« PreviousContinue »
tries it-how much benefit he can derive from teaching, and how carefully he must overhaul his own information before he will succeed in imparting it to a beginner.
Recreations. The mornings and evenings were sacred to work, but the afternoons were devoted religiously to recreation, either going over my rambles of the year before or playing an unlimited number of games of Kegel. The German game of nine-pins is different from our ten-pins. The pins are set up in diamond shape, and not in a triangle, and the count increases in a sort of geometrical ratio-instead of an arithmetical-with the number of pins thrown down. Each side begins with a minus number, say 300 or 400, and adds every count as a plus quantity. The game is over when the plus above zero on one side equals the minus below zero on the other. The alleys are much inferior to our own, but the game can be made to develop any amount of fun. The alleys are generally in the open air, in the garden of the restaurant, merely protected from the weather by a shed overhead. The game therefore affords a healthy exercise, free from the musty, whisky-laden atmosphere and other disagreeable associations of the American bar-room. I look upon Kegel as the climax of amusement in the minor German towns.
After finishing Gaius, my friends P- and M-left for Celle, to enter the state examination. I had yet the Institutes of Justinian to read. Dr. Maxen was successful, however, in arranging a second * clover-leaf" quite as good as the first. The two new members were E— and S, both Westphalians. E— was my superior in age and academic standing, being then in his fourth semester. He was also a young man of decided legal acumen and of quick perceptions, but had not yet developed into a very steady worker. Swas a Fuchs in his second semester, like myself, but having spent his time after the approved fashion in Kneipen and Pauken, knew very little law. So far as he was concerned, then, I occupied the dignified position of teacher. Indeed, thanks to the regular working habits acquired in the vacation, I put E- himself on his mettle to retain the lead. Between us we succeeded in keeping our Fuchs busy. It always affords high moral satisfaction to know that there is somebody worse off than yourself, toward whom you can assume the air of superior information. We finished the Institutes by the middle of November. I should state that the edition which we used was that prepared by Gneist, of Berlin. It is a very handy, practical book. Each page is divided into two parallel columns. The left hand column is reserved for Gaius, the right for Justinian. The two works are thus placed side by side, so that the reader has the greatest facility for comparing them, and also for reviewing his studies. I improved the opportunity, while reading Justinian, by reviewing Gaius entire, passage for passage.
Before proceeding to give an account of the winter lectures, I wish to say a few words about Kneipen in connection with the most imposing student affair of the kind that I attended. The word Kneipe has a double meaning. It denotes the place where drinking is done, the drinking hall or room or house, or it denotes the drinking itself, the carouse. The verb Kneipen means to drink, being used promiscuously with trinken ; bekneipt, for instance, is the same as betrunken.
In whatever other respects the German student may be irregular, he always kneipts according to rule. It is not necessary to go into all the particulars of the German beer-code; to be frank, I do not know them all myself, for they are as complicated and numerous as the provisions of the Notherbenrecht (doctrine of disinheritance) of the corpus juris. The reader who wishes to post himself thoroughly can study the famous Heidelberg Bier-comment or Sauf-comment. The chief point is that when you sit down with other students to a Kneipe, you must drink with the others and not according to your own fancy. Even if you are an invited guest, you will commit a breach of etiquette by drinking by yourself. You must always “come,” to the health of some one in particular. The modus oper- , andi is this. A calls out to B: es kommt Ihnen (Dir) etwas, Ich komme Dir einen halben, einen ganzen vor, that is: “Here's something to you, a half glass, a whole glass," as the caso may be. This is called Vorkommen. B's duty is to respond, which he can do in a variety of phrases, such as: Prosit trink'ihn, Trinken Sie ihn, sauf'ihn, in die Welt, etc. B must also drink exactly the same quantity. This he can do either immediately, saying Ich komme mit, literally, “I come along with you," or after an interval, when he says, Ich komme nach, “I come after you.” When B comes mit or nach to A, lic can at the same time comc vor to any third man C, thereby making one potation do double service. If A wishes to drink to the health of B without putting him under the obligation of mitkommen or nachkommen, he says: Auf Ihr (dein) Specielles, i. e., "To your especial good health." This is the usual way of showing attention to an invited guest, particularly one rather advanced in life or in social standing.
Every Kneipe has a master, or presiding officer, whose duty it is to see that each man mects the requirements of the Comment, and from whose decision there is no appeal. He gives tone and character to the entertainment, selecting the songs to be sung, and appointing the editor of the so-called Beer gazette. This is a sort of comic paper, either in prose or verse, composed impromptu, and devoted to the persiflage of the members of the kneipe and the incidents of the week. The master can punish disorder or disobedience, by ordering the unruly member to drink a quantity of beer, pro poena, as it is called.
One of the side performances of a Kneipe is a "beer duel.” Two students, wishing to ascertain which one is the better man, i. e., the
faster drinker of the twó, choose an umpire. This umpire places the duelists side by side, secs that each one has his glass properly filled, and calls off: One, two, three. At the word three, each one must put his glass to his mouth and empty it as fast as he can. The ono who can rap bis glass first on the table, is the victor. It is the umpire's duty to see that the duel has been fairly conducted, i. e., that no heel-tap is left in the glass. The victor has the right to call the other his beer boy, Bierjungen. To challenge another to the duel is, in technical parlance, ihm einen Bierjungen aufbrummen. I advise my countrymen not to venture upon a beer duel' without considerable preliminary-practice, for the greenhorn may be sure of getting the worst. The veteran student has a knack at swallowing beer that would horrify any respectable professor of anatomy and hygiene. In truth he does not swallow it at all; he throws his head slightly back, opens liis mouth and, holding his breath, simply pours the beer down the esophagus as if it were a long funnel. The rapidity with which a glass of beer can be made to disappear by this process is something incredible.
Until comparatively recent times, the study of the Pandects consisted in listening to or reading a sort of running commentary upon the principal passages of the fifty books, in the order in which they occur. But this method has gone out of use, in Germany at least. A professor who lectures on the Pandects arranges his own order of topics, or follows that of some popular text-book, generally that of Arndts. In either case, the order is strictly scientific and the subdivision very minute. The course is a systematic grouping and exposition of the principles scattered throughout the corpus juris, each statement being supported by references.
The winter's work was heavy. I had Pandects with Professor Mommsen every day, including Saturday, from nine to eleven, Criminal Law with Professor Zachariæ every day from twelve to one, Doctrine of Inheritance with Dr. Schlesinger five times a week, in the afternoon, History of Civil Procedure among the Romans with Dr. Maxen twice a week. In all, twenty-five hours of rapid writing a weck. The lecturers, Dr. Maxen excepted, gave very little tempus; Mommsen, in particular, scarcely any.
The labor, it is perhaps superfluous to say, was wearing. One cannot attend twenty-five hours of lecture per week, taking full notes, and not feel his brain and fingers grow weary. In addition to the lectures, I had a good deal of collateral reading. Besides finishing the Institutes of Justinian, I also read with an older student a number of selected titles from the Digest, worked up my notes as fast as they accumulated, consulted such works as Vangerow and Goeschen on the Pandects, and Berner on Criminal Law, to say nothing of Rudorff's Rechtsgeschichte and Keller's History of Civil Procedure by Formulæ, and reviewed the greater part of Puchta.
My relatious with Dr. Maxen became more intimate. The doctor had several ways of extracting information without seeming to question; his favorite method was to start some very heretical proposition and lure his victim on to combating it vigorously. He was, therefore, accurately posted, not only as to what I was hearing and reading, but also the greater or less extent to which I had really mastered the subjects. At the end of the semester, he said to me in an encouraging manner: “You have certainly done well so far. I don't know how long you will be able to keep up this rate of work, but if you can only hold out until next fall, and can be exempted from examination in German law, you might perhaps 'go in' for your degree. But you must consult Ribbentropp. He is not the dean of the faculty at present, but he is the Nestor, and if he takes an interest in you, your chances are good. I cannot help you directly in the matter, but I can do something indirectly. There is a mass of work yet to be done. You must have Ecclesiastical Law, and a * Pandecten Practicum, and go through a regular liepetitorium. I hope to be able to organize onc this summer. Several students have made application, but I am not willing to take everybody, and four is the limit. If thrce of the right kind offer themselves, shall I reserve the fourth place for you?” I thanked him warmly, and assured him that it would meet my wishes exactly to place myself for an entire term under his personal supervision.
Preparing for Examination. Having every reason to expect that the coming summer semester would probably decide my chances as a candidate for the degree of Doctor Juris, I thought it advisable to preparo for it by taking a rest in the spring vacation. There was no ncccssity for revisiting Wiesbaden, as my health throughout the winter had been uncxceptionable. But feeling attached to the place, and confident that the bathing would at least do no harm, I took a second Cur of a fortnight. The spring of 1864 was quite backward, and the weather, even on the Rhine, uncomfortably chilly. The season had not yet commenced, and the number of guests was extremely small. As a matter of course, the place was langweilig, yet the change and the entire absence of excitement were probably the best thing for me under the circumstances. After suffering myself to be bored unmercifully for a fortnight, I ran over to Heidelberg, and from there down the Rhine as far as Coblenz, returning to Göttingen by the valley of the Lahn and Cassel. The last week of the vacation was passed in making preparations for the semestrial work. I decided to hear only two lectures, one on Ecclesiastical Law, by Herrmann, and one on Erbrecht, by Francke. This latter subject I had heard in the winter, but as Schlesinger had not succeeded in making the subject clear to me, and as Francko would be one of the chief examiners, I deemed it expedient to take the course over again.
Subscquent events proved that I was right. Besides these lectures, I took a Pandecten-practicum with Thol. This bears a strong resem: blance to the Moot Courts in our Law Schools. Thöl met his hcarers once every week for two hours. At each meeting, a practical case was given out for discussion. Our opinions upon it were submitted, in writing, the next week, and returned to us, with the professor's criticisms, the third week. This returning did not consist in merely handing the papers back, like compositions, with marginal corrections. After each member of the class had placed his paper before him, the professor took up the question, and discussed it in all its bearings, stating what his own views were, showing what views had been presented by the members of the class, which of those views were correct, which incorrect, but not mentioning names. Each student could see for himself, however, where he had made a mistake. These verbal discussions—they were not arguments in our legal acceptation of the term—were very informal. The students were at liberty to interrupt the professor whenever they felt the need of fuller explanations. If any time remained after this exhaustive discussion of the question set for the day, the pro'essor utilized it by submitting one or more short cases to be analyzed on the spot. I give one of the set cases. It is a very easy one.
A has a claim against B of $100; B against C of $120; C against D of $130; D against A of $140. Meeting by chance, they discover, in the course of conversation, that there is the sum of $100 mutually claimed and owned by all four. This they agree to cancel, leaving the balance of the claims to run. Some time after, C finds among the papers of his father, from whom the debt of $120 devolved by inheritance, evidence that this debt had already been paid to B. What remedy has C, and what is the legal character of the agreement entered into by the four to cancel the common claim of $100 ?
These practical exercises are of great advantage to the students. They are, I believe, better than our Moot Courts. The questions submitted are generally of a higher order, and more complicated in their nature, and—the main point-the cxercises are better adapted to teaching the class. The necessity of writing out one's opinions at length every week and submitting them to the deliberate inspection of the professor, has the tendency to make one careful. Now and then a Moot Court case is well argued, but generally the so-called arguments are too wordy and rhetorical. Besides, there is a great difference between speaking once in three months or six months, and writing out an opinion once every week for an entire semester.
The Pandecten-practicum covers only the substance of civil law. The more advanced students have practical exercises of a similar nature in Criminal Law, in Ecclesiastical Law, and in Procedure and Evidence.
Francke's lectures on the Law of Inheritance were extremely clear