3.7 Students and the teaching of Roman law

The various difficulties and problems that Koschaker had encountered after his arrival in Berlin resulted in a rapid lowering of his expectations concerning the prestigious chair that had once been Savigny’s.

Persönlich habe ich mich in Berlin nicht wohl gefühlt. Das ist eine Feststellung, aber kein Vorwurf gegen die Berliner, deren wie überhaupt des Preußentums Vorzüge und Tugenden ich immer um so höher schätze, als ich selbst nicht das geringste davon besitze. Dazu kam die an der Universität der Reichshauptstadt besonders intensive Nazifizierung, die mich noch mehr vereinsamte als die Größe der Stadt für sich. Es wurde mir gestattet, 1941 Berlin mit dem kleinen Tübingen zu vertauschen [...].^[339]

As was mentioned earlier,^[340] scholars have often conjectured about the grounds for Koschaker’s decision to leave Berlin for Tübingen. Some pointed to the increasing presence of the Nazis at the University ("intensive Nazifizierung"). portraying Koschaker as a determined anti-Nazi;^[341] while others argued that the reasons for the move to Tübingen were ambivalent.^[342] Koschaker’s own words have been used to explain his actions, but a close analysis of Koschaker’s actual correspondence offers a more complex picture of the reasons for his leaving Berlin.

In fact, numerous circumstances influenced the unfolding of events,^[343] but one thing is certain: it was Koschaker’s own decision to leave the Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität. Even though it is plausible that Koschaker was not popular among all his colleagues or members of the regime involved in the life of the University and the two academies in Berlin,^[344] and some were lukewarm about Roman law and Ancient Near Eastern Legal history, there is in fact no actual proof of open hostility towards him.

The main issues emerging from the documents described and quoted above relate mainly to practical and bureaucratic questions, troubles connected to the heavy burden of teaching, some personal problems, such as his poor health, his personal dislike for the city, and his difficulty in getting used to the distances and life of Berlin. Koschaker also had a few issues with some of his colleagues, such as Grapow, but these largely centred on scientific or organisational questions. In addition, it should also be mentioned that on several occasions Koschaker was refused permission to collaborate on some scientific projects, such as in the case of the Festschrift in honour of Eduard Mahler, a Hungarian Jewish colleague.^[345] Nonetheless, it is clear in this case that the reason for refusing permission was not borne of personal hostility against Koschaker, but rather on the Jewish origins of his colleague Mahler. In fact, there did not seem to be any particular political issue over Koschaker during the time he spent in Berlin, as a travel permit (Reisegenehmigung) from 3^rd September 1937 would appear, at least in part, to confirm.^[346]

The content of the typewritten document, a political report on Koschaker ("Politische Beurteilung über den Professor Dr. Paul Koschaker in Berlin-Grunewald, Winklerstr. 13”), reads:

Das Urteil meiner Parteidienststellen über Koschaker ist nicht einheitlich. Tatsachen, aus denen die politische Unzuverlässigkeit des Koschaker herzuteilen wäre,^[347] sind nicht bekannt geworden.

The words of the officer appointed to check Koschaker’s political reliability show that there was no evidence to compromise his trustworthiness, although the judgment itself on Koschaker was not unanimous.

Once again, an interpretation of this document could suggest that, in certain cases, Koschaker came up against obstacles at the University. However, such impediments were mainly administrative rather than political in nature.

Yet it is clear that the situation regarding the Seminar für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients was complicated and frustrating for Koschaker. His work conditions grew worse over the years, and no doubt the Ministry - as well as a number of influential people at the University - were, at best, not very interested in the activities of the Seminar, and considered it of secondary importance. On the other hand, it was the Minister who authorised the establishment of the new Seminar in 1936 and the same Minister who had declared its opposition to closing it, despite Koschaker’s letter of 28^th November 1940 requesting its closure.

The complex reasons leading Koschaker to leave Berlin find further confirmation in a handwritten one-page letter he sent to the President of the Prussian Academy of Science on 30^th September 1941.^[348] Koschaker informed the President that from 1^st October 1941 he would become Professor at the University of Tübingen, before briefly summarising the reasons for his move. The most important part of the text reads:

[...]. Die Gründe, die mich veranlaßten, diese fernerstehenden vielleicht ungewöhnlich erscheinende Veränderung zu erstreben, hier auseinanderzusetzen, würde zu weit führen. Sie liegen teils in Schwierigkeiten, die ich bei Ausübung meines Lehramtes im römischen Recht hatte, teils in bürokratischen Hemmungen bei Durchführung gewisser wissenschaftlicher Pläne. Zuletzt kamen gesundheitliche Erwägungen hinzu [...].

On the same day, Koschaker sent a handwritten two-page letter (recto and verso) to the Director of the Prussian Academy of Science, informing him about his move and his new address in Tübingen. He also mentioned that the lecture to be given on 12^th March 1942 still needed to be confirmed. The reply of the Director, a typewritten half-page letter was eventually sent on 5^th November 1941; he essentially limited his reply to a confirmation of the lecture and to inform Koschaker that the President had still not replied due to illness.^[349]

To conclude, a few final words should be devoted to the problem of the Roman law courses and their students at the University of Berlin. It has previously been stated how important it was for Koschaker to restore the role of Roman law and its teaching, in particular at the chair in Berlin.^[350] This task was perceived by Koschaker more as a mission than a job,^[351] and he deeply identified his persona as being representative par excellence of this �duty’,^[352] which should begin with teaching at Berlin.

Two important sources substantiate the critical situation with respect to teaching Roman law in the second half of the 1930s in both Berlin and in Germany at large; two Italian Roman law scholars, Antonio Guarino and Emilio Betti, had both experienced the crisis in teaching - from the student’s perspective in the case of Guarino, and from the perspective of the teacher in Betti’s case.

The narrative provided by Guarino in a number of his essays is probably, for our purposes, the more interesting of the two because he was not only a student in Berlin in 1937/1938, but was actually one of Koschaker’s students.^[353] Guarino had the opportunity to attend Koschaker’s classes and he described a situation in which he was part of a very limited group of loyal �followers’ of the scholar, along with Below and Erbe.^[354] In addition to Koschaker’s classes, they used to meet with him daily at the Juristisches Seminar to discuss questions regarding Roman law including the hatred of the regime towards the topic and the subject’s dramatic situation in Germany.

Guarino wrote:

Vi era un tema presente, addirittura incombente, su cui richiamava spesso la nostra attenzione Koschaker, ed era il tema dell’ostracismo, che il partito politico al potere aveva decretato al diritto romano ed al suo insegnamento nelle università tedesche. [...] Fortunatamente questo programma drastico non si era ancora tradotto in una abolizione della disciplina didattica, ma era stata sufficiente ad allontanare gli studenti dal diritto romano la norma per cui le ore di lezione erano state ridotte a metà e l’esame relativo era stato soppresso. Ormai Koschaker svolgeva i suoi corsi solo, o quasi, per noi fedelissimi e presentiva il giorno in cui il diritto romano non avrebbe più avuto, nei paesi tedeschi, nĂ© discepoli nĂ© docenti.^{[355] [356]}

Guarino’s gloomy picture confirmed Koschaker’s perception that a darker future was yet to come for Roman law in Germany. Koschaker considered Italy to be the “Eden” for the study of Roman law, an idea also expressed in his Die Krise des römischen Rechts und die romanistische Rechtswissenschaft}³³

Guarino provided us with the notion that Koschaker’s crusade to preserve Roman law was a true mission for him, comparable to the courageous suffering of the Apostles.^[357] Guarino’s texts portrays Koschaker as a highly sensitive scholar, so passionate about Roman law that he exaggerated the extent of the crisis. Koschaker’s commitment is reported as determined and noble in Guarino’s essays, though at times it borders on idealisation.

Certainly, the teaching of Roman law was facing a deep crisis, as Betti’s words confirm.^[358] In 1937-38 Betti was invited by some German colleagues - among them Genzmer, Kunkel and Lubtow - to hold courses on Roman law in Frankfurt am Main, Bonn and Cologne, respectively.^[359] Betti had first hand experience of some of the problems involved in teaching the subject in Germany, a situation deplored by Koschaker at the Akademie far Deutsches Recht at that time, and the Italian scholar was particularly disappointed by the lack of student interest in the study of Roman law.^[360] It is no surprise, therefore, that such indifference was also a source of suffering for Paul Koschaker.

In a letter written on 22^nd Feruary 1938 and sent to the Rektor of the University of Berlin, Hoppe, Koschaker made his most meaningful and determined statement on the condition of Roman law in Germany at that time.^[361] The content of the letter relates to the reasons for Koschaker turning down the invitation to talk at the Istituto di Studi Germanici in Rome, even though he had received an authorisation to do so from the Ministry of Education. The text reads:

Eure Magnifizenz!

Sie hatten die Freundlichkeit zu genehmigen, daß ich einer Einladung des Istituto di Studi Germanici in Rom folgend dort einen Vortrag halte. Ich erlaube mir mitzuteilen, daß ich diese Einladung nachträglich abgelehnt habe. Es war meine Absicht über die Geschichte des Studiums des römischen Rechts zu sprechen, ein Thema, das man von dem Vertreter des römischen Rechts an der Universität der deutschen Reichshauptstadt am ehesten erwartet. Bei dessen Erörterung könnte ich an der deutschen Gegenwart unmöglich Vorbeigehen. In einer Zeit aber, da das Studium des römischen Rechts in Deutschland und insbesondere in Berlin völlig darnieder liegt, da ich einen schweren Kampf gegen die völlige Teilnahmslosigkeit der Studenten gegenüber diesem Fach kämpfe, da ich mich des Gefühls nicht zu erwehren vermag, daß man dieses Studium, das einst eine große und ruhmreiche Tradition der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft war, nicht mehr schätz, vermöchte ich in Italien, wo man es als große kulturelle Errungenschaft pflegt und wertet, über ein solches Thema nicht ohne Bitterkeit zu sprechen. Eurer Magnifizenz dürfte es bekannt sein, daß ich mit Kritik an den gegenwärtigen Verhältnissen nicht zurückgehalten habe. Ich kann aber eine solche Kritik unmöglich öffentlich im Auslande üben.

Unter solchen Umständen hielt ich es für richtiger zu schweigen und habe daher die Einladung aus Gesundheitsrücksichten abgelehnt. Das ist übrigens kein Scheingrund. Der Niedergang meines Fachs, der in Berlin katastrophal ist und mich praktisch zum Professor nur für Ausländer, d.h. überflüssig macht, ist eine Angelegenheit, die mir nahe geht. Ich vermag solche Dinge nicht abzuschütteln wie die Ente das Wasser. So haben im Laufe dieses Semesters meine Nerven sehr gelitten. Ich fühle mich in der Tat nicht so wohl, als daß ich die deutsche Rechtswissenschaft im Auslande und speziell in Italien so vertreten könnten, wie man es von mir erwartet und wie ich es von mir selbst verlangen müßte.

The content of this letter is very clear and does not require detailed explanation. It represents Koschaker’s perception and feelings concerning the crisis in the teaching of Roman law; yet two considerations deserve particular attention. First, it is clear that Koschaker saw himself as one of the most important exponents of Roman law in Germany; his chair in Berlin obliged him to confront the crisis and defend Roman law when attending conferences or giving lectures abroad. In the face of such a �duty’, as Koschaker perceived it, he could either travel abroad and explain the real situation in Germany, or renounce his attendance at conferences. No third way was conceivable. He was naturally aware that he could not openly criticise the academic situation in Germany while abroad, and this no doubt influenced his decision to travel or not. Overall, Koschaker’s perception of his role emerges from the choice of the word “Kampf’, expressive of his effort to “fight” the indifference of students to Roman law. The second consideration is that no significant barriers appear to have been placed in his way to hinder his academic activities, for the Ministry permitted him to attend conferences and explain his studies of Roman law. However, the general political situation in Germany gradually became the real impediment that restricted him from carrying out his duties. This situation gravely vexed him and eventually had repercussions on his health.