Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool will be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil — Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Friends and readers,
While Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45) has occupied a paradoxically at once hagiographic and controversial position in studies of Hitler’s Third Reich, which suggests an audience familiar with his name, life and writing; he is not well-known to people outside Germany, except for the religiously inclined, pacifists, and those who’ve studied the elite German milieus, which supported Hitler as a bulwark against socialism. The reasons for the peculiarity of the way he’s been heroicized and marginalized come from the unwillingness of people to confront painful realities of the past or overturn the continuing male hegemonic structuring of much human experience and stigmatizing of people who don’t conform to simplistic sexual norms. Bonhoeffer’s is one of the (when we are telling truths) ambivalent stories of those who resisted Nazism.
His life history has been kept muted and/or distorted to erase his homosexuality (an important source for aspects of his thought), especially his relationship with Eberhardt Bethge. Bethge, as the man Bonhoeffer was ineradically in love with, built books intended to mount a difficult barrier to get past. The widely-popular (a surprise best seller of 1953) Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters & Papers from Prison, edited by Bethge from unpublished manuscripts, fits squarely into the kind of first edition Donald Reiman (The Study of Modern Manuscripts: Private, Confidential, and Public) describes as a “family book” where the editor acts as an advocate of the writer’s family’s view of this writer, the family itself (Deirdre LeFaye’s edition of Jane Austen’s letters is such a book). In Bethge’s case also to obscure his actual relationship with Bonhoeffer and his own ambitious political and personal choices during Hitler’s regime.
A photograph of Bethge and Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer has not been forgotten because of his extensive original writing (very ethical in bent), the rich, powerful elite group he belonged to (which survived the Hitler era), the positions he achieved in the powerful church structures, and his imprisonment and murder for conspiring against Hitler. He has been useful as a martyr, as a conservative religious hero, an ethical thinker. A corpus of far from disinterested books and essays continue to be written about him.
Tubingen University Library (where Bonhoeffer studied as a young man)
Diane Reynolds has studied this secondary material, and the extensive primary documents; she interviewed people who knew those who knew Bonhoeffer, visited the places he lived in, and has produced a candid, lucidly written biographical account of the man’s life and his behavior, drawing especially on his letters (the life-blood of biography). She has been preceded by Charles Marsh’s flamboyant biography, which hers is an improvement on because of her scrupulous care not to claim anything for which there is no consistent substantial evidence. Some LGBTQ people may object to her reluctance to concede the probable where the nature of the case cannot provide evidence, such as Bonhoeffer’s sexual activity: there is evidence for more than one close male relationship and several revealing portraits of male supporters and friends, e.g., Franz Hildebrandt with whom he lived for a time. True acceptance, respect and fulfillment, not to omit safety, for LGBTQ people in society requires adult understanding and acceptance of their active sexual lives; but nothing else is elided over, and she is critical of her subject where criticism is called for. We see a root cause for his reluctant betrayal of his sister and her Jewish husband, and on the other at the same time as he remained loyal to an upper class luxurious community who had supported Hitler: he gave up while in the US an opportunity to escape Germany, the offer of a good position because he couldn’t bear to live apart from Bethge (241-45) or lose his sense of some meaning through belonging with numinous privileged people who shaped important social structures and beliefs in Germany.
Women readers will see how he was willing to support as his patroness the domineering reactionary Ruth von Kleist-Retzlow, who was ceaselessly coercive over her daughters’s lives and engineered the pretense of an affair with her granddaughter, Maria von Wedermeyer. Maria was herself unable to throw off the Nazi training in submissiveness and self-sacrifice until years later. We learn of Bertha Schultz, a brilliant scholar who could only get work as his housekeeper and personal assistant, translated for free for him, and then is dismissed (79-81). He had a friendship with Elizabeth Van Thadden who opened the genuinely anti-Nazi progressive school for girls (Maria attended), had her school taken from her, re-Nazified, and was later imprisoned and beheaded (228-29, 22, 396). He was himself deeply attachment to a number of female relatives: his grandmother, his mother, a life-long close congenial relationship with his sister, Sabine: they go on a walking tour together which may reminded readers of English poetry of William and Dorothy Wordsworth.
This is an excellent biography of a man placed in the context of his time and directed to our world today.
Family summer vacation house in Freidrichsbrunn
Reynolds’s book’s historical significance is its irrefutability and portrait of a fallible and quietly courageous highly intelligent man who was pro-active in creating moral schools (for men), who displayed far more integrity than most, and expanded his horizons: a telling time was his sojourn in New York city where he attended a black Abyssian church and experienced a religious rejuvenation and saw “a view [of life] from the bottom looking up” (66). Just about all he did was in the face of discomfort in others (he was not a manly boy). Sometimes it’s mild (from his family) pressure; he had excellent connections and was chosen for high positions, but in these he encountered outright hostility from his own church and the Nazi state it complied with. And at the last imprisonment, interrogation, and towards the end (when his part in a failed plot to kill Hitler was discovered) vicious abuse leading up to his execution.
A clavichord Bonhoeffer and Bethge played on together
A summary with paraphrased and quoted vignettes: Her book is a narrative of Bonhoeffer’s life.
Part One situates the reader in the Bonhoeffer family background, telling of events and people who influenced Bonhoeffer’s grandparents, parents, moves through Bonhoeffer’s siblings and their childhood during World War One and its aftermath. . A characteristic chapter is called “Life Amid the Ruins:” Reynolds shows the family continuing its privileged life against the backdrop of the growing power of the Nazis, all around them desperation, Berlin crumbling, half starved Berliners, and soldiers posted everywhere in the streets, children with rickets. Hitler ominously blaming Jews, and father and uncle saying that the best types of people were killed off, glimpsing the possibility of a sociopath coming to power. But everything they read, the music they played has nothing to do with what’s happening outside; they lived within an idyllic strain in the European culture, divorced from politics. Bonhoeffer refuses to pursue a career in music (the family’s preference), and moves to theological studies. His sister and friends all marry while he evades a proposed bride for him, a third cousin, Elizabeth Zinn. Reynolds makes an astute use of Klaus Theweleit’s Male Fantasies, where he constructs the image of maleness and femaleness the Nazis projected, one troublingly close to what may be seen today in popular US miliarist movies today. Against this all his life Bonhoeffer had to contend.
Part Two (“Seeking Ground”) while the Nazis begin to seize control (burn books publicly), become violent against Jews (he writes, “literally no one in Germany … can grasp it … major turning point in history:” 7 million unemployed 15 to 20 hungry), he travels (Barcelona, Manhattan, Forest Hills even, Cuba) seeking some meaning, work, relationships, to ground his existence on: he writes a second dissertation, is ordained. Vignettes from this section: “Dietrich [was] vehemently opposed compromise by his church,” sermonized to this effect, but did not go to his sister’s husband’s father’s funeral … here Bonhoeffer writes that Jews are “a problem; they needed to convert;” yet he “writes against persecution of Jews, one must help victims.” May 10, 1933 book burning night. Max Reinhardt fled to LA; Bonhoeffer’s “brother-in-law Rudiger Schleicher, lawyer, joins party, says keeping job helps undermine the state. Nazis imposed level of regimentation that surprised and made fear grow; 50 concentration camps by 1933 … Hans von Dohnanyi, a friend and relative by marriage [later executed] liked by Hitler so original Jewishness forgiven. German Lutheran church yields to become vitriolically anti-semitic; Catholic Youth Leagues are outlawed, Nazi or nothing. In 1933 Bonhoeffer is turned down for pastorate and in October goes to London, shaken to discover himself in radical opposition to all his friends.
Part Three is called the “Incomparable Year” (1933) and Part Four “Reconfigurations” (taking the reader up to 1938 and Bonhoeffer’s first arrest). In ’33 he met and his relationships with Bethge and Ruth von Kleist-Retzlow flowered. While the Nazis are toting machine guns and beginning their imperial conquests, he opens Finkenwalde, a “confessing” school offering an idyllic community for (male) students by the North Sea. While fighter planes are taking off, he teaches pacificism and joins the world of country landed estates. Until the concentration camps begin to open, he, his friends, associates, his sister seem to think somehow they will be insulated, and carry on their lives. Vignettes: these elite families moves to small houses in Charlottenburg (Marienbad), as good for conspiracy; musical evenings are a cover for politics, people from all walks of life, a refuge too. Karl, his brother, stays on with Nazis as psychiatrist saying he is moderating worst aspects. Bonhoeffer’s grandmother is horrified to see a cousin emigrating – having to take his chances like everyone else in this world. Ruth comes across with money for seminary in Sweden (which Bonhoeffer described as “wonderful years”). Dietrich’s prison writing includes letters to his grandmother – of how he felt for defenseless epileptics. By 1935 his sister Sabine (married to a Jew) begins to understand the terror of Nazism (they come to her door for information), but her brother “would be alive now than 30 years ago.” Bonhoeffer shows a problematic disposition to spend his sister’s money on holidays for himself.
Finkelwalde by the sea: now a Bonhoeffer memorialParts Five through Seven (“Cornered”) bring us to the heart of the book (1937/8-43): Reynolds weaves the unfolding of the Nazi barbaric world inside Germany with the lives, work and reaction of Bonhoeffer and many of his friends and associates. The great value of this part of the book are these individual stories and the depiction of intimate life of the semi-protected elite, what emerged in public social life in Nazi Germany at the time, and the punitive patriotic culture of Nazism easily sliding into cruelty to the weak, vulnerable, despised, anyone who dissented. Bonhoeffer seems to have joined the “underground” resistance about 1938; some of his associates compromise, some try to ignore what was happening all around them; others looked simply to survival (insofar as one could as food shortages and bombing had begun). Vignettes: November 1937 27 Finkenwalde seminarians imprisoned; 1938 Dietrich arrested, interrogated, banned from Berlin. He has underground collective pastorates, apprentices in a remote village (with Bethge there, later doing “quite well”) … Dietrich living a nomadic life working on ms’s. Neimoller released and then swept up, disappears; Confessing church fools take an oath of allegiance that Hitler treats with [the] contempt [it deserved].
A revealing element about Bonhoeffer is he continues to write optimistically, perhaps conceiving himself as supporting the spirits of others; a close friend said it was pride that kept him from revealing his anguish, but the letters have a jarring disconnect. His theological writings “encode” (that’s the word Reynolds uses) justifications for homosexual love; his bitterness against Bethge; his misery at the harsh isolated conditions of the prison (he does use the word “horrible” once). But the letters keep his hidden life in a closet.
Reynolds shows how average Germans appear to have felt about the war at this time: we have to remember Germans supported the war, and Bonhoeffer’s activity would have been seen as that of a traitor: So more vignettes: June 17, 1940 France caves. German newsreels exulted. Olivia Manning’s Balkan Trilogy quoted. Fair haired young men: “what does it matter if we destroy the world? When it is ours, we’ll build it up again” … Germans are ecstatic at victory over France; foresee short war; Germans torpedo 600 prisoners headed for Canada; meanwhile Bonhoeffer’s sister, Sabine, now in Oxford moves with her husband to one room with 14 trunks. Bethge’s behavior reminds me of the enigmatic amoral characters in LeCarre’s novels: he decides to marry a Bonhoeffer niece, Renate, many years younger than he since he finds himself in “untenable” position. The long sections on the reality of Bonhoeffer’s relationship with Maria are important to read: we see her mother tried to protect her, regards Ruth’s tactics as a nuisance; for Bonhoeffer Maria is cover and unreal wish fulfillment dreams (of what neither he or she wanted). After Stalingrad, Bethge sends Bonhoeffer a picture of Napoleon; a letter remembering a year ago they were together when they shared a hotel room. Reynolds brings in the male couple in another surprising best seller of the era: Santayana’s The last Puritan.
Parts Eight (“Locked in”) through Ten (“Saints”) take us through Bonhoeffer’s years of imprisonment, his murder and the first build-up of hagiography. This was for me the most moving part of the biography. The conditions in which Bonhoeffer lived and eventually (he managed to make friends, his prestige and connections and his family’s money brought him food) even wrote were utterly wretched and dangerous. Reynolds maintains her cool stance towards the letters, pointing out repeatedly the undercurrents of bitterness (towards Bethge), egoism (in his approach to Maria), leaving the reader to feel uncomfortable, askance, compassion or astonishment. Just one vignette from many: Hitler carried a whip, beat his dogs and took disproportionate revenge on those within his reach after the bomb (detonated under a table) failed to kill him. Newspapers presented this as a coup of officers power-hungry … he writes suffering a way to freedom. He looked ill on his daily walk. There seems to have been opportunities for him to escape, but he withdrew with the excuse he didn’t want to endanger others: throughout his life he had what (I’d call) bad dreams of having a devout death which he yearned for, and one explanation for his persistent refusal to escape is a probably half-conscious death-wish.
One can fill out this section with some of the material Bethge published in 1953 (now available in an expanded edition): the book as constructed by Bethge presents a striking contrast to Primo Levi’s If this be Man and The Truce. Readers are not shown which letters were meant to be passed around by his relatives, which private (very few): Bonhoeffer persists in hoping, presenting himself as looking forward to release (his mother was fooled for a long time), comfortable. But there are striking breaks: for example, the narrative of Lance Corporal Berg, where suddenly Bonhoeffer reveals a gift for narrative, powerful drama: we first witness an interrogation which shows us how one need not resort openly to violence, torture, emotional bullying to subdue a prisoner. He shows how prison itself is an excruciating experience because those running it are implicitly bullying all prisoners all the time. A man with his face blown away shows up, and everyone is horrified by the ugliness of the man and they are mostly very kind to him, they feel sorry for him, they respect him for having allowed this to happen to him, but when for a moment he loses it and began to cry and complain, immediately they are hostile. Another man they deride, berate, kick, just shit on because he ‘deserted” — would not obey orders. It includes poems (e.g, Night Voices in Tegel) about his experience of the night in these prisons.
Reynolds shows how Marie distanced herself from the Bonhoeffer society, and tried to tell some truths, but her silence (as well as his sister Sabine’s) implied consent to Bethge and other interested witnesses’ stories. Her upper class strong sense of herself and understanding of how to get along in higher echelons served her well, and she somewhat recovered, even married, became a highly successful businesswomen.
Maria von Wedermeyer
If I have some criticism, it’s that I missed a sense of deep inwardness, which might have come from more analysis and quotation of Bonhoeffer’s ethical and religious treatises. Take the “Prologue: A Reckoning made at New Year 1943, also called “After Ten Years.”
He opens up with a (Samuel) Johnsonian meditation about time. “Time is the most valuable thing that we have, because it is the most irrevocable.” He writes of people “with no ground under their feet.” Here he recognizes that obedience to others to erase the self comes from cowardice and Germans have been deluded to think they kept their liberty by service to the community. An extraordinary passage about folly: folly is far more dangerous than anger; it’s worse than evil. Again folly there is no defense. No matter what you see the fool carries on. (This reminds me of Trump supporters.) The fool is self-satisfied, it’s easy for him to become aggressive, he’s harder to cope with than a scoundrel. Folly is capable of any evil. He reminded me here of Erasmus’s profound ironic (sardonic) In Praise of Folly. The worst blaspheme is contempt for others. (Again I thought of Trump, his insistent derision of others.) Bonhoeffer insists we must regard others not in terms of what they can do or do do but in the light of what they suffer. That in social life there are laws that cannot be eradicated and are powerful than anything that may claim to dominate them. How reprehensible to sow mistrust, how dangerous, when we should strengthen confidence in the self and others. (I thought of training programs in the US gov’t today where employers are taught to suspect and turn others in.) I liked his definition of quality. To have an experience of nobility, of quality you have to renounce all place-hunting, break with the cult of stars, must look to pleasure in private life as well as have courage to enter public life. Most people only learn wisdom (at all?) from personal experience. This explain insensibility to suffering. Death has become what people live with daily. We must not romanticize it; we do still know too much about the good things in life and that helps. But prolonged insecurity, and destructiveness of prolonged anxiety dissolves attachment to life. Which leads to him asking if people individually or as a group are of any use? He insists an experience of incomparable value is to experience life from below, and if you can’t at least try to see and empathize with those from below: history from below, the outcasts, suspects, maltreated, powerless, oppressed, reviled.
I want to emphasize that Diane Reynolds’s book is an enjoyable book to read. She recreates places, times, idyllic and nightmare experience. The reader who is familiar with 19th century novels will find parallels between characters in Tolstoy and this German milieu (Ruth as kind of Prussian cross between Countess Rostov and Anna Mikhailovna). It belongs to our conversations today about how what happened in Germany between the 1920s and well after the end of WW2 parallels the increase we see today of violence, racial, ethnic, and religious hatreds and intolerance and the complicity of our present (ever self-regarding, enrichening, luxurious) establishment as found in books like Volker Ulrich’s Hitler’s Ascent, 1889-1939. Reading it ought to worry readers right now.
Philip Seymour Hoffman in LeCarre’s A Most Wanted Man: about extraordinary rendition in the context of an exaggerated “war on terror” which has led to stark erosions of civil and social liberty — I can see Hoffman playing Bonhoeffer
Ellen
NIGHT VOICES IN TEGEL
Stretched out on my cot
I stare at the grey wall.
Outside, a summer evening
That does not know me
Goes singing into the countryside.
slowly and softly
Tne tides of the day ebb
On the eternal shore.
Sleep a little,
Strengthen body and soul, head and hand,
for peoples, houses, spirits and hearts
Are aflame.
Till your day breaks
After blood-red night –
Standfast!
Night and silence
I listen
Only the steps and cries of the guards,
The distant, hidden laughter of two lovers.
Do you hear nothing else, lazy sleeper?
I hear my own soul tremble and heave.
Nothing else?
I hear, I hear
The silent night thoughts
Of my fellow sufferers asleep or awake,
As if voices, cries,
As if shouts for planks to save them.
I hear the uneasy creak of the beds,
I hear chains.
I hear how sleepless men toss and turn,
Who long for freedom and deeds of wrath.
When at grey dawn sleep finds them
They murmur in dreams of their wives and children.
I hear the happy lisp of half-grown boys,
Delighting in childhood dreams;
I hear them tug at their blankets
And hide from hideous nightmares.
I hear the sighs and weak breath of the old,
Who in silence prepare for the last journey.
They have seen justice and injustice come and go;
Now they wish to see the imperishable, the eternal.
Night and silence.
Only the steps and cries of the guards.
Do you hear how in the silent house
It quakes, cracks, roars
When hundreds kindle the stirred-up flame of their hearts?
Their choir is silent,
But my ear is open wide:
‘We the old, the young,
The sons of all tongues,
We the strong, the weak,
The sleepers, the wakeful,
We the poor, the rich,
Alike in misfortune,
The good, the bad,
Whatever we have been,
We men of many scars,
We the witnesses of those who died,
We the defiant, we the despondent,
The innocent, and the much accused,
Deeply tormented by long isolation,
Brother, we are searching, we are calling you!
3rother, do you hear me?’
Twelve cold, thin strokes of the tower clock
waken me.
No sound, no warmth in them
To hide and cover me.
Howling, evil dogs at midnight
Frighten me.
The wretched noise
Divides a poor yesterday
From a poor today.
What can it matter to me
Whether one day turns into another,
One that could have nothing new, nothing better
Than to end quickly like this one?
I want to see the turning of the times,
When luminous signs stand in the night sky,
And over the peoples new bells
Ring and ring.
I am waiting for that midnight
In whose fearfully streaming brilliance
The evil perish for anguish
And the good overcome with joy.
The villain
Comes to light
In the judgment.
Deceit and betrayal,
Malicious deeds –
Atonement is near.
See, 0 man,
Holy strength
Is at work, setting right.
Rejoice and proclaim
Faithfulness and right
For a new race!
Heaven, reconcile
The sons of earth
To peace and beauty.
Earth, flourish;
Man, become free,
Be free!
Suddenly I sat up,
As if, from a sinking ship, I had sighted land,
As if there were something to grasp, to seize,
As if I saw golden fruit ripen.
But wherever I look, grasp, or seize,
There is only the impenetrable mass of darkness.
I sink into brooding;
I sink myself into the depths of the dark.
You night, full of outrage and evil,
Make yourself known to me!
Why and for how long will you try our patience?
A deep and long silence;
Then I hear the night bend down to me:
‘I am not dark; only guilt is dark !’
Guilt! I hear a trembling and quaking,
A murmur, a lament that arises;
I hear men grow angry in spirit.
In the wild uproar of innumerable voices
A silent chorus
Assails God’s ear:
‘Pursued and hunted by men,
Made defenceless and accused,
.Bearers of unbearable burdens,
Weare yet the accusers.
‘We accuse those who plunged us into sin,
Who made us share the guilt,
Who made us the witnesses of injustice,
In order to despise their accomplices.
‘Our eyes had to see folly,
In order to bind us in deep guilt;
Then they stopped our mouths,
And we were as dumb dogs.
We learned to lie easily,
To be at the disposal of open injustice;
If the defenceless was abused,
Then our eyes remained cold.
‘And that which burned in our hearts,
Remained silent and unnamed;
We quenched our fiery blood
And stamped out the inner flame.
The once holy bonds uniting men
Were mangled and flayed,
mendship and faithfulness betrayed;
ears and rue were reviled.
‘We sons of pious races,
One-time defenders of rigHt and truth,
Became despisers of God and man,
Amid hellish laughter.
‘Yet though now robbed of freedom and honour,
We raise our heads proudly before men.
And if we are brought into disrepute,
Before men we declare our innocence.
‘Steady and firm we stand man against man;
As the accused we accuse!
‘Only before thee, source of all being,
Before thee are we sinners.
‘Afraid of suffering and poor in deeds,
We have betrayed thee before men.
‘We saw the lie raise its head,
And we did not honour the truth.
‘We saw brethren in direst need,
And feared only our own death.
We come before thee as men,
As confessors of our sins.
‘Lord, after the ferment of these times,
Send us times of assurance.
‘After so much going astray,
Let us see the day break.
‘Let there be ways built for us by thy word
As far as eye can see.
Until thou wipe out our guilt,
“Keep us in quiet patience.
‘We will silently prepare ourselves,
Till thou dost call to new times.
‘Until thou stillest storm and flood,
And thy will does wonders.
“Brother, till the night be past,
Pray for me!’
The first light of morning creeps through my window pale
and grey,
light, warm summer wind blows over my brow.
A summer day,’ I will only say, ‘beautiful summer day!’
What may it bring to me?
Then I hear outside hasty, muffled steps;
Near me they stop suddenly.
I turn cold and hot,
For I know, oh, I know!
A soft voice reads something cuttingly and cold .
Control yourself, brother; soon you will have finished it,
soon, soon.
I hear you stride bravely and with proud step.
You no longer see the present, you see the future.
I go with you, brother, to that place,
And I hear your last word:
Brother, when the sun turns pale for me,
Then live for me.’
Stretched out on my cot
I stare at the grey wall.
Outside a summer morning
Which is not yet mine
brightly into the countryside.
Brother, till after the long night
Our day breaks
We stand fast!
— Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A couple of readable informative essays and a chapter:
Ruth Zerner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Jews: Thoughts and Actions, 1933-1945, Jewish Social Studies, 37:3/4 (Summer – Autumn, 1975): 235-250
Chapter Title: Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biographical Sketch from Geoffrey Kelly,
Reading Bonhoeffer. James Clarke & Co Ltd. (2008)
John Moses. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945: reluctant revolutionary.” ISAA Review: journal of the Independent Scholars Association of Australia 7.2 (2008): 3+.
Kaggsy’s Bookish Ramblings: her review of Emanuel Litvinoff’s The Lost Europeans provides further context:
https://kaggsysbookishramblings.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/escaping-the-past/
We need to remember that Bonhoeffer was part of an elite caste system which was sowing its own destruction in supporting Hitler. Reading Ruth in this context (for example, her extraordinary putting on of elaborate ritual weddings enacting the numinosity of her caste) ought not to make her pathetic.
A friend: “Every body who respects courage and decency, and needs a true hero, should know of Bonhoeffer.”
Diane Reynolds herself: “Thanks Ellen. Ellen put a tremendous amount of work into this and stepped out of her comfort zone. Many kudos.”
Indeed. My background is that of those murdered and worked to death in the slave labor and extermination camps. My mother was Jewish and I could “regale” those who read this blog with stories of how relatives in her generation were slaughtered (one woman went to be gassed with her six children because she could not face remaining alive after they were killed and knew they’d die terrified without her). On my father’s side relatives in Poland and Russia were simply gunned down as such vile people might birds flying in the air and helpless cats. Jim’s mother, about 13 years old then mine remembered WW1 too, and her stories of what the British suffered from the bombings in both wars make the stories of the German suffering from bombing in this book more a quid pro quo as I read.
One does not have to be “like” someone to understand and bond and admire. He was courageous; as far as the biographies can tell he himself was never personally guilty of harming others. He was not responsible for his sister; after all she had married a Jewish man, chosen to stay in Germany until very late; then in England was having a hard time. Her experience of life from below mortified her: her English employers would re-name her, would treat her with what she now at last felt as dismissal (though what she had done to servants in Germany). He had to live his own life and if his having taken an appointment in the US would have led to perhaps her and her husband coming to the US would have helped them, he had to live his own life. No one can expect anyone to give up a career or act to risk their lives. Nazis tortured people before killing them.
I empathize with his (not quite) closet homosexuality strongly and recognize all the strategies for hiding sexual life and orientation (tastes). I see how he didn’t fit into social stereotypes, though his upper class background enabled him to present himself in ways even strangers could find “charming” so he’s never an underdog until in that last year when his participation in a plot against Hitler’s life failed and he was nailed as one of those doing it. Then the kid gloves were taken off.
A kind of suspect word: Bethge was apparently continually charming; the word in his case should be read as it would be were it to appear in a LeCarre novel. Their patroness and protector Ruth reminded me of Austen’s Lady Catherine de Bourgh (or Trollope’s Lady Arabella in Dr Thorne). It’s when the evil act is superfluous; it’s when it’s not driven by basic need but rather cool ambition, knowing how much this is costing the the person used that I draw a line.
When I read of the people Bonhoeffer spent some of his 1930s among, about how they and he too identified with the order that was sustained by Hitler until nearly the very end, their continuing physical well-being (holidays, plenty of food until late 1930s, parties), I get it but again I find some of what’s described obscene. Not the nightclub life and where they are trying to enjoy themselves but simply eat. It’s the superfluous luxuriating say on a fancy ship that gets to me.
I’m also an atheist.
I immediately identified Ruth as Madame Merle and Maria as an Isabelle Archer figure.
I see the real women as too conventional for Madame Merle and Isabel Archer. Now I’m reading/listening to Tolstoy’s War and Peace, I could liken Maria to Natasha Rostov, the heroine of W&P. Thus far there are no homosexual characters in Tolstoy that I can discern (a gap).
While Bonhoeffer’s existence raises questions (though in the end he died in miserable conditions in a concentration camp, executed as an enemy of the state) a context for that is this, which points out how wealthier Jews survived at the expense of the poorer Jews in the Warsaw ghetto: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/writing_as_resistance_20160717. This is not in anyway to judge the wealthier Jews, but to illustrate yet again how totalitarianism problematizes morality. And, of course, the current US context, in which the poor are increasingly marginalized and openly persecuted provides another gloss.
Apologies for misspellings above.
Yes a very great and one of the most painful books I’ve ever read on the holocaust (as it’s called in the book) is the very fat Lodz Ghetto: inside a community under seige, edd. Alan Adelson and Robert Lapides.
https://www.amazon.com/Lodz-Ghetto-Community-Journals-Documents/dp/0670829838?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&tag=librarythin08-20
It is hard to believe human beings can do to one another what the
Germans did with the collusion of the wealthy Jews in the ghetto persuaded the poorer Jews to accept. The man who engineered it (and lived moderately well before he was finally murdered) is famous (Rumkowski might be his name).
in reply to a comment off-blog ; On whether Bonhoeffer should have separated himself from his family, no one suggested this anywhere, have they? They were central to his comfort; why he had to hide his homosexuality too; how he could be coerced into pretending and even begin to believe in his engagement. It’s a different thing to talk about when one says for example, it is one thing to have wealth and enjoy it very much during peaceful or decent times; but it is another to say go on a luxury cruise or throw a huge expensive ritual wedding while you know these ghettos and concentration camps exist. There are some who would blench at doing these things at such a time and try to use their money for other purposes and for other people.
Thinking about the Warsaw ghetto last night and also the Lodz ghetto for which there is much extraordinarily painful materials to read — I wonder also how many of these there were beyond these famous ones, smaller and less spectacular efforts at de-humanizing, degrading, cowing, starving, humiliating people, cutting them off from others:
I wrote a blog-review about two summers ago on Lapides book:
https://ellenandjim.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/jan-troells-the-last-sentencelodzghettoinsideabeseigedcommunity/
As I think about this I think about Gaza and what the Palestinian people have been enduring for decades — ever diminishing desperate numbers. To me this connects to the present nomination of a ruthless ignorant authoritarian narcissist for president, capable of doing great and small violence to many
[…] him. Diane Reynolds, a friend of mine, also once a journalist, and now author (see my review of her The Doubled life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer), put it this […]
I’ve now read Beth Taylor’s review. Taylor tells of Bonhoeffer’s life much more than she reviews Diane’s book but when she does review the book gives a concise if discreet assessment of how it differs from other biographies of the man:
http://www.friendsjournal.org/doubled-life-dietrich-bonhoeffer-women-sexuality-nazi-germany/
Thanks Ellen.
A thoughtful review of Diane’s book:
https://jwwartick.com/2018/07/09/dldb-reynolds/
It’s an excellent review and gives Diane’s book centrality and credit. And I’d say to his review: 1) why is it unfortunate that readers will come away thinking about Bonhoeffer’s homosexuality. It is not a bit unfortunate for the sake of knowing the reality of LBGTQ people widely in the world but more to the point, what Diane’s book leads us to see is the touted near marriage of Bonhoeffer is a kind front and distorts the relationship, and that Bethge’s book should be taken with many grains of salt.
Far from finding her evidence not adequate, the time line of the man’s behavior and who he got into contact with suggests he had other active homosexual relationships. The notion that people before the 20th century with homoerotic desires were stopped from carrying them out because their minds taught them not to has been central in repressing the idea that homosexuality is natural. One must believe that one needs a point of view to enact what one’s body tells one to if you deny that telling is natural. Recent lesbian studies have insisted on the physical sexual angle and enactment (Lisa Moore, Emma Donoghue come to mind).
The two areas about his life should re-engineer how we see the man’s life. As to theology I can’t speak myself as I haven’t read the texts.
A smaller important area which he doesn’t bring up but I see because I did read excerpts from a few other books and few essay on Bonhoeffer’s time in prison and death. There is a this strong tendency to heroicize and (in effect) glorify death, to imply some beauty in it. Diane’s description of what the Nazis put Bonhoeffer through is important in bringing to the fore how horrible are prisons, torture, hanging, and how no one, least of all the victim, can make anything salutary out of such criminal behavior on the part of state or other rebellious appartuses and people.
In my blog review I didn’t bring this last point suffiently emphatically but with the renewal of detention camps in the US, over politicizing of imprisonment, kidnapping and abusing children, to say nothing specific (because now it’s hidden) the re-validation of torture with a woman who tortured and was proud of it as the head of the CIA I now see that as important in her biography too.
My study of biography over my projected paper on Woolf and Johnson (still not wholly give up – I might do it in some other format) has taught me once again the central importance of accurate perceptive biography to literary and humanistic study.
Ellen
Another review, one which stresses the man’s homosexuality as part of his pacificist — anti macho male — outlook:
https://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2018/10/was-dietrich-bonhoeffer-gay-diane.html?fbclid=IwAR0CaXR_3A6kIgOq_PWDkYOsLxbnUbaO3WhfatXcMFWCXqSC5hDqF2AY-Yc
I appreciated from a sarasi1 who commented on the bilgrimage blog because she saw my central struggle to define “same sex attraction” as beyond the merely genital. Sarasi1 writes:
I love this comment because it connects to something raised in the pages Bill attached [the appendix to the Doubled Life], which is that there’s more to being gay than the “sexual appetite,” as Bishop Chaput recently characterized things (proving yet again that the clerics live in the 13th century) and something worth thinking about is how LGBT people differ from straight people in non-sexual ways. And when we fall in love, is it the person or the genitals?
Of course with the person. 🙂
Diane
I don’t know how you noticed this. When I came to my blog (which I have not looked at for quite a time), I noticed I chose for epigraph:
Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool will be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil —
but neglected to write down what text it came from. I no longer remember. It seems so a propos to the followers of Trump and his regime and the followers of Boris Johnson and his.
How did you find this? I look at my blogs as mini- websites and add to the comments whenever (not often) something can be added that’s germane.
Yes I agree that same-sex attraction goes beyond the merely genital, as different-sex attraction does. Why should the two loves be any different in this?
But one thing I am thinking about is how there might be a homosexual sensibility which is a kind of equivalent to what I’ve been calling l’ecriture-femme. I am just now reading this week’s installment of The Bluest Eye by Morrison. I am keeping up this reading schedule until past the Olga Tokarczuk’s Flights (for the sake of Sylwia I tell myself) and then I’ll give over as I have on 18thCWorlds. Bluest Eye has so many characteristics of l’ecriture-femme and an adolescent girls’ story I can’t begin to catalogue them. One is the cyclical structure and the other the many different ages of women embodied in different female characters,
Now Baldwin’s If Beale Street could talk is him in female drag: the central consciousness Tish and superficially it might seem not a straight-forward story as Richardson’s Clarissa might not seem so. But they both are: Beale street begins with Fonny’s imprisonment and the central text is flashback, and the point is all was over forever, all hopes that matter when he was falsely, unexpectedly (out of the blue) accused and imprisoned. So too in Clarissa all was over forever (for Clary) once Lovelace raped Clarissa; all drove towards that and afterwards all is aftermath.
Yet Beale Street is not a male book – or male heterosexual book (as is Clarissa with so many readers identifying with the rapist). Instead it is filled with tender love-making seemingly told by Tish but actually from Fonny’s standpoint. It has some imagery which reminds me of Orlando — and Between the Acts as well as Mrs Dalloway. It is non-heterosexual as are Woolf’s books. You will see this as essentialist thinking but to me this just leaps at my mind. (Maria Edgeworth’s Belinda is a lesbian woman’s book because of its specific handling of sexual experience — and breasts — but I have read few lesbian novels or memoirs.) Anyway Beale Street becomes a kind of Tristan and Isolde for a long stretch (reminding me of Longus’s Daphnis and Chloe, St Pierre’s Paul et Virginie, 1790s French text, and Gottfried’s 13th century original poem — I think it’s called Tristan and Isolde but not sure – it’s given different titles.
So I should think were there such a thing Bonhoeffer’s writing should mirror this anti-macho male deeply tender consciousness. I am not going in the direction of human experiences of love but of aesthetics. I honestly don’t think a heterosexual male would or could write the love of Tish and Fonny the way Baldwin does. The person would be too embarrassed. Next up for me will be Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room — said to be by those who’ve read it like Wilde’s Dorian Gray — and I wonder if like Forster’s Maurice and Raven’s Fielding Gray or Hollinghurst’s novels (The Line of Beauty is one).
As you know I believe that Bonhoeffer did consummate and with more than his first biographer.
I am puzzled by the apparent hatred of homosexuals by heterosexual males since the advent of Christianity — I am wondering if it’s fundamental or superficial, brought on by this religion’s anti-sex doctrines.
I realize many people experience fluid sexuality where they could “go” either way, but finally (my view) my guess is that there is a definite true tendency which is sometimes squashed because it’s in the social and economic and political of interest of someone to chose the direction a society approves of.
Ellen
It must be the artificial intelligence in cyber-space–it flashed me a message about this and a link–probably due to my FB post about the same blog. Otherwise, I never would have seen it.
You are kidding (?) — or you got some flash message that I never set anything up for. I’m glad you saw it but I never meant for anyone in particular to see it. It’s there now if anyone should come by the site, read whatever they read, and then look at the comments. As is my reply to you. It is to you for I would not have written it to someone else (it depends on previous knowledge of one another and conversations we’ve had) but it is also there for anyone else who is interested and can decipher.
I did get a flash message.
Well then it must be that when I add a comment to blogs those whose addresses are connected to the blog get a flash message. I never knew that. I don’t expect anyone to read my old blogs except if the person is him or herself motivated for whatever reason to do so. I never try to get readership after the initial announcement(s) — well if something (the blog itself) is so germane to something maybe but that’s not common. For how would I see much?
It is useful for me to know this. I am not keen to have people come back for coming back’s sake or the numbers.
Well a second reply: as I wrote I find Bonhoeffer’s homosexuality has far more meaning and consequence than the way he literally had sex. To me the focus on genital sex (which is central to the anathema with which homosexuality is treated) is ludicrously inadequate when it comes to human realities that matter. Who cares how you fuck? Heterosexuals have anal sex. The hatred of non-heterosexual sex is connected to the demand also that no sex happen if it’s not for having babies (so no contraception allowed by the Roman Catholic church still – to this day) or done face-to-face in one position. Also to the church’s determination to keep women subject to men utterly.
It affects everything about his writing and his attitudes towards many other things — we are wholes, like Mr Rogers said, everything connected.
Yes, agreed on the above!