Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:50:26.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberal Revolution: the Cases of Jakob and Erhard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Reidar Maliks
Reidar Maliks*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, reidar.maliks@oriel.ox.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

This article explores the writings of Ludwig Heinrich Jakob and Johann Benjamin Erhard, two young Kantians who produced original defences of resistance and revolution during the 1790's. Comparing these two neglected philosophers reveals a crucial divergence in the liberal theory of revolution between a perspective that emphasises resistance by the individual and another that emphasises revolution by the nation. The article seeks to contribute to a more nuanced view of the political theory of the German Enlightenment, which has often been presented as excessively obedient to authority.

The historian Charles Ingrao repeated a common perception when, in an article on enlightened absolutism, he speculated that, ‘the German's greater acceptance of authority both then and now may be rooted in their own distinctive national culture’ (Ingrao 1986: 165). This idea of the obedient German has been promoted especially by those who seek cultural explanations for the authoritarian bent of German society in the 20th century (such as Mandt 1974 and Lepenies 2006). But the idea has a longer history. Herder described Germany as the land of obedience, and Kant wrote that, ‘in keeping with their penchant for law and order, they [the Germans] will rather submit to despotic treatment than venture on innovations (especially wilful reforms of government)’ (Kant 1974: AA 7: 318). By ‘wilful reforms of government’ Kant meant revolution. Madame de Staël later observed that Germans ‘join the greatest boldness of thought to the most obedient character’ (Staël Holstein 1813: 35). As Frederick Beiser has shown, this view, which was repeated by Heine and Marx, came to dominate the historiography (Beiser 1992: 7).

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 32 , Special Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Kant and Hegel , 2011 , pp. 216 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Althusius, J. (1964), Politica: Politics Methodologically Set Forth and Illustrated with Sacred and Profane Examples, ed. Carney, Frederick S.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1990), On Revolution. London and New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Aris, R. (1936), History of Political Thought in Germany from 1789 to 1815. New York.Google Scholar
Holstein, Baroness Staël (1813), Germany, Vol. I. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.Google Scholar
Batscha, Z. (1972), ‘Johann Benjamin Erhards Politische Theorie’ in Jahrbuch für Deutsche Geschichte 1: 53–75.Google Scholar
Batscha, Z. (1981), ‘Ludwig Heinrich Jakobs frühbürgerliches Widerstandsrecht’ in Studien zur politischen Theorie des deutschen Frühliberalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Beiser, F. (1992), Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790-1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bödeker, H. E. (2002). ‘The Concept of the Republic in Eighteenth Century German Thought’ in Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850, eds. Heideking, J. and Henretta, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berdahl, R. (1988), The Politics of the Prussian Nobility: The Development of a Conservative Ideology 1770-1848. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanning, T. C. W. (1974). Reform and Revolution in Mainz 1743-1803. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blanning, T. C. W. (1980). ‘German Jacobins and the French Revolution’, in The Historical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4: 986–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, K. (1966), The Genesis of German Conservatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Erhard, J. B. (1970), Über das Recht zu einer Revolution des Volkes und andere Schriften, ed. Haasis, H. G.. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
Fichte, J. G. (1979), Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Principien der Wissenschaftslehre (1796/97), eds. Medicus, F. and Zahn, M.. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Gentz, F. (1967), ‘Nachtrag zu dem Räsonnement des Herrn Professor Kant über das Verhältniß zwischen Theorie und Praxis’ in Kant, Gentz, Rehberg: Über Theorie und Praxis, ed. Henrich, D.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gooch, G. P., (1966), Germany and the French Revolution. New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar
Grotius, H. (2005), The Rights of War and Peace, ed. Tuck, Richard. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Haasis, H. G. (1970), ‘Nachwort’ in Erhard, J. B. (1970), Über das Rechtzueiner Revolution des Volkes und andere Schriften, ed. Haasis, H. G.. München: Carl Hanser Verlag: 203–243.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1974), Theory and Practice. Trans. Viertel, J.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1991), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Burger, T.. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1952), Philosophy of Right. Trans. Knox, T. M.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hermand, Jost, ed. (1975), Von deutscher Republik 1775-1795: Texte radikaler Demokraten, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1996), Leviathan, ed. Tuck, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingrao, C. (1986), ‘The Problem of “Enlightened Absolutism” and the German States’, Journal of Modern History 58, suppl.: 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous [Jakob, L. H]. (1974), Antimachiavel, oder über die Grenzen des bürgerlichen Gehorsams: Auf Veranlassung zweyer Aufsäße in der Berl. Monatsschrift (Sept. und Dec. 1793) von den Herren Kant und Genz. Halle: in der Rengerschen Buchandlung.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1907), Die Metaphysik der Sitten, in Kants gesammelte Schriften 6, herausgegeben von der Königlich Preußischen Akademieder Wissenschaften, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1907b). Der Streit der Fakultäten, in Kants gesammelte Schriften 7.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1912), ‘Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis’ in Kants gesammelte Schriften 8.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1912b), ‘Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?’ in Kants gesammelte Schriften 8.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1922), Briefwechsel, in Kants gesammelte Schriften 10.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1922b), Briefwechsel, in Kants gesammelte Schriften 12.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1974), Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, trans. and ed. Gregor, M.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, R. (1985), Future's Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koselleck, R. (1988), Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lepenies, Wolf (2006), The Seduction of Culture in German History. Princeton & London: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Boétie, E. (1975), The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, ed. Rothbard, M. N.. Montreal, New York & London: Black Rose Books.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1967), Second Treatise, ed. Laslett, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luther, M. (1968a), ‘Friendly Admonition to Peace concerning the Twelve Articles of the Swabian Peasants’ in The Protestant Reformation, ed. Hillerbrand, H. J.. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Luther, M. (1968b), ‘On Governmental Authority’ in The Protestant Reformation, ed. Hillerbrand, H. J.. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Mandt, H. (1974), Tyrannislehre und Widerstandsrecht: Studien zur deutschen politischen Theorie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Martinson, S. D. (1990), ‘Reason, revolution and religion: Johann Benjamin Erhard's concept of enlightened revolution’ in History of European Ideas, 12 (2): 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pufendorf, S. (1991), On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law, trans. Silverthorne, M., ed. Tully, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prantl, C. von (1881), ‘Jakob, Ludwig Heinrich von’ in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Band 13. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot: 689–90.Google Scholar
Richter, A. (1877), ‘Erhard, Johann Benjamin’ in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Band 6, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot: 200–201.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1987), Discourse on the Origin of Inequality in The Basic Political Writings, ed. Cress, D. A.. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, H. (1966), Bureaucracy, aristocracy, and autocracy: the Prussian experience, 1660-1815. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sieyès, E. J. (2003), Political Writings, ed. Sonenscher, M.. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Valjavec, F. (1951), Die Entstehung der politischen Strömungen in Deutschland 1770-1815. München: R. Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Varnhagen von Ense, K. A. (ed.) (1830), Denkwürdigkeiten des Philosophen und Arztes Johann Benjamin Erhard. Stuttgart und Tubingen: J. G. Cotta'schen Buchandlung.Google Scholar
Vierhaus, R. (2002), ‘Wirnennen's Gemeinsinn’ in Heideking, J. and Henretta, J. (eds.), Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vopelius, M.-E. (1974), ‘Jakob, Ludwig Heinrich von’ in Neue Deutsche Biographie, Band 10. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot: 216.Google Scholar
Walker, F. A. (2002), ‘The Conservative Face of a Radical Kantian in Prussia and Russia: the Case of Ludwig Heinrich Jakob (1759-1827)’ in Germano-Slavica, XIII: 3–17.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. (2004), From Reich to Revolution: German History, 1558-1806. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolzendorff, K. (1916), Staatsrecht und Naturrechtin der Lehre vom Widerstandsrecht des Volkesgegenrechtswidrige Ausübung der Staatsgewalt. Breslau: M. & M. Marcus.Google Scholar