History of Islamic Origins of Western Education, A.D. 800-1350

vate wealth. But the subject of academic innovation is not exhausted by a study of benevolence, much less by a totaling of dollar inputs. Fully to com­ prehend that subject, one has to know much about the character of the in­ stitution—why it tends to innovate by expansion, rather than contraction or reorganization; why it lacks a standard obsolescence that would allow it to shift its own resources to new demands; much about the character of the in­ dustry—why it spreads ideas through emulation rather than through l i ­ censing or consolidation; why it perpetuates small units at a high fixed cost; much about the character of the market—how the status competition that goes on within it stimulates and depresses the urge to change. In addition, one would want to know why some notions survive and others falter: for ex­ ample, why the Ph.D. conquered in thirty years, but two centuries of recur­ rent agitation could not introduce one charter novelty or alter the basic pat­ tern of lay control. Finally, to test the entrepreneurial hypothesis, one would want to know whether tax-supported entities were in fact less inclined to in­ novation than those that subsisted on private funds. But few of these issues are raised and none of them is squarely confronted. Nor do the authors take adequate account of some of the liabilities of ex­ ternal sponsorship. They repeat what critics have said against gifts that draw funds from better purposes. But they never define these better purposes and seldom evaluate specific gifts, so that in the end the new program that ad­ vances culture and the new program that licenses barbarians emerge as equally justifiable. Similarly, the authors acknowledge that a "thin" line exists "between creative giving and coercion." But they do not discuss the hazy boundary between constant dependency and servility—the impact of philanthropy on the taker's spine. The beggar's wish to please may be more debilitating than any outside pressure; the hidden cost of the commitments others pay for may be the payee's cautiousness and sycophancy. This menac­ ing aspect of the cash relations between the university and its benefactors de­ serves an emphasis not here supplied. Walter P. Metzger Columbia University