The paper intends to investigate the sources of the very concept of charisma in Max Weber, starting from some polemical readings made by Carl Schmitt. Aside from theologian Karl Holl, particular attention is devoted to Protestant jurist Rudolf Sohm and to his masterwork Kirchenrecht. Weber started to read it attentively in 1909, at the beginning of his project called Economy and Society, In the writings that make the most of this posthumous work that he never really ended, charisma is meant (...) as the non-juridical key for official and hierarchic organizations – Roman Church may not be the only good example: charisma creates concrete social associations elsewhere. Gradually, such organizations get more and more legal, as long as they lose their ‘extraordinary’ traits. The analysis will show how obedience and recognition are originally created by charisma and how they structure the ties that bind the followers to their leader, a hero, a prophet, or similar charismatic personalities. Being originally anti-economic, anti-institutional, charisma gets to be gradually objectified in a legal order provided with specific economical traits. In its last part, the paper analyses the famous conference Max Weber held in Munich in 1919, Politics as Vocation. Politics is identified as the intersection between charisma and bureaucracy, in the handling of the relationship between the two elements of devotion to the leader and the cause and the party machine. (shrink)

The paper is devoted to an overview of Cassirer’s work both as historian of philosophy and historian of science. Indeed, the “intelletcual cooperation” between history of philosophy and history of science represents an essential feature of Cassirer’s style of philosophizing: while the roots of a wide exploration stretching from Renaissance thought to modern physics go back to the Neo-Kantianism of the Marburg School, the results of a similar cross-fertilization of research fields have deeply contributed to shaping new standards of inquiry. (...) Cassirer’s relationship with the Warburg milieu in Hamburg and late in his life with the American intellectual scenario are surely worthy of closer investigation. Distinguished scholars such as Meyerson, Brunschvicg, Burtt, Koyré, Metzger, Lovejoy, Kristeller, have disussed, appreciated, critizised Cassirer’s still today fascinating studies devoted to Pico della Mirandola, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, to mention but a few. To explore some of these aspects focusing both on affinities and differences within a cosmpolitian intellectual community can provide a better understanding of philosophy and history of science in the first half of 20th century. Cassirer’s legacy requires, therefore, a new assessment. (shrink)