1

Hadrian’scosmopolitanismandtheNazilegalpolicy

KaiusTuori

OriginalversionofthearticlethatisacceptedforpublicationattheClassical

ReceptionsJournal(Doi10.1093/crj/clx003)

1.11.2016

Abstract

TheidealizationofHadrianicRomehasalongheritagefromthewritingsof

contemporarieslikeAeliusAristidestotheworksofGibbonandthenineteenth

centuryenthusiasmforimperialsovereignty.Hadrian’senlightenedrulewhere

peaceandprosperityreignedcoincidedwiththeenlightenedtraditionoflaw,

whereprinciplesliketheprotectionoftheweakerpartiesorequalitybeforethe

lawbecameprominent.AftertheNazistookpowerinGermany,legalscholarsof

Jewishheritagefacedaneverincreasingrepression,leadingmanytoseektheir

fortunesabroadinexile.Formost,thistransferwassimplyachangeofvenues,

whileforotherstherepressionandprospectofexilemeantachangeinthe

understandingofthescholarlytraditionthatwasprocessedintheirworks.The

purposeofthisarticleistoexamineoneexampleofsuchachangebyhistorianof

ancientRomanandGreeklegalhistoryFritzPringsheim.Beforebeingexiledin

Britain,PringsheimsoughttoreinterpretthehistoryofRomanlawandtoseeka

startingpointforthecosmopolitanideaoflegalequalityintheRomanempire.

Forthis,heusedtheexistingtraditionglorifyingHadrian’sRometopresentan

alternativetoNaziracistauthoritarianism.

Introduction

The research leading to these resultshas received funding from the Euro-pean Research Council under theEuropean Union's Seventh Frame-work Programme (FP7/2007-2013) /ERC grant agreement n°313100.

2

AeliusAristidesstartedatraditionoftheidealizationofHadrianicRomethat

resurfacedwithGibbonandlaterinnineteenthcenturyhistoricalscholarship.

ThisidealizationextendedtotheglorificationofHadrian’slegalpoliciesinthe

Romanlawtradition.AftertheNSDAPtookpowerinGermanyin1933,legal

scholarsofJewishheritagefacedaneverincreasingrepression,leadingmanyto

seektheirfortunesabroadinexile.Formost,thistransferwassimplyachangeof

venues,whileforotherstherepressionandprospectofexilemeantachangein

theunderstandingofthescholarlytraditionthatwasprocessedintheirworks.1

Thepurposeofthisarticleistoexamineoneexampleofsuchachangeby

GermanhistorianofancientRomanandGreeklegalhistoryFritzPringsheim

(1882-1967).BeforebeingexiledinBritain,Pringsheimsoughttoreinterpretthe

historyofRomanlawandtoseekastartingpointforthecosmopolitanideaof

legalequalityintheRomanempire.Forthis,heusedtheearliertradition

glorifyingHadrian’sRometopresentanalternativetotheracistauthoritarian

statebeingconstructedbytheNazi2regime.Whatthisarticledemonstratesis

thattheunderstandingofahistoricaltraditionisessentiallysituationaland

malleable,abletobereconfiguredtosuitnewexpediencies.Drawingfrom

theoriesofnarrativism,itisarguedthatexiledscholarssoughtnotonlytogain

1Fermi1968;AshandSöllner1996;Rösch2014.Onexiledlawyers,seealso

Graham2002:777;Lutter,Stiefel,andHoeflich1993;BreunungandWalther

2012,vol.1andBreunungandWalther,forthcoming,vol2.

2Followingthecontemporaryconvention,thisarticleusesthecollectiveterm

NazitodenoteboththeNSDAPanditsalliedorganizations,theirsupportersand

theregimethatthesecontributedto.

3

recognitionintheirnewenvironments,butalsotoformulateanarrativeto

explaintheirpersonalexperiences.

FritzPringsheimwasaleadingscholarintheveryspecializedfieldofthe

EgyptianlawofthepapyriandespeciallytheGreeklawofsale.3However,

Pringsheimhadanotherfieldofinterest,Romanlegalscholarshipandtradition,

uponwhichhewrotenumerousimportantarticles.4Inthem,hestronglyfavored

ClassicalRomanlegalthoughtandidealizeditagainstthepost-classical.Though

PringsheimwasawarherofromtheFirstWorldWarandaChristian,hewas

neverthelesspersecutedbytheNazisanddismissedfromhischairinFreiburgin

1935duetohisJewishheritage.HeescapedtoBritainin1939,afterbeingbriefly

heldataconcentrationcamp.Afterthewar,hetaughtbothatOxfordandat

Freiburg.TheimpactofPringsheimisreinforcedbythefactthatFranzWieacker,

oneofthemostinfluentialpost-warGermanhistoriansofRomanlaw,wasa

pupilofPringsheim,aswasTonyHonoré,theleadinghistorianofRomanlawin

Britainafterthewar.

Theissueofclassicalreceptionsrevolvesoftenaroundthequestionsof

reuseandrepurposingofthemes,ideasandtextstoservenewpurposes.Asinall

questionsoftheinfluenceofthecontextintheworksoftheauthor,thecentral

difficultyisthatofintent.Weshallinthisarticletakeoneexampleoftheglaring

contrastthatPringsheim’sideaswerebecomingtotheofficialNaziideologyto

3Honoré2004:205-233;Pringsheim1950.

4Pringsheim’smainworksarecollectedinGesammelteAbhandlungen,showing

hiscombativeandassertivestyleofscholarlydebate.Thejurisprudentialworks

herecitedarePringsheim1934andPringsheim1933.

4

seehowPringsheimutilizedtheclassicalheritageaswellasthelaterscholarly

traditiontopresentacontrasttotheNazitheoriesandpracticesofsegregation

andrepression.However,theissueofwhetherPringsheimintendedhisworkas

acriticismofanythingcontemporaryisimpossibletosay.Intheend,itisof

secondaryimportancehere,astheworkpresentssuchacontrastdespiteor

beyondtheintentionofitsauthor.Inhislectures,hewashighlycriticalofNazi

policiesandespeciallytheirlegalreformsandtheNazioppositiontoRoman

law.5ScholarslikeLeoStrausshavemaintainedthatwritingunderpersecution

operatesunderadifferenttechnique,where“writingbetweenthelines”

becomesthewayinwhichcrucialthingsareexpressedinashared

understandingbetweentheauthorandthereadersknowledgeabletorecognize

theintendedmeanings.6

TheCosmopolitanIdeaoftheEmpire

Todescribeanidealstate,theRomeofthetimeofHadrianhasbeenapopular

modeleversincetheGreekoratorAeliusAristideslaudedRomanpeaceand

justiceatthetime.7

ThusitwasfittingthatPringsheimwouldin1934,theyearofthe

onslaughtofNaziterrorandrepression,usetheRomeofHadrianitasamodel

forthecosmopolitanempire.Thisarticle,publishedintheJournalforRoman

Studiesin1934,depictedHadrian’sRomeasanempireofpeace,prosperityand

law.Anempirewheretheemperorwouldpersonallyensurethatjusticewas

5Pringsheim1960:534-535.

6Strauss1988:24-25.7Ontheidealization,seeSchiavone2000:3-19.

5

servedeventothelowliestofpeople.Whereahighlyprofessionalclassoflegal

officialswouldbringaboutaruleoflaw.Evenslavesandotherpersonswith

limitedrightswereprotectedagainstabuse.8

RomanistswhosoughttoreconcileRomanlawwithNaziideologyusually

focusedonearlierperiodssuchasarchaicRome.Thethemestheyemphasized

weremartial,underliningmilitaryprowess,virtuesandloyaltytothestate.The

RomanvirtueoffideswastranslatedtoTreue,loyalty,andinterpretedaccording

totheNaziideology.WhileanumberofGermanRomanlawscholarsbecame

eagerNazisupporters,manyothersbegantoexplorethemesrelevanttothe

movement,suchasMaxKaser,whowroteaboutRomanlawassocialorderingor

FranzWieacker,Pringsheim’sstudent,whoextolledthemilitaristicvirtuesof

earlyRomanlaw.However,theseattemptstoreconcileRomanlawwithNazism

weredefensiveworksseekingtoalleviatethehostilityoftheregimetoRoman

law.ThiswasinstarkcontrastwiththeItalianendoftheFascistalliance,where

thegloryofRome,RomanlawandRomannesswereintegralpartoftheself-

understandingoftheItalianFasciststate.9

8ThesamethemescomeupinbothPringsheim1933andPringsheim1934,but

theconclusionsdrawnandtheexplicitnessthattheyarepresentedaremarkedly

different,theGermantextbeingmuchmoretechnicalandwithdrawn.

9Kaser1939:8-9:‘DasstolzeBilddasSchönbauerhiervonechtemRömertum

entworfenhat,erinnertinmanchenZügenstarkandieälteredeutsche

Rechtsgeschichte,sindesdochdiegleicheTugenden,“männlicheSelbszucht,

nationalerInstinkt,starkesSendungsbewußtsein,GrößeimUnglückund

OpferbereitschaftfürdasGemeinwesen”,diedenCharacterbeiderVölker

6

WhileGermanscholarsclosetotheNaziregimewereeagertopresent

earlyRomansassomesortofquasi-Germanicwarriors,Pringsheimidealizedthe

cosmopolitanism,theruleoflaw,bureaucratizationandtheprofessionalization

oflegaladministration.Needlesstosay,thesewerethingsthattheNazisdisliked

onmanylevels.

Pringsheim’sarticleattheJRSpresentedemperorHadrianasanideal

sovereign,acosmopolitanrulerwhowantedto‘bringorderandpeacetothe

land’.HeconsideredhimselftobeaStoic‘firstservantofthestate,whose

primarydutywastoprotecthissubjects,thepooraswellastherich’.Thispolicy

waspromptedbytheaggressivewarsofexpansionbyhispredecessorTrajan,

whichhadoverstrainedtheresourcesoftheempireandledtothedisappearance

ofthesmallpeasantfarmersthatwerethebackboneoftheRomancultureand

prosperity.10FromthisbackgroundPringsheimbuildsuptoacrescendoof

praiseforHadrian:

Hisaimwastomaintaineternalpeaceinhiseternalandworld-wide

Empire,andtosecurethehappinessofhispeoplebythewisdomoftheir

omnipresentruler.Astatesmanhadsucceededasoldier,andstresswas

laidratheronpracticalwisdomthanmilitaryvirtues.(Pringsheim1934:

141-142.)

bestimmen.’Wieacker1944.OntheapproachestoRomanlaw,seeMigliettaand

Santucci2009andNelis2007.

10Pringsheim1934:141.Thedestructionofthepeasantfarmerswasoneofthe

greatexplanationsofthefalloftheRomanempire.

7

However,andPringsheimdoesgoonforawhileonthevirtuesofHadrian,the

greatestachievementthattheemperorproducedwasthereformofthe

administrationofjustice.

AccordingtoPringsheim,Hadrianwasthefirstemperortodefendthe

pooragainsttherich,helpingthoseindistressbyhearingtheircasesand

offeringlegalrecourse.HewouldtaketheStoicphilosophicaldoctrineofthe

generalrightsofmanandtoputitinpracticeinadministrationandlegislation.11

TheRomanemperorwasatthispointacentralfigureintheadministrationof

justice,beingatthesametimethehighestjudgeandthechieflegislator.12

Pringsheimrepeatstheoftentoldanecdote(withoutmentioningthe

source)abouttheoldladywhostoppedHadrianonthestreettopresenthim

withapetition.WhenHadriansaysthatheisinahurryanddoesnothavetime

tolistentohergrievance,sheretortsthatheshouldstopbeingemperorthen.

Chastened,Hadrianstoppedandlistenedtohercase.13Thestoryisoneofthe

greatnarrativesofkingshipintheancientworld.Variationsofitareknownnot

11Pringsheim1934:143.HowmuchHadrianwasactuallyinfluencedbyStoicism

ishardtoestimate,incontrasttohissuccessorslikeMarcusAurelius.

12Ontheemperor’slegalcapabilities,seeBleicken1964;Millar1977;Honoré

1994;Peachin1996;Corcoran2000;Tuori2016.

13ThesourceofthestoryiftheepitomeofDio’sRomanhistory(69.6);

Pringsheim1934:143.

8

onlyfromHadrian,butthesamestoryisrepeatedwithnearidenticalwordings

onbothkingPhilipIIofMacedoniaandkingDemetriusPoliorcetesbyPlutarch.14

PringsheimpresentstheenlightenedwayhowHadrianwouldadvance

lawthroughthethemeofequalityandleniency.Punishmentsaremeasured

againsttheintentoftheperpetrator,themisuseofthefather’spoweroverhis

familyispreventedandtheuseoftortureisrestricted.Hewouldunifythelawby

consolidatingthepraetor’sedict,oneofthemainsourcesofRomanlaw.Inorder

toensurethatthelawwasappliedwithconsistency,Hadriansetupasolid

administrativestructurewheretrainedcivilofficialswouldwork.Hisownlegal

servicewasequallystrengthenedwiththeadditionoftrainedlawyerstohis

council.15Hecontinuesaboutthewaysinwhichthelawyerswouldthenbe

integratedtothecivilserviceandendsthispaeanwithafinalwordofpraise

aboutthedeliberatecarethatareevidentinHadrian’sreforms:

Nohastyacts,noviolentreformsbornofthemomentdefacethispicture.

Everywhereappearsthecarefulguidinghandwhichweighsallthe

consequencesandactsmanypointswiththesameaim---thecautious

handofthetruestatesman.Thecollectionofalltheavailableforcesfor

thewell-beingoftheEmpire,disciplineinsteadofconfusion,orderand

clearness---thosewerehisaimsforthearmyandforthedefendersofthe

frontiersaswellasfortheadministrationofjustice,theamendmentofthe

edictandthefurtheranceoflegalscience.(Pringsheim1934:152-153.)

14ThereferencesinPlutarchareMor.179C-D,Demetr.42.11.Thespreadofthe

storyinotherancientliterature,seeMillar1992:3-4.

15Pringsheim1934:143.

9

ThevisionofPringsheimfortheRomeofHadrianwasoneofagoldenage,oneof

anempireatpeacewithitself.Whiletherehadbeenanumberofancientauthors

whopraisedHadrianicRome,nonehadthegustoandintensityofAelius

Aristides.

AristideswasaGreekrhetoricianfromMysiainAsiaMinor.Heisbest

knownfromhisso-calledspeechtoRome,inwhichhelaudedtheRomanempire

anditsgovernment.16Hepraiseditforbringingaboutaneraofpeaceand

prosperity,agoldenagemuchlikeonepresentedbyPringsheimlater.Likewith

Pringsheim,Aristideswouldseetheadministrationofjusticeasacentralpartof

theappeal.AclearlyfascinatedAristideswritesaboutappealingtotheemperor:

Casesunderjudicialreview,likeanappealfromone’sdemesmentothe

courts,takeplacewithnolessfearinregardtotheverdictonthepartof

thosewhoinstitutetheappeals,sothatonewouldsaythatpeopleare

nowgovernedbythosesentouttotheminsofarasitpleasesthem.How

isthisformofgovernmentnotbeyondeverydemocracy?Thereitisnot

possibleaftertheverdictisgiveninthecitytogoelsewhereortoother

judges,butonemustbesatisfiedwiththedecision,unlessitissomesmall

citywhichneedsoutsidejudges.Butamongyou,nowaconvicted

defendantorevenaprosecutor,whohasnotwonhiscase,cantake

16ThespeechisconventionallytitledOration26.OnAristidesandthespeechon

Rome:vonWilamowitz-Möllendorf1925;Oliver1953;Bowersock1969;Brunt

1978;Nutton1978;Klein1981a;Klein1981b;André1982;Stertz1994;Carsana

1990;Behr1994;Klein1995;Volpe2001;Whitmarsh2001;Flinterman2004;

Whitmarsh2005;HarrisandHolmes2008.

10

exceptiontotheverdictandtheundeservedloss.Anothergreatjudge

remains,whonoaspectofjusticeeverescapes.Andherethereisagreat

andfairequalitybetweenweakandpowerful,obscureandfamous,poor

andrichandnoble.AndHesiod’swordscometopass:‘Foreasilyhe

makesonestrongandeasilyhecrushesthestrong’,thisgreatjudgeand

governor,howeverjusticeguideshim,likeabreezeblowingonaship,

whichdoesnot,indeed,favourandescorttherichmanmoreandthepoor

manless,butequallyassistshimtowhomeveritmaycome.17

17Aristid.Or.26.37-39:‘(37)ὥστεὑποχωρεῖμὲνἄρχωνἄρχοντι,ὅταναὐτοῦὁ

χρόνοςἐξήκῃ,καὶοὐδ᾽ἂνἀπαντήσειεῥᾳδίως:τοσοῦτονἀπέχειτοῦδιενεχθῆναι

ἄγαν,ὡςαὐτοῦτῆςχώραςοὔσης.ἔκκλητοιδὲὥσπερἔφεσιςἐκδημοτῶνεἰς

δικαστήριονσὺνοὐκἐλάττονιτῶνδεξαμένωνφόβῳπερὶτῆςκρίσεωςἢτῶν

ποιουμένωνγίγνονται.ὥστεφαίητιςἂντοσαῦταἄρχεσθαιτοὺςνῦνὑπὸτῶν

πεμπομένων,ὁπόσαἂναὐτοῖςἀρέσκῃ.(38)πῶςοὖνταῦταοὐκἐντοῖςἐπέκεινα

πάσηςδημοκρατίας;οὔκουνἐκεῖἔξεστιμετὰτὴνἐντῇπόλειψῆφονἐνεχθεῖσαν

ἐλθεῖνἄλλοσεοὐδ᾽ἐπ᾽ἄλλουςδικαστὰς,ἀλλὰστέργεινἀνάγκητοῖς

ἐγνωσμένοις,εἰμήτιςἐστὶμικρὰπόλις,ὥστεπροσδεῖσθαιδικαστῶνὑπερορίων

παρὰτὴνἀξίαν,ἢκαὶδιώκονταμὴκρατήσαντα,μηδὲτῷνενικῆσθαι:ἀλλὰμένει

δικαστὴςἕτεροςμέγας,ὃνοὔποτεοὐδὲνἐκφεύγειτῶνδικαίων:(39)κἀνταῦθα

δὴπολλὴκαὶεὐσχήμωνἰσότηςμικροῦπρὸςμέγανκαὶἀδόξουπρὸςἔνδοξονκαὶ

πένητοςδὴπρὸςπλούσιονκαὶγενναῖονἀγεννοῦς,καὶτὸτοῦἩσιόδου

συμβαίνει,“ῥεῖαμὲνγὰρβριάει,ῥέαδὲβριάονταχαλέπτει”οὗτοςὁδικαστήςτε

καὶἡγεμὼν,ὅπωςἂντὸδίκαιονἄγῃ,ὥσπερπνεῦμαἐννηὶ,οὐδήπουπλουσίῳ

11

ItshouldbenotedthatPringsheimdoesnotquoteAristidesinhistext,even

thoughitishardtoimaginethathewouldbeunawareofitorofthepoignant

similaritiesthatthetwotextshave.Asalawyer,Pringsheimdoesrefertoa

numberoflegalcasesfromHadrianintheDigestofJustinian,inwhichthe

emperorisclearlywritinginthefirstpersonandadvancingenlightenedlegal

policies.Inthese,Hadriancurbstheabuseofafather’spower,emphasizing

compassion,notcruelty(Dig.48.9.5.)Helikewisepunishedawomanforabusing

horriblyaslavegirl,likewisedemonstratinghisoutrageattheinjustice(Dig.

1.6.2.)Finally,hequotessourcesonhowHadrianhadthebestjuristsoftheland

ashisadvisors.18

ThespeechofAristideswaspresentedtoanaudienceofnotablesfrom

thehighsocietyinRomeitselfintheyear143or144.Thevenuewasmostlikely

theAthenaeumofHadrianintheRomanForum,amonumenttothelearningand

civilizationofHadrianandthelinkagehewantedtomakebetweenRomeandthe

Greeks.19TheaudienceofPringsheimwasthefacultyoflawattheuniversityof

Cambridge.Thereisareasonwhytheaudiencematters.ForAristides,the

chanceofperforminginRomeattheageof26wasanopportunity,achanceto

makeit.Ashasbeenshowninstudiesonromanprovincialelites,theywerethe

staunchestsupportersoftheempireandnotcoincidentallyitsgreatest

μὲνμᾶλλον,πένητιδὲἧττονχαριζόμενόντεκαὶπαραπέμπον,ἀλλ᾽ὅτῳγένοιτο

ἀεὶ,τοῦτονὁμοίωςὠφελοῦν’.TranslationbyBehr1981-1986.

18SHAHadr.18.1,22.11-12;Cass.Dio69.7.1-2.

19Schiavone2000:3;Pernot2008:178.Thedateofthespeechiscontested.

12

beneficiaries.20Bymakingagoodimpression,Aristideshadachanceofgaining

imperialpatronageandwithitapositionastheemperor’sadvisor.Ifheplayed

hiscardsright,hewouldsoonberichandpowerful.ForPringsheim,thesetting

wassimilar.HewastalkingtoanaudienceofBritishacademics,presentinglike

Aristideshisownlearningandculture.ButwhileAristidessoughttopresentthe

advantagesofRomeinthelanguageofGreekphilosophyandkingshiptheory,

PringsheimhadamoredistressingsubtextoftheriseoftheNaziregimeandthe

distressitofJewishscholarsandRomanlaw.Bothhadaclearagenda,to

establishanewbeginningandopennewpossibilities.

ReinterpretationsofaHistoricalTradition

Pringsheim’sRomeorhisidealofRomewasnotborninavacuum.Ononehand,

therewasthelawlessnessoftheNazirepressionsthatinfluencedhim,onthe

other,theextensiveidealizingtradition.

Atfirstsight,thepresentationofPringsheimwasoneofdemonstrating

theadvancesmadebyHadrianandRomeintheadministrationoflaw,afairly

typicaloutlineoffacts.Whatmadeitdifferentwasthecontextofthespeechand

theweightthatheputonthealmostliberalvirtuesofRome.Simplyput,the

exemplarityofRomeshowseverythingthatwaswronginGermanysincethe

Nazitakeover.

ThepaperwaspresentedatCambridgeonOctober27,1933and

publishedthefollowingyearinanexpandedform.Afteratumultuousperiod,

AdolfHitlerwasappointedReichschancellorofGermanyonJanuary30,1933.

20Flinterman2004:362-365.

13

AfterthefireintheReichstagbuilding,thepresident’sDegreeontheProtection

ofStateandPeopleonFebruary28,1933gavethechancellorunprecedented

powers,whichwerefortifiedevenfurtheronMarch24withtheEnablingAct.

ThislawgaveHitlerthepowertoenactlawswithoutthehelpoftheparliament.

AllpartiesexcepttheNSDAPweresoonbannedandonJuly14itwastheonly

partyallowed.IntheelectionsheldinNovember12,1933thevotersweregiven

justoneoption,toconfirmtheNSDAPtakeover.21

Behindthesesimpledateswasanationgrippedbyconfrontationand

paralysis.Thefearofcommunistsstagingacoup,untilrecentlyaveryreal

danger,hadsubsidedbuttherealizationoftheNaziseizureofpowerhadnot

quitesetin.WhatlawyerslikePringsheimwouldcomprehendwasthatthe

emergencydegreesenabledHitlertoactwithoutrestraintofthelaw.The

innocentlynamedLawfortheRestorationofProfessionalCivilService,enacted

inApril7,1933,dictatedtheexpulsionofJewishcivilservants,including

universityprofessors.Inthisearlyphase,Pringsheimhimselfwasexcludedfrom

thescopeofthelaw,ashewasprotectedbybothhisstatusasafrontsoldierin

theFirstWorldWarandhislongemploymentattheuniversity.Howmuchhe

consideredthattobealastingreliefisimpossibletosay,butthewritingwas

alreadyonthewall.Whatwasclearfromearlyonisthattheconstitutional

guaranteesoncivilrightswerenolongertobetrustedandthereplacementof

civilservantswithadherentsofthenewregimemeantthatthelawsweretobe

appliedaccordingtotheaimsofthestate.Oneofthemainresultswasthatthe

21Theprocesshasbeendealtwithextensivelyinliterature,seeforexample

Broszat1984;Evans2003.

14

limitsplacedbytheforcesoforderontheabilityoftheSSandtheSAtoterrorize

opponentsdisappeared.Evenearlier,fewoftheculpritswerepunished.Now,

gangswouldforciblyremovecivilservants,judgesandprofessors,beatthemup

andthrowthemonthestreet.22

ThenarrativeofPringsheimonthereformsofHadrianareacounterpoint

tothesealarmingdevelopments.Likesomuchoftheartandscholarshipthat

addressessensitiveissuesduringatimeofcrisisandrepression,thistoo

operateswithaneleganteasethatavoidsmakinganyreferencetocurrent

circumstances.ItisalsoentirelypossiblethatPringsheimneverintendeditasa

criticismofNazipolicies.However,thereareearlierexampleswherePringsheim

writesaboutthedangersofpoliticallymotivatedinfluencestothelegalorder.In

hisGermanwritingsinthe1920sandearly1930shewarnedofthedeparture

fromtheletterofthelaw,ofusinggeneralconceptstoderivesolutionsthatwere

onlynominallywithinthelaw.Inthosedebates,hehadframedthecontradiction

betweenByzantineandRomanlaw,wheretheByzantinewayhadbeentouse

generalconceptslikeequitytoformnewlaw.Thedangerofsuchapracticeis

thatitenablesthejudgestousethisflexibilitytoadvancepoliticalaims.By

resortingtogeneralprinciples,anunscrupulousjudgecouldbringabouttyranny

byusingthemtooverridelegalprotections.Inthesecontributions,Pringsheim

22Aninterestingcontemporaryview,seeHartshorne1937,morerecently

Koontz2003.Onthelegalprocessofgradualexclusion,seeStolleis1998;Stolleis

1999.

15

makessimilarclothedreferencestototalitarianism,whileothersmadedirect

linkstoSovietRussia.23

ThoughthewayPringsheimwoulddiscusstheimpactoflooseningofthe

legalstandardsandthecriteriaoflawwerebyandlargeobliqueandvisibleonly

tospecialists,hedidnotshyfromcontroversy.HesentinNovember20,1933,a

monthafterhislectureinCambridge,anopenlettertoCarlSchmitt,assertingthe

enduringvalueofRomanlawandcontradictingthepartyprogramcallingforits

suppression.ThePartyProgramoftheNSDAP(1920)calledfortheabolitionof

RomanLawanditsreplacementwithnationalGermanlaw.Schmittwasatthat

pointattheheightofhispower,aprofessorinBerlinandholderofthetitle

Staatsrat.HewouldpresstheissueinhisnotestoaveryreluctantSchmitt,

assertingthattheheritageofRomanlawwasanessentialpartofGermanlegal

tradition,sweepingasideimaginaryGermanicframeworksandethnic

categories.24

TheuseofHadrianicRomeasanidealizedcounterpointtotheemerging

totalitarianstatewasanovelidea,butitdidhaveanumberofprecedents.Ever

sincetheworksofGibbon,theidealizingtraditionofHadrianicRomehasbeen

23Pringsheim1930:160-162;Haferkamp,forthcoming.

24Paragraph19oftheNSDAPpartyprogramfromFebruary24,1920:‘We

demandthatRomanLaw,whichservesamaterialisticworldorder,bereplaced

byaGermancommonlaw.’ThedebatebetweenPringsheimandSchmittisnow

reproducedinPringsheim1960:532-538.OnSchmitt’sposition,seeMehring

2009;Cumin2005;Balakrishnan2000;Koenen1995.

16

strong.GibbonhimselffamouslypresentedtheRomeofthefourgoodemperors

asthehappieststateofmankind.Gibbonhadwrittenthat

InthesecondcenturyoftheChristianera,theEmpireofRome

comprehendedthefairestpartoftheearth,andthemostcivilisedportion

ofmankind.Thefrontiersofthatextensivemonarchywereguardedby

ancientrenownanddisciplinedvalour.Thegentlebutpowerfulinfluence

oflawsandmannershadgraduallycementedtheunionoftheprovinces.

Theirpeacefulinhabitantsenjoyedandabusedtheadvantagesofwealth

andluxury.Theimageofafreeconstitutionwaspreservedwithdecent

reverence:theRomansenateappearedtopossessthesovereign

authority,anddevolvedontheemperorsalltheexecutivepowersof

government.Duringahappyperiod(A.D.98-180)ofmorethanfourscore

years,thepublicadministrationwasconductedbythevirtueandabilities

ofNerva,Trajan,Hadrian,andthetwoAntonines.25

Gibbonwouldinhisinfluentialchapter44.presentRomanlawasthefoundation

ofthisremarkablesocialpeace.26Similarpointswereraisedintheliteratureof

thenineteenthcentury,wherethepeaceandhappinessoftheempirewas

combinedwithitreachingitslargestextentgeographically.Gregoroviusand

otherpaintedHadrianwithadmiringtermsasatrueenlightenedsovereign,their

25Gibbon1845,vol.1:27.

26Gibbon1845,vol.3:209-258.

17

worksnotsosubtlybuildingintothegeneralthemeoftheadmirationofall

thingsimperialprevalentintheera.27

WhatPringsheimdidwastousethisearliertraditiontoprovehispoint.

HepresentedRomeasacosmopolitanempirethatembracedascitizenspeople

ofdifferentethnicitiesandbackgrounds.Itprotectedeventhelowliestofpeople

suchasslavesagainstabuses.Itguaranteedtheindependenceofthelawandthe

legalprofession,eventhoughthelegaladministrationwascentralizedand

professionalized.Allofthesewereissueswherethecontrasttothestateofthe

lawaftertheNazitakeoverwasstrong.FortheNazis,lawwasacontinuationof

politicalwill.Thusrightswerenotsomethingthatwereguaranteedtoall

citizens.Rather,theyweredeterminedbyracialandethnicfactors.CarlSchmitt

himselfhaddeniedtheexistenceofuniversalhumanrights,orevenvalue,by

statingthatnoteverybeingwithahumanfaceishuman.28

TheideasoutlinedbyPringsheimwerenotnecessarilyliberalin

themselvesandhewascertainlynotaliberalhimself.Pringsheimwasamember

oftheconservativeacademicclassesthatformedthebackboneofthecivil

serviceandlegalacademiainGermany.HehadservedasanofficerintheFirst

27Gregorovius1851;Henderson1923;Birley1997.Ontheidealizationof

empires,seeStahlmann1988:303-319.

28Lepsius2003;Koontz2003.QuotationreproducedbyKoontz2003:2.

Schmitt’soriginalwordswereacriticismofFichte’sphrase‘Gleichheitalles

dessen,wasMenschenantlitzträgt’,butitbecameageneralNaziwayofimplying

theworthlessnessofthelesserraces.

18

WorldWarandwasclearlyaproudGermannationalist.29Hisembraceofthe

cosmopolitanidealwasthusnotself-evidentanditisworthlookingattheway

thatitisoutlined.Thevisionhepresentsisinfactaconservativeone,wherethe

learnedandprofessionalcivilserviceandlegaladministrationwerecentralin

fulfillingtheidealsofHadrian’sempire.Therewasverylittleinthewayof

popularengagement.TheegalitarianismthatPringsheimpraisedwasinessence

thetheoreticallegalequalityofthesamerulesbeingappliedtoall.

TheinterestingfeaturewasthatPringsheim’spupilslikeFranzWieacker

wouldcontinuedevelopingthisidea.Whatmakesthisremarkableisthat

WieackerjoinedtheNazipartyandwroteextensivelyabouthowtocombinethe

NaziideaswiththelegalhistoricalscholarshipandthestudyofRomanlaw.

Despitethisinherentcontroversy,Wieacker’sarticleonthereformsofHadrian

waspublishedthefollowingyear(1935)andmadeanumberofsimilarpoints

aboutthevalueofthelegaleliteandtheprofessionalizationofthelaw.30What

wasmissing,however,werethereferencestocosmopolitanism.Wieacker,who

becameoneoftheNazi‘younglions’inthelegalacademia,wouldonlyreturnto

thisthemeafterthewarandhisrehabilitationwiththehelpofPringsheim.

ScholarshipandExile

Therepressionofacademicscholarshipandscholarshasoftenbeenseenasa

simpleprocessinwhichscholarsfacingrepressivemeasureseitherfleeintoexile

orareimprisonedormarginalized.Whatthisoverlooksisthattheformationof

29Honore2004:212;GiltaijandErkkilä2015.

30Wieacker1935.

19

totalitarianismisagradualprocessandthusrepressionshouldequallybe

approachedasaprocess.WhenthinkingaboutscientistexiledbyNaziGermany,

AlbertEinsteinhasbecometosymbolizethemassivetransferofscientificknow-

howataterriblehumancost.TheoristslikeHorkheimerandAdornofled.Others,

likeWalterBenjamin,diedtrying.Asaresult,leadershipinsciencewas

inexorablypassedfromGermanytotheUnitedStates.Butexiledidlittleto

changethecontentofthestudiesofpeoplelikeEinstein.31WhatIamsuggesting

isthatthereisamomentduringwhichcriticismoftheregimeisstillpossible

andthesetextscanbereadashavingdoublemeaning,oneatthesurfacelevel

andadeeper,concealedpoliticalmeaning.

Whatwasthispoliticalmeaning?ThetextofPringsheimanditssimilarity

tothetextofAeliusAristidesareaboutthepraiseofancientRomanlawandlegal

administration,hardlyapoliticallyvolatiletopicattheoutset.However,atthe

heartoftheplannedNazireconfigurationoftheGermanlegalsystemwasthe

positionofRomanlaw.TheideaoftheabolitionofRomanlawwasaccordingto

Naziideology,thatthelawshouldreflecttheGermannationalspirit,thefeeling

ofjusticeasimaginedbytheNazis.Assuch,theonusofthelawshouldbethe

peopleandthecommunity,nottheelitestructureoflegalprofession.Romanlaw

wasnotonlymaterialistic,buttomanyitrepresentedaSemiticinfluence.

Notsurprisingly,scholarsofJewishheritagelikePringsheimandFritz

SchulzlaudedtheautonomyofRomanlawanditsscientificnatureasacontrast

31Onscholarlychange,seeAshandSöllner.Onthetransmissionofscholarly

excellenceinlaw,seeMattei1994:195-217.

20

totheoppressionandlawlessnessoftheNaziregime.32Thisisalsothemoment

whentheywereabletodothat,asafter1935thejournalsandpublishershad

effectivelystoppedpublishingtextsfromscholarsthatwereeitherJewishor

fromaJewishheritage.33Evenin1933-1934opencriticismwasdangerous,as

theuniversitieswereatargetofpurgesfromstudentorganizationswhowere

criticaloftheslownesswithwhichtheuniversitiesperformedtheprocessof

Arianizing.

Pringsheimwouldgointoexileonlyatthelastmoment,in1939.During

theReichskristallnachtonNovember9,1938,hewasarrestedandputintoa

concentrationcampastheNaziswantedtokeephostagesincaseofareaction

fromabroad.Hewasreleasedafterthreeweeksduetopressurefromfriends

andpupils,buthismotherdiedduringhisimprisonment.Thiswasthelaststraw

thatremovedallillusionsofhisstatusandsecurity.34Whilehisexilestartedonly

in1939,theactualprocessofmarginalizationbeganalreadyin1933.It

manifesteditselfinsmallandgraduallylargerwaysuntilthetrueimpactofthe

regimebecamevisible.Themostvisibleformsofexclusionwerethedifficulties

32Schulz,afellowexiletoOxford,wouldprocesshispathintoexileinthebook

PrinciplesofRomanLaw(1936)andhisHistoryofRomanLegalScience(1946).

33AforthcomingstudybyFinkenauerandHerrmann,‘ComingtoTerms–The

StudyofRomanlawbetweenAdaptationandCollaboration,1933-1945’,

examinesstatisticallyhowtheprincipleofself-censorshipledtothegradual

eliminationofreferencestoJewishscholarsandhowthiswasreflectedinthe

scientificjournalsoflegalhistoryandRomanlaw.

34Honoré2004:220.

21

withregardstoteachingandpublishing.Withregardstoteaching,Pringsheim

wasprotectedbyhisstatusandwassuspendedonlyin1935,beingofficially

firedthefollowingyear.Onpublishing,hislastpublishedworkinGermanyis

from1934,thesameyearasthearticleonHadrianinJRScameout.

NarrativesandHowtoReadThem

Historicalwritingontheoriginsandfoundationsofalegalculturecanbeseenas

muchmorethanawaytopresentthefactualhistory.Suchhistoricalwriting

operatesasafoundationalnarrative,emphasizingnotonlytheorigins,butalso

thefundamentalnatureofatradition.35Assuch,historicallineagesareachoice.

WhenanalyzingthewayPringsheimpresentstheoriginsofthethemesof

cosmopolitanlaw,theideasofequalityandlegality,thisapproachopenswaysto

discussthetextbeyondthepurelyhistoricallevel.Theissueoforiginshasnear

mythicalconnotations,despitetheinsistenceofmodernlawofbeingrational

andscientific.36Thestoriesoforiginsarefoundationalnarratives,storiesof

belongingthatrevealtheessentialnatureofthelegalculture.Bydoingso,they

definenotonlythepast,butseektodemarcatethepotentialforthefuture.37

Pringsheim,likeSchulz,wantedtoshowadifferentkindofpast,a

traditionoflawandlegalscholarshipthatreflectedalsoavisionforthefuture,

perhapsunknowingly.Thusahistoricalnarrativeisnotonlyanattemptat

35Tuori2007.

36Fitzpatrick1992.

37Anderson1991.

22

depictingreality,itisanormativereformationoftradition.Avisionofagolden

age,likePringsheim’s,isawaytoprojecttothepastidealsofthepresent.

ForPringsheim,topresentthesetoanewaudienceinBritainwasan

opportunitytodevelopnewthemesandtocontinueoldones.Hewouldcontinue

thenarrativeoflegalscholarshipasaself-referentialpursuitthatshouldsetthe

standardforlaw,evenwhileitwasinconjunctionwithstatepower.Forthe

Britishaudience,thatparticularnarrativewaslessfamiliarthantotheGerman

audience,makingitimportantthattheunderlyingthemeoftheglorificationof

HadrianwassowellestablishedinBritainbyGibbon.

Prinsheimwouldappealtotradition,ofcontinuityandheritageasa

criticismtowardsthepresentandthepoliciesthatitentailed.Theglorifying

narrativethathecreatesisnotonlyavisionofanimaginarygoldenage,but

ratheranalternativetothepoliciesofreform,theGleichschaltungofthestate

aroundtheprinciplesoftheNaziracialhierarchies.

Fundamentally,thenarrativeofPringsheimwasanarrativeoftheroleof

lawandthelegalprofessioninsociety.He,amongmanyothers,includingmany

formerNazis(includinghisownpupilFranzWieacker)wouldlaterpresentthe

narrativeofthelongtraditionoflegalscholarship,theprimacyoflawandlegal

learning,asasharedEuropeanheritage.

Conclusions

TheidealizationofHadrianicRomewasathemewithalongheritagefromthe

writingsofcontemporarieslikeAeliusAristidestotheworksofGibbonandthe

nineteenthcenturyenthusiasmforimperialsovereignty.Animportantpartof

thatidealizationwastherealizationthattheenlightenedruleunderwhichpeace

23

andprosperityreignedcoincidedwiththeenlightenedtraditionoflaw,where

principlesliketheprotectionoftheweakerpartiesorequalitybeforethelaw

becameprominent.AsHadrianhimselfwastheauthorofnumerouslegal

opinionsandresolutionswhereheemphasizedtheideasofhumanityand

justice,thehistoricalthemeofHadrianasthewiseemperorjudgehadboth

soundfootinginhistoricalsourcesandasolidfollowingamongscholars.

FacedwiththebeginningofrepressionofNaziGermany,FritzPringsheim

begananintellectualexodustowardssafetyandfreedom.Partofthebeginning

ofhisprocessofexilewas,inadditiontohismarginalizationinGermany,laying

thegroundworkforthemovetoBritainbytravelingthereandgivingtalksat

Britishuniversities.Inonesuchtalk,givenattheFacultyofLawatCambridge

andlaterpublishedattheJournalofRomanStudies,hereformulatedtheideaof

HadrianasgoodkingtoHadrianastheenlightenedStoicphilosopherand

cosmopolitanruler.HisHadrianwasjudgeandlegislator,butequallyan

administratorthatcreatedanearlymodernprofessionallegaladministration.

ThewayPringsheimtookthehistoricalfigureofHadrianandpresented

himinanewlightmaybeconsideredasareactiontowardsthecomingNazi

repressionandtheviolationsofconstitution,lawandlegaltraditionitentailed.

Likemostwritersunderthreatbyrepressiveregimes,Pringsheimdoesnot

mentionthethreat,northeNaziregimeingeneral.However,thecontextofthe

textandhisothercontemporarywritingsmakethereferenceclear.

Bibliography

Anderson,Benedict.1991.Imaginedcommunities:reflectionsontheoriginand

spreadofnationalism(London:Verso).

24

André,Jean-Marie.1982.‘Laconceptiondel’Étatetdel’Empiredanslapensée

gréco-romainedesdeuxpremierssièclesdenotreère’,AufstiegundNiedergang

derrömischenWelt,2.30.1:3-73.

Ash,MitchellG.,andAlfonsSöllner(eds.).1996.ForcedMigrationandScientific

Change:ÉmigréGerman-SpeakingScientistsandScholarsafter1933(Cambridge

andNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress).

Balakrishnan,Gopal.2000.TheEnemy:AnintellectualportraitofCarlSchmitt

(London:Verso).

Behr,CharlesA.(ed.)1981-1986.P.AeliusAristides:TheCompleteWorks,vols.1-

2(Leiden:Brill).

Behr,CharlesA.1994.‘StudiesontheBiographyofAeliusAristides’,Aufstiegund

NiedergangderrömischenWelt,2.34.2:1140-1233.

Bleicken,Jochen.1964.SenatsgerichtundKaisergericht:EineStudiezur

EntwicklungdesProzessrechtesimfrühenPrinzipat(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&

Ruprecht).

Birley,AnthonyR.1997.Hadrian:TheRestlessEmperor(London:Routledge).

Bowersock,GlenW.1969.GreekSophistsintheRomanEmpire(Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress).

Breunung,Leonie,andManfredWalther.2012.DieEmigrationdeutscher

Rechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol1(Göttingen:DeGruyter).

Breunung,Leonie,andManfredWalther.forthcoming.DieEmigrationdeutscher

Rechtswissenschaftlerab1933,vol2(Göttingen:DeGruyter).

Broszat,Martin.1984.DieMachtergreifung.DerAufstiegderNSDAPunddie

ZerstörungderWeimarerRepublik(München:DeutscherTaschenbuch-Verlag).

25

Brunt,PeterAstbury.1978.‘Lausimperii’,inImperialismintheAncientWorld,

ed.byPeterD.A.GarnseyandC.R.Whittaker(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press),pp.159-191.

Carsana,Chiara.1990.Lateoriadellacostituzionemistanell’etàimperialeromana

(Como:EdizioniNewPress).

Corcoran,Simon.2000.TheEmpireoftheTetrarchs:ImperialPronouncements

andGovernmentAD284-324(Oxford:ClarendonPress).

Cumin,David.2005.CarlSchmitt(Paris:Cerf).

Evans,RichardJ.2003.TheComingOfTheThirdReich(London:AllenLane).

Fermi,Laura.1968.IllustriousImmigrants:TheIntellectualMigrationFrom

Europe1930-1941(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress).

Flinterman,Jaap-Jan.2004.‘SophistsandEmperors:AReconnaissanceof

SophisticAttitudes’,inPaideia.TheWorldoftheSecondSophistic,ed.byB.E.

Borg(BerlinandNewYork:DeGruyter),pp.359-376.

Finkenauer,Thomas,andAndreasHerrmann.forthcoming.‘ComingtoTerms–

TheStudyofRomanlawbetweenAdaptationandCollaboration,1933-1945’.

Fitzpatrick,Peter.1992.TheMythologyofModernLaw(LondonandNewYork:

Routledge).

Gibbon,Edward.1845.TheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,vol.1(New

York:InternationalBookCompany).

Gibbon,Edward.1845.TheDeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire,vol.3(New

York:InternationalBookCompany).

Giltaij,Jacob,andVilleErkkilä.2015.‘AninterviewwithTonyHonoré’,Forum

HistoriaeIuris26/02/2015.http://www.forhistiur.de/2015-01-erkkila-giltaij.

26

Graham,Kyle.2002.‘TheRefugeeJuristandAmericanLawSchools,1933-1941’,

AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw,50:777–818.

Gregorovius,Ferdinand.1851.GeschichtedesrömischenKaisersHadrianund

seinerZeit(Königsberg:Bon).

Haferkamp,Hans-Peter.forthcoming.‘“Byzantium!”–bonafidesbetweenRome

and20thcenturyGermany’,inRomanLawandtheIdeaofEurope,ed.byKaius

TuoriandHetaBjörklund.

Harris,WilliamV.,andBrookeHolmes.2008.AeliusAristidesbetweenGreece,

Rome,andthegods(LeidenandBoston:Brill).

Hartshorne,EdwardY.1937.Germanuniversitiesandnationalsocialism

(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress).

Henderson,BernardW.1923.TheLifeandPrincipateoftheEmperorHadrian

(London:Methuen).

Honoré,Tony.1994.EmperorsandLawyers:WithaPalingenesiaofThird-century

ImperialRescripts193-305AD(Oxford:ClarendonPress).

Honoré,Tony.2004.‘FritzPringsheim’,inJuristsUprooted,ed.byJackBeatson

andReinhardZimmermann(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),pp.205-233.

Kaser,Max.1939.RömischesRechtalsGemeinschaftsordnung(Tübingen:Mohr

Siebeck).

Klein,RichardA.1981a.‘ZurDatierungderRomrededesAeliusAristides’,

Historia,30:337-350.

Klein,RichardA.1981b.DieRomrededesAeliusAristides(Darmstadt:

WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft).

27

Klein,RichardA.1995.’ZumKultur-undGeschichtsverständnisinderRomrede

desAeliusAristides’,inPrinzipatundKulturim1.und2.Jahrhundert,ed.byB.

Kühnert,V.Riedel,andR.Gordesiani(Bonn:R.Habelt),pp.283-292.

Koenen,Andreas.1995.DerFallCarlSchmitt(Darmstatt:Wissenschafliche

Buchhandlung).

Koontz,Claudia.TheNaziConscience(LondonandCambridge,MA:TheBelknap

Press).

Lepsius,Oliver.2003.‘TheProblemofPerceptionsofNationalSocialistLawor:

WasthereaConstitutionalTheoryofNationalSocialism?’,inDarkerLegaciesof

LawinEurope,ed.byChristianJoergesandNavrajSinghGhaleigh(Oxfordand

Portland,OR:HartPublishing),pp.19-41.

Lutter,Marcus,ErnstC.Stiefel,andMichaelH.Hoeflich(eds.).1993.DerEinfluß

DeutscherEmigrantenaufdieRechtsentwicklungindenUSAundinDeutschland

(Tubingen:MohrSiebeck).

Mattei,Ugo.1994.‘WhytheWindChanged:IntellectualLeadershipinWestern

Law’,TheAmericanJournalofComparativeLaw,42:195-217.

Mehring,Reinhard.2009.CarlSchmitt:AufstiegundFall(München:Beck).

Miglietta,Massimo,andGianniSantucci(eds.).2009.Dirittoromanoeregimi

totalitarinel’900Europeo(Trento:UniversitàdiTrento).

Millar,Fergus.1977.TheEmperorintheRomanWorld31BC-AD337(London:

Duckworth).

Millar,Fergus.1992.TheEmperorintheRomanWorld31BC-AD337,2ndedn

(London:Duckworth).

Nelis,Jan.2007.‘ConstructingFascistIdentity:BenitoMussoliniandtheMythof

Romanità’,ClassicalWorld,100:391-415.

28

Nutton,Vivian.1978.‘TheBeneficialIdeology’,inImperialismintheAncient

World,ed.byPeterD.A.GarnseyandC.R.Whittaker(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress),pp.209-223.

Oliver,JamesH.1953.‘TheRulingPower.AStudyoftheRomanEmpireinthe

SecondCenturyAfterChristthroughtheRomanOrationofAeliusAristides’,

TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety,43:871-1003.

Peachin,Michael.1996.IudexviceCaesaris:DeputyEmperorsandthe

AdministrationofJusticeduringthePrincipate(Stuttgart:FranzSteiner).

Pernot,Laurent.2008.‘AeliusAristidesandRome’,inAeliusAristidesbetween

Greece,Rome,andthegods,ed.byWilliamV.HarrisandBrookeHolmes(Leiden

andBoston:Brill),pp.175-201.

Pringsheim,Fritz.1930.‘Aequitasundbonafides’,reprintedinGesammelte

Abhandlungen1(Heidelberg:CarlWinter&Universitätsverlag,1961),pp.154-

172.

Pringsheim,Fritz.1933.‘HöheundEndederRömischenJurisprudenz’,reprinted

inGesammelteAbhandlungen1(Heidelberg:CarlWinter&Universitätsverlag,

1961),pp.53-62.

Pringsheim,Fritz.1934.‘TheLegalPolicyandReformsofHadrian’,Journalof

RomanStudies,24:141-153.

Pringsheim,Fritz.1950.TheGreekLawofSale(Weimar:H.BöhlausNachfolger).

Pringsheim,Fritz.1960.‘DieHaltungderFreiburgerStudentenindenJahren

1933-1935’,DieSammlung,15:532-538.

Pringsheim,Fritz.1961.GesammelteAbhandlungen1(Heidelberg:CarlWinter&

Universitätsverlag).

29

Rösch,Felix.2014.ÉmigréScholarsandtheGenesisofInternationalRelations.A

EuropeanDisciplineinAmerica?(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacMillan).

Schiavone,Aldo.2000.TheEndofthePast.AncientRomeandtheModernWest

(LondonandCambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress).

Schulz,Fritz.1936.PrinciplesofRomanLaw(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress)

[TheGermanoriginal:1934.PrinzipiendesrömischenRechts(München:Duncker

&Humblot).]

Schulz,Fritz.1946.HistoryofRomanLegalScience(Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press).

Stahlmann,lnes.1988.‘VomDespotenzumKaiser.ZumdeutschenAugustusbild

im19.Jahrhundert’,inL’Antichitanell’OttocentoinltaliaeGermania,ed.byKarl

ChristandArnaldoMomigliano(Bologna:SocietàeditriceilMulino),pp.303-

319.

Stertz,StephenA.1994.‘AeliusAristides’PoliticalIdeas’,Aufstiegund

NiedergangderrömischenWelt,2.34.2:1248-1270.

Stolleis,Michael.1998.Thelawundertheswastika:studiesonlegalhistoryinNazi

Germany(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress).

Stolleis,Michael.1999.GeschichtedesöffentlichenRechtsinDeutschland.3.Band,

Staats-undVerwaltungsrechtswissenschaftinRepublikundDiktatur1914-1945

(München:Beck).

Strauss,Leo.1988.PersecutionandtheArtofWriting(ChicagoandLondon:

UniversityofChicagoPress).

Tuori,Kaius.2016.EmperorofLaw(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversity

Press).

30

Tuori,Kaius.2007.AncientRomanlawyersandmodernlegalideals:studiesonthe

impactofcontemporaryconcernsintheinterpretationofancientRomanlegal

history(FrankfurtamMain:Klostermann).

Volpe,P.2001.‘Armoniaetaxisnell’EncomioaRomadiElioAristide’,inL’ideadi

Romanellaculturaantica,AttidelConvegnodiStudi(Salerno14–16ottobre

1996),ed.byF.Giordano(Napoli:Edizioniscientificheitaliane),pp.305-312.

Whitmarsh,Tim.2001.GreekLiteratureandtheRomanEmpire:ThePoliticsof

Imitation(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).

Whitmarsh,Tim.2005.TheSecondSophistic(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).

Wieacker,Franz.1944.VomrömischenRecht.WirklichkeitundÜberlieferung

(Leipzig:Koehler&Ameland).

Wieacker,Franz.1935.‘StudienzurHadrianischenJustizpolitik’,Romanistische

Studien:FreiburgerRechtsgeschichtlicheAbhandlungen,5:43-81.

vonWilamowitz-Möllendorf,U.1925.‘DerRhetorAristeides’,Sitzungsberichte

derpreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften,28:333-353.