{"title":"Professional guilds and the history of insurance: a comparative analysis","authors":"G. Dreijer","doi":"10.1080/2049677X.2022.2063520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Philip Hellwege’s edited volume on the history of mutual insurance, or lack thereof, within professional guilds across Europe is already the seventh volume in his Comparative Studies in the History of Insurance Law. The series derives from his European Research Council funded project A Comparative History of Insurance Law in Europe, in which the development of insurance in its manifold forms is explicitly researched from a comparative perspective. At the time of writing this review, volume fifteen has very recently appeared, testifying to the enormous productivity of Hellwege and his large team. The chapters in the book are divided geographically, with Hellwege writing an introductory text and the comparative conclusion (alongside a chapter on Germany). In order, the book contains chapters on the Southern Low Countries/ Belgium, the Northern Low Countries/The Netherlands, Germany, England, Scandinavia, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and Hungary. In the introduction, Hellwege explains (20) that he had considered various formats for the order of chapters, but in the end decided on this order, without explaining the reasons. This is unfortunate, as indeed multiple options could have been considered. Hellwege, writing from a German perspective, provides a most fascinating historiographical introduction on the link between guild support and (mutual) insurance. He explains that most German authors have seen three roots of insurance: first, marine insurance as the origin of commercial insurance; second, cooperative protection within guilds; and third, state-run insurance schemes developed from the seventeenth century onwards, the latter two as the origin for fire and life insurance. This provides a more sophisticated form of argumentation than the English-language literature, which most often teleologically presents marine insurance as the source of all forms of insurance. The German literature, while also flawed (as Hellwege points out in his chapter on Germany), therefore offers a more nuanced introduction to the problem of guilds and insurance. Why not then start with Germany and move thence to Poland? Hellwege and Jakub Pokoj (in his chapter on Poland) offer most interesting comparisons between the two case studies; moreover, this restructuring would move the contributions on the Low Countries and England deeper into the volume, thereby helping to avoid (however inadvertently) privileging Western over Southern and Central Europe. Hellwege, in his introduction, writes that the questions underlying the volume are","PeriodicalId":53815,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legal History","volume":"10 1","pages":"87 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2022.2063520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Philip Hellwege’s edited volume on the history of mutual insurance, or lack thereof, within professional guilds across Europe is already the seventh volume in his Comparative Studies in the History of Insurance Law. The series derives from his European Research Council funded project A Comparative History of Insurance Law in Europe, in which the development of insurance in its manifold forms is explicitly researched from a comparative perspective. At the time of writing this review, volume fifteen has very recently appeared, testifying to the enormous productivity of Hellwege and his large team. The chapters in the book are divided geographically, with Hellwege writing an introductory text and the comparative conclusion (alongside a chapter on Germany). In order, the book contains chapters on the Southern Low Countries/ Belgium, the Northern Low Countries/The Netherlands, Germany, England, Scandinavia, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and Hungary. In the introduction, Hellwege explains (20) that he had considered various formats for the order of chapters, but in the end decided on this order, without explaining the reasons. This is unfortunate, as indeed multiple options could have been considered. Hellwege, writing from a German perspective, provides a most fascinating historiographical introduction on the link between guild support and (mutual) insurance. He explains that most German authors have seen three roots of insurance: first, marine insurance as the origin of commercial insurance; second, cooperative protection within guilds; and third, state-run insurance schemes developed from the seventeenth century onwards, the latter two as the origin for fire and life insurance. This provides a more sophisticated form of argumentation than the English-language literature, which most often teleologically presents marine insurance as the source of all forms of insurance. The German literature, while also flawed (as Hellwege points out in his chapter on Germany), therefore offers a more nuanced introduction to the problem of guilds and insurance. Why not then start with Germany and move thence to Poland? Hellwege and Jakub Pokoj (in his chapter on Poland) offer most interesting comparisons between the two case studies; moreover, this restructuring would move the contributions on the Low Countries and England deeper into the volume, thereby helping to avoid (however inadvertently) privileging Western over Southern and Central Europe. Hellwege, in his introduction, writes that the questions underlying the volume are
菲利普·赫尔维格(Philip Hellwege)编辑的关于欧洲各地专业协会内部相互保险史或缺乏相互保险史的一卷,已经是他《保险法史比较研究》(Comparative Studies in the history of insurance Law)的第七卷。该系列源自他在欧洲研究委员会资助的项目“欧洲保险法的比较史”,在该项目中,明确从比较的角度研究了多种形式的保险的发展。在撰写本评论时,第十五卷最近出版,证明了Hellwege及其庞大团队的巨大生产力。书中的章节按地理位置划分,Hellwege撰写了介绍性文本和比较结论(以及关于德国的章节)。按顺序,本书包含关于南部低地国家/比利时、北部低地国家/荷兰、德国、英国、斯堪的纳维亚半岛、法国、意大利、西班牙、波兰和匈牙利的章节。在引言中,Hellwege解释说(20)他曾考虑过章节顺序的各种格式,但最终决定了这个顺序,但没有解释原因。这是不幸的,因为实际上可以考虑多种选择。Hellwege从德国人的角度出发,对公会支持和(共同)保险之间的联系进行了最引人入胜的历史介绍。他解释说,大多数德国作家都看到了保险的三个根源:首先,海上保险是商业保险的起源;第二,行会内部的合作保护;第三,国营保险制度从17世纪开始发展,后两者作为火灾和人寿保险的起源。这提供了一种比英语文献更复杂的论证形式,英语文献通常从目的论的角度将海上保险视为所有形式保险的来源。德国文学虽然也有缺陷(正如Hellwege在其关于德国的章节中指出的那样),但因此对行会和保险问题提供了更细致的介绍。为什么不从德国开始,然后从那里转移到波兰呢?Hellwege和Jakub Pokoj(在他关于波兰的章节中)对这两个案例研究进行了最有趣的比较;此外,这种重组将使对低地国家和英格兰的贡献进一步深入,从而有助于避免(无论多么无意)将西欧置于南欧和中欧之上。Hellwege在他的引言中写道,这本书背后的问题是
期刊介绍:
Comparative Legal History is an international and comparative review of law and history. Articles will explore both ''internal'' legal history (doctrinal and disciplinary developments in the law) and ''external'' legal history (legal ideas and institutions in wider contexts). Rooted in the complexity of the various Western legal traditions worldwide, the journal will also investigate other laws and customs from around the globe. Comparisons may be either temporal or geographical and both legal and other law-like normative traditions will be considered. Scholarship on comparative and trans-national historiography, including trans-disciplinary approaches, is particularly welcome.