An early expression of the German interest in the Norwegian constitution after 1814 is the political pamphlet by Henrich Steffens, a Norwegian-born author and natural scientist connected to several German universities. His work on the Norwegian parliament, published in Berlin in 1825, contained a translation of the Norwegian constitution.
1 H. Steffens, Der norwegische Storthing im Jahre 1824: geschichtliche Darstellung und Aktenstycke, (Berlin, 1825), pp. 176‒99. Whereas interest was somewhat limited during the first decades, the 1840s represented an upsurge of German translations of the Norwegian constitution. Fifteen of eighteen translations during this period were published in German states, reflecting the intensive domestic constitutional debates, culminating with the German revolution and the aborted National Assembly in Paulskirche in Frankfurt 1848‒9. In this context the Norwegian constitution served as a model and an inspiring example.
2 See also M. Löhnig, ‘Die norwegische Verfassung von 1814 in der deutschen Verfassungspublizistik des 19. Jahrhunderts’, Journal on European History of Law 10:1 (2019), 40‒4.In 1848‒9 alone the Norwegian constitution appeared as separate prints or as part of political pamphlets comparing different constitutions in Stettin, Nuremberg, Erlangen, Stuttgart, Wesel and several in Berlin.
3 Constitution des Königreichs Norwegen vom 17. Mai und 4. November 1814 (Stettin, 1848); F. W. Ghillany, Die Verfassung des Königreichs Norwegen: Das freisinnigste constitutionell-monarchische Grundgesetz in Europa (Nürnberg, 1848); A. Rauch, Parlamentarisches Taschenbuch enthaltend die Verfassungen von Nordamerika, Norwegen, Neapel, Toscana, Sardinien, Rom, Oesterreich, Belgien, der Schweiz, England und den Entwurf einer deutschen Reichsverfassung (Erlangen, 1848), vol. 1, pp. 27‒57; T. Bromme, Die Verfassungen der Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-Amerika, der Frei-Staaten Pennsylvania und Texas, der Königreiche Belgien und Norwegen, die Bundes-Verfassung der Schweiz und die Englische Staats-Verfassung Zur Beantwortung der Frage: Ob Republik, ob konstutionelle Monarchie? (Stuttgart, 1849); Welche Verfassung ist die beste? (Wesel, 1849); J. Horwitz, Die Verfassungen der constitutionell-monarchischen und republikanischen Staaten der Gegenwart. Zweite Lieferung, Nord-America, Belgien, Norwegen (Berlin, 1848); Die Verfassungen der Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-Amerika, des Staates New-York, des Königreichs Norwegen und des Königreichs Belgien (Berlin, 1848). The harsh censorship regime in most of the German states at the time restricted the editorial comments to a minimum. However, the political message was suggested between the lines. The Stettin publication was ‘dedicated to the free German nation’.
4 All translations are by the author when not stated otherwise. In the 1848 translation published in Nuremberg the title states that the Norwegian constitution is ‘the most liberal constitutional-monarchic constitution in Europe’. The preface underlines that many people are pointing to the Norwegian constitution in the current turbulent times, and it is argued that there would be public interest in a separate publication of the constitution – not just printed as a part of a collection.
5 F. Ghillany, Die Verfassung, p. 3.In addition to the translations, with or mostly without comments, the Norwegian constitutional system was discussed in several German books and encyclopaedias: in Leipzig in 1847, in Halle in 1848 (with the following statement in the title:
Die Norwegische Verfassung: ein Vorbild für Preussen), in Rotteck and Welcker’s important multivolume work
Staats-Lexicon (1841, 1847‒8) and in the two-volume account
Das Königreich Norwegens, statistisch beschrieben, written by the Norwegian author Gustav Peter Blom and published in Leipzig in 1843.
6 Parallele der Preussischen Verfassung vom 3. Februar 1847 mit den Verfassungen von Churhessen, Norwegen und Belgie (Leipzig, 1847); H. Hellmar, Die Norwegische Verfassung: ein Vorbild für Preussen (Halle, 1848); C. von Rottech and C. Welcker, Das Staats-Lexicon. Encyclopädie der sämmtlichen Staatswissenschaften für alle Stände 11 (Altona, 1841), pp. 584‒628; 2nd edn, 9 (Altona, 1847), pp. 764‒86; Supplemente zur ersten Auflage 4 (Altona, 1848), pp. 28‒57; G. P. Blom, Das Königreich Norwegens, statistisch beschrieben, 2 vol. (Leipzig, 1843). In his publication, Blom comments on the lack of knowledge about Norway and about the real relationship between Norway and Sweden among Germans, even though, as he points out, the constitution was known to the German readership through several translations (vol. 1, p. xi; vol. 2, p. 2). Additionally four German translations of the whole or parts of the constitution had been published between 1840 and 1844: by Ludolf Wienbarg in Altona in 1840, by August Theodor Brömel (published in Bergen in Norway and commissioned in Leipzig and Hamburg in 1842), in a pamphlet in Königsberg in 1843 (where the translation is introduced this way: ‘Everyone recognises the importance the constitution of the related people has for us Germans. ‒ It is difficult to speak about it publicly here, but hopefully that is also unnecessary’) and as an appendix in Theodor Mügge’s travelogue
Reise durch Skandinavien in 1844.
7 L. Wienbarg, Geist der Norwegischen Verfassung, Quadriga. Vermischte Schriften, vol. 1 (Altona, 1840), pp. 127‒246; A. T. Brömel, Die freie Verfassung Norwegens in ihrer geschichtlichen Entstehung und weiteren Entwicklung, ihrem Wesen und ihren Folgen (Bergen, 1842), pp. 297‒322; Grundgesetz des Königreichs Norwegen (Königsberg, 1843), p. 3; T. Mügge, Reise durch Skandinavien. Skizzen aus dem Norden, 2 vol. (Hannover, 1844), pp. 426‒51.In his seminal work on constitutional monarchism in post-Napoleonic Europe, Prutsch states that even if foreign constitutions did assume the role of a ‘stockroom’ of arguments for personal political purposes, the progressive Norwegian constitution did not become an ‘immediate reference point for Germans sceptical of “revolution” in any way, shape or form’.
8 M. Prutsch, Making Sense of, pp. 72, 52. The main obstacle was that little was known about political developments in Scandinavia. Prutsch refers to only one translation into German in 1815 (as we have seen, there were some more around 1814) and says that ‘a critical analysis or debate of the Constitution did not ensue’.
9 Ibid., p. 53. The Norwegian constitution was probably not a model in 1815, but it certainly became one during the pre-March period, particularly as part of the German constitutional discourse of the late 1840s. The publication of numerous translations and reprints of the constitutional document itself as well as other related kinds of publications on Norwegian political and constitutional life reflected a growing interest among German readers in information on this peripheral political entity and its constitutional system, which became a point of reference and a source of inspiration.
10 See also M. Löhnig, ‘Die norwegische Verfassung’, pp. 40‒4.