grundlinien.de

178

The natural dissolution of the family through the death of the parents, in particular of the man, has as its consequence inheritance with respect to the resources — an entry, by its essence, into the peculiar possession of resources that were, in themselves, held in common; an entry that becomes the more indeterminate, with the more remote degrees of kinship and within the condition, in civil society, of a dispersal that renders persons and families self-subsistent, the more the disposition of unity is thereby lost, and the more every marriage becomes the relinquishing of the previous family relationships and the founding of a new, self-subsistent family.

The notion of regarding, as the ground of inheritance, the circumstance that, through death, the resources become ownerless goods, and, as such, fall to whoever first takes possession of them — this taking of possession, however, being carried out, for the most part, by the relatives, as usually the nearest surroundings, which usual contingency is then elevated, by positive laws, into a rule for the sake of order — this notion leaves the nature of the family relationship out of consideration.

DE

Comments

One response to “178”

  1. Hegel (Notes) Avatar
    Hegel (Notes)

    Heinec[cius], Ant[iquitatum Romanarum liber I] p. 530. liberum olim erat, filios uti occidere, ita exheredare.
    Inheritance. As the transition of property to another individual, abstractly [considered] – can pass over only through will – Fichte, primus occupans – the children’s right to be nourished and raised out of it, only so much as is necessary for this, not the estate itself – But once already raised – the will of the parents or relatives is to be presumed – αα) they can will something wrong – ββ) with more distant relatives, not to be presumed at all,
    absolute ground of inheritance – law of inheritance, an unfortunate piece of capital – everything jumbled together
    α) absolute relation – marriage and children – common property
    β) – but where this relation is already not absolute – externality toward one another – the wife still belonging to her own family – the property of the husband or of the wife falls back to the family – an independent person in her own right
    If inheritance is an acquisition without the kinds determined above – and likewise without labor – acquisition appears through the contingency of merely external relations – simple within a patriarchal relation – but further on the relations [become] external –
    The patriarchal principle of preserving the family – its rank and splendor – carried into civil society, the state – αα) civil society – the principle [is] property – each family independent – property merely capital, to be acquired through labor, activity – ββ) the state – standing, property, within and through connection with the commonwealth – an absolute bond – not the family – the members of the family, within these connections, purposes – disposition, highest purpose set apart from one another – then a contingent gain – out of natural – i.e. without the significance of those purposes – relations.
    Disposition, love, only within the bond of the family living together – it becomes an external connection devoid of feeling and disposition – a contingent gain – inheriting from an uncle [?] in the East Indies –
    Ground of the testament – having fallen apart – having become separated
    of the family bond
    α) among the Romans, from the outset already no ethical relation – Cicero – one wife after another, richer, dowry, more beautiful – stupid, sent away again –
    β) but further removed – in place of this total contingency, as external and natural, [there enters] that of subjective arbitrary will – I cannot command for the future
    αα) admittedly abstractly [valid]
    ββ) But I am not wronged by its non-observance – right, personhood, immediate existence, [wronged] only if not recognized reciprocally.
    “It was once open to free men to disinherit their children just as it was to kill them.”

Leave a Reply