FRUSTRATIONS AND JOYS OF ARCHIVAL RESEARCH* WILLIAM D. G . BALANCE

Certainly one of the more popular texts in the history of psychology is Roback’s A history of American psychology (10). Unfortunately, much of what makes Roback so readable is his journalistic devotion to material gained through communication with individuals who have had personal contacts with the founders of modern psychology or their associates. There is little reason to doubt that a substantial portion of these anecdotes was in fact widely circulated a t the time. Nonetheless, these distantly removed accounts probably cloud more than they enlighten the substance of historical events.

One of the most blatant abuses of anecdotal sources can be found in Roback’s (10) treatment of the well known controversy between Wilhelm Wund t (1832-1920) and his student Hugo Miinsterberg (1863-1916) regarding the latter’s view that motor responses are necessary precursors of consciousness (6). In this context Roback depicted Wundt as personally rejecting Munsterberg and retaliating with covert and damaging actions to block Munsterberg’s academic employment in Europe.

It is even whispered in close circles that Wundt brought his influence to bear in stirring up anti-Semitic feelings among the authorities of the University of Berlin, when Munsterberg’s candidacy came up for consideration. It was a t this time that the young psychologist was recommended for an appointment at the technical college in Zurich; and three influential German professors were not slow in sending a sheaf of unfavorable comments on the candidate to the governing board of that Institution. These were Wundt, Natorp, and G. E. Miiller (p. 194).

Roback (10) cited personal communications with “. . . the late Ludwig Stein, who for many years was Professor of Philosophy a t the University of Bern . . .” (p. 194), as his only source for this information.

It is the purpose of the present paper to illustrate some of the frustrations and joys of archival research by attempting to refute Roback’s account of Munster- berg’s call to the University of Zurich. Subject to the necessary confines of brevity, an attempt will be made to recast these events in their proper historical context and to pursue lines of evidence for each of the available alternative or control hypotheses (2).

By way of background, the University of Zurich was founded in 1833 (4). Toward the end of the 19th century, this relatively young institution was viewed

*The Symposium on Archival Research in the History of Psychology was held on 31 August 1973 in Montreal, Canada, in the framework of the 81st Annual Conference of the American Psy- chological Association, joined by the Canadian Psychological Association. , I

William D. G. Balance received his Ph.D. from the University of Alabama in 1967 and is by background and practice a clinical psychologist. He is presently an Associate Professor at the University of Windsor in Ontario, Canada. In addition to his research with nineteenth cen- tury German academic psychology, he has investigated contemporary models of psychopath- ology from experimental and historical perspectives.

37

3s WILLIAM D. G. BALANCE

as an academic “first class waiting room” (1) from which promising young scholars frequently moved to more prestigious positions at the established German uni- versities. The second chair in inductive philosophy a t Zurich became vacant because of the death of the prominent positivistic philosopher Richard Avenarius (1843-1896) on August 18, 1896. At this time Munsterberg was spending the second year of his sabbatical from Harvard a t Freiburg University (7) where he had resumed an appointment as associate professor (“Ausserordenlicher Professor”).

As has already been noted, Roback (10) named Wundt as the first of “. . . three influential German professors . . .[who] . . . were not slow in sending a sheaf of unfavorable comments . . .” about Rlunsterberg to Zurich. A total of three letters were found which bear directly on this issue (12, 13, 14). Avenarius and Zurich are mentioned for the first time in a letter in which Wundt thanked Miinsterberg for his birthday greetings (12). This letter is dated one day after the death of Avenarius, August 19, 1896; however, it is quite clear that Wundt was as yet unaware of his death. Of particular interest is the information that Avenarius had a t long last received a call to Freiburg University. The next letter from Wundt to Munsterberg followed in less than a week and is more to the point (13). It is a reply to Munsterberg’s letter t o Wundt of August 21, 1896. Wundt expressed his deep shock a t the sudden death of Avenarius and stressed that the call to Freiburg must have been a last joy to him. After reiterating his opinions about the work of Avenarius, Wundt added that he would only recommend a replacement for Avena- rius if he were specifically invited to suggest a candidate. He then proceeded can- didly to outline what he would say if he were asked to send a letter of recommenda- tion for Rfunsterberg to Zurich. When one compares this preview with the actual letter sent in early September of the same year (3, 14), it is perfectly clear that Wundt thoroughly kept his word. Both letters stated clearly that Wundt was of the opinion that Munsterberg’s publications until that time had not quite come up to his potential. He clearly indicated, however, that he considered Munsterberg to be the one person who would be most suited for the chair at Zurich. In summary, there is no evidence whatsoever that Wundt attempted to block Munsterberg’s appointment at Zurich. On the contrary, he recommended him highly.

It is not difficult to understand how the names of Natorp and G. E. Muller may have become part of the rumors surrounding these events. A lengthy written evaluation of Miinsterberg’s research record in his personnel file in Zurich (11) lists five scholarly and generally positive reviews of his publications which all appeared in the philosophical journal Philosophische Monatshefte published by the Neo-Kantian philosopher Paul Natorp (1854-1924). The record also shows that Munsterberg at one time briefly thought that Natorp might have slandered him to the Zurich educational authorities as revenge for the fact Munsterberg had opposed his call to Freiburg some time previously (9). However, Munsterberg explicitly withdrew this charge in his last letter to Zurich dated May 18, 1897 (9). The archives a t Zurich contain no record of correspondence concerning Munster- berg by the eminent experimental psychologist G. E. Muller. However, the evalua- tion of Munsterberg’s record, referred to above ( l l ) , contains a reference to a review of Munsterberg’s writings by Muller (5 ) . This very article was filled with such personal and professional attacks against Munsterberg and his teacher Wundt that William James was led to characterize this review as “brutal” (8). In con-

FRUSTRATIONS AND JOYS O F ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 39

clusion, no evidence was found that either of these two scholars sent “a sheaf of unfavorable comments” (10) about Munsterberg to Zurich.

In addition to the charges raised by Roback, which were not supported in the cases of Natorp and Muller and clearly refuted in the case of Wundt, two other viable alternative hypotheses were derived from researches with the materials in Zurich. These are financial reasons and anti-Semitism (9).

After Wundt’s letter of recommendation for Munsterberg arrived, Dean Vetter of the Philosophical Faculty I sent a lengthy endorsement to the board of education in which he reported the unanimous recommendation of the search committee in favor of Munsterberg (11). In this same letter the dean suggested that Munster- berg be offered a salary at the highest level for the full professor rank in view of his excellent qualifications. The very next document in Munsterberg’s personnel file has all the characteristics of a bombshell. It is a brief newspaper summary of the minutes of a recent board meeting which stated that the Cantonal government had decided not to fill the position vacated by the death of Avenarius for financial reasons. Munsterberg’s lengthy and very embittered correspondence with the chairman of the board of education indicates that he did not believe the stated financial reason (9). The authorities had been able to pay Avenarius in the past and within a year appointed Meumann to the vacancy, although a t a somewhat lower rank (4). On the other hand, it must be pointed out that financial difficulties were indeed a persistent source of concern for the University of Zurich, which a t that time had an enrollment of only slightly more than 600 students (4).

The last letter in Munsterberg’s file closes with a very sad passage in which he revealed what he thought was the real reason why he had not received the appointment as successor of Avenarius. He stated that, in his opinion, the faculty had made a serious error in recommending him so strongly because he had been ineligible all the time because his father had been born a Jew (9). Munsterberg did not condone this prejudice. Yet, he acknowledged that anti-Semitism was a reality which one had to accept. He felt that he did not have to defend himself in this matter because it was a charge that did not reflect on him personally. He closed the letter by wishing the government well and hoping that a truly competent person would be found “to help revive philosophy at Zurich.” It is very difficult to assess the validity of Munsterberg’s charges of anti-Semit,ism because he did not identify the sources of this information. It is certainly clear that he did not regard Wundt as an anti-Semite as Roback had suggested (10). In fact, unpublished correspondence between Wundt and Munsterberg indicates that Munsterberg went through a period of severely troubled feelings and self-searching during which Wundt sought to assist him in a humane manner. It is equally clear that there was no general rule forbidding the employment of faculty members with a Jewish background at the University of Zurich. Roback’s informant, Ludwig Stein, was a rabbi who taught at the University of Zurich shortly before the events discussed in this paper. Georg Cohn, a noted jurist, was president of the university in 1920 (4) and not many years later Albert Einstein was given an appointment at Zurich

In conclusion, it has been a personal joy for me to be able to refute the slan- derous charges of Roback against Wundt in the matter of Munsterberg’s Zurich candidacy. The chief frustration has been that none of the alternative hypotheses

(4).

40 WILLIAM D. G . BALANCE

has emerged as plausible. As with any empirical investigation, the gaining of answers to a few questions has in the process led to even more sources of puzzlement, but this is also to be expected and should be counted more as a joy than a frustration.

REFERENCES 1. BEN-1)AvIn, J. and COLLINS, 11. Social factors in the origin of a science: The case of psychology. Americata Sociological Review. 1966, 31, 451-465.

2. BRINGMANN, W. Design questions in archival research. Paper read at Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, 1973.

3. BRINGMANN, W. and BALANCE, W. Wundt vs. Munsterberg : Itoback’s version challenged. American Psychologist, 1973, 29, 849-850.

4. GAGLIARDI, E., XABHOLZ, H. and STROHL, J. Die Universdat Zurich 1833-1933 u d ihre Vorlaufer. Zurich: Verlag der Erziehungsdirektion, 1838.

5 . MULLER, G. E. Review of Munsterberg, Beitrage zur experimet~telleti Psychologie. Gottiugische gekhrte Anzeigen, 1891, 393-426.

6. MUNSTERBERG, H. Die Willenshandlung. Freiburg, Germany: Mohr, 1888. 7. MUNSTERBERG, M. Hugo Munsterberg. New York: Appleton, 1922. 8. 9. PERSONNEL FILE MUNSTERBERG. Staatsarchiv Zurich.

PERRY, R. The thought a i d character of William James. (Vol. 2) Boston: Little, Brown, 19%.

10. ROBACK, A. A history of Americark psychology. New York: Library Publishers, 1952. 11 . VETTER, T. to Erziehungsrat Zurich, October, 1896, Staatsarchiv Zurich. 12. WUNDT, W. to Miinsterberg, H. August 19, 1896, Boston Public Library. 13. WUNDT, W. to Munsterberg, H., August 28, 1896, Boston Public Library. 14. WUNDT, W. to Vetter, T., September 14, 1896. Staatsarchiv Zurich.