Wilhelm Arrow

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil around 1850, steel engraving by Weyer and Singer. With Pfeil's signature and the famous sentence: “Ask the trees how they want to be raised, they will teach you about it better than the books do.” The original hangs in the museum of the Adler pharmacy in Eberswalde .

Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil (born March 28, 1783 in Rammelburg ; † September 4, 1859 in Warmbrunn ) was a Saxon-Prussian , German forestry practitioner , university professor and forest scientist . He is considered to be the outstanding forest personality of his time in Northern Germany and is one of the so-called “ forest classics ” of international standing.

Live and act

Origin and family

Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil, who always called himself Wilhelm Pfeil, came from an old bourgeois family from Freyburg (Unstrut) in the later Kingdom of Saxony , which can be traced back to the 16th century. His parents were the magistrate in the county of Mansfeld and the writer Johann Gottlob Benjamin Pfeil (1732-1800) and Eva Clara Johanna Leonardine nee Goeckingk († 1792), the sister of the poet and economist Leopold Friedrich Günther von Goeckingk (1748-1828). Wilhelm Pfeil was the fourth of eight children from this marriage.

Youth and education

Wilhelm Pfeil spent his youth in Rammelburg Castle , where his parents lived. In addition to his other activities, his father was the general representative for the large estates of the baron von Friese family, which also included the castle. The densely wooded eastern Harz and dealing with foresters shaped his childhood. Like his father, he wanted to become a lawyer . After he was first taught by a private tutor , he attended the Aschersleben high school Stephaneum from 1797 . After the early death of his father in 1801, however, he was forced to break off the visit before graduating from high school and to do practical work because the family had become penniless.

Pfeil completed part of his training in the woods around Thale .

Out of inclination he took up the profession of simple forester and spent the prescribed three-year hunter apprenticeship from 1801 to 1804 in the royal Prussian chief forester's office in Königshof (today Königshütte ) near Elbingerode under his teacher Kersten and Thale . However, the royal Prussian chief forester liked the hunt more than anything, so that Pfeil's forestry training did not make much progress. During this time, however, his powers of observation were sharpened, which was of great benefit to him in the course of his career. After getting to know the comparatively simple spruce industry in Königshof , he completed the second part of his training in a hardwood area on the advice of his teacher . To do this, he went to Thale, where he always liked to return later. It was there that he met the chief forester von Hünerbein, who gave him access to theory. After Pfeil had participated in the survey of the Sehlde district for a few months, at the end of his apprenticeship in the spring of 1804 he took part in an inspection trip to the Prussian exclave of Neuchâtel in Switzerland as Hünerbeins' assistant . The route led from Halberstadt via Bamberg , Nuremberg , Ulm , Schaffhausen and Konstanz with detours to Lausanne and Geneva and the Alps . It was to be the longest journey of his life.

Ascent to forester


After his apprenticeship, Pfeil applied to the court of Prince Carolath-Beuthens in Lower Silesia after being placed by an uncle . First he served from 1804 as an assistant to a forester in Kleinitz and Carolath , then from 1806 there as a forester. The following year he married Albertine Beate Nowack (1791–1870). The marriage resulted in a daughter (born 1811) and three sons, Hugo Theobald (1809–1848), Hermann Rudolph (1811–1850) and Arnold Erich Ottomar (born 1825). The two oldest sons also took up the forestry profession, but both died before they were 40 years old. The third son became a lawyer, and the daughter later married a lawyer.

Although Wilhelm Pfeil had never served in the military as a private forester, he took part in the wars of liberation against Napoleon in 1813 and commanded a Landwehr company.

His professional advancement in Carolath then took place quickly: in 1815 he was promoted to chief forester and in 1816 to forester . During those years in Lower Silesia, Pfeil began a one-off self-study in order to supplement the theoretical knowledge he had previously lacked - he had never attended a forest school or even a university. Within a few years he acquired the knowledge of all the forest literature available at the time. In the next few years, until the end of his life, Pfeil had a veritable flood of publications. His ability to put thoughts on paper quickly, convincingly and extremely precisely makes him an extraordinary figure in forest science.

As a university professor

His publications also ensured that Georg Ludwig Hartig became aware of him. In particular, his work, published in 1816, On the causes of the poor state of the forests and the only possible means to improve it, with special consideration for the Prussian states. An outspoken investigation that caught the attention of professionals. His treatise on forest science education and instruction in general, with particular application to the Prussian state (1820) , then turned out to be decisive for his further career .

At Hartig's instigation, Pfeil became director of the Prussian Forest Academy at the University of Berlin in 1821 at the age of 38 . He received the titles of Oberforstrat and Professor . The autodidact , who had no academic training, had thus become a member of the most important German university of the time - a unique event for the time. At the reopening of the forest academy, which had been closed since 1806, he gave the keynote speech on the importance and importance of the scientific training of the forester for increasing the national wealth and happiness of the people . The stay in Berlin brought Pfeil into contact with well-known scientists of his time. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel , later rector of Berlin University, awarded him an honorary doctorate from the Philosophical Faculty in 1821 . Pfeil corresponded with the lawyer Friedrich Carl von Savigny on historical questions. And Wilhelm and Alexander von Humboldt also encouraged Pfeil in his endeavor for practical research.

From 1830, Pfeil headed the higher forestry school in Eberswalde

Pfeil, who refused university training for foresters, wanted to bring forest training out of the city of Berlin to a more wooded area in order to be able to combine forest science teaching with practice in the forest. In 1830 he achieved that the academy was relocated to Neustadt-Eberswalde as the Royal Prussian Higher Forestry School and was headed there by Pfeil. He taught the most important forest subjects himself until 1859. He received support from Julius Theodor Christian Ratzeburg (natural sciences), Wilhelm Bando (forest and hunting studies), Wilhelm Schneider (geodesy) and Schäffer (legal studies). A total of 1273 students went through the Pfeils school in Berlin and Eberswalde, among them Bernhard Danckelmann , who later succeeded Pfeils as director of the academy .

Wilhelm Pfeil, who was very modest when it came to his personal aspirations, lived entirely for his work. His working day began at 4 a.m. in summer and at 5 a.m. in winter. His colleague Ratzeburg reported that apart from Alexander von Humboldt, he had not known anyone else who had managed to get by with so little sleep for a long time. Pfeil and his colleagues not only had no assistants for teaching and research, but apart from one cleaning worker, they had no other academy staff. It therefore happened that Pfeil heated the academy itself.

In addition to his teaching activities, he also had to fulfill the duties of the forest inspection officer for the 15,846 hectares of teaching chief foresters in Liepe and Biesenthal . He was thus empowered to intervene in the management of the individual districts. He also took care of the 1500 hectare urban forest of Eberswalde.

Wilhelm Pfeil, who retired in 1859 as a secret forestry officer and moved to Hirschberg in the Giant Mountains , died in the same year during a spa stay in neighboring Bad Warmbrunn . He was buried on September 7, 1859 in Hirschberg. The grave no longer exists today; it was eliminated after 1945.

Documents and archives by and about Wilhelm Pfeil are kept in the historical fund of the Eberswalde University of Applied Sciences and in the archive of the Humboldt University of Berlin (inventory of the Forstliche Hochschule).


Wilhelm Pfeil always endeavored to lead the forest science, which was still young in his day, out of its isolation from the other sciences. He attached particular importance to the close connection to economics . He wanted to see forests and forestry as part of all social and economic events. He was a masterful, but often also a cynical and unjust critic. However, his achievements as a forestry practitioner, teacher and scientist are beyond question. Due to its significant contributions to the development of forest science, Pfeil, along with Georg Ludwig Hartig , Heinrich Cotta , Johann Christian Hundeshagen , Carl Justus Heyer and Gottlob König, is one of the so-called " forest classics ". From today's perspective, it has probably remained the most recent of these.

Forest writer and feared critic

Arrow was from 1822 to 1859, the journal Critical Sheets for forestry and hunting science out
With Johann Christian Hundeshagen , Pfeil had a particularly rampant dispute.

Wilhelm Pfeil is one of the most productive forest writers ever. In addition to 24 books, some of which had multiple editions, he wrote around 750 treatises and communications. Of these, more than 700 appeared in the 42 volumes of the journal Kritische Blätter für Forst- und Jagdwissenschaft (1822-1859), which he founded, was largely written alone and was also published until his death . He did not omit any area of ​​forest and hunting science. "Extraordinary hard work, perseverance, a penetrating mind and the renunciation of many of the comforts of life enabled him to write a huge, hardly overlooked scientific work," said the forest historian Karl Hasel in 1982 , who wrote several of Pfeil's works, which are still current and surprisingly fresh has made the annotated compilations generally accessible again. Both Hasel and his colleague Albrecht Milnik strongly recommend it to today's foresters to study.

Arrow was a sharp and feared critic. He commented on the specialist literature of his time in more than 600, mostly very extensive reviews . He hated nothing more than authors who copy knowledge from other books and compile them into new books. Pfeil was of the opinion that publications should only be welcomed if they convey new knowledge. So it can be that in his critical sheets he critically evaluates a new book over 20 or more pages and then comes to the conclusion: "Nothing new, therefore scientifically worthless!"

Pfeil himself saw his criticism as follows:

“By the way, that's the old story, according to which reviewers have always been condemned and declared outlawed people who are exposed to the hatred and persecution of all bad, mediocre and arrogant writers. But people should feel sorry for the poor critics, who are obliged to search through all literary filth and worthless baggage to see whether there is perhaps something useful among them. Should we now advertise all of this worthless good as excellent, good value goods? And should one finally tell people frankly and freely that it is wrong to bother the audience with it? "

Pfeil, who was very self-critical and revised mistakes made by him throughout his life and often changed his views, offended many contemporaries with his relentless criticism and made numerous opponents. He had a particularly rampant argument with Johann Christian Hundeshagen . And in the year before his death, he panned Max Preßler's book Der rationelle Waldwirt (1858). He suspected the emerging doctrine of clean soil yield of abandoning the principle of sustainability and therefore strictly rejected it. A harsh reply by Pressler was the result.

The forest historian August Bernhardt , a student of Pfeil in Eberswalde, assessed the criticism of his teacher as follows:

"Pfeil exercised this literary guardianship for almost 40 years with absolute violence and rejected many intruders into their nothingness, admittedly also nipped in the bud some as yet undeveloped, but capable young talent."

Georg Wilhelm von Wedekind in particular - who usually only used to refer to the arrow as “the baron” - and Theodor Hartig were only recognized and appreciated for their importance for forest literature much later. However, he had great admiration for the old master Heinrich Cotta . To a certain extent, Pfeil's work in forest literature can be compared with that of Karl Kraus and his magazine Die Fackel in later decades.

In addition to his criticism, Pfeil has also published important forestry books. In the two-volume work Principles of Forestry in Relation to National Economy and State Finance (1822/1824) he was the first forester to deal with the economic fundamentals of forestry , based on the teachings of Adam Smith . A classic silviculture book was The forest behavior of forest trees and their education (1829), and in several books Pfeil dealt with questions of forest protection and forest police teaching . Works such as the five-volume New Complete Guide to the Treatment, Use and Appreciation of Forests. A manual for forest owners and forest officials already assumed an encyclopedic character. Not least with The Forest History of Prussia up to 1806 (1839), Pfeil also identified himself as a remarkable forest historian.

In addition, Pfeil was also a friend of music and poetry. He himself wrote a number of poems .

The importance of the local

Despite his numerous publications and his knowledge of the entire forestry specialist literature of the time, Pfeil placed the incessant keen "observation of nature" and learning to see above all theoretical knowledge: "The lack of observation can never be replaced by mere speculation."

This led him to his famous maxim: “Ask the trees how they want to be brought up, they will teach you better about it than the books do.” He tirelessly pointed out that it is not possible to keep all forests rigidly according to the same general rules rather, the location , i.e. the soil and climatic conditions and their consequences, must be taken into account. His maxim of the influence of the local is a central point of Pfeil's thinking and, in addition to the idea of sustainability, became the model for future generations of foresters as “The iron law of the local”. In doing so , he gave important impulses to forest soil science , which was only to develop after him. The site-specific forestry represented by the so-called “Eberswalder Schule” is based on Pfeil's ideas. Due to the increasing level of knowledge, the starting point for forestry action is no longer simple general rules, but rather the local conditions. He was in stark contrast to his mentor Georg Ludwig Hartig, with whom he had an extensive scholarly dispute. Arrow not only draws its philosophy is to silviculture , but for example also on forest management and forest legislation .

Arrow repeatedly turned against "forest popes" who only want their own opinion to be correct. The consequence of this is:

“A great deal of forest disputes arises from the fact that the foresters believe that it must be the same everywhere but at the point where they made their observations, and blame others who found it different in other places and under different conditions. It is a big mistake: Mathematics, philosophy, chemistry, etc. remain the same under all zones, not so the vegetation, not the forestry, which is dependent on external influences and conditions. "

Due to his constant demand for observation and experiment - a very modern attitude in his time when science was often content with collecting and systematizing - he paved the way for forestry experimentation. Pfeil himself not only undertook experiments with various forest plants , including for the cultivation of plants for reforestation , not only in his teaching areas, but above all in the forest botanical garden in Eberswalde (forest place "Pfeilsgarten"), which he and Ratzeburg created in 1830 . So he tried out the planting of pines - seedlings , which is still the predominant cultivation technique for this tree species.

Silvicultural Beliefs

Most of Pfeil's publications dealt with silvicultural issues, whereby - as stated above - he sharply rejected any schematic and every “recipe-making”. He intensively examined the Scots pine that dominates around Eberswalde and in Brandenburg . He was skeptical of the cultivation of foreign tree species - with the exception of larch for very good locations. He regretted the expulsion of varied mixed stands and spoke out against pure stands that were contrary to nature . Pfeil had a lot of sense for the beauties of the forest and can be seen as an early representative of the forest beauty doctrine , which then, Gottlob König and later Heinrich von Salisch, blossomed. As an early nature conservationist, Pfeil advocated natural monuments, for example .

Political writer

In his publications, Wilhelm Pfeil always looked far beyond the narrow forest boundaries and out of the forest and dealt with the societal and social problems of his time. This is how he became a political writer.

Pfeil was a believer in economic liberalism as defined by Adam Smith . His demands, which he has restricted again elsewhere, therefore, included the sale of state forests , the clearing of forests in favor of agriculture and the abolition of the forest police . On the other hand, Pfeil, a staunch supporter of his king and the monarchy, rejected political liberalism. He thought liberals and democrats were a misfortune and feared the threat of communism . He justified his attitude with his profession:

“The forester who really deals with the forest and is not a pure theoretician who only knows it from books is conservative by nature and can only be. He has more of the future in mind than the present, he wants to keep the forest for the future generations even with sacrifices; he knows that one must not keep throwing away all previous arrangements and always put something new in their place, if one ever wants to achieve a well-ordered whole. He always bases his measures on what has been handed down to him from the past; he distrusts the new theories and believes more in the old experiences. "

However, this conservative attitude did not blind him to social contradictions and tensions. Rather, he had a keen eye for the social grievances of his time and was, out of Christian conviction, an unwavering champion for social progress. Out of a social attitude almost reminiscent of Charles Dickens - which was quite unusual for his time - he stood up for the poor, the weak and the disadvantaged throughout his life, especially for the "poor farmer", for forest pasture , litter use and Use of grass in the forest could still be of existential importance. Pfeil therefore warned against an attitude that meant that the forest was only there for the sake of the forest and not also for the sake of people. Therefore he turned against a radical replacement of the forest rights ( forest servituten). He opposed the noble privilege still valid in many places in the forest administration early on and criticized administrations and governments with great impartiality. The city council of Eberswalde paid special tribute to his advocacy for the poor. Pfeil was also the first to speak out in favor of promoting small-scale forest ownership. In any case, against the background of his many years of activity in the private forest, he has always taken into account its conditions and interests in detail.

In his writings, Pfeil repeatedly expresses himself very critical of the thoughts and actions of industrialists and stock market speculators and their excesses:

“As long as the stock exchange traders only speculate on acquiring as much of the state's wealth as possible, enriching themselves at the expense of the poor people's classes, as long as the factory owners only think of themselves and not of their workers, one cannot blame the proletariat if it does reaching for the means to get as much as possible enjoyment. The rich first had a pernicious effect on the lower classes through their example; only through a better one can they make amends. "

The Protestant instead Arrow calls for a truly Christian life of the higher classes of people as an example of the lower layers. He also recommends Christian charity to foresters:

“The forester, who heartlessly excludes the poorer class from the collection of worthless wood, the joint use of berries and sponges, the driving in of harmless cattle, the extraction of the grass, where it can be done without harm to the wood, is certainly acting against God's commandment and does not love his neighbor as himself. He should never go into the forest without thinking of Christ's commandment. But that is that we come to the aid of the poor wherever possible, and in this way we also demand a Christian basis for every forest management. Without this, no blessing will rest on her. "

However , Pfeil was filled with the greatest distrust of the new representatives of the people after the revolution of 1848 . Pfeil grants the chambers and estates the right to control the administration of the state forests, but without interfering in the technical process. He warns against including the forest in the political business:

“The forest is not an object that one can experiment with with impunity; once devastated, it is very difficult to restore. (...) The republics need the forests as much as the absolute monarchies, and even if the communists took over the government they would not be able to do without the forest. The forester is therefore outside and above the political parties; therefore it is also a big mistake if such a person takes part in the party struggles in any way. "

Arrow as a hunter

Wilhelm Pfeil and his students on a hunt in the forest of Chorin near Eberswalde in 1848 . Lithograph by E. Meyer.

Although Wilhelm Pfeil was an enthusiastic and convinced hunter all his life, praised the beauty of the hunting experience and wrote numerous articles on hunting science, his thinking was based on the principle of “forest before game”. He has found words of unbroken validity for the forest attitude towards the relationship between forest and game, which he developed using the example of the rejuvenation of the silver fir :

“The first concern when there is a wide open approach is to protect against browsing by game. This means that all roe deer , all red deer , in general every animal that can be harmful to young plants must be ruthlessly shot to death if one does not know how to remove it in another way. Very few of them are enough to cause very great damage. That must never be tolerated; the hunters should bear in mind that game populations can only be preserved if they are kept in check in such a way that they do not cause any significant damage either in the wood or in the field. Every game where this is the case will sooner or later bring about a reaction and be exterminated, because then one always regularly swings from overly protecting game to its complete extermination. But someone who is properly kept in check will not make enemies. That is why unconditional protection of the doe is by no means compatible with our current forestry. Would not the poachers again and again to help, we would soon to the breeding of these forests oaks sacrificing and other endangered species. It is undisputed that game is the main cause of the disappearance of oaks and silver firs in our forests. It would be very desirable that the unconditional prohibition of shooting deer from the Prussian forest regulations should disappear completely, and that the district administrator should be allowed to shoot all game where it is most detrimental, without being tied to gender and age. A suitable game stand can be preserved quite well. He has often shown that the publisher is neither a wild animal nor a hunter; but he is even less of a wood enemy who wants to sacrifice wood to game. "

Against this background and hunting conditions after the 1848 revolution, Pfeil fought for a contemporary hunting law and demanded that hunters have to compensate for any damage caused by game .

Forest teaching and examination

Pfeil showed an understanding and supportive attitude towards his students. His lectures and excursions were considered to be very lively, captivating and stimulating. It was important to him to develop the judgment and observation skills of his students: "It's about training thinking foresters and not machines." Arrow:

“The forester needs general forestry training; but this can never enable him to want to determine with certainty the measures for treating a forest from the outset. He must always develop these independently from the peculiar conditions of the forest and adapt them to them. The correct practical tact must guide him in this, and he must never forget that there is no rule that is correct everywhere, and that exceptions can occur where precisely what is generally regarded as a fault is fully justified. He is more of an artist than a scholar, just as the doctor is. A handbook of forest science can give rules for their valuation and management for the various conditions in the forests; but the forester must be able to appreciate the circumstances under which they are only applicable. Like diseases, these are often so complicated, the constitutions of people and forests are often so infinitely different that doctors and foresters often have to throw away the manuals and textbooks in order to form new rules for their treatment. That is why nothing is more dangerous than a mere training of the forester according to certain textbooks and instructions, whereby he does not learn to think and work independently. "

The main task of the forest teacher is therefore to awaken a love for nature, to stimulate thought and to show the students how they can form their own judgment in the forest. Therefore, an important part of the training were excursions to the “green lecture halls” of the teaching chief forestry officers around Eberswalde, but also to other forest areas. He himself wrote a number of forest area and travel descriptions, including for the forests of the Harz , the Eifel , the Solling and the Thuringian Forest . The social part of the training program also included hunting together . The forest botanical garden in Eberswalde also served for the practical training of the students.

Wilhelm Pfeil has repeatedly commented on the forestry examination system. In his time, the exams were held as state examinations, i.e. not by the professors of the Forestry Academy, but by an examination committee appointed by the ministry. He was very skeptical about these tests:

"It is decided that one cannot find out through an exam whether someone will become a good, useful civil servant, not even whether he has the necessary qualifications for a civil servant position, hardly at the end whether he has really learned something."

Pfeil refers to the various psychological aspects between the examiner and the candidate, the mutual influence solely through external impressions and luck or bad luck with the question to be answered, depending on how present the examinee is to the point in question. Where one examinee manages to be an eloquent, albeit superficial, blender with a few general sentences, another can be fearful, eventually get upset and not have his knowledge at hand at all. It is therefore irresponsible if the examiner intimidates and discourages the examinee even more by harsh behavior and hurtful criticism. Pfeil therefore advises friendly and encouraging treatment, which does not rule out the dutiful severity of the judgment. "But even with this one must not forget that out of a hundred young people who are tested, ninety-nine have more knowledge than their answers in the tests show."


Memberships and honors

Wilhelm Pfeil was a member or honorary member of a number of scientific societies at home and abroad, including the Societät der Forst- und Jagdkunde zu Drei 30acker founded by Johann Matthäus Bechstein from 1814 , the Leipzig Economic Society from 1822 and the Royal Prussian Brandenburg Economic Society from 1824 Society of Potsdam. In 1825 he joined the Lawless Society in Berlin .

Pfeil received various domestic and foreign medals, such as the Red Eagle Order II. Class with Oak Leaves in 1850 .

Monuments and dedications

Arrow memorial near Thale
Arrow monument in Königshütte
Forestry according to a purely practical view , 6th edition. updated by Max Robert Preßler . Baumgärtner's bookstore, Leipzig 1870

The arrow monument in the natural park resin / Saxony-indication near the Bode valley east of Treseburg ( valley ) is close to the most Great Dambach head ( 454.3  m ) located forestry Dambach house in which Honecker had his hunting property, about 50 m northwest a forest road intersection ( 468.5  m ) at a height of 470  m . The fenced monument consists of a massive base on which a stag is resting. It was financed by donations from his students in his memory and created by the Berlin sculptors August Kiss (portrait relief) and Eduard Mencke. The ceremonial unveiling took place on July 3, 1865. The location was chosen due to the fact that Pfeil regularly visited this area for recreation and hunting and carried out practical exercises in the forests around Thale with the students of the Forestry Academy to classify and evaluate the forests. In 1825 he also met Heinrich Cotta here . However, his family did not comply with his wish to be buried here. The Arrow Memorial plays in a key scene of the novel Cécile of Theodor Fontane a role. It is included as no. 68 in the system of stamping points of the Harz hiking pin.

There are other Pfeil monuments in Königshütte and in the center of the Forest Botanical Garden in Eberswalde, where there has also been an Pfeilstrasse since 1884. Another Pfeilstrasse can be found in Berlin-Niederschönhausen . The arrow painting, created by Hans Eckstein in 1914 for the auditorium of the Eberswalde Forest Academy, now hangs in the auditorium of today's technical college .

To commemorate Pfeil's apprenticeship, a memorial stone was unveiled on May 6, 2003 in front of the former Königshof chief forestry officer. On September 1, 2005, representatives of the German and Polish forestry industry brought up a German-Polish plaque as the highlight of a ceremony to commemorate Pfeil in the garrison church of Jelenia Góra (formerly Hirschberg). A bilingual arrow exhibition created for this occasion is shown in the Goluchow Forest Museum.

The bark beetle species Bostrichus pfeilii is named after him. According to Pfeil, head forester's offices - Pfeil and Pfeilswalde in East Prussia - and forest plant gardens - "Pfeilsgarten" in Eberswalde and in the Chorin district and "Pfeils Kamp" in the Zechlin district - were given their names. The medals “For Merit” and “For Athletic Achievement” from the former Eberswalde Forestry University were named after him.

In memory of Pfeil's work, the Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil Prize , endowed with 30,000 DM / 15,000 euros, was awarded from 1963 to 2006 . The award made available by the Alfred Toepfer Foundation FVS Hamburg honored personalities who have made a name for themselves in forestry. The Pfeil Prize , as it is also known for short, was awarded by the Forestry Faculty of the Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg until 1993 , and then by the foundation at the Eberswalde University of Applied Sciences from 1994 until it was discontinued in 2006 . At the same time as the prize, Pfeil-Europa-Studienreise scholarships were also awarded to foresters from Germany and abroad.

Fonts (selection)

Scientific writings

  • Experiences and remarks about the culture of the forests in Silesia and in the Marche. 1813
  • About the causes of the poor condition of the forests and the only possible means to improve it, with special consideration for the Prussian states. An outspoken inquiry , 1816
  • About forest science education and instruction in general with particular application to the Prussian state. 1820
  • About the liberation of the forests from servitude. 1821
  • Complete guide to forest management, use and appraisal. A manual for forest workers, landowners, economists and magistrates. With regard to the mutual relationships between silviculture and agriculture , 2 volumes, 1820/1821
  • Principles of forestry in relation to national economy and state finance. 2 volumes, 1822/1824
  • The treatment and valuation of the middle forest. Züllichau 1824
  • About insect damage in the woods, the means to prevent it and to lessen its disadvantages. Berlin 1827
  • Instructions for the replacement of the forest servitutes as well as for the division and amalgamation of communal forests, with special consideration of the Prussian legislation. Berlin 1828 (reprints 1844 and 1854)
  • The forest behavior of forest trees and their upbringing. 1829 (reprints 1839 and 1854)
  • New complete guide to forest management, use and appraisal. A manual for forest owners and forest officials , 5 volumes, Berlin 1830ff
  • Forest protection and forest police teaching. 1831 (reprint 1845)
  • Forest use and forest technology. 1831 (reprint 1845 and 1858)
  • Brief instruction on hunting science for landowners and forest lovers. 1831
  • Forestry from a purely practical point of view. A manual for private forest owners, administrators and especially for forest apprentices , 1831 (subsequent editions 1839, 1843, 1851, 1857 and 1870)
  • The forest taxation. 1833 (reprints 1843 and 1858)
  • The forest police laws of Germany and France according to their principles, with special consideration for a new forest police legislation in Prussia. For foresters, cameramen and estates , Berlin 1834
  • Instructions for determining the property tax to be levied on forest land. For foresters, state economists and tax officials , Leipzig 1835
  • The forest history of Prussia up to 1806. Leipzig 1839; Reprint 2009 Verlag Kessel, ISBN 978-3-941300-21-7 , link to the book cover: PDF
  • Complete instructions on the management of the hunt and the use of the hunt, taking into account appropriate hunting police legislation. A handbook for hunting owners , Leipzig 1848
  • Instructions for the implementation of the hunting police law for Prussia of March 7, 1850 , 1850
  • German timber breeding is based on the peculiarity of the forest timber and its behavior towards the various locations. 1860 (published posthumously by his son Arnold Erich Ottomar Pfeil)

Editorial activity


  • Richard Hess:  Arrow, Wilhelm . In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB). Volume 25, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig 1887, pp. 648-655.
  • Ekkehard SchwartzArrow, Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 20, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-428-00201-6 , p. 326 f. ( Digitized version ).
  • Albrecht Milnik : Wilhelm Arrow . In the other (ed.) Among other things: In the service of the forest - life paths and achievements of Brandenburg forest people. Brandenburg pictures of life . Verlag Kessel, Remagen-Oberwinter 2006, ISBN 3-935638-79-5 , pp. 131-135.
  • Karl Hasel : Studies on Wilhelm Pfeil . From the forest, Volume 36.Schaper, Hanover 1982
  • Wilhelm Pfeil, Karl Hasel, H.-F. Joachim: WL arrow. Biography . Published on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the International Association of Forest Research Institutes - IUFRO -. Eberswalde-Finow 1992, 208 pp.
  • Rainer Wudowenz (Red.) Among others: 175 years return of the founding of the forest academic training at the University of Berlin by Prof. Dr. phil. hc Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil, Secret Forestry Council. University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde, Association of Friends and Supporters of Forest Science Teaching and Research Eberswalde eV, Eberswalde 1996
  • Rainer Wudowenz, Ernst Eberhardt and others: Oberforstrat Professor Dr. Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Arrow. 1783 - 1859. Commemorative event for the 220th birthday on March 28, 2003. Eberswalder Association for Education and Research eV, Eberswalde 2003
  • Albert Richter : From Wilhelm Pfeil's life's work . In: Archives for Forestry . 4th year, issue 5/6 1955, pp. 384–396.
  • Jan Engel: Common memory in Poland - the crowning glory of the 175th anniversary of teaching and research ( Memento from September 28, 2007 in the Internet Archive ). (Archived version from September 2007; report on the installation of a German-Polish memorial plaque for arrow in the garrison church of Jelenia Góra)

Web links

Commons : Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil  - Album with pictures, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. so z. B. Albrecht Milnik: Wilhelm arrow . In: In the service of the forest. Remagen-Oberwinter 2006, p. 135.
  2. a b c d Ekkehard Schwartz: Wilhelm Pfeil . In: Neue Deutsche Biographie (Volume 20, Berlin 2001), pp. 326–327.
  3. ^ Karl Hasel , Ekkehard Schwartz : Forest history. A plan for study and practice , 2nd updated edition. Kessel, Remagen 2002, ISBN 3-935638-26-4 , p. 343.
  4. ^ Albrecht Milnik: Wilhelm Pfeil . In: In the service of the forest. Remagen-Oberwinter 2006, pp. 132 & 231
  5. ^ Albrecht Milnik: Wilhelm Pfeil . In: In the service of the forest. Remagen-Oberwinter 2006, p. 134.
  6. ^ Albrecht Milnik: Wilhelm Pfeil. In: In the service of the forest. Remagen-Oberwinter 2006, pp. 134-135.
  7. ^ A b Karl Hasel, Ekkehard Schwartz: Forest history. A plan for study and practice. 2nd Edition. Kessel, Remagen 2002, ISBN 3-935638-26-4 , p. 345.
  8. a very comprehensive bibliography by Pfeil can be found in WL Pfeil. Biography . Eberswalde-Finow 1992, pp. 181-206.
  9. ^ Karl Hasel: Studies on Wilhelm Pfeil . Hanover 1982, p. 360.
  10. cf. Albrecht Milnik: Wilhelm Arrow . In: In the service of the forest. Remagen-Oberwinter 2006, p. 135 or Karl Hasel: Wilhelm Pfeil in the mirror of the critical sheets for forest and hunting science . In: General forest and hunting newspaper. 149th year, issue 5/1978, p. 92.
  11. quoted from Karl Hasel: Wilhelm Pfeil in the mirror of the Critical Leaves for Forest and Hunting Science . In: General forest and hunting newspaper. 149th year, issue 5/1978, p. 94.
  12. Critical Sheets. Volume 15, Issue 2, p. 25, 1841.
  13. Critical Sheets. Volume 41, Issue 1, p. 35, 1858.
  14. August Bernhardt: History of forest ownership (1875), quoted here from Karl Hasel: Wilhelm Pfeil in the mirror of the critical sheets for forest and hunting science . In: General forest and hunting newspaper. 149th year, issue 5/1978, p. 94.
  15. Critical Sheets. Volume 3, Issue 2, p. 28, 1826.
  16. z. B. with Karl Hasel: Wilhelm Pfeil in the mirror of the critical sheets for forest and hunting science . In: General forest and hunting newspaper. 149th year, issue 5/1978, pp. 126-127.
  17. Critical Sheets. Volume 5, Issue 2, p. 173, 1831.
  18. ^ Karl Hasel, Ekkehard Schwartz: Forest history. A plan for study and practice. 2nd updated edition. Kessel, Remagen 2002, ISBN 3-935638-26-4 , p. 346.
  19. Critical Sheets. Volume 25, Issue 2, p. 221, 1848.
  20. Critical Sheets. Volume 30, Issue 2, p. 52, 1851.
  21. Critical Sheets. Volume 36, Issue 1, p. 197, 1856.
  22. Critical Sheets. Volume 32, Issue 1, p. 217, 1852 / Karl Hasel: Studies on Wilhelm Pfeil . Hanover 1982, pp. 153-155.
  23. Critical Sheets. Volume 17, Issue 1, p. 161, 1842.
  24. ^ Karl Hasel: Studies on Wilhelm Pfeil . Hanover 1982, p. 360.
  25. Critical Sheets. Volume 15, Issue 2, p. 200, 1841.
  26. Critical Sheets. Volume 20, Issue 1, 1844, p. 125.
  27. a b Critical sheets. Volume 22, Issue 2, 1846, p. 145.
  28. Arrow near the lawless society
  29. a b Harzer Wanderadel: stamp point 68 / "arrow" - monument , on harzer-wandernadel.de
  30. ^ Albrecht Milnik: Wilhelm Pfeil . In: In the service of the forest. Remagen-Oberwinter 2006, p. 131.
  31. Jan Engel: Common memories in Poland - the crowning glory of the 175th anniversary of teaching and research ( Memento from September 28, 2007 in the Internet Archive ). (Archived version from September 2007; report on the installation of a German-Polish memorial plaque for arrow in the garrison church of Jelenia Góra)
  32. Information from the Alfred Toepfer Foundation on the Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil Prize ( Memento from September 28, 2007 in the Internet Archive )