政治预言的失败:恩斯特·坎特罗维茨的战时演讲

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Bennett Nagtegaal
{"title":"政治预言的失败:恩斯特·坎特罗维茨的战时演讲","authors":"Bennett Nagtegaal","doi":"10.1080/17496977.2023.2262894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis paper introduces a series of lectures Ernst Kantorowicz offered to the Army Specialized Training Program in 1943 in order to reconsider the development of his intellectual biography. These “wartime lectures” constitute Kantorowicz’s only sustained discussion of modern German history and his only intellectual engagement with Nazism. Introducing these lectures thus presents an opportunity to re-examine the relationship between Kantorowicz’s early and mature works through his assessment of Nazi Germany. For Kantorowicz, Nazism was the violent result of a German commitment to political prophecy. At the core of Kantorowicz’s lectures was a criticism of political theology and its role in modern history. In making this criticism, Kantorowicz simultaneously distanced himself from the prophetic register of his earlier writings. Moreover, recovering Kantorowicz’s concern with modern political theology is also important in foregrounding the intellectual genealogy of The King’s Two Bodies, a work often separated from its more telling subtitle: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Together, this paper argues that the most significant changes in Kantorowicz’s writings can be traced to the intellectual circumstances of the Second World War.KEYWORDS: Ernst KantorowiczThe King's Two BodiesGeorge Circleintellectual historyexiled scholars AcknowledgementsI would like to express my gratitude to both Professor Edward Baring and Professor Yair Mintzker for generously offering their feedback to several iterations of this paper, as well as their kind support since my arrival in Princeton. Sincere thanks also goes to Caroline West for both her patience and insight while reading this paper in some of its roughest forms. Though completed in Princeton, this paper began while studying at the University of Cambridge. I am immensely grateful to Dr. Martin Ruehl for not only directing me to Kantorowicz's ASTP lectures, but his continued encouragement and guidance over several years of academic study. I would like to also thank the anonymous reviewers and editors of the Intellectual History Review for their valuable feedback and support, as well as the panel of the Charles Schmitt Prize.Notes1 Dorn, “‘A Woman’s World’”, 535.2 For further context on the Army Specialized Training Program, see Craf, “ASTP”; Keefer, Scholars in Foxholes.3 These lectures may be accessed in the online archives of the Leo Baeck Institute in New York, see: “Lectures on German History (English), 1943–1944”, Box 3, Folder III/8/2, Ernst Kantorowicz Collection 1908–1982, Leo Baeck Institute, New York [https://archives.cjh.org/repositories/5/archival_objects/916117]. From this point on, the “Lectures on German History” will be referred to as L.G.H., the Leo Baeck Institute as L.B.I., and the Ernst Kantorowicz Collection as E.K.C.. When referring to specific lectures from part of a larger series, I will refer to that lecture by its specific title with a “ch.”, followed by the specific page(s) cited within that lecture.4 For a rich discussion of Kantorowicz’s financial struggles, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 252–67. Kantorowicz’s financial difficulties were shared by many other refugee scholars, see Epstein, “Schicksalsgeschichte”, 120–1.5 Though this paper focuses on Kantorowicz’s period in Berkeley, this is not to ignore how Kantorowicz had viewed Nazism in the years preceding his emigration to the United States. A discussion of Kantorowicz’s reading of Nazism during these years nevertheless falls beyond the purview of this paper and has already been well covered by other scholars. For a summary of the opposing views of this period, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 184–5.6 At present, there are only two instances in which these lectures are discussed. First, a short biographical mention in Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 261. The second is a brief summary of the lecture's core themes in Ulrich Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister: Stefan Georges Nachleben (München: C.H. Beck, 2009), 167–69.7 Though Kantorowicz had learned English as a child, his completed lectures contained several grammatical mistakes and typing errors. To the greatest possible extent, I have opted to leave these mistakes unedited when quoting sections of these lectures.8 To this extent, this paper builds upon Ulrich Raulff’s suggestion that Kantorowicz’s A.S.T.P. lectures can be understood as tackling simultaneously the “Hitlerfrage” and “Georgefrage”. See Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister, 168.9 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second; Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies.10 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”, 104–23.11 By “political theology”, I am not referring to Carl Schmitt’s use of the term. Though many scholars have already questioned the Schmitt–Kantorowicz connection, I choose to avoid this debate given the lack of direct evidence for Kantorowicz having ever read Schmitt. Following Kantorowicz’s understanding, I describe political theology as the invocation of transcendental categories by a secular political authority.12 Kantorowicz began his studies at Berlin University in 1918, transferred to the University of Munich after less than two semesters in early 1919, and then finally settled in Heidelberg by the year’s end.13 For a discussion of the ritualistic dimensions of the Circle, see Reiser, Totengedächtnis in den Kreisen um Stefan George.14 For the gospel-like status of George’s poetry, see Ruehl, “Aesthetic Fundamentalism in Weimar Poetry”, 245.15 For a discussion of the changes in George’s late verse, see Beßlich, “Vates in Vastitate”, 198–219.16 Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 172. For a long-form history of the Circle through George’s biography, see Norton, Secret Germany.17 Winkler, “Master and Disciples”, 145–60.18 See Yarrow, “Humanism and Deutschtum”, 1–11.19 For a nuanced reading of the Circle’s relationship to national politics during the Weimar period, see Ruehl, “Aesthetic Fundamentalism in Weimar Poetry”.20 Braungart, Literatur und Religion in der Moderne, 333–60.21 Norton, Secret Germany, 193.22 For a discussion of the cosmopolitan extent of the Circle’s nationalism, see Lane and Ruehl, “Introduction”, 5–7.23 Norton, Secret Germany, 681.24 For a further discussion of the life of the Circle post-1933, see Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister.25 For an overview of the controversy, see Mali, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 19–22.26 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 689.27 Mali, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”.28 For the conservative politics of Kantorowicz’s biography, see especially Ruehl, “‘In This Time without Emperors’”, 187–242.29 See also Norton, Secret Germany, 670.30 Jordan, “Preface (1997)”, xxx–xxxi.31 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 5.32 Cantor, Inventing the Middle Ages; Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”; Grünewald, “Übt an uns mord und reicher blüht was blüht!”, 77–93.33 Giesey, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 191–202; Benson, “Kantorowicz on Continuity and Change in the History of Medieval Rulership”, 202–11; Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 388. It is important to note that Lerner, though having met Kantorowicz in his days as a Princeton graduate student, was not a direct student of Kantorowicz, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 5.34 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”.35 Fleming, “Bodies”, 228.36 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 347.37 The full contents can be found on the first page of the lecture notes. Although unnumbered, the page is directly before the first lecture on “East: Colonization”.38 Giesey donated Kantorowicz’s papers to the Leo Baeck Institute in 1993.39 L.G.H., ch. “Ralph Giesey’s Archival Introduction [1993]”, E.K.C., L.B.I.40 For an excellent discussion of the varied lives of German-speaking academic refugees, see Epstein, “Schicksalsgeschichte: Refugee Historians in the United States”. For Epstein’s biographic catalog of German academic refugees, see Epstein, A Past Renewed.41 Kantorowicz’s correspondence with other A.S.T.P. lecturers suggests as much. In a letter dated 30 December 1943, Prof. Max Laistner of Cornell University wrote to Kantorowicz describing his complaints about the haphazard teaching requirements of the A.S.T.P. Though a leading authority on Europe in the late antique period, Laistner was requested to lecture on modern American history for Cornell’s army training program. See “Correspondence and miscellaneous material related to EHK’s first jobs in the USA … ”, Box 3, Folder III/7/2, E.K.C., L.B.I.42 L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 1–7.43 Capitalized following Kantorowicz’s usage. L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 3.44 L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 4.45 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1–14.46 Kantorowicz’s discussion of revolution within this lecture reappears in the Medieval Institutions lecture series offered in 1942. There, Kantorowicz placed Nazism in a revolutionary history beginning with the Papal Revolution of Pope Gregory VII. See “Lectures for Course, ‘Medieval Institutions II’, 1942”, Box 3, Folder III/9/2, E.K.C., L.B.I., 211.47 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1.48 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1.49 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 6.50 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 7.51 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 6.52 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 7.53 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 8.54 “Joe Smith” is most probably a reference to Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism and the Latter-Day Saint Movement. L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 8.55 “Lectures for Course, ‘The Thirteenth Century’, 1948”, Box 5, Folder V/9/11, E.K.C., L.B.I., 249. Henceforth “The 13th Century”.56 Original emphasis. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 11–12.57 For example, see Briefs, “The Dualism of German Culture”, 321–4. Briefs, an outspoken Catholic theologian, was also a refugee scholar who fled to the United States. Briefs’s use of “dualism” strongly resembles Kantorowicz’s, though there is no evidence that Kantorowicz was familiar with Briefs or his work.58 Mayer, “The State of the Dukes of Zähringen (1935)”, 176.59 A view echoed by many of Mayer’s – and Kantorowicz’s (former) – colleagues. See Mitteis, Lehnrect und Staatsgewalt, 415–63; Brackmann, “Der mittelalterliche Ursprung der Nationalstaaten”, 128–39.60 Mayer, “The Historical Foundations of the German Constitution (1933)”, 1.61 For a classic discussion, see Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.62 Original emphasis. L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 6.63 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 5.64 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 5.65 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.66 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 4–5.67 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 8.68 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, [3c].69 Emphasis added. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.70 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.71 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.72 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.73 L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.74 Rendered verbatim with original typing errors. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.75 L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 7.76 For this interpretation, see Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister, 169.77 It is important to note Kantorowicz offered “The Secret Germany” as an inaugural lecture in defense of a counter-mythology to Nazism. Though Kantorowicz had originally attempted to distinguish the Circle’s brand of political prophecy from Nazism, this effort no longer characterized his discussion of political theology within his Berkeley lectures and writings. Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 79.78 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 689.79 For a contrasting discussion of prophecy and the present in Nazi philosophies of history, see Geroulanos, “The Temporal Assemblage of the Nazi New Man”, 173–200.80 Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 78. Kantorowicz’s reference to “tiefe Zuverzicht” was quoted from an essay by Karl Wolfskehl in the 1910 edition of the Jahrbuch für die geistige Bewegung, the George Circle’s literary and cultural journal. For a further discussion, see Grünewald, “Übt an uns mord und reicher blüht was blüht!”, 65.81 Lichtenberger, The Third Reich, 181.82 Koselleck, Futures Past, 19.83 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 427–52.84 For a summary of the debates over this chapter see Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 427–8.85 Giesey, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”.86 Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies:, 463.87 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 432.88 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 432.89 “Lectures for Course, ‘The Renaissance’, 1945–1948”, Box 5, Folder V/9/13, E.K.C., L.B.I. Henceforth “The Renaissance”.90 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Introduction”, 4.91 “The Renaissance”, 201b.92 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Introduction”, 5.93 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Blueprint for the Renaissance”, 9.94 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Blueprint for the Renaissance”, 9.95 Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 79.96 “Humanities and History”, Box 1, Folder I/2/12, E.K.C., L.B.I. Though undated, it is highly likely that Kantorowicz completed this essay sometime during his years in Berkeley. For a further discussion, see Ralph Giesey’s introductory note to the archival entry.97 Kantorowicz had held this position before. In a series of methodological debates with Albert Brackmann following the publication of Frederick II, Kantorowicz defended an interpretation of history as “image-making”. For a discussion, see Norton, Secret Germany, 667–70.98 “Humanities and History”, 5.99 “Humanities and History”, 2.100 Emphasis added. “Humanities and History”, 2.101 Emphasis added. “Humanities and History”, 2.102 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 347.103 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”.104 Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, xxxiv.Additional informationNotes on contributorsBennett NagtegaalBennett is a second-year Ph.D. student at Princeton University working in the field of European intellectual history. Bennett completed his B.A. at the University of York, and his M.Phil. in Political Thought and Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge.","PeriodicalId":39827,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual History Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The failures of political prophecy: Ernst Kantorowicz’s wartime lectures\",\"authors\":\"Bennett Nagtegaal\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17496977.2023.2262894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTThis paper introduces a series of lectures Ernst Kantorowicz offered to the Army Specialized Training Program in 1943 in order to reconsider the development of his intellectual biography. These “wartime lectures” constitute Kantorowicz’s only sustained discussion of modern German history and his only intellectual engagement with Nazism. Introducing these lectures thus presents an opportunity to re-examine the relationship between Kantorowicz’s early and mature works through his assessment of Nazi Germany. For Kantorowicz, Nazism was the violent result of a German commitment to political prophecy. At the core of Kantorowicz’s lectures was a criticism of political theology and its role in modern history. In making this criticism, Kantorowicz simultaneously distanced himself from the prophetic register of his earlier writings. Moreover, recovering Kantorowicz’s concern with modern political theology is also important in foregrounding the intellectual genealogy of The King’s Two Bodies, a work often separated from its more telling subtitle: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Together, this paper argues that the most significant changes in Kantorowicz’s writings can be traced to the intellectual circumstances of the Second World War.KEYWORDS: Ernst KantorowiczThe King's Two BodiesGeorge Circleintellectual historyexiled scholars AcknowledgementsI would like to express my gratitude to both Professor Edward Baring and Professor Yair Mintzker for generously offering their feedback to several iterations of this paper, as well as their kind support since my arrival in Princeton. Sincere thanks also goes to Caroline West for both her patience and insight while reading this paper in some of its roughest forms. Though completed in Princeton, this paper began while studying at the University of Cambridge. I am immensely grateful to Dr. Martin Ruehl for not only directing me to Kantorowicz's ASTP lectures, but his continued encouragement and guidance over several years of academic study. I would like to also thank the anonymous reviewers and editors of the Intellectual History Review for their valuable feedback and support, as well as the panel of the Charles Schmitt Prize.Notes1 Dorn, “‘A Woman’s World’”, 535.2 For further context on the Army Specialized Training Program, see Craf, “ASTP”; Keefer, Scholars in Foxholes.3 These lectures may be accessed in the online archives of the Leo Baeck Institute in New York, see: “Lectures on German History (English), 1943–1944”, Box 3, Folder III/8/2, Ernst Kantorowicz Collection 1908–1982, Leo Baeck Institute, New York [https://archives.cjh.org/repositories/5/archival_objects/916117]. From this point on, the “Lectures on German History” will be referred to as L.G.H., the Leo Baeck Institute as L.B.I., and the Ernst Kantorowicz Collection as E.K.C.. When referring to specific lectures from part of a larger series, I will refer to that lecture by its specific title with a “ch.”, followed by the specific page(s) cited within that lecture.4 For a rich discussion of Kantorowicz’s financial struggles, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 252–67. Kantorowicz’s financial difficulties were shared by many other refugee scholars, see Epstein, “Schicksalsgeschichte”, 120–1.5 Though this paper focuses on Kantorowicz’s period in Berkeley, this is not to ignore how Kantorowicz had viewed Nazism in the years preceding his emigration to the United States. A discussion of Kantorowicz’s reading of Nazism during these years nevertheless falls beyond the purview of this paper and has already been well covered by other scholars. For a summary of the opposing views of this period, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 184–5.6 At present, there are only two instances in which these lectures are discussed. First, a short biographical mention in Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 261. The second is a brief summary of the lecture's core themes in Ulrich Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister: Stefan Georges Nachleben (München: C.H. Beck, 2009), 167–69.7 Though Kantorowicz had learned English as a child, his completed lectures contained several grammatical mistakes and typing errors. To the greatest possible extent, I have opted to leave these mistakes unedited when quoting sections of these lectures.8 To this extent, this paper builds upon Ulrich Raulff’s suggestion that Kantorowicz’s A.S.T.P. lectures can be understood as tackling simultaneously the “Hitlerfrage” and “Georgefrage”. See Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister, 168.9 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second; Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies.10 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”, 104–23.11 By “political theology”, I am not referring to Carl Schmitt’s use of the term. Though many scholars have already questioned the Schmitt–Kantorowicz connection, I choose to avoid this debate given the lack of direct evidence for Kantorowicz having ever read Schmitt. Following Kantorowicz’s understanding, I describe political theology as the invocation of transcendental categories by a secular political authority.12 Kantorowicz began his studies at Berlin University in 1918, transferred to the University of Munich after less than two semesters in early 1919, and then finally settled in Heidelberg by the year’s end.13 For a discussion of the ritualistic dimensions of the Circle, see Reiser, Totengedächtnis in den Kreisen um Stefan George.14 For the gospel-like status of George’s poetry, see Ruehl, “Aesthetic Fundamentalism in Weimar Poetry”, 245.15 For a discussion of the changes in George’s late verse, see Beßlich, “Vates in Vastitate”, 198–219.16 Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 172. For a long-form history of the Circle through George’s biography, see Norton, Secret Germany.17 Winkler, “Master and Disciples”, 145–60.18 See Yarrow, “Humanism and Deutschtum”, 1–11.19 For a nuanced reading of the Circle’s relationship to national politics during the Weimar period, see Ruehl, “Aesthetic Fundamentalism in Weimar Poetry”.20 Braungart, Literatur und Religion in der Moderne, 333–60.21 Norton, Secret Germany, 193.22 For a discussion of the cosmopolitan extent of the Circle’s nationalism, see Lane and Ruehl, “Introduction”, 5–7.23 Norton, Secret Germany, 681.24 For a further discussion of the life of the Circle post-1933, see Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister.25 For an overview of the controversy, see Mali, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 19–22.26 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 689.27 Mali, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”.28 For the conservative politics of Kantorowicz’s biography, see especially Ruehl, “‘In This Time without Emperors’”, 187–242.29 See also Norton, Secret Germany, 670.30 Jordan, “Preface (1997)”, xxx–xxxi.31 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 5.32 Cantor, Inventing the Middle Ages; Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”; Grünewald, “Übt an uns mord und reicher blüht was blüht!”, 77–93.33 Giesey, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 191–202; Benson, “Kantorowicz on Continuity and Change in the History of Medieval Rulership”, 202–11; Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 388. It is important to note that Lerner, though having met Kantorowicz in his days as a Princeton graduate student, was not a direct student of Kantorowicz, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 5.34 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”.35 Fleming, “Bodies”, 228.36 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 347.37 The full contents can be found on the first page of the lecture notes. Although unnumbered, the page is directly before the first lecture on “East: Colonization”.38 Giesey donated Kantorowicz’s papers to the Leo Baeck Institute in 1993.39 L.G.H., ch. “Ralph Giesey’s Archival Introduction [1993]”, E.K.C., L.B.I.40 For an excellent discussion of the varied lives of German-speaking academic refugees, see Epstein, “Schicksalsgeschichte: Refugee Historians in the United States”. For Epstein’s biographic catalog of German academic refugees, see Epstein, A Past Renewed.41 Kantorowicz’s correspondence with other A.S.T.P. lecturers suggests as much. In a letter dated 30 December 1943, Prof. Max Laistner of Cornell University wrote to Kantorowicz describing his complaints about the haphazard teaching requirements of the A.S.T.P. Though a leading authority on Europe in the late antique period, Laistner was requested to lecture on modern American history for Cornell’s army training program. See “Correspondence and miscellaneous material related to EHK’s first jobs in the USA … ”, Box 3, Folder III/7/2, E.K.C., L.B.I.42 L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 1–7.43 Capitalized following Kantorowicz’s usage. L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 3.44 L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 4.45 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1–14.46 Kantorowicz’s discussion of revolution within this lecture reappears in the Medieval Institutions lecture series offered in 1942. There, Kantorowicz placed Nazism in a revolutionary history beginning with the Papal Revolution of Pope Gregory VII. See “Lectures for Course, ‘Medieval Institutions II’, 1942”, Box 3, Folder III/9/2, E.K.C., L.B.I., 211.47 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1.48 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1.49 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 6.50 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 7.51 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 6.52 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 7.53 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 8.54 “Joe Smith” is most probably a reference to Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism and the Latter-Day Saint Movement. L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 8.55 “Lectures for Course, ‘The Thirteenth Century’, 1948”, Box 5, Folder V/9/11, E.K.C., L.B.I., 249. Henceforth “The 13th Century”.56 Original emphasis. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 11–12.57 For example, see Briefs, “The Dualism of German Culture”, 321–4. Briefs, an outspoken Catholic theologian, was also a refugee scholar who fled to the United States. Briefs’s use of “dualism” strongly resembles Kantorowicz’s, though there is no evidence that Kantorowicz was familiar with Briefs or his work.58 Mayer, “The State of the Dukes of Zähringen (1935)”, 176.59 A view echoed by many of Mayer’s – and Kantorowicz’s (former) – colleagues. See Mitteis, Lehnrect und Staatsgewalt, 415–63; Brackmann, “Der mittelalterliche Ursprung der Nationalstaaten”, 128–39.60 Mayer, “The Historical Foundations of the German Constitution (1933)”, 1.61 For a classic discussion, see Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.62 Original emphasis. L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 6.63 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 5.64 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 5.65 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.66 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 4–5.67 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 8.68 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, [3c].69 Emphasis added. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.70 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.71 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.72 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.73 L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.74 Rendered verbatim with original typing errors. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.75 L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 7.76 For this interpretation, see Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister, 169.77 It is important to note Kantorowicz offered “The Secret Germany” as an inaugural lecture in defense of a counter-mythology to Nazism. Though Kantorowicz had originally attempted to distinguish the Circle’s brand of political prophecy from Nazism, this effort no longer characterized his discussion of political theology within his Berkeley lectures and writings. Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 79.78 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 689.79 For a contrasting discussion of prophecy and the present in Nazi philosophies of history, see Geroulanos, “The Temporal Assemblage of the Nazi New Man”, 173–200.80 Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 78. Kantorowicz’s reference to “tiefe Zuverzicht” was quoted from an essay by Karl Wolfskehl in the 1910 edition of the Jahrbuch für die geistige Bewegung, the George Circle’s literary and cultural journal. For a further discussion, see Grünewald, “Übt an uns mord und reicher blüht was blüht!”, 65.81 Lichtenberger, The Third Reich, 181.82 Koselleck, Futures Past, 19.83 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 427–52.84 For a summary of the debates over this chapter see Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 427–8.85 Giesey, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”.86 Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies:, 463.87 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 432.88 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 432.89 “Lectures for Course, ‘The Renaissance’, 1945–1948”, Box 5, Folder V/9/13, E.K.C., L.B.I. Henceforth “The Renaissance”.90 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Introduction”, 4.91 “The Renaissance”, 201b.92 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Introduction”, 5.93 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Blueprint for the Renaissance”, 9.94 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Blueprint for the Renaissance”, 9.95 Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 79.96 “Humanities and History”, Box 1, Folder I/2/12, E.K.C., L.B.I. Though undated, it is highly likely that Kantorowicz completed this essay sometime during his years in Berkeley. For a further discussion, see Ralph Giesey’s introductory note to the archival entry.97 Kantorowicz had held this position before. In a series of methodological debates with Albert Brackmann following the publication of Frederick II, Kantorowicz defended an interpretation of history as “image-making”. For a discussion, see Norton, Secret Germany, 667–70.98 “Humanities and History”, 5.99 “Humanities and History”, 2.100 Emphasis added. “Humanities and History”, 2.101 Emphasis added. “Humanities and History”, 2.102 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 347.103 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”.104 Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, xxxiv.Additional informationNotes on contributorsBennett NagtegaalBennett is a second-year Ph.D. student at Princeton University working in the field of European intellectual history. Bennett completed his B.A. at the University of York, and his M.Phil. in Political Thought and Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intellectual History Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intellectual History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2023.2262894\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intellectual History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2023.2262894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据坎特罗维茨的理解,我将政治神学描述为世俗政治权威对先验范畴的调用Kantorowicz于1918年开始在柏林大学学习,1919年初不到两个学期就转到慕尼黑大学,最后在年底定居在海德堡关于圈子的仪式维度的讨论,见Reiser, Totengedächtnis in den Kreisen um Stefan George.14关于乔治诗歌的福音般的地位,见Ruehl,“魏玛诗歌中的美学原教旨主义”,245.15关于乔治后期诗歌变化的讨论,见beß ßlich,“Vastitate的Vates”,1988 - 219.16 Malkiel,“Ernst H. Kantorowicz”,172。17温克尔,“大师与门徒”,145-60.18见亚罗,“人文主义与德意志”,1-11.19,对魏玛时期“圈子”与国家政治关系的细致解读,见鲁尔,“魏玛诗歌中的美学原教旨主义”关于圈内民族主义的世界性程度的讨论,见莱恩和鲁尔,“导论”,5-7.23诺顿,秘密德国,681.24关于1933年后圈内生活的进一步讨论,见劳尔夫,Kreis ohne Meister.25关于争议的概述,见马里,“恩斯特·h·坎特罗维茨”,19-22.26坎特罗维茨,弗雷德里克二世,689.27马里,“恩斯特·h·坎特罗维茨”对于坎托罗维茨传记中的保守政治,请特别参见鲁尔,“在这个没有皇帝的时代”,187-242.29。另见诺顿,秘密德国,670.30约旦,“序言(1997)”,xxx - xxxi31恩斯特·坎特罗维茨,勒纳,5.32康托尔,《发明中世纪》;麦基尔,《恩斯特·h·坎特罗维茨》;格里·<s:1>内瓦尔德,“Übt一个不可能的东西和一个不可能的东西,blicher, bl<e:1>是bl<e:1> !”Giesey,“Ernst H. Kantorowicz”,191-202;Benson,“Kantorowicz论中世纪统治历史的连续性和变化”,第202-11期;勒纳,恩斯特·坎托罗维兹,388。值得注意的是,勒纳虽然在普林斯顿大学读研究生的时候见过坎托罗维茨,但他并不是坎托罗维茨的直接学生,见勒纳,恩斯特·坎托罗维茨,《坎托罗维茨与连续性》Fleming,“Bodies”,228.36 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 347.37完整的内容可以在课堂讲稿的第一页找到。虽然没有编号,但这一页就在“东方:殖民”第一讲的前面39 l.g.h., ch.“Ralph Giesey’s archives Introduction[1993]”,e.k.c., L.B.I.40有关讲德语的学术难民的各种生活的精彩讨论,请参阅爱泼斯坦,“Schicksalsgeschichte:美国的难民历史学家”。关于爱泼斯坦关于德国学术难民的传记目录,请参见《爱泼斯坦,一个更新的过去》。41坎特罗维茨与其他A.S.T.P.讲师的通信也说明了这一点。在一封日期为1943年12月30日的信中,康奈尔大学的马克斯·莱斯特纳教授写信给坎托罗维茨,描述了他对A.S.T.P.杂乱无章的教学要求的抱怨。尽管莱斯特纳是古代晚期欧洲研究的主要权威,但他还是被邀请为康奈尔大学的陆军训练项目讲授美国现代史。见“与EHK在美国的第一份工作有关的信件和杂项材料……”,E.K.C, L.B.I.42,文件夹III/7/2框3l.g.h., ch.“东方:殖民化”,1-7.43根据Kantorowicz的用法大写。l.g.h., ch.“东方:殖民化”,3.44 l.g.h., ch.“东方:殖民化”,4.45 l.g.h., ch.“教皇革命与帝国主义”。Counter-Revol。, 1-14.46 Kantorowicz在这次讲座中对革命的讨论在1942年的中世纪制度系列讲座中再次出现。在那里,坎特罗维茨将纳粹主义置于从教皇格列高利七世的教皇革命开始的革命史中。见“课程讲稿,“中世纪制度II”,1942年”,第III/9/2页第3栏,e.k.c., l.b.i., 211.47 l.g.h., ch.“教皇革命与君主”。Counter-Revol。, 1.48 l.g.h., ch.《教皇革命与君主》。Counter-Revol。, 1.49 l.g.h., ch.《教皇革命与君主》。Counter-Revol。, 6.50 l.g.h., ch.《教皇革命与君主》。Counter-Revol。, 7.51 l.g.h., ch.“农民”,6.52 l.g.h., ch.“农民”,7.53 l.g.h., ch.“农民”,8.54“乔·史密斯”最有可能是指摩门教和后期圣徒运动的创始人约瑟夫·史密斯。“课程讲义,‘十三世纪’,1948年”,第五栏,V/9/11文件夹,e.k.c., l.b.i., 249。从今往后是“13世纪”最初的重点。例如,见摘要,“德国文化的二元论”,324 - 4。布里格斯是一位直言不讳的天主教神学家,也是一位逃到美国的难民学者。 Briefs 对 "二元论 "的使用与 Kantorowicz 非常相似,但没有证据表明 Kantorowicz 熟悉 Briefs 或其作品。58 Mayer,"The State of the Dukes of Zähringen (1935)",176.59 Mayer 的许多同事--以及 Kantorowicz(前)--都赞同这一观点。见 Mitteis, Lehnrect und Staatsgewalt, 415-63; Brackmann, "Der mittelalterliche Ursprung der Nationalstaaten", 128-39.60 Mayer, "The Historical Foundations of the German Constitution (1933)", 1.61 经典论述见 Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.62 原文强调。L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 6.63 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 5.64 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 5.65 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 7.66 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 4-5.67 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 8.68 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", [3c].69 着重号后加。L.G.H., ch. "Nazism and Rebarbarization", 12.70 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 7.71 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 7.72 L.G.H., ch. "Dualisms", 7.73 L.G.H., ch. "Nazism and Rebarbarization", 12.74 逐字改写,有原始打字错误。L.G.H., ch. "Nazism and Rebarbarization", 12.75 L.G.H., ch. "Nazism and Rebarbarization", 7.76 关于这一解释,见 Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister, 169.77 值得注意的是,Kantorowicz 将 "秘密的德国 "作为开篇演讲,为反纳粹主义神话辩护。尽管康托罗维奇最初试图将圈子的政治预言与纳粹主义区分开来,但这一努力已不再是他在伯克利演讲和著作中讨论政治神学的特点。Kantorowicz, "Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)", 79.78 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 689.79 关于纳粹历史哲学中预言与现在的对比讨论,见 Geroulanos, "The Temporal Assemblage of the Nazi New Man", 173-200.80 Kantorowicz, "Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)", 78。Kantorowicz 提到的 "tiefe Zuverzicht "引自 Karl Wolfskehl 在 1910 年版的 Jahrbuch für die geistige Bewegung(乔治圈的文学和文化杂志)上发表的一篇文章。进一步讨论见 Grünewald,"Übt an uns mord und reicher blüht was blüht!",65.81 Lichtenberger,《第三帝国》,181.82 Koselleck,《过去的未来》,19.83 Heron,《人类尊严的超人起源》,427-52.84 有关本章的辩论摘要,见 Heron,《人类尊严的超人起源》,427-8。85 Giesey, "Ernst H. Kantorowicz".86 Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies:, 463.87 Heron, "The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity", 432.88 Heron, "The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity", 432.89 "Lectures for Course, 'The Renaissance', 1945-1948", Box 5, Folder V/9/13, E.K.C.、L.B.I. 以下简称 "文艺复兴"。90 "文艺复兴",第 "导言 "章,4.91 "文艺复兴",201b.92"Kantorowicz, "Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)", 79.96 "Humanities and History", Box 1, Folder I/2/12, E.K.C., L.B.I.虽然没有注明日期,但这篇文章极有可能是 Kantorowicz 在伯克利期间完成的。有关进一步讨论,请参阅 Ralph Giesey 对档案条目的介绍性说明。在《腓特烈二世》出版后与阿尔伯特-布拉克曼(Albert Brackmann)进行的一系列方法论辩论中,康托洛维茨为将历史解释为 "造像 "进行了辩护。有关讨论见 Norton, Secret Germany, 667-70.98 "Humanities and History",5.99 "Humanities and History",2.100 着重号后加。"人文与历史",2.101 着重号后加。"其他信息撰稿人注释Bennett NagtegaalBennett 是普林斯顿大学二年级博士生,从事欧洲思想史研究。贝内特在约克大学获得文学学士学位,在剑桥大学获得政治思想和思想史哲学硕士学位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The failures of political prophecy: Ernst Kantorowicz’s wartime lectures
ABSTRACTThis paper introduces a series of lectures Ernst Kantorowicz offered to the Army Specialized Training Program in 1943 in order to reconsider the development of his intellectual biography. These “wartime lectures” constitute Kantorowicz’s only sustained discussion of modern German history and his only intellectual engagement with Nazism. Introducing these lectures thus presents an opportunity to re-examine the relationship between Kantorowicz’s early and mature works through his assessment of Nazi Germany. For Kantorowicz, Nazism was the violent result of a German commitment to political prophecy. At the core of Kantorowicz’s lectures was a criticism of political theology and its role in modern history. In making this criticism, Kantorowicz simultaneously distanced himself from the prophetic register of his earlier writings. Moreover, recovering Kantorowicz’s concern with modern political theology is also important in foregrounding the intellectual genealogy of The King’s Two Bodies, a work often separated from its more telling subtitle: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Together, this paper argues that the most significant changes in Kantorowicz’s writings can be traced to the intellectual circumstances of the Second World War.KEYWORDS: Ernst KantorowiczThe King's Two BodiesGeorge Circleintellectual historyexiled scholars AcknowledgementsI would like to express my gratitude to both Professor Edward Baring and Professor Yair Mintzker for generously offering their feedback to several iterations of this paper, as well as their kind support since my arrival in Princeton. Sincere thanks also goes to Caroline West for both her patience and insight while reading this paper in some of its roughest forms. Though completed in Princeton, this paper began while studying at the University of Cambridge. I am immensely grateful to Dr. Martin Ruehl for not only directing me to Kantorowicz's ASTP lectures, but his continued encouragement and guidance over several years of academic study. I would like to also thank the anonymous reviewers and editors of the Intellectual History Review for their valuable feedback and support, as well as the panel of the Charles Schmitt Prize.Notes1 Dorn, “‘A Woman’s World’”, 535.2 For further context on the Army Specialized Training Program, see Craf, “ASTP”; Keefer, Scholars in Foxholes.3 These lectures may be accessed in the online archives of the Leo Baeck Institute in New York, see: “Lectures on German History (English), 1943–1944”, Box 3, Folder III/8/2, Ernst Kantorowicz Collection 1908–1982, Leo Baeck Institute, New York [https://archives.cjh.org/repositories/5/archival_objects/916117]. From this point on, the “Lectures on German History” will be referred to as L.G.H., the Leo Baeck Institute as L.B.I., and the Ernst Kantorowicz Collection as E.K.C.. When referring to specific lectures from part of a larger series, I will refer to that lecture by its specific title with a “ch.”, followed by the specific page(s) cited within that lecture.4 For a rich discussion of Kantorowicz’s financial struggles, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 252–67. Kantorowicz’s financial difficulties were shared by many other refugee scholars, see Epstein, “Schicksalsgeschichte”, 120–1.5 Though this paper focuses on Kantorowicz’s period in Berkeley, this is not to ignore how Kantorowicz had viewed Nazism in the years preceding his emigration to the United States. A discussion of Kantorowicz’s reading of Nazism during these years nevertheless falls beyond the purview of this paper and has already been well covered by other scholars. For a summary of the opposing views of this period, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 184–5.6 At present, there are only two instances in which these lectures are discussed. First, a short biographical mention in Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 261. The second is a brief summary of the lecture's core themes in Ulrich Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister: Stefan Georges Nachleben (München: C.H. Beck, 2009), 167–69.7 Though Kantorowicz had learned English as a child, his completed lectures contained several grammatical mistakes and typing errors. To the greatest possible extent, I have opted to leave these mistakes unedited when quoting sections of these lectures.8 To this extent, this paper builds upon Ulrich Raulff’s suggestion that Kantorowicz’s A.S.T.P. lectures can be understood as tackling simultaneously the “Hitlerfrage” and “Georgefrage”. See Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister, 168.9 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second; Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies.10 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”, 104–23.11 By “political theology”, I am not referring to Carl Schmitt’s use of the term. Though many scholars have already questioned the Schmitt–Kantorowicz connection, I choose to avoid this debate given the lack of direct evidence for Kantorowicz having ever read Schmitt. Following Kantorowicz’s understanding, I describe political theology as the invocation of transcendental categories by a secular political authority.12 Kantorowicz began his studies at Berlin University in 1918, transferred to the University of Munich after less than two semesters in early 1919, and then finally settled in Heidelberg by the year’s end.13 For a discussion of the ritualistic dimensions of the Circle, see Reiser, Totengedächtnis in den Kreisen um Stefan George.14 For the gospel-like status of George’s poetry, see Ruehl, “Aesthetic Fundamentalism in Weimar Poetry”, 245.15 For a discussion of the changes in George’s late verse, see Beßlich, “Vates in Vastitate”, 198–219.16 Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 172. For a long-form history of the Circle through George’s biography, see Norton, Secret Germany.17 Winkler, “Master and Disciples”, 145–60.18 See Yarrow, “Humanism and Deutschtum”, 1–11.19 For a nuanced reading of the Circle’s relationship to national politics during the Weimar period, see Ruehl, “Aesthetic Fundamentalism in Weimar Poetry”.20 Braungart, Literatur und Religion in der Moderne, 333–60.21 Norton, Secret Germany, 193.22 For a discussion of the cosmopolitan extent of the Circle’s nationalism, see Lane and Ruehl, “Introduction”, 5–7.23 Norton, Secret Germany, 681.24 For a further discussion of the life of the Circle post-1933, see Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister.25 For an overview of the controversy, see Mali, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 19–22.26 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 689.27 Mali, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”.28 For the conservative politics of Kantorowicz’s biography, see especially Ruehl, “‘In This Time without Emperors’”, 187–242.29 See also Norton, Secret Germany, 670.30 Jordan, “Preface (1997)”, xxx–xxxi.31 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 5.32 Cantor, Inventing the Middle Ages; Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”; Grünewald, “Übt an uns mord und reicher blüht was blüht!”, 77–93.33 Giesey, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”, 191–202; Benson, “Kantorowicz on Continuity and Change in the History of Medieval Rulership”, 202–11; Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 388. It is important to note that Lerner, though having met Kantorowicz in his days as a Princeton graduate student, was not a direct student of Kantorowicz, see Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 5.34 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”.35 Fleming, “Bodies”, 228.36 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 347.37 The full contents can be found on the first page of the lecture notes. Although unnumbered, the page is directly before the first lecture on “East: Colonization”.38 Giesey donated Kantorowicz’s papers to the Leo Baeck Institute in 1993.39 L.G.H., ch. “Ralph Giesey’s Archival Introduction [1993]”, E.K.C., L.B.I.40 For an excellent discussion of the varied lives of German-speaking academic refugees, see Epstein, “Schicksalsgeschichte: Refugee Historians in the United States”. For Epstein’s biographic catalog of German academic refugees, see Epstein, A Past Renewed.41 Kantorowicz’s correspondence with other A.S.T.P. lecturers suggests as much. In a letter dated 30 December 1943, Prof. Max Laistner of Cornell University wrote to Kantorowicz describing his complaints about the haphazard teaching requirements of the A.S.T.P. Though a leading authority on Europe in the late antique period, Laistner was requested to lecture on modern American history for Cornell’s army training program. See “Correspondence and miscellaneous material related to EHK’s first jobs in the USA … ”, Box 3, Folder III/7/2, E.K.C., L.B.I.42 L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 1–7.43 Capitalized following Kantorowicz’s usage. L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 3.44 L.G.H., ch. “East: Colonization”, 4.45 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1–14.46 Kantorowicz’s discussion of revolution within this lecture reappears in the Medieval Institutions lecture series offered in 1942. There, Kantorowicz placed Nazism in a revolutionary history beginning with the Papal Revolution of Pope Gregory VII. See “Lectures for Course, ‘Medieval Institutions II’, 1942”, Box 3, Folder III/9/2, E.K.C., L.B.I., 211.47 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1.48 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 1.49 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 6.50 L.G.H., ch. “Papal Revolution & Imper. Counter-Revol.”, 7.51 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 6.52 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 7.53 L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 8.54 “Joe Smith” is most probably a reference to Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism and the Latter-Day Saint Movement. L.G.H., ch. “The Peasants”, 8.55 “Lectures for Course, ‘The Thirteenth Century’, 1948”, Box 5, Folder V/9/11, E.K.C., L.B.I., 249. Henceforth “The 13th Century”.56 Original emphasis. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 11–12.57 For example, see Briefs, “The Dualism of German Culture”, 321–4. Briefs, an outspoken Catholic theologian, was also a refugee scholar who fled to the United States. Briefs’s use of “dualism” strongly resembles Kantorowicz’s, though there is no evidence that Kantorowicz was familiar with Briefs or his work.58 Mayer, “The State of the Dukes of Zähringen (1935)”, 176.59 A view echoed by many of Mayer’s – and Kantorowicz’s (former) – colleagues. See Mitteis, Lehnrect und Staatsgewalt, 415–63; Brackmann, “Der mittelalterliche Ursprung der Nationalstaaten”, 128–39.60 Mayer, “The Historical Foundations of the German Constitution (1933)”, 1.61 For a classic discussion, see Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.62 Original emphasis. L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 6.63 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 5.64 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 5.65 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.66 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 4–5.67 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 8.68 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, [3c].69 Emphasis added. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.70 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.71 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.72 L.G.H., ch. “Dualisms”, 7.73 L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.74 Rendered verbatim with original typing errors. L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 12.75 L.G.H., ch. “Nazism and Rebarbarization”, 7.76 For this interpretation, see Raulff, Kreis ohne Meister, 169.77 It is important to note Kantorowicz offered “The Secret Germany” as an inaugural lecture in defense of a counter-mythology to Nazism. Though Kantorowicz had originally attempted to distinguish the Circle’s brand of political prophecy from Nazism, this effort no longer characterized his discussion of political theology within his Berkeley lectures and writings. Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 79.78 Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 689.79 For a contrasting discussion of prophecy and the present in Nazi philosophies of history, see Geroulanos, “The Temporal Assemblage of the Nazi New Man”, 173–200.80 Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 78. Kantorowicz’s reference to “tiefe Zuverzicht” was quoted from an essay by Karl Wolfskehl in the 1910 edition of the Jahrbuch für die geistige Bewegung, the George Circle’s literary and cultural journal. For a further discussion, see Grünewald, “Übt an uns mord und reicher blüht was blüht!”, 65.81 Lichtenberger, The Third Reich, 181.82 Koselleck, Futures Past, 19.83 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 427–52.84 For a summary of the debates over this chapter see Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 427–8.85 Giesey, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz”.86 Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies:, 463.87 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 432.88 Heron, “The Superhuman Origins of Human Dignity”, 432.89 “Lectures for Course, ‘The Renaissance’, 1945–1948”, Box 5, Folder V/9/13, E.K.C., L.B.I. Henceforth “The Renaissance”.90 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Introduction”, 4.91 “The Renaissance”, 201b.92 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Introduction”, 5.93 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Blueprint for the Renaissance”, 9.94 “The Renaissance”, ch. “Blueprint for the Renaissance”, 9.95 Kantorowicz, “Das Geheime Deutschland (1933)”, 79.96 “Humanities and History”, Box 1, Folder I/2/12, E.K.C., L.B.I. Though undated, it is highly likely that Kantorowicz completed this essay sometime during his years in Berkeley. For a further discussion, see Ralph Giesey’s introductory note to the archival entry.97 Kantorowicz had held this position before. In a series of methodological debates with Albert Brackmann following the publication of Frederick II, Kantorowicz defended an interpretation of history as “image-making”. For a discussion, see Norton, Secret Germany, 667–70.98 “Humanities and History”, 5.99 “Humanities and History”, 2.100 Emphasis added. “Humanities and History”, 2.101 Emphasis added. “Humanities and History”, 2.102 Lerner, Ernst Kantorowicz, 347.103 Lerner, “Kantorowicz and Continuity”.104 Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, xxxiv.Additional informationNotes on contributorsBennett NagtegaalBennett is a second-year Ph.D. student at Princeton University working in the field of European intellectual history. Bennett completed his B.A. at the University of York, and his M.Phil. in Political Thought and Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Intellectual History Review
Intellectual History Review Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信