3.8 Leaving Berlin

To reiterate, Koschaker’s judgment of his experience in Berlin was not positive as his rather high expectations were fraught with frustrations, in the end. He therefore decided to ask the Ministry of Education to relocate him to a different, smaller university, eventually resulting in his move to Tübingen, where he began his work as a professor of Roman law on 1^st October 1941.^[362] The bitterness and disappointment caused by the events in Berlin led him to hope for a more solitary and quieter academic life, during which he could devote his time to his research and ideas regarding the study of Roman law.

Despite the difficulties experienced at the University of Berlin, Koschaker was nonetheless able to write some very important works on differen topics over the five years from 1936 to 1941, but unlike the previous years from 1911 to 1936, he did not publish any monographs. On the contrary, he made a large number of minor publications and, in particular, reviews, mainly published in the Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, and if we exclude his major work of this period, Die Krise des römischen Rechts und die romanistische Rechtswissenschaft, there were few other significant articles.^[363] Indeed despite the renewed and intense interest in Roman law and its crisis, Koschaker continued to work on cuneiform law and Ancient Near Eastern Legal history. He also published an article on legal history and comparative law, with a particular focus on Germany, a text that probably represents another step in the development of his ideas on the role of the comparative methodology in legal history studies.^[364]

The ubiquitous academic esteem enjoyed by Koschaker at the time when he was a professor in Berlin is further confirmed by the two Festschriften in his honour, which both appeared in 1939. One contains contributions from the most influential legal historians and Romanists of the time,^[365] and the other collects essays by the most important scholars in the field of cuneiform law and Ancient Near Eastern Legal history.^[366] Nonetheless, as is evident from his letters, Koschaker was not satisfied with the limited opportunities he had to devote his time to research.

Yet before concluding this section of the chapter, it is appropriate to mention two documents regarding Koschaker’s replacement as professor of Roman law at Berlin. The documents in question are letters sent from the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Weigmann, to the Ministry for Culture, Education and Popular Education (Reichsminister für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung). The first text, dated 23^rd September 1941,^[367] and written a week before Koschaker officially began to work in Tübingen, is very interesting for two reasons: first, the dean listed the other candidates for the chair. The first alternatives, both considered at the same level, were San Nicolò and Wieacker.^[368] The second options, also considered on the same level, were Kunkel and Genzmer, but they were defined by the Dean as somewhat “colourless” scholars if compared with the first two (“Diese [Kunkel and Genzmer] erscheinen ihnen [San Nicolò and Wieacker] gegenüber als Lehrer etwas farblos. Sicher sind sie Gelehrte von sehr gutem wissenschaftlichen Namen, das allein genügt aber, wie sich aus dem früher Gesagten ergibt, für die Bekleidung der Berliner Professur noch nicht”).^[369]

Secondly, the Dean referred to the need to take care of the teaching of Roman law, in particular in Berlin. If we had not known that these were the words of the Dean, we might suppose them to have been written by Koschaker himself. In fact, the text reads:

Die durch die Wegberufung von Professor Dr. Koschaker freigewordene Professur muß nach Ansicht der Fakultät auch künftig für die Pflege des römischen Rechts bestimmt sein.

It is impossible not to find analogies between the words used by the dean and those pronounced by Koschaker at the Akademie für Deutsches Recht, as we will see in chapter five. There are also similarities with Koschaker’s statements on the role of a Roman law professor at the University of Berlin, as evidenced by his letter to the Rektor sent on 22^nd February 1938. In 1941, therefore, the topic of the defence of Roman law teaching and of the significance of Roman law not only for the past, but also for the present and contemporary law, as well as from a more general cultural perspective, emerged clearly from a letter of by an important member of the University of Berlin. It seems reasonable then to question whether Koschaker could have influenced the opinion of other colleagues at the University with regard to Roman law and its role. At the same time, it would be interesting to learn how influential Koschaker’s lecture at the Akademie für Deutsches Recht in December 1937 had been. Yet since there are no other sources to assist us in the quest, these conjectures cannot be taken any further. It appears nonetheless clear that, even if Koschaker did not bring any direct influence to bear on other colleagues with regard to the topic of the teaching of Roman law, nevertheless his ideas were eventually understood and shared by some of his contemporaries at the University, and thus he was not completely alone in his “fight” to save Roman law.

The letter then dealt with the question of the role of a professor of Roman law at the University of Berlin both in Germany and abroad:

Es handelt sich dabei natürlich nicht nur um das römische Recht, sondern um das gesamte antike Rechtsleben im Mittelmeerbereich. Er steht aber auch dem Ausland gegenüber an einer besonders sichtbaren und deshalb verantwortlichen Stelle. Mehr als seine Fachgenossen an den anderen Universitäten kann er die deutsche^[371] Beurteilung des antiken Rechts vor der europäischen Wissenschaft zum Ausdruck bringen. Das gilt besonders auch gegenüber italienischen Forschern, die manchmal eine ausschließliche Zuständigkeit ihres Landes für seine Behandlung beanspruchen und es vielleicht einseitig dem italienischen Rechtsdenken und dem Gedanken des Imperiums dienstbar machen möchten. Aber auch der Lehrer^[372] des römischen Rechts in Berlin habe besonders wichtige Aufgaben. Die deutschen Juristen müssen das römische Recht in den rechtlichen Auseinandersetzungen, die nach dem Kriege zu erwarten sind, beherrschen, um gegenüber ausländischen Juristen genügend gerüstet zu sein; das hat sich in der Zeit nach dem Kriege 1914 bis 1918 gezeigt. Nach dem jetzigen Kriege ist aber auch mit einem sehr starken Besuch auf Grund der Tradition ihres Landes gerade das römische Recht pflegen wollen. Ergibt sich schon hieraus, daß an die Person des zu Berufenden hohe Anforderungen gestellt werden müssen, steigern sich diese noch dadurch, daß sich das römische Recht an der Berliner Universität infolge der Verhältnisse der jüngsten Vergangenheit in ungünstiger Lage befindet. Es ist notwendig, die deutsche Studenten der Berliner Universität erst wieder an eine intensive Beschäftigung mit dem römischen Recht heranzuführen. Und es muß in Berlin in weiten Kreisen der Rechtwahrer^[373], und gegenüber den politischen Stellen und den Behörden erst wieder dafür gesorgt werden, daß die Gegenwartsbedeutung des römischen Rechts Anerkennung findet.

When the dean, Weigmann, referred to the critical situation of Roman law in Berlin and the utter lack of interest of students in this subject matter, it is once again possible to find significant analogies with Koschaker’s approach.

Weigmann did not limit his considerations to the need to regain students’ interest and, in general, that of jurists, he also stressed the urgency of representatives of the government and politicians understanding the role and the sense of Roman law for the present time. This is a striking assertion, infused with profound political significance and directly addressed to the Minister of the Nazi regime. The words used by the Dean, therefore, are more than noteworthy; it is nonetheless clear that in 1941, and after the famous speech given by Frank in Rome at the Istituto fascista di cultura in 1936,^[374] the approach of the Nazi regime towards Roman law had partially changed. One should also consider the influence that some Romanists, including Koschaker, Kaser and Wieacker,^[375] could have exercised with regard to these questions from 1937 onwards. In their works they urged Germanists, other jurists, and the regime to see Roman law as an essential foundation of European legal history, which could also prove to be necessary to build a new private law system, but it should be compatible with the idea of a new German legal order.

This kind of situation was the consequence, on the one hand, of a partially changed approach of the regime towards Roman law after 1936, while on the other, some Romanists began to adopt strategies of adaptation (Strategien der Anpassung).^[376] These strategies were carried out by many scholars, and not only Roman law scholars, during the Nazi regime. They consisted in attempting to adapt the study of Roman law and Legal history so as not upset the regime.

Lastly, the letter contains hints of another essential narrative of the time, namely the question of European cultural hegemony. The Dean referred to the tendency of Italian scholarship in the field of Roman law to impose their way of thinking and their research trends on others, and to consider themselves the only scholars competent to study this topic, and Legal history in general. According Weigmann, such tendency was something that German professors, and the professor in Roman law at Berlin, in particular, had to fight, and even more so after the end of the war. These few words were the quintessence of an academic, scientific and cultural competitiveness between the two allies, Germany and Italy, which probably reached its climax with the events leading to the foundation of the Italian institute Studia Humanitatis in Berlin, in December 1942. On that occasion, Riccobono, who held the introductory speech at the inaugural conference, actually discussed the essential - if not predominant - role of Italian scholarship in the field of humanist studies, as the great interpreters of classical culture and of Roman law.^[377] The words of the Dean have to be read, therefore, as a significant step along the way to cultural hegemony in Europe.

The letter ended with a request for the Ministry: given all the reasons explained in the previous lines, the Dean wrote that the faculty would be grateful for the rapid appointment of another professor who could take the chair in Roman law and then resume the classes.^[378] The request would not be satisfied so quickly though, as is apparent from the second letter addressed to the Minister on 30^th September 1942.^[379] The date reported on the document confirms that a year and a week after dispatching the first request, the chair for Roman law was still vacant, given Wieacker’s refusal to move to Berlin:

Durch ein Ferngespräch mit Herrn Professor Dr. Groh habe ich erfahren, daß Professor Wieacker es abgelehnt hat, einem Ruf nach Berlin zu folgen und daß Herr^[380] Reichsminister die Fakultät zu neuen Vorschlägen auffordern wird. Die Professur für Römisches Recht wird im kommenden Semester daher aller Voraussicht nach nicht besetzt sein. Die Fakultät bittet deshalb einen Dozenten vertretungsweise wenigstens mit der Abhaltung der Vorlesung über “Antike Rechtsgeschichte” (vierstündig) zu beauftragen. Diese Vorlesung ist seit dem Fortgang von Prof. Koschaker überhaupt nicht, in den letzten Semestern seines Hierseins, infolge seiner mehrfachen Beurlaubungen, nur unregelmäßig gehalten worden. In der juristischen Ausbildung bedeutet das Fehlen dieser Vorlesung eine erhebliche Lücke, die sich in den Prüfungen, besonders bei der Doktorprüfung, immer mehr bemerkbar macht. Es scheint daher geboten, daß sie im kommenden Semester gehalten wird. Für die Vertretung schlage ich Professor Dr. W. Erbe in Jena vor, der als Referent am Kaiser Wilhelm-Institut für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht während eines großen Teiles der Woche in Berlin ist.

The main concern with the Chair for Roman law, as emerges from the letter, was the teaching of antike Rechtsgeschichte.^[381] The new course, based on Wenger’s theories on the study of ancient laws, had been introduced into German law faculties after the reform of the Studienordnung that took place in July 1935, but became effective only in October of the same year, preceded by the so-called Justizausbildungsordnung of 1934.^[382] After the reform, the students had the possibility of choosing between a previous course on Roman legal history (römische Rechtsgeschichte) and the new course on antike Rechtsgeschichte. Reading the text of the letter, one receives the impression that the antike Rechtsgeschichte, within a few years of the legal studies reform taking effect, had obtained a much more significant role than the Roman legal history course for practical reasons; namely, it was needed for the doctoral examination (Doktorprüfung). The Dean pointed out that the course had not been offered since Koschaker’s departure from Berlin, and during the last semesters that Koschaker spent at that University the course had not been taught regularly, given the many leaves of absence that Koschaker had at that time. The name provisionally suggested for the course on antike Rechtsgeschichte was Erbe, who had been one of the few students to regularly attend Koschaker’s classes on Roman law in Berlin.^[383]

The two letters show evident concern about the position of Roman law in Berlin, but it is particularly significant that the second letter mainly focused on antike Rechtsgeschichte, a new course accepted and introduced by the regime, but already openly criticised by Koschaker in 1937-1938. These two archival documents can be thus interpreted as further proof of Koschaker’s concern about the crisis of Roman law, in particular in the capital city, which represented one of the many reasons for his leaving Berlin for Tübingen.

4