A REVIEW OFFERING MISINFORMATION: C. BARKER ON LYRIK-25 JAHRE. BIBLIOGRAPHE (. . .), VOL. I.

BY HANS-JURGEN SCHLU~TER

Reviews have traditionally been regarded as a genre of scholarly writing no less subject to standards of accuracy and good judgement than other genres. L y d - 25 Jahre. Bibhographie der deutschsprachigen LynXpubhkationen 194s- 1970, Bd. 1 received a rather unusual review in this journal (NS, vol. XXXI, No 4), written by Christine R. Barker, a review that cannot pass without some objections by the bibliographer.

The book under review was the first volume (of two), a circumstance of which no mention is made, either in the title or in the text of the review; and the way Ms Barker formulates her final judgement of ‘Schlutter’s bibliography’ clearly indicates that she had overlooked this fact.

There are three categories of titles included, first the poetry written and published in this quarter century. As to the second category, Barker writes: ‘Schlutter . . . also lists posthumously published works . . .’. No qualification is given here. The reader is thus led to believe that works of poets who died more or less shortly before the terninus a quo are all included. That is quite wrong. The one exception to the rule-that only poets be included who are still alive or who have died since May 8th, 1945,-are the victims of Nazism as was specific- ally stated in Nachwort: ‘Hier war der Ort fur die posthum erschienenen Gedicht- bande der Opfer des Nationalsozialismus, auch der im Exil gestorbenen und derer, die innerhalb des Machtbereichs zum Schweigen verurteilt waren. ’ Equally mistaken is Barker’s concept of the third category: works that were re-published between 1945 and 1970. Barker writes: ‘Although Schlutter lists all subsequent editions of collections first published before 1945 if the poet survived the last war, in other instances he restricts himself to works regarded as making a significant contribution to literary history? and the advisability of incorporating such a selective category into a volume which otherwise lays claim to exclusivity must remain questionable.’ This refers to the following sentence in Nachwort: ‘Endlich mussten die Wiederveroffentlichungen verzeicbet werden, die, in einigen Fallen von grosstem Einfluss, im ganzen genommen das litera- rische Leben mitbestimmt haben. ’ Barker misreads ‘die Wiederveroffenthchungen’ as ‘diejenigen [those] Wiederveroffentlichungen’ . Conuary to what Barker adduces from her mistake, thLc category is not a selective one. But it is restricted to poets who survived the Hitler period, with the exception already mentioned: the Nazi victims.

Summing up: two of the three categories were described inaccurately by the reviewer. Ms Barker obviously did not do any in depth checking of the three categories of entries but merely relied on, and partly misunderstood, my Nach- wort. (The bibliographers, I may add, aim at comprehensiveness and complete- ness; no claim is laid to ‘exclusivity’ .)

The same lack of thoroughness appears in some of the specific criticisms.

~ ~~

180 A REVIEW OFFERING MISINFORMATION

Barker finds the dates of publication not always provided, ‘for example Stephan Hermlin’s Wir verstummen nicht, dated as 1945 by Lennarz [sic] and also by KunisCh in Handbuch der deutschen Gegenwartsliteratur, Munich 1969-1970 . . .’. The reader looking for this title will find the following entry under the heading HERMLIN, Stephan d. i. Rudolf Leder (1915): ‘s. a. Jo Mihaly, Stephan Hermlin, Lajser Ajchenrand: Wir verstummen nicht. ’ It is easy enough to realize that this is a cross-reference necessitated by the triple authorship: first it starts ‘s. a.’ for ‘siehe auch’, secondly it lists three authors, repeating Hermlin’s name, thirdly it lacks any bibliographical information, fourthly it has no entry number. All of what is missing here is provided at the main entry under MIHALY, Jo d. i. Elfriede Alice Steckel (1902) and reads: ‘Jo Mihaly, Lajser Ajchenrand und Stephan Hermlin: Wir verstmzmen nicht. Gediche in der Fremde. -Zurich: C. Posenll945l.’ Entry number 5873. The triple authorship is mentioned by Lennartz as well as by Kunisch. Barker’s second example (she gives only two) of missing publication date is ‘Peter Ruhmkorf‘s Heizse Lyri&, published in 1956 according to the two previously named sources’. The case is the same: Barker is ignorant of the fact that Ruhmkorf wrote this poetry in collaboration with Werner Riegel, although both of her sources mention this: ‘Zusammen mit seinem ihm literarisch nicht kongenialen Freund Werner Riegel’ Ruhmkorf published this ‘gemeinsamen kleinen Band’ (Lennartz); ‘. . . mit Riegel pub- lizierte er 1956 den Gedichtband Heisse L y d ’ (Kunisch) . The bibliography carries a cross-reference under RUHMKORF and the full entry under RIEGEL in compliance with the title of the book.

I have no quarrel with Barker’s general verdict on completeness: ‘The alpha- betically arranged sequence of writers omits one or two lesser known poets, for example Ludwig Friedrich Barthel (1898-1962) who is included in Lennartz’ Deutsche Dichter und Schnjhteller, Stuttgan, 1963, . . .‘.-The user of the bibliography, however, should he happen to remember this criticism, may be surprised to find on pp. 18 and 19 the heading BARTHEL, Ludwig Friedrich (1898-1962) and, under this heading, no less than nine entries (numbers 345-3531. I refrain from listing them here.

The 1958 edition of Carossa’s selected poetry which Barker found missing was an unveranderte Neuauflage and therefore not eligible (6. Hinweize). Our listing of the full name of Marie Luke Kaschnitz is correct (c f . the Gotha Tb. d. j?eihem lichen Hauser, 1939).

So far, I have concerned myself with factually wrong statements (they amount to 36% of the extent of the review). It goes without saying that a reviewer is entitled to state his opinion in matters of judgement. But the reviewer may in turn be judged as to the validity of his judgement. Ms Barker states that ‘only’ just over two-thirds of the author’s entries are provided with the dates of birth. I would like to point out that no bibliographer is obliged to give biographical details. Dates of birth and death are additional information. There is no need to know the dates of hundreds of poetae obscuri. Ms Barker expressing her dis- satisfaction must either think that there is indeed such a need (in which case I would disagree with her), or that there are dates of important authors missing. In that case, she could perhaps provide a few, just two or three, that were publicly

A REVIEW OFFERING MISINFORMATION 181

accessible but were missed by the compiiators? Ms Barker finds the presentation ‘utilitarian rather than elegant’. Perhaps she could make just one practicable suggestion that would help to make the presentation in volume I1 elegant rather than utilitarian.

REPLY

I do not consider this matter to be of sufficient interest or importance to make any comment, save that I stand.by the main conclusions of my review.

Christine R. Barker. (Hull).