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.