Herbert Petschow

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Herbert Paul Hermann Petschow (born December 26, 1909 in Dresden , † June 28, 1991 in Bad Kissingen ) was a German legal historian and ancient orientalist . His academic career was probably one of the most extraordinary German-German academic careers in the time of the East-West conflict . The way that some university policy makers in the former GDR dealt with Petschow was an example of the ideologically and therefore improperly conducted university policy of the GDR.

Training and first professional positions (before 1945)

Herbert Petschow was born in 1909 as the son of a baker. After graduating from high school in 1930, Petschow studied law at the Saxon State School in Dresden at the University of Leipzig . There he became aware of ancient oriental law through Martin David and studied with the legal historian Paul Koschaker , the legal historian Martin David, the Assyriologist Benno Landsberger and the orientalist Franz Heinrich Weißbach . After the first state examination in law in 1934, he worked as a court trainee at the Dresden Higher Regional Court . He then passed the second state examination in law in 1937. After a short period of employment as a legal assistant at “Rechtsanw. Dr. Eibes, Dr. Gross, Dr. Bürger, Walter ”in Dresden, Petschow was a legal employee at Wanderer-Werke AG until 1942 (or 1945) . Siegmar-Schönau. In the meantime he received his doctorate in 1939 with Paul Koschaker in Leipzig with a thesis on neo-Babylonian purchase forms.

Post-war period and habilitation

After the Second World War, Petschow said he worked from June 1945 to January 1946 initially as a construction worker (at "Regenfuss, Nuremberg"), but elsewhere Petschow wrote that he was active in agriculture at that time (which, however, should not be a contradiction in terms muss), from 1946–1950 he worked in a doctor's practice (with “Dr. Langer, Neunheiligen”) in Thuringia, from March 1952 to January 1954 he was a tax advisor (with “C. Gorschalki, Weinböhla; most recently in trust management)” in Saxony or in the Dresden district (since the federal states were dissolved in 1952). For the period from 1945/46 to 1954, Petschow described himself as a “free legal historian”. That this designation was justified is shown by two essays from these years that were written in addition to purely bread-making professions, both of which were published in well-known magazines.

It was not until 1954 that he was able to devote himself entirely to scientific activity and worked as a research assistant at the Oriental Institute of the Karl Marx University (KMU) in Leipzig, where in autumn 1955 he submitted a habilitation request with a paper on neo-Babylonian legal history.

Initially, Albrecht Alt , Erwin Jacobi and Siegfried Morenz were intended for the assessment. Jacobi then wrote that he could “not take over the presentation due to a lack of responsibility […], but as a speaker Professor Dr. Kunkel - Heidelberg recommend. ” Wolfgang Kunkel was then written to and he took over the assessment. Like the other reviewers, Kunkel rated the work very positively. The resulting contact between Petschow and Kunkel led in 1956 to the beginning of a multi-year struggle for Petschow between the KMU Leipzig and the University of Munich (LMU).

The first struggle between SMEs and LMUs over Petschow (1956)

After Kunkel moved to LMU in 1956 and founded the Leopold Wenger Institute for Legal History there, he asked Petschow to help set up the institute. Among other things, the institute acquired the extensive library of the recently deceased legal historian Mariano San Nicolò . Kunkel now hoped from Petschow that to a certain extent he could already take over the research area for ancient oriental legal history represented by San Nicolò, as well as arrange for the publication of the estate of San Nicolò.

Petschow first applied for a business trip to Munich on June 18, 1956. Immediately after Petschow's request, a letter from Leipziger Morenz dated June 19, 1956, in which he asked his faculty "in an almost evocative manner" to do everything that involved conferring a lectureship on Petschow and officially agreeing to work at the same time in Munich and Leipzig is useful. Morenz , who was pejoratively referred to as “bourgeois” by scientists close to the SED and who was pursuing his own agenda in Leipzig, was not alone with his request: The council of the Philosophical Faculty was aware of the danger that Petschow could go to Munich and he was in the majority also willing to convince the State Secretariat for Higher Education (SfH) of the GDR that this loss must be prevented.

Without this SfH and the higher-level science department at the Central Committee of the SED - on issues that are viewed as particularly sensitive, not even without the overriding Politburo - hardly any important decision was made in the already relatively centralized East German university world at that time. This is also the case here: The work department of the SMEs informed the rector that a post would have to be approved by the State Secretariat if Petschow were to be appointed lecturer. The SfH itself requested an assessment of the management department of the SMEs on Petschow. There people expressed skepticism about dual activity as well as the lectureship. Reference was made to Pechev's past and his “present political indifference”. His social origin was not mentioned.

But despite this already so strong restriction of university self-administration by the SED and the ideologically one-sided skepticism of the management department towards Petschow, the Vice-Rector of the SME soon wrestled with Petschow in addition to the Philosophical Faculty . A so-called “debate” with Petschow in the State Secretariat was therefore scheduled to make a decision . Petschow conducted this conversation with the main advisor in the responsible department. (This employee of the SfH should almost always be the interface between Petschow and the SfH or the Dept. of Sciences at the Central Committee for the next three years . In advance, it should be noted here that she usually tries to accommodate Petschow and his advocates in Leipzig.) It It was stated: From an employment law perspective, a double employment relationship is not possible, ie only one lecturer at one plus one lecturer at the other university would be possible. Petschow therefore wanted a lectureship in Leipzig. He wanted to continue the tradition of Koschaker and Leipzig as the center of ancient oriental legal history. On the other hand, the work in Munich is also important, it can only be done by him, Petschow.

As a result of these discussions, Petschow should receive the desired lectureship in Leipzig and he was also allowed to work in Munich. The head of the Dept. of Theological and Philosophical Faculties at the SfH noted with regard to the dual activity: "On the other hand, since this is an individual case." Based on an in-house communication about the results of the conversation, an internal review or briefing follows File circulation. The deputy head of the HA Teaching and Research therefore agrees with the lectureship, but adds: “The question of the teaching assignment to d. Univ. Munich has to be discussed with colleague [...]. "This meant an employee of the so-called" Abt. West Germany ". He noted: “I suggest that Dr. To bind Petschow firmly to Leipzig and to give expression to the fact that he was his academy. Has its seat in Leipzig: to pay him 50-60% of his salary in the 4 months in question (regular working vacation to Munich). In addition, this regulation is applicable, provided that Dr. P. is firmly anchored in Leipzig, which is definitely to be welcomed, as it raises our reputation [sic]. ”Other signatories can be seen on the communication. The highest decision-maker in this matter was therefore Franz Wohlgemuth , the deputy state secretary, who, however, only "saw" noted next to his abbreviation.

This makes it clear that Petschow's position as "the only representative of this specialty in Germany as a whole" aroused the desire of decision-makers. On the other hand, this unique selling proposition also forced them to compromise. Since those responsible here, especially according to the files, without the involvement of the Science Department at the Central Committee , were ready to make these compromises, Petschow could - for the time being - be held. He was appointed by Wohlgemuth on September 1, 1956 as a lecturer for the subject of oriental legal history at the SME . And he now traveled regularly to Munich for teaching and research purposes.

The 2nd struggle between SMEs and LMUs over Petschow (1957 to 1959)

But the second round began as early as 1957: Kunkel and the LMU apparently applied to the Bavarian Ministry of Education for an associate professorship for Petschow.

After learning about it in Leipzig, in return in June 1957 a professorship with a chair or at least a full teaching assignment was applied for at the SfH . In addition, Petschow wanted to set up and run an institute for oriental legal history. Amazing; because - with all due respect for Pechev's achievements before and after - at this point in time there were only 375 published pages of him. Petschow's unique selling proposition, that up to this point had been partly developed, but partly also emerged from the adverse circumstances described, was now even more evident than when applying for a lectureship in 1956.

And at first, Petschow's stay in Leipzig seemed possible this time as well: The Department of Work of SMEs was very cautious but not entirely negative about the financial possibility of an appointment. The management department presented Pechev's past this time a little more differentiated and not quite as negative as a year earlier. (Due to the political inactivity of Pechov, however, one is not able to give an assessment overall.) And the Rectorate of the SME spoke out repeatedly against a professorship with a chair, but in favor of a professorship with a teaching assignment. The SfH said that in view of this information they see a need for clarification and that they want to talk to the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs .

From then on, the second round in the struggle for Petschow became much tougher and more drawn out than the first: no appointments were made; the question of costs could not be finally clarified; and the SfH did not want to be satisfied with Petschow's (non-) assessment by the management department, and even repeatedly requested an assessment by the SED district management of the SMEs - which initially refused such an assessment to the dean and finally asked 8 months after the original application repeated insistence on writing a meaningless assessment.

This assessment was probably the decisive impetus for Pechov's later move to Munich, despite or precisely because of its lack of informative value. Because the SfH probably did not want to make the decision this time without the superordinate ZK due to the resulting uncertainty . And from there, for the negotiations with Petschow, the specifications “giving up his work in Munich” and “professorship with teaching assignment, not with chair” come from.

With this an unacceptable hurdle for Pechov has been set up. In a renewed “debate” he made it clear that although he would give up the chair, he could not do without the job opportunities in Munich as well as those in Leipzig. With the “job opportunities” Petschow meant above all the “unique special library” in Munich and the linguistic library at the Oriental Institute of the SME, built on Weissbach's holdings . In order to be able to publish at an internationally recognized level, he would need both libraries and under certain circumstances he would even agree that the application for a professorship should be postponed, but the current status should not be changed.

This is obviously how things were done, because judging by the files, nothing changed in Leipzig and Berlin for a year. And in Munich, too, Kunkel's efforts did not seem to be making any headway. Two applications by the Bavarian Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs failed in the meantime due to the resistance of the Minister of Finance - possibly a reason not to have to take any further action in Berlin.

In 1958 a third application was made in Munich. And while the negotiating position set by the Central Committee remained in place in the subsequent correspondence between Berlin and Leipzig, this time things got moving in Munich. In a letter from Munich on July 8, 1959, Petschow informed the SfH and the SMEs that the long-awaited chair would be created for him in Munich from August 1, 1959. Since he asked for his release from the lectureship at the SME , this letter was in fact a letter of termination, with which, however, he linked the offer to hold guest lectures in Leipzig. In addition, he asked from Munich for the possibility of legal relocation for his wife and himself. The state of affairs in Munich on the day of this termination was probably that the financial side had been clarified, but the Bavarian state parliament had not yet decided on the draft resolution. Although that was more of a formality, one in Leipzig and Berlin seemed to be hoping, among other things, that something could still be changed. Because within only three days the postponed decisions of the past two years were made there, since "a loss [...] is politically unjustifiable [...]". Petschow was now to become a professor with a chair and also the head of a newly created institute for oriental legal history.

But Pechov refused. He knew that there was nothing else he could do: rejecting the de facto existing professorship in Munich would be against any rule of common sense and academic custom; on the other hand, the acceptance of both professorships is not possible under civil service law. However, he again offered a visiting professorship at the SME and also offered the retention of a residence in the GDR alongside his Munich residence, but at the same time pushed for legal relocation.

The fear of the university-political precedent

Although the number of emigration (illegal from the perspective of the GDR) fell significantly in the late 1950s, it remained a constant problem for the GDR, especially in the area of ​​highly qualified skilled workers. Against this background, in view of the facts created in the State Secretariat, there was now an interest - in "coordination with the Central Committee " - in the legal relocation of Pechev and the guest professorship or guest lectures that would become possible with it. But there was a problem: In negotiations between the State Secretariat and the Ministry of the Interior of the GDR (MdI), the MdI presented the legal relocation of Pechev as possible. However, the State Secretariat itself feared setting a precedent for university policy and wanted to ensure that Pechev GDR- Citizen stays. - However, Petschow rejected this as an impossibility under civil service law, he could only keep his two places of residence in the GDR. In the meantime, only Petschow's wish to be able to work and research in Leipzig was the negotiating factor, but the SfH and the higher-level ZK department finally gave in, despite major concerns.

In Munich

Ordered downturn: The gradual marginalization of ancient oriental studies in Leipzig

In 1959, Petschow was appointed associate professor for ancient legal history at the University's "Leopold-Wenger Institute for Legal History". After he became a German citizen shortly afterwards, a contract for a visiting professorship was concluded with the KMU in 1960, which began with lectures and exercises on cuneiform writing law in Munich in March 1960 during the lecture-free period. Even more; With Petschow's departure to Munich, the establishment of the Institute for Oriental Legal History at the SME had become obsolete, but there was still a department for Oriental legal history at the Oriental Institute and in 1960 Petschow became the acting head of what was now called the “Department for Ancient Oriental Law “Appointed run establishment. The visiting professorship, the head of department - all this sounds very ambitious and lively despite the loss. But as ambitious as it may have been, as early as 1960/61 there were no longer any specialist students in Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Leipzig due to reorganizations. And so it was rather an ordered downturn.

1961/62 was restructured again in Leipzig and the Institute for Oriental Legal History was merged with the ancient Oriental department of the Oriental Institute. The new department was called “Department of Languages, Archeology and Legal History of the Ancient Orient”. Petschow continued to take over the provisional management. Everything that had to do with the ancient Orient was now increasingly marginalized. On the other hand, all areas of oriental studies that could have served the political and economic interests of the GDR then current were funded. In addition to the courses that were attended by a few visiting students from other disciplines, Petschow's activity in Leipzig therefore seems to have concentrated primarily on his own research work and the promotion of the few existing young scientists.

Petschow worked closely with two of his Leipzig students, Joachim Oelsner and Manfred Müller . In the first half of the 1960s they worked on new and late Babylonian legal and administrative documents from Ur. But even in this remaining marginality there is still clear evidence of an ordered downturn: Among other reasons, the processing, which in some cases was far advanced, was never ready for printing because Oelsner and Müller, because of the "extensive [n] obligations in the context of developing the 'world history of the Beginnings up to the development of feudalism '”the continuation of the processing is prohibited.

In the course of the III. University reform , the subject was then incorporated into the African and Middle Eastern Studies section: the previous Oriental Institute becomes the "Teaching and Research Area Arab States". Since only recent history was ultimately to play a role there, the training areas Assyriology, Sumerology and Hittitiology were relocated to Halle. And so Pechov's last course at the SME probably took place in the spring of 1970 .

Petschow should leave the SME

In view of this development, in 1971 the agreement with Petschow seemed obsolete to some of the SMEs and there was a lot of thought about dissolving the agreement. However, one of Pechev's students, Manfred Müller , campaigned successfully for Pechov's whereabouts. Since there were no more students, Petschow was only active as a doctoral supervisor and researcher in the GDR, despite a different agreement. He now also often worked in Jena, where the Hilprecht collection is located, and in 1974 he published a monograph on this work in the GDR.

Nevertheless, in 1976 they thought again about the dissolution of the agreement on the grounds that although there was no comparable expert in the GDR, Petschow would not be effective as a representative of his specialist area for the GDR either.

Finally, Petschow, who had already retired from Munich for three years, terminated the agreement in 1978, mainly for reasons of age.

plant

Petschow showed at the “ Codex Hammurapi ” that its paragraph structure cannot be approached with our current legal system, but that instead the “Codex Hammurapi” has its own ancient oriental system. Individual legal matters were treated associatively, whereby the association points were not subordinate to any overriding principle.

Two of his students, Hans Neumann as a philologist in Münster and Gerhard Ries as a legal historian in Munich, are continuing the research tradition.

Works (selection)

  • Petschow, Herbert, The New Babylonian Purchase Forms, Leipzig 1939 (= Leipzig jurisprudential studies, 118).

Literature about Herbert Petschow

  • Manfred Müller:  Petschow, Herbert. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 20, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-428-00201-6 , p. 270 f. ( Digitized version ).
  • Müller, Manfred: Herbert PH Petschow. Obituary. (Supplemented by a complete bibliography on Petschow's work) In: Yearbook of the Saxon Academy of Sciences 1991–1992 , pp. 343–348 (353).
  • Hans Neumann: Herbert Petschow (December 26, 1909 to June 28, 1991). In: Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin, issue 124, 1992, pp. 7–9
  • Dieter Nörr: Herbert Petschow. In: Yearbook of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences 1991. Munich 1992, pp. 234–238.
  • Joachim Oelsner: Herbert Petschow (December 26, 1909 to June 28, 1992). In: Journal for Assyriology and Near Eastern Archeology Volume 82, 1992, pp. 1-3.

Literature on German ancient Near Eastern studies and legal history during Petschow's lifetime

  • Hans Ankum and Herbert Petschow: Martin David in memory. In: ZRG RA 105 (1988), 989-997.
  • Johannes Irmscher: Comments on the situation of ancient legal history in the German Democratic Republic. In: Acta Antiqua 10 (1962), 157-161.
  • Rolf Lieberwirth: The legal history in the GDR. In: ZNR 10 (1988), 194-205.
  • Manfred Müller: The cuneiform studies at the Leipzig University until Landsberger's expulsion in 1935. In: WZ KMU (Society and Linguistics Series) 28 (1979), Issue 1, 67–86.
  • Joachim Oelsner: Leipzig Ancient Near Eastern Studies: 1936–1993. In: The spiritual understanding of the world in the ancient Orient. Edited by Claus Wilcke, Wiesbaden 2007, 315-330.
  • Horst Schröder: Polak versus Mitteis. In: Legal History in Germany 1945–1952. Ed. V. Horst Schröder, Frankfurt a. M. 2001 (= Ius Commune / Sonderhefte Studien zur Europäische Rechtsgeschichte, 141), 5–18.
  • Michael P. Streck: Ancient Near Eastern Studies. In: History of the University of Leipzig 1409–2009. Volume 4: Faculties, Institutes, Central Facilities. Edited by Ulrich von Hehl , Uwe John, Manfred Rudersdorf, 1st HBd. Leipzig 2009, 345–366.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ a b c cf. Universitätsarchiv Leipzig (UAL), personal files (PA) 1134, 8-10, (undated curriculum vitae written by Petschow himself; probably from 1954 ( tpq )) here 8.
  2. ^ During Pechov's studies, David was a private lecturer in ancient oriental and Roman law at the University of Leipzig. Cf. also Ankum, Hans and Petschow, Herbert, "Martin David zum Gedächtnis", in: ZRG RA 105 (1988), 989-997.
  3. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 8-10, here 9.
  4. ^ During Petschow's studies, Weißbach was a full honorary professor for cuneiform writing research and ancient history at the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Leipzig.
  5. ↑ a b Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 6.
  6. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 6. (The information on the employment relationship until 1942 or 1945 is probably due to his entry into the Wehrmacht . While Petschow was used as a soldier and later as a corporal in various flaka departments, he probably had the status of one exempt employees.)
  7. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134.
  8. ↑ Cf. 1. Petschow, Herbert, "A Neubabylonischer Bürgschaftsregreß gegen ein Nachlaß", in: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 19 (1951), 25-57. And 2. Petschow, Herbert, “The idea of ​​surrogation in neo-Babylonian law”, in: Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité, 3e Série, 1 (1954), 125-171.
  9. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 219 (employment contract of December 10, 1953 (issued February 1, 1954) between KMU and Petschow).
  10. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 13 (Kurt KS Morenz's statement of November 4, 1955 on Petschow's habilitation application).
  11. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 2 ((undated) personal form for habilitations).
  12. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 18 (Jacobi's letter of November 19, 1955 to the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin).
  13. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 20 (letter from Kunkels dated November 28, 1955 to the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin). Since Kunkel did not consider himself completely competent, he only wanted to work with (the person responsible for "the linguistic and philological side") Prof. Dr. Falkenstein (1906–1966, Assyriologist) took over the task.
  14. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 39.
  15. ↑ Cf. Coing, Helmut, "In memoriam Wolfgang Kunkel", in: ZRG RA 98 (1981), III-XVI, here VI.
  16. ↑ See Ries, Gerhard, “San Nicolò, Mariano”, in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 22 (2005), 430 f., Here 430.
  17. ↑ a b Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 34 (Petschow's application of June 18, 1956 for approval of a business trip to Munich). Officially, Kunkel asked for an advisory role - what exactly that meant at this point in time is not clear from the sources. Kunkel Petschow would probably have liked to find a diet lecturer (cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 7), but the financial resources for it did not seem easy to obtain. Nörr states that Kunkel "wanted to continue researching cuneiform writing rights with generous support from the Ministry of Culture [...]" (Nörr, Dieter, "Herbert Petschow", in: Yearbook of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences 1991. Munich 1992, 234-238, here 235.) However, this statement seems to be too general: Even if considerable resources z. B. were available for the acquisition of the library of San Nicolòs, the sources also show that there were long-term financial difficulties in Munich with regard to Petschow. (See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 31 ("Memo on a discussion with Dr. Petschow on February 24, 58").)
  18. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 6 ( Morenz's letter to the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs , from there forwarded to the State Secretariat for Higher Education of the GDR (copy in UAL, PA 1134, 47)).
  19. ↑ On the one hand, this concerned more institutional questions. See z. B. Kowalczuk: "He tried to pursue his own cadre policy by preventing SED members from being employed." ( Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk , Legitimation of a New State. Party Workers on the Historical Front History in the Soviet Zone / GDR 1945 to 1961. Berlin 1997, 296.) On the other hand, there are also concrete content-related questions that reveal more than a mere political agenda in Morenz's efforts to keep Petschow's whereabouts: In 1955, Morenz pleaded in an essay, which was particularly controversial in the area of ​​the ancient history of the GDR, for a certain " Unity of Classical Studies ”. (Morenz, Siegfried, "The Unity of Classical Studies. Thoughts and Worries for Eduard Meyer's 100th Birthday", in: Das Altertum. Ed. By the Section for Classical Studies at the German Academy of Science in Berlin, Vol. 1, Booklet 4 ( 1955), 195-205.) He was concerned with expanding the classical concept of antiquity to include the entire "ancient Mediterranean world, that is, the Egyptian-Near Eastern and classical antiquity." (Ibid., 197) Uncovering relationships with other cultures and epochs. One subject was also the ancient and neo-Babylonian cultures examined by Petschow under legal historical aspects. Summarized in this way, Morenz's content-related agenda clearly parallels ancient legal history according to Wenger (ancient legal history, based on Leopold Wenger , who gave Kunkel's institute its name, can be viewed as an important trend in the subject for at least the 20th century. also Ludwig Mitteis ), Wenger has been advocating extending ancient legal history from the history of Roman law, which has always been focused up to that point, to areas that were previously dealt with by philologists, theologians or historians Greek-Hellenistic, ancient Egyptian, Biblical-Talmudic and various ancient oriental rights. This temporal and spatial expansion should also broaden knowledge of the rights of these cultural groups and any existing relationships in a comparative legal manner (for more details, e.g. Koschaker, Paul , Europe and Roman Law , Munich 1947, 295-302.)). SED-affiliated historians in the GDR at that time, on the other hand, were not only concerned with uncovering relationships: in essence, often ideologically prejudiced, they claimed a unit based on a focused socio-economic characteristic - slavery. This unity calls for a greater expansion of the spatial and periodization boundaries than Morenz wanted. In some cases, not only Egypt or Babylonia, but also India, China and ancient America should be included. (On the individually different views from this period cf. above all Günther, Rigobert and Schrot, Gerhard, “Some problems for the theory of the social order based on slavery”, in: ZfG 4 (1956), 990-1008, especially on Morenz 992 Furthermore, a direct answer to Morenz by Elisabeth Charlotte Welskopf , “The unity of world history in antiquity”, in: Das Altertum. Vol. 4 (1958), 3-6 or more comprehensively this., The production conditions in the ancient Orient and in the Greco-Roman antiquity. Berlin 1957 (= writings of the Section for Classical Studies of the German Academy of Science in Berlin 5). What is noticeable here is that there are relationships between Morenz and Petschow that can be clearly demonstrated and understandable in their intention, but on the other hand between the Leipzig Rigobert Günther and Petschow no connections can be made out, especially since Günther likes to refer to legal queries in his arguments on the theory of the slave-holding society ellen referred and in places also tried to give the impression that he was firm on questions of legal history (cf. z. B. Günther / Schrot, Problems for Theory, 1002 f.) There are two main reasons for this lack of connection: First, Günther was not as knowledgeable about legal history as he would have liked to believe. Therefore, a discussion with Petschow or his work would be characterized by great differences in competence. Second, Petschow was initially “only” one of the many assistants at the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs . Therefore it was more likely the Protégé Morenz than the protégé Petschow with whom the dispute was sought. (On the years of struggle between Morenz and Günther, see Kowalczuk, Legitimation einer neue Staates , 296 f.)
  20. ↑ This is shown by an application of June 22, 1956 to the SfH : With reference to a faculty meeting on June 13, 1956, they asked for Pechev's appointment as lecturer. Several reasons were given: Kunkel, please Petschow for a diet lecturer in Munich; Petschow is currently the only one in Germany who can perform the intended tasks in Munich; But Petschow does not want to leave Leipzig with the tradition of Koschaker and Alt either. (See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 7 (copy in UAL, PA 1134, 48).)
  21. ↑ For more details B. Kowalczuk, Ilko-Sascha, Spirit in the service of power. University policy in the Soviet Zone / GDR 1945 to 1961. Berlin 2003, 84-92.
  22. ↑ See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 8 ((undated) letter from the Labor Department to the Rector of SMEs ).
  23. ↑ Petschow joined the “ Stahlhelmhochschulgruppe Leipzig” on November 5, 1933 (see UAL, PA 1134, 7). As a result, Petschow also got into other organizations of the Nazi regime ( SA member and NSDAP candidate) , according to his statements . Although Petschow's statements on this seem fundamentally plausible, one specific point is surprising: In a résumé (probably from 1954 ( tpq )), Petschow stated that in “November 1933 [...] - like numerous other opposition students - he was the ruling regime in opposition Stahlhelmhochschulgruppe Leipzig "had joined. However, the supposedly oppositional Stahlhelm student ring Langemarck was already subordinated to the SA at the beginning of July 1933 and in the same month the group subordinates itself to the NSDStB (cf. e.g. Michael Grüttner , Studenten im Third Reich. Paderborn (et al. M) 1995, 246 f.). Even if this development on the part of the Stahlhelm did not progress voluntarily, decisive harmonization measures were taken months before Pechev's entry .
  24. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 9 ((undated) letter from the management department of SMEs to the SfH ). According to the management department, the alleged “indifference” can be deduced from the fact that Petschow does not belong to any other organization apart from the Kulturbund.
  25. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 9. The origin of the son of a baker might have been in the sense of the self-proclaimed “workers and farmers state” .
  26. ↑ In a letter dated July 12, 1956, the Vice-Rector of the SME urged that the application for a lectureship for Petschow be examined. (See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 10 (letter from the Vice Rector of SMEs to the SfH on July 12, 1956 ).)
  27. ↑ See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 12 and 13. Formally responsible was initially the head of the department of theological and philosophical faculties at the SfH .
  28. ↑ a b c d e NB: Here and in other places where only official titles are mentioned with reference to archive material, the names are omitted due to existing protection periods or unknown end of the protection period.
  29. ↑ See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 14 (memo on the discussion with Dr. Petschow about his employment on August 3, 1956).
  30. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 14, handwritten note on the sheet.
  31. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 15 (in-house communication from the Department of Philosophical and Theological Faculties at the SfH to various employees).
  32. ↑ a b c Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 15 (in-house communication from the Department of Philosophical and Theological Faculties at the SfH to various employees). Handwritten note on the back of the sheet.
  33. ↑ On his peculiar biography from “informers” to “republic refugees” cf. Kowalczuk, Geist im Dienst der Macht , 115, with further references in footnotes 101 and 102.
  34. ↑ Ibid., A summary of the explanations given by the main speaker responsible.
  35. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 16 and 17 (letter from HA teaching and research at the SfH of 23 August 1956 to the Rector of the SME , Petschow's certificate of appointment as an appendix).
  36. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083 18 (letter from the Dean's Office of the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs of June 3, 1957 to the SfH) and BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 31 (“Memo on a discussion with Dr. Petschow on February 24th, 1957) .58 ").
  37. ↑ a b See UAL, PA 1134, 57 (draft of the application). Original letter: BArch DR 3 / B 15083 18 (letter from the Dean's Office of the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs dated June 3, 1957 to the SfH ).
  38. ↑ This includes the whole of 1957. I.e. it is probably less than 375 pages. (For the Bibliography of Petschow see Müller, Manfred, "Bibliography Herbert PH Petschow", in: Yearbook of the Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig 1991–1992, Berlin 1994, 349-353, here 349.)
  39. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 19 (letter from the work department of the SMEs of June 17, 1957 to the Rector of the SMEs).
  40. ↑ See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 20 (letter from the management department of the SMEs of July 13, 1957 to the Rector of the SMEs). The lack of any documents in the files of the SED district management of the SMEs, which are kept in the Saxon State Archives , speaks for the fact that the management department was actually unable to give an assessment . The management department and the SED district management of the SMEs were not the same, but the gathering of information from the management department controlled by the SED included inquiries to the so-called “social organizations” (cf. ibid.). Had the SED district leadership of the SMEs - from their quite extensive inventory of denunciation letters z. For example, one can convince oneself about Petschow's protégé Morenz in the Saxon State Archives - information, it would with high probability be passed on. This fact should be emphasized, because sources from the following period could lead to the assumption that the management department and / or the SED district leadership of the SMEs are using a delaying tactic.
  41. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 21 (letter from the Vice-Rector of SMEs of August 3, 1957 to the SfH ); BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 25 (letter from the Vice-Rector of SMEs of October 10, 1957 to the SfH).
  42. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 22, 23, 24 (correspondence between the Dean's Office of the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs and the SfH ).
  43. ↑ a b cf. UAL, PA 1134, 63 (automatic note without naming the recipient (probably in-house communication to dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin) dated September 23, 1957, the unnamed author / sender can be compared with BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 23 to be appointed as an employee of the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs).
  44. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 65 (letter from the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin dated January 24, 1958 to the SED district management of the KMU) and BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 26 (first of two internal communications from the SfH from February 14, 1958 with the same sender and recipient in the Petschows appeal file).
  45. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 65 (letter from the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin of January 24, 1958 to the SED district leadership of the KMU).
  46. ↑ The content of the letter shows that the SED district leadership of SMEs was also unable to give an assessment. The SfH was even asked to try to find out something about Pechev's “political attitude and activities in Munich”. Should everything there be in the interests of the party, there would be no objection to Pechev's appeal. (See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 52 (letter from the UPL of the SMEs of February 4, 1958 to the SfH ).)
  47. ↑ The letter from the SED district leadership of the SMEs was received from the recipient, the head of the Kaderab. At the SfH it was forwarded to the responsible main advisor of the Department of Theological and Philosophical Faculties and it was "suggested" (the main advisor will probably have understood this suggestion from the head of the cadre department as an instruction) to involve the Central Committee in further processing . (See handwritten note on BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 52.)
  48. ↑ BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 29 (second of two in-house communications by the SfH from February 14, 1958 with the same sender and recipient in the Petschows appeal file). The main speaker at the SfH seems to be formulating the negotiation objective therein. But their comment “Comrade […], Dept. Science in the Central Committee of the SED” is to be interpreted as a conception of the superordinate institution that is becoming the standard. This is supported primarily by the fact that such a goal was never mentioned in the files or processes prior to the involvement of the Central Committee .
  49. ↑ This negotiation goal can only be inferred indirectly. Proof of this are two documents in the files, here in advance of the chronological presentation of Pechev's life. 1. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 45 (in-house communication from the Philos. Faculties in the SfH from July 16, 1959 to the Deputy State Secretary Dahlem): After Petschow's resignation was received in Berlin on July 14, 1959 and now was looking for ways to change his mind at the very last second, the Central Committee approved a professorship with a chair on July 15 or 16, 1959 - an approval that had not been given before. 2. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 47 (internal communication of the Philos. Faculties SfH from August 6, 1959 to State Secretary Wilhelm Girnus ). With reference to the late relenting of the Central Committee just shown, it says "[...] especially since the matter has already been delayed due to previous negotiations with the Central Committee [...]."
  50. ↑ Petschow was undoubtedly aware of the unique selling point presented here several times. The fact that he did not want to force his appointment at all costs became very clear when he had recently been rejected from a full professorship at the University of Erlangen due to the lack of a library there. (Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 31 (“Memo on a discussion with Dr. Petschow on February 24, 58”). In addition, Petschow was willing to compromise: A titular professorship with a lecturer's salary would have been conceivable for him. (See ibid.)
  51. ↑ a b c Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 31 ("Memo on a discussion with Dr. Petschow on February 24, 58").
  52. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 35-37 (Letter from Petschow of July 8, 1959 to the SfH ), here 35. However, in a short time later, Petschow gave the responsible main advisor at the SfH to consider that it could damage his reputation if he did not get a reputation despite a request from the SME . (See ibid., 36.)
  53. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 78 (information letter from the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin from July 23, 1959 to the SfH about an interview with Petschow)
  54. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 27 (letter from the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin of February 16, 1959 to the SfH ); Copy under UAL, PA 1134, 68
  55. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 28 (letter from the administrative director of the SME to the rector of the SME)
  56. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 32 (opinion of the management department of the SMEs of March 18, 1959 on the "Application for the appointment of Dr. Petschow as professor with a chair in the field of oriental studies")
  57. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 33 (letter from the Rectorate of SMEs of March 24, 1959 to the SfH ).
  58. ↑ See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 35-37 (Letter from Petschow of July 8, 1959 to the SfH )
  59. ↑ a b c Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 69-72 (Letter from Petschow of July 8, 1959 to the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the SME Martin with a copy of the letter to the State Secretariat ).
  60. ↑ a b c cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 43 (internal communication from the Philos. Faculties in the SfH of July 14, 1959 to State Secretary Girnus)
  61. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 42 (internal communication from the Philos. Faculties in the SfH from July 14, 1959 to the Deputy State Secretary Dahlem)
  62. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 45 (internal communication by the Philos. Faculties in the SfH from July 16, 1959 to the Deputy State Secretary Dahlem)
  63. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 73 (letter from the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of SMEs of July 15, 1959 to Petschow).
  64. ↑ In Petschow's appeal files, documents of appointment that were later invalidated - dating back to the day before receipt of Petschow's letter of resignation - can be found. (See BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 39, 40 and 41.)
  65. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 75-77 (Petschow's letter of July 22, 1959 to the SfH )
  66. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 78 (letter from the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin of July 23, 1959 to the SfH ).
  67. ↑ See e.g. B. See Melis, Damian van, “Republic flight”. Flight and emigration from the Soviet occupation zone / GDR 1945 to 1961. Munich 2006, 57.
  68. ↑ In 1958, for example, seven professors at the Philosophical Faculty in Leipzig “fled the republic.” (Cf. SAPMO DY 30 / IV 2/5, 4374 (“Supplementary materials to the report of the SED party leadership Karl Marx University to the office der Bezirksleitung "of December 3, 1960), Annex 5" Flight from the republic in the teaching body of SMEs (1958–1960) ".)
  69. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 47 (internal communication from the Philos. Faculties sector in the SfH of August 6, 1959 to State Secretary Girnus).
  70. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 49 ("File note about a discussion with [the] deputy head of department in the MdI, HA Passport and Registration System on August 8, 1959").
  71. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 81 (Petschow's letter of August 15, 1959 to the SfH ).
  72. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 81 (Petschow's letter of August 15, 1959 to the SfH ). To avoid a wrong impression: Two residences in the GDR alone might sound like a high standard of living. On the one hand, however, it was probably the original parental residence near Dresden, which has been described as awkward on several occasions, and a Leipzig accommodation for sublet. (See, inter alia, UAL, PA 1134, 81 (Letter from Petschow of August 15, 1959 to the SfH).)
  73. ↑ Cf. BArch DR 3 / B 15083, 50 (internal communication from the Philos. Faculties in the SfH from September 1, 1959 to State Secretary Girnus)
  74. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 86 (Letter from Petschow of September 29, 1959 to the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin)
  75. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 232 (letter from the SfH of October 9, 1959 to the dean of the Philosophical Faculty of the KMU Martin).
  76. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 95 f. (Agreement between the SME and Petschow). No employment relationship was expressly established. Petschow received a fee of 9,500 DM (apparently DM from the German Central Bank ; the following point of the agreement is just one proof of this: Even during Petschow's absence, the annual fee was converted into partial amounts of 220 DM per month to cover the expenses for the Dwellings in the GDR were transferred - it would not be plausible to assume that these were DM from the Deutsche Bundesbank ). This agreement on the annual fee remained unchanged until it was terminated in 1978 (there is also talk of “9,500 Marks”; cf. UAL, PA 1134, 126 (apparently university-internal, explanatory remarks on Pechow of January 10, 1978 without Sender and recipient)).
  77. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 211 (letter from the Rector of KMU Mayer of October 3, 1960 to Petschow).
  78. ↑ See Oelsner, Joachim, "Manfred Müller (June 1, 1936 to September 18, 2000)", in: Archives for Orient Research 48/49 (2001/02), 295-297, here 295.
  79. ↑ Irmscher stated with reference to the ancient legal history for this time: "Significantly, the anthology renounces" Historical research in the GDR. Analyzes and Reports ", Berlin 1960, entirely on legal history work." (Irmscher Johannes, "Comments on the situation of ancient legal history in the German Democratic Republic", in: Acta Antiqua 10 (1962), 157-161, here 158, footnote 17.) In the same essay, Irmscher, in the sense of Bengtson, campaigned for jurisprudence as a component of ancient studies as a comprehensive historical discipline (cf. ibid. 160). He went on to say that the training situation for lawyers in the GDR did not yet meet this requirement. However, according to Irmscher, reference should be made to the training of classical philologists, where this historical branch has had a permanent place as a supplementary subject for years. What results this led to is outlined here as an example: The classical philologist Liselot Huchthausen published a very useful translation of legal texts from (legal-historical) pre-classical and classical times in 1975. In the detailed foreword, however, there are passages that show that the edition, reissued in 1989 and unchanged, was far behind the communis opinio of its time as early as 1975 . For example, Huchthausen wrote: "The provisions [of the Twelve Tables Act] that have been received reflect the conditions of a peasant population who live in a close settlement community [...]: [...] Personal vengeance has already been eliminated, the state reserves the right to punish the criminal." (Huchthausen, Römisches Recht, 1975, XIV. The same wording also in the third edition from 1989, there XIII.) However, as early as 1964, Kunkel had proven that private vengeance had priority at the time of the Twelve Tables Act, with a few exceptions. (Kunkel, Wolfgang, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, 4th ed. Weimar 1964. - It should be noted in particular that the edition cited here is a licensed edition of the book published by Böhlau Verlag Köln-Graz, published by Böhlau Weimar, which is distributed “only in German Democratic Republic and to the Socialist Countries ”(see the imprint page of the book cited here.) In this fourth edition, Kunkel based his own studies on the history of the Roman criminal proceedings, which he first published in 1962 (Wolfgang Kunkel, investigations on the development of the Roman criminal proceedings in pre-Sulla times (Treatises of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Philosophical-Historical Class, Booklet 56), Munich 1962).) In 1975 this view was meanwhile already undisputed doctrinal opinion (cf. e.g. Bleicken, Jochen, The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Fundamentals and Development, Paderborn 1975, 177.)
  80. ↑ See Streck, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 361 f. and UAL, PA 1134, 195 (letter from the Rector of KMU Mayer of October 17, 1962 to Petschow).
  81. ↑ Cf. Oelsner, Joachim, "Manfred Müller (June 1, 1936 to September 18, 2000)", in: Archive for Orient Research 48/49 (2001/02), 295-297, here 295 f.
  82. ↑ In addition, Petschow was from 1962 a corresponding member of the Saxon Academy of Sciences , where he represented the Bavarian Academy of Sciences , of which he was also a member, at the meetings for many years . (Cf. Müller, Manfred "Herbert PH Petschow", in: Yearbook of the Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig 1991–1992. Berlin 1994, 345-353., Here: 346.)
  83. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134, 156-162 (copy of Manfred Müller's statement “on the question of the termination or continuation or new version of the contract with Prof. Dr. H. Petschow on a visiting professorship at the Karl Marx University Leipzig” from November 23, 1971), here the sheet not numbered in the file between 160 and 161.
  84. ↑ Oelsner, Joachim, "Leipziger Altorientalistik: 1936–1993", in: The spiritual understanding of the world in the Old Orient. Edited by Claus Wilcke, Wiesbaden 2007, 315-330, here 325.
  85. ↑ See also UAL, R0554, Bd. 1, 71-88 (“Management plan and competition program of the African and Middle Eastern Studies Section for the 1970/71 academic year”). Accordingly, the section was, among other things, the “order-leading section for the profile line 'Problems in the developing countries'” (ibid., 72).
  86. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 156-162, here 161.
  87. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 156-162, here 158.
  88. ↑ Cf. UAL, PA 1134 135 (in-house communication of the African and Middle Eastern Studies section of the SMEs from February 7, 1977 to the Rectorate of the SMEs) and as a bibliographical reference: Petschow, Herbert, Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprechtsammlung Jena. With contributions to Middle Babylonian law, Berlin 1974 (= treatises of the Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Class, vol. 64, no.4).
  89. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134 140 f. (Letter from the Director of the African and Middle Eastern Studies Section of SMEs to the Directorate for International Relations of SMEs on June 30, 1976).
  90. ↑ See UAL, PA 1134, 109, (Petschow's letter of April 10, 1978 to the Rector of the SME Rathmann).
personal data
SURNAME Petschow, Herbert
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Petschow, Herbert Paul Hermann (full name)
BRIEF DESCRIPTION German legal historian and ancient orientalist
DATE OF BIRTH December 26, 1909
PLACE OF BIRTH Dresden
DATE OF DEATH June 28, 1991
Place of death Bad Kissingen