1

KaiusTuori

EmpireofLaw:NaziGermany,exilescholars

andthebattleforthefutureofEurope

14.8.2019

Acceptedversionofthetext,thefinal,editedbookwillbepublishedbytheCambridgeUniversityPress

2

TableofContentsAbbreviationsPreface 1. Introduction 2. Legal refugees from Nazi Germany and the idea of liberty 3. Redefining the rule of law, jurisprudence and the totalitarian state 4. The long legal tradition and the European heritage in Nazi Germany 5. Reconfiguring European legal tradition after the war 6. The European narrative and the tradition of rights 7. Conclusions Bibliography AbbreviationsBGB BürgerlichesGesetzbuch,theGermancivilcodeDDP DeutscheDemokratischeParteiDig. TheDigestofJustinianEEC EuropeanEconomicCommunityGWBB GesetzzurWiederherstellungdesBerufsbeamtentumsMPI MaxPlanckInstituteNCO non-commissionedofficerNGO non-governmentalorganizationNL NachlassNSDAP NationalsozialistischeDeutscheArbeiterparteiOECD OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopmentOSS OfficeofStrategicServicesOUP OxfordUniversityPressPOW PrisonerofwarRGBl. ReichsgesetzblattSA SturmabteilungSDP SozialdemokratischeParteiDeutschlandsSPSL SocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearningSS SchutzstaffelWASP WhiteAnglo-SaxonProtestant

3

PrefaceManyofthehumanscienceshaveextensivelylonghistories,butfewhaveasanintimateconnectionwiththeirownpastsaslaw.Whatthishasmeantisthatinlegaldebates,referencestoancientlegaltextshavecontinuedtobeusedasauthoritativeexamplesandargumentsaboutcontemporarydevelopments.Thus,medievaljuristswouldrefertoRomanjurists,earlymodernlawyerstotheRomansandthemedieval,continuingaself-referentialchainextendingtothepresent.Whileithasbecomefairlyrare,thoughnotunheardof,toseereferencestoancientRomanjuridicalwritingsinmoderncourtcases,inliteraturethiseffectcontinuestothisday.Asalawyerandasahistorian,Ihavefoundthistobeawonderfulexampleofthehistoricalcontinuitiesinscientificresearch,rivalledonlybyphilosophyandperhapstheology.However,thefactthatthereisasenseofcontinuityofmorethantwoandahalfmillennia,asthereisinlaw,requiresnotonlyamemoryofthepast,butalsoasenseoftraditionandidentitytobindtogetherthepastandthepresent.CallingsomethingapartoftheEuropeanlegaltraditionortheWesternlegaltraditionincludesaprocessofbothinclusionandexclusion.Whywearepronetoincludesomeandexcludeothersdependsonhowwedefinetradition.WhyarethelawsofHammurabiorotherlawsoftheancientnearEastrememberedandcelebrated,butnotaspartofasharedpast,acommontradition,astheRomanjuristsare?Whatcountsastraditionandhowweredefinetraditionarethekeythemesofthisbook.Thisbookmarksthefinalendpointofalongandhappyjourneythatbeganin2012.Manypeoplehavehelpedmealongthewayandthebookhasbeenimmenselyimprovedasaresult.Firstofall,IwouldliketothanktheEuropeanResearchCouncilfortheirfundingwhichenabledmetocomposearesearchgroupthatforfiveyearshasscouredthearchivesanddiscussedwithmeideasoflaw,traditionandEurope.1IamverymuchindebttotheFoundLaw(ReinventingtheFoundationsofEuropeanLegalCulture1934–1964)teammembers,DrHetaBjörklund,Prof.MagdalenaKmak,DrTommasoBeggio,DrVilleErkkiläandProf.JacobGiltaij.Duringtheproject,wesharedanextraordinarycooperationandIhavebeeninthefortunatepositionofusingthemasasoundingboardandasatestaudience.Aspartoftheproject,wehavealsosharedaccesstoarchivalmaterials,enablingeachmembertoreadanduseeachother’sarchivalnotesandphotographs(ontheproject,itsotherpublicationsandsourcematerials,seethewebsitewww.foundlaw.orgorhttps://blogs.helsinki.fi/found-law).Alongsideoftheproject,weorganizedaseriesofworkshopsandconferences,whereIhavepresentedpartsofmyresearchandwasenlightenedbymagnificentpapersgivenbyothers.Theorganizationoftheseworkshopstookplaceincollaborationwithcolleaguesaroundtheworld,fromHelsinkitoFlorence,NewYork,RomeandStellenbosch.IwouldliketoespeciallythankProfessorsJacquesDuPlessis(Stellenbosch),BillNelson(NYU)andEmanueleConte(Rome).IhavebeenfortunatetohaveasmycolleaguesattheFacultyofLawthewonderfullegalhistorypeople,manyofwhomparticipatedinourconferencesandworkshopsandgaveimportantfeedback.Duringtheprocessofwritingthebook,IwashiredbythethenNetwork,

1ThisworkhasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanResearchCouncilundertheEuropeanUnion’sSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7/2007–2013)/ERCgrantagreementn°313100andfromtheAcademyofFinlandfundedCentreofExcellenceinLaw,IdentityandtheEuropeanNarratives,fundingdecisionnumber312154.

4

nowtheCentreforEuropeanStudiesattheUniversityofHelsinki,amultidisciplinaryresearchcentrewhereIwaswarmlywelcomedbyProf.JuhanaAunesluomaandDrLeenaMalkki.Duringthefinalphasesoftheproject,weputtogetherwithsomeoftheprojectmembersandpeoplefromthenetworkanultimatelysuccessfulapplicationforanAcademyofFinlandCentreofExcellence,the“CentreofExcellenceinLaw,IdentityandtheEuropeanNarratives”(www.eurostorie.org).Inthecentres,thisbookhasespeciallybenefitedfromconversationswithDrs.TimoMiettinen,TimoPankakoskiandPedroMagalhães.AspecialthanksgoestoVilleSuuronenandAdolfoGiulianiwhoreadtheentiremanuscriptandgavevaluablecomments.ThefinalstretchofthemanuscriptpreparationwasdoneatthePoliticalScienceDepartmentoftheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,whereIwasavisitingassociateprofessorforthreemonthsin2017–2018.IwouldliketothankProf.AnthonyPagden,myhost,andallthewonderfulcolleagues,especiallyMrMackEason,fortheirhospitalityandhelpintheprocess.Thepenultimateversionofthemanuscriptwasactuallydonewithalaptopperchedontopofasurfboardservingasamakeshiftdesk.Forthefinalpush,IamthankfulforProf.Hans-PeterHaferkamp,whoputthemagnificentlibraryofhisinstitute,InstitutfürNeuerePrivatrechtsgeschichte,DeutscheundRheinischeRechtsgeschichte,atmydisposal.TheCambridgeUniversityPresswaskindenoughtoacceptthemanuscript.MyeditorTomRandallhasmovedtheprojectforwardfromanideatomanuscriptwithunfailingprecision.IwouldalsoliketothanktheserieseditorsoftheCambridgeStudiesinEuropeanLawandPolicy,LaurenceGormleyandJoShaw,forapprovingthebookfortheirseries.Dr.MarkShackletonhasadeptlyreviewedandcorrectedmytext.Themistakesthatremainaremine.Ihavepresentedideasandpreliminaryresultsinnumerousconferences,includingtheannualconferencesoftheSociétéInternationaleFernanddeVisscherpourl’HistoiredesDroitsdel’Antiquité,theAmericanSocietyforLegalHistory,theAssociationofAncientHistoriansannualconferenceandnumerouslargerandsmallermeetings.Someoftheresearchbehindchapterthreehasbeenpublishedearlier.2Iwouldliketoextendmythankstoallwhotookthetroubletolistenandcomment,givingmefeedbackandhelpfulhintsaboutwheretolookandwhattosearchfor.Thisbookisdedicated(withlove)toTaina.InHelsinki,June2019.

2KaiusTuori,'Hadrian’scosmopolitanismandNazilegalpolicy'(2017)9ClassicalReceptionsJournal470-486.

5

1.IntroductionInalettertoMaxRadinonApril2,1933,HermannKantorowiczwriteshowthesituationinGermanytookaturnfortheworseaftertheNazistookpower:

WhatishappeningthereisevenmoreterriblethanAmericannewspapersreportandifourNazisproclaimthesereportsajustificationfortheir“reprisals”,thisisamerepretext.EverythingnowgoingonisaccordingtotheNazipartyprogrammeofFebruary25,1920,especiallytoarticle4,onlynoonebelievedsuchbarbarismpossible,myselfexceptedasyouprobablyremember.ThelettersnowwrittenbythousandsofGermanJewsdenyingeveryatrocityare,ofcourse,writtenunderthethreatofstillworsetreatment.Myownfamilyhasbeenseverelystricken.Dozensofmycousins,ingreatpartwell-knownlawyersanddoctors,havelosttheirjobsandeverymeansofsubsistence,mybrother,ProfessorinBonn,ishidingIdon’tknowwhere;hisdaughter,agirlof21years,hasbeenimprisonedasahostage;theNazi-policetriedtocompelmymother,74yearsold,togiveawaytheaddressofmybrother;mylatewife’scousin,thedirectorofatheatreinSilesia,hasbeenkidnappedbyaNaziautoduringarehearsal,conductedoutoftown,strippednaked,beatenandthenforcedtowalkhomeinthisstate.OneofmybestfriendsinKiel,thelawyerSpiegel,hasbeenmurderedandofcourseImyselfcannotventuretoshowmyselfagaininthepresentGermany(…)3

Asthisexampleshows,theNazirevolutionupendedmanyofthethingsconsideredself-evidentinEuropeatthetime:itappearedthattheidealsofhumanity,equality,rightsandsecuritywereabandoned.Compoundingthesenseofcrisiswasthenotionthattruthandfalsehoodhadlosttheirmeanings,becomingdependentonthevagariesofthepowersthatbe.AmeredecadeandahalfafterthecarnageoftheFirstWorldWarhadended,anewbarbarismhadriseninGermany,thelandthathadpreviouslybeenconsideredthecentreofEuropeancivilization.TheNazirepressionwasadirectattackontheEuropeantraditionofjusticeandtheruleoflaw.AjuristlikeKantorowiczfeltthisacutelybecauseamongthemaintargetsofNazirepressionafterthetakeoverofpowerweretheforcesoflawandorder,meaningthepolice,thejudiciaryandlawyers,inordertobringdowntheGermanRechtstaat.BeforetheSecondWorldWar,theconceptsofEuropeandEuropeanismwereoftenconsideredtobemoreorlessutopian.Theysharedasimilarpositiontothatofhumanrights,inthatenthusiastsoftheideaofaEuropeantraditionwerethoughttobeoddcharacters,oftenslightlysuspiciousLeftistsorintellectuals.ThisrelativemarginalizationmakestheriseofEuropeandtheEuropeanlegalheritageasaconceptallthemoreremarkable.Liketheconceptofhumanrights,after1945Europeemergedasatransformationalideathatwouldleadtoareconceptualizationofmuchofthepoliticalandlegallandscape.Whilethecreationofthemodernhumanrightsregimemaybeseenasareactiontothehorrorsofwarandtotalitarianism,theideaofEuropeanintegrationwasacounterreactiontothe

3LetterreprintedinMaxRadin,CartasRomanisticas(1923-1950)(Napoli:Jovene,2001),p.89.

6

ultranationalismtoutedbytotalitarianregimessuchasNaziGermanyorFascistItaly.Thoughthelinkbetweennationanditslawswasoneofthefoundationsofnationalistthought,thereemergedinafewyearsanewtheorywhichclaimedthatEuropesharedacommonlegalheritagethatcouldformafoundationforitsfutureintegration.ThepurposeofthisbookistoexploretheemergenceofthisideaofasharedEuropeanlegaltraditionasthedominanttheoryofunderstandingthepastandthefutureoflawinEuropeduringthepost-warperiod.ThisentailstracingtherolethatwasgiventoRomanlawasthefoundationofEuropeanlawandthesharedlegacyitprovided.CentralfiguresinthistransformationwerescholarslikeFranzWieackerandPaulKoschaker,whowould,basedonverydifferentpositions,beinstrumentalinthecomingresurgenceofboththeRomanlawtraditionandtheideaofasharedEuropeanheritageinlaw.Themainresearchquestionsrevolvearoundthegenealogyofthistheoryofacommonlegalpast:

1)HowdidtheideaofthesharedlegalheritageEuropeemerge?Whatwastheimpactoftotalitarianismandexileinthisprocess?2)Howwasthetheorydisseminatedandhowdiditbecomedominant?Whatlegal,politicalandculturalfactorscontributedtoitssuccess?

Thesetworesearchquestionsareinterlinkedandshedlightonthemainissue:thereformulationandreinterpretationofascientifictraditionandtheunderstandingofthepastintheprocessoffindingargumentsforthepresent.Followingfromtheuseofthepastarisesthesecondproblemintheanalysisoffoundationalnarratives,namelyhowthepresentinfluencesaviewofthepastandhowinhistoriographythepastistransformedtoconformtotheexpectationsofthepresent.4TheanalysisofthesequestionsisvitalbecausethewholeconceptofEuropeasaculturalandlegalcommunityischangingrapidly,leadingtoquestionsoftherelevanceofacommontheoryonthepast.Behindthistransformationwasagroupofinnovators,ahandfulofscholarsandlawprofessors,whowereforcedtoreinventthemselvesandtheirscienceabroad,afterbeingoustedfromofficeandexiledbyNaziGermany.Thisreinventionmeantthattheyhadtofirstreconceptualizeandrethinkallthattheyhadpreviouslydoneandthenaddressanewaudienceinanewlanguage,beginningtowriteinEnglishandtoexplaintheirviewstotheircolleaguesinOxford,PrincetonorNewYork.Intheprocess,theytriedtomakesenseofthedisasterthathadbefallenboththemandtheircountry.TheyhadtofacethefactthatnotonlyhadthehallowedRechtsstaatcollapsed,buttheircolleaguesandneighbourshadalsoturnedagainstthem.5Inresponse,theseexilesbegantoformulateatheoryofacommonEuropean 4WilliamMcNeill,‘Mythistory,orTruth,Myth,History,andHistorians’(1986)91TheAmericanHistoricalReview1–10,atp.3;PeterBurke,TheFabricationofLouisXIV(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1992).5AnimportantearlycontributiontothediscussiononlegalscholarsinexileisJackBeatsonandReinhardZimmermann(eds.),JuristsUprooted:German-speakingÉmigréLawyersinTwentieth-centuryBritain(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004).

7

legalculture,aculturethatwasfoundedonequalitybeforethelaw.Areactiontothetotalitarianregimesandtheirnationalisticideologies,thisreinterpretationofthepastsoughttoshowthatagreatEuropeanlegaltraditionbasedonlibertyandjusticedidexist.WhatemergedfromtheworksoftheexileswasapowerfulnewtheoryonthesharedEuropeanlegalpastthatlaidthefoundationfortheideaofacommonEuropeanlegalculture.Fromthiscommonfoundation,idealssuchastheruleoflaw,lawasscience,andlawindependentfrompoliticalpowerwouldhavespreadtoformaliberalEuropeanlegalculture.Thistheorywasfurtherdevelopedbylegalscholarsandhistorianswhohadatsomepointcollaboratedwiththeregime.TheunitingfactorwasthatthesewereGerman-speakinglegalscholarswithsomebackgroundinRomanlawandlegalhistory.Thus,theformulatorscanbedividedintotwodistinctgroups,1)exilesandoutcasts,thosewhoweredrivenfromtheirpostsand2)thecollaboratorsandbystanders,whoeitherthrivedinthenewcircumstancesundertheNazisormanagedtoavoidcontroversies.Ofthefirstgroup,Ihaveselectedthreesignificantscholars,ofwhichFritzSchulz(1879–1957)6andFritzPringsheim(1882–1967)7wereexiled8inBritain,whilePaulKoschaker(1878–1951)9wassidelinedandretreatedtoaprovincialuniversity.Fromthesecondgroup,Ihaveselectedtwoyoungerscholars,FranzWieacker(1908–1994),10apupilofPringsheim,andHelmutCoing(1912–2000),11whosepost-WWIIcareerscementedthepositionofthecommonpasttheory.TheirworksarecontextualizedbyjuxtapositionandcomparisonwithcontemporariessuchasHannahArendt,FranzNeumann,ErnstKantorowicz,F.A.Hayek,DavidDaube,LeoStrauss,ErnstLevy,GuidoKischandArnaldoMomigliano,whoexploredtheformulationoftheEuropeanlegaltraditioninexile.FromscholarswhowereinvolvedwiththeNaziandFascistregimes,thenarrativesofthosewhostayedarejuxtaposedwithexamplessuchasSalvatoreRiccobono,MaxKaser,EmilioBetti,KarlAugustEckhardt,ErnstSchönbauer,PietroDeFrancisciandCarlSchmitt.Theyarenaturallyasmallselectionofthescholarsinvolved,butthroughtheirworksIseektoillustratethechangeinascholarlytradition.

6WolfgangErnst,‘FritzSchulz’,inBeatsonandZimmermann,JuristsUprooted,pp.106–204;JacobGiltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw(April24,2019).AvailableatSSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3377309orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3377309(dateaccessed22.5.2019).Fullbibliographiesofthemaincharactersmaybefoundintheirrespectivechapters.7TonyHonoré,‘FritzPringsheim’,inBeatsonandZimmermann,JuristsUprooted,pp.205–233.8OtherinfluentialRomanlawexilesinBritainwereDavidDaube,ErnstRabelandFranzHaymann.9TomaszGiaro,AktualisierungEuropas,GesprächemitPaulKoschaker(Genoa:Name,2000);TommasoBeggio,PaulKoschaker:RediscoveringtheRomanFoundationsofEuropeanLegalTradition(Heidelberg:WinterVerlag,2018).10ViktorWinkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft.FranzWieackers“PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit“unddiedeutscheRechtswissenschaftdes20.Jahrhunderts(Hamburg:VerlagDr.Kovač,2014);VilleErkkilä,TheConceptualChangeofConscience:FranzWieackerandGermanLegalHistoriography(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2019).11Beyondshortnotesandanautobiography,nomajorworksexistonCoing.

8

TheexileswroteabouttheEuropeoflawasahopeandaspiration,arguingforthelanguageoftheruleoflaw,rightsandreasonagainstthelanguageofbloodandcultureembracedbynationalisticandtotalitarianregimessuchasNaziGermany.IarguethatitwascrucialforthedevelopmentoftheideaofaEuropeanlegalheritagethatthemainfigureswereexileswhowereimmersedinaforeignculture.Afterinitialdifficulties,includingbeingsuspectedofespionageandinternmentontheIsleofManinJune1940,thechangeprovedtobeanimpetusforrethinkingandreinventing.Thescientificinnovationthatfollowedwouldprobablynothavebeenpossiblewithouttheirhorrendousremovalfromtheirhomeland.Becausetheyhadexpertisethatwaslackingintheiradoptivecountries,theyeventuallygatheredstudentsandaloyalfollowingthatwasnecessarytobecomesuccessful.Intheemergingsociologicaltheoriesonacademictribes,thefocushastraditionallybeenonindoctrinationoftheyoung.12Incontrast,thisstudyseekstoexaminetheimplicationsofexilefortheworkofestablishedscholarsunderextremecircumstances.Itdemonstrateshowtheexileprocessismuchmorecomplicatedthanpreviouslythought,butthatinsomeinstancestheexilesformakindofabridgeorconduitbetweenculturesandtraditions.13Inthiscase,theresultwasthecreationofanewkindofformulationandunderstandingofEuropeanlegalculturethatspannedboththecontinentalandtheAtlantictraditions.Itisquitecommonforpoliticaleventstochangethecourseofintellectualhistory.Whatthisbookseekstoofferisatwistfromtheusualstory,inthatthereinventionofthemeaningofscienceandlegalculturehadasecond,evenmoreinfluentiallifeafterthewar.BoththebystandersandtheactiveparticipantsintheNaziregimeinacademia,suchasKoschaker,WieackerandCoing,weredeeplyaffectedbytheevents1933–1945andwereforcedtoreconsidertheimplicationsoftotalitarianisminacademia.Whattheanti-totalitariannarrativeformedbytheexilesofferedwasanexplanationandanewself-understandingoflawandlegalscienceasabulwarkagainstdictatorship.Itwascrucialforthesuccessofthe

12See,forexample,TonyBecherandPaulTrowler,AcademicTribesandTerritories:IntellectualEnquiryandtheCulturesofDisciplines(Ballmoor:SocietyforResearchintoHigherEducation&OpenUniversityPress,2001).13Onanassessmentofthedevelopmentofexilestudiesbeyondtheacculturationhypothesis,seeRenatoCamurri,‘TheExileExperienceReconsidered:AComparativePerspectiveinEuropeanCulturalMigrationduringtheInterwarPeriod’(2014)1Transatlantica,athttp://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/6920.Intheauthoritativestyleofargumentfavouredatthetime,whatwasastatementofdesirewasturnedintoastatementoffact.Asamethod,thisiscomparabletotheanthropologicaltheoriesofliterarycultures.Asseniorprofessors,theexileshadtheclouttobebelievedbecausetheypossessedmasteryovertheirsourcesandwerehenceconvincing.Onthechallengesofbridginglegalandpoliticalcultures,seeAlfonsSöllner,PoliticalScholar:ZurIntellectuallengeschichtedes20.Jahrhunderts(Hamburg:EuropäischeVerlagsanstalt,2018),pp.88.AsSeylaBenhabibhasnoted,theexilesleavingGermanywereaveryexceptionalgroup,consistingofthebestmindsofageneration.SeylaBenhabib,Exile,Statelessness,andMigration:PlayingChessWithHistoryFromHannahArendttoIsaiahBerlin(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2018).

9

newinterpretationthatitenabledthemtorespondtothechallengeofcommunismandtocriticizethesuppressionofthelegalspherebythepoliticalsphere.Ashasrecentlybeendemonstrated,thisturncoincidedwiththeemergenceofhumanrightsasafundamentalelementintheEuropeanself-understandinginthepost-WWIIyears.14ThisbookwasbornoutofasenseoffrustrationaboutthesimplisticwayinwhichthenotionofasharedpasthasbeenusedasanargumentforthefutureinEuropeanlegaldiscourse.ThisfrustrationwasthenchannelledintoalargeresearchprojectfundedbytheEuropeanResearchCouncil,leadingtoaseriesofbooksonthematter.15Thecurrentvolumerepresentsacentralpartofthatproject.Studyingcorrespondence,lecturenotes,andpublishedmaterials,theprojectsoughttofollowhowtheideaofacommonEuropeanlegalpastwasformulated,discussedanddisseminated.Thestartingpointofthestudy,1933,isthefirstacademicreactiontotheNazitakeoverandtheexpulsionofcivilservantsofJewishancestry,whiletheendpoint,1964,includestheresponsetotheerectionoftheBerlinWallandtheconsolidationofthehostilitiesbetweenfreeandcommunistEurope.Throughthehistoriesofthesescholars,thebooktracesthegenealogyoftheideaofacommonEuropeanlegalpastbasedonideassuchastheruleoflaw.Indoingso,itseekstoradicallyre-evaluatethecreation,influenceandimplicationsofthistheoryasanideologicalprojectformulatedbetween1934and1964.Influencedbythefailureofutopiantheoriesofsociety,theformulatorsofthetheoryproceededtofirsttransformthepasttocreateanairofinevitabilitytothedevelopmentsandinterpretationstheyproposed.Thisnew,non-nationalizedversionofthepastemergedatanopportunemomentandgainedpoliticalmomentuminthebankruptcyofthenationalistmovementsattheendoftheSecondWorldWarandthenewdivisionbetweentheEastandtheWest.Inthecreationofamythicalpast,thedraftersofthetheorytookheedofthelessonsofthenineteenth-centurydebatesontheuseofthepastinlegalreform,usingthelanguageofcultureandcivilization,andbeingcarefulnottotiethemselvestospecifics.Thisbookwillexplorethedifferentintellectualstrandsfromtheinterwaryears,fromCatholiclegaluniversalismtoconservativeculturalEuropeanismandAnglo-Americanliberalismandthetransatlanticdebatesovertheruleoflaw.ItwillshowhowallthesestrandscontributedtotheformationoftheEuropeanlegalnarrative.Theiropponentsoriginallyusedanationalistic(orvölkisch)argument,referringtothepeopleasanationalisticidealandasasourceoftradition.Whatthefoundersdidwastoturnthe

14MarcoDuranti,TheConservativeHumanRightsRevolution:EuropeanIdentity,TransnationalPolitics,andtheOriginsoftheEuropeanConvention(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017).15TheERCStGproject‘ReinventingtheFoundationsofEuropeanLegalCulture1934–1964’,projectnumber313100.ThebooksareKaiusTuoriandHetaBjörklund(eds.),RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope(London:Bloomsbury,2019);Beggio,PaulKoschaker;Erkkilä,ConceptualChangeofConscience,initiallyVilleErkkilä,‘TheConceptualChangeofConscience:FranzWieackerandGermanLegalHistoriography1933–1968’,PhDthesis,UniversityofHelsinki(2017);Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw.Forlinkstothepublications,seewww.foundlaw.orgorhttps://blogs.helsinki.fi/found-law/publications-of-the-project.

10

criticismaround,arguingthatthelongdurationofhistoricaltraditionwasproofofitslegitimacy.Thiswasareturntotheargumentsofthenineteenth-centuryRomanist-Germanistdebates.Iarguethatthiscombinationofthetwoargumentsaboutlegaltradition,theuniversalistlegalscienceandthenationalisttradition,wascentraltothesuccessofthesharedpasttheoryoftheEuropeanlegaltradition.HowthisbookcontributestothediscussionOneofthereasonswhytherehasbeenvirtuallynopreviouscriticalresearchinthecommonpasttheoryisthatthetheoryisinitselfaninterpretationofhistory.Whilehistoricalinterpretationsareopentocriticismintheirownterms,thelanguagesofhistoryandlawstrivetoacceptintrospection,notfundamentalcriticism.Inthisprojecthistoricalwritingthatdelineatestheoriginsandfoundationsofalegalcultureisassociatedwiththeconceptoffoundationalnarrative.16Thisconstructivistconceptemphasizesthedegreetowhichhistoricallineageisachoice.However,theaimisdecisivelynottoargueforarevealingcriticismthatwouldprovethenarrativewrong.Thoughtheself-understandingofmodernlawisoftenconceivedasbeingbasedonrationalityandscience,ithasbeenclaimedthatthispositionofmodernlawasvalue-freeandpositivistisinitselfaconstructionthathasnarrativeandmythicaldimensions.17Foundationalnarratives,suchasthoseprovidedbyhistory,aretoalargedegreestoriesofbelongingandself-definition.Throughthesehistories,thecommunitydefinesitselfanditsvirtues.18Throughtheconstructionofidentity,historyisanessentialpartofthefoundationsofmostlegaltraditions.19Europeanlegalculturesarenodifferentinthisrespect,aslineagesandancientpedigreesarepresentedtoanswertheexistentialquestionoforigins.Eventhoughconventionallythenineteenthcenturyisthoughtofastheageofconstructingnationalidentitythroughhistoryandmythsandthetwentiethcenturyastheeraofdeconstructionofnationalidentity,theprojectclaimsthatparalleltothedestructionofnationalmythsanewEuropeantraditionarosewithitsownmythicalelementsthatperpetuatednationalisminanewguise.20 16JohnWaddell,FoundationMyths:TheBeginningsofIrishArchaeology(Wicklow:Bray,Co.,2005);DavidCarr,‘NarrativeandtheRealWorld:AnArgumentforContinuity’,inBrianFay,PhilipPomper,andRichardT.Vann(eds.),HistoryandTheory:ContemporaryReadings(Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,1998),pp.137–152,atp.137:‘Narrativeisnotmerelyapossiblysuccessfulwayofdescribingevents;itsstructureinheresintheeventsthemselves.’17PeterFitzpatrick,TheMythologyofModernLaw(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1992).18BenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1991).19RichardB.Bernstein,TheFoundingFathersReconsidered(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009).20ThomasHyllandEriksen,EthnicityandNationalism(London:PlutoPress,1993);PierreNoraandLawrenceD.Kritzma(eds.),RealmsofMemory.TheConstructionoftheFrenchPast(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1996);JonathanC.D.Clark,‘Nationalidentity,state

11

Thecommonpasttheoryoffersanargumentofcontinuityfromthepast.Suchargumentshavesinceproliferatedandhadlaterincarnationsinanumberoftheories,forexamplethatoftracingthehistoryofhumanrightsfromAntiquity.21Aswetakethetaskofseeinghowthenarrativeemerged,itbecomesobviousthattherearemanythingsthatarenotwhattheyseem.Thesuccessofthecommonpasttheoryisimpliedintheextenttowhichcurrentscholarshipisembeddedintotheteleologicalnarrativeofthecommonpasttheory.OpinionsarepresentedbothforandagainstthecommonfutureofEuropeanlegaltraditions,butnotagainstthecommonpast.ThecommonpasttheorydefinesthedebatebyclaimingthatEuropeanlawcanbeunitedonlybyjurisprudenceandthatEuropeanlegalstudiesshouldsearchfortheircommonrootstofindthekeytoacommonfuture,22orthatcommonEuropeanvaluesderivedfromsharedhistoricalexperiencesarethepreconditionofallintegrationandEuropeanvalueshavealegalsignificanceassuch.23Evencriticsfollowthelogicofthecommonpasttheory,sayingthatEuropeanculturaldiversitymakesthewholeideaofcommonEuropeanlawimpossible.24However,despitethegreatenthusiasmfromthe1990sonwardsconcerningtheunificationofEuropeanlaw,especiallyincontractlaw,concreteadvanceshavethusfarbeenlessthanpromisinganddivergencesinlegalandmoralframeworkshavebeencitedashinderingfactors.25Thisbookseekstocontributetothisdiscussionbyopeningupthetheoreticalandhistoricalunderpinningsoftheideaofthelinkbetweenthepastandthe

formationandpatriotism:Theroleofhistoryinthepublicmind’(1990)29HistoryWorkshopJournal95–102.Forthenationalistdebateingeneral,cf.JohnBreuilly,'HistoriansandtheNation',inPeterBurke(ed.),HistoryandHistoriansintheTwentiethCentury(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002),pp.55-87;MarcFerro,TheUseandAbuseofHistoryorHowthePastisTaught(London:Routledge,1984),pp.vii–xi;MargaretMacMillan,TheUsesandAbusesofHistory(London:ProfileBooksLtd,2009).21TonyHonoré,Ulpian:PioneerofHumanRights(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002);JacobGiltaij,MensenrechteninhetRomeinseRecht(Nijmegen:WolfLegalPublishers,2011);JacobGiltaijandKaiusTuori,‘HumanrightsinAntiquity?RevisitinganachronismandRomanlaw’,inPamelaSlotteandMiiaHalme-Tuomisaari(eds.),RevisitingtheOriginsofHumanRights(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),pp.39–63.22RaoulC.vanCaenegem,EuropeanLawinthePastandtheFuture:UnityandDiversityoverTwoMillennia(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).23ChristianCalliess,‘EuropeasTransnationalLaw’(2009)10GermanLawJournal1367–1382.Seealso,HansJoasandKlausWiegandt,TheCulturalValuesofEurope(Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress,2008).24PierreLegrand,‘ADiabolicalIdea’,inArthurS.Hartkamp,etal.(eds.),TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode(Nijmegen:KluwerLawInternational,2004,3rded),pp.245–272;PierreLegrand,‘Europeanlegalsystemsarenotconverging’(1996)45InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly52–81.25ReinhardZimmermann,‘ThePresentStateofEuropeanPrivateLaw’(2009)57AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw479–511.

12

futureinthemakingofEuropeanintegrationthroughanexplorationoftheearlyhistoryofthisidea.ThoughtheanalysisoftheemergenceofthecommonEuropeanlegalheritageanditsintellectualhistoryformsthecoreofthebook,italsotouchesuponthreeimportantdebatesontheintellectualhistoryoflaw:1)theusesofthepastintotalitarianregimes,2)theimpactofémigréscholars,and3)theemergenceoftheEuropeanproject.Thecontemporarysignificanceofthestudyofthepastandthetracingoflineagestoancientcultureshasbeenthesubjectofincreasingscholarlyattention.26Thepoliticalimportanceofclassicsinthe20thcenturytotalitarianregimeshasbeenanimportantsubfield,whereresearchershavediscussedhowtotalitarianregimes,especiallytheFascistsinItaly,usedancientRomeasamodelandjustificationfortheirpoliciesofmilitarizationandaggression.27Forthestudyoftheclassicalpast,thismeantthattheobjectoftheirstudywasmadetoconformtotheexpectationsofthepresent,sometimesinveryconfusingandcontradictoryways,suchasprovidingprecursorstoracialpolicies.ImportantstudieshavedemonstratedhowthepositionofRomanlawvariedfrombeingunderthreattobeingcooptedtotheregime,28butaconcertedstudyoftheimpactinthefieldisstilllacking.Incontrast,duringthelastdecadesimportantworkhasuncoveredtheextenttowhichlegalhistorywasinfluencedinvariousandunpredictablewaysbyassociationwiththeNaziregime.29WhatthebookdemonstratesishowcontestedtheissueofhistoricallineagewasinthatwhiletheofficialNazipolicysoughttoerasehistoricallinks,withinthelegalprofessionresistancecontinuedthroughouttheregimebasedonthetraditionalidealizationoftheRomanlegacy.

26See,forexample,DimitrisTziovas(ed.),Re-imaginingthePast:AntiquityandModernGreekCulture(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2014);MargaretMacMillan,UsesandAbusesofHistory.27JanNelis,‘ConstructingFascistIdentity:BenitoMussoliniandtheMythofRomanità’(2007)100ClassicalWorld391–415.InGermany,theNazieducationalpoliciesexplicitlystatedthatteachingofclassicallanguagesshouldbefocusedonmilitarismandconquest.JohannChapoutot,DerNationalsozialismusunddieAntike(Darmstadt:PhilippvonZabern,2014),p.148.28MassimoMigliettaandGianniSantucci(eds.),Dirittoromanoeregimitotalitarinel’900Europeo(Trento:UniversitàdeglistudidiTrento,2009);PeterE.Pieler,‘DasrömischeRechtimnationalsozialistischenStaat’,inUlrikeDavy,HelmutFuchs,HerbertHofmeister,JudithMarte,andIlseReiter(eds.),NationalsozialismusundRecht(Wien:VerlagA.Orac,1990),pp.427–444.29MichaelStolleisandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus.BeiträgezurGeschichteeinerDisziplin(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1989);Franz-StefanMeissel,'DeutscheRechtsgeschichteimnationalsozialistischenStaat',inUlrikeDavy,HelmutFuchs,HerbertHofmeister,JudithMarte,andIlseReiter(eds.),NationalsozialismusundRecht(Wien:VerlagA.Orac,1990),pp.412-426.

13

Scholarshiponémigréintellectualshasundergonearapidtransformation.Thefirstgenerationofworks,suchasFermi’spioneeringbook,consistedmostlyofpurelybiographicalstudiesofémigrés,forexamplestudiesonsome20,000intellectuals(amongwhichsome2,000professors,roughlyathirdofthetotal)wholeftGermanyinthe1930s.ThesecondgenerationofstudieshasexploredtheimpactthatthismigrationhadinBritainandtheUS,wherenewareasofresearchwerebornandotherwererevitalizedwiththeinfluxofnewtalentfromGermanyandItaly.30Forlegalscholars,thestudyhasthusfarbeenconcentratedonthebiographicalaspect,withworkslikeJuristsUprooted(2004)detailinglivesofémigrélegalscholars,includingsomeRomanlawyerslikeFritzSchulzorDavidDaube.Beyondthat,theimpactoftheirworkinBritain,theUSorinGermanyafterthewarisstillmostlyunexplored.31Inthisstudy,variousideasofinfluenceandimpactarereversedinthatanattemptismadetobringforwardtheagencyoftheémigrés,notonlyintakingupvariousthemessuchaslaw,cultureandhumanityintheEuropeanpast,butalsointransformingthediscussionfortheirownbenefitbothmateriallyandintellectually.OfthevastscholarshipontheEuropeanintegrationortheideaofEurope,onlysomeworkshaveinvestigatethehistoryoftheturntoEuropeinhistoricalscholarshipaftertheSecondWorldWar.32WhiletheEuropeanprojecthasalwayspresenteditselfasacounterreactiontototalitarianism,criticalstudiessuchasDarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope(2003)have

30LauraFermi,IllustriousImmigrants:TheIntellectualMigrationFromEurope1930–1941(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1968);MitchellG.AshandAlfonsSöllner(eds.),ForcedMigrationandScientificChange:ÉmigréGerman-SpeakingScientistsandScholarsafter1933(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996);FelixRösch,ÉmigréScholarsandtheGenesisofInternationalRelations.AEuropeanDisciplineinAmerica?(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2014);MartinJay,PermanentExiles:EssaysOntheIntellectualMigrationFromGermanytoAmerica(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985);DavidKettler,TheLiquidationofExile:StudiesintheIntellectualEmigrationofthe1930s(LondonandNewYork:AnthemPress,2011);Söllner,PoliticalScholar;Benhabib,Exile,Statelessness,andMigration;DanielBessner,DemocracyinExile:HansSpeierandtheRiseoftheDefenseIntellectual(IthacaandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,2018).31BeatsonandZimmermann,JuristsUprooted,seealsoMagdalenaKmak,‘TheImpactofExileonLawandLegalScience1934–64’inKaiusTuoriandHetaBjorklund(eds.),RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope(London:BloomsburyAcademic,2019),pp.15–34;KyleGraham,‘TheRefugeeJuristandAmericanLawSchools,1933–1941’(2002)50AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw777;MarcusLutter,ErnstC.Stiefel,andMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993);LeonieBreunungandManfredWalther,DieEmigrationdeutscherRechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol1(Göttingen:DeGruyter,2012),secondvolumeforthcoming.32HartmutKaelble,EuropäerüberEuropa:DieEntstehungdeseuropäischenSelbstverständnissesim19.und20.Jahrhundert(FrankfurtandNewYork:CampusVerlag,2001);HagenSchulz-ForbergandBoStråth,ThePoliticalHistoryofEuropeanIntegration:TheHypocrisyofDemocracy-Through-Market(London:Routledge,2010).

14

illustratedhowNazilegalthoughtcontainedmanyofthesameideasasEuropeanintegrationdid.33WithregardtotheimpactofRomanlawintheEuropeanproject,themoreprominentworkshavedealtwiththewayRomanjurisprudenceactuallyinfluenceddifferentEuropeanlegalcultures34ratherthanonhowRomanlawwasusedaspartoftheEuropeanproject.AnotherkeyinfluencethathasonlyrecentlyreceivedattentionwasthewayhumanrightsbecameacentralfeatureoftheEuropeanprojectandwereembracedbyconservativethinkerssuchasWinstonChurchill.35BytakingupnotonlyliberalnarrativesofEuropebutalsototalitarianandconservativeEuropeanism,thisbookshowsthemultiplicityoftheinterestsandmotivesthatdroveemergentEuropeanismbetweenthe1930sandthe1950s.Inshort,thisbookseekstofillanimportantlacunaintheacademicdebateanddevelopananalysisoftheissuesoftheuseofthepastandtotalitarianism,knowledgetransferandemigration,andthebirthoftheEuropeanideaasareactiontothetotalitarianismofthe1930s.InthiswayitseekstoofferacriticalandanalyticalexplorationofthecreationofthehistoricalfoundationoftheEuropeanlegalproject.Inordertoprovideafreshstartintheinquiryandtheaspectsofideas,conceptsandintellectualchange,thebookwillemployanumberofdifferentmethodologicaltools,fromtheoriesofscientifictransfertoconceptuallegalhistory.Earlystudiesonexileswerefoundedonacculturationtheoriesandanunderstandingthatémigrésfunctionedasreceptaclesofculturethattheywereimmersedin.Incontrast,thepresentstudyappliesamorecomplexapproach,onethatattemptstostudythemechanismsthatpromptedchangesinscholarlyunderstanding.Farfrombeingpassiverecipientsorvesselsforideas,appropriationandthe

33ChristianJoergesandNavrajSinghGhaleigh,DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope(Oxford:HartPublishing,2003).Evenmorepointedly,JohnLaughland,TaintedSource:TheUndemocraticOriginsoftheEuropeanIdea(London:Sphere,1998).34ReinhardZimmermann,RomanLaw,ContemporaryLaw,EuropeanLaw:TheCivilianTraditionToday(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001);PeterStein,RomanLawinEuropeanHistory(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999);FranzWieacker,AHistoryofPrivateLawinEuropewithParticularReferencetoGermany(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1995).CriticalscholarshaveexpresseddoubtsabouttheroleofRomanlawasafoundationforEuropeanlegalculture,seeAlainWijffels,‘Leiuscommuneeuropéen:Mytheouréférentielindifférenciédesdiscourssurlaformationd'undroiteuropéen?’,inBorisBernabéandOlivierCamy(eds.),Lesmythesdefondationetl'Europe(Dijon:EditionsUniversitairesdeDijon,2013),pp.87–101;DouglasOsler,‘TheMythofEuropeanLegalHistory’(1997)16RechtshistorischesJournal393–410.35MarcoDuranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolution.OntheconservativeideologyofEurope,seemoregenerallyArminMohler,DieKonservativeRevolutioninDeutschland1918-1932:EinHandbuch(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1989).Ontheriseofconservativeantitotalitarianism,seeJamesChappel,'TheCatholicOriginsofTotalitarianismTheoryininterwarEurope’'(2011)8ModernIntellectualHistory561-590.

15

useofnewideaswereprocessesofreappropriationandnecessity.Ideasweretakenupandusedbecausetheywereusableandnecessarytotheauthors’needs.36ThenarrativesthatourfiveauthorsandtheircolleagueswriteareinessenceaboutredefiningthefoundationsofwhatEuropeantraditionmeant.Assuchtheycouldbeinterpretedasfoundationalnarratives,onesthatoutlinethecoreprinciplesofthefieldandthesharedfoundationstheyrelyon.ItisoftenclaimedintherightsandculturedebatethatcertainrightsareareflectionofaEuropeancultureandtraditionandarethusnotuniversal.Thisdebatehasbeenbasedontheassumptionthatcultureisinherentandstable.Ithasbeenconsidered,forexample,thatEuropehascertainlegaltraditionssuchastheruleoflaw,whichareculturallybasedandthusexportingthemasuniversalvaluesisimperialisticandculturallyinsensitive.Whatthisbookdemonstrates,however,isthateveninEuropetherightstraditionisaconsciousconstructionbyagroupoflegalscholarsreactingtocontemporaryevents.ThetraditionwasactuallyproducedinEuropeasareactiontoacertainexpediency.Thisreactionarynaturealsomakesitdifficulttoplacethisdiscourseintosuchpresetcategoriesasliberalismorconservativism.Theemergenceoftotalitarianthinking,fromFascismtoSocialismtoNazism,bothseparatedandunited,leadingtoaprocessofrealignmentintraditionalpoliticalthought.InthefaceoftheNazirevolution,bothliberalandconservativethoughttookapositionaliststance,seekingtodefendwhattheysawasvaluableintheexistingtradition.Theideaofreturningtohistoryandtraditionasawayoflegitimatingpositionswasofcourseinherentlyconservative,eventhoughthesepositionsweretraditionallyliberal,suchastheideasoftheruleoflaworequality.Equally,theideathatalegalorderexistedaboveandbeyondthenationstate,muchliketheideathattherewasasupranationalmoralorder,wasinherentlyconservative,eventhoughthatorderwasonebasedontheEuropeantraditionsofRomanlaworhumanrights.37Theaimofthepresentinquiryistoquestiontheutilityandaccuracyofthecommonpasttheorybystudyingitasaconstructwithaimsandmeansinordertodispeltheillusionofinevitabilitysuggestedbythesupportersofthetheory.TheoriesoftheEuropeandiscoveryofrightsandreasonhavebeenusedasauniversalisticmodel,butitwillbearguedthatthiswasnottheoriginalintentoftheformulators.Whatwasintendedasadefenceoflibertyandjusticeinthefaceoftotalitarianismwasonlylatertransformedintoafalseuniversalism,theuniversalismofEmpireinwhichnoalternativetoEuropeanliberaldemocracywas

36MitchellG.AshandAlfonsSöllner,‘Introduction’,inAshandSöllner,ForcedMigrationandScientificChange,pp.1–20,atp.11discussesthemovefromstudiesofassimilationtoacculturationandthechallengesofdefiningexternalandinternalfactors.37See,forexample,thedefinitionsofconservativismusedinJerryMuller,Conservatism(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997),pp.3-31.

16

accepted.38Insteadofsimplypresentingadeconstructionrelyingonthedramaofexposure,thisbookaimstochartawayforwardinordertopromotealternativediscussionontheideaofthecommoncoreofEuropeanlegaltraditions.Througharadicalre-evaluationofitsroots,thisbookseekstoshowthecreationofaEuropeanlegalidentityandlegalpastasprocesseswithintentions,motives,agendasandhumaninteraction.ThenarrativesofexileandreturnWithinthestoryoftheexilesandthosewhostayed,thehistoricalnarrativeitselfdemonstrateshownon-linearandserendipitousthesequenceofeventswas.Forexample,inordertotellthestoryoftheEuropeanlegalnarrativeduringthepost-warperiod,wemustbegininthe1930swiththecrisisofRomanlaw.Point19ofthe(immutable)NSDAPpartyprogrammeofFebruary24,1920read:

WirfordernErsatzfürdasdermaterialistischenWeltordnungdienenderömischeRechtdurcheindeutschesGemein-Recht.WedemandsubstitutionofaGermancommonlawinplaceoftheRomanLawservingamaterialisticworld-order.

Consideringthattherewereonly25pointstotheprogramme,theabolitionofRomanlawmaybeconsideredtohavebeenfairlyhighontheNaziagenda.39WhatRomanlawinthiscontextmeantisaninterestingquestion.Ratherthanbeingpurelyanancientlegalsystem,itwasacodefornotonlyasystemoflawbutalsoamethodologyandavaluesystemthatwasbothinternationalandconservativebynature.TheRomanlawtraditionwasahistoricalcuriositythathadbeentheintellectualfoundationofEuropeanlawformillennia,butbecauseitcontainedassumptionsforinstanceaboutpropertyrightsitwasheavilycriticizedbydifferentrevolutionarymovements.Whendiscussedinthegenerallegalhistoricalcontext,thenarrativeofcrisisandrenewalconcealsthehorrendouseventsthatpromptedthere-evaluationoftheEuropeanlegaltradition.Theemphasisonthegenerallevelequallymuddlestheconnectionsandrelationsbetweenactorswhowereoftenonopposingsides.WhileKoschakerwaswritingaboutthecrisisofRomanlaw,atthesametimesomeRomanistswereexperiencingtheirownpersonalcrisisonaccountoftheirethnicheritageandtheirpoliticalopinions.FritzSchulz,Koschaker’scolleagueinBerlin,wasoustedfromhisLehrstuhlandeventuallysoughtrefugeinBritain.FritzPringsheimwaslikewiseforcedintoexile,likemanyothers.Theyleftatthelastmoment,inSchulz’scasetakingthelastboattoBritainbeforethewarstarted.40

38AnthonyPagden,‘Introduction’,inAnthonyPagden(ed.),TheIdeaofEurope:FromAntiquitytotheEuropeanUnion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),pp.1–32,atp.11.39Thepartyprogrammewasacuriousmixtureofelements,manyofthesectionsbeinglifteddirectlyfromtheSocialistpartyprogrammeof1919.SeeJohannChapoutot,‘TheDenaturalizationofNordicLaw:GermanicLawandtheReceptionofRomanLaw’,inTuoriandBjörklund,RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope,pp.113–126,andRichardGamauf,'DieKritikamromischenRechtim19.und20.Jahrhundert'(1995)2OrbisIurisRomani33-61.40Pleaseseelaterchaptersforexactreferences.

17

Forothers,theexpulsionoftheirJewishcolleaguesatthebeginningoftheNaziregimemeantcareeropportunities.FranzWieacker,ayoungscholarofRomanlawandlegalhistory,wastakenupbyagroupofconservativeacademicsandrecruitedtotheKielerSchule,whereNazischolarssoughttolaythegroundworkforthereformoflegaleducation.Wieackerparticipatedeagerlyinthetrainingprogrammes,goingtocampswhereoutdooractivitieswerecombinedwithintellectualpursuits.HelmutCoingwaslikewiserecruitedtothemovement,thoughhisscholarshipnevershowedasimilartendencytoapproachNaziideals.Bothofthemwereinthearmyandwouldseefrontlineserviceduringthewar.WhiletherewasgreatenthusiasmoverthepossibilitiesforlegalreformandthenotionofconcreteorderamongtheNazilegalacademia,jurisprudencedidnotprovetobealastingcommitmentfortheNazimovementandtheregime.Instead,itsawthenegationoflawthroughthedeclarationofthestateofexceptionandwithittheremovalofallformsandformalitiesasthepreferredway.Thiscontradictionbetweenreformandthereversaloflawcontinuedtobeasourceofcontentionbetweenthemovementandthelegalscholarswhosupportedit.41LegalhistoriansandRomanlawscholars,likemanyscholarsinGermanyandItaly,wereaffectedbythewaryearsindifferentways.Ontheextremeendsofthespectrumwerethosewholosttheirliveseitheraspartofthetotalitarianrepressionorfightingonthefront.Therewerealsoscholarswhoweredrivenintoexile,thosewholosttheirjobsandweresidelinedintheacademia.Thentherewerethosewhoreapedthefruitsofbeingamongtheupandcominggenerationwherenewprofessorswererecruitedtoreplacethosewholeftorwerefired.Thesewerenotclear-cutcategories,ofcourse.Wieacker,forexample,enjoyedthebenefits,butwasthensenttofight.Coing,whowasonactiveservicethroughoutthewar,sawhisreserveunitsenttoStalingrad,hehimselfbeingsavedonlybyalastminutetransfertoanotherunit.ForexileslikeSchulzorPringsheim,theexperiencewasoneofsocialandacademicdemotionandalienation.Allhadfriendsandrelativeswhohaddiedduringthewarandthosewhosurvivedcountedthemselvesasluckytobealive.Fortheexiles,deathintheHolocaustwouldhavebeenverylikelyhadtheystayed.Thosewesawactiveservicelateinthewar,suchasCoingorWieacker,werealsofortunatetosurvive,takingintoaccountthatlateinthewarGermancasualtyratesreachedseveralhundredthousandeachmonth,theresultofacompletelackofconsiderationgiventothelivesofsoldiers.Therewere,ofcourse,strangeoccurrences.WieackerwassenttooccupiedParisin1941togivealecturewithCarlSchmittaboutthesuperiorityofGermanculture.42Atthesametime,theNazishadproventobeenthusiasticEuropeanists,thoughstrictlyontheirownterms.

41TheuseoftheWeimarconstitutionsarticle48ofcoursepredatedtheNazicoup,buttheReichstagFireDegreeandtheEnablingActinpracticecircumventedthelegalsystem.42Wieacker’sletteronNovember30,1941,inReinhardMehring,CarlSchmitt:AufstiegundFall(Munich:Beck,2009),atp.406.

18

TheysawEuropeasaculturalandeconomicentityunderthedominantinfluenceofGermany,who,theyfelt,hadbothacivilizingandaneconomicallyenergizinginfluence.WhetherSchmitt’stheoriesonGrossraumareareflectionofthisisunclear,butitshowstheconnectionbetweentheworldofpoliticsandscience.WhattheNazitheoristssawwasEuropeasabulwarkagainstandcounterweighttothemenaceofcommunismandracialimpurityintheEast.43Thelongyearsofwar,deathanddestructionwerenotidlyspent.ScholarspublishedworksthatweresupportiveoftheGermanwareffortorstridentlyneutralwithregardtopolitics.Theexilesworkedontheirintegrationintothenewacademicculture.Whenwarended,theyallfacedanewsituation.ThewarendedinEuropeofficiallywiththesurrenderofGermanyonMay7,1945.InItaly,MussoliniwasexecutedonApril27.Thisdidnotmeantheendofviolence,asciviliansweresubjectedtokillings,expulsions,rapeandstarvation.Formuchof1945andthefollowingyears,thingswerestillunsettledandviolencewaswidespread.MillionsofethnicGermanswereforcedtoleavetheirhomesinareasthatwereonthewrongsideofthebordersinPoland,theSovietUnionandCzechoslovakia,ortheyfledfromtheoccupyingSovietArmy.Europewasinruins.44TheendofthewarfoundWieackerandCoinginaPOWcamp,givinglecturestofellowofficersatcampuniversities.ExileslikeSchulzandPringsheimwereinBritain.OnlyKoschakerwasinGermany.Consideringthecircumstances,thefactthathismagnumopusEuropaunddasRömischesRecht(‘EuropeandRomanlaw’)wouldcomeoutin1947,ameretwoyearsafterthewarhadended,wasasmallmiracle.Romanlawandlegalhistoryscholarswereequallyfacedwithanewreckoning.ForthepersonswhohadjoinedtheNazimovementorbenefitedfromit,suchasWieackerandCoing,thebankruptcyhadbeenbothpoliticalandmoral.Theyweresuspectpersonsandfacedobstaclesintheirfutureemployment.Theexileswould,someofthem,return,45butwithmanythedisillusionmentofthereturnofformerNazistopositionsofpowerandinfluencewasgreat.Some,likePringsheim,wouldwritelettersofrecommendationtohisformer

43Seechapter@@.Schmitt’snotionofGrossraumisquitedefinitelyaEuropeandoctrine,butitwasnotreducibletotheNaziideas.OnthisseeGunterMaschke,'Vorwort',inCarlSchmitt,Staat,Grossraum,Nomos:ArbeitenAusDenJahren1916-1969(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1995),pp.xix-xxvi,andSchmitthimself:CarlSchmitt,'DieAuflösungdereuropäischenOrdnungim„InternationalLaw“(1890-1939)'(1940)5DeutscheRechtswissenschaft267-278.44KeithLowe,SavageContinent:EuropeintheAftermathofWorldWarII(London:Picador,2013).45Thenumberofreturningexileswasfairlysmallinthesciences;inmanyfieldsofsciencenoneoftheexileschosetoreturn.MaritaKrauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand.GeschichtederRemigrationnach1945(Munich:C.H.BeckVerlag,2001).

19

studentWieacker,helpinghimtoberehabilitated.Wieacker,ashehadparticipatedactivelyintheNaziintellectualprogramme,wouldspendtherestofhislifeerasinghispast,sometimesevenliterallybyreplacingincriminatingpagesofhisbooksinlibrariesaroundEurope(particularlyVomRömischesRecht)andwritingdenazifiedsecondeditions.46Many,likeCoing,wouldturntonaturallaw.Thingslookedbleak.ForthefutureofRomanlawanditspositionasasourceofEuropeanlegaltradition,severalthingshadtohappen.OnemustnotunderestimatethepoliticalconnectionbetweenEuropeanismandlegalhistorythatwasnecessaryforWesternEuropetoportrayitselfastheenlightenedsuccessorofthebestintellectualtraditionsofEurope.Thesecondfactorwaspuretenacity,shownbyRomanlawandlegalhistoryscholarsenlargingtheideaofthegreattraditionofoccidentaljurisprudenceandlinkingtheEuropeanlegalheritagetothepastandtotheidealizationofRomanjurisprudence.Thethirdfactorwasthenaturaltendencyofthelegalsourcestosupportsuchaninterpretation.Thefactthatsomeinterpretationwasconvenient,doesnotmakeitanylesstrue.Theconverseisequallytrue,thathistoricallytruerexplanationsarefrequentlyconvenientlyforgotten.ThecentralroleofRomanlawintheformationofthenewnarrativewaspartiallyduetoitsoppositionalroleduringtheNaziyears.Incontrast,thestudyofGermaniclegalhistoryhadbeenstronglyfavouredbytheNazipolicies,leadingtoitfallingoutoffavourintheafterwaryears.47OneofthereasonswhyscholarssuchasWieackerweresosuccessfulwastheirabilitytocombineandtobringtogetherthetwosidesofGermanlegalhistory.Immediatelyafterthewar,thepoliticalsituationcompletelychangedthepositionoflawinsociety.NotonlyhadtheNaziexperiencedemonstratedthelogicalendpointofthetotalitarianstateanditsutternegationofindividualfreedomattheexpenseoftheNazimovementandtheFührer,italsopresentedthedangersofthetotalitarianstatetothefreenations.WhilethetotalitarianNazistatehadlostandwasbeingdismantled,itwasbecomingclearontheAlliedsidethattheothertotalitarianstate,SovietRussia,wasnolessdangerous.NotonlywasthescaleoftheSovietmilitaryforceoverwhelming,butalsothepowerofthecommunistpartiesbelievedtobedirectedfromMoscowwasconsiderable;theyweregetting20–30%ofthevotesinmanyoftheWesterndemocracies.Onetotalitarianstatewasdefeated,anotherwasagrowingthreattotheWest.

46CompareFranzWieacker,VomrömischenRecht.WirklichkeitundÜberlieferung(Leipzig:Koehler&Ameland,1944)andFranzWieacker,VomrömischenRecht:zehnVersuche(Leipzig:K.F.Koehler,1961).47OnthedevelopmentoftheGermaniclegalhistory,seeJohannesLiebrecht,JungeRechtsgeschichte.KategorienwandelinderrechtshistorischenGermanistikderZwischenkriegszeit(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018).

20

ThewarefforthadalsochangedtheWesterndemocracies.Amorecentralizedgovernmentwithpowerstogarnerresourcesandcombatdissenthadbeensetupanditwasnotdismantledafterthewar.48Thus,whenwecometothecreationofthegreattradition,wefindsomecommondenominators.ThesebasictenetsweresharedbyscholarslikeKoschakerandWieacker,whose1952PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit(‘HistoryofModernPrivateLaw’)cementedthepopularityoftheinterpretation.Themainpointswere:

1) theoriginsoftheWesternlegaltraditionandespeciallytheEuropeanlegaltraditionareinthegreatRomanjuristsoftheclassicalera

2) thereisanuninterruptedtraditionoflegalscholarshipthatspansfromtheRomanjuriststothemodernEuropeanjurists

3) thereisafundamentalunitywithinEuropeanlegaltraditionsduetothesesharedrootsManyscholarshavecriticizedthecontentofthistheory,callingitafiction,animperialisticconcoction,orworse.Theyhavenotedhowthetheorycherry-pickssuitablepartsofhistory,butasfarasEuropeisconcernedleavesenormousareasoutofthepicture.Imyselfhavecalleditaninventedtraditionseekingtojustifyacertainpositionforlawandforlawyers.49Unquestionably,however,thetheorywasatremendoussuccess.RomanistsandlegalhistorianssucceededincreatingasharedconvictionthatthelineagestracedtoancientRomeanditsjuristswereatruesignoftheEuropeanheritage.ScholarslikeRaoulvanCaenegemandPeterSteinwould,likeAldoSchiavoneorMarioBretone,andmostrecentlyReinhardZimmermann,continuethegospelofthegreatheritage.Consequently,scholarsthroughoutEuropewouldsearchforsignsofthattraditionandutilizetheconceptofasharedheritageandthemselvesasthekeepersofthatheritageastoolsforkeepingthemselvesinbusiness.InEasternEurope,theteachingofRomanlawwasresurrectedafterthefalloftheSovietblocbytheearly1990sbypeoplewhomanagedtoconvinceothersthatRomanlawwasamarkerforbelongingintheWestandaconnectionwithWesterntradition.EveninEasternEurope,historicalwritingturnedtotheEuropeannarrative.Currentscholarshiphasforthemainpartunderstoodthecommonpasttheorytobeaneutralandlargelyacceptedstatementoffact,andthecriticismitfacesismainlyofanationalistic

48OntheTransatlanticimplicationsofthesedevelopments,seeAnneM.Kornhauser,DebatingtheAmericanState:LiberalAnxietiesandtheNewLeviathan,1930–1970(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2015).49DouglasOsler,'TheFantasyMen'(2007)10Rechtsgeschichte169-192;KaiusTuori,AncientRomanlawyersandmodernlegalideals:studiesontheimpactofcontemporaryconcernsintheinterpretationofancientRomanlegalhistory(FrankfurtamMain:Klostermann,2007);PierGiuseppeMonateri,TomaszGiaro,andAlessandroSomma(eds.),Leradicicomunideldirittoeuropeo(Rome:Caroccieditore,2005).

21

nature.Whatthisbookarguesisthatthereisaforgottenhistoryinthetransmissionanddevelopmentofideas.Itisacaseofasuccessfulscientificrevolutioninwhichthesupplyandthedemandforatheorymeet.ThecommonpasttheoryhadappealinanumberofwaysevenoutsideEuropeandanimportantpartofthisbookistotrackthetransmissionfromanationaltoaninternationaldebate,aprocessinwhichelementssuchasexile,languageanddemandplayapart.ExilesandinnovationInthisbook,exileisapproachedasacomplexprocessthatbeginssometimeslongbeforethepersonleavesthecountry,beginningfromtheinitialmarginalizationorrepression.TheexilesfleeingGermanyconstitutedamassivetransferofscientificknow-howataterriblehumancost.However,thisbookisfoundedonthequestionwhethertheprocessofexileisalsoaformofknowledgeproductioninthattheeventsleadingtoexile,theexperiencesbefore,duringandafter,andtheencounterswithnewideasandtheimplicationsofideas,ledtonewwaysofthinking.50Theissueofexilesandthetransmissionoflearningnaturallyhasaverylonghistory,fromscholarsfleeingreligiouspersecutiontorulersstampingoutdissent.Scholarsofcoursebringnewideaswiththem,51butthequestionIraiseiswhethertheyalsolearnandproducenewtheoriesandcombinepreviouslyunrelatedideaswasaresultoforpromptedbytheexileexperience?InthebeginningofNazipersecutions,scholarswouldtakeupdifferentdefensivestrategies.Meetingswithstudentswerecarefullyorganized,publicdemonstrationsofoppositionwereavoidedbecausetheywouldbemetwithhatecampaigns.Manyretreatedintowhathasbeendescribedasinneremigrationorinnerexile,concentratingonscholarlyworkthatwaseitherpurelyapoliticalorcarefullyhiditsmessage.Theybeganusingmethodsofanalogyor,inthecaseofhistoricalwork,asurrogatestage,wherecurrentissueswerediscussedthroughhistoricalexamples.52 50Onscholarlychange,seeAshandSöllner,ForcedMigrationandScientificChange.Onthetransmissionofscholarlyexcellenceinlaw,seeUgoMattei,'WhytheWindChanged:IntellectualLeadershipinWesternLaw'(1994)42TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw195-217.OnhumanitiesscholarsinexileatOxford,seeSallyCrawford,KatharinaUlmschneider,andJasElsner(eds.),ArkofCivilization:RefugeeScholarsandOxfordUniversity,1930-1945(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017).MuchattentionhasbeendevotedtoanumericallysmallgroupofexilessuchasArendtorBenjamin.See,forexample,Benhabib,Exile,Statelessness,andMigration;Jay,PermanentExiles.51PeterBurke,ExilesandExpatriatesintheHistoryofKnowledge1500–2000(Waltham,MA:StanfordUniversityPress,2017).52StevenP.Remy,TheHeidelbergMyth:TheNazificationandDenazificationofaGermanUniversity(NewHaven,CT:HarvardUniversityPress,2003),p.21.Onthedifferentcopingmechanisms,seeFranz-StefanMeisselandStefanWedrac,'StrategienderAnpassung–

22

Manyoftheworksthatarediscussedhereareabouttheself-definitionofthefieldofRomanlawinthechangingcircumstancesofpre-andpost-warEurope.SchulzandPringsheimwereadamantindefendingthevalueofRomanlawagainsttheNazionslaught.Koschaker,aswellasWieackerandCoing,soughttodothesame,namelytodefendthevalueofscholarship.EvensomeonelikeMaxKaser,whoseworkshavebeenseenasasurrendertoNaziideals,maybeseenasdefendingtheroleofRomanlaw.53ThescholarlyexileswerenotaphenomenonlimitedtoBritainortheUS.InEurope,theexilesofthe1930sjoinedinnumerablepredecessors,includingexilesoftheRussianRevolutionorfromthedissolutionofempiresandthefoundingofnationstatesafter1918.ThefirstexilesfleeingfascismandtotalitarianismleftItalyinthe1920s;inSpainthetrickleofrefugeesfromthecivilwarandFranco’spurgesbecameafloodin1939.France,hostingnearlytwomillionrefugeesfromtheaforementionedcrises,haditsownrefugeecrisisbeginningalreadywiththeevacuationsof1939inpreparationforwar.HundredsofthousandsofPolesbecamerefugeesin1939.Inmanycases,theseekingofrefugeturnedintoalongexilewithnochanceofreturn,especiallyintheSpanishorPolishcases.54Amongexiles,therewereinnumerabledestiniesthatfollowedafewconsistentlines.Thisbookwillcontrasttheexperiencesofindividualswithmoregeneraldevelopmentsamongexiledscholarstocreatenewideasinresponsetoexperiencesintheirhomecountriesorinexile.Manygroupsareofinterest,startingfromtheextremeslikeJewishscholarswhoendedupintraditionallyblackcollegesintheJimCrowSouthorconverselyexileswhobecameacentralpartoftheUSforeignpolicymachineryandtheconservativeestablishment.Inthefirstgroup,movementwasfromoneplaceofviolentracialoppressiontoanother,where,inthewordsofonedistraughtscholar,theJewishrefugees“belongednottotheoppressedbuttotheoppressor”.However,theywereoftenabletorevitalizewholedepartmentswiththeirenergyandlearning.55Ontheotherendofthespectrum,émigréswhowererecruitedtotheUSstatedepartmentandotherforeignpolicyinstitutionatthestartoftheColdWarwere

RömischesRechtimZeichendesHakenkreuzes',inFranz-StefanMeissel,ThomasOlechowski,IlseReiter-Zatloukal,andStefanSchima(eds.),VertriebenesRecht–VertreibendesRecht.DieWienerRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlicheFakultät1938-1945(Wien:MANZVerlag,2012),pp.35-78.53OnKaser,seeKarl-HeinzZiegler,'MaxKaser',inHorstSchröderandDieterSimon(eds.),RechsgeschichtswissenschaftinDeutschland1945bis1952(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,2001),pp.77-98.54SharifGemie,LaureHumbert,andFionaReid,OutcastEurope.RefugeesandReliefWorkersinanEraofTotalWar1936-48(London:Bloomsbury,2012);PierreMilzaandDenisPeschanski(eds.),Exilsetmigration.ItaliensetEspagnolsenFrance,1938-1946(Paris:L'Harmattan,1994).55TherecollectionofProf.ErnstManasse,reprintedinGabrielleSimonEdgcomb,FromSwastikatoJimCrow:RefugeeScholarsatBlackColleges(Malabar,FL:KriegerPublishingCompany,1993),p.67.

23

successfulincarvingoutinfluentialnewcareersanddefiningtheUSreactiontowardscommunism.56Imaintainthattheprocessofexileandinnovationsometimesbeganlongbeforetheactualemigration.Eventheoustingofprofessorsandscholarswasalongprocessthatbeganin1933andcontinueduntilthebeginningofthewar.Theprocesswascloselyfollowedabroad,withnewspaperspublishinglistsofdismissedscholars.57In1937EdwardHartshorneattemptedtocalculatetheexactnumberofdismissedscholarsfromfullprofessorstoassistants,comingtoagrandtotalof1,684persons,ofwhich313werefullprofessors.Thistotalnumberdidnottakeintoaccounttheconsiderablevariationbetweenuniversities.InBerlin,forinstance,32%ofthefacultyhadbeendismissedwithinthefirsttwoyearsoftheNazirule,whileinTübingenthepercentagehadbeenonly1.6%.58ForinstitutionsandNGOsabroad,theexileswerebothanopportunityandaproblem.ManyinstitutesintheUSwerepurelyopportunistic,recruitingthebestavailabletalent.AlvinJohnsoncalledthem“Hitler’sgifttoAmericanculture.”59TheRockefellerFoundationwasoneofthelargestfundersofexilesandeventheywereconstantlyworriedthatthesupplyofscholarswasfaroutstrippingdemand.EvenamongtheJewishgroups,therewasconcernregardingabacklash,especiallytheriseofanti-SemitismintheUSbothintheformoftheKuKluxKlanandemergingNaziorganizationsintheUS.60Therewerenumerousorganizationsthatemergedtoaidtherefugeeacademics.ThemostimportantofthemweretheBritishSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearning,theSwissCommitteeforAidtoIntellectuals,andtheUSEmergencyCommitteeinAidofDisplacedForeignScholars,whileAlvinJohnson,thedirectoroftheNewSchoolforSocialResearchin

56Ofthese,thebestrecentworkisUdiGreenberg,TheWeimarCentury:GermanÉmigrésandtheIdeologicalFoundationsoftheColdWar(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2015).57Forexample,TheManchesterGuardianWeekly,May19,1933containsalistof194professorsdismissedbetweenAprilandMay1933,amongthemcelebratedlegalscholarslikeHansKelsen,Kantorowicz,WaltherSchücking,GuidoKisch,andmanyothers.58EdwardY.Hartshorne,GermanUniversitiesandNationalSocialism(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1937),pp.92–94.OnthehistoriesoflawfacultiesduringtheNaziera,seeEvaSchumann,'DiejuristischeFakultäteninderNS–Zeit',inThiloRammandStefanSaar(eds.),NationalsozialismusundRecht(Baden-Baden:Nomos,2014),pp.39-154.59QuotedinAshandSöllner,‘Introduction’,p.3.60JosephH.Willits,fromtheRockefellerFoundation’sSocialScienceDivision,wroteinJune3,1940thatoneshould“taketheinitiativeandshopforthebest”.Edgcomb,FromSwastikatoJimCrow,pp.17–31,quotefromp.28;AshandSöllner,‘Introduction’,p.10;ErwinPanofsky,'ThreeDecadesofArtHistoryintheUnitedStates:ImpressionsofaTransplantedEuropean'(1954)14(1)CollegeArtJournal7-27describeshowinarthistoryAmericaninstitutionsactivelyrecruitedthebesttalent,someinjestremarkingthat“MrHitlerismybestfriend:heshakesthetree,Icollecttheapples.”Thesamesentence,attributedbyPanofskytoNYU’sWalterCook,isrepeatedinmanyoftherecruitmentstories.

24

NewYork,setuptheUniversityinExilein1933tohelprefugeescholarstofindmeaningfulwork.FundingforthesecameinpartfromorganizationssuchastheRockefellerFoundationandtheOberlanderTrust,butalsofromcontributionsfromindividualsandfromtheexilesthemselvesasvoluntarycontributions.61However,despitethedifferentorganizations,theroleofindividualconnectionsandaidfrominterlocutorswasoftencrucialinhelpingexilesfindpositionsintheirnewsurroundings.HermannKantorowicz’sintroductiontohisStudiesintheGlossatorsoftheRomanLaw(1938)describesthesituationwell:“WhenthecountrythatIhadlongservedtothebestofmyabilitysuddenlydecidedtorelievemeoftheburdenofmyofficialduties,itlookedasifIshouldhavetoabandonmylife-workaswell.Thenitwasthat,oneaftertheother,greatseatsoflearning,oldandnew,atNewYork,London,OxfordandCambridge,steppedinand,withthenolessgeneroushelpoftheRockefellerFoundation,enabledmetocontinue.”62AlthoughKantorowiczthanksonlyinstitutions,thefactthatthebookisdedicatedtoFrancisdeZuluetaandpublishedincollaborationwithWilliamBuckland,bothprofessorsofRomanlawandpersonswhohadworkedextensivelytoaidrefugees,speaksvolumesinitself.AmongtheexilestherewerecountlessexperiencesoflifestoriessomultifariousthatonewouldneedtoreachintothelivesofémigrésfromWWIandsubsequentrevolutionstofindsufficientcomparisons.63ProfessorJuliusLips,totakeoneexample,wasananthropologistfromCologne,whoafterfalselybeingaccusedofplagiarismwouldendupintheUS.HeworkedforawhileatColumbiaUniversity,thentookajobatHoward,atraditionallyblackuniversityintheSouth.HewassubsequentlyfiredfromthereandfinallyendedupincommunistEastGermanyasthefirstsocialistrectoroftheUniversityofLeipzig.64Thescholarshiponexilesandtotalitarianism,especiallywhendiscussingtheearlyyearsoftheNazithreat,hasadoptedaverystrongtendencytobackshadow,namelyprojectingananachronisticsenseofimpendingdisasterintotheirdescriptionofthepast.Thiswouldtakedifferentforms,suchastheNazileadersbeingpresentedashavingacarefullythoughtoutmasterplanfortheirmisdeeds,andconverselythepersecutedbeingrepresentedasrealizingtoolatetheseriousnessofthethreatthatwe,laterobservers,alwaysknewwasthere.65Thecontemporaries,ofcourse,knewnothingofthisfutureandcouldscarselyfathomtheeventstakingplace.

61HorstGöppinger,JuristenjüdischerAbstammungim"DrittenReich":EntrechtungundVerfolgung(Munich:Beck,1990),pp.215–217.62HermannKantorowicz,StudiesintheGlossatorsoftheRomanLaw(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1938),p.vii.63DinaGusejnova,EuropeanElitesandIdeasofEmpire,1917–1957(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016).64Edgcomb,FromSwastikatoJimCrow,pp.107–116.65NoahStrote,LionsandLambs:ConflictinWeimarandtheCreationofPost-NaziGermanyYaleUniversityPress,2017),p.120.

25

FormostoftheexilesintheUKandtheUS,thebeginningoftheirtimeinexilewasoneofpovertyanddestitution.Edgcomb,aformerexileherself,wrotehowintheabsenceofscholarlyjobs,mostinitiallymadedowithmenialjobs.Eventhen,itwasoftenwomenwhowereabletofindworkdoinghouseholdjobsandwhowerequickerinlearningEnglish.66Somewereabletosendchildrenfirst,forinstanceErnstLevysenthisdaughterandherhusbandEdgarBodenheimerabroadtostudyatColumbiaLawSchoolin1933,whichhelpedhisownexiletremendouslybecausetheyalreadyhadgoodcontactswithinlegalacademia.67Inthisuncertaintyandworry,likeourexileexamples,manyotherexileswerepromptedtoassessboththechangestakingplaceinGermanyandthenatureoftotalitarianismboththereandingeneral,aswellasrethinkthefoundationsoflawandsociety.OneofthemostinfluentialémigréscholarswasFranzNeumannwho,alongwithHannahArendtandLeoStrauss,createdanovelinterpretationoftotalitarianstates,linkinganti-Semitismwithattacksonliberaldemocracy.68OneoftheprimeexamplesofpersonalexperiencesbeingchannelledintothescienceoflawwasHerschZviLauterpacht.AsastudentinwhatwasthenLemberg,currentlyLviv,intheAustro-HungarianEmpire,hegrewupinwhatwasessentiallyapolyglot,multiethniccommunity.Inhighschool,hejoinedlocalZionistorganizationsandadvocatedpluralismandminorityrights.However,theendoftheFirstWorldWarledtoconflictbetweenPolishandUkrainianmovementsseekingtore-establishtheirnationalstates.ThisunfortunatelymeantthatbothPolesandUkrainiansconsideredJewswithsuspicion.InNovember1918,Polishtroopstookthecityandwiththehelpoflocalmilitiasandcivilians,beganathree-daypogrom,killing,rapingandlootingastheywent.340peoplewerekilled.LauterpachthadattemptedtoorganizeJewishdefencesquads,butagainstthearmytheystoodlittlechance.Eventhoughtheeventcausedaninternationaloutcryandaninvestigation,similarmassacrescontinuedthroughoutthewarbetweenPoles,RussiansandUkrainiansforthefollowingtwoyears.LikemostJewishstudentsatPolishuniversities,Lauterpachtwasexpelled.HecontinuedhisstudiesinViennaunderHansKelsenbeforetakingtheunusualstepofdoinganotherdoctorate,thistimeatUniversityCollegeLondon,focusingoninternationallaw.Thislaidthegroundworkforhismeteoricrisetobecomethefounderofmoderninternationallawthatwouldsafeguardbothminorityrightsandhumanrights.BackinLemberg,thefateoftheJewishcommunitythatLauterpachthadsoughttosecurewastragic:horrendouspogromsbyUkrainiansin1941werefollowedbyGermanpersecutions,leadingtothedeathofnearlyallofitsJewishinhabitants,includingalmostallofLauterpacht’sremainingrelatives,including

66Edgcomb,FromSwastikatoJimCrow,p.23.67RosemarieBodenheimer,EdgarandBrigitte:AGermanJewishPassagetoAmerica(Tuscaloosa,AL:TheUniversityofAlabamaPress,2016),p.62.68ForNeumann’sinfluence,seeThomasWheatland,'FranzL.Neumann:NegotiatingPoliticalExile'(2014)54,suppl.10BulletinoftheGermanHistoricalInstitute111-138.

26

hisparentsandsister.69However,theconnectionbetweenLauterpacht’slifeexperiencesandhisscientificcareerisbasedonguesswork,becausenotoncedoeshementiontheseeventsinhiswriting,hismostfamousworkHumanRightscontainingthewordHolocaustonlyinaquoteinafootnote.70IthasbeennotedthatinadditiontoLauterpacht,therewereatNurembergandinthefightforthepost-totalitarianhumanrightsregimeanumberofJewishexilelawyersfromEasternEuropewhohadfirst-handexperiencewiththepogromsinthefirstdecadesofthetwentiethcenturyandwhosefamilieshadbeeneradicatedintheHolocaust.Forlongafterthewar,theirpersonallivesweredominatedbythemoftenbeingthesolesurvivorsofextendedfamilies,ofwholetownsorshtetlsthathadbeenwipedouttothelastman,womanandchild.71Whatthisthenmeantfortheirworkisamatterofpersonaltragedyinwhichindividualdifferencesaresubstantial.ItwasnotwithoutconsequencethatEasternEuropeanJewishcommunitieshadaskedinvainforguaranteesoftheirsafetyanddignitybyappealingtotheconceptionsofjusticeandhumanity.Forothers,thescholarlychangewaspromptedbythefactthatthekindofscholarshiptheyhadpursuedwasoflittleornointerestintheiradoptivehomelands.Forlawyers,thisoftenmeantamovetoanotherfield,suchascomparativelaworpoliticalscienceaswasthecasewithKelsen.Itshouldbenotedthatthescholarlychangediscussedinthisbookwasamarginalphenomenoninthefieldofscholarlyexileoremigrationresearch.Thosewhodidsuchresearchwereexceptionalscholarswhowerewillingtoembracenewideasandnewwaysofdoing.TopersonssuchasSchulzorPringsheim,whosespecializationwasnotinhighdemandintheAnglo-Americanworld,thiswastheonlywaytosucceed.Forthelegalexiles,therewasanaddeddifficultyinthattheywereforcedtochangenotonlythelanguageinwhichtheywrotebutalsothelegalculturetheyhadbeenaccustomedto.72Thus,forexample,someonelikeFranzNeumannwouldhavehaddifficultiesingainingemploymentasaGermanjuristspecializinginlabourlaw.Asaconsequence,manyofthelegal

69JamesLoeffler,RootedCosmopolitans.JewsandHumanRightsintheTwentiethCentury(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2018),pp.6–102.70MarttiKoskenniemi,‘HerschLauterpacht1897–1960’,inBeatsonandZimmermann,JuristsUprooted,pp.601–662,atp.644.71MichaelR.Marrus,'ThreeJewishÉmigrésatNuremberg:JacobRobinson,HerschLauterpacht,andRaphaelLemkin',inEzraMendelsohn,StefaniHoffman,andRichardCohen(eds.),AgainsttheGrain:JewishIntellectualsinHardTimes(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.240-254.LauterpachthimselfwouldrelatetotheexperienceinexilewhendiscussingHugoGrotiusandtherightofresistance.HenotedthatGrotiuswasanexileinFrance,avictimofreligiousintolerance,anexperiencethatmayhaveshapedhisviewsonnaturalrights.HerschLauterpacht,Internationallawandhumanrights(NewYork:FrederickA.Praeger,Inc.,1950),pp.115-118.72BernhardGroßfeldandPeterWinship,'DerRechtsgelehrteinderFremde',inLutter,Stiefel,andHoeflich,DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland,pp.183–200.

27

exileswouldhavetoretrainthemselvesandenterintofieldssuchascomparativelaworinternationallaw.Futureprospectsalsodependedonwhereascholarendedup.InAmerica,therewasstilldemandforspecialistsandmostoftheexileswouldfairlysoonbeemployedinpositionssometimesmore,sometimesless,suitablefortheirtraining.Incontrast,inBritaintheemphasiswasongivingscholarsgrants,bothtokeepthemoccupiedwithscientificworkandtodiscouragethemfromtakingjobsfromlocalscholars.ThiscontrastwassomethingthatseparatedthesettlersocietiesandtheEuropeanexperiencemoregenerally.Duetothefocusofthiswork,IdealprimarilywithexilesinBritainandtheUS.Averylargenumberofresearcherswouldgoelsewhere,suchastoTurkey,whichhadinstitutedaprogrammetoreformhighereducationandactivelyattractedGermantalent,butalsotoSpainandSouthAmerica,whichwerepopularamongSouthernEuropeanexiles.TherehadbeenariseinthelevelofGermanemigrationtotheUSevenbeforethewarandamongtheverylargeGermancommunityarangeofNaziorganizationsalsooperated.WhiletheexileswereoftenimpressedbytheAmericancommitmenttodemocracyandfreedom,partsoftheNaziregimesawintheUS,withitsanti-miscegenationlawsandracialsegregation,apotentialallyintheAryanbattleforworlddominance.73Onenoticesinanalysingexilescholarshipthatwhilethenumberofscholarswhoconsciouslyintegratetheirexperienceofexileintotheirwritingissmall,thenumberofexileswhocamebacktotheirhomelandwasalsolimited.Ofthetotalnumberofroughly500,000Germanrefugees,onlyfewreturned.Thehighestnumberofreturneeswerethenon-Jewish“political”exiles,ofwhichroughlyhalfreturned.Oftheacademics,only12%returned.OftheJewishrefugees,only4–5%returned.74Regardingacademicexiles,theratesofreturnvariedverymuchbasedondiscipline.Inthehardsciencestherateswereverylow,inmathematicsof112exilesonly8returned,amongbiologistsonlythreereturned,allreturningfromTurkey.Ofmedicaldoctors,5%returned.Regardinghumanities,thenumbersaresomewhatlarger.Of134historians,21camebackintheearlyyears,whileof122philosophers,only4returned.However,thesenumbersdonot 73ThereisagrowingbodyofscholarshiponHitler’sandtheNazimovement’sfascinationwithAmerica,itsexpasionsanditsracialpolicies.JamesQ.Whitman,Hitler'sAmericanmodel.TheUnitedStatesandthemakingofNaziracelaw(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2016);TimothySnyder,BlackEarth:TheHolocaustasHistoryandWarning(London:Vintage,2015),pp.12-16.OntheorganizationalhistoryoftheNazimovementintheUS,seeSanderA.Diamond,TheNaziMovementintheUnitedStates,1924-1941(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1974).SeealsoArnieBernstein,SwastikaNation:FritzKuhnandtheRiseandFalloftheGerman-AmericanBund(NewYork:St.Martin'sPress,2013).74SeanA.Forner,GermanIntellectualsandtheChallengeofDemocraticRenewalCultureandPoliticsafter1945(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014),p.35;Krauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand,pp.9–10.

28

tellthewholestoryasmanydidreturntovisitingpositionsandmanyoftheolderscholarshadalreadyretired.Thereweresomeparticularcases,suchasthereturnoftheFrankfurtSchool,whichhadgreatsymbolicvalue.Thisreturnalsoservedasademonstrationoftheinvestmentthattheuniversitywaswillingtoputintoinvitingexilesbacktotheirpostsandconstructinganewbuildingfortheinstitute.MaxHorkheimerevenservedasrectorofFrankfurtUniversity.75Oneofthetaboosrelatingtothereturnoftheexileswastheconstantanti-SemitisminGermanyandinEuropeevenafterthewar.Thiswasinoppositiontoofficialpoliciesandmanifesteditselfinbothprivateandpublicinteractions.76Ifthescholarshiponexiledscholarsisonlynowbeginningtoreachbeyondthepurelybiographicalapproach,researchonscholarswhostayed,accommodatedandevenjoinedtheNazisandFascistshasbeenevenmoreselective.Foraverylongtime,amythpersistedthatbeyondafewexamplestothecontrary,GermanprofessorsandscholarspreservedtheirintellectualintegrityduringtheNaziyears.Thismythwascreatedasearlyas1945,whenGerhardRitterpublishedhisinfluentialtext“DerProfessorim“DrittenReich””(‘TheProfessorintheThirdReich’).Init,hemaintainedthatscholarshiphadmanagedtomaintainitsautonomyfrompoliticalinterferenceandthatprofessorswerenotinterestedintheNaziideology.EvenwhentheyjoinedtheNazipartyorparticipatedinitsvariousadministrativetasks,itwaswithoutpersonalconviction.Theprofessors,heargued,soughttoprotecttheircareersandhavingacareerwithoutmembershipinthepartywasallbutimpossible.77Thislineofargumentbecameastandardandoft-repeatedresponse.HelmutCoing,forexample,usesitinhisautobiography,claimingthathewasexplicitlytoldthatinordertobepromotedhewouldneedtobeaNazipartymember.78InItaly,theregimeinstitutedanoathofallegiance,whichwassignedbyallbut12Italianprofessors.79Thismythwasdestroyedin1946byMaxWeinreich’sHitler’sProfessors.WeinreichwasanexiledlinguistspecializinginYiddish,whocametoNewYorkin1940.Inhisbook,whichwaspublishedinEnglish,hedemonstrateshowtheacademicworldeagerlytookpartinthecreationoftheintellectualfoundationofNazismandthepersecutionsinitsmidst.The 75Krauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand,pp.83–87.76Krauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand,pp.17.77GerhardRitter,'DerdeutscheProfessorimDrittenReich'(1945)1.1DieGegenwart23-26;Remy,HeidelbergMyth,pp.2–3.78HelmutCoing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste.LebensberichteineseuropäischenRechtsgelehrten,hrsg.,kommentiertundmiteinemNachwortvonMichaelF.Feldkamp(Berlin:DunckerandHumblot,2014),pp.45–47,56–57.79Onthosewhorefusedandthosewhodidnot,seethespeechbyPaoloValabrega,Idodiciprofessorichenonhannogiurato(onMay6,2014,atPolitecnicodiTorino),athttps://www.swas.polito.it/services/poli_flash/foto/I%20dodici%20professori%20che%20non%20hanno%20giurato.pdf(accessedonApril1,2019).

29

transformationofanti-Semitismfromapopularbelieftoascientificworldviewwasalongprocessinwhichacademicswereactiveparticipantsandusedtheirscholarlycredibilitytofurthertheaimsoftheregime.Thebook,however,wasnevertranslatedintoGerman,norwereitsfindingspubliclydiscussedinGermany.80HenceinGermany,themythcreatedbyRittercontinuedtogivecredencetotheclaimsthatprofessorsweresimplyunenthusiasticaboutNazismandthemajoritywerenotguiltyofanythingbeyondnotvoicingtheiroppositionduetothereignofterror.Asanaside,thosewhohadbeenactiveandvisibleparticipants,thelikesofSchmittorHeidegger,weresingledout.Thesituationonlyreallychangedinthe1960s,whenGermanstudentsbegantoquestionthepresenceofformerNazisinacademia.Newstudiesbegantodemonstratetheextenttowhichacademiahadinfactparticipatedintheregime,itsideologyanditspoliciesDespitetheseadvances,themythcreatedbyRittercontinuedtobeawidelysharedconvictioninGermany.81Inthecaseofthelegalprofessionitself,themythofimpartiallawyersbeingmostlyunaffectedbytheNaziregimewasonlydestroyedonlybythestudiesofBerntRüthersbeginningin1968.82Forthemostpart,thedenazificationofGermanuniversitieswasashort-livedpropositionthatencounteredmuchhostilityamonguniversitystaff.Whilemanyexileswererecalled,thosewhohadbeenappointedtofilltheirpositionsremained.Thisis,however,justapartoftheimage.Afterthewar,althoughscholarswhohadbeenNazipartymemberswereremovedfromoffice,theystillhadanadvantagewhenpositionsbecamevacant,becausetheyhadhaduninterruptedacademiccareers.Thus,forexample,Koschakerwouldlamentin1947thathewasabouttobereplacedbyoneoftwoNaziswhowerevyingforhisjob.83Inconclusion,exileshouldbeapproachedasaprocessinwaysthatencompassnotonlythosewholeftforabroadbutalsotakeintoaccountphenomenasuchasinnerexile.Psychological

80MaxWeinreich,Hitler'sprofessors:thepartofscholarshipinGermany'scrimesagainsttheJewishpeople(NewYork:YiddishScientificInstitute,1946).ThebookhasonlyrecentlybeentranslatedintoFrench(MaxWeinreich,Hitleretlesprofesseurs.Lerôledesuniversitairesallemandsdanslescrimescommiscontrelepeuplejuif(Paris:LesBellesLettres,2014).Whiletheintentionofscholarsininfluencingtheregimemayhavebeenconsiderable,alreadyArendtnotedinherreviewofWeinreichthattheyhadlittlerealsaywithintheNazimovement.HannahArendtandJeromeKohn,EssaysinUnderstanding,1930-1954:Formation,Exile,andTotalitarianism(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&Co.,1994),p.201.81Remy,HeidelbergMyth,pp.2–3.82BerndtRüthers,DieUnbegrenzteAuslegung.ZumWandelderPrivatrechtsordnungimNationalsozialismus(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2005).83KoschakertoKischonNovember27,1947(pp.21–24),nowinGuidoKisch(ed.),PaulKoschaker,Gelehrter,Mensch,Freund.BriefeausdenJahren1940bis1951.(Basel:HelbingundLichtenbahn,1970).OntheimpactoftotalitarianisminGermanlegalhistory,seeHans-PeterHaferkamp,JanThiessen,andChristianWaldhoff(eds.),DeutscheDiktatorischeRechtsgeschichten?PerspektivenaufdieRechtsgeschichtederDDR.GedächtnissymposiumfürRainerSchröder(1947–2016)(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018).

30

developmentsarestillpoorlyunderstood,asarethewaysinwhichinternaldevelopments,traumaandpeople’smotivationsinteract.What,moreover,aretheissuesatstakethatcontributetocreativity?Inasimilarmanner,exileasaprocessdoesbeginwiththeboardingofashipbutalsofromtheslowprocessofmarginalization.Nordoesexilesimplyendwithareturn,fortheprocessofexilecontinueswiththeoftenverydifficultadjustmentofreturnandwithre-engagementwiththeformerhomecountry.Finally,itmustbenotedthatexilewasnotsimplyanissuelimitedtothevictimsofNazism,foraswewillseeNaziscouldalsorepresentthemselvesasexiles.HeritageandEuropeAlthoughtheideaofasharedpastorcommonlegalrootshasbeenusedasanargumentforunity,asacommondenominator,thequestionstillremainswhatdoesasharedpastactuallymean?Indiscussionsonhistoryandculturalheritage,conceptssuchaslegacy,heritage,traditionandlineageareoftenpresentedwithoutdefinitionorexplanation.InthisbookIsuggestthattherearetwoaspectsthatshouldbeseparated:1)thehistoricaldevelopmentwhereoneissueiscausallyorculturallylinkedtoanother,forinstancethereuseofancientRomanlegalsourcesinthelaterlegalscholarship,and2)thedemonstrationofalineagebetweenanesteemedearlierthingandalaterphenomenon,forexampletoprovethevalueorlegitimacyofthelatter.WhatthetheoriesofasharedEuropeanlegalheritagecontainedwasamixtureofthetwo,combininghistoricaltraditionwiththeprocessesoflegitimatingandjustifyingaparticularchoice.Thequestionofheritageiscentraltothisvolume,butinwaysthatareoftencontradictory.WhileGermanhistoricalandlegalthoughthadastrongcultureoftraditionalism,includingtheinvocationofheritageandcultureaslegalfoundations,thesetraditionsweretakenoverbyNaziracialandlegaltheories.ThecrucialquestionisthusnotthelinkbetweenthetheoriesofVolksgeistthatweredevelopedbySavignyandtheHistoricalSchoolandNazithought,butratherhowNaziideologyreferredtotheearliertraditionandsoughttoappealtoitssupporters.EveninearlystudiesontherootsofNaziideology,scholarshadestablishedhowtheGermanrevolutionthatHitlersoughttobringaboutwasfoundedonwhatforexampleGeorgeMossedescribesasvölkishthought.EvenMossemaintainedthatthisthinkingwasnotreducibletothepast,thoughtherewasalonghistoryofthekindofpopularnationalismthatvölkishthoughtrepresented.Thelinkwithnationalismandanti-Semitismwasforgedintheearlynineteenthcenturyinthefirsttextsofthemovement.AtGermanuniversities,theinfluenceofvölkishthoughtcamethroughtworoutes,onescholarlyandonepopular.Thepopularonewasrepresentedmostlybythestudents,whoalreadyinthenineteenthcenturywereactivelyhostileabouttheadmissionofJewishstudentsandJewsingeneral.Beginningintheturnofthecentury,incidentsofstudenthostilitytowardsJewishteachersbecameincreasinglycommon.Inthecaseofthestudentorganizations,suchastheverynationalisticBurschenschaften,anti-Semitismhadbeenprevalentalreadyinthenineteenthcentury.Thus,

31

whentheNazipoliciesofofficialanti-Semitismwereintroduced,in1934–5inGermanyandin1938inAustria,thementalpreparationwasalreadyinplaceandtheideologytoalargedegreeaccepted.84Inadditiontothementalpreparationofnationalismandanti-Semitism,theinfluenceoftheideologicalandpracticalracialpracticesestablishedduringtheEuropeancolonialruleshouldnotbeforgotten.85ThemovetowardsopenracisminGermanywasparadoxicallyoneofthemainfactorsthatdroveAmericaandwithitBritaintocementtheircommitmenttoideassuchasliberty,equalityortheruleoflaw,especiallyafterthepogromsof1938.ThiswasparadoxicalbecauseitwaspreciselytheracistlegalregimeintheUS,boththeJimCrowlawsconcerningpoliticalparticipationandthemorewidespreadanti-miscegenationlawsthatservedasthemodelfortheNaziNürnberglawsin1935.AsJamesWhitmanhasrecentlynoted,institutionalizedracisminAmericawasinfacttooextremeandtooharshtobeusedagainstmostlyassimilatedGermanJewsin1933-1935.FortheNazis,theUSwasconsideredtobeoneofthecountriesthathadcommitteditselftomaintainingthesupremacyoftheNordicrace.Againstthisbackground,thefactthatNazipolicieswereattackedbothinthestreetsofNewYorkandbyJewishmagistratesandjudgeswasmetwithfierceprotestsbytheNaziregime.86Inasense,whileGermanywastransformingfromauthoritariantyrannyintototalitarianism,theUSunderwentamoveintheoppositedirection,thatofreinforcingitscommitmenttothetraditionofliberty.OneoftheideasthatconnectedearlyEuropeanistthoughtandconservativeideologywastheconceptofAbendland(literally‘EveningLand’orOccident,fromLatinoccidens),whichsignifiedtheWesternculturalsphere.Initially,theAbendlandideologywassharedbyCatholicconservativecircles,whowoulduseittoportraythevaluesofChristianEurope.Muchofthetheorywasahistoricalunderstandingoftheclassicalandmedievalheritageanditscurrentrelevance,butpoliticallyithadaclearanti-socialistslant.NazipropagandawouldtakeovertheconceptualbasisoftheAbendlandideology,utilizingittobroadenthebasisofsupportforthemovement.Afterthewar,thesameconservativethinkerswhowouldseetheconnectionsbetweentheaimsofChristianconservativesandNazism,wouldreinventtheideologyasa

84GeorgeL.Mosse,TheCrisisofGermanIdeology:IntellectualOriginsoftheThirdReich(NewYork:H.Fertig,1998[1964]),pp.191–203.85Onthis,thesecondpartofHannahArendt,TheOriginsofTotalitarianism(London:Penguin,2017)isstillrelevant.86Whitman,Hitler'sAmericanModel,pp.18–21raisestheexampleoftheBremenincidentofJuly26,1935whenthousandsofprotestersstormedtheGermanshipBremenandthrewtheNaziflagintotheHudsonRiver.LouisBrodsky,thepresidingmagistrate,hadreleasedthesuspectsandinhisdecisionwrittenthattheswastikaflagwassimilartothepirate’sflaginthatitwasantitheticaltotheAmericanidealsoflife,libertyandthepursuitofhappiness.

32

Transatlanticone.Init,anticommunistthoughtwouldconnecttheUSandEuropeanconservatives.87WhendiscussinghowtheEuropeantraditionwasformed,adistinctionneedstobemadebetweenhistoricaleventsandtheirscholarlyinterpretation.Thewaythatthesamehistoricaldevelopmentsarediscussedverymuchdependsonhowtheauthorframesthem.AuthorswhowritefortheEuropeanmarket,mightwellpresentthenarrativeasthehistoryofEuropeanlaw,88whileauthorsintheUSmightdepictthemastheWesternlegalheritage.89Allinall,oneofthemajorissuesoftheconceptionofEuropethatwasutilizedinearlylegalEuropeanismwasitsconcentrationonWesternEurope.ThenarrativefocuswasoftenonGermanyanditstradition,interspersedbyaccountsofinteractionswithItaly,France,andoccasionallyBritain.WhatremainedinvisiblewastheNorthernandEasternEuropeanexperience.OnlyquiterecentlyhastherebeenmoredebateonwhatthetermEuropeanwouldmeaninalegalcontext.Some,likeLupoi,havesoughttoquestionthisnarrativetoevadethestigmaitplacesonMedievalscholarshipandtheeraingeneralasahiatusbetweentwocivilizations.HesoughttocriticizetheideaofthebirthofEuropeasauniqueevent,proposingamorenuancedapproachandastepbackfromthefloralimageryofdeathandrebirth.90TheEuropeanlegalnarrativethatourprotagonistsdevelopedwashardlyunique.Othercontemporaryauthorswouldproposesimilarlygrandnarratives,suchasKansasprofessorWilliamBurdick,whoinhis1938PrinciplesofRomanLawandTheirRelationtoModernLawwouldpresentaglobalhistoryofthereachofRomanlawanditssignificanceforcommonlaw.Otherworkswereclearlyinspiredbythelegalscholarsfeaturedinthisbook.Forexample,Jolowicz’sRomanFoundationsofModernLaw,publishedposthumouslyin1957containsaverysimilarnarrativeandquotesSavignyfrequently.JolowiczalsoremarksupontheimportanceofRomanlawinthedevelopmentofEuropeanlaw,takinguptheconceptofEurope.91 87AxelSchildt,ZwischenAbendlandundAmerika(Oldenbourg:Wissenschaftsverlag,1999),pp.23,27,198.Here,therearealsoreflectionsonthecontradictionbetweenthedeepGermanKulturandmoreshallowEuropeancivilizationthatpermeatedGermanthought.88OliviaF.Robinson,T.DavidFergus,andWilliamM.Gordon,Europeanlegalhistory:sourcesandinstitutions(London:Butterworths,2000).89SuchasJohnE.Ecklund,TheOriginsofWesternLawfromAthenstotheCodeNapoleon.2Vols(Clark,NJ:TheLawbookExchange,Ltd.,2014),whichfrequentlycitesSchulz.90MaurizioLupoi,TheOriginsoftheEuropeanLegalOrder(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000).91WilliamL.Burdick,ThePrinciplesofRomanLawAndTheirRelationToModernLaw(Rochester:TheLawyersCo-operativePublishingCo.,1938);HerbertF.Jolowicz,RomanFoundationsofModernLaw(Oxford:ClarendonPressandOxfordUniversityPress,1957),p.4.

33

ThewayinwhichRomanlawanditsroleinEuropeanlegalhistoryoperatesisverymuchboundtotheideaofjuristsasaunifiedprofessionwithitsoriginsinancientRome.92ThisisathreadthatconnectstheworksofSchulz,Pringsheim,Koschaker,WieackerandCoing.Inthemorerecentscholarship,thenarrativeofRomanlawthattracesthedevelopmentfromancientRomanjuriststoGermanjurisprudencetomodernprivatelawismostaptlydescribedbyReinhardZimmermann,whohasoutlinedthelinkinnumerousworksfromthelate1990stothepresentday.Zimmermann’sthesismaybedescribedasonethatcombineslegalhistoryandcontemporarylegaldoctrineandthusre-establishesEuropeanlegalculture.93ForZimmermann,lawisaconstitutiveelementandacharacteristictraitofEuropeanculture.94Thispropositionwasenthusiasticallyreceivedinthe1990sandtheearly2000s,producingamassivescholarshipthatsoughttolinkRomanlawdoctrineandtheemergenceofmodernEuropeanprivatelaw,anewiuscommune.Forthisproposition,thecrucialtestwasovercomingtheboundarybetweenthecivillawandthecommonlawsystems,wherethestudyofthevariousmixedjurisdictionsbecamevital.95AnothercrucialfeaturewastheexaminationofjurisprudenceandthelongtraditionstretchingfromtheRomanstocontemporaryjurists.Here,instancessuchaslegaltransplantswereofgreatinterestastheycouldtestifytothelinkagesbetweensystems.Inthiscontext,criticshavepointedoutthattheveryideaofthecontemporaryapplicabilityofthepastrunscountertoadeeperunderstandingoflawasahistoricaltraditionexistinginitscurrentforminaparticularmomentduetoitsinnatehistoricalnature.96Inamoredirectform,duetothevastdifferencesbetweenancientandmodernsocialrealitiesandrelationsofpower,theefficacyoftheguidanceofferedbyRomanlawislimitedatbest.97Nearlyallofthisdebatewasaboutprivatelaw.However,muchoftheworkonexilesfocusesonrightsandprocedure,ifnotdirectlyonpubliclaworhumanrights.NewworkontheemergenceofaEuropeanhumanrightsregimehaspointedtothecentralityofhumanrightslanguageinshapingtheagendaofEuropeanintegration.98

92JamesGordley,Thejurists:acriticalhistory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013).93Zimmermann,RomanLaw,ContemporaryLaw,EuropeanLaw.94ReinhardZimmermann,'SavignysVermächtnis',inPioCaroniandGerhardDilcher(eds.),NormundTradition.WelcheGeschichtlichkeitfürdieRechtsgeschichte?(Köln,Weimar,Wien:BöhlauVerlag,1998),pp.281-321,atp.293.95Onthisdebate,seeJanSmits,TheMakingofEuropeanPrivateLaw:TowardalusCommune.EuropaeumasaMixedLegalSystem(Antwerp:Intersentia,2002).96GiulianoCrifò,'Pandettistiestoricistineldirittoromanooggi'(1999)1Dirittoromanoattuale11-28,atpp.24–27,pointingtotheearlierdebatesaboutrevitalizingorhistoricizingRomanlaw.97FedericoSpantigati,'Ladiscontinuitànellacontinuità(commentoaLeoPeppe)'(2000)4Dirittoromanoattuale89-94.98Duranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolutionMarcoDuranti,<i>TheConservativeHumanRightsRevolution.EuropeanIdentity,TransnationalPolitics,andtheOriginsoftheEuropean

34

Theissueoftherelationshipbetweenthepresentandthepast,thatoflineageandjustification,hasbeencentralinallofthesedebatesaboutEuropeanditspastandfuture.However,inmostofthediscussionsthatthisbookcovers,itistakenasagiven,withlittlethoughtaboutthetheoreticalimplicationsbeyondthedebatesonthenatureofthereceptionofRomanlaw.Incontemporaryreceptionstudiesithasbeennotedthatreceptionisanactiveprocessthattakesplacewithinasocialandculturalcontext.Reception,moreover,hasapurposesuchasitsuseasanauthorityoraslegitimation.Reception,appropriationandadaptationareallactsthataremotivatedbythepresenttointerpretthepast,wherelabelssuchasclassicalarebestowednotasdescriptivebutasnormativelabelsthatsignifyvalue.99InthecaseofanextremelylonghistoricalcontinuumsuchastheideaofaEuropeanlegaltraditionthatextendsfromtheancientRomanstothepresentday,thequestioniswhetheritispossibletosaythatthereisacontinuumandtowhatextentthatcontinuumismerelyaconvenientvehicleforideals.Historicalepochsandstagesareofcoursedidactictools,buttheyalsocontainvaluestatementsandnormativenotionsofidentityformationandbelonging.Inspiteofthis,onemustalsorememberthenoveltyoftheturntowardsEuropeandtheideaofaEuropeantraditionasthesubjectofhistory.Fromthenineteenthcenturyonwards,historicalwritingbecameincreasinglynationalizedandthenationcametobeseenasanaturalcategoryandthusasanactorinhistory.100Itwasperhapsthehistoricalbreadthofthetraditionandthesearchforpointsoforiginfromancientandmedievalhistorywhichmadeitpossibletocircumventnationalistinstincts.Theconceptoftraditionasahistoricalconceptisacuriousthing.WhatscholarsofhistorysuchasJörnRüsenhavepointedoutisthattraditionisatoolofhistoricalsense-generationinthatitpresentstheworldwheredespitechangesthereisanorderthatismaintained,anorderwhichlinksthepastandthefuture.Traditionpresentsaculturalorientation,aparadigmthroughwhicheventsandactionsarepresentedwithacertainreferencetothepast.101Inallofthehistoricalreinterpretationsdiscussedinthisbook,whatisatstakeisthereinterpretationandredirectionoftradition,changingwhatisheldtobevaluableandtrue,

Convention</i>(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017)MarcoDuranti,<i>TheConservativeHumanRightsRevolution.EuropeanIdentity,TransnationalPolitics,andtheOriginsoftheEuropeanConvention</i>(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017)MarcoDuranti,<i>TheConservativeHumanRightsRevolution.EuropeanIdentity,TransnationalPolitics,andtheOriginsoftheEuropeanConvention</i>(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017).99LornaHardwick,Receptionstudies(Oxford:PublishedfortheClassicalAssociationbyOxfordUniversityPress,2003),pp.2–8.100Breuilly,‘HistoriansandtheNation’,p.73.101JörnRüsen,'Tradition:aprincipleofhistoricalsense-generationanditslogicandeffectinhistoricalculture'(2012)51(4)HistoryandTheory45-59.

35

andwhatisrepresentativeofthetradition.Muchlikeinparalleldiscussionsaboutdemocracy,102historianscraftapastthatissuitableforthepresentanditsneeds.Thepastmaytrulybeaforeignplacewheretheydothingsdifferently,butitcanalsobeshapedtoconformtotheexpectationsofthepresent.TheoutlineofthebookThebookisdividedintofivemainchapters,precededbyanintroductionandfollowedbyaconclusion.Eachchapterfocusesononeofthemainchosenfiguresandsetsouttoexplorefirsttheirnarrativeinitshistoricalcontextandthentocontextualizeitandpresentparallelandcontemporarythinkers.Layingouttheaimsofthebook,theintroductorychaptersetsouttheresearchquestionsandhowthebookanswersthem.HowdidtheideathattherewasasharedEuropeantraditionoflawbasedonliberty,legalism,theruleoflaw,rightsandtheindependenceoflawemerge?ItpresentsthecollapseoftheWeimarRepublicandtheriseofNazirepression,theprocessofexileandthefatesofmychosenscholarsinexileandinGermany,settingthestageforthetheoreticalunderpinningsofthebook:theexileexperience,thereformulationofthetraditionoflawandthereconfiguringofideasaboutEurope.ThesecondchapterstartswithFritzSchulz’sfamousprinciplesoflibertyandhumanityasthefoundationofRomanlawandtheWesternlegaltradition,outlininghowhepresentstheancientRomanlegaltraditionasacounterargumentagainstNazilegaltheory.103FromSchulz’sidealizationofRomanlawagainsttheNazipoliticizationoflaw,thechapterexpandsonthecentralroleoflegalscienceinmaintainingtheautonomyandhumanityoflaw.ThesethemesarethencomparedwithotherexiledscholarssuchasHannahArendt,FranzNeumannandArnaldoMomiglianoandhowtheydevelopedtheideaoflibertyandtheinfluencestheytookfromtheAtlanticdiscourse.Thethirdchapterexploresideasofequality,cosmopolitanismandtheruleoflawasoppositestoNazipolicies,usingPringsheim’sarticleonHadrianasanexampleoftheusesofthepast.104ThechapterpresentstwocomparisonswithPringsheim’sexperience,namelyFranzNeumann’sandhistheoryontheruleoflawandthetotalitarianstate,aswellasRiccobono’sontheFascistidealizationofRomanlaw.Byanalysingtheideaofjurisprudenceasacultureofsharedvalues,thechapterbuildsontherootsoftheideaslaterpresentedbyDavidDaubeinpost-warscholarship.

102P.J.Rhodes,Ancientdemocracyandmodernideology(London:Duckworth,2003).103FritzSchulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1954[1934]);FritzSchulz,RomanLegalScience(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1946).104FritzPringsheim,'LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian'(1934)24JournalofRomanStudies141-153;FritzPringsheim,'HöheundEndederRömischenJurisprudenz',inGesammelteAbhandlungen1(Heidelberg:CarlWinter&Universitätsverlag,1961[1930]),pp.53–62.

36

ThefourthchapterstartswiththethemesofcrisisandthediscoveryofthefutureforRomanlawinEuropeintheformofthecommonlegalheritageintheseminalworksofPaulKoschaker.105ThesebuildontheroleoftraditioninlawandworktopresentaroleforRomanlawintheneworder,firstintheNazireignandsecondinthenewpost-warEurope.ThischaptercomparestheconceptionsoflawandEuropebetweenNaziandFascistspoliciesandtheirideasforRomanlaw,thereorientationofthelegaleducation,andthenewroleforEuropeintheneworder.ThesetotalitarianvisionsofEuropearethencomparedwiththeideasofotherEuropeanistssuchastheCatholicconservativeJacquesMaritainortheliberal,ssocialistsandcommunistsbehindtheVentoteneDeclarationin1941.ThefifthchapterturnstotheyoungergenerationofscholarsandthetortuousroutebywhichtheycametotheideaofaEuropeanlegaltradition.BylookingattheopportunisticyoungNazischolarsinthelegalacademiaandtheirattemptsatreformbasedontheracializedorder,thestageissetfortheirconversionafterthewar.ThroughtheworksofFranzWieacker,106thechapteranalysesthereturntotraditionandthediscoveryofEuropeandRomanlawwithinthattraditionamongGermanlegalhistoriansandthespreadoftheseideasinEurope.ItdiscussestheroleofdenazificationandthecontinuitiesofNazipoliciesintheformationoftheroleofEuropeinthelegalcultureofthattime.ThesixthchapterinvestigatesthereconfiguringofthelegaltraditionthroughtheworkofHelmutCoingandhisideaofthetraditionofrightsasajurisprudentialconstruct.107ThisiscontextualizedthroughtheriseoftherightstraditioninhumanrightsscholarshipandthecommitmentofthenewGermanstatetodemocracyandrights.ThechapterconcludeswithananalysisofthespreadoftheEuropeannarrativeabouttheroleofRomanlawanditsgreatestproponents,suchasReinhardZimmermann.108

105PaulKoschaker,'DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsundromanistischeRechtswissenschaft'(1938)1SchriftenderAkademiefürDeutschesRecht:RömischesRechtundfremdeRechte1–86;PaulKoschaker,EuropaunddasrömischeRecht(MunichandBerlin:Beck,1966[1947]).106FranzWieacker,DasrömischeRechtunddasdeutscheRechtsbewußtsein(Leipzig:Barth,1944);FranzWieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit,unterbesondererBerücksichtigungderdeutschenEntwicklung(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1952(1sted),1967(2nded)).107HelmutCoing,'ZumEinflussderPhilosophiedesAristotelesaufdieEntwicklungdesrömischesRechts'(1952)69ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung24–59;HelmutCoing,'RömischesRechtinDeutschland'(1964)5.6lusRomanumMediiAevi26–28;HelmutCoing,'DieursprünglicheEinheitdereuropäischenRechtswissenschaft',inGesammelteAufsätzezuRechtsgeschichte,RechtsphilosophieundZivilrecht:Band2(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,1982),pp.137–156.108Zimmermann,RomanLaw,ContemporaryLaw,EuropeanLaw.

37

2.LegalrefugeesfromNaziGermanyandtheideaoflibertyAbstractThischapterstartsoutwithFritzSchulz’sfamousprinciplesoflibertyandhumanityasthefoundationoftheWesternlegaltradition,outlininghowhepresentstheRomanlegaltraditionasacounterargumentagainstNazilegaltheory.FromSchulz’sidealizationofRomanlawagainsttheNazipoliticizationoflaw,thechapterexpandsonthecentralroleoflegalscienceinmaintainingtheautonomyandhumanityoflaw.Thesethemesarethencomparedwithotherexiledscholars,suchasHannahArendt,FranzNeumannandArnaldoMomigliano,showinghowtheydevelopedtheideaoflibertyandwhatinfluencestheytookfromtheAtlanticdiscourse.IntroductionAftertheNSDAPtookpowerinGermanyin1933,legalscholarsofJewishheritagefacedever-increasingrepression,leadingmanytoseektheirfortunesabroadinexile.Formost,thistransferwassimplyamatterofrelocation,whileforotherstheexilemeantachangeintheunderstandingofthescholarlytradition.109ThepurposeofthischapteristoexaminetheemergenceoftheideaoflibertyasalegalconceptfundamentaltotheEuropeantradition.TodothisIwilltracethescholarlychangeinideasofFritzSchulz(1879–1957),oneofthemostinfluentialhistoriansofRomanlawandlegalscience,ashereactstototalitarianism.110Myfocusisontheconceptsof“liberty”and“authority”inSchulz’sPrinciplesofRomanLaw(1936,Germanorig.PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts1934)111andthewaythattheydelineatetherelationshipbetweenlegalandpolitical 109Fermi,IllustriousImmigrants;AshandSöllner,ForcedMigrationandScientificChange;Rösch,ÉmigréScholarsandtheGenesisofInternationalRelations.Onexiledlawyers,seealsoGraham,‘TheRefugeeJuristandAmericanLawSchools,1933–1941’;Lutter,Stiefel,Hoeflich,DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland;BreunungandWalther,DieEmigrationdeutscherRechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol1andvol2.110ThemainbiographyisstillErnst,‘FritzSchulz’,otherworksGiltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw;WernerFlume,FritzSchulz.Gedenkrede,gehaltenbeieinervonderRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlichenFakultätderUniversitätBonnam25.7.1958veranstaltetenGedächtnisfeier(Bonn:Hanstein,1959).ThereisasectiononSchulzinBreunungandWalther,DieEmigrationdeutscherRechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol1,pp.432–442.Nachrufen:GianGualbertoArchi,‘FritzSchulz’(1958)24StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeIuris451–459.111Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts;Schulz,RomanLegalScience.Onthisbook,seeGiltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw;contemporaryreviews:HeinrichLange,‘DeutscheRomanistik?GrundsätzlicheBemerkungenzuFritzSchulz,„PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts“’(1934)DeutscheJuristenZeitung1493–1500;MatthiasGelzer,‘PrinzipiendesRömischenRechts’(1935)11Gnomon1–6;ArturSteinwenter,‘Prinzipiendesrömischen

38

order.Thischapteraddressesissuesofindividuallibertiesandindividualismandtheauthoritiesofboththestateandtheprivatesphere.ItisarguedthatSchulz’sworkshouldnotbereadonlyasaveiledcriticismoftheauthoritarianNazistate,112butthatthediscussioncontainsfundamentalargumentsofpoliticalphilosophyandlaw.Theunderlyingthemeisthedilemmaoflibertyandtherelationshipbetweentheindividualandthestate.WhatSchulzpresentsisanovelexplorationofthefoundationsoftheWesterntraditionoflibertyintheRomanlawtradition,makingaconnectionbetweentheGermanandthecommonlawtraditionoflaw.ForSchulz,theseissueswereintegrallyconnectedwiththeroleoflawandlawyers.Ifthelawwasultimatelyamereexpressionofthewillofthelegislator,lawyerswouldbereducedtointerpretersandconsolidatorsofthatwill.If,however,lawwasanexpressionofthelegalculture,theauthorityoflawyersinforminglawwasparamount.Thus,attheheartofhisargumentwasafundamentalconcernwiththeauthorityandfreedomoflegalscience.ThePrinciplesmaybeseenasanexampleoftheearlyinfluenceoftheexileprocess,wheretheauthorstandsbetweenthetwotraditionsandattemptstomakesenseofthechangestakingplace.ThebookwasdevelopedthroughaphaseoftransitionastheNazistookpower.Intheseearlyyearsoftheirruleitwasstillunclearhowthenewregimewouldtransformthecountry,orwhatkindoffuturescholarslikeSchulzwouldface.Thequestioniswhatdidtheseturbulentandviolentchangesmeanconcerningideasoflawandjustice?Inordertoanalyseanysuchworkswrittenunderasuppressiveregime,onehastouncovertheintendedmeaninghiddenbeneaththelayersofsubterfugeandallusionsusedtoevadedetectionbytheauthorities.Schulz’sPrincipleshasoftenbeenseenasacuriousworkwithnorealcomparisons.Assuch,ithasarousedlittleinterest.ThemainscholarlycontributionsonitarethecomprehensivebiographicalarticlebyErnstinthevolumeJuristsUprooted(2004)andtheworksofJacobGiltaij,whofocusesonthereceptionofthePrinciplesinRomanlawscholarship.Whilemostof

RechtsvonFritzSchulz’(1935)152HistorischeZeitschrift115–116;ArthurSchiller,‘ReviewofthePrinciples[etal.]’(1938)24(12)AmericanBarAssociationJournal1015–1017;MarioLauria(1935)1StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeIuris219;A.H.CampbellinTheTimesLiterarySupplement6.2.1937,W.L.Mollin5VirginiaLawReview(1937)858;P.W.Duff,(1937) 51(6)TheClassicalReview238-239.ThereisalsoBuckland’sreviewofboththeGermanandtheEnglisheditionin(1938)TheUniversityofTorontoLawJournal2(2)392–393andJ.G.Lautnerinthe(1938)9(2)InternationalenZeitschriftfürTheoriedesRechts.112Eventheearlyreviewersnotedthepoliticalimplicationsofseveralprinciples.Gelzer,‘PrinzipiendesRömischenRechts’.OntheformationandcharacteroftheGermanadministrativesystemundertheNaziperiod,foracontemporaryview,seeErnstFraenkel,TheDualState:AContributiontotheTheoryofDictatorship(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1940).OntheNazilaw,seeMichaelStolleis,TheLawundertheSwastika:StudiesonLegalHistoryinNaziGermany(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress1998);CarolynBensonandJulianFink,‘NewPerspectivesonNaziLaw’(2012)3(2)Jurisprudence341–346.

39

thescholarshiphasrecognizedthePrinciplesasanovelworkwithastrongpoliticalbackground,andasastatementagainstNazirule,therehavealsobeenopposingvoices.Forexample,bothStolleisandSchermaierlinkSchulz’sPrinciplestotheliteraturethatsoughttoreconcileRomanlawwithNazilegalpolicies.113Thisinquiryisaimedatadifferentaspect,namelythewaythatSchulz’sPrinciplesreflectsandbuildsuponafundamentallegal,politicalandphilosophicalcontroversyofthattime,theconflictbetweenindividuallibertyandstateauthority.ThroughthePrinciples,Schulzprocessestherapidchangesinlegalandsocialthoughtandthechallengesthesepresentedforlegalacademia.Inthelatterpartofthischapter,thisdilemmaiscontextualizedthroughtheexileexperienceandthewaysinwhichitwasreflectedintheworksoflegalandhistoryscholars.Likemanyotherémigrés,Schulzdidnotleaveanextantarchive.Thus,muchofthefollowingisbasedonpublishedworks.Thereis,however,aselectionoflettersandothercorrespondencethatpertainstoSchulz.114Someofhiscorrespondencehasbeenfoundinthecollectionsoftheirrecipients.Theconnectingthreadthroughthechapterwillbetheideasoffreedomandauthorityandtheirimplicationsfortherelationshipbetweenlawandpolitics.TheexperienceofSchulzandthewayinwhichheprocessedthechangesfacingthelegalsystemandthescienceoflawarejuxtaposedwiththoseofotherexiles,suchastheancienthistorianArnaldoMomigliano,politicaltheoristHannahArendt,lawyerFranzNeumannandRomanlawscholarErnstLevy.TheywereallfacedwiththesamedilemmaofhowtounderstandpoliticalfreedomandlibertyasalegalandapoliticalproblemaftertheutterdestructionNazismhadleftbehind.InthecaseofLevyandMomigliano,theypresentedsimilarargumentsasSchulzontheconnectionoffreedomandrepublicanismandthelureofauthoritarianism.ForNeumann,asforSchulz,thechallengeoffactuality,theinclusionofrealargumentsintolegalargumentationasdonebylegalscholarsofthefreelawschoolofthelatenineteenthcenturyonwardstothelegalrealistswastiedtothechallengepresentedbybothMarxistandNazijurisprudence.In

113Flume,FritzSchulz,p.21;Ernst,‘FritzSchulz’,p.123;JacobGiltaij,‘FritzSchulz,RefugeeScholarship,andtheRiccobonoSeminar’(2016)12RomanLegalTradition1–19;Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw;MichaelStolleis,ʻ“FortschrittederRechtsgeschichteˮinderZeitdesNationalsozialismus?ʼ,inStolleisandSimon,RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus,pp.177–197,at186;MartinJosefSchermaier‚‘FritzSchulz’Prinzipien.DasEndeeinerdeutschenUniversitätslaufbahnimBerlinderDreißigerjahre’,inS.Grundmann,etal.(eds.),Festschrift200JahreJuristischeFakultätderHumboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin(Berlin:Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin,2010),pp.683–700.Oftherecentcommentaries,FaraNasti,'PensierogiuridicoromanoetradizioneeuropeaneiPrinzipiendiFritzSchulz',inPierreBonin,NaderHakim,FaraNasti,andAldoSchiavone(eds.),Pensierogiuridicooccidentaleegiuristiromani.Ereditàegenealogie(Torino:Giappichelli,2019),pp.225-247andLuciaFanizza,'IPrincipidiFritzSchulz'(1996)72StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris543-549seeitasastrongpoliticalactagainstNazipolicies.114ThiscollectioniscurrentlyheldbyProfessorWolfgangErnst,UniversitätZürich,whokindlygavetheprojectresearchersaccesstoit.

40

thisdebate,Schulzwasanenthusiasticsupporteroftheindependenceoflawfromexternalcircumstancessuchaspoliticalfactors.SchulzfromhisPrinzipientoPrinciplesWhentheNaziscametopowerandtheovertpersecutionofJewsbeganonJanuary30,1933,Schulzwasattheheightofhiscareer.HehadascendedthestepsofGermanacademiathroughchairsinInnsbruck(1910),Kiel(1912),Göttingen(1916)andBonn(1923),beforetakingupthechairofRomanlawinBerlin(1931),widelyconsideredtobethepinnacleofanacademiccareer.Hewas54yearsold,livingcomfortablyinDahlem,hisfivechildreningoodschoolsandhisacademiclifemoreorlessinorder.115Schulz’sworkorcareeruptothatpointhadshownlittlesignsofpoliticalinvolvement.HehadbeenamemberoftheGermanDemocraticParty(DeutscheDemokratischePartei)since1918,butwasnotknownforbeingpoliticallyactive.Thepartywasmainlyprogressiveliberalandduetothehighnumberofacademics,suchasMaxWeber,amongitsmembers,itwasderogativelyknownasthepartyofprofessorsandJews.Asastudent,SchulzhadbeentaughtbyleadingscholarsofRomanlawsuchasJörs,EiseleandSeckel.ThethemesonwhichSchulzhadpublishedweretoalargedegreetechnicalandfocusedonthepost-classicalsourcesofRomanlaw,includingfragmentsofSabinusandtheepitomeofUlpian.116ThetakeoverofpowerbytheNazismeantenormouschangesintheuniversities.JewishteacherswereharassedandthreatenedbyNazimobsevenattheuniversities,andNazistudentorganizationsorganizedlectureboycotts.Themainthreattoteacherswastheso-calledLawfortheRestorationoftheProfessionalCivilService,enactedonApril7,1933,whichdictatedtheexpulsionofJewishcivilservants,includinguniversityprofessors.117SchulzwasaProtestantfromanassimilatedJewishfamilyfromSilesia.BecausehisgrandparentshadbeenJewishandhiswifeMarthawasJewish,hecountedasJewishaccordingtotheNaziracialcriteria,whichemphasizedbothbloodrelationsandassociationinreallife. 115ThebiographicaldetailshavebeengatheredfromErnst,‘FritzSchulz’;Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw;Flume,FritzSchulz.116ThemainearlyworksofSchulzare:Sabinus-FragmenteinUlpiansSabinus-Commentar(Halle:M.Niemeyer,1906);‘SystemderRechteaufdenEingriffserwerb’(1909)105ArchivfürdiecivilistischePraxis1–488;EinführungindasStudiumderDigesten(Tübingen:VerlagvonJ.C.B.Mohr,PaulSiebeck),1916);DeclarisiurisconsultisbyThomasDiplovatatius,editedbyHermannKantorowicz(Berlin:W.deGruyter,1919);DieepitomeUlpianidesCodexvaticanusreginæ1128(Bonn:A.MarcusundE.Weber,1926).117LawfortheRestorationoftheProfessionalCivilServiceinApril7,1933(GesetzzurWiederherstellungdesBerufsbeamtentums,GWBB,RGBl.I175).Thislawwassubsequentlyenlargedtoincludedifferentcategoriessuchasnotaries,andnumerousordinanceswereusedtoimplementit.

41

Insteadofacquiescingtothepressure,duringthespringsemesterof1933SchulzpresentedacourseontheprinciplesofRomanlaw,alectureseriesthathesoonpublishedasabookwiththeprestigiouspublishinghouseDuncker&HumblotinBerlin.Inacompositionthatotherwiseappearedneutral,hepresentedRomanlawasoneofthegreatestachievementsofWesternculture.Oftheprinciplesheoutlined,manywerepurelytechnical,suchasabstractionorsimplicityrelatingtothetechniqueofjurisprudence.Othershadanintensepoliticalcontextthatmadethemappeardangerouslyopposedtothecurrentregime.Thebookwasdedicatedtohiswife,inblatantdisregardtoofficialNazipartypolicy.118Publicoppositionlikethiswasexceedinglyrareandonlyveryfewprofessorswouldembarkonthispath.EvensomeonewithfullGermannationalistcredentialssuchasErnstKantorowiczwouldonlymanagetodothisforaveryshorttime,hisfamoussecondinaugurallectureseriesin1933beingcutshortbytheintimidationoftheBrownshirts.WhileSchulzspokeofprinciples,KantorowiczlecturedonidealslikebeautyasthetrueGermancalling.Hisnationalreawakeningwasaspiritualone,inoppositiontotheNazis,whoofferedonly“rabble,corpses,andvomit”.ForKantorowicz,whohadbeenafighternotonlyinWWIbutalsointheright-wingparamilitariesduringtheCommunistuprisingsafterthewar,itwasimpossibletoaccepttherejectionoftheidealsofpatriotismandthehigherartsasanationalcallingthathadbeenattheheartoftheGeorgecircle.119TherealphysicalthreatposedbytheNaziparamilitariesshouldnotbeunderestimated.BeginningalreadyinMarch1933,capturingopponentsinbroaddaylight,draggingthemtoacellarorotherSAorSShideouttobetorturedorsimplybeatentodeathwasatypicalmodeofoperationfortheNazigangs.Whilelawprofessorswerenotamongthevictims,severalJewishlawyersweremurderedinsuchaway.TheobjectiveofthisopenviolencewasnaturallytoterrorizeandtodissuadepeoplefromopposingtheNazisandtheirpolicies.120Whiletheseactsofstreetviolencewerecommon,theywerenotinfactencouragedbytheNazileadership,whichconsideredthem“individualactions”comparabletothelynchingsintheAmericanSouth.121Becauseofthethreatofviolence,itisnotcertainthatthelecturesuponwhichthePrincipleswerebasedwereactuallyheld.Giltaijhasnotedthatthelecturesarenotmarkedinthe

118Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,p.1readilyadmittedthattheRomansthemselvesdidnotreallytalkaboutprinciplesoflawastheirfocuswasdifferent.ButseeLaurensC.Winkel,‘TheRoleofGeneralPrinciplesinRomanLaw’(1996)2Fundamina103–120.119RobertE.Lerner,ErnstKantorowicz:ALife(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2017),pp.159–171,quotefromp.159.ThatthecirclewouldinthelastyearsofGeorge’slifeincludemanyNaziswasalsoasourceofdistressforKantorowicz.LernervehementlyrejectstheclaimsbyCantorthatKantorowicwouldhaveinfactbeenaNazisympathizer.120Göppinger,JuristenjüdischerAbstammungim"DrittenReich",p.62.121Whitman,Hitler'sAmericanModel,p.82arguesthattheNazileadershipemphasizedtheneedforanorganized,centralizedandproperlysupervisedpersecution.

42

universitylecturecalendar,atleastnotunderthetitleofPrinciples.122However,withinacademia,therewasamoreinsidiousthreat,thatofslowmarginalizationbyscholarswhosawacademicsofJewishoriginandtheirpresenceasthreatstoinstitutions.Thus,forinstance,HansKrellerwrotetoSchulzin1934howtheSavignyjournal,theZeitschriftderSavigny-Stiftung,shouldadapttotheprinciplesofthenewstateandincludemoreaboutthenewgeneration.123Theunderlyingmessagewasthathisparticipationwastoxictothefutureofthejournal.ThepoliticallyrelevantprinciplesoutlinedinSchulz’sworkwereisolation,tradition,nation,liberty,authority,humanity,fidelity,andsecurity.WhiletheNazipolicyandjurisprudencemaintainedthatlawwasatoolforachievingpoliticalaims,SchulzstressedtheindifferenceofRomanlawtopoliticaloreconomicconditions(theprincipleofisolation).Lawwasanindependentandself-referentialsciencethatshunnedstrategicthinkingorpoliticalaims.WhiletheNaziprinciplewasthatthewilloftheFührerwasthehighestlawandthatlawwasameretoolforadvancingpoliticalpurposes,SchulzstucktotheideadevelopedbyGermanconceptualjurisprudencethatlawwasanindependentscience.124WhenNazilegaltheorysoughttopresentnewlawasawaytoachievenewendsandtobrushawayoldstructures,Schulz’sRomanlawwasconservativeandboundtotradition(theprincipleoftradition).Lawandlegalthoughtbuiltuponthecontinuoustraditionandgaineditslegitimacyfromit.TheNazipoliciesofbuildinganewstateandlawsoughtnotonlytoremoveRomanlawfromGermanlegalexperience,butequallytoreplacetheBGB(theGermanCivilCode)withanewcodificationofthepeople’slaw(theVolksgesetzbuchproject).125 122ArchivderStaatsbibliothek,Berlin,PrussianCulturalProperty,AH10100(1932–1934),p.18.Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw,p.74.TherearethreelecturesmarkedforSchulzintheVorlesungsverzeichnis,acourseonRomanlegalhistory,exegesisoftheDigestofJustinianandaseminaronCervidiusScaevola.123CollectionofProf.WolfgangErnst,UniversityofZurichSchulzletters1931-1949.12:LettertoSchulz,fromHansKrelleronDecember30,1934.124Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,pp.13–26.InadditiontotheworksofCarlSchmitt,wherethisideaoflawaspoliticalwasrepeatedlystated,itwasexpressedmorebluntlybylessrefinedlawyerslikeHeinzHildebrandt,Rechtsfindungimneuendeutschenstaate:einBeitragzurRezeptionunddenRechtsquellen,zurAuslegungundErgaenzungdesGesetzes(Berlin:W.deGruyter,1935)(tr.BensonandFink,‘NewPerspectivesonNaziLaw’),pp.31–32:“Theinitialpointofnationalsocialismisneithertheindividualnorhumanity,buttheentireGermanpeople;itsaimisthesecuringandpromotionoftheGermanbloodcommunity.…Theoutcomeofthisarecertainprinciplesoflaw:first,theunconditionalalignmentofthecorrectnessofthelawwiththegeneralgoodandthefutureoftheGermanbloodcommunity;second,theconstantevaluativeprimacyofthecorrectnessoflawoverlegalsecurity;andthird,theincreasedacceptanceoflegalflexibilityoverlegalconstancy!”125Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,pp.57–73.TheVolksgesetzbuchprojectwasheadedbyJustusWilhelmHedemann,butbeyondafewpublicationstheinitiativefounderedduringthewar.In1943itwasdeclaredthatitwouldneedtowaituntiltheendofthewar.

43

Inthecaseofnationalityandcitizenship(theprincipleofnation),theNazisemphasizedethnicstatus,whiletheRomanswerepointedlyflexible,acceptingaliensasRomancitizensontheirmerits.WhatwasthemostradicalfeatureofRomanpracticewastheacceptanceofpeoplefromthelowestranks,namelymanumittedslaves,intocitizenship.ThiswasinstarkoppositiontotheNaziideaofnationasaclosedbloodcommunitythatwasdeterminedbyethnicityorlineage.126Itissomewhatpuzzlingthatthesetwochapters,ontheprinciplesoftraditionandnation,aretheonesthathavepromptedsometoclaimthatSchulzhadbeenaccommodatingtoNazipoliciesinhisworkandhadattemptedtocombinetheRomanlegaltraditionwiththem.127InstressingthehumanityofRomanlaw,Schulzpresentedacontrastwiththedehumanizationofnon-GermansadvocatedbytheNazis(theprincipleofhumanity).While,forexample,theuseofcapitalpunishmentwascommoninancientRome,Romanlawmovedcontinuouslytorestrictcrueltyandinhumanpunishments,emphasizingthepunishmentofonlytheguilty.TheNazilawandlegalpracticewould,especiallyduringthelateryears,beextraordinarilyharsh,withcapitalpunishmentmetedoutforthesmallestofoffences.However,thiswasnothingcomparedwiththetreatmentofindividualswhodidnotenjoytheprotectionofthelaw.128Theoperationofthelegalmachinerybecameincreasinglypervertedandthefundamentalprotectionsoflawandtheprinciplesoflawwereexplicitlyabandoned.129Equally,thenon-retroactivityoflawwasraisedasopposedtotheretroactivelawsenactedbyNazis(theprincipleoffidelity).HereSchulzproposesthattheruleencompassestwoimportanttenetsoftheruleoflaw:first,thatthemagistrateisboundbythelaw,eventotherulehehashimselfset,andsecond,thatlawhasnoretroactiveforce.Nazijurisprudencewouldopposesuchformalrules,maintainingthatofficialsshouldhavefreerangeofoperation.However,fidelityevenencompassedthebindingnatureofthesocialtiesof

JustusWilhelmHedemann,DasVolksgesetzbuchderDeutschen.EinBericht(Munich:Beck,1941);HansHattenhauer,'DasNS-Volksgesetzbuch',inArnoBuschmann,GerhardOtte,WernerSchubert,andFranz-LudwigKnemeyer(eds.),FestschriftfürRudolfGmür(Bielefeld:GiesekingVerlag,1983),pp.255–279.126Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,pp.74–94.Theideabehindthelawofthebloodcommunitywasthattheinnatesenseorfeelingoflawshouldbesupreme.127Schermaier‚‘FritzSchulz’Prinzipien’.128Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,pp.128–150;FranzLeopoldNeumann,Behemoth:TheStructureandPracticeofNationalSocialism,1933–1944(London:Rowman&Littlefield,2009),pp.452–458.OnRomanlawandhumanity,seeLuigiGarofalo,‘L’humanitastradirittoromanoetotalitarismohitleriano’,(2015)Teoriaestoriadidirittoprivato7.129RobertD.Rachlin,‘RolandFreislerandtheVolksgerichthof’,inA.E.SteinweisandR.D.Rachlin(eds.),TheLawinNaziGermany:Ideology,Opportunism,andthePerversionofJustice(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.63‒87,at80.

44

friendship,athemethathadunfortunateimportanceinthewaysthatadherencetothenewregimeledtotheabandonmentofoldfriendships.130Thefinalprinciplewasthesecurityofthelaw,whichwasnaturallyawayofcriticizingtheterrorofNazirule(theprincipleofsecurity).Whatthisentailedwasthatlawshouldbepredictable,giveadequateprotection,andthatthecourtsthatapplieditwereknowledgeableandimpartial.TheNazilawandlegalpracticewouldoperatelargelybasedongeneralprinciples,whereindividualactswereseenasviolationsofaprincipleandpunishablesimplyonthosegrounds.Theconceptofsecuritywasequallyvalidasareferencetothefreedomofopinionandthepossibilityofteachersandofficialsfulfillingtheirdutieswithoutbeingthreatenedormolested.131OneoftheimportantfeaturesoftheNazimachineryofterrorwastheunofficialpressurethatstreetfightersandstormtrooperscouldputtobear,ejectingjudgesandmagistratesfromtheirofficesandpreventingprofessorsfromholdinglectures.NotonlyNazistreetfighters,forNazistudentswerealsoathreat.LectureboycottswereorganizedregularlyagainstJewishprofessorsandpublicsignsofoppositionfromrectorsandotheruniversityauthoritiesledtodismissals.FromApril1,1933onwards,theNazistudentorganizationsvowedtopostguardstowarnstudentsfromenteringlecturehallswhereaJewwouldbeteaching.132Allofthisis,ofcourse,purelyhypothetical.SchulzneveralludestothepoliticalcircumstancesofNazirule,nordoeshemakedirectreferencesbeyondareferenceto“recentpoliticalexperience”intheconclusionsofthebook(1934,p.172;1936,p.253).EvenintheearlydaysofNazirule,thatwouldhavebeenunwiseanddangerous.Instead,whatitpresentsisaveiledcriticism,afundamentalcondemnationoftheNazilegalpolicyintheguiseofananalysisofRomanlaw.OneshouldnotontheotherhandmakethemistakeofassumingthatthebookwasnotaboutRomanlaw,butratherthatitoperated(atleast)ontwolevels,onthelevelofancientRomanlawandleveloftheroleoflawincontemporarysociety.ThereferencesinthebookareclearindicationsofthedifferentwaysinwhichSchulzaddresseshisdiverseaudiences:therearepurelyRomanisticreferencestoresearchliterature,therearereferencestoAnglo-Americanlegalliterature,andasurprisingnumberofreferencestosocialscientificworks.ThereareevenreferencestoNaziandFascistauthors.ThusSchulzmayrefertohiscolleagueCarlSchmitt(bothinBonnandinBerlin),butequallytoMaxWeberortoBenjamin

130Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,pp.151–161.TheextremethreatofNazioppressionmeantthatpeoplewouldfrequentlyabandonfriendsandrelativeswhentheyweresingledoutforpersecution.131Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,pp.162–171.TheNazisenseoflegalsecuritywasalsobasedonthesenseoflawsharedbythebloodcommunity,forexampleHermannGöring,DieRechtssicherheitalsGrundlagederVolksgemeinschaft(Hamburg:HanseatischeVerlagsanstalt,1935),wrotehowlawshouldnotbefoundedontheletterofthelaworevenonlawitself,butratheraninnatesenseoflaw;Neumann,Behemoth,pp.440–450.132Göppinger,JuristenjüdischerAbstammungim"DrittenReich",p.193.

45

Cardozo.WhetherSchulzwritesincode,sotosay,orwhatwerehistrueintentionsaretoalargedegreebeyondourknowledge,becausehedoesnotdiscusstheissueinhiswritings.However,whatisbeyonddisputeisthatthecontemporariesreadthebookasadefenceoflawingeneralandRomanlawinparticularagainstthepoliticalattacksofthetime.133Inthefollowing,Iwillfocusontwoparticularprinciples,libertyandauthorityduetotheircentralitytothepoliticalandlegaldevelopments.LibertyandauthorityintheirtwocontextsTheconceptsoflibertyandauthorityarefundamentaltotheEuropeantraditionsoflawandpolitics,astheyhavebeensincetheGreekandespeciallyRomanclassicaltradition.Libertyorfreedomcouldmeanthefreedomoftheindividualfrominterferencefromeitherthestateorotherindividuals,whileauthoritycouldrefertopublicpowerwieldedbythestateanditsmagistrates,ifnecessarybycoercingindividualsandlimitingtheirfreedoms.Schulzpresentsthetwoasapair,principlesthatareintegrallyjoinedintheirunderstandingandexecution.Forhim,theextremeindividualismandliberalismofRomanlawwaspossibleonlyinconjunctionwiththeunquestionedpowerofthepaterfamiliasandthemagistrate.Theconceptoflibertywasusedbothconstitutionallyandinprivatelaw.SchulzbeginshisexplorationwiththeRomanpoliticalconceptoflibertasasanoverarchingconstitutionalprinciple.AccordingtoSchulz,“theindividualwasnotfreewhenhewasaslave,awholenationwasnotfreewhenatitsheadwasanabsolutemonarchorwhenitwassubjecttoaforeignyoke”(p.140).Thepoliticalideaoflibertaswasthusexpressedthroughanegative,thelackofoutsidedominationthatwouldprivilegeboththeliberarespublicaandthefreeRomancitizen.Thisfreedomwasnotsomuchafactualone,butalegaldefinition,asitdependednotontheeconomicdominanceorparticipationofthecitizensingovernment,butratherontheformalfreedompossessednotonlybythecitizens,butequallythe“free”citiesandcommunities.WhatSchulzunderlinesisthatRomanconstitutionalismcouldappearhypocriticaltooutsiders.134FortheRomansthemselves,however,thisfreedomwasfundamental.InRomanprivatelaw,classicallawplacedlittleconstraintontheindividual:“TheRomanprincipleoflibertyledtoextremeindividualisminthedomainofprivatelaw”(p.146).Thestatedidnotinterveneinareaslikemarriage,wherethefreedomofpartnerswasconsiderable,includingthemaintenanceofseparateproperties.TheRomanlawofsocietas,

133OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzPBED010384,28,letterofF.H.LawsontoK.SisamonJune25,1935:“professorRadbruchofHeidelbergtoldmethatonlyaGermancouldappreciatehowacuteandboldananswerthebookistopopularattacksonRomanlaw.”134FritzSchulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1936),pp.141–146relatesthistothedebatesoverthepositionoftheemperorsinceAugustus,andtheconsciousavoidanceoftheterminologyofdominance.

46

includingpartnerships,communitiesandsuch,soughttolimitjointobligationsandtodissolvethemifconflictarose.Similarly,Schulzwriteshowjointownershipwasconsideredanabnormality.Ownershiprightswereasaruleunlimited,whereasdutiesandrestrictionswereminimal.Similarideasgovernedthelawofsuccession.135Ingeneral,therulethatSchulzoutlinesisthattheprincipleoflibertywasobservedbothintherelationshipbetweenindividualsaswellasbetweentheindividualandthestate.Theprincipleofnon-interferencewasappliednotonlyintheprivaterightsofindividuals(suchasownershiprights),butalsointhewaythatfreedomofreligion,andfreedomofexpressionandmovementwererespected.However,thesefreedomswerenotreallyguaranteedconstitutionally,butratherrealizedthroughrestraint(pp.159–163).WhileSchulzdoesnotmentioneitherFascismorNazism,theimplicationswereobvious.WhathedoesmentionistheradicalnatureofRomanlibertyevenintheearlierEuropeancontext.HestatesthattheRomanlackoflimitationstoownershiprightsisinstarkcontrasttothewaythatlandownershipwaslimitedinGermany,Austria,andFranceuptotheagrarianlawsenactedattheendoftheeighteenthcentury(pp.154–155).ThiswasinfactoneofthereasonswhysupportersofGermaniclawopposedRomanlaw.However,evenlateronRomanliberalismwasunparalleled.Inacuriousconstructioninreferringtoauthority,hequotesMaxWeberquotingTheodorMommsenc.1848.Mommsen,whowasactiveintheliberalrevolutionof1848,wrotethenthatthelibertyaccordedbyRomanlawanditsrefusalofsolidarityissogreatthatitsapplicationinmoderndayEuropewouldbeequivalenttoarevolution.136Inanothernamedroppingofnote,hequotesBurckhardtafewpageslateronthegeneraltendencyof“themenofourrace”todemand“anundisturbedhomeandanindependentdomainofthoughts”.137ThiswasanalmostBritishstatementoftheunassailablerighttoprivacyandtheindividualsphereoffreedom.WhattheprincipleoflibertymeantintheNazicontextwasanotherthingentirely.Nazilegalthoughtwasinprincipleopposedtotheindividualfreedomsinbothprivateandpubliclaw,approachingthemthroughthestate.Individualismandliberalismwerebothantithetical,andpoliticalfreedomsweresubjectedtothestate.NaziandFascistthoughturgedthestatetointerfereinsocialissues,inmarriagesandinrelationsbetweenindividuals.Thoughitoften

135Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,pp.146–157.136Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,pp.157–158,referringtoMaxWeber,Wirtschaftsgeschichte(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1924),p.292.Weberwas,ofcourse,intimatelyawareoftheagrarianhistoryandtheworkofMommsen,whowasoneofhissupervisorsandafriendofthefamily.OnMommsen,Weberandtheclassics,seeLuigiCapogrossiColognesi,Leradicidellamodernità,MaxWeber1891–1909(Roma:LaSapienzaEditrice:,1997,2nded);MarianneWeber,MaxWeber,einLebensbild(Heidelberg:VerlagLambertSchneider,1950).137Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,p.160,quotingfromJacobBurckhardt,GriechischeKulturgeschichteI(Berlin:Spemann,1898,4thed),p.81.

47

frameditsoppositiontofreedomsandrightsasanoppositiontowardstheideasoftheEnlightenment,therewasasecond,realisttraittotheequation.Thiswasthequasi-MarxistideaoffalseequalityandfreedominthecapitaliststatethatinfluencedespeciallyearlierFascistandNazithought.Insteadoffreedom,thepromiseofNazipolicieswastoensurethedignityoftheGermanpeopleandtosecurethepositionofworkers.138Thus,itwaslogicalthatCarlSchmittwouldpraisetheNuremberglawsasbeingtheconstitutionoffreedom,alawthatwouldreturn“GermanbloodandGermanhonour”tothecentreofthelegalorderinsteadofthefalseequalityofGermanandalien.139ThelanguageoffreedomandhonourdominatedtheofficialNaziideasofthefoundationofthenation,butthecircleofthebeneficiariesoftheseidealswaslimitedtothemembersofthecommunity.140ErnstForsthoffwroteinhisfamousDerTotaleStaat(1933)thatthewholepointwastonegatethefocusontheindividualandtheideasofliberalismandtherightsoftheindividual.141Regardingtheprincipleofauthority,SchulzmaintainsthatthealmostextremefreedomgrantedtotheRomansinprivatelawandconstitutionallawwasbalancedbythealmostequallyextremeauthoritythatwasgiventoboththepaterfamiliasandtheRomanmagistrate.Schulzbeginswiththeauthorityofthestatetodeveloprulesandenforcethem.Thestatewas“soliberalingrantingandprotectingthefreedomoftheindividual,neveromittedtoupholdtheprincipleofauthority;andtruly,individualfreedomisimpossibleinthelongrunwithout

138JamesQ.Whitman,‘OnNaziHonorandtheNewEuropeanDignity’,inJoergesandGhaleigh,DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope,pp.243–266;GeorgeL.Mosse,TheFascistRevolution:TowardaGeneralTheoryofFascism(NewYork:H.Fertik,1999).139CarlSchmitt,‘DieVerfassungderFreiheit’(1935)40DeutscheJuristen-Zeitung1133–1135,at1134:“Forcenturies,insteadoffreedomtheGermanpeoplehadonlylibertiesorliberalism.ThelibertiesoftheGermanconstitutionoftheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturiesguaranteedthenationaldisunityofourpeopletobeneficiariesofthissadstateindomesticandforeignpolitics.TheliberalfreedomsoftheconstitutionsofthenineteenthcenturywereusedbytheinternationalpowerstoelevatethereligiousandclassdisruptionsoftheGermanpeopletoabasicright.ThusconstitutionalfreedombecameaweaponandmottoforallGermany'senemiesandparasites.Butwehaveseenthroughthisdeception.Wehaverealizedthatliberalconstitutionsbecometypicalcamouflagesforforeigndomination.Apeoplecanhavethemostliberalconstitutionintheworldandstillbebutaherdofrentandwageslaves.Andaconstitutioncan,asisourexperiencetoday,benotoriousandridiculedasmedievalbyallofinternationalliberalismandMarxism,andinthatverywaygiveevidencethatapeoplehasfounditsownwayandfreeditselffromforeignspiritualdomination.”TranslationfromArthurJ.JacobsonandBernhardSchlink,Weimar:AJurisprudenceofCrisis(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2000),p.324.140See,forexample,thestatementofHermannGöring,January30,1933,quotedinStrote,LionsandLambs,p.119.141ErnstForsthoff,DerTotaleStaat(Hamburg:HanseatischeVerlagsanstalt,1933).IthasbeennotedthatSchmitt’sinfluenceinForsthoff’stheorieswasconsiderable.FlorianMeinel,DerJuristinderindustriellenGesellschaft:ErnstForsthoffundseineZeit(Berlin:AkademieVerlag,2011).

48

authority”(p.165).Theauctoritasofthepoliticalsystemwasguaranteedthroughtheinternalizeddisciplineembodiedinthemosmaiorum.142FormanyofthescholarsattemptingtoreconciletheNaziideologyandtheRomanpoliticalandlegalsystem,thistypeofmilitaristicauthoritarianismwasaverytemptingbasisformakingparallelsbetweentheRomanandGermancultures.143TheRomanpaterfamiliasenjoyedasimilarunquestionedpositionofauthority,butthenatureofthatarrangementwasthatthisauthoritywasusedwithutmostrestraint:“Theverynatureofauthoritativegovernmentdemandsthatitsboundariesshallbeaswideaspossible,thatwidespaceshallbeaccordedtothediscretionofthepersoninauthority,andthatjudicialcontrolofitsexerciseshallbeexcludedorrestricted.Romanlawcarriedoutthisprinciplewithruthlessexactitude”(pp.165–166).This,naturally,referstotheiusvitaenecisque,thepowerofthepaterfamiliasoverthelifeanddeathofthemembersofthefamilia.Ofcourse,intheRomansettingtheautonomyofthefamiliameantthatthejurisdictionofthestatewasuntilquiterecentlyrestrictedtomattersbetweenthefamilies.144Whatlimitsthereweretotheuseofthatauthoritywereprimarilyprocedural.Whilethepaterfamiliascouldintheoryputtodeathapersonunderhispower,thedecisionneededtobemadewiththejudicioususeofcouncil.Theconsiliumhadnopowerbuttheirauthority,andtheycouldnotpreventadecision.145AccordingtoSchulz,therelationshipbetweenthecitizenandthestateanditsmagistratesfollowedthesameprinciple.Sincethemagistrateswerefromtheranksoftheelite,theyhadattheoutsettheauctoritasandsocialstandingoftheirbackground,andthroughthecursushonorumtheygainedfurtherauthority.Thecentralroleofthemagistratewasreinforcedbythewaythatproceduretookplaceintheassemblies,wheretheonlyoneallowedtospeakwasthemagistrate.Themagistrateshadanequallywideindividualjurisdiction,whichwasonlypartiallylimitedbythetheoreticalpossibilityofappeal.146

142Onthemosmaiorumasalegalterm,seeJochenBleicken,Lexpublica:GesetzundRechtinderrömischenRepublik(BerlinandNewYork:deGruyter,1975).Onhowmosmaiorumconstantlychanged,seeAndrewWallace-Hadrill,‘Mutatiomorum:TheIdeaofaCulturalRevolution’,inT.HabinekandA.Schiesaro(eds.),TheRomanCulturalRevolution(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),pp.3–22.143TherewerenumerouscaseswhereauthorssoughttopresentRomanlawandhistoryascompatiblewithNaziideology.See,forexample,MaxKaser,RömischesRechtalsGemeinschaftsordnung(Tubingen:MohrSiebeck,1939).144Ontheprivatejurisdiction,seeMatthewPerry,‘ThePaterfamiliasandtheFamilyCouncilinRomanPublicLaw’,inKaiusTuoriandLauraNissin(eds.),PublicandPrivateintheRomanHouseandSociety(Portsmouth,RI:JournalofRomanArchaeologySupplementSeries,2015),pp.77–86.145Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,p.168.146Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,pp.172–179.Schulzhadanambivalentrelationshipwiththedisputedrightofprovocatio,especiallyTheodorMommsen’sinterpretation.Onthe

49

Fromthelimitedpositionoftheauthorityofthemagistrate,theauthorityoftheSenatewasdifferentasitwasbothlonglastingandoverarching.Similarly,theauthorityofthelawandthejuristwerebothdependentonrecognitionbythepublic.Thesesharedatraitthattheywerenotsomuchprovidinganabilitytocommandbutratherthesharedconvictionthatthesewerepeoplewhoseopinionsshouldbelistenedto.147However,theauthorityoftheprincepswasqualitativelydifferent,onethatSchulzdescribesascharismaticauthorityasdefinedbyWeber.ThoughthisauthoritybeganasthepersonalcharismaofAugustus,itwaslatertransformedintoaninstitutionalcharisma.148ThemainreferenceinthelaterdiscussionsoverauctoritasweretheuseoftheconceptinAugustus’ResGestaeandhowauctoritasformedthebasisfortheoverarchingauthorityoftheemperorintheRomanworld.149Schulz’smainpointaboutauthorityandfreedomisthattheyexistedinamutuallyreinforcingrelationship.ForSchulz,this“originalyetsimplesystem”(p.187)wasthecornerstoneoftheRomanstate,onethatwaspeculiarlyRomanandbeyondthegraspofoutsideobservers.TheRomancitizenrecognizedandacceptedauthorityasbelongingnaturallytothearrangementofthepoliticalcommunity.WhatmakesSchulz’sanalysisinterestingisnotthewaythatdifferentauthoritiesweredescribed,astheydonotdeviateexcessivelyfromthestandardscholarshipoftheday.WhatisunusualisthereferencesthatSchulzmakes.NotonlydoesherefertopeoplelikeGoetheorMaxWeber,buthealsonotesCarlSchmitt’sVerfassungslehreaswellasBiondoBiondi’sRomanitàeFascismo(p.164).Whendiscussingstateauthority,hereferstobothSavenkouls’studyoftheEnglishcabinetsystem,andZiegler’sAutoritärerodertotalerStaat(p.168).WhileSchmittandBiondiwerekeyplayersintheNaziandFascistacademicworlds,ZieglerwasanexilefromtheNazis,whofledfirsttoPragueandthentoBritain.150Whatthecomplicatedbackgroundhidesistheinterestingcompositionofthewayinwhichpoliticalandlegalauthoritywouldbejoined.ThiscombinationofsourcesfromtheopposingsidesofthepoliticalspectrumwasverytypicalofSchulz’sapproachinthePrinciples.Carl moderninterpretations,seeJudyE.Gaughan,MurderWasNotaCrime:HomicideandPowerintheRomanRepublic(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,2010),pp.56-59.147Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,pp.180–187.148Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,pp.181–182.149ResGestae34.3.Postidtempusauctoritateomnibuspraestiti,potestatisautemnihiloampliushabuiquamceteri,quimihiquoqueinmagistratuconlegaefuerunt.Ontheinterpretations,seeEdwinS.Ramage,TheNatureandPurposeofAugustus’“ResGestae”(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1987),pp.43–54;LuciaFanizza,Autoritàediritto.L'esempiodiAugusto(Roma:L'ErmadiBretschneider,2004),pp.51–56.150InBritain,HeinzOttoZiegler(nottobeconfusedwiththeGermangeneralofthesamename)wouldjointheRAFanddieonacombatmissionlateinthewar.

50

Schmittwasnotonlytheself-proclaimedintellectualleaderoftheNazilegalacademia,hewasalsoSchulz’scolleaguebothinBonnandinBerlinandtheywereincontact.151Thistendencyofusingsourcesfromdifferentsidesofthepoliticalspectrumwouldleadtohisaudiencebecomingmorediverseand,onemayassume,hiscriticismbeinglostonsome.Forexample,showinghowevenaNazimightbeoblivioustothecriticism.Forexample,J.W.HedemannwrotetwolaudatoryletterstoSchulzaboutthePrinzipienafterreceivingacopyfromtheauthor,somethingthathemaynothavedoneifhewouldhaveexpectedtheworktocontaincriticismoftheNazimovementanditsideals.152Schmitt’sintentwasofcoursethedismantlingoftheliberalstatethathaddescendedintothestaleformalismoftheRechtstaatwhilepretendingatthesametimetoprotectindividualliberties.Oftheseexamples,BiondoBiondi’s1928inaugurallectureismoreinteresting,asBionditakesupafairlysimilarnotionoftherelationshipbetweenlibertyandauthorityasSchulz.AccordingtoBiondi,inRomethefreedomoftheindividualisnotcurtailedbysomegeneralpublicwill,butrathertheverypreciseformsofamagistrate’sauthority.Thusonlywiththefulfilmentofauthorityistruefreedompossible.ThisexplainedwhyintheirlonghistoryRomanswouldneverriseinrevolutiontodemandliberty.153Theprinciplesofauthorityandlibertyoperatedintwoquitedifferentcontexts,theancientRomanandthemodernEuropean.HowSchulzweavesthecombinationofthetwoisbothskilfulandcunning,framingtheRomandiscourseoflibertyanditsradicalnatureasdiametricaloppositetotheNaziideasoflibertyasthefreedomofthenationandnotthatoftheindividual.ForSchulz,Romanindividualismistemperedbytheauthorityofthestate,theSenateandthemagistrate,buttheirrelationshipwasoneofmutualreinforcement.InthelinkagetomodernEuropeandiscourse,SchulzemploysthetenetsofclassicalliberalismandtheBritishtradition,formingtheconnectionbetweenlibertyandlawthatwouldbecomecentralinpost-wardiscussionsontheEuropeanlegalheritage.Inacuriousway,Schulzpresentsaconservativedefenceoftheliberaltradition.LiberaltheoryandtheEuropeanheritage?ThewaySchulzpresentsthedualismoflibertyandauthoritycanbetranslatednotonlyintoacriticismoftheNazilegalpolicy,butalsointoamorenuancedargumentoverissuesrelatedtoindividualismandsovereignty.ThequestionoflibertyandauthoritymaybeconsideredthefundamentalquestionofRepublicanism.ThinkerslikeMachiavelliconsideredlibertytobeaninnatequalityofacommunity,onethatonceimbuedcouldnotbedispelled.Thistheoryoflibertywasaboutthelibertyofthecommunityagainsttyranny,justastheRomanstatewas

151Mehring,CarlSchmitt,pp.141,332,356.152Hedemann’sletterstoSchulzonJuly13,1934andonAugust27,1934,UniversityofZurich,WolfgangErnstCollectionofFritzSchulzCorrespondence.Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw,writeshowmanyoftheNazisympathizersdidnotseemtodetecttheaspectofcriticism(pp.50–53).153BiondoBiondi,‘RomanitàeFascismo’(1929,repr.2001)7AnnuariodellaR.UniversitàdegliStudidiCatania756–770,atpp.760,762.

51

liberatedfromkingshipandwasfreetoelectmagistratestogovernitself.Others,likeHobbes,consideredlibertytobeanindividual’sprerogative,and,asQuentinSkinnernotes,forHobbes“wherelawends,libertybegins”,and“Libertyisthesilenceofthelaw”.Whatallofthesenotionshaveincommonisthattheissueoflibertyvsauthorityconsistsofarelationshipbetweentheindividualandthestateandthecapacityoftheindividualtoenjoycivilrights.Ofcourse,bothofthetraditions,thefreedomofthestateorthefreedomoftheindividual,hadaRomanfoundation.WhatwasnotRoman(orevenMachiavellian)wastheconceptionofindividualrightsagainstthestate.154ThetraditionalpoliticalthoughtthatHobbesrepresentscanbeseenaspresentinganegativeconceptoffreedom,onethatisdefinedbyalackofconstraintsordomination.Thatis,naturally,aviewthatRomanlawmightbeconstruedtosupport.TheRomanconceptoflibertywasatitsfoundationRepublican,onebasedontheideaofnon-domination.AsSchulzunderlines,beingfreewasbeingfreeofthedominationofothers,suchasthedominationofaslavebyhismaster.Ofcourse,Hobbesdevelopedthisideaoflibertyasnon-interferencethroughtheintroductionofthenaturalandcivilrightsthatlimittheindividualwithoutoppressinghimordeprivinghimofhisliberty.155Themoderntheoriesoflibertycontinuedtoexaminethewaythatlibertyandauthoritywerebalanced.JohnStuartMillwouldinOnLibertyfamouslyraisetherightsofcitizensaswellasconstitutionalchecksasvitallimitstotheauthorityortyrannyofgovernment.Mill’sworkwouldexertanenduringfascinationonexilesintheyearstocome.ArnaldoMomigliano,afellowexile,wouldspeakaboutlibertyintheancientworldinOxford,andwhenhewasinternedontheIsleofManwhenItalyjoinedthewar,amonghispossessionswasthisverybook.156Mill’sworkcontinuedthenotionofindividuallibertiesbeingthefoundationofthemodernconceptionoffreedom.BenjaminConstant,inhisfamousspeech,“TheLibertyofAncientsComparedwiththatoftheModerns”(1819),distinguishedancientandmoderntypesofliberties,comparingtheancientGreekandRomanpoliticalcommunitytomodernsociety.AccordingtoConstant,theprimedifferencewasthatancientlibertywasthelibertyofthecommunity,whereasmodernlibertywasthelibertyoftheindividual.Inthefirst,the 154ThomasHobbes,Leviathan(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1996),ch21,p.152;QuentinSkinner,LibertybeforeLiberalism(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),pp.5,9,17–18,45;JohnG.A.Pocock,TheMachiavellianMoment(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1975);PhilipPettit,Republicanism:ATheoryofFreedomandGovernment(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997).155Hobbes,Leviathan,ch21,p.153;QuentinSkinner,VisionsofPoliticsIII(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),p.221.156OswynMurray,'ArnaldoMomiglianoonPeaceandLiberty',inCrawford,Ulmschneider,andElsner,ArkofCivilization,pp.202–207,atp.204,tellsthestorythatwhenMomiglianoreportedtothepolicestationatOxford,hewasaskedtoemptyhispocketsandoutcameacopyofMill’sOnLiberty.

52

individualwouldhavethefreedomandexpectationtoparticipateinpoliticallife,whereasmodernfreedomwouldleavetheindividualthechoiceofretreatingintoprivatelife,protectedbyconstitutionalguaranteesandtheruleoflaw.157Schulz’svisionofauthorityandfreedomwasoneofconservativeideas,thatofthepermanenceoforderandthespaceitallowedfortheindividual.HehadlittleappreciationfortheradicalvisionsofhumanrightsthatstillreflectedtheunderstandingofrevolutionaryEnlightenmentideals.ItcouldbeevensaidthatSchulzdepicted,consciouslyorunconsciously,areflectionoftheBritishliberaltradition,oneofcontinuityandtranquillity.Schulz’sstylewasidiosyncraticandhiswayofpresentinghisargumentcarriedmultiplelayers.ThoughinGermanphilosophyfromKantandHegeltoSchellingtherewasaverystrongtraditionofdiscussingliberty,verylittleofthatinfluenceisnotableinSchulz.Inthelegalphilosophicaltradition,heplacedhimselfandthePrinciplesinacontinuumreachingbacktoJheringandSavigny.However,inthechapteronlibertythereisnoreferencetoSavigny,nordoesthefocusonprinciplescomparewiththemoreconceptuallyinclinedHistoricalSchooloftheirfollowers.158ThereisaclearconnectionbetweenSchulz’sandJhering’sdiscussionofliberty.159Jhering’sSpiritofRomanLaw(GeistdesrömischenRechts,2vols.,1852–1865)discussedatlengththeprincipleoflibertyasabalancingactbetweenindividualfreedomandthecollectivepurpose.160However,evenmorenoteworthyisthewaythatJhering’sdiscussiononjuristicfreedomandindependenceispickedupinSchulz.WhatwasclearwasthewaythatSchulz’sideaswouldreflecttheentanglementoftheEuropeantraditionintherootsoftheRomantraditionofliberty.Boththetraditionofthefree 157BenjaminConstant,“TheLibertyofAncientsComparedwiththatoftheModerns”,theoriginalDelaLibertédesAnciensComparéeàcelledesModerneswasaspeechheldin1819inParis.TranslationinBenjaminConstantandBiancamariaFontana,PoliticalWritings(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988).158OntheinfluencesofSchulz,seeGiltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw.TheideaoffreedomwascentralintheworksofSavigny,wherethesphereofindividualfreedomsisdemarcatedbywheretheydonotinfringeonthefreedomsofothers.SeeFriedrichCarlvonSavigny,SystemdesheutigenrömischenRechts,vol1(Berlin:BeiVeitundComp.,1840),pp.331–334.Schulz’sinherentconservatismwasnotedalreadybyAntonioMantello,‘LagiurisprudenzaromanafraNazismoeFascismo’(1987)13(25)QuadernidiStoria23–71.159Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw,pp.23–25.SchulzalsomentionstheinspirationofJheringintheintroduction.Schulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts,p.1.160RudolfvonJhering,GeistdesrömischenRechtsaufdenverschiedenenStufenseinerEntwicklung.Teil1–2(Aalen:Scientia,1993),vol.2,p.24.TheconnectionwithJheringwassignificantalsobecausetherewasarecurringinterestinJheringamongNaziandFascistauthors,whosoughttotracetheirownlineagetohim.SeeAntonioMantello,'L'immaginediJheringfranazionalsocialismoefascismo:analisid'unavicendaideologica'(1995)23Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw215-250,especiallypp.234-236onJheringconceptoffreedom.

53

stateandthetraditionofthefreedomoftheindividualwerebasedonRomansources,thefirstonthereadingofLivy’saccountonRomanconstitutionalism,thesecondontheemphasisinRomanlawonindividualfreedom.Hobbeswouldwritethatancienttextswerelikethepoisoninthebiteofamaddog,whosereadingscouldlaunchrevolutionsbycorruptingcontemporarythought.161Schulz’sPrincipleswereclearlywrittentomultipleaudiences,notonlytheGermanorEuropeanRomanlawcommunity,butequallytothegenerallegalcommunity.Itmakesclearreferencestoboththeliberaltraditionandtototalitarianismasitsnegation,juxtaposingNaziidealswiththetraditionofRomanlaw.ThereceptionofthePrincipleswasmixed,receivingmuchpraisefromsometimesunexpecteddirections,evenNazischolarswritingpositiveresponses.Giltaj,inhisanalysisofthelettersthatSchulzreceivedafterthepublication,notesthatthebookwasreadwidelyevenbeyondthenarrowcircleofRomanlawscholars.162TherelationshipbetweenSchulzandliberaltheoryanditsdifferentstrandsofdefinitionsoflibertyisdifficulttodefine,becausethemulti-layeredargumentthathepresentsdoesnotreallybelongtoaparticularschoolofthought,butrathercombineselementsthatcomefromvariousdirections.Theclearfoundationwasformedbytheclassicalconceptionoflibertyasexpressedthroughthenegative;libertywasnon-domination.However,theideaoflibertywasequallyseenasthatofacommunity,namelylibertyfromforeigndomination.Inthissense,Schulz’slibertydrewnotonlyfromthebackgroundofRomanconstitutionalism,butequallyfromtheclassicalliberalismofthenineteenthcentury.163ItisnotsurprisingthatbothMomiglianoandFritzSchulzwouldbothwriteaboutlibertyandpeacewhentheywerebothinshortsupply.Momigliano’stextwasonlylaterpublishedinhiscollectedworks,butitshowsadeepengagementwiththeBritishintellectualtraditionofliberty.Intheselectures,heldduringthefirstmonthsof1940,duringtheso-calledphoneywar,butpublishedonlyin2012,MomiglianooutlinedtheGreekideaasthefoundationoftheWesternconceptionofliberty:“Libertyistheeternalforceofhumanactivity.Wherewefindmorallife,wemaysafelypresupposeliberty”(p.53).However,accordingtoMomigliano, 161Hobbes,Leviathan,ch.29:Venimecomparable“tothebitingofamadDogge”.ItshouldbenotedthathewasspecificallydiscussingtheinfluenceofAristotle.162Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw,pp.39–59.Therewereintotal56lettersfromsomeofthemostdistinquishedscholarsinthefield.163Theconceptionoflibertyandtheancientworldwaspartofalargerdisputethatisstillongoing.See,forinstance,PeterAstburyBrunt,‘LibertasintheRepublic’,inPeterAstburyBrunt,TheFalloftheRomanRepublicandRelatedEssays(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1988)pp.281–350,whocriticizedSchulz’sviews,thoughthepositionwasrecentlydefendedbyValentinaArena,LibertasandthePracticeofPoliticsintheLateRomanRepublic(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012).ThedivisionbetweenthenegativeandpositiveconceptsoflibertywaslaterpopularizedbyBerlininIsaiahBerlin,TwoConceptsofLiberty:AnInauguralLectureDeliveredBeforetheUniversityofOxford,On31October1958(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1958).

54

GreeklibertywaslostontheRomans,whohadnoconceptionofhowtocombinetheideaoffreedomwithpeace.MomiglianoknewhewaspresentingaminoritypositionlikeEdwardGibbonbeforehim,whenhemaintainedthatChristianitywastheruinoftheidealRomanempireofpeace.AccordingtoMomigliano,“Romanpeacewasauthoritarian,itsuppressedfreedom”(p.53).Heventuresintothefieldsofpoliticalfreedomsandhumandignity,butfindsevenmoreimportantthe“humandutytogivepeacetoone’sownsoulbyobeyingarationalanduniversalorder”(p.55).Inconclusion,themodernconceptoflibertycomesfromtheunificationofthesetwoelements.164Inessence,Momigliano’slibertywaspluralistic,buthisturnawayfrompoliticalorderisamoveguidedbyChristianauthorsandprejudicedagainsttheearthlycommunity.FreedomandlibertywerefundamentalconceptsnotonlyonthetextsofphilosophyandpoliticsintheUSandBritain,butequallyinthepoliticaldiscourseatthattime.AffinitytotheconceptoflibertyhadbeenanAmericantraitthatmanifesteditselfinallthemajordocumentsoftherepublic.FromthePreambletotheDeclarationofIndependence,wherethe“unalienableRights”included“Life,LibertyandthepursuitofHappiness”totheGettysburgAddress’s“newnation,conceivedinliberty”,theideaoflibertyhasbeenamainstayofpoliticalrhetoricintheUS.InNaziGermanythestatedintellectualstancewasoppositiontotheidealsoftheEnlightenment,suchasfreedomandequality.ThisisoutlinedseparatelybybothHitlerhimselfaswellasintellectualslikeCarlSchmitt.IntheUS,theattitudetowardstheconceptofhumanequalitywasalmostasreverentastheconceptofliberty.InthePreambletotheDeclarationofIndependenceitisboldlystatedthat“allmenarecreatedequal”,whichisechoedintheGettysburgAddress’s“propositionthatallmenarecreatedequal”.ThatequalitywasnotreallycompatiblewiththefactthatsegregationwasstillthelawofthelandinmuchofthecountryevenafterWWI,butevenmoresoduringthedraftingofthedocuments.TheissueoffreedombecameofcourseapressingconcernforexilepoliticaltheoristssuchasStraussorArendt,notonlyduetothefailureoftheliberalstateinGermany,butalsoonaccountoftheproblemsofthemodernliberalstateingeneral.WhilethestereotypicalAmericanthoughthadbeentoviewNaziGermanyasanaberrationinthemarchtowardslibertyandcivilrights,émigréslikeArendtclaimedthatthroughstructuressuchastheruleoflawandthenegativeconceptoffreedom,theliberalstatesubjectstheindividualtothestateanddisguisestheultimatelypoliticalfoundationofthesystem.165Thus,intheOriginsofTotalitarianism,Arendtwriteshowtheultimateaimoftotalitarianrepressionwastodestroy

164ArmandoMomigliano,'PeaceandLibertyintheAncientWorld',inRiccardoDiDonato,Decimocontributoallastoriadeglistudiclassiciedelmondoantico(Roma:EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,2012),pp.4-105,atp.9;Murray,'ArnaldoMomiglianoonPeaceandLiberty',pp.204–205.165LiisiKeedus,TheCrisisofGermanHistoricism.TheEarlyPoliticalThoughtofHannahArendtandLeoStrauss(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),pp.152–153.

55

notonlyfreedombutalsothewilltofreedom,todestroyallhumanspontaneityassuch.166WhiletheFrankfurtSchoolexileshadbeencriticaloftheconsumerismandmasscultureinAmerica,nottomentionitsunbridledcapitalism,theyhadultimatelyapositiveviewabouttheAmericancultureofdemocracyandfreedom.EvenTheodorAdorno,whohadspenthisexilefirstinBritain,thenfrom1938onwardsinNewYork,andthreeyearslaterinLosAngeleswrotehowgratifyingitwastoexperiencethewaysinwhichdemocraticformshadpenetratedthewholeoflifeintheUS,whileinGermany,bycontrast,theycontinuedtobemererulesofthegame.167ArendtwritesinamazementtoJaspersin1946howinAmericathefeelingoffreedomissostrongthatmanypeopleconsiderthatonecannotlivewithoutfreedom.168Thecauseoflibertyandthefightforlibertywasalong-standingUSforeignpolicyobjective,beingonceagainevokedduringtheFirstWorldWar.AccordingtoNeumann,duringWWI,Germanyhadtwoideologicalenemies,BolshevismandWoodrowWilson’sNewFreedom.169Thatfightledtothevictoryoftheprincipleofself-determinationandthebreakingupofempires.IntheSecondWorldWar,libertyandfreedomtookanevenmoreprominentplace,fromRoosevelt’sFourFreedomsspeechin1941tothewarpropaganda.ApropagandaposterpublishedduringthewarwasdecoratedwiththeStatueofLibertyandtheflagsofthe26alliednationswiththecaption:“TheUnitedNationsFightforFreedom”.NevermindthattheflagofStalin’sSovietUnionwasthereaswell.Afterthewar,thedefenceandexpansionoffreedombecameastapleofColdWarrhetoric,withKennedy’s1961phrase“ThegreatbattlefieldforthedefenseandexpansionoffreedomtodayisthewholeSouthernhalfoftheglobe–Asia,LatinAmerica,Africa,andtheMiddleEast.”170ThenotionoflibertyoutlinedbySchulzwasamultifacetedinterpretationoftheEuropeantraditionofliberalismthatpresentedacontinuumfromtheRomanconceptoffreedomasnon-domination,atypicallynegativeconceptionoflibertyandtheclassicalliberaltraditionthatfocusedontheindividual.WhiletheNazinotionoflibertyhadbeenthelibertyofthenation,SchulzpresentedthetraditionoflibertyintheAnglo-Americansense,linkingitwiththeRomanlawtradition. 166Arendt,OriginsofTotalitarianism,p.622.167TheodorW.Adorno,‘ScientificExperiencesofaEuropeanScholarinAmerica’,inBernardBailynandDonaldFleming(eds.),TheIntellectualMigration:EuropeandAmerica,1930–1960(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,1969),pp.338–370,at367.Adornocontinuedtopraisethe“inherentimpulseinAmericanlifetowardpeaceableness,good-naturednessandgenerosity,inthesharpestcontrasttothedammed-upmaliceandenvythatexplodedinGermanybetween1933and1945”(pp.367–378).168LetterofArendttoJaspersJanuary29,1946,inLotteKöhlerandHansSaner(eds.),HannahArendt/KarlJaspers:Correspondence,1926-1969(Munich:Piper,1993),p.66.169Neumann,Behemoth,p.xix.170PresidentJohnF.KennedyspeakingtoCongressonMay25,1961.

56

AutonomyandhumanitySchulz’sescapefromGermanywasmadeinslowmotion.Hewasincreasinglymarginalizedattheuniversity,butthepositionofprofessorprotectedhimforalongtime.ThoughSchulzwashimselfnotJewishbutEvangelicalProtestant,thefactthathewasofJewishorigins,i.e.hisgrandparentsweremembersoftheJewishreligiouscommunity,andhiswifewasJewish,wasthedecidingfactorintheNazipolicies.Thefirstroundofmassfiringsofuniversityprofessorstookplaceduringthespringof1933andtheygainedwideinternationalattention.InMay1933,forexample,TheManchesterGuardianpublishedalistofnearlytwohundredprofessorswhohadbeendismissedinAprilandMay.171During1935,severalquestionnaireswerecirculatedattheUniversityofBerlinwiththeintentionofsinglingoutnotonlyJewsbutalsoopponentsoftheregime.TheaimwasfairlyobviousastheshortquestionnairefirstrequiredthemembershipnumbertotheNaziparty.Ifnotamember,onehadtoanswerwhetheronhadanygrandparentswhohadbeenmembersoftheJewishreligiouscommunity.Duringallthisbureaucraticnightmare,whatisnotableistheimpersonalwaythattheadministrationexecuteditstasks,mentioningtherelevantlawssimplybytheirnumber.Schulzhimselfwasnotfired,butwasinsteadfirstdeniedtherighttoteach,deprivinghimoftheincomeitbrought,andthenforciblymovedtotheUniversityofFrankfurt.Finally,hewasforcedtotakeearlyretirement.ThenarrowingofspacethatwasleftforSchulzisevidentinthepersonnelfilesatBerlinUniversity,whereoneseestheSchulzfamilyfirstbeingforcedoutoftheirhomeinleafyDahlemandthentakingupresidenceinprogressivelyworseneighbourhoodsasmoreandmoreareasweretakenoverbythenewNazieliteanddeclaredofflimitstoJews.ThefivechildrenwereonebyonesenttoschoolsabroadandSchulz’swifeMarthabegantosearchforawayoutoftheirnightmare.Schulzhimselfsankintodepression.172LeadingtheefforttoevictSchulzandotherswasafellowlegalhistorian,KarlAugustEckhardt.Hewasayoungprofessorwhohad,likemanyothers,madeaspectacularcareerforhimselfundertheNaziregime.HeorganizedapurgeintheMinistryresponsibleforeducationandwouldlaterin1936behiredbythelawfacultyinBerlin.ThiswaspartofthegeneraltendencytoappointactivesupportersoftheNaziregimetothemostimportantuniversityintheReich’scapital.AnotheractiveNazisupporterwasCarlSchmitt,whowasappointed(withoutrequestfromtheBerlinfaculty)asprofessorinOctober1933.173

171"Nazipurgeatuniversities–longlistofdismissals",TheManchesterGuardianWeekly,May19,1933.172ThisdevelopmentisvisibleinstarkdetailinSchulz’sfileintheuniversityarchives.Universitätsarchiv,Humboldt-Universität,Berlin,UKPersonaliaSch303,Personal-AktendesProfDrSchulz.OntheadministrativedetailsofSchulz’sfiring,seeErnst,‘FritzSchulz’,pp.14–25.173ReinhardZimmermann,‘‘WasHeimathieß,nunheißtesHölle’.TheEmigrationofLawyersfromHitler’sGermany:PoliticalBackground,LegalFramework,andCulturalContext’,inBeatsonandZimmermann,JuristsUprooted,pp.1–72,at33–34.OnEckhardt,seeRalfFrassek,

57

Schulzwasstillallowedtotravelandforeignscholarswereallowedtovisithim.Thelimitsofhisfreedom,however,weregrowingtighterandmanifestedthemselvesinseeminglystrangeways.Onewasthathewasgivenanewfirstname,withtherequirementthatheshoulduseitinallcorrespondence.ThusallwhoreceivedaletterfromaFritzIsraelSchulzwouldknowthatthesenderwasaJew.174Hislibraryprivilegeswererevoked,perhapsthemoststrikinginsulttoanacademic.ThisprocessofmarginalizationandthetransformationofGermanuniversitieswasrecordedbyanAmericanscholarnamedEdwardHartshorne.HartshornewasahouseguestwiththeSchulzfamilyinBerlinandsectionsofthebookonthepersecutionofindividualscholarsaremostlyaboutthem.175Hartshornewasalsoactivein1938intheultimatelyunsuccessfulefforttohireSchulzatHarvard.176Earlyin1936,SchulzmadeacontractwithOxfordUniversityPressonthepublicationofatranslationofPrinciplesthatwouldbeexpandedandamendedforaBritishreadership.ThetranslationwasquicklycarriedoutbyMargueriteWolff,thesisterofRomanlawscholarHerbertJolowicz,andtheworkwaspublishedinOctober.177Schulzbegantosearchforanewpositionabroad,butwithlittlesuccess.Inearly1936,SchulzgavealecturetourintheUS,speakingatHarvard,theRiccobonoSeminarattheCatholicUniversityofAmericainWashingtonD.C.andinLouisiana.178Itisnotablethatin1936HansKelsentoowastouringthecountry,lookingforajob.Thetourdidnotresultinajobofferandotherattemptscametonothing.Finally,hemanagedtosecureatemporarypositionintheNetherlands,allowinghimtoescapefromGermanyinApril1939withthehelpoftheDutchAcademicReliefFund(AcademischSteunfonds)andhis

‘Eckhardt,KarlAugust’,inA.Cordes,etal.(eds.),HandwörterbuchzurdeutschenRechtsgeschichte,vol2,BandI(Berlin:ErichSchmidtVerlag,2008),pp.1179–1180;HermannNehlsen,'Inmemoriam:KarlAugustEckhardt'(1987)104ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:GermanistischeAbteilung497-536;MartinNiemann,'KarlAugustEckhardt',inMathiasSchmoeckel(ed.),DieJuristenderUniversitätBonnin“DrittenReich”(Köln:Böhlau,2004),pp.160–184.OnSchmitt’scooperationwiththeNazimovement,seeMehring,CarlSchmitt,pp.304-380.174Thiswasinaccordancewiththeordinanceoftheapplicationofthelawontheuseoffamilynamesandfirstnames(ZweiteVerordnungzurDurchführungdesGesetzesüberdieÄnderungvonFamiliennamenundVornamenvom17.August1938)(RGBlI,1044).ThelawstatedthatJewishmenmustaddIsraelasafirstnameandwomenSara.175Hartshorne,GermanUniversitiesandNationalSocialism.176SchumpetertoFay(January4,1939).HarvardUniversityArchives,PuseyLibrary,Cambridge,MA,HUGFP4.8,PapersofJosephAloisSchumpeter,CarbonsofJAS’scorrespondence.177ThetranslationwassuggestedbyoneofSchulz’spupil,AlexanderGurwitsch.Giltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw;Ernst,‘FritzSchulz’,pp.130–132.178Ernst,‘FritzSchulz’,pp.139–140.

58

Dutchcolleagues.HestayedinLeiden,preparingforwhathethoughtwouldbealongervisit.Bycoincidence,threemajorexiledRomanlawscholars,Schulz,PringsheimandEdoardoVolterra,wereinLeidenatthesametimeduringthesummerof1939.Afterfourmonths,theSchulzesleftonthelastshipforBritainbeforethewarstarted,onAugust26,1939.HethenarrivedatOxfordinOctober1939.Inthiseffort,SchulzwasaidedbyKennethSisam,hisloyaleditoratOUP,F.A.Mann,aformerstudentandfellowrefugee,andFrancisdeZulueta,aSpanishprofessoratOxford,nottomentionEduardFraenkel,arefugeeclassicistfromFreiburg.Therewereanumberofdifferentorganizationshelpingrefugees,fromChristiancharitiestovariousinformalcommittees,suchastheOxfordRefugeeCommittee.SisamisanotherlinkbetweenMomiglianoandSchulz,asSisamwasalsoMomigliano’seditorandhelpedbothtogainstipends.ThesestipendswerenotmoneyfromOUP,butfromtheRockefellerFoundation,whichorganizedthissupportthroughtheSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearning(SPSL).Sisamhadaveryparticularideaofhowrefugeesshouldbehelped,mainlyinvolvinggettingthemfundingtodoresearchratherthanfindingthemacademicpositions.Whiletheostensibleaimwastominimizetheanimositythatthefloodofrefugeesmighthavecausedshouldtheystartcompetingwithlocalsforthefewjobsavailable,italsomeantthatmanywereleftwithlittlelocalcontact.179ThismayalsoexplainwhymanyoftherefugeestoBritainlikeSchulzwereemployedonshorttemporarycontracts,whereasintheUStheywould,ifsuccessful,enterintopermanentpositions.ItwasusualforthefutureexilestoholdontotheirpositionsinGermanyaslongastheycould.Forexample,afterhislectureswerecancelled,ErnstKantorowiczwenttoOxfordinJanuary1934onaresearchleave,butthenreturnedtoGermany.HissalarywastiedtobeinginGermanyandhisfamilywasthere.HewasalsoprotectedbynotonlyhisstatusasafighteronthefrontintheFirstWorldWar,butalsobyhighlyplacedfriendslikeAlbrechtGrafvonBernstorff.Thisrelativecomfortendedonlyin1938,whenhewasdeprivedofhispassport.WiththehelpofhisfriendsinOxfordandtheUSandfundingbyNGOsliketheEmergencyCommittee,hebegantoprepareforajobsearchbytakingonalecturetour.Afternumerous

179RockefellerFoundationArchives,R.G.1.1,series401ROxfordUniversityPress—Refugees,Schulz,box63,series401,RG1.1RAC,folder830.4;April2,1941:letterofSisamtoO’Brien(oftheRockefellerFoundation)withproposalattachedwithalistofrefugeesandadvisors.ThecareshownbySisamisevidentinhislettersduringthewar.OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzCPGE000344,1-31,contains31letterswhereSisamworksdifferentanglestogetyetanothergrantforSchulz,sometimesforunexpectedcircumstancessuchashisson’sillness.Schulz’sescapeanditscircumstancesarediscussedatlengthinErnst,‘FritzSchulz’,pp.148–168.OntheSchulzes’stayinLeiden,seePierangeloBuongiorno,‘«Ricordidiannilontaniedifficili».RomanistiaLeidennellalungaestatedel1939’(2016)44Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw479-490.Volterrahadbeenfiredin1938duetotheFascistraciallaws.HewenttoinitiallytoEgyptandFrance,butreturnedtoItalyduringthewar,fightingamongthepartisans,beingarrestedandsetfreewiththefallofFascism.HewasoneofthefoundingmembersofthePartitoD’Azione.

59

difficultieswithvisasandfunding,culminatinginspendingKristallnachtandthedaysafterithiddeninBernstorff’sapartment,KantorowiczescapedtoOxfordandsoontotheUS.180WhenwarbrokeoutontheWesternfront,Schulzwas,alongwithnumerousotherrefugees,internedattheIsleofManasenemycitizensinJuly5,1940.SchulzwasinternedinoneoftheGermancamps,whileMomiglianowasdetainedintheItaliancamp.WithSchulz,therewasalsoFritzPringsheimandDavidDaube.Formostofthedetainees,especiallytheolderones,thetimespenttherewasfairlyshortandtheyreturnedtotheirfamiliesaftersomemonths,SchulzinOctober13,1940.181Theincidentwastraumatictomanyandleftalastingimpressionoftheprecariousnessoftheirposition.ForSchulz,hisinternmentalsomeantthattheOUPfundingforhisfamilywouldstop.Thisdidnotmeanthatthepress’sopiniononSchulzwouldhavechanged;theywereinfactquiteexplicitontheirstand.ApersonnelcardintheOUParchivesonSchulzstatesthatheis“Agoodscholar,veryhardworking.AleadingDemocratinBerlin,andfirstforbiddentolectureonthatground.”182OneofthemainreasonswhySchulzendedupinOxfordwastheplanned“OxfordHistoryofLegalScience”whereSchulzwascommissionedtowriteachapteronRomanlaw.WorkonthischapteroccupiedSchulzformuchoftherunuptothewarandwastheostensiblereasonwhySchulzwaskeptatOxfordandhewasgivencontinuedsubsidiesbythepublisher.Theeditorsofthework(whethertheworkwasoriginallyconceivedasasingleormultiplevolumeisunclear)wereHermannKantorowiczandFrancisdeZulueta.KantorowiczwasafamousjuristandlegalhistorianofGermanorigins,butwhohadgainedasizablereputationbothintheUSandinBritain,anddeZuluetawastheRegiusProfessorofCivil(Roman)LawatOxford.183Likemanycommissionedintroductoryworks,thisvolumetoobegantoexpand,andSchulz’schapterwasfinallycutdowntoasizesuitabletobepublishedasaseparatebook.ThatbookwashisRomanLegalScience(1946).184ThelinkbetweenHermannKantorowiczandSchulzwasformedinGermany.TheyhadcollaboratedonthepublicationofaneditionofThomasDiplovatatius’(1468-1541)Declarisiurisconsultis,acollectionofjuristsbiographies.Kantorowiczwasalsoanexile,buthehad 180Lerner,ErnstKantorowicz,pp.187–213.181Ernst,‘FritzSchulz’,pp.158–160.Interneeswereclassifiedaccordingtothelevelofdangertheyposed,withexilesfromNazipersecutionclassifiedastheleastdangerous.182OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzCPGE000344,26,31.Theevaluationalsodemonstrateshowtherewasaparticularmodelbywhichrefugeeswerecompared,whichincludedindustriousness,gratitude,butalsofrugality:“Aneconomicalhousehold,andallshowthebestspirit.”TheOUPwasassistingatthattimebetweentenandeighteenexiledprofessorsandscholarsworkingonvariousbookprojectsbetween1941-1944,amongthemSchulz,PringsheimandMomigliano.183SeeLorenaAtzeri,'FrancisdeZulueta(1878‒1958):AnOxfordRomanlawyerbetweentotalitarianisms',inTuoriandBjörklund,RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope,pp.53–71.184ItwaspublishedinGermantranslationonlyin1961underthetitleGeschichtederrömischenRechtswissenschaft(Weimar:H.BöhlausNachfolger,1961).

60

evenearlierworkedintheUSandwhenhereturnedtoNewYorkaspartoftheUniversityinExile,hewasquicktotakepartinthedebatesintheUS.185Ifoneconsidersthecontextoftheproposedwork,itfitsfairlywellintothegeneralthemeofKantorowicz’swork,thatoftheprofessionalizationoflegalexpertiseandthecreationoflegalscience.Thoughhehasbeendepictedasaproponentofthefreelawmovement,Kantorowicz’sworkistoalargedegreethatofthecriticismandreinterpretationofthelegacyoftheHistoricalSchoolandthecentralroleitgavetojurisprudence.186TheroleofdeZuluetainthisprojectwas,inadditiontohissubstantialinput,tobealinkwiththeestablishmentatOxford.ThefactthatSchulzevencametoOxfordwaslargelyduetotheworkofdeZulueta,whohelpedbothSchulzandPringsheimintheirjourneytoEnglandandtosettlethere.187Thoughtheissueofjurisprudenceanditsrelationshiptopoliticalpowerwasamatterofimportanceinscholarshipthroughouthistory,Schulz’scontributionwasfundamental.HehadtouchedontheissueinthePrinciples,butthethemesofauthorityandscienceandtheequilibriumbetweenthetworunsthroughthewholeofRomanLegalScience.188InthePrinciples,Schulzhadwrittenontheprincipleofisolation(Isolierung),whichheunderstoodastheautonomyoflawinrelationtopoliticalpower,toeconomicconsiderations,andsoforth.Hemaintainedthat“Lawmustbedistinguishedfromallthatisnotlaw,theterritoryofthelawmustbedelimitedandanindependentlegalsystemdeveloped”(p.20).Thisseparationandisolationwasnotpurelyorevenprimarilyamatterofpolitics,itwasfoundedontheideathatallmattersofcustomandreligionshouldbeexcluded.FromthisancientRomanconviction,Schulzcarriesthediscussiontotheinfluenceoftheprincipleofisolationinnineteenth-centuryGermany.There,heenlistsnotonlyPuchta,butalsoJheringas 185OntheconnectionsbetweenAmericanandEuropeanrealism,seeHermannKantorowicz,‘SomeRationalismaboutRealism’(1934)43YaleLawJournal1240–1253;KatharinaIsabelSchmidt,'Law,Modernity,Crisis:GermanFreeLawyers,AmericanLegalRealists,andtheTransatlanticTurnto'Life',1903–1933'(2016)39GermanStudiesReview121-140;HeikkiPihlajamäki,‘AgainstMetaphysicsinLaw:TheHistoricalBackgroundofAmericanandScandinavianLegalRealismCompared’(2004)52TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw469–487.186EspeciallyHermannKantorowicz,WasistunsSavigny?(Berlin:C.HeymannsVerlag,1912);HermannKantorowicz,'SavignyandtheHistoricalSchoolofLaw'(1937)209LawQuarterlyReview326–343.OntheHistoricalSchool,seeHans-PeterHaferkamp,DiehistorischeRechtschule(Frankfurt:Klostermann2018).187TheprojectwasabandonedafterKantorowiczdeathin1940.OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzCPED000129,17,DeZuluetatoSisam(onFebruary18,1940)onthestateofaffairsafterKantorowicz´sdeath:“…weshouldhavetoreplaceJolowiczfortheGreekchapteranditwasveryhardtothinkofasubstitute,unlessweturnedthefirstvol.intoacabinetofexiledJews.”OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzCPED000129,9,DeZuluetatoSisamandBerger(onJuly10,1942):projectedHistoryofLegalSciencedefinitivelyabandoned.188Here,Schulzcreatedtheso-calledtheoryoftheWerktypenthathasinfluencedbothGermanandItalianstudiesofRomanlaw.

61

thesupportersoftheideaofisolation.EvenLaband,inthefieldofpubliclaw,isdrawnintosupportthecause.TheoppositionandmainthreattosplendidisolationwasfoundintheinclusionoffactsandrealitybythelikesofEhrlich.(p.38).ThepointofSchulz’sprincipledstandagainsttherealmoffactualitywasthatoncethatbarrierisremoved,legalconsiderationceasestobelegalandtheargumentbeginstotakeadifferentlogic.189Theissueoffactsandfactualityandtheirrelationtolawwerecentralinthedebatesoverlegalrealism.WhatthissignifiedwasthatthelegalrealismmovementthatwasverystrongintheUSatthetimefoundcommongroundwiththeNazilegalideologythatlikewiseemphasizedthedominanceoffactsovernorms.190Schulzrespondstotheideaoflegalrealism,thatlawshouldnotbeblindtorealarguments,withadualargument:theisolationoflawisvitaltotheveryfunctioningoflegalreasoning,butequallylegalscienceasascholarlyinquiryshouldbeveryconsciousaboutthesocial,politicalandintellectualcontextoflaw.Forexample,inalettertoOUPaboutthetranslationofRomanLegalScience,heoutlinesthat“TheideaofthisbookistorelievetheHistoryofRomanJurisprudencefromthebarrenjuristicisolationandtounderstandandtowritethishistoryasapartofAntiquity.”191TheNazijuristsappreciatedlegalrealismforitsanti-formalisticqualities.Nazijurisprudencehad,evenbeforetheemphasisonideassuchastheconcreteorder,raisedissuessuchasgeneralprinciplesandthefeelingsofrightabovestrictlaw.Thiswasnaturallyaparadoxicalelementinthetransatlanticexchangeofideas:lawyerssuchasRolandFreisler,notoriousastheheadofthePeople’sCourt,thesupremeNazicourt,praisedAmericancommonlawforitsfreedomfromformalitiesandtheindependenceofitsjudgestodrivepoliciesforward.192TheoutlineofRomanLegalSciencewasattheoutsetaveryambitiouspresentationofthehistoryofRomanjurisprudenceanditsdevelopment.ThechiefpointSchulzwishedtomakewasthescientificnatureoflawanditsdifficultrelationshipwithscientificrootsinotherfields,especiallyinGreekphilosophy.Beyondthatnarrative,Schulzpresentedanotherimportantnarrativeofisolation,thatofthedistinctionbetweenlawandpoliticalpower.

189ThepoliticalrelevanceofthisprincipleisdemonstratedbythereviewofSteinwenter,‘PrinzipiendesrömischenRechtsvonFritzSchulz’,p.116,wherehenotesthattheidealofisolationismostlyrestrictedtosmall,conservativeRomanlawcircles.190IntheUS,legalrealismwaschampionedbyPound(RoscoePound,‘TheCallforaRealistJurisprudence’(1930–1931)44HarvardLawReview697–711)andLlewellyn,butthemovementtookdifferentformsandapproachesintheirrelationshipbetweenlawandthefactual.SeeJohnHenrySchlegel,AmericanLegalRealismandEmpiricalSocialScience(ChapelHill,NC:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1995);LauraKalman,LegalRealismatYale1927–1960(ChapelHill,NC:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1986).191SchulztoSisam(February11,1945),p.1.OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzPBED010383,no.13.192Whitman,Hitler'sAmericanModel,pp.150–151.

62

RomanLegalSciencewasahistoricalwork,butbehindthehistoricaltemplatetherewasamessageandanagenda.ForSchulz,thelastingvalueofRomanlawwasitspracticalscholarlymethodofresolvingissuesandbuildingontheworksofpreviousjurists.Thisensuredthatthelawwasflexibleandadaptable,butneverthelessdidnotdeviatefromtheprincipleslaidoutearlier.Lawseenaswascumulativeandpurelytheworkofjurists.Iftherewereanathemas,theyweretherashpoliticalinfluencesthatenteredintolawandandthecodificationoflawwhichwouldpetrifyit.Themessagewasoneofconservatismandelitism.However,itwasequallyamessageaboutthepurepracticalityoflaw,aboutlawlaidoutbyjuriststoensurethesmoothresolutionoflegaldisputes.Assuch,itwasantitheticaltotheconceptionoflawassocialengineeringsetouttofulfilpolicygoals.ThefreedomoflegalscienceandtheseparationoflawfrompoliticswasatraitthatconnectsSchulztotheGermannineteenth-centurytraditionoflaw.Whatthishadmeantforthejuristsofthenineteenthcenturywastherejectionofcodificationandthecommandingrolethatlawyersshouldhaveinshapinglaw.FortheworksthatSchulzhadproduced,thesameprinciplecarriedadeepermeaning,namelythepreservationofjusticeitselffromcapriciousandviolentpoliticalsystems.Likemanyofhispeers,Schulzwasdeeplydistrustfuloftheveryideaofnaturallaw.Asthesystemoflegalpositivismthathadbeendebatedwithgustointheearlytwentiethcenturywaslittlebetter,theonlyviablealternativewastradition.Legaltraditionwastheonlycheckonpoliticalpowerandthechangesitwishedtointroduce.Thisformulationprovedtobeextremelyimportantinthedebatesovernaturallawandthereconstitutionoflawafterthewar,butequallyinthe1990sdebatesoverthefoundationsofEuropeanlegalunity.ExilesandscholarlychangeSchulzandotherswerepartoftheso-calledgreatexodusofscholarsescapingtotalitarianism.Itisestimatedthatsome20,000intellectualswereamongtheroughlyhalfamillionpeopleleavingGermany.Thisincludedroughlyonethirdtoonefourthofthetotalnumberofuniversityprofessors.Thenumbersvariedslightlyfromfieldtofield.Ofthe496highereducationteachersinlaw,intotal131werefiredorremovedfromofficeafter1933.Ofthose,89wereremovedduetotheirJewishheritage,and42onideologicalorpoliticalgrounds.Intotal69wouldemigrate,while24woulddieorbemurderedbefore1945.193Thesenumberseachrepresentanindividualdisaster,alifeinterruptedandacareerderailed.However,inthefollowing,wewillexplorethechangesintheideasoflaw,freedomandjusticeintheworksof

193BreunungandWalther,DieEmigrationdeutscherRechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol1,pp.6–7;Zimmermann,‘‘WasHeimathieß,nunheißtesHölle’.TheEmigrationofLawyersfromHitler'sGermany’,pp.45–54.ThebiographiescollectedinGöppinger,JuristenjüdischerAbstammungim"DrittenReich",lookingatthetotaldeathswithinthelegalprofessionillustratehowinadditiontothosemurderedeitherinGermanyorinconcentrationcamps,thereisaverylargenumberofpeoplewhowouldindesperationcommitsuicidebeforebeingdeportedtotheEast.

63

FranzNeumann,ErnstLevyandArnaldoMomiglianoasexamplesofthetransformativepowerofexile.Exileisapowerfulintellectualphenomenon.Apersonistakenfromhisphysicalandintellectualsurroundings,one’scolleaguesandfriends,andplungedintoanewandsometimeshostileenvironment.Becausetheprocessofexileofteninvolvesviolenceandseparationfromone’slovedones,itcanbetraumaticintheextreme.Thisexperienceoftraumaandrejectionproducesreactionsthatarehighlyindividualandhardtopredict.Extremecircumstancesleadsometoseekreligiousconsolation,whileothersdescendintodepressionandanxiety.194Forscholars,aswithauthorsandartists,theprocessofexileanditsrepercussionsprovideanevenwiderfieldtodemonstratetheireffects.However,theproblemiswhetheritispossibletoverifyacausallink.Ofcourse,onemayeasilyarguethattheworksofscholarslikeHannahArendtorevenAynRandarereactionstotheexperienceoftotalitarianismandexile.ArnaldoMomiglianowrotethatbiographyhaseitheraconsciousoranunconsciouseffectonscholarship,meaningthateventhoughmanyseektohidetheeffectofthingslikeexile,tracesareobviousforthosewhoknowwheretolook.195However,theeffectofexternalcircumstancesandtheexperiencesanauthorhasmaybeprocessedthroughtheworkitselfandtheworkformsastatementregardingtheordeal,ortheexperienceofexileismoresubtlyincorporatedintoamoreneutraloutline.Asawhole,theimpactofexileinscienceisdifficulttoevaluate,eitheramongscholarsthemselvesorinthescientificcommunityatlarge.196Ofthefirstgroup,HannahArendtproducedasizableproductioninexileinwhichsheexplorednotonlythecreationoftotalitarianismandFascism,butalsoherownexperienceinexile.HerOriginsofTotalitarianismtracedauthoritarianismandanti-Semitism,leadinguptotheunderstandingoftotalitarianstatesascompletelynovelentities.Inherotherwritings,shewoulddiscussatlengththeroleoftheexileandtherefugeeasaperpetualoutsider.197

194Burke,ExilesandExpatriatesintheHistoryofKnowledge1500–2000.195ArmandoMomigliano,'AncientBiographyandtheStudyofReligion',inArmandoMomigliano(ed.),Ottavocontributoallastoriadeglistudiclassiciedelmondoantico(Roma:EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,1987),pp.193-210,atp.199.ForMomigliano,theclassicalexamplewasRostovtzeff,anexilefromRussia.SeealsoGlenW.BowersockandT.J.Cornell,A.D.Momigliano:StudiesonModernScholarship(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994),pp.ix–x.196Therearesomebibliometricstudies,thoughtheirresultshavebeenmoreademonstrationofthelimitsofbibliometricsthanofrealanalyticvalue.FabianWaldinger,'PeerEffectsinScience:EvidencefromtheDismissalofScientistsinNaziGermany'(2012)79TheReviewofEconomicStudies838-861.197HannahArendt,‘Exiles,Enemies,orEmigrants’,reprintedinM.Anderson(ed.),Hitler'sExiles:PersonalStoriesoftheFlightfromNaziGermanytoAmerica(NewYork:TheNewPress,1998),pp.253–262;HannahArendt,'WeRefugees'(1943)31MenorahJournal69-77.On

64

Arendt’sworkonexilecanbeseenasakindofprimalscreamagainsttotalitarianism.HerworkwasequallymarkedbyanencounterwithAmericanpoliticalandlegaltradition,especiallythatofAmericanRepublicanthought,butequallytotheinstitutionalizedracism.198Ofthesecondgroup,FranzNeumannisoneofthemostfamousexampleswheretheexperienceoftotalitarianism,exileandlawwassublimatedintheworkonthosethemes,intothescholarshipthatdrewuponbutdidnotrestupontheexileprocess.Neumannhadbeenasocialdemocraticactivistandlabourlawyerwhowasforcedintoexileearlyon.NeumannleftGermanyin1933,firststudyingattheLondonSchoolofEconomicsunderHaroldLaski,andthenin1936goingtotheInstituteforSocialResearchinNewYork.Hewasanexilewhofeltcontinuouslyillateaseinhisadoptedcountry.HewasassociatedwiththeFrankfurtSchool,butwasoccupiedmainlywithadministrativeandpracticallegalwork.Duringthewar,NeumannworkedwiththeOfficeofStrategicServices(theOSS,thepredecessoroftheCIA),alongsideoffellowmembersfromtheFrankfurtSchool,HerbertMarcuseandOttoKirchheimer,toproducereportsonNaziGermany.199TheseledtoBehemoth(1944),wherehetracedthecollapseoftheWeimarRepublicandtheemergenceoftheNazistateandlaw.InBehemoth,NeumanndescribeshowtheNazisusedinstitutionalizedracismintheformofanti-Semitismtoconsolidatetheirpower.WhileNaziracismwascertainlyusedtojustifyunequalrights,itgraduallyformedthephilosophicalfoundationoftheNaziideology.Inthis,theyreliedonthelongtraditionofGermananti-Semitism,onethatwaspresenteveninliberaltheories.WhattheNazitheoryoflibertywas,ifsuchathingcanbeconstrued,wastheideaofthefreedomofthenationfrominternalandexternalenemies.AccordingtoNeumann,theJewbecameanessentialpartofthistheory;hence,inCarlSchmitt’stheoryofpoliticsasstruggle,theexterminationoftheenemyisthepreconditionofunificationandfreedom.200Neumann’scaseshowsthecontradictionsthatexileswerecontinuouslyexposedtoandthedemandsthatwereplaceduponthem.Asasocialist,NeumannabhorredtheNazistate,but

Arendt’sexperienceandherinfluencesinAmerica,seeRichardH.King,ArendtandAmerica(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2015).198King,ArendtandAmerica,pp.148-155.Itshouldbenoted,likeKingdoes,thatArendtdidnotsubscribetoadichotomyoftotalitarianismandliberalismwhereliberalism,eveninAmerica,wasseenaspurelypositive.HeradmirationwasmorereservedfortheRepublicantradition.SeealsoMargaretCanovan,HannahArendt:AReinterpretationofHerPoliticalThought(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992).199ReproducedinRaffaeleLaudani(ed.)SecretReportsfromNaziGermany(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2013).200Neumann,Behemoth,pp.99,109,125:“CarlSchmitthasmaintainedthatpoliticsisastruggleafoewhomustbeexterminated.”ThisnotionofexterminationisnotsupportedbythewritingsofSchmitthimself,whodoesnotmentionthetermVernichtunginthiscontext.OnNeumannasanarchetypicalpoliticalexilescholar,seeKettler,TheLiquidationofExile,pp.43-82;Söllner,PoliticalScholar,pp.87-128.NeumannwaslaterappointedprofessoratColumbiain1948,butcontinuedtotravelbetweenNewYorkandBerlin.

65

theprocessthathewentthroughinexilewasneithersimplenorreducibletoasingularideologicaltrait,norcanitsimpactbeeasilydefined.Evenbeforethewar,hewasastaunchadvocateoftheruleoflawandtheideasofequalitybeforethelaw,butthisconvictionextendedbeyondtheNazistate.HewasequallycriticaloftheUSandafterthewarcondemnedthecentralizationofpowerandpoliciesofracialsegregation.AmorecontroversialissuewashisconnectionswithCommunismandtheSovietintelligenceservices.NeumannbecamefriendswithclassicalscholarMosesFinley(orig.Finkelstein),whoworkedatColumbiaUniversity.FinleywasasocialistandamemberoftheCommunistpartywhobecameoneoftheleadingscholarsinancienthistory,integratingMarxisttheoriesintothefield.Inthisprocess,Neumannservedasacrucialinfluence.WhetherFinleywasNeumann’sconnectionwiththeSovietsremainsunclear.ThoughNeumannhadworkedwiththeOSS,thisdidnotprecludehimfromprovidinginformationtotheRussiansupuntil1944.201Thus,Neumanncouldbebothananti-totalitarianworkingwiththeOSSagainstNaziGermany,andatthesametimeworkwithSovietintelligence.Hecouldwriteabouttheruleoflawandliberty,whilesimultaneouslyapproachingcriticallytheproblemsofliberalismandcapitalismandpromotingtheuseofMarxisttheoryinthehumanitiesandsocialsciences.Neumann’sconceptionoftotalitarianismandlibertywasnotonlyaboutanappreciationoftheAmericanpoliticalculture,italsoopposedtheforcesoftotalitarianismthatusedanti-Semitismas“akindofdressrehearsal”fortheirattackonthemiddleclasses.202Isitpossibletoevaluatescholarlychangeinwriterswhodonotdiscussitexplicitly?Eventheassessmentofwhattheprocessofexilemeantforsocialsciencescholarswhodidprocesstheexperienceopenlyisfraughtwithdifficulties.IsitthuspossibletoevaluatetheimpactofexileintheworksofscholarsofRomanhistoryandespeciallyRomanlawsuchasSchulz?Schulz’scaseis,onthesurface,afairlystraightforwardexampleofscholarlychangeinthathisearlyworkwasalmostwithoutfailtechnicalincharacter,concernedasitwaswiththelegalanalysisoftextsandtheirprovenience.ButbeginningfromthePrinciples,Schulz’sworksbegintohavebothcovertandopenpoliticalthemesthatdelveintothefundamentalsofthelegalsysteminwaysthatcanbeconstruedtobepromptedbytheNazitakeoverofpowerandthewayinwhichitinfluencedthelegalsystem.Asaresult,hisworkshowswhatcanbedescribedasatextbookcaseoftheexileprocess.Ordoesit?ManyofhisworksarestillverymuchboundtotheGermanandItalianstyleofacademicscholarship,moreintunewiththeextremeself-consciousnessoftheRomanlawtradition,wherethehistoriographicalpartsofananalysiswereprimarilyconcernedwithone’sallegiances.203

201DanielP.Tompkins,'TheMakingofMosesFinley',inDanielJew,RobinOsborne,andMichaelScott(eds.),M.I.Finley:AnAncientHistorianandhisImpact(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016),pp.13–30.202Wheatland,‘FranzL.Neumann:NegotiatingPoliticalExile’,p.129.203WithinscholarshiponSchulz,thenotionofwhetherSchulzwaswritingincodeishighlydebated.SchermaiersuggestedthatSchulzwasinfactaccomodatingNaziideas,whileErnst

66

Forscholarlyexiles,theexileexperiencewasinmanywayssimilartothatofpeopleingeneral,buttherewerealsomarkeddifferences.Therewas,forexample,anelaboratenetworkofNGOsandgovernmentagencieshelpingexiles,fromtheBritishSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearningtotheUniversityinExile.204Forscholars,thechallengewaswhethertheycouldcontinuetheircareersinsomeformabroad.Withthefloodofdesperatepeoplecomingin,asseennowinEurope,exilesencounteredbothlackofresourcesandhostility.LikeKennethSisam,Schulz’scontactatOUP,manyworriedthatthescholarlyexileswouldbeseenascompetitiontohome-grownacademics.205Formany,theprocessofexilealsomeantchangingone’sresearchfocus.Forhistorians,thiswasaminorconcern,206butforlegalscholarsthechangewasconsiderable.ManylawprofessorslikeHansKelsen,OttoKirchheimerorHansMorgenthauthatacquiredpositionsintheUSendedupinpoliticalsciencedepartments.Sometookupnewresearchtopicsthatweremoreintunewiththetraditionsoftheiradoptedcountries,turningforexampletowardsempiricism,whichwasfavouredintheUS.Fortheyoungerscholars,thepossibilityofre-educationopenedupnewconnectionsandthusemploymentopportunities.ForFranzNeumann,thiswasacrucialfactorinhiscareer,havingLaski,oneofthemostfamoussocialscientistsofhisgeneration,ashisteacher.DavidDaube,despitehavingcompletedadoctorateinGermany,wroteanotheroneinBritainwithinfluentialRomanlawscholarandhistorian,WilliamBuckland.FritzSchulzwasoneofthemoreseniorofthescholarlyexilesandassuchtheavenuesopentohimwerenotpromising.Onthepositiveside,hehadlearnedEnglishearlyonandwasthusnotisolatedonthataccountlikemanyofhispeers.Hehadtheconnectionsandauthoritythatwouldbeusefulinthesearchforanewposition.However,hewasalreadyfairlyoldandtheprospectsavailabletohimmighthaveappearedblandandunexcitingaftertheexaltedstatusheonceenjoyedinBerlin.AgoodexampleoflocalprejudicethatSchulzfacedwasthesearchforaprofessorofRomanlawinEdinburgh.Thelistofcandidateswasexcellent,someoftheleadingRomanlawscholarsoftheirgenerationwereintherace,includingSchulzand

andGiltaijaremorepronouncedintheirsupportofSchulz’sloyaltytohisprinciples.Whetherwritingincodewasintentionalornotisofcoursebeyondourknowledge,becauseSchulzremainedsilentonthematter.204Thehistoryoftheorganizationsinvolvedinthehelpingofexileshasyettobewritten.ForalistoforganizationsactiveintheUS,seeEdgcomb,FromSwastikatoJimCrow,p.22.205Inhiscorrespondence,Sisamrevealsattimeshislackofpatiencewiththerefugeesandtheircomplaints.SisamtoC.H.S.Fifoot(October17,1939).OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzPBED010382,no.47:“Icannotstandtherefugeeswhoarealwaysgrumblingabouttheirlotatatimewhenmostofushavesomethinghardtothinkabout;butafewofthem,andSchulzisone,areofadifferentclass,andrecognizethattheyareluckytobehere.”206ThisbecomesapparentintheworkscollectedinCrawford,Ulmschneider,andElsner,ArkofCivilization.

67

Pringsheim.However,insteadofchoosingoneofthem,Edinburghselectedalocalbarristerforthejob.207InBritain,RomanlawscholarsandRomanhistoriansfacedsomewhatunequalopportunitiesthathadmuchtodowiththeundevelopedstateofBritishlawschools.Whilethefieldsofancienthistoryandclassicswerestudiedinanalmostcosmopolitanmannerandscholarlyexcellencewasseenasessentialinproducingfirst-ratescholars,thelawschoolsweremorepracticalinorientation.TheBritishlawschoolfocusedonproducingpracticallawyersforthebenchandthebar,notscholarsorresearchers.Eventheideaofascienceoflawmayhavebeenalientomanylawschoolsintheinterwarperiod.208However,thepracticeofRomanlawhaditssupporters,notleastinScotland,wheretheRoman-Dutchlegaltraditionhadastronginfluence.Inthemajoruniversities,therewerechairsincivillaw,whichincludedRomanlaw,andthusthebackgroundwastherefortheintegrationofrefugees.ThismeantthattheyoungergenerationofrefugeessuchasDavidDaubehadacomparativelyeasiertaskinapplyingforjobsandgettingthem.Whiletheoldergenerationremainedinprecariouspositions,DaubewouldrisetothetopofBritishlegalacademia,withultimatelytwoRegiusprofessorships.IntheUS,thesituationwasharder.Romanlawscholarshipwasalmostnon-existentatthetime.Forlegalscholarsingeneralthetransferwasdifficult,andevenaluminarylikeKelsenwasonlyhiredbythepoliticalsciencedepartmentatBerkeley.InthecorrespondencereceivedbyoneofthefewUSRomanlawscholarsofthattime,A.ArthurSchilleratColumbia,thedesperationcomesthrough.AgainandagainletterscomeinfromhiscontactsinEurope,askingwhetherhewouldbeabletofindapositionforthisorthattalentedyoungscholarofRomanlaw.209Thedesperatesituationwascompoundedbythefactthatmanymorewouldjointheexilelaterasthewarspread.ThusProfessorH.R.Hoetink,whohadhelpedexilestosecureapositionintheNetherlands,washimselfdismissedfromhispostin1942asaJew.Hewasarrestedandsenttoaconcentrationcamp.Hewasmomentarilyreleased,buthadtospendtherestofthewarhidingwithhisfamilyinconstantlychangingsafehouses.210

207Honoré,‘FritzPringsheim’,pp.140–141.ItshouldbenotedthatthechairwasunderthepatronageoftheFacultyofAdvocatesandthusnotafreechoiceoftheuniversity.208Onthis,seeforexampleWilliamRodolphCornishandGeoffreydeN.Clark,LawandsocietyinEngland:1750-1950(London:Sweet&Maxwell,1989),pp.45-120.209RareBookandManuscriptArchive,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork,ArthurSchillerPapers,Boxes1–6,MS#1125.AmongthosewritingtoSchilleraskingforhelpwereAdolfBerger,EdoardoVolterra,EgonWeiss,andWalterUllman.MichaelH.Hoeflich,‘Legacy’,inLutter,Stiefel,andHoeflich,DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland,pp.15–17rightlyurgesustoremembernotonlythesuccessfulapplicants,butalsothelessfortunateones.210Hoeflich,Legacy,p.17.

68

ItishardtosaypreciselywhySchulz’ssearchforapositioninthebUSwasunsuccessful,buthisagemayhavebeenacontributingfactor.Hewas56atthetime,59whenhearrivedinBritain.ThetranslationofthePrincipleshadnotyetappearedandlittleofhisworkwaspublishedinEnglish.By1936thesupplyofexiledscholarshadalreadyrapidlyoutpaceddemand,especiallyinfieldsasmarginalasRomanlawintheUS.Kelsen,whowas58atthistime,wasappointedattheGermanUniversityinPrague,buthadtoleavewhenCzechoslovakiawasoccupiedbyGermany.HisreturntotheUSin1939wassimilarlyfullofdesperation,withhisfriendsseekingtohelphimgetajob,buthisapplicationswererepeatedlyrejectedinfavourofyoungercompetitors.Intheend,KelsenreceivedatemporarypositionattheUniversityinExile,andhisfriendRoscoePoundmanagedtoofferhimalecturershipinHarvardfortwoyears.Fromthere,hemovedtoBerkeley,butagainonlytoatemporaryposition.211Butperhapsagewasnotthesoledeterminingfactor,asErnstLevy(1881–1968),whowasroughlythesameageasSchulz,managedtogainaprofessorshipintheUS.LevycametotheUSafterbeingforciblyretiredfromhischairinHeidelbergin1935aswellasfromtheeditorshipoftheZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte.Hewashiredin1937asProfessorofEuropeanHistoryandRomanLawatWashingtonUniversityinSeattle,whereheremainedfor15years.212Despitethis,hehadconsideredhisexiletobetemporaryandhopedtoberecalledtoHeidelbergassoonasthewarended.InthecaseofLevy,hissituationwashelpedbythefactthathisdaughterBrigittewasmarriedtoEdgarBodenheimer,afellowlegalexile.WiththehelpofKarlLlewellyn,ProfessorofLawatColumbia,bothLevyandBodenheimerwouldgotoSeattle,whereBodenheimerstudiedAmericanlaw.Attheendofthewar,BodenheimerworkedwiththeAmericangovernment’steaminpreparationfortheNurembergtrialsandtravelledbacktoGermany.WhileLevywishedtoreturn,hisfamilysoughttodissuadehim.Intheend,noinvitationandcalltohisoldchairwasissuedandLevy

211ThomasOlechowski,‘HansKelsen,theSecondWorldWarandtheUSGovernment’,inJ.Telman(ed.),HansKelseninAmerica–SelectiveAffinitiesandtheMysteriesofAcademicInfluence(Berlin:SpringerVerlag,2016),pp.102–103;HorstDreier,‘HansKelsen(1881–1973).„JuristdesJahrhunderts“?’inHelmutHeinrichs,Hans-HaraldFranzki,KlausSchmalz,andMichaelStolleis(eds.),DeutscheJuristenJüdischerHerkunft(Munich:Beck,1993),pp.705–732.PoundlamentedtoGuidoKischthathefeltthathehadnotbeenasluckyashehadearlierbeeninhelpingpeopleingainingemployment.GuidoKisch,DieLebenswegeinesRechtshistorikers(Sigmaringen:Thorbecke1975),p.141.212WolfgangKunkel,‘ErnstLevyzumGedächtnis’(1969)86ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilungxiii–xxxii;DieterSimon,‘Levy,Ernst’(1985)14NeueDeutscheBiographie403–404;DieterSimon,‘ErnstLevy’,inB.DiestelkampandM.Stolleis(eds.),JuristenanderUniversitätFrankfurtamMain(Baden-Baden:Nomos,1989),p.94;ErnstC.StiefelandFrankMecklenburg,DeutscheJuristenimamerikanischenExil(1933–1950)(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1991),pp.51–52;CatherineEpstein,APastRenewed:ACatalogofGerman-SpeakingRefugeeHistoriansintheUnitedStatesafter1933(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),pp.190–195.

69

remainedwithsomereluctanceinSeattleuntilhisretirement.213Levywouldstayinconstantcontactwithhisstudent,WolfgangKunkel,whojoinedtheSS.Intheircorrespondence,politicsismentionedonlyobliquelywithregardtocolleagueswhowerefiredfromtheirpositionsduetotheirfaithorconviction.LevywouldconstantlypesterKunkelaboutdifferentjobsheshouldapplyfor,includinghisownvacatedchair.Ironically,inoneletterwhereheannouncesthathehasfledtotheUS,healsoinquireswhetherKunkelhasbeenmadelieutenantyet.214How,then,didexilefigureinLevy’swork,beyondthefactthathewouldwriteatwo-partbook,thefirstpartinEnglishandthesecondinGerman?InhismainworkonWestRomanvulgarlaw,nomajorindicationsaregivenofhisexilebackgroundund,unlessweconsiderthatthethemeofthebook,whichisabouttheslowdegradationofalegalsystem,reflectsLevy’sownfeelings.However,Levywouldin1948writeaboutnaturallawandRomanlaw,positingnaturallawasapolaroppositetototalitarianism.Romanlawwasproducedinatimeofrelativepeace,whereeventhewrongscommittedbyemperorslikeCaligula,Nero,DomitianorCommoduswererelativelyminor:“theirregimesneveraimedatasystematicinterferencewithcivicrightsastheythenwereunderstood.Massextermination,deportationorexpropriationofcitizenswassomethingnotevenimaginedasapotentiality”.Levycontraststhiswithasituationwhere“mankindingeneralorsomecountryinparticularfacesacataclysmthreateningtodestroyordistortthefundamentalliberties”.Inthesecases,aresorttolawsandcourtsareofnoavailandonlywarorrevolutionispossible.Intheseinstanceslawyersturntothe“ultimategroundworkofjustice”,namelynaturallaw.215Forless-knownRomanlawscholars,thesituationcouldbeevenmoredireandtheopportunitiesforscholarlyemploymentevenrarer.TheexampleofHansJuliusWolffillustratesthisinmanyways.Wolff(1902–1983)wasamongtheyoungergenerationofexilesandthushadatleasttheadvantageofyouthonhisside.In1935heleftforPanamaviaoneoftheNGOs,theNotgemeinschaftdeutscherWissenschaftlerimAusland,andbecameProfessorofRomanandCivilLawattheUniversityofPanama.HethenmovedtotheUSin1939,studying

213Bodenheimer,EdgarandBrigitte.KarlLlewellynappearedtobeextremelyhelpfultosomebutnottoothers.Forexample,GuidoKischmentionsthatwhilehisteacherPaulKoschakerhadrecommendedhimtoLlewellyn(whohadbeenhisguestinLeipzig),heprovedtobenotatallinterested.Kisch,DieLebenswegeinesRechtshistorikers,p.121.214DorotheeMussgnug(ed.),ErnstLevyundWolfgangKunkel.Briefwechsel1922–1968(Heidelberg:UniversitätsverlagWinter,2005),lettern.50fromLevytoKunkelonFebruary22,1937.KunkelwasacuriousexampleofastudentwhowouldjointhedifferentNaziorganizationsbutnevershowedanyaffinitytotheideologybehindit.OnKunkel,seeMarcFoerster,'WolfgangKunkel',inMathiasSchmoeckel(ed.),DieJuristenderUniversitätBonnin“DrittenReich”(Köln:Böhlau,2004),pp.456–519.KunkelwroteacuriousautobiographicalpieceabouttheNaziera,WolfgangKunkel,'DerProfessorimDrittenReich',inHelmutKuhn(ed.),DieDeutscheUniversitätimDrittenReich(Munich:Piper,1966),pp.103–133.215ErnstLevy,‘NaturallawintheRomanperiod’,A.L.Scanlan(ed.),UniversityofNotreDameNaturalLawInstituteProceedings2(NotreDame:NotreDameLawSchool,1949),19.

70

atTennesseeandMichigan.Fromthere,hestartedworkingindifferentmid-Westernuniversities,endingupin1952asalawlibrarianattheUniversityofOklahomaCity.ConsideringthatWolffhadworkedamongotherthingsfortheprestigiousThesaurusLinguaeLatinaeproject,hiscareertrajectoryabroadwashardlyinlinewithwhathispositionhadbeeninGermany.Wolff’sworkintheUSdidnotleaveagreatimpact,althoughhedidpublishafairlysuccessfultextbookonRomanlawin1951.OnlyonhisreturntoGermanywouldWolffmakeanimpressivecareerbyrefocusingonGreeklaw.Ingeneral,Wolff’sscholarshiprevealsfairlylittleabouttheexileexperience.Intheprefaceofoneofhisbooksinexilepublishedin1939,heremarksthatitwaswritteninPanamawithnoadequatepubliclibraryinwhichtoconductresearch.ThismakesitallthemoreremarkablethathethanksViennaProfessorErnstSchönbauer,oneofthemostferventNazisintheRomanlawcommunity,forhishelp.216ForalloftheRomanlawexiles,oneofthemainfactorswhethertheywereabletosecureapermanentpositionornotwasthesupportgivenbyestablishedcolleagues.Inthis,thehelpprovidedbydifferentintermediarieslikedeZuluetaorA.ArthurSchillerwascrucial.Amongtheseintermediarieswereanumberofrecentimmigrants,someofwhomwereverysuccessfulintheirendeavoursinhelpingrefugees.OneexampleofsuchahelperisColumbiaProfessorofJewishHistory,SaloW.Baron,whoemigratedtoNewYorkfromViennain1927.HeassistedGuidoKisch,alegalhistorianfromHallewhohadbeendismissedin1933,incomingtoAmericaandfindingapositioninNewYork.Baronmethimintheharbour,arrangedforahotelroomandpushedhimtolearnEnglish.HewasalsocontactedbyHannahArendt,whomherecruitedastheexecutivesecretaryoftheJewishCulturalReconstruction,Inc.,anorganizationseekingtoredistributeownerlessJewishculturalartefactsmainlytocommunitiesintheUS,andHansKelsen,whowasseekingaplaceafterGeneva.217Buteventhoughhelpmightbeoffered,numerousexilesexperiencedtrustissuesandlossoffaith.TheBritishinternmentofenemyaliensin1940wouldstrengthenthisdistrust.FritzSchulz,FritzPringsheim,ArnaldoMomiglianoandDavidDaubeallendedupinBritishinternmentcampsontheIsleofMan.DavidDaubewouldlaterdarklycommentthatbeing

216HansJuliusWolff,WrittenandUnwrittenMarriagesinHellenisticandPostclassicalRomanLaw(Haverford:AmericanPhilologicalAssociation,1939).ThetextbookwasHansJuliusWolff,RomanLaw:AnHistoricalIntroduction(Norman,OK:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1951).217TheextentofthisaidisevidentinBaron’scorrespondence.SeeSpecialCollections&UniversityArchives,StanfordUniversityLibraries,M0580SaloW.BaronPapers,Series1:Correspondence,Box6,folder4GuidoKisch,containing20lettersbetween1933and1934.OnKisch’sexile,seehisautobiographyKisch,DieLebenswegeinesRechtshistorikers,pp.97-166.

71

bundledupinoneplaceontheisland,theGermanswouldhavehadnotroubleingettingtheirhandsonthemifBritainhadfallenin1940.218Fortherefugees,talkaboutthecauseoflibertymaysometimeshaveappearednaïveandsimplisticandmanywerequicktoshedanyillusionsaboutthewayinwhichtheidealsoflibertyandequalitywereimplementedintheUS.EspeciallyontheEastCoast,traditionalresearchuniversitieswerestillusingquotastoexcludeJewsandinthebigNewYorklawfirmsandbusinessesonlythosewithaWASPbackgroundwerelikelytobehired.Duringthe1930sand1940s,segregationwasstillmostlyunchallengedandthecivilrightsmovementhadnotyettakenroot.Butformanyexiles,libertyandequality,althoughsomewhattarnishedconcepts,wasstillthemostimportantdistinctionbetweenasocietybasedontheruleoflawandtotalitarianism.WhetherthisdistinctionwouldbeexpandedbeyondNaziandFasciststatesanddirectedtowardstheSovietUnionwasacrucialquestionthatwasfacedatthestartoftheColdWar.Afurtherchallengetoindividualfreedomsandtheveryconceptoflibertywastheriseoftheexecutivebranch,andtheemergenceoftheadministrativestate.Duringwartimeregulations,executiveprivilegewasreinforcedbydifferentemergencypowersandtoanexceptionaldegreeevenfortheUS.ItisironictonotethatinhisFourFreedomsspeech,Rooseveltmaintainedthatduringwarthecountryshouldbeabletodefenditselfbyallpossiblemeans,includinglimitationstobasicfreedoms.EvenwithinthesedevelopmentsintheUS,Germanrefugeeswerevitalinraisingawarenessofthechallengesthatexecutiveprivilegebringswithit,especiallythoseofdiscretionarypowerswieldedbytheexecutivetocurtailconstitutionalprotections.219Despitethedifficultiesexilesfacedintheiradoptedcountries,thequestionofreturnwasnoteasy.ManyhadbeenawayformorethanadecadeafterthewarendedandreturntoadestroyedlandwhereformerNaziswerestillinpositionsofauthoritywasnottempting.InalettertoSalvatoreRiccobono,Schulzwritesthatdespitehisdifficultfinancialsituation,hehasnowishforreturningtoGermany,becauseitwouldtheendofhisscientificwork.220SchulzbecameaBritishcitizenin1947,againwiththehelpofSisamandothers.Inthepreviousyear,hehadwrittentoSisamthat“ActuallyIhavealreadydecided–inspiteoftheprecariousstateofmyfinances–nevertoreturntoGermanyforgood”.221Thiswasastancethatwasnot

218Ernst,‘FritzSchulz’,pp.158–160;Honoré,‘FritzPringsheim’,pp.221–223;CalumCarmichael,IdeasandtheMan:RememberingDavidDaube(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermannVerlag,2004),p.63.219Kornhauser,DebatingtheAmericanState,pp.49,79.220LetterfromSchulztoSalvatoreRiccobono,July21,1946,CollectionofcorrespondencebyProfessorSalvatoreRiccobono,currentlyatthedisposalofProfessorMarioVarvaro,attheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofPalermo.221SchulztoSisam(September5,1946).OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzPBED010382,no36.ReactingtothereparationsandrecallsofferedbyGermanuniversities,

72

uncommonamongrefugees:evenaGermannationalistlikeErnstKantorowiczwoulddecideagainstareturn,havingreceivedUScitizenshipandapermanentpositioninBerkeley,butevenmoreimportantlyfeelingthatbesidethefewfriendsleft,theGermanythathelovedhadvanishedbyembracingthe“monstrousobscenity”ofNazism.222Forexiles,manythingsspokeagainstreturn,suchastheresurgenceofanti-SemitisminGermany,thefactthatalmostallJewishfamilieshadlostnumerousmembersintheHolocaustandthattheyhadbynowstartedanewlife.InmanycasestheyhadfoughtagainstNazismbyjoiningtheAlliedarmies,andbygaininganewcitizenship.ThismeantthattheywereoftenconsideredtobetraitorsintheirnativelandbyjoiningtheenemiesofGermany.223Thechangesinscholarlythoughtthattookplaceinexileorasaconsequenceoftheexileprocessarecomplexandhardtoclassify.Söllner,inhisfamousaccountofexiledpoliticalscientistsintheUS,remarksthatatremendousscholarlyeffortwasmadetoanalyseNazipoliciesandthereasonsbehindtherevolution.TheclearobjectiveoftheseworkswastofightagainstNazismandoftenfordemocracy(orsocialism).224Duetothenatureoftotalitariansocietyandtherepressionitentailed,theideaoflibertywasaclearelementintheseworks.Incontrast,withscholarslikeSchulz,suchchangeswerenotasstraightforwardoreasytocategorize.Therewasacrucialandclearreorientationofhisscholarshipfrompurelytechnicalordiscipline-internaldebatestopoliticalargumentation.Insteadoftheideasofdemocracyorpoliticalactivity,SchulzbegantorephrasetheEuropeantraditionoflibertythroughanewreadingoftheclassicaltradition.Hisobjectivewasplain:hewishedtomakeaclearandevidentoppositionbetweentheEuropeantraditionoflibertyandNazipolicies.ThefactthattheideasoflibertyandequalitybecamesuchcentralthemesinthewareffortandinUSforeignpolicybecameanincidentalmergingwiththewidersignificanceofthesediscussionsintheanti-totalitariannarrative.WhatforSchulzwasanunderstatedearlydiscussion,becamewithMomiglianoandNeumannafullyactualizedpoliticaldiscourseabouttheoppositiontototalitarianismandtheimplicationsoftheideaoflibertyinthatopposition.Conclusions SchulzwrotetotheRectoroftheUniversityofBerlinin1946,buttheresponsewasnotpositiveashewastoooldtoteachinGermanyandthebackrupcyoftheGermanstatemeantthathewasnotgoingtoreceivethebackpayowedtohim.CollectionofProf.WolfgangErnst,UniversityofZurich,Schulzletters1931-1949.39:fromRektorUni-Berlin,toSchulz(May29,1946andApril23,1946.SchulzdidreceivebothanhonoraryprofessorshipinBonnin1951andpension,seeUniversitätsarchiv,Friedrich-Wilhelms-UniversitätBonn,PersonalakteSchulz,Fritz9234.1-12.222Lerner,ErnstKantorowicz,p.285.223Onthedifficultiesofre-emigration,seeKrauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand.ManyexilesdidserveintheAlliedforces.Forexample,ofSchulz’schildrenasonservedintheFirstAmericanArmyandadaughterintheBritishArmy.OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzCPGE000345,11,letterSchulztoSisamonJanuary8,1945.224AshandSöllner,ForcedMigrationandScientificChange,pp.263–265.

73

Schulzwritesthat“RecentpoliticalexperiencehasshownustheRomanEmpireanditslawinanewandclearerlight”.225Whathedoesnotdoisclarifywhathemeantbythisstatement.WhenaddressingthewaysinwhichSchulzdiscussestheprinciplesofRomanlaw,itissoonfairlyobviousthatRomanlaw,ormorepreciselytheprinciplesandvaluesembeddedintheRomanlegalandpoliticalsystem,becomesacounterpointtotheemergingNazilegalorder.TheideaoflibertyisoneofthegreatlegaciesoftheWesternliberaltradition.Thenotionitentailedwasthatprotectingindividualfreedomshouldbethefoundationoftherelationshipbetweenthestateandtheindividual.However,tracingmodernfreedombacktotheancientpoliticaltraditionoreventotheRomanlawtraditionwasunusual,tosaytheleast.In“TheLibertyofAncientsComparedwiththatoftheModerns”,Constantcametotheconclusionthatitwaspreciselythefocusontheindividualandhisorherlibertieswhichseparatethemodernconceptionoflibertyfromtheancient.Thus,ideassuchasindividualrightswouldbelimitedtothemodernworld.226Duringtheinterwarperiod,thenotionoflibertyasasharedlegacycameunderheavycriticismfromdifferentdirections,fromauthoritarianstorevolutionariesandnationalistsofvariouskinds.Economiccrises,valuecrisesandpoliticalcrisesappearedtoshowtheimpotenceoftheliberalstateandthefalsepromiseofequalityitheld.Schulz,inhisidiosyncraticfashion,seekstopresentanovelunderstandingoflibertyandjusticebasedonRoman,GermanandBritishtraditions,combiningclassicalliberalismwiththeRomanlegaltradition.TheconceptsoffreedomandorderthatareattheheartofthischapterbecamecentralinthereconceptionofGermancultureafterthewar.InattemptingtomakesenseoftheessenceofGermancultureandbeingaftertheNaziyears,therewasawidescalereturnamongintellectualstotheclassics,wherethedebatesoverculture,spiritandBildungwerecentral.Inthepost-wardiscussionsaboutdemocracy,theissuesoffreedomandorderwereconcernedwiththeself-definitionof(West)Germany,usingtheconceptsofindividualfreedomanddemocraticinstitutionsaskeydefinitions.227TheattackofNazijurisprudenceagainsttheindependenceoflawanditsopenlypoliticalconceptionoflawdemandedacounterpoint,onethatwasbasednotonlyonideasoffreedomanddemocracybutalsothenotionthatwithinlawtherewasalongtraditionofinstitutionsthatsoughttosecureindividuallibertiesandrights.Thepurposeofthischapterwastoexplorehowthischangeintheunderstandingoftheidealsoffreedomandequalitywasunderstoodandprocessedasatransatlanticdiscourseonlaw. 225Schulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw,p.253.226TherelationshipofbothConstantandSchulztotheso-calledneo-Romantraditionoflibertyisafascinatingnotionofhistoricalreinterpretation.Onthis,seeLucaFezzi,IlrimpiantodiRoma.Respublica,libertà“neoromane”eBenjaminConstant,agliinizidelterzomillenio(Milano:MondadoriEducation,2012).227Forner,GermanIntellectuals,pp.77–78.

74

TheworksofSchulzarepartofacontinuumwithotherémigréscholars,whointheirwritingssoughttomakesenseoftheNaziattackonlibertybutwerealsoconcernedwiththefutureofthelegaltradition.OtherémigréscholarssuchasFranzNeumannsoughttoworkthroughthemeaningoftotalitarianismanditsimplicationsbasedontheirownexperience.Theydidthatthroughthreemaincontexts,1)theGermanandmoregenerallyEuropeanlegalheritage,2)theexperienceofrepressioninNaziGermany,and3)theircontactwiththeBritishandAmericantraditionoflibertyandequality.Indoingthis,theybothsoughttoprovideahistoricalunderstandingandsoughtreferencefromtheclassicaltradition.TheexampleofSchulz’sPrinciplesisanatypicalworkinthisrespect.ItisanearlyresponsetoNazipersecutionandtheeradicationofthetraditionoflawthathadguaranteedideassuchasequality,libertyandtheruleoflaw.Itwas,inasense,aswansongtothetraditionfoundedonRomanlawthatunitedEuropeanlegalscience.ItsGermanversioncameoutatthelastmoment,justbeforethebanonJewishscholarlypublications.Itwas,itshouldbeadded,averystrangebook,onethatcombinedhiddenmessagesandanexplorationoftherootsoftheEuropeanlegaltraditioninRomanlaw.Assuch,itwasbothhistoricalandanachronistic.Itsprinciples,thepurportedprinciplesofRomanlaw,presentedtoallaclearcounterpointtoNazipolicies.Itlaudedthefreedomoflawfrompoliticsinsteadoflawaspolitics,citizenshipbasednotonethnicitybutbelonging,thecontinuityoflawandlegaltraditionratherthanrevolution,thehumanityoflawandpunishmentagainstcrueltyandinhumanity,theruleoflawandsecurityagainstterrorandfear.Withinthethemeofliberty,Schulzjuxtaposesancientandmodernconceptions,butpresentstheRomantraditionoffreedomasnon-dominance,anidealaterdefinedasanegativeconceptionoffreedom.Thismeantthatfreedomwasservedthroughtherestraintofthestateinthefaceofindividualfreedomsandtheprivatesphere.ItservedasafundamentalcriticismofNaziideology,whichfocusedonthestateandthenegationoftheindividualasanactor.Butincontrasttosomenotionsoffreedom,Schulz’sfreedomwaspairedwiththeconceptofauthority.ForaGermanauthor,Schulz’stheoryoflibertywasfoundedontwounlikelysources,thelegalscholarshipofJheringandtheclassicaltraditionofliberalism.TherewerenoreferencestoKantorHegel,noteventoSavigny.Theconceptoflibertywasnotonlyapoliticaloralegalone,foritcombinedbothconstitutionalandprivatelawapproaches.AfterpublishingthePrinciples,Schulzwasprogressivelymarginalized,subjecttothepurgeofthefacultybyhisfellowprofessors.Hissearchforapositionabroadconfirmedthedifficultiesthathisfellowexileshadnoted,thatmoreseniorprofessorsinfieldswithlittleinterestabroadwereleastlikelytofindanewpositionthatwouldhavebeeninanywaycomparabletowhattheyhadleftbehind.WhileArendt,NeumannandothersopenlyanalysedtheNazistate,observingachangeinauthorssuchasSchulzismuchmoredifficult.Incomparisontootherscholarsofancientlaw

75

whoemigrated,itispossibletonotesimilarchangesoffocusanddiscussionsofthemesoftotalitarianismandrepression,alongwiththevalueofcivilizationandtradition.Schulz’sPrinciplescanthusbejuxtaposedwithauthorssuchasMomigliano,whohadintheirexilebeenengagedwithboththeexperienceofrepressionandflight,aswellasasenseoftraditionwhichtheytriedtorecapture.

76

3.Redefiningtheruleoflaw,jurisprudenceandthetotalitarianstateAbstractThethirdchapterexplorestheideasofequality,cosmopolitanismandtheruleoflawasoppositestoNazipolicies.BeginningwithFritzPringsheim’sarticleonHadrianasanexample,itanalyseshowhistoricalcasescanbeusedtopresentthepastasacovertargumentagainsttotalitarianisminthepresent.ItjuxtaposesPringsheim’sexperiencewithtwocontemporaries,FranzNeumannandhistheoryontheruleoflawandthetotalitarianstate,andSalvatoreRiccobonoontheFascistidealizationofRomanlaw.Byexploringtheideaofjurisprudenceasacultureofsharedvalues,thechapterinvestigatestherootsoftheideaspresentedlaterbyDavidDaubeinpost-warscholarship,andtheoriginsoftheconceptofaEuropeanlegalculture.IntroductionThepastcanbeusedinvariouswaysforcontemporarypurposes.NaziandFasciststatesharnessedthepasttolegitimizetheirpolicies,whileSchulz,forexample,foundedhiscounternarrativeonanovelusageofRomanmaterial.Thepurposeofthischapteristoexamineoneexampleoftheuseofthepast.GermanhistorianofancientRomanandGreeklegalhistory,FritzPringsheim(1882–1967),beforebeingexiledinBritain,soughttoreinterpretthehistoryofRomanlawandseekastartingpointforthecosmopolitanideaoflegalequalityintheRomanEmpire.Forthis,heusedtheearliertraditionglorifyingHadrian’sRometopresentanalternativetotheracistauthoritarianstatethatwasbeingconstructedbytheNaziregime.Whatthischapterdemonstratesisthattheunderstandingofahistoricaltraditionisessentiallysituationalandmalleable,andcanbereconfiguredtosuitnewexpediencies.Drawingfromtheoriesofnarrativism,Iclaimthatexiledscholarssoughtnotonlytogainrecognitionintheirnewenvironments,butalsotoformulateanarrativetoexplaintheirpersonalexperiences.Theuseofclassicalworksandancienthistorytoexpressnotonlypersonalexperiencebutalsotodebatepoliticalissueshasarichhistory.PringsheimwasjustoneamongmanyscholarstotakeRomanemperorsasakindofsurrogatestage,ameanstodealwithcontemporaryissuesofpowerandleadership.Volkmann’s1935bookonAugustanjurisdictionwasaparallelnarrativetoHitler’semergingauthoritarianism,whilePietroDeFrancisci,Mussolini’sMinisterofJustice,wouldwriteinasimilarwayaboutAugustus’powersin1941.InEngland,Syme’sfamous1939workonAugustuspresentedamirrortoFascismandtotalitarianism.228IarguethatoneofthemainreasonswhyPringsheim’shistoricalnarrativewassoeffectiveisthatittappedintoalonghistoricalcontinuumandtheintellectualauthorityofesteemed 228HansVolkmann,ZurRechtsprechungimPrinzipatdesAugustus.HistorischeBeiträge(Munich:Beck,1935);PietroDeFrancisci,GenesiestrutturadelprincipatoAugusteo(Rome:RealeAccademiad'Italia,1941);RonaldSyme,TheRomanRevolution(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1939).

77

predecessors.Inthiscase,theAncientGreekrhetoricianAeliusAristidesstartedatraditionofidealizingHadrianicRomethatresurfacedwithGibbonandlaterinnineteenth-centuryhistoricalscholarship.ThisidealizationextendedtotheglorificationofHadrian’slegalpoliciesintheRomanlawtradition.Later,thehistoricaltraditionaroundHadrianwasutilizedforcontemporarypurposes.ItisthisnarrativetraditionthatPringsheimexploredinhisimportantarticlesonHadrianandtheidealoftheruleoflaw.229MuchlikeSchulz,Pringsheim’searlycareergavelittleindicationofthisturn.Hewas,forallintentsandpurposes,ascholarofRomanlawwhosemainworkshaduntiltheNazitakeoverfocusedonfairlytechnicallegalissuessuchascontractsofsale.AstudentofLudwigMitteis,Pringsheimwasnot,however,atypicalRomanistworkingonclassicalRomanlaw,forheconcentratedonthelawoftheEasternpartoftheEmpire,knownmostlyfrompapyri.InsteadoftheidealizedconstructionsofpureRomanlaw,Pringsheim’sfieldwasthelawinpractice,wheredifferentlegaltraditionsmixed.AnotherformativeexperiencewastheFirstWorldWar,whereheservedasajuniorofficerinthefrontlinesforfiveyears,earningseveralmedalsforbravery.Consideringthecasualtyratesofjuniorofficers,hewasluckytobealive.Thismilitaryservicestrengthenedhisalreadyrobustpatrioticsenseasamemberoftheeducatedmiddleclass,theBildungsbürgertum.Thelossofhisfriends,suchasHansPeters,inthewarleftalastingimprint.230TheidealsthatPringsheimraisedasthecoreofRomanlaw,namelyequalityandtheruleoflaw,werenotasanachronisticasonemightassume.Infact,thewayPringsheimapproachesthequestioncanbeseenashistoricallyaccuratethoughhisconclusionsarefairlymodern.However,forthecontemporaryreaderofthattime,theirforemostrelevancewashowtheyaddressedthethreatofinequalityandarbitrarinessthattheriseoftotalitarianismhadmadesobrutallypertinent.PringsheimwasfarfromaloneinlinkingRomanlawandthelegalheritageitwasassociatedwithtotheemergenceoftheidealsofequalityandruleoflawintheEuropeantradition.AsimilarprocessofreinterpretationoftheEuropeantraditionoftheruleoflawandlegalismanditsvaluewasembracedbyanumberofotherexiles.InadditiontoFranzNeumann,weshallbelookingatscholarslikeLeoStraussandF.A.Hayek,whowerecentralindefiningtheruleoflawasaconceptinoppositiontototalitarianism.TheearlierliteratureonPringsheimisscant,limitedtoafewobituaries.Ofhisexperienceinexile,theonlymoreextendedpieceisHonoré’s2004chapter.231ItwouldappearthatPringsheimmadeanimpactintworespects.First,asateacher,wherehisinfluencewasfundamental.Second,hisscientificworks,wherehisimpactwaslessdramatic,duetohis

229Pringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’;Pringsheim,‘HöheundEndederRömischenJurisprudenz’.230ElmarBund,‘FritzPringsheim(1882–1967).EinGroβerderRomanistik’,inHelmutHeinrichs,Hans-HaraldFranzki,KlausSchmalz,andMichaelStolleis(eds.),DeutscheJuristenJüdischerHerkunft(Munich:Beck,1993),pp.733–744,atpp.736–738.231Honoré,‘FritzPringsheim’;BreunungandWalther,DieEmigrationdeutscherRechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol1,pp.4067–431;Bund,‘FritzPringsheim’.

78

tendencytofocusonminorissues.ItisnodoubtforthisreasonthathiscontributiontotheemergenceoftheEuropeanhistoricalnarrativehasbeenneglected.PringsheimandtheNazitakeoverFritzPringsheim’sroleasafundamentalfigureinthecreationofthenarrativeoftheEuropeanlegaltraditionmayappearsurprising,allthemoresobecausehismainfieldwasratherdifferent.HewasaleadingscholarintheveryspecializedfieldoftheEgyptianlawofthepapyriandespeciallytheGreeklawofsale.232However,Pringsheimhadanotherfieldofinterest,namelyRomanlegalscholarshipandtradition,uponwhichhewrotenumerousimportantarticles.233Inthem,hestronglyfavouredandidealizedClassicalRomanlegalthoughtasopposedtothepost-classical.Aswithmanyscholarsdiscussedinthisbook,Pringsheim’sacademicworkgainedapoliticaledgeasaresultofNazipoliciestargetingJewishprofessors.Pringsheim’smarginalizationwasaslowprocessandreflectedhisstrongpositionwithintheacademiccommunityinFreiburg.ThoughPringsheimwasaFirstWorldWarwarheroandaChristian,hewasneverthelesspersecutedbytheNazis,dismissedfromhischairinFreiburgin1935onaccountofhisJewishheritageandbecameanexileinBritainin1939.FreiburgwasatthetimeoneoftheleadingacademiccentresinGermanyandthePringsheimfamilyhadarespectedpositionamongacademicsocialcircles.Thefamilywasnotonlywealthy,italsocontainedalargenumberofesteemedacademics.WhilebothSchulzandPringsheimhadbeenmembersintheDDP,theirpoliticaloutlookwasquitedifferent.Schulzwasliberal,Pringsheimwasanationalist.ThismadelittledifferenceaftertheenactmentoftheLawfortheRestorationoftheProfessionalCivilServiceinApril7,1933(GWBB,RGBl.I175)thatdictatedtheexpulsionofJewishcivilservants,includinguniversityprofessors.Inthisearlyphase,Pringsheimhimselfwasexcludedfromthescopeofthelaw,ashewasprotectedbybothhisstatusasasoldieratthefrontintheFirstWorldWar(Frontkämpfer)andhislongemploymentattheuniversity.ThepurgeofJewishscholarsinFreiburgwascarriedoutundertheleadershipoftheRector,philosopherMartinHeidegger,whooversawtheimplementationofthedegreethatoustedevenhisownpredecessorEdmundHusserl.Pringsheimhelpedsomeofhisstudents,suchasDavidDaube,togainapositioninBritain.Anothercolleague,EduardFraenkel,escapedtoOxfordin1934.InFreiburg,Pringsheimwasalsohelpedbyhiscurrentandformerstudents,butthatcouldnotlast,eventhoughtheofficialpressurewasnotashighasthatfacedbySchulzinBerlin.DuringtheReichskristallnachtonNovember9,1938,PringsheimwasarrestedandputintoaconcentrationcampatSachsenhausen,astheNaziswantedtokeephostagesincaseofareactionfromabroad.Hewasreleasedafterthreeweeksduetopressurefromfriendsandpupils,buthismotherhaddiedduringhisimprisonment.ForPringsheim, 232Honoré,‘FritzPringsheim’;FritzPringsheim,TheGreekLawofSale(Weimar:H.BöhlausNachfolgerPringsheim,1950).233Pringsheim’smainworksarecollectedinGesammelteAbhandlungen,showinghiscombativeandassertivestyleofscholarlydebate.

79

thiswasthelaststrawthatremovedallillusionsofhisstatusandsecurity.TohisfriendsinOxford,whohadmanagedtosecurehimafive-yeargrantatMertonCollege,thismeantthatpreparationsforgettinghimoutofthecountrybecamemuchmoreurgent.234Whilehisexilestartedonlyin1939,theactualprocessofacademicmarginalizationbeganalreadyin1933.Itmanifesteditselfinsmallandgraduallylargerwaysuntilthetrueimpactoftheregimebecamevisible.Themostvisibleformsofexclusionweredifficultieswithregardtoteachingandpublishing.Asfarasteachingwasconcerned,Pringsheimwasprotectedbyhisstatusandwassuspendedonlyin1935,beingofficiallyfiredthefollowingyear.Incontrasttomanyofhiscolleagues,hislectureswerenotdisturbedbyNazistudentorganizationsandhecontinuedtoteachuntilthespringof1936.Pringsheimdidnotkeephisdislikeforthenewregimesecretandopenlycriticizeditspolicies,evenwithNazibrownandblackshirtspresent.ThiswaspossiblyduetothesmallersocialcirclesofFreiburgthatrestrictedNaziattackstoacertainextent.235Regardingpublishing,hislastpublishedworkinGermanyisfrom1934.SomeofhisstudentslikeFranzWieacker,lateroneofthemostinfluentiallegalhistoriansinGermany,movedtowardsNazism,allyingthemselveswithacademicssympathetictotheregimelikeCarlSchmittorHeidegger.Pringsheim’sesteemedpositionandhissubsequentfallresembledinmanywaysthatofErnstKantorowicz,wholikePringsheimhadbeenaWWIfrontlineveteranandaconservativenationalistwhomovedinthehighersocialcircles.KantorowiczcouldopenlychallengetheNazisandargueagainsthistreatment,havingalliesandfriendswhotoadegreecouldprotecthimfromharm.Hiscallsforthepreservationofhumandignityandhonourcamefromapositionofprivilege,butdidnotultimatelyprotecthimfromlosinghisjob.Evenwhenleavingforexile,histravelpermitsweresecuredwiththehelpofhighlyplacedfriends.236Pringsheim’sexileexperiencewasnoteasyeither.AtOxford,PringsheimsecuredapositionofsortsatMertonCollegewiththehelpofFrancisdeZulueta,hisformercolleagueFraenkel,hisformerstudentHarryLawsonandothers.Oneofthemajorissueswasthesizeofhisfamily,Pringsheimhadsixsonswhoseupkeepwoulddemandconsiderableresources.Hewas,however,notaneasyfitinOxford.Notonlydidhehaveanairofsuperiorityabouthim,thewholefamilywasmusicalinaveryloudandveryGermanway.Followingcomplaintsofneighboursandanincidentregardingaradio,whichpromptedsuspicionsofespionage,hewasarrestedonMay27,1940andinternedwithhissonsontheIsleofManevenbeforethegeneralinternmentofenemyaliensinJune1940.Hewaslateronlygrudginglyreleasedin

234Honoré,‘FritzPringsheim’,p.220.BodleianLibrary,Oxford,ArchivesoftheSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearning,MS.SPSL.438.4,560:GeneralSecretaryofSPSLDavidThomsontoUnderSecretaryofStateCooper,November14,1938:“Wehaveto-dayheardthatProfessorPringsheimisinaconcentrationcampasaresultoftheeventsofthelastfewdaysinGermany.”SPSLrequeststhattheHomeOfficeallowhimtocometoBritain.235Bund,‘FritzPringsheim’,p.741.236Lerner,ErnstKantorowicz.

80

December19,1940,monthsafterhispeers.Duringhisyearsinexile,Pringsheimfocusedonresearch,livingaquietlifeatMertonCollege.WhilehissonstooktotheBritishwayoflife,PringsheimneverlosthisconnectionwiththeGermantraditionandhissenseofbelonging.ThisisnottosaythathewouldnothaveappreciatedtheBritishidealsoffairness,trustworthinessandself-control.Afterthewar,hetaughtbothatOxfordandafter1947atFreiburg.TheimpactofPringsheim’sscholarshipisreinforcedbythefactthatTonyHonoré,oneofthemainhistoriansofRomanlawinBritainafterthewar,wasapupilofPringsheim.237Theissueofclassicalreceptionsoftenrevolvesaroundthequestionsofreuseandrepurposingofthemes,ideasandtextstoservenewpurposes.Asinallquestionsconcerningtheinfluenceofcontextintheworksofanauthor,thecentraldifficultyisthatofintent.WeshallinthischaptertakeoneexampleoftheglaringdifferencebetweenPringsheim’sideasandthoseofofficialNaziideologytoseehowPringsheimutilizedtheclassicalheritageaswellasthelaterscholarlytraditiontopresentacontrasttoNazitheoriesandtopracticesofsegregationandrepression.However,itisimpossibletosaywhetherPringsheimintendedhisworktobeacriticismofanythingcontemporary.Intheend,itisofsecondaryimportancehere,astheworkpresentssuchacontrastdespiteorbeyondtheintentionofitsauthor.Eveninhislectures,PringsheimwashighlycriticalofNazipoliciesandespeciallytheirlegalreformsandtheNazioppositiontoRomanlaw.238ScholarslikeLeoStrausshavemaintainedthatwritingunderpersecutionoperatesunderadifferenttechnique,where“writingbetweenthelines”becomesthewayinwhichcrucialthingsareexpressedinasharedunderstandingbetweentheauthorandreadersknowledgeableenoughtorecognizetheintendedmeanings.239Therewasperhapsmoretothisphenomenonthanmeetstheeye.Volkmann,DeFrancisciandSymewereallsafeandrespectedwithintheirowncontexts,butneverthelesstheirreferencestocontemporaryideasandeventsareconcealedintheiracademicprose.Infact,Strausswasoneofthefewwhowouldpresentthejuxtapositionsbetweenancientandmodernphenomenainanexplicitfashion,butdidsoonlylater,afterthewar.240Pringsheim’schoiceofusing

237Bund,‘FritzPringsheim’,pp.742–743;ArchivesoftheSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearning,BodleianLibrary,Oxford,MS.SPSL.272.1,30,letteroftheGeneralSecretaryofAAC(=Adams)toJolowicz(November18,1936),“Becauseoftheresponsibilityofhissixsonsheisreallyinneed”.Thereareover200lettersintheSPSLarchives(MS.SPSL.272.1)whichdocumentthenegotiationsaroundPringsheim’stransfertoBritain,hisinternment,negotiationsforreleaseandworkinOxfordbetween1935and1951.238FritzPringsheim,‘DieHaltungderFreiburgerStudentenindenJahren1933–1935’(1960)15DieSammlung532–538,at534–535.239LeoStrauss,PersecutionandtheArtofWriting(ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988),pp.24–25.240LeoStrauss,OnTyranny(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2000,orig.1948).AnotherwasDavidDaube(forexampleDavidDaube,AppeasementorResistance(BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1987)),apupilofPringsheim.Strausswasason-in-lawtoDaube.

81

concealedreferenceswasthusconsistentwiththeacademicstyleemployedbyhispeers,butwasalsousedintheearliernineteenth-centurydebatesontheutilityofRomanlaw.241ThestoryofPringsheimillustrateshowideologicalbattlestakeplaceintheinterpretationofhistoryasademonstrationofthevaluesandideasthatdefineacommunity.WhilethestrugglebetweenNaziideologyandtheidealsofliberalismsuchastheruleoflawandequalityhaveverylittletodowithaRomanemperorlikeHadrian,inthehighlyspecializedliterarycultureofRomanlawitbecameasurrogatestageforamorefundamentaldebate.Moreimportantly,thecasesofPringsheimandHadrianshowhowtheclear-cutcategoriesofliberalandconservative,friendandally,disintegrateinthelongspanofhumaninteractionandthelinksthatbindscholarstogether.ThecosmopolitanideaofempireTodescribeanidealstate,theRomeofthetimeofHadrianhasbeenapopularmodeleversincetheGreekoratorAeliusAristideslaudedRomanpeaceandjusticeatthetime.242ThusitwasfittingthatPringsheimin1934,theyearofthebeginningoftheonslaughtofNaziterrorandrepression,woulduseHadrian’sRomeasamodelforthecosmopolitanempire.Thisarticle,entitled‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,publishedintheJournalforRomanStudiesin1934,depictedHadrian’sRomeasanempireofpeace,prosperityandlaw.Anempirewheretheemperorwouldpersonallyensurethatjusticewasservedeventothelowliestofpeopleandwhereahighlyprofessionalclassoflegalofficialswouldbringaboutaruleoflaw.243NotonlywastheNaziideologystrictlyagainstcosmopolitanism,itwasalsoagainstRomanlawitself,asmentionedearlier.Asnotedearlier,thePartyProgrammeoftheNSDAP(1920)calledfortheabolitionofRomanlawanditsreplacementwithnationalGermanlaw.244TheysoughttoabolishRomanlawfromthelawcurriculumandtoeradicateitfromGermanlawbooksthroughtheultimatelyfailedVolksgesetzbuchcodificationprogramme.RomanlawscholarswhosoughttoreconcileRomanlawwithNaziideologyusuallyfocusedonearlierperiods,suchasarchaicRome.Thethemestheyemphasizedweremartial,underlining

241E.g.JamesQ.Whitman,TheLegacyofRomanLawintheGermanRomanticEra(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990).242Onthisidealization,seeAldoSchiavone,TheEndofthePast:AncientRomeandtheModernWest(LondonandCambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2000),pp.3–19.243ThesamethemescomeupinbothPringsheim,‘HöheundEndederRömischenJurisprudenz’andPringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,buttheconclusionsdrawnandtheexplicitnesswithwhichtheyarepresentedaremarkedlydifferent,theGermantextbeingmuchmoretechnicalandunderstated.244Point19oftheNSDAPpartyprogrammefromFebruary24,1920:‘WedemandthatRomanLaw,whichservesamaterialisticworldorder,bereplacedbyaGermancommonlaw.’

82

militaryprowess,virtuesandloyaltytothestate.TheRomanvirtueoffideswastranslatedasTreue,loyalty,andinterpretedaccordingtoNaziideology.WhileanumberofGermanRomanlawscholarsbecameeagerNazisupporters,manyothersbegantoexplorethemesrelevanttotheNazimovement,suchasMaxKaser,whowroteaboutRomanlawassocialordering,orFranzWieacker,Pringsheim’sstudent,whoextolledthemilitaristicvirtuesofearlyRomanlaw.However,theseattemptstoreconcileRomanlawwithNazismweredefensiveworksseekingtoalleviatethehostilityoftheregimetoRomanlaw.ThiswasinstarkcontrastwiththeItaliansideoftheFascistalliance,wherethegloryofRome,RomanlawandRomannesswereanintegralpartoftheself-understandingandidentityoftheItalianFasciststate.245WhileGermanscholarsclosetotheNaziregimewereeagertopresentearlyRomansassomesortofquasi-Germanicwarriors,246Pringsheimidealizedthecosmopolitanism,theruleoflaw,bureaucratizationandtheprofessionalizationoflegaladministration.Needlesstosay,thesewerethingsthattheNazisdislikedonmanylevels.Pringsheim’sarticlefortheJournalofRomanStudiespresentedEmperorHadrianasanidealsovereign,acosmopolitanrulerwhowantedto‘bringorderandpeacetotheland’.HadrianconsideredhimselftobeaStoic‘firstservantofthestate,whoseprimarydutywastoprotecthissubjects,thepooraswellastherich’.ThispolicywaspromptedbytheaggressivewarsofexpansionwagedbyhispredecessorTrajan,whichhadoverstrainedtheresourcesoftheEmpireandhadledtothedisappearanceofsmallpeasantfarmers,whowerethebackboneofRomancultureandprosperity.247Fromthisbackground,PringsheimbuildsuptoacrescendoofpraiseforHadrian:

Hisaimwastomaintaineternalpeaceinhiseternalandworld-wideEmpire,andtosecurethehappinessofhispeoplebythewisdomoftheiromnipresentruler.A

245Kaser,RömischesRechtalsGemeinschaftsordnung,pp.8–9:‘DasstolzeBilddasSchönbauerhiervonechtemRömertumentworfenhat,erinnertinmanchenZugenstarkandieälteredeutscheRechtsgeschichte,sindesdochdiegleicheTugenden,“männlicheSelbszucht,nationalerInstinkt,starkesSendungsbewußtsein,GrößeimUngluckundOpferbereitschaftfurdasGemeinwesen”,diedenCharacterbeiderVölkerbestimmen.’(‘TheproudimagethatSchönbauerprovidesusofgenuineRomans,resemblesinmanywaysstronglytheolderGermanlegalhistory.Thesamevirtues,"manlyself-discipline,nationalinstinct,strongsenseofmission,greatnessinmisfortuneandwillingnessforsacrificeforthecommongood",definethecharacterofbothpeoples.’)Wieacker,VomrömischenRecht,pp.38-85.Pieler,‘DasrömischeRechtimnationalsozialistischenStaat’,p.440onthechoiceofwords,suchasBodenrecht,BlutandRasseascodeforbelongingtotheneworder.OnthetotalitarianapproachestoRomanlaw,seeMigliettaandSantucci,Dirittoromanoeregimitotalitarinel’900EuropeoandNelis,‘ConstructingFascistIdentity’.246See,forinstance,HansFrank,'DieZeitdesRechts'(1936)6DeutschesRecht1-3.247Pringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,p.141.ThedemiseofpeasantfarmerswasoneofthemainexplanationsforthefalloftheRomanEmpire.

83

statesmanhadsucceededasoldier,andstresswaslaidratheronpracticalwisdomthanmilitaryvirtues.248

PringsheimcontinuesforawhileaboutthevirtuesofHadrian,butultimatelyarguesthatthegreatestachievementoftheemperorwasthereformoftheadministrationofjustice.AccordingtoPringsheim,Hadrianwasthefirstemperortodefendthepooragainsttherich,helpingthoseindistressbyhearingtheircasesandofferinglegalrecourse.HetooktheStoicphilosophicaldoctrineofthegeneralrightsofmanandputitintopracticeinadministrationandlegislation.249TheRomanemperorwasatthispointacentralfigureintheadministrationofjustice,beingatthesametimethehighestjudgeandthechieflegislator.250Pringsheimrepeatstheoft-toldanecdote(withoutmentioningthesource)abouttheoldladywhostoppedHadrianonthestreettopresenthimwithapetition.WhenHadriansaysthatheisinahurryanddoesnothavetimetolistentohergrievance,sheretortsthatheshouldstopbeingemperorthen.Chastened,Hadrianstopsandlistenstohercase.251Thestoryisoneofthegreatnarrativesofkingshipintheancientworld.VariationsareknownnotonlyfromHadrian,butthesamestoryisrepeatedbyPlutarchwithnearidenticalwordingaboutbothKingPhilipIIofMacedoniaandKingDemetriusPoliorcetes.252Thestoryisanaptreferencetothetimesinanumberofways,becauseitbroughttotheforeaprincipleofleadershipthatwasstartlinglysimilartothatembracedbyauthoritarianregimes.Accordingtosuchprinciples,theleaderisultimatelyresponsibleandshouldbecapableofbringingaboutjusticeandadvancinggoodcauses.253PringsheimpresentstheenlightenedwayinwhichHadrianadvancedlawthroughthethemeofequalityandleniency.Punishmentsaremeasuredagainsttheintentoftheperpetrator,the 248 Pringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,pp.141–142. 249Pringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,p.143.HowmuchHadrianwasactuallyinfluencedbyStoicismishardtoestimate,asopposedtohissuccessorssuchasMarcusAurelius.250Ontheemperor’slegalcapabilities,seeJochenBleicken,SenatsgerichtundKaisergericht:EineStudiezurEntwicklungdesProzessrechtesimfrühenPrinzipat(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1964);FergusMillar,TheEmperorintheRomanWorld31BC–AD337(London:Duckworth,1977);TonyHonore,EmperorsandLawyers:WithaPalingenesiaofThird-centuryImperialRescripts193–305AD(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1994);MichaelPeachin,IudexviceCaesaris:DeputyEmperorsandtheAdministrationofJusticeduringthePrincipate(Stuttgart:FranzSteiner,1996);SimonCorcoran,TheEmpireoftheTetrarchs:ImperialPronouncementsandGovernmentAD284–324(Oxford:ClarendonPress,2000);KaiusTuori,EmperorofLaw(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016).251ThesourceofthestoryistheepitomeofDio’sRomanhistory(69.6);Pringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,p.143.252ThereferencesinPlutarchareMor.179C–D,Demetr.42.11.Forthespreadofthestoryinotherancientliterature,seeMillar,TheEmperorintheRomanWorld,pp.3–4.253SeealsoJasElsner,‘Paideia:AncientConceptandModernReception’(2013)20InternationalJournaloftheClassicalReception136–152.

84

misuseofthefather’spoweroverhisfamilyisprevented,andtheuseoftortureisrestricted.Hewouldunifythelawbyconsolidatingthepraetor’sedict,oneofthemainsourcesofRomanlaw.Inordertoensurethatthelawwasappliedwithconsistency,Hadriansetupasolidadministrativestructurewheretrainedcivilofficialsworked.Hisownlegalservicewasequallystrengthenedwiththeadditionoftrainedlawyerstohiscouncil.254HecontinuesaboutthewaysinwhichlawyerswouldthenbeintegratedintothecivilserviceandendsthispaeanwithafinalwordofpraiseaboutthedeliberatecarethatisevidentinHadrian’sreforms:

Nohastyacts,noviolentreformsbornofthemomentdefacethispicture.Everywhereappearsthecarefulguidinghandwhichweighsalltheconsequencesandactsatmanypointswiththesameaim–thecautioushandofthetruestatesman.Thecollectionofalltheavailableforcesforthewell-beingoftheEmpire,disciplineinsteadofconfusion,orderandclearness–thosewerehisaimsforthearmyandforthedefendersofthefrontiersaswellasfortheadministrationofjustice,theamendmentoftheedictandthefurtheranceoflegalscience.255

Pringsheim’svisionoftheRomeofHadrianwasofagoldenage,ofanempireatpeacewithitself.ButwhiletherehadbeenanumberofancientauthorswhopraisedHadrianicRome,nonehadthegustoandintensityofAeliusAristides.Aristideswasasecond-centuryGreekrhetoricianfromMysiainAsiaMinor.Heisbestknownforhisso-calledspeechtoRome,inwhichhelaudedtheRomanEmpireanditsgovernment.256Hepraiseditforbringingaboutaneraofpeaceandprosperity,agoldenage

254Pringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,p.143.255 Pringsheim,‘LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,pp.152–153. 256ThespeechisconventionallytitledOration26.OnAristidesandthespeechonRome,seeUlrichvonWilamowitz-Möllendorf,‘DerRhetorAristeides’(1925)28SitzungsberichtederpreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften333–353;JamesH.Oliver,‘TheRulingPower:AStudyoftheRomanEmpireintheSecondCenturyafterChristthroughtheRomanOrationofAeliusAristides’(1953)43TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety871–1003;GlenW.Bowersock,GreekSophistsintheRomanEmpire(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1969);PeterAstburyBrunt,‘Lausimperii’,inPeterD.A.GarnseyandC.R.Whittaker(eds.),ImperialismintheAncientWorld(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978),pp.159–191;VivianNutton,‘TheBeneficialIdeology’,inPeterD.A.GarnseyandC.R.Whittaker(eds.),ImperialismintheAncientWorld(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978),pp.209–223;RichardA.Klein,‘ZurDatierungderRomrededesAeliusAristides’(1981)30Historia337–350;RichardA.Klein,DieRomrededesAeliusAristides(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1981);RichardA.Klein,‘ZumKultur-undGeschichtsverstandnisinderRomrededesAeliusAristides’,inB.Kuhnert,etal.(eds.),PrinzipatundKulturim1.und2.Jahrhundert(Bonn:R.Habelt,1995),pp.283–292;Jean-MarieAndre,‘Laconceptiondel’Étatetdel’Empiredanslapenséegréco-romainedesdeuxpremierssièclesdenotreère’(1982)2.30.1AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt3–73;StephenA.Stertz,‘AeliusAristides’PoliticalIdeas’(1994)2.34.2AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt1248–1270;ChiaraCarsana,Lateoriadellacostituzionemistanell’etàimperialeromana(Como:EdizioniNewPress,1990);CharlesA.Behr,‘StudiesontheBiographyofAeliusAristides’(1994)2.34.2

85

muchlikeonepresentedbyPringsheimlater.LikePringsheim,Aristideswouldseetheadministrationofjusticeasacentralpartoftheappeal.AclearlyfascinatedAristideswritesaboutappealingtotheEmperor:

Casesunderjudicialreview,likeanappealfromone’sdemesmentothecourts,takeplacewithnolessfearinregardtotheverdictonthepartofthosewhoinstitutetheappeals,sothatonewouldsaythatpeoplearenowgovernedbythosesentouttotheminsofarasitpleasesthem.Howisthisformofgovernmentnotbeyondeverydemocracy?Thereitisnotpossibleaftertheverdictisgiveninthecitytogoelsewhereortootherjudges,butonemustbesatisfiedwiththedecision,unlessitissomesmallcitywhichneedsoutsidejudges.Butamongyou,nowaconvicteddefendantorevenaprosecutor,whohasnotwonhiscase,cantakeexceptiontotheverdictandtheundeservedloss.Anothergreatjudgeremains,whonoaspectofjusticeeverescapes.Andherethereisagreatandfairequalitybetweenweakandpowerful,obscureandfamous,poorandrichandnoble.AndHesiod’swordscometopass:‘Foreasilyhemakesonestrongandeasilyhecrushesthestrong’,thisgreatjudgeandgovernor,howeverjusticeguideshim,likeabreezeblowingonaship,whichdoesnot,indeed,favourandescorttherichmanmoreandthepoormanless,butequallyassistshimtowhomeveritmaycome.257

AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt1140–1233;P.Volpe,‘Armoniaetaxisnell’EncomioaRomadiElioAristide’,inF.Giordano(ed.),L’ideadiRomanellaculturaantica,AttidelConvegnodiStudi(Salerno14–16ottobre1996)(Napoli:Edizioniscientificheitaliane,2001),pp.305–312;TimWhitmarsh,GreekLiteratureandtheRomanEmpire:ThePoliticsofImitation(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001);TimWhitmarsh,TheSecondSophistic(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005);Jaap-JanFlinterman,‘SophistsandEmperors:AReconnaissanceofSophisticAttitudes’,inB.E.Borg(ed.),Paideia:TheWorldoftheSecondSophistic(BerlinandNewYork:DeGruyter,2004),pp.359–376;WilliamV.HarrisandBrookeHolmes(eds.),AeliusAristidesbetweenGreece,Rome,andtheGods(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2008).257Aristid.Or.26.37–39:‘(37)ὥστεὑποχωρεῖμὲνἄρχωνἄρχοντι,ὅταναὐτοῦὁχρόνοςἐξήκῃ,καὶοὐδ᾽ἂνἀπαντήσειεῥᾳδίως:τοσοῦτονἀπέχειτοῦδιενεχθῆναιἄγαν,ὡςαὐτοῦτῆςχώραςοὔσης.ἔκκλητοιδὲὥσπερἔφεσιςἐκδημοτῶνεἰςδικαστήριονσὺνοὐκἐλάττονιτῶνδεξαμένωνφόβῳπερὶτῆςκρίσεωςἢτῶνποιουμένωνγίγνονται.ὥστεφαίητιςἂντοσαῦταἄρχεσθαιτοὺςνῦνὑπὸτῶνπεμπομένων,ὁπόσαἂναὐτοῖςἀρέσκῃ.(38)πῶςοὖνταῦταοὐκἐντοῖςἐπέκειναπάσηςδημοκρατίας;οὔκουνἐκεῖἔξεστιμετὰτὴνἐντῇπόλειψῆφονἐνεχθεῖσανἐλθεῖνἄλλοσεοὐδ᾽ἐπ᾽ἄλλουςδικαστὰς,ἀλλὰστέργεινἀνάγκητοῖςἐγνωσμένοις,εἰμήτιςἐστὶμικρὰπόλις,ὥστεπροσδεῖσθαιδικαστῶνὑπερορίωνπαρὰτὴνἀξίαν,ἢκαὶδιώκονταμὴκρατήσαντα,μηδὲτῷνενικῆσθαι:ἀλλὰμένειδικαστὴςἕτεροςμέγας,ὃνοὔποτεοὐδὲνἐκφεύγειτῶνδικαίων:(39)κἀνταῦθαδὴπολλὴκαὶεὐσχήμωνἰσότηςμικροῦπρὸςμέγανκαὶἀδόξουπρὸςἔνδοξονκαὶπένητοςδὴπρὸςπλούσιονκαὶγενναῖονἀγεννοῦς,καὶτὸτοῦἩσιόδουσυμβαίνει,“ῥεῖαμὲνγὰρβριάει,ῥέαδὲβριάονταχαλέπτει”οὗτοςὁδικαστήςτεκαὶἡγεμὼν,ὅπωςἂντὸδίκαιονἄγῃ,ὥσπερπνεῦμαἐννηὶ,οὐδήπουπλουσίῳμὲνμᾶλλον,πένητιδὲἧττονχαριζόμενόντεκαὶπαραπέμπον,ἀλλ᾽ὅτῳγένοιτοἀεὶ,τοῦτονὁμοίωςὠφελοῦν’.TranslationbyCharlesA.Behr(ed.),P.AeliusAristides:TheCompleteWorks,vols.1–2(Leiden:Brill,1981–1986).

86

ItshouldbenotedthatPringsheimdoesnotquoteAristidesinhistext,eventhoughitishardtoimaginethathewouldbeunawareofitorofthepoignantsimilaritiesthatthetwotextshave.Asalawyer,PringsheimdoesrefertoanumberoflegalcasesfromHadrianintheDigestofJustinian,inwhichtheemperorisclearlywritinginthefirstpersonandadvancingenlightenedlegalpolicies.Inthese,Hadriancurbstheabuseofafather’spower,emphasizingcompassion,notcruelty(Dig.48.9.5.).Helikewisepunishedawomanforhorriblyabusingaslavegirl,likewisedemonstratinghisoutrageattheinjustice(Dig.1.6.2.)Finally,hequotessourcesonhowHadrianhadthebestjuristsofthelandashisadvisors.258Aristides’speechwaspresentedtoanaudienceofnotablesfromhighsocietyinRomeitselfintheyear143or144.ThevenuewasmostlikelytheAthenaeumofHadrianintheRomanForum,amonumenttothelearningandcivilizationofHadrianandthelinkhewantedtomakebetweenRomeandtheGreeks.259Pringsheim’saudiencewastheFacultyofLawattheUniversityofCambridge.Thereisareasonwhytheaudiencematters.ForAristides,thechanceofperforminginRomeattheageof26wasanopportunity,achancetomakeanameforhimself.AshasbeenshowninstudiesonRomanprovincialelites,theywerethestaunchestsupportersoftheEmpireandnotcoincidentallyitsgreatestbeneficiaries.260Bymakingagoodimpression,AristideshadachanceofgainingimperialpatronageandwithitapositionastheEmperor’sadviser.Ifheplayedhiscardsright,hewouldsoonberichandpowerful.ForPringsheim,thesettingwassimilar.HewastalkingtoanaudienceofBritishacademics,andlikeAristideshewaspresentinghisownlearningandculture.ButwhileAristidessoughttopresenttheadvantagesofRomeinthelanguageofGreekphilosophyandkingshiptheory,PringsheimhadthemoreupsettingsubtextoftheriseoftheNaziregimeandthedistressitbroughttoJewishscholarsandRomanlaw.Bothhadaclearagenda,namelytoestablishanewbeginningandopenupnewpossibilities.ReinterpretationsofahistoricaltraditionPringsheim’sRomeorhisidealofRomewasnotborninavacuum.Ononehand,therewasthelawlessnessoftheNazirepressionsthatinfluencedhim,ontheother,thefar-reachingidealizingtradition.Atfirstsight,Pringsheim’spresentationdemonstratedtheadvancesmadebyHadrianandRomeintheadministrationoflaw,afairlytypicaloutlineoffacts.WhatmadeitdifferentwasthecontextofthespeechandtheweightthatheputonthealmostliberalvirtuesofRome.Simplyput,theexemplarityofRomehighlightedwhatwaswronginGermanysincetheNazitakeover. 258SHAHadr.18.1,22.11–12;Cass.Dio69.7.1–2.259Schiavone,EndofthePast,p.3;LaurentPernot,‘AeliusAristidesandRome’,inHarrisandHolmes,AeliusAristidesbetweenGreece,Rome,andtheGods,pp.175–201,at178.Thedateofthespeechiscontested.260Flinterman,‘SophistsandEmperors’,pp.362–365.

87

ThepaperwaspresentedatCambridgeonOctober27,1933andpublishedthefollowingyearinanexpandedform.Afteratumultuousperiod,AdolfHitlerwasappointedReichskanzlerofGermanyonJanuary30,1933.AfterthefireintheReichstagbuilding,thePresident’sDecreeontheProtectionoftheStateandthePeopleonFebruary28,1933gavetheChancellorunprecedentedpowers,whichwerefurtherstrengthenedonMarch24withtheEnablingAct(ErmächtigungsgesetzorGesetzzurBehebungderNotvonVolkundReich).ThislawgaveHitlerthepowertoenactlawswithouttheapprovalofParliament.AllpartiesexcepttheNSDAPweresoonbannedandonJuly14itwastheonlypermittedparty.IntheelectionsheldonNovember12,1933,thevotersweregivenjustoneoption,toconfirmtheNSDAPtakeover.261Behindthesebarefactswasanationgrippedbyconfrontationandparalysis.ThefearofCommunistsstagingacoup,untilrecentlyaveryrealdanger,hadsubsided,butrealizationoftheNaziseizureofpowerhadnotquitesunkin.WhatlawyerslikePringsheimwouldcomprehendwasthattheemergencydecreesenabledHitlertoactwithoutlegalconstraint.ApliantlegislaturehadalreadyacceptedthefiringofJewishofficials,eventhoughwarveteranslikePringsheimwereinitiallyexcluded.Howmuchheconsideredthattobealastingexemptionisimpossibletosay,butthewritingwasalreadyonthewall.Itwasclearfromearlyonthatconstitutionalguaranteesofcivilrightswerenolongertobetrustedandthereplacementofcivilservantswithsupportersofthenewregimemeantthatlawsweretobeappliedaccordingtotheaimsofthestate.OneofthemainresultswasthatthelimitsplacedbytheforcesoforderonthepoweroftheSSandtheSAtoterrorizeopponentsdisappeared.Evenearlier,fewoftheculpritswerepunished.Now,Nazigangswouldforciblyremovecivilservants,judgesandprofessors,beatthemupandthrowtheminthestreetwithoutrestraint.262Pringsheim’saccountofthereformsofHadrianformsacounterpointtothesealarmingdevelopments.Likesomuchoftheartandscholarshipthataddressessensitiveissuesduringatimeofcrisisandrepression,thistoooperateswithaneleganteasethatavoidsmakinganyreferencetocurrentcircumstances.ItisalsoentirelypossiblethatPringsheimneverintendeditasanovertcriticismofNazipolicies.However,thereareearlierexampleswherePringsheimwritesaboutthedangersofpoliticallymotivatedinfluencestothelegalorder.InhisGermanwritingsinthe1920sandearly1930s,hewarnedofthedeparturefromtheletterofthelaw,andofusinggeneralconceptstoderivesolutionsthatwereonlynominallywithinthelaw.In

261Theprocesshasbeendealtwithextensivelyintheliterature.See,forexample,MartinBroszat,DieMachtergreifung.DerAufstiegderNSDAPunddieZerstörungderWeimarerRepublik(Munich:DeutscherTaschenbuch-Verlag,1984);RichardJ.Evans,TheComingoftheThirdReich(London:AllenLane,2003).262ClaudiaKoontz,TheNaziConscience(LondonandCambridge,MA:TheBelknapPress,2003).Onthelegalprocessofgradualexclusion,seeStolleis,LawundertheSwastika;MichaelStolleis,GeschichtedesöffentlichenRechtsinDeutschland.3.Band,Staats-undVerwaltungsrechtswissenschaftinRepublikundDiktatur1914–1945(Munchen:Beck,1999).

88

thesedebates,hehadframedthecontradictionbetweenByzantineandRomanlaw,wheretheByzantinewayhadbeentousegeneralconceptslikeequitytoformnewlaw.Thedangerofsuchapracticeisthatitenablesjudgestousethisflexibilitytoadvancepoliticalaims.Byresortingtogeneralprinciples,anunscrupulousjudgecouldbringabouttyrannybyusingthemtooverridelegalprotections.Farfrombeingalarmist,thisprovedtobeprescient,asthiswaspreciselywhatNazijudgeswouldoftendointheirjudgments.Inthesecontributions,Pringsheimmakessimilardisguisedreferencestototalitarianism,whileothersmadedirectlinkstoSovietRussia.263ItissomewhatironicthatoneofthefewscholarswhowouldalsorecognizethedangerofthefrequentuseofgeneralprinciplestosubvertlawwasHedemann,whowouldbecomeoneofthemainarchitectsofNazilegalreform.264ThoughthewayPringsheimdiscussedtheimpactofthelooseningoflegalstandardsandthecriteriaoflawwerebyandlargeobliqueandvisibleonlytospecialists,hedidnotshyawayfromcontroversy.InNovember20,1933,amonthafterhislectureinCambridge,hesentanopenlettertoCarlSchmitt,assertingtheenduringvalueofRomanlawandcontradictingthepartyprogrammecallingforitssuppression.SchmittwasatthatpointattheheightofhispowerduringhistimeintheNaziregime.AprofessorinBerlinandholderofthetitleStaatsrat,hewouldbecentralinlegitimatingtheeliminationofJewishscholarsandideologicalopponentsfromtheGermanlegalacademia.PringsheimwouldpresstheissueinhisnotestoaveryreluctantSchmitt,assertingthattheheritageofRomanlawwasanessentialpartofGermanlegaltradition,sweepingasideimaginaryGermanicframeworksandethniccategoriesfavouredbytheNazis.265ThisshowshowstrongPringsheimfelthispositionwas,nottomentionhispersonalcourage,totakeonpubliclytheintellectualleaderoftheNazilegalacademia.266TheuseofHadrianicRomeasanidealizedcounterpointtotheemergingtotalitarianstatewasanovelidea,butitdidhaveanumberofprecedents.EversincetheworksofGibbon,the

263FritzPringsheim,‘Aequitasundbonafides’,inGesammelteAbhandlungen1(Heidelberg:CarlWinter&Universitätsverlag,repr.1961,orig.1930),pp.154–172at160–162;Hans-PeterHaferkamp,'“Byzantium!”–bonafidesbetweenRomeand20thcenturyGermany',inTuoriandBjörklund,RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope,pp.145–157.264JustusWilhelmHedemann,DieFluchtindieGeneralklauseln:eineGefahrfürRechtundStaat(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1933).265ThedebatebetweenPringsheimandSchmittisnowreproducedinPringsheim,‘DieHaltungderFreiburgerStudentenindenJahren1933–1935’,pp.532–538.OnSchmitt’sposition,seeMehring,CarlSchmitt;GopalBalakrishnan,TheEnemy:AnIntellectualPortraitofCarlSchmitt(London:Verso,2000);AndreasKoenen,DerFallCarlSchmitt(Darmstatt:WissenschaflicheBuchhandlung,1995).OnSchmitt’sambivalencetoRomanlaw,seeLuigiGarofalo,‘CarlSchmittela“WissenschaftdesrömischenRechts”.Saggiosuuncantoredellascienzagiuridicaeuropea’(2007)11AnuariodaFacultadedeDereitodaUniversidadedaCoruña299–323.266ThisincidentisdiscussedinpassinginMehring,CarlSchmitt,p.317.

89

idealizingtraditionofHadrianicRomehasbeenstrong.GibbonhimselffamouslypresentedtheRomeofthefourgoodemperorsasthehappieststateofmankind.Gibbonwrites:

InthesecondcenturyoftheChristianera,theEmpireofRomecomprehendedthefairestpartoftheearth,andthemostcivilisedportionofmankind.Thefrontiersofthatextensivemonarchywereguardedbyancientrenownanddisciplinedvalour.Thegentlebutpowerfulinfluenceoflawsandmannershadgraduallycementedtheunionoftheprovinces.Theirpeacefulinhabitantsenjoyedandabusedtheadvantagesofwealthandluxury.Theimageofafreeconstitutionwaspreservedwithdecentreverence:theRomansenateappearedtopossessthesovereignauthority,anddevolvedontheemperorsalltheexecutivepowersofgovernment.Duringahappyperiod(A.D.98–180)ofmorethanfourscoreyears,thepublicadministrationwasconductedbythevirtueandabilitiesofNerva,Trajan,Hadrian,andthetwoAntonines.267

Gibbonwouldinhisinfluentialchapter44presentRomanlawasthefoundationofthisremarkablesocialpeace.268Similarpointswereraisedintheliteratureofthenineteenthcentury,wherethepeaceandhappinessoftheEmpirewascombinedwithitreachingitslargestextentgeographically.GregoroviusandotherspaintedHadrianinadmiringtermsasatrulyenlightenedsovereign,theirworkssomewhatobviouslybuildingupthegeneralthemeoftheadmirationofallthingsimperialprevalentintheera.269WhatPringsheimdidwastousethisearliertraditiontoprovehispoint.HepresentedRomeasacosmopolitanempirethatembracedascitizenspeopleofdifferentethnicitiesandbackgrounds.Itprotectedeventhelowliestofpeople,suchasslaves,againstabuses.Itguaranteedtheindependenceofthelawandthelegalprofession,eventhoughthelegaladministrationwascentralizedandprofessionalized.AllofthesewereissuesthatmadeastrongcontrastwiththestateoflawaftertheNazitakeover.FortheNazis,lawwasacontinuationofpoliticalwill.Thus,rightswerenotsomethingthatwereguaranteedtoallcitizens.Rather,theyweredeterminedbyracialandethnicfactors.CarlSchmitthimselfhaddeniedtheexistenceofhumanequality,universalhumanrights,orevenuniversalhuman

267EdwardGibbon,TheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,vol1(NewYork:InternationalBookCompany,1845),p.27.268EdwardGibbon,TheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,vol3(NewYork:InternationalBookCompany,1845),pp.209–258.ThecontemporaryrelevanceofGibbon’sworkandthepossibilityofseeingitasaparableforthedeclineoftheBritishEmpirewouldbeworthyofawholenewstudy.269FerdinandGregorovius,GeschichtedesrömischenKaisersHadrianundseinerZeit(Königsberg:Bonn,1851);BernardW.Henderson,TheLifeandPrincipateoftheEmperorHadrian(London:Methuen,1923);AnthonyR.Birley,Hadrian:TheRestlessEmperor(London:Routledge,1997).Ontheidealizationofempires,seeInesStahlmann,‘VomDespotenzumKaiser.ZumdeutschenAugustusbildim19.Jahrhundert’,inK.ChristandArnaldoMomigliano(eds.),L’Antichitanell’OttocentoinltaliaeGermania(Bologna:SocietàeditriceilMulino,1988),pp.303–319,at303–319.

90

value,bystatingthatnoteverybeingwithahumanfaceshouldhavehumandignity.270Aswasdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,theNazilegalideologywasstronglyagainstthewholeconceptionofequalityagainstthelaw,arguingthatlawshouldgrantdifferent,preferentialtreatmenttothemembersoftheGermanbloodcommunity.Theruleoflawdefinedbystrictlegalismandtheobservanceofthelawbyofficialswasequallytobereplacedbyadherencetothespiritofthelawandtheflexibleuseoftheprinciplesbehindthelaw.Thisidea,theunificationofthelegalorderandtheideologicalorpoliticalorder,wasdescribedwiththeideaof“concreteorder”(konkreteOrdnung),aconceptpopularizedbySchmitt.271TheveryconceptionoftheruleoflaworRechtsstaatwascriticizedbytheverypeoplewhohadhelpedcreateit.Forexample,WalterJellinek,thesonofGeorgJellinek,oneofthefoundersoftheGermanRechtsstaat,maintainedthatthestrictactionsofthestatewerenecessarytocreateunityandthingslikeforcedsterilizationswerenecessaryforthewell-beingofthepeople.Forhim,thecrucialpartofthejustificationwasthattheNazieffortwasanantiliberalnationalrevolutionthatsuppressedtheindividual.Theindividualisnothingwithoutthestate.Humandignityitselfispreconditionedbysubordinationtothestate.272TheideasoutlinedbyPringsheimwerenotnecessarilyliberalinthemselvesandhewascertainlynotaliberalhimself.PringsheimwasamemberoftheconservativeacademicclassesthatformedthebackboneofthecivilserviceandlegalacademiainGermany.HehadservedasanofficerintheFirstWorldWarandwasclearlyaproudGermannationalist.273Hisembraceofthecosmopolitanidealwasthusnotself-evidentanditisworthlookingatthewayheoutlinedit.Thevisionhepresentsisinfactaconservativeone,wherethelearnedandprofessionalcivilserviceandlegaladministrationwerecentralinfulfillingtheidealsofHadrian’sempire.Therewasverylittleinthewayofpopularengagement,nottomentiondemocracy.TheegalitarianismthatPringsheimpraisedwasinessencethetheoreticallegalequalityofthesamerulesbeingappliedtoall.

270OliverLepsius,‘TheProblemofPerceptionsofNationalSocialistLawor:WasthereaConstitutionalTheoryofNationalSocialism?’,inJoergesandGhaleigh,DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope,pp.19–41;Koontz,NaziConscience.QuotationreproducedbyKoontz,NaziConscience,p.2,theoriginalwaspublishedin“DasguteRechtderdeutschenRevolution”,WestdeutscherBeobachter,9.108,May12,1933.Schmitt’soriginalwordswereacriticismofFichte’sphrase‘Gleichheitallesdessen,wasMenschenantlitzträgt’,butitbecameageneralNaziwayofimplyingtheworthlessnessoflesserraces.Schmittwas,ofcourse,infavouroftheequalityofthemembersoftheGermanpeople.271SeeBerndRüthers,EntartetesRecht(Munich:Beck,1989),p.62andpassimontheevolutionandimplicationsofthisconcept.272WalterJellinek,‘Ledroitpublicenl’Allemagneen1933’(1934)AnnuairedeL’InstitutInternationaldeDroitPublic52–53.273Honoré,‘FritzPringsheim’,p.212;JacobGiltaijandVilleErkkilä,‘AninterviewwithTonyHonoré’(2015)26/02/2015ForumHistoriaeIuris.

91

OneinterestingfeaturewasthatPringsheim’spupilssuchasFranzWieackerwouldcontinuetodevelopthisidea.WhatmakesthisremarkableisthatWieackerjoinedtheNazipartyandwroteextensivelyabouthowtocombineNaziideaswithlegalhistoricalscholarshipandthestudyofRomanlaw.Despitethisinherentcontroversy,Wieacker’sarticleonthereformsofHadrianwaspublishedthefollowingyear(1935)andmadeanumberofsimilarpointsaboutthevalueofthelegaleliteandtheprofessionalizationofthelaw.274MissingfromWieacker’spresentation,however,wereanyreferencestocosmopolitanism.WieackerbecameoneoftheNazi‘younglions’inthelegalacademiaandwouldonlyreturntothisthemeafterthewarandafter,withPringsheim’shelp,hisrehabilitation.ThisshowshowthelinksbetweenpupilandteacherovercamesuchpoliticalandracialdivisionsasthosebetweentheNazisandtheiropponents.NarrativeandexileTherepressionofacademicscholarshipandscholarshasoftenbeenseenasasimpleprocessinwhichscholarsfacingrepressivemeasureseitherfleeintoexileorareimprisonedormarginalized.Whatthisoverlooksisthefactthattheformationoftotalitarianismisagradualprocessandthusrepressionshouldalsobeapproachedasaprocess.ThescientistsexiledbyNaziGermanyrepresentjustasmall,albeitvisible,partofthephenomenonofexilescholarship.However,exileslikePringsheimwereforalongtimeconduitsbetweentwoworldsandwereabletopresentnewideasbothbeforeandafterexile.WhatIamsuggestingisthatthereisamomentduringwhichcriticismoftheregimeisstillpossibleandthetextswrittenduringthistimecanbereadashavingadoublemeaning,oneatthesurfacelevelandtheotheradeeper,concealedpoliticalmeaning.Whatwasthispoliticalmeaning?Pringsheim’sarticlefortheJournalofRomanStudiesanditssimilaritytothoseofAeliusAristidesandGibbonareconcernedwithpraiseofancientRomanlawanditslegaladministration,hardlyattheoutsetapoliticallyvolatiletopic.However,thepositionofRomanlawwasattheheartoftheplannedNazireconfigurationoftheGermanlegalsystem.AccordingtoNaziideology,theideaoftheabolitionofRomanlawwasthatthelawshouldreflecttheGermannationalspirit,thefeelingofjusticeasimaginedbytheNazis.Assuch,theonusofthelawshouldbethepeopleandthecommunity,nottheelitestructureofthelegalprofession.Romanlawwasnotonlymaterialistic,tomanyitalsorepresentedaSemiticinfluence.ThismeantthatclassicalRomanlawwouldhavebeeninfluencedbyjuristsfromtheMiddleEastlikeUlpian,whotheNazissuggestedhadSemiticroots.275TheNazi

274FranzWieacker,‘StudienzurHadrianischenJustizpolitik’(1935)5RomanistischeStudien:FreiburgerRechtsgeschichtlicheAbhandlungen43–81.275ThisSemitictheorycanbetracedtothenineteenthcentury,butitspreadtoawideraudiencethroughtheworksofSpengler.ThetheorywasheavilycriticizedandneverspreadtoItaly.Ontheliterature,seeBeggio,PaulKoschaker,p.60;Gamauf,'DieKritikamromischenRechtim19.und20.Jahrhundert'.TheNazitheoriesofGermaniclawhaditsrootsintheGermanlawscholarshiporGermanisten,whoopposedthecontinuinginfluenceofRomanlaw.

92

conceptionofthepeopleandtheideaofthebloodcommunitywasnotpurelyethnic,butratheramixtureofmisguidedeugenicsandoldGermanmysticism.276Notsurprisingly,scholarsofJewishheritagelikePringsheimandFritzSchulzlaudedtheautonomyofRomanlawanditsscientificnatureasacontrasttotheoppressionandlawlessnessoftheNaziregime.Thisisalsothemomentwhentheywereabletodothat,becauseafter1935thejournalsandpublishershadeffectivelystoppedpublishingtextsfromscholarsthatwereeitherJewishorofJewishheritage.277Evenin1933–1934,opencriticismwasdangerous,astheuniversitieswereatargetofpurgesfromstudentorganizationswhowerecriticaloftheslownesswithwhichtheuniversitiesperformedtheprocessofAryanizing.Historicalwritingontheoriginsandfoundationsofalegalculturecanbeseenasmuchmorethanawayofpresentingfactualhistory.Suchhistoricalwritingoperatesasafoundationalnarrative,emphasizingnotonlytheorigins,butalsothefundamentalnatureofatradition.278Assuch,historicallineagesareachoice.WhenanalysingthewayPringsheimpresentstheoriginsofthethemesofcosmopolitanlaw,andtheideasofequalityandlegality,thisapproachopenswaystodiscussthetextbeyondthepurelyhistoricallevel.Theissueoforiginshasnearmythicalconnotations,despitetheinsistenceofmodernlawonbeingrationalandscientific.279Storiesoforiginsarefoundationalnarratives,storiesofbelongingthatrevealtheessentialnatureofthelegalculture.Bydoingso,theydefinenotonlythepast,butseektodemarcatethepotentialforthefuture,asthebirthofnationalistideologiessoclearlydemonstrates.Pringsheim,likeSchulz,wantedtoshowadifferentkindofpast,atraditionoflawandlegalscholarshipthatalsoreflectedavisionforthefuture,perhapsunknowingly.Thus,ahistoricalnarrativeisnotonlyanattemptatdepictingreality,itisanormativereformationoftradition.

276MuchhasbeenwrittenaboutthenationalistelitegroupsliketheStefanGeorgecircleandtheirroleintheintellectualfoundationofNazismasacombinationofnationalism,elitismandmysticism,buttheintellectuallineageismuchtooconfusedtoofferanyexplanations.See,forexample,ErnstOsterkamp,‘TheLegacyoftheGeorgeCircle’,inD.KettlerandG.Lauer(eds.),Exile,ScienceandBildung:TheContestedLegaciesofGermanEmigreIntellectuals(Berlin:Springer,2005),pp.19–26showinghowtheémigrésthathadbelongedtotheGeorgecircletookverydifferentroutesinexile.277AstudybyThomasFinkenauerandAndreasHerrmann,‘DieRomanistischeAbteilungderSavigny-ZeitschriftimNationalsozialismus’(2017)134ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte.RomanistischeAbteilung1–48,examinesstatisticallyhowtheprincipleofself-censorshipledtothegradualeliminationofreferencestoJewishscholarsandhowthiswasreflectedinthescientificjournalsoflegalhistoryandRomanlaw.ThispolicywasalreadyoutlinedinDasJudentuminderRechtswissenschaft(1935),thepublicationoftheNaziseminaronremovingJewishinfluenceinlawledbyHansFrank,theMinisterofJusticeforBavaria,andCarlSchmitt.278Tuori,AncientRomanLawyersandModernLegalIdeals.279Onthisillusionofrationality,seeFitzpatrick,MythologyofModernLaw.

93

Avisionofagoldenage,likePringsheim’s,isawaytoprojectontothepasttheidealsofthepresent.ForPringsheim,topresentthesetoanewaudienceinBritainwasanopportunitytodevelopnewthemesandtocontinueoldones.Hewouldcontinuethenarrativeoflegalscholarshipasaself-referentialpursuitthatoughttosetthestandardforlaw,eventhoughitwasinconjunctionwithstatepower.ThatparticularnarrativewaslessfamiliartotheBritishaudiencethanitwastotheGerman,makingitimportantthattheunderlyingthemeoftheglorificationofHadrianwassowellestablishedinBritainbyGibbon’sDeclineandFall.Pringsheimwouldappealtotradition,andtocontinuityandheritageasacriticismtowardsthepresentandthepoliciesthatitentailed.Theglorifyingnarrativethathecreatesisnotonlyavisionofanimaginarygoldenage,itisalsoanalternativetothepoliciesofreform,theGleichschaltung(roughlytranslatableasfallinginlineorsubordinationtotheparty)ofthestatearoundtheprinciplesoftheNaziracialhierarchies.Fundamentally,Pringsheim’sarticletoldthestoryoftheroleoflawandthelegalprofessioninsociety.He,amongmanyothers,includingmanyformerNazis(includinghisownpupilFranzWieacker),wouldlaterpresentthenarrativeofthelongtraditionoflegalscholarship,theprimacyoflawandlegallearning,asasharedEuropeanheritage.Equality,theruleoflawandtheEuropeantraditionRaisingtheprinciplesofequalityandtheruleoflawasfoundationsoftheEuropeantraditiondatingbacktoancientRomeanditslegalheritagewasinmanywaysproblematic.NotonlywasRomanlawitselfpreparedtocategorizepeopleinamultitudeofranksthatreceiveddifferenttreatmentandhaddifferentrights,butalsotheconceptionoftheruleoflawwashistoricallyanillusion.ThepoliticalandlegalideaofequalityandlegalisminancientRomewas,however,adeeplyheldconvictionamongtheRomansthemselvesfromCicerotoUlpianandbeyond.Nevermindthefactthatwhowasincludedinthissphereofequalswasamatterofdispute.280Whatwasnotamatterofdispute,however,washowtheseidealshadinfiltratedlegaldiscourseandinfluencedthewholeEuropeanconceptionoflaw.Itwasseenasasystemthatwasuniversalwithinitsbounds,andifnoexceptionswerestated,allwereequalunderthelaw.BecausetheGermanlegaltraditionhadbeenaprimemoverinthesolidificationofthelegalistictradition,culminatingintheconceptionoftheRechtsstaat,thedissolutionofthissystemunderNazirulepromptednumerouscounterreactionsamongexiles.Inthissection,wewillexplorehowthischallengeoflegalismwasseenbycontemporarieslikeNeumannandF.A.Hayek.NeumannandHayekrepresenttwoopposingtraditionsaboutNazismandthe

280OnthisillusionarityoftheRepublicanditsconstitution,seeLouiseHodgson,ResPublicaandtheRomanrepublic:'withoutbodyorform'(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017).

94

idealoftheruleoflawthatemergedamongtheexiles.IntheconceptionofNeumann,thecollapseoftheruleoflawwaspossiblebecausetheNazisusedtheframeworkofjurisprudenceandthatofmonopolitisticcapitalismtotheiradvantage.Hayekpresentedacompletelyopposingview,wherehetiestogetherSocialism,NazismandProgressivismasinimicaltotheruleoflawandfreedom.Oneofthecrucialtraitsoftheexileprocesswasitstieswiththetransatlantictransferofideas.IntellectualandinstitutionalconnectionsbetweenGermany,France,BritainandtheUnitedStates,nottomentionotherEuropeancountries,spreadideasandpracticesonanunprecedentedscale.Thelegal,socialandpoliticalchangesbroughtaboutbytheriseofindustrializationandurbanizationledtoaneedfornewsolutions,andinmatterslikesocialpolicyprogressivethoughtspreadasdifferentmodelsweresought.Whileinthenineteenthcentury,suchdevelopmentshadlargelyspreadfromEuropetoNorthAmerica,thesuccessoftheAmericanexperimentledtoacorrespondingscholarlyinterest.Conversely,theearlyauthoritarianismanditsapparentsuccessinsolvingeconomic,politicalandsocialissuesledtoanewinterestinauthoritarianprogressivismasasolutiontothecrisisofdemocracy.281Inthefieldoflawandpolitics,theinterestintheAmericanexperimenthadsincedeTocquevillerangedfromideasofliberaldemocracyandfreedom,butnowsincetheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury,excitingnewideasoflegalrealismwerecomingfromtheStates.WiththestarkrealitiesofNazismemergingduringKristallnachtandtheincreasinglyharshrepressionandlawlessnessoftheregimebecomingclearer,aclearshiftwasapparentinAmericanpublicopinion.WhiletheNaziideologyhadbeenappealing,especiallytotheGermanimmigrantpopulationintheUS,whoseorganizationswereheavilyinfluencedbyNazism,thehighlypublicrampagesagainstinnocentcivilianshadaninoculationeffect.SomehaveevenmaintainedthatthenegativeUSreactiontotheNaziswasoneofthereasonswhythestrictinterpretationofconstitutionalprotectionsandindividualrightsbecamethedefiningtraitsofAmericanlegalculture.Toleranceofminorities,thecurbingoftherightsofthepolicetoinfringeonindividualprivacyandgenerallyreligious,ethnicandvaluepluralismwerebothcommonlyespousedandenshrinedinlawandjudicialpractice.Equalityandfreedombecamenotonlytheleadingprinciplesofthejudiciary,wherejudgesconceivedthemselvestobetheprotectorsofequalityandfreedom,butincreasinglyamatterofAmericanself-definition.282Neumann’s1942BehemothisanattempttocomprehendtheNaziregime,itsideologyandpractices,butitcanbealsoreadasananalysisofthedemiseoftheruleoflawinGermany.ItclearlyshowsNeumann’slegalbackground,containingalargesectionontheNazilegalsystemanditslogic.Neumann,inwaysthatmakeapparentbothhisfunctionasatradeunion

281DanielT.Rodgers,AtlanticCrossings:SocialPoliticsinaProgressiveAge(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2000),pp.411-412.282WilliamE.Nelson,TheLegalistReformation:Law,Politics,andIdeologyinNewYork,1920–1980(ChapelHill,NC:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2001),p.130.

95

lawyerandhislegaltheoreticalunderstanding,seekstolayoutthefoundationsoftheWesterndemocraticlegalsystemandthewaysthattheNazissystematicallysoughttounderminethem.AccordingtoNeumann,whatNationalSocialismdidwastodestroythegeneralityofthelaw,theindependenceofthejudiciaryandtheprohibitionofretroactivity.However,Neumannseesbehindtheseeventsthedevelopmentsinlegaldoctrineandinmonopolisticcapitalismthatprecededthem.InordertodescribetheNazilegalsystem,Neumannbeginswiththebasicconceptionsoflawfromnaturallawtheoriestopositivism:“Theformalstructureofthelawbecamedecisive”(p.441).Modernlawrestsonthepropositionsoftheruleoflaw,thedenialofnaturallaw,includingmorality,andthesubordinationofthejudgetothelaw.ForNeumann,thecentraldevelopmentsrevolvearoundtheconceptsoffreedomandequalitybeforethelaw,whichareembeddedinthedeepstructureoftheEuropeanlegaltradition.NationalSocialismtookadvantageoftheinherentweaknessoftheseideas,claiming,likeMarxistcriticsbeforethem,thatfreedomandequalityaremereshamsbehindwhichrealexploitationishidden.Insteadofequalrights,theNazisofferedequalduties.283Infact,muchofthecriticismofliberalismandlaw,theformalismandtheirrelevanceoftherealiniquities,iscommontobothNeumannandSchmitt.WhattheNazilegalpracticeamountstoislawonlyifonereduceslawtothecommandoftheleader.ButtoNeumann,Nazi‘law’wasnotrationalineitherformorcontent.InNaziGermanytheexistingsystemoflawwasgraduallyturnedintoanadministrativeprocessthatincriminalcasesservedtoinstildeterrencethroughterror,andcivillawservedtheinterestsofmonopolisticbusinesses.Thisisincontrasttotheprofessedlegalideology,andhereCarlSchmittisNeumann’smainsource.TheprevailingNazilegalideologywasinstitutionalistic,usingconceptslike“concreteorder”thatrejectedlegalpersonhoodinfavourofanorganicconceptionofthestateasacommunitythatisbuiltofcommunities.Theroleoftheindividualisthusreducedtohisorherstatusinsocietyorthecommunity.Assuch,thegeneralityofthelawisnotlongerpossibleaseachcasemustberesolvedindividually,takingintoaccounttheintuitionofthejudgeandtheaimsofthemovement.284Theflexibilityofthelawwasthusathreatthatmadeitvulnerabletothewhimofthejudge.Withintheconcreteorder,thereisnoequalitybeforethelaw.TheimpactofexileintheUSisveryclearlypresentintheworksofNeumann,whereheshowsthebackgroundofaGermanicunderstandingofthelegalsystem,andseekstoconveyitsimplicationstoanewreadership.Morespecifically,heoutlinestheconceptionsoftheruleoflawandRechtsstaat,acomparisonbetweentheContinentalandAnglo-Americanconceptsandtheirrelationship.Therearetwooverridingthemesinthispresentation:first,theissueofwhatwentwrongintheRechtsstaatthatenabledtheNazisystemtobecreated,andsecond,theimplicationsraisedfortheAmericanaudience.Inthefirstinstance,Neumannlaysthe

283Neumann,Behemoth,pp.440–452.284Neumann,Behemoth,pp.448–458.

96

blamenotonlyontheWeimarConstitutionanditspractice,butalsoonthefreelawmovementanditscasuallyiconoclasticmentality.TherearesomequitespecificreferencestotheGermandiscussions,suchasthedebatesovergeneralclausesandtheirinterpretationandimplicationsconcerningthepossibilityoftyranny.Inhis1944TheRoadtoSerfdom,F.A.Hayek(1899–1992)laysouthisoppositiontotheinterventionsofthestate,whilesupportingtheruleoflawasaprincipleofmarketeconomyandcompetition.WhatHayekandNeumannsharedwassupportfortheideasoffreedom,equalityandtheruleoflaw.HayekwasanAustrianeconomist,buthehadworkedattheLSEsince1931.AftertheAnschluss,theannexationofAustriainMarch1938,hewasunabletoreturnandstayedinBritain,gainingcitizenshipin1938.Hayek’sideaoffreedominTheRoadtoSerfdomwasaveryfundamentalconceptfortheroleofthestateinsociety.AccordingtoHayek,thesamecharacteristicsofcentralplanningandstatismwereevidentinbothNazismandSocialism,nottomentionprogressivepoliciesindemocracies.Hayekpresentsthemallasformsofsocialismthatarewithoutdoubtathreattofreedom.ThusforHayek,Westerndemocracieshadabandonedtheideasofnineteenth-centuryliberalismandhadembracedtheideasoftotalitarianism.EvenbeforetheriseoftotalitarianisminEurope,theWest“hadprogressivelybeenmovingawayfromthebasicideasonwhichWesterncivilizationhadbeenbuilt”(p.12).Thismeantabandoningnotonlythevaluesofmoderncivilization,butalsobreakingwiththe“wholeevolutionofWesterncivilization”,the“salientcharacteristicsofWesterncivilizationasithasgrownfromthefoundationslaidbyChristianityandtheGreeksandRomans”.Hecontinuesthatthismeansthat:

Notmerelynineteenth-andeighteenth-centuryliberalism,butthebasicindividualisminheritedbyusfromErasmusandMontaigne,fromCiceroandTacitus,PericlesandThucydides,isprogressivelyrelinquished.285

Itwasnotonlyadisputeovertheruleoflaworliberty,itwasafundamentalbattleoverthewholetraditionofWesterncivilization.ThefreedomandlibertyoftheWestwasnoidleconcept,buttheveryfoundationofthecommercialsuccessthatenabledthegrowthandunprecedenteddevelopmentofsocietiesinWesternEurope.ThekeyforHayekwasthattherewerenodespoticpoliticalpowertostiflethisdevelopment.286ThecrucialcontinuumwhereHayektiesinwithmanyoftheotherexilesisthereferencetotheEuropeantradition.WhileforthelegalpositivistsorforNazilegaltheoriststraditionhadnovalueinandbyitself,heretraditionispositedasafoundationalconceptoftheWest.Hayek’stradition,suchasthatofSchulzandPringsheim,wasalongcontinuumwherecultureandlearningaccumulatedovercenturiesarecentral.

285FriedrichHayek,TheRoadtoSerfdom(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1944),p.13.286Hayek,RoadtoSerfdom,pp.14–15.

97

Hayek’sideawasthatnineteenth-centuryliberalismasoutlinedbydeTocquevilleandotherswasbasedontheideaoffreedomasaconceptthatincludednotonlyfreedomofthoughtandpoliticalfreedombutalsoeconomicfreedom.Aplannedsociety,beitoftheprogressiveorsocialistvariety(Hayekdoesnotreallydifferentiatebetweenthetwo),wasfundamentallyantitheticaltofreedominallitsmanifestations.Forthem,economicfreedommeantthefreedomfromwant,areferencetosocialandeconomicrights,whichwerefarmoreimportantthan,forexample,politicalfreedom,andthuscurbingotherfreedomswasasuitablemeanstoachievethisobjective.287Withallhisemphasisonfreedoms,Hayek’smainpointwastheruleoflawasthecornerstoneofafreesociety.ForHayek,theruleoflawmeantthatthegovernmentwasboundby“rulesfixedandannouncedbeforehand”(p.72),allowingindividualstoplantheiractionsaccordinglyandpreventingthegovernmentfrom“stultifyingindividualefforts”(p.73).Theplannedeconomyandtheplannedgovernmentreliesonjustthat,theadhoccontroloverhowindividualsoperateandwhatkindofdecisionstheymake.Here,HayekwasreferringnotonlytotheSovietplannedeconomyortheNaziandFasciststatesthatreliedonplannedcorporativism,butalsototheprogressivistideasintheUKandtheUS.ToHayek,economicplanningwasfarfrombeinganinnocentactivity,itwasinsteadthekeytobuildingatotalitarianstate.Inthis,Hayekwasnaturallynotsimplypresentinganeutralargument,butanideologicalstatement.SomehavearguedthattheémigrésfromNaziGermanywerecentralinbringingtheidealoftheruleoflawtoAmerica.Thecrucialdistinctionwasthatwhiletheywerecriticalofpurepositivismasthestrictseparationoflawandpolitics,theystillheldontolegalism.WhatisimportantisthatwhenthatlegalismandtherejectionofthingslikenaturallawmetwiththeUSlegalculture,atthattimedominatedbylegalrealism(andformalism,thoughKornhauserdoesnotmentionit),theywereinnewterritoryastheissuesoflawandthestatewerenotthusfarontheagenda.WhattheGermanscontributedwasanunderstandingoftheethicaldimensionofformalismasanadherencetofreedomandequality.288Earlier,JohnLangbeinnotedthatforGermanémigrés,theimportantfeaturesthattheynotedintheUShadbeenthefocusoncivillibertiesandpoliticaltoleration,thingsthathadbeenlackinginGermany.TheywereconsiderablylessinterestedintakingupsuchissuesasstrictformalismortheRechtsstaatthathadcontributedtothefailureoftheliberalstateinGermany.289Similarly,LeoStrausswroteextensivelyabouttotalitarianism,makingparallelsbetweenNazismandCommunism.StrausshadleftGermanyin1932tostudyinFrance,buttheNazicouptransformedaresearchstayintoanindefiniteexile.HeleftforBritainin1934andcontinuedtotheUSin1938.ForStrauss,Communismwasideologicallythemoredangerous 287Hayek,RoadtoSerfdom,pp.24–25.288Kornhauser,DebatingtheAmericanState,pp.95–97.289JohnH.Langbein,‘TheInfluenceoftheGermanÉmigrésonAmericanLaw:TheCuriousCaseofCivilandCriminalPractice’,inLutter,Stiefel,andHoeflich,DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland,pp.321–332,at330.

98

enemyduetothepromiseofradicalfreedomandequalitythatmaskedtherealityoftyranny.OnlyAmericacouldprovideananswertothisphilosophicalandpoliticalchallengeandexposethedeceitofCommunism.AccordingtoStrauss,thepremiseofMarx,Lenin,andtheSovietleaderswasthedestructionofWesterncivilization.Assuch,theprospectofCommunismwasevenworsethanNazism.WiththeSovietUnion,theonlypossibilitywasvictorybyanymeanspossible.290Strauss’santicommunismtookrootduringtheWeimaryearsandbecameamajorthemeafterhisemigration.Asmanyotherscholarsshow,eventextsthatwerenominallyaboutGreekphilosophycouldbereadasreflectionsofthepresent.ThisismadeobviousbyreferencestocurrenteventssuchastheHungarianUprisingof1956whendiscussingancientGreece.291ThisconvictionofthemoralimperativeledStrausstocondemnpositivismandthemoralrelativisminherentintheorieslikeHansKelsen’slegalpositivism.ThismoralblindnessleadsKelsentothekindsofindefensiblepositionslikethosehetookinAllgemeineStaatslehrein1925,whereKelsenmaintainsthatevenadespoticrulecouldbealegalorder.Whileotherswouldclaimthatthearbitraryactionsofadespotarenotlegal,Kelsenseesitasalegalorderbecausethedespotsetsthenorms.ForKelsen,mixinganormativeandamoraljudgmentwouldbetoconfusetheseparationbetweenIsandOught.EventhoughKelsenappearstoofferaninternallylogicalexplanation,StrausswouldpointtoaninherentnihilisminKelsen’sargument.292Atthispoint,KelsenwasalreadyinAmericaandwouldsoonpublishhisowntreatiseonlibertyanddemocracy,alongarticletitled“FoundationsofDemocracy”.Init,heengagedinalongandcriticaldiscussiononthenatureoflibertyandthefundamentalsoftheSovietandtheNazistates.Theremarkablethingaboutthisessaywasitsargumentation.LikeStraussandmanyotherexiles,KelsenfoundedhisargumentonaverybroaddiscussionoftheEuropeanpoliticaltradition,seekingtodemonstrateitsfoundingtenetsasahistoricalsuccessioninawaythattosomeextentresemblesSchulz’sPrinciples293AccordingtoArmon,StrausssawliberalismandCommunismaserstwhilealliesagainstauthoritarism,bothaimingtofulfiltheliberalideal.Whatliberalsfailedtosee,however,wasthatCommunismwasnotanallywithsimilaraims,butratheranenemyseekingtoconstruct

290AdiArmon,‘LeoStraussReadingKarlMarxduringtheColdWar’,inEzraMendelsohnetal.(eds.)AgainsttheGrain:JewishIntellectulasinHardTimes(NewYork:Berghahn,2014),40–41.291Armon,‘Strauss’,pp.43–45.292HansKelsen,AllgemeineStaatslehre(Berlin:J.Springer,1925),quotedinLeoStrauss,NaturalRightandHistory(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,repr.1963[orig.1953]),p.4;ElisabethLefort,‘ArrivingatJusticebyaProcessofElimination:HansKelsenandLeoStrauss’,inJ.Telman(ed.),HansKelseninAmerica–SelectiveAffinitiesandtheMysteriesofAcademicInfluence(Berlin:SpringerVerlag,2016),pp.116–122.293HansKelsen,'FoundationsofDemocracy'(1955)66(1:2)Ethics1-101.

99

aviolenttyranny.294Thus,atoneandthesametime,Strausscouldbeacriticoftheliberalstatephilosophically,butastaunchdefenderoftheWesternversionofliberalismagainstCommunismpolitically.Strauss’sviewsontyrannyandtotalitarianismwerefoundedonbothpersonalexperienceandphilosophicalinquiryandamixingofthetwo.Forexample,inhisextensiveanalysisofXenophon’sHiero(orig.1948)andinthedebatesthatfollowed,Straussandhiscommentatorsendeduphavingaverycuriouslyclassicaldebateonwhetheritispossibleforaphilosophertobeavirtuousadvisertoatyrantandthusimprovehim,orwhetherthissimplydebasesthephilosopherandturnshimintoanaccomplice.WhileKojève,aleftistapologistoftheCommunistregimes,thoughtimprovementpossible,Straussheldafirmlynegativeview.Ashewroteinhisanalysis,politicalscientistshadfailedeventorecognizetyrannywhentheysawit.295ThiswasaclearreminderoftheunwillingnessofleftistintellectualstoseeCommunistregimesastyrannies.ForStrauss,thebenefitoftheclassicalexampleswasthatitenabledonetounderstandthetruenatureoftyranny:“Thisbasicstratumofmoderntyrannyremains,forallpracticalpurposes,unintelligibletousifwedonothaverecoursetothepoliticalscienceoftheclassics.”296ToStrauss,theunstatedmessageofHierowasthatbenevolentandenlightenedtyrannywasstilltyranny.Byitsverydefinition,tyrannyisthepolaroppositeofequalityandtheruleoflaw,sincetherewasnoequaltothetyrantandhewasboundbynolaw:“thetyrantisnecessarily‘lawless’.”297Theaimoftyranny¸thoughtStrauss,wastokeepsubjectsawayfrompublicaffairsandtofocusthemonprivate,contractualrelationsamongthemselves.Theconceptionoffreedomasacounterparttosovereigntywasverydangeroustotyranny.Insteadofpublicvirtues,braveryandjustice,befittingtheidealsoffreedom,subjectsareexpectedtoobeythelawsandseejusticeinthem.298Someoftheexiles,suchasErnstKantorowicz,turnedtopoliticsmainlywhentheoutsideworldencroachedupontheintellectualrealmoftheuniversity.Kantorowiczhaddonesoinhissecondinaugurallecture(November14,1933),wherehespokeofthe“SecretGermany”inmaintainingthedutyoftheprofessortospeakthetruth.Inhisultimatelyunnecessaryresignationletterheattackedthe“privationofhisbasiccivilhonourandrights”withoutthepossibilityofredress.KantorowiczwouldreturntothesamethemewhenhewasatBerkeley.There,attheheightofthe“Redscare”,theuniversityhadinstitutedanoathofloyalty,which

294Armon,‘Strauss’,p.43.295Strauss,OnTyranny,p.23;VictorGourevitchandMichaelS.Roth,‘Introduction’toStrauss,OnTyranny,pp.xxi–ii.296Strauss,OnTyranny,p.23.297Strauss,OnTyranny,p.119.298Strauss,OnTyranny,pp.70–71.

100

thefacultyopposed.Kantorowiczwouldeagerlyjointhefight,arguingvehementlyagainsttheoathasatotalitarianfirststeptocontroltheprofessors.Again,thefundamentalissueforKantorowiczwasthefreedomofjudgment,humandignityandtheresponsiblesovereigntyofscholars.299Theconceptionoftheruleoflawwasamodernconceptthatwasonlywithdifficultyusedtodescribepremodernsocieties.InthecaseofRomanlawandtheRomanlawtradition,suchdiscussionsweresupplantedwithideasoftheindependenceoflawandthelegaltraditionfrompoliticalinterference.ThiswasalsothetraditionthatSchulzusedinhisworksonjurisprudence.ThetopicofpoliticaljusticewasequallysharedbymanyoftheFrankfurtSchoolexiles.OttoKirchheimer,forinstance,wroteinhisPoliticalJusticehoweachregimecreatesitsownenemies.AsaformerstudentandfriendofSchmittwhohadescapedtotheUS,hewaspainfullyawareofthisfact.300HayekandNeumannwouldcontinuetoworkonthetopicoftheruleoflawandwereinstrumentalinbringingthedebatetothefore.Whilemanyoftheexilesbecamepoliticizedinexile,inthecaseofPringsheimtheeffectwassomewhatunexpectedlytheopposite.InOxford,PringsheimwouldcontinueworkonthemanuscriptofTheGreekLawofSale,abookwhichwasconspicuouslyfreefromallcontemporaryimplications.ThiswasaprojectsupportedbySPSLandOUP,butthefinishedmanuscriptwasintheendpublishedinEastGermanyin1950.301Evenduringthewar,Pringsheim’sattitudetowardsthecollegeandhishelpersinBritaincausedexasperationandsomeevencalledhimungrateful.302However,hewasnaturalizedasaBritishcitizenin1947andlaterwrotetotheSPSLtoexpresshisgratitude.303Thoughhisscholarlyworkbecamedepoliticized,theendofthewarmeantgrowingactivityinthepracticalpoliticalsense.Whileotherexileswouldwaitandseehowthesituationdeveloped,Pringsheimtookaverydifferentapproach,returningtohishomelandandgettinginvolvedinthelocallevelassoonaspossible.PringsheimreturnedtoFreiburgforthefirsttimeinthesummerof1946,andmorepermanentlythefollowingyear,althoughheheldonto

299Lerner,ErnstKantorowicz,pp.161,314.300DonnaE.Arzt,‘OttoKirchheimer:CriticoftheAdministrationofJustice’,inLutter,Stiefel,andHoeflich,DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland,pp.33–56,at38.301RockefellerFoundationArchives,RockefellerArchiveCenter,SleepyHollow,NY,Pringsheimbox63,series401,RG1.1RAC,folder832:reportofSisamtoO’Brien(June5,1944),mentioningPringsheimandTheGreekLawofSaleasoneoftherecipientsoftheRockefellergrant.302WardenofMertonCollegetoSisam(January13,1944)aboutPringsheim,whohas“pricklysensitivenessabouthisownresultantposition”.Hestatesthat“IthinktheCollegehastreatedhimveryhandsomely,andamsurprisedthatheshouldn’trecognizeit”,concludingthatheisa“verydifficultcase”.OxfordUniversityPressArchives,Oxford,SchulzCPGE000345,no.23.303ArchivesoftheSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearning,BodleianLibrary,Oxford,MS.SPSL.272.1,233,PringsheimtoUrsell(May13,1951).

101

theapartmentinOxford.HetaughtatOxfordduringthewinterandatFreiburginthesummer.HebecameveryactiveinreinvigoratingtheFreiburgLawFacultyafterthewarandhisinfluence,feltalsothroughhisallies,wasdominantuptothesixties.304Inpractice,thiswasaneffectivestrategy,becauseitallowedhimtoconsolidatehisinfluenceaslongasthosecompromisedbytheiractionsduringtheNaziyearswereoutofthegame.ThisreintegratingapproachwasonesharedbyfellowémigréErnstFraenkel.InWeimarGermany,FraenkelhadbeenaJewishlabourlawyer,sharingalegalpracticewithFranzNeumann.WhileNeumannfledearlyon,Fraenkelstayedonthoughendinghisopenpoliticalactivity,coiningthephraseinneremigration.Fraenkelwouldwritepiecesforundergroundpublicationsarguingforresistance,pressingfortheprovocationsthatwouldforcetheNaziregimetorevealtheextentofitsrefusaltofollowtheruleoflawandfreedoms.305DuringtheWeimaryears,FraenkelhadbeenoneofthefewadvocatesfortheideaofRechtsstaatintheGermanLeft,takingupHeller’sideaofsocialRechtsstaat.Evenfortheworkers,thestabilityandpredictability,nottomentionlegalrecourse,offeredbytheruleoflawwasavitaltoolforprotectingandadvancingtheirinterests.Itonlyneededtobesupportedbyasystemofcollectivedemocracytoensureequalparticipation.306Fraenkel,too,fledafterJewishlawyershadbeendefinitelydisbarred,endingupinBritaininSeptember1938.Fromthere,hewenttoNewYorkin1939,hopingtojoinNeumannattheNewSchool.Unabletofindasuitableposition,FraenkelenrolledtostudylawagaininChicago.Atthesametime,heworkedonanimportantbookontheNazistatetitledTheDoubleState,publishedin1941,whichbeganhisnewcareerasapoliticalscientist.Fraenkel’smostimportantcontributionwashisworkonhisreturntoGermanyafterthewar,whenhewouldbecentralinthebuildingofthenewpoliticalsciencefacultiesinGermany.However,hehadinitiallyjudgedareturntoGermanyimpossible,changinghismindonlyafterfiveyearsspentinKorea.Areluctancetoreturnwasnotunusual,andreturningémigrésfacedmuchresistancefromthosewhohadstayed.Söllnerclaimsthatintheseconflictsandthefighttobreakuniversityresistancetonewapproaches,

304ArchivesoftheSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearning,BodleianLibrary,Oxford,MS.SPSL.272.1,233onhisschedule;190,PringsheimtoUrsell(April3,1946),onhisintenttogotoFreiburginneedofcertificateofidentityfromtheHOandareturnvisa;MS.SPSL.272.1,191SkemptoUnderSecretaryofState(April5,1946),applicationfortravellingpapersforPringsheim,whoiswillingtoassistintheeducationalreconstructionofGermany,short-term,childrenremaininBritain.Letters192–206aboutthearrangementsoftraveltoGermanyshowhowdifficultmovementwasatthetime.305DouglasMorris,‘Discrimination,Degradation,Defiance:JewishLawyersunderNazism’,inA.E.SteinweisandR.D.Rachlin(eds.),TheLawinNaziGermany:Ideology,Opportunism,andthePerversionofJustice(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.124–128;JensMeierhenrich,TheRemnantsoftheRechtsstaat.AnEthnographyofNaziLaw(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2018).306Greenberg,WeimarCentury,81–87.

102

émigrésplayedacrucialrolethoughtheywerehardlytheonlyoneswhodevelopednewdisciplines.307InthereportPringsheimproducedfromhisfirstvisittoFreiburginthesummerof1946,hereturnstotheissuesofdemocracy,rationalismandanti-totalitarianism.HedescribeshowhegaveapaperonEnglishdemocracytoalargegroupofeagerFreiburgstudents,beingaskedtogivearepeatperformancethesamenight.Hebegantomakearrangementsforthereturnoforderlyconditionstouniversitylife.HeoffersadescriptionoftheharshlivingconditionsintheFrenchzoneofoccupation,wherefoodshortage,seizureofhomesbytheFrenchandthedestructioncausedbythewarwereevident.Hemaintainsthat“Byfarthebestwayofeducatingstudentspoliticallyistobeginbyteachingthemscientificthinking.”Inorderthattheideasofdemocracycouldtakeroot,onemustgetridoftheideaofcollectiveguiltandrecognizetheresistanceagainsttheNazisamongstudentsandfaculty.Thus,whatPringsheimrecommendsisshowing,nottellingwhatfreedomanddemocracymeans,byincreasingconnectionsbetweenGermanandforeignstudentsandvisitstodemocraticcountriestodispeltheliesanduntruthsthathadpervadedthepoliticalcultureforoveradecade:“Theonlywayofteachingthemdemocracyistodemonstrateitsspiritbyrealizingitinperson.”Pringsheimthenreturnstotheideaofthehumancommunityandconnectionsbetweenpeopleasthewaytofosterandpromotethevaluesofhumanityandfreedom:

Thesoonertheterribleisolationendsthebetter.Thetaskisextremelyurgent.Oncetheutterhopelessnessbeginstolift,andacommunityofEuropeannationsappearspossible,thenthedormantandfainttrustinliberationandinanewlife,thussetfreeforaction,willshowsurprisingresults.308

TheurgencythatPringsheimshowsisclearlylinkedwiththeideaofthehumancommunityorcosmopolis,thefreeexchangeofideasandself-governedintellectuallife.IftheNaziconceptionofthecommunityanditslawhadbeenoneofconcreteorder,thelinkbetweenthepolitical,ethnic,intellectualandlegalorders,whatPringsheimadvocatesistheintellectualcosmopolis,thescientificandlearnedcommunity.ItwouldappearthatPringsheimwastolerantofcolleagueswhohadjumpedontheNazibandwagon.HecontinuedtocollaboratewithformerstudentslikeWieacker.TheonlyonehecontinuedtodisapproveofwasSchönbauer,whoseconducthejudgedtobedishonourable.309 307AshandSöllner,ForcedMigrationandScientificChange,p.268;AlfonsSöllner,'ErnstFraenkelunderdieVerwetlichungderpolitischenKulturinderBundesrepublicDeutschland',inFluchtpunkte,StudienzurpolitischenIdeengeschichtedes20.Jahrhunderts(Baden-Baden:NomosVerlag,2006),pp.223-223.OnFraenkelinexile,seeGreenberg,WeimarCentury,pp.76–119.308ArchivesoftheSocietyfortheProtectionofScienceandLearning,BodleianLibrary,Oxford,MS.SPSL.272.1,213–219.309Thisisevidentfromhiscorrespondence.RareBookandManuscriptArchive,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork,ArthurSchillerPapers,Uncataloguedcorrespondence,Box5,PringsheimtoSchiller(December20,1955):“IwasnotinViennabecauseSchoenbauerdaredtoinviteme,inspiteofhishotanddisrespectableantisemitismunderHitler,andhispersonal

103

TheextentthatPringsheimtooktotherearrangementoftheacademiclifeinFreiburgisevidentinhisextensivecorrespondence,whichdealswithacademicminutiaeandengagementwithstudents.310Hiscontinuinginfluenceshowsintherun-uptothecelebrationsinFreiburgforhis80thbirthday,whereformerstudentsarrangedforfullacademichonourstobebestoweduponhim.There,hispublicrefusalin1933–1934toacceptthereasoningofCarlSchmittwasseeninacompletelydifferentlightnowthatSchmitthadbeenformallyexcludedfromacademiclife.311TheconsciouseradicationoftheprinciplesofequalityandtheruleoflawinNaziGermanyledmanyexilestotakenotonlyatheoreticalbutalsoapoliticalstance.Acrossthepoliticalspectrum,exilessuchasNeumann,Hayek,FraenkelandStraussemphasizedtheimportanceoftheseprinciplesnotonlyinlawbutinpoliticallifethathadaconsiderableimpactintheAmericandiscourse.WhilePringsheim’sownscholarshipdidnotreturntopoliticalthemes,inhispracticalworkinreturningtoGermanyhecontinuedtostrivetowardsdemocracy,freedomandanti-totalitarianism.Inalatterin1958,PringsheimcomparestheworkofRadbruchtoalighthouseindarktimes,abeaconthatshowsthetrueimageofhumanity.Thisshouldbethefoundationofthelegalconscience(Rechtsgewissen)ofthenation,justasinEnglandoneseesthestrongfeelingofjusticeformingthebasisofthelaw.312ConclusionsTheidealizationofHadrianicRomewasathemewithalongheritagefromthewritingsofcontemporarieslikeAeliusAristidestotheworksofGibbonandthenineteenth-centuryenthusiasmforimperialsovereignty.Animportantpartofthatidealizationwastherealizationthattheenlightenedruleunderwhichpeaceandprosperityreignedcoincidedwiththeenlightenedtraditionoflaw,whereprinciplesliketheprotectionofweakerpartiesorequalitybeforethelawbecameprominent.AsHadrianhimselfwastheauthorofnumerouslegalopinionsandresolutionswhereheemphasizedtheideasofhumanityandjustice,thehistoricalthemeofHadrianasthewiseemperorjudgehadbothasoundfootinginhistoricalsourcesandasolidfollowingamongscholars.FacedwiththebeginningoftherepressionofNaziGermany,FritzPringsheimbegananintellectualexodustowardssafetyandfreedom.Partofthebeginningofhisprocessofexilewas,inadditiontohismarginalizationinGermany,tolaythegroundworkforthemoveto

andveryunsincereattackagainstA.B.Schwarz(katagraphe)whocouldnotdefendhimselfatthistime.InothercaseIamtolerant,butthiswastoomuchandrevealedhisbadcharacter.”310UniversitätsarchivAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburg,NachlassErikWolf,BestandC130sig.146.311InthearrangementsThieme,WieackerandFelgentraegerwereallinvolved.Universitätsarchiv,Albert-Ludwigs-Universität,FreiburgimBreisgau,NLHansThieme,bestandC46,signum124.312UniversitätsarchivAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburg,NachlassErikWolf,BestandC130sig.146.LetterofPringsheimtoErikWolfonJuly26,1958.

104

BritainbytravellingthereandgivingtalksatBritishuniversities.Inonesuchtalk,givenattheFacultyofLawatCambridgeandlaterpublishedintheJournalofRomanStudies,PringsheimreformulatedtheideaofHadrianasagoodkingtoHadrianastheenlightenedStoicphilosopherandcosmopolitanruler.HisHadrianwasajudgeandlegislator,butequallyanadministratorthatcreatedavirtuallymodernprofessionallegaladministration.ThewayPringsheimtookthehistoricalfigureofHadrianandpresentedhiminanewlightmaybeconsideredareactiontowardsthecomingNazirepressionandtheviolationsoftheconstitution,thelawandthelegaltraditionitentailed.Likemostwritersunderthreatbyrepressiveregimes,Pringsheimdoesnotmentionthethreat,nordoeshespecifytheNaziregime.However,thecontextofthetextandhisothercontemporarywritingsmakethereferenceclear.TheruleoflawwasoneofthecornerstonesofconstitutionalorderandoneofthefirstfoundationsthattheNaziregimewoulddestroy.Inargumentsabouttheruleoflaw,Nazicriticismsoughttousethosewhocriticizedlegalformalismandpresentacaseforthecommongoodofthenation,Volk,ashigherthantheletterofthelaw.WhilePringsheimwouldarguefortheRomanlawtraditionandvaluesandprinciplessuchastheruleoflawwithinit,otherexileswouldpresenttheruleoflawinamoderncontext.FranzNeumann,asocialdemocratandalabourlawyer,washighlyconsciousofthesocialcriticismoftheruleoflawasafalsepremiseinwhichapparentequalitymaskedtheveryrealexploitationalongclasslines.Nevertheless,hewrotehowtheconcreteorderthinkingdidnotresolveanything,indeed,quitetheopposite.WhatNazitheoryandevenmoreNazipracticedidwastoremovethesmallguaranteesofjusticethatexistedincapitalistsocietiesandintheirlegalsystems.InhiscontactwiththeUSsystemandtheconceptionsoflaw,Neumann’sthinkingbecameevenmorecriticaloftotalitarianismandthespreadofpoliciesthatwouldenabletotalitarianpolicies,eventhoughheneverletgoofthecriticismofcapitalism.LikeNeumann,Hayekgroundedhiscriticismoftotalitarianismontheconceptoftheruleoflaw,buttookadifferentviewthatespousedamoredirectlyconservativeagenda.ForHayek,theruleoflawwasaformativeconceptinsociety,goingasfarasdescribingitasthefoundationoftheWesternfreesociety.Asaneconomist,Hayekconsideredafreesocietytobeonewherefreeenterpriseandgovernmentinterventionwerepolaropposites.Theruleoflaw,wheretherulesofeconomicactivitywereknownbeforehandandwerenotsubjecttothewhimoftherulers,wasfundamentaltoeconomicprosperity.Societieswheretherewasalong-standingtraditioninwhichtheruleoflawwasparamountrepresentedadefiningfeatureoftheWesternculturaltraditionandonethatguaranteedotherfreedoms.ForHayek,theintrusionofflexiblerulesandleewaysbasedonsocialconsiderationswasathreatthatwasnotonlylimitedtototalitarianism,butwasalsocreepingintoWesterndemocraciesintheformofprogressivepolicies.IntheUS,theemphasisonfreedomandtheruleoflawbecameamainstayofpost-warpoliciesandthisdirectionwasenthusiasticallysupportedbymanyGermanexiles.Strauss,for

105

example,wouldemphasizehowthecontradictionbetweentruefreedomandtheradicalfreedomofferedbyCommunismlayintheapproachestorulesandlaw.Theformalequalityofliberaldemocracywasnotafalsepretenceofliberty,butratherthefixityofitsrulesthatseparateditfromthelawlesstyrannyofCommunism.WhiletheGermanexilesintheUSwouldeithercontinuetheiroppositiontototalitarianismbyrefocusingonCommunismafterthefallofNazism,manyoftheexileswhoreturnedtoGermanywouldreattachthemselvestothepost-warsocietythere.Ratherthancontinuingtowriteaboutthedangersoftotalitarianism,PringsheimwentbacktoattemptingtoreformtheuniversityandtopreventingaresurgenceofNazism.Thechangesinthelegalunderstandingoffreedomandrepression,equalityandinequality,aregoodindicatorsofthefundamentalshiftsthatweretakingplace.TheexplorationofthecreationofanunderstandingofasharedEuropeanlegalheritageandtheroleofRomanlawwithinthatheritage,demonstrateshowtheshiftsinthefoundationsoflawledtoanewengagementwiththefundamentalideasoftheEuropeanlegaltradition.TheriseoftheNaziregimehadexposedthecriticalfaultsoftheGermanRechtsstaatanditsrelianceonformalpositivism.Withtheprincipledrejectionofnaturallaw,thesearchwasnowforsomesolidfoundationforlawthatwouldnotbevulnerabletotheassaultofunscrupulouspoliticalaimslikeNazism.WhattheRomanlawscholarsarguedwasthatthissolidfoundationwashistory,theheritageofRomanlawthatwasembeddedintothelegalcultureandbeyondthereachofasimplecommand.Neumannadvocatedtheruleoflawasanethicalprinciple.Strauss,strugglingwiththeideasofvaluecrisisandreligion,advocatedmilitantliberalismandanti-totalitarianism.

106

4.ThelonglegaltraditionandtheEuropeanheritageinNaziGermanyAbstractThechapterstartswiththethemesofcrisisandthediscoveryofthefutureforRomanlawinEuropeintheformofthecommonlegalheritageintheseminalworksofPaulKoschaker.ThesebuildontheroleoftraditioninlawandworktopresentaroleforRomanlawintheneworder,firstintheNazireignandsecondinthenewpost-warEurope.ThechaptercomparestheconceptionsoflawandEuropebetweentheNaziandFascistspoliciesandtheirideasonRomanlaw,thereorientationofthelegaleducationandthenewroleforEuropeintheneworder.ThesetotalitarianandconservativevisionsofEuropebyauthorssuchasSalvatoreRiccobonoarethenjuxtaposedwiththeideasofotherEuropeanistssuchastheCatholicJacquesMaritainorliberals,socialistsandcommunists,suchasAltieroSpinelli,behindtheVentotenedeclaration.IntroductionViewedfromtheoutside,itappearsthatthestudyofRomanlawhasapeculiaraffinitytotheideaofcrisis.WhilethesubjecthadbyitsowndefinitionlurchedfromcrisistocrisissincethedaysofJustinian,thecrisisofthe1930swasbyfarthemostpeculiar.313Thiscrisiscanbeunderstoodasareflectionofamoregeneralsenseofcrisisnotonlyinthesciencesbutalsoinhighereducationingeneral.Thereasonsforthispessimismweretwofold.First,thepracticalapplicabilityofRomanlawhadceasedinGermanywiththeadventoftheBGBin1900.ForscholarsofRomanlaw,thismeantthatthejustificationoftheteachingofRomanlawbecametenuous.EvenmanyresearcherswithinRomanlawsawitsfutureinlegalhistory,notlegaldogmatics.Inconsequence,thehoursthatweredevotedtoRomanlawintheGermanlegalcurriculumwerecutandtheprofessorswouldneedtofindnewsourcesofincomeaspaywasoftentiedtoteaching.Second,thetakeoverofpowerbytheNazisin1933wouldmeanthatthepoliticalpowerwasheldbyapartywhichdislikedRomanlawsomuchthattheyeventookthetroubleofmakingitpartoftheirpartyprogram.Third,theinterwaryearsweredefinedbyaconstantmentalityofcrisis.Whiletherewasclearlyarealpoliticalandeconomiccrisis,thesenseofcrisiswasamplifiedbyacontinuingdiscussionofthecrisisofvalues,civilizationandmoralityontopoftheeconomicandpoliticalcrises.314

313ErnstSchönbauer,‘Zur„KrisedesrömischenRechts‟’,inFestschriftPaulKoschakermitUnterstützungderRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlichenFakultätderFriedrich-Wilhelms-UniversitätBerlinundderLeipzigerJuristenfakultätzum60.GeburtstagüberreichtvonseinenFachgenossen,II(Weimar:VerlagHermannBöhlaus,1939),pp.385‒410,atpp.364–365mocksthecontinuoustalkofthecrisisofRomanlawthatcomesupregularly.314EmilioBetti,‘LacrisiodiernadellascienzaromanisticainGermania’(1939)37RivistadiDirittocommerciale120–128interpretedthecrisisasaculturalone.

107

WhileonewouldstruggletounderstandthementalityofcrisisinRomanlawfromamodernperspective,theconceptofcrisisanddiscussionarounditmarkedscholarshipduringthewholeinterwarperiod.ThestudyofRomanlawwasatahighlevelinGermanyandItaly,andmanyscholarsworkedonthesubjectunderthenotionthatlegalscholarshipcouldbeascientificpursuitratherthanapurelypragmaticworkofexplainingandharmonizinglegalrules.Butdespitethis,adeeppessimismreignedaboutthefutureofthesubject.Thepurposeofthischapteristoexamineoneofthemostinfluentialresponsestothecrisis,thatbyPaulKoschaker(1879–1951),315whichreorientedthediscussiontowardstheEuropeannarrative.ThoughtwoofKoschaker’stexts,acomprehensivepre-wararticleonthecrisisofRomanlawandapost-warbookonRomanlaw,arewellknown,whathasreceivedlessattentionarethecontinuitiesbetweenthetwo.Koschaker’sideasonEuropeandlawarecombinedwithstudiesofothercontemporarywriters,fromhisconservativealliessuchasSalvatoreRiccobonotoFascistandNazischolarssuchasPietroDeFrancisciandErnstSchönbauer.

315AnumberofobituariesandarticleshavebeenpublishedonKoschaker.SeePietroDeFrancisci,‘PaulKoschaker(1879–1951)’(1951)17StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris384–388;Karl-HeinzBelowandAdamFalkenstein,‘PaulKoschaker’(1951)68ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilungix–xix;Karl-HeinzBelow,‘PaulKoschaker’(1954)104ZeitschriftderDeutschenMorgenländischenGesellschaft1–44;GunterWesener,RömischesRechtundNaturrecht(Graz:UniversitätGraz,1978),pp.112–115;GunterWesener,‘PaulKoschaker’,inRafaelDomingo(ed.),Juristasuniversales,III.JuristasdelsigloXIX.DaSavignyaKelsen(MadridandBarcelona:MarcialPons,2004),pp.971–974;GunterWesener,‘PaulKoschaker(1879–1951),BegründerderaltorientalischenRechtsgeschichteundjuristischenKeilschriftforschung’,inKarlAcham(ed.),Rechts-,Sozial-undWirtschaftswissenschaftlichenausGraz(Wien:BöhlauVerlag,2011),pp.273–285;GerhardRies,‘PaulKoschaker’(1980)12NeueDeutscheBiographie608–609;ManfredMüller,‘PaulKoschaker(1879–1951).Zum100.GeburtstagdesBegründersderKeilschriftrechtsgeschichte’(1982)9AltorientalischeForschungen271–284;MichaelP.StreckandGeroDolezalek,‘PaulKoschaker:Zum125.Geburtstagam19.April2004’,inJubiläen2004.Personen-Ereignisse(Leipzig:UniversitätLeipzig,2004),pp.31–34;GeorgNeumann,‘PaulKoschakerinTübingen(1941–1946)’(2012)18ZeitschriftfüraltorientalischeundbiblischeRechtgeschichte23–36;TommasoBeggio,‘PaulKoschakerandthePathto“EuropaunddasrömischeRecht”(1936–1947)’(2017)6LegalRoots291–326.ThereisjustonemonographonKoschaker:Beggio,PaulKoschaker.Onadifferentnote,seeGiaro,AktualisierungEuropas,afictionaldiscussionwithKoschaker.GiarohasalsopublishedmoreconventionalestimatesonKoschaker’sinfluence,forexample‘DerTroubadourdesAbendlandes’,inHorstSchröderandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichtswissenschaftinDeutschland1945bis1952(Frankfurt:Klostermann,2001),pp.31–76.FromKoschakerhimselfthereisashortautobiographywhichdescribeshiscareer:PaulKoschaker,‘Selbstdarstellung’,inNikolausGrass(ed.),ÖsterreichischeGeschichtswissenschaftderGegenwartinSelbstdarstellungen,II(Innsbruck:Wagner,1951),pp.105–125.AcollectionoflettersbetweenGuidoKischandKoschakerwerepublishedbyKischin1970withanintroduction,seeKisch,PaulKoschaker.

108

TheaimistodemonstratehowrelativelyunchangingKoschaker’svisionconcerningtherelevanceofRomanlawwasandtoexaminetherootsofKoschaker’sturntowardsEurope.WhilebothepitomizedtheZeitgeistandlaidoutaresponsetoachallenge,thatresponsewasnotradicallydifferent.WhatIargueisthatKoschaker’smainclaimtofamewashisextraordinarysenseoftimingthatenabledhimbothin1938andin1947topresentanideathatrespondedbothtotheinternaldebatesofRomanlawscholarshipaswellastothechangingpoliticalandlegalcircumstances.HewouldpresentRomanlawasacentralpartoftheEuropeantradition,apartthatwouldfunctionasalmostakindof“relativenaturallaw”.316ThismeantthatRomanlawwouldoperateinthesamewayasnaturallawwould,butintheEuropeancontextandwithoutthespeculativeelement.Koschaker’sRomanlawwouldthusbeuniversal,butinasomewhatillogicalparticularwayitwaspartofauniversalEuropeantradition.WhatmakesKoschakerfascinatingisnotsimplyhisinfluenceasascholar,butratherthefactthathepreparednotjustonebuttwodifferentresponsestothecrisisofRomanlaw.Thefirstoftheseresponseswashis1938Krisenschrift:“DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaft”(thecrisisofRomanlawandRomanlawscholarship).Koschakerwasthena59-year-oldprofessorofRomanlawinBerlinwhosemainresearchinterestwascuneiformlaw.Thesecondresponsewashismagnumopus,EuropaunddasRömischesRecht,whichcameoutin1947,twoyearsafterthewarhadended.Therewasjustnineyearsbetweenthetwo,butofthoseyearssixhadbeentakenbythemostdestructivewarthatEuropehadeverseen.PaulKoschakerisnotanaturalfitforthisroleasareformistadvocatingthecontinuedrelevanceofRomanlawintheEuropeanlegaltradition.BornandeducatedinAustria,hebecameastudentofLudwigMitteis,oneofthemostfamousscholarsofancientlegalhistoryandlegalpapyrology.Koschakerwouldbecomealeadingstudentofcuneiformlaws,forexampletheLawsofHammurabi,butremaineddedicatedtothedogmaticstudyoflaw.ThestudyofcuneiformlawgainedunprecedentedprominencewiththediscoveryoftheCodexHammurabiin1901–1902andthepublicationofkeytextscontinuedduringthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.WhatconnectedmostofthescholarslinkedwiththeschoolofancientlegalhistoryinthestyleofMitteiswasastrongsenseofempiricism,andafocusondiscoveredtextssuchaspapyriorinscriptions.ThiswasinoppositiontomoredogmaticallyorientedRomanlaw,whichfocusedonthelegalrulesformulatedbylawyersandtheirdevelopment.BythetimehewasinvitedtogivethetalkthatledtotheKrise,KoschakerhadjustmovedfromLeipzigtoBerlinandwasnowtheholderofoneofthemostprestigiouschairsinthecountryaswellasthefounderdirectorofaresearchcentreonthelawsoftheancientNearEast.Forhim,thetransitionfromLeipzigtoBerlinwasnoteasyandlaterheconsideredtheyearsinLeipzig(1915–1936)asthehappiestofhislife.ThemovetoBerlinfromarelativelylaid-backLeipzigbroughthimintofullcontactwithNazipoliciesonscienceanduniversitiesalongwithwhathelaterconsideredintensiveNazification.TheNazibanon

316Koschaker,EuropaunddasrömischeRecht(1966),p.346.

109

JewishacademicsmadeitimpossibleforsomeofhiscloseassociatessuchasAssyriologistBennoLandsberger(1890–1967)toworkattheuniversity,leadingtothedestructionofwhathehadaccomplishedinLeipzig.Despitethepromiseshewasgiven,thesituationdidnotimproveinBerlinandKoschakeracceptedapositioninTübingenafteronlyfiveyears.317Landsbergerwouldgointoexile,acceptingfirstapositioninAnkaraandlatermovingtoChicago.TheturnofeventsandthedisappointmentinthefailureofhisattemptinbuildingastrongresearchcentreforthestudyoflawintheancientNearEastbecameanimpetusforhiscriticalworkontheEuropeantradition.318BycomparingKoschaker’stextstocontemporaryscholarship,thischapterwillexplorethefoundationsoftheturntowardsEurope.ItwillexamineboththeinspirationsbehinditaswellasthecontinuityoftopicsthatgrewintotheEuropeanthemeinhisworks.ComparisonsbetweenKoschakerandotherscholarsonEuropeandtheriseofEuropeanismallowsustosituatehiswritingsamongthenumerous,oftencontradictory,theoriesonEurope.Europebecameacatchwordofakindofquasi-universalism,athemethatwassharedbyconservativeandliberalauthorsalike,fromNazisandFasciststoradicalsocialists.319Forexample,ItalianRomanlawscholarPietroBonfantewroteabouttheunificationofEuropeinsimilarterms,speakingaboutlinguisticandculturalunity.320Koschaker’stheoriesreliedontheideaoftraditionasacontinuity,asharednotionthatissustained.Hisconceptoftraditionhasthussimilartotheideaofnaturallawasasharedsetofvaluesandnorms.Asaresult,Koschaker’sreputationhasanoddduality.Ontheonehandhehasbeenhailedasaprincipledanti-NaziwhowasforcedoutofhisjobinBerlin,whileinrecentyearshehasbeendescribedbyGiaroandSommaasanunwittingNazicollaborator.321Beggio’srecentbookhassoughttodefinea

317Koschaker,‘Selbstdarstellung’,pp.115–118;KoschakertoKischonNovember27,1947(p.22–24),nowinKisch,PaulKoschaker.Koschakerwouldgoasfarastowritetotheministeraboutthelackofsupportandresourcesforthenewinstitute.LetterfromKoschakertotheReichsministerfürWissenschaft,ErziehungundVolksbildungonApril19,1940(Universitätsarchiv,Humboldt-Universität,Berlin,UKPersonaliaK274,Bd.II,Bl.11–12).318ThisdevelopmenthasbeennewlyresearchedbyBeggio,PaulKoschaker.Koschaker’sviewofthesituationwasnotsharedbytheuniversityleadershipinthecorrespondencethatfollowedKoschaker’sletter,Universitätsarchiv,Humboldt-Universität,Berlin,UKPersonaliaK274,Bd.II,Bl.6–12.319MarkHewitsonandMatthewD’Auria(eds.),EuropeinCrisis:IntellectualsandtheEuropeanIdea,1917–1957(Oxford:BerghahnBooks,2012).320PietroBonfante,‘VersolaConfederazioneEuropea’(1915)18Scientia326–342,nowinPietroBonfante,Scrittigiuridicivari,StudigeneraliIV(Roma:Sanpaolesi,1925),p.418;ValerioMarotta,‘«Mazzinianoinpoliticaesteraeprussianoininterna.»NotebrevisulleideepolitichediPietroBonfante’,inGiuristieilfascinodelregime(Rome:RomaTre-Press,2015),pp.267–288.321Theoriginaltermwas“unfiancheggiatoredelNazismomalgrésoi”(TomaszGiaro,‘PaulKoschakersottoilNazismo:unfiancheggiatore‘malgrésoi’’,inIurisVincula.StudiinonorediM.Talamanca,IV(Napoli:Jovene,2001),pp.159–187)portrayinghimasakindofusefulidiot.ThisnegativeevaluationhasbeenrepeatedinAlessandroSomma,Igiuristiel’AsseculturaleRoma-Berlino:Economiaepoliticaneldirittofascistaenazionalsocialista(Frankfurt:

110

morenuancedunderstandingofKoschaker’smotivationsthroughameticulousstudyofarchivalsources.322ThroughananalysisoftheimplicationofthedifferentEuropeaniststrandsofthoughtandtheroleofjurisprudenceinthem,thischapterseekstosituateKoschaker’sworkinitsEuropeancontext.ItisnoteworthythatKoschakergrewupinthenineteenthcenturytraditionofPandectism,thecontemporaryuseofRomanlaw.Althoughthismakeshimanunlikelyinnovator,itdoesillustrateshowtherenewaloftheoldbecomesacentralpreoccupationinhisworks.Inanumberofissues,thedebatesthatKoschakerengagedinwererootedinthemomentandtheinternaldisputesoftheroleofRomanlawandhistory.Oneexamplewewillfollowisthedebatebetweensupportersofancientlegalhistory(AntikeRechtsgeschichte)andthosewhosupportedthedogmaticstudyofRomanlaw.ThesetwogroupsrepresenteddiametricallyopposedviewsonthevalueofRomanlawtocontemporarylaw.TheEuropeanismatthedifferentendsofthepoliticalspectrumwasfoundedonutopianismofvariouskinds,buttheseperspectivesunderwentaprofoundchangeduringthewar.ThemainstreamsintheGermandiscussionsduringtheinterwarperiodweretheideaoftheAbendland,supportedespeciallybyadvocatesofspreadingtheinfluenceofCatholicism,theconceptofMitteleuropa,whichmeantaPan-GermanhegemonywithinCentralEurope,orPaneuropa,thepro-EuropeanmovementledbycountCoudenhoven-Kalergi,advocatingtheunificationofEurope.NaziEuropeanismcombinedtwoseparatediscussions,firsttheideaofMitteleuropaasaunifiedareadominatedbyGerman-speakingnationsandanareaofinherentunity.Thesecondwasthethreatfromtheeast,whichjointlymergedthedangerofcommunismandtheracialthreatofSlavicandothereasternpeoples.WiththeseweremixedideasoftheGermanicDrangnachOsten(eastwardexpansion)asahistoricalmissionaswellastheconceptoftheNeuordnungEuropas(theNewOrderofEurope)asthefundamentalNazireorganizationofthepolitical,racialandcommercialrelationsinEurope.323Inthischapterwewillseewhat

Klostermann,2005),p.282,andAlessandroSomma,‘L’usodeldirittoromanoedellaromanisticatraFascismoeAntifascismo’,inMigliettaandSantucci,Dirittoromanoeregimitotalitarinel’900europeo,pp.113–114,wherethecruxofthecriticismwasKoschaker’ssupportofGermanintellectualprimacyinEurope.322Beggio,PaulKoschaker.323OnthedifferentconceptionsofEuropeanism,seePeterM.R.Stirk,EuropeanUnityinContext:TheInterwarPeriod(London:Bloomsbury,1989).KarenSchönwälder,HistorikerundPolitik.GeschichtswissenschaftimNationalsozialismus(FrankfurtandNewYork:CampusVerlag,1992),p.91.Inaddition,thereweredifferentreligiousandspiritualmovementsadvocatingunity,forinstanceRudolfPannwitz’selitistideaofaEuropeledbyacabalofÜbermenschen,theforemostofthembeingPannwitzhimself.JanVermeiren,‘ImperiumEuropaeum:RudolfPannwitzandtheGermanIdeaofEurope’,inHewitsonandD’Auria,EuropeinCrisis,pp.135–154,atp.136.OntheNaziideasofNeueEuropa,seeCarlWege,‘DasNeueEuropa’1933–1945:GermanThoughtPatternsaboutEurope(Stuttgart:EditionAxelMenges,2016).OntheessentialincompatibilityofEuropeaninternationalismandHitler’sworldview,seeSnyder,BlackEarth.

111

Koschaker’srolewasbetweenthesedifferentandpartiallyopposingtraditionsandwhatwastheoriginofhisparticulartypeofEuropeanism.ThereasonwhyKoschaker’sworkanditsconvolutedbackgroundissoimportanteventodayisthatafterthewaritbecamethefoundationofanaltogethernewlineofscholarshiponEuropeandRomanlaw.ItinspiredscholarsaroundEurope,leadingtoanunprecedentedrenaissanceinthefield.OfparticularimportancewasFrancescoCalasso,whopublishedanItaliantranslationofEuropaandwasinstrumentalinspreadingtheideaofEuropeinpost-warEuropeanlegalhistory.324Equally,HelmutCoingandlaterReinhardZimmermannhaveseenKoschakerasanimportantforerunneroftheEuropeanisttraditionandEuropeanlaw.ThecrisisofRomanlawTheKrisewaspresentedoriginallytoanaudienceofNazischolarsattheNaziacademyofscience(AkademiefürdeutschesRechts),ledbyHansFrank,theministerofjustice(ReichskommissarfürdieGleichschaltungderJustiz).325Ontheinternationalscientificfront,theKrisespreadtheideaofthecrisisofRomanlaw.AstheEuropeanscholarlyworldwasingeneralgrippedbyasenseofcrisiswithjournalsfilledwithaccountsofthecrisisofscience,theprimeexamplebeingHusserl’stheoryofthecrisisofEuropeanscience,thiswasnotreallymuchofasurprise.TheliteratureonEuropeancriseswasdiverse,beginningwithSpengler’sUntergangandcontinuingwithexplanationsofthemoral,economicandsocialcrisesgrippingtheWest.Withinscholarlycrisisliterature,Koschaker’sKrisewasbyandlargegroupedwithothertractsofasimilarkind.326Koschaker,however,wasnotthefirsttodiscussthecrisis,as

324FrancescoCalasso,‘Introduzione’,inPaulKoschaker,L’Europaeildirittoromano(Firenze:Sansoni,1962)(translatedbyArnaldoBiscardi),continuedinFrancescoCalasso,L’unitàgiuridicadell’Europa(SoveriaMannelli:RubbettinoEditore,1985).OntheresponsetoKoschaker,seeAdolfoPlachy,‘Ildirittoromanocomevaloreculturalenellastoriadell’Europa’,inL’Europaeildirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.477–491;DieterSimon,‘DiedeutscheWissenschaftvomrömischenRechtnach1933’,inStolleisandSimon,RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus,p.171;Pieler,‘DasrömischeRechtimnationalsozialistischenStaat’.325OnHansFrank,seeChristophKleßmann,‘DerGeneralgouverneurHansFrank’(1971)19VierteljahrsheftefürZeitgeschichte245–260;DietmarWilloweit,‘DeutscheRechtsgeschichteund„nationalsozialistischeWeltanschauung‟’,inStolleisandSimon,RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus,pp.25–42;ChristianSchudnagies,HansFrank.AufstiegundFalldesNS-JuristenundGeneralgoverneurs(Frankfurt:PeterLang,1989),pp.21–28;LotharGruchmann,JustizimDrittenReich1933–1940:AnpassungundUnterwerfunginderÄraGürtner(Munich:DeGruyter,2001(3rded),pp.86–92,637–645onFrank’sroleinthemachineryofterror,746–930onthelegalreformplansandFrank’spositioninthevariousattempts.326Aroundthesametime,therewerenumerousothertractsaboutcrisisinlaw,forinstanceMaxBoehm,‘DieKrisedesNationalitätenrechts’,inFestschriftfürRudolfHübner(Jena:Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJena,1935),pp.172–189;TheKrisereceivedmuchcriticalattention,bothofthedamningandpraisingkind:ErnstLevy,‘ReviewofDieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaftbyPaulKoschaker’(1939)33The

112

ValentinGeorgescuhadpublishedabook(inRomanian)onthetopicin1937,whichKoschakerhadpromptlyreviewedattheZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte.Inhisreview,KoschakernotesthattheconnectionbetweenRomanlawandmaterialism,alinkalreadymadebySpengler,himselfaNaziopponent,continuestohauntthesubjectinitscrisis.327TheissueofthecrisishadalsobeendiscussedbyBettiandGenzmerintheirearlierarticles,discussingitthroughitsrelationshipwithhistory,butonlyKoschakerwouldputthecrisisofRomanlawcentrestage.328Koschaker’sKrisewasbornoutofasenseofgradualdecaythatwascompoundedbyafreshcrisis.TheprestigeofRomanlawprofessorshadalreadydiminishedundertheBGB,thenewGerman1935ReichsstudienordnunghadreplacedlecturesonRomanlawwith“ancientlegalhistory”.ThisremovedtheprivilegedpositionenjoyedbyRomanlawforcenturiesandmadepossibleitsreductioninthecurriculum.KoschakergavethetalkinDecember1937anditwaspublishedinthefollowingyearwithsomealterations.Hereturnedtothethemeinanumberofotherwritingspublishedwithinafewyears,onceeveninthenotoriouslyNazioriented

ClassicalWeekly91–92;OdoardoCarrelli,‘Apropositodicrisideldirittoromano’(1943)9StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris1–20;Betti,‘Lacrisiodierna’;Schönbauer,‘Zur„KrisedesrömischenRechts‟’;GiuseppeGrosso,‘Rec.diKoschaker,DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaft,München/Berlin1938’(1939)5StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris505–520(nowinGiuseppeGrosso,Scrittistoricogiuridici,IV(Torino:Giappichelli,2001),pp.101–116);AdolfoPlachy,‘Rec.diKoschaker,DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaft(1938)’(1939)12RivistadiStoriadelDirittoItaliano388–394;GiovanniPugliese,‘Dirittoromanoescienzadeldiritto’(1941)15Annalidell'UniversitàdiMacerata5–48(nowinGiovanniPugliese,Scrittigiuridiciscelti,III(Napoli:Jovene,1985),pp.159–204);PierreNoailles,‘Lacrisedudroitromain’,inMémorialdesétudeslatinesoffertàJ.Marouzeau(Paris:BellesLettres,1943),pp.387–415.ThediscussionwascontinuedlaterbyAntonioGuarino,‘Cinquant’annidalla«Krise»’(1988)34Labeo43–56,nowinAntonioGuarino,PaginediDirittoromano,I(Napoli:Jovene,1993),pp.276–291.327ValentinGeorgescu,ExistaocrisäastudilordeDreptRoman?(Czernowitz:InstitutuldeartegraficesiedituraGlasulBucovinei,1937);PaulKoschaker,‘ReviewofGeorgescu,ExistaocrisäastudilordeDreptRoman?(GibteseineKrisedesStudiumsdesrömischenRechts?),Czernowitz1937’(1938)58ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung425–427.328EmilioBetti,‘MethodeundWertdesheutigenStudiumsdesrömischenRechts’(1937)15(2)TijdschriftvoorRechtsgeschiedenis/LegalHistoryReview137–174;ErichGenzmer,‘WasheißtundzuwelchemEndestudiertmanantikeRechtsgeschichte?’(1936)3ZeitschriftderAkademiefürDeutschesRecht403–408.InItaly,thewholeconceptionofcrisiswasdifferent.AlthoughitwasrelatedtoKoschaker’swork,itwaspromptedmorebytherelationshipbetweenRomanlawandpositivelaw.GianniSantucci,‘«Decifrandoscrittichenonhannonessunpotere».Lacrisidellaromanisticafraledueguerre’,inItaloBirocchiandMassimoBrutti(eds.),Storiadeldirittoeidentitàdisciplinari:tradizionieprospettive(Torino:Giappichelli,2016),pp.63‒102,atp.71.

113

journalDeutscheRechtswissenschaft.329ThetalkofacrisiswasalsoareflectionofhisexperienceinteachingatBerlin,wherevisitingstudentsfromItalymarvelledthattheywitnessedthisfamousprofessorlecturingtoanalmostemptyhall.330IntheKrise,KoschakerwarnedagainsttwoofthemainthemesofRomanisticscholarshipatthetime,theinterpolationistandthehistoricaldirections,andlaidthegroundworkfortheideaoftheactualizationofthepastasadogmaticanalysisoflegalsources.However,whatthetextbroughttothediscussionwasastrongEuropeanslant.Koschakerspokeofthehistoricalconsciousnessasthe“GrundlagedereuropäischeKultur”,thefoundationofEuropeanculture.Inparticular,hediscussed“Romidee”,theideaofRome(p.10–11),apoliticalandculturalideaoftheenduringcharacteroftheRomanEmpireanditsrenovatioorrenewal.Evenintheforeword,Koschakertakesuphisownpositionwithasenseofsarcasmanddaring.Hewriteshowheisnotfightingforhissubject,eventhoughitwouldbeunderstandableforanegocentricprofessortodoso,noreventhatthereshouldbeprofessorsofRomanlaw.Instead,hisaimistopointouthowRomanlawhasforthelasttwoandahalfmillenniabeenanimportantfactorinEuropeancultureandcontinuestobesoaslongasitisnotreplaced.Thus,whileitwasnecessarytothankHansFrank,theReichskommissar(whowaslaterexecutedasawarcriminalaftertheNurembergtrials)fortheinvitation,headdedthattheviewshewaspresentingweresolelyhisown.KoschakerexplainsthatthoughhistextistheinauguralpublicationinthenewseriesfortheAkademiefürdeutschesRecht,thisissomewhatunusualashistextsupportsRomanlaw.TheAkademie,underthedirectionofFrank,istaskedwiththerenewalofGermanlawandrenewalinvolvesaconflictbetweenbetweenRomanandnationallaw(pp.iii–iv).Koschakerlaterdescribedtheexperienceinmilitaryterms.Hismanoeuvrewastoattacktherearbecauseafrontalattackwouldhavebeensuicidal.HehadbeeninvitedbytheheadoftheNazilegalmachinerytotalktoanexclusivelyNaziaudienceandthereforetocriticizedirectlytheimmutabletheNazipartyprogramwouldhavebeennotonlypointlessbutevenpotentiallydangerous.TheonlysolutionwastopraisethegreatnessofRomanlawasaculturalphenomenonandextoltheGermancontribution.Theresultwas,accordingtoKoschaker,rousingapplauseandcontinuedrespectfromtheNazis.331

329Forexample,PaulKoschaker,‘ProblemederheutigenromanistischenRechtswissenschaft’(1940)5DeutscheRechtswissenschaft110–136.330TommasoBeggio,‘UncommentoallapropostadiriformadeglistudiromanisticidiPaulKoschakerinundocumentoineditodiUlrichvonLübtow’(2018)46Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw589–622,atp.601.331Koschaker,‘Selbstdarstellung’,p.123.DespitehisfocusonthelawsoftheancientNearEast,KoschakercontinuedtostudyandteachRomanlaw,evenwritinganintroductorytextbookforstudentuse(acopyofthisworkfrom1933,titledSystemdesrömischenPrivatrechtsisnowattheBibliothekdesMax-Planck-InstitutsfüreuropäischeRechtsgeschichte,Frankfurt(signature:Manuscr.155QR)).

114

ThetextofKoschaker’sKriseisafascinatingreadandthereislittlereasontodoubtthattheaudiencewouldhaveenjoyedit.Howmuchtheywouldhaveagreedwithitscontentisanothermatter.WhatKoschakerdoesistopresentahistoryoftheuniversalizationofWesternculturefromthebasisofancientcivilization,resultinginaculturallayerthatgoesfarbeyondtheboundariesofnationalstates.332WhatseparatesKoschakerfrommanyofhispeersisthathedoesnotmerelypresentaGermanview,forhealsocitesexamplesfromBritishauthorsandscholarship.HisEuropewasnotsimplycentralormiddleEurope,itencompassedthewholeEuropeancontinent.However,ifKoschaker’sstoryhasahero,thatwouldbeF.C.vonSavigny,thefounderoftheHistoricalSchoolofjurisprudence.Koschaker’sviewoftheHistoricalSchoolanditsrelationshipwithcontemporaryRomanticismwasnotwithoutitscontradictionsandhewritesinastrongcombativetoneinrelationtoKantorowiczandothercontemporaries.HeisquicktonotehowmanyoftheprincipledstandsofSavigny’sHistoricalSchoolareactuallyfairlyunimportant,butthemainproblemwithSavigny’ssuccessorswasnottoolittlehistorybutquitetheopposite(p.20–28).TheHistoricalSchoolhadbecometoohistorical.Koschaker’scriticismoftheHistoricalSchoolmirroredthatofmanyofhispeersandcontemporaries,whofeltthattheHistoricalSchool’sattentiontominutetextualdebatemissedthepoint.Whatreallymatteredwasthenotionoflegaldevelopment.333TheproblemwastheinfluenceoftheHistoricalSchoolallowedpositivismtotakehold,reducingRomanlawtoahistoricalanecdote.ForKoschaker,thejurisprudenceinspiredbyRomanlawwascreative.Jurisprudence,likecommonlaw,wasreliantonaspiritoflawthatmanifesteditselfinthecreativepowerofjuristsworkinginunison(p.28).ThusitwasnothistoricalstudiesbutthePandectistjurisprudenceofSavignyandWindscheidthathadgainedworldwidefame(p.30).Savigny,JheringandWindscheidwereEuropeanjuristswithinternationalreputations.NeitherbeforenorsincehadGermanlawyersgainedsuchinternationalinfluence(p.33).334MuchofthetextdealswiththeexaltedhistoryofRomanlawinGermanyanditsinfluence.KoschakergoesasfarastomaintainthatPandectismunitedGermanyanditslawbeforepoliticaldevelopmentsdid.However,theinfluenceoftheBGBledtothedownfallofPandectismandthisreverberatedinthestandingofRomanlawinEurope.However,anevengreaterthreatwastheriseofinterpolationism.Likethetextualcriticismthathadclumsily

332PaulKoschaker,DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaft(MunichandBerlin:Beck,1938),p.10.333Hans-PeterHaferkamp,GeorgFriedrichPuchtaunddie‘Begriffsjurisprudenz’(Frankfurt:Klostermann,2004).334Onthis,seeMartinAvenarius,'BernhardWindscheid(1817-1892).DerSpatpandektistundseineWirkungaufdasRechtsdenkendeseuropaischenAuslands'(2017)25ZeitschriftfürEuropäischesPrivatrecht396-418.

115

historicizedHomer,theBibleandtheNibelungenlied,interpolationismsoughttohistoricizethecontentoftheCorpusIuris.Butwhatitdidinsteadwasdestroytheauthorityofthetextbyestablishingdoubtsconcerningitsaccuracy.Justinian’scompilationhadreliedontheideaofconveyingthewisdomoftheancientclassicaljuristsandthustheideaoftheRomanEmpire.Interpolationismclaimedthatthiswasallfalsebecausethetextswerenotgenuine.Interpolationismwasbythattimebeginningtoberecognizedasanextrememovementthatwasgraduallylosingsteamduetothecontroversiesthatsurroundeditsresults.Ratherthanneohumanism,ithadbecomeinvolvedinfairlyarbitraryremovalsoftextsfromthelegalcorpusbasedonthecriteriaofauthenticity.WhilemanyestablishedauthorslikeFritzSchulz,GerhardBeselerorSiroSolazziweresupporters,thegreatprojectoftheindexofinterpolationswasmuchcriticized.335Inadditiontointerpolationism,Koschaker’ssecondbêtenoirewasthehistoricalstudyofRomanlaw.EspeciallyatfaultwereLudwigMitteis,hisownteacher,andLeopoldWenger,whohadpromotedancientlegalhistory(AntikeRechtsgeschichte).TheresulthadbeenthejoiningofRomanlawaspartoftheuniversalhistoryofAntiquitywithotherancientlaws;Romanlawwasmerelyseenaspartofhistoryandnotaspartofagreatlegaltradition.336InItalytherehadbeenacounterreactionbyBonfante,ScialojaandRiccobono,whohadsoughttopreservetheconnectionbetweenRomanlawandmodernlaw,inpartduetothepoliticalimportancethattheRomanheritagehadintheItalianstate(pp.42–49).However,evenRiccobonowasquicktonotethattherewerehistoricallayersintheDigestofJustiniananditshouldbeseenmoreasaproductofjurisprudence,andnotasimmutablelaw.337Thisturn

335Koschaker,Krise,pp.34–40.OnKoschaker’srelationtointerpolationism,seeTommasoBeggio,‘PaulKoschakerunddieReformdesromanistischenRechtsstudiumsinDeutschland.EinunveröffentlichtesDokument’(2018)135ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung645–680;TommasoBeggio,'La‘Interpolationenforschung’agliocchidiPaulKoschaker:lacriticaaGradenwitzeallacosiddetta‘neuhumanistischeRichtung’elosguardorivoltoall’esempiodiSalvatoreRiccobono',inMartinAvenarius,ChristianBaldus,FrancescaLamberti,andMarioVarvaro(eds.),Gradenwitz,RiccobonounddieEntwicklungderInterpolationenkritik(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018),pp.121-155.336WengerstatedthisclearlyinDerheutigeStandderrömischenRechtswissenschaft(Munich:C.H.Beck’scheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1927),p.1wherehemaintainedthatRomanlawmustbecomethelegalhistoryoftheancientworld.OnMitteisandWenger,seeEvelynHöbenreich,'Àpropos„AntikeRechtsgeschichte“:EinigeBemerkungenzurPolemikzwischenLudwigMitteisundLeopoldWenger'(2013)109ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung547-562.337ThistendencywascontinuedwithBonfante’sstudent,EmilioAlbertario,whodebatedtheissueswithRiccobono.Thedebatesalsoreflectedtheinnerdevelopmentofinterpolationismitself.However,theoppositionbetweendogmatismandinterpolationismandhistoricismwasnotabsolute;Riccobono,forinstance,wasastudentofGrandenwitz,oneofthepioneersoflegalpapyrology.SeeMarioVarvaro,‘Circolazioneesviluppodiunmodellometologico’,inMartinAvenarius,ChristianBaldus,FrancescaLambertiandMarioVarvaro(eds.),Gradenwitz,

116

againsttheexcessesofphilologyandhistorywasacontinuationofthefeelingsthatKoschakerhadalreadyhadwhenstudyingwithMitteis.338AccordingtoKoschaker,ItalywasanexceptioninthelinkbetweenthenationalprojectandRome.FormostEuropeanstates,themeaningofRomewastheimperiumRomanum,theideaofthesupranational(Übernationales),acornerstoneoftheEuropeanhouse.Inthepurelyhistoricalinquiry,thissignificancewassimplylost.Notonlydidlawloseitsautonomy,itlostitsclaimtoalargerculturalheritage.339IntheItaliandiscussion,thisclaimwasmetwithresistance,Pugliese,forexample,claimingthatKoschakerhadsimplybeenwronginhisaccusationsagainsthistoricalstudy.ForPugliese,thepurelynormativestudyofcontinuitieswasuseless,whereashistoricalstudythatstroveforanunderstandingoflawinitschangingcontextswasfundamental.340KoschakerthenproceedsintheKrisetoexaminetheroleofRomanlawinItaly,FranceandEngland,outlininghoweventheEnglishhavegraspedthetruemeaningofRomanlawasthelinguafrancaofEuropeanjurisprudence.WhatKoschakerdoesisusethissurveytopresentopinionsfavourabletohisowntheses,thevalueofclassicalRomanlawintheeducationofEuropeanlawyersandthefutureoflaw.IntheEnglish-languageliteratureatthattime,therewerenumerousexamplesofthevalueofRomanlawforjurisprudence,suchasBurdick’s1938PrinciplesofRomanLawandTheirRelationtoModernLaw.341WhatthenshouldtheroleofRomanlawinGermanlegaleducationbe?TheNaziJustizausbildungsordnung(thelegaleducationdegree)ofJuly22,1934statedthepossibilityofincludingRomanlawasthefoundationofcurrentlaw,butstudyingRomanlawwasnolongermandatory.SomefacultieshadmadetheradicaldecisionofmakingRomanlawoptionaleveninthedoctoralexamination.IntheJanuary18,1935guidelinesforthenewReichstudienordnung(nationalstudyregulation)thepositionofRomanlawwasrelativelyfavourable,eventhoughthenewelementofPrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeithadbeeninstitutedtoincludeelementsoflegalhistoryafterthereceptionofRomanlaw.TheauthorofthereformwasK.A.Eckhardt,whowas,inadditiontobeingaprofessoroflawinBerlinandleadingthepurgeofhisJewishcolleaguessuchasSchulzfromthefaculty,oneoftheleadinglawyersintheSSwiththerankofSS-Sturmbannführer.Eckhardtwasneverthelessan RiccobonounddieEntwicklungderInterpolationenkritik(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018),pp.55–100,atp.74;Santucci,‘Decifrandoscritti’,pp.88–92.338TheattackonMitteiswasinawaysurprising,butinhisautobiographyKoschakerdoesdwellonhisfeelingsofinadequacywhenfacedwithWunderkinderlikePartsch.Koschaker,‘Selbstdarstellung’,p.109.339Koschaker,Krise,pp.49–52.340Pugliese,‘Dirittoromanoescienzadeldiritto’,pp.8–11.PuglieseadmitsthatcriticismsuchasthatalreadypresentedbyBettiagainstinterpolationismwaspartlyaccurate,butthisdidnotdiminishthetruthoftheoriginalclaim.341Koschaker,Krise,pp.61,65–66;Burdick,PrinciplesofRomanLawandTheirRelationtoModernLaw.

117

accomplishedlegalhistorianoftheGermanistvariety.Inthe1935guidelinesforthestudyoflaw(RichtlinienfürdasStudiumderRechtswissenschaft)hewrotethat“GermanlegalsciencestilllivesinthewaysoftheRomanlawandiuscommune…thefoundationsoflawarestilldefinedbythePandectistsystem.Ourbattleisagainstthissystem.”342WhentheNaziregimehaddefinedasitsaimtheNazificationoflegaleducation,theissuethatwasstillunresolvedwashowshouldoneteachRomanlawandthenewformsofancientlegalhistory?ThiswasoneofthecrucialissuesthatKoschakersoughttoanswerintheKrise(pp.70–72).Ontopofallthiscamepoint19ofthepartyprogramme,whichdeclaredRomanlawtobetheenemyofnationallaw.ThisrejectedtheideaofRomanlawasthefoundationofEuropeancivillawandtheuniterofnations.Theresult,accordingtoKoschaker,hadbeengrowingoppositionfromstudents,whohadtakenadvantageofthelessstrictregulationsandhadabandonedRomanlawcompletely.Asaconsequence,RomanlawprofessorshadlostboththeirinfluenceonfuturegenerationsoflawyersandtheirpositionasEuropeanists(pp.73–74).Howthentofightthiscrisis?Koschakerrejectsthenegativeconclusionsofapermanentdecline,optingmoreforthelongperspectiveoftheebbandflowofalternatingrenaissancesanddeclines.HismainsuggestionistounderlinetheroleofRomanlawastherepresentativeofEuropeanculturalunity(Kulturgemeinschaft,p.75),buthowbesttodothat?Areorientationofscholarship,ofcourse,fromthedestructivehistoricization.Butshouldonereinstatethecompulsoryexams,whichmightbeveryunpopularwithstudents?Whathesuggestsistheactualization(Aktualisierung)ofRomanlawlecturessothattheyaimedatthepresentandthefuture(p.76).Thus,RomanlawwouldbenotahistoricalcuriositystudiedbyphilologistsandhistorianstogetherwithAssyrianlaws,butalivingpartofthecontemporarylegaltradition.ThisreturntoSavigny,thelegalhistoricaleducationofalljurists,wouldnotonlybeagoodandbeautifulidea,itwouldalsobeaGermanidea(p.84).Koschaker’svisionof

342RichtlinienfürdasStudiumderRechtswissenschaft,January18,1935:“NochimmerlebtdiedeutscheRechtswissenschaftindenGedankengängendesrömisch-gemeinenRechts(…),diegeistigeGrundhaltungwirdheutenochdurchdasPandektensystembestimmt.DiesemSystemgiltunserKampf”.OnthereformandtheunderlyingbattlesbetweenFrankandhissupportersandtheKielerSchule,seeStolleis,ʻ“FortschrittederRechtsgeschichteˮinderZeitdesNationalsozialismus?ʼ;RalfFrassek,‘SteterTropfenhöhltdenStein–JuristenausbildungimNationalsozialismusunddanach’(2000)117ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:GermanistischeAbteilung294–361;RalfFrassek,‘Wegezurnationalsozialistischen„Rechtserneuerung“–Wissenschaftzwischen„Gleichschaltung“undKonkurrenzkampf’,inHans-GeorgHermann,ThomasGutmann,JoachimRückert,MathiasSchmoeckel,andHaraldSiems(eds.),Vonden‚legesbarbarorum‘biszum‚iusbarbarum‘desNationalsozialismus(Köln:BöhlauVerlag,2008),pp.351–377;DorotheeMussgnug,‘DiejuristischeFakultät’,inWolfgangUweEckart,VolkerSellin,andEikeWolgast(eds.),DieUniversitätHeidelbergimNationalsozialismus(Heidelberg:Springer,2006),pp.301–302;FinkenauerandHerrmann,‘DieRomanistischeAbteilungderSavigny-ZeitschriftimNationalsozialismus’.

118

Europewasthusverymuchanationalvision,perhapsduetothemyopiaofaresearcherindevelopingideasthatareinternationalincharacteror,morelikely,duetothetext’saudience.Evenlater,KoschakermaintainedthatRomanistshadalienatedstudentswithhistoricization.Ifonedidnotteachlawstudentslawandlegalthinking,theywouldnotbeinterested,sincemostofthemweregoingtopractiselaw.Thenagain,alawstudentwouldlearnanythingiftheexam required it, even the anatomy of an elephant.343 The cultural interpretation wasultimatelysecondarytothepracticalitiesofthereformsoflawschoolsandthewaythatthelegaleducationandultimatelylegalscholarshipshouldbedeveloped.Thiswasnoteasyforhiscriticstounderstand.InalettertoSalvatoreRiccobonoin1940,helamentsthatheisbeingsimplifiedaswantingtobringbackthemethodsofPandectismandasbeingtheenemyoflegalhistory(FeindderRechtsgeschichte).Thehistoricalmethodhasaclearvalue in thestudyoflaw.344WhatisparadoxicalisthatwhileKoschakertalksagreatdealaboutdogmaticcontinuityandactualization,thedogmaticsideofKoschakerisalmostcompletelymissingfromtheKriseandfromotherofhismorefamouswritings.TheKrisewasaboldgestureinaverydifficultsituation.Koschakerwasatthetimearguablyattheheightofhiscareer.HewasaprofessorinBerlin,amemberofprestigiousacademies,theeditorofthemostimportantjournalinthefield,theZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte(RomanistischeAbteilung).IntheKrise,heattacksnotonlytheNazipartyline,butalsohisownteachers.FortheNazis,hedemonstratedhowthenationalisticlegalpolicywasafailure.Tohisteachers(andbyextensionhimself)hepresentedthepreviousdecadesofscholarlyworkasthemainreasonforthedeclineofRomanlaw.Intheirplace,hepresentedavisionofasupranationallegaltraditionanditsrevitalization.HeendstheKrisewithastatementthatdemonstrateshisideaofcultureasavalue:“Welivetodayinatimeofreevaluationofvalues.ButifIamright,theEuropeanculturalcommunityisavaluethatstillhassupporttoday.”345ConservativesandextremistsinacademiaThecrisisthatpromptedKoschakerwasbothaninternalandexternalcrisisthatshookthefoundationsoftheconservativelegalacademia.ThewaythatpoliticalmovementssuchasNazism,FascismandCommunismwantedtoreformandultimatelydestroythesocialandlegalordertorefashionsocietyalsopromptedotherstoresistchange.Thatwashardlysurprising,becauselegalacademiawascharacteristicallyfilledwithtraditionalistswho

343Koschaker,‘Selbstdarstellung’,p.121.344LetterfromKoschakertoRiccobonoonJanuary20,1940.CollectionofcorrespondencebyProfessorSalvatoreRiccobono,currentlyatthedisposalofProfessorMarioVarvaro,attheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofPalermo.345Koschaker,Krise,p.86:“WirlebenheuteineinerZeitderUmwertungderWerte.Aberwennichrechtsehe,sogehörtzudenWerten,dieheutenochBestandhaben,dieeuropäischeKulturgemeinschaft.”WhetherornotKoschakermeantthisasareferencetotheNietzscheanideaof“UmwertungallerWerte”isnotcertain.

119

favouredconservatism,legalismandstability.In1937Koschakerattheageof58wasalreadyoneoftheoldguard,anestablishedprofessorwithdeeplyheldconvictionsaboutthecentralrolethatlaw,ruleoflawandjusticeweretohave.Likemanyofhispeers,hechosetoadoptareactionarystancetotherevolutionarytendenciesoftheNazimovement.However,thisresistancetotheNazisdidnotpreventhimtoacceptthepositionattheboardoftheZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichtevacatedbyErnstLevy,whohadbeenforcedtoresignduetohisJewishheritage.Koschaker’soppositiontotheNazimovementwasnotsosevereastohaveawakenedtheattentionoftheauthorities.Infact,thepoliticalreportpreparedonKoschakernotessomewhatequivocallythattherewerenoknownsignsofpoliticaluntrustworthiness.346Thereweremanyothersignsthatlegaltraditionswereunderthreat.InItaly,theFascistshadalreadyestablishedaprogrammeoflegalreformthatsoughttobringnewsocialpoliciesintoforce.Aswithotherradicalmovements,theymaintainedthatlawwasultimatelyatoolforexercisingthepoliticalwill.Fortheconservativelegalacademia,thiswasnotacceptable,butasinGermanytheylackedthepowertostopthereforms.347Thoughtheyarecurrentlythoughtofasextremerightwingmovements,bothNazismandFascismhadadeeprevolutionaryagendathatcombinedelementsfromsocialismandfar-rightnationalism.Asaconsequence,forconservativesofnearlyeverydenomination,manyoftheirideasandpoliciesweredisconcerting.Whileanti-SemitismhadbeendeeplyrootedinEuropeforcenturies,thefactthatJewishcolleaguesaswellasstudentsandformerstudentswerepersecutedfornofaultoftheirownwouldnodoubthavebeenconsideredunjust.KoschakerwasbynomeanstheonlylegalscholarwhowouldextoltheroleofculturalheritageandthelineagesfromAntiquitytothepresentinthefieldoflaw.InItaly,oneoftheprincipalvoiceswasSalvatoreRiccobono(1864–1958),aprofessorofRomanlawinPalermo.348RiccobonowasaveryinternationalscholarwhohadstudiedinGermanywithsomeofthemostinfluentialprofessorsoftheera,suchasOttoLenelandOttoGradenwitz.A

346Universitätsarchiv,Humboldt-Universität,Berlin,UKPersonaliaK274,Bd.I,Bl.26.Onthesituationin1937andthemotivesbehindKoschaker’smovetoTübingen,seeBeggio,PaulKoschaker,pp.104–117.347OnsharedtraitsinItalyandGermany,seeSomma,Igiuristiel’AsseculturaleRoma-Berlino.348OnRiccobono,seeRosannaOrtu,‘SalvatoreRiccobononell’UniversitàdiSassari’(2004)3Diritto@Storia.Hiscontinuinginfluencemaybeseeninthewaythathecontinuestobewrittenabout.SeeCesareSanfilippo,‘InMemoriam.SalvatoreRiccobono’(1958)9Iura123–133;RiccardoOrestano,‘L’animus’diSalvatoreRiccobono’(1978)29Iura1–8;MatteoMarrone,‘RomanistiprofessoriaPalermo’(1997)25Index587–616;AntonioMantello,'SalvatoreRiccobono',inPaolaLuigiaCarucciandLoredanaDiPinto(eds.),'RomanistilateranensinelNovecento',68StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris(2002),pp.xvi-xxi;MarioVarvaro,'Riccobono,Salvatoresr.',inItaloBirocchi,EnnioCortese,AntonelloMattone,andMarcoNicolaMiletti(eds.),Dizionariobiograficodeigiuristiitaliani(sec.XII‒XX),II(Bologna:IlMulino,2013),pp.1685-1688;UgoBartocci,SalvatoreRiccobono,ilDirittoRomanoeilvalorepoliticodegliStudiaHumanitatis(Torino:G.GiappichelliEditore,2012).

120

particularinfluencewasBernhardWindscheid(1817–1892),oneofthekeyfiguresbehindtheBGB.WindscheidhadoverseenthetransformationoftheRomanlawtraditionintothefoundationoftheGermancivilcode,presentingwhatwouldbeatenuousthoughlastingsolutionfortheproblemofhowtocombineRomanlawandtheneedforlegalreform.RiccobonotravelledextensivelyandhadacrucialinfluenceintheUS,initiallyintheCatholicuniversitiesandlaterinthefieldoflawingeneral.Riccobono’sconservatismwasinmanywayssimilartothatofKoschakeranditcomesasnosurprisethattheybecamefriendsduringtheirdebates.ChristianityandChristianvalues,thecentralroleofancientcivilizationandthelearnedtraditionwereRiccobono’smainthemes.UnlikeSchulzandPringsheim,RiccobonorejectedGreekphilosophicalorscientificinfluencesandevenmaintainedthattheJustinianiccompilationwaspurelyRomanincharacter.Thus,thoughRiccobonohadacceptedthepremiseofinterpolationistresearch,hewasminimalistinhisapproaches,believingthatalterationscouldbedetected,asopposedtoSchulzandPringsheim,whoweremoreinthemaximalisttradition,believingthatonecouldrestoretheoriginaltext.However,bothsharedthenotionthattherehadbeenacontinuoustraditionthroughwhichthetextshaddeveloped,ratherthananoriginalclassicaltextthathadonlybeenchangedbycompilators.349ThewayRiccobonounderstoodtheconnectionsbetweentheEuropeantraditionandRomanlawwasquitesimilartoKoschaker:

TheItaliancommentatorsdowntoAlciato(1550),whoperformedthetaskleftbyJustinian,showedtherealcharacteroftheCompilation,andreallyestablishedthefoundationsofmodernlaw,whichgraduallyspreadthroughoutEurope.350

ThepointwasthattheformationofthetraditionwasanintegralprocesswheretheRomantraditionwassimplythestartingpointandthedevelopmentalarcwherelawwasconstantlyadaptedandadoptedtonewcircumstances.ThiswasafurtherconnectionwithKoschaker,whowrotetoRiccobonoin1939thateventhoughsomehadinterpretedtheKrisetomeanthathewouldbeproposingareturntothelawofthePandects,thenineteenth-centuryGermanwayofstudyingRomanlawascurrentlaw,nothingcouldbefurtherfromthetruth.Thelawofthepast,thePandectistRomanlaw,wasdeadandburiedandshouldnottoberesurrected.Instead,anewmositalicusshouldbebuiltwheretheresultsofcontemporarylegalhistorywouldbecombinedwiththelawinforce.351WhatRiccobonoinsistedwasthat

349SalvatoreRiccobono,‘OutlinesoftheEvolutionofRomanLaw’(1925)74UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawReview1–19.RiccobonowouldwriteonthethemeatlengthinItalianjournals.See,forexample,SalvatoreRiccobono,‘Daldirittoromanoclassicoaldirittomoderno’(1917)3–4AnnalidelSeminarioGiuridicodellaR.UniversitàdiPalermo165–729.350Riccobono,‘OutlinesoftheEvolutionofRomanLaw’,p.12.351LetterfromKoschakertoRiccobonoonDecember31,1939.CollectionofcorrespondencebyProfessorSalvatoreRiccobono,currentlyatthedisposalofProfessorMarioVarvaro,attheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofPalermo.KoschakeradmiredtheItaliantraditionofRomanlawandRiccobono,whomhedescribedasa“NewBartolus”.PaulKoschaker,'Contributoallastoriaedalladottrinadellaconvalidaneldirittoromano'(1953)4Iura1-89.

121

whileitwasundoubtedlytruethathistoricaldevelopmentwastakingplace,RomanlawpresentedaunitarytraditionthatextendedfromancientRometothemodernera.352ToRiccobono,theideaofRomanlawwasnotsimplythatoflaworevenjurisprudence:inRome,jurisprudencewasthemasterofallscience,bothdoctrinallysoundandnourishedbythepracticalexperienceoflife.Itwasthisfactthatmadeitscontributionsovital:

Theessentialcontentsofmodernlaw,bothconsideringthesubstanceofitsnormsoritsdoctrines,isofRomanformation.353

ThesewerealsothemainpointsthatRiccobonowouldbepresentinginhislecturesabroad.InhislecturesinLondonandOxfordin1924,forexample,heoutlinedthathismessageconcernedRomanlawandmodernlaw,inparticulartheroleoflawinthemakingofmodernscience.ItisnoteworthythathishostinBritainwasthesameDeZuluetawhowouldlaterhelpSchulzandPringsheimintheirescapetoBritain.Riccobono’sinvolvementintheFascistmovementbeganearlyon.In1924MussolinivisitedSicilyandRiccobonowasamongtheintellectualsrecruitedtotakepartinthemeetingsthatwereorganized.ItwouldperhapsbewrongtosaythatRiccobonowholeheartedlyadoptedtheFascistideology,andmoreaccuratetosaythathisideaswereofteninlinewiththoseoftheFascists.Themostimportantlinkswerethebeliefinthelong-termhistoricalconnectionsbetweenancientRomeandmoderncivilizationandthetalkofthelegacyofAntiquity,nottomentiontheveryterminologyoftheEmpire.WhileadmirationforauthoritarismandtheideologyofRomannesswerequitetypicaloftheera,perhapsthegreatestsignoftheideologicaldifferencesbetweenRiccobonoandFascismwerehiswritingswhichtoucheduponrace.ObserverslikeCascionehavenotedthatwhileRiccobonowouldwriteaboutancestry(stirpe)andheritage,hiswritingsalmostalwayspreservedtheculturalbinaryoftraditionanddevelopmentanddidnotusethecodedlanguageofraceandblood.Isolatedexamplestothecontrary,suchasamentioninapropagandisttextofthedangersofslavemanumissionsthatcouldleadtoa“bastardizationoftheItalianrace”,areperhapsmoreindicativeoftheterminologyoftheagethanadeeplyheldconviction.354RatherthanaFascist,

352SeeVarvaro,‘Circolazioneesviluppo’,88–89onthedebatebetweenRiccobonoandAlbertario.353SalvatoreRiccobonoJr.,‘UnmanoscrittoineditodiSalvatoreRiccobono:lelezionitenuteadOxfordeLondranel1924’(1978)29Iura9–16,atp.15.354CosimoCascione,‘Romanistiefascismo’,inMigliettaandSantucci,Dirittoromanoeregimitotalitarinel’900europeo,pp.51–49,atp.36;MarioVarvaro,'Gli«studiahumanitatis»ei«fataiurisRomani»trafascioecroceuncinata'(2014)42Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw643-661.QuotationfromSalvatoreRiccobono,‘Ildirittodelimpero’,inCarloGalassiPaluzzi(ed.),Lamissionedell’imperodiRomanellastoriadellaciviltà(Roma:IstitutodiStudiRomani,1938),p.42.Ontherelations,seeMantello,‘LagiurisprudenzaromanafraNazismoeFascismo’.RiccobonowasalsoclosetoEdoardoVolterra,whowasbothJewishandamemberofthepartisanresistancemovement.Forinstance,heintervenedin1943onVolterra’sbehalftopreservehispersonallibraryfromtheFascistpolice.PierangeloBuongiorno,‘DieEthikeinesJuristen.EdoardoVolterrazwischen

122

RiccobonowasaconservativeCatholic,forwhomideasofcultureandheritagewerelinkedtotheroleofChristianityinEuropeancivilization.355TheculturalandhistoricalconnectionbetweenAntiquity,ancientRome,andthepresentwasapreoccupationforFascistsandthisbecameathemeintheFascisthistoricalandRomanlawscholarship.OneofthemostprominentscholarsoftheoldergenerationtowholeheartedlyembracetheFascistmovementwasProfessorPietroDeFrancisci(1883–1971).356HebecameoneofthemostprominentlegalscholarsintheFascistregime,servingasMussolini’sministerofjusticefrom1932to1935.Asamemberofparliamentandminister,headvancedaveryauthoritarianagendabothinconstitutional law and judicial procedure.Histheoriescalledforanopenbreakwithliberalideas,usingtheRomanmodelasaguideinbuildingthefuture.Hearguedforastrongstate,guidedbyasovereignnationalleader.Assuch,hewasstrictlyagainstideassuchashumanityandcosmopolitanismthatwereinherentforinstanceinRomanStoicism.357DeFrancisci’sworksonRomanlegalhistoryareperhapsnotasopenlypoliticalassomeofhiswritingsonlegalreform,buttheyarequiteblatantintheiruseofhistorytojustifypresentpolicies.DeFrancisci’s1941bookontheoriginsofthePrincipateofAugustus,forexample,tracestheconstitutionalandpoliticalprocessesfromtheRepublictoEmpire.Whilethebooktakenoutofcontextwouldappeartobeasimplehistoricalwork,itwasanythingbut.TheruleofAugustushadbecomeoneofthecornerstonesofthesearchforhistoricallegitimacyforthenewFascistempire.ThemassivecelebrationsandthescholarlyproductionthataccompaniedthebimillenarioAugusteoin1938weremeanttoexalttheleadershipofAugustusthathadresolvedtheproblemsoftheRepublicabyinstitutinganeworder.Bysomecoincidence,theneworderhaddistincttracesofcorporativismandotherideasoftheFascistneworder.DeFrancisci’sbookjoinedinnumerableothers,bothinItalyandinGermany,thatthroughhistorycelebratedthepresent.Amongtheseworksweremanythatweresoundhistoriography,butothersservedadistinctagendaontheside.EveninGermany,NazischolarswroteextensivelyofAugustusasanauthoritarianleaderwhowouldresolveissuesthattherepubliccouldnot.358InDeFrancisci’s1941work,theverylanguageof

derPalingenesiaCodicis,densenatusconsultaunddemitalienischenFaschismus(1929–1943)’(2017)105Philippika43–56,atp.52.355Thiscombinationoflaw,conservatismandculturalEuropeanismwasfairlytypicalofCatholicconservativesoftheera.OntheroleofCatholicconservativisminthehumanrightsmovement,seeSamuelMoyn,ChristianHumanRights(Philadelphia,PA:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2015).356OnDeFrancisci,mostrecently,seeCarloLanza,‘La«realtà»diPietroDeFrancisci’,inItaloBirocchiandLucaLoschiavo(eds.),Giuristieilfascinodelregime(Rome:RomaTre-Press,2015),pp.215–236;ValerioMarotta,‘Roma,l’Imperoel’Italianellaletteraturaromanisticadegliannitrenta’,inGiovanniCazzetta(ed.),Retorichedeigiuristiecostruzionedell’identitànazionale(Bologna:IlMulino,2013),pp.425–460.357Cascione,‘Romanistiefascismo’,pp.18–21;Marotta,‘Roma,l’Imperoel’Italia’,pp.437–439.358DeFrancisci,GenesiestrutturadelprincipatoAugusteo;HeinrichSiber,DasFühreramtdesAugustus(Leipzig:S.Hirzel,1940);Volkmann,ZurRechtsprechungimPrinzipatdesAugustus;

123

thetext,whichtalksofthe“newworldthatrisesandtheoldthatisextinguished”(p.3)orthe“revolutionarynatureofthenewregime”(p.106)aredirectparallelswithFascistideas.However,theseparallelsremainedparallelsinthesensethattheworkswerestillaboutancientRomeandwerefoundedonancientRomansources.359TheItalianFascistobsessionwithancientRomeandbyextensionRomanlawwaswelcomedbyoneinterestgroupinparticular,namelyRomanlawscholarsinGermany.Withthenewpolitical,militaryandculturalalliancebetweenItalyandGermanycameallkindsofinteractions,suchasaGerman-ItalianconferenceonFascismandlawheldinViennain1938.AmongitsparticipantswasPaulKoschaker,whotalkedaboutthefoundationalroleofRomanlawintheideaoftheRomanEmpire.ThisveryshortarticleremindsreadersyetagainofthelonghistoryofRomanlaw,butthepointofreferencewasdifferent.HeacknowledgedthatforItaliansRomanlawhadanationalsignificance,butforGermansthesituationwasmorecomplicated.WhiletherewasaquestionoflegalheritageinGermanjurisprudence,themainissuewasthatofEuropeanlegalscience.HereKoschakerlaunchesintopraiseofthe“Europeanculturalfeeling”thatisgrowing,thesensethatcivilizationandculturewereunitingthenations.360TheOccidentalisttrainofthoughtcarriedtheimplicationthatsupranationalelementslikeRomanlawwereagentsofcivilizationthatcarriedthepotentialofprogress.InthecaseofRomanlaw,thiscontactwouldhaveenabledGermanjurisprudence

AntonvonPremerstein,VomWerdenundWesendesPrinzipats.AusdemNachlassherausgegebenvonHansVolkmann(Munich:VerlagderBayerischenAkademiederWissenschaften,1937);BiondoBiondi,'LalegislazionediAugusto',inR.ParibeniandM.Canavesi(eds.),ConferenzeAugustee,nelbimillenariodellanascita(Milano:VitaePensiero,1938),pp.141-262;FrancescoDeMartino,LostatodiAugusto(Napoli:Tip.G.Barca,1936);PietroDeFrancisci,‘LacostituzioneAugusteo’,inStudiinonorediPietroBonfante(Milano:FratelliTreves,1930),pp.13–43.EvenRiccobonowroteonthematterearlierinSalvatoreRiccobono,‘Augustoeilproblemadellanuovacostituzione’(1936)15AnnalidelSeminariogiuridicodiPalermo363–507.ThemainscientificproductofthebimillenariowasthestatelyopusAugustus:StudiinoccasionedelBimillenarioAugusteo(Rome:TipografiadellaR.AccademiaNazionaledeiLincei,1938).However,asErnstLevy,atthatpointalreadyinhisAmericanexile,pointedout,thebookwasfarfromaFascistpropagandatool,infactitincludedmanyexcellentarticlesaswellassomemorepropagandisttexts,andeventheoddJewishauthor,ArnaldoMomigliano.ErnstLevy,‘ReviewofAugustus:StudiinoccasionedelBimillenarioAugusteo.(Rome:TipografiadellaR.AccademiaNazionaledeiLincei.1938)’(1939)45TheAmericanHistoricalReview106–107.359Thisin1945allowedVincenzoArangio-RuiztowritetoBenedettoCroce,arguingagainsttheplanstoexpelDeFranciscifromtheAccademiadeiLincei,duetotheseparationhehadalwaysmaintainedbetweenhispoliticsandscience.However,healsomaintainsthattheremightbethingsthathedoesnotknowaboutDeFrancisci.LetterfromVincenzoArangio-RuiztoBenedettoCroceonMarch22,1945,nowinValerioMassimoMinale,CarteggioCroce–Arangio-Ruiz(Napoli:IlMulino,2012),pp.43–45.360PaulKoschaker,‘Deutschland,ItalienunddasromischeRecht’,inFaschismusundRecht.SchriftendesNS.RechtswahrerbundesinÖsterreich(Wien:LandesgeschäftsstelledesNS.-Rechtswahrerbundes,1938),pp.19–22.

124

todevelop.361Whatwassurprisinginhisspeechishowliberalandunfascisttheoutlinewas,allowinghimtoquotepraisinglyideaslikeEuropeanidentityandthevalueofhumanity.362However,beyondthepositionofRomanlaw,theItalianFascistideasoflawandjusticewerenotfundamentallyremovedfromNazilegalthought.Theircommonenemieswerethedestructiveideasofindividualismwhichtheywishedtoreplacewithcorporativism.Theybothsoughttodefendthepositionoftheworkingpeopleandstroveforasocialconceptionofjustice.Themethodswereinmanyinstancesthesame:theleadershipprincipleofdecisionmaking,thecorporativiststate,thesubmissionofallinteresttothatofthestateand,finally,thesubmissionoflawtobeinganinstrumentofstatepower.363WhileDeFrancisciwashardlytheonlyoneoftheoldergenerationoflegalscholarstojumpontheFascistbandwagon,therewerenumerousolderGerman-speakinglegalacademicswhobecameideologicallyferventNazisupporters.AmongRomanlawscholars,nonewasmoresothantheAustrianacademicErnstSchönbauer.364EvensomeonelikePringsheim,whowenttoextraordinarylengthstoforgiveformerNazisinacademiaafterthewar,statedthattherewasonewhosebehaviourwassoinexcusablethathecouldnotforgivehim,andthatwasSchönbauer.Schönbauerwasanextraordinarycharacter,describinghimselfevenofficiallyasbothaprofessoranda“farmerinEichberg”.AftertheAnschluss,SchönbauerwasappointedinterimdeanbytheNazisandproceededtopurgethefacultyofJewsand‘politicallyuntrustworthy’characters,leadingtotheexpulsionofroughlyhalfofthefaculty.ThiscontextmakesitallthemorenotablehowSchönbauertookKoschakertotaskforwritingtheKrise.Inarebuttalthatwaspublishedin1939inKoschaker’sownFestschrift,ofallplaces,Schönbauer

361Koschaker,‘Deutschland,ItalienunddasromischeRecht’,p.21,KoschakerusesadistinctlyracistparabletoillustratehowonlyaKulturvolkliketheGermanscanassumecivilizedtraitsliketheinfluencesofRomanlaw:“WenneinNegereinenFrackanziecht,soistdieseineBarbarei.DenderFrackbleibthierbeiFrackundseinTrägereinNeger.”However,itisnotasignoflesservaluewhenaKulturvolkappropriatesandmakesitsownapieceofahighercivilization.362Koschaker,‘Deutschland,ItalienunddasromischeRecht’,p.22.363See,forexample,thespeechofArrigoSolmi,‘LenuoveDirettivedeldiritto’,inFaschismusundRecht.SchriftendesNS.RechtswahrerbundesinÖsterreich(Wien:LandesgeschäftsstelledesNS.-Rechtswahrerbundes,1938),pp.1–3.364ThedivisivenessofSchönbauerextendstohisdescriptioninrecentbiographies,see,forexample,JohannesKalwoda,‘ErnstSchönbauer(1885–1966).BiographiezwischenNationalsozialismusundWienerFakultätstradition’(2012)2BeiträgezurRechtsgeschichteÖsterreichs282–316;IrmgardSchartner,DieStaatsrechtlerderjuridischenFakultätderUniversitätWienim‚Ansturm‘desNationalsozialismus.UmbrücheundKontinuitäten(Frankfurt,Berlin,Bern,Bruxelles,NewYork,OxfordandWien:PeterLang,2011),pp.258–303;MeisselandWedrac,‘StrategienderAnpassung–RömischesRechtimZeichendesHakenkreuzes’;TheoMayer-Maly,‘ErnstSchönbauerzumGedächtnis’(1967)84ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte.RomanistischeAbteilung627–630;Gamauf,'DieKritikamromischenRechtim19.und20.Jahrhundert',pp.57-58,speaksofSchönbauer’s“Arisierungstaktik”.

125

deniedtheveryexistenceofacrisis.Instead,heoutlinedthegreathistoryofRomanlawstudiesandhowithadapromisingfutureonceittookintoaccounttheprinciplesofNationalSocialism.ForSchönbauer,thelargerdifficultywasnotthefactthatRomanlawwasnationallyalienandthatthepartyprogrammedemandeditsremoval.Rather,themainissuewasthatthemainprotagonistsofRomanlawinGermanyhadbeennon-Aryan(i.e.Jewish),whereasinOstmark(theNazitermforAustria)theyhadbeennational.TorescueRomanlaw,therehadtobeapurgeontwofronts,bothontheteachersandscholarsandonthesubjectmatter,wherethe“Jewish-orientallaw”shouldbedecisivelyrejected.365OneshouldnotethatKoschaker’sfirstinteresthadbeeninthelawsofMesopotamiaandthiswasthesubjectthathehadhopedtofoundhisowninstitutein.Thecontroversieswere,ofcourse,notpurelypoliticalbutweremorefocusedonscholarship.ThedisputesoverinterpolationismandthehistoricalstudyofRomanlawdividedscholarsandalthoughmanyoftheargumentsmightbeginasscholarlydiscussions,theydevelopedintopoliticalstatements.Forexample,whenSchönbauercondemnedtheinterpolationiststudiesasinherentlydestructive,thiswasanopinionthathesharedforexamplewithRiccobono(whomhecitesapprovingly).Riccobonosawtheoverlycriticalapproachtointerpolationismasmethodologicalnihilism,wheretheprocessbecameanendinitselfandthepracticalgainswerenegligible.Incontrast,Schönbauermaintainedthatifthesupportersofinterpolationism(whoweretoalargedegreeofJewishorigin)wereright,thenitwouldhavemeantthattheGermansandotherpeopleswhohadreceivedRomanlawwouldhavereceivedalawthatwasEasternandOriental,notAryanandWestern.ToSchönbauerthiswouldhavebeensimplywrong.Luckily,accordingtoSchönbauer,newresearchhadreturnedtofocussolidlyontheWestanditslaw-creatingforce.366Inthesediscussions,thecommonthreadwasthatculturecreateslaw.Themetaphorofbloodorbloodcommunitywasanotherexpressionofthisculturaldeterminism.Thus,itmatteredagreatdealwhethertheoriginoflawwasoneofproudandvirtuousRomansoftheRepublicandPrincipatewhoconqueredtheMediterranean,oroneofdegenerateByzantinescheminginvolvingJewsandSemites.Schönbauer’scriticismreflectedalong-standinganti-Semitictropethathadbeenpresentatleastsincethenineteenthcentury.367However,theglorifyingtonesusedbyRiccobonoandothersaboutancientRomeanditslegacytothemodernworldwerequitecommonamongancienthistoriansandespeciallythoseonthefarrightofthepoliticalspectrum.Conservativeshadproducedimagesoftheancientworldasautopiaofmilitaryconquestandstrictsocialorder,wheretherealitiesofsocialmovementsandcallsforreformdidnotdisturbthepeaceoftheupperclasses.MuchlikeintheNaziandFascistmovementsinGermanyandItaly,these 365Schönbauer,‘Zur„KrisedesrömischenRechts‟’,pp.388,410.SchönbauerrarelymentionsJewishRomanlawscholars(LevyandPringsheimarementionedinpassing),whoareremovedfromthelistofaccomplishedscholars.366Schönbauer,‘Zur„KrisedesrömischenRechts‟’,pp.390–391.367Gamauf,‘DieKritikamromischenRechtim19.und20.Jahrhundert’.

126

illusionsoftheancientworldwereoftenmixedwithracialundertonesandsometimeswithovertreferences.Forinstance,FrenchhistorianoftheancientworldJérômeCarcopino(mostfamousforhisLavieQuotidienneàRomeàl’Apogéedel’Empire,translatedintoEnglishasDailyLifeinAncientRome)becameanardentsupporterofthecollaborationistVichyregimeduringtheSecondWorldWar.Hewasmadeministerofeducationandinthisrolehewouldpromoteracistandanti-SemiticpoliciessuchastheexclusionofJewsfromuniversities.AspartoftheVichygovernment,hewaseagertocontributetoitsideasofauthoritarianismandultra-nationalism.InaccordancewiththeVichyFrenchpolicy,heexecutedaculturalpolitythattoutedFranceandwithitContinentalEuropeasthetruesuccessorsofancientculture.368Attheendofthewar,theethnicvisionsofAryanpeoplesorromanitàwerepromptlyandwiselyforgotten.Nationalismitselfwastaintedbyassociationwiththehorrorsofthewar.ForKoschaker,nationalismrepresentedanewopportunity.RewritingtheroleofRomanlawandEuropeKoschakerdoesnotreallymentionhowandwhyhecametowriteEuropa.Inhisautobiography,hesimplymentionshowhedislikedBerlinandmovedtothequietofTübingenin1941.Whenthewarended,heretiredin1946.Ayearlater,Europawaspublished.TheyearsinTübingenweremarkedbyrelativelyquietliving.Theuniversityremainedopenandteachingwentonalmostuntiltheendofthewar.KoschakermovedtoahouseinthevillageofWalchensee,wherehecouldenjoyboththepeaceandquietmissinginBerlinandtheclosenessofnature.TheyearsinBerlinhadbeenmarkedwithacademicstrifeandtheresultingangeranddisappointmentwerebeginningtotakeatollonhishealth.369InTübingen,theatmosphereandcooperationwiththeuniversityadministrationwaseasier.TherewereafewnoteworthyincidencesduringtheTübingenyearsregardingwhetherthisorthatpersoncouldbehiredashisassistantorwhetherhecouldbringastudentfromBerlinwithhim.Oneinterestingnamecomesup,thatofastudentnamedPierrePescatore,whomKoschakerwantedtohireashisscientificassistant.370TheendofthewarsawthepoliciesofdenazificationfollowedbywhatKoschakerdescribedasrenazification.InalettertoKisch,he

368Evenhisreputationwaskeptcleanbystudentsforalongtime.See,forinstance,thedifferenceintheimagegivenbyStéphanieCorcy-Debray,JérômeCarcopino,unhistorienàVichy(Paris:ÉditionsL’Harmattan,2001)andintheearlierworkbyPierreGrimal,PaulOurliac,andClaudeCarcopino,JérômeCarcopino:unhistorienauservicedel’Humanisme(Paris:LesBellesLettres,1981).DespitehisroleintheVichygovernment,heprotectedJewishhistorianMarcBloch,whowasamemberoftheResistance.OnBloch,seeCaroleFink,MarcBloch:ALifeinHistory(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989),p.251.369Beggio,PaulKoschaker,pp.119–132.370AletterfromProf.HansErichFeinetoKoschakeronApril20,1943.Universitätsarchiv,EberhardKarlsUniversität,Tübingen,PersonalaktenJuristischeFakultät,601/42.

127

complainsthatheisbeingpushedtoretireandthathe,acommittedanti-Nazi,isgoingtobefollowedbyeitheroneoftwoNazis.371InEuropa,KoschakerexpandedthethoughtsthathehadearlierpresentedinKrise,buildinganimposingnarrativeoflegaldevelopmentandtheEuropeanlegalheritage.Thebookcameatanopportunemoment.NotonlywastheideaofEuropeontherise,witheconomicintegrationatitscore,butconcretestepswerealsobeingtakentodefinethenewfreeEuropeincontrasttotherisingCommunistdictatorshipintheEast.TheOECDwasestablishedin1948,andtheMarshallPlanspearheadedanAmerican-ledplanontheintegrationofEuropeaneconomies.Atthesametime,theSovietblocwasformedandbythetimeEuropawaspublishedCommunistshadtakenoverallthelandsofformerCentralandEasternEurope.TheSovietblocrejectedtheMarshallPlananditsaidprogrammes,leadingtoaneweconomicconfrontation.Whileright-wingtotalitarianismhadbeendestroyedinGermanyandItaly,anewtotalitarianregimehadtakenoverintheEast.ItwasagainstthisnewthreatthattheformerliberalandconservativeforcesofWesternEuropewouldunite.372AlreadyintheKrise,KoschakerwroteofthefunctionofRomanlawasthefoundationofEuropeanprivatelawscholarship(Privatrechtwissenschaft)andthemediatorbetweenthenationsofEurope.373ForKoschakerinEuropa,Europeanculturewasacombinationoffactors,atableauofculturalelementsderivedfromdifferentsources.Whatclearlybothtroubledandamazedhimwasthedurabilityoftheculturalconnections,throughcolonialistexpansionism,nationalism,religiouscontroversies,socialism,andsoforth.WhatthesavinggraceofRomanlawwouldbewastheinherentconservatismofprivatelaw,thereluctancetoadoptrashinnovation.TheremightbeatimewhenRomanlawwouldbeconsignedtoamuseumandthepurehistoricalstudyoflawwouldbeafinewaytoadvancethat,butthemissionwouldstillbeongoing.374ItisevidentfromhisteachingplansinTübingenhowtheideasbehindEuropawerealreadybeginningtotakeformduringthewar.Evenhere,in1942,theintentionwastousethefoundationsofRomanprivatelawasanintroductiontoEuropeanlegalthinking.Thisconceptionwasofcoursenotinlinewiththeideasofeithertheoldstudyplanorthenewstudyplanof1935,bothofwhichwerefoundedontheseparationofRomanlawandtheEuropeanlegaltradition.375In1941,KoschakerhadpreparedhisownplanforthereformoflegaleducationandtheroleofRomanlawinit,whichhesenttotheministerofeducationandpresentedtotheconferenceofthedeansoftheGermanlawschoolsonJuly10,1942.Init,KoschakeradvocatedreformoftheteachingofRomanlawasthemostimportantfoundation

371KoschakertoKischonNovember27,1947(pp.21–24),nowinKisch,PaulKoschaker.372ConservativeauthorssuchasPannwitznotedthiswithsatisfaction.SeeVermeiren,‘ImperiumEuropaeum’,pp.145.373Koschaker,Krise,p.73.374Koschaker,Europa,pp.350–352.375Beggio,PaulKoschaker,pp.132–145.

128

forEuropeanlegalscience,EuropäischeRechtswissenschaft.Intypicalfashion,hepresenteddifferentoptions,thefirstbeingthecompleteabolishmentofRomanlawandonlythelastwashisownplan.376Atthesametime,KoschakerwantedtopushstronglyforthereformofRomanlawasaEuropeanlegalscience,butappearedtorealizetheextentofhistemerityinmakingproposalsthatrancountertotheNaziideology.Forexample,inrespondingtoarequesttowriteanarticle,hementionedthathewouldliketowriteabouttherelationshipbetweenEuropeanlegalscienceandlegalsciencebasedonRomanlaw,romanistischeRechtswissenschaft,andthepresentmortaldangerforthestudyofRomanlaw.However,herealizedthatinordertodothis,hemustbecautiousandcarefulinordernottocauseproblemsforbothhimselfandthepersonmakingtherequest.377WhileintheKrise,EuropewasastrongpresencetyingthestudyofRomanlawtothelargerframework,inEuropaitbecameacentraltheme.Koschakerbeginsthebookbyasking“WhatisEurope?”HisansweristhatEuropeisaculturalphenomenon,anoriginalcombinationofGermanicandRomanculturalelements.HerephrasesmanyofthesamepointshelaidoutintheKrisebutrearrangesthemaroundthethemeofEurope.Asanewstartingpoint,KoschakertakesaheterogeneoussamplingoftheearlierEuropeanistliterature,beginningwithChristopherDawson’s1935TheMakingofEurope.ThisselectionofliteratureincludesCatholicuniversalistslikeDawson,butalsoGermannationalistsandwritersoftheGrossraumideologicalslantaswellasmedievalhistorians.EvenCarlSchmittmakesanappearanceasanauthorinthevolumeDasReichundEuropa(1941).Despitethesenumerousreferences,hisownEuropeisveryclear.EuropeasalegalcommunitywassimplyapartofEuropeasaculturalandreligiouscommunity.Europewasaproductofhistory.378ItishardtotellhowmuchKoschaker’sturntowardsEuropewasduetofavourablepoliticalcircumstances.IntheKrise,therewasreallynodiscussiononthedefinitionofEuropenoritsboundariesorevensignificance.Ofcourse,theKrisehasbeencomparedtoHusserl’scrisisofEuropeanscienceanditsEuropeandefinitions.ForHusserl,theconceptofEuropewasnotonlygeographicalbuttoalargedegreeoneofphilosophy.HedrewfromHegelandNietzsche,whobothsawEuropeasamodeofrationality,aspirit.ForHegel,Europewasaspiritualunity,anunderstandingofreasonandrationalitythatreconciledindividualfreedomand

376Koschaker’sproposalforareformofRomanLawteachinginGermanuniversities.Universitätsarchiv,EberhardKarlsUniversität,Tübingen,PersonalaktenJuristischeFakultät,601/42.Ontheproposal,seeBeggio,‘PaulKoschakerunddieReformdesromanistischenRechtsstudiumsinDeutschland’.377LetterfromKoschakertoFritzBrüggemannonNovember20,1943.LandesarchivNordrhein-Westfalen,Duisburg,NLCarlSchmitt,RW265–8125.378Koschaker,Europa,pp.2–4.ChristopherM.Dawson,TheMakingofEurope(London:SheedandWard,1932);CarlSchmittandFritzHartung,DasReichundEuropa(Leipzig:Koehler&Amelang,1941).

129

institutions.379ItisimpossibletounderstandeitherKoschaker’sconceptofcrisisortheconceptofEuropewithouttheirmultifariouscontexts.Whileforphilosophers,Europecouldmeanrationality,order,freedomandthetriumphofthespirit,itwasequallyasymbolofcrisis,thetiredconstraintsofcivilizationandmorality.Forhistorians,Europecouldbeasymbolofanalmosttranscendentunityofreligionandmorality,butatthesametimeacatchwordofimperialambitionsand“natural”spheresofinfluence.Itscrisiscouldbeaculturalcrisis,aneconomiccrisis,avaluecrisisorevenacrisisofidentityorrace.BoththeconceptofcrisisandtheconceptofEuropewerethuseasilyadaptableforwhateverpurposeonecouldimagine.Inlinewiththeculturalslantofthebook,KoschakerbeginsitwiththecoronationofCharlemagneinRomeatChristmasintheyear800.WhatevertheculturalsurroundingsthatKoschakerframesthebook,itisverylargelyfocusedontheideaofempireasafoundationalconcept.TheempirewasnotsimplytheRomanEmpireortheHolyRomanEmpire,itwasalsotheChristianRomanEmpire.AllofthesecombinedtoformtheideaofRomeorRomidee.TheconnectionbetweenRomeandEuropewasoneofcultureandcivilization.Others,likeBetti,sawEuropeasaculturalcommunity,whichwasfoundedonsharedvalues.380TheconceptofRomideestruckachordwithreviewers,butanumberofthemwerescepticalofwhattheyfeltwereKoschaker’senormoushistoricalgeneralizations.Forinstance,GenzmerpraisedtheconceptofRomidee,butcriticizedKoschaker’sconceptofreception,whichmadenodistinctionbetweenthecontinuinginfluenceandrenaissanceofRomanlawintraditionalRomanlawcountrieslikeItaly,andthereceptionofRomanlawinGermany.381TheRomanEmpireortheideaoftheRomanEmpirewerenotinanywayfixedconcepts.IntheconceptionoftheMiddleAges,theywerealmostsynonymouswiththeconceptofChristianuniversality.ThisuniversalitymanifesteditselfintheRomideeandovershadowedtheweaknationalinclinationsofthetime(p.47).ThesewereideasthatwouldlaterbeadaptedbyChristianconservativemovements.EspeciallyimportantwereactorssuchastheFrenchpoliticalphilosopherJacquesMaritain,whowouldalreadyinthe1930sand1940sformulatethetenetsthatwouldbethefoundationofpost-warChristianDemocraticparties.FortheEuropeanistmovement,itbecameacrucialmomentthatRobertSchuman,oneofthe 379GeorgW.F.Hegel,LecturesonthePhilosophyofWorldHistory(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975),p.173;TimoMiettinen,TheIdeaofEuropeinHusserl’sPhenomenology(Helsinki:PhilosophicalStudies,2013),pp.29–33.380EmilioBetti,DasProblemderKontinuitätimLichtederrechtshistorischenAuslegung(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1961).381ErichGenzmer,'Rez.PaulKoschaker,EuropaunddasrömischeRecht.BiedersteinVerlag.MünchenundBerlin1947.XIIund378Seiten.'(1950)67ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung595–611;FranzWieacker,'UrsprüngeundElementedeseuropäischenRechtbewusstseins',inMartinGöhring(ed.),Europa,ErbeundAufgabe.InternationalerGelehrtenkongressMainz1955(Wiesbaden:FranzSteiner,1956),pp.105–119.

130

foundersofEuropeanunification,wasinfluencedbyMaritain’sideasonanewfoundationofEuropebasedonhumanrightsanddemocracyinspiredbyChristianvalues.Some,likeMcCauliff,havemaintainedthatthe1950SchumandeclarationwasinspiredbyMaritain.382TheconnectionwithCatholicintellectualswasoneofthemoredifficultissuesinKoschaker’sEuropa.Thus,whiletheemphasisonRomanlawandtheidealsoflawsuchasuniversalismweretenetsthathadlongbeenassociatedwithCatholicism,thelawthatKoschakerwastalkingaboutwasafterallRomanprivatelaw,whichhadfewornodirectconnectionswithreligion.TheoutlineofthehistoricaldevelopmentthatKoschakersketchesinEuropaisaveryfamiliarone,asitisthenarrativeofasharedEuropeanlegalheritage.HebeginswiththeGlossatorsandcontinueswiththeCommentators,stressingtheirEuropeancredentialsandoutlook(p.82).Thelawtheydevelopedwasjurists’law(p.99),whichemergesastheunifyingideathatlinksnotonlymedievaljuristsbutalsotheirRomanpredecessors.FromthereKoschakermovestotheHumanists,tomositalicus,totheReceptionofRomanlawinGermanyandtheFrenchCodeCivil.HealsocoversdevelopmentsinotherplacesandclearlyhasaninterestinthepositionofRomanlawintheUS,wherehespecificallymentionstheRiccobonoseminarattheCatholicUniversityinWashingtonDC.383Fromthere,onecomestothecodificationsandtheBGBandtheeradicationofthepracticalapplicabilityofRomanlawinEurope(p.141).Inthebuild-uptotheHistoricalSchoolandSavigny,Koschakeroutlinestheimportanceofjurists’lawinthemakingofaprofessionalcorpsofjuristswithsharedidealsandvalues.TheideasofVolksgeistandProfessorenrechtareforKoschakersimplyimperfectmanifestationsofjurists’law.Itwasjurists’lawthattransportedthelearningofRomanlawtothemodernera(pp.164–245).Inthatscheme,naturallawhadoftenbeenpresentedasanopponentofRomanlawinfluence.Thiswasonlytruetoaverylimiteddegree(p.251),asnaturallawreliedonRomanlawteachingstoalargeextent.Fromthere,KoschakerthenendsupwithSavignyandtheHistoricalSchool,PandectismandNeohumanism(pp.254–311).ThisexpositionwasafairlytypicaloutlineofthehistoryofEuropeanlegalscience,withtheexceptionthatKoschakerintroducedBritishandNorthAmericanelementstotheEuropeannarrative.Infact,someofthesimilaritiesmaybeduetothefactthatmuchofitwasreminiscentofthenarrativerecountedbySavignyhimself.However,moreimportantly,Koschaker’sinterpretationinspiredmanyofthelaterauthors,especiallyCoing,toreengagewithSavignyandhistheoriesonthelinksbetweenlawandhistory.TherearenumerouswaysinwhichthereturntoSavignyadvocatedbyKoschakerwastruertoSavignythanthe

382CatherineMcCauliff,‘UnioninEurope:ConstitutionalPhilosophyandtheSchumanDeclaration,May9,1950’(2012)18ColumbiaJournalofEuropeanLaw441–472.OnChristiandemocratsasaEuropeanistmovement,seeWolframKaiser,ChristianDemocracyandtheOriginsofEuropeanUnion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007).383Koschaker,Europa,p.129.OntheRiccobonoSeminar,seeSalvoRandazzo,'RomanLegalTraditionandAmericanLaw.TheRiccobonoSeminarofRomanLawinWashington'(2002)1RomanLegalTradition123–144.

131

HistoricalSchoolitself.AsanobservantFrenchauthorGaudemetwrote,theearlyHistoricalSchoolofGrimmandSavignyhadanostalgicviewofhistory,meaningitsconceptionofhistorywasidealizingandanachronistic.WhatKoschakersoughttodowastomakethatidealizinganachronismtheexplicitaimoflegalinquiry.Inthislegaldiscourse,itisnotablethatKoschaker’sviewofSavignyinfluencedthatofCoing,whointurninspiredZimmermann.ZimmermanninfactwasthefirsttoopenlystatethatthehistoryofRomanlawinEuropeismostlyaboutthereceptionofRomanlaw,whichinturnhadverylittletodowiththeRomansthemselves.384WithinthishistoricaloutlineofthepositionofRomanlawisalsoaverymarkedexpositionofthefateofRomanlawundertheNaziregime.WhiletheoutlineintheKrisewasprogrammatic,thenarrativeofEuropawasanalytical,despitethereferencetoRomanlawasrelativenaturallaw.AccordingtoKoschaker,theNaziattackonRomanlawwasalogicalcontinuationofthenationalistictendenciesofthenineteenthcentury.Someelementshadbeenprovenwrong,suchasthelingeringassertionsthatRomanlawwasJewish.ProminentNaziRomanistslikeSchönbauerwouldrefutethatclaim(p.157)andsubsequentdiscussionsonlawsthatwerealientotheGermanpeople(Artfremd,p.159).KoschakerevenmentionshowhehimselfpointedoutthatRomanlawhadnotbeeninforceinGermanyfordecadesandthuspoint19ofthepartyprogrammewasnolongerrelevant.ThisappearedtobethecaseevenfortheNSDAPitself,becausetherewerereallynobodywhowouldhavesufferedfromRomanlaw,saveforafewlawstudentswhohadreceivedbadgrades(pp.312–313).Thenagain,ifGermanywastohaveasocialistorvolkstümlichprivatelaw,itwouldreallymatterifRomanlawwasthebasisoftheoldlaws.Asaresult,therewasreallynoconsistentpurgeofRomanlaworRomanists.AsKoschakerironicallystates,noprofessor“hadthehaironhisheadtwisted”evenifheofficiallysanghymnsinpraiseofRomanlaw.Thiswasnotduetotheliberaltendenciesoftheregime,butratherthatRomanlawwasnotathreat.HecomparestheattitudeoftheNaziregimetothatofthechurchtowardsheretics.Theyweregenerallytoleratedunlesstheybegantogainfollowers(p.314).385Infact,manywouldbeabletomakeagoodcareerandbepromoted.Thisdidnot,ofcourse,includethenumerousRomanistswhowereeitherdrivenintoexile,losttheirlivesduringthewarorwerekilledintheconcentrationcamps.

384JeanGaudemet,‘HistoireetsystèmedanslaméthodedeSavigny’,inHommageà/HuldeAanRenéDekkers(Bruxelles:Bruylant,1982),pp.117–133,atp.121;ReinhardZimmermann,'RomanLawandtheHarmonizationofPrivateLawinEurope',inArthurS.Hartkamp,MartijnW.Hesselink,EwoudHondius,C.Mak,andEdgarDuPerron(eds.),TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2011),pp.27–54.385Inthesamevein,WieackernotedthatdespitewhatKoschakerwrote,thetruecatastrophewasnotspecificallyaboutRomanlawbutabouttheNaziattackonscholarshipingeneral.FranzWieacker,‘RezensionPaulKoschaker:EuropaunddasrömischeRecht’(1949)21(5/6)Gnomon190.

132

TheNaziregimewouldinfactgainanewappreciationoftheHolyRomanEmpireandtheEuropeandimensionwiththeconquestofEurope.ThiswastiedtogetherwiththeideaofaEuropeledbytheGreatGermanReich(p.316),andmuchscholarlyenergywasspentatthetimetogiveithistoricalroots.However,theseculturaltheoriesmixedwithracialtheorieswereriddledwithlogicalproblemsofcontinuitieswheretherereallywerenone,resortingtomythicalconstructionsthatbasicallyattemptedtoproveastraightlinefromWotantoAdolfHitler(p.324).FortheNazisaswithmanyotherradicalmovements,thelureofthepastwasonemeansofgaininglegitimacy.TheoriesofgreatGermanocentricempireswereeasiertopresentiftheycouldbesupportedbyexamplesofearliergreatEuropeanempireswithGermanyastheircentre.OneshouldnotofcourseforgetthatNaziideasaboutEuropewereinessencewaysinwhichtheideaofGermandominanceineconomics,politicsandevenlawcouldbemademorenaturalandpalatable.ItishardlyasurprisethatoneoftherootsoftheNazienthusiasmforEuropemaybefoundintheSSanditspushin1941–1942toincorporatealliesandinhabitantsofconqueredterritoriesinsupportoftheGermanwareffort.386However,noteventheNaziconceptionsofEuropewereuniform,astherewereinnumerabledifferentideas,fromthereawakeningoftheEuropeannobilitytoaunifiedEuropeaneconomiccommunityandevenabasicEuropeanunityinanticommunism,whichweresupportedbyelementswithintheNazielite.387KoschakerendsEuropawithareturntotheideaofthecrisisofRomanlawandEurope.ThegreatpoliticalupheavalsofEuropeandthepoliticalandmilitarybattlesoftheworldwarshadtransformedEurope.ThedivisionofEuropeandthealteredspheresofinfluencehaddiminishedEuropeandchangeditsculture.WhatEuropeanculturewasforKoschakerwasacombinationofGermanic,ChristianandLatininfluences.Itwasauniversalistandunifiedculturalspherethathadspreadthroughouttheworldthroughcolonization.ItsopponentwasthenationalismthathadspreaditselffirstthroughWesternEuropeandthenelsewhere.Nowwiththecompetitionofideaswiththeotheruniversalistideology,socialism,itwaspossiblethattheideasofcultureandcivilization,theideaofRome,mightbegintohavecurrency

386Thereisconsiderableliteratureonthematter.SeeJochenBöhlerandRobertGerwarth,TheWaffen-SS:AEuropeanHistory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016);Hans-WernerNeulen,EuropaunddasDritteReich.EinigungsbestrebungenimdeutschenMachtbereich1939–1945(Munich:Universitas,1987).387Onthetransformationofideologies,seeforinstancetwoarticlesfromverydifferenteras:PaulKluke,‘NationalsozialistischeEuropa-Ideologie’(1955)3VierteljahrsheftefürZeitgeschichte240–275;ThomasSandkühler,‘EuropaundderNationalsozialismus.Ideologie,Währungspolitik,Massengewalt’(2012)9ZeithistorischeForschungen/StudiesinContemporaryHistory428–441;IngoJ.Hueck,‘“Spheresofinfluence”and“Völkisch”LegalThought:ReinhardHöhn’sNotionofEurope’,inJoergesandGhaleigh,DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope,pp.71–86.TheNaziswereinfluencedbyallkindsofideascirculatingatthetimeandadoptedthemwithcontradictoryresults.SeeGusejnova,EuropeanElitesandIdeasofEmpire,1917–1957.

133

again.388KoschakerpushedforwardhisownideaofEuropeataveryopportunemoment,amomentwhenEuropeanunificationhadbeguntogainacceptance.AttheendofEuropa,KoschakermovestooneofthemostcontroversialremarksconcerningthevalueofRomanlaw,namelythatitfunctionsasakindofrelativenaturallaw(relativesNaturrecht).Whilehedeniesthepossibilityofanabsolutenaturallaw,thepotentialisstillthereforaEuropeannaturallaw(europäischesNaturrecht).Thus,whileabsolutenaturallawbasedonreasonitselfissimplyspeculative,Europeannaturallawwouldbebasedstrictlyonhistoryandthecomparativemethod,examiningthecommontraitsunitingEuropeanlegalsystems,thusenablingthelegalrebuildingofEuropeandtheculturalworlditleads(p.346).Thus,forexample,BeggiohasarguedthatthefoundationoftheEuropeanlegalunity,forwhichthisrelativenaturallawwouldreferto,pertainsmoretoamethodologicalthanasubstantivelegalfoundation.389Theideaofrelativenaturallawraisesanumberofissues,inadditiontobeingillogical.AsFraenkelhadalreadynotedinhisDualState,despiteitsoppositiontonaturallawandhumanrights,Nazilawclaimedtoexistasakindofrelativenaturallawinthatithadraisedthelawofthebloodcommunityabovethelegalorderitself.390TheNazilegacyandthenewGermanyEventhoughsomeofthenon-JewishprofessorswereacutelyawareoftheplightoftheirJewishcolleagues,formanythisinvisiblesufferingdidnotappeartobeverydrastic.EspeciallyémigréswhohadleftGermanybeforethewarcouldbeconsideredtohaveescapedthesufferingofmassbombing,foodshortagesandthehorrorsofwarandoccupationthatGermanciviliansweresubjectedtoduringandafterthewar.Thus,evenKoschakerwrotetooneofhisstudents,GuidoKisch,in1947andnotedhowhehadsimplyescapedtheNaziswhereasKoschakerhimselfwasforcedtoexperiencethetotalitarianregimeinperson.Inhisresponses,KischremindedKoschakerofthefactthatescapehadcomeafteruntoldsufferinganddeprivationatthehandsoftheNazisandlongyearsofuncertaintyinexile.Kischalsoremindedhimthathislovedoneshadbeenbrutallymurdered.391Thisexchangeoflettersprovidesatellinglinkaboutlifeinpost-warGermanyandthenewideasofdemocracy.

388Koschaker,Europa,pp.350–352.389Beggio,PaulKoschaker,pp.238–245.390Fraenkel,DualState,pp.109–150.OntheNazinotionofrelativenaturallaw,seeFabianWittreck,NationalsozialistischeRechtslehreundNaturrecht.AffinitätundAversion(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2008),pp.35-55.DiscussionsonnaturallawdidexistevenintheNazilegaljournals,forexampleFranzBeyerle,'DerandereZugangzumNaturrecht'(1939)4DeutscheRechtswissenschaft1-20.OnBeyerleasareformer,seeLiebrecht,DiejungeRechtsgeschichte,pp.19-106.391Kisch,PaulKoschaker,pp.16,58.ItshouldbenotedthatKoschakerhadnotabandonedKischwhentheNazirepressionbegan,buthadrecommendedhimtonumerousacquintancesintheUS.Kisch,DieLebenswegeinesRechtshistorikers,pp.121,128.

134

OneoftheenduringquestionsaboutKoschakerhasbeenhisrelationshipwiththeNaziregime.Intheearlierscholarship,somehavepresentedhimasanopponenttotheregime,othersasabystanderwhobecameanaccompliceduetohisinaction.392IntheseletterswithGuidoKisch,whowasatthetimeinexileintheUS,hispositionisquiteclear.However,becausethelettersaremainlyfromtheperiodafterthewar,suchanti-Naziconvictionsmayofcoursebebelated.ThecorrespondencewithKischisquiterevealingaboutthemyopiathatreignedamongpeopleinacademiaabouttheplightofexiles.However,Kisch’sletterstoKoschakerformastarkcontrasttoKish’scorrespondencewithSaloW.Baronaboutgoingintoexile.Arecentémigréhimself,ColumbiaprofessorBaronwasanaturalfirstpointofcontactfornumerousexiledacademicsseekingapositioninAmerica,fromKischtoHannahArendtandHansKelsen.Inalmostallofthesecases,thecorrespondencebeginswithasimpleletterofintroduction,statingtheircurrentpositionandthedifficultiestheyarefacing,butcontinuingintodiscussionsaboutscienceandpublications,interspersedwithnotesaboutpersonaldistressanddifficultieswithemigration.InthecaseofBaron,theletterstoandfromrefugeesarecomplementedwithhisinnumerablelettersofintroductionontheirbehalftopotentialemployersandbenefactors.393Whilethereweremanyfriendsandformeremployerswhoundoubtedlywantedtoanddidhelpthepersecuted,theoverwhelmingfactwasthatthescholarswhowentintoexilewereoftensimplyabandonedtofendforthemselves,beingforcedtograsplifelineslikeBaron.Often,theiracademicworkwaseradicatedbytheNazis,Kisch,forinstance,writingthatthewholeprintingofhisbookonJewsattheUniversityofPraguewasliterallydestroyedwhen“Hitler’shordes”tookoverCzechoslovakia.394Thepost-warcorrespondencebetweenKoschakerandKischbeganin1947,whenKoschakerstartedtomakeinquiriesaboutKisch’swhereabouts,notknowingwhetherhewasaliveordead.Thiswasthetimeofthe“firstletters”,wheretentativecontactsweremadeafterwar.Kischresponded,mentioninghowtheshockoflearningabouttheHolocausthadtakenawayallhisstrength.Whenthewarended,theyhadwaitedtohearfromtheirrelativeswhohadstayedinEurope,buthadonlyreceivedsilence.AlmosteveryoneoftheirfamilyhadbeenkilledbytheNazis.HishousehadalsobeenransackedbytheGestapo,hislibrarystrippedbare,andthehouselatergiventosomeoneelse.ThoughKischwasoneoftheluckyones,beingabletoworkinNewYorkandpublishatanastonishingrate,hissenseoftraumawas

392Inthemostrecentliterature,akindofmiddlegroundappearstohavebeenreached.SeeBeggio,PaulKoschaker.393SpecialCollections&UniversityArchives,StanfordUniversityLibraries,M0580SaloW.BaronPapers,Series1:Correspondence.Inthiscollection,forexampleBox22,folder19,containsthenumerouslettersBaronsenttoFranzBoasaboutthescholarscomingoverfromEurope.394GuidoKisch,DieUniversitätenunddieJuden:einehistorischeBetrachtungzurFünfhundertjahrfeierderUniversitätBasel(Tübingen:Mohr,1961),p.3.

135

clearlyapparent.395Kisch’sappalledreactionwasnotuncommonamongexiles.Theyhadbeenpersecuted,labelledassecond-classcitizensandphysicallyandmentallyabused.Theirpropertyhadbeentakenandtheirrelativeshadbeenmurdered.Inmakingfirstcontacts,theyoftenfounditgallingthattheywereexpectedtosympathizewiththesufferingoftheperpetratorsandforgettheirown.Some,likeThomasMann,weredumbfoundedthateveryonewouldaskforgoodsandparcelsfromAmerica.396WhatKoschakerreportswasnotanoptimisticvisionofGermany.Thoughtheofficialdenazificationprocesswasstillongoing,formerNaziswerequicklyre-establishingthemselves.Theyrequestedletterstoprovetheirblamelesscharacter,toshowthattheywereonlyNazisontheoutside,and,asKoschakerwriteswithstingingsarcasm,sternanti-Fascistsontheinside.Koschaker’sdisappointmentwiththenewdemocracyandGermanantifascismgrewevenmorepronouncedwhenitbecameapparentthatKoschaker,aself-declaredanti-Nazi,wouldbepushedintoretirementtoallowformerNazistogethischair.Oneofthem,WalterErbe,wasinfactappointedtohischairandultimatelybecamerectoroftheUniversityofTübingen.397TheriseofformerNaziscoincidedwiththerushtothecentre,whereevencard-carryingNazipartymemberscleansedtheirpreviousrecordstoappearneutral.Thisretroactivecleansingallowedthemtoreturntotheirpostsinuniversities,wheretheywerenowtheonlycandidateswithasufficienttrackrecordtoqualifyforpositions,foropponentstotheregimewereeitherabroadinexileoroutsideacademiaduringthe13-yearNazirule.Withinpost-warhistoriography,thishasledtoacuriousphenomenon,whereeventhemostblatantNazissuchasErnstSchönbauerwerepresentedasinnocentbystanderswhohadupheldtheruleoflawdespiteNazipressure.398Inmostcases,therecordwithintheuniversityarchives,showingsimplytheimplementationofoutsiderulesasthecauseofthepurges,hadgiventhewhitewashers,formerstudentsandNazifollowers,reasontoclaimtheirinnocence.ReadingthescholarshipontheNaziyears,onesometimeswonderswhethertherewereinfactanyNazisinacademia.OneofthereasonsforKoschaker’sdisappointmentwasthathisownoppositiontotheNaziswasnotrecognized.However,thiswashardlyasurprise,aseveryoneattemptedtopresentthemselvesasopponentstotheNazis.Additionally,acommonapproachappearstohavebeentoatleastpubliclyattempttoforgettheNaziyearsandmoveforward.EvenKoschakerhimselfhadworkedfortheNaziregime,beingemployedbytheGesellschaftfüreuropäischeWirtschaftsplanungundGrossraumforschung(thesocietyforEuropeaneconomicplanningandresearch)tostudyEuropeanlaw.ThiswasaNazigovernmentagencydedicatedtothe

395LettersKoschakertoKischonOctober9,1947(p.17),KischtoKoschakeronNovember23,1947(p.17–21),nowinKisch,PaulKoschaker.396Krauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand,pp.42–43.397KoschakertoKischonNovember27,1947(p.21–24),nowinKisch,PaulKoschaker.Onthesuccessors,seeBeggio,PaulKoschaker,p.159.DespiteKoschaker’sjudgment,Erbe’sallegiancetotheNazimovementwasnotassolidashethought.398Kalwoda,‘ErnstSchönbauer’.

136

planningofthenewEuropeaneconomyaspartoftheNazireorganizationofEuropeafterthefinalvictoryhadbeenachieved.ThetermGrossraum(greaterspaceorarea)wasofcoursefamouslyutilizedbyCarlSchmitt,whoalsofiguredprominentlyintheleadershipoftheorganization.399ThenatureofKoschaker’spositionisnotknown,butitdoesdiminishhisauraasacommittedanti-Nazi.ForKoschaker,theimmediateyearsafterthewarweremarkedbyhisownretirement.ThesituationinTübingenwasdifficult,withpeoplesurvivingonhungerrations(1,075caloriesperday).KoschakerhimselfspentmuchofhistimeinWalchensee,inpartbecausehisapartmentinTübingenhadbeentakenbytheoccupyingFrenchtroops.400Nevertheless,hemanagedtofirstobtainapostasavisitingprofessorinMunichandlaterinAnkara.InMunich,KoschakerwasinvestigatedinthedenazificationprocessintheSpruchkammer,butunsurprisinglynothingincriminatingwasfound.401HisstayinTurkey,whereexiledRomanistslikeA.B.SchwarzhadtakenrefugeandtaughtRomanlaw,reinforcedKoschaker’simageasaNaziopponent,butthevisittookplacewellafterthewar.ThepositioninAnkarahadbeenarrangedbySchwarz,whohadreturnedtoGermanyaftertheNaziregimehadfallen.Schwarzoccupiesaninterestingroleinthisrespect,havingbeenlikeKoschakerastudentofMitteisandinFreiburghehadbeenateacherofWieackeralongwithPringsheim.402ThestayinAnkaralastedfortwoyears.OneofthethingsthathadluredKoschakertotakeupthepositionwasthatBennoLandsberger,hisformercolleagueandcollaborator,worked

399BescheinigungwrittenforKoschakerabouthisactivities,datedFebruary17,1945.Universitätsarchiv,EberhardKarlsUniversität,Tübingen,PersonalaktenJuristischeFakultät,601/42,.ThedocumentatteststhatKoschakerisworkingforaprojecttitled‘UntersuchungübereuropäischesRecht’attheGesellschaftfüreuropäischeWirtschaftsplanungundGrossraumforschung,coordinatedbytheReichsamtsleiterGesandterDaitz.Beggio,PaulKoschaker,pp.143–144.400LetterdatedMarch20,1946.Universitätsarchiv,EberhardKarlsUniversität,Tübingen,PersonalaktenJuristischeFakultät,601/42;LetterfromKoschakertoSalvatoreRiccobonoonOctober6,1946,CollectionofcorrespondencebyProfessorSalvatoreRiccobono,currentlyatthedisposalofProfessorMarioVarvaro,attheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofPalermo;Beggio,PaulKoschaker,p.157.401UniversitätsarchivMünchen,PersonalaktederJuristischenFakultät,L-IX-037.6,noteofthepublicprosecutoroftheSpruchkammerBad-Tölz(April24,1947):onthebasisoftheinformationprovidedbyKoschakerhewillnotbeprosecutedundertheGesetzzurBefreiungvonNationalsozialismusundMilitarismus.402Beggio,PaulKoschaker,p.166.OnSchwarz,seeBreunungandWalther,DieEmigrationdeutscherRechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol1,pp.460–481.TheTurkishgovernmenttookadvantageoftheevictionofprofessorsfromGermany,offeringdozensofprofessorsfromdifferentfieldsalifelineandanewcareer.OnthisseeBaharÖcalApaydinandMarcoFranchi,‘L’importanzaelametodologiadelcorsodidirittoromanonellaformazionedelgiuristadall’imperoottomanoadoggi’,inIsabellaPiro(ed.),ScrittiperAlessandroCorbino5(Tricase:Libellula,2016),pp.277-300.

137

there.However,duetoanunfortunatecoincidence,LandsbergerwashiredinChicagojustwhenKoschakerarrivedinTurkey.ThetimeinTurkeywasmarkedbydeclininghealth,thecoldnessoftheTurkishwintersbeingbalancedbytherespectheenjoyed.HewasclearlyimpressedbytheinterestofstudentsandthegreatauthorityofprofessorsinAnkara.Inhiscommunications,KoschakerpresentshimselfasanexileinTurkey.403AfterreturningtoGermany,hecontinuedtoteach,eventhoughhishealthwasclearlyfailing,thistimeinBonn,wherethefacultywasexceptionallyfreeofNazis.HesufferedaheartattackanddiedonJune1,1951.404KoschakerandthevisionofaEuropeanlegalheritageTheaimofKoschaker’sfamousworkswasquiteclearandhemakesnoefforttohideit:itwasnothinglessthatensuringthefutureofRomanlaw.Whathappensnextwastoalargedegreeserendipitous.Europebecameadominantcatchphraseofitsera,astrawtowhichdisillusionedscholarshungontoinsearchofapurpose.ThepublicationofEuropacoincidedwiththebeginningofEuropeanintegrationandthegeneralspiritoftheerawasthatofseekingunifyingvisionsofEurope.ThepoliticalprocessofEuropeanintegrationproceededatanastonishingpaceduringthepost-waryears.In1949,theEuropeanCouncilwasfoundedanditdraftedtheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR),whichwassignedin1950.Alsoin1949,theNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganizationorNATOwasformed.In1951,theTreatyofPariswassignedbytheoriginalsixparties,creatingtheEuropeanCoalandSteelCommunity(ECSC).TheEuropeanCourtofJustice(ECJ)wasestablishedinthesameyear.In1957theTreatyofRomecreatedtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity(EEC)andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(Euratom).Koschaker’spositioninthisdevelopmentisoneofthemainalternativespresentedconcerningEuropeanintegration.Therewerethreemainschoolsofthoughtonthefoundationsofintegration:1)functionalismorneofunctionalism,whichemphasizedeconomicintegration,2)federalism,whichadvocatedaconstitutionaldevelopmentwherenationstateswouldrelinquishtheirsovereignty,and3)culturalintegration,whichreasonedthatEuropean

403LetterfromKoschakertoRiccobonoonApril11,1949.CollectionofcorrespondencebyProfessorSalvatoreRiccobono,currentlyatthedisposalofProfessorMarioVarvaro,attheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofPalermo;Beggio,PaulKoschaker,pp.166–171.Koschaker’sinfluenceinTurkeywaslasting,hispupilKudretAyitercontinuingtoteachRomanlawuntil1982.KoschakerhadpreparedatextbookforhisteachinginAnkara,whichwasthentranslatedbyAyiterintoTurkish.TheoriginalisintheUniversityofAnkaraLawFacultyLibrary,signature:Ayniyat:No.25971.ThelasteditionoftheTurkishtranslationisPaulKoschakerandKudretAyiter,RomaOzelHakukununAnaHatlari(Ankara:AnkaraÜniversitesi,1993).404Beggio,PaulKoschaker,p.171.

138

integrationwouldneedtostartwiththeculturalcommunityandsharedvalues.Ofthese,Koschaker’sworksemphasisedthethirdalternative.ThemodelultimatelychosenforEuropeanintegrationwasthatadvocatedbyMonnetandSchumann.Itwasbasedontheideaoffunctionalism,ofpullingtheEuropeannationstogether,witheconomicintegrationandco-dependencyasitsleadingideas.Thismeantthatnationalandculturaltraitswerebyandlargeleftaside,forinstancetheTreatyofRomespokealmostexclusivelyoftradeandtheeconomy.405Thechoiceoffocusingontheeconomyratherthaninstitutionsorculturewasnotuncontroversial,however.Therewas,forinstance,astrongfactionoffederalistswhoadvocatedtheunificationofEuropethroughaconstitutionalapproach,namelythecreationoftheUnitedStatesofEurope.ThemostinfluentialofthefederalistswasItalianAltieroSpinelli,whohadduringthewarin1941draftedwithErnestoRossitheVentoteneManifesto(ManifestodiVentotene).ThenameoftheManifestocamefromtheplacewheretheywereinterned,namelytheislandofVentotene.SpinelliandRossiwereatthetimemembersoftheCommunistresistancemovement,buttheirvisionforthefutureofEuropewasofaprogressive,freeandunitedEurope.Itrejectedboththetotalitarianstateanditsabuseofnationalismandthereactionaryconservatismwhichpromisedtoprotectlibertybutonlyadvancedtheclassinterestsofthewealthyandprivileged.ThoughthecontinuationoftheworkwaslefttoSpinelli,thevisiontheyoutlinedandlaterdevelopedaspoliticianswasfederalistinthesensethattheyarguedthatnationalsovereigntywouldneedtobecurtailedinfavourofEuropeanunityandcooperation.SpinelliandRossiwantedaninternationalistrevolution,whichwouldmouldthepiecesofashatteredEuropetogetherintoanewEuropethatwouldcorrespondtotheiridealofcivilization,amovementthatwouldbringaboutsocialreformandtheendofpredatorymonopolisticcapitalism.406ThemanyvarietiesofEuropeanistshadsuffereddifferentfatesduringthewar.Spinelliandmanyothershadledtheresistancetototalitarianism.OnthemorearistocraticendoftheEuropeanistspectrum,RichardvonCoudenhove-Kalergi,theAustriancountwhowasthefounderandheadofthePan-EuropaMovement,hadwiselyescapedduringtheAnschluss.HehadperhapscalculatedthatastheproverbialrootlesscosmopoliterepeatedlydenouncedbyHitler,hisfuturemaynothavebeenthatpromisingundertheNazis.HefledfirsttoFrance,thentotheUS,wherehespentthewarinNewYorkdrummingupsupportforEuropeanunification.Afteryearsofcomparativeneglect,thechangewithintheinternaldynamicsofthealliesshiftedin1945andhereturnedtofavour,gainingpraisefrombothRooseveltandChurchill.Atthesametime,otherEuropeanistssuchasRudolfPannwitz,aGermanaristocrat

405ThiswasequallythechoiceofSchumanninthefamousSchumannDeclarationof1950.406AltieroSpinelliandErnestoRossi,TheVentoteneManifesto(Ventotene:TheAltieroSpinelliInstituteforFederalistStudies,2016),pp.75–96.RossiwasamemberoftheliberalPartitoD’Azione.

139

whohadadvocatedaunified,traditionalistandanti-modernistEuropeledbythenobility,continuedtogathersupportfromthefarright.407Koschaker’svisioninEuropawasofsupranationalhistoricaltrends;itspokeofuniversalvaluesandculture.ItplacedGermanybackintoacommonEuropeanframeworkandpraiseditscontributiontotheEuropeanculturalheritage.AmongthecompetingvisionsofEurope,Koschakerofferedathirdalternative,onethatsoughtEuropeanunityfromthepast,intheculturalandmoralcommunitythataChristianEuropehaddeveloped.Ratherthandevelopaneconomicorpoliticalcommunity,Koschaker’svisionofthepastinvitedthereadertoenvisionafuturewherethissharedpastwouldserveasafoundationforEuropeanunity.Thisvisionwas,ofcourse,veryattractivetomanypoliticalgroups,chiefamongthemthenascentChristianDemocraticmovement.ThecallsfortheappreciationofEuropeancultureandcivilizationwereenthusiasticallyadoptedbyNazipropaganda,especiallyafterthebeginningofOperationBarbarossainthesummerof1941.TheNazisnotedthattheyreceivedastrongpositiveresponsearoundEuropetotheiranticommunisticpressreleases.Onesuchreleaseurgedothernationstojointhe“Europeanunityagainstcommunism,”promptingthepeoplesofEuropetoseeHitlernotasamodern-dayGenghisKhan,butratherasa“militaryleaderofEuropeanditscommoncultureandcivilization”,whostrugglesforthe“recognitionofthewholeEuropeanworld”.408WhatthenewculturaltheorieswereemphasizingincontrasttothetaintedNazireferenceswasaninsistenceonjusticeandlawasthefoundationofthenewEurope.TheinfluenceofKoschaker’sEuropaishardtoestimate.Thebookitselfpresentedaveryoldnarrativeinanovelway,andthelinksbetweenEuropaandtheEuropeanlegalhistorythatFranzWieackerandmanyotherspromotedisobvious.ThelegalprofessionandtheRomanistsappreciatedtheflattery,forthehistorypresentedbyKoschakerandlaterbyWieackerisonewhichemphasizestheimportanceoflawyersandjurisprudenceintheformationoflaw.ThereceptionandcriticismofKoschaker’stheoriesarevividlydisplayedinhismemorialcollectionpublishedin1954.UnliketheFestschriftfrom1938,thisworkcontainedargumentsfrombothexilesandformerNazisandevencurrentFascists.TheworkdemonstratedamplythewayinwhichKoschaker’sreputationwastiedtoEuropa,asitwastitledL’Europaeildirittoromano.WhilesomelikeWolfgangKunkelengagedwithKoschaker’stheoriesonreception,otherslikeAlvaroD’Orswentontheoffensive.D’OrscontrastedKoschaker’stheoriesonRomanlawwiththoseofCarlSchmitt,comparingtheirapproachestotheideaof 407AnitaPrettenthaler-Ziegerhofer,‘RichardNikolausCloudenhove-Kalergi,FounderofthePan-EuropeanUnion,andtheBirthofa“New”Europe’,inHewitsonandD’Auria,EuropeinCrisis,pp.89–110;Vermeiren,‘ImperiumEuropaeum’,pp.144–145.408Pressrelease(Propagandaministerium,VertraulicheInformationfürZeitschriftenR.Spr.Nr.317,Inf.Nr49)onJune30,1941,reprintedinKluke,‘NationalsozialistischeEuropa-Ideologie’,p.259.

140

thecontinuityofjurisprudencefromAntiquitytothepresent.D’Orsshowsaremarkableaffinitywiththeideasofconcreteorderandlegalrealism,whichareperhapssurprisingchoicesinachapterinamemorialworkdedicatedtoananti-Nazi.HewasaclosefriendofSchmittandpromotedhisworkinSpain.WhereD’OrsisinagreementwithKoschakerisinthecentralroleofChristianity.However,hehasaverydifferentviewontheissueofnaturallaw,defendingitsuniversalism.HefaultsKoschaker’sideaofaEuropeannaturallawasreprehensibleseparatism,becauseoneshouldreallybeaspiringtoauniversallaw,anecumenicalcivillaw,aiuscatholicum.409SalvatoreRiccobono,Koschaker’sfriendtowhomEuropawasdedicated,alsospokeaboutuniversalism,butunlikeD’Ors,gavetheroleofuniversallawtoRomanlawor,morespecifically,toRomanlegaldoctrine.AdolfoPlachydiscussedRomanlawasaEuropeanculturalvalue,promotingtheroleofRomanlawasaguaranteeoflibertyandpersonalautonomy.WhatthismeantwasthatmosttotalitarianregimeshaveatsomepointintroducedmeasuresagainstRomanlaw.410WhilemostofthechaptersinsomewayoranothermirroredKoschaker’smainthemes,theonlyonetoseriouslyengagewiththeimplicationsofwhatKoschaker’sprogrammaticideasofareturntoSavignywouldhavemeantwasWieacker.HehadjustpublishedhisPrivatrechtsgeschichteandclearlydidnotseethevalueorapplicabilityofKoschaker’stheory.CriticizingKoschaker’sideasonRomanlawanditshistoryasessentializing,hesoughttomovebeyondtheolddistinctionbetweendogmaticsandhistory.Theresimplywasn’tasingle“Romanlaw”thatwouldhavehadadecisiveroleinEuropeanlegaldevelopment,rathertherewerenumerousandoftencontradictorytraditionswhichwereutilizedindifferentways.Insteadofpuredogmatismorpurephilologicalorhistoricalinquiry,Wieackercalledfora

409WolfgangKunkel,‘PaulKoschakerunddieeuropäischeBedeutungdesrömischenRechts’,inL’EuropaeilDirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.5–12;Álvarod’Ors,‘JusEuropaeum’,inL’EuropaeilDirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.449–476,atpp.471,476.D’Orsmakesacuriousremarkaboutindividualismandtheneedforadynamicorderinamannerthatclearlymirrorstheconcreteorderthoughtpresentedbyi.a.Schmitt,butgivesparticularthankstoacivillawscholarGregorioOrtegaPardoforenlighteninghimontheissues.OrtegaPardowasSpanishandcalledhimselfaprofessor,butasamemberofOpusDeihehadbeensenttoPortugaltoruntheorganization’sbankingbusiness.In1965,hewasarrestedinVenezuelawithasuitcasefullofmoneyandjewels,leadingtohissuspiciousdisappearanceinSpain.FilipeRibeiroDeMeneses,Salazar:APoliticalBiography(NewYork:EnigmaBooks,2009),p.595.IwouldliketothankmycolleaqueDrPedroMagalhaesforthislead.410SalvatoreRiccobono,‘Launiversalitàdeldirittoromano’,inL’Europaeildirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaulKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.1–11,atp.11;Plachy,‘Ildirittoromanocomevaloreculturalenellastoriadell’Europa’,pp.484–485.

141

legalhistoricalinquirythatwouldbebothdogmaticallyastuteandcontextuallysensitive.411Inasense,forWieackerthecrisisofRomanlawanditsunderlyingcausesandsolutionswerefundamentallydifferent,andalthoughhedoesnotstateitopenly,tohimKoschaker’swayofdefiningthemwasirrelevant.AnothersignofthecontinuingimportanceofEuropawasCalasso’stranslationintoItalianin1962.Inhisintroduction,CalassopaintsavividpictureofKoschakerasthequietandreticentscholarofcuneiformlaw,whowaspromptedintoactionbythepsychologicaltraumacausedbytheattackonlawduringtheNaziyears.JustlikeSavignywaspromptedintoactionbythethreatofcodificationandtheCodeNapoleon,KoschakersawthethreattoRomanlawwiththeriseofNazism.412Finally,wemustreturntoKoschaker’sverycuriousideainthefinalpagesofEuropa,wherehedescribesRomanlawasakindofrelativenaturallaw(relativesNaturrecht).Arelativenaturallawisofcourseacontradictioninterms,butitshowstheimportancethattheculturalheritagewouldbegiveninthepost-totalitarianconceptionsoflaw.RomanlawwasacentralpartoftheculturalheritageofEuropeandthusanaturallinkbetweenthelegalsystems,butthepositioningoflegaltraditionasthefoundationoflawwasamovethatsoughttogiveitpreeminence.WhileNazijuristshadvehementlyopposedlegalpositivismandhadspokenofa“people’slaw”orthe“bloodcommunity”,Koschakerturnstheargumentaround.BytakingthefigureofSavignyashisarmandshield,heshowsRomanlawasaculturallyembeddedlawwhichisinherentinthepeople.ThetheorywasperhapsdevelopedintoitsfinalformasareactiontoNazijurisprudence,butitsrootsinKoschaker’sthinkinggomuchdeeper.AcluemaybefoundinalettersentbyKoschakertoFrancisdeZuluetaatOxfordin1930.Init,hedescribeshimselfasanopponentoftheantikeRechtsgeschichte,theancientlegalhistoryofMitteisandWenger.ThemainreasonisthatRomanlawhasaspecialpositionasthefoundationoftheEuropeanculturalcommunity(europäischeKulturgemeinschaft),apositionthatissecuredbyRomanjurisprudenceandthefactthatitwasthelawoftheRomanEmpire.413TheneedforsuchaculturalheritageortouchstonebecomesapparentwhenonereadsthewayinwhichKoschakerdescribestheGermanpeople’ssituation.Wordslikehorror,miseryandboundlessmoralbarbarityareusedtodescribetheGermansandtheirstateduringtheNaziyears.Afterthewar,theperpetratorshadmadearadicalU-turnandreemergedasgood

411FranzWieacker,‘Über«Aktualisierung»derAusbildungimRömischenRecht’,inL’Europaeildirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.515–541,atpp.531–533.412Calasso,‘Introduzione’,pp.xii–xiii.ThiscomparisonnaturallydoesnottakeintoaccounttheconsiderabledifferencesbetweenthethreatsposedbyNapoleonandHitler.413TheletterisreprintedinLorenaAtzeri,‘La‘storiadeldirittoantico’eunaletteraineditadiPaulKoschaker’(2010)2IurisAntiquiHistoria191–222.

142

democrats.By1948theuniversitieshadbeenthoroughlyrenazified.InKoschaker’ssarcasticturnofphrase,theseprofessorswerenowdeeplycommitteddemocrats,or“Nazimocrats”astheyarecalled.414Anotherfactorthatpromptedtheneedforadeepcommitmenttojusticewasthere-emergenceofanti-SemitisminGermany.LikeNazism,itdidnotdisappearfromGermanywiththefallofHitler,andKoschakerwarnedKisch,whowascontemplatingareturn,thatunderademocraticcoverbothwereresurging.415ThisshowshowthesituationinGermanywasoneofconstantinsecuritywhetherthedemocraticturnwouldprovetobepermanentandwhatwouldbethefateofformerNazischolarsandopponents.In1947,forinstance,ErwinSeidlwouldwriteatlengthtoSchillerinNewYorkaboutwhatwouldhappentoKoschaker.AccordingtoSeidl,therewasageneralresurgenceinRomanlawinallofGermany,makingKoschaker’spessimismunfounded.HedoesnotethatKoschakerwasalwaysapessimist.416TheculturaltheoryofEuropeanlegaltraditionremainsthemaincontributionofKoschakerandhismostlastinglegacy.Asateacher,heinfluencedgenerationsofjurists,whowouldinsomecaseshaveanimmediateimpactontheEuropeanlegaldevelopment.OnesuchexamplewasPierrePescatore(1919–2010),whowasKoschaker’sstudentinTübingenwhenhewaswritingEuropa.FromLuxembourg,PescatorestudiedwithKoschakerandworkedashisassistant.Afterthewar,hereturnedtoworkintheforeignaffairsofLuxembourg,servinginthedelegationforthenegotiationsleadingtotheTreatyofRome.Afteracareerasalawprofessor,hebecameajudgeintheEuropeanCourtofJustice,servingfrom1967to1985.Pescatore,alongwithdelegatesfromotherBeneluxcountriesandGermany,whosedelegationwasheadedbyWalterHallstein,wereinfavourofastrongandindependentEuropeancourt,whileJeanMonnethadinitiallysuggestedamereadhocsystemofarbitration.Pescatorehimselfwrotethatthecourtwasaworkinprogress,staffedbyjudgeswhohadawilltocreateaEuropeancourtthatwasbasedonacertainideaofEurope.Bothasajudgeandanacademic,PescatorewascentralinthecreationoftheindependentfieldofEuropeanlawandmaintainingitsprimacyovernationallaw.417Ofcourse,itishighlytentativetoestimatewhatpreciseinfluenceKoschakerhadonPescatore’sthought.

414KoschakertoKischonApril3,1948(p.27),KoschakertoKischonMay24,1948(p.29),nowinKisch,PaulKoschaker.415KoschakertoKischonJune16,1948(p.31),nowinKisch,PaulKoschaker.Theseideascomeuprepeatedlyinthelaterletters.416RareBookandManuscriptArchive,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork,ArthurSchillerPapers,Uncataloguedcorrespondence,Box6,ErwinSeidltoSchiller(October2,1947).417PierrePescatore,‘FundamentalRightsandFreedomsintheSystemoftheEuropeanCommunities’(1970)18TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw343–351;DitlevTamm,‘TheHistoryoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnionSinceitsOrigin’inTheCourtofJusticeandtheConstructionofEurope:AnalysesandPerspectivesonSixtyYearsofCase-Law–LaCourdeJusticeetlaConstructiondel’Europe:AnalysesetPerspectivesdeSoixanteAnsdeJurisprudence(TheHague:Springer,2013),pp.9–35,atp.20.

143

ConclusionsCrisesandexceptionalcircumstancesleadtorethinking.Forsome,thisispromptedbythepersonalcircumstancesortheintellectualchallengeresultingfromthecrisis.WhileexilessuchasSchulzorPringsheimwereluckytobealiveafterthewar,havingwitnessedacataclysmthatprovedtobeamortalthreattothem,theirfamiliesandlovedones,evaluatingtheimpactoftheNazirevolutionandtherepressionsthatfollowedonsomeonelikePaulKoschakerisdifficult.Some(evenhimself)couldevensaythathewasnotunderthreat,andwasatworstonlymildlyinconveniencedbythereformsandthewar.Despitethis,hisresponsetothecrisisofRomanlawwasoneofthemostdeeplythoughtoutandarticulateinhisday.EventhoughKoschakerbeganhismaintexts,EuropaandKrise,asresponsestothecrisisofRomanlaw,themainmessageconcernedEuropeandlaw.WhatwastheroleofthelegaltraditionintheformationofEuropeancultureandhowwaslawaunifyingfactorinEurope?Assuch,thetransformationsthattheyintendedconcerningtheconceptionsoflawandnationalisminEuropewerefarreaching.Theypropagatedtheideathattheunit,theculturalwhole,ofEuropeanlawandhistorywasEurope,notthenationstates.Inanageofhypernationalism,thiswasacontrarianstancethatwassuccessfulmostlybecauseofthedefeatofNaziGermany.Koschaker’sEuropewasthusacombinationofuniversalismandparticularism.Regardinguniversalism,KoschakerdrewbothfromtheimperialisttraditionofEuropeanexceptionalismintermsofcivilizationandcultureandtheCatholictraditionofuniversalizingthevaluesofEurope.Onthesideofparticularism,hespokeaboutEuropeanculturebeingtheproductofaspecifichistoricalandculturalfabric.Koschaker’sconceptionofEuropeanlegaltraditionasarelativenaturallawisinasimilarwayacontradictioninterms,anideaofbeingbothparticularanduniversalatoneandthesametime.ThereinalsoliesthedifferencebetweentheCatholicEuropeanismofd’OrsorevenRiccobonoandKoschaker,inthatKoschakerrejectedtheuniversalizingclaimsofCatholiclawyers.Forhimthelegaltraditionwasprimary,notvaluesorevenculture.OnKoschaker’spositionwithregardtotheNaziregime,thejudgmentofcontemporaryscholarshiphasbeenambiguous.Ontheonehand,hehasbeenrightlyseenasanopponentofNazipoliciesandadefenderofacademicfreedom,butontheotherhisinvolvementwithNazireformplansandhisoccasionaluseofthecodewordsoftheNaziregimehavebeenseenasnegative.Thetruthliessomewhereinbetween.HehopedthatbybeingpartoftheplanningprocesshewouldbeabletosaveasmuchaspossibleofthefieldofRomanlaw,whileatthesametimekeepingsomeofhisideastohimself.Thiswasatypicalstrategyoftheinbetweeners,whoshiedawayfrompersonaldangerandoptedtoslowdownthereformsanddulltheireffect.

144

Theideaofcrisisandrenewalmayalsobeseenthroughanotherviewpoint,namelytheperseveranceofanacademicdiscipline.OnemaywithsomeconfidencesuggestthatoneofthemainmotivationsdrivingKoschakerinbothofhismajorprogrammaticworks,theKriseandEuropa,wasself-preservationofthefieldofstudy.Beggioalsosuggeststhisinanobliquemanner.418OnemayalsotaketheapproachadoptedbyAlessandroSomma,wholinksKoschakertoalonglineofscholarswhohavesoughttopreservethefieldbygivingitanewpurpose.ThisincludesNaziandFascisterascholarssuchasKoschakerbutalsothosealliedwiththeregime,whosoughtindifferentwaysandstrategiestopresentanewmissioninanerawhereoneofthemajorregimeswasexpresslyagainstRomanlaw.ItalsoinvolvesthosewhowroteaboutRomanlawandtheclassstruggleduringthesocialistperiod,orscholarsinthe1990ssuchasReinhardZimmermann,whowereadamantinseekingasourcefortheunityofEuropeanprivatelawinRomanlaw.419ContinuingSomma’sargument,itispossibletoseethedangersofthewilltosurvivalinwhichadisciplineunknowinglyadoptspositionsthatarereprehensibleintheirownright.Onemayask,forinstance,whetherKoschakerandotherswerecomplicitinthecrimesoftotalitarianismbypreparingplansandgivingpresentationsfortheirbenefitorweretheymerelyactingasthevoicesofreason,defendingajustcauseofscienceandlearning?DidinfacttheirwillingnesstoappealtotheholdersofpowerandtheirinterestsleadthemtotransformthefieldintoonethatsupportedideassuchasracismandtheinherentsupremacyofwhiteEuropeans?Thisisaverydifficultquestiontoanswer.However,thereisonewaytoanswerit,atleastpartially.In2000,PierGiuseppeMonateripublishedanarticleentitled“BlackGaius:AQuestfortheMulticulturalOriginsoftheWesternLegalTradition”inwhichheessentiallyclaimedthattherehadbeenasystematicculturalbiasthathadledtotheremovalofallmentionsofEasterninfluencesintheRomanorevenEuropeanlegaltradition.InhiscriticismofMonateri’sthesis,SantucciarguesthattheproblemisthatthereisnoevidenceofthemissingtraditionanditscrucialinfluenceandthattheelementsoftheGreco-Romantraditionwithinlawareusuallyimportantforareason.Thus,whenMonateriattacksSchulz’sconceptionoftheGreeksystematicframeworkthatwasimportedintoRomanlaw,hedoessobyusingscholarshipthatwasusedtoattackRomanlawforhavingEasternandSemiticinfluences,scholarshiprelieduponbythelikesofOswaldSpenglerandNazischolars.420ThequestiontheniswhethersomeonelikeKoschakerfabricatedorfalsifiedRomanlaworeventheimageofRomanlaw,orwhetherwhathedidsimplydemonstratedthedifferentsidesofthetraditionwhichhewantedtoemphasize?

418Beggio,PaulKoschaker,p.274.419AlessandroSomma,‘«Romamadredelleleggi».L’usopoliticodeldirittoromano’(2002)32(1)Materialiperunastoriadellaculturagiuridica153–181.420GianniSantucci,‘Lascienzagaiaelastranaideadeldirittoromanononromano’(2007)4(4)Europaedirittoprivato1057–1093,atpp.1077–1078;PierGiuseppeMonateri,‘BlackGaius:AQuestfortheMulticulturalOriginsoftheWesternLegalTradition’(2000)51HastingsLawJournal479–555.

145

InhisnumerouswritingsaboutKoschakerandtheNazipast,GiarohasnotedthatKoschaker’smeritsasaNaziopponentarefewandfarbetween.HewasnotarrestedandsenttoaconcentrationcampafterpresentingtheKrise,butwasinsteadgivenrousingapplauseandpresumablytakenfordinner.HewasnotundulyconcernedthatPolandhadbeenthevictimofGermanaggression.HewasdeeplyOccidentalist,givingpositivevaluationsonlytothecultureofWesternEurope,nottomentionhisattitudetowardsnon-EuropeanpeoplesandculturesandhisapprovalofWesternimperialism.ToGiarohewasclearlyopportunistandsomeofhisstatementsaboutJewishculturemaybeconstruedtobe,ifnotanti-Semitic,atleastacquiescenttolanguagethatwas.Insteadofhavingbeenremovedfromoffice,hewasactuallyappointedtoadifferentchair,notexactlyanenormousdemotion.Ontopofallthis,Giaroremindsus,hisideafortherenewaloflawwastogobacktothepast.421WhileitcouldbesaidthatnoneoftheseaccusationsareverydramaticandsuchattitudeswerecommonamongmenofKoschaker’stimeorevenlater,thefundamentalissueremainswhethertherewasanattempttopeddleNaziideasinhistreatmentofRomanlawortheEuropeanlegaltradition?LaterapologistsdefendingtheworksofNazischolarssuchasCarlSchmitthaveoftenarguedthatideascanhaveavalueseparatedfromtheircontextandthevaluesheldbythepeoplewhopresentthem.This,however,isafalsepremise.WecandefinitelysaythatKoschakerwasnohero.HewassparedtheroleofreluctantherogivenbycircumstancestopeoplesuchasSchulzorPringsheim.However,itishighlylikelythattheirattitudestowardsnon-EuropeanpeoplesandculturesorevenEasternEuropewerenotparticularlyenlightenedbymodernstandards.InhisdefenceoftheRomanlawtradition,KoschakersoughttoinfluenceNaziofficials,butthiswasduetothefactthattheywereinpoweratthattime.Intheprocess,heproducedanoveltheory,atheorythatwouldgiveanewmeaningtothedisciplineandtothewholeoflegalscience.ForsomeonewhowrotesomuchabouttheRomanlawtradition,Koschakerdidverylittletoclarifywhathemeantbyit.ThiswasinspiteoftheongoingdebateaboutthehistoricalandthedogmaticorientationsofRomanlawandlegalhistory,towhichheparticipatedwithgusto.Fromhisworks,itbecomesclearthatheviewedRomeasafoundationalidea,anillusionratherthanaconcretethingorevenanormativesystem.Thus,forallhisponderingsabouttheactualizationofRomanlawandreturningtoSavigny,itissometimeshardtoseewhetherheactuallybelievedintheveryprojecthewassuggesting,namelythereawakeningofanormativecontinuityfromAntiquitytothepresentday.Whatheenvisionedwas,onthecontrary,aculturalcontinuityandasequenceorreappraisals,wheretheideaofRomewasusedtopromoteacertainorderofthings.TheencounterwithideasonEuropewasmostlikelyserendipitous,theappropriationofaconceptthatbothservedtogivehisworkthepoliticalrelevanceitneededbutalsohadanexplanatoryvalue.ThePan-EuropaMovement,theideasofMitteleuropaandtheNaziconceptionsofNeueEuropacombinedtogetherpolitical,culturalandeconomictraitsin

421Giaro,‘PaulKoschakersottoilNazismo’.

146

searchofacommunity.Koschaker’sEuropewasmoreexpansive,bringingtogetherthewholeoftheWesternworld.TherewasclearlyaconnectionwithhisfriendRiccobonoandhisnotionsofcombiningChristianityandtheinfluenceofancientcivilizationasthetraditionunitingtheOccidentalworld,fromEuropetotheAmericas.However,menlikeDeFrancisci,SchönbauerorCarcopinowereofferingadifferentkindofEurope,onebasedonauthoritarianism,thereverenceofancientcultureandChristianityasaclosedandhostilesystem.Thus,eventhoughthereweresimilarities,Koschaker’sEuropewasfirstandforemostoneofculturalheritageandhistory.DespitetheapparentGermanocentrism,hisideashadnoneofthesenseofbuildingaunityagainstforeignfoes,betheyAnglo-AmericanorCommunistic.Thissenseofintellectualismand,ifonemayusetheword,tolerance,waswhatseparatedKoschakerfromthestrictconservativesorFascists.Whateverinfluencetherewasinthefactthathisoriginalplansforhisscientificfuturehadbeendestroyedandhisfriendsandallieshadhadtoescape,itisdifficulttosay.TheresultwasthathisturntowardsEuropewasoneofculture,notofexclusion.Thismeantthatforpost-warEuropeanism,theideaspresentedbyKoschakerwereuseful.FromtheeconomicfunctionalismofMonnetandSchumantothefederalismofSpinelliandothers,onlytheculturalturnofferedthefoundationuponwhichaculturalcohesioncouldbefounded.

147

5.ReconfiguringEuropeanlegaltraditionafterthewarAbstractThefifthchapterturnstotheyoungergenerationofscholarsandthetortuousroutebywhichtheyarrivedtotheideaofaEuropeanlegaltradition.Bylookingattheso-calledyounglionsofNazilegalacademiaandtheirattemptsatlegalreformbasedontheracializedorder,thischaptersetsthestagefortheirconversionafterthewar.ThroughtheworksofFranzWieacker,thechapteranalysesthereturntotraditionandthediscoveryofEuropeandRomanlawamongGermanlegalhistorians,seeingitasareactiontotheworksofKoschaker,andthespreadoftheseideasinEurope.BytracingthecareersandworksofotherscholarsinvolvedintheNazimovement,itdiscussestheroleofdenazificationandthecontinuitiesofNazipoliciesintheformationoftheroleofEuropeinthelegalculture.IntroductionTheinconvenienttruthaboutacademiaisthat,aboveall,thereispermanence.Oncerooted,peoplestayfordecadesinthesameuniversityandcontinueworkingontopicsthatareoftenverysimilartothosetheyworkedonwhentheystarted.Thus,whentheNaziregimeexpelledanddroveintoexileroughlyathirdoftheprofessorsinGermany,twomajorchangestookplace.First,thecompositionofGermanacademiachangedpermanently.Manyyoungprofessorswerehired,themajorityofwhomwereeithersupportersoftheregimeorwillingtoaccommodateitsideology.Second,mostoftheexilesbecamepermanentémigrés.Onlyafractionwouldbereinstatedandamongtheyoungergeneration,thosewhoweresidelinedduringtheNaziyearswereunabletocatchupwiththosewhohadhad13yearsofofficialsupporttogainmerits.InItaly,wheretheFascisttakeovertookplaceearlier,supportersoftheregimehadadecademoretimetoconsolidatetheirposition.Asaresult,duringthepost-waryears,academiainmuchofcontinentalEuropewasinthehandsofpeoplewhohadsupportedoratleastacquiescedtoauthoritarianism,totalitarianismorfascism.422NotonlyinGermanyandItaly,butalsoinFrance,Austria,Spain,nottomentiontheEasternEuropeancountries,mostprofessorsweresolidlyamongthisgroup.HowisitthenpossiblethattheEuropeanlegalacademiawouldalmostinstantlybecomeasupporteroffreedom,theruleoflawanddemocracyafterWWII?TheexilesdiscussedinthepreviouschaptersweretoalargedegreeeitherintheretirementphaseorhavingintegratedintheacademicworldintheUSandBritain.Asaresult,theywereoftenunwillingorunabletoreturntoGermany.OneexplanationisthattheformerNazisandFascistshadachangeofheart,abandonedtheirearlierultranationalisticideasandbecomeconvertstothenewcause. 422Forner,GermanIntellectuals,p.8.TomaszGiarohasnotedthateventheso-calledmembersoftheresistancesharedideas(condemningdemocracyandequality,anti-Semitism,etc)thatcouldbeconsideredconservativeorevenrepugnantbytoday’sstandards.Giaro,‘PaulKoschakersottoilNazismo’.

148

FranzWieacker(1908–1994)wasoneofthemostinfluentialandlearnedlegalhistoriansofthetwentiethcentury.Hiscareerisbothstrikingandcontroversial.HeenteredacademiaasapupilofFritzPringsheim,quicklymakingapromisingstartasascholar.AftertheNazitakeover,hewasrecruitedtothemovementandbecameoneofthe“younglions”oftheNazilegalacademia,forginglongfriendshipswithhispeersandequallythegreatmindsofthetimelikeCarlSchmittandHans-GeorgGadamer.Afterthewar,hewasrehabilitatedwithPringsheim’shelpandreturnedtowork.Hewouldfairlysoonbegintoreorienthimselftotheneworder,fashioningthehistoryoflegalscholarshipasaEuropeandevelopment.Buthowmuchdidhisviewschangeandhowmuchcontinuitywithearlierideaswasthere?423IfKoschakercanbecreditedwithinventingtheconceptofEuropeanlegalhistory,itwasWieackerwhoaftertheSecondWorldWarpopularizedthenarrativeofEuropeintheacademicworld.Wieacker’sEurope,however,wasnotthesameasKoschaker’s.ThepurposeofthischapteristoanalysethetransitioninWieacker’sthoughtfromtheNaziperiodtothepost-warera,especiallythroughthelensoftheideaofEurope.TheunderlyingissueisoneoftheperceivedturninthethinkingofformerNazijuriststowardsEurope.InsteadofanenlightenedhistoryofaturntowardstheEuropeanliberalidea,whatthischapteroffersisamorenuancedandperhapsevenadarkerreadingoftheeventsthattookplace.Centralinthisdevelopmentwastheroleoflegalscienceanditscontinuity,bothasanideaoftraditionasasharedintergenerationalethosbeyondtheindividualandtheforceofcivilizationasabindingelementofthelegalprofession.Likemanyothermembersoftheconservativeacademia,WieackerinitiallywelcomedtheNaziregimeasacountertothecommunistthreat,buteventuallyrejectedthecrudeterrorandoppressionitrepresented.However,forconservativeacademics,thewarwasadisaster,buttheBundesrepublikwaslikewiseathreattotheestablishedorder.Afterthewar,someofthemwouldspecificallyrefertothe“evilperiod”meaningtheAlliedoccupation,nottheThirdReich.424Tomostprofessorsoflaw,theestablishedorderwasmoreorlessameanstomaintaintheirpre-eminentpositionintheacademiccommunity.Toexplorethesenotionsfurther,thischapterwillcompareWieackerwithbothhiscolleaguesbutalsowithnotedFascistscholarssuchasEmilioBetti,whosharedhisideasontheroleofhistoryinlaw.InWieacker’sthought,wewillbefollowingthedevelopmentoftheEuropeanideathroughclassicism.TheidealizationofRomanlawandclassicalcivilizationwasthethreadthatboundtogethersuchscholarsasSchulz,PringsheimandWieackerdespitetheirdifferencesofopinionregardingtheNaziregime.ClassicismwasalsoafeaturethatrepresentedacrucialdifferencebetweentheNaziacademiaandRomanists,meaningthatexplainingRomanlaw

423Inthischapter,IwillcomparetheEuropeannarrativesbetweenwartimeworkssuchasWieacker,DasrömischeRechtunddasdeutscheRechtsbewußtseinandWieacker’smainoeuvre,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit.424Forexample,attorneyandCentrePartyrepresentativeBernhardReismannin1949,quotedinNorbertFrei,Adenauer’sGermanyandtheNaziPast:ThePoliticsofAmnestyandIntegration(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002),p.14.

149

throughClassicalideaswasnotwithoutitsproblems.ThemainvehiclethroughwhichWieackeradvancedtheEuropeannarrativewasthatoflegalscienceanditscontinuity.Forhim,juristsformedacorps,adistinctgroupwithanethosandcoherencebothacrossnationalboundariesandalsothroughhistory.425ThetransformationofWieacker’sthoughtonRomanlawisinterestingbecauseitrevealstheprocessesofrealignmentthatheandsubsequentlymanyotherGermanscholarswentthrough.AsinthecaseofSchulzorPringsheim,thediscussiononancientRomanlawtooktheroleofasurrogatestage,whereonecoulddiscussthingsthatweretoodangerousorpainfultodiscussotherwise.Onelookedfarintothepastinordertoavoidfacingtherecentpast.ThuslookingatRomanlawenabledananalysisofchangesinideasregardinglawandjusticeingeneral,andwasnotsimplyconcernedwithancienthistory.However,Wieacker’smaincontribution,hisPrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit,wasrevolutionarybecauseitcombinedmanyinfluentialideasintoasinglenarrativethatcoalescedaroundtheconceptofEurope.TheworktranscendedtheboundarybetweenRomanlawandmodern(German)law,initiatingadiscussionthatbroughtnewinfluencestoboth.Wieacker’sideaoftherationalizationprocess,aloanfromWeber,wasfusedwithSchmittianconceptionsofEuropeanlegalrationality.However,whileWieacker’sdeepknowledgeofGermanlawandlegalhistoryallowedhimtoaddresstheconcernsandinterestsofaGermanlegalaudience,hisfertileimaginationalsoproducednovelideas.426WhilethemainfocusofthischapterisWieacker,italsocoversfigureswhoformedhisgroupofpeers,bothinGermanyandelsewhere.Some,likeEmilioBetti,sharedhispassionabouthermeneuticsandthetheoryofhistory.BettialsobecameahardcorememberoftheFascistmovement.Others,likeMaxKaser,soughtintheirworkstocombinesocialtheorieswiththeNazimovement’saimsregardingcommunalismandnationalism.427ThischapterseekstofillagapinthescholarshipsurroundingtheworkofFranzWieackerregardingEuropeandtheEuropeanlegaltradition.Manyoftheearlyworkswerewrittenby

425Erkkilä,ConceptualChangeofConscience,arguesthatWieackerunderstoodlawyersasformingacommunitybeyondnationalandhistoricalboundaries.Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,p.103seesbehindthisideatheinfluenceofHermannKantorowicz.Onthis,seealsoReinhardZimmermann,'Winkler,Viktor:DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft.FranzWieackers»PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit«unddiedeutscheRechtswissenschaftdes20.Jahrhunderts'(2015)79RabelsZeitschriftfürausländischesundinternationalesPrivatrecht686-694.426Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.220–221.427Kaser,RömischesRechtalsGemeinschaftsordnung;Ziegler,‘MaxKaser’,pp.79–80,notesthatwhileKaserattemptedinafewworkstoadopttheracistlanguageofNazijurisprudence,therewasneverananti-Semiticslantinhiswritings.Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.498-499ismuchmorescepticalofKaser’sapoliticalnature.

150

hisstudentsandportrayedhiminthelightoftheirpersonalrelationships.428Thentherearesomerecentcriticalworksbytheyoungergeneration,whichseektoanalyseWieacker’sstudiesthroughtheirconnectionwithGermanlegalandhistoricalscholarship.429Somehaveevensoughttoseehisworks,especiallythePrivatrechtsgeschichte,throughthelensofNaziideology.430Thedifferencebetweenthesetwostrandsisconsiderable.ThischapterseekstocontinuetheanalyticalapproachbylookingatWieackerassomeonebetweentwoworlds,whoaftertheNaziyearspressedforanunderstandingofjurisprudenceasaunitingtraitinEurope.431InordertoexplorethetransformationofWieacker’sthoughtandthechangethatencompassednotonlyhimbutalsohiscolleagues,thischapterwillanalysenotonly

428DetlefLiebs,‘FranzWieacker(1908bis1994)–LebenundWerk,’inOkkoBehrendsandEvaSchumann(eds.),FranzWieacker:HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechts(Gottingen:WallsteinVerlag,2010),pp.23–48;OkkoBehrends,‘FranzWieacker5.8.1908–17.2.1994’(1995)112ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte,RomanistischeAbteilung13–62;OkkoBehrends,‘FranzWieacker.HistorikerundJuristdesPrivatrechts(5.8.1908–17.2.1994)’,inAl'Europedutroisiememillenaire.StudiinonorediGiuseppeGandolfi(Milano:Dott.A.GiuffrèEditore,2009),pp.2341–2351;JosephGeorgWolff,‘FranzWieacker(5.August1908–17.Februar1994),’inStefanGrundmann(ed.),DeutschsprachigeZivilrechtslehrerdes20.JahrhundertsinBerichtenihrerSchüler.EineIdeengeschichteinEinzeldarstellungen.Bd.1(Berlin:DeGruyter,2007),pp.73–86;JoachimRuckert,‘PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit:GeneseundZukunfteinesFaches?’,inOkkoBehrendsandEvaSchumann(eds.),FranzWieacker:HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechts(Gottingen:WallsteinVerlag,2010),pp.75–118;JoachimRuckert,‘GeschichtedesPrivatrechtsalsApologiedesJuristen–FranzWieackerzumGedachtnis’(1995)24QuaderniFiorentiniperlastoriadelpensierogiuridicomoderno531–562.OnWieackerandtheNazimovement,seeRalfKohlhepp,'FranzWieackerunddieNS-Zeit'(2005)122ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung203-223.429Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaftlooksintoWieaker’sPrivatrechtsgeschichteandErkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’analysesWieacker’sconcepts.ManyofthearticlesinOkkoBehrendsandEvaSchumann(eds.),FranzWieacker:HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechts(Gottingen:WallsteinVerlag,2010)alsobelongtothislatergeneration.Ofthese,seeespeciallyMartinAvenarius,‘Verwissenschaftlichungals“sinnhafter”KernderRezeption:eineKonsequenzausWieackersrechtshistorischerHermeneutik’inOkkoBehrendsandEvaSchumann(eds.),FranzWieacker:HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechts(Gottingen:WallsteinVerlag,2010),pp.119–180,andelsewhereMartinAvenarius,‘UniverselleHermeneutikundPraxisdesRechtshistorikerundJuristen.DieEntwicklungihresVerhaltnissesimLichtederDiskussionzwischenGadamerundWieacker,’inJuristischeHermeneutikzwischenVergangenheitundZukunft(Baden-Baden:Nomos,2013),pp.59–103,andMarionTrager,‘MethodeundZivilrechtbeiFranzWieacker(1908–1994),’inJoachimRuckertandRalfSeinecke(eds.),MethodikdesZivilrechts–vonSavignybisTeubner(Baden-Baden;Nomos,2012),pp.235–260.430Frassek,‘Wegezurnationalsozialistischen„Rechtserneuerung“’,p.365.431Kohlhepp,‘FranzWieacker’,p.223,claimsthatWieackerwouldhavebegantopropagageaEuropeanideaoflawalreadyinlate1942.

151

Wieacker’spublishedworks,butalsohiscorrespondencewithcolleaguesandfriendsduringthisperiod.432ThestormtrooperandhistoryThoughWieackerwasastudentofFritzPringsheim,thisdidnotstophimfromtakinguptheNazicause.InthelaudatioforPringsheim’sbirthday,hewriteshowPringsheim’sreputationwasnotenoughtoprotecthimfromNazipersecutions.433ThisphrasingisstrangebutrevealingandshowsthemechanismsthatWieackerusedtoshieldhimselffrompersonalinvolvementinthehappeningsoftheday.Likehislaterwritings,whereWieackerdoesnotdenyhisinvolvementintheNazimovement,heneverthelessalienateshimselffromeventstakingplacearoundhim.WhilehewasnotpersonallyinvolvedintheoustingofPringsheim,whichtookplacetoputintopracticealawexcludingawholecategoryofpeoplefromholdingpublicoffice,thatisnottosaythathispositionwasnotcompromised.Wieacker’spersonalhistorymaybeseentoalargeextenttobeaproductofthetimes.Hewasbornin1908.MuchofhisearliestmemorieswerethusfromtheFirstWorldWarandanatmospheresteepedinnationalismandpropaganda,whichwouldchangeintothechaosoftheearlyWeimaryears,followedbyaneconomiccrisis.434Hewasonly24yearsoldwhentheNazistookpowerandjust36yearsoldwhenthewarended.Thismeansthathisformativeyearswerespentduringtimesofunrest,makingthesecircumstancesapotentiallycriticalfactorintheemergenceofhishistoricalthinking.Thiswasnotunusual,andithasbeennotedthattheexperienceofthewarandespeciallythatofthefront-lineservice,withitsintenseemotionsoftogetherness,unityandcommunitywereformativeintheemergenceoftheNazitheoriesoflawandstate.435LikemanyscholarsinGermanacademia,WieackerwasamemberoftheBildungsbürgertum,anacademiccivilservantclassthathadbeguntoeclipsetheoldnobilityininfluence.Hisfatherwasapresidentofthedistrictcourt(Landsgericht)ofStadeandWieackerwenttothe

432InthereadingofWieacker’sletters,IgratefullyacknowledgethehelpofMsSaaraUvanto,whodecipheredWieacker’sillegiblehandwritingandtranscribedtheletters.433FranzWieacker,‘FritzPringsheim70Jahre’,(1952)Juristenzeitung,p.605.434Onthedifferentinterpretationsofthewargeneration,seeKoontz,NaziConscience,p.49andUlrichHerbert,‘“GenerationderSachlichkeit”.DievolkischeStudentenbewegungderfruhenzwanzigerJahreinDeutschland’,inFrankBajohr,WernerJohe,andUweLohalm(eds.),ZivilisationundBarbarei,DiewidersprüchlichenPotentialederModerne(Hamburg:HansChristiansVerlag,1991),pp.115–144,whereKoontzrepresentstheviewthatitwasactuallythegenerationthathadgonetowar,thosebornaround1880–1890s,whileHerbertandothersseeitasthosebornaround1900–1910s.435HerlindePauer-Studer,'»JenseitsvonChaosundInteressenkonflikten«.AspektederRechtsentwicklungimNS-Systemder1930erJahre',inWernerKonitzer(ed.),MoralisierungdesRechts:KontinuitätenundDiskontinuitätennationalsozialistischerNormativität(Frankfurt:CampusVerlag,2014),pp.11-34,atp.13.

152

lawfacultyinTübingen.There,hejoinedthestudentassociationofCorpsRhenaniaTübingen,likemanyofhisrelatives.Itwasatypicalmalestudentassociation(resemblingthemorewidelyknownBurschenschaften)withalonghistory,splendidsettingsandanappreciationofKameradschaft,collegialmalebonding.Wieackerremainedamemberallhislife.AfterstudiesinMunichandGöttingen,hewenttoFreiburgtocompletehisdoctoralthesisunderPringsheim,finishingitin1930.436HiseducationalfoundationwasnotpurelyGerman,becauseWieackerstudiedinPalermoforasemesterin1931withSalvatoreRiccobono.437Afterthat,WieackerhadtemporarypositionsfirstinFreiburgandtheninFrankfurt.DuringtheyearsoftheNazitakeover1933–1934,hewasinFrankfurt,hopingtobemadeaprofessorinthisdynamicfacultyfullofpromisingyoungscholars.Instead,theuniversitybecameadumpinggroundforexpelledJewishscholars.Inhisletters,henoteshowhishopesweredashedasthesituationbecameincreasinglydisturbing,withunwantedlegalhistoriansandRomanistslikeGerhartHusserlandFritzSchulzbeingtransferredthere.438WieackerendedupinKielin1935,joiningtheso-calledKielerSchulewithotheryounglegalacademicswhowerealliedwithormembersoftheNaziparty.ThisconglomerationofjuristsbecameWieacker’smaingroupoffriendsandallies,boththroughthewaryearsandbeyond.Inthisgroup,hisclosestfriendswereErnstRudolfHuber,KarlLarenz,KarlMichaelis,WolfgangSiebert,GeorgDahm,andFriedrichSchaffstein.ThequestionofWieacker’sconnectionwiththeNaziregimeremainsapressingoneforthisstudy.Hewasamemberoftheparty,thatiswithoutdoubt.Hisworksmirrormanyofthethemesofthemovementandreflectitsvocabulary.However,hiswritings,bothpublicandprivate,betraynotraceoftheanti-SemitismorracismthatwasprevalentinGermany.439Evenhischoiceofstudent

436ThedetailsofWieacker’slifearetoldinnumerousworks;herewemostlyfollowLiebs,‘FranzWieacker’;DetlefLiebs,'FranzWieacker†'(1995)67Gnomon473-477;DieterNörr,‘FranzWieacker5.8.1908–17.2.1994’,inTizianaJ.Chiusi,WolfgangKaiser,andHans-DieterSpengler(eds.),DieterNörr.HistoriaeIurisAntiqui(Goldbach:KeipVerlag,2003),pp.248–256;andWinkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft.OnthemeaningofBildungforWieacker,seeErkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’.437Liebs,‘FranzWieacker’,p.24.WieackerremainedinlifelongcontactwithRiccobono,bothvialettersandthroughvisitstoPalermo,wherehestayedathishouse.LetterfromWieackertoRiccobonoonMarch10,1951.CollectionofcorrespondencebyProfessorSalvatoreRiccobono,currentlyatthedisposalofProfessorMarioVarvaro,attheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofPalermo.438ErikWolfhadbeenWieacker’smentorinFreiburgandtheircorrespondencelastedalifetime.WieackertoErikWolfonApril18,1934.Universitätsarchiv,Albert-Ludwigs-Universität,FreiburgimBreisgau,NLErikWolf.OnthesituationinFrankfurt,seeBernhardDiestelkamp,‘DieRechtshistorikerderRechtswissenschaftlichenFakultätderJohannWolfgangGoethe-UniversitätFrankfurtamMain1933–1945’,inStolleisandSimon,RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus,pp.79–106,atpp.84–85,96–97.OfWieacker’slong-timeassociates,WolffandForsthoffwereinFrankfurtatthesametime.439Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’doesnotreportasingleinstancewhereanti-SemitismwouldhavebeenpresentinWieacker’swritings,includinghisprivateletters.

153

association,thearistocraticallymindedCorps,wasnotasinfusedwiththeNazimovementastheBurschenschaften.WieackerjoinedtheNaziparty(NSDAP)onMay1,1937,alsojoiningtheNaziuniversityteachers’union(NazionalsozialistischeDeutschenDozentenbund).Asearlyas1933hehadbeenamemberoftheNazilawyers’union(NazionalsozialistischeBundDeutscherJuristen)andonNovember3,1933hehadjoinedtheNazidrivers’corps(NazionalsozialistischeKraftfahrerkorps)wheretherewerealreadyothermembersoftheKielerSchulesuchasK.A.Eckhardt.However,thisdidnothelpwithhiscareerprospectsandWieackerwaitedformanyyearsforthecalltobecomeanordinaryprofessor.Finally,heacceptedaprofessorialpositioninLeipzigin1939.ThefactthatWieackerwasnotafullprofessorinKielhasledsometospeculatethatheshouldnotbecountedasamemberoftheKielerSchule.Inretrospect,thisissomethingofanon-issue.440ThoughWieackerwastheyoungestofthegroupandwasthusnotonsomeofthelistings,thisdidnotchangethefactthathewasbothfactuallyandemotionallyboundtothisgroupconsistingofErnstRudolfHuber,KarlLarenz,KarlMichaelis,FriedrichSchaffsteinandothers.Theybecamehisclosestfriendsandassociatesandremainedsoovertheyears.441Thiswasnoaccident.TheNaziauthoritieshadbeenwellawareofthesocializingaspectsofthetrainingprogrammes.ThecampstowhichfutureprofessorslikeWieackerweresentaimedattransformingandbondingpeoplethroughsharedexperiences,muchlikemilitarytraining.Hartshorne,acontemporaryAmericanobserver,notedhoweventhenewRectorofBerlinUniversitywasastonishedhowsimilardress,simplefood,commonlodging,andsharedlabourinacommoneffortdevelopedgenuinecomradeship.Allnewprofessorswere,in 440Liebs,‘FranzWieacker’,pp.25–27;Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.455–476.ThecentralroleoftheKielerSchuleindevelopingtheNaziconceptionsofjusticebecomesapparentfromthecollectionsoftextssuchasHerlindePauer-StuderandJulianFink,RechtfertigungendesUnrechts.DasRechtsdenkenimNationalsozialismusinOriginaltexten(Berlin:Suhrkamp,2014),whereallofthemfeatureprominently.OnscholarshipabouttheKielerSchule,seeWinkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.13–14,onitstheories,pp.264–312,andaboutitsinfluenceonWieacker,pp.465–494.Frassek,‘Wegezurnationalsozialistischen„Rechtserneuerung“’,p.358namesMartinBusse,GeorgDahm,KarlAugustEckhardt,ErnstRudolfHuber,KarlLarenz,KarlMichaelis,PaulRitterbusch,FriedrichSchaffstein,WolfgangSiebertandFranzWieackerasmembersoftheKielerSchule.SeealsoJörnEckert,'WaswardieKielerSchule',inFranzSäcker(ed.),RechtundRechtslehreimNationalsozialismus(Baden-Baden:Nomos,1992),pp.37–70;ChristinaWiener,KielerFakultätund'KielerSchule'DieRechtslehreranderRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlichenFakultätzuKielinderZeitdesNationalsozialismusundihreEntnazifizierung(Baden-Baden:NomosVerlag,2013).441Thisisevidentfromtheletters,wherethereisevidenceofaclosesocialinteractionbetweenthem,includingregularholidaystogether.LettersfromWieackertoHuberonNovember201957,fromHubertoWieackeronNovember25,1957,andfromWieackertoHuberonJuly2,1961.DasBundesarchiv,Koblenz,NLErnstRudolfHuber,bestand1505,1529.

154

additiontohavingacademiccredentials,requiredtohaveproofofAryandescentandtohaveattendedcommunitycamp(Gemeinschaftslager).442Inthebiographies,itbecomesapparenthowintellectualandpersonallossthroughtheemigrationofhisteachersandcolleaguesbecameanelephantintheroomevenbeforethewar.Thesenseonehasisthattheformercommunitywasmissingavitalelement.443Duringthewar,Wieacker,whohadbeguncompulsorymilitaryservicejustbeforethewarstarted,servedinthePolishcampaignintheartillery.HewasthensentbacktoteachinhischairinLeipzigandonlyredraftedinthefallof1944.DuetohisknowledgeofItalian,hewassenttotheItalianfront,wherehewascapturedinApril27,1945inMilan.AfterafewmonthsinaPOWcamp,hewasbackinGermany,althoughhedidnotreturntohischairorhisransackedapartmentinLeipzig,whichwasintheRussianzoneofoccupation.AfterthecalltoFreiburg,WieackergotthechairinGöttingen,wherehestayeduntiltheendofhiscareer.444ItisanopenquestionhowmuchWieackerwholeheartedlybelievedintheNazirevolution.WhatisclearisthatWieackerwasinductedintothecircleoftheKielerSchuleandwaspartofitseffortstotransformGermanlegalscienceintoamodelthatfollowedNaziprinciples.HisworkinLeipzigwaspartofthiseffort,asLeipzigwas,inadditiontoKiel,BreslauandStrassburg,aplannedmodelfaculty,a“StormtroopFaculty”(Stoßtrupp-Fakultät).ThisworkinvolvedthepracticalapplicationoftheGleichschaltung(uniformization)ofthelegalculturewithNaziideology,thecreationofaNewLegalSciencethatwasantipositivisticandnationalisticandreflectedtheideasofthe“concreteorder”.However,atthesametimeWieackercontinuedtoadvocatethevalueofBildungandthetraditionofRomanlaw,bothofwhichwerenotfavouredbytheNazisandtheirobsessionwithracial“thinkingwiththeblood”.445Wieacker’searlyworksdemonstratehowtornhewasbetweentraditionalRomanlawideasofjurisprudenceasanelitepursuitandthenewNazilegalideologyemphasizinglifeandsocialreality.Thusin1935hepublishedboth‘WandlungeninEigentumsverfassungen’andanotherarticle,‘StudienzurHadrianischenJustizpolitik’.ThefirstwasastudyonthenewconceptionsofownershipadvancedbyNazipolicies,whichemphasizedthesocialandconcretenatureofownershipasopposedtothestrictlegaldefinitionofBGB§903.In‘Wandlungen’,Wieacker

442Hartshorne,GermanUniversitiesandNationalSocialism,pp.103–105.443Liebs,‘FranzWieacker’,p.27.444Liebs,‘FranzWieacker’,pp.28–29;Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.475–476.445Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,pp.91–99.Ontheextentoftheideologicalpushwithintheseuniversitiesonhiring,teachingandresearch,seeonStrassburgHerwigSchafer,JuristischeLehreundForschunganderReichsuniversitätStraßburg1941–1944(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1999).FromtheKielerSchule,Dahm,SchaffsteinandHuberwerehiredtoStrassburg.

155

sawtheusersofproperty,suchasfarmerscultivatingland,asaunittiedtogetherwithbloodandcontributingtotheconcreteorderofthecommunityofthepeople.ThiswasadirectreflectionofNaziideasthatusedsocialistconceptionsofownershiptoappealtosmallfarmersandbusinesses.Wieacker’sarticlesonthematterwerejustoneofthenumerousworksinwhichradicalNazijuristssoughttopresentthecontradictionbetweentraditionalcapitalistandsociallyconsciousNazilegalpolicies.ThesecondstudyreflectedPringsheim’sstudiesonHadrianandideasoflegalcosmopolitanismandtheruleoflawdiscussedinchapter3ofthisbook.There,Wieackerpresentedasimilarideaoftheidealizedcommunityoflawyersworkingunderthebenevolentidealmonarch.446ThisinnertensionmarkedhowmuchWieackerwastornbetweentheneedtobeinthevanguardoftheneworder,promotingtheagendaoftherenewaloflaw,andallegiancetowardshisDoktorvater.Twoyearslater,heproposeditemsforthereformagendawithfellowmembersoftheKielerSchulesuchasKarlLarenz.447TherootsoftheEuropeannarrativeintheNaziyearsDespitehiswillingnesstoengageinthelegalreformsofthistime,WieackerwasmostlyconfinedtohistoricaldevelopmentseveninhiswritingsduringtheNaziera.InhisinaugurallectureinLeipzig,publishedasanarticlein1939,thenewvocabularyofthetimewasclearlyvisible.HeaddressedthelawfacultybytheNazieraname,Rechtswahrer(roughlytranslatableasprotectorsoflaw),andhespokeofnationalcharacteristicsusingNazivocabulary.WhilethedepictionofRomanjuristshepresentsthereisfairlystandard,whatisnoteworthyishisexhortationtohiscolleagues:theRomanjuristswerethevivavoxiuriscivilis,areferencetotheDigestofJustinian(Dig.1.1.8)whichWieackertranslatesasdes“völkischenRechteslebendigeStimme”(thelivingvoiceofthepeople’slaw).448Thetranslationsummarizesthe 446FranzWieacker,‘WandlungenderEigentumsverfassung’,inChristianWollschläger(ed.),FranzWieacker.ZivilistischeSchriften(1934–1942)(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,[1935]2000);Wieacker,‘StudienzurHadrianischenJustizpolitik’.Wieacker’stextonlandedpropertyhasparallelsintheotherworksoftheKielerSchule,forexampleKarlMichaelis,WandlungendesdeutschenRechtsdenkensseitdemEindringendesfremdenRechts(Berlin:JunkerundDünnhauptVerlag,1935),p.9:“völkischeLebensordnungundLebensgemeinschaftsindmitdemRechteeins”.Onthediscussionsandtheotherliterature,seeKarlKroeschell,‘DienationalsozialistischeEigentumslehre.VorgeschichteundNachwirkung’,inStolleisandSimon,RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus,pp.43–62,atpp.52–55.OnWieacker’slaterreconfiguringofthearticle,seeErkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,pp.14-15.ThenotionthattheconcretelivingconditionswouldhavedirectnormativeconsequenceswasasharedconvictionamongearlyNazilawyers,seeRüthers,DieUnbegrenzteAuslegung,p.294.447FranzWieacker,‘DerStandderRechtserneuerungaufdemGebietedesbürgerlichenRechts’(1937)2DeutscheRechtswissenschaft3–27.DeutscheRechtswissenschaftwasoneofthemainoutletsofthereformagenda,publishingimportantworksbymanyoftheleadersoftheNeueRechtswissenschaft.ItwasknownasEckhardt’sjournalashewasitsfounder,muchlikeDeutschesRechtwasHansFrank’s.448FranzWieacker,‘VomRömischenJuristen’(1939)99ZeitschriftfürdiegesamteStaatswissenschaft440–463,p.463.

156

wayinwhichduringtheNaziyearsthevocabularyofthelawandconsequentlytheinterpretationofthelawgraduallyshifted.Thus,whilethetranslationwasnotwronginitself(eventhoughtheoriginalRomanpassagewasabouttheroleofthepraetorinRomeincreatingnewlawwithhispronouncements),itincludestwoveryweightyconceptsofNazijurisprudence.Thefirstwasthelivinglaworlawthattakesintoaccountthepoliticalsituationasopposedtolawinbooks.Thesecondwastheconceptofthepeople’slaw(Volksrecht)asopposedtoanalienlaw.Inconsequence,withinasingleloosetranslation,WieackermakesareferencetoboththeNazipolicyoftheconcreteorder,whichstatesthatalllawissecondarytopolitics,inwhichtheultimatestatementwasthatthewilloftheFühreristhehighestlaw,aswellastheNaziaimtoreplacealloldlawwiththenew“people’slaw”.ThesepublicdeclarationsofallegianceprovedtobeanexceptiontothemainstrandinWieacker’sworks,thecontinuityofjurisprudence.WieackerearlyonreadCoing’sthesisaboutthereceptionofRomanlawandincorporateditintohisideaaboutthecentralroleofhumanistsinlegitimatingandstrengtheningthereceptionofRomanlaw.449Thisbecameacentralthemeinhiswritings,wherehesoughttopresentthejurisprudentiallinkbetweenancientandmodernlawasoneofthefundamentaltraitsofWesterncivilization.EveninWieacker’searlyworks,theoriginofthelawandthelegalheritagewasinancientRome.Forexample,Wieackerwrotein1942aboutJustinian’sCorpusIurisinawaythatreflectedaverystronglyclassicizingideaofRomanlaw.TherehadbeenanoriginalcreativespiritthathadformedtheoriginalRomanlawoftheclassicalperiod,buttheCodexJustinianuswassimplyapoorreflectionofthat.Assomeonefondofvisualimagery,hewoulddescribeitasaherbarium,fullofpresseddeadplants.However,alreadyherehepresentedtheideaoftheEuropeanspiritatwork,developingandgrowinginthetruetraditionofRomanlawandinspiringtheGermandevelopment.450Inthisarticle,Wieackermakesthedistinctionbetweenthelifeofthelawandthebookformthatcarriesit.Itisverydifficulttoactuallymakesenseofhisorganicimagery,butitwouldappearthathemakesacomparisonbetweenthevitalityandself-esteemof“youngpeoples”,areferencetoGermanicpeoples,andthewisdomofthebook,andhowtheywouldbejoinedinthereceptionofRomanlaw.Romanlaw,astransferredfromtheCorpusIuris,wouldprovideamereskeleton,arationalframeworkthroughwhichthelifeofthenationwouldagainflow.451Thesefloralororganictheoriesofculturemaskedadesiretopreservethevitalityofthelaw.WhiletheinterpolationistcritiqueoftheerahadsoughttoperformanautopsyoftheJustinianiccompilationandtoseparatetheauthenticandtheunauthentic,itscriticslikeKoschakerdemandedanactualizationofthetextsandtheirrevitalizationaspartoftheexistinglaw,akindofresurrection.WhatWieackerproposedwasathirdway,anideathathe 449FranzWieacker,'EinflüssedesHumanismusaufdieRezeption.EineStudiezuJohannesApelsDialogus'(1940)100(4)ZeitschriftfürdiegesamteStaatswissenschaft423–456.450FranzWieacker,‘CorpusIuris’(1942)102ZeitschriftfürdiegesamteStaatswissenschaft444–445.451Wieacker,‘CorpusIuris’,p.445.

157

wouldlaterdevelopintheTextstufen,whichwasatextualanalysisproducingatrulyhistoricalunderstandingoflawinitsintellectualcontextandaspartofthedevelopmentoflaw.AccordingtoWinkler,thealternativepresentedbyWieackershowsclearinputfromhismaininfluences:Pringsheim,A.B.Schwarz,HermannKantorowiczandMaxWeber.Itsmainpointswerethehistoricizationoflegalhistory,thefocusonclassicalRomanlawratherthanthelawofJustinian,theadvancedmethodsofhistorysuchashermeneuticsandtheconnectionbetweenRomanlawandnewerlegalhistory.However,withthisWieackerpresentsadegreeofseparationnotonlyfromtheKoschakerianideaofdogmaticcontinuity,butalsotothedogmaticconnectionbetweenancientRomeandmodernlawmadebyscholarsclosertotheregime,likeSchönbauer,KrellerandKaser.452Inshort,WieackeroffersamorehistoricalunderstandingofRomanlawasthefoundationofthelegalmethod.Therewasanotherconnection,totheworkofSchulz,whowasadamantinhisdepictionofRomanlawasalivingtraditionthatmanagedtoavoidthepetrificationresultingfromwritingdownthelawandreducingittoacodification.453ThefactthathisstrongestinfluenceswerenearlyallJewishauthors(Schulz,Pringsheim,KantorowiczandSchwarz)orliberals(Weber)makeshisturntowardsNazijurisprudenceallthemoreremarkable.ThisisnottosaythattherewouldnothavebeenimportantinfluencesfromtheNazisideaswell,fromCarlSchmitttotheKielerSchule,whostressedthesocialandpoliticalconnectednessoflaw.Thedistinctionbetweenthelifeofthelawanditsforminbookswasequallysignificantinthetheoriesoflegalrealism,whichdescribedthecontradictionbetweenlawinbooksandlawinaction.WhilelegalrealismwasmostwidelyanAmericanphenomenon,similarviewpointswerepresenteveninEurope.454AparticularlyimportantperspectivewasCarlSchmitt’sthinkingontheconcreteorder.EversinceWieackerjoinedtheKielgroup,Schmittwasanimportantinfluenceonhim.Thetwowereinconstantcontactuntiltheendofthewar,SchmittoftencommentingonWieacker’swritings.Oneshouldnot,however,trytoreduceWieacker’sthinkingtoSchmitt’s,455butinsteadseehowtheideasofthepoliticalorderwerecarriedovertoWieacker’sthoughtandhowthesensitivitytothepoliticalinfluencetolawgrew.Inapresentationgivenin1943,WieackerreturnedtotherelationshipbetweentheRomanandtheGermanlegalconsciousness.HewouldbeginbyacknowledginghowthelovefortheGermanculturalheritageandthespiritoffreedomwouldearlierhaveledGermanlegalhistorianstodenouncetheinfluenceofRomanlaweversincethenationalawakeningofthe

452Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.173,179–180.453ThisisthemainthemeinSchulz,RomanLegalScience.454Onthefundamentaldifferencesbetweenthevariouslegalrealisms,seeHeikkiPihlajamäki,‘AgainstMetaphysicsinLaw:TheHistoricalBackgroundofAmericanandScandinavianLegalRealismCompared’(2004)52TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw469–487.455Forexample,Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,p.323attemptstofindanalmostcausalconnection.

158

19thcentury.ThedevelopmentofthehistoricalconsciousnessandtheorganicconceptionofthepeopleledthemtoseeRomanlawasanalienimplant.Somewhatlater,Romanlawhadceasedtobeseenasanationalself-betrayal,butwasinsteaddismissedasanirrelevantrelicinamodernworldthathadmovedfarbeyonditslimits,muchlikemathematicshadoutgrownEuclid.HereisitinterestingtonotehowWieackerusesthewordsun-Germanandun-Europeanalmostinterchangeably.WhatWieackerthenpresentsasthegreatredemptionofRomanlawisalmostsomethingdrawnfromSavigny:todescribetheuseofRomanlawinEuropeasaforeignandancientimplantsuppressingnationallawisanenormousmisunderstandingoftheWesterncreativespirit.WhatRomanlawwasactuallyismoreakintotheworksofHomerandAristotle,productsofthecommonspiritoftheWestandofEuropeandestinythatwouldthenformabasisfornewdevelopments.456Thereferencestocontemporarylanguageandthecontemporaryimaginaryarestartlinglyclear.WieackerequatestheEuropeanandtheGermancivilization,presentscultureandpeopleastheprimeactorsandreferstobloodasametaphorofthepeople.Theorganicconceptionsofcultureareverystrong;culturesareeitheryounganddevelopingortheyaremature,andtheygrowmuchlikeplantsnourishedbyinfluences.ThisideaisacentralfeatureoftheideaofreceptionasWieackerpresentsit:RomanlawandtheideaofRomewerenotsomethingalientotheGermanpeople(volksfremd,Undeutsches,p.26);theynourishedlearningandrationalityandhadbeenincorporatedintotheGermanandbyextensionEuropeanculture.457Wieacker’sideaswerethusinstarkcontrastwiththeearlyNazitheories,whereRomanlawwasadangerousweed,somethingtobeuprooted.WhilethestandardresponseoftheRomanlawscholarhadbeentoseparatetheearlierpureRomanlawandthelaterEasternandSemiticinfluences,Wieackerpresenteditallasakindofcontinuum.Wieacker’spositioninrelationtotheevolutionofNazilegalthoughtprovedtobeawiseone.OvertimetheoppositiontowardsRomanlawbecamemorenuancedandfocusedonthelaterJustinianiclaw,fromwheredifferentpurportedlySemiticideaswerethoughttohaveemerged.EvenHansFrankmaintainedthattheNazishadnothingagainsttheteachingandresearchofthelawofaproudandself-consciousnation,458meaningtheRomeoftheRepublicandEarlyEmpire.ThisevolutionofNazithoughthadofcourseinthebackgroundboththealliancewithFascistItalyandthecarefulresistancebylawyersthemselves,whoconsistentlyadvocatedforthepreservationandvalueofRomanlaw.459AsimilarrehashingofprioritieswasundertakenbyleadingNaziRomanlawscholarssuchasHansKreller,whopresentedthreepointsinwhichRomanlawwouldbeessentialtolawyersinNaziGermany:1)thedogmaticcontinuityfromRomanlawtocontemporarylawmeansthatRomanrootsareessential,2)theracialproximitybetweenGermansandtheold“masterraces”oftheMediterranean,theGreeksandtheRomans,makestheirhistoryourhistory,and3)the 456Wieacker,DasrömischeRechtunddasdeutscheRechtsbewußtsein,pp.3–9.457Wieacker,DasrömischeRechtunddasdeutscheRechtsbewußtsein,pp.10–27.458HansFrank,‘ZurReformdesRechtsstudiums’(1933)3DeutschesRecht23–24.459Onthis,seethepreviouschapter.

159

Romansaretheclassicalauthoritiesonlaw,whichmeansthattheirhistoryhastobeknowninordertosurpassthem.460AsStolleishaspointedout,inMeinKampfHitlerhimselfhadsupportedthestudyofRomanhistoryandGreekculture,afactthatRomanlawscholarswererelievedtonote.461However,duringthewaryearstheissueofculturewasverymuchamatterofdemonstratinghegemony,themanifestationsofGermanculturalsuperiorityofferingawaytoargueforGermandominanceinEurope.Duringthewar,Wieacker,CarlSchmittandothersgavelecturesaspartofthewareffort.TheywenttoalliedcountrieslikeHungaryaswellastooccupiedParistogivepresentationsonsuchtopicsasthesuperiorityofGermanculture.462Inabookpublishedin1944,VomrömischenRecht,WieackerreturnstotheproblemofreceptionandthelinkbetweenRomanlawandWesternlegalscience.Inthesectiontitled“Ratioscripta”,hedistinguishestworolesforRomanlaw,firstashistoryandsecondasanidea.RomanlawisseenasthemotherofEuropeanlegalscience,andastherootoflegalconceptsandthinkinginthehistoryoflaw.WhatRomanlawthenmeanstous,writesWieacker,isaculturalheritage:

SoweitdasrömischeRechtunsangeht,iseseinElementnichtderAltenGeschichte,sonderndeseuropäischens,besondersauchdesdeutchenLebensundDenkens.RömischesRechtistdemabendländischenDenkenüberRechtundStaat,dasinderSchulederAntikebegonnenhat,seitderfrühestenDämmerunddeseuropäischenBewusstseinszugesetz(…).463WhatRomanlawmeanstousisnotanelementofancienthistory,butratherapartoftheEuropean,especiallyGermanlifeandthought.ForWesternthoughtonlawandthestate,RomanlawisthefoundationlaidinantiquityfromtheearliestbeginningsofEuropeanconsciousness….

WhatWieackeroutlineshereisamorecomplexprocessthanasimplecontinuity,receptionorrebirth.Again,truetoform,hebuildsaparableoutoftheinfluencethatlimes,thefortifiedborderbetweentheRomanEmpireandtheGermansthatranmainlyalongtheRhineandDanube,hadonGermanicpeoplesbothinsideandoutsideofthewall.Wieackermaintains 460HansKreller,RömischeRechtsgeschichte:eineEinführungindieVolksrechtederHellenenundRömerundindasrömischeKunstrecht(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1936);Simon,‘DiedeutscheWissenschaftvomrömischenRechtnach1933’,pp.162–163.461Stolleis,ʻ“FortschrittederRechtsgeschichteˮinderZeitdesNationalsozialismus?ʼ,pp.180–181.462LetterfromWieackertoCarlSchmittonNovember30,1941.LandesarchivNordrhein-Westfalen,Duisburg,NLCarlSchmitt,RW0265;LeipzigUniversitätsarchiv,Personenakten/DossiersWieacker,Franz,PA-SG0457:September2,1944,workorderfromReichministerfürWissenschaft,ErziehungundVolksbildtogivealectureinHungary.Ontheirtravels,seeErkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,p.102;Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.473–474.463Wieacker,VomrömischenRecht,p.196.

160

thatasaresultofthesharedculturalandmateriallifeandtheinnumerableinstancesoftransfer,thepeoplewereultimatelybothRomansandGermansatthesametime.This,heclaims,isthetruesourceoftheunityofEurope.464Wieackerthenpresentsatlengththepracticalprocessofthereceptionwiththeglossatorsandsoforththatappearsasasecondaryfulfilmentofthepromisemadebytheinitialunity.Thescientificprocess,thebuildingofthenewsharedEuropeantraditionoperatedonthebasisofcanonistic,GermanisticandRomanisticscholarship.Theresultwasbothideologicalandpractical,andhereWieackerreferstoKoschaker’sideaofthe“kulturelleRomidee”.465ItisperhapsnotnecessarytofollowWieacker’sthoughtasitwindsthroughthereceptionofRomanlaw,earlymodernhumanistscholarship,Pandectism,theHistoricalSchool,andfinallytomodernlaw.However,itisimportanttonotethathere,inunderahundredpages,istheformofhistoricalnarrativethatwouldlaterberetoldinthePrivatrechtsgeschichte.ThemaincomponentsoftheEuropeannarrativewerealreadypresentinWieacker’searlyworkspublishedbeforetheendofthewar,buttheshapingoftheseideaswasalongprocesswhereboththehistoricalfactsandtheirimplicationschangedovertheyears.WieackerwasclearlyinfluencedbyNazilegalthinkersandtheirtheoriesofculture,butinimportantaspectsheprovidedacompletelyoppositeviewpoint.HepresentedveryclearlytheideaofreasonandrationalismasthekeyingredientofEuropeanlegalthought.TheprocessofrationalizationasakeyfeaturewasofcoursesomethingthatWieackertookfromWeber.ThisconnectionbetweenWieackerandWeberwasoneoftheelementsthathelpedWieacker’shistoricalnarrativegainacceptance.466TherightandEuropeasahistoricalconceptOneoftheclearestdifferencesbetweenmoreseniorscholarssuchasSchulz,PringsheimorKoschakerandthenewgenerationcanbelocatedtotheirtheoriesofhistory.Whiletheotherswereprimarilylawyersandmainlyinterestedinhistoricaldevelopmentsasasequenceofintellectualanddogmatictransformations,Wieackerhadadeepinterestintherelationshipbetweensocialandlegaldevelopment,therelationshipbetweensourcesandinterpretationandtheoriesofphilosophyandhistory,wherehismainfocuswasonhistoricalhermeneutics.HehadbeeninfluencedbyGadamerandtheyhadbeenincorrespondenceovertheyears.WhattheysharedwasadeepappreciationoftheideasofBildungandcultureascreativeandformativeforcesthatshapetheintellectualprocess.Forthemboth,whatdefinedEuropewasitscultureandcivilization.Evenintheapocalypticfinalstagesofthewar,theywoulddiscussthewayinwhichhistoryandhistoricalconsciousnessshapedcultureandhowthepastwaspresentintheone’sculture.InMarch1945,WieackerwouldwritetoGadamerfromItaly,

464Wieacker,VomrömischenRecht,pp.196–199.465Wieacker,VomrömischenRecht,p.221.466Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,p.115.

161

remarkinghowitisobvioushowinItalytheclassicalandthepresentareintertwinedregardlessofthevicissitudesoftheday.467Interestinhermeneuticsanditsimplicationsinthehistoryoflawweresharedbyotherinfluentiallegalhistorians.EmilioBetti(1890–1968)wasequallyfascinatedwithGadamer’sideasabouthermeneutics.BettibecameanenthusiasticsupporteroftheFascistregime,butunlikemanyothersdidnotbecomepersonallyinvolvedintheregime.468BettihadearlyonbeguntodiscusstherelationshipbetweenRomanlawandcontemporarylaw,firstdescribingandlatercriticizingtheideaofaseparationbetweenahistoricalandadogmaticorahistoricalandascientificmethod.ForBetti,legalphenomenawerenotdivisibleintoseparatehistoricalanddogmaticsides,butshouldbeseenasunifiedwholeswherehistoricalorphilosophicalstudieswereequallyrelevantasstudiesoncontemporarylawintheunderstandingoflaw.Inconsequence,hissolutiontotheperceivedcrisisofRomanlawanditsrelationtomodernlawwastheemphasisontheconnectionandthemutualinterdependenceofthehistoricalandthecontemporary.469Betti’sinterestinlegalhermeneuticsledhimintoalongandconvoluteddebatewithGadamer,inwhichWieackerparticipatedonoccasion.470Betti’sinvolvementwithFascismwasintellectualinnatureandbeliedthetransformationofhisideasaboutconstitutionalthought.WhilehisearlyworksonthecrisisoftheLateRepublicdemonstratedhisbeliefsthatitwasthesenatorialorderthathadbeguntotransgresstheconstitution,duringthe1920shefocusedonelementssuchaspower,order,imperiumandleadership.HejoinedtheFascistsin1929,buttheprocessofintellectualalignmenthadalreadybegunearlier.Hisworkswouldcontaindiscussionsonthenatureoftotalitarianism

467WieackertoHans-GeorgGadameronMarch14,1945.DeutschesLiteraturArchiv,MarbachamNeckar,NLHans-GeorgGadamer;Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,pp.108–110;Avenarius,‘UniverselleHermeneutikundPraxisdesRechtshistorikerundJuristen’.Onanunrelatednote,itshowshowmuchWieackerwasfocusedoncultureashewasmakingremarksaboutclassicalcultureasanofficerofanoccupyingarmy.468PietroCosta,‘EmilioBetti:dogmatica,politica,storiografia’(1978)7QuaderniFiorentini311–393;GiulianoCrifò,‘EmilioBetti(1890–1968)’,inRafaelDomingo(ed.),JuristasUniversales,IV(MadridandBarcelona:MarcialPons,2004),pp.217–222;EmilioBetti,Notazioniautobiografiche(Padova:CEDAM,1953);Cascione,‘Romanistiefascismo’,pp.19–20;MassimoBrutti,‘EmilioBettiel'incontroconilfascismo’,inItaloBirocchiandLucaLoschiavo(eds.),Giuristieilfascinodelregime(Rome:RomaTre-Press,2015),pp.63–102.469EmilioBetti,‘Dirittoromanoedogmaticaodierna’(1928)99ArchivioGiuridico129–150and100ArchivioGiuridico26–66;EmilioBetti,Istituzionididirittoromano,vol1(Padova:CEDAM,1942)p.xiv;Santucci,‘Decifrandoscritti’,pp.93.470Muchhasbeenwrittenonthis,mostrecentlyEmiliaMataixFerrandiz,‘Bettivs.Gadamer.Eldebate acerca demétodo y verdad en la hermenéutica jurídica’, in LorenzoGagliardi (ed.),Antologia giuridica romanistica ed antiquaria, II (Milano: Collana di Diritto romano delDipartimentodiDirittoprivatoeStoriadelDiritto,UniversitàdegliStudidiMilano,2018),pp.575–610.Onapractical level,Betti is a constantpresence in theextensive correspondencebetweenWieacker and Gadamer, seeWieacker to Hans-GeorgGadamer on April 11, 1963.DeutschesLiteraturArchiv,MarbachamNeckar,NLHans-GeorgGadamer.

162

andtheimportanceofmaintainingtheFascistalliancewithGermany,evenwhendefeatwasimminent.471DuringtheItalianliberation,BettiwasarrestedbythepartisansinJune1944andputtoatrial,wherehewoulddefendhischoices.Ithasbeensaidthathisphilosophicaldefencealmostgothimshot,andhewasonlysavedbytheinterventionofhishastilysummoneddefenceattorney,whoarguedthatBettiwasclearlyinsaneandwasthusnotresponsibleforhisactions.472ThelinkbetweenBettiandWieackerisstrongestintheirdiscussionsoverthenatureofhistoryandlaw.ForBettiasforWieacker,jurisprudencewasanautonomoustraditionwhichresistedanyrevolutionarychange.InthecaseofBetti,agoodexampleofthetypeofinterpretativetraditionalismwithregardtopoliticalpowerthatwaswillingtoinstituterashreformscanbefoundinhisearlytextonthecrisisoftheRomanRepublic.Herehedenouncestheattemptstorestrictthepossibilityofappeal(provocatio)astheabolitionofliberty,whichwouldhavemeantsupplantingitwithterrorandabsolutism.473Thisconvictionconvictionthattheinterpretationofnormsweretiednotonlytothehistoricalcontextbutevenmoreimportantlytothehistoricaltraditionwasalessonthathermeneuticscouldteachtolegalhistory.Eveninhispost-wardebateswithGadamer,Bettiquestionedthetraditionaldistinctioninhermeneuticsbetweenanormativelegalinterpretationwhichsoughttofindthecorrectlegalanswerandacontemplativehistoricalinterpretationthataimedtotrackdowntheoriginalintentandcircumstances.HetakestheexampleofSavigny,whoseworktracedthehistoryofinfluences,interpretationsandadaptationsofRomanlegaltextsthroughthetwomillenniabetweentheRomansandmodernGermans,highlightinghowthemultitudeoflayersdemandedthatoneapproachedtheprocessofreceptionandinterpretationasawhole.474In1955Bettiwouldpublishhisowntheoryofinterpretation,theTeoriaGeneraledell’interpretazione,whichsoughttouniversalizetheideasfromthefieldofjurisprudencetootherhumansciences.Hisgeneraltheoryoflegalinterpretationfrom1943hadprecededthiswork.475ThehermeneuticthinkingmanifestedinWieacker’sworksemphasizedtherelationshipbetweentextandinterpretation,andthedifferencebetweenthepastasafactualrealityand 471Brutti,‘EmilioBettiel'incontroconilfascismo’,pp.71–102.472AsanitizedversionofthestoryistoldinEloisaMura,'EmilioBetti,oltrelospecchiodellamemoria',inEmilioBetti,Notazioniautobiografiche(acuradiEloisaMura)(Padova:CEDAM,2014[1953]),pp.ix-lxiv,atpp.ix-x,lii.473Betti,Crisidellarepubblica,pp.148–153,225-230,304-306,returningrepeatedlytothedangersofdeclaringacrisisinordertocircumventtheconstitution.SeealsoGiulianoCrifò,Materialidistoriografiaromanistica(Torino:G.GiappichelliEditore,1998),p.135.474EmilioBetti,DieHermeneutikalsallgemeineMethodikderGeisteswissenschaften(Tübingen:J.C.B.Mohr(PaulSiebeck),1962),pp.46–54.475EmilioBetti,Teoriageneraledelnegoziogiuridico(Napoli:Edizioniscientificheitaliane,2002).

163

contemporaryinterpretationsofthepastasafactorinthewritingofhistory.Inthissense,Wieacker’sthoughtcouldbedescribedasconstructivist,inasmuchastheinterpretationofhistoryisnotdetachablefromthecontextandintentionoftheauthor.Ofcourse,Wieackeroccupiedaveryspecificpositionbetweenthediscussionsonhistoricalhermeneuticsandlegalhermeneutics,apositionsharedonlybyBetti.InWieacker’swritings,hermeneuticalaspectsweretiedtotheconceptofreceptionandthecontinuingreinterpretationofthetextthoughtheages.476ThelinkbetweenGadamer,WieackerandBettiisevidentinthelettersbetweenGadamerandWieacker.WieackernoteshowmuchtheexampleofGadamerhadhelpedhimtosharpenhisownthinkingregardinghistoricalandlegalhermeneutics,especiallyinpresentinghiscaseagainstBetti.477TheinterestinlegalandhistoricalhermeneuticswasformostscholarsofRomanlawandlegalhistoryrootedintheconceptsoftraditionandreinterpretation,acontinuousreturntoclassicaltextsandrereadingthemfromanewperspective.ThiswashardlyapreoccupationthatwouldhavebeenconsistentwiththeidealsofthenewlegalscienceadvocatedbytheNazis.TherelationshipbetweenWieackerandNaziideologyisacomplicatedone.Ontheonehand,thewholeorientationtowardstheEuropeanhistoryofprivatelawthatcametofruitioninthePrivatrechtsgeschichtewaspromptedbythenewstudyorderinstitutedbytheNazis.Ontheotherhand,theNaziinterestinlegaleducationandresearchwasbyandlargefleetingandreformswerelefttobecarriedoutbythoseinthefield.Whetherthereformerswereinspiredbytheideologyofracismandnationalismishardtosay,butenthusiasmforimplementingNaziideologymaybetoostrongaword.WhileonemayrejecttheideathatWieackerwasacriticoftheregimewhodidnotjointheresistancebutalwaysmaintainedhisloyaltytotheidealsofjusticeandindividualworth,478theissuewasperhapsnotthatcomplicated.Overallitwouldappeartobetruethatthevastmajorityofthelegalacademiawaslackedadeeppoliticalcommitment.AsKoschakerstated,theywerebyandlargeunimportanttotheregime.479Theyoftenthoughtoftheregimeasvulgar,andcontrarytothewidespreadanti-SemitismdidnotagreewiththeexclusionoftheirJewishorliberalcolleagues.Thesewere,however,thingsthatwereoutoftheircontrolandtheysoughtinsteadtomakethebestoutofthesituation.FortheNaziregime,themainideawastopushthroughareformagendathatwouldcomprehensivelyrevolutionizeGermansociety.Tothatend,theyfocusedontheyouth, 476Avenarius,‘Verwissenschaftlichungals“sinnhafter”KernderRezeption’,pp.121–136.477Letters fromWieacker toGadamer,on January26,1962andon July6,1965.DeutschesLiteraturArchiv,MarbachamNeckar,LettersfromWieackertoGadamer–A:Gadamer.478AsnotedbyLiebs,‘FranzWieacker’,pp.28–29.LiebsnoteshowWieackerwasbyandlargeunpoliticalandwasunimpressedbyHitlerhimself.WieackerwouldjoinlaterjointheSPD.479Koschaker,Europa,pp.312–313.

164

includingyoungacademics.Amongtheoldergeneration,passiveacquiescencewastoleratedwhilefortheyoungergeneration,thecarrotwasmuchmorepowerfulthanthestick.EspeciallyaftertheexpulsionofJewishacademicsfromthefaculties,ampleopportunitiestomakeasplendidcareerwerepossible.MaxKaser,forexample,becameaprofessorattheageof27.Theotherso-called“younglions”oftheNazilegalacademia,suchastheKielerSchule,weresimilarlysuccessful.LiebsmaintainsthatthewholepointofWieacker’swritingsduringthewarwastoprovideacounterpointtotheNazinarrative.WhilesomewouldgoalongwiththeNazisandco-opttheirlanguage,Wieackerbyandlargestucktohisownmessagedespiteitspoliticalunpopularity.480However,Wieacker’sideaswerenotasagainsttheregimepoliciesassomewouldliketopresentthem.NeitherweretheyoungRomanistsinaparticularlydisadvantagedposition;inadditiontoKasermanywereappointedasprofessorsatarelativelyyoungage.481TheideaofthePrivatrechtsgeschichtewasrootedintheoutlinegivenatthe1935reform,whichinstitutedcoursessuchasPrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeitandAntikeRechtsgeschichte(ancientlegalhistory).Therewereotherswhosoughttodefinethefieldasitemerged.Hedemann,forexample,asearlyas1935givehisownstabattheideaofhowthenewcourseshouldbedeveloped.482ItgoestoshowthedegreetowhichpurelystructuralchangesintheeducationalsystemimpactedonscholarshipthatsomescholarshaveactuallyclaimedthatthechangeinthestudyplanbecamethestartingpointforthemodernhistoryofprivatelawinGermany.483Wieacker’sPrivatrechtsgeschichtewasthusnotthefirstbooktoattempttocoverthefield,andimportantworkswerepublishedbothbeforeandafterthewar.484However,itscoherentmessagewouldensureitssuccessfordecadestocome.WhilethecoursePrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeitwasbasedontheideasincludedintheNazireforms,itsrootswentdeeper,tothecomplicatedconnectionsanddistinctionsbetweenRomanandGermaniclawinlegaleducation.Thestudyreformmanagedtosolveanumberof

480Liebs,‘FranzWieacker’,pp.38–39.481WolfgangKunkeltoGöttingenin1934,HansKrellertoTübingenin1935,KasertoMünsterin1937.ErnstSchönbauer,whowasconsiderablyolder,wasmadedeanatViennain1938(aftertheAnschluss).RomanistswereeveninvitedtotheAkademiedesdeutschenRechts(evenKoschakerwasthere).Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,p.164.482JustusWilhelmHedemann,‘PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit.EinVersuch’,inFestschriftfürRudolfHübner(Jena:Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJena,1935),pp.5–18;Rückert,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit,p.79.483PeterLandau,‘WieackersKonzepteinerneuerenPrivatrechtsgeschichte:EineBilanznach40Jahren’,inOkkoBehrendsandEvaSchumann(eds.),FranzWieacker:HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechts(Gottingen:WallsteinVerlag,2010),pp.49–74;Rückert,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit,p.77alsoseesthereformasthecreationofanewdisciplineinlaw.484SeeWinkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.157–161onthediscussionsandthepublicationsseekingtofilltheneedfornewmaterial.

165

problemsaswellascreateahistoricallyorientedintroductiontothelegaltradition.TheoriginalaimsoftheseNazi-initiatedlegalstudyreforms,however,weredifferent,thedraftershavingaclearpoliticalaim.K.A.Eckhardt,themainarchitect,wasanearlyandastaunchNazi,havingjoinedtheSAin1931,theNSDAPin1932andtheSSin1933.HeworkedinanumberofinfluentialcommitteesoneducationreformandwasamemberofHimmler’spersonalstaff.HeeveneditedaFestschriftforHimmlerin1941.TheinterestingpointintheinternalpoliticsoftheNaziregimewasthatEckhardtwaspartoftheSSandthusinoppositiontofigureslikeHansFrankandevenCarlSchmitt,whoalsoplayedapowerfulroleinthelegalreforms.485AlongwithmanyothermembersoftheKielerSchule,WieackertookpartintheAktionRitterbusch,aprogrammenamedaftertheUniversityofKielrectoranddedicatedNaziPaulRitterbusch.TheaimoftheprogrammewastousethebestmindsintheGermansocialsciencesandhumanitiestoadvancetheGermanwaraims.Scholarshipwasexplicitlyusedasaweaponofwar.ThedifferentcontributionswereaimedtooutlinetheNewEuropethatwouldemergeafterthewarunderGermanleadership.AswithhisKielcolleagues,Wieacker’scontributionwaslistedunderKriegseinsatzandcouldbelocatedonthenarrowpathbetweenscienceandpropaganda.486TheideaofEuropewasbynomeansanexclusivelyliberalorprogressiveidea,indeeddiscourseonEuropeanincludedallsidesofthepoliticalspectrum.Duringthewar,eventheNaziregimebecamefascinatedwiththeideaofEuropeandbegantopropagatetheideaofEuropeasawidercommunityledbyGermany,unitedbyanticommunismandandbasedonethnicity,i.e.Nordicsupremacy(NeueEuropa).ThismeantthatinsteadofapurelyGermanracialbasis,therewasapushtoloosenthecriteriaofwhowouldcountasmembersoftheNordicrace.487EvenwithinlegalhistoryinGermany,therewereatleastthreecompetingvisionsofEuropeanditslegalheritagethatwerepresentedduringandafterthewar.IfKoschaker’sconceptionrestedontheideaofcontinuityofthelegaltradition,namelythelongarcofthejurist’slaw 485Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.138–142;Niemann,‘KarlAugustEckhardt’,pp.164,167–184.EckhardtservedintheWehrmacht,forinstanceasCanaris’sadjutant,reachingtherankofOberleutnant.IntheSS,heservedindiverseroles,bothinlocalorganizationsandintheSicherheitsdienstunderHeydrich,finallyintherankofSturmbannführer(correspondingamajorinthemilitary).HisadvancementintheSSwaslonghinderedbythelaudatoryNachrufhehadwrittenofhisKielpredecessorMaxPappenheim,despitehisJewishbackground.Nehlsen‘KarlAugustEckhardt’,p.514noteshowEckhardtwasinfactoneofthemostproductiveoftheGermanistlegalhistoriansandwasboundforabrilliantcareerbeforetheNazirule.486Frank-RutgerHausmann,“DeutscheGeisteswissenschaft”imZweitenWeltkrieg:Die“AktionRitterbusch”(1940–1945)(Heidelberg:Synchron,2007);Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,pp.96-97.487OntheNaziideaofEurope,seethepreviouschapter.

166

fromancientRometothemodernworldseenasahistoryofreception,Coingsawadogmaticcontinuityinprivatelaw.Incontrast,Wieacker’sEuropeanlegalcommunitywasamatteroflegalmethod,amethodthatrestedonthesharedconvictionoflawyersthemselves.488TheideaoflawpresentedbyWieackerwasonethatreflectedthenewconceptionsofscience.Thenewscholarshiponlawrecognizedsocialrealitiesandsociologicaladvances,andwasimbuedwithanewsenseofhistoryasasciencethatoperatedunderitsownmechanisms.Wieacker’shistoryoflegaltraditioninEuropedrewcompletelydifferentconclusionsfromaverysimilarfactualbasisasKoschaker’s.WieackerrefusedthedefinitionalaccusationpresentedbyKoschakerandothersthatthehistoricizationofRomanlawwouldhavemeantthatitwouldbecomeirrelevantforlawtoday.Instead,Wieacker’saimwastopresentamethodologicalcontinuityfromtheancientRomanstothepresent.Atthesametime,herejectedsimplistichistoricaldogmatics,arguingforahistorythatwasdeeplycontextual,atruedefinitionofthelivingpast.Suchaperspectivewouldseelawaspartofthesocietyanditssocialreality.InthelongtheoreticaldebateoverthepositionoflawbetweenSollenandSein(OughtandIs),Nazilegaltheoryhadtakenastandtowardsakindoflegalrealism,seeinglawasapartofpoliticalreality.Wieacker’snewlegalhistorywasinmanywayspartofthisnewmethodologicalorientation.489TheNazirootsofWieacker’smethodologicalthinkingarecomplex,traceablebothtotheKielerSchuleandtoSchmitt.Whileitwouldbeeasytodiscountthemaspurelyyouthfulindiscretions,itisapparentthattheideaofanewwayoflegalthinkingstronglyappealedtohim.Inareportononeofthecampsorganizedforyoungteachers,theKitzebergerLager,whereWieackerattendedtheactivitieswithmanyofhiscolleaguesbothfromKielandelsewhereinGermany,theenthusiasmispalpable.Hetalksofthecommunityof“blood,life,fateandmorale”thatlinksthe“concretecommunityofthepeople”(p.166)inasharedtheme.However,whatWieackerhimselfnotestobethetrueaimofthecampwasthe“fightingcritique”directedtowardstheoldlegalscience(p.174).Thiswasprobablythefeelingsharedbytheparticipants,notonlyofthecampbutoftheearlyNazilegalreformmovement:theyweretheyoung,thefutureandtheinnovatorswhowouldsweepawaytheold.490ItispossiblethatLiebsmayhavebeenoverlygenerousindistancingWieackerfromtheNaziregime,butitisequallypossiblethatheconsideredhisassessmenttobeaccurate.Therearetwopotentialexplanationsbehindthis,thefirstalegaloneandthesecondapsychologicalone.ThelegalexplanationisthatwithintheNaziregime,thebifurcatednatureofthestructureofgovernance,betweentheformalandthereal,meantthatforaverylongtime,thelegalrealmremainedifnotfullyatleastpartiallyfunctional.Withinthenormativerealm,the 488Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,pp.238–246.489Winkler,DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft,p.189.490FranzWieacker,‘DasKitzebergerLager’,inChristianWollschläger(ed.),FranzWieacker.ZivilistischeSchriften(1934–1942)(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,2000[1936]),pp.163–176.

167

courtsandthelegalprofession,theincursionoftheNaziregimewasatfirstrelativelybenign.Itsoughttopersuadeandtolure,toconvincethelegalprofession,especiallyitsyoungermembers,ofthebenefitsofthenewregime.WhatMeierhenrichhasdubbed“theremnantsoftheRechtsstaat”,theinstitutionsandnormsthatcontinuedasbefore,obscuredtheviolenttyrannyfromview,allowingthemembersofthelegalprofessiontodiscountviolentactsasexcessesandexceptions.Thelawcontinuedtoexistandunderitsprovisions,evenJewishlawyersandprofessorscontinuedtofunction.BecauseWieackerwasoneofthosewhowasbeinglured,towhomtheideaofalegalrevolutionasaremedytotheproblemsoflegalpositivismappealedandsomeonewhowouldbenefitfromtheprofessorialpurge,hewasperhapsunabletoseethetruenatureoftheregime.Itispossibletobelievethathefelthisworkwouldenhancetheimpactandsocialandpoliticalsignificanceoflegalscholarship.Thesecondexplanation,thepsychologicalone,ismuchmoreconditional.Inthesamewayasthechangesinthelegalsystemwerenormalized,KoontzhasnotedhowthevastmajorityofGermansnormalizedtheexclusionofJewsintheirmidst.Ruleswererules.Thuswhiletheymaynothavehadanyreasonforsupportingtheongoingrepression,veryfewstoodagainstit.Asaresult,WieackermayhaverationalizedthattheexclusionandexileofPringsheim,nottomentionotherfriendsandcolleagues,wassimplyanunfortunatephenomenonthatwasbeyondhiscontrol.491AnotherpossibleexplanationwasthepsychologicalmechanismassociatedwithtotalitarianismdefinedbyCzesławMiloszasthewilltobelong.Originallyaimedatexplainingtheacquiescenceofintellectualstocommunistdictatorships,thewilltobelongcanalsobeextendedtoNaziGermany.Inthefaceofaregimethatemployedthelanguageofcommunity,ofbelongingtoagroup,itisveryhardtomaintainasocialdetachmentfromtheideologicalpullofgroupdynamics.492Wieackerandothermembersofthenewgenerationwerenotonlypersuadedtojointhemovement,theywerealsodrawntoitssocialaspects,thewilltobeinthevanguardofreformsthatwoulddrawGermanyoutofthechaosanddespairoftheWeimaryears.Duringthewar,Wieacker’sPrivatrechtsgeschichtewasanongoingproject,asisobviousfromhisletters.InhisnumerousletterstoErikWolf,thethemeslaterfoundinthePrivatrechtsgeschichtecomeupfrequently,evenduringthewar.Attheendofthewar,justbeforehisownredeployment,WieackerusesthePrivatrechtsgeschichteprojectasanexcusefornotcontributingtootherprojects.493

491Koontz,NaziConscience,p.11;Meierhenrich,RemnantsoftheRechtsstaat,pp.34–36.492CzesławMiłosz,TheCaptiveMind(London:Secker&Warburg,1953).493Universitätsarchiv,Albert-Ludwigs-Universität,FreiburgimBreisgau,NLErikWolf,bestandC130,signum562,especiallylettersfromWieackertoWolfdatedOctober18,1940,May4,1942,October23,1943;Universitäts-undLandesbibliothek,Bonn,NLRothackerI.1,BriefeRothacker,ErichvonundanWieacker,Franz,Leipzig8.7.1944–6.10.1952,lettersfromWieackertoErichFranzvonRothackerdatedJuly8,1944andAugust8,1944.

168

TheworkonthebookprojectcontinueduntilWieackerwasredeployedinlatesummer1944andsenttoItaly.HewascapturedinNorthernItalyattheendofthewarandsenttoaPOWcamp.Inthecamp,hewasthedeanofthecampuniversity,andlecturedtofellowinmates.494Inearly1946,hewasbackinGermany,takingcareofhisparentswhohadbothsurvivedthewar.Hisuniversity,Leipzig,wasintheRussiansectorandinhislettersWieackergrumblesaboutitstransformationintoa“worker’sacademy”(Arbeitervolkshochschule)wherehalfofthestudentswereactuallymembersoftherulingparty.TheselettersofferarareglimpseofthementalstateofacademicslikeWieackerafterthewar.Wieackerspeaks,forinstance,oftheintolerance,egoism,small-mindeddogmatismandservilityinducedbytheNaziregime,butalsothebrutality,sufferingandinhumanityofthewar.Hisofficeattheuniversityhadbeendestroyedduringthewar,andnowhewasactivelyseekinganewpositionoutsidetheRussianzone.HewashopingtogetapositioninGöttingen,butatthispointthingswerestillunclear.495AfterthewarOneoftheissuesWieackerfacedafterthewarwasthedenazificationprocess,whichhewassubjectedtoasapartymember.Intheend,Wieackerwasrehabilitatedfairlyquickly.Hewasfoundguiltyinoneofthereviewpanels(Spruchkammer)thatsoughttoweedouttheworstNazioffenders,butthesentencewasmerelyoneofMitläufer,participant.HesoongotajobattheUniversityofGöttingenandbeganhiscareeranew.Inthis,hewashelpedbyanumberofpeoplewhowrotelettersofrecommendationforhim,vouchingforhisgoodname.Pringsheimwrotealetter,asdidGadamer.AveryinterestingadditiontothewritersoftheseletterswastheoreticalphysicistandNobelPrizewinnerWernerHeisenberg.Intheseprocesses,manyoftheKielerSchulemembers,amongthemHuber,werecondemnedforparticipatingintheNaziregime,andalsofortheirwritingsinwhichtheyhadsupportedthepersecutionofJews.Bothintheprocessofdenazificationandintheresettlingofacademicsdisplacedbywar,theassociationwiththegroupfriendsmadeintheKielerSchulewashighlybeneficial.InthecaseofWieacker,thefactthatRudolfSmendwasRectoroftheUniversityofGöttingen,provedtobecrucialbecauseSmendwasabletohirenotonlyWieackerbutalsoWolfgangSiebertandKarlMichaelis.496WieackerwroteaheartfeltletterofthankstoSmend,describinghimselfandhiscolleaguesasexileswhohadtofleepersecution.Erkkilähasaptly

494Liebs,‘FranzWieacker’,pp.28–29.495LettersofWieackertoErikWolfonFebruary2,1946andonMarch14,1946.NLErikWolf,Albert-Ludwig-Universitatsarchiv,FreiburgimBreisgau.496LeipzigUniversitätsarchiv,Personenakten/DossiersWieacker,Franz,PA-SG0457:March17,1947,“EidesstattlicheErklärung”givenbyHans-GeorgGadamer,RektoroftheUniversity.ThearchivallocationoftheletterfromPringsheimonMay12,1947defendingWieackerisnotknown,butcopieshavecirculatedandtwomatchingcopieshavebeenseenandcopied.Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,pp.148–149.Pringsheim’sletterisalsodiscussedandquotedinBehrends,‘FranzWieacker.HistorikerundJuristdesPrivatrechts’,pp.2349–2350.

169

notedthatforWieackertocomparehimself,SiebertandMichaelisasmoralequivalentstoHuguenotsfleeingFrancedemonstrateshowdeeplyingrainedtheirconvictionoftherightnessoftheirstatusasanelitewas.497WhathappenedtoWieackerwasinlinewiththeprocessofdenazificationingeneral.Thegreatestissuewasthatofscale.Some8.5millionindividualshadbelongedtotheNSDAP,evenmoretoassociatedorganizations.Thisamountedtoroughlytwo-thirdsoftheGermanpopulationbeingpartoftheNaziregimeinsomeshapeorform.Intheprocessoftryingtoweedouttheworstcriminals,thetorturersandmassmurderers,therewasalsothequestionofrehabilitation.ThrowingallNazisinprisonwasimpossible,andbecausetheNaziideologyanditsanti-SemitismwasstillwidelysharedamongGermans,thedangerwasthatonecouldinadvertentlystrengthenasenseofsolidarityamongthemajoroffendersandrelativelynominalNazis.Thus,theAlliesoptedtopunishtheworstoffendersandlettheGermanshandletherest.498OftheNazischolarsdiscussedinthisbook,mostweregivenminorsentences.HansFrank,ministerandheadoftheAkademiefürdeutschesRechts,wastriedatNürnberg.HewasmostlyaccusedofatrocitiescommittedwhilehewasthegovernorofoccupiedPoland.Inhisdefence,heblamedevildemonsforhisactions,buthispleasfellondeafearsandhewashangedforhiscrimesonOctober16,1945.499Forothers,therewasaperiodofexclusionthatforsomelikeHuberwasshorterthanforotherssuchasCarlSchmitt.Asimilarpermanentexclusion,butpartlyforhealthreasons,befellK.A.Eckhardt,whowasremovedfromofficebyoccupyingpowersandneverreinstated.500Thiswashardlythewholestory.TherenazificationofGermanuniversitiesthat,forexample,Koschakertalksabout,operatedmuchalongthelinesofpureacademiccontinuity.Jobshadtobefilled,studentstaughtandsoforth.Withinthelegalacademia,therewaspublicsilenceabouttheNaziyears.Stolleistalksaboutthesilenceofthe1950s,whenlawjournalsfocusedontechnicalities,ontheminutiaeofthelaw,carefullyavoidingeventhementionofwhathad

497LetterfromWieackertoRudolfSmendonJanuary14,1947.NiedersächsischeStaats-undUniversitätsbibliothek,Göttingen,NLRudolfSmend:AllgemeineKorrespondenz.Cod.Ms.R.SmendA960;Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,p.153.498Ofthedenazificationprocess,seeClemensVollnhals,Entnazifizierung.PolitischeSäuberungundRehabilitierungindenvierBesatzungszonen1945–1949(Munich:Dtv,1991).Ontheintellectualreasonings,seeForner,GermanIntellectuals,pp.62–63,170–171.AsimilarprocesstookplaceinItaly,wheretheamnestyof1946(AmnistiaTogliatti)oncrimescommittedduringFascismledtocorrespondingresults.499Schudnagies,HansFrank,p.99.500Frassek,‘Eckhardt,KarlAugust’,p.1180;Niemann,‘KarlAugustEckhardt’,pp.164–165.Eckhardtwasfinallyin1948declaredtobeingroup4,MitläuferonheBerufsbeschränkung,buthisheartconditionmeantthathewasputonpension.

170

happenedduringtheNaziyears.501ThissilencewasapartofamoregeneralconsciousdenialandforgettingregardingtheNazipastthatwasalreadynotedbytheendofthe1940sinGermany.Freicalledthisphenomenonthetriumphofsilence,wherediscretionandprivacybecamesomarkedthatthesocialintegrationofNazi“fellowtravellers”likeWieackerbecamepossible.502Manyoffendershidinplainsight,eithershieldedbythesilenceofothersorbyassumingadifferentname.Thisledtosomecuriousincidents.Forexample,HannahArendt’seditorinGermanyatthePiperVerlagwasHansRössner,whohadworkedintheReichssicherheitshauptamt(RSHA)OfficeIII,theSicherheitsdienst(SD),andhadbeenamemberoftheSS.503Thesemattersofdenazificationandreadmittancewerehotlydebatedamongscholarsthemselves.ErwinSeidl,inhis1947lettertoA.ArthurSchillerinNewYork,gaveanoverviewofthefateoftheformerNaziandanti-Nazischolars.HementionedWieackerasoneofthosewhohadmadeasplendidcareerundertheNazis,beingappointedtothehighlycovetedchairinLeipzig.AccordingtoSeidl,WieackerwasnotwiseenoughtoabstainfromNazivocabularyinhisscientificworks,writingaboutGemeinschaftsgeistandBlutundBoden.Asaconsequence,hewasstillasuspectperson,eventhoughhehadmanagedtosecureatenuouspositioninGöttingen.504Intandemwiththeextensivedenazificationeffort,manyoftheexileshadreturnedandbeenreinstated.InHeidelberg,KarlJaspershadbeencentralinthedenazificationprocess,arolethathadpromptedmuchenmity.Theexiles,especiallythosewhohadbeeninvolvedintheAmericanwareffort,wereprivatelyvilifiedastraitorswhohadturnedtheworldagainstGermany.WhiletheWestGermanswishedtobemodelstudentsintheschoolofdemocracy,asKrausputit,theexilesservedassurrogateenemiesuponwhichthenegativetraumacouldbeprojected.505Despitethis,ideasofliberaldemocracywerebeingpromotedwithinbothpoliticalandlegaldiscourse.Therewastheofficialalliedpropagandaandeffortsforre-education,butequallytheadoptionofthelanguageofdemocracybytheGermanelitesthemselves.Theofficialre-educationprogrammeandthepurgingoftheeducationsystemofNazismandmilitarismhad 501VilleErkkilä,‘Themetaphysicsandlegalhistory.AninterviewwithMichaelStolleis’(2016)EuropeanLegalRootsOnline3–17,atp.14.;Stolleis,LawundertheSwastika,p.10.502Frei,Adenauer’sGermany,p.xiv.503MichaelWildt,AnUncompromisingGeneration:TheNaziLeadershipoftheReichSecurityMainOffice(Wisconsin:UniversityofWisconsinPress,2010),p.395.504RareBookandManuscriptArchive,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork,ArthurSchillerPapers,Uncataloguedcorrespondence,Box6,ErwinSeidltoSchiller(October2,1947).505Remy,HeidelbergMyth,pp.169–170maintainsthatJasperswasinfactseekingtolimittheinvestigationsofthemoreambitiousAmericaninvestigators;Krauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand,p.52.Kraussnotes(pp.63–64)thattheroleofexilesinthemilitaryadministrationhasbeenexaggeratedandinrealitytheirnumberswerefairlysmallcomparedwiththetotal.Thereasonforthisdisconnectwasthattheyoperatedinveryvisiblerolessuchasthepresscorps.

171

beenoneofthechiefpointsofthePotsdamDeclarationof1945.However,scepticssuchasFranzNeumannclaimedthat“Toattempttore-educateGermansbymilitarygovernmentactionistoattempttheimpossible.”506ThedenazificationandrenazificationprocessesinvolvedanumberofcomplexcalculationsinwhichNaziprofessorswerejustonepartoftheequation.TheleadersoftherecreationofuniversitiessuchasJaspersinHeidelberghadtofirstdeterminewhatkindofuniversitytheywouldstrivefor.Alargepartoftheproblemin1933hadactuallybeenthestudents,whoeagerlytookuptheNazicause.ForJaspers,thesolutionwastorejectthemassuniversityandreturntotheeliteuniversity.Accordingtotheprofessors,thecausesofthedisasterin1933hadbeentheencroachmentofthestateontheautonomyoftheuniversityalongwiththemassofstudentsinfusedwithNaziideology.Intheeliteuniversity,onecouldsupporttheintellectualdevelopmentofstudentsandcarefullyselectthem.Bysupportingtheintellectualandacademicfreedomofprofessors,onecouldprotecttheuniversityfromareturntoNazipolicies.507Incontrast,FranzNeumannandotherswereequallyconvincedthattheprofessorsandtheirshelteredpositionwaspartoftheproblem.Professorswerenaturallyconservativeandreactionary,perpetuatingtherulingclassesandtheirideologicalbias.Inthefaceofthedenazificationefforts,theprofessorshadclosedranksandsoughttomaintaintherigidcastesystemtheyhadcreatedwithinthehighereducation.Onthepartofthestudentpopulation,thereweretwoissues:thestudentswereoverwhelminglyfromtheupperandmiddleclassesandthemajorityofthemhadvotedfortheNaziparty.508Hartshorne,whohadbeenahouseguestwiththeSchulzfamilyduringthe1930s,returnedtoGermanyin1945andbecamepartoftheUSmilitarygovernmenteffortinreopeningtheGermanuniversities.HewasconvincedthattheGermansthemselvesshouldbesetthetaskofreforminguniversitiesandtheAmericaneffortshouldbesecondary.Aseriesofquestionnaireswouldbeusedtogatherinformationandtoformabasisofthereorganization.TheAlliedtaskwas,asHartshorneputit,toputupthemirrorandlettheGermansdrawtheirownconclusions.509Inpractice,themilitaryadministrationwasnotinterestedintheuniversitiesandtheeffortsatdenazificationwerestymiedbytheGermanresistancetotheirefforts.Theinvestigations

506FranzNeumann,‘Re-educatingtheGermans’(1947)3Commentary517–525,p.517;Onthereeducationefforts,seeThomasAlanSchwartz,America’sGermany:JohnJ.McCloyandtheFederalRepublicofGermany(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1991).507TheseideaswereexpressedinJaspers’sfamous1946DieIdeederUniversität.InhisletterstoArendt,JaspersnotesthatthebookwaswritteninApril-May1945andby1946seemedtobealmostoutdated.JasperstoArendtonOctober28,1945andJune9,1946inKöhlerandSaner,HannahArendt/KarlJaspers,pp.58,78;Remy,HeidelbergMyth,p.124.508Neumann,‘Re-educatingtheGermans’,pp.519–521;Remy,HeidelbergMyth,p.127.509Remy,HeidelbergMyth,p.129.

172

werehamperedbyaccusationsbyGermanprofessorsmadeagainstthefewdiligentpeoplewhosoughttoperformathoroughinvestigation,aswellasagenerallackofenthusiasmbytheGermanpublictoaccuseanyonebeyondthemainculprits.FortheAmericans,themostbafflingaspectwastheapparentlysinceresenseofvictimizationthatwassharedbytheGermans.EvenformerNazisperceivedthemselvestobethevictimsofNazis,andtheynowfeltthatthattheywerebeingvictimizedbydenazification.NobodywastakingresponsibilityforthemillionsofJewswhohadbeenkilled.Inthepost-warpublicdiscussions,thesenseofGermanvictimhoodgrewandthebalancingofGermansufferingandGermancrimesbecamenormalizedinargumentsbasedon“whataboutism”.Here,thecuriousyetpsychologicallyunderstandableprocessresultedinthedeclarationswhereculpabilityforthewarandtheHolocaustwasexternalizedtotheNazisandthesufferingofGermanciviliansbecameacentralpreoccupation.510AsimilarprocessalsotookplaceinItaly,wheresomemembersoftheFascistleadershipwereheldaccountablebutatuniversitiesverylittlewasdonetosanctionorremoveFascistprofessors.ThusscholarsclosetoFascismsuchasEmilioBettidecriedthebarbarismofthevictors,whohadundertheguiseoflibertyandpeacespreaddestruction.Thewinnerswere,asaconsequence,responsibleforthedestructionofcities,civiliandeathsandthe“lossofthemillenarianEuropeanpatrimoniumofartandculture.”511FortheformerexileswhowerenowpartofthemilitaryadministrationorsimplyobservingthesituationintheUS,thesituationappearedtragicomic.EdgarBodenheimerrecountedhoweveryformerNaziwaswhitewashinghimself,presentingthemselvesasopponentstotheregime.AcollectiveamnesiaandactiveforgettingwerethemainwaysinwhichGermansdealtwiththepast.512NowhereelsewasthewhitewashingmoreprominentthanintheprocessleadingtotheamnestylawsissuedinWestGermany.WhilethemostseriousNazioffendersweretriedattheNurembergtrials,hundredsofthousandsmoreweretriedindifferentcourts,rangingfromtheSpruchkammernwhereWieackerwastried(thestatusofthesevariedinthedifferentAlliedoccupationzones)toAlliedmilitarycourtsandGermancourts.Intotal,some3.6millionpersonswereprocessedintheWestGermanoccupiedzones,ofwhich1,667wereconsideredmajorculpritsand23,060were“majorlyincriminated”.Roughlyonemillionweredeemed“fellowtravellers”.However,duetotheamnestylaws,thesesentenceswerereducedorcommuted,andby1951nearlyeighthundredthousandsentenceswerereduced,mostofthemtosmallfinesorprisonsentences.Whilethemajorityofthesecaseswereminoroffences,especiallytheGermancourtswouldengageinacreativelegalinterpretation,extendingamnestiestoNazibosseswhohadparticipatedintorture.Intheseamnesties,

510Remy,HeidelbergMyth,pp.147–152;Forner,GermanIntellectuals,pp.170–172;CarolineSharples,PostwarGermanyandtheHolocaust(London:Bloomsbury,2016).511Betti,Teoriagenerale,p.4.512Bodenheimer,EdgarandBrigitte,pp.123–130.

173

countlessmembersoftheSA,theSSandotherorganizationswhokidnappedpeopletobetorturedandkilledwerereleased.Simultaneouslywiththeamnesties,therewasaconcertedcampaigntoliberateNaziwarcriminalswhowereheldbytheAllies.Allinall,thisamountedtoacoordinatedeffortbytheoldelitesofGermany,operatingthroughnetworksoflegalspecialists,politiciansandleadersofthechurch,tonotonlygrantamnestytoitsmembers,butalsotorehabilitatetheGermanmilitaryandtoconsolidatetheirownpower.513ThefactthatformerNazisandsupportersoftheregimewerenotheldaccountablemayappearincomprehensible.However,oneexplanationrevolvesaroundtheconceptofzerohour(StundeNull),amomentofcompleteandutterrenewalfromwhichtheonlypossibilityistogoforwardandleavethepastbehind.ThehumansufferingandmoralbankruptcythattheThirdReichrepresentedwasbestleftforgotten.Inthissense,May1945wasamomentofoptimismandanewbeginning.514Fortheculturalelite,thesenseofreckoningwasinmanywaysaprocessofreimaginationandrevitalizationofGermanculture.Tointellectuals,partofthequestionwastheroleofthemassesandelites:Werethepeopletobetrustedwiththedemocraticprocess?ThiswasnottosaythattherewerenodemocratsinNaziGermany.Mostofthenon-Jewishactivistdemocratshadspentthewarin“innerexile”,stayingputandweatheringoutthewarwithouttakingpartinactiveresistance.Fordemocraticintellectuals,cultureandhumanismwerecatchwordsthatsignifiedacommitmenttothefreedomofthespiritinoppositiontothemindlessobedienceofPrussianmilitarism.515TheneedforaclearandstrongintellectualfoundationforanewGermanywasevident.ThediscussionsregardingtheamnestiesofferedtoNazicriminalsandwarcriminalshaddemonstratedhowstrongtheundercurrentofformerideologieswas.AmassdemonstrationinLandsbergamLechagainsttheexecutionofwarcriminalsinJanuary1951,wherespeakershadequatedthekillingofJewsandtheexecutionofcondemnedNaziwarcriminals,hadculminatedinthecrowdbeginningtochant“Judenraus!”tothecounterdemonstrators.Tellingly,onlytheJewishnewspaperreportedtheincident,theFrankfurterAllgemeineonlymentioningthedisturbancecausedbyJewishcounterdemonstrators.516MaritaKrauss

513ThefigurescitedarebasedonVollnhals,Entnazifizierung;Frei,Adenauer’sGermany,pp.5–9,22–25,94–95;KonradH.Jarausch,AfterHitler:RecivilizingGermans,1945–1995(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2006)p.54.IntheBritishzone,theSpruchgerichtewerespecialcourtsthatdealtwithexpresslycriminalactivities,suchasparticipationincriminalorganizationsliketheSSorGestapo,whiletheAmericanSpruchkammernweredenazificationtribunals.OntheGermantrials,seeNathanStoltzfusandHenryFriedlander(eds.),NaziCrimesandtheLaw(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).514Forner,GermanIntellectuals,p.1.515Forner,GermanIntellectuals,p.11,53,125.516Frei,Adenauer’sGermany,p.158.

174

maintainsthatinGermanytheresurfacingofanti-SemitismagainstreturningJewswasoneofthetaboosrelatingtothere-emergenceofGermandemocracy.517Theprocessofdenazification,there-educationeffortsandtheattemptstoimprintuponGermansanewdemocraticconvictionisnoteasytoseeasasuccessstory.ThemostprominentGermanreactiontotheeffortsappearedtoberesistanceandirritationtothepatronizingtoneandareluctancetoabidebythedistinctionsbetweenminor“nominalNazis”andthemainculprits.TheAllies,ofcourse,werenotreallyinterestedinthesedistinctionsastheirmainconcernwastopreventafuturewarofaggressionbyGermany.TheAlliedobserversweredeeplytroubledbythesignsofdenialism,includingthedenialof“true”militarydefeatandthedenialsoftheHolocaust.Thisincreasedthepressureforamoredecisiveactionandtheinitialdenazificationprocessreflectedthis.However,theprocessendedupbeinghighlybureaucraticandledtothecategorizationofpeopleinwaysthatwerefelttobeunjustandcounterproductive.518Inthefieldoflaw,nowherewasthecontradictionbetweenthemagnitudeoftheoffencesandthelackofresponsibilitygreaterthanintheGermanjusticesystem.Whiletherehadbeensomeeffortstoprosecutejudgeswhohadservedinthepeople’scourtsandhadcondemnedinnocentpeopletodeath,mostwereletoffwithoutanyconsequences.Müller,inhis1987book,noteshowmurderershadgonefreeandtheircrimesdeclaredtobelawfulactions.Theircareershadcontinuedunhindered,theirpensionspaidontimeandtheirreputationremainedspotless.Forexample,in1952theLandgerichtofWiesbadencametotheconclusionthatthedecisionbytheMinistryofJusticetotransferJewish,RussianandUkrainianprisonerstotheSStobekilledthroughlabour(VernichtungdurchArbeit)wasnotunlawfulandwasthusnotpunishable.519Theultimateresultafterdenazificationandre-educationwas,aswenowknow,thatGermanyemergedasademocraticcountrycommittedtoupholdinghumanrightsandopposingtotalitarianism.Intheyearsafterthewar,thisresultwashardlycertain.ManyoftheexileswoulddebatethereasonswhyHitlerwasabletogainpowerandwhyGermany,thelandofDichterundDenker(‘poetsandthinkers’)couldturnintoalandoftorturersandmassmurderers.TheodorAdornoinhisLosAngelesexiledevelopedatheoryoftheauthoritarianpersonality,whichwaseasilypersuadedbyfascism.MaxHorkheimeridentifiedtraitsof

517Krauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand,p.17.518Jarausch,AfterHitler.519IngoMuller,FurchtbareJuristen:dieunbewältigeVergangenheitunsererJustiz(Munich:Kindler,1987),pp.7,285.Wildt,UncompromisingGeneration,pp.444-448noteshowmostofthemembersoftheNazisecurityapparatuswereactuallyabletoreturntonormalcivillifeafterthewar.

175

authoritarianismeveninbourgeoisdemocracies,maintainingthatasimilarwillexistedfortherepressionofthepopularwill.520Critics,especiallythoseonthepoliticalleft,wereadamantthattheAmericanaimwasnottopromotedemocracy,buttopushAmericanmodelsandvalues,ultimatelytheAmericanformofcapitalism.521Afterthewar,thepoliticalsituation,especiallyamongstudents,tookaturnthatbaffledliberalsandconservativesalike.Farfromacceptingthenewliberalstate,radicalstudentsbegantoadvocateauthoritarianism,thistimefromtheLeft.ThenewgenerationalbattlewasfoughtbetweentheoldliberalsandthestudentsofthefarLeft,whobeganboycottsandverbalassaultsonteachersinamannerreminiscentoftheNaziyears.TheallianceofliberalsandtheLeft,heldtogetherinthe1950sbytheircommonbattleagainsttheoldNazisandotheranti-liberalforcesthathadrejecteddemocraticideas,begantobreakdown.522Inacademia,partofthisprocesswasthegradualrehabilitationofeventheworstoftheNaziacademics.Forexample,theamitybetweenWieackerandPringsheimwasthreatenedbythefactthatWieackerhadhelpedhisKielerSchulefriendandNazijuristHuberbeselectedforFreiburg.523Inallthis,oneofthemajorsideeffectswasthattheprincelyroleofprofessorsastheundisputedauthorityatuniversitiesalsobrokedown.Duringthe1960s,anewpublicdiscourseandcriticismdirectedtowardsformerNazislikeWieackerbegan.524Inthecaseof

520Jarausch,AfterHitler,p.167.ThecontradictorynotionsofAmericaandtheAmericansthatpuzzledtheémigrésprocessingtheirexperienceofEuropearenotableintheirrecollections.Forexample,Adorno’stypicalstancewouldbeseentoportraytheAmericansasshallowandunculturedwhencomparedtoGermans.AnthonyHeilbut,ExiledinParadise:GermanRefugeeArtistsandIntellectualsinAmerica,fromthe1930stothePresent(NewYork:VikingPress,1983),pp.160–161.Inprivaterecollections,hewouldonthecontrarypraisetheirgenerosityanddemocraticspiritthatfarexceededthenarrow-mindedmeannessofEuropeans.Adorno,‘ScientificExperiencesofaEuropeanScholarinAmerica’.AsimilarnotionofcontradictionsisevidentinArendt.Forexample,inherlettertoJaspersonJanuary29,1946,shewriteshowinAmericathenotionofRepublicisnoemptyletterandpubliclifeiscelebrated.KöhlerandSaner,HannahArendt/KarlJaspers,p.66.521Onare-evaluationofthesecriticismsthatpeakedduringthesixties,seeDiethelmProwe,‘DemocratizationasConservativeRestabilization’,inJeffryM.Diefendorf,AxelFrohn,andHermann-JosefRupieper(eds.),AmericanPolicyandtheReconstructionofWestGermany,1945–1955(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),pp.305–329.522A.DirkMoses,GermanIntellectualsandtheNaziPast(Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007),p.49.523EwaldGrothe,ZwischenGeschichteundRecht:DeutscheVerfassungsgeschichtsschreibung1900–1970(Oldenbourg:Wissenschaftsverlag,2005),p.322;LetterfromPringsheimtoErichWenigeronSeptember21,1952.NiedersächsischeStaats-undUniversitätsbibliothek,Göttingen,NLErichWeniger,Cod.Ms.EWeniger,1:676.524Moses,GermanIntellectuals,p.186;Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,p.265.

176

Wieacker,thismeantthatforallhissuccessinacademia,radicalstudentswouldseehimasaNazi.ThegreatEuropeannarrativefromRomanlawtoGermanyAlthoughWieacker’sfirstmainwork,Privatrechtsgeschichte,wastypicalofthepost-warreorientation,ittookshapeduringthewarandwasinfluencedbyNaziideologyandtheirreformulationofthelawcurriculum.Theworkwasinterruptedbythefinalstagesofthewar,butWieackermanagedtocontinueitinGöttingen,writingtoRiccobonoin1950thathehadnowfinishedthebook.Theaimofthebook,ashewrotetoRiccobono,wastoputtextualcriticismonamoresecurefoundation:“Itwillbeaveryconservativebook.”525However,inthesameletterhementionshow,inspiredbyRiccobono,hewishestocelebrateJustinian’sservicetoEuropeanlegalculture.Thus,atthesametime,PrivatrechtsgeschichtewasinspiredbytheNazireforms,aninputintothedebatesoverinterpolationism,andabookaboutEuropeanlegalculture.ForWieacker,theoutlineofthePrivatrechtsgeschichtegavenewcurrencytotheideaofGermandominanceinintellectualdevelopment.ThoughhepurportedlydevelopedaEuropeannarrativeofthedevelopmentoflaw,inpracticethehistoricaldevelopmenthepresentedwasateleologyoftheGermanlegalheritage.WhatWieacker’sPrivatrechtsgeschichteandinnumerableotheressaysdemonstrateisthestrengthofthenarrativeconstructinhismind,thenarrativeofthetranslatiostudiifromantiquitytothepresent,fromJustiniantoBologna,tothehumanistsandfinallytoGermany.ThuswhilethebooksetsouttoexploretheemergenceofEuropeanculture,thecultureitdescribesisfairlyGermanasbecomesclearfromthedivisionofWieacker’smaterials:1)thefoundationsofEuropeanlegalcultureinmedievallegalscience,2)itsreceptioninGermanyandtheususmodernus,3)theeraofthelawofreasonornaturallawandthefirstcodifications,4)theHistoricalSchoolandPandectism,and5)legalpositivismanditscrisis.Inallofthesechapters,thefocusisonGermany,theoutsideworldbeingmentionedeitherasasourceorrecipientofinfluences.ThesecondclearfocuswasRomanlawasadominantfeatureoflegalculturefromthemedievalbeginningstothemodernday.Inthissense,WieackercloselyfollowsKoschakerandotherswhosawthehistoryoflawinEuropeandinGermanyespeciallyasprimarilyahistoryofRomanlawanditscontinuinginfluence.526WhenmanyofWieacker’scontemporariesreturnedtonaturallawaftertheSecondWorldWar,hisresponsewassceptical.Whileheacknowledgedtheneedforasafeguardagainstunjustlawandviolentrepressionwhenthesewereperformedusingformallycorrectmeans,naturallawwouldnotprovidetheanswer.Inanarticlewrittenasaresponsetofourrecent

525LetterfromWieackertoRiccobonoonJanuary10,1950.CollectionofcorrespondencebyProfessorSalvatoreRiccobono,currentlyatthedisposalofProfessorMarioVarvaro,attheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofPalermo.526Wieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit(1952),pp.16–37.

177

books,Wieackermaintainsthatnaturallawwasstillsubjecttothesameproblemsthatledtoitsrejectionearlieron.Inpracticalcasesitprovideslittlehelpforthejudge,whohastojugglecontradictoryclaimsoflegalprincipleandmoralworth.ReferringtoCoing’s1947bookonlegalprinciples(DieObersteGrundsätze),Wieackerpointsoutthatsafeguardinglawrestsonthestrengtheningofthewillofjusticeandtheunderstandingoftheoverlypositiveprinciplesofjusticeamongthepeople.Otherwiseonejustraisesonemoral,ethicalorsocialconceptionoverothersandhereWieackercuriouslyraisestheNurenbergtrialsandtheNazipersecutions.527ThissingularexampledemonstrateshowskewedWieacker’smoralcompasswas.Thisisnottosaythatitwouldhavebeeninanyparticularwaydifferentfromthegeneraltendenciesofthisperiod,becausetheNurembergtrialswerenotverywellregardedinGermanyatthetime.EvenamonglegalexileslikeDavidDaubethetrialswereheavilycriticized,bothasvictor’sjusticeandbeingbasedonretroactiverules.528Despitethis,whatthereferencetotheperceivedequivalenceunderlinesisthatwhatisnowunderstoodasgoodorbadwasnotnecessarilysoduringtheearlyyearsoftheBundesrepublik.ThefirsteditionofthePrivatrechtsgeschichteappearedin1952.Itwas,likethesecondeditionwouldbe,dedicatedtoFritzPringsheim.Thehistoricalnarrativeofthebookrevolvedaroundtwoconcepts,scientificationandrationalization.Thehistoricalcontoursofthebook,thedevelopmentfromBolognatothepresent,weretoalargedegreesimilartotheearlierdrafts,butthehistoricalmeaninggiventothechangeshadchanged.TheideaofsciencethatwassocentralintheconceptionofthereceptionofRomanlaw,haddistinctrootsinSchulz’sandPringsheim’stheoriesaboutRomanlawasanautonomousscience,butalsototheoriesdevelopedintheKielerSchulediscussions.TheserevolvedaroundtheattemptstoreconciletheGermanandRomanelementswithinthereceptionofRomanlaw,preferablywithoutgivingeitherofthemaninferiorposition.Theconceptofrationalizationwassimilarlydrawnfromtworoots,firstthescientificrationalityofRomanlawanditsexclusionofulteriorelementssuchasreligion,andsecondthemethodologicalinputofMaxWeber’stheoryofrationalizationasatypicallyWesternprocess.529Therewas,ofcourse,adistinctsimilarityintheconceptionoftheEuropeansphereanditsprogressionastheexpansionofrationalitythatwastypicalofworkssuchasSchmitt’sDerNomosderErde.AttheendofPrivatrechtsgeschichte,Wieackerreturnstotheissuesofpositivism,naturalismandneo-Kantianism.Thisthengrowsintoawholesalecondemnationofthedegenerationoflegalpositivism,aidedbynaturalism,thatenabledtheNazityranny:

WirfindenunsnuninderEthikdesTierreichs,wodieArtumihrDaseinkämpft,undineinemRechtsbild,demsichdieGeschichtedarstelltwiedemZoologendieÜberwältigungderHausrattedurchdiestärkereWanderratte,undkeineUnschulddesvormenschliches

527FranzWieacker,‘ZurErweckungdesNaturrechts’(1949)SüddeutscheJuristenzeitung295–301.528Carmichael,IdeasandtheMan,p.82.529Wieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit(1952).OninfluencesfromthereceptionstudiesofKielerSchulenotablessuchasSchaffstein,MichaelisandDahm,seeStolleis,ʻ“FortschrittederRechtsgeschichteˮinderZeitdesNationalsozialismus?ʼ,pp.192–193.

178

DaseinsentsühntdieTateneinesüberhellenBewusstseins.HierwirdfolgerichtigRecht,was“demVolke”(oderirgendeinemanderenInteresse,etwaderRasse)nützt.WiedieWirklichkeitdieserFormelaussieht,lehrendiefürchterlichenTriumphedesNaturalismusimGesetzesrechtoderinderRoutinederjüngstenVergangenheit.DassdieAusmordungderGeisteskrankendemHaushaltder“Volksgemeinschaft”,dieVernichtungandererRassenderHerrenrasse,dieSippenhaftungdemWohlverhaltenderFamilienväter,dieBelohnungvonDenunziantenderHerrschafteinerMinderheit“nützt”:diesekurzbeinigenWahrheitenals“Rechts”wahrheitendemöffentlichenBewusstseineingeprägtzuhaben,sinddieVerirrungeneinesangewandtenNaturalismus,dersichdesGedankensBlässeentschlugundvomwissenschaftlichenBeobachtenderWirklichkeitzumExperimentierenmitMenschenüberging.

Thesearetheethicsoftheanimalworld,wherethe‘species’fightsforsurvivalandtheconceptionoflawwherehistoryisshownalmostlikezoology,wherethehouseratisgraduallysuppressedbythemorepowerfulbrownone.Anditisalldonewithfullconsciousness,notintheinnocenceoftheworldbeforeman.When‘law’waswhateverwassaidtobegoodfor‘thepeople’,society,progressoranyothertinidolsuchasrace,welearnttherealitybehindtheseformulas,theterribletriumphsofnaturalisticpurposivelegislationandotherday-to-dayapplicationintimesnotlongpast.Welearnttoexterminatetheweak-mindedtoimprovethebiologicalstockofthe‘communityofthepeople’,toeliminateotherracesforthe‘benefit’tothe‘master-race’,tomakethefamilyliabletoensurethepoliticalcorrectnessofthepaterfamilias,toencouragedelationtoensuretheruleoftheminority.Publicopinionswallowedsuchtrashaslegalfactsbutcoulddoso,misledasitwas,onlybecausenaturalismtooktoaction,decidedtopaythedevilbecauseitwastiredofwords,andabandonedscientificexplanationofrealityforexperimentationinlivingfleshandblood.530

WieackerwasnaturallynottheonlyonetopresentcriticismofNazijurisprudenceandpractice,butforhimtheNaziideaofnaturalism,ofraisingtheideaofthepeopleaboveeverythingelse,wastherootoftheproblem.531ConsideringthatWieackerhimselfhadbeenanintegralpartofthesameNazijurisprudence,thesepassagesmaybereadintwoways–eitherasindirectself-criticismorasdistancinghimselffromhispreviousactions.ThethemesWieackeroutlinedinthePrivatrechtsgeschichtewerefurtherdevelopedinanarticleontheoriginsofEuropeanlegalconsciousnessin1956.There,hemadeaclear

530Wieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit(1952),p.347.Thetranslationisadaptedfromthesecondedition,Wieacker,HistoryofPrivateLawinEurope,p.461.531JoachimRückert,‘DerRechtsbegriffderDeutschenRechtsgeschichteinderNS-Zeit:derSiegdes"Lebens"unddeskonkretenOrdnungsdenkens,seineVorgeschichteundseineNachwirkungen’,inJoachimRückertandDietmarWilloweit(eds.),DieDeutscheRechtsgeschichteinderNS-ZeitihreVorgeschichteundihreNachwirkungen(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1995),pp.177–240,atpp.180–181.

179

statementagainstEnglish-languagescholarshipanditsclaimstorepresenttheWesterntradition.Incontrast,WieackerarguedthattheEuropeantraditionhadthreeconstitutiveelements:1)theconceptoflawandlegalorderwhichderivedfromtheimperiumRomanum,2)thecontinuityoftheseandtheiruniquerelationshipwithmetaphysicsandsocialethicswastheworkoftheChurch,and3)thevitalityandwilltodevelopsocialandstatestructuresshouldbecreditedtotheGermans.Thoughthereweremanysubsequentdevelopments,suchastheideaoffreedom,theseweremoreinthenatureofsedimentsthataccumulatedontopofthesefoundations.532EvenhereWieackerreturnstotheissueofnaturallaw,positivismandtheproblemoftyrants.Whileinallagestherehadbeentyrants,positivisticthoughtheldnodistinctionbetweenalawandanunjustlaw,aslongasformalcriteriawerefulfilled,areferencetothepost-warcriticismonKelsenandRadbruch.Theproblemwithnaturalismwasthatifonechangedtheyardstick,theprotectionofferedwouldbenullified.Theonlysolution,andhereWieackerwouldmakeastrangeexcursusintoChinesethought,isthehighercommunityoflaw.Whatheenvisionsisafeeling,acommunityandexperiencethatwouldtranscendnotonlyabstractprinciplesbutalsodemagogueryandpoliticalconferences.Inshort,whathecallsforistheappreciationofthetraditionofEuropeanlegalthoughtanditslongconstitutiveforce.533Ina1963essayonthecontinuingimpactofancientlegalcultureontheEuropeanworld,hereturnstothethemesoforganicsuccessionandinheritancefromantiquitytothepresentinwaysthataresurprisinglysimilartothosepresentedin1944inVomrömischenRecht.Asidefromthetransmissionoflearning,hetakesuptheissuesofadministrativepracticesandtheircontinuities,forexampletheideaofimpersonalmagistracyanditsmaterialcapabilitiesthatiscentraltotheWesternideaofthestate.WieackerclaimsthatthoughtherehadbeenOriental,HellenisticandRomanprecedents,thetrueinventorsofthemagistraciesweretheByzantinecentralizedmonarchies,whichdevelopedthehierarchicaladministrativestructuresnecessaryforthistooperate.WhatthenfollowedwasthelongdisputebetweentheRomanandGermanicconceptsofmagistracies,thefirstfocusingontheirmaterialscope,thesecondonthepersonofthemagistrate.534ThisideaofhistoryasalongprocessoftraditionformationwasbestoutlinedinthesecondeditionofthePrivatrechtsgeschichte(1967,Englishtranslation1995).Thesecondeditionwastwiceaslongasthefirst,butcontainedlargelythesamehistoricaloutline.Wieacker’stheoreticalframeworkinthiseditionisbestdefinedascontinuity.Continuityheremeansthecontinuingprocessofinteractionbetweenoldandnewlaw,responsestotheancient

532Wieacker,‘UrsprüngeundElementedeseuropäischenRechtbewusstseins’.AlreadyFranzWieacker,VulgarismusundKlassizismusimRechtderSpätantike(Heidelberg:C.Winter,1955)p.63showsthesameideainanutshell.533Wieacker,‘UrsprüngeundElementedeseuropäischenRechtbewusstseins’,pp.115–118.534FranzWieacker,‘DieFortwirkungderantikenRechtskulturenindereuropäischenWelt’,inVomRecht(Hannover:NiedersächsischezentralefürPolitischeBildung,1963),p.83.

180

traditionsandsoforth.Hewishestoovercomesimplisticnotionslikeinfluenceorinheritanceinfavourofamorecomplexandnuancedideaoforganicdevelopment.Wieackeragainresortstobiologicalanalogiesofthetransmissionoflifebetweengenerationsasamodelforlegaltradition.535WedonotneedtorevisitWieacker’shistoricalnarrativefromantiquitytothepresentday,butwhatisinterestinginthesecondeditionisthewayhecomesbacktothecriticismofpositivismandnaturalisticideasofsuprapositivenorms.Wieackerisfundamentallycriticaloftheideaofconstitutionalguaranteesandfundamentalrightsandconsidersthemultimatelyuselessassafeguards.Whatuseisaconstitutionalguaranteeifthewholeconstitutionmightbenegatedandputonhold?Heisequallycriticaloftheintroductionofvaluesandinterests,havingseenhowtheytoocouldbeturnedintotoolsofrepression.536Thecondemnationoflegalpositivism,presentalreadyinthefirstedition,becamestrongerandhischoiceofwordingsevenmorepronounced.Inthesectionquotedabove,forexample,manypassageslackscholarlydetachment.Elsewhereinthetext,naturalismisreplacedbyareferencetopurposivelegislationand‘secretlaws’,dictatorsarementioned,andthepracticeofexecutingpettythievesbecausethemetaltheystolewasneededforwarisadded.537Asaconsequence,Wieackerpointsout,allshouldbeextremelywarywheneversomeoneusesgoodintentionsasargumentsinconstitutionaldebates,evenforinnocentordesirablepurposes.538ThisisanargumentthatWieackerwoulddevelopduringthepost-Warperiod.In1957inKarlsruhehegavealecturetojudgesoftheGermansupremeconstitutionalcourtaboutjudgesandthelawwhenlegalorderisoutsidethelaw.Wieackerunderlinedtheethicalresponsibilityofthepractisinglawyertomaintainthelimitsofthelaw,becauseaninterpretationthatwastoolooseortoopurposeorientedwouldleadtodangerousprecedents.539ThiswasanottoosubtlereferencetotheNaziideaofthepoliticalwillbeingthesolelegalcriterionaswellasthedangersofgeneralprinciplesraisedearlierbyPringsheim.ThefactthattheNazipastwouldbetakenupinearnestonlyinthe1967secondeditioncomesasnosurprise.WhiletheNazipasthadbeenswiftlyforgottenaftertheenthusiasmfordenazificationsubsided,anewgenerationofstudentswerenotwillingtoletsuchmemory

535Wieacker,HistoryofPrivateLawinEurope,pp.25–26;Wieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit(1967),pp.43–44.536Wieacker,HistoryofPrivateLawinEurope,pp.444–460;Wieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit(1967),pp.559–585.537Wieacker,HistoryofPrivateLawinEurope,p.461;Wieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit(1967),pp.585–586.538Wieacker,HistoryofPrivateLawinEurope,p.461.EvenbeforetheNaziyearsthisideawaspresentedbynoneotherthanHedemann,DieFluchtindieGeneralklauseln.539FranzWieacker,GesetzundRichterkunst.ZumProblemderaußergesetzlichenRechtsordnung(Karlsruhe:VerlagC.F.Müller,1958);Liebs,‘FranzWieacker’,p.40.

181

losstakeplace.RadicalstudentsconfrontedtheirteachersabouttheNaziyearsandleddebatesaboutwhathadhappenedandwhy,forcingtheresignationofNaziprofessorssuchasForsthoff.540In1968BerndtRüthersdemolishedthemyththatjudgeswerelargelyinnocentaboutNazicrimes,beingvictimsoflegalpositivismthatmeantthattheywereboundtofollowthelawregardlessofitscontent.541WhatWieackerraisesasasolutionistheideaoflegalconsciencetheuniqueanddistinctivemandateofjusticeconcerningtheconductoneadoptsinrelationtoothers.542Theattackonlegalpositivismcanbetracedinparttothepost-wartheoriesofRadbruchthattracedtherootsandtheblameforthelegalnihilismoftheNaziyearstoexcessivepositivism.543MuchlikeKoschaker,WieackerwouldreturntothefigureofSavignytimeandagain,inawaythatmaybeseenasbothanalyticalandnormative.Ontheotherhand,heengageswiththehistoricalSavignyandhiscontext,butontheother,therelentlessfocusonSavignyandtheHistoricalSchoolservedtolegitimatetheroleofhistoryinjurisprudence.544ThenarrativeoftheHistoricalSchoolwasinmanywaysavehiclethroughwhichtodiscusstheimportanceofhistorytolaw.Incontrasttomanyothers,WieackerconsideredHugo’simportanceatbestmarginal,whileSavignyisraisedontoapedestal.FollowingKoschaker,WieackerdownplayedthefundamentaldifferencebetweentheHistoricalSchoolandthenaturallawthinkerswhichhadbeenSavigny’smainclaim.Infact,bothWieackerandKoschakerdiscussedlearnedlaw,Professorenrecht,emanatingfromthewritingsoftheprofessorsoflaw,andbothhadRomanlawastheirmainsource.HewasequallycriticalofPuchtaandhisattemptataconceptualbalancingbetweenthesystematicandthehistoricalapproach.However,thetruedifferencebetweenKoschaker’sandWieacker’svisionofthehistoryoflawwastheinterpretationoftheperiodbetween1880-1930.ForKoschaker,thecodificationprocessandtheenactmentoftheBGBstartedadownwardslideforscholarshiponRomanlaw,afallfromwhichitneverrecovered.Incontrast,toWieackertheperiodbetween1880and1930wasthepioneeringage,wherestudiesfollowedacommonagendaofthehistorificationofnormative

540Moses,GermanIntellectuals,pp.186–218;Erkkilä,‘ConceptualChangeofConscience’,pp.8-9,260-267notesthatforWieackerthe1960swasatimeofself-reflectionandself-criticism.541Rüthers,DieUnbegrenzteAuslegung;Stolleis,LawundertheSwastika,pp.8–9;JerryZ.Muller,TheOtherGodthatFailed:HansFreyerandtheDeradicalizationofGermanConservatism(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987)expandedthiscriticismtothelegalprofessioningeneral.542Wieacker,HistoryofPrivateLawinEurope,pp.478–481.543Landau,‘WieackersKonzept’,p.71;GustavRadbruch,'GesetzlichesunrechtundübergesetzlichesRecht'(1946)1SüddeutscheJuristenzeitung105–108,p.105.544FranzWieacker,GründerundBewahrer.RechtslehrerderneuerendeutschenPrivatrechtsgeschichte(Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1959);FranzWieacker,‘FriedrichCarlvonSavigny’,inHermannHeimpel(ed.),DiegrossenDeutschenIII(Berlin:Ullstein,1956),pp.39–51.

182

interpretations,settingthemintheirhistoricalcontextsandthecombinationoflegalandhistoricalknowledge.545AtthesametimeasWieackerwasrewritingthehistoryoftheEuropeanlegaltradition,hewasactivelyengagedindebatesaboutthehistoryofancientRomanlaw.OnlylaterwouldhewritehismagnumopusaboutRomanlegalhistory,butthroughouttheyearshisworkswouldreflecttheongoingre-evaluationoftheRomantraditionanditsroleinthedevelopmentoflegalscience.Forinstance,inhis1969articleontheworkoftheRomanjuristQuintusMuciusScaevola,WieackerdismissedtheearlierinterpretationsthatQuintusMuciuswouldhavebegunthesystematicstudyoflawthroughtheadoptionofGreekscientificmethods.AccordingtoWieacker,thedebateshowsmorethepreoccupationthathasreignedabouttheroleoftheGreekandRomanheritagesintheWesternlegaltradition,namelytheneedtopursuetheoriesinwhichtheoriginsofthetraditionwouldextendtotheancientRomans.546StolleishasnotedthateventhoughtheNazipropagandaandtheattacksonRomanlawwereathreattothestudyofRomanlaw,italsoproducedsomethingpositive.ThecriticismthatsocialrealitiesandpoliticalcircumstanceshadbeenneglectedprovedtobeanimpulsethatledRomanlawscholarstonewwaysofinquiryandresultedinanewimageofRomanlaw.547Thismaybethecase,butonewonderswhetherthesocialscientificturnwhichreachedthehistoricalsciencesinthe1960swouldnothavehadthesameresult.Wieacker’scentralcontributiontothenarrativeofEuropeanlawandthereorientationofscholarshiptothe“foundationsofEuropeanlegalculture”arebestsummarizedinhisarticleintheAmericanJournalofComparativeLawfrom1990.Intheintroduction,WieackerpresentsadefenceofthelawagainstclaimsofrepressivenessandoppressionbyMarxistandpost-colonialistcritics,butsoontakesuptheunityofEuropeanlegalculture.WhathedefinesasEuropeisinfactquitetelling:Wieacker’sEuropeisthewiderAtlantic-Europeanworld,includingeventheoffshootsofEuropeancultureasfarastheantipodes.Afterabriefnodtothedistinctivenessofthecommonlawsystem,WieackertakesupthefamiliarthemesofhistoricaldevelopmentfromRometothemiddleagesandonwards.TheroleoftheChurchisunderlinedindevelopingthe“modern”traitsofEuropeanlegalculture,butthetrueheroofthenarrativeistheautonomouslegalscienceofjurists.Thestorythenculminatesinthe“essentialconstantsofEuropeanlegalculture”:personalism,legalismandintellectualism.Personalismmeanttheprimacyoftheindividualinlaw,asthesubject,endandpointofreference.Individualassociationandindividualrelationshipwithdeitiesproducedthesameresultsastheemphasisonfreedomandself-determination.Basedontheseideas,Wieacker

545FranzWieacker,RömischeRechtsgeschichteI(Munich:C.H.Beck,1988),pp.45,49–51;Wieacker,HistoryofPrivateLawinEurope,pp.284–302,316–318;Koschaker,Europa,p.269,275–291.546FranzWieacker,‘UberdasVerhaltnisderromischenFachjurisprudenzzurgriechisch-hellenistischenTheorie'(1969)20Iura448–477,atpp.460–469.547Stolleis,ʻ“FortschrittederRechtsgeschichteˮinderZeitdesNationalsozialismus?ʼ,p.188.

183

explainswhytheemphasisonfreedomsandthusrightsissopervasiveinEuropeanlegalculture.Theprincipleoflegalismrestedontheexclusivepowerofthelegalruleoverothers,inthewaythatrelationshipsareobjectifiedthroughlawandlawisseparatedfromsocialandethicalnorms.Legalismwasintroducedalongwithwiththeideaofrationalism,thestrictremovaloflawfromtheideasofsocialequality.Thefinalprinciplewasthatofintellectualism,wherelegalscienceisjustthat,asciencewheresystematicandconceptualreasoningrules.548ThenarrativecreatedbyWieackerhassomepeculiaritiesthatarenotreallyreducibletoanyparticularscholarlychoice.Forexample,thedecisiontolimitobservationsalmostsolelytotheciviliantraditiondatingtoBolognaisodd.Thisomits,forexample,nearlyallofthecanonlawtradition.549Theconceptofculturewasakeyelementinthepost-wardiscussions,wheretheideaofcultureandtheKulturnationwereutilizedastouchstonesofGermanidentity.CulturecouldbetheonecleanspherewhereGermanachievementandsuperioritycouldbesafelytouted.Fordemocractsandconservativesalike,resortingtoGoethegavethemaneutralwayofdescribingvaluesandnationalidentity.550ToWieacker,thegrandnarrativeofthedevelopmentoflawfromantiquitytothemoderndaywasclearlyahistoricaldevelopmentthatencompassedthelegalprofessionanditsevolution.Wieackerhadlittleunderstandingoftheideaspresented,forinstance,byKoschakeraboutthelegaldogmaticcontinuityfromthepasttothepresent,butemphasizedthatlawwasalivingculture,notsomesortoftextualtransmission.Thissameconceptionguidedhisreservationsandresistancetoboththerenaissanceofnaturallawandlegalpositivism.Bothwereeasilycircumventedbyunscrupulousinterpretersworkingfortotalitarianrulers,eitherbyraisinganothersuperiorprincipleoverthatofhumandignityorbysimplystoppingtheconstitutionfrombeingapplied.Theonlylastingvaluewasthelegalconscience,theinternalconvictionoflawyersinmaintaininglawandjustice.ConclusionsItmaybesurprisingthatthemostinfluentialbookaboutthenewnarrativeofEuropeanlegalhistoryandthesharedlegalheritagewaspublishedbyacard-carryingmemberoftheNazipartywhohadactivelyparticipatedintheideologicalworkofthenewNazilegalscience.Oncloserinspection,itislesssurprising.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis,onebeingstrong 548FranzWieacker,‘FoundationsofEuropeanLegalCulture’(1990)38(1)TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw1–29.Thisisatranslationofhisearlieressaytitled‘VoraussetzungeneuropäischerRechtskultur’,presentedoriginallyinHelsinkiin1983.TheessaywastranslatedandintroducedbyBodenheimer,himselfanexile.549Landau,‘WieackersKonzept’,pp.57–58.550Forner,GermanIntellectuals,pp.119–120.

184

continuitiesonideasaboutEurope,theimpetusforchangebeingsharedbyformerNazisandconceptionsaboutlegalsciencewerejointlyheldatthistime.WhilehisinvolvementintheNazimovementhasbeenexplainedasanominalmembership,FranzWieackerjoinedthemovementearlyon,andfoundfriendsandacommonpurposeinthereformofGermanlawaccordingtothenewprinciples.ThiswastruedespitehisDoktovaterFritzPringsheimbeingpersecutedbytheregimeandtheobviouscontradictionsbetweentheteachingsofthemovementandtheidealsoflaw.However,therewerestrongcontinuities,forafterthewarmostformerNaziscontinuedtoserveasprofessorsdespitetheirearlieractivities.Moreover,especiallyafterOperationBarbarossaandthewarontheEasternFronthadbegun,theNazimovementbeganastrongpushtowardsEuropeanism.TheNaziconceptionsofEuropewereofcourseunitedagainstcommunismandperceivedJewishideas,andtookadvantageofChristianculturaltheoriesofEuropeancivilization.Thismeantthatevenafterthewar,promotionoftheEuropeanistideasfellonreceptiveground.WieackerservedintheGermanarmyduringthewar,fromthePolishcampaigntotheNorthItalianbattlesin1945.Especiallyduringthelastmonthsofthewarbattlestooktheformofannihilation,overamillionGermansoldiersdyingduringthelastfivemonthsofthewarinEurope.Thatleavesamark.Whenthewarended,Wieacker’shomehadbeendestroyedandhisuniversityhadbeentakenoverbySovietoccupiers.EndingupinGöttingen,Wieackerconsideredhimselftobeanexileaswell.Finally,Wieacker’sconceptionoflawandlegalscience,especiallytherolegiventotraditionandRomanlaw,wasneveragoodfitwiththeNazipartyideology.Evenduringthewar,hewroteaboutRomanlawasthefoundationofWesternthinkingonlawandthestate,andabouttheideaoflegalscienceasacumulativeprocesstakingplacewithinthelegalprofession.Legalrationalism,theideaofanautonomousscienceunconnectedwithpoliticsandideology,wasdiametricallyopposedtoNaziideasonlawasanextensionofpolitics.ThegreatachievementofWieackerwas,withoutdoubt,thePrivatrechtsgeschichte.IttiedtogethertheconceptionofEuropeanlegalsciencewiththeideaofitssharedrootsintheRomanpast.Itisabookaboutlawasascience,ultimately,abookaboutthenoblepast.Behrends,forinstance,notedhowWieackerbuiltthelinkbetweenearlymodernlegalconceptsandtheideaofthereceptionoftheGreekideasofconceptandsystemintoRomanjurisprudenceintoamodelofhowlawshouldbe.551Thus,theGreco-Romanoriginstorywasinitssimplestformamandateforthefuture,anideaofwhattheEuropeanlegaltraditionbothisandshouldbe.However,thenarrativeformulatedbyWieackerwastheresultoftwocompetingandmutuallyhostiletraditions,onerepresentingtheideasofautonomousjurisprudenceasascientificpursuit,theotherseeinglawasacomponentofsocial,politicalandculturalorder.Itwouldbe

551Behrends,‘FranzWieacker.HistorikerundJuristdesPrivatrechts’,p.2343.

185

faciletoclaimthatthiswouldhavebeenabattlebetweentheinfluencesofPringsheimandSchmitt,becausetheelementsthatformedWieacker’sthinkingaremuchmorecomplex.Therewas,forexample,hisongoingfixationwithSavigny,whichprovidedacompletelydifferentreadingthantheonepresentedbyKoschaker.ForWieacker,Savignyhadsuccessfullybridgedthechasmbetweenthescienceoflaw,theRomanlawtraditionandthedemandsofcontemporarysocietyanditsGermanicfoundations.Riccobonoalsoexertedastronginfluenceandcontributedtohisvisionofthelongcontinuityofthelegaltraditionfromantiquitytothepresentday.ThegroupformedbyhisfriendsintheKielerSchule,moreover,wereapowerfulpresencebothsociallyandintellectually,compellinghimtoadoptasensitivitytowardssocialandpoliticalrealities.SchmittandGadamer,aswellasWeber,ledhiminamoretheoreticaldirectionfromstrictlylegalbeginnings.OneshouldnotoverestimatetheinfluenceoftheNazithinkinginWieacker,thoughtherewereotherimportantissueswhichcontributedtohisideas.BeyondtheinitialstageofthefirstyearsoftheNazirevolution,histimeinKielandFrankfurt,thepullofNazitheoriesdiminishandbythetimeofhiswartimewritings,hebeginstoformulatehisideaofreception.Inandbythemselves,manyofhisworksbegintounderminetheofficialNazipolicyofcriticizingRomanlawinfluences.TheconceptofreceptionanditsreformulationwiththehermeneuticaltheoriesofinterpretationformedthefoundationoftheconceptoftheWesternlegaltraditionasoutlinedinthePrivatrechtsgeschichte.WithBettiandGadamer,Wieackerengagedinalongdebateoverwhatthedifferencebetweenhistoricalandlegalinterpretationmeant,especiallyinthecaseofthelegaltradition.Inthecaseofreception,theconceptofrationalityanditsadvancementbecameathreadthroughwhichthelegalsciencewoulddevelop.InadditiontohispersonalinvolvementwiththeNazimovement,theapproachthatWieackerdevelopedprovedtobewellsuitedtoanotherNazi-erainvention,thereformoflawstudies.ThenarrativeofthePrivatrechtsgeschichtewasdraftedtocorrespondtoacourseofthesamenameinthestudyplan.Thishadacrucialsignificancebecauseitgavethebookaninstantaudienceandsellingpoint.ThusitcouldbesaidthattheNazirevolutiongavehimbothapositionattheuniversityandaplatformuponwhichtopresenthisideas.Despitethis,theturntowardsEuropeafterthewarendedwasnotagiven.ThePrivatrechtsgeschichtewasapost-warbookthatincorporatedbotholdandnew,appealingtobothformerNazis,whichwerestillinthemajorityinacademia,aswellasthedemandsofthenewpoliticalsituation.Wieackerhimselfwasrehabilitatedasaminorplayerandthroughhisconnectionsjoinedtheacademiccommunity.Inthiscommunityofsilence,beingaformermemberoftheNazilegalacademiamayevenhavebeenanasset.TheturntowardsEurope,muchliketheturntowardsdemocracyandtheruleoflaw,maybeseenasanexternalfactor,oneofthecircumstanceswhichscholarswouldneedtoadaptto.Here,thewilltobelongworkedintheoppositedirectionasithaddoneinthe1930s,leading

186

notonlyWieackerbutalsomostofthelegalacademiatodiscoverthesharedrootsofEuropeanlegalscience.

187

6.TheEuropeannarrativeandthetraditionofrightsAbstractThesixthchapterapproachesthereconfiguringofthelegaltraditionthroughtheworkofHelmutCoingandhisideaofthetraditionofrightsasajurisprudentialconstruct.ThisiscontextualizedthroughtheriseoftherightstraditioninhumanrightsscholarshipandthecentralrolethathumanrightscametohaveintheinitialstagesoftheEuropeanproject.Thisemphasis,resultinginthecreationoftheEuropeanConventionofHumanRights,wasmirroredbythecommitmentofthenewGermanstatetodemocracyandrights.ThechapterconcludeswithananalysisofthespreadoftheEuropeannarrativeabouttheroleofRomanlawanditsgreatestproponents,amongthemReinhardZimmermann.IntroductionForallthewritingsaboutaEuropeanlegaltraditionorEuropeanlegalcultureintheworksofsuchscholarsasKoschakerorWieacker,amongresearcherstodaythereisaclearagreementthatnosuchsingulartraditionorcultureactuallyexisted.Theidea,presentinliteraturefromtheSecondWorldWaronwardsandinalmosteverytextbookofEuropeanlegalhistory,thattherewouldhavebeenasharedlegalcultureatsomepointinEuropeanhistory,isconsideredtobewishfulthinkingatbest,ahistoricalinventionpromotedforthebenefitofcontemporaryneeds.Whatonemaytalkabout,withsomeconfidenceeven,arelegaltraditionsthatmayormaynotbereducedtoacentralprinciple.WithintheEuropeanlegaltradition,theyareoftenreducedtotwocompetingalternatives,naturallawandculturaltheories.Theideasofnaturallawandtheconceptoflegalculturearebroadlyspeakingrelatedtotheconceptsofuniversalismandparticularism.Thefirstofthesetraditions,thatofuniversalnaturallaw,gainedprominenceduringtheFrenchRevolution:itincludeselementssuchastheuniversalrightsofman,Britishtheoriesofrights,thenascenthumanrightsmovementofthe1930s,andsoforth.Thesecond,theculturaltheory,wasbasedontheideasofRomanticismthatweregivenlegalformbyauthorslikeF.C.vonSavignyorJacobGrimm.TheysawlawaspartofcultureandspokeofaGermaniclegalculture.552Howthedivisionbetweenthetwohasbeenmadeisunclearanddependsonthepeoplemakingthesedefinitions,butonecriticalissueisnoticeable.Thetraditionofuniversalrightshasmoreoftenbeenemphasizedindiscussionsthroughpubliclawortherelationshipbetweentheindividualandthestate,whereastheemphasisonlegalcultureispresentindiscussionsonprivatelaw.WithintheGermandiscourseof1933–1945,thedisputesovertraditiontookonverycuriousovertonesasNazilegalthoughtsoughttopresentitselfasanalternativetotheliberalorder.EveninMeinKampf,HitlerlambastedthefalseequalityoftheFrenchRevolutionastheroot

552ThisnotionunderliesmosttextbooksofEuropeanlegalhistory.

188

causeoftheJewishmenace.Peoplesimplydidnotknowtheirplace.InitssteadNazithinkersofferedcommunity,theorderlydignityofaculturebasedonrace.However,NazithoughtwasverymuchagainsttheideaoftraditionaslongasthattraditionwasbasedonRomanlaw.Infact,Nazithoughtcontainedmuchinthewayofsocialprogressivism,reformismandtheideaofsweepingawaytheoldorder.553Incontrast,afterthewaraveritablerenaissanceofinterestinnaturallawemergedparallelwiththeemergenceofmodernhumanrightsthought.ThetraditionalnarrativeofRomanlawandEuropeanlegalhistorywasverymuchaconservativenarrativeoftraditionandcontinuity,wherecultureandbelongingformedthebasisofthelegalsystem.ItsrootslayinRomanticistthoughtandtheHistoricalSchool,butinordertogainlargeracceptance,itneededtobreakoutofthatmodel.WieackerarguedthatatraditionbeganintheRomanperiodwherejuristswouldhavedevelopedthelawautonomouslyandthatautonomyandself-guidednesswastherootofitsclaimtobethetrueEuropeanlegalheritage.Incontrast,Coingsoughttoextendthistraditionfurther,maintainingthatthetraditionofrightswasequallyderivedfromtheRomanlawheritage.ThepurposeofthischapteristoanalysethisdichotomybetweencultureandrightsthroughthethinkingofHelmutCoing(1912–2000),oneofthemostinfluentiallegalhistoriansinpost-warEurope,whoinhisearlyworksattemptedtocombinethehistoricalandthenaturallawtraditionintoone.Intheseworks,Coingfusedtogethertheemphasisonfreedomandrights,whilegroundingtheminanarrativeofcultureandtradition.554Amedievalist,Coingbuilthisimpressivepost-WWIIcareeronthebasisoftheideaofEuropeanlegalhistory,asaresearcherandaslong-timedirectoroftheMaxPlanckInstituteforEuropeanLegalHistory.ThemainquestionishowCoingpivotedfromafairlytraditionalconservativepositionbothtowardshumanrightsandtheEuropeanlegalheritage.Thereinterpretationoftraditionalsohadreal-lifeconsequences.CoingwasoneofthepersonswhoactedasadviserstoimportantEUofficialssuchasWalterHallstein.HallsteinwasafriendofCoing,whobecamethepresidentoftheEECcommission.HewasenthusiasticaboutthepotentialoflawandlegaltraditionasaunifyingfactorinEurope,andsawinlawaculturalforcethatwouldcreateaEuropeancommunity.555

553OnthejuxtapositionofNazithoughtandthenotionsofrightsanddignity,seeWhitman,‘OnNaziHonorandtheNewEuropeanDignity’;Rüthers,DieUnbegrenzteAuslegung,pp.336-351.554Coing,‘ZumEinflussderPhilosophiedesAristotelesaufdieEntwicklungdesrömischesRechts’;Coing,'RömischesRechtinDeutschland';Coing,‘DieursprünglicheEinheitdereuropäischenRechtswissenschaft’.555ThomasDuve,'EuropeanLegalHistory–GlobalPerspectives'(2013)No.2013-06MaxPlanckInstituteforEuropeanLegalHistoryResearchPaperSeries,p.9.AvailableatSSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2292666orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2292666.

189

OneoftheenduringissuesaboutthespreadoftheideaofatraditionofrightsasthefoundationoftheEuropeanlegalheritageistheimpactoftransatlanticinfluences,especiallythoseofexiledscholarsafterWWII.WewillexplorethisthroughtheexamplesofscholarssuchasNeumannandStrauss,whobecameinfluentialbothintheUSandGermanyinthepost-waryears.Anotherparallelprocesswasthespreadofhumanrightsthoughtafter1948andthecreationoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights.Thisprocess,spearheadedbyconservativepoliticianssuchasWinstonChurchill,ledtoaparticularemphasisonpoliticalrights.IwillalsoanalysethespreadofEuropeannarrativesabouttheroleofRomanlawinconjunctionwiththedeepeningofEuropeanintegration.CentralfiguresinthisrespectareReinhardZimmermannandanumberofcontinentallegalhistorians,whospreadtheideaofaEuropeantraditionasamodelforthefuture.556DespiteCoing’simportanceintheshifttowardsrightsandacommonEuropeanheritageinthepost-wardiscussions,hehasnotbeenstudiedtoanygreatextent.OnepartialexplanationisthatCoingdidnotleavemuchofanarchivebeyondtheofficialpapersstoredattheMaxPlanckGesellschaft.Themostinterestingpartofthearchiveisanautobiographycomposedintheearly1990s,557ofwhichaneditedversionhasrecentlybeenpublished.558Acoupleofrecentarticles,suchasbyDuve(2013),traceCoing’simportancetotheturninlegalhistorytowardsEurope.559LenaFoljantyhastracedtheroleofCoingintheresurgenceofnaturallawinpost-warGermany.560ThischapterismostlybasedonCoing’spublishedworks,withsomereferencestothecorrespondencebetweenCoingandhiscolleagues.ThereasonforthisisthatthereisverylittleinthewayofarchivalmaterialrelatingtoCoing’searlyyears.561

556Zimmermann,RomanLaw,ContemporaryLaw,EuropeanLaw.557ArchivderMax-Planck-Gesellschaft,Berlin,AbteilungIII,Repositur103(NLHelmutCoing1912–2000),21–1:AutobiographieCoing.ThereisalsoaminorofficialarchiveattheBibliothekdesMax-Planck-InstitutsfüreuropäischeRechtsgeschichte,Frankfur(NLCoing–MPI–DritteMappe).558Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste.559Oftheobituaries,themostsubstantialwereKlausLuig,'HelmutCoing(28.2.1912–15.8.2000)'(2002)119ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung662–678andDieterSimon,'ZwischenWissenschaftundWissenschaftspolitik:HelmutCoing(28.2.1912–15.8.2000)'(2001)54NeueJuristischeWochenschrift1029–1032.Onthehistoricalside,seealsoDieterNörr,'ÜberdasGeistigeimRecht:einNachrufaufHelmutCoing'(2001)56Juristenzeitung449–452;MichaelStolleis,'HelmutCoing28.2.1912–15.8.2000'(2001)JahrbuchderMax-Planck-Gesellschaft873–874.MostrecentlyCoing’srolehasbeenexploredbyThomasDuve,'VonderEuropäischenRechtsgeschichtezueinerRechtsgeschichteEuropasinglobalhistorischerPerspektive(FromaEuropeanLegalHistoryTowardsaLegalHistoryofEuropeinaGlobalHistoricalPerspective)'(2012)20RechtsgeschichteLegalHistory.ZeitschriftdesMaxPlanck-InstitutsfürEuropaischeRechtsgeschichte18–71.AvailableatSSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2139312andDuve,’EuropeanLegalHistory–GlobalPerspectives’.560LenaFoljanty,RechtoderGesetz:JuristischeIdentitätundAutoritätinDenNaturrechtsdebattenderNachkriegszeit(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2013),pp.175-224.561Coing’sextantpapersareinthearchivesoftheMaxPlanckSociety.ArchivderMax-Planck-Gesellschaft,Berlin,AbteilungIII,Repositur103(NLHelmutCoing1912–2000).

190

Coingstartedoutasatypicalproductofthenationalisticbourgeoisie,anintellectualandareserveofficer,someonewhowouldhaveeasilyfittedintoboththeWilhelmineEmpireaswellaspost-warWestGermany.Hiscareermaybedefinedasoneofanopportunist,butbehindthefaçadeitisevidentthattheNaziyearshadtakentheirtoll.WhatCoing’strajectoryshowsisfirstadrifttowardsnationalistichistoriography,followedbythepost-warturntonaturallawandfinallyareturntotraditionandEurope.Towardsapost-warreckoningTheendofthewarledtoanumberofdifferentacademicoutcomes,toputitmildly,bothonadisciplinaryandonanindividuallevel.Inthecaseofthetwotraditionsontheoriginsofrights,theGermanictheoryoflawandculturewasunsurprisinglyshunnedduetoitslinkswiththeNaziregime.AlongwiththediscreditingofNazijurisprudenceandNazijurists,therewasequallyabacklashagainsttheoriesofultranationalism.TheunfortunatecollateraldamagewasthefieldofGermanistik,thehistoryofGermanlaw,whichhadbecometaintedbyassociationwithNazitheories.However,thisextendedtoindividualscholarsonlyonaveryselectivebasis.ForscholarswhohadparticipatedintheintellectualpursuitsoftheNaziera,thepost-warperiodwasoneofcleansingofreputations,andofferingapologiesandexplanationsforpriorpositions.Aswesawinthepreviouschapter,theprocessesofrehabilitationwerefairlyuniform:innumerablescholarswereprocessedthroughthevarioussystemsofSpruchkammernandotherorganizations.Intheseprocesses,characterstatementsfromcolleaguesweresoughtandevidenceindifferentformswaspresented.Inpractice,thedefencesoughttodemonstratethattheaccusedmightnothavebeenarealNaziafterall,butratherhadjoinedaftercoercionorpersuasion.Therewasevenanassociationfortheperceived“victimsofdenazification”.562Formostoftheaccused,theprocessofdenazificationwasrelativelyshort,mostlyduetotheenormousscaleoftheprocessandthewilltofocusontheworstoffenders.ForCoing,theentireprocessofdenazificationisunremarkable.Thoughautobiographiesarenotoriouslyunreliableasevidence,itwouldappearthathewasneveranopenlypoliticalperson.Inhisautobiography,thenuancesofthedescriptionofhisrelationshipwiththeNazipartyarerevealinginthattheydescribealonggradualdevelopment.Atfirst,hedescribeshisupbringingasachildinaconservativefamilythathadrootsintheProtestantHuguenots.Coing’sfamilyanditssocialcirclebelongedtotheBildungsbürgertum,whichmeantaccordingtoCoingthatallfamilyacquaintanceswerepublicservants,teachers,officersandthelike.ThemenwereNCOsorofficersinthereserve,aswastypicaloftheclass.Hisfatherhaddiedasan

562MichaelStolleis,'Reluctancetoglanceinthemirror:TheChangingFaceofGermanJurisprudenceafter1933andpost-1945',inJoergesandGhaleigh,DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope,pp.1-18,atp.6.

191

officerintheFirstWorldWar.Coinghimselfwouldfollowthesamepathasthemajorityofhisfamily,intoacademiaand,atthesametime,intovoluntarymilitaryservice,leadingtoapositioninthepeacetimereservesintheinfantry,wherehedevelopedlastingbonds(Kameradschaft)withhisfellowsoldiers.Thisoutlineofhisautobiographyismirroredbytheobituarieswrittensoonafterhisdeath,whichemphasizethathebelongedtoaclassofpublicservantswhereloyaltyandservicewerevalued.563Inhisautobiography,CoingdescribeshisrealizationofthecomingNazitakeoverwhilewitnessingaSAparadethroughthesmalluniversitytownofGöttingen.HismembershipintheNazipartyisnevermentioneddirectly,hesimplyexternalizesitbynotinghowhewaspreparingtodefendhisthesiswhenanolderprofessortoldhimthatalldoctorswithinthelawfacultyshouldbemembersoftheparty.ThefactthatCoingwasonly20yearsoldwhentheNazistookpower(and33whenthewarended)partiallyexplainswhyhisinvolvementinthemovementdidnotpresentaconsiderablechangefromhispreviouscommitments.Whetherornothewasapartymemberissomethingofanopenquestion.FeldkampnotesthatasastudentHelmutCoingheldaNSDAPpartycardin1933,butasanofficerhewouldnothaveneededtobeamemberinordertohaveacareer.564CoingdefendedhisthesisinlawatGöttingenin1935withWolfgangKunkelaboutthereformationinFrankfurt,continuingwithahabilitationthesiswithmedievalhistorianErichGenzmerattheUniversityofFrankfurt,completingitin1938.ThehabilitationthesisonthereceptionofRomanlawinFrankfurtwasCoing’sfirstworktogainwiderattention,anditiscitedbyWieackerasanexampleofthecontinuingroleofRomanlawinlegalscience.565Duringthewar,Coingwasonthefrontlineswithhisunit,servinginboththeattackonFrancein1940andtheEasternfront,reachingtherankofcaptain.Hewasmostlikelysavedbyatransfer.AweekbeforehisunitwassenttoStalingrad,hewasassignedasanadjutantofficerandmovedtoanewunit.ThisexperienceandthelossofhisfriendswasclearlytraumatictoCoing.566

563Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,pp.13–55;Luig,‘HelmutCoing’,pp.662–663.564Coinghimselfdoesnotsayanythingabouthisownpossiblemembership,butremarksonhisadmirationforthosewhoopposedtheNazis,suchasGenzmer.Feldkampnotesthatintheregistersoftheparty,ofwhich80%arepreserved,Coingisnotmentioned.Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,pp.45–47,56–57.565Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,pp.41–52;HelmutCoing,DieRezeptiondesrömischenRechtsinFrankfurtamMain.EinBetragzurRezeptionsgeschichte(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,1962[1939]).566Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,pp.59–74.

192

Attheendofthewar,CoingwasmadeaprisonerofwarontheWesternfrontandendedupinacampinFrance.HewasreleasedfromthePOWcampinSeptember1945andreturnedtohispositionattheUniversityofFrankfurt,wherehewasmadefullprofessorin1948.567AlthoughofficialdocumentsonCoingnolongerexist,wedohavesomeinformationabouthispre-waractivities.Coingparticipated,withmanyotheracademics,inthetrainingcamps(Referendarlager)organizedbytheNazis,wherehealthyoutdooractivitieswerecombinedwithacademicdiscussionsabouttheneworder.Coingwasanenthusiasticparticipant,spendingtwomonthsinacampin1938,wherehewaspraisedforhisacademicexcellence.568Inshort,CoingwasnotanaturalchampionfortheEuropeanlegalheritagebasedonrights.Hestartedoutasaconservative,possiblyacard-carryingmemberoftheNaziparty,workinginafieldwhereNaziinfluencewasstrong.Hewasclearlyaconservativeacademicfromaconservativebackground.However,itisequallyclearhowstronganimpacttheexperienceofwarhadonhimandthetraumaticconsequencesithad.Theriseofnaturallawandrightstheories?Althoughthereasonsforitwererarelyopenlydiscussed,theendofthewarsignalledacrucialchangeinlegalscholarshipwiththeemergenceofnaturallawandideasofhumanrightsanduniversalism.Unlikethemajorityofhiscolleagues,Coingwouldlaterreflectontheintellectualturnsinhislife.Forexample,inhisautobiography,Coingmentionshowtheendofthewarandtherealizationwhatunfetteredpowercoulddoinspiredhimtotakeupnaturallawagain.Similarly,StolleiswrotehowWesternvaluesofidealismandnaturallawweretheonlypossiblepathaftertheNazis.Naturallawwouldbetheonlybulwarkagainstviolenceandpoliticalpower.CoingwasnotaloneinreturningtonaturallawanditispossibletotalkaboutarenaissanceofnaturallawstudiesinGermanyafterWWII.Asnotedintheprecedingchapter,theissuewasalsohotlycontestedandWieacker,forinstance,continuedtorejectthepremisethatnaturallawwouldhavebeenaneffectivefoiltotyranny.569AlreadyduringtheNaziyearsnaturallawwasacontestedissueamongthosewhoresistedtheNazis.AlthoughFraenkelandNeumanntookdivergentpaths,forbothofthemnaturallaw 567Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,pp.74–75.568FolkerSchmerbach,Das'GemeinschaftslagerHannsKerrl'fürReferendareinJüterbog1933-1939(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2008),pp.127-128;Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,p.54.569Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,p.140;Luig,‘HelmutCoing’,p.664;Stolleis,‘Reluctancetoglanceinthemirror’,p.2;KristianKühl,'RückblickaufdieRenaissancedesNaturrechtsnachdemZweitenWeltkrieg',inGerhardKöblerl,MeinhardHeinze,andJanSchapp(eds.),GeschichtlicheRechtswissenschaft:arstradendoinnovandoqueaequitatemsectandi;FreundesgabefürAlfredSöllnerzum60.Geburtstagam5.2.1990.GiessenerrechtswissenschaftlicheAbhandlungen,Bd.6(Brühl:Giessen,1990),pp.331–357;Foljanty,RechtoderGesetz.

193

providedthejustificationforresistance.ThiswasacrucialchangeforNeumann,whohadearliersoughttopresentnaturallawasinherentlyconservativeandagainsttheinterestsoftheleft.WhileNeumannsoughttobuildhiscriticismofNazilawthroughclassicalliberalism,Fraenkelresortedtorationalnaturallaw,drawingfromthereligiousresistanceofsectssuchasJehovah’sWitnessestheimportanceofconscience.Forbothofthem,naturallawwasnotaneasyfit,duetoitsreligiousandclassconnotations.However,theincorporationoftheuniversalideaofreasonandtheliberalruleoflawallowedthemtohavethebenefitsofnaturallawwithoutelevatinganethicalvaluesystemabovethelaw.Bothwouldultimatelyembracetheideaoftheliberalruleoflawanddemocracyasawayofsecuringthevaluesofequality,libertyandsecurityagainstthethreatoftotalitarianism.570However,whenCoingorhispeersbegintotalkaboutrights,theyapproachitinaverydifferentwaythanwhatonemightdointheAnglo-AmericanorFrenchtraditions.Forthem,rightswereseentobeinherentinhumanityitselfthroughnaturallaw,andonlysecondarilyguaranteedinconstitutions,declarationsandconventions.Coingwishedtolaythefoundationsforathirdwayofapproachingrightsandnaturallaw.First,onewouldbegintheinquirythroughtheoriginswithinthetradition;inthecaseofCoing,thismeantreturningtoDonellus,aFrenchlegalhumanistofthesixteenthcentury.Second,inCoing’searlyworks,therewasnotalkoftherightsofman,eitherintheFrenchortheAmericansense,oreventheUNDeclarationofHumanRights.Inhis1950speechonhumanrightstheory,CoingmaintainedthattheGermantraditionofnaturallawscholarshiphadalwaysomittedthepoliticalmeaningofhumanrights.571Fromthemodernperspective,thisamountedtoaverypeculiartraditionofrights,onethatwasquitedistinctfromeithertheFrenchortheTransatlantictraditionofrights.572Despitethisomission,in1947Coingwouldwriteanimportantworkontheresponsibilityofjudgesincaseswherenaturallawwasviolated.ThiswasaconvolutedwayofreferringtocasesduringtheNaziyearswherejudgeshadsentencedpeopletodeathbasedontheNazilawsoftreason.Astheselawswereclearlyagainstnaturallaw,couldthejudgebeheld

570Onthis,seeDouglasMorris,'WriteandResist:ErnstFraenkelandFranzNeumannontheRoleofNaturalLawinFightingNaziTyranny'(2015)126NewGermanCritique197–230.ThedilemmathatnaturallawrepresentedtoprogressivesisevidentalreadyinKerwin’sreviewofFraenkel’sDualState,wherehepointsouthowtheearlierprogressiverejectionofnaturallawwasenthusiasticallyembracedbyNazitheorists,whousedittoprovethattheirracialtheorywascorrect.JeromeG.Kerwin,'ReviewofTheDualState:AContributiontotheTheoryofDictatorship.ByErnstFraenkel.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1940.Pp.xvi,248.$3.00'(1941)8TheUniversityofChicagoLawReview616–618.571Coing,DieRezeptiondesrömischenRechts,pp.63–67.TheideaofDonellus’sderivationofrights,includingrightstolife,liberty,property,fromRomanlawhasbeenpickedupbyauthorssuchasStein,RomanLawinEuropeanHistory,pp.82-83.572Onthecompetingandsometimescontradictoryoriginstoriesofhumanrightsandtheirevolution,seeSamuelMoyn,Thelastutopia:humanrightsinhistory(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2010),pp.17-43.

194

accountableifheappliedunjustlaw?ForCoing,theethicalobligationofthejudgewastoresist,butwhetherhecouldbepunishedwasanothermatter.573Inthesameyear,Coingpublishedacurioussmallbookonlegalphilosophytitled“TheHighestFoundationsofLaw”(DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts.EinVersuchzurNeugründungdesNaturrechts,1947).Init,headdressedtheproblemofstatutorylawandpower.Thebookisapeculiarattemptatcombiningnaturallawandstatutorylaw,andbyextensionlegalpositivism,bydemonstratinghownaturallawprinciplesareembeddedinthelegalsystem.Init,valuesandidealssharedintheculturegainedlegalform.UsingexamplessuchastheBGB§242aboutgoodfaithandjustice,Coingseekstodemonstratehowmuchthelawhaselementsthatarenotreducibletothetextofthelaw.Inthebeginningofthebook,Coingdescribesitasanewfoundationofnaturallawafterwhathadjusthappened.ItisnoteworthythattheNaziregimeoritsperversionofjusticearenotmentioned,inamannertypicaloftheera,beyondaveryobliquereference.Theissueisstatedasobvious:whilenaturallawhadforalongtimebeenneglectedandmetwithscepticism,nowithadbecomeobviousthatlegalscienceshouldfreeitselffromlegalpositivismandturntoanewconceptoflawbasedontheideaoflaw.Ithadbecomeclearthatonlynaturallawwasabletorespondtothechallengeofpoliticalpowerandrawviolence.574WhatCoingisoutliningisnotthenaturallawof18th-centuryrationalism,butratherthenewconnectionbetweenlegalscienceandphilosophy(p.8).Theendresultissomethingdifferentaltogether.Acombinationofculturaltheories,sociologicalobservations,moralstatements,historicalfactsandellipticalsentences,DieoberstenGrundsätzespinstogetheratheorythatlinkstogetherlaw,religion,morality,valuesandidealstoformanedificethatreliesnotonlyonidealsandlawbutalsoonestablishedsocialnormsandvalues.Coing’sfoundationsoflawthusworkonmanydifferentlevels,allowinghimtodemonstratehowtheyareinrealityembeddedinthelaw.Thoughthebookmakesnoexplicitmentionofrights,itdiscussestheircontentexhaustively.FreedomisoneofthecoreelementsinCoing’stheories,itbecomesultimatelythefoundationofanentiretheoryoflaw.Init,freedomincorporatesnotonlypersonalfreedom,butthewholespectrumofrightscurrentlycategorizedundertheclassicallibertyrights.Itincluded

573HelmutCoing,'ZurFragederstrafrechtlichenHaftungderRichterfürdieAnwendungnaturrechtswidrigerGesetze'(1947b)2SüddeutscheJuristenzeitung61–64.ThiswasaresponsetothearticlebyGustavRadbruchinthepreviousyear(Radbruch,'GesetzlichesunrechtundübergesetzlichesRecht');HelmutCoing,'DerJuristunddasunsittlicheGesetz',inGesammelteAufsätze,Band2.NaturrechtalswissenschaftlichesProblem(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1965),pp.50–66;HelmutCoing,NaturrechtalswissenschaftlichesProblem(Wiesbaden:F.Steiner,1966[1965]).Onthese,seeLuig,‘HelmutCoing’,p.665.574HelmutCoing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts:einVersuchzurNeugründungdesNaturrechts(Heidelberg:SchriftenderSüddeutschenJuristen-Zeitung,1947),p.7.

195

thefreedomofconscience,thefreedomofexpressioninspheressuchasart,andthefreedomofmoralandreligiouslife(p.15).Freedomwasalsousedasanexpressionofhumanvalueanddignity(p.41).Thus,itisapparentthatforCoing,theconceptoffreedomevolvesintoageneralconceptthatincludednumerousprinciples,suchastheideaofequalityofall.TheseideashetracestosourcesinRomanlawsuchastheDigestofJustinian(p.43):

FreiheitisdasWesenallesechtengeistigenLebens,istAusdrückderPersonwürdedesMenschen.DarumistFreiheitdashöchsteRechtsgut,daseinemJedemzukommt;“libertasinaestimabilisest”(D.50.17.106).575Freedomistheessenceofallrealspirituallife,itistheexpressionofthevalueoftheperson.Thereforefreedomisthehighestlegalvaluethatistobeassignedtoeachandeveryone;“freedomisimmeasurable”(Dig.50.17.106).

UsingtheWeimarConstitution,Coingseekstodemonstratehowtheseidealshavepermeatedintothelegalsystem,beingguaranteednotonlyintheconstitutionbutequallyintheprivatelawsystem(p.25).TheformulationoftheanalogiesthatCoingbuildsupshowshowhetalksaboutrightsthroughfoundationalprinciples.Thus,onecanderivetherightofeducationfromthenotionoffreedomofthought.WhatCoingdoesisbuildtheseconceptionsthroughthelegalgoodsthataretobeprotected,endingupwithafairlylonglistoffairlyconventionalrightsthatarearguedthroughlaw,moralityandvalues:legalstatus,lifeandhealth,honour,freedomandprotectionofthedomesticsphere,protectionofpropertyandfreedomfromwant,protectionofprivacy,freedomofexpressionandcreativity,freedomofconscience,freedomofeducationandfreedomofassociation.Allofthesearethefoundationalrightsandfreedomsoftheindividualasahumanbeing.576WhatdistinctionCoingthenmakesbetweenhisowntheoryandwhathecallsclassicalFrenchhumanrightsisnotreallyclear(p.73).LikeKoschaker,Coing’sthesishasastrongChristiancharacter;itseesthefoundationsofbasicrightsinChristianityandtheHumanists(p.119).Theissueofreligionwasalsoamatterofcontention.Inprivate,Coingstressedtheconnectionbetweenpoliticalfreedomandthesocialacceptanceofauthority,butatthesametimeheopposedthepoliticizationofreligionthatwouldmixthespiritualandthepolitical.577

575Coing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts,pp.41–42.576Coing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts,pp.69–70.However,Luig,‘HelmutCoing’,seesCoing’stheoryofnaturallawasbasedonvalueethicsandtheirscientificbasis.577LetterfromCoingtoSternbergeronJanuary23,1959.DeutschesLiteraturArchiv,MarbackamNeckar,A:Sternberger/FAZ/ZuschriftenEkeland.Freiheit.2Mappe44501989.10.8998.CoingwasaProtestant.

196

TheculturalboundednessoflawandthefoundationsoflawareevidentinthewayCoingintroduceselementsoflegalprimitivismintothediscourse.TherearenumerousreferencestoindigenouspeoplesandtheircustomsaswellasthehistoricalprimitivismofEuropeans,withexamplessuchasrevengepresentedfrequently.Thepurposeofthesereferencesismainlytoserveascounterpointstotheconnectionbetweenlawandculture.578Inthelatterpartofthebook,Coing’sargumentmovesclosertothetraditionalhumanrightsclaims,maintainingthatoneofthechiefrolesofbasicrightsistoprotectagainststatepower.Recalling,thoughnotnaming,theuseofexceptionaldegreesandthepowerofexception,Coingnotesthatdictatorialpowertransformslegalrelationsintoapowerrelation.Withthelimitationsofbasicrightspowerbecomestyrannicalanddespotic.Unlimitedpowerisinitselfanaberrationoflaw.579Thebookcontainsnumerousinstancesofconceptsthathaveambiguousreferencepoints.Forexample,theconceptsofhonouranddignitywereastapleofNazithinkingandjurisprudence,wheretheyactedaskindsofprotectedindividualtraits.Whiletheindividualdidnothavesecuredrights,butratherduties,theNazistatesoughttoguaranteethehonouranddignityofeveryGerman.However,theconceptofdignityhadanequallycentralplaceinthelanguageofChristianconservatism,whereitservedaverydifferentpurpose.580Aswehaveseeninourpreviousexamples,thatascholarwouldstartthinkingofthefoundationsofadisciplineandbeginanewlineofinquiryintoitsstructuralassumptionsisveryrare.Withintheresearchoflegalhistory,Coingnotesthattrueexplorationsofthefoundationsoflegaltraditionshavebeentheutmostrarities.AccordingtoCoing,“FritzSchulz’sPrinciplesofRomanlawstandsalone”(p.138).ThatCoinghimselfwouldembarkonasimilarenterprisewasunusualattheveryleast.ThenaturallawtheoryofCoingalsohasparallelswithWieacker.BothoperatewiththeconceptsofRechtsgefühlandRechtsbewusstsein(crudelytranslatableasthefeelingoflawandlegalconsciousness).ForCoing,bothareinessenceconceptsofjustice.Here,CoingreturnstoUlpian’sformulationonthefoundationsoflaw(Dig.1.1.10),whichheraisesasthefoundationsofjusticeingeneral,namelytolivehonestly(preservingone’sonedignity),nothurtingothers(andhereCoingreferstohumanityingeneral)and,finally,givingeachtheirdue(whichisexpandedastheprincipleofequalityandtheruleoflaw).Theoriginaltext,honestevivere,alterumnonlaedere,suumcuiquetribuere,containsmanyofthesameexpressions,butthecontenttheyaregiveninCoingismodern.581ThisiswhatonecoulddescribeauseofaRomanlawtextinananachronisticinterpretation. 578Coing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts,pp.67,74,118etpassim.579Coing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts,pp.85,88.580Onthisdistinction,seeWhitman,‘OnNaziHonorandtheNewEuropeanDignity’.581Coing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts,pp.29–36.ThesenotionswerepopularizedinMaxFriedrichGustavvonRümelin,RechtsgefühlundRechtsbewusstsein,RedegehaltenbeiderAkademischenPreisverteilungam6.November1925(Tübingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1925).

197

Thoughhisbookisaboutlawanditsfoundations,itmakesconstantreferencestosociallife,businesspracticesandotherformsofreal-lifeorganizationandhowlawwillneedtoadjusttothem.Inamanner,itlinkswiththeoriesoflegalrealism,oreventhoseofconcreteorderthinkingofNazitheorists,butequallytothevaluebaseoftheBildungsbürgertum.Inhisworks,Coingwouldmakeaveryslowmovementtowardsthetheoryofrights,writingin1959animportantarticleaboutthehistoryofsubjectiverights.582However,theissuesnowunderstoodundertherealmofrights(freedomofspeech,personalfreedom,equalityunderthelaw,therighttoprivacy,freedomofreligion,ownershipandsoforth),wereformulatedaslegalprinciples,asvaluesratherthanrights.583Inthis,thereiscontinuitywiththetheoriesoutlinedintheObersteGrundsätze.Earlier,ina1950speech,Coingtiedtheideaofhumanrightstotwoorigins,thetheoriesoffundamentalsubjectiverightseitherinEnlightenmentnaturallawthinkingorinChristianity.WhilethefirstoriginstorywasbasedonthefactthattheBritishortheUStraditionsawrightsasinalienable,thesecondwasderivedfromtheveryconceptofhumanity.Incontrast,Coingarguedforathirdway,toapproachrightsfromtheperspectiveofpersonalityandmorality,positingthepersonasamoralsubject.ThusDonellus,forexample,separatedfournaturalrights:life,physicalimmunity,libertyandhonour.However,thesesubjectiverightswereaboutprivatelaw,notpoliticalrightsbythemselves.584WhatthismeantwasthatideasofrestoringtheruleoflawaftertheNaziinjustice,ofmakingacleanbreakfromlegalrepressionsandthesubmissionoflawtothecapriceofpoliticalpower,theruleofdictatorship,wereclearlythere.Whatwasthemostpeculiaraspectfromthecontemporaryperspectiveisnotwhatwasdone,butratherhowitwasdone.Insteadofreferringtorights,humanrightsorcivilrights,asmuchoftheworldhadbeendoingatthetime,Coingstartedtolookforanswersinthelegaltraditionitself,fromlegalhistory.ApplyingacharacteristicallyGermanicwayofargumentation,theissuewaswherewouldonefindsourcesoflawthatareüberpositiv,beyondstatutorylaw?

582HelmutCoing,'ZurGeschichtedesBegriffs„subjektivesRecht“',inHelmutCoing,FrederickH.Lawson,andKurtGronfors(eds.),DassubjektiveRechtundderRechts-schutzderPersönlichkeit(Frankfurt:AlfredMetzner,1959),pp.7–23.583HelmutCoing,GrundzügederRechtsphilosophie(Berlin:deGruyter,1993[1950]),pp.127–129.584Coing,DieRezeptiondesrömischenRechts,pp.66–67.Later,HeribertWaider,'“Arsiuris”und“suuminpersonaipsa”beiHugoDonellus'(1961)43ArchivfürGeschichtedsderPhilosophie60-62wouldlinkDonellus’listofnaturalrightstoboththe1776USDeclarationofIndependenceandtheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsandtheEuropeanConventionofHumanRights.

198

OneoftheexplanationsmightbethattheGermanlegaltraditionhadoftenbeenwaryofmakingclaimstoindividuallibertiesandrights.Some,likeStolleis,havearguedthatintheGermantradition,constitutionalnormswereratherconcessionsofthesovereignpowerofthestatetoacceptlimitationsratherthanformativeagreementsthatfoundedthestateasapolity.585Whatthismeantwasthattheconstitutionalguaranteesprovidedbyrightsenshrinedintheconstitutionwereonlyasvaluableastheconstitutionitself.AndHitler’sGermanyhadfamouslydeclaredastateofexception,revokingtheapplicationoftheconstitution.ThewayinwhichNaziconstitutionalscholarsapproachedthematterwasnothinglessthananattemptatremovingtheideasofconstitutionandstateinthetraditionalsensefromtheequation.586Evenafterthewar,somehaveclaimedthatGermanconstitutionallawscholarswereveryapprehensiveaboutthewholeconceptionofrights,resistingthecreationofthenewconstitution(the1949GrundgesetzorBasicLaw)anditsemphasisonrights.TheinfluenceofNazi-eraconstitutionallawscholarslikeSchmittorSmendcontinuedandfacultieswouldfiercelyresistthereintroductionofexpelledscholars,betheyleftistsorJews.Inadditiontothis,anti-Semitismcontinuedrampantwithinthefield.Thistendencytookonsurprisingforms.HansKelsen,forexample,wasattackedforhislegalpositivismduetothefactthatintheinterpretationsofopponents,thetheorymadenodistinctionbetweenjustlawandunjustlaw,oritleftlawwithoutdefenceagainsttyranny.Intheirview,positivismwasresponsiblefortheNaziperversionoflaw.ThisattackwasmadeevenstrangerbythefactthatmanyoftheattackerswerescholarswhohadbeendeeplycompromisedduringtheNaziyears.587Thus,itishardlysurprisingthatconstitutionallawscholarswerenotamongthefirsttoembracethenewliberaltheoryofrightsortheideasofexilesingeneral.Likeinmanyotherfieldsoflaw,thetruebreakingpointhappenedonlymuchlater,inthe1960s.ItisclearthatthetransformationofCoing’sworkafterthewarcanbegroupedtogetherwithotherstudiesthatmadeupthere-emergenceofnaturallaw.Coing’sapproachtotheideasofnaturallawandhumanrightswastoproposeathirdwaywithtwodifferentmeanings.First,asopposedtothefoundingofrightseitherthroughnaturallaworthroughdeclarationsorconventions,hearguedfortracingthemthroughtradition.Second,asopposedtoEnlightenmentideasofinalienabilityorChristianideasofhumanity,heclaimedthatsubjectiverightsarederivedfromthepositionofapersonasamoralsubject.Theideaofa

585MichaelStolleis,PublicLawinGermany1914–1945(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),p.59.586Lepsius,'TheProblemofPerceptionsofNationalSocialistLaw',p.29.587FriederGünther,'TheNeglectofHansKelseninWestGermanPublicLawScholarship,1945–1980',inD.A.JeremyTelman(ed.),HansKelseninAmerica–SelectiveAffinitiesandtheMysteriesofAcademicInfluence(Dordrecht:Springer,2016),pp.217–228.Onthestrangeintellectualatmosphererelatingtopositivismandnaturallaw,seeFoljanty,RechtoderGesetz,pp.23-31.OntheKelsen-RadbruchdebateoverthenatureofNazilaw,seeFrankHaldemann,'GustavRadbuchvs.HansKelsen:ADebateonNaziLaw'(2005)18(2)RatioJuris162-178.

199

longtradition,tracingthemesthroughthehistoricaldevelopmentextendingtotheRomanlawroots,wascentraltohisthesis.Anotherkeypointwasthelinkagebetweenrightsandthelegalgoodstheyweremeanttoprotect,seeinglawconnectedtovaluesandmorality.Inasense,Coingchosetoseelawaspartofacoherentwhole,wherethetotalityofthisconceptionformedthetruebulwarkagainsttheaggressionandviolencerepresentedbytotalitarianism.Europeanlegalhistory?ThewayinwhichCoingandothersfocusedonEuropeanlegalhistoryanditsreinterpretationmaythusbeseenalmostasaconstitutionalprojectwithoutaconstitution.Throughtheconstructionorthediscoveryofatraditionofprinciples,rightsandlegaldogma,Germanlegalscholarsemphasizedthelongtraditionthroughwhichthelawhaddeveloped.Traditionandhistorywereinasenseüberpositiv,beyondandabovepositivelaw.Sincetherewasnorealinitialcontractonrights(assupposedbytheFrenchorAnglo-Saxontradition),thetraditiontookitsplaceintheequation.TheEuropeanlegalhistoryprojectmayalsobeseenasverymuchaGermanproject.Indeed,scholarslikeOslerhavefamouslyridiculeditastheuniversalizationoftheGermantradition.588EvenearlycriticslikeAlvarod’Orsweresceptical,buthiscriticismwasmoreontheGermanicandnonreligiousnatureofthetradition,ashewouldhavepreferredareligiousfoundationoftheEuropeantradition.589TheEuropeanlegalheritageasanintellectualprojectthushadmanyrootsandlegalsciencewasonlyoneofthem.Thedifferentversionsofthisprojecthadanumberofbothsimilaritiesanddistinctions,asnotedearlierinthedifferencesbetweenKoschaker’sandWieacker’sEurope.Coing’sversionoftheEuropeantraditionwasdistinctfrombothoftheaforementioned,linkingnotonlystatutorylaw,thewritingsofthejuristsorthecultureofthejurists,butalsovaluesandmoralandphilosophicalfoundations.Infact,forCoingthelegalrulesinthemselvesappearmoreasmanifestationsofthosevaluesratherthanfoundationaltextsthemselves.Ifwelookatoneofthemoreinfluentialiterationsoftheproject,HansHattenhauer’smassivebookonEuropeanlegalhistory,theimplicationsareclear.Theideaofcivilandhumanrightsonlyappearsattheveryend,aspartofthethingsthatwereimportedfromtheUSintoWestGermanyduringreconstructionafterthewar.590ThefoundationoflawintheciviliantraditionandinprivatelawscholarshipwasalsopeculiarconsideringtheGermanconstitutionaltraditionafterthewar.Underthenewconstitution,

588See,forexample,Osler,'TheFantasyMen'.589d’Ors,'JusEuropaeum'.590HansHattenhauer,EuropäischeRechtsgeschichte(Heidelberg:MüllerJuristischerVerlag,1992),pp.752–753.

200

Germanywasgivenaconstitutionalcourtwithwideauthorities.TheprotectionoftheconstitutionwasafundamentalfeatureofthepoliticalandlegalcultureinWestGermany.EventhesuccessortotheGestapo,thenewdomesticintelligenceservice,wascalledVerfassungsschützsamt,orofficefortheprotectionoftheconstitution.Theconstitutionitselfprotectedawidevarietyofbasicfreedomsthatwereframedaccordingtothemodelsprovidedbyinternationalhumanrightstreaties.591ButhowdidthistieinwiththetraditionoflawadvocatedbythescholarsofRomanandcivillawtradition?WhatkindofEuropedidthistraditionrepresent?SomehadofcourseseenthelongtraditionextendingtoRomeascontaininginessencethefoundationsoftheruleoflaw.FritzSchulzhadfamouslydescribedprincipleslikefreedom,humanityandsecurityastheprinciplesofRomanlaw.PringsheimalsorepresentedHadrian’sRomeasanempirewheretheruleoflawwasobservedandtheweakwereprotected.WhatCoingwantedtodowastopresenttheEuropeantendencies,rightsandtraditioncombined.Inhisimportantessayonthetaskofthelegalhistorianfrom1976,hequotesF.A.Hayek:“itisimpossibletorebuildthefoundationalvaluesofourcivilization,wemayonlydevelopthemfromtheinside”.WhatthismeantwasthattheEuropeantraditionwouldhavetoberebuiltfromtheexistingmaterials,byreinterpretingthethingsthatwerealreadythere.592ForCoing,thereweretwoimportantsharedtraditions:1)theprivatelawtraditionof2,000yearsofRomanlawscholarship,whichformedthefoundationoftheciviliantradition.2)thenaturallawtradition,whichgaveEuropetheideasofdemocracy,humanrightsandtheruleoflaw.Thesetraditionswereintermingled,butseparate.Inhisautobiography,Coingnoteshowancientculturehadafoundationalroleinhisintellectuallifeandpersonalculture,itpresentedakindofblueprintforhumanity.InthishewasinspiredearlyonbyWernerJaeger’sideaofPaideia,ofacultureandcivilizationasformationalconcepts.593JaegerwouldlatercontinueinhisexileintheUStoremindothersofthehumanistictraditionandthedistressingrejectionoftheveryprinciplesoflibertythattheUSandtheWestwasfoundedon.Alreadyin1936,Jaegerwrites:

591TheBasicLawfortheFederalRepublicofGermany,May23,1949;www.verfassungsschutz.de.Thiscompletereversalmadeitallthemorecuriousbythefactthat,asmentionedearlier,aconsiderablepartofGermanconstitutionallawscholarsafterWWIIwereformerNazisandstudentsofCarlSchmitt.Grothe,ZwischenGeschichteundRecht,pp.409-415.592HelmutCoing,AufgabendesRechtshistorikers(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1976),p.163.593Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste,pp.22,28.

201

ThedisruptionofWesterncivilizationwhichwearewitnessing,withtheriseofthedoctrinethatcultureandknowledgearenationalisticpossessions,dividinggroupfromgroup,ratherthanexpressionsofkinshipbindingtheheirsofacommonheritageintocloserunion,dismaysnotonlydisinterestedphilosophersandeducators,butmenofforesightandgoodwillinallwalksoflife.594

WhatJaegerpointsoutwasthateventhoseonthesidelines,apparentlyoutofharm’sway,wouldbeaffectedbythekindofcataclysmiceventsthathadalreadytakeninGermany.In1936,JaegerdidnotforeseeevenmoredrasticeventssuchasthewarandtheHolocaust.Jaegerthuslinkstheconceptofcivilizationandtheideaofaculturedstatetotheconceptoftheruleoflawandliberty.ItwasacommonideaatthetimetoseetheriseofNazismnotonlyasacrisisofpoliticsorjusticebutalsoasacrisisofcivilizationandculture.ToexiledlegaltheoristEdgarBodenheimer,forexample,theconceptionofjusticewasintimatelytiedtotheideaofcivilization.595ThusthecollapseoftheruleoflawwasultimatelyaconsequenceofthecrumblingofcivilizationunderNazirule.Coing’soutlineoflegalhistorydevelopedgradually,butincludedthesameelementsasKoschaker’sandWieacker’s.TherediscoveryofRomanlawinItaly,theGlossatorsandtheCommentators,theFrenchandDutchHumanists,leadingtothenaturallawrevolutionandtomodernlaw,werethefoundationalstonesofaEuropeanlegalscience.InCoing’smajorrewritingoftheEuropeantradition,amassivehandbookforthesourcesandliteratureoftheEuropeanhistoryofprivatelaw,thisapproachwasthemainnarrativeconnectingthehistoricaloutline.Coingstatedthatwhileindividualnationalhistoriesmighthaveparticularitiesandexceptionalissues,thiswasthegreathistoryofEuropeanlegaldevelopment.596Later,inthefirstissueofIusCommune,thejournaloftheMaxPlanckInstitute,CoingtracestheEuropeanapproachtoCurtiusandhisstudyonmedievalliterature.MuchlikeCurtius,Coing’sideawastocreateaunityfromdisparatepartsandtoseethewholeculturalentitythathadeludedpreviousobservers.TheconnectiontoCurtiuswassomethingthatCoingsharedwithGenzmer,whowasalsointerestedintheroleofEuropeanlegalhistoryasanewfield.597 594WernerJaeger,'ClassicalPhilologyandHumanism'(1936)67TransactionsandProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation363–374,atp.363.595W.ColeDurham(Jr.),'EdgarBodenheimer:ConservatorofCivilizedLegalCulture',inLutter,Stiefel,andHoeflich,DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland,pp.127–143.596HelmutCoing,'Einleitung',inHelmutCoing(ed.),HandbuchderQuellenundLiteraturderneuereneuropäischenPrivatrechtsgeschichte.Vol.1:Mittelalter(1100–1500):DiegelehrterRechteunddieGesetzgebung(Munich:BeckVerlag,1973),pp.3–38,atp.5.597HelmutCoing,'DieeuropäischePrivatrechtsgeschichtederneuerenZeitalseinheitlichesForschungsgebiet.ProblemeundAufbau'(1967)1IusCommune1–33;ErnstRobertCurtius,EuropäischeLiteraturundlateinischesMittelalter(Bern:A.Francke,1948).Coingfirstwrote

202

Inthe1950textbookoflegalphilosophy,CoingpresentsasimilarunderstandingoflawandtraditionthathesketchedintheOberstenGrundsätze.Thereisastrongrealisticbentinthephilosophicaloutline,arelianceonhumanpsychologyorsociologyasexplanatoryfactorsinthewaysthatlawoperatedinsociety.Histheoryofnaturallawwas,however,onefoundedonmorality,onideasofvirtueandtheinherentvalueofthehumanbeing.WhileCoingdoesdiscusstheprinciplesofnaturallawandhumanrights,whatisparticularandpeculiarishisideaofculturallaw(Kulturrecht).Thepointofculturallawisthatcertainlegalideasarepartofthelegalculture.598InthesphereoftheEuropeantradition,thetermculturallawcouldbeunderstoodasareferencetothespecificcharacteristicsoftheEuropeanlegalculture.Theconceptiscentraltothewholeproposition,sinceitmakespossiblethecombinationofuniversalnormsandEuropeanculture.Todiscusstherolethathumanrightsandthelegalguaranteesandbalancesthattheycontain,Coingreturnstimeandagaintothespectreoftotalitarianism.Hementionsthelegalityofterrorwhenpositivelawitselfhasgoneastray.599ThiswasoneofthecentralcriticismsthatwerelevelledagainstlegalpositivismandespeciallyatHansKelsen.CoingevenmentionshowthePlatonicprincipleoftheruleofthebestcouldbeconstruedinawaythatenabledtheFascistsandtheNazistoruthlesslytakepowerundertheclaimofgoodintentions.600Inalltheseexamples,goodintentionsareusedtojustifyabusesofpower,theexceptionstothefoundationsoflaw.Asalegalphilosopher,Coingwould,intypicalGermanfashion,feeltheneedtoaddressanddefinethefundamentalissues.Whilethesearerarelyinterestinginthesensethatanotherdefinitionoflawwouldreallybeneeded,whatthesedefinitionsdoserveistoindicatetheprioritiesandvaluejudgementsoftheirmakers.Coingarguedthatthemeaningofthelawwasclearlyonethatneededthetwotraditions,naturallawandRomanlaw,inorderto:

1. preservepeaceandsecurityinsociety2. promoteorderamongdifferentinterests,includingthestate’s,topromotecooperation

andtochannelconflicts3. dothateffectively601

Inshort,abalancedaccountoftheruleoflaw,wherethenaturallawtraditionwouldaccountforthepublicsphereandtheRomanlawtraditionwouldaccountforthingsbetweenindividuals.Whatisnoteworthyisthatthedefinitionoflawwasdeeplyhumanistic;itconcernedtheindividualperspectiveandprotectingtheindividual.

abouttheideaofEuropeanlegalhistoryinhis1952reviewofCurtius.OnCoing,CurtiusandGenzmer,seeDuve,‘VonderEuropäischenRechtsgeschichtezueinerRechtsgeschichteEuropasinglobalhistorischerPerspektive’,p.40;Luig,‘HelmutCoing’,p.669.598Coing,GrundzügederRechtsphilosophie,p.169andpassim.599Coing,GrundzügederRechtsphilosophie,p.175.600Coing,GrundzügederRechtsphilosophie,p.208.601Coing,‘AufgabendesRechtshistorikers’,pp.156–157.

203

TheredefinitionoffundamentalconceptswasalsoanecessityinthatthelegalprofessionandthelegalacademiawerestillfullofpeoplewhohadbeenverymuchinvolvedintheNaziregimeandformulatedtheirtheoriesbasedonNaziprinciples.Afterthewar,manyhadreinventedthemselves,butotherscontinuedtopresentideasthatwerenotthatdifferentfromthosetheyhadpublishedduringtheNaziyears.InalettertoKarlLarenz,Coingdefendedtheideathatthelawshouldhaveboththefunctionofresolvingconflictsandmaintainingorder(ordo).Thecorrespondenceitselfwasonthenatureofthejurisprudenceofinterests(Interessenjurisprudenz)andthustheroleofthematerialinthelegalanalysis.Larenz,ofcourse,wasaformermemberoftheKielerSchuleandoneofthemainideologuesoftheNazinewlegalscience.WhatLarenzinhismethodologicaltextsarguedwasacontinuationoftheNazieraideaoftheconcreteorder,whichhetransformedafterthewarintoaninterestinthelifeorderandthesocietalinterestsvisibleinlaw.WhatCoingarguesisthatmaterialismandthusthejurisprudenceofinterestlosessightofthespiritual,thefeelingofrightandjusticethatissocentralintheactivityofjudges.Inasimilarway,hemaintainsthattheconceptofordershouldbeseenasopen,asumofprinciplesthatinformsdecisions,includingethicalprecepts.602ThelegaldebatesoverthenatureofthelawandthefoundationalprinciplesweremaskedinobscurelanguagewithreferencestoKantandHegel.Issuesofvitalprincipledimportanceweredebatedthroughsometimesminutedefinitionalchallenges.WhyCoingissoimportantforanunderstandingoftheEuropeanlegalhistoricaltraditionisnotduetohisachievementsasascholar,butalsobecausehewasaskilledadministrator.Coing’steacherErichGenzmer,amedievalist,hadpreparedaplanforanewMaxPlanckInstituteforcomparativelegalhistory,butwasnolongerinterestedintakingupthetaskwhenalreadyclosetoretirement,andsoaftersomeshufflingthepositionfelltoCoing.CoingtookGentzmer’soriginalideaofacentreforcomparativelegalhistoryandturneditintoaEuropeanone.ManyofGentzmer’splans,suchastheinsistenceonmethodologicalrigourandthefocusonmedievalRomanlaw,weretakenup,buttheresultingplanoftheInstitutewasallCoing.603ThecomparisonwithGenzmeranddistinguishinghisinfluencemaybeimpossibleduetothelongcollaborationbetweenthetwo.Forexample,inhis1950reviewofKoschaker’sEuropa,GenzmermaintainshowKoschaker’smaindiscoveryishowthereceptionofRomanlawcanonlyfruitfullybeexploredthroughatrueEuropeanfocus.604Thiswas,probablynotcoincidentally,oneoftheearlyconcentrationpointsofthenewInstitute.

602LetterfromCoingtoKarlLarenzonJune18,1952.UniversitätsbibliothekMünchen,NLKarlLarenz,18.06.1952,Frankfurt,CoingamLarenz,Karl.603ThefoundingoftheInstitutewasalsoofferedtoKunkel,whohadotherideasaboutthedirectionitshouldtake.OnthehistoryoftheMPIofEuropeanLegalHistory,seeFrankL.Schäfer,'VisionenundWissenschaftsmanagement.DieGründungeinesMax-Planck-InstitutsfüreuropäischeRechtsgeschichte'(2009)17ZeitschriftfürEuropäischesPrivatrecht517–535.Ontheroleofthedifferentfounders,seeLuig,‘HelmutCoing’;Coing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste;Simon,‘ZwischenWissenschaftundWissenschaftspolitik’.604Genzmer,'Rez.PaulKoschaker,EuropaunddasrömischeRecht’,p.598.

204

ThewaythatCoingoutlinedhisownresearchplansandinterestsaswellasthoseoftheMPIwerenotonlypoliticallyhighlyrelevantbutalsoideologicallyinspired.HewasamongthefirsttomakeadirectlinkbetweenhumanrightsthoughtandtheEuropeantradition,linkingtheprojectofEuropeanintegrationwiththeexplorationofitspast.Thegeniusofhisplanwasthewayinwhichitlinkednationaltraditionandinternationalism.SeeingtheobviousneedtoacceptandintegratethevaluesandrightsoftheWest,thetraditionofrights,heneverthelessmanagedtoturnitintoaplanwhichrequiredforgreaterinterpretationofthepast.EuropeanlegalunitywouldbeacombinationoftheAnglo-AmericanandtheFrenchtraditionofrightswiththeGermanictraditionofprivatelaw.Coing’smainprogrammatictextontheideaofacontinuinglegaltraditionfrom1968wasfittinglytitled“TheoriginalunityofEuropeanlegalscience”.Init,heclaimedthatfromthemedievalGlossatorstotheschoolofnaturallawinthelateeighteenthcenturytherewasasenseofscientificunitywithintheEuropeanlegalscience.Init,thesystematizationandthepedagogicalpresentationoflawwasfundamentallyuniformthroughoutEurope,inspiredandinfluencedasitwasbyRomanlawandcanonlawdoctrines.Thesedoctrineswerethenadoptedbynaturallawscholarshipandiuscommunelegalscience.Thefundamentalissuewasthatacoherentwayofthinkingandwritingaboutlawemergedthatenabledlegalscholarstoovercomewhateverborderstherewere,aidedofcoursebytheuseofLatinasthelinguafranca.605Coing’sideaofEuropeantraditionwasinmanywayssimilartoKoschaker’stheoryaboutRomanlawasa“relativesNaturrecht”,arelativenaturallawofEurope.However,oncloserinspectionthesimilaritiesappearsuperficialinthatKoschaker’sunitywasthatofadogmaticmethodology,whileCoingsawinitvaluesandideals,suchasthefreedomreflectedinthelegaltradition.606Heconnectedtheconceptsofculture,civilizationandtraditionasthefundamentsoflegalculture,fromwhichideassuchasrightsandfreedomsweretobetraced.Likemanyothers,CoingarguedthatconceptssuchashumanrightshadultimatelybeenimportedintotheGermantradition.Theirsignificanceintheconstitutionalenvironmentwasonlybeginningtoemergeandthusthecentralityofthenewconstitutionisnotvisibleinhisearlyworks.TheconnectionbetweenlawandcivilizationenabledhimtoseetheNazirulenotonlyasacrisisoflawandpoliticsbutalsoasacrisisofcivilization.Inthiscrisis,areturntorootswasalogicalcorrective.Thus,thepremiseofreachingouttotradition,inthecaseofpubliclawtothenaturallawtraditionandinprivatelawtotheRomanlawtradition,wasbothawayforwardandacorrectivefromthepast.Returntoliberty

605Coing,‘DieursprünglicheEinheitdereuropäischenRechtswissenschaft’.606AsBeggio,PaulKoschaker,pp.230,236notes,Koschaker’sinfluencesweremoreinneoscholasticismthanphilosophy.

205

TheideaoffreedombecameacentralthemeinpoliticaldiscourseduringWWII,andthiswasalsoreflectedinthelegaldebates.TheemergenceoftheColdWarafter1948sawthelanguageoffreedombeingdirectedmoreasacritiqueoftheSovietsphereofinfluence,whereanewwaveofrepressionwastakingshape.TheerectionoftheBerlinWallin1961madeconcretethepermanenceofthisdivision.Inthefirstoutlinesofthephilosophyoflawwrittenafterthewar,Coingjustifiesthereturntothetheoriesofnaturallawbypointingtothefailureofthelegalsysteminthefaceoftotalitarianism.Thefoundationofthenewtheorywastheideaoffreedomasanoverarchingconceptionfromwhichrightsanddutieswerederived.InCoing’searlytexts,theframeworkbuilttosupportthispresuppositionwasfoundedonreferencestolegaltheory,statutorylawandlegalandphilosophicalexamplesfromEuropeanlegalhistory.607Thequestioniswhatifanyinfluencedidtheémigréshaveinthereturntotheoriesofnaturallaw,humanrightsandtheconnectionbetweentheEuropeantraditionalongwiththem?Whatwastheroleofantitotalitarianisminthisprocess?Ofcourse,thelinkagescanbedifficulttodemonstrateandoneisoftenleftwiththeconundrumofparalleldevelopmentsandthequestionwhatwastherelationshipbetweenthetwo.Intheissueofnaturallawandhumanrights,theparallelsareobvious.Inthepost-WWIIworld,theriseofthehumanrightsdiscourseandthepreparationofthetreatiesanddeclarations,suchastheEuropeanConventionofHumanRights(agreedon1950,inforcesince1953)ortheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(adoptedin1948),meantthathumanrightswereverymuchontheagenda.Thesecondissue,theriseofantitotalitarianism,islinkedwiththestartoftheColdWarfromtheyears1947to1948andtheconsolidationofSovietpowerinEasternEurope.Oneoftheopenquestionsisthatwhat,ifany,influencetherewasbackinGermanyfromtheantitotalitariantheoriesofArendt,NeumannandStrauss?DidtheyhavealastingimpactintheUS?InGermany,thereceptionoftheirworkshappenedmuchlater,namelywiththe1960sgeneration.Thereis,ofcourse,along-lastingdebateovertheinfluenceofGermanexilesintheUSintheturntowardsdemocracy,butinthefollowingweshallfocusspecificallyontheideasofhumanrightsandthelegaltradition.608ThereconstructionofGermanyafterWWIIishailedasoneofthegreatmiraclesofthetwentiethcentury.Itsawinafewyearsthetransformationofatotalitarianstateinruinsinto 607Coing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts,p.7.608See,forinstance,AlfonsSöllner,'NormativeVerwestlichung.DerEinflußderRemigrantenaufdiepolitischeKulturderfruhenBundesrepublik',inHeinzBudeandBerndGreine(eds.),Westbindungen.AmerikainderBundesrepublik(Hamburg:HamburgerEdition,1999),pp.72–92;Strote,LionandLambs.

206

aprosperousdemocracywithstronginstitutions.Scholarshaveusuallyhadtwoconflictingviewsonwhataccountedforthischange.SomecreditthevastAmericaneffortonreconstruction,reeducationandpropagandathatsoughttocountertheSovietthreat.OthersclaimthattherealachieversweretheGermansthemselves,whochosethepathtodemocracyoftendespitethetransparentAmericanpropaganda.609Bothexplanationscontainakerneloftruthandsuggestacomplexprocessofinteraction.Therewerenumerouscontradictorytrends,rangingfromattemptstoimposeandindoctrinatemixedwithmovementstorevivetheGermanpre-wartraditionsofdemocracyandtheruleoflaw.Whiletherewasamarkedtendencytothinkof1945asazerohourandacleanslateuponwhichthenewGermanywasfounded,thisexcludesmanycontinuities.AsFornerwrites,fortheelite,theircareerscontinuedmostlyuninterruptedandtheywereabletore-establishthemselvesafterthewar.Forthecommonpeople,thepost-wareraformedacontinuityofsufferingwiththelastwaryears.SharedamongallwasthesenseofGermanvictimhoodthatovershadowedalltalkofcomplicitywiththeNazis.Inthesefirstyears,thereturningexileswereararesight,astraveltooccupiedGermanystillneededmanypermitsthatwerenoteasilyacquired,andtheymadetheirpresencefeltmorethroughlettersandpackagessentfromabroad.610Withinthisequationofguiltandsuffering,theémigréswereacomplicatedaddition,havingcollaboratedwiththevictorsandinmanycasesbeingseenashavingescapedthesufferingthatthosewhostayedhadgonethrough.TheGermanemigrantswhowererecruitedintotheUSacademiaandadministrationwereadecisiveinfluenceintheformationofanti-Sovietideassuchasthetheoriesoftotalitarianismormilitantdemocracy.Greenbergmaintainsthattheirviewsondemocracyandtotalitarianismwererigid,dualisticandparanoidandcontributedtothehystericalreactionagainstcommunismintheUS.611Thiswashardlyasurprise,becausemanyofthemhadbeeninvolvedinthestudyoftheemergenceoftotalitarianisminGermanyandtheyhadbeeninfluencedbytheirworkinagenciessuchastheOSS.FromtheAmericanbackground,onemayalsoseethemotivationfortherelianceonconceptssuchasfreedomasthefoundationoftheantitotalitarianethos.Thisviewis,atbest,basedonafairlylimitedsample,becausetherolesofGermanexilesweredifferentintheUSandinGermany.IntheGermandiscussions,theyreturnedinmanycasestoasimilarroleastheyhadhadbeforetheNaziyears,whileintheUStheyhadtocarveanewnicheforthemselvesinthepublicdiscussions.However,thelegalisticconcernsoftheGermanexilesaboutconstrainingstatepower,whichwereforgedinthepoliticaldebatesoftheWeimaryearsandthebitterexperiencesoftheNazitakeoverofpower,werenotimmediatelysuccessfulintheAmericandiscussions.612

609Greenberg,WeimarCentury,pp.6–7.610Forner,GermanIntellectuals,pp.5–9,35.611Greenberg,WeimarCentury,p.23.612Kornhauser,DebatingtheAmericanState,p.96.

207

Inhis1953articlefortheColumbiaLawReview,Neumannarguesstronglyagainstanihilisticinterpretationofthelegitimacyofanexistingpoliticalsystem,presentingalegalargumentforpoliticalfreedomasanideology.Init,herepudiatestheideaoftheenemyorfearasadrivingforceofpoliticsascontrarytodemocracy.Instead,helaunchesintoananalysisoftheheritageoflibertyasalegalideal,beginningfromthetraditionalconceptoffreedomastheabsenceofrestraints.Whathedevelopsistheviewoftheliberaltheoryoffreedomfollowingafterthecollapseofatotalitarianstate.HeoffersacriticismofthepositivisticapproachestotheruleoflaworRechtsstaat,i.e.theconservationoffreedomandcivilrightsasameansofpreservingfreedom.Whattheprotectionoflibertythroughlawisincapableofisprotectionagainstthelawitself,eitherthroughthelaworthroughescapeclauses.WhathearguesispreciselythatthewaysinwhichTruman’sLoyaltyProgramortheTaft-HartleyActoperatedarecomparabletothetotalitarianstate’smodeofoperationinsubvertingfreedoms.Itsonlytrueremedyisactivepoliticaldemocracyandsharedvalues.613Duringtheentirethesis,NeumannrelatestheargumenttotheWesternphilosophicaltraditionfromSocratesonwards.Thatisthetruecruxofhismessage,therelianceoflawandpoliticalsystemsontraditionasaguideininterpretation.ForNeumann,theconcentrationofpowerwasasmuchathreattotheruleoflawinademocracyasanywhereelse.However,thestoryisquitedifferentregardingGermany.Thereturningémigréswereacrucialinfluenceinthepost-wardebatesondemocracyandtheruleoflaw.Here,theirideasweretemperedbythefactthattheintellectualatmospherewasshapedbydifferentkindsofpoliticalforces.Leftiststudentsdidnotembracedemocracybutauthoritarianideasfromtheleft.Left-wingpartiesinGermanythemselvesunderwentaradicaltransformation,shownin1959bytheSDPrenouncingMarxismandtheeconomictheoriesofnationalization,andoptinginsteadtosupportdemocraticreformsandtheruleoflaw.Thistransformationwasbroughtaboutbyacombinationofchangesintheinternaldynamicsoftheparty,andalsobyreturningexilessuchasFraenkel,whoarguedforcefullyforthetransformationbasedonhisAmericanexperiences.FraenkelwascentralintheredefinitionoftheideasbehindtheconceptofRechtsstaat,namelylinkingsocialaimsandrecentthinkingonnaturallawtoproduceajustsociety.614Inasimilarway,NeumannwasinstrumentalintherefoundingofthestudyofpoliticsinBerlin,insistingthatthenewinstitutionsshouldbecommittedtothestudyofdemocracy.However,SöllnerarguesthattheimpactofGermanintellectualémigrésandtheUSinfluenceshouldbeseennotonlyasaninputintothesystembutratherasaprocessofnegotiationandadaptation.615

613FranzNeumann,'TheConceptofPoliticalFreedom'(1953)53(7)ColumbiaLawReview901–935,nowinWilliamE.Scheuerman(ed.),TheRuleofLawUnderSiege:SelectedEssaysofFranzL.NeumannandOttoKirchheimer(Berkeley,LosAngeles,London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996),pp.195–230.614Onthis,seeGreenberg,WeimarCentury,pp.76–78,83–85.615Söllner,‘NormativeVerwestlichung’.

208

Thetwogroupsofémigréswereunevenlybalanced.Ofthescholarlyexiles,onlyatinyminorityreturned,insomefieldsnoneoftheseniorscholarsdrivenintoexileabroadcamebackafter1945.Inlawandsocialsciences,thenumberwasfairlyhigh,butoneisstilltalkingofasmallminority.Thosewhodidreturn,suchasPringsheim,wereoftendrivenbyanurgetohelpGermanybacktonormalcy,whilethosewhodidnotwerepronetodescriberenazifiedGermanyasalostcause.However,despitethefactthatfewreturnedatleastpermanently,manyoftheconnectionswererekindledandideasandcorrespondencemovedbackwardsandforwardsacrosstheAtlanticandtheEnglishChannel.Inthisclimate,theliberalsandtheconservativesfoundanewunderstanding.ManyoftheformerémigrésembarkedonaneducationalcampaigntopromotedemocracyasaninbornGermantraditionratherthanasanimposedframework.616Asanintellectualendeavour,thiswassimilartotheideasespousedbyCoingandKoschaker,namelythatthetraditionalreadycontainedinessencetheframeworknecessaryfortheruleoflawandthesuccessoftherightstoberecognized.AmongtheexilestheideathatGermanycouldberescuedfromitselfwasanideathathadlimitedsupport.Whiletheyhadpersonalexperienceofthepersecutionsthataccompaniedtheirflight,thiswasovershadowedbytheknowledgeoftheHolocaustthatbegantospreadinlate1942butwasonlyuncoveredfullybyMay1945.Arendt,HorkheimerandAdornohadallwrittenatlengthaboutanti-Semitismanditscauses,butthesheerscaleandcrueltyoftheexterminationledthemtoquestiontheveryconceptofhumanity.Assimilationandthetrappingsofcivilizationhaddonenothingtopreventorevenlimitthecarnage.617ToclaimthatdemocraticideasorconceptionsoftheruleoflawwouldhavebeenimposedonGermanybytheAlliedpowersafterthewardoesnotreallybearcloserinspection.Therehadbeencertainideasaboutsuchanintervention,butnothingreallycameofit.Infact,oneofthemanyexilesworkingwiththeAmericanmilitaryadministration,comparativelawyerMaxRheinsteinlatersaidinaninterviewthatitwasgoodthatnothingcameoftheseplanssincethewholeideathatoutsideforceswouldreformGermanlawwassimplyabsurd.618Thereare,afterall,anumberofsimilaritiesintheafter-wardevelopmentswithinGermanyandintheworkswrittenatthesametime.Forinstance,in1949LeoStraussgaveaseriesoflecturesthatresultedinthe1953booktitledNaturalRightandHistory.Init,hesoughttore-evaluatetheissueofnaturallaw,andbyextensionuniversalhumanrights.Whilethecriticism

616Greenberg,WeimarCentury,p.8.617AnsonRabinbach,'TheFrankfurtSchoolandthe"JewishQuestion,"1940–1970',inEzraMendelsohn,StefaniHoffman,andRichardCohen(eds.),AgainsttheGrain:JewishIntellectualsinHardTimes(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.255–276,atpp.262–263.618WolfgangFreiherrvonMarschall,'MaxRheinstein',inLutter,Stiefel,andHoeflich,DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland,pp.333–341,atp.337.

209

ofnaturalrightasaphilosophicaldoctrinehadbeentherealmoftheHistoricalSchool,thejuxtapositionwasbyandlargesimilartothedebatesbetweentheotherHistoricalSchool,theHistoricalSchoolofJurisprudence,whichwasagainstuniversalismandnaturallaw.619ThesecondgreatsimilaritybetweenStraussandCoingisthatbothsoughttoarguebyappealingtohistoricaltradition,emphasizinglong-termdevelopmentsassignsofmaturityandacceptance.Thus,whenStraussquotesRoderichStinzing,thegreathistorianofjurisprudence,thatpurenaturalrightsmustbedilutedtosecondarynaturalrightsinordertobeapplicableincivilsociety,thisbringsaboutanargumentthroughhistorythatevenlegalhistorianssuchasCoingmighthaveapproved.620Duringtheinterwarperiod,theconceptsofnaturallawandnaturalrightwereinessencedead.EvenundertheonslaughtofNazirepression,peoplesuchasFranzNeumannorErnstFraenkelwereclearlyuncomfortableaboutusingthenotionofnaturallawasacriticismofNazipolicies.Strauss’shistoryofnaturalrightisaverydifferentonetothetraditionalhistoriesofnaturallawthatnormallybeginwithanexplorationoftheStoiccosmopolis.HeplacedHobbes’snaturalrightatthecentreoftheveryidealofcivilization.Thiswasinasenseasupplantingofaristocraticvirtuebybourgeousmorality,wheremostofthetraditionalhumanrightssuchastheprotectionofsecurity,mind,orpropertyhavetheirroots,accordingtoTanguay.621Allinall,theconvergenceoftheémigrésandtheirantitotalitarianideas,theemergenceofthehumanrightsregimeandthecomingoftheColdWarandtheideologicalcompetitionwiththeCommunistregimesformedacrucialsetofinfluencesuponwhichtheturntowardsrightsandtraditionwasformed.MuchlikeduringtheNaziyears,therewasaGleichschaltungwhereagradualshiftbegantooccurasaresultofnumeroussimultaneousfactors.ThetraumaticexperiencesduringtheNaziyearsandthewarmeantthatnewideascomingfrombothabroadandfromthedemocratswithinmetwithfertileground.Asaresult,theconceptoffreedomwasembracedasthemantraofantitotalitarianism,butwithnumerousdifferentconnotations,frompoliticalfreedomstofreedomrights.Ideassuchasdemocracyandtheruleoflawwereadaptedascornerstonesofthestate.Strauss’srelationshipwiththisdevelopmentwascomplicated.HisNaturalRightandHistoryisareworkingoftradition,anattemptatdeterminingthelinebetweenCicero,Machiavelli,Hobbes,LockeandRousseau.Inalecturepresentedin1940,StraussnotesthattheGermanphilosophystemsfromacriticismofcivilizationandscienceandan emphasis on natureand

619Strauss,NaturalRightandHistory,pp.13–14describesthehistoricalschoolofphilosophyinremarkablysimilartermsastheoneinjurisprudence:emergingasareactiontotheFrenchRevolution,emphasizinglocalandhistoricallybasedvariantsoveruniversalsandsoforth.620Strauss,NaturalRightandHistory,p.153.621DanielTanguay,LeoStrauss:AnIntellectualBiography(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2007),p.102.

210

history.622Strauss’sownworkworksthroughasimilarmode,namelythenotionofhistoryasacumulativeprocess.However,itissimultaneouslyahistorical,legalandphilosophicalprocessthatproducedthemodernconceptofnaturalright.ThatthoughtprocessinStraussbeliesanyexplicitlinkwiththeexperienceofexileortotalitarianism,butbothitspreconditionsanditsconclusionsareconditionedbyit.TheEuropeantraditionintransitionWhiletheadaptationoftheideasofliberty,democracyandhumanrightscanbeseenasareactiontoNazitotalitarianism,Americaninfluenceandself-definitionagainstcommunism,howdoestheconceptofaEuropeanlegaltraditionfitintothisnarrative?ThelegalhistoryofEuropeandtheEuropeanlegaltraditionwerenotinanywaythesamething.Certainideasandpractices,andanumberofmethodologicalanddogmaticsimilarities,weretobefoundinmanyEuropeancountriesandwerecentraltothedevelopmentofthelegalculturesofEurope.Inpost-warEurope,thewholeconceptofsharedvalues,historyandinstitutionsgainedanewmarketseekingtoplacelawandhumanrightsatthecentreofthenascentEuropeanproject.IntheabsenceofaculturalcomponentintheinitialideaofEuropeanintegration,aneedarosetoseekjustificationfortheunificationfromwithinsharedfundamentalvalues.Asmentionedearlier,thechosenformoftheearlyintegration,theneo-functionalistideaoffocusingoneconomicintegrationhadsidelinedtheearlierideasofconstitutionalintegrationthroughfederalism.Becauselawwasthoughttocrystallizethefundamentalvaluesofsociety,thelinkbetweenlawandculturewasanaturalcontinuationinseekingafirmerfoundationfortheintegrationprocess.623

622LeoStrauss,'TheLivingIssuesofGermanPostwarPhilosophy',inHeinrichMeier(ed.),LeoStraussandtheTheologico-politicalProblem(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),pp.115-139.623ThefocusontheeconomyisprevalentnotonlyinthefoundingdocumentsoftheEuropeanintegration,butequallyinthehistoriesofEuropeanintegration.Inthefundamentalworks(thehistoriographyoftheearlyhistorybeganwiththeopeningofthearchivesintheearly1980s),thefocusisonsteelproductionandcoal,tariffsandtrade:RaymondPoidevin(ed.),Histoiredesdébutsdelaconstructioneuropéenne(Mars1948–Mai1950)(Bruxelles:Bruylant,1984);AlanS.Milward,TheReconstructionofWesternEurope,1945–51(London:Methuen,1984);FrancesM.B.Lynch,AlanS.Milward,RuggeroRanieri,FedericoRomero,andVibekeSørensen,TheFrontierofNationalSovereignty:HistoryandTheory1945–1992(London:Routledge,1994).Forexample,Milward,ReconstructionofWesternEurope,pp.491–504arguedinhiscriticismofneo-functionalisttheoriesthatwhilethesharedaimwaseconomicprosperitygainedthroughincreasedtrade,nation-statesdidnotrelinquishtheirsovereigntyandpolitical,letalonecultural,integrationwasnotontheagenda.Incontrast,recentworkssuchasWilfriedLoth,BuildingEurope:AHistoryofEuropeanUnification(Berlin:DeGruyter

211

TheEuropeannarrativeinlawbecamenotonlyaninterpretationofthepastbutalsoavisionforthefuture.InthewritingsofCoing,muchlikeinthelaterwritingsofReinhardZimmermannandothers,thecommonpastwouldformabasisforacommonfuture.AccordingtoZimmermann,commonlaworrathertheemergingcommonlawofEuropeshouldbeinformedbythesharedtraditionofthereceptionofRomanlaw,notancientRomanlawitself.ThusRomanlaworratheritshistoryhasbothnothingandeverythingtodowiththenewcommonlaw,showinghowacommonlegaltraditionmaybeestablishedthroughintellectualunity.AsharedlegalculturebasedonlegalsciencewasbornthroughaseriesofexchangesandtransmissionsacrossEurope,wherebothscholarsandtextsmovedinunprecedentedways.Inspiredbythishistoricalprecedent,anewiuscommunecouldbeformedbasedonsharedvalues,methodsandprinciples.Zimmermannmaintainsthatthiscreationisacomplexprocesswheretheinvolvementofjudges,legislatorsandprofessorsiscrucial.InthenumerousbooksandarticlesthatZimmermannhasdevotedtothesubject,thereisaclearemphasisonthehistoricaldemonstrationoftheEuropeaninfluencesinEnglishprivatelawtraditionandhencethelinksbetweenEnglandandEurope.624Inshort,hisEuropeantraditionisonethatjoinsBritainwiththecontinent.ThisteleologicalnarrativeofEuropeanditsprivatelawhasattracteditsshareofcritics,mostprominentlyPierreLegrand,whoinnumerousarticlesarguedthattherewashardlyakindofconvergenceasZimmermannenvisions.Onthecontrary,lawyersstillthinkinverynationalways,evenwhendealingwithEuropeanstatutes.Theunificationthatwasenvisionedissimplynothappening.625MorecriticallymindedlawyershavenotedthatthewholeconceptofEuropeanprivatelawappearslessastatementoffactthanaproject.ItsproponentslikeHondiusseeitasalongandinevitableprocessofharmonizationthatgraduallyenvelopsthefieldofprivatelaw.626Incontrast,historianslikeWijffelshavealreadyearliernotedhowtheremayormaynotbeaEuropeanprivatelaw,butthereisincreasinglymoredisagreementonwhatexactlyitis.Notcoincidentally,theoftenstatedhistoricalprecedentofiuscommunehasitselfcomeundercriticismfromscholarswhohavedoubtedwhethersuchaunityexistedhistorically.627 Oldenbourg,2015),seeevenintheearlystagesthefoundationsofsocialandpoliticalharmonizationamongEuropeanstates.624Zimmermann,'RomanLawandtheHarmonizationofPrivateLawinEurope'.625OneexampleisPierreLegrand,Fragmentsonlaw-as-culture(Deventer:W.E.J.TjeenkWillink,1999),pp.76–77.626EwoudHondius,'TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode',inArthurS.Hartkamp,MartijnW.Hesselink,EwoudHondius,C.Mak,andEdgarDuPerron(eds.),TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2011),pp.3–26,atp.3.627AlainWijffels,'EuropeanPrivateLaw:ANewSoftware-PackageforanOutdatedOperatingSystem?',inMarkvanHoeckeandFrançoisOst(eds.),TheharmonisationofEuropeanprivatelaw(Oxford:Hart,2000),pp.101–116,atpp.101–106.

212

ThehistoricaldebateofasharedEuropeanlegalheritagehasinconsequencebecomeahostagetothecontemporarydebateoverthefutureoftheEuropeanPrivateLawprojectandthedriveforaEuropeanCivilCode.Whilethedebateshaveoftenbeensimplifiedandframedasonebetweenthe“harmonizerOleLandoandthedefenderofnationaltraditionsPierreLegrand”,628thefieldasawholeismuchmorefragmented.Infact,therearenumerouslargeprojectsbesideLando’sCommissiononEuropeanContractLaw,suchasBussani’sandMattei’sTrentoCommonCoreProjectortheStudyGrouponaEuropeanCivilCode.Thereareconsiderabledisagreementswhethertheprocessshouldbetopdownorbottomup,withdifferentinitiativespresentingdifferentapproaches.629Inallofthis,itisunclearwherethehistoricalfoundationoftheEuropeanprojectoreventheideaofsharedrootsstandsinthisconstellation.IntheirinfluentialcriticismontheDraftCommonFrameofReference,Eidenmülleretal.(includingZimmermann),citeCoingbynameinrecognizinghowearlierlegalhistorianshave“helpedustorecognizethecommongroundsharedbyEurope’smodernnationallegalsystems”.630TheformerunityinformedthecurrentunifiersandtheprocessofseekingacommongroundfortheEuropeanlegalsystems.However,thenarrativeofthetraditionextendingfromRomanlawtotheEuropeanlegaltraditionextendedfarbeyondthewritingsofCoing.TheEuropeannarrativeofthesecondlifeofRomanlawwasbynomeansacompletelynewinventioneveninBritain.There,thislineofargumenthadbeenpresentedalreadybyanotherexile(fromRussia),PaulVinogradoff,inhis1909RomanLawinMedievalEurope.Intheintroductiontothesecondedition,PeterSteintiesthebooknotonlytoF.C.vonSavignyandHermannConrat,butalsotothepost-warresurgenceofthetheorybythelikesofFrancescoCalasso.631Vinogradoffwrotehowthesecond,ghostlifeofRomanlawwasfranklyquitepuzzling:WhydostudentsstillneedtolearnaboutthebasicsfromancientRomanmanuals?OneoftheinterestingfeaturesaboutVinogradoffisthatheconnectsEnglishjurisprudencesuchasBractondirectlytotheRomanlawtradition,afeaturethatwaslaterpickedupbySchulz.632

628ThomasWilhelmsson,'Introduction:HarmonizationandNationalCultures',inThomasWilhelmsson,ElinaPaunio,andAnnikaPohjolainen(eds.),PrivateLawandtheManyCulturesofEurope(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2007),pp.3-20,atp.4.629Forararelevel-headedintroductiontothesedifferentinitiatives,seeLucindaMiller,'TheNotionofEuropeanPrivateLaw',inMichaelLobbanandJuliaMoses(eds.),Theimpactofideasonlegaldevelopment(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014),pp.265–285.630HorstEidenmüller,FlorianFaust,HansChristophGrigoleit,NilsJansen,GerhardWagner,andReinhardZimmermann,‘TheCommonFrameofReferenceforEuropeanPrivateLaw–PolicyChoicesandCodificationProblems’(2008)28(4)OxfordJournalofLegalStudies659–708.631PeterStein,‘Foreword’,inPaulVinogradoff,RomanLawinMedievalEurope(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1968),pp.x–xii.632PaulVinogradoff,RomanLawinMedievalEurope(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1968),pp.11,101–106.

213

AnotherimportantworkinbringingtheEuropeannarrativetoanEnglish-speakingaudiencewasHermannKantorowicz’sStudiesintheGlossatorsoftheRomanLaw.633OriginallyapartoftheHistoryofLegalScienceproject,thatproducedSchulz’sHistory,itpresentstherefoundingofthelegaltraditionbytheglossatorsonRomansources.WhatwasnewaboutthenarrativeformedbyCoingwastheconsolidationofthebridgebetweenthetraditionsandthefocusonEuropeastheframeofreference.ThiscombinedmanyoftheworkswrittenearlierbySchulzandPringsheimaboutthelinkbetweencertainidealsandthelegaltradition,aswellasKoschaker’sfocusontraditionandWieacker’semphasisontheself-referentialityoflegalscholarship.TheconnectionbetweenthecontinentalandtheBritishlegaltraditions,betweencivillawandcommonlaw,enteredintoCoing’sworkfairlylateinthe1980s.Inhisattemptsatfindingacommonground,heagaindrawsfromthefoundationsofChristianityandGreco-Romancivilization.TheareasofresearchheproposedweretoalargedegreeoneswhereacommonthreadcouldbefoundarisingfromtheRomanlawtraditionandthusaninherentunifyingthemecouldbeestablished.Whilehesoughttopresenttheaimofthiscomparativeexerciseasanintellectualonewherethedifferencesandsimilaritiesofthesolutionsdevelopedbydifferentlegalculturescouldbeexplored,thestudyalsohadapracticalelementlinkedtoEuropeanintegration.Forinstance,intheareaoflawandindustrialization,“thestudyofthesedevelopmentsisespeciallyinterestingbecauseithasabearingonourunderstandingofmodernEuropeaneconomiclawand,inmyview,isabletofacilitatethenecessaryunificationofeconomiclawintheEuropeancommunities.”634ThemostinfluentialdisseminatorsofthenarrativeofthesharedrootsofEuropeanlawandjurisprudencearenotonlyGermanorBritish.OneofthecrucialvoiceshadbeenthatofRaoulvanCaenegem,whopresentedtheEuropeanstoryinmanyofhisworks,suchastheHistoricalIntroductiontoPrivateLaw(1992),whichconnectsthelegalandintellectualdevelopmentsbetweenBritain,theBenelux,FranceandGermanyandthesharedfoundationintheiuscommune.CaenegempresentedtheinfluenceofRomanlawasoneofreturningtoamodernitythatwaslost:“Romanizationthereforemeantmodernization”.Incontrasttothebackwardsfeudalandagrariansociety,Romanlaw“appearedtobeamodernsystem,progressive,orientedtothefuture”.635ItalianscholarAldoSchiavonehasarguedinasimilarfashionfortheproto-modernityofancientRomanlawandsociety,whereconcepts,rulesandtheoriesemergedthatwouldlaterformthefoundationsofnotonlythelegalsystembutmodernideas

633Kantorowicz,StudiesintheGlossatorsoftheRomanLaw.634HelmutCoing,'CommonLawandCivilLawintheDevelopmentofEuropeanCivilization.PossibilitiesofComparisons',inHelmutCoingandKnutWolfgangNörr(eds.),EnglischeundkontinentaleRechtsgeschichte:einForschungsprojekt(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1985),pp.31–41,atp.40.635RaoulC.vanCaenegem,AnHistoricalIntroductiontoPrivateLaw(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992),p.71.

214

ofdemocracyandhumanrights.AncientRomansocietywasnaturallyincapableofdevelopingtheimplicationsoftheseideassuchastheequalityofman.636Withinthishistoricaltradition,some,likeGrossi,haveprotestedagainstthewaythatthecommonrootsnarrative“privilegesthethreadoftheRomanlawtradition”,whenotherinfluencessuchasthemedievaltraditionhavebeenequallysignificant.637Padoa-Schioppahasargued,muchintheveinofKoschakerandWieacker,thattheconvergenceinthefieldoflawofthethreemaininheritancesfromantiquity,namelyGreekphilosophy,RomanlawandChristianity,onlytookplaceinmedievalEuropeanjurisprudence.Inpart,hecontinuesasimilarargumentthatwaspresentedearlierbyHaroldBermaninLawandRevolution,whichtracesthewholecreationofmodernsciencetomedievaljurisprudenceandcanonlaw.However,hismainthesisisthatitwasthepolyvalenceoftheworksofRomanjuristsandthemalleableusabilitythattheydemonstratedwhichgavethemsuchsuccessinthefutureformationofthelegalprofession.ForPadoa-Schioppa,medievaljurisprudenceandthepracticeofthechurchlaidthegroundworkforthe“eventsthatformedthemodernEuropeanstatesandtheirlegalsystems”.638TheemergenceoftheEuropeannarrativeinlegalhistoryparallelstheriseofhumanrightslanguageinpost-WWIIEuropeandconsolidationoftheideathathumanrightswereaparticularlyEuropeanconcept.Inthebasicworksofhumanrightshistory,Europeannationsaremostlyportrayedasresistingtheirintroduction.639Incontrast,MarcoDurantihaslatelyarguedthatthetraditionalnarrativeoftheemergenceofhumanrightsshouldbeamendedandthatthetruekeyplayersofthepost-WWIIconstructionoftheEuropeanhumanrightsregimewereinfactconservativessuchasWinstonChurchill,whoseinvolvementprecedesthegenerationofEUfounderslikeMonnetandSchumann.Forconservatives,thepromiseofEuropeanismandhumanrightswasfoundedonanumberofdifferentcauses.Oneofthemostimportantcauseswasoppositiontototalitarianism,whereFascismandCommunismwerebuttwosidesofthe

636AldoSchiavone,TheInventionoftheLawintheWest(Cambridge,MAandLondon:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2005),pp.458–459.Inotherrecentworks,asimilarhistoricalnarrativehasbeenlinkedwiththedevelopment,adaptationandtransmissionoflegalknowledge.See,forexample,Karl-HeinzLadeur,DerAnfangDesWestlichenRechts:DieChristianisierungDerRomischenRechtskulturUndDieEntstehungDesUniversalenRechts(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018).637PaoloGrossi,'HistoricalModelsandPresentPlansintheformationofafutureEuropeanLaw',inAntonioGambaroandAlfredoMordechaiRabello(eds.),TowardsaNewEuropeanIusCommune(Jerusalem:TheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem,1999),p.4.638AntonioPadoa-Schioppa(ed.),AHistoryofLawinEurope.FromtheEarlyMiddleAgestotheTwentiethCentury(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2017),pp.70,294–295;HaroldJ.Berman,LawandRevolution:TheFormationoftheWesternLegalTradition(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1983).639LynnHunt,Inventinghumanrights:ahistory(NewYork:W.W.Norton,2007),p.202.

215

samecoin.Atthesametime,conservativesweredeeplydistrustfulofthetyrannyofthemajorityandthedangersofpopulismindemocracy.Pluralismandsecuringtherightsofminoritieswerecentralconcernsinthisregard.Tosecuretheserights,ithadbecomeclearthatthenationalcourtswereunabletoupholdtheruleoflawandthusinternationalguaranteeswereneeded.However,theconservativeideaoffreeandunitedEuropewasnotnecessarilyasuperstate,butrathera“returntotraditionandolderformsofcommunity”.640AmongtheconservativeswasalsoalargecontingentofCatholics,forwhomtheideaofjusticebeyondthenationstateandtheunificationofEuropewasappealingforreligiousreasons.FormanyCatholics,Romanlawandcanonlawweresuchlegalorders,drawingtheirvaliditynotfromthewordofalegislatorbutfromtheculturaltradition.Many,likeKoschaker,sawtheRomanandthemedievalChristiantraditionaspartsofthesamecontinuumandaninherentpartoftheEuropeanheritage.Incontrast,thehumanrightsregimeofferedadifferentpromise,strengtheningthefreedomsofCatholicassociationsandchurches.However,onamoregenerallevel,thehistoricallegalordersandthehumanrightsordercouldbeseenaspartofthesameprocess,whereahigherlawwouldconstraintheexcessesofnationalgovernmentsandlegislators.FortheseCatholicconservatives,thenewEuropeanunificationgaveapromiseforarebirthofthelostunitythatwasnotonlyculturalbutalsospiritual.ThetraditionalordersofjusticeandreasonwereattheheartoftheCatholicworldviewandthevaluesandmoralsthatunderlayit.641IntheEuropeanistdiscussion,Catholicvoiceshadbeensomeoftheearliesttoproposeanewfoundationtoreplacethenationstate.MaritainwouldemergeasavoiceofChristianconservatives,butsimilarideasontheconnectionsbetweenEuropeanlaw,cultureandcivilizationhavingareligiousfoundationwerepresentedearlierbyRiccobonoandothers.Therewasnaturallyaprecedentintheearlierdiscussions,forinstancetheideassuchasAbendlandpromotedamongCatholicconservatives,buttheseideasdidnotfigureforinstanceintheworksofCoing.DuringthewarMaritainandDawson,whomKoschakerwouldciteapprovingly,turnedtowardstheideasofhumanrightsanddemocracy,conflatingthemwiththeprotectionofthehumanperson,hisindividualfreedomsandwithitreligion.642Evenhere,theémigrécommunitywascrucial,theCatholicsectionsactivelypromotingthecombinationoftheideasofantitotalitarianism,democracyandtheruleoflawasapolitical,spiritualand

640Duranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolution,pp.4–5.641Withinthehumanrightsrealm,seeDuranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolution,p.8;Moyn,ChristianHumanRights,pp.86–87.OnthereorientationofCatholicism,seerecentlyJamesChappel,CatholicModern;TheChallengeofTotalitarianismandtheRemakingoftheChurch(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2018).642Moyn,ChristianHumanRights,pp.84–85.OnRiccobono,KoschakerandMaritain,seeCh.@@.OnCoing’srelationshipwithearlierEuropeanism,seeDuve,‘VonderEuropäischenRechtsgeschichtezueinerRechtsgeschichteEuropasinglobalhistorischerPerspektive’,p.44.

216

legalpolicy.643TheintellectualconnectionformedbyCoingwasonethatfocusedonlawyersandtheirscholarship,notadictategivenbyarulerorastatelegislator,thusmakingitmorepalatableforthenationsconcernedabouttheirsovereigntyandnationaltraditions.Aunitybasedonalreadysharedtraitsandthecommonstrivingtowardsaunityofmindswasthuseasiertoacceptbothpoliticallyandculturallythanthelimitationsofsovereigntyadvocatedbyfederalists.ThecombinationofEuropeandrightswasinitiallynoteasytomake.Forone,NazicollaboratorsandtheNazioccupationofmuchofEuropehadframedtheeventasapan-Europeanstruggleagainstcommunism.TheresistancetowardsNazismhadbeenunderthebannerofpatrioticnationalismagainsttheforeignoppressor.Atthesametime,AlliedpowershadrejectedtheNaziideologyandmaintainedtheircommitmenttowardshumanrightsasinternationalanduniversalstandards.Thewholepost-warerahadbeenoneofcosmopolitaninternationalism,wherethenationstatewouldbeacomponentpartoftheinternationalorder.Thus,theinitialreactiontowardsEuropeanunityandthelegalunityofEuropewasnotnecessarilypositive.Thepost-warEuropeangovernments,nottomentionpeoples,would,asarule,supportthereconstructionofastrongstateintheserviceofthepeople.Thepeoplewerehereprimarilyunderstoodasthenation,apopularsovereigntyestablishedthroughnationalsovereignty.644TheEuropeanconservativesadvocatingforunificationwouldseektotransferthenationalisticfeelingstowardsaEuropeancommunity.Theystressedthelonghistoryandculturalunity,butaddedtothisanovelcomponent,humanrights.AsDurantimaintains,theyarguedthattheEuropeancommunityofpeopleswaslinkedby“asharedcommitmenttoindividualfreedomandtheruleoflaw”.ThustheirEuropewasatthesametimeareturntoanidealizedpastunitywhereChristianityandhumanismreignedoverthecivilizedculturesofEurope,butalsoaliberalideaofhumanrights.Inthisconfiguration,humanrightsthemselvesbecameanexpressionoftheEuropeanheritageanditscommitmenttofreedomandrights.Churchillhimselfwouldinhisfamous“IronCurtain”speechin1946refertothe“greatprinciplesoffreedomandtherightsofman”,whichwerethe“jointinheritanceoftheEnglish-speakingworldandwhichthroughMagnaCarta,theBillofRights,theHabeasCorpus,trialbyjury,andtheEnglishcommonlawfindtheirmostfamousexpressionintheAmericanDeclarationofIndependence”.645ThustheideasofhumanrightsandfreedomwereinitiallyalegacyoftheEnglish-speakingpeoples,whichshouldthenbebestowedupontherestofEuropeandtheworld.

643SeeGreenberg,WeimarCentury,pp.147–149ontheideasandpeoplebehindtheManifestoontheWarpublishedin1942by43CatholicthinkersfromdifferentbackgroundsfromHildebrandtoMaritain.644Duranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolution,pp.348–349.645WinstonChurchill,IronCurtainspeech,onMarch5,1946,atWestminsterCollege,Fulton,Missouri;Duranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolution,p.350.

217

Withinthehumanrightsdiscourse,Churchill’sconceptionofhumanrightsasfreedomsthatweresharedbyacommunitysuchasEuropethathadacommonculture,valuesandpoliticalsystemwasinitselfaconservativeproposition.Hishumanrightswerethusnotinherentlyuniversalandpointedlyexcluded,forexample,theEuropeancolonies.Incontrast,theleftistandcommunistconceptionsofhumanrights,whichtheSovietUnionhadadvocatedsincethe1930sbothdirectlyandthroughitsfrontorganizationsinEurope,focusedonsocialrightsandeconomicrights.Withintheirambit,theliberalconceptionofhumanrights,aswellasliberaldemocracyitself,wassimplyashamthatmaskedtherealinequalityandiniquityofcapitalisticsocieties.646Churchill,inhispost-WWIIspeeches,pivotedtowardsanticommunism,startingfromhis“IronCurtain”speech,wherehepresentedthejuxtapositionbetweenthefreepeoplesoftheWestandthedictatorshipsintheEast.Inthisdivision,Europeanunitywastheunityofdemocratic,civilizednationsthatwerepartofaEuropeanfamily.Withinthisconception,humanrightsprovidedthemoral,ethicalandculturalfoundations.Evenduringthewar,ChurchillwasoneofthefirstleadersoftheGreatPowerstorefertohumanrights.InhismessagetoarallyinLondoninsupportofJewsinGermany,hepredictedthattheworldwidestruggleagainstFascismwould“endwiththeenthronementofhumanrights”.647ThefactthathumanrightswerepresentedasaEuropeannotionhelpedtoresolveoneofthefundamentalproblemsofhumanrights,thequestionwhichHannahArendtposedas“therighttohaverights”.IftheoriginalEnlightenmentnotionofhumanrightswasframedastherightswithinapoliticalcommunity,theserightsweredependentonmembershipinthatcommunityand“thespacesofcitizenshipinwhichrightswereaccordedandprotected”,asMoyndefinedit.Thus,asoneoftheNazipolicieshadbeenthestrippingawayofcitizenshipandthepurposefulcreationoflawlessplaces,thenewpost-1945humanrightsthoughtfocusedontheuniversalismofhumanrightsandtheircapacitytolimitthesovereigntyofthestate.WiththecreationofaEuropeanconventionandaEuropeanhumanrightsregime,itsframerswereintentonachievingtheuniversaleffectofhumanrightswithintheparticularEuropeanarea.648ItwasatthispoliticalandideologicalmomentthatthenarrativeofEuropeanlegalheritage,thetheoryofthecommonlegalroots,struck.Itcombinednumeroustraits,fromCatholicconservatismandtheideasofuniversallawbasedontheculturalfoundationofChristianity,theanticommunismofconservatismandtheenthusiasmforprivatelawasaninstrumentthatsecuredpropertyandtransactionsratherthansocialequalityandthedistributionofwealth.

646Duranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolution,p.355.647Loeffler,RootedCosmopolitans,p.91;Duranti,ConservativeHumanRightsRevolution,p.357.648Moyn,LastUtopia,pp.12-15.

218

DuvehascriticizedCoing’sapproachasEurocentric.HearguesthatCoing,togetherwithWieackerandKoschaker,begantheconceptofEuropeanlegalhistoryasasuccessortotheprojectofSavignyandtheHistoricalSchool,aprojectthatrevolvedaroundthedogmaticcoreoflegalscienceinthegeographiccoreofEurope,anessenceoflawintheessenceofEurope.Thismadeitpossibletofocusontheunityoftheidearatherthanthecomplexitiesoftheactualhistoricalsituation.Itslawwasthelawofjurists,ofdogmaticcivillaw,ascienceoflawthatwasatthesametimehistoricalandahistorical,unifiedandparticular.649Thisistrueinacertainsense,butevenDuve’scriticismisGermanocentric.ThegrandnarrativesofthekindwrittenbyHaroldBerman,ManlioBellomoorPaoloGrossiarenotreducibletotheGermanprojectbegunbySavigny.Forexample,Berman’sLawandRevolution,whichtracestheoriginsofthewholeofWesternlawtothebeginningsofcanonlaw,hasaverydifferentaimandpurposewhencomparedtotheGermanprojects.Thus,whileDuverightlypointsoutthatinallofthesecases,thethemesofscience,professionalization,secularization,rationalizationandsoforthareprominent,650theyhavemoretodowiththegeneralself-definitionofEuropethattranscendstheGermanlawyersorevensomeofitsmostfamousauthorssuchasWeber.ThebackgroundofthenewrevitalizationofRomanlawintheEuropeancontextwasclearlyinthedeepeningoftheEuropeanintegrationinthe1990s.Itsharedtraitsfromtheolderrevivalistmovements,inthatoneofitsprimarymotivationswastheself-preservationofthefieldofstudy.TheideasofthenewiuscommuneandtherevivalofRomanlawstemmedfromdifferentbackgrounds.InthecaseoftheideasofZimmermannandPichonnaz,Romanlawhadarolemuchlikecomparativelaw,ithadadogmaticutilityincontemporarylaw.Scholarsofthispersuasiontookupcasessuchasmixedlegalsystems(mostfamouslySouthAfrica,ScotlandandLouisiana)assuccessstories.651Duringthedebatesthatwentonduringthe1990sandearly2000s,otherspointedoutthatRomanlawhadanunderlyingcontinuityinthingssuchaslegalconceptsorprinciples,652andwhileissuessuchashumanrightswereclearlybeyonditsgrasp,itcouldhavevalueasamethodologicaltoolforanalysis.653Theissuesofmethod,analysisandcasematerialwereincidentallynotonlypresentedintermsoftherelevanceofancientlawfortheEuropeanintegration,butalsoasjustificationsforthecontinuedteachingofRomanlaw.654

649Duve,‘EuropeanLegalHistory–GlobalPerspectives’,pp.3–11.650Duve,‘VonderEuropäischenRechtsgeschichtezueinerRechtsgeschichteEuropasinglobalhistorischerPerspektive’,p.24.651ReinhardZimmermann,''DoubleCross':ComparingScotsandSouthAfricanLaw',inReinhardZimmermann,DanielVisser,andKennethReid(eds.),MixedLegalSystemsinComparativePerspective(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),pp.1–33.652MassimoVari,'Dirittoromano«iuscommune»europeo?'(2002)30Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw183–185.653FrancoCasavola,'Dirittoromanoedirittoeuropeo'(1994)40Labeo161–169.654DavidJohnston,'TheRenewaloftheOld'(1997)56(1)CambridgeLawJournal80–95.

219

FortheEuropeanlegaltraditionandEuropeanlegalhistory,theissueofunityandpluralismhasbothadogmaticandanintellectualrelevance.IsthereaunityintheEuropeanlegaltradition?Ifso,whatisthislegaltradition?Withintherealmsofhumanrightsregimes,claimsofunityanduniversalityhavebeenmadewithsomeregularity,eventhoughwithamplecriticism.However,withinprivatelawregimes,claimsofpastunityhavelostmuchoftheirrelevance.Ananalyticalwayofunderstandingtheconnectionbetweenthepastandthefutureleadsinevitablytotherejectionoftheideasoftheactualizationofthepastasafoundationforthefuture.However,asnotedbyCarbonnier,evenintheearlierusagesofancientlaw,forexampleinmedievalGermanyorearlymodernFrance,thepointwasnotabouthistoricalaccuracy,butaboutinvention.Inventionsareseldomcreatedinavacuumandlegalinventioninparticularisaresultoftextsbeingreadandreread.Thus,thesignificanceofancientideasisintheirroleinlegaldiscourseasideas,concepts,casesandsolutions.655AnevenmorefundamentalissuebehindtheEuropeannarrativeandthesharedpastofEuropeanlegaltraditionisitsself-imposedlinktotheteleologicalnatureofEuropeanintegration.ThedeeplyproblematicnotionoftheteleologythatunderlayearlyEuropeanideasofintegration,eventotheextentthatitwaspresentedasaprincipleofinterpretationinEUlaw,wasbasedonthepremisethattheUnionwouldexperienceonlyadeepeningofintegration.Withtheongoingcrisesandthecriticismthatthenegativesideeffectsofintegrationhasfaced,thisteleologyofdeepeningintegrationmaynotbethesafestoffoundationsforahistoricalunderstanding.Inasimilarmanner,whenscholarssuchasZimmermannweredraftingtheoriesofthedeepunderlyingsharedtraditionthattiedtogethercontinentalEuropeandBritain,thiswasdoneinapoliticalclimatewhereissuessuchasBrexitwerescarcelyimaginable.ThismeansthatthediscussiontodaymayleadtoasimilarconundrumasthatwhichprovokedthedebatesoverAntikeRechtsgeschichteorancientlegalhistoryandthecrisisofRomanlawduringthefirstdecadesofthetwentiethcentury:whatisthevalueofhistoryandthustradition?Theideaofusinghistoryasavehicleforadvancingcontemporarypoliciesmayappearsound,butthedangeristhatwhenthepolicywithorwithoutitshistoricaljustificationisrejected,whathappenstohistory?Inhis1999articleontherelationshipbetweenRomanlaw,comparativelawandlegalhistory,DavidJohnstonarguedthatpurehistoryisofnouse,thatitshouldinfacthaveapurpose,evenassimpleapurposeasenrichingourunderstandingofthelaw.656However,whatdoesitmeanforhistorytosupporttheEuropeanprojectifor

655JeanCarbonnier,'Usushodiernuspandectarum',inRonaldH.Graveson,KarlKreuzer,AndréTunc,andKonradZweigert(eds.),FestschriftfürImreZajtay.Mélangesenl'honneurd'ImreZajtay(Tübingen:J.C.B.Mohr(PaulSiebeck),1982),pp.107-116,atp.113.AsAldoMazzacane,‘«Illeonefuggitodalcirco»:pandettisticaedirittocomuneeuropeo’(2001)29Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=InternationalSurveyofRomanLaw97–111alreadynoted,evenSavigny’sRomanlawwasinnowayfaithfultotheoriginal.656DavidJohnston,'RomanLaw,ComparativeLawandLegalHistory'(1999)3ZeitschriftfürEuropäischesPrivatrecht560–569,atpp.562–564.

220

whentheEuropeanprojectisnomore?Afewyearsearlier,ZimmermannhimselfwrotehowthediscoveryoftheEuropeandimensionoflawislargelyduetotheworksofKoschaker,WieackerandCoing.TheytaughtjuriststoseeRomanlawandlegalsciencenotsimplyaspastorhistorybut“asoneoftheessentialcornerstonesofEuropeanlawandlegalscience”.657ConclusionsCoing’smaincontributionwastolinktherightstraditionwiththeideaofaEuropeanlegalheritage.Whilehisownfieldhadbeenmorerecentlegalhistory,heembracedtheideaofRomanfoundationsanditsroleintheEuropeanlegalscience.EventhoughCoing’sworkscanbeseenaspartoftherenaissanceofnaturallawinthepost-warperiod,hewasevenmoreimportantintheinstitutionalizationoftheEuropeanlegalnarrative,bothwithinthelegalacademiaandintheEuropeanpoliticalsphere.Recently,thisinfluencehasgrownthroughtheworkofReinhardZimmermann,whohaspromotedCoingasaprecursor.Coing’sbackgroundwasintheGermanBildungsbürgertum,whereideasaboutlearning,civilizationandservicewerevalued.ThereissomeconfusionregardinghismembershipintheNaziparty,buthisideologicalinvolvementleftnotraceinhisworks.Incontrast,theexperienceofthewar,inwhichheservedinfrontlineunitsasareserveofficer,madealastingimpressionandformedwiththeaftermathoftotalitarianismacrucialstartingpointforhispost-warworksonnaturallawandrights.TheturntowardsnaturallawandlegalphilosophyingeneralwasinlinewiththegeneralturntowardsdiscussingtheimplicationsoftotalitarianismandNazismingeneral.IntheGermanlegalworldstilldominatedbyformerNazischolars,facingthepastwasnotpopular.Naturallawwasheavilycriticized,aswaslegalpositivism,inadiscussionthatcanonlybedescribedasperverted.ExilessuchasKelsenwerebeingblamedfortheirintellectualsupportfortheNazisandideassuchashumanrightswereshunned.Inthisatmosphere,Coing’sapproachoflayingoutafoundationforrightsthroughtraditionwasasuccess,asitusedexistinglegaltraditionforthejustificationofrights.OneofthefundamentaltenetsofCoing’sthoughtwastheideaoffreedomanddrawingrightsfromthatbasicpremise.Inasense,Coingwasbuildingathirdwayforrights.Hearguedthatrightsmaybefoundedthroughtradition,notthroughnatureorthroughaconvention.Humanrightsarethussomethingthatisbasedonpersonhoodandmorality,notasinalienablerightsassuggestedbyEnlightenmentthoughtorhumanityitself.

657ReinhardZimmermann,'RomanandComparativeLaw:TheEuropeanPerspective(Someremarksaproposarecentcontroversy)'(1995)16(1)TheJournalofLegalHistory21–33,atp.28;ReinhardZimmermann,'EuropaunddasromischeRecht'(2002)2ArchivfürdiecivilistischePraxis243-316.

221

However,thephilosophicalsideofCoing’sthoughtwasinseparablefromhishistoricalworks,whichfocusedonthelaterreceptionofRomanlaw.KlausLuig,inhisobituaryonCoing,remarkedthatCoing’sviewofhistorywasfundamentallyaboutexperience.Insteadoftheremarkableandthescandalous,hewantedtoapproachhistorythroughtheconceptofpossibilities,inthathistoricalexamplesdemonstratenotsimplyanswersbutproblemsandalternativesolutions.Thus,social,politicalandlegalhistoryshouldbeapproachedasawhole,wheretheroleoflawwastoprovidepeaceandsecuritynotonlybetweenindividualsbutalsobetweenpeopleandthestate.Thismeantthateachhistoricalmomentwasatthesametimeapartofacontinuumbutalsoitsownuniquelegalculture.658WhenwritingaboutthereceptionofRomanlaw,Coingdescribeditasapurelyunhistoricalprocessinwhichbeginningfromthe11thcenturythetextsandrulesofRomanlawwereappliedwithlittlecarefortheirpropercontext.ThemedievalemperorswereidentifiedwiththeRomanemperors,ItaliancitieswithRomancities,andsoforth.Romanlawwas,asKantorowitzhadstated,atreasurechestofsolutionswhichwereappliedwithnoconcernfortheproperlegalcontext.659TheprojectofEuropeanlegalhistoryappearsinCoingbothasaconceptionofreceptionasananachronisticreuseofancientlaw,butequallyasaconstitutivefactor.Inasense,Europeanlegalhistorybegantoresembleaconstitutionalprojectwithoutaconstitution,wheretraditionoperatesatthesametimeasajustificationandcontext.However,thelegalruleswerethemselvesmorelikemanifestationsofvaluesinherentintheEuropeantraditionratherthanthesevaluesthemselves.Withinthepost-wardebatesonconstitutionallaw,Coing’sideaoftherebuildingoftraditionthroughthereworkingofexistingmaterialappealedtoscholarswaryofinnovationssuchashumanrights.HegraduallyexpandedtheideaofEuropeanlegaltraditiontocombinetwotraits,thenaturallawtraditionandtheRomanlawtradition,wherethefirstwouldbemoreaboutpubliclawandthesecondaboutprivatelaw.Linkingthesewastheideaofcivilization,inwhichhewasinfluencedbythinkerssuchasWernerJaeger.Combined,theseformedaKulturrecht,alawofculture,whichencompassedvirtue,moralityandtheinherentvalueofthehumanperson.WithintheemergingEuropeandiscussion,Coing’sideasaboutaEuropeantraditionweretakenbyZimmermannandotherstoanewleveltoformthefoundationofaEuropeanlegaltraditionthatwouldbothexplainthepastandlayoutthefutureofEuropeanlaw.Inthis,Coing’sroleresembledthatofconservativesinthepost-warhumanrightsdebates.

658Luig,‘HelmutCoing’,p.220.659HelmutCoing,'KlassizismusinderGeschichtedesrömischenRechts',inG.E.vonGrunebaumandWillyHartner(eds.),KlassizismusundKulturverfall(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,1960),pp.69–76,atp.72.

222

7.ConclusionsInoneofthefirststudiesonscholarlymigration,TheodorAdornoverycandidlydescribedhisownexperienceinAmericaandwhathehadlearnedinAmerica.Hedescribedatlengththevariousshocksthathehadenduredcomingin1938fromBritaintoNewYorktoworkonthePrincetonRadioProject,notreallyunderstandingwhattheprojectwasaboutandwhatwerethestrangestatisticalmethodsitused.Throughallofhisexperiences,hebegantoseethelimitationsofhisownmind,thethingsthathehadtakenforgranted.Thishedefinedasakindofde-provincialization:“InAmericaIwasliberatedfromacertainnaïvebeliefincultureandattainedthecapacitytoseeculturefromtheoutside.”660ThenarrativeofthesharedtraditionofEuropeanlaw,theideathatthelegalheritageofEuropewasaninherentsourceofunityandwastraceableallthewaybacktoAntiquityandRomanlawtookshapeinalongprocess,beginningfromthe1930s.Thisbookwasthestoryofthatprocess.Therewas,evenbeforetheNazitakeoverofpower,asenseofcrisisinEurope.Oneshouldperhapsspeakofcrisesintheplural,becausethepervasivesenseofcrisishadspreadtosomanyissues,rangingfromthecrisisofscience,tothecrisisofvaluesoreventhecrisisofreason.Beginningfrom1933,theNazipersecutionofopponentsandpeopleofJewishdescentturnedthecrisisintoapersonalone,notonlyoneofmaintainingone’spositionasascholar,butultimatelyabattleforsurvivalasrepressionturnedtoannihilationintheHolocaust.Howscholarsreactedtothecrisisiswhollyanothermatter.Formostofthem,therewasaseparationbetweenscienceandthepersonal,wherescientificinquiryremainedunaffectedbythecircumstanceswherethatinquirytookplace.Inthesecases,personalissuesweredetectableonlyintheprefacesofbooksorinpersonalmemoirs.Thisbookwasnotaboutthem.Thisbookwasaboutthepeoplewhoseexperienceoftotalitarianismcarriedovertothewaythattheyconductedtheirscientificworkandtransformedthequestionsandmethodsthatwereconsideredrelevant.Forexample,philosopherKarlPopperturnedfromlogicandthephilosophyofsciencetothecrisisofWesterndemocracyandthechallengeoftotalitarianisminhisexileinNewZealand,publishinghismostfamousworkOpenSocietyandItsEnemiesin1945.However,itremainsanopenquestionwhethercrisesreallyproducenewsolutionsorwhethertheyonlymakeexistingonesmoreacceptable.Inthecaseoftheresearcherswehavebeenfollowingduringthisbook,peoplesuchasFritzSchulz,FritzPringsheim,PaulKoschaker,FranzWieackerandHelmutCoing,thesolutionwasnotlookingelsewhere,butratherlookingattheWesternlegalandintellectualtraditiontorediscoverwhatthey

660Adorno,‘ScientificExperiencesofaEuropeanScholarinAmerica’,quotefromp.367.

223

consideredtobethetruemeaningofthattradition.Thiswas,inaway,asimilarmethodasthatutilizedbyPopper,toreturntothetraditionandtorereaditfornewmeaningstofindanswerstonewquestionsraisedbythepoliticalandintellectualcrisis.InhisfamousbookAtlanticCrossings,Rodgermaintainsthatcrisesarenottrulymomentswherenovelsolutionsarediscovered,butrathermomentswhereexistingsolutionsaretestedandputtouse:“Thepolicyideaspressedintoserviceintheemergencyare,asoftenasnot,old,formulatedinothercircumstancestomeetotherconditions.Theyareaneruptionofthepastintothepresent.”661Inthetransatlanticworld,crisesweremomentsofintellectualtransmissionandadaptationofideasandpracticesacrosscontinents.WhiletheinterwaryearshadbeenmarkedbyagradualrecognitionoftheemergingAmericansuperiorityintheeconomyandmilitarypower,therewasequallyanemergentintellectualchallengeinthenovelunderstandingofsocietyandlawproducedinthepolitical,socialandlegalsciencesintheUS.WithinEuropeanacademia,therecognitionofthiswasasslowaswastherealizationofAmericanpowerbyEuropeanstates.TheslowandoftenpainfulexperienceofthisrealizationandthecritiqueoftheAmericansocietyandscienceitcontainedwasaclearconsequenceofhowdeepseatedtheideasofEuropeansuperioritywere.ManyoftheexilesdidnotreachAmericanshores,buttheBritishexperiencetiedthemtothetransatlanticworldofideas.Althoughtheydidnotrecognizeitassuch,whatmanyoftheexilesendedupdoingwasnotonlyareactiontothetotalitarianchallenge,butalsoaself-reflectionofthefundamentalvaluesofEuropeandtheself-examinationoftheEuropeantradition.Exposuretonewideas,traumaticexperiencesandfeelingsofmarginalizationwerepowerfulimpulsesforrethinking.BackinEurope,NazithoughtwasnotonlyahyperdrivenversionofGermannationalismanditsinherentquestforculturaldominance,butalsoasymptomofawiderintellectualandpoliticalreactiontosocialchangeandtheperceivedthreatfromCommunistmovements.WithinthenationalistmovementsinEurope,therewasafundamentaldisconnectbetweenexclusionarynationalisticthoughtsandtheideaofEurope,rangingfromthediscussionsofsharedandindigenoustraitstothenotionsofacommonEuropeancultureandtheroleofelementssuchastheclassicalpastorChristianitywithinit.Duringthewar,thesediscussionsweretransferredtothesearchforunityinthefaceofthecommonenemy,notonlySovietRussiabutalsotheAnglo-Americanworld.WhiletheywerenominallyshoringupsupportfortheNaziregime,indoingsotheybegantodistributenotionsofEuropeanunityandanewEurope.ForexilessuchasSchulzandPringsheim,thefallfromapositionofstatusandrespectwasdebilitating.Theysurvivedwithonlytheirimmediatefamilymembersandsomebelongings.Theirlife,asithadbeen,wasdestroyed.Theybegantoreimagineandtoreinvent,usingtheir

661Rodger,AtlanticCrossings,414.

224

acquiredknowledge,tobuildanewfuture.WhilemanyotherexilesdepartedforAmericaandtookuppermanentresidencethere,theireyeswereonEurope.Atthesametime,Koschaker,WieackerandCoingwereindifferentwaysinvolvedwiththeNazirevolutioninGermansocietyandscience,takingpartwithvaryingdegreesofenthusiasm.Forthem,theendofthewar,themassivedeathtollandthelossofpositionandstatuswereequallyshocking.TheNazichallengehadbeenoneoffundamentalreorganizationofGermanlawandsocietybasedoncompletelydifferentcriteriathantheliberalWeimarConstitution.However,theracialandhierarchicalideologywasintheendamarginalpursuitevenwithinGermanlegalscience.Whenthetotalitarianregimethatsupporteditcollapsed,therewerefewthatwouldseriouslyadvocatethemodel.ForEuropeanlegalthought,adeeperchallengewasthesamedevelopmentthattheNazimovementhadbeenasymptomof,thatoftheemergingindustrialmasssocietyanditsproblems.Thesocial,legal,economicandotherchallengeswerevastandmanyofthelegalreformmovementssuchaslegalrealismsoughttoanswerthem.ThesolutionthattheEuropeanistlegalthoughtpresented,thereturntotraditionandthefundamentalsshapedbythetradition,wasthusanunlikelyanswertothechallengesofthenewsociety.TheEuropeantraditionandtheideasofrelativenaturallawwerenottheanswersthatwouldhavebeensufficienttoresolvethesocialquestions,theideologicalchallengeofsocialismoreventheindustrialsociety.ItmayevenbesaidthatthealternativethatreturningtotraditionposedwouldperhapsnothavebeenworthconsideringwithoutthefactthatNazipolicieshadmademanyofthealternativesunpalatablebyassociation.ThusdistributivesocialpoliciesandeconomicandsocialrightsremainedinthemarginsduetotheirassociationwithsocialismandNazism.Theidealspresentedbypost-warthinkers,theprimacyoftheindependenceoflawfrompoliticsandtheidealsofhumanrights,especiallytraditionallibertyrights,werebyandlargeconservativeideals.Theysoughttosafeguardtheindividualfromtheoppressionofthestate,anotionthatinitselfcontainedthepremisethatthestateasthewielderofsovereignpowerwouldneedtobecurtailed.Whetherthispremisewasinoppositiontoanascenttotalitarianorauthoritarianruleortheriseofsocialismorpopulismthroughdemocraticmeans,wasamatterthatwasoftenleftundiscussed.TheroleofRomanlawinthisconstructwasahistoricaloddity,amatteroftraditionandheritagethatwasnoteasilyexplainedlogically.However,forthepurposeofdefendingpropertyrightsandtheestablishedsystemofprivatelawandcontracts,thepositionofRomanlawwasquitesuitable.Itplacedlawintherealmoftradition,awayfrompoliticaldiscussionandmostcertainlyawayfromthedemandsofamoreequitabledivisionofwealth.ThenascentroleoftheEuropeanlegalheritageandwithitthehistoricalclaimsoftheRomanlawtraditionsharedanothertraitwiththeemerginghumanrightsregime.Bothwere

225

sidelinedbytheNaziregime,whichwasinprincipledoppositiontothevaluesandideasthattheycontainedandtheNazissoughttoreplacethemwithamorepalatablealternative.ForRomanlaw,thisNazialternativewasanationalGermanlegalsystembasedontheideaofbloodcommunity;forhumanrights,theNazialternativewastheideaofasystemofprotectingthedignityofthemembersofthebloodcommunity.Fortheirrevival,bothwereinadifferentshapeandformdrivenbythepersonalexperienceoftheirdefendersundertotalitarianism.Inbothcases,therewasareticenceabouttalkingabouttheseexperiences.SchulzandPringsheimwerenotoriouslyunwillingtodiscussorwriteaboutthem,thesamewastrueforthefoundersofthemodernhumanrightssystemsuchasHerschLauterpacht.ComingfromthecityofLemberg,nowcalledLviv,heexperiencedatfirsthandtheterrifyingpogromsfollowingtheFirstWorldWar.HewasnotpresentduringthehorrendousrepetitionduringtheSecondWorldWar,aninfamouseventcapturedingruesomedetailonfilm.BothofthecarnageswerenotevensomethingthatwouldbeblamedsolelyontheGermans,becausethosewhoturnedontheJewishinhabitantsofLembergweretheirPolishandUkrainianneighbours.Theissueoftraumaasamotivatingfactorhasbeenundersomediscussionrecently,withLauterpacht’spersonalhistoryasafocus.662Whetherthetraumaticexperiencepromptssomeonetoactandsomeoneelsetowriteisnaturallyaquestionofpersonality.WhatwasquitebeyonddoubtwastheroleofEuropeanintegration,bothasareactiontotheGermanaggressionandNaziterroraswellasthegrowingrealizationofthethreatposedbytheSovietUnionanditssatellitestates.HumanrightsandtheEuropeanheritageformedtheintellectualfoundationoftheWesternEuropeannarrative:rights,theruleoflawandeconomicprosperitywerethecatchphrasesthatwerepresentedinoppositiontothesocialistdemandsforsocialandeconomicequality.Forthesepurposes,thenarrativespresentedagainstNazitotalitarianismwereequallysuitableagainstCommunisttotalitarianism,asthesamecentralargumentwastheseparationoflawandpolitics.ThenarrativeofEuropeanlegalheritageandthesharedcommonrootsthatEuropeanlegaltraditionshadinthelongdevelopmentofjurisprudenceformedwerealsomuchmorethanapoliticalmessage.TheEuropeannarrativedraftedbyKoschaker,WieackerandCoingwasanarrativeofscienceanditsdevelopment.AtitscorewastheheritageofRomanlawandRomanjurists,whoseideasandtheprofessionalidentitytheydevelopedwererepurposedbygenerationsofjuristsinEurope.Assuch,itwasanarrativethatdescribedthedevelopmentofprivatelawwherethemethodandtheindependenceoflawwerepraised.Throughtheideaofthereceptionofancientlaw,thenarrativebridgedthegapbetweenthetraditionaldisciplinaryboundariesseparatingtheRomanandthenativelegalheritages.

662Loeffler,RootedCosmopolitans.

226

Thetwostrandsofthenarrative,theexileandtheGerman,formtwopartsofthewhole.Thenarrativeformedbytheexileswasoneoflibertyandscientificintegrity,whilethenarrativeofthosewhoremainedwasaboutcultureandtradition,thelongrootsoftheconventionalinterpretationsinthethoughtsandpracticesofthecountries.TheexilenarrativeprovedtobeextraordinarilyinfluentialinBritain,wheretheémigréspromptedaveritablerenaissanceofRomanlaw.Asinareasofdemocracy,theruleoflawandinhumanrights,theexilenarrativeswerereincorporatedafterthewar,leadingtoanovelinterpretationofthetraditionoflegalhistory.Theirinterpretationswerealsointegratedbymanyofthosewhodidnotbecomeexiles,suchasWieackerorCoing,whosoughttoprovideanewbeginningforthehistoryoflaw.However,thesenarrativereformulationsmayhavebeenfornothinghadapoliticalimperativeforthisworkemergedthroughthedeepeningofEuropeanintegration.Whiletherehadbeenapoliticalprocessofintegration,it,oritssupporters,soughttostrengthenitslegitimacybyseekingtoprovideahistoricalfoundation,alineage.Throughthisseekingoflineages,thenarrativesofRomanlawwereintegratedwiththechangingconceptionsofEuropeanself-understanding,onethatwastransformedbytheinclusionofexilescholarshipofotherkindsaswell.IdeasfromLeoStrauss,FranzNeumann,HansKelsen,HannahArendtandothers,whohadrevolutionizedtheconceptionsoflawandpolitics,democracyandauthoritarianism,werealsoincorporatedintotheEuropeannarrative.Withthenascenttheoriesofhumanrightsandnaturallaw,thepoliticalandlegalthoughtofexilesbecameacentraltenetintheEuropeantradition.Thus,whenCoingbegantoformulatethetheoryofaEuropeanlegalheritage,hisinclusionofboththeRomanlawtraditionandthenaturallawtraditionprovedtobeprescient.Together,theyweretoformtheEuropeanheritageandthebackgroundforEuropeanintegration.Thoughtheinitialcoursechosenforintegrationwasthatoffunctionalismorneofunctionalism,integrationthrougheconomicconnectionsandrisingprosperity,therewasequallyaneedtofindprecedentsforintegration.OnepossibilityfortheseprecedentswasEuropeanhistoryanditssharedpast.Whilemuchofthathistorywasoneofantagonismsandwar,theculturalandlegalcontinuitieswereagoodtemplatefortheargumentofnaturalunification.Ofthese,thesharedlegalpastwasalsoimportantbecauseunlikethereceptionofclassicalliteratureingeneral,itcouldhavedirectsignificanceinthefunctioningoftheintegrationasalegalprocess.However,allofthiscouldbeseenasasecondaryissuetothelargerquestionofwhatdowemeanbyasharedheritage.OftheovertwoandahalfmillenniaofcontinuityfromancientGreeceandRometothepresentdaydowechoosetocallourpast,ourheritage?Theanswerdepends,quitenaturally,onthepresent:whatwerecognizefromthepastasourheritagedependsonhowweseeourselvesinthepresent.Thismeansthatweunconsciouslyorconsciouslyemphasizethethingswevaluemostandseektotracethemtothepastasifto

227

saythatthisiswhatwehavealwaysbeenandalwayswillbe.Thepastandourrelationshipwithitisapartofouridentity,andhenceissubjecttothevagariesofidentitypoliticsandtheaspirationalsideofidentity.TheconstructivisticideaoftherelationshipbetweenpastandpresentdoesnotinanywaymeanthatphenomenasuchastheclassicaltraditionortheRomanlawtraditionwerenotreal.InthecaseofRomanlaw,thereisatwoandhalfmillennia-longhistoricalcontinuityoflegalresearch,writingandapplicationoflawthatutilizesancientRomantexts,conceptsandrules.Thiscontinuityistoahighdegreeself-referentialandthereareinnumerablecontinuitiesbetweenhistoricalphenomenaassociatedwithitandcontemporaryEuropeanlegalsystems.However,whatisinterestingintheconstructivisticsenseisthewayinwhichvaluejudgementsareassociatedwiththesephenomena.ThefactthattheGreco-Romanpastiscommonlycalled“classical”initselfshowsthevaluationembeddedinthehistoricalperiodinquestion.However,theusagesofclassicsinidentitypoliticshasveryrecentiterationsthatpertaintothecentralissueofthisbook.Amongfarrightmovements,therehasbeenalong-standingpracticeoftheuseofclassicalimageryandtropestoemphasizeEuropeanhegemonyandthesupposedracialorderthattheywishtoreinforce.Theseincludeso-calledidentitarianmovementsthatpresentorderlywhiteEuropeancultureasacounterpointtothemassesintheEastandSouth.Forthatpurpose,imagesofSpartansatThermopylaearepresentedwithapproximatelythesamefrequencyasamonginterwarfarrightmovementsorgovernments.ImagesoftheRomanmilitaryorderarejuxtaposedwithbarbarianhordes,therectangularorderofRomanroads,fieldsandcitieswithindigenoussocieties,etc.Whatthisentailsisnotmerelyaninnocentcomparison,butapushforacertainsocialorderundertheguiseofancientprecedents.Unquestioningallegiancetothestate,militarism,conceptionsofoutsidersasbarbarianenemiesandoppositionastraitorsarepeddledasthetruewayofthepoliticalorder.Atthesametime,theyaremixedwithideasofracialandethnictropesthathadverylittleornofoundationintheclassicalpast.InEurope,theseideashavecometotheforeasaconsequenceofthe2015refugeecrisisanditsaftermath;inAmericaandelsewheretheyhavebenefitedfromthepoliticalturnsofthe2016elections.Thefarrightwas,ofcourse,nottheonlypoliticalgrouptohaveusedtheclassicalpastaslegitimation;itwasalsoheavilyusedinthedifferentcampaignsrelatingtoEuropeanintegration.InitsdrivetopresentnarrativesofEuropeandespeciallynarrativesthatwouldactasjustificationsforthepastandfutureunityofEurope,therehasbeenastrongrelianceonculturalheritageandtheunitingtraitsofEuropeanculture.Init,classicsandtoalesserextentmedievalhistoryhasactedasasharedlegacy,wherecontinuitiessuchasthereceptionofancientculturehavebeenemphasized.Art,literatureandscienceandtheirsharedrootshavebeenembracedbyinstitutionssuchasuniversitiesandmuseums.Inallofthis,therehavebeenstronglinksandcontinuitiesfromtheinterwarperiod.Intheusesandabusesofthepast,theaffinityofItalianFascismandancientRomehasoftenbeen

228

noted,butthisisnottheonlyexample.Therelianceonclassicalimageryandtropesemphasizingheroismandsacrificewassharedbyallrightwing,nationalistregimesinEurope.Whathasbeenforgottenisthattherewerealsopopularconservativeandliberalusesoftheclassicalpast.Aswehavenotedintheprecedingchapters,numerouscontestingutopianvisionsofthepastandthefuturewerepresented,wherethepastwasusedasasurrogatestageforbattlesaboutthefuture.TheNazimovementreliedontheideaoftheGermanbloodcommunityasthefoundationoftheiridealstate;fortheFascists,itwasthenotionofRomanità.ThisunderwentagradualandincompletechangeaftertheattackontheSovietUnionbeganin1941.TheneedforalliesandsoldierstofilltherankspromptedtheinventionoftheNeueEuropa,theEuropeanallianceledanddominatedbyGermany.Insomeoftheoccupiedcountries,suchasVichyFrance,thenotionofaEuropeanheritagewasmixedwithFrenchnationalism,wheretheideaofaEuropeancommunitymeantaChristiannationalismbasedonGreco-Romanculture,wheretheenemieswerebothcommunismandtheAnglo-Americanalliance.TheNazivisionsoftheclassicalpastwerecolouredbytheirracialtheories.OnonehandtheconqueringGreeksandRomanswerehailedastheformermasterraces,ontheothertheperceivedSemiticinfluencesandthecosmopolitanismoftheempirewereshunned.Thiswasalsothebasisofpoint19oftheNazipartyprogramme.SomeoftheideaspresentedinVichyFranceweremorecommonlysharedamongconservativecircles,whichledtothecuriousmixtureofideasthatunderliepost-warconservatisminEurope.ChristianconservativessawintheclassicalpasttheoriginoftheEuropeanculturalheritage,mixingtraditionalismwiththeemphasisonclassicalcultureandliterature.Thus,culturaltheoriesandtheideaofRomewereeasilycombinedwithnotionsofChristianheritage,RomesignifyingforCatholicsatleastbothancientRomeandtheCatholicChurch.ItwasalsothepositionoftheChurchthatledtotheirpost-wartransformationandtofavouringsupranationalismandinalienablerightsaswellastheprotectionofminorities,especiallyreligiousminorities.ThesenotionswereheavilypresentamongRomanlawscholarsinthemakingofthenarrativeofasharedpast;theworksofKoschakerandRiccobono,butalsoWieacker,showtheseelements.Ideassuchasanticommunism,aswellasantitotalitarianism,werealsopopularamongconservatives,withnotionssuchasdemocracyandpropertyrightsbeingtracedallthewaybacktotheclassicalpast.Whatisoftenforgottenisthattherewasalsotheliberaluseoftheclassicalpast,onethatfocusedonitscosmopolitanismandmulticulturalism.ThistraditionwasvisibleintheworksofSchulz,MomiglianoandPringsheim.Theyemphasizedthevaluesofreasonandliberty,theruleoflawandequalityforall.Whiletheideasofcivilizationandlearningwereoftenpresentedinoppositiontothetotalitarianconceptionsofknowledgeandthestate,thiswasoneoftheareaswhereconservativeandliberalvisionsoftheclassicalpastandthepreferredfuturecoincided.Onlyafterthewardidthenotionsoftoleranceandnon-ethnicideasofcommunityandcitizenshipbecomesharedthemesamongliberalsandconservatives,duetothetotalitarianexperience.

229

WhilethecontinuitiesfromtheNaziandFascistideastothepresentfarrightarethemostobvious,thepointisthattherearecontinuitiesfromalloftheminthepresentdiscourse.ItisjustthattheresurgenceofNaziideasisthemostshockingastheyhadbeenintheshadowsforsolong.Itis,ofcourse,completelypossiblethataftertheNaziandFascistideasbecameunpalatable,supportforthemwaschannelledintoconservativenotionsoftheconnectionbetweenthepastandthepresent.Thebasicpremiseofconstructivismisthatthetextandthusthepasthavenoinnatemeanings,butratherthattheyareallgivenorconstructedbyinterpreters.TheconnectionoftheclassicalpastandEuropeisthussomethingofanimaginedcommunity.Thismeansthatthereareundoubtedlylinesofcontinuitiesandreception,buttheunderlyingideaistopresentvaluejudgementsonhistoricaleventsandideas.Thefunctioningofthecommunitysimilemeansthatthroughdefinitions,onecanpresentjudgementsonwhattoincludeandwhattoexcludeaspartofthecommunity.Thecommunityisthusamatterofchoice,asisitsjustificationthroughhistory.Thelineagesthataretracedareapartoftheconstructionofthepast,areverseteleologyorprojection.Thepast,classics,RomanlawandEuropeannarrativesarethusallapartofanormativerealmofvaluestatementsandthesettingofhierarchies.Theyareusedinwhatcouldbedefinedasaprocessofhistoricalutilitarianism,inwhichtraditionandusageareseenassignsofcorrectnessandlegitimacy.Whatisincludedis,however,notasinformativeaswhatisnottalkedabout.Issuesofclass,genderandraceareembeddedinthesediscussions,butseldomopenlydebated.Whilewehavediscussedatlengthexclusionaryreferencestotheclassicalpast,itisimportanttonotethatthedebateonthesetermsrelatestoaverythinsliceofEurope,namelythecultureandpopulationthatiswhite,conservativeandnationalist.Itisapolicyofotheringthroughrace,cultureandlanguage.Shouldonewanttopresentadifferentkindofvision,onecoulddoworsethanareturntotheideaspresentedbySchulz:thenotionsofhumanity,equality,theruleoflaw,securityandasenseofinclusion.Justanidea.

230

BibliographyAA,DasJudentuminderRechtswissenschaft1,DiedeutscheRechtswissenschaftimKampfgegendenjüdischenGeist.3.und4.Oktober1936(Berlin:DeutscherRechts-Verlag,1935).TheodorW.Adorno,'ScientificExperiencesofaEuropeanScholarinAmerica',inBernardBailynandDonaldFleming(eds.),Theintellectualmigration:EuropeandAmerica,1930-1960(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,1969),pp.338-370.BenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1991).J.-MAndré,'Laconceptiondel’Étatetdel’Empiredanslapenséegréco-romainedesdeuxpremierssièclesdenotreère'(1982)2.30.1AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt3-73.BaharÖcalApaydinandMarcoFranchi,‘L’importanzaelametodologiadelcorsodidirittoromanonellaformazionedelgiuristadall’imperoottomanoadoggi’,inIsabellaPiro(ed.),ScrittiperAlessandroCorbino5(Tricase:Libellula,2016),pp.277-300.V.Arangio-Ruiz(ed.),Augustus:StudiinoccasionedelbimillenarioAugusteo(Rome:TipografiadellaR.AccademianazionaledeiLincei,1938).GianGualbertoArchi,'FritzSchulz'(1958)24StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris451-459.ValentinaArena,LibertasandthePracticeofPoliticsintheLateRomanRepublic(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012).HannahArendt,'WeRefugees'(1943)31MenorahJournal69-77.HannahArendt,'Exiles,Enemies,orEmigrants',inM.Anderson(ed.),Hitler'sExiles:PersonalStoriesoftheFlightfromNaziGermanytoAmerica(NewYork:TheNewPress,1998),pp.253-262.HannahArendt,TheOriginsofTotalitarianism(London:Penguin,2017[1sted.1951,reprintof1967]).HannahArendtandJeromeKohn,EssaysinUnderstanding,1930-1954:Formation,Exile,andTotalitarianism(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&Co.,1994).AdiArmon,'LeoStraussreadingKarlMarxduringtheColdWar',inEzraMendelsohn,StefaniHoffmanandRichardCohen(eds.),AgainsttheGrain:JewishIntellectualsinHardTimes(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.32-50.DonnaE.Arzt,'OttoKirchheimer:CriticoftheAdministrationofJustice',inMarcusLutter,ErnstC.StiefelandMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993),pp.33-56.MitchellG.AshandAlfonsSöllner(eds.),ForcedMigrationandScientificChange:ÉmigréGerman-SpeakingScientistsandScholarsafter1933(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996).MitchellG.AshandAlfonsSöllner,'Introduction',inMitchellG.AshandAlfonsSöllner(eds.),ForcedMigrationandScientificChange:ÉmigréGerman-SpeakingScientistsandScholarsafter1933(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),pp.1-20.LorenaAtzeri,'La'storiadeldirittoantico'eunaletteraineditadiPaulKoschaker'(2010)2IurisAntiquiHistoria191-222.

231

LorenaAtzeri,'FrancisdeZulueta(1878‒1958):AnOxfordRomanlawyerbetweentotalitarianisms',inKaiusTuoriandHetaBjörklund(eds.),RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope(London:Bloomsbury,2019),pp.53-71.MartinAvenarius,'Verwissenschaftlichungals“sinnhafter”KernderRezeption:eineKonsequenzausWieackersrechtshistorischerHermeneutik',inEvaSchumannandOkkoBehrends(eds.),FranzWieacker-HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechtsWallsteinVerlagGmbH,2010),pp.119-180.MartinAvenarius,'UniverselleHermeneutikundPraxisdesRechtshistorikerundJuristen.DieEntwicklungihresVerhaltnissesimLichtederDiskussionzwischenGadamerundWieacker',inJuristischeHermeneutikzwischenVergangenheitundZukunft(Baden-Baden:Nomos,2013),pp.59-103.MartinAvenarius,'BernhardWindscheid(1817-1892).DerSpatpandektistundseineWirkungaufdasRechtsdenkendeseuropaischenAuslands'(2017)25ZeitschriftfürEuropäischesPrivatrecht396-418.GopalBalakrishnan,TheEnemy:AnintellectualportraitofCarlSchmitt(London:Verso,2000).UgoBartocci,SalvatoreRiccobono,ilDirittoRomanoeilvalorepoliticodegliStudiaHumanitatis(Torino:G.GiappichelliEditore,2012).JackBeatsonandReinhardZimmermann,Juristsuprooted:German-speakingémigrélawyersintwentieth-centuryBritain(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004).TonyBecherandPaulTrowler,AcademicTribesandTerritories:IntellectualEnquiryandtheCulturesofDisciplines(Ballmoor:SocietyforResearchintoHigherEducation&OpenUniversityPress,2001).TommasoBeggio,'PaulKoschakerandthePathto“EuropaunddasrömischeRecht”(1936-1947)'(2017)6LegalRoots291-326.TommasoBeggio,'La‘Interpolationenforschung’agliocchidiPaulKoschaker:lacriticaaGradenwitzeallacosiddetta‘neuhumanistischeRichtung’elosguardorivoltoall’esempiodiSalvatoreRiccobono',inMartinAvenarius,ChristianBaldus,FrancescaLambertiandMarioVarvaro(eds.),Gradenwitz,RiccobonounddieEntwicklungderInterpolationenkritik(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018),pp.121-155.TommasoBeggio,'UncommentoallapropostadiriformadeglistudiromanisticidiPaulKoschakerinundocumentoineditodiUlrichvonLübtow'(2018)46Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw589-622.TommasoBeggio,PaulKoschaker(1879-1951).RediscoveringtheRomanFoundationsofEuropeanLegalTradition(Heidelberg:WinterVerlag,2018).TommasoBeggio,'PaulKoschakerunddieReformdesromanistischenRechtsstudiumsinDeutschland.EinunveröffentlichtesDokument'(2018)135ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung645-680.CharlesA.Behr(ed.),P.AeliusAristides:TheCompleteWorks,vols.1-2(Leiden:Brill,1981-1986).CharlesA.Behr,'StudiesontheBiographyofAeliusAristides'(1994)2.34.2AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt1140-1233.OkkoBehrends,'FranzWieacker5.8.1908–17.2.1994'(1995)112ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung13-62.

232

OkkoBehrends,'FranzWieacker.HistorikerundJuristdesPrivatrechts(5.8.1908-17.2.1994)',inAl'Europedutroisiememillenaire.StudiinonorediGiuseppeGandolfi(Milano:Dott.A.GiuffrèEditore,2009),pp.2341-2351.Karl-HeinzBelow,'PaulKoschaker'(1954)104ZeitschriftderDeutschenMorgenländischenGesellschaft1-44.Karl-HeinzBelowandAdamFalkenstein,'PaulKoschaker'(1951)68ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilungix-xix.SeylaBenhabib,Exile,Statelessness,andMigration:PlayingChessWithHistoryFromHannahArendttoIsaiahBerlin(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2018).CarolynBensonandJulianFink,'NewPerspectivesonNaziLaw'(2012)3Jurisprudence341-346.IsaiahBerlin,TwoConceptsofLiberty:AnInauguralLectureDeliveredBeforetheUniversityofOxford,On31October1958(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1958).HaroldJ.Berman,LawandRevolution:TheFormationoftheWesternLegalTradition(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1983).ArnieBernstein,SwastikaNation:FritzKuhnandtheRiseandFalloftheGerman-AmericanBund(NewYork:St.Martin'sPress,2013).RichardB.Bernstein,TheFoundingFathersReconsidered(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009).DanielBessner,DemocracyinExile:HansSpeierandtheRiseoftheDefenseIntellectual(IthacaandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,2018).EmilioBetti,Notazioniautobiografiche(acuradiEloisaMura)(Padova:CEDAM,[1953]2014).EmilioBetti,'Dirittoromanoedogmaticaodierna'(1928)99&100ArchivioGiuridico99:129-150,100:26-66.EmilioBetti,'MethodeundWertdesheutigenStudiumsdesrömischenRechts'(1937)15TijdschriftvoorRechtsgeschiedenis/LegalHistoryReview137-174.EmilioBetti,'LacrisiodiernadellascienzaromanisticainGermania'(1939)37RivistadiDirittocommerciale120-128.EmilioBetti,Istituzionididirittoromano,vol1(Padova:CEDAM,1942).EmilioBetti,DasProblemderKontinuitätimLichtederrechtshistorischenAuslegung(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1957).EmilioBetti,DieHermeneutikalsallgemeineMethodikderGeisteswissenschaften(Tübingen:J.C.B.Mohr(PaulSiebeck),1962).EmilioBetti,LacrisidellarepubblicaelagenesidelprincipatoinRoma(Roma:LateranUniversityPress/PontificiaUniversitasLateranensis,1982).EmilioBetti(ed.),Teoriageneraledelnegoziogiuridico(Napoli:Edizioniscientificheitaliane,2002).FranzBeyerle,'DerandereZugangzumNaturrecht'(1939)4DeutscheRechtswissenschaft1-20.BiondoBiondi,'RomanitàeFascismo'(1929[repr.2001])7AnnuariodellaR.UniversitàdegliStudidiCatania756-770.

233

BiondoBiondi,'LalegislazionediAugusto',inR.ParibeniandM.Canavesi(eds.),ConferenzeAugustee,nelbimillenariodellanascita(Milano:VitaePensiero,1938),pp.141-262.AnthonyR.Birley,Hadrian:TheRestlessEmperor(London:Routledge,1997).JochenBleicken,SenatsgerichtundKaisergericht.EineStudiezurEntwicklungdesProzeßrechtesimfrühenPrinzipat(Göttingen:Vanderhoeck&Ruprecht,1962[1961]).JochenBleicken,Lexpublica:GesetzundRechtinderrömischenRepublik(Berlin,NewYork:deGruyter,1975).RosemarieBodenheimer,EdgarandBrigitte:AGermanJewishPassagetoAmerica(Tuscaloosa,AL:TheUniversityofAlabamaPress,2016).MaxBoehm,'DieKrisedesNationalitätenrechts',inFestschriftfürRudolfHübner(Jena:Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJena,1935),pp.172-189.JochenBöhlerandRobertGerwarth,TheWaffen-SS:AEuropeanHistory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016).PietroBonfante,'VersolaConfederazioneEuropea'(1915)18Scientia326-342.NowalsoinPietroBonfante(ed.),Scrittigiuridicivari,StudigeneraliIV(Roma:Sanpaolesi,1925).GlenW.Bowersock,GreekSophistsintheRomanEmpire(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1969).GlenW.BowersockandT.J.Cornell(eds.),A.D.Momigliano:StudiesonModernScholarship(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994).JohnBreuilly,'HistoriansandtheNation',inPeterBurke(ed.),HistoryandHistoriansintheTwentiethCentury(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002),pp.55-87.LeonieBreunungandManfredWalther,BiographischesHandbuchderEmigrationdeutschsprachigerRechtswissenschaftlerab1933.Band1(Göttingen:DeGruyter,2012).LeonieBreunungandManfredWalther,BiographischesHandbuchderEmigrationdeutschsprachigerRechtswissenschaftlerab1933.Band2(Göttingen:DeGruyter,forthcoming).MartinBroszat,DieMachtergreifung.DerAufstiegderNSDAPunddieZerstörungderWeimarerRepublik(Munich:DeutscherTaschenbuch-Verlag,1984).PeterAstburyBrunt,'Lausimperii',inP.D.A.GarnseyandC.R.Whittaker(eds.),ImperialismintheAncientWorld(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978),pp.159-191.PeterAstburyBrunt,'LibertasintheRepublic',inPeterAstburyBrunt(ed.),TheFalloftheRomanRepublicandRelatedEssays(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1988),pp.281-350.MassimoBrutti,'EmilioBettiel'incontroconilfascismo',inItaloBirocchiandLucaLoschiavo(eds.),Giuristieilfascinodelregime(Rome:RomaTre-Press,2015),pp.63-102.WilliamWarwickBuckland,'ReviewofFritzSchulz’sPrinciplesofRomanLaw(1936)/PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts(1934)'(1938)2TheUniversityofTorontoLawJournal392-393.ElmarBund,'FritzPringsheim(1882-1967).EinGroβerderRomanistik',inHelmutHeinrichs,Hans-HaraldFranzki,KlausSchmalzandMichaelStolleis(eds.),DeutscheJuristenJüdischerHerkunft(Munich:Beck,1993),pp.733-744.

234

PierangeloBuongiorno,‘«Ricordidiannilontaniedifficili».RomanistiaLeidennellalungaestatedel1939’(2016)44Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw479-490.PierangeloBuongiorno,'DieEthikeinesJuristen.EdoardoVolterrazwischenderPalingenesiaCodicis,densenatusconsultaunddemitalienischenFaschismus(1929-1943)'(2017)105Philippika43-56.JacobBurckhardt,GriechischeKulturgeschichte(Berlin:Spemann,1898).WilliamL.Burdick,ThePrinciplesofRomanLawAndTheirRelationToModernLaw(Rochester:TheLawyersCo-operativePublishingCo.,1938).PeterBurke,TheFabricationofLouisXIV(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1992).PeterBurke,ExilesandExpatriatesintheHistoryofKnowledge,1500–2000(Lebanon,NH:BrandeisUniversityPress,2017).FrancescoCalasso,'Introduzione',inL’EuropaeilDirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker(Firenze:Sansoni,1962).FrancescoCalasso,L’unitàgiuridicadell’Europa(SoveriaMannelli:RubbettinoEditore,1985).ChristianCalliess,'EuropeasTransnationalLaw'(2009)10GermanLawJournal1367-1382.A.H.Campbell,'ReviewofFritzSchulz’sPrinciplesofRomanLaw'(6.2.1937)TimesLiterarySupplement.RenatoCamurri,'TheExileExperienceReconsidered:aComparativePerspectiveinEuropeanCulturalMigrationduringtheInterwarPeriod'(2014)1Transatlanticahttp://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/6920.MargaretCanovan,HannahArendt:AReinterpretationofHerPoliticalThought(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992).LuigiCapogrossiColognesi,Leradicidellamodernità,MaxWeber1891-1909(Roma:LaSapienzaEditrice:,1997,2nded).JeanCarbonnier,'Usushodiernuspandectarum',inRonaldH.Graveson,KarlKreuzer,AndréTuncandKonradZweigert(eds.),FestschriftfürImreZajtay.Mélangesenl'honneurd'ImreZajtay(Tübingen:J.C.B.Mohr(PaulSiebeck),1982),pp.107-116.CalumCarmichael,IdeasandtheMan:RememberingDavidDaube(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermannVerlag,2004).DavidCarr,'NarrativeandtheRealWorld:AnArgumentforContinuity',inBrianFay,PhilipPomperandRichardT.Vann(eds.),HistoryandTheory:ContemporaryReadings(Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,1998),pp.137-152.OdoardoCarrelli,'Apropositodicrisideldirittoromano'(1943)9StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris1-20.C.Carsana,Lateoriadellacostituzionemistanell’etàimperialeromana(Como:EdizioniNewPress,1990).FrancoCasavola,'Dirittoromanoedirittoeuropeo'(1994)40Labeo161-169.CosimoCascione,'Romanistiefascismo',inMassimoMigliettaandGianniSantucci(eds.),Dirittoromanoeregimitotalitarinel’900Europeo(Trento:UniversitàdeglistudidiTrento,2009),pp.49-51.

235

JohannChapoutot,DerNationalsozialismusunddieAntike(Darmstadt:PhilippvonZabern,2014).JohannChapoutot,'TheDenaturalizationofNordicLaw:GermanicLawandtheReceptionofRomanLaw',inKaiusTuoriandHetaBjörklund(eds.),RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope(London:Bloomsbury,2019),pp.113-126.JamesChappel,'TheCatholicOriginsofTotalitarianismTheoryininterwarEurope’'(2011)8ModernIntellectualHistory561-590.JamesChappel,CatholicModern;TheChallengeofTotalitarianismandtheRemakingoftheChurch(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2018).JonathanC.D.Clark,'Nationalidentity,stateformationandpatriotism:theroleonhistoryinthepublicmind'(1990)29HistoryWorkshopJournal95-102.HelmutCoing,DieoberstenGrundsätzedesRechts:einVersuchzurNeugründungdesNaturrechts(Heidelberg:SchriftenderSüddeutschenJuristen-Zeitung,1947).HelmutCoing,'ZurFragederstrafrechtlichenHaftungderRichterfürdieAnwendungnaturrechtswidrigerGesetze'(1947)2SüddeutscheJuristenzeitung61-64.HelmutCoing,'ZumEinflussderPhilosophiedesAristotelesaufdieEntwicklungdesrömischesRechts'(1952)69ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung24-59.HelmutCoing,'ZurGeschichtedesBegriffs„subjektivesRecht“',inHelmutCoing,FrederickH.LawsonandKurtGronfors(eds.),DassubjektiveRechtundderRechts-schutzderPersönlichkeit(Frankfurt:AlfredMetzner,1959),pp.7-23.HelmutCoing,DieRezeptiondesrömischenRechtsinFrankfurtamMain.EinBetragzurRezeptionsgeschichte(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,1962[1939]).HelmutCoing,'RömischesRechtinDeutschland'(1964)5.6lusRomanumMediiAevi26-28.HelmutCoing,'DerJuristunddasunsittlicheGesetz',inGesammelteAufsätze,Band2.NaturrechtalswissenschaftlichesProblem(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1965),pp.50-66.HelmutCoing,NaturrechtalswissenschaftlichesProblem(Wiesbaden:F.Steiner,1966[1965]).HelmutCoing,'DieeuropäischePrivatrechtsgeschichtederneuerenZeitalseinheitlichesForschungsgebiet.ProblemeundAufbau'(1967)1IusCommune1-33.HelmutCoing,'Einleitung',inHelmutCoing(ed.),HandbuchderQuellenundLiteraturderneuereneuropäischenPrivatrechtsgeschichte.Vol.1:Mittelalter(1100-1500):DiegelehrterRechteunddieGesetzgebung(Munich:BeckVerlag,1973),pp.3-38.HelmutCoing,AufgabendesRechtshistorikers(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1976).HelmutCoing,'DieursprünglicheEinheitdereuropäischenRechtswissenschaft',inGesammelteAufsätzezuRechtsgeschichte,RechtsphilosophieundZivilrecht:Band2(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,1982),pp.137-156.HelmutCoing,'CommonLawandCivilLawintheDevelopmentofEuropeanCivilization.PossibilitiesofComparisons',inHelmutCoingandKnutWolfgangNörr(eds.),EnglischeundkontinentaleRechtsgeschichte:einForschungsprojekt(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1985),pp.31-41.HelmutCoing,GrundzügederRechtsphilosophie(Berlin:deGruyter,1993[1950]).

236

HelmutCoing,FürWissenschaftenundKünste.LebensberichteineseuropäischenRechtsgelehrten,hrsg.,kommentiertundmiteinemNachwortvonMichaelF.Feldkamp(Berlin:DunckerandHumblot,2014).BenjaminConstantandBiancamariaFontana,PoliticalWritings(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988).SimonCorcoran,TheEmpireoftheTetrarchs:ImperialPronouncementsandGovernmentAD284-324(Oxford:ClarendonPress,2000).StéphanieCorcy-Debray,JérômeCarcopino,unhistorienàVichy(Paris:ÉditionsL’Harmattan,2001).WilliamRodolphCornishandGeoffreydeN.Clark,LawandsocietyinEngland:1750-1950(London:Sweet&Maxwell,1989).PietroCosta,'EmilioBetti:dogmatica,politica,storiografia'(1978)7QuaderniFiorentini311-393.SallyCrawford,KatharinaUlmschneiderandJasElsner(eds.),ArkofCivilization:RefugeeScholarsandOxfordUniversity,1930-1945(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017).GiulianoCrifò,Materialidistoriografiaromanistica(Torino:G.GiappichelliEditore,1998).GiulianoCrifò,'Pandettistiestoricistineldirittoromanooggi'(1999)1Dirittoromanoattuale11-28.GiulianoCrifò,'EmilioBetti(1890-1968)',inRafaelDomingo(ed.),Juristasuniversales,IV(MadridandBarcelona:MarcialPons,2004),pp.217.DavidCumin,CarlSchmitt(Paris:Cerf,2005).ErnstRobertCurtius,EuropäischeLiteraturundlateinischesMittelalter(Bern:A.Francke,1948).Alvarod’Ors,'JusEuropaeum',inL’EuropaeilDirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.449-476.DavidDaube,AppeasementorResistanceandOtherEssaysonNewTestamentJudaism(Berkeley,LosAngeles,London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1987).ChristopherM.Dawson,TheMakingofEurope(London:SheedandWard,1932).PietroDeFrancisci,'LacostituzioneAugusteo',inStudiinonorediPietroBonfante(Milano:FratelliTreves,1930),pp.13-43.PietroDeFrancisci,GenesiestrutturadelprincipatoAugusteo(Roma:RealeAccademiaD'Italia,1941).PietroDeFrancisci,'PaulKoschaker(1879-1951)'(1951)17StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris384-388.FrancescoDeMartino,LostatodiAugusto(Napoli:Tip.G.Barca,1936).FilipeRibeiroDeMeneses,Salazar:APoliticalBiography(NewYork:EnigmaBooks,2009).SanderA.Diamond,TheNaziMovementintheUnitedStates,1924-1941(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1974).BernhardDiestelkamp,'DieRechtshistorikerderRechtswissenschaftlichenFakultätderJohannWolfgangGoethe-UniversitätFrankfurtamMain1933-1945',inMichaelStolleisand

237

DieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus.BeiträgezurGeschichteeinerDisziplin(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1989),pp.79-106.HorstDreier,'HansKelsen(1881-1973).„JuristdesJahrhunderts“?',inHelmutHeinrichs,Hans-HaraldFranzki,KlausSchmalzandMichaelStolleis(eds.),DeutscheJuristenJüdischerHerkunft(Munich:Beck,1993),pp.705-732.P.W.Duff,'ReviewofFritzSchulz’sPrinciplesofRomanLaw(1936)'(1937) 51(6)TheClassicalReview238-239.MarcoDuranti,TheConservativeHumanRightsRevolution.EuropeanIdentity,TransnationalPolitics,andtheOriginsoftheEuropeanConvention(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017).W.ColeDurham(Jr.),'EdgarBodenheimer:ConservatorofCivilizedLegalCulture',inMarcusLutter,ErnstC.StiefelandMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993),pp.127-143.ThomasDuve,'VonderEuropäischenRechtsgeschichtezueinerRechtsgeschichteEuropasinglobalhistorischerPerspektive(FromaEuropeanLegalHistoryTowardsaLegalHistoryofEuropeinaGlobalHistoricalPerspective)'(2012)20RechtsgeschichteLegalHistory.ZeitschriftdesMaxPlanck-InstitutsfürEuropaischeRechtsgeschichte18-71.ThomasDuve,'EuropeanLegalHistory-GlobalPerspectives'(2013)No.2013-06MaxPlanckInstituteforEuropeanLegalHistoryResearchPaperSeries.JörnEckert,'WaswardieKielerSchule',inFranzSäcker(ed.),RechtundRechtslehreimNationalsozialismus(Baden-Baden:Nomos,1992),pp.37-70.JohnE.Ecklund,TheOriginsofWesternLawfromAthenstotheCodeNapoleon.2Vols(Clark,NJ:TheLawbookExchange,Ltd.,2014).GabrielleSimonEdgcomb,FromSwastikatoJimCrow:RefugeeScholarsatBlackColleges(Malabar,FL:KriegerPublishingCompany,1993).HorstEidenmüller,FlorianFaust,HansChristophGrigoleit,NilsJansen,GerhardWagnerandReinhardZimmermann,'TheCommonFrameofReferenceforEuropeanPrivateLaw–PolicyChoicesandCodificationProblems'(2008)28(4)OxfordJournalofLegalStudies659-708.JasElsner,'Paideia:AncientConceptandModernReception'(2013)20InternationalJournaloftheClassicalReception136-152.CatherineEpstein,APastRenewed:ACatalogofGerman-SpeakingRefugeeHistoriansintheUnitedStatesAfter1933(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002[1993]).VilleErkkilä,'Themetaphysicsandlegalhistory.AninterviewwithMichaelStolleis'(2016)EuropeanLegalRootsOnline3-17.VilleErkkilä,TheConceptualChangeofConscience:FranzWieackerandGermanLegalHistoriography(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2019),originallyVilleErkkilä,'TheConceptualChangeofConscience:FranzWieackerandGermanLegalHistoriography1933–1968',PhD,UniversityofHelsinki(2017).WolfgangErnst,'FritzSchulz(1879-1957)',inJackBeatsonandReinhardZimmermann(eds.),JuristsUprooted(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),pp.105-203.RichardJ.Evans,TheComingoftheThirdReich(London:AllenLane,2003).

238

LuciaFanizza,'IPrincipidiFritzSchulz'(1996)72StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris543-549.LuciaFanizza,Autoritàediritto.L'esempiodiAugusto(Roma:L'ErmadiBretschneider,2004).LauraFermi,IllustriousImmigrants:TheIntellectualMigrationFromEurope1930-1941(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1968).EmiliaMataixFerrandiz,'Bettivs.Gadamer.Eldebateacercademétodoyverdadenlahermenéuticajurídica',inLorenzoGagliardi(ed.),Antologiagiuridicaromanisticaedantiquaria,II(Milano:CollanadiDirittoromanodelDipartimentodiDirittoprivatoeStoriadelDiritto,UniversitàdegliStudidiMilano,2018),pp.575-610.MarcFerro,Theuseandabuseofhistoryorhowthepastistaught(London:Routledge,1984).LucaFezzi,IlrimpiantodiRoma.Respublica,libertà“neoromane”eBenjaminConstant,agliinizidelterzomillenio(Milano:MondadoriEducation,2012).CaroleFink,MarcBloch:ALifeinHistory(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989).ThomasFinkenauerandAndreasHerrmann,'DieRomanistischeAbteilungderSavigny-ZeitschriftimNationalsozialismus'(2017)134ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung1-48.PeterFitzpatrick,Themythologyofmodernlaw(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1992).Jaap-JanFlinterman,'SophistsandEmperors:AReconnaissanceofSophisticAttitudes',inB.E.Borg(ed.),Paideia.TheWorldoftheSecondSophistic(BerlinandNewYork:DeGruyter,2004),pp.359-376.WernerFlume,FritzSchulz.Gedenkrede,gehaltenbeieinervonderRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlichenFakultätderUniversitätBonnam25.7.1958veranstaltetenGedächtnisfeier(Bonn:Hanstein,1959).MarcFoerster,'WolfgangKunkel',inMathiasSchmoeckel(ed.),DieJuristenderUniversitätBonnin“DrittenReich”(Köln:Böhlau,2004),pp.456-519.LenaFoljanty,RechtoderGesetz:JuristischeIdentitätundAutoritätinDenNaturrechtsdebattenderNachkriegszeit(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2013).SeanA.Forner,GermanIntellectualsandtheChallengeofDemocraticRenewalCultureandPoliticsafter1945(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014).ErnstForsthoff,DerTotaleStaat(Hamburg:HanseatischeVerlagsanstalt,1933).ErnstFraenkel,TheDualState:AContributiontotheTheoryofDictatorship(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1940).HansFrank,'ZurReformdesRechtsstudiums'(1933)3DeutschesRecht23-24.HansFrank,'DieZeitdesRechts'(1936)6DeutschesRecht1-3.RalfFrassek,'SteterTropfenhöhltdenStein–JuristenausbildungimNationalsozialismusunddanach'(2000)117ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:GermanistischeAbteilung294-361.RalfFrassek,'Eckhardt,KarlAugust',inAlbrechtCordes,HeinerLück,DieterWerkmüllerandChristaBertelsmeier-Kierst(eds.),HandwörterbuchzurdeutschenRechtsgeschichte,vol2,BandI(Berlin:ErichSchmidtVerlag,2008),pp.1179-1180.

239

RalfFrassek,'Wegezurnationalsozialistischen„Rechtserneuerung“–Wissenschaftzwischen„Gleichschaltung“undKonkurrenzkampf',inHans-GeorgHermann,ThomasGutmann,JoachimRückert,MathiasSchmoeckelandHaraldSiems(eds.),Vonden‚legesbarbarorum‘biszum‚iusbarbarum‘desNationalsozialismus(Köln:BöhlauVerlag,2008),pp.351-377.NorbertFrei,Adenauer'sGermanyandtheNaziPast.ThePoliticsofAmnestyandIntegration(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002).RichardGamauf,'DieKritikamromischenRechtim19.und20.Jahrhundert'(1995)2OrbisIurisRomani33-61.LuigiGarofalo,'CarlSchmittela“WissenschaftdesrömischenRecths”.Saggiosuuncantoredellascienzagiuridicaeuropea'(2007)11AnuariodaFacultadedeDereitodaUniversidadedaCoruña299-323.LuigiGarofalo,'L’humanitastradirittoromanoetotalitarismohitleriano'(2015)7Teoriaestoriadidirittoprivato687-713.JeanGaudemet,'HistoireetsystèmedanslaméthodedeSavigny',inHommageà/HuldeAanRenéDekkers(Bruxelles:Bruylant,1982),pp.117-133.JudyE.Gaughan,MurderWasNotaCrime:HomicideandPowerintheRomanRepublic(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,2010).MatthiasGelzer,'PrinzipiendesRömischenRechts'(1935)11Gnomon1-6.SharifGemie,LaureHumbertandFionaReid,OutcastEurope.RefugeesandReliefWorkersinanEraofTotalWar1936-48(London:Bloomsbury,2012).ErichGenzmer,'WasheißtundzuwelchemEndestudiertmanantikeRechtsgeschichte?'(1936)3ZeitschriftderAkademiefürDeutschesRecht403-408.ErichGenzmer,'Rez.PaulKoschaker,EuropaunddasrömischeRecht'(1950)67ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung595-611.ValentinGeorgescu,ExistaocrisäastudilordeDreptRoman?(Czernowitz:InstitutuldeartegraficesiedituraGlasulBucovinei,1937).TomaszGiaro,AktualisierungEuropas:GesprächemitPaulKoschaker(Genova:Name,2000).TomaszGiaro,'PaulKoschakersottoilNazismo:unfiancheggiatore‘malgrésoi’',inIurisVincula.StudiinonorediM.Talamanca,IV(Napoli:Jovene,2001),pp.159-187.TomaszGiaro,'DerTroubadourdesAbendlandes',inHorstSchröderandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichtswissenschaftinDeutschland1945bis1952(Frankfurt:Klostermann,2001),pp.31-76.EdwardGibbon,TheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,vol.1(NewYork:InternationalBookCompany,1845).EdwardGibbon,TheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,vol.3(NewYork:InternationalBookCompany,1845).JacobGiltaij,MensenrechteninhetRomeinseRecht(Nijmegen:WolfLegalPublishers,2011).JacobGiltaij,'FritzSchulz,RefugeeScholarship,andtheRiccobonoSeminar'(2016)12RomanLegalTradition1-19.JacobGiltaij,ReinventingthePrinciplesofRomanLaw(April24,2019)(SSRN,2019),https://ssrn.com/abstract=3377309orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3377309.

240

JacobGiltaijandVilleErkkilä,'AninterviewwithTonyHonoré'(2015)26/02/2015ForumHistoriaeIuris.JacobGiltaijandKaiusTuori,'HumanrightsinAntiquity?RevisitinganachronismandRomanlaw',inPamelaSlotteandMiiaHalme-Tuomisaari(eds.),RevisitingtheOriginsofHumanRights(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),pp.39-63.HorstGöppinger,JuristenjüdischerAbstammungim"DrittenReich":EntrechtungundVerfolgung(Munich:Beck,1990).JamesGordley,Thejurists:acriticalhistory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013).HermannGöring,DieRechtssicherheitalsGrundlagederVolksgemeinschaft(Hamburg:HanseatischeVerlagsanstalt,1935).VictorGourevitchandMichaelS.Roth,'Introduction',inLeoStrauss(ed.),OnTyranny(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,repr.2000[orig.1948]),pp.i-xxii.KyleGraham,'TheRefugeeJuristandAmericanLawSchools,1933-1941'(2002)50AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw777-818.UdiGreenberg,TheWeimarCentury:GermanÉmigrésandtheIdeologicalFoundationsoftheColdWar(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2015).FerdinandGregorovius,GeschichtedesrömischenKaisersHadrianundseinerZeit(Königsberg:Bon,1851).PierreGrimal,PaulOurliacandClaudeCarcopino,JérômeCarcopino:unhistorienauservicedel’Humanisme(Paris:LesBellesLettres,1981).BernhardGroßfeldandPeterWinship,'DerRechtsgelehrteinderFremde',inMarcusLutter,ErnstC.StiefelandMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993),pp.183-200.PaoloGrossi,'HistoricalModelsandPresentPlansintheformationofafutureEuropeanLaw',inAntonioGambaroandAlfredoMordechaiRabello(eds.),TowardsaNewEuropeanIusCommune(Jerusalem:TheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem,1999).GiuseppeGrosso,'Rec.diKoschaker,DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaft,München/Berlin1938'(1939)5StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris505-520,nowalsoinGiuseppeGrosso,Scrittistoricogiuridici,IV(Torino:Giappichelli,2001),pp.101-116.EwaldGrothe,ZwischenGeschichteundRecht:DeutscheVerfassungsgeschichtsschreibung1900-1970(Oldenbourg:Wissenschaftsverlag,2005).LotharGruchmann,JustizimDrittenReich1933-1940:AnpassungundUnterwerfunginderÄraGürtner(Munich:DeGruyter,2001).AntonioGuarino,'Cinquant’annidalla«Krise»'(1988)34Labeo43-56.AntonioGuarino,'Cinquant’annidalla«Krise»',inAntonioGuarino(ed.),PaginediDirittoromano,I(Napoli:Jovene,1993),pp.276-291.FriederGünther,'TheNeglectofHansKelseninWestGermanPublicLawScholarship,1945–1980',inD.A.JeremyTelman(ed.),HansKelseninAmerica-SelectiveAffinitiesandtheMysteriesofAcademicInfluence(Dordrecht:Springer,2016),pp.217-228.

241

DinaGusejnova,EuropeanElitesandIdeasofEmpire,1917–1957(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016).Hans-PeterHaferkamp,GeorgFriedrichPuchtaunddie'Begriffsjurisprudenz'(Frankfurt:Klostermann,2004).Hans-PeterHaferkamp,'“Byzantium!”–bonafidesbetweenRomeand20thcenturyGermany',inKaiusTuoriandHetaBjörklund(eds.),RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope(London:Bloomsbury,2019),pp.145-157.FrankHaldemann,'GustavRadbuchvs.HansKelsen:ADebateonNaziLaw'(2005)18(2)RatioJuris162-178.LornaHardwick,Receptionstudies(Oxford:PublishedfortheClassicalAssociationbyOxfordUniversityPress,2003).WilliamV.HarrisandBrookeHolmes(eds.),AeliusAristidesbetweenGreece,Rome,andthegods(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2008).EdwardY.Hartshorne,Germanuniversitiesandnationalsocialism(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1937).HansHattenhauer,'DasNS-Volksgesetzbuch',inArnoBuschmann,GerhardOtte,WernerSchubertandFranz-LudwigKnemeyer(eds.),FestschriftfürRudolfGmür(Bielefeld:GiesekingVerlag,1983),pp.255-279.HansHattenhauer,EuropäischeRechtsgeschichte(Heidelberg:MüllerJuristischerVerlag,1992).Frank-RutgerHausmann,"DeutscheGeisteswissenschaft"imZweitenWeltkrieg:Die"AktionRitterbusch"(1940-1945)(Heidelberg:Synchron,2007).JustusWilhelmHedemann,DieFluchtindieGeneralklauseln:eineGefahrfürRechtundStaat(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1933).JustusWilhelmHedemann,'PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit.EinVersuch',inFestschriftfürRudolfHübner(Jena:Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJena,1935),pp.5-18.JustusWilhelmHedemann,DasVolksgesetzbuchderDeutschen.EinBericht(Munich:Beck,1941).GeorgWilhelmFriedrichHegel,LecturesonthePhilosophyofWorldHistory(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975).AnthonyHeilbut,Exiledinparadise:GermanrefugeeartistsandintellectualsinAmerica,fromthe1930stothepresent(NewYork:VikingPress,1983).BernardW.Henderson,TheLifeandPrincipateoftheEmperorHadrian(London:Methuen,1923).UlrichHerbert,'“GenerationderSachlichkeit”.DievolkischeStudentenbewegungderfruhenzwanzigerJahreinDeutschland',inFrankBajohr,WernerJoheandUweLohalm(eds.),ZivilisationundBarbarei,DiewidersprüchlichenPotentialederModerne(Hamburg:HansChristiansVerlag,1991),pp.115-143.MarkHewitsonandMatthewD'Auria(eds.),EuropeinCrisis:IntellectualsandtheEuropeanIdea,1917-1957(Oxford:BerghahnBooks,2012).HeinzHildebrandt,Rechtsfindungimneuendeutschenstaate:einBeitragzurRezeptionunddenRechtsquellen,zurAuslegungundErgaenzungdesGesetzes(Berlin:W.deGruyter,1935).

242

ThomasHobbes,Leviathan(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012).EvelynHöbenreich,'Àpropos„AntikeRechtsgeschichte“:EinigeBemerkungenzurPolemikzwischenLudwigMitteisundLeopoldWenger'(2013)109ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung547-562.LouiseHodgson,ResPublicaandtheRomanrepublic:'withoutbodyorform'(Oxford,UnitedKingdom:OxfordUniversityPress,2017).MichaelH.Hoeflich,'Legacy',inMarcusLutter,ErnstC.StiefelandMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993),pp.15-17.EwoudHondius,'TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode',inArthurS.Hartkamp,MartijnW.Hesselink,EwoudHondius,C.MakandEdgarDuPerron(eds.),TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2011),pp.3-26.TonyHonoré,EmperorsandLawyers:WithaPalingenesiaofThird-centuryImperialRescripts193-305AD(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1994).TonyHonoré,Ulpian:PioneerofHumanRights(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2002).TonyHonoré,'FritzPringsheim(1882-1967)',inJackBeatsonandReinhardZimmermann(eds.),JuristsUprooted(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),pp.205-232.IngoJ.Hueck,''Spheresofinfluence'and'Völkisch'LegalThought:ReinhardHöhn'sNotionofEurope',inChristianJoergesandNavrajSinghGhaleigh(eds.),DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope(OxfordandPortland,OR:HartPublishing,2003),pp.71-86.LynnHunt,Inventinghumanrights:ahistory(NewYork:W.W.Norton,2007).ThomasHyllandEriksen,EthnicityandNationalism(London:PlutoPress,1993).ArthurJ.JacobsonandBernhardSchlink,Weimar:AJurisprudenceofCrisis(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2000).WernerJaeger,'ClassicalPhilologyandHumanism'(1936)67TransactionsandProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation363-374.KonradH.Jarausch,AfterHitler:RecivilizingGermans,1945–1995(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2006).MartinJay,PermanentExiles:EssaysOntheIntellectualMigrationFromGermanytoAmerica(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985).WalterJellinek,'Ledroitpublicenl’Allemagneen1933'(1934)AnnuairedeL’InstitutInternationaldeDroitPublic52-53.HansJoasandKlausWiegandt,TheCulturalValuesofEurope(Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress,2008).ChristianJoergesandNavragSinghGhaleigh(eds.),DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope:TheShadowofNationalSocialismandFascismOverEuropeandItsLegalTraditions(Oxford:HartPublishing,2003).DavidJohnston,'TheRenewaloftheOld'(1997)56(1)CambridgeLawJournal80-95.DavidJohnston,'RomanLaw,ComparativeLawandLegalHistory'(1999)3ZeitschriftfürEuropäischesPrivatrecht560-569.

243

HerbertF.Jolowicz,RomanFoundationsofModernLaw(Oxford:ClarendonPressandOxfordUniversityPress,1957).HartmutKaelble,EuropäerüberEuropa:DieEntstehungdeseuropäischenSelbstverständnissesim19.und20.Jahrhundert(FrankfurtandNewYork:CampusVerlag,2001).WolframKaiser,ChristiandemocracyandtheoriginsofEuropeanUnion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007).LauraKalman,LegalRealismatYale1927-1960(ChapelHillandLondon:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1986).JohannesKalwoda,'ErnstSchönbauer(1885–1966).BiographiezwischenNationalsozialismusundWienerFakultätstradition'(2012)2BeiträgezurRechtsgeschichteÖsterreichs282-316.HermannKantorowicz,WasistunsSavigny?(Berlin:C.HeymannsVerlag,1912).HermannKantorowicz,'SomeRationalismaboutRealism'(1934)43YaleLawJournal1240-1253.HermannKantorowicz,'SavignyandtheHistoricalSchoolofLaw'(1937)209LawQuarterlyReview326-343.HermannKantorowicz,StudiesintheGlossatorsoftheRomanLaw(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1938).HermannKantorowiczandFritzSchulz(eds.),ThomasDiplovatatius:Declarisiurisconsultis(BerlinLeipzig:DeGruyter,1919).MaxKaser,RömischesRechtalsGemeinschaftsordnung(Tubingen:MohrSiebeck,1939).LiisiKeedus,TheCrisisofGermanHistoricism.TheEarlyPoliticalThoughtofHannahArendtandLeoStrauss(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015).HansKelsen,AllgemeineStaatslehre(Berlin:J.Springer,1925).HansKelsen,'FoundationsofDemocracy'(1955)66(1:2)Ethics1-101.JeromeG.Kerwin,'ReviewofTheDualState:AContributiontotheTheoryofDictatorship.ByErnstFraenkel.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1940.Pp.xvi,248.$3.00'(1941)8TheUniversityofChicagoLawReview616-618.DavidKettler,TheLiquidationofExile:StudiesintheIntellectualEmigrationofthe1930s(LondonandNewYork:AnthemPress,2011).RichardH.King,ArendtandAmerica(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2015).GuidoKisch,DieUniversitätenunddieJuden:einehistorischeBetrachtungzurFünfhundertjahrfeierderUniversitätBasel(Tübingen:Mohr,1961).GuidoKisch(ed.),PaulKoschaker,Gelehrter,Mensch,Freund.BriefeausdenJahren1940bis1951.(Basel:HelbingundLichtenbahn,1970).GuidoKisch,DieLebenswegeinesRechtshistorikers(Sigmaringen:Thorbecke,1975).RichardA.Klein,DieRomrededesAeliusAristides(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1981).RichardA.Klein,'ZurDatierungderRomrededesAeliusAristides'(1981)30Historia337-350.

244

RichardA.Klein,'ZumKultur-undGeschichtsverstandnisinderRomrededesAeliusAristides',inB.Kuhnert,V.RiedelandR.Gordesiani(eds.),PrinzipatundKulturim1.und2.Jahrhundert(Bonn:R.Habelt,1995),pp.283-292.ChristophKleßmann,'DerGeneralgouverneurHansFrank'(1971)19VierteljahrsheftefürZeitgeschichte245-260.PaulKluke,'NationalsozialistischeEuropa-Ideologie'(1955)3VierteljahrsheftefürZeitgeschichte240-275.MagdalenaKmak,‘TheImpactofExileonLawandLegalScience1934–64’inKaiusTuoriandHetaBjorklund(eds.),RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope(London:BloomsburyAcademic,2019),pp.15–34.AndreasKoenen,DerFallCarlSchmitt(Darmstadt:WissenschaflicheBuchhandlung,1995).LotteKöhlerandHansSaner(eds.),HannahArendt/KarlJaspers:Correspondence,1926-1969(Munich:Piper,1993).RalfKohlhepp,'FranzWieackerunddieNS-Zeit'(2005)122ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung203-223.ClaudiaKoontz,TheNaziConscience(LondonandCambridge,MA:TheBelknapPress,2003).AnneM.Kornhauser,DebatingtheAmericanState:LiberalAnxietiesandtheNewLeviathan,1930-1970(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2015).PaulKoschaker,'Deutschland,ItalienunddasromischeRecht',inFaschismusundRecht.SchriftendesNS.RechtswahrerbundesinÖsterreich(Wien:LandesgeschäftsstelledesNS.-Rechtswahrerbundes,1938),pp.19-22.PaulKoschaker,DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaft(MunichandBerlin:C.H.Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1938).PaulKoschaker,'DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsundromanistischeRechtswissenschaft'(1938)1SchriftenderAkademiefürDeutschesRecht:RömischesRechtundfremdeRechte1-86.PaulKoschaker,'Rez.Georgescu,ExistaocrisäastudilordeDreptRoman?(GibteseineKrisedesStudiumsdesrömischenRechts?),Czernowitz1937'(1938)58ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung425-427.PaulKoschaker,'ProblemederheutigenromanistischenRechtswissenschaft'(1940)5DeutscheRechtswissenschaft110-136.PaulKoschaker,'Selbstdarstellung',inNikolausGrass(ed.),ÖsterreichischeGeschichtswissenschaftderGegenwartinSelbstdarstellungen,II(Innsbruck:Wagner,1951),pp.105-125.PaulKoschaker,'Contributoallastoriaedalladottrinadellaconvalidaneldirittoromano'(1953)4Iura1-89.PaulKoschaker,EuropaunddasrömischeRecht(MunichandBerlin:Beck,1966[1947]).PaulKoschakerandKudretAyiter,RomaOzelHakukununAnaHatlari(Ankara:AnkaraÜniversitesi,1993).MarttiKoskenniemi,'HerschLauterpacht1897-1960',inJackBeatsonandReinhardZimmermann(eds.),JuristsUprooted(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),pp.601-662.

245

MaritaKrauss,HeimkehrineinfremdesLand.GeschichtederRemigrationnach1945(Munich:C.H.BeckVerlag,2001).HansKreller,RömischeRechtsgeschichte:eineEinführungindieVolksrechtederHellenenundRömerundindasrömischeKunstrecht(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1936).KarlKroeschell,'DienationalsozialistischeEigentumslehre.VorgeschichteundNachwirkung',inMichaelStolleisandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus.BeiträgezurGeschichteeinerDisziplin(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1989),pp.43-62.KristianKühl,'RückblickaufdieRenaissancedesNaturrechtsnachdemZweitenWeltkrieg',inGerhardKöblerl,MeinhardHeinzeandJanSchapp(eds.),GeschichtlicheRechtswissenschaft:arstradendoinnovandoqueaequitatemsectandi;FreundesgabefürAlfredSöllnerzum60.Geburtstagam5.2.1990.GiessenerrechtswissenschaftlicheAbhandlungen,Bd.6(Brühl:Giessen,1990),pp.331-357.WolfgangKunkel,'PaulKoschakerunddieeuropäischeBedeutungdesrömischenRechts',inL’EuropaeilDirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.5-12.WolfgangKunkel,'DerProfessorimDrittenReich',inHelmutKuhn(ed.),DieDeutscheUniversitätimDrittenReich(Munich:Piper,1966),pp.103-133.WolfgangKunkel,'ErnstLevyzumGedächtnis'(1969)86ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilungxiii-xxxii.PeterLandau,'WieackersKonzepteinerneuerenPrivatrechtsgeschichte:EineBilanznach40Jahren',inEvaSchumannandOkkoBehrends(eds.),FranzWieacker-HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechtsWallsteinVerlagGmbH,2010),pp.49-74.JohnH.Langbein,'TheInfluenceoftheGermanEmigrésonAmericanLaw:TheCuriousCaseofCivilandCriminalPractice',inMarcusLutter,ErnstC.StiefelandMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993),pp.321-332.HeinrichLange,'DeutscheRomanistik?GrundsätzlicheBemerkungenzuFritzSchulz,„PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts“'(1934)DeutscheJuristenZeitung1493-1500.CarloLanza,'La«realtà»diPietrodeFrancisci',inItaloBirocchiandLucaLoschiavo(eds.),Giuristieilfascinodelregime(Rome:RomaTre-Press,2015),pp.215-236.RaffaeleLaudani,SecretReportsfromNaziGermany(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2013).JohnLaughland,TaintedSource:TheundemocraticoriginsoftheEuropeanidea(London:Sphere,1998).MarioLauria,'ReviewofFritzSchulz’sPrinciplesofRomanLaw(1936)/PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts(1934)'(1935)1StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris219.HerschLauterpacht,Internationallawandhumanrights(NewYork:FrederickA.Praeger,Inc.,1950).J.G.Lautner,'Rec.FritzSchulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw'(1938)9InternationalenZeitschriftfürTheoriedesRechts.

246

ElisabethLefort,'ArrivingatJusticebyaProcessofElimination:HansKelsenandLeoStrauss',inJeremyTelman(ed.),HansKelseninAmerica–SelectiveAffinitiesandtheMysteriesofAcademicInfluence(Berlin:SpringerVerlag,2016),pp.116-122.PierreLegrand,'Europeanlegalsystemsarenotconverging'(1996)45InternationalandComparativeLawQuarterly52-81.PierreLegrand,Fragmentsonlaw-as-culture(Deventer:W.E.J.TjeenkWillink,1999).PierreLegrand,'ADiabolicalIdea',inArthurS.Hartkamp,MartijnW.Hesselink,EwoudH.Hondius,ChantalMak,EdgarduPerronandChristianvonBar(eds.),TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode(Nijmegen:KluwerLawInternational,2004),pp.245-272.OliverLepsius,'TheProblemofPerceptionsofNationalSocialistLawor:WasthereaConstitutionalTheoryofNationalSocialism?',inChristianJoergesandNavrajSinghGhaleigh(eds.),DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope(OxfordandPortland,OR:HartPublishing,2003),pp.19-41.RobertE.Lerner,ErnstKantorowicz:ALife(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2017).ErnstLevy,'ReviewofAugustus:StudiinoccasionedelBimillenarioAugusteo.(Rome:TipografiadellaR.AccademiaNazionaledeiLincei.1938)'(1939)45TheAmericanHistoricalReview106-107.ErnstLevy,'ReviewofDieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaftbyPaulKoschaker'(1939)33TheClassicalWeekly91-92.ErnstLevy,'NaturallawintheRomanperiod',inA.L.Scanlan(ed.),UniversityofNotreDameNaturalLawInstituteProceedings2(NotreDame:NotreDameLawSchool,1949),pp.43-72.JohannesLiebrecht,JungeRechtsgeschichte.KategorienwandelinderrechtshistorischenGermanistikderZwischenkriegszeit(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018).DetlefLiebs,'FranzWieacker†'(1995)67Gnomon473-477.DetlefLiebs,'FranzWieacker(1908bis1994)–LebenundWerk',inEvaSchumannandOkkoBehrends(eds.),FranzWieacker-HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechtsWallsteinVerlagGmbH,2010),pp.23-48.JamesLoeffler,RootedCosmopolitans.JewsandHumanRightsintheTwentiethCentury(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2018).WilfriedLoth,BuildingEurope:AHistoryofEuropeanUnification(Berlin:DeGruyterOldenbourg,2015).KeithLowe,SavageContinent:EuropeintheAftermathofWorldWarII(London:Picador,2013).KlausLuig,'HelmutCoing(28.2.1912–15.8.2000)'(2002)119ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung662-678.MaurizioLupoi,TheOriginsoftheEuropeanLegalOrder(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000).MarcusLutter,ErnstC.StiefelandMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993).

247

FrancesM.B.Lynch,AlanS.Milward,RuggeroRanieri,FedericoRomeroandVibekeSørensen,TheFrontierofNationalSovereignty:HistoryandTheory1945-1992(London:Routledge,1994).MargaretMacMillan,TheUsesandAbusesofHistory(London:ProfileBooksLtd,2009).AntonioMantello,'SalvatoreRiccobono',inPaolaLuigiaCarucciandLoredanaDiPinto(eds.),'RomanistilateranensinelNovecento',68StudiaetDocumentaHistoriaeetIuris(2002),pp.xvi-xxi.AntonioMantello,'LagiurisprudenzaromanafraNazismoeFascismo'(1987)13QuadernidiStoria23-71.AntonioMantello,'L'immaginediJheringfranazionalsocialismoefascismo:analisid'unavicendaideologica'(1995)23Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw215-250.ValerioMarotta,'Roma,l’Imperoel’Italianellaletteraturaromanisticadegliannitrenta',inGiovanniCazzetta(ed.),Retorichedeigiuristiecostruzionedell’identitànazionale(Bologna:IlMulino,2013),pp.425-460.ValerioMarotta,'«Mazzinianoinpoliticaesteraeprussianoininterna.»NotebrevisulleideepolitichediPietroBonfante',inItaloBirocchiandLucaLoschiavo(eds.),Giuristieilfascinodelregime(Rome:RomaTre-Press,2015),pp.267-288.MatteoMarrone,'RomanistiprofessoriaPalermo'(1997)25Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw587-616.MichaelR.Marrus,'ThreeJewishÉmigrésatNuremberg:JacobRobinson,HerschLauterpacht,andRaphaelLemkin',inEzraMendelsohn,StefaniHoffmanandRichardCohen(eds.),AgainsttheGrain:JewishIntellectualsinHardTimes(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.240-254.GunterMaschke,'Vorwort',inCarlSchmitt(ed.),Staat,Grossraum,Nomos:ArbeitenAusDenJahren1916-1969(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1995),pp.xix-xxvi.UgoMattei,'WhytheWindChanged:IntellectualLeadershipinWesternLaw'(1994)42TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw195-217.TheoMayer-Maly,'ErnstSchönbauerzumGedächtnis'(1967)84ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:RomanistischeAbteilung627-630.AldoMazzacane,'«Illeonefuggitodalcirco»:pandettisticaedirittocomuneeuropeo'(2001)29Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw97-111.CatherineMcCauliff,'UnioninEurope:ConstitutionalPhilosophyandtheSchumanDeclaration,May9,1950'(2012)18ColumbiaJournalofEuropeanLaw441-472.WilliamMcNeill,'Mythistory,orTruth,Myth,History,andHistorians'(1986)91TheAmericanHistoricalReview1-10.ReinhardMehring,CarlSchmitt:AufstiegundFall(Munich:Beck,2009).JensMeierhenrich,TheRemnantsoftheRechtsstaat.AnEthnographyofNaziLaw(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2018).FlorianMeinel,DerJuristinderindustriellenGesellschaft:ErnstForsthoffundseineZeit(Berlin:AkademieVerlag,2011).

248

Franz-StefanMeissel,'DeutscheRechtsgeschichteimnationalsozialistischenStaat',inUlrikeDavy,HelmutFuchs,HerbertHofmeister,JudithMarteandIlseReiter(eds.),NationalsozialismusundRecht(Wien:VerlagA.Orac,1990),pp.412-426.Franz-StefanMeisselandStefanWedrac,'StrategienderAnpassung–RömischesRechtimZeichendesHakenkreuzes',inFranz-StefanMeissel,ThomasOlechowski,IlseReiter-ZatloukalandStefanSchima(eds.),VertriebenesRecht–VertreibendesRecht.DieWienerRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlicheFakultät1938-1945(Wien:MANZVerlag,2012),pp.35-78.KarlMichaelis,WandlungendesdeutschenRechtsdenkensseitdemEindringendesfremdenRechts(Berlin:JunkerundDünnhauptVerlag,1935).TimoMiettinen,TheIdeaofEuropeinHusserl’sPhenomenology(Helsinki:PhilosophicalStudies,2013).MassimoMigliettaandGianniSantucci(eds.),Dirittoromanoeregimitotalitarinel’900Europeo(Trento:UniversitàdeglistudidiTrento,2009).FergusMillar,TheEmperorintheRomanWorld(London:Duckworth,1977(2nded.1992)).LucindaMiller,'TheNotionofEuropeanPrivateLaw',inMichaelLobbanandJuliaMoses(eds.),Theimpactofideasonlegaldevelopment(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014),pp.265-285.CzesławMiłosz,Thecaptivemind(London:Secker&Warburg,1953).AlanS.Milward,TheReconstructionofWesternEurope,1945-51(London:Methuen,1984).PierreMilzaandDenisPeschanski(eds.),Exilsetmigration.ItaliensetEspagnolsenFrance,1938-1946(Paris:L'Harmattan,1994).ValerioMassimoMinale,CarteggioCroce-Arangio-Ruiz(Napoli:IlMulino,2012).ArminMohler,DieKonservativeRevolutioninDeutschland1918-1932:EinHandbuch(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1989).W.L.Moll,'ReviewofFritzSchulz’sPrinciplesofRomanLaw'(1937)5VirginiaLawReview858.ArmandoMomigliano,'AncientBiographyandtheStudyofReligion',inArmandoMomigliano(ed.),Ottavocontributoallastoriadeglistudiclassiciedelmondoantico(Roma:EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,1987),pp.193-210.ArmandoMomigliano,'PeaceandLibertyintheAncientWorld',inRiccardoDiDonato,Decimocontributoallastoriadeglistudiclassiciedelmondoantico(Roma:EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,2012),pp.4-105.PierGiuseppeMonateri,'BlackGaius:AQuestfortheMulticulturalOriginsoftheWesternLegalTradition'(2000)51HastingsLawJournal479-555.PierGiuseppeMonateri,TomaszGiaroandAlessandroSomma(eds.),Leradicicomunideldirittoeuropeo(Rome:Caroccieditore,2005).DouglasMorris,'Discrimination,Degradation,Defiance:JewishLawyersunderNazism',inA.E.SteinweisandRobertD.Rachlin(eds.),TheLawinNaziGermany:Ideology,Opportunism,andthePerversionofJustice(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.124-128.DouglasMorris,'WriteandResist:ErnstFraenkelandFranzNeumannontheRoleofNaturalLawinFightingNaziTyranny'(2015)126NewGermanCritique197-230.

249

A.DirkMoses,GermanIntellectualsandtheNaziPast(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007).GeorgeL.Mosse,TheCrisisofGermanIdeology:IntellectualOriginsoftheThirdReich(NewYork:H.Fertig,1998[1964]).GeorgeL.Mosse,TheFascistRevolution:TowardaGeneralTheoryofFascism(NewYork:HowardFertigPub,1999).SamuelMoyn,ChristianHumanRights(Philadelphia,PA:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2015).SamuelMoyn,Thelastutopia:humanrightsinhistory(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2010).IngoMuller,FurchtbareJuristen:dieunbewältigeVergangenheitunsererJustiz(Munich:Kindler,1987).JerryZ.Muller,TheOtherGodthatFailed:HansFreyerandtheDeradicalizationofGermanConservatism(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987).ManfredMüller,'PaulKoschaker(1879-1951).Zum100.GeburtstagdesBegründersderKeilschriftrechtsgeschichte'(1982)9AltorientalischeForschungen271-284.EloisaMura,'EmilioBetti,oltrelospecchiodellamemoria',inEmilioBetti(ed.),Notazioniautobiografiche(acuradiEloisaMura)(Padova:CEDAM,[1953]2014),pp.ix-lxiv.OswynMurray,'ArnaldoMomiglianoonPeaceandLiberty',inSallyCrawford,KatharinaUlmschneiderandJasElsner(eds.),ArkofCivilization:RefugeeScholarsandOxfordUniversity,1930-1945(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017),pp.202-207.DorotheeMussgnug(ed.),ErnstLevyundWolfgangKunkel.Briefwechsel1922-1968(Heidelberg:UniversitätsverlagWinter,2005).DorotheeMussgnug,'DiejuristischeFakultät',inWolfgangUweEckart,VolkerSellinandEikeWolgast(eds.),DieUniversitätHeidelbergimNationalsozialismus(Heidelberg:Springer,2006),pp.301-302.FaraNasti,'PensierogiuridicoromanoetradizioneeuropeaneiPrinzipiendiFritzSchulz',inPierreBonin,NaderHakim,FaraNastiandAldoSchiavone(eds.),Pensierogiuridicooccidentaleegiuristiromani.Ereditàegenealogie(Torino:Giappichelli,2019),pp.225-247.HermannNehlsen,'Inmemoriam:KarlAugustEckhardt'(1987)104ZeitschriftderSavigny-StiftungfürRechtsgeschichte:GermanistischeAbteilung497-536.JanNelis,'ConstructingFascistIdentity:BenitoMussoliniandtheMythofRomanità'(ClassicalWorld)1002007391-415.WilliamE.Nelson,TheLegalistReformation:Law,Politics,andIdeologyinNewYork,1920-1980(ChapelHill,N.C.:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2001).Hans-WernerNeulen,EuropaunddasDritteReich.EinigungsbestrebungenimdeutschenMachtbereich1939–1945(Munich:Universitas,1987).FranzNeumann,'Re-educatingtheGermans'(1947)3Commentary517-525.FranzNeumann,'TheConceptofPoliticalFreedom'(1953)53(7)ColumbiaLawReview901-935.

250

FranzNeumann,Behemoth:TheStructureandPracticeofNationalSocialism1933-1944(NewYork:Harper&Row,1966[1944]).FranzNeumann,'TheConceptofPoliticalFreedom',inWilliamE.Scheuerman(ed.),TheRuleofLawUnderSiege:SelectedEssaysofFranzL.NeumannandOttoKirchheimer(Berkeley,LosAngeles,London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996),pp.195-230.GeorgNeumann,'PaulKoschakerinTübingen(1941-1946)'(2012)18ZeitschriftfüraltorientalischeundbiblischeRechtgeschichte23-36.MartinNiemann,'KarlAugustEckhardt',inMathiasSchmoeckel(ed.),DieJuristenderUniversitätBonnin“DrittenReich”(Köln:Böhlau,2004),pp.160-184.PierreNoailles,'Lacrisedudroitromain',inMémorialdesétudeslatinesoffertàJ.Marouzeau(Paris:BellesLettres,1943),pp.387-415.PierreNoraandLawrenceD.Kritzma(eds.),RealmsofMemory.TheConstructionoftheFrenchPast(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1996).DieterNörr,'ÜberdasGeistigeimRecht:einNachrufaufHelmutCoing'(2001)56Juristenzeitung449-452.DieterNörr,'FranzWieacker5.8.1908-17.2.1994',inTizianaJ.Chiusi,WolfgangKaiserandHans-DieterSpengler(eds.),DieterNörr.HistoriaeIurisAntiqui(Goldbach:KeipVerlag,2003),pp.248-256.VivianNutton,'Thebeneficialideology',inPeterD.A.GarnseyandC.R.Whittaker(eds.),ImperialismintheAncientWorld(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978),pp.209-223.ThomasOlechowski,'HansKelsen,theSecondWorldWarandtheUSGovernment',inJeremyTelman(ed.),HansKelseninAmerica–SelectiveAffinitiesandtheMysteriesofAcademicInfluence(Berlin:SpringerVerlag,2016),pp.101-112.JamesH.Oliver,'TheRulingPower.AStudyoftheRomanEmpireintheSecondCenturyAfterChristthroughtheRomanOrationofAeliusAristides'(1953)43TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety871-1003.RiccardoOrestano,'L’animus’diSalvatoreRiccobono'(1978)29Iura1-8.RosannaOrtu,'SalvatoreRiccobononell’UniversitàdiSassari'(2004)3Diritto@Storia.DouglasOsler,'TheMythofEuropeanLegalHistory'(1997)16RechtshistorischesJournal393-410.DouglasOsler,'TheFantasyMen'(2007)10Rechtsgeschichte169-192.ErnstOsterkamp,'TheLegacyoftheGeorgeCircle',inDavidKettlerandGerhardLauer(eds.),Exile,ScienceandBildung.TheContestedLegaciesofGermanEmigreIntellectuals(Berlin:Springer,2005),pp.19-26.AnthonyPagden,'Introduction',inAnthonyPagden(ed.),TheIdeaofEurope.FromAntiquitytotheEuropeanUnion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),pp.1-32.ErwinPanofsky,'ThreeDecadesofArtHistoryintheUnitedStates:ImpressionsofaTransplantedEuropean'(1954)14(1)CollegeArtJournal7-27.HerlindePauer-Studer,'»JenseitsvonChaosundInteressenkonflikten«.AspektederRechtsentwicklungimNS-Systemder1930erJahre',inWernerKonitzer(ed.),Moralisierung

251

desRechts:KontinuitätenundDiskontinuitätennationalsozialistischerNormativität(Frankfurt:CampusVerlag,2014),pp.11-34.HerlindePauer-StuderandJulianFink,RechtfertigungendesUnrechts.DasRechtsdenkenimNationalsozialismusinOriginaltexten(Berlin:Suhrkamp,2014).MichaelPeachin,IudexviceCaesaris:DeputyEmperorsandtheAdministrationofJusticeduringthePrincipate(Stuttgart:FranzSteinerVerlag,1996).LaurentPernot,'AeliusAristidesandRome',inWilliamV.HarrisandBrookeHolmes(eds.),AeliusAristidesbetweenGreece,Rome,andthegods(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2008),pp.175-201.MatthewPerry,'ThepaterfamiliasandthefamilycouncilinRomanpubliclaw',inKaiusTuoriandLauraNissin(eds.),PublicandPrivateintheRomanHouseandSociety(Portsmouth,RI:JournalofRomanArchaeologySupplementSeries,2015),pp.77-86.PierrePescatore,'FundamentalRightsandFreedomsintheSystemoftheEuropeanCommunities'(1970)18TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw343-351.PhilipPettit,Republicanism:ATheoryofFreedomandGovernment(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997).PeterE.Pieler,'DasrömischeRechtimnationalsozialistischenStaat',inUlrikeDavy,HelmutFuchs,HerbertHofmeister,JudithMarteandIlseReiter(eds.),NationalsozialismusundRecht(Wien:VerlagA.Orac,1990),pp.427-444.HeikkiPihlajamäki,'AgainstMetaphysicsinLaw:TheHistoricalBackgroundofAmericanandScandinavianLegalRealismCompared'(TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw)522004469-487.AdolfoPlachy,'Rec.diKoschaker,DieKrisedesrömischenRechtsunddieromanistischeRechtswissenschaft(1938)'(1939)12RivistadiStoriadelDirittoItaliano388-394.AdolfoPlachy,'Ildirittoromanocomevaloreculturalenellastoriadell’Europa',inL’EuropaeilDirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.477-491.JohnG.A.Pocock,TheMachiavellianMoment(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1975).RaymondPoidevin,Histoiredesdébutsdelaconstructioneuropéenne(Mars1948-Mai1950)(Bruxelles:Bruylant,1984).RoscoePound,'TheCallforaRealistJurisprudence'(1930-1931)44HarvardLawReview697-711.AnitaPrettenthaler-Ziegerhofer,'RichardNikolausCloudenhove-Kalergi,FounderofthePan-EuropeanUnion,andtheBirthofa‘New’Europe',inMarkHewitsonandMatthewD'Auria(eds.),EuropeinCrisis:IntellectualsandtheEuropeanIdea,1917-1957(Oxford:BerghahnBooks,2012),pp.89-110.FritzPringsheim,'LegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian'(1934)24JournalofRomanStudies141-153.FritzPringsheim,TheGreekLawofSale(Weimar:HermannBöhlausNachfolger,1950).FritzPringsheim,'DieHaltungderFreiburgerStudentenindenJahren1933-1935'(1960)15DieSammlung532-538.

252

FritzPringsheim,'Aequitasundbonafides',inGesammelteAbhandlungen1(Heidelberg:CarlWinter&Universitätsverlag,1961[1930]),pp.154-172.FritzPringsheim,'HöheundEndederRömischenJurisprudenz',inGesammelteAbhandlungen1(Heidelberg:CarlWinter&Universitätsverlag,1961[1930]),pp.53-62.DiethelmProwe,'GermanDemocratizationasConservativeRestabilization:TheImpactofAmericanPolicy',inJeffryM.Diefendorf,AxelFrohnandHermann-JosefRupieper(eds.),AmericanPolicyandtheReconstructionofWestGermany,1945–1955(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),pp.305-329.GiovanniPugliese,'Dirittoromanoescienzadeldiritto'(1941)15Annalidell'UniversitàdiMacerata5-48.GiovanniPugliese,'Dirittoromanoescienzadeldiritto',inGiovanniPugliese(ed.),Scrittigiuridiciscelti,III(Napoli:Jovene,1985),pp.159-204.AnsonRabinbach,'TheFrankfurtSchoolandthe"JewishQuestion,"1940-1970',inEzraMendelsohn,StefaniHoffmanandRichardCohen(eds.),AgainsttheGrain:JewishIntellectualsinHardTimes(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.255-276.RobertD.Rachlin,'RolandFreislerandtheVolksgerichthof',inA.E.SteinweisandRobertD.Rachlin(eds.),TheLawinNaziGermany:Ideology,Opportunism,andthePerversionofJustice(NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),pp.63-87.GustavRadbruch,'GesetzlichesunrechtundübergesetzlichesRecht'(1946)1SüddeutscheJuristenzeitung105-108.MaxRadin,CartasRomanisticas(1923-1950)(Napoli:Jovene,2001).EdwinS.Ramage,TheNatureandPurposeofAugustus'"ResGestae"(Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1987).SalvoRandazzo,'RomanLegalTraditionandAmericanLaw.TheRiccobonoSeminarofRomanLawinWashington'(2002)1RomanLegalTradition123-144.StevenP.Remy,TheHeidelbergMyth:TheNazificationandDenazificationofaGermanUniversity(NewHaven,CT:HarvardUniversityPress,2003).P.J.Rhodes,Ancientdemocracyandmodernideology(London:Duckworth,2003).SalvatoreRiccobono,'Daldirittoromanoclassicoaldirittomoderno'(1917)3-4AnnalidelSeminarioGiuridicodellaR.UniversitàdiPalermo165-729.SalvatoreRiccobono,'OutlinesoftheEvolutionofRomanLaw'(1925)74UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawReview1-19.SalvatoreRiccobono,'Augustoeilproblemadellanuovacostituzione'(1936)15AnnalidelSeminariogiuridicodiPalermo363-507.SalvatoreRiccobono,'Ildirittodelimpero',inCarloGalassiPaluzzi(ed.),Lamissionedell’imperodiRomanellastoriadellaciviltà(Roma:IstitutodiStudiRomani,1938),pp.42.SalvatoreRiccobono,'Launiversalitàdeldirittoromano',inL'Europaeildirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaulKoschaker(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.1-11.SalvatoreJrRiccobono,'UnmanoscrittoineditodiSalvatoreRiccobono:lelezionitenuteadOxfordeLondranel1924'(1978)29Iura9-16.GerhardRies,'PaulKoschaker'(1980)12NeueDeutscheBiographie608-609.

253

GerhardRitter,'DerdeutscheProfessorimDrittenReich'(1945)1.1DieGegenwart23-26.OliviaF.Robinson,T.DavidFergusandWilliamM.Gordon,Europeanlegalhistory:sourcesandinstitutions(London:Butterworths,2000).DanielT.Rodgers,AtlanticCrossings:SocialPoliticsinaProgressiveAge(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2000).FelixRösch,EmigreScholarsandtheGenesisofInternationalRelations:AEuropeanDisciplineinAmerica?(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacMillan,2014).JoachimRückert,'GeschichtederPrivatrechtsalsApologiedesJuristen-FranzWieackerzumGedächtnis'(1995)24QuaderniFiorentini531-562.JoachimRückert,'DerRechtsbegriffderDeutschenRechtsgeschichteinderNS-Zeit:derSiegdes"Lebens"unddeskonkretenOrdnungsdenkens,seineVorgeschichteundseineNachwirkungen',inJoachimRückertandDietmarWilloweit(eds.),DieDeutscheRechtsgeschichteinderNS-ZeitihreVorgeschichteundihreNachwirkungen(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1995),pp.177-240.JoachimRuckert,'PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit:GeneseundZukunfteinesFaches?',inEvaSchumannandOkkoBehrends(eds.),FranzWieacker-HistorikerdesmodernenPrivatrechtsWallsteinVerlagGmbH,2010),pp.75-118.JörnRüsen,'Tradition:aprincipleofhistoricalsense-generationanditslogicandeffectinhistoricalculture'(2012)51(4)HistoryandTheory45-59.BerndtRüthers,EntartetesRecht(Munich:Beck,1989).BerndtRüthers,DieUnbegrenzteAuslegung.ZumWandelderPrivatrechtsordnungimNationalsozialismus(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2005).ThomasSandkühler,'EuropaundderNationalsozialismus.Ideologie,Währungspolitik,Massengewalt'(2012)9ZeithistorischeForschungen/StudiesinContemporaryHistory428-441.CesareSanfilippo,'InMemoriam.SalvatoreRiccobono'(1958)9Iura123-133.GianniSantucci,'Lascienzagaiaelastranaideadeldirittoromanononromano'(2007)4Europaedirittoprivato1057-1093.GianniSantucci,'«Decifrandoscrittichenonhannonessunpotere».Lacrisidellaromanisticafraledueguerre',inItaloBirocchiandMassimoBrutti(eds.),Storiadeldirittoeidentitàdisciplinari:tradizionieprospettive(Torino:Giappichelli,2016),pp.63-102.FrankL.Schäfer,'VisionenundWissenschaftsmanagement.DieGründungeinesMax-Planck-InstitutsfüreuropäischeRechtsgeschichte'(2009)17ZeitschriftfürEuropäischesPrivatrecht517-535.HerwigSchafer,JuristischeLehreundForschunganderReichsuniversitätStraßburg1941–1944(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1999).IrmgardSchartner,DieStaatsrechtlerderjuridischenFakultätderUniversitätWienim‚Ansturm‘desNationalsozialismus.UmbrücheundKontinuitäten(Frankfurt,Berlin,Bern,Bruxelles,NewYork,OxfordandWien:PeterLang,2011).MartinJosefSchermaier,'FritzSchulz‘Prinzipien.DasEndeeinerdeutschenUniversitätslaufbahnimBerlinderDreißigerjahre',inStefanGrundmann(ed.),Festschrift200

254

JahreJuristischeFakultätderHumboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin(Berlin:Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin,2010),pp.683-700.WilliamE.Scheuerman(ed.),TheRuleofLawUnderSiege:SelectedEssaysofFranzL.NeumannandOttoKirchheimer(Berkeley,LosAngeles,London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996).AldoSchiavone,TheEndofthePast.AncientRomeandtheModernWest(Cambridge,MA,London,England:HarvardUniversityPress,2000).AxelSchildt,ZwischenAbendlandundAmerika(Oldenbourg:Wissenschaftsverlag,1999).A.ArthurSchiller,'ReviewofthePrinciples[etal.]'(1938)24AmericanBarAssociationJournal1015-1017.JohnHenrySchlegel,AmericanLegalRealismandEmpiricalSocialScience(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1995).FolkerSchmerbach,Das'GemeinschaftslagerHannsKerrl'fürReferendareinJüterbog1933-1939(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2008).KatharinaIsabelSchmidt,'Law,Modernity,Crisis:GermanFreeLawyers,AmericanLegalRealists,andtheTransatlanticTurnto'Life',1903–1933'(2016)39GermanStudiesReview121-140.CarlSchmitt,'DieVerfassungderFreiheit'(1935)40DeutscheJuristen-Zeitung1133-1135.CarlSchmitt,'DieAuflösungdereuropäischenOrdnungim„InternationalLaw“(1890-1939)'(1940)5DeutscheRechtswissenschaft267-278.CarlSchmittandFritzHartung,DasReichundEuropa(Leipzig:Koehler&Amelang,1941).ErnstSchönbauer,'Zur„KrisedesrömischenRechts‟',inFestschriftPaulKoschakermitUnterstützungderRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlichenFakultätderFriedrich-Wilhelms-UniversitätBerlinundderLeipzigerJuristenfakultätzum60.GeburtstagüberreichtvonseinenFachgenossen,II(Weimar:VerlagHermannBöhlaus,1939),pp.385-410.KarenSchönwälder,HistorikerundPolitik.GeschichtswissenschaftimNationalsozialismus(Frankfurt,NewYork:CampusVerlag,1992).ChristianSchudnagies,HansFrank.AufstiegundFalldesNS-JuristenundGeneralgoverneurs(Frankfurt:PeterLang,1989).FritzSchulz,Sabinus-FragmenteinUlpiansSabinus-Commentar(Halle:M.Niemeyer,1906).FritzSchulz,'SystemderRechteaufdenEingriffserwerb'(1909)105ArchivfürdiecivilistischePraxis1-488.FritzSchulz,EinführungindasStudiumderDigesten(Tübingen:VerlagvonJ.C.B.Mohr(PaulSiebeck),1916).FritzSchulz,DieepitomeUlpianidesCodexvaticanusreginæ1128(Bonn:A.MarcusundE.Weber,1926).FritzSchulz,PrinciplesofRomanLaw(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1936).FritzSchulz,RomanLegalScience(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1946).FritzSchulz,PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1954[1934]).HagenSchulz-ForbergandBoStråth,ThepoliticalhistoryofEuropeanintegration:Thehypocrisyofdemocracy-through-market(London:Routledge,2010).

255

EvaSchumann,'DiejuristischeFakultäteninderNS–Zeit',inThiloRammandStefanSaar(eds.),NationalsozialismusundRecht(Baden-Baden:Nomos,2014),pp.39-154.ThomasAlanSchwartz,America'sGermany:JohnJ.McCloyandtheFederalRepublicofGermany(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1991).CarolineSharples,PostwarGermanyandtheHolocaust(London:Bloomsbury,2016).HeinrichSiber,DasFühreramtdesAugustus(Leipzig:S.Hirzel,1940).DieterSimon,'Levy,Ernst'(1985)14NeueDeutscheBiographie403-404.DieterSimon,'DiedeutscheWissenschaftvomrömischenRechtnach1933',inMichaelStolleisandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus.BeiträgezurGeschichteeinerDisziplin(Tübingen:Mohr,1989),pp.171-176.DieterSimon,'ErnstLevy',inBernhardDiestelkampandMichaelStolleis(eds.),JuristenanderUniversitätFrankfurtamMain(Baden-Baden:Nomos,1989),pp.94.DieterSimon,'ZwischenWissenschaftundWissenschaftspolitik:HelmutCoing(28.2.1912–15.8.2000)'(2001)54NeueJuristischeWochenschrift1029-1032.QuentinSkinner,LibertybeforeLiberalism(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998).QuentinSkinner,VisionsofPoliticsIII(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).JanSmits,TheMakingofEuropeanPrivateLaw:TowardalusCommune.EuropaeumasaMixedLegalSystem(Antwerp:Intersentia,2002).TimothySnyder,BlackEarth:TheHolocaustasHistoryandWarning(London:Vintage,2015).AlfonsSöllner,'NormativeVerwestlichung.DerEinflußderRemigrantenaufdiepolitischeKulturderfruhenBundesrepublik',inHeinzBudeandBerndGreine(eds.),Westbindungen.AmerikainderBundesrepublik(Hamburg:HamburgerEdition,1999),pp.72-92.AlfonsSöllner,'ErnstFraenkelunderdieVerwetlichungderpolitischenKulturinderBundesrepublicDeutschland',inFluchtpunkte,StudienzurpolitischenIdeengeschichtedes20.Jahrhunderts(Baden-Baden:NomosVerlag,2006),pp.223-223.ArrigoSolmi,'LenuoveDirettivedelldiritto',inFaschismusundRecht.SchriftendesNS.RechtswahrerbundesinÖsterreich(Wien:LandesgeschäftsstelledesNS.-Rechtswahrerbundes,1938),pp.1-3.AlessandroSomma,'«Romamadredelleleggi».L'usopoliticodeldirittoromano'(2002)32Materialiperunastoriadellaculturagiuridica153-181.Somma,Alessandro.'IGiuristiel'AsseCulturaleRoma-Berlino:EconomiaePoliticaNelDirittoFascistaeNazionalsocialista.',(2005),.AlessandroSomma,'L’usodeldirittoromanoedellaromanisticatraFascismoeAntifascismo',inMassimoMigliettaandGianniSantucci(eds.),Dirittoromanoeregimitotalitarinel’900Europeo(Trento:UniversitàdeglistudidiTrento,2009),pp.113-114.FedericoSpantigati,'Ladiscontinuitànellacontinuità(commentoaLeoPeppe)'(2000)4Dirittoromanoattuale89-94.AltieroSpinelliandErnestoRossi,TheVentoteneManifesto(Ventotene:TheAltieroSpinelliInstituteforFederalistStudies,2016).

256

InesStahlmann,'VomDespotenzumKaiser.ZumdeutschenAugustusbildim19.Jahrhundert',inKarlChristandArmandoMomigliano(eds.),L’Antichitanell’OttocentoinltaliaeGermania(Bologna:SocietàeditriceilMulino,1988),pp.303-319.PeterStein,'Foreword',inPaulVinogradoff(ed.),RomanLawinMedievalEurope(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1968),pp.x-xii.PeterStein,RomanLawinEuropeanHistory(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999).ArturSteinwenter,'Rezension:PrinzipiendesrömischenRechtsvonFritzSchulz'(1935)152HistorischeZeitschrift115-116.StephenA.Stertz,'AeliusAristides’PoliticalIdeas'(1994)2.34.2AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt1248-1270.ErnstC.StiefelandFrankMecklenburg,DeutscheJuristenimamerikanischenExil(1933-1950)(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1991).PeterM.R.Stirk(ed.),EuropeanUnityinContext:TheInterwarPeriod(London:Bloomsbury,1989).MichaelStolleis,'»FortschrittederRechtsgeschichte«inderZeitdesNationalsozialismus?',inMichaelStolleisandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus.BeiträgezurGeschichteeinerDisziplin(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1989),pp.177-197.MichaelStolleis,Thelawundertheswastika.StudiesonlegalhistoryinNaziGermany(ChicagoLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,1998).MichaelStolleis,GeschichtedesöffentlichenRechtsinDeutschland.3.Band,Staats-undVerwaltungsrechtswissenschaftinRepublikundDiktatur1914-1945(Munich:Beck,1999).MichaelStolleis,'HelmutCoing28.2.1912-15.8.2000'(2001)JahrbuchderMax-Planck-Gesellschaft873-874.MichaelStolleis,'Reluctancetoglanceinthemirror:TheChangingFaceofGermanJurisprudenceafter1933andpost-1945',inChristianJoergesandNavrajSinghGhaleigh(eds.),DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope(OxfordandPortland,OR:HartPublishing,2003),pp.1-18.MichaelStolleis,PublicLawinGermany1914-1945(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004).MichaelStolleisandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus.BeiträgezurGeschichteeinerDisziplin(Tübingen:Mohr,1989).NathanStoltzfusandHenryFriedlander(eds.),NaziCrimesandtheLaw(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).LeoStrauss,PersecutionandtheArtofWriting(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988).LeoStrauss,'TheLivingIssuesofGermanPostwarPhilosophy',inHeinrichMeier(ed.),LeoStraussandtheTheologico-politicalProblem(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),pp.115-139.LeoStrauss,NaturalRightandHistory(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,repr.1963[orig.1953]).LeoStrauss,OnTyranny(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,repr.2000[orig.1948]).MichaelP.StreckandGeroDolezalek,'PaulKoschaker:Zum125.Geburtstagam19.April2004',inJubiläen2004.Personen-Ereignisse(Leipzig:UniversitätLeipzig,2004),pp.31-34.

257

NoahStrote,LionsandLambs:ConflictinWeimarandtheCreationofPost-NaziGermanyYaleUniversityPress,2017).RonaldSyme,TheRomanRevolution(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1939).DitlevTamm,'TheHistoryoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnionSinceitsOrigin',inTheCourtofJusticeandtheConstructionofEurope:AnalysesandPerspectivesonSixtyYearsofCase-Law–LaCourdeJusticeetlaConstructiondel’Europe:AnalysesetPerspectivesdeSoixanteAnsdeJurisprudence(TheHague:Springer,2013),pp.9-35.DanielTanguay,LeoStrauss:AnIntellectualBiography(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2007).DanielP.Tompkins,'TheMakingofMosesFinley',inDanielJew,RobinOsborneandMichaelScott(eds.),M.I.Finley:AnAncientHistorianandhisImpact(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016),pp.13-30.MarionTrager,'MethodeundZivilrechtbeiFranzWieacker(1908–1994)',inJoachimRuckertandRalfSeinecke(eds.),MethodikdesZivilrechts-vonSavignybisTeubner(Baden-Baden:Nomos,2012),pp.235-260.KaiusTuori,AncientRomanlawyersandmodernlegalideals:StudiesontheimpactofcontemporaryconcernsintheinterpretationofancientRomanlegalhistory(FrankfurtamMain:Klostermann,2007).KaiusTuori,Theemperoroflaw:TheemergenceofRomanImperialadjudication(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016).KaiusTuori,'Hadrian’scosmopolitanismandNazilegalpolicy'(2017)9ClassicalReceptionsJournal470-486.KaiusTuoriandHetaBjörklund(eds.),RomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope(London:Bloomsbury,2019).DimitrisTziovas(ed.),Re-imaginingthePast:AntiquityandModernGreekCulture(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2014).PaoloValabrega,IdodiciprofessorichenonhannogiuratoSpeechonMay6,2014,atPolitecnicodiTorino).RaoulC.vanCaenegem,AnHistoricalIntroductiontoPrivateLaw(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992).RaoulC.vanCaenegem,EuropeanLawinthePastandtheFuture:UnityandDiversityoverTwoMillennia(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).MassimoVari,'Dirittoromano«iuscommune»europeo?'(2002)30Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw183-185.MarioVarvaro,'Riccobono,Salvatoresr.',inItaloBirocchi,EnnioCortese,AntonelloMattoneandMarcoNicolaMiletti(eds.),Dizionariobiograficodeigiuristiitaliani(sec.XII‒XX),II(Bologna:IlMulino,2013),pp.1685-1688.MarioVarvaro,'Gli«studiahumanitatis»ei«fataiurisRomani»trafascioecroceuncinata'(2014)42Index:quadernicamertidistudiromanistici=internationalsurveyofRomanlaw643-661.

258

MarioVarvaro,'Circolazioneesviluppodiunmodellometologico',inMartinAvenarius,ChristianBaldus,FrancescaLambertiandMarioVarvaro(eds.),Gradenwitz,RiccobonounddieEntwicklungderInterpolationenkritik(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2018),pp.55-100.JanVermeiren,'ImperiumEuropaeum:RudolfPannwitzandtheGermanIdeaofEurope',inMarkHewitsonandMatthewD'Auria(eds.),EuropeinCrisis:IntellectualsandtheEuropeanIdea,1917-1957(Oxford:BerghahnBooks,2012),pp.135-154.PaulVinogradoff,RomanLawinMedievalEurope(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1968).HansVolkmann,ZurRechtsprechungimPrinzipatdesAugustus.HistorischeBeiträge(Munich:C.H.Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1969[1935]).ClemensVollnhals,Entnazifizierung.PolitischeSäuberungundRehabilitierungindenvierBesatzungszonen1945–1949(Munich:Dtv,1991).P.Volpe,'Armoniaetaxisnell’EncomioaRomadiElioAristide',inF.Giordano(ed.),L’ideadiRomanellaculturaantica,AttidelConvegnodiStudi(Salerno14–16ottobre1996)(Naples:Edizioniscientificheitaliane,2001),pp.305-312.FriedrichA.vonHayek,TheRoadtoSerfdom(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1944).RudolfvonJhering,GeistdesrömischenRechtsaufdenverschiedenenStufenseinerEntwicklung.Teil1-2(Aalen:Scientia,1993).WolfgangFreiherrvonMarschall,'MaxRheinstein',inMarcusLutter,ErnstC.StiefelandMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.),DerEinflußdeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland.VorträgeundReferatedesBonnerSymposionsimSeptember1991(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1993),pp.333-341.AntonvonPremerstein,VomWerdenundWesendesPrinzipats.AusdemNachlassherausgegebenvonHansVolkmann(Munich:VerlagderBayerischenAkademiederWissenschaften,1937).MaxFriedrichGustavvonRümelin,RechtsgefühlundRechtsbewusstsein,RedeGehaltenBeiderAkademischenPreisverteilungAm6.November1925(Tübingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1925).FriedrichCarlvonSavigny,SystemdesheutigenrömischenRechts,vol1(Berlin:BeiVeitundComp.,1840).UlrichvonWilamowitz-Möllendorf,'DerRhetorAristeides'(1925)28SitzungsberichtederpreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften333-353.JohnWaddell,FoundationMyths:theBeginningsofIrishArchaeology(Wicklow:Bray,Co.,2005).HeribertWaider,'“Arsiuris”und“suuminpersonaipsa”beiHugoDonellus'(1961)43ArchivfürGeschichtedsderPhilosophie60-62.FabianWaldinger,'PeerEffectsinScience:EvidencefromtheDismissalofScientistsinNaziGermany'(2012)79TheReviewofEconomicStudies838-861.AndrewWallace-Hadrill,'Mutatiomorum:theideaofaculturalrevolution',inT.HabinekandA.Schiesaro(eds.),TheRomanCulturalRevolution(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),pp.3-22.MarianneWeber,MaxWeber,einLebensbild(Heidelberg:VerlagLambertSchneider,1950).MaxWeber,Wirtschaftsgeschichte(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1924).

259

CarlWege,‘DasNeueEuropa’1933–1945:GermanThoughtPatternsaboutEurope(Stuttgart:EditionAxelMenges,2016).MaxWeinreich,Hitler'sprofessors:thepartofscholarshipinGermany'scrimesagainsttheJewishpeople(NewYork:YiddishScientificInstitute,1946).MaxWeinreich,Hitleretlesprofesseurs.Lerôledesuniversitairesallemandsdanslescrimescommiscontrelepeuplejuif(Paris:LesBellesLettres,2014).LeopoldWenger,DerheutigeStandderrömischenRechtswissenschaft(Munich:C.H.Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1927).GunterWesener,RömischesRechtundNaturrecht(Graz:UniversitätGraz,1978).GunterWesener,'PaulKoschaker',inRafaelDomingo(ed.),Juristasuniversales,III.JuristasdelsigloXIX.DaSavignyaKelsen(MadridandBarcelona:MarcialPons,2004),pp.971-974.GunterWesener,'PaulKoschaker(1879-1951),BegründerderaltorientalischenRechtsgeschichteundjuristischenKeilschriftforschung',inKarlAcham(ed.),Rechts-,Sozial-undWirtschaftswissenschaftlichenausGraz(Wien:BöhlauVerlag,2011),pp.273-285.ThomasWheatland,'FranzL.Neumann:NegotiatingPoliticalExile'(2014)54,suppl.10BulletinoftheGermanHistoricalInstitute111-138.JamesQ.Whitman,TheLegacyofRomanLawintheGermanRomanticEra(Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990).JamesQ.Whitman,'OnNaziHonorandtheNewEuropeanDignity',inChristianJoergesandNavrajSinghGhaleigh(eds.),DarkerLegaciesofLawinEurope(OxfordandPortland,OR:HartPublishing,2003),pp.243-266.JamesQ.Whitman,Hitler'sAmericanmodel.TheUnitedStatesandthemakingofNaziracelaw(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2016).TimWhitmarsh,GreekLiteratureandtheRomanEmpire:ThePoliticsofImitation(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001).TimWhitmarsh,TheSecondSophistic(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005).FranzWieacker,'DasKitzebergerLagerjungerRechtslehrer',inChristianWollschläger(ed.),FranzWieacker.ZivilistischeSchriften(1934–1942)(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,[1935]2000),pp.163-176.FranzWieacker,'WandlungenderEigentumsverfassung',inChristianWollschläger(ed.),FranzWieacker.ZivilistischeSchriften(1934–1942)(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,[1935]2000).FranzWieacker,'StudienzurHadrianischenJustizpolitik'(1935)5RomanistischeStudien:FreiburgerRechtsgeschichtlicheAbhandlungen43-81.FranzWieacker,'DerStandderRechtserneuerungaufdemGebietedesbürgerlichenRechts'(1937)2DeutscheRechtswissenschaft3-27.FranzWieacker,'VomRömischenJuristen'(1939)99ZeitschriftfürdiegesamteStaatswissenschaft440-463.FranzWieacker,'EinflüssedesHumanismusaufdieRezeption.EineStudiezuJohannesApelsDialogus'(1940)100(4)ZeitschriftfürdiegesamteStaatswissenschaft423-456.FranzWieacker,'CorpusIuris'(1942)102ZeitschriftfürdiegesamteStaatswissenschaft444.

260

FranzWieacker,DasrömischeRechtunddasdeutscheRechtsbewußtsein(Leipzig:Barth,1944).FranzWieacker,VomrömischenRecht.WirklichkeitundÜberlieferung(Leipzig:Koehler&Ameland,1944).FranzWieacker,'RezensionPaulKoschaker:EuropaunddasrömischeRecht'(1949)21Gnomon190.FranzWieacker,'ZurErweckungdesNaturrechts'(1949)SüddeutscheJuristenzeitung295-301.FranzWieacker,'FritzPringsheim70Jahre'(1952)Juristenzeitung605.FranzWieacker,PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit,unterbesondererBerücksichtigungderdeutschenEntwicklung(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1952(1stedition),1967(2ndedition)).FranzWieacker,'Über«Aktualisierung»derAusbildungimRömischenRecht',inL’EuropaeilDirittoromano.StudiinmemoriadiPaoloKoschaker,I(Milano:Giuffrè,1954),pp.515-541.FranzWieacker,VulgarismusundKlassizismusimRechtderSpätantike(Heidelberg:C.Winter,1955).FranzWieacker,'FriedrichCarlvonSavigny',inHermannHeimpel(ed.),DiegrossenDeutschenIII(Berlin:Ullstein,1956),pp.39-51.FranzWieacker,'UrsprüngeundElementedeseuropäischenRechtbewusstseins',inMartinGöhring(ed.),Europa,ErbeundAufgabe.InternationalerGelehrtenkongressMainz1955(Wiesbaden:FranzSteiner,1956),pp.105-119.FranzWieacker,GesetzundRichterkunst.ZumProblemderaußergesetzlichenRechtsordnung(Karlsruhe:VerlagC.F.Müller,1958).FranzWieacker,GründerundBewahrer.RechtslehrerderneuerendeutschenPrivatrechtsgeschichte(Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1959).FranzWieacker,VomrömischenRecht:zehnVersuche(Leipzig:K.F.Koehler,1961).FranzWieacker,'DieFortwirkungderantikenRechtskulturenindereuropäischenWelt',inVomRecht(Hannover:NiedersächsischezentralefürPolitischeBildung,1963).FranzWieacker,'UberdasVerhaltnisderromischenFachjurisprudenzzurgriechisch-hellenistischenTheorie'(1969)20Iura448-477.FranzWieacker,RömischeRechtsgeschichteI(Munich:C.H.Beck,1988).FranzWieacker,'FoundationsofEuropeanLegalCulture'(1990)38TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw1-29.FranzWieacker,AhistoryofprivatelawinEurope:withparticularreferencetoGermany.TranslatedbyTonyWeir,forewordbyReinhardZimmermann(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1995).ChristinaWiener,KielerFakultätund'KielerSchule'DieRechtslehreranderRechts-undStaatswissenschaftlichenFakultätzuKielinderZeitdesNationalsozialismusundihreEntnazifizierung(Baden-Baden:NomosVerlag,2013).AlainWijffels,'EuropeanPrivateLaw:ANewSoftware-PackageforanOutdatedOperatingSystem?',inMarkvanHoeckeandFrançoisOst(eds.),TheharmonisationofEuropeanprivatelaw(Oxford:Hart,2000),pp.101-116.

261

AlainWijffels,'Leiuscommuneeuropéen:Mytheouréférentielindifférenciédesdiscourssurlaformationd'undroiteuropéen?',inBorisBernabéandOlivierCamy(eds.),Lesmythesdefondationetl'Europe(Dijon:EditionsUniversitairesdeDijon,2013),pp.87-101.MichaelWildt,AnUncompromisingGeneration:TheNaziLeadershipoftheReichSecurityMainOffice(Wisconsin:UniversityofWisconsinPress,2010).ThomasWilhelmsson,'Introduction:HarmonizationandNationalCultures',inThomasWilhelmsson,ElinaPaunioandAnnikaPohjolainen(eds.),PrivateLawandtheManyCulturesofEurope(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2007),pp.3-20.DietmarWilloweit,'DeutscheRechtsgeschichteund„nationalsozialistischeWeltanschauung‟',inMichaelStolleisandDieterSimon(eds.),RechtsgeschichteimNationalsozialismus.BeiträgezurGeschichteeinerDisziplin(Tübingen:Mohr,1989),pp.25-42.LaurensWinkel,'TheroleofgeneralprinciplesinRomanlaw'(1996)2Fundamina103-120.ViktorWinkler(ed.),DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft.FranzWieackers"PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit"unddiedeutscheRechtswissenschaftdes20.Jahrhunderts.(Hamburg:Dr.Kovač,2014).FabianWittreck,NationalsozialistischeRechtslehreundNaturrecht.AffinitätundAversion(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2008).HansJuliusWolff,WrittenandUnwrittenMarriagesinHellenisticandPostclassicalRomanLaw(Haverford:AmericanPhilologicalAssociation,1939).HansJuliusWolff,RomanLaw:AnHistoricalIntroduction(Norman,OK:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1951).JosephGeorgWolff,'FranzWieacker(5.August1908–17.Februar1994)',inStefanGrundmann(ed.),DeutschsprachigeZivilrechtslehrerdes20.JahrhundertsinBerichtenihrerSchüler.EineIdeengeschichteinEinzeldarstellungen.Bd.1.(Berlin:DeGruyter,2007),pp.73-86.Karl-HeinzZiegler,'MaxKaser',inHorstSchröderandDieterSimon(eds.),RechsgeschichtswissenschaftinDeutschland1945bis1952(Frankfurt:VittorioKlostermann,2001),pp.77-98.ReinhardZimmermann,'RomanandComparativeLaw:TheEuropeanPerspective(Someremarksaproposarecentcontroversy)'(1995)16(1)TheJournalofLegalHistory21-33.ReinhardZimmermann,'SavignysVermächtnis',inPioCaroniandGerhardDilcher(eds.),NormundTradition.WelcheGeschichtlichkeitfürdieRechtsgeschichte?(Köln,Weimar,Wien:BöhlauVerlag,1998),pp.281-321.ReinhardZimmermann,RomanLaw,ContemporaryLaw,EuropeanLaw:TheCivilianTraditionToday(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001).ReinhardZimmermann,'EuropaunddasromischeRecht'(2002)2ArchivfürdiecivilistischePraxis243-316.ReinhardZimmermann,'‘WasHeimathieß,nunheißtesHölle’.TheEmigrationofLawyersfromHitler'sGermany:PoliticalBackground,LegalFramework,andCulturalContext',inJackBeatsonandReinhardZimmermann(eds.),JuristsUprooted(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),pp.1-72.

262

ReinhardZimmermann,''DoubleCross':ComparingScotsandSouthAfricanLaw',inReinhardZimmermann,DanielVisserandKennethReid(eds.),MixedLegalSystemsinComparativePerspective(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),pp.1-33.ReinhardZimmermann,'ThePresentStateofEuropeanPrivateLaw'(2009)57AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw479-511.ReinhardZimmermann,'RomanLawandtheHarmonizationofPrivateLawinEurope',inArthurS.Hartkamp,MartijnW.Hesselink,EwoudHondius,C.MakandEdgarDuPerron(eds.),TowardsaEuropeanCivilCode(AlphenaandenRijn:KluwerLawInternational,2011),pp.27-54.ReinhardZimmermann,'Winkler,Viktor:DerKampfgegendieRechtswissenschaft.FranzWieackers»PrivatrechtsgeschichtederNeuzeit«unddiedeutscheRechtswissenschaftdes20.Jahrhunderts'(2015)79RabelsZeitschriftfürausländischesundinternationalesPrivatrecht686-694.