The Study of European Ethnology in Austria [1 ed.] 0754617475, 9780754617471

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword
Series Editor’s Preface
1 Aller Anfang ist schwer (All Beginnings Are Difficult)
2 Zwischen den Kriegen: 1918-38 (Between the Wars: 1918-38)
3 Wien, Wien, nur Du allein (Vienna, Vienna, You and You alone)
4 Völkische Wissenschaft (Pure German Scholarship)
5 Die Stunde null war nicht die Stunde null (Zero Hour Was not Zero Hour)
6 Abschied vom Volksleben - auch in Österreich? (Farewell to Folklife - Also in Austria?)
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

THE STUDY OF EUROPEAN ETHNOLOGY IN AUSTRIA

For Susan and Elisabeth

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

JAMES R. DOW Iowa State University, USA and OLAF BOCKHORN University of Vienna, Austria

First published 2004 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group , an informa business

Copyright © James R. Dow and Olaf Bockhom 2004

Ah rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. NoticeProduct or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Dow, James R. The study of European ethnology in Austria. - (Progress in European ethnology) 1.Ethnology - Austria - History - 20th century 2.Ethnicity - Research - Austria - History - 20th century 3.Folklore Research - Austria - History - 20th century I.Title II.Bockhorn, Olaf 305.8’00720436 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dow, James R. The study of European ethnology in Austria / James R. Dow and Olaf Bockhom. p. cm. — (Progress in European ethnology) English and German. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7546-1747-5 1. Ethnology—Austria. 2. Austria-Qvilization. 3. Austria-History. I. Bockhom, Olaf. II. Title. III. Series. DB33.D69 2003 305.8'0072’0436—dc22 2003066446

ISBN 13: 978-0-7546-1747-1 (hbk)

Contents

Foreword Series Editor’s Preface 1 Aller Anfang ist schwer (All Beginnings Are Difficult) 2

3

4

5

vii xiii

1

Zwischen den Kriegen: 1918-38 (Between the Wars: 1918-38)

24

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein (Vienna, Vienna, You and You alone)

57

Völkische Wissenschaft (Pure German Scholarship)

110

Die Stunde null war nicht die Stunde null (Zero Hour Was not Zero Hour)

169

6 Abschied vom Volksleben - auch in Österreich? (Farewell to Folklife - Also in Austria?)

190

Notes Bibliography Index

221 237 277

Foreword

In 1994, when a team of four folklorists published a series of works on German and Austrian VoZ/cs/omde/folklore, it was obvious that we had devoted most of our energy and our writing to Germany (Jacobeit, Lixfeld, Bockhorn, and Dow 1994; Dow and Lixfeld 1994; Lixfeld and Dow 1994). Somehow Austria had not received the same intense scrutiny in our history of the discipline, and both the German and the Austrian studies were concentrated on the first half of the 20th century. In the Fall of 1997, Olaf Bockhorn and I agreed that we should devote a full study to the disciplinary history of Austrian Volkskunde, and to expand our treatment by making it more inclusive, i.e., from the beginnings down to the present. In all of our discussions, over the next years and down to the present, it became apparent that Vienna would have to play the primary role in any attempt to understand the path of Volkskunde-Ethnologie in Austria. Still, we needed to place Vienna within the context of the other universities, particularly Graz and Innsbruck, and for a short period of time, Salzburg. As will be quite apparent to the reader, we have summarized the research of Helmut Eberhart on Graz and Salzburg, and Reinhard Johler on Innsbruck. For Vienna, we have utilized previous research by Gertraud Liesenfeld and Herbert Nikitsch (on Leopold Schmidt) and by Bockhorn, but we have added substantially to this and we offer entirely new materials in our treatment of the discipline in Vienna, some of which has never been investigated, even in Austria. Our treatment of the Deutsche Bildung [German Education] series from 1919 to 1938 is entirely new, as is the detailed information on some of the best known figures in the first half of the century, Lily Weiser-Aall, Otto Höfler, Richard Wolfram, and a man who was born and later studied in Vienna, Karl Haiding. There are also detailed treatments of others, particularly in the second half of the century, Hanns

viii

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Koren and Oskar Moser in Graz, Adolf Helbok and Karl Ilg in Innsbruck, and Leopold Schmidt, Károly Gaál and Helmut Fielhauer in Vienna. Finally, there is a summarization of the present situation in the three major university departments of what is now referred to generally as Europäische Ethnologie. In the case of each Austrian university Institut (in English they would be referred to as Departments), we have often used the term ‘School’ to describe what is a seemingly coherent research approach and focus of the individuals in the Institut Thus we speak of the Viennese Mythological School,’ of the Sachkultur [material culture] School in Graz, and the Tiroler Mythos [Tyrolean Mythos] in Innsbruck. Furthermore, there was influence felt from Germany, from what is commonly referred to as the Tübingen School’ of empirical cultural studies, or the ‘Munich School’ of historically documenting sources, not just presenting a worldview intended to prove Germanic continuity. We are certainly aware of the difficulty of grouping individuals into ‘Schools,’ but we have nevertheless done so in order to suggest and to isolate some of the commonalities among a program’s members. Throughout the book it will be apparent that we have used a lot of the original German, not just for titles of books and articles in the text, but also for chapter and subheadings. Our reason is quite simple, this is the way such information would be found on site, in the departments, the libraries, and in citations and references in Austria. In order to assist the non-German reader, we have utilized a series of methods, ranging from straight translations included in square brackets and following the German, to actual usage in context within the text itself. Sometimes it didn’t seem necessary to translate or clarify the terms, e.g., Germanistik or Orientalistik. There are some terms that are so commonly used in studies of the German-speaking world that it didn’t seem necessary to translate them either, such as großdeutsch versus kleindeutsch, the former referring to a pan-German understanding, which would include Austria, and the latter indicating a Germany without Austria.

Foreword ix

At the institutions of higher learning in Austria, there are some similarities with German institutions, but there are also markedly different usages for academic terms. We use the term Habilitation as it is commonly employed in the entire German realm, to indicate the postdoctoral study that entitles one to the title of Professor. Likewise we use the Latin term venia legendi, the standard description for the area of the teaching license. Far more difficult, and quite distinct for the most part from usage in Germany are the various titles for university faculty, indeed we must distinguish between traditional usage and contemporary usage. The terms Ordinarius and Extraordinarius were both regular salaried university positions [im Dienststand einer Universität], The latter is also sometimes referred to as an Außerordentlicher Universitäts-Professor, but in some cases it is a professional title granted to university docents who are not regularly salaried faculty. When we have translated them into English, we have used the terms Full Professor and Extra-Ordinary Professor, and for the außerordentliche docents we have used the term Adjunct, but in most cases we have left the original Austrian designation. Today the term Ordinarius is used only for professors appointed prior to 1997. Faculty appointed after this date are given the professional title of UniversitätsProfessor, but this title is used further for those who have completed the Habilitation and are regularly employed, but in these cases the title is refined to read Außerordentlicher Universitäts-Professor. This latter title is also used for External Docents as well as for Docents who are regularly employed. Following our work we have, of course, included an extensive Bibliographie. Not only do we list the works cited in the text, we have also expanded this section to include extensive lists of publications by some of the most prolific scholars of Austrian Volkskunde. The publications of such individuals as Hermann Wopfner and Adolf Helbok in Innsbruck, Viktor von Geramb and Hanns Koren in Graz, Michael and Arthur Haberlandt, Leopold Schmidt, Richard Wolfram and Helmut Fielhauer in Vienna, are extensive. Likewise the works of some of the more problematic writers

X The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

are included in some detail, Karl von Spieß and Edmund Mudrak are good examples. The reader will note that some items in the bibliography are printed in bold. These items include full lists of the publications of the individual, e.g., in a Festschrift where all of the publications for a career are presented. In the process of trying to write a full study of an academic discipline, it soon becomes obvious that there are many areas and topics which have perhaps not received adequate commentary, and in some cases none at all. We mention here two such areas. For many years the Österreichische volks­ kundliche Bibliographie [Austrian Folklore Bibliography] has been published by the Museum fü r Volkskunde in Vienna. The bibliography itself reaches back to 1965, and generally covers about two years. In 1988 the ÖVB, covering the years 19811983 was published for the first time using computer word processing. This work is a standard reference source for Austrian libraries and departmental seminar rooms. There have been attempts of align some of its coverage with the larger Internationale Volkskundliche Bibliographie, and to produce the biennial publications on CD, but to date neither has been accomplished. The Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde [ÖZV\ has been regularly covered in the Modem Language Association International Bibliography database since the late 1980s, and some of the departmental series have also been included. In the very recent past, yet another major advance in Austrian folklore scholarship has been accomplished. In the Fall of 2002, the Salzburger Landesinstitut fü r Volkskunde [Salzburg State Institute for Folklore] presented a CD with the title ‘Im Winter und zur Weihnachtszeit. Bräuche im Salzburger Land’ [In the Winter and at Christmas Time. Customs in the State of Salzburg]. Prior to this the SLIVK had published twelve volumes in its series, but made the decision to present the next three numbers on CD, this first one devoted to winter customs. There is so much information it is difficult to even summarize: 91 multimedia short texts, 124 longer texts by 60 well-known authors, there are 650 photos, 30 videos, 80 sound recordings and over 200 Internet links. The next

Foreword xi

two ‘publications’ will also be in this format, and the themes have already been announced: ‘Vom Frühling bis zum Herbst [From Springtime to the Fall] and ‘In Familie und Gesellschaft [In the Family and in Society]. Salzburg, where the University has no position for a folklorist/ethnologist, has set an example for all of the universities in the German-speaking world, and beyond. Now it only remains for us to try to thank the many individuals and organizations who helped us along the way. A special note of gratitude to Helmut Eberhart in Graz and Reinhard Johler, now in Tubingen, for their willingness to let us summarize their work on the history of Austrian Volkskunde. We are also indebted to the kind and even eager help from all of the members of the faculty in the Institute for European Ethnology in Vienna. Professor Konrad Köstlin repeatedly made his departmental library available to Dow, gave him copy privileges, and sat for hours in discussions, in the office and at home, in his in Vienna and in Dow’s in the USA. Konrad Köstlin made sure that Dow was also invited to the meeting in Dietenheim/Teodono (South Tyrol) in the Summer of 2001 when the photos and films of Richard Wolfram were put on display. In the Institute in the Hanuschgasse in Vienna, where Bockhorn is at home and Dow has been a regular visitor, there were numerous and rewarding exchanges of ideas with Bernhard Tschofen, Gertraud Liesenfeld, Herbert Nikitsch, and Klara Löffler. In the Museum fü r Volkskunde too, there was help and advice given by Hofrat Klaus Beiti, Hofrat Franz Grieshofer, and Hofrätin Margot Schindler. On a more personal level, the librarian in the Institut, Susan Wicha-Müller, and the secretaries Use Eisperger and Hansjörg Liebscher, were most helpful, always making Dow’s frequent visits to Vienna useful. He always went home with copies, books, and notes aplenty, and even more followed through the mail. In Graz we were able to profit from Helmut Eberhart’s encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the program there, and from many discussions with Elisabeth Katschnig-Fasch and Burkhard Pöttler. In Salzburg it was the Director of the SLIVK, Dr. Ulrike Kammerhofer-Aggermann who always

xii

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

assisted in many visits to the archives, to work through the personal papers of Richard Wolfram, Karl Haiding and Karl von Spieß. Much of the new material in this book comes from those holdings. In Innsbruck we are indebted to Dr. Thomas Nußbaumer not only for his interest in our work, but for his knowledge of one of the other folklorists of the 1940s, the ethnomusicologist Alfred Quellmalz and his field investiga­ tions in South Tyrol. His book on Quellmalz will certainly stand as one of the most solid treatments of a problematic figure, an SS member, and opportunist, but also a good fieldworker. Likewise, to the many people who helped in the larger federal archives in Berlin and Vienna, as well as some of the more local and state archives in Graz, Freiburg im Breisgau, and Stuttgart, our sincere gratitude. A special word of gratitude to Gisela Lixfeld, wife of the late Hannjost Lixfeld, friend and colleague. Finally, to Stephen D. Corrsin of Wayne State University and Joseph Harris of Harvard, a word of thanks for their interest. And to colleagues at Iowa State University, a word of thanks for your interest and for putting up with incessant talking about the ‘Austrian project.’ Permission was granted by Indiana University Press to use a small amount of material previously published in Dow and Lixfeld, The Notification of an Academic Discipline (1994). Böhlau Verlag also granted permission to use portions from the Austrian section of the volume by Jacobeit, Lixfeld, Bockhom and Dow, Völkische Wissenschaft - Gestalten und Tendenzen der deutschen und österreichischen Volkskunde in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts (1994). The American Folklore Society granted permission to use some material published in AFS News. Our heartfelt gratitude for this permission. James R. Dow Ames, Iowa February 28, 2003

Olaf Bockhorn Wien/Hütteldorf

Series Editor’s Preface

Until a generation ago, German used to be the lingua franca in European ethnology. Since the late 1960s, this has been gradually replaced by English, not least in the light of a growing interest in an ‘anthropology of Europe’ in the USA, and an ‘anthropology at home’ in Britain. At the same time, the older discipline of folklore (or folk life studies) in the United Kingdom has been overshadowed by the meteoric rise of cultural studies. As an empirical approach to cultured studies (Empirische Kulturwissenschaft), European ethnology offers methodologies for an evidence-based multidimensional and complex social analysis, which has the capacity to inform policy and practice in a wide range of socio-cultural domains. Understood and practised in this way, European ethnology is a form of applied social research. But there is another dimension to this field, one that constitutes both a resource and a constraint for its development. As anthropology continues to struggle with its colonialist legacy, so many, if not most of the regional traditions of European ethnology carry the burden of their own implication in various forms of ‘national awakening’, from the romantic stirrings of nationalism in eighteenth century literature and scholarship to the savagery of two World Wars and the Holocaust. With the subsequent re-invention of the discipline in the German-speaking parts of Europe since about 1970, a growing number of university institutes adopted ‘European ethnology’ as the new name, either on its own or combined with other labels, such as ‘cultured anthropology’ at Frankfurt am Main, or ‘cultural studies’ at Marburg. This reflects a paradigmatic shift that is still the subject of much debate, both within eind across the different national emd regional traditions.

xiv

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

In the 1980s, one of the authors of the present volume, James Dow, was involved in a publishing programme called ‘Folklore Studies in Translation’, aimed at making European scholarship in this field available to Anglophone readers. Together with Hannjost Lixfield, he edited a volume of essays, translated from German, offering an insight into ‘theoretical confrontation, debate and reorientation’ during the crucial decade 1967-77 (Dow and Lixfield 1986). This was followed by collaborative work on Germany during the Third Reich. There is now a considerable literature about the history of the discipline in Germany, in particular during this period. However, as James Dow and Olaf Bockhom indicate in their Foreword to the present volume, the development of the discipline in Austria in the twentieth century has remained a largely neglected field. With their detailed survey of The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria, from Romantic beginnings and the Mythological School to the postulate of a ‘democratic historiography’, the authors fill a major gap in the literature on the history of European ethnology. Ullrich Kockel Cambridge/Gloucs. 6 November 2003

1 Aller Anfang ist schwer The shaft to which we are about to descend is that of the German ‘soul,’ a mine as deep, as dark, as strange, as rich in precious metal and in worthless refuse as any other (Georg Brandes 1902: 181).

All beginnings are difficult, and in a field as wide-ranging as folklore and/or ethnology we must even begin with a clarification of the name of our discipline. In German two terms have been used in the past for studies devoted to the folk: Volkskunde, commonly understood to mean folklore, and Völkerkunde, usually rendered in English with ethnology. Throughout this book we will use the single term Volkskunde, but its close relationship to Ethnologie will be apparent. Until the early twentieth century Ethnologie was sometimes even used as a synonym for both terms. When a distinction was made, it reflected the idea that Volkskunde was concerned with the European folk, primarily with peasants, while Völkerkunde devoted itself to a comparative study of the primitive folk, specifically outside of Europe. Nowhere in the German-speaking world was this particular distinction clearer than in Austria, particularly in Vienna. At the University there, proto-folklorists gradually moved from a primary interest in Europeans and became increasingly focused on Germans in general and the Austrian-German folk in particular, lending support to the idea that Volkskunde was indeed a Euro- and then a Germano-centric discipline. The National Socialist years certainly enhanced this increasing focus on things German. Late in the twentieth century programs in Volkskunde at many German and Austrian universities have been renamed Europäische Ethnologie, but the path was long, and troubled.

2

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Zwei Seelen wohnen ach in meiner Brust Johann Wolfgang von Goethe described the division he felt in his own life with the famous phrase two souls live alas in my breast,’ an attempt to distinguish between his Natur [emotion] and his Geist [intellect]. Romantic and neo-romantic attitudes in Austria during much of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century likewise reflect a division not unlike Goethe’s two souls, but this was no clear division into the Geist and Natur of scholars or their works. The split was rather one of budding folklore scholarship versus Deutschtümelei, a jingoistic emphasis on things German. The latter proved to be amazingly persistent in Austria and any serious study of Volkskunde in that country must address these parallel developments. What eventually turned into a serious and empirically-based study of Austrian and European culture would, however long be overshadowed by more irrational approaches to the study of tradition and culture. In the early years we can identify those individuals who researched the primary folklore canon: narratives, songs, customs, material culture, etc. Their work was informed by current theories and waves of interest in antiquities, linguistics, ethnography, anthropology, and even geography. The value of their collections and thoughtful inquiry remains of interest until today in any attempt to understand the intellectual origins of the discipline. Our study of Volkskunde in Austria will deal with such individuals and their works, but there were always those who functioned close to the universities and who lived an ‘intellectual fantasy’ (Corrsin 1997: 80), dreaming up and creating sources for their publications on the folk traditions of Austrians. They too directed their studies to the basic folklore canon, but their writings reveal a more irrational stance, and seemed to be devoted almost exclusively to documenting Germanic continuity from its pre-Christian existence down to the present. It is interesting to note that somewhere between these parallel paths of inquiry there were reputable university professors who would draw concepts and even empirical data

Aller Anfang ist schwer 3

from their precursors, from those who worked with scholarly documentation as well as those whose work we will treat as Deutschtümelei. At each of the three major universities of Austria, Graz, Innsbruck and Vienna, we find faculty whose works reflect both sides of this division, building on what they conceived to be empirical information, e.g., etymologies, long-lived legends and customs, etc., but then combining this with irrational leaps of faith, twisted etymologies, and bizarre source seeking for items of folklore. At the University of Vienna an entire school of thought would develop, usually referred to as the Viennese Mythological School, which gives us our best look at the amalgamation of the parallel paths of Volkskunde in Austria. The treatment of this School will represent a thread which runs through much of our study, during most of the twentieth century, for it too was divided into two groups of individuals who reflect the split. We will concentrate considerable commentary to the ideas and concepts of the individuals, because here we can best document the division which we have now suggested. In Vienna it was nothing less than dueling mythologies. This division, these parallel thrusts, two Viennese concepts of mythology will rise to a level of open confrontation in the first decades of the twentieth century, a split which we will describe in detail in Chapters 2 and 3. These primary paths will elide under National Socialism, and become a völkische Wissenschaft [folkish, pure German scholarship] which in turn will become progressively more irrational and finally result in a perverted discipline that will seek out a unique role for the Germanic Volk. It will develop into unbridled and brutal racism under Nazism, and Austrian Volkskunde scholarship will not remain above the fray. In the postwar German-speaking world there was a vigorously debated assumption by some folklorists, that during the National Socialist years there had been “two Volkskunden,’ one representing the continued and legitimate study of the traditional canon, the other a discipline tainted by Nazism. In Austria this debate was less intense than in Germany, for both paths in Austrian folklore scholarship survived the War and continued to play a role throughout

4

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

much of the latter half of the twentieth century. This split in the postwar debate over the role of Volkskunde during National Socialism reflects a continuation of the division which we have suggested. We will, of course, need to explore and substantiate such a statement, carefully. First, however, we must look backwards, to extra-Austrian precursors and then to those whom we view as the progenitors of the discipline in Austria.

Tour d’Europe A preliminary look around nineteenth century Europe will reveal a few of the Wegbereiter [precursors] to the study of Volkskunde in Austria. We find such individuals in four different European countries, France, Russia, Germany and England, thus the tour de Europe. These precursors can only be indirectly linked to the Austrian folklorists we will deal with presently, but each in his or her own way, contributed concepts particularly to those individuals who were more dilettantish in their approach to the study of traditions. Thus we begin with them. The earliest of these, a name not unknown to scholars in Austria and elsewhere, is the infamous Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau (1816-1892), a man who thought of himself as the direct descendant of a Norman conqueror. He was indeed a man of letters, had a career as a diplomat, being appointed in 1849 for a short time as chef de cabinet of Alexis de Tocqueville. Gobineau is still known today, however, for his four volume set, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity o f the Races (1853-55), one volume of which was the Inequality of the Human Races. Gobineau proposed that Aryan racial purity could be maintained only by the preservation and strengthening of its Nordic strains. For him so long as the race is kept pure, the special characteristics remain unchanged, and are reproduced for generations without any appreciable difference’ (Gobineau 1967: 119), while all ‘things that deviate from the natural and normal order of the world can only borrow life for a time’ (1967: 138). His thesis was

Aller Anfang ist schwer 5

straightforward, there are bodily and intellectual differences among the races, and he described the Nordic race as superior and destined to rule. Interestingly Gobineau was never well received in France, but his theories became fashionable in German and Austrian intellectual circles. Certainly the most colorful figure in this assemblage was the Russian Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), clairvoyant, world traveler, and still looked upon as the founder of modem theosophy. As a result of early 19th century linguistic interest in India, particularly in the person of the Indo-Europeanist Franz Bopp, many Europeans looked to the East, and Blavatsky was no exception. Her interests included pagan mythology, Gnosticism, ancient and exotic mystery religions, demonology, freemasonry, spiritualism, all of which she plagiarized for her own writings. By the 1870s she had moved to New York and founded a so-called ‘Miracle Club,’ where this blend of -ologies and -isms was discussed and debated. Soon, however, she moved again, transferring her work and interests to India. Here she claimed to have received her initiation from two exalted mahatmas, Morya and Koot Hoomi, and as their representative she was compelled to impart their wisdom to Aryans. Madame Blavatsky then claims to have seen, and mastered, a secret text called the Stanzas o f Dzyan in a subterranean Himalayan monastery (Goodrick-Clarke 1992: 19-22). Soon thereafter she published her best known work, The Secret Doctrines (1888). At the very core of her thinking and writing was her concept of what she referred to as five ‘root races,’ the first two of which had no history. The third was described as the Lemurians who, through racial miscegenation bred monsters and eventually fell to their doom. The fourth she calls the Atlanteans who mixed with Aryans to produce Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. It was, however, the fifth race which captured her interest, a new race still being prepared. In her works she writes about the birth of the universe, where it came from, what powers fashioned it, but her goal seems to have been prognosticating where all of this was going and what it means. The core ideas in her writing were race, elitism and

6

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

the importance of hierarchy, all based on insights she had gained, e.g., from the Stanzas ofDzyan. In all studies of the origins of Volkskunde in the Germanspeaking world, historians of the discipline point to the person of Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl (1823-1897) as one of, if not the, founding father of the discipline. Such statements represent overstatement, but there is little doubt that Riehl belonged to the group of precursors. He is best known among folklorists for one lecture, held in 1858 and published in 1859 where he spoke about ‘Volkskunde als WissenschaftJ [Folklore as Science]. His path to this lecture came through an assignment in 1846 by the Bavarian King Maximilian, to inventory Bavarian folklife. Riehl’s movement away from the libraries and archives and into the countryside and villages led him to say: ‘Studies of what often seem to be childlike or meaningless customs and practices, hearth and home, jackets and camisoles, kitchens and cellars [are] indeed pure foolishness. They take on a scholarly or poetic aura through their relationship to that wonderful organism the collective folk personality’ (Riehl in Lutz 1958: 29). He would refine this basic idea to say that Volkskunde is not thinkable as a discipline until it places the idea of the nation at the core of its various investigations. He then defined the nation as consisting of ‘Stamm, Sprache, Sitte und Siedelung’ [tribe, language, custom and settlement]. The most frequently quoted phrase by Riehl is his statement that ‘Volkskunde is the foyer of state (political) science,’ a statement which made him the folklorist who pointed out the importance of the Nation for the discipline. It was this emphasis that led to a renaissance of interest in his writings during the Third Reich (Riehl in Lutz 1958: 32). The fourth figure of interest to us here, Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927) continued the racist thoughts of Gobineau, including the superiority of the Aryans, the racist, elitist, and futuristic notions of Blavatsky, most of which she had gained through unique insights, and the nationalistic ideas of Riehl, all of which pointed to the future destiny of the Aryan-Nordic peoples. Chamberlain left his home in England and went to Germany at the age of fifteen for medical

Aller Anfang ist schwer 7

treatment. He never returned, settling for twenty years in Vienna (1889-1909), where he wrote a dissertation on botany, eventually moving to Bayreuth where he remained until his death (1909-29). Chamberlain not only lived in this city devoted to Richard Wagner and his music, he became a confidant of Cosima Wagner, the wife of the musician, married their daughter Eva Wagner, and became part of the intellectual and social circle there. In 1923 he met Hitler at the Bayreuth Festival and when he died, Hitler marched in the funeral procession honoring him. Chamberlain is primarily known for his 1899 meta-histoiy Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts [The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century], which combined his own theory of race with a rather bizarre vitalist philosophy. Chamberlain’s book soon became a Bible for the Pan-Germanic movement and the search for a ‘German master race,’ but more importantly it served as something of a model for Alfred Rosenberg, whose Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts [Myth of the 20th Century] was seen as a sequel to Chamberlains’s work (Mosse 1968: v). Rosenberg, as we will see, was the ideologist who conceived of the Institute for German Folklore,’ then appointed an Austrian, Karl Haiding, as its director, and several other Austrians as directors of some of its sub-departments.

Deutschtümelnde Vorläufer The precursors came from several countries and left a heritage of racial inferences, including racial superiority of the Aryans, secret insights into the past, and the political nature of Volkskunde. The jingoistic and Germanophilie progenitors [Vorläufer], on the other hand, were Austrians, or at least had strong ties to Austria, and were associated directly or indirectly with the University of Vienna. Just where the line might be drawn between precursors and progenitors is, of course, debatable, but we have chosen to separate the two by seeking in the latter specific lines of conceptual contact between the earlier precursors and the first generation of folklorists/ethnologists in Vienna.

8

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

In Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke’s study of The Occult Roots o f Nazism, it is interesting to note that he divides his work into two parts, the first devoted to individuals whom he refers to as the Ariosophists in Vienna, and the second to a philosophy, Arisophy in Germany. In the Vienna section, he writes extensively about two individuals, Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels (1874-1954), ‘der Mann, der Hitler die Ideen gab’ [the man who gave Hitler the ideas] (Daim 1994), and Guido von List (1848-1919), both of whom were Viennese. Guido von List in particular had a profound effect on the generation of developing folklorists in Vienna. His views of the Germanic past, which he referred to as Armanist, combining Aryan with German, helped him create his own ‘intellectual fantasy’ in which he incorporated most of the thinking of the precursors. Central to his own thinking, however, was an idea which List borrowed from Max Ferdinand Sebaldt von Werth (18591916), it was nothing less than an Aryan Big Bang theory. According to Sebaldt, Aryan cosmology told of a god named Mundelföri, who “whisked the universe out of a primal fiery chaos’ (Sebaldt cited in Goodrick-Clarke 1992: 51), a polar dualism developed, exemplified by matter and spirit, the male and female sexes, a bond of pure opposites which would generate superior progeny - ‘Zwei Seelen wohnen ach in meiner Brust.’ Later, Heinrich Himmler would add his own perspective to this novel cosmology, suggesting that Aryans had arrived on earth, fully formed, from the eternal ice of heaven, the Welteislehre [cosmic ice theory], which he had borrowed from Hanns Hoerbiger, before ‘stalking the earth armed with superhuman “electrical powers’” (Burleigh and Wippermann 1991: 64-65). In his numerous writings List would put forth the idea that Aryan-German culture had reached a high level of development in its past, centuries, even millennia before Rome had colonized the region now known as Germany, including Austria. He conjectured that a Wotanist cult, an ancient holy priesthood, had dominated until Christian missionaries conspired to destroy this Armanist culture. Guido von List is today looked upon as something of a fantast and his works have been read to try to understand

Aller Anfang ist schwer 9

the occult roots of Nazism, as Goodrick-Clarke has done so well. For us, however, Guido von List is of significance because of his ideas about places, particularly place names, about language, particularly remnants of ancient Germanic law still found in modem German, and traditional customs in the present that preserve the ancient Armanist and/or Wotanist practices. Legendary figures, like the wild huntsman, fairy tale motifs and nursery rhymes, were for him all survivals and remnants of this universal Wotanist religion. List always tried, in all of his writings, to associate his findings with contemporary popular customs and extant legends and Märchen. In our attempt to trace and understand the study of Volkskunde in Austria, bizarre interpretations of Austrian-German legends and place names similar to those offered by List will be seen again through most of the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed this irrational approach to traditions will not disappear from the writings of scholars or the dilettantes who work on the margins of our discipline and who sometimes seem better known than the academic scholars. Vera Deißner even devotes a major section of her extensive treatment of the methodology of Volkskunde to what she calls illiberalism, irrationalism, nationalism, cultural pessimism and Germanophilie as the framework in which Volkskunde developed in the German-speaking world (Deißner 1997: 102114). The Balto-German and Viennese Indologist Leopold von Schroeder (1851-1920) was the first of the progenitors to play a specific role in Austrian Volkskunde, particularly for some members of the Viennese Mythological School. Bom in Livonia, Schroeder began his studies in 1870 at the university in Dorpat, continued by means of a financial subvention in Leipzig, Jena and Tübingen, where Rudolf Roth introduced him to the study of the Rigveda. Even though he did not complete his doctorate in ‘comparative linguistics (grammatica comparativa)’ until 1879, he had apparently already written a Habilitation study in 1877 on Indology, which he then taught until 1882 as a Private Docent, and until 1894 as a ‘budgeted Docent.’1 In 1890, during a stay in Vienna, he had gotten to know the Indologist Georg Bühler

10

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

(ÖBL 1957-1: 125) and the president of the Anthropological Society, Ferdinand Freiherr von Andrian-Werburg (ÖBL 1957I: 2 If.). By 1893, as a result of Russification and the switch to Russian as the language of instruction, Schroeder decided to leave Dorpat and go to Germany. His planned move to Marburg, where he had received a teaching position, did not take place. Under Adrian’s influence he received a call in the Fall of 1894 to an Adjunct Professorship at the University of Innsbruck. This professorship for ‘Ancient Indian History and Antiquities’ was created especially for Schroeder and was converted on January 1, 1897 into an Ordinariat. Following Andrian’s wish, he had also taught ‘General Volkskunde’ in Innsbruck. This additional responsibility was removed after the accidental death of Bühler, however, and effective April 1, 1899 he was named Ordinarius for ‘Ancient Indian Philology and Antiquities’ in Vienna.2 Here he worked until his death on February 2, 1920, leaving behind Indology, for which he lacked real understanding, and devoting himself primarily to comparative myth research and ethnology (Frauwallner 1961). Even so Schroeder was widely known and recognized for his many activities in Vienna (Frauwallner 1961: 84-89), in the realm of the protestant school and church congregations, the Anthropological Society, the Academy of Sciences, as the composer of spiritual songs, as a dramatist, and co-worker of the Neue Freie Presse, as well as other newspapers (Schroeder 1921). What is of interest is his partial ‘fathering’ of the ‘other’ Viennese School, in regard to scholarship and world view. We will meet Schroeder again in Chapter 2. In his inaugural lecture in Vienna in 1899 Schroeder said that ‘it was far from Indology research as such to involve oneself in the turmoil of the day, the battle for sympathies.’ He needed this formal and unpolitical position for “his scholarship,’ but not for himself (Schroeder 1913: 184). Decisive for his own personal development was his deeding with the neo-mythology in Richard Wagner’s music. In 1878 Schroeder first attended a presentation of Tannhäuser in Weimar, which meant for him a kind of ‘religious awakening experience.’ Also of importance for his development was his

Aller Anfang ist schwer 11

interest, awakened in his Dorpat years, for comparative mythology studies (Schroeder 1921). For Schroeder mythology was ‘the oldest poetry of the human race.’ There was also the rising nationalistic excitement in Livonia which almost forced and strengthened him to join the pan-German camp. Finally, in the year 1900, he developed an acquaintance and life-long friendship with Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Wahldeutscher [elective German], to whom Schroeder even dedicated a biography in 1918. In a book announcement we read this “book shows ... how Chamberlain became a German, what incomparable service he has shown to the German folk, and what he owes to the great Germanic man.’3 In 1908, in his Mysterium und Mimus im Rigveda [Mystery and Mime in the Rigveda] Schroeder combined sword dances of the young men’s group gatherings during certain celebration times (Schroeder gives Germanic, Greek and Phrygian examples) as his sources, and states that there were also age classes and men’s unions in ‘Aryan antiquity’ (1908: 476), following the lead taken by Heinrich Schurtz in his 1902 volume Altersklassen und Männerbünde [Age Classes and Men’s Unions]. More will be said about Schurtz below. It is, however, his Arische Religion (1914-1916), published in two volumes, which gives us our clearest look at Schroeder and his role as a progenitor of Volkskunde studies in Austria. There are, as might be expected, undocumented statements concerning the Aryans, their homeland, their physical type, their language and even their everyday life as a Hirtenvolk [pastoral people]. Bold assumptions are sprinkled throughout the text, such as: ‘All great intellectual advancement by humanity, for thousands of years, consists of nothing other than the further development of individual Aryan tribes’ (1914-1916: 188). This is followed by: ‘Nothing similar can be said of any other Volk family’ (190), and Within the Aryan folk nation there is apparently an unlimited ability to develop in all directions’ (191). Schroeder offers two thoughts which we would like to isolate here, because they will be of specific importance for Austrian folklorists in subsequent years. In a lengthy section on time reckoning, he says:

12

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria Time reckoning in antiquity was very simple and primitive. Aryans divided the year into two halves, or seasons: Summer and Winter. Spring, for which they had a different name, was not considered to be a separate season, but rather the beginning of summer. One reckoned according to Winters and Summers. The moon was their measure of time, which we can see in the old name, the root of which [was] mâ “measure.” Months were distinguished, based on the orbit of the moon, the names simply meant “moon” but they were not seen as part of the sun's orbit and did not have special or permanent names. Every month was divided into two halves, new moon and full moon; and since the moon is only visible at night, time was reckoned by nights not days. Later, from Babylon, a more complete time reckoning came to the Aryans. “In Indo-Germanic antiquity, however, reckoning was based on natural months with no connection to counting according to Winters and Summers” (Schrader 1901: 548). Under “year” the ancient Aryans understood “simply a seasonalyear, i.e., the combination of Winter and Summer” (Schrader 1901:393). That is for religion, especially for the cult, not without meaning, as is made clear in the course of the investigation (Voi. I: 250-251).

Finally, there is a brief reference to a fairy tale motif which he includes in his layout of the behavior of Aryans, dealing with child abandonment. He says: The might of the house master over his own [people] was great. It is reflected in the Greek expression ... the despot, actually only a description for the house master! It is also seen in the fact that the man was free to kill his children or abandon them, which continued into historical time with girls. This harsh custom and its counter form is also found in the old Aryan custom of subjecting elderly people to a violent death when they became a burden (Vol. I: 260).

Like Schroeder, Raimund Friedrich Kaindl (1866-1930) was born and educated outside of what is today Austria proper, in the capital Czemowitz of the monarchy province Bukovina. His studies were primarily in history, and his Habilitation was devoted to Austrian History. Kaindl has recently received considerable attention by German and Austrian folklorists because of his early development of ideas about fieldwork and

Aller Anfang ist schwer 13

methodology for Volkskunde. Still he remains a controversial figure, one who is clearly a progenitor, but unfortunately the division which we are suggesting can also be found in his person and in his writings. In 1951 Leopold Schmidt recognized the significance of Kaindl’s writings for the discipline: ‘together with Michael Haberlandt’s and Friedrich S. Krauss’, [his] works ... [were] the basis for the development of Volkskunde ... in the subsequent era, even though they were not known or recognized’ (Schmidt 1951a: 123). Kaindl, as an ethnic German and very much a part of what he conceived to be a German Volkstum [folk nation] in the East, struggled throughout his life with the GroßdeutschKleindeutsch issue. With the occupation and Russification of Czemovitz in 1914, Kaidl was threatened with imprisonment, fled his homeland and moved to Vienna. In 1915 he began his career in Graz teaching history, a position which he occupied until his death. In his early years Kaindl devoted much of his interest to Volkskunde, publishing in 1903 his book Die Volkskunde. Ihre Bedeutung, ihre Ziele und ihre Methode mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Verhältnisses zu den historischen Wissenschaften. Ein Leitfaden zur Einführung in die Volksforschung [Folklore, Its Meaning, Its Goals and Its Methods with Special Emphasis on Its Relationship to Historical Scholarship. An Introductory Textbook for Folk Research]. In this book Kaindl devotes more than 40 pages to the methodology of fieldwork, including a 17 page sample questionnaire, with pictures and drawings. He himself left a legacy of early fieldwork, on house construction, everyday life practices of the Ruthenians and the Huzuls, death beliefs and customs among Jews of Rumania and Poland, German folksongs in Bukovina, publishing both in professional and popular journals, as well as in magazines. His book was published too soon after Eduard HoffmannKrayer’s Die Volkskunde als Wissenschaft [Folklore as Science] for him to include it in his own writings. HoffmannKrayer’s work set in motion a theoretical debate which did not include the work of Kaindl, not even his efforts at describing fieldwork methodology and the goals of Volkskunde research. By the time of the second round of major theoretical

14

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

debate in the 1920s, concerning Hans Naumann’s concepts of gesunkenes Kulturgut [sunken cultural goods] and primitive Gemeinschafts-kultur [primitive communal culture], Kaindl had long since left the folklore scene, devoting himself to his primary discipline, history. His interest in his homeland, Bukovina, and his commitment to a Großdeutsch image, have unfortunately left us with a mixed picture, that of a liberal folklorist open to a view of the world that included a European federation, and at the same time that of a panGerman fanatic. This split in the person of Raimund Friedrich Kaindl is clearly reflected in the recent scholarship (Deißner 1997; Johler 1998; Warneken 1999; Eberhart 2001).

Zur Sache Let’s get to the point. In the world of German literature it is customary to make reference to Goethe somewhere in analyses of specific literary periods or individual works. In the world of German-language Volkskunde it is equally as important to take note of Johann Gottfried Herder, but even more so of the Brothers Grimm as the founding fathers of the discipline, and Austria is no exception. In 1815 Jacob Grimm was sent as secretary of the Hessian Delegation to the Congress of Vienna. It was from this city that he distributed his Circular, die Sammlung der Volkspoesie betreffend [Circular, Concerning the Collection of Folk Poetry] in which he reports on the education of society and on the collection of folk traditions. Just how much this circular stimulated significant collecting and research activity in the Austrian Kaiserreich has never been investigated. It is clear, however, that there was no particular effect on the universities, for their ‘Philosophical Faculties’ were primarily responsible for preparatory studies in the various professions, a role taken over after 1848 by the final two years of the Gymnasium [High School]. Universities became research institutions only after 1849/50, through fundamental university reforms (Geramb 1951: 79; Wopfner 1959; Koren 1974). These reforms would lead to important developments in the early history of

Aller Anfang ist schwer 15

university Volkskunde studies, which were associated with German and Slavic philology, geography, linguistics, and finally ‘ethnography,’ understood as descriptive anthropology. There are three universities in Austria which need to be considered in this work. Today there are new universities and in the past there were others that belonged to the Monarchy, but we are only concerned with Graz, Innsbruck and Vienna. Some discussion of the Catholic University in Salzburg will be necessary as we approach the years of National Socialism, but our primary concern is with the three traditional universities. It will also become apparent that we concentrate most of our work on the University of Vienna, and it should become obvious why we have made this choice. It is to the Karl-Franzens Universität in Graz that we must look to find the earliest indication of Volkskunde studies in Austria. In 1852 Karl Weinhold, showing his affinity to the Grimms’ interest in folk studies and antiquities, began to offer university courses on ‘German Mythology’ and to publish works like his Weihnacht-Spiele und Lieder aus Süddeutschland und Schlesien [Christmas Games and Songs of Southern Germany and Silesia] (Weinhold 1853) and his Altnordisches Leben [Old Nordic Life] (Weinhold 1856). The courses were part of the offerings of the German department and were continued until he took a new position in 1861 at the University of Kiel in Germany. Weinhold was succeeded in Graz by a series of German professors, all of whom were somewhat interested in Germanic antiquities. At least one professor of Slavics, Georg Krek, gave similar courses on ‘Slavic Mythology’ and ‘Slavic Archaeology and Ethnology’ as early as 1867. It wasn’t until 1899, however, that the Sanskrit and comparative philologist Rudolf Meringer came to Graz where he laid the groundwork for the discipline, and did so in such a way that the program there still reflects his focus on material culture. The committee responsible for appointing him commented on ‘the great role in Meringer’s publications on studies of Indo-Germanic Volkskunde.’4 Karl Weinhold had pointed out the relationship between ‘Wörter und Sachen’ [words and things], but it was Meringer who led the way through words, i.e., literature, back to the Germanic past,

16

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

and to the material culture still extant (cf. Eberhart 1983: 3940; Eberhart 1991; Lochner von Hüttenbach 1976: 25-45). It is thus, with Rudolf Meringer that we can see the beginnings of what is still referred to as the ‘Graz School of Material Culture,’ and which can be traced through the entire 20th century in the work of such individuals as Viktor von Geramb, Hanns Koren and Oskar Moser. Indeed, Viktor von Geramb remained under Meringer’s influence even after he no longer studied directly with him. Geramb’s studies also led him to the historian Raimund Friedrich Kaindl (Eberhart 2001) and his 1903 study Die Volkskunde. All of these early beginnings, however, were quite dramatically affected by the 1918 downfall of the Danube Monarchy, giving Volkskunde a new cultural, political and ideological function. This is most evident in Geramb’s 1924 Habilitation study Die Kultur­ geschichte der Rauchstube [The Cultural History of the Smoke Kitchen], the first in folklore in Austria, where he says that folklore’s development ‘corresponds to the cultural and political demands of the age.’5 While Graz played a role in the development of studies of material culture, the University of Innsbruck played and continues to play a role in what is referred to as the Tyrolean Mythos’ which would lead to a unique direction for folklore studies there. Most particularly it was the area known as South Tyrol, today part of Italy, that helped develop an antiItalian and pro-German mentality among Austrian folklorists (Gatterer 1972: 10-12). Through weirs in 1859 and 1866 Tyrol had lost Lombeirdy in the West and Venetia in the East, thereby becoming a borderland state. As a result a concept called Tiroler Landeseinheit [Tyroleem State Unity] arose and caused Austrians to think of the region in a most unique way. The University of Innsbruck became the place to study the entire Alpine region,6 but more importantly it led to conceptual images of the Tyrolean peasant as a self-sufficient and religious individual ready to defend his homeland. Scholarship in Innsbruck soon focused on Tyrolean peasants who were assumed to be living in a relict area and were thus a primary source of ancient traditions. A politics of being ‘occupied’ countered the irredenta Italia movement, a call to

Aller Anfang ist schwer 17

unite all of the regions of Italy. The folkloric themes that developed were clearly reflected at the University. In 1859 Ignaz von Zingerle, also following the lead of the Grimms, had begun to collect and publish Tyrolean faiiy tales and legends. Students following in his footsteps viewed Tyrol as a topic for serious folkloric investigation, and came to think of their homeland in terms of a national defense against Italy. During these early years it becomes progressively apparent that what Reinhard Johler has termed a Sonderweg [Special Path] was developing (Johler 1994: 409). Political historiography at Innsbruck promoted a Großdeutsch mentality, however with Austria being loyal to a Habsburg Monarchy led by Austrians. It is in this politically charged atmosphere that we find the first Austrian folklorist of note in Innsbruck, Hermann Wopfner (1876-1963). His own personal world view was nurtured by the peasant family from which he came, a life style which he and others thought of as threatened by technology, tourism and traffic. If we follow his developmental years, we see that in 1896/97 he was first exposed to the Tyrolean Mythos’ through his studies in Innsbruck, but he soon moved to Leipzig to study under the famous German folklorist Karl Lamprecht for a period of time before returning to Austria. By 1903 Wopfner had completed his Habilitation and then received the venia legendi for Economic History, and in 1906 for Austrian History. By 1909 he was appointed Extra-Ordinary Professor and in 1914 Ordinarius for Austrian History in Innsbruck (Oberkofler 1969a: 107, 117-122). Wopfner was not just anti-modem in his approach, for him the Middle Ages was a Golden Age of a peasant folk and the local peasantry did indeed represent the keepers of ancient cultural life. This mentality of a continuity among the local populace was passed on to the student of his colleague Harold Steinacker. It was this student, a young Alfred Helbok (1883-1968), who would follow Wopfner’s lead in researching South Tyrol, and thus expand his own historical understanding by opening up new sources, oral traditions and the material culture of the Tyrolean peasants. It should be obvious that the ‘Special Path’ that would be followed in Innsbruck had been prepared prior to World War I by

18

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

individuals and by institutions. The War interrupted this ‘Path’ but it actually speeded up the ultimate goal: South Tyrol was annexed by Italy, and in the process it became most sacred property for Austrians (Wopfner 1915: 67-81). It is to the Alma mater Rudolphina [University of Vienna] that we must look to get the most complete picture of the development of Austri am Volkskunde studies and even its close relationship to Ethnologie (Bockhom 1988). There are similarities with the development of the discipline at both Graz and Innsbruck, but it was in Vienna where the most influential individuals and programmatic developments were to be found. As with Graz some of the earliest course offerings which might be viewed as proto-folklore courses were developed by professors of Slavic languages. As early as 1849 Jan Kollár offered ‘Slavic Antiquities,’ and his successor Franz Miklosich, professor of Slavic philology and antiquities continued the agenda developed by Kollár. Throughout the 1860s, 1870s and into the 1880s Miklosich gave courses on Slavic ‘Folk Poetry,’ ‘Sources of Slavic Mythology,’ and ‘Slavic Ethnography.’ Others offered courses of study in the ‘Slovenian Folk Song’ and the ‘Russian Folk Epic.’ In contrast, in the German department there was only one faculty position and the courses listed in the semester catalogs were modest. By 1859/60 Franz Stark served as docent for ‘Realities,’ yet another term for Germanic mythology. Several individuals offered courses which reflected the developing canon: Franz Pfeiffer - ‘History of the German Legend’ in 1859, Wilhelm Scherer - The Germania of Tacitus’ in 1869/70, Richard Heinzel - ‘Germanic Antiquities’ in 1877, Erich Schmidt - The German Folk Song’ in 1882/83, and Joseph Seemüller - ‘German Ethnography’ in 1883. It is important to note that both the Slavic and the German language programs were concerned in their course work and in their publications primarily with Altertümer [antiquities], A second area of study which fed into the development of Volkskunde in Vienna was Geography. This discipline was not treated merely as a natural science, but was rather much more anthropological in its approach. Courses were offered like “Nature and People in the Austrian Alpine Lands,’ and

Aller Anfang ist schwer 19

‘Peoples and Intellectual Culture of the Kaiserreich Austria Compared to Other European Major States.’ Karl Freiherr von Czoernig, a statistician who was not at the university, published his monumental three volume study of the Ethnographie der österreichischen Monarchie [Ethnography of the Austrian Monarchy] in 1855-1857, and Phillip Paulitschke lectured regularly after 1888/89 on the ‘Folk Origins of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.’ We are indeed looking at individuals, their courses and their publications which today we would refer to as an Etimologia Europaea. At the same time an entire array of individuals taught and published Volkskunde, but who were not part of the regular university faculty. This is the parallel path described briefly above and which will be treated more elaborately in the next chapter. The third area of study which helped form a basis for Volkskunde studies in Vienna was Linguistics. By the 1860s the Orientalist Friedrich Müller was teaching courses in Sanscrit and comparative linguistics, and treating his subject ethnographically, e.g., ‘Principles of Linguistic Ethnography.’ He lectured on ‘General Ethnography’ and published a scholarly work with the same title (Müller 1873). It is important to note here that linguistic ethnography’ helped form the scholarly basis for the study of Volkskunde in Vienna, but it is equally of importance that their area of investigation was not limited to Europe. In Germany it is a truism that Volkskunde grew out of the study of German philology, while in Austria as we can see, the discipline had much stronger ties to ethnology, whether Slavic, Germanic, historic-geographic or linguistic. Apart from the university, an Anthropological Society was founded in 1870 in Vienna (cf. Schmidt 1951a: 111-113; Hirschberg 1970: 1-10). By 1877 the anthropological and prehistoric collections of this society were moved to the Imperial-Regal Natural History Museum where the Anthropological Society had found a home. We note here that a mixture of pre­ historians, anthropologists and ethnographers made up its membership, and ‘at the time of its founding, and full of enthusiasm, [one thought] not only about physical

20

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

anthropology, ethnology and ancient history, but also about Volkskunde’ (Hirschberg 1970: 3). By 1884 this led to the founding of an ‘Ethnographic Commission,’ which ‘concerned itself right away with measures which were to preserve the Volkskunde, or the ethnography of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as well as that of the Balkan states’ (Hirschberg 1970: 3). At exactly the time of the founding of the Ethnographical Commission, four young men began their doctoral studies and conducted their scholarly activities in ways that would bring them into contact with ‘academic’ Volkskunde: Rudolf Meringer (born 1859), Friedrich Salomo Krauss (born 1859), Michael Haberlandt (bom 1860) and Rudolf Much (bom 1862). It should be noted that they had contacts with each other through their own fields of study as well as through what we might refer to as a ‘proto- Volkskunde’ teaching generation functioning at that time at the University of Vienna. We have already met Meringer as Professor in Graz as of 1899, but he studied and taught German philology and comparative Indo-Germanic linguistics in Vienna prior to his call to Graz. During his student years Krauss belonged to the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and joined the Ethnographic Commission on its founding in 1884. Krauss would later develop a 750 item questionnaire to be used for ethnographic research (Krauss 1884). Michael Haberlandt, a student of the Orientalist Friedrich Müller, also studied comparative Indo-Germanic philology and completed several Sanscrit studies. In his curriculum vitae which he submitted as part of his Habilitation application in May, 1892, Michael Haberlandt wrote: By my joining the planned Anthropological-Ethnographic Department of the Imperial-Regal Natural History Museum in Vienna in the summer of 1884, I received, for the first time, the impulse to concern myself with General Ethnography. In my various positions since that time ... I had by means of determining, exhibiting and scholarly treatment of the collection, the best opportunity and need to work intensively with this discipline, both in a general way and most especially with the

Aller Anfang ist schwer 21 ethnographie relationships of all the ethnographic groups on the earth.7

As his Habilitation study in 1892 he submitted Die Cultur der Eingeborenen der Malediven [The Culture of the Native Maldivans]. Following his colloquium and trial lecture, ‘Concerning Polyandry,’8 a professorial committee voted unanimously on December 17, 1892 to grant him the venia legendi for ‘General Ethnography.”9 In the Summer Semester (hereafter SS) 1893 he began his teaching duties, while publishing in the area of ‘Geography and Ethnology.’ Haberlandt lectured on the ‘Ethnography of West India’ as well as on ‘Principles of General Ethnology.’ Through him, as Leopold Schmidt emphasized, ‘the academic course of Volkskunde began, even though in a limited way’ (Schmidt 1951a: 113). A glance into the schedule of courses offered, verifies this: a course of lectures on Malay and African Ethnography, comparative religious studies, sociology, etc. (Bockhom 1988: 68). In the SS 1896 he announced under ‘Ethnology’ for the first time a course entitled ‘General Volkskunde,’ which was then followed one year later with ‘Austrian Volkskunde.’ Aside from the contention that Michael Haberlandt was the primary founder of the discipline of Völkerkunde, as Richard Wolfram does (Wolfram 1986: 1), it is clear that for the first time, in 1896, the word and the discipline Volkskunde experienced its academic birth at the University of Vienna. In anticipation of the further development, we can point out here that Michael Haberlandt, after the SS 1900 offered ‘Ethnology’ for students of all faculties. He held lectures and conducted research exclusively on Europe, Austria, and Austro-Hungary. He used the term Ethnographie and Volkskunde interchangeably and for the most part as synonyms. In contrast, in his long academic career Rudolf Much never used the word Volkskunde in the title of his courses. Nevertheless, Richard Wolfram is correct, that ‘the impetus coming from Germanistik through the work of ... Much ... was decisive for the establishment of the discipline and for the breakthrough to full acceptance’ (Wolfram 1986: 3). Rudolf

22

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Much (1862-1936) (cf. Höfler 1975: 400-401), son of the pre­ historian Matthäus Much who was a charter member of the Anthropological Society in Vienna, later its secretary and editor of the “Newsletter,’ and as of 1903 Vice President (Kerchler 1975: 400), was from 1885 on a volunteer in the Ancient History Department of the Imperial-Regal Natural History Museum. In 1887 he completed his studies of Germanistik and Ancient Geography, submitting a doctoral dissertation entitled Zu Deutschlands Vorgeschichte [On Germany’s Pre-History], under R. Heinzel and the Geographer W. Tomaschek. A study trip in 1888 took Much to Denmark and Sweden, which he used to learn the languages, ‘and it also gave me the opportunity to hear Germanistik lectures at the University in Copenhagen, and to study the rich museums there and in Stockholm.’10 As a result he wrote a series ‘of investigations which had as their goal shedding light on ancient Germanic language and cultural history.’ His scholarly endeavors reached their peak in 1892 in the introduction to his Habilitation procedure. His book Deutsche Stammsitze [German Tribal Homes] was presented on November 4, 1892 as his Habilitation study (Much 1892). The process was completed in February 1893 and confirmed in April of the same year. His unanimously approved venia read ‘Germanic Language History and Antiquities.’ Not until the SS 1894 did he hold his first lecture on The Ethnographic Relationship of the Celts and the Germans.’ Thereafter we find ‘Germanic Ethnography,’ ‘Ancient Germanic Ethno­ graphy und Geography,’ courses on Germanic mythology, runic inscriptions, and the ‘Homeland of the Germans.’ In the Winter Semester (hereafter WS) 1898/99 we find for the first time his ‘Explanation of the Germania of Tacitus.’ As early as 1900 he had been recommended as Extra-Ordinary Professor for Germanic and Celtic Antiquities. In 1901 he then receives the title of Adjunct Professor [Außerordentlich.], in 1904 he is appointed Extra-Ordinary Professor [Extra-ordinarius], and in 1906 Full Professor [Ordinarius] for the disciplines of his teaching authority.11 In the report to the Imperial Ministry for Culture and Instruction the recommendation was based on the fact that it is a matter of the ‘antiquity’ of those people,

Aller Anfang ist schwer 23 who after the downfall of the Roman and Greek rule became the rulers of culture for centuries and played the leading roll in European folk communities, i.e., the Germans and to a degree the romanized Celts. It is also here a matter of the original homeland of those peoples, and determining their divisions into larger and smaller tribal and G a u [regional] associations, their migrations and their new fortresses, researching their state, military and social organizations, especially as it is depicted in their mythology, and finally to observe those changes which came about as a result of their contact with South European cultural circles.12 T h u s, in the first years of the 20th century there w a s for R u d o lf M u ch , in the realm o f 'G erm anic Philology,' the prerequisites for ed ucatin g an entire generation of students. M ichael H aberlan dt, w h o h a d no position at the University of V ienn a, could never reach this level.

2 Zwischen den Kriegen: 1918-38 Through much of the nineteenth century Austria had lost both territory and population. Word War I brought on an identity crisis for Austrians, even doubts whether it could survive as a country. The multi-cultural monarchy was experiencing a sense of Weltuntergang after being reduced in 1918 to German-Austria. This was the atmosphere in which Viktor von Geramb sought to develop his career at the University of Graz between the wars [zwischen den Kriegen].

University o f Graz: Nationalgedanke

Central to an understanding of Geramb is his interest in Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, particularly the latter’s Germannational thinking. In a lecture entitled Die nationale Bewegung und die Volkskunde [The National Movement and Volkskunde] (Geramb 1914b) Geramb cites statements made by Riehl in his 1858 lecture, ‘Volkskunde als Wissenschaftf [Folklore as Science], such as: ‘Volkskunde as scholarship is unthinkable when it does not see as the central core of its various investigations the idea of the nation [Nationalgedarike]’ (Riehl 1859b: 216). A clearer statement by Riehl is cited by Geramb: Perhaps no other of the great European culture peoples has come so slowly to a concept of its complete and unified nationality as the German. But exactly because we took such pains to find the word and the deed “the German folk,” we seem to have been called upon more than others to recognize our folknation later but more basically and thus to nurture and preserve it with even more love (Riehl 1859b: 214).

Zwischen den Kriegen 25

Such Statements were not uncommon among scholars of the time, and Viktor von Geramb was certainly Germannational in his attitude, a stance he maintained until his death. Little did he know how dangerous this would become. From the beginning Geramb’s goal was the venia legendi for ‘German Volkskunde’ at the University of Graz, which he received in 1924, but he was already in service in the state of Styria, as director of the Folklore Museum, also in Graz. Thus his first attempt to change to the university as ExtraOrdinary Professor in 1928 was unsuccessful, but by 1929 the professorial Commission rethought his application for a very specific reason. At the University of Prague a man named Adolf Hauffen had occupied a chair for German Volkskunde since 1919. A new and independent department for Volkskunde was being developed and Geramb’s name was on the list for the position. By November 20, 1931 the Commission made the unusual move of granting him the position of an unsalaried Extra-Ordinary Professor position at the University while leaving him in Styrian state service as director of the Museum. Geramb committed himself to this new arrangement, and even though he was number one on the list in Prague, he refused the offer and remained in Graz. With this new stability Geramb could now exercise much more control, i.e., he could both teach and direct scholarly studies by students, specifically doctoral dissertations. During the next few years we can begin to see just who Victor von Geramb was, and his importance for the study of folklore in Austria. He produced his monumental work on Styrian costumes, he became directly involved in three major educational and preservational societies, and he found his theoretical voice in his dealing with two of the major German folklore scholars of the day, Hans Naumann and Julius Schwietering. Viktor von Geramb’s folk-national preservation and folk educational interests were focused on the Deutscher Schulverein Südmark [German School Union of Styria], primarily adult education, the Verein fiir Heimatschutz [Union for Homeland Protection], primarily concerned with peasant, vernacular architecture, and the Heimatwerk [Homeland Work], founded by Geramb himself and primarily concerned

26

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

with consultation and the sale of costumes and folk art. Geramb’s theoretical concerns developed in reaction to Hans Naumann’s concepts of primitive communal culture [primitive Gemeinschaftskultur] and sunken cultural goods [gesunkenes Kulturgut]. In a 1924 article entitled ‘Volkskunde als Wissen­ schaft’ [Folklore as Science], the same title as one by W.H. Riehl three generations earlier, Geramb suggests that we must deal with both of Naumann’s concepts, but most importantly he takes issue with Naumann’s negative presentation of Romanticism. By treating Romanticism as silly [albem], and silliness as Romantic, Naumann had missed the real object of Volkskunde, which Geramb presents as the Mutterboden der Völker [mother soil of the people]. He sees the question of origins (‘primitiv’ or ‘gesunkenes Gut) as secondary (Geramb 1928: 179) and, with Adolf Spamer, describes these as ‘preliminary sifting work’ (Spamer 1924: 90f). He sees ‘the close-to-nature strata, the peasants and children, as the primary objects of folkloric investigation’ (Geramb 1924a: 337), but interestingly enough he expands his conceptualization of the Volk to include the educated. This represents a clear change in Geramb’s own thinking, since in 1910 he had expressly excluded the educated, technicians, artists, urban dwellers, bureaucrats, factory workers and hand laborers. Julius Schwietering’s 1927 article on the ‘Wesen und Aufgaben der deutschen Volkskunde’ [Essence and Tasks of German Volkskunde] brought a similar reaction from Geramb. Where Schwietering saw Volkskunde as an auxiliary science for history and sociology, Geramb emphasizes ‘those cultural goods ‘shaped’ by the Volk as that which is of importance’ (Geramb 1928: 177). He goes on to suggest what the next task for Volkskunde will be: ‘... to research the special things among the German vulgus.’ Further: These special things distinguish the material and intellectual life expression of the German mother stratum equally well from those of the ethnological and folk-psychological expressions of primitive cultures of all “nature people,” as those of the individualized cultured world and its own daughter strata.

Zwischen den Kriegen T I Because they are “special things” and are in constant exchange with the national and differentiated upper stratum, they contain the seeds and the sources of “German essence.” The designation “German V o lk s k u n d e ? is thus valid in every sense (Geramb 1928: 179).

Helmut Eberhart says that this article of 1928 is perhaps Geramb’s most mature theoretical accomplishment (1994a: 436). In 1937 Geramb takes up these theoretical positions once again, but does not seem to rise to the level of his earlier statements. Nevertheless, Gerhard Lutz says in his anthology of 1958 the importance of this 1937 article is that it is ‘... the last great study before the catastrophe, in a confusing time, and in his repeated summarization of all aspects of a view of the deepest problems which our discipline places before itself, [it] was of great importance’ (Lutz 1958: 202). Viktor von Geramb was bourgeois-conservative, he had a German-national inclination, and came at his discipline from a Romantic viewpoint. It is not difficult to see that such a configuration would be of use to the impending catastrophe.

University o f Salzburg: Gläubige Wissenschaft

Volkskunde at the University of Graz grew directly out of 19th century thinking. The discipline in Salzburg, however, must be seen exclusively in its relationship to National Socialism (Eberhart 1984). In fact, the University of Salzburg assumed an absolutely unique position within the Austrian scholarly structure. The University was first founded in the 17th century but it was closed on December 24, 1810 in favor of the University of Munich which had recently been founded, since Salzburg was between 1810 and 1816 a part of the Kingdom of Bavaria. A regal Bavarian lyceum remained, with a theological-philosophical section and a medical-surgical teaching facility (Kaindl-Hönig and Ritschel 1964: 155-156). In 1850, with the re-opening of the Theological Faculty, a major step in the direction of university renewal was accomplished. Salzburg still did not become a complete

28

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

university, but it did have a Catholic-Theological Faculty which could grant doctorates. There was no rector because the ‘University’ consisted of only one faculty whose directorship was to be assumed by a dean who was chosen annually (Hermann 1972: 494). This was the condition of the “torso university’ [Rumpfuniversität] in 1930 when the influence of National Socialist ideologies was becoming more noticeable in Austria, particularly in the border city of Salzburg only a short hundred kilometers from Munich. Helmut Eberhart has described in some detail the rising fear of a nationalistic mentality and a increasing allegiance to National Socialism. He says: It was especially feared that there would be a National Socialist undermining of the students who apparently seemed quite receptive to the idea because of their predominately nationalistic attitude’ (Eberhart 1994b: 165). It was in this atmosphere that the professors on the theological faculty hoped to found an Institute for Religious Folklore to help serve as a counter­ force to National Socialism. A Graz historian, Wilhelm Herzog, was approached concerning development of a Central Folklore Institute for All Alpine Lands, but he showed little interest because the plans were too unclear. Viktor von Geramb was shocked that he had not been informed about the Institute, but he was more troubled by the poorly formulated objectives of the Institute. In a letter from Geramb to Herzog we hear: I think that I must advise caution in this regard, that we do not want to offer ourselves as some kind of clerical or folklore “seedling” institute. You must be clear in your own mind that there will be bad blood enough if you simply surrender ... to the idea of a clerical university. But you can and should overcome all of these reservations and bad attitudes which are evident ... , if you receive a guarantee that you are dealing here with a well-funded and basically secure founding of a scholarly and unobjectionable Central Folklore Institute for All Alpine Lands which is clearly associated with the Cooperative Council for Aid to German Scholarship [Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft], or is still more closely associated with the

Zwischen den Kriegen 29 University of Salzburg (Private holdings of the Herzog family of Graz, letter from Geramb to Herzog, dated March 28, 1930).

We are able to gain here some further insights into the person of Viktor von Geramb, particularly his unwillingness to serve an ideological camp and his clear position against a confessional-political alliance. Herzog, it turns out, was Protestant, which led to a breakdown of the discussions between him and the Salzburg theological faculty. It was not until 1932 that a new name came under consideration for the position in Salzburg, this time it was Geramb’s student, Hanns Koren who was studying both Germanistik and Volkskunde in Graz. Also under consideration was Rudolf Kriss from Berchtesgaden who was just completing his post­ doctoral studies in Vienna. After Kriss, who came from a substantially better material background, heard about his impoverished competitor, he withdrew from consideration, opening up the path for Koren who was then appointed to the position in Salzburg. There are no written documents concerning the negotiations between Hanns Koren and the professorial commission, but in a conversation with Helmut Eberhart, Hanns Koren emphasized that the political intent in the founding of the Institute came out quite clearly. Koren’s vigorous publishing and lecturing helped promote the new Institute. Four volumes of the Mitteilungen des Salzburger Instituts für Religiöse Volkskunde [Communica­ tions of the Salzburg Institute for Religious Folklore] appeared between 1932 and 1934, and in 1936 he published his Volkskunde als gläubige Wissenschaft [Folklore as Scholarship of Faith] as volume I of his Institute series. Like his teacher Geramb, Koren was looking for a “folk soul’ [Volksseele], but he was even more deeply concerned with religious belief as a basis for his folklore investigations. His faith-based folklore studies are clearly exemplified in such statements as the following: ‘no-one has the ability to offer us a religious folklore who has never felt the inner need to pray with his Tolk’ the painful rosary’ (Koren 1936: 30). Soon he even goes further, rejecting all scholarship that does not come forth from belief in the logos and a faithful love of it’

30

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

(Koren 1936: 26). By this time the National Socialist Party was following his activities and his publications with a degree of mistrust since his thinking clearly ran counter to an assumed biological determination in NS ideology. In the same year, in 1936, the Official Party Testing Commission for the Protection of NS Writings [Partei-Amtliche Prüfungskommis­ sion zum Schutze des NS-Schrifttums] ordered that his book should be included in the list of dangerous and undesirable writings.1 Reaction by the President of the Reich Writers’ Chamber [Reichsschrifttumskammei•] followed immediately and within a week, Koren’s programmatic writing was included in the list of forbidden books, with an appropriate note for the Gestapo.2 Because Hanns Koren had not yet completed his Habilitation he was of limited use to the University of Salzburg. Koren sought to complete this work, but since his only choice in Salzburg was with faculty from theology, he was forced to return to Graz and Viktor von Geramb. Just after his return, the University in Salzburg hosted a professional meeting on religious folklore. An anonymous reviewer dubbed this gathering ‘scholarship of faith’ [gläubige Wissenschaft], and aggressively attacked Volkskunde. Hanns Koren is cited as an evil example of a scholarly Catholic interpretation which leads one astray. It is true that the customary practices of our fathers were rooted out with blood and sword by a Catholic mission. Wherever the customs and practices of an earlier pagan time were too firmly rooted, they were given an apparent Christian meaning, as we can easily document with the Christmas and Easter festivals and with many other things. But dogma precedes truth! This fundamental premise of V o lk s k u n d e a ls r e lig iö s e W i s s e n s c h a f t [Folklore as Religious Science (!)] - the title of another book by Dr. Koren - was found in almost all his lectures on V o l k s k u n d e and shows us clearly his intentions in the area... (Anonymous 1936: 11-12).

The Institute in Salzburg remained open for two more years, until 1938 when it was officially closed.

Zwischen den Kriegen 31 University o f Innsbruck: Sonderweg

At the end of World War I and the resulting consequences for what remained as the small state of Austria, the local order seemed disrupted in Innsbruck and a slow but clear inner Anschluß [annexation] began to take place. An ambivalence resulted, with some Austrians feeling their Germanness while others thought in terms of the special nature of their Austrianness. For South Tyrol, now part of Italy, this disrupted order was nothing less than catastrophic. What had been the Tyrolean Mythos’ gradually turns into a Germanic Mythos, with Tyrol assuming a special calling within the German-speaking world. This mountain Volk would symbolically represent the cultural preparation for the coming political Anschluß. The University of Innsbruck would become the spiritual leader as the “borderland University,’ and would address this disruption of order by developing new strategies for the ‘Special Path.’ Two new departments would be developed, the Institut fiir Sozialforschung in den Alpenländem [Institute for Social Research in the Alpine Lands] and Hermann Wopfner’s Institut fü r geschichtliche Siedlungs- und Heimatkunde der Alpenländer [Institute for Historical Settlement and Homeland Studies of the Alpine Lands]. Increasingly in Innsbruck there was a Tyrolisation’ of the University and its departments. Historians emphasized großdeutsch versus kleindeutsch approaches to the German folk-nation, with increasing emphasis on a pan-German history and a common historical consciousness. German in this context meant Middle Europe and this ‘German Middle Europe idea’ was fundamentally associated with a Volk who were not limited by political boundaries, but represented a realm of the “blood and spirit of the German people and their civilizational “mission”’ (Srbik 1951: 338). Central to this kind of historical thinking was settlement history. A German irredenta for South Tyrol was the result and Hermann Wopfner was its primary exponent: One of those carrying the banner and leading the battle was Hermann Wopfner, and while his comrades ascertained the folk,

32

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria political and spiritual-cultural connections and accomplishments ... he placed emphasis on settlement studies (Huter 1947:11; similar to Wopfner 1950: 186).

His emphasis on the Germanness of Tyrol and on their settlements as German, through colonization, and a uniqueness based on German work, would last far beyond this period and was still in evidence through much of the 1960s at the University of Innsbruck. The disruption, the separation of South Tyrol from Austria came to symbolize other problems: industrialization, social change, tourism, etc. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s Wopfner sought to address the problem by thinking in terms of an Anschluß of Tyrol with Bavaria. This became the core of his concept of Taistorical homeland studies,’ which emphasized love of the homeland and a German national feeling. By 1923 Wopfner wanted a special Institute to address the problem. In his statement to the Philosophical Faculty in Innsbruck he gives the following justification: Historical homeland study, which the Institute is to serve, must promote cultural history in the widest sense. Cultural-historical research to be carried out here, must however, in comparison to general cultural history, employ a much wider circle of sources for its research devoted to modern folk life. It will thus have to cultivate V o l k s k u n d e especially. On the other hand the investigation of homeland studies at the universities in research and teaching must always keep in mind the goal of grasping and presenting the cultural development of the homeland as a partial expression of the general and especially German cultural history (quoted in Oberkofler 1980: 150).

Wopfner’s proposal was approved and the Institute was founded. While Hermann Wopfner was in the beginning ambivalent toward Austro-fascism, he finally came to reject it. He did, however, support the Anschluß of Austria to National Socialist Germany, and he opposed the class state trying to create an Austrian consciousness. For him democracy came from concepts like the Tyrolean State Unity.’ While Wopfner was

Zwischen den Kriegen 33

never a National Socialist Party member, he belonged to those intellectuals in Austria who accepted the new movement as a reaction to the mistreatment of all Germans and Austrians to the Peace Treaty of Versailles and Saint Germain. During these same years Adolf Helbok’s Habilitation was completed and approved and he moved quickly through the academic ranks, becoming Extra-Ordinary Professor of Austrian and Economic History. While Wopfner had wanted to see Tyrol and Bavaria united, Helbok thought of unification between Austria’s western most state of Vorarlberg and Germany’s southwestern most state of Swabia, both of which were Alemanic in origin, or even some kind of Anschluß with Switzerland, also Alemanic. In any case Helbok consistently saw his own homeland, Vorarlberg, as part of German history, and promoted a regional perspective utilizing economic and social history as part of his folklore research. One of his studies, the Geschichte von Vandans [History of Vandans] (1922d), still serves as a model for opening up new sources for settlement studies. Helbok was even better known in Germany than Wopfner, through the role he played in building up regional and settlement history, not political history, as the real national science of Germany. He spoke in terms of a Svonderful symbiosis between the earth and the folk’ (1925:3) and thought in terms of a cultural geology. In his overemphasis on ‘environmental teaching’ as compared to ‘racial teaching’ and the positive response to his work by Hans Naumann, he found himself in trouble with the National Socialists. In response, he changed! He was one of the first to change his concept of an organic folk and to incorporate racial thoughts into his work. Further, he soon wrote to Munich and became a member of the NSDAP. Most importantly, after reading Hans F.K. Günther’s Rassenkunde [Race Study], he declared himself a ‘natural scientifically oriented historian’ (1963:50). Shortly thereafter he became one of the editors of the journal Volk und Rasse [Folk and Race]. Helbok had often been accused of party and political ‘cultural activities,’ which he countered by saying that he wanted everyone to participate, no matter which party they might belong to. Such statements would cause him new

34

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

difficulties in the German Reich, but here too he countered that his studies were a beginning point for a German­ conscious homeland movement and that he could thus separate large folk groups from the Catholic clergy. Clearly großdeutsch thinking. Most notable about Helbok at this time and later were the number of conflicts he found himself involved in, and a reading of his list of publications reveals numerous rebuttals [Entgegnungen]. He himself states that he most of all wanted to be the Führer of German Volkskunde.3 He was indeed an NS folklorist who placed chauvinistic and racial premises at the core of his research, and he was quick to defend his position. Even so he was instrumental in the planning stage of a Kulturatlas Tyrols [Cultural Atlas of Tyrol], becoming its business director, and even receiving several months leave so that he could carry out cartographic work on the Atlas fü r deutsche Volkskunde in Berlin. Through all of these years one notes a progressive inner Anschluß in his works. In 1934 he lost his position in Innsbruck, a result of Austro-fascism’s wish for scholarly successors to come from the Catholic student fraternities, the so-called ‘Cartell Verband.’ On the same day that he was removed from his position in Innsbruck, he received a call to come to Berlin to give guest lectures with the possibility of appointing him Professor there. Soon, however, Adolf Helbok received the call to a professorship in Leipzig in Germany, which he accepted. He thus moves from ‘tiny Vorarlberg’ to the larger German Reich, but he would always fall back on the concepts he had developed in Austria, particularly concerning his home state of Vorarlberg. In Leipzig Helbok is no longer interested in just the limited goals of the Alpine region, and for the most part he has lost his interest in South Tyrol. He is now far more pan-German in his thinking and in his writing, seeing his former Austrian homeland studies as applied scholarship for the practical preparation of a German folk culture. He thought of this in the same way one speaks about sustainable agriculture, calling it cultural self-preservation. For him research and practice were one and the same thing.

Zwischen den Kriegen 35 University o f Vienna:

Germanistik, Ethnologie und Mythologie In the interwar period, which is under investigation here, there was no institutionalization of Volkskunde at the University of Vienna, but as we suggested in Chapter 1 there were a number of developmental currents in the early histoiy of the discipline. In addition to the two primary streams, Germanistik and Ethnologie, from which the discipline ‘drew sustenance,’ according to Richard Wolfram (1986:1), there were still other small branches which flowed alongside the main stream, but never joined them. We will look at both of these primary streams in this chapter and the next. Within Germanistik, the dominant ‘current,’ we find the adherents of Germanic Antiquities, represented by Rudolf Much and his students (Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 97-99). This is the group generally referred to as the Viennese Mythological School, and we will devote considerable attention to its members, as we have already indicated. There was, however, a branch of this School, one which truly ran along side, never becoming a part of the main stream, indeed these particular Viennese folklorists truly lived an ‘intellectual fantasy.’ Only when we have completed our treatment of these most significant parallel streams can we return to a presentation of the second major stream, Ethnologie. We need to begin by establishing the basic difference between the two branches in Vienna. The primary group of the Viennese Mythological School promoted a theory of the ritualistic origin of myths in ancient cults and their secret societies, and their survival in contemporary folklore expressive forms, e.g., legends, folktales, and most particularly folk customs. Thus, they sought in mythological tales a secondary reflection of these Germanic cults, while the other group saw in mythos a beginning whose image is still found in narratives, customs and practices. Briefly stated, the differences were: ‘ecstatic cult’ versus ‘mythical legend.’ Leopold Schmidt (1951a: 131) and Wolfgang Emmerich (1971: 153) refer to the two groups as the ‘Ritualists’ and the

36

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

‘Mythologists,’ and we will continue to use their terminology. The disagreement between the two branches of the Viennese School, i.e., their conflicting ideologies, is one of many watersheds in the study of Volkskunde in Austria. It was a battle of monumental proportions, and the participants played a major role in the development of the discipline in the 1920s and 1930s. We will include a full description of the confrontation here because it points back to the beginnings of the discipline in Austria, most specifically in Vienna, to the precursors and the progenitors. The participants continued to promote their unique ideas during National Socialism, particularly through the two ideological umbrella organizations, Alfred Rosenberg’s Amt [Bureau] and Heinrich Himmler’s SS Ahnenerbe [SS Ancestral Inheritance]. Both will be treated in more detail in Chapter 4. Many of these same individuals survived the war and subsequently regained their positions in the institutions of higher learning in postwar Austria. They were thus once again able to continue, through their publications - often quite subtly - an ideological approach to the study of tradition, and did so for many years after Austria counted itself among the democracies of Central Europe. Because of their continuing roles in postwar Austrian Volkskunde scholarship, their names will appear throughout this book. In order to understand this confrontation, however, we must look closely at the basis for the schism in the Viennese School’ itself. Both branches of the School drew on the works of Heinrich Schurtz, and to some degree on the Balto-German and Viennese Indologist Leopold von Schroeder, for many of their basic ideas (Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 9597), and both were devoted almost exclusively to documenting Germanic continuity down to the present. The two branches run parallel, through much of the early 20th century, but the primary group, the ‘Ritualists’ of the Much persuasion,4 became regular University of Vienna faculty, while the ‘Mythologists’ were destined to function near but never as full members in the academic programs of the University itself. The writings by the members of the two branches support our suggestion of parallel thrusts in Austrian Volkskunde studies.

Zwischen den Kriegen 37

The primary representatives of the second major ‘current,’ Ethnologie, were Michael Haberlandt and his son Arthur. For the most part they have been viewed in their relationship to folklore organizations, the Viennese Verein fü r Volkskunde [Folklore Society], the Austrian folklore journal [Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde], and the Austrian folklore museum [Österreichisches Museum für Volkskunde] (Schmidt 1960d), but their interest in Ethnologie, in particular their concept of Lebenskreise [life circles], has unfortunately never received adequate investigation. We will offer some information and hopefully some insights, but a full study of the concept of Lebenskreise will not be undertaken here. These primary developmental streams, and branches, often resulted in personal and ideological points of contact and led on occasion to overt and covert confrontations. In the next pages we will lay out some of the commonalities as well as the distinctions,5 try to understand the inter-relationships, and what finally resulted in a ‘battle for the Ostmark.'6 The Viennese School - the ‘Mythologists ’ - Huhn oder Ei The debate in mythological research, which came first, myth or ritual, i.e., the whole question of the primacy of ritual or mythology has been described as being ‘as meaningless as all questions of the hen or the egg” [Huhn oder Ei] (Kluckhohn 1998: 320). During the interwar period in Austria, and Vienna in particular, this debate was certainly not looked upon as meaningless. It should be pointed out from the beginning, however, that Austrian scholars were not part of the larger debate on the primacy of myth versus ritual, but represent a rather unique Germanic-Austrian viewpoint, one which remained within the Germanic world, and for the most part within the political boundaries of the Ostmark, Hitler’s term for Austria after 1938.7 Where can we begin? Georg Hüsing, as well as other ‘Mythologists’ all point to the work of Heinrich Schurtz’s Altersklassen und Männerbünde [Age Classes and Men’s Unions], published in 1902, as well as the work of Leopold

38

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

von Schroeder, particularly his Mysterium und Mimus im Rigveda [Mystery and Mime in the Rigveda], published in 1908, as central to their concepts of Germanic antiquities. We will make reference to these two works, but for now we would like to begin quite pragmatically, with a controversy at the University of Vienna. It concerned the Habilitation and the venia legendi for a man named Georg Hiising (1869-1930), a man who never acquired a leading university position (Ordinarius), only adjunct (Professor Extra-Ordinary ad personam) status. Unlike Rudolf Much, Hiising was not Austrian by birth, having been born in Liegnitz (Prussian Silesia), and his studies too were at German universities, in Breslau, Berlin and Konigsberg. His primary interests were Ancient History, Old Semitics, Iranian Studies, Indo-Germanic, and German. He completed his doctorate in 1897 and later lived as a private teacher in the first two cities named above (Schmidt 1951a: 134). He had studied the history and cultural history of the Meders and Persians, Iranian literary works, comparative mythology, and had delved into Elamic studies. '[T]he Elamites are the immediate predecessors of the Persians in the history of Iran. Their history reaches back several thousand years BC along with that of the Samaritans, the Babylonians, and the Myrians (sic!].'S In 1912 Hiising submitted his application for the venia legendi to the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Vienna, for the 'History of the Ancient Orient,' and at the same time requested notarization of his doctoral dissertation which he had completed at the University of Konigsberg. The Commission, made up of several members, including Leopold von Schroeder (as referent), Rudolf Much and Joseph Strzygowski, made a request to the Professorial Committe_e on May 11, 1912 to admit Hiising to the 'further stages' (colloquium, trial lecture), which he then completed on the 13th and 27th of June. On July 6, 1912 the authority to teach was granted, as requested, from the Kaiserlich-konigliches Ministerium filr Kultus und Unterricht [Imperial-Regal Ministry for Culture and Instruction].9 An active teaching career unfolded for Georg Hiising (OBL III 1995: S-6), in the

Zwischen den Kriegen 39

Anthropological, Geographical and Prehistorical Society, at the Research Institute for the East and the Orient, and under the auspices of the Lehrgang ‘Deutsche Bildung’ [Teaching Program ‘German Education’], which will require our full attention presently. His teacher and friend Leopold von Schroeder had inspired and counseled him, and Hüsing, in turn, continued to develop his mentor’s ideas. In addition to his study of the Rigueda, von Schroeder is best known today for his Arische Religion (1914-1916). It is this work which causes Hüsing to differ with his mentor by becoming an exponent of ‘moon mythology,’ that unfortunate theory which interprets ancient myths and fairy tales as symbolic representations of moon phases. He [Hüsing] has distinguished himself with the statement (B e i t r ä g e z u r K y r o s -S a g e 1906 S. 10), that he doesn’t know of any myth that is not a proven moon myth, a fixed idea in its strictest form. Certainly no one denies that there are myths and fairy tales in which the moon plays a certain role, but the incredible simplicity with which every mythical tale is related to the moon in the most artificial way, can only be looked upon as scholarly confusion which is destined to bring all mythological scholarship nothing but discredit.

This 1918 statement by the Indo-Germanic scholar Paul Kretschmer, was submitted in support of the minority vote against the subsequent application to further Hüsing in his career by making him an Extra-Ordinary Professor for the History of the Ancient Orient.10 The application had been submitted by Schroeder and the art historian Josef Strzygowski. It is of significance that it was the latter who established the connection of the Viennese ‘mythologists’ to art scholarship and who included ‘folk art in his Indo-Germanic overview’ (Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 98). Hüsing did in fact receive a simple majority of the vote, but his application was not processed by the Imperial-Regal Ministry for Culture and Instruction, which lasted only a few more months, until the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in November.

40

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

In July 1919 a commission of the Philosophical Faculty took up the matter again. The report by Leopold von Schroeder, which had been completely positive in the original 1912 application, seems to have drawn criticism this time, because it had been decided during the course of the hearings To bring the recommendation to higher authorities, that G. Hüsing [be granted] the honor of an Extra-Ordinary Professorship for the History of the Ancient Peoples of the Middle East,’ thus increasing his academic rank and his area of authority. Schroeder, among others, had pointed out the impressive teaching success, ‘as is seldom the case with orientalists, ... the energetically developed personality of Hüsing, his far reaching view, his rich knowledge, all of which exercise strong appeal for the listeners.’11 It was an application for which Rudolf Much also voted positively, a decision which he would come to regret. The educational ministry took up this suggestion two years later and named Hüsing, effective October 1, 1921, to an Extra-Ordinary Professorship ad personam,12 a position which he occupied until his death in the year 1930. Hüsing’s ‘strong appeal’ was not found among orientalist colleagues, but rather among students from other disciplines, older academicians and interested lay people, especially from the so-called Wandervogel [youth movement], etc. The program ‘German Education’ seems to have been used by Hüsing in particular to propagate his ‘research’ insights and to establish a broad basis for his attempts at GermanicGerman revival. It was an attempt which Hüsing, using his own peculiarly German orthography, later expressed in the following way: The last 30 years of intense work and surprising discoveries have not gone by without effect, and we hope for our unhappy German folk that the next 30 might be doubly profitable. It is possible, and furthermore extremely necessary, that we finally establish a unified German “culture” and the desire to become a single German folk. Without that we must perish, even if we conquered the world and became bodily the healthiest people on this earth (Hüsing 1927: XII).

Zwischen den Kriegen 41

‘Deutsche Bildung’ The Teaching Program ‘German Education’ was begun in 1919 by Georg Hüsing, after he had been recommended but before he was granted the ad personam Extra-Ordinary Professor position at the University of Vienna.13 He remained a part of the program until shortly before his death, but his name no longer appears on the flyers distributed in Vienna after 1926. The program was not part of the regular offerings of the university faculty, as one can see from the names of those who participated, even though early on some regular faculty gave lectures. From 1919 until 1931 the program is associated with the Deutsch-Österreichischer Jugendbund [German-Austrian Youth Union], and from 1932 until the end in 1938 the name ‘German Education’ stands alone at the top of the flyers. The locations where the lectures were held also vary through the years, beginning in the Institute for the East and the Orient, the department with which Hüsing was most intimately associated. After skipping one year, the program begins again in 1921, with the meeting location not listed, but the address of the German-Austrian Youth Union is given as the place to register and pay the fee. From 1922 until 1933 the meetings are held in the Histology Institute of the University, from 1934 to 1936 they are in the German Club in the Imperial Hofburg, in 1937 in the Evangelical Folk-home, and in 1938 the last meeting takes place in the Austrian Folklore Museum. Several happenings along the way are important. What began as a grand scheme, with two semesters of four months each, for a total of circa 320 hours of lectures and instruction, diminishes rapidly, already in the second round, to sixty contact hours for each of three programs, and then dwindles to between thirty-two and forty hours for the next decade and a half. The teaching faculty also disappears almost as rapidly. In 1919, during the first program, nine instructors participated, four of whom were Ordinarii. Hüsing gave two one-hour lectures and Othmar Spann was responsible for one two-hour and again for five two-hour lectures. By the second program, in 1921, the regular university faculty had diminished to one, Gustav

42

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Kraitschek, who lectured on ‘People and Ethnography.’ From 1924 to 1926 only the name of Georg Hüsing appears in the flyers. Beginning in 1928, however, the name of Karl von Spieß is mentioned on every flyer until the program is terminated or dies out after 1938, possibly as a result of the Anschluß with Germany.14 For the first four Programs the name of Wolfgang Schultz is also included as a lecturer, and in 1931 and 1932 the name of Edmund Mudrak appears, a man who was perhaps Karl von Spieß’s closest ally. In this chapter and in subsequent chapters we will comment on all four of the individuals named here: Schultz, Hüsing, Spieß and Mudrak. They are among the best representatives of the Deutschtümelei [jingoistic Germanophilia] mentioned in Chapter 1, living in an ‘intellectual fantasy.’ They should not be underestimated, however, for the latter two would play important roles during the years of National Socialism. The Teaching Program itself seems to have begun with a very wide ranging approach to correcting what was perceived to be shortcomings in the Austrian educational system, and continued along this path for its first decade. During the second decade there was an increasingly narrow focus on Volkskunde, particularly after the monumental conflict in 1928 between Rudolf Much and Georg Hüsing, and during the period when Karl von Spieß was the primary figure in the Program. The first flyer lays out the planned program in the following way: The Teaching Program “German Education” [is] supported by the Department for Educational Assistance of the Vienna Chamber of Commerce, produced by the Youth Folk Union and the Local Viennese Group of the German Union for Education and Instruction. It will start at the beginning of November 1919; there will be two half year [programs], each four months long weekly [there will] be ten hours (5:30-7:30 daily), the cost for the entire Teaching Program is 160 Kronen. Participants must have completed the Middle School or offer evidence of an equal educational level. N o n -G e r m a n s a r e p r o h ib it e d . No more than 50 participants will be accepted (emphasis added).

Zwischen den Kriegen 43 The Teaching Program will lay the groundwork for our new school system, [and] close the gaps in Middle School instruction. Those great educational values which it will present, but which it [the Middle School] has not felt obligated to include, will be presented, [and] in the heads and hearts of the participants it will awaken a new, German, humanistic, independent educational goal. This will make it possible to translate this [newly] acquired German world view into deed. Only those subjects are included which are not taught anywhere else, or which must be treated differently from the very beginning in order to reach the final goal. The instruction will be, whenever possible, different from customary lectures by making it a working school; it should free the participants from being bound to a textbook and prepare a path into true understanding.

The following topics are then listed as planned: German Language, General Linguistics, People and Ethnology, World History - which is then further subdivided into two six hours series, one on the Orient and another on the East - Cultural Studies, General Law, Guiding Ideas in Economics, Foundations of Economics, Social Teaching, and finally Biology. By the second round the target is no longer limited to correcting gaps in the Middle School, now it is directed to all school instruction. The topics are similar, but it is quite obvious that two regular university faculty from the Research Institute for the East and the Orient are no longer listed as instructors, and Georg Hüsing has increased his own teaching responsibility in World History from two hours to six hours, presumably to offset the loss of instruction from his colleagues in the Institute. The ideological focus is also sharpened: The content [of the first round] was an introduction into those desirable basics [which lead to] a deeper understanding, treating our place among “people” and in world history, the racially different hereditary factors [A n l a g e n ]. This included samples of the art of ancient peoples, where it was always made clear what was being offered to us until now through a general education, and was always related to the main focus of the Teaching Program.

44

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria At its center this time we find the plastic and expressive arts; we also count among the latter, of course, music, dance and costumes. Among the former, in the first place, we will discuss sculpture and the decorative arts, but also architecture and painting, as well as “applied art” [K u n s t g e w e r b e ]. We will treat jewelry both as plastic and expressive art, dance as dramatic, epic and lyric. I n o r d e r to u n d e r s t a n d t h e q u e s t i o n s o f “C o n t e n t ” (o b je c t s ), le c t u r e s w ill b e g i v e n o n m y t h o l o g y a n d V o lk s k u n d e a s w e l l a s o n g e n e r a l c u ltu r a l s t u d i e s , [a n d ] G e r m a n c u ltu ra l h is t o r y o f t h e M i d d l e A g e s w ill b e i n c l u d e d a s a s p e c ia l p a r t. At the conclusion questions about the life relationships of the [social] classes and the two genders will receive attention, insofar as they find expression in art and are then influenced by it (emphasis added).

The Teaching Program was directed throughout its entire history to the German populace of Austria. Statements to this effect appear on virtually all of the flyers: ‘Non-Germans are prohibited,’ ‘obviously only German participants [can] use this,’ it is Tor German youth,’ designed ‘for more mature German-Austrian youth,’ or for ‘German youth Führer and educated youth.’ By the fourth round the role of Volkskunde becomes central to the instruction. Sessions are planned for Time Reckoning and Myth,’ ‘History and Myth,’ ‘Märgen’ [fates], the fairy tale, the riddle, folksongs, and most notably Hüsing’s own topics: the festival calendar, with lectures on Yule, Perchta and Wallburga (wild female figures), as well as a session on the Laich [the lay]. Through all of these sessions we can presume that Hüsing related each canonical category to his own ideas on mythology. Hüsing used the Teaching Program ‘German Education’ as an outlet for his ideas, i.e., his ideology. While his training and major publications were in the area of Iranian Studies, during the course of his lectures for the Teaching Program he devoted most of his interest to German or Aryan topics (Aryan and Iran are etymologically the same word; authors’ note).

Zwischen den Kriegen 45

Mondmythologie In 1927 Hüsing published a small book, of special importance for his ‘Volkskunde’ students and his followers: Die deutschen Hochgezeiten [German High Times]. The topics in the various chapters were similar, perhaps even identical to those found in his lectures for the Teaching Program. They were collected and updated, with the intention of giving young people, the pure German [völkisch] leagues and other local groups specific instructions on celebrating festivals in a German sense. Through commercial misuse and false interpretations by the Catholic church the meaning of festivals, i.e., the original myths, had been lost, and had to be derived again. Festivals and the associated customs (Christmas, Perchta, shooting festivals, fire jumping, etc.) might be made more understandable from these derived myths. Two themes quickly emerge in the book, Hüsing’s interest in the moon and a closely associated concept of time reckoning, based on the phases of the moon. Like the well known solar mythologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly Max Müller and George William Cox (Dorson 1950), Hüsing and his followers were intent on seeing the moon, not the sun, as a basis for the figures and the happenings in the large corpus of Aryan mythologies. Both groups were in essence ‘nature mythologists,’ with the solarists interpreting myths as symbolic representations of the sun, its rising, setting, warmth, etc. Hüsing was, of course, not the only moon mythologist on the scene. In 1906 a ‘Society for Moon Mythologists’ was founded in Berlin, which led to lunar interpretations in a book by P.M.A. Ehrenreich, Die allgemeine Mythologie und ihre ethnologischen Grundlagen [General Mythology and Its Ethnological Bases]. The underlying thesis was that the myths of all people are grounded in lunar happenings, and thus Penelope and her suitors are interpreted as the moon and the stars, and Hyacinth whom Apollo slew was the moon being overshadowed by the sun. The lunar mythologists saw changes in the moon as a basis for the generation of myths, pointing out that the sun never changed, only rose and set,

46

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

while the moon changed, virtually daily, waxing and waning, even disappearing and magically reappearing (SteblinKamenskij 1982: 26). Hüsing even dared to criticize his mentor Leopold von Schroeder, who had recognized in the second volume of his Arische Religion the exceptional role of the sun in the ‘religion of Aryan antiquity’ (Schroeder 19141916. Bd. 2: 3, et passim). He criticized Schroeder specifically for the assumption that certain celebrations could be traced back to a sun cult, but he claims that Schroeder planned to revise his own thinking: Precisely his second volume is a scholarly work which suggests that in place of the usual ‘cults’ which came from the Orient, everywhere there were festival celebrations, H o c h g e z e i t [e n ] among the Aryans. Even so, it does not come out that Schröder in writing his book could not overcome the common views; this is particularly the case in his premises about s u n worship; and only later, in his final conclusions (p. 659 ff.), he built a bridge to a planned volume III, which was to be devoted to proving that preceding the “sun cult” there was a m o o n “cult.” This volume never came about (Hüsing 1927: XI).

Hüsing’s point was that among the Germanic tribes there were no cults, merely Hochgezeiten [high times = festivalcelebrations], ultimately derived from the myths that were told to clarify the phases of the moon. Worship of the sun became the basis for the festival-celebrations only after the introduction of time calculation based on the sun, Hochgezeiten, however, were an expression of a much older, original moon orientation and time. In his work on German Hochgezeiten, Hüsing is primarily concerned with a concept suggesting the origins of festival celebrations, from moon myths. Again we assume that this topic found it way into his lectures during the ‘German Education’ programs. Zeitrechnung Georg Hüsing vehemently questioned the existence of sun myths, but the primacy of moon and myth was for him not to be questioned: ‘Just where the first moon calendar was

Zwischen den Kriegen 47

developed, we don’t know..... Where this system developed, however, goes back to Aryan myths and [they] are not explainable from any other [sources]’ (Hüsing 1909: 7). Following the work of his colleague in the Institute for Research of the East and Orient, and co-founder of the Teaching Program ‘German Education,’ Wolfgang Schultz, Hüsing then borrows a major concept of time reckoning from Schultz’s Zeitrechnung und Weltordnung in ihren überein­ stimmenden Grundzügen bei den Indem, Iraniem, Hellenen, Ithalikem, Kelten, Germanen, Litauern und Slaven [Time calculation and world order in their fundamental foundations among the Indians, Iranians, Hellens, Italians, Celts, Germans, Lithuanians and Slavs], which Schultz had submitted to the University of Vienna as his Habilitation study (Vacano 1936: 193). At the core of this time reckoning was an assumed moon month of 30 days. The reckoning by nights, the reckoning by moons, as well as the ‘obvious frequency of the numbers 3 and 9 in the Aryan traditional materials,’ were the first attempts to uncover ‘ancient Aryan time units.’ Reference is made to a Weissmond [white moon] and a Schwarzmond [black moon], and to three nine-day weeks when the moon is visible and one three day period when the moon is absent from view. Because every portion of this calendar is divisible by three, the trinity of Germanic fates (Nomen; Märgen) is also derived from the three light weeks, while the dark Tamzeit [invisible time] resulted in a ‘fourth Märge [fate].’ Schultz says that the ‘myth is nothing more than a history of the fates of calendrical constellations, based on the shapes of the moon and seen as self sufficient entities’ (Schultz 1924: 41). Even more specifically, he defines myth as: ‘nothing other than a calendar, sung and presented during a masked dance’ (Schultz 1924: 6). Hüsing clarifies these concepts in the following way: In olden times, when the Aryan people still reckoned according to the moon and did not know the concept of the “year,” only the s h i n i n g m o o n was counted as the lord, not just of the night but also of tim e, which is mankind’s fate, as one who knows and rules, but most especially as preserver and protector of the divine world order. As a result it could be seen in the heavens for

48

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria 27 nights, and then, at the end of the “month” it went down for three nights into the depths of a dark well, the cavernous passage into the other world, to the world of the dead. For these three nights it was dead, and then on the fourth it rose up again. Then its soul was no longer in it, but went into the newly rising body. For this entire time there was no ruler in the heavens and over the world, just the “Black One,” the eternal opponent of the Light Moon, the only being that also knew the world laws as the glowing part of the moon, even perhaps better, for the Black Moon is called the “measurer” of the White [Moon]. From this picture of a half black and half white sphere rotating around itself, in this way alone one could explain the “phases” of the moon, and these two half spheres were looked upon as a brother pair, always doing battle with one another, and always had to suffer the same fate of continuous change. But the Black One was not just the measurer of the White One, the hand on the world clock, it was also death, and in the 3 nights, when the White One was dead, then the Black One ruled, the God of Death. And then came the time when one learned to reckon according to the position of the sun and formulated from 12 Moon deaths one sun-moon year of 12 months or 12 x 29!^ (=354) days. But the pure sun year didn’t have 354 but rather 365 (+%) days, and after 12 months there were still 12 nights left over, just as previously 3 x 9 nights, after 3 nine-day weeks there were still 3 black nights of death. Thus the 12 nights in the year too many are looked upon as the time of the rule of the Black One. This was the case insofar as these 12 nights fell in the period between the 24th of December and the 6th of January, the “Big New Year,” the darkest time of the year. The sun had become in the meantime the ruler of time and it lay during this period nearly dead and was then reborn, at “Big New Year” (3 Kings’ Day) or later but at the end of the 354-day year, on today’s Christmas celebration time, but still at night - when one doesn’t see the sun - just as during the time of the old moon reckoning, from which the rebirth is borrowed (Hüsing 1927: 1-3).

After his death in 1930, Hü sing’s widow Emma published yet another of his works, on Deutsche Laiche und Lieder [German (Courtship) Dances and Songs], which included suggestions for festival planning, where the dancing of

Zwischen den Kriegen 49

‘courtship dances’ were of special importance (Hüsing and Hüsing 1932). Karl von Spieß, who soon became the successor to Hüsing in the Deutsche Bildung, as we have already seen, would continue to promote moon mythology and soon would find his own role in the ‘intellectual fantasy’ that played out alongside developments in the discipline at the University of Vienna. The courtship dance,’ according to Karl von Spieß, ‘is a playfully sung and danced action with individual participants and a chorus whose presence is taken from mythic traditions.’ It possesses holy value and healing powers emanate from it’ (Spieß 1934: 176f.). The performance of Germanic Laiche played a major role in the youth movement in Austria, according to the members and participants. Among the early outlets for the ‘Mythologists’ was the journal Mitra, published from 1914 to 1920, edited by the man already mentioned frequently, Wolfgang Schultz. Hüsing and Schroeder published in it, as did the Viennese ethnologists Robert Bleichsteiner and Fritz Rock (Schmidt 1951a: 135), and thus one might also add their names to the ‘Mythological School.’ There were still more, including foreign co-workers: Walter Anderson, R. Geyer, H. Lessmann, N. G. Polites, W. H. Roscher, H. Wossidlo and others. But who was this Wolfgang Schultz whose name has been frequently mentioned?15 He was bom on June 28, 1881 in Vienna, studied Philosophy, Mathematics and Classical Philology at the University of Vienna, and in 1904 received a doctorate with a dissertation on ‘Color Sensitivity of the Hellenes.’ He had become familiar with Gobineau’s racial teachings. Then ‘Leopold von Schroeder and Georg Hüsing led him into the vast region of comparative religion and myth research’ (Vacano 1936: 193). He belonged to ‘the German core of Old Austria,’ and as an ‘early warrior in the areas of racial studies and Volkskunde’ he occupied himself before the First World War primarily with the ‘intellectual history of the early IndoGermanic Peoples’ (Vacano 1936b: 442). He was also interested in fairy tales and riddles. His war service and imprisonment steered his interest toward:

50

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

beauty and meaning of the ancient Germanic world. In 1918 he takes over, as “curator” the newly founded “Research Institute for the East and the Orient” in Vienna. Along with his scholarly interests he devoted himself here especially to practical youth work. “Schooling courses” for high school and university students are established, and instructional courses were held for the diet warden of the gymnastics union and the leaders of the “School Union of South Styria,” where racial hygiene was also taught (Vacano 1936a: 193). The Teaching Program ‘German Education,’ was probably founded together with Georg Hüsing.16 It was here Svhere the pure German [völkisch] young people of the unions, and among the students, that the intellectual weapons for the world view battle were hammered out.’ They transmitted the ideas put forth by Wolfgang Schultz, ‘that only the folk would be steadfast against the attacking hordes, that folk which is aware of its racial strength and its pure German history’ (Vacano 1936b: 443). Wolfgang Schultz is counted among the early and leading National Socialists in Austria, as can easily be seen, even without full documentation. He preached ‘self-consciousness and spiritual renewal on a racial basis’ and thought that ‘such renewal work was to be accomplished by means of careful selection of a general staff ... from among the young people.’ In 1923, however, he had to leave Austria - liis opponents from the liberal and confessional camps [forced him] from his homeland’ (Vacano 1936a: 193). He moved to Görlitz, made the acquaintance of the pre-historian Gustaf Kossinna and lived until 1933 as a ‘private scholar.’ After Hitler’s seizure of power, State Minister Schlemm appointed Schultz to the chair of Philosophy at the University of Munich. He was called as ‘Professor for Germanic World View Studies (Philosophy)’ to set up ‘that Advanced School for Racially Pure Thinking drawn from Nordic intellectual history. This was to illustrate for the young and developing scholars once again the middle point from which all research can be fruitful’ (Vacano 1936b: 443f.). ‘Fruitful’ proved for the former ‘private scholar from Görlitz’ to be his relationship to Alfred Rosenberg. He was the latter’s office leader, for a department

Zwischen den Kriegen 51

which existed only on paper, for ‘Aryan World View and Volkskunde’ (Bollmus 1970: 308f. Note 70), he was the Bavarian State Leader in Rosenberg’s ‘Reich Union for German Prehistory,’ and he belonged to the Reich Leadership of the NSDAP.17 In this role he was placed at the University of Munich in order to spy on his SS Ancestral Inheritance colleague Walther Wüst and to ‘draw him under the influence of Rosenberg.’ Since Wüst, however, tried to ‘to protect the ususal measure of scholarly freedom from the need for totality of the NSDAP,’ the scholar sought ‘to cover his back from the Ancestral Inheritance of the SS’ (Kater 1974: 45). Wolfgang Schultz died unexpectedly on September 24, 1936 from complications of a difficult operation. The ‘cohorts of Alfred Rosenberg’ (Kater 1974: 45) had lost an important man in the areas of Nordic intellectual history, Germanic early history as well as German Volkskunde, and a creator of ‘folknational cultural goods.’ We find information about his Work’ in an (incomplete) list of publications in the appendix of the third edition of his work Altgermanische Kultur in Wort und Bild [Old German Culture in Word and Picture] and in a note of appreciation by Edmund Mudrak.18 ‘Ritualists’ contra ‘Mythologists’ - Der Kampf um die Ostmark It has been unavoidable in the previous sub-sections which have dealt with the sources, both the main and side streams of folkloric activities at the University of Vienna between 1918 and 1938, to point out contradictory theoretical approaches, and to lay out conflicts in the discipline. The results would soon become apparent: after 1938 there were two receptors, a “brown’ (Rosenberg Amt) and a “black’ (SS Ahnenerbe) German Volkskunde, which drew heavily from Austrian precursor and progenitor sources. The causes for the “battle for Austria’ [Kampf um die Ostmark] appear clear, the reasons on the other hand have only been touched on. What we mean with this is less the scholarly skirmishes in reviews and articles where the undertexts are often difficult to see, but rather direct confrontations which left deep wounds on the combatants. In our attempt to briefly chronicle the ideological

52

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

conflict between the two Viennese ‘Schools’ we will be able to shed some light on the question of when the ‘pre-war’ began (Strobach 1987 and 1994). Auseinandersetzung redivivus The 1918 debate concerning the naming of Georg Hüsing as Extra-Ordinary Professor for ‘History of the Ancient Peoples of Asia Minor’ is central to an understanding of this development.19 Supporters of the application included Professors von Schroeder, Strzygowski, Oberhummer and Pöch, the minority vote on July 4, 1918 was signed by P. Kretschmer and the Philologist Radermacher. That this was in no way merely a controversy between Philology and History, or rather Cultural Science, is seen in the tone of the report of the minority of the commission. There were accusations of fantasy, lack of self-criticism and discipline, and it was repeated here that ‘moon mythology’ was an ‘unfortunate theory.’ This statement may have continued to echo in the ears of Rudolf Much, even though in 1919 he was still positively inclined toward Hüsing. In any case he became ever more skeptical, when there was an attempt in 1921 to neune Hüsing to a professorship. It only came to a full conflict20 much later, after the appearance of the book Die deutschen Hochgezeiten in 1927. The old controversy [Auseinandersetzung] began anew. Appalled by the concentration of “un-scholarly writing,’ Much announced on February 14, 1928, and under the auspices of the Academic Union of German Antiquarians, a lecture entitled: ‘Georg Hüsing, Die deutschen Hochgezeiten, ’ during which he corrected Hüsing’s views and after which there was a heated and controversial discussion. As a result handbills were distributed which were directed against Much and in which he saw an attempt ‘to degrade him [Much] among his colleagues and students, both in his scholarly and his personal appearance.’21 The handbill which had been sent to the Dean and other colleagues and distributed in the offices of the German Department - not open to the public - has already been published in German and English (Bockhorn

Zwischen den Kriegen 53

1989: 22-33; Bockhom 1994), but it is included here in an attempt to fully contextualise the controversy. The handbill, composed by long-term participants ‘in the teaching program “German Education,” which Herr Prof. Hüsing has led for many years in a sacrificing and personally unserving way,’ follows: Those who have signed below were for the most part in attendance and had the opportunity to become acquainted with the detailed arguments of University Professor Rudolf Much on the 14th of February of this year, concerning the book by University Professor Dr. Georg Hüsing D ie D e u ts ch e n H o c h g e z e ite n . They are all long time participants in the instructional program “German Education” which Professor Hüsing has directed, with sacrifice and unselfishness, for many years. They consider it their duty to take a position against this procedure so unusual for academic circles, that Professor Much has attacked his colleague in a lecture especially intended for students. The signatories are all in those mature years when one does not so easily fall prey to unscholarly deceptions. The vast majority are academicians, many are Germanists. They do not want to use those same infamous terms, “unscientific” and “dilettantism,” which Professor Much has used so often, against Much himself. Everyone knows the connections of our current cultural degeneracy, from whence they come, and against whom these expressions are used with such bias. What was accomplished in the “dark” Middle Ages through a funeral pyre, is accomplished today by labeling it “unscientific.” The signatories are thus avoiding this word, but they affirm quite emphatically that Professor Much’s discussion of the book, with the exception of a few details, is lacking any serious objectivity. Many, including others in their circles, would have participated in an exchange of views on orthography and etymology, but especially on the detailed contents of the book. They must, however, vehemently reject the shallow treatment of the book’s meaning, and the distortion and falsification brought about by not considering the basis on which the entire work rests, namely research. Herr Professor Much seems as yet to have paid no attention to its [comparative mythological] existence. The entire

54

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria meaning of the book is made trite, it is distorted and falsified. It is absolutely impossible to subject exactly this kind of work to the rules of a narrowly conceived G e r m a n is t ik which draws almost exclusively on linguistic “sources,” and not to consider those far reaching associations recorded therein. One can scarcely imagine that an alert and critical reader could have missed this basic core so completely. Nevertheless, the type and intent of the criticism becomes clear throughout the entire lecture, by expressions of the following kind which were directed at a professor of the same university and in such a way that the few objective elements in it disappear. The author of the book is an “incorrigible dilettante,” “a dilettantish confused thinker,” whose “instinct always leads him astray,” “a monomaniac,” who “suppresses opposing ideas in order to accomplish the intended effect,” who “has shown that he is of no scholarly use,” a man with a “sadistic fantasy.” The adherents to the perspective described by him, whom the speaker tried to make out to be just as foolish as the book under discussion, by using the phrase “moon mythologists,” should receive “a special place on Brant’s S h ip o/FooZs.” The spirit of this “criticism” became most obvious when the lecturer was interrupted by a shout from the audience that he should cease with the insults. He answered with the statement: “In scholarship the sentence s v a v i t e r in v e r b i s , f o r t it e r in r e (persuasively with words, firmly with deeds) is usually valid, but here it is a matter of throwing someone out.” The lecturer has long been viewed as a sensitive German man, and he probably would like to continue to be viewed as such. But he was capable of reading selections which exemplify Hüsing’s serious concern for the fate of the German folk so scornfully that he brought out laughter among some of his listeners. The signatories are troubled about the fate of German youth who are supposed to be led in scholarship in this way. For they must be convinced that German scholarship is being presented by men who reflect German traits through their formal presence. Dr. Karoline Huber. Author Herwig Härtner. Government Councillor Hans Fiedler. Construction Engineer Wagensonner. Aurelie Schubert, Teacher. Marianne Fiedler, City Teacher. Dr. Lob. Friedrich Ginzel, Professor. Friederike Hendrich. Edmund Mudrak. Aulic Councillor Dr. Benno Prochaska. Dr. Wilhelm

Zwischen den Kriegen 55 Trenk. Sectional Councillor Prof. Dr. Eduard Zenker. Publisher Eichendorff-Haus Vienna, signed by Knyrim.

In a similar note of March 16 which repeats what was already said, the undersigned academicians wrote to the ‘High Academic Senate’ of the University of Vienna and pointed out that in the invitation ‘German-Aryan guests’ were particularly welcome. The undersigned, in their opinion, were capable of judging scholarly criticism, and asked that their complaint be dealt with. The Philosophical Faculty had already decided, before they knew about this letter, and during the aforementioned session, on how to ‘deal’ with it. The matter was brought to the Professorial Committee which in turn established a commission consisting of 13 members and planned to begin functioning at the beginning of the summer semester. This took place on the May 11,1928 at 5 o’clock, and was chaired by Dean O. Abel. The two adversaries, Much and Hüsing, were also invited so that they might have an opportunity to represent their positions. In the hearing which lasted almost three hours, the commission arrived at a unanimous decision, which the faculty also accepted without opposition during their plenary session on May 19. The key sentences stated that the sharp rejection of Professor Hü sing’s detailed arguments by Much was based on the latter’s scholarly conviction of the ‘scientifically false working method by Hüsing.’ It concludes: The Commission has come to the conclusion, that the accusation of unscientific work has not overstepped the measure of justifiable criticism, and that, in the just interest of scholarship and its validity, this was expressed publicly. ’ In the brief minutes of the meeting we can read that Much viewed the affair as ‘the last stage of a scholarly conflict,’ that it was a matter ‘of dilettantish treatment of scholarly questions’ which made his criticism necessary, and further, that there was an evident disruption of the teaching profession through the Teaching Program ‘German Education’ (mentioned in the leaflet). We hear nothing about Hü sing’s answers, but they do not seem to have convinced the Commission, as we can see from the resolution.

56

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

With this a judgment was made which deeply affected Hüsing as a scholar, damaged his credibility, and therewith his rather large group of followers. It was a judgment which makes the later and very intense confrontations between the two Viennese Schools more understandable. Hü sing’s name no longer appeared on the flyers for Deutsche Bildung, and he died two years hence. Georg Hüsing’s Deutschtümelei, however, had not died with him.

3 Wien, Wien, nur Du allein A popular song in Vienna has the title Wien, Wien, nur Du allein’ [Vienna, Vienna, You and You alone]. While there has been considerable discussion among scholars of mythology concerning the possible ritual origins of myth, what we will present here is unique to Vienna.

Die Wiener *Ritualisten* und der ‘MännerbuncT In the Wörterbuch der deutschen Volkskunde [Dictionary of German Folklore], first published in 1936, the author says of Geheimbünde [secret societies]: ‘Research on the “men’s [secret] unions” in Germanic-German tradition has received special attention by Austrian researchers (Höfler, Weiser, Wolfram, Jungwirth, Burgstaller)’ (Erich and Beiti 1974: 264). Each of these men, and one woman, also point to the work of Heinrich Schurtz’s Altersklassen und Männerbünde, as well as the work of Leopold von Schroeder, particularly his Mysterium und Mimus im Rigveda, as central to their concepts of Germanic antiquities. All indications are that it was Schurtz who introduced the term Männerbund [men’s union] to Germanic Antiquities scholarship. In order to better understand the works of the three most prominent representatives of this branch of the Viennese School,’ Elisabeth Weiser, Otto Höfler and Richard Wolfram, we need to present first some detailed information on the concept of men’s unions here. The term Männerbund represented an attempt to provide conceptually for what was conceived to be a widespread social form in primitive societies.1 The Männerbund was thought of as a special form of the Geheimbund [secret society]. Such secret and closed societies are found world wide, to which men, but not automatically all men, may belong or have

58

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

access. In a tribal society they are rigidly organized and cloaked with the mantle of mythic-religious secrets, and they are opposed to everything female. The explicit goals of such groups differ greatly, but the preservation of male power is everywhere implicit. As a basis for such unions Heinrich Schurtz theorized a dichotomy of the sexes, suggesting that women exemplify strong sexuality and are driven toward men, with an interest in family and kinships becoming dominant. Men, in contrast, see sex and eros as episodic, and are otherwise drawn in social relationships to their gender colleagues. Schurtz theorized this as the beginning of age classes, secret societies, clubs, and so on. The origin and development can be traced back to Urkultur [ancient culture], where men and women had equal rights, and both cared for the family. Men hunted game and women gathered plants. This economy changed dramatically when women exchanged plant gathering for plant farming, thereby becoming the founders of agriculture. In this Urkultur it was common practice that everyone, including women, had the right to that which they themselves produced: weapons, baskets, shovels - thus the woman owned the plants which she cultivated and by extension of the principle became the first owner of land. This gave women an advantage over men who were dependent on chance in their hunting while women became settled, landed [seßhaflig], and were able to fill their bins with food. The result was a fundamental change in social structure. Women had advantage and their interests became primary. This new structure served to strengthen the matriarchal family by consciously separating the sexes, but it diminished super-familial structures, tribe and state, since, according to Schurtz, the nature of women was not inclined to state building. Schurtz then reasoned that men were not able to deal easily with the new social order, and needed a Notventil [outlet], i.e., women as agriculturists brought on a reaction by men, men’s unions. Because women were always sensitive to mystery and illogical in disposition [Gemüt], men took advantage of this weakness and treated their Männerbünde as something magical and consciously imbued them with a mystical-religious aura. Women could not

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 59

become members, and were even threatened with death if they learned the secrets of the unions. Men met in mysterious places, wore masks, sometimes covering their entire bodies, they came into the villages and dictated to the women the “will of the spirits.’ They made fun of women and terrorized them, disguising their actions as religious. The opposition against women goes so far as pederasty and in this way men showed their independence from women. Schurtz does not accept some kind of unilinear and evolutionary development of the men’s unions, but rather proposes opposition as the primary factor. When did all of this take place? The beginnings reach back at least to an older matriarchal culture, and perhaps during the cultural mixing between matriarchal and totemist societies, as we can see from the many animal masks which suggest a totemistic influence. For him the men of these early cultures formed ‘classes,’ i.e., social groupings, particularly for initiation purposes, from puberty to manhood, into warrior classes, and into aged and respected groups. Schurtz posits that the ‘Age Classes’ [Altersklassen] were the immediate predecessors of the men’s unions. Once the men had been accepted into the union, they had to endure trials, and in some few cases were even required to kill a relative. Some practiced ancestral worship, through skull cult [Schädelkult] unions, and often there were food festivals [Schmausereien]. The unions always consisted of a select group, an elite, the larger the group, the more a unified leadership was needed. Men’s unions were not fundamental for state development, but they were concerned with public matters and defended the old tribal customs. Sometimes they formed a virtual state within a state. Schurtz then turned to a search for survivals during later periods and suggested that aristocracy caused men’s unions to lose their original character. Through time they became decadent, which led in turn to religious fraternities, clubs, mystery cults and even vigilantes [Feme]. Even women’s unions developed, analogous to men’s groups as a kind of reaction to the men. Joseph Harris says that the Männerbünde among the members of the Viennese School ‘are not to be understood in

60

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

any metaphorical sense, nor are their rituals somehow immanent in the disjecta membra of the evidence. Instead, their claim, imbued with the ritual theory in its most literal form, is for the reed historical existence of cultic societies such as those that actually exist or existed in Africa and elsewhere in the realms of ethnography. But the most obvious male institution, the Gefolgschaft [followers] or comitatus [retinue], plays relatively little role in Höfler’s conception; Weiser on the other hand, several times notices the transition and overlap from age classes and secret societies to the retinue’(Harris 1993: 83). We must now look in some detail at the most important members of the Viennese ‘Ritualists’ and some of the basic thoughts found in their primary works. Heerkönig When Rudolf Much died in 1936, his former student Richard Wolfram wrote: On the 8th of March German scholarship lost Rudolf Much, a man whom his friends and comrades-in-arms always called “King of the Army” [H e e r k ö n i g ]. For this blond giant, with his prominent eagle nose never sidestepped a battle when it concerned his high ideals and his scholarly conscience. With no animosity, purely objective, but with decisive acumen he rendered his judgement .... There have been only a few scholars who have been Germanists in the true sense of the word, like Rudolf Much. His masterful control of the necessary disciplines, from pre-history, German linguistics, antiquities, Celtic and Slavic studies, to V o lk s k u n d e , he placed all of these in the service of Germanic life style, its origin, its development, and its essence (Wolfram 1936: 476).

Among the scholarly areas which he ‘expanded into an inclusive overview of Germandom’ (Franz 1936: 1), Volkskunde assumed a special place, as his ‘comrade-inarms,’ Otto Höfler noted. ‘Volkskunde was for him an especially beloved area, and through his rich knowledge, particularly of the German Alpine lands, he refreshingly enlivened the research of its folk-national characteristics’

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 61

(Höfler 1937c: VIII). An anecdote about Much, with his “faithfulness to the Reich, which imprinted itself on the life of so many of his local companions’ (Höfler 1937c: XIV), and which is also drawn from his obituary, may help elucidate his love of Volkskunde,’ but it also reveals Much’s ‘inclusive view’ of Germanic-German studies. One of his students said: “When we read with him the Ounnlaugs Saga, he improvised the many verses strewn throughout the saga as Bavarian Schnadahüpfln [short folk songs with a special rhythm] in such a delightful way, that Old Icelandic verses were translated congenially, without satirizing them’ (Franz 1936: 2-3). Whether this kind of singing contributed to a ‘refreshing enlivenment’ of Much’s academic activity, we do not know. If we look at his course offerings from the period from 1894 to 1934, the final year being the time of Much’s retirement,2 we do not find much in the way of folklore, except for the one­ time course in the SS 1906, and again in the SS 1913 on The German House.’ Richard Wolfram writes that ‘Much included not only folkloric materials in his lectures, he also held pure folklore lectures. The manuscript of a lecture ‘On the Peasant House’ from the period before 1914, is still in my possession’ (Wolfram 1986: 3). In this way Wolfram indirectly confirms that the courses mentioned above, including when they were taught a second time, were part of the folklore lectures given by Much. Furthermore, if we look at the bibliography published on the occasion of his 70th birthday, it would seem that Much contributed little to the development of the discipline (Verzeichnis 1932: 5-16). The impression is deceptive, however, for Much viewed German Volkskunde as a part of Germanic Antiquities and his students also viewed it this way. What he and they were concerned with was continuity, far reaching, unbroken living on of Germanic cultural goods in legends, fairy tides, customs and beliefs, even though they had been ‘disturbed’ by Christianity. According to Otto Höfler in 1937, Much sought to uncover a lost consciousness ... a consciousness of continuity, of religious substance of the Germanic people and the mythic contents of their life forms’ (Höfler 1937a: 25). Ingeborg

62

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Weber-Kellermann and Andreas C. Bimmer characterize the Viennese school of Rudolf Much as the teaching of a statistical [factual] continuation of Old Germanic cult forms and life norms. Their remnants, isolated with great care by the mythologists of the 19th century from historical journals, served the continuity researchers of the 1930s not so much for creating a wholesome and wished-for image of Germanic antiquity but as an answer to the question about the indifference in Germanic views of the present (Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 97).

The positive response to Much was obvious, for as Hermann Bausinger says: ‘in this Germanic school, continuity was first and foremost a continuation of pure German [völkisch] substance. It was a matter of Germanic continuity.’ Bau singer goes on to say about the publication of Otto Höfler’s small book Das germanische Kontinuitätsproblem [The Germanic Continuity Problem] (Höfler 1937a), ‘in fact, it was no longer a problem, but was now a statement of faith required in eveiy scholarly investigation’ (Bausinger 1971a: 78). Also in 1937, just a few months after his death, Rudolf Much’s main work appeared, his commentary on Tacitus’ Germania (Much 1937). Again and again, explanations of Icelandic traditions from the 12th and the 13th centuries were employed to explicate the relationships of ‘tacitian primitive Germans’ on the eve of the Great Migrations. The thousand years in between, ... in the final analysis ... no small matter,’ did not bother Wolfgang Lange, the editor of the third edition in 1967 (Lange 1967: 16). Nor did it affect that “faithful community’ which followed its ‘King of the Army’ Much, and saw in his works - in the mythologism and nationalism of the 19th century - a bearer and creator of Germanic-German culture. It is not our purpose in this chapter to analyze comprehensively the life and works of Rudolf Much. We are, however, concerned here specifically with his concept of Volkskunde and a series of students who came under his influence at the University of Vienna during the 1920s and 1930s. The number of students who completed advanced degrees under the direction of Rudolf Much is too lengthy to

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 63

list, but we do need to look at those who were more directly influenced by him, and who then developed into academicians and occupied positions to promote the ideas they had learned from him. We will look at the careers of Lily Weiser, Otto Höfler, Robert Stumpfl, Richard Wolfram, Eberhard Kranzmayer, and Rudolf Kriss, and pay particular attention to Weiser, Höfler and Wolfram. Even before these students, however, we find evidence of Much’s influence on Volkskunde, as early as 1907, in a dissertation filed by Hans Sperber, Beiträge zur Kritik des dänischen Volksliedes [Contributions to a Critique of the Danish Folksong].3 In 1912 Magdalena Horny submitted her Volkssagen aus dem oberen Mühlviertel [Folk Legends from the Upper Mühlviertel], and Johann Stroberger contributed Weihnachtsfeuer im Freien [Christmas Fires in the Open].4 These first works merely document the diversity of Rudolf Much’s folklore interests. Further dissertations written under his direction prior to 19355 deal with Mondsee ceramics during the age of pole construction,6 with Wodan auf südgermanischem Gebiet [Wodan on South Germanic Territory], with peasant rules and their mythological associations, with concepts of the great beyond, with place names in the Waldviertel region, with legends of subterrania, and with Danish agricultural implements and their names. It was, however, a book by one of his students that appeared in 1913 which points out the future direction of what we are now referring to as the Viennese School.’ Viktor Waschnitius published his study of Perht, Holda und verwandte Gestalten [Perht, Holda and Related Figures] in the series ‘Contributions to German Religious History’ (Waschnitius 1913). Annotations by this author from mythological literature included beliefs, customs and legends. The entire Germanophone area and Scandinavia were included in his study and resulted in an interpretation of Holda as an elfish vegetation demon, and Perhta as a soul demon who played a role in a large soul cult festival during the winter, Svhich has left its traces, on the Germanic yule festival and today on our Christmas celebration’ (Waschnitius 1913: 140-179).

64 The Study of European Ethnology in Austria Jul We find this Yule festival’ once again, in a work being evaluated in 1922 by Much, written and submitted by Elisabeth Weiser (called Lily Weiser), who was born in 1898 in Vienna.7 The book was published in 1923 with the title Jul. Weihnachtsgeschenke und Weihnachtsbaum [Yule. Christmas Gifts and Christmas Tree]. In her work Weiser attempts to answer the questions whether there was a pagan-Germanic celebration, which was then incorporated into the Christmas celebration, and whether the ‘folk-national customs’ at Christmas time have an ancient Roman, Christian, or some other origin (Weiser 1923: 2). With some reservations, where regional differences can be explained by politically dominant events (for example during the Reformation), and ‘shifts’ within the various social strata, Lily Weiser sees in the Holy Days a Christian influence overlaying the survival of a Germanic Yule celebration, the ‘pagan custom’ having been suppressed by Christianity. Still, there is in one sentence a suggestion of insecurity on her part: Whether that is really the case, would still have to be fully investigated’ (Weiser 1923: 42). It was a skepticism which her colleagues would not exemplify ten years later. Her Doktorvater Rudolf Much said later of her work that it was ‘the best that had been written up to this time on the topic. In contrast to other treatments it never succumbs to the mistake of one-sided partisanship, ... shows more clearly than has been the case thus far, the heathen and ancient Germanic origin and the meaning of the Yule celebration ,..’8 Based on the use of linguistic, religious and folkloric-mythological studies, Yule is a most welcome book for the scholar and the layman, wrote Michael Haberlandt in his 1923 review (M. Haberlandt 1923: 96). Lily Weiser participated from her 5th semester on in seminar work with Rudolf Much. In 1920 she was in Sweden for the first time, to learn the language and to visit the important museums there, the National Museum, the Nordic Museum, and Skansen. ‘From this point on she began her studies in the area of Volkskunde and mythology and

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 65

attempted to write a history of Christmas customs, which then eventually grew into her dissertation,’ we read in a biography from the year 1926.9 All of those in the inner circle around Much had connections to the Scandinavian countries, and in at least one case, one of them (Wolfram) looked for Nordic survivals in the South, among the German speaking inhabitants of South Tyrol, Italy (K. Köstlin 2001). This interest in the Nordic lands reflected both the inclination and the scholarly world view of their teacher Much, who as a student had also made a first study trip to Denmark and Sweden, which then ‘contributed to his knowledge of modem Nordic languages.’10 This loiowledge’ then led him to support Scandinavian studies at the University, and caused Otto Höfler to refer to him as Professor for the disciplines of his authority ‘as well as for Scandinavian languages and literatures’ (Höfler 1975: 400). After completing her doctorate Lily Weiser traveled throughout Germany and interned in the Hamburg Museum. In 1923 she taught in a Viennese school for girls. She then undertook further trips and study excursions to Sweden, then to Italy and Germany where she held a lecture on the farm house in folk belief, ‘on the invitation of Herr Professor Dr. Eugen Fehrle, as part of a folklore course at the university [Heidelberg].’11 Following her academic education she established contacts with Viktor Geramb in Graz, made photos for a study of Tyrolean Volkskunde, and gave a series of lectures and participated in professional conferences. In the mean time she worked primarily on her study of Altgermanische Männerbünde und Jünglingsweihen [Ancient Germanic Men’s Unions and Youth Initiation], which she submitted still in manuscript form on November 6, 1926 as her Habilitation study. In her proposal to the Professorial Committee of the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Vienna, she requested that she be granted the venia legendi for ‘Germanic Antiquities and Volkskunde.’ After her colloquium and her trial lecture (‘On the Psychology of Oral Tradition’), and a review of her file, the Habilitation was granted on July 5, 1927 and on August 4, 1927 it was approved by Federal Minister Schmitz.12 In the same year her

66

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

work was published as Volume 1 of Eugen Fehrle’s series ‘Building Blocks of Volkskunde and Religious Studies.’13 In his introduction to the study Fehrle welcomed the fact that the author had shown, that the ancient Germans also had men’s unions and a fully developed youth initiation. ... This entire expressive form comes from the Indo-Germanic period. ... By the time of written sources these unions had clearly become warrior leagues. This changeover appears to have gone hand in hand with the introduction and the uniting of the cult of Wodan. The relationship of warrior leagues with old religious unions can be seen in the Chatten unions, the Hariers, the berserks, and the Langobardian Cynocephalen (Fehrle 1927: 8).

We read something very similar in Rudolf Much’s Commission Report. The author mentioned the chair for ‘Germanic Antiquities and Volkskunde’ at the University of Hamburg, which was intended to lend justification for a similar position in Vienna. The report also indicates that there is always the danger of dilettantism because of the many closely allied scholarly areas, and only on the basis ‘of an older well formulated scholarly discipline’ could one accomplish the necessary ‘strict and scholarly education’ (which one could interpret as side swipes toward Arthur Haberlandt and Georg Hüsing - more about Haberlandt later). On Lily Weiser’s Habilitation study, which he summarized on a single page, Much noted the ethnographic conclusions and observations of the author concerning the men’s unions and youth initiation rites, i.e., separation of young men and their schooling through the men’s unions, ‘association with the spirit world through ascetics, mask dances and animal disguise, religious experience of an extatic [sic!] type, courage and tests of steadfastness ... during these initiation rites.’ He supports this ‘surprising insight’ by means of citations from Tacitus concerning the Chatten and Harier and later by reports on the Taifalen, Heruler, Langobardian Cynocephali (Hundingas) and Nordic berserks. (Note the similarity to Fehrle’s introduction.) The report closes with the assertion that Dr. Lily Weiser represents Tor her

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 67

discipline a relationship reaching far beyond pure understanding, based on a sympathy for that which is found deep in the mother soil of a nation, and for the folk stratum itself, and which is the bearer of an old traditional culture that has not yet lost its roots.’14 In her study the author repeatedly pointed to recent customs as ‘old’ traditions, thereby attesting to the continuation of early Germanic initiation rites. Thus, in her early formulation of questions,’ Lily Weiser became the first representative of Rudolf Much’s ‘men’s union school’ and worked to establish a path documenting continuity. A lengthy citation from her Habilitation study (which in its tendency reveals quite generally the viewpoint of Germanic-Antiquities orientation of the Viennese folklorists) clearly documents this: In an attempt to investigate and grasp the historical development of individual Christmas customs, it became clear, first, that only a small part of the custom comes exclusively from the Christmas celebration. Second, that essential portions must remain unexplained in our layout of the primary customs, especially the various processions of death cults and fertility magic. These are not characteristic for the Christmas celebration nor for other calendar customs but they are found repeatedly in all of Europe as part of the main festivals. Very often children, boys groups or guilds are the [primary figures] in the customs under discussion. Their appearance during weddings, depositions, apprenticeships, the obvious comparison with initiation customs ( in it iu m = beginning) of wild peoples, causes one to assume that they originally belonged to a certain circle of customary practices associated with passage from one stage of life or one social circle into another, i.e., that they were consecration rites. The next question was whether such consecration rites [have survived] from Germanic antiquity, whether they were borrowed from the ancient past, or were even perhaps more recent creations (Weiser 1927: 9).

Lily Weiser had taken on the task of ‘closing that recognizable gap, the ancient Germanic period’ (Weiser 1927: 10), and she had, in her mind, successfully accomplished it. She said: ‘For most of the initiation rites it could be shown that they come from a very old era and also were practices by

68

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

the old Germanic people’ (Weiser 1927: 85). In his book Age Classes and Men’s Unions, Heinrich Schurtz had shown ‘the importance of secret boys and men’s unions for primitive societies,’ and as Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer point out further, ‘their military and aristocratic character ... He [Schurtz] ... based on a rich body of empirical ethnographic material, postulated the thesis of a socially constituting force, the “men’s houses,” which unite young men’s groups. ... The male lust for battle forms the necessary enhancement of this need for sociability. ... All other social groupings are related to these primitive men’s unions, such as age classes with their initiation consecrations and the secret societies’ (WeberKellermann and Bimmer 1985: 95). Lily Weiser clearly based her work on Schurtz, but also on the aforementioned Viennese Indologist Leopold von Schroeder. She used his Mystery and Mime in the Rigveda, where Schroeder speaks of sword dances by the young men’s groups during certain celebration times (Schroeder gives Germanic, Greek and Phrygian examples) and maintains that these were Schurtz type age classes and men’s unions in ‘Aryan antiquity’ (Schroeder 1908: 476). The young Docent, Lily Weiser, was the first whose venia specifically included Volkskunde (although Arthur Haberlandt was already the second examiner for dissertations on Volkskunde). In the SS 1928 she lectured on ‘Deutsche Volkskunde’ and ‘Folklore Practices.’ All together 140 students signed up for the courses.15 As a result of her marriage to the Norwegian Professor A. Aall and her subsequent move to Oslo, she canceled the lectures already announced for the next semesters and in 1930 she asked to be furloughed.16 On July 12, 1935 the Dean’s Office informed her that her ‘venia docendi ... had been removed.’17 She remained in Oslo, during the war years where she actively worked for the SS Ancestral Inheritance, and later occupied the post of Conservator at the Norsk Folkemuseum. She died on February 26, 1987 without returning to her work on ‘men’s unions.’18

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 69

Geheimbünde Almost exactly one half year after her death, on the night of the 24th to the 25th of August 1987, the most important and influential Much student, Otto Höfler, died in Vienna. In contrast to Lily Weiser the life and work of this ‘deeply thoughtful scholar’ (Birkhan 1988: 404) have been treated numerous times, including his importance for National Socialist Volkskunde (Schramka 1986: 54-60), thus only a brief summary. He was bom in 1901 in Vienna, began his studies WS 1920/21 in Germanistik, Scandinavistik and Philosophie in Vienna, he made study trips to Sweden, Germany and Switzerland, and completed his doctorate in 1926 (Birkhan 1988: 385-387). In his autobiography of 1937 Otto Höfler wrote: ‘My main teacher was Rudolf Much, with whom I studied Germanic Antiquities, Germanic and especially Nordic language history, religious studies and Volkskunde. ... From 1921 on I belonged to the Viennese Academic Union of Germanists which required of its members written oaths of allegiance to German-Aryan and pure German mentality.’19 In 1928 Höfler became an assistant to the German Linguistic Atlas in Marburg. He moved to Sweden, however, in the same year where he was a lecturer for the German Language at the University of Uppsala until the WS 1933/34. During that period he completed his Habilitation in Vienna. In 1934 Höfler was appointed to an Extra-Ordinary Professorship for Germanistik and Recent German Literature History at the University of Kiel. From there he went in 1938 as Professor for Germanic Philology and Volkskunde to the University of Munich. During the late war years he was also director of the German Scholarly Institute in Copenhagen. His Habilitation - with some forceful help of his teacher Rudolf Much - was submitted to the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Vienna and completed in 1932; his venia legendi read ‘Germanic Language History and Antiquities.’20 Not until the SS 1933 was Höfler able to take up his teaching duties in both Uppsala and also (in May) in Vienna. Here he lectured on The Sacred Bases of the Ancient

70

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Germanic State’ (Bockhom 1988: 71). Until 1957 this was his only course in Vienna. After Much retired in 1934, Höfler was not considered for Much’s position, even though he was first on the list of candidates. Walter Steinhäuser, who was ranked equal [aequo loco] by the Professorial Commission, was granted the position (Birkhan 1988: 386). Höfler made the assumption in 1937 ‘that this did not come about based on scholarship, there were no doubt political factors in play’ (Gilch, Schramka and Prutting 1986: 82). At that point in time in Austria the Catholic Austro-fascist regime had gained power by defeating the parliamentary democracy (Tálos and Neugebauer 1985), and did not see any reason to continue the personnel policies being conducted by the Deutsche Gemeinschaft [German Community], founded in 1919. This society had as its primary purpose the distribution of state posts in Austria between German-national and Catholic applicants. One part of the membership paid close attention to the universities (Rosar 1971). Otto Höfler’s Habilitation study Totenheer - Kultbund Fastnachtspiel [Death Hordes - Cult Unions - Mardi Gras Games], which had been submitted in manuscript form, was published in 1934 with the new title Kultische Geheimbünde der Germanen, Teil 1 [Cultic Secret Societies of the Germanic People, Part I].21 The opening dedication reads To Rudolf Much, with Gratitude.’ In the Foreword the author points to the conclusions reached in his study and indicates the importance of Heinrich Schurtz and the ‘excellent Viennese Habilitation study by Lily Weiser,’ which ‘in scholarly research until now has found little resonance.’ Nevertheless her ‘discoveries have opened the way into a core area for ancient Germanic culture which until now has been almost completely overlooked’ (Höfler 1934: 7). It was Höfler’s intent to lay out a ‘heroic-demonic death cult’ as the center of Germanic life. This ecstatic cult was borne by the men’s unions and was for him ‘a source of religious, ethnic and heroic-political forces of enormous power’ (1934: VIII). Ecstatic did not mean chaotic for Höfler, ‘not wild pleasure, rather ... dedication to the dead, ... constructive communion with the ancestors’ (1934: IX).

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 71

In order to understand better just what Otto Höfler was attempting in his Kultische Geheimbünde, we need to isolate a few of the central ideas. In reading the work it quickly becomes clear that Höfler is most interested in clarifying the nature of the primary god figure in Germanic culture, Wodan, and is equally interested in associating him with the Männerbund concept. Höfler treats Wodan as the leader of the legendary Wild Horde, or a Raging Horde of creatures that travel at night over the hills and valleys, even through the air. One category of such supernatural beings presents the Lost Soul riding with his spectral hounds, another is the Wild Huntsman who leads a band of Lost Souls across the sky. They are accompanied by the barking of hounds, the wild raging of the wind, and the beating of horses’ hooves (Grimm 1981: 333). Höfler does not hesitate to see in these German legends the figure of Wodan, but he places his own and thus the imprint of the Viennese School on these stories which, according to Höfler, one can still document in numerous regions of the German-speaking world. These are not simply the remnants of ‘nature myths,’ for him this is a clear survival of ancient demonic cults. Basing his work on Leopold von Schroeder and Lily Weiser, whom he quotes frequently, he suggests that we can only understand what we are dealing with today, when we are able to see Wodan as the god of ecstatic men’s unions. After all, Wodan is known for his many characteristics, god of the storm, the harvest, war, runes, death, poetry, love, magic and deceit, mumming and human sacrifice. His name may be something of a collective name for all of these traits, some kind of religious syncretism, but who was he, in the beginning, before this confusion [Vernebelung] of his figure came about? Can we still discern an essential core? Toward the end of the Kultische Geheimbünde Otto Höfler attempts to draw all of his preliminary work together in a chapter entitled simply: Wodan and the Germanic Men’s Unions.’ It is here that he addresses the most common interpretations of the name of Wodan, citing virtually all scholars who have weighed in on the topic, including Jacob Grimm in his Teutonic Mythology. The latter traces the name

72

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

to vada, meaning something like to wade, press, penetrate/ thus suggesting that Wodan was an 'all penetrating and creating force.’ Others have seen in the name a wind god, and his relationship to the Wild Horde would seem to document this. He answers these attempts at etymological source seeking with the following: I consider this and similar attempts by means of nature mythology to be unnecessary. The Germanic * w õ p - and its Latin and Celtic related words point out human-psychic, not nature phenomena. From a purely linguistic standpoint it is not necessary to derive the name W o d a n from a developmental stage of the Germanic stem * w õ p - y from which this would have to mean “storm.” Such a basic meaning one could certainly surmise based on factual grounds, as long as one assumes that the basic phenomenon of the myth of the Raging Horde deals only with a “nature” storm. If, however, it becomes clear that in addition to the “raging” of a storm [of nature], there was a human raging ecstasy that was just as important for the development of our human realm, then it is no longer necessary to seek the “rage” [W u t ] that is so closely associated with Wodan merely in meteorology and thus to see in the god some kind of wind demon. This “raving” [R a s e n ] of demonic humans could be associated with a storm, and those who were possessed, as if by a “storm,” reveals more clearly than anything else the completely elementary nature of this cult. The leader [F ü h r e r ] and god of a r a v in g horde bore the name which is found in the load of the word “ W u t ” This is just as justifiable as the W ild Huntsman, the leader of the wild or r a g in g horde, who is sometimes called the “cra2y squire.” We might also remember that “raving” is the most obvious characteristic of this cultic union. And indeed we understand many sides of Wodan’s being much better if we do not see him as the god of the wind but rather as [the god] of ecstasy - and in fact the ecstasy of the cultic men’s unions (Höfler 1934: 327-329).

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 73

The text itself is not overly clear, but Höfler’s intent does come out in the footnotes to these pages, which are considerably longer than the text itself. Here we see Höfler listing, commenting on and then rejecting a variety of previous interpretations of Wodan and the Wild Horde. They were not, for example, some kind of fertility or phallic cult, nor were they a mere reflection of a nature myth clarifying the wind or storms. Relating his work to that of Lily Weiser, he suggests that óõinn in Nordic lands was the Lord of the Berserks and often was given bear names, and was thus the leader of a band of bearskin clad warriors who raved and raged as they went into battle. Höfler is certainly thinking here about what he had learned from his teacher Rudolf Much in regard to Tacitus, even though he fails to footnote it. In the Germania Tacitus writes of the practice of German warriors holding their shields in front of their faces and humming, singing, shouting into the shields to make a frightening noise, barditus, as they entered battle. Höfler then looks to Greece, and most specifically to ‘Dionysus, the one who awakened ecstasy,’ as a similar phenomenon, and comments that ‘ecstasy is an ancient experience [Urerlebnis] of all religions’ (Höfler 1934: 329, Note 157). Then, in an attempt to offer in his work a ‘new perspective,’ Höfler now clarifies what he says makes the Germanic variant of this otherwise nearly universal Wild Horde phenomenon unique. ‘Indeed it appears to be of note that Wôdan-óõinn had drawn to itself a certain group of cultic functions which are peculiar, especially for a warring death cult (of a men’s union type!).’ He then sums up: The spread of the Wodan-Cult from the South will have been transferred [to the North] by a wave of warring life forms’ (1934: 331, Note 159b). In summary, Wodan was the leader of an ancient death cult, whose members were to be found in a Männerbund, and whose actions rose to a level of frenzy (raving, raging, ecstasy) as they followed their leader [Führer] through the country side. In the second part Höfler wanted to show the continuation of the cult in associations of the most varied strata and which have continued until today to carry out customary begging practices, e.g., in Perchta runs, in Haberfeldtreiben, in Swiss

74

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Streggelejagen. All of these are still today Männerbünde, all take place at unusual times of the year, mostly at night, and all are secretive and mysterious. Here, in an attempt to clarify his methodology, he constructed from the Middle Ages as well as modem references those ancient Germanic cult forms and rituals whose continuation he accepted as a given. The third part of his study was to be devoted to the developmental history of the German folk drama as coming from customs practiced by various branches of men’s unions. This work was eventually taken up by his friend and comrade-in-arms against positivism, rationalism, and materialism, Robert Stumpfl. In 1951 Leopold Schmidt outlined as characteristic of Höfler’s work and that of his followers: ‘that customary processions were older than narrative motifs, which had been a major assumption in English research. Particularly the motif complex of the “Wild Horde’ is singled out from this point on and viewed as a reflection of boys’ [initiation] customs’ (Schmidt 1951a: 131). This most cursory interpretation by Schmidt leaves out the matter of ‘belief,’ which is not really addressed at all even though Höfler said: ‘In order to ‘present’ the Death Horde one would have to first believe in a Death Horde. One would never have masked onself as a demon without thinking about demons.’ Höfler then quickly adds: This does not mean that an oral mythology first existed as a system of narratives which were then later turned into dramatic presentations’ (Höfler 1934: 322, Note 147). The concept of a continuation of Germanic ‘secret cults’ was ‘derived’ from ‘exactly that material, ... which was supposed to prove its existence. ... [It] was in harmony not only quite generally with the vague Germanophile nature of the National Socialists, but it could also be attached completely to the biological, racist and other world view attitudes of the Third Reich’ (Bausinger 1971a: 78). Such a conclusion as this by Hermann Bausinger is easy to see - particularly with a view to the careers of Much’s students during National Socialism. Helmut Birkhan has said that only those who understand the ‘secret societies’ and the ‘fascination with Odin’ can grasp

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 75

the value of Otto Höfler’s Kultische Geheimbünde for Germanic religious history (Birkhan 1988: 390). We can, however appreciate Birkhan’s summarization of Höfler’s conclusions, that past rites in the realm of Wodan and death cults are reflected still today in processions of ‘masked (young) men who in many cases are united in secret organizations,’ and are ‘in fact, documentable by means of Volkskunde.’22 From our vantage point today, we are more aware of how one works methodologically with historical sources (H. Moser 1954) and just how problematic the concept of ‘continuity’ is for Volkskunde as an analytical cultural science (Bau singer 1969; Bau singer 1971a: 74-88). The ‘thesis of continuity, of the continuation of cultural creations, even when there is a complete ‘change of [tradition] bearers,’ and which came together as ‘material’ and flowed again and again into these cultural streams,’ was according to Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann and Andreas C. Bimmer, ‘a conception of the world which is only comprehensible by means of a completely ideologically oriented scholarly research agenda’ (Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 9697). Such a conception of the world has to do with a commitment to a feeling of belief, and little with exact scholarly analysis. It is not without reason that Höfler rejected in his introduction the ability of those advocates of rationalism, intellectualism and materialism to follow his argumentation (Höfler 1934: VIII-X). His friends Richard Wolfram and Robert Stumpfl, mentioned in the foreword, supported him. The latter, also clearly allied with the Much School, published as his primary work an expansive investigation on Kultspiele der Germanen als Ursprung des mittelalterlichen Dramas [Cultic Games of the Germanic People as the Origin of Medieval Drama] in 1936. Here he reached back to his own 1934 study and tried to prove that one could still find preserved in the ‘original type’ of medieval drama, in the mardi gras play, and the jests, a ‘phallic demon horde’ as part of a ‘cultic pre-spring celebration’ with a ‘magical-fertility function.’ One year later Leopold Schmidt remarked in a review, that in spite of his knowledge of the

76

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

subject Stumpfl’s source interpretations could be little more than a stimulus for thought since the influence of Christianity was completely played down (Schmidt 1937c: 23). Fourteen years later Leopold Schmidt repeated his criticism, pointing out the circular reasoning by means of which ‘from recent forms old forms were being derived, which were then being used to document them as historically old expressive forms. Stumpfl had not been able to prove that the liturgical drama of the Middle Ages was derived from Germanic folk plays’ (Schmidt 1951a: 131). He was also, as ‘the strongest of all representatives of this [Viennese] school, [not able to carry out] a rejection of the Catholic church, and on the other hand make real the derivation of all values from Germanic [sources]’ (Schmidt 1951a: 131-132). From the vantage point of scholarship today, we can use an argument by Hermann Bausinger, that mardi gras plays are not documented until the late Middle Ages (Bausinger 1971a: 79) and, as we might add, there is no evidence of ‘ancient’ Germanic-phallic, demonic hordes playing jests, where the phallus is to be understood as an innocent worship of the ‘fertility principle’ (Stumpfl 1936: 29). Robert Stumpfl was born in 1904 and died in 1937, in an accident. In 1939 Otto Höfler married his widow Hanna, who accompanied ‘this impractical scholar as a true companion and good protecting spirit ... through all of the confusion of everyday life’ (Birkhan 1988: 386). By that time Otto Höfler was already Ordinarius in Munich, closely allied with the ‘Ancestral Inheritance’ of the SS23 as well as the ‘Reich Institute for History of New Germany’ (Heiber 1966). At the fourth working meeting of his group he held his anti-Semitic lecture about the literary scholar Friedrich Gundolf.24 He proved in the realm of scholarship to be not at all ‘impractical,’ rather organized and successful in punishing his opponents as well as in promoting his friends. Schwerttanz Among the latter, and in a special way, was Richard Wolfram, born on September 16, 1901 in Vienna and closely allied with

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 77

Höfler during their years of study and until the latter’s death. Wolfram was also raised with pan-German ideals (Wolfram 1987c) and was a connoisseur of the ‘Germanic North’ (Wolfram 1990). He also took courses offered by Rudolf Much, but did not write his dissertation with him. He completed his studies in 1926 under the German literature Professor Walther Brecht with a doctoral work on Ernst Moritz Arndt und Schweden [Ernst Moritz Arndt and Sweden], which he reworked and published in 1933. He continued to be supported by Brecht who had moved to Munich as Ordinarius (Wolfram 1933). In the Foreword Otto Höfler is thanked for enriching the book through an ‘exchange of ideas and the community of experience.’25 By that time Wolfram had long since found his way into the camp of Much’s Viennese School and had published his first folklore essays, on the topic of folk dance (Fielhauer 1968: 18-30; Bockhom and Fielhauer 1982: 275-282). Wolfram was himself a life-long enthusiastic ‘folk dancer,’ and he offered relevant courses on dance and on customs. He had also researched ‘men’s unions’ in England and Romania (Wolfram 1934), including their ‘secret’ elements, and had even personally participated. By then Wolfram had traveled in Germany, Great Britain, Scandinavia and in the Alpine lands, as well as in East-Middle European regions, to German language islands’ and had made scholarly recordings particularly in the standard canonical areas. His trips and wanderings eventually led him to all European lands with the single exception of Russia (Wolfram 1990: 332). As early as 1932 it was also clear what such an extensive investigation would deal with: men’s dances, masks, chain and sword dances. He published relevant articles both in the Wiener Zeitschrift für Volkskunde (Wolfram 1932a), as well as in the Festschrift for Rudolf Much (Wolfram 1932b). They were preliminary investigations for his Habilitation study on Schwerttanz und Männerbund [Sword Dance and Men’s Union] which he submitted in manuscript form on March 9, 1934, along with his application. As a result of his emeritus status, Rudolf Much was not a member of the commission (chaired by the Germanist Dietrich Kralik), he was, however,

78

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

brought in as an ‘expert’ and to a large degree he offered the discipline’s evaluation and recommendation. On January 17, 1935 the colloquium took place and on February 2, 1935 his trial lecture on the “History of the SchnadáhüpfeV was held. It is not at all surprising, as we can read in the published report of 1938, that the “King of the Army,’ Rudolf Much, had indeed attempted to sing verses from the Ounnlaugs Saga as Bavarian Schnadahüpfln, now verified by Wolfram’s scholarly study (sic). ‘Similarities’ between Upper Austrian, medieval and Scandinavian dances and verses made it possible for the author to establish the relationship between an area where Scandinavian four liner verses were found with those in the German language area, i.e., there was a direct relationship between chain dances and Scandinavian forms (Wolfram 1939). Wolfram had to wait, however, for ministerial authentication of his Habilitation. During the course of the proceedings his application for the venia docendi was submitted for ‘Germanic Volkskunde and Scandinavian Studies’ but he was limited in the second part to Modem Scandinavian. Wolfram had been Lecturer for Swedish Language at the University of Vienna since 1928. His application for the Habilitation was finally approved on December 10, 1936.26 The reason for the delay was a justifiable suspicion of National Socialistic activity (Meißl 1981: 488 and 495, Note 102). Wolfram had joined the NSDAP in 1932, which was made illegal in 1934 by the Austro-fascistic government. His later membership in the ‘Fatherland Front,’ a clerical-fascist unity organization which upheld the Austrian state ideal (Jagschitz 1983), was not quite as obvious. His membership is clearly documented, but he was merely looked upon as a careerist. In the WS 1937/38 Wolfram began his official teaching career at the University of Vienna with a course on the ‘History of Folk Dance,’ a career which would continue until 1945, and began again in 1954. In 1936/37 his third installment of the sword dance book was published. All together the published portions reached 304 pages, the rest of the planned eight installments of the work never appeared, as a result of the war (Wolfram 1990: 333). The ‘considerable wealth of the subject’s overview and

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 79

the fundamental divisions/ which Leopold Schmidt praised (1951a: 131), was based on his immense knowledge (and to a large degree personal observation as well as archival work) of recent and historically documented forms of European men's dances (Corsinn 1997). Here swords (also staffs or wreaths) form the links between the dancers in such a way that a circle or an open chain was formed. Contemporary dancing groups (peasant "young men’s groups,’ guilds and other associations) were interpreted by Richard Wolfram as relicts of survival from men’s unions. He viewed the dramatic killing and the reawakening of a dancer in fool’s clothing as a central theme. The original meaning was thus the completion of a youth initiation rite. Again, in order to better understand the connection between the specific expressive form, here the Sword Dance, and the concept of continuity from the Männerbund, we offer an example from Wolfram’s text. In an attempt to present the widespread nature of his subject, Wolfram looks to English folk dance tradition: In a 1799 recording of the action in the Revesby sword dance, the woven pattern is call “glass.” When it is formed the fool runs around uneasily and doesn't want to say what he sees. Pickle Herring (the second fool) asks him: “What is the matter now, father?” Fool: “Why, I tell thee what, Pickle Herring, as I was alooking round about me through my wooden spectacles made of a great, huge, little tiny bit of leather, placed right behind me even before me, I thought I saw a feat thing.” His anxious jabbering has been interpreted by Douglas Kennedy as linguistic “magic talk.” The sword lock is taboo. [?] But when it is formed once again the fool calls out: “Why I protest, the very same thing.” Finally he looks into the mirror and shouts: “I see, I see, I see,” and throws it to the ground. But now he must die, whereby he speaks the most unusual words: “If I must die, I will die with my face to the light, for all [of] you.” He kneels down, the swords are placed around his neck, and when they are pulled out, he falls to the ground dead. Every one sings: Good people all, you see what we have done: We have cut down our father like the evening sun. And here he lies all in his purple gore And we are afraid he never will dance more.

80

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria Stamping on the ground, however brings him back to life. The quite complicated motifs of the Revesby dance offer research a few nuts to crack. What today is singled out as a death scene, which has naturally now become comical, appears to have formed the oldest core. The special meaning of the glowing and shining inter-woven pattern is especially emphasized. This is seen in the fear of the fool and his outcry when he finally is able to look into this mirror. But that brings him death and he must die (as a sacrifice for all?). What we want to read out of these words is that the name of the sword [dance] pattern is a magicalmystical symbol. ... In summary it can be said that our “anatural” sword dance form, in the majority of its motifs - and particularly in the most important ones - appear to suggest cultic meaning (Wolfram 1936/37: 180-81).

The lack of information between Tacitus’ ‘description of the sword dance,’ in his Germania of 98 CE and their documented appearance in the 14th century, concludes by Richard Wolfram alluding to Höfler’s ‘insights’ about the cultic secret societies of the Germanic people. In this way proof of a continual existence was established, as well as the existence of cults, demonology and ecstatic behavior. “We cannot deny that there was an enhancement of life among our folk whereby one was capable of superhuman accomplishments’ (Wolfram 1936/37: 290-291). This sentence is found in the unfinished second part, Der Männerbund [The Men’s Union], where the author lays out his continuity thesis in regard to censorship councils, fools’ guilds, the Wild Hunt, ghostly animals and animal disguises. Unfortunately the work breaks off abruptly and was never completed. We do not know why neither Otto Höfler nor Richard Wolfram failed to complete their monumental works, for example, after the war. Perhaps it was the anti-Germanic winds then blowing that hindered them. Dialektologie In the Foreword to his Schwerttanz und Männerbund, Richard Wolfram had dedicated the book to Rudolf Much and he gave special thanks to Otto Höfler. He also paid tribute to a

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 81

preliminary study by Eugen Fehrle, his Heidelberg comradein-arms and promoter of Lily Weiser, as well as all members of the Much School. In 1932 they had published a Festschrift, for the lionored master Rudolf Much,’ and ‘presented by Reich German colleagues’ (Fehrle 1932). Among them - in addition to Höfler - was yet another Much student, the Old German and dialectology scholar Eberhard Kranzmayer (1897-1975). He had completed his Habilitation in 1932 on the Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und deutschen Volkskunde [History of the German Language and German Volkskunde] in Vienna.27 He lectured on ‘German Language Islands in the South’ and in 1938 went to Munich to the [Bavarian] ‘Dictionary Chancellery,’ where he became Director in 1940. As Professor he also taught at the LudwigMaximilians-University in Munich, but in 1942 he was appointed ‘Chair for Dialect Studies and Boundary Research,’ in Graz, and from 1943 on he directed the “Institute for Carinthian Regional Research’ (Gilch 1986: 25; for Kranzmayer see Hornung 1975). As a comrade-in-arms of his antiquities and folklore friends, this dialect researcher was seldom seen, but he was always there. In 1968 he dedicated an article to his friend Wolfram in which he did not shy away from ‘associating contemporary names and customs with evidence of ancient pagan mythology’ (Kranzmayer 1968: 262). Eberhard Kranzmayer had also worked during his Vienna years in the ‘Dictionary Chancellery,’ parallel to the one in Bavaria, supported by the Austrian Academy of Sciences and directed at the time by Anton Pfalz. Pfalz too was close to the circle around Much and had been at the University since 1926 with a teaching assignment on ‘German Dialect Research and Volkskunde.128 In 1931 he was appointed Extra-Ordinary Professor.29 His own folklore course offerings were varied. Religiose Volkskunde As we can now see, in the 1920s and 1930s there existed around Rudolf Much and the study of Germanic Antiquities a considerable, though intermittent, folklore teaching program

82

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

carried out by Anton Pfalz, Lily Weiser, Otto Höfler, Richard Wolfram, Eberhard Kranzmayer, and after 1933, Rudolf Kriss (1903-1973). The latter’s name is listed last, not without reason, for he was somewhat to the side of the chronology of events presented above and can only be listed with the Much School in the broadest sense. Kriss had completed his doctorate in 1928 with the Germanist (and folklorist) Otto Maußer in Munich and published his dissertation in 1929 (Schramka 1986: 54). Encouraged by his ‘fellow-country woman’ and folklore teacher’ of Berchtesgaden, Marie Andree-Eysn, he had devoted himself early on and almost exclusively to ‘religious folklore,’ i.e., Catholic piety research in the ‘ancient Bavarian area.’ At the same time he had begun building a representative and comprehensive private collection. It speaks for Rudolf Much whose teaching and research topic was the ‘Germanic world’ ( Verzeichnis 1932: 3), that he, as Richard Wolfram stated, with his tincompromising straightforwardness ... also had a fine sense of humanity and a mildness which recognized every real accomplishment and also allowed his students to develop in their own way’ (Wolfram 1936: 476). Thus Much also led Rudolf Kriss, the ‘poet and private scholar’ through his Habilitation even though Kriss did not belong to his narrow circle of students. In his application of January 22, 1932 Kriss asked for ‘granting the venia legendi for German folklore and antiquities, with special emphasis on spiritual culture,’ and on the basis of works presented: Volkskundliches aus altbayrischen Gedenkstätten [Folklore from Ancient Bavarian Miracle Sites] (1931) and Altbayrische Wallfahrtsbräuche im Rahmen der religiösen Volkskunde [Ancient Bavarian Pilgrimage Customs in the Realm of Religious Volkskunde] (published 1932) as parts 1 and 2 of Bayrische WallfahrtsVolkskunde [Bavarian Pilgrimage-Volkskunde].30 The referent Rudolf Much pleaded for a ‘simplification’ of the venia to read ‘German Volkskunde,’ since this included antiquities. Again we see Much’s view of Volkskunde. The discipline is ‘broad’ enough and is already represented at the universities of Graz and Hamburg by means of special professorships. In the

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 83

Commission report it was again pointed out how ‘strict the scholarly schooling’ was for folklorists. There was also a not too detailed word of praise for Kriss’s previous works, which treated ‘German folk belief, an impersonal, primitive communal religion on the one hand, and the exalted religion of Christianity, antiquity and Germanic heathenism on the other.’ These were the determining factors in the conceptualization of folk belief as an ‘old stratum’ still recognizable in spite of later overburdens. Kriss received Much’s full support, who then concludes the report with an absolutely positive evaluation.31 After his colloquium and trial lecture on Type Formation in the Religious Legend, as Seen in Carriage Miracles,’ the ministry approved the procedure on March 3, 1933. By the SS 1933 the new Docent found himself in the position of offering a course on the ‘Introduction to Religious Volkskunde I.’ Cult, magic, superstition and again folk belief were further topics of his courses, which he held until the WS 1937/38. In a letter dated April 22, 1938, i.e., exactly six weeks after the seizure of power by the National Socialist in Austria and the ‘Annexation’ of the Ostmark into the German Reich (Gulick 1976; Weinzierl and Skalnik 1983), Kriss was informed that his teaching permission would be canceled until further notice.32 Whether someone from within the folklore camp was behind this circuitous removal from office cannot be verified from the files. Most of Much’s students paid allegiance to National Socialism, as did their ‘mortal enemies,’ the ‘mythologists,’ and indeed long before 1938 (Bockhom 1999). Zwischen Mythologie und Volkskunde Before we look at the other main ‘developmental current’ in the early history of the discipline, Ethnologie, we need to look at a few individuals who were more Handlanger [lackeys] and were not in any sense schulbildend [school builders], as many of the others had been. These individuals were primarily associated in various ways with the ‘Mythologists’ - not the ritualists - of the Viennese School, and each found a role in

84

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

the German Reich after Austria was annexed. Specifically we need to understand the roles of Karl von Spieß, Emund Mudrak and Karl Haiding. The first two will receive our attention in this chapter, the latter in Chapter 4. Karl von Spieß produced a large quantity of works, but he was ‘an author, whom no folklorists ever took seriously,’ according to Will-Erich Peuckert (1948: 130) and who simply abbreviated the facts (Schmidt 1955c, Schmidt 1957b, Schmidt 1958c). We can only point out some of his tendencies. He came into the world on April 20, 1880 in the suburb Simmering which was not yet a part of Vienna (he shared his birthday with Adolf Hitler, born nine years later in Braunau am Inn). He attended high school and the university in his home city. In 1903 he received his doctorate in botany, in 1904 he was awarded teaching certification for natural history (minors in: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry). Beginning in 1905 he taught in high schools in Wiener Neustadt and Vienna, and from 1914-1918 he served as an artillery officer during the war. In 1925 he was granted medical release from his teaching position, but he remained active from that time until his death on July 1, 1957, primarily as a private instructor.33 From 1928-1938 he participated in and finally directed the Teaching Program Deutsche Bildung. Spieß also actively supported the series published by the Society, Bausteine zur Geschichte, Völkerkunde und Mythenkunde [Building Blocks for History, Ethnology and Myth Studies]. Leopold Schmidt said that these Building Blocks ‘were not really read at all’ (1957b: 337). In the first volume we find among the book reviews the first publications of a man who was to become the most faithful vassal of Spieß, Edmund Mudrak (Gröhsl 1965). In 1931 Karl von Spieß had become a ‘collaborator’ of Professor Joseph Strzygowski in the Art History Institute of the University of Vienna. It is not clear just what Spieß’s activity was during the years 1931-33, but we are able to ascertain that a close relationship existed between the Viennese moon mythologists and art history under Joseph Strzygowski (Schmidt 1951a: 135). This is especially noticeable in art history works where ‘folk art’ is included in the investigation

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 85

(Strzygowski 1936). Spieß, who considered himself a ‘folk art researcher,’ was a most fitting contact person: ‘Most important are my investigations, since my talent lies in ‘insightful viewing’ of art scholarship works, but since the art which we are looking at belongs to an unwritten traditional world, this had to be investigated in its full breadth and depth.’ This is how Spieß himself described his relationship to art history shortly before his death (Spieß 1957: 1). Just how Joseph Strzygowski could profit from this mutual work, becomes clear when one reads an obituary in the NSMonatshefte of 1941 for the deceased: The discovery of the fruitful effect of the ancient Nordic East on the development of art history of the last millennia in Europe is to Josef Strzygowski’s enduring credit ... As the real founder of comparative art history he set a course for himself to finally recognize the racially-based foundations of art creativity in Europe’ (Hartmann 1941: 172). This ‘final recognition’ united not only Strzygowski and Spieß, but also the latter with the owner of the Herbert Stubenrauch Book Press in Berlin, Walter Krieg. Spieß met him in October of 1933. It was in this press that the Jahrbuch fiir historische Volkskunde [Yearbook for Historical Folklore] was published, beginning in 1925, and in 1940 we find in an announcement: ‘Stubenrauch - for more than 18 years the publisher for German Volkskunde.’ We then find titles of published work by Karl von Spieß, Edmund Mudrak and Heinrich Leßmann (Spieß 1940: unnumbered appendix). Deutsche Volkskunde by Stubenrauch was at that time already the previously mentioned ‘brown’ Volkskunde, i.e., that of the Rosenberg Bureau, Which had substantial supporters in Matthes Ziegler, Edmund Mudrak and Karl von Spieß’ (Emmerich 1968: 156). Personal contacts to the first named had been made by Spieß on the occasion of a visit to Berlin in the Fall of 1934. Matthes Ziegler had just been named by Alfred Rosenberg as the editor-in-chief of the NSMonatshefte, and to the directorship of the main post of World View’ in the Rosenberg Bureau (Lixfeld 1987b and 1991). On the same visit he also met Hans Reinerth who was

86

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

responsible for the departments of Pre- and Early History in the Rosenberg office (Bollmus 1970: 38). At this meeting it is possible that there were already concrete plans for Spieß to be helped out in his hopes for a folklore professorship at a German university.34 The first opportunity was in Berlin where an attempt was made to have Spieß compete against the man recommended by the faculty for the professorship, Adolf Spamer (Jacobeit and Mohrmann 1982: 286-289). In spite of several positive votes, in the final analysis reason wins out and Spamer is appointed in 1936 to the position of Professor for German Volkskunde at the University of Berlin even though Spieß had rejected in his symbol research all things positivistic, was a National Socialist, and thus absolutely reliable. A letter of reference from Rudolf Much may well have contributed to the rejection of Spieß. In the letter Spieß is accused of ‘monomaniac’ or ‘menomaniac’ viewpoints. The worst is,’ Much writes further about Spieß’s work, That things are presented as facts which in folk custom cannot be documented and merely exist in the imagination of the author’ (cited in Jacobeit and Mohrmann 1982: 288). A further possible appointment broke down through actions by Walter Wüst, who had brought Otto Höfler to Munich.35 In any case it was obvious that Spieß had to reckon with difficulties in regard to an academic career difficulties that did not exist outside of the universities, among the circles of disciples, Wandervogel and Verein fü r Volkskunde in Wien. In this latter institution, founded in 1894 by Michael Haberlandt, and which also owned the Austrian Museum for Folklore, Karl von Spieß had been a board member for decades, and for a period of time even vice president (Schmidt 1957b: 336). In addition he functioned from 1936 on as second chairman of the “Working Community for Volkskunde at the University of Vienna,’ which actually had nothing really to do with the university (Schmidt 1982: 46; Bockhom 1988: 75). Karl von Spieß had been associated with the Museum for Folklore and its founder Michael Haberlandt, as well as his son Arthur since 1910. He also appears to be the one who established the contact between the younger Haberlandt and the Rosenberg Bureau.

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 87

In retrospect Spieß said: ‘And furthermore, I had the fortune as a mature man to experience the development of a completely new museum, a Volkskunde museum, in Vienna’ (Spieß 1953: 49). In the same year, 1910, Spieß presented in a first publication, and drawing on his ‘mythology’ instructors Georg Hüsing and Wolfgang Schultz, his ‘fundamental insight,’ a View that folk tradition is a-historical, that there was an ahistorical folk world, ... even if the alignment of so many manifestations of this unusual world to certain historical figures, [only] slowly became obvious’ (Schmidt 1957b: 336). By the end of his life Spieß was to produce over a hundred publications, which in the opinion of Wolfgang Jacobeit and Ute Mohrmann Were among the most confused and unscholarly works produced in fascist Germany as part of a ‘scholarly’ Volkskunde’ [also in pre- and post fascist Austria, author note] (Jacobeit and Mohrmann 1982: 287). Spieß was concerned with the ‘mythic past,’ the ‘Pre-Indo-Germanic’ and the commonalities rooted there. He found them in ‘peasant art’ (by which he meant the nameless art of the Nordic peasants - who belonged to an a-historical world), in the fairy tale and in ballads, in the ‘Aryan festival.’36 In every case he contrasted the ‘a-historical world’ with an unattested ‘traditional world ... [and] included oral materials, time reckoning, customs’ (Spieß 1934: 10 and 81-230). On the other side he calls them the “three Heiltümer [salvations]’ which had been preserved in the ‘Indo-Germanic healing order of the early ages.’ He saw in oral tales a ‘regularly arranged two-world-tale,’ custom as the ‘Aryan festival,’ molded by ‘[dramatic] presentation’ and ‘communal meals,’ time reckoning as ‘separation of the moon month into certain time units, i.e., in three nine-night, bright weeks and one three-night darkened period,’ described above (Spieß 1957: 46). Hannjost Lixfeld has dealt with the interpretative methods of the Viennese ‘Mythological’ School and their protagonist Karl von Spieß in regard to narrative research (Lixfeld 1987b: 46-49). Lixfeld points out the ‘purification from racially impure changes’ [in the tales], which in turn point to Alfred Rosenberg’s Mythus and to an essentially Nordic world view.

88

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

It was a question here of its cultivation, preservation and reacquisition whereas ‘contemporary practice in Volkskunde’ (which meant for Spieß all those who worked outside his School) ‘places all kinds of unthinkable goods along side each other, no matter what their origin’ (Spieß 1934: 10). ‘My investigations were always devoted to cultural goods found originally in the North. These investigations have revealed a world of its own, with certain figures in art and a tradition which is the basis for it.’ With these words Karl von Spieß posthumously closes his scholarly credo (Spieß 1957). During his entire life he was concerned with tradition, “to grasp ... the oldest peasant art’ (Spieß 1943: X), and to disclose models like the tree-of-life, and figures such as the three women as a representation of threefold time units.’ ‘Once again,’ write Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer, ‘one had undertaken, as in the time of romantic scholarship, a search for the supposed ‘real Ur-forms’ and had forgotten all sociological points of reference’ (Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 98). Lack of ‘sociological’ points may have been the case, but a ‘point of reference’ had certainly not been forgotten: it was race. This had been removed in Spieß’s attempts at self justification after 1945, in his ‘Confessions of a Lonely Researcher’ as he referred to himself later (Spieß 1953: 49). It is also missing in the incomprehensible glorification by Leopold Schmidt, who said his own works liad grown to a degree out of an inner confrontation with the works of Karl von Spieß,’ but we find not a single word about the racist Spieß (Schmidt 1982: 109). Schmidt is satisfied with a distorted suggestion of the ‘political danger’ of Spieß’s work, calling it the ‘scholarship of that period,’ and speaks of a ‘compromised presentation’ of his views in the little book Deutsche Volkskunde als Erschließerin deutscher Kultur [German Folklore as the Key to German Culture] (Spieß 1934), ‘from which those on the outside cannot see the richness of insights by the researcher’ (Schmidt 1957b: 337). The little book’ was published in Berlin, but it was written by the Austrian Spieß at a time when Austria was indeed fascistic but was not yet governed by National Socialism. It includes ‘insights’ which one can easily call repulsive and in

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 89

the final analysis murderous. It is concerned with the ‘sense of V o l k s k u n d e ’ and the ‘threefold anchor ... which we cannot disregard in r a c e , l a n g u a g e and the t r a d i t i o n a l w o r l d ’ (Spieß 1934: 30). Racial ‘insights’ are spread over forty pages, ‘racial cultivation’ and ‘i n h e r i t a n c e w e llfa re (eugenics)’ are recommended and the meaning and superiority of the ‘Nordic race’ are likewise spelled out (Spieß 1934: 31-68). Spieß returns particularly to his ‘g o a l o r i e n t e d r a c i a l c u l t i v a t i o n ’ in this summary ‘insight’: 1.

Genetically sick procreation.

people

are

to

be

absolutely

denied

2.

The possibility for sufficient creation of healthy successors must be developed. Of primary importance is that both parents are genetically healthy and are racially close to one another [compatible]. Members of distant races can be tolerated in a folk body, but not the bastards of distant races, since these latter are both physically and spiritually inferior.

3.

The emigration of those who are inferior, i.e., racially foreign elements, especially from the east, must be absolutely hindered. The damage which such “emigrants” have brought about, not only in Germany but also in other countries, is still in our memory (Spieß 1934: 232).

In light of the millions of deaths during World War II, it is both incomprehensible and even impossible to understand how Leopold Schmidt could call the author of such offensive statements a ‘real,’ even a ‘gigantic personality’ (Schmidt 1957b: 338). Sharing Schmidt's opinion, at least we can assume, was the long-time companion and friend of the ‘nobleman’ Karl von Spieß, Edmund Mudrak, born on October 27, 1894 in Vienna.37 We may assume that the dedication to part I of Spieß’s M a r k s t e i n e d e r V o l k s k u n s t [Milestones of Folk Art] of 1937 is for Mudrak: ‘For all Germans, all of us who are related through blood, language and tradition, and for my best friend’ (Spieß 1937: Dedication). At the University of Vienna this World War I veteran studied G e r m a n i s t i k ,

90

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Orientalistik and Ancient History. He completed his studies with a dissertation on the Wieland legend. Following his studies he was a civil servant (until 1943) in the cultural office of the city of Vienna, ‘in order to follow his scholarly path “independent” of “School doctrines’” (Haiding 1965: 85). This ‘independence’ referred to the circle around Rudolf Much, the ‘School doctrines’ were those of Hüsing, Schultz and Spieß to which he was, however, more than committed. In the first volume of the Bausteine, the series published by the Deutsche Bildung, we find, as already mentioned, reviews by him, in the second volume two small essays, in the third methodological thoughts on the fairy tale and the legend which conclude with the following insight: ‘Mythological traditions must be given consideration without regard to internally existing limitations, primarily in order to explain other points of view. And there where it is not a matter of form but rather of essence, we have to understand much under the concept of the fairy tale that is not part of the fairy tale as we know it’ (Mudrak 1933). It was, as with Spieß, a matter of the ‘essence,’ the TJr-version’ to be worked out, especially a ‘faithfulness in regard to the traditional content’ in contrast to ‘philological word accuracy,’ as Leopold Schmidt writes in reference to the book by Spieß and Mudrak, Deutsche Märchen - Deutsche Welt [German Fairy Tales - German World] (Schmidt 1951a: 136, references to Spieß and Mudrak). It was a work which was ‘not intended for regular usage by research and instructors’ (Schmidt 1957b: 337). Schmidt emphasized, however the value of the Viewpoint,’ so that it appears to be meaningful to view Mudrak not as a narrative researcher but look to him for his world view. His larger works are Die deutsche Heldensage [The German Heroic Legend], not published until 1938 and Die nordischen Heldensagen [The Nordic Heroic Legend] (Mudrak 1938a and Mudrak 1943), which Karl Haiding says is difficult because of its ‘necessary depth’ (Haiding 1965: 85). In 1938, the year of the Anschluß of Austria with the German Reich, Spieß and Mudrak published two articles in a small volume with the programmatic title Deutsche Volkskunde als politische Wissenschaft [German Folklore as

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 91

Political Science]. In the piece by Spieß we find the vigorous statement, that ‘Peasants are the preservers of inherited goods on German soil’ and thus German Volkskunde seen from this vantage point is the ‘study of peasants’ (Spieß 1938b: 12). Mudrak’s introductory contribution postulates The Tasks of Volkskunde as a Living Scholarship,’ even though this deviates from the announced title of ‘German Volkskunde as political science’ (Mudrak 1938a: 3-11). With racial studies as the “basic scholarship,’ Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl as the father of Volkskunde, and Grimm’s mythology and its research of traditional values, we now have the comer stones on which a Volkskunde understood as having a racial base, possesses political meaning and responsibility and which includes prerequisites for cultural politics coming from ‘the inherent values of the Volk’ (Mudrak 1938a: 11). Precursors and progenitors have indeed made their way into the minds of at least some Viennese folklorists. The breadth of effect by the Viennese ‘Mythological’ School has been pointed out in many cases. Among the many and active Mitläufer [accomplices] during the 1930s we count Karl Haiding (who at that time changed his own name from Paganini to the German equivalent Haiding), Gero Zenker and Elli Starzacher (Schmidt 1951a: 137). We will meet Karl Haiding again, the man who wrote a dissertation under Arthur Haberlandt, on the mythological treatment of children’s games and particularly the relationships between games, fairy tales and calendar dates (Haiding 1936 and Haiding 1939c).

Ethnographie und Lebenskreise Michael Haberlandt Karl von Spieß met Michael Haberlandt for the first time in 1910 ‘in the museum he had created in a single room in the stock market, and in spite of all efforts at arranging the items it looked more like a gigantic junk room’ (Spieß 1953: 40). Both men were at that time intensively involved with ‘folk art’:

92

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Haberlandt was preparing his two volume Österreichische Volkskunst [Austrian Folk Art] as well as editing the series Werke der Volkskunst [Works of Folk Art],38 and Spieß published in 1911 Der Mythos als Grundlage der Bauemkunst [Myth as a Foundation for Peasant Art], For Michael Haberlandt this involvement with the topic grew out of the collections in his museum, the continuing exhibitions as well as his own personal participation in the folk art movement. In 1905, in conjunction with the Austrian House Industry and Folk Art show in the Viennese Arts and Crafts Museum, he exhibited more than two thousand objects in order to ‘prove how important his collections were’ (Schmidt 1960d: 55). Central to his thinking was art historian Alois Riegl’s 1894 concept, that folk art is an indigenous practice of a natural folk-nation, the ‘sum of traditional art forms, which belong in all their manifestations to all members of a particular folk.’ It is shaped by tradition of ‘continuous and unchanging practice,’ and it is marked by general knowledge and practice.39 Michael Haberlandt expanded this image of a ‘complete folk art, many-sided and enriched in expression’ (A. Haberlandt 1926a: 22). He shared Karl von Spieß’s view of folk art as ‘more impersonal’ and ‘more traditional’ art and objects. Together they object to the presentation of the sinking down (gesunkenes Kulturgut) of urban images which through disfigurement and artistic inability become folk art (R. Forrer 1906). These two, however, were not in agreement in regard to the meaning of the Mythos. In 1911 Haberlandt maintained that the origin and the expansion of folk art as part of the mythical tradition of the folk was ‘complete nonsense’ (M. Haberlandt 1911a). Even in subsequent reviews he continued to maintain this, but this did not seem to bother his relationship with Spieß: The warm and deep sensitivity with which the author treats his object [peasant art, authors’ note], is in every case especially touching’ (A. Haberlandt 1926a: 22). Michael Haberlandt’s placing of folk art at the center of his work during the first decades of the new century was a result of his founding in 1895 of the Museum for Austrian Folklore with his colleague in the ethnographic department of the

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 93

Imperial-Regal Natural History Museum, Wilhelm Hein.40 One year prior to this these two had breathed life into the Verein für Volkskunde in Vienna and thereby established a central place for the new scholarship in the Austrian half of the Danube Monarchy. In the first issue in 1895 of the society’s publication, the Zeitschrift für Österreichische Volkskunde,41 which Michael Haberlandt would edit for decades, the editor laid out a program: The task of the society, as well as its journal, is the comparative research and presentation of the folk-nation of the inhabitants of Austria. From the Carpathians to the Adriatic there lives in the realm of the fatherland, filled with nature and history, a colorful wealth of folk tribes which virtually reflects the ethnographic diversity of Europe. Germans, Slavs and Romance peoples - the main tribes of the Indo-European family of peoples - make up the Austrian populace with their various historical strata and national hues. We are not concerned with the nationalities themselves, but rather with their folk-national, ancient foundations. We are concerned only with researching and presenting the folk-national base stratum. The real folk, whose primitive economy reflects a primitive pattern of life, an ancient spiritual condition, we want to recognize in its natural forms, explain and present it. First through the means and methods of scholarly work in our journal, and lastly - because the folknational items are rapidly disappearing, we want to protect them and collect them in a museum (M. Haberlandt 1895: 1). There are several important points here: the propagation of a ‘comparative method,’ the establishment of relationships between economic action and culture (understood as life style’), turning away from evaluative nationalism and the concentration of scholarly efforts toward the lower strata of society. Michael Haberlandt would make these guidelines of 1895 more precise, during the next decades of his work, but he would also make them more relative. However, he remained faithful to the comparative as well as more pervasive viewpoints. In a brief introduction for the ‘teacher,’ ‘school youth’ and an ‘educated populace’ he sees in 1924, as one aspect of folkloric research, the importance of an ‘unyielding comparative approach.’ ‘One should not believe in

94

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

the singular nature of any folk-national expression. Not just directly on tribal folk soil, but also among the tribally different neighbors most folk expressions are found in related and often amazingly similar form.’ Secondly it is a matter that “the view of the folk researcher must be focused always on the entire expressive form, in its full life abundance.’ Previously Haberlandt had pointed out the areas for folkloric work, but then emphasized: The named categories of folklore should not, however, be viewed as more or less complete working areas of the same. All expressions and manifestations of folk life are ... intimately related to each other ...’ (all quotations are from M. Haberlandt 1924: 13). The comparative approach had often been presented by Michael Haberlandt, particularly in the realm of folk art research, as a methodological necessity (M. Haberlandt 1926b). His son Arthur would continue in this vein. Important also was the ‘economic activity,’ and ‘detailed or material folklore,’ associated to be sure with a view toward the past: The absolute foundation for this branch of folklore, carried out in the last decades with full knowledge, are the collections in the folklore museums ... .’ (M. Haberlandt 1924: 11). ‘His’ museum, which had the task of documenting the folknational culture and the various nationalities, with the exception of the Hungarian half of the Reich, could of course not be one-sidedly nationalistic. However, Michael Haberlandt who had been married since 1886 to a native Croatian, Carola Malovich, was not this way in the beginning. He believed, as we can see from a small book written in the last year of the Monarchy, in a ‘national culture of the Austrian folk tribes.’ I have tried to point out everywhere in brief outlines the uniqueness of the colorful Austrian folk family, the cultural relationships which join the members to one another, their commonalities and their uniqueness. Just as clearly and unquestionably as the German cultural leadership of these tribes in Austria [is], just as clearly can we point out with scholarly clarity the independent development and the personal traits of the non-German peoples, wherever they exist (M. Haberlandt 1918: 5-6).

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 95

The downfall of Austria-Hungary, the resulting concentration in museum work on ‘German-Austria’ and the scarcely hidden desire for an Anschluß with Germany (forbidden by the Peace Treaty of St. Germain), all were causes for ‘German cultural leadership’ to come to the fore for Michael Haberlandt in 1918. In 1927 Haberlandt edited, but with ‘contributions from numerous specialists,’ Österreich sein Land und Volk und seine Kultur [Austria. Its Land, Folk and Its Culture]. For the first time since the important contributions by Austrians in the collection Die Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild [The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in Word and Picture],42 an attempt is made to present a ‘Volkskunde of Austria’ with one portion dealing with things in common, but accompanied by sections on the ‘Volkskunden’ of the Austrian federal states, written by Viktor Geramb, Arthur Haberlandt, Adolf Helbok, Hermann Wopfner and others (M. Haberlandt 1929: 202366). Volkskunde, to which one of the six main chapters is devoted, proves to be essential for accomplishing the goal of this collection: ‘May this work ... awaken the Austrian populace to renewed love and inclusive appreciation of their fatherland .... We hope further, that it will also ... contribute in Reich German lands to a just and sympathetic appreciation of the German-Austrian brotherland and its harshly tested folk’ (M. Haberlandt 1929: XII). ‘Primitive lifestyle’ and ‘substratum,’ terms introduced by the ethnographer Haberlandt, are no longer used by the folklorist Haberlandt thirty years later: ‘... modem Volkskunde [sees] the concept of the folk in that wide sense where it includes not only the lower, half and half still illiterate stratum of the populace, but also where it sees the entire ladder of folk classes, from the hand laborer up to the one who works spiritually’ (M. Haberlandt 1924: 7). Haberlandt nevertheless singles out peasants and sheep herders, sailors, fishermen, river boaters, forest workers, miners and charcoal burners, thus the “half and half still illiterate stratum of the populace’ as ‘folklorically rich’ (M. Haberlandt 1924: 7). The discussion concerning contents, goals and methods of Volkskunde, which had been under way since 1900 was energized after

96

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

1920 by Hans Naumann’s theories of ‘primitive communal culture’ and ‘gesunkenes Kulturgut (Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 77-85) and certainly influenced Michael Haberlandt, and he in turn saw this ‘communal culture’ as a basis for ‘individualistic cultured creations’ (M. Haberlandt 1924: 25-17). Museum fü r Volkskunde In 1895 the future development of Volkskunde could of course not be seen. The program in the Society offered less opportunity for debates than actions, even though Germannational circles were somewhat suspicious of the international, i.e., Slavic inclination of the Society and the journal (Schmidt 1960d: 28). Lacking appropriate space, the two custodians of the Verein fu r Volkskunde in Wien and the collections of a museum, Michael Haberlandt and Wilhelm Hein, were forced to keep the holdings in their own apartments. They had to store the collection while trying to secure some kind of scholarly treatment of the items. Then, in 1898, when space in the Viennese Stock Market became available and thus offered them a provisional exhibition space for the objects, Michael Haberlandt was named - honorary director, Wilhelm Hein (1861-1903) his deputy director. The latter, a trained Africanist and Semitist (Arabist) and familiar with Germanistik, had been employed since 1887 in the Imperial-Regal Natural History Museum (Schmidt 1960d: 2126). For the new Volkskunde museum he was an excellent collector and recorder, particularly active in the Alpine region (Schmidt 1951a: 113), while Michael Haber-landt increased the holdings in his own way. For him an ‘age of collecting, of acquisitions from the land, from the many little antique dealers, from private collectors and museum people, had come [about]’ (Schmidt 1960d: 24). Leopold Schmidt accused him in this regard of a certain superficiality, a hurrying “toward large numbers.’43 This was soon seen in the growing holdings of the museum: in 1895 there were 600 objects, by 1898 there were already 11,000, and before World War I there were 25,000. Little wonder that the museum space in the

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 97

Stock Market resembled a ‘junk room,’ little wonder too, as already mentioned above, that Michael Haberlandt (who took care of the museum alone after Hein’s departure) increased his work load in the time before and around 1910 in order to present and increase the stature of his museum, and with success. On October 1, 1911 ‘the creator and director of our Museum, Prof. Dr. M. Haberlandt ... was relieved of his service duties in the Imperial-Regal Natural History Museum ... and thereby put in a situation ... of devoting all his efforts, completely and fully to the important and inclusive work created by him.’44 For the Museum which had received the recognition of being called in its title ‘kaiserlich-königlich’ [Imperial-Regal] and was permitted to have in its logo the Imperial Eagle, a solution to the space demands was found in 1914. According to a Community Council decree of March 27, 1914 the Schönborn-Palais in Josefstadt, which belonged to the city of Vienna was promised to the Museum as of August 1916.45 In spite of the war the move into the Garden Palace in Laudongasse took place in 1917 and was renamed the K.k. Kaiser Karl-Museum fiir Österreichische Volkskunde. With the end of the war in 1918, both the ‘Kaiser Karl’ and ‘Austrian’ were removed from the title, likewise large portions of the former collection area. At the same time Michael Haberlandt’s son Arthur, who had been assistant to his father, more as a custodian,46 now became an Adjunct Curator and thus became a civil servant (Schmidt 1960d: 78) ‘on the 26th of June 1920 ... the Museum für Volkskunde was opened in its new building, with pomp and splendor. ’47 Thus the Museum, the Society, and the journal had found a lasting home. This is not the place to write a detailed history of this new arrangement, but a few notes are important: on January 1, 1924 Arthur Haberlandt takes over the directorship from his father, who then transfers the editorship and de facto the role of business director of the Verein to his son in 1930. Michael Haberlandt, Honorary President, Privy Counselor, Professor, citizen of Vienna, Corresponding Member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, died on June 14, 1940 (WZV 45/1940). Ten years later Leopold Schmidt wrote in honor of his predecessor: ‘Just as

98

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

thankful as we who inherit this life work are, for all that Haberlandt accomplished and could inspire through his work, we know that this work has been honored far too little, that it’s creator received only a portion of those honors and successes that should have reached him and his work’ (Schmidt 1950b: 4). Ten years later, however, Leopold Schmidt viewed Michael Haberlandt more critically, the man he had referred to in 1950 as one of the standard bearer’s of the discipline in all of Europe (Schmidt 1950b: 4 and 1960d). But by 1982, in Schmidt’s own Curriculum vitae, Michael Haberlandt is presented as ‘more of a feuilletonist than a researcher’ and had set up a ‘pitiful’ collection in a ‘dismal’ house (Schmidt 1982: 22). These comments about the museologist Haberlandt may be true, since Leopold Schmidt himself preserved this dismal and pitiful look during his own directorship in the Austrian Museum for Folklore, or rather started it all over again. The judgement of the scholar Michael Haberlandt is not as easy to accept. We will not attempt to judge whether his numerous ethnological publications (which we will not treat here) can be called ‘feuilletonistic.’ There are hundreds of newspaper articles which Michael Haberlandt himself called ‘Feuilleton’ and ‘literary works’ (M. Haberlandt 1940: 67), including the 1900 essay collection Cultur im Alltag [Culture in Everyday Life]. The ‘observations’ included there (e.g., on ‘advertisement,’ ‘bicycle,’ ‘funeral pyre’ and ‘gossip’) could indeed have changed the image and the subsequent development of Volkskunde in Austria, placing culture and daily life at the center. In the Foreword we read: We are all rooted in everyday life. Its routines form the lives of most people ... In this daily life, ridiculed only by the one who leads an unreflective elegant life of the spirit, there is something great ... this is our culture. Culture: that is the work of the millennia and its embodiment in us. Within, it is made up of hundreds of layers ... ’ (M. Haberlandt 1900: Preface). Haberlandt may have seen such musings as completely folkloric, but he barely followed up with them, which is unfortunate from our standpoint. It is also most unfortunate that his students at the University of Vienna did not continue

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein 99

this line of thinking. Michael Haberlandt, in a posthumously published report about his life’s work presented his activities in the areas of ethnography, Indology, ethnology, Austrian and European folklore, and literature, as well as his academic activity. He writes: ‘Habilitated as the first Private Docent for Ethnography at the University of Vienna in 1892. Ever since and up to 1926 in almost every semester I have held lectures on general and specialized Ethnography, Primitive Art, Comparative Religious Studies, Ergology of Primitive Peoples, etc. In addition there were seminars on Ethnology and Folklore, and numerous young scholars of reputation have been my students’ (M. Haberlandt 1940: 66-68). In viewing the Schedule of Classes a more detailed picture emerges even though the course titles are not all that complete. After 1900 there is no mention of purely extra-European, i.e., in the true sense of the time ethnological courses. Michael Haberlandt lectures on ‘Austrian Volkskunde,’ ‘Ethnography of AustroHungaty,’ ‘Volkskunde of Europe’ (for the last time in WS 1923/24), ‘Development of Household Implements,’ ‘Volks­ kunde’ and as of 1919 ‘Folklore Practica and Papers.’48 In 1910 he was given the title of Extra-Ordinary Professor,49 but in 1934 the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty informed him that his teaching license as Private Docent had been canceled because M. Haberlandt had not made use of it since the WS 1926/27.50 Since Ethnography had not been a course of study for a long time at the University of Vienna, Haberlandt’s announced courses are found under various headings: Geography and Ethnology, Ethnology, Ethnology and Pre­ histórica! Archaeology, and as of 1900 once again under Ethnology, still later under Anthropology and Ethnography. In 1910 the physician Rudolf Pöch completed the Habilitation for Anthropology.51 Soon after the completion of the procedure the commission urged the creation of a Teaching Chair for Anthropology and Ethnography’ and the naming of Pöch to an Extra-Ordinary position,52 which then took place on July 21, 1913. Pöch was named Full Professor only in 1919.53 Thus the requirements for the independent development of both Anthropology and Ethnology were established,54 but not the ethnographically oriented

100

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Volkskunde of Haberlandt, which remained in the area of Ethnography and later Ethnology.55 Haberlandt’s academic students ‘of reputation’ included Eugenie Goldstern (Schmidt 1960d: 68-72) and Rudolf Trebitsch who committed suicide in 1918 but who left the museum large collections from Bretagne, from the Basque region and from Ireland, as well as a legacy of 100,000 Kronen. Both of these students worked on various surviving [indigenous] peoples of Europe, with the ‘inhabitants in the various high mountainous areas of the continent, among whom [Michael Haberlandt] thought extremely ancient traits were still to be found’ (Schmidt 1951a: 120). Eugenie Goldstern did this in the mountain valleys of Austria and in the Western Alps. In contrast to Trebitsch she published her research findings in the organ of the Verein (Goldstern 1922). Frau Goldstern died in one of the concentration camps, Sobibór, murdered by those henchmen who converted what folklorists worked up as the primacy of the Aryans into a deadly practice (Ottenbacher 1999: 111). Arthur Haberlandt The most important student and co-worker of Michael Haberlandt, however, was without a doubt his son Arthur. To do justice to him and his accomplishments in a few pages is scarcely possible. His bibliography includes all told 635 entries, and of these almost 400 before 1938. We call attention to the obituary which includes a list of his publications and which was written by Leopold Schmidt in 1964, the year Arthur Haberlandt died.56 Arthur Haberlandt 57 was bom on March 9, 1889 in Vienna and began his studies there in 1907, in Geography, Ethnography, Anthropology, Prehistory, Comparative Religions and Art History.58 While still a student he worked as a volunteer in his father’s museum, and in spite of his heavy work load he completed his studies in the shortest time possible: in 1911 he completed his preliminary exams in Prehistoric Archaeology, Anthropology, Geography and Philosophy with excellent success and began as an Assistant

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein

101

in museum service of the Verein. By the end of 1912, on December 10, Arthur Haberlandt applied for teaching permission as Private Docent for ‘General Ethnography and Ethnology as well as the Prehistory of the Extra-European Areas.’59 The appointed committee included Arthur Haberlandt’s Doktorvater, the pre-historian M. Hoernes, R. Much and J. Strzygowski.60 The procedure was delayed because the doctoral degree had been granted only two years previously, and then included Professors L. v. Schroeder and R. Pöch, who had recently been appointed to the discipline. On December 9, 1913 the procedure was taken up again, but now the application was for ‘General Ethnography and Ethnology.’ The commission also decided to permit Haberlandt to continue, but reduced his venia legendi still further: The addition “Ethnology” was removed ...; the addition “with special attention to Volkskunde” was rejected by a majority vote since “ V olk s k u n d e formed a part of Ethnography anyway.161 The Commission reporter was Rudolf Pöch, who recommended continuing the procedure based on the works presented: the dissertation on ethnographicprehistorical parallels (A. Haberlandt 1912a), the ‘Studies of Breton Folklore162 as well as his Habilitation study on Die Trinkwasserversorgung primitiver Völker [Drinking Water Acquisition of Primitive Peoples] (A. Haberlandt 1912c). After the colloquium and the trial lecture on The Stone Age in Africa’ the Professorial Committee granted him, on March 4, 1914, the title of Private Docent for Ethnography. The ministerial confirmation followed on May 6, 1914, so that Arthur Haberlandt was indeed no longer nominally but de facto the first actual representative of the discipline Volkskunde at the University of Vienna. After the disruptions of the war he held both ethnological as well as folkloric lectures, concentrating more and more on Europe. This could have to do with the efforts in 1920 of the Verein, rather with its President, Michael Haberlandt, who tried to institutionalize the discipline of Volkskunde and to secure it by establishing a considerable teaching assignment for Arthur Haberlandt. In 1924 he was appointed Extra-Ordinary

102

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Professor,63 and became the successor of his father as director of the Museum fü r Volkskunde (Schmidt 1960d: 79). One year later we read a request for renewed work and a teaching assignment for ‘Volkskunde with special consideration of realia’ and ‘that Volkskunde in Austria, thanks to the comparative method had been raised to the level of a real science,’ that the request from the ‘Homeland Protection Societies,’ from ‘student groups’ and from other Very notable places’ had been expressed and that all of this was meaningful for making the holdings and the teaching materials of the Museum fü r Volkskunde ‘continually useful for university instruction.’ It is clear from the letter to the Rector of the University, written by Michael Haberlandt, J. Weninger and Professor Oberhummer that a request for a termed or even non-termed teaching assignment was not being requested, but rather a professorship, at the least an Extra-Ordinary position. Reference is made to the Chairs of Prehistory, Anthropology and Ethnology, and with regret it is stated: In no way at the University of Vienna has there been care taken to REPRESENT THE DISCIPLINE OF VOLKSKUNDE.*4 The ‘care’ did not take effect for a while: Arthur Haberlandt announced his courses under Anthropology and Ethnography, as of WS 1928/29 under Anthropology and Ethnology, and as of 1934 under the Department B. Ethnology. Not until WS 1937/38 are Arthur Haberlandt’s courses found in the schedule of classes under a separate listing of Volkskunde.65 The strengthening of Ethnology under Father Wilhelm Schmidt, the father of the Kulturkreislehre [cultural circle teaching] (Conte 1987), the naming of W. Koppers as Professor and the founding of the Institut fü r Völkerkunde [Institute for Ethnology] in 1929 led to Arthur Haberlandt being placed there (Haekel, HohenwartGerlachstein und Slawik 1956). Pater Wilhelm Schmidt, as Leopold Schmidt described it, ‘regularly put Michael Haberlandt on the shelf,’ and blocked his academic teaching in the area of ethnology: ‘they didn’t want him as as ethnologist, it was once again the politiceli Catholics who put the Protestant’s back to the wall’ (Schmidt 1982: 25-26).

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein

103

Even so Arthur Haberlandt, as of 1930, was able to gather a group of students around himself and to direct dissertations, with W. Koppers as the second referent. The first dissertation was by Walter Kuhn, who submitted his previously published study on the Galician linguistic islands as his doctoral work (Kuhn 1930). Kuhn, the ‘theoretician of new linguistic island research’ (Kuhn 1934), described Arthur Haberlandt in his own memoirs, his courses and students, especially those who then left Vienna to do research on the ‘German linguistic islands in the East’ (Kuhn 1982). Among them were Alfred Karasek, Karl Horak, Egon Lendl, Ema Piffl, later Karl Haiding and Elfi Zenker-Starzacher, and for a time Rudolf Kriss and Richard Wolfram (Schmidt 1951a: 138). Those names, some Sudeten Germans, some Viennese, and virtually all from the realm of the Wandervogel youth movement, were also close to Karl von Spieß and the ‘German Education,’ or were at least neutral in their behavior. Richard Wolfram formed a kind of bridge between the Much camp and the mythological school, but only for a short while. He had written a study for the Festschrift for J. Strzygowski (Wolfram 1932c), and as a folk dance researcher as well as an active folk dancer himself, he had extremely close contacts to the frequently mentioned Wandervogel (Schmidt 1951a: 135). Arthur Haberlandt was also associated with Karl von Spieß, the first contacts coming through the Museum and the Society, as we have already seen. In 1928 Arthur Haberlandt and Karl von Spieß together represented Austrian folk art research at the first International Folk Art Congress in Prague, out of which CIAP (Commission Internationale des arts et traditions populaires) grew, and to which Arthur Haberlandt would belong his entire life, as one of the guiding members (Schmidt 1964a: 226). Opposition to Rudolf Much may have united the two even more, aside from disciplinary agreements between comparative folklore and comparative myth studies. In any case, in 1936, in the matter of a recently developed Working Community for Folklore at the University of Vienna, Alfred Rosenberg’s attempt to exercise his influence in Austria, it came to a ministerial decision, whether a loosely organized union should be elevated to a

104

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

scholarly society. It happened and Haberlandt and Spieß were appointed the first and second chairs.66 In this way the use of lecture halls was once again permitted and lectures were continued. A report reveals how close the two were to the youth movement and to linguistic island research, it offers information about the lecturers and lists among the functionaries both Rudolf Kriss and Leopold Schmidt.67 According to Schmidt in 1982, together with Alfred Karasek and Arthur Haberlandt’s Museum Assistant, Adelgard Perkmann (in the Museum she was primarily responsible for the library),68 in 1932 they founded the Working Community “where everyone who had anything to do with folklore gathered around the Museum ... . The undertaking was founded in opposition to Arthur Haberlandt and meant the breakup of a generation’ (Schmidt 1982: 46 and Schmidt 1951a: 154). It can be assumed that the co-founder Schmidt sees the undertaking fifty years later too simply; the obviously unproblematic takeover of the leadership function by Arthur Haberlandt does not let us see the ‘opposition’ clearly enough. Arthur Haberlandt emerged in the discipline in the middle of the 1930s, with his 1935 publication Volkskunde des Burgenlandes [Folklore of the Burgenland], and with his Deutsche Volkskunde [German Folklore] that appeared in the same year, he turned even more directly to Austrian and German folklore. He had of course previously paid attention to this and had also done regionally based studies. At the beginning of his scholarly career Arthur Haberlandt was a folklore and ethnology scholar - educated by his teacher M. Hoemes in prehistory - and had attempted to treat primitive cultural forms, boundary and ancient materials inside of and outside of Europe. Committed to the comparative ethnography of his father, he composed works on African and Asian ethnology (Heine-Geldem 1965) and in 1926 began to describe for Buschan’s Illustrierte Völkerkunde the folknational culture of Europe in its historical development (A. Haberlandt 1926b). He viewed this work as bridge-building between the scholarly disciplines, that dealt in their work with the ‘founding of the age and depth of cultural

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein

105

expressions.’ In the article there is a mixture of his areas of specialization, economics, settlement, house and household implements, handwork, folk art on an historical basis. It was the so-called material culture which he sought to research. Because the Austrian Academy of Sciences was able to keep him from being sent to the front, Haberlandt did work during the First World War on the folklore of the Balkans and made collections in Serbia, Albania and Montenegro for the Viennese Museum (Schmidt 1964a: 219-220). The fact that Arthur Haberlandt did not call his research conclusions folkloric or ethnographic, but rather cultural scientific,69 deserves special attention from today’s standpoint. Study trips into other portions of Europe, especially to Scandinavia, increased Arthur Haberlandt’s comparative knowledge and finally led to the theory developed by him (and supported until his death) of life circles’ (which he then compared to the ethnographic ‘culture circles’ (Schmidt 1982: 27). Lebenskreis Under life circle’ Haberlandt understood the ‘quintessence of the continuing experiences of a group of people, in home economics, work, and social existence, out of which have grown [their] practices, customs and viewpoints’ (A. Haberlandt 1953/59. Part 1: 99). He had developed the concept in 1926 (A. Haberlandt 1926b: 649ff.) and expanded it in 1933 in the Festschrift for Theodor Siebs (A. Haberlandt 1933). Leopold Schmidt is more critical of Haberlandt’s interest in the Lebenskreis, and suggests that the large collections made by Eugenie Goldstern and Rudolf Trebitsch (and in the case of the latter, the collection was left to the Museum): ‘drove Haberlandt into “comparative folklore,” a kind of necessary solution to the enormous activity in culture circle ethnography. Haberlandt never was able to free himself from this pressure coming from the neighboring discipline. Later he tried out a “life circle” theory, primarily to establish a credibility for himself. But his basically good ideas along these lines could never measure up against those of [Wilhelm] Schmidt and Koppers’ (Schmidt 1982: 27). In contrast to the

106

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

world wide scope of 'culture circles/ Leopold Schmidt summarized the life circle theory as cultural groups in a very close relationship with the their folk-national life (Schmidt 1955d). In perhaps the best summary of his thinking, Haberlandt related his work to that of Georg Koch, but then tried to establish his own thinking, particularly about the German peasant: We can perhaps add to these thoughts in a meaningful way. The measure and order of peasantry is grounded further, beyond the personal, in the commitment to house, farm and land. The boundaries of one's property give the owner a steady attitude toward maintaining his personality. Little by little work life is learned and tested, carefully weighed during train travel and guided trips, and in spite of its difficulties it is still controlled by an acute feeling of will. This also gives the peasant secure and balanced forms in the community to which he belongs and with which he meets those on the outside with dignity. Where everything proceeds in a traditional way, not many words are necessary. The peasant sticks to his work with clarity and commitment and creates from this his gestures and expressions, with the finest of degrees for greetings, help and relaxation, helpfulness and expressions of gratitude. Even in the abstract this willfulness rules. ... Koch was able to see: “From the land and land work the peasantry has been able to create for itself, its o w n c u lt u r e , in its essence it is just as self-sufficient as those primitive economic and life styles of the hunters and gatherers, [and even] of urban culture.” ... Koch also sees that the peasant today is losing in a special sense its essential practices (A. Haberlandt 1935b: 124).

He expands this theory of life circles to include herders, particularly in the South East of Europe, hunters and fishers in the North East, and goes on to list other groups: root diggers, pitch makers, birders, charcoal burners, glass makers, woodsmen, river boaters, etc. The close relationship with the economy and the limitation of life circles by the natural environment and the work realm, reveal a materialistic approach. In Haberlandt’s diction this is reduced by a 'determination according to ... Rassenent-wicklung [racial development]' (A. Haberlandt 1926b: 649f.), and the

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein

107

work was then arteigen [racially pure] (A. Haberlandt 1933: 392). Even though this kind of vocabulary was not known originally in the Haberlandt family, it appears more and more frequently by one of the fathers of comparative European folklore. Arthur Haberlandt moved even closer to German Volkskunde toward the end of the 1920s when he became the state leader for Lower Austria for the beginning work on the Atlas o f German Folklore (Schmidt 1960d: 92-94). He was also a collaborator on the Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens [Handbook of German Superstition]. The Verein fü r Volkskunde in Wien, whose presidency lay de jure until 1938 in the hands of his father, joined John Meier’s Verband deutscher Vereine fur Volkskunde [League of German Societies for Folklore] (Schmidt 1961a: 217). In its publications increasing mention of racial studies is found, which Volkskunde, ‘especially, in establishing an “inner dowry” that is unique to the folk union, cannot fail to see as an auxiliary science’ (A. Haberlandt 1935b: 148). In 1938 when the occupation of Austria led to a ‘Return to the Reich,’ it was nevertheless ‘for those politically uninvolved and otherwise employed, not easy to understand that a man like Arthur Haberlandt would greet this development vigorously’ (Schmidt 1964a: 233). Out of the collector and comparativist who defined life circles in the sense of functional dependencies within certain working groups, Arthur Haberlandt had become a Mitläufer, an accomplice who hoped to gain advantages, at least for himself, the Verein and the Museum. He became a member of the NSDAP and - probably through the help of von Spieß - later received assignments in the Implementation Staff Rosenberg and belonged to its Working Community for German Folklore (Bockhorn 1987: 233-234).

Zusammenfassung A summary [Zusammenfassung] of two decades is difficult, particularly in regard to the Viennese School. In Richard Wolfram’s short outline of the history of Volkskunde at the University of Vienna, the word ‘Mythology’ does not appear, at

108

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

least not the names of the Viennese ‘Mythologists’ (Wolfram 1986). Party membership, a pan-German nationalistic attitude, overt antisemitism and racism, as well as a concept of continuity, well documented in both Viennese camps, had no unifying effect. The personal controversies had been carried out much too bitterly. ‘Rudolf Much and his circle,’ according to Schmidt, ‘in spite of the Germanic inclination and the political national attitude ... has [sic!] understood how to cancel out any influence of the [Mythological] School at the university level’ (Schmidt 1951a: 137). The key words had not been ‘scholarship’ and ‘documentation,’ but rather ‘belief and “world view.’ In the era of National Socialism we will find Much’s ‘men’s union adherents’ in the environs of the scholarly organization of the SS, in Heinrich Himmler’s ‘Ancestral Inheritance’ (Kater 1974), and the ‘mythologists’ in the camp of Alfred Rosenberg, the Führers Commissioner for the Supervision of all Intellectual and World View Schooling and Education of the NSDAP (Bollmus 1970; Dow and Lixfeld 1994; Lixfeld and Dow 1994; Jacobeit, Lixfeld, Bockhorn and Dow 1994). The bitter battle for power conducted among the ‘followers’ in the two Austrian camps was even looked on as stimulating. In March of 1938, the time of the return of the Ostmark into the Reich, there were hopes for institutionalizing Volkskunde at the University of Vienna, especially it was hoped that a Professorship would be found for the appropriate person. For Arthur Haberlandt, for Karl von Spieß and Edmund Mudrak, for Richard Wolfram and their supporters, it was an auspicious time in regard to the promotion of Volkskunde in National Socialistic Germany. In Vienna it was unclear, after the nearly two decades of the pre-war, who would be victorious and be named Professor. Hermann Bausinger’s 1965 statement fits perfectly here for those named: In many other disciplines the National Socialist turn of events is presented as an assault from the outside. Here, however, we must deal with the eventuality that National Socialism did not somehow introduce foreign ideas and did not just strengthen peripheral elements, but emphasized throughout the primary ideas within this

Wien, Wien, nur Du allein

109

scholarly discipline, and this makes a confrontation with National Socialist scholarship in Volkskunde even more indispensable than in other disciplines’ (Bausinger 1965b: 177 and Bausinger 1994: 11).

4 Völkische Wissenschaft On March 12, 1938 Austria officially became a part of the Third Reich, and Volkskunde scholarship, which had from the beginning both nationalistic and racial elements, would now become an unapologetic völkische Wissenschaft [pure German scholarship].

University o f Graz:

Fehlende weltanschauliche Klarheit When Viktor von Geramb held his inaugural lecture at the University of Graz seven weeks later, on May 2, 1938, he was exuberantly enthusiastic about the new regime. His own statements suggest that he was sympathetic to National Socialist goals and thus he optimistically applied for an extension, indeed an increase in his teaching contract from four to five hours. But progressively Geramb would suffer more and more at the hands of the NS, storm clouds were beginning to gather over him before a lightening bolt struck.1 In June of 1938 the Rector of the University unexpectedly proposed that Professor Geramb be removed from his academic teaching duties. Because he was so highly respected, or because of his National Socialist sympathies, no immediate action was taken. By the beginning of the next semester, however, a letter written by a deputy of the ‘Führer for the Entire Intellectual and World-view Education of the NSDAP’ (Alfred Rosenberg), was sent to the State Commissioner for Education, Friedrich Plattner, which called for the removal of Geramb: At the University of Graz, German V o lk s k u n d e is offered by Professor Viktor von Geramb. Shortly before the assumption of power in Austria he aligned himself on the side of our world-view

Völkische Wissenschaft 111 opponents ... . Even if Professor v. Geramb has unquestioned accomplishments on the V o lk s k u n d e of Styria, m is s i n g in h is w o r k is a c la rity o f w o r l d -v i e w [w e l t a n s c h a u l i c h e K la r h e it]. ... Although this in itself would justify action for recalling Professor Geramb, I would like to limit [our actions] by asking for a rapid furloughing of Professor von Geramb in his role as a university instructor. This is in agreement with and at the request of G a u Director Dr. Sigfried Uiberreither. A severe eye ailment which only lets Professor von Geramb carry out his duties as a university instructor with difficulty might make the furlough request easier (emphasis added).2

This time the reaction was prompt and Plattner sent his recommendation directly to the Rector of the University: ‘I ask you to require of unsalaried Extra-Ordinary Professor Dr. Viktor Geramb, in regard to his eye ailment, that he submit forthwith a written request for furloughing from his chair, from the associated duties and authorizations/3 On October 17, 1938 the Germanist Karl Polheim, one of Geramb’s closest friends on the faculty, assumed the responsibility of informing him of the decision.4 Geramb reacted with horror to the mechanisms of the National Socialist scholarly apparatus. On October 20th, in opposition to Plattner, he refused to apply for his retirement: Anyone who knows of my eye ailment, which happened to me during the war (1915), and then plagued me for 15 years, can easily sense that it would be ridiculous of me to speak of this devil. ... I cannot find it in my heart to request my own furloughing. You do not know and cannot know what you are destroying for me ... .5

His statement that in October 1938 his world was being destroyed, may sound pathetic, but it is not overstated. From the beginning Geramb conducted a useless battle against his opponents, but several attempts followed, in the form of letters. Geramb wrote to Heinrich Harmjanz, an adviser in the Reich Educational Ministry, Director of the Teaching and Research Post for Folklore and Folk Research of the SS Ancestral Inheritance, and one of the most influential

112

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

representatives of the discipline during the Third Reich (Oesterle 1987 and 1994). I have indeed been active as a ‘Nationalist in the old sense,’ and was respected. I had also confessed to being a believing Christian and thus (!) was no longer tolerated as a teacher of German V o l k s k u n d e in the National Socialist state. ... I hear among other things, that it was because several accusations were leveled against me by the establishment [ S y s t e m z e i t ] in the Viennese Educational Ministry, on account of my expressed national attitude.6

He then wrote to Adolf Helbok, who in turn also wrote to Harmjanz.7 In his response to Geramb on November 2, 1938 Helbok expressed the opinion that he did ‘not believe that Berlin was part of this.’ Who then was ‘a part of this?’ Who were the opponents of Geramb? Upon closer observation of the situation two facts emerge. First, it seems that the local activities concerning Geramb came from the Gau Schooling Office in Graz, under the directorship of Dr. Heinrich Hoffer. From an SS Ancestral Inheritance memorandum, written by Friederike Prodinger in November 1942, we learn that there had in fact been attacks leveled against Geramb by the Gau Schooling Office, under the influence of Rosenberg collaborators.8 We Eire able to see here the involvement by individuals and offices in Graz which then resulted in the previously cited letter to Friedrich Plattner from the Deputy in the Rosenberg Bureau in Berlin. Secondly, Geramb’s calls for help, insofar as folklorists were concerned, were directed exclusively to colleagues who either belonged to the SS Ancestral Inheritance, the ‘opposition,’ or were at least sympathetic to it. Geramb’s own proximity to the Ancestral Inheritance can best be seen through the fact that, of the dissertations assigned, he had received ‘five under the auspices of and with stipends from the “Ancestral Inheritance.’”9 The confrontations between these two organizations have been the topic of many studies,10 and their discord can be recognized here quite clearly. The SS Ancestral Inheritance had always been ready to work with scholars and interested

V ö lk is c h e W is s e n s c h a fi

113

laymen whose national sentiment was not in question but who nevertheless kept a certain distance from the NSDAP. That was unthinkable for high level ideologists in the Rosenberg Bureau. In Geramb’s case, it was relatively simple for his opponents, by means of hints at a clerical attitude on his part, to intervene through the Rosenberg Bureau and bring about his removal, by ‘furloughing’ him from the University. Alfred Helbok may well have been of the opinion that Berlin did not play a part in Geramb’s fate, but that was clearly not the case. Viktor von Geramb’s lack of “world-view clarity’ [fehlende weltanschau-liche Klarheit] was unforgivable. The tensions between the SS Ancestral Inheritance and the Rosenberg Bureau are clear in the case of Geramb, above and beyond the person being affected. These confrontations will be a continuing theme throughout this chapter, and to an amazing degree this division, this conflict, will further reflect the two tracks in Austrian Volkskunde scholarship which we have alluded to and described in each of the first three chapters. Geramb’s situation remained in limbo for a short while and he continued to call for help. ‘Officially,’ however, he was not attacked or subjected to the same kind of psychological terror that other university faculty members experienced. The university simply made it clear to him that he was not to have any courses during the academic year 1938-39. Geramb finally turned to the Rector of the University of Graz, and asked him to decide on his case: “You will permit me to point out that I have assigned a series of dissertations ... , and that the candidates who accepted these assignments are very much in need of my academic participation.’11 Even this request did not result in an immediate decision, that did not come until the end of the academic year 1938-39. With a directive dated July 26, 1939 Geramb was retired from the university.12 His teaching assignment, which he had not carried out de facto for over a year, was now terminated. With this official act the Educational Ministry closed the book on Geramb. It had been less than a year from Geramb’s initial enthusiasm for the German troops marching into Austria before he had fallen prey to total reality. Not until the war

114

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

was over did he resume his teaching by returning to the university. Still, Geramb’s removal did not result in a vacuum in Graz, and the teaching of Volkskunde continued, first by the Germanist Leo Jutz, then by Leopold Kretzenbacher in 1939. The latter received the venia legendi for Graz and was appointed Docent in 1941 and Extra-Ordinary Professor in 1943; however, he spent little time in Graz since he was sent to the war front, and was appointed to a guest professorship in Agram (Zagreb, Yugoslavia) in 1943/44. For a short time Georg Gräber of Klagenfurt was made honorary professor and taught Carinthian Volkskunde. Helmut Eberhart refers to the next years for the discipline at the University of Graz as a kind of Sleeping Beauty rest (Eberhart 1994a: 533), much in contrast to the happenings in Innsbruck and Vienna. Geramb was able to continue as director of the Folklore Museum even after he was furloughed from the university, but only pro forma. In fact, he worked at home in Gedersberg south of Graz, on his second voluminous publication, (his first, Steirisches Trachtenbuch [Styrian Costume Book] was completed in 1937), on a biography of Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, published more than a decade later (Geramb 1954a). In 1941 he published his Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Steiermark [Children and Household Tales of Styria], a book that was very popular and soon sold out, but was subsequently banned through the efforts of the ‘Mythologists’ in Vienna, specifically Karl von Spieß. Viktor von Geramb did not belong to the SS Ancestral Inheritance, nor to the Rosenberg Bureau, but he still found that he had to deal with them. One example will suffice. On April 12, 1944 Geramb received a telephone invitation from Karl Haiding, to take part on April 20th in a working discussion of the Research Post German Farmstead to be held at the Institute for German Folklore, located just outside Graz in the Monastery Rein. The Institute itself, about which much more will be said below, was part of Alfred Rosenberg’s grandiose scheme for an Advanced School [in Preparation] in his ideological Bureau (Lixfeld and Dow 1994). Because of his own interest in the traditional German farm house, Geramb

Völkische Wissenschaft 115

suddenly found himself an involuntary collaborator with the very office that had driven him out of the university and into private life. He was horrified at the thought of having to deal with his opponents, all Rosenbergians, and reacted vigorously to the invitation. On April 13 he wrote a letter to the director of the German Farmstead project, Gustav Wolf, in which he asked for clarification: Yesterday, when I came back from Oberwölz, Herr [Karl] Haiding telephoned me and said that on Thursday of this month I should come to [Monastery] Rein for a discussion of the farmhouse book H a u s u n d H o f [House and Farmstead] ... ! During the discussion we were interrupted by an air raid alarm. I am writing Haiding today that I will n o t come .... I am a completely peace-loving and conciliatory man. But th is circle, without even knowing me, has destroyed my entire life's work which I faithfully built up for 35 years! They would indeed be able to see ... a weakness on my part if I would now, when the gentlemen need me, just as if nothing had happened, or even out of fear of their power, jjust] obediently fulfill all their wishes, not batting an eye and with dog-like submission, like a “good Styrian fool.” No, these men do not know me very well! A t t h e l e a s t t h e y m u s t come to see me f ir s t , these 30-year younger destroyers of my work. Then we will conduct our business, as was German custom, man to man, question and answer!13

Geramb did not participate, and there is no evidence that he suffered in any specific way from his non-participation. It is one of those imponderable facts that Viktor von Geramb was able to continue his work at all during the era of National Socialism. He had to pay a considerable price, however. As we have seen, he tried to make accommodations with the Nazis in 1938, and in 1944 he was enraged by the actions of the Rosenberg Bureau and its collaborators. Helmut Eberhart, Geramb’s most knowledgeable biographer, says that he was an ‘example of an important scholar who was imbued with a bourgeois-conservative basic attitude and whose national approach made it possible to go along for a while with the National Socialists. It might be common to these scholars, and Geramb was certainly one of them, that their enthusiasm for the discipline made it all too easy for the

116

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Nazis to harness them up, like horses before the cart, and to use them for the purpose of an inhuman ideology’ (Eberhart 1994a: 537).

University o f Innsbruck:

Meine tiefe und innere Verantwortung mit dem NS The professors who taught or were associated with Volks­ kunde in Innsbruck began to adjust to their new postAnschluß roles. Harold Steinacker, Wopfner’s old colleague in history, was made Rector of the university while Adolf Helbok, still in Leipzig, welcomed Austria’s ‘return home’ to Germany. Quickly ‘opponents’ of the new regime were removed from the faculty, and those who remained were subjected to close scrutiny. We can see some of this scrutinizing in a work published in 1938 by Alfred Rosenberg’s Working Community for German Folklore, under the direction of a man named Matthes Ziegler.14 The work, Deutsche Volkskunde im Schrift­ tum [German Folklore in Print] bore the subtitle ‘A Guide for the Schooling and Educational Work of the NSDAP.’ Only one work by Wopfner is treated, his 1926 Deutsche Siedlungs­ arbeit in Südtirol [Settlement Work in South Tyrol], which is basically positively reviewed, but the final statement reads: In regard to his world-view there is much to criticize’ (III: 39). In contrast four works by Adolf Helbok were reviewed, and there is both open and veiled criticism of his studies. In the review of his Siedlungsgeschichte und Volkskunde [Settlement History and Folklore] (Helbok 1928b) it is pointed out that he makes reference to Hans Naumann’s concept of two strata (gesunkenes Kulturgut), ‘without really agreeing with it,’ but leaving the door open. Far more negative is the review of his Die Formenlandschaft des deutschen Bauernhauses und ihre gestaltenden Kräfte [The Structural Landscape of the German Farmhouse and Its Creative Forces]. Even though this work could not be identified or located in any of the Austrian university libraries, it was nevertheless ‘reviewed’ and Helbok was found guilty of promoting the ‘teaching that it was the ‘environment’ and not the racially determined people who are

Völkische Wissenschaft 117

viewed as the force for the building of a culture. ... It is exactly this kind of summary ... that is of value when the treatment of individual questions is carried out by using racial laws’ (Deutsche Volkskunde im Schrifttum X: 10). For a short time Hermann Wopfner is able to continue his work on settlements in South Tyrol. He was being protected to some degree by Rektor Steinacker, and he offered no apparent political resistance to the new regime. His teaching and research topics were also of importance, as was his call for a reuniting of South Tyrol with Austria. Even though he was not a Party member, he did share some sympathies with them, and was apparently close friends with the Rosenbergian Eugen Fehrle at the University of Heidelberg. He did end up in conflict with the Party, particularly in regard to the 1939 Hitler/Mussolini pact ceding South Tyrol to Italy. Wopfner’s objections were not primarily political in nature, but he opposed the South Tyrol agreement, he was Catholic, and he was unhappy with the centralization, the Gleichschal­ tung [political coordination]. Thus he too is quickly retired. Looking back, in 1950, Wopfner wrote: In 1941 - five years before I reached the required age - I applied for retirement. What drove me to this decision was the desire to devote myself completely to my life’s work, the “mountain peasant book” which I had worked on for many years. But the situation at the time also had an effect on my decision. I must emphasize in truth, that there was no pressure on the part of the National Socialists to move me out of my teaching position, even though my opposition to National Socialism was well known among the leadership (Wopfner 1950: 199).

With his early emeritus status, 1941, we find a call to return Adolf Helbok to Innsbruck, first as a temporary replacement for Wopfner, but soon as a full replacement. In the meantime Innsbruck was renamed the Deutsche Alpenuniversität [German Alpine University], and its task was ‘regionally appropriate goal setting’ [raumgemäße Zielsetzung] for this border area. Rektor Steinacker immediately set about developing new departments. In 1941 the Institut fiir geschichtliche Siedlungs- und Heimatkunde [Department for

118

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Historical Settlement and Homeland Studies] was renamed the Institut fü r Volkskunde. Wopfner’s Ordinariat in History was converted to Volkskunde, and his teaching position in Austrian History and Economic History [Österreichische Geschichte und Wirtschaftsgeschichte] was converted to the Institut fü r Geschichte und Landeskunde des Alpenraums [Department for History and Alpine Regional Studies]. In 1941 Adolf Helbok returned to Innsbruck. He was supported by the Reich Minister for Education in Berlin, Bernhard Rust, by the Tyrol leader Franz Hofer, the Philosophical Faculty of the university, and even by Wopfner. The list placed Helbok in first place, followed by Viktor von Geramb perhaps in an attempt to rehabilitate him, and Richard Wolfram, because of his participation in the South Tyrol Kulturkommission [Culture Commission], which will be treated in detail below. Wopfner’s description was: For this reason Helbok is the most fitting person for developing and leading of large and scholarly undertakings which are based on the cooperation of many. Calling Helbok back to Innsbruck is also a practical matter since Helbok was relieved of his duties based on his Party and political viewpoints and his representation of them.15

Helbok’s teaching duties were complicated, however, since he had two further assignments, the Folk Art Museum and work with the South Tyrolese who were being moved out of Italy and into the Reich. His students were being sent off to the front and he was left primarily with female students, but this gave him sufficient time for his own research and writing. Adolf Helbok was a member of the NSDAP and his research clearly supported the politics of National Socialism. What he referred to as his nordischer Gedanke [Nordic thought] was presented as an organic concept of the folk, but which was in fact his personal concept of race. From all that has been said there is something important: my deep and inner allegiance to National Socialism [ meine tiefe und innere Verantwortung mit dem Nationalsozialismus], both in regard to the direction taken toward the races as well as the

Völkische Wissenschaft 119 ideal of the folk, because it is a matter here of a personal and professional connection in a selective form.16

In Innsbruck Helbok refocused his Leipzig Begabungs­ forschung [Research of the Gifted] into Dorfsippenforschung [Research of Village Clans]. He offered course for students of all disciplines on Race and Racial History of the German Folk (1941/42), the Developmental History of the German FolkBody - Statistics, Structures and Construction (1942), The Racial-Historical Basic Facts of German Folk Development (1943/44), and the Bio-sociological Bases for the German Folk (1944/45). In all of this Helbok’s goal was to make his Austrian homeland the ‘standard for a pan-German Reich Institute.’ In his later years Helbok looked back to this time nostalgically, and described the collapse of the Third Reich as an ‘abiding disgrace in human history.’ Those were plans! A victory could have brought about their realization, because the insight of those responsible was there. Only much later did it become clear to me that Adolf Hitler had been informed about the progress of my folk-genealogical work, was vitally interested in it and was determined to support this work in a grandiose way after the war (Helbok 1963: 166).

University o f Salzburg: Außenstelle Südost

As we have already seen, Hanns Koren’s vigorous publishing and lecturing helped promote the new Institute for Religious Folklore in Salzburg, but here too a lightening bolt would strike unexpectedly. On April 27, 1938 SS-Obersturmfuhrer [First Lieutenant] Herbert Menz took over the Institute in the name of the Außenstelle Südost [Regional Branch Southeast] of the SS Ancestral Inheritance.17 After discussions with the Security Service [Sicherheitsdienst - SD] Menz made contact with Walther Habersetzer,18 who was given the task of evaluating the Institute ‘according to SD standards.’19 Menz even suggested in his report that Habersetzer might be taken into the Ancestral Inheritance.20 Habersetzer thus became

120

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

one of the key figures in the termination of the Institute for Religious Folklore. After looking through the holdings, he expressed his opinion to the Reich business leader of the SS Ancestral Inheritance, Wolfram Sievers, “that [the holdings] contained no valuable items,’ and recommended moving them to the Salzburg Museum, for space reasons.21 The decision to secure interesting material for the Ancestral Inheritance was left to Hans Seidlmayer of Munich who came to Salzburg on July 9 for this purpose. Seidlmayer sorted out 60 objects, among them various votive plates, reverse glass paintings, wax votives and random cultural items, ‘... the remaining objects were of a purely religious nature.122 Just what happened with the collection cannot be determined from the files. We know that Professor Walther Wüst, at this time President and later Curator of the Ancestral Inheritance, was interested (Oesterle 1987: 90-91). He recommended the following disposition of the materials: 1.

The folkloric objects will be handed over as a loan to the Salzburg City Museum, Carolino Augusteum, Department for Folk and Homeland Studies.

2.

Prayer books. The recommendation by Habersetzer, to transfer the prayer books to the SD for the purpose of sending them on to the League of Catholic Germans Abroad, is approved in general and for individual [items].

3.

Schreiber series. The existing book series by [Prelate] Georg Schreiber will be distributed to the individual departments of the Ancestral Inheritance. Department directors are instructed to keep this series from the public and to make them available only to co-workers.23

Apparently, before or immediately after troops marched into Austria on March 12, 1938, there had been some thought given to an institute to succeed the Institute for Religious Folklore. We hear about this on May 24, 1938, in a letter from Habersetzer: After our last discussion in Salzburg, Herr Professor Wüst said to me that scholarly work was supposed to begin here when

Völkische Wissenschaft 121 organizational preparations have been completed and the new and still to be chosen department director of the “Ancestral Inheritance” is in place in Salzburg. Pentecost was agreed upon as the date for this. Professor W üst also told me that I should do nothing with a scholarly program before the new department director is here.24

The ‘still to be chosen department director’ of the Institute was in fact the Viennese folklorist Richard Wolfram, who was appointed by decree of the Reichsftihrer-SS Heinrich Himmler on July 13, 1938.25 We can see here that Wolfram’s Teaching and Research Post for Germanic-German Folklore, about which we will hear much more, was the de facto successor to the former Koren Institute. Wolfram quickly moved his office to Dreifaltigkeitsgasse 15, where the Regional Branch Southeast had a total of eight rooms at its disposal (Eberhart 1984: 107). The name of Hanns Koren quickly disappears from the Institute in Salzburg. In August 1938 a report by Habersetzer goes to the SD-Führer in Salzburg, in which Koren’s activity is presented as not very meaningful: Koren was paid poorly by the University Association in Salzburg and his institute had only veiy limited means at its disposal. Furthermore Koren, because of his teaching assignment for religious V o l k s k u n d e in Graz, was mostly in that city and concerned himself very little with his work in Salzburg.26

Wolfram’s plans and early activities in Salzburg are of importance insofar as they let us see the break with the previous Institute, but especially in regard to the scholarly and ideological early stages of the new Institute. Wolfram was immediately called upon by Wolfram Sievers, in a letter of July 13, to present a working plan as soon as possible.27 In the plan he submitted, Wolfram asserted that the objectives should be directed toward two main points: I.

In how far is the O s t m a r k , folk-nation, Germanic?

in the foundations of its

122 II.

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria Which Germanic-German influence can be verified in the near Southeast?28

If Koren was concerned with working out the clerical foundations of folk cultural expression, by contrast Wolfram tried to expose the assumed Germanic roots of the past! It now becomes clear why the Ancestral Inheritance founded the Teaching and Research Post for Germanic-German Folklore, specifically in Salzburg: ... because it was appropriate to counter the Catholic tradition practiced in Salzburg quite consciously with National Socialist scholarship. In place of the previous Institute for Religious Folklore, which had been active (sic!) up until the annexation of the O s t m a r k into the Reich, the Teaching and Research Post for Germanic-German Folklore now came into being.29

From the very beginning Wolfram planned to carry out his folkloric work as a counter to local Catholic action and employ a large staff of freelance co-workers. Because he was acquainted with virtually all Austrian folklorists, he was able to quickly name a series of people to be considered.30 However, the plan, which was laid out materially, and in regard to personnel, broke down because of the war, but also because of Richard Wolfram was appointed Extra-Ordinary Professor for Germanic-German Volkskunde at the University of Vienna in the Summer of 1939. By September 8, 1939 Wolfram recommended moving his Teaching and Research Post to Vienna, leaving his former co-worker, Friederike Prodinger, at the Outpost in Salzburg.31 Soon thereafter he received what he had requested: In agreement with the recommendation of the President dated October 20, 1939, concerning the continuation of work in the Ancestral Inheritance, and in order to save funds, the Teaching and Research Post is being moved as of November 1, 1939 (for the duration of the war) ... from Salzburg to Vienna.32

With this recommendation the work of the organization which had replaced the former Institute for Religious Folklore

Völkische Wissenschaft 123

was more or less ended. Richard Wolfram’s comprehensive field investigations and collecting, begun in July of 1938, thus lasted only 16 months. In Salzburg only minimal activity was maintained after this, by Friederike Prodinger. Two points remain of interest. First, in Wolfram’s list of potential co-workers for Salzburg, it is clear that those who were sympathetic to the SS Ancestral Inheritance were at the top of his list, while those who were inclined to Alfred Rosenberg’s ideology or to religious folklore studies were singled out for negative evaluation. Thus Ema Piffl and Kuno Brandauer were described as ‘dependable National Socialists,’ while Edmund Mudrak was referred to as an ‘evil fantast’ and Rudolf Kriss was written off for his religious work. Wolfram’s estimation of Leopold Schmidt at this time is important for our later chapters. Even though Wolfram spoke of Schmidt’s unusual talent, he said: ‘Unfortunately he is politically not in our line. He had red sympathies and recently was steered through his assistantship activity by [Rudolf] Kriss, along somewhat Catholic-fatherland paths.’33 Wolfram thus did not see himself in the position of recommending Schmidt directly as a co-worker, but for the future he did include him in his list. Second, Salzburg proved to be a battleground between the Rosenberg Bureau and the SS Ancestral Inheritance. In Salzburg the Rosenbergians capitalized on the absence of Wolfram. As part of Rosenberg’s Institute for German Folklore, a research post for Peasant Life Forms was assigned to Karl Ruprecht. In 1943 Wolfram wrote in a nine page report on the ‘Development of the Situation in Salzburg’: Our situation in Salzburg is completely favorable. We have been active there for years and have all the prerequisites to occupy a leading position. That now a competition would arise is unpleasant and an evil waste of time: repeated work, division, the informants are approached by both sides and the impression is naturally anything but a goal-oriented Germanic-German renewal. As long as the matters are not soundly resolved, this dualism must be accepted and it is important to help the correct principles to win out.34

124

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

By this time Rosenberg’s collaborators were located in Vienna, Graz and Salzburg. They would find themselves in a continuing conflict with the SS Ancestral Inheritance allies. The “Battle for the Ostmark’ has been joined.35

Der Kampf um die Ostmark - schwarz versus braun An ideological battle for Austria - the Ostmark in Nazi terminology - was conducted during the late 1930s and the early 1940s, by the two competing umbrella organizations to which we have often referred above. They were the schwarz [black] SS Forschungs- und Lehrgemeinschaft ‘Das Ahnenerbe’ [Research and Teaching Community ‘Ancestral Inheritance’], and the braun [brown] Party Leadership Amt Rosenberg [Rosenberg Bureau]. The colors black and brown were the colors of their respective uniforms. The Ancestral Inheritance was under the direction of Heinrich Himmler who bore many titles, but here he was the Reichsführer SS (RFSS) [Reich Leader SS] and the Reichskommissar für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums [Reich Commissioner for Solidifying the German Folk Nation]. Alfred Rosenberg’s titles here were Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] and the Beauftragter des Führers fü r die Überwachung der gesamten geistigen und weltan­ schaulichen Schulung und Erziehung der NSDAP [The Führeris Commissioner for the Supervision of all Intellectual and World View Schooling and Education of the NSDAP]. Both the Ahnenerbe and the Rosenberg Amt have been subjected to detailed analyses, thus we are only interested in the specific role these two ideological organizations played in the teaching and collecting of Volkskunde.36 It is of significance to note that those who collaborated with the Ancestral Inheritance came from the “Men’s Union’ school of Rudolf Much, and for the most part occupied regular university positions, in Vienna and elsewhere. Those who worked for the Rosenberg Bureau traced their lineage back to the Viennese “Mythologists’ and their progenitors, Wolfgang Schultz, Leopold von Schroeder and Georg Hüsing, and failed to gain regular university positions. There was one notable and for the Ancestral

Völkische Wissenschaft 125

Inheritance disturbing exception to this pattern, as we will presently see. It is also of importance to note that what we have developed as the two primary thrusts in Austrian Volkskunde, do in fact elide under National Socialism, into a völkische Wissenschaft, one thrust now only a little more scholarly and rational than the other. Each thrust became progressively more irrational and finally resulted in the total perversion of the discipline. In the eyes of many outside Austria, Volkskunde scholarship there still suffers from this aberration, thus we need to understand the two ideological organizations better. In 1935 the Research and Teaching Community ‘Ancestral Inheritance’ was founded as a learned society which, according the Himmler, was devoted to the study of pre- and early Germanic history. The political nature of this research society was always at its core and thus, by the outbreak of the war, it was no longer devoted exclusively to scholarly inquiry. National Socialist and specifically SS psychological terrorism supplied the backdrop for political and cultural domination. Carrying out these objectives became the real object of the organization after 1939. From threatening terror to implementing it was not a difficult path to tread. This Research and Teaching(?) Community supported experiments on concentration camp inmates as well as the transportation of Jews to those same camps, thus it began to take part in criminal activities. In the realm of Kultur, the emphasis was directed almost exclusively toward Germanentum [German­ dom], and many scholarly disciplines would participate, none more enthusiastically than Volkskunde.37 Heinrich Himmler supplied the primary thought in his vision for the Ancestral Inheritance: ‘A Volk lives happily in the present and the future as long as it is aware of its past and the greatness of its ancestors.’ In the same memorandum of 1944 we read: “In the beginning the work of the ‘Ancestral Inheritance’ was above all intended to uncover the Germanic elements of our culture. It was an effort to trace the Germanic essence and deliver it from the numerous foreign elements, brought about by the confessions and other influences.’ That same memorandum lists a total of thirty-four ‘Scholarly

126

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Departments’ with two sub-departments, which range from Teaching and Research Posts for Indogermanic-Aryan Linguistics and Cultural Studies, to Religious and Legal history, and Runic and Symbol Studies. Of particular interest to us is the: Teaching and Research Post for GermanicGerman Volkskunde. Director: Dr. Richard Wolfram, Ordinary Professor at the University of Vienna, in the Waffen-SS at this time.’38 While most of the Much students were sympathetic to the Ancestral Inheritance, it was Richard Wolfram who would become one of the major players in the cultural-ideological undertakings of this branch of the SS. To some degree he would be assisted in Norway by Lily Weiser-Aall, and he would always enjoy the support of Otto Höfler, including in post-war Vienna. It was Wolfram, however, who conducted field investigations under the auspices of the SS. Overall there are some bizarre elements to the Ahnenerbe. There was, for example, great interest in Tibet (SS Officer Heinrich Harrer spent Seven Years in Tibet),39 an excursion to Iceland was planned to look for survivals of ancient Germanic musical forms (Nußbaumer 2001: 178). Another was planned for Peru with a small U-boot to be used in the lakes of the Andes, possibly looking for evidence in support of Himmler’s interest in the Cosmic Ice theory, for South Africa seeking evidence of Germanic heritage there, and there was even talk of a search for the Holy Grail, but there is no reliable documentation for this undertaking. Hitler himself reacted to these activities by the Ancestral Inheritance: ‘Warum stossen wir die ganze Welt darauf, daß wir keine Vergangenheit haben? [Why are we pointing out to the whole world, that we have no past?]. The Ancestral Inheritance would create one for him, by means of the Kulturkommission [Culture Commission] in South Tyrol, and in Nordic lands by means of the Germanischer Wissenschaftseinsatz [Germanic Scholarly Occupation]. Norway is of special concern for us because of Wolfram’s long interest in this country. These were but two of the Ancestral Inheritance sub-departmental undertakings, and its members would search for a Germanic past,

Völkische Wissenschaft 127

specifically through surviving folk traditions. Both will be presented in some detail below. Alfred Rosenberg’s Bureau, the Rosenberg Amt, bore some similarities to the Ahnenerbe. It too was vast in scope, its leader had numerous titles, and it was clearly most interested in Volkskunde and its proponents, particularly those from the Viennese ‘Mythological School,’ Karl von Spieß, Edmund Mudrak, and Karl Haiding. On January 5, 1937 a Reich Working Community for Folklore was founded at the instigation of Matthes Ziegler and was supported by the Reich Leaders of the NSDAP: R. Walter Darré (Office of Agrarian Politics), Konstantin Hierl (Reich Work Führet), Heinrich Himmler (Reichsführer SS), Baldur von Schirach (Reich Youth Führet) and Alfred Rosenberg. This new Working Community was intended to become the primary Volkskunde institution of the Party in the German Reich. By June of 1937 Rosenberg sent a memo to Hitler indicating that it is ‘necessary ... to secure the foundations for a complete intellectual-cultural and world-view education effort so that a unified attitude can be passed on to future generations.’ On October 22nd of that same year the application of the Working Community is discussed. In the minutes of that meeting it is stated that ‘those who oppose the NS world-view are to be defeated in the realm of scholarship and pushed aside.’ More important for our study is the next point, that ‘it is necessary to develop German Volkskunde scholarship into a fortress for the NS world-view.’ From here Rosenberg moved to create an Advanced School (always described as ‘in preparation’), outposts for the Advanced School, and finally to found an Institute for German Folklore.40 Here too, as was the case with the Ancestral Inheritance, there are major departments, ranging from the Institute for Research on the Jewish Question, to an Institute for Biology and Racial Studies. We are most concerned with the Institute for German Folklore, which then is divided into six sub-posts, all of which were in fact established, though none was very productive. There were research posts for Peasant Life Structures, Peasant Handicrafts, German Farmsteads, German Folk Speech, Mythology, and for Games and Sayings. Three of the outpost

128

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

directors were Austrians: Karl Haiding, Karl Ruprecht and Karl von Spieß. Haiding, a student of Arthur Haberlandt, was made Director of the Institute for German Folklore, for “the duration of the war,’ and he was the director of the Research Post for Games and Sayings.41 More information on the activities of Karl Haiding and the Institute for German Folklore will follow.

University o f Vienna: Germanisch-deutsche Volkskunde

The University of Vienna, after only two months of ‘administrative restructuring, lost 264 faculty members,’ for political and/or racial reasons (Heiß, Matti, Meissl, Saurer and Stuhlpfarrer 1989: 1). It was, of course, necessary to find ‘replacements.’ It was also necessary to institutionalize those scholarly disciplines which were important, for various reasons, to those in political power. It is not surprising that among the six departments which were established in the Philosophical Faculty at the University of Vienna during the seven years of Nazi rule, was V o l k s k u n d e (Saurer 1989: 303). In Germany, immediately after 1933, new folklore teaching positions had been created at several universities. Vienna, the second oldest German-language university, as was to be expected, should not be left behind. There was no lack of candidates for a professorship who were committed to the concept of ‘pure German-Germanic cultural studies’ (Scharfe 1984: 105), as we have already seen. It was also to be expected that the interests of Himmler’s Ancestral Inheritance and the Rosenberg Bureau would clash here. The p r e w a r w a s , over, the w a r could now begin. In April of 1938, only one month after the A n s c h l u ß , a special issue of the official organ of the SS Ancestral Inheritance, the journal G e r m a n i e n , was published under the title: Ö s t e r r e i c h - D e u t s c h e s L a n d [Austria - German Land]. O n e year later, Josef Otto Plaßmann and Gilbert Trathnigg edited an anniversary volume on the occasion of the return of the O s t m a r k and the S u d e t e n l a n d to their homeland (Kater 1974; Gajek 1991). In their foreword they said: The great

Völkische Wissenschaft 129

sweep of these days made it possible, in half a month, to put together a staff of collaborators from the old Reich and from a liberated Ostmark, which ... sketched out in a series of articles the image of that German Austria that is now, with all its pure German forces and its pure German longing, German [mit all seinen völkischen Kräften und seinem völkischen Sehnen deutsch], as it has been for a thousand years’ (Plaßmann und Trathnigg 1939: 7f.). In retrospect it is interesting to note who the contributors to this volume were. Among them were several individuals whom we have come to know: Viktor von Geramb (Graz), Georg Gräber (Klagenfurt), the emigrant to the ‘Old Reich’ and Much student Gilbert Trathnigg, and Richard Wolfram (Vienna). Viktor Geramb was at the veiy moment becoming one of the losers, Richard Wolfram one of the victors. As we have just seen, Richard Wolfram was named the leader of the Teaching and Research Post for Germanic-German Folklore, established in Salzburg as the Regional Branch Southeast of the SS Ancestral Inheritance by Reichsfiihrer-SS Heinrich Himmler, effective July 13,1938. We now also know that this position was seen as part of a professorship in Vienna. In a confidential file note covering a working session of the Ancestral Inheritance, which took place in Munich on November 24, 1938, with Wolfram in attendance, we read: Under discussion was the matter of Dr. Wolfram, Vienna and Professor Geramb, Graz ... The decision in regard to the position for G e r m a n i s t i k and V o l k s k u n d e in Vienna must be made in the near future; as soon as Herr Dr. Wolfram assumes the position in Vienna, the work of the Southeast Branch [of the SS Ancestral Inheritance] must move forward energetically. Especially at this time, however, appropriate care and reservation are in order ... 42

The list of candidates had already been established on July 11, 1938: ‘in first place are both Bruno Schier, ExtraOrdinary Professor at the University of Leipzig and Richard Wolfram, Private Docent at the University of Vienna; in second position was Josef Hanika, Private Docent at the German University in Prague.’43 Thus we see the

130

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

implementation of that which had been suggested in the April issue of Germanien: ‘For us friends of German studies, however, it is of special meaning that from Vienna, which today is once again an outpost of German universities, the new German studies and thus the Germanic reawakening in our time, has begun again. In the year 1500 the humanist Conrad Celtis lectured for the first time at the University of Vienna on the Germania of Tacitus. In our time Rudolf Much has become the most knowledgeable interpreter of this same work. A small example with symbolic meaning! ... Plaßmann’ (Plaßmann 1938a: 102). The ‘symbolic meaning’ was also clearly seen by the followers of Alfred Rosenberg. On November 2, 1938 the Commissariai Dean of the faculty, the orientalist Viktor Christian, wrote to the Rector Fritz Knoll: As you will remember the local student leader Dr. Freisieben reported in a discussion on October 29 of this year, that the Reich Office Director [Alfred] Rosenberg refused the invitation of the student body to speak at an inauguration and pointed out that the Philosophical Faculty had not followed through on his wish to propose Professor [Karl] von Spieß for the position in V o l k s k u n d e about to be created. Today the G a u Docent Union Leader, Professor Machet, informed me that the business director, the president of the Viennese City school teachers, Professor Fritz, had informed him that the Reich Office Director Rosenberg had refused his invitation to speak in the near future in Vienna and commented that he could not fulfill that wish until the matters in the Philosophical Faculty were clarified ... . In regard to the suggestion sent to me by State Commissioner, Professor [Friedrich] Plattner, on July 6 , 1938, to recommend Professor von Spieß for the position in V o l k s k u n d e , I had planned to write ... a detailed letter of reference .... I did present my position in writing on July 21, 1938.44

In that position paper the Dean emphasized that he could not accept Spieß as Professor, he would, ... however assume it to be possible if he [Spieß] were named an Honorary Professor of German V o l k s k u n d e on our faculty after the appointment of a Full Professor ... . The fact that my

Völkische Wissenschaft 131 somewhat negative evaluation is not, indeed an isolated case, can be documented. Previous to this time the universities of Berlin and Munich had responded completely in the negative to a recommendation to grant Professor von Spieß a professorship for German V o l k s k u n d e .45

The proposed Honorary Professorship for Karl von Spieß never came about and he had to be satisfied with an institute outside the university, the Research Post for Mythology, a sub-branch of Rosenberg’s Institute for German Folklore. Spieß occupied this position from 1942 until near the end of the war (November 30, 1944), in the beginning together with his friend Edmund Mudrak.46 Die Ungeklärtheit der kulturpolitischen Verhältnisse The battle between the two camps would continue to intensify in Vienna. One of the clearest indications of this conflict can be seen in a report dated May, 19, 1939, written by Karl Haiding. Haiding had moved to Berlin in 1936 to work in the Reichsfixgendführung [Reich Youth Leadership] and had become the director of the Mittelstelle Jur Spielforschung [Intermediate Branch for Game Research] in the Working Community for German Folklore as well as Departmental Director in the Kulturamt der Reichsjugendführung [Cultural Office for Reich Youth Leadership], He quickly gained the attention of Rosenberg who sent Haiding on a ‘business trip’ to the Ostmark. The real reason comes out in the report, he was sent to evaluate the activities of the Ancestral Inheritance: In the meantime a less pleasing rivalry between the Ancestral Inheritance and the Working Community for German Folklore could be observed since there were forces at work in the Ancestral Inheritance which would never find entry in our Working Community. Menghin’s W e lt g e s c h ic h t e d e r S t e in z e it [World Histoiy of the Stone Age] was dedicated to Rudolf Much, the deceased Germanist at the University of Vienna, which makes the former’s position clear. His [Much’s] student, Otto Höfler, became known through the thesis of the secret cult

132

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

societies among the Germanic tribes, which was rejected by the Working Community. Höher writes in his 1934 work, the one in which he thanks Pater Wilhelm Koppers, the representative of that particularly well known ethnological perspective by St. Gabriel (S.V.D.): “I had the advantage of being able to attend for several semesters in Vienna the lectures and practica of O. Spann, the one who overcame sociological atomism ... .” Höfler’s friend Wolfram, who attempts to prove the same theories in other areas, was entrusted with the directorship of the Regional Branch Southeast of the Ancestral Inheritance in Salzburg. Contrary to the assurances given earlier to the Reich Office Director Dr. [Matthes] Ziegler, folklore research is carried out here in large measure, in fact outside the official party Working Community for German Folklore. Wolfram expressed to Dr. Ernst Otto Thiele that he only expected competition from us ... . From here the University of Vienna was clearly influenced, since it, with few exceptions, completely disregards the Working Community for German Folklore, and in Vienna it pushes the upright representatives of German V o l k s k u n d e to the side wherever possible, Professor Haberlandt, Professor Spieß and Dr. Mudrak. In the O s t m a r k the lack of clarity in cultural-political relationships [d i e U n g e k lä r t h e it d e r k u lt u r p o lit is c h e n V e r h ä l t n i s s e ] became most evident within one year.47

Karl Haiding’s fears, as presented here, were soon to become a reality. On June 29, 1939 Richard Wolfram’s position was upgraded when he was named regular but still Extra-Ordinary Professor for Germanic-German Volkskunde and thus became the first full-time representative of the discipline at the University of Vienna.48 All of the other folklorists whom we have mentioned, would play lesser roles. For Karl von Spieß, who was nearly sixty at the time, there was no other possibility of work at other German universities. His Research Post for Mythology was later described by Leopold Schmidt as having ‘a very considerable Library’ (Schmidt 1957b: 337). It was, however, located 'outside the University’ (Schmidt 1951a: 137) and was not an 'Institute’ in a real sense. The leadership of the Institute for German Folklore, according to Spieß’ memoirs, was to include Spieß, but that didn’t take place. The activities of the Research Post

Völkische Wissenschaft 133

for Mythology were limited as a result of the war; in addition to Spieß, who was paid by means of a research contract, only one secretary was employed. Arthur Haberlandt must have known by the middle of 1939 that his possibilities at the University of Vienna would also be limited. In 1938 he had phrenetically welcomed the ‘Return to the Reich’ and now saw to it that the Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde which he edited today as forever’ would always be ‘characterized by investigating those constructive forces of the contemporary folk-nation, and with promoting those creative undertakings that arise from it and make its works distinctive. Our journal thus serves in truth both the will and the words of our Führer Adolf Hitler: we want to protect the eternal foundations o f our life, o f our folk-nation and those strengths and values it has been given’ (WZV 43, 1938: I). Arthur Haberlandt had finally become President of the Verein für Volkskunde [Folklore Society] in Vienna, with Karl von Spieß at his side as General Secretary, and had reshaped the statutes to ‘reflect the Führe?s thoughts’ (WZV 43 1938: 50-52). His primary attention was thus directed in the next years to the journal, which continued publishing until 1944, to the Verein, and to the Museum. The museum had lost its valuable assistant, Adelgard Perkmann who had been employed in the library since 1927. She was removed from service Tor racial reasons’ (Schmidt 1947c), but this was not mentioned at all in the Annual Report. It was, however, frequently pointed out that attempts had been made to place the Verein and the Museum under state control, which was in fact finally accomplished (Schmidt 1964b: 233). Since most of the personnel had been drafted into military service, the building in the Laudongasse stood somewhat empty. Even Arthur Haberlandt was taken into the army as a Reserve Officer at least part time and was thus absent from the museum for months on end. Then it finally came about that scholarly activities were more or less carried out in occupied territories, in which he [Haberlandt] played a role, this time in the Baltic states’ (Schmidt 1964b: 233). ‘His assignment here was not political but rather scholarly,’ according to Haberlandt’s daughter. He had been

134

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

called into the Implementation Staff of Reichsleiter Rosenberg to Verify the folkloric collections in the cities of Kauen, Schaulen, Riga, and Dorpat, from Lithuania to Estonia, and to photograph the objects which he thought were important.’49 Haberlandt succeeded in protecting the major portion of Museum objects from being taken away, and was able to save the holdings for the ‘new age.’ He received no thanks for this, instead he was removed from office. At the University Arthur Haberlandt had been named Adjunct [außerplanmäßig] University Professor for Volkskunde on February 9, 1939,50 but he had only lectured regularly up to SS 41, then once again as of SS 43.51 In the meantime he is listed as ‘in the field.’ It is clear that he enjoyed no support from Wolfram. In the final analysis he was the only competitor for Wolfram’s new Institute for Germanic-German Volkskunde. Rudolf Kriss had brought his large private ‘Collection for German Religious Volkskunde’ to Vienna in 1936 where it was exhibited in the chambers of Cathedral and Diocese Museum in the Imperial Palace, the Hofburg (Schmidt 1951a: 149). His friend and colleague Leopold Schmidt helped him place the exhibit there instead of in the Volkskunde Museum, since Arthur Haberlandt ‘refused, to do anything for me’ (Schmidt 1982: 43). In March of 1938 Schmidt received a visit at the Kriss exhibition by Richard Wolfram, who came to “tell me that I had no chance at the University, nor in the museums, he had sought out this information on his own. To this day I still don’t know what caused him to do this. In the long run it proved to be somewhat un-careful on his part, for I remembered this sugar sweet explanation for the rest of my life’ (Schmidt 1982: 48). In regard to Kriss, Wolfram didn’t have to be informed: Kriss himself learned through a ministerial directive dated April 22, 1938 that his teaching permission had been put on hold until a later time. The directive was canceled in March of 1939, however, since ‘the resumption of your teaching activity at the University of Vienna, in the role of a Private Docent is no longer a problem.’52 At the end of February 1940 Kriss was named Docent, according to the new order, but was not ‘obliged’ to offer ‘German Volkskunde through lectures and practica’ at

Völkische Wissenschaft 135

the University of Vienna.53 In 1941 the Dean, as a matter of routine, asked Richard Wolfram about the usual practice of granting the title of Extra-Ordinary Professor after six years to the Docent Rudolf Kriss. Wolfram answered by pointing out that Kriss had ceased with his teaching activity, “his lecture [is said] to have been very dry and in the tone of a rural preacher,’ he had ‘a lot to do with the Catholic church and since his Habilitation he has hardly published any larger works.’ In addition, 1 could not, in the time that I have known Kriss, detect a positive relationship to National Socialism.’54 Nor could others see this, Rudolf Kriss was one of the few folklorists who was an active opponent of the National Socialist regime. He was later arrested and incarcerated with no explanation, given a death sentence, then ‘pardoned’ and moved to a concentration camp where he remained until the war was over (Kriss 1948/1995; Meissl 1981: 495, Note 106). After the war he moved his collection to Salzburg, and then back to Bavaria (Schmidt 1960d: 99), but he never returned to his teaching career in Vienna. As we have seen, there were many vanquished in Vienna and only one victor, Richard Wolfram. As a result of the wartime move of his Salzburg Teaching and Research Post to Vienna he had several co-workers at his disposal, all of them women. He interpreted his new professorship as also being the Institute’s director and designated it the Institute for Germanic-German Volkskunde. Feeling his importance, Wolfram immediately requested renovations in the space allotted to him. An angry ministerial response asked him to give his reasons for such actions.55 Wolfram then wrote Wolfram Sievers, circumventing the usual bureaucracy, to intervene and even mentioned the inadequacy of the space which had been granted to him in the Liebiggasse: ‘Next door to the Ancient History Institute there is a well situated and appropriate Jewish apartment now available.56 If the agreement of the Ministry would be granted in the next few weeks, we could use this apartment for our Institute.”57 Permission was granted, but the move was into a building in Universitätsstraße 10, not into the apartment next door to the Ancient History Institute. This move took place in SS 1941;

136

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

as of WS 1942/43 the Institute also had an assistant, Dr. Inge Lang. A regular lecture cycle began (e.g., Folk Dance, Calendar and Life Customs, Volkskunde of the North Germanic Peoples, Costume, Linguistic Research, Legend, Fairy Tale and Folk Song), including practica.58 Some of his courses were listed as World View Lectures for Students of all Faculties, e.g., Community Structure of the Germanic Peoples, and Symbol Research. Wolfram had been interested in the second topic since the 1939 Kiel meeting of the Ancestral Inheritance (Wolfram 1944). This University idyll was complete, except for the limitations brought about by the war. In a letter to the Dean, in which he asks about receiving more coal, he refers to ‘around 100 students and numerous Institute members and doctoral students,’59 of which only five could complete their studies between 1941-45 (Bockhom und Fielhauer 1982: 283). But there were setbacks and irritations during this period of building up the program, a few of which will be mentioned here. There was for one thing the Spieß-group, who tried to use Wolfram’s double responsibility with ‘South Tyrol - Professorship,’ and tried to take away his adult education courses in Vienna in 1942. Wolfram was also the ‘one responsible for Volkskunde’ in the NS Teachers’ Union in the Gau Vienna. Wolfram responded with a 41 page negative ‘review of Karl von Spieß and Edmund Mudrak’ which he attached to his complaints sent to Wolfram Sievers. He also used this same letter to denigrate Heinrich Harmjanz because the latter had offered a more favorable interpretation’ of the ‘Jewish school of Ethno-psychology,’ Lévy-Brühl and Durkheim.60 Heinrich Harmjanz, the editor of the Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde, Professor at the University of Frankfurt, and the most important folklorist in the Ancestral Inheritance (Kater 1974, Lixfeld 1987a and 1987b), had repeatedly tried to get Wolfram’s assistance for the journal published in Berlin. Wolfram, whose publications between 1940 and 1944 were clearly very modest (Fielhauer 1968a: 22f.), appears not to have been interested, or at least he didn’t follow through. Wolfram remembered a statement by Harmjanz in 1940 that

Völkische Wissenschaft 137

his ‘drawer was full of manuscripts.’ Harmjanz accuses Wolfram of a lack of cooperation which for Wolfram was just ‘a part of the injustices and hatefulness ... with which he [Harmjanz] makes his colleagues, including me, suspicious.’61 By this time Harmjanz had already been drafted into the Wehrmacht and by the Summer of 1944 he had lost all of his many SS offices (Kater 1974: 289). An SS-Honor Court in the Spring of 1943 had taken up the matter of the plagiarization in two of Harmjanz’ publications. Otto Höfler, with Richard Wolfram as an informant, took a position against Harmjanz (Heiber 1966: 650-653). The accusations against Harmjanz in 1944 (see note 61) take on further meaning since Wolfram believed that Harmjanz failed to support him for the position in Vienna by reducing it from an Ordinariat to an ExtraOrdinariat. Wolfram had also tried to get the position raised, by considering a position at another university. In 1941 Wolfram was in third place on the list in Innsbruck,62 in Frankfurt Harmjanz himself was chosen over Wolfram, and with the filling of the folklore professorship in Posen with Edmund Mundrak the Ancestral Inheritance had suffered a painful defeat. In Posen, after much intervention by the Rosenberg Bureau63 as well as the Ancestral Inheritance, the former won out. The list was: 1. Dr. Mudrak, Vienna, 2. Extra-Ordinary Professor Richard Wolfram, Vienna, 3. Engineer Alfred Karasek, Vienna, and Dr. phil. habil. Gerhard Friedrich Heilfurth, Leipzig.64 In a letter to the Reich Leader Rosenberg, Hans Strobel is satisfied: That - especially thanks to the active support of the Main Office of Scholarship - it has been succeessful in appointing Party Member Dr. Mudrak, [which] should not only be seen as a plus for National Socialistic Volkskunde, but also as a considerable success by the Service Branch [Rosenberg Bureau].’65 Edmund Mudrak, who had been in the Culture Office of the city of Vienna since 1939, was also the Director of the office of Volkskunde Research, the Reich Post Leader for Germanic Volkskunde in the Office for Folklore and Celebration Planning [Amt fü r Volkskunde und Feiergestal­ tung] of the Rosenberg Bureau, lecturer in the Official Party Testing Commission for the Protection of NS-Writing [Partei­

138

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

amtliche Prüfungskommission zum Schutze des NS- Schrift­ tums], lecturer in the Office for Literary Promotion [Amt Jur Schrifttumspflege] of the Rosenberg Bureau, and Referee for the Reich Oversight of the NS Teachers’ Union.66 With his appointment to the University of Posen, where he worked until the end of the war, he accomplished an unplanned victory over his Viennese colleagues and the Ancestral Inheritance. He was the only member of the ‘Mythologists’ to acquire a regular university position. It was also a severe and frightening blow for Wolfram when he received an unexpected induction letter into the Wehrmacht on February 23, 1943. Once again, however, the solution came from Wolfram Sievers. By using Wolfram’s heart ailment, his ischia and menis difficulties, Sievers wrote to Dr. Brandt, on the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS, and asked for his intervention, more precisely, a way out of induction. The Ancestral Inheritance needed Wolfram, in order to complete the work in South Tyrol as well as for his now planned employment in Norway. Wolfram would not be up to the trials of a soldier’s life, ‘and we can bemoan the loss one day of one of our most valued folk researchers... ,’67 On August 18, 1943 Ersatz Reserve SS-Schütze [Ready Reserve SS Private] Professor Dr. Wolfram, Vienna was appointed to ‘the Staff Department of the Waffen-SS, Personal Staff of the Reichsführer-SS, ’ and ‘at the same time ... he is moved into the Ancestral Office, Department of Germanic Scholarly Occupation’ [Germanischer Wissenschaftseinsatz ].68 In this way the danger of military service for Wolfram was removed and he was able to hope for further research assignments, to be paid for by the Ancestral Inheritance, especially at the University. He continued to complain about overwork, sickness and teaching duties and tried to get out of certain activities in other countries. An especially harsh letter from Sievers reminded him of his ‘service obligation’ to the WaffenSS, to which Wolfram now belonged: ‘You [must] be available at all times for the Reichsführer-SS, with no consideration of whether you have announced lectures or not. ’69 On July 20, 1944 Wolfram Sievers wrote to Richard Wolfram in Vienna yet another letter which is no less sharp

Völkische Wissenschaft 139

than the February letter. He said quite bluntly: We didn’t bring you back from the troops so that you would not be available for our employment. The fact that you hold lectures and then when your employment is needed, you are exhausted and sick from overwork at the University,’ that was not what Sievers had in mind when he wrote the sentence quoted above (Kater 1974: 189 and 408, Note 382). By this time it must have finally become clear to Wolfram that his activity in was also fo r the Ancestral Inheritance. In addition to the life of a scholar which was rather limited because of the war and which Wolfram saw as a life devoted to collecting and later evaluating of folkloric material, there were also obligations, orders which one had to follow. We do not know if Wolfram thought over his personal attitude toward National Socialism or even changed it during the National Socialist era. We do know which scholarly (read: scholarly-political) activities he participated in during the course of the war: in 1940-41 it was the Kulturkommission [Culture Commission] charged with the resettlement of the German-speaking populace of South Tyrol (Italy) and Gottschee (Yugoslavia), and in 1943-44 it was the Germanischer Wissenschafts­ einsatz [Germanic Scholarly Occupation] in the Northern countries. They first sent him South in search of German heritage, the latter produced assignments for him in Norway, Flanders and elsewhere in the German Reich, also in search of a German-Germanic heritage.70 In South Tyrol Wolfram indeed collected folk traditions, while in the North he became involved in what may have been criminal activity.

Von der Etsch bis an den Belt Two lines of the German national anthem, which are no longer sung, describe Germany as reaching from the rivers Maas in Belgium to the Memel in Poland, from the Etsch in South Tyrol to the strait between Germany and Denmark, the Belt: Von der Maas bis an die Memel,

140

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Von der Etsch bis an den Belt.

The anthem then concludes with the well-known refrain: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt.

Both the SS Ancestral Inheritance and the Rosenberg Bureau would interpret these lines, written in the 19th century and which accurately described the linguistic boundaries of the German-speaking world in 1938, as justification for making territorial and cultural claims. Chancellor Hitler had a surprise for them, however. On October 7, 1939 Reichsführer SS, Heinrich Himmler, was given the assignment by the Führer to: 1. vigorously execute the return abroad into the Reich;

of ethnic

Germans

living

2.

execute the removal of the damaging influence of [such] foreign folk elements which were dangerous for the Reich and the German folk community.

3.

establish new German settlement areas by resettlement, especially by taking over the establishing of communities for those Reich and ethnic Germans returning from abroad (Lixfeld and Dow 1994: 194-200; emphasis added).

Twelve days later, on October 21, 1939 Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini signed an agreement in Berlin concerning Germany’s southern flank. The agreement in Berlin was directed specifically to South Tyrol, that portion of Italy which had a German speaking populace. Later, the Gottschee in Yugoslavia was included in the agreement, since Italy also laid claim to a portion of Slovenia, the northwestern most province of Yugoslavia. We will look at both undertakings here.

Völkische Wissenschaft 141

Kulturkommission In Italian the province of South Tyrol is called Alto Adige and is named for the Etsch [Adige] River. According to the 1910 census, the last taken before World War I, only 2.9% of the population spoke Italian, even fewer were Ladins, speakers of Rhaeto-Romansh, while the vast majority were speakers of German.71 In the Fall of 1939 the inhabitants were given a choice of opting for resettlement (called Optanten) or staying behind (called Dableiber). By December 31, 1939, the majority of the quarter million South Tyrolese had opted for the German Reich. It was a case of planned ‘ethnic cleansing’ [völkische Flurbereinigung]. On January 2, 1940 Himmler’s Ancestral Inheritance established a special branch, the socalled Kulturkommission, charged with the resettlement of the optants, and with that an entire series of organizations began their work. According to Michael Kater, the primary assignment of the Culture Commission was to ‘register the German cultural possessions of the optants’ for the Official German Immigration and Re-emigration Bureau [Amtliche Deutsche Ein- und Rückwanderungs-Stelle (ADERSt)] in Bozen. However, in an express letter dated May 21, 1940, the man now placed in charge of the Culture Commission, Wolfram Sievers, described the assignment more specifically as ‘the investigation and processing of the entire material and intellectual cultural goods of those ethnic Germans being resettled’ (emphasis added). As we will quickly see, special, over-proportional, emphasis was put on the collecting of folklore. We will need to try to understand why this work was so very important to the NS regime. Prior to all of this, in a memorandum dated May 30, 1939 the Reichsjuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler wrote: The Führer1s fixing of the boundary between Italy and South Tyrol is final. Thus it is clearly and permanently stated that South Tyrol is forsaken as an ethnic German territory. Not stated is that Germany gives up the approximately 200,000 South Tyrolese who want to be German ... . Germany will create somewhere in the territory under its power, e.g., in the East, space for 200,000 people, in cities and villages. This landscape will if at

142

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

all possible be in an area clear of foreign elements and will thus be cleared of all inhabitants (Gruber 1978: 226f.). Here we can see what was being planned: ‘an historical perhaps unique and large scale undertaking,’ as described euphorically by Heinrich Himmler (Gruber 1978: 226), which would take place in stages - due to the war effort. These large numbers of ethnic Germans [ Volksdeutsche] were to be moved into newly ‘re-claimed’ German territories. Many places appear in the letters and documents, the Bohemia-Moravia region,72 Galicia (Southern Poland), even the Crimea (Gruber 1978: 226f.; Lozoviuk 2002). Wolfram Sievers, Reich Business Leader of the Ancestral Inheritance, was assigned the directorship and set out immediately to find appropriate collaborators for the work. ‘Full of doubt,’ Richard Wolfram wrote in 1987, 1 tried insofar as I could - to rescue in my areas of expertise the cultural inheritance of the South Tyrolese .... I succeeded in being accepted into the Culture Commission for South Tyrol’ (Wolfram 1987b: 5f.). Wolfram was in fact the director of a folklore research post and would be one of the most important collaborators, that had already been decided. In November 1939 he had recommended in a letter to Sievers ‘that the entire cultural goods (including household implements) should be taken along, wherever this is in any way possible.’ For the new farmsteads to be built in the assigned settlement regions, he would need to employ experienced advisors, Svho were responsible for building a racially pure structure.’73 In real terms the field investigators were to record a wide range of folk traditions: folk narratives (Willi Mai), folk songs (Alfred Quellmalz), folk speech (Matthias Insam and Bruno Schweizer), beliefs and superstitions, and most particularly such local customs as weddings, mardi gras (Shrovetide) celebrations, cattle herds being led to the high meadows, solstice fires, etc. (Richard Wolfram). Photographers and film makers were employed to record not only these folk traditions, but were also assigned the duty of recording on film the architecture of the entire village, with the ostensible goal of recreating their homes on a one-to-one basis in their

Völkische Wissenschaft 143

new homeland. The sheer quantity of this undertaking is nothing less than astounding. The recording of various items through film, tape recordings and questionnaires was based on a traditional folklore canon, and these items were to be returned to the Volk, a relatively common thought among folklore researchers and field-workers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. There was a difference, however, for everything would have to pass the requirements of being völkisch, pure German: the houses and outbuildings would be of wood and not stone (German and not Roman), the stories and songs would be those which would document a presumed continuity and homogeneity of the German ‘race,’ since antiquity, and the verbal items would be devoid of obscene and immoral elements. We are reminded here of Hitler’s command cited above: ‘execute the removal of the damaging influence of [such] foreign folk elements.’ Today we have some insight into the size of the undertaking. First, the folk music collectors used the most modem technology of the time - the technical and electronic equipment, including a Magnetofon, weighed 150kg (Quellmalz 1968-1976: 1: xiv), and produced 415 tapes, with 138 hours of taped recordings, including 1700 folk songs, 650 samples of instrumental music, 90 spoken recordings, several musical-forms (said to be the same as in Iceland), and samples of yodeling. Of particular importance for our purpose is the material collected by Richard Wolfram. In his Nachlaß [personal papers], in the Salzburg State Institute for Folklore there are a total of 216 file drawers, 31 of which contain 13,952 pages of South Tyrol information (questionnaires, field reports, etc.). Until recently, however, little was known about two wooden boxes with 644 film strips, arranged alphabetically for 74 villages in the project. At the end of June 1940 Wolfram traveled for the first time to Bozen (Bolzano), and on July 1 the first working session of the Culture Commission for Recovering the Cultural Goods of South Tyrol (the full title) took place in the library of the Hotel Bristol. Wolfram took over the directorship of the 1st Special Group, Custom and Folk Dance.74 He began his regular collecting work, sometimes supported by Hans Seidlmayer

144

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

(whom we have already heard about in 1938 in Salzburg), Karl Horak (an acquaintance from linguistic island research of the 1930s),75 Luise Hess, his collaborator in the Ancestral Inheritance, as well as a few South Tyrol helpers. In an undated Working Report South Tyrol,’ where his department had taken on the title of Folk Custom, Folk Belief, Folk Dance, Folk Drama, written probably at the end of 1941, Wolfram sums up both his “results’ and his ‘conclusions.’ For him the collection included survivals of an Indo-Germanic inheritance: healing symbols, ancient charms, splendid customs that were filmed again and again,76 a considerable folk dance treasure and 39 still unpublished folk dramas, all of that came together in about a year and a half. T believe that from this we can point to satisfactory results in my area of expertise’ Wolfram concludes.77 In 1959, in a report on the 2nd Working Meeting of the Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde in Bonn, Wolfram failed to make any mention of the Culture Commission, how most of his data on South Tyrol had been collected: ‘My own research attempted to create a collection of custom and folk belief which had from the very beginning cartographically valuable results,’ he continues, “by means of 5 questionnaires and direct questioning in 200 locations’ (Wolfram 1959b: 19). Reflecting on his activities many years later, Wolfram said: Within a period of 2 years I worked about 12 months, during 1940/41, and carried out from one location to the next detailed customs recording of the land; four questionnaires sent to every community served as a trial organ, while direct questioning in the town produced the main material ... . In addition, I tried to experience the custom in as much as possible myself ... . The systematic relationship of these 3 methods of collecting was not common at that time and produced a very firm basis [for the investigation] (Wolfram 1987b: 6).

It is perhaps a truism that each fieldworker employed by the Culture Commission took not only his assigned task with him but also his own personal conception of the items of folklore he was dealing with, in a sense his own aesthetic. The ethno-musicologist Alfred Quellmalz certainly exemplifies

Völkische Wissenschaft 145

this: he was a Party member and as SS officer, but most obvious from his collection is his overriding interest in collecting the songs and music of South Tyrol (Nußbaumer 2001). Richard Wolfram, likewise a Party member and SS staff member, was eager to carry out the assigned duties of the Commission, but first and foremost he was a representative of the Viennese ‘Ritualist’ School. His training by Rudolf Much at the University of Vienna had taught him to look for remnants of rituals practiced by ancient Männer­ bünde [men’s unions], and this he did. Today we have not only the materials published by Wolfram in the postwar years, we also have most of the questionnaires distributed at that time, his working reports, and both photos and moving film, in black and white and in color. Because the record is so good, we can look at some of the specific items he collected. In 1947 Wolfram published an article on a particular style of grain harvesting, in the shape of a spiral. He says that this kind of mowing is found elsewhere in the Germanic world but in each case it is only found high up in the mountains. There is, however, no empirical evidence to support this statement. In the pattern he sees a mythological Urform [ancient form], found in many places and representing perhaps the sun. He says in his postwar publication: ‘One thing is clear, we are not looking at trivial lines here. An ancient meaning is always associated with them, often it is sacred. We may assume the same thing for our simple basic form, the spiral’ (Wolfram 1947: 238). Wolfram rejects the possibility that a mower might have produced this in order to show off his harvesting skills, he says: ‘... with this unusual custom we are holding on to the remnant [Zipfel] of a tradition which was once surrounded by numerous activities and which was then shaped naturally into allegorical images.’ His statement reads like a one line condensation of the myth-ritual theory. This, he continues, is ‘the shining through of a remnant, ... a small piece of the mystery of our world’ (Wolfram 1947: 240). These farmer-mowers became in Wolfram’s mind a magical example of a Germanic time-space continuum, found in these isolated high mountains. The Germanic people who had withdrawn onto these steep hillsides where they grew their

146

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

grain and ate their dark bread, by implication, were being compared to those “foreigners’ down below, who ate white bread from grain harvested from land that is easy to cultivate. It seems that Wolfram was re-Germanizing these German­ speaking mountain peasants. What had been preserved elsewhere, most particularly in the Nordic countries: runes, solstice fires, costumes, dances, mythology in the Icelandic Eddas and the various Scandinavian sagas, was being sought in the South, still preserved among the mountain folk (K. Kdstlin 2001). While the study of vernacular architecture was not a particular strength of Wolfram, his search for survivals of symbols was - as we just saw with the sun symbol in the field. In contrast to the spiral mowing which cannot be documented, crossed horses heads are found in may areas of the Germanic world, indeed from Scandinavia to South Tyrol. Sometimes they are crossed dragons, swans, or other animals. The placement of these heads on the gabled end of houses, and other buildings, was for Wolfram not just a logical extension of the wooden beams used for shaping the gable, but was ‘a tradition which reached back into very ancient times’ (ÖVA 3: 26). Perhaps, he speculates, in the beginning these were real skulls, from sacrificial horses, a common practice among the Indo-Europeans, he says, meant to ward off vermin, pests, curses, witches, lightening, etc. In a rather tortured logic he makes a startling leap into the historical past where he finds numerous examples of double figures, some of whom even bore horses names, e.g., Hengist and Horsa, the leaders of Anglo-Saxon warriors who led the attack on England in the fifth century. With little documentation he alludes to the existence in the past of other double, divine twin, figures: the Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux, and a divine brother pair named in the 43rd chapter of Tacitus’ Germania. Thus, this very common vernacular architecture style was interpreted as a survival, and by suggesting the sacrificial element, Wolfram again alluded to ritualistic practices in the ancient past. In modem day Austria the tradition of driving cattle up to the high meadows for the summer is still common. This

Völkische Wissenschaft 147

rather festive occasion takes place some time between May 3rd [Kreuz-Auffindung] and September 14th [Kreuz-Erhöhung]. Thereafter the Alps are said to belong to bogeymen and night people, and no-one should spend the night in Alpine huts without their permission. It is commonly believed that a black cow should not lead the way. The lead cow(s) are decorated with a crown of sorts, with much greenery and a small piece of cloth embroidered with the Christian I.H.S. - i.e., a contraction of the Greek IHEovç (Jesus). While the cross is a symbol for sacrifice in the Christian world, it was certainly found in ancient (pre-Christian) graphic presentation, as a decorative form. In folk belief, it is a symbol used for magically fending off evil, and according to Richard Beiti it is ‘one of the oldest protective symbols in the Germanic cultural circle’ (Erich and Beiti 1974: 475). The crown/wreath itself, is a well known symbol: a sign of triumph (laurel wreath), the Christian crown of thorns and even as crown of stars on the queen of heaven, the Virgin Mary, but according to Wolfram there was also the Germanic crown made of green twigs, which we still see in Virgin Crowns (Schãppelj. Here the wreath was interpreted as a symbol for growth, fertility and female chastity. The practice of hurling smoldering wooden disks from a mountainside [Scheibenschlagen] was also documented by Wolfram in South Tyrol. As early as 1923 we read: ‘the custom ... which has lived among the Volk for hundreds of years, can easily be identified as an old Germanic festival, dedicated to “Mother Holle,” and the “fire wheel” as well as the “holy sign of fire” [Feuerschlagen], an undeniable proof of Germanic origin’ (Egger 1923 cited in Johler 2000:156). If the disk flew far this indicated good luck and bad luck if it did not, for the person whose name appeared on the disk, a friend, a girl friend, or a couple married since the last hurling. Verses are uttered: S c h e i b a u s , S c h e ib a u s ! W e m s o ll d ie S c h e i b e s e i n ? D i e S c h e i b e s o ll d e r J o s e f a s e in .

Disk away, disk away! Who is the disk for? The disk is supposed to be for Josefa

148

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

There were Ehrenscheiben [honorable disks], and Schimpf­ scheiben [punishing disks]; the latter contained the names of enemies, and they were superstitiously believed to harm the individuals named on the disk. If the burning disk landed on a house or flew into the hay of a stall, they were not removed for it was a folk belief that a magical burning disk would not start a fire. When Wolfram conducted his fieldwork in the Vintschgau region of South Tyrol in 1940-41, he was clearly looking for ‘undeniable proof of Germanic origin.’ Here is an excerpt from his Working Report: Just as magnificent is the fire custom on “ H o l l e r p f a n n s o n n t a ç f [the first Sunday in the Fasting period]. Everywhere young boys hurl burning disks, set up mighty, straw covered posts in a m e a n i n g f u l (sic!) form, that are then set on fire, and they roll fire wheels down the mountain sides. I had this filmed on two of the best locations. At these fire customs, I made a startling discovery. The first disk hurled is one that is specially carved and painted, a “K a s s u n t i g s c h e i b . ” Since these disks are burned up every year, I had one carved in each of the locations and decorated according to the local custom, and in this way I now own a complete collection. On these disks we can (almost) see the old healing symbols, especially the sun swirls and the sixpointed stars. Up until now we have found nothing similar to this S c h e i b e n s c h l a g e n in any other German area (cited in Johler 2000: 163).

In South Tyrol Wolfram was also able to record the custom of Pflugumziehen [plow procession] as a preliminary to Shrovetide celebrations. Some scholars have associated this custom with all Aryan people, and there is little doubt that it represents or at least precedes the awakening of Spring, fertility of the fields, but it also shows the strength of the men and their work. The men are dressed in costumes, which suggests that demonic spirits are out and about, as is the case with Halloween. This plow-procession often ends with hunting and driving out of wild creatures, e.g., the Bear, and this is interpreted to mean that the Svild men’ are out and about. These wild men are giant figures with long hair and clubs, forest people (silvani) and are well known in the

Völkische Wissenschaft 149

legends of mountain folk, especially in South Germany and Switzerland. These Svild men’ from the forest are generally interpreted to be winter demons, to be driven out of the forest, conquered, and paraded about. Sometimes they are tried and symbolically killed by spilling blood placed in a pig’s bladder. Sometimes, in the place of the Wild Man a Bear would appear, or a so-called Schnappmecher [snapping creature]. This practice is still seen in various forms in contemporary urban Fasnet/Fasching/Karneval versions. It seems, however, to have been the Egetmann, the figure who called forth the participants for the Shrovetide celebration, who fascinated Wolfram the most. When he tried to stage the Spring custom in February 1941 some South Tyrolese had already been resettled and thus had to be brought back to the village of Tramin to help carry out the custom. The official office [Quästur] had forbidden such celebrations as Shrovetide, particularly during the war. Wolfram persisted however, and even suggested that the procession be moved to Easter Monday. The locals, however, refused: 1) 2) 3)

they needed the wagons, horses, oxen for work in the fields around Easter time, this was always done on Tuesday before Shrovetide, and for the V o lk this was a real celebration and they would be laughed at by their neighbors.78

The reality Wolfram was dealing with was not simple: South Tyrol had been annexed in 1919 and a fascist policy of Italianization begem in 1922. Then, of course, the option for resettlement had been established in 1939, and the 2nd World War had begun. Even so, Richard Wolfram conducted field investigations during 1940 and 1941, and today we have this work on film and in print. At the end of Winter there is a need to look forward to Spring and Summer, and groups of men go out around the village, behave foolishly, sometimes they make an effigy which they then bum. For Wolfram this was no mere prelenten, i.e., Christian play, that would be a meaningless

150

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

entertainment spectacle. Masked figures during Shrovetide represent dead spirits (cf. the plow procession), demons and animals (cf. the bear) and caricatures (cf. Schnappviecher). Precautions had to be taken to warn the populace about the spirits that are out and about during this time. Particularly dangerous was the sudden appearance of an unknown and unexpected and mysterious figure [Überzähligei], thus increasing the number (cf. 13 Wise Women in Sleeping Beauty). During one such procession [Hudlerlaufen], runners [Schleichet] and even the devil were to carry something sacred in their shoes, so that the demons couldn’t harm them (cf. wedding of today, carry something in your shoe, which we now say is for good luck). Even though Shrovetide is a favorable time for marrying, one shouldn’t marry on specific days, for on the dance floor “the devil is afoot.’ The custom turns into a general folk festival, in Tyrol an [Egerthansel], a large figure of rags and straw is brought into the house, after being tried for various happenings in the recent past. What remains are begging [Heischegänge] and the buiying, shooting or drowning of effigy figures, sometines in a manure pile. Wolfram interprets all of this as reaching back to a representation of a Winter-Summer battle and clearly a survival from prior men’s union processions. Later he would point to the village of Ostermiething near Laufen on the Salzach river, where one sang on Fat Tuesday the Sommerund Winterstreit [Summer and Winter Battle]. At this point we need to come back to the real world where this fieldwork was being carried out. As a result of the Italianization of South Tyrol, beginning in 1922, German was no longer allowed as a means of oral or written communication. There were no German schools, no church services in German, no German radio broadcasts, and all legal affairs were to be conducted in Italian. Even the word Tyrol was replaced with Alto Adige, and the traditional customs of the German populace were banned. This was the case for the eighteen years preceding the work of the Culture Commission. We must realize that the folklorists had - in essence to reinvent the present. In the working reports we can see much of the detail, the virtual writing of the lines of the

Völkische Wissenschaft 151

folk dramas; Wolfram had some of the Scheiben carved for himself (found in his personal papers), and in his publications of this material, which continued throughout his career, we are able to read what he inferred from the collected data, even though there is little empirical evidence to support his contentions. In the case of one of the folk dramas (Gregorius), Wolfram says that he rewrote the play, making the spoken verses fit his own ideas. He said the verses: lift the custom up above simple entertainment and dramatic presentation and present us with the opportunity to search beyond the happy contemporary figure for an original much deeper meaning’ (Wolfram 1947: 45). In his mind he was dealing with survivals from the past, even though it is clear that virtually everything we have just described was engineered, staged, and produced. It is even quite likely that there was no memory of some of the customs he wanted to produce, e.g., the Gregorius folk drama, which he had to write. He seems to have believed that he was surrounded by numerous survivals from the past. After all, the Juniper Tree in the Grimm tale of the same name could be nothing less that Yggdrasil, the world tree of Germanic mythology, the gathering place of the gods and the tree upon which the world is built. Symbols were everywhere, crosses, sun spirals out of which grew the fylfot, the forerunner of the swastika. Even the Christian cross was nothing but a Germanic sun wheel without the fellies. The surviving customs were those of the raging hordes of evil spirits, and the Egetmann, was there to announce the coming of those evil spirits, demons, bears, ghosts, etc. As we have already seen, these rituals are not simply metaphorical disjecta membra. Their claims, based on their unique theory of the ritual origins of folk traditions, taken quite literally, was Tor the real historical existence of cultic societies ...’ (Harris 1993: 80). The folkloric items still found in outlying areas, such as South Tyrol, were in the eyes of the Viennese ritualists, specifically Richard Wolfram, the remnants, the survivals of ancient ecstatic cult practices: dances, worship, sacrifice, seasonal change, etc. It didn’t seem to matter to them that this hypothesis could not be

152

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

historically-empirically proven, i.e., the existence of secret cultic male societies during the early Germanic period. It is important to point out that up until 1945 there were no publications of the South Tyrol material and that Wolfram during the years 1956-82 carried out further questioning, this time in North and East Tyrol as well as in Trentino, in order to ‘get an overview of relationships’ (Wolfram 1990: 339). The South Tyrol recordings then turned up in the maps and the commentary of the Österreichische Volkskundeatlas (Wolfram 1990: 339), but also in a series of articles and individual publications (Fielhauer 1968b; Liesenfeld 1982; Kammerhofer 1987), and his ‘private’ films have also been brought to light (Waltner 1986; Bockhorn 1991; E. Köstlin 2001; Dow 2001 and 2002). Gottschee For South Tyrol Wolfram had almost two years, while the next action had to be completed in a few weeks: ‘After the defeat of Yugoslavia in April 1941 by the military forces of the Axis Powers, the Slovenian Draubanat was divided between Germany and Italy.’ Thus begins the ‘Report on the Activity of the Culture Commission in Regard to the German Resettle­ ment - Supreme Commander of the Province Laibach, submitted by Prof. Dr. Hans Schwalm.’79 The former South Styria, which included Maribor/Marburg, as well as the old Upper Kraina north of Laibach, came into the German Reich, the rest of Slovenia went to Italy. In this way the area came under the Hitler-Mussolini Treaty and the Reich set about resettling the nearly 12,000 German-speaking inhabitants of the area in the southeast, called Gottschee [modern day Kocevje], a medieval ‘German linguistic island,’ of roughly 860 km2. Through the order ... of the Reichsfiihrers-SS, the Reich Commissioner for Solidifying the German Folk Nation, dated July 14, 1941, Reich Business Leader Sievers was charged once again with the securing and transporting of the intellectual and material cultural goods, including art and archival materials from the Gottschee “folk island” in Yugoslavia and other areas now going to Italy. Based on this

Völkische Wissenschaft 153

order SS-Obersturmbannführer Sievers called University Professor Dr. Hans Schwalm as director of the work in the Province of Laibach.’80 Schwalm, at one time secretary to the Leipzig Foundation for Folk and Cultural Region Research, at that time Professor for Geography at the Reich University Posen (Kater 1974: 169), was assigned a list of people who were already employed by Sievers, for the most part in the South Tyrol Culture Commission and whom he could thus ‘redirect.’ Working Group 2 (Custom and Folk Belief) directed on paper by Richard Wolfram, consisted simply of Wolfram himself.81 The resettlement treaty was signed in the early Fall and Schwalm arrived on October 2 in the resettlement region. Most of the remaining 35 members of the Culture Commission Gottschee came later in November. Time was of the essence because the resettlement was supposed to be completed by the beginning of 1942. Under pressure by the officials it was possible to keep the schedule and a large part of the Gottschee population was carted off into the northeastern provinces of the no-longer existing Slovenia (Kater 1974: 169). Because of the current semester Wolfram also only had time from November 7-11. He used it in order to make custom recordings in seven locations and then later in three more. He prepared a questionnaire which was introduced with the following words: Gottschee people! There are many customs here which reach back to antiquity. They are valuable as documents of a German folk nation that has been kept alive through the centuries. ... We can learn from them, for all of German scholarship; they give us, however, knowledge for future folk national preservation.82

Distributed in advance, these questionnaires were intended to bring in additional material. The loot was thus considerable. In a short “Report on Gottschee’ Wolfram complains about the brevity of his stay, and suggests as a method for continuation: ‘Further work must take place in the new homeland. A continuation of the recordings is most important, since it was clear from the few recordings the most

154

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

sensational things came out, which we have not yet found in the literature. I uncovered, for example, the circular cross and the Man-Rune which are planted with beans as a sign of blessing. Further, I found the Schöpfarlein [magical charm] which when hung over the house determines the lot of the child, clearly a survival from the Noms [Germanic fates] ...’83 On March 28, 1942 Wolfram sends Schwalm a ‘Report and Work Recommendations’ from Vienna. Included is a statement about the necessity of continuing the work, which would take ‘2-3 months,’ as well as the publication of folk customs “which for the first time will present a complete image based on new viewpoints. It is particularly important to work out the Germanic continuity as well as the reciprocal relationships to the Slavic surroundings. The latter will require specialized studies ... .’84 In the 1940s further recordings were not possible: Viennese duties called me.’ The possibility to question the Gottschee populace after their resettlement, did not come about for Wolfram until after 1945. This took place not in the Upper Kraina and Lower Styria, but rather in those Austrian camps where those who fled from their ‘second homeland’ found accommodations. Between 1955 and 1977 Wolfram produced ten works which were then published as a collection in 1980. In this complete edition “folk national preservation’ is no longer emphasized as it had been for the Ancestral Inheritance, or its Culture Commission Gottschee. Wolfram seemed to view himself as a lonely researcher at an ‘outpost,’ which ‘in the course of the great change of the Second World War was supposed to be brought into German territory.’ After the War, however, he was threatened with loss. The Gottschee people living in refugee accommodations were considering emigrating to America in the 1950s. ‘If we wanted to keep their folk culture alive, it was necessary to not lose a minute’ (Wolfram 1980: Ilf.) The postwar Commission for the Volkskunde of Refugees made it financially possible for Wolfram to bring his collecting and preservation action to a conclusion, work he had begun for the SS Ancestral Inheritance.

Völkische Wissenschaft 155

Germanischer Wissenschaftseinsatz Richard Wolfram had called his own photographic work in South Tyrol a life in the spirit of a “photo storm trooper’” (Tschofen 2001: 27). Ostensibly he collected there and in Gottschee in order to return the results of his research back to the German Volk, first through world view lectures for students of all faculties at the universities, which he did in Vienna. During the war this folkloric research was also to be used to reeducate Nordic, specifically Norwegian students, as part of the Germanischer Wissenschaftseinsatz [Germanic Scholarly Occupation], another branch of the Ancestral Inheritance. The goal was to convert these students for the pan-Germanic idea and to lead them into active collaboration with the SS. Such lectures were also to be delivered to military officers to aid in understanding the goals of the war, particularly Germany’s territorial claims, as well as to the broader populace in adult education series. In this way investigations of folk traditions carried out by SS fieldworkers take on a meaning and importance which should not be underestimated. In 1943 the Germanic Scholarly Occupation of the Ancestral Inheritance began, and Richard Wolfram was again called to conduct a program for the SS. Tt was a product of the National Socialistic territorial policies in Europe, in a narrower sense it was a product of the folk national politics which Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler was conducting in the Germanic north ..., an attempt to create a new Germanic Reich by including Scandinavia and northwestern Europe’ (Kater 1974: 170). In May 1943 a meeting took place in Hannover with a few guests from Sweden, Flanders and Holland in attendance. From Germany there were Wolfram Sievers, Herbert Jankuhn, Josef Otto Plaßmann, Hans Schwalm and Richard Wolfram. Here the ‘question of the demand for control by the SS in cultural and economic areas for the Germanic lands [was under discussion]’ (Kater 1974: 182 and 407, Note 334). German folklorists soon appeared in Norway, once again led by Hams Schwalm. From August 12 to 20, 1943 Hermann Phleps, Karl Theodor Weigel and Richard

156

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Wolfram stayed in Norway, the Scandinavian country occupied by the National Socialists, they made study trips and conducted investigations: Phleps on household research, Karl Theodor Weigel looked for further images for his Central Office (Post) for Symbol Research [Hauptstelle fü r Sinnbild­ forschung] which had been moved to Göttingen in 1943 (Brednich 1985; Brednich 1987a: 114; Brednich 1994), and Wolfram was taken in tow by Weigel, according to a letter that Schwalm sent on October 1 to Dr. Hans Schneider. ‘In practical terms Wolfram did exactly the same thing as Weigel ... Thus, for example 95 to 100 of all recordings which the two men made are the same.185 Schwalm hoped that a longer stay by Wolfram would cause him to cany out his own research, which eventually happened. A ‘Research Report Norway,’ written on April 14, 1944 presents Wolfram’s activities but also his animosities toward Weigel and Phleps. Still, the result was ‘satisfactory,’ the goal fulfilled, namely the ‘investigation of the material based on questioning which has been carried out over the last years, especially: a) panGermanic commonalities, b) the special relationships between North and South Germanic peoples, summarized in 25 points, c) from individual questions: the role of the sun in belief and custom; customary actions in symbolic form; appearances of the Wild Hunt; dance forms, etc.’86 We can see here Wolfram’s continuing interest in men’s union-rituals in points a and b but he has also now begun to understand the importance of the Germanic Scholarly Occupation. As a result of growing difficulties in the occupied countries of Belgium, Holland and Norway it became necessary to expand the role of the Germanic Scholarly Occupation. It had become a matter of ‘cultural-political work in regard to establishing the Germanic idea as well as research and development of the Germanic character in these countries.’ Further it was a matter of ‘supporting the indigenous societies interested in a peaceful association of their homeland with that of the pan-Germanic thought.’ Thus, Wolfram Sievers suggested in his application of December 1943 to the Reichsjuhrer-SS, in regard to his Personal Staff, it was necessary to ‘name SS-Schützen Wolfram as the

Völkische Wissenschaft 157

Disciplinary Leader from the Waffen-SS, since he as Führer of the SS can enjoy the necessary support and recognition for carrying out the assignments.’87 It is not clear in the files if this application was approved. Wolfram, however, did not place all that much value in carrying out the assignments, as we can see from the Sievers’ 1944 letter of reprimand, quoted above (see note 69). At the end of 1943 the University of Oslo was closed and 650 students were deported to Germany. About 300 were sent to the camp in Sennheim near Straßburg for ‘reeducation.’ Himmler gave Sievers the assignment of ‘determining which men could hold educational lectures for the Sennheim students, as part of the Germanic Scholarly Occupation. The goal was to convert them for the panGermanic idea and to lead them into active collaboration in the SS’ (Kater 1974: 185). The lectures were to be strictly scholarly. However, Wolfram in a letter to Sievers, was certain that during the clarification of symbols “the people would resist inwardly if, for example, the topic is the swastika.188 The agreement in the dates (February 2, 1944 Sievers to Wolfram and February 15, 1944, Wolfram to Sievers) causes one to assume that Wolfram did not want to follow up on Sievers’ request to hold such lectures in Sennheim, he was ‘too sick’ and there were the “time consuming University activities.’ The Norwegian students resisted the ‘reeducation’ attempts and were then forced to do slave labor. Later they were moved to a concentration camp and roughly some 150 have still not been accounted for (Kater 1974: 186). What role Richard Wolfram played in the disappearance of the Norwegian students has never been clarified. Back in Vienna Wolfram had Svorries’: the trained photographers had been ‘taken away’ from him by Dr. Haiding in Monastery Rein near Graz, Dr. Ruprecht in Salzburg, and Dr. Spieß in Vienna. From this we can see Svhat goal oriented, but also what financial and organizational efforts are being carried out by the opposing side.’89 If he had to stop his lectures as a ‘member of the military,’ he was in danger of losing his courses to ‘jealous

158

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

competitors.’90 From Olso, on his second study trip, he says that if the military front came toward Vienna, he would go home immediately in order to put the holdings of the Ancestral Inheritance as well as his own material in safe keeping. He is clearly asking Sievers for help in case of a complete evacuation.91 He says that he has found a Serb ‘who has taken active part on our behalf against the bands [of opponents],’ and who was also ready to switch from the Implementation Staff of Rosenberg into the Ancestral Inheritance.92 In a final letter to Sievers, undated but which arrived in Berlin on April 3, 1945, Wolfram gives a ‘report on the situation, bomb damage, work progress, etc.,’ and closes after he states that the Scandinavian and South Tyrol material has been nearly completed, ‘in such a way that we can structure a book out of the material.’ He concludes with the words: ‘Hopefully it will be possible for us to make use of the entire situation to our benefit when we have this low point behind us. In hope of this, hearty greetings, Heil Hitler! Your R. Wolfram.’93 This ‘hope’ was not to be fulfilled. When the war was over Wolfram lost his Institute and its functions, but he retained the Ancestral Inheritance field investigations, which no one laid claim to: 1.

2.

Ancestral Inheritance: the scholarly file drawers in Vienna (about 20 cardboard boxes). The South Tyrol questionnaires (7 cardboard boxes). The South Tyrol recordings. The Gottschee recordings. The recordings of Dr. Winter, Seidlmayer etc. The recordings of Fri. Dr. Hess. The typewriter. About 3 cartons of books from the Salzburg Library (including important works out of print) ... The Folk Dance Archive of the Ancestral Inheritance. The Leica negatives and pictures. A number of small films. The recordings from Norway. Dr. Wolfram’s own material: 18,000 photo negatives. The picture file drawer. Thousands of slides (including many colored slides). The scholarly file drawers. Around 200 recording note books. Several boxes of manuscripts. The folk dance archive (private). Around 250 scholarly sound recordings.94

Völkische Wissenschaft

159

This “Inheritance’ would prove to be extremely valuable in the future and he would profit from it.

Karl Cyrill Andreas Paganini, alias Karl Haiding ( 1906- 85) On December 22, 1944 Karl Haiding sent the following New Year’s greeting to Reichsleiter Rosenberg: ‘More than ever before the past months have shown what a decisive meaning the world-view has which we are fighting for as your followers. Thus the new year shall also find us without fail at work.’95 Rosenberg’s and Haiding’s dreams were rapidly vanishing because of the impending downfall of the Third Reich. Alfred Rosenberg’s faithful follower, Karl Haiding, would survive and eventually make a name for himself once again in Volkskunde, but he never acquired more than an honorary professorship at an Austrian university and he spent his last three decades as the director of a small regional museum in the castle Trautenfels near the Styrian cities of Stainach and Irdning. Why, then, does he deserve a special chapter in a book devoted to the study of ethnologyVolkskunde in Austria? Some preliminary answers will be given, followed by more substantial documentation. Karl Haiding represents one of the figures in Austria who knew and studied with the Viennese ‘Mythologists’ and from the beginning represented their thinking in his own field investigations, he was chosen by Alfred Rosenberg to head the Reich Institute for German Folklore and thus to implement the theories (sic) of that branch of the Viennese School, and he continued this ideological stance for decades following the war. Those closest to him during the postwar years all remember his ideologically inspired statements, but they are best documented in the small volume by Doris Sauer, when she was asked to reassemble his fieldwork investigations during the 1980s and early 1990s (Sauer 1993). There is also reason to believe that Alfred Rosenberg planned to use Haiding for further cultural (‘folklore’) plundering in the East and Southeast, particularly in Belo-

160

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Russia and in the Balkans. Haiding was particularly interested in seeking ancient Aryan cultic myths in games, i.e., remnants found in modem children’s games and tales, and because of this he would gain and be able to maintain the interest of one of the primary ideologists of the Third Reich, Alfred Rosenberg. His ‘research’ has not stood the test of time, but his name and his work are known by virtually all Austrian folklorists. In brief, Karl Haiding should not be left out of a treatment of the study of Volkskunde in Austria. As early as 1919-20 Karl Haiding participated in the Teaching Program ‘German Education,’ where he listened to lectures by Georg Hüsing, Edmund Mudrak, and Wolfgang Schultz, as we have already seen, three of the primary representatives of the ‘Mythological School.’96 At the same time he belonged to one of the many youth groups found in both Germany and Austria, the Adler und Falken [Eagle and Falcon], In 1928 the entire Adler und Falken became charter members of the Kampfbund für Deutsche Kultur [Battle Union for German Culture] in Munich, among whose members and founders was the ‘Munich author Alfred Rosenberg’ (Bollmus 1970: 17-18).97 The goal of the Battle Union was the ‘building of a new German cultural life, and the protection of our cultural goods from cultural Bolshevism with all its subversive manifestations’ (Bollmus 1970: 27-39). Even though it was democratically organized, the Adler und Falken was a major predecessor for the Hitler Jugend (HJ) [Hitler Youth] because of its Germano-racist ideology.98 On March 8, 1935 Karl Cyrill Andreas Paganini, the name on his marriage certificate, changed his Italian family name to what he reasoned was the German equivalent, Haiding, because the church formerly called the rural populace who did not want to accept Christianity paganus, i.e., pagans (Sauer 1993:124)." The old German equivalent for pagan was Haid, to which a presumed diminutive ending -ing for -ini was added. Wolfgang Brückner has called this name change a ‘demonstration of German nationalism’ and an example of Aufnordung [elevation to Nordic faith] (Brückner 1988: 92). As late as 1934 Haiding’s co-authored book Kinderspiele aus Niederösterreich [Children’s Games from Lower Austria] was

Völkische Wissenschaft 161

published under the names Karl Paganini and Sophie Albrecht. This same book was republished in 1980 under the name of Karl Haiding without any reference to its previous publication (Sauer 1993: 210; Albrecht and Paganini 1934; Haiding and Gaß 1980).100 Haiding’s formal training was as an engineer at the Federal Technological Trade School for Construction, from which he had graduated on July 1, 1926 with the degree of Matura. By 1929 Haiding, under the influence of the ‘Mythologists,’ began his study of Volkskunde at the University of Vienna. Karl Haiding became the student of Arthur Haberlandt (Bockhom 1989: 28-29), and was from the very beginning of his studies associated with the Viennese Mythological School. In 1936 he completed his doctorate with the dissertation ‘Beiträge zur Quellen- und Wesenserschließung des volkstümlichen Kindergutes’ [Contributions to the Sources and Interpretation of Folk-national Children’s Lore], which had no doubt grown out of the many years of his collaborative work with Georg Hüsing.101 Later in 1936 we find Haiding in Berlin, working in the Reichsjugendführung (RJF) [Reich Youth Leadership]. When the Working Community for German Folklore was founded in 1937 by Alfred Rosenberg, Haiding found his way into the organization by creating an Intermediate Post for Game Research. He was quickly appointed Head Post Leader (as of July 5, 1938) in the cultural affairs office of the RJF in Berlin and was flown around Germany to lecture on ‘Folk-National Cultivation’ (Sauer 1993:126). From April 1 to June 30, 1938, again from October 1, 1938 to February 28, 1939, and from the Fall of 1942 to June of 1943 Karl Haiding functioned as a Teacher of Folk Customs and Celebration Design. In addition, he taught folk dancing in the Berlin Teaching Program for Folk Youth Music Leaders, a subdivision of the RJF. This was part of the Staatliche Hochschule fü r Musikerziehung und Kirchenmusik [State Academy for Music Education and Church Music], and here he wore the uniform of a full time Hitler Jugend Führer (Sauer 1993: 126).102 By 1939 Karl Haiding was the Department leader in the Cultural Office of the RJF in Berlin, and due to his Austrian background he

162

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

became the ‘primary initiator and contact person between Vienna and Berlin’ (Brückner 1988: 91), at least for Rosenberg. Furthermore, he was responsible for establishing Gau posts in the Ostmark for the Rosenberg Bureau office, the Reichsgemeinschaft fü r Deutsche Volkskunde [Reich Community for German Folklore], During the coming years Haiding would travel extensively, conducting field investigations for the newly named Reichs­ minister fü r die besetzten Ostgebiete [Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Regions], i.e., Alfred Rosenberg. On occasion he would hold lectures, but for the most part he collected and photographed traditional children’s games, in Styria (Austria) in 1941, on the Island Worms (Ormsö, Estonia/Sweden) in 1942, and in Zips (Slovakia), the Bohemian Forest (Bavaria), and in the border areas of Styria (Austria) in 1943. In the Fall of 1942, ostensibly because the carpet bombing in Berlin endangered his growing collection of children’s folklore, Haiding was transferred to Graz (Austria). Here he would move into the vacated Cistercian Monastery Rein in Gratkorn, near Graz, and make it the central office for the Institute for German Folklore. His comrade in arms, Karl Ruprecht, was bom and raised in Gratkom, and may have alerted Haiding to the Monastery there. At this point it would perhaps be most appropriate to look at what appears to be the manuscript of a lecture on ‘Das deutsche Kinderspiel’ [The German Children’s Game], dated 1941, and a second one on ‘Das Kinderspiel in der Kulturarbeit’ [The Children’s Game in Culture Work], dated 1942/43, both of which come from the Karl Haiding personal papers in Salzburg. It would be tempting to see these manuscripts as the basis for a lecture in Graz which brought Haiding to Styria in 1942, but this cannot be documented. In the lectures Haiding speaks specifically about children’s games and sayings, dividing them into three categories: 1. 2.

Adults to children - lullabies and knee bouncing rhymes, Children and their environment, i.e., animals, rain, stars, wind (charms),

Völkische Wissenschaft 163 3.

Children's communal games - to date mostly just words recorded, not the actions - very important because they still preserve antiquity.

For the first group Haiding gives as his example, a knee bouncing rhyme [Kniereiten; emphasis added] Rite, rite, Rössli, zBade-n-isch es Schlössli, zBade-n-isch es goldigs Hus,

Ride, ride, little horse, in Baden there is a little castle, in Baden there is a golden house,

ftu e g e d rei M a r e ie d ru s;

th r e e M a r i a s f l y o u t;

d i e e r s t s p i n n t S id e

th e f i r s t s p i n s s ilk

d i e z w e i t s c h n ä t z le t C h r i d e

t h e s e c o n d c u t s ch a lk ,

[K r e i d e ] d i d ritt t u e t ’s T o r u f

t h e th ird o p e n s t h e d o o r

un lat di lieb Sunne - n - us. Es isch es Engeli an der Wand und het es Glöggli i der Hand, u wenn mer’s ghöre chlingle, wemmer z’Himmel springe

and lets the dear sun out. There is an angel on the wall and has a little bell in its hand, and when we hear it ringing, into heaven we go springing.

For the second group, for which no specific example is given, Haiding says: 'In numerous and varied songs, animals are sung to, good weather is wished for, rain, the moon and the wind are described in verse. The children in one town know over fifty types of plants which they use for their play.’ It is the third category, that of the communal game which interests him the most. He describes the spread of the game 6Wer furchtet sich vorm schwarzen Mann? [Who’s afraid of the Big Black Man?] as reaching from the Northwestern corner of Germany down to the language islands of the Southeast. Even more well known, according to Haiding, is the spread of the Lady Bug rhymes. Three examples are given: Liabfrauenkäferl fliag hoam, deine Kinda wern woan, dein Heisal wird abrinna und du wirst nimma eine kinna.

Dear little lady bug fly away home, your children will be crying, your little house will burn up and you 11 never be able to go back in.

164

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Maikäferchen fliege weg! Dein Häuschen brennt, dein Mütterchen flennt, dein Vater sitzt auf der Schwelle flieg’ in’n Himmel aus der Hölle.

Lady bug fly away! Your little house is burning, your mother is babbling, your father is sitting on the threshold fly into heaven [and] out of hell.

Käfer, Käfer flieg ahnich (soll heissen “ohne mich”) mei Mutter ist in Krahnig mei Vater ist im Vaterland sein Häusle dort ist abgebrannt.

Lady bug, lady bug fly a h n ic h (which means “without me”) my mother is in Kronach my father is in the fatherland his little house there has burned down.

Haiding then suggests that these sayings are closely related to folk tales where we also see ‘the dear woman [mother]* and the ‘three Marias/ For Haiding, and in fact for the ‘Mythologists,’ the Mai in Maikäfer [May beetle], also sometimes called a Marienkäfer, represented a clear degeneration of a word. The word Maria was a Christian overlay, the original word was some variation of the word Märgen, clearly the three fates of Germanic mythology (see the section on ‘Deutsche Bildung' in Chapter 2): What becomes apparent in these songs is also true for numerous games of this sort. They reach back into an early age of our folk, out of which faiiy tales and customs also come. As we know, the downfall of the Indo-Germanic folk drama, on which the ancient classical theater is also based, [that downfall] was brought about on German soil through long and planned persecution. The celebratory game originally formed the core of calendar and life customs but it had become forbidden (sic). Many things that caused adults to be persecuted and punished, have been preserved among children into the present, even though the original singing and dancing game became a ballad at a later time. Many games of various types point back to a basic thought, which we find in faiiy tales and in customs. In the German Southeast [Austria] an old dice game has been preserved. A small piece of wood about the size of your finger is cut

Völkische Wissenschaft

165

lengthwise into two parts. Then symbols are carved into the bark-side. These little staves are then cast (on the ground). What Roman writers [au. Note: Tacitus - G e r m a n i a caput 10] tell us was a Germanic custom, is still alive in a German children’s game of the present. What foreign observers could only see with their eyes, and thus came to questionable interpretations, we are today in the position to establish the unbelievable durability of a folk tradition by comparative investigations.

In perhaps his most detailed presentation, Haiding describes similar games: Loaterle Steigen [Ladder Climbing] or in Siebenbürgen [Transylvania] Himmel und Erde [Heaven and Earth]. Children cut similar pieces of wood, cast them, and place them so that someone’s piece is on the top. He then compares these to trees that in fairy tales and customary games climb up to heaven, but quickly adds: “this is not heaven in the Christian sense, rather a mythical Jenseits [beyond] where the fairy tale hero goes to carry out his deeds.’ Haiding then concludes this lecture with the following statement: More than in any other area [of V o lk s k u n d e ] we can make up for that which was lacking in past times, by carefully recording what we find in the most widespread dialect and geographical regions in the way of still preserved children’s games, and after careful analysis reclaim it as part of our cultural work.

This kind of thinking represented Alfred Rosenberg’s own uninformed ideas about Volkskunde, and he relied on Haiding as one of if not the primary representative of the discipline. As the war was coming to an end, Karl Haiding was called on more and more by Rosenberg to implement his programs. For some reasons which we don’t yet understand fully, he assisted Haiding in maintaining his military classification as unabkömmlich [indispensable for the war effort, abbreviated uk], even when his superior, Martin Borman required of Rosenberg that he close most of his branch offices and send the employees to the war. Karl Haiding remained uk until the end.103 In the summer of 1944 there is some indication of why. On August 1, 1944 Haiding wrote a letter to the

166

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

personal secretary of Rosenberg, Dr. Koppen, requesting a private meeting for August 7th or 8th, when he planned to be in Berlin.104 We cannot document that this meeting took place, but immediately thereafter, on August 11, 1944 Karl Haiding wrote to the Stabeinsatzführer [Staff Implementation Leader] in Ratibor (Upper Silesia), Dr. Langkopf, and said that he, Haiding, had been given the task of evaluation for the Special Staff Volkskunde, and he signed the letter with a new title, Haupteinsatzführer [Chief Implementation Leader].105 In this letter Haiding was trying to acquire the plundered holdings of the Minsk (Belo-Russian) folklore library, specifically by letting Dr. Koppen and his wife, who knew Russian, translate some of the materials into German. In addition to this specific request, however, there are indications in the correspondence that Rosenberg may have had further plans. Prior to his meeting with Haiding on August 7th or 8th, Rosenberg had written to Dr. Lammers, Reich Minister and Head of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin, concerning new plans. The letter from Rosenberg to Lammers is missing in the archives, but Lammers response on August 10th, marked Geheim [secret], tells us what Rosenberg had requested: ‘Even now I must say, that at the present time, it would not be appropriate to begin [call into life] a special organization o f the type you have outlined, and certainly it is not the right time to go public with such an organization’ (emphasis added).106 In the letter from Martin Borman, already mentioned, there is a brief reference to Rosenberg’s Implementation Staff which reads: ‘A freeze on all new summary work is necessary. Only the evaluation of the material dealing with Bolshevism and Jewry can continue (emphasis added).’107 Even so, we know from correspondence with the Gau leader in Graz, Dr. Siegfried Uiberreither, dated October 9, 1944, that Karl Haiding received an “Implementation Order’ from the Party Chancellery, and it is easy to assume that he was to be placed in yet another new role, in a new organization which was concerned with the East (Belo-Russia) and the Southeast (Balkans).108 Haiding had already carried out field work in the East and Southeast, he was promoted after August 7th-8th to

Völkische Wissenschaft 167

Haupteinsatzfiihrer, and Rosenberg may have had still other plans for his most loyal follower. In fact, nothing happened. The war came to a close, Karl Haiding and his wife Ema fled into the mountains to escape the Russians on one side and the Americans on the other.109 He worked for a period of time as a farm hand, and later as a cable car mechanic and conductor on the Dachstein, the highest mountain in the Austrian state of Styria. He continued his field work, secretly gathered what he could from his former ‘Games and Sayings’ work and hid it in his attic until shortly before his death. In 1983 he contacted his former assistant in the Monastery Rein, Doris Sauer, who had since become a medical doctor and was now retired. Haiding convinced her to re-order his files on children’s folklore, which she did over the next decade. He told her that none of the photos survived the war, but after his wife died in 1991, the photos were also found in the attic of his house in Stainach and delivered to the archives of the Salzburg State Institute for Folklore (SLIVK), where they too were processed by Doris Sauer. Today the entire collection is in Salzburg, along with the personal papers of Richard Wolfram, and Karl von Spieß. Haiding’s role in Austrian Volkskunde diminished after this, but he continued to publish, also from materials gathered under the auspices of the National Socialist regime. From 1956-1964 Karl Haiding was guest lecturer for folklore at the Advanced Federal Institute for Alpine Agriculture in Raumberg near Irdning. Here he collected reports that reached far beyond his museum in the Enns River valley, on narrative research, and on worker’s and festival culture. In 1958/59 he was the regional leader for the Styrian Memorial Year, and functioned as the initiator and collaborator for special and state exhibitions. In 1959, the year in which the museum in Trautenfels was partially opened, Karl Haiding received the Arch Duke Johann Placard for his self-sacrificing work, and was then installed as Styrian State Archivist for the region of Liezen. In 1960 Haiding was the first Austrian scholar to become a member of the International Society for Folk Narrative Research. As of 1962 he was a scholarly consultant for the Austrian Open Air

168

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Museum in Stübing, very close to the Monastery Rein, and in the same year he received the Arch Duke Johann Research Award presented by the state of Styria. In 1966 he was named Correspondent to the Styrian Historical Commission, in 1967 he received a teaching contract for folk narrative and folk drama from the Department of Folklore at the KarlFranzens University in Graz. In 1969 he was honored with the Austrian Honorary Cross for Scholarship and Art, and in 1970 he became a member of the Commission for Song, Dance, and Music Research in the German Folklore Society. In 1971 he was made Honorary Professor in Graz. The year 1979 brought him the Michael Haberlandt Medal of the Austrian Association for Folklore, and 1980 he received the Silver Chamber Medal of the Styrian State Chamber for Agriculture and Forestry. In 1984, shortly before his death, Karl Haiding was awarded the Europa-Preis fü r Volkskunst [European Prize for Folk Art]. The award came from the Freiherr von Stein Foundation in Hamburg, and was signed by the later president of the German Folklore Society, Rolf Wilhelm Brednich. Karl Haiding’s extensive list of publications was assembled by Volker Hansel and Sepp Walter in 1981 (Hansel and Walter 1981: 19-39). When Doris Sauer began in 1983-85 to work on establishing order in the collection of Games and Sayings, she remembered that Karl Haiding had described her as knowledgeable but still ‘politically unreliable in regard to her world-view’ (Sauer 1993: 168). As late as 1984 Dr. Sauer received as a birthday present from Haiding a copy of the certificate for the European Folk Art prize, on which he thanked her for ‘grundlegende Mitwirkung bei Wiedererstand und Neugestaltung der Forschungsstelle *Spiel und Spruch’” [basic work on the revival and reestablishing of the Research Post ‘Games and Sayings’]. Dr. Sauer asked herself if this was the last example of his a-historical thinking’ (Sauer 1993: 177).

5 Die Stunde null war nicht die Stunde null It is not really known who first coined the phrase Stunde Null [zero hour] for the collapse of the German Reich in 1945. It is, however, well known that in literary circles, particularly among members of the Gruppe 47, to which two later Nobel Prize recipients belonged, the term was used both in discussions and in the literature they produced. Heinrich Boll reputedly stated that Die Stunde null war nicht die Stunde null [zero hour was not zero hour], and Günter Grass made reference to this in his 1999 acceptance speech before the members of the Nobel Committee and their audience. In Austria, as we will see, most of the folklorists we have treated in the previous chapter, will not only survive the war, they will regain their positions at the institutions of higher learning and in the public sphere, particularly in museums and through semi-scholarly publications. Only Salzburg would not regain a folklore position, and still today does not have a trained folklorist among its faculty.

University o f Graz: Volksku Itur

In Graz the ‘Sleeping Beauty’ rest from 1938-45 turned out to be profitable, in comparison to Vienna and Innsbruck where teaching positions had been established during National Socialism. They both suffered for many postwar years because of these positions. Viktor von Geramb had been banished from teaching in 1939 and the post remained empty through the war years, even though courses in the discipline continued to be offered by Leopold Kretzenbacher and Georg Gräber. In the Folklore Museum Geramb was able to begin his work again immediately after the war was over. On June

170

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

12, 1945 he spoke about beginning his work once again and about the most important folklore work still to be accomplished: ‘Not the annihilated state, not the destroyed cities, not the lost war ... the greatest misfortune is the poisoned folk soul ... here is where our rescue work must begin, and indeed immediately.’1 Even though Geramb had of necessity been quiet during the NS period, now he forces the issue, through numerous articles in newspapers and journals. His slogan is the ‘de-politicization of life,’ which he sees first as a “healthy and necessary, life-creating and life­ serving politics,’ and which he contrasted with an overbearing and inimical politicization: ‘Political thinking, however, whether in this or that direction, should finally once again be free and permissible’ (Geramb 1946a: 16). It would be easy to read this as an apology, particularly when he says that ‘not everyone is an enemy of the state or even a criminal who did not feel strong enough to make himself a martyr and give resistance to dictatorship and tyranny’ (Geramb 1946a: 17). Geramb’s attempt at a de­ politicization of the discipline was not, however, a farewell to socio-political and culturally specific activity, but rather to the Party and to ideologically motivated discussions. Helmut Eberhart says: ‘In this way active National Socialists in the discipline could don a Schutzmantel [protective coat, shield] without ever having to account for their actions’ (Eberhart 1994a: 580). After 1945 Viktor von Geramb was for a while the Dean of Volkskunde in Austria, and represented something of a counterweight to the two Viennese, Richard Wolfram and the latter’s nemesis, Leopold Schmidt. Geramb tried to mediate between the two, but he was totally unsuccessful. As early as 1946 he arranged for the first Volkskunde meeting in Austria, in Styria, but here too we can see the animosity between the two Viennese. Leopold Schmidt had made it known that he didn’t want ‘any guilty [belastet] National Socialists brought in, only those who were really participating in the rebuilding of Austrian Volkskunde, influential men.’ Schmidt continues: That means in fact that it will be a rather small group. From Vienna the only ones who come to mind are Prof. Zoder and

Die Stunde null

171

me (cf. Schmidt 1963b).2 Whether this was a good decision or not, Wolfram was shut out of this meeting and thus no attempt was made to reintegrate those folklorists who had been active as National Socialists, particularly, Karl Haiding, Karl von Spieß and Richard Wolfram. Geramb’s career had begun with an Extra-Ordinary Professorship in 1931, and attempts to have him appointed Ordinarius in 1935, only to be broken off in 1938, were taken up in 1946 when the faculty in Graz recommended him and included in their recommendation the phrase ‘making good once again’ [Wiedergutmachung]. Even so he was not appointed to this position until July 1949, at the age of 65. He had, however, been active in building up the position through his teaching and his research. Around him were two former students, Hanns Koren (Habilitation in 1945) and Leopold Kretzenbacher (Private Docent in 1940) who returned to the university in 1950. All three published widely during this time. Of particular note are Geramb’s 1946 Urn Österreichs Volkskultur [On Austria’s Folk Culture] (1946b) and his custom collection reaching back to 1924, now republished as Sitte und Brauch in Österreich [Custom and Practice in Austria] (1948), both of which had culturalpolitical intent and were not primarily works of scholarship. In these works we can see the preservational nature his work. Central in his publications on folk culture were concepts like Volk, Kultur, Volkskultur, Hochkultur, Heimat­ pflege, Seelen-Sanierung, Volksbildung [folk, culture, folk culture, high culture, homeland preservation, soul cleansing, folk education]. His work stood in stark contrast to Leopold Schmidt’s ‘Die Volkskunde als Geisteswissens chaff [Folklore as Intellectual Scholarship], and Schmidt’s review of Geramb’s book reflected the distinction: “Here the boundary of scholarship disappears ...’ (Schmidt 1947a, in Gemdt 1988: 55). Further, he sees Geramb as being co-responsible for the fact that: except for romantic or pseudo-romantic ideas which are greatly affected by other concepts such as folk education, folk national preservation, etc., and which sound like something in our

172

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

discipline, ... the majority of the population has no idea about [our discipline] (Schmidt 1947a, in Gerndt 1988: 55).

Geramb was a romantic and intuitive, a logical consequence or perhaps a prerequisite for his approach to his scholarly work, while Schmidt was distant, intellectual, an outside observer of the cultural process. It was, however, Schmidt who would have the greatest effect on postwar Austrian Volkskunde, especially through his concept of ‘Volkskunde as scholarship of life according to traditional orders.’ Schmidt gained an amazing degree of respect for his work, about which we will have more to say below. Viktor von Geramb, together with Leopold Schmidt and Anton Dörrer, began once again the publication of Austria’s primary folklore journal, the Zeitschrift für österreichische Volkskunde in 1947. For volume I of the new series Geramb summed up the program of the journal by outlining the specific new tasks of Austrian Volkskunde (Geramb 1947). He limited the geographical realm from what Arthur Haberlandt had seen as the entire Danube Monarchy, down to the present day state, without completely abandoning the comparative research promoted by Haberlandt. Even with emphasis on the folk comparative task and its importance, we would no longer like to see it as our f i r s t task. This is much more, in a smaller Austria, r e s e a r c h on our own Austrian folk culture. That means: all expressions - in “words and objects,” in things, activities and in the spiritual - will be our more formal research goal, insofar as they belong to the “vulgus in populo,” the “m o t h e r s o i l ” of Austrians (Geramb 1947: 9).

Geramb had come to view the Vulgus’ [peasant] not as a class or stratum, but rather as a condition which was still worthy of scholarly study. His only statement about National Socialism was brief and almost non-committal: With the folklore on a racial basis we have had bad experience’ (Geramb 1947: 11). Viktor von Geramb continued to make excursions, conducted fieldwork, and he also continued his work on the Rauchstube [smoke kitchen] and his Riehl biography. His concern with Austrian Volkskunde was now

Die Stunde null 173

limited to the nation-state of Austria, and while he was aware of the negative load of the word Volk, Geramb remained apart from the controversies that were growing in the Germanspeaking world and would finally erupt in the 1960s. Hanns Koren appeared to have a similar sense of mission to that of Geramb. He had lectured and published numerous studies, mostly before he became Ordinarius, all of which were very much in the tradition of the Graz School, i.e., devoted to material culture. In 1953 he was elected as a representative to the National Assembly in Vienna by the Austrian Folk Party [ÖVP]. In 1955 he briefly assumed Geramb’s teaching position, the Chair of Volkskunde in Graz, but his political ambitions were rapidly taking over. Koren returned from Vienna to Graz, but there he became even more involved in the politics of the state of Styria, taking on positions as State Cultural Advisor, Lieutenant Governor, and finally he was elected President of the Styrian Assembly. Both Leopold Schmidt and Leopold Kretzenbacher were considered for Geramb’s vacant position. Before his death in 1958, Viktor von Geramb also wanted to have Richard Wolfram considered. Leopold Kretzenbacher was still there, but in 1961 he was appointed as Extra-Ordinary Professor in Kiel (ÖZV 1962: 38) where he expanded his comparative work on the Southeast to include north Germany and Scandinavia. Not until 1972 do we find someone picking up where Viktor von Geramb and Hanns Koren left off - Oskar Moser.

University o f Innsbruck: ‘Humbug als Wissenschaft?

On September 12, 1945 an article appeared in the Tiroler Tageszeitung entitled Humbug als Wissenschaft [Humbug as Scholarship]. The article was clearly in reference to ‘research’ conducted at the University of Innsbruck during National Socialism. At the University there was discussion about ‘a continuing conspiracy’ to hinder the de-nazification procedures. Adolf Helbok issued many statements ‘correcting’ misunderstandings about scholarship in general and his in particular, and made frequent reference to a politics of hate

174

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

after 1945. During these early postwar years, when Germans were being expelled from Innsbruck, Helbok had to document his own Austrian citizenship, since it had been removed when he moved to Germany in 1934. Adolf Helbok had been found guilty [belastet] of being a National Socialist accomplice, but he was still able to continue his research and he experienced an astonishing rehabilitation in the discipline. He began by claiming that his difficulties in Leipzig had been the result of his Austrian patriotism. He next altered his previous racial studies under Nazism to what he now called simply Austrian studies. During these first years we can see a defensive strategy in his many letters. He played down his NSDAP membership, and he emphasized his Svork in the spirit of scholarship.’ All of this he used as documentation to allege scholarly and political resistance. He even went so far as to say he argued against the Alleingeltung der Rasse [sole validity of race], and denied that he had ever adhered to a central Nazi principle, Alleingeltung der Nordrasse [sole validity of the Nordic race]. In the process he gave new names to his old ideas, e.g., Volkscharacterkunde [folk character study] became Genialenforschung [genius research]. In 1945 and 1946 he had also tried to rescue his teaching position: I would have worked on our country much more if this had been possible ..., to keep more funds in the country. Genius research [is] something that can do wonderfully, with a school [of students], which means through dissertations and smaller studies. Thus, it would make me very happy to be able to devote all my strength to the Austria-thought, if I could remain in my position.3

It was, however, Hermann Wopfner who would offer him his Persilschein [certificate of blamelessness] in the form of a letter of reference. Even before there had been so much as an ‘impression of the collapse of National Socialism’ Helbok had begun his genius research, which would emphasize ‘the importance of Austrians and ... their absolutely outstanding role in leadership of the intellectual, economic and political

Die Stunde null 175

life of Germany.’ In this letter of reference by Wopfner we read further: In NS Party circles H. did not make any friends with his work in honor of Austria. ... One must not think that a successor to Helbok in the Chair of V o l k s k u n d e would continue these works of Helbok in any kind of successful way. ... It thus seems to me from the standpoint of an Austrian - very unwise to force H., on account of the political derailment he is accused of, out of his teaching position and thus hinder the completion of an important work for Austria. It also seems to me unjust to remove a man from his office, where he works for Austria, a man who emphasized the importance of Austrian essence, especially at a time when this was not at all without danger.4

It is clear that Adolf Helbok wanted to get back into the game, in order to regain his Austrian citizenship and possibly even his teaching position. In 1942, Helbok had centralized the work on the pan-German Deutscher Volkskunde Atlas [German Folklore Atlas] in Innsbruck, and now he was in fact offering the work he had done then, for a ‘small remuneration,’ and he would make the ‘entire apparatus accessible.’ It would now be called the Archive of the Austrian Folklore Atlas, and would include all of the questionnaires on Austria completed for the German Atlas. Most important in this process is the fact that Adolf Helbok effectively took over the work of the Atlas in Austria and helped complete and publish the only portion of the larger work ever to be finished, the Österreichischer Volkskunde Atlas [Austrian Folklore Atlas]. This undertaking also kept him close to the University and to the man who would soon become Ordinarius, Karl Ilg. By 1953 the work of the Volkskunde atlas was brought to Austria, and Adolf Helbok, Arthur Haberlandt, Richard Wolfram and Karl Ilg were in the Commission. Helbok became the President, then the Obmann [head], and he planned a map on Austrian geniuses.5 By 1949 he had once again legally gained his Austrian citizenship and in 1955 he requested for his pension that he be granted the rank of an Ordinarius, not an Extraordinarius. This too was approved. In 1958, on his 75th birthday, and again in 1963, on his 80th

176

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

birthday, Adolf Helbok was honored in the Institute in Innsbruck. At the last celebration his Erinnerungen [Memoirs] were presented and in 1964 and 1967 he published Vol. I & II of his Deutsche Volksgeschichte [German Folk History]. In his memoirs he wrote that in the Federal Republic of Germany after 1945 there was a ‘sharp turning away’ from Volkskunde but not in the more ‘tolerant thinking Austria.’ Nationally and internationally he came to be known as the ‘Führer of the Atlas’ (Helbok 1959: 17). In the Festschrift for Hermann Wopfner, Leopold Schmidt and Anton Dörrer spoke of ‘the new situation in Austria’ and emphasized that what was needed was a concentration on the entire folk culture and the entire Volkstum [folk nation], A new sense of Austro-consciousness would need the help of folklorists. Hans Moser addressed this in the following way: It is of importance to begin to talk about postwar V o l k s k u n d e in Austria. It was to [the discipline’s] advantage to endeavor to refute the prewar assumption that there was no indigenous Austrian folk culture nor an Austrian folk type, for political reasons. ... Thus Austria soon and continuously was able to offer an impressive array of excellent publications (H. Moser 1954: 209-210).

In the immediate postwar years Wopfner continued his lectures on Volkskunde at the University of Innsbruck, and was thus the caretaker of the discipline. The Institute itself stayed in tact, but the teaching position was not filled. As might be expected, Wopfner maintained his interest in Tyrolean State Unity [Tiroler Landeseinheit] described in Chapter one, as well as the problematics of South Tyrol. By 1949 he began to request that his position be filled by an Ordinarius, particularly since three men had recently completed the Habilitation under him, Nikolaus Grass, Anton Dörrer and Karl Ilg. All three were Catholic and conservative, and all would also establish a presence for themselves in the discipline during the 1950s. Nikolaus Grass was a poly-historian who finally turned toward law. By 1951 he had become Ordinarius for ‘Legal and State Studies,’ but he continued to publish works of interest

Die Stunde null 177

to folklorists. Anton Dörrer only completed his Habilitation in 1946, when he was 59 years old. He had long been interested in folk drama, and had worked on the topic with Leopold Schmidt and Hans Moser prior to the war. He was particularly interested in Tyrolean passion plays, and even became involved in directing them, thus he could be looked upon as something of an ‘applied’ folklorist. From 1946 until 1956/57 Dörrer offered regular courses in Innsbruck on legal and religious folklore and customs, but was never able to develop any student following. Karl Ilg worked during the war years in the ‘Alemanic Institute’ in Freiburg im Breisgau, with Friedrich Metz, an Austrian who had been banned in 1934 for political reasons. In 1946 Ilg returned to Innsbruck and completed his Habilitation on the Walser in Vorarlberg’ [Walser in (the Austrian State of) Vorarlberg]. It was perhaps his interest in Auslandsdeutschtum [foreign Germandom] which caused Herman Wopfner to appoint him as an assistant in the Institute in 1946. In 1952 he was promoted to titular ExtraOrdinary Professor, in 1954 to Extra-Ordinary. By 1961 he was able to take over Wopfner’s position, and through progressive promotions, not the ususal call and appointment to professorial position, he became Ordinarius. Throughout his career Ilg maintained a special interest in extra-territorial Austrians, particularly Tyrolese in South America. He had still other folklore research interests in the standard canon (customs, foodways, farms, etc.) within the Austrian alpine regions, and was also somewhat interested in workers’ culture.

University o f Vienna: Unterbrechung

In Richard Wolfram’s reminiscences in 1990 we find an unusual but absolutely correct statement which described his university career: Tn the 1930s I completed my Habilitation ... and as a result began lecturing, with an interruption [ Unterbrechung], as an Extra-Ordinary Professor and finally as Ordinarius. In this capacity I founded the Institut fü r

178

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Volkskunde, the teaching position in this discipline did not exist before me’ (Wolfram 1990: 331).6 Of interest is the phrase \vith an interruption.’ Wolfram explains this interruption in yet another place with these words: ‘ 1939 ... founding of the Institut fü r Volkskunde at the University of Vienna ..., however as a result of the war this could only be slowly developed. In 1945 everything established during this period was wiped out, the holdings of the Institute were taken over by the German Department. In 1954 resumption of lecturing as a Docent ...’ (Wolfram 1986: 4).7 During these nine years Richard Wolfram was removed from office immediately following the end of the war, since he had been and still was a member of the NSDAP when the war ended.8 It was, however, not ‘everything established’ that had been wiped out, it was the individuals who were removed from public positions when the de-nazification began. The failure of the democratic process and the reintegration of people like Wolfram into a ‘new’ Austria is described in a book entitled Verdrängte Schuld, verfehlte Sühne [Suppressed Guilt, Failed Atonement]: The vital and justified interest of the Second Republic in establishing a national identity by means of de­ nazification, rapidly became the idea of a justification and as such came into use and misuse ..., as a type of “creating Austria,” where no one was a Nazi anymore, rather everyone claimed to have been only a “good Austrian’” (Meissl, Mulley and Rathkolb 1986: 8). A quick look at the previous chapters on Vienna in this book, and the folklorists treated, shows how appropriate the title of ‘repressed guilt’ was. Zero hour [Stunde Null\ for the German Reich did not lead to any kind of assessment of the recent history of Volkskunde in Austria, particularly between 1938 and 1945. This did not happen for the simple reason that those who left their imprint on this segment of Austrian history - those who experienced ‘interruptions’ - soon regained their positions and began where they had left off. They all, using a statement from the time when Kurt Waldheim was elected Federal President of Austria in 1986, had ‘only done their duty.’ As scholars devoted to their individual goals for Volkskunde, they continued their work on

Die Stunde null 179

the German folk nation and the Austrian homeland, on their local community and its tradition. This continued to unite them with those who, for various reasons, had also experienced the period of the Thousand Year Reich’ but had not been in leadership positions. Leopold Schmidt was the only Austrian folklorist who repeatedly voiced his personal anti-NS opinions following the end of the war. He regretted, for example, that ‘after the removal of the National Socialist representatives of Volkskunde ... scarcely any new recruits [for folklore could] be found’ (Schmidt 1951b: 2). He was, however, satisfied that “those individuals guilty of political association ... were fired for the most part, or had at least been removed for a time from active collaboration in institutions and were denied the possibility of publishing’ (Schmidt 1947b: 166). Self confident in regard to his own person, he would attempt to re-define Volkskunde as the scholarship of life according to traditional orders’ [Leben in überlieferten Ordnungen] (Schmidt 1947a) and the beginning of an ‘epoch of objectivity’ [Epoche der Sachlichkeit] where ‘Volkskunde, based on its clearer method of viewing, [would become] one of the primary disciplines of the humanities’ and would “help determine decisively the cultural face of Austria. ... There are, in Austrian Volkskunde, truly ‘new horizons’ to which, in the words of Goethe, a ‘new day’ is calling’ (Schmidt 1951a: 155). In regard to Leopold Schmidt it remains difficult to understand that his view of the ‘new horizons’ included those individuals whose guilt had been kept quiet or which he chose to forget. Only in this way can we understand, for example, that the ‘private scholar’ Karl von Spieß, for whom ‘a world collapsed’ at the end of the war (Schmidt 1957b: 337), once again found his scholarly home in the Viennese Verein fü r Volkskunde [Folklore Society], and in the Folklore Museum and its publication series. He continued his ‘folk art studies’ (Spieß 1955), and even created works which could easily be viewed as a continuation of the moon mythology school.9 Nor did Schmidt’s contacts to Edmund Mudrak cease. After his Posen professorship Mudrak’s university teaching credential had also been declared ‘invalid,’ but he

180

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

continued to work as a teacher in high schools and as a consultant for the Old Catholic Churches in Vienna. He put together fairy tale, legend and youth books and presented them in the Wiener Sprachblättem [Viennese Language Journal], as a preserver of the German mother tongue. Karl Haiding wrote the laudatio for Mudrak on his 70th birthday and published it in the Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde, which Schmidt now edited. He attributed to Mudrak ‘massive restraint ... over against the changing scholarly directions and the daily [NS] politics which affected it ...’ (Haiding 1965: 86). Haiding himself, who, as we have seen, had been appointed director of Rosenberg’s Institut Jur Deutsche Volkskunde for the duration of the war, but whose doors were closed in 1945 (Schmidt 1947b: 165), was ‘partially out of the profession and partially once again in his first profession, building of cable cars’ (Walter 1981: 11). It would be ten years before he opened the regional museum Schloß Trautenfels in the Styrian Enns River valley. His distance from the profession was not explained further in a 1981 Festschrift, and no reasons were mentioned. All in all the NS activists were rapidly becoming Victims.’ Arthur Haberlandt was also a Victim.’ In the postwar years he successfully, and with great personal involvement, brought the holdings - which had been partially removed back to the Museum in the Laudongasse. He was, however, then dismissed from service by the new State Secretary for Instruction at the end of 1945 and shortly thereafter was placed in early retirement (Schmidt 1964a: 234). With typical perseverance he carried out his own rehabilitation. In 1949 he was made an honorary member of the Verein für Volkskunde, in 1950 he received his permission to teach (ÖZV 4/53: 179), and as a result he also was once again granted the title of Extra-Ordinary University Professor.10 What he was not able to accomplish was a reappointment as director of the Folklore Museum, ‘this life work of the Haberlandt family.’ Richard Wolfram says that he was not made ‘director in 1945 ... and was never again allowed to return there,’ which created ‘the deep tragedy of the last two decades of Arthur Haberlandt's life’ (Wolfram 1965: 270). Nevertheless,

Die Stunde null

181

the accomplishments of this ‘embittered, sick man, who might appear in many ways to have been treated badly by life’ (Schmidt 1964a: 235), was toward the end of his life quite remarkable and many sided. He devoted himself to house, art and other forms of material culture research and for the few students of Volkskunde at the University, he gave lectures until the end of the 1950s, insightful but as in the prewar period, not always easy to understand (Schmidt 1982: 30f.). With his two volume work Taschenwörterbuch der Volkskunde Österreichs [Pocket Dictionary of Austrian Folklore] he created a reference work which clearly reflected his own preferences, but is still useful (Haberlandt 1953/1959). He was particularly active in his work on the Austrian Folklore Atlas, whose first commission included Arthur Haberlandt, as we have already noted. It is important to point out here that the name of Leopold Schmidt is never mentioned in regard to the Atlas. Schmidt had, in the eyes of Wolfram, Haberlandt, Helbok and Ilg, become one of those who questioned “basic concepts,’ like Volk and Volkstum (Schmidt 1947a) and had thus become or had once again become - a new opponent of Volkskunde, and his ‘conservative social teaching’ was not sympathetically received by his Austrian colleagues, particularly those whom he described as the ‘Herren Nationalsozialisten’ (Schmidt 1982: 116). As the war moved toward an end, Richard Wolfram had begun to think more seriously about rescuing his work and returning to Vienna. In a letter written on August 31, 1944 from Oslo, during one of the field trips sponsored by the Germanic Scholarly Occupation, Richard Wolfram appealed to the Reich Business Leader of the Ancestral Inheritance, Wolfram Sievers, for help in evacuating his research materials from Vienna. The Russians had already occupied Rumania. They were advancing on Hungary, and Vienna could not last much longer. Wolfram then listed the holdings of his Institute in Vienna, dividing the materials into those belonging to the Ancestral Inheritance and those belonging to him. He suggested that if the situation was not reversed, 1 would of course ... travel home immediately. For it is certainly more

182

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

important for the future work of the Ahnenerbe that I secure the results of scholarly work over the last two decades than that I interview one more peasant here.’11 He wrote that he alone could decide what was important for salvaging. In a later letter to Sievers, dated December 6 , 1944, Wolfram also documented that Rosenberg was, as we have suggested above, developing an Implementation Staff South East [Einsatzstab fü r den Südosten] which was competing with the SS Ancestral Inheritance. They too were vigorously collecting and processing folklore materials.12 Most of these materials would eventually find their way into postwar publications. After 1945 when Richard Wolfram was shut out of the activities of institutionalized postwar Volkskunde, he continued to work in Salzburg, as a ‘private scholar,’ like Spieß, on ‘customs’ of the Alpine region, particularly in the state of Salzburg (Wolfram 1952). He immediately set out to harvest the results of those investigations begun under the auspices of the SS Ancestral Inheritance by first publishing some of the materials recorded in South Tyrol,13 as well as those from Gottschee (Wolfram 1955a). The latter were enhanced by questionnaires in the camps of those who fled to Austria from the regions that now went back to Yugoslavia (Wolfram 1980: 12-13). He put together his Austrian and European folk dance research and knowledge in a book (Wolfram 1951), all based on materials which he referred to in his August 1944 letter from Oslo to Wolfram Sievers (see note 11). Richard Wolfram used these first postwar years to systematically reclaim the ‘stage’ of Volkskunde, e.g., as a participant at a 1951 European Folklore Meeting in Stockholm, which Leopold Schmidt didn’t attend: ‘I had no desire to appear beside the faded [abgetakelt] figures Haberlandt and Wolfram’ (Schmidt 1982: 116). He was an author in the newly established Jahrbuch der Volkskunde der Heimatvertriebenen (Wolfram 1955a), but he was most active in the preparations being made for the Austrian Folklore Atlas, whose scholarly directorship he would assume after the first fascicle publication and which he would lead to a successful conclusion in 1979/80 (Wolfram and Kretschmer 1959-1979). 1 may mention that the Austrian [Volkskunde

Die Stunde null 183

Atlas] according to international sources is looked upon as leading the way in Europe, both in contents and in its layout. It is the most complete work in the field of Volkskunde in Austria,’ said Wolfram in 1990 (Wolfram 1990: 338). Even though it is still unclear just how he survived the nine years after his teaching career at the University had been canceled in 1945, his venia legendi was finally restored in 1954 (the lengthy time perhaps reflects the degree of his ‘guilt’ during the NS past). In 1956 he once again received a titular professorship (ÖZV 8/1957: 148). In 1959 he was named Extra-Ordinary Professor ad personam at the University of Vienna (ÖZV 10/1959: 62), by means of which he returned to state and university service. The teaching position was re-instituted in 1961 and in the same year the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Vienna passed a resolution to re-establish the Institut fü r Volkskunde. The directorship was also requested by Wolfram, since he was already the possessor of the “teaching chair’ for Austrian and European Volkskunde, and in 1963 he was promoted to Ordinarius, the title he kept until his retirement in 1971.14 As of 1963 he also had an assistant to help rebuild the Institute and its library for teaching, Helmut Paul Fielhauer. Simultaneously the Institute rooms also housed the Working Post’ for the Atlas, under the directorship of Wolfram. It is also not inappropriate to view Wolfram’s second university career in relationship to the appointment in 1957 of Otto Höfler in Vienna (Birkhan 1988). Höfler’s ability to make his own way back into the University of Vienna may have helped his friend Wolfram to a new career (Wiesinger and Steinbach 2001). In any case, toward the end of the 1950s Rudolf Much’s students Eberhard Kranzmayer, Otto Höfler and Richard Wolfram were reunited in the Professoren­ kollegium of the Philosophical Faculty of that University from which they had received their higher academic degrees a quarter century before.

184 The Study of European Ethnology in Austria Leben in überlieferten Ordnungen Leopold Schmidt spent the war years in the military, the German Wehrmacht, in the field and in prison. He described it as lousy unusual form of life’ (Schmidt 1982: 53).15 He maintained he was anti-military and thought of the extensive military campaigns as his own ‘private educational trips’ (Schmidt 1982: 67). He was not, however a member of the NSDAP and throughout his entire life he retained memories of his mistreatment at their hands. He had been turned down in his first attempt at the Habilitation in 1937, because, as he described it, he did not have the right button in his lapel (Schmidt 1982: 50). Schmidt clearly remembered Richard Wolfram’s visit during the Kriss exhibit of religious folklore in the Hofburg, when he was informed that he had no chance at a university position (see Chapter 4 on Kriss). In his opinion, even Viktor von ‘Geramb [tried], by means of intrigue and libel, to destroy everything being built up. ... [and] in his conscious furthering of former Nazis [Geramb] wiped out all halfway reasonable rebuilding of personnel’ (Schmidt 1982: 103). It remains, however, a fact that in postwar Austria, before Richard Wolfram was reinstated at the University, Leopold Schmidt represented the only opportunity to study Volkskunde in Vienna. In 1946 he began his service in the Museum, and through three and a half decades garnered many honors.16 In the process he virtually ignored many of the other individuals in the discipline, Karl Ilg for example, and Viktor von Geramb, whose work he described as “unclear late romantic blather’ (Schmidt 1982: 109). As it happened Wolfram was right, Leopold Schmidt never held a regular university position, but spent his entire career in the Folklore Museum. Elfriede Moser-Rath, an Austrian herself, said that this engendered in Schmidt a ‘pleasure in far-reaching, immense temporal and geographical spaces, an all inclusive hypothesis’ (Moser-Rath 1964:231). Early on Schmidt wrote harsh criticism and reviews of his colleagues’ work, particularly of anything that he felt did not fit his own interpretations of folk culture. He accused Hermann Bausinger’s doctoral student Wolfgang Emmerich of behaving

Die Stunde null

185

‘presumptiously in dealing with matters which do not concern him’ (1969a: 193). At the 1971 meeting of the German Folklore Society which was devoted to questions of ‘Migration and Acculturation Research,’ he accused the participants of participating ‘rather in historical-sociological, perhaps even social-psychological questioning.’ This was nothing but ‘Cultural Anthropology ..., which scarcely has anything to do with our concerns,’ or was simply ‘[hastily] studied sociology,’ but not ‘real folklore problems’ (Schmidt 1973b: 256). What characterizes Schmidt’s work is what he called the study of folk transmission [Volksüberlieferungskunde], which he interpreted as seeking out the cultural and historical relationships in epochs and in cultural realms. It is what he refered to and is still known for, a system of traditional orders [System überlieferter Ordnungen]. By 1947 Schmidt had codified just what he meant with his newly introduced terminology. In contrast to Wolfram’s vagueness about his concept of gestalthafles Sehen, about which more will be said below, Schmidt attempted to say precisely what he understood under his concept. In his 1947 article ‘Volkskunde als Geisteswissenschaft [Folklore as Intellectual Scholarship] he says: With this framing concept of traditional principles we should understand here that unique possibility of living which spontaneously surrounds and fulfills every human being in every historical situation as a primary formulating element. Younger theoreticians of folklore, especially Kurt Stavenhagen, have clearly defined this way of life (Stavenhagen 1936). Aside from these very important definitions, daily observation lets us see with no difficulty, that we are not able to live in any sense at all outside of traditions. From earliest childhood on we do what others have done, because others do it, and indeed we do it the same way others do. It is handed down to us and we do not know this, but we behave the same and we pass it on to others, transmit it, without really knowing it. All of this is carried out not just as forms of individual traditions of life, but mostly according to certain cohesive principles of these groups, as they were and still are brought about by historical movements. For these expressive forms, which so decisively shape the image of

186

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

folk culture, the term “traditional orders” has been chosen (Schmidt 1947a, in Gerndt 1988: 63).

Based on this interpretation of Volkskunde, it is easy to see that Leopold Schmidt would later reject any attempt at a social scientific methodology for the discipline, describing the debate and reorientation as ‘hypercritical and self­ consuming,’ and thus he simply dismissed them (Schmidt 1981: 39). In the immediate postwar years he saw himself at the threshold of an ‘epoch of a new realism,’ which he would judge objectively, without giving up the gains of a romantic view, ‘in the best sense.’ He naively saw his work as a ‘real contribution to knowledge’ and he wanted Volkskunde to be raised to the level of a primary discipline no matter its political origin and function. The ultimate goal was to extract from the complex of entwined individual traditions the “lead (main) traditions’ [Leittraditionen]. That which was lasting, [and] continuing was to be looked on as the essential part of cultural happenings,’ but it would be necessary to ‘separate those historically established traditions from those that were to some degree unhistorical, and to establish their [inter­ relationships’ (Schmidt 1947a: 121, 119, 123). If we view these statements positively, we can see an expansion of the base of the discipline to include all parts of traditional folk culture, not just the traditional canon of songs, tales, drama, masks, belief, and customs, but also a more universalist approach. With his Habilitation on Wiener Volkskunde [Viennese Folklore], finally granted in 1947, Schmidt also opened the path to the study urban folklore. No other Austrian folklorists were as inclusive in their approach to the discipline at this time. Perhaps the most progressive concept developed by Schmidt at this time was his call for the ‘observation of that which is obvious’ [Beobachtung des Selbstverständlichen]. In dealing with his competitors, Schmidt planned an archive of Austrian Volkskunde, beginning with an Atlas of Burgenland Folklore.17 This undertaking was clearly planned as a counter move to the Austrian Folklore Atlas, and was to be located in the Museum, but it never materialized. Schmidt

Die Stunde null 187

was personally hampered in his undertaking because of his great difficulty in communicating with the lower strata of folk culture. For him traditions were those ‘unusual conditions that were unknowingly received and lived’ (Schmidt 1947a: 125). Collecting the opinion of ‘eveiy person that happened along the path’ (Schmidt 1962a: 194) was meaningless, more important was grasping the basic soul attitude of a lasting substratum which is not manifested in Svaves of modes and abbreviated traditional relationships’ (Schmidt 1947a: 125), but rather in ‘traditional ordered principles which cannot be ascertained by non-insightful attempts ... at rationalistic questioning methods’ (Schmidt 1966c: 47). While Leopold Schmidt was certainly different from his main competitors, it is this kind of thinking and writing which suggests that he too is drawing equally from the two primary sources we have outlined among the precursors and the progenitors of Austrian folklore. In fact, this does not sound much different from those vague pronouncements by Richard Wolfram about gestalthaftes Sehen. Schmidt even included a study on the Gestalthaftigkeit [structuralism] of houses (Schmidt 1961a), but what he really wanted and looked for, were quasi-closed ordered systems (Greverus 1972: 7). Leopold Schmidt never advanced beyond this concept of life according to traditional orders,’ and after 1960 he played only a secondary role in the education of Austrian students of Volkskunde.

University o f Salzburg: (K)ein Neubeginn

The University of Salzburg is being placed at the end of this chapter for the simple reason that the study of Volkskunde in that city ceased after first attempts to reinstate it in the immediate postwar years. There was, as we will see, not ein [a] but kein [no] New Beginning there, even though Hanns Koren had been most productive in publications and lectures during his time as Director of the Institute for Religious Folklore in the Catholic-Theological faculty of the University, from 1932 to 1936. After this time and up to 1945, Volkskunde no longer played a role at the university. There is

188

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

no need to present the activities of the subdepartments of the two umbrella organizations again, the Teaching and Research Post for Germanic-German Folklore’ of the SS Ancestral Inheritance and the Working Community for German Folklore’ of the Rosenberg Bureau (cf. Bockhom and Eberhart 1996, and Chapter 4 of this volume). Both of these subdepartments were discontinued after the war, but the Institute for Religious Folklore was itself never officially closed. Thus, there were relatively quick attempts by the Theological Faculty to reactivate the program of study. In 1947 Rudolf Kriss,18 who lived close by in Berchtesgaden, transferred his teaching license (venia legendi) from Vienna to Salzburg. As we have already seen, he had stopped teaching in Vienna in 1937 and did not begin there again after 1945. During the Summer semester of 1947 Kriss began his teaching duties again, this time in Salzburg. He also took over the leadership of the abandoned Institute, whose legal status was and still is unclear. One year later Kriss was appointed Extra-Ordinary Professor for Religious Folklore, and in the same year he was able to bring his rich personal collection of religious folk art from Vienna19 to Salzburg and exhibit it as a ‘Study Collection’ in the Institute. Even though Kriss himself was able to publish four works as part of an Institute series,20 positive development for the program soon came to an abrupt end, in 1951. Because of a steady decrease in the number of students and the inadequate space for his collection, Kriss informed the Dean that he would only teach at the University of Munich, where he had in fact been teaching as an Honorary Professor since the Winter of 1946/47 (Karlinger 1999). His teaching duties at the University of Salzburg officially ended with the Winter semester 1952/53.21 In Munich he was also given the opportunity of placing his folk art collection in the Bavarian National Museum, and displayed in a way more fitting for the objects.22 Rudolf Kriss maintained his scholarly contacts to Austria, particularly through his friend Leopold Schmidt, and to those institutions under Schmidt’s direction, the Museum, the Verein and the Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde,

Die Stunde null

189

but he was henceforth no longer active in folklore studies at Austrian universities. Volkskunde continued nevertheless to be taught in Salzburg. Josef Walleitner, completed his Habilitation in 1948 for ‘Christian Folklore,’ in 1970 he was appointed ExtraOrdinary Professor, and represented the discipline in the Theological Faculty until his death in 1982 (Eberhart 1984: 109-112). In 1962, when it was decided to rebuild the University of Salzburg into a comprehensive university, there was hope that a program of study in Volkskunde might become part of the Philosophical Faculty, but this never transpired. There were teaching assignments in the discipline that were carried out for many years, such as those by Kurt Conrad, the Director of the Salzburg Open Air Museum.23 In 1983 the Salzburger Landesinstitut fö r Volkskunde [Salzburg State Institute for Folklore] was founded. In addition to its other archival holdings, the SLIVK houses the entire collection of documents used to produce the Austrian Folklore Atlas, the personal papers of Karl Haiding, Karl von Spieß and Richard Wolfram (Salzburger Landesinstitut 1986). In spite of the vigorous research and publication activities of this State Institute,24 Volkskunde still has found no permanent place at the University of Salzburg.

6 Abschied vom Volksleben - auch in Österreich? In 1970 Hermann Bausinger and his colleagues at the University of Tübingen in Germany published a volume with the title Abschied vom Volksleben [Farewell to Folklife]. In a series of articles the members of the Tübingen School’ continued their effort to address the romantic and nonscholarly research common to Volkskunde throughout much of its past. They were particularly concerned with bidding farewell to exactly the kinds of ‘research’ that we have seen all too often in the writings of the two Viennese Schools, the ‘ritualists’ and the ‘mythologists,’ as well as the others who were not so directly associated with these schools, and who likewise represented research that was not empirically based, but was an ‘intellectual fantasy.’ During this same period, what came to be called the ‘Munich School’ was also developing. These scholars insisted on historically documented sources, not some kind of forced worldview which was intended to prove Germanic continuity and presence beyond the political boundaries of the Reich, and even superiority, through their research. Some scholars in Austria would also participate in this reorientation of the discipline, into ‘empirical cultural scholarship,’ ‘European Ethnology,’ or ‘German and Comparative Folklore Scholarship’ (Dow and Lixfeld 1986). The move to more reliable cultural studies and accurate ethnology would not be as widespread at Austrian universities as it was in Germany, however, indeed some of the studies published in the last quarter of the 20th century in Austria still looked and sounded like those of the first three quarters. Vergangenheitsbewältigung [dealing with the past] would not be of the highest priority. Again we must look at the universities, but the order will be somewhat different

Abschied vom Volksleben

191

here, and Salzburg will be totally missing, as we have already indicated.

University o f Innsbruck:

Tiroler Mythos und Erzählforschung In 1995, in the journal Tiroler Heimat, the retired Ordinarius for Volkskunde at the University of Innsbruck, Karl Ilg, published a lengthy, 67-page article on ‘Die Geschichte der tirolischen Volkskunde von den Anfängen bis 1980’ [The History of Tyrolean Folklore from the Beginnings up to 1980]. His presentation is indeed extensive, insofar as he traces the beginnings of folklore studies all the way back to the 14th century, and concludes with the period when he himself retired from his position. Even though the article was written and published in 1995, there is no comment on the man who succeeded him, Leander Petzoldt. For most of the time between the late 1940s and his retirement, Karl Ilg was Innsbruck and Tyrolean folklore, especially from 1961, when Ilg became Ordinarius, to 1983, when he retired. Thus this summary history is our best source of information for the first post Stunde Null period. Ilg comments only very briefly on his activities during the war, having worked as an assistant under Friedrich Metz in the ‘Alemanic Institute’ in Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany), and serving in the German air force. To date there is no information available on just what his position in Freiburg was, and it would be inappropriate to hazard a guess here. We do know that Ilg made his way back to Innsbruck in the Fall of 1945, that Hermann Wopfner made him his assistant, and that he completed his Habilitation in one year. Perhaps more important at this point are his statements suggesting why Wopfner chose him over two other candidates, Anton Dörrer and Nikolaus Grass, both of whom, according to Ilg, were equally qualified. Ilg’s wide travel experience during both peacetime and war, and his folklore experiences gathered along the way, were of interest, since he, Wopfner, was intent on expanding the scope of Volkskunde at the University of

192

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Innsbruck beyond just Tyrol. Ilg says that he took up a topic which had been of interest to him in 1939 in Freiburg, and he then produced his two volume study on the Walser in Vorarlberg [Walser in (the Austrian State of) Vorarlberg] (Ilg 1949 and 1956a). He says of this work: ‘I had come to realize that one can best recognize in a “folk group on the boundary” - in this case on the boundary of coexistence - the characteristics of a complete folk. This experience guided me my entire life and later even led me to South America.’ He goes on to say that by working with people along the boundary, he had thus learned the meaning of all folklore manifestations and that he never undervalued any of them. This was the message he then tried to transmit to his students. The dissertation topics chosen by them indicated, according to Ilg, that he had been successful. His brief personal mission statement concludes with the following: It had become clear to me, that in folklore manifestations, through which the scholar recognizes the uniqueness of a folk, [we also find] the means for their preservation’ (Ilg 1995: 231). In an earlier article, written in 1983 when the Institute was being moved into new offices, ‘Volkskunde an der Universität Innsbruck; ihre Entstehung und unsere Ziele’ [Folklore at the University of Innsbruck; its Origins and Our Goals] (Ilg 1983), Ilg attempted to summarize his years as Ordinarius in Innsbruck, and to separate his theoretical and methodological approach to the discipline from that of Leopold Schmidt. Throughout his career he had been particularly concerned with Schmidt’s contention that ‘these traditions [are] acquired and lived ... unconsciously [unbewußt]’ (Schmidt 1947a: 38). Such an approach, for Karl Ilg, would have automatically resulted in an inability to participate in any kind of ‘applied’ folklore. That would mean that folklorists at Innsbruck would not have been able to participate in the preservation and the cultivation of folklore manifestations, as a way of protecting an endangered folk group. He said that he called for conscious or unconscious acquiring and transmitting of folk national goods [volks­ tümliches Gut], declaring this the dominant conceptualization

Abschied vom Volksleben

193

of Volkskunde at the University of Innsbruck. In the briefest fashion possible, Ilg then categorically dismissed discussions in the German-speaking world about the concept of the Volk, and said that this was not one of the false paths [Irrwege] that the discipline had to leave behind, for it [ Volle] was rather a basic premise for the study of a community [Gemeinschaft]. Farewell to folklife? Apparently not. It is here that Ilg reached back to his predecessor, Hermann Wopfner, whose studies of mountain peasants [Bergbauem] had been fundamental in establishing what he then referred to as the ‘Innsbruck School’ (Ilg 1983: 140). Ilg’s brief gesture at including workers’ folklore as part of this school, remains unconvincing.1 More important for him was, for example, studies of South Tyrol: Precisely the example of our South Tyrol helps us verify how important it is to make clear to this beloved rural people the value and the meaning of their customs, the costumes they wear, and the maintenance of their building style, and to show them how to maintain and protect their endangered community (Ilg 1983: 142).

His list of folklore topics which were studied in Innsbruck suggests that he was totally committed to the traditional canon: buildings and settlement, foodways, clothing and traditional costumes, prayers and belief, custom and practice, common law, etc. All of these, according to Ilg, determine the characteristics of a folk. He seems to have been particularly proud of the fact that he was able to establish an ‘Architecture’ faculty during his time as Dean at the university, and that he was the only folklorist, in Europe anyway, who taught courses and gave examinations in their program of study. His message to students interested in house structure and life style was that these are folklore expressions which are of special duration - read ‘continuity. ’ As already mentioned in Chapter 5, Karl Ilg conducted research in South America, traveling to Brazil, Chile, and Peru a total of sixteen times. There he gathered folklore from the Tyrolean colonists in the Brazilian Tirol’ (founded in 1857), in ‘Dreizehnlinden’ (1933), in “Entre Rios’ (1951), in the

194

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Chilean ‘Los bajos’ (1852), and in the Peruvian ‘Pozuzo’ (1857/59). He speaks proudly of working with the largest group of German speakers outside the homeland, over 4 million, and concludes this description of his studies in the New World with a quote from the former Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl. On January 15, 1992, Karl Ilg received a letter from Kohl, congratulating him on 25 years of research on the Germans of South America, and concludes with the statement that he, Kohl, was writing this letter as the ‘Chancellor of the reunited Germany,’ with the implication that Germans living abroad should also be recognized and included at this particular time (Ilg 1995: 231-32). Ilg concluded his histoiy of folklore studies in Innsbruck with an incomplete list of dissertations written under his tutelage. There are 39 listed, all of which deal with Tyrol, perhaps better said, with Greater Tyrol. Those not treating Tyrol were not listed. The geographical range includes North, South and East Tyrol, the topics with one exception are all taken from the traditional canon, house construction, foodways, costumes, etc. When Karl Ilg retired in 1983 he was replaced not by an Austrian but rather by a German folklorist, Leander Petzoldt, a folk narrative [Erzählforschung] scholar trained in Freiburg by Lutz Röhrich. In his own way, Petzoldt would partly continue the Innsbruck tradition, but he was not as interested in the material culture of Tyrol as he was in folk narratives. At precisely the moment that Petzoldt became the Ordinarius in Innsbruck, scholars in Germany, under the influence of the Tübingen and the Munich ‘Schools,’ continued through their work to bid farewell to the Deutschtümelei and the Völkische Wissenschaft that had caused so much difficulty in the discipline, especially its manifestations during National Socialism. Individuals and institutes of the past were being subjected to intense scrutiny and analysis. By 1986 the German Folklore Society held a meeting in Munich and specifically addressed Volkskunde und Nationalsozialismus (Gemdt 1987). The following year, at the meeting of the German Society in Frankfurt, Peter Assion and his Institute collaborator Peter Schwinn turned their

Abschied vom Volksleben

195

attention to a detailed presentation of the folk narrative research conducted by the Culture Commission of the SS Ancestral Inheritance. Peter Schwinn published their study, entitled ‘A uf Germanensuche in Südtirol. Zu einer volkskundlichen Enquête des SS-Ahnenerbes’ [In Search of Germanen in South Tyrol. Concerning a Folklore Investigation of the SS Ancestral Inheritance] (Schwinn 1989). The study was provocative, but the reading of the reports extracted from the German Federal Archives seemed to support their contention that the researchers had indeed been employed to document the Germanic origins and essence [Germanensuche) of the populace of South Tyrol, in this case through their folk narratives. The narrative researcher sent to South Tyrol by the Culture Commission, Willi Mai, referred to the tales he was collecting as a ‘still existing testament in the struggle for existence of a folk nation’ (quoted in Petzoldt 2001: 20).2 Certainly more specific was the flyer distributed to the local populace, calling for their help in locating and recording of these tales. The opening lines on the flyer read: ‘Scarcely any other living expressions of a folk are more of a testament to its communal life, its history, and its homeland experiences, as its stories, and thus of the unique nature [of this folk]’ (quoted in Petzoldt 2001: 20). Similar statements are found in the flyers and in the field reports for the custom, folk music, architecture, and dialect research being undertaken by the field workers of the Culture Commission. After completing his work in South Tyrol, Willi Mai returned to the war front and died in battle in 1945. His field work recordings were not sent to Berlin, as was intended, but were kept by his widow, Frau Marianne Direder-Mai.3 In 1953 she sent them to the Central Archive for Folk Narrative in Marburg, whose beginnings can also be traced back to the SS Ancestral Inheritance. The director at that time, Gottfried Henßen acknowledged receipt of the tales, offered a small honorarium, indicated that copies would be made, and that the originals would be returned. Today there are two copies of these investigations, one in Marburg in the Central Archive, and one in Innsbruck. Both claim to have the original. A controversy arose between Marburg and Innsbruck, not just

196

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

about the mission of the folklore researchers in the Culture Commission, but also concerning what is included in or missing from each of the two collections. Tales which treated Christian topics, miracles, saints, etc. are ostensibly missing from the one collection, in Marburg, leading to the suggestion that Mai was interested only in tales that would be of use for documenting the narratives of the Germanic peoples, prior to the arrival of Christianity. Of importance here is the fact that both Institutes for Folklore, Marburg and Innsbruck, planned publication of the tales. For many reasons, the publication of the collection in Marburg was never completed, and the two volume set has only recently been published by Petzoldt, in Innsbruck (Petzoldt 2000 and 2002). In the first volume, Thomas Nußbaumer, who was familiar with the work of the Culture Commission through his work on Alfred Quellmalz, the SS folk music researcher in South Tyrol, evaluated Will Mai’s work in the context of the time, and not so much based of an National Socialist ideology. Nußbauer does not hesitate to place Willi Mai clearly within the planned research structure of the SS Ancestral Inheritance and the Culture Commission for South Tyrol. In one statement he says: The group leaders - among them Willi Mai as the leader and the only member of the “Working Group” “Faiiy Tales and Legends” - and their collaborators did not belong for the most part to the “Ancestral Inheritance”’ (Nußbaumer in Petzoldt 2000: 591). He then spends some time separating those who were there as opportunists and careerists, from those who were indeed looking for remnants of a Germanic past. There were, of course, many of those too. Nußbaumer describes them with the following words: Even in light of the clearly present ideological foundation which was associated with the research activities of the “South Tyrol Culture Commission,” which can easily be historically documented, we cannot condemn all collaborators in the same way, as a group, as helpers in documenting the Ancestral Inheritance ideology. For many, and this includes Mai, in spite of his more or less admitted “lining up,” their earnest and objective scholarly efforts according to traditional understanding of the

Abschied vom Volksleben

197

discipline folklore, cannot be overlooked. Here it is important to separate the rhetoric of the period from that which was actually accomplished. Furthermore, we must take into consideration that the folklore generation of that time was completely under the spell of traditional ideas about older German V o l k s k u n d e , especially the thinking concerning the continuity of an “ancient traditional” “Germanic heritage,” and traced these folkloric items back to pre-Christian cultural manifestations. This is clearly seen in the research guidelines followed by Mai, who was not so much interested in the (more recent) Christian narrative materials, but carried out his research from a more historical viewpoint, looking for “valuable” traditions, ostensibly from “Germanic life realms.” As a scholar of his discipline, he was looking primarily for “fairy tales, legends, reports of folk belief, jests, jokes [and] riddles,” and wanted to put together “possibly an extensive and exhaustive collection of references from this traditional material ... for scholarly religious and cultural research,” and to “grasp the special nature of the South Tryolean V o lk s t u m in their narratives.”4

Nußbaumer adds, however, that in organizational matters Mai’s work methodology was not different from that of the other members of the Culture Commission. The recently retired Ordinarius for Volkskunde in Innsbruck, Leander Petzoldt, in a unique way, continued the emphasis on Tyrol through his years in Innsbruck, as evident in his recent publication of the South Tyrol collection. His list of publications includes collections of folk narratives from all of the federal states of Austria, mostly of legends, but other narrative genres are also included (Schneider 1999). In regard to the tales from South Tyrol, Petzoldt plays down the role of the Germanensuche, and emphasizes instead the vast and unique resource provided to us by Willi Mai. In a recent article (Petzoldt 2001), which he reprinted almost word for word in the Introduction’ to the second volume of the South Tyrol tales, he concludes with Willi Mai’s own words, written in 1941 after he had left South Tyrol in order to return to the war front: ... all of the pain lay once again on my heart, it had continued to grow in the previous weeks and had made my life unbearable;

198

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

here in this grandiose and beautiful mountain world of South Tyrol there still is a real peasantry, rooted in the soil. This V o lk will be uprooted and it will become homeless, we can collect its cultural goods as much as we want to (quoted in Petzoldt 2001:

21 ).

From this brief survey of the postwar years in Innsbruck, it would seem that the Tiroler Landeseinheit and the Tyrolean Mythos’ survived both the war and the postwar, and that no farewell in this sense was taken from Volksleben. Central to the study of Volkskunde at the University of Innsbruck during the 1980s and 1990s was comparative European narrative research. This is best seen through the series initiated by Leander Petzoldt, Beiträge zur Europäischen Ethnologie und Folklore [Contributions to European Ethnology and Folklore].5 This path to European studies is further documented by the renaming of the program as the Institut fü r Europäische Ethnologie, and by the recent Habilitation of Ingo Schneider, a collaborator in the Institute. His study deals with “Urban Legends,’ but the work has not yet been published.

University o f Graz: Weitermachen auf neuen Wegen

The Institute in Graz would continue [Weitermachen] its emphasis on material culture, but it would also set out on new paths [auf neuen Wegen]. As we have already seen, Hanns Koren did not remain in his academic position for very long in Graz, but moved steadily toward a political career. His successor was Oskar Moser (1914-96). Following the war Moser returned to his home in Carinthia, where he served for an extended period of time in the school systems of that state and as adult education referent. He was first employed in the Federal Trade School for Construction in Villach, from 194750, then in the Trade School for Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Klagenfurt in 1952. During this entire time, beginning actually in 1937, he assisted in the development of the Kärntner Landesmuseum [Carinthian State Museum], and founded the first open air museum in Austria, the Kärntner

Abschied vom Volksleben

199

Freilichtmuseum in Maria Saal. It was work which would help him in his later career at the university. In the immediate postwar years Moser also worked with Professor Eberhard Kranzmayer at the University of Graz, making recordings of Carinthian dialect and vocabulary. In a typically optimistic statement, he speaks of the difficulties of wandering the mountains and valleys of Carinthia, but concludes with: ‘in spite of all the problems and limitations, the time between Summer 1945 and 1946 were in fact fulfilling days, and still today I think back on them with great pleasure’ (O. Moser 1994: 21). It was also during this time he published several works for which he is known and which would associate him with the Sachkultur [material culture] so prevalent in the folklore program in Graz. In 1949 his first major work appeared, on Kärntner Möbel [Carinthian Furniture], followed by an extensive list of publications on house research, costumes, folk art, gestures, as well as guidebooks for the museums in Klagenfurt and in Maria Saal. Throughout most of the 1960s Moser had taught a few courses at the University of Graz while continuing his work as an educational referent for the state. In 1969 he was named Extra-Ordinary Professor in Graz and by 1971 he was appointed Ordinarius. From this new and more secure position, Oscar Moser then continued his material culture research, but soon expanded this to include narrative research. Two of his best known works let us see him during the tumultuous years for Volkskunde in the German-speaking world. In 1974 he published one of the standard works on house building and style, Das Bauernhaus und seine landschaftliche und historische Entwicklung in Kärnten [The Farm House and its Local and Historical Development in Carinthia], republished in 1994. Also in 1974, Moser published his Die Sagen und Schwänke der Apollonia Kreuter [Legends and Jests of Apollonia Kreuter]. It is here that we can see Moser’s growing interest in the social aspects of his discipline, in this case the life of his informant and the role her narratives played in her life. Toward the end of his university career, in 1985, Moser presented his colleagues with a work that was initially designed to accompany visits to

200

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

the open air museum in Maria Saal, but which proved to be more useful than just a guide book. It was his Handbuch der Sach- und Fachbegriffe [Handbook of Material and Special Terms]. The emphasis on Wörter und Sachen [words and objects], promoted at the beginning of the 20th century by Rudolf Meringer, continued under Viktor von Geramb, and his two students, Hanns Koren and Oskar Moser. It is important here to emphasize that this strict attention to material culture would be expanded, by Geramb, Koren, and Moser, and finally resulted in something which continues until today, and which brings them closer to a new approach to their discipline. In 1934 Geramb himself, as part of his Styrian Folklore Museum, founded what he called the Heimatwerk [Homeland Work], which was primarily concerned with consultation and the sale of costumes and folk art, but which can be viewed as an attempt to reach out to the Styrian folk by promoting their traditional dress. Hanns Koren would pick this up and think of it in terms of promoting Styrian culture through adult education. In addition, however, Koren would prove to be a progressive cultural politician, who would not simply offer romanticized presentations of Volkskultur, but would instead promote contemporary Styrian literary initiatives, and would bring to life an international art initiative, ‘Trigon.’ He was also the founding president of a cultural festival, the ‘Steirischer Herbst [Styrian Autumn], which would take on enormous dimensions and increasingly gain in prestige. Along side Moser’s emphasis on material culture studies in the ‘Graz School’ tradition, the work of his colleagues in the Institute needs our attention. Helmut Eberhart in particular has taken upon himself the role of extensively and realistically researching the life of Viktor von Geramb, and in fact the entire history of the program in Graz (Eberhart 1983 & Eberhart 1994a). His numerous studies let us see the individuals through their years of responsibility and teaching, their research as well as their personal strengths and weaknesses. In addition to his Fachgeschichte [history of the discipline] studies, Eberhart has also turned his attention to the kinds of social and cultural research common to research

Abschied vom Volksleben 201

in Germany, and as we will presently see, in Vienna. Particularly of note are two of his publications, Fremdenfeindlichkeit als gesellschafl-liches Problem [Animosity toward Foreigners as a Social Problem] (Eberhart and Verhovsek 1999), and his collection of studies on Albanien. Stammesleben zwischen Tradition und Moderne [Albania. Familial Life between Tradition and Modernity] in 1995. The first was the result of a series of lectures sponsored by the University of Graz, in an attempt to address the growing animosity to foreigners in Austria. Eberhart’s own study of a recently emigrated Rumanian family, looks at the problems of a group of individuals who are faced with acculturation, integration, or simply withdrawing from the society in which they are now living. The second study is a collection of essays based on field investigations in Albania in 1995, where the change in government has brought upon the people a need to address their entire way of life, as they move from a centralized state to a more democratic and open society. Neither work reflects in any way traditional approaches to Tolk culture,’ instead they are informed by recent theoretical advances in cultural studies. In the recent past Eberhart has turned his attention to folk piety and especially to pilgrimages (Eberhart 1999b). His colleague, Elisabeth Katschnig-Fasch, who was also a student of Oskar Moser during her university career, has pursued a steady path from Volkskunde to cultural anthropology. This can be seen most clearly in her Habilitation study, Möblierter Sinn. Städtische Wohn- und Lebensstile [Furnishings Sense. Urban Living and Life Styles] (Katschnig-Fasch 1998). She has also helped found and continues to edit the journal Kuckuck, which publishes works by well known scholars and by students who are still studying Volkskunde. New methodological approaches that are also devoted to the field of material culture, are also being employed by the third Moser student, Burkhard Pöttler. In 1986 Edith Hörandner, a student of Richard Wolfram in Vienna, began her position as the successor to Oskar Moser in Graz. She has not devoted herself to the long history of material culture studies, but has published instead works on ethnic boundaries, foodways,

202

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

travel and tourism, and initiated the Grazer Beiträge zur Europäischen Ethnologie [Graz Contributions to European Ethnology].6 These volumes and the numerous master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, as well as the other publications of the collaborators reflect the path of the Graz Institute, which can also be seen in the new designation, Institut fü r Volkskunde und Kulturanthropologie [Institute for Folklore and Cultural Anthropology].

University o f Vienna:

Demokratische Ku Iturgeschichtsschreibung und Europäische Ethnologie The letter reinstating Richard Wolfram’s teaching position is dated June 17, 1954. In 1961 the Institute for Folklore was reestablished at the University of Vienna. Wolfram continued to emphasize both customs and dance, and to lecture and write about the mysteries in folk expressive forms that were missing in the modem world, and could only be found in traditional canonical forms. It is not always easy to understand just what his point was in his publications, but an attempt will be made below. While Leopold Schmidt complained in the 1950s that ‘scarcely any new recruits [for folklore could] be found’ (Schmidt 1951b: 2), by the 1960s Richard Wolfram quickly brought students into the new Institute and made them his own. Many students were drawn to him because of his enthusiasm for his discipline and because of the spontaneity he exemplified in his courses, by suddenly breaking into dance, singing, showing slides of customs, or quoting from his extensive knowledge of folk belief and superstition. Like many other folklorists who found themselves back in their old positions, Wolfram didn’t really indulge in theoretical discussions about the discipline, he was more interested in reorganizing or reestablishing the folklore landscape in Austria. For him the most important needs for Volkskunde were ‘burning his fingertips.’ A full generation of students was molded by Richard Wolfram in the 1960s, by the knowledge

Abschied vom Volksleben 203

they gained through his viewpoints, by his sense of mission, his stimulation to conduct fieldwork, and his didactic abilities. Wolfram’s courses in the postwar years, based on a comparison of the schedule of classes from 1939-45, were in title and most likely in content, the same as during the earlier time,7 even though insights and results gained in the meantime, especially from German and Scandinavian languages research, were now included. Concepts such as ‘folk nation’ and ‘continuity,’ ‘tradition’ and ‘community’ were still valid for him - perhaps now even more so. While ‘peasant’ and ‘Germandom’ were interpreted as values, ‘Sociology’ or ‘Social Science’ was looked upon as the enemy.8 There was no perceptible distancing from former viewpoints. Leopold Schmidt’s description for Otto Holler and Richard Wolfram (with whom he was unhappily associated through membership in the Philosophical-Historical Section of the Austrian Academy of Sciences) as ‘those aged men’s union twins’ (Schmidt 1982: 223), was quite accurate, considering their adherence to their traditional teaching and research ideologies. By the time Höfler published his book Verwandlungskulte, Volkssagen und Mythen [Metamorphic Cults, Folk Legends and Myths] (Höfler 1973), one final monument for the men’s union School, no one in Volkskunde of the German-speaking world even took note. Plädoyer fiir gestalthaftes Sehen In 1970, in response to the ‘theoretical confrontation, debate and reorientation’ of German folklorists (Dow and Lixfeld 1986), Richard Wolfram was invited to respond to an article by Dieter Kramer entitled Who Benefits from Folklore?’ (Kramer 1970 and 1986). It is here that Wolfram reached back to the specific terminology that he had long used in his approach to folk culture: gestalthaftes Sehen [structured insight]. While he never precisely clarifies what he meant by this term, his writings help us grasp his intent. Richard Wolfram utilized a cultural-morphological approach to the expressions of folk culture he was researching, particularly customs and practices, but also other canonical forms. For

204

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

him culture has a Gestalt, a shape, a structure, but in quite unclear terms, he said that it needed to be investigated according to the laws’ of various Gestalt-types. The question was (and still is), how do you recognize these ‘types?’ What we find on close inspection is a plethora of terms, each of which is just as nebulous as the next or the previous one. He wrote of an intuitive viewing, of far seeing, of insight, catching sight, symbolic, diffused images, characteristic views [intuitive Schau, Weitblick, Einblick, ansichtig werden, sinnbildhaft, Verbreitungsbilder, Wesensschau], but the term he preferred in order to clarify his ideology was his gestalthaftes Sehen. We can see in this long list of terms that each one implies some kind of visual dimension, and if we take a holistic view of Richard Wolfram, his career, his publications and even his Nachlaß [personal papers], we can indeed see that Wolfram always had a visual orientation to his subject. Reinhard Johler (2001) has suggested that looking at Wolfram in this way will help us understand his deep involvement with and commitment to the Austrian Folklore Atlas. In Wolfram’s own words the Atlas, which was finished under his leadership in 1980, was “the great communal work of Austrian Volks­ kunde.’9 Those maps for which Wolfram was personably responsible were little more than cartographic representa­ tions of the folk culture which Wolfram tried to capture in his photographs, films, slides and drawings, particularly in those outlining folk dance steps. In this way he was able to produce a reference point for the folk culture under investigation, in German a Raumbezogenheit, with maps, photographs and recordings, both written texts and on audio tape. In his writings he spoke of an elementary core and of basic forces [elementarer Kern, Grundkräfte]. When he ventured into the field, what he claimed he saw was the layering of this ancient culture, which one could feel: We feel that our drive toward understanding is directed toward something meaningful and valuable. Not as if we wanted to or could demystify [e n t s c h l e i e r n ] eveiything. Basically we find ourselves over and over again faced with the unfathomable wonder of creation. But just as our ancestors tried to make this

Abschied vom Volksleben 205 comprehensible in grandiose visible and revealing images, [we also try] to recognize that it is not unimportant and [it] enriches us inwardly. Even insignificant actions often reveal surprising distant images (Wolfram 1947: 237).

For Wolfram this elementary core lived on and folkloric field investigations allowed the researcher to gain insights into their primary, original content. The bearers of these traditions, whether dance, folk dramas, songs or tales, were for him the very embodiment of archaic-Germanic elemental powers. The distant past could be seen in the present. The photos and films, and finally the maps, could be used to document cultural continuity and they pointed directly to what Hermann Bausinger has referred to as the past-perfect (tense) of Germanic culture (Bausinger 1985: 173-193). In 1968, in the first Festschrift for Wolfram, his old comrade-inarms Otto Höfler, summarized his friend’s work in the following way: You, dear friend, as a result of this kind of viewing, thinking, feeling, and being, “had” to become a folklorist’ (Höfler in Fielhauer 1968: 15). While Wolfram insisted on this method of gestalthaftes Sehen, he was not immune to others taking advantage of his gullibility, which in turn raises questions about his entire approach to field investigations. One recently clarified example will suffice. In 1935 Wolfram traveled to England to participate in an International Folk Dance festival. While there he made his way to Ilmington, Oxfordshire to witness a Morris Dance and to interview its participants. His primary informant was apparently a man named Sam Bennett, a local fiddler. Wolfram asked about membership, whether ‘anyone could be a morris dancer as long as he had learned the steps,’ Bennett indignantly denied it: “But the son could not belong to a morris side, until he had done something special.” What that was he would not betray, and remained adamant. He only said that they had “special customs,” but they were “secret, very secret.” All further attempts to get at this secret were fruitless. Here probably lies a very important key to the understanding of this custom and its life (Wolfram 1953: 107-113).

206

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

In the same article Wolfram describes the founding of the Morris Ring as a reaction to the open teaching of morris dancing, particularly to women. They even had their own song, which with great clarity emphasized the ‘male bonding’ character: What we want is morris and what we want is a ring, where neither our sweetharts [sic], nor mothers can come, nor our wives even get a lookin.’ For him the words of the song reflected secret male bonding, as Bennett had described it. When Stephen Corrsin raised the question of the song through the ‘Notes’ section of the journal The Morris Dancer (Corrsin 1998: 143), he received an interesting series of answers. The Morris Ring was made up at that time of ‘revival’ dancers, university graduates and others out on a spree. The very ballad to which Wolfram referred many times in later years, was indeed published in 1936, and there are several verses which make reference to the fact that women were unwelcome and that there are certain secrets only known to men, e.g., in the very first verse: I venture to say what is needed to-day Is some proper virility men. No feminine finesse, but muscles by Guinness First get the good right - and then: What men want is Morris, What Morris means to men They never can say In the ordinary way, It’s so deeply embedded in them.

In 1999 a man named Gordon Ridgewell, an obsessive researcher into the details of the English folk dance ‘revival’ was able to clarify both the suggestion of secrecy and the exclusion of women from the dance. It appears that a woman named Joan Sharp, the daughter of the famous English folk dance revivalist Cecil Sharp, was present in the Sharp House in 1936 when the Fourth meeting of the Morris Ring was held in the adjoining hall to the library. She was both editor of the English Folk Dance Society News and the librarian of the society. She would have been aware of what was going on next door. Ridgewell cited one of the participants at the 1936

Abschied vom Volksleben 207

gathering, A.L. Peck, who indicated that the composer of the ballad was an ‘accomplished and perspicacious’ authoress who knew that both speech as well as dancing had their place at meetings of the Ring. Peck says, ‘Agreed, there are some of us who are members of well-known secret societies, and that much has been heard recently from Dr. Richard Wolfram and others of prominence of men’s secret societies in folk-dance development. This cannot be denied, but sinister motives of the Morris Ring can be.’ It appears the song was a spoof, a parody of the views of the Morris Ring types who were so hostile to female participation. Ridgewell concludes that the song was written by a woman and it was, in fact, none other than Joan Sharp who wrote the song and then published it in the newsletter. Richard Wolfram’s adventures in England and his conversation with Bennett turn up repeatedly in his writings. He cites it as documentation for the Männerbund ideas in regard to the English Morris Dance, and projects this thought then onto virtually all ‘traditional’ folk dancers. In his brief autobiography of 1990, he pointed once again to this experience in England as clear evidence for his concept of the men’s union which he had incessantly sought to document.10 Dorfmonographien When Richard Wolfram retired in 1971 his successor, who was not appointed until 1975, was Károly Gaál, a native of Hungary who had fled his homeland during the Fall 1956 revolt. Gaál’s career in Vienna was for the most part undistinguished, and he seems to have left no identifiable influence on the Institute or its students. His primary contributions to the discipline consisted of a series of field collected Märchen and other narrative forms, but most particularly of Dorfmonographien [village monographs]. Most of his field work preceded his time as Ordinarius in Vienna, however, even though some few were published during his professorship. In one such village study by Gaál, Wolfau, conducted in 1965 and 1966 and published in 1969, Richard Wolfram points out in the Introduction that traditional folklore field

208

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

investigations, beginning with the Grimms, had placed primary emphasis on collecting from individuals. He pointed out that there had been attempts to distribute questionnaires, but such work was never very successful. In the 19th century Wilhelm Mannhardt prepared a flyer with 35 questions, had it translated into several languages, and at his own expense he made 150,000 copies and sent them out to various European countries. Only 2,000 were returned. With no reference to the Culture Commission context, Wolfram described his own investigations in South Tyrol where he used both questionnaires and direct questioning of informants. He then said that the methodology being employed in Wolfau by Károly Gaál had never been used in Austria, even though it was known and used by a Professor Gusti in Rumania in 1932 (Gaál 1969: 7). The methodology was quite simply to send a team of researchers into a specific village, conduct interviews with and observe the inhabitants, and then produce a monograph, with each fieldworker writing his or her own portion of the study. The leader, in this case Károly Gaál, would plan and supervise the work, and then arrange for its publication. As something of a theoretical base the leader and the team would use the guidelines of van Gennep (1937-58 Vol. I: 41), look at the folklore item, and situate it in regard to time, place, social content, and function. The team in Wolfau was made up of students who had no real experience in field work, but who were in training to become folklorists, and in fact had to cover some of the costs of their field work from personal funds. Daily meetings were held to discuss the ongoing investigations, and restrictions were established. There would be no alcohol allowed during the interviews, and there should be no discussion of politics or religion, clothing should be modest and no dialect was to be used. While there were no questionnaires to distribute, the students did have a set of 10 basic questions, and a much longer list of partial or smaller questions, somewhere around 140. Individual goals were to be suppressed and the work of the team was to be emphasized. The result was a 415 page Dorfmonographie, with chapters on ‘Social Structure,’ ‘Houses,’ ‘Kitchen and

Abschied vom Volksleben 209

Cooking,’ ‘Flax - from Sewing to Weaving,’ ‘Harvesting,’ ‘Children’s Life,’ ‘Life and Calendar Customs,’ ‘Forest Work and Wood Implements,’ ‘Straw and Weaving,’ and finally Transport and Planting Equipment.’ Numerous other areas of ‘folklife’ were not included, for lack of sufficient funds to help pay for the participants. Similar themes were investigated by Gaál himself, in the south of the Austrian state Burgenland, and previously published, e.g., on furniture, agricultural implements, local beliefs and folksongs (Gaál 1965 85 1966). This monograph, and several others like it prepared by Gaál (1976 and 1991), are not based on any questions, problems or hypotheses that can be detected, and seem to be primarily detailed recording of some aspects of the daily life of the village and the villagers. Because Wolfau, and most of the other villages investigated by Károly Gaál, were along the border with Hungary, in the Austrian state of Burgenland, they resemble to some degree the villages in South Tyrol that Wolfram had investigated in the 1940s. Some are bilingual, German and Hungarian or Croatian, their folklife is looked upon as being healthy but threatened, e.g., through Pendelarbeit [commuting to work], and many of their traditions were thought to be old and quite stable, but he recognized also innovations. Altogether the work of Gaál shows no break with previous inclinations to study the continuity of folklife in Austria, along its borders, or in Hungary where he also published some of his work. Volkskunde als demokratische Kulturgeschichtsschreibung In 1980, the Extra-Ordinary Professor of Volkskunde at the University of Vienna, Helmut Paul Fielhauer (1937-87), wrote a short newspaper article with the provocative title ‘Die Schwierigkeit, ein ‘Volkskundler’ zu sein’ [The Difficulty of Being a ‘Folklorist]. Because it summarizes the radical change in the approach to Volkskunde that was going on in the German-speaking world, and because this reorientation had clearly found resonance in Austria through Fielhauer, the full text is included here (Fielhauer 1980: 78).

210

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Twenty years ago, when I enrolled in that little discipline called “Volkskunde? at the University of Vienna, my brother immediately put me down and said that I had joined the Nationalists. Today it is easy to prove that was not the case, but his suspicion was not completely without justification. All too willingly this seemingly upright scholarship had offered ideological ammunition to National Socialism and Austrofascism, under the guise of the “Volkstum” [folk nation]. What really fascinated me back then was what the postwar generation discovered as “Folk” culture, something apparently lifted out of an evaluative process of late capitalism, but which was surrounded by exoticism and which for the most part clouded the view of one’s own reality. In the beginning, and for several years, I collected the nice customs, folk poetry, samples of folk piety and folk medicine. It was not wasted time, these wander years protected me from the fate of becoming an armchair scholar of society and culture, from being distant from the “folk” (whatever that is). To be sure, theory, method and finally the question about the goals of [my] research received short shrift. But precisely topics, such as the last one mentioned above, let me sense as few others at that time [did], the great need of those people who were being suppressed and controlled. At this point there was [for me] an internal break with romanticism. This happened by coincidence at the same time as the [19]68 [uprising] which came from the West and was sensed here too, but unfortunately found no [real] resonance. Who really benefits from folklore? And folklore w asn’t from the very beginning the conservative healer of all, as it later claimed to be. Soon it will be able to celebrate its 200th anniversary. Back then, it really actually tried to get a handle on work, on culture and life style of the working populace, for the benefit of the country. It even attempted to become an enlightened and progressive scholarly [undertaking]. The romantic overlay came only as a result of the bourgeois search for identity, through national battles with imperialism, domestic colonialism and patriotism. [This overlay] peaked in the development by folklorists of the Reich Writers’ Chamber [Reichsschriftumskammer] and through the SS Ancestral Inheritance research posts. “Volkstum” became the guiding image for nationalism and racism - but not just in

Abschied vom Volksleben

211

the Third Reich. It is an often used vocabulary word for authoritarian regimes. This great insight has not yet made its way here [to us in Austria]. For the Christian and medieval “East” and “South” inhabitants haven’t always gotten along with the GermanoPrussians, and thus in 1945 many suddenly became a “victim” [O p f e r ]. Through new editions [of old works] they became concerned for Austria’s folk culture, a folk culture that never really existed. Even the [concept of a] healthy folk was a fiction by means of which one was able to deprive generations of the rural populace, through fear brought on by class consciousness. It would be easy here to do damage to the “respect for class.” But what remains from all of this, other than to go one’s own way? The battle, finally in Austria too, against the “demands of methodology” gives us a little hope, and strengthens our embattled conscience. Folklore as a critical cultural scholarship, assuming a primary socio-political position in favor of the disadvantaged, helpless, and immature; taking democracy in life’s relationship by its word. One example, of a doubly silenced minority: the Slovaks in Lower Austria. They don’t speak of themselves as a minority, and they are also not talked about [as such]. According to the Austrian legal specialist Theodor Veiter (who can easily be looked upon as part of the German V o lk s t u m ), they really don’t exist. Only when they are together, when one has their trust, and stands with them, only then do they know that they are “S c h lo w a k e r i? - no matter when their ancestors came across the March [river], three hundred years ago or three generations ago. (Helmut Paul Fielhauer, Born 1937. 14 years ‘sociology’ and ‘communist suspect.’ Assistant. H a b ilit a t io n on a harmless topic, M ask customs.’ Since 1977 Extra-Ordinary Professor in the Institute for Folklore of the University of Vienna.)

Helmut Fielhauer died young, but his effect on the discipline in Vienna was profound. While he was introduced to Volkskunde by Richard Wolfram and trained by him, and also worked for many years along side Károly Gaál, he did not continue to practice Volkskunde as a scholarship that looked

212

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

backward to a folk culture that had sustained itself over the centuries. His approach was fundamentally different, it was historical materialism to the core, and it had the effect of moving all who worked with him to a new conceptualization of the people and the objects they would study. In the newspaper article we can easily recognize the training he had received early on from Wolfram: ‘nice customs, folk poetry, samples of folk piety and folk medicine.’ His reassessment of the “ folk” (whatever that is)’ caused him to expand from a primarily peasant-oriented to a workeroriented approach. The ‘romantic overlay’ was a relatively late addition, in the 19th century, that then ‘peaked in the development by folklorists of ... the SS Ancestral Inheritance, and ‘Volkstum’ became the guiding image for nationalism and racism.’ Fielhauer is clearly bidding farewell to the folklife orientation of his Austrian predecessors, most particularly his colleagues in his own Institute in Vienna. He turned his attention to a wide variety of folklore expressions, and viewed them critically, e.g., ‘the lack of problems in folklore films presents the public with a false picture of an ostensibly bygone healthy world’ (Fielhauer 1973c: 39). His attack on ‘folk culture’ is frontal, ... if it is defined with “tradition” and “community” as it has been in the past. Does “tradition” mean faithfully maintaining of historical forms, and “community” total agreement? If so, then the vicious circle of conservatism is closed. For in this way, everything that is new, “not from the community,” and “nontraditional” is excluded from our view, and is looked upon as the result of the conflict in all historical community forms. This definition is in principle invalid and reveals its fundamentally unscholarly character. Nevertheless, still today common word combinations such as “cultural community,” “folk community,” “traditional community,” “traditional culture” and “community culture” continue to be used in Austria. Their potential inhuman nature is that they can give their blessing, justify and give approval to scholarship, and they can annihilate deviant cultural forms and bearers as “folk alien” and culture-less (Fielhauer

1984: 70).

Abschied vom Volksleben 213

In 1984 Fielhauer tried to summarize his thinking over the past two decades in perhaps his most important and mature single writing, ‘ Volkskunde als demokratische Geschichts­ schreibung’ [Folklore as a Democratic Writing of History]. Though truly radical in nature, the sum of the article is that Fielhauer saw a new use for Volkskunde, not a ‘new age’ in Schmidt’s sense, but this new discipline must better understand its historical past. He was concerned with understanding how conservative tendencies hindered rather than promoted folklore. He made clear that there was reason to look to the peasants, after all Austria was traditionally an agricultural land, and even today there is still a commitment to an agricultural life style. In other countries, he used England as his example, industrialization would cause scholars to be concerned with workers and their lives, but in Austria there was no large industry and workers were simply not a part of the sociali picture to the same degree as in rapidly industrializing countries. In the early 20th century Austria became a Catholic bulwark against the East, traditional peasants over against bolshevik collectives. In this way the development of ‘religious folklore’ was easier to understand. Fielhauer then called for a new concept of Volkskunde, ... but it will have to include classes, strata, and groups of a society, even if we have to base this in the beginning on the culture of those who are the most creative in the working process. Then we will be able to outline it in the following way: what do the people create - if anything at all - in regard to the necessities of life and how do they control them in regard to the prevalent social relationships? Culture is, to use a ready made formula, how one lives and works. In this way V o l k s k u n d e can deal with the question of how to pass on culture, or hinder it (Fielhauer 1984: 70).

In clear socialist terms, Fielhauer called for a critical cultural scholarship, assuming a ‘primary socio-political position in favor of the disadvantaged, helpless, and immature; taking democracy in life’s relationship by its word.’ Then, with a strong sense of pride in his discipline, ‘after the

214

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

great social and political catastrophes of our century,’ if it finally does come to a serious consideration of writing history democratically, “we will in this regard, and with appropriate modesty, but with a measured self trust, be able to point to a scholarship with the name “ Volkskundé” (Fielhauer 1984: 59). He then concludes with a quotation from Otto Bauer: ‘One has to go to the people much more often to hear what they have to say, and not in order to let them hear what we have to say’ (Fielhauer 1984: 76). Following his death his most important articles were published in two collection (Fielhauer 1987 and 1988). It is clear in his writings that Fielhauer was interested in what is generally conceived to be traditional folk culture, customs, material culture, folk medicine, etc. It is also clear that he was very concerned with giving back to the 1/oZ/c-folk-people he was studying, information which would aid them in a process of democratization. Toward the middle of his brief career numerous museum studies appeared, for the most part directed toward workers’ culture. For Fielhauer it was a matter of personal interest and resulted in his helping establish the Commission for Workers’ Culture in the German Folklore Society. Their first professional meeting was held in Vienna in 1980 (Fielhauer and Bockhorn 1982). He even called for ‘burning down’ [anzünden] of the Heimatmuseum [homeland museum]. Clearly he is not suggesting arson, but rather restructuring these museums to reflect the culture of the people living there now, not those who lived in some kind of idealized peasant past. He became interested in tourism, and its effect on a local populace, and as one might expect, he was particularly interested in individuals and their own personal emancipation. It is interesting to note that in his 1984 article on ‘democratic writing of history,’ he singles out only one article by colleagues as representative of what he is calling for, the life history of a Bergbäuerin [mountain farm woman], published by Elisabeth and Olaf Bockhorn in the same volume as his essay (E. Bockhorn and O. Bockhorn 1984). The woman, who lived her entire life as a farmer’s wife, and when widowed farmed herself, agreed to extensive tape recording of her life story over a long period of time. Fielhauer

Abschied vom Volksleben 215

points to this study, which eventually resulted in a twovolume dissertation by Elisabeth Bockhom (1994), as the kind of direct contact with an individual, a representative of the “folk community’ she lived in, which eventually led to personal reflection and insight into the course of her own life (Fielhauer 1984: 74). Europäische Ethnologie Following the retirement of Károly Gaál in 1992 the position of Ordinarius was left vacant in the Institute in Vienna for a period of two years. When the final list of candidates was announced, all three were from Tübingen, Utz Jeggle, Gottfried Korff, and Konrad Köstlin. The committee charged with the selection of the new Ordinarius, it would seem, knew of the Tübingen School’ and their efforts to bid farewell to Volkskunde scholarship of the past and wished to have the discipline in Vienna move toward reliable cultural and more responsible and accurate ethnological studies. Of the three only Konrad Köstlin was already a Full Professor, and had been so at two German universities, Regensburg and Tübingen, and he had also been President of the German Folklore Society from 1983-87. In 1994 Konrad Köstlin became only the third Ordinarius in the Institute for Folklore of the University of Vienna, following Richard Wolfram and Károly Gaál. All of his previous publications pointed to the fact that Köstlin would base his own scholarship and his leadership of the Institute on the ‘empirical cultural scholarship’ approach in Tübingen, and the rigid “historical’ documentation of sources of the “Munich School.’ By 2000 the Institute was renamed, the ‘Institute for European Ethnology.’ The program is now described on the Institute’s homepage and in the semester catalog for 2002/2003 in the following way: The specifics of European Ethnology come not so much from its object of study - here there are numerous points of contact with other cultural, social scientific and historical disciplines - but rather from the choice of approaches. Based on our

216

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

understanding today, European Ethnology sees as its goal the description and analysis of cultural forms and life styles of broad strata of the populace and in their everyday relationships to the past and the present. An expanded concept of culture includes thus all forms of cultural practice in their objective and their symbolic manifestation. An extensive program of publication supports this new orientation. Many of the publications are derived from the papers presented at professional gatherings in Vienna.11 The list of participants reveals that not only Austrians participate in these meetings and discussions, there is usually a significant international (European) presence, from Switzerland, Germany, Hungary, Scandinavia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Serbia. Not all of the publications are made up of proceedings of such meetings, there are also significant and plentiful publications by the faculty in the Institute. Olaf Bockhorn’s encyclopedic knowledge of Austria, Vienna, Austrian history, and most particularly of the Gestalten und Tendenzen [figures and tendencies] at the University of Vienna continue to appear, e.g., his recent study of ‘Rudolf Kriss und die Universität Wien. Eine Dokumentation’ [Rudolf Kriss and the University of Vienna. A Documentation] (1999). His leadership in preparing the Austrian section of the large volume Völkische Wissenschaft (Jacobeit, Lixfeld, Bockhom and Dow 1994), has laid the groundwork for this present volume. Reinhard Johler’s dissertation of 1994 Die Formierung eines Brauches [The Formation of a Custom] was published in 2000 and dealt with the ‘Funken’ [fires] so common in the mountainous regions in the west and south of Austria, including South Tyrol and the Trentino (Italy). Johler addresses the common belief that the fires, usually set during the period of the vernal equinox, were ancient ‘pagan practices’ and still reflect this bygone way of life. He is able through his research to “fix’ the time of origin for each of the regions, most commonly during the late 19th or early 20th century (1890-1920), even though the word from the practitioners was ‘traditional,’ and for them this meant

Abschied vom Volksleben 217

sometimes Alemanic, sometimes Germanic, but in any case it meant ‘uralt’ [ancient].12 In the year prior to Johler’s book on mountain ‘Funken,’ Bernhard Tschofen published his work on Berg. Kultur. Moderne. Volkskundliches aus den Alpen [Mountain. Culture. Modernity. Folklore from the Alps] (1999). Tschofen raises questions early on in his work about the business aspects and the symbolism of the Alps, but he bases this on an extensive review of the history of the region around Montafon in the Austrian state of Vorarlberg, particularly in the second half of the 19th century. It was during this period that the small farms were being increasingly affected by the increase in tourism, as a result of the growing network of railways into the upper mountain valleys. Under investigation are some of the unique symbols of the Alps, the Edelweiss flower, the clothing of the mountain climbers, and even the growing conflict between the casual tourist arriving by train and the more hygienically oriented hikers interested in nature. The contrast for the folklorist is also brought into focus, the sentimentality associated with Heimat [homeland] and the growing interest in Heimatkunde [homeland studies]. Tschofen’s analysis of the everyday life and real world of the mountains and its people shows no similarity to the cartographic, photographic and nebulous gestalthafies Sehen of Wolfram. There is also no similarity in the work of other faculty in the Institute, all of whom have also taken leave of Tolklife.’ Gertraud Liesenfeld is concerned with museum studies and regional research. Klara Löffler’s primary interests are in biography and in leisure studies. Bernhard Fuchs specializes in migrant and minority research. Herbert Nikitsch is currently preparing as his doctoral dissertation the first full historical study of the Verein filr Volkskunde, and has already published numerous studies of individuals who worked in and for the Verein. The Ordinarius himself, Konrad Köstlin, has laid out in two studies what it is that research in European Ethnology is now dealing with. In a recent work, he says that Volkskultur ‘is a description of the “historical everyday life” of the masses, and it was this way long before one spoke of cultural society’

218

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

(Köstlin 2000: 65). He then suggests that Volkskultur marches alongside the modernization of society, som ething like a basso ostinato [sustained bass]. Finally, he associates Volkskultur with ‘ethnic studies’ and sees its modern form as that which is used to establish distinctive characteristics [Differenzierungsmerkmale]. In 2002, in a study which is intended to address the ‘pathology of the boundary,’ in this case Austria, he says that ‘a special Austrian path’ can be found conveniently in the former close connection and special emphasis placed on ‘practice,’ whether this is called ‘applied’ folklore or ‘folklore practice.’ Perhaps, says Köstlin, the chapter on Austria in the international community will be seen in its special and uncritical affinity to the folklore object of study, which is ever more vehemently sought and found. But when Volkskunde is self-satisfied with a process of ‘Austrianization,’ then its contributions will only be recognized on the basis of individual cases (Köstlin 2002: 410). Schlußendlich In Austrian German, the term schlußendlich is used for the German standard form Zum Schluß, both of which mean ‘finally’ or ‘In Summary.’ Here it seems most appropriate to conclude not only with an Austrian term, but also with an Austrian estimation of what the discipline looked like to someone who had participated in its development for much of the 20th century, and who was deeply respected and venerated by all who knew him. In 1994, on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, a special volume was given to Oskar Moser of Graz. It was a collection of his own works from 1949-93, and included a brief introduction by Moser himself, entitled simply ‘Aus meinem Leben’ [From My Life]. Because it summarizes not just his own life and work, but because it offers a most insightful conclusion to this present study, the last full paragraph is included here. The book itself is appropriately entitled Des Lebens Wirklichkeit [Life’s Reality].

Abschied vom Volksleben 219 During the last decades, when my public activities were in the foreground, they were enriched through efforts and increased work and responsibility as a Full Member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. I was the Head of the Executive Committee for the Institute for Contemporary Folklore, in a sense as the successor of Leopold Schmidt. Thus, I may be permitted to look back with contentment, indeed satisfaction for the modest fruits of my fifty-years of continuing activity as part of my discipline and my own basic approach to scholarship. Someone once said to me: “You are the only folklorist in the German-speaking world who has never been talked about and attacked.” I know full well how to understand that. Still, I am committed, in this sense, to a balancing and understanding for the older and younger members of our discipline, all of whom have their necessaiy function and assignments in scholarly life. As a teacher I have also tried to listen to the ideas and concepts in our discipline, of which there was no lack during my time, but I have also devoted myself to them. I do not disallow or undervalue in any way the changes and deep divisions, which have taken place in my discipline in the last decades. In V o l k s k u n d e we were trained and educated with the assumption [and] a relatively unbroken belief in tradition, we have experienced its problematics and fatal misinterpretations through the politics of National Socialism and its rigor and over emphasis. Because it wore the cloak o f “ V o l k s w o h F [folk welfare], and was associated with the salvation of the nation and of our own fatherland, there were only a few who dared to risk a counter criticism. After the war a younger generation tried in fact to bring all of that into play, they have laid out new currents in scholarship as well as a critique of the theoretical basic structure of the discipline and its cultural and scholarly perspectives. Measured by the quantity of old material [culture collections] and a dominant interest in the material itself, we are moving in V o lk s k u n d e today into a very rarified atmosphere, an understanding of theoretical relativism. With this detail and in certain areas of the discipline we can reach a more precise sharpness and vision, but with such a relativism we appear to be becoming estranged from the larger discipline itself. The result and the outlook is viewed, at least by those of us who are older, with some skepticism. Certainly, in such a comprehensive discipline as the cultural science of V o l k s k u n d e , there is [always] criticism, looking toward new dimensions, theoretical and methodical refinements of the intellectual instrument, and they

220

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

are well founded and justified. We cannot overlook that there was for a long time a relatively careless dealing with the temporal and the sociological place of oral, written or other material sources in our V o lk s k u n d e . And, if research, and especially in our discipline, is looking toward expansion and change of our knowledge, then in our traditional and unreflecting preoccupa­ tion with our large realm of interest, such criteria are not sufficient. With all these legitimate efforts we must not lose the ground beneath our feet and fall headlong into a certain new one-sidedness or be sidetracked into realms where we come into conflict with ourselves, and thus lose our view for the real tasks and problems. It cannot be denied nor overlooked by colleagues of our age, that in scholarship, and particularly in humanities scholarship, that younger [scholars] are revealing ever more clearly a radical change in basic assumptions. Skepticism and rejection of direct engagement with the discipline, which in our time, in the past, had a more direct relationship to the happenings in life [around us], that is becoming ever more apparent in the recent past, at least it seems to us so. Apparently the change and the enormous restructuring of our entire society, right in the middle of a rapidly changing world, are having an effect everywhere. Precisely by a looking back through nearly a complete centuiy, as we experienced it, this becomes frighteningly clear. But this rapidly ending 20th century, so powerful and so forceful, which we will soon be forced to leave behind, was for much of its path moved by forces and powers that were already produced in the previous century and left behind. The historical continuity of the well known up a n t a r h e f [everything is in motion] of the older ones cannot mean that in scholarship we must negate as obsolete and thus abandon the path that we have taken up to this point (O. Moser 1994: 26-27).

Notes

Chapter 1 1 University Archives (UA) Vienna, Personnel File Schroeder, Information sheet filled out by Schroeder himself. 2 UA Vienna, Personnel File Schroeder, Memo of February 27, 1899. 3 The book appeared in the J. F. Lehmann Verlag in Munich, which also published the journal Deutschlands Erneuerung beginning in 1917. This text is from volume 7 in 1918. 4 Austrian State Archives. Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv (AVA). Ministry for Culture and Instruction, Zl. 377 ex 1898/99. 5 University Archives Graz (UA Graz). Personnel File Geramb. Zl. 856a. 6 Cf. the Self Study: University Office Innsbruck 1928, especially Stolz. 7 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 847 - 1891/92. 8 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 211 - 1892/93. 9 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 217 - 1892/93. 10 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 167 - 1891/92. 11 UA Vienna, Personnel File Rudolf Much. 12 UA Vienna, Personnel File Rudolf Much, Report of February 7, 1900, written by Rudolf Heinzel.

Chapter 2 1 Private archive of Hannjost Lixfeld, letter from the Official Party Testing Commission for the Protection of NS Writing to the President of the Reich Publication Chamber, dated October 15, 1936. 2 Private archive of Hannjost Lixfeld, message of the President of the Reich Publication Chamber to the Secret State Police Gestapo, dated October 21, 1936. 3 Helbok claimed this many times, cf. UAL PA Helbok *Mein Kampf gegen Intrigen und Mißstände’ [My battle against intrigue and shortcomings] (ca. 1945). 4 Schmidt 1951a: 130-138; Weber-Kellermann and Bimmer 1985: 95-99. In his 1971 Kritik der Volkstumsideologie Wolfgang Emmerich deals with the ‘Myth of Germanic Continuity’ in the ‘Ritualist’ and the ‘Mythologist’ schools. An English translation of this appears in Dow and Lixfeld 1994: 34-54. 5 Many of the basic points for this chapter were established in a seminar conducted by Bockhorn WS 1987/88 in the Institute for Volkskunde at

222

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

the University of Vienna, with the title ‘From Nationalism to National Socialism - On the History of Austrian Volkskunde.' 6 The title of an article by Bockhorn where this ‘synthetic' beginning was central (Bockhorn 1989). 7 For a good overview of the formulation, development, and application of the myth and ritual theory see Segal 1998. 8 Summary by L. v. Schroeder of the problem ‘Elamier' (UA Vienna, Personnel File Hüsing, Phil. Dek. Zl. 1456 - 1918/19). 9 UA Vienna, Personnel File Hüsing, Phil. Dek. Zl. 1001 - 1911-12. The Habilitation study was Die einheimischen Quellen der Geschichte Elams [Indigenous Sources for the History of Elam], (published in 1916), the trial lecture had the title: ‘Immigration of Aryans to Iran.' 10 UA Vienna, Personnel File Hüsing. Phil. Dek. Zl 668-1917/18. 11 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 1456-1918/19. 12 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl 668-1920/21, fol. 2. 13 The flyers for most of the twenty-year history of the ‘Deutsche Bildung" were located in the personal papers of Karl von Spieß in the Salzburg Landesinstitut für Volkskunde. We are indebted to Dr. Ulrike Kammerhofer-Aggermann for making these papers available to us. 14 By 1940 the Kulturamt [Culture Office] of the NSDAP Kraft durch Freude Department for Celebrations and Folk Customs began to hold similar lecture evenings in Vienna, with Karl von Spieß and Edmund Mudrak lecturing regularly on topics similar to those given as part of the ‘German Education' program. 15 Unless otherwise indicated all information on Schultz comes from two obituaries of 1936 (Vacano 1936a and Vacano 1936b). Archival sources (which are in Munich) were not consulted. 16 In Volk und Rasse 1936/11: 443 Schultz is named as the founder of the Teaching Program, according to R. Much it was G. Hüsing who initiated it (Much 1942: 255). 17 As part of the Reich Party leadership Schultz was the Central Post Leader in the Service Post of Alfred Rosenberg (Vacano 1936b: 444). 18 Schultz 1935: 130-131; Mudrak 1941. Schultz's Altgermanische Kultur was not just praised, but was also negatively criticized and interpreted, as a ‘method of battle [...] against him' (Vacano 1936a: 193). 19 UA Wien, Personnel file Hüsing, Phil. Dek. Zl. 668 - 1917/18, Phil. Dek. Zl. 1456 - 1918/19 und Phil. Dek. Zl. 668 - 1920/21. 20 This has been dealt with in detail elsewhere (Bockhorn 1989: 22-24). 21 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 907 - 1927/28, fol. Iff. All quotations are taken from this file.

Notes 223 Chapter 3 1 Georg Höltker describes the term, theories of origin, the development, structure, unique forms and the spread of Männerbünde in the Handwörterbuch der Soziologie, 1931. We have paraphrased his article here. 2 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 1008-1933/34. 3 UA Vienna, Dissertation List, Rig Nr. 2271. 4 UA Vienna, Dissertation List, Rig Nr. 3491, 3437. 5 Of the authors who wrote doctoral dissertations which kept them in the field of Volkskunde only two will be mentioned: Kurt Wilvonseder and Gilbert Trathnigg. 6 During his studies Much dealt with pole constructions on the Mondsee as a collaborator with his father. The author of the dissertation mentioned here was the later Professor for Anthropology at the University of Vienna, Josef Weninger (the second evaluation was submitted by Rudolf Poch, anthropologist and ethnologist). 7 UA Vienna, List of Dissertations, Rig. NO. 5387 (Second evaluator was Arthur Haberlandt). 8 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 267 - 1926/27, fol. 21 (Quotation taken from the Commission Report by R. Much on the Habilitation application by Dr. Lily Weiser). 9 UA Vienna Phil. Dek. Zl.267 - 1926/27, Curriculum vitae. 10 UA Vienna Phil. Dek. Zl.167 - 1891/92, Curriculum vitae. 11 UA Vienna Phil. Dek. Zl.267 - 1926/27, Curriculum vitae. 12 UA Vienna Phil. Dek. Zl.267 - 1926/27, Habilitation File. 13 Weiser 1927.- At that time Lily Weiser was co-editor of E. Fehrle’s Oberdeutscher Zeitschrift fur Volkskunde. 14 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 267 - 1926/27, Commission Report. 15 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. without ZL, Memo of June 8, 1935. 16 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 1576 - 1929/30. 17 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek., letter dated July 12, 1935. 18 See the obituary by Ropeid 1987: 149-150. The 1978 issue of the journal Ethnologia Scandinavia was dedicated to Lily Weiser on her 80th birthday. 19 Gilch und Schramka 1986: 82-83 (Autobiography by Otto Höfler: In the early summer of 1922, June or July, I had heard Adolf Hitler speak in Vienna. I joined the movement and after the summer vacation I joined the OT, the so-called Ordnertruppe [Order Guard] of the Party. A few months later I was moved into the SA. I belonged to this from the first day of its existence and was active in service until its gatherings stopped in the Winter of 1923/24.'). 20 The Habilitation File on Höfler is not available for faculty use at the University of Vienna because it was removed from the Dean's office to the Personnel Files and thus is subject to data protection regulations. The information here comes from published sources and from the Lists of Personnel positions in the University Archives in Vienna. 21 Part 2 was never published as planned.

224

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

22 Birkhan 1988: 389. It must be expressly emphasized that Helmut Birkhan is not being accused of believing Höfler’s 'conclusions/ 23 On the Ancestral Inheritance, see Kater 1974. On October 15, 1937 Walther Wüst, who occupied the Chair for Indo-Germanic Cultural Matters’ in Munich, and since March was also President of the Ancestral Inheritance (Bollmus 1970: 180), wrote to Heinrich Himmler praising Hofler as the best suited Professor for Munich and who 'can be employed with great success in the cultural work of the SS Ancestral Inheritance’ (BA Berlin, NS 19/432). 24 Concerning the lecture in 1940, missing from Höfler’s bibliography as well as his 'love-hate’ relationship to Jews, see Birkhan 1988: 399-400. 25 In private discussions with R. Wolfram it is known that Hofler and Wolfram belonged to a 'men’s union’ in Vienna, a 'conspiratorial society.’ 26 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 548 - 1933/34. 27 UA Vienna, Personnel List; Bockhorn 1988: 71. 28 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 242 - 1925/26. 29 UA Wien, Phil. Dek. Zl. 656 - 1930/31. 30 On the Habilitation procedure see UA Vienna, Personnel File Kriss, Phil. Dek. Zl. 667 - 1931/32. For his two part Pilgrimage- Volkskunde see Kriss 1930; Kriss 1933 (title changed). 31 UA Vienna, Personnel File Kriss, Phil. Dek. Zl. 667 - 1932/33, Commission Report of December 1, 1932. 32 UA Vienna, Personnel File Kriss, Phil. Dek. Zl. 695 - 1938/39. 33 The information on Spieß comes from the archive biography in the Salzburger Landesinstitut für Volkskunde (where the personal papers of Spieß are stored). 34 Spieß biography in the Salzburger Landesinstitut fur Volkskunde. 35 Kater 1974: 138; Schramka 1986: 56. The sources on Höfler’s appointment to Munich are incomplete. In both of the cited articles there is no mention of Karl von Spieß in this matter. 36 From the numerous works by Spieß on the topics mentioned, the following are significant: On peasant art: Spieß 1911, Spieß 1925, Spieß 1937, Spieß 1940, Spieß 1942, Spieß 1943, Spieß 1955. On narrative research: Spieß 1922, Spieß und Mudrak 1939. On the Aryan festival: Spieß 1933a. A synthesis of Spieß’s ideas on the traditional world is found in Spieß 1934. 37 Information on Edmund Mudrak’s life come first from his daughter Gertrud, otherwise from the 'Dedication’ by Karl Haiding on Mudrak’s 70th birthday, which includes a bibliography (Haiding 1965, Grohsl 1965). Mudrak died shortly thereafter on December 12, 1965. 38 Michael Haberlandt 1911b (the work appeared in fascicles between 1910-14; M. Haberlandt 1914/1917 (the first issues of this quarterly journal were already in print before 1914). 39 Riegl, using the summary and citation method by A. Haberlandt 1926a: 21 .

40 On the founding of the Verein, Zeitschrift and Museum fü r Volkskunde in Vienna, cf. Schmidt 1960d: 18-29.

Notes 225 41 This was the title of the journal until 1918 (=ZOV); from 1919-44 it was called the Wiener Zeitschrift fu r Volkskunde (= WZV); after 1947 it was published under the editorship of Leopold Schmidt, until his death, as the Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde (=ÖZV) which it is still called. 42 This collection appeared beginning in 1887 in 24 Volumes, Cf. Schmidt 1951a: 109-111. 43 Schmidt 1982: 21. For a history of the Museums fü r Österreichische Volkskunde see (in addition to Schmidt 1960d) the annually published reports in the Zeitschrift des Vereins fü r Volkskunde in Wien (Voi. 1: 1895ff.). 44 Annual Report of the Verein fü r Österreichische Volkskunde for the year 1911 (ZÖV 18/1912: 60). 45 Activity Report 1914 - Zeitschrift für Österreichische Volkskunde 21/1915: 26. 46 On the appointment of A. Haberlandt from Assistant' to 'Custodian,' cf. ZÖV 19/1913: 78. 47 N.N..: 1. 'Eröffnung des Museums,' WZV26/1920: 64. 48 UA Vienna, Schedule of Classes 1893-1926. 49 UA Vienna, Personnel File M. Haberlandt, Ministry for Culture and Instruction, Zl. 28.961. 50 UA Vienna, Personnel File M. Haberlandt, Phil. Dek. Zl. 874 - 1933/34. 51 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 930 - 1910/11. 52 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 641 - 1911/12. 53 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 289 - 1917/18, fol. 1-9. 54 On R. Pöch and the development of the discipline Völkerkunde in Vienna see: Haekel, Hohenwart-Gerlachstein and Slawik 1956; Hirschberg 1970. 55 After creating a Chaired position for Physical Anthropology in 1927, a position was also established for Völkerkunde in 1928 and occupied by Pater Wilhelm Koppers. In 1929 an Institute was established. 56 Schmidt 1964a - Obituary 218-235, Bibliography 235-271. 57 Arthur Haberlandt's life and work is summarized in: Schmidt 1964a, Wolfram 1965, Heine-Geldern 1965, Cermak 1980: 102, Bockhom 1988: 73-75. 58 UA Vienna, Personnel File A. Haberlandt, Phil. Dek. Zl. 656 -1912/13, Curriculum vitae. The File on A. Haberlandt is exceptionally detailed and informative. All references are taken from this file unless otherwise indicated. 59 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 656 - 1912/13. 60 UA Vienna, Dissertation List, Rig. Nr. 3136. A. Haberlandt 1912a. 61 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 656 - 1912/13, 'Report on the Habilitation application of Dr. Arthur Haberlandt.' 62 A. Haberlandt 1912b (in this work he treated the Breton collection that Rudolf Trebitsch had given to the Museum). 63 UA Vienna, Personnel File A. Haberlandt, Phil. Dek. Zl. 378 - 1924/24. 64 UA Vienna, Personnel File A. Haberlandt, Phil. Dek. Zl. 607 - 1924/25. 65 UA Vienna, Schedule of Classes 1914/15 to 1937/38.

226

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

66 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 668 - 1935/36. 67 Report on the Activity of the Working Community for Folklore at the University of Vienna: WZV42/1937: 56-59. 68 A. Perkmann (1897-1945) became at the end of the 1920s a scholarly assistant in the Museum (Schmidt 1960d: 93). 69 A. Haberlandt 1917.- The Volkskunst der Balkanländer [Folk Art of the Balkans] was published in a representative volume: A. Haberlandt 1919.

Chapter 4 1 Private archive of Geramb, application by Geramb to the Dean's office of the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Graz, dated May 19, 1938. 2 Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv Wien (hereafter AVA), RmikA; letter of the Staff Director to the State Commissioner Friedrich Plattner, dated October 6, 1938. 3 AVA, RmikA, Zl. IV-20785-2c; letter from Plattner to Rector Hans Reichelt, dated October 13, 1938 (only an outline remains). 4 Private archive Geramb, letter from Karl Polheim to Viktor Geramb, dated October 17, 1938. 5 Private archive of Geramb, letter from Geramb to Friedrich Plattner, dated October 20, 1938. 6 Private archive of Geramb, letter from Viktor Geramb to Heinrich Harmjanz, dated February 24, 1939; Systemzeit was a negative term used during the Austrian Democratic Republic. 7 Private archive of Geramb, letter to Heinrich Harmjanz, dated February 24, 1938, letter to Adolf Helbok (no date, only an outline remains), letter from Helbok to Geramb, dated November 2, 1938. 8 Private archive of Lixfeld, memo written after a meeting of Ancestral Inheritance by Friedrike Prodinger on November 14, 1942. 9 Private archive of Geramb, letter from Geramb to Rector Hans Reichelt, dated December 15, 1938. 10 Cf. Bollmus 1970; Bollmus 1987; Kater 1974; Lutz 1983; Lixfeld 1987a; Lixfeld 1987b; Oesterle 1987, also printed in this volume. 11 Private archive of Geramb, letter from Geramb to Rector Hans Reichelt, dated December 15, 1938. 12 Private archive of Geramb, directive from the Ministry for Interior and Cultural Affairs, dated July 26, 1939 (Zl. IV-2c-333.895); the directive is cited in a correction of the Ministry, dated August 7, 1939, a copy of which was sent to Geramb. 13 Private archive of Geramb, letter from Geramb to Gustav Wolf, dated April 13, 1944. For a full presentation of this meeting see Eberhart 1994a: 536-537. 14 As of April 1, 1934 the folklorist, Germanist and religious scholar Matthes Ziegler was the Director of the Main Office for World-View of the Rosenberg Bureau. From November 1, 1935 until December 1,

Notes 227

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

31 32 33

34

35

1936, Tie was given as an assignment from Reich Leader Rosenberg the office of referee for folk research in the German Research Council/ UA Jena, Bestand U Abt. IV, No. 30. Biography of Matthes Ziegler in 1940; cf. Lixfeld 1987a:74, 81 note 31. UAI. File of the Rector. Zl. 1041 for 1941. UAI. Personnel File Helbok: ‘Rebuttal/ BA, NS 21/762, confidential report of the SS-Obersturmfilhrer Herbert Menz. SD - Subdivision Salzburg, Department II/2: Culture. BA, NS 21/762, confidential report of the SS-Obersturmführer Herbert Menz. BA, NS 21/762, confidential report of the SS-Obersturmfiihrer Herbert Menz. BA, NS 21/82, letter from Habersetzer to Sievers, dated May 24, 1938. BA, NS 21/242, letter from Menz to Sievers, dated June 10, 1938, list appended. Private archive of Lixfeld, memo of May 15, 1938, signed by Walther Wüst. BA, NS 21/82, letter from Habersetzer to Otto Maußer, dated May 24, 1938. Private archive of Lixfeld, letter from Sievers to Wolfram, dated July 13, 1938. Private archive of Lixfeld, letter from Walther Habersetzer report of the SD Führer in the SD Subdivision Salzburg dated August 2, 1938. Private archive of Lixfeld, letter from Sievers to Wolfram, dated July 13, 1938. Private archive of Lixfeld, working plan of the Teaching and Research Post for Germanic Folklore in the Regional Branch Southeast of the Research Community Ancestral Inheritance, written by Richard Wolfram (no date, summer 1938). Private archive of Lixfeld, working report on the disposition of the Cultural Council in Salzburg, dated September 25, 1942. Private archive of Lixfeld, outline of a budget proposal for the Teaching and Research Post for Germanic Folklore of the Ancestral Inheritance in Salzburg, dated August 12, 1938. Private archive of Lixfeld, letter from Wolfram to Sievers, dated September 8, 1939. BA, NS 21/80, letter from Sievers to Wolfram, dated October 25, 1939. Private Archive of Lixfeld, ‘Folklorists to be considered as co-workers/ written by Richard Wolfram, no date, presumably at the same time as the budget put together on August 12, 1938. Private Archive of Lixfeld. The Development of the Situation in Salzburg. Immediate Need for Maintaining Our Position and for Solving of Pressing Tasks/ dated June 6, 1943, written by Richard Wolfram. Preliminary studies by Bockhorn are: Bockhorn 1987; Bockhorn 1989; Bockhom 1991.

228

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

36 Reinhard Bollmus’s work on the Rosenberg Bureau (1970) and Michael Rater's study of the Ancestral Inheritance (1974, 1997 and 2001) are the most complete and reliable volumes on these two NS organizations. 37 This paragraph is a brief paraphrase of Michael Rater’s introduction to his exhaustive study of the Ahnenerbe (1974). His work also included charts of the structure of the Ahnenerbe in 1939 and in 1943/44. 38 BA, NS 19/1850, Ahnenerbe-Memorandum (1944). Translations into English of the complete documents cited here are found on pages 194200 in Lixfeld and Dow, Folklore and Fascism (1994). 39 In October 1933 Harrer joined the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA, Storm Troopers), which was illegal in Austria; after the Anschluß he joined the Schutzstaffel (SS), Squadron 38, designation number 73896 and was promoted to Oberscharführer (squadron leader). On May 1, 1938 he joined the NSDAP, membership number 6307081. Gerald Lehner documents Harrer’s life as a ‘faithful Nazi’ in an article in the New York Daily News on June 19, 1997. Harrer rejects this interpretation in his recent autobiography Mein Leben (2002). 40 For the most complete study of the Institute, see Lixfeld and Dow, Folklore and Fascism 1994. 41 Translations into English of the complete documents cited here are found on pages 153-155 and 172-177 in Lixfeld and Dow, Folklore and Fascism (1994). 42 BA, NS 21/242, note dated November 26, 1938. 43 AVA, Instruction, Fasz. 761, Zl. 41852 of 1938. 44 AVA, Instruction, Fasz. 761, Zl. 41852 of 1938. 45 AVA, Instruction, Fasz. 761. 46 BA, NS 8/206, fol. 38; BA, NS 8/264, fol. 52. 47 BA, NS 8/245, fol. 2-6. 48 UA Vienna, Personnel List. 49 Written Report by Gertrud Heß-Haberlandt - Archive of the Institute for European Ethnology, Vienna. 50 Personal and Course List for the 2nd Trimester 1940: 39. 51 See the Course Lists for WS 1939/40 - SS 1944 (WS 1944/45 did not appear in print; in the SS 1945 ‘ Volkskunde9no longer appears). 52 UA Vienna, Personnel File Kriss, Phil. Dek. Zl. 695 - 1938/39. 53 Appointment record dated 28. Februar 1940, UA Vienna, Personnel File Kriss. 54 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 247 - 1941/42. 55 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 348 - 1939/40. 56 This was apparently the apartment of the lawyer Leopold Harth in the Wasagasse. The couple is listed on the deportation list of July 17, 1942 as numbers 56 and 57. They were first sent to Theresienstadt and then to Auschwitz where they were killed. See (Ottenbacher 1999). 57 BA, NS 21/80, Letter by R. Wolfram to W. Sievers dated June 5, 1940. 58 See the Personnel and List of Courses for 1939-1944. This series of courses was offered again in the 1960s by Wolfram. 59 UA Vienna, Phil. Dek. Zl. 730 - 1942/43. 60 BDC, Letter to W. Sievers dated November 6, 1942.

Notes 229 61 BA, NS 21/389, Letter to Sievers dated February 20, 1944. As part of this Tiatefulness' was the comment of 1940 that Wolfram was a failure [Versager] for the University. Wolfram complains bitterly in a letter from South Tyrol, probably to Sievers (BDC, letter of December 12, 1940). 62 UA Innsbruck, Rektorat Files Zl. 1041 for 1941. 63 See for example BA, NS 15/243, fol. 252 (Letter by Hans Strobel dated June 10, 1943). 64 BDC, Heilfurth, Gerhard, born July 11, 1909. Undated note (1944). 65 BA, NS 8/245, fol. 114. 66 BDC, Mudrak, Edmund, born October 27, 1894. Biography. 67 BDC, Letter by W. Sievers dated April 13, 1943. 68 BDC, Letter by W. Sievers dated December 15, 1943. 69 BDC, Letter by W. Sievers to R. Wolfram dated February 15, 1944. 70 The wealth of materials make it impossible to go into great detail here. For South Tyrol studies one should consult the publications of Peter Assion, Michael Kater, Anke Oesterle, Peter Schwinn and Karl Stuhlpfarrer, for the Gottschee an inclusive study by Bockhom is planned. For the most part the materials on the Germanic Scholarly Occupation are found in the Bundesarchiv and were viewed in 1987. Particularly helpful information was supplied by Gisela and Hannjost Lixfeld, who are to be thanked for their assistance. 71 At the 1991 census, Germans still represented 66.99%, Italians 27.65% and Ladins 4.36% of the populace. Lest these numbers seem insignificant, it is important to know that in September 2000 there were 461,601 persons living in South Tyrol, 287,500 of whom give German as their first language. 72 Petr Lozoviuk of Prague has just published a study of the 564 inhabitants who were relocated from Italy to Budweis in the Czech Republic. A brief version of this study is found in the Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 56:2 (2002): 149-170. 73 BDC, Wolfram, Richard. Plan for the Relocation of South Tyrolese dated November 18, 1939. 74 BA, NS 21/433, minutes of the first meeting. 75 With Seidlmayer as well as with Horak there were problems in regard to the work, which R. Wolfram then reports in writing to W. Sievers. 76 The film work by Wolfram in South Tyrol has already been treated and need not be repeated here (Bockhorn 1991; E. Köstlin 2001). The 'Large Films' appear to have been lost in Berlin at the end of the war. 77 BDC, undated Working Report South Tyrol, Department: Folk Custom, Folk Belief, Folk Dance, Folk Drama.' 78 BA, NS 21/303, letter dated Januaiy 31, 1941. 79 BA, NS 21/164, Activity Report of the Cultural Commission. 80 BA, NS 21/164, Organization of the Cultural Commission. 81 BA, NS 21/164, List of Collaborators. 82 BA, NS 21/148, Questionnaire for Collection of Folk Customs. 83 BDC, Wolfram, Richard, Report Gottschee dated November 16, 1941.

230

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

84 BDC, Wolfram, Richard, Activity Report and Working Suggestions dated March 28, 1942. 85 BA, NS 21/806. 86 BDC, Working Report Norway dated April 14, 1944. 87 BDC, Letter by W. Sievers dated December 15, 1943. 88 Letter by Wolfram to Sievers dated February 2, 1944 (quoted by Kater 1974: 185). 89 BDC, Note dated May 18, 1944. 90 BDC, Letter by Wolfram to Sievers dated August 11, 1944. 91 BDC, Letter by Wolfram to Sievers dated August 31, 1944. 92 BDC, Letter by Wolfram to Sievers dated December 6, 1944. 93 BDC, Letter by Wolfram to Sievers (Arrived at the Ancestral Inheritance on April 3, 1945). 94 BDC, Letter by Wolfram to Sievers dated August 31, 1944. 95 BA, NS 8/267, Fol. 17. 96 Letter by Ina Eichel, teacher in Weimar, to Georg Hüsing dated 22. Brachet [June] 1925, with the letterhead Adler und Falken. Deutsche Jugendwanderer. The greeting on all letters to various members ‘Heil Dir!' Haiding archive in the Hüsing papers of the SLIVK. 97 For the relationship of the Kampfbund to National Socialism see Bollmus 1970: 27-53. 98 This is attested by Doris Sauer in her memoirs, but it becomes even clearer when one realizes that the members belonged to the Rosenberg Bureau (Sauer 1993: 200; Moser-Rath 1990: 384) and to the Reichsjugendführung (RJF) [Reich Youth Leadership]. 99 Moser-Rath incorrectly gives 1936; the request was made on October 17, 1934, the Vienna Magistrate processed it on February 12, 1935, and on March 8, 1935 the name change is made retroactive to February 19, 1935. The document was located in the former BDC, now the Bundesarchiv in Berlin. The file is PK - Haiding, Karl Dr. 3.7.06 [July 3, 1906]. 100 The 1980 edition was reviewed by Uta Schier-Oberdorffer in the Bayrisches Jahrbuch fü r Volkskunde 80 (1981): 213-214. 101 The typewritten original of Haiding’s dissertation is in the library of the Institute for European Ethnology, University of Vienna, and a copy is in the SLIVK; see also individual pages of the Games and Sayings collection by Hüsing on Adler und Falken paper, from 1924 and 1925, in the Haiding archive and in the Hüsing papers of the SLIVK. 102 BDC personal file on Haiding; also BDC, Reichskulturkammer (RKK) letters of May 13 and July 5, 1938; his monthly salary was 20 Reichsmarks; BDC, RKK letters by Haiding on December 12, 1941, July 13, 1942, July 13, 1942, and an honorarium dated August 21, 1943. 103 In a letter from Borman to Rosenberg, dated September 1, 1944, and in response to a letter from Rosenberg to Borman, dated August 15, 1944, it is stated that for the office of Volkskunde and Celebration Planning ‘the clarification of problematic questions and all further planning [be] left alone for the time being/ BA, NS 8/19/ 150-151.

Notes 231 104 105 106 107 108 109

BA, NS 8/267/ 20. BA, NS 30/160. BA, NS 8/130/ 112. BA, NS 8/19/ 151. BA, NS 8/156/ 144. Erna Haiding told Doris Sauer that Alfred Rosenberg attempted to have Haiding called as a character witness for him during the trials in Nürnberg, but Haiding could not be located (Sauer 1993: 128).

Chapter 5 1 Private Archive Geramb. ‘On Taking up the Work of the Folklore Museum Again.’ Concept for a talk dated June 12, 1945 by Viktor Geramb. 2 Private Archive Geramb. Letter by Schmidt to Geramb dated July 30, 1946. 3 UAI. Personnel File A. Helbok: Letter by Helbok to the Administrative Director Dr. Pokorny, University of Innsbruck dated January 22, 1946. 4 UAI. Personnel File A. Helbok: ‘Reference letter for Prof. Dr. Adolf Helbok, submitted by Prof. Dr. H. Wopfner’ dated December 4, 1945. 5 Helbok clearly planned to produce maps for the Atlas which would locate Austrian ‘geniuses,’ as we can see in a review of the Austrian Folklore Atlas by Richard Weiß: ‘Fortunately this is documented ... by the care taken by the editor of the work, E. Burgstaller who has been able to move the Atlas away from the realm of concepts and into material and solid work. Only the numbering system on the map pages, in the upper right hand corner, points to two numbers and two (fortunately empty) fields [which were to include] Helbok’s plan’ (Weiß 1959: 283). From the USA Archer Taylor wrote to Karl Haiding that he Svas much distressed by the review of the Austrian Atlas in the last issue of the Oest. Zs.f. Volkskunde. I did not understand what it meant. Is Burgstaller out of a job? The whole situation was unclear to me’ (Letter of April 8, 1960 in the Haiding Nachlaß in the Salzburger Landestelle für Volkskunde.) 6 The fact that Richard Wolfram at the age of 91 did not grant, nor did he refuse, access to his Personnel File, does not allow one to have a detailed look at his activity after 1945. Further, there are privacy laws in Austria and various archive restrictions to contend with. Some of the details here come from superficial sources, such as the departmental archives of the Institute for European Ethnology of the University of Vienna, but they are also based on personal memories and discussion which Bockhorn had with Wolfram and a number of Wolfram’s personal acquaintances over many years. Wolfram’s numerous studies are listed in several bibliographies: Fielhauer 1968, Liesenfeld 1982, Kammerhofer 1987. His life and career are found in Wolfram 1987a and Wolfram 1990. A complete list of dissertations supervised by Richard Wolfram is found in Bockhorn 1982.

232

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

7 The ideas of ‘interruptions’ was continued in a 1987 publication by the Institute for Contemporary Folklore of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, where Wolfram’s career is described in the following way: ‘Since 1928 twenty-one years (with interruptions) lecturer for Swedish at the University of Vienna and Chairman of the scholarly commission for the Folklore Atlas, ...’ (Kausel 1987: 122). 8 The letter removing Wolfram from his university position is dated January 24, 1946. The reasons given were: membership in the NSDAP, an ti-Austrian letters published in Swedish newspapers in 1934-35, exercising influence on university students in 1936-37, membership in the NS Teachers’ Union, SS Ancestral Inheritance activity in Salzburg, membership in numerous pan-German societies, etc. Based on the preceding he was declared and ‘Illegal person.’ It is signed by the ‘Liquidator’ Skrbensky. The letter reinstating Wolfram is dated June 17, 1954 and it is directed to the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty at the University of Vienna. No justification is given, just the paragraph and subsections which were followed. It is signed by the Federal Minister for Instruction, Kolb. Both documents are found in the Austrian Federal Archives in Vienna, in the personnel file for Wolfram. 9 Schmidt also produced studies which clearly reflected the approach taken by the moon mythologists, see Schmidt 1952b. 10 UA Vienna, Personnel File A. Haberlandt, Phil. Dek. Zl. 2236 1948/49. 11 BDC, A/25/12a I. Wolfram, Richard - letter dated August 31, 1944. 12 BDC, B/29/W1. Wolfram, Richard - letter dated December 6, 1944. 13 Wolfram’s first publications after 1945 dealt with his South Tyrol and Norway materials (Fielhauer 1968a: 23). 14 Archive of the Institute for European Ethnology, University of Vienna; see also Bockhorn and Liesenfeld 1989: 7-11. 15 It is ironical that one of the most complete sources devoted to the study of Volkskunde in Austria is not available in print, only in photocopy. In 1981 Leopold Schmidt (1912-81) prepared and published his autobiography and began to distribute it to friends and colleagues (Schmidt 1982). Virtually every name mentioned in this present work appears in Schmidt’s Curriculum vitae. Mein Leben mit der Volkskunde [Curriculum vitae. My Life with Folklore], and all are subjected to his sometimes searing evaluation. Included among those commented on are the people he knew and worked with, but there are also comments about his own family, his wife and his daughter. They too are subjected to negative comments. Schmidt was then advised to gather up the copies which he had already distributed, which he promptly did. In spite of his request that the work not be photocopied, some recipients did and copies abound in the various academic institutes and museums of Austria and Germany. Two other works by Schmidt are equally of importance in understanding his contribution to Austrian Volkskunde, his 1947 ‘Die Volkskunde als Geisteswissenschaft [Folklore as Intellectual Scholarship] and his 1951 Geschichte der österreichischen Volkskunde [Histoiy of Austrian Folklore].

Notes 233 16 During his years as Director of the Austrian Museum for Folklore and of the Institute for Contemporary Folklore, Schmidt was also appointed Hofrat [Privy Councilor], President of the Verein fü r Volkskunde, a member of the Executive Board of the Austrian Folksong Work, Vice president of the Austrian National committee of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), and a full member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Among the many honors bestowed on him we mention the following: Honorary Member of the Greek Folklore Society in Athens, Honorable Decoration by the state Burgenland (1962), Cultural Prize of the state Lower Austria (1965), Foreign Member of the Finnish Antiquity Society (1968), Foreign Member of the Gustav-AdolfAcademy for Folk Life Study in Uppsala (1972), Brothers-Grimm-Prize (1977), Corresponding Member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1977) , Austrian Honorable Cross First Class for Scholarship and Art (1978) , Wilhelm-Hartel-Prize of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (1978). 17 The Archive of Austrian Folklore in the Austrian Museum for Folklore consists of the 1951-1953 questionnaire-investigations in the Burgen­ land and were to be used by Schmidt for a planned Atlas of Austrian Folklore. The first part of the pan-Austrian project was the Atlas of Burgenland Folklore. This project, however, was never published. Schmidt’s project was in competition with the Atlas planned by Adolf Helbok, Ernst Burgstaller and Richard Wolfram, the Austrian Folklore Atlas. Schmidt remained apart from this underetaking, and let this be known among his German colleagues. See Schmidt 1958a; Schmidt 1954b; Martischnig 1984; Martischnig 1989. Concerning Schmidt’s conception of the Atlas of Burgenland Folklore, see Schmidt 1967. 18 Concerning Rudolf Kriss, his Habilitation at the University of Vienna, his activities in Vienna and his incarceration during the NS era, see Bockhorn 1999. 19 The collection was exhibited in Vienna as the ‘Collection for German Religious Volkskunde’ in 1936 in the chambers of Cathedral and Diocese Museum in the Imperial Palace, the Hofburg (Schmidt 1951a: 149). 20 Josef Walleitner, Der Knecht Volks- und Lebenskunde eines Berufsstandes in Oberpinzgau (Veröffentlichungen, Bd. 1), Salzburg 1947; Josef Walleitner, Treue Helfer am H of Beitrag zur Lebens- und Volkskunde des Land- und Forstarbeiter-Berufsstandes (Veröffent­ lichungen, Bd. 2), Salzburg 1950; Hanns Koren, Pflug und Ari (Veröffentlichungen, Bd. 3), Salzburg 1950; Viktor von Geramb, Die Rauchstuben im Land Salzburg (Veröffentlichungen, Bd. 4), Salzburg 1950. 21 On the development of Volkskunde in Salzburg after 1945, see Eberhart 1984: 108-119. 22 The Kriss collection, maintained by his adopted son Lenz KrissRettenbeck, was officially opened in Munich in 1963; since 1995 the primary objects have been exhibited as section 14 of the Bavarian National Museum in the city of Straubing.

234

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

23 A complete list of the courses taught in Salzburg between 1947 and 1983 can be found in Eberhart 1984: 113-119. 24 In the Institute series, Salzburger Beiträge zur Volkskunde, there have been 13 volumes published as of 2002.

Chapter 6 1 Ilg refers to the dissertation written by one of his students, Hans Gschnitzer in 1965 on ‘Workers' Folklore from Wattens, Based on Workers at the Swarovski Works.' He also says that he lectured on Workers' Folklore' as early as 1949, and was thus one of the first to address to subject in the German-speaking world. 2 In his article, Petzoldt refers to documents written by Will Mai, but does not give the source. It must be assumed that these were documents provided to him by Mai's widow, and are not found in the German or Austrian federal archives. 3 In addition to the written texts, there are sound recordings made with the same Magnetofon used by Alfred Quellmalz for his recordings of South Tyrol folksongs. 4 In an endnote to this paragraph Nußbaumer says that Willi Mai's South Tyrol research was interpreted in a very one-sided way by Peter Schwinn (1989). 5 Beiträge zur Europäischen Ethnologie und Folklore. Reihe A. Texte und Untersuchungen (to date 5 volumes), Reihe B: Tagungsberichte und Materialien (to date 8 volumes). 6 Grazer Beiträge zur Europäischen Ethnologie (to date 10 volumes). 7 Course List of the University of Vienna 1959-71. 8 These approaches appear less in his publications but were clear in the courses he taught (which Bockhorn participated in from 1964-71); see also Wolfram 1970. 9 The Österreichischer Volkskundeatlas was published between 1959 and 1979 in six fascicles and included 117 pages. The accompanying commentaries were published between 1959 and 1981. 10 We are grateful to Stephen Corrsin of Wayne State University for supplying all of the information on the English Folkdance Society and the misuse of the ballad by Richard Wolfram in his publications. 11 The list includes Johler, Reinhard, et al. (eds), Ethnische Symbole und ästhetische Praxis in Europa (1999), Köstlin, Konrad and Herbert Nikitsch (eds), Ethnographisches Wissen (1999), Löffler, Klara (ed.), Dazwischen. Zur Spezifik der Empirien in der Volkskunde (2001), Zmegac, Capo, et al. (eds), Kroatische Volkskunde/Ethnologie in den Neunzigern (2001), and a Festschrift for Konrad Köstlin entitled Volkskultur und Moderne (2000). All together a total of 23 volumes have been published by the Institute, as Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Volkskunde and, as of volume 19 Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Ethnologie der Universität Wien.

Notes 235 12 Reinhard Johler is now the Ordinarius in the Institute for Empirical Cultural Science at the University of Tubingen.

Bibliography Authors' Note: The reader will note that some items in the bibliography are printed in bold. These items include full lists of the publications of the individual, e.g., in a Festschrift where all of the publications for a career are presented. Abschied. 1970. Abschied vom Volksleben. Untersuchungen des LudwigUhland-Instituts der Universität Tübingen. Bd.27. Tübingen. Acham, Karl (Ed.). 2002. Geschichte der österreichischen Human­ wissenschaften. Bd. 4 Geschichte und fremde Kulturen. Wien. Acker-Sutter, Rotraut (Ed.). 1984. Heimat als Erbe und Auftrag. Festschrift für Kurt Conrad, Direktor des Salzburger Freilicht­ museums, zum 65. Geburtstag. Salzburg. Acker-Sutter, Rotraut. 1986. 'Zum Geleit.' In Salzburger Landesinstitut für Volkskunde 1986: 7. Actes du congrès. 1955. Actes du congrès international d'ethnologie régionale. Arnhem. Albrecht, Sophie and Karl Paganini. 1934. Kinderspiele aus Nieder­ österreich. Wien. Amanshauser, Helmut. 1941. Tätigkeitsbericht der Gauarbeitsgemein­ schaft Salzburg für deutsche Volkskunde.' Deutsche Volkskunde 3: 194195. Anonymos. 1936. 'Gläubige Wissenschaft.' Wille und Macht 4, Heft 22: 812.

Assion, Peter and Peter Schwinn. 1988. 'Migration, Politik und Volkskunde 1940/43. Zur Tätigkeit des SS-Ahnenerbes in Südtirol.' In Greverus, Köstlin and Schilling 1988: 221-226. Baiti, Hermann, Nikolaus Grass and Hans Constantin Faußner (Eds). 1990. Recht und Geschichte. Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Gesellschafts- und Geistesgeschichte unserer Zeit. Studien zur Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Kulturgeschichte. Bd. 14. Sigmaringen. Barbisch, Hans. 1922. Vandans. Eine Heimatkunde aus dem Tale Montafon in Vorarlberg. Innsbruck. Bargheer, Ernst and Herbert Freudenthal (Eds). 1934. Volkskunde-Arbeit. Zielsetzungen und Gehalte. Otto Lauffer zum 70. Geburtstage. Berlin and Leipzig. Barnay, Markus. 1988. Die Erfindung des Vorarlbergers. Ethnizitätsbildung und Landesbewußtsein im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Geschichte und Gesellschaft Vorarlbergs. Bd. 3. Bregenz. Bärnthaler, I. 1971. Die Vaterländische Front. Geschichte und Organisation. Wien.

238

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

Baumgartner, Georg (Ed.). 1936. Die sechsten Salzburger Hochschulwochen. Salzburg. Bau singer, Hermann. 1961. Volkskultur in der technischen Welt. Stuttgart. Bausinger, Hermann. 1965. Volksideologie und Volksforschung. Zur nationalsozialistischen Volkskunde. ' Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 61: 177204. Bausinger, Hermann. 1969. 'Zur Algebra der Kontinuität.' In Bausinger and Brückner 1969: 9-30. Bausinger, Hermann. 1971a. Volkskunde. Von der Altertumsforschung zur Kulturanalyse. Das Wissen der Gegenwart. Geisteswissenschaften. Berlin and Darmstadt. Bausinger, Hermann. 1971b. 'Konsequentes Extrem. Völkische Wissen­ schaft.' In Bausinger 1971a: 61-73. Bausinger, Hermann. 1985. 'Schlußwort.' In Kohlmann and Bausinger 1985: 387-389. Bausinger, Hermann. 1994. 'Nazi Folk Ideology and Folk Research.' In Dow and Lixfeld 1994: 11-33. Bausinger, Hermann and Wolfgang Brückner (Eds). 1969. Kontinuität? Geschichtlichkeit und Dauer als volkskundliches Problem. Berlin. Bausinger, Hermann, Utz Jeggle, Gottfried Korff and Martin Scharfe. 1978. Grundzüge der Volkskunde. Grundzüge. Bd. 34. Darmstadt. Becker, Michael. 1990. 'Leben und Wirken Prof. Ilg's am Institut.' In Regner, Tiefenthaler and Fleisch 1990: 22-33. Becker, Siegfried, Andreas C. Bimmer, Karl Braun, Jutta Buchner-Fuhs, Sabine Gieske and Christel Köhle-Hezinger (Eds). 2001. Volkskundliche Tableaus. Eine Festschrift für Martin Scharfe zum 65. Geburtstag von Weggefährten, Freunden und Schülern. Münster, New York, München and Berlin. Beiti, Klaus (Ed.). 1972. Volkskunde. Fakten und Analysen. Festgabe fü r Leopold Schmidt zum 60. Geburtstag. Sonderschriften des Vereines für Volkskunde in Wien. Bd. 2. Wien. Beiti, Klaus (Ed.). 1977. Leopold Schmidt-Bibliographie. Verzeichnis der wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen 1930-1977. Buchreihe der österreichischen Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. Neue Serie. Bd.3. Wien. Beiti, Klaus. 1982. 'Leopold Schmidt t-’ österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 36/85: 1-4. Beiti, Klaus (Ed.). 1982. Gedenkschrift für Leopold Schmidt (19121981) zum 70. Geburtstag. Buchreihe der Österreichischen Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. Neue Serie. Bd.4. Wien. Beiti, Klaus. 1986. 'Karl Haiding j . ’ Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 89: 47. Beiti, Klaus (Ed.). 1990. Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde. Kleine Geschichten eines großen Forschungsuntemehmens. Aus den ‘Erinnerungen eines Westpreußen' (1968) von Reinhold Knopf und aus dem Nachlaßarchiv von Richard Beiti. Veröffentlichungen zur Volkskunde und Kulturgeschichte. Bd. 41. Würzburg.

Bibliography 239 Beiti, Klaus (Ed.). 1998. Galizien. Ethnographische Erkundung bei den Bojken und Huzulen in den Karpaten. Kittseer Schriften zur Volkskunde 9. Wien. Beiträge zur Anthropologie. 1894. Beiträge zur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte von Tirol. Festschrift zur Feier des 25jährigen Jubiläums der Deutschen Anthropologischen Gesellschaft 24.-28. August 1894 in Innsbruck. Innsbruck. Beiträge zur Geschichte. 1947. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Heimat­ kunde Tirols. Festschrift zu Ehren Hermann Wopfners. Bd. 1. Schlern-Schriften. Bd. 52. Innsbruck. Beiträge zur Volkskunde. 1948. Beiträge zur Volkskunde Tirols. Festschrift zu Ehren Hermann Wopfners. Bd. 2. Schlern-Schriften. Bd. 53. Innsbruck. Birkhan, Helmut. 1988. ‘Otto Höfler. Nachruf.’ Almanach der Öster­ reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 138: 384-406. Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna. 1888. The Secret Doctrines. 2 Vols. London. Bockhorn, Elisabeth. 1994. ‘Man hat soviel wenig vom Leben gehabt, so wenig...' Vom Leben einer Bergbäuerin - ein volkskundlicher Beitrag zur biographischen Methode. Dissertation an der Universität Wien. Bockhom, Elisabeth and Olaf Bockhorn. 1984. ‘Aus dem Leben einer Bergbäuerin/ In Ehalt 1984: 163-182. Bockhorn, Olaf. 1982. Verzeichnis der bei Richard Wolfram in den Jahren 1941-1976 an der Universität Wien erarbeiteten Dissertationen/ In Bockhorn and Fielhauer 1982: 283-286. Bockhorn, Olaf. 1987. Wiener Volkskunde 1938-1945/ In Gerndt 1987: 229-237. Bockhorn, Olaf. 1988. ‘Zur Geschichte der Volkskunde an der Universität Wien. Von den Anfängen bis 1939/ In Lehmann and Kuntz 1988: 63-83. Bockhorn, Olaf. 1989. ‘Der Kampf um die ‘Ostmark/ Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen Volkskunde in Österreich/ In Heiß, Matti, Meissl, Saurer and Stuhlpfarrer 1989: 17-38. Bockhorn, Olaf. 1991. Volkskundliche Filme des ‘SS-Ahnenerbes in Süd­ tirol/ In Johler, Paulmichl and Plankensteiner 1991: 106-135. Bockhorn, Olaf. 1994. The Battle for the Ostmark/ In Dow and Lixfeld 1994: 135-155. Bockhorn, Olaf. 1999. ‘Rudolf Kriss und die Universität Wien. Eine Dokumentation/ In Grieshofer and Schindler 1999: 185-200. Bockhorn, Olaf, Helmut Eberhart and Wolfdieter Zupfer (Eds). 1989. Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Kultur. Arbeiterkultur zwischen Museum und Realität. Beiträge der 4. Arbeitstagung der Kommission Arbeiter­ kultur* in der Deutschen Gesellschaft fü r Volkskunde in Steyr vom 30.4.2.5.1987. Beiträge zur Volkskunde und Kulturanalyse. Bd.3. Wien. Bockhorn, Olaf and Helmut Eberhart. 1996. Volkskunde im Reichsgau Salzburg. Institutionen - Personen - Tendenzen/ In Salzburger Landes­ institut 1996: 57-80. Bockhorn, Olaf and Helmut Paul Fielhauer (Eds) 1982. Kulturelles Erbe und Aneignung. Festschrift für Richard Wolfram zum 80.

240

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Geburtstag. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Volkskunde der Universität Wien. Bd. 9. Wien. Bockhorn, Olaf and Gertraud Liesenfeld (Eds). 1989. Volkskunde in der Hanuschgasse. Forschung - Lehre - Praxis. 25 Jahre Institut fü r Volks­ kunde der Universität Wien. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Volks­ kunde der Universität Wien. Bd. 13. Wien. Bollmus, Reinhard. 1970. Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner. Zum Machtkampf im nationalsozialistischen Herrschaftssystem. Studien zur Zeitgeschichte. Stuttgart. Bollmus, Reinhard. 1980. 'Zum Projekt einer nationalsozialistischen Alternativ-Universität. Alfred Rosenbergs 'Hohe Schule.” In Heinemann 1980, Teil 2: 125-152. Bollmus, Reinhard. 1987. 'Zwei Volkskunden im Dritten Reich. Überlegungen eines Historikers/ In Gerndt 1987: 49-60. Bollmus, Reinhard. 1989. 'Alfred Rosenberg - 'Chefideologe' des National­ sozialismus?' In Smelser and Zitelmann 1989: 223-235. Brandes, Georg. 1902. Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature. New York. Bratanic, B. and E. Burgstaller (Eds). 1959. Konferenz fü r volkskundliche Kartographie in Linz a.d.D. 11.-13. Dezember 1958. Tagungsbericht. Linz. Brednich, Rolf Wilhelm. 1985. 'Das Weigelsche Sinnbildarchiv in Göttingen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Ideologiekritik der national­ sozialistischen Volkskunde.' Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 81: 22-38. Brednich, Rolf Wilhelm. 1987a. 'Die Volkskunde an der Universität Göttingen 1938-1945.'In Gerndt 1987: 109-117. Brednich, Rolf Wilhelm. 1987b. Volkskunde - die völkische Wissenschaft von Blut und Boden.' In Die Universität Göttingen 1987: 313-320. Brednich, Rolf Wilhelm. 1994. The Weigel Symbol Archive and the Ideology of National Socialist Folklore.' In Dow and Lixfeld 1994: 97-111. Bruck, Andreas. 1990. Vergangenheitsbewältigung?! Kritische Anmerkungen zur Aufarbeitung der nationalsozialistischen Vergangen­ heit in der Volkskunde.' Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 86: 177-202. Brückner, Wolfgang. 1982. 'Leopold Schmidt 1912-1981.' Bayerische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 9: 7-15. Brückner, Wolfgang. 1986. 'Volkskunde und Nationalsozialismus.' Zum Beispiel Matthes Ziegler.' Bayerische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 13: 189192. Brückner, Wolfgang. 1988. 'Bildgebrauch und Kreuzzug gegen Bauern im 13. Jahrhundert. Oder die Nazis in Stedingen.' Bayerische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 15: 91-97. Brückner, Wolfgang and Klaus Beiti (Eds). 1983. Volkskunde als akademische Disziplin. Studien zur Institutionenausbildung. Referate eines wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Symposions vom 8.-10. Oktober 1982 in Würzburg. österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. Bd. 414. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Gegenwartskunde. Nr. 12. Wien. Burgstaller, Ernst. 1959. 'Der österreichische Volkskundeatlas.' Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 13/62: 123-130.

Bibliography 241 Burgstaller, Ernst. 1961. ‘Erwiderung/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 15/64: 74. Burleigh, Michael and Wolfgang Wippermann. 1991. The Racial State. Germany 1933-1945. Cambridge. Buschan, Georg (Ed.). 1926. Ülustrierte Völkerkunde. Bd. II/2. Stuttgart. Carlen, Louis. 1974. ‘Zum Geleit/ In Carlen and Steinegger 1974: 13-19. Carlen, Louis. 1990. Vorrede/In Grass 1990a: 1-4. Carlen, Louis and Fritz Steinegger (Eds). 1974-1975. Festschrift Nikolaus Grass zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von Fach­ genossen, Freunden und Schülern. Bd. 1-2. Innsbruck, München. Cermak, Erich. 1980. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Lehrkörpers der philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Wien zwischen 1938 und 1945. Geisteswiss. Diss. Wien. Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. 1901. Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. 3. Aufl. Bd. 1-2. München. Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. 1968. Foundations o f the Nineteenth Century. New York. Conte, Edouard. 1987. Wilhelm Schmidt: Des letzten Kaisers Beichtvater und das ‘neudeutsche Heidentum.” In Gemdt 1987: 261-278. Corrsin, Stephen D. 1997. Sword Dancing in Europe. A History.Enfield Lock. Corrsin, Stephen D. 1998. ‘A Request for Help/ The Morris Dancer. Journal o f the Morris Ring. 5: 143. Dachler, Anton. 1908. Besprechung von Geramb 1908. österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 14: 216-218. Dachler, Anton. 1909a. ‘Replik/ österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 15: 140-144. Dachler, Anton. 1909b. Karte der österreichischen Bauemhausformen. Zeitschrift fü r Österreichische Volkskunde. Supplementheft 6. Wien. Daim, Wilfried. 1994. Der Mann, der Hitler die Ideen gab: Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. 3. Auflage. Wien. Damico, Helen and John Leyerle. 1993. Heroic Poetry in the Anglo Saxon Period. Studies in Honor o f Jess B. Bessinger, Jr. Studies in Medieval Culture XXXII. Kalamazoo, Michigan. Deißner, Vera. 1997. Die Volkskunde und ihre Methoden: Perspektiven auf die Geschichte einer ‘tastend-schreitenden Wissenschaft} bis 1945. Studien zur Volkskultur in Rheinland-Pfalz. Bd. 21. Mainz. Denkschrift. 1918. Denkschrift des akademischen Senats der Universität Innsbruck. Innsbruck. Deutsch, Walter and Maria Walcher (Eds). 1995. Sommerakademie Volkskultur 1994. Weg und Raum. Wien. Deutsche Volkskunde im Schrifttum. 1938. Deutsche Volkskunde im Schrifttum. Ein Leitfaden für die Schulungs- und Erziehungsarbeit der NSDAP. Herausgegeben von der parteiamtlichen ‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Deutsche Volkskunde' in Verbindung mit dem Amt Schrifttumspflege beim Beauftragten des Führers für die gesamte geistige und weltanschauliche Erziehung der NSDAP. Berlin.

242

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Deutschlands Erneuerung. 1918. Deutschlands Erneuerung. Monatsschrift für das deutsche Volk. 2. Jg., Heft 7. München. Die Universität Göttingen. 1987. Die Universität Göttingen unter dem Nationalsozialismus. Das verdrängte Kapitel ihrer 250jährigen Geschichte. München. Dörrer, Anton. 1951. 'Autoergographie.' In Grass 1950-1951. Bd. 2: 9-46. Dörrer, Anton. 1952. 'Gehalts- und Gestaltswandel der alpinen Volks­ kultur. Funktionsabschwächung der Gebirgswelt.' Der Sehlem 26: 163168, 367-375. Dörrer, Anton. 1961. Wie steht es um die Ausgaben der Märchen, Sagen und Legenden aus Tirol?' Der Sehlem 35: 271-272. Dörrer, Anton. 1962. 'Märchen und Märchenforschung in Tirol.' Der Sehlem 37: 104-111. Dörrer, Anton and Leopold Schmidt. 1947a. Widmung an Hermann Wopfner.' In Dörrer and Schmidt 1947b: 7-10. Dörrer, Anton and Leopold Schmidt (Eds). 1947b. Volkskundliches aus Österreich und Südtirol. Hermann Wopfner zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht. Österreichische Volkskultur. Bd. 1. Wien. Dörrer, Karl. 1948. 'Zur Familiengeschichte der Wopfner.' In Beiträge zur Volkskunde. 1948: 7-14. Dorson, Richard M. 1950. The Eclipse of Solar Mythology.' In Sebeok 1968: 25-63. Dow, James R. 2001. 'Bericht über eine Ausstellung mit angeschlossener Tagung in Dietenheim bei Bruneck, 28. bis 30. Juni 2001: “Das volks­ kundliche Foto: Südtirol 1940/41. Realität/Wirklichkeit/Poesie.”' Öster­ reichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde LV/104 (2001): 460-465. Dow, James R. 2002. 'Nazi Volkskunde and Photography in South Tyrol: Thoughts on an Exhibition and Conference in Dietenheim (Italy), June 28-30, 2001 .’American Folklore Society News 31:2 (2002):7-15. Dow, James R. and Hannjost Lixfeld (Eds) 1986. German Volkskunde. A Decade o f Theoretical Confrontation, Debate, and Reoñentation (19671977). Folklore Studies in Translation. Bloomington, Indiana. Dow, James R. and Hannjost Lixfeld (Eds). 1994. The Nazification o f an Academic Discipline. German Volkskunde o f the Third Reich. Folklore Studies in Translation. Bloomington, Indiana. Eberhart, Helmut. 1983. 'Die Entwicklung des Faches Volkskunde an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.' In Brückner and Beiti 1983: 35-50. Eberhart, Helmut. 1984. 'Die Volkskunde an der Universität Salzburg. Ein Beitrag zur Institutionengeschichte.' In Acker-Sutter 1984: 99-119. Eberhart, Helmut. 1985. 'Zwischen Realität und Romantik. Die ViktorGeramb-Fotosammlung am Institut für Volkskunde in Graz.' Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 81: 1-21. Eberhart, Helmut. 1987. Volkskunde und Nationalsozialismus. Arbeits­ tagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde in München vom 22.-25.10.1986.' Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 83: 74-79. Eberhart, Helmut. 1991a. 'Karl Weinhold in Graz. Ein Beitrag zur Wissen­ schaftsgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert. In Sievers 1991: 23-40.

Bibliography 243 Eberhart, Helmut. 1991b. Viktor Geramb und die Volkskunde in Graz zur Zeit der nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung/ Historisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Graz 21 /22: 123-145. Eberhart, Helmut. 1994a Volkskunde in Österreich/ In Jacobeit, Lixfeld, Bockhorn, and Dow. 1994: 403-406, 427-448, 529-540, 549-558, 579588. Eberhart, Helmut. 1994b 'Folklore at the Universities of Graz and Salzburg at the Time of the National Socialist Seizure of Power/ In Dow and Lixfeld 1994: 156-188. Eberhart, Helmut. 1999a. Integration - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit an konkreten Beispielen/ In Eberhart and Verhovsek 1999: 249-263. Eberhart, Helmut. 1999b. 'Zwischen Vielfalt und Beliebigkeit. Zum Wandel des Kulturellen Systems Wallfahrt in der vorindustriellen Gesellschaft/ In Grieshofer and Schindler 1999: 327-338. Eberhart, Helmut. 2001. '“Die Volkskunde nährt durchaus keinen Gegen­ satz gegen andere Völker, die ist vielmehr im besten Sinn kosmo­ politisch.” Zur Rezeption der Werke Raimund Friedrich Kaindls/ In Becker, Bimmer, Braun, Buchner-Fuhs, Gieske, Köhle-Hezinger (Eds). 2001: 357-374. Eberhart, Helmut and Karl Kaser (Eds). 1995. Albanien. Stammesleben zwischen Tradition und Moderne. Wien. Eberhart, Helmut and Johann Verhovsek (Eds). 1999. Fremdenfeindlich­ keit als gesellschaftliches Problem. Grazer Beiträge zur europäischen Ethnologie. Bd. 8. Frankfurt, New York and Vienna. Ehalt, Hubert Ch. (Ed.). 1984. Geschichte von unten. Fragestellungen, Methoden und Projekte einer Geschichte des Alltaqs. Kulturstudien. Bd. 1. Wien. Ehmer, Josef and Albert Müller. 1989. 'Sozialgeschichte in Österreich. Traditionen, Entwicklungsstränge und Innovationspotential/ In Kocka 1989: 109-140. Ehrenreich, P.M.A. 1910. Die allgemeine Mythologie und ihre ethno­ logischen Grundlagen. Leipzig. Emmerich, Wolfgang. 1968. Germanistische Volkstumsideologie. Genese und Kritik der Volksforschung im Dritten Reich. Volksleben. Bd.20 Tübingen. Emmerich, Wolfgang. 1971. Zur Kritik der Volkstumsideologie. Edition Suhrkamp. Bd. 502. Frankfurt am Main. Enzinger, Moriz. (1928). ‘Die Innsbrucker Universität und die deutsche Literatur/ In Universitätsamt Innsbruck (1928): 33-50. Enzinger, Moritz. 1970. 'Der Volkskundler Ludwig von Hörmann zu Hörbach (geb. Feldkirch in Vorarlberg 12. Oktober 1837, gest. 14. Februar 1924)/ Tiroler Heimat 34: 109-113. Erich, Oswald A. and Richard Beiti (Begr.). 1974. Wörterbuch der deutschen Volkskunde. Dritte Auflage. Kröners Taschenbuchausgabe Bd. 127. Stuttgart. Fehrle, Eugen. 1927. ‘Zur Einführung/ In Weiser 1927: 7-8. Fehrle, Eugen (Ed.). 1932. Ernte auf dem Gebiete der Volkskunde als Festgabe dem verehrten Meister Rudolf Much zum 70. Geburtstag am 7.

244

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

Oktober 1932 dargebracht von reichsdeutschen Mitforschem. Bühl/ Baden. Fehrle, Eugen. 1940. Die Eligiussage. Frankfurt am Main. Festschrift des Akademischen Historikerklubs. 1923. Festschrift des Akademischen Historikerklubs in Innsbruck, herausgegeben anläßlich seines fünfzigsten Stiftungsfestes 1923. Innsbruck. Festschrift zur Feier. 1936. Festschrift zur Feier des 350jährigen Bestandes der Karl-Franzens-Universität zu Graz. Graz. Fielhauer, Helmut. 1968. Verzeichnis der Schriften Richard Wolframs/ In Fielhauer 1968 (Ed.): 18-30. Fielhauer, Helmut (Ed.). 1968. Volkskunde und Volkskultur. Fest­ schrift für Richard Wolfram. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Volkskunde der Universität Wien. Bd. 2. Wien. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1972. Volksmedizin - Heilkulturwissenschaft. Grundsätzliche Erhebungen anhand von Beispielen aus Niederöster­ reich/ Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 102: 114136. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1973a. “'Maulgabe' und ‘Mahlgemeinschaft/ Darstellung und Deutung eines Brauches am Beispiel Niederöster­ reich.” Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 27/76: 173-213. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1973b. Mittwintermasken in Niederösterreich. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Habilschrift. Wien. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1973c. 'Anmerkungen zum volkskundlichen Film in Österreich/ Wissenschaftlicher Film in Forschung und Lehre. 19621972. Festschrift, hg. von Bundesstaatliche Hauptstelle für Wissen­ schaftliche Kinematographie, Wien 1973: 36-41. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1978. 'Das Ende einer Minderheit. Zuwanderung und Eingliederung slowakischer Landarbeiter in einer niederöster­ reichischen Grenzgemeinde/ Rheinisches Jahrbuch fü r Volkskunde 22/2: 97-151. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1980. 'Die Schwierigkeit, ein Volkskundler' zu sein/ Extrablatt 7/4: 78. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1981. ‘Allerheiligenstriezel aus Stroh - Ein Burschenbrauch im Weinviertel, Niederösterreich/ Wissenschaftlicher Film 27 (Oktober 1981): 43-53. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1982. 'Arbeiterkultur und Museum in Österreich. Der Versuch eines Lageberichts/ In Fielhauer and Bockhorn 1982: 295309. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1983. 'Industrielle Arbeitsmittel und Kultur.' In Köstlin and Bausinger 1983: 191-210. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1984. Volkskunde als demokratische Kultur­ geschichtsschreibung.'In Ehalt 1984: 59-79. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1987. Volkskunde als demokratische Kultur­ geschichtsschreibung. Ausgewählte Aufsätze aus zwei Jahrzehnten. Beiträge zur Volkskunde und Kulturanalyse. Bd. 1. Wien. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1988. Von der Heimatkunde zur Alltagsforschung. Beiträge zur Währinger Kulturgeschichte. Eingeleitet und herausgegeben

Bibliography 245 von Herbert Nikitsch. Beiträge zur Volkskunde und Kulturanalyse. Bd. 2. Wien. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul. 1989. ‘Zwischen Landwirtschaft und Fabrik. Die ländliche Arbeiterschaft Niederösterreichs während der Ersten Republik.’ In Bockhom and Liesenfeld 1989: 59-100. Fielhauer, Helmut Paul and Olaf Bockhom (Eds). 1982. Die andere Kultur. Volkskunde, Sozialwissensckaften und Arbeiterkultur. Ein Tagungs­ bericht Wien, München and Zürich. Flitner, Andreas (Ed.). 1965. Deutsches Geistesleben und National­ sozialismus. Eine Vortragsreihe der Universität Tübingen mit einem Nachwort von Hermann Diem. Tübingen. Forrer, Robert. 1906. Von alter und ältester Bauernkunst. Führer zur Kunst. Heft 5. Eßlingen. Franz, Leonhard. 1936. ‘Rudolf Much zum Gedächtnis.’ Nachrichtenblatt fü r Deutsche Vorzeit 12: 1-3. Frauwallner, Erich. 1961. ‘Geschichte und Aufgaben der Wiener Indologie.’ Anzeiger der phil-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 98: 77-95. Gaäl, Käroly. 1965. Angaben zu den abergläubischen Erzählungen aus dem südlichen Burgenland. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland, Heft 33. Burgenländisches Landesmuseum. Eisenstadt. Gaäl, Käroly. 1966. Spinnstubenlieder. Studia Hungarica 3. München. Gaäl, Käroly. 1969. Wolfau. Bericht über die Feldforschung von 1965/66. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland, Heft 42. Burgen­ ländisches Landesmuseum. Eisenstadt. Gaäl, Käroly. 1991. Heimat Sallingberg. Familie, Vereine, Gemeinde als heimatbildende Kräfte. Marktgemeinde Sallingberg. Gaäl, Käroly and Olaf Bockhorn (Eds). 1976. Tadten. Eine dorfmonographische Forschung der Ethnographia Pannonica Austriaca 1972/73. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland, Heft 56. Burgen­ ländisches Landesmuseum. Eisenstadt. Gajek, Esther. 1991. ‘Joseph Otto Plassmann. Eine akademische Laufbahn im Nationalsozialismus.’ In Sievers 1991: 121-155. Garschagen, Anneliese. 1958. TJniv.-Prof. Dr. Adolf Helbok.’ Jahrbuch des Vorarlberger Landesmuseums 1958: 360-374. Gatterer, Claus. 1972. Erbfeindschaft. Italien-Österreich. Wien u.a. Gebhard, Torsten. 1982. ln memoriam Leopold Schmidt.’ Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 78: 61-63. Gehler, Michael. 1990. Studenten und Politik. Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft an der Universität Innsbruck 1918-1938. Innsbrucker Forschungen zur Zeitgeschichte. Bd. 6. Innsbruck. Gennep, Arnold van. 1937-1958. Manuel de folklore française contemporain. I-IV. Paris. Geramb, Viktor. 1908. ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der Hausforschung in den Ostalpen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Grundrißformen.’ Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft 38: 96-135.

246

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Geramb, Viktor. 1909a. 'Eine Betrachtung der ostalpinen Bauern­ haustypen nach den Grundrissen der Wohnraumlage/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 15: 138-140. Geramb, Viktor. 1909b. 'Ein Nachwort zu meiner im Vorjahre in diesen Mitteilungen erschienenen Arbeit/ Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft 39: 282-285. Geramb, Viktor. 1909c. Vorläufiger Reisebericht über die geographische Verbreitung und die Formen des Rauchstubenhauses in den Ostalpen. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Anzeiger der philosophisch­ historischen Klasse 18. Separatum. Wien. Geramb, Viktor. 1910. Volkskunde I und II/ Blätter zur Geschichte und Heimatkunde der Alpenländer. Beilage zu Nr. 44 des Grazer Tagblattes vom 13. Februar 1910: 13-14, 19-20. Geramb, Viktor. 1913. 'Gedanken über Volkskunde und Heimatschutz/ Deutsch-Österreich 1: 332-338. Geramb, Viktor. 1914a. Volkskundliche Abteilung. Zur Geschichte der neuen Sammlung/ Jahresberichte des Steiermärkischen Landes­ museums ‘Joanneum’ über das Jahr 1913: 58-73. Geramb, Viktor. 1914b. Die nationale Bewegung und die Volkskunde. Vortrag gehalten im Verein 'Deutsche Heimat’ in Wien am 1.10.1913. Wien. Geramb, Viktor. 1917. Verlorenes Bauernland/ Tagespost (Graz) vom 29. April 1917: 15. Geramb, Viktor. 1919a. Von Volkstum und Heimat. Gedanken zum Neuauf­ bau. Graz. Geramb, Viktor. 1919b. T)ie Volkskunde im Neuaufbau des Staates/ Heimgarten 43: 399-406. Geramb, Viktor. 1922a. Von Volkstum und Heimat. Gedanken zum Neuauf­ bau. 2. Auflage. Graz. Geramb, Viktor. 1922b. Von ländlicher Volksbildungsarbeit. Führer für Volksbildner, österreichisches Volksbildungswerk (Eds). Bd. 1. Wien. Geramb, Viktor. 1924a. 'Die Volkskunde als Wissenschaft/ Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 38: 323-341. Geramb, Viktor. 1924b. Deutsches Brauchtum in Österreich Graz. Geramb, Viktor. 1926. 'Die Kulturgeschichte der Rauchstuben. Ein Beitrag zur Hausforschung/ Wörter und Sachen 9: 1-67. Geramb, Viktor. 1928. 'Zur Frage nach den Grenzen, Aufgaben und Methoden der deutschen Volkskunde/ Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde 38: 163-181. Geramb, Viktor. 1930. 'Großdeutsche Kultureinheit im Volksleben/ In Leinwaechter and Paller 1930: 31-32. Geramb, Viktor. 1933. 'Die Bedeutung des Österreichers für das deutsche Volk/ Deutscher Volkskalender 1933: 124-128. Geramb, Viktor. 1934. Was ein Volk sei/ In Mager 1934: 126-127. Geramb, Viktor. 1936a. T)ie Volkskunde an der Grazer Universität/ In Festschrift zur Feier 1936: 169-185. Geramb, Viktor. 1936b. Volkskundliche Grundfragen/ In Baumgartner 1936: 125-132.

Bibliography 247 Geramb, Viktor. 1936c. 'Zu den volkskundlichen Grundfragen/ Nieder­ deutsche Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 14: 155-164. Geramb, Viktor. 1937. 'Urverbundenheit/ Hessische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 36: 1-31. Geramb, Viktor. 1938. 'Karl Maria Stepan/ Tagespost (Graz) vom 6. März 1938: 9. Geramb, Viktor. 1941. Kinder- und Hausmärchen aus der Steiermark. Der Kranz. Bd. 1. Graz. Geramb, Viktor. 1942. 'Zur Volkskunde des Savetales/ Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines fü r Steiermark 35: 78-84. Geramb, Viktor. 1943. 'Uber den Kummetkamm/ Volkswerk 3: 227-238. Geramb, Viktor. 1946a. 'Entpolitisierung des Lebens/ Austria 1, Heft 1: 1518. Geramb, Viktor. 1946b. Um Österreichs Volkskultur. Graz. Geramb, Viktor. 1947. 'Zu unseren Aufgaben/ Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 50/1: 8-14. Geramb, Viktor. 1948. Sitte und Brauch in Österreich. Graz. Geramb, Viktor. 1949. ‘Österreich, Land und Leute/ Unser Weg 4: 1-9. Geramb, Viktor. 1950a. 'Österreich, Land und Leute. 2. Teil/ Unser Weg 5: 2 - 12.

Geramb, Viktor. 1950b. 'Besprechung von Weiss 1946/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 53: 180-187. Geramb, Viktor. 1950c. Die Rauchstuben im Lande Salzburg. Salzburg. Geramb, Viktor. 1951. 'Autobiographie/ In Grass 1950-1951, Bd. 2: 78-92. Geramb, Viktor. 1953. ‘Der Volksbegriff in der Geistesgeschichte und in der Volkskunde/ Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 50: 7-34. Geramb, Viktor. 1954a. Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl. Leben und Wirken. Salzburg. Geramb, Viktor. 1954b. 'Kärntner Rauchstuben/ Carinthia 1/144: 663-732. Geramb, Viktor. 1958. 'Urverbundenheit/ In Lutz 1958: 202-228. Geramb, Viktor. 1980. Kinder- und Hausmärchen aus der Steiermark. 5. Auflage. Graz. Gerndt, Helge. 1979. 'Abschied von Riehl - in allen Ehren/ Jahrbuch für Volkskunde 2: 77-88. Gerndt, Helge. 1985. Volkskunde und Nationalsozialismus/ DGVInformationen 94: 81-83. Gerndt, Helge (Ed.). 1987. Volkskunde und Nationalsozialismus. Referate und Diskussionen einer Tagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft fü r Volkskunde. München, 23. bis 25. Oktober 1986. Münchner Beiträge zur Volkskunde. Bd. 7. München. Gerndt, Helge (Ed.). 1988. Fach und Begriff'Volkskunde' in der Diskussion. Wege der Forschung. Bd. 641. Darmstadt. Gilch, Eva. 1986. Volkskunde’an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in den Jahren 1933-1945/ In Gilch, Schramka and Prütting 1986: 11-39. Gilch, Eva, Carmen Schramka and Hildegunde Prütting. 1986. Volkskunde an der Münchner Universität 1933-1945. Münchner Beiträge zur Volkskunde. Bd. 6. München.

248

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Gläubige Wissenschaft. 1936. ‘Gläubige Wissenschaft.' Wille und Macht 4/22: 8-12. Gobineau, Joseph Arthur Comte de. 1967. Inequality o f the Human Races. New York. Goldstern, Eugenie. 1922. Hochgebirgsvolk in Savoyen und Graubünden. Ein Beitrag zur romanischen Volkskunde. Wiener Zeitschrift für Volks­ kunde. Ergänzungsheft 14. Wien. Goller, Peter. 1990. ‘Nationalökonomie und Soziologie an der Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftlichen Fakultät Innsbruck (1914-1945).' Tiroler Heimat 54: 124-146. Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. 1992. The Occult Roots o f Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology. The Ariosophists o f Austria and Germany, 1890-1935. London. Grass, Nikolaus (Ltg.). 1950-1951. Österreichische Geschichtswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen. Bd. 1-2. Schiern Schriften Bd. 68-69. Innsbruck. Grass, Nikolaus. 1960. ‘Zu Anton Dörrers Eintritt ins 75. Lebensjahr.' Der Sehlem 34: 155-156. Grass, Nikolaus. 1961. ‘Anton Dörrer und die Rechtliche Volkskunde Tirols.' Der Sehlem 35: 14-15. Grass, Nikolaus. 1962a. ‘Professor Richard Weiß f und die Almforschung in Tirol.' Der Sehlem 36: 79-80. Grass, Nikolaus. 1962b. ‘Prälat Georg Schreiber und Tirol.' Der Sehlem 36: 342-344. Grass, Nikolaus. 1964. ‘Professor Dr. Hermann Wopfner f, der Geschichts­ schreiber des Tiroler Bauernstandes.' Der Sehlem 38: 79-84. Grass, Nikolaus. 1990a. Alm und Wein. Aufsätze aus Rechts- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Hildesheim. Grass, Nikolaus. 1990b. ‘Autoergographie.' In Baiti, Grass and Faußner. 1990. Greiffenhagen, Karin and Karin Auer. 1975. Verzeichnis der Veröffentlichungen von Nikolaus Grass.’ In Carlen and Steinegger 1974-75. Bd. 2: 586-608. Greverus, Ina-Maria. 1972. ‘Kulturelle Ordnung.' In Beiti 1972: 6-13. Greverus, Ina-Maria, Konrad Köstlin and Heinz Schilling (Eds). 1988. Kulturkontakt, Kulturkonflikt. Zur Erfahrung des Fremden. 26. Deutscher Volkskundekongreß in Frankfurt vom 28. September bis 2. Oktober 1987. Bd. 1-2. Notizen. Bd. 28. Frankfurt am Main. Grieshofer, Franz and Margot Schindler (Eds). 1999. Netzwerk Volkskunde. Ideen und Wege. Festgabe für Klaus Beiti zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Sonderschriften des Vereins für Volkskunde in Wien. Bd. 4. Wien. Grießmair, Hans. 1988. ‘Die Option in Südtirol 1939. Volkskunde als Hilfswissenschaft zur Umsiedlung.' In Greverus, Köstlin and Schilling 1988: 219-220. Grimm, Brothers. 1981. The German Legends o f the Brothers Grimm. 2 vols. Edited and translated by Donald Ward. Philadelphia.

Bibliography 249 Gröhsl, Margit. 1965. ‘Edmund Mudrak Bibliographie.’ Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 19/68: 86-92. Gruber, Alfons. 1978. Südtirol unter dem Faschismus. Schriftenreihe des Südtiroler Kulturinstituts. Bd. 1. 3. Auflage. Bozen. Gulick, Charles A. 1976. Österreich von Habsburg zu Hitler. Wien. Günther, Hans F. K. 1922. Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes. München. Günther, Hans F. K. 1924. Deutsche Rassenbilder. München. Günther, Hans F. K. 1929. Rassenkunde Europas. 3. Auflage. München. Günther, Hans F. K. 1933 Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes. 3. Auflage. München. Günther, Hans F. K. 1934. Die Verstädterung. Ihre Gefahren fü r Volk und Staat vom Standpunkt der Lebenserforschung und Geschichtswissen­ schaft. Leipzig and Berlin. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1912a. Prähistorisch-ethnographische Parallelen. Braunschweig. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1912b. Beiträge zur bretonischen Volkskunde. Erläuterungen zur bretonischen Sammlung des k.k. Museums für österreichische Volkskunde in Wien. Zeitschrift fü r Österreichische Volkskunde. Supplementheft 8. Wien. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1912c. Die Trinkwasserversorgung primitver Völker. Petermanns Mitteilungen. Ergänzungsheft 174. Gotha. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1917. Kulturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Volkskunde von Montenegro, Albanien und Serbien. Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise in den von den k.k. Truppen besetzten Gebieten. Sommer 1916. Zeitschrift für Österreichische Volkskunde. Ergänzungsheft 12. Wien. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1919. Die Volkskunst der Balkanländer, in ihren Grundlagen erläutert. Wien. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1926a. ‘Begriff und Wesen der Volkskunst/ Jahrbuch fü r historische Volkskunde 2 (Vom Wesen der Volkskunst): 20-32. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1926b. ‘Die volkstümliche Kultur Europas in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung/ In Buschan 1926: 305-658. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1933. ‘Lebenskreise als ein Forschungsziel der Volkskunde. Ein Beitrag zur Methodenlehre/ In Steller 1933: 377-392. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1935a. Volkskunde des Burgenlandes. Hauskultur und Volkskunst. Österreichische Kunsttopographie. Bd. 26. Baden bei Wien. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1935b. Die deutsche Volkskunde. Eine Grundlegung nach Geschichte und Methode im Rahmen der Geisteswissenschaften. Volk. Bd. 1. Halle/Saale. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1938a. ‘Textilkunst bei Germanen und Indo­ germanen/In Thiele 1938: 117-125. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1938b. ‘Der Verein für Volkskunde an der Zeiten­ wende/ Wiener Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 43: 50-52. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1939. ‘Germanisches Erbe im Donauraum/ In Thiele 1939: 84-90. Haberlandt, Arthur. 1942. “Zur Frage nach Herkunft und Geltung der Benennung ‘fränkisches Haus/ ‘fränkisches Gehöft/” Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 47: 44-50.

250

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Haberlandt, Arthur. 1953/1959. Taschenwörterbuch der Volkskunde Österreichs. Teile 1-2. Wien. Haberlandt, Michael. 1892. Die Cuitar der Eingeborenen der Malediven. Wien. Haberlandt, Michael. 1895. 'Zum Beginn.' Zeitschrift für Österreichische Volkskunde 1: 1-3. Haberlandt, Michael. 1900. Cultur im Alltag. Wien. Haberlandt, Michael. 1911a. Besprechung von Spieß 1911. Zeitschrift für österreichische Volkskunde 17: 279. Haberlandt, Michael. 1911b. österreichische Volkskunst. Aus den Sammlungen des Museums fü r österreichische Volkskunde in Wien. Bd. 1-2. Wien. Haberlandt, Michael (Ed.). 1914/17. Werke der Volkskunst. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Österreichs. Bd. 1-3. Wien. Haberlandt, Michael. 1918. Die nationale Kultur der österreichischen Völkerstämme. Österreichische Bücherei. Bd. 2. Wien and Leipzig. Haberlandt, Michael. 1923. Besprechung von Weiser 1923. Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 28: 96. Haberlandt, Michael. 1924. Einführung in die Volkskunde mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Österreichs. Wien. Haberlandt, Michael. 1926a. Besprechung von Spieß 1925. Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 31: 23-24 Haberlandt, Michael. 1926b. 'Die europäische Volkskunst in vergleichender Betrachtung.' Jahrbuch fü r historische Volkskunde 2 (Vom Wesen der Volkskunst): 33-43. Haberlandt, Michael. 1926c. 'Zur Stellung der Volkskunde im akademischen Unterricht.' Wiener Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 31: 73-76. Haberlandt, Michael. 1927. Österreich sein Land und Volk und seine Kultur. Wien and Weimar (2. Auflage 1929). Haberlandt, Michael. 1931. 'Hofrat Prof. Dr. Rudolf Meringer f-’ Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 36: 82-83. Haberlandt, Michael. 1940. 'Meine Lebensarbeit.' Wiener Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 45: 66-68. Häfele, Arnulf. 1970. TJniv.-Prof. Dr. Adolf Helbok f.' Jahrbuch des Vorarlberger Landesmuseumsvereins 1970: 149-153. Haiding, Karl. 1936. Beiträge zur Quellen- und Wesenserschließung des volkstümlichen Kindergutes. Bd. 1-2. Phil. Diss. Wien. Haiding, Karl. 1939a. 'Erzähler des Dorfes.' Deutsche Volkskunde 1: 48-57. Haiding, Karl. 1939b. 'Germanisches Erbe in Volkstanz und Volksspiel.' In Thiele 1939: 138-163. Haiding, Karl. 1939c. Kinderspiel und Volksüberlieferung. Deutsche Volkskunde. Schriftenreihe der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für deutsche Volkskunde. Gruppe: Spiel, Lied und Tanz. München. Haiding, Karl. 1943. 'Der Mythus unseres Jahrhunderts und die deutsche Volkskunde.' Deutsche Volkskunde 5: 169-170. Haiding, Karl. 1965. 'Edmund Mudrak, ein Siebziger.' österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 19/68: 85-86.

Bibliography 251 Haiding, Karl. 1980. Vom steirischen Volksmärchen und von seinen Erzählern/In Geramb 1980: 249-258. Haiding, Karl and Sophie Gaß (Eds). 1980. Kinder- und Jugendspiele aus Niederösterreich, Raabser Märchenreihe 5. Wien. Hänsel, Volker and Sepp Walter (Eds). 1981. Volkskundliches aus dem steirischen Ennsbereich. Festschrift für Karl Haiding zum 75. Geburtstag. Schriftenreihe des Landschaftsmuseums Schloß Trautenfels am Steiermärkischen Landesmuseum Joanneum. Bd. 1. Liezen. Harrer, Heinrich. 2002. Mein Leben. München. Harris, Joseph. 1993. ‘Love and Death in the Männerbund: An Essay with Special Reference to the Bjarkamál and the Battle o f Maldon.' In Damico and Leyerle 1993: 77-114. Hartmann, Waldemar. 1941. ‘Josef Strzygowski zum Gedächtnis/ Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte 12, Heft 131: 171-173. Hauptausschuß des Deutschen und Österreichischen Alpenvereins (Eds). 1933. Tirol. Land und Natur, Volk und Geschichte. Geistiges Leben. Bd. 1. München. Hazmuka, Paul. 1968. Geramb und der Verein fü r Heimatschutz (Heimat­ pflege) in Steiermark. Faltblatt. Graz. Hecker, Theodor. 1935. Vergil. Vater des Abendlandes. Leipzig. Heiber, Helmut. 1966. Walter Frank und sein Reichsinstitut Jur Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands. Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeit­ geschichte. Bd. 13. Stuttgart. Heimatpflege. 1958. Heimatpflege. Mitteilungen des Vereins Jur Heimat­ schutz in Steiermark 5, Nummer 24 vom 18. Mai 1958 (gewidmet dem Andenken an Dr. Viktor von Geramb). Heine-Geldern, Robert. 1954. ‘Die Ausstellung ‘Bauernwerk der Alten Welt’ im Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien/ Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 83: 141-149. Heine-Geldern, Robert. 1965. ‘Arthur Haberlandt als Ethnolog/ Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 95: 271-272. Heinemann, Manfred (Ed.). 1980. Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich Teil 1: Kindergarten, Schule, Jugend, Berufserziehung. Teil 2: Hochschule, Erwachsenenbildung. Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft. Bd. 4, 1-2. Stuttgart. Heiß, Gernot, Siegfried Matti, Sebastian Meissl, Edith Saurer and Karl Stuhlpfarrer (Eds). 1989. Willfährige Wissenschaft. Die Universität Wien 1938-1945. österreichische Texte zur Gesellschaftskritik. Bd. 43. Wien. Helbok, Adolf. 1912. Die Bevölkerung der Stadt Bregenz am Bodensee vom 14. bis zum Beginne des 18. Jahrhundert. Forschungen zur inneren Geschichte Österreichs. Bd. 7. Innsbruck. Helbok, Adolf. 1920. Regesten Jur Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein. 1. Lieferung bis zum Jahre 1000. Quellen zur Geschichte Vorarlbergs und Liechtensteins. Bd. 1. Bregenz u.a. Helbok, Adolf. 1922a. Heimatforschung und Heimatschutz in Vorarlberg. Volkschriften der ‘Heimat/ Bd. 5. Innsbruck.

252

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Helbok, Adolf. 1922b. Ueber heimatliche Kulturpflege in deutschen Ländern.’ Vierteljahrsschrift fü r Geschichte und Landeskunde Vorarl­ bergs 6: 25-28. Helbok, Adolf. 1922c. 'Der diesjährige Ferienkurs für Heimatforschung und Volksbildung in Vorarlberg.’ Vierteljahrsschrift fü r Geschichte und Landeskunde Vorarlbergs 6: 14-19. Helbok Adolf. 1922d. 'Die Geschichte des Dorfes.’ In Barbisch 1922: 59122 . Helbok, Adolf. 1923. Regesten von Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein bis zum Jahre 1260. 2. Lieferung bis 1186. Innsbruck. Helbok, Adolf. 1925. Aufbau einer deutschen Landesgeschichte aus einer gesamtdeutschen Siedelungsforschung. Schriften zur deutschen Siedelungsforschung. Bd. 1. Dresden. Helbok, Adolf. 1927. Volkskunde von Vorarlberg.’ In M. Haberlandt 1927: 355-372. Helbok, Adolf. 1928a. Volkskunde Vorarlbergs. Vorarlberger Heimatkunde. Bd. 8. Wien. Helbok, Adolf. 1928b. Siedelungsgeschichte und Volkskunde. Rudolf Kötzschke zu seinem 60. Geburtstag dargebracht. Schriften zur deutschen Siedelungsforschung. Bd. 2. Dresden. Helbok, Adolf. 1929. 'In eigener Sache.’ Heimat 10: 128-130. Helbok, Adolf. 1932. 'Durch Volksgeschichte zur Neuform unserer Staatsgeschichte.’ In Konen and Steffes 1932: 327-357. Helbok, Adolf. 1934a. 'Die volksgeschichtliche Bedeutung des alten Ausbreitungsfeldes der germanischen Steinsetzung in Südwestdeutschland.’ In Bargheer and Freudenthal 1934: 64-82. Helbok, Adolf. 1934b. T)ie deutschen Stämme und die moderne Volksforschung.’ In Volkskundliche Gaben 1934: 54-67. Helbok, Adolf. 1935. Vorarlberger Heimatforschung. Ihre Aufrichtung und ihr Sinn. Heimatkunde von Vorarlberg. Bd. 12. Wien, Leipzig. Helbok, Adolf. 1948. 'Zur Methodik der Volkscharakterkunde.’ In Beiträge zur Volkskunde 1948: 101-118. Helbok, Adolf. 1955a. Der Österreichische Volkskunde-Atlas, seine wissenschaftliche, Volks- und staatspolitische Bedeutung. Veröffentlich­ ungen der Kommission für den Volkskundeatlas in Österreich. Bd. 1. Linz. Helbok, Adolf. 1955b. Volkskunde-Atlas.’ In Verband österreichischer Geschichtsvereine 1955: 94-95. Helbok, Adolf. 1955c. 'Der österreichische Volkskundeatlas.’ Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 52: 282-283. Helbok, Adolf. 1957. 'Editionsplan des österreichischen Volkskunde­ atlasses.’ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 11 /60: 69-74. Helbok, Adolf. 1959. 'Zur Geschichte des österreichischen Volkskunde­ atlas.’ In Bratanic and Burgstaller 1959: 17-20. Helbok, Adolf. (1963). Erinnerungen. Ein lebenslanges Ringen um volksnahe Geschichtsforschung. Im Auftrag seiner Innsbrucker, Berliner und Leipziger Schüler hrsg. von Fritz Ranzi und Margit Gröhsl. Innsbruck o .J .

Bibliography 253 Helbok, Adolf. 1964-1967. Deutsche Volksgeschichte. Wesenszüge und Leistungen des deutschen Volkes. Veröffentlichungen aus Hochschule, Wissenschaft und Forschung. Bd. 1-2. Tübingen. Hermann, Friedrich. 1972. Salzburgs Hohe Schule zwischen den Volluniversitäten 1810-1962. Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner Ordens. Bd. 83. Ottobeuren. Hirschberg, Walter. 1970. '100 Jahre Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien/ Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 100: 110. Hochschulkurs. 1921. 'Hochschulkurs für Heimatforschung/ Vierteljahrs­ schrift fü r Geschichte und Landeskunde Vorarlbergs. 5: 83-85. Hoffmann-Krayer, Eduard. 1902. Die Volkskunde als Wissenschaft. Zürich. Hofier, Otto. 1934. Kultische Geheimbünde der Germanen. Bd. 1. Frankfurt am Main. Hofier, Otto. 1937a. Das germanische Kontinuitätsproblem. Schriften des Reichsinstituts für Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands. Hamburg. Höfler, Otto. 1937b. 'Antwort/ Oberdeutsche Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 11: 97-102. Höfler, Otto. 1937c. ‘Rudolf Much f/ Wörter und Sachen 18: VII-XV. Höfler, Otto. 1973. Verwandlungskulte, Volkssagen und Mythen. Öster­ reichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. Bd. 279/2. Wien. Höfler, Otto. 1975. 'Much Rudolf, Germanist/ Österreichisches Bio­ graphisches Lexikon 1815-1950. Bd. 6: 400-401. Höltker, Georg. 1931. 'Männerbund/In Vierkant 1931: 348-53. Hörandner, Edith. 1992. Tafelfreuden - Hungerleiden/ In Lust und Leid. Barocke Kunst, Barocker Alltag 1992: 297-302. Hörandner, Edith. 1993/94. 'Graz. Kultur - Raum - Grenze/ Rheinisches Jahrbuch fü r Volkskunde 30: 27-37. Hörandner, Edith. 1995. T)as Reisen. Ausgewählte Thesen einer sozial­ wissenschaftlichen Betrachtungsweise/ In Deutsch and Walcher 1995: 70-80. Hornung, Herwig. 1967. Verzeichnis der Schriften von Efberhard] Kfranzmayer] und der unter seiner Leitung an der Wiener Universität entstandenen Dissertationen. Wien (Nachtrag 1969). Hornung, Maria. 1957. T)ie 8. Österreichische Volkskundetagung in Bregenz vom 14. bis 20. Juni 1957/ Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 11/60: 332-335. Hornung, Maria. 1975. 'Eberhard Kranzmayer - Nachruf/ Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich. 13. Lieferung: Beilage (2 S.). Hübner, Arthur. 1930. 'Der Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde/ Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 39: 1-16. Hübner, Arthur. 1934. Herman Wirth und die Ura-Linda-Chronik. Berlin and Leipzig. Hüsing, Georg. 1906. Beiträge zur Kyros-Sage. Berlin. Hüsing, Georg. 1909. Die Iranische Überlieferung und das Arische System. Mythologische Bibliothek II, 2. Leipzig.

254

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Hüsing, Georg. 1916. Die einheimischen Quellen der Geschichte Elams. Assyriologische Bibliothek. Wien Hüsing, Georg. 1927. Die deutschen Hochgezeiten. Wien. Hüsing, Georg. 1931. ‘Einführung in die Weltgeschichte/ Bausteine zur Geschichte, Völkerkunde und Mythenkunde 1: 3-56. Hüsing, Georg and Emma Hüsing. 1932. Deutsche Laiche und Lieder. Wien: Eichendorff-Haus. Knyrim, Schier and Stöhr. Hüter, Franz. 1947. ‘Geburtstagsansprache.' In Beiträge zur Geschichte. 1947: 7-11. Hüter, Franz. 1963. ‘Univ.-Prof. Dr.phil., Dr.jur., Dr.rer.oec.h.c. Hermann Wopfner zum Gedenken/ Tiroler Heimat 26: 5-8. Hüter, Franz. 1964a. ‘Hermann Wopfner/ Almanach der Akademie der Wissenschaften 113: 449-464. Hüter, Franz. 1964b. ‘Hermann Wopfner f/ Zeitschrift fu r Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 12: 66-67. Hüter, Franz. 1966. ‘Harold Steinacker/ Almanach der Akademie der Wissenschaften 115: 306-355. Hüter, Franz. 1970. ‘Ansprache des Vorsitzenden der Atlas-Kommission/ Tiroler Heimat 34: 115-116. Ilg, Karl. 1949. Die Walserin Vorarlberg. 1. Teil. Schriften zur Vorarlberger Landeskunde. Bd. 3. Dornbirn. Ilg, Karl. 1951. ‘Um die Ziele und den Betrachtungsgegenstand der Volkskunde/ Burgenländische Heimatblätter 13: 99-108. Ilg, Karl. 1956a. Die Walserin Vorarlberg. 2. Teil. Schriften zur Vorarlberger Landeskunde. Bd. 6. Dornbirn. Ilg, Karl. 1956b. ‘Die Gegenwartsaufgabe von Sitte und Brauch/ Tiroler Heimat 20: 123-131. Ilg, Karl. 1963. ‘Adolf Helbok 80 Jahre alt/ Österreichische Zeitschrift Jur Volkskunde 17/66: 46. Ilg, Karl. 1979. Volk und Wissenschaft. Beiträge zur Volkskunde Westösterreichs. Edited by Peter Stürz, Paul Rachbauer and Michael Becker. Innsbruck. Ilg, Karl. 1983. Volkskunde an der Universität Innsbruck. Ihre Entstehung und unsere Ziele/ In Krömer and Menghin 1983: 135-144. Ilg, Karl. 1986. T)ie Anfänge der volkskundlichen Studien in Tirol/ In Kühebacher 1986: 153-162. Ilg, Karl. 1990. ‘40 Jahre Volkskunde - bis nach Südamerika/ In Regner, Tiefenthaler and Fleisch 1990: 9-21. Ilg, Karl. 1995. ‘Die Geschichte der tirolischen Volkskunde von den Anfängen bis 1980/ Tiroler Heimat. Jahrbuch fur Geschichte und Volks­ kunde 59: 177-244. Jacobeit, Wolfgang and Ute Mohrmann. 1982. ‘Zur Geschichte der volks­ kundlichen Lehre unter Adolf Spamer an der Berliner Universität (19331945)/ Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 23: 283-298. Jacobeit, Wolfgang, Hannjost Lixfeld and Olaf Bockhorn (Eds), in Zusammenarbeit mit James R. Dow. 1994. Völkische Wissenschaft. Gestalten und Tendenzen der deutschen und österreichischen Volks­ kunde in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Wien.

Bibliography 255 Jagschitz, Gerhard. 1983. T)er österreichische Ständestaat 1934-1938.’ In Weinzierl and Skalnik 1983: 497-515. Jankuhn, Herbert (Ed.). 1944. Forschungs- und. Lehrgemeinschaft ‘Das AhnenerbeJahrestagungen. Bericht über die Kieler Tagung 1939. Neumünster. Johler, Reinhard. 1994. Volkskunde in Österreich.’ In Jacobeit, Lixfeld, Bockhom, and Dow. 1994: 407-416, 449-462, 541-548, 589-602. Johler, Reinhard. 1998. ‘“...die Lesewelt auffordemd zu einer Wanderung durch weite, weite Lande, zwischen vielsprachigen Nationen, inmitten stets wechselnder Bilder”. Zur Geschichte des Monumentalwerkes “Die österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild”, dargestellt am Beispiel des 1898 erschienenen Bandes “Galizien.”’ In Beiti 1998: 43-55. Johler, Reinhard. 2000. Die Formierung eines Brauchs. Der Funken- und Holepfannsormtag. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Ethnologie der Universität Wien. Bd. 19. Wien. Johler, Reinhard. 2001. Völkische Imaginationen. Zur Archaik von Bild und Brauch.’ Fotogeschichte 21:82 (2001): 33-40 Johler, Reinhard, (n.d.). ‘Ein Kongreß und sein Ort: Die ‘II. Gemeinsame Versammlung der Deutschen und der Wiener anthropologischen Gesellschaft’ in Innsbruck 1894.’ (Unveröff. Manuskript) Wien. Johler, Reinhard, Ludwig Paulmichl and Barbara Plankensteiner (Eds). 1991. Südtirol im Auge der Ethnographen. Edition per Procura. Wien/ Lana. Josef Strzygowski-Festschrift. 1932. Josef Strzygowski-Festschrift. Zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schülern. Klagenfurt. Jungwirth, Eveline. 1982. Die philosophische Fakultät der Universität Wien von 1848 bis 1873 unter Berücksichtigung der Thun-Hohensteinschen Universitätsreform. Phil. Diss. Wien. Kadrnoska, Franz (Ed.). 1981. Aufbruch und Untergang. Österreichische Kultur zwischen 1918 und 1938. Wien, München and Zürich. Kaindl, Raimund Friedrich. 1903. Die Volkskunde, ihre Bedeutung, ihre Ziele und ihre Methode mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Verhält­ nisses zu den historischen Wissenschaften. Ein Leitfaden zur Einführung in die Volksforschung. Die Erdkunde. Bd. 17. Leipzig and Wien. Kaindl-Hönig, Max and Karl Heinz Ritschel. 1964. Die Salzburger Universität 1622-1964. Salzburg. Kammerhofer, Ulrike. 1987. ‘Schriftenverzeichnis Richard Wolfram 1982-1987.’ In Wolfram 1987a: 158-159. Kapfhammer, Franz Maria (Ed.). 1949. St. Martin. Festgabe fü r Josef Steinberger. Graz. Kapfhammer, Franz Maria. 1970. Josef Steinberger, der Gründer von St. Martin. Graz. Karlinger, Felix. 1999. ‘Der Wiederbeginn der Volkskunde in München in Forschung und Lehre nach 1945.’ In Grieshofer and Schindler 1999: 201-203. Karner, Stefan. 1986. Die Steiermark im Dritten Reich 1938-1945. Graz. Kater, Michael. 1971. ‘Die Artamanen - Völkische Jugend in der Weimarer Republik.’ Historische Zeitschrift 213: 577-638.

256

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Kater, Michael H. 1974. Das ‘Ahnenerbe’ der SS 1935-1945. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturpolitik des Dritten Reiches. Stuttgart. Kater, Michael H. 1975. Studentenschaft und Rechtsradikalismus in Deutschland 1918-1933. Eine sozialgeschichtliche Studie zur Bildungskrise in der Weimarer Republik. Hamburg. Katschnig-Fasch, Elisabeth. 1998. Möblierter Sinn. Städtische Wohn- und Lebensstile. Kulturstudien. Bibliothek der Kulturgeschichte. Sonder­ band 24. Wien, Köln, Weimar. Kau sei, Eva. 1987. Volkskundler in und aus Österreich heute (unter Berücksichtigung von Südtirol. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Gegen­ wartsvolkskunde. Sonderband 2. Wien. Keller, Wilfried (Red.). 1979a. Studien zur Landeskunde Tirols und angrenzender Gebiete. Festschrift des Instituts fü r Landeskunde zum 60. Geburtstag von Adolf Leidlmair. Innsbrucker Geografische Studien. Bd. 6. Innsbruck. Keller, Wilfried. 1979b. 'Entstehung und Aufgaben des Instituts für Landeskunde.’ In Keller 1979a: 17-21. Kerchler, Helga. 1975. 'Much Matthäus, Prähistoriker.’ österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950. Bd. 6: 400. Klebeisberg, Raimund von. 1942. 'Die 'Deutsche Alpenuniversität’ Innsbruck.’ Deutschlands Erneuerung 26: 35-39. Klebeisberg, Raimund. 1951. 'Der Alpenverein und die Erforschung Tirols.’ Veröffentlichungen des Museums Ferdinandeum in Innsbruck, 31: 413439. Klebelsberg, Raimund. 1953. Innsbrucker Erinnerungen 1902-1952. Schlern-Schriften. Bd. 100. Innsbruck. Klein-Bruckschwaiger, Franz. 1967. 'Almstudien in Österreich und die Innsbrucker Schule der Almforschung.’ Zeitschrift fü r Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 15: 23-32. Kley, Hans. 1937. 'Errichtung einer Arbeitsgemeinschaft für deutsche Volkskunde.’ Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte 8, Heft 83: 164. Klier, K. M. 1933. 'Besprechung von Hüsing 1932.’ Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 38: 37. Kluckhohn, Clyde. 1998. 'Myths and Ritual: A General Theory.’ In Segal 1998: 313-340. Kocka, Jürgen (Ed.). 1989. Sozialgeschichte im internationalen Überblick. Ergebnisse und Tendenzen der Forschung. Darmstadt. Kohlmann, Theodor and Hermann Bausinger (Eds). 1985. Großstadt. Aspekte empirischer Kulturforschung. 24. Deutscher Volkskunde-Kongreß in Berlin vom 26. bis 30. September 1983. Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Schriften des Museums für Deutsche Volks­ kunde in Berlin. Bd. 13. Berlin. Konen, Heinrich and Johann Peter Steffes (Eds). 1932. Volkstum und Kulturpolitik. Eine Sammlung von Aufsätzen. Gewidmet Georg Schreiber zum fünfzigsten Geburtstage. Köln. Kontakte and Grenzen. 1969. Kontakte und Grenzen. Probleme der Volks-, Kultur- und Sozialforschung. Festschrift fü r Gerhard Heilfurth. Göttingen. Koren, Hanns. 1934. Volksbrauch im Kirchenjahr. 1. Aufl. Salzburg.

Bibliography 257 Koren, Hanns. 1935. Volksbrauch im Kirchenjahr. 2. Aufl. Salzburg. Koren, Hanns. 1936. Volkskunde als gläubige Wissenschaft. 2. Auflage. Texte und Arbeiten zur religiösen Volkskunde. Bd. 1. Salzburg and Leipzig. Koren, Hanns. 1946. 'Zur Volkskunde der Stadt.' Austria 1: 30-33. Koren, Hanns and Leopold Kretzenbacher (Eds). 1949. Volk und Heimat. Festschrift für Viktor von Geramb. Graz, Salzburg, Wien. Koren, Hanns. 1950. Pflug und Ari. Ein Beitrag zur Volkskunde der Ackergeräte. Veröffentlichungen des Institutes für Volkskunde, Salzburg. Bd. 3. Salzburg. Koren, Hanns. 1952. Volkskunde in der Gegenwart. Graz. Koren, Hanns. 1954. Die Spende. Eine volkskundliche Studie über die Beziehung Arme Seelen - arme Leute. ’ Graz. Koren, Hanns. 1972a. 'Geleitwort.' In Beiti 1972: 1-5. Koren, Hanns. 1972b. 'Die steirischen Eggen/In Beiti 1972: 61-98. Koren, Hanns. 1974. Viktor von Geramb. Ein Lebensbild. Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins fü r Steiermark. Sonderband 5. Graz. Köstlin, Elsbeth. 2001. 'Brauchtum und Politik. Die fotografischen Dokumente des 'SS-Ahnenerbes' in Südtirol/ Fotogeschichte 21/82: 2126. Köstlin, Konrad. 2000. Volkskultur und Moderne/ Bayerische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 2: 63-72. Köstlin, Konrad. 2001. 'Der Norden im Süden. Germanische Projektionen in der volkskundlichen Fotografie/ Fotogeschichte 21/82: 41-50. Köstlin, Konrad. 2002. Volkskunde: Pathologie der Randlage/ In Acham 2002: 369-414. Köstlin, Konrad and Hermann Bau singer (Eds). 1983. Umgang mit Sachen. Zur Kulturgeschichte des Dinggebrauchs. 23. Deutscher Volkskunde­ kongreß in Regensburg vom 6.-11. Oktober 1981. Regensburger Schriften zur Volkskunde. Bd. 1. Regensburg. Kramer, Dieter. 1970. Wem nützt Volkskunde?' Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 66: 1-16. Kramer, Dieter. 1986. Who Benefits from Folklore/ In Dow and Lixfeld 1986: 41-53. Kramer, Hans. 1963/64. T)ie Erforschung des Trentino durch deutsche Historiker und Publizisten (seit dem Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts).' Tiroler Heimat 27/28: 91-102. Kramer, Hans. 1980. Tiber die Tiroler Geschichtsforschung und -Schreibung (seit ungefähr 1860). Studienstätten und Forschungs­ möglichkeiten.' Veröffentlichungen des Tiroler Landesmuseums Ferdinandeum 60: 85-105. Kranzmayer, Eberhard. 1968. 'Der alte Gott von Tischelwang am Plöckenpaß. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie auf namenskundlicher Grundlage.' In Fielhauer (Ed.) 1968: 257-279. Krauss, Friedrich Salomo. 1884. Ethnographische Fragebögen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien. 1: Südslaven. Wien. Kretzenbacher, Leopold. 1951. Lebendiges Volksschauspiel in Steiermark. österreichische Volkskultur. Forschungen zur Volkskunde. Bd. 6. Wien.

258

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Kretzenbacher, Leopold. 1952a. Frühbarockes Weihnachtsspiel in Kärnten und Steiermark. Archiv für vaterländische Geschichte und Topographie. Bd. 40. Klagenfurt. Kretzenbacher, Leopold. 1952b. Passionsbrauch und Christi-Leidenspiel in den Südostalpenländem. Salzburg. Kretzenbacher, Leopold. 1983. Volkskunde als Faktor der Kulturprägung im Österreich der Zwischenkriegszeit. ’ Internationales Symposion Mogersdorf 12: 83-93. Kriss, Rudolf. 1929. Das Gebärmuttermotiv. Ein Beitrag zur Volkskunde nebst einer Einleitung über Arten und Bedeutung der deutschen Opfer­ gebräuche der Gegenwart. Das Volkswerk. Augsburg. Kriss, Rudolf. 1930. Volkskundliches aus altbayrischen Gnadenstätten. Beiträge zu einer Geographie des Wallfahrtsbrauchtums. Das Volkswerk. Augsburg. Kriss, Rudolf. 1933. Die religiöse Volkskunde Altbayems. Dargestellt an den Wallfahrtsbräuchen. Das Volkswerk. Baden bei Wien. Kriss, Rudolf. 1948. Im Zeichen des Ungeistes. Erinnerungen an die Jahre 1933-1945. München-Pasing. (2. Ausgabe 1995). Krömer, Wolfram and Osmund Menghin (Eds). 1983. Die Geisteswissen­ schaften stellen sich vor. Veröffentlichungen der Universität Innsbruck. Bd. 137. Innsbruck. Kühebacher, Egon (Ed.). 1986. Tirol im Jahrhundert nach Anno Neun. Schiern-Schriften. Bd. 279. Innsbruck. Kuhn, Walter. 1930. Die jungen deutschen Sprachinseln in Galizien. Deutschtum und Ausland. Bd. 26/27. Münster. Kuhn, Walter. 1934. Deutsche Sprachinsel-Forschung. Geschichte Aufgaben - Verfahren. Ostdeutsche Forschungen. Bd. 2. Plauen. Kuhn, Walter. 1982. ‘Eine Jugend für die Sprachinselforschung. Erinnerungen.’ Jahrbuch der Schlesischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Breslau 23: 225-278. Kulturgeschichtliche Perspektiven. 1971. Kulturgeschichtliche Perspektiven. Jahrbuch fü r Österreichische Kulturgeschichte I/1. Eisenstadt. Kundegraber, Maria. 1974. ‘Viktor-Geramb-Bibliographie.’ In Koren 1974: 77-84. Lamp, Karl. (1933). Bericht über die Arbeiten des Instituts fü r Sozial­ forschung an der Innsbrucker Universität während seines achtjährigen Bestandes. Innsbruck. Lange, Wolfgang (Ed.). 1967. Die Germania des Tacitus. Erläutert von Rudolf Much 7. V. 1862-8. III. 1936. 3. Auflage. Heidelberg. Langewiesche, Friedrich. 1937. ‘Hakenkreuz, Speichenrad, Scheibe und Tupf als Sinnbilder und Heilszeichen. Eine Entgegnung/ Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde. 45: 330-333. Lehmann, Albrecht and Andreas Kuntz (Eds). 1988. Sichtweisen der Volkskunde. Zur Geschichte und Forschungspraxis einer Disziplin. Gerhard Lutz zum 60. Geburtstag. Lebensformen. Bd. 3. Berlin and Hamburg. Leinwaechter, Friedrich and Heinz von Paller. 1930. Die Anschlußfrage in ihrer kulturellen, politischen und wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung. Wien.

Bibliography 259 Leitner, Erich. 1973. Die neuere deutsche Philologie an der Universität Graz. Publikationen aus dem Archiv der Universität Graz. Bd. 1. Graz. Liesenfeld, Gertraud. 1982. ‘Richard Wolfram Bibliographie 19681982.’ In Bockhorn and Fielhauer 1982: 275-282. Liesenfeld, Gertraud, and Herbert Nikitsch. 1994. Volkskunde in Österreich/ In Jacobeit, Lixfeld, Bockhorn and Dow. 1994: 604-616 Lixfeld, Hannjost. 1987a. T)ie Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft und die Dachverbände der deutschen Volkskunde im Dritten Reich/ In Gerndt 1987: 69-82. Lixfeld, Hannjost. 1987b. 'Matthes Ziegler und die Erzählforschung des Amts Rosenberg. Ein Beitrag zur Ideologie der nationalsozialistischen Volkskunde/ Rheinisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde 26[ 1985/1986; erschienen 1987]: 37-59. Lixfeld, Hannjost. 1991. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Umbrella Organizations of German Volkskunde during the Third Reich/ Asian Folklore Studies 50: 95-116. Lixfeld, Hannjost and James R. Dow. 1994. Folklore and Fascism. The Reich Institute fo r German Volkskunde. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Lochner von Hüttenbach, Fritz. 1976. Das Fach Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft an der Universität Graz. Publikationen aus dem Archiv der Universität Graz. Bd. 5. Graz. Lust und Leid. Barocke Kunst, Barocker Alltag. 1992. Steirische Landes­ ausstellung 1992. Klagenfurt. Lutz, Gerhard (Ed.). 1958. Volkskunde. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte ihrer Probleme. Berlin. Lutz, Gerhard. 1983. 'Das Amt Rosenberg und die Volkskunde/ In Brückner and Beiti 1983: 161-171. Mager, Alois (Ed.). 1934. Die dritten Salzburger Hochschulwochen. Salzburg. Martischnig, Michael. 1982. Verzeichnis der bei Leopold Schmidt erarbeiteten Wiener volkskundlichen Dissertationen von 1948-1979/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 36/85: 125-127. Martischnig, Michael. 1984. 'Burgenlands Volkskultur im Kartenbild. Der Österreichische Volkskundeatlas und sein Vorläufer im Burgenland/ Volk und Heimat 4: 38-41. Martischnig, Michael. 1989. 'Der 'Atlas der Burgenländischen Volkskunde.” Veröffentlichungen des Verbandes Österreichischer Geschichtsvereine 26: 226-230. Matti, Siegfried and Karl Stuhlpfarrer. 1989. 'Angewandte Wissenschaft im Nationalsozialismus. Großraumphantasien, Geopolitik, Wissen­ schaftspolitik. In Heiß, Matti, Meissl, Saurer and Stuhlpfarrer 1989: 283-301. Mautner, Konrad and Viktor Geramb. 1932-1935. Steirisches Trachten­ buch. Bd. 1-2. Graz. Meissl, Sebastian. 1981. 'Germanistik in Österreich. Zu ihrer Geschichte und Politik 1918-1938/ In Kadrnoska 1981: 475-496. Meissl, Sebastian. 1989. Wiener Ostmark-Germanistik/ In Heiß, Matti, Meissl, Saurer and Stuhlpfarrer 1989: 133-154.

260

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

Meissl, Sebastian, Klaus-Dieter Mulley and Oliver Rathkolb (Eds). 1986. Verdrängte Schuld, verfehlte Sühne. Entnazifizierung in Österreich 19451955. Symposion des Instituts fü r Wissenschaft und Kunst. Wien, März 1985. Wien. Meixner, Wolfgang. 1989. Zur Entstehung des "Tiroler Volkskunstmuseums ’ in Innsbruck aus gewerbe- und fremdenverkehrsfördemden sowie heimatschützerischen Intentionen. Dipl. Arbeit. Innsbruck. Meixner, Wolfgang. 1990. “ ...eine wahrhaft nationale Wissenschaft der Deutschen...” Der Historiker und Volkskundler Adolf Helbok (18831968)/ Skolast 34: 126-133. Meixner, Wolfgang. 1992. "Mythos Tirol. Zur Tiroler Ethnizitätsbildung und Heimatschutzbewegung im 19. Jahrhundert.' Geschichte und Region 1: 88-106. Meringer, Rudolf. 1906. Das deutsche Haus und sein Hausrat. Aus Natur und Geisteswelt. Bd. 116. Leipzig. Meringer, Rudolf. 1909. Wörter und Sachen.' Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 1: 593-598. Meringer, Rudolf. 1925. "Michael Haberlandt.' Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volks­ kunde 25: I-II. Moser, Hans. 1954. "Gedanken zur heutigen Volkskunde. Ihre Situation, ihre Problematik, ihre Aufgaben.' Bayerisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde 1954: 208-234. Moser, Hans. 1958. "Anton Dörrer zum 70. Geburtstag.' Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 54: 156-158. Moser, Hans. 1964. "Der Folklorismus als Forschungsaufgabe der Volks­ kunde.' Hessische Blätter für Volkskunde 55: 9-57. Moser, Hans. 1978. Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl und die Volkskunde. Eine wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Korrektur.' Jahrbuch für Volkskunde N.F. 1: 9-66. Moser, Oskar. 1974a. Das Bauernhaus und seine landschaftliche und historische Entwicklung in Kämtnen. Kärntner Museumsschriften 56. Klagenfurt. Moser. Oskar. 1974b. Die Sagen und Schwänke der Apollonia Kreuter. Klagenfurt. Moser, Oskar. 1985. Handbuch der Sach-und Fachbegriffe. Graz. Moser, Oskar. 1991. "Hundert Jahre Hausforschung in Österreich.' Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 45/94: 329-350. Moser, Oskar. 1994. Des Lebens Wirklichkeit. Ausgewählte Schriften zur Volkskunde (1949-1993). Festgabe zum 80. Geburtstag. Archiv für Vaterländische Geschichte und Topographie. Bd. 75. Klagenfurt. Moser-Rath, Elfriede. 1964. Besprechung von Schmidt 1963c. Hessische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 55: 230-231. Moser-Rath, Elfriede. 1985. "Karl Haiding (1906-1985).' Fabula 26: 342343. Moser-Rath, Elfriede. 1990. "Haiding, Karl.' Enzyklopädie des Märchens 6: 383-386. Mosse, George. 1968. "Introduction.' In Chamberlain 1968: v-xix. Much, Rudolf. 1892. Deutsche Stammsitze. Halle.

Bibliography 261 Much, Rudolf. 1937. Die Germania des Tacitus. Germanische Bibliothek. 1. Abt., 5. Reihe, 3. Bd. Heidelberg. Much, Rudolf. 1942. 'Mondmythologie und Wissenschaft/ Archiv fü r Religionswissenschaft 37: 231 -261. Mudrak, Edmund. 1933. 'Märchen und Sage/ Bausteine zur Geschichte, Völkerkunde und Mythenkunde 3: 65-80. Mudrak, Edmund. 1938a. Die deutsche Heldensage. Jahrbuch für historische Volkskunde. Bd. 7. Berlin. Mudrak, Edmund. 1938b. 'Berchta.’ Deutsche Volkskunde 1: 178-181. Mudrak, Edmund. 1939a. 'Deutsche Volkskunde - eine politische Wissen­ schaft/ In Spieß and Mudrak 1938: 3-11. Mudrak, Edmund. 1939b. 'Deutsche Volkskunde - eine politische Wissen­ schaft/ Geist der Zeit 16: 371-379. Mudrak, Edmund. 1941. 'Zur Erinnerung an Wolfgang Schultz/ National­ sozialistische Monatshefte 12, Heft 136: 65-67. Mudrak, Edmund. 1942a. Besprechung von Viergutz 1942. Deutsche Volkskunde 4: 143-144. Mudrak, Edmund. 1942b. Tod und Unsterblichkeit bei den Germanen/ Die Neue Gemeinschaft 8: 304-305. Mudrak, Edmund. 1943. Die nordische Heldensage. Jahrbuch für historische Volkskunde. Bd. 10. Berlin. Müller, Friedrich. 1873. Allgemeine Ethnographie. Wien. Nationalsozialistische Bibliographie. 1936-1943. Nationalsozialistische Bibliographie. Monatshefte der Parteiamtlichen Prüfungskommission zum Schutze des NS. Schrifttums. Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler (Hrsg.). Berlin: Zentralverlag der NSDAP. Franz Eher Nachf. GmbH. Jahrgang 1-8. Neweklowsky, Gerhard and Károly Gaál (Eds). 1987. Totenklage und Erzählstruktur in Stinatz. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband 19. Wien. Nußbaumer, Thomas. 2000. 'Zu den Strukturen und Zielen der 'Südtiroler Kulturkommission/ In Petzoldt 2000/2002, Vol 1: 589-594. Nußbaumer, Thomas. 2001. Alfred Quellmalz und seine Südtiroler Forschung (1940-42): eine Studie zur musikalischen Volkskunde unter dem Nationalsozialismus. Bibliotheca musicologica 6: Tirolensia. Innsbruck and Wien. Oberkofler, Gerhard. 1969a. Die geschichtlichen Fächer an der Philo­ sophischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck 1850-1945. Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschichte. Bd. 4. Innsbruck. Oberkofler, Gerhard. 1969b. In memoriam Adolf Helbok/ Tiroler Heimat 33: 144-149. Oberkofler, Gerhard. 1980. 'Der Kampf der Universität Innsbruck um die Einheit des Landes Tirol (1918-1920)/ Tiroler Heimatblätter 55: 78-89. ÖBL. 1957ff.. Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950. Dzt. 11 Bde. Graz and Köln (I-V), Wien VIff). Oesterle, Anka. 1987. 'John Meier und das SS-Ahnenerbe/ In Gemdt 1987: 83-93. Oesterle, Anka. 1994. The Office of Ancestral Inheritance and Folklore Scholarship/ In Dow and Lixfeld 1994: 189-246.

262

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Österreichische Geschichtswissenschaft. 1950. österreichische Geschichts­ wissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen. Bd. 1. SchlernSchriften. Bd. 68. Innsbruck. ÖVA. Österreichischer Volkskundeatlas. 1959. Österreichischer Volks­ kundeatlas. 1. Lieferung. Hrsg, von Ernst Burgstaller und Adolf Helbok. Linz. a.D. Petzoldt, Leander (Ed.). 1988. ‘Und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind../ Historische und gegenwärtige Aspekte der Volkserzählung in Tirol. Innsbruck. Petzoldt, Leander (Ed.). 2000/2002. Sagen, Märchen und Schwänke aus Südtirol. Gesammelt von Willi Mai. 2 vols. Innsbruck-Wien. Petzoldt, Leander. 2001. Wie “politisch” sind Sagen? Anmerkungen zur Edition der in der Optionszeit gesammelten Volkserzählungen aus Südtirol.' Der Sehlem 75: 15-21. Also published in Schweizeñsches Archiv fü r Volkskunde 97/1: 127-135. Peuckert, Will-Erich. 1948. ‘Zur Situation der Volkskunde.' Die Nachbarn. Jahrbuch fü r vergleichende Volkskunde 1: 130-135. Pichler, Adolf. 1894. Tirolische Volksdichtung.' Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde 4: 197-201. Plaßmann, Josef Otto. 1938a. ‘Deutschösterreichs germanische Sendung.' Germanien 10: 99-102. Plaßmann, Josef Otto. 1938b. ‘Dauerhaftigkeit oder Überfremdung.' Germanien 10: 305-308. Plaßmann, Josef Otto. 1938c. ‘10 Jahre “Germanien.”' Germanien 10: 385387. Plaßmann, Josef Otto and Gilbert Trathnigg. 1939a. Vorwort.' In Plaßmann and Trathnigg (Eds) 1939: 7-8. Plaßmann, Josef Otto and Gilbert Trathnigg (Eds). 1939b. Deutsches Land kehrt heim. Ostmark und Sudetenland als germanischer Volksboden. Deutsches Ahnenerbe. Reihe C: Volkstümliche Schriften. Bd. 3. Berlin. Pöttler, Burkhard, Helmut Eberhart and Elisabeth Katschnig-Fasch with Edith HÖrandner. 1994. Innovation und Wandel. Festschrift für Oskar Moser. Graz. Quellmalz, Alfred (Ed.). 1968-1976. Südtiroler Volkslieder. Bd. 1-3. Kassel, Basel, Paris and London. Quellmalz, Alfred. 1990. ‘Bericht über den Abschluß der Arbeiten der Gruppe Volksmusik in der Deutschen Kulturkommission Südtirol.’ In Stief 1990: 119-132. Regner, Hubert, Eberhard Tiefenthaler and Elmar Fleisch (Red.). 1990. Em. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Karl Hg. ‘Zur Summe eines Lebens.' Lochau. Riegl, Alois. 1894. Volkskunst, Hausfleiß und Hausindustrie. Berlin. Riehl, Wilhelm Heinrich. 1859a. Culturstudien aus drei Jahrhunderten. Stuttgart. Riehl, Wilhelm Heinrich. 1859b. ‘Die Volkskunde als Wissenschaft. Ein Vortrag.'In Riehl 1859a: 205-229. Riehl, Wilhelm Heinrich. 1958. ‘Die Volkskunde als Wissenschaft.’ In Lutz 1958: 23-37.

Bibliography 263 Rogenhofer-Suitner, Helga. 1987. ‘Bemerkungen zu den Märchen- und Sagensammlungen der Brüder Zingerle/ Der Sehlem 1987: 395-401. Ropeid, Andreas. 1987. ‘Lily Weiser-Aall 1898-1987/ Ethnologia Scandinavica 1987: 149-150. Rosar, Wolfgang. 1971. Deutsche Gemeinschaft. Seyss-Inquart und der Anschluß. Wien. Rosenberg, Alfred. 1934. Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts. Eine Wertung der seelisch-geistigen Gestaltenkämpfe unserer Zeit. 27.-28. Auflage. München. Ruprecht, Karl. 1937a. ‘Deutsches Volkstum und konfessionelle Volks­ kunde/ Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte 8, Heft 92: 962-969. Ruprecht, Karl. 1937b. ‘Nationalsozialistische oder liberale Volkskunde?' Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte 8, Heft 88: 632-634. Ruprecht, Karl. 1943a. ‘Bolschewismus und Volkstum im Spiegel der ‘Sowjetlore.” Deutsche Volkskunde 5: 1-4. Ruprecht, Karl. 1943b. ‘Bolschewismus und Volkskultur/ National­ sozialistische Monatshefte 14, Heft 158: 370-376. Salzburger Landesinstitut für Volkskunde (Eds). 1986. Das Salzburger Landesinstitut fu r Volkskunde. Richard-Wolfram-Forschungsstelle. Ein Institut stellt sich vor. Salzburger Beiträge zur Volkskunde. Bd. 1. Salzburg. Salzburger Landesinstitut für Volkskunde (Eds). 1996. Volkskunde und Brauchtumspflege im Nationalsozialismus in Salzburg. Salzburger Beiträge zur Volkskunde. Bd. 8. Salzburg. Salzburger Wissenschaftswochen. 1939. Salzburger Wissenschaftswochen 23. August bis 2. September 1939. Veranstaltet vom Reichsministerium fü r Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung sowie von der Forschungs­ und Lehrgemeinschaft eDas AhnenerbeFestschrift. Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen. Verzeichnis der Dozenten. Generalsekretariat der ‘Salzburger Wissenschaftswochen/ Leipzig. Sauer, Doris 1993. Erinnerungen: Karl Haiding und die Forschungsstelle ‘Spiel und S p r u c h Beiträge zur Volkskunde und Kulturanalyse. Bd. 6. Wien Saurer, Edith. 1989. ‘Institutsneugründungen/ In Heiß, Matti, Meissl, Saurer and Stuhlpfarrer 1989: 303-328. Scharfe, Martin. 1984. ‘Einschwörung auf den völkisch-germanischen Kulturbegriff/ In Tröger 1984: 105-115. Schenda, Rudolf. 1970. Volk ohne Buch. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der populären Lesestoffe 1770-1910. Studien zur Philosophie und Literatur des 19. Jahrhunderts. Bd. 5. Frankfurt am Main. Smelser, Ronald and Rainer Zitelmann (Eds). 1989. Die braune Elite. 22 biographische Skizzen. Darmstadt. Schmidt, Leopold. 1930. ‘On allen spot - Am Abend spät. Eine alte Eintrittsformel/ Das deutsche Volkslied 32: 128-129. Schmidt, Leopold. 1931. ‘Ich tritt herein ganz knödelfest/ Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde. 36: 101-102.

264

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Schmidt, Leopold. 1933. 'Die Attribute der Engel in der deutschen Volksauffassung.' Zeitschrift fu r Volkskunde 43/NF. 5: 151-176, 250273. Schmidt, Leopold. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte der deutschen Weihnachtsspiele. Phil. Diss. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1937a. Deutsche Fastnacht Deutsche Feste aus alter Art und neuem Geist. Bd. 1. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1937b. ‘Formprobleme der deutschen Weihnachts­ spiele. ’ Die Schaubühne 20. Emsdetten. Schmidt, Leopold. 1937c. Besprechung von Stumpfl 1936. Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 42: 23. Schmidt, Leopold. 1940a. ‘Forschungsaufgaben der volkskundlichen Sammlungen/ Hessische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 38: 36-72. Schmidt, Leopold. 1940b. Wiener Volkskunde. Ein Aufriß. Wiener Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. Ergänzungsband 16. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1946. Zwischen Bastei und Linienwall. Wiener Vorstädte und ihre Gäste. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1947a. ‘Die Volkskunde als Geisteswissenschaft.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Prähistorie 73-77: 115-137. Schmidt, Leopold. 1947b. Volkskunde in Österreich 1945-47/ Schweizerisches Archiv fü r Volkskunde 44: 164-169. Schmidt, Leopold. 1947c. ‘Adelgard Perkmann f/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 50: 124-125. Schmidt, Leopold. 1947d. Geliebte Stadt. Briefe an Wien. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1947e. Besprechung der österreichischen Volkskunde­ tagung 1946. österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 50: 121-122. Schmidt, Leopold. 1948a. Vor gotischen Flügelaltären. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1948b. ‘Stand und Aufgaben der österreichischen Volkskunde/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 2/51: 1-12. Schmidt, Leopold. 1950a. Vierte österreichische Volkskundetagung/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 4/ 53: 66-67. Schmidt, Leopold. 1950b. ‘Burgenländische Porträts: Michael Haberlandt/ Volk und Heimat 3/13: 3-4. Schmidt, Leopold. 1951a. Geschichte der österreichischen Volkskunde. Buchreihe der Österreichischen Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde. N.S. Bd. 2. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1951b. Volkskunde zwischen Diktatur und Demo­ kratie/ Die Warte. Blätter fü r Forschung, Kunst und Wissenschaft. Beilage zu ‘Die Österreichische Furche’ 7, Nr. 29, 14 July 1951: 1-2. Schmidt, Leopold. 1952a. Volkskundliche Beobachtungen an den Werken Adalbert Stifters/ Adalbert Stifter Almanach fü r 1953: 87-108. Schmidt, Leopold. 1952b. Gestaltheiligkeit im bäuerlichen Arbeitsmythos. Studien zu den Emteschnittgeräten und ihrer Stellung im europäischen Volksglauben und Volksbrauch Veröffentlichungen des österreich­ ischen Museums für Volkskunde. Bd. 1. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1954a. Bauemwerk der Alten Welt. Europa-Asien-Afrika. Katalog. Veröffentlichungen zum Archiv für Völkerkunde. Bd. 2. Wien.

Bibliography 265 Schmidt, Leopold. 1954b. 'Archiv der österreichischen Volkskunde/ Öster­ reichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 8/57: 87-108. Schmidt, Leopold. 1954c. 'Ein österreichischer Volkskundeatlas.’ Öster­ reichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 8/57: 71-72. Schmidt, Leopold. 1955a. 'Die Stellung der Volkskunde im Gefüge der Geisteswissenschaften.’ In Actes du congrès 1955: 21-31. Schmidt, Leopold. 1955b. Volkskunde zwischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte und Kulturgeographie. ’ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 9/58: 1-17. Schmidt, Leopold. 1955c. ‘Karl Spieß-Bibliographie. Verzeichnis der wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen von 1910-1955.’ In Spieß 1955: 117-122. Schmidt, Leopold. 1955d. 'Arthur Haberlandt und die Lebenskreise als Forschungsziel der Volkskunde.’ Notring Almanach 1955: 124-125. Schmidt, Leopold. 1957a. 'Geschichtliche Grundlagen der Gerätekultur. Zu den Aufgaben der Erforschung des bäuerlichen Arbeitsgeräts, dargetan an den Säegeräten in Kärnten.’ Corinthia I/147: 773-802. Schmidt, Leopold. 1957b. 'Karl Spieß f/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r V olksku nd en /60: 335-338. Schmidt, Leopold. 1958a. 'Zum volkskundlichen Kartenwesen in Öster­ reich/ Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 54: 129-130. Schmidt, Leopold. 1958b. Heiliges Blei in Amuletten, Votiven und anderen Gegenständen des Volksglaubens in Europa und im Orient Leobener Grüne Hefte. Bd. 32. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1958c. 'Karl Spieß und die Volksliedforschung.’ Jahr­ buch des Österreichischen Volksliedwerkes 7: 95-97. Schmidt, Leopold. 1959. 'Nachrichten aus dem Archiv der österreichischen Volkskunde. 12. Ergebnisse der Ringstock-Umfrage/ österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 13/62: 224-226. Schmidt, Leopold. 1960a. 'Der Gordische Knoten und seine Lösung/ Antaios 1: 305-318. Schmidt, Leopold. 1960b. 'Das Stachelhalsband des Hirtenhundes/ Deutsches Jahrbuch fü r Volkskunde 6: 154-181. Schmidt, Leopold. 1960c. Rezension über den Österreichischen Volks­ kundeatlas. Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 14/63: 58-60. Schmidt, Leopold. 1960d. Das österreichische Museum fü r Volkskunde. Werden und Wesen eines Wiener Museums. Österreich-Reihe. Bd. 98/100. Wien. Schmidt, Leopold. 1961a. Tläuser auf heiligem Grundriß/ Antaios 2: 204217. Schmidt, Leopold. 1961b. Besprechung von Bausinger 1961. Österreich­ ische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 15/64: 293-295. Schmidt, Leopold. 1962a. Besprechung von Bausinger 1961. Anthropos 57: 193-195. Schmidt, Leopold. 1962b. 'Der Heubogen im südlichen Burgenland/ Deutsches Jahrbuch fü r Volkskunde 8: 351-360. Schmidt, Leopold. 1962c. T)ie mitteleuropäischen Volkskundemuseen und ihre Aufgaben in der Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 16/65: 129-146.

266

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Schmidt, Leopold. 1962d. Das deutsche Volksschauspiel Ein Handbuch. Berlin. Schmidt, Leopold. 1963a. 'Rot und Blau. Zur Symbolik eines Farben­ paare s.' Antaios 4: 168-177. Schmidt, Leopold. 1963b. 'Raimund Zoder. Nachruf/ Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 66: 46-48. Schmidt, Leopold. 1963c. Die Volkserzählung. Märchen, Sage, Legende, Schwank. Berlin. Schmidt, Leopold. 1963d. Hermann Wopfner f.' Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 17/66: 193-194. Schmidt, Leopold. 1964a. ‘Arthur Haberlandt zum Gedächtnis. Nach­ ruf und Bibliographie.’ Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 18/67: 217-271. Schmidt, Leopold. 1964b. 'Arthur Haberlandt f.' Mitteilungsblatt der Museen Österreichs 13: 101-104. Schmidt, Leopold. 1965a. Besprechung von Helbok 1964-1967. Bd.l. Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 19/68: 198-199. Schmidt, Leopold. 1965b. '1st die Pflege bäuerlicher Kultur sinnvoll?' Kulturberichte aus Niederösterreich. Beilage der Amtlichen Nachrichten der NÖ Landesregierung 1965/3: 18-20. Schmidt, Leopold. 1966a. 'Brauch ohne Glaube. Die öffentlichen Bildgebärden im Wandel der Interpretationen.' In Schmidt 1966d: 289312, 383-388. Schmidt, Leopold. 1966b. 'Niemandsland. Die spielhafte Gestaltung des Weges durch das Unbetretbare.' Antaios 8: 72-96. Schmidt, Leopold. 1966c. 'Lebendiges Licht im Volksglauben und Volks­ brauch Mitteleuropas.'In Schmidt 1966d: 19-55, 315-325. Schmidt, Leopold. 1966d. Volksglaube und Volksbrauch. Gestalten. Gebilde. Gebärden. Berlin. Schmidt, Leopold. 1967. 'Aus der Arbeit am Atlas der burgenländischen Volkskunde.' Rheinisches Jahrbuch fü r Volkskunde 17/18: 185-208. Schmidt, Leopold. 1968a. 'Adolf Helbok f.' Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 22/71: 177-179. Schmidt, Leopold. 1968b. 'Anton Dörrer f.' Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 22/71: 115-116. Schmidt, Leopold. 1969a. Besprechung von Emmerich 1968. Österreich­ ische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 23/72: 191-193. Schmidt, Leopold. 1969b. 'Erinnerte Jahresfeuer. 'Erlesenes' aus deutschen Lebenszeugnissen.' In Kontakte und Grenzen 1969: 404-424. Schmidt, Leopold. 1970. 'Bank und Stuhl und Thron.' Antaios 12: 85-103. Schmidt, Leopold. 1971a. 'Kulturgeschichtliche Aspekte in der österreich­ ischen Volkskunde.' In Kulturgeschichtliche Perspektiven 1971: 103114. Schmidt, Leopold. 1971b. Besprechung von Schenda 1970. Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 25/74: 191-193. Schmidt, Leopold. 1973a. Probleme der Gegenwartsvolkskunde. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Gegenwartsvolkskunde. Bd. 1. Wien.

Bibliography 267 Schmidt, Leopold. 1973b. "Bericht über die Tagung "Kultureller Wandel im 19. Jahrhundert' 1971 in Trier.' Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volks­ kunde 27/76: 255-257. Schmidt, Leopold. 1973c. "Probleme der Gegenwartsvolkskunde.' Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 110: 262-282. Schmidt, Leopold. 1977a. Besprechung von Fél und Hofer 1972, Fél und Hofer 1974. österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 80/31: 350-351. Schmidt, Leopold. 1977b. Besprechung von Wiegelmann, Zender und Heilfurth 1977. Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 31/80: 308311. Schmidt, Leopold. 1981. "Volkskunde in der Gegenwart. Hinweise und Randbemerkungen.' Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 35/84: 140. Schmidt, Leopold. 1982. Curriculum vitae. Mein Leben mit der Volkskunde. Unveröffentlichtes Buch. Wien Schneider, Anton. 1933. "Professor Dr. Adolf Helbok fünfzig Jahre alt.' Heimat 14: 17-24. Schneider, Ingo. 1999. Europäische Ethnologie und Folklore im internationalen Kontext. Festschrift für Leander Petzoldt zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt and Wien. Schneider, Liselotte and Anton Dörrer. 1947. ‘Verzeichnis der Veröffentlichungen Hermann Wopfners aus der Zeit von 1900 bis Ende 1946.’ In Dörrer and Schmidt 1947b: 317-332. Schnöller, Andrea and Hannes Stekl (Eds). 1987. Es war eine Welt der "Geborgenheit' ... Bürgerliche Kindheit in Monarchie und Republik. Damit es nicht verloren ge h t... Bd. 12. Wien. Schönbach, Anton. 1900. "Uber den wissenschaftlichen Betrieb der Volks­ kunde in den Alpen.' Zeitschrift des deutschen und österreichischen Alpenvereines 31: 15-24. Schrader, Herman. 1901. Der Bilderschmuck der deutschen Sprache in Tausenden volksthümlichen Redensarten: nach Ursprung und Bedeutung erklärt. 6. Auflage. Berlin. Schramka, Carmen. 1986. "Mundartenkunde und Germanische Religions­ geschichte. Zur Tätigkeit von Otto Maußer und Otto Höfler.' In Gilch, Schramka and Prütting 1986: 41-64. Schroeder, Leopold von. 1887. Indiens Literatur und Cultur in historischer Entwicklung. Leipzig. Schroeder, Leopold von. 1908. Mysterium und Mimus imRigveda. Leipzig. Schroeder, Leopold von. 1911. Die Vollendung des arischen Mysteriums in Bayreuth. München. Schroeder, Leopold von. 1913. Reden und Aufsätze. Leipzig. Schroeder, Leopold von. 1914-1916. Arische Religion. Bd.l: Einleitung. Der Altarische Himmelsgott. Das Höchste Gute Wesen. Bd.2: Naturverehrung und Lebensfeste. Leipzig. Schroeder, Leopold von. 1918. Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Ein Abriß seines Lebens, auf Grund eigener Mitteilungen. München.

268

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Schroeder, Leopold von. 1921. Lebenserinnerungen. Edited by Felix von Schroeder. Leipzig. Schuller, Anton. 1986. Hanns Koren. Volkskundler, Kulturpolitiker, Schriftsteller. Bibliographischer Schlüssel zum Gesamtwerk. Steirische Bibliographie. Sonderband 2. Graz. Schultz, Wolfgang (Ed.). 1914-1920. Mitra. Monatsschrift für vergleichende Mythenforschung. Heft 1-12. Wien and Leipzig. Schultz, Wolfgang. 1924. Zeitrechnung und Weltordnung in ihren überein­ stimmenden Grundzügen bei den Indem, Iraniem, Hellenen, Ithalikem, Kelten, Germanen, Litauern, Slawen. Mannus-Bibliothek. Bd. 35. Leipzig. Schultz, Wolfgang. 1935. Altgermanische Kultur in Wort und Bild. 3. Auflage. München. Schurtz, Heinrich. 1902. Altersklassen und Männerbünde. Eine Darstellung der Grundformen der Gesellschaft. Berlin. Schwebe, Joachim. 1985. 'Das Zentralarchiv der deutschen Volkser­ zählung in Marburg.' Hessische Blätter fü r Volks- und Kulturforschung N.F. 18: 187-190. Schwietering, Julius. 1927. Wesen und Aufgaben der deutschen Volks­ kunde.' Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fü r Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 5: 748-765. Schwinn, Peter. 1989. 'Auf Germanensuche in Südtirol. Zu einer volks­ kundlichen Enquête des SS-Ahnenerbes.' Jahrbuch für Volkskunde N.F. 12: 85-98. Schwinn, Peter. 1990. 'Alfred Quellmalz und seine Tätigkeit in der Kulturkommission des SS-Ahnenerbes 1940-42.' In Stief 1990: 167177. Schwinn, Peter. 1991. '“SS-Ahnenerbe” und “Volkstumsarbeit” in Südtirol 1940-1943.' In Johler, Paulmichl and Planken Steiner 1991: 91-104. Sebeok, Thomas A. 1968. Myth. A Symposium. Bloomington and London. See, Klaus von. 1970. Deutsche Germanen-Ideologie. Vom Humanismus bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main. Segal, Robert A. (Ed.). 1988. 77ie Myth and Ritual Theory. An Anthology. Oxford. Sievers, Kai Detlev. 1991a. 'Einführung.' In Sievers 1991: 9-21. Sievers, Kai Detlev. 1991b. 'Die Historischen Schulen der deutschen Nationalökonomie und ihr Bezug zu volkskundlichen Fragestellungen.' In Sievers 1991: 157-170. Sievers, Kai Detlev (Ed.). 1991. Beiträge zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Volkskunde im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Volkskunde und Kulturgeschichte Schleswig-Holsteins. Bd. 26. Neumünster. Spamer, Adolf. 1924. 'Um die Prinzipien der Volkskunde. Anmerkungen zu Hans Naumanns Grundzügen der deutschen Volkskunde.' Hessische Blätter fü r Volkskunde 23: 67-108. Spieß, Karl von. 1910. 'Prähistorie und Mythos.' Programm des k.k. StaatsOber-Gymnasiums zu Wiener Neustadt 1909/10: 3-29.

Bibliography 269 Spieß, Karl von. 1911. T)er Mythos als Grundlage der Bauernkunst/ Programm des k.k. Staats-Ober-Gymnasiums zu Wiener Neustadt 1910/ 1911: 3-28. Spieß, Karl von. 1922. 'Die deutschen Balladen von Wassermanns Braut und Wassermanns Frau/ Archiv fü r das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literatur 1922: 1-16. Spieß, Karl von. 1925. Bauemkunst, ihre Art und ihr Sinn. Grundlinien einer Geschichte der unpersönlichen Kunst. 1. Auflage. Wien. Spieß, Karl von. 1933a. 'Das arische Fest/ Bausteine zzir Geschichte, Völkerkunde und Mythenkunde 3: 1-64. Spieß, Karl von. 1933b. T)er goldene Zweig/ Bausteine zur Geschichte, Völkerkunde und Mythenkunde 3: 81-85. Spieß, Karl von. 1934. Deutsche Volkskunde als Erschließerin deutscher Kultur. Berlin. Spieß, Karl von. 1935. Bauemkunst, ihre Art und ihr Sinn. 2. Auflage. Wien. Spieß, Karl von. 1937. Marksteine der Volkskunst. 1. Teil. Jahrbuch für historische Volkskunde. Bd. 5-6. Berlin. Spieß, Karl von. 1938a. 'Deutsche Volkskunde - Deutsche Bildung Deutsche Erneuerung/ Geist der Zeit 16: 379-388. Spieß, Karl von. 1938b. 'Deutsche Volkskunde - Deutsche Bildung Deutsche Erneuerung/ In Spieß and Mudrak 1938: 11-20. Spieß, Karl von. 1938c. Totenbretter. Zeugnisse volkseigener Weltan­ schauung in Österreich/ Germanen-Erbe 3: 148-155. Spieß, Karl von. 1939a. 'Germanisches Erbe in der deutschen Volkskunst/ In Thiele 1939: 34-56. Spieß, Karl von. 1939b. 'Der Osterhase/ Volkstum und Heimat 6: 88-91. Spieß, Karl von. 1940. Deutsche Volkskunst. Stubenrauchs Deutsche Grundrisse. Die Schwarze Reihe: Deutsche Kultur. Bd. 3/4. Berlin. Spieß, Karl von. 1941a. Besprechung von Fehrle 1940. Deutsche Volks­ kunde 3: 215-216. Spieß, Karl von. 1941b. 'Arteigene Erbgüter als Grundlage einer deutschen Volkskunde/ Zeitschrift fü r deutsche Bildung 17: 65-71. Spieß, Karl von. 1942. Marksteine der Volkskunst. 2. Teil. Jahrbuch für historische Volkskunde. Bd. 8-9. Berlin. Spieß, Karl von. 1943. Bauemkunst, ihre Art und ihr Sinn. 3. Aufl. Berlin. Spieß, Karl von. 1953. 'Die Museen als Lehrmeister/ Mitteilungsblatt der Museen Österreichs 2: 48-50. Spieß, Karl von. 1955. Neue Marksteine. Drei Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der überlieferungsgebundenen Kunst. Veröffentlichungen des österreichischen Museums für Volkskunde. Bd. 7. Wien. Spieß, Karl von. 1957. T)as Werden eines Werkes/ Forschungsfragen unserer Zeit. Blätter des Wissens. Lieferung 1/2: 1-10. Spieß, Karl von, and Edmund Mudrak. 1938. Deutsche Volkskunde als politische Wissenschaft. Zwei Aufsätze. Berlin. Spieß, Karl von, and Edmund Mudrak. 1939. Deutsche Märchen - Deutsche Welt. Zeugnisse nordischer Weltanschauung in volkstümlicher Über­ lieferung. Berlin.

270

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

Srbik, Heinrich Ritter von. 1951. Geist und Geschichte vom deutschen Humanismus bis zur Gegenwart. Bd. 2. München, Salzburg. Staubach, Nikolaus. 1974. Besprechung von Höfler 1973. Fabula 15: 268272. Stavenhagen, Kurt. 1936. Kritische Gänge in die Volkstheorie. Abhand­ lungen der Herder-Gesellschaft und des Herder-Instituts zu Riga, Band V, Nr. 7. Riga. Steblin-Kamenskij. 1982. Myth. The Icelandic Sagas and Eddas. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Steller, Walther (Ed.). 1933. Festschrift Theodor Siebs zum 70. Geburtstag 26. August 1932. Breslau. Steinacker, Harold. 1911. ‘Diplomatik und Landeskunde/ Mitteilungen des Instituts fü r Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 32: 385-435. Steinacker, Harold. 1923. ‘Bericht über den Ferienkurs für Heimat­ forschung und Volksbildung in Bludenz vom 19. bis 21. Juli 1923/ Vierteljahrsschrift fü r Geschichte und Landeskunde Vorarlbergs 7: 96108. Stief, Wiegand. 1990. Register zu Alfred Quellmalz. Südtiroler Volkslieder, 3 Bände. Kassel: Bärenreiter 1968, 1972 und 1976. Studien zur Volksliedforschung. Bd. 4. Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York und Paris. Stolz, Otto. 1928. ‘Die Innsbrucker Universität im Strome der Geschichte/ In Universitätsamt Innsbruck (1928): 7-16. Stolz, Otto. 1932. Die Ausbreitung des Deutschtums in Südtirol im Lichte der Urkunden. Bd. 3. München u.a. Stolz, Otto. 1936. ‘Aus dem Werdegang eines Meisters der Geschichte und Volkskunde Tirols: Hermann Wopfner/ Tiroler Heimatblätter 14: 214218. Stolz, Otto. 1955. Geschichte des Landes Tirol. Bd. 1. Innsbruck. Strobach, Hermann. 1987. ‘“... aber wann beginnt der Vorkrieg?” Anmerkungen zum Thema Volkskunde und Faschismus (vor und um 1933)/ In Gerndt 1987: 23-38. Strobach, Hermann. 1994. ‘“... but when does the Pre-war begin?” Folklore and Fascism before and around 1933 / In Dow and Lixfeld 1994: 55-68. Strzygowski, Josef. 1936. Spuren indogermanischen Glaubens in der bildenden Kunst. Heidelberg. Stuhlpfarrer, Karl. 1985. Umsiedlung Südtirol 1939-1940. Bd. 1-2. Wien and München. Stumpfl, Robert. 1934. Der Ursprung des Fastnachtsspiels und die kultischen Männerbünde der Germanen. Leipzig. Stumpfl, Robert. 1936. Kultspiele der Germanen als Ursprung des mittelalterlichen Dramas. Berlin. Stürz, Peter. 1984. Verzeichnis der wissenschaftlichen Veröffent­ lichungen von Karl Ilg (1979 bis 1983) / Verzeichnis der von Karl Ilg begutachteten Dissertationen.’ Österreichische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 38/87: 330-335.

Bibliography 271 Stürz, Peter, Paul Rachbauer and Michael Becker. 1979. Verzeichnis der wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen von Karl Ilg.’ In Ilg 1979: 312-322. Suitner, Helga. 1952. Die Geschichte der Tiroler Sagen- und Märchen­ sammlungen. Phil. Diss. Innsbruck. Tälos, Emmerich and Wolfgang Neugebauer (Eds). 1985. ‘Austro­ fa schism usB eiträge über Politik, Ökonomie und Kultur 1934-1938. Österreichische Texte zur Gesellschaftskritik. Bd. 18. Wien. Thiele, Ernst-Otto (Ed.). 1938. Tracht und Schmuck der Germanen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Tracht und Schmuck im nordischen Raum. Im Aufträge der Nordischen Gesellschaft hrsg. von Alexander Funkenberg. Bd. 2. Leipzig. Thiele, Emst-Otto (Ed.). 1939. Das germanische Erbe in der deutschen Volkskultur. Die Vorträge des 1. Deutschen Volkskundetages zu Braunschweig, Herbst 1938. Deutsche Volkskunde. Schriftenreihe der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Deutsche Volkskunde. Bd. 1. München. Tichy, Frank. 1990. ‘Salzburger Sümpfe. Ehren, Bürger, Kameraden, Blätter/ Forum 37/436-438: 39-47. Tschofen, Bernhard. 1999. Berg. Kultur. Moderne. Volkskundliches aus den Alpen. Wien. Tschofen, Bernhard. 2001. “Ich schwelgte und photographierte': Richard Wolfram - Volkskunde im Geiste des ‘Photostoßtrupps.” Fotogeschichte 21/82: 27-32. Troger, Jörg (Ed.). 1984. Hochschule und Wissenschaft im Dritten Reich. Frankfurt am Main and New York. Universitätsamt Innsbruck (Eds). (1928). Die Universität Innsbruck. Aus Geschichte und Gegenwart. Innsbruck. Vacano, O. W. von. 1936a. Wolfgang Schultz.' Germanen-Erbe 1: 193. Vacano. O. W. von. 1936b. Wolfgang Schultz zum Gedächtnis.' Volk und Rasse 11: 442-444. Verband Österreichischer Geschichtsvereine (Eds). 1955. Bericht über die aus Anlaß der Hundertjahrfeier des Instituts fü r österreichische Geschichtsforschung als Arbeitstagung in der Zeit vom 27. bis 29. September 1954 in Wien abgehaltene Hauptversammlung des Verbandes Österreichischer Geschichtsvereine. Veröffentlichungen des Verbandes Österreichischer Geschichtsvereine. Bd. 8. Wien. Verzeichnis. 1932. Verzeichnis der Schriften von Rudolf Much. Als Festgabe zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. Wien. Verzeichnis. 1933. Verzeichnis der Schriften Prof. Dr. Adolf Helboks.’ Heimat 14: 34-40. Viergutz, Rudolf F. 1942. Von der Weisheit unserer Volksmärchen. Berlin. Vierkant, Alfred (Ed.). 1931. Handwörterbuch der Soziologie. Stuttgart. Volkskultur und Moderne. Europäische Ethnologie zur Jahrtausend­ wende. Konrad Köstlin zum 60. Geburtstag am 8. Mai 2000. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Ethnologie der Universität Wien. Bd. 21. Wien.

272

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Volkskunde im Dritten Reich. 1986. Volkskunde im Dñtten Reich. Diskussionsanstöße. Begleitheft zu einer Ausstellung anläßlich der Tagung ‘Volkskunde und Nationalsozialismus’ im Institut fü r deutsche und vergleichende Volkskunde an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 23.-25. Oktober 1986. Als Manuskript vervielfältigt. München: Institut für deutsche und vergleichende Volkskunde. Volkskunde und Nationalsozialismus. 1986. Volkskunde und National­ sozialismus. Tagungshinweise. Programm. Kurzfassungen der Referate. Vervielfältigtes Manuskript. Institut für deutsche und vergleichende Volkskunde. München. Volkskundliche Gaben. 1934. Volkskundliche Gaben. John Meier zum 70. Geburtstag dargebacht. Berlin and Leipzig. Wackernell, J. E. 1916. ‘Ludwig Steub, Adolf Pichler und der Tiroler Sängerkrieg/ Forschungen und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte Tirols und Vorarlbergs 13: 189-221. Wagner, Leopold. 1962. Ignaz Vinzenz Zingerle. Phil. Diss. Innsbruck. Wähler, Martin (Ed.). 1937. Der deutsche Volkscharakter. Eine Wesens­ kunde der deutschen Volksstämme und Volksschläge. Jena. Walter, Sepp. 1981. ‘Karl Haiding 75 Jahre/ In Hänsel and Walter 1981: 11-18. Waltner, Lisi. 1986. ‘Die Filme von Richard Wolfram aus den Jahren 19391942 und 1959/ Wissenschaftlicher Füm 34/35: 89-90. Warneken, Bernd 1999. “Völkisch nicht beschränkte Wissenschaft.” Eine Erinnerung an die Gründungsphase des Faches vor 100 Jahren/ Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 95: 169-196. Waschnitius, Viktor. 1913. Percht, Holda und verwandte Gestalten. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Religionsgeschichte. Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Bd. 174, Abh. 2. Wien. Weber-Kellermann, Ingeborg and Andreas C. Bimmer. 1985. Einführung in die Volkskunde / Europäische Ethnologie. Eine Wissenschaftsgeschichte. 2., erweiterte und ergänzte Auflage von ‘Deutsche Volkskunde zwischen Germanistik und Sozialwissenschaften/ Sammlung Metzler. Bd. 79. Stuttgart. Weinhold, Karl. 1853. Weihnacht-Spiele und Lieder aus Süddeutschland und Schlesien. Graz. Weinhold, Karl. 1856. Altnordisches Leben. Berlin. Weinzierl, Erika and Kurt Skalnik (Eds). 1983. Österreich 1918-1938. Geschichte der ersten Republik. Bd. 1-2. Graz, Köln, Wien. Weiser, Lily. 1923. Jul. Weihnachtsgeschenke und Weihnachtsbaum. Eine volkskundliche Untersuchung ihrer Geschichte. Stuttgart and Gotha. Weiser, Lily. 1927. Altgermanische Jünglingsweihen und Männerbünde. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen und nordischen Altertums- und Volkskunde. Bausteine zur Volkskunde und Religionswissenschaft. Bd. 1. Bühl. Weiser-Aall, Lily. 1959. ‘Eugen Fehrle 1880-1957/ Hessische Blätter für Volkskunde 49/50: 9-10. Weiss, Richard. 1946. Volkskunde der Schweiz. Erlenbach-Zürich.

Bibliography 273 Weiss, Richard. 1959. Besprechung von österreichischer Volkskundeatlas 1959. Schweizerisches Archiv filr Volkskunde 55: 283-284. Wiegelmann, Günter. 1959. 2. Arbeitstagung über Fragen des Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde. Protokollmanuskript.Bonn. Wiegelmann, Günter (Ed.). 1979. Gemeinde im Wandel. Volkskundliche Gemeindestudien in Europa. Beiträge des 21. Deutschen Volkskunde­ kongresses in Braunschweig (5.-9. September 1977). Beiträge zur Volkskultur in NordWestdeutschland. Heft 13. Münster. Wiesinger, Peter and Daniel Steinbach. 2001. 150 Jahre Germanistik in Wien. Außeruniversitäre Frühgermanistik und Universitätsgermanistik. Wien. Winter, Heinrich. 1936. Winterliche Schreckgestalten. Ein Versuch zu ihrer Deutung aus dem Brauchtum des Odenwaldes.’ Volk und Scholle 14:610. Winter, Heinrich. 1937. Das Sonnenjahr. Das Brauchtum des Jahreslaufes. Schriften der Volks- und Heimatforschung für die NS-Kulturgemeinde, Landschaftsbund Volkstum und Heimat Gau Hessen-Nassau e.V. Bd. 1. Darmstadt. Winter, Heinrich. 1938a. 'Dämonie oder Sinnbild. Ein volkskundlicher Versuch zur Wertung des Mittwinterbrauches im Odenwald/ Ober­ deutsche Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 12: 145-164. Winter, Heinrich. 1938b. 'Brauchtumsschichtung. Ein Weg zur Neube­ wertung brauchtümlicher Erscheinungen des Odenwaldes an Fasnacht und im Mittwinter auf rassischer Grundlage/ Jahrbuch des Bayer­ ischen Heimatbundes 1938: 42-48. Winternitz, M. 1912. 'Leopold von Schroeder. Zum sechzigsten Geburts­ tage/ Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 42: 103104. Wirth, Herman. 1931-1936. Die Heilige Urschrift der Menschheit. Bd. 1-2. Leipzig. Wirth, Herman. 1933. Die Ura Linda Chronik. Leipzig. Wolfram, Richard. 1932a. 'Schwerttanz und Schwerttanzspiel/ Wiener Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 37: 1-6. Wolfram, Richard. 1932b. 'Robin Hood und Hobby Horse/ Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift (Festschrift fü r Rudolf Much) 19: 357-374. Wolfram, Richard. 1932c. 'Gesunkenes Kulturgut und gehobenes Primitiv­ gut/ In Josef Strzygowski-Festschrift: 85-89. Wolfram, Richard. 1933. Emst Moritz Arndt und Schweden. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Nordsehnsucht. Forschungen zur neueren Literatur­ geschichte. Bd. 45. Weimar. Wolfram, Richard. 1934. 'Altersklassen und Männerbünde in Rumänien/ Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 64: 112-128. Wolfram, Richard. 1936. 'Rudolf Much f/ Rasse. Monatsschrift der Nordischen Bewegung 3: 476-477. Wolfram, Richard. 1936/1937. Schwerttanz und Männerbund. Lieferung 13. Kassel. Wolfram, Richard. 1939. 'Das Alter des Schnaderhüpfels/ In Plaßmann and Trathnigg (Eds) 1939: 51-62.

274

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Wolfram, Richard. 1944. 'Die Sinnbilder in der Volkskunde/ In Jankuhn 1944: 17-34. Wolfram, Richard. 1947. 'Das Radmähen. Ein unscheinbarer Volksbrauch und eine Fülle von Rätseln.' Der Sehlem 21: 237-242. Also published in Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde XLIV: 270-278. Wolfram, Richard. 1951. Die Volkstänze in Österreich und verwandte Tänze in Europa. Salzburg. Wolfram, Richard. 1952. Von der Brauchtumsaufnahme im Lande Salzburg.' Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft fü r Salzburger Landeskunde 92: 161-180. Wolfram, Richard. 1953. 'Neue Funde zu den Morisken und Morristänzen.' Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 50: 107-113. Wolfram, Richard. 1955a. 'Die Schöpferlein. Gottscheer Volksglaube von den Schicksalsgestalten.' Jahrbuch fü r Volkskunde der Heimatver­ triebenen 1: 77-92. Wolfram, Richard. 1955b. 'Das Anklöckeln im Salzburgischen. Gegen­ wartsform und Brauchdeutung.' Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft fü r Salz­ burger Landeskunde 95: 203-234. Wolfram, Richard. 1957. 'Die Tanzkrankheit des Mittelalters wieder ausgebrochen?' Kärntner Landsmannschaft 1957/1: 9-10. Wolfram, Richard. 1959a. ‘Haberlandt Michael, Indologe, Völkerkundler und Volkskundler.' Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950 2: 125. Wolfram, Richard. 1959b. 'Beiträge zur Volkskunde Südtirols.' In Wiegel­ mann 1959: 18-19. Wolfram, Richard. 1965. 'Arthur Haberlandt f.' Mitteilungen der Anthropo­ logischen Gesellschaft in Wien 95: 269-270. Wolfram, Richard. 1970. 'Plädoyer für gestalthaftes Sehen.' Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 66: 28-32. Wolfram, Richard. 1972. Prinzipien und Probleme der Brauchtums­ forschung. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte. Bd. 278/2. Wien. Wolfram, Richard. 1974. 'Um den Begriff der "Gemeinschaft.'' Bemerkungen zu der Arbeit von H. Fielhauer “Maulgabe” und “Mahlgemeinschaft.''' Österreichische Zeitschrift fü r Volkskunde 28/77: 143-152. Wolfram, Richard. 1980. Brauchtum und Volksglaube in der Gottschee. Veröffentlichungen des Österreichischen Museums für Volkskunde. Bd. 19. Wien. Wolfram, Richard. 1986. Die Geschichte des Faches 'Volkskunde' an der Wiener Universität. Unveröff. Manuskript. Wien. Wolfram, Richard. 1987a. Das Wagreinerund Großarier Jahr in Glaube und Brauch. Salzburger Beiträge zur Volkskunde. Bd. 2. Salzburg. Wolfram, Richard. 1987b. Südtiroler Volksschauspiel und Spielbräuche. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. Bd. 480. Wien. Wolfram, Richard. 1987c. 'Die Verbindung zwischen Kind und Mutter ist etwas Wunderbares.' In Schnöller and Stekl 1987: 289-302.

Bibliography 275 Wolfram, Richard. 1990. 'Richard Wolfram.' In Baiti, Grass and Faußner 1990: 331-342. Wolfram, Richard and Ingrid Kretschmer (Wissenschaftliche und karto­ graphische Leitung). 1959-1979. Österreichischer Volkskundeatlas. Graz, Wien, Köln. Wopfner, Hermann. 1908. Die Lage Tirols zu Ausgang des Mittelalters. Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte. Bd. 4. Berlin and Leipzig. Wopfner, Hermann. 1915. 'Sonnenwende 1915 an der Grenze Südtirols.' Mitteilungen des Deutschen und Österreichischen Alpenvereins 31/41: 67-81. Wopfner, Hermann. 1918. 'Die Einheit Deutschtirols.' In Denkschrift 1918: 1-38. Wopfner, Hermann. 1922. Tirols Eroberung durch deutsche Arbeit.' Tiroler Heimat 1: 5-38. Wopfner, Hermann. 1923. Tiroler Heimatkunde.' Tiroler Heimat 3/4: 84-94. Wopfner, Hermann. 1924. 'Geschichtliche Heimatkunde. Eine Anleitung zur Erarbeitung heimatkundlicher Kenntnisse.' Tiroler Heimat 5/6: 557. Wopfner, Hermann. 1926. Deutsche Siedlungsarbeit in Südtirol. Eine volkskundliche Studie. Schriften des Instituts für Sozialforschung in den Alpenländem an der Universität Innsbruck. Bd. 1. Innsbruck. Wopfner, Hermann. 1927a. 'Oswald von Zingerle.' Tiroler Heimat 1927: 6770. Wopfner, Hermann. 1927b. Anleitung zu volkskundlichen Beobachtungen auf Bergfahrten. Beiträge zur Jugend- und Heimatkunde. Bd. 4. Innsbruck. Wopfner, Hermann. 1927c. Tirolische Volkskunde.'In M. Haberlandt 1927: 332-354. Wopfner, Hermann. 1932. 'Die Bedeutung der Volkskunde für die Wirt­ schaftsgeschichte dargestellt an Beispielen der tirolischen Volkskunde.' Veröffentlichungen des Museums Ferdinandeum 1932: 1-26. Wopfner, Hermann. 1933a. 'Entstehung und Wesen des tirolischen Volkstums.' In Hauptausschuß des Deutschen und Österreichischen Alpenvereins 1933: 139-206. Wopfner, Hermann. 1933b. Volkskunde als Arbeitskunde.' Der Sehlem 1933: 414-423, 464-475, 521-532. Wopfner, Hermann. 1934. Von der Ehre und Freiheit des Tiroler Bauern­ standes. Innsbruck. Wopfner, Hermann. 1936. 'Die Forschung nach den Ursachen des Bauernkrieges und ihre Förderung durch die geschichtliche Volks­ kunde.' Historisches Jahrbuch 153: 89-106. Wopfner, Hermann. 1937. 'Die Tiroler.'In Wähler 1937: 356-375. Wopfner, Hermann. 1941. 'Bauerntum, Stadt und Staat.' Historische Zeitschrift 164: 229-260 and 472-495. Wopfner, Hermann. 1947. Tiroler Bauer und Tiroler Landesfreiheit. Tiroler Heimatschriften. Bd. 1. Innsbruck.

276

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Wopfner, Hermann. 1950. ‘Autobiographie/ In Grass 1950-1951, Bd. 1: 157-201. Wopfner, Hermann. 1951-1960. Bergbauembuch. Von Arbeit und Leben des Tiroler Bergbauem in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Lfg. 1-4. Innsbruck u.a. Wopfner, Hermann. 1959. Viktor von Geramb. Nachruf/ Almanach der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 108: 362-374. Zaunert, Paul (Ed.). 1922. Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl. Vom deutschen Land und Volke. Eine Auswahl. Jena. Zingerle, Berthold. 1955. ‘Verzeichnis der Veröffentlichungen Hermann Wopfners aus der Zeit von Ende 1946 bis Ende 1955/ Tiroler Heimat 19: 169-171. Zingerle, Iganz von. 1869. Lusemisches Wörterbuch. Innsbruck.

Index Academic Union of Germanists, 69 ADERSt (see also Official German Immigration and Re-emigration Bureau), 141 Adler und Falken, 160, 230 Advanced School, 50, 114, 127 age classes (see also Altersklassen), 11, 57, 59, 68 Ahnenerbe (see also Ancestral Inheritance), 36, 51, 124, 126f., 182, 228, 255f., 262f. Albania, 105, 201 Alleingeltung der Nordrasse (see also sole validity of the Nordic race), 174 Alleingeltung der Rasse (see also sole validity of race), 174 Altersklassen (see also age classes), 11, 37, 57, 59, 268, 273 Altertümer (see also antiquities), 18 Amt fü r Schrifttumspflege (see also Office for Literary Promotion), 138 Ancestral Inheritance (see also Ahnenerbe), 36, 51, 68, 76, 108, 111-4, 119-29, 131, 136, 138-42, 144, 154f., 158, 181L, 188, 195, 196, 210, 212, 224, 226-28, 230, 232, 261 Anderson, Walter, 49 Andree-Eysn, Marie, 82 Andrian-Werburg, Ferdinand Freiherr von, 10 Annexation (see also Anschluß), 83 Anschluß (see also annexation), 31-4, 42, 90, 95, 128, 228, 263

Anthropological Society, 10, 19f., 22

antiquities (see also Altertümer), 2, 15, 18, 38, 57, 60, 81f. antisemitism, 108 Apollo, 45 Arisophy, 8 Armanist, 8f. arteigen (see also racially pure), 107 Aryan, 4, 8, Ilf., 44f., 47, 51, 68, 87, 148, 160, 224, 248 Aryan Big Bang, 8 Assion, Peter, 194, 229, 237 Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde (see also Atlas of German Folklore), 144, 238, 253, 273 Atlas of German Folklore (see also Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde), 107 Aufnordung, 160 Außenstelle Südost (see also Regional Branch Southeast) 117-121, vi, 119 Austrian Academy of Sciences, 81, 97, 105, 203, 219, 232, 233 Austrian Folklore Atlas (see also Österreichischer Volkskunde Atlas), 175, 181f., 186, 189, 204, 231, 233 Austrian Open Air Museum Stuffing, 168 Austro-fascism, 32, 34, 210 Balkans, 105, 160, 166, 226 Battle Union for German Culture (see also Kampfbund für Deutsche Kultur), 160 Bausinger, Hermann, 62, 74-6,

278

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

108, 184, 190, 205, 238, 244, 256f., 265 Bausteine zur Geschichte, Völkerkunde und Mythenkunde (see also Building Blocks for History, Ethnology and Myth Studies), 84, 254, 261, 269 Bavarian National Museum, 188, 233 bear, 73, 150 Beiti, Klaus, xiii, 240, 248 Beiti, Richard, 147, 238, 243 Beiträge zur Europäischen Ethnologie und Folklore, 198, 234 belastet, 170, 174 Belgium, 139, 156 Belo-Russia, 160, 166 Bennett, Sam, 205-7 Berchtesgaden, 29, 82, 188 Berlin, xiv, 34, 38, 45, 85, 86, 88, 112f., 118, 131, 136, 140, 158, 161 f., 166, 195, 224, 229f., 237f., 241, 249, 253, 256, 258, 259, 261f., 266-72, 275 Bimmer, Andreas C., 35f., 39, 62, 68, 75, 88, 96, 221, 238, 243, 272,315 Birkhan, Helmut, 69, 70, 74, 76, 183, 224, 239 black moon (see also Schwarz­ mond), 47 Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna, 5f., 239 Bleichsteiner, Robert, 49 Bockhorn, Elisabeth, 215 Bockhorn, Olaf, ix, xiv, 214, 216, 239, 245, 254 Bohemia-Moravia, 142 Bohemian Forest (Bavaria), 162 Böll, Heinrich, 169 Bollmus, Reinhard, 228 Bolzano (see also Bozen), 143 Bopp, Franz, 5 Bozen (see also Bolzano), 141, 143, 249 Brandauer, Kuno, 123

Brazil, 193 Brecht, Walther, 77 Brednich, Rolf Wilhelm, 156, 168, 240 Bühler, Georg, 9 Building Blocks for History, Ethnology and Myth Studies (see also Bausteine zur Geschichte, Völkerkunde und Mythenkunde), 84 Bukovina, 12-4 Burgenland, 104, 186, 209, 233, 245, 259, 265 Burgstaller, Ernst, 57, 231, 233, 240f., 252, 262 Carinthia, 198, 247, 265 Carinthian Open Air Museum Maria Saal, 198 Carolino Augusteum, 120 Carteil Verband, 34 Castor and Pollux, 146 Celtis, Conrad, 130 Chamberlain, Houston Stewart, 6, 11, 241, 260, 267 Chatten, 66 Chile, 193 Christmas, xii, 15, 30, 45, 48, 63-5, 67 CIAP (see also Commission Internationale des arts et traditions populaires), 103 comitatus, 60 Congress of Vienna, 14 Conrad, Kurt, 189, 237 continuity, x, 2, 17, 36, 6 If., 67, 75, 79f., 108, 143, 154, 190, 193, 197, 203, 205, 209, 220 Copenhagen, 22, 69 Corrsin, Stephen D., xiv, 2, 206, 234, 241 cosmic ice theory (see also Welteislehre), 8 Cox, George William, 45 Crimea, 142 Croatia, 216 crossed horses heads, 146 culture circle (see also

Index 279 Kulturkreis), 105 Curriculum vitae. Mein Leben mit der Volkskunde, 232, 267 Cynocephali, 66 Czoemig, Karl Freiherr von, 19

ethnic cleansing (see also völkische Flurbereinigung), 141 Ethnographical Commission, 20 eugenics, 89 European Prize for Folk Art, 168

Dableiber, 141 Darré, R. Walter, 127 death cult, 67, 70, 73, 75 Deißner, Vera, 9, 14, 241 Denmark, 22, 65, 139 Deutsche Bildung (see also German Education), v, ix, 3943, 49, 56, 84, 90, 164, 222 Deutsche Gemeinschaft (see also German Community), 70, 263 Deutsche Volkskunde im Schrifttum (see also German Folklore in Print), 117, 241 Deutscher Schulverein Südmark (see also German School Union of Styria), 25 Deutsch-Österreichischer Jugendbund (see also GermanAustrian Youth Union), 41 Deutschtümelei 2f., 42, 56, 194 dialectology - 77-78, 81 Dionysus, 73 Dioscuri, 146 Direder-Mai, Marianne, 195 Dorfmonographie (see also village monograph), 208 Dorfsippenforschung (see also research of village clans), 119 Dörrer, Anton, 172, 176f., 191, 242, 248, 260, 266f. Draubanat, 152

Fehrle, Eugen, 65f., 81, 117, 223, 243L,269, 272 Feuerschlagen, 147 Fielhauer, Helmut Paul, x, xi, 77, 136, 152, 183, 205, 209, 2114, 23If., 239, 244f., 257, 259, 274 fire wheel, 147f. Flanders, 139, 155 folk piety, 201, 210, 212 folklore film, 212 Folklore Museum (see also Museum fü r Volkskunde) 25, 41,92-6,114, 169, 179f., 184, 200, 231 Folklore Society (see also Verein für Volkskunde), xiv, 37, 133, 168, 179, 185, 194, 214f., 233, 242 Fuchs, Bernhard, 217 Führer, 34, 44, 72f., 108, 110, 124, 127, 133, 140f., 157, 161, 176, 227, 245, 246 Funken, 216, 217, 255

Eberhart, Helmut, ix, xiii, 14, 16, 27-9, 114f., 121, 170, 188f., 200, 226, 233f., 239, 242L, 262 ecstatic cult, 35, 70, 151 Egerthansel, 150 Egetmann., 149, 151 Emmerich, Wolfgang, 35, 85, 184, 221, 243, 266, 271, 315 Estonia, 134, 162

Gaál, Károly, ix, 207, 208, 209, 211, 215, 245, 261 Galicia, 142 Gefolgschaft (see also retinue), 60 Geheimbund (see also secret society) 57, 66-73 genius research (see also Genialenforschung) ,174 Gennep, Arnold van, 208, 245 geography, 2, 15 Geramb, Viktor von, xi, 14, 16, 24-30, 65, 95, 110-5, 118, 129, 169-73, 184, 200, 221, 226, 231, 233, 241, 243, 2457, 251, 257, 259, 276, 315 German Education (see also Deutsche Bildung), v, ix, 39-44,

280

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

46, 47, 50, 53, 55, 103, 160, 222 German School Union of Styria (see also Deutscher Schulverein Südmark) y25 German-Austrian Youth Union (see also Deutsch-Öster­ reichischer Jugendbund) y41 Germanensuche y 195, 197, 268 Germanentum, 125 Germania, 18, 22, 62, 73, 80, 130, 146, 165, 258, 261 Germanie Scholarly Occupation (see also Germanischer Wissen­ schaftseinsatz) yvi, 126, 138f., 155-157, 181, 229 Germanie-German Folklore (see also Germanisch-deutsche Volkskunde)yvi, 12If., 125-9, 188 Germanisch-deutsche Volkskunde (see also Germanic-German Folklore) vi, 125-128 Germanischer Wissenschafts­ einsatz (see also Germanic Scholarly Occupation), vi, 126, 138, 155 Gerndt, Helge, 17If., 186, 194, 239-41, 247, 259, 261, 270 gestalthaftes Sehen (see also structured insight), vi, 185, 187, 203, 205, 217, 274 GestapOy 30, 221, 315 gesunkenes Kulturgut, 14, 26, 92, 96,116 gläubige Wissenschaft (see also scholarship of faith), v, 26-30, 257 Gobineau, Joseph Arthur Comte de, 4, 6, 49, 248 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 2, 14, 179 Goldstern, Eugenie, 100, 105, 248 Gottschee, vi, 139, 140, 152-155, 158, 182, 229, 274 Gräber, Georg, 114, 129, 169 grain harvesting, 145

Grass, Günter, 169 Grass, Nikolaus, 176, 191, 237, 241, 242, 248, 275, 276 Graz School of Material Culture, 16 Grazer Beiträge zur Europäischen Ethnologie, 202, 234 Gregorius, 151 Grieshofer, Franz, xiii, 239, 243, 248, 255 Grimm, Jacob, 14, 71, 91, 151, 248 großdeutschy x, 31, 34 Gundolf, Friedrich, 76 Gunnlaugs Saga, 61, 78 Günther, Hans F. K., 33, 249 Haberfeld treiben, 73 Haberlandt, Arthur, v, xi, 66, 68, 91, 95, 97, 100, 102-8, 128, 133f., 161, 172, 175, 180f., 223, 225, 226, 232, 249f., 251, 265, 266, 274 Haberlandt, Michael, v, 13, 20f., 23, 37, 64, 86, 91-102, 168, 224, 260, 264, 274 Haiding, Erna, 231 Haiding, Karl (see also Karl Paganini), vi, ix, xiii, 7, 84, 90f., 103, 114, 127, 131 f., 15962, 165-8, 171, 180, 189, 224, 231, 237-8, 251, 260, 263, 272 Hamburg Museum, 65 Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, 107 Harier, 66 Harmjanz, Heinrich, 111-2, 136, 226 Harrer, Heinrich, 126, 228, 251 Harris, Joseph, xiv, 59, 151, 251 Harth, Leopold, 228 Haupteinsatzführer (see also Chief Implementation Leader), 166f. Heilfurth, Gerhard, 137, 229, 256, 267 Heimatwerk (see also Homeland

Index 281 Work), 25, 200 Hein, Wilhelm, 92, 96 Heinzel, Richard, 18, 22, 221, 315 Helbok, Adolf, ix, xi, 17, 33, 34, 95, 112f., 116-9, 173-5, 181, 221, 226f., 231, 233, 245, 2513, 260, 261, 262, 266, 267 Hengist and Horsa, 146 Henßen, Gottfried, 195 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 14 Heruler, 66 Herzog, Wilhelm, 28f. Hess, Luise, 144, 158 Hierl, Konstantin, 127 Himmler, Heinrich, 8, 36, 108, 121, 124-9, 140f., 155, 157, 224 Hitler, 7, 8, 37, 50, 84, 117, 119, 126L, 133, 140, 143, 158, 160L, 223, 241, 249 Hitlerjugend, 160f. Hochgezeiten, 45f., 52f., 254 Hoerbiger, Hanns, 8 Hofburg, 41, 134, 184, 233 Hofer, Franz, 118, 267 Hoffer, Heinrich, 112 Hoffmann-Krayer, Eduard, 13, 253 Hofler, Otto, ix, 22, 57, 60-3, 65, 69-77, 80, 82, 86, 126, 131, 137, 183, 203, 205, 223f., 239, 253, 267, 270 Holda, 63, 272 Holland, 155f. Hollerpfannsonntag, 148 Höltker, Georg, 223, 253 Homeland Work (see also Heimatwerk), 25, 200 Horak, Karl, 103, 144, 229 Hörandner, Edith, 201, 253, 262 Horny, Magdalena, 63 Hudlerlaufen, 150 Hungary, 181, 207, 209, 216 Hüsing, Emma, 254 Hüsing, Georg, 37f., 41-43, 46, 49f., 52f., 56, 66, 87, 124, 160f., 230

Hyacinth, 45 Ilg, Karl, ix, 175-7, 181, 184, 191-4, 234, 238, 254, 262, 270, 271 Indo-Germanic, 12, 15, 20, 38, 39, 49, 66, 87, 144, 164, 224 Insam, Matthias, 142 Institute for German Folklore (see also Institut fiir deutsche Volkskunde), 7, 114, 123, 127, 131 f., 159, 162 intellectual fantasy, 2, 8, 35, 42, 49, 190 interruption, 177 irredenta Italia, 16 Jacobeit, Wolfgang, ix, xiv, 86f., 108, 216, 243, 254-5, 259 Jankuhn, Herbert, 155, 255, 274 Jeggle, Utz, 215, 238 Johler, Reinhard, ix, xiii, 14, 17, 147f., 204, 216-7, 234, 235, 239, 255, 268 Jutz, Leo, 114 Kaindl, Raimund Friedrich, 12f., 16, 255 Kampfbund fü r Deutsche Kultur (see also Battle Union for German Culture), 160 Karasek, Alfred, 103f., 137 Kater, Michael, 51, 108, 128, 136, 139, 141, 153, 155, 157, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 255f. Katschnig-Fasch, Elisabeth, xiii, 201, 256, 262 Kennedy, Douglas, 79 Kinderspiel (see also children's game), 162, 250 kleindeutsch, x, 31 Knoll, Fritz, 130 Koch, Georg, 106 Kohl, Helmut, 194 Kollár, Jan, 18 Koot Hoomi, 5 Koppers, Wilhelm, 102-3, 105, 132,225

282

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Koren, Hanns, ix, xi, 14, 16, 29f., 119, 121 f., 171, 173, 187, 198, 200, 233, 256-7, 258, 268 Korff, Gottfried, 215, 238 Kossinna, Gustaf, 50 Köstlin, Konrad, xiii, 215, 217, 234, 248, 271 Kraft durch Freude (KdF), 222 Kraina, 152, 154 Kraitschek, Gustav, 42 Kralik, Dietrich, 77 Kramer, Dieter, 203, 257 Kranzmayer, Eberhard, 63, 81f., 183, 199, 257 Krauss, Friedrich S., 13, 20, 257 Krek, Georg, 15 Kretschmer, Paul, 39, 52, 182, 275 Kretzenbacher, Leopold, 114, 169, 171, 173, 257, 258 Kreuz-Auffindung, 147 Kreuz-Erhöhung, 147 Krieg, Walter, 85 Kriss, Rudolf, 29, 63, 82f., 103L, 123, 134, 184, 188, 216, 224, 228, 233, 239, 258 Kuhn, Walter, 103, 258 Kultische Geheimbünde, 70f., 75, 253 Kulturkommission (see also culture commission), vi, 118, 126, 139, 141, 26If., 268 Lady Bug (see also Maikäfer), 163 Laich, 44 Lamprecht, Karl, 17 language island (see also linguistic island), 77, 163 Leben in überlieferten Ordnungen (see also life according to traditional orders), vi, 179, 184 Lebenskreis (see also life circle), V, 105 Leipzig, 9, 17, 34, 116, 119, 129, 137, 153, 174 Lendl, Egon, 103 Leßmann, Heinrich, 85 Liebenfels, Jörg Lanz von, 8, 241

Liegnitz, 38 Liesenfeld, Gertraud, ix, xiii, 152, 217, 231L, 240, 245, 259 life according to traditional orders (see also Leben in überlieferten Ordnungen:), 172, 179, 187 life circle (see also Lebenskreis), 37, 105f. linguistic boundaries, 140 linguistic island (see also language island), 103L, 144, 152 linguistics, 2, 9, 15, 19, 20, 60 List, Guido von, 8, 223-5, 228L, 234 Lithuania, 134 Livonia, 9, 11 Lixfeld, Hannjost, ix, xiv, 85, 87, 108, 114, 136, 140, 190, 203, 216, 221, 226-9, 238-40, 242L, 254L, 257, 259, 261, 270, 315 Löffler, Klara, xiii, 217, 234 Lost Soul, 71 Lower Austria, 107, 160, 211, 233 lunar, 45 Lutz, Gerhard, 6, 27, 194, 226, 247, 258, 259, 262 magic talk, 79 Mai, Willi, 142, 164, 195-7, 234, 251, 262, 271 Maikäfer (see also Lady Bug), 164 Männerbund (see also men's union), V, 57, 71, 73, 77, 79, 80, 207, 251, 253, 273 mardi gras (see also Shrovetide), 75, 142 Margen, 44, 47, 164 Maria Saal, 198 Maußer, Otto, 82, 227, 267 Meier, John, 107, 261, 272 Menz, Herbert, 119, 227 Meringer, Rudolf, 15, 20, 200, 250, 260 Metz, Friedrich, 177, 191

Index 283 Miklosich, Franz, 18 Minsk, 166 Mitläufer, 91, 107 Mitra, 49, 268 Mohrmann, Ute, 86f., 254 Monastery Rein, 114, 157, 162, 167 f. moon mythology, 39, 49, 52, 179 Morris Dance, 205-7, 241 Morya, 5 Moser, Oskar, ix, 16, 75, 173, 176-7, 198, 200, 218, 220, 260, 262 Moser-Rath, Elfriede, 184, 230, 260 Mother Holle, 147 moving film, 145 Much, Matthäus, 22 Much, Rudolf, 20 f., 23, 35, 38, 40, 42, 52 f., 60, 62-4, 66 f., 69f., 73, 77, 80-2, 86, 90, 103, 108, 124, 130, 131, 145, 183, 221, 243, 245, 253, 258, 271, 273, 315 Mudrak, Edmund, xi, 42, 51, 54, 84 f., 89, 90, 108, 123, 127, 131 f., 136f., 160, 179, 222, 224, 229, 249f., 261, 269 Müller, Friedrich, 19, 20 Müller, Max, 45 Mundelföri, 8 Munich, X, 27f., 33, 51, 69, 76f., 8 If., 86, 120, 129, 131, 160, 188, 190, 194, 215, 221f., 224, 233, 315 Munich School, x, 190, 215 Munich, University of, 27, 50, 69, 188 Museum fü r Volkskunde (see also Folklore Museum), v, xii, xiii, 37, 96, 97, 102, 224, 265 Mussolini, Benito, 117, 140 Mythologists, v, 36f., 45, 49, 51, 83, 108, 114, 124, 138, 159, 161, 164 National Socialism, vi, 3, 4, 15, 27f., 36, 42, 74, 83, 88, 108,

115, 117f., 125, 135, 139, 169, 172-4, 194, 210, 219, 222, 230 National Socialist, 1, 3, 28, 29, 32f., 50, 69, 74, 78, 83, 86, 108, 110-2, 115, 117, 122f., 125, 135, 137, 139, 155, 167, 170, 174, 179, 196 Naumann, Hans, 14, 25, 33, 96, 116 Nikitsch, Herbert, ix, xiii, 217, 234, 245, 259 Nordic Museum, 64 Norway, 126, 138f., 155f., 158, 230, 232 NSDAP, 33, 51, 78, 107, 108, 110, 113, 116, 118, 124, 127, 174, 178, 184, 222, 228, 232, 241, 261 NS-Monatshefte, 85 NS Teachers' Union (see also NS Lehrerbund), 136, 138, 232 Nußbaumer, Thomas, xiv, 126, 145, 196f., 234, 261 Oberhummer, Professor, 52, 102 Odin, 74 Office for Folklore and Celebration Planning (see also Amt fü r Volkskunde und Feier­ gestaltung), 137 Office for Literary Promotion (see also Amt fü r Schrifttumspflege), 138 Official German Immigration and Re-emigration Bureau (see also Amtliche Deutsche Ein- und Rückwanderungs-Stelle ADERSt), 141 Official Party Testing Commission for the Protection of NS Writings (see also Partei- Amt­ liche Prüfungskommission zum Schutze des NS-Schrifttums), 30 Opfer (see also victim), 211 Optanten, 141 Oslo, 68, 157, 181, 182 Österreichischer Volkskunde Atlas (see also Austrian Folklore

284

The Study o f European Ethnology in Austria

Atlas), 175 Ostmark, v, vi, 37, 51, 83, 108, 12 If., 124, 128, 131 f., 162, 239, 262 Paganini, Karl, vi, 91, 159, 160, 237 pan-German, x, 11, 14, 31, 34, 77, 108, 119, 175, 232 Paulitschke, Phillip, 19 Peck, A.L., 207 Penelope, 45 Perchta, 44f., 73 Perkmann, Adelgard, 104, 133, 226, 264 Peru, 126, 193 Petzoldt, Leander, 191, 194, 1968, 234, 261, 262, 267 Peuckert, Will-Erich, 84, 262 Pfalz, Anton, 8 If. Pfeiffer, Franz, 18 Pflugumziehen, 148 phallic cult, 73 Phleps, Hermann, 155 photo storm trooper, 155 photos, xii, xiii, 65, 145, 167, 205 Pickle Herring, 79 Piffl, Erna, 103, 123 Plaßmann, Josef Otto, 128, 130, 155, 262, 273 Plattner, Friedrich, 110, 111, 112, 130, 226 Poch, Rudolf, 52, 99, 101, 223, 225 Polheim, Karl, 111, 226 Posen, 137f., 153, 179 Pöttler, Burkhard, xiii, 201, 262 Prague, 25, 103, 129, 229 precursor, 51 primitive Gemeinschaftskultur, 26 Prodinger, Friederike, 112, 122f., 226 progenitor, 11, 13, 51 proto-folklore courses, 18 proto- Volkskunde, 20

Quellmalz, Alfred, xiv, 142, 144, 196, 234, 261, 262, 268, 270 Raging Horde, 7 If. Ratibor (Upper Silesia), 166 Rauchstube, 16, 172 Regional Branch Southeast (see also Außenstelle Südost), vi, 119, 121, 129, 132, 227 Reich Writers' Chamber (see also Reichsschrifttumskammer), 30, 210

Reich Youth Leadership (see also Reichsjugendführung), 131, 161, 230 Reichsjugendführung (see also Reich Youth Leadership), 131, 161, 230 Reichsschrifttumskammer (see also Reich Writers' Chamber), 30 Rein, 114f., 157, 162, 167f. Reinerth, Hans, 85 religious folklore, 29, 30, 82, 123, 177, 184, 213 Research Post for GermanicGerman Folklore, 12 If., 129, 188 Research Post for Mythology, 13 If. retinue (see also Gefolgschaft), 60 Revesby sword dance, 79 Ridgewell, Gordon, 206 Riegl, Alois, 92, 224, 262 Riehl, Wilhelm Heinrich, 6, 24, 26, 91, 114, 172, 247, 260, 262, 276 Rigveda, 9, 11, 38f., 57, 68, 267 Ritualists, v, 35f., 51, 60 Rock, Fritz, 49 Röhrich, Lutz, 194 Rosenberg, Alfred, 7, 36, 50, 85, 87, 103, 108, 110, 114, 116, 123f., 127, 130, 159, 160-2, 165,222,231,240 Rosenberg Amt (see also Rosenberg Bureau), 51, 124, 127, 240, 259

Index 285 Rosenberg Bureau (see also Rosenberg Amt), 85f., 112-5, 123f., 128, 137, 140, 162, 188, 226, 228, 230 Roth, Rudolf, 9 Rumpfuniversität, 28 Ruprecht, Karl, 123, 128, 157, 162, 263 Rust, Bernhard, 118 Saint Germain, Treaty of, 33 Salzburg Open Air Museum, 189 Salzburger Beiträge zur Volkskunde, 234, 263, 274 Sauer, Doris, 159, 160f., 167f., 230f., 263 Scandinavia, 63, 77, 105, 146, 155, 173, 216 Schädelkult (see also skull cult), 59 Scheibenschlagen, 147f. Scherer, Wilhelm, 18 Schier, Bruno, 129, 254 Schindler, Margot, xiii, 239, 243, 248, 255 Schirach, Baldur von, 127 Schleicher, 150 Schmidt, Erich, 18 Schmidt, Leopold, ix, xi, 13, 19, 21, 35, 37f., 49, 74-76, 79, 84, 86-92, 96-8, 100, 102-5, 107f., 123, 132-4, 170-3, 176L, 17982, 184-8, 192, 202, 213, 219, 221, 224-6, 231-3, 238, 240, 242, 245, 259, 260, 263-7 Schmidt, Wilhelm, 102, 241 Schnadahüpfln, 61, 78 Schnappviecher, 149f. Schneider, Hans, 156 Schneider, Ingo, 198 scholarship of faith (see also gläubige Wissenschaft) 26-30 Schönborn-Palais, 97 Schöpfarlein, 154 Schreiber, Georg, 120, 248, 256 Schroeder, Leopold von, 9-12, 36, 38-40, 46, 49, 52, 57, 68, 71, 101, 124, 22If., 267L, 273

Schultz, Wolfgang, 42, 47, 49f., 87, 90, 124, 160, 222, 261, 268, 271 Schurtz, Heinrich, 11, 36f., 57-9, 68, 70, 268 Schwalm, Hans, 152-5 Schwarzmond (see also black moon), 47 Schweizer, Bruno, 142 Schwerttanz (see also sword dance), v, 76f., 80, 273 Schwietering, Julius, 25f., 268 Schwinn, Peter, 194, 229, 234, 237, 268 Secret Doctrines, The, 5, 239 secret society (see also Geheimbund ), 57 Seemüller, Joseph, 18 Seidlmayer, Hans, 120, 143, 158, 229 Sennheim, 157 Sharp, Cecil, 206 Sharp, Joan, 206 Shrovetide (see also mardi gras), 142,148-50 Siebenbürgen, 165 Siebs, Theodor, 105, 270 Sievers, Wolfram, 120L, 135, 136, 138, 141L, 152, 155-8, 18If., 227-30, 242, 245, 268 Skansen, 64 skull cult (see also Schädelkult), 59 Slovenia, 140, 152-3, 216 Sobibór, 100 Society for Moon Mythologists, 45 sole validity of race (see also Alleingeltung der Rasse), 174 sole validity of the Nordic race (see also Alleingeltung der Nordrasse), 174 Sonderweg (see also Special Path), v, 17, 31 South Tyrol, xiii, 16, 3 lf., 34, 65, 116-8, 126, 136, 138-50, 152, 155, 158, 176, 182, 193, 1958, 208L, 216, 229, 232, 234, 242

286

The Study of European Ethnology in Austria

Spamer, Adolf, 26, 86, 254, 268 Spann, Othmar, 41, 132 Special Path (see also Sonderweg), V, 17, 31 Sperber, Hans, 63 Spieß, Karl von, xi, xiii, 42, 49, 84-91, 103, 107f., 114, 127, 130-3, 136, 157, 167, 171, 179, 182, 189, 222, 224, 250, 261, 265, 268, 269 Stanzas of Dzyan, 5 Starzacher, Elli, 91 Stavenhagen, Kurt, 185, 270 Steiermark (see also Styria), 114, 247, 251, 255, 257, 258 Steinacker, Harold, 17, 116f., 254, 270 Steinhäuser, Walter, 70 Steirischer Herbst (see also Styrian Autumn), 200 Stockholm, 22, 182 Streggelejagen, 74 Strobel, Hans, 137, 229 Stroberger, Johann, 63 structured insight (see also gestalthaftes Sehen), 203 Stubenrauch Book Press, 85 Stübing, 168 Stumpfl, Robert, 63, 74-6, 264, 270 Styria (see also Steiermark), 25, 50, 111, 114, 152, 154, 162, 167f., 170, 173 Styrian Autumn (see also Steirischer Herbst), 200 Sudeten, 103 Swarovski Works, 234 swastika, 151, 157 Sweden, 22, 64, 69, 77, 155, 162 sword dance (see also Schwerttanz), 11, 68, 77-80 symbol research, 86 Systemzeit, 112, 226 Tacitus, 18, 22, 62, 66, 73, 80, 130, 146, 165, 258, 261 Taifalen, 66 Tarnzeit, 47

Taylor, Archer, 231 Thiele, Ernst Otto, 132, 249f., 269, 271 Tibet, 126 time reckoning (see also Zeitrechnung), 11, 12, 45-47, 87 Tiroler Landeseinheit (see also Tyrolean State Unity), 16, 176, 198 Trathnigg, Gilbert, 128, 223, 262, 273 Trautenfels, 159, 167, 180, 251 Trebitsch, Rudolf, 100, 105, 225 Trentino, 152, 216, 257 Tschofen, Bernhard, xiii, 155, 217, 271 Tübingen, x, xiii, 9, 190, 194, 215, 235, 237, 243, 245, 253 Tübingen School, x, 190, 215 Tyrolean Mythos, vi, x, 16, 31, 198 Tyrolean State Unity (see also Tiroler Landeseinheit), 16, 32, 176 Überzähliger, 150 Uiberreither, Sigfried, 111, 166 Union for Homeland Protection (see also Verein für Heimatschutz), 25 Uppsala, 69, 233 Urkultur, 58 Verband deutscher Vereine für Volkskunde, 107 Verein für Heimatschutz (see also Union for Homeland Protection), 25, 251 Verein für Volkskunde (see also Folklore Society), 37, 86, 93, 96, 107, 133, 179f., 217, 233, 249 Vergangenheitsbewältigung (see also overcoming the past), 190, 240 Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Ethnologie der

Index 287 Universität Wien, 234, 255, 271 Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Volkskunde, 234, 240, 244 victim (see also Opfer), 180, 211 Viennese Mythological School, x, 3, 9, 35, 161 Viennese School, v, 10, 36, 37, 56f., 59, 63, 71, 77, 83, 107, 159, 190 village monograph (see also Dorf monographie), 207 Virgin Maiy, 147 Volk und Rasse, 33, 222, 271 Völkerkunde, 1, 21, 84, 102, 104, 225, 241, 251, 264 völkisch, 3, 45, 50, 62, 110, 125, 141, 143, 240 völkische Flurbereinigung (see also ethnic cleansing), 141 Vorarlberg, 33f., 177, 192, 217, 237, 243, 251, 252, 254 Waffen-SS, 126, 138, 157 Wagner, 272 Wagner, Cosima, 7 Wagner, Eva, 7 Wagner, Richard, 7, 10 Waldviertel, 63 Wallburga, 44 Walleitner, Josef, 189, 233 Walser, 177, 192, 254 Wandervogel, 40, 86, 103 Waschnitius, Viktor, 63, 272 Wattens, 234 Weber-Kellermann, Ingeborg, 35f., 39, 62, 68, 75, 88, 96, 221, 272 Weigel, Karl Theodor, 155, 240 Weinhold, Karl, 15, 242, 272 Weiser, Lily (Elisabeth), 57, 60, 63f., 66-71, 73, 81f., 223, 243, 250, 272 Weiser-Aall, Lily, ix, 126, 263, 272 Weissmond (see also white moon), 47

Welteislehre (see also cosmic ice theory), 8 Weninger, Josef, 102, 223 Werth, Max Ferdinand Sebaldt von, 8 white moon (see also Weissmond), 47 Wieland legend, 90 Wild Horde, 71-4 Wild Man, 149 Winter-Summer battle, 150 Wolf, Gustav, 115, 226 Wolfau, 207, 208f., 245 Wolfram, Richard, ix, xi, xiii, 21, 35, 57, 60f., 63, 75L, 79L, 82, 103, 107L, 118, 121-3, 126, 129, 132, 134L, 137f., 142, 145, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 167, 170, 173, 175, 177, 1804, 187, 189, 201-4, 207, 211, 215, 227, 231, 233L, 239, 244, 255, 259, 27lf., 275 Wopfner, Hermann, xi, 14, 17, 31-3, 95, 116-8, 174, 176L, 191, 193, 231, 242, 248, 254, 266, 270, 275f. Working Community for Folklore, 103, 127, 226 Worms (Ormsö, Estonia/ Sweden), 162 Wotanist cult, 8 Wüst, Walther, 51, 86, 120, 224, 227 Yule, v, 44, 64 Zeitrechnung (see also time reckoning), v, 45-7, 268 Zenker, Gero, 55, 91 Zenker-Starzacher, Elli, 103 Ziegler, Matthes, 85, 116, 127, 132, 226, 240, 259 Zingerle, Ignaz von, 17, 263, 272, 275, 276 Zips (Slovakia), 162