Thomas Muentzer
Scholarship in the German Democratic Republic, 1949-1983
by Romwald Maczka
Chapter One
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objective and Scope of Dissertation
1.2. Muentzer in the Marxist Milieu of the GDR
1.3. The function of the Marxist Historian in the GDR and Thomas
Muentzer
1.3.1. The Marxist Foundation
1.3.2. Original Research
1.3.3. Popularization of Marxist History
1.4. Non-Marxist GDR Scholars and Thomas Muentzer
1.5. Periodization of GDR Muentzer Research
Thesen zur Dissertation
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objective and Scope of Dissertation
Since its founding, October 7, 1949, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) has
struggled to establish, maintain and deepen its independent identity as the first
socialist nation on German soil. The struggle is immeasurably intensified by the
presence of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), a nation three times as large
whose people speak a common language, share a common past and even watch common
television broadcasts. As part of the effort to build a new national consciousness,
the leading political party of the GDR has stimulated the development of a unique
national heritage by identifying the movements and events of the German past which
are said to find their fulfillment in the establishment of the socialist GDR.
Thomas Muentzer figures prominently in the new national consciousness, and the
aim of this dissertation is to chronicle and summarize the first 34 years of Muentzer
related GDR scholarship including that of theologians and church historians. Another
aim of this dissertation is to provide a case study of the process by which Marxist
history takes on definition. Many factors are considered as they relate to the
course of Muentzer scholarship in the GDR including: the inheritance of conflicting
historiographic traditions; the social and political demands placed upon scholars
by their socialist environment; and the theoretical demands placed upon them by
historical materialism, scholarly development outside the country, and internal
disagreements between Marxist and non-Marxist scholars, as well as disagreement
within Marxist circles.
This survey spans from the 1949 founding of the GDR through the 1983 publication
of volume three of Deutsche Geschichte in 12 Baenden[1]
with some limited attention given to significant Muentzer related Marxist history
writing prior to 1949. Only the most prominent works of scholars outside the GDR
are considered in as far as they have impacted GDR research.
1.2. Muentzer in the Marxist Milieu of the GDR
Tracing the development of Thomas Muentzer related scholarship in the Marxist
milieu of the German Democratic Republic presents a basic methodological problem;
it addresses a question to Marxist historical scholarship in terms which are foreign
to the fundamental postulates and objectives of the thought system. Orthodox Marxist
historiography may be identified by its stringent reliance upon historical and
dialectical materialism. That is, it places the forces and conditions of material
production (the base) at the center of the causal nexus of history. Dialectical
materialism regards the dynamic relationship of these two elements as being governed
by certain specific laws and as being played out in class conflict. This is the
motive force of history. Law, politics, religion and art (the superstructure)
are determined by and reflective of the development of the base.[2]
In human terms, the functional implementors of all progressive movements in society
are the exploited masses who seek to improve their living conditions, and it is
the historian's job to demonstrate how the economic laws are active in any particular
instance and to determine the role played by the masses in bringing about change.[3]
This basic orientation leaves limited room for research centered upon individual
personalities, at least as makers of history. Rather, individuals emerge either
as class spokesmen, theoreticians, organizers, teachers or strategists, in the
context of class struggle.[4] For this reason the
study of a GDR treatment of a single historical figure might be so overshadowed
by studies of the class conflict in which the figure was active that a different
formulation of the question would be more productive. But Thomas Muentzer forms
an exception for three reasons: he seems to have anticipated some of Marx's thought
and the type of state which he seemed to picture bears resemblance to the GDR,
he forms an important link between the Reformation and peasant rebellion, and
his story is suited to the task of socialist consciousness building.
American historian Andreas Dorpalen observed,
What especially impresses DDR authors about Muentzer's teachings, as it had
Engels, is his apparent anticipation of some of the teachings of Marx. Like Marx,
Muentzer believed in the perfectability of society. He also insisted that man
could find salvation not simply through the mercy of God, but by taking an active
part in his redemption. He could not do this without or in defiance of God, however,
but only in keeping with God's demands.
He noted further similarities in Muentzer's thoughts on the legitimacy of the
state, the right of civil disobedience and the predestination of the masses as
the instrument of revolution. "Like Lenin, he understood that to be implemented,
a revolutionary ideology required a revolutionary organization."[5]
Dorpalen went on to discuss a second striking similarity, the frequent claim that
the GDR is the fulfillment of Muentzer's vision:
The analogy is not as far-fetched as it may seem, even granted that Muentzer
arrived at a spiritual commonwealth that would assure man's spiritual salvation
and that he viewed all social and political reforms as mere means to an end. The
East German state, free and equal by Marxist criteria and attuned to the laws
of history, has much in common with an exacting theocracy led by a select and
autocratic elite and attuned to divine law, that would have come into being had
Muentzer been able to set up his commonwealth of the godly.[6]
Surely these intriguing aspects have helped awaken a special interest in the man
Muentzer, leading to studies in the GDR which do not strictly adhere to the principle
that a historical figure is significant only as a necessary part of the dialectical
machinery.
A second factor which helps account for the special attention which Muentzer has
received in the GDR is the important function he fulfills in linking the Reformation
and the peasant rebellion.
With Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, Friedrich Engels bequeathed Marxist historians
an incomplete legacy. Engels had argued that in the early sixteenth century, the
Roman Catholic Church and the feudal system were so inextricably intertwined that
an attack upon either would have necessarily been an attack upon both. Serious
internal corruption had made the church the weaker element of the church/feudal
complex and thus the more vulnerable point of attack upon the system. Thus any
significant progressive movement would need to be religious in character. Because
of this and because the Reformation fostered conditions which helped move Europe
along from feudalism toward capitalism, Engels found that he could call the Reformation
the first of three bourgeois revolutions (the others being the French and English
Revolutions), although a significant bourgeois class had not yet emerged. Later,
he suggested that both capitalism and a bourgeois class were indeed well developed
at least in the mining industry. But to name this as the bourgeois element of
the Reformation is problematic since, in fact, most mining capitalists greeted
the Reformation only very reluctantly which tends to contradict the thesis that
the Reformation was a bourgeois revolution.
The matter was taken up later in the Soviet Union but it was GDR scholars who
first suggested the solution of the early bourgeois revolution, consisting of
the Reformation as the beginning phase and the peasant war as the culmination.
In this scheme, the peasant masses carried through a revolution which was of bourgeois
character. Luther precipitated the Reformation, supplied in his theology an unobstructed
way for the radicalization of the Reformation and Muentzer took over, giving the
people's reformation its ideological foundation and carrying it along into the
peasant war. In this understanding, Thomas Muentzer forms the principle link between
the peasant uprising which contained the bourgeois element of this revolution
and the religious Reformation which Engels identified as the first bourgeois revolution.
This made Muentzer a very important figure to the Marxists, at least until other
progressive elements directly within the Reformation came to be emphasized. But
soon, Gerhard Zschaebitz reemphasized Engel's understanding of Calvinism as the
ideological forerunner of capitalism and the secularization of church estates
as a step toward political centralization. Dietrich Loesche recalled Engels' picture
of the Reformation as breaking the ideological monopoly of the Roman church and
raising bourgeois consciousness. Max Steinmetz added the creation of an "inexpensive"
church, new attitudes toward work and a new emphasis on education as other progressive
contributions of the Reformation.
A third source of special interest in Thomas Muentzer springs from his suitability
to the task of Marxist historians to write history in such a way as to have a
positive social influence on the reading public, most especially upon students.
His self-sacrificing spirit, his identification with the poor and his uncanny
anticipation of Marx's thought and the ideals of the GDR combine to make him an
exceptionally fine example for the young people of the GDR to emulate in building
their socialist state. In a speech at the 1958 founding of the German Historical
Society, the first president Ernst Engelberg insisted that historiography is a
major ideological weapon in ongoing class struggle[7]
while Walter Schmidt of the SED's Institute of Social Sciences detailed the goal
of historical scholarship as stabilizing the socialist order in the GDR by strengthening
the national and socialist consciousness of her citizens.[8]
The opening pages of the massive eight volume Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung
expands this persuasive function beyond the national boundaries to include the
working class of the FRG.[9] The responsibility
of the GDR historian to help build socialist consciousness and worker solidarity
at home and abroad has also impacted Muentzer research qualitatively.
Finally, Marxist antipathy toward the history making man should not be overemphasized.
Although Marxist historians have often argued for recognizing narrower limitations
upon the scope of impact of individuals upon historical processes, deliberate
research is carried out within the Marxist camp to determine precisely what personal
contributions individuals have actually made. In a recent essay on this topic,
Professor Dr. Wolfgang Kuettler of the Central Institute for History suggested
a methodological approach:
... die Herrscher [sind] als Geschichtssubjekt zu betrachten und zu beurteilen,
genauer gesagt: als Teil des subjektiven Faktors konkret in Raum und Zeit, unter
bestimmten Bedingungen und mit bestimmten Zielen und tatsaechlichen Wirkungen
.... Was hier aber betont werden soll ist die Erkenntnis, dass die Qualitaet des
Herrschers, auch seine rein persoenliche, individuelle Faehigkeit oder Unfaehigkeit,
imner auch etwas damit zu tun hat, wie und ob der gesellschaftliche Fortschritt
gefoerdert oder gehemmt wird, welchen Spielraum die ihn tragenden gesellschaftlichen
Kraefte...vorfanden.[10]
Although Muentzer was hardly a ruler, the principle remains the same. A Marxist
analysis of the man Muentzer need not reduce, and for the most part has not reduced
him to a cog in the social machine, but can and does represent him as a subjective
element working within certain objectively determined boundaries. The "Spielraum"
within the boundaries has been estimated differently, however, by the various
scholars.
1.3. The function of the Marxist historian in the GDR
and Thomas Muentzer
Practically speaking, the building of socialist consciousness occurs at three
levels. On one level, all existing historical scholarship must be moved off its
older ideological foundations onto the new, Marxist foundation of historical materialism.
Secondly, original research must be undertaken to refine and deepen the historical
scholarship on the foundation of historical materialism. Lastly, building socialist
consciousness means making Marxist history available to people in the form of
school and university curricula, textbooks, reference books and popular publications.
1.3.1. The Marxist Foundation.
On page one of volume one, of the first historical journal of the GDR, this encouragement
to GDR historians to get on with the work of breaking with the old foundation
of bourgeois history writing tradition appears:
Die Beseitigung des deutschen Imperialismus im Gebiet der jetzigen DDR war
die Voraussetzung, um die bis dahin auch auf dem Gebiet der Geschichtswissenschaft
herrschenden imperialistischen Ideologien zu ueberwinden. Die deutschen Historiker
stehen.vor der Notwendigkeit, mit den bisher herrschenden Auffassungen zu brechen
und eine neue, fortschrittliche Geschichtswissenschaft zu entwickeln. Die Grundlage
dieser neuen deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft kann nur der Marxismus-Leninismus
sein, diejenige Theorie, die die Wirklichkeit richtig darstellt und die deshalb
seit ihrer Begruendung durch die groessten Soehne des deutschen Volkes, Karl Marx
und Friedrich Engels, die Bewahrung am Kriterium der Praxis des gesellschaftlichen
Lebens bestanden hat und besteht.[12]
Max Steinmetz, professor emeritus and director of the Institute for German History
at Karl Marx University which in 1960 took on the responsibility to further the
development of the early bourgeois revolution model, describes the development
of the Marxist foundation of Reformation scholarship beginning with Wilhelm Hegel[13]
In harmony with the prevailing preoccupation with the French Revolution which
characterized historical thought of the nineteenth century, Hegel regarded the
peasant rebellion as the main revolution in European history and the starting
point for the development of modern Europe. Several liberal and democratic historians
including Wilhelm Zimmermann, followed Hegel's lead in evaluating the peasant
rebellion positively. Then Friedrich Engels managed to bring the intuition of
Zimmerman and others onto the objective foundation of historical materialism with
his 1850 essay in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, "Der deutsche Bauernkrieg"
Steinmetz remarked,
Zum ersten Male in der Geschichte der Historiographie wurde hier erfolgreich
die Reformation mit ihrer religioesen Problematik auf natuerliche Weise erklaert,
auf die sozial-oekonomischen Grundlage, die Bewegungen und Kaempfe der Klassen
und Schichten zurueckgefuehrt. Damit war jede idealistische Interpretation der
Reformationsgeschichte im Prinzip wissenschaftlich ueberholt und ueberwunden ....
Die grossen Persoenlichkeiten--allen voran Luther und Muentzer--erscheinen als
Representanten bestimmter Klassen und als Exponenten des Klassenkampfes, wobei
sie nichts von ihrer Groesse verlieren, sondern these wird ueberhaupt erst wissenschaftlich
einsichtig durch die Ueberwindung einer nebelhaften mythischen Heldenverehrung.[14]
Historical materialism is the unique Marxist starting point.
Engels opened the essay by distinguishing among ten socioeconomic groups which,
in the course of the Reformation, gathered themselves into three camps, a conservative
Catholic camp around the pope and emperor, a moderate bourgeois camp for which
Martin Luther provided an ideological center and the revolutionary "party" around
Thomas Muentzer.[15] Muentzer emerges as a visionary
theorist and local organizer of a broad revolutionary movement against feudalism
which was doomed to failure because the relatively undeveloped capitalism of the
time had not yet given rise to a self-conscious bourgeois class strong enough
to overcome the reactionary forces. This stands in vivid contrast to much non-Marxist
historical scholarship which has variously represented Muentzer as a would-be
religious reformer who was neither well directed nor well received, who may not
have been emotionally stable, and who somehow got fatefully linked up with the
debacle of the peasant uprising and perished. Karl Kleinschmidt, outspoken Marxist
and former GDR Lutheran pastor of the principal cathedral in Schwerin, explained
the divergence of interpretation much more simply:
Das Urteil ueber Thomas Muentzer wird bestinnt vom Urteil ueber den deutschen
Bauernkrieg, dessen Seele Thomas Muentzer war, und diesen vom politischen Standort
des Urteilenden. Wir sind fuer die Bauern. Unsere Sympathien sind also auch im
deutschen Bauernkrieg auf ihrer Seite und gehoeren dem Mann, der sein Haben an
ihre Befreiung setzte; Thomas Muentzer.[16]
An especially vivid demonstration of shifting pre- and non-Marxist historical
scholarship off of its idealistic foundation and onto the Marxist foundation of
historical materialism is to be found in Unbewaeltigte Vergangenheit: Handbuch
zur Auseinandersetzung mit der westdeutschen buergerlichen Geschichtsschreibung.
This hefty reference volume presents the reader with a series of historical topics
which are key to Marxist theory but which are interpreted very differently in
non-Marxist history writing. A survey of FRG scholarship follows along with an
explanation of why those positions are untenable. Concerning Muentzer and the
Reformation:
Nach wie vor dominiert dort das reaktiontaere Geschichtsbild, bestimmt durch
die vorherrschenden Einfluesse der theologisch determinierten Kirchengeschichtsschreibung;
Mystizismus und Irrationalismus christlich konfessionaler Praegung fuehren auch
heute zwangslaeufig zu weitgehender Enthistorisierung .... In der buergerlichen
Geschichtsschreibung der BRD steht immer noch an erster Stelle die oekomenische
Entschaerfung alter konfessioneller Streitigkeiten mit dem Ziel der Schaffung
einer wirksamen gesamtchristlichen oder gar gesamtreligioesen Front gegen den
marxistischleninistischen Atheismus .... An zweiter Stelle sind die Bestrebungen
zu nennen, die Reformationsgeschichte auf der Grundlage einer 'modernen' Sozialgeschichte
zu erforschen ....
Specifically to be rejected are Guenther Franz's politicization of the peasant
uprising, Rainer Wohlfeil's attempt at a social history of the Reformation with
complex causality and Peter Blickle's notion that Gaismair and Muentzer were utopian
dreamers caught in a side current of the revolutionary peasant uprising.[17]
1.3.2. Original, research.
The second aspect of socialist consciousness building is that of original scholarly
research. It has manifested itself in Muentzer related historical. scholarship
as biographical research, historiographic research and, recently, research into
Muentzer's theology which many Marxist historians suggest contains Muentzer's
revolutionary social program. In Marxist terms original historical research generally
means either uncovering and analyzing source materials with an eye toward better
defining the base and superstructure and their development, or else it means better
defining the causal relationship of the base to the superstructure. One complicating
factor, however, is that Marxist scholarship has gradually allowed for more distant
and indirect causation and even reversals in which elements of the superstructure
influence or even determine the development of the base within temporal limitations.
This lay at the heart of the ZfG book reviewer's juxtaposition of Smirin's investigation
of Muentzer's theology and Stalin's assertion that ideologies can and often do
succeed in solving the material problems which gave rise to them.[18]
All of this has led to a certain selectivity in research topics. Helping to define
the base are sociological studies such as H. Braeuer's 1977 examination of ideological
polarization in Zwickau in 1520[19] Guenther's
1964 publication of the records of Muehlhausen's Eternal Council,[20]
and Loesche's 1960 study of the Achtmaenner, Eternal League of God and Eternal
Council.[22] Helping to define the ideological
superstructure are source studies such as Wolfgramm's 1957 examination of the
Prague Manifest and DeBoar's newer chronology of the several versions. Max Steinmetz's
historiographic studies are intended to help demythologize the superstructure
by analyzing subsequent polemics surrounding Muentzer in terms of class antagonism.
Manfred Bensing's preoccupation with Muentzer's broad revolutionary front and
his personal independence from Luther and Pfeiffer helped to develop Muentzer
as a concrete link between the base and superstructure.
Another characteristic of Marxist history is that it attempts to describe a single
underlying historical process, the dialectic. Since all Marxist history is understood
to be describing the same process, two studies of related topics cannot be accepted
if they treat a common element differently. For instance, a history of Germany
treating Muentzer as a revolutionary activist who seized the leadership of peasants
already involved in revolt cannot be held in suspension with a Muentzer biography
in which he builds a coalition of plebeian; peasants and emerging bourgeoisie.
This demand for consistency within the official Marxist camp may help explain
the scarcity of innovative studies in which some questions remain not completely
answered. This seems to slow the development of Marxist thought as can be seen
in the very gradual, sometimes halting evolution away from Engels' understanding
of Muentzer's religious convictions and in the slow departure from Smirin's overly
rigid examinations of Muentzer's theology. This is also visible in the gradual
moderation of the very short portrayals of Muentzer toward a more plausible understanding
of him than in Mehring's early sketch. Finally, the need for individual Marxist
treatments to fit cleanly into the whole of Marxist scholarship contributes to
the precipitous rejection of less conventional contributions such as Goebke's
old Muentzer proposal or Hesselbarth's all too close association of Muentzer with
the "Gemeine Pawernschaft" tract.
1.3.3. Popularization of Marxist history.
The third aspect of socialist consciousness building is to propagate the fruits
of Marxist scholarship in developing the new model for understanding human history.
This begins with the popularization of the progressive revolutionary tradition
in which Muentzer plays an important role.
Application of the historical dialectic allows all the elements of history to
be separated into two categories. In as much as a person, party or class contributes
to the orderly development of society from its early stages through feudalism,
capitalism and on toward socialism, he is considered "progressive," or positive
in Marxist estimation. In as much as he resists or confounds the orderly development,
he is "reactionary," or negative. GDR historian, Leo Stern explains,
In der langen und wechselvollen Geschichte des deutschen Volkes lassen sich
deutlich zwei Entwicklungslinien unterscheiden: auf der einen Seite das Ringen
der Volksmassen um den gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt, um die Verwirklichung ihrer
humanistischen, demokratischen, und sozialistischen Ideale, auf der anderen Seite,
das Wirken der Volksfeindlichen, reaktionaeren und antinationalen Kraefte im Ablauf
der Jahrhunderte, insbesondere in der Epoche des Imperialismus, das stets noch
dem deutschen Volke zum Schaden gereichte. In diesen zwei Entwicklungslinien manifestieren
sich zugleich die positiven und negativen Traditionen der Geschichte, zwei verschiedene
Formen des Geschichtsbewusstseins, ebenso der sozialen und politischen Gegenwart
und Zukunftsperspektive.[23]
Muentzer belongs decidedly to the positive tradition.
The Muentzer story has been popularized in the GDR through two popular level biographies;
a feature length film;[24] generous treatment found
in two systematic multivolume histories of Germany published in the GDR in 1965
and 1983; and an enormous illustrated gift edition of the history of the peasant
uprising which appeared just prior to the 450 year memorial of the defeat of the
peasant rebellion; countless smaller articles and pamphlets and spacious museum
displays in Berlin, Bad Frankenhausen, Muelhausen, Stolberg, Heldrungen and Allstedt.
Beyond that, publishers have continued to reprint other books which keep alive
the peasant war tradition whose writing predate the GDR, such as Engels' Der deutsche
Bauernkrieg or Wilhelm Zimmermann's earlier work, Der grosse deutsche Bauernkrieg.
This overall approach enables the historians of the GDR to make an essential contribution
to the building of the Marxist state in yet another way. Propagation of Marxist
historical research has been used both to encourage the development of general
socialist consciousness, and also to justify specific present day political policies,
for example, the legitimacy of the existence of the GDR as a nation. In the forward
to the first 1969 issue of Zeitshcrift fuer Geschichtswissenschaft, in which the
20th anniversary of the founding of the country is highlighted, the editors sum
up the job of the historian as that of taking the progressive traditions of the
German past and making them usable in the building of socialist consciousness
among the people. Most especially, it is the job of the historian to heighten
the popular perception that the GDR is the high point of German history.[25]
The central research plan for social sciences in the GDR which was ratified by
the politburo on January 11, 1972 established this foundation:
In ihrer gesamten Arbeit geht die Geschichtswissenschaft davon aus, dass das
um die Sowjetunion zusammengeschlossene sozialistische Weltsystem sich als gesetzmaessiges
Ergebnis des gesamten Verlaufes der Weltgeschichte herausgebildet hat und die
DDR der rechtmaessige Erbe aller revolutionareny fortschrittlichen und humanistischen
Traditionen der deutschen Geschichte und vor allem der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung
ist.[26]
As the newspaper of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany declared, the GDR is
to be regarded as the legitimate German state of peace and freedom, humane character
and social justice, and is made so by hundreds of years of history of the German
people.[27] Studding the entire body of Muentzer
literature in the GDR is the assertion that in the grounding of the nation the
progressive humanitarian vision of Thomas Muentzer found fulfillment.
A second immediate political issue also affected Muentzer scholarship, though
less directly. Through 1961 the GDR favored a unified Germany, on socialist terms
of course. This found expression in Muentzer literature in the sharp emphasis
of the Reformation's effect of encouraging nationalistic consciousness among the
politically splintered German people as seen in Steinmetz's thirty nine early
bourgeois revolution theses and Deutsche Geschichte 1476-1648. After 1961
foreign policy changed to resist reunification for the present, and accordingly
this emphasis fell away from the literature as seen in the second edition of Deutsche
Geschichte 1476-1648. Finally, a very early political consideration emerges
in GDR Muentzer literature, the need to deal with Germany's immediate past. Alexander
Abusch saw the first fateful step of the German people toward Fascism in the victory
of-Martin Luther and his cause over that of Thomas Muentzer.
1.4. Non-Marxist GDR scholars and Thomas Muentzer
One group of active scholars in the GDR who do not always participate directly
in the party organized effort of building socialist consciousness are the theologians
and church historians. Most theologians in the GDR are employed by the several
regional Lutheran (Evangelische) churches as pastors or other church workers,
though a few occupy teaching posts in the theology departments of the six GDR
universities, in the three church sponsored Lutheran seminaries or in the one
Roman Catholic seminary. Church history is treated as an independent-field only
in the seminaries.
On a theoretical plane, the study of theology is no more difficult in a Marxist
environment than the study of any other element of the superstructure such as
politics, philosophy, art or law. Conflict arises when a non-Marxist theologian
either reverses historical materialism by suggesting that theology helped shape
the productive relationships in society or else when he denies the ultimately
determinative influence of the productive relationships upon theological thought.
Church historians are often confronted with this issue while theologians have
found it less troublesome except when they deal with men that figure prominently
in the Marxist historical scheme; men such as Thomas Muentzer.
Beginning with Engels himself, Marxists have written a good deal about Muentzer's
theology. For Engels, Muentzer's religion was a tactic, a sham, a cloak to hide
the atheistic nature of his progressive vision from the superstitious masses.
For Smirin it represents the brilliant ideological transformation of medieval
mysticism into ' revolutionary communism. In Muentzer's theology Lenk, Bensing
and Smirin glimpse his revolutionary program. They identify the roots of his theology
and program alike as Muentzer's intimate contact with the suffering peasant masses.
The theologians of the GDR have not only had to adjust to a massive shift in their
philosophical environment with the advent of socialism, they have had to do so
under the conditions of badly strained relations between the Evangelical Lutheran
church and state in the fifties and early sixties. Despite these circumstances,
GDR theologians began in 1975 to publish significant Muentzer studies, many of
which are not particularly consistent with historical materialism. Among these
are Siegfried Brauer's historiographic and liturgical studies, contributions from
Luther scholars Joachim Rogge and Helmar Junghans, and the collection of theological
essays published by the Evangelische Verlagsanstalt for the peasant uprising memorial
year.
Max Steinmetz finds something very positive about this working environment: Buergerliche
Kirchenhistoriker abstrahieren von der materiellen Basis der historischen Prozesse.
Das Resultat ist immer eine unkritische Enthistorisierung, ein Verlust der realen
Geschichte eine Flucht in Irrationalismus und Mystizismus....Der enge Kontakt
[der Kirchenhistoriker der DDR] mit der sozialistischen Wirklichkeit bewahrt vor
manchen Irrtuemern westlicher Kollegen .... Sie stellen Fragen, die beantwortet
werden muessen, mit Antworten,die ernst genommen werden koennen.[28]
1.5. Periodization of GDR Muentzer Research
The 34 years of GDR Muentzer scholarship have been punctuated by several significant
conferences which served as the forum for much new research in the form of smaller
essays and studies. Often the conferences were held in conjunction with a commemoration
year and four of these have been selected as period markers. The first is the
1960 meeting of the medieval section of the newly formed German Historical Society
in which the form and character of the premature bourgeois revolution was discussed.
The results appeared in print the following year as the Deutsche fruehbuergerliche
Revolution.[29] As early as 1945 leaders of
the German Communist Party (KPD) and its successor the Socialist Unity Party (SED)
which was to gain full control of the country in the ensuing years, urged historians
to argue that Nazism was the result of economic monopoly, the Junkers and militarists.
Their intent was to use history to help guide society to accept their Marxist
political program since the program itself was derived from the lessons which
emerge from history when Marxist historical materialism is applied.[30]
Bausch's Irrweg einer Nation[32] to and
Mehring's Lehrbuch fuer Deutsche Geschichte[33]
reappeared at this time.
But the tenor changed at the 1950 congress of the SED. Historians were urged to
move on to different themes by stressing the progressive and liberating trends
and the struggle for unity in German history. The implication to be drawn is that
the GDR is the legitimate heir to the positive elements of the German tradition
and that any modern German unification ought to occur on GDR terms.[34]
Several historical research institutes were set up at the universities in Leipzig
and Berlin and at the German Academy of Sciences and by 1958 the SED divided strategic
research even more finely among specialized research groups. In 1952 the first
nationwide conference of all historians took place and Kurt Hager called upon
all historians to master historical materialism. Others at the conference emphasized
the need to more seriously take up debate with non-Marxists, to rely more heavily
on Soviet historiography and to found a journal to allow open historical debate.
Some complaints were also expressed that documents were being too often used by
GDR historians without reference to their class origin.[35]
During these years Meusel's Thomas Muentzer und seine Zeit[36]
and Hinrich's entirely non-Marxist Luther und Muentzer: Ihre Auseinandersetzung
ueber Obrigkeit und Widerstandsrecht[37] appeared
as well as the dramatic biographies of Kleinschmidt[38]
and Sommer[39] and M.M.Smirin's Thomas Muentzer
und die Volksreformation.[40]
The second period marker is the 450th year commemoration of the posting of the
95 theses at which time the conference in Wittenberg, "Weltwirkung der Reformation"
took place. The resulting volume of the same title suggests that many GDR contributors
felt more comfortable discussing the world-wide impact of the early bourgeois
revolution than that of the Reformation.[42]
Between the Wernigerode conference in 1960 and the Reformation celebration, Manfred
Bensing dominated Muentzer scholarship with his Thomas Muentzer und der Thueringer
Aufstand,[43] a brief illustrated biography
and several smaller studies. Steinmetz contributed the section on the early bourgeois
revolution to two general history textbooks. In 1968 the Franz and Kirn edition
of nearly all of Muentzer's works appeared in the FRG and after an unsuccessful
attempt was made to publish the Franz and Kirn volume in the GDR, Bensing and
Ruediger brought out their own edition of the more commonly referred to works.[44]
At the same time, a new department was set up at the German Academy of Sciences
to centrally coordinate all historical research, supervise research plans, facilitate
the resolution of perspective questions and to promote collaboration of GDR historians
with those of other nations, most especially with those of the USSR. These functions
were later transferred to the Institute for Marxism-Leninism of the Socialist
Unity Party. Through this institute, it has been possible since 1964 for the Socialist
Unity Party to draft jointly with historians a central plan for historical research
designed to help meet the current political and social needs of the GDR. Gerhard
Schilfert explained the desirability of the arrangement this way,
Da die Partei der Arbeiterklasse die volle Einsicht in die Grundgesetzmaessigkeit
der gesellschaftlichen Prozesse besitzt, ist sie zugleich die fuehrende Kraft
der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung im Sozialismus. Sie erschliebt durch eine konkrete
wissenschaftliche Analyse den objektiven Bewegungssinn der Geschichte, durch die
eine wissenschaftlich begruendete planmassige Leitung der Gesellschaft moeglich
ist. Die fuehrende Rolle der Partei verwirklicht sich nicht zuletzt durch die
Arbeit der Gesellschaftwissenschaftler und durch die Arbeit der Historiker.[45]
Among other emphases, this institute urged historians to refute non-Marxist, especially
FRG, historical scholarship.[46]
The third period marker is the 1975 commemoration of the 450th anniversary of
the peasant uprising (and Thomas Muentzer's death) which saw a great flurry of
activity. Many volumes relating to Muentzer and the peasant uprising were published,
including one from Karl Marx University in Leipzig which hosted a four day conference
with the descriptive name: "Der deutsche Bauernkrieg: seine Stellung in der deutschen
Geschichte. Probleme, Wirkungen und Verpflichtungen." The selected essays published
the following year as Der deutsche Bauernkrieg[48]
und Thomas Muentzer include not just early bourgeois revolution topics but
also substantial contributions from church historians related to Muentzer's theology.
In time for the Reformation celebration, Gerhard Zschaebitz finished part one
of a never to be completed two part biography of Martin Luther.[49]
The subtitle Groesse und Grenze emphasized a new approach which was enthusiastically
greeted by Marxist historians. Zschaebitz abandoned the older condemnation of
Luther as flatly reactionary beginning in 1521 and sought to present him as a
complex figure active within the social, political and philosophical constraints
of his time and as having exercised both reactionary and progressive influences,
even simultaneously. The successful application of this approach helped open the
way to a moderated view of Muentzer as something other than a purely progressive
proto-communist. It also signaled the beginning of GDR research into Muentzer's
theology by Marxists and non-Marxists alike.
Comparatively little non-theological Muentzer research appeared in the GDR between
the 1967 Reformation celebration and the peasant uprising memorial in 1975. The
major work was Steinmetz's historiography, published in 1971.[50]
It contained a revision of his 1956 thesis which was a historiography through
the French Revolution, new research through Engels and the research results of
theologian Siegfried Brauer whose thesis dealt with some treatments of Muentzer
by his contemporaries. The central research plan continued to call for emphasis
on the GDR as the legitimate heir to progressive tradition,[52]
but theological research predominated Muentzer scholarship. Topics of discussions
included Muentzer's doctrines of election and revelation, his pneumatology, soteriology,
ecclesiology, eschatology, liturgy, history, his possible Hussite connections
and the influence of the mystics upon him. The Christian Democratic Union publishing
house also published a small collection of commemorative essays attempting to
show that the lofty tradition seen in Muentzer's wedding of Christian conviction
and progressive action could continue to find expression by Christians through
supporting the objectives and actions of the socialist party in present day GDR.[53]
By 1974, the early bourgeois revolution had taken on clear definition. Disputes
over the periodization, the roles played by emerging social coalitions, its place
in German and European history and its effects had died down and the Illustrierte
Geschichte der deutschen fruehbuergerlichen Revolution[54]
contains the final product as does a more popular level treatment by Vogler and
the related passage in Grundriss der deutschen Geschichte.[55]
The commemoration of the peasant uprising also marks the first appearance of non-Marxist
Reformation historians at a GDR conference and the beginning of GDR historians'
participation in Reformation discussions outside of the socialist world.
In 1977 the conference called "Reform, Reformation, Revolution" met at Karl Marx
University to discuss the events of the peasant uprising and Thomas Muentzer's
role in the Reformation as a fundamental part of the early bourgeois revolution.
The resulting volume of the same title[56] appeared
in 1980 but dealt less with Muentzer than it did with the Reformation in relation
to humanism and the Enlightenment. Muentzer has received little attention in the
GDR since 1975 due partly to the extensive observance of the 500th anniversary
of Luther's birth in 1983. In that year alone over 200 Luther related books were
published as well as numerous smaller studies. Likewise FRG historian Walter Elliger's
massive Muentzer biography which appeared in 1975 and earned the scorn of many
GDR scholars may have also helped dampen Muentzer enthusiasm.
In the GDR, Muentzer studies emerged only in 1976 and 1977 and dealt with the
breadth and composition of his revolutionary front and with the sources and development
of his ideology. In addition, the Evangelische Verlagsanstalt published a collection
of four essays by GDR theologians addressing four aspects of Muentzer's theology.
And finally, the third volume of the new Deutsche Geschichte in 12 Baenden
which deals with the transition from feudalism to capitalism including Thomas
Muentzer appeared in time for the 1983 celebration. 1989 has been declared as
the celebration year of the 500th anniversary of Muentzer's birth and up to three
new biographies may be expected, one scholarly and one popular historical treatment
and one biography written by a theologian. Hitherto less accessible documents
relating to Muentzer's life may also find publication in the GDR in 1989 and of
course numerous studies should emerge from a conference planned for that summer.
The following pages contain a review of Muentzer literature emerging in the 34
years of the GDR's recovery from the war and the establishment of a socialist
German state. It is the story of Muentzer emerging from the shadow of Martin Luther
to become the spiritual forebear of the nation. The topics of constant discussion
have been his relationship to Luther, his role in the early bourgeois revolution
and his own revolutionary character. Why and when did he become revolutionary?
What revolutionary traces can be found in Zwickau, Prague, Allstedt or Muelhausen?
Did he become a revolutionary in reaction to Wittenberg, in response to human
suffering, on the theological foundations of the German mystics, or at the incitement
of men like Storch and Pfeiffer? Did he instigate the peasant rebellion in Thueringia,
lead it, organize it, or get swept along by it? What elements of a possible revolutionary
theory or program can be found in the Prague Manifest, the Allstedt League or
the Eternal Council in Muelhausen? And all these issues unfold in the wake of
a short four-and a-half year public career and the survival of only 130 pages
of correspondence and 200 pages of essays from the hand of Thomas Muentzer.