The History of University Education in Maryland / The Johns Hopkins University (1876-1891). With supplementary notes on university extension and the university of the future

by Bernard C. Steiner

One of the earliest duties which devolved upon the President and Trustees, after deciding upon the general scope of the University, was to select a staff of teachers by whose assistance and counsel the details of the plan should be worked out. It would hardly be right in this place to recall the distinctive merits of the able and learned scholars who have formed the academic staff during the first fourteen years, but perhaps the writer may be allowed to pay in passing a tribute of gratitude and respect to those who entered the service of the University at its beginning. To their suggestions, their enthusiasm, their learning, and above all their freedom from selfish aims and from petty jealousies, must be attributed in a great degree the early distinction of this institution. They came from widely distant places; they had been trained by widely different methods; they had widely different intellectual aptitudes; but their diversities were unified by their devotion to the university in which they were enlisted, and by their desire to promote its excellence. This spirit has continued till the present time, and has descended to those who have from time to time joined the ranks, so that it may be emphatically said that the union of the Faculty has been the key to its influence.

The first requisite of success in any institution is a staff of eminent teachers, each of whom gives freely the best of which he is capable. The best varies with the individual; one may be an admirable lecturer or teacher; another a profound thinker; a third a keen investigator; another a skilful experimenter; the next, a man of great acquisitions; one may excel by his industry, another by his enthusiasm, another by his learning, another by his genius; but every member of a faculty should be distinguished by some uncommon attainments and by some special aptitudes, while the faculty as a whole should be united and cooperative. Each professor, according to his subject and his talents, should have his own best mode of working, adjusted to and controlled by the exigencies of the institution with which he is associated.

The original professors, who were present when instructions began in October, 1876, were these: as the head and guide of the mathematical studies, Professor Sylvester, of Cambridge, Woolwich and London, one of the foremost of European mathematicians; as the leader of classical studies, Professor Gildersleeve, then of the University of Virginia; as director of the Chemical Laboratory and of instruction in chemistry, Professor Remsen, then of Williams College; to organize the work in Biology (a department then scarcely known in American institutions, but here regarded as of great importance with reference to the future school of medicine), Professor Martin, then of Cambridge (Eng.), a pupil of Professor Michael Foster and of Professor Huxley; as chief in the department of Physics, Professor Rowland, then holding a subordinate position in the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, whose ability in this department had been shown by the contributions he had made to scientific journals; and as collegiate professor, or guide to the undergraduate students, Professor Charles D. Morris, once an Oxford fellow, and then of the University of the City of New York.

The names of the professors in the Faculty of Philosophy, from 1876 to 1890, are as follows, arranged in the order of their appointment:

1876 BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE, LL. D Greek.
1876 J.J. SYLVESTER, LL. D Mathematics.
1876 IRA KEMSEN, Ph. D Chemistry.
1876 HENRY A. ROWLAND, Ph. D Physics.
1876 H. NEWELL MARTIN, Sc. D Biology.
1876 CHARLES D. MORRIS, A. M Classics, (Collegiate).1883 PAUL HAUPT, Ph. D Semitic Languages.
1884 G. STANLEY HALL, LL. D Psychology.1884 WILLIAM H. WELCH, M. D Pathology.
1884 SIMON NEWCOMB, LL. D Mathematics and Astronomy.
1886 JOHN H. WRIGHT, A.M Classical Philology.
1889 EDWARD H. GRIFFIN, LL.D History of Philosophy.
1891 HERBERT B. ADAMS, Ph.D Amer. and Inst. History.
1891 WILLIAM K. BROOKS, Ph.D Animal Morphology.

The persons below named have been appointed associate professors,—and their names are arranged in the order of their appointment:

1883 HERBERT B. ADAMS, Ph.D History.
1883 MAURICE BLOOMFIELD, Ph.D Sanskrit and Comp. Philology.
1883 WILLIAM K. BROOKS, Ph.D Animal Morphology.
1883 THOMAS CRAIG, Ph.D Mathematics.
1883 CHARLES S. HASTINGS, Ph.D Physics.
1883 HARMON N. MORSE, Ph.D Chemistry.1883 WILLIAM E. STORY, Ph.D Mathematics.1883 MINTON WARREN, Ph.D Latin.1884 A. MARSHALL ELLIOT, Ph.D Romance Languages.
1884 J. RENDEL HARRIS, A.M New Testament Greek.
1885 GEORGE H. EMMOTT, A.M Logic.
1885 C. RENE GREGORY, Ph.D New Testament Greek.
1885 GEORGE H. WILLIAMS, Ph.D Inorganic Geology.
1885 HENRY WOOD, Ph.D German.
1887 RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D Political Economy.
1888 WILLIAM T. COUNCILMAN, M.D Anatomy.
1888 WILLIAM H. HOWELL, Ph.D Animal Physiology.
1888 ARTHUR L. KIMBALL, Ph.D Physics.
1888 EDWARD H. SPIEKER, Ph.D Greek and Latin.
1889 Louis DUNCAN, Ph.D Electricity.
1889 FABIAN FRANKLIN, Ph.D Mathematics.

At the opening of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, the principal physicians and surgeons of that foundation were appointed professors of the University, namely, arranged in the order of their appointment:

1889 WILLIAM OSLER, M.D Medicine.1889 HENRY M. HURD, M.D Psychiatry.
1889 HOWARD A. KELLY, M.D Gynecology.
1889 WILLIAM S. HALSTED, M.D Surgery.

In selecting a staff of teachers, the Trustees have endeavored to consider especially the devotion of the candidate to some particular line of study and the certainty of his eminence in that specialty; the power to pursue independent and original investigation, and to inspire the young with enthusiasm for study and research; the willingness to coöperate in building up a new institution; and the freedom from tendencies toward ecclesiastical or sectional controversies. They announced that they would not be governed by denominational or geographical considerations in the appointment of any teacher; but would endeavor to select the best person whose services they could secure in the position to be filled,—irrespective of the place where he was born, or the college in which he was trained, or the religious body with which he might be enrolled.