The research on early modern natural law has recently received a good organisational background, as Knud Haakonssen and Frank Grunert established a network of experts called “Natural Law 1625–1850”. It is supported by the universities of Erfurt and Halle (Saale), and one of its main activities are regular interdisciplinary conferences. Thanks to the Hungarian philosopher Gábor Gángó, East-Central Europe became the subject of the conference taking place in Erfurt in 2019.1 Following that meeting, a new conference on East-Central Europe took place, this time in Prague, organised by the Czech historians Ivo Cerman and Jan Květina. The focus was now on the Age of Enlightenment and institutionalization of natural law as a discipline. The geographical scope also included Ukraine. It was the intention of the organisers to give Ukrainians the opportunity to speak for themselves. Due to the ongoing war, however, Ukrainian men had to speak online.

The two keynote speakers revealed unintentionally differences in the perception of natural law in Eastern and Western Europe. The Czech philosopher DANIEL KROUPA (Prague), who had been an active anti-Communist dissident, explained, how natural law found its way into the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Liberties of 1991. Kroupa participated in the framing of this constitutional act. The right-wing dissidents, such as himself, had perceived natural law as the eternal law which the Communist regime violated, and they hoped that natural law arguments would provide guarantees against any such violations in the future. Their understanding, however, did not come from the Enlightenment or Grotius, but from ancient Greek philosophy and twentieth-century existentialism. They learnt legal concepts of rights as autodidacts from Georg Jellinek’s “Allgemeine Staatslehre”. KNUD HAAKONSSEN (Copenhagen) revealed in his talk the background to his own intellectual development. The key to his understanding was the effort to historicize the research on natural law and replace straightforward narratives of legal scientists with more accurate accounts. Haakonssen’s own research drew on a variety of sources such as Skinner’s Cambridge school philosophy of language, and Hammerstein’s history of universities.

The aim of the organisers was to approach the institutionalization of natural law through the chairs of natural law at key universities in the Habsburg Monarchy and Rzeczpospolita. To achieve this, the organisers had already established an educational online presentation before the conference which covered all of the key institutions and thinkers.2

At the conference, however, only some of these were represented. Kołłątaj’s reform of the University of Cracow from 1778 was discussed in a paper presented jointly by PAWEŁ FIKTUS (Wrocław) and MARTA BARANOWSKA (Toruń), who stressed his conflicts with the Catholic church. The reform was then presented as an anti-clerical act. Since the Polish understanding of natural law was based on physiocratic thought, the topic was actually elaborated in the paper by the French legal scientist THÉRENCE CARVALHO (Nantes) in the section on foreign influences. Carvalho represents the new French scholarship on physiocrats, established by Anthony Mergey, which separates their legal and political thought.3 Carvalho highlighted the holy trinity of life, property and liberty and explored the activities of physiocrats Le Mercier de La Rivière, Abbé Baudeau, and Dupont de Nemours in Poland. In terms of political activities, Carvalho implied that physiocrats aimed at strengthening the position of the king in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The late phase of natural law in Poland after the partitions was discussed by GÁBOR GÁNGÓ (Erfurt), who explored the work of Feliks Słotwiński who was lecturing on natural law in Cracow in the early nineteenth century. Gángó proved convincingly that Słotwiński’s Catholic conception actually drew on a long Polish tradition of interpretations.

The Ukrainian papers dealt with universities in two completely different states. The university of Lviv became a part of the Habsburg monarchy which introduced there the official Austrian conception of Carl Anton Martini. Lviv was discussed in VOLODYMYR KAKHNYCH’s (Lviv) paper which summed up the content of his monograph on legal sciences at Lviv. As his book covers the whole history of the faculty of law up to the twentieth century, Kakhnych discussed the Enlightenment natural law only as a marginal topic. The university of Kharkiv, established by the Tsar in 1804 in the Russian empire, was discussed by VOLODYMYR KYRYCHENKO (Kharkiv). Even though the title suggested a discussion on the political persecution after the Napoleonic Wars, Kyrychenko contributed a long-term overview from the sixteenth-century humanist Stanisław Orzechowski to Johann Baptist Schad. The paper implied that there was a long “Ukrainian experience of natural law”, but it was represented by a sequence of names without any connection with the university. The university of Kharkiv was, according to Kyrychenko, established by the Tsar without any academic freedoms.

The topic of early nineteenth century transformation was explored in depth in two papers in the section on foreign influences. The alleged changes in the concept of natural law under the influence of Kant were the topic of FRANK GRUNERT’s (Halle (Saale)) paper on Ludwig Heinrich Jacobi of Halle, who was teaching in Kharkiv and St. Peterburg for a time. Grunert highlighted Jacobi’s approach to collisions between positive and natural law. Jacobi assumed that positive law is based on principles of natural law, which renders their conflict impossible. Jacobi also acknowledged iura originiaria. The Ukrainian philosopher VOLODYMYR OLEG ABASCHNIK (Kharkiv) analysed the conception advanced by the persecuted philosopher Johann Baptist Schad. Abashnik pointed to Schad’s Catholic education in Bamberg and Banz am Main. He proved that Schad’s textbook was disseminated at universities and educational establishments across Ukraine. According to Abashnik, the book actually contained freedom-oriented thoughts. It also included iura originiaria and plans for the practical implementation of natural law.

The Habsburg monarchy, which was integrated into the Catholic world, was discussed in the section on institutional changes. The official Austrian conception of Carl Anton Martini was explored by IVO CERMAN (České Budějovice), who focused on the logical possibility of permissum in Martini’s philosophy. Based on Brian Tierney’s research, if rights are a part of law, then it must be proved that “permitted acts” are not disguised precepts or prohibitions. Even though Martini took over from Wolff a wide range of “universal human rights”, he believed that rights are prohibitions directed at others. As his textbooks were prescribed in study regulations within the monarchy, Martini’s conception laid the foundation for a philosophy of human rights even in Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine.

The introduction of Martini’s natural law at the University of Trnava in Upper Hungary was explored by ERIKA JURÍKOVÁ (Trnava). She also pointed out the existence of natural law terminology in the work of Istvan Huszty, which preceded the reform. Even Hungarian legal historiography believes in the transformation triggered by Kant’s philosophy. ANNA MÁRIA PETRASOVSZKY (Miskolc) explored this issue. She perceived the classical eighteenth-century conception as being designed to serve the interest of absolutist rulers. The impulse for a transformation came with the dissolution of the Jesuit order in 1773. Yet the Martini moment was somewhat diminished in her interpretation, while it seemed that the newly established institutions aimed straightforwardly towards a Kantian re-evaluation of natural law. This change was accomplished by Mihaly Szibenliszt, a lecturer at one of the five royal academies, who separated law from morality after Kant’s model.

In the age of Joseph II, the sister-discipline of cameral and political sciences was introduced at Habsburg universities. IVANA HORBEC (Zagreb), the author of a highly acclaimed monograph on the modernization of the state in Habsburg Croatia, explored the activities of Nikola Škrlec Lomnički who helped to introduce cameral sciences to the colleges in Varaždín and Zagreb. Her focus was, however, rather on his manuscript writings in which he even proposed political changes. TIBOR BODNÁR-KIRÁLY (Budapest), for his part, explored the influence of the Göttingen school of cameral sciences, inspired by Georg Heinrich Zincke. The main point of his paper was, however, to show the abrupt end of humanist-styled Staatsklugheit, which was totally abandoned by the Enlightenment cameral scientists.

The final section dealt with implications of natural law theories for codification and practical reforms. Due to practical problems, the presenters who were supposed to speak on the Austrian civic and penal codifications (Christian Neschwara, Ondřej Horák) could not attend the conference, so the only codification discussed was the failed Polish attempt, known as Zamoyski’s code. PAWEL FIKTUS (Wrocław) surveyed the preparatory works and highlighted that natural law was applied in Józef Wybicki’s writings in defence of the code. JAN KVĚTINA (Prague) explored the fortunes of the comprehensive reform proposal of the humanist Andrzej Modrzewski. In the sixteenth century, Modrzewski’s opus was rejected, whereas the aristocratic conception of the state advanced by Stanisław Orzechowski prevailed. In the Age of Enlightenment, however, Modrzewski was rehabilitated as an unduly neglected genius, whose work was suddenly recognized as foreshadowing the sweeping reform proposals of Enlightenment philosophers. The work De republica emendanda was disseminated in Polish translations.

Contrary to initial expectations, the conference brought more information on the late transformation of natural law in the early nineteenth century than on the founding of chairs of natural law. However, it did cover that topic, too. Even though the power-point presentations created the illusion that papers focused on personalities and not ideas, some papers did discuss also the content of natural law doctrines. The conference did succeed in revealing a vast area of natural law concepts in the East, which should be integrated into the mainstream narrative.

Conference overview:

I General lectures

Daniel Kroupa (Prague): On the role of natural law in restoring the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Liberties in 1991

Knud Haakonssen (Copenhagen): The Study of Natural Law: History or Philosophy?

II Reforms of Higher Education: the institutionalization of natural law

Paweł Fiktus (Wrocław) / Marta Baranowska (Toruń): Between the Universalism of the Laws of Nature and the Particular National Culture. Hugo Kołłątaj’s Reform of the University of Cracow

Gábor Gángó (Erfurt): Catholic natural law in Poland, with focus on Feliks Słotwinski

Volodymyr Kyrychenko (Kharkiv): Opposition of Tsarism to the Spread of Ideas of Natural Law in the Universities of the Empire at the Beginning of the 19th Century

Volodymyr Kakhnych (Lviv): Natural Law at the University of Lviv

Ivo Cerman (České Budějovice): Were Human Rights in Martini´s Natural Law Real?

Erika Juríková (Trnava): The Introduction of Natural Law at the University of Trnava and its Latin Terminology

Anna Mária Petrasovszky (Miskolc): Metamorphosis of Legal Philosophy: The Evolution of Natural Law Conception in 19th Century Hungary

III Western Influences

Thérence Carvalho (Nantes): The teaching of physiocracy in Poland-Lithuania: between the renewal of natural law and the encouragement of enlightened reforms

Volodymyr Oleg Abaschnik (Kharkiv): Johann Baptist Schad´s “Institutiones juris naturae”, Charkoviae, 1814

Frank Grunert (Halle (Saale)): Natural Law and its Application. Ludwig Heinrich von Jakob (1759–1827) in Kharkiv and St Petersburg

IV Reforms of Higher Education: the institutionalization of natural law

Ivana Horbec (Zagreb): Nikola Škrlec Lomnički and the Political and Cameral Science at Colleges in Habsburg Croatia

Tibor Bodnár-Király (Budapest): Staatsklugheit and political science at the University of Pest-Buda and the Protestant Colleges of the Eighteenth-Century Kingdom of Hungary

V Justifying Enlightenment Reforms

Paweł Fiktus (Wrocław): Codification of law in the 18th century in Poland on the example of Andrzej Zamoyski’s Code

Jan Květina (Prague): Instrumentalization of Polish-Lithuanian early modern republicans in the discourse of the Enlightenment: the case of Modrzewski

Notes:
1 Gábor Gángó (eds.), Early Modern Natural Law in East-Central Europe, Leiden 2023.
2 Jihočeská univerzita v Českých Budějovicích, Natural Rights in East Central Europe during the Enlightenment, in: Opera Historica. Educational Materials, https://www.opera-historica.com/artkey/inf-990000-1300_Educational-Materials.php (24.10.2024).
3 Anthony Mergey, L’état des physiocrates. Autorité et décentralisation, Marseille 2010.