HASEBROEK, Johannes Hermann Ernst
Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums. Hamburg; study at Heidelberg, 1912-14 ; Berlin, 1914-15; D. Phil. Heidelberg, 1916; Phil. Habil., Hamburg, 1921.
Die Fülschungen der Vita Nigri und Vita Albini in den Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Heidelberg, 1916); Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Sepdmius Severus. Habilitation thesis (Hamburg, 1921; printed, Heidelberg, 1921).
- Professional Experience:
Lecturer, Hamburg, 1919-25; extraordinarius, Zurich, 1925-7; ordinarius, Cologne, 1927-57.
Staat und Handel im alten Griechenland. Untersuchungen zur antiken Wirtschaftsges-
chichte. Tübingen, 1928; reprinted Hildesheim, 1966. English translation by L. M. Fraser and D. C. MacGregor as Trade and Politics in Ancient Greece. London, 1933; reprinted Nêw York, 1965.
Griechische Wirtschafts> und Gesellschaftsgeschichte bis zur Perserzeit. Tübingen, 1931; reprinted Hildesheim, 1966.
Articles and Monographs
“Griechisches Bankwesen.” Hermes 55 (1920) 113-173
Dos Signalement in den Papyrusurkunden. Papyrusinstitut Heidelberg, Schrift 3. Berlin and Leipzig, 1921.JOHANNES HASEBROEK
“Die Betriebsformen des griechischen Handels im IV. Jahrhundert.” Hernies 58 (1923) 393-425.
Der imperialistische Gedanke im Altertum. Stuttgart, 1926.
The unhappy life of Johannes Hasebroek, one of this century’s most distinguished German historians of ancient Greek social and economic history represents for some scholars, personal misfortune and political circumstances combined to deny them the satisfaction of publishing the results of a lifetime’s scientific work and of forming a school around themselves. It is most difficult even now, only three decades after his premature death, to reconstruct a full idea of the man who produced the two books on economy and society in ancient Greece. They not only made a great impression on the contemporary public and established his international renown among his peers as a reputable and—since he was still relatively young—a promising scholar but also produced a highly commendable, if not obligatory, source that must be taken into consideration by all those who, even today, are interested in Greek society from the archaic through the early classical periods and in the nature of ancient economy. It is a fine tribute to the enduring impact of his closely documented research that even those who would now profoundly reformulate the secular debate on the “primitivism” or “modernism” of economy and society on different terms, still feel it necessary to demonstrate carefully what Hasebroek would hâve been the last to deny, i.e., that his position, based on a solid study of one or two epochs of Greek history, cannot any longer be an unquestioned universal due to a general characterization of the economies of the Mediterranean during that one-and-a-half millennia that usually forms the chronological framework of ancient Greek and Roman history. If so, the more important scientific theses, though naturally more or less appropriately restated by subsequent research, remain forcefully present in the still-current debates that began in the early sixties. The following sketch is intended to furnish those biographical data that might be useful for assessing more correctly Hasebroek’s scientific achievement and, incidentally, to disprove, at least in part, the melancholic end of the verses cited above as an epigraph.
Johannes (or John, as he was christened originally, following an onomastic variant typical of northern Germany) Hasebroek was the son of a distinguished physician of wide interests who profoundly influenced the intellectual formation of his promising offspring. Not without self-irony, he once remarked to a younger university colleague that he was “a scion of an old Hamburg patrician family,” and though this is hardly correct in the narrow sense, it shows quite clearly the social pretensions and the moral atmosphere of an upper-middle-class family in the second great city of the Germany of the post-Bismarck era. “Old” the family was indeed, since its Dutch and Flemish origins can be traced back to the late fifteenth century, as young Hasebroek established by a personal, quasiprofessional genealogical research that occupied him repeatedly at various times in his life and was written down in his last years in a lengthy manuscript now, unfortunately, lost. A great-uncle, who served as a minister to a Dutch denomination, and a great-aunt distinguished themselves as romantic poets who, though perhaps in a marginal way, contributed to the formation of the modern Dutch national conscience, while another member of the family emigrated from Leyden to the United States, where he died a citizen of Missouri in 1866. The son of this man was Hasebroek’s father, who came to Germany with his mother after his father’s early death and, after studying medicine, settled at Hamburg, ran a doctor’s office, and published the results of personal experiments in fields as different as cardiology, anatomy, entomology (!), and the psychology of visual perception. In the deep moral crisis pervading Republican Germany after its defeat in World War I, he even felt compelled to participate in the debate over a moral refounding of the upset equilibrium of German society and politics by publishing (with the aid of his son) a full-length essay on the necessity of believing in (a somewhat deistic) God. Unsurprisingly for a German citizen of rather recent stock in those times, he seems to have shared strongly the patriotic feelings of the age, making his young son read the heavy volumes of Treitschke’s German history and giving his consent to his son’s wish to change (in 1914!) his English-sounding name to the more Germanie Johannes. Nevertheless, the Anglophone world remained a self-evident reference point, and when Hasebroek’s younger sister married a Danish diplomat from the family of the poet Pontoppidan (1857-1943), it seemed natural that conversation between the families should be in English.
Scions of Hamburg families of this type traditionally got their schooling at the Johanneum, a Gelehrtenschule once directed by such eminent men as the Thucydides scholar Johannes Classen (1805-1891) and the school of famous students of antiquity such as Erwin Rohde (1845-98), Jacob Bernays (1824-81), J. Geffcken (1861-1935), C. F. Lehmann-Haupt (1861-1938), and, first and foremost, Eduard Meyer (1855-1930). There young Hasebroek studied, though it seems that he did not entirely approve or enjoy the encyclopedic way of teaching then canonical at this sort of school. In one of the few surviving autobiographical texts, he reluctantly recalls a feeling of being overfed with too much knowledge of a disconnected nature and of having no time for developing his more personal interests. If not misled by hindsight, we may discover here an early manifestation of Hasebroek’s personal style of working, i.e., digging up deeply and effectively a field of research of his own choice, thus reaching good and valuable results, but sometimes risking to cling to his own individual, if not (in a few respects) idiosyncratic, insights, irrespective of a more balanced view that could perhaps have been gained by taking note more fully of the conceptual framework proposed by his co-researchers. It is true, however, that this subjective inclination enabled him to State his views very effectively, leaving no doubt where he stood and marking dissenting opinions most clearly.
So it remains uncertain how much prep school may have influenced his intellectual formation, and the same tendency to independence of work and autonomy of judgment seems to have prevailed in his years as a university student. Under the influence of Eduard Meyer’s Geschichte des Altertums (1884-93), a work he had read as a pupil, he chose to supplement his central subjects (history, especially ancient, and classical philology) by a full course of archaeology and at least the rudiments of some ancient Near Eastern languages, especially Egyptian, which he studied under Hermann Ranke (1880-1917), who had recently corne back from the United States, where he had been a coworker of the Nippur excavations of the University of Pennsylvania. This extensive attempt to master different, though connected, fields shows quite clearly that young Hasebroek had made up his mind to strive for the erudite life of a German professor, and had been brought into contact with some of the best teachers of Heidelberg University, the archaeologists F. von Duhn (1851-1930) and Rudolf Pagenstecher (1879-1921), the philologists Fritz Schoell (1850-1919) and Franz Boll (1867-1924), the art historian Carl Neumann (1860-1934), and the historian Hermann Oncken (1869-1945). His real teacher, however, was the ancient historian Alfred von Domaszewski (1856-1927), a somewhat scurrilous pupil of Mommsen’s, who had done inter alia some very good research on Latin epigraphy and Roman military history, and who was best known at that time for an idiosyncratic two-volume history of the Roman emperors written for a wider public and making some doubtful concessions to what its author deemed the gusto of the times. It was he who proposed to Hasebroek a study on the emperor Septimius Severus as the passport to a university career and, when this proved too long to be done in the then usual four-year course, accepted a preparatory research on two pertinent vitae from the notoriously unreliable Scriptores Historiae Augustaeas Hasebroek’s doctoral dissertation in June 1916. Though not called to arms in World War I because of health, Hasebroek was influenced infelicitously in his career by the difficulties of a nation at war and the straits of the post-war years. So it was only five years after the doctoral examination that he could present his full study on Severus as a thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Habilitation at Hamburg University in 1921. Meanwhile, he had done war service as a compulsory stopgap teacher at a Berlin Gymnasium, had collaborated with Hermann Dessau in preparing a volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum on a part-time basis, and had tried to complete his knowledge of the ancient world by frequenting some courses at Berlin University, an institution that was not unknown to him, since he had interrupted his Heidelberg years for two (as it seems, not wholly successful) semesters at Berlin. As far as we can know, during the Berlin years Hasebroek received those scientific influences and had those new experiences that led him to the subjects that made him famous. If Assyriology under Friedrich Delitzsch (1813-90) was an experience he did not pursue in later life, it must have been the papyrological seminar of Ulrich Wilcken (1866-1944), publishing soon afterwards his well-known paper, “Alexander and the Hellenistic economy,” in 1921, and the lectures of the economist Werner Sombart (1863-1941) that guided him to his new field of research.
The doctoral dissertation and the Habilitationsschrift admittedly showed a young man mastering in a respectable way the whole set of tools necessary for a solid interpretation of literary, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence and, moreover, though being firmly rooted in Domaszewki’s teaching, are a good testimony to his independ- ence of thought, kindly conceded by the liberal temper of his fatherly teacher. The usefulness and the solidity of his book on Septimius Severus, acknowledged even fifty years later by the author of the latest full study of that emperor (A. Birley, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor  xi; 2f.; 5; 5n; for Hasebroek’s dissertation, see Ibid., llf.), earned him the deserved liberty of teaching at the new university of his hometown, where he had returned for economic reasons after temporarily holding an assistantship under Friedrich Preisigke (1856-1924) at the Papyrological Institute of Heidelberg University; but it cannot be overlooked that, measured against the vigorous new approach of the later books on Greek history, both his doctoral dissertation and Habilitationsschrift, do indeed smack a bit not only of the virtues, but also of the limitations, of what is nowadays disdainfully called “career literature.”
This was noted also by the faculty referee, the Greek historian Erich Ziebarth (1868-1944), but it should not be presumcd. that it might have influenced the fact that Hasebroek had to wait more than four years before winning his first associate professorship (Extraordinariat) at Zürich University in late 1925. Economic difficulties of German universities and, as their corollary, de-occupation were a widespread fact of life among university graduates in these years. Hasebroek, though sometimes suffering from bad health, took all pains to make the best of his, on the whole, unsatisfying situation: He used his four years as an unpaid lecturer (i.e. receiving only a small honorary fee that did not amount to a living wage) to establish a well-arranged sequence of systematic lectures, covering the whole range of Greek and Roman history. They enjoyed even more success when he moved to his later professorships and altemated this cycle with lectures on more specific topics and seminars dealing with problems related to his own research or discussing new findings of extraordinary importance. It was this type of teaching that he maintained all his professional life and that gained him a grateful audience of impressive size even among the new (and still small) universities where he spent most of his teaching life.
As early as 1920 he had published a long paper on Greek banking and bankers, exploring successfully an important aspect of his new interests and showing unmistakably the directions that he intended to take in the following decade (for a fair recent evaluation of this first paper see R. Bogaert, Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques [Leiden, 1968] 19). In fact, a second essay on the organizational charac- teristics of Greek trade was subjoined before long. Though dedicated mainly to a very close mustering of Attic orators and inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE and though he steered clear of generalities, he circumspectly tried to connect his specialist research to the more general problem of the nature of ancient economy. This had provoked a violent controversy some twenty-five years before, involving such eminent scholars as Karl Bücher (1847-1930) and L. M. Hartmann (1865-1924) on one side and R. von Pöhlmann (1852-1914), K. J. Beloch (1854-1929), and Eduard Meyer on the other. Hasebroek, who, on a more general level, was an admirer of Meyer’s historical achievement and in his student years had temporarily thought of making himself a pupil of this leading Berlin professor, now carefully avoided reopening the controversy as such but made it perfectly clear that, in his view, the proud position of the modernizers, then sometimes called the Meyer-Beloch orthodoxy, could not stand any longer and that Bücher, though exaggerating and propounding an untenably schematic theory of stages of economic development, had discerned the “primitive” character of ancient economy, and especially that of archaic Greece, in an essentially correct way. Sharpening and refining this general view with relation to Greek history from the “Dark Ages” to the fourth century BCE was to become his main occupation for the next ten years, the decade of his greatest activity and achievement. While these two preparatory articles kept strictly to the documents and avoided making more theoretical involvements explicit, his lecture on the idea of imperialism in antiquity, given to Swiss schoolteachers in 1926, revealed for the first time the strong impact of Max Weber’s (1864-1920) historico-sociological typifications and conceptualizations, made more gen- erally accessible by the publication of Weber’s collected papers soon after his death in 1920. It has been observed, rightly, that Hasebroek was the first (and for a long time the only) ancient historian in Germany to try to put to a fuller use (though surely in a version of reduced complexity) the Weberian approach. On the contrary, it has been deplored by some recent critics that Hasebroek tended to narrow too much the theoretical dimension and consequences of what had been at stake in the debate of a generation before and of what should have been a consequence of a really full appreciation of what Weber offered. Perhaps it should be noted, in fairness, that Hasebroek began his respective research as a rather “lonely hunter” who did the best he could reasonably do. He stressed the necessity of laying solid philological foundations for that field that looked most appropriate for proving his case and avoided what was then considered the kind of excessively high-brow theorizing that might have compromised the acceptability of the whole of his intentions, at least to some colleagues. Though it is not quite clear to what extent Hasebroek believed “primitivism” (as opposed to “modernism”; he seems to have been the first to use exactly this opposition in that context) to be characteristic of the whole span of time called antiquity (probably not so), it is beyond doubt that Weber’s approach, which, at that time, could be a guarantee of originality and novelty in ancient history, served him well in at least two respects. In 1927, when his great book on trade and politics (Staat und Handel im alten Griechenland) was known to be imminent, it procured him his first full professorship at Cologne University, recently refounded from an earlier trade school and, in harmony with some trends of the Weimar years, strongly emphasizing the new “social sciences” (his unsuccessful rivais were Joseph Vogt (1895-1986) and Helmut Berve (1896-1979), later to become the leaders of the two most influential schools in Gcrman ancient history). More important still, this approach was the main factor leading to the impressive revival and, in a sense, to the first real debate of his more important theses in the broadened intellectual context after World War II and also, sadly, after his death. Staat und Handel provoked a rather intense, though not always wholly amiable, debate, mostly in the form of lengthy reviews in which some of the rising generation took part quite forcefully, noting the originality of the views expressed and the solidity of their philological basis but criticizing a sometimes polemical unilaterality and minor deficiencies. Regrettably, we don’t hear anything of how the older protagonists of the earlier controversy reacted, especially K. J. Beloch and Eduard Meyer, but 81-year-old Karl Bücher (1847-1930), though not participating in public discussions any longer, is said to have shown signs of pleased approval. One of the finest tributes to the importance of the book undoubtedly was the proposai, made by still unidentified British scholars immediately after its publication, to arrange for an English edition, a rather rare event in those days for a scholarly book whose technical details evidently had little appeal to a general public with little Greek. Ever since its publication in 1933, it has secured his ideas a wide fame, especially in the Anglophone world, where, to the testimony of some distinguished scholars, the book was recommended as obligatory reading for students specializing in Greek history in more than one university even in the fifties, that is, before its revival in the context of the Finleyan debate initiated in 1962 on the occasion of the Second Congress of Economie History at Aix-en-Provence.
Meanwhile, Hasebrook had rounded out his systematic approach with an- other book expounding his theories in a more historical perspective, remedying in this way some of the shortcomings of his previous study and emphasizing the usefulness of his Weberian concepts for a structuring of Greek economy and society from Homeric times to the end of the Persian Wars. Though obviously less innovative in those aspects already expounded in the previous book, it still contributed forcefully to establishing his renown as one of the very few serious German students of ancient economic history. The intensity of elaborating this second book; the friendly conversation with some of his colleagues, among whom should be noted the liberal historian Johannes Ziekursch (1876-1945)—a firm opposer to the Bismarck myth—and the sociologist Paul Honigsheim (1885-1963), one of the younger members of the famous Weber circle at Heidelberg; successfully reaching to a growing audience; discussing problems (human and professional) with his first pupils, supervising their doctoral dissertations and entertaining them at home once a semester; some motor touring in the beloved Mediterranean landscape of Southern France, Italy, and Greece (driving his own car and and thus stressing, too, his distance from the then-still-dominating professorial type of the “Geheimrat”); and the incisive participation in current debates through some extended, carefully pondered reviews (e.g. of Berve’s Griechische Geschichte I, of Hans Schaefer’s Staatsform und Politik and of RostovtzefPs History of the Ancient World)—all this made him feel that the first quinquennium Coloniense was the happiest period and, in a sense, the acme of his personal and scholarly life.
But all this was soon to come to a rather sad end. Human problems—the trauma of a divorce from his first wife, a red-haired beauty too fond of life to share the tranquil existence of this scholar—and serious pulmonary disease, which prevented him for several years from fulfilling his teaching duties, not only brought him to the verge of depression, but hindered him from throwing himself energetically into the study of a new project or from resuming older working plans, such as a full-scale study on slavery in Greco-Roman Egypt, begun in his Berlin years and never brought to an end. A temporary plan of procuring a new edition of the epigraphical monuments of Roman Cologne had to be rejected for lack of funds. This sort of (partly enforced) inactivity seems to have contributed to some degree to weakening, in the end, his professional position in his own faculty. Some of his friends had left Cologne as victims of the Nazi reorganization that struck the university in the first months of the new régime. Others preferred silence. Indeed, for those who neither actively opposed nor actively supported the new governance, there was not much left to stimulate grand-scale original research that was by no means certain to reach an interested public. Illness did the rest, necessitating several serious operations and prolonged stays in Alpine health resorts. Paradoxically, it was the friendly ambience of a Swiss sanitorium that provided the context for that shameful political denunciation that led to his ultimate removal (in late 1937) from his university post. Some friends in the faculty, hoping to avoid a political scandal and cooperating with some more moderate collaborators of the Berlin Education Department, saw to it that the removal was made for “reasons of bad health” and not for “political reasons,” which would have involved loss of all means of support.
At age forty-five, having lost his wife, his post, and most of his friends, Hasebroek was a very lonely man. If ever he had seriously thought of emigrating (there are some hints of such plans in 1933, though not wholly conclusive), the best opportunity now seemed to have passed by unused. After some years of wandering about, he tried to settle down at Heidelberg and to resume work on a private basis. In 1936, when he believed that his disease would cease within a short time, he made up his mind to write a social and economic history of early Rome (up to the end of the Struggle of the Orders). He began to work through those ancient authors he could easily take to his health resort, but of course he lacked the support of a large library and the helpful discussions of specialized scholars. Again his chief idea was to find in Weberian concepts the guidelines for a rethinking of early Roman history, which was still dominated by Mommsen’s public-law approach. The manuscript of this book, nearly completed in 1942, has survived, though it lacks one chapter at the end. Intended as a Roman counterpart to his book on Greek history of 1931, it cannot be said to have come up to Hasebroek’s previous standards in every respect. He somewhat mechanically tried to discover the same structural principles in early Rome that he had found in archaic Greece, construing some of his sources’ information in a quasi-mathematical spirit so as to fit onto the grid of his concepts, ignoring or underrating occasionally the different situation in Rome. So, the outcome of his long endeavor was a not wholly conclusive mixture of constitutional and social history, revealing that Hasebroek’s main ideas had evolved little in the past decade. Still more than the Greek studies it showed the difficulties Hasebroek felt in keeping in touch with the new developments, especially in the field of archaeological research, so fundamental for a new assessment of early Rome. In part this is surely a consequence of his fatal isolation (first imposed from the outside and then continued as a personal choice in consequence of his self-image as an “outsider” and a “failure”) that prevented continuous conversation with colleagues and pupils, usually a most efficient antidote to reasoning in isolation. As it seems, the only partner to whom he revealed his plans in these years and whom he asked for scholarly opinions was his Zürich succcessor Ernst Meyer (1900-1975), who in 1948 published his most successful monograph, Römischer Staat und Staatsgedanke, which treated some of Hasebroek’s problems in a more balanced way and in a broader context.
The scarcity of the paper supply precluded any thought of publication in the war years and in the early fifties, when Hasebroek made the last effort to find an editor for his ill-fated manuscript. After the war, he seems never to have tried again seriously to update his materials and to rewrite those parts that most needed a new discussion in the light of new findings. One of the few scholars who met him after the war, Wolfgang Liebeschuetz (b. 1927), the son of his famous classmate Hans (1893-1978) and himself a distinguished student of antiquity, recalls the vivid impression of a friendly though somewhat depressive man looking older than he really was and largely living in a world of ideas and connaissances now lost: “The creative spark had been knocked out of him.” When the Cologne faculty invited him to resume his chair in 1946, he characteristically felt unable to do so. The never-quite-vanquished consequences of his pulmonary disease prevented him from pursuing prolonged oral teaching duties, and, moreover, he probably then already felt himself to be a stranger to many of the new scholarly developments of the preceding decade.
He passed his last years as a private scholar in a small village near Lübeck, reading his old books (and much belles lettres), discussing problems of democracy and of religion with the village physician and the parson, speaking on friendly terms to the neighbors’ children in the garden, looking up documents on the history of his family and meditating, now and then, on the problems of his social history of early Rome. Fits of discontent and a sense of “failure,” however, never again permitted his brooding mind to resume his former fancy in cello playing, a joyful pastime of his Berlin years, which he occasionally exercised in a chamber quartet that included such celebrities as Ulrich Wilcken and Albert Einstein. A second marriage to a sensible and helpful woman unfortunately came too late to restore him to serious work. Of what he might have written, he never published anything after 1937. His life as a scholar had ended long before he died in early 1957. There were no colleagues at his burial, and nobody thought of writing an obituary worthy of this scholar.
It is not known whether Hasebroek ever knew of that fundamental article by which Edouard Will (Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 9  7-19) re- sumed the old debate in a most influential way, setting the standard for all further discussions and paying a very honorable tribute to the achievements of his German predecessor. He did not live to see the renewed interest given to his approach in the new climate of the sixties; in Germany, for example, the critical sympathy of parts of the Christian Meier school, where it may be considered a hereditary reference point deriving from the work of their archegetes Hans Schaefer (1906-61); in the English-speaking countries and then all over the world through H. L. Pearson , Karl Polanyi (1886-1964), and most conspicuously through the work of M. I. Finley (1912-86); in France through Edouard Will (1920-97) and his followers; and last but not least in Italy, with its strong interests in the history of historiography, where a full collection of Hasebroek’s more important works was brought out only at the end of the twentieth century. Few of all these distinguished scholars will now subscribe to Hasebroek’s theses telles quelles, but there are still fewer who believe that modem students could do their work ignorant of his insights. So it is not only for pietas that we should recall this man and the difficult circumstances against which he struggled to achieve a work of scholarship that, though small and forced to remain unfinished, proved intellectually coherent and vigorously innovative.
Golczewski, F. Külner Universitâtslehrer und der Naticmalsozialismus. Studien zur
Geschichte der Universitât Kôln 8. Cologne and Vienna, 1988: 112 with note 24 (not wholly satisfactory), 283, 453.
Heimbüchel, B. “Die neue Universitât. Selbstverstândnis-Idee und Verwirkli-
chung." In Külner Universitâtsgeschichte. Bd. II. Cologne and Vienna, 1988: lOlff. (Important for the general background of Cologne University; for Hasebroek see p. 506f., with some factual errors.)
Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrtenkalender. 1921ff.
Losemann, V. Naticmalsozialismus und Antike. Studien zur Envwicklung des Fachs Alte Geschichte 1933-1945. Hamburg, 1977: esp. 41 and 201 f.
Marcone, A. “Una poco conosciuta recensione di M. Rostovtzeff.” Athenaeum 65 (1987) 541-542.
Nâf, Beat. Von Perikles zu Hitler? Die athenische Demokratie und die deutsche Althistorie bis 1945. Bern, 1986: esp. 176 f., but see index 327.
Pack, E. “Johannes Hasebroek und die Anfânge der Alten Geschichte in Kôln. Eine biographische Skizze.” Geschichte in Kôln 21 (June 1987): 5-42. (With full bibliography of Hasebroek’s writings and the doctoral dissertations written under his guidance.)
“Una lettera di Johannes Hasebroek a M. I. Rostovtzeff.” Athenaeum 65 (1987) 542-547.
Weiss, A. “Johannes Hasebroek.” Rupertenblâtter (Heidelberg). No. 18 (May 1957).
Personal files in the University Archives of Cologne, Hamburg, Heidelberg, and Zürich; private letters; personal information from various contemporaries.
- Author: Edgar Pack