Folklore Theory in Postwar Germany

3. Circles of Interpretation

61 Chapter 3 Circles of Interpretation What relationship to reality do folktale cruelties have? —Lutz฀Röhrich, Folktales and Reality The relationship between folktale and reality is realized in the mind of the interpreter. The expression of this interpretation influences the way folktale is perceived henceforth. This is an eternal process, like a circle. No two people receive a narrative in the same way, but not every listener makes his or her interpretation public. Making interpretations public is a job of specific people—researchers, folktale collectors , ethnographers, anthropologists, politicians, and social activists. The folktale is defenseless against all these, as it has no identified author (read owner). So, the discourse on folktale must constantly move in a circle of folktale, interpretation, and evaluation. The question is, “How do we make things relevant and special through mental and public representation?” (Zipes 2006, xii). The evaluation of the folktale by the Brothers Grimm, for example, was that folktale is organic, beautiful, and innocent. This evaluation influenced the modern history of the folktale internationally. In the history of the folktale in Germany, another moment of evaluation had arrived after the Second World War—the moment of which Röhrich was a witness. At this moment, the folktale was being accused of being the inspiration behind the Nazi cruelty. Röhrich’s concern is how the evaluation and interpretation are connected with our understanding of the relationship between folktale and reality, how motifs of folktales are rooted in history and psychology, and how belief in folktales is transformed through the process of modern interpretation. His concerns are, once again, expressed with reference to time and space. Lutz฀Röhrich:฀The฀Advocate฀for฀Folklore฀ 62 I discuss Röhrich’s analysis as three circles: 1. The circle of folktale, interpretation, and incrimination. 2. The circle of motifs, history, and psychology. 3. The circle of narration, belief, and rationality. The Circle Of Folktale, Interpretation, and Incrimination In his introduction to Folktales and Reality Röhrich expressed his reservation about ideologically oriented theories of interpretation or political and sociopolitical interpretation. His observation was that “preconceived views developed outside the folktale, rather than the texts themselves, usually guide the interpreters,” and that “the majority of interpretations do indeed bring more into the folktale than they get out of it” (Röhrich 1991, 7). He considered this to be “a fundamental error for an interpretation” and “beyond the acceptable bounds of research ” (7). He felt that such interpretations “of the folktale’s connection to reality serve the goals of a specific world-view”(7). Having laid bare the agenda behind interpretations, he suggests, “Interpretations must, therefore, proceed deductively from the material if they are to do the folktale justice as an item of folk poetry” (7). Röhrich puts his own suggested method into practice throughout his book, but he is at his sharpest while dealing with the current interpretative accusations of the folktale. At this point, it may be worth recalling that Röhrich researched and published this seminal work in late 1940s and early 1950s by which time Germany had established a democratic system and recovered economically, but in the eyes of the world the image of Nazi Germany was imprinted. There was active theorizing all around as to the cause of nazism in Germany. One of the identified causes was located in the folktale. Röhrich tells us, “After the Second World War a tidal wave of press against the ‘horrors of the Grimm tales appeared’” (Röhrich 1991, 112). A German press agency reported on August 7, 1948, that a British military memorandum had considered the use of folktales in German schoolbooks and concluded that folktales, saints’ legends, and legends should not be completely removed from the books but should be Circles of Interpretation 63 reduced to a minimum so that pagan ideas would not veil Christian teachings. The Anglo-Saxon occupational powers temporarily forbade the printing of any new folktale collections because folktales made the German people cruel; folktales, they claimed, had played a major role in the development of the methods used in the concentration camps. There was also no lack of German authors of the same opinion . For example, Günther Birkenfeld commented that “in light of the Grimm tales, it no longer seemed inconceivable that the German people could commit the cruelties of Belsen and Auschwitz” (Röhrich 1991, 112). Röhrich reports on the situation of postwar years...