It is well known in most of its forms to be a more or less moderated Calvinism or Zwinglianism. ↩
In Hamburg, which is almost entirely Lutheran, the only fortune going back to the seventeenth century is that of a well-known Reformed family (kindly called to my attention by Professor A. Wahl). ↩
It is thus not new that the existence of this relationship is maintained here. Lavelye, Matthew Arnold, and others already perceived it. What is new, on the contrary, is the quite unfounded denial of it. Our task here is to explain the relation. ↩
Naturally this does not mean that official Pietism, like other religious tendencies, did not at a later date, from a patriarchal point of view, oppose certain progressive features of capitalistic development, for instance, the transition from domestic industry to the factory system. What a religion has sought after as an ideal, and what the actual result of its influence on the lives of its adherents has been, must be sharply distinguished, as we shall often see in the course of our discussion. On the specific adaptation of Pietists to industrial labour, I have given examples from a Westphalian factory in my article, “Zur Psychophysik der gewerblichen Arbeit,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, XXVIII, and at various other times. ↩
These passages represent a very brief summary of some aspects of Weber’s methodological views. At about the same time that he wrote this essay he was engaged in a thorough criticism and revaluation of the methods of the Social Sciences, the result of which was a point of view in many ways different from the prevailing one, especially outside of Germany. In order thoroughly to understand the significance of this essay in its wider bearings on Weber’s sociological work as a whole it is necessary to know what his methodological aims were. Most of his writings on this subject have been assembled since his death (in 1920) in the volume Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. A shorter exposition of the main position is contained in the opening chapters of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, III. —Translator’s Note ↩
The final passage is from “Necessary Hints to Those That Would Be Rich” (written 1736, Works, Sparks edition, II, p. 80), the rest from “Advice to a Young Tradesman” (written 1748, Sparks edition, II, pp. 87 ff.). The italics in the text are Franklin’s. ↩
Der Amerikamüde (Frankfurt, 1855), well known to be an imaginative paraphrase of Lenau’s impressions of America. As a work of art the book would today be somewhat difficult to enjoy, but it is incomparable as a document of the (now long since blurred-over) differences between the German and the American outlook, one may even say of the type of spiritual life which, in spite of everything, has remained common to all Germans, Catholic and Protestant alike, since the German mysticism of the Middle Ages, as against the Puritan capitalistic valuation of action. ↩
Sombart has used this quotation as a motto for his section dealing with the genesis of capitalism (Der moderne Kapitalismus, first edition, I, p. 193. See also p. 390). ↩
Which quite obviously does not mean either that Jacob Fugger was a morally indifferent or an irreligious man, or that Benjamin Franklin’s ethic is completely covered by the above quotations. It scarcely required Brentano’s quotations (Die Anfänge des modernen Kapitalismus, pp. 150 ff.) to protect this well-known philanthropist from the misunderstanding which Brentano seems to attribute to me. The problem is just the reverse: how could such a philanthropist come to write these particular sentences (the especially characteristic form of which Brentano has neglected to reproduce) in the manner of a moralist? ↩
This is the basis of our difference from Sombart in stating the problem. Its very considerable practical significance will become clear later. In anticipation, however, let it be remarked that Sombart has by no means neglected this ethical aspect of the capitalistic entrepreneur. But in his view of the problem it appears as a result of capitalism, whereas for our purposes we must assume the opposite as an hypothesis. A final position can only be taken up at the end of the investigation. For Sombart’s view see Der moderne Kapitalismus, first edition, I, pp. 357, 380, etc. His reasoning here connects with the brilliant analysis given in Simmel’s Philosophie des Geldes (final chapter). Of the polemics which he has brought forward against me in his Bourgeois I shall come to speak later. At this point any thorough discussion must be postponed. ↩
“I grew convinced that truth, sincerity, and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life; and I formed written resolutions, which still remain in my journal book to practise them ever while I lived. Revelation had indeed no weight with me as such; but I entertained an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might
