4.4 The time in Tübingen: research and teaching

Koschaker, therefore, applied the same formula he attempted to use for his courses in Berlin, and this formula was nothing other than the Aktualisierung of Roman law study, as described in his work Die Krise des römischen Rechts und die romanistische Rechtswissenschaft.^[433]

Two letters written by Merk, director of the Law department of the Faculty and Professor for Administrative and Tax Law, and sent to Koschaker in 1942, and one sent by Koschaker to Merk in the same year seem to furnish further confirmation of Koschaker’s approach to the teaching of Roman law.

In the first letter, sent on 20^th October 1942 - when Koschaker had already spent more than a year in Tübingen - Merk touched upon several matters, but two of them are particularly noteworthy.^[434] The text is divided into three points; the second being a reply to a previous request sent by Koschaker on 11^th October 1942, regarding the idea of organising special extra courses for soldiers on leave; this opportunity had not been considered by the Law department up to that moment, as we can read from Merk’s answer:^[435]

2) Zurückkommend auf Ihr früheres Schreiben vom 11. v. Mts.^[436] bemerke ich, dass Sonderkurse für die beurlaubten Kriegsteilnehmer in der Rechtswissenschaftlichen Abteilung bis jetzt nicht in Aussicht genommen sind.

The third point of the letter is the most interesting, since it shows what content Koschaker intended to contribute to the course on “Roman legal history” (“Römische Rechtsgeschichte”) after the reform of the Studienordnung⁵

At this point, it should be stated that after the reform of the study and teaching at the Law faculties in Germany that took place in July 1935, inspired by Eckhardt, Roman law courses changed in German Law faculties.^{[437] [438] Since 1900, there had been two main courses on this topic in German universities: one was Geschichte und System des römischen Privatrechts, strongly influenced by the pandectist approach and focusing mainly on Roman private law, but it was also used as an introduction to the study of B GB. The other was Römische Rechtsgeschichte, which dealt above all with Roman legal history. Along with these two main courses, there was scope for additional optional courses and the so- called Übungen (literally “exercises”, like small seminars on specific topics usually related to the two above-mentioned main courses). After the reform, the first above­mentioned course was replaced by the new Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit, a History of Private Law of the Modern Age (die Neuzeit),[439] whereas for the second course, students could choose between the pre-existing Römische Rechtsgeschichte and the new Antike Rechtsgeschichte, a Legal History course focusing on ancient laws.[440] Of the last two classes, the regime preferred “Antike Rechtsgeschichte”, because there was no reference to Roman law in the name.}

Koschaker still wanted to use the content of the pre-existing courses, even if he had to adapt them to the new “labels” imposed by the reform of the regime. From Merk’s letter, we can gain a better understanding of how Koschaker intended to proceed in practice:

3) Ich darf wohl annehmen, dass Sie in der von Ihnen angekündigten Vorlesung: “Römische Rechtsgeschichte (Grundzüge des römischen Privatrechts als Einführung ins europäische Rechtsdenken)” auch die Grundzüge der Rechtsgeschichte mit behandeln, etwa so, wie dies in dem Buche Jörs-Kunkel-Wenger^[441] über römisches Recht geschehen ist. Ich hielte es für sehr wertvoll, wenn Sie einen entsprechenden Zusatz bei der Vorlesungsankündigen machen, damit sich keine Schwierigkeiten wegen der Behandlung dieser Vorlesung als: “Römische Rechtsgeschichte” im Sinne der Studienordnung und des Studienplanes herausstellen und die Studenten darüber im Klaren sind, dass es sich um diese nach dem Studienplan zu besuchende und bei der Meldung zur Prüfung nachzuweisende Vorlesung und nicht um eine daneben herlaufende Vorlesung handelt,^[442] was ja nur für den Besuch Ihrer Vorlesung wünschenswert erscheint.

The text is very interesting, because it clearly shows that Koschaker wanted to use the course on Roman legal history to teach “the foundations of Roman private law as an introduction to European legal thinking”. This was his way of linking Roman law to European legal history and culture in his teaching, based on the idea that he had already explained in Die Krise des römischen Rechts und die romanistische Rechtswissenschaft and that he would develop more deeply in Europa und das römische Recht.

The quotation from the letter also reveals that Professor Merk agreed with Koschaker’s proposal; he also suggested that it would be better to specify that the course Römische Rechtsgeschichte dealt with the foundations of European legal thinking. The aim of such an explanation was twofold: on the one hand, he would avoid problems connected with a Römische Rechtsgeschichte course subsequent to the Studienordnung and the study plan (Studienplan).

As previously explained, the other course on the Antike Rechtsgeschichte seemed to be preferable in the eyes of the regime.

Two other relevant documents should be now analysed, namely a letter from Koschaker to Merk and Merk’s reply. Koschaker’s letter was sent on 3^rd November 1942.61 The text is particularly meaningful as it helps to explain author’s ideas on the teaching of Roman law after the reform of 1935. It also clarifies why Koschaker decided to hold a course on Roman legal history (Römische Rechtsgeschichte) which focused on private rather than public law.

The letter reads:

Sehr verehrter Herr Kollege!

Ich bestätige mit verbindlichstem Dank Ihr Schreiben v. 31.10 und fürchte allerdings, daß wir uns gegenseitig mißverstanden haben. Gestalten Sie mir daher einiger Worte zur Aufklärung: Die Vorlesung über “römische Rechtsgeschichte” war früher traditionell um solche über öffentliches römisches Recht, Zivilprozeß

⁶¹ Handwritten two-page letter (recto and verso), sent from Koschaker’s house in Walchensee, see: UAT, 601/42.

und Quellengeschichte. Da sie heute die einzige ist, die noch gehalten wird, so wäre sie mit dem selben Inhalt ein Unding, wenn sie nicht auch das Privatrecht umfaßte. Sie ist aber auch in dieser Gestalt als Vorlesung von 4-5 Wochenstunden ein Unding, weil die Fälle des Stoffes den Dozenten zur Oberflächlichkeit geradezu zwingen würde. Das Privatrecht ist und bleibt aber vom römischen Recht die Hauptsache. Angesichts der mir zur Verfügung stehenden Zeit kann ich daher vom öffentlichen Recht nur das vortragen, was mir zum Verständnis des Privatrechts unbedingt notwendig ist [...].

Koschaker commenced the letter by offering Merk an explanation, since there seemed to have been a misunderstanding between the two; in this letter, Koschaker reiterated that the Römische Rechtsgeschichte course had traditionally focused on Roman public law, Roman civil procedure and the history of Roman sources. However, he was faced with the problem - just as other Roman law professors in Germany were at the time - that the only course to truly focus on Roman law was now Römische Rechtsgeschichte. For these reasons, he had to teach private rather than public law during his classes; as he affirmed, it would have been absurd (“ein Unding”) to insist on the previous content for this course. If he had still taught Roman public law and not private law, there would not have been an opportunity to teach the most important branch of Roman law (“Das Privatrecht ist und bleibt aber vom römischen Recht die Hauptsache”). Public law - or better, some of its aspects - could only be taught insofar they were helpful in gaining a better understanding of private law. It appears clear, therefore, that Koschaker himself somehow felt obliged to hold a course on Roman legal history using the content of the traditional Roman law classes, which focused on private law. This was not the only problem regarding teaching, however:

Hierzu kommt ein zweites. Das römische Recht ist schwierig. Ihrer allgemeinen Bildung nach waren die Studenten noch niemals schlechter auf diese Vorlesung vorbereitet als heute. [...] Die Erfahrung hat | mich gelehrt, daß ich nicht einmal in 6 Wochenstunden, die ich üblich lese, mit dem Privatrecht fertig werde. Deswegen habe ich in meiner Denkschrift eine wöchentliche 2-3 Stunden Vorlesung über römische Reschtsgeschichte, wenn auch nicht obligatorisch, vorgeschlagen, in der das öffentliche Recht zur Geltung kommen könnte. Die schon heute als nicht einmal empfohlene Vorlesung zu halten, käme vielleicht dann in Frage, wenn wir mit Erbe wieder einen zweiten Romanisten in der Fakultät haben, wäre aber auch dann ein gewagtes Unternehmen. Ich stimme Ihnen bei, daß heute die Vorlesung einfach als “römisches Recht” anzukündigen, so sympathisch und an sich dieser Vorschlag ist, nicht empfehlenswert wäre [.]

The second problem related to the fact that university students now had less knowledge of Roman law as a subject. Not only was Roman law a tough topic (“Das römische Recht ist schwierig”), but student preparation had never been so poor. For that reason, and based on his experience, Koschaker was sure that he would not be able to deal with all the essential private law topics in his course, since he had only six hours a week at his disposal. Yet he did have a solution, as he had already suggested in his proposal on the reform of Roman law teaching in Germany.^[444] His idea was to incorporate a further optional course on Roman legal history into the curriculum of the Law department (of two or three hours per week). During these classes he would have the opportunity to broach the subject of Roman public law. The idea to include these extra classes had never been taken into consideration up to that time, but it could be proposed by the Faculty if they called Erbe, thereby availaing themselves of a second Romanist. Koschaker was aware, in any case, that such a proposal would be a risky affair (“wäre aber auch dann ein gewagtes Unternehmen”). He also agreed with Merk that presenting a course simply called Römisches Recht was not advisable at that time, given the regulations contained in the new Studienordnung and the hatred of the regime towards Roman law.

Koschaker then concluded:

[...] in der Studienordnung steht nur römische Rechtsgeschichte, weshalb “römisches Recht” als nicht genügend betrachtet wird. Ich fasse zusammen: meine Studenten läsen bei mir recht viel von römischer Privatrechtsgeschichte, wenn auch stark ausgerichtet auf die Gegenwart, von dem öffentlichen römischen Recht unbedingt das, was sie zum Verständnis des römischen Privatrechts brauchen, und damit immerhin so viel, um ungefähr eine Vorstellung über das Werden und den Charakter des römischen Staats zu bekommen. Mehr kann ich nicht bieten, nicht weil ich es nicht will, sondern weil bei der Notlage des Fachs ich früh sein muß, den Studenten das absolut Notwendige im Privatrecht beizubringen, das sie für eine rechtswissenschaftliche Bildung brauchen. Für diese ziehe ich allerdings Unvollständigkeit bei einiger Gründlichkeit enzyklopädischer Oberflächlichkeit vor.

After reminding Merk that in the new Studienordnung for the Law faculties there was only room for Roman legal history, Koschaker summed up his thoughts; he taught his students mainly the history of Roman private law, albeit in close association with contemporary law of that time. As to public Roman law, it could be circumscribed to teaching what was necessary and useful to understanding private law. This would still allow students to gain a basic understanding of the main features of the Roman “State”.

Koschaker complained that he could not offer the students more than this, not because he did not want to, but because he needed to teach them all the fundamentals of private law, which were essential for their legal education. To achieve this aim, he preferred to omit certain topics rather than providing a wider but more superficial compendium of legal issues (“einiger Gründlichkeit enzyklopädischer Oberflächlichkeit”).

Koschaker’s style of writing makes the letter pleasant to read, yet between the lines his fine prose scarcely masked his concerns about teaching. In particular, his ideas seemed to reflect the situation he was now obliged to face: even though he gave Roman private law a preeminent role, nuanced with his strong pandectist method, it is equally true that the ancillary role to which he relegated Roman public law was affected by the general pervasive situation in German universities at the time.^[445]

Merk replied to Koschaker’s long letter on 10^th November 1942,^[446] focusing on the content of the courses that Koschaker had discussed in his letter:

[...] Ich bin in voller Übereinstimmung mit Ihnen darüber, dass in der Vorlesung über das römische Recht die Hauptsache das Privatrecht ist und dass bei der gegenwärtigen Sachlage vom öffentlichen Recht nur das mitbehandelt werden kann, was zum Verständnis des Privatrechts unbedingt notwendig ist. Bei der beschränkten Stundenzahl, die zur Verfügung steht, kann anderes gar nicht in Frage kommen und ich glaube, dass bei dem von Ihnen beabsichtigten Inhalt den Studenten überhaupt das nur denkbar Beste geboten werden kann.

Merk thought Koschaker was completely right in asserting that what really mattered in courses on Roman law was the study of private law (“die Hauptsache das Privatrecht ist”). Roman public law could be taught only insofar as it was absolutely necessary (“unbedingt notwendig”) for the comprehension of Roman private law, just as Koschaker had said in his letter.

From the last lines of Merk’s letter we can also infer that the other problem raised by Koschaker regarding the limited number of hours that he had at his disposal for his course could not find any solution at the moment; Merk’s clear reply shows that no alternatives were possible. Koschaker’s concern about the little time devoted to Roman law and to the education of the university students could not be assuaged. In addition to being a professor, Merk also had an administrative role as director of the Law department. He agreed with Koschaker on the way in which his course could be organised and Roman law taught - or perhaps he simply accepted Koschaker’s proposal - but he did not seem to be willing or interested to engage in an effort to allow more hours of teaching for this subject.

In conclusion, the situation that Koschaker found with regard to the teaching of Roman law in Tübingen was better than in Berlin, where he found an expanse of ruins (“Trümmerfeld”) and his approach led to some commendable results, like the increase of the number of students attending his classes; nonetheless, it was not an idyllic situation, nor could it be. The quieter university life of Tübingen offered Koschaker the possibility of organising his classes as he preferred and, in this respect, he found support from Merk, the Director of the Law department (Merk was close to the regime and cooperated closely with it). Koschaker’s attempt to introduce new Roman law courses in Tübingen was praiseworthy; however, even though additional classes on Roman public law would not preoccupy the regime very much, Merk no doubt had little interest in heeding or following Koschaker’s proposal. Perhaps this was because his proposal was against the Studienordnung in force at the time and partly because it is plausible that the teaching of Roman law was not considered a priority in German law faculties in the fall of 1942.^[447]

As with Berlin, Koschaker was free to move within the confines allowed by the government and the University administration, but these confines were again too narrow for his liking. The improved situation in Tübingen with regard to teaching could not as such be considered as entirely satisfactory.

Regarding research, Koschaker moved to the new university with a clear intent of devoting more time to his studies and to keep working on cuneiform law, particularly after the frustrating experience of Berlin. We learn from his pupil Below that Koschaker learnt Arabic with Enno Littmann in Tübingen, because he wanted to be able to read the Koran in its original language.^[448] Beyond that, his academic output during the years from 1941 to 1947, when he published Europa und das römische Recht, was not particularly prolific.^[449] Two major articles appeared on cuneiform law, the first in 1942 and the second in 1944.^[450] No monographs were published, either in the field of the laws of Antiquity or in Roman law. Yet Koschaker did publish a large number of reviews in the field of Roman law.^[451] Koschaker was one of the co-editors of the Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung during this time and up to 1944, and many of his reviews were published in this prestigious journal.^[452] Moreover, for Koschaker a review usually represented an opportunity to go well beyond a mere discussion of the book of another author, and writing a review was anything but a trifling task for him. In some of these reviews, for example, he had the opportunity to take a stance on essential methodological problems, such as interpolationism, or the role of Roman law and its teaching.^[453] But in any case, notwitshtanding Koschaker’s numerous reviews in this period, it seems fair to concur with Neumann that Koschaker did not publish so many works from 1941 to 1946.^[454]

In this respect, several considerations spring to mind, first, in connection with his teaching; as explained before, Koschaker wished to devote time to teaching in Tübingen. It is reasonable to think that he spent a lot of time in this way, considering that he woul also be required to teach classes on Civil law and Bauernrecht, where necessary.^[455] Yet his endeavours not only involved teaching itself, but also his attempts to improve its content at the Law department, which would have been very demanding for Koschaker. This could not be the only reason for the dearth of publications, since in other periods of his life he had been active in both teaching and publishing research. Neumann suggests that Koschaker’s period in Tübingen represented a time to reflect deeply on Roman law, its teaching and its role in Europe.^[456] Koschaker had discussed these topics at the Akademie für Deutsches Recht in Berlin in 1937, and this was followed by the huge debate raised by the publication of Die Krise in 1938. Some of these problems again arose in his memorandum on the reform of Roman law teaching in German universities in 1941. Step by step, the ideas that Koschaker would represent in his masterpiece, Europa und das römische Recht, were beginning to take shape.^[457] His time in Tübingen, therefore, provided the necessary space for preparation, leading to his famous book on Roman law in the history of Europe.^[458] The tranquility of Tübingen proved to be the right place for Koschaker to gather his ideas.

With regard to cuneiform law studies, on the contrary, at that time in Tübingen there was no expert comparable to Landsberger or Falkenstein.^[459] Furthermore, as Koschaker himself explained in a letter to the State Ministry of Education and Culture of Württemberg on 12^th July 1943, it was difficult, and at times, forbidden, to obtain the most important literature on the topics that he wanted to study, since it mainly came from the US, England and France.^[460] Koschaker also made it clear that he had little time to devote to this field, given his other research concerns.

Moreover, there were at least three other reasons why Koschaker wrote less during this period of his life. First, ill health had troubled him since his years in Berlin, and still plagued him.^[461] Koschaker suffered from heart disease, particularly from 1942 onwards, as a letter he sent to the Württemberg State Ministry of Education and Culture asking for sick leave confirms.^[462] A letter written by the dean, Moeller, on 10^th September 1942, and two of Koschaker’s letters reveal that he spent some time in June 1943 and April 1944 in Bad Teinach, a village between Tübingen and Baden-Baden, where to receive thermal treatments.^[463] Koschaker’s condition seems to have worsened, since he asked to be excused from duties during the winter semester 1945/46. This sabbatical period was granted to him by the State Ministry of Education and Culture of Württemberg on 22^nd March 1945.^[464]

A second reason was that at the age of 62 Koschaker had decided to learn a new language, Arabic. This would of course have required considerable effort that would allow him to read and deal with new sources.

There were also further “sidetasks” that Koschaker fulfilled during these years: one of them is revealed by a certificate (Bescheinigung) written by the Law department Director, Merk, on 17^th February 1945.^[465] The text of the document reads:

Der o.Professor der Rechte an der Universität Tübingen Paul Koschaker arbeitet im Auftrage der “Gesellschaft für europäische Wirtschaftsplanung und Grossraumforschung” (Präsident Reichsamtsleiter Gesandter W. Daitz) an einer wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung über europäisches Recht. Zu diesem Zwecke muss er die Ferien verwenden und will diese Arbeit in Walchensee (Oberbayern), wo er einen zweiten Wohnsitz hat, fördern. Dorthin wurde im Interesse der Sicherheit auch sein wissenschaftliches Material gebracht, so dass die Arbeit nur dort gemacht werden kann, umsomehr da mit Rücksicht auf die Kohlenversorgung dort die äusseren Arbeitsbedingungen für Professor Koschaker derzeit wesentlich günstigere sind als in Tübingen.

Da Professor Koschaker in Walchensee nirgends Gasthausverpflegung haben kann, sondern eigene Wirtschaft führen muss, ist die Begleitung durch seine Ehefrau und seine Hausgehilfin Frl.Groter^[466] erforderlich.

The document clearly states that Koschaker worked for the Gesellschaft für europäische Wirtschaftsplanung und Grossraumforschung directed by Werner Daitz in 1945.^[467] The Gesellschaft (GeWG) was established in Dresden by Daitz on behalf of the Office for Foreign Affairs of the Nazi party (Das Außenpolitische Amt) in Semptember 1939. The main task of the GeWG consisted in planning a new European economic space that would form part of the so-called Neuordnung Europas, under the control of the German government (Großwirtschaftsraum). Among the members of the executive council there were ministers of the government of the Third Reich and up to 1943 the president of the Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Theodor Vahlen.^[468] Carl Schmitt also figured among the eminent members of the so-called economic council (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat). ^[469]

Koschaker collaborated with this Nazi institution in 1945 in relation to research on European law. He would carry out this task during his holidays, which he spent in Walchensee as usual. For security reasons, the material he needed would be taken to him. According to Merk, the working conditions were more favourable there.

The significance of the short document in question is twofold: on the one hand, it shows how Koschaker could have been busy with some kinds of tasks that went beyond teaching or doing research for his own publications; as one may read in the text, he had to spend his holidays working for the GeW G. On the other hand, it also raises the question of Koschaker’s position vis-à-vis the regime. This document reveals facts that are similar to those that emerged from the sources of the period when Koschaker was in Berlin. Can Koschaker be considered such a fierce opponent of the regime if he was still working for an organisation like the GeWG in 1945?

A valid response is that working for the GeWG did not necessarily make Koschaker a Nazi. Koschaker would have needed to adapt to the poltical situation^[470] and his ideas would have been taken into consideration or even accepted by certain members of the regime. Even if Koschaker could be considered an opponent of the Nazis, at least theoretically speaking, nonetheless both he and his ideas were tolerated by this regime and deemed harmless. Alternatively, perhaps it could equally be argued that the regime was neither interested in him nor his scholarly interests given that he was still able to carry out research on European law for a Nazi government institution in 1945.

Based on the documents and information at our disposal, Koschaker’s research and publications from 1941 to 1947 show that he had numerous responsibilities and was engaged in various new and demanding research efforts. In addition, the fact that he much time in Walchensee, where he did not have the university library at his disposal, could go some way to explaining why he published fewer works than in previous years. However, his eclectic interests, from his passion for the laws of antiquity and its languages, to his study of Roman law in European history, continued to be among his research interests at the time.