&man Lik and Lettm 47:3 July 1994 0016-8777

'DIE NEUE DEUTSCHE LITERATUR DER SLAWISCHEN SORBEN':

O N THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

PETER BARKER

The Sorbs are the last remaining representatives within present German borders of the Slavonic tribes which moved westwards beyond the Oder and established settlements in the area up to the Elbe and beyond. This westward Slavonic migration probably took place in the fifth or sixth century after the area between the Elbc/Saale and the Oder/NeiBe had been vacated by Germanic tribes several centuries earlier. These Slavonic tribes were only allowed a short period of independent development before German expansion eastwards in the eighth century began to bring them into direct conflict with the armies of Charlcmagnc. The result was defeat for the Slavonic tribes by the end of the tenth century and the beginning of colonisation by the Germans. The present-day Sorbs are largely the descend- ants of the two largest Sorbian tribes, the Luzici (Lower Sorbs) and the Milceni (Upper Sorbs); the former occupied Lower Lusatia, an area about 100 kilometres south-east of Berlin which includes the Spreewald, while the latter settled further south in Upper Lusatia. While all the other Slavonic tribes in this area gradually disappeared or became assimilated, these two groups were able to maintain their linguistic and cultural identities into the twentieth century. They were not however able to develop into one politically independent Sorbian nation, and as a result the dialects of the two core areas of Sorbian settlement developed into two separate written languages, Lower and Upper Sorbian. Both belong to the Western Slavonic group of languages and have varying degrees of affinity with Slovak, Czech and Polish.'

It is not clear exactly how many Sorbian speakers there are today. There were estimated to be over 150,000 towards the end of the 19th century, but numbers have fallen steadily in the twentieth century. A private survey in 1936-8 produced a figure of 11 1,OOO, and it was this figure which the East German government used as the basis of its claim that there were 100,OOO Sorbs living in the German Democratic Republic. Since this study no full survey has been published, although a detailed demographic study was completed by E.Tschernik in 1955-6 which put the number of Sorbian

' S a thc dctailcd damptiom OF both Sorbian l u l g u q o in R.G.A. dc Bray, Gaiui 16 fk SIdMniC hgwgu. London and New York 1969, pp. 673-789. For a general introduction to thc Sorbs, see C . Stone, Tk Smollut S h n k Nation. 7k S o d s of Lssatia. London 1972. 0 B d B u r C l l Lcd 1994. PubUcd by BLrhcll PuMirbcn. LOB Cmlq Rod. orford OX4 UF. UK md 238 M.in strat. cllabnd#e. MA 02142. USA

SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945 255

speakers at just over 80,000.2 This figure however includes those with only a passive knowledge of the language and was given very little publicity in the GDR, presumably since its findings might have been used to undermine the nationalities policy of the East German communist party (SED) as applied to the Sorbs. More recent estimates put the number of Sorbian speakers at 50-60,000;3 the discussion of the number of speakers must however take into account the relationship between ethnic identity and the active use of the Sorbian language in what is now a totally bilingual ethnic minority.‘ There are for example Sorbs, especially Lower Sorbs, who have retained little of the Sorbian language, but who still regard themselves as Sorbs. For them the only possibility to read Sorbian literature is in its German version. There is also sufficient distance between the two Sorbian languages to make it difficult for one group to appreciate the literature of the other, and here again the German version can play an important role.

The Sorbs have been dominated by the Germans politically, economically and culturally for over a thousand years, and this domination reached its highest point towards the end of the Third Reich. Their language was banned from all public places and the educational system, and in 1937 their cultural organisation, the Domowina (Homeland), was closed. In April 1945 Lusatia was overrun by Soviet, Polish and Ukrainian troops, and it came as no surprise that many Sorbs greeted the troops as liberating Slav brothers despite having ideological reservations about socialism.

Sorbian literature has in modern times experienced two major periods of intense activity and development. The first period started in the second quarter of the nineteenth century and extended to the turn of the century, while the second dates from the defeat of Germany in 1945. In a recent interview, the most important contemporary Sorbian writer, Jurij Brtzan, referred to the lack of any meaningful response towards Sorbian literature during the nineteenth century from German readers and critics, despite the fact that its impact within the Sorbian community and its value as literature, in his opinion, could be favourably compared with that of German literature:

Die sorbische Literatur des zweiten Viertels des 19. Jahrhunderts war - rein literarisch - durchaus ebenbiirtig der entsprechenden deutschen Literatur; in ihrer gesellschaftlichen Wirksamkeit - allerdings auf engem h u m - iibcrtraf sic diese bci weitcm. Sie entstand in Deutschland, sic wirkte in Deutschland

a E. Tschernik, Ausflrlichr AbscNty9bcricht cur Forschmgsarbd (3.12.1958) entitled DU gtgmrkrtigm ahotraphuchm, volkskundlichn und sflachlichm Vcrhiltnissc in dcr zwcisflachqm ( sorbuch) Loun’tz, in the archives of the Sorbisches Institut in Bautzen, archive no.JSL XXXll 22D 30t. Some of the figures were published in the Statistical Yearbook for Bautzen in 1956. ’See H. Schustcr-Sewc, ‘On the language situation of the Lusatian Sorbs in the GDR’, in: M.Kasper (ed.), L q u q e and Culture of the tvrOtian Sorbs throughout their Hutmy, Berlin 1987, p. 40. ’ Resurch into dimering levcla of language skill and the reception of Sorbian culture was conducted by the lnstitut fur Sorbische Volkdonchung in 1987, and has recently been published in German. See Ludwig Elk, Sorbisch Kuliur und ihre Rezlpinfm, Bautzen 1992.

Q &ril BLvtweU Ltd 1994.

256 SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

- doch in dcr dcutschen zeitgcnossischcn Offentlichkeit und dcr deutschcn Literaturwisscnschaft existierte sic nicht

The crucial factor in this respect was that very few Sorbian works of literature were available in German translation during this earlier period. One major collection of Sorbian poems and folk-songs, including some by the most important Sorbian poet until then, Handrij Zejler (1804-72), was published in German in 1841,6 but this was an exception during this period. Translations tended to be into other Slavonic languages, or even into French, rather than into German. The other significant Sorbian poet of the nineteenth century, Jakub Bart-&Sinski (1856-1909) was also rarely translated into German during this period, and what is commonly regarded as the most important Sorbian novel, Kuku Zabgch (Zmef d n Vergcssmn), written between 1918 and 1924 by Jakub Lorenc-ZalCski, has still not been translated into German. The cultural repression of the Nazi period served to reinforce the isolation of Sorbian from German culture.

The political situation after 1945 in the Soviet zone, and later the GDR, created a new environment for those Sorbian writers who were prepared to welcome the extension of Soviet influence into Germany and the subsequent creation of a German socialist state on the Soviet model. I t was in political terms that BrEzan used the comparison with the earlier period in order to justify the decision which he and other Sorbian writers took to make their writing accessible to a German as well as to a Sorbian audience.

Wie Gesellschaft und Staat, dessen Burger die Sorbcn sind, so die nationale Lage: Was also ware naturlicher, als zu versuchen - auch mit den Mittcln der Kunst - EinfluD auf jene Beschaffenheit zu nehmen? Das jedoch kann die sorbische Literatur nur, wenn sic auch dem dcutschen Leser zugangig ist.'

Brrzan went on to maintain that this opening of Sorbian literature to a German reading public in no way implied a loss of national identity on the part of the writer. What it meant was that Sorbian literature for the first time in its history became identified with the German state within which it was situated, and did not serve to emphasize the separateness of Sorbian from German culture. From the outset after 1945 Sorbian writers tended to produce their own German versions rather than depend on professional translators. The German version represented an implicit recog- nition of the dual nature of a Sorbian writer's cultural identity, despite BrEzan's insistence that the Sorbian writer did not lose his Sorbian identity as a result of this process.

"Suchc nach vcrborgenen Quellen. Gcsprich mit Jurij BrCun', N u Dentrck Lihatur, 1(1990), 41. ' L. Haupr and J . E. Schmoler. Volhl i tkr kr W d in kr Obrr- uad Nu&-Luwitr, Crirnma 1841 and 1843.

Q &I B U r c l l Lcd 1994.

'Suche narh vcrborgenen Quellen', op. rif., 41.

SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

Doch auch als sein eigner Ubersetzcr bleibt der sorbische Schriftsteller ein sorbischcr, und sein Wcrk, ob cin- oder zweisprachig, ist ein natiirlicher Bestandteil der Literatur der DDR auch dam, wenn er seine Stoffe ausschlie8- lich aus Geschichte und Gegenwart seines Volkes nimmt.. .*

257

The new position of Sorbian literature within Germany after 1945 had clear connections with the implementation of a policy of positive discrimi- nation towards the Sorbs in the GDR which gave them a degree of cultural autonomy within a German socialist state. As well as encouraging the preservation of Sorbian language and culture, it meant that the political rulers in this part of Germany were willing to encourage the acceptance of Sorbian literature amongst a wider German audience as part of a GDR national literature. It was self-evident that the price for this acceptance included the relinquishing by the Sorbs of any notion of national indepen- dence, even of a limited kind, and submission to the political and social dominance of German structures. It was no longer possible to maintain the idea of a Sorbian literature representing the cultural expression of a ‘slawischen Insel in einem deutschen Meer’,g in isolation from the social and political development of the German state to which the Sorbian nation was, like it or not, inextricably bound. The political exigencies of the situation after 1945 which meant that it was politically expedient for Sorbian writers to publish their work in both German and Sorbian versions linked up with a strain in Sorbian literature which the Saarbriicken slavist, Walter Koschmal, has called the ‘zweite Evolutionslinie der sorbischen Literatur’.’’ This line runs from Bart-&Binski through to poets in the twentieth century such as Jurij ChZika and Kito Lorenc and marks the reaction of some Sorbian writers against the tendency towards cultural exclusivity of their own people. It involves searching for a new poetic homeland. With Lorenc, the most important Sorbian poet today, this search culminated in the rejection of linguistic exclusivity, a rejection which pro- vided the basis for the bilingual methodology of the Sorbisches LGscbuciJ Snbska ~itanka (1981), edited by him, which stressed the importance for Sorbian literature of maintaining an openness towards German language and culture.”

In the immediate post-war period, however, the impetus for the establish- ment of a Sorbian literature in German came predominantly from the welcome accorded by many Sorbian writers and intellectuals to the changed political circumstances. There was initially a resurgence of nationalist feeling immediately after 1945 which stressed, extremely unrealistically, the import-

’ Ibid., 42. Kito Lorcnc u d this image as the starting-point for a lecture with the title ‘Die lnacl schluckt

d u Meer’ which he gave in Crut Britain in October 1 9 9 1 . The lecture will be published in the near future by the Univcnity of W a l e in a collcction of essays on GDR literature. lo W. K & d , ‘Du sorbische “Wortland” - “Na putu za druhej domiznu” (Zur Sprache dw UnbcwuRtcn in dcr sorbkchen Literatur)’, tifoppic, 1(1992), 86. ” See ‘Fiinf Fragcn an Kito Lored in Kilo Lorenc. W&, Leipzig 1984, pp. 160-2.

0 Bad1 B L r h U Lcd 1991.

258 SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

ance of seizing the opportunity for severing ties with any German state. But any hopes of achieving support from the Soviet Union, Poland or Czechoslovakia for a separate Sorbian state had disappeared by 1947. These first few years were taken up with the struggle to establish a Sorbian press to publish in Sorbian the unpublished backlog of works resulting from the ban on cultural activity in the Third Reich. It was not until 1951 that the first contemporary collection of poems and stones by a Sorbian writer, Auf a h Rain wiichrt Korn by Jurij BrCzan, was published in German. Brhan addressed the readers directly in the introduction and reminded them of the uniqueness of the occasion: ‘Du muBt nimlich wissen, daB du das erste Buch in der Hand hiltst, das aus dem Sorbischen ins Deutsche iibertragen worden ist’.l*

This statement was somewhat of an exaggeration, but the fact that a Sorbian writer had published his own German version of stories and poems which had only recently appeared in Sorbian did represent a significant development. BrCzan then went on to relate this occasion to the changed situation of the Sorbs in the GDR, ‘so ist die Deutsche Demokratische Republik heute zur Heimat, zum wirklichen Vaterland f i r die Sorben geworden’. I 3 The pathos of this declaration was accentuated by the fact that the first poem in this collection was BrCzan’s own statement of identifi- cation with the GDR, ‘Wie ich mein Vaterland fand’.

Shortly afterwards the cultural journal, Aufbau, announced the the award of the ‘Nationalpreis’ to a group of Sorbian artists and writers, including Jurij Brtzan, for their work in providing the impetus for a new period of Sorbian cultural activity. The journal then went on to provide Sorbian writers with the major platform for the publication of their works in German in the early 1950s. This role was then taken over by Nnu Deutsche Likratur in 1954 when it published a number of poems from the collection edited and translated by Jurij Brtzan, Sorbbche L y d . ’ *

The publication of Sorbian works in German in the 1950s was dominated by the works of Jurij BrZzan. He has partly explained the fact that he seemed to be more active in the German cultural sphere by pointing to his own political problems with the dominant political group representing the Sorbs in Lusatia.

Einc in den friihcn finfzigcr Jahrcn allmkhtige und absolut das sorbische gesellschaftliche Leben beherrschende Drcier-Gruppe bemiihte sich mit Aus- dauer, mich zu cinem Paria zu machen. DaB es ihr auf Dauer nicht gelang, verdanke ich letzlich dem, da13 ich 1950 mcin eigner Obersetzer ins Deutsche wurde und meinc Literatur mein Anwalt in der Rcpublik.”

’‘J. Brtun, Am/ d m Ruin &t Kom, Berlin 1951, p. 7. Is Ibid. ” Scc Nnu DNLSC~C fiferutur, 2(1954), which contains a selection ol pocms from Sodixk L y d , cd. J.Brlun. Berlin 1954. I’ ‘Suchc nach verborgcnen Quellen’, op. d., 41.

@ Bpi1 Bkkwcll Lul 1994

SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945 259

Brtzan’s escape into the German cultural landscape represented a variation on the escape from the ‘Insel’ mentality, but one which did not stress those positive elements that Lorenc saw arising from the ambivalent situation of the bilingual writer, in which the contradictory nature of the writer’s linguis- tic identity leads to a greater intensity of communication. Brtzan’s escape seemed to derive more from his own political problems in Lusatia and from a desire to enter the mainstream of GDR cultural life. This impression was underlined by the direction of his work in the latter part of the 19509 in both prose and in the theatre. The attempt to turn his Felix Hanusch trilogy, Dcr C m ‘ a s t (1958), S m s t m dn vcrlormm zn’t ( 1960) and Mannes-

jahrc (1964)’ from a Sorbian ‘Entwicklungsroman’ into a GDR ‘Gesell- schaftsroman’ seemed to owe much to the pressure of GDR cultural politics. Brhan himself denied that he felt under pressure to move beyond the form of the ‘Entwicklungsroman’. ‘Ich habe iiberhaupt nicht in diesen Kategorien gedacht, sondern ich hatte von allem Anfang vor, einen Roman meiner Generation zu schreiben.”6 Whatever Br8zan’s motivation at the time, it is significant that it was these works, particularly Manncsjahrc, which received most attention from critics in the GDR. They were discussed in the same breath as Strittmatter’s Oh B i d @ , Wolfs Dcrgclcil& Himmcl and Neutsch’s Spur dcr Skim, as works within the socialist realist tradition, but with certain problematical aspects. What all the critics had in common was their praise for the development through the trilogy from a concentration on the essen- tially provincial nature of a specifically Sorbian perspective to a work which took on ‘den Charakter cines Zeitepos von gesamtnationalem Rang’.]’

Mannesjahrc was also used by Br8zan to try and break into the German- speaking theatre. His earlier work for the theatre, most notably the dramatis- ation in 1958 of his ‘Erziihlung’ Wie die altc Jantschowa mil dcr Obrigkeit k+f& (1951), had been designed to provide the Sorbian Volkstheater in Bautzen with a contemporary play in Sorbian. Up until then it had had to depend on translations into Sorbian of plays from other languages. This particular play, Marja Ja&owa, did in fact receive attention outside the Sorbian-speaking world when it was performed at a Berlin theatre festival in October 1959 and was as a result reviewed in most of the major newspapers and journals in the GDR. It was even reviewed by a special correspondent for the London Tims!’*

The dramatised version of Manncsjahn was performed in Dresden in 1968. It was greeted with strong criticism, most notably in the review of the prtmiere in 7 k a k r dn zn’t which concentrated on the particular problems created by trying to put a novel of this kind onto the stage. I t leads, according to the reviewer, to the ‘unniitigen GlHttung von gesellschaftlichen K~nflikten’.’~ Perhaps as a result of the negative reaction to his attempts

H. Schneider, ‘Geiprich mit Jurij BrLLzan’, SIm Md Form, 5(1979), 1005. H. Klcmm, ‘Wie ein Mensch zum Menschcn wid’, NWJ D&chhd, Beilagc 8.4.1961.

I“A Mother Courage of the Western Slaw’. ‘Ik T ~ J , 26.10.1959. I9 H. Cebhudt, ‘Urauff-uhrung in M e n ’ , 7kah dn Zif, 8(1968), 6.

260 SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN A n E R 1945

at theatre, BrEzan gave up any further attempt and concentrated from then onwards on his prose works, occasionally producing adaptations for television. There were later revivals of his plays, most notably of Marja Jmtowa in 1986 in Bautzen in Sorbian, but the failure of Brizan to make a significant impact on the German-speaking theatre, in strong contrast to the success of his prose works in German, is symbolic of the failure of the Sorbian theatre in general to make an impact with German-language productions. The only other significant attempts were Jurij Koch’s Die lctzte Priifung, performed in Dresden in 1973, and Londvemsstr, which was originally put on in German in Halle in 1977, but was taken off after only two performances because of its implied criticism of the effects on the Sorbian community of the GDR’s energy policy. It was put on in Sorbian just under two years later in Bautzen and revived in a German-language production in 1985.

While the Sorbian theatre failed to break through the linguistic barrier, the success of Sorbian prose writers in making an impact at a national GDR level in the 19509 and 60s was symbolised by the dedication of two whole volumes of Nnu Dtutsck Likratur in 1967 and 1970 respectively to Sorbian literature. The titles of the two volumes, Heimat DDR. Nnu sorbische Epik, Dramatik, Lyrik ah Bestandteil unserer sozialistischen Litcrakr (31 1967), and Sorbische Literatus im sozialistisfischen Vaterland (3/1970) made it clear on what basis Sorbian literature had been accepted, namely as part of the national, socialist culture of the GDR. The natural question raised by this acceptance is to ask how much it had had to give up which was specifically Sorbian in the process. An article in Nnus Dtutschland in 1971 made clear that Sorbian writers might still take a different view from representatives of GDR cultural policy. In it Horst Simon reported on a meeting of the ‘Arbeitskreis sorbischer Schriftsteller’, in which the question was asked: ‘Wie schreiben wir mit sorbischer Feder, und welchen Beitrag leisten wir zur sozialistischen Literatur in der DDR?’ Jurij Koch in his report as chairman of the group insisted that it was the duty of a Sorbian writer, ‘in erster Linie fur sorbische Leser zu schreiben’, while Helmut Hauptmann emphasised their duty to look outwards beyond the small circle of Sorbian readers.20

The Sorbian ‘Lesergemeinschaft’ looked different to the second generation of post-war Sorbian writers. While Brizan may have chosen to write German as well as Sorbian versions primarily for political reasons, writers such as Lorenc and Koch took into account other factors. Lorenc summarized these factors when explaining his justification for the bilingual form of the Sor- bischs Lesebuch. It was not only a question of enabling Upper and Lower Sorbs to appreciate each other’s literatures, but also of including in the Sorbian ‘Lesergemeinschaft’ those Sorbs from the younger generation who

H. Simon, ‘Wirkcndc Kraft urwem Litcratur. Wahlvenammlung im Arbeiukreis sorbischcr Schrifutcllcr’, Nauc D d ~ c h L d , 9. I I . 197 I . Q Bad BLvhrU LtdlPpI.

SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN A m E R 1945 26 I

had become assimilated by German linguistically but who still had a sense of their Sorbian identity.

Doch rnehren sich besonden bei den jiingeren, wcitgehend schon nicht mchr sorbischsprachigen Generationen Anzeichen eincr ethnischen Selbstverstandi- gung, die auch die deutschsprachige Aneignung sorbischer Literatur ein- schlicBt. Auch cine sorbische Leserrnchrheit kann also zu irgendeiner Ge- samtvorstellung ihres sorbischsprachigen 'Literaturcrbes vorerat nur anthologisch und nur mit Hilfe der deutschen Sprache gelangen.2'

Both writers started by producing works which were only published in Sorbian; Lorenc's first collection of poems, Nowc tasy - nowc kwasy (New ZGiten - neue Hochzeiten), in 1961, and Koch's first novel, Mjez y 5 m mostami (Zwischen sieben Bliicken), in 1968. Lorenc then produced a second collection of poems, Stmga. B i l k cinn LunhchoJt, which had both German and Sorbian versions, and in 1973 he published a further collection of poems only in German, Flurbcrcinigung. Koch produced his first bilingual novel, Rosmatja, in 1975 and continued to produce bilingual versions of his novels and stones in the 1980s. It was with these works in German that both writers came to the notice of a wider audience in the GDR and started to receive attention from German critics. They were representative of the generation of writers after BrEzan who had experienced the educational and cultural advantages which the nationalities policy had given to younger Sorbs but who now found themselves in the middle of the conflicts created by accelerat- ing assimilation, despite, or because of, the double-edged nature of this policy. The contradictions inherent in this policy were most clearly seen in the way in which the SED on the one hand created institutions which were meant to preserve Sorbian language and culture, while at the same time pursuing policies, such as the destruction of Sorbian villages through increased open-cast mining, which carried further the destruction of the social basis of that culture.22

Lorenc's reaction to these conflicts was a complicated one. In his Stmga - cine Konfession (1966) he recognized the contradictory nature of these changes in the landscape.

Wir aus den Strugadertern bekcnnen uns zu dieser schwierig-sch6nen Praxis, wir machen sic ja. Wir geben ihr (der DDR - PB) unsere Heidewiiider und Diirter unter die Bagger.. . .Wir gebcn ihr unsere Sprache in unseren Ce-

l l W'niland, Op. lit., p. 160. nRecent research in the SED archives in Berlin is also starting to suggest that from the early 1960s the SED i n d u c e d changes in the bilingual educational syatem which were daigned to accelerate the mimilation process under the cover of the nationalities policy. See the proceedings of a conference on the bilingual educational system published by the MaCica Serb&, the Sorbian scientific and cultural organisation founded in 1847, Scrbrkc fulstwo 1945-70, Mjcz s d i r l i s k q dwla&~ a M T O ~ ~ . zmndwilosnr, Bautzen 1993.

Q Buil B*ekrrll l&J 1994.

262 SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

dichten und sehen doch schon, dal3 es auch kein Sprachraum sein kann, der ihnen Gcnige tit^.'^

What came through clearly was a rejection of the notion that the Sorbs can somehow develop apart. Their ‘Heimat’ could no longer be a Sorbian island which attempted to shut out the German sea around it.

Es muB der ganzc Raum sein, in dem wir leben. Das Gedicht wird getragen von einem Raum dcs Menschlichen, der abgcmessen und erfiullt ist von der Wesenhaftigkeit und Dichtc der Kontlikte, die sich in ihm entfalten.**

In an interview which Lorenc gave in 1983, he expressed more clearly his view that the mining operations in Lusatia were no longer of any real significance for the continued existence of the Sorbian language. ‘Fur den Fortbestand der sorbischen Sprache ist die erweiterte Kohle-und Energiege- winnung in der Lausitz kaum noch “merkmalhaft”.’25

His concern for the environment was of a much more general kind, and he saw a new Sorbian cultural identity developing not from trying to remain exclusive but from the dynamics of i t s relationship with German language and culture.

Erst in der Cegeniiberstcllung, der wechselseitigen Korrektur, Verfremdung, Durchdringung kommt es auch hier zu etwas Neuem, kommt man von den Sprachenfragcn auf die e k Frage nach eincm sorbischen literarischen BewuBtscin ncuer Identitit, das j a nur in der besondcren strukturellen Verbin- dung, der widerspriichlich-pduktiven Einhcit all seiner vergangencn und gegenwirtigen und zu gewiirtigenden Elementc erreichbar scin kann.=

Koch has also stressed the positive effect of his bilingualism on his work. He has talked for example about the greater sensibility, ‘das dritte A ~ g e ’ , ~ ’ which an ethnic minority acquires in the way it sees the world. But compared with Lorenc there is a stronger sense of the importance of striving to maintain the values and traditions of his ethnic background which he feels to be under threat from the march of technical progress. He justifies his decision to publish in both Sorbian and German by stressing the need to reach a wider audience, while at the same time acknowledging the pro- ductive effects on his literary work of the greater sensibility of the bilingual writer.

Meine Wirklichkcit ist so, daB sic sich zweisprachig abspielt, und jedcr Autor ist auf ein Publikum angewiesen; er schreibt nicht fur sich selbst. Jcder Schriftsteller ist damn interessicrt, ein mijglichst breites Publikum zu haben,

K. Lorenc, ‘Strugr - cine Kd-ion’, in S o r b i d u Dshch&bsh ~iknb. Leipzig 1981, p. 581. 24 IN. z5 W&, op. cif., p. 162. =Ibd., p. 161. ” P. Barker, ‘Intervim with Jurij Koch’. CDR Momikw, 21(1989), 53.

Q B.il BLrlmll U 1W.

SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

und fur mich ist es also nicht cine Frage des Verrats, wenn ich diese mir durch die Wirklichkeit vermitteltc Fiihigkeit, mi& in zwei Sprachen auszudriicken, nutze.‘’

263

With the second generation of Sorbian writers after 1945, Sorbian litera- ture achieved a higher profile in the 1970s and 80s in terms of critical reaction and readership awareness amongst a German audience than at any time in its previous history. BrCzan’s achievements in the 1950s and 1960s had had more to do with his own status as a writer in the mainstream of GDR literature, but his development in the 1970s and 1980s saw him return more explicitly to his Sorbian roots for his central themes. Krabat odcr dic Vcnuandlung &r Welt (1976) and Bild &s Voters (1982) did arouse critical controversy as a result of their treatment of particular general themes; in Krabat it was the question of genetic engineering and in Bild &s Voters, Brtzan’s portrayal of the subject of death. But more importantly both works saw him returning to the imaginative roots of his childhood. In 1981 Brizan described in an autobiographical essay the way in which he had to turn his back on what he now saw as a betrayal of his own imagination in his works of the 1950s and 1960s and discover a new formula for his writing.

Schreiben ist: nach verborgenen Quellen graben. Ich lcbe wieder, wo ich als Kind lebte. Nirgends sonst in d c r Welt wuBtc ich baser, wo - vielleicht - cine Quelle zu finden wire.29

Krabat was widely reviewed in the GDR, and although much of the dis- cussion centred on the central ethical question, a number of critics recog- nised in the novel BrCzan’s attempt to write ‘die Epee des sorbischen Volkes’.30 Brizan had clearly signalled when he started to write the novel that his return to the Krabat myth was part of his search to express ‘das spezifisch Sorbi~che’.~’ Bild &s Voters represented a different mute back to his Sorbian roots. In an interview in 1983 he indicated that he had considered writing a book based on his father ten years earlier, but that he had found this impossible to do while his father was still alive. The novel represents an attempt not only to pay hommage to the memory of his father, but also through him BrCzan seems to be trying to return to some of the main elements of his roots, such as the importance of religion in Sorbian life. Brtzan’s commitment to socialism had led him away from recognizing elements such as these as an essential part of a continuing Sorbian identity. It is true that in the novel there is a clear distance between the son and the father in this respect, but there is a recognition of the

Ibd., 51. as J. Br&, ‘SophoUa und Spcllerhiitte’, Sim und Fmm. 3(1981), 524. y, H. Kcch, ‘Der drittc Krabat’. News D & c W , 27.5.1976. ” J. Brhan, ‘Krabat odcr Es iat an der Zeit, Fngen zu stellen’, in A n r i d h md Einr ick, Berlin 1989, p. 63.

Q Buil BkkwcU lad 1m.

264 SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

importance of the relationship between ‘Heimat’ and religion. Nevertheless, BSzan made it clear in a later interview that despite this greater emphasis on certain aspects of his Sorbian roots, which had been submerged in his earlier works, he still saw Sorbian literature in the context of GDR literature as ‘cine Bereicherung der Literatur der DDR’.32 The thematic concerns of the two literatures had similar roots; both Krabal and Bifd &s Vatus were primarily concerned with themes which were in the mainstream of GDR literature, but the form and the language gave the works elements which BrEzan regarded as being specifically Sorbian: ‘Das Spezifische an der sorbischen Literatur, meine ich, ist nicht ihre Thematik, sondern die Art und Weise, wie etwas dargestellt

GDR critics also continued to emphasise the common elements in BrEzan’s work in the 19709 and 19809. Hans Koch, in his review of a collection of short stories, Brautschnurck und a d r c Geschichten (1980), commented on the way in which Brhan had returned to his Sorbian roots without turning his back on the mainstream of GDR literature.

Brtzan ist heute in vielen seiner Eniihlungen ‘sorbischer’ gewordcn als in manch kiherem Buch.. .Es ist eigcnartig, von Buch zu Buch Brrzans zu vedolgen, wie wenig das ‘Sorbische’ in seiner Kunst ihn von der sozialistischen deutschen Nationalliteratur der DDR tr~nnt .~’

Here we see a continuation of the attitude of critics from the earlier period who saw Sorbian literature in its German versions primarily as an extension of GDR literature. A similar view was for example taken of the other main Sorbian prose writer of the 1980s whose German versions made an impact on the GDR literary scene, Jurij Koch. A review by Renate Drenkow of his first collection of stories published in German, Dcr einsame NcpomuA (1980), made this point clear.

Bei naherem Oberdenken der Erziihlungen begreift man, da13 die individuellen Kiimmernisse und noch ungelbten Probleme nicht ‘deutsche’ oder ‘sorbische’ sind. So sehr der Deutschen und der Sorben geschichtlichcr Weg differenzierter Darstellung bcdarf, so wenig bedarfer im Allgemeinmenschlichen eincr Unter- scheidung.”

The fact that Koch in his prose works of the 1980s, particularly Dcr Kirschbaum ( 1984), underlined the specifically Sorbian tragedy caused by open-cast mining in Lusatia was mostly passed over very quickly by GDR critics, because Koch here had touched a raw nerve in the official perspective on the position of the Sorbs within the GDR. At the same time this

”J . B r b n , ‘Geschichtcn rind dic Brillc, die man wcitcrgcben kann’, Somn&g, 19.5.1983. ”J. Brhul , ‘Morgcngraucn odcr Dimmerung. Gaprich mit Lmnorc Brandt’, in Anrichfen w d

H. Koch, ‘Zwirchcnapklc - g c h l a u der Erfahrung c ina Vdka’, Nnrr DnrwrvMd, 2.4.1980. EiluiChtm, 0p.d.. p. 288.

” R. Drcnkow. Rcvicw of Lkr tinraw N W , &matag, 15.3.1981

oBdlBlvhcllLld1994.

SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFT’ER 1945 265

particular work was given a warm reception by most critics and was generally accepted as being Koch’s best work to date.

The reception of Koch’s work, and also of several younger writers in the 198Os, such as Benedikt Dyrlich and Angela Stachowa, symbolised the progress that Sorbian literature had made since the early 1950s. It had become an accepted part of the GDR literary scene, very largely because it represented tangible evidence of the success - seen from the perspective of the SED - of the policy of support for Sorbian culture. It became the norm for Sorbian writers to produce German versions of their works either simultaneously with the Sorbian versions, or shortly afterwards. Even rela- tively unknown writers were then assured of a wide critical reception for their work. Dyrlich’s first collection of poems in German, Crrinc Kissc (1980), was for example widely reviewed in the GDR press. The same reception was given to Stachowa’s first collection of stones, Ccschichtcn fkr Mujh (1978). As Lorenc has put it:

. . .in dern abgeschotteten, repressiv-pervcrtierten ‘Binnenmccr’ DDR konnte die sorbische ‘Insel’ doch auch cine andere Realitit bedeuten und durchaus nicht nur einen Rest Zuflucht (in dem es ja auch Zutriigcr gab) - vielmehr Ausgang zu einer Gegenrcalitat, . . .36

The conditions created by the GDR for the Sorbs enabled its literature to turn outwards and present itself to a wider German audience in a way which had not been possible before. Its policy of support for Sorbian cultural institutions, such as the Domowina-Verlag, enabled Sorbian writers to support themselves from their writing. At the same time the generous support for writers in the GDR in general encouraged them to operate in the wider GDR context. It is true that they found themselves as a result subject to the same ideological pressures that applied to GDR literature in general, and forced them to make similar compromises to those demanded by the state from all writers who wished to be published. But it meant that they were also forced to avoid the danger of turning in on themselves and only addressing their Sorbian readers. According to Lorenc the acceptance of bilingual practice by Sorbian writers has enabled Sorbian literature to achieve a new identity which means that a positive alternative to the tendency towards narcissistic isolation has become firmly established.

Dagegen steht dcutlich schon ein andercs, ein sorbisches literarisches BewuBt- sein neucr Identitit, ablabar auch an der zweisprachigen Praxis sorbischer Literatur. . .Man nennt sic schon die ‘neue deutsche Literatur der slawischen Sorb~n’.~’

Whether this new identity will be able to survive the acceleration of the assimilation process which has resulted from German unification is another

” IN., 9. 56 ‘Die lnrel schluckt das Mew’, unpublished manuscript 1991. 6.

OBdlBbcMLLcd1994.

266 SORBIAN LITERATURE IN GERMAN AFTER 1945

matter. In the post-unification period the number of pupils attending classes in Sorbian in the bilingual schools has fallen dramatically, and despite the generous provision by the government and Gnder-funded ‘Stiftung fur das Sorbische Volk’ (DM 34 mill. in 1991 and DM 41 mill. in 1992), part of which has been used to support the publication of Sorbian literature, there is a clear danger that the shrinking of a Sorbian ‘Lesergemeinschaft’ will cause the smaller number of Sorbian speakers and readers to revert to an isolationist position which attempts to keep out ‘das deutsche Meer’. How- ever, the signs are that the tradition of a Sorbian literature operating in German has now been irreversibly established. Lorenc has produced a further collection of poems in German, Ccgcn dcn grab Papaw (1990), and a poetess who had previously only published in Sorbian, R6ia DomaScyna, has recently brought out a collection of her poems and stories in German, Zaungucker (1991).