IntroductionFollowing the infamous postwar controversy involving Thomas Mann, Walter von Molo, and Frank Thiess (Grosser; Brockmann) and early apologist discussions of writing under National Socialism (Paetel; von Koenigswald), some literary scholars came to reject the notion of an emigration (Schonauer). Others emphasized the ambivalent character of certain Christian conservative authors' work, arguing that their privatist flight into the historical, metaphysical, and apolitical could readily be interpreted as supportive of Nazi ideology (Loewy; Schnell). In an important study, Grimm (48) sought to avoid the resistance-conformity dichotomy by promoting a sliding nonconformist scale ranging from open resistance to passive refusal. Building on this and avoiding ideological prejudgment of publishing under National Socialism, scholars have more recently endeavored to reevaluate texts of the period by examining publication context, reception, and authorial reputation (Donahue and Kirchner; Golaszewski et al.; Klapper). Particular attention has been paid to the technique and function of the so-called verdeckte Schreibweise, which has been the subject of several significant studies (e.g., Dodd; Ehrke-Rotermund and Rotermund).Despite cultural policy restrictions subtly disguised short literary works and journalistic texts appeared after 1933 in both liberal (e.g. Frankfurter Zeitung, Kolnische Zeitung) and state or party newspapers (Krakauer Zeitung, Volkischer Beobachter), while individual publishers (Goverts, Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Insel, List, Kosel & Pustet) continued to distribute work that could be read as not conforming to the principles of the regime. The mostly conservative authors of such texts adopted a conscious and calculated silence on ideologically conformist subjects, while writing about alternative topoi, frequently under the protection of historical camouflage. The challenge was to perform a balancing act of communicating a critical stance with clarity to an attuned and like-minded readership, while simultaneously rendering the text sufficiently ambiguous to create doubt about its actual meaning in the minds of less well-disposed readers, most notably state- and party-controlled censorship bodies. The process presumed a heightened sensitivity to nuance, suggestion, and key fictional tropes, and also a select, insider readership, which has been dubbed esoteric in contrast to the ex- oteric audience for messages that conformed to the dominant Nazi discourse.1 Techniques included disguising critical or nonconformist elements by adding an affirmative or neutral statement, changing the order in which contentious material appeared in the text, or alerting sensitized readers to critical content through conscious use of stylistic oddities (Ehrke-Rotermund and Rotermund 16-19).Among the most significant of substitution techniques was the use of tropes and figures that contributed to a metaphor or allegory of life under National Socialism. Works employing this approach included historical anecdotes and legends. They have been designated Aesopian, denoting fable- or fairy tale-like narratives written in a camouflaged manner often involving myths.2 The terms and method refer back to the disputed Ancient Greek figure of Aesop in the sixth century BC and his supposed use of allegory in animal fables to disguise opinions on the authorities in Africa (Reifarth 16-19). Over time, use of the terms has been broadened to denote any critical intellectual attitude expressed in a veiled artistic form in the face of an oppressive regime's attempt to suppress dissent, such as Dolf Sternberger's (8-13) retelling in 1941 in the Frankfurter Zeitung of the fable of the wolf and the lamb, an allegory on Nazis and Jews.This article explores a key example of the Aesopian genre, Der weise Buffel oder Von der grosen Gerechtigkeit (1937/1945) by the controversial inner emigrant writer Ernst Wiechert. …
Read full abstract