden Chaussee
arbeiten [wollte] und fuer einen Teil des Lohnes Land
bekamen. Wir fuhren gemeinsam herauf, und schon auf der^
Fahrt dahin schien es uns, dass dies der schoenste Ort im
Lande sei . Als wir in die alte Kreuzfahrerburg kamen und die
Berge von dort aus sahen, war der Beschluss fest gefasst.
Hier sollte Angi ihr Land erwerben. Dazu die besonders
glueckliche Zusammenstellung der Gruppe, in der einige nette
Jungen war en, die dem Misrachi angehoerend, die Tradition
hielten, etwas wonach sich Angi gesehnt hatte. In dem
Gedanken an dieses Land, sie hatte sogar schon gewaehlt,
fuhr sie nach Italien, um sich in Como mit der geliebten
Pflegemutter zu treffen. Die Reise bedeute fuer sie mehr als
ein Auffrischen seelischer Kraefte. Die Begegnung mit vielen
nahen Freunden, die inzwischen in alle Welt zerstreut waren,
staerkte sie in ihrem Eigenen, und zeigte ihr noch einmal
ganz stark ihre Verbundenheit mit der abendlaendischen
Kultur. Sie war wenige Wochen in Florenz, genoss die Museen
taeglich, und die Reproduktionen, die sie heimbrachte, waren
dann ihre taegliche Freude. In Florenz traf sie sich mit^
ihrer Mutter und wohnte bei Verwandten. Einmal spielte sie
mit den Kindern ihrer Cousine am Strand, und ganz in
Gedanken fing sie an, ihnen aus Sand einen grossen Meshek
zu bauen. "Hier ist der Kuhstall, hier ist das Haus, der
Gemuesegarten, die Blumen etc." Zu den Kindern gesellten
sich die Erwachsenen, als Angi von ihrem Plan auf dem Carmel
erzaehlte und von Jaaroth Hacarmel . Spaeter fragte dann ihre
Cousine, wie man ihr dazu verhelfen koennte, sie nannte eine
Summe und bekam sie versprochen . -

In groesster Freude, dass sie nun ein Eigenes anfangen
koennte, fuhr sie nach England, um auch dort noch nahe

13

Freunde zu besuchen. Nach dreimonatiger Abwesenheit kam sie
im Winter 1937 zurueck und ging nach Jaaroth Hacarmel .
Zum ersten Mai seit sie im Lande war, lebte sie in ihrem
Eigenen, sie kaufte sich einen winzigen Lift, und richtete
ihn wie ein Puppenhaus ein. Urn ihn [S. 10] herum pflanzte
sie Blumen und Ranken und bald war der alte Hof voll von
Angi's Blumen. Ein kleines Stueck Boden richtete sie als
Gemueseland her, machte eine Mauer aus grossen Stemen ^
darum, ebnete den Boden, und um ihn zu pfluegen, holte sie
Erde dazu und grub einige Male tief um. Von frueh bis spaet
nach Sonnenuntergang rodete Angi und bereitete den Boden vor
fuer die Obst-Baeumchen, die sie darauf pflanzen wollte. Um
zu bewaessern, musste sie das Wasser in Pachim [Eimer] weit
den Berg herauftragen aus dem Wadi (Flusstal). An heissen
Tagen schleppte sie oft 30 Pachim Wasser. Die Baeumchen
standen schoen und Mais und Gemuese waren gesaet, aber das
Arbeiten ganz allein im Wadi war schon gefaehrlich. Angi
kannte kein Gefuehl der Angst, sie erklaerte es ausihrer
Phantasielosigkeit heraus, dass sie nur der Augenblick der
Handlung interessierte, nicht Dinge, die ausserdem geschehen
koennten eventuell. Und doch wusste sie genau, wie wir alle,
dass sie an einem sehr gefaehrdeten Platz allein stand. Bei
dem ersten grossen Angriff auf die Arbeiter, die die
Landstrasse nach Atlit bauten, hoerte Angi die Schuesse
nah von sich, als sie allein auf ihrem Land arbeitete.
Damals fiel Mordechai Beer, das geistige Haupt der Gruppe,
mit dem Angi oft bis tief in die tiefe Nacht hinem Tanach-
Talmud gelernt hatte und der bei den Festen den Ton angab.
Damit erhielt die kleine Gruppe einen gefaehrlichen Stoss.
Es kamen zwar viele Neue heraus, das taegliche Leben war
[jedoch] eine dauernde Bedrohung.

Nach der grossen Spannung der Wachen und
Befestigungsarbeiten erkrankte Angi sehr schwer, wochenlang
in hohem Fieber mit grossen Schmerzen, bis man endlich
Malaria entdeckte. Wochenlang war sie in Lebensgefahr , und
schliesslich ueberwand sie auch diese, wie die erste grosse
Krankheit als Studentin, fast zur Verwunderung der Aerzte.
In der Zeit festigte sich ihre Freundschaft mit emem der
Chaverim (Kamerad) Dow immer mehr. Als sie das erste Mai
wieder spazieren gehen durfte, besuchten sie die
(militaerischen Waechter) Gafirim von Jaaroth m Haifa, sie
begleitete sie noch zum Auto und wollte schon selbst
heraufsteigen aus ploetzlicher Sehnsucht nach dem Ort und
den Menschen. Dow fand es zu anstrengend und hielt sie
zurueck. Auf dieser Autofahrt von Haifa nach Jaaroth kamen
von den 13 Insassen des Auto 12 um, darunter Dow. (Die
Araber hatten den Weg vermauert und dann das Auto
angegriffen. ) Dies Unglueck ist ein entscheidender
Einschnitt in Angis Leben gewesen. Sie sagte mir damals: Bis
jetzt traf es immer nur andere, dass ihnen der geliebte
Mensch fiel, diesmal mich selbst. Ich muss auch damit
fertigwerden. Sie suchte den Platz, der damals am meisten
qefaehrdet war, Ramath Hakowesch, arbeitete an alien
schweren Arbeitsplaetzen, und trotz ihrer grossen Emsamkeit

14

fand sich auch dort allmaehlich ein kleiner Freundeskreis urn
sie. Am Jahrestag des Ueberfalls fuhr sie zur Gedenkfeier,
und von dort an trennte sie sich nicht mehr von ihrer
Landschaft. Sie pflanzte neue Baeume, die alten hatten die
Araber umgehauen, machte sich neues Gemueseland zurecht,
kaufte sich eine Ziege und einen Esel und fing noch einmal
in ihrem Puppenhaus dies Leben von vorne an. Aber wie anders
diesmal. Es war keine Gruppe Gleichgesinnter mit ihr,
zeitweise war der Kibbuz Beth Oren am selben Platz, und Angi
litt unter dem Laerm und dem ungewohnten Getriebe. Als sie
dann fortgingen, war eine grosse Einsamkeit am Platze, nur
wenige Familien, zwischen denen zwar f reundschaf tliche
Nachbarbeziehungen herrschten, aber doch keine Gemeinsamkeit
der Ideen und Ziele wie frueher.

Von Zeit zu Zeit nun stieg Angi von ihrem Berg
herunter, ihre Freunde zu besuchen und neue Kraft zu
sammeln, die menschliche Einsamkeit zu tragen, jedoch nach
kurzer Zeit trieb es sie immer wieder zurueck, sie konnte
sich nicht trennen, sie gehoerte zu ihrer Erde und
Landschaft, ihr Gemuese und [ihre] Blumen forderten sie
zurueck. So lud sie alle ihre Freunde zu sich ein, nahm
viele Gaeste auf, um sie [S. 11] an der Blumenfuelle und
Ruhe der Landschaft teilnehmen zu lassen. Sie holte die
vielen Fruechte, die dort wild wuchsen, selbst von den
Baeumen. Jede Mahlzeit, die Angi bereitete, war ein kleines

Festessen .

Vier Jahre lang lebte Angi auf ihrem Berge; vier reiche
Jahre, reich an Erleben, an Leiden und an Wachsen. In dieser
Zeit kam sie ganz zu ihrer eigenen geistigen Welt zurueck.
Sie las sehr wenig, aber in den wenigen Dichtungen, die sie
liebte, fand sie den Spiegel ihres eigenen Erlebens. So war
ihr jede Zeile Rainer Maria Rilkes wie eine Offenbarung,
Gestaltung ihres eigenen Gefuehls: "Faenden wir auch ein
reines, verhaltenes, schmales Menschliches, einen unserer
Streifen Fruchtlandes zwischen Strom und Gestein." Diese
Saetze aus den Elegien in der Geformtheit der dichterischen
Sprache enthielten Angis Beziehung zur Erde und ihren Dienst
an ihr. Auch fuer die feinsten Schwingungen ihres Erlebens
fand sie Ausdruck in seinen Brief en und Gedichten. Immer
mehr ersetzten ihr diese Verse eigenes Sprechen .

Die andere Quelle ihrer Kraefte, zu der sie mit grosser
Freude sich zurueckbekannte, war Homer. Jeden Abend nach
der Arbeit las sie 200 Verse und empfand wieder das
einzigartige dieser Welt, das auch sie mitgepraegt hatte.
Trotz der vielen Jahre des scheinbar [en] Versinkens wurde
ihr immer klarer, dass dies der wahre Sinn ihrer geistigen
Welt war und juedisches Wissen, das sie mit grossem Fleiss
und Muehe erworben hatte, doch nicht ihrem Wesen entsprach.
Aber sie gab den Kampf um das Juedische nicht auf. Als ihr
klar geworden war, dass ihr der Talmud und die hebraeischen
Klassiker eine fremde Welt des Caluth darstellten, nichts
mehr zu sagen hatten und ihr nie eigner Ausdruck sein
konnten, suchte sie eine Synthese--die Sprachschoepfung in
der hebraeischen Uebersetzung der von ihr geliebten Dichter.

15

Immer mehr beschaeftigte sie sich mit Uebersetzungen
Shakespeares, Rilkes und Goethes . Zum Teil versuchte sie es
mit eigenen Kraeften und freute sich, wenn sie im Kreis
Gleichgesinnter Anerkennung fuer Ihre Bemuehung fand.

Und doch draengte sich immer wieder die Frage auf , ob
sie in der Zeit des Krieges so fern von allem Geschehen nur
in ihrer eigenen Welt leben duerfte, ob auch sie nicht
verpflichtet waere, in dem Krieg mitzuhelfen. Schliesslich,
im Fruehjahr 1943 entschloss sie sich, zum Militaer zu
gehen. Es fiel ihr sehr schwer, sich von ihrer Freiheit und
Einsamkeit zu trennen, aber als sie sich entschlossen hatte,
sah sie es von den besten Seiten an, fand auch in Sarafand,
im Vorbereitungslager wieder eine wirkliche Freundin. In
Aegypten, in der Wueste, arbeitete sie in einem Krankenhaus
als Schwester, nach einem Monat Tagdienst, der ihr zu leicht
war, als Nachtschwester zwei Monate lang, und war sehr
gluecklich, dass die Patienten sie liebten, und sie durch
ihre grosse Fuersorge ihnen die Schmerzen etwas erleichtern
konnte. Sehr erfuellt kam sie im August zurueck zum Urlaub.
Die Zeit schien ihr zu kurz, so viele nahe Freunde musste
sie sehen und doch auch nach dem Land und den Baeumen
schauen. Am ersten Abend, als sie nach Hause gekommen war,
sie hatte gerade die Sachen in ihren Lift gelegt und bei den
Freunden Tee getrunken, lief sie schnell aufs Land hinunter,
und als sie den alten Nussbaum sah, wie jedes Jahr voller
Wallnuesse, stellte sie den Spaten zur Seite und kletterte,
wie jedes Jahr, hinauf, aus dem Vollen zu pfluecken. (Angi
war von Kindheit an gewohnt, auf die hoechsten Baeume zu
klettern und von einem Ast auf den anderen zu springen.) Der
Ast war morsch und Angi fiel von fuenf Meter Hoehe auf das ^
Eisenrohr, das als Bewaesserung zu ihrem Garten fuehrte. Sie
merkte sofort, dass sie gelaehmt war und dachte auch, dass
sie gleich sterben muesste. Der Gedanke, so oft frueher
gedacht und nun ganz wirklich und nah, erschreckte sie [12]
nicht im geringsten. Als man sie unter grossen Qualen ins
Krankenhaus brachte, verier sie keine Minute die Besinnung,
und nach alien verbrachten Schmerzen konnte sie es noch
bedauern, dass ich den Unfall durch die Zeitung erfahren
hatte und mich sicher erschreckt haette.

Die fuenfmonatige Leidenszeit bestand Angi in
ungeheurem Heldenmut. Es beglueckte sie in der Zeit^
besonders, wie viele Menschen an ihrem Schicksal teilnahmen
und durch Besuche und freundliche Aufmerksamkeit sie ihre
Naehe fuehlen liessen. Dies bestaerkte sie immer wieder in
ihrer Ansicht, dass die Menschen eigentlich ja nicht
schlecht seien, denn so viel Liebe und Freundschaft haette
sie garnicht verdient.

Immer blieb sie uns alien gegenueber gleich freundlich
und dankbar, und wenn die Schmerzen nicht voellig
gedankenraubend ueberhand nahmen, konnte sie sich oft ueber
sie hinweg setzen, lesen, zuhoeren und an fremden
Schicksalen teilnehmen.

Von der Zukunft sprach sie nicht viel. Sie bat uns,
dass wir sie nicht zwingen sollten, leben zu bleiben, wenn

i

I I

16

ihr die fruehre Koerperkraft fehlte. Oft machte es den
Eindruck, [als] ob sie nur uns zu Gef alien an die Genesung
glaubte, oft hatte ich den Eindruck, sie taete es aus
grosser Vitalitaet, die nur ihr zu eigen war. Einmal sagte
sie mir, dass sie auch dies als ganz hereingefuegt in ihr
Schicksal empfaende und Hiobsaehnliches Hadern ihr ganz
fremd waere. Sie war bereit zu sterben, ihr Leben war
uebervoll und reich gewesen.

[S. 13] Auszuege aus einigen Brief en.

1938. Es ist fast das Einzige, was mich von mir selbst
losreist, wenn ich anderen helfen kann, dabei fuehle ich
meine Kraft und irgend eine besondere Faehigkeit, da scheint
es mir, waehrend ich zum Geistigen ja keinen Zugang habe,
ich glaube, das wuerde erst wieder kommen, wenn das
persoenliche Leben richtig erfuellt waere.

Neulich musste ich den Kwisch (Weg) zum Bungalow
reinigen, der Kibbuz pfluegte unten, verbrannte Kesim
(Dornen) und ploetzlich griff das Feuer ueber und raste den
Berg herauf , ergriff Straeucher und Baeume, und es schien,
als wuerde ein grosser Waldbrand noch alles zerstoeren, was
damals uebrig geblieben ist. Es war schrecklich, ich stand
und kaempfte wie wahnsinning um jeden Baum, hackte mit der
Turia (grosse Hacke) in die Flammen und rettete auch em
Paar grosse Baeume am Hang, nur unten brannten sie em
bisschen an. Schliesslich kamen sie von oben mir zur Hilfe,
und es gelang uns noch gerade zu loeschen, bevor es an die
dichteren Baeume kam, wo es dann unrettbar gewesen waere.
Noch Glueck, man war wie erloest, als ueberall das Feuer aus
war.

"Mit einem Tropfen aus dem Becher der Liebe haelt sie
fuer ein Leben voll Mueh und Noeten schadlos." (Natur--
Goethe)

31.12.40.

Mit dem Willen Liebe festhalten kann man freilich
nicht, aber doch Schwaechen des anderen hinnehmen und nicht
gleich verurteilen und sich abstossen lassen von etwas, was
einem fremd ist am anderen oder nicht gefaellt.

Mir geht es nicht schlecht, viel besser als ich
erwartete, erstens wohl wegen meiner Stehaufmaennchennatur ,
dass mich Arbeit im Fruehling und Sturm doch wieder freut
und mir Lebensgeist einf loesst--zweitens weil ich die ^
Hoffnung nicht aufgeben habe, was wohl toericht genug ist,
aber ich kann nicht anders.

Neulich traf ich mich zufaellig mit X (ich war mit dem
Esel in der Stadt) und noch stundenlang sass ich mit ihr
allein; sie hat mir viel und sehr offen von sich erzaehlt,
fuer mich so erschuetternd, wieder einmal ein Blick m den

17

Abgrund menschlichen Wesens und Schicksals — das hilft mir
immer, auch mein eigenes mehr einzuordnen und in der Reihe
der vielen zu sehen . Und diese Naehe des Wissens zu einem
Menschen, der einem so gefaellt, hat etwas Beglueckendes .

Ja, ich hatte eigentlich keine Zeit, fand es aber
gleich und das Gespraech wichtiger, und auf diese Weise ritt
ich erst urn einhalb fuenf von Achusa weg, in solchem Sturm,
dass wir uns kaum auf den Beinen halten konnten, der Esel
die komischsten Verrenkungen machte, und ich fast erwartete,
wir wuerden mit dem Sturm im Grunde landen, oder es wuerden
uns Fluegel wachsen wie in 1001 Nacht. Hinter der Chaibe [?]
etwas Regen, dann bald Stockf insternis, Stolpern ueber jeden
Stein, so dass ich lieber den Esel fuehrte, da fiel das
Gepaeck mit grossem Schwung runter, und der Sattel gmg
nicht wieder rauf und nichts zu sehen, nur schliesslich
gings doch [S. 14] noch, ich stieg wieder auf, hielt mich
muehsam auf der Seite vom Abgrund fest, den ganzen Weg laut
singend, um den Esel zu ermuntern und mich zu erwaermen, ^
alle Landsknechtslieder und lustigen Lieder, die ich je bei
Dir qelernt hatte. Das ganze war sehr lustig und machte mir
schrecklich gute Laune, ich kam gegen 8 [?] durchfroren und
durchgeblasen, aber durch und durch erfrischt nach Haus .

11. 3. 42. . ^ n r^

Heute habe ich einen Tag frei, habe em Viertel Dunam_
Mais gesaet und das Land hergerichtet . . auch viele Avatichim
(Wassermelonen) fuer die Schakale. Alles macht mir grosse
Freude, Schabbat habe ich die erste Haelfte memes ^
Griechenvortrags gehalten, fast unvorbereitet , nur mit em
paar Stichworten. Ich hatte Angst wie ein klemes
Schulmaedchen, aber dann ging alles gut, obwohl ich selbst
nicht zufrieden war. Es ist ja kaum moeglich, Menschen, die
keine Ahnung haben, von dieser Welt einen Begriff zu geben,
jedenfalls kann ich es nicht.

Und doch die geistigen Dinge an und fuer sich haben ihr
Recht auch in unserer Zeit, immer mehr sehe ich das
Bleibende und Legitime, nachdem ich jahrelang versucht habe,
ganz in der Realitaet zu leben. Ich meine, es gibt so viele
Realitaeten, nicht gerade diese eine, die mir manchmal fast
traumhaft entgleitet.

Der letzte Brief ^ • ., - ^-

Es geht mir in der grossen Linie gut, die Massage ist
fabelhaft, und die Beine werden langsam wieder beweglich.
Ich habe wieder Blasenschmerzen und Zehjucken, dass ich
nachts nicht schlafen kann, aber es ist nicht so schlimm.
Ich lese gerade in vielen Sprachen, "La Chartreuse' von
Stendhal auf f ranzoesisch, "Die goettliche Komoedie auf
italienisch, "The Voyage" auf englisch, eines der schoensten
Buecher, die ich seit langem gelesen habe und wuensche, wir
koennten es zusammen lesen.

A 1!/ 7^ I ^

^/l

^ y V) cjr l/Su JC' 1/7 c ? G?^//' r ^^^

^

H

M6V'vU..0''p

t

//

^1

y

a-\a\oao^ ^v^\[S!a

-^1?

>

I

SYNTHHONOS

This par-er is one of those cited in DumbRrton Oaks
Paners , XVIT (I963), 11^ (a prefabory note to Kantorowicz ' s
"Oriens Augusti — Lever du Roi "^ ) in this fashion:

Tiiis article, wiiicii is b.nscd on a papei read at DtiTiibarton
Oaks on April 5, 1951, \vas to liave been tl:e first of a series
of "Studies Eastern and Western in the Histoiy of Late
Classical and Mediaeval Ideas." The series was to have in-
cluded the following additional titles:

"S3*nthronos"

"Roman Coins and Christian Rites"

"Epipliany and Coronation"

"Cliarles the Bald and the Naialcs Caesarum"

"Roma and the Coal."
Professor Kantorowicz was able to coirect the proofs of the
present paper before his death on September 9. 1963. In
accordance with his expressed wishes, plans for publishing
the other studies in the series will be abandoned. Oc-
casional references to some of these studies in the footnotes
have been allowed to stand.

Kantorowicz's last will and testaiiBnt sti^-ulated that none
of his unpublished pof) evs were to be published, for ho did
not think of any scholarly work as "his" until he had re-
leased it for publication.

If, therefore, anyone choosejto cite this paoer in
print, the reference should be impersonal. Do not say
"Kantorowicz says in ^uch and sucl^", or "Kantorowicz
believed..." but rather something like "the unpublished
paper by •'^antorowidz on [this or that] is useful for the
problem of [such and such]".

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PAGE IN PHOTOCOPIES KADE OF THIS ARTICLE

i '

1

SYNePONOS

OH TIRONB-SHARINS OP GODS AHD MBN

I I

Antinous, the beautiful young Bythinien and beloved of Divus Hadrianus,

died in or on the Nile in 130 A.D. Whatever the circumstances of his

mysterious death may have been, accident or self-sacrifice, certain it is

that Hadrian's grief was matched by his desire to exalt the victim of a

tragic fate. Antinous became a god. Statues displaying his lovely features

— soft, sad, sensual, the eyebrows closely drawn together — were set up

all over the world. Coins portraying him bore the legend ^02

OI..

Attic ephebes made him the god of their feasts* An Attic demos of the Hadrianic
phyle was named Antinoeis. A Roman funerary guild recognized him as patron*

Some of the divine honors conferred upon him are recorded on the obelisk

which Hadrian erected for his friend in Rome, now on the Pincio. In Egypt,

where Antinous died to rise again as a god, a city was named for him. Coins

were issued showing him as AITTI IX>S OSIPIS^Among the divine honors

granted to him occurs the one which is to form the subject of this essay

and which was announced in inscriptions set up for him: *To Antinous, the

synthronos, the throne- sharer, of the gods in Egypt** ( vtlvoo duv^oovco unv
* ^ - 2

sv AL^n37rTcp Gcuv )•

Antinous therewith entered into the tradition of the kings of the

Ptolemaic dynasty who, in their turn, had continued the tradition of

3

Pharaonic Egypt. ^Thr one-sharer of the gods" was, by the time of Antinous*

death, a title of cultual or semi-cultual honor closely connected with the

4
Hellenistic cult of the ruler. It had become almost a technical term

enjoyhg some popularity, not only in Egypt whence some of our evidence

comes, but all over the Hellenistic worlds

Though a relatively late word, synthronos was always a solemn expression,

5
used mostly when things sacred or dignified were under discussion. The

throne, of course, was itself a seat of distinction and honor of gods and

kings. 'Throne-sharer;*' therefore, was by its very nature a lofty designation

for any person, even within the purely human political sphere when, for

example, the Sassanian king invested the commander of the guards his synthronos.

The one called upon to share the throne with a king appeared as the king's

7
equal, or at least as the king*s vice-gerent, a rege secundus. And the man

called upon to share the throne with the gods became in some respects their
co-equal and fellow-god, or at least a diis secundus.

Gods themselves, in art and literature, were often introduced as having
other divinities — often minor ones — for their throne- companions. "Zeus,

in all that he does, has Aidos for co-partner of his throne," says Sophocles;

8

and Pan, in the Orphic Hymns, is called "throne-sharer of the Horae." At

the very end of the dying Greco-Roman world, Nonnos of Panopolis, in his
heroic epic poem of the saviour Dionysos, visualizes the comforter god

of the vine and redeemer of mankind, after the god*s ascendion, as "synthronos

9

of Apollo and one sharing the hearth with Hermes." Furthermore, the emperor

Julian mentions that according to ancient belief Athene Pronoia was a

10

synthronos of Apollo, whereas Julian himself worshiped Helios as "synthronos

of the Mother," while styling the Great Mother one ''sharing the seat and

11
sharing the throne with great Zeus," thus venerating a throne- sharing

trinity wMch governed the universe. As the notion gained currency in the

vocabulary of the Hellenistic world, synthronos was used also in a figurative

auid poetical sense without forfeiting its solemn character. To Philo, for

12
example, the Virtues appeared as "synthronoi of the soul." And Origen

13

mentions the Virtues as synthronoi of Eusebeia, Piety. The Virtues, or

Personifications, were also synthronoi of each other, for example, Bia, the

14

Force, the throne-sharer of Dik?, Right. And in the Vienna Dioskurides

manuscript we find a miniature showing Megalopsychia, Sophia, and Phronesis

15

seated on one throne.

In a figurative sense, man could be called a throne-sharer of certain

Virtues. Meleager, for example, ends his cycle of poems by claiming that

now he was seated as ''a throne-sharer with the goals of Docility (Eumathia),**

16

Just as the regal virtues Dikw and Themis were said to be seated at the

sides of Zeus, so had, according to Dio of Prusa, Kingship at her right side

17
Dike and Eunomia, and at her left, Birene. What was valid for Kingship at

large, was valid also for the individual king whom, for example, Themistius

18
visualized seated with Nomos and Eudikia (Righteous Judgment), Actually

the ruler was quite often represented, even in mediaeval and early Renaissance

19
art, as a throne-sharer of various Virtues* Provincial governors were

treated similarly. In Didyma, for example, several inscriptions were dedicated

to the Proconsul Festus who, in or around 263, accomplished some public works

and obliged the citizens by a new setting of a fountain which Apollo had

caused to gush forth when Barbarians besieged the city. An inscription

announces that the waters once were sacred to the god — "now, however, this

20
has become the fountain of Festus, synthronos of golden Dike." Julian the

Egyptian, under Justinian, praised the provincial governor Tetianus, calling

him ''an amazing man" because "JZustice as [your] throne-sharer knows that

21

you loathe to touch wealth won from those that you rule." It is not impossible.

however, that the figurative speech of "throne- sharer of Dike," or one
of its equivalents, had a slightly more realistic meaning because the
statues of governors might be flanked by statues of Dike and any other
personified Virtue, or because their statues were placed in thea;e|i£Vog Ai'/.iir;,

22

that is, in the Praetorium, the Palais de Justice*

The notion of "throne-sharer of the gods," however, acquired a

political rather than a poetical meaning ever since it became fashionable

23

to visualize and worship Hellenistic kings as "gods manifest." In a technical

sense the designation of "synthronos of a god" or "of gods" implied that

to the images of gods ceremoniously seated on their tlirones there was added,

equal in material and often equal in size, the statue of the monarch, an

24

honor by which the king became almost isotheos. Moreover, since the cult

statue of a prince, when allocated to those of the gods, would be placed

in a sanctuary, a shrine or a sacred district, the royal synthronos might

be, at the same time, a Juvvaor t ^ "temple- sharer," or a

/ .11
c5DjXpw^og

an "altar-sharer," of the god or gods in whose sanctuary his statue had been

25
placed. "Throne-sharing," therefore, might amount to some kind of "temple-

sharing," and in essence the privilege of being a synthronos would not

differ greatly from the related, and much more frequently mentioned.

honor of being a synnaos , an honor lavishly bestowed upon the Ptolemaic

dynasts of Egypt and more sparingly upon other Hellenistic kings or upon

26

Roman princes* The relative rarity of synthronos as compared to synnaos

may be explained by the fact that the epithet "throne-sharer" could be applied
only if the deities whose dignity the king's statuary likeness was to share^
were themselves represented seated on their thrones* If the effigies of
the gods were standing upright, the statue of the monarch was not likely
to be a representation of a seated ruler* Synthronos, therefore, suggested
the statue of a throned ruler being added to the statues of enthroned gods;
and it remains to be seen whether the "sitting" as opposed to the "standing"
had a specific meaning.

1» Kings Throne-sharers of Gods.

Our evidence for a king's throne-partnership with the gods starts

27
in the Hellenistic period and, if we may believe Diodorus, it begins with

Philipp II of Macedonia. When this king celebrated at Aigai, in 336 B.C.,
the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra, the images of the Twelve Gods, seated

on their thrones, were carried as customary into the theater. In that solemn

I

pompe , however, there was added to the images of the Twelve the image of

King Philip; as that of a throne- sharing thirteenth. His image was equal in

28 CA^^

form and material with those of the gods. In other words, the king*s throned

effigy was paraded with those of the gods, and while the king in natura

presided over the show, the king in effigie — so to say, his numen — was

seated in the midst of the gods to watch the performance as a throne- sharing

29

thirteenth*

The report of Diodorus foreshadows several interesting features of the

later cult of rulers: it is our earliest evidence for a royal sellisternium,
the custom of exposing together with the couches or thrones of the gods the
draped throne of the monarch, with or without his effigy; and it is also

an evidence for the ruler as the triskaidekatos, the thirteenth god, a feature

30
which was to play a considerable rOle in later times. For these reasons

doubts have been cast on the reliability of Diodorus* report concerning

I

Philipp which has been labeled anachronistic. This scepticism, however, has

31

not been generally accepted. Besides, the alleged anachronism does not

exceed perfectly reliable evidence for royal synthronismoi by more than some
fifty years. It is true, of course, that a throne- sharing with gods is not

recorded with regard to Alexander the Great. Only in Pseudo-Callisthenes*

8

Alexander Novel the term appears several times* According to this source

32
Alexander was offered to become the synthronos of Zeus. Moreover, Dareios

appropriated for himself in his royal style the title "synthronos of Mithras |"

33
or of Helios, or of the gods. But even so this royal style irs well attested

perhaps
in later times it reflects/not more than the relative popularity of that term

around 300 A#D. when the Alexander Novel was composed. Nor is there any

other reference to Alexander as throne-sharer of a divinity, although according

34

to Clement of Alexandria he had been elevated to the rank of a thirteenth god.

The story was different with regard to Alexander's successors in Egypt.

Ptolemy I Soter died and was deified in 283 B.C. His statue showing the

king enthroned was put up in the temple of Zeus where, according to Theocritus,

Alexander, himself a god, *'was seated friendly beside him,** while **over against

35
him was set the adamantine throne of Hercules.'* The first Ptolemaic ruler

thus had been recognized, after his death, as a synthronos of the gods and
heroes of his country. Twelve years later, around 270, an inscription honors

the still living royal couple, Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his sister-queen

Arsinoe, the Oeo\ * AbeXooi » plainly as '*synthronoi of the gods in Egypt,"

36

This, we recall, was verbatim the formula shosen to describe Antinous* cultual

37

statues. Moreover, the official cult for the Adelphian gods was established

around 271-270; it included, from early times, a temple- sharing of the

38
royal couple. But even a few years before that date there are some

significant features in connection with the festive pompe arranged by

Ptolemy Philadelphos and described in great detail by Kallixenos. Fpr in

that procession the throne of the deceased and deified rulers of the dynasty

were paraded with symbolic emblems placed on the seats, and to these there

39
was added the throne of Philadelphos himself. In other words, through the

medium of the exposed thrones Philadelphus became the synthronos of the

deified founders, Alexander and Ptolemy Soter or, vice versa, the deified

predecessor king-gods appeared as the cjij vGpovo L . eoL of the ruling king.

It is not quite by chance that some of our earliest evidence for

throne- sharings refers to Ptolemaic practice; for the idea of the king's

40
throne-partnership with gods has a Pharaonic tradition. At any rate, there

are quite a number of monuments of the New Empire showing the king as the

synthronos of a deity. In the cella of the temple at Medinet Habu several

statues have been found showing Thutmose III (18th Dynasty: 1501-1447) in

the company of Amon, seated together with the god on one throne, twice

41
on the right hand of the god, once on his left (fig.l); and a similar

twin statue of king and god had its place in the temple of Amon at Karnak

10

42

where another group showed the king between two deities. Moreover,

Seti I (19th Dynasty) shared in Abydos not only the thrones of the deified

dead kings, but also that of Amon who, in an inscription, made it known

43

that he had placed his "great seat beside their majesties." An earlier

king, Horeinheb (last of the 18th Dynasty) was seated next to Horus, at htle

44
right hand of the god, and it was probably the same king who is shown

45
between Osiris and Horus with Isis sitting next to Osiris. Of Seti's

successor Ramses II there are very many sculptures known in which he is

46
represented on one seat with gods and goddesses. On one occasion Ramses II

appears as the synthronos of Ptah, Amon, and Horus in the temple at Abu-Simbel

47
in Nubia (fig.2), and other divinities are allocated to him in other Nubian

48
sanctuaries. These few examples, no doubt, could be multiplied considerably.

They suffice, however, to understand that the Hellenistic kings of Egypt

of the Ptolemaic dynasty continued a Pharaonic tradition when they assumed the

honor not only of teniple- sharing with the gods, but also that of t hr one- s liar ing

Throne- sharings between gods and kings may have been quite

frequent in other Hellenistic kingdoms, but they are usually not readily

recognizable. Did, for example, the sanctuary of the Twelve Gods in Delos

11

harbor a statue of Demetrius Polibrketes as well, and if so, was he a synnaos

49

of the Twelve or also their synthronos? King Eunienes II of Pergamon was

a synnaos in the port of Pergamon, Eleia; was he, perhaps, also a synthronos ?

Throne- sliaring, at any rate, was known in Perganion» For in 37 or 39 A.D#

50

Julia Livilla, the daughter of Germanicus, was officially styled a Nea

Nikephoros and the synthronos of Athene Nikephoros, of the goddess whose
image showed her seated, carrying on her right hand a small statuette of

51

Victory.

The most impressive example, and quite unambiguous testimony,

of royal throne-partnership with the gods is the great monument and inscription

of the sanctuary which Antiochus of Commagene established, in the thirties of

52
the first century B.C., on the sum it of Nemrud Dagh. He has chosen,

declared the king of that small kingdom in Asia Minor straddling the

Hellenistic and Parthian orbits of culture, to consecrate the new temple as a

sacred seat for the gods to share*

"Wherefore, as thou seest, I have established these godlike effigies
of Zeus Oromasdos, and of Apollo Mithras Helios Hermes, and of Artagnos
Heracles Ares, and of mine all nurturing country Comniagene; and of the
self-same stonework I have set up a copy of my own form as throne-sharer

12

of the gods that hearken to prayers (

L'LO'^ L

and have caused the ancient honor of great gods to become coeval with

53
a new Tyche.**

The ruins of the hierothesion on Nemrud Dagh show> in a truly stunning
fashion, the colossal figures, each measuring some twenty feet, sitting
side by side on their huge thrones (fig»3). Zeus is the central figure with
personified Commagene at his right side and King Antiochus at his left,

throne- sharers who in their turn are flanked by Apollo and Heracles respectively.

54

The rigid frontality of the collossi increased the solemn monumentality of tihis
"throne of the gods" (0£C3V £vOooVLc5]La ). To these "royal gods" ( ,jc:c5 L.v L ::ol

oaL|XOVeQ>, who where at the sa^jne time the kings planetary divinities

55
(Juppiter, Mars, Mercury), there were added slabs displaying the images of

the "god kings" ("':->\ PcdlXsL'; ), that is, the ancestors and deified

predecessors of Antiochus back to that Dareios, adversary of Alexander the Great,

who, according to Pseudo-Callisthenes, proudly styled himself "synthronos of

56
Mithras." Here his descendent, Antiochus of Commagene, has adopted that

very title. Visibly and, through the medium of the inscriptions, almost audibly,

the Kind of Commagene placed himself in the newly established shrine as the

synthronos, the throne- sharing equal of the great gods as well as of his ancestral

divinities while expounding his own glory by means of the title, repeated

13

over

and over again, of the '^Great King Antiochus, the Just God Manifest*'

57

(Bcxc5l' -•'^^ -A^rY- *Av-tov'oc '^ ?.>)■- Air-ccciOG ^ferwioavr]^^ >• At the same
time he asserted in the inscription that he had caused his Tyche (the Persian

58

Hvareno) to become manifest as equal in age with the gods themselves

Moreover, the inscription perhaps allows us to make a guess at a more
succinct meaning of synthronos. For Antiochus claimed he had become a
synthronos of the hrr\:iooi , of the gods that "hearken to prayers." That is

to say, Antiochus considered himself a throne- partner of those gods who in

59
ex voto monuments are so often represented by a pair of huge ears £er se;

and it has been observed, by the archaeologists in the field, thgt the

divinities on Nemrud Dagh were distinguished by unproportionately large ears.

Also in the inscription of Samosata, Antiochus associated himself as synthronos

60

with the G(br|::ooL , the"celestial divinities that harken to prayers.

ti

Now St. John Chrysostom remarks on one occasion that

••so long as the king is seated on his throne, he listens to the

petitioners and they may achieve what they desire. Once, however,

the king rises from his throne, all words on the part of the

61
petitioners are futile."

In other words, to sit or to be enthroned means benevolence and benevolent

14

listening. The royal synthronos, therefore, is one that hearkens together
with the gods to prayers, acting perhaps as the advocate or intercessor of
the people, and especially of those of his own country.

The monuments and inscriptions in the Kingdom of Commagene represent
in more than one respect the apogee of the Hellenistic cults of rulers, and

it seems as though Atiochus I had a definite plan to organize the ruler cult

62

more or less uniformly throughout his kingdom* Antiochus, however, had

good reason for adding to his more divine titles also that of Philorhomaios,
friend of the Romans. For in his days the star of Caesar had risen, and with
the dictator Hellenistic concepts of kingship began to take their way into
Rome — so far as they had not been received before ~ ^and there to be
remoulded according to Roman ideas of rulership.

To the Dictator C. lulius Caesar the Romans voted, in addition to
other divine honors, that his golden chair adorned with his crown be carried
into the theater and the circus in the very same manner as the thrones of the
gods. Later, after his death and consecration, there was added to throne and

crown the effigy of Divus lulius who, being himself a god, became quite

15

63

logically and legally the de facto throne- sharer of the other gods. The

ecliracal Tern, of syr.tnxcr.es, hc¥e%"er , rarely appears m t ne language of tne

cult of

s; and its Latin equivalent, consessor, which we know fro«

Julius Valerius* translation of the Alexander Novel, has m verv vague meaning

64

►-,» ^ -: 1 ». ♦ ^ , .V-

anc is i^arclv re

:e in pre-Christian times. The whole idea of throne- sharing

wms adventitious to Rone and regained, to say the least, without eaphasis,

ev€E though poets visualize occasionally their eieperor's future table-fellowship

65

with the iaanortals.

This dees not inply that a throne- coBBBnity of Roaan eiperors and

princes with gods was beyond Koaan imagination. We learn, for exaiq)le, that

tr^e image of A^gwstus, seated on a couch, was placed — at least tei^X)rarily

66

after the ceatt of the princeps — in the teiiple of Mars. It Kay be doubted

this action really inplied an Augustus Karti consessor. In one case,

g there certainly was a genuine throne- sharing of Augustus and a

deity, which is well illustrated by the fdjsous gems in Vienna. Reclining in

his t.-irone ox Spnjinxes Aagnstos is shom, in the saaller gem, at the side of

67

the goddess Rosta (fig. ). On earth, the princeps had shared temples,

altars, and priests with this goddess, the ntiaerous sanctuaries Roaae et August i

16

it 1$ i:xtici^it plausible eaougti tna: t ne exalted Augustus, a.s s.icwr* ii. tne
larger gem (fig. ), was re^esented once more as the syr.thr: of the

goddess Roma who graciously made, as it vere, his enecies his footstool

68
wliile taming the proud. Apart from Roma and Augustus, throne-sr^rings were

not too fr

in Rome, whereas it occurred in the Provinces. We recall

69

the case of Antinous who became synthronos of the gods in Bgypt, or of

70

Julia Lirilla who, in PergaWMg

the sjx

A t h en e ?> :. ♦ e : : . r r o s .

To these there may be added Jmlis I>OHia, empress of Sertimius Severus# For

in 196-197 A.D* the Athenians voted to set up her statue in the tenple of

Atheat to become the latter *s synthroaas mad to be worshiped under the same

71
rocf with trie roddess. Horeover, in the age of tne Tetrarchs, a coin displays

the emperor MaxiiLxan, head of the so-called "Herculian" dynasty, as the

72

consessor of Hercules, the emperor being in uniform and the god aakec4fig» )•

Final3v, Scrrius in his Commentary on Aeneid, 1,276 and 292, mentions a

Strange mytiacal feature: in expiation tor the death of Remus there should

ataays be a sella curulis with sceptre, crom, and other regal insignia placed

n«rt to that of Romulus-Quirinus so that the two brothers seemed to take all

73

together and in like manner*

17

To suanarize, throre-sha rings of kings and gods were quite

common in the Hellenistic kingdoms €▼€& though the evidence is not as

rich as it is with regard to texr^l^- sharing; and also in Rome* though

to a lesser degree, this cultual honor of princes was not guit« absent^

2* The Dead as Throne- sharers of Gods.

Most of the documents hitherto discussed referred to living

princes as synthronoi of gods. We have to consider, however, numerous and

manifold interrelations wniLcn prevail cultually between gods^ kings, and

dead* To that triangle of gods, kings, and dead — a common denominator

may be the cult of heroes — and to the similarities of their worship

Tertullian, in a famous passage, called attention by objecting to the

74

worship of the dead rather sarcastically* He askss

What then do you do to honor the gods that you might not offer
to your dead as well? You build temples for the gods, and after
the same fpShion you build teazles also for the dead* ^ou erect
altars for the erods, and after the same fashion altars for %Ji^

a.

the dead. You virrite the same chracters at the head of the
inscriptions* ^ou form the effigies ot gods aad dead in the

same manner depending

craft, trade, or age of the deceased. •»

mio can excuse the disgrace of not«-distinguishilkg between gods
and dead? Moreover, to the rulers too there are attached collegcc

18

of priests and the requisites of sacred rites, chariots, and

processional carts, preparations of couches and preparations

75
of thrones, festivals, and gaines#

To tiiis long list of agreements between the cults of the gods, and those

of the dead and of rulers, the scandalized apologist might have added

other items; and, in fact, he added them in other writings, ^^e irentior?^

the identity of the sacrificial bowl and of the cup of libation to the

76
dead. He devoted a whole treatise to the crown as an insignia and

stressed correctly that the dead were crowned as ^ sign <^f their

deification or, as he put it, ••because they become idols as soon as they

77

are dead both by their attire and by the service of consecration," And

he might have mentioned, unless this parallel was indicated by the remark

concerning the solisternia, also the preparation of thrones' : likened to
gods and kings, the dead too had their thrones*

The purpose of these cermenonial chairs placed in the sepulchral

chamber was to provide a seat for the dead at the ritual meals offered to them

by mourners and friends; invisibly the deceased were supposed to be present in

78
the vac:e.nt throne to share the offerings of their friends. This idea,

however, does not exclude another implication, to wit, that the dead were

19

meant to be exalted by the throne, and that the throne became an insignia

79
of his **heroization" or •♦deification" after death. That is, he was to be

received in the community of gods and heroes, not dissimilar to the heroized

and apotheosized rulers* This hope of herolike immortality was expressed

n

in may another fashion as well — by the crown carved in the tombstone,

by the clipeata, the portrait disk of the dead, or by the presence of Nike

80
conferring the crown. l^'hereas the transcendental banquet community of dead

81
and heroes has been studied with reasonable thoroughness, less attention

has been paid to the dead*S "throne-sharing** with the immortals, an idea

which, after all, was to conquer the world.There is, however, sufficient

evidence to show that the "symposial** aspect of the life thereafter in

which the "serene dwellings*' of the gods, the sedes quiet ae, invite the

82
dead to rest, was supplemented by a vision of a more ceremonious posture

of the dead.

It is true, the concept of otherworldly table-fellowship with the

gods and heroes was much more common in later pagan times thalx that of a

stern and hieratic throne-partnership which grants less relaxation, though

perhaps greater distinction. But the thrcne-partnership is nevertheless

20

quite well known. In the earlier period, the king- or judge-like exaltation
of the dead's enthronement referred to the realm of Hades. The exalted dead
would be visualized as privileged "partners of the seats of the gods below'*

(.Tcape^poi TOIQ XOTCa) GeoiQ ). instead of joining the crowd of almost nameless

S4
shadows, some elect, the X^P^S ev><5e,8cov , were granted seats near the

throne of Hades and Persephone, or were allowed to share the seat of Minos,

85
the paragon of the just and himself a judge in the kingdom below. It was

perhaps the right of ltpoe6pia ^ of sitting in the first rows at the games

86
and in the theatre which the seat-sharing dead would enjoy. But by this

very right of honor the distinguished dead might become also associated

with the heroes. An inscription from Cnossos glorifies r. warrior, Thrasymachos,

whose fame ^it is said) will prevent him from vanishing among the shadows

in the house of Hades. For *»Hades, the glorious, will make you to sit down

87
as a synthronos of Idomeneus, the possessor of cities," That is to say,

Thrasymachos was to become the throne-sharer of the local Cretan hero

Idomeneus*

The great metamorphosis of eschatological belief, however, was

brought about when, in the Hellenistic age, human mind was conquered by the

doctrine according to which man's soul might ascend to the skies to become

21

88

inimortal among the stars or gods. The "soul sharing the seat of the
iirmortals'* (tI)\))(Tl dOVeSpOQ fiQccvaxioV ) was a term suggesting that the

privileged was to share like very few heroes, not the thrones of the "gods

89
below/' but those of the'*gods above." The vulgarization of heroship by the

new mystical and philosophical doctrines, as well as the mutual interpenetration

of beliefs in the immortality of the soul and in the ascension to the gods

of some heroes, are subjects representing most complicated and complex

phenomena of religious history. Suffice it here to say that the idea of a

throne-partnership with the gods began to move away from the nether regions

and to seek its materialization in the regions above.

The formal and official heroization by which Alexander supposedly

honored his dead friend Hephaestion, has always attracted the attention of

scholars, though it is not too well attested* Allegedly the king gave order

that in addition to other honors sacrifices were to be offered to Hephaestion
as 0eJ>Q 7rap66pOSj a "seat-sharing god." The dead as fi paredroi of the
immortals was an honor not unheard of, but it went beyond custom to style

the defunct himself a god sharing the seats of the other gods. At any

event, a trone-sharing with the Olympians appears as a vehicle of deification

and heroization. This is true to a certain extent also with regard to the

22

ruler of Commagene. In the great inscription Antiochus, synthronos of

the gods in this present world, gave vent to his hope that "after havi

ng

expired his god-fearing soul into the infinite eternity, his body would
rest in the cairn, which he had established^ indelible by the storm of
time, in greatest proximity of the celestial thrones, near the tlirones
of Zeus Oromasdes in heaven." That is to say, Aiitiochus expect^ to
continue his throne-partnership with the gods after his death — partly

in effigy, and partly because the hierothesion on the summit of Nemrud

r«-u ( f^

lJ'A.,\

Dagh, where his body will rest, is at least in greatest proximity of

the celestial thrones*

This lofty throne- sharing with the "gods above" was not only a
privilege of heroized kings, but it was accessible to other mortals as

well, in the first place to the wise men and the adepts of philosophy.

92

An inscription of the second century after Christ, from Ephesus,
announces very assuredly: "I airi dwelling in the sacred and most lovely

place of the pious, a throne-sharer of the heroes on account of ray

93

self-control." In this epitaph inscription the throne-sharing with the

4

heroes appear^ as the reward of a philosophical virtue, self-control.

23

or of a philosopher's life in general. The caricature of this heroic

syirthronismos is not missing. We have to recall that philosopher exhibitionist

7 '

Peregrinus-Proteus who vaingloriously thrust himself liVe another Phenix

V

into the flames of a pyre with the intention to die and resurrect from

the ashes as a god. Mockingly a poet, Theagnes, described the ambitions

of Peregrinus, and wrote: 'Then all men shall worship that great hero,

who wanders through the darkness of night, a throne- sharer of Hephaestus

94
and of the Lord Heracles. The boastful suicidal philosopher thus

allegedly expected to share, after his resurrection and ascension the
thrones of the demiurge Hepha^stos and of the saviour Heracles, two

95

gods who are found together also on a sarcophagus.

The throne-partnership with the saviour gods and their lower

concomitants, for example, the Muses, was obviously a more desirable

destiny in the life thereafter than sharing the seat of Minos in the

bleak regions of the shadows* Not only the philosophical doctrines but

y

also the mystery cult , promised to their adherents a community with the

gods in the life after death, that is, the heroization. Throne-sharing,

it is true, seems to have been of no importance in the mystery religions.

24

even though the ritual of initiation provides sometimes also for the 9p0VCAK5lQ

97
of the neophyte, his enthronement on the chair of the god. To certain

gnostic schools, however, whose teaching may well be called a christianized

equivalent of the mysteries, an other-worldly throne- sharing of the dead

with secondary deities was known. In the Stromata, Clement of Alexandria

gives an account of gnostic perfection according to which those having

preserved a pure heart during their life on earth shall be taken up to

the neighborhood of the Lord in the other world; and there "they shall

be called gods and become throne-sharers of the other gods who rank

98
first after the Savior*"

The ideas blended in this passage are interesting. First,

there is the apotheosis of the dead: they shall be taken up to heaven

99
and be called "gods." Further, the apotheosis is combined not with the

more customary coronatio but with an enthronement 2 the meritorious dead,

after their ascent to heaven, become the "tiirone-sharers" of certain

deities* Moreover, the future c5ovGpovot 080 i of the dead are the

"gods ranking first after the Savior." In the pagan orbit this would have

meant probably the community with the companion gods of the greater

25

gods; here the &eT)TepOl tnay be recognized as logoi or dynameis — "angels"
according to Christian terminology. Finally, the passage in the Stromata
renders Christian thought: the virtuous dead shall be called to the proximity

of the Savior to share the throne with the savior god's comoanion,

3» Christos Synthronos.

When we survey the considerable number of places in the New
Testament in which the throne-sharing of the glorified Son of man with God
the Father is mentioned, it might appear that this metaphor sprang exclusively
from the tradition of ancient Israelitic thought. No verse of the Old
Testament has been quoted so often, and so significantly, in the New as Psalm
109, the decisive passage announcing the royal or messianic throne-partnership

with Jehova: "The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand, until

100
I make thine enemies thy footstooU" This verse is referred to so authoritatively

in the Gospels, and it is repeated or alluded to so often in the Apostolic

lol
writings that the celestial throne-companionship of the Son of man with God

the Father is explained sufficiently by the Psalter alone. It may seem superfluous,

therefore, to search for an influence of the Hellenistic tradition with

regard to this metaphor.

2e

The distinction, however, between Tsraelitic and Hellenistic
traditions is not fortunate in this case. For the image of Israelitic kingship
as reflected by the Psalter is inseparable from the concept of divine kingship
in the ancient Near East; and this, in its turn, formed also the basis of
Hellenistic ruler worship. The decisive fact or is rather the di '^ference
between both Jewish and Hellenistic concepts of human-divine throne-partnership
on the one hand and the in:age of Christ sharing the throne of the Father on

the other. In the Psalra, no matter whether it be interpreted "historically'*

102 r.'-'

or"messianically**, the throne-sharing of the Lord that is addressed with

the Lord that speaks is, as it were, "absolute" and not determined by time —

despite the promise of a future victory "until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

■> -

The throne-sharing has no recognizable cause nor, beyond the final victory,
a conceivable consequence. The same is true with regard to the throne-sh?rings
of Hellenistic kings. The king's throne- fellowship with one or more gods
is a mark of distinction or honor, but it is not bound to a definite moment

in the life of the ruler nor does it have any consequences with regard to

other men.

The applications of Psalm 109 in the New Testament, however,

deviate from both the Israelitic and the Hellenistic traditions in so far

27

as the throne- sharing of the Messiah, the Son of man, with God the Father

is bound to a specific moment in the life of Jesus and in the history of

the human race, and it is integrated into a universal economy of salvation.
For the sitting of the man Jesus on the right side of God the Father appears
as an ultimate goal, as the last consequence of a tragedy, the last scene

of a terrifying drama which began on earth by the incarnation and ended in

the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension to heaven. The ensuing
synthronismos, therefore, is meant to appear as the last station of a long
journey, as the supreme exaltation and glorification of the one who asserted

himself, also by his dxXa » his exploits, as the world savior. It is the

103
apotheosis of the hero's human nature, the triumph of the Son of man as the

Son of God, a throne-sharing for the duration of this world and beyond it;

it has a stage of finality, eclipsed and interrupted only by the Second Coming,
that of the Judge, at the end of time. The throne- sharing in the New Testament

thus has both an individual meaning and an eschatological neaning relevant

to all men, which it did not have either in the Psalm or in the Hellenistic

ruler cult. The evangelical throne- sharing, though itself timeless and beyond

the world's time, is yet linked to Time.

Nothing illustrates so signally the linking to Time as the

28

very first mention of Christ *s celestial synthronismos in the Gospels. Jesus,
when asked by Caiphas whether he really was the Anointed and Son of God,
answered: "From now (Matth. ,26,64 :Sic*5pTl ; Luke, 22,69t47cb TOO VOv) V*
s^hall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of Cod and
coming in the clouds of heaven^" From now — these words indicate a definite
historical moment in the history of mankind. Where the passion and the defeat
on earth start, there the future triumph in heaven begins to take shape. The
throne-sharing with the Father becomes part of the unfolding of the history
of man, and it receives its fateful place within Time. It is from now, from
that portentous historical moment fraught with destiny and foreshadowing
the nearness of the passion, that the throne- sharing of the Messiah with God
may be guessed at, though it will become manifest only after the crucifixion

,710 TOO vovforeshadows also the future
throne-fellowship with the Savior of the martyrs and of every loyal believer,
a throne-fellowship which, through the Sora of man,, is simultaneously one
with God the Father on the throne of heaven.

Neither in the tradition of Israel nor in that of Hellenistic
kingship has the element of Time been effective in the assertion of a

throne- fellowship with a god. The Jewish apocalyptic ideas of throne-sharings

29

104
were primarily messianic and beyond time; the Hellenistic ideas were

primarily individual and mythical, and without time. And neither one nor the

other claimed to be consequential with regard to mankind. Contrariwise, the

throne-sharing of the Son of man (and it was the human nature of Christ which

was said to share the throne with the Father) eventually became the cornerstone

of the new faith and the essence of the doctrine of salvation* That is to say,

the enthronement of the Son of man as King of Glory includes the promise to

all faithful that thev themselves in the life after life will be summoned

to share the throne with God's synthronos* '*To him that shall overcome, I will
give to sit with me in my throne, as I also have overcome and am set down with
my Father in my throne," reads the decisive passage in the Apocalypse (3,21)
expressing the idea of the condominium of the faithful with Christ in the

life thereafter.

Despite this new evaluation of both the Jewish and the Hellenistic

symbols the older tradition had not lost its power. In fact, the sitting of

the Son at the right hand of the Father was back- translated, before long.

into the current vocabulary of Hellenistic ruler and hero worship. The

word synthronos is not found in the New Testament, nor is it used in the

Septuagint. Since, however, it was a technical term of the Hellenistic

30

world for a ruler's or other person's equality with the gods, the word very

soon made its appearance in the works of Christian theological and exegetical

105
writers as well. Philo and Orig^en had used it in a figurative sense.

Clement of Alexandria visualized a throne-sharing with the deuteroi in the

106
life thereafter for those endowed with gnosis* Eusebius of Caesarea,

A

however, use^ the term not only casually or figuratively, but transfer^ the

Hellenistic title of honor almost systematically to Christ, especially in

connection with Psalm 109. Chtlst, writes Eusebius, is publicly proclaimed

107

ff

to be the synthronos of the highest God'* in accordance with Psalm 109.

108

He is "the priest of the God over all and synthronos of the uncreated power

»»

He is "an eternal priest and son of the most highest God, so far as he is

109

engendered by the most highest God and is a synthronos o: f his kingship

2 m. ♦*

"He is the ?nointed God and the one that became the Anointed, the Beloved

of God and his child, the eternal priest and the publicly proclaimed

110 ^

synthronos of the Father." He is the "captain (ipj^idTpCTtlY^s) of the

host of the Ixjrd (Joshua, 5,14), . . and the'angel of the great council' (Is., 9, 6),

111

and the synthronos of the Father as well as the eternal great highpriest."
Moreover, in the paraphrase and exegesis of Psalm 109, to which Eusebius

devotes a whole chapter of his Demonst ratio evangelica (V|3), he uses the

31

terra synthronos over and over again. Despite his inclinations toward Arianism,
Eusebius does not use the term in a subordinating sense. '*The Psalm styles

him Kyrios and teaches that he is at once the synthronos and the Son of God

112
over all and Lord of the universe*'* The prophetic spirit of the Psalmist

**quite rightly demonstrates that the Lord is the only synthronos of the Father,

113

through whom all has been created." "Right it is therefore that he, the

Father's similitude (homoiosis), has the Lordship, just as he is also

114

declared to be the only synthronos of the Father." Finally, in his

V

Commentary on Luke, Eusebius holds, in connection with the Transfiguration,

that God the Father demonstrated on this occasion Christ as his cJtJvGpOVOG

115
and c5DJiPa<5lX8t3G and constituted him above every power. This is an important

passage because it foreshadows the later par?llelisra or even synonymity of

t4>^8^ two notions of throne-sharer and co-emperor

Few authors, it is true, have so consistently designated Christ

as the synthronos of the Father as Eusebius who thereby added a Hellenistic
cultual-constitutional note to the fundamentals of Christian faith. Eusebius,

however, was in that respect not alone, since by the later fourth and early
fifth centuries the expression was of fairly common usage. Gregory Nazianzen,

in his diatribe against Emperor Julian, refers to Christ as "the great Father's

32

116
Son and Logos and highpriest and synthronos," Saint Basil uses the term at

117 118

least once, and St. John Chrysostom uses it several times. The term is

119 120

found in the writings of Cyril of Alexandria and of Proclus of Constantinople,

121
perhaps even on one occasion in those of Athanasius. And Nonnos, in the

proem of his poetical paraphrase of the Fourth Gospel, styled Christ "the

Light of Light, inseparable from the Father, and God's synthronos in the

122

eternal throne."

At one point, the cultual notion enters the orbit of what may be

termed: celestial politics. St. John Chrysostom indicates that the wicked,

who were possesssed by demons and did not know that there was a god,

123
nevertheless desired to become the synthronoi of God. This desire to be

throne-sharer of God was, unless authorized by the devotion to Christ, hubris
and as such sinful and evil» Therefore the serpent, in an apocryphal gnostic
writing on Adam, persuades Eve to eat the fruit picked from the Tree of

Knowledge because after eating it man would become syndoxos and synthronos of God,

124
a sharer of God's glorjr and throne. Contrariwise, Christ, in a paschal homily

of the Syrian poet Cyrillonas, is made to say: 'The throne expects me to ascend

and sit on it, and allow to sit on it with me the humbled Adam who now again is

I I

33

125 126

exalted." Similar ideas are found in the Pistis Sophia and other writings,

for example, when John Chrysostom, in an Ascension sermon, says: 'nToday the arch-
angels see our [human] nature shining like lightening from the royal throne in

127

glory and immortal beauty*"

The concept of "throne-sharing" on the basis of Psalm 109 had dogmatic
bearings as well. This became manifest during the struggles of the Orthodox
against the Arian subordinating interpretation of Christ. The equality of the
Son with the Father had been evidenced by the Orthodox also by indicating the
throne-companionship of the first with the second person. These efforts, however,
were ridiculed by the Arians who claimed that the Son was inferior to the Father,
and mockingly the Arians declared that the sitting of the Son at the right hand

of the Father might as well be taken as an evidence for the superiority of the

128

Son over the Father because qui est ad dexteram, ipse est maior> Sainc Ambrose,

of course, found it easy to parry this attack by maintaining: Diviritas p:radus

129

nescit. But the Arians could deny the significance of the throne-sharing

altogether by indicating that according to Psalm 109 the Son shared the divine
throne because he had been ordered to do so (quia iussus sedet ad dexteram), and
accordingly they could argue that the Father who ordered was greater than the Son

130

who obeyed.

l<i

1)

The material for the various honors allotted to Antinous
is conveniently siiinmed up by Wernlke, "Antinous,'* RE, 1:2,
2439, ^ 5. See, for an interesting sidelight, F.L.Griffith,
"Herodotus 11,90: Apotheosis by Drowning," Zeitschrift fflr
flgyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, XLVI (1909-1910),
132f , with the remarks by Theodor Hopfner, Griechisch-Sgyptischer
Dffenbar^ung szauber (Studien zior Pallographie und Papyruskxinde,
XXIII; 1924), II,65f , I 150, and 92f , ^ 188, and the stimulating
discussion of the problem by F.J. Dfllger, "Esietus: Der
Ertrunkene oder der z\im Osiris Gewordene," Ant ike und
Christentum, 1(1929), 174-183.

2)

For Antinous as Osiris, see Dfllger, op^cit. , 183, n.38. For
the inscription, see GIG, III, 6007; G.Kaibel, Inscriptiones

graecae Ital. (

), 960,961. The inscription has been

adduced already by G.d'Arnauc (see below, n.4), 97f,

3)

See below, n.

4) Hesych, s.t* * 7cape6pov t " mentions <5\)v0povog ^^ ^ synonym.

9»

5)

The twc errressicns, how^rer, do not always match, and

©xpressiona such as icape6poc> ^t)ve2>poCf ^ovQaKog s:..^.ii nor
be discussed here except In a few cases. See Hflfer, "Paredroi, "
in Roscher, Lexl ' . 111:1, cols.lS'^Sf, for a small collection
cf exar ' s Car <yw6povoc • '^ '^^ proMeic here to be discussed

has not yet been treated, althc : a good start had been made

#
long ago by George d*Arnaud, De alls ggpebpoic s1t»

£C5e5 5:ri:us et coni^ar..ctis commentairius (The Hague, 1'732) ;

but the closely related subject of ^temple-sharing" in

Antiquity has, with characteristic brilliance, been dealt with

by Arthur D, Kock, •SiW^P8»c 9«oc , *toiTard Studies in Classical

Fhilologx, XLI (1950), 1-62, a study without wbich I would
have been lost and ro which I feel greatly indebted.

Emat Lcbiteyer, '^23bv Xpi^xoof" Festgabe f€r Adolf Deissmann

T^Dlngen, 1927), 226ff, 232, stresses that in later times th#
propositi 0T5 orJi^had a somewhat sole«n i^ing as op'Dosed to the jiexa
of ordinary talk. Also Eduard Korden, Aus altr&slschen

Prle^

"charn (l ' ^, 1939), 72ff, mentions that the Latin

cDitpcsits with coo- were particularly popular "im A-tsstil

'i- • •

mlt Einschluss der Sfrache dwr Staatwprl#ater.*

6)

Wuard Bratkw, Das soger:j5rj'.te Hellglonsgesprlch am Hofe der

5*

5^ '-anlden (Texte land Untersuchiaiigen, N#F,IV:3; 1899), 5,

lines 6-15, where it is said tha

hroditiani:?, who directea

the religious disputation, was on account of his wisdom persona
c:ratissiTna i*I2th the Persian king who annourf*<*?' fP.^,?) that he
has gent xhn ^^tTtpo^ cJovSpovov *Ai|ipo6iTiaviv • See also

28, 18. For other Persian examples, see Volkmann (next note),291f

7)

See, for the problem. He Volkmann, "Der Zweite nach dem iLflnig,
Philologus, XCII (1957), 286-316.

8)

Sophocles, Oed> Col., 1267f:Ztiv\ ^v'fBaxoQ Qpoyuy At&4ig{
Hymni Orph. , XI, 4, ed. Abel, 64: MipOpovoQ ^Qpai^ 5 cf.
Leonardus irmn Liempt, De vocabulario hymnorum Orphlcorua atque

ae

tat© (Utrecht Diss., 1950), 19. Synthronismoi of deities.

of course, are suggested by numerous double-thrones; see, e.g.,
W. Reichelt Tiber vorhelleni sche attterkulte (Vienna, 1897),
50f, fig. 8. But it is not the inteTitlon here to broach the
problem of throne -sharing gods such as the Capitoline triad
and other similar groups of deities.

9)

Nonnos, Dionysiaca, XLVIII, 976, ed. Rouse (Loeb), III, ^92z

4*

(jDvGpovoQ *AitoXXwvi, c5t)V£cJTioc ^Iti UaiTjc (actually the
last line of the long epical poem). See also V. Stegemann,
Astrologie imd TTniversalgegchlchtp r Stiidien unci Interpretationan
zu den Dionysiaka des Nonnos von Panopolis ^^eipzig, 1930)^
For dovedTiog » see F» Oumont, Recherches sur le ,_ :.)oligiRe
funffraire des Pomains (Paris, 1942), 578, n.2.

10)

Julian, Oratio IV, 149C, ed, W.C. Wright (Loeb), 1,408: toiq
iraXaiOLg IqwivsTo 'AGriva Dpoiroia dovSpovoc 'AxoKKbivi.

11)

Julian, Oretl- V, 167B, ed. Wright, 1,466: & \itr^Q ^HXiog, i
cJt3V©povoc TTj Mf|Tpi ; and 179D, ed. Wright, J,500:^Q ©swv xa\
SvGpantov Mtfrepi w tod fieYoXoi) dui^buxe xa\ 6vvBpo'^t Aeoc»

12)

Philo, Leguro allegoriae, 111,247, c.8e, ed. Cohn-Wendland ,

Ip 168: 6ixaio<J^vt] %a\ ^povr\ciQ %a\ a\ dovGpovoi Ta^TtiQ

[ttig ♦t^x^cl ApeTCi .See the related passage in Cicero,

Ad ft. fratrem, 1,1,31: "tuae virtutes consecratas et in deorum

6'>

numero collocatas*" Cf. Nock, "Syiinaos,'' 57, n.f>.

13)

Origen, Contra CelsTani, 111,50, ed, Koetschau, 1,246,19:

14)

Moschion, Fragment 6, lines 15-16, ed. Nauck (2nd ed. ) , 814:
?|V 6*6 p.lv Nojxoc / TC^eivocj ?| Bia 6^ duvOpovoc Aixt).

Cf* HBfer, "Paredrol," in Roscher, Lexikon, 111:1, 1676.

15)

Joseph von Karabacek (ed.), Dioscurides; Codex Aniciae
Jnlianae picturis illustratus> , ♦phototypice editus (Leiden,
1906), Tol.e^o .

16)

Anth. Palat., XII, 257,8, ed. Pflbner, II, 430: (JovGpovoQ
T6pt>|iat Tepp.a(5iv e^jiaGiag.

6*>

17)

Dio Chrysostom, Oratlo I, 73ff, ed. Cohoon (Loeb), 1,38;
cf. V. Valdenberg, •'la theorie monarchlque de Dion Chrysostome, "
Revue des etudes grecques, XL (1927), 159. See, in general,
Rudolf Hir^el, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig, 1907).

18)

r.

Q-.

Themistius, Oratio XV, ed. Dindorf, 230,19: 6 yctp ^o\
oipoeSpog Ha\ (joviaxbs '^^S ^acJiXe'iag i vo[iog ; and 233,13:
xat dD^iitapaxaGiCeiv iy^^v Lt?jv e66ixiavj Iv iy^ Qpovcp.

See also Oratio XXV, ed. Dindorf, 375,16, for the vqjios c5i3v6aHOs»

19)

Ambrogio Lorenzetti's fresco of the Buon Governo (Siena, Palazzo
Pubblico) likens a paraphrase of Basileia surrounded by
the Virtues sharing her throne; cf. Nicolai Rubinstein,
"Political Ideas in Sienese Art: The Prescoes by Ambrogio
Lorenzetti and Taddeo di Bartolo in the Palazzo Pubblico, *•
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXI (1958),
180ff. See also my remarks in the article quoted below (n*22),
68f, nos,25ff.

?•»

20)

Supplementum eplgraphiciim graecmn, rec. J. J.E. Hondius,

IV (1929), No. 467: xh wv 5b cprjcJTot) cJt3V0povou XP^^^^ Aixrig.

See Louis Robert, Hellenir.a, IV (Paris, 1948), 25f, 68f, 98f,

for this epigram and related material collected from governor

inscriptions*

21)

Anthol» Palate, IX, 445,6, ed. Dilbner, 11,93: dbvOpovog ol6e Aixt]*

22)

See, for the statuary throne-sharing of governors, Kantorowcz,
" SYN8P0N0S AIKHly' American Journal of Archaeology, LVII
(1953), 67ff*

23)

For this notion, see Pfister, ''Epiphanie, " RE, suppl.IV
(1924), 306,^ 30.

24)

Equality of material or size is mentioned quite often. See

ajfr

below, n.PS, for Philip of Macedonia according to Diodorus
(of. Prltz Taeger, Charisma [Stuttgart, 1967-1960], 1,175);
below, n.52, for the Commagene inscription; Tacitus, Annales,
13,8, for a statue of Nero in the temple of Mars Ultor
pari magnitudine, and Cassius Dio, LIX,11,2, for a statue
of Livia in the temple of Venus in the Forum (SYCcXjia aixriQ
l<50|xeTpT|Tov xc^ xr]Q 9eot))«

25)

Nock, "Synnaos"(see above, n.4), offers many examples for
such coincidence.

26)

Nock, "Synnsos," 54f,

27)

i

Diodorus Siculus, XVI, 92,5: d&v b% tootoiq (5w6e>ca Geoig) a^Too
Tou <piXi7CTcot) Tpidxai&exaT^v knoyLittME Qco^peitig et&w\ov cJuvGpovov

gat)Tov 4ico6eixvuvTog TotJ padtXccJc tois 6w6exa

Oeotc J XVT,95, :... laoxiv toi^ iobexa 9eoic duvGpovov
HaTapi9[iiidag«

9-Jf

28)

Taeger, Charisma^ I, 175, intarprets GeoicpeTCeg probably
correctly as being of the p>arae form and materMAs the images
of the gods.

29)

See, for this feature, E.H* Kantorowicz, The King^s Two
Bodies (Princeton, 1957), 501.

30)

See, for the sellisternia, Lily Ross Taylor, "A Sellisternivmi
on the Parthenon Priezof," Quantulaciimque: Studies presented
to Kirsopp Lake (London, 1937), 253-264; Wissowa, "Lectisternium, "
RE, XII :1, 1108-1115; and, for Rome, Kurt Latte, Rflmische
Religionsgesch^ chte (Munich, 1960), 242ff. For the thirteenth
god, see Otto Weinreich, Lykische Zwfllfgatter-Relief s (Sitz.
Ber. Heidelberg, 1913, Abh.5), and his article, "ZwaifgBtter, "
in Roscher, Lexikon, VI (1937), 764-848, esp.846, ^ 110,
for the ruler as thirteenth.

31)

The reliability of Diodorus' report has been doubted by
E. Kornemann, "Zur Geshichte der antiken Herrscherkulte, "

10-:^

Kilo, 1(1902), 56, and, in stronger terms, by N.G»L*Haimnond,
"The Sources of Diodorus Siculus XVI," Classical Quarterly,
XXXI (1937), 91, n. See also Charles Edson, "Macedonia,"
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LI (1940), 127ff,
for an inscription in Salonica which supposedly was to support
Diodorus, but which in fact does not refer to Philip of
Macedonia at all. In favor of Diodorus was P. Schnabel, in
Klio, XX (1926), 399; mott Nock, "Syniiaos," 67, does not utter
any doubtf»Taeger, Charisma, 1,175, defends Diodorus.

32)

See Pseudo-Callisthenes, Historia Alexandri Magni, II, 22,9,
ed. W. Kroll, 97,15, the offer of the Persian queens to
ask the Persian gods cJe duvOpovKjStjvai tco Ah. • Alexander
himself calls Roxane his synthronos; ibid., 22,6 and 10,
ed. Kroll, 97,3 and 16. Cf. W.W.Tarn, Alexander the Great
(Cambridge, 1950), 11,365.

33)

See, for the ironical discussion of the Persian royal title,
Pseudo-Calllsthenes, 1,36,2, ed. Kroll, 40,21: Dareios styled
himself synthronos of Mithras; 1,38,2-3, Kroll, 42,21 and
24: Alexander styling Dareios synthronos of Helios and of the
gods; cf. 1,40,2, Kroll, 45,5, where Dareios refers to himself

ll•:^

aa synthronos of the gods.

34)

Antiochus of Gommagene, a descendent of Dareios, described
himself as synthronos of Mithras and other gods; see below,
n. .Theophylact Slmokattes, Hjstor^, IV, 8, ed. Bekker,
175C renders the style of the Persian kings similarly to
Pseudo-Callisthenes, but lacks the word dovOpovoG . For
Alexander as the Thirteenth, cf* R.Mehrlein, "Dreizehn, " RAG,
IV, 322; Taeger, Char ism a j 1,219.

36)

Theocritus, Encomiiim (Idylls, XVIl), 16ff.

36)

GIG, 6006: GeoiQ 45s\(poiQ dovOpovoig xoIq Iv AlyoitTcp 9eoiQ
'icJtag ipxtepeftg 4ve9Tixev . The inscription,

recovered in Rome, is sure to be late; but the Geo! S5e\q)Oi

referred to can only be the second Ptolemaic couple, and

not two imperial brothers (Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus).

12^

37)

See above, n.2

38)

Nock, "Synnaos," 4ff* See also Kornemann, ••Herracherkulte,"
70ff. For the inscription Oeol i&e^ot , distributed on
both obverse and reverse on coins, see Walther Giesecke,
Das PtolemHergeld (Leipzig and Berlin, 1930), 20, and pi. II,
fig*12.

39)

Athenaeus, V,202a-b; Wilhelm Pranzmeyer, Kallixenos'
Bericht fiber das Prachtzelt und den Festzug Ptolemaeus II#
(Strasbourg Diss., 1904), 49. W.W. Tarn, "Two Ngtes on
Ptolemaic Hi story',' Journal of Hellenic Studies, LIII (1933),
59ff, assumes an earlier date (279 B.C.) for the procession
and therefore comes to deny the divine character of the royal
ancestors.

40)

See Nock, "Synnaos," lOff, for the ancient Egyptian background
of temple-sharing; his material covers to some extent also
the problem of throne-sharing.

I I

15JI-

41)

J. Vandier, Manuel d^archeologle egyptienne (Paris, 1958),

III, 304, and pi. CI, fig»6; Uvo Hdlscher, The Excavations

of the Eighteenth Dynasty: The Excavations of Medinet Habu,II

(The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications,

XLI; Chicago, 1939), pl.III (facing p.l2), and figs. 43-44 (p. 51).

42)

Vandier, Manuel, III, 304, nos.l and 2; cf. 633, s.v. Karnak.

43)

Cf. Nock, "Synnaos," 11, n.^.

44)

Vandier, Manuel, III, 369, and pl.CXX, fig.5; cf. 645
(Vienna, 8301).

45)

Vandier, Manuel, 111,372, and pl.CXXI,2; cf.630 (Cairo,
N.E.XIII).

14^

46)

Vandier, Manuel, III, 418f, and pis. CXXVIII, flg#4, and
CXXIX, fig*l* Cf. Henri Edouard Naville, Bubaatls (London,
1891), pi. XIX, the double throne of Rajnses II and Ptah;
Naville (p. 37) mentions other throne-associations of Ramses II
and indicates how very fond this king was of putting himself
among divinities.

47)

R. Lepsius, PenkmSler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien (Berlin, n.d.),
VII, pi. 190c. Cf. Jules Baillet, Le regime pharaonique
(Blois, 1912), I, 394.

48)

Lepsius, Denkmaier, Vil, pi. 184b; Baillet, op.cito, 1,394,
nos.4-6, and 400ff.

49)

Weinreich, "Zwfllfgfltter, *• Roscher, Lexikon, VI, 788f , ^ 32;

Ernest Will, Le Dodekatheon (Exploration archeologique de
Delos, PasCoXXII; Paris, 1955), 170ff, is rather sceptical
and objects to various hypotheses.

15-:^

50)

We

iiireich, op^cit, , 793,^45

51)

M« FrSakel, i^le Altertfliner von PergamonsVIIIt2: Die
Inschrlften von Pergamon (Berlin, 1895), 330, No»497:
lepeiav tt)c Nixti9opoo xal IloXid&os f'AOTjvac nalj 'louXta^
cJovOpovoo, vtag NiXT<!)bpou . por the image of Athene

Nikephoros on Pergamenian coins, see H. von Pritze, Die
Mflnzen von Pergamon (Abh, Preuss. Akademie d.Wiss., Berlin,
1910, Anhang Abhd), pi. IV, fig. 15, and p.58f.

52)

The Coirmiagene inscriptions are published by L.Jalabert and
R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie
(Paris, 1929), I, Nos^lff, where also the former publications
are enumerated. The work in Comriagene,carriedon by Priedrich
Karl Dflr ner und R. Naumann, Porschungen in KpramagBne
(Istanbuler Forschijaigen, X; Berlin, 1939), and, with the
latest bibliography, Dflrner, '^Die Entdeckung von Arsameia am
Nymphenfluss und die Ausgrabungen im Hierothesion des
Mithridates Kallinikos von Kommagene," Neue deiitsche Ausgrabungen
im Mittelneergebiet und im Vordern Orient (Deutsches
ArchSologisches Instltut; Berlin, 1959), 71-38. See also Nock,
^Synnaos," 26fo

16^^

53)

See Jalabert and Mouterde for the Nerarud Dagh inscription ,
lines 53ff.

54)

I owe the photograph to the kindness of Professor John E.
Young, Johns Hopkins U iversity, who will publish the
sculptures of Commagene.

55)

0, Neugebauer and H.B.Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia,
1959), 14ff, discuss in detail the relief of the lion covered
with stars, which usually has been taken as a horoscope.
The constellatiom, however, refers to the date of Antiochus'
coronation, July 7, 61 B.C.

56)

See above, n«

57)

This title is constant in all the inscriptions on Nemrud

Dagh as well as in those from Qerger, Samosata, and Arsajneia
on the river Nymphaeus; see, for the latter, Dflrner,

17-J^

Arsameia
"Die K8niggresidenz.am Nyraphenfluss, " Das Altertiun, II

vsr

(1956), 71, and, for the other inscriptions, Jalabert and Mouterd©
For the Dikaios Theos, sometimes identified with Mithra, see
P. Cumont, "Dikaios," RE, V:l, 564, ^2; also Stig Wikander,
Feuerprieflter in Kleinasien und Iran (Lund, 1946), 4f. For
Epiphanes as cognomen or title, see Pfister, "Epiphanie,"

RE, Suppl.IV,

; Nock, "Notes on Ruler-Cult," Journal of

Hellenic Studies, XLVIII (1928), 38ffo It is interesting to
find that also the hero became a rjpais l^tcpavTig ; see Louis
Robert, "Hellenica," Revue de Philologie, XIII (1939), 200f,
and XVIII (1944), 36f. It is remarkable that the throne- sharing

colossi on Nemrud Dagh are, as it were, "preceded" by-
slabs depicting the Epiphany or Adventus of the king who
shakes hands with each one of the four deities; cf. Karl
Humann and Otto Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien
(Berlin, 1890), pls.XXXVIII, figs. 1-2, and XXXIX, figs. 1-2.
These representations match by and large, unless verbatim,
Roman imperial Adventus coinages, especially some specimens
of Alexandria, where the emperor shakes hands with Osiris;
cf. J.M.C. Toynbee, The Hadrianic School (Cambridge, 1934),
42ff, 45f, pis. II, figs. 20-21, and XI, figs. 1-3. I am inclined
to think that the Nemrud Dagh monument was intended to
represent two distinctly different scenes, (1) the Adventus
of Antiochus, who is met by the divinities, and (2) his
enthronization at the side of the supreme god as his
synthronos and that of the others.

18<f

58)

Cf» Ja^abert and Mouterde, 17, commentary on line 61; Nock,

A

"Synnaos," 26, n*l. See, for Tyche-Hvareno in the later

cult of the emperors, Leo Berlinger, Beitrltge zur inoff iziellen

Titulatur der rflmischen Kaiser (Breslau DisSo, 1935), lOff,

59)

0, Weinreich, " 'EiitlHoos Geog , " Athenische Mitteiliingen, XXXVII
(1912), Iff, with (pp»6ff) a few cases of connections with
ruler cult© Cf. Dflrner and Naumann, Forschungen in Kommagene,
41, n.l. In Byzantium, St. Mary had sometimes the epithet
IpT^xooG i cf . A. Prolow, in Revue de l*histoire des
religions, CXXVII (1944), 114f.

60)

Jalabert and Mouterde, No #52, line 25.

61)

John Chrysostom, In Acta Apost., XXI, n, 4^, Migne, Patr^gr,,

vol*60, Chrysostom, vol.IX, 170: nadajcti Y*P ^aQtijievoo

TOO PacJiXewg, oda avTi^ pooXTjTai, dvoei • fYepQevroQ 6i, o<ja

19-JF

62)

See, for this problem, Josef Keil, "Basaltstele des Kflnigs
Antiochus I. von Kominagene, " Serta Hof f llleriana (Zagreb,
1940), 129-134.

63)

AlfSldl, "Inslgnien,'* 41ff, 134f.

64)

For consessor as translation of dovOpovoQ , cf • Cumont,
Textes et monuments, II, 36f«

65)

f^or the table-fellowship of Augustus with the gods and heroesj

V

see Anton Elter, Donarem pateras (Bonn Programm, 1906), II,
43ff; cf» Cumont, Recherches sur le symbolisme funeraire des
Romains (Paris, 1942),

66)

Nock, '^Synnaos," 30, n»3*

20-:^

67)

A. Furtwangler, Die antiken Gemmen (Leipzig and Berlin, 1900),
pl^LVI, and 251ff; AlfSldl, '*Inslgnlen, " pl.XIX. A blue glass
cast of the Vienna (Kvinsthistorisches Museum) cameo Is in
the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (No«46.10); see Handbook of
the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Washington, 1955), 131, No. 260,
and the reproduction on p»136»

68)

AlfSldl, "Insignien," pl^XVIII, and 125f.

69)

Above, n.

70)

Above, n»

21^

71)

A«v» Preiaerstein, "Athenische Kultehren r^ir Kaiserin Julia
Doama," Osterre Jahreshef te, X\^I (1913), 260, lines 19f: Tva
cJovOpovog ^ ; see also pp.259ff. Cf. Nock, "Syiinaos," 34f.

72)

P. Grnecchi, I medarlioni roinani (Milan, 1912), III, pi. 124,
fig»l, and pol24; cf, J.M.C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions (Numismatic
Studies, V; New York, 1944), 184.

75)

Servius, In Vergilii carmina commentaria, ad Aen.1,276, v.
"excipiet gentem.** Professor A.Alfflldi obligingly called my
attention to this place.

74)

Tertullian, Ad nationes, I,10,26ff, ec. Reif f erscheid-Wissowa
(CSEL, XX), 77; ed. orleffs (Corpus Christianorum, 1:1), 26f.
Cf. F.J. D8lger, IX9YC (Mflnster, 1922), II, Iff; Karl Baus,
Per K^anz in Antike und Christentum (Theophaneia, 2; Bonn, 1940),
126; Alfred C. Rush, Death and B^irial in Christian Antiquity
(Catholic Universitv of America Studies in Christian Antiquity,
1; Washington, 1941), 137ff.

2

75)

The characters heading the inscriptions were D,Mo (Dig
Manibus ) or D^M,S. (Pis Man! bus Sacrum) ; cf. Dfllger, op>cit>f
11,5; Baus, op»cit> ,126T. For sellisternia and solisternia>

see above* n«

. For the Droressional chariots (tensae and

others), see Aline L. Abaecherli, "Fercula, Carpenta, and Tensae
in the Roman Procession," Bollettinc dell ^associazione internazio»
nale Studi Mediterranei, VI (1935-1936), 7ff. In general, for the
triangle of cults of heroes, kings, and dead, see r>fllger,
op.c-it,, 11,1-19.

^76)

Tertullian, Apolog. , XITI,7; Rush, op,cito, 159

77)

Tertullian, De corona, 10; Baus, 124f.

78)

Th, Klaus er. Die Catheara iin Totenkult cer neioiii scher. ;.nc^
Chris tlichen Antike (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forsch-ungpn,IX;
M-fibister, 192*7), has discussed the problem brilliantly.

25»

79)

For the fiinf^rsry throne as a sign of exaltation, sef=5 the careful
remarks of Klauser, Cathedra, 58, also 44f for the 6povcA)diQ
of the dead. The idea of heroic exaltation indicated by the
throne has been strongly stressed by Odo Casel, in his review
of Klauser 's book, in Jahrbuch fflr Liturgiewissenschaf t, VIII
(1928), 349. See also O.Weinreich, in Berlc Philolog^Wochenschrif t,
L (1930), 1055ff«

80)

For the crown, see r^aus. Per Kranz, 126ff; C\imont, Symbolisme
funeraire, passim (see Index, s.v« "Gouronne"); Erwin R. G-oodenough,
"The Crown of Victory in Judaism," Art Bulletin, XX^^ITI (1946),
142f. For the rotmd shield images, see Johannes Bolten, Die
imago clipeata (Studien zur Geschichte \ind Kultur des Altertums,
XXI; Paderborn, 1937). For Nikai conferring crowns, see Cumont,
op.cit,, 464, fig. 99, and p. 466.

81)

The standard works are, after Erwin Rohde, Psyche (9th ed.,
Tflbingen, 1925), M^s. Arthur Strong's Apotheosis and After
Life (New York, 1915), and F. Cumont »s After L^fe in Roman
Pagani sm (New Haven, 1922), to which his most recent monumental

26-::-

86)

Rohde, Psyche y 314, note; Ciimont, Symbollame funeralre, 49, n.4.

87)

\

H. Lechat, "Inscriptions de Crete," Bullo Corresp^ Hellen^,
XIII (1889), 60; H8fer, "Paredroi," in Roscher, Lexikon, 111:1,

1577

1(58 icoXi(5c5oT3X9 duvUpovov l6o|j,evei.

88)

Cumont, After Life, 95ff, 194ff.

89)

GIG, III, 6264; Kaibel, Epigrammata graeca, 652,2:

l4i|ia [ilv rj6e xovt^ xeuOei BeojiridTOpOG 5v6pos,
^X^ ^^ dove6poQ AGavaxwv.

90)

Diodorus, XVII, 115,6. See Kornemanii, "Herrscherkulte, " 59f;
Taeger, Charisma, 1,227, n.8.

I I

24-Jf

works must be added: his Symbollsme funeraire and Lux perpetua
(Paris, 1949).

82)

For the sedes quletae^ see Cumont, Symbolisme funeraire , 374, 426,

83)

See Deneken, ''Heros," in Roscher, Lexikon, 1,2589, and Hflfer,
"Paredroi," ibid., 111:1, 1577, 40ff, esp* the passage from
Demosthenes, Epitaphios, 34.

84)

/

See Cumont, Symbolisme fmieraire, 50, n«l.

85)

0. Rubensohn, "Neue Inschriften aus Agypten," Archiv fflr
Papyrus for 3 Chung, V (1909-1913), 164f, refers to a funerary
stele of the second century B.C., containing in the short
inscription the following lines:

IIX.ooTwvog XB 6o|xoos ^cc\ nep<5e90VT]g xuavatiyeig
Mtvw dovGwxos 6'elii\ iiap'e^dePecJiv.

^

CWM

<Ka.^ ^u.-'>c *f^

^6*

91)

Jalabert and Mouterde, Inscriptions, No«I, lines 36ff,{vol»I,
p«15). See Cumont, Symbolisme fiineraire, 367, on this passage.

92)

Ciimont, op»cit,, 264ff , 281ff, 507, and passim; also his
Lux perpetua, 324f, See also the passages from Philo discussed
by E#R, Goodenoxigh, '^Philo on Immortaltlity, " Harvard Theological
Review, XXXIX (1946), 103.

93)

Inscript.Gr., XII:8, p*16. No. 38, line 9; Kaibel, Epigr.gr.,

No. 151, 6:

vaiw 6 eodepewv ayvov irepixaWea x^pov
cJuvGpovog Jjpojwv eivexa dco9po(5t3Vtis.

94)

Luclan, Peregrinus, 29:

•'kH'ttv He\ojiai TipGia (xeyicJTov
dovGpovov *H9ai<5Tcp xal ^HpaxXtji fivaxTi.

27 *

95) C union t , Symbolisme fun^raire^ 324»

96)

Cunont, op«cit, , 256ff.

97) Cf, E. Honigmann, art* •SpOVOgJ HE, VI-A, 617, ^4.

98)

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VII, 56, 6, ed. Stahlin, III, 41,24: xa\ 68o\

Tr|v ttpodfiyop lot^ HH\t)VTaij ol (5ov6povoi twv aXXwv Gewv, twv utco Tcp

Cj(*rrtipi TtpwTWV TeTCYIxevuv y^^^^^M'S^Ot^. See G. W. Butterworth, 'The
Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria," Journal of Theological Studies,

XVII (1916), 161, n,5, and Cuthbert Lattey, ibid,, 261f, who very emphatically

argues that Clement's choice of the word synthronos was determined by the cultual

language of Ptolemaic ruler worship.

99)

See Psalm 81,6, Cf. Ladner, Idea of Reform, 89, n«22, also 194f, for this Psalm
in the Christian doctrine of deification; see also Ernst H. Kantorowicz, "Deus
per naturam, Deus per gratiam,*' Harvard Theological Review, XLV (1952), 253ff.

100) The material has been sifted by W. Hrundmann, art." fteElOCf'* Theologisches

Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II, 37ff, For the rabbinic interpretation of
the Psalm, see Billerbeck, ir H.L.Strack and P. Billerbeck, Koinnentar zum
Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, 1928), IV, 452-465, Excursus 18:
"Der 110. Psalm in der altrabbinischen Liter at ur." See further the monograph
on the Psalm by Lorenz Dtirr, Psalm 110 im Lichte der neueren altorientalischen
Forschung (Munster, 1929).

28*

101)

Matth. 22,44, cf. 26, 64; Mark 12,36; Luke 20,42; Acts 2,34, cf.7,56; 1 Cor. 15,25;
Ephes. 1,20; Hebr. 1,3; 5,6; 7,17; 8,1; 10,12; 1 Peter 3,22. There are many
more vaguer allusions. See, e.g., 0 scar Cullmann, Christ us and die Zeit
(Zollikon-Zurich, 1948), 133, n.l3.

102)

discusses
See Billerbeck (above, n.lOO), who siwNx both the historical (Davidic) and the

messianic interpretations of that Psalm in rabbinic literature. In Christian

writings, the nessianic interpretation predominated* especially since David

himself was a messianic figure, both ancestor and pref iguration of Christ; see

Kantorowicz, "The Quinity of Winchester," Art Bulletin, XXIX fil947), 75, n.l7.

x/

103) This fact may have been sometimes forgotten (see, e.g., J. A. Jungmann,"Dic
Abwehr des eermanischen Arianismus und der Umbruch der religiosen Kultur
im frCihen Mittelalter ," Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie, LXIX [1947],
75, n.8), but was normally emphasized. See, e.g., Athanasius, on Psalm 109,

PGr., XXVII, 461: T?|v xaT^t dccpHa yevvTidiv too Kopioujf,.,xaTadTinaivei;

also his Sermo maior de fide, c.28, PGr. , XXVI, 1281C: the one on throne of

the Father is J xupiax&s Svepwiros, T& Ix %r\(^ Map lag xupiax&v tfujia.

See also John Chrysostom, In Ascensionem, 3, PGr., L, 446, and Hieronymus,
Breviarium in Psalmos . CIX, PL., XXVI, 1163f: "...cui praecipitur ut sedeat,
Deus non sedet , assumptio corporis sedet. Huic ergo praecipitur ut sedeat, qui
homo est, qui assumptus est." And a late gloss on Psalra 109 gives as a summary
of the Psalm the explanation: "Materia [huius Psalmi] est Christus secundum
utramque naturam." Cf. Kantorowicz, "Quinity," 75f.

I

29*

loi)

See Billerbeck (above, n.lOO), who shows that in the earlier tines the Psalm
was usually interpreted as a reference to Abraham, but without stress on the
KlKSBKxtxBf Time. For the role of Time in the Christian exegesis, see Cullmann
(above, n.lOl).

105)

See above, nos. 12-13,

106)

See above, n,98.

107)

Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, TV, 15, 33, ed. Ivar A. Heikel, Eusebius
Werke (GCS; Leipzig, 1913), VI, 178,17.

108) Eusebius, DemQnstr» evang. , IV, 15, 39, ed. Heikel, 179,19. See, for an almost
identical phrasing, ibid. , V, 3, Heikel, 218, note to line 23, the rubric of
the exe<jesis of Psalm 109.

109)

Eusebius, ibid., IV, 15, 43, Heikel, 180.3: ^al dUVepovoQ T^Q padlXeiac

CtOTOO* See below, n.ll5.

110)

Ibid., TV, 15, 64, Heikel, 183,23.

HI)

Ibid., V, 19, 3, Heikel, 242,9.

112)

Ibid. , V, 3, 2, Heikel, 219,5; cf. V, 3, 5, Heikel, 219,23.

113)

Ibid. , V, 3, 5, Heikel, 219,27: ... xaTa6e i)(6eiTi xi)p log i jiovog TOU icaTp& Q

30*

114)

Ibid. , V, 3, 6, Heikel, 219,31.

115)

Eusebius, nommentaria in Lucam. IX. 28, PGr . , XXTV, .549C: [i Ua^}\p] 6\)vQp0V0V

'Ka6^Q fipXnS HaTadTt|(5ac aOTOV* see, for symbasileiay in Eusebius, Gerhart B#

Ladner, The Idea of Reform (Canbridge, 1959), 122, n.41, and 132. See also
Eusebius, Contra Marcellum, II, 3, PGr., XXIV, 909C, where he styles Christ not
only eternal and immortal aW& xal (JovGpOVOV Iv OSpavoig Tq) ©Sep.

116) Gregory Nazianzen, Contra Julianum, I, 78, PGr., XXXV, 604B.

117) Basil. De Spiritu sancto, c.6, PGr., XXXII, 93A, ed. Benoit Pruche (Paris, 1945),
131, who in his Index interprets synthronos "peut-^tre Equivalent de homoousios."

118) John Chrysostom, In loannem, 64, 3, PGr. , LIX, 358; In Coloss. , V, 1, PGr., LXII,

332 (see below, n.l23).

119) Cyril Alex., In Psalmos, XL, 11, PGr., LXIX, 997B.

120)

Proclus of Constantinople, De incarnatione, II, 1, PGr., LXV, 692C.

121)

Athanasius,

, II, 414P, uses the verb dovGpoveue IV«

31*

122)

Nonnos of Panopolis, Paraphrasis S» evangelii loannis, T, 4, PGr>, XLTV, 749;
cf. K, Kuiper, '*0e Nonno evangelii lohannei interprete," Mnemosyne, N«S# XLVI
(1918), 235.

123)

John Chrysostom, In Colods, , V, 1, PGr . , LXII, 332.

124)

See E« Preuschen, Die apokryphen gnostischen Adamschriften aus dem Armenischen
Ubersetzt und untersucht (Giessen, 1900), 28, n.2, and 55.

125)

Cyrillonas, »'2weite Homilie ifber das Pascha Christi," trsl. by Landersdorf er
(Sibliothek der Kirchenvater , VI; Kempten, 1912), 41.

126)

Pistis Sophia, c.96, ed. Carl Schmidt, Kopt isch- ghost ische Schriften, I (GCS;
Leipzig, 1905), 147ff,

127)

John Chrysostom, In Ascensionem, 3, PGr. , L, 446, esp.448.

128)

See, for the Arian arguments, A. Spagnolo and C.H.Turner, **An Arian Sermon from a
Manuscript in the Chapter Library of Verona," Journal of Theological Studies, XIII
(1912), 23ff. The argument was quite common; see, e.g., for the refutation of
these and other Arian arguments, the controversy Contra Virimadum, T,c.37, PL.,
LXII, 376f : "Filium ad dexteram Patris non alterius iussione sedisse, sed propria
potestate." See, however, also Hieronymus (above, n.l03).

129) .^brose, De fide, II, 12, 102 and 105; cf. Soagnolo and Turner (above, n.l28), 21.

p^^ nfiiG

i?/

'1

ty\AS>-\ t/QtAiv7r

Co Vac ^ G ^\

s U^/u

] nC

1^ ^,q/^ L +W K>Bta kx C^^e^^^^ruM^^

II

chapl:s the bald an) the natales of the king

This paper is one of those cited in Dumfoarton Oaks
Papers, XVII (1^63), llt^ (a p-^efabory note to Kanto.i-'owicz ^ s
'^Oriens Augusti — Lever du Roi'M in this fashion:

Tliis article, wliicli is ba^cd on a paper read at Dumbarton
Oaks on Apiil 5, 1951, ^vas to liave been t]:e first of a series
of "Studies Eastern and Western in the History of Late
Classical a:;d !^Iediaeval Ideas." The series was to have in-
cluded the following additional titles:

"Synthronos"

"Roman Coins and Christian Rites"

"Epipl^.any and Coronation"

"Cliarles th.e Bald and the Xafales Caesarum"

"Roma and tl:c Coal."
Professor Kantorowicz was able to correct tlie proofs of the
present paper before his death on September 9. 1963- ^^"^
accordance with his expressed wi.shes, plans for publishing
the other studies in the series will be abandoned. Oc-
casional references to some of these studies in the footnotes
have been allowed to stand.

Kantorov/icz's last will and testament sti^-ulated that none
of his unpublished papers were to be published, for he did
not think of any scholarly work as -'his" until he had re-
leased it for publication.

If, therefoi-e, anyone choosej'to cite this paper in
print, the reference should be impersonal. Do not say
'^Kantorowicz says in |uch and suchj', or "Kantorowicz
believed..." but rather something like "the unpublished
paper hv ^^antorowidz on [this or that] is useful for the
problem of [such and such]".

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PAGE IN PHOTOCOPIES MADE OF THIS ARTICLE

CHARLES THE BALD AND THE NAT ALES OF THE KING.

1, Revival and Survival of Antig.ulty

There is the well known charge against the humanists
of the Italian Renaissance indicting them to have murdered
Latin as a living language when they started to revive
the classical Latinity. Correct or not, the oxymoron of
a "killing revival" remains true because it contains a
general truth. There is not a page in the ledger of
History which does not reveal the brutal fact that life
dies from life. Any single one of the manifestations of
life - creation, revival, progress, stagnation, or
chaos - has its "murderous" potentialities the simultanei-
ty and inextricable interplay of which are the essence of
History. There is no reason for restricting the concept
of a "killing revival" to the Italian Renaissance. It is
applicable to many another movement as well, and here
it shall be applied to the epoch which, for about two
generations, we are used to call the "Carolingian Renais-
sance." Whatever the antique forms may have been which
that artistic, intellectual, religious, and political
movement wished to revive, or actually has revived,
there no longer can be the slightest doubt that this
"renaissance" has abolished to a considerable extent
other antique substances which then still were alive.
Antiquity and Antiquity are not always the same thing,

I I

and in the Garolingian period neither the Antiquity pro-
posedly revived nor the one still alive were all-embracing
or synonymous with that of the Classical Age,

The objectives of the Garolingian revival of Anti-
quity have recently been studied in a most efficient and
sober manner so that the limitations of the movement now
are greatly clarified. The revival was restricted, by
and large, to a small segment of Antiquity which in space
was bound to the city of Rome - not to the World Empire of
Roman origin - and which in time confined itself to the
age following after Constantine and the "Victory of
Christianity," that is the fourth and early fifth cent-
uries. For the last five thousand years of history,

every "renaissance" has been backed by the mirage of an

2
aurea aetas, a day-dream of innumerable fa32(cets. The

Golden Age of the Garolingian epoch was, if a simplifying

formula may be used, the vision of a Christian, and at the

same time pre-Byzantine, Rome, an imaginary and idealized

Christian Rome of Constantine and Theodosius which, as it

were, was stripped of its pagan past as well as of its

Byzantine bondage. Both the Roman See and the Prankish

King could meet on the anti-Byzantine ground, if each for

different reasons. The overlordship of an iconoclastic

Byzantium, which proved ineffective, became intolerable

to the Holy See; any sizable pow..r, be it Lombard or

Byzantine, or any combination of powers in the flank of

the expanding Frankish empire became intolerable to the

Frankish King. Both strove toward eliminating Byzantium

from Rome R'^ri loosing the ties by which great parts of
Italy were bound to the East. The device "Eack to a
pre-Byzantine Rome" conveniently sums up the essence of
a program in which the Western spiritual and secular
powers could line up. The "Donation of Constantine" ,
the great forgery of the eighth century, and the Libri
Carolini, Charlemagne's great settling of accounts with
Byzantium, finally the re-establishment of the imperial
dignity in the West, whatever its contents may have been,
are the landmarks of the anti-Byzantine movement and at
the same time the stepping-stones toward a new Rome-
orientation; and the myth of all that focussed equally in
Constantine and St. Peter.

However, Rome and Italy, at their low in the fourth
and fifth centuries, were by no means representative of
the world. Italy's often very fine Classicism of the
Fourth Century clung to an ideal estranged from the rest
of the world and the still living, highly emotional Anti-
quity which, in a Christian garb, continued to flourish
without a visible break of tradition everywhere on the
shores of the Mediterranean, from the Pillars of Hercules
to the Delta of the Nile, from the sacred cities of
Syria to the banks of the Bosphorus and to the lands skxrt
ing the Black Sea. Divus Constant inus was a god of the
threshold and hence two-faced. He is not sufficiently
described by recalling the Battle of the Milvian Bridge
and the triumphal arch in Rome, nor by things Roman and

Latin i: r.eral. His other : ce, shinin^^ forth from
Pv-n-nt iuE. ■'s Hellenistic; and the Near Eastern. Constant-
ine, who represents the ^jir-troken antique continuity, hps

proved to be of much greater

e one re-

flecting true,

'inarv, or f^iked Roman remir»i *^cp^^pp

— - 4* #

-t-ino ch-^^-^-^c West. "Roman'' ;>-tiquity, in fact \W9^ "'^ead or
dying with Const ar.tine, and the full vi^or of antiq^ue Ijfe

een shifted to '' r Eastern, Hellenistic

* — V •

This Imn'^ripl Chris'^'ian Anti'iui/^'v . "^ 89r ^^'^-^f^-r^ f^y TTaiT»»^—
istic, was all .iOt only in the Balcans, '-^ ..si:: ^j.iiur,
Svria, d E^ypt , in North Africa, South Italy, and Spain,
bi^ it had eaually Denetrated, hv various de-rees and
throuFh varior?s c>>P5nnels, Lom.bardv. '^r'^'^l. • >-r? -f-vto "D>--?-f- -: pv

Isles. Rome herself formed no exception to the rule.

Rome wixn her fifteen " vrientals"*

>

pes

150

years (6l9-7'71), Rome with her Greek monasteri

r

churcre?, her Gre<=*k saints c^nd ^^-ro^k <!i ooorp-t-ps ^ Rome ^vi-»->i
her Eastern iconostases, her Byzantine mosaics, and

rvxex

istic as she was R

11 paintings, was at times almost as Hellen-
. 5

Of the late antique ele-^ents v'hio^ '^^ tvp beginning
and during the Carolingian period still v/ere alive in
Gaul, only a relatively sm.all portion w^s truly ♦*" - . •♦

ly greater p't^rt was "Imperial," thut is Hellen-
istic, Near Eastern, or Mediterranean; "t belonged, not to
Rome inparticular , but to the civilization of the late
amtique iwediterranean Empire in general. In this compound,
there were subs* ces of R n origir:, to be sure, but

re

1.

the cigcriOJ-cS
eve:-- .xlly "t^^

w-^.'' •! c>i--^ ts-*-

a then f '-.rea

1 r

i vy^

c Spain

a. te

Irish n s and Oriental cler'-^^. y

n is often forectten, wixn rhf --ishop? ->^
hf-" adopted almos-^ ^he c?-plete . i cere

tr

STJ12"-'"^'

enistic s

t>f :

i er:t B 1 Ant iquit ;>^ ^u

-»■ c

t that

ined inoE=-*^-<T- "^^ -1 ''•'^-e^

the Franks >.r..n to consider *> "elves the new "ch-^--

people," *" '^-''^r th» 01 " •= ^ " -t ,

with the xric.a^-vir.iversal ideology of Israel's re

revive , alon^

_, the rite of royal, anu ^rotably -^-^ ^^eer-

'^'-^tal, anoir.

fni^A, ties 6

-ces have determined the der _
ill -xicns of manuscripts, the ^•

of c

* ch G "u 1 i ci xn^B J
ic: of

1..

of f.

^ V-r--»^r»V«t e r^^ (}

» -

--.a xr.e xi-.-areic- 'uncti-rs in the
•= v^la--. 'n-iae l&te antique

forces dwelled and tvrrve in the cliaate of t:-

rid Empire ^which had gv^'^

-. to Christianity.

Pome

is r-

ct .

£ ccrcpar^tivelv v

ft r^c

aroimri'

ce'

ere was also

port ant .

Bence, wher ^al-i.:. f 3 : a ^

i!D2iedxa;tely recall the fact t

.:jiti(iue.- Re'^^^*"=' ^-

a viforcus "Caroli: ^ - ^
vival overlapped cont: ,

:nx=. - the one ^-^-^r Essterr .d the other ^

n." or

curre:

6

one 1

^TPTv correctly t

e 0

s oeexA £

.. J

-., the o"

duced during, th^ "^--^^lingi^^ p^ri^f^."^ Thi* h
ners llv Deen reco^n^zea. «». ' '^re inc-^-Li>u-

"*• ^ t» .-* /-

^w

deeply t'

roll-

era still

St

articje cv.^.tom^ and "orobl

or r

e

-> c

sance" clashed with, ^r ^^-f-n «5vr»i-Qded, the sill living
•'Late .. "It 1 equity. ♦• The christologiCi=tl straggles had been
the symptom of the religious fever shaking the late
antique vz-rld. We should not forget, however, that c

of the verv last Christ ologics"! ^^terodoxies ,

- Vo

-. '! : 7 1 lani sm , w- '^
Irciien hy Charl

£ or

We should re

was

can rite, m^hich in forrr. pent

t,

r th..: the Galli-
ior betrays

the Hellenistic and Near Easter:. ..nf luj , ■ ws^ ^"HoliP>"'^d
in the Carol: :i period and was replaced, in theory and
largely in practice, by the rite of the city of Ror.e. Zr

else, ^vp ^i?^' recall th?^t th*^

coi

e of

Justinian - displaying a winged Victory or -^>^^ vic-^rr-

ious cross-staff ' ith tr

'-na V

.1*1 il

the eighth century had served as a model to the coins of
the continental Germanic states ?nd even to t e of
Pope Hc^ux^^i. I (771-795), has .een discarded by the

Carolingians and replaced by Charl

^'.e's der/-. X

C4 y

y * ne

1^

'id

ligic r-'jjroujiding the
6

whi^^ was topped by a cross. In ^^ort, the still living
Late Antiquity, Hellenistic and Near i:.astern, which

Justinian once mere had called into consciousness and

had made •'universal," definitely lost ground la the Caro-
lingian period. It lost, which means more, its myth d
therewith its attraction. Western m*yth then was shift!
to the city of Rome, to a Rome of imaginary Christian
Caesars and of a very substantial St. Peter. This change
in fact signifies the transition from *'Carolingian Late
Antiquity** to "Carolingian Renaissance." The myth has
wandered from, the Empire, whose one half was Saracene-
occupied, to the City, from the ortis to the url s . And
to the urbs the myth clung during the iJiddle Ages.
Ottonians and Hohenstauf en, Gre^ories and Innocents,
Arnolds and Rienzos: their renaissances and their aureae
£< ci c- ^ c s were inseparable from the i-vU.rea Roma.

The Carolingian centuries thus represent the period
in which "Imperial" survival and "Urban" revival had to
come to an arrangement. The forms of this arrangement are
too manyfola as to be easily summed up on a common denom-
inator. Sometimes the Carolingians acted quite con-
sciously when breaking with a Justinianean or Hellenistic
tradition. In other cases the old "Imperial" tradition
petered out when a new stress was laid upon those sur-
vivals which appeared as genuine "Roman" or c mplied with
the new vision of Rome, Even the word "Roman" often

seems to have changed its meaning; it has become narrower,
more urban, more city-bound, and the Frankish littirgy

-rmwvHr^j in it s prayers readily changed Romanus into Chri-

7
stianus whenever a universal connotation was desired.

On some occasions the elements of late antique survival

8

were, so to speak, laid dry because the main stream had
been deviated. Finally, the two ciirrents of survival and
revival would sometimes merge to form something new.

It would be an idle effort to seek for system and
consistency in the attitude of the Carolongian rulers
toward those two currents. It is '»ftfE, not they, that have
distinguished between "Renaissance" and "Late Antiquity."
Charlemagne was certainly anti-Byzantine in his feelings.
This, however, did not prevent him from ordering Jx) trans-
pose:^ the Frankish antiphonies of Epiphany into Byzantine
music after having listened, with enchantment, some Greek
clerics, as they performed the service on that day; and
yet he was keen to introduce the Roman chant into the

Q

Frankish cathedrals. Charlemagne was certainly pro-Roman,
and from Pope Hadrian I he had demanded a Gregorian Sac-
ramentary which was to become the liber authenticus» the
authentical service book for the whole Frankish Empire.
This, however, again did not prevent him from ordering
Alcuin to make certain additions to the Roman sacramentary
and among these additions we find all the Gallo-Frankish
"political prayers," the masses and benedictions which
referred to the king and the Frankish State. That is to
say he had all the elements added which were related to
the "liturgical ruler worship," as for convenience msf. we
may call the Christian equivalent of the Hellenistic and
Roman ruler cults. Charlemagne, it is true, had thrown
in his lot with Rome. But this did not make him a
"jingo" in the Roman sense, nor did he intend to bind his

empire to Rome, to make himself the horse and Rome the
rider. He wished to bind Rome to his Frankish Empire, to
his Imperium christianum^ This is true also with regard
to the imperial diadem which Charlemagne did not consider
"Rome-bound" but uckiBkxiw immediately kx tried to bind to
Aachen where later he crowned his son Louis em.peror and
Louis Lothar.*^^ In Aachen, in the bibliotheca cubiculi,
Charlemagne kept the standard sacramentary of the empire
as well as the authoritative copy of the Rejs:ula Sancti
Benedict i which was to become the norm for the Frankish
monasteries. In Aachen, too, he built a palace which he
called the "Lateran," a replica, as it wwre, of the Con-
stantinian palace in Rome which served as the papal resi-
dence while the Lateran Basilica figured as the "Mother of
all churches. ""^"^ In other words, Aachen, and not Rome, was
to be the new centre of the Carolingian i^mpire. Rome was
to be transferred to Aachen, or Aachen was to become
another Rome aside of, or even eclipsing. Ancient Rome on
the Tiber as well as New Rome on the Bosphorus. This, we
may gather, was the true meaning of Charlemagne's
"Renaissance, "of his favoring the Urban-Roman Christian

Antiquity.

These trends of Roman revival overlapped in Aachen,
or ix France in general, with the survivals of Late Anti-
quity, and quite often this overlapping prod.:ced something
new. Against Charlemagne's liturgical Roman! zat ion there

wa

s qIso opposition, more latent under this great man him-

self, more and more open under his less powerful heirs.

10

Many a Frankish bishop resented to giving up radically
the old Gallo-Frankish ritual customs. They thwarted, to
some extent, Charlemagne's efforts to "Romanize" uniform-
ly the old rites. They retained former usages. They
smuggled "Gallican" benedictions, prayers, and customs
once more into the Frankish sacramentaries so that former-
ly discajrded late antique survivals resurrected once more.
And in the end, many of these Galilean rites and forms
became valid again and eventually penetrated even the

liturgy of the city of Rome, conquering the Roman rite

1*5
through the agency of the Ottonian empire. ^ Thus indeed

something "new" had been created as the late antique
Gallo-Frankish rivulets merged their waters with these of
the Roman current . .

These late antique k±sixix and generally Near Eastern
elements, a^ far as they found their way to Rome through
Gaul, have never been summed up efficiently, and to do so
would probably be prematiire. However, it was through Gaul
that Rome received innumerable Near Eastern elements of
the Christian Late Antiquity. To stage on i^alm Sunday the
Entry of Christ in a most realistic fashion v;as an Orien-
tal, Palest iniSSiaR custom which Rome adopted from
Gaul. ^ The old Oriental title of Hellenistic kings and
Roman emperors "Saviour of the world" ( -

Salvator mundi) , which the Near East had transferred on

Christ at an early date, was introduced into the Roman

15
Liturgy through the mediatorship of Gaul. ^ From Gaul came

the doxology v^ui vivit et regnat invoking Christ, not as

11

the mediator, but as the glorified king, the throne-sharer
( ) and co-regent of God in Heaven. "^^ The Syrian
Improperia with the generally Oriental Trisa.g:ion of the
service on Good Friday reached Rome through Gaul.'^'^ The
Jewish-Oriental rite of sacerdotal anointings, completely

strange to Home as late as the ninth century, came to the

18
city from France. And even the feasts of most of the

apostles were taken over by the City of Apostles from
Gaul where they were celebrated in the ord^.r of the
Egyptian calendar. "^^

It was not only the Near Eastern survivals that
flooded to Home from France or through France. Elemeiits
of genuirft.y Roman ch^:.racter came back to Rome from the
Frankish Empire. France , literally , rendered to Peter the
things that were Peter's, ana to Constant ine the things
that were Constant ine' s. The feast of the Cathedra Petri,
which by the fiftJi century - incredible though it is - had
fallen into oblivion at Peter's See, was returned to Rome
in the ninth by Carolingian France. And as far as Con-
stantine is concerned we may remember that the great re-
vival of the Early Christian, "Constantinian" basilica
style, which showed up in Rome and north of the Alps after
800, was started probably, not on the Tiber, but in France
where this type of architecture may have existed in
St. Denis before 775 A.D.^"^ It will be difficult to main-
tain that Rome actively re-Romanized France. The main
current was inverted, and France above all re-Romanized
Rome. It is, to say the least, ^reatly exaggerated to

12

assert that a stream of strength effused from Rome and
that Rome r>-^duoed actively a »*Renai ss-ince'' climate. The
impulses came chiefly from Gaul. The Frank"^ =^^ Empire
revived aaul, and mainly reverberating forces met France,
began to influence and even transform her in the sense of
the "Carolingian Renaissance," 9 period in which the
"Carolingian Late Antiquity" was still quite alive.

We thus have to face a criss-cross of intersecting,
overlaooing, ^nd reverberating forces of revival and sur-
vival which is difficult to disentangle. Odds and ends
of the "Imperial" Late Antig^uity, as far as they had not
been absorbed or abolished, lingered on throughout the
ninth century. Thereafter, indeed, they faded away. The
r-^^"^ monastic movement vvhich then began to determine reli-
gious life, and the monastic spirit which eventually was to
sway over the West, had no proper use for, or affinity to,
those Caesarean Christian elements which formed the bulk
of the "Imperial" late antinue tradition. New concepts
of society, state, and church were being prepared in the
pale of the monasteries where a spirit of "Enthusiasm" in
the Oriental sense began to develop. And yet, i^ '^.s in
relation with the "monastery", as contradistinguished from
the "cathedral", that we find the most surprising simil-
arities to, and perhaps vestiges of, the late antique
"Imperial" ruler cult - if only for a short time and
mainly under the influence of one Garolingian prince,
K±n^ Charles the Bald.

13

The statesmanship of this learned grand-son of
Charier e, son of Louis the Pious and the latter* s
"baautiful second Empress Judith, is doubtless a problem-
atic matter. The faint reflections of former glamor and
glory, which still were hovering around the government of
Charles II, are owed primarily to Hincmar, Archbishop of
Reims, the ninth century Richelieu of the West Frankish
kingdom. " If, however, we look out for the most genuine
representative of the Carolingian Renaissance, we have to
turn to Charles the Bald who appears as the true continu-
ator of Charlemagne's cultural and intellectual endeavors.
Theological problems, it is true, at tract ^^ him more than
anything else; but Antiquity both revived and surviving
were likewise within the range of his interests, and to
that he added new, mainly Byzantine components. The re-
vival as initiated by Charlemagne did not culminate under
the initiator himself. It reached its full growth a few
decades later and thus fell in the reign of Charles the
Bald who personally was the only one among the later
Carolingians to inherit to the full his grand-father's
delight in things related to knowledge, arts, and letters.
The surviving Antiquity stimulated Charles the Bald be-
cause he was an *' antiquarian" who took a sometimes sur-
prising interest in usages and customs of the past of
which he knew that they were superannuated and obsolete.
Moreover, he was wide open to the influences emanating
from Byzantium whose general culture was rapidly recover-
ing, as the wounds of the long iconoclast struggles began

14

to heal. The Eastern Empire then was on the way toward
its own Byzantine Renaissance. Charles the Bald thus
appears as the exponent of the various antique currents
meandering* through the Frankish Empire, and it was at his
personal instigation that seemingly scattered elements of
antique ruler worship became effective again as they re-
appeared where least they might be expected, in the
monasteries.

The ninth century experienced the flaring up of tbnt
monastic spirit which eventually led to the portentous
championship of Cluny within the Western Church. In the
Carolingian age, however, the monastery v/as as yet far
from aspiring its later independence on the state. It was
still embedded in the nursery of xiatfltiyxkx the state and
throve in the protection of the secular power. In the
ii-astern Empire, crown and monastery had gone different
ways and were at times in strongest opposition against
each other. The Carolingian princes may have learnt from
these mistakes. They prudently avoided such antagonism
and began to draw the monastery closely to the state and
the dynasty. The importance of the monastery and of mona-
stic devotion as a buttress of the empire and the crown
had been clearly recognized by Charlemagne. After a visit
to Monte Gassino in 787 i the king decided to unify
Frankish monasticism on the basis of St .Benedict ' s rule,
that is in the Roman manner, as opposed to the Irish, just
as he was willing to unify the Frankish Church on the
basis of the Roman Gregorian rite. A leaning to a

15

monasticism controlled, encouraged, privileged, and re-
gulated "by the state thus began to become visible already
under Charlemagne. But it was up to his son Louis the
Pious to take an almost revolutionary step in this
direction. Suffice it here to mention the name of Ben-
edict of Aniane, the "Goth," with whom Louis as a prince
had become acquainted in Aquitania, whom then he brought
to Aachen after having achieved the imperial throne, and
whom he entrusted, as it were, with the "luinistry of
Monastic Affairs" throughout the i'rankish ^Impire. It be-
came Benedict's task to unify the Frankish monasteries
and to organize them uniformly, a work the 'idea and the
execution of which emanated from and centred in the palace
of Aachen, and not in Rome. There is no doubt that the
authority of the monastery then was in the rising; it was
the model of the organization of the regular chapters of
some cathedrals, and with the increasing appreciation of
monastic devotion there developed the profound respect
which the laity, high and low, attached to the monastic
prayer. V/e find more often than in any other period
members of the royal clan holding the office of abbot in
a Frankish monastery, Louis the Pious himself seems to
have cherished the plan of becoming a monk; and Charles

the Bald, Louis' son, actually took over the

abbacy

4XgR±tjc of St. Denis (867) so that he displayed the unusual

dignity of king-abbot. He was, in more than one respect,
the usufruct or of that state-monasticism which Charlemagne
had initiated and which the unfortunate Louis the Pious

had oeen unable to make really fruitful.

16

It is not here intended to discuss the general rela-
tions of Charles the Bald with Prankish Monasticism. His
monastic policy cannot be separated from his Church policy
and from his complicated relations with the Prankish epis-
copate and the Holy See. Pope, bishop, and monastery re-
presented a complex entity although there existed strongly
divergent trends of interest. One hundred years after
Charles the Bald, the Saxon Pling and Emperor Otto I would
skillfully utilize the diverging interests of the three
ecclesiastical groups and play off one party against the
other. Through cooperating with the Holy See and the
abbeys Otto was in a position to outbalance the powers
which he had bestowed upon the German episcopate, to
check the episcopal power from above and below, and to
secure the firm hold on the bishops upon whose shoulders
he established the equilibrium of his empire. It would be
an overestimation of Charles the Bald's statemanship to
assume that he pursued a similar political line. However,
Charles the Bald anticipated the policy of Otto the Great
in so far as he, too, had to move and act between those
three entities which had not yet been a problem with

Charlemagne.

When the Carolingian Empire broke up during the
fraternal wars, the crown lost prestige within the
Churches of the various realms; it lost prestige within
the "cathedral." The V/est Prankish episcopate and its
head Hincmar, the metropolitan of Reims, would resist, it
is true, any papal effort of encroaching upon the pre-

17

rogatives of the crown, for such encroachment v/ould have
repercussed unfavorably upon the metropolitans and the
bishops themselves. On the other hand, however, Charles
had to surrender to the episcopate. A man such as Hincmar
despite his unimpeachable loyalty to the king, would let
Charles know and feel that the king's dignity as the
Anointed of God depended upon the bishops who had the
privilege of anointing their master. The general "cleric-
alization" of the royal office and ceremonial may have
been on the way anyhow; yet it was m.ore or less the work
of Hincmar of Reims. It was mainly through him that the
consecration of the king was rapidly assimilated to the
ceremonial of an episcopal ordination and that the king's
sacring, hitherto a parahierarchical act, was fit into
the hierarchical pattern of ordination which implied the
spiritual superiority of the ordainer over the one
ordained. It was to the interest of the Frankish bishops
to enhance the king's authority by multiplying the
"mystical" ingredients of rulership. But these elements
exactly made the king all the more dependent upon the
high clergy^ xxot Hincmar stressed to the utmost the
king's dependency, not on the Roman Pontiff, but on the
Frankish episcopate, and he attributed far less weight to
the idea of the king's direct investiture through God or
to that of the royal accession by right of inheritance
than to the king's consecration and unction at the hands
of the bishops. In 859 i Charles the Bald, a manageable
pupil of Hincmar, acknowledged that he owed his unction to

I I

18

the bishops. He recognized as authoritative the judgment
of the bishops who, saifl the king, "are called the
thrones of God, in whom God resides, and through whom
God pronounces his judgments." ^ Thus the general
prestige of the king, despite an increase of politico-
liturgical elaborations, had diminished considerably
within the Frankish Church as compared with the standards
prevailing under Charlemagne.

To square these losses two ways were open to the
king, one leading to Rome, the other to the monastery.
No matter what considerations may have prompted Charles
the Bald - policy or vanity or piety or a bit of all of
them - he took both ways. He revised his policy toward
Rome and began to fawn the Holy See. In return, Pope
John VIII courted the king who finally was crowned
emperor in Rome, on Christmas Day in 875, a step through
which the imperial diadem became definitely and irrevoc-
ably Rome-bound.

On the other hand, he found a new hold within the
monasteries and therewith brought to a conclusion the
development inaugurated by Charlemagne and Louis the
Pious. For it was Charles II who systematically linked
the monastery to the dynasty and inoculated in the im-
portant abbeys forms of worship of the ruler and the royal
house such as they were almost unknown in the West during
that age. It would be wrong to maintain that Charles the
Bald shifted the liturgical ruler worship from the "cath-
edral" to the "monastery" because the liturgical position

19

of the ruler within the secular Church had not suffered

opened and exploited
losses; but he successfully MJcack±±xkKit a new province

which hitherto had not been fully utilized for the pur-
poses of dynast c worship. In the monastery, which depen-

•>- i
ded upon the ruler and Ms largess to a far greater extent

established
than the general Church, he i^xkk± a new centre of royal

and dynast ioal devotion, or rather a great number of such
centres which dotted his empire. And the monastery being
a world by itself lent itself to forms of a personal
attachment to the king and the royal house far greater
than the cathedral which was part of a wider organization
and lacked the organic individualism of the abbey. The
personal ties and the dynastical relations jfJbetween king
and abbey produced forms of devotion which had been for-
saken in the Western Church for a long time and which re-
call the ancient customs of antique ruler worship no

true
matter v/hether we have to account for survivals or mere

analogies. The monks, to say it bluntly, became the
Kaiserpriestert the new augustales and flamines of the
Frankish monarch, a role which the secular hierarchy could
never have played. Like in the Roman Empire in and after
the times of Augustus there began to mushroom individual
islands of ruler worship throughout the realm which were
independent on, and not strictly co-ordinatedjp with, the
general cults of the state, so to speak the "King's Owns"
that were distributed all over the country. 7/ithin these
collegia of monastic Kaiserpriester there matured forms of
monarchic worship and devotion which had faded away in

20

the West and which had nothing or very little to do with
the cult and rite as propagated from the city of Rome,
Most of these strange forms, which hitherto have not
attracted the attention of scholars, were still alive in
Byzantium; and through the deeper layers of late antique
tradition the reminiscence may have trickled of what in

*

former days aQay had been the general custom.

An inspection of the documents wixl immediately
disclose the problems with which we shall have to deal.

'^1

20

the V/est, though iiaxityxaKtiiunxthey still were alive in
Byzantium as well as in some deeper layers of late antique
tradition. V/ith the cult and rite as propa£;;ated by the

21

2, The Documents.

The following collection of excerpts is taken from
charters of Charles the Bald (823-877) and of some of the
later Carolingian and German rulers. All the documents

are well known, "but their politico-liturgical contents

2S
have not yet been evaluated, ^

\C^ April 3, 352.

Charles the Bald makes a grr.nt of land to the monastery

of

\\ he stipulates that from the revenues the

monks are to hold special sei^ices and receive special
meals on the following days of commemoration: (a) on the
anniversary of the king's father, the late Emperor Louis
the Pious; (b) on that of his mother, the late august a
Judith, which is to be celebrated together with the late
emperor's anniversary; (c) on the king's birthday on
jTjine 13th; the birthday celebration is to be replaced by
(d) itn annual obit after the king's death.

(Bouq.uet,VIII,n.l09,p.52l)

2_^+ May 21. 853.

The same king makes a similar grant to the chapter of
St .Vincent '3 at iiiacon and stipulates that the brethren
receive special meals and hold commemorative services on
the following days: (a) on the anniversary of the late
Emperor Louis; (b)^ on that of the late august a Judith;

hi

1.x

die

le eoinir.;:.t ed ir.to ( e)

■-,■; (d)

ne

liver? ary of
rae) v ^h is to

*^r "re king's deaf"..

(Ra^t ,n.56,p.44;

^-.et,VIII,r.ll3,p.524)

Tr.

Bere!;:l:er ^, 861.
e kinr makes another donation to the chapter of

St.Vincent's at Mftcon stipulating that thi rethren
2-o*^c-Jv» special ineals and hold commeBorative services on
tr.e fc^^owi-^rig days: v- ^- '^-'^^ king's birthday (nativita-

C r*

"»• P <*

ii?^ ; (t) on the anr.iverssry of his ancint-

( i: ■ . 3T i c ) which shall be c

ed into (c)

it

after hi? death; (d) on the birthday (ortus die) of his
^ueen Irr:intmde, which shall Ixkewise be commuted into

(e)

1 obit after her death.

ut ,n. 1C3 , p . B4 ; r cu:^ucx , w' 111 ,n. 169 ,P . 5 JC)

i^l April 2?, 662,

The same kin^ makes a ^rant

monastery of STtLlARTIN

at H 3 b: ' stipulaies thai xne iLonks rec;c-..ve special
z -s and hold com3s»e»orative services on the following
daye : .a) on '*'he anniversary of the late Eaperor Louis;

{dj on that of *''-e late Enipress Judith;

hat of

the >

s

et or

-i s

and ordinal xon ( die q.uo, , . con-

; (d) on the day of a/i

supplication for the king, the universal Ch^-irch, and
^versal peace (guatenus eisdem fratribus pro nobis ac

sar)rta^ D^j ^cc1^s^:^^.e ?tati: ^t rro i^njvf •^"•"1 1 r

V-« V \ » t ^ i^ s ^

: * at j

(Bouquet, v^III,n.l72, p. 574; cf.Tessier^ p. ^01)

*:=== gypt ember 19. ^

'^^^ same kinf grants the revenues

y- -^

r<. £t "^^^ c

ties to

ine monks of FT . I

The monies snail receive s

ial

meals on the days of St.I^enis s,i\i three other saints who
are "biirlf:, xn the abbey, and also (a) on the BnrA-v^rsHrj

k. -. r

I^.rrber* '625-539) f founder of the abbey.

T^

n to smaller charities from the cellar of the

y xn a

riis reg^viir et

e ki

tes for special nieals and coimneroorative services on the

following days: (b) his birthdav - 'c) the day of his

- — — ; (c^ the day which he calls his "restitution

26

ici

ch

11 be ex: ^ i for (e) an

annua

?7

1 obit o^ *■>'* <^5^ of >^is death: (f^ his i^edding-day ;
:-.rth(iav ci the aueen which (b' ^c •- v» replaced

after her deatr.
visions are found i:

ar. 1 obit. _-me additional pro-
.. . rtcr: (i) during his lifetime

as well itS after his death, the monks are to sing daily

Bci i.fter Prime five p^a.-..ms in front of the altar
of :.:. _._oly Trinity where the king wishes to be buried;
(j) for the celebration of & daily loass for the king, a
r-ecial prie^. ;^hall be committed; (k) into the hands of
:rxls^ priest, three brethren are to place the oblations

1;c

iffered at the mass for the king; (1) a port of

o

royal wine, c:rown in the royal villa whlcn the king haa
fi:ranted to the atrey, was to be admixed daily to the mass
wine "le?"^ '^here was lackinr to -^y^r-- ^mnst holy sacrifice ^
porxion irom the tre^ksures of oiir vow;" (m) s lamp should

burn ever in front of his burial altar.

ere follow pro-

visions for the celet ration of the feasts of St. Mary and

Q-?-

ter, for the anniversaries of Abbot Hilduin of St.

Lienxs, of (n) Louis tne rious, (o) Charlei^a^ne, (p) Perta,
the kind's aunt, and (q) Queen Hildegc^rdis, his grand-
mother.

( Bouquet , VIII, r."! 76, ^..577; Tardif ,n.l86,p.ll6; Giry,
p.589,n.l; Jusselin,p.228)

^±t pt ember 19 # 862.

T^^ same king makes another donation to St. Denis co^*9in-
ing xne sxxpulaxic;i..s (a) to (m) as enumerated in the
preceding charter,

( Bouquet , VIII , n. 177 , p . 582 )

7."^

try 1^ , DC

The same king makes a grant to the monastery of St.^J-entia
and orders daily prayers of commemoration for (a) Louis
the Pioub, ,.; for the king's welfare (pro salute nostra);
(c) for xne ii^mpress c'uaixn; (d) tto incoluu.ltate of his
i^ueen Irmintrude; (e) for the royal progeny, and for

several other persons. He fiirther an

for a daily

meal to be given to twelve poor men and orders that one of

25

lue brethren should be in charge with the distribution
of the food and with the on ice of rituaxx^^ w<AShing the
feet of the poor, that on Maundy tv^elve poor are to re-
ceive a meal and clothes, and that on St. John's Day one
hunaerea poor are to receive food and the rnonkp i special

meal.

(Bouquet , VIII, n. 180, p. 585)

^±1 (869-870)

The same king makes a grant to the ctid^pusr of ot .^^tephen's
St Lyon and stipulates that the brethren xxxxts receive
special meals and perform commemorative services on the
foia.owing da;/s: (a) on the a.aiiversary of juouis the
Pious; (b) on that of . ress Judixn; (c) on that of his
beloved consort Queen Irmintrude, who died in October,
869; (d) on th** Ving's birthday; (e) on the day of his
unction; (-^' on the birthday of his now consort and
. ,.:i-.,sta Hichildis; and f_' on t) y of his second

wedding.

(Bouquet, VIII, n. 225, p. 622; - ;rrLTriler .II,p.286 ,n.l)

2il May 12 (fi71-874).

The same king gives as a donation to the cathedral of
Paris the abbey of St.Eloi an •- - the customarv pro-
visions for meals and liturgical celebrations on the
following days: (a) on the anixivers^ ^ ^ ^s of Louis the
pious and (b) the Empress Judith; (c) on the king's
birthday; (d) on the day of his anointment, a celenration

I I

26

to be replaced (e) b^ . . lal obit on th-* rl^y of the
kin£;'s death; (f) '^"^- "'"^^'^ -^n^^-n's blrtVir^Rv; and (s) <^^ "the
wedding-day of the royal couple. Provision j.o made also
(h) for CO orating the royal progeny in that the bishop
with his clergy as well as the nionks, should the q.ueen
give birth to a prince, '^ar^ held to celebrqt<^ this event

with continuous pra^eri^ otnd masses; a ger

\- «•-. T 1"

ang,uet

is granted on this occasion to both clerics and monks,
and (i) special servicer ;e to be held for the king, his
q^ii^^-n, v.n-, .-^escendents, and for the welfare of the re

(BouGLuet,VIII,n.240,p.635; Tardif ,n.207,p.l33, and
n/.l?2,^.38; Jusselin,p.231; Tessier ,p.20l)

lO^t Apri-^ ^0, 972.

The same kin -rees to the division of property betwer-

the abbot and the -^nnks of the n^'^-ev of ST.

r^

-DES-

PRES; he stipulates that the monks receive special meals

and hold special services on several caclesic<si.j-wal

feasts and on the following Cf --morative days: (a) on the

anniversary of King Childebert (511-558), founder of the

abbey; (b) on the king's birthday; and (c) on the day of

his anointment which shall be converted (d) into an annual

obit after his death.

(Bou(iuet,VIII,n.244,p.639; Tardif ,n. 208, p. 133; Jusse-
lin,p.231; Poupardin,n.36,p.61)

27

11^1 (October 9s 673)

The same king makes a donation to S5.DENIS. FoYQery
drafted after the model of 12^,;^;
(airy, p. 713; Jusselin,231)

li-^t March 27 » 875.

The same king makes a grant to the abbey of ST. DENIS. He
orders that (a) seven lamps are to burn night and day
before the altar of the Holy Trinity, that is one each
for Loui- -^^^ Pious, Empress Judith, the king himself,
the late Queen Irmintrude, Queen Richildis, the king's
descendents living and dead, and for several relatives of
the new queen. He orders (b) a monthly ^^nquet to be
given to the monks with the understanding that these
monthly refections are not to coincide with feast-days
or with other special meals granted to the monks for
other reasons, and he orders that these monthly general
banquets are to be connected with a monthly GommeL^.or.'it .1 o
genera lis for the king which, however should impair the
specialis supplicatio for the king as established from t>y*
revenues of other titles given to the abbey; that (cj a
similar general banquet should in later times unite the
monks on the anniversaries of the deaths of the king and
his Queen Richildis; and (d) that the special meal on the
king's birthday (^^) was not to be transferred to the
date of the king's death, but that in addition to the
annual obit the nativitas of the king was to be celebrate

even after his death.

(Bouquet, VIII, n. 234, p. 630; Tardif ,n.205,p.l32; Giry,

p. 710; Jusselin,p.232)

f

28

U±l (675)

The same king confirms the possessions of the abbey of

ST.MEDi\RD at S0IS30NS stipulating that the* monks receive
special meals and perform special services on the follow-
ing days: (a) on the days of St.Medard; (b) on the anni-
versaries of Louis the Pious and (c) Empress Judith;
(d) on the anniversaria of the king, (e) the queen,
(f) the royal progeny; (g) on the birthday of Carloman, the
king's beloved son, a celebration to be shifted later on
(h) to the date of the latter* s death; (i) on the anni-
versary of the king's aunt Bertha; he f^urther orders
(j) the burning of lamps in the ohapel of St. Sophie on
the feast-day of the Holy Trinity.

(Tardif ,n.212,p.l35; Jusselin,p.252; Tessier,p.201}

li±l May 5» 877 >

The same ruler, emperor since 875, wishes to follow the
example of his grand-father Charlemagne who founded the
palace chapel at Aachen. Therefore he founds a palace
chapel at Compi^gne j^agkxgkxkgxgaiigxgarigggilgj:^ and
combines it with a convent. He endows the abbey, which

he wishes to be called the "Royal" (it was called also

\29
Carlopolis) , and decrees that the abbey shall harbor one

hundred monks whose occupation shall be to pray continuous

ly for the welfare of the most holy Church, for the

emperor's parents and ancestors, for the emperor himself,

29

his consort and children, as well as for the stability

of the whole realm,

(BoucLuet ,ia. 272,p.659; Tessier,p.201; De Gr^ndmaison,
p. 116; Schramm, Bildnisse,p,66)

i^^L April 2, 878 >

King Louis the Stammerer confirms the privileges sixdtK
granted by his father, the late Emperor Charles the Bald
(died October 6, 877), as regards the donation of the
monastery of ST.ELOI to the bishop of Paris {^l) and
stipulates that monks and clerics receive special meals on^
and celebrate with prayers and masses, the anniversary of
the king's anointment which, later on, is the be trans-
ferred to the date of his death, and that they pray con-
tinuously for the king, his queen, his descenaents, and
for the gaa welfare of the realm.
(Bouquet , IX, n. 5, p. 402)

1§:±1 June 20, 376,

The same king grants a privilege to the abbey of ST. TIN

at TOURS and stipulates that the monks receive special
meals and perform special services (a) on the king's
birthday; (b) on the anniversary of his unction; and that
they pray with vigils and masses for (c) his father,
(d) his mother, (e) his brothers, (f) for the king him-
self, (g) his consort, and (h) his progeny.
(Bouquet , IX, n. 7, p. 404)

30

ll^t February 7, 879.

The same king makes a grant to the monastery of ST.MEDARD
at SOISSONS and orders that the monks receive, in return
for special services, special meals on the following days:
(a) on the anniversaries of Louis the Pious, (b) Empress
Judith, (o) the king's parents, (d) on the king's anniver-
sary after his death, (e) on the anniversaries of his
queen and descendents after their death, (f) on the anni-
versaries of his brother Carloman and (g) his aunt Bertha.
( Bouquet , IX , n . 21 , p . 416 )

18^1 (ca.883)

Chadolt, Bishop of Novara, makes a grant to the monastery
of HEICHENAU on the condition that annually, on the day
of the consecration of Emperor Charles Hi (the Fat) a
service ksjcksM cum omni abundant ia be held for the soul
of the emperor, that the priests sing a mass and the monks
chant thirty psalms each, that the monks on this day
should be hilares at que gaudentos in the relectory, and
that after the death of the augustus this celebration be
shifted to the date of his anniversary.

(Mabillon, Analecta,p.427; Dummler, III ,p.290; C.B.A.
Fickler, .^uellen una Forschun^'en zur Geschichte
Schwabens und der Qstschweiz ( 1859) ,n,2,p.6)

i2i^ August 28, 885.

Emperor Charles III (the Fat) returns to the cathedral of
LANGRES the abbey of ROWRAY on the condition that the
monKs receive, m return for a special service, a special

51

meal on the day of his consecration and that, after his
death, this celebration be converted into an obit.

(BM.1667; MGH. ,Dipl.Karl III,n.l29,p>2Q7)

20^ ^ September 23, 883 .

The same emperor makes a grant to the monastery of FULDA
on the condition that the monks recexve a special meal
when they celebrate the anniversary of his consecration
and, later on, that of his death.

(BM,,n.l670; MOH. /Dip I.Karl III ,n. 152 , p. 211)

ilj.! October 29t 886.

The same emperor makes a donation to the cathedral of
LAITGRES on the same conditions as before (19^).
(BM.,n.l684; MGH. ,ibid. ,n.l47,p >258)

^i±t January 13 t 887 >

The same emperor makes a donation to the same cathedral

on the same conditions as oefore ( 12,. jl51_- ) •

(BM. ,1694; i^GR. . ib id . ,n. 153, p. 248)

'^2^1 Mxjcx2fi Janui^ry 20, 912.

King Char:_es the Simple don-iites to the cathedral of TCUL

the monastery of

and stipulates that canons and

monks receive a special meal in return for special ser-
vices on the day of his consecration which, after his
death, is to be changed into an obit.
(Bouquet , IX, n. 46, p. 515)

32

The sarae king ^akes a grant to the monastery of ST.REOT
at Reims and orders that the monks receive special meal
whfa-n they celebrate th^ cjv>-niv^rp^pjrv of hip, anoirtm^r"*- j^-^d
commemorate his late Queen Frederuna and the children of
royal stock.

(Bouq^uet ,IX,n,64|P.531)

25.1I March 28, 917.

T^" 3-jime kin^; {grants a privilege to the abhey of ST. DENIS
and orders that the monks receive a special meal v^Yiftn
they c^T '='"'^>"-'^'t^'^ ^^-(^ comrr.^^nrate (a) ^h** ki-»^3's birthday,
(b) his day of anointment, (c) the an^^^'^ersary ^-^ "^'•^^
late Queen Frederuna, and (d) his obit after his death.
(Bouq.uet,IX,n.65,p.531; Tardif ,n.223,p.l42)

26.

■f

March l^l, 9 IB.

The same king makes a donation to the abbey of St.GEhi .-.J"
DES-PRES and orders that the monks receive a special mefc-l
v'-nen they celebrate (a) the anniversary of the late
Queen Frederuna, (b) the day of hi^ -r^.^+ion, and (c) his
obit by which, after his death, the celebration of the
unction shall be replaced.

(Pouauet,IX,n.69,p.536; Tardif ,n, '^29, p . 143)

ili^ April 2^> 918.

The same king, having transferred the relics of St.Wal-

burgis to the royal palace at ATTIGNY and therein having

'^'^

founded a chapel dedic^'^'^'^ "^^ ^(^"^ v^am^-r.-jti on , m^k^s the
following arrangements: (a) twelve monks sha'^'' observe
by day and night the offices in the chapel; (h) the
chapel, under the supervision of Saints Mary, Corneille,
and Cyprian of COMPIECtNE, has to send through the treas-
urer of Attigny on the feast days of those saints two
candles of twelve pounds each to CQmpie^ne; (c) the day
of the king's anointment is to observed annually with
rites and a banquet of the monks; and (d) this celebration
shall be commuted into an obit after the king's death.
( Bouquet , IX, n. 71, p. 538; Tardif , n. 2 2 7 , p . 142 )

28.'*'

September 1, 918.

The same king makes a donation to the chapel of St. Clement

^ , .commemorate

at COWPIEGITE and orders that the monks (a) -rwammkwx him

and the late Queen fredruna with daily vigils and masses,
(b) that during his lifetime and in honor of the l^-^-**
queen the monks chant daily at tierces six psalms whxcn
he has designated, and (c) that on the feast of St. Clement
the brethren sing the fifteen gradual psalms for the late
queen,

(Bouquet ,IX,n. ,p.559)

The same king makes a grant to ST . MART IN ' i^ TOURS and
orders that the monks commemorate (a) the day of his
Bucstxiui^xait^xfcfe^ ordination during his lifetime, (b) after

34

his death the anniversary of his death, and (c) the am-^i-
versary of Queen Frederuna.
(Bouq.uet,IX,n.77,p.545)

IQi^ April 22, 921.

Tl me king s'ives a privilege to the abhey of Sl.FiAUR-
DES-FOSSES providing (as in 22^) for the celebration of
(a) the day of his unction, (b) his anniversary after his
death, and (c) the anniversary of the late queen, and
orders that on all these occasions the king's consan^:ui:iei
are likewise to be commemorated,

( Bouquet ,IG,n.84,p.552; Tardif , n . 230 , p . 14 4 )

ll±t March 26. 1013.

King, later Emperor, Henry II makes a grant to the
cathedral of Hildesheim and orders tbnt the canons receive
a special meal when annually they celebrate the day of
his ordination which, after his death, shall be replaced
by an annual obit.

(MGH. .Dipl.Henrici II,n.263,P« 311)

l^±l February 14, 1026.

King, later Emperor, Conrad II makes a jrant to the
chapter of WORMS and orders that the canons KHXDQMflaxxlK
annually celebrate the day of his unction with a memori;
for the king, Queen Gisela, and tiie king's son Henry

(later Emperor Henry III).

(MGH. .Dipl.gonrad II,n.$l,p,59)

FootnoteST

(1)

For what follows, the excellent study of Richard Kraut-
heimer, "She Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Archi-
tecture," The Art Bullet in, XXIV (1942) , pp. 1-38, from which
here I have drawn freely, should be consulted. Ludwig
Traube's remark that in poetry the Carolingian age was an
aetas Vergiliana, which recently has been called back to
memory in the delightful pap:es of E.K.Rand, The Building
of Eternal Rome ( Cambridge, Mass. ,1945) , pp.243ff, remains
true despite the "Christian" restrictions of the Carolin-
gian Renaissance. Krautheimer, op.cit . ,p.31< puts the
things in the right place by stressing the reinterpretatio
Christiana of the classical authors which holds good also
for the image of Augustus as far as this was of any im-
portance in the Carolingian era; cf. Erik Peterson,
"Kaiser Augustus im Urteil des antiken Christ entiims. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen Theologie," Hoch-
land, XXX ( 1932-33) , pp. 289-299.

(2)

Cf .S.N.Kramer, "Man's Golden Age: A siimerian Parallel to
Genesis, il,l," Journal of the American Oriental Society,
LXIII (1943),pp.l91ff.

(5)

Cf. Jules Gay, "Quelq.ues reraarques sur les papes Grecs et
Syriens avant la querelle des Iconoclastes ," Melanges
Gustave Schlumberger (Paris, 1924) , pp. 40ff, and his study
in Melanges d*arch^ologie et d*histoire, •( )iPP.

II.-I.LIarrou, "L'origine orientale des diaconies romaines,"

M^lang:es d' archeologie et d'histoire ,LVII ( 1940) ,pp .95ff ;
M.Avery, "The Alexandrian Style at Santa Maria Antiqua,''
Art Bulletin, VII ( 1925) ,pp . 131ff ; for Roman iconostases,
cf.DACL.,

(4)

Krautheimer, op.cit . ,p.29.

(5)

To what extent this is true, now may 1d_ gathered con-
veniently from the study of Johannes wuasten, "Oriental
Influence in the Gallic^^ Liturgy," Traditio, I (1943), pp.
55-78; see also A.Baumstark, "Orientaiisches in der alt-
spanischen Liturgie," Oriens Chris tianus, K/JIII (1935),
pp. 3-37.

(6)

J.de Morgan, "Evolutions et revolutions numismatiques,"
M^lan-es Schlumher^rer (1924), PI. IX, 14-24, facing p. 288;
Camillo Serafini, .Le monete e le bolle plumbee pontifice
del medagliere vaticano (Milan, 1910) ,I|PP.4f ,pl.I,3-4;
the Lombard duchies in South Italy preserved that type
even longer; cf .

(7)

See in general Gerd Tellenbach, "Rbmischer und christli-
cher Reichsgedanke in der Liturgie des fruhen Mittelalters
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelber^^er Akademie, Jahrgang
1934/35, l.Abhandlung; in the Laudes the form Romanus has
a definitely urban connotation; cf. E.H.Kantorowicz,

^

3"^

.1 1 > . '^

(8) Monachus San^allensis, kon. Germ. Hist, ,Scriptores, II,p,T;
ed.P.Jaff^, Eibliotheca rerum Germanicariim
Suitbert Baumer, Geschichte des Breviers ( Freiburg, 1895 ) j
p. 2335 with note 2.

(9) See, for the general development, Edmund Bishop, "The
Liturgical Reforms of Charlemagne," Downside Review,

XXXVIII (1919) ,pp.

(10) Cf.Euj^n Rosenstock, "Die Furt der Farnken und das

Sohisma," in E.Rosenstcck and J.Wittig, Das Alter der
Kirehe (Berlin,n.d, ) , II,p*

(11) Krauthe imer > op . n i t . , p , 35 ; see also W.Hanimer, "The Concept
of the Mew or Second Rome in the Middle A^^es," Speculum,
XIX (1944) iP. 56, "^"^ '^^wever doer r^nt ^Yhriup.t th<»
interesting subject.

(12) Ei?*hop, op^cit

(13) Th.Klauser, "Die liturgischen Austauschbezi'^v^^i^^r^n

zwischen der romischen und der f rankisch-deutschen Kirehe
vom 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert ," Kistorisches Jahrbuch,LIII

(1933),pp.l69ff.

(U)

Cf .A.Baumstark, ♦'Orientalisches in den Texten cler atend-
landischen Palmfeier," Jahrbucfe fur Litur^iewissenschaft ,
VII (1927) , pp. 148-153, and the same author's "La solennit^
des palmes dans I'ancienne et la nouvelle Rome,"
Irenikon,XIII ( 1936) ,pp.l-245 see also Adolf Franz, Die
kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter (Freiburg;;, 1909) ,
I,PP.470ff,477f.

(15) Heinrich Linsse^, ©Luk z^^i i Hi; Die Entwicklun^: und Ver-

breitung einer litur^^ischen Formelgruppe (Diss. Bonn, 1925;
Munster,1929), esp^pp .33ff ,42f ; Baumstarkx, Vom geschicht-
lichen Yerden der Litur^ie (Ecclesia orans,X: Freiburg,
1923), p. 82, n. 3.

(16) J.A.Jun^mann, Die Stellun,'^ Christ i is llturEischen Gebet
(Litur^ie^eschichtliche Forschuni^enjVII-VIII: IJunster,

1925),pp.l84ff, cf.l03ff.

( 17 ) Baumst ark , Jahrbuch flir Lituj-,^ie-

wiGr.,enschaft, (1922), p. 16; Erik Peterson, "Perfidia
ludaica," Ephenerides Litur;:icae ,L (1936) ,p.31C; Quasten,
op. pit . , pp. 57-61.

(18) Gerald Ellard, Ordination Anoint in/:s in the Western Church
(Cambridge, Mass. ,1933) .

5 ^

\

(19) Th.Klauser, Das romische Gapitulare Evangellonim (Litur-

gie^eschichtliche Quexlen und For5chun£en,XXVIII: Munste-*,
1935) jPP-131:^; A.Dold and A.Baumstark, Dss P^linpsest-
sakramentar Im Codex Au^iensis CXII (Texte und Arbeit en
der Erzabtei Beuron, I.Abt . ,Heft 12: Beuron, ),p.
XLVIf. For the^'Egyptian'^dates of the feasts, see
J.W.S.Sewell, in The Le^ancy of Ei::.ypt , ed.by S.R.K.Glan-
ville ( Oxford, 1942) , p. 8, a study to which Professor

Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy,
attention.

, kindly called my

(20) See the fascinating discussion of Th.Klauser, Die Cathedra
im Totenkult der heidnischen und Christ lichen Ant ike
(Liturgiegeschichtliche iTorschungen, IX: Munster ,1927) ,
esp.pp*157ff ,173ff ,183; see also Hans Lietzmann, Petrus
und Paulus in Roin (Arbeit en zur Kirchengeschichte, I:
Berlin and Le ipzig, 1927) , pp. 93-102.

(21) Krautheimer , op . cit . ,pp.23f

(22) For a sober appreciation of Hincmar, see, in addition to
E.Schrbrs, Hinkmar, Srrbischof von Reims ( Freiburg, 1884 ) ,
Hand von Schubert, Geschichte der chrsitlichen Kirche im
Fruhmittelalter (Tubingen, 1921) , pp. 439ff.

(23) In general, K.Voigt, Die karolinrische Zlosterpolitik
und der Niederganjg des v/estfrankischen Kbnigtums ( Kirch en-
rechtliche Abhandlungen,XC-XCI: Stuttgart ,1917) .

(24) Migne,Patr2Lat.,CXXXVIII,col.659C; Mon.Gerr..Eist . .Le-es

(fol.ed.),I,p.457.

,YK- 7^16

3^

S

k Kin si kBiAioYOhjici^ coUnc-^iCM

^ u^/u

'1.

^'

s

ROMA AND TH.'i: COAL

(See notes on the ner^ ^age)

t

This par.er is one of those cited in Dumbarton OaKS
Papers, XVII (I963), lib (a p^efabory note to Kan+— cvicz's
"Oriens Aupusti--Lever du Roi '' ) in this fasliicn:

, Tliis article, which is based on a paper read a.1 Dmnbailon
Oaks on April 5, 1951, ^vas to liave been tl.e first of a series
of "Studies Eastern and Western in the Histoiy of Late
Classical and Mediaeval Ideas." The series was to have in-
cluded the following additional titles:

"S3'nthrono5"

"Roman Coins and Christian Rites"

"Epiph.any and Coronation"

"Ci.arles the Bald and the Xafales Cacsamm"

"Roma and tl:e Coal."
Professor Kantorowicz was able to correct the proofs of the
present paper before his death on September 9, 1963. In
accordance with his expressed wishes, plans for publishing
the otlier studies in the series will be abandoned. Oc-
casional references to some of these studies in the footnotes
have been allowed to stand.

Kantorowicz *s last will and testa^TBnt sti^-^ulated that none
of his unpublished papers were to be published, fcr he did
not think of any scholarly work as "h5s'' until he :.ad re-
leased it for publication.

If, therefore, anyone choosejto cite this pacer in
print, the reference should be impersonal. Do not say
"KantoT»owicz says in ^uch and sucrj\ or '^Kantorowicz
believed..." but rather something like "the unpublished
paper bv -^^antorowicz on [this or that] is useful fcr' the
problem of [such and such]".

r

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PAGE IN PHOTOCOPIES MADE OF THIS ARTICLE

ROMA A K D THE CO A L

The Romans, wrote Cardinal Guido of Santa Sabina,
will fall for any man ivho offers them et gestus ma^Rnificos
et verba tonantia et facta terribilia, Tae Cardinal,
who as Pope Clement IV (1265-1268) was destined to end the
centnry-old struggle of the Holy See against the Hohen-
staufen Emperors, had seen m^iny princes and princely pret-
enders pairing court to Rome, enough to knov/ ho\7 a man

2

could win applause in the city. uls experience has

general validity. i^me and time again, Rome, in the
course oi her long history of twenty-fiv^ centuries, has

Ci-^ jCnr-Ou^

evidenced the essential truth of his words which inu.ioate
simply the permanent existence of a ^'Caesarean" suhcurrent
v/ith which Roman life has "been imbued so thoroughly. Rome
would not be Rome lest she intoxicated herself periodical-

ly with magnificent gestures, stuniicd hex people v/ith "^
resounding words, and bev/ildered others with stupendous
feats* Eer predilection for the theatrical, the rhetor-
ical, and the prodigious must be taken into account by
anvone who wishes to understand imperial, papal, or

mo

dem Rome. From that stratum there arose her monuments

of uerlv grandeur and gxeat beauty, i-'rom the same source
there originated her remarlcaole ability to exceil in
splendid display and colorful pageantry, or to stir
emotions tiirough various kinds of excitins circenses.
Such was Rome in .^tiquity, and her intrinsic nature

v;a3 not .-ibated v/hon the liomo of the jaesars chan^-ed into
that 01 the .-.postles. 'j-'hc world-ruling •:ontifrs took zuU

advantage of the imperial legacy.

_.ever have the lioman

popes abandoned the Caesarean ctratum on which their
universal pov/er rested and their towering claims were
founded. 'lo the present day, papal pageantry challenges
the spectator to recall customs, shov/s, and ceremoriial of
the Caesars."^ In Caesarean Home, the bpirit has found,
for good or evil, a tody to live in; and where all is
substance and firmness, there the Spirit, too, no longer
is indefinite, hasy_, or floating: H-e becomes compact,
factual, and material through that incredible reality of
Caesarean Rome.

Less manifest, though hardly less effective, than.
the Caesarean strand was the mediaeval tendency to
dematerialize, though not dim oixt, ancient Rome's too
great reality, to make the city, as it were, transparent
Dj viewing it in a more spiritual fashion. Efforts to
bestow transparency upon Rome have been made in various
directions. Artists and men of letters have occasionally
con;jiu:ed the fluorescent light of Jerusalem to make Home
less weighty and more transcendental* In the mosaics of
banta L^aria l.:aggiore, executed under ?ope Sixtus III
(452-44U), we recognize St. Peter in the garb of Israel's
holy man Simeon, who took the new-born saviour in his

a

rms, and accordingly v;e find the Roman Templum Urbis
rejjresented as the Tem.ple of Jerusalem. \/e know also

J

that strange equation ot ot. jreter and i.Ioses which liiio'-
ered on throu:j;h the i.:iddlv3 A^;e3 and which fulfilled the

task to establish also in viev; of the Old Tc^staineiit a

l/e know the discussions of

Roman apostolic succession*^ "'

the -^^XY ODvious question -<:''i):ir ^ after all, not Jerusalem
but Home became, according' to \7estern theolo£;ians, the
caput omni'jun ecclesiarurn. V/e are familiar with the
c^Jirial endeavors to bind Jerusalem's halo to the ^^lazior
of liome through the medium of the cinisades the leadership
of v/hich was finally claimed by the pope, ' In a hier-
archical reinterpretation of an early Christian icono-

<y

raphio pattern - the meeting of the Ecclesia ex circum-

cisxone, Jerusalem, with the Ecclesia ex gentibus^ Beth-
lehem, where the Ilagi adored Christ - that is, in the nov/
destroyed mosaics in the apse of the Vatican, people may
have admired Pope Imiocent III as he moved proudly out of
Jerusalem to meet the Church, his papal Church, stepping

o

forth from Bethlehem, There are other items indicating
the vain efforts to blend the Rome-Idea with the Jerusalem
Idea, to graft "Jerusalem" upon Home, and to transcenden- .
talize Rome by malcing her visible as an antitype and
effigy of the Celestial City: "This city of ours - the

city of God, the city in which truth and sanctity are

g

taught," as Pope Pius XII still expressed it. But in the

end Roma has refused to be identified with any Jerusalem
or to give her sap to that scion,

Rome's earthbound reality was not to become less
material and heavy-weighing by calling in the metaphysics

"bound to anot'ner city and clim.-iite* Rone had an otherness
of hex ov/n* one v/as the city of ^ipostles and Lartyrs.
V,?ien placed against this, her proper, background Rome
gained indeed the touch of v/eightless transparency which
during the Lliddle A^*es enveloped and transfigured the
former city of Caesars • It appears that for several
centuries, until the antiaue tradition re-emerged as an
all-domineering mirage during the Ilenaissance, the imaer
tension of Roman thought and life vibrated between the tv/o
extreme poles of Caesars and Llartyrs, The poens which
duriiig the Lliddle Ages effused the strongest perfume and
resounded the fullest tones, poems v/hich still move us
directly as, for example, Q Roia;a nobilis, were those
inspired and vitalized by the confrontation of the factual
grandeur of Caesarean Rome with the sweetness of the
self-sacrifice of martyrs, Romulus and Remus replaced by
retrua and i'aulus -- this v;as the formula which the Church
liked to apply.

The literary and poetical pattern of setting over one
Rome against the other is old • It begins, roughly, v/ith

"L-rudentius * songs on Roman martyrs and with the sermons oi
Leo the Great on the Roman Apostles. It ends in the early
tv/elfth centiory in Hildebert of Lavardin's elegy on Rome,
'fiiereaf ter the x^re-Renaissance produced a new variety of
Rome-Sentiment, although even ?etrarch could occasionally

fall back on the old scheme:

"Assuming that ancient Rome. left me cold - how sweet,
then, is it to view in a Christian spirit that city,

the effigy of heaven on earth, the city fit together
hy the flesh and bones of the martyrs."

3

However, the climax of that literary -enre should be

sou^Txt ill the later part of the iiin^^th, in the tenth, and
early eleventh century, thus preceding and coinciding v/itl
that surprising bloom of the mediaeval Home-Idea in the

Ottonian period which has found already its competent

12

m that period, during which Byzantium

'xnzejrpreteT

exercized once more her powerful influence on the .,est
and on Rone, there originated in Italy, v/ritten in or nea:
the year 1000 hy an anonymous poet, the stirring and
highly emotional song, often discussed and recently pub-
lished anev/ in a critical edition, which ma.y form the
starting point of this study, the Carmen in Assuintione

Sanctae I.Iariae.

15

rns icoiLo^sis poem

The sixty-six lines, or thirty-three distichs, of Kk
'//hich the poem is comxDOsed, refer to the celebration of
the Dormition and Assumption of i^t. liary such as it was
observed in Home on August 15th. Like most of the feasts
of St. Uary, the Assumption v/as based on apocryphal
sources. Probably since the fifth century the Koimesis
of the Virgin v/as observed in the East. Tiie celebration

of that day then wandered to the ./est, perhaps along the

15

customary Galilean trails. -^ ro Home it can be traced in

the seventh century when ?ope Sergius I (637-TnJI) made
arrangements for a procession on the vigil of Assumption

mrrrir-m^^^

■.^■s^^m^^m

.■^■T>'^fl-A .. ..- v:

t^X'-^

I I

6

1 ('

)ay. It "becaue a xionan cuGtom to carry (iuriUcj the

lii^-ht preuedin-' tliat feast the ^olto santo in a solemn,
perhaps sOiiiev/hat orgiastic, torch procession froia the

oratory of oan Lorenzo, near the i^ateran (now knov/n as

17

the oancta Sanctoruiii; to i^anta Maria i..as^:iore. I'he

Volto santo, now discolored out of recognition and almost

totally covered hy a silver screen by which Innocent III

13
tried to protect the iina^je, was a holy icon of Christ.

It was painted in the early Cliristian and Byzantine mannei

displaying the "Emmanuel/' the God incarnate and therefore

manifest, seated on his throne. ihat stern ima^je was saic

to be an acheropita, an icon not painted by human hands.

J I _ I ■ ■ I I — -■ ■- - '

oaint Luke, alle^^edly, had made the design, whereas angeln
had finished it by adding the colors. ^ .vbout the origin
of the pan^lel, which undoubtedly is old C5th or 6th cent-
ur»y, perhaps, since the type can be traced even to the
fourth^^^) , there circulated a great number of legends,
baint Peter himself v/aiiclaimed to have brought the icon
to the city. Others, who believed in the Abgar story,
held that it was found in the booty which iltus brought
from Jerusalem to Rome. h. third version maintained that
the iconophile Patriarch ^^rermanus of uonstantinople,
v/ho was deposed by the ijmperor a.eo III at the pilention
of 730, had saved the icon from the fervor of the Icono-
clasts a:id that the panel finally swam over the seas to
reach Rome, thus taking, by and large, the familiar and
classical way of , the Palladium, from the nellespont to th.

21

Tiber. -^

- ■nmj^«»w»»*ip57S-'*-?»fri!jftiP<.': "■ •••rr r-f.** •v-zTJ^TJ^iP^* %-//<^'>'

•'rffri^!f?*^^:^r^''- *■;:?»• '^.■* ,T•v■*^"**•"»'^T^^''W'''^•''''!?''■'^'■ '■ ..'.•■<i^"^-'-^T''-'l'

J*.'

n

he nocturnal celebration resembled in n::inv res'oects

•

k

a national holiday^ 'Eie RoLia.ns compared their City, the
patriae parens, to :.:ary, the jjeiparens, and hallov/ed, as
it were, in the .-ssimta also the Roma, and vice versa.
'Fae feast had a certain political character, both in Home
and in the cities of Latiura which ever since early times
;vere proud of copying the Roman model, so that their pract>
ices shed some light also on the Roman customs* ^ rhe
whole population v/as arranged according to its civic organ^
izations, headed by the prefect of the city and the regio-
nal magistrates as well as by the clergy • 2he people
assembled, burning torches iii their hands, in or near the
old Gonstantinian Basilica, the Lateran, to form the pro-
cession which led through the illuminated streets, * xi med-
iaeval inscription from the Capitol is preserved in the
^^alazzo dei Conservatori, and it renders the idea of the
feast, or one aspect of it, not badly: "The triumphal
procession of the pagans, which one v;as used to perform
in honor of the Caesar Augustus, has been adjusted to the

devotional cult of the Christian religion on the feast of

25

tne Godbearing virgin/' -^ It was in fact a triumplialis

-Qom-oa in honor of the celestial Augusta -- and the .^ugustfiSr

From the Jbateran, the procession took its way first
tothe Forum, to .5. Llaria i;ova, now S. Francesca Romans,
i^nis church, vexy suitingly, v;as the old templum Veneris
et iriomae. This v/as the first station of the procession,
and on the steps of the old national shrine the image was
deposed, '.mile the feet of the image were washed, the

.vmm "'J4-W:' K9Bw^jivm^M?rJitU:V9mB!^

- -. ■■^. -.*»-.■»'

fe»^WH^^i^a[p$wiN^

',ii?e^5^S&>*?ia*j;-^U^.-\;Ai- -w^-''^?^'«-:''^T.->^'««w|S^ ■■■'^tm-'f** ■

8

nourro-ii^- over the death oi th.o Vir^;in he^-an. The people
went dov/n on thojr knees. 'ITa'-i/ beat their chests with
their fists, and san^' a hundred Vyrie elcison, a hundred
Christe cleison, and another hundred Kyrie eleison. ''J:^aey:e
j?ollovved varoius other stations inhere the ritual of
v/ashin^* the feet of the inia^'e with casilixjuiH v/as repeated.
Finally the icon was carried to Santa k'aria Ll-ig^-iore, wher
it ren:ained for the night ♦ ?lie poije, who until the a^'S
of the Chiirch Reforn in the eventh century had walked in
the procession, out lat^r only received the procession

at its destination^ sang the IJass, which according to a
later legend originally had been celebrated by St* Pete:

himself, and then gave his blessing to the exliausted

27

people (bcnedicit populun fatigatun) . Tlie visit of

Christ to the shrine of his mother came to end.^ In the
early hours of the morning the Volte santo returned to
its own temple, the prese:tit b^ancta ;5anctoruLi» The task
of the divine epiphany had been fulfilled: the Virgin's
soul was received by the Son; it was conducted oy angels
to Heaven, x^fiiexe the Virgin finally v/as to share the
throne of the Deity.

Tills spectacular pageantry, the greatest feast of
mediaeval Rorie, may have been celebrated in the year lOOC
with more than the customary elaboration, since the young
erjperor of Saxon and Byzantine stock, Otto III, then was

•

present in the City v/hich he intended to restore to her

23

old dignity as the capital of a renev/ed Roman iiJinpire.

Ik

!iii»ip< .>jijMWii.iijiiipiii»iiwMijpHjiiiiiLij,JMwjjitpiiiv''»'H»if'mwip!W^ . iJUii/jpipWIggPtPCTyypwiJiiisyniiyiMM

I I

I I

I

iiov/ever this Day be, v/e are told tliat '*so:ie one'* - Icoraan

or straii£:er

v/}io wntnessed the nidni^-ht procesGion, v/as

overi/]ielijed by the spectacle and, takoii by rapture and

29

adiuiration, broke out with the\vords: -^

Sancta Llaria, quid est? oi cell climata scandis,

Esto beni^^na tuis! Sancta L.'aria quid est?
Unde frerait xjopulus, vel cur vexilla coruscant?

Quid sibi vult strepitus? Unde fremit populus?
Quare volant facule, lucent per strata corone?

Luinin.e oiv.i lime quare volant 'lacule?
Astra nitent radiis rutilant et tecta laternis,

Cuj:icta rubent xla^iuiiis, astra nitent radiis*

5

In a simple translation those four distichs riiay be rendered
as follows:

(1) Holy Virgin, v/hat is it? V/hen thou ascendest to

<
the dwellings of Heaven, be tliou gracious to those

that are thine! Holy Virgin, what is it?

(2) Vmy is this buzzing of the crowd, and why do the
banners glisten? Vvliy this noise and the buzzing of
the crowd?

(3) ''^Thy are torch-lights floating through the streets
and pitch-crov/ns sparkling? "uliy, mingling with the
light of the Bioon, are torch-lights floating?

(4-) Oie beams of the stars are glittering, but also the
roofs resplend with lanterns. All is reddened by
flames, and the beams of stars glitter.

\I±th those four picturesque ±k:ix^aiit distichs the poeu
opens, and the poet skilfully prepares the reader for t
preaching torch-procession. As the poem proceeds, the

he

app

procession will advance, too. It is one of the artifices
of that highly artistic poet to make the reader visualise,

I I

10

as if by mear.s of teic?ior.]:oi"iia, tho whole train of the
faithful as ±t passes "by conducting* the holy jcon of the

the sane tine, hov/ever, the poet actively

interfers v/ith the procession: he stops one of the mour-
ners, a woman marching at the head of the parade. She is

Hoina herself, and the poet addresses her in v/hat he call
the Alio cut io Roniae:

I MJ IT - I 1, ■ I t_ I

Aedita consulibus numerasti, xioma, triuraphos;
10 Si2;Jia moves planctus aedita consulihus?
Que tihi causa inali, felix o gloria mu.ndi?

Cur nanant oculi? Que tihi causa niali?
Plaude, parens patrie, rorantia lumina ter^re,
Spein retinens venie plaude parens patrie ♦
3-5 I.Iartyrii precio cecidit si prima propago,
Stas renovata mode martyrii X-^^r^cio,
Limina primus adit silvis digressus arator,

I«U}ic tua piscator limina primus adit.
rulvere nultiplici crines fedaverat ille,
20 Hie te mundat aauis pulvere multiplici.
Paulus ovile tuum pascens educit aquatum
at cue refert stabulis Paulus ovile tuum* _

s

(5) A scion of consuls, 0 Some, thou hast counted thy
triumphs; and thou showest signs of mourning, a
scion of consuls?

(6) V/hat causes thy grief, 0 happy glory of the v/orld?
wTiy are thine eyes vvettened? V.Tiat causes thy grief?

(7) i^p joyful, fatherland-oearer; ary thy bedev/ed eyes.

'?hou hast not forfeited hope of forgiveness; be

jovf ul , fatherland-bearer.
. thy

(8) If by the price of martyrdom jcccio: first offspring

drooped, it is for the price of martyrdom only that
thou standest renev/ed*

':'^"*:'n^.

f»«.*-.-

'J».o ■ p. I ^M\f.JH^^>^^Sf fyi^J^f'

y ■

I Mill iiiifi I HI I mm ^BMBi" " ' 'J "T'T'nr 'IT- - iT|- I i[-i ti ^irrT^''

I I

'l t

11

(9) The first to leave the lorerjts and approach thy prec-
incts v;a3 the plouj-hmn: now it's the fisheruan who
first approaches thy precincts.

(10) \/ith dirt and dust the plourlinan' s hair was stained;
the fisher cleanses thee with water fxon dirt and
dust.

(11) Paul tending thy flock leads the sheep out of the
water, and bac!^ to the fold leads Paul thy flock*

* ' I

I.

Tlfie poet addressing Rome has chosen and composed his v/ords
with very great care. The first three distichs azs (5-7)
are balanced by the last three (9-11), and the whole alloc
ution hinges on the central distich (8). Tlie first three
refer to Koina's great past; she had her triumphs and there
is no reason for her to moiirn and weep because it is not
too late for forgiveness. The last three hail the pres-
ence of the Apostles Peter and i-^aul: they are responsible
for the baptism of the i-loman peasant who founded the city»
Tlie antithesis of pagan past and Chrj.stian present dis-
solves in the central couplet: Rome's first race languishec
when it rudely martyred the first heroes of Cliristian
faith - Rome, today, stands renewed on account of those
[martyred' heroes of faith. The central distich contains
also the catchword of the Roman Renovatio movement of
those days - stas renovata. 5ut the renewal has not the

politicoil connotations which that notion has on so hVd

^y

<:.■>

Other occasions. Rome is renewed ^oy baptism, because her
second race has received through the blood of her martyr-
apostles the sacrament of rebirth and re/renration.

Umi'lji miyi iinywijiiii \*.^3f.vm*^^m»[

-■»<-.i»u;|r T^ -^

I f

12

10 tnesc v/ords of the poet llona i;ives a Ion- reply, which
here shall he hro]:eii up in three sections of first five,
then four, fijially again five distichs.

Respondet Roma*
Ijuid memoras titulos aut our insignia prisca
Obicis in vultujGi? Quid nenioras titulos?
25 Enitui facie toto liiemoraoilis oroe,
Gallida sed vulpes enitui facie.
In -ediis opibus raeretrix nocturna cucullos

Induo prostituens, in mediis opibus.
hec netuens doninum proieci carmine vultura
30 Offendens niinium nee metuens domi^iuLi.

Seinino nunc lacrimas ad sere (.audia messis
iii't post delicias semino nunc lacrimas.

(12) \ih:y do you recall ny titles or cast to my face
insi^^nia of by-gone days? \-h.Y do you recall my
titles?

(13) Resplendent was my face and memorable in the whole
world; but it wasthe face of a sly vixen that v;as
resplendent.

(14) In the midst of treasui^es I prostituted myself, a
nocturnal whore cloaking herself in her huds in the
midst of treasures.

(15) Lacking^fear of the o-.ord, I debased my face through
charms,^ too great an offense and lacking fear of
the Lord.

(16) Tears I sow now for the joy of a late har\'^eS'T3, and
after delights, tears I sow novu

bince the poet started by conjuring Rome's great past,
Roma too recalls in her reply her former glories as well
as her foi-mer sins. She herself is that meretrix .--.ugusta,
Liessalina, who, according to Juvenal, ir4-4>he— midst-of

» j. .T! : (C-t. , " . -iK^v^^i*

H_'W)i.MiW..

.'V.*,

V ""•■

,.t - . .

: t>,., '•l.--"

I I

13

e

despite all her treasures sneckcd a\/ay at ni^iit jTrori th
iLiperial couch and Oxi'cred herself in Oiio of lior/io's

"iorothels to any cower, askin^; ana talcing* from each ?ii5

32

fee. Therefore Roma, while identifying- herself with the

imperial harlot and other sinners of the past, had £;ood
reasons for bein^;^- in tears, nowever, inedicieval ixonie has
learnt where to find salvation, aiid now indicates to the
poet the God v/hose image was approaching; in tho procession

Gaudia sustinui, lucrum si prima recepi,
x'urif ic^mte deo gaudia sustinui*
35 hec x>i"*ocul est opifex (^eriijnau carbone refingens,
Kt ^-reraiuQi pandens nee ijrocul est opifex.
Un uDi \ailtus adest querens oi-acula ijatris,

i-'re natis honinujii en uhi vultus adest?
Vultus adest domini, cui totiis sternitiir orbis,
40 Si^^no iudicii vxiltus adest domini.

(17) Joys I sustained, but if really I profited froin bein^*
the first in the world, it is through the purifying-
C-od that joys 1 sustained.

(18) iCot ^»ar av/ay is the artisan who with a coal refashion:
the gem and expands the pale, not far away is the
artisan,

(19) liO, where actually does the Volto appear to seek the
shrine of the i-other, he who is far above these corn
of man, where does tl\e Volto appear?

(20) Here £±n Rome^ it is present, the Volto of the Lord
before whom tlie whole v;orld prostrates; in the sign
of judgment it is present, the Volto of the j-iOrd,

Kome*s supremacy of former days, which has tujrned into the

prinacy of the rioman See, has at least one advantage:

within hex walls Christ himself makes his a^opearance to

m

^fl^ If 1 1 M JjaiiwpPA' P*' iiJi,ipi!t,n.Mi Wjl

?-■■ •• ft A. — •

"<.j-*.r.

r't4»-.i. '•

• , .■.■,i<i

■r

I I

14

e

visit his ...other • ..ere, in -.ome, he dwells, and oeior
his imase the world siiilvs to the ^Tound like xori.ierly
ueiore the Caesars, *Ihis then explains the torch proces-
sion o3 the excitement ox the people.

L-rgo fremit populus, nee cesL,ant tundere pectus

:;:atres cum seni-hus, ergo fremit populus.
iSistitur in solio donini spectabile signuiri,

Theotocos(iue suo sistitur in solio.
45 nine thimiama dahunt, hinc oalsa/na prinia reponunt,

'rhus myrramciue xerunt, hinc thimiama dauunt.
jjat scola (ireca melos et plehs Komana susurros,

Et variis modulis dat scola ureca raelos.
»Kyrie* centuplicant et pugnis pectora pulsant,

»Chri3te faveto^ tenant, -Kyrie' centuplicant.

^21) 'Jjheref ore the people cries, and matrons as well as

old men incessantly heat their oreast, therexci-e the

people cries.

(22) On the throne Gdlx^a.± there is seated the vcncraole
sign oS the j^-ord, and the Theotocos is seated on
his (her?) throne. "'-^

(23) That is why they will offer scents, why thq^r depose
the first halms, carry incense and myrrh, why they

will offer scents. r^non-f-o

^24) rne Gree]z school proffers its 2:s±5Et±HS, and the Roman.

people add murmur; and in varified tunes the Greek

school proffers its chants.
(25) "ICyrie" they centuple and heat their breast v/ith

the fists. ^Le merciful, Christ" it rcsconds, and

the "Kyrie* they centuple.

vniile Koma speaks, the procession has moved forward. Trio
Emmanuel has appeared and has passed hy. h'ow the holy
icon has reached the sanctuai-y of ot. -I:ary. *Je view, as

||ii.|.H|;il4'i;i>P, <^|i<ijif,;, •■%:vfm-mv—f>,-':

■**fc»p*^«.'- •f-^^rw*

•».-T.V- Vl^f»l^^'»^'*"^^J^ .^■■'»-

j«r.»if,rr'>?»^,-«iWi«i

i

■^■i^-'.-

I f

\5

it ivere, th2 Lack of the individuals v/lio Imesl on the

e-03 of t}io teLTole, v/ho prepare the oirxtmentG for the

v/ashin^* of the feet of the ina£;e, listen to the chj.nts of
the Greek School and "beat their breast v/hile 3inr;in£^
three-hundred ir.yrie and Christe cleison. By their cries
they now invite also the Virgin to appear. The poet, so
to speak, joins the faithful v/ho call for the Virgin, oy
adding his Invitatio ad orationein;

Sollicitemus ob hoc doninurn prece, cariaine, lin^ma,

Et matrern domini sollicitemus ob hoc*
Vir^o r^aria, tuos clementius aspice natos,

L'jiiiudi famulos, virgo L'jiria, tuos*
55 Supplicibus lacrimis tibi gre:-: conspargitirr urbis,

Alma :.:i,ria, lave supplicibus lacrimis ♦
l\irba genit populi modico discriiaine leti^

Sancta liaria, tibi turba gemit populi.

I

t

(26) Let us solicit, therefore, the Lord with prayer,
olvdnt 3.n6. word; also the Lord's mother, letiis: us
solicit therefore,

(27) Virgin L'ary, v/ith greaf:er clemency look cljSDzivxnn at
your children. Hear jcsii thy servants, Virgin Lary

(28) In suppliant tears for thee the flock of the City
is sv/inining. "^SrSsliiiis IJary, be gracious to those
su-onliant tears.

(29) The fchroiig groans, a people happy because thou art
so little distant. It is for thee that the throng

groans.

..ith this invocation of Christ and Llary the poem mighL
have ended. Hov/ever, the poet turned back once more to

E}Ly

earth, and to the invoxjations of V±Tf:o I "aria, alina Ilari
and >.ancta i:aria he adds that to the L^ei .^-enetrix, to the
mother of the incarnate God, which introduces the supplic-
ation for the Emperor.

I':

' . , .K„*V ■• '*. • - *■■','». , ■.■ M-. ^ ■ . "Itl >*"s£«4;*."v,i.J' ^ ■ .-tJf ..'-■>'• :v.;,-'-.-f, '■-..l.X'-: J^jf^.'^ij^-..^.

16

r .-

OL/

65

oanota dei ^eiijtrix, /lOJMinan respice ple*«.'On^

Ot*:onique iV.ve, sancta del -eri5."*:rix.
•I'erciiis Otto tue nj xus solariirie pali^.e

-rrerto Git venie 1:erciu^ ot^,o tue,
hie tibi, si quid habet, devoto i:ectore prestat,

opar^-ere non dubitat hie tibi, si ^-aid h^;.et.
Gaudeat cmnis hono, c.-da rer^nat tercius utto,

Illius imperio gaudeat om-ij.s liono.

ii
I

(3C) Holy God-bearer, heed the I'ionan people and be

nercii'ul to utto, holy God-bearer.
(31) -Tne third Otto, bent on the solace oi thy hand,

shall be ready for thy for^-iveness, he. the third

utto.

Oj.

lee

(32) If anything he ovrns, he will give i<:r:i all frcii his

heart's devotion, nor v;ill he hesitate to distribute
for thee all, if ^rL^tYnsi-^ he owns.
K^:)) ibe there z.^rr^ eveiry roan, for the third Otto rules,
and of his e~ipire be there nerrv everv man.

It is certainly true that the last four distichs - that
is, the su]2pdicatio for the eirir^eror - are of a sonie'.vhat
inferior quality, and the feeling tr^rusts itself upon the
reader that those conventioiial lines might be a later
addition. Hoxvever, they are found in all nanuscripts, and
they are essential, as sihall be seen. GTneir mediocre
qu^ality nay derive from the fact t'nat those traditional
phrases of hoiiage to the ruler v;ould usually have a ring
of banality, a banality for \/hich the readci' of the highly
ersotional verses preceding the sirov-licatic pro ini:)eratcre

has "oeen in no way prepared.

54

>mmm u»»i>im«..'HLijKijint v iMf^mmjo-mf^ -.Jmimm.i>^*wm*"jm"r ■■iJnyimniPP ■]'•""> Jwj«^'"ljy'WWP^^i**'^gB*WF^P^

'ff'^

I I

17

^C'lirc- anu conipo^jn txo^-i oi th5 3 e^i^ra-

ordinarily i'iixiohed poeLi deserve a feiv words

me "!::'Oem

is written in sc~c:.lled •'rec:5r.rocal"* or "serpent.:.!

ic

fi

verses: the pentuitieter exxds in thu; v.ords v^itn v.h2.cn tr

ne

a. .;^.

hejcameter begins, vhis playful, if ;.^ost ef-ecriui, col:"cs
itional scherae £,'oes bsck to ^.nti^uity and vras often used
in Carolingian circles of poetry, it is not a cine that

would allow us to guess at the home or education of the

35

poet. The inner parallelisms of the composition at

large have heen indicated • 'Ihe Introduction consists of
four distichs, the Conclusion of eight. 3inilarly ;ve find
that the "Allocution of Home" is composed of sex-en distichf

vv^nereas "Rome's /uiswer'-' doucles that numher to fourteen.
It is evident that the axis of the Allocutio is rer:resente%
by the central distich (8) in which the mai'tyry of Roman
Christians is hailed as the cause of the renovatio of
Christian Rome. A similarly meticulous "balance is ob-
served in the ResDonsio of iobme. !i!lie fourteen distichs
have "been grouped in the following way: 5 (12-16;,
4 (17-2L/), 5 (21-25). In the first group of five, Rome
repents her form.er sinful lust. In the last group of five
Roma describes the repentance of the Criristian Roman
leople. 'I^ie central four distichs are devoted exclusively
to the epiphany of the Deus pi;Lrificans^ the divine purif-
yer who mal-ies his appearance as the Rmnanuel of the Vol-^c

santo. ^nose distichs are actually the axis, not only of
Rome's answer, hut of the whole poem. It is important.

^f"

m^fmammmrmfim'm

I I

1

s

r . n n

o

3vc:;

-..,,.,, -h]T_Qg(3 lines

j^-^d an obscurity there certainly is in the 13th distich:

ITec procul est opifex £,eiri;.i2.ra carbone rexin^ons
Et gremiiiin pandens nee procul est opifex.

ITriE COAL

.>,,-, U_ J3

wnat 13 tne meaning or tnat distich? V/ho, in the
first place, is the craftszian tliat refasnions the -V-gem"
through a "coal"? It is easy enough to point cut ;vho
alone that craftsman could be. Jji the preceding distich
(17) the poet raentions the Divine purliyer - purificante
deo ^caudia ^-ustinui. In the follov;ing distich (19), Roma

1 I ■»■ I ■Mm'W^ ■■■ ■■■■■! .— I^i ■ ■»! ■ ■«■■■ 11 I ■■

indicates the imminence of the epirhany of the Volto
santo - en ubi vultus adest? In 20, finally, the God is
present - Vultus adest domini. There can be no doubt
that 13, too, refers to the God and that the opifex" not
far av;ay** can only be Christ Smmanuel. But why does
Clirist refashion a ge^a with a coal? Wolo, or what, is the
gem, and what is the coal? I f we thinls: of the central
distich (8) of the "Allocution" where it is said that
KjQma stands "renewed" for the price of niartyrdom, it may
be expected that the other -^reneival," the "refashioning"
through the Divine Purif yer, would refer liliewise to
Home. In other words, the "gem" is undoubtedly Rome.
Home shall be remolded by a car bo , and this operation
eventually shall result in an expansion of Koma's pale.

•w

■ .pM»i^.' iu '.■"■■iw^'vWii Ji . J* ' I-. -' ' jiiM-i. MP^,ty ^u.MUMjLj mximmm ww^m'-tyiii iiji ijji . lwuluii

f f

j:)Ut v:ho or v;hat is the iiiiruculouu carbo ivhich a-).:>ar-

*/e :nay

ently o^viics -^h^ pov/cr to transform a;id expaxid 2o-e?
thiri of •• penitence." ..e may thini: also oi "purixying
fire."-^^ Lut though in the notion "coal" those i;iea::ings
are certainly in^plied, they are not very Sc;tisfactory in
view of the second image, the exp-..sion of Rome's pale,

et >sre:":iiun -C-'^-idens

m

o think that Kom.^^s creiaium be burnt

out by purifying fire is not a pleasant metaphor; cut if
so, ;vhy should this doleful oper.-.tion expand ''he pale?
Nor ha::", penitence, all 'oy itself, an expanding- power.
Those v/ould be not only vague, but cad im-v-ges - unlikely
v/ith a poet who otherwise is quite specific and conclusive
in the choice of his similes. In distichs 9-11, for
example, the allusion to Rome's baptism through St.r'eter
is very obvious, and so is the allusion to St. Paul's
missionary activity which effected the return of the
baptized flock (ovile aguatum) to the Roman fold, ixxa
Similarly, the refashioning of the "gem" - Rome - thmrough
a ^'coal" must have some quite specific, and not a vague or
abstruse, meaning. After all, the "coal" foimis the center
of Rome's answer just as the "baptism" formed the center
of the Allocutio.

It is evident that the allusion contained in the
18th distich of the poem hab never been given a thought
by modern interpreters. In the fragmentary translations

and paraphrases of the poem those central lines have 'Lieen •

57

disregarded.-^' Even Kxxrl Strecker, in his careful edition

, I "i^l^JI^P ' '" ■'■*^g ! ':"i' ' %;">■>

-»»".*■ br^MR*J.'' ■■ <^'--' ,.,.wiwi.t|.iwjifw»»i" ■i..ijamniyw|'#u|y»ii..»ii. ||jmp^»<i^

up ll.iMii ui^imji. <«v^',. ' ' " I. ' "^^

I I

20

.rer-^:ly no

realized the Aill nieaiiin^ of t.h^t licjure, since o ther vvir:C
he v/ould h:;ve indicutod in hi^ useful co-iicritary that the
Bible v/as referred to* "Vhe editor cannot be blaj.ed for
ne^-ligence* Eveii thou^'h he may have consulted the con-
cordance ox the Vulg-^.te, he could xiot have found the clue
for in the decisive place the Vulgate reads calculus, a
little stone, instead of carco, the coal. And even had
the editor thought of the HoTian i:ass in which the relev-

ant Bible verse is quoted, it would have been of littl

e

avail because the Ordinary of the ..:ass, as natural, fol-
lov/s the authoritative text of the Vulgate. The Septua-
ginta. Indeed, offers the correct translation and says
(xvvoc^.^ , and this is also that of the King James versio
v/hich renders the Vision of Isaiah (is., 6, 1-7) as follows

(1)... T saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

(2) Above it stood the seraphims. . . .

(3) And one cried unto another, and said: Koly, holy,
holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of
his glory. .•

(5) Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because
I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst
of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen
the King, the Lord of Hosts.

(6) Then flev/ one of the seraphims unto me, having a
live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the
tongs from off the altar:

(7) And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this
has touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken
away, and thy sin purged.

21

It

r*^.

ii:"a'e Leeii the .seventh versicle - "a..d he laid it

Ltne coalj upon my uiouth*' - v/hich eventually caused that
seemingly strange interprets "-^ion according to v/hich the
coal was a foreshadovvin^ of the eucharistic bread, or even
sigriified the eucharist itself, and therev/ith also the
2Li^a2iuel, the incarnate Christ. Tliis meaning has not
passed unnoticed by modern scholars. The literary and
liturgical sources have oeen collected, but the dogmatic,
ritual, and archeological radiations of that metaphor have

n

ever been studied, and also the historical developinen"

still needs some clarification. It seems justified, there
fore, to trace the history of the coal metaphor here and
to spread out the material relevant to an image v;hich has
been generally accepted and still is recognized by all
Eastern Churches. The liturgical sources may take the
lead*

i

In the V/est~Syrian liturgy of St. James v/e find the

follo-v/ing prayer over the censer:

L.aster and Lord Jesus Christ, 0 Logos of God, who by

the
his ov/n free will offered himself to/God and Father on

the cross as a blaraeless sacrifice, the coal of two

natujL^es (<> c^lx^-u-v^^ o^v^fc^^), which with the tongs

touched the lips of the prophet and took av.ay the sin.

In the same liturgy the image appears once more. This

time it precedes the Com^iiunion, as the priest humbly

SDeaks:

59

22

u?he .^ord shall bless us a.iJ. :^a:ce us dirjixiiied to
t ake v/i^h the pure ton^s of our iin,:ers the fiery
coal and to lay it on the iiouhs of the faithful as
a purification and a renovation of their souls and
LOdxes.

"Goal" appears in that Greek liturgy of the Syrians in
two different meanings: (1) it is used as an epithet of
the divine and huraan "Christ whereby the phrasing "coal

of two natures" v;ould indicar.e that the prayer over ..n

censer -.;as couched during' the early phases of the struga

cen

against the honophysites, around the middle of the fiftn
ntury;^-^ and (2) the "fiery coal" of the pre-coa.iunion
prayer refers directly to the eucharist v/hereby the tcng:
he seraphim and the hands of the priest are put into

Oj. i>

parallel.

In the Syriac liturgy of the Jacobites (that is,
Llonophysites)' a rubric prescribes that the priest, v;hen
he himself co.i^riunicates, "takes the coal from the chalic'
in the spoon" and speaks:

The nrooitiary coal of the body and blood of Cnriso

our God is given to a sir^^ul servant for the pardon

* o
of offences and for the remission of sins.

V;ith due al':eratiO--S this beca:.ie the ordinary forirula
for con^municating the clergy at large. '''^ The rubric i^iake
it clear that "coal" in this case means the consecrated
particle of the eucharistic bread placed on the litur-
gical sppon with which co-a-.union is usually ad::iinistered
in the Eastern Churches where also the laity, not only
the clergy, is co niviunicated in the tv;o species together.

The sx)Oon it-ijlf ap'_;eir:ed mt. a 3i"\i3-e of '^.he r>er::p>_i.o
tonj;;s - juJ3t like the ha.ids of the pricot i.: the ^Jreek

St. Javrcs ~ and it was actually called A«,i;>i.^ , ton^s, anc

44
in rirahic lain.dan> That the spoon ivas not generally j.se

can be gathered from the Greek liturgiei. of Syria from t'c

fifth to the eighth centiiry, since a rulric advises the

faithful to receive the holy oread in their croo::ed hands

and to touch "v/ith the divine coal eyes, lii-'^s, and

faces ♦'• The purification of the senses v;ith the euchar-

ist, or "coal," vvas a custoiii ofSyro-Jgyptia.. origin; ' it

is meiitioned as late as the eighth century hy John of

Damascus who frecuently re:-ers also otherv/ise to the coal

of Traxah.

47

In oyria, the eciuation of the "coal" with vyhrlst
nd the eucharist must ko back to relatively early tidies

It is found in the liturgie:. of the i::astern Syrian
Chiarches, above all in the rite ox the Lestoriansj and
since the secession of the I'estorians from the orthodox

hurch and from ii.ntioch took place after 451 -^uD., it

follows that the expression "coal" for the eucharistic
bread or the particles must have been popular among the
Eastern Syrians before that secession, A rubric in t\\e
:\estorian liturgy - so-called of \ddai and ; :.ri, the
East-Svrian apostles ~ orescrii.es at the I'raction of the

Bread that "the pri st sh^vll break the body and dip a

4i
coal (into the chalice) for the children," the faithful.

This rubric might be a later insertion. \lo^y:e\^(^x ^ there i;

24

U0i*>5 tlinn Oiie fii'th-centary evideace xor the i'act thttt

Cixe 2as':ern oyrians and the iTestoric.n litirrgists v/ere 'veil
acQUuinted with the coal inetaiDhor. ITc.rsai, the jToriner
professor of Edessa and, after 457, the head of the ITest-

orian school of I'.isiuis, writes in his 'Uloziily on the

4.0
-.ys erie^: of the Church": ^

A coal of fire Tsaiah sav/ co-r:in^: towards him, which
the oeraph of fire held in a hand of fire.,. It was

no

+ i.

sensible vision that the seer saw; nor did the

sx)iritual one Vring towards him a raaterial coal,- An
intirjation he sav/ in the coal of the I.ystery of the
Dody and 31ood which, like fire, consunies the iniquity
of mortal man. Tiie power of that iiystery which the
prophet saw, the priest interprets; r^nd as with a
tone's he holds fire in his hand with the oread* Tlie
priest fills the place of the seraph in regard of the
people... The seraph of the soirit did not Iiold in his
hand the vision of spirit: and this is a marvel - that
a hand of flesh holds the Spirit.

Here the coal is clearly the simile of the eucharistic

bread; the seraph is the prototype of the priest, though

^■

lees privileged, for wheras the angel dared touch the

fiery coal v;ith the tongs only the priest is allowed to

50

hold it with his hands of flesh w thout being burnt. -^

Narsai introduces the discussion of Isaiah's coal
in con:..ection with the Sanctus of trie Llass. This is, of
course, a most legitimate association, since the angelic
cry "holy! llaly! holy!" uelongs to the vision of Isaiah;
it iirnediately precedes the action of the seraph who
touches the prophet's lips with the coal. Accordingly,

<«•

^0

ITarsai di3cuot:^e3 the "coal'* after the Sanctus.

• • -'i T O

a

r;ree3 v;i.th the nestorian litur-y or ;.ddai and . :L.ri in

which i-imediately afver the "lioly!" a prayer is said
which co.isists pi-actically in a paraphrase of the Vision
of Isaiah: the priest entreats the Lord of Plosts that he

may i^i^-'j^*c^g the lips of the officiating* priest from uncleaii

51
liness and also those of the faithful.^ "ilae ilestorian

litur^-y likens in that respect the litirr^y as represented
hy Theodore of Lopsuestia v;ho likewise ela-.jorates on
Isaiah and the coal after the "Holy!'* of the Ilass whereas
the \/est-Syrian liturgies usually adduce the coal netapho.
"before the "I-Iolyl" In the V/est-Syrian /uiaphorae ascribed
to John Chrysostome, Philoxenos of Ilierapolis or :.:aco2h
(t ca.525), James of Serugh (t 521), Jai.ies of oiJdessa
(t 708), and douhtlesi^ in ot].er litiu'-i'Ss as well, the
coal of Isaiah leads to the "Holy!" rather than from the
"Holy!" away,52 j^^ those litur^'ie^, however, it is the
angels who are compared with coals or theraselves Decome
coals whose fiery being equals Christ or borrows its flarat
from the Spirit. They are nediators of the true coal

which descends from the celestial altar to the terrestrial
and though they are bearers of the divine coal, they them-
selves have a "coal-like being" (ccv^3'<^ qcku) c[^->^ o\>^;.tO*"^^
In other words, the mediator of the coal himself becones
a likeness of the coal, hence, the apostles are sometimes
called o^.v'v yctKGS > coals. HexQ then exiters also th_at
ever repeated comparison of the mass-celebrating priest
with the fiery seraph. He, the priest, takes "with the

PT-r.r^

2G

ton

23 01 hi3 hands" th2 "co.il of tv;o naturea"

-i.rOiii oil

the altar to distribute the p.^rtic.le3 to the faithful

v/ho ijeco;.-.e a lilreness of the prophet: '*ie all are
Isaiahs/' 55

Alt^Ue;h in the /ilexandrian theological literature
the eqaation of coal and host v;as indeed \-er:/ po^mlar
the classical Egyptian liturgy of '»St.::ark" does not
contain the metaphor, nor is it fouiid in the earlier for-is
o^ -Syptian liturgies. ^^ lioivever, in Uie Coptic i\naphora
ox Cyril of .-.lexandria, which served the Jacc'^ites (::ono-
physites) and v/hich was under the influence of the oyrian
litur^^ies, we find the coal siioile. .-x prayer after the
i?'raction reads: "^ '

As thou didst cleanse the lips of thy servant Isaiah,
the prophet, \Aien one of the seraphi.-n took a live coal
in the tongs from off the altar and laid it on his
:j:Outh..,, in like manner for us..., thy servants,
vouchsafe to purge our souls and oujr lips and our
hearts, and grant us this true coal, quickening soul
and cody and spirit,^' which is the holy hody and the
precious "blood of thy Christ.

Here the "true coal" indicates clearly the eucharist, The .

metaphor appears once more in a ^rex-j late prayer over the

litur-ical spoon: the priest entreats God to oestow upon

e spoon se-^dc-j- to hold the coals the power and glory of

58

tne seraphic tongs. '^ That prayer is found verbatim in the

liturgy of the ^byssinian Uonophosites which depended on
tne Coptic rite of Alexandria, and in the Abyssinian
ritual the image appears once .-acre when the priest,

27

Br.418,20ff

Gregor v.ITarek,

■ ca.960 ^"

lilU.'

.>j<*t'"'^j£

v/hile set^inf; the ho^t on t.rio p:i;en, spe iks:

I\ov/, o"ar God, cleos i;ith thine h^.ids and aLillov; and
oienr.Ge this paten filled v/ith live coil, even thir
ov/n holy hody, v/hich v/e have presented on thine holj'

From the Byzantine liturgies, Basil and ChrysostojiOj
the rnetaphor is plainly absent. Only in the late Bynsan-
tine period a fornula has been inte^^rated into the Chrys-
03to:nos liturgy which at the Coirniiunion recalls the heav-
enly prototype, the v;ords of the seraph; "This touched
thy lips and has tahen away thine iniciuity^ a..d thy sins
pureed/* These v/ords are repeated oy the priest v/aen he

62

"J^he

ox:::*ers the 'W^i^ , the spoon, to the coiaaiunicant.
Armenian liturgy, finally, has in the "Apologies'' -;men

J. 1

the priest i

first approaches the al'ar, a prayer in which

the priest asks C-od to cleanse him like Isaiah by -leans
of a coal before he, the priest, takes the '^manna of

life."^-^

To the Byzantine liturgical orbit, hov/ever, there
belongs yet another prayer to be said at the disniissal
"behind the aihban" - a so-called OTtSiT^Ai^coVos et>Xn -

which clearly equals Isaiah's coal with the eucharist.
The o'Jrt<i^^/A.(^c>^'^oG has not always the same wording; it
varies according to the occasion and the feast of the
day.^'^ For the disraissal on 1-Ioly Saturday there was used,
at some date, a form containing the following versicles:

6'

To-day we have seen our Lord Jesus Christ on the altar
To-day we have seized upon the coal of fire in the
shadow of which the cherubim have sinig.

;:8

?n2 lear/i-d editor oZ tlv;t: pr<:.-Gr c:L:.i-s ^hat it ;.elon£,s
to the fourth century or even to the third. "^^ Therewith

I

'.ne question arise3 at v;hat date the eouation ox Ji^aiah*::
coal with the euoharist could possii.ly have entered into
the litur^iies, and this question nalces an examination ox
the literary texts impera -.ive.

Grigen, who died in 253, seer^s to have been one
of the first authors to have linked the Vision of Isaiah
with Jhrist. However, his interpretation of that Vision
is not connected with coiiLaunion. lie holds that the
seraxjhim standing on the ri^ht and left^ sides of the
divine throne vvere only two in nunfoer and that they wex-e
Christ and the Holy Spirit; and he liH-^intains that the
seraxr'h holding- the coal - and not the cosil itself - was
a pref i^^uration of Chris t. To he sure, C rist with the
coal in his hand approached the prophet and cleansed his
lips. But the spiritualist Ori^^en does not believe in
the efficacy of the action ex opere operato. He admits
that *'the fire shall cleanse my iviouth'* but adds that
"unleu's mv mouth has been cleansed, the fire does not
touch -si'j lips*" ^'^ Tliat is to say, an inner punrif ication
has tp precede the purification oy the seraph with the
coal. That on other occasions Origen interprets the
divine fire as the "c/ord of God^ is true, and it is true

also that oy this circle the coal or fire would be the
V/ord, the incarnate Christ.

' But Orircen does not draw

that concD-Usion, as has been noticed already by St. Jerome

■J- r

FoQ-^iiotes

1)

Re^^es-'ja Jr.T._^&rii, ed. J.F.iibhner, J.i''icker, and ij../inl:el-
maion (Innsbruck, 1892-1901), V, no. 9482.

2)

See, for the princely ambitions in -.<oiao after 1250,
Paul bchmitthenner , Jjie ..nD-orllche dec .^dels U2id volks zzn^
der .-;tadt i-om auf verK:ebun/^ der i-.aiserkrone v/1'.hrend des
Interre,^ntu.:s (Historische ^tudien, 155; l^erlin, 1323;.
I'lie letters of Frederick TI, or the in:inifesto of hairTred,
to the Roiaans (see, for the lai^i^er, jk)n>Ger:i.IIist . »
Constitutior.os et acta nublica, II « no 0 424, T)-o.559ff)
alo}ie would justify the cardinal's jud^jiont*

3)

;:esT;a±tuii^- aes

In addition to Andreas Alfoldi, "Die Aus^
liioriarohischen Zereuoniells au romischen Kaiserhof e, '' and
"Insi^nien mx\^. Traoht q.^.x romischen Kaiser," Romische Ilit-
teilunren, XLIk (1954), 1-113, and L (1955), 1-171, see
Theodor Klausor. Der Ursorinx-^ der bischof lichen Insi.rnien
(Bonner akademische lleden, I; ihrefeld, 1949), v/ith further
literature, p*51, n.l»

4)

Andre Grabar, L^Enpereur dans l*art byzantin (Paris, 1956) ,
pp.2l6ff, has solved the iconograrihic problem of the
nosaic; for additional evidence, see Jean Gage, "Le Terb-
ium Urbis et les orir^-ines de I'idee de Renovatio,'*
IJelan^es i-'ranz Cu:;iont (iOi-nuaire de I'Institut do Philolo-
gie et d'h'istoire Orientales et ijlaves, IV; Brussels,
1956), 151-187, and "Saeculura novum/' Transactions of the
International Nimisrnatic Congress. ♦. in London: June 50 -
July 5, 1956 (London, 1953), 179-136.

5)

» o *- 1'- } 1 o.

id ^. ^.^ -' -J- '^ •-'

^t

C*.\orC2ieiler , "looses uii

LX (1901), 237-2i;7; O-.v. van den Lcr-ii van ^::

''Saint xiorve, second LionTse/' l^on^^iiL-^ilii?^^

Christianis^ie: JuMM^ (>ario and ..rii^tordan,

192s), II, isi-191.

6)

See, e.g., Petrus Daniani, ije T:)iGturis, c.4, £1;. ,G:CLV,
col. 594.

7)

Innocent Til actual.^ thous'nt of becoming the general of
a new crusade; see his IjvTr). ,.0/1 ,28 and 108, PL.._, OO'j^^/I,
cols. 817, 905; also Greven, "ivankreich unA der fUnfte
I-reuzsus," Kist. Jahrb., XLIII (1S25), 25ff, and for the
earlier stages of that idea, C. Erdmaim, gie Entstehung
des lireuz zuffs ,-<o dankens ( Stuttg.rrt ,1955) •

8)

Joseph Jilpert, Die ronischenj^osaiken und Iialereien_der
kirchlichen Bauten voia IV. bis aIII. Jahrhundert (Frei-
burg, 1916), I, pp.56lff, 1168; cf. ..art y-arslan, "un
frammento dell'antico mosaico absidale Vaticano," gedalo^
VII (1926-1927), 754ff. '^ne iconographic pattern of
confronting Jerusalem and Bethlehem to indicate their
unity v;as very popular in early Christian art, espec?.ally
in Horaan ch-orches (S. Maria ilaggiore, S.fudensiana,
S.Prassede, S.Cleniente, and others); see bilpert, cjncit . ,
I, pp. 520, 1182; also ii'-van den Lieer, i^aiestas jjonini:
Th^-oohanies de lV.pocalYi)se dans l^;ixj,_.chretien (Studi di
antichita cristiana, XIII; CittJ. del Vaticano, 1938), 74.
It is significant that later the spiritual Franciscans
and other defenders of ecclesiastical poverty worshiped

!"N

IScithleheiQ as the prototvDe Oj: the ooor, and tlieroxore true
Churcli whereas ''roval'' Jerusolon appeared to thoin as the
symbol oZ the carnal naor.il Church: cf. Ernst Den:::, Eccle-

V ^ a. « / I III. I . L I.I

sia s:)iritualis: i>ie ia.rchenidee der fransislcanischen
Hefomation (ututt^art, 1934), p.

9)

Address of Pope i'ius Mil, on Dece-ioer 17, 1949, hefore the
start of the holy Year 1950. The History of the Jerusalem
Idea, as planned oy the late x-rofessor Eans liev.y, of the
University of Jerusalem, still remains to oe ivritten -
a major desideratum of mediaeval studies.

10)

Humbert of Silva Candida, Do sancta Romana ecclesia,
Sra r^i^ient B, ed. P.E.Schramm, Kaiser, Horn und Henovatio^.
(Leipsis and Berlin, 1929), II, 129f, also 1,34,244-

11)

In general, Scliramm, op.cit> For Petrarch

12)

Schramm, Kaiser, Horn und Renovatio; see also Schneider
and Lurdach (next note).

13)

The authoritative edition by Karl Streclcor is found in
:.:on. Germ. Hist.. Poetae latini, V (1939), 465ff- The poem
has been discussed '^Cj-^j F.Novati, L^ Inf lusso del pensicro
latino so-.?ra la civilita itclianu del 'medio evo (2nd. ed.,-
Kilan, 1399), PP-47, r72ff; Pedor Schneider, Rom und Rom-
%-edanive im liittelalter (Kunich, 1926), 150ff, of .29;
ivonrad I3urdach, Von Llittelalter zur Reformation (Lcrlin,
1913-1928), 11:1, pp.456ff; Schrarnm, Oji^cit . , 150fx. For

^iio .jt:A^ckar*3 edition, j.4o5.

- 1

i\ccn^

E» lixcliujj Dla Arifslrufu des :i:siIi.vexLgulTs in dar ch-ria^—

t/xs vast^ ar^a ox'ten a^ccuiji:)^^, Ii>arature on the ti\i\i^j^Qt^
evokQd ijy thti do^^i*:i2;^itio}:t o^ -f;he Fi^th of the yi2-,5iii*3
Asisuitiption in the Flesh, is beyond the scope ct this
study.

lU^^H"^' 13)

i

?.'»^^* j-"i,.

""Wv^lW^'^M^VIH

16)

I-iber ■nontjjfjrvAlis. ed. Dxjohesne (Piiric, 1336-1392)
It 57o. '

-\V«>/iKr;v

-«u?,-. *

l^^^.Ji'^^

"v.^;^

17)

2ho procession, described also in the jrreanble o^ the
.. poem (Bee Strecker's edition, pp466) which has the full
.;f,tltla: Iticir)it Crimen in Asf>uz!^n-tiona L:anctae !i:ir3.ae in

**^"*'**' ■■*■■■■■ "I"" I ■ ,.■■ I . . .. ,.-.■■ . ^ - - I -r I < II I II. .J III

nocte qu-c^nrlo Ttil^iila voxtrrr::^, T^;r ^o fcack to pc-ne
Ser^^iua I hiniseif ; tlits inass ia ner-tioiiod iiiodsr icps
Ste:fan II (T5^:-757); sea Lib.^r ^ont,, 1.443. For the
proeossion in ^^cixcrcil,. sec .^.•Guitt-rd,

t £lLilIliL12P Or':?<^-orlarrL'.> V (1906)* 331 axl tha
worr:i o\;otcd iii r:he jii^xt note.

.«... .,:.-^. .^

:; T

wamnva-:iL--^'^r-nyrrr

18)

.T-or the Volto santo, seo .ilport, "Die ..chcro:,ita in der

(19„7), 65ff; "I'Acheropita ossia 1 ' irir-aoi^.e del oalvatore
nella cappell?i i>ancta Sanctorun," Arte, vl^Oo), ;
and ^ie r5::d.schen --Qsaiken, II, llOlff. ..ot accessible to
ne v.-ere x^.trisur, .n^ ^ivHnnhe ..aoelle oancta ^anctorinn
va:d ihr ichr^t:. ( , 1908), 59--% !33ix^; v.Stanislao ^
dell' Addolorata, i.s capv>ella pontifioia del ^ancta Sanct-
o^-.^^ Po i suoi sacri tesori (Grot-.cxi errata, 1920), quoted
by carlo Ceccneili in his very thorough study "11 tesoro
del x^aterano, III: L'Acheropita," gedalo, -v-I (1926-2?),
295-319. Host valuable, and other-aise -oimoticed, material
has been collected by -/.F.Volbach, -II Cristo di Sutri e
la veneraEione del SS. Salvatore nel Lazio," Hendiconti
della xont. Accader^'^ ?n-nq^-n di .■.rcheolo.^ia, lATil 1940-
41), 97-126, who adduces raany other relevant studies which
are iriaccessible to vie.

19)

See, in general, Smst von Dobschutz, phrjgtusbilder:
TmtPrf;uchun?en z-ar christlichen i.egende (TU, l.VIII; 1S99).

20)

21)

Grabar, L-Z::rr.rfeur, 196ff; Volbach, 121ff , for the nodels
in isperial art.

:!hP le-ends have been su_nned up by Cecchelli, P^^.cit.,,
5UAf; see also B-ardach, op.cit., 457f. i^'or the sv.iExaing
images of gods, see Umst Schiaidt, .ultubertra^igen
(HtW, ^111:2; Giessen, 19o-9), SSf.

22)

p'*^

bcnneider, Rom-edanke, 151i, e

er

es

^ :i

*> r

n ae ^v

ie vvenig ist diese iiaria, fur die .r
sagen kann, cliristliehe Got ^us.;u :":er!
poem cruoted t.elow (lines 15x) the ap

on:

i.«J kV

c •?

t^ j G «.3 A «. O w

!♦

:io.vever

i::

osr.rcpiie ox

<^

parens patrie certainly parallels .Jary

as

deinarens

23)

Vo loach, ll4rf ; in general see the rich ig;

aterial collecte

"by Giovanni

..arangoni, Istoria dell' antichiss

si.n:o era tori

p capellri d:

an liOrenzo nel

1 -..:-*---

-coiiivLriezr.ente appellato Sancta Sanctorum^ (Home, 1747)
passin. ;;'or the"politicciP^ chax-acter, see als

o ceiow

nc*

Invocations for the Emperors 0

X 4- ^

'■BTJry

24)

^'

X;

A description of the pi-ocession is found in
ceding, in sone nanus crio-'-s, the

a no-^e Dre-

e.^

01

-c J. n

ne TDCe_

c^ o C»

Lion, G-erin> Hist, , Poetae, V,p.466; also renedict

of B

■'J m

« /

Peter's (Crdo nOu.c.nus '11) describes th

L'LL^^e

PL

f i

iVill, coI.SdS;

•-^ / ;-'^

*. •*•

e proces^:io

•** ^

.iher i)ontificalis, e.

x..l;uchesne (1836-92), 11,110,135; Ho'berto Valentin! end
Giuseppe Zucchetti, Codice topo^^rafico della

Cxt

di

rvOmB. (Fonti -^er la storia d'ltalia, vol. 90; Hozne, 1946)
111,221. See also the literature cuoted
for the later period, Llarangoni, op.cit.

bove, n.l3

ana

Volbach, 120

25)

lEhe inscription, actuall;;- a decree of the Senate, is int-

published.by.

■ \mm^ JLj^..tf*.jJL

ran^onj.

~' J. '^

le

eresting in inany respects. Tae tex.i

125f , and mentioned by Volbach, 118,121, is not easily

accessible and therefore ^ay jus"^ify a reprin- cf

preamble.

Triumphalis gentiliuui ponpa Augustoru^n honori reddi
solita,ad devotua Chris'^ianae reli^io._is cultum

It

ft

tt .

i-edacta, i>ei Genitricis VirKinis xesto die, a-jn

tt r\

Chrisci Salvatoris nostri nirabile siinulacr

ixC^.

;^v

tLOj

21)

28)

'*j^t erc.no in excLuilias ad ...ariae :..atris :aaiorc;.i aede:i3
"quotannis ingcnti plausu solejiniaue p-rocessio:ie de-
"iertur pro Senatus j;agistratuu_^.quo et totius ^^ques'-.r
"Ordinis di£,-nitate populique et plaecis observant ia,
'^neve ulla post hac inter plebeia collegia con^.eiitio
"fiat, decretum est, ut hoc statute ordine nriiversi
"cu/Q suis faculis thalanisqne et lnLijjr.aribus sacram
"imaginem, cina iter lecerit, comitentur ea ratione,
"ut c)ui proximiores sini^jlacro sint, di^niores haleant^

The inscription then describes in great detail in what
order the guilds v/ere to inarch in the procession. Tae
inscription is late. Dr. Woligang Hagei7ia:in, in Home, -.vho
v/as kind enough to collate the text of the inscription,
believes that it is not earlier than the 15th cen-^urv.

Yolbach, p. 118, seems to refer to the Ord^ex of Benedict
of St.Peter^s (Migne, PL^, LZXVIII, col, 1032) ivhere indeed
the pope (Innocent II) expects the parade at Santa Llaria
Liaggiore.

Benedict, in Migne,?L. ,LXIVHI,1052C.

For the date of the poeni, suggested bv the sui^Dlicatio
for Otto III, see Schramm, Kenovatio, 1,150. However,
the coniriemoration of the emperor does not necessarily
prove his personal presence; in the poem ''on.C-erzieHist . ,
Poetae, V,p,468f , the Emperor He.iry II is comine.Dorated
in >issui:ipticn Day. Was he, too, "present"? On the other
hand, it is sometimes assuiied that the poem is older and
that the su-^olicatio for Otto v/as added; Volbach, p. 118,
believes the poem may go back to the seventh or eighth
centuries; see also Schramm, loc^cit. ^To ray opinion the
vvrhole poem belongs to the times of 0-^to III.

o -

29)

"Uude ouidan c-ui] in'oresse 1:, ita rnirarido pror^j-pit; Sanc'r
i-.aria quid est, , ." See roetas, V,4b6,

30)

says

"^ana ins

Schrariim, Renovatio^ 1,151, that the renovatio is
Kirchliche ^ev/endet." Tliis is correct, "but the inain thing
is the reference to the renova-^io of "bar; t ism.

51)

Novati (supra, n.l3), p. 173, has chanred car. nine into
crimine against all nanus criDts. There is no reason for
an eT^endation. Rome char-T;es herself, not v/ith crime, but
with superstition, her belief in charms and incantations.
Cf . Juvenal, Sat, , VI, 133, from vmom, as Strecker l-ias
pointed out, the author has borrowed. See next note.

32)

Home as whore before hex conversion is a cojinon phrase;
see, e.g., Humbert of Silva Candida (Schramm, Renovatio,
11,131: "...haec etsi neretrix magna prius..*, tamen post-
modum desponsata "oni viro Christo virginem castam seipsam
exhibet." See also the k^LSOx. Norman Anon;^n2ious , De ecclesia
Romana et Hierosol^/aitarxa, ed. rieinrich Bohmer, i^:j.rche -^jrA
Staat in Enf^land und in der Krmandiejjn XI, und XI I > Jahr-
hiindert (Leipzig, 1899), 460: "purpura tarn mere-^ricem,
demorxibus prostitutam." It all goes back lastly to the
Apocalypse (17, Iff) with its clear allusions to Rome;
Cf. Harold Fuchs, Der geistige .aiders tand r.^p:en Rom

\7hat the poet, ho^vever, alludes to, or repeats verbatim,
is Juvenals story of Llessalina (Sat., VI, ll6ff):
"suiiiere nocturnes meretrix i-iugusta cucullos..."

I I

33)

Taexij i5 no ^-rioans to tell v/hethor suo_slG"itur jji 3olio
reit'ors to the throne oi Clirist or to that of .■:^xy^'TZ^e
ooth nx are of some ijiportance on that oc^aGion. The
Coroiii-tion of the V^r.^in, iollov;ing her A-sumptJon, -las
not yet represented in art (see helovv), but iu li^€r:L.-ur6
it v/as a con-:iori suhject. On the other hand, the throne ox
the Vir^^in herself is, according* to la-^er ie.i,ends,
carried by ai.-els throu^i- the air

See eecchelli, in Dedalo YII
also the represeiitation in

J

4)

See, in £reneral, Schramm, Renovatio, 1,150, and above,
n*23. It is not likely, however, that the poem should
have ended in line 58: "Sancta Iiaria, tibi turba -erait
populi." A prayer for the blessing of the Roman People
was the na-^ural conclusion.

35)

och:rai-j2i, loc,cit> , says too assuredly: "Jedenfalls war e:
ein Homer," There is nothing to prove either this or the
^-ypothesis of Schneider, Rom.^edanlce, , that he was a

South-Italian.

36)

C.M,2dszian, .be Lapteme de feu (Acta Seminarii ITeo^estamen-
tici Upsaliensis, IX), Upsala, 19^0, sKx^'^.ii^xakxhis:-ari3[
:K:«s5:i±x:is3ic and

has dealt with ^he fire pr.^. le'.n in i^s
theological aspects, but har disregarded the ri'^h .-na'erial
co.i::e:.ted v;ith the "coal."

37)

l-araphrases by ^vurdach, Schneider, Schrarni

^f

B)

ri le"

Jose^oh

Iru

,V '

i:C -riiifi

i»

?jvi". e derio \i.:n

qui L us in li^ui^vi^s orienN:ii

■< c

ar icuias

;0-\s

ae

^-» . • /^ ■*-

ur

t» r-

1

! ^ r •:■

24-UiS 50 (1}56)

> -^1^

ma i

J- T

naa co ^le ^o .n

y knovled^^e wl-e.. I conclude:

mar.uscript: of this paper, before revisin
T fortunately chanced upon "he study ^^:;j E

. «. t .1(1. * A ^ \

J 1 ',:», ^ • '-*i ij

T '^ '^

riot

A.PezonQ-alos

«t r^'\jn '"^

CYT30LAT KPI7IXAT

rviv

T G±

pa:-:

r-4..-U'.Lt j.

TTKi-vT ,"

:ie^e

'-' •--» X.

r^ i-.^

Cc • X.

O- -, '^

ei

T:~

T 'y :"i -^.

iJ.7Zvi

inoa Spoudon, I (132^), 263

^j>

-L , a n-iinly lexic3;;raoh-

ical collection of olac

es

Lie gl^lhe-ide Kohle: D:

, and UDO

jOiiani

^-. ^,^

;sc he

ac

:ie Auifassun

a

r

C J-

ellG T

e i^^aias

.-'. yj

f,

•c ^,

(lea

'->. vers b una 7

u -3 1

Preisa

Airchenv^^ern and 1 hre

V 'C _:. W

endun;-: in der Litur:i.e

— ,^\,

•ite

v;. C-

71V>

"{?

pV

♦ f

1}27, Valentin Bauch Verla^O

V'irsVazr^:, l)l'}-20 (.Virzcur.

o / )

far nor

CJ

1 c ■ p

ra in-.

s-*udy fro -1 v/hich T v;as alle t

o

O

c;i

uj;)lci

lent

-F--.-

ly pa-^ris: -ic

A Lie

erial i

Cl X

m

C c:!

nces

/■^ /"i '. ■• '

h

I J I,

5^r•

e I'V:

o

i. K' j^y ..

.Lv/avr

proved to be valuable. T

ki dness of the U.G.I

T ■ C

Ci 'r^

*'» >-* ». c> Ly

le to use, ''■hrou^ii

u . u . hx c re: ry

fV

:e cony of '-.his rare

— cr

Vo .Ci

i-.ook

o

f Dropsie Colle^je Licrary. Ljds.-an (above

n. :)0

)

el-

enoush has missed '-ha^ ma -Serial althou^jh the "coal
connec'-ed also with ■bap-f:ism.

M

39)

Brightman, 1.32,4; 3wainson, 216.

40)

Brightxan, 63,19; Sv/ainson,314: . - - ''J- f-X* f 7iec^ c^' ''

41)

Escherfoach, 84.

39)

SlrSA^ ^Ct^VfrC

i-^or the connection of ra(^ censer with Isaiah's Vision verse 6,4,

may be rfjsponsiilG: "a.:d the house was filled with smoke."

Accordingly john -^he Faster interprets the ves.el of the censer

as Christ's humanity, the coal in It as his divinity, and the

vapor as the g^^^.^^^^4--. of the Spirit (Fitra, bpicil. Soles-g. ,

Paris, 1853, IV, 442). Also in the Joptic Orders the ne-aohor is

foimd frequently; see, e.£;., Vae. Order for the Consec^ration of

the Baptistry, a" "riouted to Peter, Bishop of Lenhsa in U^per

^'Sypt (ca.l086 A.D.): " Tu es thuribulu.a ex a.-ro mundo owoK -^or"^^

carcone-Ti ignitu-Ti V?-^A^,^^''^^'^^'TT^?v;::inser, Kit. or., :Vur2h.l365,I ,
23S; 'ja?-, Hova coll.iW.P., II, 1^/.

11

-2) Bri£;h/:man, 103,2: ci.lv.2,28.

43)

j^rx-h -m.^::, 105,13, snows the :ii.'.e iorrj.1?}. ^or
ion oi* pries", dea on, or "Ari-^oniaa'* no:ik.

J. ".

44) Zor the liturgical spoon in general,

•Joseph 'Braun, Da

£tlg2:^,^lio^^e Altar.^:er?t in seinem Sein und in seiiier Ent»
v£icklun- (Lunich, li32), 265-279, v/ith reproductions
also ::schenl:ach,73ff, PI, ./ Those spoons b.re no- a" :..il rare: :^ee E:irico

Giovagnbli, "Una collezione di vasi eucaris^ici scooerti
a Canoscio," Rivis'a di archeolo^-ja cris'iana, XII (1355)
523ff, iigs,6-7j xk2xS ivho da es ^he spoons pth "o C h
cea^ury; a -rea ^ nun or oi early eachari-*-ic spoons is
found in the Dumbarton Oalcs Collection, in .vashinp^^on.
See for the na-ae A*if>iS,, Brightican, 538, and for labidan,
I^enaudot, 1 ,283:?x2^xksx:i^sh-S2±£. According to Brau-^ 272
the spoon was merM<M^-^\mPflr^t tirne by
Photius, at the Synod of 861 (see

)• HOvvever, in D3 racra
Li ^urf. ia , ascriled to John the Faster (532-95 Patriarch of
G'ple), the spoon seenis J;o be known: <:o Je J^i^ Tu'c

'^^'^'TB., Spicileglurn SolesTiense. See helov/, no■^es S8,=i-i-

■he P-^

"T r

d

45)

Brightman, 484,11, Appendix D.

J

12

^6)

John of Dairascus, De f j de oy"_r;j>doxa, IV,c,15, PGr,,XCIV,
1149, i3 t\\^ source of Lri^htr.an* s reconstruction Cp.434,2
I'ne place is interesting also lor the cus-^om oi *-ouchin^-
eyes, lips, and face with the isucharist. See also Ori^ren,
Hynly V, FGr^ XTIT ,236. i^or the probleni, see F.J.uolrer.
"Das Segnen ^^r Simie mit der Eucharistie," AuC. ,111
(1932), 231-244. The custom recalls XPn^ tauroMliu-i, since
the neophyte took care the his senses (ear, nose, eyes,
lips) v;ere touched by the blood 01 -^he victim; see the
frecuently quoted lines of j^rudentius, Perisj^,X, 1034-59,
ed^L/ressel, p. 435; Nock, Conversion, p.

47) See, e.g., PGr. ,XCIV, 11493; ?Gr^,XCVI,630C-D, 677A, 689C,
848D; and oelov/, p.

43) .:ri5htman, 293,33.

49) H.ri. Connolly and Sdnund Bishop, The Litu2-ical Ilo^iilie;

of

Na;-sai (Texts and Studies, VIIJ, 1; Ca ncrid^e, I909) , 57f ,
P*671I, last paiagraph.

cf

50) Above, n.40, and belov/

51) Brightzian, 284,21ff,

1>

52;

A

J. A.

a on the

^u eh arts t (;;oodbroG>re S^^udies, 6), Ca abri d-e , I953, p.lCl?'.
see Francis J.Relne, ^^^le^gucha^ls'ic Doc^ri.-e azid JA^urrv
of -"he :.;ys^a^:Q.Rical Ca^echeses 01 Theodore 01 lioosjes -la "
(Catholic Univ.of ^.merica Studlec- in Christian Annquity.
2; ■.72shington,l}/2), p,152, also 13^,n.35. For o^her
places iii vvhicli Theodore quotes Ig,,G,6, see Rcine.^2f,
and below. / ' .

0)

/ .

/''Syrian Chry-ostoraos: Renaudot, IT,2.1A ("yir+:u^e^ Tiirap.d-e
carbonin ardentis"); J.r.5,Hanssens, Institutioneg li-tur£i_r-a
de ritibus orientalibus (Rome,1952 j ,ITT:2,p.607, ITo.45^
Baumstark, Syrische Li teva tur . g . 301 . n. 8 .

Fhiioxenos: Renaudot ,11,311 ("Seraphra, . . qui oriVus igae
text.is et labiis carbonibus oper+is trinara sanctiiicatio-
nen concinunt" ) ; Hanssens,p.6l3, i;o.66; Baums ' srlc,l/-3,n.l3
James ofSeriagh: Renaudot,35S( crSeraohiml ori. us i .-aeo
ardore e" labiis Cc-rbonuTi inr^ar inf la ^rn^^ ns" ) ; Ha:iGrens,
605, No. 33; j3aumstark, 153,n. 5.

Ja^ies of Edessa: Renaudot,372 ("Ordiner- mirai.iles et
tirr.endi ex carbonibus ignis levissimi cons' ante?, qui
te laudaat" and "Cherubiui carbones lerentes"); Kanasens,
605, No.32;Bau:nstark,254, n.8.

See also ii:schenbach,37f , Who rightly stre.-ses the intimate
interrelations between the Sanctus and Isaiah's coal.

55)

Pesopoulos, P.255S, adduces several olaces

54)

s.

rr

Pesopoulos, 266; see also i'riodlon,p.273. the chan^ sun,
at the niornins service on ^^nursday of "he second week in
L^nt (on the same day Is. 6, Iff, was the lesson; p. 277) com-
posed by Josephus, one of the martyrs of icoaoclasra (see
Chris t-?aranikas, p.XLVTir} JV ir^.;^ k«'. r T: vc^r

rov \: \>

V. c

V(-l r i

.X

•^* r.

r \ / r

■\j

.^' '

r r.

4

t

RCMA AND THE CCAL

Sever?5l drafts of Roma and the Coal were in the possession
of Michael Cherniavsky 'iien he died, in 1973, and they entered
into the Archives otf Industrial Society, University of Pitts-
burgh Libraries as part of 'Michael ^herniavsky Papers (7l4.:l5)'*.
Photocopies of these drafts were obtained, and they provide
the basis for the files on this psper now at the Leo Baeck
Institute in ^ew York.. City and the Dumbarton Oaks Library in
Washington, D.C.

Both these places have a copy of the "ultimate draft" of
the paper, which was about half completed. Each also has the
"penultimate draft^* a complete, earlier version of the paper.
Three ••copies of this draft exist: one, with very few handwritten
annotate! ons, is at the Leo Baeck institute; the other two,
rather fully marked m th changes to be v/rought in the final
draft, a-^e at Dumbarton Oaks,

In addition to these drafts tJje-ne existed a thick file of
the notes Kanl-oro>Ticz had used in ^he composition of the paper,
separate from the Cherniavsky materials. Most of these notes
had been incorporated into the^notes of the tjrpewritten drafts,
and were discarded. One group of them, however, was collected
in a bundle la'-eled "Art*^ including many photographs and referen-
ces to artistic representations of the subject. 'Ihey wereciBarly
intended for an e'^pansion of the end of the paper, for the penulti-
mate draft has a scant page "But the end dealing vxith the iconography
of the problem. This art material, along with a few other notes
which seein to postante the ^-riting of the dra:'ts, have bean in-
cluded in the file deposited at Dumb:\rton Oaks.

(ho^^tuM^iJU. Pu^

R vO I.I A AND

T H E

COAL.

The Romans, wrote Cardinal Guido of Santa Sabina who
wa3 later Pope Clsment IV (1265-1268) ^ r.uccanh to any mas-
ter who offers them et gestus ma^nificos et vfcrba tonantia
et facta terribllia* In the course of her long history
of more than twenty-five centuries, Rome has evidenced
ti-na and again the essential truth of these words v;hich
indicate nothing; but the perpetvial "Caesarean** subcurrent
which 30 thorouf^hly has imbued Roman life. Rome would
not be Rome lest she intoxicated herself with magnificent
gestures, stunned her people with resounding words, and
bewildered others with stupendous feats. Her predilection
for the theatrical, the rhetorical, and the prodigious
must be accounted for by 'axvjon^ who wishes to understand
imperial, papal, or modern Rome. From this stratiim there
arose her monuments of ugly grandeur and of great beauty.
From the same soijirce there originated her remarkable
ability of stirring emotions through splendid display,
colorful pageantry, and exciting cir censes. This compound
remained unabated when Cacsarean Rome handed it dovm to
the Rome of Apostles. The world-ruling pontiffs took full
advantage of a legacy which allowed them to play off,

whenever they pleased or saw profitable, one Rome agains
the other. Kever have the Roman popes abandon;f<ed th

-■»-

•a

caesarean stratum on which their universal power and their
towering claims were founded. To the present day, papal
pageantry challenges the spectator to x-ecall customs.

shows, and ceromonios of the Caesars. In Caesarean Rome
the Spirit has found, for ^'ood or evil, the body to live
in. 'vThere all is substance and firmness, there the
Spirit, too, no lon^sr is indefinite, hazy, or floating:
it becomes factual and material through the backing of an

y

absolute reality, ancient Rome^

Hardly less conspicuous is the opposite current, the
mediaeval tendency to de-materialiae, though not dim out,
ancient Roma's too great reality, to make it transparent
by placing it against the background of the Rome of
Apostles and Martyrs, and to grant the Caesarean City
only a relative value in view of the praepar at io e vange-
Ilea, Efforts to bestow transparency upon Rome, it is
true, hRve been made also in a different direction*
Artists and literati have occasionally conjured the
fluorescence of Jerusalem to make Rome appear transcen-
dental. In the mosaics of the arch in Santa Liaria i.Iaggio-
re, executed under Pope Sixtus III (432-440), we recognize
St. Peter in the garb of Israel's high-priest Siieon and
find the Templim Urbis translated into the Temple of
Jerusalem.' V/e know that strange eciuation of Peter and

Moses which lingered on through the Ivliddle Ages and which

*■ • '• ■ ■

had the task to establish the successio apostolica also

in view of the Old Testament lineage. '^ We know the dis-

cussions of the very natural question why, after all, not

4

Jerusalem but Rome became the capiit omnium ecclesiarum*

V/e are familiar with the curial endeavours to bind
Jerusalem's glamor to that of Rome through the medium of

the crusades, and people then r.ay have admirod (in the
no'N destroyed mosaics in the apse of the Vatican) Pope

Innocent III as he imovod out of Jerusalem to meet the

5
Eccleaia coining from Bethlehem-^ - a dangerous allegory, as

the Spiritualists and promoters of ecclesiastical poverty
were quick to worship Bethlehem* s poverty as the image of
the true Church as opposed to "royal" Jerusalem, their
symbol of papastry. There are other and more items in-
dicating those vain efforts to blend the Rome-Idea v/ith
the Jerusalem-Idea, to graft (as it were) Jerusalem upon

Rome, and to transcendentalise Rome by making her visible

7
as an effigy of the Celestial City. But in the end Rome

has refused to give her sap to that scion.

Rome's earthbound reality was not to be eliminated
or to become less material and weighty by calling in the
metaphysics inherent in another city and climate. Rome
had an otherness of her own. She v/as the city of apostles
and martyrs, and when placed against this, her proper,
background Rome indeed gained the touch of weightless
transparency which gradually enveloped and transfigured
the city of Caesars. It appears that for several centur-
ies the tension of Roman thought and life vibrated between
the two extroaas of Caesars and hlartyrs. The poems which
during the early Iv^ddle Ages effused the strongest perfiL^e
and the fullest tones, poems which still move us directly,
were those vitalized by that tension and those confronting
the factual grandeiar of Caesarean Rome with the sweetness
of the self-sacrifice of martyrs.

'S

Th3 literary and poetical Dattern of oooosin^ on^
Rome a£;ainst the other is old» It begins with Prudent iuG«
songs on Roman martyrs and with the famous sermons of Loo
the Great on the Roman Apostles. It ends, shortly before
the waft of the Renaissance produced a new variety of Rome
sentiment, in the early twelfth century in Hildebert of
Lavardin's Elegy on Rome^ The acme of this literary Qenre
falls in the ninth and tenth centuries, thus preceding
and coinciding with the surprising bloom of the Rome-Idea
in the Ottonian period which already has found its com-

o

petent interpreter. In this period during which Lyzant-
ium exercized once more her powerful influence on the
West, there originated also the stirring and emotive
poem, often discussed and recently published anew in an
excellent edition, which is to form the subject of this
study, the Carmen in Assumptions Sanctae rjariae, written
in or near the year 1000 by an anonymous author.^

The Poem.

The thirty-three distichs of which the poem is com-
posed refer to the celebration of the "Domition'* or \Yi>
Assumption of St. Mary such as it was observed in Rome on
August 15th. The feast v;as based on apocryphal sources
like most of the feasts of St .Mary. Probably since the
fifth century the Koimesis of the Virgin was observed in
the East whence it wandered, perhaps along the customary
Galilean tracks, to the V/est. To Rome it is traceable

since the seventh century when Pope Ser^ius 1 (687-701)
made arrangements for the celebrations of the feast. It
became a Honan custom to carry, on the eve of Assumption
Day, the Volto santo in a solemn though somewhat orgiastic
torch procession from the Oratory of San Lorenzo near the

Lateran (now known as the Sancta Sanctorum) to Santa

10
Maria Liaggiore. The Volto santo, now discolored out of

recognition, was an icon of Christ painted in the Byzan-
tine manner and displaying the stem Emmanuel, the "God
manifest," seated in his throne* The icon was said to be
^^^ Acharopita, in image not painted by human hands. Saint
Luke allegedly had made the design, but angels had finished
it by adding the colors. About the origin of the
pannel, which undoubtedly is old (5th/6th century?), there
circulated a great number of legends. Saint Peter himself
was claimed to have brought the image to the City. Others
held that it v/as found in the booty which Titus brought
from Jerusalem to Rome. A third version maintains that
the iconophile patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus (+733)^
saved it from the fervor of the Iconoclasts and that the
icon, like many an antique image of gods, finally swam
over the sea to reach Home, thus taking, by and liarge,

the familiar and classical way of the Palladium from the

12

Hellespont to the Tiber.

The noctixrnal celebration was something like a
national holiday, for the Romans hallowed in the As sunt a
the Roma and vice versa. ^ Almost the whole population
assembled in that night with burning torches in and by the

old Constant iniiin Basilica, the Lateran, to follow the
procession throu-jh the illuminated streets, "xhe v/ay led
first to the Forum, to Santa Maria Nova (now S. Francesca
Horaana) . This church, very suitingly, was the old Temple
of Venus and Roma. It was the first station, and on its
steps the image was deposed. Here the mourning over the
death of the Virgin-Goddess "began. The people went down
on their knees; they beat their chests with their fists
as they may have done at the Atthis procession and laany

centuries before, and sang a hundred Kyrie eleison^ a

hundred
hundred Christe eleison, and another/.vyrie elelson. There

followed various stations where the strange ritual washingv*

of the feet of the image wevB performed. Finally the icon

was carried to Santa Maria Ma^cr/x-iore* Here the Volto santo

oo-

remained for the short re^t of the night. The pope sans

cr

the mass, which according to a later legend Peter himself
had celebrated, and then gave his blessing to the ex-
hausted people ("benedicit populum fatigatum"). -^ The
visit of Christ to the shrine of his mother came to end.
In the early hours of the morning the Volto santo returned
to its own temple, the Sancta Sanctorum. The task of the
Lord's apparition had been fulfilled: the Virgin was re-
ceived into Heaven and there shared the throne of the
deity.

This spectacular pageantry may have been celebrated
in the year 1000 with more than the usual elaboration,
since the young emperor of Saxon and Byzantine stock
Otto III then was probably present in the city which he

intaridad to restore to her old dignity as the capital of
a renev/ed Roman Empiro, ilovvover this may be, we are told
that "some one" - a Roman or a stran.^er - who witnessed
the midnight procession was overwhelmed by the display
and, taken by rapture and admiration, broke out into the
words:

(1) Holy Virgin, what is it? If you ascend to seats of
Heaven, be gracious to those that are thine. (?) V/hat
is this buz^in^ of the crowd? Xih.y do the banners
glisten? '{fny this noise and the buzzing of the crowd?

(3) Why are the toroh-ln p;hts floating and the pitch-
crowns sparkling through the streets? V/liy, min^0.ing
with the light of the moon, are torch-lights floating?

(4) The rays of stars glitter, but also the roofs
resplend with lanterns* All is reddened oy the flames,
and rays of stars glitter.

With these four picturesque couplets the poet opens his
chant and adumbrates the approaching procession. As the
poem proceeds, the procession moves forward too. It is
one of the artifices of that most artistic poet to make
the reader visualize the whole train of faithful conductigq
the image as it passes by. The poet stops one of the
mourners at the head of the procession. It is Roma her-
self who^ he gets hold of and addresses in the following
way :

(5) Scion of consuls, innuLnerable triumphs hast thou
experienced, 0 Ro:ne. VAiy showest thou signs of
niOurning, scion of consuls? (6) '.v'h.at causes tyiy grief,
0 happy City, Glory of the World? ;/hy are thine eyes

8

wet? (7) Be joyivl, fatherland-bearer. Dry thy be-
dewed lights. Thou hast not forfeited the hoi^e of
forgiveness , fatherland-bearer*

(8) If by the price of martyrdom yoiir first offspring
drooped, it is for the price of martyrdom only that
thou standest renewed.

(9) The ploughman was the first to leave the woods and
to approach thy precincts, his hair stained with dirt
and dust* (ip) Now it is the fisherman that approaches
thy precincts and cleanses thee fron dirt and dust with
water. (11) Paul, tending the flock, leads it out of
the water and drives it home to the fold.

To this allocution (Allocutio Ro^nae) Rome answers:

(12) V/ha do you recall my titles and cast to my face
the insignia of bygone days? (13) }^y face was resplen-
dent, memorable to the whole world. But, alas, it was
the face of a sly vixen. (14) In the midst of treas-
ures I prostituted myself, a nocturnal whore that
cloaks herself in her huds. (15) Fearless of God, I
debased my face through charm.s,^*'^ too great an offense
of God and fearless of him. (16) I am sowing tears now
for the joy of a late harv^est; after my delights, tears

I sow.

(17) Joys I sustained, but if really I have received
reward for being the first in the world, I sustained
joy only through the fMrifying God. (18) Not far off
is the art xsan who refashions the gem through a coal
and expands the pale, not far off is the artisan.
(19) Lo, where does the Volto appear seeking the
sanctuary of his mother, the being above those born by
man? Lo, where does the Volto appear? (20) Now, here
it appears, the Feature of the Lord to whom the world
prostrates. In the sign of judgment, here the Feature
appears.

(

9

(21) That ir-; why tho people ara hvy.zlr.g and heat th^.'ir
chests -jvithout ceasa, natrons and old men. (22) In the
throne of God there is seated the venerable si^n, and
the Theotocos is seated in His throne. (23) That is
why they shall offer scents, why first they depose
balnis, carry incense and rayrrh. (24) The Greek School
offers its chants, and the Honan people adds its mur-
mur; and in varified tunes the Greek School offers its
chants. (25) "Kyrie," this cry they centuple and beat
their chests with fists. "Be merciful, Christ'* it re-
sounds, and centupled is the "Kyrie.**

While Roma speaks, the procession has moved forward. The
Emmanuel has appeared and passed by. It has reached the
sanctuary of St. Mary, and we viev/, as it were, the backs
of the people kneeling; on the steps of the templeai and in-
viting the Virgin to appear. The poet joins the faithful
by addin/5 "the following Invitatio ad Qrationem;

(26) Let us solicit, therefore, the Lord with prayer,
chant, and word; and the Lord's L'other, let us solicit
her, too. (27) Virgin Mary, look dovm on your children
with cle^nency. Plear, Virgin Mary, your servants. (28)
For thee the flock of the city swims in suppliant tears.
Gracious r.Tary, have favor for the tears of suppliants.

(29) "Jlhe throng of people groans, a people happy be-
cause thou art so little distant. It is for thee that
the ueoTole groans.

The poea ends in the supplication for the emperor:

(30) Holy God-bearer, regard the Roman people, and be
merciful to Otto. (51) The third Otlo, bent on the
solace of thy hand, may be ready for thy forgiveness.
(32) Fron his heart's devotion he gives you all, if

10

anything i^G has; nar does he nesitate to distribute
for you all, if anything he has* (33) Be every one
happy, for there rules the third Otto; and of his rule
everyone be happy.

The artful structure and composition of this highly
finished poem deserve a few words. The poem is written
in so-called "reciprocal" or "serpentine** verses: the
pentameter ends in the words with which the hexameter

opens

IS

The Allocution of Roine is composed of seven

couplets, her answer doubles this niunber to fourteen.
Correspondingly, the Introduction consists of four coup-
lets and the Conclusion of eight. It is true that the
last four distichs, the conventional suppjicatio for the
emperor, are of a somevvhat irxferior quality, and the
feeling may thrust itself upon the reader that they might
be a later addition. However, they are found in all
manuscripts, and they are essential, as we shall see.
Their mediocre quality may derive from the fact that these
traditional phrases of homage to the ruler would usually
have a k^xxxk3lX ring of banality, especially in comparison
with the emotional verses which precede the suT?plioatio

Quite remarkable is the composition of the two main
sections, the Allocutio and the Hesponsio. It is evident
that the axis of the Allocution (5-11) is represented by
the central verse (8), which contains the catchword of

11

the Roman Renovatio I.loverjent of those days:

L;artyrii precio cocidit si prim-a propa^o,
St as renovata modo martiril Drecio.

With this distich the subject of the Allocution changes.
The first three couplets have referred to Rome's triumphal
past; the last triad hails the presence of the apostles.
The antithesis hinges on the central Renovatio distich.

A similarly meticulous coirposition is obsei-^ed in the
HesDonslo of Rozr.e. The fourteen couplets may be grouped
in the following way: 5 (12-16), 4 (17-20), 5 (21-25). In
the first pentad, Roma repents her former lust; in the las
five couplets^ she describes the repentance of the Ronian
people. The central tetrad is devoted exclusively to the
peus purificans, the Prtrifying God, who makes his appari-
tion in the Volto santo. This tetrad is really the axis,
not only of Home's answer, but of the v;hole poem. It is
therefore important enough to clear away from these lines
every obscurity. And an obscurity is certainly found in
the l&th distich:

I^ec procul est opifex gemmam carbcne refingens
Et gremium pandens nee procul est opifex.

The Coal.

Kiat is the meaning of that distich? ;7ho Is the
craftsman^ the artisan that refashions the gem through a
coal? It is easy enough to find out who alone can be that
craftsman. In the 17th distich, there is mentioned the

12

Divine Purifyer. In 19, Rome indicjites the irai'iincnt
apparition of the Volto santo. In 20, the God is present.
There can be no doubt that 18 refers also to the God and
that the opifex ^not far away" can only be Christ. But
why does Christ refashion the gem with a coal? l,7ho, ox
v/hat, is the geir, and what is the coal? If v/e think of
the central couplet in the Allocution (8) v/here it is said
that lioizie "stands renewed" for the price of ir.artyrdom, it
my be expected that the "refashioning" throush the Divine
Purifyer v/ould refer likewise to Rome. In other words,
the gem is undoubtedly Home that shall be remolded by a
carbo, and this operation is eventually to result in an
expansion of Roma's ^'remium^

;'/hat is the carbo that possesses this transforming
and expanding power? We may think of "penitence," Fe may
think of "purifying fire." Neither of these meanings,
though in "coal" they are implied, is satisfactory with
regard to the second metaphor. Homers gremiiim - an un-
savoury image! - may be burnt out by purifying fire, but
why should it be expanded? Nor does it seem likely that
penitence should expand a /premium. These v/ould be, not
only vague, but perfectly bad images, which are unlikely
with a poet who otherwise is quite specific and conclusive

in the choice of his metaphors. In couplets 9-11, for

the
instance, the allusion to/baptism through Peter is ^ery

obvious; and so is the allusion to Paul whose missionary

activity effected the return of the baptized flock to the

Roman fold. In a similar way, the refashioning of the gem,

1?

that is of Home, through a coal must have some specific,
and not a vague or abstruse, meaning.

It is evident that the allusion contained in that
line has never heen understood by modern interpreters.
In all of the fragmentary translations or paraphrases of
the poem these central lines have been skipped. Also the
last editor of the poem, in the careful edition of the
Llonumenta Germaniae Historica, has apparently not realized
the allusion, since otherwise he would have indicated in
his useful commentary the reference to the Bible. The
editor cannot be accused of negligence. Even thoiigh he
may have consulted the Concordance of the Vulgate, he
could not have found the clue. Namely, in the decisive
verse the Vulgate has replaced carbo by calculus, a little
stone. Even if had thought of the Roman Llass, in which
the Bible verse is quoted, it v/ould have been of little
avail because to the Qrdo Missae the text of the Vulgate,
as natural, ha? been authoritative. The Septuaginta,

however, offers the correct translation and says
and this version has been followed by the English ti-ans-
lators of the Bible, as they render the Vision of Isaiah
(is., 6, 5-7) in the follov/ing manner:

(5) Then said I, V/oe is me! for I am undone; because
I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst
of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen
the King, the Lord of hosts.

(6) Then flew one of the seraphim unto mo, having a
live coal in his hand, which he had taken f.X's.yi with

14-

the tongs from off the altar:

(7) Ann he laid it nvoa niv mouth, and said, Lo, this
has touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken
away, and thy sin purged.

It may have been the seventh verse ("/aid he laid it
upon my mouth") which brought about the seemingly strange
interpretation explaining that the coal represented the
eucharist^ As hitherto this metaphor has received little
attention, "^^ it my be justified to trace its history and
spread out the material relative to a conception which
has oeen generally accepted in the Eastern rites.

In Syria, in the Liturgy of St. James, v/e find the

21

following Prayer over the Censer:

faster and Lord Jesus Christ, 0 Logos of God, who by
his Ovvn free will offered himself to the God and
Father on the cross as a blameless sacrifice, the

coal of two natures, which with the tongs touched the

•w -

lips of the prophet and took away the sin...

In the sanie Liturgy, the metaphor is found once more

22
preceding the Communion:

The Lord shall blessH us and make us dignified to
take with the pure tonfKS of our fin^^ers the firy coal
and to lay it on the mouths of the faithful as a puri-
fication and a renovation of their souls and bodies.

In the Syriac Liturgy of the Jacobites, a rubric pro-
cribos that the priest, vfhen he himself communicates,

s

23

"takes the coal frora the chalice in the spoon" and

15

v.- 24

speaK3:

The proxjitiatory coal of the body aud hlncKl of Christ
our God is given to a sinful servant for the pardon of
offenses and for the remission of sins.

This, then, hecame the ordinary formula of com.nunicatins

25
the clergy. ^ In the Syrian Liturgy, there is also a

rubric advising the faithful to touch "with the divine

coal their eyes and lips and faces.

n26

The piirification of the senses with the eucharist is

27

a cust^o^ii of 3yro-L\<-jyptian origin, and John of Damascus
uses in this connection in his turn the metaphor '^divine
coal" which should be imposed on eyes, lips, and fore-

o

8

head* In Syria, the equation of coal and host must have
been used at a fairly early time. The Patriarch Severus
of Antioch (512-518) explains that the "coal represents
the type of the Emmanuel** and that

»

I

I
i

the supranatural coal, the Logos that became incarnate,
whom the seraph hardly dared to approach by means of
tongs, now is held in the palms of the hands of the

faithful.

29

I

However, we may go even further back. The metaphor is
found also in the Liturgy of the Nestorians, and as their
secession from the Churjh of Antioohla took place after
451 A.D», it follows that the expression "coal" for the
eucharist must have been popular in Syria before that
date. In the Nestorian Mass, a rubric referring to the
Fraction prescribes that "the priest shall break the body
^^^ dip ' a coal (into the chalice) for the children", that

16

is for the faithful. ^^ Uore explicit is '\ Homily of
Narsai, who in 457 became the founder of the Nestorian
School at Nisibi3 (+ 502) and v/ho says:'"^

/ :

«=• '

^

A coal of fire Isaiah saw coming tov/ards him, which the
Seraph of fire held in a hand of fire.,. It was not a
sensible vision that the seer saw; nor did the spiri-
tual one brin^ towards him a material coal. An intimation
he saw in the coal of the mystery of the Body and Blood
which, like fire, consUi-nes the iniquity of mortal man.
The poer of that mystery v/hich the prophet saw the
priest interprets; and as with a tongs he holds fire in
his hand with the bread. The priest fills the place of
the seraph in regard of the people... And this is a

«

marvel - that a hand of flesh holds the Spirit,

That the h.ands of either the priest or the faithful^^

re-

place, as it wore, the tongs of the seraph appears as the
specifically Syrian interpretation of the image. In Egypt
it is not found, although the equation of coal and host
was most popular in the Alexandrian Church, In the Litur-
gy of the Coptic Jacobites a prayer after the Fraction
explains:^

As thou didst cleanse the lips of thy seirvant Isaiah
the prophet when one of the seraphim took a live coal
in the tongs from off the altar and laid it on his
mouth..,, in like manner for us.,., thy servants,
vouchsafe to purga our souls and our lips and our
hearts, and grant us this true coal, quickening soul
and body and spirit, v^hich is the holy body and tlie
precious blood of thy Christ c

The Abyssinian Church, as it is dependent on Alexandria,
follows on the whole the same trend of thou^rht. When the

17

35

host is net on the pat<?n, the jjriest says:

ITovv, our God, bless with thine hand and hallovv and
cleanse this paten filled with live coal, even thine
own holy body, which we have presented on thine holy
altar.

In Alexandria metaphor can be traced at least to Cyril
(+ 444), who comments on Isaiah as follows:'^

The coal is a symbol of Christ... Not badly is the
coal corgpared with the Emmanuel who, when placed on
our lips, takes away the sins... Be it therefore on
our lips, the divine coal.

' m 111! »■ ■ ■ ■ ■« II

V/hen was the custom started to equate IsaiaE^s coal
with the eucharist? It is not yet noticeable in the
writings of Origdn (+ 253) although he seems to have been
one of the first authors to have linked the verse of
Isaiah with Christ. Origen, however, maintains that the
seraph holding the coal, not the coal itself, was a pre-

figuration of Christ, and his exegesis therefore is almost

57
diametrically opposed to the equation of coal with host.-^

Origen's conception was refuted by St. Jerome. In
the later years of his life, which were spent at Bethle-
hem (385-419), Jerome discusses the verse of Isaiah on
various occasions. He puts forth his arguments against
Origen's "nebulous allegory," which ho himself had adhered

in former days, and declares that the coal represents the

38
purifying sermo Dei, that is the Logos. However, he does

not equate the coal with the host although this equation
then has been already, so to speak, oh the tip of the pens

18

of hlG contemporaries* Basil like Jeroia- cornpar^^s the
coal with the Logos, but he adds »Svhich is placed on our
mouths."'^ It may be that by the times of St. Basil (+379)
the "coal" has been introduced already into the litur^
proper provided that some liturgical fragments, which are
claimed to fall in the fourth century, really belong to
that period. In a prayer to be said on Holy Saturday
behind the altar ( ) '^^e find the following

versicles:

Today we have seen our Lord Jesus Christ on the altar.
Today we have seized upon the coal of fire in the
shadow of which the cherubim have sung*

This, indeed, seems to imply that the "coal of fire" was
equal with the host. The equation at any rate is fully
developed by the late fourth centiiry as may be gathered
from St. John Chrysostom (+ 407). On one occasion he say a
that the seraph took the ooal from the altar where the
hosts were laid out/^ In another connection, Chrysostom
offers the interpretation characteristic of Syria. The
aeraphira, says he in a sermon, did not dare to toixch the
coal with the hand, they used ton^s - "you, however, take
the coal with the hand.""^^ Wc aay conclude that the meta-
phor reached its final £;rowth by the end of the fourth
century and that it spread very quickly. The double
nature of the coal - live and dead, red and black
it a symhol applicable to the dogmatic stru-i^les, and th.
phrasing of the Liturgy of St. James - "the coal of two
natures" - indeed sho^vs clearly that the metaphor was
involved in these disputes.

43

- made

19

In the Liturgies of i^yzantiun - "Basil" and ''Chrys^
ostom" - the metaphor is not found. Nevertheless, it is
most popular amon^ the Byzantine theologians and inter-
preters of the liturgy. It here may suffice to quote the
Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (+ 733) v/hose expos-
ition on the mass was well known in Rome because in the
late ninth century it has been translated into Latin by
Anastasius Bibliothecarius. This translation in its turn

has been copied several times in the tenth century. Germa-

44
nus writes: ^

#

That other image, hovvever, namely the one referring to
the seraph holding a coal in his hand, v/hich he has
carried from off the altar with tongs, signifies the
priest who holds the intelli,R:ible coal, Christ, in the
tongs of his hand over the holy altar, and who sancti-
fies and purifies those that receive it and comiriunicate

This, again, is the Syrian interpretation - the hands re-
placing the seraphic tongs - which perhaps Chrysostom
has popularized in Constantinople. Chrysostom' s successor
in the patriarchal see, Germanus, has the tendency of ex-
toiling the priest whose seraphic character he illustrates
in the following v;ay: "^

Regarding their imitation of the seraphic powers, the
priests by their stoles are covered, as it were, with
two wings; and with two wings, their lips, they sing
the (seraphic) hymn; and they hold the divine and
spiritual coal, Christ, raising it with the tongs (of
their hands) above the altar.

20

Byzantium, as may be .mentioned en passant , harbored
one of the very few churches dedicated to "St . Isaiah. "^^"^
Moreover, pictorial representations of the angel carrying
the live coal to lasaiah are not rare in jByzantine art. *

I
i

They are indeed very common in E^ypt , and v/e are told that
in Cairo the scene is frequently depicted in the apses of

Coptic churches as well as on the canopies vaulting over

48

the altar. As fars as Byzantium is concerned it is v/orth

curious
mentioning that the metaphor v/as adduced in a x^xjcc^aixax

way by the laetropolitan Eust'^atius of Thessalonica in an
address to Emperor ivlanuel Comnenus (ca.ll73)« The rhetor
expands on the radiancy of the imperial diadem* He ment-
ions the traditional t-.vo rows of pearly in the diadem,

which represent according to him the logoi of the Trini-

50
ty; and he further mentions the fire of the ruby in the

diadem which he compares to the incarnation of the Logos

as represented by the coal of Isaiah. The comparison is

as strange as it is interesting. It reminds us of the

famous **Crphan", the legendary ruby (carbunculLis) in the

51
crown of the V/estern Emperors."^ And we may recall also

that most caesarean of all mediaeval popes, Boniface VIII,

who placed on the top of jj^« his extrem.ely high tiara,

one ell in length, a carbo v/h:ich is described in the

official papal records as well as in the poem, of Cardinal

52

Jacono Stefaneschi, who writea:"^'

. . .genLmis radiant i.bus auro
Vallatum in gyrujca, cui summo in vert ice carbo
evoir-it et cubito genrr.arum maxima flamma,

li^posuit capiti. . .

21

Did these oarbonen, too, syiabollr.e li]rn the ruoy in the
diadem of the Basileus the "coal" of Isaiah?

■

Admittedly, the "coal" a3 a raetaphor of Christ or the
host was not a coimriOn image of V/estern retook and trade.
This was impossible, since the Vulgate did not translate
car bo, but calculus. Thus it is not a coal but a little
stone which, in the prayer Ihmda os meuxn of the Roman Mass
is to cleanse the lips of the deacon before he reads the
Gospel, a prayer which, by the way, v/as introduced at a
late period, apparently not before 1200.^^ In xixarxaf a
aixiixz prayer serving a similar idea, namely to cleanse
the lips of the priest, the verse of Isaiah is quoted in
the llozarabic Liturgy. Here, however, we find not the
Vulgate version but the more archaic translation carbo,
which is still found in the late Iviissale mixtuin of the

Hill ■■ I ■■ »!■ ■ I I

rite of Toledo*-^^ This n>ay have influenced art; for V/estem
representations of the "coal" of Isaiah, rare altogether,
are found comparatively often in the Hispano-Gallican
orbit. ^^

To meet v/ith the "coal" in a Roman poem of ca.lOOO
A.D« is not surprising. There is no need to construct a
theory about the author's knowledge of Byzantine writers,
for example of the tractates of Germanus. Eycantiun,
after all, was the great fashion in Rome under the Otton-
ian dynasty. To write one's name in Greek capitals was
cororjon among the educated people. Among the Roman nobili-
ty and the clergy the Byzantine party was never stronger
than in the tenth :xnA century when the Basileus, time and

22

again, tried to re-establish hi2 former hold on Rome by
supportirc; anti-popes who were either of Greek stock or
friendly to Byzantine plans. ^ After all, the days of the
Greek anti-pope Phila^athos (John XVI: 997-998), whose
name v/as assiduously recited in the Byzantine diptychs
while the names of other popes were deliberately omitted,
was only tv/c years back when the poem was v;ritten. The
best argument for the Greek substratum is offered by the
poet himself: he emphasizes that the Schola Graeca sang,
on that day, the liturgical chants to the Virgin, whom he

styles the Theotocos, and to Christ, whose name Emmanuel -

«■ ■ 11 Ill ' *

a designation uimsual in the 7/est - was written with big
white letters in the upper part of the Volto santo*

Also the 18th couplet of the poem makes perfect
sense once v/e have realized the reference to the coal of
Isaiah: Hear is the artisan who refashions Home, the gem,
with the pui'ifying eucharist, the coal. In the Allocutio
the poet mentions the baptism; Roma indicates the commun-
ion in her answer. And this miraculous coal has also the
power of expanding Rome's pale, Rome's dominion. ;7ith
this irr:a;re the r>oet alludes to a phrase current since Leo
the Great and often repeated ever since, according to
which Christianity has expanded the Roman dominion far
beyond the borders of the ancient empire and has carried
the Roman fame to peoples whose names have been unknown to
the Caesars or, so as to quote the papa-caesarean version

of Gregory VII, "more land has conquered the Law of the

58

Roman Pontiffs than that of the Caesars.

In short , it

23

is neither penitence all by itself nor "purifying; fire" in
a va^e and general sense by vvhich Rotae has "been renewed
and refashioned. The poet is quite definite in his formul-
ation. It is Isaiah's "coal", that is Christ or the host,
that has effected the second v;orld domination of Rome -
a Rome, not of Caesars, "but of Apostles, Martyrs, and

Pontiffs.

Lustration and Theophany

as

Some efforts have been made to link the ritual/ob-
served at the Assumption-Lay procession v;ith antique rites
of lustration, -^ The idea may indeed be tempting, and the
persistance of antique traits shall not be denied ♦ The
ritual vvashings of the image at the various stations re-
call the washing of the image of Cybele in the Almo at the

60
annual procession. To believe in a relationship with the

IJagna Hater cult appears all the more as lagitimate as the

Mirabilia urbis Romae (ca.ll40) mention that the Basilica

of S.Maria Maggiore was built on the ground on which form-

61

erly a temple of the Great Mother had its place. r:ore-
over, Christ appears in the poem as the Deus purificans,
and the purification of Rome and the Romans is one of the
main topics of the poem. Finally, a second poem on the
Ass^jLmption celebrations in Rome is known (it is directed

to Emperor Henry II, Otto's successor) in which Christ is

6^
called "flamen immensus purgans crimina mundi." ^ Kence,

there is some justification for laying stress on the

^A

liistral character of the c-eremony. But one will hesitate
to assent to the sug.jej^e3tion that the carrying oX' torches
- by that time a very common Christian custom - indicates
an additional element of lustral rites. -^ «/e may ask in-
stead whether the Roman oompa on August 15th had not an
alto,^ether different meanin^: and whether the lustral eleir-

o"

'•o

ents were not accessories rather than the substance of a
performance the nature of which can be defined very
clearly.

The source of the nocturnal celebrations and the
Roman torch procession is in fact q,uite canonical and
legitimate, and there is no need of seeking hazardous sur-
vivals and rudiments of some particular pagan cult. In
the Gelasian Sacramentary there is found, in the Iviass of
Assumption i)ay, the following prayer:^^

Castimoniae pacem iTientibus nostris at que corporibus
intercedente sancta Maria propitiatus indulge, ut
veniente s-ponso Filio tuo Linigenito accensis lampadiiius
eius digni praestolamur occursum.

According to the mass of that day, the procession is an
occursus accensis lanipadibus or solemn reception at the

^k^m^

"J L^.

Advent us of the diVine bridegroom. ^ Fron the present
Llissale Ror^.anum that prayer has been eliminated, but the
oldest layers of the Assumption liturgy make it evident
that originally an Epiphany of Christ was inseparable fro^
the Virgin's Assumption.

This concept is supported by the second Roman poem
on Assumption. Those verses represent a paraphrase of a

I I

?-b

Pseudo-Jororneaii letter to raul--^. ^irA Eustochinm, a fabric-
ate of the ei[/hth century, in which the Assuiription ox
St^iJary is "broadly discussed. The axis of the poem is
formed by Pseudo-Jerocie' s sentence '*Salvator oinr},ii:iin ipse.,
per se totus festivus (L'ariani) occurrit et cum saudio earn

secum in throno collocavit." A^ain it is the festivus

0£cursus - in this case of the Lord himself - in which
t}ie feast centres.

The Pseudo-Jeromean letter then was very popular. It
is noteworthy, however, that it loriTS a Lesson of the
Office as celebrated by the canons of the Lateran 3a3ilica
where alone in that time the Antjoua Homani Sedis Gonsue-

••«> .-» mmv^^vf^mmmum^^^r*^-

tudo was observed. The author of the Ordo Lateranensis
reports that the canons met with some difficulties at
accomplishing; Vigils on the eve of Assunption because the
crowd gathering with torches in front of the Lateran was
noisy. For this reason the expedient was foun.d to anti-
cipate Vigils by a few hours so that the canons might sir-g
their responsories v/ithout disturbance and listen to the
chapters from Pseudo-Jerome's letter which v/as the lesson
of that Office. The gathering for the procession thus

coincided with the reading of the words "Salvator (lAariam)

68
totus festivus occurrit."

The general concept of the Koman torch procession ds

obvious. It was an occursus as it is evidenced by three
sources, the raass of that day, the short Assumption poern,
and the Lectionary of the Lateran^ To be correct, however^

26

the celebration was bifoc^il. 0

.;^ w-to pen oriTi^d

I

by the people zc receive the Vpltc s^into 2nd to celebrate
an Epiphany of the Lori. The second occur^ns, nt which
the procession had the function of a conduct of iaonor,
was performed by the Lord v;ho cair^e to meet his mother,
whose AssLimption Day was at the same tine the day of her
Epiphany.

The antecedents of these perf orirances are indeed
very v;ell knov/n. In the Graeco-Homan world it v/as a very
familiar phenomenon that a deity should lerive its custom-
ary sanctuary once, or even more than once, a yesr in
order to "appear** to the people and to dwell for the
turation of a festival in another temple. It is a
so-called Epidemy ( ), a word almost synonymous
with Epiphany or Theophany. The ritual obser\'ed on the
occasion of a joi^jmey and appearance of a deity was pract-
ically alv/ays the same: a festival reception, often in-
cluding a £omra, on the part of the people who ^^athered

to conduct the God;

, hynns soliciting the

God to make his appearance; finally the apparition of the

God, that is of his cult image.

69

None of these ele ents seems to be missing in the
Roman poem. The Vclto santo, the Emmanuel, is the

, the'^God manifest", whose reception by the
^XEksxxK^ rallying people is described in a most pictur-
esque way in the introductory four couplets. Kletika,
which are anything but rare in the Eastern and "Galilean"
masses and which are found in the Roman mass as well, that

is hyrnris or cries i:ivitin£- the Goci to :^-rear, ..r --^^-tior'^:
expressls verbis In the Doem;

Sollicitemus ©"b hoc doniinTin prece, carmine, lingua,

Et laatrem domini sollicitemus ob hoc.

That these lines appear at the end poem rather tl^an at the
beginning is caused by the fact that these Kletika are
directed also to St.i^ary, urging her Epiphany as ^^^ell.
Finally , the apparition proper of the Enrianuel receives a

very compxete description. ^Unde frenit populus? - ITec
procul est opifex - En, ubi vultus adest? - Vultus adest
domini - Sistitur in solio." These are the various
phases of the apparition of the G-od. It is described in
an impressive and telling ik3qcx manner.

The reception of the Volto santo was but one part of
the feast. Christ hinself performs an occursus, as he
comes to meet his mother and to conduct her to heaven.
That a deity appears to neet another deity, or a divine
ruler, again is a feature the antecedents of which are
found in the Graeco-Homan Antic^uity. In the Hadrianic
series of Adventus (Epiphany) coins we find anonr the
deities v/hich receive the emperor not only the personifi-
cations of the provinces but also Sarapis and Osiris. In
the arch of Galerius at Salonica, we recognize at the
open gates of a temple a deity ready to receive the Di\"U3
who approaches the city en f:r-.nd cort^ _. Sometir.es the
emperor would visit at his arrival the shrine of the main
deity whose "temple-sharer" or even •* throne-sharer'' the

28

emperor mir^ht ;.e, ana there offer a libation or a sacri-

^- 71

1-i.ce. Christian mythclosy 5ias adopted and "tran'^lated*'

these customs. The Lord, at his Adventus in Heaven, was

seated in the divine throne; and the Lord's Ascension in

its turn became the model of the Assumption of Ivlary.'^*^

According to a later Roman legend, angels transferred the

throne of the Saviour to the glaring shrine of the Virgin,

while St.ljary herself scame to meet her son with, a galla>ry^

of angels and saints. ''^^ The classical version, however,

is that the Lord came to meet St.LIary's soul and that

"Domino praecedente" angels conducted her to the throne

of Heaven which had been prepared for her '♦ante mundi

constitutionem.** '^

The poem does not mention the Ascension vro-per nor
the Coronation of the Virgin. St.IIary appears as the
glorified God-bsarer. She, too, becomes manifest and is
present in the city, and the Homan people is happy that
only a -very small distance separates them from the Queen
of Heaven ( "medico^ discrimine laeti").

The poem, just as the feast, centres in the appari-
tions first of the Lord, then of Llary. This does not ex-
clude a lustral character of the ceremonies; they rather
include a lustration, since every epiphany of a deity
has the power of purification.''^^

The interpretation of the poem as an L'piphany of the
Lord and the Virgin explains also the supplication for
the emperor by which the poem is concluded. It is fo'jn.d

29

^Iso in the shorter Assurription poem in which Eenry II is
rc'-Tiembered. The supplicatio pro imp era tore in this place
falls in with the general tradition. V/hen the Gods heco-ne
nianifest, king or emperor become manifest, too. Such was

the custom in the Hellenistic realms, and it survived in

7fi
Byzantium. In &ttonian Rome this subcurrent breaks

to the surface once more. It desiccated definitely in nnd
after the Gregorian P^e^ when the Roman Pontiff, in taking
over the part of the yerus imperator^ was the one to be-
come manifest at the epiphanies of the celestials.

It is instructive in vie-v of the poem to cast a
glance at Western and Eastern pictorial representations
of the Assumption. Western art in the Gothic- period
shov/ed a predilection for representing the Coronation and
Inthronisation of the Virgin in Heaven. These topics
have not been developed in the ivest before the twelfth
century. They were unknov/n in 1000 A.D. when the poem
v;as written, and they remained completely unknown in the
East. Eastern art clung to the very old design of the
Koimesls which has been adopted by the West during the
tenth century but here always betrays its Lyzantine ori-
gin. tlnx±zt The representations of the Koimesis sho.v
Christ as once more he appears on earth at the deathbed
of his mother. He comes to meet and to receive her soul
which he takes in his arms before handing it to the care

of angelic attendants. Often the Assur.ta appears in the
heights in Yier celestial glory and majesty, but the focal
point of the koimesis imagery is always the Lord's appear-
ance at the deathbed. The conduct of i^ary to Paradise

forms as little a subject of Eastern art as her crowning

77
and inthronisation*

The Crowning of the Virgin takes place in Heaven;
the Koimesis is an occurrence on earth. Ever since the

»ll 1 m\' -^^-—mm^m^mm

beginning of the twelfth century and thereafter of Gothio
mysticism does the religious sentiment of the West display
its irresistable drift upward, the desire to ascend, and
the craving after the heavens, away frOT, earth, away frorn
man. The East, as usual much nearer to Graeco-Roman Anti-
quity seeks and experiences 'the inbreak of the divine into
the domain of man; it stresses the descent of the heavens,
and the epiphany of the celestials in this world. This is
the religious climate also of the poem. The hieros^gamos
of the Lord and the Virgin has not yet been reaoved to the
other world; it is consummated on earth, and in this case

78
in Rome.

51

Footnotes.

(1) Bcihmer, Hogesta imperii, V (1892-1901) , no. 9432

(2) J, Gage, "Le Templum Urbis et les origines de l^idee de
Herxovatio," Annuaire de l'In3titut de Philologie et

d • Hist 0 ire Orientales et Slaves: Melanges Franz Ciimont ,
IV (1935) ,151-187, and the same author's "Saeculura novum,"
T r ansa ctions of the International Numismatic Congress, . >_in
London: Jiar.e 30 - July 3. 1936- (London, 1956) ,pp, 179-186;
Andre Grabar, L'Bnpereur dans I'art byzantin (Faris,i95b) ,
pp.2l6ff.

(3) G.A.van den Bergh van Eysinga, "Saint Pierre, second

i^olse," Con-res d'Histoire de Christianisn: Jubile Alfr_ed
Loisy, II (Paris and AMSterdam, 1928) , pp. 181-191.

/

(5)

(4) See, e.g., Petrus Damiani, De picturis,c.iv, Patr.Lat .,,CXLV^
col. 594.

Joseph V/ilpert, Die romischen r^Iosaiken una :.:alereien der
v-WnbVir^hPn nmiten vom IV. bis aIII . Jahrhundert (Freiburg,
191^'),I,p(i,y^i{f,i't^; cf.V/art .^rslanj'^Un frammento dell'antico
mosaioo absidale Vaticano," Dedalo,VII (1926-1927) , pp.
754ff . The iconographical pattern of confronting the

s very popular

;^«.a.a.. j.A*v.. ^^ -o JC

l^ethlehem, the Eoc-' tv/o cities/so as to indicate their unity wa
lesia ex -T^ntibus ITJ?- W^^^^^-- ^^^ especially in Roman churches

Lng to xne aaoration oi i/'^ ^^xj.^ v^ vleinente

Lng to xne aaoration oi -^ ' -- nj

the liagi) and Jeru3alem]|( s.Iiaria Ivlaggiore, S.Pudenfeiana, S.Prassede,

^^^ g^P^gy^ ^>^ .ai££Il£-/^^d othe-s), but it is found also in S.Vital-

S. JXDC3:x3:^cOc,
e at Ravenna;

cf .?.van den Leer, L:aiestas Domini; Theonhanies__d^
VADOcalvDse dans I'art Chretien (Studi d:i antinhlt^
cri3tiana,iIII: Gitt^. del Vaticano,1936) ,p.74; :Vilper(,,02
cit., pp. 320, 1182.

(6) Cf .Ernst Benz, Eccle^ia SpJ-itualia; Die Kirchenidee der
franair/caninchgn Hefornation ( Stuttgart ,1934) , p.

(7) Professor Hans L^7,y , in Jerusalen, has planned, many years
ago, to discuss the History of the Jerusale-n-Idea.

m^B^^

32

(3) Percy Ernat Schratiiin, Kaiasr. Ron vnl R•yno^r\txo (Leipsis

?ind Berlin, 19?9) , 2 vols*

(9)

The authoritative edition by K-rtrl Strecker i3 founcl in
Monument a Germaniae Historica, poetae latini,V (1939),PP.
465ff. The poera has been discussed by F.ITovati, L^influsso
del pensiero latino r30pra la oivilta Italiana del medio
evo (2nd ed. ,HAnv, ,1399), pp.47,172ff; Fedor Schneider,
Rom una Ron^edanke ±m Mittelalter (Munich, 1926) , pp. 150if,
cf.p.29; Konrad Burdach, Vom lattelater %ur Reformation,
11,1 (Berlin, 1913-1928), pp*456ff; Schramm, op^^cit ., pp.
150ff / For further literature, editions, and manuscripts
see Strecker' s edition, p. 465^ For reasons of convenience,
I reprint the poera in the Appendix.

(10)

^

•^ -^

also \7ilpert, ',
Die ro:ni3chen liosai- .

+ s^^

^en,-op.li01fx.

_______ 7^1.

y

(11)

I

(12)

For the Volto santo, see Wilnert, "Die Acherppita in der
Kapelle Sanota Sanctor^om," Romisclie Quartalschrif t ,XXI
(1907), 65ff, and "L'Acheropita ossia I'inraasine del Sal-
vatore nella cappella Sancta Sanctoru.'n," Arte, (1906),
pp. -;t tT.arisnr. TOie roc^ir.che Kapello Sancta Sanctorun!
und ihr'sohats (1908) , pp. 59x1", 53f, was not accGSsible to
me which is true also of P.Stanislao dell' Addolorata,

La c'-^noella nontificia del Sancta Sanctor.ixa ed i suoi

" '^(\i ^ ^ ■ - ■ ■ .1.. I. .1 » " ■

sacri t-esori ( Grot taf errata, 1920) , <iiiotod in the very
thorough study of Carlo Cecchelli, "II tesoro del Latcrano^
III: L'Acheropita," Dedalo,VII (1926/27) ,pp. 295-519; see
also "on.Oerm.Hist. .Poetae latini,V,p.571,n.47.

I + ^ •>•»-

See in ge/ieral, E^von Dobschlitz, Christusbilder: Unter
suchun-en 7.ur chrii^t lichen Le.p;ende (Te>:te und Untersuchun-
,Zen zwY Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatuj:,XVITI:

1399).

For the le?:ends see Cecchelli yOP.cit . ,p.3Q4f ; Burdach, on.
cit . ,pp.457f •

32

(13) Sohneider.on.cit . ,15lf ( "V/ie wenig ini: diese Liaria, fur

die :r>an oYvae we it ores Rorna 3ap:en kann, Christ liche Gottes-
mutter!") is quite correct in that; Roma as patrie parens
('/) parallels Mary as Leiparens,

(14) Ordo Q.fficiorum ecclesiae Lateranensis, ed.Ludwi^ Fischer
(Historioche Forsohun^'en und QuGllen, II/III: Mlinich and
Freisin£j,19l6) ,p.l50. For the history of the feast, see
Ernst Lucius, Die Ahifange des Hoili^^^en''cnilts in der christ-

' 11 ■ 111. ■, ■ ■ ■ W I - I ■ W ■ M .■ ■ ■■ ■ 11 I

lichen Kirche ( Tub ingen, 1904 ), pp. 4S7ft; H.Kellner,
Heortologie (Freibur^^igH) ,PP*177fif ^*±2» Helpful^v/as a
seminar paper on the Roman celebration of Assumptioji by
Mr.V/illian A.Chaney, in Berkeley.

(15)

(16)

(17)

An important description of the procession is found in a

note {^recedtS.f, thepoei^^ some rnanuscript^j of JJon,Gerni»

Hist^.,Pcetae,V,p.466. See also Patr.Lat . ,LXXV1II >col.868,

and ibid., 1052, for the description of the feast by

Benedict of St. Peter (Ordo Romanus XI); Liber pontif icalis,

ed. L.Duchesne, II (/8SG/n) , pp. 110,135 . For the later legend
see Cecchelli,op.cit . ,p.3i6.

s upp l.i.Cc^>tio
For the date of the poem as sug,<^^*ested by the XK:ixxtQ-dX ' ± or

zmSitkiZf see Schramm, loco cit. However, the commemoration

of the emperor does not necessarily prove his personal

presence; see, e.g., Mon. Germ. Hist . ,Poet .lat . ,V, 4o8, the

correspondinf; commemoration for Kenry II. - The follov/in^

translation does not aiw3}cxx:f0±±Gij;? pretend to be more than

a paraphrase of the content of the poem.

There is no reason for^ emendation.
Novati,p.l73, has changed carmine into crimine./j^?^t ,Rome

do GO it^t char^^ec herself, with crime but ux^hor oeliof m
magic charms such as the carmina Sibyllina.

(18) Cf .Schneider, Rom und Rom:-;edanke ,p.l43>

y^.

(19) Cf .infra j-o^OO. It .vould be a fuir argument to cay that

" " " like

the Conclusion of tht^ ooc-):n :is thn Introduction contained

4 couplets. Hov/ever, it is not liksly that the x^oem ended

in oouplot 29 ("Sancta L'laria, tibi turba gemit populi").

See also Schramm, p. 150, n. 5.

(20) A fev/ not SB by Joseph Brinktrine, "Duae denominationes
quibus in liturgiis orientalibus particulae consecratae
signif icantur," Sphemerides Liturgicae, L (19^6), p. 35i is
all that came to my knowledge* t

(21)

T? 7? -D

rightman, Liturgies Eastern and V/estern (Oxford, 1396)

(22) Ibid.,p.^63,19: Y; xuct^oc l^^oyr^oc^i yxx\ cV:Uozi fu^c ^Yvotic

ETA^JilVnil TCIQ Tu V ' CO TO^V OTOurrn t V Etc KC.CtXC iO u6v Kat aV0(X(7tV-

laucv Tov *] uyC'v auTu^v Xv7t xcTv dt»/f^T(t^v.
^^5) Ibid. ,p.l02,23. As people in the Eastern Churches comriun-

icate in the two species, a spoon is used to administer

the communion to the laity. Cf. Joseph Braim, Das christ-

liche Altar:rerat in seinen Sein und in seiner Entwicklun^^

I I ,111 .1 ■ .1 ^ <* - II I ■■■ I I II ' ^_^____,^______^____ .1. ■ I ■ ■ . »» m — ■ ■!>

( Munich, 1952 ) ,pp . 265-279 .
(24) Ibid,. p. 103,2.

(25)

(26)

(27)

Ibid. ,n. 103, 13.

[c //yoc 7IOOG8PYST7L K.7 1 0 TOfupCE tO(iX xaq 7\0i}(XUyc
Ibid,, D. 434, 111 '^f"":^ "^K^^^'-^ f'nc^eViat 'm\ e7:t6st\

B\J,Dolgor, Ant ike und Christ entuin. III (I.Iunster i.V/. ,
1932) , pp. 231-244: "Das Segnen der Sinne mit der Eucha-
ristie." The custom is remindful of the tauroboliuni at
which the one initiated into the mysteries took care that
the blood of the victim fell on his ears, nose, eyes, and
lips; see ^ ;ivX\i:xyo^7<r;ci(D^^ ->mir;^^ the

frequently quoted lines of Prudent ius, ]:eri 3teph:.non,X,

1034-39, ed.Bre3sel,p.435.

i

(28)

(29)

(50)
(31)

(32)

35

col. 1149: y.'i\ ?Tti^-;6 vt«:c c^^'Tf>^ cue /^vl y^i/r X7l si^iji.'? too Sstoi
avl-pofxoc 'fcTa>^^u>ue V . cf.T^'ol'^cr ,o::', oit . ,p*250 ,n.27, vjhor.o

y V^ 7 II W. II ■!! I»

attention it has escaped that John of Damsacus rolio-.vs vor^
batirn the Syrian Liturgy; of .Bri^;htnan,op,cit , , p. 486, 45*
See also John's hoaily In Sahl\a t lug^Sanctun , c > 2 9 > Patr.Or. ,
XCVl,col.G29/30C: "'Hu^-'" jou Ostcv 5vopa/cc , cu tw Ti^-i> i^ Itp9c.l'^^ ou

^^.0(L'O0(t OSOUVEVTCXl. I

Severus of Antiotjh, Homilies, ed.ri.Briere, ?atr. Orient,,^,
XXIII, p. 148; A. Mai, Scriptorum veteriAm nova collectio,IX
( ),p,726: T6v 6^ "vOpcxKa tl^ov £71^ etv xov '?:ufjcxvour>.foy'the

coal representing the Emmanuel, cf •infra, n. 36. The Emman-
uel is usually the image of Christ enthroned. Nov; the com-
municant receives the eucharistic particle in his right
hand, which he places on the flat palm of his left. The
left hand, according to Eastern symbolism, forms the
"throne" for the right which is to receive the •♦king;" cf,
Cvrili of Jerusalem, Gatech.mystag. ,V,21, £^r.jL^' J-P^'^V >

Atfe.ljlOv'e'Vj Bai«aeV VIIO Sej( A.Thus the "Smnanuel" , the God
present and manifest, thrones in the hand of the faith^-al;
cf.Dolger, IXBYC, (Munster ,1922) ,II,p. 515. For Severus,
see also his Hyran on Ascension, ed. E.W.Brooks, James of
Edessat The Hymns of Sever-as of Antioeh -.^.nd Others,?. 272,
Patr.Orieat.,VII,p.6B4-. Du Can-e, Glo33ariun,II,p. l60c,
s.v, "Carbo", mentions feasts of the Syrian Christians
called Descensio pri'ni_lsecunr5 i , tertii) carbonis, wsch
were celebrated on February T,U,and 21.

BrtKhtman, op . cit . , p . 293 , 38 .

R.H.Gormolly, The Lituro-Jcal Hoaiilies of Navsai (Texts and
StudieSjVIII,!: Camtridje,1909) ,PP.57f . ^

For the eucharist in the hands of the faithful {p_}^,r..20j^
3so DblG'^r, Antike und Christentu-n,V (1936) , pp. 352-247.

(35)

(54)

•4. . 1R1 9Q-ff Th*^ Drayer is a5cril)ed to
Brishtman,0£^^cxt.,p.lBl,^yit. m. px ^^

Severus of i\ntioch.

For the trichotomistic conception, see the author* s
"Epiphany and 3yr.antine Coronation, "na4-

36

(55) Eri9;htman,p.l99,36. Gf.Sargis of j^herz-i on Isaiah, 6, 5-7, in
Patr.OriDnt..III ( ),?.6l6.

(36) Cyril ox Alexandria, In Isaiam^I, orat.IV, Patr,Gr. ,LX^,5,
col.lBlf:

(57) Origenes, In Isaiam Hoinilia, 1,2-4. and IV, 4: "Quis est isti,
•unu3 de S'^raphim'? Dorainus meus lesus Christus: iste iiucta-
dispensationera carnis missus est habens in manu sua 'car-
bonem* et dicens: • ignein veni mittere super terram, et
iitinam iam ardeatl" See Qri^^enes 7/er!:e,VITI, ed.V/^A.Baeh-
rens (Leipzig, 1925) ,pp.244ff ,26lf *

(38) Hioronymus, In Esaiam.VI,!-?, ed.G.Morin, Anecdota Mared-
solana,III,3 (Maredsou,1905) ,p*122: "Non ergo unum de Ser-
aphin, sed carbo quern tulerat de altari, ignitu3 videlicet
senno Dei at que dootrina, abstulit iniquitates prophetae,
et peccata mundavit.** Cf .ibid. ,pp,105fl%121, and Jerome's
Tract at us de Psalmo CXIX» ed.Morin,op>oit ♦ >III,2 (1897),
p. 227.

(39) Basilius, In Isaiam,c,VI, Patr.Gr^ ,XXX,col>435:

In Isaiani.c.V, ibid*,430A, however, Basil compares the

Mil mitt ■■■iiwii wmwmmmmmm»^m»nmt%wm * ' ^\\m\» i nm wi • ' ' ^

coal ivith the Second Advent of Christ.

(40) IT .Borgia, ^'Frammentini liturgici antichissimi inediti,"

Bv'^.antinische Zeitschriit .XXI'C (1950) ,r).347; ax:ar3yr?rxaan3*

~r — ■ mi I I ■ r ~» n ■■! i i i m i ■■ ■!■ l i i ■ ~ii iir * 9 ^^ J ^, \f

?i

(41) Chjrysostom, In IsaiaT.^VI, Patr>Gr. ,LVI>col>73>

jbt2:i ChrysQstom, In ilittd: Vidi Dominum^VI.? « Patr.Qr./ LVI,
cols.l3of :

Gi\ Dol^er, AntikQ imd Christ entum^V ( 1936) ,257, n.l5^
See also Chrysostom* s Homilia XLVII, Patr.Gr> ,LXIII, col.
898, vjhere a^^ain the priest represents the seraph:

(42) Hilarius, Tractatus in 2,^x Psalmioui CZIX, Patr.Lat . ,IX,
col.&^9.^650A: "Sitque vel devastans carbo vel pur^ans."
Auijustinus, Enarratio in Psalmum CXIX,o.5, Patr^Lat ♦ ,xxxvm ,
col,lGOI : "iJatn extincti carLones mortui dicuntur; ardentes^
vivi appellantur.'*

(43) Br is'ht man , op . cit . , 395 » 26 , v/here Isaiah, 6, 7, is quoted
when the deacon cominunicates; of .3\ipra,n.25 , where the
same observance is found in the 3y riac Liturgy of the
Jacobites.

(44) "Illud vero quod missus est unus de seraphim et accepit

carbonem in manu, quern forcipe tulerat de altari, signifi-
cat sacerdotem et ipsum tenentem intelligibilem carbonem
Christum forcipe manus suae in sancto altari et sancti-
ficantem atque purgantem eos, qui accipiunt et communi-
cantf" Germanus, Hist or ia mystica,c>LX, ed.S.P<5trides,
"Traites liturgiques de Saint IJaxime et de Saint Germain
traduits par Anastase le Libliothecaire," ?^'^.y\\(^ de
l»orient Chretien," X (1905) , p. 362; cf .Patr^. ,XCYIII,
col. 433, for the interpolated Greek text. For the Blova-
tion of the host as referred to by Germanus, see J.A.Jun^*-*

A

mann. Die Stellun.:^ Christi im liturgischen Gebet (Litur-
giegeschichtliche ForcchunsenjVII/VIII: r;unstB^,1925) ,p.
213.

58

(45)

Gerraanu3,c.XVI, ed.Petride3,p.313: "et presbyteri qv-idem
secundum imitationem seraphicarum virtutum sunt, qui
stolis quasi alis cooperti et duabus alia, labiis scili-
cet, hymnum clamantes retinent divimom et spiritalem
carbonem Ghristiom hunc forcipes gratiae in altar i feren-
tes." Cf.Patr.Gr.,G3H XCVIII.,col.393, where the text is
at variance with the trans lat ion jiT Anastasius. Cf.su^ra,
n.41, for the priest representing the seraph.

(46)

(47)

I

I

(48)

Jean Paul Richter, Quellen der Byaantinischen Kunstge-
schichte (Vienna, 1897) ,P-163. Byzantine theologians
allude to the "coal" of Isaiah until the latest times of
the Empire; cf.,e,g*, Theodore of Melitene, Ethicori,cc.lQ,
16, ed. A.Mai, Nova patrum bibliotheca,VI (1852) , pp. 486,
491.

late 9th century
See, e.g., the/Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzen (Paris,

Bibl.Kat.,IuS.sr.510,fol.67'^), in H.A.Omont, j^niatures ,de3

plus anciens laanuscrits ^recs de la Bibliotheque Nationale

du VI® au XIV® si|cle (Paris, 1929), pl. XXV; further, an

ivory plaque, now in Orleans, Mus^e historique, reproduced

by A.Goldschmidt, Byzantinische Elfenbeine,II (1938), No.

193, fig. 39, and pl.LXX (9th-10th cent.). The Princeton

"Index of Christian Art" kindly called my attention ai.sn

jcH not only/the works of art as quoted but also to a

Psalter (10th-12th cent.) in the National Library in

Athens ( MS. 7, f 01.2 43''), cf.P.Buberl, Die Handschriften_der

Uationalbibliothek Athens (Athens, 1917) , pi. XIX (45). See

I I III , ,1 I I I . II- I ' '" I I ■ n »

also the Serbian Psalter in Munich (Staatsbibl,K3.slav.4,

folIQ5^,14th-15th cent.), J.Straygowski, Der serbische

Psalter, pl.XLVIII,f ie.ll4.,

Cf .A.Baumstark, in Oriens Christ lanus, IV ( 1904) , p. 427,

for the paintings in the churches of Old-Cairo, Unfortun-
ately I was not able to trace any reproductions.

39

(48)

See,e.2., C.StornajoIo, he mini at ur^.:; della Tono^-rafia
Oristjana di Cosna .IndicoDlgiiste (:.:ilan,1908) ,pl. 37. The
paintinss in the Coptic churches of Old-Cairo have been
aentioned by A.Baumstark, in Oriens Christianus. IV (1904),
p. 427, but I have not been able to trace any reproductions
of these images.

(49)

Sustathius of Thessalonica, OratioadJTanuelem inioerat

oren;

od.',V. Re-el, gontes reruro byaantinarun (St .Petersboursh,
1917),p.53,17fr; Patr.Gr. .CIXX^.col.Qfim).

(50) "Pearls" (

) if. likewise a popular metaphor t

or

the particles of the eucharistic bread; cf.Brinkt
the article quoted above, n. 20.

rine, in

(51) Fran2 Kaapers, "Der V/aise," Hist orisches Jahrbuch . jDiXTX
(1918/9), pp. 435-486.

(52) F.X.Seppelt, Monu!^3nta Coolest iniana, Quellen zur Geschrnh^
te des Pai3stes Coelestin V, (Paderborn,1921) ,p. 98; Lloli-
nier, "Inventaire du tresor du Saint-Si^-e sous Boniface
^^^^>" Biplioth^que de l^jjcole des Chartes,XLIlI ( ),
657: "In summitate autem habet unun rubinum grossum^*' For
ths history of this ruby see Burdach, Vom Mittelalter zur
Reformation, 11,1 ( 1913-28) , pp. 425ff; see also G.Ladner,
"Die Statue Eonifas'VIII. und die Entstehung der dreifach
gekrbnten Tiara," Romische i^uartalschrift ,XLII (1Q34).
P*48. P,E, Schramm, "Zur Geschichto der papstlichen Tiara/'
Higtorisohe Zeitschrif t ,GLII ( 1935) ,pp-307-312, has indie-
ated the superabundance of cosinlc symbolism as represented
by the tiara of Boniface YIII (len-th of an ell, white
peacock feathers etc.) so that the car bo topping the papal
head-gear is indeed likely to represent the "coal" of
Isaiah.

40

(53)

It f.irst occurs in the Or do Ro nanus XIV. c. 5'^. Pn-.r.L-t.
lXXVIIl,col.ll6lG, which, in the li^ht of the study of
Michel Andrieu,"!' Ordinaire de la Chapelle Papale et le
Cardinal Jacques Ga^tani Stefaneschi, " Ephenerid e :-j Lit ur-
£icae,XLIX (1935) , pp. 230-260, may susgest tU introduction
under Innocent III.

(54) Ji.Ferotin, Le Liber Ordinum (Monumenta Ecciesiae Liturgi-
oae,V: Paris, 1904) , p. 230. The prayer, which here appears
in the Qrdo ?.!isse oinnirode. is said to have been a work
of Julian of Toledo (600-690), of .Patr.Lat . .XCVI.col.760.
^^ ^'^-^ ^^'J-3salG Mixtum (Pati^Lat . ,LXXXV, col,113,cf .col.
533f) it has the same function, but it is spoken on the
first Sunday of Advent on which Isaiah, 6, 1-10, serves as
a Lesson the Merovingian Lectionary of Schlettstadt , of
ca^TOO; cf.I.Iorin, Etudes, textes, decouvertes (p^aredsous
and Paris, 1913), I, p*441* It is surprising to find, not
the reading carbo which has survived in the masses, but
calculus as a Sunday Lesson in the Liber Comious, ed.
G.IJorin, Anocdota Maredsolana^ I ( 1893) , p. 521. in the
Liber comicus, th&x&xt^ we find on the other hand the
archaic reading "Ecce tetigi (for tetigit) labia tua,"
which is found in Hilarius ( supra, n. 42) and Gassiodorus,
In Psal!r>um CXIX, Patr.Lat. ,LXX. col.903D ("abstuli")*
The first person, instead of the third, is found also in
the Latin translation of Origen's Honily In Iaaiam,I,4,
ed.Baehren3,p.246,19f cf.LIorin, Anecdota I/iaredsolana.
11155, p. 122, note to line ?•

(55) See, e.g., V/ilhelm Neuss, Lie Icatalanischen Bibelillustra-
tionen um die V/ende des ersten Jahi-tausends und die alt-
.si)anische Buchmalerei (Bonn and Leipzig, 1922) , pi. :c:vill,
^±Z'90'y furthermore a fresco from S.LIaria d»y\neu,±:i:^:Saxx
ssia^ai:^ in the Museum of Barcelona, cf.J.Gudiol, Primiti-jis
I ( ,1927) , fig. 142. For the problems implied see,
in general, A.Baumstark, "Die Xairolingisch-Roraanische
Maiestas Domini," Oriens Christianus, XXIII (1927) .pp.242-

I ( ,1927) ,f ic*142; fiirtlinr in a fresco on the 3cuth
v;all of the choir in the church of Vich. For the general
problem (Spain and E^ypt), see A.BaLiiiistark, "Die karolin-
gisch-romanische Llaiestas Domini," Criens Christ ianus»
XXIII (1927), pp. 242-260. The scene is found also in the
Bible of Charles the Bald (Sibl.lTat . ,MS.lat .l,f ol.l30^') ,
cf.DACL. , VII, cols. 1577ff,s.v."Isaie," and in a sli-htly
later (9-lOth cent.) ivory plaque, now in the Musee Histo-
rique at Orleans; cf .A.Goldschmidt , Die Elf enbej.nBkujj^^
reny II (I9I8) ,No.l93,pl.LXX. In the 13th century, th^^
scene is found in a relief of the cathedral of Amiens;
cf.G.Durand, La cathedrale d' Aniens (1901-3) , II J, pi .XX}:.
Here again I am greatly indebted to the Princeton Index ol
Christian Art for the detailed information readily given
to me.

'■"T'™ffl!Ti Tr TP"^ ''^ff'

41

260. In France, the scene is found in the Bible of
Charles the Bald (Paris, Bibl, Nat .LIS. lat.l,iol.l':>o¥) ; cf.
2i^-,VII,ppa577ff,3.v. "Isaie"; further in a fresco on
the south wall of the choir in the church at Vicq, 12th
century, and in a relief of the cathedral of /iraiens
(Cr.Durand, La cathedrale d Vi\rracns, 1901/3 > III, pi >XXXK
Again I am indebted to the "Index of Christian /Irt" at
Princeton for gpammmBmn information.

(56)

See P. E. Schramm, "Kaiser, Papst und Basileus in der Zeit
dor Ottonen," Kistorische Zeitschrift .CXXIX (1924), pp.
424-475; Anton Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios . 1 (Quellen
und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte,XI{I; Pader-
born,1924) ,pp.5::f± llff .

(57) Cf .Michel.op.cit. .p.l6.n.7.

(58)

Gregory VII, aef;istrua.II.75. ed. Erich Caspar, in :.!on.Ger:n.
Hist., Epistolae selectae,II,p.237> For Leo the Great,
see 1^3±xii:a±x Patr.Lat . ,Lr/.col.423: "civitas sacerdotalis
et regia. . .latius praesideres religione divina quam doini-
natione terrena," and ibid., note a, the famous line of
Prosper of Aquitaine: "quidquid noh possidet armis/Reli^i-
one tenet."

(59) Schneider, Burdach, locis citatis; cf. Schramm, Kaiser, Rem

und Ronovatio.I.p,152.n.3, reduces these/cuitual influen-
ces.

42

(60) G.V/iRsovva, Ileli^rion und Kultiis 'l^yr x^io:r!-3r I

(61) See the edition of SchrarrLT., op . cit . , II , p . 88 . §25 : "IToi nunc
est Sancta I.Iaria ad Pracsepe, fuit teinplum Cybeles,

(62) :Ion-am> Germ, Hist. ,Poetae>V,p.463.1ine 5.

(63) Schneider, 02*^it. , p. 151.

(S4) The Gelasian Sacr£1■Ineat^^.r.v, ed.H.A/.Vilson ( Oxford ,1894) ,

p. 194*

(65) The prayer is still found in the Gre;;orianum, cf .Patr,Lat .,
L.xr/III,col.l33, \yheTe it belon^js to the Vi^il of Ansuinpt-
ion Day. On the Advent us see the author's study "The
'Kintj's Advent' and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of
Santa Sabina," Art Bullet ing^WI (1944), pp.
For the occursus of the Virgins, see E^Peterson, "Die Ein-
holun^ des Iv7rios,"Zeitschrift fur svsterr.atische Theolor-ie.

VII (1930), p.

(66) Patr.Lat> ,XXX.col3.122ff . According to G.Morin, in Revue

benedict ine^ ( ),PP» , the letter hras been fabri-
cated about 750 A,D., probably in France. Very many pass-
ages of that letuer bear upon occursuG and Epiphany of
Christ and I.-Iarv.

t

i

(67) Llonuin. Germ, Hist. ,Poetae , V, pp. 46ef, lines 6ff ("Venit totus,
ut illo sacer Hieronimus inf it ...").

(68) Ordo officiorum Ecclesiae Lateranensis, ed. L.Fischer,
p. 150. Despite the popularity of the Pseiido-Jei^omean
letter, ±1 does not seem to have served as a Lesson ex-
cept in the Lateran. S.Bauiner, Gesohiohte des Breviers
(Freiburg, 1895) ,623ff, does not mention the letter in
his list of apocryphal texts v/hich serve as Lessons in tl
Breviaries.

iti

45

(69) For thf> Eriidemia, see G.Deschamna -ina G. Cousin. "Inacrio-
tions du temple da Zeus panamaros," Bulletin de corresT^ori-
dence helleninue ,XV ( 1391) , p. 175, and in ?:eneral pfister,
"Epiphanie," in Pauli-Wissowa-Kroll, Realenzyklopadie,
Suppl,lV,ccls. ,§ , and ibid., col. 304, §27, for the

(70) Cf.P.Kendrix, ''La fete de l»Epiphanie," Con^-r^s d'histoir
du ohristianis-ge: Jubile Alfred Loisy, II (Paris-Anster-
dam,132S) ,pp.2l6f , who .'quotes solicitations such as
"Adesto, adesto, Jesu bone pontifex^ in the 'Jocarabic
Liturgy, and "adesto mysteriis, adesto sacrairientis" in
the Roman Missal (BSLaasing of theTater on Eoly 3ati.irday) .
In the Eastern and Galilean rites the Er)iklesis has the
sa23e function, namely to call for the Holy Ghost to appear
and to transform the elements

(71) See the author* s article qi:>oted above, n. 65.

(72) Cf.F.Gerke, *'Das Verhaltnis von :.:alerei und Plastik in der
theodosianisch-honorianischen Zeit," Rivista archeoloi:ica
cristiana, XII (1955) , p. 157, \who in another connection
st7*esses the fact that the iconographical type of the
Theotocos in the tlirone was modeled, after the images of
Christ enthroned.

(75) Cf.Cecchelli, in D3dalo,VII ( 1926-27) ,p-5l6. In this case,
St.r.ary herself performs an ocC'Jltsus to receive her son.

(74) Of. Gregory of Tours, TXiJli^^^'^'l'jJL De gloria mart., 1, 4.

L'on. Germ. Hist. , p. 435; Pa. Jerome, cd.

^^> Patr,Lat. ,XXX ,col. 15Qj ; "^ . . , quant o magis credendum est
hodierna die militiam coelorum cum suis agminibus festiv^
obviam venisse ?;enitrici Dei, eamq^ue infjenti lumine cir-
cujnfulsisse et usque ad thronum olira sibi etiam ante mun*:!
const itutionem pardtum, cum l.-iudibus et canticis spiritu-
alibus perduxisse." For the Ascension, not only of the

44

(75)

soul, but ilso of the body of Sz.ilarr, sog A.3au:2st;irk,
"Die leitliche Him-elfahrt dsr allerseligsten Junjfrau '.Ji-d
die Lokaltradition von Jerusalen," Orier.s Chi-istianus , IV
(1904), pp. 371-392.

m

There is no need for adducing material, since the Second
Coining of the Lord inplies the purification of the whole
world; see, however, Sophronius, In occiirsu.-:] Do-ini, in
Pat2^Gr.,LlZXYIII:3>cols.5291ff, also colso749ff.

(76) See the author's "Epiphany and Byzantine Coronation," p. CO

(77) Cf.Karl Kun.stle, IkonoA'raphie der christlichen Kunst
(Freiburg, 1928), I, 564ff. The East is familiar, ho>;ever,
with the Giirtelspende (St.Mar^^ throwing her belt down fron
heaven to convince St .Thomas) ; cf.Das Handbuch der IJlslereL
voit: Ber.:e Athos> trsl.by G.Schafer (Trier ,1855) ,Pe279,
§396.

(73) Cf ,Hendrix,Qp.cit.(supra,n>70) ,pp > 22 7f> One of the most
striking examples for the change in ;7estern attitude is
offered by A.L.Mayer, "Renaissance, Humanismus, ur.a Lit.:^:-
gie," Jahrbuch fiir Liturgiewissenschaft ,XIV (1933), pp.
166f , in his interpretation of the early and the late
fozTisof the hymn In dedicatione Ecclcsiae ("Urbs beata
Hierusalem") .

f\y 7^1 G

^

/^

F V l^ ^.-1 L/ ?^U -) ^r^n A n r? Trrtf^ <^-^ (M

S

^ o/ c

Vi

HWWlll 1'^ ■' -.-•>"-..■

/n

'I CorCI/\ci-f^.niA ScClA^^hOS

k

)l ^ \ ^ L<

1 ^

/

i

epipK«i/i' A ccyc^^G^'-''^ ' - ^^^

L^ c^

IT

EPIPHANY AND CORONATION

(See note on next r^nfre^)

This par.er is one of those cited in Dumber ton Oaks
Papers; XVII (I963), lid (a prefabory note to Kantorowicz » s
''Oriens Augusti--Lever du Roi ^M in this fashion:

Tliis article, wliicli is bciscd on a paper read at Dumbarton
Oaks on April 5, 1951, was to liave been tl:e first of a series
of "Studies Eastern and Western in the History of Late
Clas:.ical and Mediaeval Ideas." The series \va.<; to have in-
cluded the following additional titles:
"S^'nthronos"

"Roman Coins and Christian Rites"
"Epipl:any and Coronation"
"Charles the Bald and the Natales Caesarum"
"Roma and tl:e Coal."
Professor Kantorowicz was able to correct the proofs of the
present paper before his death on September 9, 1963. In
accordance with his expressed wishes, plans for publishing
the other studies in the series will be abandoned. Oc-
casional references to some of these studies in the footnotes
have been allowed to stand.

Kantorowicz *s last will and testarrBnt sti^^ulated that none
of his unpublished papers were to be published, for he did
not think of any scholarly work as "his'' until he had re-
leased it for publication.

If, therefore, anyone choosej^to cite this paper in
print, the reference should be impersonal. Do not say
"Kantorowicz says in ^uch and suci^", or "Kantorowicz
believed..." but rather something like "the unpublished
paper by ^^antorowicz on [this or that] is useful for the
problem of [such and such]".

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PAGE IN PHOTOCOPIES MADE OF THIS ARTICLE

I

E'^TPHANY AND CCHONATK'N

The version of ^his oaner preserved nt Dunbar ton
Caks has penciled in a ne^^r title: 'Bpiphany and Byz.
Coronation/* That copy is annotated for chnnp;e3 to
be made in a further draft. Also in the D.O. folder
are some photofi^rarhs appropria t>e to the article

I

CORONATION SCENARIOS EASTERN AND WESTERN.

The problem of the Byzantine coronation and the parts
played at this performance by the Byzantine emperor and
the Patriarch of Constantinople is still a subject given
to controversy. More than fourty years ago, W.Sickel has
established the authoritative interpretation which was
almost generally accepted.^ Sickel could not fail to
realize that the patriarch from his function as coronator
did not derive constitutional or legal rights of supremacy
over the imperial power similar to those claimed by the
pope and the western high clergy, and he therefore main-
tained that the patriarch in crowning the emperor per-
formed a function of the state and not of the church.
Recently, however, the tide of scholarly common opinion
began to change. Professor Georg Ostrogorsky, of the
University of Belgrad, defines his position emphatically,
if only in a footnote to his brilliant History of the
Byzantine State. "Quite untenable - writes he^ - is the
opinion offered by Sickel and despite its strangeness
generally repeated ever since saying that the patriarch
did not perform the act of crowning in his capacity as
representative of the church but that he always acted as
a representative of the State." Incidentally at the same
time, Ur. Peter Charanis, being attacked by German scholars
in a rather unpleasant way, has devoted an article to the
coronation in the -uater Roman Empire in which he has de-
monstrated - successfully, as 1 believe - that the

coronation of the Byzantine emperor as introduced probabljr
in 450 was a definitely ecclesiastical act*

The controversy, it seems to me, is to some extent
a controversy of distinctions and terms resulting from the
practice or malpractice of applying modem legal thought
to the conditions of the past, and like a too short
blanket these modem distinctions finally turn out to be
inappropriate to cover the whole body of the historical
problem* It is strange indeed to maintain that the
highpriest and chief of the Byzantine Church, at the
important ceremony of crowning the emperor, should have
acted '*not as a priest** or on behalf of the church but as
an officer of the state and a civil deputee of the
electors - army, senate, and people. Even a Prussian
Oberhofprediger> truly an official of the state, acts when
giving his slightly colourless and uncompromising
blessizigs to the king, on behalf of the Prussian
State-Church or at least I ! ) of God; and even the corona-
tion at KSnigsberg, though adding no element of power to
the king, had the function to make the i'russian monarch
visible within the state as the incarnation of divine
right, a visibility not achieved but increased by the
blessing of the church. So far as it goes, this, too,
was an ecclesiastical act. However, with the regard to
the Byzantine ceremony of crownings the terms of "civil**
or *• ecclesiastical,** the hair-splitting distinction
between "first priest" and "first Roman citizen" with
reference to the patriarch, or the qualifications of

••dispensable ceremony" and "essential act" with reference
to the coronation^ all seem to miss the vital centre
because they have been borrowed from a sphere significant
of neither Byzantine nor general mediaeval vitality^
Their application distorts the otherwise clear contures
and instead of clarifying obscures a problem which is
still in need of being settled even though the ecclesiast-
ical content of the Byzantine coronation may be admitted*

It is the Intention of the present brief discussion

an altogether
to approach the involved problem from /t^different point of

view and to raise the question of the function of the
Byzantine coronation with regard to what may be called
the emperor's ••visibility" within church and state* What
were the parts played by both emperor and patriarch in
the liturgical scamaria of the coronation play? What was
the model of the tableau vivant which the head of the
Eastern Empire and the head of the Byzantine clergy
staged on that occasion? This question is more likely to
yield an answer than the previous approaches because it
derives from then customary concepts; and as the contro-
versy arose implicit ely from a comparison of Eastern with
Western conditions, it may be appropriate to compare
and to contrast the liturgical stage setting of the

Byzantine coronation with the one
by the Western Church*

established

I.

The prototype and model of the yifestern coronations
was the anointment of David at the hands of bamuel. There
are scores of possibilities available to bear out this
statement* Here, however , it may meet all our needs to
restrict the discussion to the central part of the liturg-
ical action, the formula of the anointment itself » A Bene-
dict ional of Freising of the early ninth century has pre-
served in its Cielasian additions an apparently old formula
for the consecration of kings and for the anointment of
the klng*s hands :"^

Unguantur manus istae de oleo sanctif icato, unde uncti
fuerunt reges et prophetaet sicut unxit bamuhel David
in regem« ut sis benedictus et constitutus rex in
regno isto««.

It has been held that this benediction was related to the
atnointment of King Pepin in 751 or 754 because the image
''befitted the situation'* at that time: Pepin, the new
David, taking the place of the repudiated baul (the last
Merovingian king) and being consecrated by a new Samuel,
St •Boniface or Pope Stephen II • Historians have been
warned by a great scholar **to fix the dates of prayers
by means of allusions supposed to be contained in them

to current events,** and the warner was right also in this

7
case* Whether or not the Freising benedictions were

spoken at the sacring of King Pepin is a question to which

there is probably no answer. If, however, this was the

case, the Samuel-David benediction was spoken certainly
not because it befitted this particular political situa-
tion but because it befitted any similar occasion. Jj*or
regardless of c\irrent political events, the David-bamuel
benediction was the, or a, liturgical formula' for any

o

consecration with oil and of oil.

The Samuel-Liavid form is first found in the Qrdo
baptismi of the bacramentary of Bobbio, which falls in

Q

the seventh century.^ It here belongs to the exorcism
of the person to be baptized. The priest touches nose,
ears, and breast of the candidate, saying:

Dngo te de oleo sanctificato, sicut unxit bamuhel
David in regem et prophetam.

Nothing can be less surprising than to find that
through the liturgical formula the king's consecration
here appeaurs closely related to the rite of baptism.
The French kings, until the nineteenth centiiry, were
anointed with the holy balm which an angel was alleged
to have brought from heaven for the baptism of Clovis
at the hands of bt.R^oQr. Contrariwise, the baptismal
unction has often been interpreted as man's coronation
to kingship. "Through the signing of the forehead with
oil a royal ointment and perennial chrism has been
granted,** says i:^rudent ius , wuxE Isidore of bevilla ex-
plains the "royal** character of the one anointed by em-
phasizing that the latter had become a member of the

eternal king and priest and that those baptized represen-

10
ted a genua regale et sacerdotale in general. As man's

coronation with the diadem of glory and honor, baptism

occasionally was even accompanied by acclamations.

Hence the Inner relationship of the two rites - baptism

and royal unction - is hardly in need of any fiirther

explanation, all the less so as the baptism of Christ in

the Jordan was at the same time recognized as his unction

with the oil of gladness.

The interrelationship between the two rites is
by the
evinced/benedictions. The words which in the Freising

Benedictional precede the bamuel-uavid form (iinde uncti

fuerunt reges et prophet ae J are likewise to be linked

to the baptismal rite. We find that phrase * in the

fuller form of **unde unzlsti sacerdotes, reges, et pro*

12
phetas, et martyres** «* In the Gelasian bacramentary

15
at the Benedict io olei on Thursday in Holy Week. Here it

appears twice, it first occurs in the blessing of the

oil for the unction of the sick, and consequently the

healing forces of the oil as a "tutamentiam corporis,

animae et spiritus** (a remarkable residuiim of trichotom-

istic concepts within the liturgy!) are emphasized. In

the second place, the formula appears in the eucharistic

prayer. Here the chrism is put into closest relationship

being
to the baptism on Holy Saturday for which it was/prepared.

In the prayer mention is made of King David, the prophet

who foreseeingly had sung the sacramental power of the

oil; of the dove which with the olive branch in its beak

had found home to the ark; of baptism In general; of

Moyses who by the orders of God had anointed his brother

Aaron priest; and of Christ who in the Jordan received
the unction with the oil of gladness. Finally God is he-
sought to sanctify the oil by his blessings and to add
to the liquid the power of the holy Ghost

per potent iam Christ i tui, ^ a cuius sancto nomine
chrisma nomen accepit, unde unxisti sacerdotes« regest
prophetas^ et martyres tuos. ••

we now realize that the iTreising Benedictional in the
prayer for anointing the king*s hands has combined the
two formulae, the i>amuel-i>avid and the unde unxisti forms,
which both were derived from the baptismal rite.

These formulae were used not only at the consecration
of kings. Between 700 and 9v^0, it rightly has been said,
the bamuel iiavid as well as the more general unde unxisti
form may be found in any rite providing for an unction
with oil.^^ consequently, when the application of oil
was added to the ritual of sacerdotal and episcopal ordin-
ations (to our knowledge in the course of the eighth cent-
\iry) the bamuel-David form would appear on this occasion,
too. The earliest liturgical evidence for a sacerdotal
ordination anointing is found in the Missale Francorum,
written most likely in Visigothic Aquitaine in the first
decades of the eighth century, 700-750.^ As in the
Freising Benedictional the prayer refers to the anointment
of the hands, the hands of a priest:

Unguantur manus istae de oleo sanctificato et crisroate
sanctificationes-^^ sicut uncxit samuhel david in regem
et prophetam ita unguantur et consummentur.

8

To this there is added the trinitarian baptismal formula
In nomine patris et filii et spiritus Sanctis This addi-
tional baptismal formula is foiind with other oil anoint-
ings as well; it beoame inseparable from the sacerdotal

IQ
and episcopal anoint ments,^but never it seems to have been

added to the royal or imperial unctions - a most remarkable.
fact« tipytfcg Once more in the course of the eighth cent-
ury does the Samuel-David form appear, in the Sacrament ary
of Gellone (written probably between 77u and 780, but re-
presenting material of a somewhat earlier period) « Here
it serves k± the episcopal consecration and, more speci-
fically, the anointment of the bishop's head, probably
^^ii la mode de roi.**

20

In the age of Charlemagne and the later Carolingians
the Samuel-David form seems to disappear from the rite of

episcopal ordinations, but it was revived after the

21
collapse of the Carolingian power« It then served,

after some oscillations, for the anointing of the hands

of the bishop. For the unction of the bishop's head a new

benediction was created which was closely connected with

prayers remembering the anointment of Aaron at the hands

22
of Moyses« Hence, at the episcopal \mctions there were

eventually represented both the royal and sacerdotal

forms, "Samuel-David" for the hands and "Moyses- Aaron"

for the head, as suitable for the new "genus regale et

sacerdotale" which emerged from the new unction with oil«

On the other hand, the Samuel-David form lingers on

in the coronation rites of the Carolingians dxiring the

25
ninth century} "^ it disappeared from these Orders at

approximately the time when its reintegration into the

rite of episcopal ordinations was achieved^ Instead of

"Samuel-David" , kings had to accept the more general unde

unxisti form which eventually became firmly established in

the rite of royal anoint ings. It was embedded into a long

prayer in which David , Solomon, and other figures of the

24.
Old Testament were remembered #

Whatever the details of the development, we find that
ordinations as well as coronations were dominated by meta-
phors borrowed mainly from the Old, hardly from the New

25

Testament. It is true that both the episcopal ^ and the

royal consecrations still reflected elements of the

26
baptismal idea« But that was like a faint glimmer of

bygone days which remained in the background of the

scene, since the tableau posed at consecrations on the

liturgical stage was certainly not the baptism of Christ*

This image had been definitely superseded by recollections

of the Old Testament, and after the prototypes of Israel's

kings, priests, and prophets all Western unctions were

finally moulded. "David anointed by Samuel" - sometimes

replaced by Solomon anointed by Sadoc the priest and

Nathan the prophet, or supplemented by other suitable

images - this remained the authoritative metaphor of

27
royal anointments in the Xifest. '

"David anointed by bamuel," however, challenged in-
evitably theological minds to decide whether supremacy was
with the ano inter or the anointed. The situation was

10

comparatively iincomplicated in the early Carolingian

period: supremacy then was doubtless with '*David#" Nor

did the odds change considerably in favor of "Samuel"

when the pope himself acted. Pepin, in 754, remained the

protagonist; and even on that memorable Christmas morning

in 800, notwithstanding the later curial interpretations,

it still the Prankish Charlemagne who "ab apostolico more

antiquorum principum adoratus adtque imperator et augustus

appellatus est«" There was iio doubt who came first. The

great change arrived during the ninth century. The

Frankish Empire declined while great hierarchs resided in

Rome. At the same time, however, a constitutional change

took place the importance of which, to my knowledge, has

hardly been recognized. During the ninth century the

practice of anointing the bishops, and of anointing their

heads, was increasingly carried into effect, not yet in

Rome but in France. That is to say, in the moment when

the episcopal unction became the general custom in the

Frankish Empire, the king forfeited his hitherto unique

position of solely representing the ohristus i^omini in

his realm. His former exclusiveness and exceptional

rank now was shared by many. The one Anointed now was

of
sided and overshadowed by scores/ anointed, by scores or

Frankish princes of the Chxzrch who became likewise, and
literally, Christ i Domini. Their sublime rank was clear-
ly recognized by Charles the Bald when he admitted, in
859, that it was the bishops,

quorum ministerio in regem sum consecratus et qui

11

thronl Del sunt dictl, In quibus Deus sedet, per quo A

28
sua deroernit ludicia.

The bishops, In whom God was enthroned and through whose
mouth he passed his sentences, had become the king's
peers* Vice versa, the anointment of the king, hitherto
a xinlque and para-hlerarohlc act, was rapidly filled with
hierarchic sentiment, as It was put, so to speak, on a
footing with the ordinations of scores of bishops • It
was caught by the hierarchic machinery and easily Integ-
rated Into the Inescapable hierarchic mechanism. In the
earlier period we still find, heading the Orders of the
Coronation, rubrics such as Ordlnatlo regis or Benedict lo
ad ordlnandum regemt^ terms which were used quite harm-
lessly but which promoted the assimilation of royal to
episcopal sacrlngs« The counter-current began to set in
after 900 when gradually these terms disappeared. To the
Church there arose the danger that the klng*s "ordination"
might become a sacrament like the ordination of priests

and a misinterpretation concerning the king's sacerdotal

30
qualities was by no means desired.^ The tendency to dist-
inguish more clearly than hitherto between the two rites
grew stronger in and after the age of the Church Reform,
The emperor eventually was denied the unction of the head;
he was anointed only on the arm and the shoulders which

symbolized, according to curlal interpretation, his being

31
instrumental to the purposes of the Church*^ For his

unction oil of catechumens was used and not the more holy
chrism which was reserved for the bishops, '•ut ostendatur -
writes innocent III - quanta sit differentia

12

32

inter auctoritatem pontificia et principis potestatem.**''

On the ground of this general tendency there is likely
to be found the explanation of the fact that the baptismal
trinitarian formula "In the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost** was constantly omitted in the

rite of the royal

unction. The king's con-

secration was not to pass for a sacrament. It was to be

clearly distinguished from both the sacramental acts,

baptism and ordination, even though the heptad of sacram-

ents was not settled before the twelfth century. ^^

The king's consecration was a "quasi-ordination"

without sacramental character. To ordain means to appoint

There no longer could be a doubt within canonical politi-

ruler
cal theory whose appointee the ktxg became at is coron-

ation. The anointed was credited with being a son
adopted by God; but the emperor was actually adopted by
the pope. He was styled a i>eo coronatus; but between God
and emperor there was the pope as the most visible prot-
agonist.'* In short, of the Saauel-iiavid plot there was
but one possible interpretation on the part of the Chiarch,
and this was definitely established as early as 881, when
the synod of Frankish bishops assemblad at St.liacra de-
cided:

So much greater is the dignity of the bishops than that
of kings as the kings are consecrated to their rof^l

sublimity by the bishops whereas bishops cannot be con-

35
secrated by kings. ^^

This argument became a standard concept of mediaeval
hierarchism. The argument was based on the words of

13

St. Paul lEebr.7t7), sajrixig that "without all contra-
diction the less is blessed by the better" ("Sine ulla
avtam ccntradLictioziey ^vod minus est, a neliore bene-
dicitur"). To this word rope Innocent III referred when
explaining: ^

e dignified is the one that receives the tithe than
the one who pays it; and less is he that is blessed
tiMA he thst blesses, as it is testified by the
Aipwwtlem, who of this speaks and says "Without all
contradiction the less is blessed by the better."
Albeit that by divine law both kin^s snd priests are
anointed, still the kings are anointed by priests,
not priests by kings, uess, however, is the one an-
ointed than he that anoints, and icore dignified the
aaointer than the anointed*

And as though the great pope felt that his argxxinents
mijigtt net stand the test without being applied to the

One Anointed, he exenplifies his hierarchic principles
with regard to the j^rd^s unction and adds in a dogmatic-
ally iaring way:

Therefore he, too, Christ hinself, to wton it was
said by the prophet -G^d hath anointed thee with the
oil of gladness above the fellows'' (Ps.44,8j, asserts
that the Father, who anoints, is greater than the
anointed. "The Father - said he - is greater than
I an." For, the Father anoints according to what is
G-od, the boc, however, is anointed inasmuch as he
is man*

This is the extreme limit to which hierarchical concepts

be carried wit

renewing Arian and similar ide-

ologies. However, the principle v»a6 established and

14

sealed* "David** t fii^ly integrated into the hierarchic
fmetionaliam of the uhizrch through his ordination^
appeared as less than *" Samuel. ** The ruler, it is true,
Visible within the Church as nev jjavid, if one
^e power was oMWldered as instrumental to the Church
and the clergyi'' but along with imwlA there became
visible the new ::»amuel who was to eclipse the anointed.

This tendemmr

palpable in the times of popes such

mm Wti^dkmljmn l and of amti^politaas such as Eincmar of
Reims; but it culminated in the thirteenth century. JTrom
th.e tombstones of the arehbishop-^coronators of Main£ we

may

that on the cwvanation stage Samuel became the

prominent actor wImi almost smct hexed the vlslkUity of

little Davids whom he anointed. These stones indeed
illttstrate the then current conception very well, the

emm^mftimm ••cording to which the "ano inter is more than

36
the anointed" and "the less is blessed by the better.

within the hierarchical rationalism of the western
camrch, Li* which i-etrus princeps governed through his
vicegerent alone, there may have teen no solution other
^k^n the one outlined. Every exception of the hierarchic-
al wrder might have Jeopardised the absolute sovereignty
wljLimad by £oma« Zhls, li— wwwr, does not imply that a
different solution was altogather ImpaMlkle. The
Eastern Uhurch was under the sway of neither reter the
irTlnce with the tiara on his head nor by i^aul the Apostle
with the sword in his hand." I'he predominant place in

the East was given to John the rze

, yrmt^^f ^^^

15

Baptist, clothed with camel's hair and bearing the lamb;
and the spirit as represented by John was irrational
rather than hierarchic, and mysterious rather than
rational.

Miles regem baptizavit.
Qui nos a peccatis lavit,
Wuem praedicens demonstravit
Agnum sine macula.

There seems to be nothing in particular that could rouse
our interest in this unpretentious stansa which is found
in a sequence to St • John the Baptist in a fifteenth
century missal of Lincolm.* Yet, the first line deserves
our attention. The image of the "knight baptizing the
king" is not of the poet's own inspiration. It has been
borrowed from an antiphony which must have been quite
popular in the thirteenth century at the latest when it

appears in the service books of Salisbury , Worcester, and

4.1
probably other cathedrals as well. The antiphony then

belonged to the service on the octave-day of Epiphany and

42
has the following text:

Baptizat miles regem, servus dominum, Johannes
Salvatorem: aqua Jordanis stupuit, columba pro-
testatur, patema vox audita est: "Hie est filius
meus . "

Neither the canticle itself nor the office to which later
it was to be attached, glxh of western origin. The text

16

agrees with a Greek versicle, and the strange nocturnal
ceremony to which later the antiphony was added, had been
imported from the East. The ceremony of the Blessing of
the Waters on the eve of Epiphany now is obsolete in the

West where it is observed only in one church, at San

Axm was

Andrea della Valle in Rome*^* The rite tx a symboliwo-

dramatic repetition of the baptism of Christ who was cre-
dited with having consecrated the waters of the world
when diving into the water of the Jordan and putting his

foot on thek head of the water dragon.

♦4

In all the

Oriental Churches, Epiphany appeared as the feast devoted
almost exclusively to the commemoration of the Lord's
baptism, and it became one of the most important church
festivals along with Christmas and Easter, a "most
venerable day,** t as it is called in the

Apostolic Constitutions.*^ Epiphany in the Western Church
is of secondary importance. There is an ancient Roman
tendency towards dimming the light of John the Baptist,
probably in order to make all the more visible the light
of St.Peter.*^ Epiphany in the Roman Church, therefore,
became mainly the day on which the Magi adored the new-
born King of the Universe; the recollection of the baptism
in the Ibrdan was blotted out as completely as possible,
and the rite of the Blessing of the Waters had conseciuent-
ly no place in the Roman liturgy of January 6th. Not un^
til the eleventh century does there appear, in a Pontif-
ical of balzburg, a Latin translation of the Greek

, which was vaguely accom-
modated to western ecclesiastical usage.*'' This translation

17

neyex gained ground within the orbit of the Roman Church
whereas another Blessing of the Waters on Epiphany, a
blending of Western with Oriental elements, began to
spread quickly in the drama-and-symbol-loving later

Middle Ages/^

in that later ritual the antiphony Baptizat miles
regem had its specific function. *i;he priest, as the holy
action proceeded, had to dip a crucifix (not simply a
cross) three times into the water of the font while the
antiphonies sung by the choir accompanied and explained
his doing. The first canticle comments:

Baptizatur Christus et sanctificatur omnis mundus*.#

and thereafter the other antiphony is chanted: "The knight
baptizes the king, the serf the i^ord, John the baviour..."
The part played by the priest at this dramatic performance
is obvious: he is the soldier and serf, the "John'', that
symbolically baptizes the king and lord, the "Saviour",
in dipping the crucifix into the font.^^ Miles regem
baptizavit - the less blesses the better.

The image of the less that blesses the better, or at
least the emphasis laid upon this n^rsteriously reverted

order, is Oriental.

- "Today the lord is baptized by the serf" is a versicle

of that exuberant "Today"-Litany which in the Oriental

50
liturgies is chanted on that occasion. -^^ The same idea we

find echoed, tim# and again, in the Eastern Epiphany
homilies, often amplified by new elaborations: fire puri-
fied by hay, a fountain rinsed by mud, the judge baptized

18

by the defendent, the axm llliiminated by a wick, the

51

physician healed by the sick, and other similar metaphors,
m the Byzantine ritual, the prayer of consecration -
the famous Great art thou, 0 Lordt and marvellous are thy
works - is followed by a fairly long supplication for
emperor, or rather for a plurality of emperors, as was
the custom in Byzantium:^

Save your servctnts, our faithful emperors, and pro-
tect them in peace beneath thy shelter; subdue mider
them all those that are hostile and harmful; grant
unto them all that is needed unto salvation and eternal
life, that with the elements, and men, €uid angels,
and with all things visible and invisible they may
glorify thy holy name«««

Supplicatory prayers for the emperor along with intentions
for the Church, the patriarch, the clsrgy, and other
groups of society are anything but rare in the Byzantine
service* However, long supplications for the emperor
alone and at the most prominent place of the service are
not found frequently, whatever the reason may have been
of commemorating the emperor so conspicuously on the day
of Epiphany, it reminds us that the part played by the
emperor in the Epiphany drama at Constantinople was not
simply, that of a spectator or passive member of the oon-*
gregation. For to him there fell an important r61e at
the staging of this feast.

The Byzantine emperor, as is well known, was con-
sidered in a most realistic fashion the living image of
Christ. Accordingly, he represented the i^ord in a

19

true-to-nature manner especially on the ^eat church
festivals, Un Palmsunday, at the ceremony of the peri*
pat OS t he performed the Entry into Jerusalem; on Maundy
he visited the infirmeries and, later, washed the feet
of twelve poor men; on Easter he staged, the Cross symbol-
izing the Anastasis in his right hand and the sack of dust
in his left, the resxirrection;^ and in a similar way it
was the emperor's duty to represent the liOrd on Epiphany.
in conformity with the significance of this feast in the
Eastern rites, the service on Epiphany rolled off with
all the elaborate pomp which the Byzantine Chixrch would
display on these occasions. The emperor attended the
service in banta Sophia, and while he was moving in grand
procession to the church the acclamations in their care-
fully ptudied order accompanied every important section
of his way. These acclamations, as natural, stressed the
elements which allowed a comparison between emperor and
Saviour or established through other means the •'stage
identity" of image and prototype. Thus the acclamations
on Epiphany wo\ad allude to the events in the Jordan
river; they would illustrate the part which the emperor
was expected to play and at the same time prepare the

minds for visualizing the emperor's appearance within the

53
timeless space of a transcendental reality.

Today the Logos, coeternal with God the Father, pro-
ceeds to be baptized in the Jordan; and the liOrd, whom
even the powers of heaven watch only with trembling,
inclines his head like a slave to the precursor; but
the one that has illuminated the world by his

r ff-rpni--;'-;''!-, -"T- i|'-,j--rff^-riv-r' I-'-'-— -j-r'- -lir ;■"■;,)■ -.■i-v^^D

20

appearance 9 exalts the power of majesty and Increases
It to the happiness and glory of the Romans. ••

Chanters: Baptized in Jordan's water*

i'eople: Long live the emperors*

Chanters: And inclining his head like a slave to the

ji'recursor.
People; Long live the emperors*

The one baptized today at the hands of the Precursor,
at his trembling hands , heralds you, the benefactors
crowned by God, as emper/^ors, and to the whole Inhabi*
ted world he makes you manifest as his christoi. And
in hallowing his bath, he baptizes the majesty with
the oil of immortality and bestows on the Romans sal-
vation and sublime support and the glory of the
empire* ••

Chanters: Adoring the glory of the manifest Christ*
People; Hay God make longlasting your holy kingship*

The acclamations, in the parts here adduced, bring
the two main themes of Epiphany into relief: the baptism
of the iiord in the Jordan at the hands of bt*John, and
the Lord's manifestation as the bon of God through the
descent of the Holy Ghost*

These two themes are reflected in the court liturgy
of that day. On the eve of Epiphany the emperor attended

the great

, the Blessing of the

Waters, which was conducted by the patriarch in the
palace church. The patriarch, standing beside the
baptismal font, said the long series of stichoi which all
began with the word "Today" and tke beautiful prayer of

21

conseoration ending in the petitions for the majesties,
l*he emperor, a burning taper in his hand| took his stand
behind the font while the eiinuch protospatharioit like-
wise with burning tapers in their hands, were lined up
behind him, having finished the prayers, the patriarch
approached his sovereign and poured blessed water in the

hands of the emperor who with it washed his head, face,
and hands and who, if he so pleased, drank a few drops.
To miss the symbolic contents of this scene is almost

54

impossible once we recall the pictorial representations of
the i^aptism in i:;astem art: John, standing on the left
bank of the Jordan, pours the water; the Lord has his
place in the river, while on the ±M±t right bank, ready to
attend the liOrd, there are lined up the angels which in
the Imperial liturgy apparently were represented by the
eunuchs* ^^ m later times, the great hagiasmos underwent
some changes in that the patriarch "anointed" the
emperor's forehead and eyes with the holy water, a rite

thereafter repeated in a less ceremonious fashion at the

56
beginning of every month.

More Impressive than the "baptism*', which had taken
place in the palace church, was the "epiphany of the
emperor which was a more public performance* The acclam-
ations had emphasized that the liOrd, who by his baptism
had been *^made manifest to xsrael" (john,l,5i;, in turn
makes manifest and visible his anointed, the emperor.
The Lord himself heralds his christoi to the whole world,
as the heavens open and the holy Ghost descends from above.

22

That is to say, from the jbord's visibility there arises as
a logical and mysterious consequence the visibility of the
emperor, the former's epiphany being the premiss of the
imperial epiphany.

The acclamations, which to some extent simply repeated
the phrases of the liturgy of that day, were reflected and
paraphrased by the poems and orations with which the
emperors were greeted when, in the dark of the winter

night, they presented themselves in the brilliant light

57
of the prokypsis.-^' The prokypsis was a wooden tribime,

erected in the open, appropriately decorated, and veiled
by golden or other curtains. The name of the fabric was
transferred eventually to the whole ceremony which origin-
ally seems to have taken place only on Christmas and Epi-
phany, the feasts of light, but which later was performed
also at the coronations and imperial weddings.^ In the
evening, while the emperors were attending the service in
the church of the Blachemae, there assembled in front of
the stagelike estrade the deputations of the garrison with
their banners, the court, the high officials, and other
dignitaries and people, who after the service were joined
by the clergy in tkm festival vestments. In the meantime,
the emperors ascended from the back of the fabric the
steps of the prokypsis which was still veiled, ifhen they
had arranged themselves on the platform, the curtains were
flung open and the emperors in their glittering robes be-
came "visible", or were "made manifest," the only luminoiis

50
figures in the dark of the night. ^^^ It was in fact an

23

••imperial epiphany," theatrical perhaps and not to Western
taste, but in perfect agreement with the realism of the

Eastern rites and mystery plays.

60

The symbolism of this dramatic pageantry was dis-
closed by the chants and rhetorical effusions offered to
the majesties. Chants and addresses, all saluted with

few variations the Helios basileus and emphasized the

61
parallelism of the Lord and the Lord-staging emperor.

Resplendy Rhomaean city, once more 1 say: Resplend,

Radiate^ in the double splendour of two suns.

You harbor, here, the ^un of Justice,

The Father's likeness naked in the Jordan;

And, there, you see the sun that rules alone.

The father's heir that shineth in the palace. «•

62

1 view a double assembly and double joy of the Romans:
The bath of Christ and the emperor's shining trophies.
Christ has bathed for us in the bath of waters,
The man has rinsed himself for us in the bath of sweat.
The former grinds the heads of dragons in the water,
The latter bends heads of Barbarians to the ground...
The former is made manifest by the Spirit as a dove,
The latter is announced by victory's white dove.
The former is heralded by the Father's voice as son.
The latter, Persian-killer, is heralded by his deeds.
1 hear, it seems, a second time a voice from heaven.
Crying again to peoples ••This is my basileus.
This is in whom I am well pleased, and him obey."
Both purify the royal city

By baths of rebirth and of new birth...

63

You have, my emperors, baptized me, your slave New Rome^
With all the seas of the good. .•

^ou have baptized me with gladness...

64

^^mT'n' 'Y'l !^~i^'yTV^^ ''''l'^ 1^^ "' •'i'"';'^''"'^'^ ""''"Tf I r' '"'T^^' "•'■ 'Ti'^^M'T-tj^~ f-;^''i»--'-^^^^^J-i.'rii .^•!rv->T--T;--TT-f- n'j-t ,T^^M

.mja.

24

It is apparent that the emperor, the Helios baslleus,
becomes the double and antitype of Christ whom Eastern
art traditionally represents with the open book, saying:
••I am the light of the world. ••^ The emperor becomes the

, the '•second God" that is the second
member of the Trinity. ^^ He is "the king formed after
Christ- ( )f

he acts

the "actor of Christ" (

and is quite generally spoken

67

), ' while on the

other hand "the Saviour in the Jordan has shown himself
as Basileus." Over and over we find these ideas repeated
in poems and orations, and there is n< need of adding more
examples to illustrate the part played by the •* imperial
actor" on the Feast of Lights as on other occasions as

well*

What matters here is the fact that in connection with

the general preeminence of John the Baptist and the Epi-

69
phany celebrations in all Eastern rites ^ the baptismal

symbolism presented itself incomparably more often as a

metaphor to Byzantine than to Western mind* In word and

image alike, the baptismal metaphors were mxmxxxmmAjxmmi, /
favored in the Eastern stock and trade of symbolic form-
ulae, and they were ever ready to be applied to the
emperor whenever he was to be made manifest to the world.
Rhetoric and imagery, both competed in expounding and
depicting the scene of how the heavens opened above the
emperor to release a crown held by the deity or hovering
over the emperor's head to testify him as the anointed of

f'ff^-^^^a

, j]-^'' ■ r "r f ■-]—-f-' ■ "'"'"' 7j7' " " fr"^ : r""^^' ^^

25

God* Victory, triumph, marriage, feastday - by any one
of the highlights in the life of the emperor the epiphany
metaphor might be evoked.' Above all, however, it was
applied to the emperor's coronation, his true "epiphany",
when first he became manifest to the universe and visible
to the Romans •

The idea of baptism formed, if only dimly perceptible^
the background of the crowning ritual in the West, In the
East, the eidoa of Baptism and Epiphany was in the bright
foreground of the coronation scene* There never has been
an episcopal ordination anointing in the Eastern Church
so that an assimilation of ordination and coronation on
the basis of an unction common to both could never take
place. The coronation always remained a '♦para-hierarchic"
act, and even when, at a very late date, the imperial
unction was introduced this act, too, remained something
extraordinary and unmatched by episcopal ordinations. The
emperor remained the sole christus domini in his empire
and never had to acknowledge the bishops as his peers.
Although the image of iJavid was conjured up time and
again in Byzantium as a metaphor for the emperor, for a
Samuel-David ideology of western pattern there was no
thrifty ground. In the East, the baptismal and epiphanean
idea maintained its position while in the west this was
superseded by the idea of ordination. When Michael Paleo-
logue crowned his son Andronikos junior emperor in 1273 t
at a time when the rite of imperial unctions was about to
be introduced in Byzantium, it still was c^uite natural to

26

to a prokypsis poet to compare the senior emperor with
God the Father at the baptism of Jesus, saying: "This is
my splendid and beloved son^ in whom wisely I have pleasure
with whom by divine pxBxlfltjDUUi dispensation I share the

power of crown and throne* •• The yoxinger caesar, according-
ly* appeared at this moment as Christ, as the one "who
has the words of life (John, 6, 68) like the Anointed of
the Lord" ( J'''

The patriarch is not mentioned, here as little as in the
other prokypsis poems and orations* But as it was his
function to take the crown from the altar, kiss it, and
pass it on to the senior emperor, who then placed it on
the head of the caesar, the general stage-setting suggests
that the service of the patriarch compared with that of

the Baptist whose cooperation was indispensable in this

72
scene*

It here is necessary to emphasize once more that the
Epiphany is composed of two distinctly different, though
coinciding, acts: the baptism in the Jordan and the burst-
ing open of the heaven with the descent of the Spirit.
"We again see - it is said in an Epiphany sermon^ -
John baptizing the Lord who taketh away the sin of the
world* And also we see the Father testifying from above
his Son*s stupendous descent, and we see the Pneuma equal
with him descending as a dove and hovering over the one
who has been made manifest*" We have to keep in mind this
partition in two in order to visualize the scenario of the
imperial epiphany such as it was staged not only on the
Feast of Lights but also at the emperor* s coronation*

27

The first Byzantine coronation to take place in a

church, the coronation of Phocas in 602, was celebrated

74
in the chiirch of St. John the Baptist in the Hebdomon.

The visit of this chiurch had been customary at previous

crownings as well. Leo I, in 457, after having been

crowned in the military camp, rode on a white horse into

the city and made his first halt at bt .John's. At the

entrance he took off his crown and handed it to the

praepositus. He then walked to the altar, had the crown

returned to him, deposed it on the altar-table, prayed,

took the crown up again, handed it back to the same

official, and put it on his head when leaving St. John's

75
to continue his circuit on horseback.

There should probably not be attached too great
weight to the choice of this church. It may be that

local conditions suggested the visits to, and Phocas'

76
coronation in, the church of bt.John the Baptist.' The

coronations were staged, for some time, in the palace

church dedicated to St. Stephen, and after 641 the church

of the Holy Wisdom became the favored place for carrying

77
through the imperial crownings. From the Book of

Ceremonies there may be gathered innumerable details
related to the crowning punctilio; but the first descrip-
tion of the prayers said on th*» occasion is found in
the Euchologion which may fall in the twelfth century. '^
The central act of the ceremony took place on the ambo
where the imperial chlamys and crown had been deposed
beforehand, while the emperor stood on the ambo, his

f

28

head inclined, the patriarch spoke a benediction over
the chlamys. The emperor donned the mantle and the
patriarch said a blessing over the crown. He then took
the crown from the table and holding it in his two hands
he crowned the emperor, saying: ••In the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Thereupon
the people acclaimed, chanting thrice the two angelic

praises ♦•Holy, Holy, Holy" and •* Glory to God in the

79
highest and on earth peace. ••''^

What we are interested in is the crowning formula
proper which was spoken by the patriarch, for it is the
trinitarian baptismal formula. Its application to the
imperial crownings is older than the text of the Eucbo-
logion. It can be traced back at least to the corona-
tions of the eighth century when the senior emperor in
crov/ning his junior colleague likewise said: "In the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
Probably the formula has served already at the coronation

80

of Marcian in 450 A.D. "^

In the thirteenth century the unction was added to
the coronation rite of Byzantium. The patriarch then

anointed the emperor's i«x»head in form of a cross be-

81
fore placing the crown on his head. This may, but need

not, depend on the rite of baptism. The underlying

baptismal idea, however, becomes ^uite evident if we turn

to the sacring of the Russian Caars the ceremonial of

which was derived from the rite of Byzantium. In Moscow,

the patriarch or acting metropolitan anointed the

29

emperor's forehead, his eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears,

breast, and hands, saying

: ••Seal of the gift

of the Holy Ghost.*' In this case there can be no doubt
about the model, since the rubrics as well as the bene-
diction agree verbatim with those of the oil anointing

82
of the orthodox baptism.

The crowning of the emperor, or later his unction,
at the hands of the patriarch refers only to the first
act of the imperial "epiphany. '^ The mise en sc6ne of the
second act, the manifestation of the emperor by the powers
of heaven, was of course bound to be symbolical and
allusive rather than realistic* However, the Byzantines,
inventive in theatrical matters, contrived a means of
giving a somewhat realistic shape even to things trans-
cendental. For it seems almost certain that the prokypsis^
which at the coronations was staged not in the open but in
Santa Sophia itself, symbolized the "manifestation- of the
new emperor through the powers above. The golden veils
of the prokypsis were still xm± closed when the chanters
invited the new Helios to rise, singing "Rise, rise, rise.

Emperors of the Romans" (

) , and the people likewise shouted

•'Rise, rise, rise, may there rise the divine majesty."
Finally the curtains opened right and left. The majesties
appeared and received the acclamations. Then the veils
closed again and deprived the people of the sight of the
emperors.®' if one bears in mind the liturgical functioms

30

of the

, the ciirtains, in all iiastern litur-

gies, there can be little, if any, douht that the opening
and closing of the veils of the prokypsis paralleled the
exposing and concealing of the Holy of holies by means of
veils at the divine service* ^ The scene on the prokypsis,
therefore, may have symbolized the "opening of heaven"
and the ''■aking manifest** the emperors crowned by God.
The blessing on earth at the hands of the patriarch would
have been incomplete without the second act in which the
&od testifies the new emperor*

nowever this may be, the interpretation of the trans-
cendental part of the imperial epiphany fell mainly to
the commentaries of the acclamations, poems, addresses,

and images* it was, as usual, the function of words and

the
arts to "translate"/events visible on earth into the

language of the invisible and to fuide the minds of the

spectators in such a way that they visualized, almost

unthinJcingly, the bursting open of heaven and the Divine

Hand reaching down to crown the emperor at the moment

iriien the patriarch placed the material crown on the

emperor* s head* Therefore the people could whwwtt shout

85
instantly the other acclasiation: '^

&od has had mercy on his people.
This is the great day of the twmgwi Lord.
This is the day of the life of the Romans.. •
Th# Master and x»ord of all things, who crowned you with
his own hand, multiplies your years..*

The people wanted to see, and actually viwwed, nothing but

31

an "eaperor crowned by God* or ••crowned by Christ*. Th«
service rezidered by the patriarch - important thought it
was, as it effected the ^opening of heaven* -- could
never llTert the attention from the light breaking down
from above* The imperial epiphany was the "great day of
the Lord* because the Lord in making his emperor visible
became visible himself. But there was no q^uestion of
making the patriarch visible, not at least in this con-
nection.

Even mere telling are the images. In imagery the

claim b

true that "the crown was fitted on the

emperor, not by man or through man, but from above.

87

Unless Christ himself is shown as the coronator crowning

tlM

directly, there wa«24 be found angels or
,e often) St. Mary performing the act of

crowning. Most instructive in this respect is a coin of
John Tzimisces (crowned in ft696) d•Bon&^rating clearly the
tw» omimeiding actions of the imperial epiphany: the
crowning proper and the manifestation from above. ttxMugq^
The Theotokos, standing at the side of the emperor, puts
the diaden: on his head while at the same time the Divine
Hand &s releaMrfl from heaven to put its felessing fingers
on the diadem. ^'^ Most convincingly the expert on Byzantine
imperial art says about this coin: *I1 suffit de se
rappeller certaines seines du*Bapt8me du Christ (oSi la
Main Divine apparalt parf ois dasm un segment du cielj ,
pour appr^cier i sa juste valeur la signification de ce
gest«s de mSme que saint Jean-Bap tiste aupris du Christ,

32

la Vierge elle-mfeme agit ici charg^e d'une mission par

89
Dieu.*' ^ Mary here has taken over the part of John the

Baptist which on the liturgical stage in Santa Sophia was

presented by the patriarch, the "baptist" to the emperor.

III.

The patriarch of Constantinople in crowning the
Byzantine emperor acted on behalf of the Church. This,
I believe, can be no longer a subject of scholarly dis-
sension, and the theory according to which he acted as the
"first Roman citizen" on behalf of the state and tf the
constitutional electors can be safely dismissed. The part
played by the patriarch can be clearly defined once we havoi
recognized the characters of the liturgical play performed
on the Byzantine coronation stage. The idea of an ordina-
tion after the Roman pattern must be completely eliminate''

earliest
To the wwgt¥wt Roman customs, to the proclamation of the

annual general as the human count eirpart of luppiter Imper*'

QQ

gtor, the Byzantine coronation was more closely related
than to a Jewish-Christian ordination after the model of
"Moyses anointing Aaron" or "Samuel anointing David." In
fact, the Byzantine coronation was the direct descendent
of the Hellenistic theophanies, as might have been expect-
ed by anyone familiar with the cultural development of the
Later Roman Empire. It was not Juppiter Ammon's voice
that was heard above the Jordan, but through the Epiphany
of the Lord the essence of Hellenistic theophanies was

33

passed on to the Christian era. The West has discarded
this idea and made the adoration of the three Magi Kings
the main content of the feast of Epiphany. The East

it clung to the earlier contents, and after the

of
pattern of the Lord's Epiphany, /his humble baptism and

glorious manifestation, such as it was (and still is)

celebrated in the East on Twelfth Night, the Byzantine

coronation was consummated. It was a Ohristianized, but

essentially Hellenistic, theophany that was staged at

Byzantium.

All this clarifies the action of the patriarch at

the coronation. Whatever the r61e played by him may have

91
been like on other occasions, '^ when crowning the emperor

he presented, above all, the character of John the Baptist
while the emperor represented Christ. There is more than
one evidence available to prove both that John was credi-
ted with having acted as a priest vkK as he baptized the
Lord,^ and vice versa that the Lord while standing in
the waters of Jordan, was anointed Basileus by the descent
of the Holy Ghost. "^ The cooperation of the patriarch at
the imperial epiphany was by no means negligeable; it was
absolutely essential. It was essential to the same ex-
tent as John's cooperation on the bank of the Jordan:
John's obedient act of baptizing the Lord with water
effected the heaven to open, the Ghost to descend, and
the voice to testify and make visible the "beloved Son."

The visibility of Christ may not have depended on, but is

94
inseparable from the doing of the Baptist. ^^

34

An altogether different question it is to ask whether
the emperor '•needed'* the coronation, whether really it was
indispensable and irremissible in view of the image which

during his reign he was supposed to represent* Mediaeval

has
theology, kjui of course, of ten discussed the probleic whether

Jesus had needed the baptism; and the answer (at least the
orthodox answer) would always have been that he stepped
into the water of Jordan "non ad necessitatem peccati" and
that the baptism at the hands of St .John "non fuit regene-
ratio Christ i," but that it was indispensable in view of
the economy of salvation.^^ By analogy it may be held that
the imperial Christomiroetes likewise was "not in need** of

the patriarchal consecration in order to be emperor or to
exercize imperial rights and power;

Q6
•^ the coronation added

nothing to his legal competences nor did it '•change the
man" as did the ordination* Yet, for the economy of salva-
tion of the empire, for the sake of the transcendental
foundation of his imperial power, and for the sake of his
visibility as the christos and human antitype of Christ,
the emperor needed the coronation-epiphany just as much as
the Lord had needed the Jordan with regard to his visibi-
lity. Hence all the Byzantine emperors, with one possible
except ion, ^''^ had themselves crowned (or later anointed) at
the hands of the patriarch, no matter as to whether we
consider this act essential or not* To them, evidently,

it was essential*

It is, to my opinion, an altogether doubtful under-
taking to try to figure out whether or not the litiirgico-

55

politico-

fmitttHKJ liturgical ceremonies in the Middle Ages, espec-
ially in the early Middle Ages, had a character of con-
stitutional stringency and were staatsrechtlich bindend^
The weight of these liturgical actions is usually impond-
erable. Imponderables, however, are often more stringent
than legal clauses, and often it may prove easier to elude
the latters than to neglect the formers.

The casting of the parts at Byzantine coronations

makes it clear that the Byzantine emperor never became an

98
appointee of the Church, of his coronator or anointer.*^

The difference between Eastern and Western coronations
stands out distinctly* In the West, the emperor was sub-
jected to a hierarchic, subordinating discipline. His
anointment was integrated into the hierarchic system ds a
qua si-ordination in conformity with a canonical political

theory which was easily developed from the biblical proto-

■I)
type of royal and other unctions, "Samuel anointing David.

Baptismal ideas and baptismal symbolism of language, it is
true, were still at the back of the Western coronations.
But these elements were overruled by concepts of ordina-
tion and hierarchic discipline, and for any mysteriously
reversed order on earth by which the pope would be demoted
to a secondary place there was no possibility within the
authoritarian hierarchic rationalism of the West. Unimp-
eachable and rigid was the validity of the Pauline motto
Quod minus est, a meliore benedicitur, "The less is
blessed by the better. ••

36

In the East, the baptismal idea was inseparably one
with that of the epiphany. With regard to the coronation
rite, this whole compjex has never been replaced by other
contents or any other model; nor had this cvirrent been
diverted into the rite of ordinations which derived from
other sources* To the model of baptism and epiphany, how-
ever, rules of hierarchical subordination could not apply.
On the contrary, the mystery of the Epiphany rested in the
reversed order, in the device §

"The lord is baptized by the serf, the king by the knight*
And Eastern religiosity throve in the ground of the

mystery*

In fact, the two devices grow out of the very deepest

layers of Western and Eastern religious sentiment. They

a
do not only express a divergence of trends and differlmlf

choice of metaphors and models* They hit almost directly
at the life-nerves of Eastern and Western Christianity
and disclose quite bluntly the differing centres of vital-
ity. For it makes all the difference of the world whether
the subject, as in the West, or the object, as in the
East, should be placed in the centre* There is no use in
expatiating *n generalities about East and West* Such
have been poured forth often enough. But it affects our
problem in a very direct way that the Eastern Chur. h felt
m%M% strongly about the subjeot-centredness of Western
hierarchs. In a discussion of the rite of baptism,
Symeon, Metropolitan of ThessalAnica, objects vehemently
to the Western baptismal formula by which the baptizing

37

hierarch becomes the central, primarely visible figure
at the baptismal scene, •'Ego

te baptize in nomine
Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti'^ says the Western
hierarch, a formula overemphasizing the subject and ob-
scuring the object. This formula, says the Metropolitan,
does not emphasize that the one to be illuminated is
baptized of his own free will. Ego te baptize may imply,
and sounds like, a forcefia action of the hierarch, an
action along the lines of power ( ) rather

than of grace and perhaps even against the will of the
object. The formula, at any rate, brings the baptist,
originally a model of hiimbleness, unduly and arrogantly
to the fore, whereas in truth the importance is not with
the baptist but with the baptized. In contradistinction
Jl^fhis attitude, the Eastern rite avoids even the semb-
lance of force and applies an impersonal, object-centered
formula, saying ♦'Baptized is the servant of God NN. in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy

Ghost** (

). This formula, explains the

metropolitan, includes the hierarch without mentioning

him, and it includes many another thing as well: it

establishes an unbroken and direct relationship between

the baptized and the triune deity, a relationship not

overshadowed or interfered with by the acting hierarch;

and it opens, as it were, the space of the cosmos. While

the Roman formula, in stressing the activity of the

hierarch, remains •♦linear", the Eastern formula makes you

38

visualize, or guess at, the cooperation of all: of the

hierarch, the triune God, and the whole cosmos •

99

The ••semantics" of the metropolitan, which here have
been freely rendered, are absolutely sound and irreproach-
able. Whoever knows something about poetry, knows the
secret of activating the object so as to achieve the

fullness of an image whereas the sup«»-activity of the

100
subject smothers the delicacy of relations. Mysteries,

by their very nature, are object-centered. Western
subject-cent^redness may lead to personal mysticism, but
it necessarily encroaches upon the nature of the imper-
sonal mysteries. This attitude was offensive to Eastern

sentiment. The Eastern Church has always preserved its

101
character of Mystery Cult, a feature which did not, or

only spasmodically, conform with Roman religious sentiment

or Western mysticism. Of the Eastern mysteries, John the

Baptist was, so to speak, the exponent and guardian; and

Petrus princeps ruled the Church in the West.

There has survived a homily on the Baptism of Christ

by Gregory the Thaumaturge, Patriarch of Antioch (570-593)

It is one of the early dramatized Epiphany sermons of

102

It here may be

which mention has been made previously
y^gyk^i-y paraphrased briefly.

The homily begins with a praise of the humility of
the Lord. The King of Heavens, so we are told, has re-
nounced the company of angelic hosts and incorporal pre-
cursors when making his Advent us on the banks of Jordan:
in simple military, not royal, attire, he has come to see

39

his knight. John is frightened. "I ought to be baptized
by thee, and comest thou to me? What doest thou, o Lord?
Why doest thou reverse the order of things? Why doest thou
demand that which thou needst not? The lamp is obscured
by the sun, not the sun illuminated by the wick? The clay
is formed by the potter, but not is the potter molded by
the clay. Thou comest to me, so great a one to one so

small, the king to the forerunner, the lord to the serf?

thee
What blessing shall I speak over thee? It is up to jmm to

baptize the baptist. Reach out thy hand and crown my

head with thy hands that I may fore-run thy kingdom and

as a precursor cry to the sinners: 'Behold the lamb of God

that taketh

away the sins of the world. '

To this the Lord answered: ••Grant, o baptist, silence
to the great moment of my dispensation. The mystery that
today shall be accomplished in Jordan's waters is my
secret and a mystery to those that are with me. 4 ipystery
it is which the diluvial floods of heaven have predepicted
in these Jordan waters and it concerns the rebirth of man.
Give me the baptism as the Virgin gave me milk. Baptize
me who in future shall baptize the faithful with water and
with the Spirit and with fire.**

Thereupon St. John obeys. With trembling hands he
baptizes the Lord. And as so he did, a group of Jews, who
had witnessed what came to pass in the river, began to
discuss what their eyes were seeing; and as though they
were resuming the functions of the choir in an antique
tragedy, they talked to one another, saying: ••Did we not

4o

always believe that John was more powerful and better than
Jesus? Have we not been right when crediting John to be
the more excellent? Does not this baptism prove the
baptist as the greater? For is not he that baptizes, the
better; and the one baptized, the less?**

Such was the buzzing talk among those blinded to view
the mystery of dispensation, when out of a sudden the
Father opened the gates of Heaven, released the Holy Ghost
as a dove, and thundered from above while pointing #ith
his finger to Jesus: "THIS is my beloved son! This one,
not that! Jesus, not John! The one baptized, not the
baptist •••^°'

Was it ''Jewish perfidy" and "Hebrew superstition",
branded by Rome until the present day, ^ that made the
Jews incapable to iinderstand the truth of what came to
pass in the Jordan? If we consider the words which they
spoke to each other, it appears to have been their fault
and main error, eventually corrected by the voice from
heaven, to have studied all too well St. Paul and his
Epistle directed to the Hebrews (Hebr.7,7)* But their
rational interpretation and false application of the
Pauline words, their endeavor to exploit these words for
their own purposes, for their own internal striiggles and
political ambitions, had made them blind to recognize the
genuine mystery when they witnissed it, that "the better
is blessed by the less."

37

Footnotes

(i;

(2)

13)

u)

16)

W.Sickel, "Das byzantinische Krbnungsreoht bis z\m
IQ.Jahrhundert," Byzantinische Zeitschrift ,VII (1898),
pp.511fff esp.p*518.

Georg Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen btaates
( Munich, 194u) , p.35,n,l.

Peter Charanis, "Coronation and its Constitutional bignif-
icance in the liater Roman Empire," Byzantion,XV (Boston,
1941) » pp*49ff* ^'ox his controversy with ij\Dblger, in
Byz.Zs^.XXXVlII (1938), 240, see also the strange inter-
mediation of Otto I'reitinger, in Byz^ZSa ,XIXI1 (1939) t
pp.l94ff*

Not all the conclusions of f'. Charanis, op,cit>, appear to
me as acceptable; see, e.g., infra, n. 86.

(5) Cod.lat.Monac.6430»fol>3U^, first published by G.Morin,

in Revue b^n^dictine^XXIX (1912) ,pp.l68ff . Against Morin's
attribution of these benedictions to the Merovingian
kings, who to our knowledge were not anointed, see Eduard
Eichmann, "Die sog. rSmische Kbnigskrbnungsfprmel,-
Historisches Jahrbuch, XLV (1925) ,p. 545, and the same
author •s "Kbnigs- und Bischof sweihe," Sitzungsberichte
der bayerischen Akademie.1928, 6.Abhandlung,p.30 (here
to be quoted as Eichmann, ••Kbnigsweihe") . bee also
Ji'ercy Ernst bchramm, "Die urdines der ^aiserkrbnung,*'
Archiv fur urkundenforschung>XI (193u), p. 362, n. 2 (here
quoted as bchramm, "Ordines**).

This is the thesis of Eichmann, Tdnigswelhe,''p.32, which
as been repeated by Erich Caspar, "Das i^apsttum unter
frankischer herrschaft," Zeitschrift fur iiirchenjs^eschichte^
LIV (1935), pa36,n.8.

38

(9) bee Kdmund Bishop, Julturj^ica historical ( Oxford, 1918j ,p,15>

{Q) Of .Th.jiiauser, in Jahrbuch fiir Liturgiewissenschaft,XIII

(1956) ,p,351. Most of the places adduced in the following
pages are well known. They have been discussed by Eich-
mann, "Kbnigsweihej^pp.JOff , and more broadly by Gerald
Ellard, Ordination Anointings in the Western Church before
1000 A>D, ( Cambridge, Mass • ,1933) I pp#50ff, who unfortunate-
ly omitted to discuss the development of the royal unction
with the same thoroughness which he devoted to the sacer-
dotal and episcopal anointings; Many features would have
stood out more clearly* For some additions, see infra,
n«ll«

(9) Pati^Lat.jLXXII, ool.502B. Ellard, Ordination, p. 21, by
some mischief, has mistaken this prayer/ ax part of an
Order for the Anointing of the Dying and therefore comes
to conclusions as to the original use of the form which
are not correct; see Klauser,op>cit» >331«

(10) Prudent ius, Psychomachia, verse 3 60^,ed» Maurice Lavarenne

( Par is, 1953) f 16 If: "fost inscripta oleo frontis signacula,
per quae/ Unguentum regale datum est et chrisma perenne."
Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis,II,c,26, Patr.Lat, ,
LXXXIII, col.823f: ''Eratque. . .tantum in regibus et sacer-
dotibus mystica unctio, qua christus figurabatur, unde et
ipsum nomen a chrismate dicitur, Sed postquam Christus
dominus noster verus rex et sacerdos aeternus a dec cael-
esti et inystico unguento est delibutus, unguento non solum
pontifices et reges, sed omnis ecclesia unctione chrisma-
tis consecratur pro eo quod membrum est aeterni regis et
sacerdotis. Ergo quia genus regale et sacerdotale sumus,
ideo post lavacrum ungimur, ut Christ i nomine consecremxrr.
This place together with Johannes Diaconus, in Patr^Lat • ,
LIX,col.403 ("intelligat baptizatus regnum in se sacerdo-
tale conveniss"), has been quoted by Odilbert of Milan,
Liber de baptismo, c.XVII, ed.Friedrich Wiegand, Erzbisch<f

39

Odilbert vop Mailand Uber die Taiife (Studien zur Geschich-
te der Theologie und der Kirche,IV,l: Leipzig, 1899) f pp.
54f ,54ff , a work submitted to Charlemagne in response to
his inquiry of 812; of •J.M.Hanssens, •'Deux documents
carolingiens sur le baptftme,** Ephemerldes liturgicae,XLI
(1927) ,pp.69-82, who adds to the nine hitherto known
answers a tenth found in Orleans (MS. 116),

(11) Thomas Michels, "Die Akklamationen in der Taufliturgie,"
Jahrbuoh fur Liturgiewissenschaft^VIII (1928) ,pp.78fi

(12) The formula first occurs, in relation with the consecration
of oil, in the early third century; cf.Traditio apostoli-
ca, ed. Johannes Quasten, Monument a eucharistica et litur-
gica vetustissima (Bonn, 1955) >p. 30, with n*6; L.Duchesne,
Christian Worship (5th ed. ,1931) ,P* 528. Isidore of Sevilla
(cf .supra, n. 10) almost paraphrases the formula. It is
actually found in Germanus of Constantinople's Mystica
contemplatio,% ^^ i^atr.Gr. ,ICVIII,col.385> where it
appears in connection with the baptism:

• The passage belongs to
the later interpolations (probably of the 11th or 12th
century; of .Bright man, Liturgies Eastern and We stern, Ox-
ford,1896,p.xciii), as it is not found in the Latin
version of this work by Anastasius Bibliothecarius; see
S.P^trid^s, •♦Trait^s liturgiques de saint Maxime et saint
Germain traduits par Anastase le Biblioth^caire," Revue de
1* orient Chretien,! (1905) ,pp.290ff . On the other, the
Germanus formula ksa shows not yet the additional "et
martyres", an interpolation according to Duche sne . op . cit . ,
p. 576, note to p.306, which is found already in the Gelasi-
anum and od^taz elsewhere and which was generally used in
the 11th/ 12th century. Hence, the Germanus interpolations
might be of an earlier date.

(13) The Gelasian Sacramentary. td.h. A.Wilson ( Oxford, 1894) , pp.

rjQ^^

41

(14) The Pauline trichotomy (1 The88.,5,23) is found time and
again in the Egyptian liturgies (Serapion, St.Maro), but
also in the Syrian liturgy of St •James; of .F.E.Brightman,
"Soul, Body, Spirit," Journal of Theological Studies til
(1901) ,pp.273f • Trichotomistic concept are quite frequent
also in the works of bt. Augustine, e.g., De fide et symbo-
lo,c,25fand passim; cf. Erich Dinkier, Die Anthropologie
August ins (Stuttgart,1934),pp.255ff . For a few notes on
later mediaeval trichotomistic concepts, see E.Kantorowicz^
Die Wiederkehr gelehrter Anachorese im Mittelalter (Stutt-
gart ,1937) f p. 4, n. 13. In the Gregorianum the trichotomistic
version has been replaced a dualistic ("tutamentum mentis
et corporis**); cf .Patr^aiat . ,iSH LXXVIII,col.83. The same
is true of coiirse in the present ir^ontificale Romanum>

(15) The Roman liturgy, as usual, has attenuated this strong
image. See Gregorianum (Patr.Lat^ ,LXXVIII,col.85) : "ooope-
rante potentia Christi tui," diluted by the Pont if lea le
Romanum into "cooperante Christi Filii tui potentia."

For a similar change, see Thomas Michels, "La date du
oouronnement de Charles-le-Chauve (9 Sept .869) et le culte
liturgique de S.Gorgon ^ Metz," Revue ben^dictine>LI (1939),
p.2,n*l. For the reason of these changes see J.A.Jungmann^
Die Stellung Christi im liturgischen Gebet (Munster,1925)f
whose attention, however, the items mentioned above - and^
30 far as I can see, also their ty^ - has escaped.

( 16 ) Klauser , loc.cit .

(17) Muratori, Liturgia Romana vetus (1748) ,11, p. 669; Ellard,
Ordination, p. 20. I am inclined to believe that ordination
anointings, not only royal unctions, were known in the
Visigothic-Spanish Church before, or about, 700 A.D.; but
evidence is lacking.

(18) For the various kinds of oil, cf.Eichmann, "Kbnigsweihe,
pp.21ff,35; see, however, Schramm, "Ordine3,"p.353,n.4t
for the inconsistency of the sources.

42

(19) The baptismal formula as attached to the Anointing of the
Dying is foxind in fcjfcl Celtic Orders; of .F.E.Warren, The
Litur^cy and Ritual of the Celtic Church ( Oxford, 1881) ,
pp. 172, 223. Furthermore, see Theodulf of Orleans, in
i^atrjjLat. ,CV,col.221. For the episcopal unctions, cf.
Ellard, Qrdinationg^pp. 81. 95. passim, and plates 111,1-2,
and V.

420) Ellard, Ordination, p. 30. The question of which was first,
royal or episcopal unction, cannot be decided; cf .Ellard,
p. 31; Eichmann, •*Kc>nigsweihe,'*p.35#

(21) Ellard, Ordination, p. 69, has clarified this point.

(22) Cf .Ellard, Ordination, pp. 93, 95 f for the Samuel-David, and
pp.Slf ,87, for the Galilean Moyses-Aaron form; see, for
the latter, also Eichmann » op. c it. ,p.35.

(23) E.g., in 856, in the the Order for the coronation of
Judith (PatiVjLat. ,CXXXVIII,col.642) , and more precisely
in 888, in the Order for the coronation of Odo, ed.P.E.
Schramm, "Die Kronung bei den Westfranken und Angelsachsen
von 878 bis um 1000," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung
fUr Rechtsgeschichtetkan.Abt.XXIIl (1934; quoted as
Schramm, "Westfranken") , p. 198; "Accipiat. ..unctionem
sanctificationis tiiae, qui per manus sancti prophetae tui
bamuelis regem et prophetam David oleo beaedictionis tuae
unxisti."

(24) See the Order for the eoronation of Charles the Bald

(Metz,869) and the important preamble to the unde unxisti
form in the Order of Louis II (877), FatrjrfZ^Lat. ,CXXXVIII,
cols. 741, 783. See further Paul L.Ward, "An early Version
of the Anglo-Saxon Coronation Ceremony," English Histor-
ical Review >LVII (1942) , p. 353, and Schramm, "Westfranken,"
p. 203, for a Continental Order of about K)00, and Schramm,
op.cit..pp.214ff ,225» for the Inglo-Saxon Orders. For the

43

German Orders of the Coronation, see Schramm, "Die Krbnxing
in Deutschland bis zum Beginn des Salischen Hauses (1028)^
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte,
kan.Abt.XIIV (1955; quoted as bohrammj^Salier") , pp. 316,328

(25) Cf •8U2ra,n.l9. Xtoambiguously ^baptismal", if quite \inique^
is the ordination anointing according to the Ambrosian

rite:

•Et fundat oleiim super caput eius in modum crucis
dicens: "In noraine Patris et Filii et Spirit us sancti
ungeo te in sacerdotem magnum ad regendam ecclesiam
Dei et plebem universam." •
Cf •Magistretti, Pontif icale in usum ecclesiae Mediolanen-
sis (Monument a veteris liturgiae Ambrosianae,!: Milan,
1897), p. 53; Eichmann, ••Konigsweihe,''p.38; Ellard, Ordina-
tion,p,74. This form agrees almost verbatim with that of
the later coronation anointing of the Byzantine emperors,
cf >infra«p>00. For the relationship between baptismal and
ordination anointings, see the most interesting discussion
of Peter Damian, Liber qui dicitur Gratis3imus>c.3f Patr.
Lat»,CXLV,col.l02: •'Si quis autem mini fortassis objiciat
aliud esse baptismum hximanae regenerationis, aliud con-
secrationis ecclesiasticae dignitatem, nos quidquid in hac
parte de baptismo credimus, totum nihilominus et de con-
secratione sentimus. Nam cum baptismus totius ecclesiast—
ici sacramenti origo sit atque primordium. . • , ita nimirum
omnis ecclesiastica consecratio illi specialiter competit,
a quo omnium benedict ionum plenitude profluxit." See also
Patrol>iiat. ,CXLIV,col*529G.

(26) See, above all, the prayer peus Dei filius of the con-
secration of kings in which the Lord's baptism and unction
with the oil of gladness is commemorated and God is de-
manded that "per praesentem sacri unguinis infusionem
Spiritus paracliti super caputtuum infundat;" cf# Schramm,
••Salier,"pp.3l6f , and -Ordines,''pp.380f ; Eichmann,"K'(5nig8-
weihe,''p.l3fn*7« In certain English Or dines, the trinitar-
ian baptismal formula is said at the unction of the quuecn;
Of .Schramm, "Westfranken, "pp. 207, 229, 241; A(ard,jaiix£it* >P-558.

I

44

According to
127; Eic»MMum,"Kbiiig3weihe,-p.52. jht/the Anglo-Saxon, so-called

"Egbert- -Ordo, the choir sings the antiphony "Uhoserunt

Salome neo badoc sacerdos et fiathan prophet a" during the

act of anointing the king's head; of .Schramm, "West franken**

pp.214, 225; Ward ( supra. n. 24) .p. 353.

(28) See Charles the Bald's Llbellus proclamationis, in Patr.
Lat. ,CXXIVIII.col.659C; Monuments Germaniae Historica,
lieges Cfol.ed.) ,l,p.457.

(2i> In the Irish Collection of Canons of ca.TuO, a chapter is

h.
devoted to the subject "^Be ordinatione regis;" cf.wasser-

schleben, Die irische;ti j^anonensaTTTml ung (2nd ed.,1885j,p.
76; and in the Vita sancti Columbae abbatis there is the
narration about a dream in which the saint saw an smgel
•qui in manu vitreun ordinationis regum habebat librum;"
cf.Nova Legenda Anglie , ed.C.Horstman U901) ,I,pp.202f . To
these passages my attention was called by Eichmann,''Kbnigs
weihe,**24f. The expression is found somewhat earlier in
the Visigothic-Mozarabic liturgy tk which it survived
■nch longer tham elsewhere; see Morin, Liber comicus
(Anecdota jiaredsolana,!: 1893j,p*30l: "Legendua in ordina-
tione regis;" M.Ferotin, he Liber Ordinum (Paris, l§o4) ,
col. 502, offers further examples; see also F^rotin,"Deux
•anuscrits fislgothiques de la bibliothique de Ferdinand
1*^, roi de Castille et de L^on," Biblioth^que de I'^cole
des charteStiJCII (1901) , p. 383, an entry: "Ordinatio i;omni
Ferdinandi Regis* (ca.l055)* See also the Frankish Order,
•d. Schramm, "Or dines, "p. 370: "Benedictio ad ordinandum
regem," and the Anglo-Continental Order of ca.900 for the
ordination of a queen; Schramm, "Westfranken, "p. 206; Ward,
op.cit . tP» •

OO)

Eichaann,"'K5nigsweihe,*pp.l2f ,57ff ,67, and bchramm,'^Saliet^
n»235ff » disenss the problem briefly.

45

(31) See, innocent III, Rejg, ,vll,e£.3, Patr.i.at. ,CCIV>col.
284B/C, a decretal of 1204 (Decret >Gref^>II,I>tit^l3,&5) t
of which a better text is found in Corpus Juris CanonAcit
ed.E.Friedberg I Leipzig, 1881 J ,11, col. 132. Cf •Eichawinn,
•'Kbnigsweihe,"p.51; Schramm, "Salier, "pp. 2 56f; see also
infra, n. 37, for the king as an instrument of the Church.

(32) Innocent ill, locc clt.
133) Schramm, '•Salier,-pp.254ff .

(34) Eichmann, *'Die Adoption des deutschen Konigs durch den
Papst,* leitschrift fiir &echtsgeschichtetgera.Abt»IXIVII
(1916; ,pp.296ff . m Rome, even the a i>eo coronatus formu-
la with reference to the emperor was suppressed as far

as possible; of .E.Kant orowicz, i^udes Regiae (Berkeley,
Cal,,1944;,pp.OO.

(35) Patr.iiSt . tCIIV,^ls.3Lo69f ; cf. H.Lilienfein, uie Anschau-
ungen von btaat und i^irche im Reich der i^ro linger (Hei-
delberg, 1902) ,pp.l46f .

(36) Innocent ill, Registru« *e negotio imperii, n. 18; i-^atr.iiat.,
CCIVl,col.lul2; Eichmann, •'Kcnigsweihe,-pp.69f .

CITV

(37) Patr.,bat.,ClXV,col.

et diademata e^piti«-
tarn illorum impo]
bant

: "legifflus (write the bishops in

c
881 j in sacris historiis, quia,fi2m sacerdotes in regimine

regni reges unguebant^ legem in ^Minibus eis dabant, ut

discerent et scirent, qualiter se et subiectos sibi revere

et sacerdotes Domini honorare debeant.** Cf.l>eut. ,17,8-13.

(3B; See Plate l,l-2,

(59) F«r bt. Peter, see Jeanne vielliard, •Botes sur l*iconogra^
pkie de saint ir'ierre,- Le M^yen Age, HXU ( 1929 J, 1-16,
«iA for bt.Paul, see ii'ugen Rosenstock-Jiuessy, out of Revo*
lution (New lork, 1938; , pp. 529-537.

46

(40; Clemens Blume, Sewuentiae ineditae,n.255, Analecta Hymnica
XXIIV (1900), p. 208.

(4-1) Breviariua ad usmii insignis eccleslae Sarum, ed. F.Procter
and C.Wordsworth ( Cambridge, 1882 ), I, p. CCCL; Andr^ Mocque-
reau, Le codex F 160 de la bibliothlque de la cath^drale
de Worcester (Pal^ographie inusicale,III: 1922) ,fol.58.
The chant refers in both cases to the octave-day of Kpi-
phany. To trace the history and dissemination of this
canticle is beyond my intentions and present means. How-
ever, it seems to me that it was restricted to the brev-
iaries in which the MMm recollection of Epiphany as the
day of the Lord's baptism has survived in the West (cf.
Dom Anselm Strittmatter, "Christmas and the Epiphany:
Origins and Antecedents," Thought,IVII,1942,pp.625f ) and
that from the breviaries it has found its way into the
later mediaeval rite of the Blessing of Waters on Epiphany.

(4-2) Cf. infra. p. 00.

(43) This 1 gather from Hermann Usener's fundamental article
"Heilige Handling. "Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft.VII

(1904),pp.290f, reprinted in his Kleine Schriften.IV (1913)

p. 429.

(44) In addition to Usener's article, see the most important
study of Karl Holl, "Der Ursprung des Epiphanienfestes,"
Sitzun>;sberichte der T'erliner Akademie,1917, Abhandlung

U II, pp. 402-4 56. There is a broad literature on the sub-
ject; of. Strittmatter, 0£iCit., p. 625, n. 86, and Pierre de
Puniet, "Benediction de I'eau," Dictionnaire d'arch^ologie
chr^tienne et de liturgie.II (1912) ,pp.698ff . The edi-
tion of Oriental and Latin formularies related to the
Blessing of the Water by John Marquess of Bute and E.A.
Wallis Budge, The Blessing of the Waters on the Eve of
Epiphany ( London, 1901) , unfortu«ately has not been
accessible to me. However, the most important Eastern

47

liturgies for the Blessing of the Waters have been publi«
shed by F.C.Conybe^re and A.J.Maclean, Rituale Armenonun
(Oxford, 1905), pp. I65ff,298ff,415ff.

(4-5) Constitutiones Apostoloriim,V,c.l3f ed.F.X.Funk, Didascalia

et Const itutiones Apostolgrmn (Paderborn,1905) t }

cf. Roll, "Epiphanienf est, •♦p. 411. The importance of that

partly

day, of course, is/due to the fact that originally Janu-
ary 6th was coniiderea/tne birthday of Jesus.

(46) The Roman efforts of obscuring the Feast of Epiphany, which
perforce was also a day of commemoration of John the
Baptist according to Eastern rites, have been discussed
rarely; the fact, however, has been clearly evidenced by
Karl HolltOp.cit. ,pp.413ff t who indicates the competition
between Epiphany and Christmas and Homers championship of
the latter feast. Strittmatter, "Christmas and the Epipha-
ny , "Thought , XVII (1942),624ff, who rightly regrets that
this particular phase of the problem has never been in-
vestigated, styles the issue a case "in which Rome was
extraordinary unreceptive," and suggests "dogmatically
very serious" reasons to be at the back of this unrecepti-
veness. i« I am inclined to conceive of the issue as in-
dicating but one important phase of Rome's very long
struggle against the predominance of "John" in the Eastern
and various "Gtllican" rites, a preponderance which might
have eclipsed the superiority of St. Peter in removing him
to a second place. The antagonism climaxes in the well
known contest between the Roman basilicas of the Lateran
and St. Peter during the 11th and 12th centuries. I have
broached the problem in a study "Ivories and Litanies,"
Journal of the Warbiurg and Coiirtauld Institutes ^V (1942),
pp.78f , and may further substantiate it in a special
study.

48

(4?) The formulary has been edited by P.de Pimiet, "Formulaire
grec de I'Epiphany dans une traduction latine ancienne,**
Revue ben^dictinetXXIX (1912) ,pp*29-46. Cf •Adolf Franz,
Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter (Freiburg,
1909) ,I,pp.l93ff ; for the provenience of the manuscript,
which has been disputed, see V^Leroquais, Les pontificaux
manuscrits des biblioth^gues publiqiues de France (Paris,
1937),I,pp.292ff,No*91-

(49) This is the rite discussed by Usener, Kleine Schriften«

IV, pp. 429-435. Its connections with the Benedictio maior
salis et aquae, with the breviaries, and with Eastern
liturgies deserve to be studied in detail.

(49) V.Thalhofer and L^Eisenhofer, Handbucb der katholischen

Liturgik (Freiburg, 1912) , I, p. 685, connect the ritual with

■• ■■ casts

Exodus, 15, 25, where Moyses uzixs the wood into the waters

to make them sweet. This is certainly not the most ob-
vious meaning of the ceremony which has been explained
excellently by Usener , op. cit. , pp. 43Qff> Of. the inter-
pretation of John of Odsxm, in Conybeare and Maclean,
Rituale Armenor\im,p.l82: "per id commemorare (oportet)
Salvatoris nostri pro nobis in Jordane baptismum," and
he compares the realistic symbolism with that of Palm-
Sunday, •*quemadmodum in die adventus ramos tollere et
flabella movere (oportet) imitantes quodammodo Hebraeorum
pueros.'' Dies adventus refers to the Entry (adventus) into
Jerusalem; cf .E.H.Kantorowicz, ••The 'King's Advent' and
the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina," The

Art Bulletin.XIVI (1944), pp. . The male-female symbo-
lism of the prayers at the Blessing of the Water on Satur-
day in Holy Week, stressed by Usener, op. cit. ,p»433f finds
some support in Theodore of Studion, Oratio in baptism!
pervigilium t in A.Mai, Patrum nova bibliotheca^ V (Rome,
1849), p. 22, 0.7, while ibidU,o.8, a short but impressive
description of the Eastern Epiphany celebration may be
found.

49

(50) For the versiole adduced, see Rituale Armenoriun,pp«426,
428,429,433,cf •186ff. For the great hymn the clauses of
which all begin with the word ••Today" ( ), of.
A^Baumstark, "Die Hodie-Ant iphonen des romischen Breviers
und der Kreis ihrer griechischen Parallelen," Die Kirohen-
Sjusik, I (Paderbom,1909) fPP.153-160. For an early
example of these "Today" clauses, see N.Borgia, "Frammenti
liturgici antichissimi inediti," Byz,Zs,,]ax (1930) ,p.347,
which according to the editor may fall in the fourth cent-
ury.

, ^ (434-447)

(51) See, e.g., Proclus of Constant inAple>^ Oratio in sancta Theo

£hania, in Patr#Gr. ,LXV,cq1.761; Gregory the Thaumaturge,
Patriarch of Antioch (570-593), in Pate^Gr* ,X,col8.1179f ,
with an early Latin version published by A.Mai, Nova pat-
rum bibliotheca^II (Rome, 1644) , pp. 553ff. The same meta-
phors are found with various writers. Not only tkm images
such as" soldier-king" or "serf-lord" are repeated time and
again but also the one of "judge and defendent" (Proclus
and Gregory the Thaiamaturge) or "potter and clay" (Gregory
the thaumaturge and Antipatros of Bostra, in Patr.Gr. ,
LXXXV, col. 1763) as well as others are found frequently.
In Western literature metaphors for the reverted world
order are rarer; see, however, the sequence on the virginal
birth by Aegidius Zamorensis ( ), ed.Dreves, in
Analecta HymnicatXHII ( ),pp.233ff.

The homiletic literatxire
is of course enormously rich owing to the importance of
that day. See, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, Patr.Gr. ,XLVI»col8.
577ff; Gregory Nazianzene, ibid. ,1XIVI, cols. 360ff; Eusebe
of Alexandria, ibid . , LXXIVI , cols . 372f f ; see also the spur-
ious homily ■fyfik ascribed to John Chrysostome, ibid. ,
IiHV,cols.43ff . For early Western sermons which on Epi-
phany still refer to the Baptism, see HoH,"Epiphanien-
fest,"p.417 (Maximus of Turin, Chrysologus of Ravenna),
and add the most interesting pseudo-August inian sermons
CXXXIV to CXXXIX, in Patr.Lat. tXXXIX. cols. 2010-2018, which

50

often give the impression of being mere pharaphrases of
Greek homilies. Many of the Eastern homilies are dia-
logized and distinctly dramatized, e.g. the one of Gregory
the Thaumatiirge ( infra, pp. 000) , and George La Plana, Le
rappresentaziont sacre nella letteratiira bizantina dalle
origini al secolo IX con rapport i al teatro sacro d'Occi*-
dente (Grottaf errata, 1912) , pp. 72ff, points out the import-
ant rCle played* by these "dramatic homilies'* with regard
to tke development of the liturgical drama. See also the
Epiphany Kontakion of Romanos, ed.Pitra, Analecta sacra.
I (Paris, 1876), pp. 16-23* On the Epiphany celebration in
Byzantium, see Petrus Hendrix,

in Congr^s d'histoire du Christ ianisme (Jubil^ Alfred
Loisy) . II (Paris-Amsterdam, 1928), pp.

(51a)

Rituale Armeno3rum.p.419; it is found also in the Latin
version, see P.de Puniet, in Revue_b£n£d. ,XXIi (1912), p. 34,

(52)

See A.Heisenberg, "Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der
Palaiologenzeit," Sitzun/gsberichte der bayerischen Akada-
mie,1920,10.Abhandlung,pp.82ff , and especially the xxix
mklM valueble study of Otto Treitinger, Die ostrdmische
Kaiser'* und Reiohsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im hofischen
Zeremoniell (Jena,1958) , pp.12 5ff, and passim.

(53)

Constant inus Porphyrogenitus , De cerlmoniis aulae Byzan-
tinae, rec.J.J.Reiske (Bonn, 1829-30; here quoted as

De cerim.).I.c.3.pp.41ff ; cf .Treitinger, Zeremoniell, p. 35*
The acclamations, to a great extent, repeat the ideas of
the liturgy of the day.

(54)

De cerim..I.c.25.pp.l39ff . The "Today** clauses are not
recited by the patriarch, but he begins their recital
with loud voice; cf. Rituale ArmenQrum«p.431>

51

(55) The basis of this, I suppose, is Matth. ,19,12; of. Schmidt

, Neutestamentliche Studien
Georg Heinrici zu seinem 70>Geburtsta^ (Leipzig, 1914) ,
I am not aware that the problem of eiinuchs in Byzantine
civilization has been investigated. For the Greco-Roman
Antique, see A.D.Nock, "Eunuchs in Ancient Religion, ••
Archiv fur ReliKionswissenschaft .XZIII (1925) , pp. 25-33,
who emphasizes that the eunuch put himself on a footing
with the virgin and the pure child. For the Christian
attitude toward eunuchs, see in addition to the study of
Schmidt also Diotionnaire d'arch^ologie chr^tienne et de
liturgie tilt cols. 2369f ft s.v. "Castration; •• III V, col. 744,
s.v. ••Eunuques,*' where the interesting statement of St.
Jerome is discussed who held that the Three Youths in the
Ftirnace (Daniel, 3) were eunuchs. Their Phrygian attire,

probably meant to be "Babylonian," may have suggested
the costume of Atthis actixally displayed by the "Eunuchus"

Chereas in the Vatican Terence. That castus and castrare

( ) derived from the same root was

known to Isidore, Origines,X,c.33; •'castus primum a cast-

ratione dicitur;" cf .NocktOp.cit. ♦p.28.

(56) Codinus, De officialibuStrec. I.Becker (Bonn, 1839) ,c. 14,
p. 78; cf. Reiske's notes in De cerim. tVOl.II,p.227, who
indicates that the monthly aspersions were consummated
uil in the name of St. Mary while the Epiphany aspersion
was performed in the name of Christ. With liturgical ce-
lebrations I shjill deal in another connection.

(57) The fundamental study on the prokypsis is Heisenberg, op.
cit. ,pp.85ff ; cf . M.A.Andre eva, "De la o^remonie prokypsis^
Seminar ium Kondakovianumtl (1927) ,157-173 (in Russian);
Ireitinger, Zeremoniell ,pp . 112f f .

52

(58) Heisenberg,02^^cit.,p.92,n.l, believes that the prolprpsis
did not antedate the times of the Comneni.

(59) For a miniature representing the prokypsls (late 12th
century), see J.Strzygowski, "Das Epithalamion des Palao-
logen Andronikos II., Byz.Zs.,! (1901) ,pl.VI,2, facing
p»554; HeisenbergpOPjOit. ,p.96.

(60) See, in general, Treitinger, Zeremoniell,pp.79ff . Orations
for the Epiphany prokypsls have been preserved in not
small a number* W. Kegel, Fontes rerum Byzantinarum
( St. Petersburg, 1917) , has edited the following orations:
pp*24ff ,No.III, an oration of Eustathius, Metropolitan of
Thessalonica (1174 or 1175; it is found also in Patr.Gr. >
CIIXV,cols.933ff)f which refers to the orator^s election
to the See of Myron, but contains so many allusions to
Epiphany that January 6th must have been the day on which
it was delivered; pp.l31ff ,l65ff ,N03.VIII and X, two allo-
cutions of Michael the Rhetor of oa.ll53 and 1150 respect-
ively; pp.244ff,No.lIV, an allocution of John Kamateros,
ca.ll86; pp.254ff ,No.XV, one of Georgios ItwggwtgyyMT
Tornikes, ca.ll93; pp.304ff ,No.XIX, one of John Diogenis.
Several of these together with the newly edited Epiphany
oration of John Syropulos have been discussed by Max
Bachmann, Die Rede des Johannes Syropulos an den Kaiser
Isaak II^Angelos (Munich Dissertation, 1935) • Several poems
for the Epiphany prokypsls (probably falling in the years
1172 and 1173) have been composed by Manuel Holobolos,
ed.J.F.Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca,V (Paris, 1833) fpp#
I64ff (Nos.V,VI),170ff (N03.I-IIII),and 176ff (Nos.XV-
IVII); they have been discussed by Hei3enberg,op>cit. ,
pp.ll2ff , according to whom (p. 129) poem XV may belong to
a Christmas proKypsis. An additional Epiphany poem of
Holobolos has been published by M.Treu, **Manuel Holobolos,^
Byz.Zs. .V (1896) ,pp.546ff . Three poems by Theodorus Pro-
dromus and addressing John II Comnenus (1118-1143) have
been edited by A.Mai, Nova patrum bibliotheca,VI (Rome,

53

1855),pp.412f ,Nos.IVI-aVIII; on the poet, see Carl Neumann^
Grlechlsche Geschlchtsohrei'ber und Geschichtaquellen im
zwolften Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1888) , pp. 37ff. See also the
general remarks of Dblger, in Gnomon, XIV (1953) ,pp.205f fOn
the court rhetoric,

(61) An evaluation of these texts has been promised by Mr. A.
Kerscher, a pupil of Professor F.D'dlger (of .Gnomon, IIV,
1938, p. 20^), but the war may have made publication im-
possible.

(52) Prodromus, No. XVIII, A.Mai,0T).cit. .p.413> The image of the

**two suns" is reminiscent of Dante,Purg. ,XVI,106ff :

Soleva Roma, ohe il buon mondo feo.

Due Soli aver, che I'una e I'altra strada
Facean vedere, e del mondo e di Deo.

The antithesis Sol Justitiae - Sol invictus goes back to
Constantinian times; see for the problem F.J. Dblger, Sol
Salutis (Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen,
XVI/XVII: Mun3ter,1925).

(63) Prodromus,No.XVI, Mai.op.cit. ,p.412. The antithetical com-
position is found in a very similar way, though applied

to Christ and Frederick II, in a poem of ca.l229 by
Marquardt of Ried, probably a crusader cleric of Passau:

Jerusalem gaude nomen Domini venerare
Magnifica laude: vis ut dicam tibi quare?
Rex quia magnificus gesus olin, nun Fridericus,
Promptus uterque pati, sunt in te magnificat i.
Obtulit ille prior semet pro posteriore
Et pro posterior sua seque prioris honore.
Hie Deus, ille Dei plus ac prudens imitator...

Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scri£tore3,IX,p.625. The

images. in the poem of Prodromus are obviously traditional;

e.g., the "bath of sweat" as an analogy to the "bath in

the Jordan" has been rehashed by Holobolus (Nos.XVI and

XX), Boi3Sonade,op.cit.,p.l77, and Treu,0£jCit. ,546, line 4,

(64) Prodromus, No. XVII, MaitOp.cit. tP.412.

54

(65) See, for these representations, Andrd Grabar, L^emperexir
dans l*art byzantln (Paris,1936) ,pp.l02ff . Epiphany was
the Feast of Light, and all the prayers of that day refer
to Christ as the ^ux; ro tK zov ^iozoc, or use similar terms;
cf>Ritixale AnnenoriUD,pp>4l6ff ♦ All this made it easy to
compare the emperor with Christ as ••sun;'* of .infra, n*67#

(66) Cf.Bachmann, Syropulo8>p»26»

(67) Eustathius of Thesaalonica, in Kegel, Fonte3,p.6l,7;
Michael the Rhetor, ibid. , p. 151, 14; John Diogenis,ibi4. ,
p»305,2; Theodorus Prodromus, in Neumann, Griechische Ge-*
schichtschrelber<p.6l, and p.67,lines^ 70f :, ^

The examples are no end; ci.bolger, in Gnomon tllV (1938),
p. 209. The emperor as ••Helios" appears also in the
official documents; see, e.g., Dblger, ••Der Kodikellos des
Christ odulos in Palermo," Archiv fUr Urkundenforschung^
XI (1930) , pp. 2, and 24,n.l. See also Heisenberg, op.cit. > .
pp.93ff; Treitinger, Zeremonie 11 , pp . 112f f , and passim;
Bachmann, SyropuloStPp.22f .

(68) Eustathius, ed. Kegel, Fontes,p.25,10:

(69) To investigate the historical development of the increas-
ing volume of the cult of John in the East would be a
primising study. In Egypt, even the Trisagion on Epiphany
was ••farced^' with commemorations of the Baptist; cf.
Theodor Schermann, Axyptische Abendmahlsliturgien des
ersten Jahrtausends (Paderborn,1912) ,pp.222f . The East
celebrated also the feast of St.John^s Conception; cf •
Baumstark, ••Orientalisches in altspanischer Liturgie,'*
Orians Christianus, XXXII (1935) ,PP*18ff . St. John was re-
presented, in later times, with wings (cf .Kantorowicz,
"Ivories and Litanies, "pp. 71f ) , and liturgical Incomia
were offered, in addition to Christ and Mary, only to
John; cf.La Piana, Le rappresentazioni sacre^p.49>

55

(70) This has been excellently discussed by Grabar, L'empereLir,
pp.ll2ff.

(71) HoloboluSjNoV, Boissonade, Anecdot a t V , pp . I64f ; Heisenberg,
'*Pg^laiQlo^Qnzeit>'*p^ll7> See also Bachnoann, Syropulos.p^ll

;cf. infra, n. 90

(72) For the cooperation of the patriarch, see De cerim^ ,I,c,43.
pp*220,15ff , and 224,20ff; slightly different (the patriarcV7

V says only a prayer), ibid, ,1,94, p* 432, 5ff/ The presenta-
tion of this ceremony by Charanis, in ByzantiontXV (1941),
55 (including n.36), s±xu evokes a quite wrong impression
because he combines the coronation of the emperor and that
of the co-opted caesar as though it were one act: the
emperor being crowned by the patriarch passes the crown
on to the head of the caesar ♦ This is, to say the least,
misleading,

(73) Patr«Gr, tLXIV,cols,43ff t a spurious sermon ascribed to
John Chrysostome,

(74) See the sources adduced by Treitinger, Zeremonie 11 1 P > 13 1
n.l6«

(75) De_oerim*,I,c*91,PP.410ff, esp,413,10ff . The study of
Charanis, "The Imperial Crown Modiolus and its Constitu-
tional Significance," Byzantion.XII (1937), pp.l89ff, has
not convinced me regarding the "constitutional signifi-
cance" •

(76) See for the tocography Jean Paul Richter, Quellen der
byzantinischen Kunst>z:e3Chichte (Vienna, 1897) ,p.l46, No. 602.

(77) Treitinger, p. 13f.

(78) Cf .Brightman, "Byzantine Imperial Coronations," Journal of
Theological Studies, II (1901) ,pp.380f , who translates the

56

passages from the Euohologion sive Ritiiale Graecorum, ed.
J*Goar ( Paris, 1730) , pp. 726fl, a book at present inacces-
sible to me^

(79) The prayer over the chlamys resembles the customary suppli
cations for the emperor (of., e.g., Brightman, Litxirgies
Eastern and Western, I, p. 533, 4-25) t though with some ela-
borations. The parallel between the angelic acclamations
before God and that of the people before the emperor has
been stressed already by L.Br^hier and P.Batiffol, Les
survivances du culte imperial romain ( Paris, 1920) , p. 46;
Treitinger, ZeremQniell,p.79tn.l68. Narsai, Homily XXI,
ed. R.H.Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (Texts
and Studies, VIII, 1: Cambridge, 1909) fp.57, mentions that
the priest imitates the spiritual beings, when '•holily he
teaches the people to cry'Holy.' The utterance of sancti-
fication of the heavenly beings he recites to men, that
they may be crying 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord • .•• The angelic
acclamation is adduced in connection with the Baptism in
the Jordan by Michael the Rhetor, in Regel, Fontes,p.l31f
17:...olov it 'loycfxvoii x,ov (3(xTTri69'evr^ Xji^rov iv%P^iv^i\/

(80) De cerim.,I,c.43>p>225,2. Cf >supra,n.25, for the corres-
ponding formula in the Milanese rite.

I,c.41,

(81) John Cantacuzenus , Historiae,/ed.Schopen ( Bonn, 1828-32) ,

I,p.l98; Codinus,c.XVII,p.90.

(82) Euohologion der orthodox-katholischen Kirche, translated

by Michael Rajewski (Vienna, 1861-62) ,111, p. 21; of. II, p. 36,
for the baptismal unction. For the ••Seal" formula cf.
F.J.Dolger, Sphragis. Eine altchristliche Taixfbezei^hnung
in ihren Beziehun^en zur profanen und religiosen Kultur
des Altertums (Paderborn,1911) fesp.pp.l84ff .

57

(83) Heisenberg,'^Palaiologenzeit,'*pp.89ff f has discussed the
coronation prokypsis very thoroughly and has reprinted
also the three related texts, namely Cantacuzenus,x^pB«l:|p '
volJI,p.x|fc; Codinu8,c*XVII,p.96f ; and an anonymous frag-
ment first published by Ch.Loparev, in Festschrift zu

Ehren von D,»>Kobeko ( St.Petersburg, 1915) tPP. 1-13 (in-
accessible to me). The acclamation , alluding
to the rising of the "Helios'* emperor (cf.Dcilger, in
Gnomon, XIVtl938.p>2Q9) « is found in very much earlier
times (cf .De_cerim# ,I,c.43iP.2l6; I,c.69fP.3l6) and might
as well suggest an earlier date of the prokypsis than dis-
closed by the sources; cf ^HeisenbergtOp.cit, tP.lllt and
also the prokypsis poem of Nicholas Eirenikos, verse 104,
ibid*,p*lD4.

(842 Carl Schneider, "Studien zum Ursprung liturgischer Einzel-
heiten ostlicher Liturgien, I: ,•• Kyrios, I

(1936), pp. 57-73.

(85) Brightman, in Journal of Theological Studies, II (1901),
p.381.

(86) The words of the Epiphany liturgy

(cf .Hendrix,
••Der Bflysteriencharakter der byzantinischen Liturgie,**
B£ZjrZs^,XXX,1930,p.338,n.l) illustrate also the coronation.

(87) A quotation from Michael Psellus, cited by Charanis, "Cor-
onation,* Byzantion,XV (1941) , p. 61, n. 58, and others. How-
ever, I cannot follow Mr. Charanis in his conclusions; see
below, n. 90.

(88) Grabar, L*empereur,pl.IXVIII,6.

(89) Grabar, op. cit. ,p.ll7.

58

(90) The patriarch as every priest represented at a given nioment
Christ the Highpriest; cf. the discussion of Jungmann
(3U£ra,n.l5) ,pp«211ff ,and j^assim. At other times, however,
the celebrant compared with an angelic being, or with an
apostle, or with John the Baptist (see next note), and all
these various relations could and would intermingle at any
moment and thus give every action its complexity. I quite
agree with Treitinger, Zeremoniell,p,79,n*l68, who indic-
ates the way of how the Byzantine "hier jeden Gedanken
mehrmals umschreibt und so viel Griinde und Beziehungen fiir
ihn aufbietet, dass der einlinige 'Kausalzusammenkang^
unter solcher Vielfalt fast zusammenbricht und eine mysti-
sche Gesamterhohung mit vielen Einzelbeziehungen an seine
Stelle tritt." I therefore cannot accept Mr. Charanis*
merciless syllogism when he says: "The patriarch, ih crow-
ning the emperor, represented Christ for Christ alone had
the power to invest an emperor with the regalia of his
office," a statement which he supports by Psellos' remark
(cf .supratn.BT) that the emperor was crowned "not by man
or throTigh man but from above." To my mind, Mr.Charanis
drives towards overestimatirig the functions of the patri-
arch at the coronation, though indeed he is very correct
in emphasizing that the patriarchal cooperation at this
ceremony was indispensable. The reasons for this "indis-
pensable", however, should be sought in another direction.

(91) Cf. Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo CXXXVIII, Patr.Lat. ,XXXlX>col.
2017: "Joannes ergo iroplebat babitum saoerdotis;" Michael
the Rhetor, in Regel, Fontes,p.l31f :

See further Theodorus Andidensis, Commentatio liturgica,
c.ll, ed.Mai, Patrum nova bibliothecatVItP*557:

Most interesting in this connection is a miniature of the
fourteenth century, reproduced by Grabar, L^empereuTt

59

pl«IXIII,2. It is a more or less traditional "coronation**

scene. The heaven is open and releases an angel putting

the crown on the head of Ivan Alexandre, Czar of the

Bulgars. To his right is Christ, "Czar of czars and czar

we .find
eternal;" wMl to his left/the chronicler Constant ine

Manasses whose chronicle in a slave translation is adorned

by this frontispiece miniatxire. A later hand, however,

re-named this figure and wrote beside his head "S# Johanne^^

Baptista" so that the Czar appears between Christ and the

Precursor and with a crown-bearing angel hovering above hii>

head.

(92) Eustathius of Thessalonica, in Kegel, Fonte8,p.25f lOf :

(93) This at least is the version found in Matth.,3,16, and
Marc, 1,10. According to Luke, 3, 21, it was the prayer of
Jesus that made heaven open; cf. G.O.Williams, "The
Baptism in Luke*s Gospel," Journal of Theological Studies^
XLV (1944) ,pp.31ff ; see also R.Reitzenstein, Die Vor-
j^eschichte der christlichen Ta\ife (Leipzig, 1929) tP* n. .

(94) These ideas are repeated time and again, alike in East and

West; see, e.g., the Epiphany mass of the Missale Mixtum,

have
Patr.Lat. ,LXXXV,col.236, which 1/ quoted together with

a letter of Alcuin to Felix of Urghel, in Monument a Ger-

maniae Historica, Epistolae,IV,p.27Q,26,No.l66. To trace

the heterodox opinions here is not the intention.

(95) Nicephorus Bryennius (1077) crowned himself but was not
recognized; cf.Charanis, "Coronation, "p. 54, n. 31, who dis-
cmsses also ^he case of Const ant ine XI.

(96) This, I gather, is also the opinion of Charani8,op.cit. ,
p.59,n.52

60

(97) Cf. the article of Hendrix, quoted abovem,n.86.

(98) Pat2\Gr^,X,ools.ll78ff; see also the old Latin translation
published by Mai, Nova patrum bibliotheca.II,pp>553ff .
and the discussion of La Plana, Le rappresentazioni sacre^
pp.72ff.

(99) Especially in the orbit of the Mandaean doctrines which
placed St. John above Christ, it was necessary to stress
the right proportions; see, e.g., the homily of an Armen-
ian catholicos of the ninth century, Zachariah, who says:
"And the Holy Spirit for this cause came down in the form
of a dove, that none of the foolish might suppose that the
voice from heaven referred to John." Conybeare and Maclean^
Rituale _Armenorum,p.l85.

of invitation

(100) The formula/for abrogating Judaism at the baptism, as

found in the Rituale Romanum, is "horresce ludaicam per-
fidiam, respue Hebraicam superstitionem." That perfidia
had originally the connttation, not of "perfidjr** as at
present, but of "infidelity" has been proved by Erik
Peterson, "Perfidia ludaica," Ephemerides Litur/^icae,
L (1936),pp.296-311*

f\ti. ig^ic.

^m^\ {i^[A\rr(mr(C'7 (^/Jjir-^'cM

Q u

^/H

r^/

<?

I

PC

Jull^-S Ah J \:j\M

k\\ RITr.S

(See notes on next. paf!;e. )

I

This pe-.er is one of those cited in Jurnbarton Oaks
Parsers, XVII (1963), lib (a p^^efsbory note to Kantorovjicz ^ s
"Oriens August! — Lever du Roi "^ ) in this fashion:

Tills article, wiuct: is ijascd on a paper ri,aLi ^i jJumbarlon
Oaks on April 5, 1951. ^vas to have been ll^e first of a series
of "Studic? Eastern and Western in the Histoiy of Late
Classical and Mediaeval Ideas." The scries was to liave in-
cluded the following additional titles:

"S^'nthronos"

"Roman Coins and Christian Rites"

"Epi})liany and Coronation"

"Charles tlie Bald and the Ka talcs Cacsarum"

"Roma and the Coal."
Professor Kantorowicz was able to correct the proofs of the
present paper before his death on September 9, 1963. In
accordance with his expressed wishes, plans for publishing
the other studies in the .«;eries will be abandoned. Oc-
casional references to some of these studies in the footnotes
liave been allowed to stand.

Kantorowicz ' s last will and testament siti^^-ulated that none
of his unpublished papers vrere to be published, for he did
not think of any scholarly work as "has" until he had re-
leased it for publication.

If, therefore, anyone choose^to cite this pa oer in
print, the reference should be impersonal. Do not say
"Kantorowicz says in ^uch and sucirj*, or '^Kantorowicz
beliei-ed..." but rather something like "the unpublished
paper bv -^^antorowidz on [this or that] is useful for the
problem of [such and such]".

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PAGE IN PHOTOCOPIES MADE OE THIS ARTICLE

I

HOMAN CO IN S /\N.:) CHRISTIAN PJTKS

'Ihe 55mall three-rinfr-notebook cor»'r is the only
complete version of this pnr^er thnt survives. The
letter-,c,-T^^^ vers* on, n later drfl^t, corresponds
to the beginning of the notebook version: 1-]^ of
the former equal 1-3 (near the bottom) of the latter
find P3-3U o^ the former to li;-2U of the latter.
Missing in the Inter version, nr. 5-^2, is the section
devoted to Concordia.

»

I

N COINS AND CHRISTIAN RITES

(Baltimore, March I960)

■==== = *= = = =:sr = sr=:=:

Harold Mattingly, the eminent English numismatist*, once dropped

an incidental remark which (I believe) will fairly describe

the subject of this lecture. When discussing a Kerovingian

coin on which a Roman winged Victoria had assumed the meaning

of a Christian Angel, Mat ting ly mused:

"Victory no longer flew over the battlefield. But God still
"sent his Angel to bear triumph to the side, which HE plea-
"sed to accord it; and the winged victory-angel with paljn m
"and cross still appeared on the coinage. There must be
"other such survivals by transference that would repay
"investigationT"

Other such "survivals by transference" indeed there are. And they
are not at all rare. I would even venture to say that most

•

of the events which ancient Rome customaril-^r commemorated by
issuing a special coin or medallion, were echoed in the early
Church by a ritual act - a mass, an oration, a benediction,
or a lesson. And very often the prayers would reproduce,
in some way or another, even the very stockphrase or technica
term which the insctiptions on^ coins traditionally displayed.

(^)^ Coins of Constantine the Great and Licinius bear the legend:
Vota Crbis et Urbis - "Vows of the World and the City" -
and poets would address the emperor in those later times as
Lux or Spes Urbis et Grbis. We cannot help thinking of the
solemn moment when the Pope, from the Loggia of St. Peter's,
gives his blessings QRBI ET URFI, to the world and the city
of Romc| he himself the successor of the Cesars, the LIGHT
and HOPE of the World and the City.

may recall also the numerous coin issues commemorating the emperors
^ Comings and Goings to or from Rome. The emperor's departure for
^2V^war, his PROFECTIO, was usually represented by a procession in
which the emperor on horseback was guided by either a military
precursor or by a VICTORIA. The echo of the Church was an ORDO
IN PROFECTIONE REGIS ET EXERCITUS. celebrated most elaborately
in Visigothic Spain; was a Hymnus in profectione exercitus |i#
transmitted in a Visigothic Breviary, and was a Missa in pro»
fectione in the early Carolingian Sacramentary of Gellone. All
these liturgical sources still have the technical term PRCFECTIC

I

which later on disappeared. And in one of the prayers of the
Carolingian Profectio Mass God was entreated to send his angel
that he may walk before the Frankish hosts now marching to war.
This is a faithful "survival by transference": the angel walking
before the new Israel has replaced the winged goddess of Victory
walking before the «fnperor and his army.
(3) The Roman coins celebrating the Felix Adventus Augusti, The "happy

arrival of the emperor" in his city, displayed a pattern almost
with

equal te that of many Profectio coins: a Victory leading the
horse by the bridle. To this image the Church, in its likewise
rather elaborate ORDO IN ADVENTU or IN RECEPTIONE REGIS respon-
ded with the antiphone:

•

Ecce mitto annelum meurn - "Behold, I send my anpel who
shall prepare the way before thee."

This, too, appears like a faithfiil translation into words of

/

the ancient Roman coin image.
All that, of course, does not imply that the rites of the early

Church simply descended from the Roman medallions, or that
the early liturgist who composed a blessing or a prayer or a
f^ass, first rummaged his pockets to find a suitable coin to
be transposed into words. All I wish to say is that both
coin images and ecclesiastical rites a*»e- reflections of a
language of symbols which for centuries Empire and Church had
in common, which were current for many centuries within the
^ Roman world, and which were generally understood without a

commentary. In other words, there existed a great number of
immutable religious symbols or "values'* which were subject to
a very mutable religious "interpretation." And all I wish to
show is the closeness of that interrelation, and how some of
the then living religious values abiding in Roman coins sur-
vived in the rites bf the Church "by transference," that is

sjct xot out c^ Y^t ro^vtt "HOvv . — — — —

by changing their original meaning more or less completely^\,

From airiong a score of possible examples, I have chosen for the

present discussion only two items: CCKCORDIA, here restricted

4^

to her function in marriage rites; and

CALCATIO

COLLI, the treading on the neck of the enemy. Each of these
subjects has its own interesting history which stands out in
full relief only if the details are taken into consideration.

•

I

I may start with the sugpestive catena iconographica of marriage
coins. Some links of that chain are well known whereas
the most interesting ones have passed unnoticed.

Tlie ancient Roman marriage rites were taken over by the Christian
Church with very few changes. The auspices of the augurs,
of course, were abolished, and the sacrificium nuptiale,
the nuptial sacrifice of wine or incense, was eventually
"converted" and became a nuptial mass. But the legal and
ceremonial aspects: the reading of the marriage consent
from the tabulae nuptiales, the signing of the tablets,
the handing over of the dowry, the dextrarum iunctio or
clasping of the right hands, and the cooperation of the
deity confirming the legal action and protecting the mar-
riage, the Pronuba or Pronubus — all that underwent few
changes, or changes only with regard to the tutelary
deity.

In pre-imperial and early imperial times, the goddess uniting and

I

(1

I

(^)

protecting the young couple was Juno. In that capacity,
Juno pronuba was shown standing between the young couple
and putting her hands on the shoulders of groom and bride
who clashed hands. This scene was often represented on
the sarcophagi, as on the one in the Iffizi, or on that of
the Belvedere where we also notice the altar for the
sacrificium nuotiale.

The imperial wedding coins, however, reflect T.ath few exceptions

/^

/

(^I" ^^^ ^^^^ o^ Concordia, the concord of the bridal couple. They

^ display tht dextrarimi iunctio wliile the inscription explr.ins
(7) CCNCGRDIi^j. or (as on a coin of Caracalla and Plautilla) CONCOR-
DIA£ AETERNfg.

oncord," to be yure, was not the original meaning of the ceremony,
Origihally the Roman bridegroom did not clasp hands with his
bride, but (reminiscent, as it were, of the "Rape of the Sabine
i/yomen" ) took the bride by the wrist to indicate that she was
given in his possession and power and was obliged to "obey and

serve him." Concordia certainly was a very ancient Roman god-
did
dessj but only gradually/she grow into the role of a marriage

deity, apparently at a time when the notion of concord had been
m- assimilated to and influenced by the Stoic idea of Homonoia -
implying not only the concord of those concerned, but als the
greater "harmony of the universe." And it was that broader
cosmos harmony of which eventually the bridal couple was sup-
posed to be an exponent. Thus, the "Rape of the Sabine V\iomen"
had been philosophized and philanthropized. It v>ras replaced,

under the influence of Greek Philosophy, by a completely diffe-
rent state of mind and of mood.

In the course of this development, imperial marriage coins began to
6)91 display Concordia herself acting as pronuba. As a Concordia

felix she solemnizes the marriage of Caracalla and Plautilla or
puts her hands on the shoulders of Marcus Aurelius and the
younger Faustina as they clasp hands and receive the Vota publi%

1

occasioned by their marriaf^e. Concordia establishes, as it were>
both the \inison of the august couple and its unisonance with the
eternal harmony of the universe,
whereas Concordia prevailed as a marriage goddess, her place could yet
be taken by another oatron deity. The emperor Aurelian made the
^^1^ of Sol invictus an official cult of the state. Fittingly,
(10) we find the Sun god, the new dominus imperii, who by his rise
conquers the demons of darkness and brings peace to man, as the

pronubus, the unifyer and solemnizer of the marriage of Aurelian

12^\h

Ou

and Severina.
e gods began to shift. It is not surprising, of course, that in
late gold-glass the picture of 6upid is found acting playfully
^ as an Amor pronubus, his hands resting on the heads of the

couple. It strikes us, however, as more curious to find, in the
(11) time of late paganism, a gold glass displaying a Hercules pro-
nubus; CRFITUS ET C0N5TANTIA IN NC^'INE HERCULIS reads the in-
scription. Hercules, it is true, offers the golden fruits of the
Kesperides which form a very old nuptial symbol^ and since the
pomegranates contained many seeds in one skin, they were also a
symbol of Concordia. But the presence of Hercules is not .justi-
fied by the three fruits alone. In the political theology of the

I

late empire Hercules was above all the heroic savior of man who

all sorts of
liberated the world from/monsters, and who therefore appeared as

the great pacator mundi, the pacifyer and concord-bringer of the

in the act of
world, whose statue, aoLxWcrowntife himself, had its place in

(12 )a

/

froiiof the temple of Concord on the Capitoline Hill. And in
• this capacity Hercules pronubus may well have taken the place

of Concordia pronuha.
The more numerous the representatives of Concord, the greater of

course the discord in the Roman world and the graver the poli-
tical situation. According to Hellenistic political theories

supreme
it was the odxkm± task of the Prince to establish within his

empire the Homonoia. the Concord, of his subjects and to attune
them to the harmony of the universe. The emperor now was
honored as the pacator mundi, the pacifier of the world, and
he was recognized as the living "Concord of the human race"
with regard to both the political and the private spheres.
Is it surprising, then, to find the emperor himself in Concor-
dia's place as the Imperator pronubus?
Perhaps we should recall the fact that in the later empire contracts
- including marriage contracts - were frequently signed before
the emperor's image; also, that the solemn oath, if such was
taken, was delivered by the genius, the Tyche, ''of our uncon-
cuered lord and august emperor." That is to say, the emperor

in his capacity of guardian of contracts and solemn oaths
could be recognized even in the legal sphere as an incarnation

of CONCORDIA. And represented in this role x>re find, in an
^ aureus of h37, the emperor Theodosius II. The haloed amperor

gives his blessings to the marriage of Valentinian III and

Licinia Eudoxia, while the legend surrounding the imperial

'€
iM

8

pronubus and the likewise haloed couple reads FELICITER

NUPTII3.

^e know from the evidence of the papyri that in the later years of

Theodosius II the official oath foi^nula was christianized. The
imperial Tyche was still invoked, but this invocation was
henceforth preceded by the invocation of Christ or the Holy
(13) Trinity. At the next issue of imperial wedding medallions, in
h'^O, we find that Juno pronuba and Concordia, Sol invictus and
Cupid, Hercules and the imperator pronubus have ceded their
place to Chris tus pronubus, 'Hie bridal couple, the empress
Pulcheria and her consort Karcian, the first at who^e corona-

!

/

tion the Patriarch extended the blessings of the Church, are

haloed and diademed like their predecessors, and the central

figure appears in quasi -imperial attire. Only the cross-halo

the change
of the pronubus indicates/and allows us to understand that in

the Christian empire Christ was the new pacator mundi, who
incidentally, in a verse inscription of ca.b^O in Ravenna, was
praised as cuncti concordia mundi. "the Concord of the whole
world."

The aureus of li^O, however, was not the first representation of Chris-
(lU) in the role of Concordia pronuba. In the sarcophagus reliefs

I

of the fourth century Christ is sometimes shown in that role,
and the iconographic continuity here is no less striking than
in the case of the coin images. The sarcophagus of the Villa
Albani is badly mutilated, but enough is left to recognize not

only Christ in the place of the Roman Roddess, but also the
m ''^^^'" ^°'' **^^ sacrificlum nuptlaV. which now has been turned
(J) appropriately into a lectern carrying a Gospel Book.

Koreover, the continuity by transference disclosed by the monuments
is Strikingly confirmed by the texts of the first half of the
fifth century. Around 1,00 A.D., Severianus of Gabala wrote m
a sermon which is also transmitted under the name of the bishor
of Ravenna Petrus Chrysologus,/in which he says:

"When the images of two persons. . .are painted, we often
"c^f tvl*!?^^' ^^^ Pf "ter, so as to emphasize the unanimity
rarb "7t' P^^";,^-"^ °^ them a Concordia in female
l£^' ;.„? r T" u^^ ^^^"^ °^ the Lord stand in the
0^. center to teach us how separate bodies may become one

J This is a most accurate description of th. change which, by
)aOC A.D., had taken placr^, the substitution of^Concordia by
Christ. Koreover, Paulinus of Nola, who died in 1^31, actuallv
uses the Roman technical tenn pronubus for Christ when in the
Epithalamium for his son he writes:

Sw'^^esuf sE'nd^'''"^"^ "^ "^^^y ^'' ^^= Christian
-Law, desus stands as pronubus.. .

^nv,if5^ ^^^^ "^'^^■"'tibus ads tat lESUS

For all the available evidence, however, is it correct to say that
Christus pronubus simply replaced Concordia pronub.? is the
Ol^^ change mSrely an iconographical problem? A masterpiece of
J goldsmith's work in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, a Syrian
rr.arriace belt of the fifth century, may give the answer. The
il6J^ central medallions show Christ as the unifier and solemnizer

ic

t

/

who unites the hands of the bridal couple. What matters is the
inscription. It reads:

EK eEGY HCMONCIA - "Harmony, Concord deriving; from God"
with the words XAPIC and YflEIA, "Grace" and "Health" in the
exergue. That is to say, Homonoia or Concord no longer ruled,
or even had existence- in her own right as an independent god-
dess^ having her own temple and altar, but had become subserv-
ient. She now proceeds from God, or is an effluence of Christ.

This change reflected also upon the bridal couple. No longer were

groom and bride embraced by the natural harmony of the universe
in which they participated and of which they became an exponent,
a likeness by their Homonoia. Their hands are noxv .joined top^eth-
4^ er by a sacrament, by a spiritual principle bestowing upon them
(17) CGNCCRD as a special gift like Grace and Health. Although mar-
riage rings would continue to display the word Homonoia, and
the marriage rites mentioned the CONCORD by which bride and
groom were united, something essential had changed: the couple
no longer appeared as the manifest likeness, the visible mimesis
of the purely natural order of the world ^j'^tvU UifM ^ Ccucc-rdU^i.

And yet, the Idea of mimesis, of reflecting an authoritative model,
was rot lost, nor was it absent from the Christian ritual. In
the Epistle to the Lpl .-sians (^,2-), St. Paul enlarged upon the
• image of the marriage of Christ to the Church, a chapter which

appears in almost all Christian services of the Solemnization of
Matrimony. It serves as a Les^^on and pervades the prayers; and

11

t

/

it still is incl\ided in the Book of Common Prayer where, in the

introductory prayer, the estate of matrimony is praised as

^*an honorable estate, instituted of uud, signifying lea unto
us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his
Church."

And once more, towards the end, a prayer invokes Crod,

"who hast consecrated the state of Katrimony to such an
excellent mystery, that in it is sif.nified and represented
the 5pirit\ial marriap^e and unity betwixt Christ and his
ChurcTu

Thus, the lovinc;^ unity, the HOKO^XIA or CCI^CGRDIA between Chris-
and his Church, as represented by the Virpin ^'ary, becomes the
model of the bridal couple.
This formula must be far older than o\ir late liturp:ical texts would
#' suggest. On the bezel of a wedding ring of the sixth century
we recogrdze the celestial couple, Christ and Kary, the King
and v^ueen of Heaven, as they dispense their blessings to the
(19) bridal pair. The word HGmONCIA, which ap(:)erirs also on a simila:
if more elegant ring of the D.C. Collection, refers to both

couples: to XP and Mary as the model, and to the human couple

A

as the antitype and mimesis of the exemplary harmony of king

and cueen of heaven. And therewith the idea of HOMCNCIA or

unexpected
Harmony has regained, once more, a spacial depth and/perspect-

ive.

This then, we may assume, this doubling of the couples- celestial and
1^ terrestrial - should be considered the original contribution
to the idea of CONCORDIA on the part of the Church. Or does
this concept, too, have its antecedents on Roman coins?

11

t

it still is included ir. the Pook of Common Prayer ^^''*-^>-e, in the

introductory prayer, the estate of matrimony is praised as

^an honorable estate, instituted of God, signifyinp ts unto
us the nvstical union that is betwixt 'Christ and his
Church.**

And once more, towards the end, a prayer invokes '"rod,

"who hast consecrated the state of Katrimony to such an
excellent mystery, that in it is sipnified and represented
the spiritual marriap^e and uiiity betwixt Christ and his
C hurch.

Thus, the Ipvinp/ unity, the HCMorciA or CCKCCRDIA between Chris-
and his Church, as represented by the Vir^^in ^'ary, becomes the
model of the bridal couple.

This formula must be far older than our late liturf^ical texts would
suggest. Or the bezel of a wedding rinpr of the sixth century
we recogrdze the celestial couple, Christ and Kary, the King
and ^ueen of Heaven, as they dispense their blessings to the

(19) bridal pair. The word H XIA, which appears also on a simila:

if more elegar;t ring of the D.C. Collection, refers to both

couples: to XP and Mary as the model, and to the human couple

A

as the antitype ana -^.imeF^is of the exemplary ha^^ony of king

and cueen of heaven. And therewith the idea of ' ' ' lA or

unexj)ected
Harmony has regained, once more, a spacial depth and/perspect-

ive

This then, we may assume, this doubling of the couples- celestial and
terrestrial - rhculd be considered the original contribution

to the idea of C

lA on the part of the Church. Cr does

thiis concept, too, have its antecedents on Roman coins?

12

In 176 A.D., the Roman Senate pas?ed a decree ordering that, on their

t

wedding day, the bridal couples should offer a sacrifice on
an altar placed in front of the colossal silver statues cf th{>

emperor Karcus Aurelius and his empress, the youTigrr raustina,

in the temple of Venus and RoTna. SiFiilar decrees are known

«
from Eirypt. Kost explicit, hovever, is an earlier inscription

frorri Lstia. That city consecrated an altar for the imperial

couple Antoninus Plus ana ^he elder Faustina to the purpose

that ^

"oh insignem eorum concordiam - for the outstanding har^iOny. •
of the imperial couple, the maidens that marry at Ostia,
and their grooms, shall offer on that altar on the dav of
their wedding. "

quji^ij

^> iTicsc were not merely words. A superb coin, a sesterLius of Anto-
ninus Pius, shows us not only the colossal statues facing
each others it shows a scene strikingly s>nT.hcli zing the unison
harmony, and consonat rythm of macrocosmos ana microcosnos.

(22) In the center we recognize the altar and, before it, the cert-
rarum iunctio of bride and groom. The two smaller human
figures are framed, and overshadowed, bv the statues fwe rccog
nize the pedestals) of the Divi, of emperor air. empress, who
clasp hands exactly as the newly wedded pair at their '"^ot.
Koreover, the emperor carries on his left hand the statuef of CC

r

DIA whose naroe we also read in the inscription and who creates.

as it were, the harmony of all three spheres: the human, the

imperial, and the uiiiversal. Concordia proru'^a is effective
by her own cosmic power of rendering harmony; but she w.elds

13

her power also through the mediator ship of the prototypes, the

^^ 5ilL> ^^^ ^^^ "^he Tnimetai of the heavenly order, ^rhereas man
becomes a mimr r/is of the ruler.

All that opens some wider perspectives. We may think not only of the
"holy wedlock" of Oriental rulers in imitation of the gods,
(^3) hut may think also of the CCNCORDIA coirs of emperors of the

third cp.rtur>', of the imperial couple Septimius Scverus and
Julia Domna, showing the emperor radiate as Sun and the emp-
ress on the crescent as Koon. And we may recall the marriage
of the Sol lustitiae, Christ, to the woman Having the T'^oon
txnder her Feet (Rev. 12,1), that is, according to customary"

exegesis, the Church.

And we may add, for what it is worth, that kDt the Byzantine

and Russian laarriage rituals remember in the Dismissal net only
Christ and Fary, but also Saint Cons tan tine the Greet and
Saint Helen, the emperor *5 mother. In this concentricity of
human, saintly -imperial, and divine couples there is, it is
true, some resemblance with the former concentricity of human,
imofrial, and \iniversal spheres. Put the Christian imperial
saints no longer were the esqponents, or models, of that natural
Concord of the world which the Roman Sestertius sugFes^e:^
Saints Constantine and Helen have become exponents of that
spiritual world order which the inscription of the D.C. wee
belt proclaims : EK 0ECI C K - Concord a gift coming from

God.

^

Il4

From Harmony and Concord we may now fittingly turn to the opposite.

t

T

to Hostility as expressed by the CALCATIC GOLI.I, the
stepping on, or kicking, the neck of the enemy.
In 69^, the Emperor Justinian II was swept away by a revolution.
The usxirper Leontios, soon followed by another usurper,
Apsimar, forced Justinian to go into exile. The ex-basileu;
- after an adventurous life of ten years in the course of
which he married a Chazar princess - recovered his throne
in 70^ . He had sworn not to spare the head of c-. single^^ of
his adversaries, and he made his promise true. But before
their execution, the two usurper -emperors were drapped in
chains to the Hippodrome ard were cast prostrate beneath thi
throne of Justinian II. And the emperor, comfortably plant-
ing a foot on the neck of each, watched cheerfull^ for an

(2I4J hour the races of the chariots.

A coin of Valens and Valentinian / fairly illustrates a similar

scene

. It is the day of the VCTA, January 3, customarily

t

celebrated by games. Valens has lifted his right hand to oc

cast the mappa into the arena, the slpn for starting the

show, while his feet, and those of his co-emperor, are

resUng on the backs of prisoners. The two emperors might

have stagedlthe first versicle of Psalm 109:

"Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool."

This, however, was not the way the people of ConstanUnople inter-
preted the scenario in 70^. To be sure, Justinian II with

iMa.

t

p

1^

the defeated usiirper-emperors beneath his feet posed, as it

vjere, likewise a biblical tableau vivant^ which the people

translated into the 8hrist-c entered iconograpliic lanp,uap.e then

tOhtck
current in Byzantium. They F^rasped the imaf^Cythe imperial

christomimetes, the imperial actor of Christ, was staging and

shouted incessantly the tri\amphant 90th Psalm:

"Th2>u shalt trample on the asp and basilisk^

Cn the lion and dragon shalt thou set thy foot."

The people, by transposing a saene of life into biblical
woA, did what the artists had done before. For the Christian
artists had translated biblical verses into the language of
imperial court imagery, and the court iconography was applied
to the imagery of Christ: in the mosaics of Ravenna Christ
appears even in the emperor *s uniform when trampling on lion
and dragon •

The problem involved

is perhaps not quite as simple as that.

Uhen

To be defeated in war or battle is always a bitter fate. But
it need not always imply disgrace, <tiffamation, or dishonor of
a moral kind on the part of the defeated.

erT we look - sind I avail myself of some observations made by Prof.
Herbig and the late Prof. Rodenwald - when we look at a
Greek representation of victory, e.g. the tomb of Dexilecs in
the Athenian cemetery of the Keramcikos, a work of the early
fourth century, we certainly visualize not only the glory of
the victor but also the human tragedy of the defeated. Life

16

I

will be blown out of the succumbing warrior in the next moment,
^ and dying he has the terrifying sight of the charger rearing

above his head. The horse's howes will go down on him as the

horseman's lance will pierce through him.

The scene touches us directly, because it touches us hmenly. There U

no.hatred for either victor or vanquished, nor love, let wc

^ that

hold our breath for a mement, for we feel/ the dialectic in thai

relief equals the dialectic of life and death itself. The
victorious horseman hinself seems to know that Moira or Fate
might just as well have reversed the roles, and that it might
have been he that was defeated and was to lie under the
horse's hooves. Victor and vanquished are humanly equals^ and
X therefore their rSles might as well have been exchanged, even

in the last minute.
All that is indeed very different when we turn to a late Roman repre-
sentation of an imperial victory, to the Paris C^eo showing
probably the triumph of the emperor Ucinius or a later ruler.
A quadriga carries, not the proverbial "prancing proconsul,"
but a self righteous prancing emperor. Victories lead his hor-
ses, genies of East and \«iest hand him the globe of the world.
The victor is the executo? of the orovidentia deorum, which on
coins of the third century, is sometimes depicted as a Gorgoniai

(27)

(28

I

^^1^^^^

Head. His chariot wheels over his foes, barbarians perhaps or
rebellious subjects. Those unfortunate devils are certainly
not a match for the emperor nor are they his equals, as the

17
difference of size indicates. They are dpprived of human
dignity and indi^/i duality. They nre not simply defeated; they

W are, so as to use our present unattractive parlance with re-
gard to human live^ "liquidated." They are licuidated like
nauseous vermin and unfortunately remind us of practices ex-
perienced in our own time.

At any rate, there is not even the potentiality of dialectics, of a

merciful Moira that might .lust as --^^ ^^^^J^J^^^^^^^^
come of the strug,p.le. The outcome is final and inevitable|. The
roles could not have been exchanged here, for a new element,
hostile to agonal thinking, has been introduced: that of GOOD
and EVIL. The emperor, ever victorious and almost the gods*
equal, is always good and just and righteous; and his adversa-
ries are not simply defeated men, Vut are bad and wicked and
evil. The qualifications of good and evil, now connected with
politics or the iirf!iW^of the empire, have to justify the
scene of that mass -judgment. And ^^dth those qualifications the

T

2

former hu^an equilibrium of victor and vancuished have gone.
The revolting scene may reflect political -norals, but it no
longer touches us directly, because it does not touch us

huTianly.
The posture of putting the foot on the neck of the defeated or, as
here, the rolling of the chariot over the dwarfed vanquished
is of Eastern origin. \«e find it not rarely in Egypt. V-e find
it sporadically in Hellenistic Greece. It seeTns to have been

a novelty to the Jews, when Joshua (10,2; ) ordered his reluct-

an x<

1

9)

18

t

(30

army-chiefs to go and set their foot on the necks of the five

defeated Amorite kings, saying to tttBOCi his officers:

"Fear not, nor be dismayed. For so ^-dll the Lord do to
all your enemies, against whom you fight."

And in the xsaLus there is more than one versicle alluding to

that custom.
j It vould be difficult to tell exactly wher this Eastr- c^.^ression of

to1,al victory penetrated Roman thought. For originally it was
a gesture foreign in Roman art. During U'.e first century, the
emperor's victory was still represented after the pattern of
the Dexileos .lab: t^e e.^emy, e.u^l xn si ze vxtn t.ne emneror,
is brought to his knees and may die, but still he can try to
defend himself. Then, under Hadrian, the ne-.^ oriental posture
of victor was fully developed. Hadrian's colossal statue from
^cTeC Which had several parallels, shows the emperor, his face
menacing, as he puts his foot on the head of the concuered foe
whose size of body now is far smaller than that of the emoeror.
What Hadrian represents is obvious. For his statue is aooarently
(jgj modelled after that of the goddess NF^^ESIS. Although a very

ancient Greek Roddess, her representation with the broken wheel
in her hand and the foot firmly set on a human head, is not
Greek at all. All the eight or ten copies of the type you see
here, arc of Egyptian origin or worked after an Egyptian model
I not antedating the first centurv A.D. The Hadrian colossus,
at any rate, indicates that the emperor appears as the imper-
sonator of Nemesis, which would justify his treading the enemy

tinder his foot.

t

19

I

Inexplained, however, there remains the fact that the emperor's

t

political adversaries became the fiend, or that his political
foes came to be morally the "Fiend of Mankind."

This equation begins to make sense when we remember that the emperor
himself became synonymous with the genus humanw, with MANKIND.
Already Pliny had styled Nerva the "Father of mankind," And
from Galba to Caracalla we find coins with the inscription
SALUS GENERIS HUMANI (The Welfare or Salvation of Mankind),
(33) until finally in the third century, undy^^Valerian and Gallienus,
an ecstatic visionary, an emperor saviourlike anr! Helioslike,
sented as the RESTITUTCR GENERIS H13MANI, the restitu-

is repre

tor of the human race#

/

m

X That is to say, re -distance was not simply a resistance apainst th€
individual emperor "body natural", but apainst the emperor
"body corporate," against him as the incarnation of the whole
human race. And thus it came to pass that the barbarians or
the rebellious subjects were truly the "fiend," the dragon, the
enemy of mankind in general; ^^-^^ c'^^^ ^ »

. Moreover, bVthat time the Sun Deity, Sol invictus, or SUNRISE, Sol
ORIENS, was shown time and time apain treading on or kicking
his enemies, the spirits ^darkness and demons of evil, and
therefore fiends of the human race. And if we consider the
the close relationship between the Sun-God and the Emperor in
the third century, it can hardly surprise us to find the
emTDeror acting after the fashion of his divine companion. For
his enemies, too, were demons of darkness ^>rithout restriction.

(3M

I

(3^

20

Hence, the later Roman Empire was, also in that respect, well pre-

t

(36)

X

(37)

(^

t

pared for the great change under Constantine. Eusebius,
when referring to Constantine 's victory over Licinius, says
quite bluntly that his hero "triumphed at once over the
enemies and the demons." This victorv over the demins and
the enemies of the Christian religion was more than a meta-
phor. For in the vestibule of his palace Constantine had an
nted showing him as he pierces his lance through

image pan

Licinius, who was represented in the Fhape of a serpent, the
fiend of mankind. V^e think at once of Constantine »s famous
SPES PUPLICA coin: the vexillum, displaying the portraits of

the three emperors, is crowned by the Christogram while the

.^;
ferrule pierces the snake.

Even more telling is perhaps a later series of coins
which was started by the emperor Valentinian III {h2<-)i«).
The emperor holds in his right hand the cross-staff, in his
left the globe with Victory, while his right foot treads on
the head of a serpent. Certainly not an ordinary serpent,
but a serpent having a human head. And ancient tradition has

it that the human head of the snake bore the features of

Christian ¥u^iA crc Hta^^

ATTILA • Tt is the/victory, not over #bb& enemy, but over

THE enemy^ of the Christian religion and the dragonlike
fiend of the human race, comparable to the victorv of Christ
over lion and basilisk.

Into the strictly liturgical sphere we are finally guided by a series

21

I

(39) of medallions of Constantine's successors. B> virtue of the

Labarum which he holds in his ripht hand, the emneror Constan-
tius TI becomes the victor oter the Barbarian peoples:
TRTUMPHATOR OENTIW BARBARARUM reads the inscription.
Now here is a case of an almost verbatim congruency of coin and

prayer. For m the litany of ^ the early Eastern liturgies
ikcmi.,4^ the suffrage for the emperor:

"And subdue to him all the barbarous nations" (Kai hvoota-
xon auto panta ta barbara ethnee) •

This suffrage has survived in the West, too, where it is found
in the orationes solemnes on Good Friday:

"...ut 5..ibdTtas illi fPeusI fpciat omnes barbaras n.ntiones"
( that our God and Lord may subdue to him all the barbarous
-<^ nations).

"'Although Christian prayers for the emperor and the magistracies in
general go back to the earliest times, there can be no doubt

^ "^hat the special petitior for the sub.iection of all the bar-
barous nations belongs to the time after Constantine had estab-
lished his peace with the Church. For only after the enemies
of the EMT^IRE had changed also into enemies of the CHURCH did

r it make sense to pray for the sub.iection of those beyond the

frontiers of the Empire, who were pagans or infidels. Vve may
recall also the fact that for St. Jerome the "Barbarians" did
not belong to the human beings, to the human race at all^ and
Prudentius explains in so many words that the difference be-

I t

tween a Roman and a Barbarian
1. (Straub, Historia,!).

that betweena ruadruped »«d

22

This attitude of Christian authors makes it clear to us how readily

the extinction of human vermin, that is, Barbarians/, such as
it was displayed in the Cameo, would have been accepted.
At any rate, the coin inscriptiob TRIUMPHATOR OENTIUM BARBARARW, *-

, belongs to the same

period as the liturgical suffrage for the "subjection of all
the barbarous nations."
How actually the Utany suffrage could be combined with the calcatio
colli, may be' gleaned from the Book of Ceremonies of Constan-
tine Porphyrogennetus, describinpr the ceremonial Observed

after a victory over the Arabs.
The emperor. In preat procession, arrives at the Forum. So does the

patriarch of Constantinople. Then the captured Arabs are ^*
led before the emperor w-ose throne Is placed on the steps of
Constantines preat porphyry column. Nov the imperial lof'otbet,
has, to brinp the 'Saracen &mir to the throne and bend the
Emir's head under the foot of the Basilo-a^J. At the same time
another officer imposes a lance on the neck of the prostrate
Emir. The emperor touches the lance or holds it for a while
in his right hand, thus posing the coin image. At that
moment the precentor intones the aporopriate Psaljn, which was
followed by the litany. When the litany arrived at the
suffrage: "And subdue upder his feet all that is hostile and
inimical" (that is: all the barbarous nations), the crowd
responded with )iC Kyrie eleison, whereupon the patriarch said

C-

the prayer,

22

This attitude of Christian authors w^ikes it clear to us how readily

t

the extinction of

' ^

f i

23

(hO-hl

ke notice that in Byzantium the treadinp on thp neck of the |oe,
^ the calcatio colli, has become a full-blown ritual act and an
established part of the imperial liturpy. Something similar,
however, was known also in the '.est, at least in the imapery
of the Roman Pontiffs at a time when the pope befran to claim
being the verus imperator in the V^estern world.
The wall-paintinps in the Councilroom of the Lateran, rlorifyinfr the

triumph of the papacy during the Struggle of Investiture and t
the victories of individual popes over imperial anti-oooes,
are now destroyed. Renaissance drawings of the lost/paintings
however, have been recovered by Dr. Ladner and they are

extremely interesting.
They show (left to right) Pope Alexander TI and Pope Pascal IT,
their feet resting on antipopes. The one crouchine under the
feet of Alexander II is described (un uomo con la barba
biancha) he is the antipope Cadalus of Parma.
Interesting is the fourth image of that gallery of tri^mphart pon-
tiffs. Pope CaTUxtus II. He holds in his left hand the
Concordate of worms, of 1122, which terminated the Struggle
of Investiture. The document is held also by the Emperor,
Henry V - the emperor standing, the pope sitting on his
throne and comfortably resting his fe'^t on the antipope
Gregory VIII Purdinus, while from hieh heaven Calixt's pre-
decessor. Pope Gela-.ius II who had suffered from thetantipooe,
is watching the scene. There is no doubt whom. In the West,

2li

we have to recognize as the lepiitimate heir of the Py7,r?ntine

Basileus.

John of Salibury mentions in a letter that these wall-paintinps in

the Late ran were most liberally shown to laymen and pilgrims.
This may explain the origin of a totally novellistic story,
historically untme, but widely known... the story av^out the
peace of Venice in 1177, which Pope Alexander III concluded
with the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who had elevated no
less than three imoerial antipopes.

()'2) V,hen the emperor, so the story has it, orostrated to kiss the
foot of hi 5^ former adversary, Pope Alexander Til quicklv
withdrew the foot and, placing it on the emperor »s neck,
chantedm the famous versicle of Psalm 9C:

I shall trample on the asp and basilisk;
On lion and dragon shall T set my foot.

"I am doing honor not to you, but to St. Peter," cried the
emperor; to which Alexander replied: "Et mihi et -etro,"
«to both me and St. Peter." All of which is faithfully —

^u\ai-f ftt4 i(

\

rendered in one of the more important books of the English
Reformation, in John Foxe's Book of Mnrtyrs.

Se-^weh- ftfeevt Roman Coins and their radiations ii^Christian Rites.

Let* ttiaf Ih, He Cti^

ROMAN COINS AND CHRISTIAN RITES

IHHH^^H^^^

Harold Mattlngly, the eminent Enijlish nwiismatlst, once dropped an

incidental remark which, I belieTe, will fairly describe the subject of

this study. When discus«^inf a Merovingian coin on which a Roman %dnfed

Victoria had assumed the meaning of a Christian ani^el, Mattinitly mused:

Victory no longer flew over the battlefield. But Ciod still sent
his angel to bear triumph to the side which HE pleased to accord
it; and the winged rictory-angel with palm and cross still appeared

on the coinage* There must be other such surrlvals by transference

1
that would repay investigation.

ether such^surrivals by transference** indeed there are: and they are not
at all rare. One might even venture to say that most of the events which
ancient Rome customarily commemorated by issjiuinr a special coin or medal-
lion, were echoed in the early Church by some ritual act - a mass, an oration,
a benediction, or a lesson. And very often the prayers would reproduce,
in one way or another, the very key-word or technical term which the legends

on coins traditionally displayed.

Coins of Constantine the Great and Licinius display the legend: VOTA

*

ORBIS ET URBIS^ Moreover, poets would address the emperor Lug [or Spesi urbis

3
etorbis. The words later appeared in the Coronation Order of the pope; for

at the

rite of immantling the pope with the imperial cappa rubea.

the Prior cf the Cardinal Dmcohs spe^\is the fonowing fonntila: "Intr#^tio

U
te de pap&tn romano, ut presl? ur^i et orbi.* And %iho would net think of

Hie sol«im menent when the pope, frow the Logfia of St. Peter's, gives his
blessings WietOr^, he himself the successor cf the Caesars, the "Light

and Hope of the City and the Viorld,"

¥• siKnild recall also the rxjmercnis coin issues coHPiMiorating the

or* 8 comings and goings to or from Ro»e. The e«q>eror's departtire for

war, his profectio, begam %dth a lustration on the Capitol before he left

City with his army. The coins show the emperor oo horseback, sometimes

and »a»«tiines vitMn a procession, a Victoria marching in front of

bin while stjttdSLTd^bearers and soldiers representing the army fcrmed the
cortege. The ocho of the Church was a highly elaborate Ordo quando Re:

cm Exerciv^ s.d ^elixn erre-dltvr such as ^ is found in the Visigothic

6

IlbT Or^BLmtk, reflecting the cowiitioriS of the seventh century. In the

aaeieot ?asilica Praetoriensis, the chardi of the Visigothic praetorians or
royal guards, a real rite of lu-tration was perfomed in the course of which

bi

d to the king a golden processional cross which was to be

carried during the campaign perwanertly before the crtiperor mounted on horse-

, so that at the Christian Prcfectio the Tictorious Cross took the place

of the

Victory. In the Visigothic Breviary there is also a Hywnus

ho5tAw.

in profectjom riarr.ltufi. ^riA th«re i? u Missa in profectiotte

emitibuy ir proelitir ir th^ early Carolingiwi Sacrawentary of Gell««f

IC
which with 8lM(lit changes remained wHd f«r mtmf e«ttt«lea. Tlmmm

litTxrgical soiarcef^ have preserved also tlie ter^taical term Prefer tlo. ^cTf<>r^T

in the Carolinpiar Mass Ir Prof ertl one bcytlm God waa witreated to send
Mf anpel that lie inaT wtlk before the Franlcish lK)Fts now marching te war-

11

The pray«r, tt be f^e^ refers to the anpjel walkinf before Israel after the

froir EcTPt (B«i. 23,2o-23). Nevertheless, the An^el walking

before the Frankish armr appears also Hkc a faithful "

by trans-

verence" of the cot» images >?^<ere the winre« foAless of Victory walks before

tile emperor and his army.

The Roman coins celebraUng the miT APTCTTDS AX^iml di5played
a ptr^em almorl equal with that of the Prcfertdo coins: a ▼ictcria leadiag

the emperor's horse by the bridle and stamaard-bearers marohLni behimd the

12
horse* To this image the Church, in its likewise rsther

«fl lanperBtorem (regem) smeeipi

itiphone: E-^-^e

mf ttr Enre^int mew - ♦'Behold, I send my angel who shall prep^t the way
before thee.'' This, too, appears as though it were a faithful translatioa

tato words of the ancient RoiMtt eeln imsfs*

All that, of coiarsc, does not imply that the rites of the enrly
Church simply descended from the Roman medallions, or that the early lituridst
who composed a blessing or a prayer or a mass, first rummaged his pockets to
find a suitable coin to be transposed into biblical words* All that is to
be indicated here is that both coin image? and e«clesiastical rites were
reflections of a language of symbols which for centuries Empire and Church
had in common, which were current within the Roman world, and which were
generally understood without a commentary by pagans and Christians alike.

In other words, there existed a great number of imwutable religious symbols
or "values" which were subject to a very mutable religious "interpretation.
What this study is concerned with is to demonstrate, by means of a few

llj

examples, how close the interrelations were between Roman coins and Christian

rites, and how some of the then accepted values abiding in Ro«aB coins sur-
vevd'in the rites of the Church "by transference," that is, by changing their

MC-^

original meaning more or less completely, JBlft not out of recognition,

23

2. Galea tio colli
In 69^, the Emperor Justiniar! II was swept away by a revolution. The
us\irper Leontlos, soon followed by another usurper, Aosimar, forced Justinian
to go into exile. The ex-basileus - after an adventurous life of ten years
in the course of which he married a Chaiar princess - recovered his throne
in ICfi* He had sworn not to spare the head of a single one of his adver-
saries, and he made his promise true. But before their execution, the two
usurper emperors were dra^ped in chaines to the Hippodrome and were cast
prostrate beneath the throne of Justinian II. And the emperor, comfortably
planting a foot on the neck of each, cheerfully watched for an hour or so

82

the races of the chariots.

A coin of Valens and Valentinian I fairly illustrates a similar scene,
It is the day of the Vota, January 3, which customarily was celebrated by
games. Valens has lifted his right hand to cast the mapoa into the areaa,

the sign for starting show, while his feet, and those of his co-ewperor,

83
are resting on the backs of prisoners (fig. 33). The two emperors might

have staged the first versicle of Psalm 109: "Sit thou at my right hand,

8h
until I make thine enemies thy footstool." This, however, was not the way

the people of Constantinople interpreted the scenario in ?0<. To be sure.

2h

Justinian II with the defeated and chained usurper emperors beneath his feet
posed, as it were, likewise a biblical tableau vivant which the people trans-
lated into the Christ-centered icono^raphic language than current in Byzantim,
They grasped the image which the imperial chri stomfcnetes , the imperial actor
of Christ, was staging and accordingly they shouted incessantly the triximphant
90th Psalm (verse /3): "Thou shalt trample on the asp and basilisk; on the
lion and dragon shalt thou set thy foot." The people, by transposing a
scene of life into biblical words, did what the artists had done before.
For the Christian artists had translated biblical verses into the language
of imperial court imagery after the court iconography had been liberally

applied to the imagery of Christ: in the mosaics of Ravenna Christ aopears

86
even in the emperor's uniform when trampling on lion and dragon (fig.3l)«

The problem involved is perhaps not oulte as simple as that, although

it is certainly true that "paradoxically... this pagan-brutal fashion of

87
triumph was furthered by the chri sti animation of the empire."

To be defeated in war or battle is always a bitter fate, ^ut it need

not always imply disgrace, diffamation, or dishonor of a moral kind forthe

88
defeated. When we look at a Greek representation of victory, the tomb of

Dexileos in the Athenian ccmetry of the Kerameikos, a wort of the early fourth
century, we visualize not only the glory of the victor but also the human

2*?

tragedy of the defeated. Life will be blown out of the succxanbing warrior
in the next moment, and dying he has the terrifying sipht of the charger
rearing above his head. The horses hooves will go down on him as the
horseman's lance will pierce through him. The scene touches us directly
because it touches us humanly. There is no moral element involved in this
combat, no hatred for either victor or vanquished, not love. Tet we hold

Y

our breath for a moment, for we feel that there is something dialectical

Dexlleos, ,
in that relief which equals the dialectic of life and death itself. JJw/ i*u.t

. ^.j

""'T^-—m~ ■

"^^ "^ of the tombstone who had be«i slain In battle,
victorious horseman /fomself ^eems to Icnow that Fate might Just as well tar

have turned against him and reversed the roles, and that it might have \men
he that was defeated and was to lie under the horse's hooves. Victor and
vanquished are humanly equals; they are like brothers, and therefore their

rSles might

as well have been exchanged, perhaps even in the last

minute.

All that is indeed very different when we turn to a late Roman reprewta-

tion of an imperial victory, to the Paris Cameo showing probably the tri\»iph

89
of the Emperor Licinius or a later ruler (fig. 36). A quadriga carries, not

the proverbial "prancing proconsul," but a selfrighteous prancing emperor.

Victories lead his horses, Genies (of Bast and West?) hand him a globe each.

26

He is the victor, the executor of the Providentia deorum which, on coins of

90
the third century is sometimes represented by a Gorgonian head (fig.37)»

His chariot wheels oVer his foes. Barbarians perhaps or rebellious subjects*

Those unfortunate devils are not a match for the emperor, and they are cer-

tainly not his eqxials as the difference of size indicates. They are

d prived of human dignity as well as of individuality. Nor are they simply
defeated; they are, so as to use our present unattractive parlance with regard
to human lives, "liquidated." They are liquidated like nauseous vermin and
unfortunately remind us of practices experienced in our own time. At any
rate, there is not even a potentiality of dialectics, of a merciful Fate
that might Just as well have reversed the outcome of the strup^le. The
outcome is final and inevitable because it is politically moral to liouidate

/ \

the enemies of the govemaant or of the empire. Here the roles could not
have been exchanged, for a new element, utterly hostile to ap'onal thinking,
has been introduced: that of Good and Evil. The emperor, ever victorious and
almost the gods* equal, is always good and Just and righteous; and his adver-

1/

saries are not simply defeated men, but are always bad and wicked and morally
inferior: they are simply evil. The qualifications of good and evil in a

purely poliUcal sense, now connected even with the security of the empire,
have to Justify the scene of that mass Judgement or mass liquidation. And with

27

those political qualifications the former human equilibri\an of victor and

UA-*

vanqui shed

z/

gone* The scne may reflect political morals, but it no

longer touches us directly, because it does not touch us humanly, or only

in the sense that it is plainly revolting.

The posture of putting the foot on the neck of the defeated or of

kicking him in the neck or, as in the Cameo, the rolling of the chariot

91
over the dwarfed vanquished enemies is of Eastern origin. We find it not

92
rarely in Egypt, though it seems to have been a novelty to the Israelites

when Joshua (10,2b) ordered his reluctant army-chiefs to go and set their

foot on the necks of the five defeated Amorite kings, and said to his

officers: "Fear not, nor be dismayed. For so will the Lord do to all your

93

enemies, apainst whom you fight." And in the Psalms there is more than one

versicle alluding to that custom. It would be difficult to tell exactly

when this Eastern expression of total victory penetrated Roman art and

9h
thought. While the kicking of the vanquished is found on coins of Trajan,

9<

there is a plaque from Niederbieber shcfwing Caligula standing ob the bodies
of the defeated enemieaC Side by side with these representations there are
others which, during the first and second centuries, display the ew^^eror's
victory still after the pattern of th« Dexileos slab: the enemy, equal in

size with the emperor on horseback, is brought to his knees and will probably

28

succumb; but his defeat lacks the element of humiliation although he may

97.
have little chance to defend himself (fig. 38)*

Under Hadrian the new posture of victor was fully developed. His
colossal statue from Hierjpytna on Crete, now in Constantinople, shows the
emperor, his face menacing, as he puts his foot on the head of the conquered

foe whose size of body now is far smaller than that of the emperor and who

98
is defeated apparently without a preceding struggle (fig. 39). What Hadrian

represents has been indicated by several scholars before. For his statue

99
is apparently modelled after that of the goddess Nemesis (fig.)'O). Although

a very ancient Greek goddess, her representation with one foot firmly set tm

100 the

a human head is not Greek at all. The nvmerous replicas of type of Nemesis

standing on Hybris defeated are mostly of Egyptian origin and are worked

101
perhaps after an ex voto image in the Nemeseion of Alexandria. The Hadrian

colossus at any rate suggests that the empwor here appears as the impersona-
tor of Nemesis, a role which would .justify his treading on the enemy. This
enemy, however, was not simply a personal enemy, but it was, and became
more so in the course of time, synon^ous with the "Fiend of Mankind."

We have to remember that the emperor was identified with the ^enus

102
humanum. The legends/i of coins proclaim him the salus generis humani or

103
the resti tutor generis hfnani. That is to say, resistance against the

29

emperor was not simply resistance against him individually, but against him
as the incarnation of the whole human race. And thus it happened that
the barbarians, or the rebellious subjects, were the enemy of mankind in
general, and of the savlou^emperor in particular. Moreover, by the
third century the Sxin-god, especially as ORIENS, was showi on coins time
and time again as he treads on, or kicks, his ehemies, the spirits of darkness

or demons of evil which he scares away and conquers by his rise in the

lOl
morning (fig. hi). If we now consider the close relationship between

the Sun-god and the emperor in the third century, it can hardly surprise us

to find the emperor acting in conformity with and after the fashion of his

divine comes, as seen, for an early example, on an aureus of Probus to

10^
demonstrate the VIRTUS PROBI AUG, (fig.h2). The emperor's enemies, too,

were demons of darkness without restriction and the fiend of mankind.

The later Roman Empire, so we notice, was also in this respect well

prepared for the great change to come under Constantine the Great. Eusebius,

when referring to Constantine 's victory over Licinius, says in so many
words that his hero "triumphed at once over the enemies and the demons."

106

This equation of political enemies and religious demons was more than a

metaphor. For in the vestibule of his palace in Constantinople, Constantine,

30

107

according to Eusebius, had an image painted showing him as he pierces

his lance through axinato Licinius, who was represented in the shape of a

108
serpent, the fiend of mankind and the Titiquus serpens > We think at once

of Constantine's famous Sps SPES PUBLICA coin: the vexillxan, displaying the

images of the three emperors (Constantine and his sons), is crowned by tx

the christogram while the ferrule pierces the snake • a victory of Christ

through the emperor over the dragon and fiend of

man (fig»h3)»

109

Even more telling is perhaps a later series of coins which was started
apparently by the emperor Valentinian III (h2^-U<*^). The emperor holds the

cross-staff in his risrht hand, the globe with a Victory in his left, while

his foot treads on the head of a serpent, a serpent having a hman head

110
(fig.hli)^ This is not simply the victory over any^ or ,1ust another^ enemy

and
who has been defeated , it is the victory over THE enemy, the snake, m as

such comparable to the victory of Christ over lion and dragon* Ancient tradi-
tion has it that the human head of the nodi serpent bore the features of

111
Attila. This is interesting, because according to Suidas, Attila, when

he conquered Milan in !'?2, took offente of a wallpainting in the imperial
palace showing the two emperors sitting upon their golden thrones and, in

prostration at their feet, some captured Huns. Thereupon Attila, so we are
told, ordered a painter to overpaint the wall and paint a picture of Attila

31

sitting upon the throne and showing two Roman emperors pouring a sack of

112

gold coins to the conquertr's feet.

All that has as yet nothing to do with the liturgy or with Christian
rites. Into the liturgical sphere, however, we are led by a series of
medallions of Constantine^s successors. The emperor - Constans I as well
as Constantius II - are shown holding the Labarum with the christogram in
their right hand, and through this sign the emperor becomes v*ctor over
the barbarians: TRIimiWATOR OENTHJM BARBARARUM reads the inscriptio«(fit*

113
h*?). Here if a case of an almost verbatim congruency of » coins and

prayers. For the great Ektene, the Litany of the Eastern liturgies, con-
tains a suffrage for the emperor imploring God that he Jp may "subdue to
him all the barbarous nations" ( ^-^or^^o^ i^oTc^ TTt^vroc roc ,^^S,^^$'^

t\l\ V, r^ Ti:>'^5 Ti'^/V e^i r.v^ -0 e ( o v

This suffrage has survived

in the West too where It is found in the Orationes solemnes on Good Friday:

"Oremus et pro Chrlstianissimo imperatore vel rege nostro 111, t ut

Deus omnipotens subditas lllis faclat omnes barbaras nationes ad

11=;
nostram perpetuam pacem."

Although Christian prayers for the empcror,and the magistracies In general.

116

go

back to apostolic times (I Tim.,?,2), there can be no doubt but that the

special petition for the sub.lectlon of all the barbarous nations belongs

32

to the century after Constantine when the peace with the Church had heeome

117
a fact. For only after the enemies of the Empire had changed into enemies

of the Church did it make sense to pray for the subjection of those beyond
the frontiers of the Empire, who were pagans or infidels, at any rate bar-
barians. Vie may recall the fact that for St. Jerome the ^'barbarians" did

118
not belong to the human beings, to the human species at all; and Prudentius

explained in so many words that the difference between a Rowan and a Barbarian

119
equaled that between man and quadrupeds, opinions which have stubbornly

1?0

survived mutatis mutandis until the twentieth century.

This attitude of Christian authors allows us to understand how readily

there would have been accepted on the part of the Church that brutal

extinction of human "vermin," that is. Barbarians and Infidels, such as it
was displayed by the Paris Cameo. At any rate, the coin inscriptions such
as TRIUMFATOR or DEBELUTOR GENTIUM BARBARARUM belong to to the same period
as the liturgical suffrage for the emperor's "subjection of all the barbarous
nations," which was introduced as an addition to an older form of prayer for

121

the ruler. In fact, as a result of the equation of the emperor's enemies

with enemies of the Christian Church, and further with the fiend of mankind,

and also as a result of the imperial christomimesis on the basis of which

33

the emperor emulated Christ setting his foot on dragon and lion, the idea of

the calcatio colli and its equivalents had an amazingly long lif e. The

122
toga picta of Justinian, so well described by Corippus, had embroideries

showing not only subiectas genteSj but also the emperor Vandalici calcantesn

colla tyranni. An ivory plate of the Barf!:ello in Florence displays a Caro-

123
lingian niler, probably Charlemagne himself, treading on an enemy. Nor

12U

was that scene absent from papal iconography.

How actually the suffrage of the Litany could be combined with the

performance of a cMLcatio colli may be gleaned from the Book of Ceremonies

ceremonial

of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the description of the

12-?
and ritual observed after a victory over the Arabs. The emperor arrives

in great procession at the Forum, and so does the patriarch. Then the
captured Arabs are led before the emperor whose throne is placed on the

the
steps of the great column bearing x cross. The task fell to the logothetes

of leading the Saracen emir to the throne in order to bend the emir's head
under the foot of the basileus. At the same time another officer, the
protostrator, imposes a lance on the neck of the prostrate emir. The

emperw now touches the lance or holds it for a little while in his right

126
hand, thus posing exactly t^ the coin image of earlier times- At that

moment the precentor intones appropriate Psalms, which were followed by the

3h

Ektenie or Litany of the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom. When the Litany
arrived at the sxiffrage: "And subdue under their Tthe emperors'] feet all

that is hostile and inimical" (that is the equivalent of "all the barbarous

127
nations" ) the crowd responded with UC Kyrie eleison, whereupon the patriarch

said the prayer •