Friedrich Julius Stahl

Friedrich Julius Stahl (originally: Julius Jolson-Uhlfelder); (Born January 16, 1802 in Heidingsfeld near Würzburg ; † August 10, 1861 in Bad Brückenau ) was a German legal philosopher , lawyer , Prussian crown syndic and politician who belonged to the awakening circle around Christian Krafft in Erlangen .

Encouraged by Schelling and Savigny , he wrote his main scientific work The Philosophy of Law According to a Historical View (Heidelberg 1830–1837), which despite major shortcomings was epoch-making for the history of political science . In it, Stahl abruptly opposed the doctrine of rational law and justified his legal and political doctrine "on the basis of Christian worldview". He called for the "conversion of science" to belief in the " revealed truth" of the Christian religion. Stahl was a co-founder and organizer as well as programmer of the Conservative Party of Prussia in 1848/49 . He was a member of the Prussian mansion for life. Stahl's great influence as a legal scholar may include a. from the fact that his definition of the rule of law is still the most cited in Germany.

Friedrich Julius Stahl, 1840 (engraving by Lazarus Gottlieb Sichling )

Youth and Studies

As the first child of his Jewish parents, Babette and Valentin Jolson (since 1813 officially: Goldsohn), (Julius or) Joël was born on January 16, 1802 in Würzburg, where he only spent the first years of childhood before moving with his parents in 1805 Munich went, where the "little Joll" grew up from the age of three in the house of his grandfather, the head of the Jewish community in Munich, Abraham Uhlfelder († 1813,), then from 1811 attended the Wilhelmsgymnasium and attended the Lyceum for a year . In 1819, after graduating with “Very Good”, Julius wanted to teach Latin like his role model and honored teacher Friedrich Thiersch , but was not allowed to do so because of his religious affiliation. Under the influence of Thiersch, Niethammer and other teachers and friends, he decided to convert to the Evangelical Lutheran Church . His father agreed to this request, with the proviso that it would happen far from Munich. The convert's circle of friends arranged the baptism with Thiersch and Ludwig Döderlein as godparents on November 6, 1819 in the Neustädter Church in Erlangen and he took the name Friedrich Julius Stahl.

On the eve of his baptism, Julius had been molested in a student bar in Erlangen and, since he could not obtain satisfaction himself at the time, he turned to Hermann von Rotenhan , who was unknown to him and with whom he had a lifelong friendship , for help . He followed his new friend into the Germania fraternity in Würzburg and then to Würzburg . There he began to study law in the winter semester of 1819/20 and was involved in the Würzburg fraternity, which selected him as speaker in his second semester, as his rousing oratorial talent was already evident. Although the Karlovy Vary resolutions in August and September 1819 also banned the fraternities, this was not strictly enforced in Bavaria and Baden. In 1821 Julius moved to Heidelberg . He represented the fraternity there in October 1821 at an illegal and therefore secret boys' day in the middle Franconian town of Streitberg , where he spoke out against direct political action and in favor of concentrating on study and education as the goal of the fraternity. In the winter semester of 1822/23 Julius continued his studies at Erlangen University , where he was still the spiritual leader of the fraternity, but, true to the basic idea of ​​his Streitberg speech, wanted to concentrate on completing his studies in the summer of 1823, known as that speech has been. On August 16, 1823, he therefore had to undergo an interrogation and was threatened with forced termination of his studies. On April 20, 1824 he was at the University relegated , initially limited to two years if he let nothing guilty because of a clemency petition of his father more.

Stahl returned to his parents' house in Munich, where some things had changed: under the influence of his example, parents and siblings had given up Judaism and, like him, committed themselves to Protestant Christianity. They were baptized in Munich on March 6, 1824, had also taken the surname Stahl and left the Jewish quarter for good. Stahl tried in vain to shorten the relegation time through repeated entries. But of course he also used these years for self-study and reading, e.g. B. Hegel's philosophy , whose basic principles of the Philosophy of Law appeared in 1820. After he was finally allowed to resume his studies in 1826, he received his doctorate in the same year in Würzburg on the collision and the preference of the special over the general in law.

Academic work

In 1827 Stahl completed his habilitation in Munich on the older Roman right of action and received an undoped private lecturer position there. In the winter semester of 1827/28 he began with lectures on Roman law and with an experiment on the philosophy of law. For reasons unknown, his father Valentin Stahl had lost most of his fortune; after the death of his parents (1829/1830) Julius Stahl had to look after his seven younger siblings. He applied in vain for a paid teaching position.

In order to counter the liberal Bayerischer Volksblatt published by Gottfried Eisenmann in Würzburg , the Bavarian government founded the semi-official journal Der Thron- und Volksfreund in 1830 and appointed Stahl as its editor. His thinking, as well as his journalistic and political activities, were already anti-rationalist and anti-revolutionary at that time and corresponded entirely to King Ludwig I's monarchical principle . But the “Volksfreund” was not up to the “Volksblatt” and was discontinued after a few months and only eight issues.

After several requests, which Ludwig I rejected despite the support of the Minister Eduard von Schenk , Stahl was finally appointed associate professor in Erlangen by decree of June 27, 1832. But before the beginning of the winter semester of 1832/33 he was transferred to Würzburg and appointed full professor for legal philosophy, pundits and Bavarian land law, which he was not at all happy about: after the Gaibach constitution festival , several Würzburg professors were "quiesced" and Stahl belonged to the substitutes, his subjects did not quite meet his wishes and he could not feel comfortable in the Catholic-dominated environment. Nevertheless, he twice turned down an appointment from the Hessian Minister Ludwig Hassenpflug to the University of Marburg because he felt obliged to Bavaria. In 1834 Stahl returned to Erlangen University, where he taught canon law , constitutional law and legal philosophy, and in 1835 married Julie Kindler, the daughter of an Erlangen glove manufacturer; the marriage remained childless. Under the influence of Christian Krafft and the Erlangen theology , Stahl finally developed into a typical representative of Lutheran orthodoxy, and in 1837 the Erlangen University elected him as its member of the second chamber of the Bavarian state parliament, where he advocated better equipping the universities organized a faction-like group to represent Protestant interests and was willing to compromise on the matter in the budget debate with the government, but in principle defended the constitutional rights of the state parliament until the majority of the chamber and finally Minister Wallerstein joined it. Thereupon King Ludwig I dismissed the minister and reprimanded Stahl - he had shown moral courage in the same year as the Göttingen Seven - by withdrawing his professorship for constitutional law and transferring the civil procedure law, which was alien to him. For this reason, Stahl refused to be re-elected to the state parliament, used the calm he had gained to draft his work on the church constitution and was now - although his colleagues in Erlangen appointed him as prorector in 1839 and awarded the “Dr. phil hc “- ready to accept a position at a university outside of Bavaria.

In 1840 Stahl was appointed professor of legal philosophy, constitutional law and canon law in Berlin. At the request of Friedrich Wilhelm IV , he was supposed to fight “rationalist” Hegelianism at the university. At his inaugural lecture on November 26th, Stahl announced this intention and caused a scandal . Treitschke calls the reception “rabble”. Varnhagen van Ense describes in his diaries the “scratching and hissing of the students” as “the first opposition to the new government”. Stahl shouted to the protesting students: "Gentlemen, I am here to teach, you to hear, you may judge at home, but here you do not disturb the order and tranquility!" As early as 1841, Stahl was included in the juridical college Faculty accepted, in which he prepared reports on constitutional and canonical cases. As a professor, he gathered conservative students around himself and, if he was dean or rector , he influenced the appointment of chairs in the conservative interests. In a report from the law faculty, he spoke out against the admission of Jews as lecturers. Stahl also formulated the rejection of the invitation to a meeting of university teachers in September of the revolutionary year 1848 because he was against recognition by the Frankfurt central government. Since the winter semester of 1850/51 he has given public lectures on The Present Parties in State and Church , to which high officials and officers, even ministers, came.

Friedrich Julius Stahl, 1860

Political activity

If Stahl's activity within the university was already politically significant, this was by no means sufficient for his political ambitions. After a petition from the associate professors and private lecturers of the Berlin University in 1848, the dismissal u. a. Stahls had also asked, he fled Berlin, but soon came back to work with Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach to promote the establishment of a conservative newspaper and the organization of the later Conservative Party . Stahl was one of the shareholders and employees of the "Neue Preußische Zeitung" founded in mid-1848 - also known as the "Kreuzzeitung" due to a large " Iron Cross " on the cover. His article "The Banner of Conservatives" printed in it on July 20, 1848 was a short version of his work The monarchical principle of 1845, but updated and made more concrete: From Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Proclamation of March 18, he directed a further development of the Prussian constitutional reality through the King off. More articles by Stahl followed at short intervals until he began to concentrate on building a party organization in September. His draft for a conservative party , drawn up in February and March 1849 , in which he outlined the guidelines for a future conservative policy, became the basis for the conservatives' program that was finally printed

However, Stahl could not commit the entire Conservative Party to this program; so he became - again on the side of Ludwig von Gerlach - the spokesman only for the extreme parliamentary right (sometimes referred to as the “Gerlach-Stahl faction”). Elected to the first chamber for the district of Oberbarnim in 1849 , he at least managed to win over the “highly conservatives” of the “Kreuzzeitungspartei” for the acceptance of the constitution in principle, although they sought to revise it. From 1850 to 1857 the " Kamarilla ", a secret cabinet of Friedrich Wilhelm IV., Which was made up of noblemen and to which Stahl did not belong personally, played an important role . Although he fought tenaciously with the king to occupy the chamber, he always gave in when he could not convince him. Finally, in 1854, Stahl became one of the lifelong members of the manor appointed by the king and thus the main spokesman for the reaction and the knightly party , to which he remained loyal to the end.

In 1850 in the state house of the Erfurt Union Parliament he acted against the plan for a small German solution to the national question under Prussian leadership because he did not want to have done anything against Habsburg , in which he still saw the legitimate contender for the imperial crown. The failure of union policy through the Olomouc punctuation suited him well; thus the consensus in the Holy Alliance with Austria and Russia was restored. In this spirit he also campaigned for Prussian neutrality in the Crimean War in 1854 , when Bunsen and other supporters of England urged Frederick William IV to intervene. The king had promised in 1840: "I want to keep peace in my time." And now kept this. Prussia had deliberately remained neutral, and Stahl justified this in a speech to the first chamber as the “conclusion of a policy based on a higher principle”. In 1854, Stahl also became the Prussian Crown Syndicate and a member of the State Council .

In the ecclesiastical field, too, Stahl used his position as a member of the Old Prussian Evangelical Higher Church Council (1852-1858) to loosen the union , strengthen Lutheran confessionalism ( Neuluthertum ) and to renew the rule of the clergy over the lay world. He was a member of the Prussian General Synod in 1846 and (alongside August von Bethmann-Hollweg ) Vice President of the German Evangelical Church Congress from 1848 to 1861 and a member of the Central Committee for the Inner Mission in Prussia. The influence of Catholicism in its time in Würzburg, when it was bribed by the authoritarian moments of the hierarchical church constitution, may be the reason why Stahl demanded that the validity of the Lutheran creed as the supreme norm of all church life be ensured with the help of a largely independent episcopal church organization. The office of bishop was finally introduced in the EKD after 1945.

The political upheaval as a result of the king's illness and the uprising of Prince Regent Wilhelm and the overthrow of the Manteuffel ministry also ended Stahl's work in the Oberkirchenrat and led to his resignation from the authority in 1858. However, he continued the political struggle against the "Ministry of the Liberal Era" in the manor house, but did not experience the political turning point back to orientation towards the manor house.

Grave of Friedrich Julius Stahl in the old St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin

Julius Stahl's health was always unstable; He regularly took cures, for example in the summer of 1861 in Bad Brückenau, where he died unexpectedly on August 10th. Stahl, who was one of the formative figures for conservatism in Prussia and in the German Empire after 1871, is buried in the Old St. Matthew Cemetery in Berlin-Schöneberg . By resolution of November 29, 2005, the Berlin Senate revoked this grave's status as an honorary grave “because of the lack of prerequisites” . To the extent that it has been preserved, most of Stahl's estate is in the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel .

State theory

At the end of the 1820s, Stahl was in a difficult, crisis-ridden situation in Munich in every respect: not only materially - he had to earn a living for himself and his siblings - he was also mentally distressed, as he was in the preface to in December 1829 writes the first edition of the Philosophy of Law , which is so important to him that he takes it over completely in the later editions. Dissatisfied with Hegel's teaching , he felt the misery of philosophy, not being able to provide an ethical basis for the law that he had to teach. Finally he found that the history of the philosophy of law showed him the way in its development, and confirmation and reinforcement in Schelling's thinking. However, Stahl does not see himself as a disciple of Schelling.

Another person he could rely on was Savigny , the father of the historical school of law. He recognized the right thing intuitively, but others needed a legal philosophy as a theoretical basis. This had been neglected, and Stahl wanted to set himself the task of justifying the conceptions of the historical school of law theoretically, namely from ethics, without following the natural law doctrine of the Enlightenment. Rather, he wanted to base himself on traditional Christian beliefs - and above all set an eternal memorial stone for rationalism (i.e. tombstone!) With his work .

Stahl begins the introduction of his main work with the succinct definition: "Legal philosophy is the science of the just." Since previous attempts cannot go unnoticed, the first volume is devoted to the genesis of legal philosophy. "The historical course, the real nature of people is the judgment on the motives of all philosophy, and so on this itself. Science, like the saint in legend (Christophorus) , must seek the strongest lord." "... the question arises with every system not both which institutions it declares to be just and what is just for it, and from where it draws its knowledge of the same. ”Starting with the Greeks, via the Middle Ages and the doctrine of natural law, steel finally reached pragmatic (Macchiavelli and Montesquieu ) and speculative (Hegel and Schelling) on ​​the "writers of the counter-revolution" [sic!] and on the historical philosophy of law.

The second volume of the “Philosophy of Law” appeared in 1833, after the July Revolution of 1830 . The revolutionary experience was formative for steel. He absolutely rejected the revolution and was convinced that everything should be done to prevent it, to prevent it. The revolution for steel already begins with rationalism, with the fact that man is no longer satisfied with knowing God about himself, but wants to set standards himself by means of his reason. And if you let rationalism run its course, Stahl believed, it would inevitably lead to permanent revolution, because since God should already have been overthrown, one is not satisfied with a constitution, not even with the overthrow of the monarch and the establishment of a republic, Rather, property will eventually be abolished and all the foundations of order in society will be eliminated, with it the freedom of the individual and human dignity - it will come to "hell on earth". So: fight back the beginnings! Christian conservatism is the only salvation.

Like the revolution in the negative, religion in the positive sense shaped Stahl. He grew up religiously in the house of the head of a Jewish community. But this religiosity was soon no longer enough for him. At the grammar school, Thiersch's influence was decisive for him; This Lutheran Protestant from the environment of the President of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi convinced him, and Stahl converted. Not that he adapted to Munich and Bavaria, which was dominated by Catholicism, no: he became a Lutheran. And later, as a professor in Würzburg, which was completely ruled by Catholicism, Stahl suffered from it and became insecure. Only Krafft's theology in Erlangen strengthened him again and formed him into an Orthodox Lutheran. Was he a pietist? Stahl denied this, and the way he understood pietism, namely as apolitical, he was of course right, because Stahl was certainly not apolitical. He also accepted Thibaut's reproach , against the historical school of law in general, that it was pietistic, only in the sense that piety “according to its innermost motive is that careful care of history, piety the preservation of every peculiar institute, the shyness of everything without our contribution has become ".

In principle, Stahl declared himself a supporter of the historical school of law by not accusing it and Savigny of making mistakes, but only of lacking an ethical foundation through a legal philosophy that he himself tried to create for this direction. Namely because he saw the historically grown as a result of the rule of God and based the will of God as the standard for the good, and the law should have the divine commandments as the basis. On this basis, he stated that the law should continue to be developed organically and historically in the sense of God. State and church are institutions , i. H. Institutions built by people, but they should serve someone higher. The moral empire should be established in the state ; not identical with the eternal “kingdom of God”, but in time and in history the preliminary stage to it. In 1837 Stahl wrote: “So the state is the head of divine influences on the external condition of people. Instead of God, he should order, promote, punish violation of order, but with it also prove the morally reasonable will of the human community, ie its obedience to establish and handle God's order. ”Based on his belief in personal God as supreme In principle, Stahl also postulated a personality at the head of the state: the monarch. But this should not stand above the state, but serve it, comply with the constitution and laws and lead the state to fulfill the tasks set by God.

It was not the logical necessity (like Hegel) but the free personality of the revealed God that Stahl laid as the basis of his worldview. Analogous to this, like Eusebius of Kaisarea , the court historian of Constantine, in his tricennal speech, he set the free personality of the monarch as sovereign of the state. The state, however, is not the property of the monarch; this is not above that, but is part of it. State and monarch are obliged to a higher one and have to work in his sense. The foundation of Stahl's philosophy, which was strongly influenced by Schelling, but also by Hegel, is the belief in a personal God, in a ruler of history. Directed by him, the “personality” develops in the religious and moral area as an individual, as a believer in the parish and as a citizen in the civil order of the “moral world”, overgrown by the state, the moral realm. The latter is normatively determined by Christianity. With steel, of course, the state is not a contract structure, but the authority appointed by God; like the individual, the state as a personality strives for the moral. It is obvious that this “Christian state” cannot know the Hegelian separation of state and society. Rather, the state is "according to the type and form of its existence the union of a people under one rule (authority). In terms of content and importance, a moral kingdom is". This empire lives out of monarchical authority, but in turn is not a theocratic dictatorship. The monarch is "bound", as he has been in the entire Lutheran state doctrine since its beginnings (Ch. Link). Stahl's ethical legal concept balances authority and freedom, monarchical principle and ideal “people”, at least verbally. It follows from sovereignty that the prince is entitled to exercise state power in full and indivisibly. Since responsibility belongs to power , the prince also has the sole legislative initiative, a claim to his civil list, the right to use income and the right to convene the representative body. In the case of constitutional conflicts between the Chamber and the government, he has the final decision thanks to the absolute veto . But it is his duty to subordinate his interests to the state and to respect the rights of his subjects. For the subjects, obedience and love to the legitimate authorities, devotion and sacrifice for the state arise as a duty. Their right is first of all the right to freedom of religion, teaching, and property; for the state as a highly imperfect institution, as the realm of the Fall, can only stand negatively, only protectively, above everything that springs from within the individual. These living conditions could only be fulfilled in a higher unity, in that of God's commandments, which worked directly in the soul of his creatures. But the rights of the subjects were not exhausted with this negative status. Since they are free creatures, they not only have to obey but also agree. The ruler's will must become their own free will. Therefore, Stahl called for a representative body that can approve or reject laws and taxes, monitor the proper financial management, the constitutional implementation of laws, the fair justice and thus become the guardian and guarantor of human freedom. It had to be a representative body, which is why Stahl rejected feudal estates. But it should reflect the actual balance of power; therefore steel was in favor of universal, but against equal suffrage and a house of lords. The representatives of the people not only have an advisory, but a decision-making voice and must be heard. Since it has a legal basis, it can offer resistance, but only passively; this should never be driven to the point of refusing to pay taxes or even to open outrage.

As Masur states, Stahl did not actually come up with a legal philosophy in this way, but everything that "came to an end in 1837 was Christian legal and political theory". And so the Brockhaus (Leipzig 2000) describes him briefly and concisely as the “creator of the Christian-conservative state theory”.

Canon Law

In 1840, Stahl's “The Church Constitution according to the doctrine and law of Protestants” was published in Erlangen. This work has far surpassed the "philosophy of law" in terms of effectiveness.

Stahl assumes that a renewed faith brings with it a longing for security and a stable constitution of the church. He makes it clear that this writing is only about the constitution of the Lutheran Church. The aim is "the restoration of the old Protestant constitutional theory" and the "cardinal point" here is the position of the prince towards the church.

The episcopal system introduced in 1555 after the Augsburg religious peace as a provisional peace policy , in which the princes instead of the (Catholic) bishops who had refused to accept the Reformation, came to the head of the church, which was legally founded by Joachim Stephani and consolidated by Carpzow , but also The prince's “external” power was strictly separated from the “internal” rule of the class of teaching, which had to judge only about faith, is what Stahl describes as “the canonical system of Lutheran orthodoxy”. The "territorial system" of Thomasius with comprehensive supremacy by the absolute monarch rejects Stahl. He firmly rejects the collegial system as liberal, yes, “analogue to popular sovereignty ”. Stahl sees these three systems as corresponding to the respective historical “epoch of theological development, the orthodox, pietistic and rationalistic”.

According to Stahl's view, “secular and spiritual violence should not be mixed up” and “the teaching level with the general community, but at its head, the subject of church violence”, with Stahl himself referring to Christoph Matthäus Pfaff as the alleged founder of the collegial system. The evangelical prince has "the right of majesty over the church in general", i. H. including the tolerated churches, namely as secular violence, but as ecclesiastical power only “in the limited way as it was accepted in the early days of the Protestant church”, ie before the rise of absolutism . According to Stahl, according to a “purely Protestant doctrine of the three estates”, “the doctrinal class, the people and the prince, each have a peculiar and independent share in church power” so that they govern the church together in unison. At the request of the reformers, the consistories were originally founded as an authority for spiritual jurisdiction and not for ecclesiastical administration, which should be left to the bishops. They should be subordinate to the bishops and "not consist of simple Christians like the Reformed presbyteries, but only of learned business men". However, since the princes, like bishops, could not take over the management of church affairs themselves, this task fell to the consistories as a makeshift. For the same reason, the office of superintendent was created, who had to take over the episcopal function of supervising the pastors. So it turned out that in the German territorial states "the princes were considered to be the subject of church power after they had the entire church administration, albeit provided by the consistory, but dependent".

Understanding this common “consistorial constitution” in its true meaning and principles is what Stahl calls the task of his writing. This “aristocratic” constitution is not “really the constitution that corresponds to the essence of the Protestant church and the Christian church in general”. “Such an entanglement of church and state,” in which the head of state was also the subject of church power, might have been appropriate for the period immediately after the revolution, but through it the church had no power and representation of its own, except through the state. The consistory had the status of a state authority and through this "incorporation of the church into the state" all independence of the church had been eliminated. Furthermore, the “church regiment is exclusively a matter for the regional church” and this is separated “from the whole of the Protestant resp. Protestant Church. ”This is also not in the sense of the Reformation, because this led to two other“ constitutional forms: the episcopal and the presbyterial ”. The presbyterial constitution may be appropriate to the parish character that characterizes the Reformed Church, but the episcopal constitution is preferable and entirely in accordance with the character of the church. “Under the permanent authority of the bishops”, who, like the apostles once did, exercise their office for life, the doctrinal and laity should then participate in the guidance of the church. In contrast to the consistorial constitution, in an episcopal constitution the “bishops really would be the subject of church authority”, not the sovereigns.

Stahl's demand for the introduction of the episcopal system for the Protestant regional churches could not be met as long as the Protestant princes had the power to claim sovereignty over the church.

In keeping with this, Stahl finally found the Lutheran Church and the Union in 1859 in his decisive ecclesiastical work . A scientific discussion of the question of time. The concerns of the Lutheran New Orthodoxy, which is increasingly irreconcilable towards the efforts of the Prussian kings for union , sharpened in a representative manner and became their authoritative advocate on this issue as well.

reception

Contemporary criticism

There was already criticism from Stahl's contemporaries: the historian and politician Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann criticized (according to Klaus von Beyme's opinion, “absolutely correct”) that Stahl only wanted to grant freedom in “homeopathic droplets”. The liberal politician and political scientist Robert von Mohl counted Stahl among the opponents of the rule of law and advocates of a theocracy . Eduard Wippermann dedicated an appendix to Stahl in his work Die Altorientalischen Religionsstaat , published in 1851 , because he saw him as the representative of the doctrine of the "Christian state", the only one who "has scientifically processed these doctrines in a comprehensive system" It is easiest to rule in the religious state. The constitutional lawyer Rudolf Gneist also said ironically that Stahl's personality and lifestyle were in "sharp contrasts" to those of his "party comrades".

Feuerbach

In 1835, Ludwig Feuerbach devoted a criticism of the “Christian legal and political theory” by Fr. Jul. Stahl 1835 in his explanations and additions to the essence of Christianity to Stahl . He makes fun of him: “The author starts out from the principles of Christianity in his philosophy, and therefore, after showing the splinters in the eyes of others, he had to publicly display the beams in his own eye, All the more so as precisely these beams are the only solid supports of his philosophical building. "Hart goes to court against Feuerbach" with the so-called positive philosophy. Although it is the most feeble-minded mysticism in the world, although in its innermost base it harbors the pitch-blackest obscurantism and contains the direct annihilation of the principle of true science and rational knowledge, it nevertheless makes itself and others, be it intentionally or unintentionally, a blue one A haze of philosophy ”. “And its highest principle itself, if we look through its machinations and the sophistic intrigues of its indefinite evasive, never sticking to the blade, slippery, hiding-angled method with penetrating glances at its bottom and call the matter in straight German words by the right name Willing is nothing but the will separated from reason, not determined by it, fixed for itself as reality, i. H. absolute arbitrariness, which is put on the throne as the highest being under the beautiful name of freedom. ... Otherwise people only took refuge in the will of God in exceptional cases, only where they encountered facts which, proceeding from inadequate principles, they could not bring into agreement with reason, and therefore called it open-heartedly the place of refuge of ignorance, the asylum ignorantiae. But now the asylum of ignorance is even made the principle of science ... "" Idolatry (idolatry) is the spirit of positive philosophy; its principle of knowledge consists in nothing else than to take the image of a thing for the thing itself, in order to then construct the real thing as the afterimage from the image as the archetype. ... But what is inconsistency for the author? From the beginning he threw himself off his neck as an annoying burden, and opened the door and gate to arbitrariness. "

Empire

The conservative historian Heinrich von Treitschke attested to Stahl that he had become “completely Christian and German”, calling him the pioneer of national unity and the “only great political head among all thinkers of Jewish blood”. In the Wilhelmine Empire , legal positivism had prevailed and steel was largely forgotten, at best found historical interest, for example from Erich Kaufmann, while Laband paid no attention to steel in his constitutional law of the German Empire in 1876.

The assessment of his teachings during the Weimar period differed .

Nazi era

Convicted in National Socialist Germany , following Reich Interior Minister Hans Frank , u. a. Johannes Heckel ("The intrusion of the Jewish spirit into German constitutional and church law by Friedrich Julius Stahl") and Edgar Tatarin-Tarnheyden (because of "atomization of state power") the "alien" Stahl, as well as Carl Schmitt , the Stahl-Jolson , like him always called him as "the boldest in" a "Jewish front" was considered to have paralyzed Prussia and caused the overthrow of the Hohenzollern. On the other hand, writers in exile commented positively or differently on Stahl's teachings; the young Peter F. Drucker published a laudatory essay on steel in Tübingen in April 1933 , shortly before he had to leave Germany.

Since 1945

After 1945, in addition to criticism, Stahl's doctrines continued to resonate with Christian conservative politicians, historians such as Hans-Joachim Schoeps and Lutheran church representatives such as Otto Dibelius well into the 1960s . “Reflecting on the causes and consequences of Germany's collapse also led to renewed attention to steel. Those who thought that he had legitimized the authoritarian German authoritarian state in the wake of Hegel and as a forerunner of Bismarck and thereby worked for the National Socialist tyranny were opposed by those who moderated him as a Christian natural lawyer, as a theorist of the 'constitutional state' and as a Christian principle -conservative politicians paid tribute to him for their proposed solutions to reorganize the West German society and its statehood. The advocates of this view ... united a basic religious and ideological stance which had already been announced in the aforementioned judgments about steel at the end of the Weimar Republic and which was then consolidated in the joint resistance against the National Socialist rulers. The Christian Democratic Union became their political home. ”In 1949 Fritz Fischer particularly emphasized the dangerousness of the seemingly liberal concessions in Stahl's political theory; With the help of his constitutional compromise, the necessary parliamentary reform of the German system of government was prevented until the end of the First World War . His authoritative views had decisively determined the thinking of the main conservative Protestant leadership elites Prussia-Germany in the state, in the church, in society and at universities up to the First World War and beyond, and thus contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic with its consequences. "The history of the 'counter-revolution in science' was not over with FJ Stahl, it was not yet over in 1918." Dieter Grosser praised Stahl's theory of the state in 1963 as an essential contribution to overcoming the political and constitutional problems of his time and recognized its legal philosophical foundations as a permanent one scientific value too. In particular, he worked out the religious-ethical, legal and political structure of the “moral realm of personal character”, the central concept of Stahl's legal and state philosophy, and led the tensions in Stahl's system to the rooting of his thinking in the different “reactive” political Currents of the Restoration, the philosophy of Schelling and the theology of Luther. In 1967 Robert Adolf Kann, on the other hand, stated that Stahl had merely systematized the conservative ideas of his time and adapted them to their needs. His ideas, which were already out of date during his lifetime, did not go beyond the medieval doctrine of two swords. Martin Greiffenhagen characterized Stahl in 1977 as a representative of an authoritarian, authoritarian-institutional understanding of the state and the church. His views - as well as the doctrines of his predecessors, party comrades and successors - are "refuted by their own history". In summary, H.-J. Wiegand stated in 1980: “Steel is not 'dead'; he left a legacy that weighs on his heirs to this day. "

Christian Wiegand examined Stahl's work very thoroughly and critically in 1980 and accuses him of not having understood Immanuel Kant's critical epistemology and his transcendental philosophy , but of lagging behind them on a pre-critical point of view and therefore not being able to understand German idealism . Therefore, "Stahl's polemics, namely the aggressive doubt that Hegel achieved what he claims to have achieved, is explained by the fact that Stahl on his own pre-critical level the 'real' as 'reasonable' and the 'reasonable' as 'real' hopes to recognize. "

Wiegand describes Stahl's work as one of the “most influential philosophical defense campaigns against the events of 1789” alongside Burke and Taine . He runs a general accounting against the "system of the revolution". According to Stahl's own understanding, to him “revolution means the specific political doctrine which, as a world-shaking power, has filled the way of thinking of the peoples and determined the institutions of public life since 1789”. And the “deduction from the will of man” is “always revolutionary”.

Early on, Stahl - revealing himself - formulated an "almost 'classic' piece for the concern for knowledge and interest":

“No system forms itself, it is formed by people. There must therefore be some drive, some interest in human nature through which it was produced and also maintains its existence in the long run. By its nature, its basic assumption cannot be determined by inferences which it presupposes; rather, it is nothing other than that particular interest; which the thinker finds inside ... But the basic assumption always determines the scientific method, the way to accept, to infer, to prove, thus the whole system ... "

- Friedrich Julius Stahl : Philosophy of Law. 1st edition 1830, Volume I, p. 5, foreword

The goal of fighting “the revolution” determines all of Stahl's actions: his literary, academic and political activities. That is why he agitates, debates and polemicises mercilessly and uncompromisingly. Wiegand repeatedly states that “the only essential scripture for him [Stahl] is Rom. 13 ”, with which he justifies the monarchical principle:“ In particular, the authorities have respect and power from God. It is by the grace of God. ”“ The elaboration of the factual, the non-legal, the 'monarchical principle', as it were the legally guaranteed power to intervene in unlawful areas by the monarch is Stahl's main merit for this term. ”With the slogan“ In dubio pro rege "Summarizes Stahl himself his" pseudo-constitutionalism ", whereby God and religion function for him as" weapons of anti-democracy ", because the" most essential determination of the "Christian state" in Christianity appears as an assertion of its decided distance from democracy. " Most radical French revolutionaries once the “highest being”, so Stahl also uses the otherworldly God as a means of politics. But the decisive opposition rightly suspected Stahl in the idea of ​​the "rule of law", for which he was not undeserved. But he hollowed it out to the apolitical formal principle with constitutional exclusion of areas of freedom, that it contained in itself almost exactly the opposite of what today's constitutional law teachers associate with the term, and preserves the empty formal side of the state, whereas the latter is in terms of content as "Christian" and as "Moral community" is asserted. And finally, Wiegand asks the question whether "the appointment of the Prussian sovereign and his ministry of culture as an arbitration board over the 'Christianity' of religious groups does not pursue what they claim to fight, namely brazen blasphemy?"

In 1998, the Theologische Realenzyklopädie even diametrically opposed the “two prototypical political theories of action of the revolution, Karl Marx's theory of revolution and its conservative, retrospective counter-draft by FJ Stahl”. Both serve the “idea of ​​a permanent revolution as the starting point and destination of the historical construction.” However, Marx sees the revolution as an economic-social phenomenon, whereas Stahl sees it primarily as a constitutional phenomenon. For Marx, the revolution is a means of liberation and emancipation of man, should lead to the world revolution via particular revolutions and lead to the paradise of the classless society of communism and should therefore be striven for by all means. On the other hand, for Stahl, the revolution is the ultimate evil: rebellion against God. This would lead the revolutionary decline escalating through the rationalist, liberal, democratic and socialist stage to hell on earth and should therefore be avoided and combated from the beginning. "Thus, the revolution theories of Marx and Stahl, with their universal historical approach, including political-social ethical instructions and their consequences for the social function of religion, created that tense paradigm framework within which the political revolution theory of modernity has since been defined and moved."

In 2009 and 2010 Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger stated critically that, according to Stahl, all authority and the power of kings (is) from God and all obedience to the laws and to the supreme state authority should be based on this divine foundation and authority , “that the Pseudo constitutionalism and pseudo parliamentarism, especially in the empire, were the prerequisites for the formation and consolidation of a historically blind, rigid and authoritarian government system with unlimited powers ”and this organic, conservative and romantic understanding of the state describes“ a state with its own power of perfection, its Scope of action are at best subject to a moral, but in no way a given legal limitation. In plain language: This state is allowed to do everything, if it wants. ”And she also states that“ the essential elements of Carl Schmitt's theory of the state are entirely based on the theory of the state of the 19th century, which was related to the monarchy, or - in other words - were entirely in line with the organic, conservative or romantic understanding of the state "and so they remain with us to this day, the representatives of an omnipotent, powerful state".

constitutional state

Especially in the area of ​​the rule of law, Stahl's undisputed great influence is assessed very differently. His famous definition begins like a fanfare with the succinct postulate: “The state should be the rule of law; ... "But:" ... this beacon is followed by a linguistically by no means catchy, but rhetorically still remarkable explanation ... "writes Sobota and explains how steel constructs a" labyrinth "in dazzling language. Carl Schmitt isolated the last half-sentence that the rule of law does not mean “the aim and content of the state, but only the way and character of achieving them” in order to denounce Stahl that he had introduced a formal rule of law concept. Others have accepted this charge, although Stahl's definition shows the opposite: in general, ethical principles are more important to him than laws. Stahl attributed precisely the ethical basis of the divine will to the positivism of the historical school of law. For him, this stands above law and the state. Sobota, like Peter F. Drucker , who contrasted Stahl's ethically based legal understanding with the unscrupulous pragmatic one of National Socialism as exemplary, recognized and recognized this .

Another aspect arises from the close connection between religion and constitutional law at Stahl: If one follows Carl Schmitt , who is right here, then perhaps not all, but central concepts of modern constitutional law are just secularized theological terms. writes FW Graf, who - without naming Stahl - points out that Georg Jellinek also wanted to show in a lecture in 1893 “how modern political theory, which is completely independent of theological presuppositions, has been dominated by the idea of ​​Adam for centuries, often without it suspect ". "At least since March, when church historians ... analyzed the ethical conceptions of the two Protestant denominations comparatively and at the same time profiled lasting differences to Roman Catholic ethics, it is well known that the Christian denominational parties mentioned differ in ethical questions at least as much as in dogmatic teachings . ” Günter Dürig, one of the authors of the long authoritative commentary on the Basic Law, wrote in an article in the Juristic Rundschau in 1952 that“ the term 'personality' has always been a fixed term in Christian philosophical anthropology, Christian social doctrine and moral theology ” . The Germanic peoples had the romantic idea of ​​freedom ahead of all peoples , but Christianity really made the individual free by subjecting him as a personality to the inwardly established community bond . All of this is very reminiscent of Stahl's Christian-Romantic legal and political doctrine! According to his “sacralization of social and political institutions”, the order of creation “in the theological discourse of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is primarily marriage and the family; but also the state or the secular regiment is a good order of God for Protestants ”.

See also: Rule of law concept # Research controversy: Was there a stage in the formalization of the rule of law concept?

Aftermath

The gap theory

The application of the gap theory , which goes back to Stahl, was Otto von Bismarck's attempt to solve the Prussian constitutional conflict in the interests of the king. Stahl and Bismarck were of the opinion that in all constitutional cases for which the constitution had not made any explicit provision, the monarch as sovereign (and not the parliament) had the authority to fill this constitutional loophole in a decision as it sees fit.

Constitutional monarchy

He did not invent the “ constitutional monarchy ”, also referred to by Stahl as “institutional” monarchy, with a constitution based on the monarchical principle, but carried out important theoretical and practical parliamentary work in its realization and development in Prussia. This form of monarchy occupies an intermediate position between the "parliamentary monarchy" of the north-western European states, with parliament as the decisive institution, and the absolute monarchy that existed in Russia until 1917. The states in the south-east (the Balkans) and those of the Iberian Peninsula followed the Prussian-German model until the First World War. Even in Japan , when developing the constitution of 1889, German constitutionalism and, in addition to Georg Jellinek , also steel were used, as the understanding of the state as a legal person as a compromise between prince sovereignty and popular sovereignty in Germany prevented a complete development of popular sovereignty, on the other hand, in Japan the same concept opposed the complete development of sovereignty of princes. In 2011, the Moroccan King Mohammed VI. his people a constitution that corresponds to the constitutional monarchy.

The politician

From the fact that the evaluation of Stahl and his work is so controversial, the conclusion can be drawn that it is not about objective science, but subjectively political judgment. He once complained that the philosophers saw him as a jurist and the jurists as a philosopher; but he does not want to be half a lawyer or half a philosopher. Well, he was completely a politician and a parliamentarian! He tried to preserve the monarchy by adapting it, apparently adopting the new idea of ​​constitutionalism, and shaping it into a form that the rulers were willing to accept because that was how their power was preserved. In spite of its seemingly transcendent justification, Stahl not only used his political doctrine for his political activities, but created it with the intention of slowing down the inevitable development. As a historical thinker, he had to be aware that nothing remains as it is, but everything changes. Therefore, Stahl's concept also included its further development, which he failed to do because - in accordance with his monarchical principle - he always had to be ready to give in to the wishes of the king.

In contrast to Landsberg, who describes steel “as a man from one cast, whose first work coincides with his last, whose theory and practice harmonize”, Christian Wiegand shows well-founded “doubts about the identity between the 'Bavarian' and the 'Prussian' Stahl ", and speaks of the" two-half of the steel, world-state and church building ", for which" the basic terms "historical view" and "Christian world view" "stand. In addition to this lack of continuity in Stahl's loyalty to principles came the fact that the ruling class of the large landed nobility, including the high officers, judges and civil servants who emerged from it, did not meet the moral requirements that Stahl's "moral empire" placed on them: They did not have the good of All in view and exacerbated the social question through their class egoism. Their rejection of the republic after 1918 completely weakened it from the start and ultimately contributed to its downfall.

In fact, Stahl's theory is not deep, not philosophically founded, but based on his Christian-religious orientation, is "bound to the implicit normative guiding principles of his culture". Since Stahl, as Masur (see above) stated, actually did not present a legal philosophy, but a political theory, he is not a philosopher, but a politician and party ideologist. This is also evident from the fact that in his “Philosophy of Law” it was important not to use any terminology, but rather to write it in a generally understandable manner (see above). To the journalist and writer Julius Rodenberg , the university professor Stahl appears in retrospect as “someone who is on the political stage, not on the chair, who is aware of the power of his speech and wants to use it.” Max Lenz also wrote about steel: “ Politics was what he did as a teacher, faculty member, and writer; his lectures resembled in content and form the lectures and speeches which he gave in the parliaments and assemblies of his party: this was how they were calculated, and this was how they were received, opposed and admired. The themes and execution of his books were dictated only by this interest, already in Erlangen, and completely in Berlin, where he didn’t rewrite anything but brochures and pamphlets intended to collect his supporters and fight his opponents. ”Hamburger also sees it this way: “During the 20 years of his professorship in Berlin, he mainly taught what he did in the First Chamber and then in the Herrenhaus: Politics. In his public lectures on the parties in state and church and on the English constitution, theologians, high-ranking civil servants, judges and officers of every rank sat close to his feet in the auditorium, next to students. ”Furthermore, he is recognized as a good speaker and was a skilled dialectician. Stahl himself saw his task in getting to the heart of the matter. And he did this with slogans and exaggerations, with catchy slogans such as B. Authority instead of majority! and “Not back, but through!” And with funny comparisons, e.g. B. the king in parliamentary democracy with the button on the steeple: sublime but unimportant.

On the other hand, he was in some ways quite an atypical politician: "Stahl, although not wealthy, administered three honorary posts, as a member of the manor, the state council and the senior church council, and only as a professor at the university, he received a very moderate salary." like Stahl's literary and political activities, he stands before us as a man of one piece, whose first work coincides with his last, whose theory and practice coincide. His conduct of life is also portrayed to us as essentially in agreement with this; bourgeois simple in his manners, embarrassingly polite to everyone, fine and amiable in close contact, and of tireless industry; in chosen black clothing the impression of the distinguished law professor approximates that of the clergyman; without pathos, but speaking in a sharp voice; Thus the small, delicate man who led a quiet and happy family life, clearly showing the type of his ancestry in his outward appearance, formed a direct contrast to the members of the party, whose leading spirit he was during his lifetime and whose spiritual hero he remained world historical irony. He himself does not seem to have felt anything like this - a good part of his strength lay in this unshaken security. "

Ernest Hamburger made a differentiated assessment, namely that Stahl: “was one of the first to raise the storm flag against the principle of laissez faire . Karl Rodbertus , the father of state socialism, declares that he learned the most from him. Stahl asserted an important place among the thinkers who made the conservative party familiar with social ideas. ”And:“ Steel was not a forerunner of National Socialism. ”But also:“ Steel forged the intellectual armament of the Prussian Junkers with their help it could outlast its time. In this way he made it possible to lead Prussia and Germany on a tragic wrong track and finally, together with other disastrous forces, from catastrophe to catastrophe. The life's work of the gifted man brought Germany no blessing. "And even:" He has deepened the rift between Germany and Western Europe in a disastrous way. "

Conclusion

Finally, it remains questionable whether the realpolitician Stahl, by adapting himself in theory and practice to the circumstances and practical constraints in order to be heard by the powerful, actually co-determined the course of history ( Deutscher Sonderweg ), or at least details of the apparently unalterable development only slightly influenced things in nuances. The assessment of its historical effectiveness often has to contend with anti-Semitism. For example, Bismarck, for whom Stahl was “actually only a rhetorical puppet that was useful because of its reputation”, although he praised his honesty (without any striving or Byzantinism) and his intellect, stated at the end of the 1840s: “He is only a Jew ... he is a leader, standard bearer, because President Gerlach is at his side. "

Works

• About honor as the mainspring of the new monarchy. In: Ferdinand Herbst: Ideals and errors of academic life in our time, or the open covenant for the highest in human life. First of all for the German student youth. Metzler, Stuttgart 1823, pp. 228-237.
• Ground plan for lectures on the philosophy of law. sn, Munich 1829
• The philosophy of law from a historical point of view. Publishing house of the academic bookstore JCB Mohr, Heidelberg 1830–1837;
  • Volume 1: The Genesis of Contemporary Legal Philosophy. 1830;
  • Volume 2, section 1–2: Christian legal and political theory. 1833-1837.
    • Excerpts from it in: Restoration and early liberalism 1814–1840 . Edited by Hartwig Brandt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1979 (= Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe . Sources on the political thinking of Germans in the 19th and 20th centuries, 3), pp. 352–354, pp. 366–376.
• The church constitution according to doctrine and law of the Protestants. Theodor Bläsing, Erlangen 1840, digitized .
• De matrimonio ob errorem rescindendo commendatio, quam pro loco in iurisconsultorum Berolinensium ordine rite obtinendo. Trowitzsch, Berlin 1841 ( inaugural program ).
• Lecture on church discipline. Held at the Pastoral Conference in Berlin on May 22, 1845. Ludwig Oehmigke, Berlin, 1845, digitized .
• The monarchical principle. A constitutional and political treatise. Mohr, Heidelberg 1845.
  • Excerpts from it in: Vormärz and Revolution 1840–1849 . Edited by Hans Fenske. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1976 (= Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe. Sources on the political thinking of Germans in the 19th and 20th centuries, 4), pp. 143–155, ISBN 3-534-04838-5 .
• Foundations of a Christian Philosophy. Reprint of the first book of my philosophy of law, second edition with addition of new chapters. Mohr, Heidelberg 1846, digitized version .
• The Christian State and its Relationship to Deism and Judaism. A treatise brought about by the negotiations of the United State Parliament. Oehmigke, Berlin 1847.
• The revolution and the constitutional monarchy. A series of interlocking treatises. Wilhelm Hertz , Berlin 1848, digitized .
• Law or Popular Consciousness? An illumination of the lecture given by the public prosecutor von Kirchmann: The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science. In: Janus. Issue 4, 1848, ZDB -ID 514669-0 , pp. 119-150 (special print: Albert Förstner, Berlin 1848, digitized version ).
• The German imperial constitution according to the resolutions of the German National Assembly and according to the draft of the three royal governments illuminated. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1849, digitized .
• Talk. (From the negotiations of the Prussian First Chamber and the Volkshaus of the German Union Parliament in 1849 and 1850). Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1850.
• What is the revolution? A lecture held at the event of the Protestant association for church purposes on March 8, 1852. Wilhelm Schultze, Berlin 1852, digitized .
• Protestantism as a political principle. Lectures: zu Berlin, March 1853. Wilhelm Schultze, Berlin 1853 (2nd unchanged edition. Ibid 1953; reprint of the 2nd, unchanged edition Berlin 1853. Scientia-Verlag, Aalen 1987, ISBN 3-511-10061-5 ).
• Friedrich Wilhelm the Third. Commemorative address given on August 3, 1853. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1853.
• The Catholic Refutations. A companion to the fourth edition of my lectures on Protestantism as a political principle. Wilhelm Schultze, Berlin 1854, digitized .
• Explanations about the divorce law. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1855, digitized .
• Parliamentary speeches by Friedrich Julius Stahl. Published and with introductory remarks by JPM Treuherz. Hollstein, Berlin 1856.
  • Excerpt from the speech against liberalism of April 15, 1850 in: The way to the foundation of an empire 1850-1870 . Edited by Hans Fenske Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1977 (= Freiherr vom Stein memorial edition. Sources on the political thinking of Germans in the 19th and 20th centuries, 5), pp. 33–36.
• Against Bunsen. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1856, digitized .
• The Lutheran Church and the Union. A scientific discussion of the question of time. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1859.
• In memory of His Majesty the Most Blessed King Friedrich Wilhelm IV and his government. Lecture given at the Protestant Association in Berlin on March 18, 1861. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1861, digitized version of the third copy .
• Seventeen parliamentary speeches and three lectures. Organized and published according to testamentary determination. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1862, digitized .
• The current parties in state and church. Twenty-nine academic lectures. Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin 1863, digitized .
• Stahl and Rotenhan. Letters from the first to the second. Edited by Ernst Salzer. In: Historical quarterly. Volume 14, 1911, ZDB -ID 200387-9 , pp. 514-551.
• New letters from Friedrich Julius Stahl. Edited by Ernst Salzer. In: Deutsche Rundschau. Volume 40, 1914, ZDB -ID 205873-x , pp. 99-125.
• Olaf Koglin: The letters of Friedrich Julius Stahl. Kiel 1975 (Kiel, Univ., Diss., 1975).

literature

• Steel. In: Hermann Wagener (Ed.): State and Society Lexicon. Volume 19: Seleucids to Goldfinch. Heinicke, Berlin 1865, pp. 653–661 (the same article was anonymous in the late summer of 1862 in the Berliner Revue 28, ZDB -ID 513454-7 , pp. 179–270 and in the autumn of the same year in the anonymous font Pernice - Savigny - Stahl . Heinicke, Berlin 1862, pp. 69-115 published.).
• Ernst Landsberg:  Stahl, Friedrich Julius . In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB). Volume 35, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig 1893, pp. 392-400.
• Erich Kaufmann : Friedrich Julius Stahl as a legal philosopher of the monarchical principle. Halle 1906 (Halle, Univ., Dissertation), (Reprinted in: Erich Kaufmann: Gesammelte Schriften. For the author's eightieth birthday on September 21, 1960. Edited by AH van Scherpenberg . Volume 3: Legal idea and law. Legal philosophical and historical efforts from five decades. Schwartz, Göttingen 1960, pp. 1-45).
• Gerhard Masur : Friedrich Julius Stahl. Story of his life. Volume 1: Ascension and Development. 1802-1840. ES Mittler & Sohn, Berlin 1930 (Habil.-Schrift, Berlin 1930; the planned second volume on 1840–1861 has not appeared).
• Peter F. Drucker : Friedrich Julius Stahl. Conservative state theory and historical development (=  law and state in past and present. Volume 100, ISSN  0340-7012 ). Mohr, Tübingen 1933.
• Robert A. Kann : Friedrich Julius Stahl: A re-examination of his conservatism. In: The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. Vol. 12, No. 1, 1967, ISSN  0075-8744 , pp. 55-74, doi: 10.1093 / leobaeck / 12.1.55 .
• Hans P. Pyclik: Friedrich Julius Stahl. A Study of the Development of German Conservative Thought. 1802-1861. Minneapolis MN 1972 (Minneapolis MN, University of Minnesota, dissertation).
• Hans-Joachim Schoeps : Prussia. History of a state (=  Ullstein books. No. 3232). Reviewed by the author for the paperback edition. Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin / Vienna 1975, ISBN 3-548-13232-4 (quoted after reprint: Nikol, Hamburg 2009, ISBN 978-3-86820-025-6 )
• Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahls, a contribution to the history of conservative legal and order thinking. Athenaeum, Königstein / Ts. 1980, ISBN 3-7610-6309-1 .
• Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl. (1801–1862), Law, State, Church (=  legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35). Schöningh, Paderborn [a. a.] 1981, ISBN 3-506-73335-4 (also: Freiburg (Breisgau), Univ., Diss., 1978).
• Aria Nabrings : Friedrich Julius Stahl. Philosophy of law and church politics (=  Unio and Confessio. Volume 9). Luther-Verlag, Bielefeld 1983, ISBN 3-7858-0286-2 (also: Münster, Univ., Diss., 1981).
• Carla di Pascale: Sovranità e ceti in Friedrich Julius Stahl . In: Quaderni Fiorentini 13 (1984), pp. 407-450.
• Panagiotis Kondylis, Conservatism, Historical Content and Downfall. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1986, ISBN 3-608-91428-5 .
• Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl (1802–1861). The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice (= series of publications by the Historical Commission at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences. Volume 33). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1988, ISBN 3-525-35932-2 . ( Digitized version )
• JE Toews: The Immanent Genesis and Transcendent Goal of Law: Savigny, Stahl and the ideology of the Christian German State , In: American Journal of Comparative Law, 37 (1989), pp. 139-169.
• Myoung-Jae Kim: State and Society with Friedrich Julius Stahl. An inside view of his state philosophy. Hanover 1993 (Hanover, Univ., Diss., 1993).
• Katharina Sobota : Friedrich Julius Stahl: The labyrinth. In: Katharina Sobota: The principle of the rule of law. Constitutional and administrative aspects (=  Jus publicum. Volume 22). Mohr, Tübingen 1997, ISBN 3-16-146645-4 , pp. 319-337 (also: Jena, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 1995).
• Wilhelm Füßl:  Stahl, Friedrich Julius. In: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL). Volume 10, Bautz, Herzberg 1995, ISBN 3-88309-062-X , Sp. 1130-1135.
• Christoph Schönberger: état de droit et état conservateur: Friedrich Julius Stahl . In: Olivier Jouanjan (ed.): Figures de l'état de droit. The rule of law dans l'histoire intellectuelle et constitutionnelle de l'Allemagne . Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg 2001, ISBN 2-86820-180-6 . Pp. 177-191.
• Wilhelm Füßl: Friedrich Julius Stahl (1802–1861) . In: Political Theories of the 19th Century . Edited by Bernd Heidenreich. (1999) 2nd, completely revised edition. Akademie Verlag: Berlin 2002, pp. 179–191, ISBN 3-05-003682-6 .
• Helge Dvorak: Biographical Lexicon of the German Burschenschaft. Volume 1: Politicians. Sub-Volume 5: R – S. Winter, Heidelberg 2002, ISBN 3-8253-1256-9 , pp. 477-479.
• C. Argyriadis-Kervegan: Une conception théocentrique des droits de l'homme: FJStahl. In: M. Mathieu: Droit naturel et droits de l'homme , Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble 2011, ISBN 978-2-7061-1639-1 , pp. 151–166.
• Amnon Lev: Order and Being. Steel and the foundations of modern political law. In: Jus Politicum, No 5. ( juspoliticum.com ).
• C. Argyriadis-Kervegan: Rousseau au prisme de la contre-revolution: Friedrich Julius Stahl. In: CM Herrera (ed.): Rousseau chez les juristes. Kimé Paris 2013, ISBN 978-2-84174-627-9 , pp. 27-42.
• Hans-Christof Kraus Stahl, Friedrich in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 25, Stadion - Tecklenborg , Berlin, 2013, pp. 32–33 ( deutsche-biographie.de ).

Web links

Commons : Friedrich Julius Stahl  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Wikisource: Friedrich Julius Stahl  - Sources and full texts

• Literature by and about Friedrich Julius Stahl in the catalog of the German National Library
• Works by and about Friedrich Julius Stahl  in the German Digital Library
• Friedrich-Julius-Stahl on hu-berlin.de

Remarks

1. ↑ Hans-Christof Kraus Stahl, Friedrich in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 25, Stadion - Tecklenborg , Berlin, 2013, p. 32 f.
2. ↑ Würzburg-Heidingsfeld since 1930. The information about the place of birth diverges: Ernst Landsberg: Stahl, Friedrich Julius. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 35, 1893, pp. 392–400 mentions Munich; on the other hand the NDB (see above) and Wilhelm Füßl in BBKL Volume X (1995), Sp. 1130–1135: Heidingsfeld; in: Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon. 1981, is called Würzburg. With Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, p. 21 it is said that his father came from Heidingsfeld near Würzburg, the parents married in Munich and then moved to Würzburg, where J. was born.
3. ^ Hans-Christof Kraus Stahl, Friedrich in: New German Biography 25, Stadium - Tecklenborg. Berlin, 2013, p. 32 f.
4. ↑ Only according to Hans-Joachim Schoeps: Prussia. History of a state. Frankfurt / Berlin / Vienna 1975 (cited after reprint Hamburg 2009), p. 209 only on August 11, 1861.
5. ↑ Katharina Sobota: The principle of the rule of law: constitutional and administrative aspects. Tübingen 1997, p. 319 ff.
6. ^ FJ Stahl, The Philosophy of Law. 2nd volume: Legal and state theory based on Christian worldview, 2nd department: The doctrine of the state and the principles of German constitutional law , 6th edition (1st edition under the title: The philosophy of law according to historical View , 1830–1837), p. 137 f .: “The state should be the rule of law; that is the watchword and is also in truth the drive for development in modern times. It should precisely determine the paths and boundaries of its effectiveness as well as the free sphere of its citizens in the manner of law and secure it inviolably and should not further realize (enforce) the moral ideas of state ways, i.e. directly, than it belongs to the legal sphere, i.e. only to the most necessary fencing. This is the concept of the constitutional state, not that the state merely handles the legal order without administrative purposes, or completely only protects the rights of the individual; it does not mean at all the aim and content of the state, but only the way and character of realizing them. "
7. ↑ Section "Research Controversy: Was there a stage in the formalization of the rule of law concept?" In the rule of law concept
8. ^ New letters by Friedrich Julius Stahl , edited by Ernst Salzer, in: Historische Vierteljahrsschrift , Volume 14, 1911, p. 102 (Quoted from Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church (legal and Public scientific publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 11, footnote 7).
9. ^ Max Lenz: History of the Royal Friedrich Wilhelms University in Berlin. Halle 1918, 2nd volume 2nd half: On the way to German unity in the new Reich. P. 125.
10. ↑ Bayerische Israelitische Gemeindezeitung from November 10, 1933.
11. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, pp. 20-37.
12. ^ This is Masur's formulation; according to Chr. Wiegand About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 15, fn. 17 it was on October 5, 1819.
13. ^ Helge Dvorak: Biographical Lexicon of the German Burschenschaft. Volume I Politicians, Part 5: R – S. Heidelberg 2002, p. 477.
14. ^ Chr. Wiegand About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 17.
15. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, pp. 42-77 (II. University and Burschenschaft).
16. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, p. 17.
17. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, p. 88.
18. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice , Göttingen 1988, p. 52 ff.
19. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, p. 264 ff.
20. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 21.
21. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice , Göttingen 1988, p. 86 ff.
22. ^ Max Lenz: History of the Royal Friedrich Wilhelms University in Berlin. Halle 1918, 2nd volume 2nd half: On the way to German unity in the new Reich. P. 20.
23. ^ Heinrich von Treitschke: German history in the nineteenth century. 1879–1894 : “The Hegelians had conspired to scrape the dreaded opponent of natural law out of the classroom. The slim man with the glittering eyes and the pale, sharp-cut oriental features bravely endured ... "
24. ↑ Quoted from Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 22 fn. 44.
25. ↑ HAB Wolfenbüttel, Cod. Guelf. Stahl / Wilkens, 22k. quoted n. Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice , Göttingen 1988, p. 111, note 15.
26. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice , Göttingen 1988, p. 111.
27. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice , Göttingen 1988, p. 112 f.
28. ↑ Stahl's "Participation in the humiliations of the young Gneist 1852/53" mentions Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 31 fn. 75. Also Max Lenz: History of the Royal Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Halle 1918, 2nd volume 2nd half: On the way to German unity in the new Reich. P. 283 ff.
29. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice , Göttingen 1988, p. 115 ff.
30. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice , Göttingen 1988, p. 118 f.
31. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice. Göttingen 1988, p. 114.
32. ↑ Second treatise in: The revolution and the constitutional monarchy.
33. ^ Wilhelm Füßl: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice. Göttingen 1988, p. 181 ff .: “... deeply involved in the reorganization of our public condition, nevertheless at the same time preserving the old unchangeable foundations in belief, custom and institutions for the same ... at the same time the policy of preservation and progress ... I. We are committed to this new order in the state, ... the constitution as the legally documented unified order ..., the expansion of individual freedom ... II. ... We are fighting the permanent revolution. ... against the will of the people as before against the will of the prince, ... III. ... we want the king by virtue of his holy right to the throne ... as the highest authority, as the sovereign of the country, ... IV. We want structured relationships in all classes of the people. ... V. ... that the working class will have a materially and morally satisfactory existence, ... without prejudice to the inalienable foundations of human society: property, inheritance law, free personal employment. VI. We want the unity of Germany, ... for the previous parent states, namely Prussia, a sufficient area of ​​political independence, ... VII. We want the same political authorization for those who profess all religions ... for the Christian Church ... the guaranteed protection of the state ... "
34. ↑ HAB Wolfenbüttel, Cod. Guelf. Stahl / Wilkens, 6, No. 7; quoted from Füßl, Wilhelm: Professor in Politics: Friedrich Julius Stahl. The monarchical principle and its implementation in parliamentary practice . Goettingen 1988.
35. ↑ Schoeps, Hans-Joachim: Prussia. History of a state. Frankfurt / Berlin / Vienna 1975. (quoted after reprint Hamburg 2009) p. 197
36. ^ Schoeps>, Hans-Joachim: Prussia. History of a state. Frankfurt / Berlin / Vienna 1975 (cited after reprint Hamburg 2009) p. 206.
37. ^ The oriental war (session of the first chamber on April 25, 1854), in: Seventeen parliamentary speeches. Pp. 200-218.
38. ^ ^{A b c} Hans-Christof Kraus: Stahl, Friedrich. In: New German Biography. 25, 2013, p. 33.
39. ↑ BBKL, Volume X (1995), Col. 1130–1135 (Wilhelm Füßl)
40. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, p. 185.
41. ^ Hans-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 12.
42. ^ Hans-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 29.
43. ↑ "Here I am handing over to the educated world the processing of a material which for many years I no longer believed that it could ever become the subject of my investigation. For the lack of hope of ever gaining a profit or a fixed result through philosophy, the frightening example of the celebrated thinkers of recent times, who through them had just lost the most comforting and holy things, had me, like so many others, with utter disgust at all philosophical research, and I withdrew solely to the study of positive law. It was the preoccupation with the positive right that forced me to ask questions and investigations, for which I could no longer find the solution, even the concept and designation, in himself, and so, without looking for it or wanting it, into a higher scientific one Area was crowded. ... With this I was obliged to ethically justify my way of treatment through a view of the essence of the righteous and to subject every conflicting way to a criticism. When I looked at the various directions in the philosophy of law, I arranged themselves in a gradual development. This laid the first foundation for this book. - At the same time, many favorable things came together for me. Gloomy conditions and a gloomy mood began to leave me. This is where my position on Hegel's philosophy belongs particularly well. Vividly convinced of their untruth from the beginning, I could not find the seat of the error. So she did not pull me into her belief, but it clouded and weakened mine, and as much as it repelled me, I was always compelled to return to her, even if not in intentional study, but in involuntary occupation, until I had acquired the means of scientific overcoming against them. ”( Friedrich Julius Stahl : The philosophy of law according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of the contemporary philosophy of law. Heidelberg 1830, quoted in the 3rd edition of 1854. Volume I: History of legal philosophy. S. XII f.)
44. ↑ “Through him I received many means for a clearer discussion, expansion, for deeper justification of my thoughts; Through him I received the courage to make the most complete scientific use of convictions that are usually kept in their innermost core as belonging to a separate area and only protect against hostile attacks. ”( Friedrich Julius Stahl : The Philosophy of Law according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of the contemporary legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, quoted in the 3rd edition of 1854. Volume I: History of the legal philosophy. S. XIV.)
45. ↑ In the second edition in 1847 he made it clear: “Schelling did not give me a commitment and direction in life or in science. When I set foot in his lecture hall for the first time seventeen years ago, my positive basic convictions and my relationship to Hegel's philosophy were already of the same kind as now, precisely the fact that Schelling expressed himself in the same sense won me over to him. However, I owe Schelling an encouragement and a very significant support for the scientific presentation of those basic convictions, as well as the general spiritual stimulation that one always draws from great, deeply thought lectures. What I accepted from Schelling, however, to which I confessed and still confess, is merely his polemics against the “rationalistic” (“negative”) and his opposition to the “historical” (“positive”) principle, and nobody will do that for one keep philosophical system. ... The erroneous opinion, as if I am a representative of the new Schellingian philosophy or as if my legal philosophy were an outflow of it, has its origin only in the fact that my whole point of view was not addressed from the start. ... Only about this basic idea, the concept of 'historical philosophy', I have asserted that it agrees with Christianity and gives it a place in philosophy. ... So the plan arose for me to carry out that cursory history of the legal philosophical directions with thoroughness, to follow the course of it now in connection with the whole of philosophy and to try whether, on this historical basis, I might become one myself would like to achieve new and consolidated results. ”( Friedrich Julius Stahl : The philosophy of law according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of the present legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, quoted in the 3rd edition of 1854. Volume I: History of the philosophy of law . S. XVI f.)
46. ↑ “Savigny was allowed to exaggerate the investigation into the ultimate reasons of the just, his sense guides him safely, through an artistic power he forms whole and perfect, to which the most strenuous philosophical research leads slowly and gradually. He presented a view of the emergence of law - and from it immediately practical requirements - which, as it is presented by him, grants a clear picture and grasps it through inner truth. "( Friedrich Julius Stahl : The philosophy of law according to historical view. Volume 1 : Genesis of the current legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, quoted in the 3rd edition of 1854. Volume I: History of the legal philosophy. S. XVIII.)
47. ↑ “But its core is impossible, as one is accustomed to assume, the view of the factual, how the law arises; but only those about the ethical, how it arises, what content it should receive - the view of the just. ”( Friedrich Julius Stahl : The philosophy of law according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of the present legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, quoted n. 3rd edition of 1854. Volume I: History of the Philosophy of Law. S. XXII.)
48. ↑ "Above all, however, it was my resolution to avoid any terminology as much as possible, neither to create one myself nor to follow any of the existing ones, even to break them down into general language myself." ( Friedrich Julius Stahl : Die Philosophie of the law according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of the contemporary legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, quoted in the 3rd edition of 1854. Volume I: History of the legal philosophy. S. XXIII.)
49. ↑ “To find something new is not the intention at all; it is precisely what is ancient, the belief of humanity from the beginning that is true. What the simple sense eternally recognizes as such, e.g. B. the personality, the love of God, only a few depart from it with determination and consciousness. ”( Friedrich Julius Stahl : The philosophy of law according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of the contemporary philosophy of law. Heidelberg 1830, quoted n. 3 . Edition of 1854. Volume I: History of the Philosophy of Law. S. XXIV.)
50. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of contemporary legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, cit. n. 3rd ed. 1854. Volume I: History of the philosophy of law. S. XXVI.
51. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of contemporary legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, cit. n. 3rd ed. 1854. Volume I: History of the philosophy of law. P. 1.
52. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of contemporary legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, cit. n. 3rd ed. 1854. Volume I: History of the philosophy of law. P. 6.
53. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of contemporary legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, cit. n. 3rd ed. 1854. Volume I: History of the philosophy of law. P. 7.
54. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Volumes 2 and 3: Christian legal and political theory. First and second departments: Heidelberg, 1st department, preface, p. V: “The storm has now been appeased, peace has returned. Even enthusiasm for liberalism is dampened by this depressing test. In spite of this, no salvation and no joy came into the world. In vain would one expect the help of Time to heal the wounds of recent events and to restore mutual trust. It's not just these wounds, it's not just a lack of trust. What is missing is an inspiring principle, that deep power of life, of consolation, of joy, which gives all relationships such as childish imagination shine and freshness. The moral force is lacking, which binds the destructive, always unsatisfied passions, which empties man of himself, and makes it possible to do what is right without a lust for glory and without a sound. But where is the fountain of life to be found again, which rejuvenated the dead world, which overcame moral ruin? After the course of nature, the physical and mental annoyance, the deeply rooted vanity, the weariness, the unconcerned desire would have to increase to infinity. And is there a power of miracle which commands the course of nature to keep still and to turn around? Yes, there is still one! Christianity is the fountain of life, which wells up inexhaustibly; it is this power of miracle through which the invalid is renewed, the weak strengthened, the sinner sanctified. "
55. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Volume 1: Genesis of contemporary legal philosophy. Heidelberg 1830, cit. n. 3rd ed. 1854. Volume I: History of the philosophy of law. P. 587.
56. ↑ Ute Mager: furnishing guarantees. Jus Publicum Volume 99, Tübingen 2003, p. 110.
57. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Volumes 2 and 3: Christian legal and political theory. First and second department: Heidelberg, 2nd department, p. 2 f.
58. ↑ Mischa Meier, Anastasios, Stuttgart 2009, pp. 19, 113.
59. ^ Michael Stolleis : History of Public Law in Germany. Second volume 1800–1914. Munich 1992, p. 152 f.
60. ↑ See Peter F. Drucker : Friedrich Julius Stahl: Conservative State Theory and Historical Development , 1933.
61. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930, p. 186.
62. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35). Schöningh, Paderborn 1981, p. 21.
63. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, SV
64. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. VIII.
65. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. VI.
66. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. IX.
67. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 8.
68. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 9 ff.
69. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 17 ff.
70. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 21 ff.
71. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, pp. 22-36.
72. ^ ^{A b} Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 46.
73. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 79.
74. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 82.
75. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 84 f. Footnote 26.
76. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 101.
77. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 112.
78. ^ ^{A b} Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 115.
79. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 157 f.
80. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 163 f.
81. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 165.
82. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 174.
83. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 238.
84. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 239.
85. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 240.
86. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 244.
87. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 245, fn. 5, where Stahl makes it clear that he understands "by community the connected people, by church the institution above people."
88. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 246.
89. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 248.
90. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The church constitution according to the doctrine and law of the Protestants. Erlangen 1840, p. 253.
91. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35). Schöningh, Paderborn 1981, p. 33.
92. ↑ Klaus von Beyme: Political Theories in the Age of Ideologies: 1789-1945 . Wiesbaden 2002, p. 477.
93. ↑ Robert von Mohl: The history and literature of the political sciences. Represented in monographs. 1855, p. 254 f .: “Undoubtedly above all those who take this direction to fathom and establish the state, stands steel. None of the comrades equals him in terms of seriousness and depth of philosophical thought, legal rigor and clear criticism; many passages, especially in the history of literature, are masterful; there is a great political sense in him, albeit a misleading one. And yet the work is scientifically untrue because it has a consciously set practical purpose, for which the theory is made to love. - ... only the proof of this indirect divinity, yes only the establishment of a comprehensible concept, remains completely owed by Stahl. Right here there is only a nebulous phrase and arbitrary assertion, and no trace of either philosophical or legal evidence. The whole theory is therefore precisely in its basis unproven and incomprehensible. "
94. ^ Eduard Wippermann: The ancient oriental religious states . 1851, pp. 137-148
95. ↑ Article Friedrich Julius Stahl , in: Jahrbuch zum Konversationslexikon, Volume 6, 1861, pp. 419–449: “Sprouted from a people whose oppression goes through the centuries like an endless folly, he took the side of those who represented this folly with a certain fanaticism in our century, and surrounded it with the glory of Christian worldview. If anywhere, there was a kind of world-historical irony in this position. The proud Christian-Germanic party, as it prefers to call itself, willingly bowed to the leadership of a descendant of that despised race, which, otherwise contested and rejected in the state and society, put its foot on the neck of its persecutors in this man . Small, feeble, bourgeois simple in his manners and of tireless diligence, he stood at the head of the party, which presents itself as the bearer of chivalrous customs, as a Prussian aristocracy, as created for the unproductive work of nobility. Legally and conscientiously to the point of embarrassment, fine and amiable in dealings, he allied himself with people whose claims in the state and in society are a tactless insult to the other classes. Certainly no one would have looked for the leader of the Prussian aristocratic and military party in the small, fine man, whose posture and facial features unmistakably betrayed his Jewish origins. "(P. 448)
96. ↑ Ludwig Feuerbach's entire works, first volume, pp. 108–127.
97. ↑ Ludwig Feuerbach's entire works, first volume, p. 108.
98. ↑ Ludwig Feuerbach's entire works, first volume, p. 119 f.
99. ↑ Ludwig Feuerbach's entire works, first volume, p. 118 f.
100. ↑ Ludwig Feuerbach's entire works, first volume, p. 126 f.
101. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 10.
102. ^ ^{A b} Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 6.
103. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 7 f.
104. ↑ in: Historische Zeitschrift 155, 1937, pp. 506-541
105. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 22.
106. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Orderly thinking . Koenigstein / Ts. 1980, p. 22 f.
107. ↑ Carl Schmitt: The Leviathan. Hamburg 1938, quoted in n. Neudruck Stuttgart 1982, p. 108 f .: “It penetrates the Prussian state and the Protestant church. The Christian sacrament of baptism not only serves him, like the young Heine, as an 'entry ticket' to 'society', but also as a passport to enter the sanctuary of a still very solid German state. From high official positions he can ideologically confuse and spiritually paralyze the innermost core of this state, royalty, nobility and evangelical church. For the Prussian conservatives and the king himself, he knows how to make the 'constitutional' monarchy plausible as the saving antithesis to the parliamentary monarchy. He thus leads them to the level of the internal political enemy, 'constitutionalism', on which the Prussian military state collapsed under the stress test of a world war in October 1918. Stahl-Jolson works here on the overall line of his people, in the double being of a mask existence, which becomes all the more horrific the more he desperately wants to be someone other than he is. "
108. ↑ Peter F. Drucker: Friedrich Julius Stahl: Conservative State Theory and Historical Development
109. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 26 f.
110. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Orderly thinking . Koenigstein / Ts. 1980, p. 29.
111. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 25.
112. ^ Fritz Fischer: German Protestantism and Politics in the Nineteenth Century. Lecture at the 20th German Historians' Day in Munich on September 14, 1949, in: Historische Zeitschrift, Volume 171, Munich 1951, pp. 472-518.
113. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 27 f.
114. ↑ Dieter Grosser: Basics and structure of the state theory FJ Stahls , Cologne / Opladen 1963.
115. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Order thinking , Königstein / Ts. 1980, p. 32 ff.
116. ↑ Robert A.Kann: FJ Steel, A re-examination of his conservatism.
117. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Orderly thinking . Koenigstein / Ts. 1980, p. 35.
118. ^ Martin Greiffenhagen: The dilemma of conservatism in Germany. Munich 1977, p. 22 ff.
119. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Orderly thinking . Koenigstein / Ts. 1980, p. 36.
120. ^ Hanns-Jürgen Wiegand: The legacy of Friedrich Julius Stahl: e. Contribution to the history of conservative legal u. Orderly thinking . Koenigstein / Ts. 1980, p. 1.
121. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), philosophy of reflection. Kant and Fichte , p. 81 ff.
122. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications by the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Speculative Philosophy. Schelling and Hegel. Paderborn 1981, p. 95 ff.
123. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 108.
124. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 42.
125. ↑ Erwin Fahlbusch: The doctrine of the revolution with Friedrich Julius Stahlt , Diss. Theol. Göttingen 1957, pp. 64-79; quoted from Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 42.
126. ^ FJ Stahl: "What is the Revolution?", 1st edition, Berlin 1848; 3rd edition, Berlin 1852, p. 4.
127. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Heidelberg 1833, II / 1, p. 4; quoted n. Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 241 fn. 5.
128. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 43 fn. 129.
129. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 239.
130. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Heidelberg 1837, II / 2, p. 176.
131. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 256 fn. 86.
132. ↑ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The philosophy of the right according to historical view. Heidelberg 1837, II / 2, p. 241; quoted n. Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 255.
133. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 261.
134. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 249.
135. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 282.
136. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 250.
137. ^ ^{A b} Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 251.
138. ↑ ^{a b} Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Berlin 1998, Volume 29, keyword “Revolution”, Section 5.5. Revolutionary Theory as Theory of Political Action. Page 119
139. ↑ Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: When human dignity stands against human dignity. Lecture on the occasion of the conference: Human dignity is inviolable. of the Evangelical Academy Tutzing from July 10th to 12th, 2009
140. ↑ Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Federal Minister of Justice in a lecture on October 25, 2010 at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences
141. ↑ Katharina Sobota: The principle of the rule of law: constitutional and administrative aspects. Tübingen 1997 (Jus publicum; Volume 22): Friedrich Julius Stahl: Das Labyrinth , pp. 319–337, here p. 320.
142. ↑ Katharina Sobota: The principle of the rule of law: constitutional and administrative aspects. Tübingen 1997 (Jus publicum; Volume 22): Friedrich Julius Stahl: Das Labyrinth , pp. 319–337, here p. 323 (fn.).
143. ↑ Carl Schmitt: The Leviathan . Stuttgart 2003, p. 106.
144. ↑ Katharina Sobota: The principle of the rule of law: constitutional and administrative aspects. Tübingen 1997 (Jus publicum; Volume 22): Friedrich Julius Stahl: Das Labyrinth , pp. 319–337, here p. 336.
145. ↑ Peter F. Printer: Friedrich Julius Stahl: Conservative State Theory and Historical Development , 1933.
146. ↑ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf: Abused Gods , Munich 2009, p. 157.
147. ↑ Georg Jellinek: Adam in the state theory. quoted n. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf: Abused Gods , Munich 2009, p. 158.
148. ^ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf: Abused Gods , Munich 2009, p. 160.
149. ^ Günter Dürig: The human conception of the Basic Law , in: Juristische Rundschau , 1952; quoted n. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf: Abused Gods , Munich 2009, p. 162.
150. ^ Günter Dürig: The human conception of the Basic Law , in: Juristische Rundschau , 1952; quoted n. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf: Abused Gods , Munich 2009, p. 163.
151. ^ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf: Abused Gods , Munich 2009, p. 69.
152. ↑ History Atlas , Bayer. Schulbuch-Verlag, Munich 1951 p. 29.
153. ^ Hisao Kuriki: Man, Society, State in Japan. In: Hans Peter Marutschke: Contributions to modern Japanese legal history. Berlin 2006, p. 19 ff.
154. ^ Gerhard Masur: Friedrich Julius Stahl, story of his life. Rise and development 1802–1840. Berlin 1930.
155. ^ Ernst Landsberg, Stahl, Friedrich Julius , in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 35 (1893), p. 400.
156. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 34.
157. ^ Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801-1862). Law, State, Church (Legal and political science publications of the Görres Society. NF H. 35), Paderborn 1981, p. 35.
158. ↑ However, Stahl himself was not consistent on this point either: "An awake, worrying diagnosis, and a quietistic therapy: This is how Stahl's relationship to the intensely erupting social contradictions at the time can be characterized." Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801 -1862). Law, State, Church. P. 144.
159. ↑ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf: Abused Gods , Munich 2009, p. 16.
160. ↑ Julius Rodenberg: memories from the youth. Berlin 1899, p. 118.
161. ^ Max Lenz: History of the Royal Friedrich Wilhelms University in Berlin. Halle 1918, 2nd volume 2nd half: On the way to German unity in the new Reich. P. 125.
162. ^ Ernest Hamburger: Jews in public life in Germany. Tübingen 1968, p. 199 f.
163. ↑ Hermann Wagener: Article “Stahl”, in: Staats- und Gesellschaftlexikon , 19th vol., Berlin 1865, pp. 653-661: “… a year before his death, the Times felt compelled to admit that he was among all Contemporaries is the greatest political speaker. "
164. ^ The rhetorician Katharina Sobota: The principle of the rule of law: constitutional and administrative aspects. Tübingen 1997 (Jus publicum; Volume 22), p. 334: "... in the rhetorical figure of the Restrictio, which he used ad nauseam: In the first move he makes a surprising concession to his opponents, in the second he restricts it."
165. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The Lutheran Church and the Union. A scientific discussion of the question of time; Berlin, 2nd ed. 1860. Preface to the first edition, p. VI: "It is my most real subject to make great intellectual conceptions (in philosophy, law, politics) clear in their center and their effects."
166. ^ Hermann Wagener: Pernice - Savigny - steel. Berlin 1862, p. 115.
167. ↑ Peter F. Drucker: Friedrich Julius Stahl: Conservative State Theory and Historical Development. 1933.
168. ^ Friedrich Julius Stahl: The monarchical principle. A constitutional and political treatise. Heidelberg 1845, p. 9 f.
169. ^ Hermann Wagener: Pernice - Savigny - steel. Berlin 1862.
170. ^ Ernst Landsberg, in: ADB 35 (1893), p. 400.
171. ^ Ernest Hamburger: Jews in public life in Germany. Tübingen 1968, p. 203.
172. ^ Ernest Hamburger: Jews in public life in Germany. Tübingen 1968, p. 202.
173. ^ Ernest Hamburger: Jews in public life in Germany. Tübingen 1968, p. 206.
174. ^ Ernest Hamburger: Jews in public life in Germany. Tübingen 1968, p. 555.
175. ^ Bernhard Michniewicz: Stahl and Bismarck. Diss. Phil. Berlin 1913, quoted in Christian Wiegand: About Friedrich Julius Stahl (1801–1862). Law, State, Church. Paderborn 1981, p. 24 fn. 50.
176. ↑ Hans-Joachim Schoeps: BISMARCK about contemporaries - contemporaries about Bismarck Ullstein, 1981, p. 154; after a letter of September 5, 1897, in: Otto von Bismarck: Die Gesammelte Werke (Friedrichsruher edition), 15 volumes, Berlin 1924–35, IX, p. 484.
177. ^ Otto von Bismarck: The collected works (Friedrichsruher edition), 15 volumes, Berlin 1924–35, XIV, p. 157; in a letter to his wife, dated April 27, 1850 from Erfurt from the Union Parliament about steel, "who throws his pearls right here in front of the swine." Quoted from Hans-Joachim Schoeps: BISMARCK about contemporaries - contemporaries about Bismarck , Ullstein, 1981, P. 155.
178. ↑ Alexander Andrae-Roman : Memories of an old man to Prince Bismarck , in: Daheim , 1899, p. 138; quoted according to Hans-Joachim Schoeps: BISMARCK on contemporaries - contemporaries on Bismarck , Ullstein, 1981, p. 155.