Part 7

When in the 18th century the need for better woods knowledge became pressing, the few really good forest managers were sought out by the young men who wished to secure this knowledge. In this way, a number of so-called “master-schools” came into existence, each depending on one man. Such a school was that of v. Zanthier in Wernigerode, later transferred to Ilsenburg, started in 1763 and ending with his death in 1778. Theoretical teaching and opportunity for practical demonstration here was such that even students from the Berlin school and men in actual employment attended the courses.

The two great masters and fathers of modern forestry, Hartig and Cotta, each instituted such master-schools, the former in 1789, and the latter in 1785. Cotta’s school was afterwards transferred to Tharandt and became a State institution.

The interest of the State in forestry education found first expression in Prussia in a course of lectures in botany, later also in forest economy, given to the forest officials by _Gleditsch_, professor of botany at the University of Berlin (1770), to which was added a practicum at Tegel under Burgsdorf, who finally became the head of this mixed State school, and continued in this position until at his death, in 1802, the school was discontinued.

In imitation of this move by Prussia, a military planting school was instituted by Württemberg at Solitude in 1770. The most noteworthy feature of this school, which under various changes lasted less than 25 years, was the course of lectures by Stahl, mentioned before.

Besides this higher school, a lower grade school was started in 1783, but its career was even briefer, not more than ten years.

Bavaria organized a forest school at Munich in 1790 with a four years’ course, and at least three years’ study at this school was required of those seeking employment in the State service; but without having ever flourished, this school, too, collapsed by 1803.

13. _Forestry Literature._

The oldest forestry literature of this period is contained in the many forest ordinances, which allow us to judge from their prescriptions as to the conditions of the practice in the woods and as to the gradual accumulation of empiric knowledge. Of a forestry science one could hardly speak until an attempt had been made to organize the knowledge thus empirically acquired into a systematic presentation, and this was not done until the middle or last half of the 18th century.

The first attempts at a literary presentation of the empiric knowledge are found in the encyclopædic volumes of the so-called “Hausväter” (household fathers--domestic economists), who treated in a most diffuse manner of agriculture in all its aspects, including silviculture.

A number of these tomes appeared during the 17th century; the best and most influential being published at the very beginning of that century (1595-1609), written by a preacher from Silesia, _Johann Colerus_, and entitled _Oeconomia ruralis et domestica, worin das ampt aller braven Hausväter und Hausmütter begriffen_.

Colerus relied upon home experience and not, as Petrus de Crescentiis in his earlier work, _Praedium rusticum_ (translated from the French, in 1592), had done, upon the scholastic expositions of the Italians. He was rewarded by the popularity of his work which went through thirteen editions and became very widely known.

Somewhat earlier, a jurist, _Noë Meurer_, wrote a book on forest law and hunting (second edition, 1576), which on this field remained long an authority, and gives insight into the condition of forest use at the time.

But the first independent work on forestry, divorced from the hunt and farming, did not appear until 1713, _Sylvicultura œconomica_, written by the Saxon director of mines, _Hans Carl v. Carlowitz_.

This book, while containing quaint and amusing ideas, gives many correct rules for silvicultural methods, especially as regards planting and sowing, but the subject of forest management or organization is entirely neglected.

At about the same time (1710) a forest official, _v. Göchhausen_, published _Notabilia venatoris_, which, however, contained little more than a description of the species of trees and methods of their utilization.

About the middle of the 18th century great activity began in the literary field. This was carried on by two distinct classes of writers, namely, the empiricists and the cameralists. The former--the _holzgerechte Jäger_--were the “practical” men of the woods who proved in many directions most unpractical, and exhibited in their writings, outside of the record of their limited experience, the crassest ignorance. The cameralists were educated in law and political economy and, while lacking practical contact with the woodswork, tried to sift and systematize the knowledge of the empiricists, and to secure for it a tangible basis.

Some five or six of the empiricists deserve notice as writers; the first and most noted of them was _Doebel_ (_Heinrich Wilhelm_) whose book, _Jägerpraktica_ (hunters’ practice), published in 1746, remained an authority until modern times for the part referring to the chase. The author was pre-eminently a hunter, who worked in various capacities in Saxony, a self-taught man with very little knowledge of natural history. Being familiar mainly with broadleaf forest he condemned planting and thinning, but described quite well for his time the methods of survey, subdivision, estimating and measuring, and the methods of selection forest and coppice with standards. His ignorance is characterized by his reference to the “sulphurous and nitric elements of the soil” as cause of spontaneous forest fires.

Opinionated and one-sided, like many so-called practical men, he came into polemic controversies with other practitioners, not less opinionated, among them _J. G. Beckmann_, who worked in another part of Saxony, where, having to deal with coniferous woods, he had gathered different experiences from those of Doebel. Although he was himself poorly educated, especially in natural sciences, he complained of the ignorance of the foresters, and in his book (_Anweisung zu einer pfleglichen Forstwirthschaft_, 1759), used for the first time the word _Forstwissenschaft_ (forest science), and insisted upon the necessity of studying nature.

He may be credited with having really advanced forest organization by devising the first good volume division method, and silviculture by advocating the method of clearing followed by sowing.

The first practical forester with a university education was _J. J. Büchting_, who worked in the Harz mountains. His main interest lay in the direction of survey, division and orderly utilization. He did not, however, make any striking advance, except that he gave equal standing to both planting and sowing.

The two most eminent practitioners of the period, however, active during the middle of the century, were _Johann Georg von Langen_ and his pupil, _Hans Dietrich von Zanthier_, both of noble family, and better educated than most of their contemporaries, and both engaged in the organization and management of Harz mountain forests, namely, those of the Duke of Brunswick and of the Count of Stolberg-Wernigerode.

The former, without occupying himself directly with literary work, laid down in his expert reports and in his working plans many instructions which form the basis for orderly management and silviculture far ahead of the times. Zanthier, writing considerably (especially _Kurzer systematischer Grundriss der praktischen Forstwissenschaft_, 1764), is also notable as the founder of the first forestry school (at Wernigerode), 1763.

Another of this class of better educated practitioners, and co-worker with the former two, was _von Lassberg_, who in 1764-1777 organized the Saxon forests.

An interesting incident in the life of the last three men is their journey to Denmark and Norway, whither they were called to organize the management of the forests connected with the mines.

Another prominent forest manager of the last half of the century, whose literary work is to be found only in various excellent official instructions, among which is one for the teaching of foresters, was the head of the Hessian forest service, a nobleman, _v. Berlepsch_.

Of the cameralists who helped to make forestry literature, six or seven deserve mention. These, men of education and polyhistors, were either at the head of affairs, or else professors at universities, where they included forestry as one of the branches of political economy.

The credit of the first really systematic presentation of forestry principles and rules, as developed at the time, belongs to _Wilhelm Gottfried von Moser_, a pupil of von Langen, who served in various principalities, and finally with the Prince of Taxis. In his _Principles of Forest Economy_, published in 1757, which for the first time brought out the economic importance of the subject, he discusses in two volumes divided into nine chapters the different branches of forestry.

A mining engineer, _J. A. Cramer_, came next with a very notable book, “_Anleitung zum Forstwesen_” (1766), which, although not as comprehensive as Moser’s, treats the subject of silviculture very well.

Equal in arrogance and opinionated self-satisfaction to any of the empiricists with whom he frequently crossed swords, was the Brunswick councillor, _von Brocke_, who, as an amateur, practising forestry on his own estate, developed the characteristic trait of the empiricists, namely, a profound belief in his own infallibility. He produced, besides many polemic writings, in which he charged the whole class of foresters with ignorance, laziness and dishonesty, a magnum opus in four volumes, entitled “_True bases of the physical and experimental general science of forestry_,” which is an olla podrida of small value.

Less original, but more fair and well informed, a typical representative of the cameralists, was _J. F. Stahl_, finally head of the forest administration of Württemberg, and at the same time lecturer on mathematics, natural history and forestry at the forest school of Solitude (Stuttgart). Although an amateur in the field of forestry, he was a good teacher and left many valuable and wise prescriptions evolved during his administration.

He compiled in four volumes a dictionary of forest, fish and game practice (_Onomatologia forestalis-piscatoria-venatoria_, 1772-1781) and founded the first forestry journal.

Since 1770, forestry courses had been given for the cameralists at most of the German universities, and many of the professors prepared textbooks for the purpose. At least three of these professors deserve mention, Beckman, Jung and Trunk.

The first, _J. Beckman_, professor of political economy at Göttingen, one of the most noted cameralists, was author of a work in forty-five volumes on the _Principles of German Agriculture_ (1769), in which he devotes sixty-one pages to forestry, giving a complete system of forestry, with extracts from all known forestry writings.

_J. H. Jung_, who gave a special course on forestry at the Kameralschule of Lautern, published a textbook in 1781 in which forest botany was well treated.

_J. J. Trunk_, who was Oberforstmeister in Austria, as well as professor at Freiburg, was the most prominent of the three, and wrote a comprehensive work full of practical sense (_Neues vollständiges Forstlehrbuch oder systematische Grundsätze des Forstrechtes, der Forstpolizei und Forstökonomie, nebst Anhang von ausländischen Holzarten, von Torf und Steinkohlen_, 1789).

* * * * *

While at first the ephemeral writings, especially the polemic ones of the empiricists, found room in literary and cameralistic magazines, the need of a professional journal first found expression in 1763, in Stahl’s _Allgemeines ökonomisches Forstmagazin_, which ran into twelve volumes, and contains many articles important to the history of forestry, and is especially rich in its references to foreign literature.

Two continuations of the magazine under different editorships were of less value. But von Moser’s _Forstarchiv_, running from 1788 to 1807 with its thirty volumes, is an authority and a historical source of the first rank.

A very characteristic literature of the last half of the 18th century consisted in _forest calendars_ in which advice as to monthly and seasonal procedures in the forest were given, Beckman and Zanthier being among the authors.

III. DEVELOPMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

The last hundred years or so has seen in Germany the development of fully established forest policies and the complete organization of stable forest administrations, based upon thorough and careful recognition of the principles of forest management and intensive application of silvicultural methods.

1. _Changes in Property Conditions._

The change in forest treatment from that prevailing during the previous period was mainly due to the change in property conditions, and especially to the establishment of _state forests_. This change was largely the result of the revolutionary movements at the beginning of the new century which brought about changes in state organizations. In Prussia, the princely forest property had been declared state domain in 1713, but elsewhere, the public domain had been considered the property of the princes in their capacity as head of the country, as _domanium_, outside of their personal private property (Chatullgüter). The income from this _domanium_ was in part liable to be applied to the expenses of the court and of the administration of the realm, to some extent alleviating the burdens of taxation. This property arose from a variety of relations which have been discussed at length in the foregoing chapters. It was derived mainly from feudal properties, fiefs of vassalage and fiefs of official position, secularized church property and other forfeited property, division of mark forests, and from allodial possessions of the family. Gradually, by agreement with the landed estates, it was understood that this property could not be disposed of or dissipated by the prince, and was inherited by the eldest son together with the princely dignity, being an attribute of his position in the state. In the reconstruction period of 1806 to 1815, during and after the Napoleonic wars, many of the small princes lost their seigniorage (Landeshoheit _ipso jure_), and with the loss of the princely dignity, the obligation of carrying the expense of court and administration naturally falling away, these properties became in most cases purely individual property of the former princes.

Not, however, until the revolutionary movements of 1848 and even later, was this divorce of the state idea from that of the person of the prince everywhere accomplished, nor was it carried through without many bickerings and quarrels between the princes and the representatives of the people, who claimed this _domanium_ for the state. In the larger states, all this domanial property was finally declared state lands, while in the smaller principalities a partition of the land between the princes and the state took place, or else a relation was established by which a part of the revenue resulting from the state lands was secured to the princes.

An increase of the State’s property came also during the first decade of the century through the abolishment of cloisters and secularization of church property generally, the lands of both Protestant and Catholic church institutions being taken by the State.

Curiously enough, at the same time that the idea of state forest was being realized, the changes in economic thought which brought the principle of individualism to the fore gave rise to a movement to sell the state properties. This movement was inspired by French doctrines, whose influence was at the time very strong, by the teachings of Adam Smith who held that the state is not fit to conduct business, and by the hope that in private ownership an improvement in forest conditions would be more readily realized. These ideas by themselves would, probably, not have led to the adoption of a policy of sale if it had not been for the need for cash which, as a result of the French wars, was felt everywhere during the first years of the decade. The sale of this property seemed to provide a ready means for States to secure funds.

In Prussia, after the collapse of 1806, this measure was widely discussed, and eventually, in 1810 to 1813, repeatedly instructions for the sale of state forest property were issued. There were to be excluded from such sales only large complexes of forest, those on the sea coast, sand dunes and river fronts, where the protection of the forest cover was needed, and those which it was desirable to maintain for the use of important industrial establishments. Only the accession of Hartig (1811), as chief of the forest administration which was a branch of the Treasury department, prevented the execution of this dismemberment. It was due to him that the difference in character between farm and forest property began to be recognized. Although, after 1820, sales of forest property took place, they were never a fiscal measure, but were made either for the purpose of rounding off existing state forest property or paying off servitudes, or else in order to turn over agricultural soil to farm use. At present everywhere in Germany state properties are on the increase.

The property conditions of the _communal forests_ naturally changed also with the political changes of the 19th century, when existing communities were made part of the large political machine and changed from economic and social to modern political municipalities. The ownership conditions, however, were not simplified, but as before, remained extremely varied.

Of the Mark forest but a very small portion remains to-day. The majority of it had been finally divided among the Märker in the first decade of the century, and the few remaining parts became independent of the political organization and now exist merely in the form of appurtenances to certain farm property known as _Genossenwald_ (association forests). In addition to the variety of communal ownerships existing in the preceding period, some new communal properties originated from the granting of land in the settlement and dissolution of servitudes, whereby an undivided property (_Interessentenwald_) in which sometimes even the state retains an interest, came into existence.

The municipal property of the cities had become either the property of the entire community or of that part which constituted the real citizenship, or at least of a certain class of citizens of the municipality.

The incumbrances which had grown up with regard to forest property under the name of _servitudes_ and which so much retarded the development of better forest management continued into this period, and although through the influences of the French revolution a desire had been stimulated to get rid of all curtailments of property, some have persisted to this day. Indeed, for a time an increase of these servitudes took place, due to the carelessness of forest officials in keeping unjustified use of the forest in check, when ancient usage of these rights of user was claimed and new servitudes were established.

In Bavaria, it became at last necessary (1852) to positively forbid the further establishment of new servitudes or rights of user. Laws having in view the dissolution or buying out of these rights were issued in Bavaria in 1805, and in Prussia in 1821, giving the right to forest owners whose properties were so encumbered, to call for a division of interests; but as at first the only way to settlement was by exchange for definite parcels of forest property, the progress in the abolishment of these rights was slow, until money exchange was permitted (as in Saxony, 1832). At the present time, the state forest administrations have mostly got rid of these servitudes, or at least have progressed so far in their regulation that they are now rarely impediments to forest management. These peaceable adjustments of the rights of user constitute the last act of freeing property socially and economically.

2. _Forest Conditions._

In spite of the sporadic efforts which had been made to bring about the recuperation of forest areas during the 18th century, the conditions of the forest at the beginning of the new century were most pitiable; the division of the Mark, by which the peasants became individual owners, profited little, and led to devastation rather than to improving the condition of the property. In addition, export trade in wood had become brisk, and the financial depression, a result of the French wars, led to increased exploitations, which, with the improvement in means of transportation, progressed to the more distant forest areas, and enlarged the waste area. Especially in the more densely populated parts of the country, the deforested area widened, and large wastes with poor young growth increased in all directions, in the same manner as now in the United States. The alarmists had good cause for renewing their cries, and, around the year 1800, a considerable literature sprung up on the subject of the threatened timber famine.

It is interesting to note that at that time the Catalpa played a role, at least on paper, as it does in our own day, being recommended as the only means of staving off the timber famine. A renewed _betulomania_ spread widely over the country. In North Germany especially, great efforts were made to replant the denuded areas and to change the coppice areas, fit only for firewood, to coniferous species, pine, etc., by which eventually a great change in the forest type from the original mixed forest to the pure forest was effected.

3. _Personnel._

The great change which led to improved conditions, during the first half of the century, was pre-eminently due to the knowledge and intelligence of a group of men, six in number, competent foresters, who combined the high grade education of the Cameralists with the practitioners’ knowledge: Hartig, Cotta, Hundeshagen, Koenig, Pfeil and Heyer. These men built, to be sure, on the shoulders of their precursors of the century in which they were born, but, being placed in authoritative positions, found better opportunities for putting their teachings into practice.

The first two mentioned were older than the rest, and are usually described as the “fathers of modern forestry.” Born about a year apart, both educated at universities, they excelled in both scientific and practical directions.

_Georg Ludwig Hartig_ (1764-1837), studied at the University of Giessen and, after having served in various functions in various parts of Southern Germany, became, in 1811, head of the Prussian forest administration. He was equally eminent as a practical man and organizer, as a writer, and as a teacher. In literary direction his work lay not so much in developing new ideas as in formulating clearly the known ones, as evidenced in his celebrated “General Rules” in silviculture.

Not less than thirty separate publications attest his assiduity. Among them stands pre-eminent “_Anweisung zur Holzzucht für Foerster_” (1791; 8th edition, 1818). As a teacher he began his work by establishing a masterschool (1789-1791) at Hungen, transferred to Stuttgart in 1807; and afterwards, as head of the Prussian forest administration, he lectured at the University of Berlin, continuing his lectures there, even after the forestry school at Eberswalde had been established, until his death.