Group 47

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a group 47 which are participants in the German-speaking writers meeting referred to which Hans Werner Richter from 1947 invited to the 1967th The meetings served the mutual criticism of the texts read aloud and the promotion of young, as yet unknown authors. The Group 47 award, determined in a democratic vote, turned out to be the beginning of their literary careers for many award winners. Group 47 had no form of organization, no fixed membership list and no literary program, but was strongly influenced by Richter's invitation practice.

In its early days, the group offered 47 young writers a platform for renewing German literature after the Second World War . It later advanced to become an influential institution in the cultural scene in the Federal Republic of Germany , at whose conferences important contemporary authors and literary critics took part. The cultural and political influence of Group 47 has been the subject of much debate. Even after the end of their conferences in 1967, former participants of the group continued to point the way for the development of German-language literature.

A plaque on the house commemorates the meeting.
Group 47 met for the first time in Ilse Schneider-Lengyel's house on Bannwaldsee near Füssen .

history

Background: the reputation

In the spring of 1945, the magazine Der Ruf: Zeitung der German prisoners of war was created in the Fort Philip Kearney prisoner-of-war camp in Rhode Island as part of the American re- education program for German prisoners of war. It was published by Curt Vinz, and its staff included Alfred Andersch and Hans Werner Richter. After their return to Germany they planned a follow-up magazine for Vinz 'Verlag under the title Der Ruf - independent papers of the younger generation , which appeared for the first time on August 15, 1946. The magazine also printed literary texts, but the editors Andersch and Richter saw it primarily as a political organ in which they advocated a free Germany as a bridge between East and West and a socialist form of society. They also criticized the American occupation forces, which in April 1947 led to the ban on the call by the Information Control Division of the American zone of occupation . Only after the two editors were dismissed could the magazine appear again under the direction of Erich Kuby and with a changed political orientation. However, it lost its importance and was eventually discontinued.

After the end of the activity at the call , Hans Werner Richter planned a successor magazine , which he wanted to name Der Skorpion . As a kind of editorial meeting, Richter invited authors from the environment of the planned newspaper to a meeting at the Bannwaldsee near Füssen in Ilse Schneider-Lengyel's house on September 6th and 7th, 1947 . There manuscripts should be read out and discussed together. The private and entertaining character of the gathering was also in the foreground. While the journal Der Skorpion never came out of its zero number , the first meeting of Group 47 developed from the meeting at Bannwaldsee. With regard to the history, Richter later explained: “The origin of Group 47 is political and journalistic in nature. They did not create literary figures, but politically committed publicists with literary ambitions. "

Historical periodization

According to Friedhelm Kröll , the history of Group 47 can be divided into four periods:

  1. Constitutional period 1947-49,
  2. Promotion period 1950–57,
  3. High period 1958-63,
  4. Late and decay period 1964–67.

Origin and organization

Hans Werner Richter was the organizer of Group 47.

16 people took part in the meeting at Bannwaldsee. To start with, Wolfdietrich Schnurre read his short story The Burial . Then the unplanned form of open, sometimes sharp, spontaneously expressed criticism of the other participants emerged, which was to become the later ritual of group criticism. The form of the reading, in which the presenting author always sat on the empty chair next to Richter, jokingly christened " electric chair ", remained constant. It became an important maxim that the lecturer was not allowed to defend himself and that criticism of the specific texts was the focus. Richter consistently suppressed fundamental discussions of a literary or political nature that could have split the group. Despite his own preference for realistic rubble literature , there was no literary program of the group, no common poetology and only a few principles, such as no fascist or militarist texts.

The name Gruppe 47 came about after the first meeting, when Hans Werner Richter planned to repeat the event regularly. The writer and critic Hans Georg Brenner suggested the name in analogy to the Spanish Generación del 98 . Richter, who rejected every form of organization of the meeting, whether "association, club, association, academy" agreed to the suggestion: "'Group 47', that is completely non-binding and actually means nothing."

It was not until 1962, on the 15th anniversary of its creation, that Richter retrospectively formulated the "ideal starting points" of Group 47:

  1. "Democratic elite education in the field of literature and journalism;"
  2. "To demonstrate the practically applied method of democracy to a circle of individualists again and again with the hope of a long-distance effect and perhaps a much later broad and mass effect;"
  3. "To achieve both goals without a program, without a club, without organization and without any kind of collective thinking."

Who he invited to the group meeting was decided personally by Richter: “It is my circle of friends. […] Now I have a festival once a year, […] this is called group 47 […]. And I invite all people who suit me, who are friends with me. ”With this he did not allow outside influence on the later criticized invitation practice from the outset. According to Heinz Ludwig Arnold , who published several publications on Gruppe 47, Richter's strength, who had achieved greater importance neither as a writer nor as a critic and who failed the group's criticism at his two readings, was his organizational talent. The success of Group 47 became a life's work for Richter.

The first years

Two months after the kick-off event, the second Group 47 meeting took place in Herrlingen near Ulm , at which the number of participants had already doubled. One of the first-time participants was Richter's comrade-in-arms at Ruf Alfred Andersch, whose essay German Literature was given programmatic significance in the decision for the group. Based on the thesis that “real artistry” is always “identical to opposition to National Socialism ”, Andersch stated that “the young generation is faced with a tabula rasa ”, “with the need for a renewal of German intellectual life in an original act of creation For a long time, Andersch's draft for the future remained the only essay that was read in the group.

At the suggestion of Franz Joseph Schneider , the Group 47 Prize was launched in 1950 .

In the following years, the meetings mostly took place every six months in spring and autumn at different locations. At the seventh conference in Inzigkofen in 1950 , the Group 47 Prize was launched for the first time. In contrast to the established literary prizes , it was intended as a sponsorship prize for as yet unknown authors. Franz Joseph Schneider , who had been part of the group since the previous year, had raised a donation of 1,000 DM. After the readings were over, the members of the group who were present chose the winner in a democratic election. The poet Günter Eich was the first to receive an award. He joined the group at the third meeting in Jugenheim and was considered its most prominent author in the early years. In the years that followed, Richter organized prize money of varying amounts from publishers and broadcasters, but only awarded them irregularly. He only announced to the participants at the end of the conference whether a prize had been awarded.

Through recommendations from third parties, but always only through personal invitation from Hans Werner Richter, more and more authors came to the meetings of Group 47. Thus, in 1951, at the conference in Bad Dürkheim, at the suggestion of Alfred Andersch Heinrich Böll , who at that time already had two He had published short stories and a novel, albeit without a broad response. At his first reading of the satire The Black Sheep, Böll received the Group 47 award, a controversial electoral success for the first participant at the time.

In 1952, the literary magazine Die Literatur survived only eight months and 16 issues , an attempt to establish a mouthpiece for Group 47 under Richter's editorship, which first published some texts from among the participants. Rolf Schroers judged after the attitude: " The literature was a raw, often desolate paper, unbalanced, screaming," and contained "pale stuff more than enough [...], badly targeted attacks, but one took the time angrily seriously."

Realism and modernity

Paul Celan (left, here with Petre Solomon in Bucharest, spring 1947) encountered resistance from the realists during his reading in 1952.

As the group became more well-known, more and more guests from home and abroad were invited to the conferences. The 10th meeting took place in Niendorf in May 1952 , largely supported by Ernst Schnabel , the director of the Hamburg broadcasting house of the North West German Broadcasting Corporation (NWDR). There Paul Celan recited his as yet unknown fugue of death along with other poems and, according to Böll's subsequent assessment, was “misunderstood in the most embarrassing way”. Walter Jens remembered the reactions: “When Celan appeared for the first time, they said: 'Hardly anyone can hear that!', He read very pathetically. We laughed at it, 'He reads like Goebbels !' Said one. [...] The death fugue was a failure in the group! It was a completely different world, the neorealists couldn't keep up. ” Milo Dor added Richter's remark that Celan read“ in a chant like in a synagogue ”. In a letter to his wife Gisèle, Celan commented that Richter was "an initiator of a realism that is not even the first choice" and concluded: "Those who do not like poetry - they were in the majority - rebelled." Despite such voices, Celan drew attention to herself with the performance. At the conference he received an offer for a first volume of poetry from a German publisher, and in the final choice for the group price, he at least came in third. However, despite repeated invitations, he did not take part in further meetings of Group 47.

According to Arnold, the conference in Niendorf led to a literary paradigm shift in the group: the simple realism of the rubble literature , which had been decisive in the early years, gradually gave way to more complex texts. The literary modernity , which had developed in the first half of the 20th century before it was banned and burned during the Nazi era , revived in Group 47. The development was particularly linked to the names Ilse Aichinger and Ingeborg Bachmann , who received the Group 47 Prize in 1952 and 1953. For the Germanist Peter Demetz in Niendorf, “literary realism” was replaced by “ surrealism ” as an “effective stylistic basic principle”. In her publication on the literature of the Adenauer period from 1952, Elisabeth Endres no longer saw the “typical” in the focus of the group members' works, but rather the “singular”, the individual. Joachim Kaiser confirmed about the year in which he himself had joined the group: "Rubble literature and clear-cut violence hardly occurred in 1953."

While the young writers of a moderate modern age shaped the literary image of Group 47 in the 1950s, more extensive experimental literature found it difficult to establish itself in the group. In the anniversary year of 1957 at the conference in Niederpöcking on Lake Starnberg, Helmut Heißenbüttel's speech demonstrations sparked a conflict that led to the first rift in the group. Richter described: “For the first time, two factions appear which are at times hostile to each other in the assessment. The artists, the aesthetes, the formalists on the one hand and the narrators on the other […], the realists. ”The group threatened to split. But Richter succeeded, in keeping with his maxim, in preventing a poetological debate on principle and a possible break. Heißenbüttel was given a special status in future: its readings took place outside the competition. Peter Bichsel, who joined the group in 1964, remembered: “At the end, Heißenbüttel read to entertain the people. [...] He had an alibi function. "

Group 47 as an institution

Since the beginning of the 1950s, the group had increasingly come into public focus. While at the beginning the participants themselves reported on the meetings in reports, the conferences that have only been held annually in autumn since 1956 - apart from an additional radio and television drama conference in the spring of 1960 and 1961 - are now perceived as public events and disseminated by the media . Martin Walser was one of the journalists from outside the group who reported on the conferences in 1951 . He received an invitation to join the group because of his self-confident assessment: “The readings are very bad, none of them is good, I can do that much better.” In 1955, his story Templones Ende was awarded the group prize in Berlin .

Günter Grass became known to the public through his reading in 1958.

One of the greatest successes of Group 47 was the next winner, Günter Grass , who read the first chapter of his as yet unpublished novel The Tin Drum in 1958 in Großholzleute in the Allgäu . The reading made the hitherto unknown author famous, the publishers vied for the unfinished manuscript. After a three-year hiatus, Richter again awarded a prize to the group, which was awarded to Grass. After Grass had come into the public eye through the group, his subsequent literary success fell back on the group 47, whose influence in the literary business increased.

As a result, writers, critics, and publishers crowded the group to capitalize on its reputation. The flow of events became more professional and lost the camaraderie of the early meetings. Richter saw the participants split into three groups: a few young authors who were still reading, the pure critics "who know everything better", and a large group of those who only listened. The former members stayed away from the meetings more and more often. Heinrich Böll stated: “Conferences in which 150 authors, critics, publishers, film people, television and so on take part give me such agony that I am very reluctant to go there. [Group 47] is a bit in danger of becoming an institution. ”Alfred Andersch also criticized:“ The group became a literary market. ”Manuscripts were traded, the authors specially prepared for the group readings. Success or failure of reading in front of the ranks of the publishing representatives present could determine their literary career.

The criticism of the texts no longer came from other authors, but was practiced almost exclusively by the ranks of the professional critics present, who mostly occupied the first row in the lecture halls: Walter Höllerer , Joachim Kaiser , Walter Jens , Walter Mannzen , Marcel Reich- Ranicki and Hans Mayer . The latter judged that "the criticism denied market expertise, felt himself to be such and from now on behaved in line with the market." In 1961 there were internal debates about the continued existence of Group 47. The criticism of the criticism was particularly inflamed by the person Reich-Ranickis, whose sharpness was feared in the judgment. Various, especially older members of the group demanded that he be evicted, but Richter ultimately spoke out against them.

Group, politics and society

The increasing politicization of society in the 1960s also had an impact on Group 47. Although Richter's motivation was originally socio-political, Group 47 remained politically inhomogeneous over the course of its existence. So there was never a political resolution on behalf of the entire group. However, a total of eleven individual resolutions were initiated from within the group, which were only ever signed by a minority of the participants, but were nevertheless often perceived in public as protest notes by the entire group. They ranged from protests against the suppression of the Hungarian people's uprising in 1956, protests against the Vietnam War in 1965, to a resolution against the Springer press during the last meeting in 1967.

With the growing publicity of Group 47, it was increasingly perceived both at home and abroad as a representative of German literature. In 1964 in Sigtuna, Sweden, and in Princeton , USA , in 1966 , she appeared in international conferences. These were successful as events, as the Swedish writer Lars Gustafsson noted: "The group made the tremendously impressive impression of a huge, sometimes almost perfect machine of criticism." However, they led to domestic discussions and within the group itself to ever more heated reform debates. Richter recognized a "creeping cancer that suddenly attacks the group".

Peter Handke attacked the group in Princeton in 1966 .

Martin Walser's ironic response to criticism of the group became an inventory in 1964: “In many eyes the group has become a domineering clique. And the literary fair that takes place there once a year [...] is judged to be a monopoly imperialist event to intimidate criticism, readers and the public. [...] I think it really is high time to socialize. If the group only starts performing abroad, then it is quite inevitable that something official happens and even worse misunderstandings arise than at home. ”In Princeton, Peter Handke , who had been invited for the first time and who had failed his reading, seized the group directly to. In the style of his public abuse, Handke condemned authors for the “impotence of description” of their “very stupid and silly prose ” and critics for “their outmoded instruments” alike. When Handke received support from Hans Mayer, the fundamental discussion, which Richter always avoided, arose for the first time. Günter Grass later called Handke's criticism a " shootout " for Group 47. Erich Fried then wrote a letter with reform proposals to Hans Werner Richter, but the latter still perceived Group 47 as his group and blocked all reform efforts: "I just don't need to invite any more, then [Group 47] will no longer exist."

The political attacks on the group no longer came only from a conservative direction, as had been the case since its early days, but especially since some authors campaigned for the SPD . May, 1966 launched Klaus Rainer Röhl in the journal actually a "campaign of the left" against the group 47 in the following issues with new attacks, so Robert Neumann , the "dummy a dedicated literature, committed to the dummy of an opposition party “Was continued. In his answer, also specifically printed, Joachim Kaiser conceded in August of that year: “I think the group should slowly disintegrate because it has been through many unreasonable attacks and as a result of many unreasonable reprimanding or praising reports [...], because the group has been through this half-indebted, half-through-no-fault side effects has lost its innocence, has become a political issue ”.

Last meeting

The last regular meeting took place in 1967 in Waischenfeld, Upper Franconia, in the powder mill . The conference was disrupted by protests from some students from the Erlangen SDS . They accused the group of an apolitical stance and chanted slogans such as “Group 47 is a paper tiger” and scornful shouts “Poets! Poets! ”The reactions of the group members varied. While some reacted angrily to the disturbance, others sought dialogue with the students. Ideological differences broke out within the group, especially between the two protagonists Günter Grass and Reinhard Lettau . The then participant Yaak Karsunke recalled that he was “very shocked at the aggressiveness with which a large part of the group members reacted to this harmless student joke”, and he concluded: “In a way, this group is 47 - or that A dream that Hans Werner Richter had about it - actually broken in the powder mill because suddenly the outside world invaded. For my purposes, however, it was not broken by the intrusion of the outside world, but by the inability of the group to respond appropriately. "

The planned dissolution meeting at Dobříš Castle could not be rescheduled until 1990.

Hans Werner Richter planned a final meeting in 1968 at Dobříš Castle near Prague , where he wanted to break up the group and withdraw himself into political journalism with a new call . But it didn't come to either. The crackdown on the Prague Spring by the invasion of the Warsaw Pact troops prevented the dissolution meeting. Group 47, which, according to Richter, was never really founded, never officially dissolved. As announced to Erich Fried, Richter simply no longer invited. As a result, there were some smaller meetings of former members, for example in 1972 in Berlin for the 25th anniversary and in 1977 in Saulgau for the 30th anniversary. At the invitation of Václav Havel , Richter made up for the unusual meeting in Dobříš Castle in May 1990 under changed political conditions, which turned into an encounter between the former group members and Czech authors. Joachim Kaiser drew the conclusion: “The main reason that group 47 ended was the fact that it was getting too old. So a lot came together: the aging of the group, intense politicization of its members and the fact that the group is no longer what it was at the beginning, namely a kind of avant-garde . "

As a reminder of the last regular meeting, a literature festival took place in Waischenfeld in mid-October 2017.

successor

In the style of readings by Group 47 and the ad hoc judgments by critics, the journalist and book author Humbert Fink and the then director of the ORF regional studio in Carinthia, Ernst Willner, initiated the literary competition for the Ingeborg Bachmann Prize , which has been held every year since 1977 is held in Klagenfurt and was initially under the aegis of Marcel Reich-Ranicki.

With the Lübeck Literature Meeting, Günter Grass founded a new literary circle in December 2005. For the first meeting in Günter Grass House were Thomas Brussig , Michael Kumpfmüller , Katja Lange-Müller , Benjamin Lebert , Eva Manasseh , Matthias Politycki , Tilman Spengler and Burkhard Spinnen invited. Based on Group 47, the association was also dubbed Lübeck 05 . However, Grass distanced himself from a revival of Group 47 in the old style: “That cannot be continued. There is no Hans Werner Richter among all of us. Today there is no situation comparable to that which prevailed in Germany in the 1940s and 1950s ”.

Literature Prize

The Group 47 Prize was awarded to largely unknown authors from 1950 onwards. The prize money for the first two awards (1000 DM each) was donated by the American advertising company Coward McCann Company, which Franz Joseph Schneider had convinced to make this donation; later, the prize - organized by Hans Werner Richter - was donated by various publishers and broadcasters: 2000 DM each for Aichinger and Bachmann, 1000 DM each for Morriën and Walser, 5000 DM for Grass, 7000 DM for Bobrowski, for Bichsel and Becker 6000 DM each, whereby to this last price 2500 DM each was contributed by Grass and Böll.

All award winners at a glance:

Attendees

Over 200 authors read at Group 47 meetings. In addition, numerous critics and guests took part in the conferences. The following two lists form a selection of the participants. Where known, the first year of participation in a group meeting is given in brackets. For the complete listing of all authors, see the list of participants in Group 47 .

Authors (selection)

Critics and guests (selection)

Impact and debates

Martin Walser , Günter Grass and Joachim Kaiser in conversation with Wolfgang Herles 60 years after the founding of Group 47

From Heinz Ludwig Arnold's point of view, Group 47 “marked a clear trace in German literature of the second half of the 20th century”, the literary critics of the group “decisively determined the literary debates of the republic”, and around their authors “became the most spectacular Battles were fought in the German arts and literature business ”. Hans Magnus Enzensberger described Group 47 as a literary association "which was without a model in the literary history of our country". Klaus Briegleb called it a "political legend in contemporary German-speaking culture". Alexander Kluge explained : "In its heyday, Group 47 brought together the essential literary talents of the republic and influenced them to adopt a common position on key social issues."

Group 47 has often been mythified and given numerous stereotypes . Hans Werner Richter saw it as a "circle of friends", Heinrich Böll as a "mobile academy", Günter Grass as "a kind of substitute literary capital", Hermann Kesten as an "authoritarian association of authors on a postal basis" and Enzensberger simply as a "clique". Depending on the point of view, it was perceived as a "literary mafia", "literary [...] rehearsal stage", "German miracle", "shock troop", "ambulant Romanesque café " or "agency for author marketing".

First perception and criticism

In the founding days of Group 47, the press “mocked itself”, according to Nicolaus Sombart , “wholeheartedly about the flag of the unknown.” The critic Gunter Groll predicted in 1948 that the group would “become an indispensable part of public and private discussions about young contemporary literature Be. ”But in the following year Konrad Stemmer's judgment of the authors in the Neue Zeitung was still negative:“ Will someone grow into the mainstay of a publishing house? He is unlikely to come from Group 47. What this combination was missing from the start was the 11 behind it. ” Armin Eichholz, an author of the group, responded to the play on words with the Eau de Cologne 4711, which was common in the early days , that the“ fluidity ”of group 47 was“ a bit bitter in the nose increases and is understandably not liked by lovers of fine perfumes ”.

One of the first prominent critics of Group 47 was Friedrich Sieburg . Under the heading of Creeping Literature, he polemicized in 1952 against the "rejection of aesthetics" in contemporary literature, which he called "subject literature". It is made from “the contemporary clichés [...] with which amateurism suppresses every artistic objection.” The authors are “all very good people who are only concerned about being on the right side and belonging to something. […] The writers in our country are busy organizing themselves and acting as managers who have to watch over that nobody offends against the social conscience or shows themselves to be 'time-hostile'. "The" Sieburg case ", as it was titled in Richter's magazine literature , gave group 47 the opportunity to position itself publicly in return. Alfred Andersch defended the formation of groups in his answer and polemicized: “Just leave them to yourself, the old Nazis and the esotericists, crumbly with sand cake! Let the bad old gentlemen play 'European spirituality' - you will never reach them in it - because where the European spirit really stands is not determined by them! "

Criticism of group criticism

For Thomas Mann , Group 47 was a rabble rascals.

Although the influence of Group 47 - also through the criticism directed against it - grew in the 1950s, some contemporary authors explicitly stayed away from it, mostly with reference to the practice of group criticism. In response to an invitation in 1953 , Arno Schmidt stated : “I prefer to nourish myself quietly and honestly from translating than from literary work .” Thomas Mann scolded a year later: “The behavior of the 47ers at their lecture is of course mobbing to the point of unbelievability, only with this one Rascals possible. ” Hans Habe put it in an allusion to the Hitler Youth (HJ) in 1964 :“ For part of Group 47, the club is a kind of HJ - a literary youthful youth, in whose gym cloakrooms you can take off your feelings of inferiority and wear the uniform of self-confidence is able to create. " Elfriede Jelinek named the group 47 to 1997, a" Sadistenvereinigung where I would not have participated times under threat of death. "

In 1962, the literary critic Günter Blöcker compared the “inhuman atmosphere of these readings with the subsequent critical slaughter” with “manliness rites of certain primitive ethnic groups” and looked at a literary past: “The thought that […] Musil , Kafka , Ricarda Huch , Benn [ ...] would have climbed on the notorious 'electric chair' of Group 47 to face a motley crowd of competing talents, […] of impromptu reviewers who believe they owe their audience a 'show', or simply by people who see an opportunity here to have a say without risk - this thought seems like a bad joke to me. ”Marcel Reich-Ranicki defended himself and his fellow critics by countering why so many long-established writers have accepted the“ critique of such a to put it mildly, would expose incompetent and dubious bodies ”if Blöcker's allegations were true. He referred to Enzensberger's dictum, according to which group 47 "sees its most important task not in promoting, but in preventing literary nonsense". Reich-Ranicki agreed that the criticism of Gruppe 47 saved the audience "a lot of bad short stories, novels, poems, dramas".

Debates about public influence

Subsequent criticism often directed against the establishment of the group and the pressure exerted by their influence on the public. As early as 1958, Joachim Kaiser stated that the group “has been considered threatened and pointless since it existed, that is, for eleven years. For eleven years, the group has been regarded as a clique , especially by those who do not belong to it ”. Six years later, Hans Habe also formulated this accusation: “For year and day, the meetings of Group 47 have been determining what is good and bad in German literature, what is worth reading or reprehensible. I am against group 47 because I am against the terror of opinion [...] dictatorship [...] is exercised by group 47. […] Above group 47 […] only hovers, as it seems to me, the not necessarily literary symbol of the DM. The group's satellite rates, which occupy leading positions everywhere in the “big” German press, hardly allow criticism and does not allow the audience to form their own judgment ”.

Heinrich Böll called Group 47 "politically helpless" and "harmless".

For Rolf Schroers, in 1965 the group was “highly effective in public - and not just in the literary field; but in a ghostly way that cannot be held liable. ”It is a“ public power ”that does not define itself through“ literary content and forms, but politically colored […] arrangements ”. All the “literary controversies and differences in German post-war literature” disappeared behind the “poster 'Gruppe 47'”. A differentiation and thus literary group formation is prevented: “Group 47 as a group paralyzes this process and does not let it out of itself.” Heinrich Böll contradicted Schroers out of his conviction that group 47 is so diverse that its “pluralism in promiscuity “Envelopes. It is not even capable of a minimum of group solidarity and is "completely harmless" in its influence: "The group belongs to this state, it suits it, it is as politically helpless as it is." It is only in danger “To become an institution and take on a role; in other words: to function ”in a“ Federal Republican society that need not be in the least afraid of it ”.

Hermann Kesten was undecided: “German literature after 1945 would not look any different if Group 47 had never existed. The literary benefit and the harm it has done offset each other. The cultural and political situation in the Federal Republic of Germany would be poorer in 1963 if Group 47 did not exist. ”On the other hand, for Peter O. Chotjewitz, Group 47 had“ additionally poisoned the literary business […]. ”And he judged after its end:“ I would say : you breathe more freely since it no longer exists. ”However, the group's influence continued even after its last meeting in 1967. Her literary critics held leading positions in high-profile feature pages, and authors who emerged from the group shaped the perception of German literature, which was also reflected in the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature to Heinrich Böll (1972) and Günter Grass (1999). The group critic Peter Handke was also awarded the Nobel Prize in 2019. On October 2, 1990, the day before German reunification , the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung judged under a photo of Group 47: "Until recently and regardless of all changes, the identity of the country was rooted in the texts of 1960."

Political attacks

In its first years, politically motivated attacks on Group 47 were mostly carried out by conservative critics, and later also by politicians from the Union parties . In January 1963 , the CDU politician Josef Hermann Dufhues called the group a “secret Reichsschrifttumskammer ”, whose influence “not only in the cultural but also in the political sphere” caused him a “secret concern”. Thirteen writers from the group 47 filed suit against this statement. The two parties reached a settlement in which Dufhues distanced himself from his statement. Nonetheless, Dieter E. Zimmer judged : “This is how the group was demonized. It wasn't she who played herself up, that worried her enemies. ”In the course of the election campaign for the 1965 federal election , the dispute between some intellectuals close to the SPD from the group 47 and Chancellor Ludwig Erhard escalated . While Hans Werner Richter, Günter Grass and Klaus Wagenbach formed a "Wahlkontor German writers" to support Willy Brandt , Erhard turned against "signs of degeneration" that he perceived in modern literature. He lamented the fashion that “poets were among the social politicians and social critics”, in whose function they were for him “banauss” and “unskilled”, and attacked Rolf Hochhuth by name: “That's where the poet stops, that's where the little one begins Pinscher on ”. Richter and other writers reacted with indignation, Martin Walser ironically: "That's where the Chancellor stops, that's where Erhard begins."

Ulrike Meinhof attacked group 47 from a left position.

With the change in the political climate in the 1960s and the increasing establishment of the group, the direction of criticism also changed. From May 1966 turned in the journal specifically leftist critics against the group politically 47. In subsequent editions threw Hans Erich Nossack the group "literary prostitution" before and criticized "[e] ine synthetic literature that evaluated their products solely for technical perfection and all political, social and human involvement is rejected as inartistic. ”Robert Neumann spoke of a“ group castrated for their former potency ”that obeyed a“ consensus of the clique ”, and attacked Hans Werner Richter in particular, with whom there was“ no one powerful fart “rich. Neumann joined Walter Widmer , who had died a year earlier , according to which "Group 47 betrayed itself when it became a literature exchange", and ended with the demand: "These Berlin speciacs should be dumped."

While Martin Walser ironically understood group abuse as “mouth-to-mouth resuscitation” for an already ailing group 47, Walter Höllerer defended the association seriously and argumentatively against the attacks, but recognized himself: “Group attack, group defense, a basically pointless business […] To two authors [Nossack and Neumann] who, as far as politics is concerned, are not in any camp opposing the attacked: - This necessity is not only absurd, it is sad. ”In an editorial written in October 1967, Ulrike Meinhof separated the political camps clearly. In contrast to a new generation of writers who saw themselves as radical left, Group 47 was "never more left than the SPD" and presented itself "as a social democracy among literature and German writers."

Subsequent processing

With the de facto dissolution of Group 47, the reason for public debates about the group's power and influence ceased to exist. In retrospect, the development of the group and its substantive premises came to the fore. The lack of literary processing of the time of National Socialism and the Holocaust was increasingly addressed. In his foreword to an almanac for the 15th anniversary of Group 47, Fritz J. Raddatz said: “The words Hitler , KZ , atomic bomb, SS , Nazi, Siberia do not appear in the entire volume - the topics do not appear. [...] A terrifying phenomenon, to say the least. The most important authors of post-war Germany only dealt with the alp of Knobelbecher and skewers ; the halls full of hair and teeth in Auschwitz [...] did not become poetry and prose. ”Doubts about the personal role of some prominent representatives of Group 47 during the Third Reich were also raised after its end: Günter Eich had a radio play in support of the National Socialists Written anti-England campaign, Alfred Andersch emphasized the separation from his Jewish wife in front of the Reichsschrifttumskammer, Günter Grass had concealed his membership in the Waffen-SS .

According to his own statement, Marcel Reich-Ranicki did not experience any anti-Semitism in Group 47.

At the time of its creation, there had been tensions between Group 47, which saw itself as the “young generation” at “ zero hour ”, and the returning German emigrants . Hans Werner Richter criticized Albert Vigoleis Thelen for his “Emigrant German”. Just like Andersch, Richter had accused those who fled from Germany had failed before the National Socialists. Due to such reservations about the often Jewish emigrants, Klaus Briegleb saw a form of anti-Semitism prevailing in Group 47, which would also have been shown in the reactions to Paul Celan's reading or the dealings with Jewish group members. Marcel Reich-Ranicki contradicted this accusation: “I did not notice the slightest anti-Semitic remarks during the conference. Quite a few authors of Jewish origin took part in 'Group 47' during these years [...]. I don't remember any of these colleagues ever complaining about anti-Semitic issues at the 'Group 47' meetings. "

50 years after their founding, Joachim Leser and Georg Guntermann asked the question in 1997: Do we need a new Group 47? The responses from the contemporary writers questioned were largely negative. In addition to the special historical position of Group 47 after the Second World War, two fundamental differences were emphasized: contemporary literature was created solitarily and not collectively, its reception could no longer be standardized, but took place in various ways and without a uniform orientation. Former group member Friedrich Christian Delius stated that “the literary business, like society, is structured more selfishly than before.” Ulrich Peltzer concluded: “The nostalgic glow that shines around Group 47 is certainly related to the loss literary influence, in the cultural field combined with economic power, which its protagonists have experienced since 1968. "

Meetings

year date place
1947 6-7. September House of Ilse Schneider-Lengyel on Bannwaldsee in Fussen in Allgäu , Swabia
8th-9th November House of Hanns and Odette Arens in Herrlingen near Ulm , Baden-Württemberg
1948 3rd to 4th April Youth hostel in Jugenheim an der Bergstrasse , Hesse
September Good listening to Countess Ottonie von Degenfeld-Schonburg in Altenbeuern , Upper Bavaria
1949 April 28th - May 1st Town hall of Marktbreit near Würzburg , Lower Franconia
14.-16. October Café Bauer in Utting am Ammersee , Upper Bavaria
1950 May former Augustinian monastery in Inzigkofen , Baden-Württemberg
1951 4th-7th May House for international encounters in Bad Dürkheim , Rhineland-Palatinate
October Laufenmühle in the Welzheimer Wald , Baden-Wuerttemberg
1952 23-25 May Recreation home of the NWDR in Niendorf , Timmendorfer Strand , Schleswig-Holstein
October Berlepsch Castle near Witzenhausen , Hesse
1953 22.-24. May Blue Hall of the Electoral Palace in Mainz , Rhineland-Palatinate
October Bebenhausen Castle near Tübingen , Baden-Wuerttemberg
1954 29.4. – 2. May Hotel Magacire in Cap Circeo, San Felice , Italy
October Rothenfels Castle near Rothenfels , Lower Franconia
1955 13-15 May House Rupenhorn in Berlin
14.-16. October Bebenhausen Castle near Tübingen , Baden-Wuerttemberg
1956 25-27 October DGB School Niederpöcking on Lake Starnberg , Upper Bavaria
1957 27.-29. September DGB School Niederpöcking on Lake Starnberg, Upper Bavaria
1958 31.10. – 2. November Gasthof "Adler" , Großholz people in the Allgäu, Baden-Württemberg
1959 23-25 October Elmau Castle near Garmisch-Partenkirchen , Upper Bavaria
1960 4th-6th November Town hall of Aschaffenburg , Lower Franconia
1961 27.-29. October Göhrde hunting lodge near Lüneburg , Lower Saxony
1962 26.-28. October "Old Casino" on Wannsee , Berlin
1963 25-27 October Hotel "Kleber-Post" in Saulgau , Baden-Württemberg
1964 10-13 September Sigtuna Adult Education Center , Sweden
1965 19. – 21. November Literary Colloquium (formerly "Altes Casino") on Wannsee, Berlin
1966 22.-24. April '' Whig Hall '' at Princeton University , USA
1967 5th-8th October Gasthof Pulvermühle near Waischenfeld , Upper Franconia

literature

In terms of literature, the meetings were processed in Günter Grass' story Das Treffen in Telgte , which he dedicated to Hans Werner Richter for his 70th birthday.

Movies

Web links

Commons : Group 47  - Collection of pictures, videos and audio files

items

Footnotes

  1. ^ Helmut Böttiger : The group 47. When German literature made history. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Munich 2012, p. 48.
  2. ^ Richter (ed.): Almanach der Gruppe 47. 1947–1962. P. 8
  3. ^ Friedhelm Kröll: Group 47 . Metzler, Stuttgart 1979, p. 26ff.
  4. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 58
  5. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 42
  6. ^ Richter (ed.): Almanach der Gruppe 47. 1947–1962. P. 11
  7. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 43
  8. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. S. 54
  9. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 50
  10. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. S. 60
  11. ↑ Rudolf Walter Leonhardt: A look back in love . In: The time . No. 52/1997
  12. ^ Rolf Schroers: Young German writers. In: Reinhard Lettau (Ed.): Group 47 - Report Critique of Polemics. A manual. P. 83
  13. ↑ Hans-Ulrich Wagner : An unheard-of, hymn-like tone. When broadcasting takes its mission seriously, treasures are sometimes created. Rediscovered sound recordings show how Paul Celan sounded before Group 47 in 1952. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of April 3, 2017, p. 13.
  14. ↑ Heinrich Böll: I think of her like a girl. In: Der Spiegel. No. 43, 1973, p. 206. ( Memento of September 16, 2011 in the Internet Archive ).
  15. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 76
  16. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 75
  17. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 77
  18. ↑ Helmut Böttiger : The truth about Paul Celan's appearance at Group 47 . In: Deutschlandfunk Kultur, May 21, 2017. See in particular the complete broadcast manuscript (pdf).
  19. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, pp. 72-73
  20. ^ Artur Nickel: Hans Werner Richter - foster father of group 47. An analysis in the mirror of selected newspaper and magazine articles. Heinz, Stuttgart 1994, ISBN 3-88099-294-0 , p. 138
  21. ↑ Elisabeth Endres : The literature of the Adenauerzeit. Steinhausen, Munich 1980, ISBN 3-8205-5064-X , p. 172.
  22. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 81
  23. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. S. 87
  24. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 86
  25. ↑ Jörg Magenau: Martin Walser. Rowohlt, Reinbek 2008, ISBN 978-3-499-24772-9 , p. 88
  26. ^ A b Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 96
  27. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 95
  28. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 97
  29. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 94
  30. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 106
  31. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 109
  32. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 113
  33. ↑ Hans Werner Richter: Letters. Hanser, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-446-19161-5 , p. 521
  34. ↑ a b c Martin Walser : Let's socialize group 47! In: The time . No. 27/1964
  35. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 124
  36. ↑ Ingrid Gilcher-Holtey: The APO and the disintegration of Group 47 . In: From Politics and Contemporary History . 25/2007
  37. ^ A b Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 118
  38. ↑ Quoted from: Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 127
  39. ↑ Quoted from: Richter: Briefe. P. 628
  40. ↑ Marcel Reich-Ranicki: Revolt in Prosperity . In: Der Spiegel . No. 33 , 1999, pp. 198 ( online ).
  41. ↑ Volker Kaukoreit: From the “homecomer” to the “palace rebel”. A protocol to: "Erich Fried and the group 47". In: Braese (Hrsg.): Inventories. Studies on group 47. p. 148
  42. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. pp. 129-130
  43. ↑ Website for the anniversary weekend
  44. ↑ “The Pleasure of Telling” 25 years of the Ingeborg Bachmann Prize . In: ORF , June 24, 2001.
  45. ↑ Literature. "Lübeck Literature Group" around Günter Grass introduces itself. In: "Hamburger Morgenpost", December 7, 2005.
  46. ^ Up to 1966 according to the selection of short biographies in Lettau (ed.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. Pp. 532-547. For the year 1967 according to: Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 103
  47. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. S. 8
  48. ↑ a b Braese (Ed.): Inventories. Studies on group 47. p. 7
  49. ↑ Alexander Kluge: The group 47th stroke of luck for a non-public public. In: Richter: Group 47 in pictures and texts. P. 13
  50. ↑ Cf. Georg Guntermann: Some stereotypes for group 47. In: Braese (Hrsg.): Inventories. Studies on group 47. p. 11
  51. ^ Nicolaus Sombart : Finally in Paris . In: The time . No. 23/1953
  52. ↑ Gunter Groll: The group that is not a group. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. P. 35
  53. ↑ Armin Eichholz: The Cologne-Water Effect of Group 47. In: Lettau (Ed.): The Group 47 - Report Criticism Polemics. A manual. Pp. 274-275
  54. ^ Friedrich Sieburg : Kriechende Literatur . In: The time . No. 33/1952
  55. ^ Alfred Andersch: The trellis of banality. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. P. 347
  56. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. pp. 80-81
  57. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 149
  58. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 10
  59. ↑ Günter Blöcker: Group 47 and me . In: The time . No. 43/1962
  60. ↑ Hans Magnus Enzensberger : The Clique. In: Richter (Ed.): Almanach der Gruppe 47. 1947–1962. P. 25
  61. ↑ Marcel Reich-Ranicki : The group 47 and he . In: The time . No. 43/1962
  62. ↑ Joachim Kaiser: The group 47 lives on. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. P. 137
  63. ^ Rolf Schroers: Group 47 and the German post-war literature. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. Pp. 378, 388
  64. ^ Heinrich Böll: Afraid of Group 47? (1965). In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. Pp. 389-400
  65. ^ Hermann Kesten: The judge of the group 47. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): The group 47 - report criticism polemics. A manual. P. 328
  66. ^ A b Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 151
  67. ^ Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 9
  68. ↑ Bruno Friedrich: How the atmosphere can be poisoned. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. P. 504
  69. ^ Dieter E. Zimmer : Group 47 in Saulgau . In: The time . No. 45/1963, pp. 17–18 ( PDF )
  70. ↑ Christoph Müller: The poetic election office. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. P. 521
  71. ^ Lutz Krusche: writer dismayed by Erhard's criticism. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. P. 515
  72. ↑ Quoted from: Walter Höllerer: Facts, facts or: About the art of meeting next to it. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. P. 424
  73. ↑ Quoted from footnotes to: Fritz J. Raddatz: Polemics are good - knowledge is better. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. Pp. 412-422
  74. ↑ Minus how much . In: Der Spiegel . No. 34 , 1967, p. 105 ( online ).
  75. ↑ Höllerer: Facts, facts or: About the art of hitting next to it. In: Lettau (Hrsg.): Die Gruppe 47 - Report Critique Polemik. A manual. Pp. 439-440
  76. ↑ Quoted from: Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. pp. 127–128
  77. ^ Richter (ed.): Almanach der Gruppe 47. 1947–1962. P. 55
  78. ↑ See Arnold: Die Gruppe 47, p. 11
  79. ↑ See Arnold: Die Gruppe 47. S. 81–82
  80. ↑ Albert Vigoleis Thelen: I was very upset . In: Spiegel Special . No. 3/1992, p. 140
  81. ↑ See Helmut Peitsch: Group 47 and exile literature - a misunderstanding? In: Justus Fetscher u. a. (Ed.): Group 47 in the history of the Federal Republic. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 1991, ISBN 3-88479-611-9 , pp. 108-134
  82. ↑ Cf. Briegleb: Disregard and taboo. A pamphlet on the question: How anti-Semitic was Group 47?
  83. ↑ Marcel Reich-Ranicki: Was “Group 47” anti-Semitic? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung . April 13, 2003
  84. ^ Joachim Readers, Georg Guntermann (ed.): Do we need a new group 47? Nenzel, Bonn 1995, ISBN 3-929035-03-0
  85. ^ Guntermann: Some stereotypes for group 47. In: Braese (Hrsg.): Inventories. Studies on Group 47. pp. 32–34
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on July 23, 2009 in this version .