On the Conclusion of the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe: A meta-critical Review

Abstract

On the Conclusion of the Max Weber GesamtausgabeA meta-critical Review Klaus Lichtblau1 Translated by Sam Whimster The weakest side of any classic is that it is written too much in the mother tongue of the author. Friedrich Nietzsche Introduction The Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, which started publication in 1984, has been brought to a successful completion in June 2020. In total it comprises 45 hefty volumes—some of which are divided into half volumes— and two index volumes. The first Section of the Gesamtausgabe has published all the known writings and lectures, and the second Section has published all the letters that have come down to us. The third Section has documented the various lecture courses that Max Weber gave at the universities of Freiburg im Breisgau, Heidelberg and Munich over the period 1894 to 1920.2 Behind these numbers lies a long history and, above all, a huge amount of work by the Gesamtausgabe editors, by the editors and their assistants of the individual volumes, and, in addition, the permanent office of the general redaction of the Gesamtausgabe, which has been based in the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and without [End Page 74] whose operation this mammoth undertaking would certainly not have been brought to a successful conclusion. The origins and developing dynamic of the Gesamtausgabe have already been presented in detail by those with the necessary competence, and there is no need here to go into further detail.3 What will be asked in what follows is whether this collective effort with its huge amount of work and the enormous costs associated with it has 'paid off'. By this is meant not whether it paid off in narrow commercial terms, but the question of whether the original hopes and fears attending the edition have been substantially justified or not. The answer to this question is dependent on the evaluative measure that is selected. A starting point is the corresponding announcements of the editorial committee which had it first formal meeting at the end of 1975 at the Werner-Reimers Foundation in Bad-Homburg. Its members were Horst Baier (Constance), M. Rainer Lepsius (Heidelberg), Wolfgang J. Mommsen (Düsseldorf), Wolfgang Schluchter (Heidelberg), and Johannes Wincklemann (Munich). On the death of Mommsen in 2004 the historian Gangolf Hübinger (Frankfurt am Oder) joined the committee. He along with Wolfgang Schluchter were then faced with whether the mammoth enterprise could be successfully brought to a conclusion after the untimely deaths of Baier (2017), Lepsius (2014), Mommsen (2004) and Winckelmann (1985). In this connection the criticisms which had been levelled at the older editions of Max Weber's writings were an important impetus in bringing about the Gesamtausgabe. Finally there is the question whether this Gesamtausgabe actually enables Weber's work to be considered in an essentially differentiated way from the situation obtaining prior to the appearance of the individual volumes of the Gesamtausgabe. This in every way is the real 'Gretchen' question that faces the enterprise, which from the start has been associated with so many positive expectations but also unfounded fears. There are many engaged with the works of Max Weber who are of the view that the old [End Page 75] editions of his writings are still perfectly adequate in obtaining a clear idea of the importance of his work.4 Could it be that future research and teaching does not require the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe (and the Max Weber Student Edition) and its historical-critical foundation? This viewpoint can only be seriously entertained by those who believe that with a spartan limitation to a couple of canonical texts Weber can be distilled to a 'Max Weber paradigm'.5 What comes out may well be highly concentrated, but every paradigmatic definition and narrowing is based on the conscious abandonment of the inclusive body of texts provided by an historical-critical edition. In the case of the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe this embraces not just the imprint of the writings, letters, and lectures but also the comprehensive introductions, the respective editorial reports as well as the numerous commentaries to the individual volumes of the edition. This makes it possible in the first place to open up these texts in...