3.6 The affair of the Institute for Ancient Near Eastern Legal history

Koschaker had considered the foundation of an Institute in Berlin for the study of the Ancient Near Eastern Legal history (Seminar fur Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients) an essential condition of his accepting the professorship in Berlin.^[318] The possibility of continuing the studies he had worked on since the beginning of his career in Leipzig and establishing an Institute played a major role in Koschaker’s decision.

of the Institute would not be particularly appreciated by the Nazi regime.^[319] However, as in other matters relating to Koschaker, things in Berlin began positively but quickly degenerated; the events regarding the Seminar für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients were no exception.

Koschaker’s attempt to create a great centre for the study and teaching of Near Eastern Legal history, therefore, failed, and he decided to ask the Ministry to close the Institute he had so ardently desired. The promises made to have him in Berlin, as well as (or above all) his expectations, had come to nothing.

These events are clearly explained in a letter that Koschaker sent to the Ministry for Science, Education and Popular Education on 19^th April 1940, already examined, in part, with regard to the discussion of the conditions for his position in Berlin.^[321] After having quickly described the events that took place and stressing that he wanted to create a centre for the studies on Ancient Near East (Zentrum der Studien vom alten Orient) in the capital of the Reich, Koschaker listed the events that had taken place during the four years he had spent there. His bitterness is apparent from the first lines of the text:

Erfahrungen von 4 Jahren haben mich gelehrt, auf diese Pläne zu verzichten, sie haben mir aber auch die Überzeugung beigebracht, selbst bescheidenere Ziele in Berlin nicht erreichen zu können. Die letzteren betreffen mein Seminar, das ich eben darum, weil es an die^[322] vorzügliche vorderasiatische Bibliothek der Staatlichen Museen anschließen konnte, mit dem mehr als bescheidenem Etat von 250 RM im Jahre einzurichten vermochte. Vielleicht hätte es mehr Eindruck gemacht, wenn ich das Zehnfache verlangt hätte [...].

First of all, as we can see from the letter, Koschaker felt the need to complain about the general situation in Berlin, a situation that had forced him to abandon his goals and objectives, even his most modest ambitions at the time he had decided to move there. Another cause for complaint was the funding of the Seminar. In 1936, his first year in Berlin, the institute received 500 RM from the Kultusministerium, whereas from 1937 onwards the fundings were reduced.^[323] At the time of writing, the Seminar received 250 RM per year. Koschaker clearly stated that this was a very small sum of money.

The letter then continues with three points in which Koschaker listed in resolute tones further reasons for his displeasure:

Im übrigen registriere ich folgende Tatsachen: 1. Die mir bewilligte Assistentenstelle wurde, nachdem ihr erster Inhaber Dr. Hellebrand wegen anderer Verwendung ausgeschieden war, gestrichen, ohne daß man es der Mühe wert befunden hätte, mich davon auch nur zu verständigen. Nur durch Zufall^[324] habe ich davon erfahren. 2. [...] wurde ich im Herbst vorigen Jahres delogiert, weil der Raum für Zwecke des Luftschutzes beansprucht wurde. Meine anderweitige Unterbringung kann kaum noch als behelfsmäßig bezeichnet werden. Ich bin nicht überzeugt, daß sie die einzig mögliche Lösung | war. 3. Ich habe immer betont, daß mein Seminar auf die engste Zusammenarbeit mit dem Berliner Assyriologen angewiesen sei. Leider ist das Ordinariat^[325] für Assyriologie an der Berliner Universität seit Jahren unbesetzt. [...] so habe ich mich um die Versetzung Falkensteins von München nach Berlin bemüht und sie schließlich, nicht ohne Schwierigkeiten, auch durchgesetzt. Falkenstein hat sich hier ausgezeichnet bewährt und praktisch die Assyriologie in Berlin in den letzten Jahren getragen. [...] Unter solche Umständen wäre es das Gegebene gewesen, v.

The first problem he spoke of related to the position of his personal assistant, which had remained vacant after his only assistant, Dr. Hellebrand, had been removed - by the university administration - to another occupation. This was exacerbated by the fact that no one thought it necessary to inform Koschaker of the University’s decision. The second issue related to the room in which he worked and held classes at the Seminar: after the war had broken out, he had been moved to another office, because his previous one was now being used for air defence purposes.

If Koschaker’s words so far appeared clear and determined, the last sentences of his letter are even more incisive:

Hingegen ist es mir zweifelhaft, ob ich sie heute noch in einem Seminar, also sozusagen unter staatlicher Approbation fortsetzen darf. Ich habe zwar keinen Grund zu vermuten, daß sie von der Unterrichtsverwaltung mißbilligt werden oder gar die Absicht besteht, sie zu unterdrücken, aber ich stehe doch vor der Tatsache, daß man mir durch das Bestehen eines Seminars eine wissenschaftliche Verantwortung aufbürdet und mir auf der anderen Seite die Mittel verweigert, diese Verantwortung zu erfüllen. Ich gestatte mir daher zu beantragen, mein “Seminar für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients” aufzulösen und mich so von einem Titel zu befreien, den ich im günstigsten Falle nur als Ironie empfinden könnte.

First and foremost, Koschaker cast doubt on the fact that he was still allowed (he used the verb dürfen) by the Ministry to proceed with his activities at the Seminar. The following sentence was cleverly phrased in a formal style, but it sounded no less critical than the previous one. He explained that he could not imagine that someone at the Ministry desired to oppose or suppress the continuation of his activities at the Seminar; nonetheless, he had been burdened with the responsibility for the Institute, since he was its director, but without the necessary means to carry out these responsibilities. For these reasons he asked the Ministry to close the Seminar and release him from his title of director, which would otherwise sound somewhat ironic (the last sentence sounds even blunter in German: “und mich so von einem T itel zu befreien, den ich im günstigsten F alle nur als Ironie empfinden könnte”). It was very painful for Koschaker to send such a request to the Ministry, because it meant admitting the “bankruptcy” of the plans that he had harboured when he moved to Berlin. At the end he desired to stress, however, that he could not be considered responsible for this failure.

Koschaker’s standpoint was resolute and compelling; the final part of the text almost appeared to be a provocation, considering whom the letter was addressed to. Of course, Koschaker was defending his own scholarly interests, but at the same time he would appear to denounce the faults of the Ministry and of the administrative offices, the inadequacy of the structures, the failure to comply with his requests, or rather the fulfilment of the conditions he had set out - which the Ministry and the University of Berlin had approved - in order to accept the chair in Berlin. His self-esteem, as a person and as an eminent professor, had been hurt and his subsequent reaction was firm. Koschaker’s letter suggested a lack of interest in, if not indeed something like disapproval of, his activities and his Seminar. His frustration and disappointment are therefore more than understandable, but it is also worth considering whether his expectations were perhaps too high when he moved to Berlin. Put bluntly, even if in 1936 the establishment of a Seminar for Ancient Near Eastern Legal history in Berlin had been plausible, after the war broke out it was inevitable that conditions would change. Koschaker’s field of studies would only have been barely tolerated by the Nazi regime, since their interests would obviously focus on other aims. One should also remember that these events happened in Berlin, the capital of the Reich. Research that might has successfully been carried out undisturbed in a small city like Tübingen - where Koschaker became director of the Near Eastern Institute (Orientalisches Seminar) from 1941 onwards - would have met with disapproval in Berlin, the centre of Nazi government and propaganda. Moreover, the opposition of the Nazis to Roman law was in part based on theories about Oriental and Jewish influences on post-classical Roman law;^[331] it seems clear, therefore, that a centre of studies on Ancient Oriental Legal history would not be readily accepted in Berlin. The fact that its creation was actually allowed in 1936 is probably proof of the prestige and important role that Koschaker had within Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Altorientalistik) and Roman law scholarship in Germany at this time.

On the same day Koschaker sent the letter to the Ministry for Science, Eduation and Popular Education, he addressed another typewritten one-page letter to the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy (Dekan der philosphischen Fakultät der Universität Berlin), Franz Koch.^[332] In this brief missive, Koschaker announced that he had officially requested the closure of the Seminar für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients. After having thanked Koch for the active and deep interest shown concerning the appointment of a new chair in Assyriology after Falkenstein had been moved to Göttingen, Koschaker wrote the following:

[...] Sie werden es verstehen, daß ich nun Schluß machen möchte. Die Nachteile, die mir daraus erwachsen, werden gering sein gegenüber dem beständigen Ärger und den Enttäuschungen, die ich bisher hatte. [...].

Koschaker appeared once again to be despondent about the problems connected with and caused by the creation of the Seminar and his blunt final sentence confirmed this impression: the harm caused by the closure of the Institute would, in any case, be less than the anger and disappointment he had endured.

During the summer of 1940, however, a new Dean, Hermann Grapow, a famous Egyptologist, was appointed to the Faculty of Philosophy.^[333] On 4^th November 1940, Grapow sent a letter to the Rektor of the University, Hoppe,^[334] to complain about Koschaker’s request to close the Seminar. Grapow wrote that he was sorry to hear that Koschaker had submitted such a request, but he also affirmed that, before any kind of decision could be taken, it was necessary to wait for the assignment of the new professor in Assyriology and for his opinion on this particular issue. Grapow also complained about Koschaker’s direction of the Seminar:

[...] Denn Herr Koschaker hat sich bei seiner Begründung [of the Seminar] auf die assyriologische Seite des alten Orients beschränkt. Es gibt aber auch eine ägyptologische Seite, und auch aus Ägypten besitzen wir Rechtsurkunden, die auch vom juristischen her Beachtung und Untersuchung verdienen. Hätte sich herr Koschaker seinerzeit entschloßen, das Seminar auf der angedeuteten breiteren Basis aufzubauen, so wäre es vermieden worden, daß sich inzwischen in München ein Jurist der Rechtsurkunden aus dem alten Ägypten angenommen hat. Jedenfalls sollte die Ungelegenheit des Seminars noch einmal zwischen Herrn Koschaker, Herrn v. Soden und gegebenenfalls dem Unterzeichneten besprochen werden, bevor der Herr Reichsminister die Auflösung verfügte.

The new dean, no doubt disappointed that Koschaker had always focused on the close connection between his Seminar and the Chair in Assyriology, neglecting the Chair and professors for Egyptology that worked at the University of Berlin, seemed to ascribe the responsibility for the failure of the Institute mainly to Koschaker. This might indicate that the relationship between Koschaker and Grapow was by no means idyllic, or, to put it another way, between Koschaker and the scholars who studied Egyptology in Berlin at this time. Or possibly, it is simply evidence of the deep resentment felt by Grapow, who considered that Koschaker had neglected his particular field of study. In any case, Grapow did not seem to be willing to accept that the Institute would be definitely closed, at least not until the matter had been discussed further with both Koschaker and Soden.^[335]

Grapow’s decisive reaction to the closure of the Seminar provoked a decision by the Minister on the question. Twenty-four days after Grapow had sent the letter to Rektor Hoppe, the Ministry for Science, Education and Popular Education decided not to accept Koschaker’s request to close the Seminar für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients. On the contrary, there ought to be a discussion as proposed by Grapow involving Koschaker, Soden and Grapow himself. In a letter of 28^th November 1940, addressed to Hoppe,^[336] the Minister wrote:

[...] Das Gesuch des Professors Dr. Koschaker vom 12. September 1940 um Auflösung des Seminars für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients sende ich zwecks Herbeiführung der von dem Dekan der Philosophischen Fakultät vorgeschlagenen Aussprache anbei zurück. Ich verhehle nicht, dass ich grundsätzlich nicht geneigt bin, Einrichtungen, die einmal an der Hochschule oder in Verbindung mit ihr formell errichtet worden sind, ohne zwingende Gründe wieder aufzuheben. Es müsste dadurch zwangsläufig der Eindruck entstehen, als ob die Errichtung nicht genügend vorbedacht gewesen sei. [.].

The Minister wrote that he would not agree to Koschaker’s request and added that in the absence of compelling reasons he was not well disposed to abolishing institutes that had been created as part of the university. Otherwise, an impression might be given that such institutions had not been sufficiently thought through in advance.

The Dean of the Rechts- und staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät Hans Weigmann was aware of such events and the Minister’s decision, and, as a consequence, decided to write a letter to the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy on 9^th December 1940.^[337] In this very short letter, consisting of a few typewritten lines, he asked Grapow to consult with him with regard to the question of the Seminar für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients. Grapow’s stand, therefore, succeeded, and Koschaker’s petition was rejected. Just as his plans to create a great centre for the study of Ancient Near Eastern Legal history in Berlin had failed, so too, ironically enough, his attempt to close an institute that had been created for him and for his studies came to nought. Koschaker’s career in Berlin was at this point in evident decline. It was at the end of November 1940 when the Minister took his decision on the destiny of the Seminar für Rechtsgeschichte des alten Orients, and Koschaker was probably already preparing himself to leave the capital of the Reich for good.