Abstract

Before 1933 commentaries on laws were exclusively juristic texts, written and read only by legal professionals. Beginning in 1934, scholars from different disciplines, especially medical scientists, began writing juristic commentaries. The essay examines the reasons for this development and explores how it changed the genre, using the example of the most important commentary on theBlutschutz-andEhegesundheitsgesetz, which resulted from the collaboration of two medical professionals and a legal professional. The article argues that the recruitment of non-juristic authors and the corresponding methodological changes were caused by a debate on a possible “reform” of juristic commentaries which took place in law journals. From the perspective of the National Socialist regime, the genre in its traditional form was not compatible with the Third Reich’s philosophy of law.In this new genre, commentaries not only referred to legal problems, but also dealt with issues from other disciplines, such as medical questions. The essay modifies Mitchell G. Ash’s theoretical approach regarding the “entanglement” of jurisprudence and other disciplines. Law and other sciences became, according to Ash, “resources for one another”: Legal scholars could claim that legal decisions were based on scientific facts and therefore “unquestionable.” The affected disciplines also gained greater importance as a result of this process in which their findings becoming legally relevant. This transformation also enabled them to acquire resources for new research projects.Moreover, the essay examines the connection between this development and the change of audience within German courts. Not only did the authors of the commentaries change, but also the recipients: Many laws passed after 1933 introduced new courts using lay judges, professionals with a non-law background. These “experts” came from multiple fields connecting them to the new law, such as medical professionals.