Schleiermacher, Fries, Herbart \(\ldots\) -- who influenced Hermann Graßmann? (Q1759313)

It has often been assumed that the strongly philosophical presentation of the subject-matter in the first version of Hermann Graßmann's \textit{Ausdehnungslehre} (1844) was influenced by Schleiermacher's \textit{Dialektik}; alternatively, influences from Herbart, Jakob Fries and the younger brother Robert Graßmann have been assumed. In particular, Gert Schubring has proposed repeatedly in recent decades that the decisive influence was due to Fries as mediated by Robert Graßmann. The author reviews the evidence, putting in parallel passages from the \textit{Ausdehnungslehre} and Schleiermacher's \textit{Dialektik} and pointing out that Schleiermacher's abolition of Kant's dichotomy between Anschauung and Begriff may have served Graßmann; analyzing in detail Schubring's arguments (arguing that some \textit{ad hominem} arguments do not fit Graßmann's character, and that others build on misunderstandings or misreadings of the evidence -- summing up on p. 199 that Schubring's argumentation is ``highly speculative'' and ``methodically problematic''). Looking further at Hermann's and Robert's contrasting readings of Schleiermacher, Petsche finally argues that the Euclidean formal style of the revised version of the \textit{Ausdehnungslehre} from 1862 (and thus not the 1844 version) owes much to Robert. Schubring has also proposed that Schleiermacher's willingness to go beyond three dimensions might be due to Fries through Hermann's father Justus Graßmann. Petsche shows that the case in question has nothing to do with dimensions and thus can hardly have been relevant. Beyond that, Petsche does not find some influence from Justus Graßmann's \textit{Reine Zahlenlehre} on Hermann's conception of operations implausible. Also, inspiration from Herbart is argued to be not inherently implausible, nor however supported by any clear evidence.