Volume 302, Issue 1

Since the historical tradition on early Roman kingship is unreliable, scholarship often disregards the first stage of Roman statehood or gives a very specialistic treatment. First of all the paper sketches important concepts and narratives of ancient tradition as well as of modern research. Then some main features of early Roman monarchy which to some extent might be made plausible are outlined. Different methodological paths to be taken include traditional source criticism as well as looking at Italian and aristocratic contexts, archaeological and urbanistic records from seventh to fifth century B. C., and giving different models of evolution some thoughts. Ancient tradition already suggests how far away from being a fixed institution kingship from Romulus to Tarquinius Superbus was, although it obviously contributed a lot to the development of early Roman statehood. The „kings“ rather resembled warlords; together with their followers these were able to establish different kinds of rule in different mixtures of power and opportunity. Even after setting up a republican order which precluded one man rule the Roman aristocracy experimented on some options for the highest magistrate, until dual consulship was created in 367 B. C. Typologically compared with other monarchies in antiquity early Roman kingship might be a sort of tributary. But for the Romans it had a long lasting impact on constructing and handing down their historical and political identity. In addition it pointed the way for the further process of Roman history until another monarchy was established.

Bogdan Count von Hutten-Czapski (1851–1937), one of the favourite Catholic vassals of the German Emperors William I and William II, was famous as an enthusiastic advocate of Prussian patriotism. In spite of his Polish nationality, Hutten-Czapski kept a distance from the radicalisation of German and Polish nationalisms and supported the position that all Prussian citizens, both Germans and Poles, must unite tightly under the Hohenzollern dynasty. An acquaintance of the chancellors Hohenlohe, Bülow and Bethmann Hollweg, Hutten-Czapski was appointed a hereditary member of the Prussian House of Lords and manager of the royal residence in Posen. Together with his intimate comrades Georg Cardinal v. Kopp (Prince Bishop of Breslau), Rudolf v. Valentini (Chief of the Secret Royal Cabinet) and Hermann Marquis v. Hatzfeldt, Duke of Trachenberg (Governor of Province Schlesien), Hutten-Czapski tried unsuccessfully to block the proclamation and the implementation of the Expropriation Law against Polish subjects (1908). During the First World War, Hutten-Czapski was active as a secret advisor to and messenger of William II on the eastern front seeking to build a pro-German and anti-Russian Polish puppet state in former Russian territory. At the end of his life, Hutten-Czapski applauded the two dictators Adolf Hitler and Józef Piłsudski, who signed the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact (1934). He died two years before the beginning of the Second World War. The analysis of Hutten-Czapski’s life leads to the conclusion that there were circles of German and Polish nobles in Wilhelmine Germany who kept a distance from the radicalisation of both nationalisms, and that German nationalism in the Wilhelmine era was not simply a justifying ideology of the German ruling classes, but also eventually a theoretical weapon of the nationalized people against the „un-German‟ noblemen.

This article highlights the salient contribution of Jewish jurists to the evolution of International Law between the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. What these jurists sought to realize was an international legal order based on universalist principles. In spite of this universalist ambition, however, scholars seeking to define the international order could not accomplish their task without first defining what they actually mean by a group, a state, or a nation. The example of Lassa Oppenheim enables us to reconstruct how an eminent liberal jurist defined those concepts at a time when tension between nationalism and internationalism became increasingly visible. The article assesses Oppenheim’s attempt to reconcile an individualistic universalism with a national conception of community inspired by the works of Johann Gottfried Herder and Giuseppe Mazzini. In adopting this stance, Oppenheim endeavoured to mediate between what many of his contemporaries could only see as an inevitable and largely irresolvable conflict: one that pitted an increasingly potent nationalism and a legal order centred on the nation-state, against a universalist worldview whose champions insisted on the unity of humanity.