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.
Recommended
