Juristica International

In the beginning of the 1820s, Dabelow also repeatedly considered the characteristics of suitable candidates for senior positions in the Faculty of Law, where such men could be found, and what should be done to prepare them locally. He proceeded from a fundamental belief that a professor should not confine himself to an unaltered delivery of his lectures year-after-year but that his lectures should indeed be built on scientific research. This very same requirement complicated the fulfilment of the Tartu professoriate considerably:

„Die Dörptschen Lehrstellen sind schwer auszufüllen, wenn man annimmt, dass der Professor nicht blos dazu vorhanden ist, um ein zusammengeschriebenes Heft Jahr aus Jahr ein abzulesen, sondern durch männliche Untersuchung in Schrift und Vortrag wirken woll.” *31

The first chair, viz. that of public and international law, was to ensure the external glory of the Faculty. But it differed from that of the German universities of the time. Firstly, the syllabus also involved politics, which in Germany could not be found amongst the subjects of the Faculty of Law. Neither was it possible to confine studies to local public law and treatment of international relations of one’s own country. Russian public law was within the competence of the department of Russian law and the public law of a local province could in essence be included only in the history of law of those provinces. In Tartu, the purview of the first professoriate of the Faculty of Law included the public law of all major European countries, the theory and practice of international law as well as diplomacy. Dabelow was sure in one thing at least: a person with extremely diverse and extensive education was a prerequisite for such a position.

The purview of the chair of Roman and German private law and practical legal theory was also extremely extensively defined. The position required a professor who knew well both Romano-Germanic law and had already served for a long time as a member of a German faculty of law. Through requirements so worded, it seems as if Dabelow was describing himself. At the time he did hold this professorship. Indeed, during his lengthy career as a legal professor and practitioner he had dealt both with Roman and German law. As regards practical legal theory included in the essential qualifications, professors of German universities gained the required knowledge due to the function of a faculty of law to settle practical legal disputes (the so-called Spruchkollegium). Thus, long-serving German professors had usually also had a long career as a practitioner.

As regards the third chair, that of criminal law, history of law and history of legal literature, Dabelow believed its purview to be an utter failure. On the one hand it called for somebody who had a good and thorough background of both the theory and practice of criminal law. Dabelow believed that knowledge of practice and active involvement in it was the ultimate prerequisite for fulfilling the positions in both private and criminal laws:

„Das Criminalrecht kann nur überall von einem Rechtsgelehrten zweckmäةg vorgetragen werden, welcher die Theorie zugleich mit der Ausübung verbunden hat. Ein Criminalist, der nie eine Untersuchung geführt, nie ein Criminalurtheil gemacht hat, steht in seiner totalen Untauglichkeit ganz dem Professor der Pandekten gleich, der in seinem Leben keinen Prozeנgeführt oder keinen Prozeנentschieden hat, und daher überall nicht wiإn kann, was von der Maإ des Römischen Rechts noch anwendbar ist oder nicht.” *32

On the other hand, however, the requirements meant that the same person should be equally experienced in any source of legal history, be it history of Roman, German or canonical law, plus history of legal literature in terms of all spheres of the Faculty of Law. One way or another, the inclusion of history of legal literature in the purview of any chair was complete thoughtlessness. But if it was to be simultaneously a general history of literature, touching upon all spheres and branches of jurisprudence, it made it per se a mammoth subject. Dabelow very much doubted the existence of someone capable of teaching such a subject scientifically and with quality:

„... z. B. allgemeine Rechtsgeschichte und Literairgeschichte, wenn sie nicht in einem oberflächlichen Raisonnenemt oder einer mageren Bibliographie bestehen sollen, denn der Professor, welcher sie gründlich vortragen sollte, müشe die Kenntniإ aller übrigen juristischen Professoren nicht nur in sich vereinigen sondern auch weit über alle stehen. Der berühmte Rechtsgelehrte Cujaz bemerkte am Ende seiner Tage, daנer nochmal so alt seyn müإ um nur civilistische Literairgeschichte gründlich vortragen zu können, und welche Fortschritte hat nicht seit seiner Zeit die gelehrte Bearbeitung des römischen Rechts gemacht.” *33

For instance, Dabelow himself thought that he did not have the courage to start lecturing even the history of literature on civil law which then meant primarily the history of literature on Roman law. And this in a situation where he doubtlessly had dedicated a large part of his long scientist’s life to studying Roman law. At best, he believed, it was possible that the professor teaching this subject would just read out the list of books. But here Dabelow posed the reasonable question: “Will it any more be a history of legal literature (as a science)?”:

„Wie verkehrt ist es nemlich ein Professor der juristischen Literairgeschichte anzustellen. Ich denke etwas im Römischen Recht gemacht zu haben, aber ich gekönne mich noch nicht eine Civilistische Literairgeschichte zu lesen. Hugo der nichts wie Römisches Rechts treibt, hat sich mit seiner civilistischen Literairgeschichte wohl eigentlich prostituirt. Und hier soll ein Professor die Literairgeschichte der ganzen Jurisprudenz lehren. à la Nettelbladt und Koenig läش sich wol ein Bücherregister zusammenstoppeln, aber heiش das Lit. Gesch.?” *34

Consequently, Dabelow proceeded from the fact that coverage of whole history of legal writing by just one person both in research and teaching was more or less impossible. Therefore he believed in reality there to be only two ways for the study and teaching of this subject:

(1) just hope for a lucky chance and presume that some time such a gifted person will be found in Tartu capable of achieving something truly scientific in this realm;

(2) appeal to the University Council and curator for permission to divide the subject between the professors of the Faculty of Law. According to this solution, each of the professors would have taught his speciality plus the history of scientific research into specific legal sources. *35

The latter version was naturally more sensible and in reality this was what happened.

One way or another, it is clear that combination of criminal law and history of law and history of legal history into one department meant losses in at least one of those three major domains. In Germany, at least, there was not a single person capable of dealing simultaneously and with considerable intensity with all those subjects. Thus, it was inevitable that a part of this chair’s syllabus would remain an orphan. A good expert in criminal law would neglect history of law and history of legal literature. Somebody dedicated to the last two subjects would lecture criminal law upside down. *36

In such a situation Dabelow offered, in the name of the Faculty of Law, his solution to the University Council:

(1) The teaching of criminal law should be included in the competence of the professor of private law. As he had amongst his diverse literary publications some on criminal law, he believed himself to be capable of coping with the teaching of it. Besides, it should be taken into account that a professor of provincial law was anyway to teach local criminal law, and the professor of Russian law, in turn, Russian criminal law. Because in the Baltic provinces, criminal law was primarily based on the latter sources, the teaching of general German criminal law was not so important and did not require such a scope as in Germany. Consequently, the adding of it to the syllabus of the professor of private law would not turn out to be too burdensome for the latter.

(2) Henceforth the professor of private law was to be exempted from lecturing on the institutions of Roman law as a general introductory subject. Thus, institutions were to remain within the competence of the professor teaching history of law and history of legal literature. In such a way, all introductory subjects would be taught by one person. In case of such a combination, it was possible to assume that there were young promising learned men to be found in Germany who was interested in all of those and who was prepared to deal with such a combination with full scientific seriousness. *37

Such an idea of re-dividing the departments clearly reflects how the Faculty of Law in Tartu was to fulfil its task in the studies of Roman law. The reunited professorship of private and criminal law was to be held by a mournful German professor, who had dealt with both domains and who had an adequate experience in practice. In brief, somebody like Dabelow himself. This naturally points out the drawback of the solution. Even in Germany, universally learned men of law were not a frequent phenomenon and in fact they had died out together with the generation of Dabelow. In the beginning, however, his idea was feasible. At least as long as he lived and taught. Which he did in Tartu until 1830.

The second professoriate of Roman and German law, which now was to cover only the institutions of Roman law, general history of law and history of legal literature was prescribed for a young scientist with a lust for research. It was primarily on his shoulders that the discovery of then unknown sources of Roman law in Russia and their introduction to the Western audience was to rest. Consequently, the professoriate was to be designed so that the Faculty of Law of Tartu could have its explorative say in the domain that united all the Western lawyers – scientific study of Roman law. After a failed attempt to attract Ludwig Wilhelm Anton Pernice from Halle to this professorship, Dabelow managed in 1824 lure Walter Friedrich Clossius from Tübingen to Tartu. Clossius had already on earlier occasions proved his interest in sources of Roman law. Namely he managed to unveil in the Milanese Ambrosian library a hitherto unknown manuscript with fragments of the Kaiser Theodosianus code. *38 As he had already won recognition into the eyes of Roman jurists with publicising them, it was naturally tempting to him to be able to find some hitherto unknown manuscripts from Russian libraries. During the years spent in Tartu (1824 - 1836), Clossius managed to make long trips in Russia and study many libraries there. A rather perfect overview of the then situation of Russian libraries could be made on the basis of his correspondence with Russian monasteries and private and public libraries. *39 Unfortunately, Clossius did not manage to publish many of the results of his studies. *40 The grand overview for Western scientists on the manuscripts available in Russia, Iter Rossicum, contemplated by him, was not completed even in manuscript.

However, the role of young Clossius in Tartu was not just limited to studying Russian libraries. He also in a sense had to be the teacher and pathfinder for the youth who had chosen to major in Russian law and provincial law and were, in future, to hold the respective professorships.

As regards the professorship of Russian law, the holder of it was in reality to start shaping his special research area into a proper teaching system. Dabelow too emphasised that knowledge of Russian, the constitution and legislation of Russia was not enough. In addition to all this, the professor of Russian law was to have a sharp critical eye in order to unite single parts into a systemic whole. *41 Professor Neumann was undoubtedly the recognised authority in the University of Tartu as regards the study and teaching of Russian law. He was the first one to offer students a chance to hear lectures about Russian law in the Russian language. *42

For Tartu, as a university of the Baltic provinces, the professorship of provincial law of course held a special importance. With this professor, the versatility required was even higher than with all the rest. As is obvious from what has been said above, Dabelow was justified in his belief that provincial law was still not yet scientifically studied. More important was his attempt to answer the question of how such a study should be performed. *43 In other words: what a future professor of provincial law should start doing (in 1822, this professoriate was still not fulfilled)?

Scientific treatment of provincial law was complicated by its miscellaneous sources plus territorial particularism. All this was due to the very kaleidoscopic history of the Baltic provinces and the abundance of different legal sources and their interrelations brought along by it. Dabelow described the contemporary situation in the legal practice of the provinces as a large soup pot where something good and tasty could be picked out by anybody:

„Das besondere Recht der russischen Ostsee-Provinzen ist eine Mischung aus den heterogensten Quellen. Mag die vergleichung eines alten Schriftstellers mit einem Topfe, in welchen die verschiedenartigsten Ingredienzen zusammengeschüttet sind, und in welchem Jeder sich seinen Bedarf heraussuchen mag, für unsere Ohren noch so undelikat klingen, etwas Wahres ist doch unstreitig an der Vergleichung. Das “Suchet, so werdet ihr finden,” trifft freilich hier meistens zu, es ist nur die böse Sache, dass, wenn man gefunden hat, das Gefundene nicht zu dem Uebrigen passt, was doch von einer ächten Mixtur verlangt wird. Zwar weiss auch oft genug der Arzt nicht, was zusammen passt, aber er wird erst jenseits controllirt: den Juristen controllirt man schon diesseits.” *44

In this mess, the question that needed to be answered first was what provincial law was and of what it was composed. Dabelow tried to define it as a special historically-developed law of the Baltic provinces where Roman and general German law (gemeines Recht) in turn played the role of subsidiary law to which must be added the laws enacted specially by the Russian empire for the Baltic provinces. On the other hand, Dabelow absolutely excluded the applicability of philosophical natural law in local provinces:

„... diese Provinzen werden von einem besonderen Rechte beherrscht, bei welchem das römische und germanische aushilft, und zwar zu diesem besonderen Recht gehörig, in sofern es sich davon handelt, den Umfang des besonderen Rechts zu bestimmen, sonst aber, und in sofern man zwischen principaliter und in subsidium geltenden Recht distinguirt, davon wieder geschieden. Schweigt auch dasselbe, so tritt das allgemeine und russische Reichsrecht also Entscheidungsnorm ein. ... es sey denn, dass die Anwendung mit der bestätigten Verfassung durchaus incompatibel wäre, oder die Natur der Sache die Anwendung nicht gestattete. Ein besonderer für diese Provinz gegebener Ukas ... würde unstreitig mit in das Gebiet des provinziellen Rechts zu siehen seyn, wenn er auch gleich ebenfalls im ganzen russischen Reiche gelten sollte. ... Eine Entscheidung nach Willkühr, oder sogar nach einem philosophischen Naturrecht (das ich bekanntlich überall nicht statuire), kann ich in solchen Fällen nicht gelten lassen: der Analogie will ich dagegen herzlich gern ihren Platz einräumen.” *45

In this medley of laws, nobody had created a scientific order or developed scientifically grounded implementation rules. For centuries, provincial law had developed purely through practice, although there were some established rules on how to implement different legal sources and how to avoid their collision. Nevertheless those rules needed to be reviewed scientifically and critically. Creating a scientific system and clarity from the heterogeneous muddle of provincial law had to become the first and most important task of the future professor of provincial law. Only such a scientific treatment could provide the local provincial law with a literary lining comparable with German jurisprudence, which would keep arbitrariness in legal practice at bay:

„Ueberall ist unbegreiflich, wie die Sache so lange ohne wissenschaftliche Behandlung und ihr folgende Gesetzgebung hat bestehen könnene, und nicht eine völlige Gesetzlosigkeit und Willkühr eingetreten sind: an der letzteren fehlt es indess nicht, und man muss sich zu dem, was man in Deutschland das Polster der literärischen Trägheit nennt, zu der - Praxis hier gewiss noch gratuliren, die, sey sie auch noch so schief, doch immer einige Regeln liefert. Die Analyse des besonderen Rechts der russischen Ostsee-Provinzen stellt uns dasselbe also ein Chaos der ungleichartigsten Dinge vor, welche ein schaffender Geist erst entwickeln, reinigen, zusammenfügen und beleben muss.” *46

Immensely extensive requirements on such future creative spirit and his preliminary knowledge rose out of the heterogeneous nature of the very same provincial law. Earlier sources (13th-16th century), which all through different subjection treaties had as formerly maintained their validity, required knowledge about the older Germanic law, canonical law and, in the case of Estonia, about the older Danish law. Inclusion of Kurland and Livonia in the Polish state in the 16th century meant that the scientific review of the sources of the time prerequired knowledge of the then Polish constitutional order and law. Swedish reign in Estonia and Livonia up to 1710 required, in turn, insight into the constitution and law of Sweden. Precisely the same requirements arose in connection with the Russian government which for Estonia and Livonia started in 1710 and for Kurland in 1795. Consequently, insofar as just command of corresponding foreign languages (Latin, Low German, Danish, Polish, Lithuanian, Swedish, Russian) was concerned, the eligibility criteria for scientific treatment of sources of provincial law were in fact enormous.

With all this, what undoubtedly strikes the eye is that in essence we are talking about the history of provincial law. Thus, one could ask “Why would a professor of current provincial law deal with sources from the 13th century?” The solution to this question was hidden in these very instruments of surrender. Upon incorporation of the Baltic provinces to the Polish, Swedish or Russian states, they had been assured that the existing law would remain in effect. Consequently, there was to be little new legislation, certainly not on the initiative of the provinces themselves. What could be added as new was the law enforced on the initiative of the corresponding states because the instruments of surrender contained the so-called Majesty clause. Dabelow who, having been a disciple of Daniel Nettelbladt, had a good background in demonstrative jurisprudence could not, in his heart, approve such an inevitable connection with the historic development, but, in provincial jurisprudence, he could not but accord with it:

„Den russischen Ostsee-Provinzen ist bei ihrer Unterwerfung nicht ein Rechtszustand bestätigt worden, den sich die Provintialen selbst zu machen für gut finden würden, sondern der hergebrachte. Unter solchen Bedingungen wurden sie auch von Polen und Schweden übernommen. Ein hergebrachter Rechtszustand ist der, welcher sich völkerrechtlich legitim gebildet hat, und wobei der Jurist nicht darnach fragt, ob er nach hocherleuchteten philosophischen Ansichten auch wohl legitim sey. Es ist auszumitteln, was bestand also wirliches und unbestrittenes Recht zu Anfang einer jeden Periode, und was wurde davon in der folgenden Periode abgeändert, und wie war nun wieder das in die neue Periode übergehende Recht beschaffen. Um diese Ausmittelung mit Glück unternehmen zu können, ist tiefes Studium der vaterländischen Geschichte nicht blos erforderlich, sondern er muss dieses Studium auch besonders auf das Rechtshistorische gerichtet werden.” *47

Thus, the nature of potential provincial jurisprudence was determined by the instruments of surrender of 1710 - in the first stage of development at least this science could by its nature only be legal-historical. The so-called philosophical legal dogmatics or legal dogmatics motivated by natural law was of no avail in this respect. But in order to start developing dogmatics, motivated by history, first the initially effective or special provincial law was to be distinguished from rights effective on a subsidiary basis:

„Die reine und unvermischte Behandlung der Provinzialrechte ist also das Erste, was ich von einem wissenschaftlichen Bearbeiter postulire. Bekümmere er sich allein um das prinzipaliter geltende, und sondere solches Scharf von dem zur Hülfe geltenden ab. Eine zweite Anforderung geht auf die historisch dogmatische Behandlung des prinzipaliter geltenden Provinzialrechts, statt der bisherigen philosophischen, oder wenn man lieber will, chaotischen.” *48

Already the very requirement of making a clear distinction between main and ancillary law reminds one of the beginning of historical jurisprudence when Gustav Hugo and Johann Friedrich Reitemeier set forth the demand that clear distinction must be made between law of Roman or German origin. But the fact that Dabelow had more in mind than Hugo or Reitemeier becomes obvious from his demand that dogmatics motivated by legal history should be developed. A setting forth of such a task in the beginning of the 1820s could within the German cultural space of the time mean only a call for following the track of the historical school. And indeed, in the first, historical stage of developing the dogma of provincial law, one had to proceed from the method of work of the historical school in order to distinguish between the still effective law:

„Ich würde diesen Theil des Provinzialrechts den historischen, oder vielmehr den rechtshistorischen nennen. ... mit ächt-rechtshistorischen Kunst, etwa in der Manier eines Eichhorns und Savigny gearbeitet werden müsste. ... Der rechtshistorische Künstler hebt heraus, was zu seinem Zweck erforderlich ist, und deutet das übrige entweder nur an, oder übergeht es ganz mit Schweigen. Seine Hauptaufgabe ist die geschickte Zusammenstellung des Rechtszustandes am Schlusse einer jeden Periode und Ausscheidung des noch gültigen von dem nicht mehr geltenden. ... Ich lege auf diesen historischen Theil des Provinzialrechts ein besonderes Gewicht, denn durch ihn allein kann das Chaos geordnet und belebt werden.” *49

Thus, Dabelow in his programme proceeds from the idea of making the Faculty of Law more scientific and for establishing provincial jurisprudence, from the idea of reception. However, it is not any more the reception of result, as could be observed from the goals set in 1802. Dabelow called for the reception of method. In his opinion, the local professors were to obtain in Germany the work methods consolidated as the modern trend of the historical school and apply them to studies of local and Russian law. It was in this sense that young Clossius had to fill his role as a teacher amongst his colleagues not much younger than he. Clossius was the first professor in the Faculty of Law of the University of Tartu who belonged to the historical school scientifically led by Savigny. What is also symptomatic is that the first book published in Tartu on Roman hermeneutics, or as we say today, on teaching of legal methods, was written by Clossius. *50

Just as Savigny rejected a simplistic dealing with the history of law, but rather believed the ultimate goal of jurisprudence to be a systematic task, *51 the same was contained in Dabelow’s programme on formation of provincial jurisprudence. In the first phase of work, resorting purely to research into the history of law, it had to be clarified what had affected local provincial law. This very same clarity was the essential basis for fulfilment of the task of systematisation that was to follow:

„... wird man zugleich in den Stand gesetzt, das System des noch geltenden Rechts wissenschaftlich zu begründen und auszuführen, und dies System selbst macht den zweiten Theil der wissenschaftlichen Bearbeitung des Provinzialrechts aus. Dieser zewiter Theil des Provinzialrechts, welchen ich den dogmatischen nenne, obgleich er ... auch nicht rein-dogmatisch seyn darf, enthält das noch gültige Provinzialrecht, wie es durch den Scheidungs-Prozess in dem rechtshistorischen Theile gewonnen worsen ist, rein und unverfälscht.” *52

Dabelow's rationale as to why even such systematic or dogmatic part of provincial law could not be purely dogmatical was also completely in keeping with Savigny's historical jurisprudence. While the prerequisite legal historical stage of work consisted of the study of the external history of law, during the shaping of the system, internal history of law also had to be addressed. Only through doing so was it possible to attain a principle suitable for serving as the basis of systematisation, called the “organic principle” by Savingy, *53 and the “spirit of laws” by Dabelow:

„Es giebt fast keine Lehre des hiesigen Provinzialrechts, welche in dem dogmatischen Theile richtig entwickelt werden könnte, wenn sie nicht zuvor mit dem historischen Theile in Verbindung gesetzt worden ist. ... Bei der dogmatischen Entwickelung selbst darf man es an der sogenannten inneren Rechtsgeschichte, oder wie ich die Sache nenne, Dogmengeschichte, um so weniger fehlen lassen, als sich aus dieser nur allein der Geist der Gesetze richtig darstellt.” *54

Thus, the programme for future development of provincial jurisprudence as a branch of science and learning existed. What was quite another question was who could undertake this Herculean task. In 1822 when Dabelow's article was published, there were two other professors in the faculty: Neumann, who we already mentioned, and Friedrich Lampe. Like Dabelow, neither of the two was an expert on local provincial law. Lampe was the only one who had read parts on Estonian provincial law. But this was not included in his duties as he was the professor of public law and thus he had plenty of other things to keep him busy within his own area. The same naturally applies to the remaining two. Consequently there were only two possibilities of filling vacant professorships:

(1) invite a professor from Germany;

(2) to make the best efforts so that the Faculty of Law of the University of Tartu would at least start preparing its scientific personnel.

As already demonstrated by the experiences of the first decades, the first option was difficult to implement or just did not yield the desired result. In the beginning of the 19th century, renowned German jurists were already so highly paid that they were not in the least interested in moving over to a Russian provincial university. Besides there were political (example of Professor Snell) or even religious obstacles. Thus, for instance Dabelow claimed that of the renowned scientists Karl Joseph Anton Mittermaier would be the only one likely to accept the invitation to the University of Tartu. But he could not be invited because he was a Catholic. *55 Young and inexperienced private docents did not meet the eligibility criteria arising out of the purview of Tartu's chairs of law as Dabelow believed.

Consequently, the second option was what remained - to take care of the training of subsequent scientific generation which was well in keeping with the aspirations of the Russian central government. As early as 1820, the imperial curator, Prince Carl von Lieven had announced that the University of Tartu had to present its proposals on the training of future instructors in Tartu and on their number in the faculties in order to have the vacancies filled. *56 The question so posed completely concurred with the prescript of the then Dean Dabelow concerning the options to fill the vacancies. One thing that Dabelow was convinced of was that future professors could not be prepared according to the departmental parameters envisaged in the University Charter. This belief primarily concerned the professorates of criminal law and history of law. So the faculty concluded that it was capable of ensuring such a training in the following subject matters: positive public and international law, Roman law, German law, general criminal law and procedure, Russian law and provincial laws. History of law and history of legal literature as well as practical legal theory were dropped. We already talked about the problems and possible solutions in relation to the first ones. Practical Legal Theory was in turn a problematic area. It was included in the duties of the professor of private law. He could, as was said, prepare future practitioners but not his successor to the same professorship. Practical legal theory could be obtained only though long-term practice. At its best, the University could just offer general theoretical bases of practice:

„Für die practische Rechtswissenschaft glaubt die Juristenfacultät gleichfalls nicht, ... daנes ihr gelungen würde, junge academische Lehrer zu bilden. Der Professor des bürgerlichen Rechts welchem die practische Rechtswissenschaft mit übertragen ist, vermag wol Geschäftsmänner zu bilden, aber keinen jungen Gelehrten welche in dieser Hinsicht wieder an seine Stelle träten. Um practische Rechtswissenschaft lehren zu können, bedarf es auإr der tiefen Theorie eine langjährige Übung als Richter Sachwald und Mitglied eines Schöffenstuhls. ... Wäre die hiesige Juristenfacultät nach dem Beyspiel der deutschen Facultäten ein SpruchCollegium, in welchen solche junge Docenten als Beysizzen eingeübt werden könnten, so lieإ sich die Sache machen. Aber so kann alle von der Facultät ausgehende Bildung nur eine rein theoretische, oder gemeinpractische seyn.” *57

Consequently, in preparing its next scientific generation, the Faculty had to confine itself to just the five above-cited domains.

At the same time, the substantive principles from which to proceed were defined. Corresponding training could be performed provided a separate seminary was formed. Only those were accepted to the seminary who had already completed a general academic course at the University. For admission, one had to sit an examination both in fundamental subjects (Fundamental-Kenntniإ) as well as in the part of jurisprudence the applicant planned to major in. Whether lectures could be held by a seminarist during his studies was to be completely at the Faculty’s discretion. A faculty could grant such permission provided that a manuscript of the planned lectures had been presented to it for review and approval. The length of studies in the seminary was to last until the young person joins the academic staff of the faculty as a professor. But the faculty could appeal for the status of a private docent for the seminarist if it considered him worthy of it. The funds for sustenance of seminarists and remuneration of their lectures were to be allotted from the general University budget on account of the vacancies of the faculty. As regards the form of study in the seminary, it had to be as flexible and diverse as possible, include both individual and group work, independent essays and conventional studies under supervision of professors. The faculty, however, considered the best form of work to be individual research work under supervision of an experienced professor. *58 According to the plan, the future seminar was to become a scientific oasis, in which the Humboldtian ideal about the unity of research, teaching and learning would be implemented in the best way.

However, a great “but” was hanging over all those beautiful plans. Independent scientific research called for corresponding literature and, in jurisprudence, for sources. In Dabelow's opinion, in 1820, the University library was very poorly supplied with legal literature and primarily with source editions. Therefore, the first prerequisite for the success of a scientific corps was extensive complementation of the library, first and foremost of source publications. The central government of Russia granted the corresponding request of the Faculty and apportioned in 1821 an amount (3,000 roubles) for purchasing legal literature and sources for the library. *59 So this obstacle had been removed. In any case, by 1824 Dabelow was able to compare the volume legal literature of the Tartu University library with that of Göttingen and Berlin. *60

A separate seminary for the training of young instructors was, however, never formed. But the Faculty obtained vacancies for private docents. Those were filled with young men who in the beginning delivered lectures under the supervision of a senior colleague. Thus, for instance Alexander v. Reutz started to teach Russian law in 1825 under the supervision of Professor Neumann, Friedrich Georg v. Bunge started teaching provincial law the same year under the supervision of Professor Dabelow. In addition to giving lectures, young men had the time and vigour to research into their subject matter. Both Reutz and Bunge won the Demidov prize. Reutz's textbook on the history of Russian law *61 became the most widely used textbook in Russian universities. Bunge is remembered in the history of jurisprudence primarily as the founder of the science of the local laws of the Baltic provinces. *62 In that it is remarkable that Bunge carried out Dabelow's 1822 programme practically in every detail in researching provincial law and eventually in the codification of local private law.

In the 1830s, the majority of the professors of the Faculty of Law were of local origin and so it remained until the beginning of Russification in 1889. Filling vacated positions was not too difficult any more. There was always a reserve of private docents who were disciples of the Faculty. Lectures that were given on the basis of foreign textbooks had become a rarity. Dabelow's idea to build the Faculty of Law of the University of Tartu on the reception of method had proved to be fruitful and justified. In the second half of the 19th century, some jurists of Tartu (August Michael Bulmerincq, Carl Magnus Bergbohm) became leaders in general German jurisprudence. Thus, due largely to the reception of method the Faculty of Law of the University of Tartu managed to integrate itself into the jurisprudental discourse both of the Russian Empire and Western Europe.

Apparently there is no sense to make a long summary, as the intent of the author should be absolutely clear by now. In our current legal reform based on the reception of Western legal culture, the reformers must bear in mind that a mere reception of results might not ensure integration. Just like the real reception, integration is a creative process which requires active contribution from the receiving party. *63 Communication and communicational ability are the conditions precedent of integration. In its course, it does not matter so much what is said but rather how something is said. In order that Estonian jurisprudence had its say in international jurisprudential discourse, it must first master its method of functioning.