The constitution of the Holy Roman Empire after 1648: Samuel Pufendorf's assessment in his Monzambano

Historical Journal

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 961-983

  Schröder, Peter ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26444510412     PISSN: 0018246X     EISSN: 14695103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X99008754     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. J. G. Gagliardo, Reich and nation: the Holy Roman Empire as idea and reality, 1765-1806 (London, 1980), p. 40.
2. By contrast with France, where there is 'considerable evidence of interest' in Pufendorf's writing on the Empire (K. Malettke, Frankreich, Deutschland und Europa im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Marburg, 1994), p. 190, contemporary English observers seemed remarkably uninterested in the constitution of the Empire in general and Pufendorf's writing on this matter in particular.
3. See H. Duchhardt, 'Pufendorf in England. Eine unbekannte Übersetzung von Pufendorfs Reichsverfassungsschrift aus dem Jahre 1690', Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 72 (1990), pp. 143-52.
4. If not stated otherwise, all quotations are drawn from the English translation by Edmund Bohun, The present state of Germany written in Latin by the learned Samuel Pufendorf under the name of Severinus de Monzambano Veronesis (London, 1696).
5. J. Bodin, Les six livres de la Republique (Paris, 1583), p. 321.
6. See R. Hoke, 'Bodins Einfluß auf die Anfänge der Dogmatik des deutschen Reichsstaatsrechts', in H. Denzer, ed., Jean Bodin: Verhandlungen der internationalen Bodin-Tagung (Munich, 1973), pp. 315-32.
7. See H. Dreitzel, 'Zur Reichspublizistik. Forschungsergebnisse und offene Probleme', Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, 5 (1978), pp. 339-46;
8. M. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland 1600-1800, 1 (Munich, 1988), pp. 225-67.
9. D. Reinkingk, Tractatus de Regime seculari et ecclesiastico (Frankfurt, 1651). For Reinkingk
10. see Christoph Link, 'Dietrich Reinkingk', in M. Stolleis, ed., Staatsdenker in der Frühen Neuzeit (Munich, 1995), pp. 78-99.
11. Hippolithus a Lapide (i.e. B. Ph. Chemnitz), Dissertatio de ratione status in Imperio nostra Romano-Germanico (n. p., 1640; 2nd edn, Freystadt, 1647). For Chemnitz
12. see R. Hoke, 'Hippolithus a Lapide', in Stolleis, ed., Staatsdenker, pp. 118-28.
13. V. L. von Seckendorff, Ius publicum Romano-Germanico (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1686);
14. idem, Teutscher Fürstenstaat (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1656). For Seckendorff
15. see M. Stolleis, 'Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf', in Stolleis, ed., Staatsdenker, pp. 148-71.
16. J. Limnaeus, Juris publici Imperii Romano-Germanici libri IX (Straßburg, 1657). For Limnaeus
17. see R. Hoke, Die Reichstaatsrechtslehre des Johannes Limnaeus (Aalen, 1968).
18. See D. Döring, 'Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte de Reichsverfassungsschrift Samuel Pufendorfs', Der Staat, 33 (1994), pp. 185-206. Döring provides interesting insights into the relationship between Pufendorf and the Palatine Elector, under whose authority the university was run. Moreover, Döring opens up the perspective towards the impact of the so termed Wildfangstreit and Pufendorf's consideration of the potential interests of the Palatine Elector. All these aspects add to the general importance of Pufendorf's writing on the Empire, but as Döring himself admits, the most important aspect has to be seen in Pufendorf's concern about the German constitution in general, which lies at the heart of this article as well.
19. J-J-Moser, Bibliotheca Juris publici, 11 (Stuttgart, 1730), p. 543: 'Seine Schreib-Art ist dermassen cultiviert, durchdringend, piquant und im railliren und judicieren so glücklich gewesen, daß nicht leicht ein Adversarium, welcher einmahl in Schrifften mit ihme angebunden, ungehudelt von ihme Ioskommen ist.' I would like to thank Raphael Utz (Heidelberg) for his advice on some stylistic aspects regarding this article and particularly this translation.
20. When Christian Thomasius announced his lecture on the Monzambano, Pufendorf commented on this in a letter to Thomasius:' Wenn der alte dr. Schwendendorffer noch in leben were, würde er sich sehr darüber scandalisieren, daß man nun den gefährlichen Monzambinum, wie er ihn nannte, publice zu lesen sich unterstünde. Ich habe wohl eine editionem postumam verfertiget, darin viel dinge ausgelaßen, so eigentlich nicht ad rem dieneten, viel auch hinzugethan. Aber weil ich mich solange nicht selbst für den autorem bekennet, so will ichs auch noch nicht thun. 'Pufendorf to Thomasius (Berlin, 9 Apr. 1692) in S. Pufendorf, Collected works, ed. W. Schmidt Biggemann, 1: Briefwechsel, ed. D. Döring (Berlin, 1996), p. 340.
21. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. R. Tuck (Cambridge, 1992), ch. 22, p. 155.
22. See Pufendorf to Thomasius (Berlin, 9 Apr. 1692) in Pufendorf, Briefwechsel, p. 340.
23. S. Pufendorf, Of the law of nature and nations, trans. B. Kennet (London, 1717), p. 490 (VII-4, p. 1).
24. Pufendorf, Of the law of nature, p. 494 (VII-4, p. 11).
25. This aspect will be dealt with in full in the second part of this article.
26. See F. Palladini, Discussioni seicentesche su Samuel Pufendorf-scrilti latini, 1663-1700 (Bologna, 1978), pp. 111-62.
27. Pufendorf's use of 'monstrosity' troubled even modern scholars but their misunderstanding of Pufendorf's notion of 'monstrosity' has already been sufficiently pointed out by several scholars and is therefore widely known. One might therefore have assumed that their misleading interpretation is no longer current.
28. J. H. Zedler, ed., Groβes vollständiges Universal-Lexikon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, XXI (Leipzig and Halle, 1745), p. 486: 'Mißgeburt (lat. Monstrum)...ist eigentlich eine natürliche Geburt, die auf einige Weise von der Ordnung und Gestalt ihrer Gattung abweicht.'
29. S. Pufendorf, 'Addenda Dissertationi de Republica Irregulari' in Dissertationes academicae selectio Res... (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1678) pp. 572-621. 'Quod vocabulum [monstrum] citra omnem injuriam positum nihil aliud notat, quam insignem aliquam & inusitatam irregularitatem praesertim cum morborum velut agmina, & partium in diversa commoda tendentium studia eandem comitentur.' Quote: p. 619.
30. B. Roeck, Reichssyslem und Reichsherkommen: die Diskusssion über die Staatlichkeit des Reiches in der politischen Publizistik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1984), p. 28.
31. G. W. Leibniz, 'Caeserinus Fürstenerius', in Political Writings, ed. P. Riley (Cambridge, 1989) 1 p. 119. The relationship between Leibniz and Pufendorf deserves much more research, especially their concepts concerning the Empire. For a first discussion of Leibniz's writing on the Empire see N. Hammerstein, 'Leibniz und das Heilige Römische Reich deutscher Nation', Nassauische Annalen, 85 (1974), pp. 87-102.
32. See further references and discussion in N. Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the natural law tradition (Chicago and London, 1993) p. 180 n. 11.
33. Pufendorf, Of the law of nature, p. 508 (VII-5, p. 13).
34. Ibid..
35. See Pufendorf's early dissertations in Dissertationes academicae selectiores, esp. 'De Republica iregulari' (1669), pp. 381-452;
36. 'De Systematibus Civitatis' (1668), pp. 264-330;
37. and also 'De rebus gestis Philippi Amyntae filii' (1666), pp. 109-95.
38. See now the excellent article by A. Defour, 'Pufendorfs föderalistisches Denken und Staatsräsonlehre', in F. Palladini and G. Hartung, eds., Samuel Pufendorf und die europäische Frühaufklä rung (Berlin, 1996), pp. 105-22.
39. Pufendorf, Of the law of nature, p. 500 (VII-5, p. 2).
40. Ibid., p. 511 (VII-5, p. 17).
41. Ibid., p. 515 (VII-5, p. 20).
42. V. Press, Kriege und Krisen: Deutschland, 1600-1715 (Munich, 1991), p. 326.
43. J. Moore and M. Silverthorne, 'Protestant theologies, limited sovereignties: natural law and conditions of union in the German Empire, the Netherlands and Great Britain', in J. Robertson, ed., A union for Empire: political thought and the British union of 1707 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 171-97. Quote: p. 183. The account by Moore and Silverthorne about the constitutional situation of the Empire is far too much in favour of the territorial princes and neglects the influence the Emperor still possessed even after 1648.
44. See Instrumenta pacis Westphalicae, ed. K. Müller (Bern, 1975). IPO v-2: 'Terminus a quo restitutionis in ecclesiasticis et quae intuitu eorum in politicis mutata sunt, sit dies 1.1. 1624.'
45. Pufendorf to Landgraf Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels (Berlin, 1, Nov. 1691) in Pufendorf, Briefwechsel, p. 333.
46. This part is added in the posthumous edition and therefore not translated by Bohun. The Latin original is not to be found either in 'Samuelis B. de Pufendorf, sive antea Severini de Monzambano, De Statu Imperii Germanici ex autographo B. Autoris Recognitus, cum prioribus Editionibus collatus, ac selectis variorum Notis illustratus, curante D. Gottlieb Gerhard Titio', Lipsiae (Leipzig) 1708, because Titus provides only the text of the first edition and his own annotations. Thus one has to refer for the Latin original to the second edition.
47. Roeck, Reichssystem, maintains this view. J. Robertson, 'Empire and union: two concepts of the early modern European political order', in Robertson, ed., A union for Empire, pp. 3-36, argued along the same lines, when he had claimed that 'the De Statu Imperii closed with an impassioned argument that the "state interest" of the German Empire lay in the continuation of this process [towards a federation], until it formed a true system of states' (p. 26).
48. This part, too, is added in the posthumous edition and therefore not translated by Bohun. See n. 35.
49. This part, too, is added in the posthumous edition. See n. 35.
50. It would be interesting to pursue the importance which Pufendorf gave to the Diet in his historical writings on the Elector of Brandenburg-a task beyond the scope of this article.
51. See S. Pufendorf, De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi magni, electoris Brandenburgici commentariorum libri novendecim (Berlin, 1695).
52. Pufendorf, Of the law of nature, p. 527 (VII-6, 10).
53. See F. Dickmann, Der Westfälische Frieden (Münster, 1985), p. 188.
54. See ibid., pp. 325ff.
55. H. Gross, 'The Holy Roman Empire: constitutional reality and legal theory', in J. A. Vann and S. W. Rowan, eds., The old Reich: essays in German political institutions, 1495-1806 (London, 1975), p. 13.
56. The peace treaty of Prague was signed after the defeat of the Swedes at Nördlingen. The Emperor held a very strong position, and did not resist the temptation to enforce one-sided peace conditions which excluded some of his major opponents within the Empire from the peace. Thus his greatest political mistake was that he refused a general amnesty for all fighting Reichsstände, which implied that the peace remained fragmentary. On the reasons of the failure of the peace of Prague see A. Wandruzka, Reichspatriotismus und Reichspolitik zur Zeit des Prager Friedens von 1635 (Graz, 1955).
57. See. J. Burkhardt, Der Dreiβigjährige Krieg (Frankfurt, 1992), pp. 108ff.
58. Dickmann, Der Westfälische Frieden, p. 330.
59. F. Dickmann, ed., Gesckichte in Quellen: Renaissance, Glaubenskämpfe (Munich, 1982), p. 330.
60. See ibid., pp. 329ff.
61. IPO XVII-2: 'haec transactio perpetua lex et pragmatica imperii sanctio imposterum aeque ac aliae leges et constitutiones fundamentales imperii nominatim proximo imperii recessui ipsique capitulationi Caesareae inserenda'. The English quotations are drawn from one of the rare English editions of'The articles of the treaty of the peace, signed and sealed at Munster. Westphalia' (London, 1697), p. 41-CXIX.
62. 'Articles of the treaty', p. 23-LXIV
63. See IPO VIII-I.
64. See K. O. Freiherr von Aretin, 'Das Reich in seiner letzten Phase 1648-1806', in idem, Das Reich (Stuttgart, 1986), pp. 19-51.
65. 'Articles of the treaty', p. 23-LXV.
66. See IPO VIII-2.
67. Ibid..
68. A. Schindling, Die Anfänge des Immerwährenden Reichstags zu Regensburg: Ständevertretung und Staatskunst nach dem Westfälischen Frieden (Mainz, 1991), p. 182.
69. See IPO VIII-4.
70. Gagliardo, Reich and nation, p. 24.
71. 'Articles of the treaty', p. 23-LXV.
72. See IPO VIII-2.
73. J. G. von Meiern, ed. Acta pacis Westphalicae publica oder Westphälische Friedens-Handlungen und Geschichte, Erster Theil (Hanover, 1734), p. 444.
74. See E.-W. Böckenförde, 'Der Westfälische Frieden und das Bündnisrecht der Reichsstände', Der Staat, 8 (1969), pp. 449-78.
75. Press, Kriege und Krisen, p. 384.
76. Interestingly, older German scholarship had maintained that the Emperor possessed much more influence in the Empire than has been commonly assumed. See particularly H. E. Feine, 'Zur Verfassungsgeschichte des Heiligen Romischen Reiches nach dem Westfälischen Frieden', Zeitschrift der Savignystiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 52 (1932), pp. 65-133. 'Schien das kaiserliche Regiment im Reich mit dem Westfälischen Frieden endgültig begraben worden zu sein, so bemerkt man doch in dem Jahrhundert danach auf verschiedenen Gebieten ein deutliches Wiederaufleben der kaiserlichen Macht im Reich.' Quote: p. 79.
77. G. Strauss, 'The Holy Roman Empire revisited', Central European History, II (1978), pp. 290-301. Quote: p. 295.
78. V. Press, 'Die kaiserliche Stellung im Reich zwischen 1648 und 1740-Versuch einer Neubewertung', in G. Schmidt, ed., Stände und Gesellschaft im Alten Reich (Stuttgart, 1989), pp. 51-80. Quote: p. 55.
79. Ibid. p. 55.
80. K. O. Freiherr von Aretin, 'Reichssystem, Friedensgarantie und europäisches Gleichgewicht', in idem, Das Reich, pp. 55-75. Quote: p. 67.
81. But see M. Stolleis, 'Textor und Pufendorf über die Ratio Status Imperii im Jahre 1667', in idem, Staat und Staatsräson in derfrühen Neuzeit (Frankfurt and Main, 1990), pp. 106-33, who claims that' the outstanding qualities of Monzambano are rather due to the brilliant style than to its actual new approach', p. 132. However, Stolleis himself admits in the same article that 'Textor relies more closely on the older literature', p. 110.
82. K. J. Holsti, Peace and war: armed conflicts and international order, 1648-1089 (Cambridge, 1991). p. 35.
83. J. Rosenberg, The empire of civil society: a critique of the realist theory of international relations (London and New York, 1994), p. 138.
84. J. J. Moser, Neues Teutsches Staatsrecht, I (Stuttgart, 1766), p. 550.