Bibliographical Listing of Secondary Literature

Review of Research: Barlach-specific


 


Herbert Kaiser, in 1972, remarks quite pointedly: “There is no Barlach-bibliography” (8).
 Elmar Jansen, also in 1972, correctly observes that “most recent studies still rely on the
 thorough and yet by no means complete bibliography Friedrich Schult compiled for the first
 volume of the oeuvre catalogue in 1960” (509). Jansen does neglect to mention that a
 handful of additional titles not listed by Schult in his bibliography (278-84) of nearly
 300 works can be located elsewhere in the catalogue itself. For example, one finds
 detailed listings of exhibitions featuring Barlachs works on pages 27-8: 38
 “Sonderausstellungen” and 77 “Allgemeine Ausstellungen.” It is puzzling, moreover, that
 Jansen makes neither reference to nor use of Appendix D in Naomi Jackson’s dissertation
 from 1950, a source evidently available to him, as he mentions it on page 524 of his book.
 This appendix is a listing of nearly 450 relevant articles appearing in newspapers and
 journals appearing 1900-1950, many of which are mentioned neither by Schult nor by Jansen,
 in whose own work one finds reference to well over 200 titles.

The pioneering bibliographical efforts of Jackson, Schult, and Jansen deserve the praise
 of all Barlach-scholars. And a comparison of these three sources reveals far less overlap
 than might be expected. And yet, because of inaccuracies and omissions, these efforts —
 even if viewed as a whole — can only be used as stepping-stones to further research. Thus,
 when looking to recover articles written on Barlach that appeared between 1900 and 1950,
 Barlach-scholars have to consult, concurrently, Jackson, Schult, and Jansen. Jansen’s book
 is widely available. And yet, Jackson’s work, a dissertation and thus not in the
 collections even of research libraries, is only available for purchase directly from
 Harvard/Ratcliffe at considerable expense. Schult has been out of print for decades, and
 although in the collections of a small number of libraries and archives, it does not
 circulate since it is an oeuvre catalogue. Thus it is no small task even to gain access to
 all three basic bibliographies provided by Jackson, Schult, and Jansen. And once in hand,
 cross-comparison is inordinately tedious, made even more so, since these scholars have
 developed somewhat idiosyncratic bibliographic methods. For example, Jackson arranges
 journals more or less alphabetically (she is inconsistent when dealing with der, die, and
 das) and then lists, chronologically, the titles of articles (often incorrectly or
 incompletely) appearing in them. As mentioned above, Schult’s bibliography, which is
 essentially alphabetical by author, is quite selective, and additional titles must be
 scrounged from the text itself. Jansen does not include a bibliography at all: titles must
 be located in footnotes, biographical/ bibliographical sketches he provides on the persons
 whose contributions appear in the monograph, and elsewhere. But most significantly, my own
 research reveals that even when viewed together these three scholars missed a tremendous
 number of important studies published between 1900 and 1950.

For a fairly extensive, but by no means exhaustive, listing of secondary literature
 appearing 1950-1960, one can consult Schult and Jansen. For material related to Barlach
 published 1960-1970, one is limited to cross-checking highly selective bibliographies in
 dissertations by Irmgard Schmidt-Sommer (1967) and Herbert Kaiser with citations located
 throughout Jansen (1972). This approach, for literature on Barlach 1950-1970, must then of
 course be supplemented by the laborious and time-consuming chore of consulting national
 bibliographies, dissertation indexes, newspaper-article listings and similar reference
 tools.

In her 1976-dissertation, Rosina-Helga Schöne van Dyck appears disheartened by the state
 of the bibliographic research: “indicative of the unmanageability of secondary literature
 is that there is still no bibliography that can be considered even close to comprehensive”
 (5). Van Dyck does mention a bibliographical listing of primary and secondary literature
 compiled in the former GDR by Karl-Heinz Kröplin (1972), but concludes it is virtually
 worthless (6) because it falls far short of being comprehensive. Unfortunately, however,
 van Dyck’s own bibliography does little to improve upon the one found in Kaiser (1972), as
 the most current Barlach-related material she lists was published in 1973. In truth,
 Kröplin does not refer to any secondary literature published in the west not already
 identified by other Barlach scholars; yet, Kröplin does provide dozens of titles of works
 published in the east not noted before by western scholars.

Extant selective bibliographies of secondary literature published between 1973 and 1988
 are found only in dissertations, books, and articles published by Barlach-scholars. These bibliographies are wholly inadequate, mainly because none aims to be
 more than a listing of works cited in the course of either a dissertation or monograph.
 And computerized bibliographic databases as well as on-line searches are also of
 surprisingly little value for identifying literature from these years. Furthermore, taken
 together, the yearly editions of IBZ, MLA, Eppelsheimer/Köttelwesch, Schmidt and other
 similar reference sources available in hard-copy form miss more publications appearing
 after 1973 than they identify.

In 1988, Elisabeth Steyn attempted the first systematic and lengthy Barlach-bibliography
 since Kröplin’s unsuccessful effort to do so in 1972. Her “Ernst Barlach-Bibliographie:
 1891-1988” (889 entries— 130 of editions of Barlach-works and 759 of secondary literature)
 is part of a relatively obscure — and thus largely inaccessible exhibition catalogue 'Ernst
 Barlach. Bilder zum Dramatischen Werk' (Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landesmuseum Schloß
 Gottoff, 16 July-28 August 1988) and is the most useful and recent Barlach-bibliography
 currently available. In many respects, Steyn’s listing of secondary literature is
 praiseworthy. She identifies the vast majority of monographs on Barlach published by
 scholars; records, for the first time, many of the lengthiest essays found in the
 yearbooks of the Ernst Barlach Gesellschaft e.V. prior to 1979/80; and provides a
 representative selection of articles appearing in scholarly periodicals. And yet, Steyn
 falls far short of her goal of being comprehensive [“eine möglichst vollständige Erfassung
 der Barlach-Literatur” (79)]. For example, for periodical literature published between
 1900 and 1950, Steyn’s listing does not represent even a compilation of titles found in
 Jackson (1950), Schult (1960) and Jansen (1972). And for periodical literature published
 1950-1970, Steyn appears to have relied primarily on IBZ (perpetuating its mistakes). Her
 listing of secondary literature published 1970-1988 is similarly selective: there is no
 mention of the dozens of scholarly contributions to yearbooks of the Barlach Society
 appearing 1980-1988, to mention just one serious oversight. It is more troubling, however,
 that at times, incorrect information is provided on Ph.D. dissertations, a very
 significant category of Barlach secondary literature due to the very isightful analyses
 provided in a large number of them: Ralfs (#158) and Williams (#738) are not dissertations
 but rather unpublished manuscripts; and Eichholz (#596) was awarded a degree in Basel, not
 Köln. And it is quite unfortunate indeed that Steyn misses dissertations by Mogridge (1972
 at Cambridge in England), Melillo (1974 at New York U in the USA), Vande Berg (1978, at
 Vanderbilt in the USA), Mazur (1977, at Poznan in Poland) and Genzel (1968, at McGill in
 Canada). Nonetheless, despite its shortcomings only a few of which are outlined above in
 detail, Steyn’s contribution sets the standard for bibliographical listings of secondary
 literature on Barlach, at least in terms of quantity and quality.

Ulrich Bubrowski

Schmidt

Ernst Barlach Gesellschaft yearbooks--surprisingly difficult to obtain because even research libraries do not seem to hold them -- suggest that the
 entire run be made available to libraries in Berlin and Hamburg or that they scanned and placed online.


 


Review of Research: Non-Barlach-specific bibliographical materials

I maintain that Barlach-specific bibliographical efforts miss more material than it
 identifies — regardless of the period of scholarship covered. This means that to fill in
 the gaps, the Barlach-scholar is left to consult non-Barlach-specific material.

Exhibition catalogues: GV, GVB, GVH, DB, Jansen 1984, Denkzeichen, Archives are the most
 valuable.

Hill/Ley drama of german expressionists

Schmidt: only the written works of Barlach; no newspaper articles; secondary literature
 post-1945.

Books: most major ones are caught by Steyn and other Barlach-scholars; Epp-Köttelwesch;
 DB, DB Leipzig, Germanisitk (back to 1960), LOC Books/LOC Schelflists, MLA, NUC, WC,
 BLC/BLC 76-85/ Archives

Articles: Zillions of periodical indexes -- newspapers are a problem for them -- need to
 consult ZI; TAZ-Register; Spiegel-Register

Festschriften: Köttelwesch -- probably the best; vols of essays, notes even some reviews
 not in IBR

Rezensionen: not attacked systematically: IBR, ZI-Beiheft, Germanistik;
 Epp/Köttelwesch

Handbücher: Schmidt ‘94; but also in the libraries themselves/librarians. Not
 systematically....