Nicholas Martin Images of Schiller in National Socialist Germany* The essay analyses attitudes to Schiller in Germany between 1933 and 1945 in order to establish to what extent his character and work, however interpreted, provided a rallying- point for endorsers of the National Socialist regime as well as for some of its opponents. The nature of these attitudes is investigated, together with the related question of Schiller’s political and ideological malleability. Analysis of engagements with Schiller in this period reveals that there was no single, monolithic National Socialist “Schillerbild”. While Nazi treatments of Schiller were manipulative in the extreme and drew heavily on existing myths surrounding the poet, they were anything but consistent or uniform. Postwar commentators have tended to regard the Nazi regime’s treatment of Germany’s cultural past in general, and of Schiller in particular, as little more than a dark aberration, a perversion of humane ideals which were cynically channelled into the service of barbarism. It is difficult to argue with the essence of this judgment. However, it tends to assume that Nazis held a monolithic “Schillerbild”. By examining specific instances of engagement with Schiller during the Third Reich, this essay will argue that, while National Socialist treatments of Schiller were manipulative in the extreme, they were anything but consistent or uniform. The aim is to present a picture of attitudes to Schiller in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and to challenge the notion that there was a single, undifferentiated National Socialist “Schillerbild”. A related concern is to establish the extent to which Schiller’s character and work, however inter- preted, provided a rallying-point for endorsers of the regime as well as for some of its opponents.1 It is important to recognise that for Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, who held a doctorate in German literature from Heidelberg, as well as for many professors of German during the Nazi period, Schiller was not the most * Schiller’s texts are quoted from Schillers Werke. Nationalausgabe. Ed. by Julius Petersen, Gerhard Fricke et al. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. 1943ff. Quotations from Schiller’s verse plays are identified by line number, others by NA with volume and page numbers. 1 A useful study of approaches to Schiller in Nazi Germany is Georg Ruppelt: Schiller im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland. Der Versuch einer Gleichschaltung. Stuttgart: Metzler 1979. For the raw material of my analysis I have drawn heavily on the docu- mentation contained in Ruppelt’s survey and on pointers contained in a review of his findings. Lesley Sharpe: National Socialism and Schiller. In: German Life and Letters 36 (1982–83). Pp. 156–165. 276 “mobilisable” of figures.2 He was not central to either the cultural policy of the Third Reich or to the research and teaching conducted in German universities at this time. In the words of a recent commentator: “Die Schiller-Forschung stand nicht im Zentrum der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft in den Jahren der Vergewaltigungen des Geistes durch die politische Macht […]. Der Dramatiker Schiller wurde weit hinter Kleist, der Lyriker Schiller weit hinter Hölderlin eingeordnet; und Goethe leuchtete weit voran”.3 Engagements with Schiller nevertheless played an important ancillary role in attempts by National Socialists to align German culture with their political ends. Echoing the first line of Brecht’s exile poem “An die Nachgeborenen”, some postwar views of Schiller interpretation during the Third Reich have been expressed under banners such as “Klassiker in finsteren Zeiten”.4 A difficulty with such banners is that they run the risk of obscuring the variety of engage- ments with Schiller in Germany between 1933 and 1945, both inside and outside the official cultural organs of the National Socialist state. These engagements ranged from, at one extreme, Goebbels’ extraordinary “Festrede” on Schiller’s 175th birthday in 1934 to the enlistment of Schiller’s moral support by the “Weiße Rose” resistance group at the other.5 Between these extremes lay inter- pretations of Schiller by Germanists broadly sympathetic to the National Socialist regime, disputes within Nazi cultural officialdom over the ideological suitability of certain Schiller plays, and implicit criticism of the regime on the part of a few Schiller scholars. 2 Goebbels was nominally a student of Friedrich Gundolf’s at Heidelberg, although in practice Max von Waldberg was his supervisor. Goebbels retained a great admiration for these professors, both of whom were Jewish. He wrote his dissertation on the Romantic dramatist Wilhelm Schütz (1776–1847). Paul Joseph Goebbels: Wilhelm von Schütz als Dramatiker. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Dramas der Romantischen Schule. Diss. Heidelberg 1922. 3 Schiller – Zeitgenosse aller Epochen. Dokumente zur Wirkungsgeschichte Schillers in Deutschland. Ed. by Norbert Oellers. 2 vols. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum 1970. Munich: Beck 1976. Vol. 2. P. xlix. 4 “Wirklich, ich lebe in finsteren Zeiten!” Bertolt Brecht: “An die Nachgeborenen”. In: Gedichte. Ed. by Elisabeth Hauptmann. Vol. 4. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp 1961. P. 143. See Klassiker in finsteren Zeiten 1933–1945. Ed. by Bernhard Zeller. 2 vols. Marbach/N.: Deutsche Schillergesellschaft 1983 (Marbacher Kataloge 38). Beschädigtes Erbe. Beiträge zur Klassikerrezeption in finsterer Zeit. Ed. by Horst Claussen and Norbert Oellers. Bonn: Bouvier 1984. 5 In their first pamphlet in May 1942, the Munich students reproduced the section of Schiller’s 1789 Jena lecture Die Gesetzgebung des Lykurgus und Solon, in which he criticises political systems that elevate the state above the individual: “[…] Der Staat selbst ist niemals Zweck, er ist nur wichtig als eine Bedingung unter welcher der Zweck der Menschheit erfüllt werden kann […]” (NA 17. 423). Qtd. in the first of the six “Weiße Rose” pamphlets, dated 31.5.1942. In: Die Weiße Rose und ihre Flugblätter. Ed. by Hinrich Siefken. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1994. Pp. 22–23..