{"title":"Serving Danish Foreign Policy: Andreas Hojer’s De eo quod iure belli licet in minores (1735)","authors":"M. Jensen","doi":"10.1163/9789004384200_004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Andreas Hojer (1690– 1739) is arguably one of the most fascinating but understudied figures in the early enlightenment in Denmark. Hailing from SchleswigHolstein, Hojer studied in Halle under Christian Thomasius (1655– 1728), where he became fascinated with the new teachings on natural law and the law of nations. His first published works were an academic exercise on the (non)prohibition of incestuous marriage by divine law, the De nuptiis propinquorum iure divino non prohibitis [...] diagramma, and a short history of Denmark.1 Both works led him into polemics and rivalry with Ludvig Holberg (1684– 1754), who is now widely considered the (only) major figure of the early Danish enlightenment. Having successfully weathered a storm over his work on marriage, Hojer was employed in a string of positions, including royal historiographer and Justitsråd, before being appointed the first ex officio professor of the law of nature and nations at Copenhagen University in 1734.2 No substantive account of his natural law theorizing and its political and intellectual significance has thus far been attempted. An informative and detailed biography of Hojer was published in 1961, and Hojer is mentioned in the standard histories of jurisprudence in Denmark.3 But in neither case is there any detailed discussion of his teachings on natural law.4 This is perhaps","PeriodicalId":164710,"journal":{"name":"The Law of Nations and Natural Law 1625–1800","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Law of Nations and Natural Law 1625–1800","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004384200_004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
安德里亚斯·霍耶(Andreas Hojer, 1690 - 1739)可以说是丹麦早期启蒙运动中最引人入胜但研究不足的人物之一。霍耶来自石勒斯威格尔施泰因,在哈雷师从克里斯蒂安·托马斯修斯(1655 - 1728),在那里他对自然法和国家法的新教义着迷。他出版的第一部作品是关于神法(非)禁止乱伦婚姻的学术练习,《De nuptiis propinquorum iure divino non prohibitis》[…]这两本著作都使他与路德维格·霍尔伯格(1684 - 1754)争论和竞争,后者现在被广泛认为是丹麦早期启蒙运动的(唯一的)主要人物。Hojer成功地经受住了婚姻研究的风暴,在1734.2年被任命为哥本哈根大学自然法和国家法的第一位当然教授之前,Hojer被聘为一系列职位,包括皇家历史学家和司法法官。迄今为止,没有人试图对他的自然法理论及其政治和知识意义进行实质性的描述。1961年出版了一本内容丰富、内容详尽的霍耶传记,丹麦的标准法理学史也提到了霍耶,但这两本书都没有详细讨论他关于自然法的教义这也许是
Serving Danish Foreign Policy: Andreas Hojer’s De eo quod iure belli licet in minores (1735)
Andreas Hojer (1690– 1739) is arguably one of the most fascinating but understudied figures in the early enlightenment in Denmark. Hailing from SchleswigHolstein, Hojer studied in Halle under Christian Thomasius (1655– 1728), where he became fascinated with the new teachings on natural law and the law of nations. His first published works were an academic exercise on the (non)prohibition of incestuous marriage by divine law, the De nuptiis propinquorum iure divino non prohibitis [...] diagramma, and a short history of Denmark.1 Both works led him into polemics and rivalry with Ludvig Holberg (1684– 1754), who is now widely considered the (only) major figure of the early Danish enlightenment. Having successfully weathered a storm over his work on marriage, Hojer was employed in a string of positions, including royal historiographer and Justitsråd, before being appointed the first ex officio professor of the law of nature and nations at Copenhagen University in 1734.2 No substantive account of his natural law theorizing and its political and intellectual significance has thus far been attempted. An informative and detailed biography of Hojer was published in 1961, and Hojer is mentioned in the standard histories of jurisprudence in Denmark.3 But in neither case is there any detailed discussion of his teachings on natural law.4 This is perhaps