[p. 573]
|573| of the communes and, taken together with the further sphere of business of scribedom mentioned above, also that of the individual citizens upon the town and district scribes. Those heads of communes formerly alone elected the diet deputies, and of the members of the committees the greater part was from the class of the scribes. In the Gries[inger] opinion, p. 72, it says: “The improvement or even the recasting of the institution of scribes had to find, despite its defects so often felt and censured, the greatest adversaries in the representatives of the estates, who for the most part themselves were scribes or at least were under the influence of scribes, because every main improvement stood in the most manifest contradiction with their interest.” – With this everything is said. But what appears as a were, had, as something past, of the earlier diets and committees of the estates of the realm, was it not also a relationship, like the history of this assembly of estates itself? has it done anything effective to sweep away such an Augean stable? would it not have raged in its own entrails? Have the ever repeated efforts of Herr von Forstner, who let himself not be wearied by its delays, been able to bring it about that after a year and a day even merely a report of the committee has come about, much less that a deliberation or even a resolution would have entered into the matter?10)
10) Hegel’s footnote. What was still done in Nov. 1816 will be mentioned below.
It is characteristic that the complaints and grievances came almost only from New Württemberg, as if Old Württemberg had been so entangled, actively and passively, in such a condition that it had had no consciousness and feeling, or rather only that of resigned despair on the one side and on the other only a privileged conscience wholly secured in the good, old, guaranteed rights! – It may have contributed its share
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.