Band 297, Heft 2 -

Traditionally, the historian’s work focusses on particular phenomena. Historians are not (or not so much) interested in generalities. Therefore, the status of systematic reasing within historical research remains unclear. Normally, historians investigate single cases – but often this investigation is (implicitly or explicitly) meant to generate some kind of more or less generalized knowledge. It is a classical topic of the theory of history to discuss which kind of generalized knowledge that could be, and how it should be possible to get from the particular to the general. The article tries to show how this operation is pursued methodically. Besides that, the article explores the following question: Which status does the (too rarely discussed) approach of „case study“ have for the historian’s work? Case studies aim at generating knowledge of a more generalized kind. But how can we legitimately claim to achieve a more general knowledge from particulars? This question is discussed in examining some positions from the theory of history, from literary criticism, sociology, and philosophy. The article aims less at a programmatic methodology but tries to shed light on what historians normally do when „thinking in cases“. I proceed in three steps: Firstly, I explore the connection between particular and general knowlege. Secondly, I distinguish case studies from examples. Thirdly, I discuss the problem of „representativeness“ of cases.

This paper is concerned with the question why the demos in Cretan poleis during the Archaic and Classical periods accepted hierarchical governance by their elites in the decision-making process, although it was at the core of political imagination for all citizens to be equals: All collectively binding decisions were made within a small group consisting of the council of elders and the main magistrates, the kosmoi . The citizen assembly seems to have always confirmed these decisions – by majority vote. This remarkable procedure was made possible by an extraordinarily high degree of ethical homogeneity within the citizenry. Graded exclusion of large portions of the populace from political processes fostered a feeling of exclusivity and unity among the full citizens. Besides, a multitude of written and unwritten laws regulated a wide range of private and public issues. And a rigid, polis-controlled paideia , an age-class system and the obligatory participation of all citizens in syssitia reproduced structures of hierarchy and guaranteed socio-political obedience in the face of authorities.

The article focuses on the conflict about the constitutional oath of the civil servants in Weimar Germany: The oath „I swear loyalty to the constitution“ of August 1919 was a striking break with the tradition. Loyalty – „Treue“ – was not sworn any more to a person. Against the background of revolution and system change, conflicts about the understanding of the concept of „loyalty“ were inevitable. The civil servants stuck in wide parts to the traditional understanding of loyalty as a personal relation between two people; accordingly many civil servants found it impossible to swear the new oath. The conservative, monarchist, anti-republican, and anti-democratic opposition knew how to use the conflict around the constitutional oath politically. The government insisted on the oath and pursued those denying the oath with judicial means; nevertheless, it did not succeed in charging the concept of „Treue“ with a positive understanding for the purposes of the republican and democratic state. The conflict about the oath is an instructive example for the attempt to create new political loyalty and to strengthen government power. It shows at the same time the importance of „soft“ factors like moral ideas and traditions for the acceptance and stabilisation of political rule. In addition, analysing the quarrel about the oath offers a possibility to tie together political, constitutional, legal, and cultural issues and to show the value of a culturalistic approach to central aspects of political history.

There is no doubt that the biography of François Mitterrand is one of the most iridescent among those of the French statesmen of the 20th century. His metamorphoses from an adherent of the authoritarian Vichy-regime to the leader of the French socialists and the president of a republic whose constitution he had opposed in 1958 raise several questions to this day. Hardly less puzzling is Mitterrand’s relationship with Germany. For nearly his whole life he posed as a great European and an ardent protagonist of the French-German friendship. But was he really „le plus germanophile des chefs d’Etat français“, as his biographer Jean Lacouture claims? Based on extensive literature and numerous files found in German and French archives, the essay examines central issues of Mitterrand’s vita from 1916 to 1996, especially with regard to his image of, respectively his policy towards, Germany. In doing so it helps to unravel the mystery of the „sphinx“ and her relationship to Germany.